White supremacy: majority of Reform members want non-white people to leave Britain

Is this story meant to be a joke? Deceitful, one-sided propaganda such as this plays a major role in creating friction between the races. Some say such reportage is a form of Divide-and-Rule, as it makes some groups more hateful which causes fear, hence a desire for more state control. This woke ideology comes from America and is fed by media hype. America now has the world’s highest incarceration rate. Think about that.
YOU SAID: “a desire to rid the UK of Black and brown British people, specifically because of the colour of their skin. (ACTUALLY, BECAUSE OF CRIME RATES, FEAR FOR THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN AND OTHERS, DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THE MEDIA AND JUSTICE SYSTEM, ALSO THE FACT THAT MANY ARE HATEFUL TOWARDS WHITES AND DON’T PULL THEIR OWN WEIGHT. NOT BECAUSE OF COLOR, SO DON’T LIE.

YOU ALSO SAID: “That’s open, plain-as-day white supremacy” (DEFINITION OF white su·prem·a·cy:
the belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups. WHAT LANGUAGE DO YOU SPEAK? CALLING PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE SAFE RACISTS, FACISTS AND A “HATE MARCH” MAKES IT VERY HARD TO TAKE THIS ANTI-WHITE RACIST PROPAGANDA SERIOUSLY. IT TENDS TO DISCREDIT THE WOKE. IT IS CLEAR THAT IT WAS WRITTEN BY A RACIST. WHY DON’T YOU TARGET THE MORE PRBLEMATIC RACISM IN THE UK? SACH AS BLM, ANTIFA, HOPE-NOT-HATE AND THE VARIOUS BLACK AND/OR ISLAMIC HATE GROUPS.)

HOPE NOT HATE ENCOURAGE HATE
In their website, Hope-Not-Hate say “We realise our vision through challenging racism, hatred and extremism in all its forms.” Their one-sided reportage openly incites racial hate as it leads the public to beleive that only one race is hateful.

Will the micro-chipping of humans become mandatory? Propaganda, such as this, will facilitate it.
RBM: Racially Biased Messages
MM: Misleading Media
RR: Racial Retribution
IP: Inflammatory Propaganda
PC: Politically Correct
SHOULD CERTAIN GROUPS BE GRANTED THE PRIVELEGE OF MEDIA BLACKOUT OF THINGS WHICH MIGHT EMBARRASS THEM?
In the 1970s, the Pinto was a car made
by the Ford corporation. It was known
as the car with the exploding gas tank,
Controversy followed the Pinto after
1977 allegations that the Pinto's
structural design allowed its fuel tank
filler neck to break off and the fuel
tank to be punctured in a rear-end
collision, resulting in deadly fires
from spilled fuel. Well, actually, any
car with gas in the tank can catch fire
in the event of collision – and many
cars, other than those made by Ford,
have. But the Pinto was more likely
to. There were many other types of
car – every type, in fact – which have
a risk of painful injuries and even
death. According to a 1977 Mother
Jones article by Mark Dowie, Ford
allegedly was aware of the design
flaw, refused to pay for a redesign,
and decided it would be cheaper to
pay off possible lawsuits. Was that a
good idea? Should the public have
been informed of Ford's flaws? Such
publicity could have harmed the sales
of Ford and cost the jobs of hundreds
of thousands of workers. Ford is a big,
multi-national company. If the public
had been informed. It might create a
nasty stereotype of Ford’s engineers
and Ford workers in general. And
why pick solely on Ford? Why not
pressure every car manufacturer to
make their cars safer? However, if
the public had been informed, it might
have, and in fact did, have the effect
of Ford fixing the problem. The
public were informed, and the
problem was fixed – for most cars
anyway. Not everyone had their Pinto
fixed. And, furthermore, there was no
significant loss of jobs or business on
the part of Ford, nor were there any
problems with Ford’s workers being
stigmatized. On the other hand, what
if the public had not been informed?
What if Ford had taken another road?
Let's say some of the more aggressive
Ford workers (let’s call them Ford
militants) interfered with police and
other officials who were trying to
investigate the problem, calling them
prejudiced and refusing to cooperate
with them. Let's say Ford workers
who did cooperate with the police,

and answered questions, were called
traitors, and stigmatised – even
threatened – by the militants. Let's say
Ford accused reporters and media
outlets, who reported the flaws, of
being prejudiced towards Ford. Let's
say a group of Ford militants marched
through the part of town where the
headquarters of the journalists were,
and demanded that no negative
publicity be made of Ford. What if the
government then passed a new law
against such publicity? What if the
government also passed new policies
which restricted the power of police
and investigators? Maybe the
government would say that they were
trying to help Ford, by hiding the fuel
of prejudice.
In November and December of 2013,
there were many reports of tens of
thousands of Africans being deported
from Saudi Arabia, and that the police
had used some heavy handed
methods, with three confirmed deaths.
The only reason given, in most of the
reports I read, was that Saudi had a
problem with unemployment and that
the Africans were simply being
moved out to make more jobs. Was
this the only reason for the
deportations? It seemed really strange
that some of these reports also
mentioned that some of the Africans
were being cheated by their
employers. So they had motives for
attacks. I was in Britain at the time
and there is a big problem of media
blackout in British media – especially
with regard to issues concerning
people of African origin. I knew there
was more to the stories than this. I put
'assaults on Saudis' into a search
engine and…sure enough, there were
some who felt their bosses were
giving them a bad deal, and were
taking their revenge on some of the
more vulnerable members of the
boss's families. However, I also found
an article that claimed the "state-
controlled" Saudi media had made
false allegations of African maids and
babysitters. Maybe the state-run Saudi
news had lied. However, in March
2014, the website of Migrant Rights
claimed: Kuwait Bans Ethiopian
Migrants and Deports Nearly 13,000.
Adding that Kuwaitis demanded a
tougher punishment for so-called

