Europa: The History of the White Race : Chapter 68

By now it should be clear to the reader that all the great events of history have a racial basis: the very ebb and flow of history is understood only when it is seen that all of history is the result of racial or sub-racial shifts in power; of tribes or nations conquering others, of lands being occupied by different races; and racial conflict.

Once this common thread is understood, then history stops being a meaningless jumble of seemingly unconnected events, but welds into an obviously connected and predictable flow.

With this knowledge, predicting the future on the basis of what is already known, is not that difficult.

This is particularly so in the light of the facts which have been overviewed in the previous chapter: the increasing numbers of Nonwhites flooding Europe, North America and Australia will without any doubt lead to a change in the nature of the societies on those continents, which in turn will bring about a change in the nature of the civilization on those continents.

That this will happen is without doubt: it is not even a question of debate, it is a simple fact.

What it means in practical terms is that Western European civilization - as it has been developing since the Late Paleolithic Age, some 27,000 years ago, will vanish and change into something else, a hybrid culture like that of present day India.

This prospect of a hybrid society may appear attractive to some people, although it will not mean the end of the concept of race (instead of sharp racial divisions, there will be a racial "continuum" sliding from light to dark, as is the case in India).

However, there are others who do not think that this is a desirable end result of 30,000 years of history, and who do not relish themselves or their descendants living in countries which are at best Second World, and, as the demographic balance becomes ever more marked, which will slide into Third World status and then beyond.

Already the effects of the change in the make-up of society can be seen everywhere in Europe, North America or Australia, where one cares to look: an overview of these already clear signs of social discordance is the subject of this final chapter.

Of particular concern must be the ever growing African numbers in North America and Europe. Black Africa itself is without question the most backward continent on earth; in 1989, a World Bank report on sub-Saharan Africa (that is, excluding the oil rich Arab states and what was then White ruled South Africa) revealed that the Gross Domestic Product for the entire continent was the same as that of one tiny European country, Belgium (Sunday Times, 26 November 1989).

The possibility of this massive poverty and social chaos being transferred to Europe and North America is not a figment of a wild imagination: indeed, the transfer of that population is already underway, as demonstrated in the preceding chapter.

At the end of the 20th century, there are very clear signs of social discordance at work in the White West: signs which are unmistakably linked to the changing racial make-up of the societies in question.

Before these discordancies are overviewed, the reader should realize that of necessity "groups" are being used to define trends and patterns of behavior. This is so because of the nature of racial dynamics: to use a simple example to explain: One White in a meeting hall of 200 Blacks will hardly be noticed; as a lone individual he will not count. However, 150 Whites in a meeting hall with 50 Blacks will not only count, but they will set the agenda of the meeting as well.

In this way then, racial groups impact upon each other, and racial individuals do not.

This is a critical factor to bear in mind when group statistics of any nature are overviewed: the individual exception does not disprove the group rule; small numbers of individuals do not count, but large groups do.

One of the most prominent of all social indicators is the crime rate: it serves as a window onto society, reflecting a large number of factors such as social status, poverty, alienation from society and a host of others.

A comparison of European and American criminal statistics reveals some important insights into how this impacts upon the racial make-up of society. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) produces a regular "Uniform Crime Report", published by the US government in Washington, DC..

In 1992, the figures they produced were first given as a total for America, and then broken down into two racial categories of "Black" and "White". Under the FBI's classification, Mexicans are also classed as White, so separate statistics for this group do not exist.

While this is of course scientifically incorrect, these are nonetheless the only statistics which are publicly available on the matter, and for sake of factual correctness, these figures are used as is in the table below. In addition to this, the European crime statistics for similar crimes have been laid alongside the American statistics for comparison.

	Britain	France	Germany	Italy	USA	American Whites	American Blacks
Murder	7.4	4.6	4.2	6.0	9.3	5.1	43.4
Robbery	62.6	90.4	47.4	68.6	263.0	126	1,343

Sources: FBI Uniform Crime Reports for U.S. data, The Economist for European data. European data for 1990; American data for 1992

As the table shows, Americans as a whole are more violent than Europeans: twice as likely as Frenchmen to commit murder and more than five times as likely as Germans to commit robbery.

