Tag Archives: politics

Blog

Nothing to do with Race, Nope, No Way

3 Comments

A black and white version of this photo was on DrudgeReport Wednesday morning with the caption “LANDSLIDE” just below. I didn’t have time to save Drudge’s image or read the story he linked, but it did occur to me how manipulative it was to make the image black and white, deliberately modifying it in a way that left the messianic dimension intact while obscuring the racial dimension.

Later I was able to find the original full-color version. According to the source the photo was taken on 6 July 2008. Since then it has apparently bounced around the internets via secret brotha chain email. Sorta like the Obama-is-a-muslim meme and worse have been bouncing around the jewish internets.

Oddly enough I’m not in either social circle, so I didn’t see this picture until just now. After searching for it. Doesn’t the media usually monitor and report on popular phenomena like this? The full-color image sure does make a dramatic impression. It’s Pulitzer material. Why should Whites be shielded from the graphic reality this race is revealing about race? Oh, that’s right. We’re not supposed to think about race.

Until you read the next headline. And the next. And the next…

– – –

Also from Drudge Wednesday: Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black:

The “socialist” label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

. . .

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Drudge’s headline, “PAPER: ‘Socialist’ label called ‘old code word for black’…”, made the any-criticism-of-Obama-is-racism meme transparent enough. The hilarious thing about the article’s actual argument is that in the “old days”, before reality-twisting honesty-smothering political correctness came to power, nobody used code words for blacks. People spoke plainly and simply said “negro” or “colored” when they meant negro or colored. “Socialist” might be a new code word for blacks, but it isn’t an old one.

On the other hand “socialist”, or more precisely “communist”, was indeed an old code word for jews. Even as early as 1917 many Whites were afraid of the stigma attached to being called “anti-semite”. Many of these Whites, even the ones in government whose job it was to defend us from enemies foreign and domestic, couldn’t bring themselves to actually say out loud what they could plainly see with their eyes. That’s because their brains knew what would happen to their wallets if they didn’t bite their tongues. Just as it works today, only the “social pricing” was not as expensive.

There were men who spoke out anyway. Henry Ford. William Dudley Pelley. Charles Lindbergh. They all paid a price.

By 1972 even presidents dared to express anti-jewish thoughts only in private. Today we’re told by our enlightened elite that Nixon was an anti-semite, because he must have been imagining the jewish influence that only an anti-semite can imagine has since become ever more pervasive and obvious. And it’s just in our wild imaginations that the country seems to be going down the drain, just as Billy Graham and Nixon feared. But that’s just more raving. Here’s what’s really important:

There’s no way to settle whether Nixon was an anti-Semite—not just because you can’t peer into someone’s soul, but also because there’s no litmus test for anti-Semitism. No, Nixon didn’t hate all Jews personally, nor did he use unreconstructed Henry Ford-style anti-Jewish appeals—though, of course, virtually no major public figure in the last 50 years has. Yet clearly he thought and spoke of Jews as a group, more or less united in their opposition to him, possessing certain base and malign characteristics, and worthy of his scorn and hatred. You don’t have to call that anti-Semitism if you don’t want to. But there’s no denying it represents a worldview deserving of the strongest reproach.

Never mind that you can find in the media virtually every day – without looking hard – opinions expressed about Whites as a group (sometimes coded), as more or less racist and possessing certain other base and malign characteristics, and worthy of scorn and hatred. Never mind that Ford’s warning is almost 90 years past, not 50. In jewish minds Ford inspired Hitler to almost exterminate their race just yesterday, and today’s rising crescendo of White-bashing from on high isn’t a crime at all. It’s not even happening. La la la la la. And if it is happening, so what? It’s justice. And if you notice any jews bashing away it isn’t because they’re “deserving of the strongest reproach”. No. It’s because you’re an anti-semite throwback – like Ford, Nixon, Graham, Pelley, Lindbergh, … Knuckledragging jackbooted ignoramuses one and all.

