In most cases there is no reason for Whites to be anywhere near the coloreds, unless the Whites are foolish enough to think colored people are their friends.
Stay classy niggers…
Pity no one shot that homicidal coon. Perfectly justified when the foot crashes down on a prone body and a skull in contact with concrete. That is how Zimmerman was justified.
I was taught from birth that they’re not your friend(s). At the least, they’ll try to bait you into calling them a nigger. Or try to take advantage of you in some way.
It is getting harder and harder to feel any pity at all for these white ppl. I am not a bad ass. Let me state that explicitly. I have had the ever living crap beat out of me several times in my life. So please don’t think I’m goin all “keyboard warrior” or whatever the euphemism is. But not once in my entire life have a cowered on the ground with my hands over my head just waiting for the mean old bully to stop beating me. Very little sympathy for this guy from me. And the white woman that just walks on by without even a look of concern needs a good talkin to, at least. Granted she may have cried for help off camera but she sure didn’t seem concerned at all. Had to get on with her shopping I guess.
This should be on Donald Trump’s desk and immediately this Nigger needs a Federal Charge. If they can give Dylann the Death Penalty, they can give him a Civil Rights Violation AT LEAST
One part of me wishes the Negro wasn’t even charged, so he could be well on the outside. That way he could be given some REAL justice
Dont see the point in that for a fist fight
If I had ever come home after an ass whoopin and said to my daddy: “daddy this meanie just beat the crap out of me. Lets go to the cops,” I would have gotten a smack in the teeth for being such a gigantic pussy. Which is what this guy was. Which is what 10’s of millions of white “men” on this planet are in the Current Year.
The next time yall are askin yourselves why BM/WF interracial dating is on the rise, just come back and watch this video.
Don’t jump to conclusions. For all we know, the white guy was a Trump supporter and had it coming to him.
The white kid needs to go into the gym and become a beast and then kick butt…A group of kneegrows picked on my brother in HS after he had an accident and couldn’t use one arm for a while…I owned a gym and he bulked up and beat these punks to a pulp — no black in the school would mess with him after that…
What a goddamned pussy. Makes me ashamed to be white. Whipped by a faggot nigger that can’t fight. The nigger punches like a girl. All the other whites just standing around with their hands in their pockets, watching a fellow white pussy disgracing the race.
Any white reacting like this when attacked should be deported with the illegals.
Raised by a single mother. I’m sure.
Problem is no one is willing to stick a rope around this coon’s neck and snap the life out of him.
What the hell happened? How did that White kid wind up that way in the first place?
He should be summarily executed.
rush limbaugh brain fried from oxycontin.
If the timeline given in the article matches up with the video, we literally missed maybe 1 second at the very beginning. Guys dad says his son was sucker punched from behind whilst getting off the bus. Ok, fine. No reason whatsoever to lie there and take a beatin.
If you ever tangle with a negro make damn sure to go medieval on him. They really are cowards when you’re prepared to fight to the death.
Daddy is at least in the picture, though maybe not married to mama. He is quoted in the article. Which is a big part of the problem now. It is a multigenerational thing. Daddy is a pussy. Raised his son to be a pussy. Son will raise the grandson to be a pussy. Grandson will die a virgin because by that point white women will have collectively gone, “nah,” in regards to white men as mates.
You don’t see this in Eastern Europe where whites hsven’t been brainwashed. Lesson number one: Negroes are bluffers. Never show ANY trace of fear.
Dont see the point in that over a fist fight either. These were teenage boys havin a fight in the school parkin lot. White kid chose to just take not only a whoopin, but humiliation and EMASCULATION by being whipped with his own damn belt. Cant blame the black guy for that. And certainly cant say he deserves to die.
This happened a year ago, and we’re just now hearing about it?
With those polka dot bloomers, I think it most likely was a love spat. Nothing to be too ashamed of if my visual detective work is correct. He is just another mentally-deficient mudshark and of no real use to the great white race. Now if I am incorrect, the whimp is an embarrassment but we should also condemn the whites who do not render assistance against minority transgressions just as rabidly as we condemn the neutered punching bag. Aren’t they cowards, too?
I’ve been saying it forever.
Whites need to say blacks are tougher, stronger, and more aggressive, thus a threat to white race. This may hurt white male pride but it wins moral credits because it makes white race the victim of the thuggish black race.
And then, whites, as victims, can demand safe space from vile thug negroes.
Morality is about choosing right over wrong.
But Political Morality is about RIGHTEOUSNESS than merely right-and-wrong.
