White Nationalism, Part II

Taking apart the tax side of Halogen’s argument:

1 - Social Security taxes: of the 8% of wage earners who make more than the Social Security limit and therefore pay less than 6.2% of their salary to the Social Security trust fund, a disproportionate number would be white, since blacks make less than whites overall. Therefore the regressive nature of this tax victimizes blacks to a larger extent than whites. Black life expectancy, meanwhile, is 72.2 years as opposed to 77.5 years for whites, so whites get more of the benefits from this tax even though in the broad aggregate they pay a lesser proportion of their income into it.

2 - Income taxes: seemingly, whites should pay more of their income than blacks, but this is so only if you exclude benefits received at work from the equation. Being specific, employer contributions to health insurance plans are subsidized through a tax expenditure worth 76.5 billion dollars. As more blacks than whites work at employers who don’t provide health insurance, this subsidy will accrue disproportionately to whites.
Moving on, some idea of just how tilted the tax code is to the black underclass can be gotten by looking at tax expenditures for housing. The figures are as follows:



Mortgage interest deduction	             60,270,000
Property tax deduction	             22,140,000
Capital gains exclusion	             18,540,000
Rental passive losses	             4,720,000
Low income housing                      3,210,000
Rental accelerated depreciation    	    4,740,000


The score from the above: the top three lines, which accrue overwhelmingly to property owners with high incomes, who tend to be overwhelmingly white, get 88.8% of the tax relief from the above. The bottom three lines indirectly benefit renters to some small degree even though they too are directed at property owners, so perhaps some black renters might get some benefit from those lines.
But what about actual government spending? Aren’t all those welfare mommas cheating all those hard working white folks out of what’s justly theirs?
It’s tough to separate out what’s paid for by trust funds from what’s paid for from general revenues. However, given that the vast majority of trust fund expenditures are accounted for by Social Security and Medicare, and that a disproportionate amount of the benefits from those expenditures accrue to whites, let’s go straight to general revenues.
The biggest line items are:

1 - Interest on the debt: 362 billion: most bondholders aren’t minorities, so the beneficiaries of these payments are once again disproportionately white.
2 - National defense: 294.5 billion. This plus Veterans Affairs sums to 341.6 billion. These expenditures are probably fairly evenly distributed among the races.
3 - Income security: Aha! Welfare!! No, not so fast. They don’t break out all of the expenditures here, but the largest line item by far in this category is Federal employee disability and retirement benefits, at 77.2 billion. Like all retirement benefits, these will go more towards whites than blacks because of the longer life expectancy of whites.
I couldn’t even find a breakout for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the classic welfare program. Could it be because it’s so small a part of the budget that they don’t bother to break it out? Hmm.

In sum, it’s tough to find a Federal tax subsidy or any significant piece of government spending that benefits blacks disproportionately.
OTOH, if you massacred all those white property owners who hold a mortgage and are retired, you might make enough of a profit to make it worthwhile.
:smiley:

Pantom, you might have more luck looking for TANF (Temporary Assitance for Needy Families) rather than for AFDC; the AFDC program was cancelled in 1996 and TANF essentially took its place.

Here is a .pdf document showing various stats for TANF recipients. Particularly interesting is the state-by-state breakdown of recipients by race. In 1997, in 14 states, plus the District of Columbia, the percentage of blacks receiving TANF exceeded the percentage of whites receiving aid (by varying margins, of course). Nationwide, the percentages were 36% white, 35.4% black.

Upon waking up and finding** Darwin’s Finch**’s and Pantom’s apt and able dissection of Halogen’s latest attempt at lying with statistics I realize that the sleep depravation (much work and little sleep for the Sparc these days) got the better of me.

It was not a strawman that was raised, it was a red herring that was laid before us. Mea Culpa.

In any case… now the red herring is pickled and I have clarified the rationality argument… is there anything left of your ‘argument’ Halogen?

Do you realize what an intellectual beating you are suffering here?

Do you realize that you neo-Nazis have not scored one single rhetorical point through hundreds of exchanges?

Do you understand that you are continuously making yourself the laughing stock of hundreds of people that are reading this?

I fear not, but I hope that we are providing the nudge that makes you stumble and take at least a baby step towards recovery from the neo-Nazi bug.

Sparc

You think I would be happy because some other kid got killed? WTF

This shows how your mind works. Young people shouldn’t get killed. They shouldn’t hate each other enough to kill each other. They shouldn’t fear each other.

There is no fight other than the one made up in your little paranoid head.

[…regarding Darwin’s Finch with reverential awe…]

You, sir, have become a formidable debator.

Okay, I have now read Doberman’s link in English, and am awaiting word on exactly what conclusion I’m supposed to draw from it. “Oh, yeah? Well, skinheads can get beaten to death, too!” Is that it?

But hey, dig that gloomy music and the groovy Svenska speechifyin’. Like my own personal Euro-art-movie. I don’t suppose he’s just reading something depressingly pedestrian like a railroad timetable… :smiley:

You have different languages symbolized as flags at the top of the page.

