Tag Archives: anti-white

Angry Asians Moralizing to Whites about Race and Religion

Christians arrrooksame – too White, too “racist”.

Evangelical Racism Is Not a Growth Strategy, W. Anne Jah, NYTimes.com – Room for Debate, 27 Oct 2013:

A recent open letter to the Christian evangelical church, signed by a wide array of Asian-American scholars and Christian practitioners, complained of numerous racially offensive incidents in evangelical circles. In yet another sign of callousness, Asian-Americans were initially told, in effect, to “get over it.” Instead, it is U.S. white Christians who must “get over” their whiteness and their failure to see the already changed face of Christian faith.

If U.S. evangelical Protestant churches – now 81 percent white, according to 2012 Pew research – hope to become a more diverse representation of all the people of God, they must respond more positively to constructive criticism like that in the recent open letter.

But persistent use of derogatory racial stereotypes by many white evangelical churches continues to surface in a variety of ways, among leaders, at religious events, in church practices and, painfully often, in church curricula.

It is the conceit of religious white racism to presume that one’s evangelicalism transcends racial and cultural identities, making such “worldly” labels no longer important. The letter reminds church leaders that those identities still matter. White evangelical Christians must stop clinging to an alibi of color-blindness and recognize that vibrant growth within “their” churches has much to do with nonwhite members’ views of them.

“Let us angelic asians into your churches and tell you how to run them, you lying, evil Whites!”

Many Whites, and especially Christians, fancy themselves blind to race. It isn’t fooling asians, who are instead following the jewish example, proclaiming how different they are from Whites, whining loudly about how offended they are at not being treated to a different, better standard by “racists”.

A Reminder to HBDers and Race Realists

A comment to Steve Sailer’s Smith student in trouble for liking boys:

Michael said…

People telling Jews they can relax now since we’ve “won” remind me how easy it is for victory to lead to relaxation and then defeat. Yes, Jews are now the establishment, and it’s tempting to feel we can relax now, but that’s especially when we have to be most on our guard. Historically, victory is usually followed by softening and defeat. It’s only Jewish paranoia – one of the healthiest, strongest, and most positive of Jewish instincts. The lack of understanding gentiles have for this powerful instinct betrays a fatal weakness in their character and sheds some light on why they ultimately didn’t have what it takes to retain power – and an exceptionally tough and enduring will to victory that has a chance of sparing Jews from this historical pattern.

Comments on this site never fail to remind me of how dangerous the temptation to relax really is. I have no doubt if Jews did relax, guys like the hideous and creepy “agnostic” would immediately crawl out of the woodworks with their festering resentments and Jews would once again be banned from country clubs and similar places.

Fact of the matter is, we are dealing with whites, Aryans if you prefer, who have historically been the most virulently racist genetic group in history. All groups are racist, but none as virulently as European whites. It’s probably a genetic character trait but if you compare historical racist attitudes it is clear as day that no other race or civilization equals white Europeans. Even modern day white Western self-hatred, which although helped along by the Jews is an essentially white European construct, is a kind of racism in reverse! It’s the same need to demonize and hate an entire people that seems genetically white, just this time directed inward! Even the white attempt to get away from racism ends up being just racism in reverse, its surreal! It would be comic if it wasn’t so sad. Orwell said that Western Communism was just nationalism attached to another group, and its the same with Western anti-racism – it’s just racism attached to one’s own group.

The Muslims noted the Crusaders inability to treat any other race as equals. We are not dealing with a mildly racist people like the Chinese or the Arabs, with whom perhaps Jews might be able, over time and in the right cultural climate such as exists in the secular West today, to relax their guard.

9/19/13, 11:07 AM

This is a good example of how jews argue. Whites are condemned first for not being “racist” enough, for not having the instincts of jews. Then also for being too “racist”, for supposedly exceeding the jews at demonization and hate. The hypocrisy and contradictions are beside the point. The point is to condemn Whites, as a race, in direct contrast to jews.

This is a reminder that jews are 1) acutely aware of the reality and importance of race, and 2) see themselves as racially distinct from and at odds with Whites.

White Privilege and Jewish Power

For more than a year the jewsmedia has been trying to turn the shooting of a black nobody by a mestizo nobody into an indictment of White “racism” and “privilege”. Meanwhile the top two candidates to replace Ben Shalom Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve are Larry Summers and Janet Yellen. All three are jews, but you won’t hear anything critical of that in the jewsmedia.

The jewish paper of record provides a typical example of how the jewsmedia goes about ignoring the jewish elephant in the room. The Battle for the Fed and In Tug of War Over New Fed Leader, Some Gender Undertones spin the struggle for power between two jew-dominated factions into a story about men versus women. Though “diversity” usually means less White, in this case it means less male.

Knowing how often jews are conflated and confused with Whites, I searched out commentary on Janet Yellen white privilege. Remarkably, I found only one article that put these four words together on the same page. Progressive Reading List at Winning Progressive calls Yellen “the best candidate to chair the Federal Reserve”, and in a separate item links The Privilege of Whiteness, describing it as:

an essay on the privilege that we place on whiteness in our society by treating white people as individuals while people of other races are racially profiled far too often.

The anti-White essay is by Paul Waldman. Another jew. These days just about anything serves as a pretext for anyone in the jewsmedia to decry White “racism” and “privilege” – it has become the new normal. The same critics don’t have anything to say about White “privilege”, much less jewish dominance, at a prominent and preeminent seat of financial and political power.

