Tag Archives: anti-white

Blog

Anti-White is Not Code for Anti-Jew

6 Comments

Embedded in Gawker’s snarky White Man March Happens, Nobody Cares I found this twit:

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, but this one, which captures one of the major themes of the hostile reaction to the White Man March, reduces to just two – anti-White whine. However, with just a little work I thought it could help prove a point:

Sure enough, I touched a nerve:

Brian Stuart describes itself as a dangerous fat activist, humorless feminist and pedantic liberal. He has produced a series of similar cartoons, all crying out for noses.

If anything illustrates the jewish origin of the anti-White zeitgeist, it’s right here. As anyone can see, all it takes to turn humor into hate is to mistake jews for Whites.

Blog

Anti-White Animus on Parade

5 Comments

Whatever else was accomplished, the White Man March succeeded in flushing out some hostile anti-White reactions, helping put the lie to the “White privilege” meme. The same media and academia which demonstrates a practically infinite capacity to somberly and soberly indulge the slightest, most deluded concerns expressed by jews and other “people of color” have a completely different attitude about concerns expressed by Whites.

For years this media and academia have pathologized and demonized the deracinated supporters of the Republican party and Tea party for their Whiteness. Naturally, a handful of Whites speaking more directly in favor of our race can only be regarded as all the more insufferable.

One of the longer and more clearly articulated anti-White reactions has come from SUNY-Oneonta professor Mike King, in The White Victim Charade on Parade, published at CounterPunch on 17 March 2014:

The use of racialized scapegoats to explain American decline, and its effects on white Americans, has clearly been successful. Reading reports and studies of white public opinion, alongside the White Man March’s call to unity – a clear and thick overlap is present. It is a story of white victimhood, a baseless but widespread belief that there is systematic societal and governmental discrimination against whites – a growing belief steeped in anger, fear and ignorance.

The Postmodern White Man Wants “His Colonialism (um, I mean) Country Back”

In the existing ahistorical, astructural political culture, white people, especially white men, have increasingly claimed “reverse racism” – a concept that is only intelligible when we have erased history, social structure and power. In an imagined nation that has no history, and a postmodern society that has no structural forces, everyone has “identity politics” and everyone can position themselves as a victim. In this milieu, claims of “reverse racism” in relation to affirmative action have been somewhat successful because the cultural and political terrain is now defined by a total absence of an analysis that looks at the legacies of white supremacy and their contemporary structures. It is on this ahistorical and astructural landscape that declining white wages and a cornucopia of scapegoats have produced this emerging racial formation of aggrieved whiteness – a politicized white identity politics. This stretches beyond pronouncements of a “post-racial” society, to one where the language of discrimination, racism, and oppression is not erased, but politically inverted. What has been produced is a policial subject that is materially and historically absurd in-itself, yet nonethless a current historical agent-for-itself – the “racialized white victim.” This current political manifestion of white supremacy does not deviate from previous incarnations – lacking a legitimate grounding in reason and fact, while still producing very real social consequences.

The Tea Party, Glenn Beck (who has repeatdly called for a “White Civil Rights Movement”) and the White Man March all articulate their politics in the language, imagery and myth of the founding fathers. The articulation of reclaiming “my” country in a racially coded discourse, and appeals to the founding fathers and original Constitution, are instructive. The origins of the nation, the country they want to return to, was one dominated by landholding, adult, white men (who were not keen on paying taxes). Women were not allowed to vote or hold property and people of color were either annihilated, robbed or enslaved.

Eric Foner argues that the course of American history has largely been a conflict over who “We the People” refers to. Suffragettes, Civil Rights marchers, and myriad others have steadily broadened the exclusionary vision of the founders, while hitting barriers when trying to expand beyond formal and partial equality under the law. The White Man March, the Tea Party, and the aggrieved whiteness project more broadly, are clearly pushing for a narrower definition and a reclamation of ground they feel they have lost over prior decades and generations of struggles for social justice. The fact that discussion as to whether we want to go back to this past is not only on the table, but now on the top of many agendas, should be more than cause for concern. We need to begin to more forcefully highlight historical injustices that manifest in contemporary inequalities, in a way that avoids simple, liberal victimhood, and invokes history and social facts in order to challenge the “good old days” trope of the Right, while also grounding a structural analysis of today’s white supremacy, why it is emerging as it is, and what needs to be done about it.

