Posts Tagged ‘diversity’

Imagine if people voted for the immigration policy that would change the demographics of America to those of the neighborhood they actually live in?


Read Full Post »

Many of the most red-pilled Whites are to be found in the most ‘vibrant’ areas. They experience Black and Brown hatred firsthand and generally know what ‘diversity’ means.

Some of the most pathetic, shitlib White people are to be found in the most lily-White areas. They never have to experience anti-White hate crimes and daily hostility.

It is ironic that if you don’t want to live around people that hate you, you must move to a neighborhood full of people who hate themselves.

Read Full Post »

I like to use the term ‘demographic genocide’ because I think it almost automatically causes white people to think of immigration. The combination of the two words is great because it connects a word we are so often used to hearing in connection with “The Changing Face Of (insert a white country here)”, and a word we associate with the wholesale, calculated extermination of a people. And that’s exactly what non-white immigration into EVERY white country and ONLY white countries is.

I first heard the term was used by the Dalai Lama to describe China’s policy of moving massive numbers of ethnic Han Chinese into the province of Tibet. I think his point was that Beijing was flooding Tibet with Han Chinese in order to a) immediately create a  political voting block that would ensure Tibet would remain a part of China, and b) move so many Chinese in, that the remaining Tibetans would simply intermarry and be absorbed into the Chinese population – thus bringing about the genetic extermination of the Tibetan people.

The policy is the same as what our leaders here in the West are doing to whites. First, get voters for the pro-multicultural elite in order to solidify their rule, and secondly, to move so many non-whites in that the remaining whites simply intermarry with them and are submerged into the larger demographic swamp.

And if some whites remained, they would be such a tiny percentage of the population that they would, presumably, not be able to change anything. Remember the UN definition of ‘genocide

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;”

Read Full Post »

“It is a typical trait of political elites, seen from a historical perspective, to talk in very laudatory terms about the infallibility of their system precisely at a moment when their system is falling apart.” – Tom Sunic

I recently read an article by some leftist bureaucrat who teaches at one of America’s ivory towers of privilege and intellectual insularity, otherwise known as a ‘college‘. The article is titled “The End of White America?” and is written from the perspective of someone who has internalized the concept of ’whiteness studies’, a so-called ’discipline which was created to justify genocide against white people by arguing that they don’t exist. (It should also be noted that they have no problem defining us when they are blaming us for everything).

I felt I should write about this article because it demonstrates how out of touch anti-white ‘intellectuals’ are with reality.

Firstly, you get the impression from the article that this Hua Hsu (yeah that’s his name) thinks that America is post-racial or at least is about to become so. His prediction of what the newly created demographic landfill of America will become is incredibly naive :

    “There will be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone’s lives, producing a culture that’s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.”

Given the trends in American society, and the reality on the ground you have to wonder what he’s smoking. So you say America is post-racial,

This is what 'Post-White' Detroit looks like

Hua? How about getting rid of anti-white hiring policies (affirmative action), colleges teaching that whites are the source of the worlds problems, and demands that ALL white countries and ONLY white countries accept millions of 3rd worlders? Yeah … didn’t think so.

America is post-racial but the program of genocide against White people continues.

Diverse countries have been tried repeatedly and they all failed, in some cases in a quite bloody fashion. This point is obvious (at least for me). But the deeper point is that diversity was deliberately sought and deliberately created through migration and demographic engineering because it has, for probably centuries if not thousands of years, been seen by elites as useful. Generally speaking, leftists want votes and capitalists want cheap labour. But political elites are far to smart, well-educated and above all aware (in a way that public schooling does not allow), to not notice the obvious utility of having different groups present in the territory they rule. Conflict between ethnic groups within an empire has been manipulated and managed from the empires of antiquity to Austro-Hungary. America is no different.

