The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Frost ArchiveBlogview
Age of Reason
Rally in Sydney.  Antiracists see themselves as open-minded individuals at war with hardline ideologues.  Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Rally in Sydney. Antiracists see themselves as open-minded individuals at war with hardline ideologues. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

The interwar years gave antiracism a new lease on life, thus reversing a long decline that had begun in the late 19th century. This reversal was driven largely by two events: the acrimonious debate over U.S. immigration in the mid-1920s and Hitler’s rise to power in the early 1930s. Many people, especially academics, were convinced of the need for an uncompromising war on “racism”—a word just entering use as a synonym for Nazism.

The war on racism began in the social sciences, especially through the efforts of John B. Watson in psychology and the Boasian triad in anthropology (Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead). After initially holding a more balanced view, these social scientists began to argue that genes contribute little to differences in behavior and mental makeup, especially between human populations.

In addition to the political context, there was also the broader cultural setting. The 1920s brought a flowering of African and African-American influences on popular culture, as seen in the Harlem Renaissance, the emergence of jazz, and the infatuation with art nègre. African Americans were viewed no longer as an embarrassment but as a source of excitement and novelty. In this role, black singers, musicians, and artists would lead the way in mobilizing mainstream support for the war on racism, such as Marian Anderson in her concert at the Lincoln Memorial and Paul Robeson through his political activism.

Would things have turned out differently if the immigration debate of the 1920s had been less acrimonious or if Hitler had not come to power? The most widespread answer seems to be “no”—sooner or later, men and women of reason would have broken free of the ideological straightjacket imposed by racism, social Darwinism, and hereditarianism. Franz Boas said as much in an interview he gave in 1936: “I will try to clean up some of the nonsense that is being spread about race those days. I think the question is particularly important for this country, too; as here also people are going crazy” (JTA, 1942).

How true is this view? Was the war on racism a healthy reaction to a mad ideology?

First, the word “racism” scarcely existed in its current sense back then. Continuous use dates from the 1920s and was initially linked to the rise of Nazism, the word itself being perhaps a translation of the German Volkismus, i.e., blood and soil nationalism. Its use in a broader sense is largely postwar and has rarely been positive or even neutral. It’s an insult. The racist must be re-educated and, if necessary, eliminated.

If the racist is no longer an ignorant person but rather a villain, and if he is defined by his impulses or negative passions (hate, aggressive intolerance, etc.), then the evil is in him, and his case seems hopeless. The antiracist’s task is no longer to lead the “racist” towards goodness, but rather to isolate him as a carrier of evil. The “racist” must be singled out and stigmatized. (Taguieff, 2013)

The term “social Darwinism” likewise came into use well after the period when it was supposedly dominant:

Bannister (1988) and Bellomy (1984) established that “social Darwinism” was all but unknown to English-speaking readers before the Progressive Era. Hodgson’s (2004) bibliometric analysis identified a mere eleven instances of “social Darwinism” in the Anglophone literature (as represented by the JSTOR database) before 1916. Before 1916 “social Darwinism” had almost no currency whatsoever [...].

“Social Darwinism” did not acquire much greater currency between 1916 and 1943; a mere 49 articles and reviews employ the term.(Leonard, 2009)

The term did not become commonplace until 1944 with the publication of Social Darwinism in American Thought by Richard Hofstadter. Since then it has appeared 4,258 times in the academic literature. Like “racism” it has seldom been used positively or neutrally:

“Social Darwinism” had always been an epithet. From its very beginnings, reminds Bellomy (1984, p. 2), “social Darwinism” has been “heavily polemical, reserved for ideas with which a writer disagreed.” (Leonard, 2009).

The term “hereditarianism” likewise entered common use long after its supposed golden age. According to Google Scholar, “hereditarian” and “hereditarianism” appear 0 times in the literature between 1890 and 1900, 6 times between 1900 and 1910, 8 times between 1910 and 1920, 18 times between 1920 and 1930, and 52 times between 1930 and 1940. In most cases, these terms seem to have been used pejoratively.

Thus, all three words entered common use when the beliefs they described were no longer dominant. More to the point, these words were more often used by opponents than by proponents, sometimes exclusively so.

Of course, an ideology doesn’t need a name to exist. Many people engaged in racial thinking without bothering to label it. As Barkan (1992, p. xi) observes: “Prior to that time [the interwar years] social differentiation based upon real or assumed racial distinctions was thought to be part of the natural order.” It is difficult, however, to describe such thinking as an ideology, in the sense of a belief-system that seeks obedience to certain views and to a vision of what-must-be-done. William McDougall (1871-1938) was a prominent figure in psychology and is now described as a “scientific racist,” yet his views showed little of the stridency we normally associate with ideology:

Racial qualities both physical and mental are extremely stable and persistent, and if the experience of each generation is in any manner or degree transmitted as modifications of the racial qualities, it is only in very slight degree, so as to produce any moulding effect only very slowly and in the course of generations.

I would submit the principle that, although differences of racial mental qualities are relatively small, so small as to be indistinguishable with certainty in individuals, they are yet of great importance for the life of nations, because they exert throughout many generations a constant bias upon the development of their culture and their institutions. (Mathews, 1925, p. 151)

ORDER IT NOW

Similarly, the anthropologist William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) is described today as a “social Darwinist,” even though the term was never applied to him during his lifetime or long after. He did believe in the struggle for existence: “Before the tribunal of nature a man has no more right to life than a rattlesnake; he has no more right to liberty than any wild beast; his right to pursuit of happiness is nothing but a license to maintain the struggle for existence…” (Sumner, 1913, p. 234). He saw such struggle, however, as an unfortunate constraint and not as a normative value. Efforts to abolish it would simply transfer it to other people:

The real misery of mankind is the struggle for existence; why not “declare” that there ought not to be any struggle for existence, and that there shall not be any more? Let it be decreed that existence is a natural right, and let it be secured in that way. If we attempt to execute this plan, it is plain that we shall not abolish the struggle for existence; we shall only bring it about that some men must fight that struggle for others. (Sumner, 1913, p. 222).

Yet his belief in the struggle for existence was not associated with imperialism and “might makes right.” Indeed, he considered imperialism a betrayal of America’s traditions and opposed the Spanish-American War and America’s subsequent annexation of the Philippines. A class of plutocrats would, he felt, come into being and foment imperialist wars in the hope of securing government subsidies and contracts (Wikipedia, 2015).

Herbert John Fleure (1877-1969), a geographer and anthropologist, is similarly described today as a “scientific racist” who saw racial differentiation taking place even at the micro level of small communities:

[...] Fleure accepted the reality of racial differentiation even in Europe, where all the populations exhibit types of diverse origins living and maintaining those type characters side by side in spite of intermarriage and of absence of any consciousness of diversity. These various types, each with mental aptitudes and limitations that are in some degree correlated with their physique, make diverse contributions to the life of each people. (Barkan, 1992, p. 60)

Nonetheless, he condemned the “folly” of confusing such differentiation with language and nation states (Barkan, 1992, pp. 60-64). He also became a strong opponent of Nazism and attacked anti-Semitism in his lectures and articles (Kushner, 2008).

I could give other examples, but why bother? There was a spectrum of racial thinking that encompassed a wide range of scholars, many of whom were sympathetic to the plight of minorities. This variability is hardly surprising, given that racial thinking of one sort or another was typical of most educated people who came of age before the 1930s. Indeed, we are regularly treated to the discovery that some respected person, like Winston Churchill or Albert Schweitzer, was, in fact, a racist. This historical reality is embarrassing not just because the people in question are still role models, but also because it undermines the notion that antiracism freed us from an ideological straitjacket.

Conclusion

Words like “racism,” “social Darwinism,” and “hereditarianism” create the impression that a single monolithic ideology prevailed before the triumph of antiracism. Actually, the truth was almost the reverse. There was initially a wide spectrum of beliefs, as is normally the case before one belief pushes out its rivals and imposes its vision of reality. Antiracism triumphed because it was more ideological than its rivals; it possessed a unity of purpose that enabled it to neutralize one potential opponent after another. Often, the latter were unaware of this adversarial relationship and assumed they were dealing with a friendly ally.

History could have played out differently. Initially a tool in the struggle against Nazi Germany, antiracism became critically dependent on a postwar context of decolonization and Cold War rivalry. Without this favorable context, it would have had much more trouble seizing the moral high ground and locking down normal discourse. Its revival would have likely stalled at some point.

A world without antiracism could have still brought in laws against discrimination, particularly for the basics of life like housing and employment. But such efforts would have been driven not by ideology but by a pragmatic wish to create a livable society, like modern-day Singapore. In this alternate world, rational people would act rationally. They would not, for instance, be blindly sticking to antiracist principles—and insisting that everyone else do likewise—in the face of the demographic tsunami now sweeping out of Africa.

Social scientists in particular would be acting more rationally. They would not have to assume human sameness and arrange the facts accordingly. They would not face the same pressure to ignore embarrassing data, to choose the less likely explanation, and to keep quiet until … until when? They would be free to work within the earlier, and more fruitful, paradigm that viewed human differences as a product of genes, culture, and gene-culture interaction.

