Blogs

Obviously this Nativist thing is getting really insane, but just promoting open borders isn't the answer. By doing this you are merely perpetuating the situation by which Mexicans and Mexico are exploited, and the American ruling class gets richer and richer. Those of you who claim to be for egalitarianism ought to ask yourself why a Mexican's only opportunities in life should come from doing day labor in the US.

The solution lies in the organization of Mexican workers, along with the strengthening of the American labor movement as a whole. In addition to this, political work needs to be done in Mexico as well to overthrow the corruption and wealth inequality down their as well.

Liberals who advocate open borders are basically saying they want to sit back and enjoy the fruits of the Mexicans' exploited labor.

I agree with the above poster. To an extent. You skimmed the top- to say the least. Do I have the solution? No. Do I have a more to the point critique? Yep.

You mention something to the extent of "The rich get richer" . So true. What inherently is causing this struggle for power? This Atocracy we call Free-Market Globalised Capitalism. With our minds focused on material wealth- this struggle between the rich and the poor will always exist on some level. Will your solution 'work'? It will lessen the exploitation, yes, and it will erase a lot of black market work as well. So thats positive- but reformist all the same.

When will I believe in change? Well when its revolutionary, of course. :)

Thats just me.

I love clowns! They are sexy

LOL!

Good one, F-Bastard. This group sounded like fun. Maybe I can join them in the near future. The "Buffalo" song they sang was hilarious. Damn funny.
I hope they come back and do more spoofs of natavists humor. The other side displayed nothing but anger and hostilities. Well, its their nature.

No doubt that Rick is famous by now. SPLC did an update on him too. Everybody`s reading about him now. Why did he avoid the Feathered Bastard on Saturday?
Did he smelled like piss?

Revolution? I'm all about revolution. It doesn't get more revolutionary than folks like me. It's people like these who are reformist. They say "leave the immigrants alone, let them keep doing all our dirty work for shit pay, with no benefits, etc." It's people like these that don't really have a solution.

That being the case however, it is about damn time someone made fun of this whole ridiculous hysteria. I am sick of people finding some crime committed by an illegal immigrant, and then acting like being stabbed by someone who doesn't have a valid visa is somehow worse than someone who is legally here. I guess it is even better to be stabbed by a US citizen, which is far more likely.

Slavyanski makes an excellent point. In 1921 Mexico was the second biggest oil producer in the world. At present, it has fallen to sixth place, and has proven reserves to last only another decade at current production levels. In 2007 oil provided 40 percent of government revenues in Mexico; and despite subsequent increases in the price of oil, falling Mexican oil production and nearly exhausted proven reserves imply that emigration can only be expected to increase, as both the government's chief source of domestic revenue and (interrelatedly) the value of the Peso decline.

What Mexico needs is not additional foreign loans to subsidize its corrupt ruling party -- since, like the U.S. and other modern countries, it can finance its growth by means of its own central bank -- but sound business advice to permit it to build efficient industries and the infrastructure to support this. It needs, first of all, a comprehensive and reliable power grid, transportation systems, communications systems, hospitals and schools, including trade schools, and food production, and a distribution system capable of handling all of this; then it needs well designed and efficient factories, able to produce products of sufficient quality and in sufficient quantity, without the sort of waste that might engender inflationary pressures.

This ability can only come through the sharing of INFORMATION and the creation of international trading blocs formed upon democratic principles and operating in a fashion designed to advance the interests of all participating parties in a fair and equitable fashion. Nobody wants to subsidize their neighbors, but everybody would be willing to participate in an organization designed to foster national self-reliance while advancing international goals of free AND fair trade. A Mexico whose domestic industries are operating on an efficient and largely self-sufficient basis would simultaneously solve migratory problems, bolster neighboring economies (since increased economic activity by Mexico could only result in increased trade with the United States), and decrease the power of the drug cartels, since a strong domestic economy in Mexico will, by reducing socio-economic pressures there, make drug smuggling (and the corruption required for it to flourish) less attractive.

Needless to say, existing corporations (and the international finance system which co-exists with them) have no wish to dilute their profits by making Mexico and others less dependent. Nor do the political elites of either country who serve and are served by such a system. As long as Mexico remains a backwards (but pliable) nation, providing a convenient exemption from (enforced) regulations designed to protect environmental and worker interests, as well as supplying a population of desperate, low-wage, exploitable labor, there will be no genuine motivation -- at the top -- to change the system, either there or here in the United States.

Meanwhile, the U.S. labor movement has been sabotaged by changes in labor law and decreased funding of its enforcement, by the threat and actuality of BUSINESS migration to other countries (e.g., China), and by the utilization of divisive racial issues to undermine worker solidarity and organization (in the present case, the threat of the "brown hordes" from the south coming to "steal jobs"). In other words, the same old formula.

These problems cannot be solved in modern times by any political organization existing solely on a national level. Any political organization which attempts to address problems on a strictly national basis will fail in a world where capital is international and where disparities between the haves and the have-nots create dynamic instabilities. This viewpoint is not utopian: it is simply pragmatic. Yet, national interests must be addressed and safeguarded if the loyalty of the people is to be won and maintained. The solution is international organization and consciousness raising, by national parties but coordinated and with the ultimate goal of a smoothly operating world economy which equitably shares the fruits of labor with those who produce it.

There will be no need to safeguard trade secrets when the sharing of information means the sharing of profits resulting from advances made by any participating party. There will be no need to fear automation when increased production from robots replacing workers means that increased profits are shared amongst the general population and not hoarded by a small group of owners; in such a case decreased need for labor need only mean the shortening of the workday. There will be no need to reinvent the wheel, and research & development will advance much more rapidly when information is shared and coordinated.

Alternative sources of energy can be found to solve the problem of a limited supply of world oil. Imagine, for example, city-sized solar plants built in the desert southwest, powering entire regions of the United States by means of free and (virtually) inexhausible solar radiation; and imagine that each country is taught to share and make use of this technology, becoming energy self-reliant, while retaining the motivation to develop the technology to ever greater efficiency (a development which is automatically shared with its political partners).

