If you’re still in denial over the persecution of whites in the United States, this should wake you up from your slumber. Hat tip to Mekong Delta69 (in a comment at Amren).
According to Eyewitness News ABC a school is facing budget cuts because it has too many white students.
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, LOS ANGELES (KABC) —Outrage has grown at Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, as the school faces layoffs and increased class sizes due to a law limiting funds for schools with a higher white student body.
The Los Angeles Unified School District provides more funding for schools where the white population is below 30 percent.
In a letter to parents, the district noted the highly regarded middle school had been above the percentage for the past couple years.
The racial formula was a condition imposed by court decisions dealing with desegregation in the 1970s.
When a government uses its money or resources to penalize institutions for having too many of a particular ethnicity or race, it’s hard to deny that genocidal policies are in place. Could you imagine the uproar if a school were to lose funding due to having too many black, or Hispanic, students? We’d never hear the end of it. Here’s an excerpt from the definition of genocide from preventgenocide.org:
“Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group…Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.
Of interest here is (e) “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” We might interpret “transfer” as something absolute and irreversible. In other words forced adoption and kidnapping. Can coercing children to attend public schools be considered “forcible transfer?” More on this later.
You can read many accounts of American boarding schools for Native Americans, both in the United States and Canada. There are several accusations that are made: That children were subject to physical and sexual abuse. That they were sometimes dehumanized, and referred to as numbers rather than by name. That the education they received was rudimentary, focusing on vocational skills as the expense of more academic subjects. But the greatest concern seems to have been the forced estrangement from their native cultures. As one account puts it:
In 1945, Bill Wright, a Pattwin Indian, was sent to the Stewart Indian School in Nevada. He was just 6 years old. Wright remembers matrons bathing him in kerosene and shaving his head. Students at federal boarding schools were forbidden to express their culture — everything from wearing long hair to speaking even a single Indian word. Wright said he lost not only his language, but also his American Indian name.
“I remember coming home and my grandma asked me to talk Indian to her and I said, ‘Grandma, I don’t understand you,’ ” Wright says. “She said, ‘Then who are you?’ ”
Wright says he told her his name was Billy. ” ‘Your name’s not Billy. Your name’s ‘TAH-rruhm,’ ” she told him. “And I went, ‘That’s not what they told me.’ ”
According to Tsianina Lomawaima, head of the American Indian Studies program at the University of Arizona, the intent was to completely transform people, inside and out.
“Language, religion, family structure, economics, the way you make a living, the way you express emotion, everything,” says Lomawaima.
Lomawaima says from the start, the government’s objective was to “erase and replace” Indian culture, part of a larger strategy to conquer Indians.
If we were to ignore all the other accusations, and focus exclusively on the theft of their cultures, would it still be considered “genocide?” I think so; any policy whose goal is to degrade. diminish, marginalize or dispossess a specific group of people is, in my opinion, genocidal.
Even in the absence of overt brutality, for a government to say “we’re going to reduce your funding because you have too many students of such and such a race” is a genocidal policy – even if reducing white students to minority status had NO effect, whatsoever, on their safety and wellbeing.
But, even though individual experiences will vary widely, forcing white children to attend school with large numbers of blacks and Hispanics does reduce their safety. Black and Hispanic crime rates are far higher than those of whites and Asians. This was my own personal experience, and the experience of many others. Just ask this 14-year-old girl.
Then there’s the issue of anti-white curricula. There is a lot of emphasis, in public schools, on the history and culture of non-whites, but no corresponding emphasis on white American culture (most American whites are mutts, with no specific European national origin). Assemblies are held in honor of non-white groups. My brother, who was a high school teacher, told me of one such assembly, which was for “boys of color.” It specifically excluded whites. He told his students that any of them were welcome to attend, and that’s great – but there was no such assembly in honor of white boys. A high school near where I live recently assigned “white privilege” homework to its students. How do you suppose this made white students feel, especially the ones who happened to be poor, and were NOT privileged? Going back to my earlier question: Can coercion to attend public schools be considered “forcible transfer” in the context of genocide? In my opinion, the answer is “yes” if a goal and result of such schooling is to alter the child’s perception of his own heritage for the worse. American public schools are obviously geared toward this end when it comes to white students.
What would it take for the elites of this country to make the connection between how whites are denigrated at schools and the high suicide rates among white adults? If Native Americans continue to suffer from the abuse of boarding schools decades after the fact, why would whites be any different?
Jewamongyou's Blog 
That’s because whites don’t make good sheeple, they are not ideal slaves. Therefore they are being replaced.
Liberal elites always hated the white underclass, in a deeply racist way. It was the one group they were allowed to hate, with a moralistic superiority.
Ambrose Kane here: This was a very good article (as most of your articles are). I have read now and then your posts and while I may not necessarily agree with all of them, they always give me food for thought.