“killer maids". Well, I also got some
pretty raw deals when I taught English
in China, but I certainly wouldn't have
resorted to abusing my boss’s family
members. Surely there were some
other motives. In both Saudi and
Kuwait, the maids would have access
to the internet. I figured there must
have been a bit of propaganda which
portrayed Arabs as abusers of
Africans so I Googled 'Arab slave
trade' and found all kinds of stories. I
could see how such stories could
generate animosity. Here are some
quotations from one which was near
the top of the list, Confronting anti-
black racism in the Arab world.
Published by Al Jazeera in July 2013
written by Susan Abulhawa, a
Palestinian writer and the author of
the international bestselling novel,
Mornings in Jenin. She is also the
founder of Playgrounds for Palestine,
an NGO for children. While her
article appears to be an attempt to
make Arabs pity Africans, it would
probably make Africans hostile to
Arabs. It only mentions bad Arabs. It
even mentions that Gaddafi was a
racist Pan-Africanist. She could have
balanced it a bit and pointed out that
there are nice Arabs too. This internet
article is about blacks and is likely to
attract the attention of blacks.
Furthermore its written in English. It
implies that racial retribution (RR)
which includes the concept that
persons of a certain race owe
compensation to other races, is
appropriate. Is it wise to teach blacks
living in the Mid-East to make
enemies of Arabs? Inflicting RR on
innocent people causes one to make
enemies where one had none before.
Crime can cost you your life there.
“The Arab slave trade is a fact of
history and anti-black racism is a fact
of current reality, a shameful thing
that must be confronted in Arab
societies.” and that Arab Americans
“adopt the prevailing racist sentiments
of the power structure in the US,
which decidedly holds African-
Americans in contempt.”
“There are some who argue that the
Arab slave traders were themselves
indistinguishable from those whom
they enslaved… This argument goes
hand-in-hand with the discredited

excuse that Africans themselves were
involved in the slave trade,” and adds
“I think humanity has truly never
known a holocaust of greater
magnitude, savagery, or longevity
than that perpetrated against the
peoples of Africa… But one must try,
because just as we inherit privilege
from our ancestors, so do we inherit
their sins and the responsibility for
those sins.”
So, what are you saying Susan? That
it’s OK to punish people’s sins by
punishing their children? That neither
the Arabs nor the West can do
anything right? As for me, when I do
something of a kind and generous
nature, and ask for nothing in return, I
like to think my kindness is
appreciated. And I'm sure you would
too – yes?
You claim Arabs hate blacks. Well
there are many claims that Arabs hate
whites too. However, I first visited the
Arab world in 1994, when I went to
Morocco. Prior to this I had been
exposed to many reports of Arabs
being hostile toward Westerners and
that Morocco was dangerous. I did see
evidence of hostility, on more than
one occasion adolescent boys threw
stones at me. However, I also
encountered great hospitality. So great
was the hospitality that I went to
Morocco six more times over the
years and also visited Arab states on
the Arab peninsula. Hitching was easy
and I never went hungry when I
couldn’t afford to pay for my meals at
restaurants. I found people to be quite
hospitable. Some even accommodated
me in their homes – and I'm an infidel.
I like your comment of “…when the
US cut off funding to UNESCO in
response to its members' democratic
vote to admit Palestine, it was the
African nation of Gabon that
immediately stepped up with a $2m
donation to UNESCO to help offset
the loss of income.” That’s positive,
and likely to foster peace. However,
you also claim that those in power in
the USA hold African Americans in
contempt. Do they really? The fact is,
for my lifetime at least, Americans
have voted for politicians, who don’t
discriminate against blacks. During

my lifetime, the Western World has
donated over a trillion dollars to sub-
Saharan Africa. (Dead Aid: Why Aid
Is Not Working and How There Is a
Better Way for Africa , 2010 by
Dambisa Moyo) America paid a high
proportion of this. As for your claim
that Arabs dislike blacks: In 2013,
Saudi Arabia provided US$109
million for humanitarian emergencies,
making one of the largest government
donor of official humanitarian
assistance. 33% of Saudi Arabia’s
overall humanitarian assistance in the
last 10 years has gone to countries in
sub-Saharan Africa. So, it certainly
doesn’t look like Africa is suffering a
“holocaust”.
As for the claim of inheriting sin, I
could have loads of fun with that.
England is my tribal homeland.
England has been over-run and
oppressed by the Romans and
Vikings. England’s people have been
enslaved. As if this wasn’t bad
enough, we were heavily bombed by
the Germans. Maybe I should go to
Italy, Scandinavia or Germany, state
your claim and demand welfare. If the
welfare is refused, maybe I could go
out and mug someone, I could state
your claim to them afterwards – tell
them they deserved it because they are
of a certain race. If I get arrested, I
could state your claim to a judge – I
could even present him with your
article. Now how do you think the
judge would react? He'd probably say
that your idea is racist. Because, I see
in your article that you’re Arab. So,
according to your ideology, the
victims of 9/11 can…you know. Did
you ever think of that? Furthermore,
the fact that you have to dig into old
history – so old that the culprits are
now dead – to justify racial retribution
(RR) implies that you cannot find any
significant evidence that Africans are
abused by Arabs in the present. Let’s
face it, if you want to dig into history,
you can find all kinds of dastardly,
diabolical atrocities. Like Christians
being fed to Lions in Rome, or the
practices of Shaka Zulu, who
conquered what became the Zulu
empire, when he had the men with
grey beards in the villages he
conquered killed – because he thought