From Righteousness comes the Moral Will to Power. It is the righteous that accuses and attacks. The righteous feel justified and empowered by God, history, or higher principles.
So, the side that feels more righteous has the advantage.
In any political struggle, the side that wishes to win must be righteous. Being right isn’t good enough. It must accuse and attack as well as defend and preserve.
Even the weaker side will eventually triumph in the political struggle if it has the power of righteousness. Likewise, no matter how powerful a group may be, it will lose if it only goes for moral defense and has no ammo for moral offense.
Consider Mike Tyson in the ring with a mediocre boxer. If Tyson only does defense, he will lose eventually. He will cover up and try to block the punches, but he will never throw one. So, even though the mediocre boxer isn’t very tough, he will do all the punching, and eventually the punches will wear Tyson down.
If Soviet Union in WWII only did defense but never went on the offense, it would have lost to Germany. The thing is Soviets not only defended the motherland but fought back. Same with US and Japan in WWII. US didn’t just play defense. It went on the offense. Japan was much weaker, but if it had monopoly on offense whereas US could only do defense, then Japan would have prevailed in the Pacific.
Because of holy trinity of PC — ‘racism’ that says we can’t criticize blacks, ‘antisemitism’ that says we can’ t scrutinize Jews, and ‘homophobia’ that says you’re clinically sick in the head if you don’t revere homos — , the American Right has been on the moral defensive. And men are on the moral defense against feminism because the Narrative says anything critical of women — at least when mouthed by white men — is ‘anti-women’ and ‘misogynist’. (Feminism is nuts. Every job taken by women means one less job for men, and that means more men loses market value in marriage prospect. They are robbed not only of work but of family and life. Women’s entry into the work force has increased women’s criteria for prospective marriage mates, but if women take jobs from men, the market value of many men have sunken. Also, women’s careerism ended up concentrating great wealth in power couples. If a man is a lawyer, he alone can afford to raise a family. He doesn’t need a wife with a high-paying job. If he marries a woman who is a lawyer, it means incomes that could have afford two families — if men had both jobs — are now being concentrated in one family, likely with few kids if any. Also, lots of career women make money just to blow it all on themselves. So, income that could have allowed a man to take care of a family is wasted on female hedonistic vanity of idiots who emulate Sex and the City. Imagine there are two slots for lawyer position. Suppose there are four people, two men and two women. If two men take the jobs, each can marry a woman and have family, especially since men will marry women without jobs. But if a man and a woman get the jobs, they will likely marry one another as a power couple. That means those two will hog all the income. As for the guy who doesn’t get the job? He has no market value and poor chances of finding a marriage mate; as for the woman who didn’t marry the lawyer, she doesn’t want to marry the man without a high-paying job. End result is the power couple hog everything whereas the other guy and other woman totally lose out. Now, consider the saner game theory: If two men get the lawyer jobs, each can marry a woman, and his income can be shared with wife and family. But if a man and a woman get the jobs, they marry and hog all the wealth in that one family while the other guy has nothing. Since he has nothing, the other woman won’t marry him, and both end up with nothing. It is the COMING APART of Charles Murray’s study. Putting family first calls for bio-socialism. It would configure the economy for the good of both men and women based on their sexual differences and on what is most beneficial for all members. Also, it acknowledges the family as the core meaning and fulfillment of life. Work exists to serve life. But in our materialist-individualist order that is anti-organic and anti-life — the ‘advanced world’ cannot even sustain birthrates — careerism is placed on the pedestal as the highest purpose in life because wage means the freedom to indulge one’s fleeting pleasures like in SEX AND THE CITY, which leads to sorrow and the pity for both sexes in the long run.)
Anyway, the righteous side will always win in the Political Struggle. Even if it it is at a great disadvantage in terms of power, it will gain and gain and continue to gain and gain because it has the will to accuse and attack. In contrast, the side that is only on defense will lose in the end no matter how big and powerful it is. It can cover up but has no will to attack. A strong warrior with only a shield will eventually lose to the weaker man with a sword. Eventually, the battering of the sword will break the shield and slay the big warrior.
This is why American Conservatism has been losing and losing. It has lost the force of righteousness. To be sure, much of this is determined by who controls the media that has the power to shame some and sanctify others. Even if the Right were to turn righteous, the GLOB media may not give it any hearing.
American Conservatism agreed to the premise of Liberalism’s condemnation of ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ as the greatest evils. It agreed that wonderful blacks were holy victims of White Evil and that innocent Jews had been wronged by nasty Christians for too long.
