Will “White Flight” be declared Illegal? News from the “City too Busy to Hate”

Will “White Flight” be declared Illegal? News from the “City too Busy to Hate”

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/

Will “white flight” be declared illegal? Why don’t people move to majority Black cities?

In the state of Georgia, the Black Caucus is suing majority white cities ostensibly because of White Flight and the lack of tax dollars being shared with the city of Atlanta. The Black Undertow has been unsuccessful in turning these cities and counties into mirror images of Clayton and DeKalb County, because Dunwoody, Sandy Springs and Johns Creek have kept property values high, keeping a Black influx from transpiring.

The sad fact is the state of Georgia is broke. With an astounding number of Black people moving back to the South after failing in virtually every other city they went to during The Great Migration, the stress levels on an already broken infrastructure are going to become shockingly apparent. As this incredible article from Newsone.com admits, Black people are reliant on local, state, and federal government for employment and entitlements at levels disproportionate to other racial groups:

Poor and working-class Blacks, on the other hand, are caught between a rock and NO place—the “hard place” option no longer exists.

Simply put, the current economic crisis is much deeper than job and business creation. Both can be undertaken and still feature exploited workers with no health benefits or a living wage.

So what options exist for the Black poor and working class?

First, at the very least, poor and working-class Blacks need to organize. They should not be seduced by political slogans of hope.

Black youth, whose unemployment numbers are approaching a staggering 50 percent, for example, have to be aware of Arab young people using the “white man’s magic” (cell phones, Internet, FaceBook, and Twitter) to revolt against oppressive regimes. In doing so, some Arabs have made references to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X.

Yet, Black youth have failed to capitalize on the growing trend of using technology for political mobilization to address staggering unemployment and other issues that impact their lives.

According to a recent Target Market News Report, Black-Americans spent $9.4 billion dollars on cell phones and connectivity services in 2009.  This is regarded as a growing market. Even so, cutting-edge smart phones do not constitute Black political or economic power, especially for millions of Black youth for who technology is used primarily in the hot pursuit of foolishness.

Second, the disproportionate number of Blacks employed by municipal, state, and federal government need to wake up to the budget deficit game being played in Washington. It is not far-fetched to imagine the possibility that they may be sacrificed en masse. Beyond these workers themselves, budget cuts also translate into an assault on working and middle-class Blacks.

And finally, for Black folks who did not have jobs in the first place, surviving in the underground and barter economy—as they have always done—is the most viable option. They, like many of their counterparts across race trapped in jobless urban centers and rural areas, are caught in the middle of history.

This above article is an honest look at a problem we have pointed out will eventually manifest itself in America. The Federal Government is already attacking all-white counties and cities, scolding them for not making enough concession to Black Run America. Whose side do you think the government will fall on during a massive Black revolt (which Newsone.com seems to be encouraging)?

An artificial Black middle class has been created in Atlanta, largely due to a massive support network that seeks to improve the quality of Black life at the expense of other racial groups:

Local leaders said black business people come to Atlanta because of the city’s strong black middle class, support among other black entrepreneurs and black colleges and universities.

“There are really a lot of proactive efforts to engage small businesses and entrepreneurship here,” said Nancy Flake Johnson, president and chief executive officer of the Atlanta Urban League. “The political climate is supportive.”

Groups such as the Urban League, the Georgia Minority Supplier Development Council, Atlanta Metro Black Chamber of Commerce and Atlanta Business League have assisted these efforts.

The Federal Government has already made it clear that all-white cities, counties and states are a thing of the past (just ask the Somalians of Minnesota and Maine how great the welfare programs are there). Now the Black Caucus is suing the refugee camps outside of Atlanta and calling for the dissolution of these white flight enclaves.

Atlanta is known as The City to Busy to Hate. In reality, it is a city whose Disingenuous White Liberal class has been one of the most dedicated groups in the erection of Black Run America (BRA) and a metropolitan area that saw its Black ruling political class come under fire in 2009 when it became apparent that they were losing control of the city.

