Category Archives: Race Relations

by | October 13, 2017 · 10:52 PM

Alt Left: In Support of Prejudice

I just found out that prejudice means “dislike for a group of people.” This typically means a racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation or sexual identity. Prejudice usually means bigotry of some sort, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, sectarianism, and various forms of ethnic hatred.

For the life of me, I cannot see what on Earth is wrong with not liking some group of people. However, I would argue that this should be limited to dislike, it should not be obsessive and it should not be the sort of hot or cold hatred that hurts a lot of people.

This boils down to a basic limitation of freedom. Saying that prejudice is illegal or immoral or bad in some way is automatically an abrogation of human freedom. Obviously, we don’t have to like anyone. Isn’t that clear? Obviously, we can dislike anyone we want to, for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. That is our right as a free citizen.

We have a right to our preferences. We have a right to have a preference for one particular group or a preference to not associate with some other particular group, although I would hope it would be phrased as,

“You know, I just don’t care to associate with [X group]. I wish them all the best and will work for equal rights for them because as humans they deserve it, but as far as I am concerned, it’s them over there and me over here. I simply prefer not to be around them too much and I do not wish to befriend them. If I have to deal with them, I will be as polite and friendly as possible, but I do not wish to take things any further than that.”

What in God’s name is wrong with such a mindset? Now obviously you cannot incorporate it into law. You cannot use your preferences to discriminate against certain groups in housing, employment, voting rights, etc. (even though such discrimination is rampant even now and is even officially sanctioned by a political party called the Republican Party). Sure, you can’t discriminate. But you don’t have to be friends with anyone. You don’t have to make the acquaintance of anyone. You don’t have to hang around with or associate with anyone.

I happen to have a certain dislike for some groups of people.

I am not wild about gay men, though I have a few online gay friends who I am very fond of. Friendships between gay and straight men are impossible in my book and fail every single time. How do I know this? Personal experience. I have also had a lifetime of bad experiences with gay men, and I just do not wish to deal with them anymore. I’ve had enough of gay men for one lifetime.

On their other hand, I support full rights for them, and I even work on their political campaigns! I support most of their political causes and in general think it should not be legal to discriminate against them.

But it’s still them over there, me over here, and never the twain shall meet. In my life, almost all straight men I have known have had little or nothing to do with gay men. I cannot think of anything more bizarre than straight men have gay friends, and the men I have known who befriended gay men almost always reported a catastrophic experience, bearing out my concerns. But then, I am Old School.

I don’t like Gypsies very much. In fact, I do not like them at all. I don’t hate them because they are not worth wasting my energy hating. I have met five Gypsies in my life. Four of them stole from me, and one just got out or jail. All were female. Based on that, I do not wish to meet anymore Gypsies in  this lifetime.

I’ve met plenty enough Gypsies for one life. As far as racism against Gypsies, it’s not something we deal with in the US, so it’s not an issue. It’s a nonexistent problem, so I have no opinion about it.

I don’t like Nigerians or Africans period very much, especially West Africans. I am done with them. Almost every African I met on the Net behaved horribly, and almost all of them tried to steal from either me or my friends.

We had a Yahoo group once and we let a lot of Africans, mostly Nigerians, into the group.

All except for one or two tried to steal from us.

A few others were trying to scam a White wife so they could get into the US. We called them wife-scammers and considered them to be about as low as the thieves.

The rest of them were always trying to chat with the women in our group. When the women would go talk to them, these men would have their cams on and would always be jerking their big Black cocks at these women, almost always White women. A number of our women got very upset by this, and some were out and out traumatized.

We threw almost all of them out of the group for stealing or trying to steal, wife scamming, and flashing and jerking off at our women without permission. We then put in a totally racist and discriminatory rule banning all Africans from joining the group.  We got accused of racism for this, and a lot of group members defected to go hang out with those wonderful Africans.

I suppose you think that because I am not fond of Africans, I dislike Black Americans. Actually, I have no particular opinion about Black Americans, and mostly I try to just not think about them, which I think is best. This is one group of Americans that I would say the less you think about them, the better.

Yes, we banned Africans from our group, but we also had a lot of Black Americans, men and women, in the group. Only one was banned, and he deserved it. The African ban did not apply to American Blacks. Why? Because they were not doing any of the things the Africans were doing! They were not stealing from us, wife scamming or jerking their dicks at our women.

In fact, the behavior of the US Blacks in our group was orders of magnitude better than the Africans! It was almost like we were dealing with two completely different races of people. This is why I think it is wrong to lump US Blacks in with Africans. Behaviorally, they are dramatically different, and US Blacks are much better behaved than Africans. I am not sure why this is, but I have some theories. As  you can see, theories of genetic race and behavior do not make much sense here, as US Black genes are not much different from African genes. What’s different? How about culture? How about 400 years of exposure to White culture here in the US?

I don’t have any particular preferences about any other groups of people, although to be completely honest, I suppose I am most comfortable with my own White people. I know that I am most comfortable with White women. I think it is just that they are most similar to me in many different ways. Also White women are far more likely to like me and want to get involved with me than are women of any other race. Why that is, I have no idea, but perhaps when it comes to dating and relationships, a lot of people simply prefer their own kind.

Which brings me to another type of preference. Why in God’s name can we not have racial or any other type of preferences when it comes to dating!? So you don’t want to date Catholics, or Arabs, or bisexuals, or transwomen, or Gypsies, or Gentiles, or atheists, or Nigerians, or, Hell, Midwesterners, or redheads, or people with blue eyes, or Republicans, or insurance salesmen, or banksters, or…anything or anyone for any reason or no reason?

I cannot think of anything more personal than dating, relationships, love, sexual behaviors, intimacy, and sex itself. The idea that we cannot have preferences or even actively discriminate in this area is absolutely insane, but we are starting to hear this now from the Cultural Left.

Apparently we men have no right to discriminate against transwomen in dating. As for me, sorry, I don’t date trannies. Real women are enough of a headache, believe me. I don’t need to deal with some chick who used to be a dude, sorry, I’m out as far as that goes.

