I got the Beaverton, Oregon annual report in the mail a few days ago. It’s also available online.
On page 7 we find a brief overview of the City of Beaverton, along with a budget breakdown.
In a city that’s 66% white, East Indians are featured. As we can see, from the prominent text box at the top, the city’s leaders are proud of the fact that “One in three residents identify as a person of color.” This fact is listed together with the most basic statistics, between the overall population, and the geographical size.
Over the years that I’ve been here, I have noticed more and more non-whites. In other words, and as this page implies, whites are being replaced. If “one in three” is “progress”, then wouldn’t “three in three” be even MORE progress? If Diversity is a good thing, and the percentage of non-whites (“people of color”) reflects this, then doesn’t it follow that a white population of zero is the ultimate goal? If not, then wouldn’t it be fair to ask, “What percentage of whites would be ideal?”
Don’t expect an answer to this question.
On page 12, a Somali refugee is highlighted. We’re told how Abdi Nor Iftin, author of the book “Call me American,” has been travelling the country and met with congressmen. Apparently, Iftin did not want to continue living in 100% diverse Somalia. He found the 66% white USA much more to his liking. Where will he go when the United States is also 100% diverse? Iftin says:
I grew up in a civil war where I could get killed for saying the wrong word.
I wonder if Iftin realizes that the Portland area is not much different in this regard.
On page 10 of the report there’s an article titled “Investing in Diverse Leaders in Our Community.”
The city is recruiting participants for this year’s Beaverton Organizing and Leadership Development (BOLD) Program to be held this March to May. The BOLD Program is a leadership and civic engagement training for emerging immigrant and refugee leaders and leaders of color in Beaverton.
The program includes hands-on sessions focused on strengthening cross-cultural relationships; building leadership, community organizing, and advocacy skills and providing an in-depth orientation to city government and opportunities for engagement.
It would be interesting to know how much money the BOLD program costs; I didn’t see it in the annual budget breakdown. Somehow, I doubt that Abdi Nor Iftin attended this course – yet he seems to be doing quite well for himself. Also, what concrete financial benefits are taxpayers getting in return for this expense?
Honestly, when I see how devoted Mediagov is to the false god of Diversity, it makes me want to move to Mexico. I’d rather live among “people of color” than among self-loathing whites who have no self-respect.
2020 is almost upon us, and by the time most of y’all read this, it will already be here. So happy New Year to everybody reading this.
It’s not that I don’t have anything negative to say. In fact, I’ve got plenty of negative items I could bring up… but let’s start this new year with something positive.
Let’s talk about church-going blacks. While I’m aware that practically all of this crowd would vehemently oppose my politics, when it comes to casual encounters with them, my personal experiences have always been positive.
So it was today, when I met such a couple, and we had a few minutes to chat. They’re from New York, and they asked about my “nationality” (IE. my ethnicity). When I replied that I’m Jewish, they immediately expressed their sorrow, and disgust, at the recent attacks upon Jews in the New York area.
I asked them what their pastor had to say about these incidents, and how black churches in New York react to them. As one would expect, they said their pastor forcefully condemns any such attacks. Furthermore, their church works with the local Jewish community to help those in need, and to curb crime.
I have yet to see any stories in the “News” about such cooperation, but there probably will be such a story in the near future.
I think that, on the whole, Christianity has been good for American blacks – and for the non-blacks who live around them. When early Americans converted black slaves to Christianity, it probably wasn’t only the souls of the slaves that concerned them; it was probably also a matter of public safety. It was a win-win situation.
I’ll take this opportunity to disagree with what Jared Taylor said in his interview “Is Muslim Immigration Good for the West” At about 1:03, Mr. Taylor states that he doesn’t mind if Muslims are successful in converting Native Americans to Islam.
We SHOULD* mind. We should also mind that blacks and Hispanics are being converted to Islam. As long as we’re forced to live with non-white populations, it should absolutely matter to us whether those non-whites are Christian or Muslim. We have enough problems with imported Islamic terrorism and black Muslims. We don’t need Native American or Mexican jihadists added to the mix.