– – –

Among the things Lindbergh mentioned in Des Moines was how smears and slurs are used to manipulate us. Here’s a contemporary example. It concerns Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota who “appeared on Hardball and pounded away at Barack Obama’s associations with his long-time minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and bomber Bill Ayers, suggesting that the media should be investigating these associations with very anti-American voices”. This prompted Mike Malloy, the former CNN news writer, to say:

She represents a district in Minnesota, she’s a Republican of course, and she’s a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She’s the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations. She’s the type of person that I’m sure believes that the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was good and the use of depleted uranium in Iraq served a purpose. This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman.

Note that Malloy implies that Whites who oppose Obama are not just guilty of being “racist”, and we’re not just guilty of genociding jews and indians. No. Now we’re also guilty of genociding the poor vietnamese and iraqis.

Imagine what Whites will be accused of after four years of Change. I bet genociding somalis and latinos will be on the list. Read that link and see how those jews and socialists “fighting for equality” really get around. Somehow racist Whites will get the blame. You can bank on it. In fact you can build a Rube Goldberg-style business based on loaning somebody else’s money to other somebodies you know will never repay while collecting a fat fee and selling the loans to other somebodies who will get screwed later. When that plays out you can get your distant relative in the government to “rescue” you with more money from some other people, so you can get out of that old used-up business and into another. Cha-ching.

If that “getting” and “making” stuff of Ford’s is starting to make sense it’s either because you’re a loser who needs a non-White scapegoat to blame, or because it makes sense.

– – –

Such is the fruit of 60+ years of pretending race doesn’t matter. Tastes a bit fecal, doesn’t it?

Blog

Little Known Sarah Palin Facts

38 Comments

Genocidal anti-racists hate Sarah Palin and her daughter for reproducing while White.

But even that old race-traitor Juan McCain appears to grok, deep down, that a White baby, illegitimate or not, fathered by a self-proclaimed redneck or not, is better than no White baby at all. If I could shake Levi’s hand I’d say so explicitly, “congratulations son, now marry the girl and make four more”.

Steve Sailer writes:

The Blue Whites are alarmed and outraged to be reminded that the Red Whites can afford to outbreed them and are outbreeding them.

Which is true, but doesn’t capture the whole picture. A commenter named Mark puts his finger on the problem:

The thought of the Red Whites outbreeding the Blue Whites would give immense satisfaction, if I didn’t simultaneously know that the Blue Whites in concert with many Yellow Reds are importing Blue Bronzes and Blue Yellows and Blue Blacks to outbreed even the Red Whites.

This is precisely what’s happening.

Some bigots are not happy about who Sarah associates with:

Jewish Democrats have started to hit Sarah Palin hard for her association with former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan

Obama camp connects the dots for Jews: McCain…Palin…Buchanan…”Nazis”:

Barack Obama’s campaign, perhaps miffed at all the Democrat-is-weak-on-Israel theme, started striking back at John McCain almost as soon as he tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Where the Dems are trying to paint McCain as more financially out of touch with people, they’re strongly suggesting that his Christian conservative running mate is no friend to the Jews.

“Palin was a supporter of [MSNBC analyst] Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer,” Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski wrote in an email.

This is the likely reason Lawrence Auster thinks Palin should withdraw. It certainly makes more sense than the rationale he’s currently peddling, which absurdly focuses on Palin’s daughter’s child. Clearly a politician’s support for israel is paramount to Auster. As the ineffective and pathetic nature of his distaste for White reproductive habits plays out look for Auster to fall back on the same six-degrees-of-naziation smears other members of his extended family are already slinging.

Here’s my paramount concern. What is Palin’s position on immigration? Whether she was choosen to create all this hullabaloo about experience, pregnancy, and glass ceilings intentionally or not the result is that precious little attention is given to the fundamental, existential problem facing indigenous Whites: the invasion of hostile, ethnocentric, and fecund non-whites who want what we have. The media and our treasonous politicians are all very eager not to discuss that.