they would be burdensome. (Rule of
Fear: Dingane, King of the Zulu, 1979
by Peter Becker.)
Then there is your claim that reports
of Africans enslaving other Africans
have been discredited. Oh really?
There are many such reports of it
happening in many different parts of
Africa, at many different times. Have
they all been discredited? As your
story was published in the summer of
2013, and I'm writing this in February
of 2015, I cannot help wondering why
Wikipedia has not updated its report
yet. Wiki still says in its report
'Slavery in Africa', which I read just
now "Slavery in Africa has not only
existed throughout the continent for
many centuries, but continues in the
current day." And what about child
slavery in Africa? Have all the reports
of that been discredited?
One day, when I was riding in the cab
of a black truck driver, in England,
who'd picked me up hitch-hiking,
racism came into the conversation. He
said he found that a lot of people
expressed politically correct (PC)
sentiments to him, but that know if
they were sincere. Come to think of it,
when I started going to the big cities, I
was just a country boy, fresh out of
high school. I actually was quite PC in
my thinking as I'd been trained, from
an early age, via the school system.
This was in the US, but Britain had
the same policies. I expressed PC
sentiments to couple of black guys I
met in the cities. One of them, whom I
met at San Francisco's main bus
station was a very large man. He came
up and made small talk. Then he said
"You seem like you got nothing
against black people." I pointed out
that I had nothing at all against them.
He then gave me a story about being
on the run because he'd been in the
army and he had a decked a sergeant
who called him a "nigger" and that he
ran away. I said something like 'That's
terrible'. He then asked me if I could
spare him a couple of bucks so he
could get down to Los Angeles where
he had friends. I pointed out that I too
was quite low on money, and carried
on making friendly conversation…
"Why don't you go catch your bus!"
he said in an angry tone. This guy

looked about 30 – and had a
"sergeant", but, hey, maybe he'd been
on the run for a really long time, yes?
Another time, in Oakland, across the
Bay Bridge from San Francisco, I was
at the home of a friendly black guy
who invited me home. He gave me
some wine. He turned out to be a little
too friendly. Racism had entered the
conversation and I made a PC
sentiment. Like the bus station guy, he
seemed to think I needed to prove my
PC-ness. "Will you give me head?" he
asked. "You mean you're a faggot?" I
asked. "I'm bi-sexual." he said, and
added "I don't think much of name
calling. If you're going to call me a
faggot, you might just as well call me
a nigger." He then asked "Why won't
you give me head?" "Because its
sick!" I said. He then said "It’s
because you were taught to believe
that. Right?" and started lecturing me
about how homosexuality was quite
acceptable in other societies and
implying that I was un-cool and
square. It was he who was being un-
cool. I had to leave his place. This guy
could have gone to San Francisco to
pull. Why was he laying this trip on
me? What the truck driver said was a
good explanation. There was distrust.
So I was straightforward. I said to the
truck driver that I found most blacks
to be OK but that I didn't like the
muggers or pushers. He said "I don't
like the muggers or pushers either."
He turned out to be well cool. He
bought me a burger in Bristol before
going out of his way to drop me off at
a good hitching place. I was heading
for Wales. Maybe he appreciated my
honesty.
Is it good that mainstream media, and
the school systems in Britain, the
USA and many other places,
encourage people not to be
straightforward about race issues?
How can you maintain relationships
with people if can't tell them when
they're being un-cool? What do you
say if you have a black friend who
invites you to visit him in a black
neighbourhood (hood). "Well,
ummmm…..I'm kinda busy." How can
one have a friendship if one cannot be
frank with one's friend?

Have you seen the film American
History X; about Derek the skinhead?
Here's the basic story of Derek: A
young guy is influenced by his
father's views on discrimination
against his race, and his feelings of
discontent grow when his father is
killed. He seems to blame people of a
different race for his discontent. He
ends up taking part in highly racist
organization and becomes their
spokesman, preaching one-sided
messages of hatred. However, over
time, he moderates his extremist
views. He notices hypocrisy on the
part of his boss. He notices his boss
encourages young guys to go out and
commit crime for him – while not
putting himself at risk of
imprisonment. He falls out with his
boss. The film ends in a shooting.
Now, what if the hatred, which was
preached by Derek, before he
moderated his views, is taught in tax-
funded public schools and broadcast
on mainstream news media, and
displayed in tax-funded public
libraries. Well something very similar
happened and is still happening. You
see, that basic story appears to be
taken from another film, but Derek
the skinhead has hair and is played by
Denzel Washington, a black man. The
film is called Malcom X, and yes, his
teachings, which are very similar to
Derek the skinhead's teachings, before
he moderated his views, is taught in
tax-funded public schools broadcast
on mainstream news, and displayed in
tax-funded public libraries. It has been
so for many years now. Not only in
America, but in Britain and other
countries. E.g. yesterday I was in one
of Stockholm's main libraries. I
noticed, when logging in to the
computer, that one of the pop-ups said
that looking at racist sites was
forbidden. I had seen this message
many times before, but as I was
writing this article, it occurred to me
that in this library, as well as libraries
in Copenhagen and Oslo, there were
current copies of the New African, a
Pan-Africanist periodical with the
message that Africans should unite –
"But Malcom's racism was justified!
Read your history, man! Whites did
bad things in history, so it’s OK for
him to hate them all. The issue is
history. Don't forget your history!"

