Thursday, March 8, 2018

#WakandaIsntReal: In 75% Black Birmingham, Al., Black Elected Official Holds Black on Black Crime Town Hall to Convince Blacks to Stop Killing Each Other

Remember Birmingham ?

Blacks in Birmingham, Alabama pushed white people out of the city until they took demographic control and where able to assume political ownership (democracy in a multiracial civilization is nothing more than a racial headcount).

The dire consequences of the racial change in Birmingham is documented in the 'reverse colonialism' post at SBPDL, delineating the shocking depreciating in real estate once the city went from majority white to nearly 75 percent black. 
Birmingham was once one of America's great cities. Now it's a 75 percent black city, where town halls are held to convince black people to stop killing other black people

And now, with white people slowly trickling back into the city, the black controlled city government is actually launching a task force to try and stop gentrification

Yes, really. 

What if we could show you one story representing a micro-look at the "quality of life" blacks create - in the absence of whites - illustrating precisely why Jim Crow once protected the majority white inhabitants of Birmingham pre-1964 (and kept black people safe from the consequences of liberated blackness)?

Just one story, really. 

Fellowship Baptist Church in Birmingham was the venue for Rep. Rolanda Hollis' (D-Birmingham) town hall meeting on Saturday.
The topic: "It starts at home." The focus of the event was to discuss black on black crime. Hollis called it a very serious issue and said there was a great need for a town hall focusing on it. During the two hours of the event, those who came out had the chance to voice their opinions on the matter. 
"I think that when it comes to black on black on black crime, the blame is put on everything except the black on black crime," Rep. Hollis said. "We need to start dealing with it in our own areas to decrease the crime with everything that is going on."
During the meeting, solutions for the issue that were brought up included: churches becoming more involved, the community getting more involved as well as people voicing their opinions more on the matter. 
"I think it is very crucial that we let people know that it's time for us to start addressing this, and we have to stop blaming others for what's happening in our neighborhoods," Hollis said. "We have to get out here ourselves to boycott, picket, be our brother's and sister's keeps in order to decrease the crime that is going on."
Hollis said Saturday was the first town she has held on this issue and said she plans to possibly take it into the community. 
Repeat after me: Wakanda. Isn't. Real.


Anonymous said...

Blacks are deeply racist.

When will white a**hole liberals get it through their thick heads.

They hate us. And want to see us all dead. Men, women and children.

All of us.

Awakened white said...

I think that when it comes to black on black on black crime, the blame is put on everything except the black on black crime,"

Yeah like when Whitey who isn't even there is to place the blame. Sick of these cretins. God speed segregation nation!

Anonymous said...

I lived in a majority black city as a white man in Atlanta. I didn’t hate black people, not even the slightest. Then I experienced a black majority. Overt racism against white people and the lack of ANY concern. The way police became corrupt and simply don’t enforce laws or even investigate crimes against whites.
I was a concealed carry permit holder for a DECADE before I moved to Atlanta and never had a reason, nor a NEED to pull a gun. In Atlanta, no exaggeration, it was a weekly occurrence. And you know what? The black guy just shrugs it off and leaves.
I worked all over the South and East Coast, the consistent problem is always the same-black people.
Whatever. I left that part of the country, never to return.
One really has to wonder if the South would have fought, had they known the industrial revolution would make the negro obsolete.

Anonymous said...

She seems to be one of the rare blacks willing to look inward to their assorted dysfunctions but I lost her at the end when she mentioned picketing and boycotting. Then she began smiling strangely at the camera.

It's Out of Control said...

Different day, same story.

Anonymous said...

Negro dysfunction can't be "fixed", only relocated.

Anonymous said...

This effort is, of course, completely useless. It has been tried countless times elsewhere and had zero impact. It's like trying to teach cats to say "Woof-woof!" Crime and violence is in their DNA. It is who they are and always will be. We can't "fix" them because they're behaving as designed. All we can do is separate ourselves from them in order to save ourselves from their toxic disfunction.

Anonymous said...

The very existence of whites reminds blacks of how stupid, ugly and worthless they all are.

Send them back.

Anonymous said...

These town hall meeting do not lower black on black violence. I would suggest stop and frisk on ALL young black men under 35. Do this and they will lower crime. It worked in other cities. They need to stop crying and do what is needed, or they need to shut up and move to Wakanda!

Oh yes, there is a Wakanda, but it is still developing. It may need a few hundred million years to arrive at that point, but negroes have to start somewhere. I suggest we make a straight trade: 4.5 million South African whites for 40+ million negroes (many with IQs of 85 or better). Wakanda is just over the horizon for them.

Mr. Rational said...

That's exactly it.  They are behaving according to what they are, acting with the unthinking reflexive violence which was key to keeping other tribes away and population densities low enough that disease didn't sweep their entire community away.

They are a species suited to the pestilential hell of E. Africa, and unsuited to anywhere else.  They have to go.  They don't have to go back, but they can't stay here.

Anonymous said...

I think that the fact that they literally rally against gentrification- which just means that people are willing to come repair their decrepit neighborhoods and restore them to their former usefulness just shows that blacks LIKE living in trashed burned out ghettos so long as they are in charge. So why do we keep sending them more and more money? We should starve them of funds to the point that you see their women trotting to the river with buckets on their heads for water- we would save a fortune and they could be happy in the knowledge that no white would ever want to live there. just keep them out of our spaces and let them wallow in it.