Blog

CNN’s Anti-White Election Commentary

26 Comments

From the transcript of Tuesday’s CNN primary coverage:

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, we have been looking at some of the exit polls from Kentucky, in particular the issue of race. Voters who said that race was important in making their decision or is the factor in making their decision.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It is more disquieting news I think for Barack Obama as he looks for the general election.

COOPER: One in five I think.

GERGEN: It was about 21 percent that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton.

COOPER: And that is people that would admit it to a complete strangers taking these exit polls theoretically it would be even larger those who would not admit it.

GERGEN: And from her point of view, over a quarter of the people who voted for her today in Kentucky were people who said race was a factor in their decision. And it really means — I mean, she’s been talking about sexism in this race and she has complained about some in the last 24 hours.

You know race is really playing an increasing issue. And it also raises the question in my judgment of whether she shouldn’t say, you know, if you want to vote against him because he’s black, I don’t want your vote. I don’t want to win that way. This has no place in this primary.

COOPER: Do you see her saying that?

GERGEN: Well, she has been a champion — she’s been a champion of civil rights for a long, long time. She and her husband both have I think well-earned reputations in the civil rights front. She’s never had redneck votes before in her life.

I see no reason why she couldn’t take the high road here in the closing days of his campaign and try to take this on and take on the Reverend Wright issue to say, “Look, I campaigned with this fellow for 15 months. I know a lot of you people don’t think he shares your values that somehow Barack thinks like Reverend Wright. Not true. I know him. I have been with him. And race should come out of this.”

I think she could do a lot by taking a high road.

COOPER: Reverend Wright also showed up in these exit polls.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, in the state of Kentucky, 54 percent of the voters said Barack Obama shares the views of Reverend Wright. That’s something we saw also in West Virginia.

And does Barack Obama share your values? 53 percent of the voters in Kentucky said, “No, he doesn’t.” This is some of the repair work that he’s got to do in terms of the voters that Hillary Clinton is getting.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Hillary Clinton ought to keep in mind, I think, the long view here. She’s got many more years in public life ahead of her. Taking the high road at this point, saying I don’t want racists to vote for me, saying that this is about something bigger than just strategizing the last few races. I think that would stand her in very good stead.

BORGER: Very late for that. What in Montana and South Dakota?

TOOBIN: I mean, she might as well say it, because I think it would make a difference. This race has been so polarized along the issues of race and, frankly, I think most people blame her for that than they blame Obama. And to leave, if she’s in fact leaving on the high road, would do a world of good.

GERGEN: She could do it on Reverend Wright. She could still take that on before she leaves this race.

Here’s video.

For a while now the pundits have been expressing concerns that the White vote is going 60-40 or even 70-30 for Clinton. They generally don’t think the black vote going 80-20 or 90-10 for Obama is more noteworthy, and it certainly isn’t ever something they criticize. If anything they tell us this is perfectly understandable.

As the primary wears on the Clinton camp is getting desperate. The Obama camp is getting frustrated. Both view Whites, especially “working class” Whites, with distaste.

On Tuesday all was good and right in Oregon, where the “more highty-educated” Whites voted in large numbers for Obama. There was however a problem in Kentucky. There poor, under-educated, “working class” Whites had failed to act as the pundits desired:

GERGEN: It was about 21 percent that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton.

David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin translated this into a call for Clinton to disown the “redneck” vote, to distance herself from “racists”.

Note the conclusion they’re juming to: if race is a factor for you, and you are White, and you vote for Clinton, then you are a racist.

This vicious anti-White meme has been hailed and echoed in the liberal blogosphere. See for example Clinton wins Kentucky, race chasm proven again, or David Gergen Speaks Truth – Denounce Racist Vote, or Visionary moments in punditry: David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin call on Hillary Clinton to stop courting racists.

Anti-racists pride themselves on being hyper-sensitive to and hyper-critical of any whiff of demonization or hate. But in this case they seem more than willing to set those concerns aside. They seem not at all skeptical or objective or sympathetic when nasty things are said about Whites. In fact they seem absolutely gleeful and eager to add their own bile.