Black-on-Jewish violence in the New York area has been endemic for decades, if not centuries. I lived in the Northeast back in the 1970s, and used to frequent the Jewish areas of Brooklyn. I was involved with Habad (AKA Lubavitch) Hassidism at the time. Back then, blacks would target Jews frequently. In response, Jews would walk in large groups for protection. Some Hassidic groups even had a system worked out to deal with black violence. If a Satmar Hassid had trouble with a black hoodlum, he would only need to shout “Khop im! (Jump him!), and other Jews would come to his aid, beating the living daylights out of the offending hoodlum. I heard stories of Lubavitcher Hassidim beating black trouble-makers within an inch of their lives.
But in those days, crime was rife in New York. This was before the reformations of Mayor Giuliani. It was like the Wild West, and people had to look out for themselves, because nobody else would. You couldn’t count on the police to be there, or for anybody to do much about it if you reported a crime.
Since then, things have calmed down in the New York area, and my impression is that the Jews have become complacent about protecting themselves.
The recent spate of black-on-Jewish violence on the East Coast is something the Corporate Media cannot entirely ignore. A recent Atlantic article states:
After the massacre at a Pittsburgh synagogue on Shabbat that killed 11 people last year, and another fatal shooting at a shul in Poway, California six months later, one often heard that the great threat to Jews—even the only threat—comes from white supremacy. Conventional wisdom said it was the political right, and the right’s avatar in the White House, that was to blame for the rising levels of hate against Jews.
But the majority of the perpetrators of the Brooklyn attacks, and the suspects in Jersey City—who were killed in a shootout with the police—and now Monsey, were not white, leaving many at a loss about how to explain it or even talk about it. There is little evidence that these attacks are ideologically motivated, at least in terms of the ideologies of hate we are most familiar with.
And therein lies the trouble with talking about the violent attacks against Orthodox Jews: At a time when ideology seems to [reign] supreme in the chattering and political classes, the return of pogroms to Jewish life on American soil transcends ideology. In the fight against anti-Semitism, you don’t get to easily blame your traditional enemies—which, in the age of Trump, is a non-starter for most people.
If Batya Unger-Sargon is “not most familiar with” black-on-Jewish violence, then the leftist media (of which she, as an editor at the Forward, is a part) is to blame. Until now, it has been loath to write about it at all; it does not fit the narrative that it so aggressively pushes. To be fair, this is the main point of the Atlantic article – but why the long wait?
Actually, the ideology behind the black-on-Jewish attacks is very familiar to the Corporate Media, it’s just that it’s only recognized when the perpetrators are white.
It’s perfectly normal, and strongly encouraged, for American blacks to be openly proud of their race. But when a white person does the same, he’s a “white-supremacist.” In other words (using leftist parlance), it’s perfectly normal for blacks to be “black-supremacists,” but an aberration for whites to be “white-supremacists.” Does Miss Unger-Sargon honestly believe that these recent crimes do not at all exist against a backdrop of black identity? That it’s completely coincidence that so many of the attackers are black?
She won’t even say it out loud; instead, describing the attackers as “not white.” We all know that they’re not Asian, or Native American. I wonder if Miss Unger-Sargon would be fired if she came out and specifically described them as “black.” Perhaps the initial draft did spell it out, but it was changed.
Miss Unger-Sargon, if you’re reading this, take note: We cannot hope to solve such problems if we continue to honor hackneyed taboos. We must tackle these issues head on, and call it what it is, without euphemisms or codes. It’s BLACK-ON-JEWISH VIOLENCE, and if you were consistent, you’d call it “black-supremacy.”
The Seattle Times recently announced new guidelines for the usage of the terms “black” and “white.”
Black (adj.): Belonging to people who are part of the African diaspora. Capitalize black because it is a reflection of shared cultures and experiences…
White (adj.): Belonging to people with light-colored skin, especially those of European descent. Unlike Black, it is lowercase, as its use is a physical description of people whose backgrounds may spring from many different cultures… Capitalized white is often used by the white nationalist/white supremacist movement.
Thanks to Red Ice (about 1:14) for bringing this up in their video.
