0 comment Friday, November 14, 2014 | admin
... the target of your stereotype is whitey.
I was going to blog something about the growing Obama cult, but I came across the link at Steve Sailer's blog
to this site.
In a way, the blog is a parody of itself. ''Whitepeople'' according to what I read on the blog are: materialistic, superficial, trendy, shallow, weak, bland, and boring.
I've often said that stereotypes always have a grain of truth, or more than a grain, in them. Is this droll stereotype of whites true? Yes, it's true of a type of white person. I would say it's more true of the younger people, the upper middle class and wealthy, the college educated, urban-dwelling, liberal/libertarian/leftist types. It is not true of older whites in many cases, or lower income whites, or rural people, or many people from the South, or people of a conservative political temperament.
Is it all in good fun, or does it contribute further to the disparaging of white people which is so popular today? And assuredly this kind of self-ridicule (I am going on the assumption that the blogger is in fact white) is hardly fresh or new; I've (unwillingly) watched parts of movies of the last ten years or so in which caricatures of white people were a central basis of the 'humor', movies like 'White Chicks' or 'Undercover Brother'. See the reader reviews of the latter on IMDB
The reviews of Undercover Brother at IMDB apparently included some complaints about white stereotyping but I could not find any such comments although they are referenced by comments like this:
Reading the negative comments on this film I wonder what movie some of the angry folks were watching. Racism is using one's own physical traits to establish social superiority over another person, or group of people, who don't look like themselves. I saw nothing of any of the African/Black/persons-of-color trying to "reverse role play" by holding themselves in a superior light over so-called "white people."
It simply wasn't there.
Myself, I hate "white guilt" messages in media of all forms. I've had enough social agenda thrust in my face. But that's NOT THE MESSAGE of "Undercover Brother."
What a lot of the "angry-white-commentators" are bothered by is the fact that they believe this film makes ALL so-called "white persons" look like evil-clowns, or condescending jerks. IT DOESN'T. If that's what you see in this film, then maybe you shouldn't be watching movies in the first place.
This film, as stated clear as day by both cast and crew, is an attempt to tackle a social problem with good humor. If you're offended by the jokes in this film, then you've completely missed the point, and are, in fact, the racist idiot that you claim this film to be (I believe psychologist call this phenomenon "projection," where someone refuses to acknowledge their own faults, and casts their own negative qualities on people they dislike).''
I would bet that this scolding reviewer would not unleash such a scathing putdown towards blacks who were 'offended' by stereotypes of their race. But whitey gets it with both barrels. It's always that way.
So I guess I too am a "racist idiot", "projecting", if I dislike the portrayal of whites in 'entertainment' like this, and, by extension, if I complain about the rather stale and predictable stereotypes of whites as on the blog.
A lone commenter here says
This site is incredibly racist. If this site was dedicated to pointing out what black people like, it would surely be deemed as racist. Why aren�t people proud to be white? Everyone should be proud of their own respective races and not bring down another�s. Multiculturalism will never work when sites like this one are up and running. This only causes racial tension.''
And is answered by the following post:
That�s why it�s called satire. Lighten up already.''
That response, too, is utterly predictable. Would 'Jerome' tell an offended black or other 'victim group' member to 'lighten up'? My money says he wouldn't.
This poster called justanotherwhiteguy says
As anyone heard of free speech? I think this is hiliarious that alot of people are getting bent out of shape b/c of one site. If you dont like it, dont read it! But for people with any kinda of brain, this site just makes you smile b/c you can relate to so many things on it. ie� The kitchenaid mixer, and the renovation.''
Dittos for this guy; he would not say 'if you don't like it, don't read it' to a minority of any kind.
Granted, the blog is understated 'humor' but when I read it, I begin to dislike the people illustrated by the blog; why would I care if this sorry bunch of self-absorbed, denatured, shallow, colorless (in more ways than one) people fade away into oblivion, or get absorbed into a third-world demographic tidal wave? Good riddance to them; they are ciphers and weak-as-water-and-twice-as-bland nonentities. Who would miss such a people if they became as extinct as the dodo bird?