However, as is clear from the separate calculations for American Blacks and Whites, (done by the FBI themselves) it is very high rates of violent crimes by Blacks - eight times as high as Whites for murder and more than ten times for robbery - that yield this result.

These figures actually overstate the White crime rate, because of FBI's inclusion of Mexicans into the White category.

These figures have a bearing on the perennial American debate over gun control. White Americans, who have easy access to guns, are less likely to kill each other than are the British, who are almost completely disarmed.

This comparison with Europe proves that Whites in the United States have neither a unique "culture of violence'' nor inadequate gun laws. America has a high rate of violent crime because it has a large number of violent Black criminals.

Brazil is a nation of some 170 million, the vast majority of whom are mixed race slum dwellers: with a well deserved reputation for violence. In Sao Paulo, its largest city with 16 million people, more than 4,500 people are murdered each year. In March 1998 alone, 771 people were killed, more than all the homicides reported in New York City during 1997. (Reuters, 08/16/98, ''Park Maniac'' killer case rivets Brazil).

Reference has already been made to the phenomena of White Flight from American cities, a pattern that is gradually spreading to Europe and Australia as well. The biggest consequence of this White Flight is the creation of Black inner cities in America, and it is in these inner cities where a large proportion of Black violent crime takes place.

A case example is the capital of America, Washington DC, which in 1998 had a "live-in" White population of less than 23 per cent.

A British survey conducted by the UK Home Office of 20 European and nine North American cities put Washington way out in front a "city murder league table" with a murder rate of 69.3 per 100,000 population. (BBC website, www.bbc.co.uk, 19 August 1998, "The United States of Murder").

This means that Washington is about 170 times more dangerous than the Belgian capital, Brussels, which came bottom with 0.4 murders per 100,000. (ibid). Washington was a long way ahead of the second most murderous city, Philadelphia, which had a rate of 27.4. The nine American cities in the survey all came in the top 12 of the poll. San Diego had the lowest rate with 8 homicides per 100,000. (ibid).

An insight into the nature of racially motivated crime in America was published in the Australian mainstream newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, on 20 May 1995. Written by that paper's correspondent in America, it contains so many important facts that it is worth quoting here in full:

The longest war America has ever fought is the Dirty War, and it is not over. It has lasted 30 years so far and claimed more than 25 million victims. It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War. It determined the result of last year's congressional election.

Yet the American news media do not want to talk about the Dirty War, which remains between the lines and unreported. In fact, to even suggest that the war exists is to be discredited. So let's start suggesting, immediately.

No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a large segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution against white America. And the problem is getting worse, not better.

In the past 20 years, violent crime has increased more than four times faster than the population. Young blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than young whites.

Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not been reported in America:

* According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.

* Most victims of race crime - about 90 per cent - are white, according to the survey "Highlights From 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims," published in 1993.

* Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.

* Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the violent racial crimes of whites.

* According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.

These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960s, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not co-incidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.

Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparison, 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean War.

When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the reverse).

When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American life and American ideals since World War II.

All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media. It prefers to maintain a paternalistic double standard in its coverage of black America, a lower standard." (ends quote).

In 1995, the US Census Bureau published another insight into the race and crime issue in America, called Crime in the United States. This is a publicly available document published by an official US government agency. Combined with data taken from the US Census bureau, the figures make fascinating reading:

Whites, Blacks and Murder: Data for 1995 Murder by race and age with additional details

Age group	Murders committed by Whites	Murders committed by Blacks	US pop. (000) Whites	US pop. (000) Blacks	Pop. Ratio White / Black	Per Capita Murder Rate Ratio Black/ White
9-12	12	17	12,074	2,349	5.140	7.3
13-16	492	723	11,677	2,301	5.075	7.5
17-19	1117	1675	8,697	1,647	5.281	7.9
20-24	1398	2067	14,528	2,669	5.443	8.0
25-34	1733	1711	34,027	5,475	6.215	6.1
35-44	1108	771	35,081	5,088	6.895	4.8
45-54	479	302	25,852	3,122	8.281	5.2
55-64	192	115	18,355	2,124	8.642	5.2
Total /average	6531	7381	160,291	24,775	6.470	7.3

Sources: Crime in the United States (FBI), 1995, Table 2.6; and US population data from the US Census. FBI Figures available from the FBI website http://www.fbi.gov/

The FBI Uniform Crime Report (also available at the FBI site listed above) makes a number of disturbing points: In 1995, Blacks accounted for 13% of the population; Amerinds for 2%, and Mexicans, Whites and all others (the FBI even includes Arabs as Whites) 85%. If the races were equal in their criminal behavior, then it could reasonably be expected that for any given category of crime, 85% of those arrested would be White and 13% of those arrested would be Black.

