Polite Kid

''A multicultural society is one that is inherently prone to conflict, not harmony. This is why we see a huge growth in government bureaucracies dedicated to resolving disputes along racial and cultural lines. These disputes can never be resolved permanently because the bureaucrats deny one of the major causes: race. This is why there is so much talk of the "multicultural" rather than the more precise "multiracial." Ever more changes and legislation are introduced to make the host society ever more congenial to racial minorities. This only creates more demands, and encourages the non-shooting war against whites, their civilization, and even the idea of the West. '' - Frank Ellis, Multiculturalism and Marxism
But is it still a 'non-shooting war'?
The news story of the four police officers killed in Oakland has been much discussed in the right-blogosphere, though crimes like this are under-reported in the old media. The CofCC has a piece on the black radical group which organized what amounted to a celebratory march in honor of the killer, Lovelle Mixon.
Uhuru/APSP is one of several extremely militant anti-white groups thriving in black communities across the United States. Uhuru openly celebrates violence against white police and authority figures. They also denounce Obama as a tool of the "white power establishment."
The group is based in St. Petersburg, Florida and actively holds rallies and demonstrations in about a dozen cities. The leader goes by the name "Chairman Omali Yeshitela." The group claims a kinship with ZANU, the political party of violent Zimbabwe dictator Mugabe. It also claims to be allied with "revolutionary forces" in South Africa and other nations. Uhuru calls itself the "American front of the international African liberation movement."
It's an old story that the mainstream media treat groups like this as harmless and as 'civil rights' or 'activist' groups when they cover them at all, whereas we know that a White counterpart, if such existed, would be shrilly denounced as a 'hate group' or worse, and would probably by now have been raided and mass arrests carried out. But we all know that the double standards exist, and that nonwhite radical extremist groups will be handled with kid gloves and/or treated with exaggerated respect by the powers that be.
Another distressing aspect of the event and the old media coverage of it is the tendency to make the killer just one of the victims. This kind of thing is standard these days, especially when the perpetrator is of a 'victim group'. But this trend is an affront to the actual victims and to their families and friends. It is the ultimate in moral obtuseness.
I caught a few minutes of O'Reilly earlier this evening, and in his usual fashion he declared that the vast majority of 'African-Americans' deplore crimes like those committed by Mixon and that the majority do not support the march in support of the killer/rapist. Of course O'Reilly had nothing to back up that assertion, and I see no evidence of it in real life. I have to wonder if O'Reilly mixes and mingles with the ''African-American community'' enough to know what the majority there thinks or feels. I suspect his experience consists mostly of mingling with the blacks who work in the media or in other related positions, people like Juan Williams, who usually adopt a more moderate tone.
Surely, though, we can look back some years to the O.J. verdict and see how most blacks reacted to Simpson's acquittal (no doubt with the aid of sympathetic black jurors). Or we can go back a little further and remember the L.A. riots after the Rodney King incident. How many 'African-American leaders' expressed shock or dismay or chagrin over what they saw during those days? None, that I can recall.
Similarly, with Katrina, how many 'African-Americans' stood up to deplore what occurred there in the aftermath of that natural disaster? From what I recall there was much race-baiting, and accusations of purposely delayed evacuations, actual claims of conspiracies (levees being blown up, and so on) and charges of 'racism' in general from the national leaders.
Few or no blacks denounced the hysteria and the race-baiting, except for an occasional lone voice.
O'Reilly is like most media figures in that he leans over backwards to insist that it's only a 'tiny percentage' of blacks who commit heinous crimes and an only slightly less tiny percentage who excuses or even celebrates the criminals. However he is going to have to come up with something to back up these assertions if he insists on making them. But we know he will never do that; he will never have to. Most people are eager to simply let those statements pass or even to blindly assent, without any evidence of their accuracy. And we know why this is: political correctness.
Inevitably even those who recognize the dishonesty in statements like O'Reilly's will acknowledge that, and then proceed to justify the PC 'white lies' by saying ''oh, well, he has to say that, if he wants to keep his job. He can't tell the truth."
Yet O'Reilly is the guy who calls his TV program the 'No-Spin Zone', the man who claims to be so blunt and honest in contrast to the mealy-mouthed spinmeisters elsewhere in the media. He trades on his no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is persona, and he is blunt enough when it comes to the safe topics, but when it comes to race, he is little better than any of the other PC-fied media minions.
So why does he make these silly PC statements about how 99 percent of blacks don't agree with the extremists, when the evidence to the contrary is everywhere? Why do many others do the same? We also see the same thing with those who insist that there are 'moderate Muslims' who are the peaceful majority, and only a minuscule number who actually support extremism and terrorism. Whenever the subject is the behavior of some minority group, there are the eager apologists who rush into the conversation to insist that ''but the majority are not like that! We can't blame all of them; it's just a few that cause problems. The majority are good people."
Perhaps it's some kind of psychological defense mechanism that makes people feel compelled to deny that there is a problem and that it does involve a great many people, not just a few troublemakers. Acknowledging that there is a problem and that it is more widespread than political correctness would admit would imply having to deal with the problem in some way, and many people prefer to avoid that.
And then there are those for whom PC is their quasi-religion; these people have to 'feel good about themselves' and these days, what better way to do that than to take a benevolent and all-tolerant attitude towards minorities who behave badly?
But these are people with their heads in the sand, believing that if they deny the problem, it will somehow evaporate on its own.
Maybe O'Reilly himself, who is so often accused of being 'racist' or 'fascist' is more sensitive to that criticism than he lets on. Despite his blustering tough-guy image, I think he cares very much about being seen as 'fair-minded' or unbigoted, even if it means denying obvious truths.
The media of late have gone all-out, as we've discussed here and elsewhere, to show us falsified images of blacks in positions of authority, wise, noble, kind, friendly, accomplished blacks, probably in an all-out effort to counter the crime stories or the evidence of our own senses from everyday life. The news channels and the media generally like to present us with blacks who belie the stereotypes and it has worked like a charm, apparently, for most people. However as I've always said, one exception, or the occasional aberration, does not disprove the rule.
Again, Frank Ellis said
A mode of opinion control softer than outright censorship is the current obsession with fictional role models. Today, the feminist and anti-racist theme is constantly worked into movies and television as examples of Bertoldt Brecht's principle that the Marxist artist must show the world not as it is but as it ought to be. This is why we have so many screen portrayals of wise black judges; street-wise, straight-shooting lady policemen; minority computer geniuses; and, of course, degenerate white men.''
But we still, if we are honest and realistic, have to look at the overall statistics and the realities, without the rose-colored glasses provided by the media propaganda.
Political correctness kills; when I first said that on a forum some years ago, I was angrily challenged for it, but every day in the news we get more examples of how it can be fatal. I have to wonder to what extent PC affects law enforcement policies when 'interacting' with people in the ghetto or the barrio. I have to wonder how many people's lives are put at risk by this foolish insistence on believing in PC fairytales.