This is a crude attempt to diminish the status of whites, and it fails on a couple of levels. Firstly, the fact that the Seattle Times mentions the fact that some white-advocates capitalize “white” somewhat shifts the narrative over to our side. It shows that the Times is ceding control of the narrative, as opposed to setting the narrative themselves. Had the behavior of (some) white-advocates not played a part in this decision, then it would not have been mentioned at all. I’m reminded of how Hillary Clinton inadvertently gave the Alt-Right a huge boost. As the folks at Vice described it:
With her speech, Clinton managed to elevate an ill-defined, and likely small, group of fringe racists into a national threat, giving a national platform to a handful of white nationalist bloggers and the internet trolls who follow them. The GOP is “the White Man’s party, whether it likes it or not,” Richard Spencer, the leader of the white nationalist National Policy Institute credited with coining the term alt-right wrote in a blog post Thursday. “Hillary is trying to push the GOP into permanent minority status by empowering the Alt Right,” he added, “and believe me, she will be empowering us today.”
When a “mainstream” media organization bases its policy, even partially, on the habits of the Resistance, then this is a victory for the Resistance.
Secondly, and more importantly, it negates the very message that the Hostile Elite has been shoving down our throats for decades – that white people are less diverse than non-white people. It wasn’t that long ago when Apple’s Diversity Officer, a black woman named Denise Smith, was fired for stating:
There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blond men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.
Not according to The Seattle Times, because their directive clearly states that whites are “people whose backgrounds may spring from many different cultures,” but blacks are “of shared cultures and experiences.” In other words, whites are more diverse than blacks.
I’m not saying that leftists can’t disagree. They certainly can, and they do. But my hunch is that the folks at The Seattle Times simply did not give very much thought to the ramifications of their new guidelines. I’m willing to bet that if a Diversity officer at The Seattle Times made a similar announcement to that of Denise Smith, that officer would find himself in hot water. Defending himself by citing the new guidelines would not be very effective, because consistency is not a priority among diversicrats.
As for my own opinion on the capitalization of “white” and “black,” you can find it here.
An Amazon executive was tragically killed in San Francisco recently. Her death was ironic, as Business Insider reports:
The former Amazon executive Joy Covey was killed after colliding with a van delivering Amazon packages, according to an explosive investigation into the company’s logistics network by BuzzFeed News and ProPublica.
Covey was Amazon’s first chief financial officer. She was riding her bike in San Francisco’s South Bay suburbs in 2013 when a delivery van turned left into her path…
Covey’s collision with a delivery van was previously reported, but the BuzzFeed News-ProPublica report revealed for the first time on Monday that the van was carrying Amazon packages…
The details of Covey’s death emerged as Amazon has come under scrutiny over the impacts of its growing delivery network following investigations by Business Insider, BuzzFeed News, and The New York Times, among others.
In a nutshell, Buzzfeed accused Amazon of neglecting safety in favor of speed. To this, Amazon…
… called the new report an “attempt to push a preconceived narrative that is simply untrue. Nothing is more important to us than safety.”
I’m surprised they didn’t say “Amazon is committed to safety.” Every time a large company gives lip service to something they’re supposed to prioritize, it will say “… is COMMITTED to…” Fill in the blanks.
But back to the point. I seem to remember a recent instance of somebody “pushing a preconceived narrative… Oh yes! It was Amazon – when it chose to censure all of Jared Taylor’s books.
Far be it from me to rejoice in the death of Joy Covey. I didn’t know her, and many truth-loving people would leap at the opportunity to have a job like hers, so I won’t judge her after her death – unless other pertinent information comes to light.
But I do rejoice in the fact that Buzzfeed and the New York Times have attacked Amazon; all three of them are rabid Leftist organs, and purveyors of lies. It’s even more delicious when a pusher of preconceived narratives accuses other pushers of preconceived narratives of pushing preconceived narratives.
Merry Christmas to all of you, and Happy Hannukah to all of my Jewish readers!
This is one of those posts whose main objective is therapy for yours truly. When I read about current events, and become full of disgust, venting my spleen on these pages is sometimes all I can do.
I present to you exhibit A: A man who, acting according to his conscience, lashed out against the LGBT power structure. He infringed upon the property rights of others, and for that he deserves some sort of punishment… but 16 years?! From USAToday:
DES MOINES, Iowa – An Iowa man was sentenced to about 16 years in prison after he set fire to a church LGBTQ flag in June.
