Ecological Internet: Dr. Glen Barry: Mandela & ANC too Inferior to be held Accountable to Same Standards as Apartheid Whites

Radical Honoursty response to Ecological Internet (CC: UTNE Reader & Nelson Mandela Fnd): Dr. Glen Barrie’s allegation that holding Nelson Mandela accountable to same standards as conservative whites, is ‘racist’.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Radical Honoursty | 18 February 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 3:26 PM
To: Ecological Internet: Dr. Glen Barrie (**@ecologicalinternet.org)
Cc: Verne Harris - NMF (**@nelsonmandela.org); Sello Hatang - NMF (**@nelsonmandela.org); Nelson Mandela Foundation (**@nelsonmandela.org)
Bcc: Julian Assange; Alex Gibney; Tani Ikeda; Anil Gupta; Woody Tasch; Judith Butler; Perry Chen; Elinor Ostrom; Rebecca Onie; Elizabeth Scharpf; Tim Wise; Bryan Doerries; Victoria Pettibone and Sasha Eden; Bill McKibben
Subject: EI & Utne Reader Visionaries: Mandela & ANC too Inferior to be held Accountable to Same Standard as Apartheid Whites?

Radical Honoursty response to Ecological Internet (CC: UTNE Reader & Nelson Mandela Fnd): Dr. Glen Barrie’s allegation that holding Nelson Mandela accountable to same standards as conservative whites, is ‘racist’.
http://tiny.cc/EI-Barry-MandelaInferior

**********************************

President: Glen Barry, Ph.D.
Ecological Internet, Inc.
PO Box 2484
Madison, WI 53701, USA
Email: **@ecologicalinternet.org

Honourable CC: UTNE Reader, other 24 alleged visionaries compared to the fraud: Nelson Mandela, whom the worlds liberals are too petrified to hold to the same standards as white leaders: Julian Assange, Alex Gibney, Tani Ikeda, Rebecca Solnit, Kieran Egan, Anil Gupta, Woody Tasch, Nina Dudnik, Natalia Allen, Judith Butler, Annette Rizzo, Perry Chen, Michelle Ajamian and Brandon Jaeger, Elinor Ostrom, Sandra Steingraber, Ted Howard, Rebecca Onie, Elizabeth Scharpf, Alexander Petroff, Paul Ewald, Tim Wise, Bryan Doerries, Victoria Pettibone and Sasha Eden, Bill McKibben.

Dear Sirs/Ladies,

The following information about the ANC’s policies and practices, has repeatedly been honourably submitted to Mr. Nelson Mandela, via the Nelson Mandela Foundation. I do not make allegations about someone behind their back, and without providing them with the right of reply. I have never received any honourable reply from the Nelson Mandela Foundation, or Nelson Mandela, or the ANC, informing me that any of the allegations were erroneous.

Ecological Internet were informed that Nelson Mandela had endorsed (I) the ANC policy of ‘Operation Production’ which punished African women who (a) denied any ANC cadre the right to rape her & impregnate her, or (b) was found to use contraception; by detention, labelling her an Apartheid agent, for a trial before a People’s Court, where a guilty verdict included the sentence of Necklacing, including symbolic ‘Penis Patriarchy Domination’ broken bottles shoved up her vagina; (II) the ANC’s torture and murder of its own ANC members at Camp Quatro, et al; (III) the ANC deliberately ignored and avoided following available non-violent practices in their ‘liberation struggle’; the ANC’s People’s War violent policies are founded upon among others, Frantz Fanon’s advocacy that ‘Violence is a cleansing force, that frees the native’s colonized mind from his inferiority complex, making him fearless and restoring his self-respect, on the rotting corpse of the settler’?; (IV) Majority of SA Blacks did not want ANC black rule and a significant, if not majority of New South Africa blacks miss apartheid, as having provided far better governance and governmental services, than the ANC.

Ecological Internet: Dr. Barry deleted the information, and accused me of being a racist; for expecting Nelson Mandela to be held to the same standards of civilized conduct as any white world leader.

Whenever I have shared this information to a liberal news publication or a liberal non-profit organisation, they never prove the information to be erroneous; they simply delete it, and accuse me of being a ‘racist’. They never explain why holding a black person to the same standards as a white person, because you believe the black person is capable of all any white person is capable of, is ‘racist’. They never define what they mean by ‘racist’. They never inform Nelson Mandela, that they consider him to be incapable of being held to the same civilized standards as they hold other white world leaders, because he is black.

According to the definition of racism, I subscribe to: It is liberals who think blacks are inferior and hence demand that blacks not be held accountable to the same standards as whites, who are the racists! Are UTNE Reader and Ecological Internet ‘racists’?

Europe's White Refugee Future: UK maternity units: only 1 in 10 mothers is of white British origin

Revealed: The UK maternity units in which only 1 in 10 mothers is of white British origin

By Jack Doyle, DailyMail.UK
Last updated at 8:28 AM on 9th August 2010

Just one in ten babies is born to a white British mother in some parts of the country, figures reveal.

The statistics - based on NHS monitoring of the ethnicity and nationality of patients - show a sharp contrast in the backgrounds of new mothers in urban and rural areas.

While white British mothers accounted for just 9.4 per cent of all births in one London health trust, the figure was 97.4 per cent of all births in Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust.

The birth statistics reflect how mothers described themselves, not the ethnicity of the fathers or the babies.

Across all of England's 150 NHS Trusts there were 652,638 deliveries last year, around six out of ten of them to women who called themselves white British.

But in some trusts serving rural areas more than 95 per cent of mothers fell into that category.

These included Northern Devon with 97.4 per cent, Co Durham and Darlington with 97.1, and Northumbria with 96 per cent.

At the other end of the spectrum, in North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, which covers Harrow, just 9.4 per cent of mothers were white British. Another inner city trust - Sandwell and West Birmingham - had 16.5 per cent. And a little over one in four new mothers were white Britons at Guy's and St Thomas' hospital in central London.

The proportion of mothers of white British origin at Bradford Teaching Hospitals trust was 34 per cent.