The whole point of the obsession with ''diversity'' and multiculturalism is that white people are not a people, but a void; they are a non-people of no definite culture, with no qualities to speak of except receptivity and passivity in relation to other, more 'colorful' and 'vibrant' and aggressive peoples. Everybody has a culture except whitey, and everybody's culture is 'vibrant' and 'rich', while whitey has no culture or tradition except buying trendy gadgets and being self-effacing servants of the world's 'disadvantaged' peoples.
Why wouldn't we vote ourselves out of existence if we really are such a sorry excuse for a people?
The answer is: we are not the insipid and awkward and vacuous breed of invertebrates portrayed in the PC stereotypes. Certainly there are some of us who fit the description, but if we look at the larger picture, and the totality of our history, we can see that the flaccid people and their flavorless culture of the stereotype are a fairly recent phenomenon on the world scene. We were not always thus. We've been spoiled and weakened by unprecendented material prosperity, we've been dumbed down by our media and educational system -- and by Hollywood propaganda. We are down but we're not out.
While some prefer to rationalize what is happening to the West as a deserved punishment for our collective sins, and thus are willing to cooperate and collude in their own punishment, some of us would prefer to try to rediscover our traditions and our ways of life which surely merit a rightful pride. In doing so, it may be that we can rally to take a stand.
Maybe I should just laugh it all off, as a lot of people are doing. But why are we the only people who are expected to laugh at ourselves while we are being dispossessed and robbed of our birthright?
Some things, many things maybe, can be approached with humor, and laughed at, but some things are just too important to become joke fodder. And reading the site reinforces my doubts about my fellow Americans. I get the sense that many if not most of the commenters are young, having grown up under Political Correctness and multiculturalism. Their way of expressing themselves gives them away. If they are the standard-bearers for the future, then we are truly lost. And they think it's all wonderful. Which is sad.
Forum comments here.
I was going to blog something about the growing Obama cult, but I came across the link at Steve Sailer's blog
to this site.
In a way, the blog is a parody of itself. ''Whitepeople'' according to what I read on the blog are: materialistic, superficial, trendy, shallow, weak, bland, and boring.
I've often said that stereotypes always have a grain of truth, or more than a grain, in them. Is this droll stereotype of whites true? Yes, it's true of a type of white person. I would say it's more true of the younger people, the upper middle class and wealthy, the college educated, urban-dwelling, liberal/libertarian/leftist types. It is not true of older whites in many cases, or lower income whites, or rural people, or many people from the South, or people of a conservative political temperament.
Is it all in good fun, or does it contribute further to the disparaging of white people which is so popular today? And assuredly this kind of self-ridicule (I am going on the assumption that the blogger is in fact white) is hardly fresh or new; I've (unwillingly) watched parts of movies of the last ten years or so in which caricatures of white people were a central basis of the 'humor', movies like 'White Chicks' or 'Undercover Brother'. See the reader reviews of the latter on IMDB
The reviews of Undercover Brother at IMDB apparently included some complaints about white stereotyping but I could not find any such comments although they are referenced by comments like this:
Reading the negative comments on this film I wonder what movie some of the angry folks were watching. Racism is using one's own physical traits to establish social superiority over another person, or group of people, who don't look like themselves. I saw nothing of any of the African/Black/persons-of-color trying to "reverse role play" by holding themselves in a superior light over so-called "white people."
It simply wasn't there.
Myself, I hate "white guilt" messages in media of all forms. I've had enough social agenda thrust in my face. But that's NOT THE MESSAGE of "Undercover Brother."
What a lot of the "angry-white-commentators" are bothered by is the fact that they believe this film makes ALL so-called "white persons" look like evil-clowns, or condescending jerks. IT DOESN'T. If that's what you see in this film, then maybe you shouldn't be watching movies in the first place.
This film, as stated clear as day by both cast and crew, is an attempt to tackle a social problem with good humor. If you're offended by the jokes in this film, then you've completely missed the point, and are, in fact, the racist idiot that you claim this film to be (I believe psychologist call this phenomenon "projection," where someone refuses to acknowledge their own faults, and casts their own negative qualities on people they dislike).''