Paintjob Theory said...

In modern human societies we have been culling our violent and antisocial degenerates for hundreds of generations, in Africa the most violent is made chief of the tribe and has the most wives. In fact their desire to throw ice cream socials and celebrity basketball games for their most violent troublemakers today is a holdover from this attitude. Witness the selective breeding that molded the sub Saharan African. Left to their own devices they will never ever change.

Anonymous said...

One really has to wonder if the South would have fought, had they known the industrial revolution would make the negro obsolete.

That's the fairy tale version of history that we were taught when growing up -- that the North, out of its pure heart and love for one's fellow man, engaged in a horribly ruinous war simply to free the poor, oppressed blacks, and to gain nothing at all for itself. Lincoln made it clear in his inaugural address that he didn't have a problem with slavery and was willing to endorse the then-proposed "Corwin Amendment" (which would have been the 13th Amendment to the Constitution) to protect and enshrine slavery forever. What he did, however, demand was that the South pay vastly jacked-up tariffs to support northern interests (i.e., the South was paying the bills and northern interests were the beneficiaries). It was only later, during the war, then things were going badly, that Lincoln added the elimination of slavery to get the abolitionists on his side.

What's also left unsaid is that the conditions for immigrants working in northern factories and other industries were even worse than southern slavery, but it's a fact.

Also, after the war was over, Lincoln had wanted to get rid of blacks in the USA, believing that whites and blacks could not live in peace alongside one another. (He was certainly on to something there.) He wanted to export them back to Africa, to the Caribbean, anywhere but having them here.

Also left unsaid was how the USA planned to complete the Transcontinental Railroad. Where would the USA get the labor to build a commercially unsound project (there was no business across the then-wasteland) and complete it? It was proposed that the Union Army enslave the Plains Indians, forcing them to work on the railroad. (Oh, wait, didn't they just fight a war to end slavery? Oh, never mind...) Instead, it was simply easier to exterminate the Indians since they didn't do well in slavery.

Here's more on "Honest Abe" (that's like "Celibate Bill" Clinton) that your teacher never told you:

Anonymous said...

Everyone is looking at this the wrong way.
Stop with the endless solutions to the problems.
First and foremost, they are negroes and this is how they function.
Female in FL

Anonymous said...

The days of blocking out the real world with a Walkman as you jog blissfully unaware of your surroundings are long gone.

The African is amongst us.

Try putting on your 200$ headphones on the subway as you enjoy your brand new Nintendo-thingy or the latest IPad and see how long before some nog shanks you for your trinkets.

Don't be the next Morgan Evenson...

Anonymous said...

What is it with all this, "We need to stop black on black crime"? ..... How about, "We need to stop black on everybody crime"?

Anonymous said...

From magic to tragic. It was meant to be when the wakadna syndrome took over. A ghost told me so.

Anonymous said...

What happened to the USA? No question it was LBJ.

Anonymous said...

Picket and boycott whom? Businesses aren't involved in black-on-black violence, so unless she's just trying to complain about gun stores or something, there is no one to boycott. As for picketing, it would actually make sense to socially ostracize the families and associates of criminals and other lowlifes, but I have a feeling that's not what she means either.

Assuming she even knows what she means..

Californian said...

"I think it is very crucial that we let people know that it's time for us to start addressing this, and we have to stop blaming others for what's happening in our neighborhoods," Hollis said. "We have to get out here ourselves to boycott, picket, be our brother's and sister's keeps in order to decrease the crime that is going on."

Well, Rep Hollis should be given a congrat for not blaming YT for black on black crime. But has she stopped to consider that the boycotting, picketing and being "keeps" is what got them into this mess in the first place? It was the civil rights movement (which employed these tactics) that caused the breakdown in civil order which led to not just crime exploding but also to the trashing of entire cities.

Anonymous said...

OT: However with the turn of events with Dockta Ben Carson at HUD (Humans Unending Dollars). I did find a really sick YT libtard who summed up the worries of the left re: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

Read it and see if you don't agree with the stupid ad slogan... I'm LOVIN it!

Anonymous said...

If they would get one of those Soros buses rolling, the could send some of the chicongo gangstas funeral killers. This would be in her philosophy that it has to start within.

Anonymous said...

It may interest you to hear that a certain suburban Birmingham gym is hosting a team bicycle race in a few weeks. One of the teams has chosen for its name, “Tragic City Racers.” I thought of your book.


Steve Smith said...

Atlanta is a case study of black dysfunction in the southeast. It's almost like it's a caricature of itself.

Randy said...

Hollis said: "We have to get out here ourselves to boycott, picket, be our brother's and sister's keeps in order to decrease the crime that is going on."

Which products or institutions does she want to boycott? And how will the boycott "decrease the crime that is going on"?

Anonymous said...

Show me any city, town, village, county, or country that is majority negro and I will show you a failed town, village, county or country. The truth is negroes cannot be effective managers of their destiny. Without the intervention of YT negroes would be making cave drawings, trying to figure out fire, and wondering what a wheel is.

Anonymous said...

Negroes represent failure and only failure. I'm not a racist, I'm a realist.

Non PC Infidel said...