Even some NHS trusts in the home counties reported fewer than six in ten deliveries were to white British mothers.

In West Hertfordshire NHS Trust, which covers St Albans, just 57 per cent of women giving birth were white British.

Across England 62 per cent of all births last year involved a white British mother.
The largest other single ethnic groups were 'other white' - including Eastern Europeans - which made up 7 per cent of births, black (5 per cent), Pakistani (4 per cent) and Indian (3 per cent).

Of the rest of the mothers 8 per cent described their ethnicity as 'other' (including mixed-race women) and the remainder were listed as 'not known'.

Backbench Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: 'I think we have to face reality and that is if you continue to have mass immigration it's going to have a very significant impact on the demography of our country - and it's going to have a significant impact perhaps on the sort of country that we are.'

Frank Ellis: BBC's Reporting on White Farm Murders in South Africa & Zimbabwe

BBC's Reporting on White Farm Murders in South Africa & Zimbabwe

Email from Dr. Ellis to BBC Radio 5

The following e-mail (excl. images) was sent by Dr Frank Ellis to Radio 5's Victoria Derbyshire in advance of her forthcoming visit to Zimbabwe and South Africa.

From: Frank Ellis
To: Victoria Derbyshire, BBC Radio 5
Date: 2nd December 2009
Re: Your visit to Zimbabwe and South Africa

I am contacting you in the hope that during your visits to Zimbabwe and South Africa you will confront head on with your black interlocutors (some of whom will be regime stooges) the racist and murderous behaviour of Mugabe’s regime and the tacit encouragement given by Zuma’s regime to black racist murderers in South Africa. There exists the very real danger – you work for the BBC after all – that you will refuse to tackle these questions since the organisation for which you work insists on presenting an anodyne, rainbow-coloured picture of South Africa to the rest of the world rather than the gruesome and savage reality that exists.

Some six years ago I met a farmer’s wife, Betty her name was, who had just been thrown out of Zimbabwe. Her crime consisted in the fact that her husband and she were successful, white farmers. Here is what happened. One day a gang of so-called “war veterans” (“war veterans” is the term used by Mugabe’s regime to describe the roving gangs who plunder white-owned farms and kill the owners) turned up at her farm. She was told that her husband and she would be thrown out of the country in one hour. Her husband died on the spot of a heart attack. Betty was only permitted to gather up enough personal effects sufficient to fill a small, hand-held suitcase. She was then taken to the airport and put on a plane. Betty and her husband had lived all their lives in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Not long after Betty related this harrowing account to me she died, broken-hearted and alone.

The Infinite Monkeys and Godwins Law

The Infinite Monkeys & Godwins Law

by Mike Smith | SA Sucks

Debating on racial issues is largely a one-way debate in modern society. Just about all the academics, politicians and Main Stream Media (MSM) institutions are advocates of Cultural relativism and Racial Egalitarianism. They believe in a fallacy and modern day superstition that all races are equal just like people in the Dark ages believed the earth was flat.

They constantly profess, advocate and defend this absurdity and false dogma with a fanaticism bordering on religious hysteria despite many scientists and anthropologist who did extensive work on differences between races and who published hundreds of volumes on the subject.

Trying to find works such as “The Bell Curve”, “Race and Reason”, “IQ and the wealth of Nations” or De Gobineau’s “Inequality of the races” in a public or University library is a rarity these days. Even academics who try to discuss race in the most moderate of fashions are met with academic intolerance and physical intimidation by racial failure apologists and egalitarians. All research that proves their theories wrong are shunned as “Pseudo-science” without the proof of this research ever been studied or even read.

One sees these phenomena also on the internet on forums where racial issues are being discussed. Anyone who provides a counter argument to Cultural relativism or egalitarianism is immediately attacked with an argumentum ad hominem to his person, called a racist and ignorant bastard.

Time to Face the Truth about Multiculturalism, by Frank Ellis

[Frank Ellis]

Time to Face the Truth about Multiculturalism

© Frank Ellis 2006 | All Rights Reserved

Note: In 2006, Dr. Frank Ellis was interviewed by a student journalist, the article was published in the Leeds Student. Dr. Ellis was asked about his views on multiculturalism et al, and he did not pull any punches. Various left-wing hate groups demanded that he be sacked. In response, he sent an article to the Leeds Student. The editor assured Dr. Ellis that the article – ‘Time to the Tell the Truth About Multiculturalism’ – would be published in full. He lied. The article was heavily censored, including the title which was changed to ‘“Racist” Lecturer Replies’. Here follows the full, uncensored version (censored text is printed in bold).


Multiculturalism (multiracialism) is doomed to failure - and is failing - because it is based on the lie that all people, races and cultures are equal; that no one race or culture is better (superior) than any other. I see no evidence for the view that all cultures are equal, but vast amounts against it. To believe that all cultures are equal - and ultimately in the absence of any evidence for, it is the psychology of political fanaticism with which one is dealing here - requires the same hatred and wilful refusal to confront evidence, logic and history that characterised the individuals who believed that Stalin had built paradise on earth when in fact he had exterminated millions of so-called class enemies. When you point out to these people, as I have over the years, that, as a consequence of Uncle Jo’s Final Solution of the Peasant Question, some 11,000,000 (yes 11,000,000!) peasants were slaughtered so as to break the rural way of life and to impose collectivization, all you get are despicable, cowardly evasions along the lines that such numbers are CIA propaganda. Cowardice, evasions, lying, hypocrisy and censorship of views they do not like, all typify the range of responses from what I call the Guardian-reading classes to any evidence that multiculturalism, their Neo-Marxist fantasy, is not working. Indeed it never will work, but when it starts to unravel, as Yugoslavia eventually did, we will all suffer.

Crucial to the multicultural experiment is the assertion that there is no such thing as race; that race has nothing to do with genetics or biology. Here, for example, is what Bhikhu Parekh, the editor of a very nasty anti-white tract, The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: Report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (Profile Books, London, 2000), has to say on the subject of race: ‘Race, as is now widely acknowledged, is a social and political construct, not a biological or genetic fact. It cannot be used scientifically to account for the wide range of differences among peoples’ (Parekh, 2000, 63).