Apparently, we White men are no longer allowed to say we prefer not to date Black women. We also cannot say that we do not find Black women attractive (a common belief among White men). I guess we have no right to have standards when it comes to attraction! The Cultural Left now says it is always racist for a White man to prefer not to date Black women, and it is always racist if a White man says he is not attracted to Black women.

I keep telling you that these Cultural Left freaks keep getting crazier every year. I think they are on some runaway Crazy Train. Apparently the nature of the Cultural Left is to get weirder and crazier every year, continually upping the ante and making more and more extreme demands. We meet a few of their nutty demands, and they don’t even bother to say thanks before they move the goalposts again and start making new even nuttier demands. It’s like a football field that stretches far off into the horizon with no end in sight.

24 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Civil Rights, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Discrimination, Homosexuality, Law, Left, Nigerians, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Roma, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites

by | October 3, 2017 · 1:16 PM

The White Low Income, Working Class and Poor Are Not As Bad As You Think

Jason Y: Actually, though small towns are not as safe as you can get, unlike what Robert is saying. If you’re in the right area, you could very well get around poor Whites who are very little different than gangbangers. Their whole scheme is identity theft, plain old theft, and extortion (sometimes using their children to gain the sympathy of people).

They also exploit the liberal economic system (giving it a bad name among conservatives), basically getting all they can for free (via using children). Yet these same whites often hate NAM’s worse than the Klan.

Actually, I lived around many poor Whites up in the mountains for many years. Those rural White areas are full of poor and low income Whites. That’s mostly who lives there.

There was almost no crime among those poor and low income rural Whites up there. I was not aware of any identity theft. There was very little theft. We even had a bunch of homeless young Whites living out in the park, and none of them ever stole either. The one guy who stole was very stupid, the worst one out of all of them, and he happened to be half-Indian. I hate to say it, but that’s when I really started thinking about biology, race, and crime. There were all these poor as dirt people living around me, almost all of them young Whites, and the only one who stole anything was a damned Indian.

There were a lot of drugs in those towns too. Meth was everywhere. I actually knew a number of meth users and most of them were extremely nice people, believe it or not. There was not a lot of crime associated with meth up there for some weird reason.

I did see some serious crime relating to interpersonal fights. One guy I knew very well was very badly beaten in the head with a metal bar to the point of unconsciousness. He was screwing some woman, he was at her house, and someone came in and nearly beat him to death. It was thought that the guy who beat him was maybe the girl’s boyfriend. I figure there is going to be serious violence or even homicide related to interpersonal conflict everywhere you go.

One thing I noticed was that there were some extremely scummy people up there. We had some as neighbors for a while. But they were mostly just destructive towards themselves. Young men went to jail pretty regularly, but it was usually for drunk driving and sometimes for fistfights with other young men. One time we called the cops on the neighbors. They had a wild fight at 3 AM and smashed out the front window. Mostly they were just gross. They would do meth and play loud music all night and were always going to be balcony and spitting down below. A lot of the spit landed on the cars below. They were disgusting and we were starting to get pretty mad about their sheer grossness.

You could talk to those guys though, and I had some pleasant conversations with them. Some were missing teeth due to meth use. They were friendly enough if you were friendly to them. Actually some were remarkably friendly. It was sort of amazing how friendly they were. And these were the meth-heads.

A young woman later moved in got pregnant soon after. She hung out with some lousy people. She was known for borrowing small amounts of money, like $5-10, and then never paying it back. In that low income White culture up there, that is considered to be extremely scummy behavior. It’s considered to be “niggerish” behavior associated with low income Blacks and Hispanics. Low income Whites are expected to be better than that, and if you act like that, you are “acting like a nigger,” and a lot of those poor Whites will ostracize you.

There were others up there who sometimes borrowed say $25. They would pay it back later as a matter of principle, always with interest. That’s how deeply moral they were.

I think people fail to understand the deep moral roots a lot of the White lower and working classes have. You have to live around them a while to see it.

These poor, low income and working class Whites also have a pretty complex moral code about politeness and appropriate behavior. It’s pretty easy to violate their rules, which is considered to be rather serious, though it is often chalked up to ignorance. A lot of the rules are unspoken, and they are communicated to you by nonverbal means that are often very hard to understand. If you break a rule, people will act upset, but they will communicate it to you in strange nonverbal ways that don’t seem to make sense. You have to figure out that they are communicating a message to you in code, and you are supposed to figure out the code.

They’re  interesting people. One great thing to say to people like that is, “You sure got a real nice family.” That always goes over very well. You are not supposed to diss someone’s family.  That is considered to be very serious social violation. They place family pretty high up in moral order.

I was not aware of a lot of welfare fraud and abuse up there. Some of the young women were on welfare. My mother said that although there were many young single Moms up there, few of them were on welfare. She said that though the young White men would not live with or marry the mother and often they broke up with them, they often supported their children despite their low incomes.

Those poor, low income ,and working class Whites have a hardcore work ethic. You are supposed to work. Refusing to work and choosing instead to live off others is considered lowlife behavior. Many work long hours, sometimes at more than one job. Quite a few of even the meth heads that I knew worked regular jobs, sometimes up to 50 hours a week.  They worked at jobs like house painter, things like that.

I also noticed something else. We had very little crime up there until a lot of Hispanics started moving into the mountains. Quite a few of them were illegals. They did not bring a lot of crime with them, but soon after they moved up there, I heard that a lot of car stereos were being stolen. If you live around Mexicans in California, you will find that most are not dangerous or criminal at all, and it is pretty safe to live around them, with the exception that Mexicans steal car stereos and car hubcaps. A few years after I moved here, all four of my hubcaps were stolen. They were stolen slowly, like one every 9 months or so. They cost ~ $25 each. I consider that a small price to pay for living around these Mexicans. It’s not like you need hubcaps or they are unaffordable.

