Tag Archives: race

Blog

We’re White, We’re Indigenous, Get Used to It

66 Comments

Lawrence Auster, self-styled advocate of the “white” West, writes and blogs regularly about the West’s troubles. At first I found his analysis refreshing. Then I found it confusing. Now I see him as an obstacle. A false friend. A poseur.

Auster regularly exhorts Whites to reassert themselves, to call their enemies and problems by their proper names. But then he just as regularly peevishly denounces Whites who assert themselves in the wrong way or use inappropriate words.

Three months ago Auster was explaining why we shouldn’t capitalize White:

Lately more and more commenters have been capitalizing the words white and black, e.g., “White people,” “Black people,” which I have changed to lower case prior to posting. It has never been standard usage to capitalize these adjectives when they are used to denote race, and it is not VFR’s usage. While race matters, to make it matter so much that we capitalize the mere names of colors is to take race consciousness too far. I ask commenters to conform their spelling to standard English usage. Thank you.

Oh, I see. That must be why standard usage is to write “hard-working Latino”, “hard-working African-American”, and “hard-working white”. Because white is just a color. Just an adjective. That makes sense.

No it doesn’t. The standard usage is inconsistent. I assert that it’s wrong.

In the same post Auster explained why he thinks some words are capitalized and others are not:

All kinds of racists do this, to magnify their own group and dehumanize the group they hate. For example, many white nationalists capitalize “white,” a color which should not be capitalized, and put “Jew,” a proper name which should be capitalized, in lower case.

More transparent rot. If Auster were as concerned about Whites as he is about jews he’d insist on the same standards, regardless of conventions. He wouldn’t insult Whites by pretending the word is an adjective, and he’d argue that “white” is dehumanizing instead of making excuses for it.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but the way I capitalize words has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with consciousness. I am conscious of the anti-White convention. I consciously reject it. To drive home the point I invert it.

There are more symptoms of Auster’s sorta, kinda, half-hearted pro-“white” pose.

Just a few days ago, Auster asked, Why are white Westerners describing themselves as “indigenous” peoples?:

I protest the recent and expanding use of “indigenous” to describe white Western majority peoples, as Rick Darby used it innocently and in passing in another thread. Yes, in the simplest sense “indigenous” means “originating where it is found,” and therefore could, I suppose, be used to describe the British, since the white British population goes back to the Neolithic. But the word would not apply to white Americans, the earliest ancestors of whom came to this continent 400 years ago.

But there is a larger problem with “indigenous.” It doesn’t just mean native to a location. It also implies people in their original, undeveloped state. Traditionally, we never thought of a people in a developed society, with complex institutions and a national state, as “indigenous,” even if their ancestors had lived in that land for 10,000 years.

Further, indigenous is typically used by outside people who are studying or protecting some tribal group.

For majority whites to call themselves “indigenous” is exactly like whites asking for their “rights” under multiculturalism. It is an admission of surrender to multiculturalism, whites’ transformation of themselves into just another minority group needing protection, rather than being and asserting themselves as the leading and dominant people of our respective countries.

Western peoples thus gratuitously diminish and weaken themselves by referring to themselves as indigenous. As a self-description of white Westerners it is incorrect, unnecessary, demoralizing, and defeatist.

Then, notwithstanding his rationale for “white”, Auster writes:

The Brits seem to go out of their way to make themselves into nothing. They now even spell the the word “west,” as in “western civilization,” in lower case. They’re so wimpy they won’t even capitalize the name of their own civilization. Next they’ll be spelling Britain as “britain.”

He goes on to quote a Mr. Carpenter who tells us “That is pathetic”, “Quite disgraceful”, and “Very sad”. Auster says we must not call ourselves “indigenous” and we must write “West”, otherwise we are wimps. But we must write “Jew” and we must write “white”, otherwise we are haters.

Scolding. Lecturing. Constraining. Upbraiding. Insulting. Talk about demoralizing. We should assert ourselves as the dominant people of our respective countries, but by using the wrong words we gratuitously diminish ourselves. Please sir, if it’s not too much trouble sir, how and when may we “whites” assert ourselves?

Piffle. Why do “whites” write “west”? Come now Auster. Use your own logic. It’s nothing but a mere direction. Right?

And why are White Westerners describing themselves as “indigenous”? This also isn’t a difficult question to answer. But Auster and his philo-semitic peanut gallery don’t want an answer. They are only interested in heaping shame and insults on “whites”. The behavior of these hecklers hints at the problem. They aren’t White. They want “whites” to do what they see as good and necessary to help jews, but they attack uppity Whites who think or act in their own interests.

The short answer these Austerites don’t want to face is that Whites no longer dominate their respective countries. Beyond broad swipes at vague “liberals” the Austerites also don’t want to discuss why.

Whites used to dominate not only their own countries, but most of the globe. Nowadays we’re indoctrinated that this was a monstrous crime. We’re reminded in many ways on a daily basis that everybody and anybody is more important than Whites now, and jews are on top. How did this happen? Well, in large part because Whites relinquished control. We’ve been badgered, harangued, brow-beaten, and guilt-tripped for generations, first by humanists and abolitionists, then increasingly by resentful, self-interested, culturally and economically revolutionary jews. Many Whites were convinced that giving away power and opening the borders was the right and noble thing to do. So now today we are inundated and assaulted by a broad coalition of resentful self-interested “minorities”.

I have referred to myself as indigenous several times in the past few years. I will do so again. The reason why is not difficult to explain. But I’m not surprised Lawrence Auster pretends it is a mystery.

Under the increasingly pro-jew, anti-White politically correct regime it has become the norm to extend preferential status to “indigenous” people. Like most everything in this upside-down regime the preference is selective and applies only to non-whites. Of course this violates the holy PC tenet of non-discrimination and reveals PC’s equalitarian claptrap for the steaming pile of manure it is. Just as in Animal Farm – where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The word indigenous has a common, biological sense. It means native, and that’s precisely what any decent dictionary says. The meaning that liberals prefer is deliberately contorted to serve their politics. For them indigenous means non-white native. How absurd it seems for anti-liberal Auster to accept and defend this definition. Unless we remember his philo-semitic imperative. Yes, Auster wants Whites to assert ourselves. Somebody has to do something about the muslims and blacks he’s freaked out about. He just doesn’t want us showing anywhere near the same consciousness for ourselves and our interests as jews do. Let’s avoid the whole native-alien can of worms. Somebody might make an argument that serial immigrant jews don’t want to hear.

But why should Whites avoid it? Let’s speak some truth to power. Immigrant invaders are the precious darlings of our academia, media, religious, business, and political leaders. Our institutions and lands are ever more thoroughly infiltrated by hostile aliens and their advocates. Sometimes it seems all we Whites have left is principled whining. That and an inexorable leftward slide is certainly all our sold-out mainstream conservatives offer. How depressing and defeatist it is to acknowledge this reality. Shame on me.

So a few uppity Whites reject the liberal definition and refer to ourselves as indigenous. Some, like me, may even intend it as a finger in our enemy’s eye. A White calling himself indigenous under the PC regime is like a cow calling himself a pig in Animal Farm. It’s a sure fire way to piss off the pigs. It’s also a perfectly apt and legitimate way to distinguish ourselves from the “undocumented migrants” that progressivists and globalists, neocons and neolibs, are all so fond of.

