The Impossibility of Equality and The Heritability of Political Views

Visit his site at

Many people think that racial populations are “equal” with respect to their genetic potential for cognitive traits. On this website, we look at a lot of data having to do with racial differences in various traits to assess the validity, or lack thereof, of this assumption. Sometimes, though, it is important to step back and recognize just how impossible the notion of equality truly is. If the races really are genetically equal with respect to most psychological traits, it is nothing short of an evolutionary miracle, and in this article, I will explain why.

We all accept that the races differ in various ways for genetic reasons. For instance, East Asians are shorter than Africans and Europeans. Certain body types were more likely to evolve in different climates. In response to environmental variables such as UV radiation, we evolved differences in skin color, hair color, hair texture, etc. Some historic populations had cows available to milk while others did not and, so, some populations are lactose tolerant while others are not. Some populations had to face malaria, while others did not, and this led to differences in our blood. The list could go on. This is all utterly uncontroversial.

The races also differ in brain size. This has been shown repeatedly, all over the world, dating back more than a century (Last, 2016). More recently, it has been shown that you can predict someone’s race by looking at the shape of their brain (Fann et al. 2015). Yet, it is supposed that, unlike the racial differences in virtually every other part of the body, these ones are due entirely to the environment. This is obviously a political move. Evolution doesn’t care that genetic differences in personality are politically controversial, it sees the brain as just another organ. If we evolved differences in all the others, we probably evolved differences in the brain too.

In fact, the brain is a more likely site for genetic differences between races than most other parts of the body are. Why? Because researchers have shown that genes involved in the brain are the ones that differ most between the races (Wu and Zhang, 2011) .

“Other genes that showed higher levels of population differentiation include those involved in pigmentation, spermatid, nervous system and organ development, and some metabolic pathways, but few involved with the immune system.” – Wu and Zhang (2011) (emphasis added)

Given this, if anything we should expect racial differences in the brain to be larger than other racial differences. The assumption that they are infinitely smaller, such that they do not exist, is not genetically plausible.

Ultimately, this is just common sense. Populations around the world had different food sources. They hunted different kinds of animals and picked different kinds of plants. They lived in different climates. They fought different diseases. These differences impact behavior. For instance, some animals require more group work to kill than others. Harsh winters require more pre-planning and delayed gratification (saving food) than more temperate climates. The more easily acquirable food is around, the less important working with the group is. The more predators and other humans are around, the more physical strength and aggression will be needed. The more pathogens are present, the more important cleanliness will be. This list could go on infinitely.

And maybe you think one of these explanations is wrong and an environmental difference will have the opposite effect of what I have said. That is certainly possible, but the idea that any one of these environmental differences, let alone all of them together, will have no effect whatsoever on the selective pressures for any mental traits is completely implausible.

And this is all before culture comes into the picture. Once that happens, these differences are magnified times a hundred. In some cultures, being smart is the best way to have lots of kids. In others, physical strength, or determination, or social intelligence, etc., will be the most effective way. The notion that in every culture every psychological variable has the exact same association with fertility, which is the logical implication of egalitarianism, is obviously insane.

That culture has sped up evolution is evident in our own DNA. By looking at our genome, researchers can estimate how the speed of evolution has changed over time. In 2007, a landmark paper was released showing that evolution sped up by a factor of 100 within the last 5000 years, suggesting that the development of civilization, which happened at different times and in different ways around the globe, had an extremely dramatic impact on evolution (Hawks et al., 2007).

Even more recently, we are starting to get some idea of how culture influenced evolution. For instance, a 2014 paper found that England’s “war on murder”, a time in which criminals were essentially sent to die for fairly petty crimes, had a significant eugenic effect on the population in terms of criminality (Frost and Harpending, 2015). And, after all, how couldn’t it? If you kill a ton of criminals every generation, genes that predispose people towards criminality are obviously going to become less common.

My pointing in bringing this up is not to suggest that England is especially non-criminal. Other countries no doubt had similar periods and England has had its share of crime problems in its history. Nonetheless, the “war on murder” is a vivid example of the fact that culture can, and in fact must, impact evolution. Anything that differentially impacts people’s probability of reproducing will. Given this, and given the enormous amount of culture diversity which has existed on earth for millennia, it is, once again, lunacy to suggest that this all led to every population on earth possessing the exact same genetic predisposition for every mental trait there is.