The Teaching Establishment is Bad for Our Schoolchildren & Equal Opportunities or Institutionalised Envy, by Frank Ellis

[Frank Ellis]

The Teaching Establishment is Bad for Our Schoolchildren

© Frank Ellis 1999

It is 1999, yet it seems as if 1979 was only yesterday. For, a vast and largely unaccountable bureaucracy still wields enormous power over the destinies of our schoolchildren. Wilfully blind to the failures of “progressive” education, teachers’ training colleges and educational theorists continue to churn out the latest fads dressed in scientoid jargon. In this unholy task, they are aided and abetted by far too many teachers and lecturers in colleges of further education and universities, the majority of whom are members of the other powerful educationally-related bureaucracy, the teachers’ unions. In the longevity of these vested interests and their ability to resist change there is an eerie reminder of the Soviet communist party.

Education was a failure of the Thatcher and Major governments. To be fair, there were more pressing items on the agenda: winning the Cold War; taming the unions; privatization; and winning the Falklands and Gulf Wars. The trouble is that political victories are not the same thing as cultural victories. As Justice Robert Bork points out in Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline: ‘Even when conservative political leaders have the votes, liberal cultural leaders operate and exercise influence where votes do not count. However many political victories conservatives may produce, they cannot attack modern liberalism in its fortresses.’ Or perhaps one might say that they can, but that it is not easy. No matter, education is one such left-liberal fortress whose walls do have to be knocked down if our cultural degeneration is to be arrested and reversed.

A Conversation About Race: What is Racism? Does Racism Exist? The Long Road to Racial Awakening

The First Word - A Conversation About Race

I Luv SA | Occidental Quarterly

When a white person awakens to our race’s peril, the first impulse—and the first duty—is to try to awaken others. But where to begin? Becoming a white nationalist often takes years of experience, reflection, and reading. And one has to find one’s courage along the way too. How does one condense all that into talking points? Big books like Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority may well be the last word on these matters. But what is the first word? How do we begin the conversation? We live in an increasingly post-literate society, so for most people books are not the place to start, big books especially.

This is why I highly recommend Craig Bodeker’s masterful 58 minute documentary A Conversation about Race. It is an ideal first step on the road to racial awakening.

Bodeker posted an advertisement on Craigslist in Denver under the heading “Ending Racism Now,” then interviewed respondents on film. He also did “man on the street” interviews. The interviewees who made the final cut are a very diverse group. About half of them are black, including two blacks in inter-racial relationships. Most of the rest are white, with a couple of Hispanics or Amerindians thrown in.

The Nobel Institute: Norwegian Nobel Committee: Withdraw Nobel Peace Prize’s from Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.....

Overview of Documentation

1. Letter to Nobel Institute: Norwegian Nobel Committee: Notice of Legal and Political Request to: (I) Withdraw Nobel Peace Prize’s from Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, for (a) Intellectual Dishonesty & Hypocrisy; (b) Moral, Political and Religious Prostitution; and (c) ‘TRC-RSA’ Fraud and Betrayal; and (II) Accept Nobel Peace Prize Nominations for Dr. Albert Bartlett; Dr. Garret James Harden, and Dr. M. King Hubbert, for Intellectually Honest and Politically Honourable Ecologically Sustainable, Human Rights, Peace and Social Justice Advocacy. [PDF:200KB][Verbatim Text of Emails, Delivery & Read Receipts from Nobel Institute, NSA & Royal Norwegian Embassy, Pretoria (PDF:174KB)]
   [Act4 ♥ TrinityLove EcoFamily ♥ :: Sign the HARTSSTARH Legal and Political Petition to the Nobel Institute]
   
   
2. Letter to Proudly South African/TRC-RSA Nobel Peace Prize Recipients: Former President Nelson Mandela, Former President F.W. de Klerk, Archbhishop Desmond Tutu; sent c/o and via: Nobel Institute: Norwegian Nobel Committee: Final Honourable Notice of Legal and Political Delivery: Elimination of ‘TRC-RSA’ Nobel Peace Prize Recipients Plausible Deniability, to allegations that your Human Rights Advocacy is guilty of (i) Intellectual Dishonesty and Hypocrisy; (ii) Moral, Political and Religious Prostitution; and (iii) ‘TRC-RSA’ Fraud and Betrayal. [PDF:200KB] ][Verbatim Text of Emails, Delivery & Read Receipts from Tony Leon and Prof. van der Elst (PDF:174KB)]
   

Were We Lied to About Contemporary African Pirates ? | Africans Love for Accountable Goverment | Niggers in Self Denial

At this juncture, should we not suspect that we have been lied to about almost everything for at least 2,000 years?


Idaho Observer

Receiving a high school diploma or a college degree is a sign that the state recognizes we are adequately instructed to live as adults in our culture. While state-sanctioned adequacy may be satisfactory to many, some of us begin questioning. Once we discover that we have been lied to about one thing, the Pandora’s box of lies opens to reveal more lies.

At some point we must stop, take a deep breath and commence with an inventory of what we were taught by the state compared to what we have learned independently. If we are honest and objective, it becomes apparent that there is no truly apolitical font of perfect truth outside of ourselves.

Though our tendency is to selectively believe what we want to believe and reject anything that conflicts with those beliefs, logic tells us that, if we were lied to about one of our core beliefs, we could have been lied to about others as well.

What if we have been lied to about everything for so many generations that the more we learn about our world the less we really know about it? If that is the case, then what we think we know about science, spirituality, property, family, community, ourselves and each other needs to be rethought.

The conditions that gave birth to the age in which we are living, an age that is coming to an end, began when one family figured out how to finance the powerlust of two or more opposing kings and pit them, one against another, in war. The phenomenal wealth and power that has been afforded this family has allowed it to influence everything we have "known" to be true since the mid-1700s.

Under these circumstances, our duty to God and family is to rethink our entire system of beliefs. Revelation and the Rothschild Connection ought to get you started. But, just for a warmup, challenge yourself with the thoughts below:

************************

You are not now, nor have you ever, been told the truth about "pirates"

By Johann Hari

The people our governments are labeling as "one of the great menaces of our times" have an extraordinary story to tell.