No, we’re not going to save the West with words. But neither is this why we’re losing it.

At Rick Darby’s Reflecting Light commenter Greg, referring to Auster’s protest against the use of indigenous, writes:

We are in a pickle, us Brits certainly. Sadly, our simplest road to freedom is blocked by some of those who say they are our friend.

The only absolutely non-negotiable policy uniting all ‘acceptable’ parties is support for Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. And all that we require not to go the way of the Garamantians is for our people to decide they are due equal consideration from their government in this respect as are the Jewish people.

But there’s anti-semitism you see, while there isn’t, for some reason, any anti-gentilism. And this double-standard includes people like Laurence Auster, who would quickly disavow the BNP if it were to propose that we Brits had (by necessity) equal grounds to consider ourselves as distinct from Jews as Jews do from us.

This heading us off at the pass-to-freedom, is also, I think, why he opposes the word “indigenous” applied to Europeans.

Greg makes a valid point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Auster, naturally, can muster only insults and evasion:

How pathetic is Greg in his miscomprehension.

The BNP has a history as a seriously anti-Semitic organization that totally marginalized it. BNP’s own leader—on HIS initiative, not MINE—has led a serious intellectual effort over the last several years to reject that anti-Semitic past. I have consistently praised him for that effort. Sounds like Greg ought to complaining about Nick Griffin, not about me.

Second, the fact that Greg thinks my criticism of the word “indigenous” is aimed at WEAKENING the British people, rather than at STRENGTHENING them by getting them to drop a self-description that makes them sound like the equivalent of a third-world people, shows him as so stupid that he’s not deserving of being treated with minimal respect.

Auster’s criticism of words is beside the point. The point is Auster is a half-hearted part-time supporter of “whites”, but an ardent and unwavering supporter of jews. As Greg said, the problem is that Whites and Christians do not have “equal grounds to consider ourselves as distinct from Jews as Jews do from us”. To my knowledge Auster has never addressed this point, even though he constantly urges “whites” to assert ourselves and often argues that “we” can draw distinctions from muslims, blacks, and latinos. Faced with a White who wishes to distinguish themselves from jews he either ignores the point or devolves into a gibbering anti-anti-semitic robot.

But anti-semitism is the grandaddy of all the isms that have been used to deconstruct the West. Racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, and islamophobism all derive from the same mindset: pathologization of the familiar and normal, glorification of the alien and abnormal. The most sacred principle is non-discrimination. The highest goal, diversity. None of it is honest. It all serves as cover for attacking anything European, anything Christian, and anything White. Anti-liberal Auster knows this well. He regularly echoes this view. Minus anti-semitism. When faced with criticism of jews Auster simply cannot help himself. Both his anti-liberalism and his intellect evaporate. What remains is primitive emotion and paranoia, which he then projects onto his stupid, evil, psychologically deficient enemies. There’s a name for jews who like to tell Whites how stupid and evil and psychologically deficient they are. Auster calls them liberals. They are, in his opinion, indistinguishable from non-jewish liberals and, by the way, it’s stupid and evil to try and tell the two apart.

When Auster criticizes liberal jews it is usually because he thinks they’re harming jews. Just in case anyone thinks he’s being anti-semitic he’ll point out how stupid and evil Whites are who think these jews also harming Whites:

The only group more out of touch with reality than liberal Jews are the white nationalist anti-Semites, who, following the theories of Kevin MacDonald, believe that the Jews are compelled by Darwinian evolutionary forces to destroy white gentile societies so as to advance their own power. These anti-Semitic idiots haven’t noticed that something like half the Jews of Israel (not to mention most Jews in the U.S.) support policies leading to the destruction of the Jewish state. How does THAT fit into the MacDonald thesis of merciless Jewish evolutionary competition against non-Jews?

There is a veritable army of jews in and out of Western universities who dedicate their lives to critcizing Whites and arguing about what’s good for jews. In comparison there are only a handful of Whites criticizing jews or discussing what’s good for Whites. And they are constantly harrassed for it.

Lawrence Auster, erstwhile defender of the “white” West and encourager of “white” assertiveness has a problem with liberal jews. Not to worry. It’s nothing that smearing assertive White nationalists and one of the few assertive White academics can’t fix!

Here’s a brain bender for you Larry. How does the extreme liberalism of the jewish state or its eventual destruction due to that, do anything but support the thesis that jewish “liberals” are also harming the West? How are MacDonald’s theories concerning how millenia of diaspora shaped jewish group evolutionary strategies invalidated by the failure of the six-decade old jewish state?

Why shouldn’t X’s discuss and debate the value of their relationship with Y’s? Why is this unspeakably stupid and evil only when X is White and Y is jew? Auster and his choir are worried about the violent jew-hating muslims flooding the West. They’re worried about the violent jew-hating blacks already in Crown Heights. They feel free to discuss what they’d like to do and why. As Rachel S. describes:

At that point our side would need unapologetic, respected voices as reinforcements to keep our burgeoning movement from being killed. Where are those voices? Where is the media to disseminate them in the same volume? We need slogans and imagery as well; built on a foundation philosophy, culture, arts; this movement will take decades to get going if it is to be done correctly. Each aspect of the fight could use a separate organization that was tied to the whole. We need the thinkers, the people who help them do the administrative work, the go-betweens who translate the ideas into graspable concepts for those “average” people who sense there is something wrong with America, but will be turned off by anything that seems extreme. AND we need to think about how any growing racial consciousness by whites will be seized upon by the neo-Nazi movement, and how we would nullify that “guilt by association” effect that would occur when the uninformed see an out of context media clip of David Duke championing this-and-that law as a victory for his side. I am reminded of an article you linked to awhile back about the need for a new conservative apologetics.

Got that? They need us “average” people, but they don’t want us “seized upon” by “neo-Nazis”. Oh and by the way, we need to do something about that guilt by association effect. You know, that nasty liberal tactic where, for instance, you call anyone who doesn’t put jews on a pedestal a “neo-Nazi”.

Auster dubs his choir’s plan An incrementalist strategy, which to me seems sickeningly similar to the cultural marxist “long march through the institutions”. There seems to be no appreciation for what we have already lost, or that it cannot be restored by destroying what destroyed it. Mark Jaws (who is jewish) writes:

Those of us over 50 can remember when whites could talk openly about black crime and other assorted social pathologies associated with blacks. However, by 1975 Stalinist-type PC thought control made such discourse taboo. If we are to alter the unacceptable status quo, we must adopt the tactics and strategy used by our adversaries which brought us to this sorry state of affairs.

When we study the incremental approach used by civil rights activists we see an effective method that applied pressure on the white Southern power structure one obstacle at a time. In the early 1950s the civil rights movement focused on overturning school segregation. As soon as Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education was settled in 1954, attention was drawn to the Montgomery bus boycott in early 1955, and only the boycott. There were no accompanying demands for affirmative action or for banning the Confederate flag. But when the white power structure gave way on one issue, the civil rights movement quickly moved to the next target of opportunity, and so on.