It’s a city where 30,000 Black people rioted over the right to sign a waiting list for Section 8 housing that wouldn’t be available for five years.

It’s a city with some of America’s least safe neighborhoods (all Black areas).

It’s a city white people fled from, and in so doing established some of the top counties in the nation. Slowly, and surely, the Black Undertow followed. Gwinnett, Clayton, and even parts of Fayette County all succumbed to the problems that the citizens who fled to them sought to avoid.

The ultimate question is this: Why are cities and counties with majority white populations so desirable and cities and counties with majority Black population so undesirable? 

Now the legal system will be used to break up white flight. As we have seen with Marin County in San Francisco, the legal system is in the pocket of BRA. Strangely, Black people still believe that the legal system operates under Jim Crow. This is why Brian Nichols thought he was a Black Avenging Angel of Death (BAAD), courtesy of people like Michelle Alexander who hold a revered place in Black people’s hearts and minds.

The mentality of people like Alexander has harmfully impacted thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Black people. Maybe even millions. Newsone.com has basically called for insurrection in this nation by Black people, following on the heels of Middle East uprisings.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution, like The Washington Post and New York Times, rarely publishes articles that deal with race and crime (unless its a story like the Duke Lacrosse hoax). If they did, the paper would just be a print version of Thug Report.

If Black people follow Newsone.com’s suggestion and start to use social media to protest a system that provides free lunches, welfare, cell phones, housing, scholarships, allows Black-only groups to help with creating businesses, and employs a disproportionate amount of Black people in government jobs, how do you think non-Black people in America will react?

As we have said before, Black Run America is going to collapse on itself. Attempting to deprive people of the right to “white flight” by suing majority white cities that exist because majority Black cities (and Black-run municipalities) are unsuitable for raising families is a shocking indicator of the power of BRA.

But it’s an act of desperation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcZK2CF3mZ8&feature=player_embedded

Democracy: The Problem

Democracy: The Problem

Alain de Benoist’s The Problem of Democracy, now in English

 

Alain de Benoist is a name readers are likely to have come across in these circles, being a founder and leading figure of the Nouvelle Droite—the European New Right—as well as head of the French think tank GRECE. Sadly. This French philosopher’s vast output—50 books, 2,000 essays—has remained largely unavailable in the Anglosphere, due to a lack of English translations. This is something that Arktos has begun to rectify. The Problem of Democracy (originally, Démocratie: Le Problème, first published 26 years ago) is the first book-length political work to appear in English, and the first of a series of volumes to appear on the aforementioned imprint.

De Benoist is an astonishingly erudite and penetrating thinker, yet, like many brilliant minds, and quite unlike his pretentious and intellectually bankrupt counterparts on the Left, he is able to write with singular clarity and economy. This tome offers an eloquent example: De Benoist examines the theory and practice of democracy, analysing it from every angle you ever thought and never thought of and would have never imagined, demystifying and getting right down to the core of the matter, and illuminating the reader with surprising insights, all in a slender volume of just over 100 pages. How many authors do you know who can do that with profundity and academic rigour in such a compressed space and without producing incomprehensibly compacted prose? Homi K. Bhabha could learn a thing or two from this edition.

De_Benoist_Alain_-_The_Problem_of_Democracy

The fact is that this book is a lot better that it looks. With democracy not being exactly the height of fashion around these parts, and with the cover being rather opaque and impersonal, one imagines that this is going to be a slow and boring read. Yet the opposite is the case: Yes, De Benoist tells the reader much that he already knew or suspected about modern Western democracies; but he also uncovers a mass of otherwise obscure yet crucial realities that shows exactly how much of a charade our governments are, and how modern citizens have been reduced to idiocy—in the classical sense of the word. The sections dealing with the deficiencies of modern liberal democracies are truly fascinating, even for readers who think they know everything there is to know on the topic.

