Genetic differences between blacks and whites

Equality: Man's Most Dangerous Myth

by Dr. William L. Pierce

All racial differences are either genetic (hereditary, inborn) or cultural (acquired from society after birth). The latter can be changed or eliminated by enforced social changes; the former are independent of man's laws and customs, except over a period of many generations.

Examples of cultural traits which differ from race to race are mannerisms of speech ("Amos 'n' Andy" dialect or "Black English"), styles of dress, and personal grooming. If Blacks and Whites are forced to live together from birth, attending the same schools and exposed to exactly the same cultural influences, they will grow up speaking and dressing in very nearly the same manner. Even Blacks who have grown up in the tribal areas of Africa and who customarily distort their earlobes or lips with huge wooden plugs or plaster their hair with liquid cow dung as a means of attracting Blacks of the opposite sex can be trained to adopt White standards of personal cleanliness and grooming.

The fact is, however, that the most important racial differences are genetic rather than cultural. Skin and eye color, facial features, skull shape, skeletal proportions, patterns of body fat disposition, tooth size, jaw shape, female breast form, odor, and hair texture are only the most noticeable genetically determined physical characteristics which differ racially.

Beyond these things are the entire biochemical constitution and development of the individual. There are profound racial differences in blood chemistry, in endocrine function, and in physiological response to environmental stimuli. Blacks and Whites mature at different rates. They have different susceptibilities to many disease organisms as well as different patterns of congenital disease. They even have different nutritional requirements.

Racial differences, in other words, are much more than skin deep; they permeate the individual and are manifested in virtually every cell of his body. They are the products of millions of years of separate evolutionary development which has adapted the different races, with considerable precision to different environmental demands.

When we understand the all pervading nature of genetic racial differences, we can see that cultural racial differences are not so superficial as some would have us believe. Far from masking any fundamental "equality" or exaggerating racial dissimilarities, they simply manifest the genetic differences of which they are, in fact, expressions.

The culture of a race, free of alien influences, is telling evidence of that race's essential nature. The African Negro with a cow-dung hairdo, a bone through his nose, and teeth filed down to sharp points, in other words, presents to us a far more accurate image of the Negro essence than does the American Black in a business suit who has been trained to drive an automobile, operate a typewriter, and speak flawless English.

Negro culture is not merely DIFFERENT from White culture; it is a LESS ADVANCED culture and, by practically any standard, INFERIOR. It is a culture which never advanced to the point of a written language or a civilized society. It never saw even the barest glimmerings of mathematics or the invention of the wheel. The smelting and use of metals and the quarrying and dressing of stone for architectural purposes are crafts that were taught to the Negro by members of other races. The hokum currently being served up in the schools about a centuries-old Negro "civilization" based on the ruins of stone walls found at Zimbabwe, in Rhodesia [note: at the time of this writing, the country was still called Rhodesia] is simply the product of wishful thinking by proponents of racial equality who are willing to ignore all facts which conflict with their equalitarian mania.

Negro culture inferiority is the consequence of the physical inadequacy of the Negro brain in dealing with abstract concepts. On the other hand, the Negro shows an ability approaching that of the White at mental tasks requiring only memory. That is why the Negro can be trained relatively easily to adapt to many aspects of White culture.

His verbal ability and his ability to imitate allow him, when properly motivated, to assume much of the outward appearance of "equality." In a decade of special college-admission quotas for Blacks, many thousands of Blacks have obtained college diplomas -- but only in those disciplines in which a glib tongue and a good memory suffice. There have been virtually no Black graduates in the physical sciences and very few in engineering.

Thus the Negroes inability to handle the abstract concepts required in problem-solving and technological innovation make a mockery of outward appearances. And this inability is genetic in nature, rooted in the physical structure of the Negro brain.

Until the post-World War II campaign to blend the White and Negro races began in earnest, the Negro's mental limitations were common knowledge. The 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, says of the Negro, in part:

"...Other characteristics appear to be hypertrophy of the organs of excretion, a more developed venous system, and a less voluminous brain, as compared with the White races."

"In certain of the characteristics mentioned above the Negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the White man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids ...."

"Mentally the Negro is inferior to the White ... While with the latter the volume of the brain grows with the expansion of the brainpan, in the former the growth of the brain is on the contrary arrested by the premature closing of the cranial sutures and lateral pressure of the frontal bone."

