Ethnic cleansing in Ferguson

Not all houses in Ferguson have dropped to a small fraction of 2014 prices, some substantial areas are holding value, but houses in large parts of the Ferguson zip code have dropped far far below the cost of building, or even maintaining, the house. If the ad says “located close to shopping”, it usually means that whites have been forced to abandon their homes to blacks by black violence.   The shopping areas are still partly ruins, often with rubble that no one has yet bothered to clean up.

ethnic_cleansing

These houses are generally listed as sold in foreclosure, suggesting that the occupants simply fled, abandoning their house to the bank.

Whites build houses for black people to live in. When the neighborhood is utterly destroyed, blacks move on to another white neighborhood.  Hence the abandoned ruins of Detroit, as blacks flee the ruins of Detroit, to ruin more recently built homes.

That is how the inner city became black.  And now, the process that made the inner city, where the wealthy used to live, a terrifying jungle stalked by upright walking plains apes, is being repeated on those suburbs targeted by the HUD and the department of justice.

This predation by blacks on whites is a major part of what makes housing and family formation unaffordable to whites – the high, and ever rising, cost of buying a house in a neighborhood which is unlikely to be taken away from you.

Everywhere, blacks live in the ruins of homes built by whites that whites were forced to abandon, often, as in the inner city, quite wealthy whites.  For white people to afford housing, we simply have to restore segregation, apartheid, and slavery.  Even if this is unfair to some individual high performing blacks, what is happening with housing is immensely more unfair.  Collective racial violence by blacks as a race against whites as a race gets blacks free stuff from whites, and this absolutely has to stop. If you don’t like my program for stopping it, what is your program?

137 Responses to “Ethnic cleansing in Ferguson”

  1. Dave says:

    I see two solutions:

    (a) Adopt a semi-nomadic existence, buying cornfields and covering them with cheap disposable houses. When the diversity moves in, you move out and the houses quickly decay to ruins.

    (b) Shoot all black people who wander into your neighborhood, and burn down any houses owned or rented by blacks. When the cops ask who did it, say “a black guy shot him” and nothing else. If you snitch, your neighbors will be telling the cops that a black guy shot you.

    Cops need to remember that if white people are neither defended nor allowed to defend themselves, they will flee, and the cop can kiss his job and his pension goodbye.

    • Y. Ilan says:

      If I was a white American I would choose option B. Yet from experience living in Canada for eight years of my life, it seems that the vast majority of North American whites are far too soft and oblivious to the state of things. Something approaching a real physical war would have to take place for the attention-lacking, domesticated whites to wake up.

      One big problem as I see it is that the modern economy and lifestyle is driven by attention commodification. People are far too distracted by the many false choices given to them to consider the long term consequences of present trends.

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        This subject to rapid change. Whites can go from compassion to genocide at the speed it takes to put on jackboots.

        I’m starting to see some signs of this now

    • peppermint says:

      if (b) was a viable solution, it would have happened already, when the liberals assured us that it was happening and it was the most evil thing ever, during those 30-40 years between the end of WWII and the discovery of the Holocaust.

      Cops can’t as a department harm the interests of property owners, but each individual cop needs to be more likely to side with niggers than the average cop, and no cop wants to be seen by his peers as less likely to side with niggers than the average cop. The civil rights mandates certain signals exactly like a theocracy, but those mandatory signals are more absurd and evil.

    • Minion says:

      or 3) use white liberals to your advantage and drive out niggers via gentrification.

  2. a Portuguese says:

    Here’s a program for you: instead of blaming the apes, blame the ones that are making apes out of them.

    By all means defend yourselves, but these “high performing blacks” could very well be the majority. In any case, the majority can very well be peaceful and perfectly able to live side by side with whites, even without miscegenation.

    Proof? Portuguese Africa up to 1974. The war we fought there since 1961 wasn’t against blacks. It was against foreign blacks payed, armed and trained by foreign powers – including the USA, namely, the Dpt. of State. Not so different from what’s happening today with ISIS. Except no one gave a fuck about us. We never had any apartheid, nor there was need for it.
    Our army is more than 800 years old and our highest decorated officer is a Portuguese black from Guinea – LtCol Marcelino da Mata. There are countless other examples.

    But then you say that the tribal jews aren’t that important when we all know their role in subverting the blacks and making “50 cent” apes out of them. Change the role models and things will be different. Promote Marcelino da Mata as an example and not the scum “stars” that tribal jews create with their media.

    Bring the “high performant” blacks on your side, it’s their interest anyways. They know it as well. Just like racial solidarity in whites can be, and has been, broken, so it can also be on the blacks’ side. Contrary to what the libtards, as you call them, do, demand from them. Demand blood, tears and sacrifice. Treat them like men and they can become comrades – which is a much better thing to have than slaves.

    • jim says:

      Proof? Portuguese Africa up to 1974. The war we fought there since 1961 wasn’t against blacks. It was against foreign blacks payed, armed and trained by foreign powers –

      Portuguese used forced labor up to the 1950s – so all in all, does not look like abandoning the use of forced labor and implementing progressive hearts and minds policies was a huge success.

      The former Portuguese colony of Cape Verde has a good climate, wonderful soil, and a good harbor, but the abolition of slavery led to economic collapse, after the fashion of Haiti and Detroit when whites were driven out. Africans did not seem able to use these resources effectively except with whites owning them.

      Portuguese colonies in Africa never enjoyed peace nor economic viability, except when the Portuguese ruled them the old fashioned way.

      • a Portuguese says:

        I can’t spend much time replying right now, but I’ll make a detailed one later today, replying to the specific points you made re. Portuguese presence in Africa.

        I’ll just say that, yes, Cabo Verde, like the other overseas provinces, collapsed when the whites were driven out.
        They should’ve never been. In fact, I think decolonization was the single biggest mistake in the post-war. It massively undermined Europe’s – and therefore, the US’ – security (we completely exposed our southern flank – see the current “migrant” crisis) and weakened the continent vis-a-vis Asia. And it was a catastrophic event for the africans. If there ever was a crime against humanity, that was it. They didn’t deserve it.

        In fact I think the only way to solve this conundrum is to go back to Africa.

        To be continued…

        • Cloudswrest says:

          Need to watch Africa Addio. Get the director’s cut. It really triggered Roger Ebert ( http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/africa-addio-1967 ) which hints at how good it is.

        • Irving says:

          >Just like racial solidarity in whites can be, and has been, broken, so it can also be on the blacks’ side.

          Black’s have absolutely no racial solidarity with one another. The “good” blacks have already abandoned the rest of the blacks, and they, for the most part, live tucked away, quietly, in majority white neighborhoods, without caring a damn what happens to underclass blacks. They only pretend to care when there are rent-seeking “non-profit” and government jobs in it for them.

          >I think decolonization was the single biggest mistake in the post-war. It massively undermined Europe’s – and therefore, the US’ – security (we completely exposed our southern flank – see the current “migrant” crisis) and weakened the continent vis-a-vis Asia.

          This is absolutely true, especially as it concerns North Africa. The conquest and pacification of North Africa was absolutely essential to Europe’s security and, for a while, Europe succeeded at achieving it. The southern border of Europe was always the Sahara Desert, not the Mediterranean Sea, and this was the case since ancient times.

          To quote Mackinder:

          “In fact, the southern boundary of Europe was and is the Sahara rather than the Mediterranean, for it is the desert which divides the black man from the white.”

      • a Portuguese says:

        Jim,

        I’ve got some time now.

        First, the forced labour. I’ll start by what may seem nitpicking but it’s relevant: it wasn’t forced labour as in forced labour for penal reasons – although we also had that. It was called compelled labour. Since 1878 the law established that native had a moral and legal obligation to work for his subsistence, and he could be compelled to work if he was considered a vagrant or tramp. Bear in mind that although the law was specific to the overseas territories, a similar one existed for the metropolitan citizens so there wasn’t actually any kind of discrimination here. Everyone had a legal and moral obligation to honest work and was free to contract any work of his choosing.

        Furthermore, and this I think might be specific for the Overseas, but I’m not sure, when legally compelled to work, the native was put under custody of a tutor whose duty was to make sure that the contracts were fair and in accordance with the law.

        The abuses came from a provision that allowed a loophole in regards to natives ransomed from tribal chiefs outside national territory. In any case those were irregular and illegal situations and weren’t punished only where the law couldn’t reach or was corrupted.

        This all gradually changed with time until the Colonial Act of 1930 (afterwards incorporated into the 1933 Constitution) established the end of compelled labour for private concerns. Specifically, that “the State may only compel the natives to labour on public works of general interest for the collectivity; on concerns of which the profits belong to him; in execution on judiciary decisions of penal character; or for the settlement of fiscal obligations”. Furthermore, it was forbidden “any regime by which the state obliges itself to supply native workers to any economic exploration enterprises” and “any regimes by which natives in any territorial circumscription are forced to work in said enterprises, under any title”.

        So, yes, Portugal did adopt the ILO convention on force labour in 1956 (curiously enough I now see that the US still hasn’t to this day!), but, in practice – running the risk of sounding like a leftist – there was always very little discrimination.

        Now, re. your last paragraph, it is simply not true. In fact, Overseas Portugal – note that we have only called it “colonies” for a brief period (corresponding to our 1st Republic 1911-1961), they were always considered an integral part of Portugal and were explicitly and discriminately enumerated in all our kings titles and our constitutions as kingdoms or provinces since the 15th century – so, Overseas Portugal knew its largest economic growth surge in the 1961 to 1974 period. We’re talking about double digit growths in the economy. It’s hard to find GDP numbers for the overseas specifically but as an example I’ll tell you that production values for transformative industries in Angola were 1.3 million escudos in 1960 and 6.6 million in 1968.

        Apart from the terrorist attacks in 1961, and after our troops confined terrorism to remote and inaccessible areas, there was absolute peace and security everywhere. Your ambassador Mr. Charles Burke Elbrick went there and saw it with his own eyes.

        All this to say that this can work and has worked before. We were very close to stabilising southern Africa – South Africa and Rhodesia worked closely with us, and Zambia and Malawi were gradually coming to understand the advantage for them in having the whites there. That is a way. It is, as far as I’m concerned, the only possible way.

        Obviously, it is all pretty much moot in today’s days of militant anti-racism (which is nothing but the most disgusting racism) and perpetual victimization of blacks and anything else that can be thrown at civilisation – lead by those masters of corruption, our peculiar-nosed friends… We will have to somehow prevail against that before anything else.

