Wednesday, 28 November 2012

Jim Crow Laws

It's funny. We often hear blacks, guilt-ridden Whites and race-mixing degenerates lamenting - wailing and yammering - about the oh so evil 'Jim Crow Laws' of the American South, how terribly discriminatory and repressive they were towards the wonderful negroes. Personally, as an English observer, I had little idea what these laws were all about, or who this Jim Crow character really was. In my mind, not having done any research on the subject, I imagined Jim Crow to be some handsome, highly respected and charismatic White politician from the late 19th-early 20th century American South. A man who successfully advocated laws to protect the interests of the White American people, and ensure White hegemony in the South in particular. However, according to an online article that I read, there never was a character by the name of Jim Crow. In fact, to my surprise, in the South,  'Jim Crow' was (and perhaps still is) a pejorative term for blacks. 

As for the 'dreaded' and 'dastardly' laws themselves, it appears they were merely segregation laws intended to maintain a healthy White leadership and keep the races - as much as possible - from fraternising and cohabiting with one another. Basically to prevent the South from descending into a mongrelised, miscegenated hell-hole. Some may be inclined to ask, what is a good argument against the Jim Crow Laws? For me, that's easy. It takes no real mental strain at all. For despite the good intentions of White Southerners, these so-called 'Jim Crow' laws were totally insufficient, as they promoted segregation instead of complete separation of the races. For the only real answer to the race problem in the US, and any other (former) White country for that matter, is expulsion, repatriation and complete geographic racial separation. In a nutshell: Deportation, deportation, deportation. 

One may feel inclined to interject at this point and claim that such an idea is unrealistic, that such a massive operation is unfeasible or simply not possible. Well, to him I will say: not so. If you have ever been to a major airport in the UK, where thousands of South Asians clamour to board flights back to their motherland for holidays, family reunions and arranged marriages, you will know that such an operation is indeed very much possible. Allow yourself to imagine for a moment these non-whites being sent out on a one-way flight. Send them over first class if we have to. Send them on cruise liners. What a glorious thought. But to those defeatists that believe the cleansing of White homelands is not feasible, in that case - if you truly believe this - you are in effect declaring the very survival and advancement of the White Race to be 'unrealistic' and you might as well go and bed down with a brute - gook, piccaninny, Dravidian, Australian Aborigine, or whatever takes your fancy. Better still, lay down and die in a ditch somewhere. Seriously.

We must always remember the horrible lessons from the laboratory of India. To paraphrase the great Ben Klassen ever so slightly, I will leave you with the following thought: 

'Yes, the lesson is overwhelmingly clear to even the most naive student of history and that is: if the White Race is to be saved from mongrelization and destruction by the black cancer in our midst the only answer is to ship the blacks back to Africa from whence they were dragged by their 'chosen' slave traders.'

James Mac.

Thursday, 22 November 2012

Hypocritical Israeli Slaughter Campaign in Gaza, Observation

I could not help but raise a severe smile recently when watching the news coverage of the Israeli slaughter campaign in Gaza. The controlled news media, surprisingly, does show the terrible images of the aftermath of an Israeli air assault on Gaza, with entire families killed and maimed, and giant craters where humble Palestinian homes once stood. There were horrifying scenes of carnage and gore, maimed children with missing limbs and broken spines, and wailing from blood-soaked relatives after news was broken to them that their loved ones had perished in the onslaught.

We then skip over to a plush Jewish settlement where residents are kitted out with the latest bomb detecting devices to warn them of possible rocket attacks, and all families have their own personal bombproof panic-room. British journalists interview members of the community and they are all extremely agitated, angered and eager to express their grievances and curse the 'barbarous' Palestinians. The same Palestinians, by the way, that these Israelis refuse to acknowledge and/or refer to by their ethnic identity, claiming they don't exist and are merely Arab interlopers jumping on the anti-semitic bandwagon.

After watching the devastation of Gaza, we hear Israeli's yammering about how they have had to endure relentless Arab rocket attacks - crude things made from fertiliser - and all were scared witless, or so they claimed. The journalists were attentive and sympathetic to their 'plight'. However, I could not help but notice that the only visible damage was a couple of broken windows and a few rags of rubbish sprawled across a road some place. Yet the media wrings its hands and talks of how what is needed is a 'truce' to prevent these two groups attacking one another, or rather, so that Israel does not need to defend itself so 'vigorously' and 'assertively'.

When one concerned Israeli woman pointed to her special rocket detecting gadget on her living room table, there stood right next to it was a rather large and expensive looking vase in pristine condition. It makes you wonder - or it made me wonder - seriously, if a neighbourhood, any neighbourhood, was being literally 'rocked' by a barrage of missiles, crude or otherwise, would such a fragile ornament as this survive the ordeal? The alleged 'terrifying blasts'? Would it have survived in Gaza? Hmm... Perhaps it's just me, but I think not.

Come on, people. Is there anyone out there still so gullible - so utterly naive - that they actually believe the 'Western' press is in any way 'impartial' in this whole affair? A neutral force that just wants to report world events accurately and aspires towards justice and what is right and good for all parties? To such people I can only implore of them - do yourselves a favour: pull your heads out of your backsides and smell the reeking stench of the gefilte fish.

Ask yourselves the question: Would the media be handling such a slaughter as this with kid gloves and sensitivity if this were, let us say, the Iranian military butchering a defenceless group of people within or without their own borders? Would there be calls for mediation, understanding and a diplomatic solution towards ending the 'conflict'? Not a cat in hells chance. There would be international outrage; international condemnation; calls for sanctions, calls for a trade embargo, calls for a no-fly zone - and no doubt even calls for a full scale war to 'save the oppressed unfortunates' and overthrow the 'wicked, murderous Iranian dictatorship'. Why is this? The answer to that is so overwhelmingly obvious that only a complete idiot or ignoramus could not see it. The 'chosen' tribe of Judah rules the roost in the 'Western' world. I for one am sick and tired of this disgusting hypocrisy. Delenda est Judaica.

James Mac.