After I moved down to this Hispanic town, I noticed that poor Whites seemed to attack themselves or direct their aggression inwards towards self-destructive behaviors, which can get pretty gross. But they did not act aggressive towards others much. But I saw that poor Hispanics and Blacks were much more likely to direct their aggression outwards towards other people and victimize them. They often seemed to show little no guilt about victimizing other people. It was like there was nothing wrong with it. Often they got outraged and angry at the victims for getting upset about being victimized!

Poor Blacks and Hispanics also “set the bar much lower” as far as acceptable behavior was concerned.

The poor Whites set a bar as far as acceptable behavior goes. Below that, you are a scum.

The Hispanics seemed to set the bar of acceptable behavior lower, and they considered worse behaviors than the Whites to be nonetheless acceptable. They allowed one to engage in more bad behaviors before they would consider you a scum.

And I hate to say it, but the Blacks around here set the bar even lower than that – they set the bar the lowest of all. They always asked for loans, and they never paid them back, ever. They saw nothing wrong with this. They walked into your house and started pointing at things you own and demanding that you give that object to them. Or they came into your house, and when your back is turned, they steal your stuff. Mexicans did this too, but it’s mostly Black or half-Blacks who did it.

I have never had a White person come into my house and start demanding that I give them my possessions even one time. That is such a profound violation in White society, even poor White society, that I cannot  put it into words. You will be thrown out of the house and never allowed back in again. Furthermore, you will be called a “nigger,” as that behavior is associated with low class Blacks, and Whites are supposed to be above that.

In all my life, I only had people come to my house and steal my stuff once, and that was an 18 year old delinquent drug user, but I blew it with him because I went to get my stash of pills when he was in the room with his friends, so he saw where I kept it. He later stole a bunch of pills from my stash.

But in general, the idea that you invite someone into your home and they rip you off when your back is turned is so outrageous in White society that it is nearly unmentionable. Once again, it is considered “niggerish,” and you will in a sense be evicted from the White race for engaging in that behavior. Among a lot of Whites, saying “you act like a nigger” is an extreme insult (you might get hit), and even poor Whites will go to great extremes to avoid engaging in behavior that would earn them that insult.

11 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Crime, Culture, Hispanics, Mexicans, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites

by | October 2, 2017 · 2:40 PM

Alt Left: Psychological Origins of White Gun Nut Culture

First of all, no matter what these rightwing liars tell you, gun culture is White culture. It’s rightwing White culture. It used to be mostly older rightwing Whites, but a number of younger Whites may be into it now too.

Gun nut culture is based in the South, Texas, the rural Midwest, West and East.

Blacks are not into gun nut culture, although I have heard that rural Southern Blacks love their guns. Urban Blacks are not part of gun nut culture other than the criminal class. I have some Blacks who live around me here, and none of them have guns.

Hispanics are not into gun nut culture. Yes, gangs and the criminal class have guns, but most others do not. I live in an Hispanic city right now. Almost all of my neighbors are Hispanic. I’ve never met one of them who had a gun. The only gun I ever saw was under the shirt of a 19 year old gangbanger.

Asian culture is not gun nut culture. They’re just not into guns.

American Indian culture is not gun nut culture. I worked for Indians for years in the mountains, and I got to know many of them. Never met an Indian who owned a gun.

South Indians are not a part of gun nut culture. This town is swarming with South Indians, and I’ve never met one who had a gun.

In general, urban Whites are not part of gun nut culture. Whites who live in big cities where crime is much higher than in rural areas usually do not have guns, although logically, they would have much greater reason for one. It’s not common to meet an urban White person who has guns in this state. Here in California, urban Whites in places like the Bay Area and LA generally do not have guns. In all the time I spent in LA and the Bay Area, I never met one urban White person who kept a gun.

A few White women have guns for personal protection. I doubt if it does much for the crime rate. I had a girlfriend who lived alone, and one night at 2 AM, she pulled a .38 out of a drawer and showed it to me.

“It’s loaded,” she told me.

There we were, standing there at 2 AM in this chick’s house, passing a loaded gun back and forth like it was nothing. She’s the only woman I ever met who had a person gun for protection.

That stupid gun you keep in your house is 30X more likely to be used to you or  someone in your house in a homicide or suicide than it is to defend you from a potentially lethal attack. It’s not worth it to keep a gun in your house. There’s no benefit, and there are huge risks of death associated with doing  that.

There is basically zero significant and potentially lethal violent crime in White rural America. It’s as safe as you can get.

I lived in a White town in the Sierra Nevada of rural California for 18 years. I got some news for you. There was zero crime there. None. No significant crime, certainly nothing you would need a gun to defend yourself against. And when I left there in 2005, I was still often not locking my door when I left. Why should I? Why lock the door?

What is most bizarre is that in this White rural town in lived in with no crime, guns were everywhere, and most everyone you met was a gun nut or gun kook. And they had no reason to have their guns.

The dirty little secret in California about the White mountains is that this is where Whites moved to get away from the “niggers and the Mexicans.” It was pretty common for them to come right out and admit that that was why they moved up there. It was also fairly common for them to say that the reason they were armed to the teeth was because Blacks and Mexicans were going to come up to the mountains in small armies and prey on moneyed Whites.

A fair number of them were White Supremacists who ranted and raved about rightwing conspiracy theories all the time. Most of these people were armed to the teeth, and many had stocked up years of food. They insisted that society was about to collapse any time now, and with the collapse, whole armies of “niggers and beaners” would drift up out of the crime-ridden cities into the White mountains to prey on the Whites.

One of their notions was that after the collapse, society would run out of food, and the White psychos who had been stockpiling food for years would be the only people in society with any food left, so starving hoards of armed “niggers and beaners” would drift up from the ruin and emaciated cities to steal the food of the Whites in order to survive.

I heard a number of these psychos outline for me how this was going to happen and how they were going to make a last stand for it in their barricaded mountain retreat piled with guns. They would hole up in the mountain base with a living room full of guns as the starving “niggers and beaners” flooded into the mountains to kill the Whites and steal their food. In their mountain abode, they would hole up with sniper rifles as the living dead Black and Brown zombies teemed below, hungry for White bodies and food. They would be up on the hill, firing down at the Orcs below. Most of them expected to die defending their mountain home from darkies.

