HUD’S Plan To Destroy White Suburbia

District of Corruption

In Obama's America, there is no escape from "fairness"
In Obama’s America, there is no escape from “fairness.”

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has effectively declared war on White America:

“The Department of Housing and Urban Development has proposed a new plan to change U.S. neighborhoods it says are racially imbalanced or are too tilted toward rich or poor, arguing the country’s housing policies have not been effective at creating the kind of integrated communities the agency had hoped for. …

States would then assess the best way to integrate communities deemed by HUD’s data to not be integrated enough. A HUD official, who did not want to speak on record because of the public comment period, said the rule hopes to better match up HUD-assisted housing with the communities that have good hospitals, schools and other assets. …”

In other words, the plan here is to redistribute diversity from places like Birmingham to Hoover or St. Louis to St. Charles. Henceforth, White Americans will no longer have the liberty to escape from “equality” in the suburbs.

Consider the implications:

1.) Fifty years of voting for the Republican Party, which has which has boldly defended conservative principles, has brought us to this low point.

2.) The blacks are going to be moving into your neighborhood. They are going to bring all their crime, poverty, and blight with them. They are going to go to school with your children. They are going to destroy your property value.

3.) This means you no longer have the option of avoiding confrontation and living out a private life in an expensive suburb with a decent public school.

The time is coming when White America is going to have its back pushed against the wall and will have to confront the result of fifty years of moving to the suburbs, avoiding confrontation, and voting for the Republican Party. We are going to have to start fighting back or idly watch the Detroitization of our communities.

What’s it going to be?

24 Comments

  1. You cannot be a Talmudistic elitist and also be pro-White. You cannot serve both masters, God and mammon. The Greek word is translated “wealth” — as in “creating immense wealth”, as in Golden Circle slavery-based “culture”.

    Theocracy, not Plutocracy. Repentance and confession BEFORE secession.

  2. “Dan Poole, are you leaning toward eastern orthodoxy like Matt Heimbach?

    Yes. I’d love to visit Russia one day and see firsthand what the churches there are like. Christianity is on the rise in Russia.

    “I think those who think DHS is not a problem are part of the problem and why it exists.”

    And I think that the people who wield the tools are the real danger, not the tool itself. I also think some tools are more stable then others. Liberal democracies = sand. Authoritarianism = rock

    “Your photos indicate that you are white indeed (my question was rhetorical) and of Anglo-Celt ancestry perhaps?”

    Sort of. I’m 25% British (all Irish, or virtually all Irish anyway) and 75% non-British. One of these days I’m gonna buy me one of those DNA tools where it takes a sample of your blood and tells you exactly what your lineage is. I forget what that tool is called.

    “Keep writing and learning, Dan. I enjoy reading your well-thought comments.”

    Thanks. We’re both Christians, we both agree that a revival of Christianity is central to the continued existence of our people, White people, and we’re both Yankees. I’ve just grown disgusted with the mantra of maximum individual freedom after water-carrying it all these years. What you’re seeing from me in these comments is motivated by disillusionment. I was fed a pack of lies my entire life about the United States of Amurrica and grew up believing those lies. By the time I took an interest in politics at 16, I was defending those lies as if it was part of who I am. The lies about the Constitution. The lies about the Declaration. The lies about the Amurrican Revolution. The lies about freedumb and equality. The lies about conservatism. And above all, the lies about “racism.”

    To borrow a phrase from a sports blog I still follow, my mentality with the Amurrican system and the liberal democratic system in general is “BURN! ALL BURN!” The more Whites who think this way, the better.

    Lastly, I don’t fancy myself as part of the elite. So you don’t need to worry about bowing before me. (Do I really look like a guy who people would bow before? Me neither). I’ll say this though: Human authority is Biblical per Romans 13 and Hebrews 13:17.

  3. Mosin, nature is hierarchical. Even ants are organized according to a hierarchical structure. To go against a hierarchical structure is as much as a crime against nature as sodomy, because sodomy itself is an attack against the hierarchical structure of the family.

    Again Mosin, where is this pilgrim church you’re always touting? We Catholics couldn’t have wiped it out if it’s still around. Give us the name please.

  4. “Even ants are organized according to a hierarchical structure.”

    You anti-Christ, Talmudic crypto-Christian, false Catholic, church destroyers, who would rule the globe as your immense wealth-creating ANT COLONY, already know every scriptural name of the church of God and are already skilled at recognising its every manifestation.

    White people, at least, will not be your ants.