Adolpho Martinez, 30, of Ames last month was found guilty of a hate crime – a class “D” felony – third-degree harassment and reckless use of fire. Police said he stole a pride banner hanging at Ames United Church of Christ and burned it early June 11 outside the Dangerous Curves Gentleman’s Club…
Story County Attorney Jessica Reynolds said hate crime charges were added because Martinez is suspected of criminal mischief against someone’s property because of “what it represents as far as sexual orientation.”
How many times have we read about Antifa physically attacking conservatives, or “social justice warriors” destroying the property of Trump supporters – and they receive, at most, a slap on the wrist. Perhaps Trump supporters should claim that they support him because he’s sexy. That way, any attack on them could be considered a “hate crime.” Maybe white-advocates should claim that our support of whites is based on our sexual attraction to them. That way, attacks on us would be “hate crimes.” We could be the “W” in LGBTQW. It’s a sexual orientation, and attacks against us will not be tolerated.
Any way you look at it, all decent people should be outraged that a man may spend 16 years in prison for burning a rainbow flag. Murderers get more lenient sentences.
And that brings me to exhibit B: The man who murdered a Jewish woman in Paris, while shouting about demons and Allah, will face NO PUNISHMENT. From the Jewish Refugees blog:
The French-Jewish community is reeling at the news that the killer of Sarah Halimi, who was tortured and thrown out of the window in 2017, will not face trial. Ben Cohen in The Algemeiner reports:
Although it was expected, the court’s decision nonetheless angered the French Jewish community — whose leaders have spent much of this year countering the claim of a court-appointed psychiatrist that Traore’s heavy ingestion of cannabis temporarily wiped out his awareness and his judgement…
The Times of Israel reports: A man accused of murdering his Jewish neighbor in Paris will stand not trial after a French court ruled Thursday he could not be held responsible for the killing because he was in a psychotic state from smoking marijuana.
Kobili Traore is alleged to have beaten his neighbor, 66-year-old Sarah Halimi, to death in 2017 while calling her a demon and shouting about Allah, before throwing her body from the window of her third-story apartment.
The appeals court, whose decision Thursday ended Traore’s detention, ordered he be hospitalized or made to attend a drug rehabilitation program. It also ordered security measures be put in place for 20 years, including a ban on him from contacting the victim’s relatives or returning to the crime scene.
I was under the impression that marijuana does NOT cause people to become violent. In any case, now you know what to do if you want to murder somebody in France: Smoke some marijuana first.
We shouldn’t be surprised if the above “security measures” turn out to be ineffective, and Traore kills again.
It’s the “progressive” way, and it’s emblematic of the depths to which we have sunk – that murderers get a second chance, but not those who burn an LGBTQ flag.*
* Yes, I’m aware that the US, and France, have two different legal systems, but there are plenty of examples of France meting out harsh punishments for “hate speech,” and the US being too lenient with murderers.
I just finished reading Greg Johnson’s “The White Nationalist Manifesto.” Instead of writing just one review on this pivotal work, I decided to discuss each point in separate posts. There are only a few things I disagree with him on – and most of those are along the lines of “let’s examine this more closely, and maybe rethink this.”
Johnson writes (pg. 20):
Second, Jews are a highly influential minority in politics, the media, business, academia, and the professions. Jews are, moreover among the principal promoters of trends conducive to white genocide, such as massive non-white immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, feminism, and sexual liberation. Jewish organizations have also led the way in demonizing all pro-white ethnic activism as “hate…”
I can’t find the source right now, but the ancient Jewish sages stated, “If not for the Torah, Jews would destroy the world.”
All of the crimes, perpetrated by Jews upon white peoples, were perpetrated by Jews without Torah, that is to say, secular Jews. It is secular Jews who are “destroying the world.”
In The Ashkenazi Revolution, Kalman Katzenelson argues that there is no singular “Jewish People,” but rather, a confederation of Jewish peoples. His arguments are based on disparate histories and, by extension, disparate ethnicities/peoples.
There is much overlap, ethnically, between secular Jews and religious (IE. Orthodox) Jews. Through rampant intermarriage, among secular Jews, this overlap is diminishing. Ideologically, the two groups could not be further apart. Secular Jews are, as a group, just as religious as Orthodox Jews, but their religion is Cultural Marxism.
Johnson writes (pg. 92):
It is impossible for non-whites to become members of other white societies. It is difficult for whites to become members of other white societies. It is easier, of course, if an immigrant and his new homeland share the same native tongue and basic culture – for instance, the countries of the Anglosphere.