you say. Well, if you say that, you,
yourself, are racist – and a hypocrite.
Not only are blacks encouraged to do
crime, they are encouraged not to
work. Blacks are given the message
that no one will ever hire them, so
there is no point in trying to excel
academically, or to try to join the
system. Reporters give a great deal of
publicity to cases of blacks being
discriminated against by employers,
but fail to mention that most blacks,
of employable age, have jobs, or that
there are many successful black
professionals. Furthermore, these
reports fail to mention the actual
percentage of employers who were
found guilty of discrimination. One
hears a big load of hype about
discrimination and thinks its common.
In America and Britain, one can win
tens of thousands of dollars, or
pounds, if one is an ethnic minority
and can prove racial discrimination.
Affirmative action (i.e. discrimination
against whites) is practised in both
countries. XXXX Needless to say,
there are many allegations of such
discrimination but few that make it to
court, and even fewer that win. I was
not able to find data for America or
Britain when I googled 'percentage of
employers found guilty of racial
discrimination' so, as I'm more
familiar with the Britain, where I'm a
citizen, than American, where I'm not,
I looked into Britain, where the media
has published numerous accounts of
discrimination. In Britain, if you have
a case that looks winnable, the
government will pay for your
representative and court costs. I found
data for cases which made it to trial,
they were a bit old, but that was all I
could find. Statistics for the
Employment Tribunals (where you go
if you were discriminated against by
employers) in 2010-2011 for London,
show that 950 racial discrimination
claims (for all races, not just blacks)
made it to the tribunals and got a full
hearing, but that only 150 won. [4] I
don't know how many, if any, of those
cases involved blacks. Many South
Asians also make cases of racial
discrimination. Still, that is a very low
number, as there are over 800,000
businesses (i.e. employers) in London.
[5] Now 150/800,000 = 0.00018%.

Needless to say, there is no sound
evidence that blacks suffer much
discrimination from British
employers. There is plenty of
evidence of discrimination in their
favour, in Britain. XXX Black
militants have said that racial
discrimination is very hard to prove.
Therefore there are a lot of white
racists who are never caught. But
even if it was so hard to prove that
only 1 in 100 cases were proven, that
would still be a very low percentage,
0.018%. But hey, that argument can
go both ways. Do you know what is
even harder to prove? That someone
carried out a mugging, or other
assault, on a stranger. The muggers
are usually gone by the time the
police arrive. If they are caught, the
victim must identify them in a line up,
in which they are standing with about
5 other guys who look very similar to
them. So there are a lot of black
muggers, and other assailants, who
are never caught. But, in either case,
everyone should be presumed
innocent until proven guilty. That's
the law, and that's a good policy too.
Let's follow it. Then there is the fact
that, in mainstream media, black
racists are not reported as racists.
Terms like ‘civil rights leaders’, or
‘militants’ are used. You have
probably noticed that reports of
whites attacking visible ethnic
minorities (VEMs) considerably
outnumber reports of the vice-versa.
Is this because the vice versa is
considerably less common? When the
vice-versa is reported, reporters will
often put a spin on it, implying that
RR is appropriate. This has resulted in
a significant segment of The
American public believing RR is
appropriate. The case of the Jena Six
is evidence of this. Why do I say that?
Read Wikipedia’s Jena Six report.
XXXX
Some politicians, like Britain’s Paul
Boating, claim that RBMs are actually
anti-racist. "It makes a bigot really
think…" he said. Yes, indeed it does
make bigots really think. In fact, since
IP became popular in Britain there
was a marked increase in multiple
assailant attacks (MAAs) including
muggings. Still, it does induce pity for
visible ethnic minorities (VEMs), be

they bigoted or neutral. If you can
make the public believe you cannot
get a job, it is likely to result in help,
in the form of affirmative action. It
can make some employers hire you
just to appear cool and PC. It can
make it much easier to commit crime,
or stay on welfare for years at a time.
If you can cause the public to feel
guilty, it can make it easier to control
the police and limit their powers.
Your neighbourhoods could become
self-governing. In fact it can even get
you other forms of positive
discrimination and large financial
donations to your neighbourhoods.
Hey, it can even help to get you laid.
And, if you are in the mood for
mugging someone, it can help you
cope with feelings of remorse. And,
let’s face facts, when we succeed, we
like to take credit for it ourselves, but
when we fail, we prefer to blame it on
others. I’m sure you’ve felt that way
at times, yes? We all have, and RBMs
make this easier. In fact, if you’re
feeling mad, it makes it easier to vent
your anger if you see potential targets
as being two-faced. Still, it can also
have some side effects. However, it is
still quite useful for controlling
people, controlling the justice system
and controlling politicians. If a large
portion a community are made to feel
angry, they will be more likely to help
one of their brothers who gets into a
fight, or has problems with the police.
If they have a lot of spare time and
have no fear of losing jobs, it will be
easy to get them to rally and even riot.
In doing so, they can put pressure on
the government, So, why do the
politicians allow it? I don’t know.
You tell me. There is a concept,
which is popular, in which tribes are
seen as entities, and that this justifies
RR. So, even though its racist,
Susan’s claim of ‘inherited sin’ very
much alive. So it is a form of racism
which can be exploited. Because it is
PC to use this as an excuse for crime,
and a way of gaining compensation.
In America and Britain, the actions of
elected officials are well monitored
and publicised. They must be very
careful not to appear un-PC.
Muggings are not a problem for them
or their families either. They are
protected. Law enforcement is
expensive, but its paid for by the

