This Black History Month, celebrate the rich history of Black-owned businesses. Discover nearby Black-owned restaurants that are popular in San Francisco, from casual sit-down dining to dessert delights.
Search Black-owned
Black-owned Ones to Watch in 2023Around the country, people are discovering more Black-owned businesses in their communities. Check out the Black-owned Ones to Watch in 2023 to stay current.See Ones to Watch
Order from Black-owned businesses anywhere in the U.S.In honor of Black History Month, we’re highlighting Black-owned businesses that will ship to customers no matter where they live. Check out this list of businesses to place your order.Check out the list
At this point, it’s not even a case of such and such company turns woke/anti-White. This is now so much the norm that it would be newsworthy if any company did NOT fall in line.
As we see this status-quo unfolding before our very eyes, to the point where it’s undeniable, let’s remember that these same companies claim that blacks are an “oppressed minority,” suffering from “systemic racism.”
Sorry Corporate America, you can’t have it both ways. Either every one of you supports black businesses or blacks are oppressed. Both can’t be true.
I came across this recently, and thought I’d share it with my readers. I don’t know what the story is behind this, but it does illustrate the third-world mentality: Religiosity without necessarily having consideration for others. Note the sticker on the driver side window.
Yes, it’s a clickbait title, but a somewhat accurate one.
Check out this tweet:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1620753669863141379
From the typical socialist’s point of view Capitalism = greed. Specifically corporate greed, which is usually a result of the corporate establishment. Conservatives take a broader view of Capitalism, which is simply human nature: You fix my shoes, and I’ll give you eggs. It’s simply quid pro quo, and all human societies engage in it, or there would be no human societies.
At this point, it’s more than corporate greed that encourages mass migration into the West. Ideology clearly plays a large role, but this shouldn’t stop us from blaming “Capitalism” for the destruction of our societies via invasion.
In the above tweet, Robert Jones is referring to Australia, whose indigenous population is generally considered to be non-White. But this same dynamic applies to Europe. Europe’s indigenous populations are being brutalized and displaced, and we might as well blame “Capitalism” for it, along with the usual suspects – at least when interacting with leftists. Of course, a major hurdle for them is recognizing that Europe’s Whites are indigenous populations.
Some of ya’ll might remember that a while back, America First Legal aired a television ad complaining of anti-White bigotry by the Biden administration.
It turns out that there is no such thing as anti-White bigotry, because a “fact-checker” says so…
… just kidding. But here’s what I found in a Quora space dedicated to opposing the space It’s Okay to be White (IOTBW). It’s called “Anti IOTBW:”
Indeed, the people at IOTBW do need to read it, preferably along with my observations, lest anybody be fooled.
First I’ll point out that the article does not claim to prove that there is no anti-White bigotry in the US. In fact, it doesn’t even assert that all the claims in the ad are false, just that SOME of them are false:
Radio and TV ads from a group headed by a former senior adviser to Donald Trump accuse President Joe Biden and the left of “racism against white people” and “anti-white bigotry.” But in context, some of the claims about the alleged “anti-white” policies and statements don’t hold up.
The article does point out that some of the lawsuits against the Biden administration were successful, but let’s focus on the ones that this “fact-checker” claims are false:
The TV version of the ad cites an article about that issue as the ad’s narrator claims, “Joe Biden put white people last in line for COVID relief funds.” But even in the original language of the policy, that’s not accurate, since women, veterans and economically disadvantaged people could be white people.
One wonders if these “fact-checkers” are genuinely stupid, or if they’re simply trying to mislead stupid people.
I know it’s hackneyed, but let’s reverse the races: Blacks go to the back of the line, except female, veteran and poor blacks. Meanwhile, ALL Whites go to the front of the line. Would this not be considered racial discrimination? Of course it would, because when one group gets preference by virtue of its race, while other groups need additional characteristics, it’s discriminatory.
… the radio ad says, “Kamala Harris said disaster aid should go to nonwhite citizens first.” In October, we fact-checked a claim by U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida and other conservativecommentators and newsoutlets that the vice president said hurricane relief from the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be based on race.
“Harris said … that, you know, if you have a different skin color, you’re going to get relief,” Scott said in an Oct. 2 interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
The following day, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted at Harris: “Hurricanes do not discriminate. And neither should the federal government giving aid to people suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Ian. Is your husband’s life worth less bc he’s white?”
But we found that Harris’ words were being lifted out of context.