I admire that you as a Jew are so candid and supportive white identity issues, or at least the right of White throughout Europe and America the right to maintain their demographic majority and unique cultures.
Forgive me for changing the subject somewhat, but what is your opinion of authors like Norman Finkelstein, Alison Weir, and Kevin MacDonald on the Holocaust industry, the disproportionate influence that Jews have had on American immigration policy, and other subjects surrounding the ‘Jewish Question’?
I’m sure that you’ve addressed these issues somewhere on your site, but I’d still be interested in knowing what you think. Anyway, keep up the good work and thanks for your time and consideration.
-Ambrose Kane
I’m glad you enjoy this blog. I wrote about “The Holocaust Industry” here. And revisionism here.
If you scroll down the front page of this blog, you’ll see a search option on the right side. I’ve written posts on the “Jewish Question” and Jewish influence on immigration etc. But I have yet to write anything comprehensive on Kevin MacDonald.
It seems unconstitutional to tie racial quotas to public school funding; same for holding racially exclusive assemblies of any kind in a public school, and it’s even more unethical if one race is singled out by not getting assemblies of their own. And, teaching people they are somehow less worthy of respect because of their race is unacceptable.
But none of that is indicative of genocide. Public school is not in fact compulsory; you can home-school, send your kids to private school, or become Amish, among other options. At any rate, public school is not a “forcible transfer” under any stretch of the definition of that term.
Also, I’d guess that if anything the effect of sending white kids to schools with higher racial minorities is that those white kids end up with higher lifetime total fertility rates. This is not a defense of sending white kids to NAM-dominated schools–white people ought to have more kids regardless–but it strikes me as ludicrous to say that something resulting in higher fertility rates for group X is a genocide against group X.
There might be solid arguments that a white genocide is occurring (though I still find that claim whiny and outrageous) but you have not made any of them here.
*typo: should be “higher proportions of racial minorities”
I was comparing the current situation to Native American boarding schools. Native Americans DID have other options; in most cases, they were not outright forced to send their kids to these boarding schools. But the options were not always practical – similar to the options you list for whites today. Many whites cannot home school, cannot afford private school and would find the idea of becoming Amish ridiculous. “Many other options?” Such as?
You may guess that white kids who attend school with non-whites have higher fertility rates, but do you have any evidence of this?
By “other options” I was referring to the broad range of types of children’s education arrangements between home schooling and a formal private school, including charter schools.
My guess about TFRs was a guess because I doubt there is any data specifically about this. It’s based on my induction combining from the facts that A) young people absorb a lot through their adolescent peer groups and NAMs have higher TFRs than whites, starting at adolescence; and B) white female students attending schools with more NAMs are less likely to become highly educated and TFR among women generally decreases with education level.
If you were going to design a white genocide–with the goal of minimizing the white share of the population in 50 or 100 years–would you have white kids spend their formative years around a bunch of nonwhites for whom having 2 or 3 children by age 25 is fairly normal, or would you put more effort into indoctrinating white kids into the idea that you shouldn’t even think about kids until you’re married to an ideal spouse and established in your career, usually in your late 20s or early 30s?
I’ve never seen your blog before, but this post is a very good start.
Two key questions that any white liberal needs to answer, is, firstly, is there any limit on how small the size of the white population should be able to go before whites are legitimately allowed to worry about their safety? In all likelihood they will reply that there is no limit.
It being the case that there is no lower limit on the number of whites, the next question would be how long positive discrimination, reperations and quotas can be continued when whites are an ever decreasing minority of the population? I suspect the answer to that would be ‘as long as there are disparities of outcomes between whites and the designated racial victim groups (blacks, muslims in Europe, etc).
And of course this is where it gets worrying, because it’s hard to see how the West under these circumstances can end up anywhether other than South Africa and Rhodesia if it turns out the disparities cannot be eliminated due to racial, religious or cultural elements that retard the non-whites relative to the remaining whites.
Peoplehood, whether genetic or cultural, is an aggregation effect. It results when people of similar qualities interact to express or accentuate their similarities. If you prevent people from aggregating, you are, de facto, suppressing their peoplehood.
Well said.
Makes sense, but then I would say “suppressing peoplehood” is a broad category that includes genocide but also a lot of other milder things that are completely distinct from genocide, such as breaking up a NAMBLA convention or presenting a cure for autism.
You could say that; it’s all semantics at that point. I’m not aware of a word whose meaning isn’t quite as intense as “genocide” but refers to refers to something along those lines. “Genocide-Light” may work. Calling NAMBLA “a people” seems a bit of a stretch.
Cheradenine’s statement, which you commended as “well said”:
How would this not qualify NAMBLA as “a people”?