De Benoist begins by problematising this taken-for-granted term, democracy, and by showing that it is, and has been, used very loosely, cynically, imprecisely, disingenuously, and outright deceptively, to describe just about any system of government, from direct democracies to totalitarian communist regimes. To his mind, only the democracy of Athens in ancient Greece can be genuinely referred to as a democracy: after all, those who invented it best know what it was about.

Judged against this standard, modern democracies fail to meet the required definition—they are something else, but not democracies.

De Benoist also demonstrates that democracy is not synonymous with liberalism, elections, or even freedom. In fact, often the opposite is the case: modern elections are effectively a delegation—and therefore an abdication—of sovereignty, the anointment of a self-perpetuating class of professional politicians who then do whatever they like, with complete impunity.

De Benoist’s main thesis is that genuine democracy can only exist in a community with shared values and common historical ties. A secondary thesis is that the larger the political unit, the stronger the type of government needed to hold it together. The liberal democracies of the West, governing over vast multicultural multitudes, are necessarily repressive and tend increasingly towards totalitarianism. As it happens, this is a point I made in a certain novel I wrote:

a homogeneous society [is] easier to legislate for because people shared a concrete set of values; a highly heterogeneous society require[s] mountains of legislation, regulating every aspect of the individual’s life, as well as a bloated and highly complex bureaucracy, designed to invent it, record it, expand it, refine it, and enforce it, alongside an omniscient surveillance apparatus, to constantly monitor behaviour and report non-conformity.

Such conditions, I argued, make it preferable to have

strict controls on who was allowed to come and settle in Europe, rather than strict controls on what people who lived in Europe were allowed to say, write, read, watch, think, or publish, what organisations they were allowed to belong to, what political parties they were allowed to vote for, what music they were allowed to listen to, and what personal associations they were allowed to maintain, in order to keep the chanko stew in the social pressure cooker from exploding.

Surprisingly, De Benoist also posits that a genuine democracy is elitist, not egalitarian. Equality exists among citizens before the law, and in such a system, citizens are given equal opportunities to be unequal. Democracy does not assume natural equality. What is more, a genuine democracy, according to De Benoist, is designed to offer elite turnover, the idea being that if citizens are given equal opportunities to be unequal, the each gets what he deserves, and the best elements rise to the top while the worst sink to the bottom.

Thus De Benoist argues for a fundamentalist understanding of democracy, and a return to the model of Antiquity, albeit adapted to modern times (he offers some suggestions as to how this may be done). This exemplifies perfectly how one can be radical while being traditional.

In sum, this slender volume can be read very profitably and is worth recommending to anybody, irrespective on their love or hatred for democracy—because they are, in fact, so similar in their criticisms, De Benoist has something here for supporters and detractors alike. The Problem of Democracy offers plenty of ammunition for anybody wanting to engage conventionally thinking citizens in thought-provoking debate.

A book like this should be in standard political science reading lists in all Western universities.

Raciology in Russia

Raciology in Russia

I don’t want to fantasize too much about a country I’ve never even visited, but it appears that this is what government-endorsed textbooks are like in Russia.

Raciology

This image is of the English translation, of course, which you can purchase here. (Hat tip to Constantin von Hoffmeister.)

Reviewing the Russian edition in 2007, Jürgen Graf wrote,

Vladimir Avdeyev: Rasologia. Biblioteka rasovoy mysli,
Moscow, 2007, 665 pages.
a review by Jürgen Graf

Where in the world is it nowadays conceivable that a book about the inherent differences between the human races, which pays tribute to the racial theorists of the Third Reich and explicitly claims that all races are not equal, is not only openly sold in the bookstores but even becomes a bestseller? And where in the world is it possible that such a book is favorably reviewed by renowned scholars and provided with two introductions, one written by a member of parliament and the other one by a prominent representative of a liberal organization?

In Germany, Austria or France? Unthinkable! In these countries such a book would almost certainly be banned; its author would be put on trial for “racial discrimination” or “instigation of the populace”; any member of parliament who would have the audacity of endorsing its contents by writing an introduction would immediately be castigated as a “racist bigot” by the media and would have to relinquish his seat in parliament within days.