Now, the problem was not in acknowledging the real suffering of blacks and Jews, which is irrefutable. The problem was in sacralizing all of blackness and all of Jewishness to the point where blacks and Jews can never do any wrong. (After all, America is willing to acknowledge that many innocent Germans and Japanese died in WWII. America is willing to admit that it committed atrocities in Vietnam that killed innocent people. But those are limited to specific historical events or moments; they are not invoked to portray Germans, Japanese, or Vietnamese as Eternal Holy Victims. Mylai is restricted to Mylai, not to all Vietnamese. Hiroshima is about Japanese killed in Hiroshima, not about Japanese all over the world.) And with such holy aura and media power, Jews could also push stuff like homomania. If Jews hadn’t been behind the homo agenda, the Right would have been more justified in its resistance. But opposing it meant indirectly opposing the holy Jews. Jews also pushed Diversity, and that meant whites couldn’t say NO to the new template of America as ‘nation of immigrants’ from all over the world. Since holy and righteous Jews demand it, whites must relent and say Yes.
Given the Official Consensus(that says ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’ are worst evils ever), American Conservatism has sought to defend itself in two ways.
One is with libertarian argument that past discrimination is no more, therefore we need to focus on individual liberty without any consideration of race, sex, identity, etc. This is a kind of moral argument, but it is bland and generic. It’s like someone saying All Lives Matter in response to those who say Black Lives Matter. When a large concrete slab meets a sledgehammer, the latter will win. Sledgehammer concentrates its power in the area it strikes whereas a concrete slab, big as it is, is evenly distributed in power.
The other argument by the American Right has been ‘Democrats are the real racists’. So, we hear that the KKK were Democrats and that Great Society is to blame for the ‘new plantation’ politics of Detroit. But trying to defeat PC by rules of PC is self-defeating. It doesn’t address the flawed problems of the premise itself. It’s like trying to defeat communists by arguing that ‘communists are the real anti-egalitarians’.
Political Morality is a strange combination of tribalism and universalism.
If your side is ONLY tribal, then it comes across as petty and narrow-minded. Your morality would amount to little more than ‘my country right or wrong’, ‘support the troops’, or ‘us vs them’. It’d be the ‘morality’ of the wolf pack or street gang or hatcoys vs mcfields. It could be angry and violent but hardly righteous for it is too primal and brutish.
But MERE universalism also has problems. In trying to embrace, represent, serve, love, and seek approval of ALL humanity, the power becomes diffuse, bland, anemic, diluted, and without focus.
Now, hiigher morality is inherently universal for it seeks higher justice above ‘us and them’. For example, higher morality says that is someone on your side murdered someone on the other side, you-as-moral-person should side with the victim of the other side than stick with your own side. You shouldn’t side with the murderer on your side simply because he is one of your own. There is great merit to this, but when Political Morality operates PURELY in this way, it becomes difficult to form a sense of identity, unity, and righteousness. After all, if your group must always think in terms of serving, representing, and being fair to all humanity, you can’t fixate on anything that boosts YOUR people, territory, and culture. If you must always think of feeding all of humanity, you can’t focus on feeding your own family.
So, Political Morality works on a fusion of tribalism and universalism. You have to maintain a strong sense of tribal identity & unity but also invoke universal principles to justify the power of YOUR own tribe, especially as one having been oppressed, wronged, endangered, or threatened by OTHER tribes. Without the invocation of universality, it will simply be a case of tribe vs tribe. But with universalist argument, you can say the other tribe violated the ‘human rights’ of your tribe. That gives your side a sense of righteousness, a moral advantage, the will to accuse and attack. Meanwhile, the other tribe, under universal principles, is made to atone or only defend itself without counter-accusing-and-attacking.
Now, someone could argue that, because tribalism gets in the way of universalism, all sides should surrender tribalism: both the side that did wrong and the side that was wronged should scrap their tribalism since all forms of tribalism serve as barrier to utopian universalism. And early communists did try to achieve this by ridding the world of national distinctions… but it just became to difficult to rule everyone as ‘worker’, a mere material identity without roots and historical meaning… which is why communism settled for national communisms.
Anyway, if a principled universalist were to call for total universalism that eradicates all notion of tribalism, what might the morally righteous tribe say? Will it go along? If it is smart, the chances are that the righteous tribe with the moral advantage will understand that total universalism will lead to loss of their special weapon of moral advantage.
Consider Jews and blacks. If Jews were indeed to adhere to total universalism, they will have to give up the holocaust narrative and Zionist narrative(as compensation for holocaust) and let go of their moral advantage over Western goyim. Also, Jews will have to surrender their rich and meaningful identity rooted in history and culture if they were to accept total universalism.