The transition, from Orthodox Jew to Cultural Marxist Jew is not an easy one. I suspect, however, that it’s easier than the transition to Conservatism, or nationalism. There are serious psychological, and social, hurdles that stand in the way. One’s family may disown him.
Johnson makes it clear, in several places, that there are many “white nations.” There is no such thing as a “generic white.” Why not consider Orthodox Jews to be one of those nations?
One question that Johnson does not address, in this tome, is “What is a Jew?” Of course, racially speaking, the vast majority of Ashkenazic, and Sephardic, Jews are white. They are indistinguishable from other Europeans, though some of us retain Mediterranean features. The main objection to Jews being “white” is ideological, not racial. But this objection only applies to SECULAR JEWS. Most Orthodox Jews are quite conservative; their lifestyle is a wholesome one, they are a high-IQ, low-crime, pro-family-values demographic.
One may object to some Orthodox practices, such as circumcision, but similar objections could be raised about Jehovah’s Witnesses. Are Jehovah’s Witnesses “non-whites?” Russians have issues with corruption and alcoholism. Are these grounds for being excluded from whiteness? In Western Europe, and America, most whites are self-loathing. We seek to address this by changing their minds, not be excluding them from whiteness.
Clannishness, and an unwillingness to intermarry, is one issue that some have with Orthodox Jews. Johnson writes (pg. 90):
What should our attitude be toward people from other white nations?
Ethnonationalists with to preserve distinct European cultures and subracial types, which is the whole point of having distinct homelands in the first place. We do not want to see the emergence of a homogeneous European man or a white monoculture. Therefore, policies toward other white nations must bear this goal in mind…
No white society should allow large populations of guest workers from other white societies, or create conditions that lead to large numbers of its own people to search for work abroad.
Immigration between white societies should be limited. Practically all cases would be due to marriage. The naturalization process should firmly promote normative homogeneity, i.e., assimilation of the dominant language and culture by immigrants…
Regarding the last paragraph, it sounds a lot like conversion.
Because there is no official ETHNIC distinction between religious Jews and secular Jews, when there is an attack upon one group, members of the other group often also feel the pain. When one group is extolled, the other group may also feel pride. Sometimes, the two groups mingle, or join forces. This does not make them the same – any more so than alliances between Jews and gentiles would make them the same.
Orthodox Judaism does not consider secular Jews to be fully Jews. Secular Jews cannot be counted in a quorum for prayer services, and if a secular Jew handles (uncooked) wine, that wine is no longer kosher. In practice, Orthodox Jews treat secular Jews with kindness and respect. This is partly because most Orthodox Jews are nice people, and doing so comes naturally to them, and it’s partly because doing so may draw secular Jews back into the fold. But the fact remains that secular Jews do not hold full “Jewish” status. This is based on behavior, not genetics.
In the same way, white-nationalists should consider Orthodox Jews as “white.” But once an Orthodox Jew strays from his roots, and embraces Cultural Marxism instead, he loses his “white” status – because now he is dangerous, and cannot be trusted. At that point, he’ll join forces with other Cultural Marxists, and seek to destroy the world.
Edit: I wanted to ask my fellow, non-Jewish, white-nationalists about their thoughts on gentiles who convert to Judaism. Do they lose their status as “whites?”
Here’s a screenshot from the Yahoo news page I took today:
As most of y’all probably already know, the victim who was beaten for wearing a Trump hat is white, while his assailants are black. His mother noticed this, and tweeted:
I am sitting in the hospital with my 14 year old kid because he was just jumped by 8 black kids on the school bus, I guess that’s what happens when a kid wears a #Trump hat to school… And who’s the violent ones again? Earlier today they poured milk all over his head.
The anonymous Yahoo journalist describes these tweets as “racially charged — and controversial.”
Yes, we know that in the Temple of Cultural Marxism, it’s “controversial, and “racially charged” to point out black aggression against whites.
In the very next story, we’re told that a “black woman faces prison because of a Jim Crow-era plan.” The plan was to (allegedly) disenfranchise black voters by preventing felons from voting.