And the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana lists, among the distinguishing characteristics of the Negro race, the following:

"3. Weight of brain, 35 ounces (in gorilla 20 ounces, average Caucasian 45 ounces) ....""8. Exceedingly thick cranium, enabling him to use the head as a weapon of attack ...."
"14. The cranial sutures, which close much earlier in the Negro than in other races."

As the media stepped up their flow of "equality" propaganda, later editions of these encyclopedias simply deleted the racial data on Blacks. One had to turn to specialized medical texts to learn that the associative areas of the brain, where abstract thought takes place, are less developed in the Negro than in the White.

It has been well known since the large-scale intelligence testing of U.S. Army recruits in World War I that the average Negro IQ is approximately 15 per cent below that of the average White. Apologists for the Blacks have tried to explain away the earlier test scores as being due to the effects of segregated schools and Black poverty; i.e. they claimed the tests were "culturally biased."

Later IQ tests, however, showed essentially the same degree of Black deficiency in IQ: whether Black graduates of integrated high schools were tested against White graduates of the same schools, or Blacks in a certain socio-economic category against similarly categorized Whites, the Blacks always scored substantially lower, even though standard IQ tests measure memory skills as well as purely associative ability. Tests which focus on the latter type of mental function show a much larger difference between Black and White scores.

But it is precisely the ability to associate concepts, to deal with abstractions, to mentally extrapolate the present into the future that has allowed the White race to build and maintain its civilization, and it is the Negro's deficiency in this regard which kept him in a state of savagery in his African environment and is now undermining the civilization of a racially mixed America. That is why it is vitally important for every White person to understand that there can be no such thing as "equality" between Whites and Blacks, regardless of the amount of racial mixing forced on Americans by the government.

Supreme Court Must find Obama Care Unconstitutional

Special Message From the League of American Voters

Why the Supreme Court Must Act
Obamacare Is Unconstitutional

 

The most important question before the U.S. Supreme Court, and one of the most significant hot-button issues facing the nation, is whether President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform bill is constitutional or unconstitutional.
 

The court’s recent hearing of arguments about the law shows that serious constitutional issues have been raised about the most sweeping legislation in modern times.
 

The League of American Voters has steadfastly opposed the Obamacare legislation on constitutional and other grounds.
 

The law will cost taxpayers over $1 trillion, add massive new regulations with enforcement agencies, cut Medicare by $500 billion for those who paid into the system — while adding tens of millions of new people to the system. A bevy of new taxes and fees will be used to pay for the program.
 

There are political matters, but there are significant constitutional ones as well.
 

The League soon will be sending a memo to the nine members of the Supreme Court outlining our opposition to the law and why our 250,000 members believe that this law should not be upheld.
 

Any number of legal experts, elected officials, and interested observers have weighed in with their views on the constitutionality of Obamacare — with many declaring that the high court should strike it down.
 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for and against the bill on March 26-28, and the court’s decision is expected by the end of June.
 

Most of the discussion regarding the bill’s legality has centered on the individual mandate, which holds that Americans not covered by employer- or government-provided healthcare insurance must purchase insurance or pay a penalty.
 

Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III has stated, “I would hope that the court would throw out at least the individual mandate that people buy insurance.

“The current state of the law regarding the Commerce Clause is a long ways from what the founders had in mind in the Constitution, and to carry it a giant step further in the direction of governmental power would be a big mistake.”

Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, the court that ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional last August, wrote: “The individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and is therefore unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potential unbounded assertion of congressional authority: The ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”

Stephen B. Presser, the Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History at Northwestern University School of Law and a frequent witness on constitutional issues before congressional committees, noted that the Supreme Court has generally upheld acts of Congress. 

“Still, there are cases where the court has ruled that Congress has gone too far, such as U.S. v. Lopez [1995], where the court held that Congress had no power to prohibit the carrying of firearms within 1,000 feet of schools because that might interfere with interstate commerce [young scholars’ education might be interrupted, and thus they would produce less in interstate commerce],” Presser observed.

“While Congress does, undeniably, have some power to reach deep into the economic lives of U.S. citizens, still there must be some limits on its power. These limits are clearly hinted at in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states, and to the people thereof. 

“Our framers understood limiting the federal government to be essential to preserving the liberty of our citizens. The PPACA, in effect, takes over one-sixth of the American economy, and forces Americans to buy a service [insurance] that they may not need or desire.

“The logic of forcing Americans to buy health insurance is just a short step away from dictating to Americans other consumer choices [e.g., you may only buy an electronically powered automobile, or you must eat three servings of vegetables or fruits a day].