Millions of White people actually believe this crap. Isn’t that incredible?

So there you have it. America’s gun culture is senseless, based on paranoia, racism and wild cataclysmic conspiracy theory. It doesn’t even have a rational basis.

14 Comments

Filed under American, Asians, Blacks, California, Conservatism, Conspiracy Theories, Crime, Culture, Hispanics, Political Science, Psychology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Sociology, South Asians, West, White Racism, Whites

by | August 29, 2017 · 10:58 PM

Everyday Background Racism in America

DIaZkR-UwAASsD_

Face it, this is flat out racism.

This is the sort of thing the SJW anti-racists talk about when they talk about the normality and banality of everyday racism in the US. I hate SJW anti-racists and pretty much want them all dead, and they drastically exaggerate this problem.

Nevertheless, there is something to what they are saying. There is a certain amount of background normative quotidian racism against Blacks in this country. The reason for that is that way too many Black people act bad, but that’s no excuse for unfair captions like you can see above. The SJW’s and really any decent American would be correct to point out the glaring racism in the captions above. It’s just not right.

Note that the White people didn’t steal the food, they “found” some food in someone’s else’s grocery store! Sure wish I could find some food in my local grocery store and walk out the door with it! Presumably these heroic White people were just taking that food so they could have something to eat and survive. What are they supposed to do, wait until the stores open again? Note also that the Whites are residents, that is, they actually live in the neighborhood.

The Black on the other hand, is simply a youth. He is not described as a resident, though surely he is. The suggestion is that he does not live there and instead is simply some outsider who invaded the area to steal from local residents and their businesses.

And note that whereas the Whites just innocently happened on some food that someone left out for the taking, this Black kid was actually evil enough to steal some food. He stole it from a flooded out grocery store where most everything will be thrown away, but he’s still a thief. You know how those Black people are, always stealing. Presumably this Black kid has weeks worth of food back at home, undamaged by the flood, and he stole this food not because maybe he was hungry (probably the real reason) but just to be a sinister thieving sociopathic Black natural born criminal.

People call the Alt Left racist all the time, but I would say that the Alt Left is very much against this sort of unfair journalism. It’s just not fair. And if it’s not fair, the Alt Left is against it, as a general rule.

21 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Cultural Marxists, Journalism, Left, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Sociology, USA, Whites

by | July 2, 2017 · 4:02 PM

The Real Story of Zimbabwe: I Would Rather Starve on My Feet Than Feast on My Knees

RL: Reminds me of the situation in Zimbabwe when the Blacks destroyed all the White farms and drove the farmers out of the country and then all the Blacks sat around and said, “Whoa! We ain’t gots no food! Someone please gibs us some food! We hungry!”

Jason Y: Yeah, but didn’t you say Zimbabwe was a justified state. Aren’t you a fan?

I wrote some long posts on what happened.

2,000 White farmers from the UK owned half of all the land and about all of the decent arable land. The crops were all grown for export, and most of the Blacks were starving and malnourished. The Blacks were forced onto marginal lands which they farmed. However, yields were poor, and most importantly, the land was eroding away due to its poor nature for farming. So this situation was not working out.

Mugabe came in and said we have to deal with this land situation. He offered to buy out the White farmers, and then the state was going to deal with the land with state farms, leasing it out to small Black farmers or whatever.

However, no matter how much money he offered, the UK kept saying they were going to pay and then never paid, and the negotiations went on forever. The truth was the UK never intended to allow the farmers to be bought out ever, and they wanted to drag this out until the end of time. The US was helping the UK in this disgusting racist charade. This went on for a long time, and nothing happened, and people started getting mad. The US and UK started slapping all these sanctions on Zimbabwe for no good reason, and the economy started going down the tubes.

Meanwhile, Mugabe’s base were the war veterans. There had been a revolutionary war that ousted the White racist regime, and Mugabe had led the war, so he was a revolutionary war hero. He was also a Black power guy along the lines of Mandela.

The war veterans wanted land, and Mugabe kept saying it was coming. But the US and UK kept putting more and more sanctions on. Mugabe kept telling them that if they did not let him buy out those farmers, he could not hold his supporters back forever, and at some point, they would just go grab the land themselves. Mugabe kept urging peace with his supporters.

Well, at some point the war veterans had enough and they invaded all of the White farms. Nothing much happened. The Whites mostly took off and only 8% of Whites were latifundista farm owners anyway. But if you include their families, maybe it was 1/3 of the Whites. There was no genocide of Whites. It was a very ugly situation, very aggressive and menacing and some violent stuff happened. But all the Whites left. Seven whole Whites were killed in the “White genocide.” Like 1 in every 3,500 Whites got killed. It’s said when anyone is killed, but there was no genocide.

The Blacks were fine at small farming, but they could not run big farms. So like complete idiots, they simply dismantled the White farms and took everything they could. So the farms were left nonoperational, stripped of equipment, and the Blacks could not run the farms. So now there were food problems.

Mugabe knew that the Blacks could not run those large farms, and he always wanted to do this in an orderly way. He saw the whole mess as catastrophic and stupid. But it was his supporters who raided the farms, so he felt that he had to cheer them on, which is what he did, though he didn’t really want to do that. The project was more to have the state take over the farms in some way because it was assumed that the state could figure out how to run them, or even hire the Whites back to run farms for the people.

The White farmers never got paid off. A lot of the Whites stayed, and nothing happened to them. Now a lot of the Whites are coming back because Mugabe says you can farm your own lands, but we own them now, and you have to lease the land from the state. I think you have to grow food for the people too. And I think a lot of the Blacks are small farmers now. The situation is fixing itself. The government is socialist and dedicated to helping the people, which is the main reason we in the West hate them.

Mugabe has not been nice to the opposition, but they are in bed with the US, UK and the West. Their project is neoliberalism. They lack majority support because nobody wants this crap, and the Opposition basically fronts for the US and the UK. Most people see them as traitors and carpetbaggers. Mugabe is still a patriotic hero. The opposition has maybe 30% support, and no matter how bad things got, people would still not support them. They stuck with Mugabe through thick and thin. Yes elections were not fair, but Mugabe would have won a fair election anyway. The Opposition offered nothing but surrender to the nation’s worst enemies, selling out the country to the same enemies, and frankly treason and being puppets for the hated West. Their economic project was privatization and selling the whole place off to Western money.