Such a paradigm could have absorbed findings on learning and conditioned reflexes, perhaps even better than the one we have now. Indeed, the current paradigm has trouble explaining why the effects of conditioning disappear at different rates, depending on what one has been conditioned to do. For instance, people lose a conditioned fear of snakes and spiders much more slowly than a conditioned fear of electrical outlets, even though the latter are more dangerous in current environments (Cook et al., 1986; Ohman et al., 1986). Conditioning, like learning in general, seems to interact not with a blank slate, but rather with pre-existing mental algorithms that have modifiable and non-modifiable sections.

Of course, this is not how history played out. We are living under an ideology that claims to be an anti-ideology while demanding the sort of conformity normally found in totalitarian societies. In the past, this contradiction largely went unnoticed, perhaps because the full extent of the antiracist project remained poorly known. Or perhaps people chose not to know. Increasingly, however, even the pretence of not knowing is becoming difficult. As French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut wrote, “the lofty idea of the ‘war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what communism was for the 20th century” (Caldwell, 2009).

References

Barkan, E. (1992). The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States Between the World Wars, Cambridge University Press.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=-c8aSO-gnwMC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Caldwell, C. (2009). Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, Penguin.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=637_SgdPfnsC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

JTA (1942). Dr. Franz Boas, Debunker of Nazi Racial Theories, Dies in New York, December 23
http://www.jta.org/1942/12/23/archive/dr-franz-boas-debunker-of-nazi-racial-theories-dies-in-new-york

Kushner, T. (2008). H. J. Fleure: a paradigm for inter-war race thinking in Britain, Patterns of Prejudice, 42
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00313220801996006

Leonard, T.C. (2009). Origins of the myth of social Darwinism: The ambiguous legacy of Richard Hofstadter’s Social Darwinism in American Thought, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,71, 37-51
https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/myth.pdf

Mathews, B. (1925). The Clash of Colour. A Study in the Problem of Race. London: Edinburgh House Press.

Ohman et al. (1986). Face the Beast and Fear the Face: Animal and Social Fears as Prototypes for Evolutionary Analyses of Emotion,Psychophysiology, 23, 123-145.

Sumner, W.G. (1913). Earth-hunger and other essays, ed. Albert Galloway Keller, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Taguieff, P-A. (2013). Dictionnaire historique et critique du racisme, Paris: PUF.

Wikipedia (2015). William Graham Sumner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Graham_Sumner

(Reprinted from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
109 Comments to "Age of Reason"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Yes, although I’ve never investigated the issue, this is pretty much the impression I’ve formed over the last dozen years or so.

    Perhaps an amusing analogy might be the future rise of the highly derogatory accusation of “marriageism,” namely the vile belief that marriages are only between men and women.

    Presumably, future conservatives will gleefully point out that certain statements in his writings seem to imply that Karl Marx was a hardcore “marriageist,” while being a bit defensive about similar accusations leveled against their greatest own heroes such as George Washington and Martin Luther King. Enterprising researchers will eventually publish doctoral dissertations accusing various increasingly obscure historical figures of having been closet “marriageists” and campaigns will be organized to remove their statues from our public places and their books from our libraries. Our foreign policy may increasingly be dominated by an global crusade against the international “marriageist”-axis, likely centered on China and Russia. Indeed, we’ve already seen some early rumblings in exactly that direction.

    I remember decades ago reading about all the strange happenings during Mao’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, so it’s intruing to see a similar process unfolding much closer at hand.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Sean

    ENGELS'S indifference to the casualties of progress extended to entire cultures. He welcomed the American seizure of land from "the lazy Mexicans", and looked forward to the disappearance of Slavs - "aborigines in the heart of Europe" - in the next world war as "a step forward".
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/age-of-reason/#comment-950176
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    ‘Racists go home’.

    I agree. ‘Racists’ only insist on staying in and keeping their homeland.

    The problem is ‘anti-racists’ want to flood the homeland of ‘racists’ with tons of foreign migrants.

    Let ‘racists’ stay home and let them keep their home.

    Stop the invasion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    'Racists Go Home'

    And Anti-Racists get lost, or rather they should do well to leave the homeland.

  3. “And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what communism was for the 20th century” (Caldwell, 200o) Pretty scary.

    The racial polarization showing up in the two political parties is evidence that many softie liberal whites are changing their minds, including of course white women. Where I live in liberal Menlo Park area and Palo Alto, most of the putatively liberal women and guys, say over 35, are moving to the right, at least on race. The kids are almost uniformly bigoted…meaning a refusal to consider other evidence, in this case , of racial inequality.

    Our usual answer for why Liberalism is so strong is White Altruism. That is certainly there.
    Maybe we should consider another genetically driven psychological operation. That would be juvenile dependence on peers, the earlier juvenile dependence on parents having been outgrown.

    Also the juvenile need for lots of , shall we say, love/approval, which is also outgrown to some larger degree as one gets into, say, the late 20s and early 30s is very important. Kids just want to have fun, not just the girls. With the intense social interaction of juveniles, particularly girls, peace is very important. Particularly it is important among girls since they seem to go in for bickering more than boys. Boys are in less denial about their social struggles and fights. Ask a girl to take responsibility for her part of a quarrel…almost impossible .

    Any serious threat to childish innocence is resisted. How could you say that about that about x, y, and z? Enemies are not considered. They do not exist, except… he who brings the Bad News is the Enemy and it is usually a he…Racist White Men.

    This is all a Juvenilia (?) Syndrome which like pathological altruism may be more of a White disorder than in other races. Dunno

    Also, the juvenile tendency to blame adults, especially parents, is at hand for the brave new anti-racists. I recommend viewing The Sopranos’…the teenage daughter who is such a case…make me want to whack her real good. (This is what is very good about The Sopranos…the truthful family material)

    There is nobody screwier than a teen-age daughter, and then they go off to college with a pile of chips on their shoulders…worse than the average son. Never mind sex. That any of them survive it is remarkable. Maybe they don’t. Crazy Ladies department.

    So, juvenilia….and our white altruism stimulates such nonsense in the young, including myself quite a ways back.

    returning to what lies ahead, besides the Future, despite the culture war seeming to be not going the right way…to the right…that is just the media. And the great fly-over mid-US…is very anti-liberal. I have been seeing it for the last few years as I travel around in a RV ….the ordinary folks hate liberals, etc. And the polls are showing more and more disgust with Blackness and immigration.

    Also, the comments that accompany news stories even in NYT tend to be heavily weighted toward the more conservative side.

    I guess all we need for a crisis is a good recession or worse. Then when the negroes go berserk this summer…

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  4. @Priss Factor
    'Racists go home'.

    I agree. 'Racists' only insist on staying in and keeping their homeland.

    The problem is 'anti-racists' want to flood the homeland of 'racists' with tons of foreign migrants.

    Let 'racists' stay home and let them keep their home.

    Stop the invasion.

    ‘Racists Go Home’

    And Anti-Racists get lost, or rather they should do well to leave the homeland.

    Read More
  5. The war against “Social Darwinism” may have been tainted by the European/German conflict about the relation between natural and social sciences.

    Of the two leading Jewish Schools of thinking, the Vienna Circle proclaimed the unity of science. Which meant mostly that social sciences were to follow the model of physics, but normally included a positive view on biology, too.

    The rivaling Francfort School followed the more conventional strain of German thinking. They wanted to isolate natural sciences and social thinking (psychology, history etc.) from each other. There were general reasons for that in the German intellectual milieu, but the Francfort marxists had a special interest, too: they wanted to reclaim the Marxian tradition of historical materialism; but at the same time they wanted to avoid the burden of dialectical materialism, as developed by Engels and Lenin.

    Those are the facts with which Hofstadter was confronted as he hopped on the Francfort bandwagon. It would be interesting in what way he and the Francfortians (esp. Adorno) influenced each other from then on.

    Read More
  6. By the way, “race” has indeed often been used to translate or mistranslate German “Volk” (ethny). But interestingly the German Right invented a lot of derivations from “Volk” (like “völkisch”), but no simple substantive. In this sense, there was no “Volkism”.
    The best German equivalents would have been “volkhaftes Weltbild” (ethnic worldview) or “völkische Weltanschauung” (ethnonationalist worldview) or “völkische Bewegung” (ethnonationalist movement).