We must adopt a similar strategy if we are to dismantle the liberal PC multicultural stranglehold on our culture. First, we must concentrate on toppling the weakest tower of this complex by breaking the long-imposed silence on black-on-white crime. We can do this with a tide of letters to our newspapers and to our politicians, and, more importantly, with calls to radio talk shows. By such a show of concentrated, unapologetic force we can bring black-on-white crime out in the open and put blacks on the defensive, especially given the candidacy and likely election of Barak Obama, which I believe is a gift from heaven. If Barak and Michelle Obama can sit their butts in a racist church for 20 years, then how can it be racist if we talk about black-on-white crime? If Barak and Michelle had no problem with black liberation theology which calls for “the destruction of the white enemy,” then why can’t we talk about white victims of black crime? If Michelle can claim her husband “as a black man is in danger just by going to the gas station,” then why can’t we talk about white men in comparable–and real–danger, and from whom? If Michelle and Barak want an open and frank discussion on race, then let’s give it to them–but from a direction which they do not expect and cannot deal with.

The first step we must take in restoring white racial consciousness is to assert our right OPENLY to discuss our concern, dismay and outrage at the staggering amount of black-on- white crime the past 40 years. We must make it acceptable for whites to engage in such discourse, period. No need to use disparaging racist talk or hyperbole. Just stick to the facts–and we have plenty at our disposal in “The Color of Crime” and other government statistics.

No.

The first step is for self-righteous jews to step off their pedestal. Show Whites the respect you demand for jews. Stop pathologizing us. Stop smearing us. Stop insulting us. Stop blaming all the West’s ills on us and stop downplaying jewish control and responsibility.

For Austerites all of the above applies, only moreso. We don’t need another long march of destruction. And we don’t need “friends” obsessed with manipulating us. You make distinctions – stop telling Whites we cannot. You say you like Whites – act like it. Treat us as equals. You can start by capitalizing White.

UPDATE 9 Aug 2008: On 19 July Auster provided a non-answer to this post titled Am I an orthographical fifth columnist?, though he doesn’t quote me or link here. He asserts that “[c]apitalization is governed by the nature of the word, not by a political or racial agenda”.

Today, in An Orwellian spelling change, Auster shows: A) that he recognizes “the makers of these rules–liberals all” have an agenda, and B) that his own agenda can motivate him to defy those rules on occasion.

Blog

How Does Racism Harm Whites

22 Comments

I encountered this question several days ago on a blog called Resist racism:

I asked this question once in a seminar full of white people. Got no answers. Have you got one?

I read the responses and noticed that none addressed what seemed to me the most obvious answer. So I left the following comment:

How does “racism” harm Whites? Isn’t it obvious? It’s a weapon specifically crafted and primarily used against Whites! You didn’t get an answer at your seminar because most Whites fear that saying as much will cost them their employment and/or social standing. To be White and to complain about racism only gets you accused of racism. Duh. Was it a “diversity” seminar? Double duh.

The idea of racism, especially the version promoted by “anti-racists”, is actually anti-Whitism, as this blog and so many of the comments here confirm. The obvious harm to Whites is that the oh so politically correct scapegoating and verbal hatred eventually seeps into some of the weaker minds, creating a depraved and dehumanized image of Whites that justifies outright discrimination and assault.

Consider item 4 in Kim’s comment above from October 29, 2007 at 1:14 pm. What makes a 12-year-old attack a stranger just because they are of another race? Race-based hatred placed in their head by their parents, teachers, and role models. Where is the hate coming from today? It’s coming from anti-racists in the blogosphere, in politics, the media, and in academia, and it’s directed entirely at Whites.

“Racism” has been used to silence and shame and disarm Whites in their own homelands. Homelands that, because Whites are now defenseless, have been thoroughly colonized by non-whites. Non-whites who detest Whites. And of course the reeeaaal reason for immigration is because Whites are just lazy and greedy and want to exploit the immigrants. In other words the immigration that’s costing Whites their jobs and raising their taxes is really just another good reason to blame and hate Whites!

Whites are lectured by anti-racists that their forefathers’ treatment of non-whites was wrong. Then we are told by anti-racists that we deserve similar mistreatment, today, by virtue of the fact that we had the wrong colored forefathers. Any objection is called “racist” – and is further proof of “privilege” that is taken to justify the harm being done to us. What people do not resent aliens moving into and disrupting their communities, telling them what they can say and do, telling them their race is evil, and especially so if they speak against aliens? If that’s a crime then every race on the planet is guilty of it.

But anti-racists say only Whites can be “racist”, which we are told every day is the most evil thing a person can be. We are told Whites are so thoroughly “racist” that many are not even aware of it! By simply socializing with other Whites or complaining about race-based mistreatment Whites simply demonstrate their guilt. The only out is to renounce Whites and join non-whites in attacking Whites who will not do so – just as the pathetic self-hating whites here are doing.

As with my sortie against the reality-based totalitarians at Pandagon, described in Anti-Racism and its Genocidal Fanatics, I posted on topic and crapped squarely on the fundaments of Resist racism’s unreality-based fundamentalism. Then I watched and waited for a response. Nobody wrote but some days later my comment just disappeared. I noticed yesterday and reposted it. It’s gone again.

One of the many commenters on the original post is Tim Wise:

Wise is the author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son, and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White. A collection of his essays, Speaking Treason Fluently: Anti-Racist Reflections From an Angry White Male, will be published in the fall of 2008. He has contributed chapters or essays to twenty books, and is one of several persons featured in White Men Challenging Racism: Thirty-Five Personal Stories, from Duke University Press. He received the 2001 British Diversity Award for best feature essay on race issues, and his writings have appeared in dozens of popular, professional and scholarly journals. Wise has also been a featured guest on hundreds of radio and television programs worldwide.

So here we have an archetypical anti-Whitist – an “anti-racist” whose income and acclaim derive from his tireless efforts to validate and channel resentment and hatred toward Whites. A race “scholar” whose peculiar scholarship is scapegoating Whites. Precisely the kind of anti-White anti-racist I was referring to in my comment.

It may be useful to know that Wise is jewish, not White. And like other prominent anti-White jews he seems to thrive on confusion and hypocrisy. For example consider what he writes at Resist racism:

Though it is certainly true that racism’s impact on whites is far less than that on people of color, there are several serious injuries to whites (call it “collateral damage” for lack of a better phrase) that come from white supremacy and privilege. The ones already mentioned are good ones, but here are some more:

1. Racism and white privilege/supremacy have served to trick working class white folks (the majority) into believing their interests were racial rather than economic/social, etc. The whole history of whiteness as a concept was created to divide and conquer class-based coalitions of Europeans and Africans in the colonies of what became the U.S. Instead of providing decent jobs, land and working conditions, the elite extended skin privilege to euros, no matter how poor, so as to get them on the “white” team. After these benefits were created (the right to own a little property, to serve on slave patrols, etc), rebellions diminished greatly. The divide and conquer worked. In the civil war, this same race privilege and identification with the elite on the part of working class and piss-poor whites led them to go off and fight to maintain rich folks’ property interests in slaves. Ironic, since the slave system actually undermined the wage base of working class whites (think about it, if I have to charge you a dollar a day to work on your plantation but you can get someone who is enslaved to do it for free, guess who gets the gig?). Then in the early days of the union movement, white labor leaders elevated whiteness above class interests by barring folks of color from their unions (supposedly to maintain the “professionalism” of the working class). This meant their unions were smaller, weaker and less militant, to the detriment of working people everywhere. So, historically, white privilege and racism against people of color has created an alternative form of property for whites (whiteness) which may pay psychological dividends, to be sure, and material ones too in a relative sense, vis a vis people of color, but which comes at the direct expense of their overall well being.