Abolition-Democracy or Barbarism

“Today there is still the white problem – its expectations, its power, its solidarity, its imagination. Even after the civil rights movement, whiteness stands at the path to a more democratic society like a troll at the bridge. The political task, I have argued, is to chase the troll away, not ignore it or invite it to the multicultural table.”

– Joel Olson The Abolition of White Democracy

“The fascists are the vanguard of the white race; however, the big problem right now is not the white vanguard but the white mainstream.”

– Noel Ignatiev

It is clear that the White Man March politics are not fringe at all. Racist, anti-democratic, backwards, intellectually baseless…? Surely. But, fringe? Unfortunately not. What does this mean? Should we be content that the skinheads can’t turn out as many New Yorkers as Occupy? Should we conclude that the white working class are just modern Archie Bunkers and hopeless simps? I don’t see how any person who believes in creating a just society can say “yes.” How to fix this is a lot more complicated, and needs to be a strategy pulled together by the variety of people and groups challenging white supremacy on a daily basis. Instead of being outraged about the expression of such anti-democratic and hateful extremist politics in public, we should take a closer look at how these politics have already been mainstreamed, and figure out a way to effectively counter this situation.

It is clear that if the social order were to somehow be destabilized today, the fascists are not only better prepared militarily, but have been steadily winning hearts and minds for some time. If we are clear about what needs to be done and vigilant about tendencies that would hold us back, we can start to build a different world up out of this mess. Barbarism is a lot closer than we think.

King’s anti-White narrative is an extension and variation of the jewish narrative – the hallmark being the inversion of reality, most tellingly by describing Whites (rather than jews) as having power and solidarity and a self-image based on victimhood.

In the jewish narrative Whites serve as the “racialized scapegoat”, the people who present a “big problem” and need to be “abolished” to create a “just society”. King is aware that Whites have grievances – he simply dismisses them as imaginary. King does not deny the significance of race or racial conflict – he sympathizes with non-Whites in direct opposition to Whites.

There are hundreds of professors like King, paid by universities and corporations to literally profess the same sort of anti-White narrative he does. However much this narrative already predominates, in King’s mind it isn’t enough. His proposed solution to the “White problem” is ever more anti-White propaganda and indoctrination.

In this respect, I agree. I think the more loudly and openly anti-Whites profess their beliefs, the more plain they make their racial animus and power. The more plain their charade, the closer its end.

(picture source)

Blog

Anti-Whiteness is Trending

12 Comments

In White proverbs the BBC notes that anti-Whiteness is trending, though they try to spin it as something fun and innovative. Don’t hold your breath waiting for anti-“racist” groups to sue Twitter over this. They defend jews, not Whites.

The fact is that the Twitter hashtag #WhiteProverbs is just another manifestation of a peculiar form of complaining which has taken several other names in the past few years – “First World Problems”, “White Problems”, “White Whine”, and “Microaggressions”. The consistent mislabeling of these trendy expressions reflects their dishonest nature. Names like “#AntiWhiteProverbs”, “Anti-White Problems”, “Anti-White Whine”, or “Micropassiveaggressions” would more accurately convey what’s really going on.

The attached screenshot and 21 Racial Microaggressions You Hear On A Daily Basis capture the core themes. The grievances come entirely from non-Whites ostensibly incensed by a naive, deracinated White unconsciously trampling on some aspect of their fragile non-White self-image. More than half of the whining boils down to self-criticism couched as an insult. The non-Whites seem most unhappy and insecure about their hair, their looks in general, their alien name/food/customs, or their language troubles. And they blame it all on Whites.