On top of all this, there’s the Neanderthals (and others). After humans left Africa they met, and bred with, other species or subspecies of human. These other humans had been evolving separately from us for a really long time and they are universally accepted to have been different from us physically, and mentally, due to evolution. Some populations bred with these groups more than others, and Africans didn’t breed with them at all. This has led to the races differing in their degree of Neanderthal admixture.

Moreover, Neanderthal DNA is associated with various traits, including mental ones. For instance, one researcher described their findings from early last year thusly: “We discovered associations between Neanderthal DNA and a wide range of traits, including immunological, dermatological, neurological, psychiatric and reproductive diseases.” Specifically, they found that Neanderthal DNA was related to traits like nicotine addiction, depression, and other mental traits.

How is it even possible, you might ask, for the races to differ in their level of Neanderthal admixture and still be “equal” if Neanderthals weren’t “equal”? It’s not. For this, and all the other reason’s laid out here, equality is, practically speaking, a biological impossibility.

Kinshasa’s young fashionistas parade the Matonge neighborhood wearing haute couture.

The Heritability of Political Views



As it turns out, this series is going to be longer than I originally intended two articles ago. The plan now is that “Part 3” in that outline is going to be “Part 3, 4 and 5”.

The Iron Law of Heritability

From Thomas Bouchard 2004:

“As Rutter (2002) noted, ‘Any dispassionate reading of the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that genetic factors play a substantial role in the origins of individual differences with respect to all psychological traits, both normal and abnormal’ (p. 2). Put concisely, all psychological traits are heritable.”

Bouchard then points to the general heritabilities of commonly used psychological traits:

I call this “The Iron Law of Heritability”, though this is not a commonly used term. It is meant as a label for the common understanding among psychologists that all general psychological traits are to some degree heritable.

So when we explore any kind of psychological variation, the question is not “is that variation down to genetics”, the question is “HOW MUCH of the variation we see is down to genetics”, because it is always going to be some.

Heritability of Political Views Within the United States

There is a general misunderstanding of how twin studies are done. The common conception of twin studies is that identical twins are separated at birth, and then you see how similar they are in various traits when they grow up in different environments.

This has the obvious problem in that the range of environments of adopted twins may not reflect the range of environments for the whole population.

Another, better, way to do twin studies is simply to compare identical and non-identical twins reared in the same environment. Non-identical twins share roughly 50% of their genes + additional similarity from assortive mating, whereas identical twins share almost 100% of their genes.

So instead of controlling for genes and looking at the impact of environmental variation, twin studies can control for environment and look at the impact of an increase in genetic similarity.

For example, IQ scores. What they do is look at how similar the IQs of non-identical twins are, and then compared that to how much MORE similar the IQs of identical twins are; to see how much an impact an increase of 50% genetic similarity has.

For example, if the IQs of non-identical twins correlate with each other at 0.5, and the IQs of identical twins correlate at 0.8, then that implies the general heritability of IQ in the populations examined is 0.6, or 60%. This is because a 50% increase in genetic similarity produced a 30% increase in IQ similarity.

But because of assortive mating, this is going to be an underestimate, because couples are not randomly selected; couples tend to be more genetically similar to each other than they are to the general population.

If, for example, non-identical twins aren’t 50% genetically similar, but are 60% genetically similar, then identical twins are only going to be 40% more similar than non-identical twins. If non-identical twins were 60% genetically similar in the previous example, then the estimated heritability of IQ would be 75% instead of 60% – this is because the jump from non-identical to identical is only 40% more genetic similarity this time, and this 40% increase produces a 30% increase in IQ score similarity. And 0.3 / 0.4 is 0.75.

But then there is another problem, which is that assortive mating is based on traits in a person, not their genes. And so lets say non-identical twins are 55% genetically similar across the whole genome; well, for genes relevant to IQ, they may be 70 % genetically similar. And so in this case, identical twins only represent a 30% increase in genetic similarity, but produce a 30% increase in similarity of IQ scores, which would mean the real heritability of IQ in this population is 100%.