2. Racism and white privilege/supremacy generates a mindset of entitlement among those in the dominant group. This entitlement mentality can prove dangerous, whenever the expectations of a member of the group are frustrated. Principally this is because such persons develop very weak coping skills as a result of never having to overcome the obstacles that oppressed folks deal with every day and MUST conquer in order to survive. SO, as a result, it is the privileged (the beneficiaries of racism, and also, it should be pointed out, the class system) who are ill-prepared for setback: the loss of a job, stocks taking a nose-dive (who were the folks jumping out the windows in the great depression–not poor folks and folks of color, but rich whites who couldn’t handle being broke!) Likewise, if you look at the various personal pathologies that tend to be disproportionate in the white community (and upper middle class for that matter) they are interesting in that they all are about control–controlling one’s anxiety, emotional pain, or controlling and dominating others–like suicide, substance abuse, eating disorders, self-injury/mutilation, serial killing and mass murder (as opposed to just regular one-on-one homicide), sexual sadism killings, etc. Now, think about it, which group would be most likely to manifest a control pathology: the group that had never been in control, or the ones who always had been, and had long felt entitled to be, but who then had their expectations frustrated and snapped. Think Columbine (and the vast majority of the mass murder school shootings, for that matter–Va Tech was an exception to the rule on these things).

3. Not knowing how the world works is dangerous. White privilege and racism allow the dominant group to live in a bubble of unreality. Most days that’s no big deal I suppose. But every now and then reality intrudes on you and if you haven’t been expecting it, the trauma is magnified. So, when 9/11 happened, millions of whites were running around saying “why do they hate us?” because whites have never had to see our nation the way others do–we’ve been able to live in la-la land. But folks of color didn’t say this, because those without privilege HAVE to know what others think about them. Not to do so is to be in perpetual danger. So whites flipped out, and by virtue of being unprepared, pushed for a policy response (war) that folks of color were HIGHLY skeptical of from the beginning. But whites, enthralled by our sense of righteousness (itself a manifestation of privilege), pushed forward, convinced that the war in Iraq would go swimmingly. How’s that working out?

In other words, racism and privilege generate mentalities and policies that are dysfunctional, even deadly for whites as with folks of color. Folks of color are the first victims, to be sure, and the worst. But as someone else said, what goes around…

There is more I could say here, but these are a few of the key points I try to make when speaking about these issues, and in the re-write to my book White Like Me.

Wise says “white privilege” and “racism” are why non-whites hate us, and that White cluelessness about this is just one more way we demonstrate how racist and evil we are. The argument is circular, but I take Wise at his word. His hostility toward Whites comes through clearly.

Read his comment above again but now try to imagine he’s casting similar aspersions on a group other than Whites. Try to imagine him for instance criticizing jewish privilege – the privilege to criticize everybody else, as harshly as you please, coupled with the magical power to deflect any criticism of yourself by calling it irrational anti-semitism – that special form of racism only a special race can suffer. You know, a real privilege, codified in various forms throughout the West.

We don’t have to imagine how Wise would answer this. He already has. In PARANOID PREJUDICE: Debunking the ‘Jewish Conspiracy’ Wise not only dismisses concerns about wealthy, influential, and privileged jews – he thinks blaming jews is just another way “whites” express hate:

That’s when my Internet penpals turn to the real source of their hatred and offer up what they consider the ultimate refutation of anything I have previously written: Namely, I am a Jew (usually a “dirty” one at that, they being quick with the adjectives), and this explains my desire, as they put it to “destroy the white race.”

To this way of thinking (and I use “thinking” with caution here), Jews seek to destroy white unity via multiculturalism, immigration and affirmative action, so as to weaken the resistance of the white majority, thereby increasing our own power.

Although most Jews in America are from Europe, we do not qualify as white in this view, but rather as the ultimate social, cultural, and even genetic threat to white survival.

We are, in other words, viewed as a biological pollutant in the body politic.

“Destroy the white race” is how Noel Ignatiev describes his goal, using much the same “privilege” and “racism” rhetoric as Tim Wise. The idea of racism was derived from the idea of anti-semitism. Magnus Hirshfeld was among the first to popularize it. All three men share these ideas, and an animosity toward Whites. Whether or not they are “dirty” isn’t important. That they are White-hating jews is. The White-hating part being self-evident, the jew part being not-so-evident but greatly helping to explain the former.

To the classic anti-anti-semitic way of thinking (and I use “thinking” with caution here), Whites who criticize jews who harm Whites are a special and completely irrational type of racist called an “anti-semite”. In bigoted anti-anti-semitic minds there are no valid reasons to criticize jews whatsoever. But they feel free to criticize “whites” all day long. In fact, since “white” is just a social construct, and more than that, a monstrous social construct responsible for all the ills of the Western world and beyond, you can imagine all sorts of dastardly motives that make “whites” tick. You can blame today’s “whites” for the evil deeds of any “white” in recorded history. Read some Ignatiev or Wise. This is what they do.

Accuse Whites of imaginary “privileges” and your opinions will appear in dozens of popular, professional and scholarly journals. You’ll also be a featured guest on hundreds of radio and television programs worldwide. Accuse jews of blowing the holocaust out of proportion, or having wildly disproportionate representation and influence in finance, media, politics – or leading destructive ideologies – and well that’s just crazy talk, paranoid prejudice. At least that’s how privilege expert Wise sees it.

The belief that the Holocaust of European Jewry never happened, for example, which would have been considered prima facie evidence of cerebral damage just a few decades ago, is now widespread throughout parts of Europe. Likewise, beliefs that Jews control the media and U.S. economy are increasingly heard on the Internet and elsewhere.

So let us now dispense with the nonsense about Jewish power. The idea that we run everything as evidenced by our “overrepresentation” in media and finance is nothing short of insane, even based on the “evidence” for such a claim marshaled by those who believe it.

The same faculties the anti-racist Wise uses to concoct bogus reasons to blame Whites for harming everyone, including themselves, the anti-anti-semite Wise uses to concoct bogus reasons to excuse jews. There’s no contradiction. These are two sides of the same coin polluting the body politic: Whites can do no right, jews can do no wrong.

– – –

How does “racism” harm Whites? It’s a weapon non-whites, and especially jews, have used for decades. It’s being used to justify our genocide, it will eventually cause our genocide, and then it will be used to excuse those responsible for our genocide.

Blog

Anti-Racism and its Genocidal Fanatics

28 Comments

Today I have some lengthy comments about a disturbing phenomena in the reality-based community:

Reality-based community is a popular term among liberal political commentators in the United States. In the fall of 2004, the phrase “proud member of the reality-based community,” was first used to suggest the commentator’s opinions are based more on observation than faith, assumption, or ideology and that others who disagree are unrealistic. The term has been defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality.” Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the “faith-based community” as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing.