Pirates have never been quite who we think they are. In the "golden age of piracy"from 1650 to 1730, the idea of the pirate as the senseless, savage thief that lingers today was created by the British government.

Many ordinary people believed it was false: Pirates were often rescued from the gallows by supportive crowds. Why? What did they see that we can’t? In his book "Villains of All Nations," historian Marcus Rediker pores through the evidence to find out. If you became a merchant or navy sailor then—plucked from the docks of London’s East End, young and hungry—you ended up in a floating wooden hell. You worked all hours on a cramped, half-starved ship and, if you slacked off for a second, the all-powerful captain would whip you with the cat o’ nine tails. If you slacked consistently, you could be thrown overboard. And at the end of months or years of this, you were often cheated of your wages.

Pirates were the first people to rebel against this world. They mutinied against their tyrannical captains and created a different way of working on the seas. Once they had a ship, the pirates elected their captains and made their decisions collectively. They shared their bounty out in what Rediker calls "one of the most egalitarian plans for the disposition of resources to be found anywhere in the 18th century." They even took in escaped African slaves and lived with them as equals. The pirates showed "quite clearly—and subversively—that ships did not have to be run in the brutal and oppressive ways of the merchant service and the Royal navy." This is why they were popular, despite being unproductive thieves. The words of one pirate from that lost age, a young British man called William Scott, should echo into this new age of piracy. Just before he was hanged in Charleston, South Carolina, he said: "What I did was to keep me from perishing. I was forced to go a-pirating to live."

In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since and many of the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country’s food supply and dump nuclear waste in their seas.

As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, told me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury—you name it."

Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention." At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia’s seas of their greatest resource: Seafood. We have destroyed our own fish-stocks by over-exploitation and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m worth of tuna, shrimp, lobster and other sea-life is being stolen every year by vast trawlers illegally sailing into Somalia’s unprotected seas. The local fishermen have suddenly lost their livelihoods and they are starving.

Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka, 100 km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won’t be much fish left in our coastal waters."

This is the context in which the men we are calling "pirates" have emerged. Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somalian fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a "tax" on them. They call themselves the "Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia" and it’s not hard to see why. In a surreal telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, said their motive was "to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters...We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas."

William Scott would understand those words. No, this doesn’t make hostage-taking justifiable and yes, some are clearly just gangsters—especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies. But the "pirates" have the overwhelming support of the local population for a reason. The independent Somalian news-site WardherNews conducted the best research we have into what ordinary Somalis are thinking and it found 70 percent "strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence of the country’s territorial waters."

During the revolutionary war in America, George Washington and America’s founding fathers paid pirates to protect America’s territorial waters because they had no navy or coastguard of their own. Most Americans supported them. Is this so different? Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We didn’t act on those crimes - but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, we begin to shriek about "evil." If we really want to deal with piracy, we need to stop its root cause - our crimes - before we send in the gun-boats to root out Somalia’s criminals. The story of the 2009 war on piracy was best summarised by another pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC. He was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who demanded to know "what he meant by keeping possession of the sea." The pirate smiled, and responded: "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you, who do it with a great fleet, are called emperor." Once again, our great imperial fleets sail today—but who is the robber?

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. Some commenters seem bemused by the fact that both toxic dumping and the theft of fish are happening in the same place —wouldn’t this make the fish contaminated? In fact, Somalia’s coastline is vast, stretching to 3,300 km. Imagine how easy it would be—without any coastguard or army—to steal fish from Florida and dump nuclear waste on Maryland and you get the idea. These events are happening in different places—but with the same horrible effect: death for the locals and stirred-up piracy. There’s no contradiction.

Source: Idaho Observer

______________________________________________________________

Less than 50 percent of Africans want democracy

PR Inside | I Luv SA

JOHANNESBURG (AP) - More Africans than ever want democracy, though violent, rigged elections and failure to translate freedom into better lives have left a bad impression among some, according to a survey published Monday.

Only 45 percent of African citizens support democracy, up from 40 percent in 2005.

Afrobarometer, which has done such surveys every three years since 1999, questioned more than 25,000 people in 19 countries for the latest survey. The poll was run by the Institute for Democracy in South Africa, the Ghana Center for Democratic Development and Benin's Institute for Empirical Research in Political Economy, with support from Michigan State University at Lansing in the United States. It had a margin of error of plus or minus three percent.

Afrobarometer found the demand for democracy - and democracy itself - advancing in various countries, including Botswana, Cape Verde and Ghana, and democracy declining and at risk in Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria and Senegal.

In Botswana, which has had uninterrupted democracy since independence from Britain in 1966, 91 percent of respondents considered their country a full democracy or one having only minor problems - the survey's most favourable rating.

Perhaps the most telling figure came from Madagascar, the Indian Ocean island where an army-backed politician in March ousted a democratically elected president who failed to tackle endemic poverty.

Only 14 percent of the island's people want democracy, according to the survey.

'For us, liberty is the same as anarchy,' Doline Rasoamananoro, a 57-year-old nurse told AP, disgusted by violent protests that killed scores of people and helped bring down the president. 'Madagascar needs to be managed by a person with an iron fist,' she said. 'It needs a lot of discipline, even a bit of dictatorship.'

Most Africans interviewed rejected that: 79 percent rejected strongman rule, 75 percent rejected military rule and 73 percent rejected a one-party system.

However, only 57 percent rejected all three alternatives to democracy, and just 45 percent are listed by Afrobarometer as "fully demanding democracy" by both rejecting all three alternatives and explicitly supporting democracy.

In Madagascar, 42-year-old business consultant Tovo Rakoto-Andrianome said people need to be educated about democracy and that, given his country's experience, «I am not surprised that many end up being disgusted by democracy.

Only 43 percent of Kenyans believe they live in a democratic state since marred elections led to tribally charged violence in which hundreds of people were slaughtered last year.

