freedom of speech issues

I know a lot of y’all are tired of reading about the Confederate flag; after all, it means little in its own right. But Media-Government-Corp suddenly gave the Rebel flag a lot of new power by trying to ban it. It’s almost like the word “nigger.”

I can’t help myself. The first couple of times I did something unpopular in front of the public, it was difficult. But over time, I’ve gotten used to it. These days, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say I’m addicted to it. I get a rush out of pissing off a lot of people all at once – particularly when they’re leftists. I’m not going to change their minds (those minds are already owned by the “one-percent,” as I told one just today), and I have no respect for them. To me, they’re like animals in a zoo. It’s fun to rile them up and watch their antics. They make unintelligible noises and wild, primitive gestures with their paws.

Two friends accompanied me today. A husband/wife team. I’d brought a smaller flag for them. We started, as before, at Pioneer Courthouse Square and there were lots of people there. Right away, we met an older gentleman from the South and we struck up a conversation. But most people were hostile, especially as we made our way toward PSU campus. We got many threats and jeers, along with the occasional “finger” – for diversity of course. At some point, we got a police escort.

We crossed through the campus and got to the sports field, where a soccer game was afoot. A couple of lovely young Christian ladies approached us and asked why we were doing this. When I explained to them that “hate” had nothing to do with it, they grew sympathetic. So much so that when a young male student came over with his video device, and made it clear how hostile he was, the ladies came to our defense, pointing out that he was far less tolerant than I was. Even though the young ladies did much of the talking, the student refused to point his video at them. After a while, an official-looking man and a campus cop told us to leave. They said it was “private property” and that we needed a permit to hold a protest there. When I asked if tax dollars pay for the campus, the official said only 10% of it is paid for with tax dollars, the rest being from tuition and private donations. Not wanting to get arrested for trespassing, we made our way back downtown, where there were more people anyway.

One little old Asian woman told us, as she passed, “you shouldn’t be awoud to do that in pubric.” If she doesn’t believe in freedom of speech, then why did she come to America? That was a rhetorical question.

As we approached Pioneer Square again, it was clear that certain men were following us. Some of those men accosted our female companion when she’d entered a shop to get something to drink. They threatened her with violence if we didn’t leave.

We did meet several sympathetic people. One young man from Texas told us how, back home, they fly the “redneck flag”  with pride, and that nobody messes with that flag over there. A young couple congratulated us for our courage, and said he’s glad somebody’s taking a stand for freedom of speech. Another man greeted me with pretty much the same words a bit later.

Toward the end, there was a black man following us closely. There was some concern that he would follow me onto my train, but instead he ended up debating my friend (the husband) and told him that his only intention was to make us feel as uncomfortable as our flags made him feel.

I just got back from walking all over downtown Portland with my full-sized Confederate battle flag. I started at Pioneer Courthouse Square, where a couple of Hispanic men asked me what flag I was holding. I told them it represents the downtrodden and oppressed. That it’s a symbol large corporations, and wealthy special interests want to abolish. They smiled and wished me luck.

Since there weren’t many people in that location, I chose to walk a few blocks to the Portland Timbers game, which was taking place just then. On the way, a man stopped me and thanked me for taking a stand. he shook my hand.

As I got closer to the stadium, I got some negative reactions from passers-by. I made sure to fly it on the overpass, so that passing traffic could see it. At the stadium, I waved it high, so that the hundreds of thousands of fans could see it from their seats. I had a conversation with one of the workers there, who understood my motivations, and gave me a “pinky handshake” through the fence.

Walking back toward the Waterfront, somebody shrieked obscenities at me from her car. She kept yelping until her voice grew raw. It gave me great satisfaction; let the leftists endure some of OUR “propaganda” for a change.

It was difficult to distinguish between the thumbs-ups and the “f-you” fingers I was getting from cars, so I just smiled at everyone and kept walking. A couple of people commended me for my courage, but expressed concern for my safety. All the negative reactions I got were from white people. Blacks seemed to be more amused than anything else.

Going through Waterfront Park, I had a few vulgarities hurled at me, and I posed for a couple of photos as well. One photographer has already sent me one of his shots. it’s included at the end of this post. One construction worker proclaimed, “Now that’s my man!” At about the same time, another shrill leftist was barking at me to “take that sh-t to Alabama etc. etc.”

