Tag Archives: genocide

Blog

Ron Unz is Anti-White

16 Comments

Ron Unz is one of the relatively small number of jews who is mistaken as a “conservative”, in part because he was the publisher, until recently, of The American Conservative. As typical for jews, Unz doesn’t constrain himself to the usual left-right dichotomy.

Last year Unz wrote The Myth of American Meritocracy. In it he notes:

elite college admissions policy often consists of ethnic warfare waged by other means, or even that it could be summarized as a simple Leninesque question of “Who, Whom?”

His analysis distinguished jews from Whites (as “non-jewish whites”), but focused mainly on Asians (as “the new jews”). Given his anti-White attitudes, detailed below, this was likely an inoculative effort aimed at replacing more direct complaints on behalf of Whites.

Unz’s participation in a recent non-debate about immigration provided a window into the kind of discussions which take place amongst the thoroughly judaized anti-White elite. Here, as usual, Unz comes across as “conservative” only in that he expresses more concern than the other participants to prevent a backlash against that elite:

The reason America in its history, largely avoided the disastrous political results of many European countries is that every decade Americans were wealthier and better off than they were before. That’s no longer true today. And it’s no longer been true for 40 years now. Allowing an unlimited number of impoverished foreign workers to come to the United States would obviously make that situation incredibly much worse. And the result would be an economic disaster.

It’s true that possibly 1 percent or 2 percent or even 5 percent of Americans would benefit tremendously from that change. But probably 90 percent of the American population would suffer economically. And they are the people who vote. They are the people who can protest. And their views would certainly be made known. And the result would be tremendous political backlash. We have to ask ourselves whether one reason for many of the problems we’ve had in the last few decades economically is because the glorification, the amplification of theoretical concepts that may look very good to pure economic theorists, people basically spend their time in the ivory tower, but don’t understand that ordinary workers suffer when their incomes don’t rise for 40 years.

The apoplectic response of the south Asian immigrant (whose main concern is that America remain open to south Asian immigrants, even though he says they don’t really want to come and the internet makes it unnecessary) was to misinterpret Unz as speaking in favor of the Whites they both see as their enemies, “these Tea Party anti-immigrant people who [go] around creating fear about the billions who are going to invade America and take away our jobs”.

Twenty years ago Unz was campaigning to become governor of California, posing as a “conservative” while making the ridiculous argument that the state would be bankrupted not by immigrants but by the effort to cut off benefits to those immigrants. As he demogogued in the Los Angeles Times in 1994:

Most Californians view illegal immigrants as unwanted house guests. One very effective means of getting rid of such guests is to set your house on fire and burn it to the ground. This is Proposition 187’s solution to illegal immigration. It would be a financial and social disaster for California, and the worst moral disaster for our state since the internment of Japanese Americans. No decent Californian should support it.

Proposition 187 passed but was never enforced. The will of a majority of California’s Whites, including my family, was ultimately nullified by a single judge. As I’ve noted before, Governor Pete Wilson warned that immigration would bankrupt the state. It did.

For that Wilson is nowadays demonized. Though Unz-like disdain for Whites and White political interests has gone mainstream, Unz himself continues to dissimulate, posing as a rebel. His new website, The Unz Review: A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media, includes a reposting of his cover story for Commentary, the neocon journal of the American Jewish Committee, in late 1999. California and the End of White America begins:

Californians of European ancestry—”whites”—became a minority near the end of the 1980s, and this unprecedented ethnic transformation is probably responsible for the rise of a series of ethnically-charged political issues such as immigration, affirmative action, and bilingual education, as seen in Propositions 187, 209, and 227. Since America as a whole is undergoing the same ethnic transformation delayed by a few decades, the experience of these controversial campaigns tells us much about the future of our country on these ethnic issues.

Our political leaders should approach these ethnic issues by reaffirming America’s traditional support for immigration, but couple that with a return to the assimilative policies which America has emphasized in the past. Otherwise, whites as a group will inevitably begin to display the same ethnic-minority-group politics as other minority groups, and this could break our nation. We face the choice of either supporting “the New American Melting Pot” or accepting “the Coming of White Nationalism.”