Zimbabwe had the largest gap, with demand at 53 percent and supply at 10 percent, according to a survey from 2005. Violence after elections last year prevented a survey in that country in 2008.

Only 48 percent in South Africa gave their country high marks for democracy, reflecting unhappiness that economic gains in one of the continent's youngest democracies have not translated into better lives for the poor majority.

Robert Mattes, an American political scientist at South Africa's University of Cape Town who helped analyze the survey results, said ambivalence about democracy in countries like South Africa also reflected the people's loyalty to liberation movements turned political parties. Groups like the African National Congress in South Africa dominate politics across the continent.

Source: PR Inside | I Luv SA

______________________________________________________________

How niggers stay in self denial

Uncle Tom Rants

Ask the ordinary "street nigger" which group commits crimes far out of proportion to their race, and they will tell you white folks.

This is because the "street nigger" really believes this, but stats always proves them wrong. You can hardly turn on the tv without seeing some dumb assed Jungle Bunny in handcuffs being arrested. It does not take an Einstein to see that blacks only comprise only 13% of the total population in this country, yet, the jails and prisons are filled to the max with nigger criminals over 50%, all claiming they are innocent. I'll just be they are.

One might ask, "Uncle Tom, why do you dwell on Black people so much"? I dwell on them because the rest of the Black community is afraid to say anything, except when a white cop kills one of these savages. The next question I'm asked is,"why do you call them savages?". It's because in my eyes, there are only two groups, the civilized, and the savages! These two groups are found in all racial groups all over the world.

Every day, there's an account of one of these savages taking the life of someone, and the Black community seems not to care. I'm always reminded by some goddamned liberal "Kneegrow" that whites commit crimes too, and that is true, but I ask, which community is affected more? With these Nigger "Brood Sows" pumping out baby after baby, getting the federal government to take care of these little bastards, what do you expect?

I can tell you what to expect, MORE NIGGER CRIMINALS! With a boy growing in a fatherless househole not having a FATHER to guide him in the direction he should go, what else would you expect? The savage Nigger Buck, is no different from a common dog that breeds with every dog that is in heat, then walks away with no obligation to his offspring.

Niggers have been systematically brainwashed by the Jew owned media, that's it's ok to father offspring without feeling obligated, after all Jewishwood is on every day bragging about some movie star and his girlfriend,(brood sow) just having their first baby! This is perfectly according to Jewishwood! I wonder how many bastard babies the Jews are having out of wedlock.

It's quite easy to see, the dumb nigger has not a clue about money. A nigger will kill a hard working cab driver, in order to steal less that $200.00! The primitive nigger mind, cannot fathom stealing $50,000 or more, because his primitive mind tells him that $200.00 is a lot of money.

My conclusion, niggers will continue to get locked up in our jais and prisons, simply because of their low IQ will not allow them to use logic and planning, thus they will continue to fill the jails and prisons far out of proportion of the rest of the races in this country, and their black asses should be there.

And you can say,"Uncle Tom told me so.

Source: Uncle Tom Rants

The Philosophy of the ‘Useless Eaters’ || Why There is Nothing Wrong with Being a Racist

What are we and they to understand as the connection between population and security? Population is a central element in nearly any concept of national security.

And in many regions the potential for conflict arising from simple overpopulation and starvation is large and growing. There is, of course, nothing simple about these problems; those who feel inclined to dismiss the seriousness of this potential should consider the question: "How does one say `Lebensraum' in Chinese?"
~ US Army War College: People Wars: Ruminations on Population and Security: How Does One Say 'Lebensraum' in Chinese? ~

______________________________________________________________

The Philosophy of the ‘Useless Eaters’

Mike Smith - Global Politician

10/10/2007

It is for normal people sometimes difficult to understand the wrongs in society. We see politicians messing up. We see uncontrollable illegal immigration into our countries. We see wars happening. We see genocides in Africa, Yugoslavia and South East Asia while the world debates how many deaths constitute genocide and does nothing to stop it.

We question out of control AIDS and the policies to curb it in Sub Saharan Africa.

We see idiotic policies created such as the Montréal and Kyoto Protocols and we do not understand. We see Westernized, sovereign and Christian nations such as Rhodesia, Namibia and South Africa handed over to Communist terrorist through the scheming of Western Nations on the one hand and the backing by Communists on the other....and we do not understand. We ask ourselves, "Has the world gone mad?"

The answer is no. We just do not understand the philosophy of those controlling the world. Now I am no conspiracy theorist, just a keen observer and a student of history; sometimes a philosopher.

The Philosophy of world leaders

There is a philosophy amongst world string pullers that the average man will find just too horrible to comprehend, yet it exists and it shapes our modern world. There is no official version of this philosophy and I don't think it is taught anywhere at universities. Students seem to arrive at it through a natural path. Hegelianism it is not, neither is it pure Utilitarianism. The Nazi’s called it "Life unworthy of life". Let me simply call it "The Philosophy of the Useless Eaters".

It is difficult to determine where this philosophy came from. Thomas Malthus wrote in 1798 that there will always be more people in the world than can be fed, hence the need for wars and diseases. We know that people like the British imperialist Cecil John Rhodes, birth control founder Margaret Sanger, Stalin and Adolf Hitler were practitioners of this philosophy, but the man who stands out as the biggest practitioner has to be "Red Terror" Felix Dzerzhinsky. Most Westerners have never heard of him, but he is a Communist god and they have erected a huge statue in his honour (torn down, but soon to be re-erected) in Moscow.

Felix D. was a Polish aristocrat, Bolshevik and creator of the "Cheka" or "Secret Police" during the Russian revolution. He killed thousands of "counter revolutionaries" and all he needed was a confession to do so. Trials were therefore short and executions summarily. One of his tactics was to pose as a counter revolutionary and even bomb police stations to lure opponents of the revolution to believe that a counter revolution has started and then kill them off.

Felix D. regarded mankind as being slightly above the level of cattle. He once told British agent Sydney Reilly, while the two were on a drinking binge that, "Man is of no importance. Look at what happens when you starve him. He begins to eat his dead companions to stay alive. Man is only interested in his own survival. That is all that counts. All the Spinoza stuff is a lot of rubbish."