Empirically, jews are regarded as distinct from Whites. Jews like David Sirota, Tim Wise and Paul Waldman may pretend they are “white” because it helps enable their White bashing, and too many Whites are willing to go along with the charade. But the fact is that in the jew-dominated mainstream media and academia it is Whites who are most consistently criticized as a group. To the extent Whiteness is a “default setting”, as jews like Waldman argue, it is as the target for blame. Beside Sirota, Wise and Waldman, the most vile and blatant examples of anti-White invective come from jews like Susan Sontag (“the White race is the cancer of history”) and Noel Ignatiev (“the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the White race”). Why? Because jews as a group regard themselves not only as distinct from the White race, but at odds with it. Those who speak most stridently against Whites are not “self-hating” Whites, or even White-hating Whites – they are jews doing what they think is best for jews.

Constant complaints about White “racism” and “privilege” serve to distract attention away from jewish power. There are no complaints about White “privilege” at the Fed because it would call attention to jewish power. Those who hold power in the anti-White regime are either jews, in bed (literally or figuratively) with the jews, and/or are afraid of what will happen to them if they oppose the jews. They may complain about Whites. They may even pretend jews are “white”. But they will not abide complaints about jews. This is an indication not only of the power jews have, but the duplicitous and toxic nature of that power.

You White People

White People: “Check Your Privilege”

This brief screech makes the anti-White drive behind anti-“racism” plain. It’s not about creating a fair or equal or post-racial society – it’s about guilt-tripping Whites into funding our attackers, funding our own genocide.

I’d like to know more about this speaker, her identity and other activism, but from her appearance, tone and message here I think it’s likely she’s a jew. It’s an interesting point, but the rest of what I’ll say here doesn’t hinge on it.

I found this video at Moonbattery, where Dave Blount notes:

It is beyond obvious that the government/media axis converted the Trayvon Martin shooting into a race issue and then hyped it through the ceiling in order to exacerbate racial tensions. The only question is: why would they do this, positioning themselves firmly on the side of blacks, when blacks make up only 12% of the population? This pro-Trayvon protester provides the answer

. . .

When it comes time to make Whitey into lampshades, there will be no shortage of white volunteers to man the guard towers at the concentration camps. It will be whites who oversee the whole operation. Liberalism works by manipulating the weak-minded through self-hatred.

I think Blount is right in spirit, in that he’s recognizing and expressing his opposition to something he sees as wrong, even if only in terms of the moral standards endorsed by “liberals”, i.e. according to the holocaust narrative.

“[W]hy would they [the government/media axis, the screecher] do this” is an excellent question. But the answer is lacking. This call for Whites to not only acquiesce but collaborate with our own destruction merely shines a light on the tactics, the mechanics, the HOW. It does not explain the reason, the motive, the WHY. Blount does not examine the WHO closely enough, either denying the reality and significance of race, or at least seeing it only in coarse black and white terms.

The more incisive question to consider is, WHO is doing what to WHOM and WHY?

Blaming “liberalism” is an evasion. Likewise for misidentifying the problem as “self-hate” rather than White-hate. The jewish-looking, jewish-sounding woman in the video doesn’t seem to hate herself. She’s lecturing “YOU White people”, whom she clearly doesn’t identify with in any positive sense. Even if you want to imagine she’s WhiteWhiteWhite, what she’s doing is encouraging Whites to hate Whiteness, to hate other Whites who don’t. In what sense is this “self-hate”? In what sense is this “liberalism”? And even if you define “liberalism” as such – WHO makes it so and WHY?

It turns out the who and why are right in the forefront of Blount’s mind, right there in his rhetoric about lampshades. Jews see themselves as distinct from Whites. They resent Whites. It is a racial disctinction. It is a racial animus. When jews blame Whites for this state of affairs and its consequences, entirely, they confirm both the distinction and their animus.

This is why jews, at least, side with blacks against Whites. Jews see it as righteous exactly because they see jews as disctinct from Whites, racially, and deem such actions as being good for the jews. This is in direct contrast to the Whites who side with blacks, who are moved to act against their own race and told to feel righteous about it exactly because it is good for everybody but Whites. The motives couldn’t be more different.

To put it bluntly, the driving force against Whites springs from jews. To the extent “liberalism” plays a part it is to encourage Whites to idealize equality and tolerance, to fantasize that race doesn’t or shouldn’t matter. Among other ill effects this blinds and desensensitizes Whites to the anti-White hostility of jews. Indeed, the idea that the problem is “liberalism” or “self-hate” is just more of the same poison. If you think White-hate is bad, and wish to oppose it, then you’re already a “racist”. You might as well open your eyes, set aside the excuses, and face the rest of the ugly reality.

Tolerance (the Berkeley-Popper Mix)

How Not To Defend Atheism – Crazy gay, jewish Atheist goes postal at street preacher:

I’d be alot freer if people like you were put in prison… as retaliation for the COLLECTIVE CRIME OF RACISM, ANTI-SEMITISM, MISOGYNY AND HOMOPHOBIA!

The self-righteousness and hypocrisy are louder and plainer than usual, but the animating force is the same narrative broadcast by the media, taught in schools and, ironically, preached in mainline Christian churches.

The point of the jewish narrative isn’t that intolerance is bad or wrong as a general principle, the point is that jewish intolerance of “the dirty goyim” is good and right because “the dirty goyim” are intolerant of jews, and that’s what’s bad and wrong.

As I noted in The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 2, philosopher jew Karl Popper put it this way:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. […] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Jewish rhetoric about tolerance is best understood as an effort to promote the best interests of jews. From the screaming queer nobody to the world-renowned philosopher, jews don’t have any qualms about dictating to everyone else what “we” should do to best serve them. “The dirty goyim” should recognize this double-talk for what it is: dishonest, destructive, criminal, intolerable.