In my previous post I noted a particularly egregious example of naked anti-Whitism that occurred in prime time on national cable television. I looked for and easily found several “reality-based” web sites that also considered this event notable. They also saw it as an opportunity to vent some anti-White hate. In the days afterward I went over to comment.

The title of the Drum post was David Gergen Speaks Truth – Denounce Racist Vote. Karoli, the blogger there, is a woman who is convinced of three things: racism is bad, Whites whose vote is affected by race are racists, and non-whites who behave likewise are not. This is anti-Whitism, of course, and several visitors besides myself tried to talk some sense into her. Throughout the exchange she was civil but unmoved. In the end she acknowledged that she didn’t have a problem with black votes being based on race, and cited historic White oppression of blacks as the reason. She then closed the thread.

I have two points I would have posted in response. First, I reject this race-based guilt. What happened in generations past between other people is not my fault nor my responsibility to set right. I care more about injustices taking place in the here and now. Second, it is absurd to expect that any people should not speak or vote or act in what they perceive to be their best interests, nor that they band together by whatever criteria they choose, whether genetic (eg. by race) or memetic (eg. by ideology).

Since coming to this understanding of race and politics I do not begrudge non-whites for planning and acting cohesively to further the interests of their groups, and thereby themselves. I consider the fact that they do so perfectly normal human behavior with a precedent that stretches back to the beginnings of history and probably beyond.

What is indefensible from this racial-political point of view is that a particular group, my group, should be singled out and held to a different standard. This is exactly what the “frame” known as anti-racism does to Whites.

Anti-racism is based on the idea that “racism” is bad. “Racism”, however, means different things to different people. Here’s what Sam Francis had to say about the origins of the word racism.

I believe these roots of the word racism are unknown to most. It is also generally not considered polite to point out that prior to the 1930s the notion that the human species was divided along racial lines was not controversial. Throughout history races most often lived separately (which is how they developed in the first place) and this was considered a good thing because often when races came together there was strife. I believe people back then recognized significant differences between the races, and they attributed the strife to these differences.

Today the thinking has changed radically. It is now generally considered wrong and hateful to speak of race in such terms. If you do so then you are considered to be the cause of racial strife. We must disown or bury any such things great men of the past may have said. See here how the text of the Immigration Act of 1790 is piled under pages of superfluous information about Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty, Emma Lazarus, and a summary of the entire history of immigration. All the way at the end is the actual text, which begins:

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof. . .

Such thoughts, even in historic documents, even when expressed without malice, are today considered “racism”. Someone who thinks such thoughts is called a “racist” – a stereotype that implies they are psychologically infirm, intellectually deficient, intolerantly bigoted, and prone to violence. The word racist is almost always intended and taken as a slur, and it is very often used deliberately, to put it in the terms of the reality-based community, as a means of dehumanizing anyone so smeared.

As destructive as they know the label is, some apply it with great abandon. Anti-racists who wouldn’t dream of calling someone lazy or weak or a whore (that might hurt their self-esteem!) will, just like that, call someone a racist. Nobody wants to be called a racist. We all realize how poorly racists are treated. And yet so many anti-racists are on hair trigger, ready to use the word on anyone they think is saying or thinking incorrectly.

It would be bad enough if this pathologizing of speech and thought were codified and applied equally to all who spoke in certain ways about race. But it isn’t. Whites and non-whites are subject to different sets of constantly changing unwritten rules. Over time it is becoming ever more acceptable for non-whites to criticize Whites, and ever less acceptable for Whites to criticize non-whites. Many anti-racists today unabashedly defend the idea that only Whites can be racists. In fact the anti-racism “frame” now includes the view that Whites are inherently racist. That’s why when racial friction or differences arise Whites are the ones who so often get the blame.

The anti-racist frame-builders give their White blame mechanisms different names. One of them is called institutional racism:

Institutional racism (or structural racism or systemic racism) refers to a form of racism which occurs specifically in institutions such as public bodies, corporations, and universities. The term was coined by black nationalist, pan-Africanist and honorary prime minister of the Black Panther Party, Stokely Carmichael.

It seems anti-racists do not think pan-Africanism or black nationalism are racist. Yet these ideologies are overtly concerned with the benefit of a particular race, certainly more overtly than any public body, corporation, or university I’m aware of. Except maybe Howard University and McDonalds. Can an anti-racist please point me to a “white university”, or special corporate websites celebrating Whites?

Another such mechanism is called symbolic racism:

Symbolic racism means believing that African American poverty and other problems are largely the result of lack of ambition and effort, rather than white racism and discrimination. Who holds symbolically racist beliefs? A relatively large portion of white voters in general and white working-class voters in particular. . .

So? CNN pundits and liberal bloggers think White poverty and other problems are largely the result of ignorance. They think Whites, or “rednecks” according to David Gergen, don’t vote for Obama because they’re “under-educated”. Alan Abramowitz says White voters are “symbolic racists” because they think more highly of blacks than media pundits like himself think of Whites. After all, the polls show Whites blame black problems on lack of ambition and effort. Ignorance was probably considered too rude to either provide in the poll or select. Could Abramowitz supply the results of black polling? I’m curious what blacks believe causes White success. Do they think it’s racism? Given the constant White = racist barrage from the media doesn’t everybody think that?

I’d like to take the opportunity here to point out how odd it is that mainstream writers like Abramowitz make a point of capitalizing words like Latino, Asian, Jew, or African American, but never white. After all, it’s just a skin color, right? Perhaps you noticed I do the opposite. Now you know why.

This survey of anti-racist anti-Whitism could go on for quite a while, but I’ll stop here with White privilege:

White privilege is a sociological concept which describes advantages enjoyed by white persons beyond what is commonly experienced by the non-white people in those same social spaces (nation, community, workplace, etc.). It differs from racism or prejudice in that a person benefiting from white privilege does not necessarily hold racist beliefs or prejudices themselves. Often, the person benefiting is unaware of his or her privilege.

Here we see some naked “framing” – the deliberate construction of a concept that makes no effort to hide the anti-White agenda. The idea here is that even Whites who do nothing overt that might conceivably be called racism are still racists if they socialize primarily with Whites. If this is a priviledge then it is a common privilege easily found amongst any race. To single out and demonize Whites for such behaviour is not “fighting racism”. It is a racially motivated attack against Whites.

At a blog called WhitePrivilege, whose slogan is “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity”, there is a five-year-old exchange between the blogger and a pro-White using the pseudonym Rurik. Rurik does a wonderful job trying to reason with the anti-White blogger, who for his part appears willfully blind to his anti-Whitism. The exchange contains many of the classic arguments on both sides. At the end a self-righteous jew appears, but not to say “hey, as a jew, I know a bit about defamation, and what this White fellow says is right, you are defaming Whites, it’s dangerous and you should stop it”. Instead he says:

To “Rurik” (who refrains from using his name for fear of being spotted by anyone as a racist and anti-Semite),

The more I read the back-and-forth banter between you and Mr. Clark, the more horrified I am with the idea of people like you exist in my country, doing frightening things such as voting or breeding.

