Blog

If you’ve seen Toby Gerhart carry the football, you’re well aware that the former Stanford halfback and Heisman Trophy runner-up is about as subtle as Iron Man. It’s no surprise, then, that as the NFL draft approaches, the player one AFC front-office executive described as “a bowling ball with butter knives” is hell-bent on obliterating the perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed in the pros.

I’ve spoken with numerous NFL talent evaluators about Gerhart over the past few months, and there are plenty of skeptics who don’t seem to be locked into mindless stereotypes.

Did skin color keep Stanford RB Toby Gerhart from being a first-round pick? – The Huddle: Football News from the NFL – USATODAY.com:

“One team I interviewed with asked me about being a white running back,” Gerhart said. “They asked if it made me feel entitled, or like I felt I was a poster child for white running backs. I said, ‘No, I’m just out there playing ball. I don’t think about that.’ I didn’t really know what to say.”

Opinions seem mixed on Gerhart, who was obviously productive but also absorbs a lot of punishment and isn’t especially shifty. One scout told Silver that Gerhart’s pigmentation was definitely working against him.

Nothing to see here, move along folks. When a White guy faces race-based bias it’s a “perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed” and his “pigmentation” is “working against him”.

Just last year Michael Silver, the jewish author of the first article linked above, was offended and outraged over race-based perceptions. In No excuses: Redskins need a new nickname – NFL – Yahoo! Sports, Silver wrote:

Last Friday, in a judicial decision that hinged on a legal technicality, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., upheld the right of the local pro football team to keep its unconscionable nickname.

Gloated team attorney Bob Raskopf, “It’s a great day for the Redskins and their fans and their owner, Dan Snyder.”

Alas, it was another shameful day for America.

In clinging to the most racially offensive moniker held by a major U.S. professional sports team since the Emancipation Proclamation – yes, I know, since forever – the franchise continues to offend some Native Americans and assault the sensibilities of a citizenry that should be long past such insensitive and shallow depictions.

How can a large majority of us not be offended? Imagine trying to explain “Redskins” to a foreign visitor or a time-traveler from the future? Every time I say the word, I throw up in my mouth a little and wonder why there is no widespread outrage.

Would we “honor,” say, Chicago’s African-American population by calling its NFL team the Brownskins?

If the NBA placed a franchise in Hawaii, would it consider paying homage to the islands’ Asian influences by competing as the Yellowskins?

And while I’m sure we could all come up with some Jewish slurs to continue the analogy, I submit that an anti-Semitic major league owner like Marge Schott might’ve been quite comfortable fielding a team known as the Foreskins.

Ridiculous? Absolutely. And Redskin is just as absurd, whether you’ve been conditioned to regard it as normal or not.

If Toby Gerhart were a jew Silver wouldn’t describe the problem as “the perception that he lacks the foreskin to succeed in the pros”. He’d describe it as “anti-semitism”. He’d be throwing up in his mouth and wondering why there is no widespread outrage.

Gerhart isn’t a victim of his skin color. He and other White players are subjected to a different race-based standard by sports and media machers who favor “African-Americans” over “whites”. We are conditioned to regard this as normal. It’s not.

Steve Sailer wrote an article about Gerhart last October titled Blackballed? Sailer wonders:

So, why are there a lot of white starting tailbacks in high school, very few in big time college football, and none in the NFL?

There are three general explanations:

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Blacks (A.K.A., Did You Know that Jewish Players Used to Dominate Basketball?) This is the dominant public explanation put forward by the sporting press. The party line is that blacks are forced by poverty to become multimillionaire stars, while wealthy whites relax in the lap of luxury by, uh, playing center or breaking up the wedge on kickoffs or … well, never mind. The facts aren’t important.

As Tom Wolfe implied in I Am Charlotte Simmons, this theory is motivated less by any serious urge to explain reality and more by Jewish pundits’ concerns over whether honest analysis of racial differences is good for the Jews.

In Wolfe’s 2004 novel, the frat boys watch a talk show on ESPN:

… four poorly postured middle-aged white sportswriters sat slouched in little, low-backed, smack-red fiberglass swivel chairs panel-discussing the ‘sensitive’ matter of the way black players dominated basketball. “Look,” the well-known columnist Maury Fieldtree was saying, his chin resting on a pasha’s cushion of jowls, “just think about it for a second. Race, ethnicity, all that—that’s just a symptom of something else. There’s been whole cycles of different minorities using sports as a way out of the ghetto. …

Maury Fieldtree goes on to talk about the Irish and boxing, Italians and boxing, Germans and football, and then, inevitably:

In the 1930s and 1940s, you know who dominated professional basketball long before the African Americans? Jewish players. Yeah! Jewish players from the Jewish ghettos of New York!”

