Tag Archives: usgov

Blog

Wade Michael Page Triggers an Outpouring of Anti-White Hate

12 Comments

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes itself as a “civil rights” organization, yet they focus almost exclusively on pathologizing and demonizing White people, especially those who identify as White and express explicitly pro-White attitudes. The SPLC does not pathologize or demonize non-Whites who express explicitly pro-non-White attitudes. The SPLC is not hostile toward all people acting or organizing according to racial identity – just Whites.

Powerful media organizations like CBS, Reuters, The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post parrot the SPLC’s anti-White talking points.

These media organizations do not report or object to the SPLC’s anti-White bias. They agree with the SPLC. They aid and abet the SPLC’s anti-White mission. They portray non-Whites who explicitly identify as non-White and have pro-non-White attitudes in a positive, approving light. They dedicate resources specifically to non-Whites who explicitly identify as non-White and have pro-non-White attitudes, and in doing so even publish explicitly anti-White attitudes.

The US government’s Justice Department fights “racism” and defends “civil rights” in the same way the SPLC does. In practice this means pathologizing and demonizing Whites while promoting the interests of non-Whites. The US government’s State Department is committed to Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism. They bring their fight to promote jewish interests to the entire world.

Would media organizations parrot the SPLC if the SPLC was collecting information and making negative statements about jewish music and jewish nationalism? Would they join in specifically pathologizing and demonizing jews who express explicitly pro-jewish attitudes? Would they do this after some jew commits some crime? What action would government organizations dedicated to combating “racism” and “anti-semitism” take against media organizations which published anti-jewish articles? Why don’t the SPLC, the media, and the government treat jews like they treat Whites? Why don’t they treat Whites like they treat jews? Aren’t jews White?

To ask these questions is to answer them.

The SPLC, the media, the government say they oppose “racism” and “hate”, but their narrative and rhetoric are dishonest. They attack Whites using terms and arguments they could but do not apply to non-Whites. They defend non-Whites using terms and arguments they could but do not apply to Whites. They are anti-White. What’s more, they are pro-jew. In fact, the current regime is anti-White and pro-jew because it is effectively controlled by jews – dishonest jews who hate Whites.

[The image is taken from The Sikh Temple Shooter’s Racist Tattoos, Deciphered, published by Mother Jones. The author, Adam Weinstein, cites the deceptively named Anti-Defamation League, an explicitly pro-jewish organization, describing how it hates, hates, hates David Lane’s 14 words: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.]

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

Wikileaks Cablegate Full Dataset

7 Comments

Full, unencrypted, Cablegate2 archive
Cable Viewer

I suspect the 60GB dataset contains even more evidence of USG serving GOI and general jewish interests worldwide, long-term. I’m considering acquiring and analyzing this data, but it would require a substantial investment in time and effort. Loud assertions that Wikileaks is CIA/Mossad disinformation only makes such analysis seem more interesting and necessary to me.

Via Zero Hedge.

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.)