North Star Project: Loitering Black Teens Take Over Detroit Gas Station, Drive Business Away

In the D, loitering black teens take over a station, drive business away

Michigan

H/T Kosher Republic

In Detroit, a Black Undertow gang openly claims a private Marathon gas station as their territory, hang out in the gas station, smoke cigarettes in their “hood station,” and brazenly sit on the counter and spit in the sink.

Freedom failed.

Note: In November, these people (how many of them do you suppose have a SNAP EBT card and the “Obama phone”?) will probably decide the winner of the presidential election in Michigan.

Fox 2 News Headlines

About Hunter Wallace 9518 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

17 Comments

  1. jeppo,

    If the South could get rid of the Union, we would be fine. The problem is squarely the Union and its ideology of Americanism, particularly its stupid ideology of “one man, one vote” liberal democracy, not demographics.

    As I pointed out in the other thread, the Antebellum South was a multiracial society and was less White than the contemporary South, but it was also one of the richest countries in the world. It had a per capita income that wouldn’t be reached by Italy until the eve of the Second World War.

    The problem is the political system and the ideology that drives that political system.

  2. The Bradley Effect was expected in 2008 and apparently never materialized, but I think it will play a role in this year’s elections.

    With blacks, the more they get from white society, the more they un-evolve. In another generation or two, the black undertow will be walking on all fours.

  3. An independent South (a goal I support, btw) would still have to deal with tens of millions of pesky Africans in Southern territory.

    What to do…what to do…

  4. The South could have easily dealt with any problem related to slavery as an independent nation. The Union, however, is a different story. Because we are a perpetual minority in the Union, we are subjected to every foolish decision made by the Northern majority.

    Next month, the North will prove my point once again by reelecting Obama over two Yankees, who will be soundly rejected by Southern Whites. If he wins any Southern state, it will be wholly attributable to black voters, to transplants, and to Hispanic immigrants.

    So you have to factor in the Immigration Act of 1965 and the Voting Rights Act which we voted against but lost on due to the Union.

  5. BTW, I should add here that the same was true of the slave societies in the British, French, Dutch, Danish, and Spanish West Indies. In each case, their downfall was attributable to the sheer stupidity and foolishness of nigger loving liberal metropolitan Whites like William Wilberforce and the Jacobins and the Spanish Republicans.

    There was no great clamor in the Caribbean colonies or the South for anti-slavery, negro equality, or multiracial democracy. The existence of the “Union” with the metropole and with Whites who didn’t share their racial or cultural values proved fatal to all of them.

  6. The problem is squarely the Union and its ideology of Americanism, particularly its stupid ideology of “one man, one vote” liberal democracy, not demographics.

    Well, until we revert to restricting the franchise to propertied white males, “one man, one vote” democracy is what we’re stuck with. And considering that there is no conceivable scenario in which we will ever return to such a restricted franchise, we’re just going to have to work within the existing system, like it or not.

    Anyway, the realistic way forward is not a futile attempt to restrict democracy, but to expand it by moving toward a system of direct democracy, like in Switzerland. Switzerland has the most conservative government in Europe because its citizens have the ability to constantly say ‘No’ to the various schemes of the politicians in popular referenda. I would argue that Swiss-style direct democracy is also implicitly pro-white and pro-Christian, because the will of the left-liberal, anti-white and anti-Christian establishment is almost always thwarted by the ordinary voters, unlike the situation in the rest of the West where the same types reign supreme.

    In 2009, the Swiss Peoples Party initiated a referendum calling for the banning of minarets. All the other political parties were opposed to this initiative, as were the media, academia, the bureaucracy, big business, the unions, the churches, and virtually all the notable persons in Swiss society. In any other Western country this proposal would have been DOA, and after months of relentless propaganda the polls were showing that the ‘Yes’ (to banning minarets) side was indeed going to lose. But on election day the Swiss people defied the establishment and voted 57% ‘Yes’, carrying 22 of the 26 cantons.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minarettinitiative_2009_de.svg

    Direct democracy exists at the state level in the US, though not to the extent that it does in Switzerland, but the problem is that the will of the people can be overturned by the ruling of a single judge. Which is exactly what happened when Californians voted to ban same-sex marriage, only to have the ban overturned by a gay judge without the integrity to recuse himself from a case where he had an obvious personal bias. For direct democracy to work in America, the voters have to have the last word, not the judiciary.