The Rube Goldberg ish logic underlying the conventional wisdom is, roughly, that

A) If it became socially acceptable to admit in public that blacks might have on average genetic advantages in jumping and sprinting; then

B) It might become acceptable to admit that maybe blacks have lower average IQs for genetic reasons; which would then

C) Let the gentiles find out that Jews might higher average IQs for genetic reasons; thus,

D) The goyim will come for us with their torches and pitchforks; and therefore,

E) We must just bury the whole topic in mindless kitsch to prevent A from ever happening.

In contrast, the two serious theories are:

Genetics: As O.J. Simpson explained to Time in 1977: “We are built a little differently, built for speed—skinny calves, long legs, high asses are all characteristics of blacks.”

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Whites: The website CasteFootball.us has long been single-mindedly documenting outstanding young white athletes who have been channeled by coaches from traditionally black positions such as tailback, cornerback or wide receiver to whiter, less glamorous positions such as linebacker, strong safety, or tight end.

The conventional wisdom is actually a combination of all three theories. “People of color” are discriminated against and biologically superior and it’s right and good to discriminate against Whites because of the stereotype that they’ve been discriminating against superior “people of color” for ages.

Blog

Two “Conservative” Jews, Same “Liberal” Dissembling

15 April 2010 Tanstaafl 70 Comments

In The Myth of “Judeo-Christian Values”, Paul Gottfried writes:

Although I agree with Larry [Auster] about the need for a moratorium on immigration, particularly from Latin America, and although I share his view that decadent, childless Europeans are committing physical and demographic suicide by repopulating their countries with lower-class Muslims, who often incline toward Islamic Fundamentalism, I strongly dissent from his unqualified generalizations about adherents of Islam.

I am not suiciding myself and I don’t know anyone who is. What Gottfried misidentifies as “suicide by repopulating their countries” is actually genocide by immigration. It is being imposed on lots of people I do know who don’t want it by a class who most certainly do not see themselves as “us” or these countries as “ours”. It is rationalized and excused by a number of specious arguments, the most effective of which is that any substantive resistance to this supposed “suicide” makes you a horrible, immoral, ignorant person – a “racist” or “nazi”. You’re a mortal threat to the interests of “minorities”.

Jews, of course, are the prototypical threatened minority, with a mind boggling disproportion of wealth and over-representation in Western media and politics. That’s why anyone who stands against this so-called “suicide” is called a “nazi” – whether or not they have any knowledge of “nazi” history or jewish power. Whites may be ignorant of our interests, but jews are not ignorant of theirs, and they don’t hesitate to use their power to viciously attack anyone they perceive as an enemy.

Neither Gottfried nor Auster are powerful, in part because they oppose immigration. Despite their differences on muslims both feel free to make unqualified negative generalizations about Whites. Both scapegoat us for “suiciding” ourselves. Both talk about and even criticize jews, but ultimately excuse them and blame Whites instead.

Larry might wish that Jews thought differently about Christian believers since he himself is one, but alas most of them don’t. Jewish organizations here and in Europe view Christians as people whose exaggerated guilt over the Holocaust can be channeled into support for the Israeli government. Prominent Jewish groups, such as the World Jewish Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League, show nothing but indifference or hostility to the continued existence of Christian institutions in what used to be Christian countries.

This isn’t about religion. Christianity here is nothing but a proxy for Whiteness, and Gottfried and Auster both know it.

Those same prominent jewish groups joined with muslims and the Catholic Church, the media, and the EU ruling caste to condemn a popular, secular Swiss vote banning minarets. Led by jewish example and jewish rhetoric they all take the slightest indication that the Swiss want Switzerland to remain Swiss as a sign of “nazism”, which they see as a mortal threat. Never mind the mortal threat to the Swiss. In this and dozens of recent examples across the West, opposition to genocidal levels of immigration is more and more explicitly described as bad for jews and the alien migrants they identify and sympathize with. The rationale is that such opposition threatens them with genocide.

The impact of this inversion of reality isn’t anti-Christian, it’s anti-White. Even when White opposition to immigration is deracinated and expressed in terms of law, economics, or culture the genocidal immigrationists shamelessly inject their own ethnic and racial interests into the debate while accusing the White opposition of disguising “racist” motives.