Under the crime of burglary, 30.4% of those arrested are Black and 67.8% are White. The Black burglary rate 30.4 over 13, divided by the White burglary rate of 67.8 over 85, gives a figure of 2.93.

If these arrest records accurately record the commission of burglaries, that means that Blacks commit burglary at almost 3 times the rate of Whites.

Once again it is worth stressing that the FBI figures do not break down separate statistics for Central American immigrants, Mexicans, Arabs, or anybody else: if the FBI had included a separate category for these racial groups, the disparity between Black and White would be even larger.

Before the topic of race and crime in America is disposed of, it is worth emphasizing a few cardinal points from the FBI Uniform Crime Report:

The exceedingly high criminality rate amongst American Blacks has ironically led to huge numbers of this racial group once again being disenfranchised. According to an Associated Press report of 23 October 1998, 1.4 million Black males were debarred from voting in American elections because of widespread laws in many states which prevent convicted felons from voting.

In total, thirteen percent of Black American men could not vote in the 1998 elections in that country because they were convicted felons, a report by Human Rights Watch and The Sentencing Project concluded. (Report: 1.4 million black men cannot vote because of felony, Associated Press, 23/10/98).

The survey showed that in the states of Florida and Alabama, the degree of disenfranchisement was at its highest: 33 per cent of all Black males in those states were formally and legally barred from voting.

Much play is also made of the American problem with drugs and AIDS, two social conditions that tend to go hand in hand, linked as they are to both sexual promiscuity and the sharing on intravenous drug needles amongst addicts. In this field as well, there is an unmistakable racial slant. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in America, as early as 1987, some 70 per cent of that country's intravenous (IV) drug addicts were Black or Hispanic (Time, 17 August 1987) - one of the factors, along with greater sexual promiscuity of these two Nonwhite racial groups - which accounts for the greater prevalence of the Acquired Immunization Deficiency Disease (AIDS) amongst these two groups.

Aids is a disease of the promiscuous: this, combined with the massive needle based drug abuse amongst American Nonwhites, makes them one of the largest victim groups of the disease.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, reported in August 1998, that women aged 16 to 21 who entered the federally-funded Job Corps program between 1990 and 1996 were infected with HIV at younger ages and at higher rates than their male counterparts. (Reuters, 27 August 1998, U.S. says more HIV among young, disadvantaged women). Among the 350,000 young people who were tested, the rate of HIV-infection was 3 per 1,000 for women and 2 per 1,000 for men. The HIV-infection rate among Black women aged 16 to 21 was more than 5 per 1,000. HIV prevalence was eight times higher among Black women than among Hispanic women and seven times higher among Black women than among young white women. (ibid).

As soon as the numbers of a Nonwhite grouping in any White country reach a significant amount, they immediately form an openly racially exclusive interest group. These blatantly racially motivated groups are then fêted and welcomed by the politically correct establishment: but any attempt to form any sort of White lobby is met with instant condemnation and accusations of "racism" or "Nazism."

For example, in the American Congress, there is a formally established Black Congressional Caucus, open to Black members of congress only. Similarly there is a Hispanic Congressional Caucus, open to Hispanics only.

There is however no "White Congressional Caucus" - indeed, any White congressmen who might even think of suggesting such a thing would in all likelihood be run out of congress for being a "racist."

Yet the Black and Mexican congressmen can mobilize on racial grounds with impunity: on the contrary, not only are they not condemned, but the establishment actively seeks their support as a lobby group.

Other examples of open Nonwhite racial mobilization in America are legion, and cover everything from sport through to television. There is a nationally televised "Black Television" channel; a Black Miss America Contest, a Black Lawyers' Association, Black newspapers (the famous "Ebony") which are sold in all newsagents; and so on.