In other words this proud jew favors race-based disenfranchisement and sterilization – for Whites! Following this, presumably to justify his anti-White sentiments (just like Karoli) follow dozens of lines of kvetching about past persecution of jews and blacks.

If race is a social construct as the anti-racists say, then how is it that my Whiteness, and that alone, makes me responsible for enslaving blacks, genociding indians, and gassing jews? If we take anti-racists at their word then clearly they are constructing these responsibilities.

Hopefully I’ve made a convincing case that many anti-racists are not at all concerned about stopping injustices that one race may inflict on another. More than anything else they seem intent on race-based payback against Whites. The common premise behind all of their poisonous ideas is that Whites are the source of all problems, past and present. Their intent is quite literally genocidal.

If on the other hand after reading all this what you think really motivates me is a secret desire to genocide all non-whites, or even some of them, then I want you to know, that I know, that it is because you are anti-White. You are a racist, and you should promptly go and do to yourself what you so often and openly wish upon racists.

I’ve rambled on far too long already, but I did want to say some things about Pandagon.

The CNN-related post I originally cited, Clinton wins Kentucky, race chasm proven again, was already stale by the time I went over to comment and I ended up picking a fight in another post.

The Kentucky post contained some real anti-racist gems that are worth commenting on in light of what I’ve said above. Citing another liberal blogger’s idea that he calls the Race Chasm:

It is in the chasm where Clinton has consistently defeated Obama. These are geographically diverse states from Ohio to Oklahoma to Massachusetts where racial politics is very much a part of the political culture, but where the black vote is too small to offset a white vote racially motivated by the Clinton campaign’s coded messages and tactics.

The black vote is not presumed to be racially motivated, but the White vote is. White candidates communicate in coded messages (the reality-based community calls them “dog whistles”), but black candidates presumably do not.

The blogger, a black woman, then writes:

I wonder if an intelligent discussion can now be had about the reality of prejudice versus affinity voting. When the MSM continually frames this chasm as a problem for Obama — it is a problem for all of us as a society. To have a whole demo of voters so poisoned by their own racism to vote for someone white simply to avoid casting a ballot for a person of color is sad. To then be willing to stay home in November or worse, vote for John McCain, who clearly doesn’t represent working class interests, is tragic.

Needless to say that’s the polar opposite of what I’ve called affinity voting — blacks voting for Obama in large numbers. Many are voting for him because he represents ideals and policies they agree with; that he’s the first credible, positive black candidate for president is a huge historical bonus.

Is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who says my race voting 70-30 is “prejudice” and her race voting 90-10 is “affinity”? What would we talk about, reparations for slavery?

Here again is the anti-White premise of anti-racists laid bare. I have an alternate explanation for the CNN pundits and Pandagon. I say Whites are affinity voting and blacks are prejudiced. Working class Whites are especially wise and discerning compared to fat and lazy wealthy Whites, at least when it comes to voting their best interests. The working class was obviously paying close attention to Rev. Wright and the “bitter” flaps. They know that Black Liberation Theology is not good for Whites. Blacks, on the other hand, generally don’t care what a White candidate says or does if there’s a black candidate to vote for. Obama should reject those racist votes.

There. How’s that? Can I get a seat on CNN?

I wish I had commented on that post at the time but as it happened I found a more recent post, an equally fat target titled Defending science: What works and what’s already working. The exchange was lively.

The blogger, Amanda Marcotte, proposed that the “avid defenders of the importance of accepting reality” in the “reality-based community” should reject “the right wing frame” and defend science from the “lies trotted out about “Intelligent Design”” and “that Stephen Jay Gould is the model for how to do this”. She concluded by saying “”Intelligent Design” is an attack on science”. (Her emphasis.)

I began by ridiculing this combination of ideas. I pointed out the incompatibility between framing and reality, that Gould was a human genetic difference denier, that E.O. Wilson or James Watson are better model defenders of science, that ID was not useless or even harmful but instead spurs scientists to do more science where there are gaps. I also asserted that the perception of the ID challenge as an attack is an natural case of projection by cultural marxists. Scientists, and intellects in general, consider defending their ideas routine.

The response was slow in coming. Seventeen posts later Ellid finally piped up to tell me he didn’t like E.O. Wilson because “his sociobiology theories are little more than a convenient excuse to justify sexism and racism on the grounds of genetic determinism”. Never mind all that world’s leading authority on ant stuff. Ellid also didn’t like Watson because he “denigrated and belittled the work of Rosalyn Yalow”. It was the only halfway-intelligent response I got.

Soon after that the goon squad, who I quickly recognized as “the resident Goulds”, started telling me: you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re a white nationalist, a racist wingnut, etc. Rather than addressing my points, which though irreverently posed were directly on topic, these troglodytes made some of the dumbest leaps of logic I’ve ever seen. The tactics I have seen, many times, and they have nothing to do with how ideas are defended. The exchange really doesn’t classify as an argument or even two-way communication. It was more like a constant stream of verbal abuse, most of it directed at me.

I recognized several recurring themes. One was:

It’s not that I don’t like white people in general, it’s that I don’t like white people like you. I realize that you’re way too self-absorbed to understand the difference, but there you go.

Most of the goons made sure to emphasize how “white” they were before saying similarly nasty things. I think I understand this all very well. When you say things like this it means you like deracinated white people, and you hate race-conscious Whites. It is anti-White anti-racism. A jew who hates jews is called a self-hating jew. A white who hates Whites is called an anti-racist.

Another theme was typified by:

Tanstaafl, one small criticism. You’re racism isn’t quite blatant enough. In the future, you should just go ahead an advocate killing everyone not just like you. You know, like your German friends did.

The ironic thing about this, and it was echoed more than once in various forms, is that the assumption seems to be that me, an anonymous small time blogger, might be construed as advocating genocide, and that this threat was considered serious enough to treat me as if they thought I should be killed because I wasn’t just like them.

One especially tolerant liberal hinted at this desire by quoting Frank Zappa:

If your children ever find out how lame you really are, they’ll murder you in your sleep.

I made the case above, and I have said it before on this blog, that what drives me to write and think as I do is my concern that Whites are threatened with extermination. This threat comes in large part from the virulent anti-White rhetoric of anti-racists. They are the ones whose poisonous ideas are taught in universities, printed in books and newspapers, and tossed off without a thought on the pages of popular liberal blogs that pretend to be moral authorities.

I’ll end here with a quote from Science and ideology by Edward O. Wilson. I tried posting this at Pandagon several times but it never went through. Too bad. I suspect none of those gibbering Gould-lovers will come here to see how a real scientist defends science.

The future, if we are to have one, is increasingly to be in the hands of the scientifically literate, those who at least know what it is all about. There can be no multicultural solution to the genetics of cystic fibrosis; the ozone hole cannot be deconstructed; there is nothing whatsoever relativistic or culturally contextual about the dopamine transporter molecules whose blockage by cocaine gives a rush of euphoria, the kind that leads the constructivist to doubt the objectivity of science.

. . .