In their minds the worst offense of all is when Whites say that race doesn’t matter. As the execrable Bill Maher puts it, denying “racism” is the new “racism”. It’s not that any of these anti-White assholes want Whites to wake up and have our own racial consciousness. What they want is for us to learn and cater to all the little nuances of their identities.

Whites thinking that race doesn’t matter definitely is a big problem – for Whites. Instead of doing what non-Whites want, Whites should be thinking about what’s best for Whites.

Blog

How Enemies Treat Enemies

1 Comment

Germany embarks on fresh attempt to ban NPD

The charge most often levelled against White nationalists is that they’re “supremacists” who seek to exclude, ban, imprison or otherwise impinge upon others. Many Whites make the mistake of thinking this charge stems from the violation of some general principle against exclusion, banning, or imprisoning people on the basis of their race or beliefs.

But at times the mask slips, and it’s clear that the current ruling judaized globalist regime regards banning and so forth to be a perfectly proper and acceptable way to treat their enemies. The real charge against White nationalists, as evident in the report above, is that any subset of Whites organizing politically to do what’s best for themselves, separate and apart from others, is bad because it is “anti-semitic”/”racist”, i.e. bad for jews and other non-Whites. By citing “anti-semitism” in addition to and distinct from “racism” the ruling regime is just making it crystal clear that for them the overriding principle is that the best interests of the jews come before anyone or anything else.

Blog

Ron Unz is Anti-White

16 Comments

Ron Unz is one of the relatively small number of jews who is mistaken as a “conservative”, in part because he was the publisher, until recently, of The American Conservative. As typical for jews, Unz doesn’t constrain himself to the usual left-right dichotomy.

Last year Unz wrote The Myth of American Meritocracy. In it he notes:

elite college admissions policy often consists of ethnic warfare waged by other means, or even that it could be summarized as a simple Leninesque question of “Who, Whom?”

His analysis distinguished jews from Whites (as “non-jewish whites”), but focused mainly on Asians (as “the new jews”). Given his anti-White attitudes, detailed below, this was likely an inoculative effort aimed at replacing more direct complaints on behalf of Whites.

Unz’s participation in a recent non-debate about immigration provided a window into the kind of discussions which take place amongst the thoroughly judaized anti-White elite. Here, as usual, Unz comes across as “conservative” only in that he expresses more concern than the other participants to prevent a backlash against that elite:

The reason America in its history, largely avoided the disastrous political results of many European countries is that every decade Americans were wealthier and better off than they were before. That’s no longer true today. And it’s no longer been true for 40 years now. Allowing an unlimited number of impoverished foreign workers to come to the United States would obviously make that situation incredibly much worse. And the result would be an economic disaster.

It’s true that possibly 1 percent or 2 percent or even 5 percent of Americans would benefit tremendously from that change. But probably 90 percent of the American population would suffer economically. And they are the people who vote. They are the people who can protest. And their views would certainly be made known. And the result would be tremendous political backlash. We have to ask ourselves whether one reason for many of the problems we’ve had in the last few decades economically is because the glorification, the amplification of theoretical concepts that may look very good to pure economic theorists, people basically spend their time in the ivory tower, but don’t understand that ordinary workers suffer when their incomes don’t rise for 40 years.

The apoplectic response of the south Asian immigrant (whose main concern is that America remain open to south Asian immigrants, even though he says they don’t really want to come and the internet makes it unnecessary) was to misinterpret Unz as speaking in favor of the Whites they both see as their enemies, “these Tea Party anti-immigrant people who [go] around creating fear about the billions who are going to invade America and take away our jobs”.