    Read More
    • Replies: @theo the kraut
    Agree, there's no such term as “Volkism” in German (would be "Völkismus" anyway), must have been coined be an English speaker. As for substantives, there's Volkstum, however

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Volkstum

    "nature, character of the people"

    Volkstümlichkeit can be derived--describing the quality of someone or something being typical for a people, though in modern usage it rather denotes folksy cheesiness. For those interested: there's a tendency with MSM, politicos, and social science nowadays to avoid the word "Volk" altogether for being politically suspect,* replacing it with "Bevölkerung" (population), ie "those who happen to live here (...presently)", go figure.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bevölkerung


    * though politicians still need to pledge allegiance to the "deutsches Volk" when being sworn in... the left is already in the early stages to do away with that, they'll have their way soon. dang, gonna mosey to the fridge and nibble on a little kraut now, to smother the bad taste in my mouth
  7. @Stogumber
    By the way, "race" has indeed often been used to translate or mistranslate German "Volk" (ethny). But interestingly the German Right invented a lot of derivations from "Volk" (like "völkisch"), but no simple substantive. In this sense, there was no "Volkism".
    The best German equivalents would have been "volkhaftes Weltbild" (ethnic worldview) or "völkische Weltanschauung" (ethnonationalist worldview) or "völkische Bewegung" (ethnonationalist movement).

    Agree, there’s no such term as “Volkism” in German (would be “Völkismus” anyway), must have been coined be an English speaker. As for substantives, there’s Volkstum, however

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Volkstum

    “nature, character of the people”

    Volkstümlichkeit can be derived–describing the quality of someone or something being typical for a people, though in modern usage it rather denotes folksy cheesiness. For those interested: there’s a tendency with MSM, politicos, and social science nowadays to avoid the word “Volk” altogether for being politically suspect,* replacing it with “Bevölkerung” (population), ie “those who happen to live here (…presently)”, go figure.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bevölkerung

    * though politicians still need to pledge allegiance to the “deutsches Volk” when being sworn in… the left is already in the early stages to do away with that, they’ll have their way soon. dang, gonna mosey to the fridge and nibble on a little kraut now, to smother the bad taste in my mouth

    Read More
  8. Everybody is a racist, in one way or another. In the end you can´t deny racial differences, as you can´t deny the existence of gravity.
    Concerning the demographic tsunami there are basically two positions: Let them conquer the world or stop them. Both are social darwinist (and racist), while especially the agents of the former opinion would deny this strictly, and as a strategy of argumentation pretend to feel pity for Africans.
    Both positions are social darwinist, but they apply different rules in the game of surviving. The first positions says: Africans are more fertile, african men more attractive, Africans are more inclined to violence. Thus they deserve to conquer the world and replace everybody else. The second position says: Non-Africans have a higher average IQ, Non-Africans are able to build things like nuclear power plants and fly to the moon, thus they deserve not to be not replaced.

    Read More
  9. Another very unsatisfying analysis by Peter Frost.

    ‘Racism’ (the charge) is itself an epithet. It’s a political tool, not unlike the defamatory term ‘anti-Semite’. Its purpose? To impose silence. Why can’t Frost figure this out?–or does he know all too well?

    Rhetorical canards of this kind are designed to undermine Free Speech. It’s a dirty game of censorship. You can add the modern terms ‘genocide’ and ‘Holocaust’ to the mix. It’s a kosher scam that has softened up the Western world towards hating ‘racism’ but accepting Zionism–not to mention numerous double-standards which benefit Diaspora Jews and disadvantage whites throughout the Western world. It’s an amazing feat. Does Frost not care?

    Native-born white people living in Europe and America are being dispossessed. This matters because race matters. The racial transformation of the West then is urgent news for millions of us. Can we talk about it?

    Ironically, this enormous and unwanted transformation of the West is due in part to an unprecedented decline in white racial solidarity. A decline. Incredibly, the obsessive discussion (and denunciation) of white ‘racism’ by Frost and others is weakening white resolve when it’s most needed. We want to preserve our white-majority civilizations. What’s so unreasonable about that? But Frost wants no discussion of this. Who is he trying to fool?

    Racism (in America) must also be examined in its historic context. Sadly, Americans see many blacks as somewhat unintelligent, unattractive and uncivilized. This view is not due to racism. It comes from observation. Race involves genetic diversity and genetic variations. We’re not all equal or compatible. Let’s get real.

    As for ‘racism’, wars are sometimes tribal or regional or nationalistic. Ethnicity/race have often played a fundamental role in fomenting wars, true. But not always. In fact, modern wars have primarily involved ideology and/or economics and/or nationalism. Consider WWI and WWII, as well as the Russian Revolution and the Korean War. Race was incidental in most of these conflicts. After all, the Germans and the Japanese were united during WWII. White Americans and white Britons slaughtered white Germans. The Asian Japanese slaughtered the Asian Chinese. The Jews were hated by many Germans for their over-sized role in the spread of communism as well as the Jewish economic boycott of Germany which began in 1933. Plus, there’s the infamous penalties imposed on Germany after the Treaty of Versailles. So why is Mr. Frost so obsessed with (white) racism? Nationalism and economics and ideology can be even greater perils.

    Granted, the centuries-long, US war on Native Americans had a huge racial element. Yet neither the Apache or Navajo or any domestic tribe get so much as a mention inside America’s Holocaust Museum. How come?

    How about Israel’s 60-year war on the indigenous Arabs? How cool is that! ‘I Stand with Israel!’ proclaims every viable US Presidential candidates. Do you as well, Mr. Frost?

    What all wars have in common is that one out-group gets slaughtered. Why can’t Frost focus on this sad, enduring truth? Why is he so obsessed with (white) racism in an era where whites have given away the store?

    Ironically, as ‘racism’ has decreased in America, our nation’s wars of aggression have increased. Who can we thank for that, Mr. Frost?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    I seem to recall ... a whole host of laws restricting Jews in Germany in 1933. Not the other way round. This is the problem with those against White genocide. Too many Springtime for Hitler nutcases.

    Blacks are urban, easily mibilized to vote, the Managerial elite uses them to get goodies for themselves and cronies. A variation on the Chinese model. Don't overthink this.

    Its always about the money.
  10. I think Stogumber is right, I don’t see many Google instances of Volkismus. It is definitely a word but doesn’t appear to have a wide currency in German. The simplest explanation for the origin of the word “racism” is that -ism was attached to the word race.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stogumber
    "Volkism" has no currency at all in Germany. It simply doesn't exist and I don't know where Mr. Frost found it.
  11. […] …Words like “racism,” “social Darwinism,” and “hereditarianism” create the impression that a single monolithic ideology prevailed before the triumph of antiracism. Actually, the truth was almost the reverse. There was initially a wide spectrum of beliefs, as is normally the case before one belief pushes out its rivals and imposes its vision of reality. Antiracism triumphed because it was more ideological than its rivals; it possessed a unity of purpose that enabled it to neutralize one potential opponent after another. Often, the latter were unaware of this adversarial relationship and assumed they were dealing with a friendly ally. (Source) […]

    Read More
  12. Words like “racism,” “social Darwinism,” and “hereditarianism” create the impression that a single monolithic ideology prevailed before the triumph of antiracism. Actually, the truth was almost the reverse. There was initially a wide spectrum of beliefs, as is normally the case before one belief pushes out its rivals and imposes its vision of reality. Antiracism triumphed because it was more ideological than its rivals; it possessed a unity of purpose that enabled it to neutralize one potential opponent after another.

    Wrong.

    This is the fundamental flaw of the Dissident Right, encapsulated. You prefer to ignore the role of Big Money.

    Here is the law: Strong forces overcome weak forces. And there are forces everywhere. Look at the universe around you. Observe it. Look at the stars above you. Look at the planets in the sky. Mars, Jupiter, Venus. Look at their movements. These movements are not random. Mars, Venus, etc do not take their paths at random. Their movements are the outcome of exerted forces. Gravity. Inertia. Momentum. Etc. These planets are affected by other objects and strong forces that interact with them. This is the universe in which we live.

    Everywhere in this universe all objects are affected by interacting fields and forces. Culture, the established and accepted narrative of history, ideology, promotions in academia, publication by prestigious publishers, notice by the established media, etc etc. All these things contribute to form the cultural norms and the narrative stream of history in which we exist.

    Strong forces overcome weak forces. This is The Law.

    What are the strong forces?

    Plutocrats. Large corporations. The federal government.

    What are the weak forces? Individual people with little net worth.

    When I drop a ball, it will fall to the ground. I know that. I don’t even have to look at it to know that it fell to the ground. Because I am aware of the force of gravity.

    The force of gravity will overcome air resistance.

    And that ball will hit the ground.

    Antiracism triumphed because the strong forces selected that particular ideology for triumph. Just as early pastoralists selected the rams with the thickest wool to breed with their ewes. And the outcome? Sheep flocks with thicker wool prevailed. The strongest force there were the shepherds who selected the rams. They acted with their own best interests in mind.

    And over decades, centuries etc man evolved their domestic animals so that those domestic animals took on shapes and forms to best serve homo sapiens. And homo sapiens was the strong force.

    Ideology also is shaped by forces. Strong forces are the major factor in this shaping, this evolution, this molding.

    Why was antiracism selected for triumph? And how?

    Antiracism serves those at the top (plutocrats and large corporations) because nonwhites serve as to increase the supply of labor and thus suppress wage growth. Large corporations and plutocrats BUY Labor. The rest of us SELL labor.