Pandagon, for instance, thought this was worth highlighting:

Kentucky has one of the country’s highest proportions of people who are not college graduates.

If you read the CNN transcript you can see this echoes what the “more-educated” Blitzer and King were talking about just before Gergen burbled out his hate. The assumption is that “smart” people vote for Obama. Because like, duh, anything else is just racist.

Momocrat thought this nasty slander was worth repeating:

On our chat last night, a Kentucky voter joined in during the last hour to say that in rural parts of her state, people are literally being told that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. And people believe it! And the MSM pundits wonder why Obama didn’t spend much time in West Virginia and Kentucky?

Hmmmm. Or maybe Obama didn’t do well because he didn’t spend much time there. Maybe?

Bang the Drum says stop the world:

Please blog this, tweet this, and digg this. Let’s get some legs under what really was an historic moment in TV.

Time to crap on Whites! Get some legs under this! It’s historic!

Or is it just mind-numbingly normal?

All sarcasm aside, there’s a far more substantial problem here. What the anti-racists are doing is demonstrating their own hypocritical hate. They do so not only by being willfully blind to reasonable explanations Whites have to poll and vote as they did, but also by so thoroughly misinterpreting the statistics. They are eager to see only the “racism” they want to see.

I realize I have to explain this in more detail. This is because the media, our schools, and the liberal anti-racists who run them have done a very thorough job of brainwashing everyone that White = racist, and racist = bad. Please be patient and read on. I’ll spell it out as clearly as I can, especially for the benefit of the outraged anti-racist liberals who may drop by.

– – –

My first thought on hearing so many Whites had told pollsters that race was a factor for them was, gee, that’s awfully honest. Whites don’t expect applause for speaking frankly about race. In fact, they expect exactly the opposite. The topic is a minefield. Consider for example how the recent comments of Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton have been greeted.

My second thought was, well of course race is a factor for White voters. There were those revelations about Obama spending 20 years associating with Reverend Wright, a man who has spouted all sorts of black-centric and anti-White rhetoric, which many blacks have said they do not find objectionable or even out of the ordinary. Then there was Obama’s “bitter, clinging” statement. That certainly made it seem as though he didn’t understand or sympathize with working class Whites. Then there was his “typical White person” characterization of his grandmother. Do you think Whites without a college degree may have heard that blacks are voting 90-10 for Obama? Perhaps they think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Last of all, probably because the media has gone to lengths to keep it buried, there is Michelle Obama’s thesis, which revolves around her blackness and her concern for the black community. In fact it’s all about race!

Can an honest person sum up all these things as having to do with race? Which of them is not a legitimate concern? Can an honest White get credit for being honest? Why are Whites the only group whose voting patterns are not only scrutinized but criticized?

Everyone in the CNN studio Tuesday night was well aware of Wright. The exit polls reflected his impact. Were the pundits not listening? Apparently not. A few months ago David Gergen defended Obama by downplaying the importance of these race-related issues. He thinks anyone who can’t set aside Wright and overlook Obama’s gaffes must be irrational and is therefore a racist.

Other pundits seem equally blind and/or biased. They find it easier to accuse Whites of being stupid and ethnocentric than to admit that Obama and the people he associates with are more overtly ethnocentric. They can’t face the possibility that Whites are justified in not liking or trusting Obama. They’d sooner slur and defame Whites than accept the possibility that Whites are right.

My third thought was, wow, 9 out of 10 voters who said race was a factor voted for Clinton. But that means the other 10% voted for Obama. So how many blacks voted? How many voted for Obama? How many of them said race was a factor?

For some strange reason the answers to these questions are not easy to find. It’s surprising because CNN, and especially the AP story cited by Pandagon, reported plenty of statistics about Whites. They could have provided the black numbers for comparison, but they didn’t. Wouldn’t it have helped illustrate how Whites differed? Wouldn’t it just be fair and informative to provide those numbers?