Twenty years ago Unz was campaigning to become governor of California, posing as a “conservative” while making the ridiculous argument that the state would be bankrupted not by immigrants but by the effort to cut off benefits to those immigrants. As he demogogued in the Los Angeles Times in 1994:

Most Californians view illegal immigrants as unwanted house guests. One very effective means of getting rid of such guests is to set your house on fire and burn it to the ground. This is Proposition 187’s solution to illegal immigration. It would be a financial and social disaster for California, and the worst moral disaster for our state since the internment of Japanese Americans. No decent Californian should support it.

Proposition 187 passed but was never enforced. The will of a majority of California’s Whites, including my family, was ultimately nullified by a single judge. As I’ve noted before, Governor Pete Wilson warned that immigration would bankrupt the state. It did.

For that Wilson is nowadays demonized. Though Unz-like disdain for Whites and White political interests has gone mainstream, Unz himself continues to dissimulate, posing as a rebel. His new website, The Unz Review: A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media, includes a reposting of his cover story for Commentary, the neocon journal of the American Jewish Committee, in late 1999. California and the End of White America begins:

Californians of European ancestry—”whites”—became a minority near the end of the 1980s, and this unprecedented ethnic transformation is probably responsible for the rise of a series of ethnically-charged political issues such as immigration, affirmative action, and bilingual education, as seen in Propositions 187, 209, and 227. Since America as a whole is undergoing the same ethnic transformation delayed by a few decades, the experience of these controversial campaigns tells us much about the future of our country on these ethnic issues.

Our political leaders should approach these ethnic issues by reaffirming America’s traditional support for immigration, but couple that with a return to the assimilative policies which America has emphasized in the past. Otherwise, whites as a group will inevitably begin to display the same ethnic-minority-group politics as other minority groups, and this could break our nation. We face the choice of either supporting “the New American Melting Pot” or accepting “the Coming of White Nationalism.”

Unz sees that mass immigration and forced integration has had a genocidal impact on Whites. His main concern, then and now, is that this genocide continue unimpeded. He is even aware of this criticism. Commenting as “RKU” on Sailer’s blog in the wake of Breivik’s attack:

One very mainstream but very true explanation of the factors motivating the Oslo guy’s rampage was the exceptionally shrill and wild rhetoric found on lots of HDB, anti-Islamic, and quasi-WN websites. Both the management and the commenters are always accusing their political opponents of being “traitors” aiming at the “extermination” of their racial group via a deliberate policy of “genocide.” Traitors…extermination…genocide…traitors…extermination…genocide…

So maybe after many years of reading all those websites, the Oslo guy started to actually take all that crazy rhetoric seriously. And if “traitors” really are attempting to “exterminate” your people via a deliberate policy of “genocide”, well, shooting as many of them as you can isn’t really so unreasonable, is it? As near as I can tell, since the attacks half the chatter on those websites has been “we really, really didn’t mean it!!” while the other half has been “great job, Oslo guy!”

Now Norway’s on the other side of the world, and there was also an extremely strong Israel/Zionist angle, so the story doesn’t seem have legs in the American MSM. But perhaps people should consider that vast numbers of American “activists” read those same “excitable” websites. And if some crazy American guy did the same thing, and massacred a whole campful of Young Democrats because of the all the crazy “traitor—extermination—genocide” rhetoric he’d been reading, well, I suspect that *extremely* bad things would immediately happen to an awful lot of loudmouth bloggers, some of whom probably deserve it and some of whom probably don’t. And the MSM barrage would probably ensure that 95% of the public supported doing all those extremely bad things, just like the mass roundups of Muslims after 9/11.

Endlessly shouting “traitor!”—“extermination!”—“genocide!” at your political opponents has always struck me as being pretty ridiculous, and perhaps now pretty clearly unwise as well.

RKU makes the same argument “liberal” jews made about Sarah Palin. His ridicule and fantasies about “extremely bad things” being done to his White enemies also call to mind Tim Wise’s drunken tick tock rant.

Jews know better than anyone else how well shouting “genocide!” works. Since WWII they have thrust their holocaust narrative to the very center of Western consciousness – sanctifying themselves while demonizing Whites.