There was a big deal about Mugabe tearing down some neighborhoods where a lot of Opposition supporters lived. He called it Operation Tear Down Trash. It was not handled well. The West lied, went crazy and said that Mugabe was tearing down all the homes of the Opposition people, leaving them homeless. But this was not true. The operation was done in a mean way, but their homes were shantytowns, and Mugabe tore down their shantytowns and built a lot of much better, decent modern state housing. Then he invited the former residents, many Opposition people, to come live in the new houses.

People stuck with Mugabe all the way. The sanctions ruined the economy because they were locked out of the world banking system. This was all done for some racist bullshit that the UK wanted to let 2,000 White farmers continue to monopolize the land and create a system of gross injustice. The British acted very bad in this case, and their behavior was quite racist. We shamefully went along with them.

The US and UK media wrote the situation up in a disgusting racist way which basically said that the Blacks destroyed the White farms and were now hungry because niggers are so dumb they can’t even grow food and they need superior White people to even grow food for them so they don’t starve. Yep that’s how dumb niggers are. That was the actual subtext of the West’s reporting on this case, and the openly racist tone was disgusting for the supposedly nonracist Western media.

Anyway it’s not true that niggers are so stupid they can’t even grow food. Blacks have been growing food in Africa forever, and they even started plantation agriculture in East Africa 900 years ago. They also excelled at animal husbandry for thousands of years. Granted Blacks mostly ran small farms, but they were generally able to grow enough food to survive. How hard is it to grow food? The Papuans grow yams and raise pigs. It’s not real hard to do. You don’t have to be a genius to do it. Any human can do this.

However, Blacks never got good at running large modern farms which are run more like a good-sized business. You need higher education, accounting skills and a lot of others smart brain skills to run large farms. It’s almost like running a big factory, or harder.

There are still Whites in Zimbabwe. I watched a video recently of downtown Harare. Crowded parking lot, lot of Blacks but some Whites, everyone dressed nicely, nice cars. They went into a nice restaurant where there were Blacks and Whites both in there, and everything was cool. Apparently a number of Blacks have some money, and there are still moneyed Whites there. If you have some money, it does looks like a nice place to live. You go to downtown Harare on a weekday afternoon, and there are workers in office clothes eating lunch in the park. There’s a brand new fancy radiology center that Mugabe built. Most people are pretty chill and laid back.

You can go to the slums which are not great, but I would say that Harare has the least bad slums in all of Africa. The slums are state housing, and the state spends a lot of money on the people.

This just goes to show you that people would rather stand in misery than die on their knees in comfort. It was very bad under Mugabe due to sanctions, but he represented African pride and self-determination against the predatory West that was trying to screw them over.

It was like the Blacks not wanting to live under White rule in South Africa or the Palestinians not wanting to live under Israeli rule. People have pride, and idiots who think humans are only about money are wrong. Not all people are capitalist hogs who worship money. A lot of people will take poverty with pride over more stuff and living in indignity under people who think you are inferior. The West can’t seem to figure out that humans have pride and don’t want to be lorded over by those who act superior to them. You can’t even buy people off to live under supremacist rule as inferiors. The West doesn’t get it because our only value is money, and we can’t see how many humans will gladly trade money for pride and prefer poverty over being ruled by condescending supremacists.

80 Comments

Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Blacks, Britain, East Africa, Economics, Europe, Livestock Production, Neoliberalism, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Socialism, Sociology, South Africa, USA, War, White Racism, Whites

by | June 17, 2017 · 6:34 PM

WB Jim Crow, LTNS

Here.

Thank you, Donald Trump. Thanks for this. I had nearly forgotten what it was like back in the good old days of Bull Conner, etc. Appreciate the reminder, Donald.

It’s not back to the future. More like back to the 1950’s. Here we are in the pre-Civil Rights Era again. How long before the Supreme Court guts the Housing Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act the same way they gutted the Voting Rights Act? Anyone taking bets?

Boy, when we White people think our backs are against the wall, we sure turn into vicious racist shits, don’t we?

God forbid when we turn into a minority. When Whites are a minority, it’s time for Apartheid, fascist dictatorships, vast, fetid Brown and Black slums on the mountains with raw sewage running down the streets, and of course don’t forget the death squads. Logically, the reaction is an armed Left. What sort of reaction would you expect?

White civilization, White decency, White manners, and stable and prosperous White societies are largely illusory. Whites only play that game when they’re a big majority and the non-Whites are a small minority. 

White people really can’t get along with other races, nor can we live in peace with them. We can only be decent to non-Whites if they are small minorities. Whites can only be decent at all when they are a majority and a solid one at that. Barring that, we are basically a race of ratfucks.

The Chinese are mostly the same. Chinese people are only decent at all when they  are in a majority Chinese country like Taiwan or China. When Chinese are a tiny minority as in Malaysia, Indonesia and especially the Philippines, they turn into a race of monsters.

There must be some larger pattern here. High achieving races can only act decent when they are the vast majority of the population. As minorities, they are thorough scumbags.

This is so constant that it must nearly be a rule of Sociology and Political Economics.

410 Comments

Filed under Asians, Blacks, Chinese (Ethnic), Civil Rights, Crime, Law, Left, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Sociology, South, USA, White Racism, Whites

by | June 15, 2017 · 9:44 PM

Down with Colin Flaherty

I did not even bother to watch much of this video because his videos and articles make me so sick. The problem is that this guy’s whole shtick is that he is not racist at all in any way whatsoever! No really. That’s exactly what he says. And that’s how he comes across, endlessly, in article after article and video after video. And that is exactly why this man is so dangerous.

