"Imagination land and crime stats"

It i clear to me that what we have here is whites appropriating black culture. Blacks kill about 90% of the homicide victims, hispanics kill about 7% and whites kill about 3%. Clearly whites are appropriating black culture because it is apparent that it is black culture to kill people. We need a movement to stop this appropriation along the lines of 'black lives matter'. I'm thinking 'black felons matter' BFM. Or maybe 'black murderers matter' BMM. How about 'black thugs matter' BTM. Why not 'black ass stupid tards are ruining da states' BASTARDS.

I'm not sure why the data from different sources is so disparate. Most data in the U.S. is collected by race but for reasons that defy explanation the FBI data is quite inaccurate whereas other sources vary considerably.

For example: the youth homicide rate (per 100,000) between races in 2010:

Blacks: 28.8
Hispanics: 7.9
Whites: 2.1

Now isn't it interesting that there is no category for "unknown" as found in the FBI data...

Often the data lumps hispanics together with white, and again the race information is known but for whatever reason the various sources of the data introduce a confusion factor.

What is the real statistical breakdown? Well it depends on where you get your data. But when you take race and population into account blacks commit about 77-80% of homicides, hispanics 13-16%, Asians about 2-6% and whites about 3-6% and other around 2%. The other is typically American Indians who commit a very small percentage of actual murders but based on their population actually commit a lot of murders (the reservations are one of the most dangerous places in the U.S.).

Often the data is presented in a way that is mathematically correct but offensive to some groups so a different way is found to make the facts more presentable. In other cases the facts are so bad that the only answer is to hide the data and refuse to discuss it. For example black rape of white women is so high it could be called epidemic. Conversely white rape of black women is so rare it is almost unheard of. So if you go looking for the data you probably won't find it.

But regardless of where you get your data here is the take home point. Crimes committed in the U.S. by people of Northern European descent is lower than Canada and any country in Europe. Crimes committed in the U.S. by blacks is 10-100 times greater, by hispanics is 5-40 times greater. That is the point of comparing the statistics, i.e. that the facts/truth is so dramatic. That is what begs explanation not obfuscation. But the media, the feds and to a lesser extent almost every other reporting authority obfuscates the facts.

neo-nazi! Who is the neo-Nazi and who determined that he was a neo-nazi? It isn't clear to me from your post who you are accusing of being a neo-nazi but based on the claim I will guess it is the SPLC who smeared the person in question. So who is it and do we have pictures of him making the Nazi salute?

He, who??? I'm stumped.

I would hope you have more substantial prrof of being a neo-nazi than "We should have listed to the Austrian chap with the little mustache."
What is the context? Is he trying to shock? did Herr Hitler say something that happened to be valid and he merely referenced that point?

I'm not sure why you are dancing around this.

But your link and your posts don't support your claim. All I'm asking is WHO are you claiming is a neo-Nazi. I am capable of looking it up myself to see if it is true or if it is just a smear. It is common by the left to smear those they disagree with by calling them names (neo-Nazi, rcist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, etc) just to shut them down. The left can't seem to present a real argument for most of what they espouse so they resort to shaming to stop the conversation.

So WHO is it that is a neo-nazi?

OMG. You don't know who the person is but you are OK with calling then a neo-Nazi ! Seriously !

It isn't sufficient. It is probable reason to look deeper but it isn't conclusive enough to simply deem him to be a neo-Nazi. I don't know and I can't know because you can't tell me who it is. Yet to you he is absolutely a neo-Nazi. I sincerely hope you don't ever serve on a jury.

I believe under the constitution and consistent with our traditional beliefs taxes should be with our consent and certainly not opposed to our consent. But more to the point I think the fatal flaw in our tax laws are the exceptions. No person or group should be exempted from taxes and everyone should pay taxes. If we must have income taxes than everyone with income should pay it. If we must have property taxes than everyone with property must pay it. If we must have sales taxes than everyone who buys something must pay it. Why not???

"xenophobic statements"

intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.

So is this fear irrational or logical? From my point of view the question should be do we need immigrants be they muslim, chinese, mexican or Swedish? We are one of the most populous countries in the world and our large population exacerbates most of our fiscal and political problems. So why allow any immigration? Our government spends billions and billions and billions of dollars on these immigrants. They get all the welfare and additional direct payments of cash AND we pay organizations to help them immigrate. WHY??? I'm thinking that rather than calling people opposed to muslim immigrants xenophobic a better descriptive term would be incredibly smart. Conversely those who are in favor of more muslim immigrants are incredibly stupid.