taxpayer. Besides, if there are a lot
attacks, the public is far more likely to
vote for more laws, more police, more
prisons and more surveillance – hence
more power for elected officials. So,
why should they be un-PC? Why not
use VEMs for political gain? Why not
invite few more over here – where
RBMs will encourage them to attack
people? It would be un-PC not to. As
many asylum seekers, are arriving in
the EU, the crime rate might rise –
and grant elected officials more
power. I’m not saying this was ever
planned. It probably wasn’t. I’m just
pointing out, that it is in the interest of
those who wish to gain power, and
that such people would also appear
un-PC if they tried to stop the RBM
which fuels a major portion of it.
Neither am I implying that any
particular race is responsible, I am
pointing out that crime is responsible,
and that there has been a significant
increase in crime since RBMs became
popular. My views were inspired by
observations I made, not by
conspiracy vids. The conspiracy
theorists say all kinds of things, but a
very popular video, which they put
out about 9/11 has been discredited by
Wikipedia. However, whether or not
there a conspiracy is of little
significance, the fact is that, in either
case, there is a loss of freedom – for
the public in general. While some see
crime, others see revolution, a change
in power. George Washington was
seen as a criminal. One man’s terrorist
is another’s freedom fighter. When I
see the videos of Malcom X, Stokely
Carmichael and Huey Newton, I see
that they were articulate intellectuals.
Many white Americans have deep
seated views that races are entities and
that racial compensation, a form of
racial retribution as it is a payback, is
appropriate. Such views are racist and
I can see how the intellectuals simply
made use of these views. I’m sure
they would have known that this
strategy would result in more crime,
and that the crime would ensure that
those in power would not only be
afraid to interfere but would also gain,
and would therefore be less likely to
interfere. While the revolution has
resulted in many poor people going to
prison, organised intellectuals are
unlikely to do much time in prison. If

they provide advantages for the poor,
the poor will still support them. I
talked to a Norwegian who boasted of
his ancestors conquering Western
Europe, then he added “Well, we
didn’t conquer it, but we could do
what we wanted.” And why conquer,
when you can control? It costs far
fewer lives. Still, it could lead to
micro-chipping the masses, in such a
way that every movement of every
resident could be tracked by satellite.
So it could be used to catch assailants
who flee the scene of the crime. This
would great way to cut attacks on
strangers, and other violence. If that
happens, it will probably happen
slowly, like violent criminals are
chipped at first. So, if you get into a
fight, you might get chipped. In the
event that VEMs get a seemingly high
proportion of the chips, there might be
a lot of pressure put on the
government to treat everyone fairly…
The other day, a black guy and I were
talking about America, when he asked
me, in an angry, accusatory tone
“Why are the blacks poor in
America? ? ” So I asked him “Why are
the blacks poor in Africa? There are a
lot of East Asians, Indians and whites
living there, are they poor?” But I
went on to add the fact that, as was
shown in the David Gulpilil film
Walkabout; (in which some white
kids get lost in the desert and are
rescued by an aborigine) in a natural
environment, where a man must have
the ability to survive on what is
naturally there, it would, most likely
be the blacks who are rich, and whites
who are poor. It is only in this
artificial environment, where its more
profitable for one to force oneself to
behave in an artificial manner, that the
newer tribes are the richer. I say
newer tribes because, as it is pointed
out in the Malcom X film XXXX
Africans were, and are, the first men.
And, while it is PC to attempt to
“develop” Africa, they once had
sustainable societies which lasted for
much longer than our non-sustainable
societies. Therefore it is we who
should try to learn a few things from
them.
I myself am no stranger to prejudice.
I’ve resided in 11 countries other than

the one I was born in. In fact, I only
spent 3 years of my life in my country
of birth. I speak with an American
accent, so I sometimes get associated
with some of the more negative
aspects of America. Believe it or not,
Americans do experience significant
levels of prejudice. I have, from time
to time, encountered prejudice myself.
Some of this might have had a
negative effect on my success.
However, if I were to spend a lot of
energy accusing other people of being
the cause of my failures, it would
divert my attention from the root of
the problem. The problem is that I,
myself, am impulsive, and lacking in
self-discipline. I also lose my temper
easily. All of this makes it harder for
me to compete for jobs in this
artificial environment.. Can you dig it
brother?
What is the best way to make, and
keep a friend? To do favours for him
every time he gets aggressive with
you? Will your friend respect you if
you behave this way? How should
governments react to terrorism?
Should they appease it? Terrorism is
the use of violence and threats to
intimidate or coerce, especially for
political purposes. Political purposes
were the motive of many British and
American militants who have rioted.
Some people see rioters as soldiers
and heroes. Not only are rioters
respected, they gain from looting –
and they get paid in other ways.
Almost all the riots carried out by
visible ethnic minorities (VEMs) in
America and Britain, since the mid-
60s, have resulted in the communities,
where the rioters came from, being
rewarded in one way or another. Such
as more restrictions on the police,
anti-police propaganda, other
propaganda, affirmative action, more
welfare and/or other financial hand-
outs. E.g. In 1992, there were news
reports of a multi assailant attack
(MAA) in Los Angeles. But why
would this make the news? That sort
of thing is pretty common in LA. This
beating, however, was different from
most, it was white cops beating a
VEM. In Britain and America, in such
events, when the victim is a VEM, the
victim is usually portrayed by the
media as more or less innocent. The