Jews complain that Nationalism(by which they mean ‘gentile nationalism’) can be hostile to Jews, but it’s a paradoxical argument. What Jews really mean is that gentile nationalism is hostile to Jewish nationalism because, after all, the very notion of Jewish Identity is ‘nationalist’. Jewishness has been a national idea, even when Jews were without a geographical nation. It is about a people united by blood, history, and myth. Even without a nation with physical borders, the very idea of Jewishness created borders inside the Jewish mind in terms of who is Jewish and who is goy, who is clean & chosen AND who is soiled & un-chosen. So, when Jews complain that nationalism can be hostile to Jews, they really mean that gentile nationalism can be hostile to Jewish nationalism. If Jews hate nationalism and just want to join with bigger humanity, all they have to do is give up Jewishness(a ‘nationalism’ with ancient roots, or the longest nationalism) and join with gentiles and become ‘new gentiles’. After all, if there are 10 Jews and 1000 Hungarians, doesn’t it make more sense for Jews to give up their Jewish nationalism and just become Hungarians than for Hungarians to give up their nationalism so that Jews can strengthen their own nationalism?
Indeed, the Jewish argument against nationalism is disingenuous because its end game is not to end all nationalisms. If Jews wanted to eradicate all tribal identities, that of Jews included, then they would at least be principled and intellectually-morally consistent. But Jews attack gentile patriotism/nationalism on the premise that it may threaten tribal Jewish interests; Jews totally overlook the fact that the very idea of Jewishness is a form of ethnic patriotism, indeed the oldest kind.
If indeed Jews accept all humans as equal and just want to get along with everyone on the basis of universalism, the fastest and easiest way would be get rid of AIPAC and all Jewish organizations and only think and work in terms of common humanity. Indeed, abandon the very notion of Jewishness, which should be abandoned as ‘atavistic’ and ‘irrational’. But Jews push ‘common humanity’ on white gentiles to weaken white gentile power, all the while boosting their own Jewish Ethnic Power. This is the great contradiction of Jewish Power. But it is also the source of Jewish Power because it combines tribalism with universalism, the formula that makes for Political Morality of Righteousness.
Jews argue that since Jews were targeted and oppressed as a tribe, they must be protected as a tribe. They must be offered equality under rule of law, BUT that is not enough.
If Jews are only offered equality under the law, it means they have no moral advantage. To have advantage, Jews must press the case that historical tragedy commands recompense and reparations for Jews. Not only for Jews who lived in Europe through WWII but their children and their children’s children and children’s children’s children. Even American Jews whose ancestors weren’t in Europe during WWII must share in this special treatment by association. Because the Jewish tribe was denied universal protection in the past, universal protection isn’t enough today. Jews must have special recognition for their tribe. They must be ‘more equal than others’, even if it means neglecting the tragic narrative of Palestinians; Jews were SO WRONGED by white gentiles that white gentiles must even look the other way as Zionists crush Palestinians.
This is how Jews combine universalism and tribalism to maintain their moral righteousness. If the lesson of WWII is that tribalism is dangerous and bad, then both white gentiles and Jews should give up their ‘tribal’ identities and join with Common Humanity. Such consensus would mean no tribal power for BOTH gentiles and Jews. The only way Jews can use morality as a weapon is by invoking universalism to justify special treatment for the Jewish Tribe who’d been historically wronged. That way, the Whole World owes the Jews. Universalism serving Tribalism.
And we see the same kind of Political Morality among blacks. It is true that blacks had been legally and socially disadvantaged in America, to say the least. So, blacks finally got equality under the law with the Civil Rights Movement. And blacks did this by invoking universalism: that a person must be judged by content of his character than color of his skin. But if blacks ONLY pushed such universalism, their Political Moral advantage would soon dissipate. As equal citizens under the law, they would lose the justification to press for demands as a groups. They could only compete as free individuals. When blacks as a group were denied equality, they had the moral justification to act as a group since blacks weren’t treated as individuals but as part of a people denied equality as a group. But once such restrictions are lifted, there is no reason for blacks to think tribally and unite politically as a group. Under the logic of universalism, a group may work tribally only when it is it is treated as a oppressed tribe. Oppression along tribal grounds means that even individuals of the tribe who reject the tribe will still be treated as accursed members of the tribe. So, prior to Civil Rights, even blacks who rejected black identity were still regarded as blacks and denied certain opportunities and services. So, that FORCED blacks to act tribally. But with freedom and equality under the law, universalist logic would suggest that there is no longer any justification for group action.