Why did I do this alone? Because, unfortunately, I couldn’t find anybody to join me. Why did I do it in the first place? Because the battle flag, in and of itself, is neutral. It neither hates nor loves. It doesn’t hurt, or help, people. The stadium worker asked me why I didn’t pick another symbol, one less “hateful.” The answer is that I was not the one to pick this symbol as the one I chose to defend. It was corporate America, and wealthy special-interests, that chose it for me. They have far more power than I do. With their billions, they’re able to purchase the minds of the masses, and brainwash them into demonizing an entire people: Southerners, and any historic symbol that’s associated with them. I explained, to the stadium worker, that this symbol is not just a symbol of Southern whites, but of Southern blacks as well. It was a black student who fought for the right to fly the Confederate flag from his dorm room.

I did it in order to exercise my freedom of speech while I still can. One young man, sitting in his car, commented, “I thought that was illegal!” Some day it might be, but for the time being, I’ll use my rights to the fullest – to show my support for the downtrodden, and to piss off leftists.

Considering the amount of attention I attracted, and the many photos that were taken of me, I’m guessing this stunt will have shock-waves. Either way, I hope to do it again.

The photographer just sent me the shots he took. I’m not particularly fond of the pose, but it was at his request.


No, I didn’t fight in the War Between the States; I’m not that old. But I did purchase a nice hat, while visiting the South, that features the battle flag.

I wore it for a while, until the novelty wore off, and then I shelved it away – for no particular reason. But now that the various propaganda mills, which pass themselves off as “news outlets,” are bombarding us with negative messages about the Confederate flag, I feel that this is a good time to take a stand and wear it proudly.

Not that I’m a Southerner, or even a neo-Confederate, but I do cherish my freedom of speech. Of this I’m proud. Also, I see the ongoing repression of all things Southern as the persecution of a people. It’s cultural genocide, and good people all over should raise their voices against it.

If the Confederate flag is banned from major retail, and online, outlets, then this forbidden fruit is all the more sweet for my palate.

I went shopping this evening (wearing my hat), and after checkout, the young woman across from me looked straight at me and announced:

How rude!

I was certain she was talking about my hat, but then she continued…

I’ve never seen such a rude checkout woman!

I said she was probably just having a bad day. We must always be kind and civil when wearing a Confederate emblem.

There are lots of ways to advocate for white people. You can educate friends and family, hand out flyers, post comments online, attend conferences, choose who we do business with and give our wireless networks provocative names.

But shooting up worshipers in a church does not advance our cause. It’s true that blacks victimize us on a regular basis, but probably not the sort of blacks who were worshiping at the Emanuel African American Episcopal Church on that fateful day. If any of their survivors are reading this, I extend my condolences.

Somebody pointed out that when a black man murdered eight white coworkers in 2010, in a crime that was clearly racially motivated, the media never called it a hate crime. Nobody demanded that the flag be lowered to half mast, and In fact, some news reports were actually sympathetic to the shooter. For example, an NBC article reads, in part:

“Everybody’s got a breaking point,” Joanne Hannah said.

“This is a disgruntled employee who shot a bunch of people,” Teamsters official Christopher Roos said.

Thornton was not a problem employee and had not had any previous disciplinary issues, said Gregg Adler, a lawyer for the Teamsters Local 1035. He said he was not aware of how much beer Thornton was alleged to have stolen.

Kristi Hannah had been with him Monday night and had no indication he was planning anything violent, her mother said.

Joanne Hannah described Thornton as an easygoing guy who liked to play sports and video games. She said he had a pistol permit and had planned to teach her daughter how to use a gun.

It’s true. Everybody does have a breaking point, and for unbalanced people, such as Dylann Roof, that breaking point is more easily reached.

We can view an individual like Roof as a pressure cooker. Perhaps he was bullied by blacks at a young age. This would have served as kindling for a flame under the pressure cooker. Awareness of black-on-white crime ignited the flame. He saw numerous white women, his age, dating black men – but he couldn’t even get a date. The flame intensified. He noticed the media constantly glorifying blacks, covering up black-on-white crime, while giving the impression that blacks are under siege by white racists. The intensity of the heat inched up. He wanted to speak out publicly about the gross injustices, and media misrepresentation of them – but doing so would only marginalize him further, and label him a “racist.” The pressure in the pressure cooker climbed. The fire under the pressure cooker was now relentless, but there were few outlets to let off excess steam. Eventually, the pressure cooker exploded, and nine innocent people are dead.