journalists focused on the 'evil and
brutal beating’ but made little mention
of the dangerous driving which
provoked it. After the LA riots of
1992, there were bonuses for the
rioters, there were significant
consequences for the Los Angeles
Police Department (LAPD): an
increase in minority officers, analysis
of excessive force, resignation of the
police chief, loss of support for the
Mayor of Los Angeles, and other
things. The rioters were paid off
financially too. The Rebuild LA
program promised $6 billion to create
74,000 jobs, as well as creating hand-
outs for poverty relief.
After the civil rights act was passed in
America in 1964, banning segregation
and making racial discrimination
illegal, militants such as Stokely
Carmichael encouraged blacks to riot.
In his Black Power speech of 1966,
Carmichael claimed that blacks were
over represented in the least desirable
jobs. He implied that this was due to
racial discrimination. That was the
case for some professions, but, even
before 1964, blacks were over
represented in the best jobs when it
came to music and athletics. Maybe
the bosses in these industries
discriminate against non-blacks – hey?
He also suggested that blacks be given
more welfare money, saying "If you
want to get rid of poverty, you give
people money–period. And you ought
not to tell me about people who don’t
work, and you can’t give people
money without working, ’cause if that
were true, you’d have to start stopping
Rockefeller, Bobby Kennedy…the
whole of Standard Oil, the Gulf Corp,
all of them…" Many riots followed,
the US government reacted by paying
the rioters off. New policies were
introduced too, which were also a
form of pay-off. In short, the
government gave the message that
crime pays. This resulted in a massive
increase in the crime rate. By the
1980s, in the 'land of the free' people
were supporting a government,
headed by President Reagan, that was
into passing a lot of strict new laws,
and getting tough on crime in other
ways too. So the rioters and criminals
had given Reagan the power to restrict
everyone’s freedom. Reagan was into

cutting welfare benefits too. So, as I'm
sure you can guess, black activists
called him a racist. After the LA riots,
in 1994, Zero Tolerance was used to
describe a new policy brought out by
New York's Mayor Giuliani. Yes, he
got called a racist too, but it was black
activists such as Carmichael, Malcom
X and Black Panther Huey Lewis,
who had given Reagan and Giuliani
power. “What do you mean?” you
say. Are you implying that its only
blacks who do crime? No, all races do
crime, but some do a massive
proportion of certain types of crime.
Here is an analogy. When I was
young, I asked a Nigerian if there was
much crime in Nigeria. He said
“There is crime everywhere in the
world”. An Eskimo invites his African
friend to spend his winter vacation in
Greenland. The African declines,
saying "I could get frostbite in
Greenland." The Eskimo says "It’s not
fair to say that! You can get frostbite
in Africa, and in any other continent
in the world."
Zero Tolerance did not specifically
target VEMs – to do that would be
racist – it targeted the poor.
According to scholars, zero tolerance
is the concept of giving full
discretionary power to the police for
the inflexible repression of minor
offences, homeless people and the
disorders associated with them. A
well-known criticism to this approach
is that it redefines social problems in
terms of security, it considers the poor
as criminals, and it reduces crimes to
only "street crimes", those committed
by lower social classes, excluding
white-collar crimes. In short, Zero
Tolerance became a way to abuse the
poor, especially the homeless.
In 1994, Bill Bratton was appointed
the Commissioner of the New York
City Police Department (NYPD) by
Mayor Giuliani. He cooperated with
Giuliani in putting the controversial
Zero Tolerance into practice. Bratton
became LAPD's Chief of Police in
October 2002. Under Bratton, crime
within the city dropped for six
consecutive years. On June 19, 2007,
the LA Police Commission
reappointed Bratton to a second five-
year term, the first reappointment of

an LAPD chief in almost twenty
years. He is an advocate of the
controversial tactic known as "stop
and frisk." Opponents of stop and
frisk fear that the tactic unfairly
targets minorities and may violate
people's constitutional rights. And
yes, he’s been called a racist. By the
late 1990s, America had the world's
highest incarceration rate. By 2006, it
was even higher, and the incarceration
rate for black American males was
over six times the incarceration rate
for white American males. Why
would that be? Is it because blacks are
targeted and punished more? No it’s
not. Find out for yourself. Read ‘The
Color of Crime’ a research paper
which is available in PDF. XXXX
I grew up in America and I was taught
that it was a free country, that
Americans took pride in this. At an
early age, I was being taught RBMs in
tax-funded public schools – and so
were black kids. Such teaching incites
hatred. When I was 16, they were
making use of hatred to scare us into
being law-abiding. In my social
studies class, we were shown a
documentary called Scared Straight.
This documentary had been aired on
public TV. In it, young offenders were
taken to a maximum security prison
and introduced to long term prisoners.
The long term inmates explain, in
explicit detail, what happens to young
guys in prison. I'm surprised they
managed to air it on TV. I am not
saying most blacks are criminals.
Most American and British blacks
have no convictions at all, not even
traffic offences. I am saying that there
are certain types of crime which are
done mostly by people who harbour
feelings of resentment and that RBMs
incite and perpetuate resentment. And
that when you, or someone you know,
is assaulted, or given a free sample of
heroin while drunk at a party, it might
very well make you want a tougher
justice system. It would be difficult to
coerce a society into passing strict
new laws if the actions the Italian
Mafia were used as an incentive. I
have been to Sicily, including
Palermo, well known as a Mafia
stronghold, several times. I have slept
outside, and walked around in a
clumsy drunken state there – things I

certainly wouldn’t do in American or
British ghettos – yet I never had any
problems in Sicily – not even dirty
looks. So, while the Mafia do a lot of
crime, they do it in logical and
discreet ways. Carrying MAAs on
strangers is not always logical – or
discrete. Nor is limiting the powers of
police in your community.
There are prices that are paid by
reducing the powers of cops in hoods.
If police are made powerless, it makes
it a lot easier to kill people. A leading
cause of death amongst American
black is…well, have a guess.
"American cops!" you say, well, have
another guess. In the Ferguson case of
2014, mainstream media was making
out that American cops are into
shooting innocent black men. Hey,
let’s face it, white reporters would
seem un-PC if they did otherwise.
The database for the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) for fatal firearm shootings that
occurred during legal interventions.
The database provides the race of the
deceased, but not the race of the law
enforcement officer who fired the
fatal shot or shots. Still, the CDC
information is useful. From 1999
through 2012, there were 4,819 such
shooting deaths. Most of those killed
— 69 percent — were white.
(Cummings Misuses Police Shooting
Stat. Posted on January 5, 2015 on
http://www.factcheck.org)
Still, it took a black reporter to state
other key facts. (See: Megyn Kelly &
Jason Riley vs the race hustlers,
which is now on YouTube) The Wall
Street Journal’s Jason Riley said, on
Fox News "Yeah, the left is selling a
false narrative here. We have too
many dead black bodies in this
country. But cops are not the reason.
The black homicide rate is much too
high. It is the leading cause of death
for young black men. But blacks also
commit seven to 10 times more
violent crime in this country than
whites do, and 90 percent of their
victims are other black people. We
have so many dead black bodies in
this country, Megyn, not because cops
are shooting them, but because other
black people are shooting them. And
the left is selling a false narrative