Unz sees that mass immigration and forced integration has had a genocidal impact on Whites. His main concern, then and now, is that this genocide continue unimpeded. He is even aware of this criticism. Commenting as “RKU” on Sailer’s blog in the wake of Breivik’s attack:

One very mainstream but very true explanation of the factors motivating the Oslo guy’s rampage was the exceptionally shrill and wild rhetoric found on lots of HDB, anti-Islamic, and quasi-WN websites. Both the management and the commenters are always accusing their political opponents of being “traitors” aiming at the “extermination” of their racial group via a deliberate policy of “genocide.” Traitors…extermination…genocide…traitors…extermination…genocide…

So maybe after many years of reading all those websites, the Oslo guy started to actually take all that crazy rhetoric seriously. And if “traitors” really are attempting to “exterminate” your people via a deliberate policy of “genocide”, well, shooting as many of them as you can isn’t really so unreasonable, is it? As near as I can tell, since the attacks half the chatter on those websites has been “we really, really didn’t mean it!!” while the other half has been “great job, Oslo guy!”

Now Norway’s on the other side of the world, and there was also an extremely strong Israel/Zionist angle, so the story doesn’t seem have legs in the American MSM. But perhaps people should consider that vast numbers of American “activists” read those same “excitable” websites. And if some crazy American guy did the same thing, and massacred a whole campful of Young Democrats because of the all the crazy “traitor—extermination—genocide” rhetoric he’d been reading, well, I suspect that *extremely* bad things would immediately happen to an awful lot of loudmouth bloggers, some of whom probably deserve it and some of whom probably don’t. And the MSM barrage would probably ensure that 95% of the public supported doing all those extremely bad things, just like the mass roundups of Muslims after 9/11.

Endlessly shouting “traitor!”—“extermination!”—“genocide!” at your political opponents has always struck me as being pretty ridiculous, and perhaps now pretty clearly unwise as well.

RKU makes the same argument “liberal” jews made about Sarah Palin. His ridicule and fantasies about “extremely bad things” being done to his White enemies also call to mind Tim Wise’s drunken tick tock rant.

Jews know better than anyone else how well shouting “genocide!” works. Since WWII they have thrust their holocaust narrative to the very center of Western consciousness – sanctifying themselves while demonizing Whites.

Blog

The Anti-White/Pro-Jew Regime’s Position on Genocide

51 Comments

Remarks at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Forward-Looking Symposium on Genocide Prevention, USGOV Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, 24 July 2012:

Now, this gathering is yet another example of what the museum does so well. It brings us face to face with a terrible chapter in human history and it invites us to reflect on what that history tells us and how that history should guide us on our path forward. As Sara said when we were walking in this morning, human nature did not dramatically and profoundly change in 1945. We still struggle with evil and the terrible impulses and actions that all too often result in atrocities and violence and genocide. But I want to thank the Committee on Conscience for bringing attention to contemporary cases of extreme violence against civilians.

Let me begin by acknowledging that here in this museum, it’s important to note that every generation produces extremist voices denying that the Holocaust ever happened. And we must remain vigilant against those deniers and against anti-Semitism, because when heads of state and religious leaders deny the Holocaust from their bully pulpits, we cannot let their lies go unanswered. When we hear Holocaust glorification and public calls to, quote, “finish the job,” we need to make clear that violence, bigotry will not be tolerated. And, yes, when criticism of Israeli Government policies crosses over into demonization of Israel and Jews, we must push back.

Here at this museum and in the work that many of you do every day, we are countering hatred with truth. Thanks to the museum and institutions like it and scholars and academics and activists around the world, we have accurate histories. We have memorials and archives that record the stories of those who survived and those who did not. And because we know what happened, our call to action is that much clearer and compelling. Bringing that dark chapter into light helps clarify and sharpen what we mean when we say “never again.”