Imagine the energy sector, and other major sectors of the economy, are run on a cost basis, so that instead of large amounts of profits going to idle and profligate "investors", what does not go to those who actually do the labor to produce it can be reinvested in nation building and in research & development.

Is there any reason, for example, why pharmaceutical research needs to be motivated by huge profits for a tiny group of owners? Don't tell me that the general population doesn't understand the need to invest in their own physical health. Don't tell me that workers whose discoveries are currently, by contract, the property of the company which employs them, are going to be less motivated under a system which rewards them both monetarily and with public recognition. Don't tell me that insurance cannot be efficiently managed on a cost basis, using the entire national population as one large insurance pool, without the diversion of great chunks of national wealth into the pockets of a tiny group.

Education of the people, by those of their own national background -- those who understand their cultural values and needs -- is the necessary prerequisite to any political revolution which can successfully achieve this. But there must be coordination, and therefore a strong central party apparatus to develop and implement these programs. Anyone who expects such organization to develop spontaneously and systemically without centralized guidance is naive. What will occur in the absence of leadership is merely the proliferation of political splinter groups, each reading their own limited-circulation political screeds and absorbed with their own agendas at the expense of the others. A nation of divided, parochial groups, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot challenge the existing system. Nor can the general laborer be expected to end a day's exhausting work, only to devote themselves to the further task of raising the political consciousness of their fellow man. They are ready to go home, drink beer, and watch escapist television programs which permit them to live the good life by the only means they realistically can: vicariously. This is all the more true within the context of nations whose media and educational systems are dedicated to preservation of the existing order. How difficult to find the truth to begin with, much less to present that truth to many others on a consistent basis!

What is to be done? Clearly, there must be an international political congress to establish the party apparatus necessary to organize its activists. Then, those activists must be trained and supported. The money for this apparatus must be raised in a practical fashion by party owned businesses existing within the present economic environment. There should be complete separation between the political and the business side: nobody wants to take their family out for hamburgers only to be preached at by political zealots.

On the political side, the activists must be professionals, dedicated to their cause, if they are to be efficient and effective. Let us refer to these professional activists as a "vanguard". This is not elitism, merely practicality. Every form of social organization known to man is led from above. This has been true from Greco-Roman times through the Renaissance, through the time of the American Revolution; and it remains true today. The only question is whether it is to be led by industrial magnates and their political and media lackeys and allies, or by those with the interests of all humanity at heart.

To assist with the tasks before it, then, the party should also develop its own mass media organs, devoted to a style of news coverage which represents the general interests of the people without imposing upon them a cloying or burdensome dogma. This should contain news -- real news, not coverage of sensationalistic crimes, natural disasters (except insofar as these affect broad economic interests), or other drivel which the current media system favors because it is inexpensive to cover and steps on nobody's toes. The challenge is to make the news (the real news) interesting. This can be done by educating the people to understand how it affects them personally, how it affects their standard of living and quality of life, and by appealing to (and building) a sense of civic values and civic consciousness in which they are brought to understand how their own rational self-interests actually align with those of their neighbors.

Galeener looks freakin Asian, Go home too. West coast is over populated with your kind as well

I like the way you think Emil. What is to be done indeed.

What needs to happen is the end of all this identity politics in America, that merely plays right into the hands of the nativists. While rightards might often exaggerate the rhetoric of obscure identity politics movements; such movements tend to get carte blanche from the liberal "left". However, if you should dare come out and insist that America, like every other nation, is a class-based society, and that there are irreconcilable contradictions between those classes- you will face vicious attacks from the right and left. Well it is time to say the Emperor is naked- America IS a class based society and we need to start looking at those ideas prevalent in America through the lense of class.

These are rich white liberal spoiled brats, out on a childish lark while waiting for Daddy to come through with this semester's tuition payments. Their opponents are poor, elderly, uneducated. The class hatred these rich white brats spew is undeniable -- "trailer trash", "Inglish" (making fun of poor peoples' spelling skills), "toothless" etc. The "nativists" (i.e. poor, low-skilled and elderly native-born Americas) are the ones who suffer the most from open borders,and mass competition for jobs, decent schools, healthcare and welfare benefits. The rich white liberals don't have to worry about those things -- they have it all sewed up with Daddy footing the bill until they graduate and sign on with that cool graphics design firm or "fun" multi-media services company. (Those jokes about pantyliners are real, real cool, man.) What's funny is that the rich white liberals are the ones being presented here as the "progressives."

I'm a rich liberal because I went to college to make something of myself. If these guys are having their jobs stolen by those going to the day labor center, then why don't they just hop on a truck and go to work with those guys instead of sitting around protesting those people wanting to work? It's not like they're going to get turned away from it for being white. This world is made a sad, sad place by racists, all we can do is satirize them to diffuse their hatred with jest.

MaryJ, I agree with what you have to say- but not in this context. It is indeed true that 'rich' white liberals tend to be hypocrites quite often. I personally reside in the more Situationalistic side of things, being the proto-anarchist that I am. Thats another discussion, however.

I have participated in similar events, and I am a white male, age 25, and make about 8-10k a year for me and my child. I am a single father. I am working class- I am the most 'affected' by this "immigration crisis"

by 'all rights' I about be the one out there trying to 'make things right'. But it seems you lack a clear class-based view on our socio-economic situation here in Phoenix.

The poor white, the poor people of color, they are the same, right? The are poor. Wrong. Even a white male still has a leg up when it comes to average income and quality of life. Put simply.

With that said, the issue of white privelage and the hundreds, if not thousands of invisible privelages what we are born into come into play. I will not go into this issue further here or now, but please read up a bit on white privelage and for that matter Imperialist Colonization. From the Prison Industrial Complex to Forced slave labor, the U$A really needs to re-examine its hypocritical policies here and abroad before its white citizens can cry 'racism'

So, here it is, from the mouth of a white man: piss off you idiot "Nativists" and take that Neo-Nazi Sheriff Joe with you, ya inbred Mole people scum- go inbreed in Utah

That's funny, but I would rather stage a more serious protest against these fools. My first thought is a sign that reads: LEGAL Work Center. That pretty much contradicts what they are trying to do there.