pretending that the opposite is true."
and "The issue here is black
criminality, not the behaviour of cops.
It’s the behaviour of the young black
men in these communities. Whenever
a Ferguson goes down, we start
talking about racial profiling, we start
talking about poverty, we start talking
about unemployment. We start talking
about tensions between the cops and
black people. Those are facts. Those
are not causes. The cause here is black
criminality, the fact that blacks, who
are 13 percent of the population, are
responsible for an out-sized amount of
violent crime in this country. Until
that ends, you are going to have racial
profiling. You are going to have
tensions between blacks and whites."
and "It’s not about the police, it is not
about the over-policing of black
communities and young black men
getting picked on by cops. Blacks are
arrested at the same rate that victims
of crimes identify blacks as their
assailants." See a printed version:
Jason Riley On Ferguson: ‘The Issue
Here Is Black Criminality, Not The
Behaviour Of Cops’. However, like
blacks who join the police force, help
the police, or otherwise try to fight
crime, or befriend whites, Jason Riley
is likely to be labelled an Uncle Tom.
MALCOLM X INTERVIEW AT
UC BERKELEY (Oct. 11, 1963),
Malcolm X – The House Negro and
the Field Negro. But he isn't, he's a
patriot. He's doing what he can to get
his brothers to reduce the crime rate.
You might say he is saying that
because he’s getting paid. There is a
YouTube video in which Malcom X is
criticised by another black man, for
being a racist. Malcom reacts by
implying he is a “house negro” i.e.
traitor. But, hey, what about the
blacks who join the Guardian Angels?
They are not only not getting paid,
they are putting themselves at risk
too. They are cutting crime. Are they
traitors?
How do criminals use media to gain
support? There are various ways, like
the Godfather films, but those films
would have been expensive to make.
There is another simple strategy; riots
get a lot of media attention. So, if you
have a riot, and then tell sad stories to
the journalists, you get public

sympathy. E.g. there was a British
Black Power movement in the 80s.
This involved several riots. A main
complaint was that the police were
stopping and searching blacks a lot.
However, several outlets of the British
media gave both sides to this story.
They pointed out the police had
reasons for this. The militants said
their crime rate was entirely due to
racism on the part of the racist white
majority in Britain, as was their levels
of productivity and prosperity. Some
journalists pointed out that their crime
rates, and rates of productivity and
prosperity, were consistent with those
of places where blacks were the
majority, such as Africa and the
Caribbean. It was also pointed out that
there was a lower tolerance to crime
in these areas. That British blacks
were therefore getting away with a lot
of things that they wouldn't get away
with in their home countries. The
militants didn't like this reporting, it
belied their claims. They liked to
criticize, but they didn't like to be
criticized. So they claimed it incited
hatred towards blacks, and had a
demonstration in London, in 1985,
against freedom of the press. There
was no significant evidence that the
press had caused hatred towards
blacks. Most Britons already knew of
the crime rate amongst blacks. The
British media, overall, probably
reduced hatred, as it said that most
blacks were not criminals. So the
British media corrected some
stereotypes. Still, the militants got
their way. In 1986, a new British law
was passed which restricted freedom
of speech, and freedom of the press.
In real terms, it meant that you
couldn't criticize the crimes of non-
white criminals. In Britain, your
freedom of speech on these issues is
now taken away, even when your
motive is clearly to stop crime and/or
stop racism. Spreading false
messages, while repressing criticism
and other opposing views, is a
strategy which has been used by some
highly oppressive regimes which
carried out mass killings. The claim
that the disclosure of the black crime
rate is likely to incite hatred towards
blacks is not true. Many of the most
popular black artists advertise
themselves as being criminals. Tupac

Shakur has sold over 75 million
records worldwide, making him one
of the best-selling music artists of all
time. He even boasted of being in jail
as a foetus – and he was.
The Public Order Act of 1986
prohibits saying anything, or
displaying written material, which
incites racial hatred. Racial hatred is
defined as hatred against a group of
persons by reference to colour, race,
nationality – including citizenship – or
ethnic or national origins. Not long
after the law was passed, a British
paper was done for mentioning the
race of a rapist. However, this law
does not appear to apply to hatred
which is incited towards whites, as
there is still a lot of that in the British
media. So the public are now fed
stories when the police are being
heavy handed – but are not informed
of the full reasons for this. It allows
criminals to control the media. He
who controls the media, controls the
public, the votes – and the police. This
is very useful for crime syndicates,
gangs and even petty criminals. The
claim that report black crime rates
incites racial hatred is a very useful
for criminals. The crimes could be
reported without inciting hatred. One
could simply point out that most
blacks are not criminals, when
reporting the crime – as I’ve done in
this report. Still political correctness
has prevented police forces from
fighting crime. A lot of police officers
feel the best thing to do is try and
avoid arresting ethnic minorities, as
they don’t like being seen as racist.
[14][15][19] Senior police officers in
Britain have admitted that PC-ness,
and the fear of being called racist,
have resulted in race crime against
white people being under-reported.
[14] Needless to say, this makes crime
attractive to militant blacks and
militants of other ethnic minorities. It
was not just blacks who had power
movements, others followed. In the
80s, I spoke with several Pakistani
guys, in London, who figured the
black militants had the right idea.
When South Asians started arriving in
Britain in the 70s and 80s, they gained
a reputation as being hard working
and law abiding. Many of them were
not even fluent in English, but still