In a country of some 350 million people, there are bound to be some as unbalanced as Dylann Roof. I hold the media responsible for setting them off. Yahoo, MSN and CNN might as well have been firing the gun. Their censorship of black-on-white violence, along with the grotesquely biased reporting of what they do report, amount to “fighting words.”

For news organizations to consistently report white-on-black crimes (real or perceived) as national news, while reporting black-on-white crimes only locally (if at all) amounts to incitement. The shooting of criminal Michael Brown, killed while attacking a police officer, was “national news.” But the 2009 black attacks on innocent whites in downtown Denver were practically ignored at the national level. One had to read either local, or specifically pro-white websites, to learn about them. When a white person commits a “bias crime,” we are constantly reminded of his race. But when the perpetrator is black, we are left to figure it out on our own if there is no accompanying photo.

Such lopsided reporting breeds resentment both among blacks, who honestly believe they are under siege from whites, and from some whites, who become angered by the vast disconnect between what they know and what is reported. Corporate media outlets are messing with our minds, and it’s a dangerous game they play.

In this game, it’s the corporate media that holds all the cards. They’re going to use the Charleston shooting as a tool to call for anti- “hate-speech” laws. They’ll discover that Dylann Roof visited pro-white websites, perhaps even this one, and they’ll call for the banning of blogs such as this one. If they are successful, it will inevitably lead to even more bloodshed. We can safely assume that this is what they want. After all, it’s good for business.

I recently reblogged an excellent piece by Kakistocracy. I hope Porter doesn’t mind if I add a sequel. While Porter focuses on statistics and surveys, I’ll focus on specific tactics and examples of these tactics. Firstly, a recent incident that illustrates how third-worlders, once settled in the US, promote the destruction of our most cherished right.

Changing the demographics of America through mass third-world immigration

A North Miami high school principal was recently removed from his position due to a Facebook post. He had defended the Texas police officer caught on video responding to a group of unruly “teens.” From Fox News:

A Florida high school principal, who defended the Texas police officer at the center of that infamous pool melee, has become the latest victim of radical speech police hell-bent on trying to silence public discourse.

Alberto Iber lost his job as the principal at North Miami Senior High School after he wrote a comment about the McKinney, Texas incident on the Miami Herald’s website.

“He did nothing wrong,” Iber wrote. “He was afraid for his life. I commend him for his actions.”

Three sentences. Sixteen words. Sixty-two characters.

Miami-Dade County Public Schools released a statement on June 10 announcing that Mr. Iber had been removed from his position at the high school and reassigned to an administrative position.

The district said they require their employees to conduct themselves “in a manner that represents the school district’s core values.”…

He did not retract what he wrote nor did he apologize for what he wrote.

Local news organizations suggested the reason Iber’s opinion became newsworthy is because North Miami is a “diverse” neighborhood – meaning most of the residents are black.

“If you’re running a majority black school and you say a remark such as that people will not respect you,” a student told NBC News in Miami.

Councilman Alix Desulme, who identifies himself as a Haitian-American, was among those who condemned the former principal – and said he was “appalled.”

“For him to make such a comment is insensitive to the community,” he told the Miami Herald.

Are the councilman and the superintendent suggesting the principal had an obligation to condemn the Texas police officer? Would the principal still have a job had he done so?

Was Mr. Iber removed from his job because he defended a police officer or was he removed because he defended a white police officer?

While many leftists do, at least in theory, support freedom of speech, the third-world hordes they so gleefully import lack a solid understanding of “freedom of speech.” Their understanding of this concept is typically rudimentary and primitive. Unfortunately, these third-worlders are set to become a majority in America in the near future – and they already hold many positions of power.

The actions of Miami Dade superintendent Alberto Carvalho, a Latino, and councilman Alix Desulme, a Haitian, were instrumental in denying Mr. Iber (apparently also Latino) his freedom of expression. This is how things are done in the third world, in places like Latin America and Africa (Haiti being an extension of Africa). Due process is sporadic at best. Constitutional rights exist only on paper – unless you’re wealthy or famous.

