What possible benefit is there to keeping blacks around, rather than getting rid of them?
It seems like the hospitality, agricultural, landscaping, and construction industries have mostly upgraded to using Latinos instead of blacks. What advantage do blacks have over Latinos? Not a whole lot, that I can tell. They don't work as hard as Latinos and they usually have more of an attitude problem than Latinos. The only benefit of blacks is that they speak English better than a lot of Latinos.
So why would we keep them around? Is it because they haven't become enough of a nuisance yet for us to see any urgent need to get rid of them, so we've been just procrastinating eliminating them from our country? William Pierce pointed out that whites have a tendency to think, if blacks stay on their side of town, then they aren't a problem. Most black violence is also directed at other blacks instead of at whites, so we might easily think it's not a big deal if they have a high rate of violent crime.
Or is it because of white guilt over slavery? If the latter, one would think we could just pay them reparations (like we paid the Jews over the Holocaust) and then say, "We're even now; GTFO. You helped us during the era of slavery, and now we've helped you, so we have nothing left to feel guilty about." Letting them live a relatively comfortable life all these years in America, rather than having to live in Africa, could be considered a form of reparations.
I notice [57 percent of Jews support Black Lives Matter](https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/04/23/494790016/black-jewish-relations-intensified-and-tested-by-current-political-climate). [Their justification](https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/u-s-jews-must-support-black-lives-matter-1.5423034) is that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. In other words, mistreating blacks might corrupt our society in a way that eventually is going to affect Jews. And/or, Jews need to protect blacks so they can continue to count on their support as members of their political coalition. (By the way, Israel [decided](http://www.newsweek.com/israel-deport-african-migrants-jail-time-thousands-infiltrators-768645) it wasn't worth keeping blacks around; their need to maintain a smoothly running ethnostate trumped humanitarian concerns.)
Black Lives Matter was organized to address the issue of extrajudicial killings of black dindus. Blacks were doing suspicious stuff like running from the cops, and getting shot. Maybe there's a problem with our justice system if cops have to resort to shooting blacks illegally; if we're going to make a black man's running from the cops an offense punishable by death, then we might as well codify that, or maybe pass a law saying that black felons or habitual offenders should be executed, or exiled back to Africa. Then we wouldn't have all these dindus with lengthy rap sheets running around.
Instead of doing that, we have a drug war that throws blacks in prison for decades for selling small amounts of crack. Since there's a lot of demand for crack, blacks continue to be drawn to the crack trade as a quick way to make money, which leads to more and more blacks going to prison. That's one way to get them off the streets.
The drug war breaks up black families, though, which probably puts blacks kids on a track to get into crime as well. It also gives blacks criminal records (if they didn't already have those), which makes it harder for them to enter the workforce after they're released. They are then either going to have to go back to crime, or get on welfare. Either way, whites end up paying. It would probably be better to just legalize drugs, because a crack-smoking black father is probably a better influence on his kid than an absent black father.
It corrupts our law enforcement and justice systems if we have to turn a blind eye to extrajudicial killings for the sake of getting dindus off the street, and come up with laws, such as the drug laws, whose main purpose is to target blacks for incarceration rather than accomplish anything useful beyond that. We should either get rid of blacks altogether, or try to find some way to incorporate blacks into society as useful, productive citizens (or subjects, as Hitler might have proposed) and ruthlessly enforce laws against black criminality, such as murder, rape, robbery, etc., that actually has victims. If the courts are harsh enough, then the cops won't need to be.
Maybe exile of felons would be better than execution. That way, if a black man gets caught committing a crime, he can be sent back to Africa and his family can go with him, rather than being broken up. Then maybe we won't have so many fatherless black kids around.
From the white perspective, we need to just do what William Pierce did with the Jews in his video "The Jews Are Our Misfortune" and put "black contributions" on one side of the ledger and "black destruction" on the other side, and figure out whether they contribute anything that's worth keeping them around. If so, then we should figure out how to coexist with them rather than antagonizing them pointlessly. If not, we should get rid of them and be done with it. Either the current strategies for policing blacks are appropriate, and we need to chalk up black riots, etc. as a cost of having blacks around, and thus a possible argument for getting rid of them; or these policing strategies are inappropriate and should be changed.
One has to wonder, is there even a place for blacks in Africa? Why not just genocide them off the face of the earth, rather than leaving them to drive so many species of African animals, like the bonobo, into endangerment? What makes that one subspecies of human more important than the diversity of African species? I suppose blacks could be useful for harvesting cocoa and working in the mines and such, but I wonder if we need so many of them, or if it's more efficient to use them rather than, say, sending Latinos over there to do that work.