Labels: Anti White Racism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Hate Crime, Media Bias, Old Media, Political Correctness

The CofCC blog notes the media blackout (ironic phrase!) on the recent series of attacks on White people by blacks in various parts of our country. In fact, one of the most recent incidents, which took place in Peoria, Illinois, was not even mentioned in the media until Drudge posted it among his headlines.
It's staggering to realize that our so-called 'news' media are brazen enough to try to sweep these things under the rug altogether, or to acknowledge them while studiously avoiding any mention of the attacking mobs' race.
How can the 'news' media maintain even a shred of credibility these days? To say they are derelict in their duty to inform the public is nowhere near enough. In fact, I say they have a lot to answer for in that they are stoking the fires of racial animosity on the part of minorities. It's more startlingly obvious now than ever before that the 'media' play the part of malicious talebearers, with their incessant harping about 'White racism' and 'White privilege'. They endlessly rehash their version of history, in which long-suffering minorities have been wronged by Whitey. Slavery! Jim Crow! Genocide of the 'Native Americans'! Theft of the Mexicans' territory! Institutional racism! Xenophobia!
Is it any wonder that acts of violence against Whites have become increasingly common and brutal? Witness the brutality of the attack on young Carter Strange.
Note that an anti-lynch law is being used to prosecute the attackers of Carter Strange. Ironic, is it not? But it's also justice. The charge of 'racist lynchings' is one that is used to accuse Whites as a people, but as I occasionally mention, it is not often realized that people of every race were lynched in the old days. White men as well as minorities were lynched.
The media stoke the fires of resentment and anger by their constant accusations and slanders. If some malevolent person constantly goaded everyone into hating a particular individual, until that individual was viciously assaulted, we would rightly point out the malicious talebearer who stirred up anger and hatred. In this case, the talebearer is the many people who make up the 'news' media. In reality they are not deliverers of the news; they are propaganda purveyors at best, and libelous, lying instigators at worst. In some cases, their malice is of a passive kind: concealing facts which might reflect unfavorably on their agenda, even concealing these things at the expense of people's lives.
The media have much to answer for, but who will even confront them and denounce them for what they are? Critics will always be dismissed as 'haters' and 'extremists' or 'crackpots.'
I will share with my readers the fact that when I pray for this country, and my folk, I pray most of all that the scales will fall from people's eyes, and that they will see the truth. I've prayed that the truth will soon become so obvious that even the most willfully blind can see it, and that they will stop denying the truth revealed by their now-opened eyes. I pray that regularly, and maybe that, in fact, is what's happening now, with these mounting incidences of racially-based violence.

Labels: Anti White Racism, Biased Media, Corrupt Media

''...McWhorter suggests we're in a transitional phase in the way people feel about race as a national obsession. In the short run, "I suspect that where we are going is whites feeling ever more that it's time we blacks get over it, while an ever shrinking population of blacks continue hoping that whites will change their tune and 'wake up,' " he says. But this too shall (eventually) pass. "In about 50 years," he adds, "we will be so hybrid a nation that any idea of black-white relations as a major problem in need of address will seem archaic."
The above comments from John McWhorter, who is often touted as one of the 'moderate' or 'conservative' blacks, are part of the concluding paragraph from a piece called Double Vision: The Race Issue Revisited from AdWeek.
According to Ron Guhname at Inductivist, McWhorter said on the Laura Ingraham show that he is supporting Obama.
...he plans to vote for Obama for president because of the tremendously positive psychological effect that it will have on blacks. Hope will be felt like never before, and race hustlers like nut surgeon Jesse Jackson won't be taken seriously anymore.''
Mr. McWhorter, in all his racial excitement, must have neglected to read yesterday's New York Times poll:
The results of the poll... suggested that Mr. Obama�s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.
For the first time ever, the person who is one step away from the most powerful position in the world is black, but still blacks folks don't think things are getting better?!''
Guhname is skeptical of the 'vote-for-Obama-because-worse-is-better' meme which has taken a stubborn hold among some on the right. McWhorter thinks that an Obama presidency will give blacks 'hope' while polls suggest they don't see the prospect of an Obama presidency as any evidence of 'progress.' So what will change after January 20, 2009?
The AdWeek piece on the race issue contains the usual PC boilerplate. Nothing much to see there, but there is confirmation of some of the trends many of us have noticed:
If some white people are insensitive to the travails of their black compatriots, some are very, very sensitive -- and proud of it. "There's now a kind of white person under 30 who thinks of himself as an 'honorary' black person [because he's so highly aware that] the playing field isn't level," says John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Race and Ethnicity, and author of the just-published All About the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can't Save Black America. "Quite simply, the 'playing field' issue means that blackness is thought of as a problem, which is not where we need to go." Moreover, he says, this sort of hyper-consciousness leads to such white people "thinking they can 'be' something that you cannot 'be' unless you were born to it.
[...]
There's clearly a sizable white constituency that welcomes the prospect of an Obama victory as a sign that America has already become a post-racial society -- that the struggle of race is behind us. This sentiment also influences the way in which people react to popular culture, advertising included.
It's obvious to anyone who watches TV that the content of advertising has become more inclusive, and not just in the form of "black" versions of "white" commercials. We see easy-going interaction between the races in recent spots for everything from Miracle-Gro plant food and McDonald's Happy Meals to Levi's jeans.
David Lubars, chairman, CCO of BBDO North America, suggests advertising content is a pop-culture leader in its inclusiveness. "Advertising does a much better job of showing diversity and reflects the American fabric better than the movies or TV shows," he says. "You watch any evening of TV commercials, you see a great mix."
The piece is full of the usual smug PC platitudes on race, and it's clear that the advertising industry has an agenda other than inducing people to buy products or services. They are selling an agenda, trying to shape society towards ends that they see as moral and good. Should that not be the province of clergy and philosophers, not advertisers? Oh, for the good old days of advertising when they were merely pushing widgets or toothpaste or soap. Now they are shaping the world we live in, leading us in directions that we might not go if we were approached more directly, rather than insidiously as with today's advertising.
McWhorter's support for Obama is not surprising; blood is thicker than politics, as we've said before. The idea that Obama's election will inaugurate not only the first black president, but new heavens and a new earth, will prove to have been a fantasy, I'm afraid. It is too big a gamble on a long shot to think that some kind of new consciousness will awaken in White people. As the AdWeek article says, we have a large constituency of White people, especially the under-30s, who see themselves as 'honorary blacks', by virtue of their great sensitivity. One of these days, these people will be in the ascendancy, and an Obama presidency will probably be the beginning of the end of the old America.
The idea of hoping for an Obama débâcle to 'wake people up' reminds me of the idea many non-Christians have about Christian believers. I've heard the accusation made that 'fundamentalists', believing in the impending End Times, want to hasten Armageddon in the Middle East so as to provoke Christ's return and thus inaugurate the 'new heavens and a new earth' promised us. The fact is, I've never encountered a Christian in real life or even on the wild-and-wooly internet who thinks that way, or who would say 'bring on Armageddon!' so as to hasten Christ's second coming. But isn't that the thinking behind the 'worse is better' scenario? Bring it on, so that the millennium will follow? As for me, I have no thoughts of hastening the tribulation. I believe we should work to delay this 'worse' that is supposedly inevitable.
And let's keep in mind that last paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this piece. McWhorter thinks that it will take half a century for our people to be 'hybridized' out of existence. I see it happening much sooner, if things don't turn around, and I am not sure that speeding the process up, which is what an Obama presidency would do, is helpful.