On another note, that guy with the camera has recorded me driving by on weekday errands. I always flash him a peace sign and smile pretty for the camera. I don’t understand why he is recording the cars going by. Maybe it’s a deterrent against people throwing things at him.

I'm pretty sure we now know the Secret ingrediate to Rusty Zipper Childress's Magic Koolaid. Its Buffalo Rick's Piss. United For A Salty America.

While white privilege does exist; it is still subordinate to the class system. It exists in order to preserve the supremacy of the ruling class by preventing the unity of the working class- that was the whole point of this "white" identity in the first place.

sunshyncat- I respect your opinion about a serous protest but I disagree in doing it at the Center becuase:
a) They are imposable to deal with, that is why a bunch of clowns is best, when on YouTube, search Clowns Vs Minute Men. Clowns are the best tool in fighting the immature leval these retarded Racist goons are.

B) The Day Labor Center is not the place as all it would do is make it even more difficult for people to pick up workers that badly need to earn money.

There is a more serous activie that takes place every sunday- a walk for Justice and Dignity. You are welcome to join us.

Perhaps a Protest is in store in the future but on at The Day Labor Center.

These junkets are not protesting "illegals", they're pretty much hostile towards anyone who isn't White. I believd Stephen Lemons is correct when that old pissant Galeener calls everyone "monkeys". I've experienced this hostile vibe from them soley for walking by and checking out the scene one day and I did nothing said nothing to provoke them. They're not true patriots to the slightest form but neo-nazis enshrouded with a patriotic outfit. They're are buncha racists to the rotten core. Neo-cons are blinded by this fact that the proof is in the pudding. I know of several friends of mine who are hard working and goal oriented Hispanic Americans who've been a target of racial profiling on a daily basis because of folks like those in the ragtag nantivist camp protesting everybody who isn't White or a far right Republican nut. Many of these far right extremists are fairly dangerous and murderous thus history has shown us that is so. From the Waco, TX shootout to Ruby Ridge, to Timothy McVeigh and the arrest of numerous militias groups who are White Extremists. I see no difference between Al Queda and White Extremists groups since they're both are regarded as terrorist networks. Bottom line is that they are not the solution to America`s problems in term of Immigration Reform.

Wonderiferous Alia! You FUCKING ROCK!

MaryJ: yer talkin' out yer ass.

i was there, but had to leave early 'cause of health problems.
Out of us seven; two were over 40, two were not white, only two have a degree; all work for hourly wages 'cept me- i'm retired. None are in school.

Might make you feel good to hate on liberal college kids- but that's not us.

No borders
No flags
No bosses
No gods

Is Alia, the one with the "White Trash" sign white or semitic/jewish?

If she's not white, I especially resent her using the term "white trash".

Either way, racial slurs, particularly against fellow U.S. Citizens, are uncalled for.

Citizens have the right to protest and express their disapproval at being displaced and taxed to provide free services to non-citizens in the country illegally, and should not have to tolerate being racially insulted while they exercise their Constitutional rights.

No one would tolerate signs saying "nigger", "kike", "spic", "wop" or "gook", so why should we tolerate signs saying "white trash"?

That's just one more example of the enraging double standards in the mass media and popular culture, and it's high time someone objected to it.

And all those ostensibly white people standing around a possible jew like Alia with a sign insulting their own ethnicity... what spineless disgraces they are.

Just pathetic excuses for men.

Obama can use the term "cracker" (pg. 229 of his "Dreams" book), his Pastor can denounce white people en masse, and both Obama and his Pastor can subscribe to "Black Liberation Theologists" like Cone who talk about "destroying the white enemy", yet any white person or politician who ever said anything nearly equivalent, or associated with those who do, has had their political careers destroyed, or been fired from, or called to resign from, their jobs.

Obama was the first candidate to call on Don Imus to be fired for mindlessly parrotting a term used repetitively in rap music, yet now Obama is given a pass for using the term "cracker" in his book, and for associating with a racist, white hating Pastor.

Enough with the anti-white double standards in this country.

If you wouldn't use the term "nigger", "spic", "gook", "wop", or "kike", then don't use the term "white trash".

Stop being such contemptable hypocrites.

Our Nation has two problematic issues that needed to be addressed. I as an American, is tired of two groups of elements that is threatening our American way of life. This "threat" is directed at the fabric of our moral values.
Illegal Aliens and White Supremacists.
Both of these groups are the root of our racial problems in our everyday daily lives. Illegal Aliens and Natavists Extremists are both the enemies of our Freedom. The Riders USA does not stand for Freedom and does not speak for me as an American, its a pious hypocritical outlaw biker gang mainly based on hate.
Both groups needed to be addressed and eliminated.. Because in the end, both sides are galavinizing racial tensions amongst. I am neither for Illegal Aliens or White Extremists.

What is so "wonderiferous" about racially insulting white people?

Would Alia walk around with a sign saying "Save Our N****r Heritage"?

Or "Save Our K*k* Heritage"?

Something tells me no.

Properly speaking, "White trash" is not comparable to the other objectionable terms listed by 'Curious', since it does not seek to malign an entire people by race, religion, or nationality. Nobody uses the term "White trash" to refer to Socrates, George Washington, William F. Buckley, or even Bill O'Riley. And while it might be objectionable under certain circumstances, it may conceivably have a salutary effect when used to teach individuals who are in the habit of referring to non-Whites as "monkeys" that social status is hierarchical and relative, that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, that words can hurt, and that denigrating, blanket generalizations are often unjustified and foolish.

The term really refers to a particular American subculture, whose members happen to be White, epitomized by the Jerry Springer Show, and many of its guests and fans. And while it's clear that White bumpkins have no monopoly on bad taste, stupidity, and infantile, fatuous narcissism (as anyone even passingly familiar with "rap" music should know), in the present instance it is unlikely that anyone would be using it, had the targets not demonstrated themselves to be crude, hateful, ignorant, bigoted, and uncultured individuals.