We can debate whether such laws were created with pure intentions, but the fact remains that people of all races can be felons. It just so happens that blacks are far more likely to actually BE felons. If it’s “racist” to punish felons, then (by the same reasoning) it’s also “racist” to enforce laws against rape and murder; blacks are always more likely, than whites or Asians, to be ensnared by such laws.
Many on the left are fond of claiming (falsely) that whites are more likely to be child-abusers. Does this mean that, according to them, laws against child-abuse should be scrapped – since they (supposedly) impact whites more than others? Should child-abuser felons be allowed to vote?
As it stands now, regardless of the original intentions, the law is colorblind. It applies to everybody equally, regardless of race, age or gender.
If it’s “controversial” and “racially charged” to point out the racial angle in the first story, how much more so to racialize the second story – which should not even be a “story.”
In addition, notice that the first headline does not say, “white boy attacked by blacks.” No, race is only mentioned when the “victim” is not white.
Since the author of Sincerity.net will inevitably comment that the above behavior is REQUIRED by the corporate media, I might as well get it out of the way and quote him here:
REPORTS ON CRIMES When reporting crimes, it is not permissible to refer to the suspect‘s religious, ethnic or other minority membership unless this information can be justified as being relevant to the readers‘ understanding of the incident. In particular, it must be borne in mind that such references could stir up prejudices against minorities. [GUIDELINE 12.1. by the German Press Council 3]
I love it when fellow Jews visit this blog, and show their support for the beleaguered white race. On that note, I suppose this is a good time to share a video (sent to me by my friend Diversity Chronicle) by my favorite rabbi, Rabbi David bar-Hayim:
Commenting on my previous post, “Ratcheting up Sensitivity,” a reader by the name of “370H55V” writes:
… The Left has increasingly made it clear that they believe that those of us who hold the beliefs we do have no right to exist, and have made themselves the judges, and in some cases, executioners. Unless we realize that this is an existential threat to thousands of ordinary citizens just trying to live their lives unmolested (just the other day I read about a German real estate agent brutally assaulted by Antifa storm troopers in her own home), we will be living our lives in fear.
The only remedy to this is to respond as proportionately with violence as necessary. Let them know that if the First Amendment is going to be trashed, then WE will tell YOU what you can say and think, and back it up by force and intimidation.
And by the way, I’m a fellow Tribesman. I love this blog!
Yes folks, “370H55V” is a Jewish name. Deep in my heart, I’ve always acknowledged 370H55V’s point. No group can survive through endless pacifism, when faced with relentless aggression; to do so would doom us to the fate of the Moriori. A glance at history shows that the forces of the Left are no less brutal than the Maori. When I say “history,” I’m not only referring to Stalin or the Holodomor genocide. I’m also referring to events that are transpiring right now, in the 21st century.
For the past half century, America’s political history has been driven by the Democratic Party’s effort to fire up these constituencies by denigrating the rest of America. As elements of cynical calculation melded into self-images of righteous entitlement to rule inferiors, the boundaries between the party and the constituencies’ most radical parts have eroded.
In the 21st century’s second decade, explicit statements by the party’s principal figures—President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to name only a few—have led their epigones in power as well as millions of followers to think and act as if conservatives were simply on a lower level of humanity, and should have their faces rubbed in their own inferiority. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo simply declared that pro-lifers and other conservatives have no place in his state.
As the media amplified and cheered such guidance from on high, it would be surprising if many ordinary followers have not concluded that harassing if not harming conservatives in restaurants, airports, as well as in their public functions is not just permissible but praiseworthy, and if thousands of persons who exercise power over cities, towns and schools have not concluded that facilitating such harassment and harm is their duty.
Police in leftist jurisdictions have stood aside as violent groups disrupted the 2016 Republican presidential campaign and the 2017 presidential inauguration in Washington, D.C., as racial mobs have ravaged malls and shut down major roads, as conservatives have been attacked physically as they tried to speak or merely observed. The media have basically justified the violence. The other side has done nothing comparable—yet.
But since the ruling class’s condemnations of conservatives as racists, environmental criminals, and would-be terrorists are becoming well-nigh universal, the probability of deadly attacks on conservatives, of intolerable convictions or absolutions, and assassinations, rises to certainty. So does corresponding demand for protection and revenge.