Which brings me to anti-science. I know less about postmodernism than most of you here, but let me give you my impression of how it relates to science. Postmodernist critics present a Disney World representation of science, a fantasy of what science is, and how scientists work, and why they work, a distortion embellished variously by obsolete theories of psychoanalysis and the battle cries of political ideology. Within the academy, it seems to me that postmodernism and the divisive forms of multiculturalism are substantially a revolt of the proletariat, wherein second-rate scholarship is parlayed into tenured professorships and book contracts–not by quality, not by originality, but by claims of entitlement of race, gender, and moralistic ideologies. But as I will show in a moment, some of it runs deeper, to turn the minds of even a few otherwise respected scientists.

. . .

The sociobiology episode was one of the most conspicuous in the history of political correctness in academic life in the dark time before the expression, p.c., was coined and before the National Association of Scholars or any other form of organized resistance arose to blunt its excesses.

. . .

The radical activists, however, went ballistic on this issue. Shortly after the publication of Sociobiology, Richard Lewontin organized fifteen scientists, teachers, and students in the Boston area as the Sociobiology Study Group, which then affiliated with Science for the People. The latter, larger aggregate of radical activists was begun in the 1960s to expose the misdeeds of scientists and technologists, including especially thinking considered to be politically dangerous. It was and remains nation wide, although greatly attenuated in its tone and influence.

What was correct political thinking? That has been made clear by Lewontin during the debate and afterward. “There is nothing in Marx, Lenin, or Mao,” he wrote with his fellow Marxist Richard Levins, “that is or can be in contradiction with a particular set of phenomena in the objective world.” True science, in other words, must be defined intrinsically to be forever separate from political thought. Ideology can then be constructed as a mental process insulated from science.

In formulating sociobiology, I wanted to move evolutionary biology into every potentially congenial subject, including human behavior and even political behavior, roughshod if need be and as quickly as possible. Lewontin obviously did not.

. . .

Now I can come to the essence of the radical science movement. As loopy as it all may seem today, and especially after the collapse of world socialism, the argument has to be taken seriously, since it has been accepted to varying degrees by a few influential scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levins, and Ruth Hubbard, who are highly regarded in the public eye as scientists, even as they continue to promote a Marxian view.

Here then is the argument in its raw form: only an anti-reductionist, non-bourgeois science can help humanity attain the highest goal, which is a socialist world. In the 1984 book Not in Our Genes, Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin, all worthies of radical science philosophy, explained their purpose as follows:

We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more socially just–a socialist–society. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, just as we also believe that the social function of much of today’s science is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the interests of the dominant class, gender, and race. This belief–in the possibility of a critical and liberatory science–is why we have each in our separate ways and to varying degrees been involved in the development of what has become known over the 1970s and 1980s, in the United States and Britain, as the radical science movement.

Read the whole thing. Wilson’s plain English and guilelessness is a refreshing contrast to the turd-flingers that rule the roost at Pandagon.

Lewontin, Gould, and their marxist fellow travelers were more interested in promoting their “frame” than in promoting science. Their agenda, just as it is for the “reality-based community”, is not based on the non-existence or non-importance of class, gender, and race – it is based on a hyper-awareness and presumed hyper-importance of these “social constructs”. Moreover, they call for explicit attack on what they perceive to be the “dominant” class, gender, or race.

The reality is that “reality-based community” are today’s budding totalitarians and the “dominant” Anglo-Saxon, male, Whites are their neo-jews. Why? Because they hate us. (For hating them, for hating them, … as Owl said before his head exploded.)

That last paragraph refers to the retribution mindset most anti-racists seem locked in. They have trouble imagining a world where people simply live and let live. In fact Owl, one of the “resident Goulds”, thought he had reached a deep truth when he wrote:

In this view, anti-racism really is anti-Whitism, because they think racism is right.

Actually, in my view anti-racism is really anti-Whitism because it is. I’ve provided argument and evidence to support this assertion, and it matters not one bit who or what I am.

(The image is taken from an ad banner at Pandagon. It reflects their nihilism perfectly.)

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

Irony Thy Name is Auster

6 Comments

Lawrence Auster, in a post inaptly titled Are racial differences in IQ explained by cultural stereotypes?, writes:

Has anyone noticed the irony that most of the people who argue that there are no inherent differences in intelligence between the races are left-wing Jews, who use their high intelligence to argue that everyone has the same intelligence?

R. Davis writes:

The fact that left-wing Jews “use their high intelligence to argue that everyone has the same intelligence” raises two questions: 1. Are they doing so simply for cultural/political reasons, i.e., to subvert the majority non-Jewish culture by undermining its ethnic-racial foundations, while subtly affirming a Jewish intellectual superiority? or 2. Does their superior intelligence afford them insights the rest of us aren’t capable of? Given their own ethnic/racial makeup, they would seem to be the best refutation of their own thesis, but perhaps at that intellectual elevation the forest is a bit far off.

This question does touch on a facet of racialist politics (highlighted by the Wright affair) that no one dares discuss–namely, if in fact intellectual differences do exist between blacks and whites/Asians, whether genetically or culturally induced (what does it matter?), why should those at the low end of the bell curve be granted almost exclusive control over the national dialogue on race or on any other issue? Look where that is taking us. Rev. Wright is not an iconoclast. The majority of blacks believe the US government is using AIDS genocidally against them. Our schools dumb down deliberately to accommodate racial differences (which dare not be mentioned). On the other hand, those at the high end of the intellectual spectrum have done much to mire us in this racial quagmire. How does one make sense of this?

LA replies:

There’s truth to this. The people at the high end ally with the people at the low end to destroy the vast silent majority in the middle–the actual society.

What I’ve just described (and this goes beyond the question of the specifically Jewish role, though it includes it) in fact represents the essential structure of liberalism as it actually operates in society. Liberalism requires three groups in order to function. First, there is the liberal elite itself, the people who make liberalism happen. They demonstrate liberalism by preaching and practicing non-discrimination toward the Other, the minority, the less capable. Second, there are the Other and the less capable, upon whom the liberal elite practices its liberal virtue of non-discrimination. Without the Other, toward whom one practices non-discrimination, liberalism would die. Therefore liberalism requires an ever-renewed population of non-assimilated and unassimilable people. But a third group is also needed for liberalism to function, and that is the vast unenlightened majority whose backward morality is needed as a foil against which the elite demonstrates its morality and establishes its legitimacy and right to rule.

James M. writes from England:

During the Watson controversy a high-IQ British Jew called Steven Rose tried to peddle the “all equal” line at the Guardian, attacking the “long-exploded racist claim that “Africans” are inherently less intelligent than “us”‘.

Well yes Larry, since you asked, some people have noticed. A hardy few, like Luke O’Farrell, have written more coherently than you have concerning both the who and why:

The late Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist who labored long and hard to deny the truth about race and IQ. The living Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamin continue his work. The paradox is that the leading race-deniers prove the importance of race, because they all belong to that tiny minority known as Jews. So did Marx, Freud and Boas. Jews are very good at duping and deceiving, at creating seductive ideologies to fool naïve whites into acting against their own interests. Jews fool and rule; whites swallow and follow. And there are genetic reasons for this. Tiny differences in DNA don’t account just for a highly significant Jewish advantage in verbal IQ, but also for a highly significant Jewish advantage in arrogance, ethnocentrism and disregard for objective truth. Jews preach equality and universalism while ruthlessly pursuing their own advantage and enrichment. That’s how they’ve come to dominate white societies and that’s why they’ve led the race-denial crusade.