The article goes on to quote the White House press secretary, Jean-Pierre:
Jean-Pierre, Oct. 3: So that is not what the vice president said. The vice president was clearly talking about long-term investment, not FEMA aid, for hurricane response efforts. The vice president and the president have been clear that the federal government has been and will continue to be there for all Americans recovering from these devastating storms. … We are committed to quickly getting resources to all communities impacted, period, full stop. But we also know that some people, particularly in lower-income communities, have a hard time accessing that help. That’s why this administration has also made it a priority to remove barriers and ensure that everyone, regardless of their ZIP Code, can access federal resources. And that’s what she was talking about.
What des she mean by “long-term investment?” Was she talking about stocks and bonds? Infrastructure? The article doesn’t specify, but a similar Reuters “fact-check” article does:
The short clip cuts the full context of the comment, where Harris was asked about Hurricane Ian relief efforts as well as how the United States should respond to climate change impacts more broadly…
Harris continued, referencing climate-related natural disasters generally (6:04s): “The crisis is real, and the clock is ticking…the way that I think of it, is both in terms of the human toll, and I know we are all thinking about the families Florida, in Puerto Rico with Fiona, and what we need to do to help them in terms of an immediate response in aid, but also what we need to do to help restore communities, and build communities back up in a way that they can be resilient, not to mention adapt, to these extreme weather conditions which are part of the future…”
Addressing Chopra Jonas’ point about disparities, Harris noted, “… it is our lowest income communities and our communities of color that are most impacted by these extreme conditions and, and impacted by, by issues that are not of their own making … we have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity. Understanding that we, we fight for equality, but we also need to fight for equity, understanding not everyone starts out at the same place. And if we want people to be in an equal place sometimes, we have to take into account those disparities and, and do that work…”
In other words, the truth is even WORSE than what the ad implies. Harris is saying that “equity” (IE. preference to non-Whites and women) should be a priority not only in Florida, but all over the world, not only now, but ALL THE TIME. That’s like a criminal defending himself in court by stating:
This one particular crime is not a big deal. I engage in crime all the time. In fact, it’s a lifestyle for me. It’s part of my culture.
Nobody is claiming to have evidence of specific anti-White discrimination in this case. The ad is only saying that Harris expressed an opinion that non-Whites should get preferential treatment – and this is true, but on a LARGER SCALE than one might think.
Next, the “fact-checkers” tackle Trump’s claim that Whites were to be last in line for Covid vaccines:
As for the ads’ claim that “liberal politicians block access to medicine based on skin color,” back in January, we fact-checked a similar claim by Trump. “The left is now rationing life-saving therapeutics based on race, discriminating against and denigrating, just denigrating, white people to determine who lives and who dies. If you’re white, you don’t get the vaccine or if you’re white, you don’t get therapeutics,” he claimed.
As we wrote then, no one was being denied access to vaccines. The White House made clear it had enough vaccine doses available to get every American fully vaccinated, including a booster shot.
The issue was about therapeutics, some of which were in limited supply, but there is no evidence that white people were being denied COVID-19 therapeutics, either. Still, Trump accused New York state of discriminating against white people, saying its prioritization policy for COVID-19 treatment during times of limited resources was “anti-American.”
Even if the issue was strictly about therapeutics, it would still constitute anti-White discrimination. However, there was a CDC decision to also give priority to non-Whites for the vaccines – and this decision was reversed after public outcry:
It’s clear that this “fact-checker” is not trying to get to the truth, but squirming, splitting hairs and obfuscating in order to advance his own ideology. The prioritization of non-Whites, for Covid treatment, is documented. An impartial fact-check would have pointed this out.
Furthermore, as a rule of thumb, whenever we see leftists using the phrase “there is no evidence that…” our reaction should be: Were there any studies that LOOKED for evidence? If the powers-that-be aren’t looking for something, then they probably won’t find it, and more often than not, they will not fund or support studies that might poke holes in their narratives.
Therefore, we should consider it likely that White people were denied Covid vaccines/treatment due to their race – until there are valid studies that LOOKED for such people, and failed to find them.
I’ll conclude by pointing out that most people will not read the entire “fact-check” article; they’ll read the headline, see that it’s fairly long, and then cite it as “evidence” that “The Trumpanzees have been lying again!” Those who DO read the entire article will see that a large chuck of it is simply describing the activities (many of them successful) of America First Legal. The article does not dispute most of the accusations, only the ones I have listed above.
Please let me know, in comments, if you find any errors. It’s a complicated subject. I know it’s hard to believe, but I’m not perfect… however, we can make this post perfect by pointing out errors, so that I can correct them.
Steven Tucker just wrote an excellent piece on The Great Replacement “Theory.” I strongly recommend reading it in its entirety.