That digression aside, if we just go with the most basic and nurture-friendly approach, assuming a non-identical twins have 50% genetic similarity, and identical twins have 100% similarity, we find in most studies the heritability of “political views” to be around 0.4:

But keep in mind that this “0.4 heritability of political views” is like says “there is a 15 point IQ gap between blacks and whites”. The heritability of political views increases with age, and there’s no industry-standard age when studies on the heritability of political views start asking.

According to a Virginia Twin study, the heritability of political views is around 0.57 by age 50:

The heritability of political views also varies by issue. A study on Swedish twins, which had 2,338 identical twins and 4,868 non-identical twins, found that the heritability of immigration views was higher than any other issue:

Heritability of Political Opinions in Swedish Twins

Item Heritability Estimate
Immigration Opinions 0.604
Behavioral Inhibition 0.458
Foreign Policy Opinions 0.417
Opinion on Feminism 0.414
Environmentalism 0.377
Economic Policy 0.328
Locus of Control 0.281
Vote Choice 0.251
Left vs. Right Self-Placement 0.154

This was also found back in a 2001 study which looked at heritability of various psychological traits. Views on immigration had a heritability of 0.46, the second highest heritability of any political item, and was the third most heritable out of thirty psychological items, behind opinion on the death penalty and enjoyment of roller coaster rides.

And remember, this is assuming a genetic similarity of non-identical twins of 0.5, when it could be higher across the whole genome, and higher still for those genes associated with psychological traits, which would mean that the increase in psychology-relevant genetic similarity you get going from non-identical to identical twins is probably less than 50%, and so all these heritabilities from all of these studies would be higher.

Molecular Genetic Data

Regarding group differences, researchers are starting to find some genes associated with social sensitivity and collectivism, and how those genes differ by race.

A 2010 paper by Way and ((((((Lieberman)))))) looked at country differences in allele frequencies two gene locations: A118G and MAOA-uVNTR, both of which have been independently found to correlate with social sensitivity WITHIN populations. For example, a Swede with the “G” allele at the gene location A118G is more sensitive to social pressure than a Swede with a different allele.

(You need to within-group validate the gene otherwise you’ll just have correlations with genes between groups, which could be coincidental. I.e. – if Japan has any purely cultural difference with Europeans, AND some genetic difference with Europeans, even if that genetic difference has zero causal impact on the cultural difference, the cultural difference will correlate with the genetic difference. This is why they must be validated WITHIN populations before comparisons between populations are made.)

They also used a combination of indexes of collectivism and individualism in from four databases, and plotted those results with allele frequency data.

Way and ((((((Lieberman))))))’s results for A118G

Way and ((((((Lieberman))))))’s results for MAOA-uVNTR

Chiao and Blizinsky did the same thing in 2009 with the location 5-HTTLPR, plotting population differences between populations in the proportion with the “S” allele with individualism and collectivism in those countries:

Out of curiosity, I plotted Chiao and Blizinsky’s numbers by country with country results from a Pew Survey results on various free speech questions:

First the proportion of percentage of people who support the right to criticize government and the percentage of the population with the “S” variant of the 5-HTTLPR gene:

Next is the right to criticize one’s own religion:

And then there is views on the right to say things that are “offensive” to “minorities”:

Of course we don’t know if “speech offensive to minorities” means the same thing in China as it does in Germany. For example, I have personal experience of people who support banning “hate speech” but don’t support banning sites like The Alternative Hypothesis. Even though there is plenty on this site that “minorities” will be offended by. I suspect a typical Chinaman who opposes “hate speech” would be against banning this site, however a German who similarly says he is “against hate speech” would be more likely to support banning this site.

So if there is a bit of fuzziness between countries as to what these questions are actually asking, that will dampen any correlation because the effect of different countries having slightly different conceptions of what the questions are asking would be to introduce randomness.

That said, we still see a meaningful correlation between frequency of the “S” allele and various free speech issues. If you think these correlations are weak, remember that the correlation between an individual parent and their child’s height is about 0.45. And also keep in mind that these are just individual genes.