But despite all we have learned and accomplished in the last 70 years, “never again” remains an unmet, urgent goal. At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, we have seen campaigns of harassment and violence against groups of people because of their ethnic, racial, religious, or political backgrounds, and even some which aimed at the destruction of a particular group of people, fitting the definition of genocide.

Clinton, presenting the official policy of the US government, advocates a baldly pro-jewish narrative, a view of history and morals dictated to the rest of us by a vengeful and vindictive people whose ghoulish museums and incessant guilt-tripping demonizes Whites.

Though Clinton spoke quite a bit about Africa, she made no mention of the harassment and violence Whites in Zimbabwe or South Africa have suffered.

President Obama was clear when he stated that preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest as well as a core moral responsibility. So if a government cannot or will not protect its own citizens, then the United States and likeminded partners must act.

The rhetoric concerning “core national security interest” and “core moral responsibility” is utterly dishonest. The various groups of peoples living in the United States do not constitute a nation, and of these groups nobody but Whites are expected to be responsible to serve any group’s interests but their own. Open borders and forced integration are an effective way of destroying us. The current government of the United States does not protect it’s citizens (or anyone else) from this destruction, it helps inflict it.

Well, genocides and mass atrocities don’t just happen spontaneously. They are always planned. Genocides are preceded by organized, targeted propaganda campaigns carried out by those in power. Extremist leaders spread messages of hate often disguised as something else – a song on the radio, a nursery rhyme, or a picture book. The messages filter down. Those in power begin to dehumanize particular groups or scapegoat them for their country’s problems. Hatred not only becomes acceptable; it is even encouraged. It’s like stacking dry firewood before striking the match. Then there is a moment of ignition. The permission to hate becomes permission to kill.

Indeed.

Unfortunately for Whites, in the jewish narrative Whites can only be perpetrators of genocide, and only non-Whites can be victims. The thoughts and morals of the people currently in power are driven by this anti-White narrative. This is why the US government ignores violence against Whites. This is why it imposes open borders and forced integration. This is why it abides the dehumanizing and scapegoating of Whites in general, even as it defends jews.

A Jerusalem Post article regarding Clinton’s speech adds:

According to a poll unveiled at Tuesday’s event, 55 percent of the American public believes the United States should take military action against Syria, with 24% saying the US shouldn’t. At the same time, Syria ranked low on a list of foreign policy priorities.

The majority (55%) also felt Americans should provide ground forces in Syria, but only as a part of an international force.

In general, 69% of those surveyed said the United States should act to stop genocide in other parts of the world, with only 25% opposed. Another question worded slightly differently found that 78% support the US taking military action to stop genocide or mass atrocities with just 18% opposed.

I imagine Whites would be even more likely to support military action to stop their own genocide, if only they would come to understand what’s happening in such terms. To do so Whites must first overcome the constant anti-White propaganda, the scapegoating, the demonization, and realize that we have a more legitimate, more moral responsibility to defend our own interests than anyone else’s.

Blog

Buchanan on the Passing of the White Race

48 Comments

Plugging his new book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?, Pat Buchanan concludes his 17 October column, A.D. 2041 – end of white America?, with this:

Can Western civilization survive the passing of the European peoples whose ancestors created it and their replacement by Third World immigrants? Probably not, for the new arrivals seem uninterested in preserving the old culture they have found.

Those who hold the white race responsible for the mortal sins of mankind – slavery, racism, imperialism, genocide – may welcome its departure from history. Those who believe that the civilization that came out of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and London to be the crowning achievement of mankind will mourn its passing.

Buchanan clearly sees the malevolent, external forces at work here – the “replacement by Third World immigrants” and “those who hold the White race responsible for the mortals sins of mankind”. He may as well drop the rhetorical tone and detached posture and clearly identify it as genocide. What we need are advocates, not mourners.