The contrast could not be more vivid: any White trying to set up a "White Television Channel", or a "White Miss America Contest" or a "White Lawyers' Association" would immediately stand accused of being a racist nut: yet once again the Nonwhite groupings can do such things with impunity.

There are "White" newspapers in America - a very few - but they stand no chance of being sold in any of the main newsagents along with the Black newspapers, and are thus extremely limited in circulation or impact.

An example of Nonwhite racial mobilization in the educational field has been the creation of "Black History" departments at all major American universities, once again funded and backed by the establishment. These are complete departments, including Professors of Black History, who specialize in nothing else but researching exclusively Black historical events.

While the study of racial history is by no means a bad thing (certainly it is, in the opinion of this author, the only worthwhile historical pursuit) the contrast is once again vivid: there is absolutely no chance that any university anywhere would set up a department of "White History"; much less appoint a "Professor of White History". Such a university would in all likelihood be closed down or have its funding cut off immediately.

The reason for this blatant anti-White (or pro-Black) discrimination is the very clear shift in racial power balance in America, caused directly by the shifting demographics of that country. This in itself should be as clear as an indicator to anybody that the nature of American society is changing away from an Euro-centric (White-centric) nature to that of a Black (or more likely, Hispanic)-centric society.

That this is happening comes as no surprise: it is in fact utterly predictable in the light of the changing racial make-up of America. Exactly the same thing happened to the original inhabitants of that continent, the Amerinds: now it is happening to the Whites who took over from the Amerinds.

The level of impunity at which Nonwhites can operate in America was well illustrated by a speech given by the Black chairman of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Julian Bond, at that organization's annual conference in July 1998.

In his widely reported speech, Bond stated, to applause, that the Whites in America were "cheats" and were to blame for the lack of Black advancement in that country. Bond compared existing racial inequality to a football game in which the white team is ahead 145 to three and "owns the ball, the field, the goalposts, the uniforms and the referees. They have been cheating since the game began,'' he said. (Reuters, 07/12/98, Black leader says racism `"alive and well'' in U.S.)

The NAACP is a US government recognized organization which is one of the establishment's main players in the Civil Rights field in America. The then American Vice President, Al Gore, and Agriculture Secretary, Dan Glickman, were also speakers at the very same NAACP congress - an indication of its status within the American government.

Any White American politician who in public would accuse Blacks or Hispanics of being "cheats" would most certainly be instantly condemned and shunned by the Vice President of the United States of America. The fact that the chairman of the NAACP can say such things is yet another indication of how the racial power balance is changing in alignment with the shift in racial make-up in America.

Hispanics are also organized racially: they have the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). This overtly racial organization is fêted by all the main political groupings in America , who send their senior leaders to beg for votes at each annual meeting of LULAC.

Detroit is one of the prime examples of the phenomena of White Flight in America. Since the 1960s, when Detroit first experienced large scale Black urbanization, that city has been subjected to major social upheaval in the form of deteriorating neighborhoods, misguided renewal projects, racial tensions and city bankruptcy.

In the summer of 1967, the city was the scene of severe Black riots. During this period, the population increased in the White suburbs, but declined drastically in the city itself. Detroit's population dropped from 1,203,399 in 1980 to 1,027,974 in 1990 and to an estimated 992,038 in 1994.

According to the 1990 census, Blacks constitute 75.7 percent of Detroit's population; whites, 21.6 percent; Asians and Pacific Islanders, 0.8 percent; and Amerinds, 0.4 percent. A large number of Hispanics class themselves as White on the census forms (it is a self classification system) and only 2.6 per cent of those living in Detroit claimed to be Hispanic. The true figure is probably higher.

White Flight has always accompanied an increase in the Nonwhite population: in 1968 only two major American cities, Washington DC and Charleston, had Black majorities. By 1990 more than 15 cities were predominantly Black, including Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Newark, and Richmond. In all of these cases, Whites have fled the cities, leaving them to turn into Black ghettos.