    Suppression of wage growth increases the wealth of large corporations and plutocrats. Just as thick-wooled sheep increased the wealth of pastoralists.

    Large corporations and plutocrats used their wealth to promote those academics, writers and activists who promoted Antiracism. How? Through grants given via nonprofit foundations.

    Over decades this money shaped the ideology and culture of america, just as homo sapiens shaped their domestic animals.

    Forces interacting with objects.

    Keep it simple. Follow the money.

    See Dr Roelofs’ book FOUNDATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY: THE MASK OF PLURALISM.

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred
    "...just as homo sapiens shaped their domestic animals."

    Homo sapiens have also shaped homo sapiens, especially during the last "10,000 years" (ref. Harpending and Cochran). This is not only true about money and corporations, but civilization itself as Peter Frost has often argued.

    You might find this article interesting.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-secret-corporate-takeover-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2015-05

    Busy, busy, busy.
  13. @leftist conservative

    Words like “racism,” “social Darwinism,” and “hereditarianism” create the impression that a single monolithic ideology prevailed before the triumph of antiracism. Actually, the truth was almost the reverse. There was initially a wide spectrum of beliefs, as is normally the case before one belief pushes out its rivals and imposes its vision of reality. Antiracism triumphed because it was more ideological than its rivals; it possessed a unity of purpose that enabled it to neutralize one potential opponent after another.
     
    Wrong.

    This is the fundamental flaw of the Dissident Right, encapsulated. You prefer to ignore the role of Big Money.

    Here is the law: Strong forces overcome weak forces. And there are forces everywhere. Look at the universe around you. Observe it. Look at the stars above you. Look at the planets in the sky. Mars, Jupiter, Venus. Look at their movements. These movements are not random. Mars, Venus, etc do not take their paths at random. Their movements are the outcome of exerted forces. Gravity. Inertia. Momentum. Etc. These planets are affected by other objects and strong forces that interact with them. This is the universe in which we live.

    Everywhere in this universe all objects are affected by interacting fields and forces. Culture, the established and accepted narrative of history, ideology, promotions in academia, publication by prestigious publishers, notice by the established media, etc etc. All these things contribute to form the cultural norms and the narrative stream of history in which we exist.

    Strong forces overcome weak forces. This is The Law.

    What are the strong forces?

    Plutocrats. Large corporations. The federal government.

    What are the weak forces? Individual people with little net worth.


    When I drop a ball, it will fall to the ground. I know that. I don't even have to look at it to know that it fell to the ground. Because I am aware of the force of gravity.

    The force of gravity will overcome air resistance.

    And that ball will hit the ground.

    Antiracism triumphed because the strong forces selected that particular ideology for triumph. Just as early pastoralists selected the rams with the thickest wool to breed with their ewes. And the outcome? Sheep flocks with thicker wool prevailed. The strongest force there were the shepherds who selected the rams. They acted with their own best interests in mind.

    And over decades, centuries etc man evolved their domestic animals so that those domestic animals took on shapes and forms to best serve homo sapiens. And homo sapiens was the strong force.

    Ideology also is shaped by forces. Strong forces are the major factor in this shaping, this evolution, this molding.

    Why was antiracism selected for triumph? And how?

    Antiracism serves those at the top (plutocrats and large corporations) because nonwhites serve as to increase the supply of labor and thus suppress wage growth. Large corporations and plutocrats BUY Labor. The rest of us SELL labor.

    Suppression of wage growth increases the wealth of large corporations and plutocrats. Just as thick-wooled sheep increased the wealth of pastoralists.

    Large corporations and plutocrats used their wealth to promote those academics, writers and activists who promoted Antiracism. How? Through grants given via nonprofit foundations.

    Over decades this money shaped the ideology and culture of america, just as homo sapiens shaped their domestic animals.

    Forces interacting with objects.

    Keep it simple. Follow the money.

    See Dr Roelofs' book FOUNDATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY: THE MASK OF PLURALISM.

    “…just as homo sapiens shaped their domestic animals.”

    Homo sapiens have also shaped homo sapiens, especially during the last “10,000 years” (ref. Harpending and Cochran). This is not only true about money and corporations, but civilization itself as Peter Frost has often argued.

    You might find this article interesting.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-secret-corporate-takeover-by-joseph-e–stiglitz-2015-05

    Busy, busy, busy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Dr. Stiglitz is a fellow native of the now-moribund "City of the [Previous] Century"-- and, in 2001, he became the second of its native sons to be named a Nobel laureate in Economic Sciences (after Dr. Paul Samuelson, in 1970). Somehow, I think that Gary will be stuck on that pair, alone, for some years to come....
  14. THE MOST RACIST WORD IN AMERICA–RACIST!
    THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY.

    Thanks for the interesting article. However, the word “racist” has been used as a scam to fool gullible whites and loot them, their countries and their women.

    It the weapon of choice to invade white countries, rob and mug white nations and white people, steal and rape their women, and terrorize whites into self-annihilation.

    First of all, many normal behaviours (like protection for yourself, not wanting others invading your home or your country) are normal behaviours–those who call such normal behvaiours “racist” are perpetrating a scam–wanting you to not stand up for yourself and let the invaders invade your country while they hope you watch idly by–frozen into fear by being called a racist. Don’t be fooled.

    Secondly, anybody who calls anybody racist is himself a racist. Because by calling any act racist, he is wanting race to be a factor in which racial group gets what; just not the racial group you choose to benefit, but the one he chooses to benefit instead.

    Thus the word “racist” is being used to carry out a race war–against whites. Remember, the war against whites is a propaganda war and the centerpiece of this propaganda war is the word “racist”. Once whites stop being intimidated and afraid of this word and laugh it off as a scam that it is (instead of being defensive and submissive when called racist) they can turn the tide against them and stand up for themselves boldly and with courage and pride and a morally higher ground.

    Being a “racist” is a hall-mark of a cultured and civilized person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    Very good points. Groups that do not have the same intelligence, abilities or values do not get along. It is as simple as that.
    , @Kat Grey
    You make some very good points which can be highly effective in debates with lefties who haul out the tired, bedraggled racist accusation.
  15. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Jack Frost

    You are over-analyzing this issue. The charge of racism is ideological warfare waged against The Historical Native Born White American Working Class backed up by MEGA-CEO POWER…Without the MEGA-CEO Greedy Cheating White Male control of the US Political System,Economy, and US labor Markets…the charge of “racism” would be of no consequence.

    General Electrics’ head patent attorney and diversity watchdog gal-enforcer is Cecilia O’Brian Lofters…Soledade O’Brians sister. Who would have thought that the mulato kids…six of them sired by Professor Ed O’Brian(Fluid Mechanics Professor Stony Brook)…down the block from my great Irish Aunt would end up leading the charge for Corporate America to economically and demographically annihilate The Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

    Blame GE White Liberal Greedy Cheating Republican CEO Jeffrey Immelt.

    Read More
  16. @Sam
    THE MOST RACIST WORD IN AMERICA--RACIST!
    THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY.

    Thanks for the interesting article. However, the word "racist" has been used as a scam to fool gullible whites and loot them, their countries and their women.

    It the weapon of choice to invade white countries, rob and mug white nations and white people, steal and rape their women, and terrorize whites into self-annihilation.

    First of all, many normal behaviours (like protection for yourself, not wanting others invading your home or your country) are normal behaviours--those who call such normal behvaiours "racist" are perpetrating a scam--wanting you to not stand up for yourself and let the invaders invade your country while they hope you watch idly by--frozen into fear by being called a racist. Don't be fooled.

    Secondly, anybody who calls anybody racist is himself a racist. Because by calling any act racist, he is wanting race to be a factor in which racial group gets what; just not the racial group you choose to benefit, but the one he chooses to benefit instead.

    Thus the word "racist" is being used to carry out a race war--against whites. Remember, the war against whites is a propaganda war and the centerpiece of this propaganda war is the word "racist". Once whites stop being intimidated and afraid of this word and laugh it off as a scam that it is (instead of being defensive and submissive when called racist) they can turn the tide against them and stand up for themselves boldly and with courage and pride and a morally higher ground.

    Being a "racist" is a hall-mark of a cultured and civilized person.

    Very good points. Groups that do not have the same intelligence, abilities or values do not get along. It is as simple as that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    You'd be burned at the stake for saying that in Sweden.

    However true that it is.
  17. I do not want to see my children displaced by Africans. I may be labelled “racist” but I do not consider African children more attractive than my own and I would like to see the features of my offspring in the faces of my future grandchildren not those of an alien race. I’m sure blacks feel the same and I know Asians do. The media and schools have been poisoning the minds and souls of white youth by making them feel guilty for historical events that happened long before they were born and as such out of the realm of their control and responsibility. Added to the toxic injection of guilt, the sheer magnitude of European contribution to world civilisation and culture has been slowly but surely whittled away in favour of liberal creations such as Black History month, not to mention the plethora of books, films and documentaries which are deliberately falsifying history. Whites are increasingly being depicted as Johnny-come-latelies on the historical stage and are even being told that they are not indigenous to Europe!! This all comes on the back of persistant demands by goverments to disarm all white people around the globe making us vulnerable and helpless in the face of racist attacks such as those which are carried out in Zimbawe and South Africa.