In a free and equal social order, blacks would have to compete and be treated on the basis of individual merit. In order for blacks to keep the moral advantage, they must invoke history and remind white America over and over that the white tribe had oppressed the black tribe and THAT accounts for the problems blacks face today(and tomorrow). Since blacks experienced oppression as a tribe, blacks-as-a-tribe must seek justice as a tribe. So, even when equality was bestowed upon blacks, blacks mustn’t give up their tribal sense since their history if one of tribal tribulation. It’s like MLK yammered about universal principles but also tongue-lashed the white community with talk of how the black man deserved special attention and treatment from the white man because of history.
If blacks had gone totally libertarian and championed the principle of individual liberty(along libertarian lines), they would have lost the power of Righteousness as a group. Blacks-as-libertarians would become atomized individuals pursuing individual success based on content of character and measure of ability than color of the skin. This was especially problematic since, due to lower IQ and wilder nature, blacks were bound to succeed less in academia and business than other groups.
Also, blacks find non-blacks too tame, lame, bland, & boring; therefore, blacks want to maintain their unique blackness than become like everyone else. They see themselves as the badass race, and it is the rest of humanity that should try to live up to superior black standards than for blacks to lower themselves to become like white-bread ‘honkeys’ or dull Mexicans or Asians. And global culture seems to agree with this because so many young ones of all color try to imitate rappers and talk ‘black’. And more and more non-black women wanna have mulatto-black kids while non-black boys of all color worship NBA stars and rappers. Because of black success in funky music/sports and the Western lionization of King, Mandela, Oprah, and Obama — and Harriet Tubman and Hidden Figure negresses — as the supreme sacred icons, the global community has come to revere the Magic Negro as the Neo-Pharaoh, not least because Amerika, via Wall Street, Hollywood, Sports, & Entertainment, has become the template for World Culture.
Because blacks dominate the most exciting and thrilling entertainments like sports & music AND because black Africans live in the poorest part of the world, blacks bask in both servile worship from non-blacks AND gushy compassion from non-blacks. Blacks are seen as both awesomely masterful and pitiably powerless. “Save the poor Negro and let’s worship him as god.” Negro has become black jesus. After all, Jesus is both the object of pity because He got whupped & killed and because He rose to Heaven & revealed Himself to be the Son of God and even God Himself. This sacralization of the Negro will be the undoing of civilization because if we swipe away all such ‘pontificationary’ myth, most Negroes are punks like Al Sharpton and Kanye West. We live in a dumb age when so many people look up to hustlers like Obama and pigs like Oprah as some neo-spiritual icons.
Now, what about white people? How must they fight their fight?
For starters, they too must combine universalism with tribalism. And the best argument is for universal nationalism, aka “zionism for every people”. Every nation, especially an organic one with deep roots(like nations of Europe), has a right to protect its borders, preserve its ethnos, and maintain its culture & historical narrative, JUST LIKE Israel that maintains itself as a Jewish State. This means Hungary for Hungarians just like Israel for Jews. It also means West Bank for Palestinians since Palestinians need a nation for their own too. As for Israel as the Jewish state, and it’d be better if Jews did a population swap by sending all Arabs in Israel to West Bank in exchange for all Jews in West Bank.
Globalism is the destruction of all nations, cultures, and histories. Global elites don’t care about their own nations being overrun by foreigners since they, as cosmopolitan power-elites, feel more connected to the Global City than to nation, ethnos, and history. They are digitalized globo-citizens. Also, since they got power and privilege, their good life doesn’t depend on existence of nations. Even if UK is overrun by Africans and Pakistanis, the elites of British society can travel around and live well anywhere: Berlin, Paris, Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, Rome, Rio, etc. As long as they have the ticket of admission to the global-hubs around the world, they got it made for themselves. Even if the US is no longer white-majority, the likes of the Clintons and Bidens can enjoy privilege and goodies all over the world, hopping from one globo-capital to another.
Globalism allows both elite intervention and mass invasion of every nation. So the native peoples become invaded by foreign masses, but native elites, as the new globalist elites, move from nation to nation and rub shoulders with globo-elites anywhere. It will lead to the Latin-Americanizaiton of the world. (Latin America is proof Diversity is a mess. Its white elites want to move to America and Europe because they are tired of all the crime and poverty associated with blacks, mestizos, and Indians. But then, it’s non-whites want to move to America since they are tired of the corrupt and venal ways of the Conquistador Hispanic elites. Diversity led to bad elites and bad masses. No unity.)