The history of the racial balance in Canada serves as a perfect example of the power of normal, mostly peaceful, immigration to change the face of a land utterly within a few hundred years. Initially the Amerinds occupied the territory now known as Canada: they were however not beaten by force of arms, as were their cousins in the United States of America, but were simply pushed back by successive waves of White immigration.

Within two hundred years the face of Canada changed, along with its culture, heritage and all other manifestations of the previous Amerind settlement - changed irreparably by the shift in the racial make-up in the population.

It is therefore ironic that the process which destroyed Amerind culture in Canada is precisely the same process which, at the end of the 20th century, is busy displacing the White culture and civilization in Canada: successive waves of Black and Asian immigrants (combined with the racially mixed offspring produced by physical integration) are busy changing the face of Canada once again.

Canada even has a "minister of state for multi-culturalism" formally added to the cabinet as early as 1972. In 1986, an affirmative action employment policy was adopted by the Canadian government through which preference is always given to any Nonwhite applicants above that of any similarly qualified White.

As is the case virtually everywhere in the modern White countries at the end of the 20th century, special allowances and privileges are made for Nonwhite races which are then specifically denied to Whites. In Canada, there are in excess of 600 "regional councils", which look after local Amerind affairs.

However, what makes these councils unique is that only Amerinds can be elected to them, and only Amerinds can vote for them: a super-racial discrimination which is officially endorsed by the Canadian government, who would never dream of organizing Whites only "regional councils" to "look after White interests."

The Canadian government has also given separate political rights to Amerinds: in March 1993, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec and the Sechelt Band of British Columbia, became formally self-governing with municipal status and accountable to an "indigenous" only electorate.

Once again this sort of blatant racial mobilization would probably be the subject of a criminal prosecution if it was carried out by White Canadians. In 1999, a new treaty created another Amerind state, that of Nunavut in the eastern part of the Northwest Territories. This state, specifically created for Canadian Amerinds, is governed by its own legislative assembly, territorial court, and civil service.

In Britain, which by the end of the 20th century had a resident Nonwhite population of well over ten per cent of the entire population, the same issues which have confronted America have also reared their head: race and crime, White Flight and anti-White discrimination.

All of these social indicators are clear signs that in Britain the political power balance is shifting steadily away from the original White Westerners who have inhabited that land since the Late Paleolithic times: it is being surrendered to waves of new immigrants.

In 1983, a commotion erupted in Britain when the London Metropolitan Police issued figures showing that twice as many street crimes were committed by Blacks as by Whites in that city. The statistics showed that of 19,528 London victims of robbery and other street crimes, 10,960 identified their assailants as Black. Of the rest, 5,262 of the offenses were blamed on Whites and 534 on mixed race criminals. (Sunday Times, 27 March 1983).

In 1974, the British government introduced legislation called the Race Relations Act. Designed to prevent racial incitement, in practice it has led to the active suppression of freedom of speech in Britain: a person can be jailed for six months for daring to write, speak or suggest anything which may be construed as incitement in terms of that act.

The existence of the act is justified by its supporters by arguments to the effect that it is needed to prevent racial anarchy in the UK. This argument falls down on two points: firstly, there are no such restrictions in force in America and racial relations are no better or no worse there than in the UK, indicating that the law has had no effect in this regard; and secondly the only major incidents of racial conflict in the UK have been Black mobs who have rioted and burned down city centers in the UK.

As elsewhere, Blacks-only organizations abound in Britain, with the "Voice" newspaper, branding itself directly to the Black population, being widely distributed in all newsagents in the UK. If any White Briton had to try and get a "White Voice" newspaper distributed in Britain they would in all likelihood be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act, and would certainly not get a White newspaper distributed through the newsagents.

Black demonstration in Britain: the look on the face of the White policeman speaks volumes.

One of the most commonly aired news items in Britain at the end of the 20th century was the supposed large number of racist attacks by Whites on Blacks, with one case, that of the Black murder victim, Stephen Lawrence, receiving world wide publicity in 1999.

However, according to the British Commission for Racial Equality, more Whites are the victims of race attacks than Asians and Blacks added together. (Daily Telegraph, London, 9 February 1999).