worked. However, there was a South
Asian power movement in Britain in
the 90s and 2000s which, like the
Black Power movements in America
and Britain, involved rioting – it
involved something else too – the 7/7
bombings in London. Yes, some of
these militants reckoned God was on
their side. Many other militants do
too, including David Duke, Louis
Farrakan, Rev Jesse Jackson & Rev
Al Sharpton. The police are now
cautious about dealing with South
Asian criminals. [19] By 2000,
although most of them were, and still
are hardworking, law abiding and
successful, British South Asians had a
problem with a lot of young men, who
were fluent in English, but were not
working, and were getting into crime.
In fact, with regard to immigrants
who are VEMs, the crime rate is
almost always higher amongst those
born within the new country, than
those who arrived as immigrants –
this implicates RBMs as a major
culprit. The UK now has one of the
highest incarceration rates in Western
Europe. The proportion of black
people in jail in the UK was almost
seven times their share of the
population.
What is sad is that it’s the poor who
pay the price. What is sadder is that
RBMs can hurt the poor in poor
countries too. Uganda, like other East
African countries, relies on tourism
for much of their income. I was there
in 2004, I met lots of friendly people
there. Dome were quite hospitable
too. Truck drivers quite happily gave
me rides without asking anything in
return. I was there for two months and
only encountered two incidents of
hostility. One was from a group of
guys in in Mbarara, when I was
walking with a black lady who was
showing me where a shop was, the
other was in Entebbe from Tony. He
was the teenage son of a family who
ran a hostel. He spent a lot of time in
the TV lounge. His father Frank, the
hostel boss, had sky TV there. He said
Ugandan TV was boring. He also said
that the TV had caused Tony to
misbehave. Tony was into harassing
the guests. When I met him, he
behaved in an intimidating manner
and demanded that I buy him a beer.

When guests would put cigarettes
packs on the table, he would pick up
the pack and take a cigarette without
asking. His sister Brenda also said
that the TV had caused his behaviour.
She said that Frank had taken Tony to
a psychiatrist. It’s not surprising that
TV had messed him up. Like a
mushroom, Tony was kept in the dark
and fed on shit. A student appears in
court, charged with hacking his
classmate to death with a machete.
“How do you plead?” asks the judge.
“Innocent your honour.” The
defendant replies. The prosecutor
points out that the evidence against
him is overwhelming. Again the judge
asks “How do you plea?” The
defendant says “Innocent your
honour. The teacher treated the victim
better than me. In doing so she sowed
the seeds of hatred. Therefore, it is
she, not I, who is guilty of the crime.”
This is the view spread by the film
Hotel Rwanda, which portrayed the
Divide and Rule policies of the
Belgians as the cause of the genocide
of the Tutsi, by the Hutu, in Rwanda.
It failed to mention that Divide and
Rule has been practised by most
colonial rulers, including Alexander
the Great, and Julius Ceaser, but
rarely, if ever, resulted in genocide. It
also failed to mention that Rwanda is
one of Africa’s most densely
populated countries, which made
houses and property expensive and
provided a greater motive for killing.
Then there is the claim that the British
put Idi Amin in power, the
implication being that they were
therefore responsible for the estimated
100,000 to 500,000 people he killed.
Did they tell him to kill all those
people? They did not grant him the
position of Prime Minister, he stole
that from the former chief. In the 80s,
there were many reports of Ethiopia’s
“Soviet backed Mengistu Regime”
pocketing what was meant for the
poor. The implication being that it
was the Soviets who were the culprits.
However, several other African heads
of state have been caught doing
similar things. XXXXX Then there is
the claim that colonial rule is
responsible for all the poverty and
corruption in Africa. In which case,
Ethiopia and Liberia, the only African
countries which were never under

colonial rule by whites, should be the
wealthiest, most corruption free
countries there. How are things going
in Liberia? See for yourself
XXXXXX Also, there were many
reports of Apartheid, but not of the
main motive. Is the incitement of
hatred towards Westerners – who
make up the bulk of tourists in Africa
– good for the tourism industry? I
understand attacks on tourist are
becoming more common in East
Africa. XXXXX
What was the overall effect for the
blacks in America, as a result of
RBMs other than a higher crime rate
and a higher incarceration rate than
they had in 1966 when Carmichael
made his Black Power speech? He
said that blacks do the dirtiest jobs for
the lowest pay. He also claimed that
whites "force" blacks to live in
"ghettos". What were the positive
things which came out? Well, there
were numerous government funded
housing projects in the ghettos, grants
and other free college money for
blacks to attend university, such as
those offered by the NAACP and
United Negro College Fund, as well
as billions of dollars given to the
ghettos and plenty of other affirmative
action programs, but what about the
standard of living for the common
man? Blacks still do the dirtiest jobs
for the lowest pay. Most of them still
live in run-down, crime filled ghettos.
In fact the crime rates in the ghettos
make people not want to open
businesses there, so increase the
poverty of the ghettos. As the police
have very little power in the ghettos, it
is easier to get away with murder
there – and many blacks are murdered
there. And the powers that be, well,
they’ve got a whole lot more
powerful. So, will the micro chipping
of people become mandatory? I don’t
know. You tell me. -JD