    Read More
  18. @Sam
    THE MOST RACIST WORD IN AMERICA--RACIST!
    THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY.

    Thanks for the interesting article. However, the word "racist" has been used as a scam to fool gullible whites and loot them, their countries and their women.

    It the weapon of choice to invade white countries, rob and mug white nations and white people, steal and rape their women, and terrorize whites into self-annihilation.

    First of all, many normal behaviours (like protection for yourself, not wanting others invading your home or your country) are normal behaviours--those who call such normal behvaiours "racist" are perpetrating a scam--wanting you to not stand up for yourself and let the invaders invade your country while they hope you watch idly by--frozen into fear by being called a racist. Don't be fooled.

    Secondly, anybody who calls anybody racist is himself a racist. Because by calling any act racist, he is wanting race to be a factor in which racial group gets what; just not the racial group you choose to benefit, but the one he chooses to benefit instead.

    Thus the word "racist" is being used to carry out a race war--against whites. Remember, the war against whites is a propaganda war and the centerpiece of this propaganda war is the word "racist". Once whites stop being intimidated and afraid of this word and laugh it off as a scam that it is (instead of being defensive and submissive when called racist) they can turn the tide against them and stand up for themselves boldly and with courage and pride and a morally higher ground.

    Being a "racist" is a hall-mark of a cultured and civilized person.

    You make some very good points which can be highly effective in debates with lefties who haul out the tired, bedraggled racist accusation.

    Read More
  19. Haven’t read to the end but “populism” is another word that got a bad reputation thanks to Richard Hofstadter. You might write something about this, how it demonized large majoritarian movements in a democratic society, which seems self-contradictory on the face of it. An elitist putdown? Or more related to the fear of anti-Semitism, greatly overblown in what must surely be the least anti-Semitic society (American Protestant) in history. Obviously related to the immigration issue.

    Read More
  20. “He [Sumner] saw such struggle, however, as an unfortunate constraint and not as a normative value.”

    Are you sure about this? How account for his resounding answer to the question in the title to his book, What do the social classes owe each other? Namely, nothing! Or was this just a libertarian sentiment that social welfare would be maximized this way?

    Read More
  21. @another fred
    "...just as homo sapiens shaped their domestic animals."

    Homo sapiens have also shaped homo sapiens, especially during the last "10,000 years" (ref. Harpending and Cochran). This is not only true about money and corporations, but civilization itself as Peter Frost has often argued.

    You might find this article interesting.

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-secret-corporate-takeover-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2015-05

    Busy, busy, busy.

    Dr. Stiglitz is a fellow native of the now-moribund “City of the [Previous] Century”– and, in 2001, he became the second of its native sons to be named a Nobel laureate in Economic Sciences (after Dr. Paul Samuelson, in 1970). Somehow, I think that Gary will be stuck on that pair, alone, for some years to come….

    Read More
  22. Perhaps anti-racism, like radical environmentalism, should be viewed as new emergent religions in our post-Christian age? They both seem evidence free (though, of course, they claim not to be). look at this example in Sweden: http://goo.gl/A8Ch6a

    As in the Roman Emipire A.D. there were lots of new emergent competing religious movements. Except that so far there hasn’t been much competition.

    See my new booklet http://goo.gl/C4k2H7 for what the competition might look like.

    Read More
  23. @Ron Unz
    Yes, although I've never investigated the issue, this is pretty much the impression I've formed over the last dozen years or so.

    Perhaps an amusing analogy might be the future rise of the highly derogatory accusation of "marriageism," namely the vile belief that marriages are only between men and women.

    Presumably, future conservatives will gleefully point out that certain statements in his writings seem to imply that Karl Marx was a hardcore "marriageist," while being a bit defensive about similar accusations leveled against their greatest own heroes such as George Washington and Martin Luther King. Enterprising researchers will eventually publish doctoral dissertations accusing various increasingly obscure historical figures of having been closet "marriageists" and campaigns will be organized to remove their statues from our public places and their books from our libraries. Our foreign policy may increasingly be dominated by an global crusade against the international "marriageist"-axis, likely centered on China and Russia. Indeed, we've already seen some early rumblings in exactly that direction.

    I remember decades ago reading about all the strange happenings during Mao's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, so it's intruing to see a similar process unfolding much closer at hand.

    ENGELS’S indifference to the casualties of progress extended to entire cultures. He welcomed the American seizure of land from “the lazy Mexicans”, and looked forward to the disappearance of Slavs – “aborigines in the heart of Europe” – in the next world war as “a step forward”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Yes, I had in mind exactly those sorts of famous quotes by Engels and Marx when I made my point. As early as the 1950s, some prominent American rightwingers were attacking Marxism by using quotes to argue that Marx was a "racist" and an "anti-Semite" (the term "self-hating Jew" had not yet been invented).
  24. Suppression of wage growth increases the wealth of large corporations and plutocrats. Just as thick-wooled sheep increased the wealth of pastoralists.

    Large corporations and plutocrats used their wealth to promote those academics, writers and activists who promoted Antiracism. How? Through grants given via nonprofit foundations.

    Over decades this money shaped the ideology and culture of america, just as homo sapiens shaped their domestic animals.

    Big Oil was not in favour of the Iraq war.

    Read More
  25. @Sean

    ENGELS'S indifference to the casualties of progress extended to entire cultures. He welcomed the American seizure of land from "the lazy Mexicans", and looked forward to the disappearance of Slavs - "aborigines in the heart of Europe" - in the next world war as "a step forward".
     

    Yes, I had in mind exactly those sorts of famous quotes by Engels and Marx when I made my point. As early as the 1950s, some prominent American rightwingers were attacking Marxism by using quotes to argue that Marx was a “racist” and an “anti-Semite” (the term “self-hating Jew” had not yet been invented).

    Read More
  26. Anti-Marriageism seems to be regnant now in US foreign policy in regards to Africa where any nation passing laws against homosexual activity are subject to economic and political pressure from Washington. Ironic in a way because just a few years ago it was the same US government that was funding programs to encourage monogamous and safe sex lifestyles to Africa in order to stop the AIDS epidemic then devastating much of Africa.

    From public health point of view, criminalizing homosexual conduct makes sense in the same way that mandatory vaccination does. We don’t give much credence to some religious fanatics objections to having their children vaccinated against polio or measles because their ‘freedom’ to not inoculate their children against those diseases puts at risk the health of others. For the same reason Africans could reasonably argue that they are not going to condone homosexual conduct and imprison those caught engaging in it as a public health measure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan D Mute

    Africans could reasonably argue that they are not going to condone homosexual conduct and imprison those caught engaging in it as a public health measure.
     
    For me, the public health argument is the over-riding concern and I'm amazed how it is overlooked in discussion of homo behavior. Lesbians are a non-issue for the most part, but gay men engage in behavior that is just plain dangerous. There isn't a public health expert anywhere who would advocate constant contact with human fecal matter nor the insanely dangerous introduction of fecal matter into the bloodstream. Yet this is exactly what gay men do, with multiple partners, over and over and again. They ingest fecal matter orally and anally. They introduce feces into the bloodstream through anal fissures. And then they walk amongst us potentially infecting any who happen to come into close enough contact with them even in non-sexual manner.

    I'm constantly asking supporters of "gay rights" if they are aware of what, exactly, gay men actually do. Almost invariably the answer is "no." And it's not just "no," but it's "I don't want to know." The behavior is so repugnant to most that they don't even want to think about it.
  27. Peter says:
    There was initially a wide spectrum of beliefs, as is normally the case before one belief pushes out its rivals and imposes its vision of reality. Antiracism triumphed because it was more ideological than its rivals; it possessed a unity of purpose that enabled it to neutralize one potential opponent after another. Often, the latter were unaware of this adversarial relationship and assumed they were dealing with a friendly ally.

    Good points in part, but it remains an open question whether antiracism has triumphed as effectively as you suggest. Other strands of data suggest that antiracism may be a veneer, a trendy thing to espouse, like celebrities jetting to Africa to do photo ops for their wildlife project, while people continue business as usual. If its a trendy statement, this could of course be seen as a triumph of sorts, but is it fundamentally where most people are concerned?

    .
    A world without antiracism could have still brought in laws against discrimination, particularly for the basics of life like housing and employment. But such efforts would have been driven not by ideology but by a pragmatic wish to create a livable society, like modern-day Singapore. In this alternate world, rational people would act rationally.
    Not necessarily. It is a fact that even minimal civil rights measures were vigorously opposed by many whites, and prior to the 1950s, many whites had little regard for black sensibilities. Black troops in the 1940s for example sometimes marveled at the treatment of German prisoners of war being transported- the same Germans that had killed, and were killing Americans in North Africa, Italy and France, The Germans were ushered into restaurants to eat and drink alongside white Americans, restaurants that the black troops would have been ejected from had they attempted to get a meal. It took until 1957 for even such trivial things as riding on the bus to be settled- when a seamstress named Rosa Parks finally decided she had had enough. And even then, what ended that episode was a court order- the bus boycotters had been walking a full year.