We all know the score. Blacks see what whites have built (that they could never build for themselves) and want it for themselves. They see moving in and taking over as something wonderful, justified and righteous and can't wait to gloat over how, "It's OURS now!" Then, when they ruin a formerly nice neighborhood or first world city by driving home prices down into the gutter, driving businesses away, ruining schools and transforming entire areas into crime ridden, violent, decaying pestholes, they blame it on the white man. You left and took all the jobs, businesses and taxes away (that they could never provide for themselves) and are therefore responsible for all their behaviors and the conditions that result. It's all your fault. You caused it! Never mind that in their own areas (absent the white man) the same conditions and behaviors prevail. You aren't supposed to notice that. Besides, even that was your fault because you weren't propping them up and providing them with everything you provided for yourselves and thus taking care of them and making sure they had everything they wanted and needed. You kept it all fo' yo'self! You evil! You selfish! Gibsmedat!

It all reminds me of the story of a small Alabama town where the blacks complained that all the white areas (that paid the vast majority of taxes) got all the improvements and their area was neglected. As a friend puts it, "blacks have a two dollar wallet and a ten dollar mind." They expect to receive the same things for two dollars that someone else pays ten dollars for and, if they don't get it, they're filled with resentment. Why you gots dat and I don't!? Blacks are mentally deficient, low IQ, greedy, grasping creatures filled with jealousy, avarice and resentment and their entire world view is filtered through a lens of stupidity and lack of comprehension.

As is, all that is piled high on top of their double standards. It's ok for them to move into and ruin a white area as long as they can claim it for themselves and laugh about their "victory." That's (to them) a righteous justified act. However, if whites try to keep them out, that's evil, horrible, rotten and uncalled for. If whites try to move back into an area that was taken over and restore it, that is also an evil, horrible rotten act because it negatively affects them in some way. If they have a negative effect on a white area, town or city, that's just fine and dandy and you ain't gots no right to complain about it, honky. However, if you negatively affect them in some way by moving back into the area and improving it, it's the crime of the century. What's right for them to do (because dey be black)is wrong for you to do (because you be white)and it's always based on skin color and their racism, double standards and idiocy.

Had enough of them yet?

Anonymous said...

For all the globalists out there:
"You think you own me
You should have known me
You took the future and the food off my family's
You think you'll use me
I'm stronger than you
You take my money, but it's useless
When you see what I do to you"

Anonymous said...

As long as there is a single black out there willing to "disrespect" another black, black-on-black murder will continue.


I am so glad the negro community is finally talking about this. I am very happy there is now talk.

There has been a huge shortage of talking about the issues of the black community, and for them to come together, in the community, and talk about the community is a wonderful improvement for the city, and the community.

There has never been enough talk within the community. That has always saddened me, since all of us know that nothing changes, absolutely nothing, until a community comes together and is willing to talk.

Without talk, there is no action.
Without talk, there is no solution.
Without talk, there is no ideas
Without talk, there is only silence.
Without talk, there is no improvement
Without talk, there is no Wakanda

I am so glad the negro community can now, finally, stop this killing, now that they are, finally, starting to talk about it. I feel so confident now that things will finally change.

Sincerely, WaKunta Kinte Toby (Some of you young ones will have to look that one up)

Anonymous said...

This article is actually a fastidious one it assists new internet visitors, who are wishing for blogging.

Anonymous said...

Yup, you can see the deep hatred in their eyes.

Anonymous said...

Yes, outside North America.

Detoilet Cheeseman said...

Rokanda felt the town hall was a success. What exactly was accomplished? Who the heck are they going to picket and boycott? O.T. but Rokanda's blond wig was a black on hair product crime.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 9:48 pm- I feel your pain. I am living for the moment on the Southside of Atlanta. Everything you said is real. At the library I go to, there are regularly held meetings that are not posted and not a white face in the crowd.. An entire section of books are "African American" fiction. African American periodicals are left to be picked up. Employees wear Black History Month t-shirts.
Nothing offered for Caucasians.
In Paulding County, about 45 miles east of Atlanta, there are claims of racial slurs- but ONLY by whites against blacks, of course. Why in the heck aren't white parents chiming in about slurs and aggression by blacks against their white kids?? You KNOW it is happening to them as well.
Parents: Paulding Co. Schools ignores racial bullying in schools
Posted: Jan 30, 2018 7:14 PM EST Updated: Feb 01, 2018 5:40 AM EST
By Aiyana Cristal, CBS46 Reporter
Source: WGCL
Arnena Warren is a freshman at North Paulding High School. She tells CBS46 kids at her school are constantly calling her racial slurs.
“It makes me feel like they aren’t accepting me for who I am or they are judging me based on my skin color,” said Warren. “When I tell the teacher they just tell me to drop it and let it go and they ignore my request to speak to an administrator.”

Arnena’s mom, Beverly, is furious this is happening.

“I shouldn’t have my child coming home sad or depressed because shes been called names or feel like they don’t want her here,” said Beverly. “I don’t think our kids are protected emotionally for sure, emotionally I think the school has done damage."

Warren said the kids using these racial slurs don’t suffer any consequences.

“I feel like no one is taking this serious,” said Warren. “I think the school administration and the county board need to be accountable they have allowed and fostered this type of behavior in the school systems, they don’t hold anyone accountable”

Parents tell me the racism these students are facing has been going on for years but nothing is ever done about it.