I would bet that this scolding reviewer would not unleash such a scathing putdown towards blacks who were 'offended' by stereotypes of their race. But whitey gets it with both barrels. It's always that way.
So I guess I too am a "racist idiot", "projecting", if I dislike the portrayal of whites in 'entertainment' like this, and, by extension, if I complain about the rather stale and predictable stereotypes of whites as on the blog.
A lone commenter here says
This site is incredibly racist. If this site was dedicated to pointing out what black people like, it would surely be deemed as racist. Why aren�t people proud to be white? Everyone should be proud of their own respective races and not bring down another�s. Multiculturalism will never work when sites like this one are up and running. This only causes racial tension.''
And is answered by the following post:
That�s why it�s called satire. Lighten up already.''
That response, too, is utterly predictable. Would 'Jerome' tell an offended black or other 'victim group' member to 'lighten up'? My money says he wouldn't.
This poster called justanotherwhiteguy says
As anyone heard of free speech? I think this is hiliarious that alot of people are getting bent out of shape b/c of one site. If you dont like it, dont read it! But for people with any kinda of brain, this site just makes you smile b/c you can relate to so many things on it. ie� The kitchenaid mixer, and the renovation.''
Dittos for this guy; he would not say 'if you don't like it, don't read it' to a minority of any kind.
Granted, the blog is understated 'humor' but when I read it, I begin to dislike the people illustrated by the blog; why would I care if this sorry bunch of self-absorbed, denatured, shallow, colorless (in more ways than one) people fade away into oblivion, or get absorbed into a third-world demographic tidal wave? Good riddance to them; they are ciphers and weak-as-water-and-twice-as-bland nonentities. Who would miss such a people if they became as extinct as the dodo bird?
The whole point of the obsession with ''diversity'' and multiculturalism is that white people are not a people, but a void; they are a non-people of no definite culture, with no qualities to speak of except receptivity and passivity in relation to other, more 'colorful' and 'vibrant' and aggressive peoples. Everybody has a culture except whitey, and everybody's culture is 'vibrant' and 'rich', while whitey has no culture or tradition except buying trendy gadgets and being self-effacing servants of the world's 'disadvantaged' peoples.
Why wouldn't we vote ourselves out of existence if we really are such a sorry excuse for a people?
The answer is: we are not the insipid and awkward and vacuous breed of invertebrates portrayed in the PC stereotypes. Certainly there are some of us who fit the description, but if we look at the larger picture, and the totality of our history, we can see that the flaccid people and their flavorless culture of the stereotype are a fairly recent phenomenon on the world scene. We were not always thus. We've been spoiled and weakened by unprecendented material prosperity, we've been dumbed down by our media and educational system -- and by Hollywood propaganda. We are down but we're not out.
While some prefer to rationalize what is happening to the West as a deserved punishment for our collective sins, and thus are willing to cooperate and collude in their own punishment, some of us would prefer to try to rediscover our traditions and our ways of life which surely merit a rightful pride. In doing so, it may be that we can rally to take a stand.
Maybe I should just laugh it all off, as a lot of people are doing. But why are we the only people who are expected to laugh at ourselves while we are being dispossessed and robbed of our birthright?
Some things, many things maybe, can be approached with humor, and laughed at, but some things are just too important to become joke fodder. And reading the site reinforces my doubts about my fellow Americans. I get the sense that many if not most of the commenters are young, having grown up under Political Correctness and multiculturalism. Their way of expressing themselves gives them away. If they are the standard-bearers for the future, then we are truly lost. And they think it's all wonderful. Which is sad.
Forum comments here.
Labels: Anti-White Racism, Cultural Marxism, Diversity, Humor, Multiculturalism, Stereotyping
0 comment Wednesday, August 20, 2014 | admin
...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.
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
0 comment Thursday, June 19, 2014 | admin
''Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house''. - Matthew 12:29
At Western Biopolitics , JWH comments on a piece by Anthony Hilton at the Occidental Observer.
Hilton is discussing Jeremy Waldron's review of Anthony Lewis book, 'Freedom for the Thought We Hate'. Waldron is not so sure we ought to grant 'freedom for the thought we hate'
Hilton makes some good arguments as to why we should not criminalize thoughts or emotions like hate, which is an argument that I've made here and here : by passing 'hate speech' laws or hate crime laws generally, we are in essence outlawing emotions or feelings or thoughts.