The above article was also published at amren.com. There have been many instances where the courts have shown their bias by refusing to adequately punish leftist perpetrators of violence. For example, Professor Eric Clanton, who struck a protester with a bike lock, causing severe injury, got no jail time. Antifa rioters are regularly given free reign, and no punishment for their violations of the law, in my own city; police are ordered to stand by and do nothing.
Against this backdrop, we are morally justified in striking back in kind. Let there be no doubt about it. Victims of violence are morally justified in also using violence.
The problem is that Cultural Marxists own practically all of the schools and the media. Therefore, it’s not surprising that most young people are leftist; it’s all they know. In a physical fight, young people are usually going to win against hoary pensioners. Among young people, even if we count only WHITE young people, pro-whites/conservatives are vastly outnumbered.
Add to this the fact that the courts, and police, are biased against us, and this is not a battle we can currently win. Even in cases where we somehow DO win, the media will lie, and use such incidents against us.
There are many young conservatives, and pro-whites, but most of them have too much to lose. If doxed, they will not be eligible for higher education, a government job, or even a private job with most companies. I’ve met some of these people myself, here in Portland. They know the score, but they must remain silent. They cannot join a brawl in defense of those on the right. Some day, with luck, some of them will retire and be more outspoken.
We can take comfort in the fact that many young leftist thugs will eventually grow up and see the light. There will come a time when THEY are the hoary pensioners trying to defend themselves from violent black and mestizo hoodlums. By then, the US will mostly resemble Brazil demographically.
In light of the above, I believe that the best course of action, in most circumstances, is to fight for freedom of speech on campuses and in the media. If we make progress on this front, then Cultural Marxists will no longer hold a monopoly on the youth. At that point, when push comes to shove, we can defend ourselves with violence when threatened or attacked.
What happens when we win?
I’ve been reading Greg Johnson’s “The White Nationalist Manifesto.” I highly recommend it, though I think there are a few improvements that could be made.
Johnson writes (pg. 96):
Moreover, within the lifetimes of many present-day Americans, the kinds of laws and policies favored by White Nationalists actually existed, from immigration laws designed to preserve the white majority, anti-miscegenation laws to maintain racial purity, eugenics laws to improve future generations, and even mass deportations of Mexican invaders from border states. These are not utopian pipe dreams. They have already happened. Indeed, some of these laws even seem too radical for present-day White Nationalists.
Thus the first step to creating a White Nationalist America is to dust off these laws and policies and implement them once again.
Personally, I’ve long held that anti-miscegenation laws would be unnecessary, if only we could do away with the relentless PRO-miscegenation propaganda rained upon us by the hostile elite, and protect our borders.
If a white-nationalist state ever arises, I don’t think a Jew should be in charge… but, as a thought-experiment, let’s say that I was appointed king. I would make sure that images of healthy, happy, and fertile, white families dominated the billboards, commercials, government literature and signage. This is the sort of thing that should be promoted in a white ethnostate. If you visit black Africa, you’ll see images of healthy, happy, and fertile black families depicted everywhere; black Africans are not bombarded with miscegenation propaganda – and neither should whites.
Along with sensible immigration policies, and healthy doses of ethnic pride in schools, anti-miscegenation laws should not be necessary. I don’t think the State should dictate who we can marry – but it should definitely dictate who can live within its boundaries.
Thus, a white person who brings home a non-white spouse should not be thrown in jail. Rather, he should be deported to another country – humanely. Israel should be doing the same thing with Jews who choose non-Jewish spouses. Let them live elsewhere; Israel is supposed to be a JEWISH state. There will be plenty of multi-ethnic states that would welcome them.
But speaking in general terms, should a white ethnostate use force against its enemies? We’ve seen what such enemies are capable of. We’ve watched them use violence against us with impunity, and suffer few consequences. If there was any doubt, in the past, about the true nature of Cultural Marxism, there are no doubts now; it has revealed its true nature. Any, and all, measures should be used to prevent Cultural Marxism from rearing its ugly head again. Observe how the Cultural Marxists react any time Nazism rears its ugly head. This is how we should react to Cultural Marxism.
I’ll conclude with a revealing photo from Portland. I guarantee that this graffiti would have been erased within a few hours had it said “It’s Okay to be White.” Apparently, where Antifa reigns, it’s “Okay to be Communist.”