Which brings us to "Curious". As a White American I find it infuriating that this ignorant guttersnipe should usurp the mantle of Western Civilization by pretending to speak for it. I'm sorry, m'dear, but methamphetamines, heavy-metal racist rock music, tattoos, and a passel of tow-headed, barefooted children with dirty faces do not constitute a "culture", much less one which speaks for me or any forebears I care to claim for my own.

Anyone who would ask whether someone is "White or semitic/jewish" is really too unutterably silly for words.

Honestly Curious, what is this "it's high time someone" objected to words like white trash? Conservative pundits have been whining about this for about TWO DECADES NOW.

We've all heard this millions of times: "Why can SOMEONE say 'white trash', but I can't say n##ger or fill-in-blank.' Well here's a few reasons:

1. White trash is, if anything, a class insult that originates from other white people. In modern America, one often "chooses" to be white trash, because with things like access to public libraries, free public education, quality bookstores like Borders, and the internet- there is no excuse for being incredibly ignorant. That being said, it is a shining proof of the existence of American class society and use of the term should be discouraged.

2. White people do not have a history of being lynched, and white people have been at the top of the ladder in terms of hierarchy in America(though the majority never consciously wanted or asked for this). N#$ger is something that a young black man might hear before getting jumped; white trash is something that white people usually call other white people, often out of ear shot.

Lastly, I don't know about Alia's heritage(the first name sounds Bosnian actually), but the idea that a person who looks 'white', could not be 'white' due to being 'Jewish' is just ridiculous. It is the WNs who are so fond of saying, "That person is 1/2(1/4 sometimes) JEWISH!! THEY AREN'T WHITE!!!" Curiously, you do not see them claiming black guys who are 1/4 or 1/2 white. No, it's just jettisoning those "whites" who don't act the way they prefer, over supposed Jewish heritage. Jews in America are overwhelmingly white, they benefit from white privilege as well, because 'white' is largely a matter of appearance, not genetics or anything specific like that. But I digress...

To re-cap: "White trash" is a class term, but in the future it really ought to be discouraged for precisely that reason.

BTW- @ KB

"No borders
No flags
No bosses
No gods"

This sounds a lot like PLP rhetoric. If one does not acknowledge the scientific path to such a society, it's all little more than a dream. In a Communist society, borders would still exist, as would nations, but they undergo a fundamental transformation compared to how they exist in capitalist society today. The nations' existence would be more of a biological/cultural nature, and they would no longer be set against one another in deadly competition.

Uhhhh... what is PLP? i wanna investigate PLP if PLP has rhetoric like that.

Scientific path? ditto
And remember i'm a h.s. dropout

Class insults are no less objectionable than racial insults, especially when they are couched in racial terms.

You're splitting hairs to justify insulting one group of people, while continuing to object to insulting another group of people.

That's hypocrisy.

Further, considering the fact that the vast majority of violent crime in this country is committed by black males, claiming that the n-word is something a black male would hear before getting jumped is the exact opposite phenomena of what actually occurs in this country, which is that the vast majority of hate crimes are committed by blacks against whites, not the other way around.

Here's a report based on the stats directly from the US Department of Justice:

http://amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime

And I quote:

"Interracial Crime

• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa."

You need to take off the anti-white bias liberal media goggles and start looking at the facts of the matter.

Hey Dennis, is that the walk I see on the No More Deaths website (nomoredeaths.org)? It has the walk on the calendar, but no location.

Those protestors at the center just make me so angry. They are out there almost every day, blocking people from getting work.

"2. White people do not have a history of being lynched"

Wrong.
According to the Tuskegee Institute has recorded 3,437 blacks and 1,293 whites were lynched during the height of Imperialism of the late 19th-early 20th century American Revolution. White Supremacists have a long history of committing crimes on fellow Whites, many of them are not Jewish. The most famous incident here in Arizone happened in 2006 when Amanda Crow a neo-nazi skinhead member was stabbed repeatly by fellow skinheads and left for dead. Fortunately she survived and her survival put several skinhead members behind bars. But then again in my eyes, I don't see much of a difference between Jews and Whites in today`s society, since they're both "White". Amanda Crow was half Jew when she joined the Skinhead gang. Its the faith/beliefs systems that separates the two.

Not surprisingly, the crime statistics cited by 'Curious' are fictitious, as is her claim that the book she cites uses figures from the Department of Justice.

Here is a university-based link to the relevant page of DOJ's "Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics" from 2006:

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4102006.pdf

For example, she says "considering the fact that the vast majority of violent crime in this country is committed by black males..." Stop. According to actual DOJ statistics, in 2006 there were a total of 446,957 arrests for violent crimes in the United States, of which 39.3 percent of those arrested were Black. That is not a majority, much less a vast one.

Next, she claims that "Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa." Stop. According to actual DOJ statistics (table link provided below), in 2006 there were a total of 1,008 hate crimes (known to police) committed against Whites, and 3,136 hate crimes committed against Blacks. So, even though Blacks represent about 13 percent of the U.S. population, they are three times more likely to be the victim of hate crimes than Whites. Of the anti-White hate crimes the number of Black suspects was 403; of the anti-Black hate crimes, the number of White suspects was 1,680. (Note that the number of offenses exceeds the number of suspects because some suspects are believed to have committed more than one such crime.) Source:

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t31142006.pdf

Blacks are also more likely than Whites to be victimized by violent crime (regardless of the race of the assailant):

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t342006.pdf

Though only 13 percent of the population, Blacks accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims in the U.S. in 2005:

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/bvvc.htm

About 78 percent of Black victims of non-fatal violence (i.e., those able to describe their attacker) believed their attacker to be Black; 70 percent of White victims of such violence believed their attacker to be White:

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World

The IWW (Wobblies) were by far the most successful example of anarcho-syndicalism in the U.S., but they were still squashed like bugs.

Such organizations can be highly effective at wringing quality of life concessions (e.g., eight hour day) from employers and politicians (who are, by direct action, brought to understand that compromise is the best way to maintain the system while undermining support for revolutionary opposition). For this reason, their methods should be carefully studied.