    And ironically such discrimination did yield rational results to your profit, if you were white. Forbidding blacks from working in certain occupations, opening businesses in certain areas, buying homes etc etc was not as irrational as it seemed. It meant, in many cases, more profits for whites. Forbidding black tradesmen from working in all but the most menial jobs for example meant higher wages for whites. Some white railroad unions even went on strike so companies could not hire the best labor- which happened to be black. Inferior schooling meant less competition for whites not only in the present generation, but the next as well.

    Forbidding or sidetracking “colored” businesses by various means meant that blacks were hindered or slowed down n developing alternative institutions. White trade unions for example not only locked blacks out of certain areas, but also greedily hogged work in the “colored” areas as well, reducing up and coming black contractors to low scale, lower level work. As scholar Daria ROthmayr notes in her 2013 book about racial cartels, (Reproducing Racism) – discrimination could and did pay white people very well.

    .
    They would not, for instance, be blindly sticking to antiracist principles—and insisting that everyone else do likewise—in the face of the demographic tsunami now sweeping out of Africa.

    Again, it is an open question whether such is the case. An antiracist principle like first-come first-seated on the bus is quite reasonable. Its sad that it took until 1957 for such things to be settled by white America. And there is no real demographic tsunami sweeping out of Africa. The bulk of recent Mediterranean “boat people” are ‘Caucasoids” from the “Middle East” – a product of unrest in Syria and to a lesser extent, the “Arab Spring” fallout, and finally Africa bringing up the rear. In fact credible reports of the issue show that far from any blind antiracist capitulation, Europe has been long pursuing a policy of “benign neglect” towards sub-Saharan refugees, discouraging their arrival, by hoping that sea voyages in rickety, unsafe boats whittle down the numbers that make it. See recent Economist mag article – 2015 on the issue.

    The 2014-15 UNHCR UN agency for refugees notes that :

    Syri big contributor
    “the crisis in the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria), in particular, has increased demand for asylum throughout the region. Germany and Sweden were the most affected, with the two countries receiving more than 50 per cent of Syrian applications. Germany was the recipient of the largest number of asylum applications overall in the region in 2013, followed by France and Sweden. While Syrians now form the second-largest group of applicants, the biggest and still increasing group comprises people from the Russian Federation. Afghans and Serbian asylum-seekers are the third- and fourth-largest groups, respectively. Also among those seeking asylum each year are stateless people. There are currently an estimated 436,000 stateless people in the region..”
    –UNHCR GLobal Trends 2014 and UNCHR 2013 Facts and Figures

    And then there are those Caucasoid Afghans- gee whatever happened to the American Operation “Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan?:
    “In 2013, the country hosting the largest number of refugees remained Pakistan, with 1.6 million refugees. Afghanistan retained the position as the biggest source country, a position it has held for 33 years however, with 2.47 million refugees, Syria is now a close second. On average, one out of every four refugees worldwide is Afghan, with 95% located in Pakistan or Iran.”

    Jump to high Caucasoid numbers from Syria and Columbia:
    “Escalating conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic displaced an estimated 4.5 million persons in 2013, bringing the total number of IDPs in the country to 6.5 million by year end. With close to 5.4 million internally displaced persons registered by the Government by the end of 2013, Colombia too continued to face a large displacement situation.”

    Let’s look at England. The main countries of asylum seekers are again, “Caucasoids,” and the first African country in the list is virtually matched neck and neck by Caucasoid Albania in the number of asylum seekers. Of the top ten countries, only 2 are African. Per UNHCR data:

    Pakistan (3,343), Iran (2,417), Sri Lanka (1,808), Syria (1,669), Eritrea (1,377), Albania (1,326), Bangladesh (1,123), Afghanistan (1,040), India (965), Nigeria (915)”
    –UNHCR 2014- “The UK and Asylum”

    In short, Europe has not been under any antiracist thrall as far as sub-Saharan Africans, and has been doing quite well in turning back non-Caucasoids. For instance, Italy is one of the frontline states, and was able to reduce the number of illegal border crossings between the West African coast and the Canary Islands from almost 32,000 in 2006, to only 250 in 2013. In sum, in terms of refugees, asylum seekers, and even people caught at key sea borders, Europe has hardly seen massive numbers of “sub Saharan blacks” allegedly “swamping” the fatherland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unit472
    Look if I want the 'conventional wisdom' I wouldn't be reading this blog. Your post reeks of stale propaganda. "Rosa Parks" seamstress? If you believe that you know nothing. She was a trained political agitator sent to a radical academy by her white sponsors and, if you believe her story ( I don't) her motivation was a personal dislike for the bus driver over an incident from years before but the Montgomery, Alabama ordinance on passenger seating was ridiculous as it was vague and more a matter of a bus drivers discretion than anything else. Remove 'race' from the ordinance and replace it with 'elderly or handicapped' and it would be entirely legal today as long as it was enforced uniformly. You just wait and this issue will re-emerge in some community when Muslims attempt to impose segregated seating by sex!

    The real economic disaster for blacks was not segregation it was the end of it. If you had lived in a segregated city in the United States you would have known that blacks were not forced to do without restaurants, hotels or stores because they were denied access to white owned businesses, they simply had their own. As a note aside, in the summer of 1962, during a visit to my mothers hometown, she gave me some money to go the movie theatre. I remember the movie was "How The West Was Won" and I decided I would go and sit in the balcony. The usher stopped me and informed me the balcony was reserved for negro customers! So much for my 'white privilege'. That said, there is now an effort in many Southern cities to preserve what remains of the historical black business districts because they did exist. The bars, nightclubs, hotels, restaurants and even banks! They, like many small white owned businesses, went out of business when segregation ended and the great homogenization of America began. When the Walmarts , McDonalds and other national chains destroyed downtowns all across America.

  28. According to John Tooby, renowned antiracist Steven Jay Gould held that evolution occurred as the outcome of competition among closely related population groups; which although he never explicitly said, could be seen as races. Just as the scientists of a previous generation who accepted inheritance of acquired characteristics were not necessarily egalitarians, Gould’s political beliefs could not be deduced from his Darwinism.

    The quote from MacDougall shows that Mendelian inheritance (a huge part of what we would now call Darwinism) was but one hypothesis among American scientists until the thirties. The Darwinian synthesis triumphed, because that theory had the least flaws. There is little basis for thinking that ethics is cumulative in the way scientific knowledge is, and therefore we should expect an erroneous ethical schemata to be impervious to rational falsification in a way that a flawed scientific theory is not.

    I would submit the principle that, although differences of racial mental qualities are relatively small, so small as to be indistinguishable with certainty in individuals, they are yet of great importance for the life of nations, because they exert throughout many generations a constant bias upon the development of their culture and their institutions

    That carries the implication that hereditary mental qualities will over time inevitably skew national or shared culture to develop in a particular way. And the resultant differing values of each nation can conflict with one another. I suppose pluralism saves us from having to give a verdict on whose values are best. But a culture’s earlier stages of development can be in conflict with the current one. Antiracism is not the result a conflict between different nations or races; it’s the conflict between the ethics of an earlier stage of our own civilisation, and the unfolding end game developments.

    TO summarize, pathological altruists—obstinate cooperators who never change their behavior toward others—introduce profound changes in the evolutionary dynamics of tight communities. In their presence, cheaters no longer push cooperators to extinction. Instead, the population evolves towards a coexistence of altruists and cheaters that characterizes its composition most of the time. Ironically, in the currency of cooperation, pathological altruists are very effective in allowing the population to avoid falling into the “tragedy of the commons” doomsday scenario referred to at the chapter’s opening. This is done by securing the maintenance of cooperators in the population. In doing so, opportunity is also provided for cheaters to have cooperators to exploit.

    Martin Nowak found in the late stages of computer simulations aberrantly hyper altruistic strategies appeared (Great ape personhood may be an example) and swept all before them, before collapsing. A quote from Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, “western society is approaching that point beyond which the system becomes metastable and must fall” was used at the beginning of The Camp of the Saints.

    Read More
  29. The racism accusers (liberals) and blacks are cultural birds of a feather, sharing a mindset that is closer to the hunter-gatherer ancestors than the accused.

    Those accused of racism, generally conservatives and libertarians, possess a mindset closer to that of sedentary cultures. They have been foes for 10,000+ years, nothing new.

    Read More
  30. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/17/pope-francis-canonises-19th-century-palestinian-nuns?utm

    Whoops. Latin American Pope with no Holocaust-guilt canonizes Palestinians.

    If the next pope is black, things might heap up even more for Zionists.