Simply ignoring the Constitution, and acting above the Law

Many of us are still accustomed to our First World way of thinking, that if something is illegal or unconstitutional, surely we can successfully combat it. That justice will usually prevail, and that public servants are beholden to the law. But reality was driven home to us in 2011, when we struggled to hold the American Renaissance conference in Charlotte, North Carolina. A certain city councilman, by the name of Patrick Cannon, used his official position to intimidate hotels in order to deny us a venue in that city. Read my email to him here. What he did was a flagrant violation of the First Amendment – and yet there was no outcry from the ACLU or from any government organization. Years later, that same Patrick Cannon, then mayor of Charlotte, was arrested for corruption and sent to jail.

Of course, the previously cited case, where Principle Iber was dismissed from his position, is also a good example of government bureaucrats acting above the law, and with little accountability.

Chipping away at the First Amendment through the courts and backdoor legislation

Powerful forces are chipping away at this precious right through sneaky legislation and novel interpretations of existing law. Thus we find an actual “hate speech” prosecution in Montana:

The prosecutor’s office in Flathead County, Montana (where Kalispell is located) is arguing that speech that exposes Jews — or other religious, racial, and other groups — “to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace” is criminally punishable, unless it consists of true factual statements. As the Montana criminal defamation statute is worded, this means that hatred-inducing opinions are criminally punishable, too. Yes, this is that extraordinarily rare thing: an American prosecution for “hate speech” (State v. Lenio). The First Amendment doesn’t allow that.

Selective enforcement of existing law is a similar tactic. When neo-Nazis left fliers at residences, and in mailboxes, authorities sought a way to prosecute them. They chose to use anti-littering laws, and laws against the use of mailboxes for anything but stamped mail, as tools to pursue them:

Peter Roberts found the flyers and their message abhorrent.

“I’m against everything that it says,” Roberts said.  “I don’t know how you can keep them from doing it, though. It’s freedom of the press, freedom of speech,” Roberts added, calling the flyers and their bigoted message part of the territory in a “free” country.

CBS4 News reached “Commander” Edward McBride of the white supremacist group at a telephone number with a Delaware prefix.

“We’re just basically trying to wake up the people to the problems that are happening in the country,” McBride said.

Groups such as his are among the problems happening in the country, according to the Anti-Defamation League of Florida.

“They are a small, white supremist group,” said the ADL’s Florida Region Director Hava Holzhauer.  Holzhauer said the Oklahoma-based organization was a relatively inactive outfit, but added that bigotry must be exposed and challenged wherever it appears.

“We need to speak out when there’s a message of hate,” Haolzhauer said.  “Whether it be through an education program in a school, writing a letter, or responding to a flyer that’s left in somebody’s driveway.”

In November, 2011, the same group apparently papered the same neighborhood with virtually identical flyers.  In the previous episode, the papers were left on driveways and front stoops.  Miami-Dade police said that because the flyers contained no threats, the most the distributors were guilty of was “littering.”  The investigation went nowhere.

This time could be different.

U.S. Postal Service Inspector Bladimir Rojo confirmed to CBS4 News that some of the flyers deposited last week were left in mailboxes.  By law, only stamped U.S. mail may be placed in a mailbox.  To put anything else in a mailbox is a Federal offense, punishable by fines.

Rojo declined to say how many mailboxes had been violated or how many complaints authorities received.  Rojo said the case may yet end up at the United States Attorney’s office and that prosecutors would not want details of the investigation disclosed prematurely.

I’m not a sympathizer with neo-Nazis, but they should enjoy the same freedom of speech that everyone else enjoys. Since their message was unpopular, they were targeted for an “investigation.” Authorities had them in their cross-hairs even before they had figured out what to charge them with. This is not how things should work in a free country. In a free country, it should be fairly obvious that an actual crime was committed before the perpetrator is investigated (with certain exceptions, such as suspicious deaths, of course).

Social media bullying and the loss of one’s job

Like so many societies before us, we live by the “Golden Rule:” He who has the gold makes the rules. Most of us need to work in order to survive. Therefore, any threat to our livelihoods is enough to cow us into compliance with the dictates of political correctness – which are written by those with a lot of money and power.

Wealthy special interest groups have made voicing politically incorrect opinions dangerous to one’s career. These groups (and their sympathizers) have been known to cause non-conformists to lose their jobs. For example, Carlos La Roche tweeted that Oakland “protestors” should be shot with real bullets:

On at least two other occasions, La Roche tweeted similar disdain for violent demonstrators in Oakland. Earlier this month, he directed a message to Oakland police asking if it could “be open season on the protesters.” Last November, he suggested that members of the embattled Ferguson, Missouri police department be recruited to “put down those animals in Oakland seeing as OPD seems to be taking the week off.”