“I don’t want it to be this way because I shouldn’t have to go to a school where we are divided all the time.”

“It feels like it’s the stories my mom told me back in the old days...and I'm heartbroken I don’t want her to go through this, no one should have to go through this.”

A meeting is scheduled for Thursday inside the superintendent's office at 12 p.m.

Read more:

White people- SPEAK UP, or the narrative only gets worse....
L in Atl hell

Anonymous said...

OT, but one for the history books. The decedent's name is great, won't C&P the article, just da link!

"Chief Bedsole said the victim, Tekevious Darnell Best, was laying in the restaurant's parking lot. Someone was administering CPR to him when officers arrived on scene, he said".

AnalogMan said...

All their suggested solutions involve "somebody doing more". More of what, Well, presumably what they've been doing. Which hasn't worked.


All these greasy "reverends" want is fo da White man to give them mo money. That's all.

Negro killing Negro, to the "reverends", is nothing more than an advertising slogan.

They couldn't give a shit, and the MORE killings, the better.

Brian in Ohio said...

This isn't really about getting blacks to stop murdering, as genetic modification is far, far beyond their grasp.

This is merely something they`ve learned will make whitey give them money.

A performance. A trick, for a reward.

The same thing dogs and seals have mastered.

Stay alert, stay alive.

Anonymous said...

Try putting on your $200 headphones on the subway as you enjoy your brand new Nintendo-thingy or the latest IPad and see how long before some nog shanks you for your trinkets.

That's almost exactly what took place on the Washington Metrorail system last year. See:

35-year sentence in July 4 Metro murder

In stealing a white guy's phone on a subway train, the nog stabbed his victim almost three dozen times, in addition to kicking and stomping him. Then, with his bloody knife in hand, he went through the car to demand loot from the terrified riders, telling them, "Gimme what you got!"

It gets better. Two days earlier this thug, who already had a long arrest record, was busted for assaulting a police officer. You'd think the police department and the rest of the criminal justice system would hold onto someone who attacked one of their own, but no. (Remember, this is a chocolate city.) Instead, they downgraded his crime to a misdemeanor and let him go, and the next day he was at it again, this time killing someone. When it happened and his most recent arrest became known, there was (understandably) a lot of outrage and of course the city government said they'd investigate and get to the bottom of it, but of course they knew people would soon forget and not realize this is just SOP -- downgrade the crime to a misdemeanor to make the city's crime statistics look good (by this way, this happens all across the country), cut the brotha loose, and look the other way.

Why would a city or county do this? Because if the true level of crime were revealed, new businesses wouldn't set up shop in the city, existing ones would move out, and tourists (and their dollars) would stay away. Recently we've read of the arrangement in Florida between the local government (to include the police) and the school system to look the other way on juvenile crime, eventually leading to a loon well known to the police left free to shoot up a school.

Thanks, government. You're so much worth our tax dollars. /sarc

Just yesterday I saw a bumper sticker reading "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." It had to have been a liberal government employee driving that car.

Oh, yeah, when I look at the mess government at all levels has made of everything from our cities to countries around the globe, I'm just so happy to be paying this extortion, I mean, these taxes.

Anonymous said...

You and I have both seen mere dogs that make blacks look stupid, malicious and untrustworthy.

Anonymous said...

I set a pretty tough standard for gibberish names, but 'Tekevious' is hard to beat for outlandishness. The 'ne plus ultra' is, of course, 'Shitavious' for a male, and 'Latrina' for a female. Some people must really hate their kids.

Anonymous said...

It is a lie.
The more educated are more sophisticated in their gimmie dats.
My former boss was a black guy, Nice a personable, but his loyalties were different than most people.

Anonymous said...

Let’s take an evolutionary look at it:
Man domesticated dogs to be loyal, faithful companions. So much so that instances of dogs eating human babies is incredibly rare, where selfless acts of sacrifice to protect their pack is common.
From an intelligent design standpoint: G(g)od made dogs a better companion for ALL races than the negro.
Think I’m wrong? Most dogs won’t crap in the house if they can avoid it. They won’t crap where their master sleeps, they are loyal and loving to their master and only ask for food, shelter, and affection in return.
Negros demand all sorts of social support, trash their free housing, kill one another, and actively hate those that support them.
Yes, dogs collectively are smarter than the average Negro.

Anonymous said...

They size and scope of the southern economy was a mere fraction of the northern economy and mostly because of the enormous costs of labor. Tariffs from intra-national commerce? That’s stretching it just a bit. So is the southern spin on Lincoln was Satan argument.
The South was stuck in a heavy labor cost agrarian nightmare and the growing industrial revolution in the North was a lightning rod for escaped slaves. Just as it is today with migrants, cheap labor boosts profits. The south saw the export of slaves to free states as a wave that couldn’t be contained. They also were deeply irritated that the slaves didn’t count for their representatives in D.C. While we can discuss the merits and impacts of mid-19th century American commerce, understand that the UK was the 300 lbs gorilla still lurking. Combine that with the mere decade it would take to revolutionize farming, the South coulda woulda shoulda flooded the North with freeed slaves and said “good luck”, then got to mechanized agriculture.
Housing, feeding, and caring for a beast of burden is expensive. Humans are far less productive comparatively speaking, and no-one made the argument that steam power was less efficient than a horse.
But hey, Lincoln knew the after effects of free slaves and it wasn’t sunshine and lollipops. Check out crime rates as the blacks rolled north. Conversely, check out the crimes in the south as the blacks return “home”.
The common denominator in all this, don’t let the minutia overshadow the root, is black people. They have been, are, and will ALWAYS be the problem. We either get ahead of it, or property owners in DeKalb county starting getting murdered for being white.