According to the CRE's own statistics, in the year 1997/1998, a total of 230,000 Whites were attacked by Nonwhites in racially motivated assaults in Britain, compared to 101,000 Asians and 42,000 Blacks reporting racial attacks by Whites. The majority of racial attacks in Britain are therefore, in real and pro-rata terms, carried out by Nonwhites against Whites.

As the influx of North Africans into France has continued unabated, the issues of immigration and race relations have became important issues in France. High unemployment and several violent incidents in Nonwhite communities heightened hostility toward Nonwhite immigrants, resulted in the growth of an anti-immigrant party, the Front National.

The huge numbers of Muslims in France have created a serious security problem for that country, with Islamic extremists almost having a free run, being able to hide amongst the large Arab and North African population with relative ease. As a result France has been rocked by Islamic terrorism since 1995. In addition to this, huge swathes of Parisian suburbs have turned into Nonwhite gangland areas, marked by extreme social deprivation and crime.

In Australia, the rapid increase in Asian immigration during the last quarter of the 20th century has seen a marked increase in Asian gang criminality springing up in many of the major city centers, as the pattern of White Flight has also started to take effect on that continent.

When a group of Australians formed a political party which dared to oppose the growing displacement of the racial power balance, the One Nation party, they were immediately (and completely unjustifiably) branded as Nazis: even their private party membership list was stolen and published in the Australia-Israel Review, an Australian Jewish newspaper, with the sole purpose of intimidating those persons so named (Associated Press news wire, 9 July 1998, Australia Rightists List Published).

Aboriginals are subject to all sorts of special treatment by the Australian government: they have a large number of organizations organized exclusively on Aboriginal racial lines, such as the Aboriginal Law Council and a host of others.

These blatantly racially exclusive organizations are fêted by the establishment - but when Whites in the One Nation Party dared to do exactly what the Aborigines had done - organize on a racial basis - that White party was attacked as being "racist" and a fierce propaganda campaign was launched against them.

Conversely, one can only imagine what the reaction would be if White Australian lawyers would set up a "White Law Council" in the same way that the establishment welcomed Aboriginal Law Society operates.

In 1996, an Australian court ruling held that Aborigines have unlimited access to ancestral land even if it is occupied by non-Aborigines. At that stage the Aborigines numbered between 300,000 and 400,000, only two percent of the Australian population. The imposition of any such claims - and, at the end of the 20th century they were being considered quite seriously - would see as much as 80 per cent of Australia turned over to Aboriginal control, unless checked in some way.

While the Aborigines simply do not have the numbers to occupy such a huge territory, such a move would have disastrous economic and social consequences, particularly in the light of the nature of Aboriginal society.

The Aborigines boast one of the highest crime rates of any racial group in the whole world, reflected in their imprisonment rate, which pro-rata is the highest anywhere. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the Aborigines, who make up only two percent of the country's population, account for 30 per cent of the inmates of the country's prison cells - a rate which is higher than American Blacks or New Zealand Maoris, two other groups identified by the Institute as having high imprisonment rates. (The Argus, 5 November 1982).

Australian Aboriginal criminality gives them the highest jail rate in the world.

A civilization rises and falls along with its originating population: this is the great lesson of history which applies equally to any race in any country. Once the racial composition of a society changes, than that society itself changes.

The socio-demographic factors listed above are the most obvious indicators that the very nature of the White West is busy changing: it is becoming more violent; it is becoming poorer; and it is becoming more anti-White; it is becoming darker.

This is directly linked to the decline of the White people who originally made up that society, and their replacement by Nonwhite newcomers foreign to the culture and civilization.

4. the second and third factors above combined with a decreasing birth rate amongst the original population.

Ancient Rome vanished because of the last three factors: now exactly the same scenario is being played out in Western Europe, North America and Australia. Unless checked, the demographic trends show conclusively that Whites will be a minority in all three of these continents by the year 2100. After that, it is only then a question of time and Whites as a racial group will vanish completely.

The notion of an entire race disappearing may seem incredible: but it is not. There are in fact at least four distinct racial groupings which have already vanished as a result of being absorbed into other racial groups which have occupied their territory during the course of history. One of these four groups was a White subrace.