But it was his tweet on Saturday that prompted an outcry from activists. Many flooded the station’s Twitter and Facebook pages with criticism; others encouraged followers to call the station’s newsroom hotline to express their contempt for La Roche’s tweets…

KGO-TV released a statement via a series of tweets on Sunday saying La Roche, whom they did not identify by name, had been fired for publishing “inappropriate tweets from his personal account that in no way reflect the views of” the station.

Then there’s the case of Karen Fitzgibbons:

A teacher at an elementary school near Lubbock has been fired after writing she was “almost to the point” of supporting racial segregation following a controversial police incident in McKinney.

Frenship Independent School District officials fired Karen Fitzgibbons, a fourth-grade teacher at Bennett Elementary School in Wolfforth, for making the controversial post, the district announced in a statement Thursday.

In the since-deleted post, Fitzgibbons decried the Tuesday resignation of McKinney Police Cpl. David Eric Casebolt, shown on video pointing his gun at two unarmed black teenagers and pinning a 15-year-old black girl clad in a swimsuit to the ground outside of a neighborhood pool in McKinney.

“I’m just going to just go ahead and say it…the blacks are the ones causing the problems and this ‘racial tension,'” Fitzgibbons wrote in the Facebook post. “I guess that’s what happens when you flunk out of school and have no education. I’m sure their parents are just as guilty for not knowing what their kids were doing; or knew and didn’t care.”

The elementary school teacher continued, “I’m almost to the point of wanting them all segregated on one side of town so they can hurt each other and leave the innocent people alone. Maybe the 50s and 60s were really on to [sic] something. Now, let the bashing of my true and honest opinion begin…

The case of Justine Saccos practically defines cyber bullying:

One of the most infamous examples of this is 30-year-old Justine Saccos’ tweets she made during her journey from New York to South Africa. She was the senior director of corporate communications at IAC. During her layover at Heathrow Airport, she tweeted: “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” She had only 170 Twitter followers at the time. During her 11-hour flight, Justine’s tweet went viral. By the time she landed she became the No. 1 worldwide trend on Twitter. The twitter-sphere became her judge, jury, and executioner:

“In light of @Justine-Sacco disgusting racist tweet, I’m donating to @care today”
“How did @JustineSacco get a PR job?! Her level of racist ignorance belongs on Fox News. #AIDS can affect anyone!”
“I’m an IAC employee and I don’t want @JustineSacco doing any communications on our behalf ever again. Ever.”
“All I want for Christmas is to see @JustineSacco’s face when her plane lands and she checks her inbox/voicemail”
“Oh man, @JustineSacco is going to have the most painful phone-turning-on moment ever when her plane lands”
“We are about to watch this @JustineSacco bitch get fired. In REAL time. Before she even KNOWS she’s getting fired.”

Her employer, IAC, the corporate owner of The Daily Beast, OKCupid and Vimeo tweeted: “This is an outrageous, offensive comment. Employee in question currently unreachable on an intl flight.” A Twitter user summed up the inescapable truth: “Sorry @JustineSacco, your tweet lives on forever.”

Justine was fired from her dream job and and in recent interview said she is still battling the backlash of her public shaming that occurred two years ago. A google search of Justine’s name will return thousands of articles about her. Her tweet will indeed live on forever.

Powerful special interest groups don’t even need to be directly involved in order to ruin somebody’s life; the lies and misconceptions they spread have taken on a life of their own – and the gullible sheeple do the dirty work for them.

Personally, I believe that private employers should be allowed to hire, or fire, anybody they please, and for any reason. But what if the private employer is subject to pressure, and threats, from forces much more powerful than themselves? In such a situation, the firing might be a result of coercion. What if the employer is left-leaning to begin with, such as KGO-TV? Government employers, such as schools, should never be allowed to dismiss an employee due to his political views. But sometimes the line between a private, and public, employer is fuzzy. This is a complex subject, worthy of a separate post.

What can we do to protect our First Amendment rights?

In theory there’s the option of a lawsuit, but not everybody has the resources for a lawsuit. As for petitions, they don’t garner enough signatures when the victim is a white advocate; most people are ignorant, and many of those who know better fear becoming victims themselves if their name turns up in support of such a pariah.

Since we don’t have the tools to take over the system, the best we can do right now is try to educate as many people as possible. It’s not difficult to explain the real meaning of freedom of speech, and even some third-worlders will embrace the concept once they learn what it means.