However, a good revolutionary organization should be far more broad-based (in fact, as inclusive as possible); should view political action and direct action not as incompatibles but as tools to be used as and when appropriate and to best effect, whether separately or in combination; and should be much better organized and disciplined.

The political wing must be prepared to use gains obtained through direct action as a method of showcasing the value of the party to the people, of demonstrating its power and influence and potentialities; and the direct action wing must be subordinate to the broader interests of the party. The lack of direct action would leave the party toothless; but constant direct action would play into the hands of reactionaries while disrupting the lives of the general populace to such a degree that disaffection would be inevitable.

What is called for is a background of political (especially grassroots) organizing and popular education through media organs of the party; at strategic moments, campaigns of direct action, designed to obtain certain concessions from the establishment, should be carried out; however, once success is obtained, the system should be permitted to function normally for a period, while the political wing of the party advertises these gains to advance its popularity and overall cause. Further direct action should only be permitted when the time is ripe for it; and such actions should be carefully chosen to increase their chances of success.

While it is true that the IWW's opposition to World War I, as well as contemporary events in Russia (the Bolshevik revolution) were used as excuses by the establishment to crush them, it is also true that casus belli are not difficult to come by; that modern revolutionary organizations must be international if they are to succeed and endure; and that as such claims of foreign influence can always be leveled against them.

References to "scientific" methods in political discussions are, in my opinion, themselves spurious and discredited, and are likely to engender contempt from educated persons today; as such they should be avoided.

The problem with Emil Pulsifer's data is that he or she is quoting from statistics that have hispanics misleadingly categorized as "white", thus giving a falsely inflated appearance of white crime rates.

You'll notice that the data you linked to has no category for "hispanics", who in actuality commit crimes at rates almost as high as blacks. For example:

http://amren.com/Reports/Hispanics/Hispanics.htm

When you factor out of the white crime tally all the crimes committed by hispanics, you come up with the statistics I quoted, which are the real figures for white criminality and white on non-white hate crimes.

The following conclusions are correct:

http://amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime

When looking at crime rates by race, non-white males commit the vast majority of violent crimes and hate crimes in this country (especially black males), and that data is borne out by anecdotal evidence as well.

Welcome to the world of government data manipulation, where even the DOJ will fudge the numbers to cover up the fact that whites in general commit far fewer violent crimes and far fewer hate crimes than blacks and hispanics do.

In my world, we call that Defamation.

As if that weren't bad enough, there is also the data on interracial rape to consider, and it is even more disturbing.

For all the hysterity over the white Duke rapist who never were, the fact is that the vast, vast majority of interracial rapes in the United States are committed by black males against white females. See for yourself:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F3E3CD97-197F-4D31-BF36-A4CBA45FCB13

Quote:

"The table does not gives statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear:

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man."

That's something you won't see trumpeted from the liberal media or spouted out of Jesse Jackson's, Al Sharpton's, or even Barack Obama's snouts any time soon.

Some facts are just to disturbing to face, so they are mysteriously swept under the rug.

It's time to start digging out the facts and facing the reality of what is actually happening in this country right now, instead of crying about things that may or may not have happened decades or centuries ago.

Emil said:

"About 78 percent of Black victims of non-fatal violence (i.e., those able to describe their attacker) believed their attacker to be Black; 70 percent of White victims of such violence believed their attacker to be White:

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf"

How did you come up with that conclusion from that link?

I don't see that quote or conclusion, or those statistics, anywhere on that page you linked to. Am I missing something?

Regarding Emil taking issue with my use of the phrase "vast majority", I will restate that and say that black males commit "a vastly disproportionate percentage" of violent crimes in this country.

The statistical breakdown has changed some due to the introduction of large numbers of hispanics into America, who commit violent crimes at nearly the same disproportionately high rate that blacks do.

Let's see if Bufalo Rick will keep his protests inside tent city! good luck you're gonna be somebody's b*tch Rick!

"The geriatric 'tard who wanted to rumble."
oh! c'mon Bird you should have kicked his ass! we would have bailed you out!

Perhaps I should add that the biggest, most immediate practical challenge in the United States today, in organizing a revolutionary political movement along the lines suggested, may consist of the restrictions of Cold War era laws like the Taft-Hartley Act, and more recent acts such as RICO which would undoubtedly be adapted by the authorities to arrest the leadership and seize the assets financing the organization -- especially once it began operating with any significant degree of success and popularity. (Up to that point, before it is regarded as a genuine threat to the system, the establishment would limit its response to media ostracization while invoking the usual empty platitudes about freedom of expression.)

Political activists who were honest about the general intents and eventual aims of the organization might leave themselves and the organization open to crippling and probably fatal legal action -- not merely criminal prosecutions but federal civil lawsuits. Indeed, RICO focuses on "patterns of behavior" of individuals belonging to an "enterprise", rather than individual criminal acts, and therefore faces a much lower standard of evidence in court. Two previous convictions (within a ten-year period) for labor related violations (e.g., illegal strikes, workplace sabotage, etc.) of state or federal laws, interpreted as acts of "extortion" or "terrorism", might be all it would take.

On the other hand, those who kept the organization's intents and aims concealed (except from an inner circle) would eventually be exposed, and labeled as power-hungry deceivers intent on using the general membership or sympathetic public figures as pawns. The establishment media would be asking why a so-called democratic organization needs to conceal its agenda from the general public, and the answer -- if they didn't, they'd be clapped in irons and their personal and organizational assets seized -- would engender a brief public discussion about the practical meaning of the First Amendment in the context of politics; meanwhile the organization would collapse and fade into obscurity.

The Wikipedia articles cited below give the merest hint of the kind of trouble potentially involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rico_act

Sorry Pulsifer, but the vast majority of Americans do not want to live under anarchy as you seem to be advocating.

We've already got near anarchy in many of the non-white ghettos and in the inner cities... we don't need ostensibly white people like you advocating for even more chaos.