In Hilton's words:
Typically lost sight of is the fact that hate is a complex emotional/motivational mechanism that evolved as part of a defense system. If it were totally absent, our ancestors wouldn�t have lasted long in the face of the predatory humans of other tribes, ethnies, or races. Why? Because they wouldn�t have been motivated to defend themselves. Remember all those propaganda images from WWII. They promoted hatred toward stereotyped enemies.''
Good points, particularly the last point about how the propaganda of past wars was a necessary part of steeling the people to defend themselves against an enemy. Now, I know many people on the right these days seem to be turning into born-again pacifists, indicting all war as bad and unnecessary, but I don't believe we can make that kind of blanket condemnation of war. War is just a symptom of our fallen human condition, as is crime.
And I think that the proscription we have these days against 'stereotyping' certain groups, unless the stereotype is glowingly positive, is working against us. For example: how many times do we encounter the statement that ''of course I have nothing against the illegals themselves; I'd do the same thing they're doing if I was hungry", or 'of course it's all the fault of the white traitors, not the fault of those who are invading our country.' Or this: ''all the Mexicans I know are hard-working, honest, friendly people; I just don't like illegal immigration.' This is all a kind of magical incantation to ward off any accusations of 'racism' or 'xenophobia'. It's nothing more than the 21st century variation of the old ''some of my best friends are [fiil in the blank].''
I just can't go along with this latest spin on political correctness: I have plenty against those who are invading my country, figuratively spitting in my face, and veritably stealing our children's birthright. The blame belongs on their doorstep as much as on that of the shadowy invisible 'elites' who are the only permissible objects of our anger and resentment. Sure, these elusive 'elites' deserve blame, and plenty of it, but so do all the scavengers who are moving in on a weakened America to feast off the remains. I can find little to empathize with where their behavior is concerned.
As long as we carefully fight off any forbidden 'negative' thoughts and feelings towards our enemies -- or if you are too squeamish to call anyone your enemy, then call them competitors or supplanters -- then we will never, ever, have what it takes to defend our own interests, whether verbally or politically or in any other way. The 'stereotypes' of the past -- the war-whooping Indians, the shifty Mexican, or whatever, were ways in which we steeled ourselves to deal with them unsentimentally. We can have good old fashioned anger and dislike towards people who are a threat to us, or who are openly hostile to us. Our parents knew that, but we've had it mostly whipped out of us, and we are the weaker for it.
And this is exactly the point of the 'hate speech' legislation and all the unofficial 'democratic censorship' in which our peers chastise and call us names if we transgress by speaking negatively of protected groups. The idea is to outlaw any negative thoughts about certain groups, and to instead encourage us to blame ourselves or to blame our own people first for what these protected groups are doing to harm us.
The net effect is that we are verbally defenseless, and are fast becoming less able to even think in a critical way about certain groups of people. We have been so conditioned to experiencing some negative effect when we speak our minds in 'politically incorrect' ways that even the thoughts become short-circuited before they are fully formed, let alone spoken out loud.
JWH addresses this 'disarming' effect of political correctness:
An inability to defend group genetic interests inevitably will lead to a diminishment of these interests. After all, in any competition, if one side is prohibited from acting to defend its interests, it is certain that this side will lose. No matter how skilled the boxer, if his arms are tied down to his sides, even a 97 lb. weakling as the opponent will eventually win the fight.
Thus, "hate speech laws" inevitably, and with mathematical certainty, lead to significantly diminished genetic interests for the ("unprotected") majority group. This diminishment of group interests can include actual partial or total displacement and replacement by others. In other words, genocide.
[...]
How can any individual or group accept the social and political legitimacy of a system that outlaws that individual's or group's expression of their interests?''
That's the question.
At Western Biopolitics , JWH comments on a piece by Anthony Hilton at the Occidental Observer.