        Just wanted to give a different perspective on things and call your attention that other ways are possible. We Portuguese aren’t perhaps much noticed but we have for a long time been, and still are, in most places in the world and more often than not got there way before anyone else did. Africa is one of those places.

    • T says:

      You are saying that blacks, if properly controlled, can make up the bulk of the population of mediocre society. I doubt that, but even if you are right, it doesn’t mean that we have any obligation or desire to make that happen.

      If blacks want to be part of society then they are the ones who should control themselves. Furthermore, I don’t want a mediocre society; I want a civilization that can cure cancer and colonize Mars.

      • a Portuguese says:

        Whether the society is mediocre is your own view.

        If you are judging it by colonising Mars or curing cancer then they are all mediocre, as far as I know.

        I think it would be pretty good to have low crime and sane values for a start…

        In any case, you’re free to disagree or not want that as you very well know. I don’t intend to argue that our way of doing things is better. In fact, I don’t wish to argue anything. I am merely pointing out that there are other ways, and was particularly addressing Jim on his point on slavery. You guys take it from there.

        • T says:

          “I think it would be pretty good to have low crime and sane values for a start…”

          Well sure, and that’s really the best that anyone can hope for blacks to achieve. However whites don’t owe a decent society to blacks. If blacks want a decent society then they should improve themselves.

          “I don’t intend to argue that our way of doing things is better.”

          What way of doing things? Portugal is something like 1.4% black. It is whiter than the whitest state in the US. Portugal simply doesn’t have anything like the black problem/population that we do and it is not surprising that Portuguese people cannot understand the issues here.

          Oh wait, now that I think about it I do see the wisdom and superiority of Portugal’s handling of the black problem/population. You kept them in Brazil and then let Brazil become a separate country.

          • a Portuguese says:

            “However whites don’t owe a decent society to blacks. If blacks want a decent society then they should improve themselves.”

            That is true. However, when the European powers found that Africa had lots of things they needed, back 200 years ago or so, they suddenly realised that they did actually owe that to blacks. They even criticised us Portuguese for not giving the poor black man the civilisation he deserved – and thus the white man burden was created. One we reluctantly took and only for the pressing concern of the greed our possessions aroused in the suddenly awaken philanthropic powers and their interest in Africa.

            True that Portugal is very white. Now, back in 1974 it wasn’t like that. We’ve had 90% of our territory and about half our population cut off by traitors. We never had the problems you guys have over there.

            We didn’t let Brasil become a separate country. A not particularly clever king of ours decided to be progressive was it. Besides we had just fought off Napoleon, and our royal court had been in Brasil for a long time, so things were a bit fiddly.

            I don’t know. We are quite different. Our ways are different. That’s why I think this whole white identity thing won’t work over here. Any Portuguese of any colour will choose another Portuguese of any colour – that includes most Brazilians – over a foreigner. This provided, of course, that the “portugueseness” is real and not fake. It’s not a matter of passport. It’s a cultural familiarity that is hard to explain.

            This was key to our success in winning – because we did win it – the war in Africa 61-74. We manage to contain, counter and defeat foreign backed, armed and financed guerrilla and subversive forces, across three different active theatres separated by thousands of Kms both between themselves and the metropole. Which is funny considering how much trouble there seems be getting rid of ISIS in a much smaller, homogeneous terrain and population today…

            Alas, ironically, we forgot to counter-subvert the european part of our territory and that’s how we lost everything. Poor blacks didn’t even see it coming… “Independence” hit them with the force of a thousand MLRS’…

    • Erebus says:

      >”By all means defend yourselves, but these “high performing blacks” could very well be the majority. In any case, the majority can very well be peaceful and perfectly able to live side by side with whites, even without miscegenation.”

      Demonstrably and quite obviously false.

      >”But then you say that the tribal jews aren’t that important when we all know their role in subverting the blacks and making “50 cent” apes out of them.”

      >”Demand blood, tears and sacrifice. Treat them like men and they can become comrades – which is a much better thing to have than slaves.”

      It’s funny how you deny black agency — i.e. by claiming that their culture is wholly a result of Jewish mind-control — and yet claim that they can be “comrades” if they somehow receive re-education. Either they’re sub-human or they aren’t. Make up your mind.

      All you’ve done on this comment thread is make nonsensical assertions & recite a litany of Portuguese failures. (No shortage of excuses, though! “There were traitors who stabbed us in the back”, “we had a stupid and progressive king”, “we really did win that war in Africa, I swear, but…..”)

      Quite pathetic, frankly.

    • viking says:

      hers the problem I have lived and worked among blacks a lot and its hard to tell exactly what the percentage is of good blacks as you say iy might be the majority and as jim says pogroms would be unfair. But evolution is fair so jim means fair from an enlightenment perspective.
      But with mixed blacks averaging an 85 IQ that makes about 5 out of six below white average IQ.and IQ is only part of the problem niggers also have low future time preference high aggression and their sexual productive strategies are well niggerish. So while there may in fact be a majority of non violent apes you still have other problems in the remainder and you have mean regression so exceptional apes that move to your hipsterhood soon spawn niggers on the corner. every old Victorian wealthy neighborhood turned slum started with exceptional niggers then reverted to mean niggers.Another problem is they are clanish they dont assimilate they dont self police they become apologists for mean niggers so exceptional apes can actually be a bigger problem weaponizing mean niggers.Lastly from a social standpoint they can never as a group have equal outcomes and so will always engender envy and pity both unstable to civilization, I think jims wrong apartheid has been tried we must repatriate them as humanely as possible i would first deport all niggers and children of niggers who immigrated here then start exiling the criminals pay africa to take them. once you have them down to a manageable level offer emigration buyouts and require sterilization for welfare and sterilization incentives.eventually you make procreation a deport able offence. Buy first we must expel all the Amerindians first the illegals then a massive review of the legals applications finding most of them fraudulent then find all the birthright citizenship fraudulent and the 64 and subsequent amnesties to be criminal and those remaining revoked. we dont want a brown black coalition developing

  3. Ron says:

    I can’t help but think that this is less due to blacks, and more due to a decrease in testosterone among Western males. By “western males” I am including everyone as well as westernized Africans. The ones inclined to peace and work are going to run just as fast from the inner cities as anyone else.

    I offer for public consumption this wiki profile of a Mr. James Bowie, the namesake of the famous Bowie knife. –

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bowie

    Consider this snippet of his life:

    ———————-
    “”After obtaining permission from the Mexican government to mount an expedition into Indian territory to search for the legendary silver mine, Bowie, his brother Rezin, and ten others set out for San Saba on November 2, 1831.

    Six miles (10 km) from their goal, the group stopped to negotiate with a large raiding party of Indians—reportedly more than 120 Tawakoni and Waco, plus another 40 Caddo.

    The attempts at parley failed and Bowie and his group fought for their lives for the next 13 hours.

    When the Indians finally retreated, Bowie reportedly had lost only one man, while more than 40 Indians had been killed and 30 were wounded.

    In the meantime, a party of friendly Comanche rode into San Antonio bringing word of the raiding party, which outnumbered the Bowie expedition by 14 to 1. The citizens of San Antonio believed the members of the Bowie expedition must have perished, and Ursula Bowie began wearing widow’s weeds.

    To the surprise of the town, the surviving members of the group returned to San Antonio on December 6.

    Bowie’s report of the expedition, written in Spanish, was printed in several newspapers, further establishing his reputation. He set out again with a larger force the following month, but returned home empty-handed after two and a half months of searching.””
    ——————–

    Sorry for the length of the quote, but I want to make a point. This kind of strength of character and will was normal for the people that first settled here.

    We are running from degraded gutless lowlives, they were taking over territory owned by proud and ferocious natives. I am not interested in discussing the morality of their actions, only to show their courage and strength in overcoming aggressive resistance.

    I think they would be embarrassed by how their descendants have acted. We are not talking about well organized and planned attacks by well armed men defending their homelands. Those black folks who can organize and plan out attacks with self sacrifice will only be found on your side rather than on the side of their ethnic kinsmen.

    When Crown Heights saw immigration of African Americans, most of the Jews got up and ran. The leader of the Lubavitch movement, Rabbi M. Schneerson insisted (ordered) his congregants to remain, because as he said “Jews don’t run”.

    Obviously Jews run, Blacks run, Whites run. But he decided they don’t, and so they remained whereas the rest of the Jewish enclave scurried off to suburbia. These people were themselves the descendants of tough people. And yet, a relatively minor inconvenience pops up, and like their White pioneer-descended neighbors, they run off.

    Detroit is infamous as a city that was at the top and is now at the bottom. We blame the blacks. They certainly ruined it. But I wish the Whites had stayed and fought for what they built. Not because I benefit from Detroit, or because I have some burning love for white folks, but because Detroit was a jewel for humanity. It’s destruction encourages more destruction.

    • peppermint says:

      Yes, we are running away from people we could easily defeat, and we have low testosterone, and the two are related.

      The reason we’re running away is that

      (1) broadcast media gives undeserved power, and thus prestige, to the think tank guys pointing the cameras. Revilo Oliver said that in some obscure newspaper in the South there was printed a photo of a paycheck that an MLK protester received.

      Instead of covering Eldridge Cleaver’s rape spree, the Jewsmedia preferred to focus on that one time a church was bombed, which meant that schools had to be force integrated with the cameras pointing at the little Black girls being led in by federal marshals, and then not pointing at the White girls being forced in at bayonet point.

      (2) Cuckstains believed that it was worse to your immortal soul to call a nigger a nigger than anything niggers would do to you, and thus passed a law saying that Whites can’t do anything that makes niggers feel harassed. Exactly what percentage of cuckstains are literal cuckold fetishists is irrelevant. The fact is, they sold out their own for a pot of feels.

      (3) Ronald Reagan did not take the Left seriously. He did not try to break their power the way Trump has been hinting at. Of course, Reagan was just an actor. And the media immediately relabeled the Wallace Democrats to Reagan Democrats.

  4. Alan J. Perrick says:

    There is no point in discussing policy until white people get freedom of speech. That would be a big change indeed from the screamocracy that is established in every white country!

    A.J.P.

  5. Alan J. Perrick says:

    The issue isn’t the coloureds, but the white anti-whites who hold establishment positions. For decades the establishment has been anti-white and while the black population has been involved in the establishment, I would bet that Missouri has mainly whites involved in treachery enforcing these policies of White Genocide.

  6. lalit says:

    Instead of segregation, just allow the whites to organize community self defense. Why does one or the other race have to be a slave of the other. Blacks are well behaved when the Police Chief declares that rioting will not be tolerated. Why do you either have to treat black people as slaves or as aristocrats? Is it not possible any other way?