  5. Well, they will not all remain your ants indefinitely. The chimes of freedom for the white race and all white peoples have already begun to ring.

  6. @Dan Poole

    “If those Anglo-Celt rubes, as you described them, had marched into London and declared its entire social system an abomination against God”

    The Angles and Saxons sort of drifted their way into the vicinity of London after the Romans abandoned it. Plus they were pagans so it was “gods”not “God.”

    Your knowledge of history is meager and confused as the rest of your posts also attest.

  7. Mosin, the only “names” the Catholic Church has are the names of the heretical groups like the Cathars, the Arians, et al. Nearly all of these group were gnostic or Judaizing in some way or another. The Greek (Eastern) and Roman (Western) branches of the faith called Catholic are the only continuing Christian church from ancient times. As I have already said, your pilgrim church is a myth. I used to believe a variation of that myth, but the real history of Christianity disabused me of that fantasy.

    As for the ants leaving the ant hill, well the history of all these schismatic and heretical groups show they don’t do very well after they leave. They may last for several hundred years, then they go kaput.

    If the white race is going to survive and prosper, it can not go back into paganism, or schismatic, heretical forms of Christianity. Whites need to remember what Hilaire Belloc said, “Europe is the faith, and the faith is Europe”. That faith defended and saved Europe from the pagan Germanic tribes (heck, it converted them!) the various Muslim invasions, and from Jewish treachery. It can save us again, if we desire it. Otherwise, start bowing to Mecca.

  8. “The Greek (Eastern) and Roman (Western) branches of the faith called Catholic are the only continuing Christian church from ancient times.”

    The Roman Catholic church committed suicide at Vatican II. Orthodoxy is the only valid continuous tradition. Luckily Baltic peoples from northern Poland through Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, to St. Petersburg and even on to Finland a country where Orthodoxy is one of the two state religions. These peoples are all Whiter than White. I applaud Stonelifter’s emigration to a White Homeland even if it is not his native one.

    Although almost all ethnic groups (with a few isolated exceptions) that are from countries bordering the Baltic, North Sea, and North Atlantic are more closely related genetically (phenotypically this manifests itself in lactose tolerance, many blondes and redheads, light eyes, etc… compared to many other parts of the world.)

  9. Here is the true nature of your “continuing church from ancient times”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIvbCoaRr7w (talk about gnostic and Judaizing) in which the order of “the hierarchy” is the Roman “pope first, clergy second and laity third”.

    It is natural for power-mad, plutocratic heretics to work to destroy, and obfuscate or erase the history of, their Christian “competition”.

    You seem intelligent enough not to be fooled by the Roman misinterpretation of the history of “heretical” groups that continued to walk in the light of the New Testament through the Dark Ages — and you were involved in the Armstrong cult, which is NOT “a variation” of true Christianity! WHAT attracts you to such heretical groups?

  10. Among churches that Rome CANNOT ignore and hasn’t destroyed, the “Eastern” churches stand head and shoulder above Rome in faithfulness to scripture and the spirit of the Christ.

    You seem intelligent enough to recognise the distinction of Christianity that is local and ethnic, and global-hegemonous, universalist Roman despotism. Why do you love and adore the latter?

  11. Re: “As for the ants leaving the anthill”:

    “Hierarchy” or “authoritarianism” is loved most of all by those who enjoy the exercise of the power or expect to exercise the power themselves. Evidently you hope to exercise the power, and don’t expect to be ruled. But the time is coming when you/They will no longer maintain the power to rule us as “ants in your anthill”. We prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery.

  12. Rudel, the RCC may have wounded itself with V2, but it didn’t commit suicide. The Church has had various crisis before, and even we were surprised when God brought us back with a vengeance.

  13. So Mosin, you’re using the Orthodox (whom you don’t believe in) to criticize the Catholics. (whom you don’t believe in either) That won’t work in the long run, because both factions consider your “pilgrim churches” to be heretics.

  14. Mosin, it’s obvious you don’t know what you are talking about. For anyone to call those groups in the Middle Ages as “walking in the light of the New Testament” goes against everything that competent historians of various religious persuasions have discovered about these groups. James McGoldrick, a Baptist, wrote a book called “Baptist Successionism” in which he proves that all of these groups that Landmark Baptists, and cults like the one I was in 40 years ago, misunderstood or deliberately distorted the history of these groups to “prove” a succession of churches they could trace their linage back to. But as he proved, none of these churches were even remotely similar to what the modern groups were like. They were closer to the RCC or the EO is some cases, (they were the only Christian Churches at that time in history) or they were gnostic cults like the Cathars or the Bulgurs. Sorry Mosin, you’re up the creek without a paddle!