Mr. Flaherty is a journalist, and a good one at that. But in his middle age, he has decided to branch out into the area of Black crime, except that his focus has a twist – it’s all about Black crime against Whites. The subtext of every Flaherty article or video is that Black people are deliberately singling out Whites to attack as hunters single out prey. Nothing could be more nonsensical. Blacks do not preferentially prey on Whites. It’s nonsense. 89% of Black homicides are of other Black people. Most Black crime is Black on Black crime. Much is made of Black men raping White women, but Black men rape Black women at 5X the rate that they rape White women. There are all sorts of nutty arguments that try to deal with these uncomfortable truths while keeping the lousy theory alive.

The principal one was symbolized by the noted theory of Le Griffe du Lion, a very racist White professor of…get this…sociology! He did some fancy mathematics showing that Black people mostly see other Black people all day long and don’t see many White people. So of course they prey mostly on their own kind. That’s who they are around all the time! If Blacks were around Whites just as much as they were around Blacks, their propensity to hunt Whites preferentially as a predator hunts its prey (Le Griffe’s exact words) would come out.

But the other side can play that game too. There are 6X more Whites than Blacks. If Blacks displayed no preference at all in victims, they would kill 6X more Whites than Blacks, right? This argument spouts the rejoinder of “But they are only around their own kind all day…” which is probably a tautology and is certainly not falsifiable, so it fails as theory on its face.

Flaherty wrote a book called, White Girl Bleed a Lot. It’s all about Black crime against Whites. Yes Blacks commit some very bad crimes against Whites. But they commit just as bad or worse crimes against their own kind. So only writing about Black crime against Whites is lying in a sense, and worse, you are selling a form of poison to the masses. Racist poison. A really nasty racist poison.

Because nothing drives Whites up the wall more than the idea that Blacks preferentially prey on them as victims. Some of these theorists even go as far as to say that Blacks are waging a low level guerrilla war against Whites. Oh what nonsense.

But if you study ethnic conflicts all over the world, one of the things that sets off massacres and ethnic cleansings is the notion that Group B, the outgroup, is trying to kill us, Group A.

Hitler set off the genocide by saying the Jews were trying to exterminate Germans.

The Rwandan genocide was set off in the same way.

The Sunni-Shia wars start off in exactly the same way. ISIS propaganda goes to great lengths to show how the Shia are preferentially singling out and slaughtering the Sunni. “They’re trying to kill us all,” is the message.

This was the line that the Young Turks used to kill 1.7 million Armenians. “The Armenians were starting a war against the Turks and they were trying to kill all the Turks.”

The genocide against Muslims in Bosnia was set off Serbian lies that, “The Muslims were trying to kill the Serbs.”

Even the anti-Communist slaughters of the last century which the US fully participated in, each and every one of them, were predicated on the idea that the Communist killers were going to seize power and kill lots of people.

Hitler justified his genocide against the Jews by saying that they were Communists and that the Communists were mass murderers who were “killing millions of Christians” in the Ukraine. Yes, the fake Holodomor, the terror famine that never even happened, was used as a pretext for the Holocaust. Remember that the next time any of you wants to rant about “Stalin’s terror famine.” Every time you say that, you are repeating Nazi propaganda. Does it make you feel good to parrot Hitler?

Many of the massacres of Indians were predicated on the notion that the Indians “were coming to kill us all.” In the original wording of the Declaration of Independence, there is language about how savage the Indians fought, knowing none of the rules of decency in wartime. “They’re savages, so we need to kill them all.” See how that works?

In Indonesia in 1965, there was supposedly a Communist coup to take over the government. All the world’s media reported it exactly that way. Except that it never happened. There was a fake Communist coup to take over the government. “The Communists tried to take over and they are going to kill millions of people” lie was then used as an excuse to kill 1 million Communists all over Indonesia in only a few months. Most were hacked to death with machetes. Islamic fundamentalists were used by the US and Indonesia in this slaughter.

The CIA was on the scene immediately and they supplied the new government with lists of known Communists. These lists were then used to single out people for killing. The US media then lied about the whole affair, with the execrable New York Times leading the charge. Later there was an attempt to bury this mass slaughter as “unfortunate but necessary and a good idea in the long run.” It was only years or even decades that we learned the truth about the fake coup and the mass slaughter. The Left was devastated in Indonesia and has remained in a meager state to this day. Obviously people in Indonesia have gotten the message about what happens to Leftists.

Hence it follows that once White people get it in their heads that “the Blacks are trying to kill us” we can set ourselves up for some serious persecutions of Blacks based on that narrative. I doubt if we will start massacring Blacks, but “the Blacks are trying to rape and kill Whites” was always the excuse for lynchings and Jim Crow.

It’s an ugly narrative, and it’s a lie.

I could write articles about this sort of thing too. I see articles all the time about Black people acting terrible, killing each other, killing White people, you name it. 98% of the time, I choose not to write about it. Why write about it? Yes, we know Black people commit tons of crime, including violent crime. Yes, we know Black men have a high homicide rate.

Yes, we know that Black men kill many White people – but they kill far more Black people and by and large, they prey mostly on their own kind.

Looking at the larger picture, Black criminals simply prey on other humans. They rob, rape and kill Hispanics, Asians, Whites and Blacks. They attack everyone. They are not real particular. And the evidence shows that if anything, they by far preferentially select their own kind for violence and they preferentially select against White victims. So if anything, Blacks prefer to prey on their own kind and it looks like Blacks actively avoid preying on Whites. If that’s the reality, then it’s quite a poisonous stew to cook up to sell the lie that Blacks preferentially attack Whites. “They’re coming to kill us! The Blacks are trying to kill us White people!” It’s not only a lie, but it’s a very dangerous lie, a mental poison with grave effects.

Just to see what sort of vibes Flaherty is churning up, look at the commenters. Looks like Niggermania, Chimpout, American Renaissance and Stormfront. There are all sorts of very vicious and ugly remarks against Black people as a race on there. So even if Flaherty really is a non-racist as he insists, look at all the wild racism that his irresponsible (or worse) videos and articles sprout. He’s fertilizing the land with poison, watching the weeds he watered grow and take over the land and choke out all the good and  decent crops, all the while protesting that he had nothing to do with it, he was just some innocent farmer trying to grow crops. Yeah. Crops of weeds.