I’m not as familiar with Gottfried, but I know Auster follows European politics almost as closely as he follows domestic American politics. His main concern isn’t religion. It’s “anti-semitism”. If he gets the slightest whiff that a person or organization opposes jewish interests, explicitly or not, it doesn’t matter whether they are good Christians, dislike muslims, or agree with him on every other point of his pro-jewish worldview.

There might well be problems with the liberal ideas that Jews have supported until now, but it is simply wrong to pretend that Jewish liberals act from liberal motives that have nothing to do with their Jewish fears and hostilities. I’ve never met a Jewish liberal whose leftist politics was not in some way connected to his self-identity as a Jew.

Auster only poses as an anti-“liberal” “conservative”. His preoccupation is with defending jewish interests. His opposition to immigration into the West is based primarily on it being bad for jews. His dissembling about “liberalism” and “judeo-Christian” heritage is only part of his deliberate and more general conflation of White and jewish interests. Gottfried likewise but less blatantly poses as a “conservative” against “liberalism”. Together he and his friend Auster demonstrate that self-identity as a jew is not only connected to “liberals” and leftist politics.

I’ll conclude with an exchange in June 2009 between these two hyper-conscious jews about how jews are innocent and Whites (disingenously euphemized first as “Protestants”, then as “Christians”, and finally as the “white gentile majority”) are to blame, excerpted from Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants (Auster’s emphasis):

LA replies:

Let me see if I can reconcile these statements.

You seem to be saying that the egalitarian fiction (the races are equal in capacities, so blacks’ backwardness must be due to white racism) is the source of white guilt, but that the energy pushing this guilt and never giving it a rest is the projection of Christian spiritual guilt onto secular racial guilt about nonwhites.

Is that an accurate summary of what you’re saying?

However, this leads me to another point, I think I have just finally understood something you’ve been saying to me for a number of years. You have often told me that Protestant liberals are worse than Jewish liberals, and I never quite understood what you meant by this. But now I think maybe I see it.

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following.

Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel ok about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals. The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

A true liberal is a person who is willing to accept his group’s extinction. Protestants are willing to accept their group’s extinction. Jews are not. Therefore Protestants are closer to the true liberal essence than the Jews are.

Is this what you’ve been saying?

Paul Gottfried replies:

You’ve summed up my views on the differences between Jewish and Christian liberals with more succinctness that I’ve been able to apply to the problem. And your conclusion is spot on. True liberals, who incarnate the Freudian death wish, yearn for the extinction of their ancestral group.

Jews, including “conservatives” like Auster and Gottfried, feel ok about themselves, they think Whites are the problem.

UPDATE 16 April 2010: Alt-Right’s ongoing construction of a fictional Auster is Auster’s lame reply to “ignorant and off-base statements about me”. He complains that:

Every time an article about me appears at Richard Spencer’s website Alternative Right, which is not an infrequent event, it attributes to me, without evidence, without any quotations from my writings, views that I do not have and that I have never stated and that frequently are the opposite of my actual views. There have been so many such false attributions, particularly in Richard Spencer’s long article, “Austercized” (which I only gave a careful reading recently, after Spencer’s podcast interview of me), and in Richard Hoste’s blog entries about me, and it would take so much work and time to reply to them all, and there are so many more pressing and more interesting things to write about, that I’ve put off replying to them so far, though I will try to get around to it.

The latest Auster-critical fantasy fest (or, rather, “Larry”-critical fantasy fest, since the writers at Alt Right do not refer to me by my last name, but as “Larry”) is a 1,600 word article posted yesterday by Paul Gottfried which, without a single quotation of me, attributes to me numerous views that I do not have and have never stated.

Of course whenever I write about Larry I quote him extensively. My frequent critiques of him have been rooted entirely in his views and his arguments. It has never stopped him from writing any number of ignorant and off-base statements about me.

Focusing finally on Gottfried, Auster writes:

Beyond his wild mischaracterizations of my views, of which I’ve only touched the surface, is a much more consequential matter. Gottfried’s main point in this vile and incoherent article is to drive a wedge between Jews and Christians, to make Christians feel that Jews are a greater threat to the West than Muslims are.

The quotes Auster provides and his statement of his “real” views do not demonstrate any “wild mischaracterizations” made by Gottfried. And Auster provides no quotes in support of his own wild mischaracterization of Gottfried’s main point, which Gottfried put right in his title: The Myth of “Judeo-Christian Values”. Gottfried is accusing Larry of mischaracterizing the history of European/jewish relations. The only real flaw with that criticism is that Gottfried neglects to add that many other jews and zionist Christians join Larry in that mythologizing. “Judeo-Christian” rhetoric is the norm, not the exception, and in fact the only politically correct, mainstream, “liberal” view of “judeo-Christian” history is one in which jews have always been the completely innocent victims of undeserved persecution, repeatedly perpetrated by envious, irrational, and ignorant Europeans.

