Not just that: in some of the more "controversial" crime (by which I mean the type that would get the areas of the limbic system responsible for all that tribal phenomena exploding if the situation were to reverse or apply to any other ethnic/racial group), i.e. rape, Whites are typically underrepresented when it comes to White-on-Black crime but Blacks are overrepresented in the reverse.
A year ago, here in England, we discovered that about 1 in 7 of every little White girl in Rotherham were made into what I suppose the Quran calls "right hand's possessions" by Muslim gangs. This activity persisted from 1997-2013 yet the local authorities were aware nearly as far back as when it started and do you know why they covered it up? They were apparently afraid of "giving oxygen to racism".
You must be registered for see links
I think White people have become far, far too nice these days. They are the only ethnic group not allowed to assert their own ethnic identity and maintain a notion of ethnic interests in their very own homelands. Id say it's time for the White community to finally awaken from its century old slumber and become just as ethnically aware and motivated as the minorities here in the west, wouldn't you?
Edit: Oh wait, its 3am and I got my statistics childishly wrong. 1/90 female in Rotherham but that statistic is relative to females of all ages, when you estimate it using the age profile (found it on google for 2001) of the town, it becomes 1/7 of every female child in the town.
Britain has some absolutely frightening statistics when it comes to such things.
Of course, coverage of those problems is "racist" or "islamophobia" in the rest of the world. People do not want to accept that there is a pattern of behavior that is strongly associated with certain cultures.
Murder can't be covered the same way if it is a minority perpetrating the crime - but if a minority is a victim of the crime, then special attention must be paid to it.
Honestly, as for the solution... I'm still searching.
It's tempting to say it is time to launch a campaign as whites... but that's not the solution.
Ultimately, there will come a time when the self-entitled and the self-victimizing will have to be purged - there are plenty of those on either side of the race aisle (granted, certain demographics are over-represented...). The goal should be to try and free as many people from that mentality as possible before that purge becomes necessary.
For example - if you were to execute individuals as criminals for stealing 'because everyone else is their problem' - then it is infinitely preferable to actually having to put down an entire insurgency of pro-communist islamists.
Something must be done, though.
We must break the cycle of self-victimization and put a stop to the terror-and-appease legislative process. These people should not get to block freeways. If you step out into the way of moving traffic, you are dumb and deserve to get hit. Turn the first few that step out to start the nonsense into grease stains and the rest will figure out that it's a bad idea. Shoot them when they begin throwing things at police and destroying property. They'll figure it out really quick that if they wish to change the way we do laws in this country, they will have to either work with the system or face the gauntlet.
They have the freedom of assembly, not the right to protest. There's a substantial difference between concepts.
I also have in mind a "working man's" means of protest that will hit the government the hardest.
It revolves around the tax system in America. We have a personal income tax. Usually, our employer deducts a certain amount of our pay so that we file for a 'tax return' that returns to us the amount that was deducted in excess. IE - it is possible to -not- have enough money taken out of your pay-check to avoid having to owe the IRS money (rather than the other way around).
However, this is not mandatory. One can legally claim exemption for one's self throughout the tax year. Thus, no deductions are taken from one's income and handed to the federal government (well, outside of some medicare and social security stuff that can't be opted out of as easily).
Now, usually, individuals wouldn't do this because it is a pain in the ass. Further, if you do not make payments to the IRS regarding your outstanding taxes, they will eventually garnish wages (take them before you get them) and shut down bank accounts in your name.
It is that last authority that makes individual protest financial suicide. They are empowered to destroy livelihoods and will do so without so much as a thought.
However....
As a large enough group claiming exemption....
If the top 1% of income earners could be counted on to exempt themselves - some 20% of income tax revenues would be unavailable to the government for collection. If the top 5% - it's something like 40%.
This is sufficient to trigger a melt down of the dollar - the federal reserve bank note.
What this would require is, during the tax year this is implemented, an orchestrated divestment away from the dollar and into alternate currencies/monies (precious metals, crypto-currencies, metal-backed currencies, and stocks in raw material suppliers/raw material futures).
People participating would have to invest in such means so as to provide a capital base to build from following the melt down of the federal reserve.
Some of the lower income brackets would be investing in small amounts of gold, silver, perhaps some copper (though I question the stability of copper as a bullion - as an industry investment, great... as a bullion... I don't know) - middle brackets into gold and cryptocurrencies; the higher brackets into gold, crypto-currencies, and resource futures (the futures they purchase will ultimately be sold as needed to lower tier investors for the 'lesser' tiers as needed for purchasing consumables).