White patriots(unlike cucked parrots) must resist globalism and call for universal nationalism as the basis for sound internationalism. Globalism is such a monstrosity that it isn’t difficult to gain moral righteousness as a universal-nationalist who is for nationalism for all peoples. Universal nationalism respects the borders, cultures, interests, and sovereignty of all nations. Globalism seeks to break down all borders and flood all nations with the same GLOB stew of Hollywood culture that inspired millions of women to wear ‘pussy hats’.
Also, nationalism(tribalism) can be fused with universalism via internationalism. Globalists try to associate nationalism with nasty-sounding ‘isolationism’, but in truth, nationalists do believe in international trade and cooperation with other nations, except on the basis of mutual respect of each other’s borders, histories, and ethnos.
Nationalism is fine with sane universalism. It opposes radical utopian universalism that calls for one faith, one ideology, and/or one way for everyone.
All nations believe in trade since only a handful of nations are big enough and resource-rich enough to be self-sufficient. Germany can build machines but is poor in oil and gas. Saudi Arabia has lots of oil but is deficient in producing food and machines. So, they trade. But that doesn’t mean Germans have a right to demographically invade Saudi Arabia or impose its ‘western values’ on a Muslim nation. But then, Muslim nations have no right to demographically invade Europe, and they shouldn’t be demanding Sharia law in the West. So nationalism is the foundation for sound internationalism, whereas globalism means demographic imperialism, elite betrayal, and globalist US-warmongering all over the world.
White Patriots can also gain Moral Righteousness vis-a-vis blacks. By constructing the new and proper meaning of Race-ism — meaning races do exist and racial differences are real — , whites can argue that they are the ones who need special consideration and protection from stronger, more aggressive, meaner, and wilder blacks. White patriots must argue that privileged white & Jewish urban ‘liberals’, despite their PC rhetoric, do practice race-ism in what they actually do. Consider the Wall Around Hyde Park.
Hyde Park is a rich and safe area with a high white and Jewish population. Why is it so white and safe? Because high property values and extra police protection AGAINST STRONGER AND MORE AGGRESSIVE BLACKS. So, even though the community is filled with self-righteous ‘liberal’ Jews and ‘progressive’ whites with snotty attitudes, their safety and privilege are made possible through race-ist policies. ‘Race-ism’ doesn’t mean nasty hatred of other races just to be nasty and bigoted. That’s how ‘racism’ has been defined forever. Race-ism means awareness of race and racial differences and the behavior resulting from such awareness. From the evidence of what white/Jewish Liberals really DO, they are totally race-ist since their actions and favored policies seek Safe Spaces away from blacks. And why? Because despite all their pompous rhetoric, even Jews and white ‘progressives’ know that blacks are more muscular, more aggressive, and wilder. Race-ism is truth. I judge people by what they DO and don’t care whatever they SAY. 90% of what people say in our PC-infested age is bullshi*.
Well, if gentrification and safe-white-spaces are good enough for Jews and urban white ‘progressives’, then it should be good for ALL whites. White patriots need to call for Universal Safe Spaces for all whites. Why should only rich and affluent Jews and whites have safety and security from black thuggery, robbery, rape, and violence? The way the game is rigged, Jews and white ‘progressives’ keep the Nice Negro tokens — like Obama — for themselves while using ‘gentrification’ to expel the dangerous blacks to the suburbs and small towns so that haute urban Liberals can gentrify more of the city into posh neighborhoods. Gentrification is essentially denegrification, or de-negro-fication.
Since ALL whites, regardless of income, are physically disadvantaged vis-a-vis the stronger, tougher, and more aggressive black race, white patriots need to demand UNIVERSAL GENTRIFICATION for all whites. Every white person, as the member of the inferior weaker race(when it comes to physical power and thuggery), has the right to live without being terrorized by tougher blacks. All white communities should be hype-parked. Why should only rich ‘liberal’ whites & Jews enjoy safety from black violence?
Now, all races are inferior and superior in their own way. Whites, with generally higher IQ than blacks, are superior in brain power. But blacks, generally with more fast-twitch muscle and stronger bones, are superior in brawn power. Since the stronger race usually beats up on the weaker race —- consider how most interracial violence in the US is black on non-black — , whites are totally morally justified in demanding Safe Space for whites.
Also, because rational race-ism reveals that blacks are lower in IQ and wilder in temperament, it is reasonable to conclude that their relative failure in school and higher involvement in crime are less due to history than biology. Blacks are more violent and aggressive than other races for the same reason men are more violent and aggressive than women. Men are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive due to hormonal differences.
Rational Race-ism can finally lift the history-based argument that black problems are entirely the result of white oppression of blacks. After all, how did blacks live in Africa for 100,000 yrs prior to being brought to the New World? They were savages who evolved as spear-chuckers and ass-shakers. The problem of Black America is not the legacy of slavery but reversion to savagery. Even though white power did suppress black freedom and aspirations, it did instill blacks with a culture of family, restraint, religiosity, work ethic, and order. It was the abandonment of those social and moral modes beginning in the 60s that led to explosion of black crime, family breakdown, youth thuggery, and other lunacies.
Due to black racial nature, blacks had always been more problematic than other races in US history. In the ‘bad old days’, social pressures had kept the lid on black savagery. But when white youths began to emulate black musicians and when counter-culture began to idealize the black radical and the black criminal as ‘cool rebel heroes’,, blacks abandoned all inhibitions and reverted to their savage nature. Black culture today is shameless ‘twerking’ and rappers yapping endlessly about ‘muh dic*’. It’s about tattooed black thugs in sports acting like beasts. It’s about BLM morons acting like street gangstas while pretending to be moral crusaders. Morality has to be based on truth, but BLM is built on lies, especially the black inability to acknowledge that a black person has much more to fear from fellow blacks than from white police officers or ‘white hispanics’ like George Zimmerman.
And a proper understanding and acceptance of race-ism is also useful in white patriots dealing with Jewish Power. Race-ism teaches us that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ, and this accounts for their success in brainy & verbal-intensive areas, just like blacks dominate the brawny areas in sports and street gangsterism because they are naturally tougher and more aggressive. There is a reason why the Italian-American fellers fear the blacks in THE WANDERERS. Blacks will kick their butts.
According to the prevailing narrative, Jews accidentally came to dominate finance, media, and academia because of gentile discrimination that forbade Jews from planting potatoes. So, it’s all due to culture and accident of history.
The reality is grounded in biology, and that means Jews will continue to dominate elite institutions/industries — unless they excessively breed with dumb goy bimbos — , and that means Jews with their power need to see themselves as masters, rulers, and elites than as perpetual victims. With power comes accountability. It is lowdown for Jews to keep invoking ‘white privilege’ to pretend that some hick living in a trailer has the Real Power whereas all those rich Jews in gentrified cities are egalitarian comrades of Mexicans, Muslims, and blacks. (Indeed, Jews promoted fancy homos as the main face of ‘progressivism’ precisely because the class issues were making affluent Jews look like a bunch of hypocrites.) Especially given the woeful effects of Jewish globalist influence on Russia in the 90s, it is dangerous to maintain the narrative of Jews as the perennially oppressed tribe in need of special favors, treatment, and protection.
That the most potent kind of Moral Righteousness is a combination of tribalism and universalism can be see in the disproportionate power of anti-white whites(some of whom are affiliated with violent ‘antifa’ groups) and ultra-pro-Zionist Evangelicals. Why have the anti-white whites and pro-Jewish Evangelical whites been more powerful than white libertarians like Ron Paul who are neither anti-white nor pro-Zionist? Paradoxically, even anti-white whites and pro-Zionist whites practice a politics as combination of tribalism and universalism.
Libertarianism is purely universalist on basis of individual liberty. In representing the abstract liberties of the individual, it is both too atomized and too all-encompassing to generate Core Group power. It’s either about an individual fixated on his ‘right’ to smoke pot or how all borders must be abolished so everyone can become Abstract-Man like Bryan Caplan.
In contrast, anti-white whites and pro-Zionist whites are affiliated with an aspect of tribalism. Pro-Zionist whites suppress their own tribal identity, but in serving the Zionist identity they feel an sense of empowerment. It’s like being a squire. You are not the knight, but in serving the knight, you find meaning in life. It’s like the thief in KAGEMUSHA who, upon serving a clan, finds meaning by attachment. It’s like a dog finding meaning by attaching itself to its human master. So, even though pro-Zionist whites suppress their own tribal identity in name of universal brotherhood, their main loyalty is to Jews and Israel. Such focus gives them a stronger meaning of life.
As for anti-white whites, they too practice a kind of tribalism because their focus of hatred is directed against a particular tribe: white people.
Anti-white whites — Antiwa’s — are different from white Libertarians in this regard: Whereas white libertarians reject not only whiteness but all racial identities and harbor no special animus toward any group, anti-white whites concentrate their venom and ire on White People as the source of all evil. So, even though they don’t have a functional tribal identity of their own — except for the zealotry of their cause — , their narrow focus of hatred generates emotions of quasi-tribal identity.