It’s also important to know that support for laws that ban speech critical of “minorities” is something that distinguishes the first and the third world. If you click above the links and look into the data, you will see that Latin American countries are about as supportive of free speech as European countries, even though “hispanics” in the United States are less supportive of free speech than European-Americans are. However, one of the distinguishing traits between the first and the third world is that the third world is more likely to support laws that prohibit speech “offensive” to “minorities”, and there are internally-validated genetic correlates that explain part of this. Obviously we have a long way to go to show the full extent of genetic causation, but it can’t just be hand-waved away as totally environmental.

You may find instances where the correlations between allele frequencies and a given trait add up to more than 1. This just means that “genes for” that trait tend to evolve together in sets. I.e. the G allele of A118G probably has its own independent effect, but its presence also indicates that you probably have other alleles that CAUSE an individual to be more collectivist within a given environment. And a .4 correlation between that G allele and collectivism takes into account both the direct effects of that single allele, AND the effects of other alleles that a person who has the G allele also tends to have.

But the point is that the twin studies find heritability estimates of around 40% for political views in general, and slightly above 50% for views on immigration.

Environment ain’t all it’s cracked up to be

Now, when someone says “X trait is 50% heritable”, they’re not only referring just to a specific environmental range, but the “non-heritable” or “environmental” proportion of the variance may not mean what you think it means.

For example, a twin study from 2011 found the heritability of independent reading to be 0.62 at age 10 and 0.55 at age 11.

There have also been studies on the heritability of diet. For example, this study here estimated the heritability of diet to be 0.32.

However, that’s just an aggregate. Another study found for example the heritability in men of how many potatoes you eat was 0.68, what we call vegetables 0.24 heritable, red meat 0.34, etc. If you want to see the complete breakdown, you can look through the tables in that study.

Exercise and sports participation also have high sbustantial heritabilities. This study put the heritability of voluntary non-sports exercise at 0.63 for males and 0.32 for females, and the heritability of sports exercise at 0.684 for males and 0.398 for females.

This replicated an older study that found the heritablity of sports exercise at 0.83 for males and 0.35 for females, and non-sports exercise at 0.62 for males and 0.29 for females. This study gave an overall heritability of exercise of 0.49.

Intuitively, it seems that “independent reading” would be a good proxy for the intellectual environment one creates for themselves. Which is to say that, in the United States at age 10 and 11, the heritability of a person’s intellectual environment is about 50% to 60%?

The next thing to note is the difference between “shared” and “unshared” environment. The term “shared environment”, in the context of twin studies, is the environment that twins share with each other as a result of being in the family they are in.

In short, “shared” environment is the environment that was given to you, while “unshared” environment is the environment you create.

Which then calls into question what “environmental” really means. Let me give two examples: one involving strength training and the other involving vocabulary.

1. Bob and Bill, in an untrained state, lift almost exactly the same amount of weights in any lift. However Bob, for genetic reasons, goes to the gym, works out and builds muscles. Bill doesn’t. Thus there develops a gap in strength and muscle mass between Bob and Bill. So is the difference in muscle mass and strength between Bob and Bill due to a genetic or environmental difference? Well, it’s kind of environmental, but the environmental difference stemmed from the genetic difference.

2. The same thing could happen with independent reading; Bob and Bill, if they both read the same amount, would have the same active vocabulary. But Bill, for genetic reasons, does independent reading, and thus has a more active vocabulary.

So when someone says the heritability of a trait is 0.5, and the rest is down to “environment”, unless otherwise specified, they are almost always talking about direct heritability only.

But that “environment” proportion is itself always a function of genetic variation to some degree. And this is important when getting into the next part of this series on civilizational tendencies.

Negro Felon League Teams Might Stay in the Locker Room During the National Anthem

Lee Rogers
Daily Stormer
November 22, 2017

Some Negro Felon League owners might keep their football apes in the locker room to prevent them from disrespecting the national anthem. Really? Maybe a zoo cage would be a better spot for these low IQ baboons!

A new report from the Washington Compost is claiming that some Negro Felon League owners are considering a drastic change in policy because of the national anthem protests.

The Hill:

Some NFL owners might consider keeping teams in the locker room during the national anthem next season if player protests continue, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

“I think that if players are still kneeling at the end of the year, then it could very well happen,” a source told the newspaper.