Of course he would be mocked and hated all the more for crying foul play. But that’s exactly the point. If it were suicide there wouldn’t be such venom and force directed against those who speak in favor of Whites. The hostility comes from those who discount our concerns or see them conflicting with their own. Many imagine their anti-“racism” only harms stupid/crazy/evil White “racists”, not themselves.

Joan Walsh’s review of Buchanan’s book provides a good example. Walsh ridicules Buchanan’s thesis as “silly, a crazy mashup of stereotypes and paranoia”, “he sees anti-white racism everywhere”. She makes it quite clear she doesn’t share his concerns:

The book mourns the decline not only of white Christian America, but of Europe, since we share a common white European heritage. But then he runs down the history of European wars and ethnic nationalism, which makes me wonder what constitutes a “European” heritage or identity, other than (some comparative shade of) white skin — and why it matters anyway, if Europeans fight so much.

Walsh claims to identify with Buchanan as a fellow political pundit, especially because they are fellow Irish Catholics, though she married out. Even in her criticism of Buchanan she clearly expresses a more sober concern for the well-being of jews than Whites:

In Buchanan’s dim view of civilization, it’s not only white Christian countries, or cultures, that are on the decline. “American Jews seem to be an endangered species,” he declares (a little comically, since he’s never been a particular friend of American Jews). In fact, the U.S. Jewish population is declining, in part because of intermarriage, and each younger generation getting progressively less observant in our overall less tribalist society. But Buchanan doesn’t mention any of that: he blames birth control and abortion, which is a form of karmic payback in his telling, since Jews tend to support reproductive rights. “How many of the 50 million abortions since 1973 were performed on Jewish girls or women?” Buchanan asks. “How many Jewish children were never conceived because of birth control?” It would be funny if it weren’t so creepy.

No, not funny at all. Walsh criticizes Buchanan for having and defending a European identity that she could share but does not value, and she does it while defending a jewish identity that she cannot share despite her own creepy “intermarriage”. Walsh isn’t suicidal. She just fancies herself on the other team.

Blog

Genocide Excused, Opposition Blamed, Fjordman Out

119 Comments

A series of three articles from Views and News from Norway concerning Breivik, Fjordman, and the larger, longer-running, lopsided debate they’re on the politically incorrect side of.

‘Fear of foreigners’ breeds extremists, 3 August 2011:

Anders Behring Breivik is by no means Norway’s first home-grown right-wing extremist. Concerns are rising that the country, with its relatively small population, has produced what some experts call a disproportionate amount of internationally known extremists, and some link it to a history of fremmedfrykt (fear of foreigners).

While Norwegian society generally has grown more tolerant and internationally oriented in recent decades, there’s long been a tradition of wariness among Norwegians regarding people they don’t know. While Norway has produced record numbers of its own emigrants, many haven’t been particularly welcoming towards immigrants who’ve arrived in Norway during the past few decades.

That’s given rise to criticism of asylum and immigration laws that some view as too liberal, and in turn a rise in some hateful rhetoric against foreigners in online debates. Fear of being branded a racist for criticizing immigration policies, however, has shut some out of the debate, leading to frustration when they can’t have their say.

Rational debaters withdraw

Author and journalist Øyvind Strømmen has followed the types of websites where Breivik, who has confessed to terrorist attacks that left 77 persons dead, was active in online debate. The extreme and hateful rhetoric found on many of the sites, Strømmen told newspaper Aftenposten this week, “is so uncomfortable that those wanting a factual and rational debate pull out. That leaves the debate to more and more extremists on the left and the right.”

Never mind the completely rational fear of social and even criminal sanction. Ironically, Fjordman has used the same disingenuous argument as Strømmen – anyone whose opinion he doesn’t like is irrational, or just plain stupid. The fact remains that it’s only one side that has to find the courage, or foolhardiness, to debate. There is no lack of fearless, rational people on the other side, arguing in favor of genocidal immigration and multiculturalism. They’re just intelligent enough to pretend it isn’t genocide. Instead of saying directly that they think indigenous Whites have a duty to abide and even accomodate their legal and demographic subordination, most characterize their position instead as favoring “tolerance” and “diversity”. Instead of saying directly that they favor repression of indigenous White resistance to subordination, most simply pathologize and demonize it, painting it as something bad or even evil.