    • peppermint says:

      There’s this McDonalds down the street from a hipster coffee shop.

      The McDonalds bathroom is filthy. The hipster coffee shop employees probably put much less effort into keeping theirs clean, but the hipsters, being human, don’t make a mess or clean up after themselves.

      Desegregation means taxing the hipster coffee shop to pay for cleaning the bathroom in the McDonalds, in the hope that the people going to the McDonalds react to cleanliness by starting to take care of their environment the way the hipsters do, at which point they can be presentable to and marry the hipster women. Desegregation is cuckstain cuckold fetishism.

      Segregation is the natural order of things.

      • Lalit says:

        So are you trying to say that segregation is stable which desegregated equality is unstable leading to the slavery of one or the other?

    • jim says:

      Instead of segregation, just allow the whites to organize community self defense. Why does one or the other race have to be a slave of the other.

      We tried that back in the thirties – with the result that blacks ethnically cleansed rich white people out of the inner city. Segregation is necessary, but insufficient. For those blacks that are really causing problems, you need slavery.

      The problem of blacks ethnically cleansing whites and taking their stuff goes back a long way, and to prevent it you need quite drastic measures.

      Whites being oppressed by blacks in the name of equality and social justice goes back a mighty long way. Whenever you try to make the inferior equal to the superior, you wind up privileging the inferior over the superior. Blacks just cannot be equal. They must be either masters or servants.

      • Lalit says:

        So are you saying that it is impossible to have a system without forced segregation in which whites will be allowed to defend themselves?

        • jim says:

          Diversity plus proximity equals war. The ethnic cleansing of the inner cities was a war in which only one side fought. For peace, one side must be subjugated (slavery) or the sides separated (segregation, apartheid), or a bit of both.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Slavery didn’t work, nor did segregation.

            Both are progressive solutions: slavery made blacks tolerable enough to live with, segregation tried to remove the necessity to live with blacks. What they have in common is that there are still a ton of blacks around. These are attempts to avoid the necessity of getting rid of blacks.

            Apartheid was a policy whereby whites made blacks tolerable enough to live with that they could forget there was a black problem. It was not a policy aimed at destroying the black population. White South Africa surrendered when it no longer had enough military age men to uphold its rule:

            1904 – 22% white
            1960 – 19% white
            1991 – 14% white
            2011 – 9% white
            current births – 4% white

            What worked was British colonisation of Canada and Australia and Afro-European colonisation of America: out-breeding the native population, until it’s an irrelevance even with equal rights and integration.

            One solution is to sterilise felons. This will take its toll on the white underclass too, which is a good thing, but not much on the total white population. So large a proportion of blacks are underclass that it will devastate their total population, making them an irrelevance. If the policy is kept up long enough, the remaining black population will no longer be disproportionately underclass.

          • peppermint says:

            That’s funny, because ‘felony’ used to mean a capital crime. Yet there is a White underclass, and a Black underclass despite all the judicial and extrajudicial killings of rapists.

            Behavior is complicated, it’s been evolving for too long for a few generations of incentives to have the dramatic effect you want.

            The Hajnal Line theory is that even more Whiteness was pushed on Whites, for tens of generations, with the reaction that those Whites act Whiter than other Whites.

          • Irving says:

            >What worked was British colonisation of Canada and Australia and Afro-European colonisation of America: out-breeding the native population, until it’s an irrelevance even with equal rights and integration.

            Very good Cromwell, this is exactly what I was suggesting

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Sterilizing felons won’t put a dent in the problem because felons are men.

          • Ansible says:

            Sterilizing is too much work as it leaves you with felons walking about. Sterilization is a progressive solution, pushed by the likes of Margeret Sanger and other suffragettes/feminists/eugenicists. Simply bring back hanging for felons and a three strikes rule for misdemeanors, meaning three misdemeanors and you hang.

            Simple. Effective. As our ancestors did.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Felons walking about is annoying but not an existential threat. Similar to terrorism, which is noisy but irrelevant, disguising the real threat which is immigration of millions of muslims of average cowardice.

            The advantage of the death penalty is that it gives you sterilisation for free. Unless you’re actually losing militarily – which USG is not and never has – it isn’t necessary. I’m not going to get outraged by it if it happens, but nor am I going to advocate spending political capital to make it happen. It’s a distraction.

            It may be true that long term contraception for fertile age welfare moms is a more fruitful avenue and an easier sell. I believe Israel does it already.

            • jim says:

              Felons walking about is annoying but not an existential threat.

              In the long run, they are an existential threat, since white males require a safe environment to reproduce. If there are felons walking about, white men will not form families and will not have children.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            I agree with I., good stuff from “Cromwell”.

            A.J.P.

      • viking says:

        jim youre right but we have also tried slavery and apartheid and they were equally bad we need to either kill them all or repatriate them all. As long as they are in country they are a threat either by rebellion or the focus of whites pity and plotting. whites seem not capable of countenancing much suffering

  7. Joe says:

    The only moral and permanent solution is separation. Ideally, the blacks are sent back to Africa in as humane a way as possible, so that there’s an ocean between them and us. Much less optimal would be a secession in the US so that white American nationalists have our own country even if we still share borders with a black/mulatto/white progressive remnant.

    The lesson I take from the US slavery experience and the white South African/Rhodesian experience and the Mexican farm worker experience, “democratizing/rescuing” Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc, is that you never, ever share a country with an alien people – whether they’re slaves, or cheap “temporary” foreign labor, or just “apartheided” minorities, sooner or later they will be trouble.

    If you conquer a country, then you conquer it and force ALL of the natives out of it. Or if a country attacks you but you don’t care to conquer it, you invade, punish them, and then you completely leave. But if you stay and they stay, sooner or later you’re in trouble…through miscegenation, being outbred, dealing with endless crime and terrorism, etc. DO NOT SHARE A COUNTRY WITH AN ALIEN PEOPLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

    So the blacks and the rest of them have to leave, or we have to “leave” or secede. No more slavery, apartheid, segregation, whatever. Besides, the political difficulties of getting a critical mass of whites to agree to enslave/apartheid blacks are going to be worse than getting a critical mass to agree to a complete separation.

    • Irving says:

      >The only moral and permanent solution is separation. Ideally, the blacks are sent back to Africa in as humane a way as possible, so that there’s an ocean between them and us. Much less optimal would be a secession in the US so that white American nationalists have our own country even if we still share borders with a black/mulatto/white progressive remnant.

      You’re dreaming if you think that American blacks will ever go back to Africa. The African countries would never take them, and will probably slaughter them if they were forced on them, and, more importantly, American blacks will never want to go back, and will resist any attempt to force them to go back. America already lacks the will to deport illegal immigrants back to Central America, what makes you think that they’ll deport citizens back to Africa?

      A kind of separation is probably the better option. I don’t think the separation would ever be able to a formal one, but a combination of high living cost in the cities that are mostly composed of white and Asian professionals, and Hispanics doing low-wage work, and, on the other hand, some form of segregation out in the suburbs would do the trick.

      At the moment, HUD seems to be preparing to expel blacks from the cities through their new, Orwellianly titled program ‘Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing’. The goal seems to be to resettle inner-city blacks in the new affordable housing units in the suburbs. Awful as this sounds, one can say that this is the first step to achieving the kind of separation that you’re looking for. The way forward would seem to be to get HUD to put these blacks somewhere else besides these suburbs, somewhere in the middle-of-nowhere: there’s plenty of land in America, and obviously there are places where these blacks can be put without getting in the way of white homeowners. This is kind of what I think will eventually happen, given that I doubt the government is going to want to provoke the inevitable racial tension that will undoubtedly come up were they to put the blacks in the suburbs.

      Once the blacks are out-of-sight, out-of-mind, except for the better blacks who can afford to live in the cities or in the suburbs, the problem is effectively solved.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >The African countries would never take them, and will probably slaughter them if they were forced on them
        Why not?

        Most American niggers have a set of modestly valuable skills. If nothing else, they speak English (well, sorta) and can drive a Car. You don’t think a country with a GDP of $700 per capita could use some of those skills?

        I suppose that they wouldn’t want the criminal ones. But they should have gotten the death penalty anyway.

        • jim says:

          Most American niggers have a set of modestly valuable skills.

          No they do not.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            I specifically cited two skills that are relatively uncommon in most parts of the third world. Speaking English and driving a car. There are more examples.

            The reason niggers are not valuable in the US, is that their tendency toward crime outweighs their modestly valuable skills.

        • Irving says:

          >Why not?

          Well, imagine if America rounded up its entire white underclass, which numbers well into the tens of millions at this point, and attempted to deport them to their European countries of origin. Do you think that those European countries would take them?

      • viking says:

        look all the options presuppose all bets being off in other words some sort of anarchy or total war at which point morality is out the window so who care if they will go willingly there are other ways frankly though incrementally deporting the immigrants then criminals then paying for sterilization and forcing sterilization on criminals and welfare recipients leaves you with far less to show the door, you offer the wealthier ones to take all their property and get a emigration bonus then if need be you simply force the rest spitting on a sidewalk or getting pregnant becomes a deportable defence.

    • Dave says:

      That’s the premise behind Orania. In the most arid, least populated province of South Africa, there is a town inhabited only by white Africans*. No more keeping blacks around for cheap labor; blacks are forbidden to enter for any reason.

      *Having lived in Africa as long as my ancestors have lived in America, they are as African as I am American.

      What whites need to do is find the environment that originally selected for whiteness, that is, climates with long brutal winters. Deserts also favor those who can plan ahead and manage resources wisely but (a) intelligence cannot originate there because reservoirs and irrigation systems require a huge up-front investment, and (b) every desert civilization is doomed to perish when there’s a drought long enough to exhaust all reserves of water.

      • jay says:

        Or whites can if they want to select for whiteness expand the climates with long brutal winters.

        Maybe increase the extent of global cooling somehow.

        With the Blacks being forced to live in those climates.

        Which should eventually make them white.