This philosophy is a mixture of Freud, Plato, Aristotle, Darwin, Marx and many others. The way it was explained to me was basically like this:

Man has no natural enemies so he breeds uncontrollably. The artificially created, industrialized world has developed to the stage where it can support the meek of society; cripples, chronically sick, blind and deaf people, etc. Further these people are allowed to breed more cripples, chronically sick, blind and deaf "Useless Eaters" who would have died out in a natural environment and because of this situation, the human race is systematically weakened through enlarging numbers of useless eaters across the world. It has therefore become necessary to control the numbers of the so called "useless eaters" in order for the human race to remain strong and survive. It is important to note that one finds "Useless Eaters" amongst all nations. Race and nationality is of little importance here.

To these string pullers, nature must take its course. Human life has very little value. Soldiers who die in war died, because they were too stupid to stay alive. Genocide is a major bonus to them; culling of mass amounts of "useless eaters" who were too stupid to escape and therefore deserved to be killed. Old people on farms in South Africa being violently killed and tortured to death deserved it, because they should have taken steps to safeguard themselves. If they get killed it is because of their own stupidity. In this world there is only space for the strongest and cleverest genes. The useless eaters have to die. That is why they did nothing to stop the six million Jews being killed in WW2. That is why the world did nothing to stop Pol Pot in Cambodia or the genocide in Rwanda. They were all just "useless eaters".

Further, industrialization and Western Technology helps to keep "useless eaters" alive and therefore needs to be halted. That is the real reason behind the Ozone depletion and Warm earth theories.

Cecil John Rhodes was a great visionary for their cause. He was an arch racist who wanted to rid Africa of all the "useless eaters" and then claim its riches for Great Britain. This man has more than fifty biographies written about him, two countries were named after him as well as a university in South Africa. Beneficiaries of his Scholarship trust were amongst others, Bill Clinton, writer Alain Locke, singer/actor, Kris Kristofferson, diplomat Strobe Talbott (Yugoslavia peace negotiator 1999) and many others. This scholarship allows them to study for two years at Oxford University. A great monument was erected to Rhodes at the foot of Table Mountain in Cape Town. So why did he not succeed?

See Rhodes ran into some good Christian Whites called Afrikaners up north, who did not understand or agree with his vision. These Afrikaner farmers called "Boers" halted his visionary plans in the most expensive war Britain has ever fought and they would never be forgiven for it. Imagine if Rhodes befriended the Boers and shared his vision with them. Blacks would have only existed in History books today. Africa from Cape to Cairo would have been white.

Nevertheless, it was not to be. Eventually these Afrikaners rose to power and ruled South Africa. At first the Rhodes disciples thought that the Afrikaners would finish the job and exterminate the "useless eaters" in Africa as it happened in Australia, America, etc, but no. These Afrikaners were good Christian folk who built schools and universities for the useless eaters. They built houses, hospitals and employed the useless eaters. Under Afrikaners the useless eater population of South Africa increased four fold and the white countries of Rhodesia, South Africa and Namibia were feeding the rest of Africa. This was obviously a disaster for the "useless eater" proponents. Therefore the Afrikaners had to go.

In South Africa it is very important that we understand this philosophy in order for us to understand why the world sits with folded arms and watch Zimbabwe collapse and whites systematically slaughtered in South Africa.

Wonder no more why the world does nothing to stop Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Wonder no more why a statue of a terrorist such as Mandela is erected in London. Wonder no more why the world does not condemn Mbeki's AIDS policy or the crime in South Africa.

Whites need to leave, because the white doctors, engineers and farmers are keeping the "Useless Eaters" alive.

Communism in Africa is just a vehicle to depopulate the continent in such a way that the ignorant masses do not realize what is going on and will go along with it thinking they are "free".

Survival of whites on this continent depends on how well they understand their position and role in the global population control of the "useless eaters". If whites leave South Africa it would be ideal for the global cause, but if they stay they should not help the useless eaters. Whites should form their own little country and should not treat useless eaters in hospitals, feed them or clothe them. Whites should isolate themselves and let the useless eaters die off naturally. Whites should stop crying about crime and start fighting back. If they get killed because of crime, then they did not listen to sound advice and deserved to be killed. It strengthens the nation if idiots are killed off.

So who are these string pullers?

Think about an eagle. It is the symbol of many countries such as the USA , Germany and Hungary. An eagle has two wings, left and right, yet they are attached to the same body and controlled by the same brain. The same goes for the claws. There is nothing wrong with this and in fact, it is vital for survival of the eagle. For the eagle to fly, catch its prey and survive it is essential that it controls both the left wing and the right wing.

It is important to notice that these world scholars who believe in the "useless eater" philosophy are neither right nor left. They will use both Fascism and Communism, as long as they can control the population of the earth. Anyone who supports their goals is richly rewarded, but beware the one who stands in their way.

Contrary to what most conspiracy theorist think, it is not one group (Illuminati, Free masons, Club of Rome, etc), but rather the four hundred odd "Think Tanks" across the world with their learned academics, financiers, religious leaders and politicians who eventually draw up these policies who are responsible for it. These "Think Tanks" are the bodies to which both the left and right wings are attached…but who or what is the brain?

One of these "Think tanks" is the Catholic military order known as the Jesuits. Their leader is Peter Hans Kolvenbach, a Dutchman, also known as "The most powerful man on earth" or "The 'Black' Pope". Chances are you have never heard of him. The Jesuit order played a big role in "Liberation Theology" in South America and Africa where communists took over and killed millions of ‘useless eaters’.

Recently we have seen the movie 300 about the Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae (who saved the Western world), but what about the other 300 warriors few know of. I am talking about Gideon's men we read about in Judges 7 and 8 in the Bible. We also read in Chronicles about King Solomon who made 300 shields from the gold the queen of Sheba gave him.

What if 300 was just a symbolic number? What if, through the ages, a Committee of 300 of the world's most prominent scholars are really controlling world events and pulling strings behind the scene? You better believe it.