The AP writer says:

Seven in 10 whites overall backed Clinton in Kentucky, including about three quarters of those who have not completed college.

No black statistics. I’d like to have the raw data CNN and AP used, but they don’t offer it, and I can’t find it.

WaPo, however, did provide some important numbers:

In Kentucky, Obama won by better than 9 to 1 among black voters, but they made up just 9 percent of the electorate.

So more than 90% of blacks voted for Obama. Wow. CNN and AP didn’t mention that.

What’s more intriguing is that 8-9% of Obama’s voters were black and 10% of the voters who said race matters voted for Obama. What was the overlap between these groups? Might it have been larger than the 19% of Clinton’s White voters who said race matters? In other words, could a deeper examination of these statistics reveal that race was just as much or more of a factor for Obama’s black voters than it was for Clinton’s White voters?

Did David Gergen or Jeffery Toobin or anyone else in the CNN studio that night think such thoughts? Why did Gergen use the epithet “redneck” in explaining the thoughts he did have? Why didn’t anyone there object to that epithet or the hateful anti-White conclusions he and Toobin were jumping to?

Gergen and Toobin and the anti-racist bloggers who consider them heroes think a large fraction of Whites saying race affects their vote is wrong, something to be concerned about, something to renounce. But it seems likely Obama’s black voters are equally human. If White voters who say race is a factor are racist, then aren’t blacks who say it racist too?

Will CNN or AP share their raw data? Will Gergen and Toobin or any other media pundit go on prime time cable to apologize to Whites? Or will they call on Obama to reject the votes of black racists? Are there any liberal anti-racist bloggers who will admit they made a mistake and renounce their own anti-White hate?

I doubt it.

Blog

Race Realism Meets Tribal Denial

19 Comments

Mencius Moldbug has taken up my challenge to explain the immigration invasion.

"A theory of the ruling underclass" is flawed, but in an interesting way. Like Lawrence Auster, Mencius criticizes liberals (which he prefers to call universalists or progressives). And like Auster he has a curious blind spot. The difference is that Mencius has been more willing to argue about it, and I have yet to see him dissolve into unhinged anti-anti-semitism ala Auster.

Triggered by the obtuseness of Obama-supporting progressives who shrug off black nationalism while despising White nationalism, Mencius begins by pointing the glaring inconsistency in liberal anti-racist logic:

Which is the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of chauvinist ethnocentrism in America today is not of the vanilla flavor that disturbs them so. If they can explain this, they can explain anything, and we should probably just surrender – if they’ll let us.

For example: one of the most popular radio stations in San Francisco, at least to judge by the billboards I see, is called The Race. I am especially fond of the URL. “I am race!” Yes, this means exactly what you think it means.

Ethnic pride is one thing. Hostility is another. But – as progressives often observe – they tend to travel together. It strikes me as quite incontrovertible that if an alien anthropologist were to visit Earth and collate expressions of hostility toward human subpopulations in Western culture today, the overwhelming majority would be anti-European. Anti-Europeanism is widely taught in schools and universities today. Its converse most certainly is not.

So here is my challenge for progressives, multiculturalists, “dynamists,” and the like: if your antiracism is what it claims to be, if it is no more than Voltaire 3.0, why do non-European ethnocentrism and anti-European hostility not seem to bother you in the slightest? Do they maybe even strike you as, um, slightly cool? How do you feel when you watch this video?

Please try to express your answer in plain English, not Stalinist boilerplate. Trust us – we know the boilerplate answer.

What’s interesting, at least to this antisocial reactionary (if you’re looking for another R-word, I also answer to “realist”), is that anti-Europeanism is almost as hard to explain from the other side of the table. I am reasonably, if not comprehensively, familiar with modern racist and white nationalist thought. I must say that it tends to leave me quite unsatisfied – especially as regards the real psychological motivations of Messrs. Wilkinson, Ghertner, et al.