  8. viking says:

    so half the year I live in crown heights brooklyn which whites are taking back well buying back. many are renting back from jews who find ways to empty their building enough they are white habitable. The process is slowed by the 10-15% new developments must set aside for affordable housing though these usually go to working blacks. I have noticed the trend to spread the shit to the suburbs obviously they think it will civilize them if they can spread them thin enough but it doesnt work.The NRX crowd doesnt like final solutions I was actually in trauma for half a dozen years as I realized how hopeless the HBD facts make things, not immediately after reading bell curve but after re reading it and then digging into the whole alt right work and trying to disprove . anyway Im not a hater but Im not squeamish and half measures are not going to work they are what we have tried for the past 165 years at least. its probably true that the vast majority of blacks are ok and its also true with very strict structure they could be made much better than today but the fact is whites cant tolerate these double standards they cant even tolerate double outcomes from single standards. The fact is even the small percentage of black miscreants coupled with the other traits blacks have that dont work well in western civilization means the overall effect is anything less than a fully violent commitment to black subjugation will always lead to what we have today and eventually worse much worse.
    that said theres only a few options kill them all, send them all back to africa, sterilize them all.
    I dont see how we get from where we are to the more humane options of sterilization or repatriation except if we get to a point of racial war while whites are still able to win such a war and if that happened kill them all is probably going to happen anyway.
    The other types of non whites will probably flee the country if a civil war broke out any time soon which would be great because Hispanics are actually a larger problem numerically and greater miscegenation risk.
    But it doesnt look like we are anywhere near a race war yeah the DE/NRX ghetto is deceiving and trump is not our Hitler. Whats most likely is various compromises and experiments granting non whites ever greater power in non white countries until any war would be suicide and so even less likely until we are too few and are enslaved raped and killed like south african farmers.
    The only hope I see unless some really bright people get together and plot how to overthrow the cathedral is that crispr eliminates blacks if non whites continue to want to look like and compete with whites and use gene editing to do this its possible blacks and others will erase themselves, its also possible blacks will super weaponize themselves. the problem as i see it is we dont really have much time if you look at population implosion models it happens slowly then all at once. and frankly i think we are already on borrowed time. A few things that might extend time are technologies that prevent cathedral control of media communication and anonymity. If todays universal concern for privacy were leveraged to establish ways to have anonymous blogs social media etc that could not be shut down if people could be assured they could be secure in all types of media and communication without moderation editing censoring prosecution and social opprobrium it buys some time to still organize as the collapse unfolds and more whites become aware of reality.
    in the meantime preparation for war should be made and its not going to be simply a race war. I think a intelligence service and think tank are where to start

    • Joe says:

      I can think of two likely possible turning points: (1) when there’s no place left for an average middle-class white to move to raise children reasonably safely, (2) when it becomes obvious to white Americans that there is no possible path to our racial security through the existing political system (when we could never win an election or gain control of congress or the supreme court again). I think we’re a long ways along towards that already. But you can’t sense it because the anger and resentment are publicly suppressed because of fear of losing one’s job. But at some point there won’t be jobs to fear losing. At some point it will be clear that a Supreme Court packed with Sotomayors and Kagans intends to disarm and dispossess us and no friendly president will ever be elected. There won’t be anything left to lose, just fury at the progressives’ attempts to dispossess us.

      If the progressives were smart they would treat the concerns of whites seriously and openly and reassure them in various ways that they have nothing to fear, rather than demonize and ridicule them and taunt them for being fearful, “phobic”, intimidate them with loss of employment, etc. If you’re a progressive who wants to eliminate the white race in the name of your god, Equality, then you need the white race to stay quiet and meek and unconcerned while you get enough non-whites into their countries to permanently subjugate whites, as in South Africa.

      Instead these morons demonize and belittle whites (“white privilege”, etc), openly discriminate against white men, sometimes openly advocate white genocide. They can’t seem to refrain from expressing their eagerness to punish whites, to dispossess and subjugate them. This is a good thing for us, strategically.

      What we really need are a new white elite who are explicitly on our side. Unfortunately the elite are the most insulated from the realities and would be the last to suffer the kinds of discrimination that wake white people up. So probably the leadership is going to have to come from a charismatic, articulate, passionate alpha white man who is a man of the working classes and at least tolerably acceptable to the educated classes. Trump could evolve into that man, I think.

      I do feel a gut confidence that such a man is going to come along and catalyze a movement. I can’t wait until there is a sensible, articulate white man who gets it, and who unapologetically and explicitly stands up for white American interests. It’s going to be exhilarating. And when the going gets tough all I can say is I’m damned glad I’m a member of the white team and not one of the others. We can beat them all outnumbered five to one. We’ll be fighting on our home turf, with our backs against the wall, while all of them can go back to Mexico, Ecuador, Somalia, Laos, China, even Africa if things are too unpleasant. We won’t have any place left to retreat to – Europe, Canada, and Australia will be no better than here. It’s going to be a tremendous relief to have a political/secessionary movement to rally around and we’re going to find a whole lot of our brothers and sisters just as excited as we are. It’s going to be like a Trump rally, but a lot better because there won’t be any coded language or hidden agendas. We’ll be able to speak right out loud that we intend to protect ourselves and have a nation for ourselves.

      • viking says:

        they may not be being what you think is smart because they are sure they have already sewed this up and are demonstrating their power. There a two term nigger in the white house and a feminist nigger lover about to go another eight we are down to 60% and havnt one social institution on our side and the governments tech is about to go omnipotent the anarcho tyranny has many people wanting more govt power not getting the dynamic.
        I agree in an all out civil war we win but though they are hard to predict it doesn’t seem likely because we are a boiled frog and the most powerful frogs are farthest from the heat. the way we think out here on the edge is so unimaginable to the average person, leftism has had real consequences everyone has minority friends and acquaintances and any thought of race war brings them to mind.what we imagine is truly horrible maybe most blacks are innocent and productive but they are also racially conscious and loyal and since they wont give up the niggers there can be only a cumulative approach and its utilty is too much for most. The plain fact is multiculturalism is a disaster for all sides.
        I think like charlie manson lol this revolt needs to be engineered before its too late to use political force so that humane solutions can be used however violence and theatre will have to be used at this point to get their but WNs are not the ones they were born haters they dont get how the power elite thinks how the average american thinks thats why i say an intelligence service and think tank.strategies that anticipate leftist reaction to traps need planning. intelligence on what the elites actually think and know is needed perhaps foreign allies and moles.

      • viking says:

        I think what your missing is they have taken off the gloves because they have already moved enough niggers into our countries and can now gloat they hope to incite us as an excuse to finish us off or at least teach us that we are now the niggers. While its true and easy to speculate how with our superior ability we are still capable but that ignores the fact that very few will ever rebel no matter what. they are now replacing the govt guns police military with niggers fags women so any fantasy about military or police coup not for long

  9. Cloudswrest says:

    While troublesome minorities are a problem, they are not THE problem. They are a weapon. It’s like blaming the gun instead of the shooter. The problem is other whites who prevent collective white defense. It it weren’t for this, troublesome minorities would be dealt with rather quickly. Just watch that seen in Africa Addio where a dozen or so white mercenaries take out a whole African army.

    • peppermint says:

      Absolutely. Whites will not be free until the last journalist is strangled with the entrails of the last professor.

    • jim says:

      To say that mind control rays from Jews incapacitates us denies our own agency.

      Assume we had the will to engage in collective self defense, what is the social order we would impose on blacks?

      • Cloudswrest says:

        “Assume we had the will”

        Who’s “we”? There are certainly some white people who have the will to engage in collective self defense. There are other white people who will shoot the first set if they try it.

      • viking says:

        jim havnt we tried imposing order on blacks and tried isolating from blacks and havnt all the various methods failed why would they work this time. and it neednt be blacks as we see in europe theyre using arabs as well as blacks and here mexicans I see no alternative but ethno states. ethno states allow groups to use methods not acceptable in multi states that give groups like blacks a better chance. we are breeding bad blacks black states would not they would kill bad blacks

        • jim says:

          jim havnt we tried imposing order on blacks and tried isolating from blacks and havnt all the various methods failed why would they work this time.

          All the various methods worked just fine. We stopped applying those methods because of massive political and military pressure by whites on whites, as for example the war of Northern Aggression, American sponsored terrorism against Rhodesia, and so on and so forth.

          • viking says:

            we stopped applying them because they were not sustainable the south had more niggers than whites and 90% of whites were little more than niggers because of slavery that wasnt sustainable jim crow wasnt sustainable nor aparthied

  10. Irving says:

    >For white people to afford housing, we simply have to restore segregation, apartheid, and slavery. Even if this is unfair to some individual high performing blacks, what is happening with housing is immensely more unfair. Collective racial violence by blacks as a race against whites as a race gets blacks free stuff from whites, and this absolutely has to stop. If you don’t like my program for stopping it, what is your program?

    My program is outlined in my response to Joe.

    But, there are ~40 million African Americans in the United States. No way that you’re going to be able to enslave all of them: the sheer number of them would seem to make it too difficult, if not impossible. Plus, even if you did enslave them, there really isn’t any work for them to do. Given how unprofitable the slavery of blacks would be, what would be the use in doing it?

    I do think though that, with proper planning, we can, in America, emulate the example of what Argentina did in the 19th Century. There were millions of blacks in Argentina at the turn of the 19th Century, when Argentina had just formally abolished slavery. Then, suddenly, the blacks disappeared. By 1900, there were very few left.

    What Argentina seems to have done was a combination of putting huge numbers of black men in the military, where many of them died fighting in various wars, allowing many other blacks not in the military to die of disease, and allowing intermarriage to do the rest.

    In America, we can’t put so many black men in the army. But, we can put the useless and criminal ones in prison, which is what we’re already doing. The ones that are there should be sterilized. This program can be expanded and the government should allow anyone willing to accept a cast payout to be sterilized, whatever their race. This would ensure that many more blacks, not to mention underclass whites and Hispanics, will not reproduce.

    There won’t be any diseases that will wipe out a significant number of blacks. But, the welfare state can be made to become significantly more stingy overnight. Give every underclass black a very small stipend to go to one of those out-of-the-way places that I suggested above they should be put. Make it small enough that they won’t be able to support a family. If they have children, those children will die.

    For those blacks that have some ability and are basically decent people, well, they can be left alone. I don’t necessarily advocate intermarriage, but it wouldn’t hurt to allow it. Overtime they’ll become assimilated, and won’t be black anymore. This is currently the case in Argentina: though ~97 percent of them claim to be white, it is well-known that many of them have Indian and African blood, and are not pure European.

    • Irving says:

      If this program is followed for 2 or 3 generations, I think America’s black problem will be effectively solved.

    • jim says:

      I don’t propose to enslave them all – just undeserving blacks on welfare. (Which will come as a big relief to high performing blacks.)

      The rest get segregation and apartheid.

      • Irving says:

        >The rest get segregation and apartheid.

        The problem with segregation and apartheid is that they are only temporary solution. They never permanently solve the problem. They just create festering racial tension. It didn’t work in the US, or in South Africa, or anywhere else where it was tried.