Once one understands this philosophy it is not so difficult to understand how George Bush can send thousands of soldiers to their deaths and not lose a single minute’s sleep over it. One can also understand how their own leaders, who received a Nobel peace prize for it, could betray the Afrikaners.

Unless Afrikaners understand their position in the global game of population control and how the "Philosophy of the Useless Eaters" affects them, they are doomed. Fact is, four million whites in South Africa is nothing in the bigger scheme of things. World leaders are not going to rush to the aid of whites in South Africa when they face extermination and no one is going to send in the cavalry. It is time for Afrikaners to forget about Siener van Rensburg’s prophecies and start working towards a strategy of survival. It might even be too late already.

The only way for the Afrikaners is to become increasingly assertive. It is time for the Afrikaners to become ruthless and either fight for their position on the dung heap or fade away into history where no-one will care in a few years time that they ever ruled South Africa. No-one has ever achieved anything great in history by sitting around with folded arms. History is made by the ones who are willing to be ruthless. The Afrikaners should understand that there can be no more playing nice. That attitude has brought them nothing. History shows us that the ones who achieved greatness, were the ones who were willing to TAKE, not BEG; the ones who were willing to fight, not negotiate. There is no place for sissies in this world and if the Afrikaners wants to behave as such, they deserve to die. These words might sound cruel, but it is the truth. It is reality; not some washed out prophecy.

Jer. 8:9: "Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?"

Col. 2:8-10: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. and you hove been given fullness in Christ, Who is the head over every power and authority."

Political References For Further Reading

Depopulation of a Planet: Culling the 'Useless Eaters'

The Tavistock institute, considered to be America's "Best kept secret".
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_tavistock01.htm#The%20Best%20Kept%20Secret%20In%20America

One of the best books on the subject is that of Dr. John Coleman, an ex MI6 agent called, "The story of the Committee of 300".
Conspirator's Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300, by Dr. John Coleman

To see the aims of this group, read here:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_illuminati_12c.htm

Source: Global Politician

______________________________________________________________

Why There is Nothing Wrong with Being a Racist

[Originally titled: A Cordial Reply to Our Detractors]

Monday, March 30th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

Every now and then, commentors appear declaring they are ’shocked, shocked!’ that a ‘hate’ site like SAS exists and that anyone in the world is stupid enough to believe in ‘racism’ anymore. This is generally followed by a bunch of ‘inbred stupid redneck’ insults and predictions that our type is toast and the rainbow dawn of the age of aquarius will shortly usher in world kumbayah singing. I’ve ceased to be offended by these types and begun to be amused, they are so utterly ignorant of the issues being discussed that nothing they say matters. However, out of a helpful wish to inform the likes of these purveyors why we are the way we are, I thought I could draw up a few points that could give them a chance to objectively view our arguments instead of knee-jerk declaim against them.

First off, there is nothing wrong with being a racist. It is the most natural, healthy, and sensible view in the world. It is evolutionarily adaptive to favor kin and race over foreigners, because they share more of your unique genes than foreigners, and thus helping them helps increase the presence of your genes in the gene pool. Being a racist is just as sensible as being a species-ist or a family-ist, it is simply prioritizing the transmission of your genes into the gene pool over less related genes. Anyone who doesn’t hold this belief is destined to genetic suicide. As noble as it sounds to selflessly ignore evolution, evolution never stops ignoring you. Just as it is death to ignore gravity and jump off a cliff as proof of your more ‘enlightened’ and ‘developed’ beliefs, it is a death sentence to ignore biology and prefer foreign genes to your own. This is especially true when others do not share in your ‘enlightened’ viewpoint. Even if theoretically it would be better if everyone stopped preferring their self, family, ethnicity, race, and species over more genetically foreign elements, if only some people do this while others continue selfishly pursuing their genetic interests, the world will quickly become solely dominated by the selfish, genetically-minded agenda pursuers. Therefore, even anti-racists would be best served to promote racism in the short term, as a tit-for-tat measure against the incredibly racist foreigners who are perfectly content to eradicate others for their own genetic gain.

Putting aside the long-term consequences of ignoring evolution, there are many other reasons to be a racist. It has been shown in study after scientific study that people prefer the company of people like themselves. People sort genetically in a natural process called ‘assortative mating.’ We have a natural affinity for people who share traits with ourselves, and a natural dislike for people unlike ourselves. At this point, I’m not even discussing whether the people unlike ourselves are bad people. They might be wonderful people, but their foreign-ness is bad enough all on its own. This is why the vast majority of everyone on earth finds a husband or wife who shares as much in common with themselves as possible, including race. It is why the vast majority of people on earth prefer friends of their own race, a church group of their own race, a school of their own race, a town of their own race, a country of their own race, so that wherever they go they can interact with people like themselves instead of foreigners, who are scary and unlikable and weird-looking. Fighting against this instinct is counterproductive and about as useful as fighting against the instinct to eat, breathe, pump your heart, sleep, drink, etc. It is an inborn nature to all mankind and the only way to get rid of it would be to redesign the human genome. Where did this instinct come from? See above! It is an evolutionarily fit activity to prefer your own genes to foreign genes, and thus all humanity evolved this preference, and now it is an inborn wish, an inborn motivation to carry out the evolutionarily fit activity–just the same as procreation became an enjoyable and desirable act because it helped replicate your genes and was thus an evolutionarily fit activity. It is as useless to combat people’s innate ‘hatred’ for foreign genes and love for related genes as the sex drive, the appetite, or any other fundamental human emotions. Given we are human and have a human nature, it is important we find a lifestyle that suits our inbuilt desires and needs, rather than one that tries to twist us out of shape. Every time human nature is assaulted, it hurts rather than helps. When communism attempted to root out ’selfishness’ it killed 100 million people, but it didn’t even last a century before everyone had given up on it as hopeless. Why then should we start another doomed crusade against human nature, this time racism?