As usual Auster doesn’t address the criticism that’s actually aimed at him. Instead he complains hypocritically about “personal attacks” and “reckless indifference to factual truth” and changes the subject. And of course the subject that he really wants to talk about is the threat to jews posed by Gottfried’s blunt words concerning their dim views of “Christians”, ie. Europeans.

I’m disgusted by the dissembling coming from both of these jewish “conservative” poseurs, but I’m happy to see so many in the Alternative Right commentariat aren’t fooled.

Blog

Who Hates the Tea Party and Why

31 March 2010 Tanstaafl 32 Comments

For more than a year media pundits and celebrities and an army of lesser-known left-leaning editorialists and bloggers have ridiculed and dehumanized Tea Party protesters as “teabaggers” and “racists”. With the recent surge in anti-White sentiment openly expressed in the “liberal” media it must be dawning on more and more Tea Partiers that the problems with their country go beyond taxes, healthcare, or socialism.

In Teabaggers Vs. Immigration Rally: A Tale of Two Americas – huffingtonpost.com, Miguel Guadalupe writes:

At the immigration rally, you saw a wide spectrum of races and ethnicities. Those attending were mostly Latino, but the rally also welcomed the participation of Whites, Asians, and Blacks who support a path to citizenship, reuniting families, and providing opportunities to students and veterans.

At the Teabagger rally, the monochromatic masses were spitting and yelling racial and homophobic slurs at Black, Latino, and openly gay congressional reps.

At the immigrations rally, the participants were expressing hope – hope that reform would reunite them with their families. Hope that they would be given the opportunity to fully contribute to society, and the hope that their sacrifices, including the sacrifices of those who have served in the military or have lost their lives defending this country, will not be in vain.

At the Teabagger rally, the participants were expressing fear – fear of a socialist nation, fear of some type of take over of individual rights, fear of some conspiracy involving the democratically elected President and a democratically elected representative majority. They punctuated their expression of fear with threats of violence.

I highlight these opposing images because soon enough, these two groups will collide. The national debate on immigration reform will come soon, and if the Teabaggers act as they have against health care reform, we can expect more vitriol, fear mongering, harassment and acts of violence. These so-called “Americans” will feel even less restrained against people they consider to be “foreign” or “illegal,” deserving even less respect than they gave to our elected officials.

In Whose Country Is It? – NYTimes.com, Charles Blow writes:

The far-right extremists have gone into conniptions.

The bullying, threats, and acts of violence following the passage of health care reform have been shocking, but they’re only the most recent manifestations of an increasing sense of desperation.

It’s an extension of a now-familiar theme: some version of “take our country back.” The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn’t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

Hence their anger and frustration, which is playing out in ways large and small. There is the current spattering of threats and violence, but there also is the run on guns and the explosive growth of nefarious antigovernment and anti-immigrant groups. In fact, according to a report entitled “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism” recently released by the Southern Poverty Law Center, “nativist extremist” groups that confront and harass suspected immigrants have increased nearly 80 percent since President Obama took office, and antigovernment “patriot” groups more than tripled over that period.

Politically, this frustration is epitomized by the Tea Party movement. It may have some legitimate concerns (taxation, the role of government, etc.), but its message is lost in the madness. And now the anemic Republican establishment, covetous of the Tea Party’s passion, is moving to absorb it, not admonish it. Instead of jettisoning the radical language, rabid bigotry and rising violence, the Republicans justify it. (They don’t want to refute it as much as funnel it.)

There may be a short-term benefit in this strategy, but it’s a long-term loser.

A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday took a look at the Tea Party members and found them to be just as anachronistic to the direction of the country’s demographics as the Republican Party. For instance, they were disproportionately white, evangelical Christian and “less educated … than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack.” This at a time when the country is becoming more diverse (some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be nonwhite, less doctrinally dogmatic, and college enrollment is through the roof. The Tea Party, my friends, is not the future.

You may want “your country back,” but you can’t have it. That sound you hear is the relentless, irrepressible march of change. Welcome to America: The Remix.

In The Rage Is Not About Health Care – NYTimes.com, Frank Rich writes:

That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

In Too much tea party racism – Salon.com, Joan Walsh writes:

The tea party movement is disturbingly racist and reactionary, from its roots to its highest branches.