Multiple people told the newspaper that it was too early to tell if league owners would follow through on a new policy, adding that there have not been detailed discussions.

NFL players have protested social justice issues, such as police brutality, since the 2016 season, either kneeling or raising a fist during the national anthem. The issue was brought into the spotlight again in September, when President Trump suggested those taking a knee should be fired.

The fact that this is even being reported as a possibility proves that these people have no clue what’s going on. Dwindling attendance and ratings for NFL games have been directly correlated to these national anthem protests. If teams establish a policy directing their teams not to take the field for the national anthem, it’s only going to generate a greater fan backlash.

The President agrees and posted the following tweet about the report.

The NFL has let a handful of selfish millionaire Negroes dictate league policy because they’re afraid of being called racist. That’s literally what’s happened here. They could have avoided the entire situation by simply suspending the first few players who took a knee while the national anthem was played.

As we have pointed out in previous articles, this has not been good for the NFL’s brand. We’ve seen sparsely filled stadiums and poor ratings. Tickets for the Thanksgiving night game between the New York Giants and Washington Redskins can be obtained for $7. They can’t even give the tickets away. Such a situation would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

The NFL is nothing but a circus featuring large numbers of low IQ baboons chasing after a football. Why watch this nonsense especially considering that these apes have no respect for the fans who watch them? Any White man with self-respect should be occupying their free time with something more productive.

Sweden: Dyke Commits Suicide After Police Let Syrians Who Raped Her Walk Free

Daily Stormer
November 22, 2017

It’s nice to have some good news once in a while. Sexual perverts are one of the greatest threats to our race, and form the bulk of the Jewish apparatus that’s killing us everywhere in the world. Their hatred for normal people is such that they gleefully work to flood their own countries with disgusting vermin who want to kill them.

But they’ll pay the price for it soon, either at the hands of their fellow “oppressed” – or at ours.


 A woman in Sweden, who was raped by her two neighbors from Syria, committed suicide after prosecutors refused to charge the rapists.

If you would have asked this whore before it happened “Why are there vastly more non-Whites in prison than Whites?” what do you think she would’ve said?

  • “Muh racism.”
  • “Muh hatred for the color of the skin.”
  • “Muh islamophobia.”

Sucks when you find out the hard way that everything Nazis ever told you is right.

 30-year-old Angelica Wiktor of Vittaryd shared her story on Facebook before deliberately overdosing on drugs.

And nothing of value was lost.

From now on, this is my official “That dyke killed herself” anime gif

Wiktor wrote: “The man who raped me has had a chance here in Sweden.He lives near me and a friend of his was there that night.

“Everything happened in my own home, he rang the doorbell late at night and I thought something happened to my neighbor who is seriously ill with cancer, but no.

“I got dragged into the bedroom, where he held me down and raped me while his buddy stood in the hallway.

“Despite the notification, interrogation, forensic investigation where they found bruises and injuries due to the rape, and evidence in my home, I still got a phone call from the police on my 30th birthday that he walked free due to lack of evidence.

“The other man harasses me since that day, he’s looking for me both via the net through different names and taunts me personally. What are the police doing? Nothing,” Wiktor wrote.

I’m sure that if the subhuman actually had been arrested, thousands of worthless whores like you – carpet munchers or not – would’ve been scandalized by the racism of the police and the judges. You would’ve been one of them yourself if you hadn’t been the victim in this particular case.

So kill yourse… Oh wait, you did!



A few days later, Lisa, Wiktor’s mother, said that her daughter swallowed hundreds of pills and died.

Before the rape, Wiktor said that she was happy to see the people from Syria getting a chance in her country.

So technically speaking, she was already killing herself before swallowing the pills. The only difference being that it was slower, and she was dragging everyone around her to hell too.

When Adnan and his friend Samir moved into the apartment next door to Wiktor, she was extremely happy for them.

One night, Adnan and Samir forced themselves into her apartment after noticing that she had taken sleeping pills.

Adnan pushed her into her bedroom and raped her.

Wiktor said that the rape was extremely painful as she never had sex with a man in her life because she is lesbian.

She also had a tampon, which she was unable to remove from her body as a result of the rape.

