Why white people do not have the right to be safe in North America.

From civilizationwoapologies.blogspot.com

Why white people do not have the right to be safe in North America.

Reason #1: Foreign-Born Minorities Are Relatively Innocuous
This is the first in a series of posts detailing reasons the left gives for why white people do not have the right to be safe in North America.
The first reason boils down to:  It doesn’t matter that foreign-born blacks and Mexicans are somewhat more crime-prone than whites, because their US-born sons are much more crime-prone.
This is shown in data from the 2000 census provided in a pro-immigration article from the University of California, Irvine.  The article includes the usual language about “debunking stereotypes” but it only does so by setting up peculiar stereotypes to debunk.  Their main thesis is that immigrants are less criminal than the general population, but this is only true with an arbitrary redefinition of “immigrant”.  The normal definition is not limited to foreign-born people – “second-generation immigrant” is not a contradiction in terms – yet this article denies that a US-born person can be an immigrant.
The next method of obfuscation is subtle race norming.  This is the highly multiculturalist insinuation that whatever is common among a given minority is “normal”, even when it would be considered unacceptable for the rest of the civilization.  This is why it seemed completely logical to the academics at UC Irvine to set up the tables the way they did, with each racial and national group treated separately, and comparisons made only between people of different birthplaces and different education levels.  Race norming is one of the psychological underpinnings of affirmative action, and as we have seen here, also lends its weight to the open-borders movement.
There has been some unfairness toward foreign-born people and their children, lumping them all together regardless of national origin (and behavior).  This also goes to show how insidious political correctness is – people would rather implicate immigrants in general than to narrow their focus to the high-crime groups: blacks, Chicanos, and Hispanic islanders (Dominicans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans).  To do the latter would be labeled racist, even though many of the latter groups are of the same race (Caucasoid) as the majority of Americans.
The main data on incarceration rates can be summed up thus (with all rates applying to males aged 18 to 39):
High-crime groups (incarceration rates above 3%) -US-born blacksUS-born Laotians and CambodiansUS-born ChicanosUS-born VietnamesePuerto RicansUS-born CubansUS-born DominicansUS-born Salvadorans and Guatemalans
Moderate-crime groups (incarceration rates 2-3%) - Immigrants born in the Dominican RepublicForeign-born blacksUS-born Colombians, Ecuadorians, and PeruviansImmigrants born in Cuba
In the US-born category, there is a very clear heirarchy of criminality: blacks have the highest crime rates, followed by Mexicans and Southeast Asians, Hispanic islanders, Central Americans, South Americans, whites, Filipinos, Indians, Koreans, with Chinese having the lowest crime rates.  In foreign-born category, the heirarchy is almost exactly the same.
The article notes the increasing criminality from generation to generation, but obfuscates it with typically mealy-mouthed language: The data examined thus far suggest that the process of “Americanization” leads to downward mobility and greater risks of involvement with the criminal justice system among a small but significant segment of this population.
There is not a thing in the article suggesting that Americans have the right to choose which countries lend us our next batch of immigrants, even though the data make it clear that to do so could dramatically reduce crime in the future.  The authors know quite well that immigrant groups all reproduce – many of them much faster than natives – and yet they persist in claiming that increased immigration will not lead to more crime.  They are clearly not confused about this; rather, they are seeking to increase the amount of crime against lower-middle class US natives as a way of dividing, demoralizing, and ultimately destroying that group.

Reason #2: Europeans were not the First People in America
This is the second in a series of posts detailing reasons the left gives for why white people do not have the right to be safe in North America.
This reason is best stated as: Since white Americans are descended from people who came to America after it was already partly settled, they do not have nor will they ever develop the right to be safe from crime or the anti-white propaganda that encourages it.
The verdict of history is that almost every country was formed through fighting and displacement.  Most areas were settled before recorded history, so it is generally not known which ethnic group was the first to settle an area.  Even in cases where the group which currently dominates is known to have displaced another group, no one questions the right of the majority to live safely in the land of their birth, unless the native majority is of British, Dutch, Jewish, or German descent.  Thus the right of Afrikaners to live in South Africa is questioned, but the right of Zulus to live in the same country is not, even though both groups are descended from invaders.
When this questioning appears in the group in question, it takes the form of existential angst on a national scale.  These feelings exist in all former British countries with white majorities.
One of the ways to chip away at respect for the rights of white people is to use biased and misleading language to describe the indigenous peoples.  In America, the favored term is “Native American”, which implicitly denies that whites can belong to America (even though “native” means nothing more or less than having been born in the place in question).  Another term, “Original Americans”, is merely speculative, since it is not known which ethnic group was first in North America, and available evidence implies that whoever they were they were not related to any extant Amerindian group.  The same sleight-of-hand is a work with the chosen Canadian term “First Nation”, again implying that extant tribes settled North America without displacing anyone – a proposition for which there is no evidence.  (The term most commonly used in Australia – “Aboriginal” – is more than likely accurate as the Aborigines are part of the broad Australopapuan group who were almost certainly the first humans in the region.)
These semantic tricks are not applied to any other group.  If you asked a group of Slavs born in Siberia if they ever had any contact with the “native Siberians” they would have no idea what you were talking about.  No one ever uses the existence of the Ainu to question Japan’s right to exist.   The groups insisting on black rule for South Africa – in spite of its utter failure to maintain prosperity or even order in Zimbabwe – did so by constantly reminding everyone that blacks preceded whites in southern Africa, glossing over the fact that the black majority – the Bantus – had gotten into that position by displacing the pre-existing Capoid groups.  Let bygones be bygones, we are told – unless a Germanic group would be slurred by the reopening of old racial wounds.