I don't want to talk about statistics or pegorative terms. I just want to say "right on" to the six or seven of the counter protesters and that Buffalo Rick and all those USA dorks sniff dog farts.

Anyone who's ever lived in a predominantly black area, as I have, can verify that this very mild example is just a taste of the reality of hate crimes in America, and not the opposite as we've been mislead to believe:

http://curtmaynardsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/pack-of-blacks-beat-lone-white-kid.html

I could give you literally hundreds, maybe thousands of examples of this kind of incident that I've collected over the years, and this likely "simple assault" likely doesn't even fall under the category of "violent crime", which appears to only encompass things like aggravated assault, rape, robbery, aggravated mayhem, attempted murder and murder.

Here's some examples of what's actually occurring out there in our country, and this site has literally hundreds and hundreds of pages of this kind of stuff in their archive:

http://www.newnation.org/

A lot of you guys have no idea of the extreme frequency and severity of the black on white hate crimes in this country, because the mass media will never tell you.

They are constantly on the hunt for what author Tom Wolfe called "The Great White Defendant", as explained here:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060430_unequal_justice.htm

Compare and contrast.

'Citizen', like 'Curious', displays the same habits of intellectual laziness and insularity: instead of examining the primary source documents (the federal statistical publications) himself, he relies on inaccurate, distorted, out of date, and just plain fictitious claims made in a book written by White supremicists.

For example, he inaccurately claims that DOJ statistics do not differentiate between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in statistics referring to "Whites". That is not true, and hasn't been true for years. See for example this DOJ report, which I cited earlier:

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf

Right there, in the big fat graph at the top of the very first page, are three distinct lines: one labeled "White", one labeled "Black", and the third labeled "Hispanic"; and the labels "White" and "Black" have asterisks next to them, with the asterisk defined at the bottom of the same graph as indicating "not Hispanic or Latino". And on page 9 of the report, under "Methodology," it is explained that since 2003 respondents have been asked whether they are of Hispanic origin *in addition to* being asked what race they identify themselves with. And it states explicitly: "Whites are non-Hispanic persons who selected the white category."

Note also that among the Sourcebook citations I gave, there is a footnote at the bottom of the table alluding to this, and referring the reader to an appendix for more information.

Regarding my statement that "About 78 percent of Black victims of non-fatal violence (i.e., those able to describe their attacker) believed their attacker to be Black; 70 percent of White victims of such violence believed their attacker to be White", this is supported by the first paragraph on page 5 of the DOJ report I cited in connection with it:

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf

Note that the word "intraracial" means within the same race (i.e., that attacker and victim are of the same race).

Regarding the revised assertion by 'Citizen', retracting the claim that Black males "commit the vast majority of violent crimes" in the U.S., but now claiming that Black males in the U.S. commit a (vastly) disproportionate number of violent crimes relative to their percentage of the population, what remains indisputable is that a MINORITY of Black males are charged with a disproportionate number of violent crimes. That doesn't mean that it is fair or reasonable to make broad, sweeping generalizations about Black males IN GENERAL. That is simply racist fear-mongering.

Additionally, it does take just a little consideration of complicating factors before honest inquirers come to definite conclusions.

It remains true that violent crime is more prevalent, for whatever reason, in poor areas than in socioeconomically better-off areas; and it remains true that Blacks disproportionately reside in poorer areas. There is also the question of gang-related crimes, including those involving drug-dealing -- also traditionally more common in poorer areas. There may be other factors. Note also that American Indians experience even worse rates of violent victimization than Blacks. Plenty of interesting questions for sociologists.

*I* have not advocated anarchy. Do you suppose that anarchists advocate a strong central party and leadership by means of a vanguard of professional political activists operating under the control of that party?

That report you just linked to examines the races of the VICTIMS.

I'm addressing the race of the PERPETRATORS... the people who actually commit the crimes.

And the report you linked to examining the race of perpetrators does NOT have statistics for Hispanic perpetrators, it deceptively lumps them into the "White" category to give falsely inflated white crime rate statistics. Right here:

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4102006.pdf

That's the report identifying the race of the PERPETRATORS I am addressing, and it has NO category for Hispanic offenders.

Look and see for yourself.

It deceptively lumps Hispanic crimes into the "white" category, creating the false impression that whites are committing way more violent crimes than they actually are.

Like I said, it's defamatory and misleading on it's face.

I am "Curious".

Sorry for the confusion.

I'll stick with "Curious Citizen" from now on for clarity's sake.

The report I *just* linked to deals with both victims and offenders. Since anyone actually reading the report could see that, I have to assume that you are simply dishonest. Here is the full quote from page five that I referenced:

"About four-fifths of black victims of nonfatal violence perceived the offenders to be black (table 5). About 12% of black victims perceived the offender to be white, while about 8% thought the offender was neither black nor white (categorized as other races on table 5). Blacks (78%) were
more likely to be victims of intraracial violence than whites (70%)."

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf

I also wrote: "Blacks are also more likely than Whites to be victimized by violent crime (regardless of the race of the assailant)" and gave the following link:

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t342006.pdf

See Footnote b, which notes the change in racial categories since 2003.

The only table I used which does NOT use the new racial categories, and which does lump Hispanic and non-Hispanic Whites together, is this one:

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4102006.pdf

But since I used this table only to note that BLACKS account for 39.3 percent of those arrested for violent crimes, I can scarcely be accused of using it to inflate the violent crime arrest statistics for non-Hispanic Whites.

As a white person let me say to curious citizen--you are white trash (you proved it the minute you asked 'is she white or a jew?')

The Color of Crime has been discredited by a number of sources, such as this one:

http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2004-10/19wise.cfm

But then one must also look at the rise in crime in black areas and look at the history of black migration from the south into large industrial cities like Detroit for example. What changed after WWII that led to the decline of these areas? ONE WORD: JOBS. Deindustrialisation hit the inner city the hardest. Did those people in the inner city ask for the businessmen to close their factories and move them overseas? Absolutely not.

Now at this point the conservatives and Nazis are about to shout: "YOU'RE USING POVERTY AS AN EXCUSE." Well sit down Nazis, let me tell you a little story.