Then there is the little problem that races are unequal. If people were all equally good, but didn’t like each other simply because they were foreign or strange or ‘not like themselves,’ at least some argument could be made against satisfying our innate racist wishes. This is not the case. There is a vast range of differences between the races, and these differences are genetic not cultural. There is no way to bridge these gaps, even if you became dictator of the whole world and designed every single person’s diet, upbringing, schooling, job opportunities, wealth, religion, language, etc. Nurture and the environment are only so powerful. Everyone in the whole world will admit that a giraffe cannot be raised to be a human, if only it is given the right environment and ‘culture.’ In that case, lurking in the depths of everyone’s brain is the realization that the basis of human intellect and achievement is genetic. That we have genes that code for our intelligence, our behavior, our personality, and so on. Now that we’ve all admitted that genes are the reason behind differences between the species, why is it is so surprising or impossible to think that genes are also the reason behind differences within the species? In fact, scienctists have reached a consensus that intelligence within humans is 80% genetic and only 20% cultural. A vast deal of studies have been done on the matter, most especially twin studies that compare the results of identical twins versus fraternal twins, who share all the same environments but are less or more closely genetically related. There is really no question left in the scientific community as to the truth of this matter, nor is there any dispute as to the accuracy or validity of IQ tests, nor is there any disputing the powerful causitive relationship low IQ has with social degeneracy–whether it’s illegitimate children, poverty, crime, dropping out of school, unhealthy habits, or STD’s. Therefore we are stuck in a world where some races are inherently, genetically, smarter than others and thus the incidence of social degeneracy is inherently, genetically lower among those races than others. It is common sense to prefer the company of people who on average have lower social degeneracy rates than those people who on average have higher social degeneracy rates. Requiring we live around the scum of the earth, criminals, welfare leeches, homeless stinking beggars, retards, alcoholics, etc, just to prove we aren’t racists is unacceptable. If it means that much to you, you go do it. However, some of us wish to live, some of us wish to feel safe in our homes. Some of us want to give a bright future to our children. Some of us want a decent wholesome environment we can take walks in and enjoy looking upon. Some of us are still sane. Now, the moment you find the cure for low intelligence, and cure all the less intelligent races of their social degeneracy, you can come back to the bargaining table and insist it will be different this time. However, for the last century we have lived cheek by jowl with the worst scum of the earth, and they have done nothing but rob us, rape us, murder us, pass affirmative action laws against us, demean us, ruin our schools, ruin our infrastructure, ruin our economies, and so on. It is unfair and wicked to demand whites and other civilized races must continue to bear the burden of a degeneracy not of their own making and not their responsbility.

In fact, nurturing genetic under-achievers with environmental handouts their own genome never could have produced is a dysgenic ticking time bomb. For example, say Person A and Person B are in a giant maze. Person A has the ability to navigate the maze, and can also show Person B the way out. Person B would be lost in the maze forever without Person A, but since Person A is there to help, this is insignificant. Person B meanwhile has a killer smile that attracts the ladies. So long as Person A helps Person B get out of the maze, natural selection will not favor either individual. However, sexual selection will continue to favor Person B. Thus, in a few generations, Person A will go extinct and Person B will populate the whole world. At this point, and for the first time, natural selection suddenly kicks in as Person B still can’t navigate mazes and thus they all go extinct as well. This is the case in the world today. The majority of the world is stupid and cannot sustain itself, but this drawback has no evolutionary impact so long as smart people continue to support them out of their own generosity. These same people have higher birthrates, and thus are continuously expanding their proportion of world population. At some point smart people will go extinct, as there is no natural selection or sexual selection favoring them, since they foolishly waste their own advantages by sharing it out equally with their less endowed inferiors. Then the dumb people will also go extinct, as they still cannot sustain themselves without the help of smart people. It is in the interest of dumb people that they are not sustained above their own ability to sustain themselves, so that negative traits do not proliferate only to crash later on. It is also in the interest of smart people to not undermine their own advantages and thus destroy eons of human evolution that got us to the wonderful traits we currently enjoy. Rather than regressing to some primitive, unsustainable population by coddling our stupidest and weakest, the human race should be devoting its time to the expansion and support of our finest specimens, our smartest, most beautiful, most moral, most admirable men and women. Soon enough, the whole world could be populated by those people best equipped to live in it. Then the continuous tragedies of stuff like AIDS and malaria in Africa, slum cities, poverty, alcoholism, corruption and crime could all be averted, because the people who engage in that behavior would go extinct, while the people who engage in high culture and civilization will have grown and grown. More clean cities, more pristine parks, more safe neighborhoods, more stable homes, more well-educated children, more orchestras, more books being read, more everything desirable and happy in humanity. With eugenics, we could solve most of the problems on earth in a painless fashion, simply by favoring the birth rates of those best suited to life and disfavoring the birth rates of those least suited to life. With the current liberal plan of enhancing every poor and dumb person’s life so that they can do just as well or better than rich, smart people, we reverse evolution and make sure that poor and dumb people will proliferate indefinitely–and their social degeneracy, misery, and ruination will proliferate with them. Where is the sense in that? If we can all agree that we like security, prosperity, and dignity for everyone where is the sense in making the people least able to confer these advantages or receive these advantages the vessels of our cause? Where is the sense in trying to create the perfect device out of the least perfect parts we can find? The perfect society out of the weakest links? We all want a good environment, a good nurturing for our children and the future of humanity. The only question is, should this environment be wasted like pearls before swine, or provided for the people who can truly benefit from it, the ones most genetically gifted and suited to such an environment, nurturing, and future?

Ask yourself what you really want to see in the world. World peace? Justice? An end to poverty, disease, and hunger? An end to all abused children? Equality and freedom for all? Now ask yourself, will this be easier or harder to achieve with smart people or dumb people? Will this be easier or harder to achieve with mean people or nice people? Will this be easier or harder to achieve with liars or honest people? Will this be easier or harder to achieve with vicious or virtuous people? Will this be easier or harder to achieve with ignorant or educated people? Whatever you want, any possible liberal wet dream, is achievable only, and solely through eugenics. You can bet we ‘racists’ want all those things too. The only difference is we know the truth, we understand reality, and we intend to actually achieve those results, while all liberals have ever achieved and will ever achieve is catastrophe.

Source: SA Sucks