Whenever I see that language, I think, “This person is promoting hatred against Phil, Tulio and Alpha.” I think that’s unacceptable. None of these Black people do much of anything wrong, they all live like good, law abiding citizens, and in short, they are good people. Selling hate propaganda against good people just because they are Black is just wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are promoting a very dangerous lie.

156 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Armenians, Asia, Blacks, Christianity, Crime, Europe, History, Indonesia, Islam, Jews, Journalism, Left, Marxism, Modern, Near Easterners, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, SE Asia, Serbians, Shiism, Social Problems, Sociology, Sunnism, Turks, USA, USSR, White Racism, Whites

by | April 16, 2017 · 9:31 PM

Some Possible Policies for Improving the Black Problem in the US

Some Random Asshole: Robert, what James said her excellently represents the rational and fair view on race. Yeah, there are quite a few more feeble minded and uncivilized ones and really not that many smart ones among Blacks or Mexicans when compared to Whites or Asians, but there are exceptions everywhere. And even the fucked up ones are often not that bad and just need some guidance and welfare or something, even if they wont amount to much in life. Didn’t you think as much when you taught at Black schools?

The only thing is, you need to realize that we really just do not need to increase their numbers and its very important for us to stay majority White and Asian and stop certain groups from immigrating here. Its no offense to the other groups, they should be treated with respect and care…but at the same time, its ultimately disastrous to increase their numbers to the point where they become the majority. Its a fair balance, I think.

Treat them nice but do not bring in any more. Both ideas are crucial to the survival of civilized society.

You are new to the site, right? I have been arguing this fact for a long time now. I do not care too much about Mexicans, but Blacks definitely are a problem race. Now you ask me what I propose to do about that?

Honestly I am not sure if this is much that can be done!

Support Black politics. I love the Black Congressional Caucus. That’s one of my favorite groups in government. I love John Lewis. The legislation that the Blacks like and promote in Congress is reasonable, and support most all of it. Keep on doing that.

Keep on fighting real racism against Blacks because that just makes them even angrier, crazier and more hair-triggered than they already are.

I would even like to figure out why they are so damned violent and maybe give them a pill or something to lower their testosterone levels perhaps and calm them down. Liberals go start raving berserk when I say that. They scream, “Tuskegee! Tuskegee! Tuskegee! Tuskegee! Tuskegee!” I would make it voluntary of course. Say you are a Black man and you keep getting in trouble, keep acting violent, keep going to jail or prison, can’t control your temper or your impulses. Maybe you start figuring that your biology might be screwing up your life and you are getting tired of being a loser. Maybe some of these Blacks might take some pill we could make that caused them to lash out and screw up so much. What’s wrong with that? Why am I evil for saying that?

And of course, number one really, quit importing them, dammit. If you have a problem group of people, first of all, you quit bringing in even more of them and making the problem bigger.

However, I would allow anyone of any race with say a minimum 100 IQ to come to the US. I do not anticipate a big problem with this. If a 100 IQ Black or Hispanic wishes to come here, I do not see why we should not let him in.

75 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Asians, Blacks, Government, Hispanics, Immigration, Intelligence, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics, USA, Whites

by | April 13, 2017 · 11:23 PM

Capitalism and Mass Immigration Have Destroyed the Economy

Capitalism and Mass Immigration Have Destroyed the Economy

By Magneto

The main reason the US economy has ground to an absolute halt over the past 15 years is because the capitalist class, the employers who hire people for jobs, are looking to pay people the least amount they can pay them and get away with it. Heaven forbid, if we didn’t have minimum wage laws, they would pay people even less than that. But you can’t live on a minimum wage.

As a freelancer I deal with this shit every day. I find people who expect me to work for less than minimum wage, and I always reply to them with a message that basically goes along the lines of “What the fuck is wrong with you?” In a system of capitalism, everyone simply wants to pay others the least amount they can pay them and get away with it. What happens is that the economy grinds to a halt because employees don’t have enough money to even survive and pay rent, what to speak of purchasing products, so the companies who are employing them also start to go slowly out of business since there is no one to buy their products except for the ultra-rich.

This has also led to the destruction of the middle class, which was basically the backbone of American society for so many decades. Then during the late 80’s and the early 90’s, you had politicians making it legal to outsource and ship jobs overseas. As a result, tens of millions of American jobs were shipped overseas so that the CEO of the company could make even more profit for himself. CEO’s decided that they would rather hire people in Mexico to do the same job that Americans do but pay them only 1 dollar per hour. Well, when enough corporations did that, and thus caused tens of millions of Americans to become unemployed, it obviously had the effect of destroying the economy. If you aren’t paying Americans a living wage, then who is going to buy your overpriced products?

This is what happens when you destroy a country’s sense of community. Instead of wanting to do what is best for your country and put your own countrymen first, instead you would rather just make as much money as possible by hiring people at the lowest possible wages. Any corporation that outsources it’s jobs and factories needs to be punished with massive import taxes. You want to build your products in Mexico? Fine, but you will pay a huge import tax as a result.

Some people are estimating that 40 percent of America’s workforce will consist of freelance labor by the year 2025. It will be impossible for such people to survive under today’s system of capitalism. What some European countries are beginning to do is to pay people a basic guaranteed income. Some people will object and say, “How can we afford to do that?” Well we can afford to spend trillions of dollars on war and building weapons, but we can’t afford to spend a few billion to guarantee that everyone has a minimum living wage? And that living wage will go right back into the economy because people will start spending money again.

Of course, all of this will have to be coupled with a strong sense of nationalism and community. Allowing unrestricted immigration will utterly destroy such a system because you’ll have people from 3rd World countries doing everything they can to invade America simply so they can also get “free shit”.

Let’s look at the example of Indians. Indians are an extremely cheap race of people and their businessmen are truly the embodiment of the capitalist employer class. As more and more Indians take over the US economy, they will destroy the economy even more. They will expect White Americans to work for slave wages – the same wages they would pay Indians back in India. As a Western person who has extensive experience with Indians, I can tell you that socialism would never work in an Indian society because Indians are perhaps the greediest and most selfish race of people on this planet.