        The best thing is to genocide the group that would otherwise be the object of segregation and apartheid. What I’ve suggested above is a kind of genocide, though carried out in what I think is a humane way. In any case, I don’t think whites have the stomach to just get up and slaughter 40 million blacks anyway, so the method of genocide would have to be humane.

        • Joe says:

          “Humane genocide”? That is grotesque. You’d have fit right in with the Waffen-SS. “Ze best thing for der untermenschen ees to genocide them. Eet is kinder than segregation” Sheesh. Are you an SPLC troll by any chance?

          Blacks will not voluntarily live apart from the benefits of living in a white society since black societies are so very bad that it takes a lot of pretty bad mistreatment by whites to make a black think a black society is the better option. After all, after slavery ended in the US you didn’t see many blacks getting on a boat for Liberia. And as bad as apartheid supposedly was in South Africa, I don’t recall there being any mass exodus of blacks from S.A…just the opposite.

          So blacks have to be made to live apart from us. If they live among us, even as slaves or in segregation, there will still be miscegenation, which tears apart white families. And there will be rape, and crime, and whites will continue to feel morally guilty for “oppressing” blacks even if it is the blacks who won’t leave. The only workable long-term solution is an exclusively all-white country, a la Switzerland or Iceland.

          I read recently that the most important dimension of war is the moral dimension. You have to be able to make the superior moral case for your side. And we will never make the case to a critical mass of white men that the moral choice is to re-enslave blacks or implement segregation or apartheid.

          The moral case is to say we have a right to arrange a living situation for ourselves and our children that allows us to be the very best we can be, and we can’t do that as a minority in a multi-racial country. We need a country of our own. We don’t want to genocide or enslave or discriminate any other people. We just want to be apart from them, peacefully.

          That is a moral case that is actually morally right, morally good. That is a case we can make to white American men. We can say that we want to be another, larger Switzerland, enemies to none, living a very clean and high-functioning existence in peace with others but without welcoming others to live in our country.

          • Irving says:

            Joe, you’re assuming that you’re ever going to get most or all whites to along with your plan of separation. The problem is that you won’t, and you can’t.

            What makes you think whites in NYC are ever going to want to get together with whites in Arkansas, and have an all-white country separate from all non-whites, including high-functioning non-whites like Jews and high-caste Indians, with whom they routinely socialize, work and intermarry? White separatism is a dead-end, given that it will always attract a disproportionate amount of lower-class whites and an insufficient amount of high-IQ, cosmopolitan whites.

            Also, I am not an SPLC troll. I’m just pointing out an obvious solution to the black problem in America, a solution that even thoughtful and intelligent blacks can get behind. Anyway, it is the most viable plan that I’ve heard of that doesn’t include a mass slaughter.

          • Joe says:

            Whites in NYC have little in common with whites in Arkansas except when you compare them to the non-whites. If you go to a prison you find the whites have to band together against the blacks and latinos. Whites in prison band together regardless of whether they’re northern or southern, urban or rural. Same situation is developing in this country, and around the world actually. I read the other day that only 3% of the babies in the world today are white babies. Whites will have zero chance of having any kind of life except in a white country.

            Because a white country is the only realistic option, that is what will have to happen, or else whites will vanish. And there’s a whole lot of white men who aren’t interested in seeing our people vanish.

            • viking says:

              I agree it is what needs to happen but as a NYC born and raise white i can tell you it wouldnt have sold 40 years ago and certainly wont sell now there is a lot of miscegenation going on and while its minimal with niggers people will get the implication. Your hope is they will get it before its too late but its already too late for any political solution and they are no where near getting it its actually worse in a place like idaho or maine because they never met any niggers so believe the hype at least the hipsters have learned to be wary and negotiate around niggers the sad fact is they are probably all going to have to die or be driven south to mexico in a war and the chances of that war are nill

          • Irving says:

            >Whites in NYC have little in common with whites in Arkansas except when you compare them to the non-whites. If you go to a prison you find the whites have to band together against the blacks and latinos.

            That whites might get together and form a prison gang out of their collective self-defense against black and Hispanic prison gangs means nothing.

            The reality is that upper-class, high-IQ people of all races are naturally cosmopolitan and are instinctively averse to the crude forms of tribal identification that you might find, say, in a prison. This is certainly true of the kinds of whites, who are mostly high-IQ, living and working in NYC. Those whites are never going to “band together” with whites from Arkansas against anyone, not even against blacks. Those whites are, for better or worse, quite happy to be neighbors with, socialize with, and marry non-whites who have similarly high-IQs and who share their values.

            >I read the other day that only 3% of the babies in the world today are white babies.

            Depends on how you define white.

            >Because a white country is the only realistic option

            For whom is it the only realistic option? The fact is that most of the people that you’ve ever going to get to support this thing are lower class whites. The best whites are much more likely, when things really go to shit, to leave, perhaps for a place like Singapore, or New Zealand, rather than to involve themselves in the racial violence that will inevitably occur if/when America falls apart.

            • viking says:

              well irving im beginning to wonder why you are even on this blog. I agree most white will simply be boiled before waking up, But the fact remains if things remain as is they and we will all be boiled. So since as you point out the odds of whites waking up and finding an extreme political solution is zero that leaves die or find an extreme non political solution, personally as horrible as genocide of many innocent people is I have no problem with it when the alternative is the genocide of my own race. Its just business evolutionary business. I regret that some english guys that as an irish guy im distantly related to brought these niggers here but sad fact is they gotta go by any means necessary because its us or them . I get these shallow hipster faggots will never understand why the choice was so stark but so what. So stop thinking which of two impossible solutions is more impossible and start thinking about how a very few awake people can pull it off.

  11. Anon says:

    Ok cool but how do you get to the point where you can implement it?

    • Irving says:

      In case this question is directed at me, I don’t say that I know how my plan could be implemented.

      It just strikes me that my plan is far more workable than sending the blacks back to Africa — which, given the resistance it would inevitably face, would have to end in some kind of mass slaughter of blacks, which is clearly not going to happen, if only for the unwillingness of whites to carry it out — or breaking up America into separate ethnostates — which is never, ever going to happen, if only for the fact that there are 10s, probably 100s, of millions of Americans whose existence depends on the continued existence of the country (think of the all those government jobs, health care benefits, social security benefits, etc., etc., that would go away were America to break up) as it is currently constituted, thereby making the word ‘secession’ anathema to them.

      My plan is fair and humane. And it can easily be implemented. No one likes blacks in America, not whites, not Asians, not Hispanics, not middle easterners, not even black immigrants. It wouldn’t be difficult to generate support for it, and to frame the issue in such a way that no one is made to feel so bad or immoral over it.

      • Stephen W says:

        There was plenty of people whose livelihoods depended on the continued existence of many other failed and forgotten States and Empires.

        • Irving says:

          >There was plenty of people whose livelihoods depended on the continued existence of many other failed and forgotten States and Empires.

          Of course. But I made the argument that I did to argue against the plausibility of America ever being broken up as a deliberate act carried out by some part of its population. The reality is that the vast majority of people wouldn’t be able to survive a break up, and they know it, and so they’ll fight those trying to break the country up tooth and nail.

          However, I don’t say that America will never be broken up, period. It may happen.

  12. Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

    >If you don’t like my program for stopping it, what is your program?
    I have a better one.

    Whenever a member of a low-IQ race gets arrested for a felony, or certain serious misdemeanors, strip them of citizenship and deport them. Be somewhat lenient on those who have high-paying jobs (that is, the productive minority of niggers).

    Segregation, apartheid and slavery are reasonable only if there is large demand for nigger labor. In the antebellum rural south, or in Boer areas, there was a large demand. However, in most developed economies, industry has replaced manual labor, and low-IQ groups are not in demand.

    • Irving says:

      No third world country is going to accept low-IQ felons from the West just because those low-IQ felons’ great-great-great grandparents have roots in that third world country, nor should they (in their position, I wouldn’t either). So, deportation is out.

      The solution will have to be a mix of sterilization, a stingy welfare state and some modicum of interbreeding, as I said above.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        No third world country is going to accept them because of ancestry, but plenty would accept them in exchange for a bribe. Nauru is exhibit A.

      • pdimov says:

        “No third world country is going to accept low-IQ felons from the West…”

        You believe that third world countries are sovereign. How quaint.

        • Irving says:

          >You believe that third world countries are sovereign. How quaint.

          No, but Europe is have a tough time as it is repatriating migrants to their countries of origin that are unwilling to take them. My assumption is that their resistance would be even more stringent in this case, and that isn’t even to mention the resistance that the blacks themselves would put up. I just don’t think its worth the trouble going through with this.

          • peppermint says:

            » Cathedral muppets say they’re unwilling to take migrants

            » whelp, let’s keep them here then

            Those turd world “leaders” are going to take them back and pay for the wall. They’ll do it as part of their next trade deal.

          • jim says:

            as it is repatriating migrants to their countries of origin that are unwilling to take them.

            That is because Europe is speaking out of both sides of its mouth, telling the countries of origin to take them and not to take them.

            When Australia applied pressure to countries of origin, they cracked.

            And when pressure failed, Australia just dumped them on the beach, regardless.

          • Irving says:

            >whelp, let’s keep them here then

            This is absolutely not my point-of-view. I’m not saying keep them, I’m saying get rid of them in the most efficient and frictionless way possible. The idea that America is going to send 40 million blacks to Africa is plainly NEVER going to happen, so if you’re serious about solving the black problem, I’d advise you to quit daydreaming these impossible fantasies and getting real.

            >When Australia applied pressure to countries of origin, they cracked.

            Australia, as far as I know, has been taking these boat people, and dumping them on the surrounding, relatively uninhabited islands of the Asia-Pacific. I’ve never heard of them shipping people back to Pakistan or Iraq or Vietnam.

          • pdimov says:

            “The idea that America is going to send 40 million blacks to Africa is plainly NEVER going to happen…”

            Maybe, but not for the reasons you think.

            Compute the lifetime cost of the average black to the US economy (what the treasury would pay him in welfare and other payments and what damage he’d do.) Offer said black this amount as a lump sum on the condition that he move to Liberia or wherever. Better yet, offer him half the amount, the other half to Liberia. Or vary the split according to taste. 70/30, perhaps.

            Dem be kangz.

          • Irving says:

            >Compute the lifetime cost of the average black to the US economy…Offer said black this amount as a lump sum on the condition that he move to Liberia or wherever. Better yet, offer him half the amount, the other half to Liberia. Or vary the split according to taste. 70/30, perhaps.