Re: Admin,
“If you were going to design a white genocide–with the goal of minimizing the white share of the population in 50 or 100 years–would you have white kids spend their formative years around a bunch of nonwhites for whom having 2 or 3 children by age 25 is fairly normal, or would you put more effort into indoctrinating white kids into the idea that you shouldn’t even think about kids until you’re married to an ideal spouse and established in your career, usually in your late 20s or early 30s?”
I would definitely do the former, because it would greatly increase the odds of miscegenation. How does it help the White People if young whites have kids with non-whites?
If your goal is to increase white TFR, an increase in miscegenation might be worthwhile as an inevitable byproduct.
What’s better: a future with lots of mixed race people whose lineage includes white, or a future with lots of nonwhites and a tiny minority of embattled whites? If you purport to care about the well-being of white people, I would think you’d prefer the former. It’s sort of like Haiti vs. Brazil. Neither is a “Whitopia” but Brazil is pretty obviously the better place to be if you’re a white person and those are your two options.
You might counter “but partially-white mixed-race people almost always identify entirely with their non-white lineage and even succumb to incentives to degrade or dishonor their white lineage” to which I would say you have a much better shot at preventing that from happening if the mixed-race people in question are raised under your influence–e.g. as children or grandchildren. I know you probably aren’t the parent or grandparent of a mixed-race kid, so if you know people who are the white parents or grandparents of mixed-race kids, you can persuade them to exert anti-anti-white influence upon those kids. This can be done, by the way, without coming across as anti-nonwhite. So in summary, my response is “It doesn’t have to be so.”
I hold that “white” is more than a social construct or simply a way of self-identifying. As a matter of fact, my kids are mixed. My ex-wife is East Indian. They’re aware of my views and we get along fine, for the most part.
You said miscegenation would be a surer form of white genocide to simply lowering white TFRs, and asked: “How does it help the White People if young whites have kids with non-whites?”
And then you said: “As a matter of fact, my kids are mixed. My ex-wife is East Indian.”
So you must conclude you’re a participant in the very white genocide you complain about.
(Disregarding the ridiculousness of the notion of White Genocide to begin with, my opinion is that you aren’t participating in it or to anything remotely like it. If you raise your mixed-race kids to appreciate and stand up for the white portion of their lineage then you are actively doing the opposite and you should feel good about it. All along, my suggestion has been that you encourage other whites to do the same rather than whining about and exaggerating claims of persecution.)
I wonder how your wife and kids feel about your blog. Some of the things you’ve said in these comments seem like they’d be pretty hard for your mixed-race kids to read.
You haven’t even written yourself any back-door escape clauses to mitigate that in case it were to happen, which suggests to me this blog is really more a place for you to blow off steam and have some naughty/edgy fun than to work out or express serious ideas. (That describes a lot of the Alt Right, although the lack of self-awareness about it makes it a lot more like a cult instead.)
BTW, to me it sounds like your experience with globalism and diversity has been pretty good on net: you got a wife and kids out of the deal.
Re: Admin,
Regarding miscegenation, here’s my take on it:
BTW, she’s Jewish. But I haven’t had any contact with her for years; she doesn’t care what I write.
In your post on miscegenation, you’re basically saying it ought to be regarded as a tolerable last resort for those without better options, since being lonely isn’t much fun. Your post does not contain anything that would temper your apparent belief that miscegenation is a method by which whites are being genocided, leaving me to conclude that you do in fact see yourself as a contributor to white genocide.
Not sure what your wife being Jewish has to do with anything.
Miscegenation is not genocide in and of itself. People have been doing it for as long as there have been people. What we have now, however, is a campaign of grooming whereby white girls are taught (usually subliminally) that they should date non-white men. Specifically, black men. This campaign has not been wildly successful, but we do see the results every day and everywhere… unless you’re living in a cave or willfully blind.
People who date outside their own race because they have no other viable options are not guilty of anything. My ex-wife being Jewish is very relevant; even though we’re not of the same race, at least we’re of the same people. Therefore, my kids have not identity crisis. They’re Jewish and they know it. They’re not “half-Jews.”
So, were you or your wife subliminally taught to date each other?
There are general characteristics that tend to attract men and women to each other, but the particular mechanisms including how race factors into it are, to my knowledge, not understood well enough, and not generalizable enough, to design programs that would deliberately create the kind of effects you’re claiming. (For instance, some women of a given race love hairy men, other woman of the same race are turned off by men with body hair.) Steve Sailer’s “Is Love Colorblind?” article illustrates the complex nature of interracial sexual dynamics.
What we can say with reasonable certainty is that if two racial groups are nearby each other–and especially if they are comingling–then miscegenation will eventually increase dramatically unless it is deliberately discouraged somehow, in which case it will increase only slightly. But there will just about always be some noticeable increase, and that’s enough for whiny low-TFR losers like most of the Alt Right (present company excluded of course!) to start ringing their identitarian alarm bells about.