“If Congress can enact the individual mandate in the PPACA, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find any limits to its powers, and given the 10th Amendment, this is an intolerable situation.”

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a leading opponent of the healthcare bill, has said that if the Supreme Court does not throw out Obamacare, the federal government will have “limitless power. If they can order you to buy this product, they can order you to buy any product.”

 The PPACA “was an ugly bill when it was born and it was never expected to become law in the form it’s now written,” he added. “It has so many errors in it and, of course, more egregious than that, it has constitutional violations.”

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in December 2010 ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, that the “tax” imposed on people who choose not to have insurance coverage was in practice a “penalty” outside the federal government’s constitutional authorities to raise revenues.

He said he could find no precedent for Congress’ right to regulate a person’s decision not to purchase a product.

Texas Rep. Ted Poe, an opponent of the law, said, “There is no place in the Constitution that gives government the authority to force citizens to participate in interstate commerce — in this case forcing citizens to buy government-approved insurance.

“There is nothing in the Constitution that gives government that authority and that’s really the basis for the entire bill, the individual mandate.

“What’s next? The government can then force us to buy their car — their green car, force us to buy their particular type of house — and it goes on and on, whether it’s food or some other product.”

He said that the individual mandate violates the principle of limited government. “If we don’t participate in the program by the government, we could be fined under the law, and I think all of that violates the constitutional standard of limited government. It makes government unlimited.”

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, a healthcare expert, agrees: “If Congress can force individuals to buy health insurance, Congress can force individuals to buy stocks and bonds to prop up Wall Street, or American-made automobiles to prop up Detroit.”

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee and an orthopedic surgeon, has stated, “This is the first time in the history of our nation that the federal government has said to each and every American citizen, by virtue of being a citizen you must buy a product and this is what it must be.

“It is that second clause, the ‘and this is what it must be,’ very specifically that runs into constitutional challenges. 

The bill is very specific in what kind of health coverage you and every single American must have, and if you don’t purchase what the government mandates that you purchase, then guess who enforces it? The IRS. 

“This law is bad on all sorts of counts. As a physician, I can tell you that it harms access, it increases the cost of healthcare, it harms the quality of healthcare and it certainly decreases choices for the American people.”

Some supporters of Obamacare argue that if the government can mandate auto insurance, it can mandate health insurance. But opponents counter that the federal government doesn’t mandate auto insurance, the states do, and the states are also free to mandate health insurance while the federal government is not.

Others note that driving a car is considered a privilege, and not a natural right protected by the constitution. The state, therefore, can require a person who wants such a privilege to purchase insurance.

Opponents also stress that while current precedent allows Congress to regulate “economic activity,” with Obamacare, Congress has taken the extraordinary step of regulating inactivity — not buying insurance.

Another question before the Supreme Court is “severability” — whether other parts of Obamacare can be allowed to stand if the individual mandate provision is struck down.

Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson stated that the individual mandate is absolutely fundamental to the bill’s structure, and if it goes, so does the rest of the act.

The Heritage Foundation’s constitutional law expert, Todd Gaziano, agrees: “When the heart of the act is torn out, the rest of the statue will fall.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also agrees that the entire bill should be scrapped.

“I look at this healthcare bill as a big bowl of stew, and at this point the Supreme Court may say there’s some tainted meat in that stew that we’re going to take out. I don’t know, if you take the tainted meat out, if anybody would still want to eat it,” he said. “Let’s start with a clean pot, some fresh meat, and let’s make this stew all over again. That’s what we need to do with the healthcare bill.”

Cuccinelli declared, “This would never have become law without the individual mandate — that’s very clear.”

Economist Robert Reich, a former secretary of labor, feels that regardless of constitutionality, the PPACA can’t survive without the individual mandate. “Only if everyone buys insurance can insurers afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions, or pay the costs of catastrophic diseases,” said Reich.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made his view on the matter clear during oral arguments in March: “My approach would be if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute is gone.”

The Supreme Court will also rule on whether it is constitutional for the PPACA to force the states to greatly expand their Medicaid coverage, which opponents of the bill say constitutes “coercion.”

In sum, the Obamacare law is a bad law that adds new regulations, new bureaucracies, and new taxes without addressing the underlying problems of our medical system: skyrocketing costs, systemic insurance and Medicare fraud, and a failure to employ free-market programs like Health Savings accounts.

The League of American Voters strongly encourages the Supreme Court to use its vested power to declare the law fully unconstitutional and void.