It would be nice if we could find some sort of common ground with the Left. Sometimes even leftists get in trouble for their views. A Muslim might get fired from his job for supporting Jihad by quoting verses from the Quran. An environmentalist might get canned for criticizing his employer’s use of GMO’s or toxic waste.

A law protecting employees from termination based on political/controversial views might help protect our freedom of speech – albeit at a cost to employer rights.

Thanks to Diversity Chronicle for sending me the following video:

At first blush, Mr. Phillips sounds like a breath of fresh air, when we compare it to the usual drivel we get from the British establishment regarding race. He acknowledges that there’s truth to the various stereotypes about different ethnic groups in Britain. He brings attention to the scandalous whitewashing of the underage grooming crimes in Rotherham, and he even acknowledges the fact that British whites feel marginalized – that it’s almost as if being white is now a crime in Britain.

But in reality, Mr. Phillips says nothing new in this video; most of his proclamations are now common knowledge. It’s upsetting that, while he does a good job illustrating the awful way the authorities reacted to the Rotherham scandal, he neglects to mention that it was the BNP that brought the matter to public attention in the first place. In fact, the BNP is not mentioned even once in the video.

This is probably because the BNP no longer presents a serious political challenge to the ruling parties – but UKIP does. Therefore, Mr. Phillips dedicates a substantial chunk of the last part of his video to making UKIP look bad. This, and the fact that the British media/government allowed this video to air in the first place, tells me that the video is naught but a political move. A pathetic attempt to fool voters into thinking that Labour has turned a new leaf, that they never meant to set up a Stalinist state of fear in the first place. That it was all just an oversight on their part, that they’re sorry and that things will be different in the future.

At the very end, Mr. Phillips even implies that white youth benefit from diversity, because they too might get their turn at having some attention lavished upon them – after the educational establishment is done lavishing attention on all the other groups! How absurd!

The video may be of some use in bringing the uninitiated to an awareness of the excesses of political correctness in Britain, but let us not be fooled by such ploys. Did Labour deliberately overreach, in their campaign of political correctness, just so that they could backtrack later and “reinvent” themselves politically? I wouldn’t put it past them.

According to the prank cooperative “Improveverywhere,”:

The No Pants Subway Ride is an annual event staged by Improv Everywhere every January in New York City. The mission started as a small prank with seven guys and has grown into an international celebration of silliness, with dozens of cities around the world participating each year. The idea behind No Pants is simple: Random passengers board a subway car at separate stops in the middle of winter without pants. The participants do not behave as if they know each other, and they all wear winter coats, hats, scarves, and gloves. The only unusual thing is their lack of pants.

The article goes on to applaud the increase in diversity over the years:

We dropped the “pants seller” bit this year after too many people lost their pants in 2006. Instead, participants hid their pants in a backpack. This was the first year No Pants really started becoming diverse, with people of all colors, shapes, sizes, and ages participating.

You see, up until then this organized silliness was almost exclusively a white thing. I don’t think this has changed much. A look at international participation tends to confirm our already established notions about race, ethnicity and religion. No Pants participants were arrested in Istanbul. The stunt is quite popular in the Far East – but unknown in black Africa. Here’s a list of participating cities as of this year:

Buenos Aires
Cape Town
Hong Kong
Los Angeles
Mexico City
Naples (Italy)
New Orleans
New York
Salt Lake City
San Francisco
St. Louis
Washington DC

A glance at the photos from Cape Town reveals that almost all the participants were white. Johannesburg shows a handful of blacks.

The freedom to be silly in public is a hallmark of civilized society. If we were to rate societies by their participation in No Pants Day, whites definitely come out on top. Asian participation seems to be anemic, probably partly due to fear of police intervention and partly due to the intense cold of Northeast Asia this time of year (though this hasn’t stopped New York participants). While blacks will participate as individuals, not very many blacks (even in majority black cities such as Atlanta, Philadelphia or St. Louis) seem to have participated. It probably wouldn’t be very smart to perform a stunt like this in the ghetto, and we’re not likely to see significant participation in places like Monrovia, Liberia or Brazzaville, Congo – even though the climate in those places is perfect.

I was thinking about suggesting that the upcoming American Renaissance conference be a No Pants event (we could still wear our ties). That way, nobody could dispute our superiority.







Next Page »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 194 other followers