            Blacks probably are, on average, a net drain on the American economy, but if that’s even true, and I’m skeptical as to whether it is, it would only be true because the bad blacks are far more destructive to society than the good blacks are productive. Also, there are many good blacks who don’t identify as black, given that they’re mixed, (except for when they’re applying to university, so that they can get affirmative action,) which further skews the numbers against blacks. In any case, the idea that the entire American black population is just a big albatross around the neck of the American economy is simplistic and wrong, though I guess it is understandable that you would think that.

            All of this is to say that you aren’t going to succeed at paying blacks to leave. The blacks that are doing fine in America won’t have any incentive to take the payment, and the blacks that America would really be better off without wouldn’t take the payment, given that they’d know very well that they wouldn’t last a minute in Africa.

            • jim says:

              In any case, the idea that the entire American black population is just a big albatross around the neck of the American economy is simplistic and wrong, though I guess it is understandable that you would think that.

              Productive blacks are a few percent at most. The average black costs around a hundred thousand per year in welfare, crime, prison accommodation, and destruction of housing. This could be substantially reduced by imposing slavery on an egregious minority of blacks and thus improving the behavior of the remainder.

              By far the largest cost is housing destruction, which could be ended instantly be segregation.

              A society that had the will to accurately assess the costs some people impose on others and get rid of expensive people would also have the will to substantially reduce those costs.

          • Irving says:

            >Productive blacks are a few percent at most.

            It depends on what you mean by ‘blacks’, and what you mean by ‘productive’.

            To me, if you aren’t a net drain on the national economy, you are ‘productive’, even if you don’t exactly make any positive contributions (and of course most people, whatever their race, don’t make positive contributions to begin with). As well, I count mulattos as ‘black’. Even though most of them don’t come up on the census as black, and many of them don’t even consider themselves black, my assumption is that if it ever came time to round up the blacks, in order to massacre/enslave/deport them, the mulattos wouldn’t be spared. In this sense, I think that my position still stands: a non-trivial number, if not necessarily the majority of, blacks can be counted as ‘productive’.

            >The average black costs around a hundred thousand per year in welfare, crime, prison accommodation, and destruction of housing. This could be substantially reduced by imposing slavery on an egregious minority of blacks and thus improving the behavior of the remainder.

            Men are completely shut out of the welfare system, only women can get welfare. Underclass black men are fairly efficiently dealt with. At age ~17 or so, they’re thrown in prison for the first of the many times in their lives, where the cost of their upkeep is not expensive at all, and their existence is an excuse to give many good middle class people jobs, as corrections officers, etc.. When they’re not in prison, they’re either dirt poor or they’ll make a little money as drug dealers, before they’re sent back to prison, this time for good.

            But yes, underclass black women cost a lot, though if Planned Parenthood stopped focusing on killing babies and started focusing on sterilizing underclass women, they’d cost so much less.

            • jim says:

              Men are completely shut out of the welfare system, only women can get welfare.

              Our hospital system is overwhelmed by non paying dark skinned people, a very large proportion of them adult males, usually suffering from knife wounds, the immediate consequences of severe drug and alcohol abuse, and the long term consequences of chronic drug and alcohol abuse. They all have obamaphones. While only a few of the males are on EBT, which is indeed difficult to get and keep if you are male, most of the males are on SSSI, largely on the basis of drug abuse and violence. Most of the males go on a spending spree with their girl friends EBT on the first of the month, which shows up as a dramatic drop in crime in the early part of the month.

              Let us not forget that we spend comparable amounts incentivizing men by the SSSI to engage in drug and alcohol abuse and violence as we do incentivising women by the EBT to render their children fatherless. Black males are also eligible for EBT if they “participate in a work program” – which bares no resemblance or connection to actually working.

              So, between EBT and SSSI, black males are not “shut out of welfare”. It is EBT for the less vicious and destructive black males, SSSI for the more vicious and destructive black males. So naturally most of them on SSSI rather than EBT.

              they’re thrown in prison for the first of the many times in their lives, where the cost of their upkeep is not expensive at all,

              Imprisonment costs fifty thousand to sixty thousand a year, which does not count the exorbitant cost of the judges, lawyers, and police needed to put them jail and keep putting them in jail.

          • Irving says:

            >Our hospital system is overwhelmed by non paying dark skinned people…

            ~18 percent of the American economy is based on health care spending, and if I’m not mistaken the overwhelming majority of that is based on government subsidy. I agree that blacks consume more than their fair share of health care, but it seems unfair to single out the blacks in this case.

            >They all have obamaphones.

            And how much does an obamaphone cost?

            >Most of the males go on a spending spree with their girl friends EBT on the first of the month, which shows up as a dramatic drop in crime in the early part of the month.

            LOL, this may well be true. Have you ever heard this song? — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j_cOsgRY7w

            >Imprisonment costs fifty thousand to sixty thousand a year

            It depends on the state. The average is 30 thousand, though in some states it may well be 50.

            But, most of that money doesn’t go to the upkeep of each individual prisoner, it goes to paying the salaries and benefits of the bureaucracy that has emerged around this so-called ‘prison-industrial complex’.

            The reason why I hesitate to blame all of that expense on the individual prisoners is because I consider the expense separate from the ‘prison-industrial complex’ itself, and more a part of the larger problem we have in America, where so much of the economy is based on government spending. You, of course, are free to disagree with me, but it is hard for me to accept that the exorbitant salary and benefits of a corrections officer is any more illegitimate than that of a legislative assistant in DC or some analyst at HUD.

            • jim says:

              ~18 percent of the American economy is based on health care spending, and if I’m not mistaken the overwhelming majority of that is based on government subsidy. I agree that blacks consume more than their fair share of health care, but it seems unfair to single out the blacks in this case.

              The overwhelming majority of that healthcare spending is spent on non asian minorities.

              But, most of that money doesn’t go to the upkeep of each individual prisoner, it goes to paying the salaries and benefits of the bureaucracy that has emerged around this so-called ‘prison-industrial complex’.

              So what?

              Yes, they could be detained much more cheaply if we privatized incarceration of chronic problem people: A procedure otherwise known as “slavery”.

              Which, you will notice, I advocate, and you oppose. If you oppose slavery, you necessarily support the prison industrial complex.

          • Irving says:

            >The overwhelming majority of that healthcare spending is spent on non asian minorities.

            With the advent of ‘Obamacare’, which as I understand it was drafted in order to make sure that the majority of health care would be consumed by NAMs, this may become true in the future. I’m not sure that it is true now, though. If someone else were telling me this I’d tell them straight-up that they were wrong, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

            By the way, it is worth noting that the majority of healthcare is actually consumed by sickest 5 percent of the population, and much of that is basically end-of-life care. I’d be surprised if, of that 5 percent, most of them were NAMs.

            >Yes, they could be detained much more cheaply if we privatized incarceration of chronic problem people: A procedure otherwise known as “slavery”.

            It may come to that.

          • Irving says:

            >Which, you will notice, I advocate, and you oppose. If you oppose slavery, you necessarily support the prison industrial complex.

            I don’t oppose slavery, I just don’t think its a workable long-term solution. The fact that America even has a black problem is due to the blacks having been brought to America as slaves in the first place, and we shouldn’t forget that.

            As for the prison industrial complex, I support it as a temporary solution, though I do wish that something could be done about prison rape. I know a few guys that have been in prison, and others that are in prison now, and they all confirm that life in prison is, among other things, a daily struggle for those who don’t want to be sodomized.

            As I said, I think the best long-term solution is a combination of sterilization, informal segregation, a very stingy welfare state that doesn’t support bastard children, and a very minimal amount of intermarriage. We should, in America, emulate the Argentinian example.

          • Irving says:

            >A look around care facilities should tell you the doctors and nurses are overwhelmingly white (plus some East Asians and dot Indians) and their patients overwhelmingly NAM.

            At some hospitals in some places, sure.

            >If the stats say something different, would not be the first time health care statistics were systematically falsified for political reasons.

            http://archive.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/costs/expriach/

            The stats in the link above don’t seem falsified for political reasons. Have a look.

            >The story that most health care consumption is by your white grandma is a commie lie spread by those who intend to murder the boomers when nonwhites gain a majority, the first slice of the salami to be eliminated.

            The push to legalize euthanasia always did strike me as being motivated by a desire by people at the top, who they are I don’t know, to cut back on health care costs. But, I don’t know what this has anything to do with America becoming a non-white country. After all, Roe v Wade, which is worse than euthanasia, happened when America was ~90 percent white.

            Anyway, it simply is a fact that 5 percent of health care consumers, most of whom are old or have terminal illnesses, account for roughly half of health care consumption. This is a real problem.

            • jim says:

              http://archive.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/costs/expriach/

              The stats in the link above don’t seem falsified for political reasons. Have a look.

              I looked, did not see any data breaking down recipients by race. Which curious and conspicuous omission should tell you that the overwhelming majority of health care expenditures are on NAMs

              I did, however, see a pile of misuse and abuse of statistics that attempt to make it sound as if old people are a major of cause of health costs, when the statistics that they are systematically and deliberately misrepresenting prove that this is not in fact the case, when the statistics that they report falsify the case that they are trying to make, when the statistics in the link that you supply prove that old people are not a significant problem in health care expenses.

              Read carefully, you will see they are putting a misleading and deceptive spin on statistics that in fact prove that old people are not a significant cause of health expenditures.

              The face of health care expenditure is not your eighty five year old grandma, but twenty five year old drug addicted AIDS infected black man with a knife, who presents with serious knife wounds, drug and alchol withdrawal, diseases related to homosexuality, and diseases related to drug and alcohol abuse. The problem is not extending grandma’s life from 85 to 87, but extending his life from 25 to 30.

            • jim says:

              Anyway, it simply is a fact that 5 percent of health care consumers, most of whom are old or have terminal illnesses, account for roughly half of health care consumption. This is a real problem.

              It is indeed true that five percent of health care consumers are responsible for most of the costs. It is simply a lie that most of them are old or have terminal diseases. The typical person in this five percent is young, minority, and presents with knife wounds, infectious diseases related to homosexuality, drug withdrawal, and the long term effects of chronic drug and alcohol abuse. The people with terminal disease are typically middle aged Hispanics with kidney and liver failure related to obesity, alcohol, and drug abuse.

          • Irving says:

            >I looked, did not see any data breaking down recipients by race. Which curious and conspicuous ommission should tell you that the overwhelming majority of health expenditures are on NAMs

            I’ll look for more data on a healthcare consumption by racial group. Yet the idea that NAMs would consume more healthcare than whites seems inherently implausible. As for the data I linked to, I’ve never encountered evidence anywhere that contradicts its basic claim, that most healthcare consumption in America is done by old people, who it seems logical to conclude, given that whites are on average much older than NAMs, are mostly white.

