((( New America ))) = White Genocide pic.twitter.com/j1htQU3PtM
— David Duke (@DrDavidDuke) March 16, 2017
At some point in the future all universities across America will refuse to fly the American flag, the flag of a country founded by racist slave owners.
Even in conservative, traditional Mississippi, cultural Marxists have gained control of the universities.
So, if state institutions do not have to fly the flag, I suppose if I were a citizen of Mississippi that I would not have to pay state taxes.
Is that how it works or do only liberals get special privileges?
Legislation passed Wednesday that would try to force the state’s public universities to fly the state flag died Thursday.
It died when House Ways and Means Chair Jeff Smith, R-Columbus, did not try to table a motion to reconsider the bill. The deadline to table the motion is Friday, and the House will not reconvene until Monday.
While that legislation died, Rep. William Shirley, R-Quitman, promised to offer amendments to other legislation to try to force the public universities to fly the flag. As a matter of fact, Shirley offered the amendment Thursday to a bill providing bonds for university construction projects.
But a point of order was raised that his amendment was not proper. House Speaker Philip Gunn, R-Clinton, had not ruled on the point of order by the time the House adjourned Thursday.
Currently none of the eight public universities fly the state flag, which incorporates the controversial Confederate battle emblem as part of its design.
Shirley and many others contend the universities that receive public funding should be required to fly the state flag.
On Wednesday by a 57-56 margin in the House, Shirley was successful in amending a bill designed to allow Mississippi State and the University of Southern Mississippi to provide tax breaks to private companies that lease land from them to build student housing. Shirley’s amendment said the universities could not provide the tax breaks unless they fly the flag.
At the time, Smith said the amendment would be stripped from the bill in conference committee where House and Senate leaders work to hammer out the final version of the bill. But on Thursday, Smith said it would be easier to allow the bill containing the Shirley amendment to die since other bills are alive in the Senate that provide the tax breaks for the universities.
But the issue of the flag flying over the universities could be an ongoing issue during the final weeks of the session if Shirley follows through with his intent to amend bills related to the universities, such as funding bills, to try to force the schools fly the flag.
Gunn, the most high profile Republican state official to advocate for changing the flag, said Thursday he understands why people are upset that a public university is not flying the flag, but said, “It appears our universities (as well as many municipalities) don’t agree with the message they perceive it sends.
“That’s a difficult dilemma for the government to rise up and say you must do something you find personally offensive.”
He said the case could be made that it is a free speech issue for the universities.
But he said the close House vote on the Shirley amendment “highlights the divisiveness of the issue” and why he has not been able to garner a consensus in the House to change the flag despite his position of power.
“I advocate a banner that would unite the state, everybody can be proud of and everybody can unite behind. I don’t think we currently have that,” he said.
Would these flags work for you?
They don’t like this one either.
Since I’ve never felt nor been sympathetic in the least to the notion of white guilt or white privilege, I can’t identify even slightly with the foolish, indoctrinated liberal cuck in the photo above.
His day in the sun is hopefully over. Which leaves a person wondering where the (((cultural Marxists))) will try to take us next.
Civil war? Trump’s impeachement? Fema camps?
Respected black historian Shelby Steele explains how whites have taken the first steps toward rejecting white guilt.
Excerpt from the Wall Street Journal
America, since the ’60s, has lived through what might be called an age of white guilt. We may still be in this age, but the Trump election suggests an exhaustion with the idea of white guilt, and with the drama of culpability, innocence and correctness in which it mires us.
White guilt is not actual guilt. Surely most whites are not assailed in the night by feelings of responsibility for America’s historical mistreatment of minorities. Moreover, all the actual guilt in the world would never be enough to support the hegemonic power that the mere pretense of guilt has exercised in American life for the last half-century.
White guilt is not angst over injustices suffered by others; it is the terror of being stigmatized with America’s old bigotries—racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. To be stigmatized as a fellow traveler with any of these bigotries is to be utterly stripped of moral authority and made into a pariah. The terror of this, of having “no name in the street” as the Bible puts it, pressures whites to act guiltily even when they feel no actual guilt. White guilt is a mock guilt, a pretense of real guilt, a shallow etiquette of empathy, pity and regret.
Perhaps the Obama presidency was the culmination of the age of white guilt, so that this guiltiness has entered its denouement. There are so many public moments now in which liberalism’s old weapon of stigmatization shoots blanks—Elizabeth Warren in the Senate reading a 30-year-old letter by Coretta Scott King, hoping to stop Jeff Sessions’s appointment as attorney general. There it was with deadly predictability: a white liberal stealing moral authority from a black heroine in order to stigmatize a white male as racist. When Ms. Warren was finally told to sit, there was real mortification behind her glaring eyes.