Labels: Advertising, Anti White Racism, Elections, Presidential Candidates, Propaganda, Racial Division, Racial Guilt

All of us are aware, I think, of how popular culture is being used to propagandize and shape all of us. It's used especially to separate the young from their elders and, generation by generation, to further divide the population and at the same time to further the leftist/multiculturalist agenda, destroying the heritage and traditions that characterize our past.
This piece does a good job of detailing how it is being done in the UK, and although the specifics deal with the UK, it is substantially true here as well.
...At the beginning of the twentieth century the modernist movement set about destroying the form and grammar of traditional art, and thus the content, and made it both unintelligible and uninteresting. In the 60�s, cultural Marxists of the New Left became the avant-garde in the art word [world?] as they became the elites in almost all the avenues of culture. They hated our culture and traditions, and they have been destroying them and our young people ever since.
Aristocrat rulers had a sense of noblesse oblige towards the working-classes, and a sense of responsibility to posterity. But the new elites were driven by their hatred and personal gain to corrupt them.''
This last paragraph makes a good point. Much as our 'democratic' new America hates the idea of aristocracy, our aristocracy in the past, ideally, at least felt a sense of connection to, and a responsibility for, the common people, and above all, toward the perpetuation of our heritage. Our new 'elites', who are in no sense aristocratic, even though they may be wealthy, have no such allegiance or concern, being disconnected from us.
The Discrimination Act of 1975 cautions people against using degrading language in respect to certain selected groups. But our elites continually degrade working-class people and our young, whom they mock as "chavs". Our people rarely see themselves affirmed as human beings of value in adverts or on TV. Only the dark-skinned without English features are accorded a sympathetic treatment. The worst of it is the frequency with which our women are shown to the world as whores.''
The blogger references 'celebrities' such as Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Both these women have similar public images, based on their dissolute lifestyles, though Hilton came from wealth and Spears from a poor background. I've long thought that their public images are meant to 'inspire', if the word can be used in such a paradoxical way, young women towards similar lack of self-respect. The intention is to degrade our people and culture. What better way than through young women, who should be the mothers of the next generation? Former eras treasured these young women and encouraged them to maintain their wholesomeness and chastity, while today the opposite is encouraged and rewarded. It's an assault on our future.
'It is simply not intended that we should identify with ourselves. Why, then, would the elites have any conscience about bringing immigrants here to undercut our wages and take our jobs, and push us out of our communities? They consider us worthless.''
And, more importantly, they want us to consider our fellow White people worthless, and even ourselves.
In too many instances, this is what is happening.
The television programme makers are on the lookout for something to laugh at but we are now the targets and this is done to us before the rest of the world. It is conveyed by images as well as words which are read as body language and semi-conscious messages.''
I'm convinced that these media-generated images, which end up encouraging the same behavior in real-life people, are contributing to the general contempt already felt towards us by nonwhites, and people in general in other countries.
I know that many foreign people see the grotesque media images of White Americans and loathe us for it, if they don't already dislike us anyway.
In our household, we get BBC America, which presents truly hideous programming presenting British people in an unflattering light. It is being done to turn us all against each other, I think, and as life imitates art more often than the other way around, more people in real life live down to the stereotypes.
One of the shows one sees constantly advertised is 'Skins', which seems to be all about teen sex, and there is another show, whose name escapes me, whose 'comedy' seems centered on fat people's sex lives. Degrading for all involved.
Whites are presented as fat and over-weight, while ethnics are bright and clean. One Channel 4 programme, How clean is Your House, has two women visit couples homes to instruct them on how to keep the house free of grime. ''
I've confessed to watching 'How Clean is Your House' because it appeals to morbid curiosity as to how bad people's living conditions can be; sometimes people who look quite normal and well-groomed live in incredible squalor. Yet on reflection I've started thinking that this show, too, like Jerry Springer, seems calculated to show White people in the worst possible light. Most of the people whose filthy homes are featured are White people of 'indigenous' British ancestry. I've only seen one program with a nonwhite subject, a very overweight Chinese man.
By the way, there is now an American version of this, with the two 'cleaning gurus' visiting untidy and unhygienic Americans (some of whom live in rather 'upscale' areas) and showing us that we, too, are just as bad as the worst.
I think there is method to this madness; I think the idea is to show us that we needn't look down on the unhygienic ways of the Third-Worlders in our midst, who often live in very squalid conditions, typical of their home countries. I think it's also meant to further foster contempt for our neighbors, people who look like us. Liberals and the multiculturally-smitten love to find bad examples of White criminality, slovenliness, and just plain 'sorriness' to flaunt in our faces, and to show just how bad we are.
As the blogger says,
'It is done not just to degrade our own people, but to redress the balance with the behaviour of ethnic communities.''
On the subject of popular music:
Pop stars are arbiters of taste and behaviour and must take personal responsibility for the harm they have done to young people by creating degenerate images to make themselves millions. Young people identify with them, and are beguiled by their rebellious and exciting images while in reality they live in mansions, employ gardeners, maids, cooks and butlers, and send their children to the best schools.
The man who destroyed old America, and undermined the western world, Elvis Presley, has a religious devotion 30 years after his death, and his home Gracelands attracts worshippers on the scale of Lourdes or Mecca. These pop idols have replaced religious and national icons for millions of people. They are hypocrites who pose to corrupt and make money.''
I have to agree, reluctantly, with him on the second paragraph. I grew up in the rock 'n roll era, and rock music was, for me as for most people born since then, the 'soundtrack of my life', as the cliche has it. But looking back at what has transpired since Elvis and rock music came on the scene, I can see how the older generations may well have been right when they objected to rock 'n roll as a degrading influence and as a factor in the move towards 'integrating' our country and elevating nonwhites above Whites. There is no denying that the two movements were connected, and the influence of leftists and Gramscians at the higher levels of show business is undeniable also. One could argue, as some do, that it's a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy to blame rock 'n roll for the social deterioration and the move towards multiculturalism, but there's no doubt that the two went hand in hand.
I mentioned before that a 1990s documentary on rock music, the name of which eludes me, openly and cheerfully admitted that yes, rock 'n roll was mean to 'loosen up' young White folks, who were seen as too inhibited and too repressed, unlike our more 'sensual' black population. The show biz figures who were interviewed laughed and said yes, they wanted young Whites to 'connect with their sexuality' and be free.
Back in the 1950s, of course, the denials were indignant: how dare those old fogies say rock 'n roll is 'smutty'? They are just old prudes who have dirty minds, looking for 'sin' everywhere, according to rock 'n roll's defenders. Now? It's all brazenly admitted.
So yes, rock music was a big, big step towards multiculturalizing everyone, making us more open to black music and black ways, and making young Whites see themselves and their people as deficient, lacking in qualities like 'cool' or to use an old 60s black shibboleth, ''soul.'' Whites, it began to be said, can't dance. Whites have no natural rhythm. Whites need to learn to loosen up and how better than by emulating blacks?
The antidote to all this? The blogger briefly mentions changes in our educational system and a revival of some practices like fairs and folk-music traditions, but using modern words and messages. I agree with what he says, as far as it goes.
It's a beginning. I do agree that the answer should be to try to retain what still exists of our culture, both 'folk' culture and high culture, and to restore what has been dismantled or neglected. And we don't have to have government grants or the 'elites' to help us do that, or do it for us; it has to be an effort by real people, a grassroots effort. We can all do our part within our own families and communities. We need to pay more attention to what remains, and to emphasize the beautiful and the worthwhile, and to stress that it is ours, not 'borrowed' or 'stolen' from some more 'vibrant' group of people.
There is an argument to be made that rock music has much more of a White, Southron origin than an African origin, although that may be a losing battle since people are firmly convinced that Elvis 'stole' rock music from blacks, and that its origins are African. I say: prove it, but in any case, rock music is firmly associated with multiculturalism and black culture, even though blacks want little part of it. They recognize that it isn't theirs, and prefer other types of music.
Much of our popular culture is credited to blacks when there is little evidence for the claims. Most White people are content to passively let everyone else claim credit for what is rightfully ours, and in order to regain some pride and some sense of proprietorship of what is ours, we need to become familiar with our own heritage and folk culture, as well as our high culture.
Television and the mass media in general being the source and the origin of many of the lies and distortions, we cannot look to them for any help or hope. It has to come from the people. That's us.