The debate is so lopsided that all the pro-genocide side has to do is sprinkle a few special words into their argument – “nazi”, “racist”, “xenophobe”, “extremist” – to end any debate. Arguing against such rhetoric is taken as an affirmation that you are what they say you are.

Strømmen stressed to Aftenposten that he has no theory as to what’s really created the right-wing extremists in Norway like Vikernes, Breivik and Fjordman, while Anders Jupskås at the University of Oslo thinks the issue should be researched. Strømmen does think Fjordman spreads a dangerous ideology, though, because he indirectly inspires violence by indicating that armed resistance is the only alternative against Islam, and that western leaders have betrayed their people.

These intellects don’t have a theory because the most rational theory – that foreigners are what breeds fear of foreigners, that genocide is what inspires anti-genocidal rhetoric and even violence – is unthinkable to them. At least where Whites are the victims, rather than the perpetrators. These are not the high-minded, neutral researchers they pretend to be, but partisans that either firmly believe that there is no such thing as Whites, never mind indigenous Whites, or that Whites have no legitimate cause to resist a regime – their government, media and academia – deliberately inflicting conditions that are bringing about their physical destruction.

Breivik police question ‘Fjordman’, 4 August 2011:

The anonymous blogger “Fjordman,” who is repeatedly referenced in the manifesto of Oslo and Utøya terrorist attacks suspect Anders Behring Breivik, was being questioned by Norwegian police on Thursday afternoon after authorities found out his real identity. The international links between Breivik and other far right groups have also continued to be revealed, as well as the suspect’s financial details and a number of other new facts about the case.

Spokesperson Pål-Fredrik Hjort Kraby told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) that “Fjordman” was seen as an “especially central” witness for the case given the influence he appears to have had on the suspect.

“Fjordman” had finished his own blog in 2005 but made a public statement on the Gates of Vienna website after the Oslo and Utøya attacks to reject claims that he was Breivik. The blogger said that he “extremely disliked” being mentioned in Breivik’s writings, claiming that he has “never” met the terror suspect. He had continued to contribute to such foreign far right websites after ending his own blog.

Fjordman’s statement on Breivik is here: Thoughts on the Recent Atrocities.

‘Fjordman’ reveals identity, 5 August 2011:

36 year-old Peder Jensen has given an interview to Norwegian newspaper VG where he reveals that he is the man behind the “Fjordman” blog referenced repeatedly in the online manifesto of Oslo and Utøya attacks suspect Anders Behring Breivik.

After being identified by the police and subsequently questioned on Thursday afternoon, Jensen met reporters from VG at an Oslo café. He chose to use his real name after receiving advice from a lawyer, and has asked the media to leave him and his family alone. He also confirmed that he would never again use the pseudonym “Fjordman” because he does not “wish to be associated with Breivik and his horrible actions.”

Exchanged emails with Breivik

Jensen told VG that he had “warned” his family in advance about shedding his anonymity, adding that “because of my own safety, I’m now going into hiding.” He had felt it was his “duty” to cooperate with the police investigation and decided to be interviewed under his real name because it “eventually would have emerged anyway, resulting in a media frenzy.” Jensen commented, “it is also a way for me to clear my name.”

The blogger disclosed that he had exchanged a number of emails with Breivik in 2009 and 2010. Breivik told Jensen that he was writing a book and asked if they could meet. Jensen turned down the offer “not because of his extreme views, but because he didn’t seem very interesting – like a vacuum cleaner salesman.” “‘Pie in the sky,’ I thought to myself when I re-read the emails,” Jensen added. He confirmed investigators had confiscated his computer, stressing that “they won’t find anything on my computer regarding any criminal matters or Breivik.” VG suggests that Jensen “feels that the police are looking to implicate him.”

