Our de facto anti-white apartheid, David Cole.
From Taki Mag.
It depresses me how much some American semi-lunatic commentators are seeing things clearly. As in, maybe this is the truth, and I have been far too complacent.
“How can people fight back when there are no laws or official policies to challenge? That was always the fatal flaw with legally codified, racially tiered systems. Laws give people something to target.
“Sure, blacks can storm through white neighborhoods, terrorizing residents by marching around at 1 a.m. blasting music from bullhorns (as happened in my neighborhood last month). But hey—it’s the right of free assembly! Whites can do it too…in theory. But in reality, whites know that if they try to march through, say, South Central at 1 a.m. chanting like lunatics, they’ll get shot. And DAs would not seize those guns, even as they charged the white protesters with “hate crimes.”
“That’s why a monster like George Soros has targeted district attorneys in every state; that’s why he spends so much money to install his own people in that position. The law gives DAs prosecutorial discretion, and again, it’s perfectly legal. White couple paints over graffiti? Felony hate crime. Black thugs beat white child senseless? Misdemeanor assault.
“DA discretion is a great tool for enforcing de facto apartheid, and Soros picked up on that long before we did.
“The news for whites is grim. Politicians in both parties have already decided to either go along with de facto apartheid, or at least not overtly oppose it. Whites have no advocates left. The closest thing whites have to an advocate with a major national platform is Tucker Carlson, and he won’t say the word “white”:
We’re witnessing a broad and powerful attack on the principle of equality. Daily, we are told that all people are not in fact created equal. Some were born with moral stain, others were not…. People in favored groups must be held to one standard. Those in disfavored groups, the morally tainted ones, must be held to another standard. The country retains one set of laws mostly for the sake of formality. But we must apply those laws in very different ways, according to the DNA and the background of the accused.
“On the face of it, that monologue is fine. But not once in the piece does he specifically name whites as the “disfavored, tainted group.” He uses the same generalized terms that people like Kendi have already redefined. Antiwhite apartheid can’t be countered if you can’t be specific, a point I made last year in “Can the Right Fight Without Saying White?” Carlson knows that even with his strong ratings, appearing to advocate too stridently for whites would be a fireable offense.”
And so forth.