Once upon a time there was this place called the Soviet Union, and a whole host of Eastern European socialist states which were in almost every case 100% "white"(in the USSR, this was the case in the Baltic and three Slavic SSRs). After the death of Stalin, the greatest of all of them was Albania, another "100% white" country as you Nazis would call it.

Today the Russian Federation is that "Great White Homeland" your plastically-enhanced, womanizing, defrauding, can't-speak-a-word-of-Russian leader, David Duke, always preaches to you about. You know, that's the state where you hope you can some day find some woman so desperate she will marry you.

Guess what WNs, Nazis, etc.: Russia is a corrupt, disgusting, crime-ridden shithole. In fact so is nearly ALL of Eastern Europe.

What do you think changed? Why is it under socialism, when work was assured, health care was free, education was free, rent was nonexistent- you had societies full of people who were artists, athletes, musicians, writers, etc. Now you have taxi cab drivers robbing people(one drugged and robbed a friend of mine just two weeks ago, you have women trafficking, actual sex SLAVERY(which extends into Western Europe), and corruption beyond all comprehension.

WHAT....CHANGED?

Comrade Emil knows his stuff. Are you with the RCP or CPUSA(if so...WHY?!)

"Blacks (78%) were more likely to be victims of intraracial violence than whites (70%)."

INTRAracial means WITHIN ONES OWN RACE.

It's not my or white people's fault that blacks are victimized by other blacks nearly 80% of the time.

That quote of yours you keep repeating still tells us nothing about INTERracial crime rates.

You know, the category that includes HATE CRIMES.

And if you look, you'll see that the first report you linked to here:

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4102006.pdf

which breaks down PERPETRATORS of crime by race does NOT have a category for Hispanic offenders.

Like I explained, the DOJ falsely lumps Hispanics into the "White" category, deceptively inflating white and white on non-white crime rates.

How can you not see what is right there in the very first report you linked to?

You are purposely pretending not to see what is plainly evident to any objective observer.

Pulsifer is a sophist.

From what I've read, many, if not most Jews do not think of themselves as "white".

So asking the ethnicity of a person holding up a sign saying "white trash" is a perfectly legitimate question.

Why?

Because it's generally more acceptable to insult ones own race than to insult those of a different race.

I'm pretty sure a white person holding up a sign that said "Save our kike trash heritage" would not be treated with such approval by the New Times.

Pulsifer, do you have any statistics for crime rates in the Soviet Union before and after the fall of Communism.

Anecodatal evidence is never accepted as proof from us "Nazis", so why should we accept it from you Commies?

Please provide us some legitimate statistics.

Pulsifer, even accepting your (and Tim Wise's) explanation of crime as a result of economic harship, how would that explain the epidemic of black on white rape in America as discussed in this article here?:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=f3e3cd97-197f-4d31-bf36-a4cba45fcb13

I can see people stealing to eat, but mass raping women because you are poor?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't justify or explain it.

The only analogue I can think of is the mass rape of German women by Soviet troops at the end of WW2, and that was driven by hatred.

That indicates to me that many of the crimes you try to attribute to solely economic factors are actually driven by black hatred of whites.

http://amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime

That would explain the fact that "Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa".

That, despite the fact that the media and prosecutors is constantly on the hunt for the "Great White Defendant" who might be committing a hate crime against a black person, as evidenced by the relentless obsession with the Duke (non)rape case.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060430_unequal_justice.htm

Yet it is white people who are considered "racist" "haters" of blacks.

That is one lie and myth that needs to be put to rest.

Blacks commit a vastly disproportionate percentage of the violent crimes and hate crimes in America, particularly interracial rape, and attempting to attribute that to solely economic factors is contemptable.

White people were dirt poor in the great depression, yet from what I read, they didn't go on rape, robbery and murder sprees like we see modern day blacks doing.

I'm sorry, but your (and Tim Wise's) theory is a piss poor attempt at justifying the unjustifiable.

And yes, there is work, and there are jobs out there, but like Vicente Fox says, it's work that "not even blacks will do".

Blacks have got a big chip on their shoulder thanks to black power/hate whitey propaganda pumped out by the media and academia, and the predictable result is the horrific black on white crime and hate crime statistics we see today.

For example: http://www.newnation.org/

I'm sorry, but economic hardship alone cannot possibly explain or justify the irrational and unnecessary viciousness of many of those crimes, such as kidnapping, rape, robbery, mutilation, and murder... of women, children, and even the elderly.

Stop making excuses for animalistic behaviour.

Most Jews consider themselves white, and since "white" is just a label anyway, from the perspective of someone who is black or Mexican or whatever- they are "white".

And do you really need to see a set of statistics to tell you that there is far more crime in Russia today than in the Soviet Union? Damn. Go to Borders some time.

Jews are Semites.

Hence the term "anti-Semitic".

White people are Caucasians.

Or, in pre PC days, Aryan.

Two different ethnic groups.

Many Jews have Caucasian admixture, from millenia of living amongst Caucasians, but that is an anomaly. Most Jews are Semites and consider themselves as such.

Semite/Caucasian conflict goes back thousands of years, all the way to the Mesopotamian cities of Sumeria and Akkad, so this "anti-semitic"/"anti-gentile" question is nothing new.

Jews shouldn't call white people "white trash" unless they don't mind being called "kikes" in return.

What's fair is fair.

Pure idiocy. Semites were a Caucasoid people, look it up in your own outdated racialist texts. The original Hebrews mixed with countless other groups for centuries. In fact today they have one of the highest intermarriage rates.

Jews that moved into Europe were so mixed that Yiddish is actually an Indo-European language. I might add that Indo-European is a linguistic identity, not biological. There are many Turkic-speaking peoples who are as white as "white" can be. For example, I dated a Tatar girl with light blonde hair and blue eyes. Most Tatars are almost impossible to distinguish from Slavs unless you see their name. Modern Kazan Tatars are actually the descendants of the Volga Bulgars, another Turkic group with mixed with the original Tatars of the Golden Horde. And yet those Bulgars which were assimilated by Southern and Eastern Slavs are considered Slavs today, on the basis of language(I am referring to Bulgarians here).