  15. Re: “you’re using the Orthodox (whom you don’t believe in) to criticize the Catholics”:

    I don’t agree with all the Orthodox criticisms of Romanism in that link, but on the whole I find Orthodoxy more scriptural and agreeable than Romanism — and I find “Old Believer” Russian orthodoxy very agreeable. I could live and worship in that setting, though I’m not Russian, if necessary.

    Look at yourself, a what you are saying. You are calling others heretics while you cling to the most pernicious, destructive heretical group of them all.

    You are using the Roman Catholic resemblances of pre-Reformation non-Romans (OF COURSE they were not actual Protestants but “closer to the RC or the EO” in many of their appearances, expressions and practices) to avoid the issue of the DIFFERENCES between Romans and non-Roman dissenters.

    It appears you have some background or a special personal interest in southern Baptist “Landmark Successionism” http://more.mbbc.edu/journal/volume-two/the-landmark-controversy/ . I could cite several other good articles, but we are continuing off topic on this thread. Thanks to Hunter for allowing free speech, especially the discussion of religion, on this blog.

    This discussion of “Baptist succession” does have some relevance to the “mission” of Occidental Dissent, since it can help us understand southern Baptists and southern religious tendencies.

    Stephen Dalton, with your trace of Jewish background, you are determined to love and adore, defend and assist and share in the pride and “authority” of the Roman heresy, while we are determined to continue to reveal the true nature of the beast and call deluded prisoners out of it.

  16. The tendency of modern Southern Baptists to renounce their former view of Baptist succession (which you may call “Landmarkism”) and “re-discover their Catholic roots” goes right along with their renunciation of racism and white supremacism and embrace of multiculturalism that was formally expressed in the resolution of the Convention in 1995.

  17. Mosin, a repudiation of racism, white supremacy and Landmarkism don’t go together. I had a friend who’s an SB preacher, and he was a racist, and a white supremacist. He totally rejected Landmarkism as ahistorical. Landmarkism was never accepted by the majority of SB ministers, and because of scholarship like McGoldrick, it’s highly doubtful it will be seriously considered as a teaching or doctrine by future SB ministers and laymen.

    BTW, I’m going to stop trying to reason with you all the time. It plain you have decided to believe what you believe in spite of evidence to the contrary. When I was in the Armstrong cult, I used to be the same way. Thankfully, God shook me up, and lead me to the truth in spite of myself. I hope the same for you some day.

  18. OF COURSE neither Landmarkism (and certainly not a strawman version of it) was ever accepted by the majority of Southern Baptists, but it is incontrovertible that “succession” was the traditional and majority ecclesiology until the early twentieth century. The way you set the terms of the argument regarding the existence of authentic, Biblical churches outside the Roman sphere prior to the Reformation — that they must not resemble Roman Catholicism or else only Roman Catholicism existed — your conclusion is inevitable.

    McGoldrick’s thesis is due for a refutation, but it probably won’t come from any of the politically correct mainstream Baptist seminaries. He made his historical points, but lacking sanctified common sense he obviously completely missed the main point.

    The fact that a Southern Baptist preacher you know remains racialist while he follows the new ecclesiological trend doesn’t disprove my observation that both changes of view have coincided.

    I’m not a Landmarkist, nor any kind of Baptist. Nor a Puritan nor a Quaker nor a Hutterite, etc. I’m certainly not a contemporary Cathar, at least not in the way that the Cathars or Albigenses are described by their mass murderers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwb-2He1jKY (later they did it to the Huguenots http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxLSbAo4ztE). Your attempts at labeling and categorising and drawing negative conclusions therefrom are not “reasoning with me”.

    I hope for you that God will “shake you up” even more, and lead you to understand that heretical “Catholicism” was NOT “the only game in town” for a thousand years until the Reformation, and that it surely is not “still the best” that God has for us today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN0zQJVnIWw

  19. Hunter, I thank you in advance for allowing all of the foregoing comments through moderation. I am finished now commenting on this thread.

    Again, thank you, for the free speech forum.

  20. “I’m certainly not a contemporary Cathar or Albigenses”

    There is a good reason for that! As the Cisterian abbot Arnaud Amalric advised at the time: “Kill them all, God will know his own.”

Comments are closed.