These views well reflect the increasingly obvious race-based double standard propounded in the media for more than a decade now: non-White aliens good, White natives evil.

The psychological device they’re using in the battle over healthcare is the same one that’s been used against anyone opposed to immigration. They call Whites “racist” for objecting to anything we don’t believe is in our best interests, trying to guilt-trip us and implying that we’re somehow morally or mentally defective. As we can see from the full-throated anti-White reaction to even the largely deracinated Tea Partiers, whether we think or speak in explicitly racial terms is irrelevant. Our “anti-racist” antagonists are hyper-sensitive to race and any conflict with their own racial interests, or as in the case of Joan Walsh, act as a self-righteous proxy for such interests. White leaders perversely reject and profess distaste for our group interests even as we see an increasing number of non-White leaders who openly and unabashedly advocate in favor of theirs.

White fears are justified. We had a country of our own and still want one, organized to our tastes and run for our benefit. What sane group of people does not? In 1965 we were told that the changes to the immigration laws would not alter the ethnic makeup of our country. Anyone who foresaw that it would was smeared as an insane “racist”. Today it’s clear that immigration has in fact radically changed the ethnic makeup of the country. Now we’re told it’s irrepressible, irrevocable, and the country is no longer ours. Anyone angered by this situation or the duplicity used to produce it is smeared as an insane “racist”.

We are being displaced and dispossessed by genocidal levels of immigration and concomitant inter-racial transfers of wealth and power. This is foisted on us by liars and hypocrites whose deceptions, self-interests, and disdain for us becomes more transparent every day. They control all the major channels of education and discourse, and thus shape the terms of debate, defining and denigrating practically anything we have to say about any of this as “hate”. Their moralizing invokes injustices decades or centuries past, while they disregard and even celebrate the injustices being done to Whites right here, right now. They project onto us and decry their own malign motives and guilty deeds, shamelessly broadcasting a never-ending stream of race-based vitriol and fear mongering from myriad well-funded, high-profile sources, attacking us for peaceably expressing legitimate political interests. We have accommodated and appeased them for too long. For decades we have demonstrated our good faith, which they have taken advantage of and not reciprocated. The harder they try now to scapegoat us and the louder they insinuate that our calls for self-determination portend violence, the more they reveal their malevolent intent.

(Snide image discourtesy of the New York Times.)

Blog

Violence and Politics

25 March 2010 Tanstaafl 14 Comments

Steny Hoyer: Members are at risk – Jake Sherman – POLITICO.com:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts — and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the majority whip, said Democrats and Republicans should continue to speak out on these threats. “Silence gives consent,” Clyburn said.

But Minority Leader John Boehner already has condemned threats of violence — and sought to explain why people are so angry.

“I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Boehner said. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let’s do it the right way.“

Whites are angry exactly because we have already tried “the right way”. We called congress, wrote letters, went to town hall meetings, organized and attended Tea Party protests – and all of it got us nowhere. We know we’re getting screwed – whether by immigration, bailouts, or healthcare. We know the politicians know we object. We have been misled into believing that the politicians are driven by votes. It’s beginning to dawn on us that the leadership of both parties dance to a different tune.

Why shouldn’t we be angry? We can see that when blacks and browns speak out and march the media and politicians behave differently. The anger and threats of non-Whites are invariably regarded as a righteousness response to injustice. They are seen as good, hard-working people seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Rather than condemning non-Whites the media actively calls on politicians to serve them. And the politicians fall over themselves to respond.

Meanwhile we law-abiding, tax-paying, White citizens can see that media and politicians regard us as lazy, greedy, and evil. Our concerns aren’t treated as legitimate political interests but are instead derided and dismissed as “racism” motivated by “hate”. They not only don’t care about our lives or families, they don’t think we should either.

“Silence gives consent” works both ways. The media and politicians don’t condemn the violent threats that have shut down speeches by Minutemen, Tom Tancredo, or Ann Coulter. They didn’t even notice the American Renaissance conference being suppressed by death threats, right there in Washington.

“Silence gives consent” applies just as well to the displacement, dispossession, and discrimination against the native White population. Active participation in our genocide is worse than silence.

The truth is that political power springs from violence. This is clear even in US history – from Lexington and Concord right through to the military offensives in Afghanistan. Politics are driven by those who are willing to commit and condone violence to get what they want. Those who shy away get dominated and crushed. Most of our White leaders are craven traitors. Our non-White enemies are liars and hypocrites. Our condemnation is best aimed at them, not at those of us who oppose them. That’s the American way.

(Image source.)

Blog