Do you really think my question was something else than sarcasm?WTF
Well, there were 10 people involved in that murder and i bet there are people in this world that doesnt see Daniels death as a loss. And what does a mental disturbance like being paranoid got to do with my question? Ive stated that nobody should experience such, i know you would like me to say the opposite, but that`s just in your big prejudiced head.

Thats it, simple as that. Skinheads can be beaten to death, and immigrants can be beaten to death. (but only one of them get the response: oh my, thats terrible, im so fucking angry! Would we get the same reply if the case of Daniel was posted first?)

Sparc already very kindly explained about the flag to me, two days ago. We are both baffled as to why the website chose the Cross of St. George flag to symbolize “English”, instead of a Union Jack.

http://www.southdowndefenders.com/union_jack.htm
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/engflag.htm

I doubt it, because people don’t tend to feel a lot of sympathy for racists, no matter how they die, although I think that most people here would agree that it was an ugly and terrible thing to happen to a teenager.

So can a murder of an immigrant or political opponent, by the skinheads. You can by yourself rationalize every act you commit.

A nationalsocialist would find his ideals offensive and as a threat to the white race, none of the skinheads have signed any treaty where they acknowledged the universal rights of all men (neither has any other of us, its a man-created right, not a natural one).

It`s probably a VERY english translator.

So people have no rights? so i can just kill at will? or are you referring to Jews and black people having no natural rights? What makes blacks and jews unnatural and whites natural?

The rights are written in the laws of the country, to my knowledge are you still a criminal in the USA if you kill someone.
The so-called universal rights has no roots to any specific country but are a mixture of everything, a compromise or an bastard, if you will.
And of course Tars Tarkas, if you want to kill at will, go ahead, i cant stop you, but it would be illegal, even on Mars (i think).

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So these words are a load of crap to you guys? Just checking.
If you answer yes, at least it’ll mean you aren’t hypocrites.

The same document also says:
" He has excited domestic insurrection amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savagess, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions"
Most of the signers, including Thomas Jefferson, was slave owners.
But Thomas Jefferson also had his hand on the Declaration of Independence:
" Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people (Negroes) are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be…pari passau filled up by free White laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human Nature must shudder at the prospect held up." Do they teach you all that in school?
Who`s an hypocrit?

Doberman, quoting Jefferson from his autobiography, wrote:

As a merciless Indian savage, I’d just like to say that, like everyone else, Jefferson was right about some things and wrong about some things.

Today, we understand quite much more about nature than he did. Habits have changed. And opinions have shifted.

Jefferson would not stand mired, as you do, in intellectual blindness. He would change his mind and progress into the modern day. After all, he wrote to George Wythe in 1780: “Preach, my dear sir, a crusade against ignorance.”

You are deeply mistaken.

The Universal declaration of Human Rights was drafted based on the American Declaration of Independence and various documents from the French revolution.

The UDHR has been ratified by nearly every country on the globe, and the ratification of said document makes it a legally binding contract. Although we quibble over minor interpretations of the document there is no debate as to its validity as a definitive framework for the human rights, which law and state must live up to, safeguard and protect.

Our elected governments ratified the document in accordance with national laws. In the case of the US and the EU states this means that it was signed by individuals elected ‘by the people for the people.’

I’ll specifically point you to some of the sections in this document that makes inciting to act on, or acting on neo-Nazi, or racist dogma illegal.

The only way you’d get around that would be by declaring the ‘non-white races’ as not human… I’d love to see your argument for that one.

Sparc

Doberman, I never said you were a hypocrite. I was merely asking you whether you thought the opening passage of the Declaration was a load of horsedoo.
Anyone who knows anything about American history knows all about Jefferson and his racial views. But that’s not what I asked. Shoot, I didn’t even mention Jefferson.
What I asked was: do you or don’t you agree with those words? A simple yes or no will suffice.

”VERY” as in of Gaelic descent? Or did you mean someone sprung from Anglo tribes? Maybe you meant of Saxon family, or perhaps Norman? But wait, if we really go back to the roots of the European population the inhabitants of the British Isles are largely of North African and Iberian stock… is that what you meant? Naturally you could also be referring to a person of Central African origin, in other words any given member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Or mayhap we’re speaking of a more modern “VERY English” person… Pakistani? Indian? Maybe Caribbean?

Ironic to refer to one of Europe’s most mixed population groups as racially “VERY” anything.

One must admire the willpower needed to so staunchly and willfully ignore the obvious.

Sparc

Well, I did wonder whether it was some sort of political statement on the part of the website, to use the flag that specifically leaves out the parts of the Union Jack that symbolize the Union (the Irish and Scottish crosses), something like, “Down with British Imperialism that dates back to 1710!”, but then I decided that was probably too deep for them, and it was probably just out of sheer pissy refusal to feature either the Union Jack or the Stars And Stripes on their web page.