Anonymous said...

Before that.
Blacks = votes.
Now it is Hispanics.
Next it will be Chinese.
Meanwhile in South Africa blacks are freely killing white people and taking their land. Just as the did in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. When Hitler did that, it was wrong. When the Negro does that, the world turns a collective blind eye.

Anonymous said...

I feel you and you’re 100% correct.
But the whitey is powerless in GA. WSB will go wall to wall during morning commute, between the every 5 minute announcement of terrible traffic, to cover the slightest racial injustice against the poor black person.
News blackouts in upscale white ‘burbs when it comes to violent home invasions. One happened right next door to some folks I know. Violent, murder, hostage, rape. Perps were caught on security cam, part of the sexual assault was caught, not one single ATL news outlet would run with it. The town and the HOA company told everyone in the town to not post on Facebook, or any other social media, Not to talk about it or Email. In 1 month, 6 homes went on the market. That’s how they change a neighborhood. A little injected crime, the regular white folk bail, in come the blacks and the rest flee.
Oh man, it isn’t like that. Yes, it is.
It is a different world. Those with heritage there, I’m sorry. Bail and head west. We don’t bend over to that shit out here. You act a fool, you go to jail. You waive a piece like you’re some pimp, you’ll probably get popped.

Anonymous said...

“Then, with his bloody knife in hand, he went through the car to demand loot from the terrified riders, telling them, "Gimme what you got!" “
Always Carry a Gun.

Anonymous said...

"Lincoln made it clear in his inaugural address that he didn't have a problem with slavery ..."

More crappy scholarship. You omit that in his Second Inaugural, Lincoln made it clear that slavery was the cause of the war. What is it with you guys and your bullshit version of history? Do you really think misleading people helps your argument? Not true! It only makes you look like a gullible fool.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.
- Abraham Lincoln on the cause of the Civil War, in his Second Inaugural (

"Also, after the war was over, Lincoln had wanted to get rid of blacks in the USA, believing that whites and blacks could not live in peace alongside one another. (He was certainly on to something there.) He wanted to export them back to Africa, to the Caribbean, anywhere but having them here."

Lincoln never had any plan to forcibly remove all negroes to Africa, or anywhere else. He advocated repatriating only those negroes who volunteered to go, and since most of them had been born in this country and knew no other home (importation of slaves had been been prohibited by law since 1807), he wasn't stupid enough to think that very many of them would leave. In fact, in his last public address before being assassinated, he advocated giving them citizenship and the vote.

DiLorenzo and the rest of you amateur historians need to get your facts straight and stop trying to deceive people.

Anonymous said...

Let’s remember there was NO black on black crime, or black on anyone crime, before LBJ’s “welfare reform.” That a-hole, after he killed JFK for being the only Democrat to push for the Voting Rights Act and threaten to “splinter the CIA,” had gov’t workers knock on the doors of African American women and tell them that they were entitled to money from the government if they had a child but no father in the home. Before welfare reform, blacks had the HIGHEST percentages of fathers in the home . Twenty years later they had the lowest, and the generations of fatherless boys led to gang violence, mass incarceration and large-scale welfare dependency. There’s nothing wrong with black people, there’s something wrong with the Democratic Party that had a 95% grip on blacks yet serves them no purpose but feeding the welder addiction and telling them white people are to blame. That fictional Pegasus called “White Privilege” is to blame. Blacks need to read some Thomas Sowell and clean up this mess by telling liberals to shut up, getting off welfare and voting them out. Every day they pass policies to keep the addictions going and growing.

Anonymous said...

True story:

I knew someone with a kid named "Xevious".  Yes, after the arcade video game.

White kid of White parents.  Not ghetto in the least.  The father and kid share a surname with a major grocery chain.

Don't ask me what they were thinking.

Anonymous said...

Wow! They need "space to wallow"!

Anonymous said...

I suggest they begin with weave shops!

Anonymous said...

Tekevious was too mischievous, someone shot him and he'll never do his Darnell Best again.

Gotta pour out the first drink of your 40 for homeboy. He's dead, but maybe there's the pitter-patter of Tekevious Jr. runnin' round 'da hood.

Anonymous said...

Deeeid somewun say, "massa"?


Anonymous said...

In stealing a white guy's phone on a subway train, the nog stabbed his victim almost three dozen times, in addition to kicking and stomping him. Then, with his bloody knife in hand, he went through the car to demand loot from the terrified riders, telling them, "Gimme what you got!"

Victim was a confirmed liberal activist.

Doesn't make it right but should be noted.

Anonymous said...

It was LBJ. But I’m sure Hollywood is already trying the change history on that one.

Anonymous said...

Victim was a confirmed liberal activist.

Doesn't make it right but should be noted.