Gould insisted that human equality was a “contingent fact of history”. It could have been different, inequality could have evolved instead in a hundred different ways, but somehow that just didn’t happen. And reader, I confess it: I was one of Gould’s gullible goyim. He and his Mismeasure of Man (1981) took me in for a time and I remember with shame how I once argued that even if blacks were less intelligent than whites for genetic reasons, we shouldn’t say so, because that kind of thinking was dangerous. You see, if we admit that race exists, we may end up in Auschwitz. I didn’t think back then that if we deny that race exists, we may end up in the Gulag. Nor did I think about other consequences of race denial: for example, its use to justify mass immigration, which has flooded white homelands with non-whites from a rich variety of violent and corrupt Third World nations. And surprise, surprise, they’ve brought their violence and corruption with them.

Race denial has also justified the steady loss of freedom in white homelands. Express the wrong opinions about race in the UK or Europe and you’re in for a dawn raid from the thought police. And how Jews like Abraham Foxman would love the same thing to start happening in the US! Free speech was born in white societies and is dying with those societies, as Jews re-create the Marxist police states they feel safest in. If we let a paranoid, self-obsessed minority continue to write our laws and buy our politicians, we’ll soon see that the Berlin Wall didn’t fall to let freedom into the East, but to let tyranny into the West.

To write such things you have to be hardy because you will inevitably be swarmed by anti-anti-semites who will deny there is any merit whatsoever to anything you say. They will consign you to hell, ridicule you as a mindless robot, question your sanity, misrepresent your position, then call for you to be fired from your job, banned from the web, and shunned by anyone who doesn’t want to be similarly abused.

It is possible to elicit this kind of belligerent treatment by simply noting how typical it is, as Auster’s hostile reactions to his correspondents George R. and Tom M. illustrate.

I’ve thought and written more than a little about Auster. It started with an assertion about his oft-repeated and ever-mutating Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society, which he once succinctly stated as:

The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctess in covering up for that group.

What I asserted is that this law of liberalism obviously applies to jews. PC protects them above all others.

Silly me. Auster set aside his anti-liberalism and dismissed my assertion as anti-semitic. When I fleshed out the argument he whined I was attacking him for not being an anti-semite. When I quoted him he claimed I was calling him a lousy anti-semite hypocrite.

Auster’s intellectual dishonesty runs deep. He is incapable of confronting what I actually say, which is this: He is an anti-anti-semite, i.e. a bigoted pro-jewish racist. He is a hypocrite because he regularly exhibits all the irrational symptoms he sees and self-righteously denounces in others. He is not pro-White, as he at times may appear, he simply believes Whites are better for jews than the invading immigrants favored by most other jews. Jews, in the mind of an anti-anti-semite like Auster, are entitled to special treatment. To criticize jews you must, like him, have their best interests foremost in mind. Otherwise you are a special type of racist, worthy of a special label. This magic label makes you subhuman, eligible for all the dehumanization he assumes you wish on jews. Jews who openly denigrate Whites are also special. Auster does not demonize them or call for them to be shunned.

Someone who reasons this way should be able to see that someone else might instead have the best interests of Whites foremost in their mind. But Auster repeatedly and ever-so-intelligently demonstrates he is incapable of doing so:

Lately more and more commenters have been capitalizing the words white and black, e.g., “White people,” “Black people,” which I have changed to lower case prior to posting. It has never been standard usage to capitalize these adjectives when they are used to denote race, and it is not VFR’s usage. While race matters, to make it matter so much that we capitalize the mere names of colors is to take race consciousness too far. I ask commenters to conform their spelling to standard English usage. Thank you.

All kinds of racists do this, to magnify their own group and dehumanize the group they hate. For example, many white nationalists capitalize “white,” a color which should not be capitalized, and put “Jew,” a proper name which should be capitalized, in lower case.

White, when used to identify a group of people, is not a color or an adjective. It is a proper noun. Thus I capitalize White. I no longer capitalize jew specifically to draw attention to the inconsistent norm that Auster so staunchly supports. His reason is so clouded that this simple rationale of reversal does not compute. For him “jew” is a sure sign of racist anti-semitic dehumanization, but “white” is a completely innocent convention.

So now Auster wonders if he is the first to notice that “left-wing jews” ally with “non-assimilated and unassimilable people” against the “vast unenlightened majority”. If he were to state his position in less weaselly language from a pro-White point of view he might find himself saying something anti-semitic. He might admit his MMRILS applies to jews. That would be ironic, but we can be sure it won’t happen. Auster does not have the best interests of Whites foremost in his mind. If he did he wouldn’t pretend we are a vast majority, and he wouldn’t so quickly and hypocritically dehumanize the few who seek unblinkered enlightenment.

UPDATE 31 Mar 2008: More snippets from Auster’s post:

Mark Jaws writes:

Of course, I, the quintessentially politically astute New York Jew (albeit with Slavic blood to taint my Yiddish pedigree), long ago noticed it was primarily left-wing Jews such as Jay Gould, who were the most ardent opponents to Shockley, Jensen, Herrnstein and Murray. I attributed it in part to Jews having been the main victims of the Nazi eugenics movement, so even though these smart Jews probably knew deep down inside that there were IQ differences, it would be best to nullify and pervert the movement which they perceived to be Nazi-like.

Whatever good the name calling and lies has done for jews it has only come at the expense of Whites. Auster does not point this out because he is not pro-White.

Bert R. writes:

The comments of yourself and others here regarding Jewish intellectuals remind me of Kevin MacDonald’s. Is there now a broader range of agreement between you both than before? I ask as I recall that you wrote a somewhat critical article or comment about him some time ago.

LA replies:

Comments like this make me want to throw up my hands.

Kevin MacDonald’s central idea is that the Jewish people are driven by an instinct created by Darwinian evolution to destroy European peoples. He is the most influential anti-Semitic thinker and inspirer of exterminationist anti-Semites of our time. I wonder on what basis you would construct a similarity between my ideas and his based on what was said in this thread.

See my article where I lay out the differences between what MacDonald says about the Jews and what I say.

Inspirer of exterminationists? Such deranged hyperbole is the hallmark of anti-anti-semitism.

I wrote a little about this in White Self-Determination and Totalitarian Liberals.

It isn’t difficult to differentiate the two men.

MacDonald is a scholar who focuses on analyzing the conflicts between White and jewish interests, a subject Auster only occasionally touches. MacDonald writes in plain language remarkable for its contrast with the obfuscatory postmodern academic norm. Auster prefers misleading euphemisms like “the majority” and “liberals”. MacDonald is more circumspect and consistent than Auster, who constantly and explicitly advises “the majority” what they must do, who they must keep out or deport, and who the anti-semites are that must be slandered and ostracized in order to appease the “liberals” he is supposedly resisting.

In short MacDonald is pro-White and Auster is pro-jew. Perhaps Auster can only throw up his hands because he cannot imagine simply telling the truth.