Hilton is discussing Jeremy Waldron's review of Anthony Lewis book, 'Freedom for the Thought We Hate'. Waldron is not so sure we ought to grant 'freedom for the thought we hate'
Hilton makes some good arguments as to why we should not criminalize thoughts or emotions like hate, which is an argument that I've made here and here : by passing 'hate speech' laws or hate crime laws generally, we are in essence outlawing emotions or feelings or thoughts.
In Hilton's words:
Typically lost sight of is the fact that hate is a complex emotional/motivational mechanism that evolved as part of a defense system. If it were totally absent, our ancestors wouldn�t have lasted long in the face of the predatory humans of other tribes, ethnies, or races. Why? Because they wouldn�t have been motivated to defend themselves. Remember all those propaganda images from WWII. They promoted hatred toward stereotyped enemies.''
Good points, particularly the last point about how the propaganda of past wars was a necessary part of steeling the people to defend themselves against an enemy. Now, I know many people on the right these days seem to be turning into born-again pacifists, indicting all war as bad and unnecessary, but I don't believe we can make that kind of blanket condemnation of war. War is just a symptom of our fallen human condition, as is crime.
And I think that the proscription we have these days against 'stereotyping' certain groups, unless the stereotype is glowingly positive, is working against us. For example: how many times do we encounter the statement that ''of course I have nothing against the illegals themselves; I'd do the same thing they're doing if I was hungry", or 'of course it's all the fault of the white traitors, not the fault of those who are invading our country.' Or this: ''all the Mexicans I know are hard-working, honest, friendly people; I just don't like illegal immigration.' This is all a kind of magical incantation to ward off any accusations of 'racism' or 'xenophobia'. It's nothing more than the 21st century variation of the old ''some of my best friends are [fiil in the blank].''
I just can't go along with this latest spin on political correctness: I have plenty against those who are invading my country, figuratively spitting in my face, and veritably stealing our children's birthright. The blame belongs on their doorstep as much as on that of the shadowy invisible 'elites' who are the only permissible objects of our anger and resentment. Sure, these elusive 'elites' deserve blame, and plenty of it, but so do all the scavengers who are moving in on a weakened America to feast off the remains. I can find little to empathize with where their behavior is concerned.
As long as we carefully fight off any forbidden 'negative' thoughts and feelings towards our enemies -- or if you are too squeamish to call anyone your enemy, then call them competitors or supplanters -- then we will never, ever, have what it takes to defend our own interests, whether verbally or politically or in any other way. The 'stereotypes' of the past -- the war-whooping Indians, the shifty Mexican, or whatever, were ways in which we steeled ourselves to deal with them unsentimentally. We can have good old fashioned anger and dislike towards people who are a threat to us, or who are openly hostile to us. Our parents knew that, but we've had it mostly whipped out of us, and we are the weaker for it.
And this is exactly the point of the 'hate speech' legislation and all the unofficial 'democratic censorship' in which our peers chastise and call us names if we transgress by speaking negatively of protected groups. The idea is to outlaw any negative thoughts about certain groups, and to instead encourage us to blame ourselves or to blame our own people first for what these protected groups are doing to harm us.
The net effect is that we are verbally defenseless, and are fast becoming less able to even think in a critical way about certain groups of people. We have been so conditioned to experiencing some negative effect when we speak our minds in 'politically incorrect' ways that even the thoughts become short-circuited before they are fully formed, let alone spoken out loud.
JWH addresses this 'disarming' effect of political correctness:
An inability to defend group genetic interests inevitably will lead to a diminishment of these interests. After all, in any competition, if one side is prohibited from acting to defend its interests, it is certain that this side will lose. No matter how skilled the boxer, if his arms are tied down to his sides, even a 97 lb. weakling as the opponent will eventually win the fight.
Thus, "hate speech laws" inevitably, and with mathematical certainty, lead to significantly diminished genetic interests for the ("unprotected") majority group. This diminishment of group interests can include actual partial or total displacement and replacement by others. In other words, genocide.
[...]
How can any individual or group accept the social and political legitimacy of a system that outlaws that individual's or group's expression of their interests?''
That's the question.
Labels: Ethnic Solidarity, Free Speech, Freedom Of Thought, Hate Speech, Political Correctness, Speech Codes, Stereotyping