If Aryan meant "white", Estonians, Basques, Finns, and Hungarians, as well as a number of Maltese would be "non-white". Conversely, numerous dark peoples throughout India would be "white" since they are Indo-European speaking people.

The proof that race is primarily a social construct comes from the fact that some groups are seen as "non-white", soley based on arbitrary factors. I could show someone a picture of Anatolian Turks for example, and most people would agree that they are "white" Europeans. If I then revealed that they were Turks- what would be said then?

The same goes for Jews. Look at some photos from Israel and you will see that "Jews" run the gamut from Nordic European to black African. How can you call such a people a biological "race"?

Please show me the WN group that would consider a 50/50 mulatto to be "white". I know I can easily show you racialist propaganda which claims certain people are Jews, and not white, because of 1/4 or 1/2 "Jewish" heritage. That in itself is absurd because it presupposes that one parent or grandparent somehow maintained their bloodline all the way back to the original Hebrews.

Lastly; if race is so clear, why can't WNs define it? EVERY WN forum has a handful of threads called "Are _____ white?", and these arguments go on for pages. On some forums Croats say Serbs aren't white, due to mixing with Turks(idiocy, given the fact that many Anatolian Turks are for all intents and purposes "white" and wouldn't change the physical make up of people in the Ottoman empire). On other forums Serbs rule and say Albanians aren't white(despite the fact that they are one of the oldest European peoples).

What I absolutely can't stand is that while WNs claim to be standing up for European heritage and culture, they know virtually nothing about it. Occasionally they come into Eastern Europe and have no respect for the people or culture. They speak to masochistic groups of Russians and spit on the graves of their grandparents; claiming that their country was "run by Jews". The rest of the time they are busy trying to chase easy pussy, because they can't get laid in the States. And when that fails, as it frequently does, it's off to the whorehouse. Apparently some white girls don't deserve the same level of respect as others- and it's ok for WNs to take advantage of trafficked prostitutes for some reason.

Those who know me in Phoenix know that I gave WN its due attention, I believed in National Socialism for years. Hell, I recruited some Phoenicians into the movement, I was responsible for a few thousand of those flyers that you may have found on your driveway. But I was never a blind follower and I eventually had to reevaluate these beliefs based on cold hard facts- and they simply cannot be reconciled with reality. The reality is:

-White Nationalism is based on hate.

- White Nationalism does not, nor has it ever, helped "white" people, anywhere.

- White Nationalism is so rife with internal contradictions that it cannot possibly help anyone.

- Ignorance is a major component in WNism; there is no other explanation for some of the misconceptions WNs have about European history and culture.

- WNism is NOT something separate from mainstream conservatism. It is still middle class angry conservatism, with a few ideological conflicts. Yet these conflicts are not so acute that the two movements are a world apart. On the contrary, they feed each other.

I'd say that Tim Wise did a damn good job debunking the Color of Crime. As for rape, when people say there are socio-economic factors involved in crime, it doesn't necessarily mean that people commit crimes in order to get money. What it means is that in impoverished areas there is a culture of violence and order tends to break down. This is precisely the case in Eastern Europe, one of the "whitest" regions you will ever find. There are plenty of sex crimes in Eastern Europe; in fact the rape that goes with human trafficking is rampant all the way into Western Europe.

"Blacks (78%) were more likely to be victims of intraracial violence than whites (70%)."

Actually, this DOES tells us something about "interracial" violent crime, simply by observing the inverse. As I keep pointing out, the DOJ report this came from uses the new methodology and "White" refers to non-Hispanic Whites. So, bearing in mind statistical error, it tells us that both Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites are victimized about 3/4 of the time by those of their own race, and the rest of the time by those of other races; figures that are quite comparable. That makes sense, because many neighborhoods and households in the U.S. are still relatively segregated, and you're statistically more likely to be attacked by someone in the areas you frequent or by someone you know (to whatever degree) than by a complete stranger in a neighborhood you seldom visit.

I think the fact that Blacks comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population but account for nearly half of all U.S. homicide victims (a disproportionate number of them young Black males), combined with the fact that Blacks seem to suffer from a higher rate of intraracial violence than non-Hispanic Whites, tells us something about the nature of the "extra" violence involving Black males. The additional fact that a number of these homicides involve turf wars by gangs attempting to control drug trafficking is also suggestive.

There is absolutely nothing in any of these statistics suggesting that Whites should be scared of random Black men walking down the street.

As for the scare stories (fictitious or otherwise) circulated by 'Curious' and her ilk, let me just say that at the schools I attended and in the areas where I lived, there weren't that many minorities, and what few there were tended to belong to their own cliques, so there was relatively little interaction with them. Not surprisingly then, most of the violence, threats, and harassment I suffered was at the hands of Whites. These days I see a few more Blacks and a LOT more Hispanics than I used to, but I have not noticed any special propensity to violence among them. Does this mean that I should be anti-White? Of course that would be absurd, considering the fact that I am myself White. Why, then, should the crazy little propaganda tales told by 'Curious' serve as justification for anti-Black attitudes?

Just for the record, "Hispanic" is not a race. In the U.S., almost 50 percent of those who described themselves as
"Hispanic" in Census Bureau questionaires also described themselves as White. About 2.7 percent (mainly from the Caribbean) describe themselves as Hispanic Blacks. And 47 percent of those who called themselves Hispanic picked "some other race" which makes sense because many New World Hispanics are of mixed Spanish/Portuguese & Amerindian heritage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51282-2003Jul13?language=printer

Incidentally, if you want to look at crime from a sociological perspective, you have to consider a number of factors.

One is that crime represents a risk/reward judgment by individuals considering whether to commit crime. Those who live in nice areas and make good livings are generally more likely to decide that the risk outweighs the reward because they have more to lose and it isn't worth it. Generally speaking, the better their lifestyle the less likely they are to risk this by committing crimes, especially of