So before a true system of socialism can be implemented, it requires that White Western countries develop a very strong sense of nationalism and community again. White nationalism is the main stepping block on the road to true socialism, but unfortunately during the past few decades it has become extremely politically incorrect to talk about nationalism, racism, etc. The light at the end of the tunnel is Generation Z, which is the generation of people born after the year 2000. I’ve spoken to many of them, and they are the most red-pilled generation to ever exist. They inherently understand concepts like race realism, anti-feminism, multiculturalism, etc.

Right now Generation Z is going through their typical teenage years and spend most of their time posting memes on 4chan and Instagram, playing Playstation 4 and video games, and just living the normal life of a teenager, and yet they are already so red-pilled. Imagine what will happen once they reach adulthood and face all of these issues? They will begin to implement solutions which appear to us as extremely radical. Generation Z thinks outside of the box, and they don’t give a fuck about Political Correctness. Therefore, even though the present generations have basically been completely ruined by capitalism, at least there is hope for the future.

If you have been offered a job that pays you LESS than minimum wage, then report the person offering that job to the US Department of Labor here.

110 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, East Indians, Economics, Immigration, Labor, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South Asians, White Nationalism, Whites

by | April 9, 2017 · 4:59 PM

Judith Mirville on the Perils of Braziliafication for the Jews

Very nice comment from Judith Mirville showing that if Jews are promoting Braziliafication in the hopes that it will be good for the Jews, they may be sorely mistaken.

That will prove to be an especially bad move: in a Brazilified society such as Brazil, the various cultures of that multiculturalism cannot agree together safe onto one point: the Jews are the main responsible for the present state of affairs, even people such as the Japanese of Belo Horizonte, the German of Porto Alegre, the Negroes from Bahia and the White Trash rednecks of the chaparral of Sertão can agree on that.

I am now practicing Portuguese, listening to various videos to study various local accents and slangs, and everybody is inveighing against Jews each one for their different reasons.

The Negroes accuse them of having organized the slave trade, which in the specific case of Northern Brazil was true. The rednecks of Sertão accuse them of having geared the whole musical culture of Brazil towards hedonistic and then gay values.

The well-to-do Portuguese of São Paulo accuse them of having subverted the monarchy to install a de facto British colonialism in the form of a Republic as well destroying the military regime which was the last rampart against the tide of Cultural Leftism everywhere in the intelligentsia. The Germans there are of a type that was never morally bullied into repentance for WWII.

And the Japanese, though not big haters of Jews, all want them to be put back into ghettos for practical reasons and accuse them of having organized the whole of Western colonialism in non-White countries and robbed Asia of its traditional technological superiority and intelligence by programming so many other Whites beyond their real innate capacity to feel inventive and superior.

It comes to no mystery that cultures in an multicultural environment tend identify with their most reactionary elements, and therefore are more inclined to look for a culprit or archetypal symbol of evil from without. And it turns out that in Brazil the most rabid antisemitic movements are decidedly multicultural chic, not White Power, especially since the traditional White racism of Brazil claimed that the core of the nation was made up of mythical Jewish ancestry.

The Extreme Left to Center Left culture that still refuses most the conspiracy-justified antisemitism is monocultural non-Catholic Portuguese (mildly anti-Black de facto, though praising mulatto women for their supernatural beauty but only in their own role of providers of sentimental entertainment), and they are the ones who communicate the least with other cultures in their own country and prefer to communicate with other White nations in the world (France for the culture, the Anglo-Saxon countries for business) than with their own co-nationals of different hues.

All great antisemitic bouts of the past started out in rather multicultural environments. Austria, for instance, used to be the most multicultural part of Europe, and further back in time, you can find Spain and Portugal, which at one time used to be the most diversified countries: in both cases, mythical antisemitism could develop unchecked for being the only political language common to so many diverse groups even though not the ideal one to that many individuals.

How do the Jews let that happen to the point of loving it as it may seem?

That is very simple: first, as you put it, their intelligence is grossly overrated. They are emotion-driven more than many others. It must also be known that Jewish identification with the intellectual superiority of openness of mind is a very recent and atypical thing in the course of history. That identification began only as a byproduct of the Enlightenment culture and only among Jews that wanted to get free of their traditional ghetto culture, which turned out into a majority at a certain point.

Before that point, intellectual curiosity was far more severely repressed in Jewish culture than in Christian culture, the rabbis had far more tolerance of and liking for magic: even the study of too much geography was deemed dangerous. The general morality among them used to be that one must as an individual make plans for the day, as a family for the week, and as a Jewish community for the year, but NEVER beyond, since all promises of the preceding years were to be overridden at each Rosh ha Shanna. What is good for Jewish prosperity this year only is the real good, the rest is goyish daydreaming.

Even if the consequences of what is done this year are evidently ultra-negative for your own descendants, such as destroying the environment or installing a future millennial totalitarian regime just to make sure your tiny few talents are employed and well-paid, that is none of your business as a Jew. You must think of those descendants as of imaginary non-Jewish beings.

When for instance you adopt Communism as a Jew, the important thing is to enjoy a higher life through it and also a good relationship with many non-Jews for a few years’ space at most. You must not inquire too seriously about the ultimate consequences of your ideological choice. It is a fashion among many others to have to dress your own brain and others as well as their bodies according to a taste that sells right now.

If it turns out that by so doing you will progressively install a Nazi-like regime first courting and then turning against you, so be it, que sera sera, that was God’s intention for you to bring it about. It is a culture based on the principle of pure prostitution and on the faith that such an attitude alone can bring about joyful survival to a group: they are actually not so racist towards strangers provided they share that very same mentality.

27 Comments

Filed under Americas, Anti-Semitism, Asians, Austria, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Brazil, Brazilians, Christianity, Colonialism, Culture, Europe, Europeans, History, Japanese, Jews, Judaism, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Mixed Race, Political Science, Portugal, Portuguese, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Sociology, South America, Spain, The Americas, White Racism, Whites