    As I pointed out in the other thread, the Antebellum South was a multiracial society and was less White than the contemporary South, but it was also one of the richest countries in the world.

    To split hairs here, the Antebellum South was a biracial society, whereas modern America is a multiracial society. But most importantly, politically the Antebellum South was a 100% monoracial white society. Blacks were property, not voters. That’s far from the case today, and the future only promises a much less white electorate than at present.

    You’re pretty blasé about America’s coming demographic catastrophe, Hunter. I pointed out that newborns in your home state are now 47% non-white. Think of how a statistic like that helps to further drive down white birthrates, especially among the working class. People who don’t want to raise their kids in minority-dominated neighbourhoods or send them to minority-dominated schools, but can’t afford to move away or send them to private schools, may decide not to have children, or have only 1 rather than 2 or 3.

    And from that CNN article might be the scariest statistic of all: White newborns as a percentage of all newborns in the US fell by 0.9% between 2010 and 2011. That’s nearly one percent in a single year! At that rate, white newborns will be down to only 40% of the total in just ten years time. The browning of America is accelerating rapidly, yet you claim that demographics aren’t the problem. No, demographics are THE problem beside which all other problems pale in significance.

  7. One man, one vote: thank you Earl Warren and Republican President Eisenhower (who appointed him). There is nothing in the Constitution mandating one man, one vote. One entire chamber of Congress is based on the opposite idea. In the Senate, Wyoming gets the same number of Senators as California. The one man, one vote principle was imposed by the Federal Courts. It’s another example of egalitarian political priniciple being imposed.

    jeppo,

    What makes you think it’s possible to work within the system to modify the system based on Swiss direct democracy? Realistically, that reform doesn’t seem any more attainable than reforms restricting the vote. If the net effect of a reform will be to let a subset of the population circumvent Federal authority, it’s a reform that isn’t possible.

  8. What makes you think it’s possible to work within the system to modify the system based on Swiss direct democracy?

    Because I believe that most people would like to have a say in deciding their nation’s laws through popular referenda, rather than completely ceding that privilege to a cabal of venal politicians and judges.

  9. Sure. Except I see the fact that most people want it and the likely ways white folks would use it as the best evidence it will never happen short of the USA’s partition and break-up. I’m not disputing the desirability of it in theory, but it’s not an attainable goal by working within the system.

  10. Jeppo: great ideas! Always appreciate your fresh outlook and your direct democracy idea would work as well as any. If I could do one thing it would be repeal the 17th amendment, the second would be repeal the 14th.

  11. “Because I believe that most people would like to have a say in deciding their nation’s laws through popular referenda, rather than completely ceding that privilege to a cabal of venal politicians and judges.”

    California has popular referenda, which in the case of Proposition 187, denying services to illegal aliens, was immediately struck down by a federal judge. The judiciary stranglehold on legislation, which allows nullification of popular will and government by judicial fiat, is one of the unpleasant consequences of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    The “equal protection clause” remains the master tool for judges and bureaucrats seeking to overturn popular will and impose the radical liberal vision upon people.

    The federal beast is too large and corrupt to allow such quaint notions such as popular sovereignty and states rights to allow citizens an actual voice in their own governance.

    The will of the people has been removed from the equation as far as our government is concerned. As such, the system is incapable of reform. We have become subjects rather than citizens. Which only means that Hunter’s words are correct.

    “As long as we are tied to the Union, we are going to be dragged down by it. We can either secede from the Union or be destroyed by the Union. I’m firmly convinced of that.”

    Our forefathers recognized as much. So did their enemies.

    The only real question with BRA is how far down we wish to be dragged. How long will we court our own destruction before the consequences become too much to bear?

    Deo Vindice

  12. Re: jeppo

    (1) Until we secede from the Union, we are stuck with the cumulative impact of all the bad ideas of the Northern states, or the “Cold States” as you call them, starting with the reelection of Obama in November.

    (2) Experience has shown that working within the present system to reform the Union is a complete waste of time. Even the most modest reforms like state immigration laws, Voter ID laws, and gay marriage bans will be struck down by federal courts or subverted by a Northern-controlled White House.

    (3) We already have direct democracy at the state level in the form of ballot initiatives. Even if the public overwhelmingly supports a ballot initiative like Prop 187 in California, the federal courts will simply gut the results of direct democracy.

    (4) Under BRA, there is no check on the federal judiciary or any remedy available to the states to deal with the problem. The federal judiciary will not willingly surrender its own power.

