Race War

Genocidal Art - Rothchild sponsored

Note: Paris rioting footage in that video starts at 5:09

Last updated: 2022-12-24

Black Lives Matter

Of course they do, but conversely all lives matter was seen by many as a denial of racial grievances. Wearing a T shirt that said It's alright to be white would get one denounced as a white supremacist, yet black activisits can get away with advocating to kill white people indiscriminately. Registered charities like BLM orchestrated "protest" riots with looting and burning.

The death of George Floyd at the hand of police officer Derek Chauvin sparked world wide protests that included sports personalities taking the knee in solidarity with oppressed black population. Ironically many were themselves black yet multi-millionaires despite said alleged "systemic racism" against them.

A jury unanimously declared Chauvin guilty of both murder and manslaughter, despite the fact that the alleged victim had a history of violence, had taken an overdose of drugs and had a medical condition that could have been the actual cause of his death. It was appropriate to restrain him and the footage I saw does not suggest Chauvin intended to kill. Speculation abounds about the jurors being afraid of becoming targets for the race riots that were going on in their city. Is this justice, or a triumph for mob rule?

GEORGE FLOYD ONE YEAR LATER

For generations already, under the law all people are equal, yet black people are over represented in prison population, they have on average poorer health and lower income. Should we assume these statistics are due to systemic racist sentiments in society, that somehow skin color would be geneticaly linked to one's potential, or could there be other factors at play, like inculcated victim mentality fostered by financial incentives of so called reparations?

A lot of resentment has been cultivated about alleged historical injustices that would have taken place in a not so recent past. There are calls for reparations of slavery in America. Criminal behavior may be condoned on grounds of alleged disadvantage status. Although few are alive today who suffered, victim status can be profitable. Should guilt, or victimhood even be considered hereditary? If so, how do we correlate that with any particular individual? I doubt skin pigmentation would be an accurate indicator.

Down through the ages, slavery was common on every continent. Ironically it was the British who ultimately outlawed it based on their protestant Christian convictions. While it is true that mostly white plantation owners bought black slaves to pick cotton, was it not the African tribal chiefs that sold captives and their own people into slavery, while merchants from the Middle East transported and traded them for profit?

It seems unreasonable to demand today that people who had no part in it, pay reparations to others who suffered no injustice merely because of their skin color. I suspect that like feminism, sexuality, and religious conflicts, racial division is promoted for a sinister cultural Marxist ideologue, because their class war narrative failed.

HOW MARXISM WAS PUMPED INTO THE BLACK COMMUNITY, JBS 1966

UN Declaration of Rights for Indigenous People (UNDRIP)

There is also perception that reparations would be due to the descendants of indigenous peoples, land ownership has always been a military matter with wars, conquests and population displacements. This has been little different among those "indigenous" tribes themselves.

YOU STOLE AMERICA FROM THE INDIANS

If it were appropriate or practical, just how far back should one go in making restitution and to what extent can we establish the legitimacy of any claim? Nature doesn't work that way. Natural selection and the relentless struggle for survival is a motivator to the individual and impels evolution, which applies just as much to society, culture and ideology as to species.

Certainly a person should be allowed to choose their life style and cultural identity without others imposing upon it, but it's not reasonable to expect such choices to be subsidised, nor can one expect equal outcomes for every choice. The United Nations have now created a divisive protocol that confers special rights, based on alleged hereditary ethnic ancestry. I suspect it's deliberate. It serves to destabilize Western civilization, to trigger the great reset from which the controlling elites can build back better towards a totalitarian one world government: An Orwellian NWO with all the Earth's resources under their control, but I shall discus that on another page.

South Africa

The apartheid regime in South Africa was notorious for it's racist discrimination, yet most of the opressed black people living there were not deprived indigenous descendants. They had come from outside to enjoy better living conditions under the South African regime than they had in their home countries. After the apartheid system was dismantled the country fell prey to crime and corruption. Lauren Southern did a courageous documentary called Farmlands. It shows the dire situation that developed. Here is a trailer for that.

New Zealand

In the past, incessant tribal conflicts among Māori, focused on bounty, canibalism and taking slaves. With the arrival of European weapon technology these culminated in internecine musket wars under command of leaders like Hongi Hika and te Rauparaha. In 1840 Maori chiefs came together and signed the treaty of Waitangi with the British crown who would assume coordinating symbolic governance on behalf of all, thus putting an end to these massacres and making us one people, Maori and European tribes together, all sharing both cultures with a democraticaly elected parliament.

NEW ZEALAND: THE LITTLEWOOD TREATY
Hobson's Pledge

There was also an earlier declaration of independance from 1835, he whakaputanga, under which the sovereignty of the united tribes was recognized by the crown. Regretably both these founding documents are being interpreted by some as giving extensive resource allocations and administrative rights to people of the Māori race exclusively.

One can argue about historical details and I've listened to diverging interpretations and opinions, but I doubt the intention was ever for racism to be instituted by our constitution. If it was, then we bloody well better create an ammended one, rather than squabling about exactly what it says, or we will end up with apartheid here.

In the following video I discus the militant Maori Party fomenting racial supremacy in parliament.

Rawiri's Noose

conclusion

People are afraid to speak out for fear of being branded 'raaacist' and becoming the target of race based vigilante mobs, beying for blood. Systemic substantive equality measures are the problem and not the solution. Each country should determine it's own laws and other countries as well as the UN have no authority to mandate or intefere. I personally want to live in a country where the law makes no racial distinction and is equal for all. Where government assistance is to be provided, that should be based on need and merit rather than ethnicity.

I'm not going to dwell any longer on history: It's water under the bridge. What we need is to move forward together rather than in oposition. I will do a separate page about Māori people in New Zealand society today.