Thursday, July 01, 2010

Community Responds Unfavorably To Discrimination Lawsuit By Anchorage Police Department Detectives; Racialist Sentiment Awakened Among Some Whites

Update July 2nd: Added link to and short summary of Anchorage Daily News editorial.

The announcement of a discrimination lawsuit against the Municipality of Anchorage by two veteran detectives of the Anchorage Police Department, Alvin Kennedy, who is Black, and Eliezer Feliciano, who is Hispanic, has been greeted by strong reaction in the comments section of various local media outlets. While some assert, based upon their own experiences, that some APD officers behave in a racist manner towards the public, a larger segment of the public believe the complaints to be unfounded. Both Mayor Dan Sullivan and APD Chief Mark Mew say that most of the issues raised in the suit have long since been resolved.

But first, since my previous post, KTVA Channel 11 has released news video. In addition, the Anchorage Daily News has published an editorial on July 2nd, stating that citizens need to see a clear resolution of this lawsuit accusing police of racism, since police often must deal with people on the worst days of their lives, and they deal on those worst days with every color, creed, nationality and culture in Anchorage. That requires an uncommon blend of skill, toughness and humanity. Our police are right up front in an increasingly diverse city.

But along with the preponderance of comments expressing skepticism and disagreement with the suit are an unusually high number of comments by those identifying as White who appear to have had racialist sentiments awakened. They're interpreting this discrimination lawsuit as yet another implicit attack upon the White community, and they're setting aside their fear of being considered "racist" and speaking out. The comments are concentrated in two Anchorage Daily News stories; "Police officers claim racism in lawsuit" (246 comments), and "Police chief says racism isn't tolerated" (65 comments). But it was this lengthy exchange on the second story that caught my attention (after the jump):



whiteprideworldwide wrote on 06/30/2010 10:08:12 PM:

if they and any other govt agency are serious about not tolerating racism then they need to end both Affirmative action and equal opportunity programs as they are inherently racist programs that profile candidates and hire based upon skin tones and not qualifications. At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.

"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.

Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism. All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist.
[the remainder of this post got truncated.]


whiteprideworldwide wrote on 06/30/2010 10:10:47 PM:

The most populous race within a territory, will determine the nature of the society within that territory - regardless of who controlled it first.

When Whites are in the minority, they get killed.
[Ed. Note: This is true in many cases. Read about the South African farm murders as an example. Also visit the DetroitIsCrap blog for an example of an American city that has gone to crap.]


whiteprideworldwide wrote on 06/30/2010 10:11:55 PM:

Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.

What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."

What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites


whiteprideworldwide wrote on 06/30/2010 10:14:15 PM:

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession


whiteprideworldwide wrote on 06/30/2010 10:15:47 PM:

They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens


whiteprideworldwide wrote on 06/30/2010 10:17:31 PM:

When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist.
[the remainder of this post got truncated.]


This lengthy missive is loaded with truth and common sense. Yet, a couple of other people couldn't see past the individual's nickname of WhitePrideWorldWide and chose to retreat into their biases against the phrase "White Pride":

Padron wrote on 06/30/2010 10:50:01 PM:

whiteprideworldwide...

your agenda is self evident...

how about sparing us the verbiosity and succinctly state your point.

like we don't already know what that is...

carry on


onealaskan wrote on 06/30/2010 11:18:17 PM:

whiteprideworldwide: wow, you've really done a great job in helping people like me understand the mind of a bigot.



To which I responded:

Anchorage_Activist wrote on 07/01/2010 00:32:04 AM:

Onealaskan, you apparently understand nothing, because your reaction leads me to believe you didn't even bother to read past WPWW's nickname, but immediately retreated to your own bias against the term "white pride".

I'll sum it up for you. WPWW is saying that America can either be a creedal nation where common American nationality takes precedence over individual heritage, or it can be a nation of competing races and ethnicities. If it is to be the latter, then Whites are just as entitled to racial representation as the other races. This is not happening; instead, people like Jesse Jackson and Janet Murghia are celebrated, while Dr. David Duke is demonized.

All WPWW is asking for is consistency -- judge all races by the same standard. Keep history out of it -- none of us alive today were involved in any so-called "White genocide". Don't swallow the anti-White propaganda spewed out by the ADL and the SPLC. The civil rights revolution, which was primarily intended to end forced segregation in the U.S., was hijacked by minority race-hustlers and self-hating, guilt-tripping white progressives and transformed into an endless witch-hunt against the White community and an extortion scheme against the greater society in general.


Perhaps WPWW got a bit more verbose than was necessary on this discussion board, which in turn triggered the accusations of "having an agenda". The ADN comments are limited to 1,000 characters for each comment, which actually encourages more brevity. But still, WPWW is obviously an articulate and positive spokesperson for that point of view.

A hat tip to the Anchorage Daily News for allowing a full range of discussion on this issue and not censoring politically incorrect content. After all, wasn't it Barack Obama who said he wanted us to have a national conversation about race?

1 comment:

  1. Anchorage Activist:

    Your website states that you are Mormon. As a Mormon, I am sure you have run into people who (1) prejudge you simply because of your religion, and (2) sincerely beleive they have done nothing wrong or intentional. That is what racism is like, and that is why "white pride world wide"'s comment stirred up controversy. If you substitute your religion for the race of these officers, you might see things from their point of view, and understand why they sued after their internal complaints were dismissed by their employer.

    ReplyDelete