Because libertarians oppose all tribal identities, their ‘hatred’ is diffused universally. In contrast, anti-white whites direct all their hatred on ‘white racists’ and ‘white tribalists’, and such winnowing of hostility creates a powerful us-and-them mentality: “We are good radical whites who reject evil whites at war with those evil whites who cling to their tribalism.” So, paradoxically, their radical anti-white-tribalism turns into a kind of ideological tribalism.
PS. Another way White Patriots can gain Moral Righteousness is by giving the middle finger to the Rich Corporate Globalist class and defending the White Working Class. We need National Humanism that values the common white man. For too long, American Conservatism was fixated on the Rich and ‘successful’. It was especially pathetic since the Rich mostly became Democratic, ‘progressive’, and globalist. And either anti-white or totally cuck-collaborator.
Trump’s magic was to pose as the champion of the Forgotten Man.
That’s where you are wrong. This shouldn’t even be a question. The nigger was kicking his skull while flat on his back. That’s a killing blow potentially.
Exactly. Many of these assault videos the actors know each other and often congregate among each other. Unfortunately, these low-class whites are naive at best.
I wonder if the kid getting the living shit stomped out of him in the video is thinking,” man, I sure am glad I dropped $900 on that flat-screen TV instead of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu or Krav-Maga training”.
If true, that’s YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGEEEE !!!
Lack of sympathy for this white boy being mistreated is unreasonable. Kids can’t be always alert and invincible.
Unfortunately, too many have not been taught by their parents, about the dangers of consorting with negroes.
You can’t control what you do when you are unconscious, you moron. The hands up palms out posture is caused by trauma to a certain part of the brain. You often see knocked out NFL players or people who just got shot in the brain in that position. There are other postures associated with different kinds of brain trauma. You are a god damn moron who knows nothing about violence. No way you have seen real beatings if you didn’t already know that.
On a larger note, this “blaming the victim” attitude is part of the larger hyper individualism complex in white culture that allows white individuals to be victimized without protection or retaliation. Other whites will turn away from a white is being victimized by nonwhites, using the shortcomings of that white person as an excuse for why they are not owed protection. It’s a way for whites to selfishly avoid practicing in group altruism, even if they theoretically advocate it.
This is a deep psycho-cultural problem we have to deal with. Many people who adopt ideological white nationalism still think this way. We have to move towards real communitarian based nationalism where we focus on compassion and solidarity in the group rather than moral critiques of each other.
These are the defectives that white nationalism has always attracted. They have problems relating to their own feelings of power and worth and they compensate by adopting extremely tough and ruthless sounding online identities.
Is this lame troll ever going to go way? At some point it has to die of AIDS of something.
“We have to move towards real communitarian based nationalism where we focus on compassion and solidarity in the group rather than moral critiques of each other.”
You are 100% right.
White people have to care about each other. We can’t be too “tough” to care.
I can’t say for sure “that’s right,” because I find that mentality too hard to understand.
This was a child, not a gunfighter.
This happened quite awhile back. I live just south of the metro Nashville area where Murfreesboro is, and his family has said on more than one occasion he was not knocked out BY THE PUNCH. He was knocked out later by the stomps that he only receive because he did not fight back. No mention in the media of any serious injury and certainly not brain trauma of any kind.
I am absolutely blaming the victim for doing absolutely nothing to prevent himself from becoming a victim.
I was very clear that I am in no way some tough guy with a butt load of experience with violent encounters but I assure you I have seen quite a few fights and been in a few less.
I seem to have struck a nerve. Are you okay?
Look at the video. It confirms my warning. Blacks beating up whites.
But you are probably a Jew who wants to cover up this fact because you know that white fear will lead to white racial nationalism.
“…On a larger note, this “blaming the victim” attitude is part of the
larger hyper individualism complex in white culture that allows white
individuals to be victimized without protection or retaliation. Other
whites will turn away from a white is being victimized by nonwhites,
using the shortcomings of that white person as an excuse for why they
are not owed protection. It’s a way for whites to selfishly avoid
practicing in group altruism, even if they theoretically advocate it.This is a deep psycho-cultural problem we have to deal with…”
I very much agree with you. It sickens me to have people attack Whites who are attacked by others. After a lifetime of the STATE preaching to him he should be nonviolent now he does what been constantly taught to him constantly and …it’s all his fault for being attacked. What exactly did all you armchair warriors do to stop the STATE brainwashing him to be nonviolent? What exactly did you armchair warriors do to change the laws so that when Whites are attacked and they fight back THEY don’t end up in jail for defending themselves? You act this all happened over night.