            >The face of health care expenditure is not your eighty five year old grandma, but twenty five year old drug addicted homosexual black man with a knife.

            This is a colorful way of putting it, but again, I’ll look for more data before I respond.

            • jim says:

              As for the data I linked to, I’ve never encountered evidence anywhere that contradicts its basic claim, that most healthcare consumption in America is done by old people,

              Read the data you linked to, rather than the interpretation of the data you linked to. Read the actual numbers, not the commentary on and interpretation of the numbers. Their numbers, your own data, show that only a small fraction of healthcare consumption in America is by old people.

            • jim says:

              I’ll look for more data on a healthcare consumption by racial group.

              You will not find any. They are fighting freedom of information requests on the topic. However you could get a hint by looking at city expenses versus city racial breakdown. What are health care expenses in Detroit?

          • Irving says:

            >They are fighting freedom of information requests on the topic.

            This seems believable. Data on this stuff is inexcusably difficult to find. It must be because they want it to be.

            >However you could get a hint by looking at city expenses versus city racial breakdown. What are health care expenses in Detroit?

            I can’t even find this. I have however just read that the uninsured population in 2008, which is I guess largely or mostly NAM, spend 30 billion out of pocket on health care, in addition to the 56 billion that the government gives them. That should be a clue.

          • Irving says:

            >It is indeed true that five percent of health care consumers are responsible for most of the costs. It is simply a lie that most of them are old or have terminal diseases.

            Why shouldn’t this be true? It makes sense that treating cancer or giving end-of-life treatment to the elderly would be much more expensive than fixing a gun shot would or giving a sodomite pills for his HIV.

            • jim says:

              Because you own data tells you it is not true.

              The page you linked to tells us:

              In 2002, the 5 percent of people with the greatest health care expenses in the U.S. population spent 49 percent of the overall health care dollar.

              And also tells us that 43% of that 5% were sixty five and over.

              So, a bit less than half of the big spenders are sixty five and over.

              It also tells us that the top 5 percent of elderly spenders accounted for 34 percent of all expenses by the elderly in 2002, while the top 5 percent of non-elderly spenders accounted for 49 percent of expenses by the non-elderly.

              Which means that the top five percent of elderly spenders accounted for 34% of 36% of total health expenditures, which means that the top five percent of elderly spenders accounted for twelve percent of total health expenditures, about one eighth of total health expenditure.

              While the top 5 percent of non-elderly spenders accounted for 49% of 56% of total health expenditures, which means that the top five percent of non elderly spenders accounted for twenty seven percent of total health expenditures,

              Top five percent of elderly is your elderly ill grandma. Top five percent of non elderly is the black guy with stab wounds, drug withdrawal, and multiple highly infectious diseases related to drug abuse and gay sex causing kidney failure and liver failure. And you are paying more than twice as much for the black guy with stab wounds as for your elderly ill grandma.

          • pdimov says:

            “In any case, the idea that the entire American black population is just a big albatross around the neck of the American economy is simplistic and wrong, …”

            What is simplistic and wrong is your understanding of economy. For instance,

            “… and their existence is an excuse to give many good middle class people jobs, as corrections officers, etc..”

            you think that paying people to produce nothing is a net benefit.

            If you equate “the economy” with GDP, then yes, blacks contribute to GDP, and they MAY even contribute to GDP per capita.

            Incidentally, I did not claim that blacks are a net drain on the American economy. (I could have claimed that, and I would have been correct, I just didn’t.)

            I suggested a way to estimate a number that one would offer to blacks in order to leave. The plan is not dependent on that number being actually correct in any objective sense.

            “… though I guess it is understandable that you would think that. ”

            It is, isn’t it? Readily understandable, at that?

            “All of this is to say that you aren’t going to succeed at paying blacks to leave.”

            You think? Most whites would leave if I gave them $1M. Why would blacks not leave?

          • Irving says:

            >you think that paying people to produce nothing is a net benefit.

            Yeah, to the people who benefit. If you pay someone to produce nothing, obviously they benefit from it.

            >Incidentally, I did not claim that blacks are a net drain on the American economy. (I could have claimed that, and I would have been correct, I just didn’t.)

            I don’t know that making this a racial thing is helpful. The vast majority of people in America are basically economically worthless.
            Roughly 16 percent work for the government (and that percentage doesn’t include teachers), huge numbers are unemployed and on benefits, we’ve got people staying in school till their 30, all subsidized by government loans and grants, etc.. The most you can say is that blacks might be over-represented among the economically worthless.

            >You think? Most whites would leave if I gave them $1M. Why would blacks not leave?

            Because you aren’t going to give the blacks 1M. Also, if you gave whites $1M to leave America, they’d go to Switzerland or New Zealand or Australia. Blacks would have to go to Western or Central Africa, which of course they won’t want to do.

            • jim says:

              >you think that paying people to produce nothing is a net benefit.

              Yeah, to the people who benefit. If you pay someone to produce nothing, obviously they benefit from it.

              And obviously they are a great big albatross around our necks.

            • jim says:

              I don’t know that making this a racial thing is helpful. The vast majority of people in America are basically economically worthless.
              Roughly 16 percent work for the government (and that percentage doesn’t include teachers), huge numbers are unemployed and on benefits, we’ve got people staying in school till their 30, all subsidized by government loans and grants, etc.. The most you can say is that blacks might be over-represented among the economically worthless.

              Students with PhDs in stupidity maybe worthless, but they are not engaged in ethnic cleansing to acquire housing by denying it to whites. That, the topic of this post, is indeed a racial thing.

              Further, I have, unlike you, regularly called for dealing with all the other economically worthless people, so I am not focussing on blacks in the blog as a whole, I am not making this a racial thing. It is just that blacks are one of our many categories of expensive and worthless people, and in this post I address that category, as in other posts I have addressed all other categories.

              When libertarians piously complain about the prison industrial complex, they are not saying “Let us sell the undeserving poor, able bodied people who prefer crime to working, into slavery”. They are saying “Let us section eight them into the white suburbs and give them SSSI so that they can spend full time on healthy black sports like polar bear hunting”.

              I have never proposed enslaving blacks as such. Always, I have advocated enslaving the undeserving poor, enslaving able bodied people whose bad character and bad conduct makes them unemployable. And every nazi, every Republican, every libertarian, every moderate, every progressive, and every radical leftist takes for granted that that that category is going to be overwhelmingly black and a large proportion of blacks are going to be in that category, committing thought crimes without noticing.

          • Irving says:

            >but they are not engaged in ethnic cleansing to acquire housing by denying it to whites. That, the topic of this post, is indeed a racial thing.

            I didn’t deny this.

            >Further, I have, unlike you, regularly called for dealing with all the other economically worthless people, so I am not focussing on blacks in the blog as a whole, I am not making this a racial thing.

            I was saying that pdimov, not you, was making it racial thing.

            >When libertarians piously complain about the prison industrial complex…they are saying “Let us section eight them into the white suburbs and give them SSSI so that they can spend full time on healthy black sports like polar bear hunting”.

            Nor was I complaining about the ‘prison industrial complex’. I think that it is a real thing, but I don’t think that it exists exclusively due to racism or anything like that. It is necessary that it exists, at least for now, until a better solution comes along, such as what I suggested elsewhere.

            Never would anyone have thought, before it actually happened, that the government would sponsor an organization to open up shop in the most economically backwards parts of America, and even in some affluent parts, to offer “women’s health”, that is, to slaughter babies and sell their parts on the black market. It just seems to me that if people came to their senses, a better and more humane solution could be decided upon, one that didn’t involve baby killing.

            ——

            To reiterate, the fact remains that the nearly everyone in America are basically dependents. You’ve got students (most egregiously, many are in their late-20s and early-30s, and they’ve never had a real job in their life), welfare leeches, people on disability, people on unemployment, government workers, Soros-funded “activists”, retirees collecting Social Security, women collecting child support (which is in many ways welfare for middle class white women — black men are too broke to pay child support), and the list goes on.

            The problem is racial in so far as blacks are, obviously, a particularly problematic group, are disproportionately represented among the economically worthless, and are prone to committing violent criminal acts. But, if the real problem is how to deal with economically worthless people as a whole, then it cannot, in my opinion at least, be construed as racial, given that most people in America are in fact economically worthless, though some more than others. That’s the only point that I was making.

          • pdimov says:

            “I was saying that pdimov, not you, was making it racial thing.”

            I am making what a racial thing? YOU were arguing that blacks can never ever be made to leave, and I replied to you that they can. Blacks WERE THE TOPIC before I entered the conversation. In said conversation you stated that

            “I’m not saying keep them, I’m saying get rid of them in the most efficient and frictionless way possible.”

            and then YOU accuse ME of making “it” a racial thing? Really?

            “Because you aren’t going to give the blacks 1M.”

            Why not?

          • Irving says:

            Apologies pdimov if I misunderstood you.

            I interpreted you as proposing a scheme for repatriating blacks back to Africa because they are 1) black and 2) economically worthless. Yet, given that you didn’t offer a similar repatriation scheme for economically worthless members of other races, I assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that you neglected to offer one because you didn’t think they should be repatriated, presumably because they weren’t black. Therefore, I understood you as wanting to repatriate blacks more because they are black and less because they are economically worthless.

            For the rest, assuming that it did come down to paying blacks to leave, I suppose giving them $1M each to get lost wouldn’t be too difficult. Sadly, however, I’m afraid that distributing this cash to them would put them in a worse position than they are already in. See Dave Chappelle on the consequences of reparations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZFHG8wWC5s

            • jim says:

              Yet, given that you didn’t offer a similar repatriation scheme for economically worthless members of other races, I assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that you neglected to offer one because you didn’t think they should be repatriated, presumably because they weren’t black.

              Other races are not as genetically worthless as blacks. So worthless people of other races can mostly be dealt with by improving incentives.

              Thus, for example, to fix the problem of people wasting years in college, and thus the smartest women failing to reproduce, we deflate degrees.

              Deflate academic credentials, with the school leaving exam, taken at the age puberty begins, passing the top third of the population. Two thirds of the population flunk out of school at puberty. The school matriculation exam (high school, taken at completion of puberty) passing the top sixth. University entrance accepts only people in the top twentieth. Some people fail university, quite a lot fail university, about half of them, so that pretty much everyone with a two year or more degree is in the top fortieth. Four year degrees, however, should not be significantly smarter, just more academic. Above common IQ levels, above IQ 130, we don’t use academic credentials, but rather deal with individuals case by case. So if you are really smart and leave school at school leaving age, then self educate, you will still do fine. We cease to force people to waste their fertile years in zero sum competition for credentials of little value. Post deflation academic degrees are given new names to differentiate them from inflated academic degrees. The net effect is that far fewer people go to university, and those that do go to university for a far shorter time.