My guess is Hua Hsu doesn’t see this because he works and lives in the sterile closed world of academia. And he has so enthusiastically swallowed anti-white propaganda that he really believes destroying white people is ‘tolerant’. And that’s all that tolerance is to a leftist – hating white people.

The confidence and certainty of his article might anger or frustrate a conservative, but to me it is completely unfounded and extremely dangerous. Actually, it reminds me of this video :

Read Full Post »

I recently read an article about the affect the ‘Great Recession’ is having on white men (Dead Suit Walking). Before I get to my main points I just want to mention that the author (Tony Dokoupil) is completely gutless. He is basically ridiculing white men and then tries to make it look like this is all very serious and we shouldn’t laugh. He makes some half-assed attempt to seems sympathetic to the troubles of these men by referencing some studies on how families are impacted, but it comes off as fake. You can tell he’s enjoying the plight of white men, he just doesn’t have the balls to come out and say it. If there’s one thing I hate more than a PC anti-white asshole, it’s a PC anti-white asshole who won’t admit that he really does hate white people.

The article is an example of what a shitty country modern America is. If this economic downturn happened to Sweden circa 1960, we would be reading articles about how we all need to pull together and ‘times are tough but we’ll get through it‘. There would be GENUINE concern for Swedish men and their families.

But in Amerikwa we have a breakdown of which racial group is suffering and how much. We have politicians appealing to particular races, specifically offering them more jobs. And we have faggy little pampered ‘journalists’ running around New York or some other yuppie metropolis writing weak-kneed articles that never get at the heart of anything important, laughing at all the males of the most hated group who have fallen on hard times.

Furthermore, non-whites have suffered too, perhaps more, as a result of this recession, but the yuppie, ‘white-skinned’ journalists don’t give a crap about that. It’s more important to shit on white men than it is to show real concern for all of us. Hating whites is top priority. Actually addressing the needs of the citizenry is somewhere down the list.

I’m sick of this fraudulent multicultural society. All the ideas about racial equality and ‘fairness’, all the crap about gender equality and meritocracy are all bullshit. No one even believes in this stuff, they just pay lip service to it because they know they have to in order to keep their pay check. I’m sick of hearing white people tell me diversity is good or that we are a tolerant society. I know you don’t believe that and you know it to. If you actually argue on behalf of this dogmatic, tired old system than you’re a joke.

Read Full Post »

At the recent NPI conference, Richard Spencer mentioned something called the “Majority Strategy“, which was originally proposed by Sam Francis, and has since been taken up by Peter Brimelow and Steve Sailer. In a nutshell, it says that the Republican party is dreaming if it thinks it can curry favour with blacks or Hispanics; it can only win elections if it focuses on the white vote.

This is very true; the Republican party would benefit greatly at the polls by appealing to white voters. And like precious few other things in life, this is easier done than said. All they have to do is push the one unifying policy that whites broadly approve of – immigration restriction (which to white people really means “non-white immigration restriction“). But of course, it’s unlikely they’ll even do that, since the leadership of the Republican party doesn’t care about white people.

I feel I have to mention before I continue that when reading the articles explaining this strategy, I get the impression that the authors seem to be more interested in using whites to help the Republican party survive than using the Republican party to help whites survive, but I digress.

"Whites will have to stick together or they’ll be eaten alive."

One thing I like in this approach is that it recognizes the obvious point that white Americans are a pretty homogeneous group and can be united, not only on issues such as demographic genocide (immigration), but also on things like anti-white discrimination (affirmative action), and a host of other policies that screw over whitey. Politically, this is the way forward. Whites will have to stick together or they’ll be eaten alive.

But the strategy misses a pretty huge issue. Yes, whites are a homogeneous group that should have their racial interests represented by the Republican party (or another party if the GOP is unwilling) but Sailer and Brimelow treat the left as if it is some monolithic, tightly regimented army of people willing to fight and die together for their common welfare (no pun intended). The left is far from united. Theirs is a motley crew of blacks, Hispanics, feminists, homosexuals and a hundred other small bands of the nieve and degenerate who form the ‘mystery meat’ section of the social progress cafeteria. They have nothing in common except that they are greedily striping hunks of meat off the same carcass. And if the alien/traitor elite that decides who gets how much distributes things unfairly, there will be a minor scuffle between the squawking vultures.