Are they, for instance, in the pay of the Jews? While I certainly cannot disprove this or a variety of similar conjectures, I tend to doubt them. Occam’s razor suggests that even if some multiculturalists are tools of the Mossad, surely the vast majority are perfectly sincere in their beliefs. The Rothschilds just don’t have that much cash. If we work under the assumption that our opponents believe exactly what they say, we should account for at least most of them. Then we can watch Stormfront go head to head with the Elders of Zion, which should be entertaining if nothing else.

I have an explanation. You may not like it. Feel free to offer your own.

Mencius goes on quite a bit about black and white tribes before reviewing his personal class warfare vocabulary:

Early in UR I suggested a five-caste taxonomy of American society, and described the conflict of American politics as a struggle of three of these castes (Brahmins, Dalits, Helots) against the other two (Optimates, Vaisyas). For those whose time is short, Brahmins are intellectuals, Dalits are what Marx called the lumpenproletariat, and Helots are unskilled laborers. Optimates are the old “upper-crust” aristocracy, and Vaisyas are the petty bourgeoisie.

These castes correspond to social status, not tribe. However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless – classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status. As far as I can tell, in 2008 there is very little chauvinism even among Vaisyas. Among Dalits and Helots, race matters again. Obviously, despite certain Jackie Chan movies, there is no such thing as an interracial gang.

Mencius then attempts to argue how black (and presumably white) tribes don’t really matter because they are divided by class.

He inexplicably confounds this argument by recounting the melodramatic story of a sociology student’s naive trek into a black housing development and his interactions with the tribal militia there. If for some reason you need an introduction to what desegregation and civil rights of the 1960s “liberated” in every city, read the full post. Or watch this if you’d like to hear it from the militiamen themselves.

One of the many negative consequences of the invasion is that it brings in whole new tribes and militias, many of which are more organized, ruthless, and mobile than the indigenous black militias. If you happen to cherish multiculturalism and think diversity is a strength please go read that link. The last paragraph contains a special message just for you.

After much verbiage Mencius finally comes to his point:

The progressives no longer need muscle. They are in the saddle. There are no more Grayson Kirks, let alone Bull Connors. What they need now is votes, and the biggest vote bank of all is just south of the border. Immigration will keep the progressives in power for the next century. They always have been the American PRI, and they always will be.

And I haven’t even stated my theory yet.

Fortunately, it’s not my theory. It is a very old theory. Perhaps it even predates Mencius himself. It comes from China, so he would recognize it, and it has a catchy name: yi yi zhi yi.

This roughly translates as “using the barbarians to control the barbarians.” Typically the implication is that when you have a problem with some tribe of barbarians, what you need to do is look for a bunch of even nastier barbarians, and sic them on the original barbarians. Ideally, the nastier barbarians are so barbaric that they are not conceivably a threat to you, the sophisticated mandarins of the Middle Kingdom, but still nasty enough to distract your real enemies on the frontiers, who may have learned to read and write or something. When the Romans unleashed the Huns against the Germans, it was a classic case of yi yi zhi yi.

Does this remind anyone of the real meaning of diversity? I’d like to think it’s obvious. But perhaps I should just spell it out.

Basically, the Brahmins have every possible Machiavellian interest in encouraging an invasion of Third World barbarians. The more, the nastier, the better. Their real hereditary enemy is the native barbarian – the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter. In the dim, distant past, the spectre of Davis and Lee and Ben Hill looms grimly up.

They will take all the Huns they can get against this breed of barbarian. They are quite aware that if their real enemies ever seize real power, it’s lamppost time. Huns are not available these days, but J.T. is. And if the nationalist, nativist American right ever regrows some little pocket of testicular tissue, he is one more speed bump they’ll have to go through on their way to DC. It never hurts to have a few more well-armed thugs on your team. At least not if you’re a progressive, and you believe in peace and love and hugs and puppies. Yes, we can!

Of course, I’m not saying that the people who believe in peace and love, etc, actually thought up this strategy and have secret meetings where they gloat about how well it’s all working. They don’t need to. However they explain it to themselves, yi yi zhi yi is what they’re doing. And you can’t exactly call it a failure.