That makes no sense. There has to be another reason. Think about this logically: There are millions of Syrian refugees and you are trying to convince me that bringing in 10,000 of them at a cost of billions a year is the humanitarian solution??? What about the rest of them? Wouldn't it make more sense to help them in place with that money and save them all? Duh! No! There has to be some other reason to squander enough money to solve the problem by bring the problem here.
I vote we solve the problem right there where they are (the Middle East) and allow them to stay in their homeland. I sure as hell wouldn't want someone to drag me to Syria to "save me" when for half the money it would cost they could save everyone and leave them in their homelands.

There are about 2-3 billion people in this world who survive on less than $2 a day. Many of them are unhealthy, die young and suffer their entire life. Why not bring them all here in the name of your humanitarian belief system and tax us to pay to feed them and house them? Would it make any sense at all? Well why not bring just a few hundred thousand of them and the hell with the rest and we could still pat ourselves on the back for being great humanitarians? Right? Is that what it's all about soothing your conscience? You are putting American lives at risk and bankrupting our government so you can feel good about yourself?!? WORSE you are ignoring a solution that would actually help these people. This is stupid.

Every country that has taken in these "Syrian" refugees WILL have serious trouble. That is their citizens (you know, the ones the government was supposed to protect) will be killed and maimed by these 'refugees'. Every country without exception!! AND some of these countries will experience revolt or civil war as the population suffers, the government fails them and they are forced to seek self help for this problem. What is happening to Germany France, Sweden, England, etc. is a crime. I would be happy to see the population execute some of these government officials who stabbed their own citizens in the back. I am quite serious, I simply cannot imagine the anger a father of a girl in England who was raped by one of the muslim rape gangs. What I do not understand is why no retribution. If my government allowed such a thing and covered it up I would personally send the rapist off to his great reward in the sky. These politicians behind this treason are playing with fire. There will be hell to pay down the road.

THAT is exactly the problem. Merkel and Hollande and other leaders have created a situation where people will die and the anger will get out of hand. This was a terrible mistake and I'm glad you are starting to realize the significance of it. Once this becomes open revolt in the streets there is no way to know where it will go or how bad it will get.

'A common fear on the political right was that Jews and Catholics were existentially undermining society'

I doubt that you can prove that it was 'common' and that those on the left never held a similar opinion. Sounds more like an unfounded smear for political reasons which is common from the left.

The left doesn't know it's right from it's left. They have always blamed the bad things in the world on the right or the far right. They are clueless. Dan Rather used to refer to the hard line communists in Russia as the hard right!! He seemed clueless that communism is left wing and that strict communism is hard left. Hitler was a leftist. Mussolini was a leftist. Castro was a leftist. Hugo Chavez was a leftist. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Bernie Sanders are leftists. Winston Churchill was on the right. Are you seeing a pattern here?

"The Southerners were on the political right"
More rewriting history.
100% of Southern democrats voted against the 13th amendment and 100% of Republicans voted for it.
100 % of all Democrats voted against the 14th amendment and 94% of republicans voted for it.
100% of democrats voted against the 15th amendment and 100% of Republicans voted for it.

Was all that a ploy by Southern Democrats to make believe they were not right wing???

Mussolini was a fascist. Fascism was a variation of socialism (just as communism is a variation of socialism). Socialism is a left of center philosophy. The left has worked overtime since the second world war to rebrand fascism as right wing but it is not. It is socialism by force (as is communism) without the state 'owning' the means or production. They didn't own them they controlled them by bureaucratic regulations and controls.

"At that point in history, Southern democrats were politically conservative."
Which really means that the left no longer wants to associate themselves with the old South so they rewrote history and declared them all to be conservatives. Yet the Democrats in the old South all voted as a block and always opposed the Republicans. Frankly if I were a Democrat/liberal I would be embarrassed and ashamed to try to claim all those Southern Democrats were for all those years in fact conservatives. The lie is so transparent that it makes you look a fool.

The only difference between Mussolini and Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton philosophically is Mussolini openly advocated using force to create his Marxist/Fascist nirvana. It is a leftest/liberal philosophy the antithesis of the right/conservative philosophy.

Regarding 'historians' declaring Mussolini to be right wing it is exactly what I described; the left purging and denying their history. I don't blame them. I'm sure that years from now after everyone realizes that BLM is a racist Marxist group that has drafted thousands of useful idiots to do harm to our country that the leftist 'historians' will declare that they were actually right wing activists.