Labels: Anti White Racism, Gramscianism, Media Bias, Multiculturalism, Popular Culture, Propaganda, Western Culture

...brown-eyed resentment.
Steve Sailer has a second post relating to Maureen Dowd's article on 'blue-eyed greed.'
Maureen Dowd's NYT column "Blue Eyed Greed?" convinced me to sit down and take a vaguely systematic stab at figuring out the ethnic backgrounds of the people whose names come up these days in relation to the universe of American finance.
I first wasted time some time squinting at pictures of Angelo Mozilo and Bernie Madoff trying to figure out what their eye colors were, but then I gave that up as hopelessly literal-minded. Obviously, Dowd (a red-haired Irish Catholic who felt undervalued because she has brown eyes) is using the code terms "blue eyed" and "white bread bankers" to refer to Northern European Protestants. So, it made more sense to look up ancestry, religion, and self-identification directly.
[...]
So, here's what I found.
- The old stereotype that the financial world is run by Northern European Protestants from the Northeast appears outmoded. I came up with six WASPs out of 40, but three were politicians (George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Phil Gramm, only one of whom grew up wealthy); one was an accused crook of working class rural origin (Sir Allen Stanford); one was a Southern army sergeant's son (Ken Lewis of Bank of America); and one was from the Northeastern media elite, Daniel Mudd of Freddie Mac, son of newscaster Roger Mudd and a descendant of the doctor who set John Wilkes Booth's broken leg, who has managed to make the family name mud again. (If you want to count Barack Obama as half-WASP, you can make it 6.5.) This 6 out of 40 feels a little low, but that's what I've got.''
(Incidentally, this relates to some of the information posted on the Race/History/Evolution blog a while back, starting with the linked post and continuing in subsequent posts.)
Sailer goes on to examine the ethnic origins of the various figures in top positions in finance, and concludes:
So, what does it add up to?
Well, first, Maureen Dowd's media stereotype about the financial world as dominated by an Old Boy's Network of blond, blue-eyed WASPs is badly out of date. Finance has evolved from an old Relationship Model to a newer Transaction Model about who can make you the most money in a New York minute.''
[Emphasis mine]
Dowd is hardly the only one spreading this popular misconception that some kind of WASP blueblood elite really runs everything; the idea is surprisingly persistent though when challenged, the people who assert this idea as fact never seem to be able to name names and be specific.
Recently when I was challenged on why I write so much on this blog about WASPs (it's divisive, don't you know; it makes others feel excluded, apparently) I gave some thought to it, and I think the main reason why I do focus more on WASPs is because nobody else seems to, at least not in a favorable way; those who do mention WASPs usually do so in a resentful way, referring to them as elites, snobs who lord it over others. How often do any of us hear anything favorable said about White Anglo-Saxon Protestants? Usually they are mentioned along with terms like 'white-bread' or along with synonyms like 'uptight', 'strait-laced', 'boring' 'bland', and so on.
WASPs are essentially the quintessential White Americans, whether that's viewed as good or as bad -- and these days it's considered mostly bad. Everybody is willing to disparage WASPs and few people even want to claim their WASP ancestry, considering it a non-heritage, an absence of a heritage, sort of a nonentity ethnicity. So who steps up to defend WASPs? I can't think of anybody, off the top of my head, who does so. So I feel compelled to step into the breach.
And the fact is, (and I know that it rankles, for some people) WASPs made this country. The overwhelming majority of the colonists of Massachusetts and Virginia were English. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were English. Some people insist otherwise, but they were English and Protestant for the most part. After a century or so of pro-immigrant, pro-ethnic propaganda, it's become difficult to discuss this fact because many people want it to be otherwise, but WASPs made this country, and put their stamp on it, which others now want to efface and to remove forever. And I think this is an injustice and an affront to the truth, and I won't let it go unchallenged.
The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage is a kind of orphaned heritage; nobody wants to claim it or to own it. It's bland, it's empty, it's "dull" and everybody knows WASPs oppressed all those vibrant immigrants who arrived here later. They put up signs saying 'no Irish need apply', (which never happened, but millions are convinced it did in fact happen, nonetheless) or they enslaved blacks, whereas we know that no other ethnicity did so, supposedly, and so on. And of course they were wealthy and educated and snobbish and bland.
One ironic thing that occurs to me as I read the Sailer comments: in determining who is WASP and who is not, the issue is confused because many people of ethnic ancestries saw fit to adopt Anglo-Saxon surnames, and first names, obscuring their actual ethnicity. Why? I mean, if you dislike WASPs as those awful snobs who discriminated against your immigrant ancestors, why adopt a hateful WASP surname and why get cosmetic surgery to make yourself look more WASP-like?
The comments on the earlier Sailer piece on the topic were interesting as usual
One commenter quoted Camille Paglia:
I have been at war with WASPiness since I grew up in upstate New York in the 1950s and early '60s. There is no way to describe the brute social power of the WASP establishment of that period -- the smooth, bland, coded good manners; the hidden past interconnections of families and business associations; the mysterious alliance between chic sororities (overpopulated by blondes) and the most prestigious Presbyterian church in town.
"College at the State University of New York at Binghamton in the revolutionary mid-1960s was a delicious relief for me. The counterculture was booming amid a fantasia of new influences from psychedelia, African-American blues, London Mod, and Andy Warhol's glittery Factory. And at my college there were so many dynamic, super-articulate, politically activist, and screamingly funny Jewish students from downstate New York that I felt the world had changed forever.''
So sorry that Paglia and lots of other ethnics like her felt inferior to WASPs (or those they believed to be WASPy) but that's not my problem. If they were affronted by 'good manners' and 'interconnections', too bad. But that's no reason to carry grudges all these years and to codify your personal shortcomings and resentments into political agendas, as many ethnics do. I don't know whether libertarian Paglia supports open borders or not, but many of her ethnic counterparts do, with a vengeance --- literally. Half of this open borders fanaticism is fueled by people who are envious of WASPs just for being WASPs. The chip-on-the-shoulder attitude is what drives much of this multiculturalism and diversity nonsense.
The WASP continues to be the favorite bogeyman of many different groups of people in this country, and even non-WASP Whites get to feel the brunt of it; if you are White, Protestant, and generally of Western European ancestry, you are considered a kind of WASP, regardless of whether you have any English ancestry. And since the WASP has been such a handy scapegoat and whipping boy for the perceived travails of ethnic Americans, he will continue to be pilloried, even if and when the last WASP is six feet under -- unless more of us stand up for ourselves and stop accepting all the blame for whatever grievances the others are nursing.

Labels: Anti White Racism, Elites, Ellis Island Syndrome, Ethnic Division, Stereotyping, Wasps

I am sure most of you have seen the video of the vicious beating incident at a Baltimore McDonald's. It's been all over the Internet, though I would be surprised if the TV news channels would touch it because of the racial aspect.
I refrained from embedding it here, but you can see it at Vox Day's blog here, and read the discussion.
However the most jaw-dropping discussion of it for me, so far, has been this Free Republic thread.
It seems that much of the discussion there is not about the violence against a White by a number of blacks, but about whether or not the victim was a transvestite or transgendered male. I find it disgusting that some people over there on FR openly say that the beating was justified if the victim was a 'tranny'. I mean, I have no sympathy with the gay rights agenda, but nobody should be beaten that way, or have their injuries disregarded. In the video the Mickey D's ''employees'' stand around chattering and recording the beating on their cellphones, doing nothing to help the victim.. Male, female, or some third option, the beating is indefensible.
And here's the other thing that is staggering for me: do none of the White commenters feel any kinship or solidarity towards the victim? I guess the FR discussion illustrates what 'colorblind conservatism' does to your brain. Nobody seems to care that this is one of our folk being attacked and called a 'White B----' while those present stand around and watch and joke and carry on.
Once upon a time, White people had some sense of kinship and solidarity with their own. There's precious little of that among these 'conservatives'.
I invite you to watch the video -- if you don't have a very sensitive constitution, and to read the discussions - I am not sure which is more distressing.
Whether the victim was male or female, the beating was an outrage. These attacks (and there are many, lately) are against us all. And half of our people are so hopelessly indoctrinated that they are useless.