    Electing a president will soon be out of the question because the GOP will cease to be competitive at the national level and the Northern-dominated White House will fill the federal courts with even more liberal judges.

    (5) Yes, the key difference between the antebellum South and the contemporary South is the lack of the consolidated Northern-dominated Union. Back then the federal government wasn’t bold enough to molest us in our states and lacked the power to do so until the 14th Amendment was passed during Reconstruction.

    (6) The Union is the cause of the demographic catastrophe. It is the major obstacle standing in the way of a solution to the demographic catastrophe.

    Why? Because the whole North or the “Cold States” will always try to centralize and consolidate the federal government and push the country in a more liberal and racially destructive direction which we will see once again when they reelect Obama in November over two Yankees.

    As long as the Union exists, the federal courts will block every reform at the state level, the borders will remain open to invasion, the wealth will continue to be transferred to non-Whites, and the Northern-controlled Congress and White House will continue to do everything in their power (a classic example would be the Obama DREAM Act) to make things worse than they are now.

    If the Union ceased to exist tomorrow, we could easily all kinds of necessary reforms in the South at the state level.

    (7) I don’t see “White” as being a category that is nearly as important as you do.

    That’s because at least 50 percent of the people who are “White” in this country are not on our side. They are on the side of the Jews, the Hispanics, and the blacks. They are the ones who created this catastrophe in the first place and who maintain it year after year and who block every attempt to reform the system.

    The blacks and Hispanics could be dealt with if it were not for these people.

    (8) What’s behind the “browning of America”, jeppo? The Union. The Union is the problem. Look no further than the Justice Department lawsuits against Alabama, Arizona, and South Carolina.

  13. Simply, there are no mestizos (most all Mexican immigrants) or mulattoes (Puerto Ricans) or zambos (some South American immigrants) that will vote in statistically relevant numbers for Romney. His only “Hispanic” support will come from old white and mostly-white Cubans in Florida, and the few White Mexicans, Argentines, Spaniards and so forth now living here.

    We need to start thinking of people who happen to speak Spanish by location of birth or family inertia in racial terms rather than linguistic ones.

    The election is up in the air: Romney has a reasonable shot, because the polls and MSM discussion is intended to discourage the easily deterred peckerwood base from holding its nose and voting for a RINO Mormon Ivy Leaguer. The very fact they are trying tells us something.

    American elections are won or lost by turning out your own base, not by wooing fickle independents. Most people who will vote for sure, already know who they will vote for, and rarely is there much decisionmaking to be made over it. There are three or four times as many born American citizens who, being of age and having no disabilities (felonies, insanity decrees, et al) still have never registered or voted in their lives, than votes by which this Presidential election will be decided. Still millions more have registered and voted previously but will almost certainly simply not bother to vote.

    If “None Of The Above” were a ballot option and if each registered voter failing to vote were automatically counted as such, NOTA would be the odds-on favorite in two out of three elections in the US. Perhaps 3 out of 4.

    The MSM wants Obama reelected. True, YKWs control the media almost entirely, and as William Pierce correctly observed, the YKWs are good at controlling any (other) people amongst whom they dwell ; but at controlling themselves, “Not So Much”.

    Therefore the rational WN in choosing whether to vote for Obama or Romney, is really to a large extent doing two things. First is second-guessing the YKWs, because they indeed may be shooting themselves in the foot supporting Obama, and secondly expressing his own time preferences. In the short run. life under Romney will be better for most Whites, except perhaps those who are on active duty in the military who may go to war against Iran, an event which is IMO likelier under Romney but by no means impossible under Obama.

    In the long run, if Obama is re-elected, the breakup of the United States will be speeded up by at least a decade and perhaps two, three, or more. That’s one or two or three fewer decades of miscegenation. It could be the difference between the long term existence of the White people and the future of White children, and the Portugalization of enough of our stock to make the world brown forever. But make no mistake: it will be a violent, bloody, painful episode. If Romney were elected along with a GOP Senate and House to his right, we could go into a successful holding mode long enough to build our resources to a much higher degree: we could also become comfortable enough to forget the whole thing. That’s the essential dichotomy between the vanguard and the mainstreamers.

    Personally, I’m voting third party only because my state is not in play. I’d have to make a moral decision otherwise. I don’t envy those of you who must make moral decisions, but neither will I forgive cowardice in the matter. I have made moral decisions before and live with them now. This time I will live with one made by others.

Comments are closed.