He was indeed, and I suspect it blinded him to the reality of the nature of feral blacks all around him in Chocolate DC. Lesson learned: blindness caused by diseases such as liberalism, SJW, etc., can be fatal, especially in dangerous surroundings.

I wonder if the victim, in his last painful moments alive, thought to himself, "Yes, as a white man I'm responsible for all of the ills of the 'black community,' but I didn't do anything to deserve this"?

When I was growing up in the 1960s and early 1970s all of us knew better than to go into bad areas of DC. The current young generation, however, being highly gullible, has discarded the vanilla suburbs for the inner city. In cooperation with the city government, developers are carving out swaths of ex-ghetto for millennials. What they don't seem to realize, however, is that they're still adjacent to the ghetto and the homies don't have far at all to go in order to prey on them.

I don't know who sold the millennials on the wonders of living in an overly expensive city populated by predators and run by corrupt black politicians, but I suspect those same city officials finally realized that their endless quest for more tax revenue was never going to be met until they pushed aside a lot of the welfare-dependent homies in favor of working, tax-paying (and foolish) young whities.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8:12 PM said:

Before welfare reform, blacks had the HIGHEST percentages of fathers in the home .


Where do you get this garbage?

Go read MLK's speech "Some Things We Must Do" from 1957--6 years before LBJ took office.

In it, he admits that black illegitimacy was 8 times that of whites.

Stop posting crap.

Anonymous said...

I remember a chemistry class from my youth in which we learned about early alchemists and how, having gained some knowledge of the elements, attempted to find ways to convert less valuable metal substances into gold. Try as they might, they never found a way to do it.

We look back on their efforts as blindly foolish. Of course you can't turn lead into gold!

Currently we are involved in a very long effort to convert disfunctional blacks into productive citizens (aka making them "act white," and we already know how they feel about that), disregarding their true nature and how they are designed.

Will one day, wherever surviving YTs live, surrounded by a sea of black hostility, will our descendants wonder why we engaged in such a foolish act? Will they say it was just as foolish to try to make blacks civilized as it was to trying to turn lead into gold?

In fact, I see a lot of the reverse -- whites dressing and acting black (aka "wiggers"). Efforts to uplift blacks have been a failure, but a reverse effort to drag many of us down to their level has been very successful.

Mr. Rational said...

remember there was NO black on black crime, or black on anyone crime, before LBJ’s “welfare reform.”

You're crazy.  There's a dindu who I will not name who is held in esteem by the local libtard establishment.  He grew up in the south, but his father, who developed a taste for "northern ways", went to prison and was nearly executed for murder.  He was found, in a drunken stupor, in a room with the body of the victim (classic TNB there).  The victim had to be Black also, or he would have fried.  By my reckoning, this was mid-1950's.

He had other relatives who did time, including female ones.  But with this evidence of black murder and other crime all around him, who does he blame?  YT and the enforcement of laws against crime.

Zagg said...

Boycots and picketing. That will sure fix it. Why didn’t anyone think of this before?

Anonymous said...

You omit that in his Second Inaugural, Lincoln made it clear that slavery was the cause of the war.

Believe what you wish, or you read the Lincoln quotes in the post that follows this one.

To believe the big-hearted Yankees fought the war for the benefit of black slaves requires that one forget that long before, during and after the war, that same US government was conducting a war of genocide against another minority, the American Indians. In fact, many of the same Union Army officers and soldiers continued their military careers after 1865 by slaughtering Indians.

It was that same Army that fought a four-year war against the Philippines from 1898 to 1902. The supposed US liberators simply changed the country from being a Spanish colony to an American one. Typically US history books don't mention this war at all or what happened during it because no one likes to read about how brutal and ruthless their own military had acted. Very tellingly, the letters soldiers sent home referred to Filipinos with the same racial slurs used on American Indians and blacks.

That same US government had no use for Asians (recall the Chinese Exclusion Act) and, in 1942, locked up Japanese Americans in internment camps. "Patriotic Americans" took advantage of their situation by buying their vacated homes for pennies on the dollar or simply looted them after the rightful owners were shipped away. (Ironically, the Japanese-American 442d Regimental Combat Team, largely manned by young men from the camps, was the most decorated regiment of the war.)

To believe the "Civil War" was fought over slavery is also to ignore the role of northern shipping companies that actually transported the slaves.

The US doesn't fight wars for the benefit of others, just as it didn't fight wars in Vietnam for the Vietnamese (the Pentagon Papers revealed the true reason was access to and control over "tin, rubber, oil and other natural resources" -- the same reason the French had brutally subjugated the country since the mid-1800s). It also didn't fight in Korea to benefit the South Koreans, who as refugees fleeing combat were routinely shelled by US naval ships, strafed by USAF planes and shot at by ground units, as it was SOP to attack them in case there were any North Koreans among them.

We like to entertain ourselves with fictional, self-flattering accounts of history that have no relation to reality and see military and political leaders as heroes rather than what they truly were and are.

My favorite line from the film was “Free your mind and your ass will follow.” Whether you choose to do so is up to you.

And now for an article by Paul Craig Roberts in the next post.

Anonymous said...

Part 1 of 2
The So-Called Civil War Was Not Over Slavery
By Paul Craig Roberts
August 26, 2017

When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article ( ) the question that lept to mind was, “How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasn’t fighting against slavery?”