Labels: Anti White Racism, Crime, Diversity

It's a mutation.
In a blog post recently I said that, given the logic of the 'out of Africa' theory, Whites could be considered a 'mutated' form of human. Actually I had never heard a scientist say anything like that before. The only suggestion of such a bizarre idea came from people like Louis Farrakhan and the black 'Muslims' who believe that a mad scientist invented mutant Whites in a laboratory many millennia ago.
Well, now we have the Washington Post quoting 'scientists' as more or less endorsing the Farrakhan theory of races.
''Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.
The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.''
Did you notice the last sentence in the first paragraph above? Race is 'one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.' Just forget all you read in history books about the countless wars fought over various other things (territory, resources, greed, envy, women, religion, etc.) Race is the main culprit.
But lest we start to think race is anything more than a 'social construct', the next paragraph cautions us:
''Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.
In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being. ''
Keep on repeating it often enough, and maybe that will make it true.
Read the rest at the link, if you have a high tolerance for leftist pseudo-science. Maybe 'pseudo-science' is a harsh term for what we see here, but these people, whether they can admit it or not, are allowing their own backgrounds and prejudices as well as the societal straitjacket called 'political correctness' to color their interpretations of data. Scientists, as we know, are not immune from bias and from peer pressure. Look at the 'global warming' canard, and how strong a hold it has on many ostensibly objective people.
If they really believe that race is a 'social construct' then they should have the courage of their convictions and eliminate the concept of a form of thought-crime called 'racism', and they should oppose affirmative action and every other race-related policy which the Politically Correct faithful defend ferociously.
It rather worries me that this Ms Wang of the National Human Genome Research Institute clearly subscribes to the PC belief system.
If you can make sense of the quote from her at the end, you are cleverer than I am. She seems to be contradicting herself. But she is right about one thing: the 'race is a social construct' crowd do ''sound crazy.'' And for good reason.
Leftist 'scientists' have long railed at people who differentiate in any way between the various races and ethnic groups. The accusation is that such people are practicing 'social Darwinism' or 'racial Darwinism', misapplying Darwin's theory to create a hierarchy of races. Is this idea of Whites as a 'mutation', which in common parlance is a 'freak' or an aberration, not an example of such thinking? As usual, the left contradict themselves, quite brazenly.

Labels: Anti White Racism, Cultural Marxism, Darwinism, Political Correctness, Race Denial

Over the last year or so, there have been several formal 'apologies' for slavery issued by various elected officials.
When the current president first announced his candidacy, I saw it as inevitable that reparations would be on the agenda should he be elected, and here we are. The U.S. Senate offers a formal apology for slavery, and
the intended recipients find fault with the offer, because the measure passed by the Senate carried a disclaimer
about possible reparations claims. I think that was rather a shrewd thing to do politically, because even our blind and tone-deaf Senators know that the idea of reparations is unacceptable to most of their White constituents. Still, typically seeking to work both sides of the street, they want political credit among black constituents for the apology and for their politically correct grovelling.
Several years back when this subject came up among many White Republicans, many would scoff at the notion that reparations would ever actually be paid; it seemed to me that they were whistling in the dark when they dismissed the idea of reparations. It's only common sense to recognize that we were then, and even more so now, on a trajectory which would take us surely to the destination of apologies+reparations.
It may be that this particular measure won't pass just yet, but like the falsely-so-called 'immigration reform' that simply will not die, this idea will keep on reappearing until most White Americans have become so inured to it, and so jaded and devoid of outrage, that they will shrug when it passes.
There are so many obvious reasons why this is a bad idea, and why it would set a disastrous precedent, that it shouldn't be necessary to even run down the list of reasons. I am sure most if not all of my readers would be able to name many arguments against reparations, to blacks or to any other group.
Some usually mention that 'we' already gave reparations to Japanese-Americans for their internment during World War II. That in itself set a precedent on which the present case for reparations is built. And it should be remembered that Reagan, the sainted conservative President, signed that bill, as the linked article mentions.
However, many of the people who received restitution in that instance were, at least, the very people who were interned, not their remote descendants, as is the case with slavery. The idea of people who never owned slaves paying people who were never enslaved is something that is not consistent with our ideas of justice. We don't usually hold people responsible in a legal sense for something that their ancestors several generations back did.
Shall we mention some of the other absurdities of this idea?
For a start, how do we know which blacks are truly slave descendants? Not all blacks in the United States are descended from slaves; there were blacks who came here as free men and women. Some of their ancestors had been enslaved in the Caribbean or elsewhere, but in any case, these ancestors were never enslaved by American Whites.
Some blacks are themselves descended from black slaveowners, of whom there were more than a few.
Will their descendants get reparations, or pay them, or both?
Again, we cannot know the ancestry of many people, black or White, so as to assign "guilt" or lucrative victimhood with certainty. There are many 'dead ends' in most people's family trees, beyond which the ancestry is not known with any certitude. The way in which reparations would be determined would have to be simply along racial lines, and obvious racial lines. If you are White, you will be a payer of reparations, even if you try to cry off by saying ''my ancestors didn't get here until after 1865!" or ''my ancestors were too poor to own slaves" (note: it was not only wealthy plantation owners who had slaves) or ''my ancestors fought in the Union Army to free slaves! I'm not guilty." No, none of these excuses will hold any water. White? Guilty, as usual. Black? Line up to get your victimhood bonus.
To be fair, I would not be surprised to see some politically correct Whites try to find remote black ancestry so as to join in even deeper solidarity with blacks, although I doubt blacks would welcome them as brothers or sisters. Expect genealogists to do land-office business with people trying to find out their roots. And sadly there are some sorry Whites who would try to get reparations based on hoped-for black ancestry somewhere. This happens with some Whites who want to claim Indian ancestry when there is money to be had there. I had a classmate in graduate school who was determined to find some Cherokee ancestry even after her inquiries indicated that she had no enrolled ancestors in the Eastern Band Cherokee. She just wanted so badly to be Cherokee, and maybe that Bureau of Indian Affairs funding looked pretty good, too.
I would bet many people will get DNA testing to determine what their ancestry actually is, with some people being surprised and many dismayed by the results.
[A side note to the author of the linked article on DNA tests: the supposed 'probability that Thomas Jefferson fathered' a slave's child is not supported by the facts.]
But in general, those who pay reparations and those who will be paid will depend on obvious racial identification.
Actual 'guilt' cannot be accurately determined, so it will be no good to try to plead innocent. If you are White, you lose, regardless of your recent immigrant history or your non-slaveowning heritage.
I wonder if any liberal, PC Whites will feel wronged by having to pay up? Probably not; they will be only too glad, because then they can gloatingly watch their fellow Evil Whites be humiliated again.
And one of the most exasperating things about the idea of buying our way out of guilt (or supposed guilt) is that it will not work. It will not stop the demands, the allegations, the complaints, the recitation of grievances, the extortion. Why should a payment of money change anything? Just as with this last election, when some people naively believed that electing a black president would put us 'beyond racial conflict' or that even more absurdly, it would stop blacks' playing the race card, why should anything change, when the present scheme of things is working out so well for blacks? They hold considerable power by simply playing the race card whenever things are not to their satisfaction. The fact that they have the upper hand is obvious when we consider how they can use their race and our desire to be 'fair' to get whatever they demand, and to escape consequences of their shortcomings or wrongdoing. The present system is eminently satisfactory to them, and to all minorities, for that matter. As long as we keep paying the blackmail, the demands will continue. As the saying goes, any behavior that we reward, we get more of.
We (or more accurately, our elected ''representatives'') are simply digging the hole deeper.