In further excerpts of the interview reported by news agency NTB, Jensen said, “I recognize that people need a scapegoat, and now that Breivik is behind bars, I can become a handy scapegoat, especially because I am the only Norwegian he referenced.” He added that he understood that he could be regarded as “a hate object.”

In terms of Jensen’s background, VG reports that he originally comes from the town of Ålesund on the west coast of Norway. He claims that while he has long voted for the Labour Party and voted for the Progress Party more recently, he has never been a part of a Norwegian political party, and has only handled a gun during military service, where he describes himself as “no good soldier.” He holds a masters degree in culture and technology from the University of Oslo, where he completed a dissertation on “censorship and blogging in Iran.” He also studied Arabic at the American University in Cairo and the University of Bergen.

Despite the significance of the issue, these articles make no mention of Breivik or Fjordman’s professed love of jews and hatred of nazis. As Jensen himself has found it convenient to scapegoat “nazis”, he speaks with authority on that subject.

At any rate, the sanction the media heaps upon simple writers like Fjordman, to which the government may eventually add, illustrates the point I made above. The idea that the responsibility for the crimes and violence committed by alien interlopers lies with them never comes up for debate, much less the indirect responsibility that belongs to their enablers and apologists. What gets the media spotlight instead is even more indirect – those bad, evil people who supposedly cause anti-immigrant crimes and violence with their “extremist” ideas and rhetoric against crime, violence and the supporters of genocidal immigration and multiculturalism who enable and defend it.

(Views and News from Norway link via a comment by Rollory on Kay on Breivik on “The Jew”.)

Blog

The Anti-White Regime in Action in Wisconsin

31 Comments

Feds sue New Berlin for racism, Beloit Daily News, 24 June 2011:

MILWAUKEE (AP) — The U.S. government has filed a lawsuit alleging New Berlin city officials caved to pressure from their largely white community by deciding not to build low-income housing that could attract more black families.

The government is deliberately attempting to inflict conditions that will bring about the physical destruction of a White community in Wisconsin.

The very first reader comment on the story offers forthright support for that community:

Kevin wrote on Jun 25, 2011 9:27 AM:

” Its Their lives, their town, their ‘pursuit of happiness’. The government has not right to tell these people who they should think, how they should live. I hope they stand up and resist this invasion. “

The very next reader comment is a weasel-worded anti-White response:

Red Rock wrote on Jun 27, 2011 1:24 AM:

” That’s right Kevin! You go! For example, if the town has designs on only blue-eyed and blond haired residents that are Protestants, then that is their riight! Oh, wait. Wasn’t that tried in the 1940’s in Germany? Nevermind. On second thought Kevin, you’re all wrong on this one. “

Red Rock thinks it’s OK to destroy a White community in Wisconsin today because, when you get down to what’s really important, they remind him how much he hates blond-haired blue-eyed people no matter when or where they are.

For more details and another anti-White view see Racism’s Ugly Face in Wisconsin, Courthouse News Service, by Lisa Buchmeier, 23 June 2011:

MILWAUKEE (CN) – Housing developers say the mayor of New Berlin buckled to racist pressure and shut down an affordable housing project. To “save his political career,” the builders say, the mayor, who is not racist himself, truckled to community fears that affordable housing would draw minorities to the city, which is 93.3 percent white.

At one meeting, a member of the public commented, “If being against low-income housing makes me a racist and a bigot, then I guess I am a racist and a bigot,” according to the complaint.

The developers say the bigotry stems from “the perceived lower socio-economic status of many minority group members and because of the demographic disparity between Waukesha County … and neighboring Milwaukee County.”

Four days later Buchmeier followed up with Feds Take on Racism in Wisconsin:

After changing his vote, Chiovatero wrote an open letter to all residents: “In 2010, when the Section 42 Workforce housing came to public attention, it was clear that the nearby residents did not want this project to go forward. In support of the residents, I have since researched a means to halt the project. I am committed to focusing on what suitable options are available. The City Staff and I have found justification for discontinuing the project and will now be focusing on alternatives.”