Also, it is well known among people who have had contact with Obama’s America that Hispanics absolutely hate blacks. And no doubt the feeling is mutual. The hilarious thing is, while blacks and Hispanics are kicking the crap out of each other, your local leftist professor is concerned about things like ‘white skin privilege’ and ‘unconscious racism’.

My problem with Sailer and Brimelow’s approach is that even if they got their “Majority Strategy” and the Republican party gained enough power to shut down all non-white immigration forever, the people that are responsible for the 1965 immigration act and the vast 3rd world population which it ushered in would still be in power. How are you going to deal with them? Debate them Jared Taylor style? That aint gonna work. Debate is for two parties who want the same thing but disagree on how to get it. This is a fight. They want to eliminate us and we must survive. We can’t simply stop and then repair what they have done. We have to destroy them completely so that they can never do this again.

And in order to do this, any legitimate pro-white political movement must do 2 main things : a) politically organize whites to push for their explicit racial interests, and b) turn non-whites against each other in order to break up the coalition that our alien/traitor elite’s political power is based on. Once we stop giving tax dollars and jobs to these blacks and browns, they will realize the jig is up and become increasingly competitive for what few scraps remain. When the screw-whitey-coalition breaks up there will be no anti-white voting bloc and we can play the non-whites off against each other just as our overlords have played them against us. That’s right my friends, diversity is OUR strength.

In short, instead of trying to simply halt the trends set in place by the left, we actually use them and redirect these ‘energy flows’ of managed ethnic conflict in a way that would benefit whites. That’s called finessing it!

Read Full Post »

In the dictionary, the word diversity is simply defined as many different types or kinds. It doesn’t go into a lot of detail. It says nothing about proportions. Of course, the word diversity is used a great deal in our world and we should know that the political definition is completely different.

If a town is 90% white and 10% every other group on the planet, according to the dictionary definition of diversity, it is a very diverse town. But we know that in political terms it is not diverse at all. The town is 90% white for Christ’ sake. It needs more ‘diversity’.

If a town is 90% black and 10% white, then it is a very diverse town. It doesn’t need more ‘diversity’.

The political definition of ‘diversity’ is the absence of white people. Diversity literally is genocide. That’s what it actually IS. The 90% white town needs more ‘diversity’. In other words, fewer white people. No one complains about how ‘coal black’ a community is, they complain how ‘lily white‘ some American suburb is. No one bemoans the lack of ‘richness’ in a homogeneous non-white neighbourhood.

Affirmative action has nothing to do with minorities. It is not intended to promote blacks. The purpose of affirmative action is to get rid of white people. Non-whites are incidental. If some government bureaucrat or ‘social progress’ activist demands greater diversity, they don’t give a damn if a black or an Eskimo gets the position. They may make sure the positions are doled out to the most powerful groups within the anti-white political coalition, but the presence of any particular variety of non-white is unimportant. What is important is white people.

For leftists, white people are the center of the universe. The concept of diversity can only be understood in relation to them. Without white people, we would not know who is evil and who is good. For leftists, all history is understood in this way. Non-whites have no value in themselves, they are defined by what they are not. Even ‘tolerance’ and ‘anti-racism’ are only defined by what they are not, by what they are against. Anti-racism is not against Mexicans beating the crap out of blacks. Anti-racism is against the possibility that white people may have ’unconscious racism’ lurking dormant within them.

Anti-racism has nothing to do with getting rid of racism, it is concerned with getting rid of whites. Anti-racism is code for anti-white. Diversity has nothing to do with non-whites. Diversity is the absence of white people. Diversity is genocide.

Read Full Post »