Two days before Lincoln’s inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.

If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery.

The real issue between North and South could not be reconciled on the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have documented. The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.

Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln’s naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.

Today the ignorant morons, thoroughly brainwashed by Identity Politics, are demanding removal of memorials to Robert E. Lee, an alleged racist toward whom they express violent hatred. This presents a massive paradox. Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies. How can it be that a “Southern racist” was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?

Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861, two days after Lincoln called up troops for the invasion of the South.

Surely there must be some hook somewhere that the dishonest court historians can use on which to hang an explanation that the war was about slavery. It is not an easy task. Only a small minority of southerners owned slaves. Slaves were brought to the New World by Europeans as a labor force long prior to the existence of the US and the Southern states in order that the abundant land could be exploited. For the South slavery was an inherited institution that pre-dated the South. Diaries and letters of soldiers fighting for the Confederacy and those fighting for the Union provide no evidence that the soldiers were fighting for or against slavery. Princeton historian, Pulitzer Prize winner, Lincoln Prize winner, president of the American Historical Association, and member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica, James M. McPherson, in his book based on the correspondence of one thousand soldiers from both sides, What They Fought For, 1861-1865, reports that they fought for two different understandings of the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

Part 2 of 3 (not the total page change)
As for the Emancipation Proclamation, on the Union side, military officers were concerned that the Union troops would desert if the Emancipation Proclamation gave them the impression that they were being killed and maimed for the sake of blacks. That is why Lincoln stressed that the proclamation was a “war measure” to provoke an internal slave rebellion that would draw Southern troops off the front lines.

If we look carefully we can find a phony hook in the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession (December 20, 1860) as long as we ignore the reasoning of the document. Lincoln’s election caused South Carolina to secede. During his campaign for president Lincoln used rhetoric aimed at the abolitionist vote. (Abolitionists did want slavery abolished for moral reasons, though it is sometimes hard to see their morality through their hate, but they never controlled the government.)

South Carolina saw in Lincoln’s election rhetoric intent to violate the US Constitution, which was a voluntary agreement, and which recognized each state as a free and independent state. After providing a history that supported South Carolina’s position, the document says that to remove all doubt about the sovereignty of states “an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

South Carolina saw slavery as the issue being used by the North to violate the sovereignty of states and to further centralize power in Washington. The secession document makes the case that the North, which controlled the US government, had broken the compact on which the Union rested and, therefore, had made the Union null and void. For example, South Carolina pointed to Article 4 of the US Constitution, which reads: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” Northern states had passed laws that nullified federal laws that upheld this article of the compact. Thus, the northern states had deliberately broken the compact on which the union was formed.

The obvious implication was that every aspect of states’ rights protected by the 10th Amendment could now be violated. And as time passed they were, so South Carolina’s reading of the situation was correct.

The secession document reads as a defense of the powers of states and not as a defense of slavery. Here is the document.

Read it and see what you decide.

Anonymous said...

Part 3 of 3
A court historian, who is determined to focus attention away from the North’s destruction of the US Constitution and the war crimes that accompanied the Constitution’s destruction, will seize on South Carolina’s use of slavery as the example of the issue the North used to subvert the Constitution. The court historian’s reasoning is that as South Carolina makes a to-do about slavery, slavery must have been the cause of the war.

As South Carolina was the first to secede, its secession document probably was the model for other states. If so, this is the avenue by which court historians, that is, those who replace real history with fake history, turn the war into a war over slavery.

Once people become brainwashed, especially if it is by propaganda that serves power, they are more or less lost forever. It is extremely difficult to bring them to truth. Just look at the pain and suffering inflicted on historian David Irving for documenting the truth about the war crimes committed by the allies against the Germans. There is no doubt that he is correct, but the truth is unacceptable.

The same is the case with the War of Northern Aggression. Lies masquerading as history have been institutionalized for 150 years. An institutionalized lie is highly resistant to truth.

Education has so deteriorated in the US that many people can no longer tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse or justification. In the US denunciation of an orchestrated hate object is a safer path for a writer than explanation. Truth is the casualty.

That truth is so rare everywhere in the Western World is why the West is doomed. The United States, for example, has an entire population that is completely ignorant of its own history.

As George Orwell said, the best way to destroy a people is to destroy their history.

Anonymous said...

As a 36 year old I get it. In jr high school social studies class, we had to watch roots, and some movie about poor underprivileged barrio hispanics called "stand and deliver". Cry me a Nile and Rio Grande rivers, losers.

White Trash Hillbilly said...

Almost every day theres a gem or two in's the one I gleaned today.

"Blacks are mentally deficient, low IQ, greedy, grasping creatures filled with jealousy, avarice and resentment and their entire world view is filtered through a lens of stupidity and lack of comprehension. "


Anonymous said...

I meant to cite the name of the film. It was Platoon.

Anonymous said...

Paul Craig Roberts is an economist, not a historian. Like DiLorenzo and his followers, he's an amateur who's in over his head.

The idea that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery contradicts what Lincoln himself said about the cause of the war. It's an attempt to construct a fictional past; a sort of Wakanda for white people who are in deep denial about the hand whites themselves had in creating the current racial disaster that confronts them.