Labels: American History, Anti White Racism, Cultural Marxism, Leftism, Political Correctness, Senate

I occasionally cite articles from LewRockwell.com and other libertarian-leaning blogs. I've linked to pieces by Justin Raimondo on occasion, but always with the awareness that he, like other libertarians, may only accidentally express an opinion that coincides with my own on some subject.
However, much as I can occasionally find something I agree with in libertarian thought, I have always recognized that in most senses, libertarians are my enemies as much as liberals and leftists/progressives are. I can hear somebody saying, ''no, liberals and libertarians are opposites; liberals want big, intrusive government and libertarians want minimal government. Liberals want social programs and a nanny state, whereas libertarians loathe these things, believing the individual should be as unfettered as possible and make his own decisions without governmental regulation and meddling. Or: ''liberals/leftists hate the free market, while libertarians believe in the free market and laissez-faire capitalism. '' And so on.
But the two groups seem to agree on some important basics, like their blind belief that human beings are some kind of blank slates, who owe nothing to race, family, heritage, or history. Each man is an island, his own sovereign country, to both kinds of 'libs.'
Conservatives, by and large, see human nature as a given, and see that human nature is flawed and in need of laws and restraints to curb the worst behavior, while liberals/libertarians see no such thing. The latter two groups are for the most part not Christian by belief or culture, and so they don't believe that there is a fallen human nature.
While liberals may want a strong state to 'take care' of everybody or to punish incorrect thoughts and ideas, they also believe that crime and deviancy should be defined downward, and people mostly left to their own devices when it comes to ''personal choices'' like abortion, drug usage and dealing, and aberrant sexual behaviors.
I think the liberals and libertarians, for the most part, are simply different factions of the same basic belief system, and have far more in common with each other than with those of a traditional, especially Christian, mindset.
During last year's campaign cycle, I supported Ron Paul's candidacy, though I said here and elsewhere that I was dissatisfied with his aracial and at times quite politically correct positions on racial matters. Libertarians, again like liberals, are ideologues, always trying to squeeze reality into their PC belief system, always denying the obvious realities that clash with the articles of their libertarian faith. Ron Paul, whatever his merits, is an ideologue on racial matters, though some have rationalized that he had to cover up his true beliefs for political reasons.
I think that he truly is an aracialist ideologue, like libertarians in general.
Here is Raimondo's latest piece, denigrating racialist Whites:
...what do the "white nationalists" want? What is their program? They are "nationalists" without a nation. Do they want to expel all non-whites from U.S. territory? Do they want to carve out their own ersatz "nation" in, say, the nether reaches of Idaho and the Dakotas? Do they want to create a caste system based on racial heritage, as the Nazis tried to do, with whites on top and the "mud people"�their disgusting term for non-whites�on the bottom? Or do they just want to abolish race preferences in law and custom�in which case they shed their "white nationalist" hoods and morph into white versions of Ward Connerly? Would Taylor outlaw miscegenation if he could? I have no doubt that he would, no matter what he says in public.''
Notice the allusion to ''hoods''. Not exactly subtle, is he? Read a little further, for his reference to the 'failed portrait-painter from Vienna.'
Americans don�t like racists, not because they have been indoctrinated by leftist professors and do-gooder social workers, but because "white nationalists" and their ilk are looking for the unearned: they want power, prestige, and money in the bank based on factors over which they had no control, that is, their genetic heritage. [...] It is a soulless, materialist, dogmatic view of life that has nothing in common with authentic conservatism, and which has all sorts of statist implications�not to mention a history of racialist-inspired statist measures�that make "white nationalism" antithetical to libertarianism.
Richard Spencer makes a big deal out of how "open-minded" and un-PC Takimag is in publishing Taylor�s tirade against "race-mixing." I cannot share his enthusiasm. There is a good reason to avoid the Taylorites, and their even cruder brothers-in-spirit in the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazi netherworld, and it has to do with maintaining the intellectual and spiritual integrity of the American Right. I agree with Pat Buchanan, who, in pointing out the disparity between his own ideas and those of David Duke, averred: "We come from different traditions." Indeed we do. Taylor�s is the legacy of Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, the Count de Gobineau, and that failed portrait painter from Vienna: ours is the legacy of Christianity, which recognized the centrality of the individual soul, and rejects collectivism, including racial collectivism, as inimical to freedom, reason, and just relations among men.
"If you can�t beat 'em," says Taylor, "join 'em!" The paleoconservative answer to this must be: Never! ''
Where does he get off trying to define 'authentic conservatism', since he himself does not claim that label? Even more ironic is his allusion to the 'legacy of Christianity.' Excuse me? I thought libertarians consider themselves, like liberals, self-created, autonomous individuals, with no debt owed to heritage or tradition. And I understand he is also a non-believing ex-Catholic, and openly living a lifestyle that Christianity does not accept.
Raimondo more or less equates Jared Taylor and other such moderate racialists with the usual liberal ''racist'' villains, tarring all with the same brush. Again, this illustrates that no matter how moderate or genteel the message and the messenger may be, it will be condemned by the Nazi/Hitler/Klan analogies. Raimondo must surely know that every generation of Americans, up until the mid-20th century, held views very much like those of Stoddard, Grant, et al. Racial views like Raimondo's would have been aberrant to all pre-PC generations.
What is going on with this recent volley of anti-racialist (read: anti-White, anti-heartland American) articles at TakiMag? It seems they have 'WNs' in their sights. If racialists are fringe characters and as marginal as these people would have us believe, wouldn't ignoring be a more logical approach? Or are they afraid or threatened by what they see as a resurgence of the old America, the one they've declared anathema?
To the extent that paleos take Raimondo's advice, they will render themselves totally irrelevant; if paleoconservatives go completely PC they will be as useless as the 'colorblind' Republican crowd, the party of Steele et al.
I've noticed for some years now that libertarianism has grown in influence on the right, and I see this, in part, as one of the reasons why there are so many conservatives whose conservatism has more to do with venerating the 'free market' and legalizing drugs than preserving any aspect of traditional America, including (and especially) race and heritage.
The 'colorblind conservatives' who dominate the Republican party are often libertarians at heart who simply see the GOP as the imperfect but necessary vehicle for their political agenda. And because they are libertarians who see race as unimportant if not non-existent, they care nothing for the future of White Americans, seeing themselves only as individuals, and perhaps generic Americans with no particular traditional ties.
If Raimondo and others of similar ideas have their way, White Americans would have no party representing us and our interests, which interests they perceive as illegitimate and immoral anyway. Here is Raimondo from an earlier piece:
...I deny the validity of the concept of "race." We are nearly all of us racial mixtures, except for some isolated peoples who are the exceptions that prove the rule, and therefore when dealing with individuals�and we are all of us individuals�"racial" criteria are practically useless. Furthermore, this is the natural historical trend: in the end we�re all going to be somewhat coffee-colored, and so the racial theorists are headed for the dustbin of history.
It isn�t race, but culture that is the determining factor in human behavior: not genes, but environment that forms the human character and allows us to interact with each other in a way that makes sense. IQ tests don�t measure only inherent genetic limits, but the quality of the environmental factors that have shaped individual characteristics�and, in any case, since the concept of "race" is so imprecise, the idea of racial superiority or inferiority is a meaningless floating abstraction. That�s why there is no "white solidarity"�people generally termed "white" are Italian, Polish, Greek, Scots, Irish, and whatever. That is where their ethnic loyalties, if any, are located. The idea that "whites" should band together against the encroaching Third World masses is a literary-political construct that has no meaning, at least in America�and thank the gods for that.
I would argue that the problems experienced by the black community are the result of State intervention and social engineering programs, starting with slavery�surely the most damaging�and continuing on with the "Great Society" and all the other social experiments supposedly designed to lift blacks up, and which in reality have only kept them down. The social programs of the 1960s destroyed the black family, and led to the appalling statistics the commenters below have remarked on.
In anser [sic]to Paul Gottfried�s remarks, I would add that the degeneration of the "white" (i.e. racially mixed) population in the US shows that my thesis on the environmental factors as determinative is correct. The welfare state has eroded values that were once considered unquestionable: it isn�t our genetic stock that is the problem, but our political and economic structure, which encourages�indeed, subsidizes�destructive social trends.''
He sounds exactly like most of the liberals I know in that part, except for the part about 'social engineering programs.'
So are we 'nationalists without a nation'? We might be a nation without a state or a country, since the country that our forefathers created for us, their posterity, has been commandeered by others. But a nation is a people, not a governmental system or apparatus. We are a nation nonetheless, with the same right to exist as any other nation, regardless of whether we have any political voice in this corrupt empire in which we now dwell.
Update: Please see the deft response to Raimondo's piece here, at Occidental Dissent. Prozium does a great job of answering Raimondo.