Vote John A Swasey for Duchesne County Commissioner

After the Duchesne County Commissioners were ordered by the Court to pay $5 million dolllars to a man for refusing to issue a business license, the county gave a "deer in the headlights look" and said they were taken completely by surprise.

It had never occurred to them to obey the law because they thought they were the law. 

Duchesne government has had an extreme hatred for free enterprise and personal property rights for several decades.

Introducing John Swasey!  God's gift to Duchesne County.  Even though he brings a breath of fresh air and honesty to a corrupt chamber, there will undoubtedly be the satanic portion of the county that will not vote for honesty.

Keep checking his web site at http://votejohnswasey.com   

Is it possible for a Democrat to be a good person?

There was a time when the democratic platform could be perceived as a party of the people.  It was always a lie, but there have always been stupid people that do not deserve freedom.  In fact, millions of people actually prefer slavery.  It has always been that way.  Even before the Earth was created, there were billions of intelligent spirits that chose Lucifer's plan of rebellion, protests, organized labor, socialism, something for nothing plans including food stamps, welfare, etc., instead of the freedom to choose as outlined by Jehova, even though freedom of choice meant living with the consequences of one's choice.

Jesus Christ's plan for us to obtain a body and have complete freedom of choice in all areas created a war between freedom lovers and slave enjoyers.  

When the United States Constitution was drafted, it was intended that this country would be a unique form of government never before tried, a constitutional Republic and was never intended to be a democracy, since there has never been a successful democracy in the history of the earth.

Basically, there are two types of people; freedom lovers and those that prefer to be slaves to a government that will make their decisions for them.

One way to tell if a church is evil or good is the political belief of the pastor, or leader.  

Democrats are by definition evil.  Sometimes a person claims to be a democrat because their parents were or because they don't know any better, having never studied what it actually meant.  

Once a person claims to be a democrat, after studying what that actually means, they have joined a Satanic Cult with pre-mortal origins.  Like Satan, they believe in their platform and it is a part of who they are.  It is more ingrained than their DNA.  It is their very soul.  They are evil and can never be changed.  Like an ant can never be a dinosaur, a democrat can never be a good person.

Democrats make poor parents and pass their beliefs on to their children.  They lie and deceive at every opportunity and will use force and intimidation like a union's demands against an employer.  

There can be good and bad people in every race or color.  But it is not physically possible for a democrat to be a good person.  A democrat may do something good, but no amount of good that any democrat can ever do in an entire lifetime, can ever make up for the fact that they despise freedom.

If a person is angry enough to kill someone, they can kill a democrat and be guaranteed that even a random killing can be a benefit to society.  Killing a Mexican in the hopes of eliminating an illegal alien on the other hand does not offer the same 100% certainty that the person deserved to be killed that killing a democrat offers.  Killing a democrat is always a good thing.

 

Illegal Immigration

If a bank robber or serial killer was arrested, would the liberal crybabies crawl out from under their rock and complain that a family would be broken up if the criminal were jailed?  Of course not!  This is exactly the same argument that pansy asses have when ILLEGAL Aliens (criminals) are deported, leaving the legal members of the family alone.  Personally, I wish they would get the death penalty for bringing graffiti, filthy living conditions, crime, different language, and defective thinking to our country.  

They destroy our schools with their demands that we cater to them.  

People, like dogs, have different capabilities depending on the breed.  Mexicans were given far superior climate and natural resources by God, but look what they did with it.  They have destroyed their own country and want to destroy ours.  Everytime a Mexican wants to change our country, they should be reminded that they are Mexicans and they are free to go home at anytime.  If they do not have a valid green card, they are not only guilty of illegal immigration, but are guilty of treason which deserves the death penalty.

Every time we hear people speaking in Spanish, a crime is being committed.  Every citizen should take the law into their own hands if police and ICE refuse to obey the law.  

Dead Mexican carcases can be given to pig farmers for feed and there would be a zero cost to completely eliminate the illegals from our country.  Every good citizen is willing to use their own bullets.  We could even use the pigs raised on Tacos  to feed the illegals that await deportation.   

Killing beaners would keep citizen's guns on target and keep their aim good.  


Additional bullet sales would help the economy and all of the jobs previously taken by illegals would be available to citizens and unemployment would be zero.

Duchesne County Government

For many years, the Uinta Basin was considered the armpit of Utah.  Back in the mid 1800s, Brigham Young stated that the only useful purpose of the Uinta Basin was to hold the rest of the earth together.  Duchesne county has been referred to as the rectum of Utah.  