But the plaintiff United States of America says that New Berlin’s “application of its zoning and land use laws have the intent and effect of discriminating against prospective black tenants and residents of New Berlin.”

The clear intent and effect of the government subsidizing and ultimately imposing the construction of “affordable housing” – a dishonest code-word everyone knows means disproportionately non-White housing – in a majority White community is to inflict conditions that will bring about the physical destruction of that community, in whole or in part. This destruction is being imposed over the explicit, earnest objections of community members who have expressed legitimate, reasonable fears. The government is aided and abetted by media reports blithely pathologizing and demonizing those who oppose this destruction.

Here’s another report. U.S. accuses New Berlin of racial bias in housing decision, Journal Sentinel, 23 June 2011:

From the start, some objectors expressed concern that prospective tenants would be African-Americans or other minorities and used racially derogatory terms to refer to them, or implied racial bias as the reason for objecting to the development, according to the complaint.

The complaint cites correspondence that mentioned “white flight,” crime, drugs, slums, gangs, families with 10 or 15 kids, needing “to get a gun,” not wanting New Berlin to turn into Milwaukee, moving to New Berlin “to get away from the poor people,” not wanting to provide housing to people “who work but do not live here.” Some writers also used racially derogatory terms for African-Americans.
New Berlin, a city of about 39,000, is 95% white, according to the lawsuit.

Finally, here’s an article that sheds some light on the government’s history of imposing non-White housing in White neighborhoods in the Milwaukee area. South Milwaukee, developer settle apartment bias issue, Journal Sentinel, 27 June 2011:

In 1992, developers bought land at what is now 3344 Marina Road with the intent of building the apartments, some of which would serve lower income and disabled residents.

The following year, after citizen opposition mounted, the city imposed a moratorium on building permits for Lake Bluff and then rezoned the land from multifamily to single-family housing.

In 1994, a Milwaukee County circuit judge ordered the city to issue building permits for Lake Bluff. By 1995, construction was complete and residents had moved in.

But in November 1995, the state Supreme Court ruled in the city’s favor, saying the judge’s order on the building permits should not have been issued.

Nearly five years later, in June 2000, the city won another court ruling, ordering the developer to tear down the two Lake Bluff buildings.

Earlier in the same article we find the sad precendent and likely outcome for New Berlin:

The long-running South Milwaukee dispute once saw the city attempting to raze the Lake Bluff Apartments complex, which includes affordable housing. About one-third of the complex’s residents have been minorities. The city’s population was 1% black by the 2000 census.

In July 2009, a federal jury found that razing the property would have a disproportionate effect on minority and disabled residents and would be in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.

South Milwaukee officials had said they sought to raze the buildings because it violated the city’s zoning, and not with the purpose of discriminating. The parties have been negotiating for more than a year, with U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman mediating.

Provisions of the settlement, according to lawyers, include:

The two buildings of Lake Bluff, at 3344 Marina Road, will not be torn down, and the complex will continue its mix of 25 affordable-housing units and 31 market-rate units until 2025.

In the predominant narrative of the anti-White regime non-Whites are presented as innocent victims who are just looking for a better life for themselves. Whites who could just as easily be seen in such a positive light are instead regularly depicted as greedy, selfish, ignorant and evil. De facto segregation is presented as a problem, with compulsory government-imposed integration as the solution. The anti-White nature of the regime is confirmed by the casual sinister, cynical regard aimed specifically at Whites and which is dominant among the perpetrators and apologists in positions of power and authority in government, law and media.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear someone who hates Whites moralizing about White “bigotry” and “racism”: no matter how many people oppose it, segregation isn’t genocide, and no matter how many people support it, compulsory integration is.

(The image is taken from New Berlin City Council meets for first since federal gov. filed lawsuit, Gamut News, 29 June 2011. Embedded on that page is a video of local Fox News affliate coverage.)