Labels: Anti White Racism, Ethnoconservatism, Libertarianism, Nationalism, Political Correctness, Race Denial, Race Realism

Over the last year or so I have been watching the 'progress', if it can be called that, of the Tea Party movement. It's obvious that the Tea Partiers are seen as alarming by most of this country's ''respectables'', whether on the left or on the ''right''. There is an interesting take on the Tea Partiers here (H/T Mencius Moldbug)
Lee Harris in the linked article describes how our society has become dominated by those who control the discourse by more or less quarantining or ignoring anything that strays outside the established boundaries of what is acceptable under the label ''free speech.'' A significant number of people have managed to resist the conditioning which keeps the more docile people on the reservation, and it is these people who are making all the noise in the Tea Parties, thus alarming the elites who thought they had all rebellious thoughts contained.
Harris in the essay says, of the Tea Partiers
...it is precisely their status as marginalized outsiders that allows them to defy the monopoly of prestige possessed by the cultural insiders. This fact may put them beyond the pale as far as the conservative intellectuals are concerned, but it is precisely what makes them a force capable of resisting the liberal elite�s efforts to achieve cultural hegemony � a resistance that conservative intellectuals had hoped to mount but which they have not mounted, which explains why the Tea Party movement has so little use for them as a whole. As the Tea Partiers see it, what is most needed right now are not new ideas � we have already had far too many of those. What is needed is the revitalization of a very old attitude � the attitude shared by all people who have been able to maintain their liberty and independence against those who would take it away from them: "We do not need an elite to govern us. We can govern ourselves."
Harris, despite his skeptical and somewhat disparaging remarks about the Tea Parties, ends up giving them a grudging compliment, seeing the Tea Party participants as embodiments of the old ''Don't Tread On Me'' attitude. It is this defiant attitude, he says, which offers the only hope of thwarting the plans of a domineering elite which hopes to tamp down all resistance.
However, much as I would like to agree with him that the ''Don't Tread On Me'' attitude lives on, I am afraid I don't see it in the Tea Parties.
Back when these gatherings were first beginning, I wrote a post here about the phenomenon:
I wonder if any of the patriots who are participating in this movement will be able to notice that it is pretty much only White America that cares about these issues. There was a remarkable lack of 'diversity' in those protests today.
One way we will know if the movement is selling out: if, in response to the inevitable cries of 'racism' (any movement that is made up mostly of Whites will be called 'racist), they respond by trying to 'diversify' the movement and bring in black or other nonwhite spokesmen. (Cf. the recent behavior of the Republican Party, with their new RNC chairman and their touting of Jindal).
So if this nascent 'grassroots movement' starts making politically correct disclaimers and putting 'diversity' front and center, we will know that it's just another co-opted political dead-end, which is unwilling to look at the unexamined issues which are part of the crisis: massive nonwhite immigration and our loss of majority status -- both of which play major parts in our country's dire situation.
These protests could be a sign of a potential stirring of the old American spirit or they might be just a flash in the pan, a dead end, which will focus exclusively on the 'safe' issues like taxes and big government. Those are symptoms; they are not the crux of the problem.
The libertarian right, which seems to be making a lot of hay on these protests, can only relate everything that is wrong with America to the economic nexus, to the 'free market'. That is a willfully blind position to take, and it will not lead anywhere.
So what will come of the Tea Party movement, if anything, remains to be seen.''
It seems my skepticism was warranted, because things have played out exactly as I said I feared they would: the Tea Parties are rendering themselves irrelevant, if not absurd, by their efforts to prove their lack of ''racism.'' They do, in fact, seem to be the dead end that I thought they would be.
The best piece I have seen on the subject of the Tea Parties' pathetic display of political correctness was this one by James Edwards.
Does anyone else see the complete absurdity of this situation? A movement that�s 95% white has somehow become solely focused on black people. They like to "brag" that one survey found that the Tea Party is only about 75% white, but that�s nonsense, as anyone can see for themselves. It�s a white movement. They used to stand for something�limited government, lower taxes, no bail outs, etc. They came together to do something about their concerns, and their meetings were open to all. But blacks don�t care about that stuff, so very few of them show up. And because they believe that white people have no legitimate interests, Tea Parties started bending over backwards to pander to blacks and fill their podiums with them, so liberals would stop calling them the R word.
And now it�s nothing but all black people, all the time. When they�re not promoting tokens to leadership positions, they�re accusing the NAACP of being racists and hating blacks, then they�re turning around and inviting the NAACP to strategize with them on the best ways to deal with the problems blacks face, or they�re screaming "Democrats are the real racists! Bull Connor was a Democrat!", or they�re bragging about kicking people out of rallies for holding up a completely innocuous sign that liberals and race hustlers don�t approve of, or they�re claiming that they�re the best political movement for blacks to belong to, or they�re holding a "Uni-Tea" rally for blacks only and calling it a national forum on race. For crying out loud, after this episode, the Tea Party movement might as well merge with the NAACP.
This is pathetic. It�s sickening and disgusting.
And I predicted it long ago. Just check my archives here on the blog and the radio show. A movement that could have been powerful has been brought to its knees because of white people�s silly, abject fears of being called a six letter word. So they spend all their time trying to attract the people who have no interest in their movement, and never will. And what do they get in return? They get called "racist" yet again, and they immediately go back to groveling.
Every Tea Partier in America needs to read Racism, Schmacism.
Racism, Schmacism is at the top of my list of books to read.
Meantime, is there any hope for the large group of ''conservatives'' who are still terrified by the word ''racism''? When I read the posts over at Free Republic, or even AmRen sometimes, I get a feeling of near-despair, because it seems that despite the efforts of many of us to break the politically correct conditioning, things go on as usual, with the FReepers and others on the right increasingly consumed with calling liberals ''the real racists'', and calling minorities ''racist,'' without ever reaching the stage where they actually begin to question the whole politically correct mindset which considers something called ''racism'' the greatest crime imaginable.
At times I have believed that our only avenue of breaking through the PC conditioning is to try to bring along those mainstream ''conservatives'' who seem almost -- but not quite -- on the verge of some kind of racial consciousness. But it seems that many of them are hopeless cases, who may never have that breakthrough into common sense. Instead they embrace a watered-down form of the liberalism they claim to loathe.
It seems that the ''respectable right'', or the "castrated conservatives" as Carleton Putnam called them, are simply going in circles.
Back during that fateful election of 2008, I counseled against the mindset of many on the racial right who said that ''worse is better'', and that people would awaken by the millions under the new regime which was 'elected' in November that year. I wonder if any of those who proclaimed 'worse is better' have recanted that belief, in the wake of all that has happened since?
If worse is indeed better, why are so many seemingly more bogged down in the quicksand of political correctness than ever before?

Labels: Anti White Racism, Conservatism, Freedom Of Speech, Political Correctness, Tea Party, Thought Police

It's going to be a long four years with the current regime in office, holding the bully pulpit from which to hector and goad us about the all-important, all-consuming subject of race. Race -- you know, that social construct thing that really doesn't exist? Well, our attorney-general wants 'us' to have a 'dialogue' about that non-existent subject -- although it's really nothing more than superficial skin color of course.
We've heard this kind of disingenuous prattle before, about how 'we' need a 'dialogue' on race. But it's ratcheting up now, with Mr. Holder taunting Americans (presumably White Americans) as 'cowards.' We are, he judges, a 'nation of cowards'.
Now, I heard this while watching part of Lou Dobbs' hour on CNN this evening, and I have not read the reaction around the blogosphere or from the 'conservative' pundits as yet, so I will just offer my honest, blue-sky reaction.But perhaps the response from the 'name' bloggers and pundits will give us some indication of how true the 'cowardly' characterization is.
Sad to say, I think the response will probably bear out the accusation of cowardice on our part, as the politically corrected, 'castrated conservatives' (as Carelton Putnam called them) scurry to exonerate themselves, saying 'I have no problems with blacks! I love Tom Sowell and Walter Williams. I don't care whether you're black, white, red, yellow or polka-dot, I judge you as an individual!' The usual stuff. And then there will be the 'conservatives' who point the finger at somebody else (on the right or the left) as being the problem, rather than to express any solidarity with their own people as they would if they were honest, natural men.
But do any of these people truly believe that all that is needed is for us to be able to sit down and have a 'frank conversation' about race, after which everything will be rosy? I don't think even the most politically correct can possibly be that delusional.
As others have noted, when this call for 'dialogue' sounds from some black demagogue, 'dialogue' always seems to mean that Whites must sit silent and humbled while blacks and/or other minorities accuse, insult, browbeat, and demand. We simply have to sit and nod or acknowledge our purported guilt, and take our medicine, or be labeled 'racist' and 'hater' if we defend ourselves or (heaven forbid) offer counter-accusations. So a dialogue is not what is wanted by those who keep asking for it. Dialogue implies a two-way, give-and-take exchange of thoughts and ideas and information. The other side wants no dialogue, now or ever, but rather another chance to verbally abuse and to make further demands, which they expect will meet with acquiescence.
And that acquiescence is what our 'cowardice' amounts to: our cowardice, insofar as it exists, lies in our willingness to accept 110 percent of the blame for interracial conflicts and frictions, and our passive acceptance of the perpetual guilt trip that has been placed on our shoulders for the last half-century or more. So while Mr. Holder berates us as 'cowards', he is in fact counting on our continued 'cowardice'. In fact, our cowardice is what has given us 'leaders' like him to rule over us. He decries the very thing upon which he relies.
Am I saying White Americans are in fact cowards? My first reaction to the word was anger and indignation. But on reflection, I sadly have to agree that there is some degree of truth to the allegation, though I think it is true only of some of us, not all. What our enemies perceive as 'cowardice' or weakness is nothing more in many cases than an effort to be fair-minded, to see the 'other side' in a dispute, to yield ground in hopes of avoiding unnecessary conflict, or a vain hope of obtaining a reciprocation of our fair-mindedness. However, after our centuries of interracial friction and conflict, it should be evident to all but the most obtuse that it just isn't working, this conciliatory approach. Many people who put on a show of being oh-so-fair and unbigoted may secretly be feeling a resentment and a simmering impatience with this situation. But some people are not even aware of their real feelings. Suppression is part of our everyday repertoire of behavior when dealing with outsiders; we have learned we have to try to pacify and mollify our antagonists, and some of us are so skilled at repressing our honest reactions that we lose touch ourselves.
There are some real cowards out there who will sell out their own people in order to pacify those they fear, deep-down. Most Whites learn very early on, when in contact with blacks and other minorities, that they tend to be unpredictable and touchy, and they can possibly lash out verbally or physically if not handled with kid gloves. So most of us have to learn to adopt an amiable, easygoing, yet cautious attitude with them so as not to spark some kind of scene. In an employment setting, there's always the threat of lawsuits and court cases if a wrong word is said, or if a minority perceives mistreatment.
Blacks often inspire fear in a physical sense, and often adopt verbally or physically intimidating behaviors to maintain the upper hand in a situation. Many Whites would never admit to feeling fear towards random blacks in public -- because even stating such a thing brings cries of 'racism.'
And yes, there are cowards who are afraid of words -- like 'racist', or 'bigot', whether these word-weapons are employed by their fellow cowardly Whites or by minorities. As children, we often used to answer schoolyard taunts by chanting 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.' But evidently names can hurt people so much that they are prepared to risk almost anything to avoid being called names. And that is, I'm afraid, cowardice.
It's that kind of cowardice that enables the race-hustlers and the demagogues and the affirmative-action mediocrities to hold us hostage for half a century and counting. It's that kind of cowardice that puts the current regime (including their White collaborators) in power and makes them all-but-invulnerable to real criticism and accountability.
Sooner or later, we have to realize our own strength and realize that the 'minorities' are just that: minorities, meaning the few, as opposed to the many. Why do the few rule over the many? There's another old saying: there's strength in numbers. And there's some other phrases we've forgottenn about 'the will of the majority'. Why have we forgotten that? Why do we run from our own shadows?
I'm wondering, though: do these demagogues really want 'dialogue' on race? Surely they have an inkling that if people really, truly spoke frankly and freely, without fear of having some 'hate speech' laws invoked, they might say a great many things that would not be welcome and that would not be flattering. I don't think they truly want dialogue or even conversation. They want us to sit down, shut up, and submit, and meanwhile, continue to pony up the money.
Why, then, are they always demanding 'dialogue'? I have noticed that lately there seems to be, as I've said, a ratcheting up of the rhetoric, and a trend towards more naked aggression in the form of articles like 'The End of White America' and other such undisguised expressions of their intentions. Why? Are they feeling that overconfident? Or are they taunting and goading us? In my more suspicious moments, I wonder if they are not trying to bait and goad us into real hostility -- to draw us out, as it were, so that they can then crack down on our free speech and other liberties. If they goad us into speech and actions that they can paint as 'hate' or 'extremism' then here come the hate crime and hate speech laws which they are itching to pass, and the curtailing of our rights.
I don't counsel rashness in the face of this baiting and goading. I do think we have to speak up firmly and reasonably, but discarding all the political correctness and the truckling and mealy-mouthing. If enough of us spoke up and continued to do so, ignoring the epithets, we might find enough collective strength and confidence to turn the tide, which some haven't noticed is bearing down on us like a tsunami.

Labels: Anti White Racism, Cultural Marxism, Demagoguery, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Politicians, Racial Division

...taken to its 'logical' conclusion: this was posted the other day at The Brussels Journal, and was brought to my attention by reader 'cabbageroll.' It's drawn amazingly little notice on the blogs I regularly read, and even at TBJ it has drawn only a few rather understated comments.
Recently Nicolas Sarkozy announced plans to pursue a vigorous policy of diversity and métissage. Concretely, this means giving preference to minorities in job hiring and prosecuting those who do not comply. In other words, affirmative action as a government policy from which none are exempt.
In his message Sarkozy insisted that the French people must change, that there will be dire consequences if they don't, and that not to intermarry racially is bad for the survival of the country. Thus he amalgamated the concepts of preference for minorities in job hiring with that of the need for the French to intermarry racially.''
Read the few rather blasé comments at TBJ.
Am I the only one who finds this outrageous?
And it appears that our rulers have decided to throw caution to the winds and come right out with their agenda, in a brazen manner. Witness this open promotion of métissage, as well as the recent articles openly talking about the 'end of White America' or the 'end of Whiteness.'
Either this indicates desperation and an attempt to hurry things along, as some have argued, or it reflects that they just don't care to camouflage it anymore, and feel overconfident. Which, I wonder?
The older generations back during the Civil Rights Revolution always said that this was the destination to which we were being led, and it looks like, once again, they have been proven right -- unfortunately for us.
Still, this should make it plain even for those who are still determined to 'see no evil.'

Labels: Anti White Racism, Babel, Diversity, Leftism Europe, Social Engineering