Re: Admin,
“were you or your wife subliminally taught to date each other?” Obviously not. Not even remotely is there a policy to promote Ashkenazi/ Indian intermarriage. Of course, in the religious community, of which I was a part, marriage in general is encouraged.
Regarding your last paragraph, this is precisely why forces of the Left have promoted integration, forced busing etc.
You say “forces of the Left” but you must mean something more specific. Black women, for example, are pretty solidly part of the Left but tend to oppose miscegenation.
Regardless, you are now implying that programs like integration and busing were promoted (by whom?) with the express intent of causing whites to have mixed-race rather than white children, thereby gradually extinguishing whites as a racial group (“genocide”). This is a ridiculous claim, since:
1) Miscegenation would largely be a byproduct, not the main effect. The main effect would be whites having even more kids with other whites (as I argued above);
2) People’s reproductive tastes and habits are not so easy to control;
3) Whites are the majority, so any program devised to divert their genetic trajectory through miscegenation would burn through the other “miscegenated” races first! Unless you could mixed-race as a race (which we don’t in this country–you simply check 2 or more boxes), whites would actually be the last race to survive, not the first to go.
And still, even when giving this foolish idea the benefit of the doubt, the simplest, cheapest, and most feasible solution remains the same if what you care about is sustaining a white majority: get out there and have more kids!
Anyway, why are you so sure there isn’t a policy to promote Indian/Ashkenazi intermarriage? Spelling bees seems to feature these two groups exclusively. Are you telling me nobody is deviously putting those kids together in schools to eradicate one or both racial lineages? Jews have a long-lived problem of attrition via intermarriage; if you’re going to make this paranoid “genocide” argument it should be about Jews, not Whites!
Your concentric loyalties from innermost to outermost seem to go: 1. Whites; 2. Jews; 3. your own children(!!). What has the Alt Right Kool-Aid done to you?? Sip it recreationally if you must have a bit of naughty fun; don’t chug it just because you’re thirsty.
You’re making less and less sense. First of all, miscegenation does impact whites primarily since whites are actually DECREASING in population in the US – and most of the massive immigration into the US is nonwhite. Whites are also having fewer children. For you to state that other groups will be “burned through first” makes no sense when there’s an endless source of blacks and Asians flowing in from outside. Not so with whites. Yes, you said that forced integration would increase the white birthrate – but you provided no evidence.
First you state that “People’s reproductive tastes and habits are not so easy to control” and then you say ” if what you care about is sustaining a white majority: get out there and have more kids!” Don’t you see the contradiction?
The spelling bees you mention, that feature Indian and Ashkenazi Jews together, and the schools – those are all in America. I met, and married my wife, in Israel. Furthermore, nobody’s forcing Jews and Indians to be together. In the US, those are two elite groups, so they often end up together by virtue of that, not any outside force.
There are powerful forces promoting Jews to intermarry. So yes, the Jewish People is in trouble. That’s a subject for a different post. I touched on this in my very first post: Reflections of a Racist Father.”
By the way, here’s more food for thought regarding white genocide:
https://www.amren.com/commentary/2017/04/marxist-prof-gavin-mueller-thinks-d-c-whites-are-fing-insufferable-anti-white-racism/
Haven’t I been saying if you want to preserve Whites as a race then White ought to have more kids? By the way, if American whites had more kids there would be much less immigration, for numerous reasons.
When you talked about White Genocide I thought you were talking about something that’s been going on for a while, not something that’s about to get started in 40 years. Whites are still the biggest racial group in this country, and this was even more true a few generations ago.
I’m aware of no data specifically about this. I laid out my reasoning and you seemed to accept it. If you didn’t, then show me where I was wrong.
No. The Alt Right is not a random sample of a nation or a racial group. It is a highly self-selected set of people who say they care about maintaining the majority position of the white race in Western countries–despite extremely strong social pressure to say they don’t. I would expect all white members of such a group to A) be interested in having kids, and B) desire to have kids with other white people.
So you’re saying that two different-race groups can often wind up together by virtue of some common aspect between them, and not because of an outside force? Hm…
And before you start talking about busing:
Wikipedia doesn’t provide figures, but seems to be saying busing was never that popular: “[The USSC] ruled that students could be bused across district lines only when evidence of de jure segregation across multiple school districts existed. In the 1970s and 1980s, under federal court supervision, many [how many?] school districts implemented mandatory busing plans within their district. [Only a] few of these plans are still in use today.” (My emphasis.)
Wikipedia goes on: “Since the 1980s, desegregation busing has been in decline. […] by the early 1990s, most school districts had been released from court supervision and ceased using mandatory busing to try to desegregate schools.”