This liberalism evolved within a society shamed by its past. But that shame has weakened now. Our new conservative president rolls his eyes when he is called a racist, and we all—liberal and conservative alike—know that he isn’t one. The jig is up. Bigotry exists, but it is far down on the list of problems that minorities now face. I grew up black in segregated America, where it was hard to find an open door. It’s harder now for young blacks to find a closed one.
This is the reality that made Ms. Warren’s attack on Mr. Sessions so tiresome. And it is what caused so many Democrats at President Trump’s address to Congress to look a little mortified, defiantly proud but dark with doubt. The sight of them was a profound moment in American political history.
Today’s liberalism is an anachronism. It has no understanding, really, of what poverty is and how it has to be overcome. It has no grip whatever on what American exceptionalism is and what it means at home and especially abroad. Instead it remains defined by an America of 1965—an America newly opening itself to its sins, an America of genuine goodwill, yet lacking in self-knowledge.
Paul Gottfried, the Jewish mentor of White Identitarian Richard Spencer, reminiscences about Elizabethtown College, where he is a retired professor. His former campus is where the anti-white puzzle pin campaign is happening. Read more about the puzzle pins at this Saboteur365 post.
The British paper correctly underlined the hypocrisy of whites pretending to be advocating for oppressed blacks while choosing to reside in a lily-white environment. This is the dirty little secret at Elizabethtown that I indiscreetly revealed in newspaper articles while I held an endowed chair at the college.
For decades, some of our departments, such as social work, education, and communications, have been full of young radicals who opt for a college that is at a safe distance from the minorities whom they claim to be championing. More than one such student has complained to me: “We don’t recruit enough students from inner cities to give us diversity.” To that, I usually responded: “If you want diversity, then why don’t you go to a college in a black neighborhood, say Temple in Philadelphia?” This invariably caused the complainer to walk away.
The adolescents sporting the puzzle pins exemplify the prevailing spirit at the institution, but such grandstanding hasn’t always been the custom at the college. When I arrived there in the 1980s, Elizabethtown College seemed to be on the right path, educationally, fiscally, and in most other ways.
The president who hired me, Gerhard Spiegler, was a German scholar who hoped to make the institution into a first-rate center of learning. Spiegler hoped to elevate academic standards for students and faculty alike, and he practiced Teutonic thrift by keeping the size and salaries of the administration exceedingly low. He was hated by most of the old guard on campus, particularly by the faculty with terminal master’s degrees in education who taught their courses, as he would say, on “automatic pilot.”
Spiegler also hired assistants who were able to increase the school’s meager endowment and to raise funds for new buildings. Among the buildings that he arranged to erect were a state-of-the-art library and an Anabaptist Center, created for the study of the German Pietist sect that had established Elizabethtown College in 1899. He worked energetically to retain the loyalty of traditional Brethren alumni and donors and continued to look upon their coreligionists as a recruiting base.
Unlike much of the faculty, Spiegler leaned politically toward the Right and had no patience for academic agitators, especially for troublemakers who combined radical political views with a lack of professional accomplishments. Unfortunately, the troublemakers outlasted Spiegler, who laid down his duties in 1996.
During the next two administrations, the troublemakers got the “hope of change” they thought they wanted. It came in the form of lavishly salaried administrators (certainly by comparison to those who preceded them), rapidly escalating tuition, and a shifting emphasis at the college from a strict Pietist environment to the PC fad du jour, lately “white privilege.”
I’ve never seen an institution change so fundamentally within just a few years. The changes came on a number of fronts.
The cultural transformation moved from such Anabaptist-sounding activities as peace studies, to diversity deans and diversity studies through consciousness-raising events for blacks, women, and gays, “safe spaces” for LGBT, and special living arrangements for the transgendered. Black History and Women’s Months went on interminably and brought to the college a steady stream of outraged victim speakers.
Such commotions served a practical as well as ideological function. They gave special prominence to non-ideational disciplines (that is, majors that are more open to expressing grievances than teaching written bodies of knowledge), and the social justice exhibitionists are usually drawn from the students and faculty in these areas. Not insignificantly, those departments are now the cash cows at the college: they don’t require much in the way of equipment and have delivered loads of tuition-bearing students.
Needless to say, there’s no way the college could return to its historic Anabaptist roots. When I retired six years ago, less than one percent of the students belonged to one of the German “peace churches” once heavily represented at the college. The largest religious denomination among the student body is now Catholic, and our students, faculty, and administrators all lean strongly toward the left wing of the Democratic Party.