In the Anglo-Saxon world? Not impossible, but highly unlikely. It is quite true that the English-speaking countries enjoy much greater freedom of thought and speech than the German-speaking ones or France. In the USA, the First Amendment to the Constitution would certainly protect the author of such a book from legal persecution; in Britain or Canada, there are laws against “racism”, but the author of a scholarly work about race would hardly be prosecuted on the basis of these laws. On the other hand, the media would either ignore or angrily denounce his book without discussing his arguments, and he would risk social ostracism. This is exactly what happened in the United States to Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck, two serious scientists who had dared to challenge the dogma of racial equality. They were pilloried as “racists” and “haters” and harassed by left-wing fanatics for whom rational arguments did not count. The late biologist Glade Whitney became the victim of a tremendous smear campaign after writing an introduction to David Duke’s My Awakening. Only a handful of scholars or politicians will muster the courage to incur the wrath of the watchdogs of “political correctness”.

In Russia? Yes, in Russia all this is perfectly possibly. The proof is Vladimir Avdeyev’s books Rasologia, the second edition of which came out in late 2007 in Moscow.

Vladimir Borisovich Avdeyev was born in 1962. After acquiring a university degree in Economics, he served in the Soviet Air Force where he was promoted to the rank of First Lieutenant. Since 1993, he has been a member of the Russian Writers’ Association; in 1991, he founded the journal Atenei together with his comrades-in-arms Anatoli Ivanov and Pavel Tulayev. Since 1999, V. Avdeyev has edited a series of books under the title “Biblioteka Rasovoy Mysli” (The Library of Racial Thought), and in 2005, the first edition of his Rasologia appeared. This book was highly successful, and already two years later its author was able to publish an improved and enlarged second edition. The two introductions were written by Andrey Savelev, a delegate of the Russian Duma {parliament) and close personal friend of Avdeyev, and by Valeri Solovei, a historian and member of the ultra-liberal Gorbachev Foundation, who aptly summarizes the book as follows:

“Humanity is entering a new epoch. The world that was shaped by the Enlightenment and Modernity using melodious words such as ‘democracy’, ‘equality’, ‘progress’ and ‘human rights’ is becoming part of a past that will never return. Together with this world, the scientific concepts and the intellectual ballast which belonged to it are doomed too. All this will be replaced by a world based on blood and soil, strength and hierarchy, which will need a new theory and new concepts.”

Avdeyev’s book is subdivided into eight chapters: 1) Racial Science and Anthropology: What are the differences? 2) The Fair Race: Historiography and Anthropology. 3) The Biological Foundation of the Northern Conception of the World. 4) Thoughts about Racial Prejudices. 5) A New Paradigm in Racial Science. 6) The Anti-Racial Myth of the “Melting Pot”. 7) Racial-ideological Neurology, and finally, the striking chapter 8, A Racial Theory of Time. The book contains a large number of excellent photographs and illustrations.

For me as a non-specialist, who only had a very general knowledge of the question, Avdeyev’s history of racial thought was particularly fascinating. I had erroneously taken it for granted that almost all racial theorists had been German and that the Frenchman Arthur de Gobineau (Essay on the Inequality of the Races, 1855) and the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain (Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, 1899) were exceptions. Thanks to Avdeyev, who has carefully studied the writings of all the important racial theorists, I learned I was wrong: the subject of race has been dealt with by numerous and illustrious French scholars, and the study of race flourished in Russia before 1917. Who would have guessed that the term “Nordic race” was not coined by a German, but by a Russian, Joseph Denniker (1852-1918)?

There is a great irony to the existence of a volume like this. As Graf points out, Russia was once the homeland of Lysenkoism; it is now one of the few places in which one can pursue, honestly and rigorously, the study of race.