It is a sort of economic ultimatum to return to the values of the Constitution - or face economic destruction.
Arguably - it would be better if they chose the 'destruction' route as it would lead to a direct transfer of power/wealth toward those who participated in the methodology (or those crazy enough to divest from the dollar before hand - and one could say they would be apt to join in, as well).
The challenge is that markets like silver are very prone to speculative explosions. The bullion market is small, so a little investor interest can send relative prices through the roof (as when Silver spiked insanely high back in the 70s... or was it the 80s?). That is not conducive to the objective.
Gold is a massive market by comparison - so it is not as prone to speculative explosion... still - a lot of it is just not being traded. Although with enough speculative interest, a lot of the current holders large sums of it would liquidate in favor of purchasing futures or some other investment they are eying.
Crypto-currencies are all over the place, currently, since few people understand how they work and few standards exist for their valuation. A more proper evaluation of their price would be relative to metal standards - but they are currently valued against the dollar - so their mileage is going to go all over creation in the event of a triggered or spontaneous dollar melt-down.
There are still some kinks to work out with it, but I'm thinking of getting it out to a few of the people who are into thinking of ways to try and get the message out there... and perhaps it would get wider media attention (certainly not on CNN ... they would probably not even try to spin it as 'anti-government terrorists' - because they know that there are more 'anti-government terrorists' than there are pro-media terrorists by a long shot) within the talk radio sphere.
Once we got a solid idea of how practical it was and if we have the correct participation - then we could choose a tax year to torpedo the system.
Unfortunately - that is the key weakness of the method. It requires a -lot- of faith that the rest of the people are going to go along with you. It also requires the right people to be in on it. The higher a person's income, the greater amount of the tax burden is being paid by them relative to their gross income. If 3 million of the higher income brackets participate, it will be far more effective than if 3 million of the lower income brackets participate.
Basically - the impact will be that businesses will be forced off of the dollar. This means that IRS capability to enforce wage garnishment will eventually be broken, entirely. Businesses will adapt - they will take whatever currencies have value and value according to whatever standards they see as valid. They will do that almost overnight.
Sure, it won't be a completely smooth transition - but it will be far less cataclysmic than many people would fear.
The biggest change is that those on TANF and other welfare programs would find their EBT useless in the wake of hyper-inflation. These programs will literally implode and everything forced over to private charity.
Medicare will implode. Social Security will wither. No one would take either Medicare or the dollars it pays. That is a bit of a hard pill to swallow for all of the old folks, but I have no sympathy for those who created this problem or otherwise failed to stop it. They can find private charity and stop stealing money from myself and my children to keep them alive to watch re-runs of the Golden Girls.
Sounds harsh - but the same thing will happen to my grand kids as the system is stealing from them to pay me.
It would basically destroy the federal government within a few months, perhaps a year.
Or, rather, it would destroy their ability to fund anything without the voluntary permission of the people. All of the authority positions would remain in place - they would simply be unable to pay for any of their decisions unless those decisions were such that people felt like turning over a portion of their assets to fund.
Which means a forced convention of states with the likely conclusion that a Constitutional Convention is necessary. There, we can write in the spirit of the original framework of our Constitution for a new era and a new generation of United States taking in some of our own experience with the process.
The military?
A bit of a wild-card under this situation. However, it would likely fracture along two lines. You would have the loyalists and you would have the Constitutionalists. The Constitutionalists would likely out-number the loyalists and it would largely boil down to an economic war. The loyalists will rapidly run out of food and supplies necessary to wage an extended campaign to seize assets for the purposes of funding the nation. Even worse - nothing, at this point, could repair the damage done to the dollar.
That means that the soldiers who work for the Constitutionalists are the only ones who are going to be paid in anything meaningful (granted, there would be some places that accept the dollar on patriotism - but the division of the country would destroy the 'communist rally' effect on local currency values). Which means they are the ones able to feed their families and equip themselves.
Which means most military conflicts will be short lived and largely limited to policing actions of the populace. The loyalist/constitutionalist rift will develop along civilian lines and largely boil down between the current groups who are rioting (or supporting it) and the rest of the nation (with a mentionable group that just doesn't care and will simply go along with whatever). The divide will rapidly deplete loyalist military resources in the attempt to retain control over their regions and will ultimately cause armed resistance to the economic 'sequester' to drop out, considerably.
But, I got to rambling far too much on that idea.