You do whites no service by trying to perpetuate this fantasy.

White Trash Hillbilly said...

And yet another...

"An institutionalized lie is highly resistant to truth."


Anonymous said...

Never forget liberal rule #1 Anything or anyone Not minority centric is racist.
Never forget reality rule #1 You Can't Fix Black.

Anonymous said...

You are correct, it was 24% illegitimacy for blacks and 3% for whites in 1960 according to Brookings. However, by 1990, illegitimacy had risen to 70%. Explain that!
The black on black crime was very low in the 1940s and 1950s, see Thomas Sowell and

Anonymous said...

Rule 1 yes, provable by mainstream media, rule 2 not provable without reversing liberal policies. When I go to get my car fixed or need a mover or whatever else, I go to the same 3 guys, not because they’re black but because they’re smart, hard working, and the best in the county (a large, populous county). What do they have in common? Smart, trustworthy, and strong family values. One has six kids but with one woman and still married to her, and none of them have ever hit on me. If you breakdown the family and marry the women to the state instead, and keep her and her kids living off the state, what do you expect for the next generation? There was no slavery in Canada yet they did he same thing and the sharply higher crime rate by blacks is the same there.

Anonymous said...

The idea that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery contradicts what Lincoln himself said about the cause of the war.

Suit yourself. I've shown you what he actually said and did, along with others in his administration, and what the government has done since then. If you want to believe that Yankees were engaging in a war that killed more Americans than all of the country's other wars combined and left much of the country devastated for decades to come, solely for the benefit of Negro liberation from slavery, so be it. I have some swampland to sell to you, as well as a bridge to nowhere.

You'll also have to ignore how the situation for blacks was not markedly improved in the aftermath, and it stayed that way for another century, but the Yankees were okay with that. You'll also have to ignore how:

- The very limited "liberty" blacks had in northern states, which didn't want them around. Just crossing over from the South to the North didn't give anyone the liberty whites had.

- The Union Army enslaved blacks to provide labor for itself.

- The Union Army was happy to mistreat blacks, threatening them with death in order to find out where massa hid his money and valuables. The Union Army mass rape of black women as it took Columbia, SC, is legendary.

- A full quarter of the black population of the South soon died off after the war. Used to having whites house and feed them, they died off in droves from starvation and disease. (It gives you an idea of what could happen again when the EBT cards no longer work.) The federal government and the Union Army didn't have a problem with that.

A friend who served as a GI in Vietnam (1969) witnessed atrocities and murders committed by members of his infantry company, and the book Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam by Nick Turse, which reads more like a horror story than a war book, shows the true extent of the slaughter. As my friend said, he learned in Vietnam that "Americans are no better than anyone else. No worse, but no better."

Keep that last line in mind when you imagine Lincoln and the Union Army to be liberating angels rather than what history showed them to truly be.

Wars are fought for money and power, to include control of natural resources. That's reality. If you keep falling for lies, others will forever take advantage of your gullibility.

When I was a kid, I used to believe the war was fought over slavery too. After all, that's what my silly history texts, full of lying propaganda and entertainment, taught me. They also left out so much that I later found out on my own. As I told a nephew in school, real history is actually an interesting subject; however, real history is not what you're taught in school. What you find out when you dig deeper is far more interesting.

Having lived overseas and having worked here with people who came from elsewhere, I've learned that other countries know the war was not fought for black liberation from slavery. They have no axe to grind, so they don't need to take one side or the other. For example, a foreign-born friend told me his texts described the war as a fight between differing economic and political interests.

I must admit, though, that it works. Some people like to think the US military went into and is staying in Afghanistan, at least in part, to liberate the women there. This requires ignoring how our "friends" there also treat women (no differently) or how our "friends" elsewhere (such as Saudi Arabia) are no better.

I imagine that, in 150 (if there's still a USA then), school textbooks will tell kids that one of the big reasons the US invaded Mideast countries was to liberate women.

Also remember the words of journalist Sydney Schanberg: “We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth.”

Yeah, like that will ever happen.


A @ 8:42 above:

"...contradicts what Lincoln himself said..."

What Lincoln SAID or didn't say is irrelevant to the REASON(S) for the Civil War. He can say anything he wants, but what really happened, before, during and after the war, is what we must use in dealing with History.

Nothing anybody "said" is valid. What was done, and the written documents themselves, are more accurate since we can read them ourselves.

And since when can an "economist" not write about facts in other areas? That is really closed minded and stupid. I am sure NONE of us here have a Phd in "Sociology", "Negro Studies", etc, of even, may I say, History?, yet we all here write the truth....

I personally have read numerous places where Lincoln wrote, and gave speeches, stating over and over that the issue of Slavery was not the issue. Tariffs, and his childlike love of the "UNION" drove him. He was a politician, first, and was beholden to those who financed his campaign.....just like today.

Mr. Rational said...

- A full quarter of the black population of the South soon died off after the war. Used to having whites house and feed them, they died off in droves from starvation and disease. (It gives you an idea of what could happen again when the EBT cards no longer work.)

It's a very, very pale intimation of what is to come.  Which WILL include tree-chippers.

Be prepared to teach your children and grandchildren that what happened was inevitable and required for them to exist in peace, and anything less would have implied and required their extinction.  Erase the guilt, put the blame where it belongs.