And it is in the “land of the free” that scientists like Arthur Jensen and Glayde Whitney are attacked as heretics. (In 1995, Whitney was shunned and condemned for his views on race by the Behavior Genetics Association, a body of which he was, at the time, president (!).)

The Marxian Left were not always opposed to Darwinian evolution and its implications: Marx himself believed his theory was perfectly compatible with Darwin’s, and many prewar Leftists considered themselves eugenicists. Whatever the case, by the 1930s, Communists and Western Marxists had become, almost monolithically, “environmentalist”: genetic differences, they claimed, were the stuff of Nazi propaganda; the scientists studying them should be denounced (if not shot); if you want a new plant, just change the fertilizer, soil, and pot.

After the flame of the purges and the tearing down of cathedrals burned itself out, the Soviet Union settled down as an authoritarian empire, in which free thought was possible, so long as it didn’t touch on the domain of the state. As the story goes, if one praised the proletariat in the introduction and conclusion of an essay, one could write pretty much what one pleased in the middle.

America and Western Europe, on the other hand, became countries where leftism was pursued more vigorously, thoroughly, and radically—in which the state took an interest not in owning the means of production but in stamping out racism and sexism in the minds of its citizens. It is America, and not the Soviet Union, that has more fully implemented a “universal society,” in part because its consumer-capitalist economy has proven more sustainable than the Soviets’ backwards industrial socialism.

In fearing America’s descent into “socialism,” America’s self-styled “conservatives” love to depict their Democratic enemies wearing Soviet garb or the traditional Russian ushanka. In reality, it is the late and post-Soviet regimes, and not Washington, DC, that have more evinced “conservatism,” if this term is to have any meaning beyond an eagerness to bomb Middle Eastern countries into democracy and hold mass rallies in honor of Black Marxist preachers.

Looking at the outcome of the 20th century from a Hegelian standpoint, one might suggest that it was America that was on the left—and the post-Lenin USSR, on the right—all along; tag lines like “capitalism” and “socialism” simply obfuscated the inner natures of each regime.

Whether Russia is simply behind America—and will soon follow it into cultural decadence—or is truly charting an independent course remains to be seen.

Brian Nichols Channels Omar Thornton: Waged War on Racist Justice System in the name of Black People

Brian Nichols Channels Omar Thornton: Waged War on Racist Justice System in the name of Black People

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/

You remember Omar Thornton, right? The media darling in that horrible mass murder of evil white bigots. Oh, he was the Black guy who pulled the trigger, ending the lives of eight former white employees he claimed were
Brian Nichols wanted to start a race war, against a racist Atlanta police and justice system
racist (and thus deserving of death).
The company he was fired from discriminated against him – with only his account necessary for such accusations to be confirmed –and those nine deaths were just collateral damage in the war on whites being waged nationwide.

Just see what Eric “My People” Holder had to say on the situation of the Justice Department deciding to side against white people.

With what Omar Thornton did at his former place of employment, it should be noted that 88 percent of Black people believe they have experienced discrimination at the work place.

A regrettable number of Black people are shooting police officers. In Miami and New Orleans, a regrettable number of Black people have been shot by Black people because these people break the law.

Black people believe the police, the Justice Department and Justice system are aligned against them. In reality, the opposite is at play. Just look at what Seattle is doing in the name of “social justice”:

City Attorney Pete Holmes defends the city’s progressive policies.  For example, driving with a suspended license is almost always charged when a person’s license has been suspended for failure to pay a fine, Fox News reports.  But Holmes says 44 percent of those prosecuted for the crime were African American.  According to Holmes, the disproportionate number of blacks being charged is a direct result of economic inequalities.

Racial minorities are more likely to be poor than whites and unable to pay their fines, Holmes says, adding that it’s a waste of city resources to prosecute those cases.  “If we start to learn and understand that one of those institutional causes of racism is actually in the criminal justice system,” Holmes says, “it’s our obligation as prosecutors to address it.”