Excerpt from Age of Shitlords
A new extension has appeared on the chrome plugins web-store named “Racism Simulator”, that substitutes “White” for “Black” whenever you visit websites that are known for writing racist anti-white articles. The purpose of the extension, according to its creator, is to “Convert ‘white’ to ‘black’ for hilarious results”.
According to the description of the extension on its chrome web store page, its purpose is to expose the hypocrisy of people who claim to be fighting against racism, but end up being racist themselves.
Watch the video to see how it works.
While a youth, I read all of Robert Ringer’s books. He taught me some lessons on how to survive in a world that grew increasingly hostile to white men.
In this piece he mocks the ability of California to survive as an independent nation, attributing its dysfunction to Marxism.
Those of us here know something else that Ringer fails to mention. When you have a third world people, you end up with a third world country. Two-thirds of the population of California is nonwhite.
It’s a disaster.
There’s been a lot of talk recently about California seceding from the union. It’s akin to Hollywood celebs vowing to move out of the country if a Republican wins the White House. Meaning that it’s all bluster. Those who extol the virtues of the People’s Republic of California love to make hollow threats, but they possess neither the courage nor the financial resources to back them up.
If California were ever on its own, within six months of its “independence” it would be unable to function at even a survival level. Though it boasts the sixth largest economy in the world (larger than that of both Brazil and France!), there’s no economy big enough to keep a Marxist country afloat. This has been demonstrated time and again in such failed nations as Cuba, the Soviet Union, Mozambique, and every other country that has experimented with socialism/communism in any of its hideous forms.
The majority of California’s adult population consists of adult children whose brains have never developed beyond adolescence. They cling to a stunted Woodstock mentality that makes them incapable of rational thought, which, if not addressed professionally, has the potential to be fatal. They live in an Oz-like land of constant frustration, which causes them to resort to tantrums and violence as the combined solution to every perceived problem.
Since MILO is a Trump supporter, the subtext of almost everything that takes place around him ends up in Trump’s backyard.
I don’t like putting MILO near the top of today’s posts, but I just found this video, so here it is.
MILO started to bore me about two or three months ago and nothing has changed about that. He’s an attention whore who is assuredly NOT alt-right. He’s really not that conservative either. It’s easy to go after low hanging fruit like nut job feminists and liberal college professors, which is his shtick.
The video shows MILO’s appearance on comedian Bill Maher’s HBO show. It lasts about 10 and a half painful minutes. There’s really not anything much of substance discussed regarding any of the issues we are concerned about.
Maher constantly cuts off MILO with gay jokes rather than have the conversation go into serious subjects.
Mashable offers the most insightful take on the whole shabby affair that I’ve seen.
Here’s an excerpt:
Maher, a sporadically liberal free speech advocate, seems to be blissfully ignorant about the past half-decade of cyclical internet outrage.
“If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims — and he might be — nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night,” Maher wrote in his statement.
If you’ve spent any time following Milo drama in the past few years, Maher’s approach feels like magical realism. How could he think he’s “exposing” someone who’s already been exposed and roasted time and time again?
That’s because the comedian follows the same logic most media lived by during the primaries. There was little danger in showering Trump with copious amount of free press, the argument went, because of how blatantly unqualified Trump was for president. Audiences would pick up on him immediately. By simply broadcasting Trump’s rallies on television, he would peacefully self-destruct.
As we’ve now learned, the opposite happened. Trump wasn’t exposed when CNN played his rallies without critique — his reputation was sometimes even burnished. Sure, internet progressives tirelessly mocked Kellyanne Conway for making up a massacre. Still, 51% of Trump supporters now believe that the massacre justifies Trump’s extensive Muslim ban.
Audiences who would have never been exposed to these characters now saw them in full light — and some liked what they saw.
By providing these people with a mainstream platform, hosts and journalists do little to expose Milo and Conway for their fringe ideologies. They normalize them and help make their extremist nationalist beliefs more palatable. It’s much more acceptable to defend “black crime” or “killer dykes” when there’s a handsome man on television defending it.
OK, I get it. Ban Trump and everyone who supports him from TV. That’s the gist of the Mashable argument.
When I was a college professor, we embraced the honorable principle that there’s a marketplace of ideas and that the good ideas would triump over the bad ones. Liberals say that conservative and populist ideas are bad, so must be banned.
They’re scared. And rightfully so. It’s time for us to move in for the kill and see to it that liberal (Jewish) control over the media is ended and some sort of fairness is reestablished.
This bullsh*t so called debate is trending #1 on Twitter. Honestly, it’s a comment on how pathetic Americans have become that this junk has so captivated so many millions. Sample opinions: