Norbert Schlei, a Jew in the Johnson White House, Johnson was also a Jew, wrote the 1965 Immigration Act that made the USA diverse, like all other white nations, without our knowledge or consent.
If you lived in the south, you lived around blacks. The official story, written by Yankees, makes it appear that the south is racist. But it was the north, during Reconstruction that caused problems between the races. Yankee soldiers would put freed blacks up to killing white people and burning their homes or raping white women. That was why the KKK was created but because that makes Yankees look bad they don't tell that part.
After desegregation laws were passed the north enticed and advertised and used propaganda to get black women to get on welfare. They conditioned their checks on removing the husband and father from the home. Think about that when they're acting like we're racist but they're not. They told black women not to worry if they had another child, their checks would increase.
Today all of that is forgotten as black inner city neighborhoods, SEGREGATION, are violent no go zones. The official truth is not exactly the truth. I know this stuff because I'm old enough to remember. All the problems are caused by the same tribe. White southerners always got along with blacks until the Yankees come to fix the problems.
Repealing the FHA would not solve Shelley v. Kraemer, the 1948 Supreme Court opinion holding that State Courts cannot uphold racially restrictive land covenants because such covenants violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. While repealing the FHA would certainly go a very long way towards eliminating the government overreach you describe, unfortunately it would not pave the way for Whites to build their own race-based communities. Equal Protection will likely stand in the way.
I have always wondered if a partial solution would be for an organization to exist that helps fund relocating White people who don’t want to live in a diverse area. This could help Whites coalesce in communities around the country to preserve all the benefits that go along with it. The government can restrict a lot of things, but they certainly can’t prevent you from moving. I suspect cost is a big hurdle, which is where the organization would come in.
To be sure, it is not a long-term solution. The government could settle thousands of Hatians in one of these communities overnight. There are other flaws as well. The organization would have to be a well-funded one with a robust legal war chest. And Whites abandoning urban power centers could have negative effects. But maintaining and growing cohesive White communities around the Country simply by giving people the freedom to move seems worth considering. Enough of a demographic foothold in a given County or even State—coupled with a collective consciousness and a willingness to act in their own self-interest—could provide enough political momentum to repel diversity.
Ultimately, I agree that the long-term solution to the fundamental problem for Whites is as you’ve stated in other writings. Seeing the FHA repealed or amended would certainly be a step in that direction.
My wife works in a US tech firm (here in Ireland). She recently had to travel for work. She had told me a few little vignettes about what the racial dynamics are like, but this trip cemented it (black hiring managers exclusively hiring blacks; brown directors with their favoured employees who 'just happen' to all be brown; incompetent non-whites get put ahead, and so on). One night, some white colleagues based in the US office started to confide in her about it. They're terrified to speak openly about it.
The point of this anecdote is: I bet there would be a lot of whites on board with your fairly big umbrella suggestion of appealing to libertarians and populists alike.
BTW, I see you've adopted the capital 'W'! I think I'll stick to 'w'.
Táim ag baint taitneamh as do leabhar nua, agus táim ag tnúth go mór le Vol. 2!
"... an amendment could be made to at least protect restrictive covenants on new developments" — 💯 I've always preached this idea.
It would need to be very narrow as a start, so it would only legalize discrimination in new developments built in unincorporated towns. There are many such areas in the US.
The opposition will say, "They want to ethnically cleanse [nearby city]!"
Easy retort: "Our proposals have no effect whatsoever on the property owned by any American today."
Sooner or later, an Orthodox Jewish enclave will demand they be allowed to legalize discrimination in their existing town, at which time another law can be passed to allow existing towns and cities to legalize discrimination via referendum and after meeting various benchmarks.
Prior to the referendum, at least half of the town's residents must meet the proposed discriminatory requirements AND less than half of value of all the town's privately-held assets may become eligible for seizure due to the assets' owners' failure to meet the new requirements. These restrictions guard against a scheming minority tricking the majority of the residents into expelling themselves, and it guards against the majority of a town ganging up to "steal" (i.e. seize and compensate) the property of a small number of wealthy residents.
Upon a successful referendum, all properties owned by individuals that don't meet the new discriminatory requirements become vulnerable to eminent domain by the town. Thus, to reassure those affected that it's not the end of the world, the town will be required to establish a trust that will manage a fund of at least double the fair pre-referendum market value of all property eligible for seizure.
Requiring double is mostly a psychological salve, but also cushions the town from price volatility between the referendum and seizure. More than likely, most of the property will not need to be seized by the town. The now-ineligible residents will sell to eligible buyers and leave before seizures can commence. Requiring a trust helps ensure that the giant pot of money is not used for some short-term political whim of the town, like borrowing against the fund for a holiday party with an *intention* to repay it soon after but never quite getting around to it.
These strict requirements (especially the trust fund requirement) have the incidental benefit of practically disallowing corrupt, heavily-heterogeneous, low-trust towns from legalizing discrimination. Such towns will either be unable to agree on the proposed discriminatory requirements or they'll be unable to fully fund the compensation fund, thus preventing seizure & expulsions from going ahead if they do get a successful referendum either because of corruption or because of politicians being unable to discipline themselves to redirect taxes away from their pet projects and into the fund.
"an Orthodox Jewish enclave will demand they be allowed to legalize discrimination in their existing town" - I have heard that this is done off the books and unofficially in at least one town in the US (whereby homeowners will only sell to fellow Jews, etc).
Norbert Schlei, a Jew in the Johnson White House, Johnson was also a Jew, wrote the 1965 Immigration Act that made the USA diverse, like all other white nations, without our knowledge or consent.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-apr-21-me-schlei21-story.html
If you lived in the south, you lived around blacks. The official story, written by Yankees, makes it appear that the south is racist. But it was the north, during Reconstruction that caused problems between the races. Yankee soldiers would put freed blacks up to killing white people and burning their homes or raping white women. That was why the KKK was created but because that makes Yankees look bad they don't tell that part.
After desegregation laws were passed the north enticed and advertised and used propaganda to get black women to get on welfare. They conditioned their checks on removing the husband and father from the home. Think about that when they're acting like we're racist but they're not. They told black women not to worry if they had another child, their checks would increase.
Today all of that is forgotten as black inner city neighborhoods, SEGREGATION, are violent no go zones. The official truth is not exactly the truth. I know this stuff because I'm old enough to remember. All the problems are caused by the same tribe. White southerners always got along with blacks until the Yankees come to fix the problems.
where did you read that Johnson was Jewish?
There is a four hour doc on youtube about the Israeli attack upon the USS Liberty. I saw it on there. It's on the fourth hour.
Also, there is a doc of Elvis' childhood black friend who tells about their friendship. I don't have either link but you can search.
Repealing the FHA would not solve Shelley v. Kraemer, the 1948 Supreme Court opinion holding that State Courts cannot uphold racially restrictive land covenants because such covenants violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. While repealing the FHA would certainly go a very long way towards eliminating the government overreach you describe, unfortunately it would not pave the way for Whites to build their own race-based communities. Equal Protection will likely stand in the way.
I have always wondered if a partial solution would be for an organization to exist that helps fund relocating White people who don’t want to live in a diverse area. This could help Whites coalesce in communities around the country to preserve all the benefits that go along with it. The government can restrict a lot of things, but they certainly can’t prevent you from moving. I suspect cost is a big hurdle, which is where the organization would come in.
To be sure, it is not a long-term solution. The government could settle thousands of Hatians in one of these communities overnight. There are other flaws as well. The organization would have to be a well-funded one with a robust legal war chest. And Whites abandoning urban power centers could have negative effects. But maintaining and growing cohesive White communities around the Country simply by giving people the freedom to move seems worth considering. Enough of a demographic foothold in a given County or even State—coupled with a collective consciousness and a willingness to act in their own self-interest—could provide enough political momentum to repel diversity.
Ultimately, I agree that the long-term solution to the fundamental problem for Whites is as you’ve stated in other writings. Seeing the FHA repealed or amended would certainly be a step in that direction.
My wife works in a US tech firm (here in Ireland). She recently had to travel for work. She had told me a few little vignettes about what the racial dynamics are like, but this trip cemented it (black hiring managers exclusively hiring blacks; brown directors with their favoured employees who 'just happen' to all be brown; incompetent non-whites get put ahead, and so on). One night, some white colleagues based in the US office started to confide in her about it. They're terrified to speak openly about it.
The point of this anecdote is: I bet there would be a lot of whites on board with your fairly big umbrella suggestion of appealing to libertarians and populists alike.
BTW, I see you've adopted the capital 'W'! I think I'll stick to 'w'.
Táim ag baint taitneamh as do leabhar nua, agus táim ag tnúth go mór le Vol. 2!
“..., [M]ulticulturalism is best understood as a simple development of mainline Protestantism, …” (Mencius Moldbug, “WhyI Am Not an Anti-Semite”)
Great article!
YES
"... an amendment could be made to at least protect restrictive covenants on new developments" — 💯 I've always preached this idea.
It would need to be very narrow as a start, so it would only legalize discrimination in new developments built in unincorporated towns. There are many such areas in the US.
The opposition will say, "They want to ethnically cleanse [nearby city]!"
Easy retort: "Our proposals have no effect whatsoever on the property owned by any American today."
Sooner or later, an Orthodox Jewish enclave will demand they be allowed to legalize discrimination in their existing town, at which time another law can be passed to allow existing towns and cities to legalize discrimination via referendum and after meeting various benchmarks.
Prior to the referendum, at least half of the town's residents must meet the proposed discriminatory requirements AND less than half of value of all the town's privately-held assets may become eligible for seizure due to the assets' owners' failure to meet the new requirements. These restrictions guard against a scheming minority tricking the majority of the residents into expelling themselves, and it guards against the majority of a town ganging up to "steal" (i.e. seize and compensate) the property of a small number of wealthy residents.
Upon a successful referendum, all properties owned by individuals that don't meet the new discriminatory requirements become vulnerable to eminent domain by the town. Thus, to reassure those affected that it's not the end of the world, the town will be required to establish a trust that will manage a fund of at least double the fair pre-referendum market value of all property eligible for seizure.
Requiring double is mostly a psychological salve, but also cushions the town from price volatility between the referendum and seizure. More than likely, most of the property will not need to be seized by the town. The now-ineligible residents will sell to eligible buyers and leave before seizures can commence. Requiring a trust helps ensure that the giant pot of money is not used for some short-term political whim of the town, like borrowing against the fund for a holiday party with an *intention* to repay it soon after but never quite getting around to it.
These strict requirements (especially the trust fund requirement) have the incidental benefit of practically disallowing corrupt, heavily-heterogeneous, low-trust towns from legalizing discrimination. Such towns will either be unable to agree on the proposed discriminatory requirements or they'll be unable to fully fund the compensation fund, thus preventing seizure & expulsions from going ahead if they do get a successful referendum either because of corruption or because of politicians being unable to discipline themselves to redirect taxes away from their pet projects and into the fund.
Anyway. Yes I agree.
"an Orthodox Jewish enclave will demand they be allowed to legalize discrimination in their existing town" - I have heard that this is done off the books and unofficially in at least one town in the US (whereby homeowners will only sell to fellow Jews, etc).
This was an uncharacteristically silly article. If you're interested in detailed criticism let me know.
stfu
No.