The Justice Department is making every attempt to excuse away Black crime. Black people are placing the justification for high levels of Black crime on a racist criminal justice system, instead of realizing high levels of Black crime are responsible for police increasing their presence in Black areas.

It’s time people realize that the majority of Black people will always believe police and the criminal justice system operate straight out of a 1960s Bull Connor play book. Thus the reason Brian Nichols, a Black criminal who killed a judge, court reporter, Federal agent and a Sheriff’s Deputy in Atlanta back in 2005 decided to wage a racial war in the name of perpetually oppressed Black people:

The Atlanta courthouse gunman said in letters that he escaped from guards and then killed four people in a shooting rampage to fight back against what he believed was a racist justice system, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

In the letters, which were among thousands of Georgia Bureau of Investigation documents reviewed exclusively by the AP, Brian Nichols lays out his motive for the March 2005 slayings in stark racial terms.

“Certain dogs you can kick and they tuck their tail between their legs and run,” he wrote in a July 2005 letter to a man who criticized him. “Others if kicked will turn and bite the individual responsible. I hate to say it, but it’s the truth that black men have done way too much tail tuckin.”
While awaiting trial on rape charges, Nichols overpowered a guard at the Fulton County Courthouse and fatally shot a judge, court reporter, deputy and federal agent. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole in December 2008.

Trudy Brandau, the sister of slain court reporter Julie Ann Brandau, said the letters show Nichols is delusional.

“If you want changes made, make smart, intelligent choices that would actually wind up causing improvement,” she said. “What he wound up doing was extremely selfish and hasn’t changed a thing for anybody.”

Nichols said he was infuriated that the judge, Rowland Barnes, was holding him without bond on rape charges while other inmates awaiting trial were set free.

He compared himself to Dany Heatley, a former AtlantaThrashers star, whom Barnes allowed to remain free on bail after he was charged with vehicular homicide in a 2003 crash that killed a teammate.

“White boy, driving crazy killed somebody. Was he not a threat to the community having killed a person as a result of his reckless behavior?” he wrote.

He said “no black man has ever made a stand such as mine” and insisted the shootings sent a message.

“Perhaps my children of another generation won’t find their back against the wall, subjected to unequal treatment under the law. Unfortunately, my sacrifice is not enough to prevent that from happening, but perhaps it’s a start.”

The gunman also described a perverse legal strategy. Writing to his prison pen-pal girlfriend Lisa Meneguzzo, Nichols said he was going on a letter-writing campaign to try to influence the jury pool and avoid a guilty verdict.

“And believe me, in Fulton County, where there are a large number of people pissed off at the way the criminal justice system treats people, it can happen,” he wrote. “All I need is the right people on the jury, and I go home. I’ve got to put in the grass-roots effort it takes to pull something like that off.”

Remember that Black people are mad that seven criminal Black people have been gunned down in Miami, demanding that the police chief resign for this obvious indicator of racism. Brian Nichols saw himself as a Black Avenging Angel of Death (BAAD), which is how any cop-killing Black person will now be viewed.

Because Black people believe the justice system of the past — and by extension the police perpetuate racist policies — never left.

The media made Omar Thornton’s victims the antagonists in that story of mass murder spawned by the white people’s racism.

Nichols saw himself as a BAAD; a Black guy waging war against a system created to keep Black people perpetually down. In reality, the justice system in America is just another extension of Black Run America (BRA), operating to help Black people who by their own actions keep themselves perpetually down.

The Justice Department, criminal justice system and police departments across the country no longer represent Bull Connor America. Ever since Rodney King, a slow evolution to the Justice Department of Eric “My People” Holder has occurred.

Nichols attempted to galvanize fellow Black people to wage war against a system that does everything possible to excuse away poor Black behavior. That’s all modern America has become: a nation that excuses away horrible Black behavior as a response to lingering vestiges of white racism.

Brian Nichols tried to start a war against a system that does everything possible to keep the root cause of Black behavior censored. That system is Black Run America; that root cause is Black people themselves.