1. The White sub race known as the Mediterraneans, were the race who originally occupied much of Europe and the Middle East. These were the people who built the very first European civilizations, and then afterwards helped build the civilizations in the Mesopotamian river valley and in Egypt. On the European continent the Mediterraneans were absorbed for the greatest part into the Alpine White subrace; the Proto-Nordics and then the invading Indo-European Nordic subraces.

This absorption occurred with relatively little disruption to the growth of the European continental civilizations, as all the mixing components were all part of the broader White race. In the Middle East and Egypt, however, the Mediterraneans were absorbed into the Arabic/Semitic peoples and the African Blacks: through this process they lost virtually all genetic contact with the rest of the White race. The Mediterranean subrace of the White race has then already vanished, along with the culture it created.

2. The Aztec peoples in Central America created an impressive, if somewhat cruel by Western standards, civilization in Central America. The arrival of the White Spaniards, who conquered the Aztecs through superior technology, did not destroy the Aztec people: they disappeared through racial mixing with the small number of Spanish conquerors, and the millions of Black slaves imported to the region by the Spanish. The Aztec Amerinds are the second distinct racial grouping to have vanished, along with the culture they created.

3. The Inca peoples of South America also created an impressive civilization in South America; they too were militarily beaten by a handful of White Spaniards using superior technology. The original Inca Amerinds have also to the largest part disappeared through integration with the small number of White Spanish conquerors and the millions of Black slaves imported into South America by the Spanish and Portuguese. The Inca Amerinds are the third distinct racial grouping to have vanished, along with the culture they created.

4. The Bushmen living at the southern most point of Africa, the Koisan, who formed a distinct race by themselves quite separate from the Black tribes in Southern Africa, existed undisturbed at stone age hunter gatherer levels when the first White settlers arrived in the region. Conflict with the White settlers caused a few Bushmen to flee into the reaches of the Namib desert - where isolation has ensured that a tiny number remained intact - but the vast majority of Khoisan were absorbed into what became the mixed race Cape Colored population in South Africa, made up of Bushmen, a small number of Whites, Malay slaves, Indians and Blacks. The Khoisan of the Cape of Good Hope are the fourth distinct racial grouping to have vanished, along with the culture they created.

In each of these four cases, the civilization or cultures they had created, vanished with them. The lesson is clear: races do disappear, and once having done so, their civilization is extinguished with them.

The continued existence of all groups is under threat: here is an advertisement which was placed in the Jewish newspaper, The Jewish Press, of 26 January 1973, which quite correctly points out that the Jewish culture will disappear if Jews marry outside of the Jewish people. (extract below). The advertisement, placed by an organization calling itself "Jews! Be Jewish" points out that mixing will lead to the disappearance of the Jews. The advertisement then draws the logical conclusion and urges Jews not to intermarry. This principle is absolutely sound if the Jews, or any other group for that matter, do not want to vanish.

The distortion in history has accompanied the shift in racial demographics: the poster (below left) was one of several widely distributed in American schools, claiming that the Punic general Hannibal was a Black African. A contemporary Roman bust of Hannibal (below right) shows however his true race. There are an ever increasing number of such distortions creeping into the teaching of history everywhere.

The steady occupation of the modern White heart lands: Europe, Australia and North America by increasing waves of Third World Nonwhites are a direct replay of the events which led to the fall of the ancient nations.

In exactly the same way that the White nations of old vanished after their population make-up changed, so will Europe, North America and Australia disappear as their populations change from White into Nonwhite.

This is not a subjective opinion, or the wild ravings of an apocalyptic prophet of doom, it is just simply a fact.

The prospects for the future of Western civilization are therefore, bleak. Whites will be increasingly squeezed out of their great cities, increasingly replaced by Third World Nonwhites and mixed race populations.

And so society will change its outer manifestations to reflect the new populations, and the last White created civilization will vanish along with the declining White population.

The ancient end of the world in Norse mythology was the Ragnarok, the fiery fall of the Gods in Valhalla: this fate seems destined to come true after all - unless there is a conscious and determined shift in the political, demographic and social trends prevalent in the West today.

	Race of offender: White	Race of offender: Black	Race of offender: Other	Race of offender: Unknown
White victims	4124	699	60	71
Black victims	281	4422	15	46
Other victims	50	44	153	6
Unknown race	21	10	-	30