Did you watch that Mandela video? The man next to Mandela is Joe Slovo. One of South Africa’s leading progressives active in the liberation struggle. Or, as some might say, Communist terrorists. Do you wonder why this pasty-faced fellow is comfortable in a crowd full of people chanting “kill the whites?”

Actually, the captions on the video are mistranslated. The word in the song is amaBhulu, a Xhosa racial slur which refers not to all whites, but specifically to Afrikaners. Which Slovo (being a cosmopolitan Anglophone) is most definitely not. So the crowd is essentially chanting “kill the rednecks,” ie, Slovo’s hereditary tribal enemies. No wonder he has a smile on his face. Yi yi zhi yi.

No, I don’t like Mencius’ explanation. It’s certainly less politically correct than anything to be found in the mainstream, but there are several flaws.

The first and least important criticism is that I wish he would put more effort into fleshing out the analysis than weaving so many too-clever phrases. He writes in a way only brahmin are likely to understand, or afford the time to read. Judging from his commenters his eak-way ode-cay is not deflecting their isapproval-day.

A more substantial flaw is that with all he has to say about tribes he pretends as if the most powerful tribe of all doesn’t exist:

However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless – classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status.

Come now. No tribalism amongst the upper classes? Between this and his euphemistic description of Joe Slovo as a “cosmopolitan Anglophone” Mencius has a prominent blind spot. The hand-waving about the Rothchilds and Elders of Zion fails to explain. Perhaps he can try waving away the ADL and the Israel Lobby.

Another somewhat related gap is his neglect of the corporatist/globalist/economic angle.

Yes, the cosmopolitan progressives Mencius likes to focus on certainly are addicted to the frisson of stirring shizzle from the safety of their ivory towers. I’ve sent more than my share of ridicule their way. A thinking person can only do this so long before they begin to wonder why such flimflam, no matter how ridiculous, persists.

For some reason, and despite his considerable economic savvy, Mencius doesn’t like to focus on that other, less ridiculous type of one-world universalist. The sober, ultra-rational cosmopolitan globalists. You know, the financial wizards who transform chaos into profit. The ones whose lackeys claimed we needed millions of savages to build all those houses we didn’t really need. The ones whose brilliant “industry” boils down to pyramid schemes and government bailouts. The name Soros might ring a bell, though his high profile is rather exceptional.

Without the powerful backing of economic revolutionaries the social revolutionaries would have swung from lampposts long ago. But with the proper financial backing it hardly matters whether a flimflam artist’s “logic” makes any sense.

Here’s what makes sense to me.

Yes, White elites are certainly betraying their lower-class kinsfolk for both social and financial reasons. They support the invasion over the objections of their kinsfolk. Mencius downplays or ignores the jewish tribe but their elites are obviously less conflicted on this issue. Their kinsfolk are financially and psychologically better prepared to surf the invasion’s waves, and they overwhelmingly favor the invasion. Besides the profits of an ever-growing pyramid they also have perfectly understandable sociobiological motivations to dispossess, displace, and ultimately liquidate their de-tribed competitors.

Auster prefers to euphemize the invasion as “liberals” warring on “the Christian majority”. He seems not to notice that the invaders are overwhelmingly Christian and the invasion is openly abetted by church leaders. Mencius portrays the invasion as class warfare, and seems not to notice that naming the tactics doesn’t explain why his “brahmin” should want or need to attack what he calls “[t]heir real hereditary enemy … the native barbarian – the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter”.

Caste/class make us “hereditary enemies”? Sorry, for my part it’s the fact that they’re trying to ethnically cleanse me. For their part it’s clear that the universalist ideals of egalitarianism and tolerance are a steaming pile of hooey. The genocidal maniacs appear to be motivated by a combination of greed and deep-seated sociobiological passive-aggressive survival instinct.

We don’t need to look to Chin for precedents. As any well-educated jew should know, two thousand years before Machiavelli the Assyrians and Babylonians knew how to kill nations by flooding them with aliens.