              To lower priestly status, we make sure that there is a non academic path into every career, often built around apprenticeship – that there are no careers where academics have a legal monopoly of licensing people to perform certain tasks. Well established and successful practitioners can also license people to perform those tasks.

              School years should be tied to puberty, so that people with the same physical development are taking the same exam, so as not to discriminate in favor of blacks and against whites, and so as not to discriminate in favor of females and against males, and to create an expectation that completion of puberty means getting a job, a wife, and having children. Most boys get jobs during puberty, and not very long after getting a decent job, not very long after completing puberty, marry virgin girls several years younger than themselves. Girls marry very shortly after menarche, often at menarche. (We don’t want single girls crazed by raging hormones on the loose, so we either lock them up, as for example in female only boarding schools, or make them get married.)

              See also “Stupid U and faking the GPA

          • pdimov says:

            “I interpreted you as proposing a scheme for repatriating blacks back to Africa because they are 1) black and 2) economically worthless.”

            No. I proposed a scheme for repatriating blacks back to Africa because you claimed that such a scheme does not exist.

          • Irving says:

            >Other races are not as genetically worthless as blacks. So worthless people of other races can mostly be dealt with by improving incentives.

            Just to be clear, what do you mean by ‘black’? If by ‘black’ you mean Western and Central Africans, then I would perhaps agree you, except in a qualified sense, given that there are certain groups among the blacks that do quite well when given a chance. Even if you factor in the reality of selective migration, the fact that Nigerians (Igbo) and Cameroonians (Bamileke) earn well above the national average has to mean something.

            Also, more broadly speaking, what seems to make the blacks as a race so bad is that not so much their IQ (after all, the African American IQ is about the same as the global average, perhaps slightly less), but their violence. That, I guess, is attributable to their higher levels of testosterone compared to other races, combined with some gene or other that they, according to Wade, apparently have that makes them more aggressive. Besides that, however, blacks really aren’t so bad, though it is definitely a mistake to let them into your civilization in any significant numbers. At least, this is my experience with blacks.

            • jim says:

              Just to be clear, what do you mean by ‘black’?

              I would delegate that problem to local authorities who have a financial interest in maintaining real estate values.

              The basic objective is that whites have a place to live where they can safely raise their children, keep their wives from being assaulted, their homes from being vandalized, and walk down the street without having to cringe before their masters. So, put the power to solve that problem in the hands of local people who have an urgent personal (they live there) and financial (they own stuff there) interest in solving it right.

              A single central authority laying down one standard for everyone and all areas is likely to come up with incorrect standards and will suffer diseconomies of scale. I would have each suburb, or each city, have standards set by people who live there and own and manage rental properties there. Some places will be whiter than others, but we will not have anyone driven out of their homes Krystalnacht style the way they were in Detroit, in the inner cities, and most recently in Ferguson.

              But we make them all eat their own dogfood. The people making these decisions will all be landlords, but to have this authority, have to live in similar properties as they rent to others. Maybe nicer properties, but in the same location, sharing the same streets and shops.

          • viking says:

            faggots always have problems asserting themselves

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >No third world country is going to accept low-IQ felons from the West
        A bunch of third world countries don’t even have borders, because borders would be too expensive and difficult-to-enforce.

        Your statement is absurd. How exactly would Somalia or the Democratic Republic of the Congo return the people we dumped on them?

        Thirdly, even if we had to pay a third world country, it would be cheaper than imprisoning niggers. Imprisonment is like 100k/year. But living expenses in the third world is 10% or 3% of that.

        • Irving says:

          My assumption is that though the third world countries would be able to keep these low-IQ felons from being dumped on them, they would definitely not accept them. They’ll just massacre them. That may well be a desirable outcome in many respects, but it seems utterly inconceivable that America would ever go through with something like that.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            > they would definitely not accept them. They’ll just massacre them
            You can assume whatever you want. Doesn’t mean it’s a reasonable assumption. Assumptions need justifications.

          • Irving says:

            >You can assume whatever you want. Doesn’t mean it’s a reasonable assumption. Assumptions need justifications.

            And my justification is African history, which is filled with examples of mass slaughter and genocide.

          • pdimov says:

            “They’ll just massacre them.”

            That’s not what happened last time.

  13. Bo says:

    Grand sweeping plans are like offering a starving man a cow, but only if he can eat it in one bite.

    Pointless, ’cause it’s never going to happen.

    The solution ought to be states-centric because that’s at least achievable. Simply make the lives of welfare recipients unbearably unpleasant and they will go elsewhere, speeding the collapse of liberal states. Outlaw federal welfare. Create such agencies as will dog the ghetto folk all day every day until they pack their shit up and leave.

    Weather the cries of racism. The voters of the conservative states will keep you in office.

    But to save the whole nation? No chance. Even on a perfect trajectory with a back-wind you’re still out of range.

    • jim says:

      Grand sweeping plans are like offering a starving man a cow, but only if he can eat it in one bite.

      Historically, the ever leftist movement is only ever reversed apocalypticly – usually by foreign conquest. However the English Restoration, “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” and Japanese feudalism are examples of leftism being reversed without foreign conquest.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >Historically, the ever leftist movement is only ever reversed apocalypticly
        1) Deng Xiaoping was not exactly an apocalyptic leader. In fact, considerably less apocalyptic than Mao.

        2) You’re likely not going to bring back “segregation”, “slavery” or “apartheid”. These things have such a negative image. You would encounter less resistance to bring them back, slightly changed, under a different name.

        For example, China has slavery, but it calls it “imprisonment”. Libertarians often want segregation, but call it “freedom of association”. And so on.

        3) In practice, we already have some kind of segregation. There were no blacks or latinos at the church I grew up at. About 150 people who attended regularly or semi-regularly. White, with 5 (or so) Asians. Just expand that type of segregation.

        It’s not a good idea to operate with the theological language of your enemies. It would be like a Christian missionary declaring themselves to be Iblis and publicly burning the Koran. Not going to seduce many converts.

        • jim says:

          >Historically, the ever leftist movement is only ever reversed apocalypticly

          1) Deng Xiaoping was not exactly an apocalyptic leader. In fact, considerably less apocalyptic than Mao.

          He went all the way from hard core socialism to hard core capitalism, while every existent capitalist country is gradually becoming less and less capitalist.

          2) You’re likely not going to bring back “segregation”, “slavery” or “apartheid”. These things have such a negative image. You would encounter less resistance to bring them back, slightly changed, under a different name.

          Confucius says, “rectify names”. Neo reaction says, “people not getting the joke”.

          If you don’t call it segregation etc, it will not be. Observe Lee’s legacy becoming undone.

          • Irving says:

            >If you don’t call it segregation etc, it will not be.

            America is about as segregated right now as it ever was, except for in the inner-cities. Yet, as far as I know, segregation is illegal in America.

          • Irving says:

            >If we actually had segregation, would expel blacks from potentially valuable real estate.

            The segregation we have probably doesn’t go as far as is necessary, but it does go quite far, and its going to go even further now that the cities are gentrifying and the government is preparing to expel the rest of the blacks who haven’t yet been gentrified out.

            • jim says:

              They are “expelling” them to nice expensive suburbs via section eight, and thus destroying those suburbs, making the few remaining suburbs unaffordable for most whites.

            • viking says:

              they are planning to spread the shit throughout the nation to make it harder to remove you think they are removing it for hipster theme parks

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >He went all the way from hard core socialism to hard core capitalism
            You said “apocalyptic”. I assumed you meant “killed a lot of people”. Because that’s what the apocalypse is known for. And you mentioned foreign invasion, which kills a lot of people. And Deng Xiaoping didn’t kill very many people. Neither did Pinochet.

            >If you don’t call it segregation etc, it will not be.
            So you agree Deng Xiaoping is Reactionary? Ever listened to one of his speeches?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_9_Deng_speech
            http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/30/world/deng-s-june-9-speech-we-faced-a-rebellious-clique-and-dregs-of-society.html?pagewanted=all

            He called the Tiananmen Square Protesters “counterrevolutionaries”, who were trying to “topple the socialist system”. He called the PLA “defenders of socialism”.

            Also note that their army is still called the “People’s Liberation Army”, and their state is stilled called the “People’s Republic of China”.

            >Confucius says, “rectify names”
            And “apartheid”, “segregation” and “slavery” are incorrect names. If you go to school, and let them teach you about any of those three, you won’t learn reality. You’ll learn an absurd caricature of segregation, where peaceful, innocent, doe-eyed, high-IQ and hardworking blacks were suppressed by vicious, decadent, overweight White men. You’ll learn that Martin Luther King’s anti-segregation movement was “nonviolent”, and Whites enslaved Blacks.

            If you want to rectify names, use the most neutral and unemotional terms you can. Slavery is “forced labor”, “involuntary labor”, or “prison labor” or similar. Segregation is “race-based separation”.

            • jim says:

              He called the Tiananmen Square Protesters “counterrevolutionaries”, who were trying to “topple the socialist system”. He called the PLA “defenders of socialism”.

              Also note that their army is still called the “People’s Liberation Army”, and their state is stilled called the “People’s Republic of China”

              So, he has not rectified names. But everyone knows what Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is. It is even safe, only a little bit daring, to actually say what it means.

              >Confucius says, “rectify names”

              And “apartheid”, “segregation” and “slavery” are incorrect names. If you go to school, and let them teach you about any of those three, you won’t learn reality.

              When we make the schools teach reality, what names shall we use?

              If we are to remember the wisdom of the past, have to use the words of the past.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >If we are to remember the wisdom of the past, have to use the words of the past.
            Do we need to speak Old English to read Beowulf?

            Perhaps your intellectuals need to use the words of the past. But it would be unwise to use them in public conversation. Any propaganda expert can tell you that.

            • jim says:

              >If we are to remember the wisdom of the past, have to use the words of the past.

              Do we need to speak Old English to read Beowulf?

              When we had a western civilization, we made our students learn Latin and Greek. If we are going to restore western civilization, have to make them at least learn what English words meant in 1800

              The left has erased our past and orphaned us. They have made us fatherless.

              Part of the rectification of names is to give us back our past and our fathers. We must restore memory.

  14. Excellent. I’ll be re-posting this on my site.

  15. […] Ethnic cleansing in Ferguson. […]

Leave a Reply