    Read More
  31. @Enrique Cardova
    Peter says:
    There was initially a wide spectrum of beliefs, as is normally the case before one belief pushes out its rivals and imposes its vision of reality. Antiracism triumphed because it was more ideological than its rivals; it possessed a unity of purpose that enabled it to neutralize one potential opponent after another. Often, the latter were unaware of this adversarial relationship and assumed they were dealing with a friendly ally.

    Good points in part, but it remains an open question whether antiracism has triumphed as effectively as you suggest. Other strands of data suggest that antiracism may be a veneer, a trendy thing to espouse, like celebrities jetting to Africa to do photo ops for their wildlife project, while people continue business as usual. If its a trendy statement, this could of course be seen as a triumph of sorts, but is it fundamentally where most people are concerned?


    .
    A world without antiracism could have still brought in laws against discrimination, particularly for the basics of life like housing and employment. But such efforts would have been driven not by ideology but by a pragmatic wish to create a livable society, like modern-day Singapore. In this alternate world, rational people would act rationally.
    Not necessarily. It is a fact that even minimal civil rights measures were vigorously opposed by many whites, and prior to the 1950s, many whites had little regard for black sensibilities. Black troops in the 1940s for example sometimes marveled at the treatment of German prisoners of war being transported- the same Germans that had killed, and were killing Americans in North Africa, Italy and France, The Germans were ushered into restaurants to eat and drink alongside white Americans, restaurants that the black troops would have been ejected from had they attempted to get a meal. It took until 1957 for even such trivial things as riding on the bus to be settled- when a seamstress named Rosa Parks finally decided she had had enough. And even then, what ended that episode was a court order- the bus boycotters had been walking a full year.

    And ironically such discrimination did yield rational results to your profit, if you were white. Forbidding blacks from working in certain occupations, opening businesses in certain areas, buying homes etc etc was not as irrational as it seemed. It meant, in many cases, more profits for whites. Forbidding black tradesmen from working in all but the most menial jobs for example meant higher wages for whites. Some white railroad unions even went on strike so companies could not hire the best labor- which happened to be black. Inferior schooling meant less competition for whites not only in the present generation, but the next as well.

    Forbidding or sidetracking "colored" businesses by various means meant that blacks were hindered or slowed down n developing alternative institutions. White trade unions for example not only locked blacks out of certain areas, but also greedily hogged work in the "colored" areas as well, reducing up and coming black contractors to low scale, lower level work. As scholar Daria ROthmayr notes in her 2013 book about racial cartels, (Reproducing Racism) - discrimination could and did pay white people very well.


    .
    They would not, for instance, be blindly sticking to antiracist principles—and insisting that everyone else do likewise—in the face of the demographic tsunami now sweeping out of Africa.

    Again, it is an open question whether such is the case. An antiracist principle like first-come first-seated on the bus is quite reasonable. Its sad that it took until 1957 for such things to be settled by white America. And there is no real demographic tsunami sweeping out of Africa. The bulk of recent Mediterranean "boat people" are 'Caucasoids" from the "Middle East" - a product of unrest in Syria and to a lesser extent, the "Arab Spring" fallout, and finally Africa bringing up the rear. In fact credible reports of the issue show that far from any blind antiracist capitulation, Europe has been long pursuing a policy of "benign neglect" towards sub-Saharan refugees, discouraging their arrival, by hoping that sea voyages in rickety, unsafe boats whittle down the numbers that make it. See recent Economist mag article - 2015 on the issue.

    The 2014-15 UNHCR UN agency for refugees notes that :

    Syri big contributor
    "the crisis in the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria), in particular, has increased demand for asylum throughout the region. Germany and Sweden were the most affected, with the two countries receiving more than 50 per cent of Syrian applications. Germany was the recipient of the largest number of asylum applications overall in the region in 2013, followed by France and Sweden. While Syrians now form the second-largest group of applicants, the biggest and still increasing group comprises people from the Russian Federation. Afghans and Serbian asylum-seekers are the third- and fourth-largest groups, respectively. Also among those seeking asylum each year are stateless people. There are currently an estimated 436,000 stateless people in the region.."
    --UNHCR GLobal Trends 2014 and UNCHR 2013 Facts and Figures

    And then there are those Caucasoid Afghans- gee whatever happened to the American Operation "Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan?:
    "In 2013, the country hosting the largest number of refugees remained Pakistan, with 1.6 million refugees. Afghanistan retained the position as the biggest source country, a position it has held for 33 years however, with 2.47 million refugees, Syria is now a close second. On average, one out of every four refugees worldwide is Afghan, with 95% located in Pakistan or Iran."

    Jump to high Caucasoid numbers from Syria and Columbia:
    "Escalating conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic displaced an estimated 4.5 million persons in 2013, bringing the total number of IDPs in the country to 6.5 million by year end. With close to 5.4 million internally displaced persons registered by the Government by the end of 2013, Colombia too continued to face a large displacement situation."

    Let's look at England. The main countries of asylum seekers are again, "Caucasoids," and the first African country in the list is virtually matched neck and neck by Caucasoid Albania in the number of asylum seekers. Of the top ten countries, only 2 are African. Per UNHCR data:

    Pakistan (3,343), Iran (2,417), Sri Lanka (1,808), Syria (1,669), Eritrea (1,377), Albania (1,326), Bangladesh (1,123), Afghanistan (1,040), India (965), Nigeria (915)"
    --UNHCR 2014- "The UK and Asylum"

    In short, Europe has not been under any antiracist thrall as far as sub-Saharan Africans, and has been doing quite well in turning back non-Caucasoids. For instance, Italy is one of the frontline states, and was able to reduce the number of illegal border crossings between the West African coast and the Canary Islands from almost 32,000 in 2006, to only 250 in 2013. In sum, in terms of refugees, asylum seekers, and even people caught at key sea borders, Europe has hardly seen massive numbers of "sub Saharan blacks" allegedly "swamping" the fatherland.

    Look if I want the ‘conventional wisdom’ I wouldn’t be reading this blog. Your post reeks of stale propaganda. “Rosa Parks” seamstress? If you believe that you know nothing. She was a trained political agitator sent to a radical academy by her white sponsors and, if you believe her story ( I don’t) her motivation was a personal dislike for the bus driver over an incident from years before but the Montgomery, Alabama ordinance on passenger seating was ridiculous as it was vague and more a matter of a bus drivers discretion than anything else. Remove ‘race’ from the ordinance and replace it with ‘elderly or handicapped’ and it would be entirely legal today as long as it was enforced uniformly. You just wait and this issue will re-emerge in some community when Muslims attempt to impose segregated seating by sex!

    The real economic disaster for blacks was not segregation it was the end of it. If you had lived in a segregated city in the United States you would have known that blacks were not forced to do without restaurants, hotels or stores because they were denied access to white owned businesses, they simply had their own. As a note aside, in the summer of 1962, during a visit to my mothers hometown, she gave me some money to go the movie theatre. I remember the movie was “How The West Was Won” and I decided I would go and sit in the balcony. The usher stopped me and informed me the balcony was reserved for negro customers! So much for my ‘white privilege’. That said, there is now an effort in many Southern cities to preserve what remains of the historical black business districts because they did exist. The bars, nightclubs, hotels, restaurants and even banks! They, like many small white owned businesses, went out of business when segregation ended and the great homogenization of America began. When the Walmarts , McDonalds and other national chains destroyed downtowns all across America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan D Mute
    Also, Thomas Sowell and Ann Coulter have both spent a great deal of ink debunking the "segregation was terrible for negroes" trope. As you said, the end of segregation was disastrous for negroes as the negro owned businesses were forced to compete directly with much stronger white owned businesses and the negro customers overwhelmingly stopped supporting their neighborhood bankers, grocers, etc, and moved to the "better" white owned ventures for their needs. The same thing happened in schools as the brightest negro parents pushed their comparatively bright and well-behaved children into white schools leaving the negro schools as home to the most dysfunctional negro children.
  32. PETER SAYS:
    “And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what communism was for the 20th century” (Caldwell, 2000)

    Quite possibly. I more see antiracism as a proxy cover for other struggles between white elites or white groups. Caldwell has highlighted certain abuses going under the umbrella of “antiracism” but many of those have little to do with “race” per se and more to do with other agendas fought out between white people. For example white supporters of “gay” marriage have hijacked the anti-racism theme to forward their own agenda of disparaging or weakening the traditional family.

    And Caldwell himself notes that other agendas such as ANTI-SEMITISM has also used anti-racism to get a propaganda handle for Jew and Israel bashing. Again, this has little to do with any blacks supposedly “swamping” the beaches of the Europe. In addition Caldwell does note serious influences of RACISM present in Europe- epitomized most dramatically in the riots and violent attacks against non-whites by assorted sports hooligans. By in large, Europe has not cast open the gates to allow in a flood of sub-Saharan blacks in the name of racism. To the contrary, said black numbers have been DECLINING for years in the front line Europeans states like Italy. The central problem is Muslims which raise a bunch of stability problems, sharia law conflicts etc. Some of these may be African but the bulk flooding in are Caucasoid types from Syria etc.