The following day, Samir raped her.

This makes perfect sense. If I were a ~80 IQ humanoid rat from the desert who saw his buddy rape a whore, and then none of her male relatives tried to kill him, I’d rape her too.

Lisa took her daughter to the hospital, where doctors confirmed that a sexual assault took place.

However, the prosecutors decided to drop the case due to lack of evidence.

Doctors… What do they know? They’re probably all racists anyway. Now if a nigger witch doctor would’ve said his pigmy entrails were telling him she’s telling the truth, they might’ve been arrested.

I have no pity for this creature. It does not deserve any.

No human being who is “happy” to see it’s own territory invaded deserves any.

If it were just the grotesque sexual degeneracy, I probably wouldn’t hate them so much, but it’s not just that.

Faggots, dykes, pedophiles and all these other filth are actively trying to exterminate their own kind, and this is the only thing in the world that is truly unforgivable.

When the time comes, all those who even think of showing them any mercy are traitors as well, and I will treat them as such.

No mercy for vermin

Australia: Upcoming Romper Stomper TV Series Attempts to Demonize White Nationalists

Michael Byron
Daily Stormer
November 22, 2017

Before American History X, there was Romper Stomper.

Released in 1992 and starring the lead actor from Gladiator and Fightin’ Around the World, Romper Stomper followed the lives of a bunch of Australian neo-Nazis who delivered a virtuous ARSE-KICKING to gooks and other invasive species in suburban Melbourne.

And, as with American History X, Romper Stomper’s aspirations often clashed with its legacy: though intended to depict neo-Nazis as jackbooted thugs who hated Asians simply because they look weird and make soup with chicken feet floating in it, it ended up making Nazis look cool, rebellious and masculine.

“Ewww, I’d rather sleep with a liberal!” – said no woman, ever.

Alas, it looks like the Eternal Boomers and Jews who control Australia’s television industry haven’t learned from their past mistakes. In yet another attempt to force-feed us the overused “Evil Nazis vs. Righteous Leftists” narrative that no one believes in any more, they’ve commissioned a new TV series of Romper Stomper for release in 2018.


The new year will get off to a riotous start in Australia, with all six episodes of the Romper Stomper series set to drop on streaming service Stan on January 1.

“Romper Stomper the series is nothing like the original movie in terms of how it presents,” said Stan CEO Mike Sneesby at the Screen Forever conference on Thursday, just hours before the first trailer for the show dropped. “It’s a continuation, and some of the characters are coming back, but it brings it into a modern context and it sheds light on what is a very important topic.”

The trailer features a clash between white nationalists – calling themselves Patriot Blue – and a group of masked antifa (anti-fascist activists) at a multicultural festival.

That scene drew its inspiration from a real world incident in which anti-Muslim protesters and anti-racism activists clashed violently at a halal festival in Melbourne last April.

In a bizarre case of life imitating art imitating life, Stan recently took legal action against a white racist group that had adopted the name Patriot Blue. The group gained a moment of notoriety earlier this month when it posted video of a verbal attack on Labor Senator Sam Dastyari in a NSW pub.

Sneesby says he is prepared for a divided response to the decision to revisit the subject matter of Romper Stomper.

“There have been questions about why is Stan doing this show, it [white extremism] doesn’t deserve a platform,” he said. “But the reality is if you go out there into middle Australia, you can absolutely see a world where people get roped into it.

“Dastyari only got coverage because he’s a senator, but that shit happens all day, every day, in corners of Australia.

“For us to lay it all out in context, and show what happens, is important. If we cop flak for it, so be it. I think it’s an issue that needs to have light shed on it.”

So I suffered through the entire three-minute trailer (don’t say I’ve never made any sacrifices for you, goys) and determined the following:

  • The series will depict White Nationalists as forces of oppression, the antifa as heroic freedom fighters braving their lives for a noble cause, and non-white immigrants as victims of the former group’s public marches (imagine my shock!)
  • The right-wing characters look rough and masculine, while the antifa and immigrants look faggy and unwashed
  • The series’ leading White Nationalist character – Faramir from Lord of the Rings – might deliver some Derek Vinyard-style speeches about immigration that inadvertently awaken viewers

In other words, Romper Stomper seems poised to make the same mistakes that American History X and its 1992 predecessor did, though we won’t know for sure until it is released.