For a hundred years the only industry was government, except for ranchers, farmers, and a handful of necessary services.  Even to this day, Duchesne has the Obama attitude that government is great and private enterprise and personal property rights be damned!  

Duchesne county has outlawed trailer parks, calling them "man camps" and will not allow any legal tax paying property owner to have an address unless his house has a permanent foundation.  This has led to hundreds of illegal aliens taking the $20 plus an hour jobs and sending the money back to Mexico.  White people are not even allowed to get a Post Office Box unless they own property that has a house with a permanent foundation.  

Mike Hyde whose official title is Zoning and Planning is often referred to as "the Satanic Idiot" for his retarded changing of the entire county's address system requiring thousands of dollars to be spent on signage designed to confuse people, requiring the hiring of more law enforcement.    Mike Hyde actually moved to Roosevelt so he would not have to associate with people that hate him maybe even enough to kill him.  Nowadays, people just laugh at the moron and use the real address system used prior to Mike's Ouija Board system.  

I personally asked Mike Hyde why he was impeding my right to engage in commerce by receiving UPS and FedEx shipments and he lied by telling me it was because of the Post Office.  I knew this was an outright lie and already had a post office box so I went to the Postmaster and asked him when the USPS became in charge of all UPS and FedEx shipments.  The Postmaster replied that Mike Hyde is a liar and the Post Office has never had anything to do with addresses or FedEx or UPS and that there is no way in hell that the Post Office would ever come up with such a stupid idea for addresses as Mike Hyde.

Duchesne's hatred for free enterprise is evidenced by the empty stores on main street.  The only businesses allowed are gas stations and restaurants.  Duchesne County was ordered by the Court to pay $5 million in damages to a handicapped enterprise for refusing to obey the law and issue a business license.

Duchesne County passed a law that allows the arrest of people that live in their homes 365 days a year.  This applies to a thousand residents that live in rural Duchesne county where zoning is recreational. 

This is the tip of the iceberg and John Swasey is running for County Commissioner and I urge you to learn all you can about him and his agenda as he intends to save Duchesne County from the Satanic, Obama type big government mentality that is destroying America.

Visit http://votejohnswasey.com to voice your own concerns and learn how to save Duchesne from being called Douche Bag.

Do Illegal Aliens deserve to Live?

Not in the United States, they don't.  In Utah, where illegal criminals are coddled, thousands of criminals are taking jobs like construction which generally starts at about $20 per hour, landscaping, oil field workers, and even for the State.

Every time we hear someone speaking in Spanish, there is a crime in progress.  

We have been invaded and no one is doing anything about it.  It appears that citizens will have so solve the problem themselves.

Random murders are rarely if ever solved.  The only way to get caught is in the act.  Police usually think a family member or neighbor is the prime suspect.  In a random murder, there is absolutely no connection between the exterminator and the pest.  To make the act of self defense even more attractive, illegal aliens will not be missed by anyone and consequently will not even be reported missing in the first place.  Therefore, if the body is destroyed or disposed of properly, there is no incident for the police to even investigate.  


Since many police have illegal friends or relatives, or otherwise refuse to obey and enforce the law against illegal immigration, one must not assume that law enforcement will share your view that cleaning the streets of shit is actually a good thing.  In rural areas, disposing of a body is as easy as taking a leak at the side of the road.  In remote areas, it is not even necessary to bury the body as coyotes, wolves, bears, fox, birds, wild cats, and even maggots, will turn an illegal alien into a skeleton in only a couple weeks.


If the instrument of death is not left in the body ( a bullet may go clear through a body never to be found), there is no forensic evidence for investigators to investigate.


In some cases, it may be possible to simply leave the body wherever it falls, like in a laundromat.  Always shoot through a pillow case or paper sack to catch the ejected shell if using a semi-automatic weapon.  The most often used weapon is a small .22 caliber as they make very little noise even without a suppressor and the lead self destructs beyond ballistic evaluation.  


Unfortunately, there is not a bounty where you could cut off the head and take it to a local police station for payment, but most citizens are willing to protect their homes, neighborhoods, and country from invasion for no charge.  Actually, if there was a bounty, the illegal immigration problem would be solved pretty quick and with a zero cost to government.


Imagine how fun it would be to kill a beaner on the way to work and a couple on the way home and half a dozen on weekends.  


Just think, if only one person in a hundred did this, pretty soon there would not be anyone on welfare and the unemployment would be zero.