Reason #3: Unlike the USA, Mexico is a Native American State
This is the third in a series of posts detailing reasons the left gives for why white people do not have the right to be safe in North America.

This is reason involves some of the weirder logic of the racialist left.  It’s not easy to sum up, but it goes something like: The USA and Mexico were populated by Amerindians in 1492.  Mexico’s population has a greater admixture of Amerindian blood.  Thus, regardless of the ethnicity of the Mexican ruling class, Mexico is a more just and authentic government, and the rightful heir to the states of the US Southwest, if not the whole country.
The notion that Mexico is glorious land of racial tolerance is belied by the facts.  The notion is based on the somewhat greater mixing of Iberian peoples with the indigenous Mexicans than happened between Germanic peoples and the indigenous North Americans.  The latter case gave birth to the myth of “La Raza” – the rightful master race of Aztlan which is conceived of as a mix of Spanish and indigenous peoples.  Most Mexicans are indeed of mixed heritage, but this doesn’t change the overwhelmingly white nature of the ruling caste.
Nor does it alter the bizarre leftist nature of Mexico’s claims against the United States.  Mexico’s white rulers demand that the USA accept more and more mestizos that cannot seem to find prosperity or even safety in Mexico – and this demand is treated by the mainstream media as the height of progressivism and social justice.  Mexico does not lack natural resources (its daily production of oil exceeds Iraq’s), it does not lack income from tourism, there is decent land for a variety of agricultural products, etc.  Leftists never even try to explain what it is about the loss of southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc. that impoverished Mexico, because there is no explanation.
The poverty of Mexico’s lower classes is the result of corruption and an overlarge state that strangles market forces and suppresses class mobility.  No other explanations fit the facts.  For the same corrupt government to push its poorest people to emigrate to take advantage of US emergency rooms and US jobs (always said to be “low-paid” but they are quite high in pay compared to similar non-union jobs in Mexico) is just more of the same: feudal-style oppression of the masses, combined with a neo-colonial chauvinism emanating from Mexico City.  Yet now, the nominally anti-colonialist left, as well as nominally conservative Hispanic politicians in the US, have aligned themselves with the Mexican ruling caste.
These mainstream attitudes are not leukophobia per se – a true leukophobe would side with the country that produced Bobby Jindal, Barack Obama, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Daniel Inouye in preference to Mexico.  Rather, it simply shows an anti-Germanic, anti-Anglo bias in the media that maps directly onto the notion that the most successful civilizations should be ashamed of themselves ipso facto.

Reason #4: European Conquest of the Americas was Uniquely Violent and Premeditated
This is the fourth in a series of posts detailing reasons the left gives for why white people do not have the right to be safe in North America.
This reason is best stated as: By picking certain frames of reference, both in time and place, it is easily shown that white intentions in the Americas were primarily driven by a desire to kill and dominate, and they presumably maintain these desires to the present day.

The main tool the left uses to make this reason seem plausible is their own historical ignorance, which is reproduced in the generations they teach.  Leftists never mention the eastward expansion of the Russian Empire into territory previously held by Yakuts, Mongolians, etc.  They are typically not aware that the Celts are not the first people in the British Isles, coming to culturally dominate (though not replace) the Ice Age hunters (whose genes are reflected in modern British people as a striking similarity to the Basques of Spain and France).
Countless areas of the Earth, most of Eurasia and Africa for instance, are inhabited by people other than their original inhabitants, yet few countries have their right to exist questioned for that reason.  Self-criticism is indeed a virtue, but PC multiculturalism has distorted self-criticism into a vicious masochism and self-loathing.  When this mindset is applied to history, it creates nothing more or less than sentiment that “the cowboys were bad; the Indians were good.”
Slavery between indigenous American tribes is mostly forgotten, except as historical footnotes.  More importantly, the origin of principled opposition to slavery – Britain – is completely obscured.  Violence between English settlers and indigenous Americans is highlighted as if it were unique and bizarre.  No historian could hope to do a complete accounting for guilt – it would simply not be a valid way to study history – yet the implication is always there: the white man is always the bad guy.
English colonialism in North American was no worse than colonialism anywhere else, but it is more useful to leftists, since it has the potential to call into question the legitimacy of the most powerful capitalist, white-majority country in the world – the United States.  The effects are felt deeply, as generation after generation of American youth grow up too ashamed to show any patriotism, or oppose the resettlement of their country by Mexico.

Advertisement