In a nutshell, Tucker provides some background information about the recent shooting of three random Kurds in Paris by William Malet. It turns out (surprise!) that Malet didn’t just wake up one morning, get bored, and think to himself, “I’m bored; I think I’ll go out and kill me some ragheads!”
Tucker elaborates:
In 2016, three young men of “North African heritage” (media-speak for “Muslim criminals”) had broken into his home. He had confronted them with a kitchen knife—rather than simply bending over and eagerly asking if they’d like to rape him, too, as contemporary polite liberal etiquette now recommends—then was sentenced to twelve months in prison for his unacceptable show of resistance. Worse, two of the injured burglars later sued him for €30,000 in damages, thereby literally making victims out of criminals and criminals out of victims.
Regarding the Great Replacement “Theory,” Tucker explains:
Data shows the Great Replacement really is occurring—that’s why saying so obviously now needs to be threatened with legal censorship—but the main factors behind it are probably not some implausible, planet-spanning, deliberate Jewish-globalist plot, as a hard-core minority of actual conspiracists maintain, but impersonal socioeconomic forces such as panda-like low white birth rates and the resultant Western demand for cheap, replacement immigrant labor from abroad.
I think Tucker could have, and should have, gone a bit further. A casual reader might conclude that there’s a range of opinions, among conservatives and White-advocates, regarding the nature of The Great Replacement, but not so much among those who actually perpetrate it.
This is not the case, and it cannot be the case. There are a great many people, in various levels of hierarchy, who orchestrate The Great Replacement; they are not a monolithic group. Many of them do fall under the category that Tucker describes, looking after their own short-term monetary interests.
Do they ALL fall into this category? Of course not. Some of them are, without doubt, working deliberately toward the destruction of White communities in the West. There are severalgoodarticles on American Renaissance documenting this… and, of course, there’s Biden publicly stating that The Great Replacement is something to be proud of:
I’ve used the above clip several times in my debates with replacement-denialists. It ends the debate every time; those leftists are the same people who constantly ridicule Whites who feel pride in their race. “You should only feel pride for something you have actually DONE,” they shriek. How are they to respond when their president says he’s proud of The Great Replacement?
In conclusion, there is a spectrum both within those who oppose The Great Replacement, and those who support it. Replacement-denialists lie by omission when they recognize only a small group of replacement opponents, and replacement opponents err when they recognize only the replacement-perpetrators who are driven by money; some are driven by politics or ideology.
The sick ideology known as “Critical Race Theory” teaches that all Whites are considered racist, by default, against blacks. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean that our system of Trial by Jury is flawed, and needs to be amended. If all Whites are racist, consciously or otherwise, then this means no black defendant can expect a fair trial when all, or most, of the jury is White.
Once this flawed conclusion is reached, it’s only a matter of time before policies are implemented where only black jurors can serve when the defendant is black. In contrast, since blacks cannot be racist, there is no reason to prevent blacks being on a jury when the defendant is White.
Watch for it; you heard it from me…
… and we’re already seeing the groundwork for such policies being laid. Too many times, we’ve seen news stories decrying the fact that so-and-so black defendant was “convicted by an all-White jury” – as if this necessarily means the trial was unfair.
Case in point: Richard Moore. Convicted in 1999 or murdering a White store clerk during a robbery, Moore was sentenced to death. In case you’re bad at math, or consider it racist, this means the murder was about 24 years ago. If there was misconduct during the trial, or new evidence has come to light, then by all means, let’s retry Moore.
The Change.org petition makes no mention of any such misconduct or new evidence. It makes four arguments:
That the jury was “all White”
That Moore was unarmed when he entered the store, and had no intention to kill
That the mode of death now presented is “cruel and unusual” and
That blacks are overrepresented in death penalty cases.
Without getting into details of the last three arguments, it’s telling that the very first one is that the jury was “all White, and that the victim was White.” The presumption is that Whites are biased toward black criminals when the victim was White. Would a black jury be more objective? Does anybody remember O.J. Simpson?
Mr. Moore was convicted and sentenced to death for the alleged murder of a white male store owner by an all white jury (11 White and 1 Latino) during what was reported to be a robbery. Mr. Moore entered a convenience store unarmed with no intent to kill, and did not own the gun that was fired during the altercation. The owner of the store was killed during the incident.
How much longer before every verdict where the jury was all, or mostly, White is thrown out? I foresee a day, in the not too distant future, where this will happen. As a result, many thousands of dangerous criminals will be let loose on society. They will kill again.