Indeed, the only thing we can ascertain at this point is that it looks… well…



Kalergi Christmas to You

The end result of when white women sleep with the enemy races.

For the avoidance of doubt… I don’t think black men are bad, I just wonder why so many billionaires and advertising agencies want them to race-mix with white women. [This video is not intended to condone violence or hate.]

[This project is my livelihood. Please see Thank you.]

Israel to Deport 40,000 Black Refugees to Random African Country

But Israel is against America deporting Mexicans?

Eric Striker
Daily Stormer
November 20, 2017

40,000 blacks from Eritrea and Sudan currently held against their will in Israel’s Holot concentration camp will now be deported to a random country in Africa.

This announcement comes in the same week that the Israeli government condemned the Poles marching against immigration and globalism, while demanding the Polish government arrest the organizers.

With that kind of chutzpah, they might as well come out and start making fun of our noses.

Suddenly the international conventions and human rights treaties that Western plutocrats claim force us to take in unlimited millions of immigrants from Africa and Asia don’t apply to Israel.

The Jewish groups in America unanimously oppose Trump’s wall but support Israel. Jewish groups unanimously support an uncapped number of refugees to white countries, but support Israel. Jewish groups unanimously spout 1960s style world-citizen globalism but support Israel.

Jerusalem Post:

It is time to increase the pace of deporting African migrants, Prime Minister ((((((Benjamin Netanyahu)))))) told the cabinet on Sunday.

((((((Netanyahu)))))) said he has a three-pronged policy regarding getting migrants to leave the country, with the current focus being to encourage most of them to self-deport to a third country – which reports have identified as Rwanda.

In the years prior to 2012, a flood of African migrants crossed into Israel illegally, at one point reaching around 64,000 annually.

((((((Netanyahu)))))) said that the state had already carried out the first two prongs of its strategy: stopping the flow of new migrants by building a wall and through legislation, as well as getting more than 20,000 migrants to leave.

The third stage of deporting migrants at an increased pace, he said, “can be carried out thanks to an international agreement which I obtained which allows us to deport the 40,000 remaining infiltrators against their will.”

“This is very important. This will allow us to empty the Holot Detention Center in the future and to redirect portions of the large resources we are using there,” from guarding the migrants, to other needs of the state.

((((((Netanyahu)))))) was discussing an initiative announced last week by Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Interior Minister Arye Deri to close Holot, an “open” detention center where a few thousand migrants have been sent to try to convince them to self-deport.

Erdan and Deri’s idea would be to offer migrants the choice of “voluntarily” deporting to a third country or being put in regular prison indefinitely

Just as an aside, Sudan and Eritrea are the origin nations of most of Europe’s African invaders pillaging and raping from Italy to Sweden.

Somehow these states are totally powerless and incapable of obtaining “agreements” like Israel thanks, well, to Jews!

But here’s the best part: the country these blacks are being dumped in, Rwanda, is a notorious human trafficking hub.

It is unclear if Israel is going to continue to pay blacks it has been deporting to these “third countries” $3,500, but if so, that’s enough to pay for the trip from East Africa to Libya, and then to Europe.

Don’t be surprised if these Africans Israel is throwing out all “end up” in Europe. Two years ago, the Africans ISIS killed in Libya were deported from ((((((Our Greatest Ally)))))) and planning to enter Europe.

Keep calling Jews misguided liberals and keep looking like a smart-idiot. Or my new term for smart-idiot: “a Jordan Peterson.”

Jews are cut throats. Jews are bandits. Jews have no mercy for anyone who is different from them, white or black or Arab. Jews don’t believe what they say, they lie. A few people bring up the obvious “Holocaust” comparison, and they either laugh or don’t give a shit.

Now that they are able to express themselves through a state just for them, all speculation on who they really are is over.

Israel deports blacks because they know diversity is bad and negroes are violent criminals.

Israel and Jewish diaspora demands the West not even put quotas on negro immigration because they know diversity is bad and negroes are violent criminals.

How hard is the Jewish question to understand?