To recap:
CRT teaches that all Whites are racist by default. All White juries are, therefore, unacceptable for black defendants. Based on this conclusion, all the verdicts of such trials are thrown out. Thousands of vicious, hardened, criminals are let loose. Many innocent Americans are murdered or raped as a result.
I was impressed with the video, especially considering how young Mr. Cheon is. I predict great things for this young man, and told him so in comments…
Speaking of comments, many of the comments are from other non-Whites who agree with him. We do have many non-White allies, and it has always been my position that we should recognize them and encourage them.
Westernkind Art has this to say:
Interestingly, while he does encourage nonWhites to treat Whites well, he seems certain of the reduction of White political and economic power and doesn’t condemn this. While this video is still insightful and surprising coming from a nonWhite, his message is condescending.
It seems to me there are two schools of thought in the Dissident Right: Purists and Pragmatists. Though I sympathize with the Purists, I find myself in the Pragmatist camp. It’s my view that if we demand 100% compliance or nothing, we’ll end up with nothing. There are at least two reasons for this. Firstly, we don’t have the power to demand all we want; we’re lucky to get some of it. Secondly, few of us can reach an agreement on what our ultimate goals are. If we were to ever get close, we’d be fighting to the very end about the details.
Verily, reasonable men can take either position, and I’ve had ongoing feuds with fellow White-advocates on this very subject. It’s clear to me that neither side will ever be able to convince the other, and reality on the ground will be the final arbiter.
Spoiler alert: We will NOT get everything we want within our lifetimes. Best to make the most of what we CAN get. Furthermore, common decency demands that we recognize those who support us, regardless of their race or ethnicity.
I’ll conclude by pointing out that Jared Taylor agrees with me. One of his most moving speeches, at least for me, was a short one he made at one of the Amren conferences, where he recognized our non-White allies. His speech was so heartfelt, almost tearful, that it made a huge impression on me. Unfortunately, that speech was not recorded.
A video has been circulating, showing a man robbing a restaurant in Texas. As he was wrapping it up, and on his way out, a diner shot him dead. When I first saw the video, the full version was available. Now it’s been scrubbed from the internet, and only a truncated version is available.
The robber was black, and the shooter is White. After shooting him, the diner approached the now horizontal robber, and finished him off. When shot, the robber had his gun (which turned out to be fake) aimed at an employee; he still posed a danger. Here’s the truncated version, with Andy Ngo’s commentary:
Houston Police are seeking a robbery victim who shot dead a masked male who used a realistic-looking fake handgun to rob people at the Ranchito Taqueria on Jan. 5. Because the robber was black, some leftist activists say this was an unjustified shooting. https://t.co/G7OROWTtn4pic.twitter.com/lIykfwbQdc
There are many insightful comments on Twitter, mostly explaining why the shooting was justified. Some have raised questions about the second shot, not shown in this video. We can’t tell exactly what happened…
… but I’ll add my own insightful comments.
Even if the robber posed NO FURTHER THREAT to anyone in the restaurant, the diner was still justified in confirming the kill. Why? Because the diner probably didn’t know that a security camera was capturing the incident, and had the robber lived, it would have been his word against the robber – a White man’s word against a black man. Regardless of what actually transpired, the media would have published headlines quoting the robber as saying, “I put my hands up and begged him not to shoot! He called me a dirty nigger and pulled the trigger. Praise the Lord I’m still alive to raise my ten children.”
Who knows how cooperative the one or two witnesses would have been. Perhaps they would have been too traumatized to be of any use. Perhaps they would have been hostile. Perhaps the man sitting across from the shooter has good reasons to avoid being a witness.
When they find the shooter, thousands of leftists will be searching any social media posts he may have made – going back as far as possible. ANYTHING he might have posted, even in jest, will be used against him. If he appeared somewhere making the “okay” hand gesture, it will be used as “evidence” that he’s a White-supremacist. They’ll contact members of his family, neighbors and coworkers. Maybe he made an off-color joke once at work. That will be used as “evidence” that he’s a bigot.
For argument’s sake, let’s say the man is a flaming neo-Nazi. Does that mean he was wrong to shoot the robber? Do neo-Nazis lack the right of self-defense or the duty to protect others? The media will announce to a gullible world: NEO-NAZI murders helpless black man in cold blood!! The odds of getting a fair trial would be slim to none.
As a White man in today’s America, even in Texas, it’s doubtful he’ll get a fair shake. With luck, the prosecutor might decline to press charges – and then there will be protests. We’ve seen this before, and the prosecutor changes his mind. It’s all downhill from there.
Maybe I’m wrong in this case. After all, there are still pockets of sanity in this once-great country. They are getting fewer and fewer. Let’s hope fortune smiles on this man.