    I would agree that anti-racism memes have been abused in some cases, more so along the lines of providing cover for other agendas, as white liberals and conservatives battle among themselves. Blacks are oft stalking horses, scapegoats, and strawmen in such battles.

    Read More
  33. Joe Webb says:
    Our usual answer for why Liberalism is so strong is White Altruism. That is certainly there. Maybe we should consider another genetically driven psychological operation. That would be juvenile dependence on peers, the earlier juvenile dependence on parents having been outgrown.

    Actually the reason liberalism is so strong is not so much white altruism, but mostly white SELF-INTEREST. Liberalism would not be in business unless it add value for white people. Liberalism has helped white elf-interest in the following ways:

    .
    1) Liberalism helped ease white American embarrassment during the Cold War. As credible scholars show, (Dudziak 2011-Cold War Civil Rights) calls for less raacism and greater tolerance were an integral part of the US winning the Cold War against stinging Soviet propaganda thrusts on America’s racial hypocrisy- purporting to be fighting for democracy abroad, when it refused to guarantee democracy at home for those citizens who happened to be black. This is why even conservatives like Ike ordered his Little Rock Desegregation actions and other civil rights measures of his admin to be broadcast in numerous languages on Voice Of America and other international PR organs. Ike took such pains with a mere internal American matter in response to often accurate Soviet reports of American hypocrisy, demonstrating that white America was attempting to clean up its own house.

    .
    2) Liberalism helps white America look good, and conceal or obscure its dirty linen. White America has also benefited psychologically by the concealment of its dirty linen. White America always wants to look good, to not be seen as the open, snarling racist beast that was white Nazism. Minimal effort on civil rights (how big of a concession was it really to let some black guy eat a hamburger 2 tables down?) demonstrated “something was being done” but as Ike himself pointed out- such actions would not affect “the hearts of minds” of white people. Ike was right in part. White America’s “hearts and minds” may be far from changed. It had to clean up certain OPEN abuses to maintain its self-image of virtue, but deep down plenty of old hatreds remain. This does not mean that positive change has not happened- it has.

    .
    3) Liberalism helps whites maintain white hegemony and cover their biases using “soft” means, that pacify the cullluds and white dissenters. White America, has become very good or increasingly skilled at covering its racism, and still pursues self-serving outcomes using what appears to be neutral, non-racist methods. Thus real estate agents for decades no longer posted openly racist ads, but would quietly steer “undesirable” minorities to lesser property. White city councils would no longer send forth police to attack negroes who failed to leave “sundown towns” at night, but became more sophisticated- keeping them out by a subtle web of zoning controls and regulations that reduced the supply of housing (minimum lot sizes, rent controls etc). If you make things costly enough, minorities who tend on average to be less able to afford these costs decrease- meaning less culluds in certain whiter neighborhoods and schools. All of these are seemingly neutral things, but their end result is to boost white hegemony. If liberalism had failed to produce this outcome, it would be out of business a long time ago.

    .
    4) Liberalism helps certain segments of white people more than others- but in any event, its still white people overall gaining. Support for black civil rights for example helps white Jews. When restrictive covenants locking certain “undesirable groups” out of certain neighborhoods were struck down or voided for example, Jews benefited because such covenants ALSO locked out Jews, regardless of their affluence. In cases such as US versus Lake Lucerne for example, the covenants in questions banned BOTH Jews and blacks. Naturally more affluent Jews would be able to take advantage of the housing opened up, and the nice thing is, nobody can tell at a glance if you are Jewish or not. You appear white, so that’s all right. Blacks never had that luxury. While many things are presented as if they are geared towards “helping the culluds” – the primary gainers are white.

    .
    6) Liberalism helps pacify, fob off or co-opt the culluds with token gestures, while the real resources remain in white hands. Hence a few Black History Month activities where Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver and other hoary staples are celebrated, or kids in elementary school make pinatas in celebration of “diversity” are relatively harmless things that keep the culluds relatively quiet and happy- “beads for the natives.” Liberals can say- see we are all not sneering racists or bigots – we are including y’all in the great rainbow or smelting pot or whatever. Its a lot more efficient “management strategy” and less stressful for white people than a continual campaign of black or brown bashing, which provokes fierce push-back and counter-reaction. The “tokenism” strategy has also worked in discrimination conflicts – where court cases can be settled with via small concessions, tokenism and muted consent agreements, that prevents larger scrutiny of the white edifice of cronyism and favoritism.

    .
    5. Liberalism helps White people get paid. Conservative libertarians like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have long pointed out such patterns and their works are studded with examples. How do liberals help white people get paid? Integration in the 1960s and 1970s provides some examples. Liberals ensured that white people:

    (a) got huge amounts of federal money to ease along better facilities for blacks,
    (b) the money could be and was diverted to improve white facilities as well -more so when the old black ones were destroyed,
    (c) white people got more jobs as the black teachers and administrators were displaced,
    (d) white people gained even more jobs as white bureaucrats- soaking up the fed money being put into social programs,
    (e) whites profited from social policy like “affirmative action” that actually made whites its biggest beneficiaries (white women, in particular),
    (f) the end of legalized Jim Crow opened up numerous profitable transactions for whites with blacks
    (g) whites gained in profitable real estate transactions as older housing stock in formerly “reserved” white communities could be unloaded on “the coloreds”.
    (h) white politicians gained politically by freeing up the black vote

    .
    6) Liberals help white people by saying things are to help the culluds, when in reality, the primary beneficiaries are other white people. While many rail against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they conveniently skip over the fact that it covers white women as well, who numerically have been the biggest beneficiaries. The suppression of discrimination based on gender was a huge boon for whites- helping in everything from equal pay for the same work and hours, more opportunities at all levels of the workforce, to more consistent application of laws. To a smaller extent later things such as AA quotas also have benefited white women particularly in government jobs or jobs covered by government contracts. The primary beneficiaries, are again, white. This strategy has another bonus- it makes white people look extra good. See we have a few things in place to help the culluds, and um, by the way, we are the main beneficiaries. Smile…

    Read More
    • Replies: @unit472
    The people who were marching for 'Civil Rights' were the same people who were carrying 'Better Red Than Dead' signs and were known as "Pinkos", Fellow Travelers and Useful Idiots.

    What planet are you from?
    , @Harold

    Liberalism helped ease white American embarrassment during the Cold War.
     
    Embarrassed in front of who? White people.

    Liberalism helps white America look good, and conceal or obscure its dirty linen.
     
    Look good to who? White people. Dirty according to whose morals? White peoples.

    Liberalism helps whites maintain white hegemony and cover their biases using “soft” means, that pacify the cullluds and white dissenters.
     
    Why would they need to cover their biases? Because they have convinced themselves and others that it is sinful for them to be biased in favour of whites.

    According to you, “Liberalism” aids white hegemony by first making favouring white hegemony a sin, and then covertly abetting it. If whites wanted to promote white hegemony they would just promote white hegemony overtly. There is nothing to stop them, except their own hijacked sense of altruism.

  34. @Enrique Cardova
    Joe Webb says:
    Our usual answer for why Liberalism is so strong is White Altruism. That is certainly there. Maybe we should consider another genetically driven psychological operation. That would be juvenile dependence on peers, the earlier juvenile dependence on parents having been outgrown.

    Actually the reason liberalism is so strong is not so much white altruism, but mostly white SELF-INTEREST. Liberalism would not be in business unless it add value for white people. Liberalism has helped white elf-interest in the following ways:

    .
    1) Liberalism helped ease white American embarrassment during the Cold War. As credible scholars show, (Dudziak 2011-Cold War Civil Rights) calls for less raacism and greater tolerance were an integral part of the US winning the Cold War against stinging Soviet propaganda thrusts on America's racial hypocrisy- purporting to be fighting for democracy abroad, when it refused to guarantee democracy at home for those citizens who happened to be black. This is why even conservatives like Ike ordered his Little Rock Desegregation actions and other civil rights measures of his admin to be broadcast in numerous languages on Voice Of America and other international PR organs. Ike took such pains with a mere internal American matter in response to often accurate Soviet reports of American hypocrisy, demonstrating that white America was attempting to clean up its own house.

    .
    2) Liberalism helps white America look good, and conceal or obscure its dirty linen. White America has also benefited psychologically by the concealment of its dirty linen. White America always wants to look good, to not be seen as the open, snarling racist beast that was white Nazism. Minimal effort on civil rights (how big of a concession was it really to let some black guy eat a hamburger 2 tables down?) demonstrated "something was being done" but as Ike himself pointed out- such actions would not affect "the hearts of minds" of white people. Ike was right in part. White America's "hearts and minds" may be far from changed. It had to clean up certain OPEN abuses to maintain its self-image of virtue, but deep down plenty of old hatreds remain. This does not mean that positive change has not happened- it has.


    .
    3) Liberalism helps whites maintain white hegemony and cover their biases using "soft" means, that pacify the cullluds and white dissenters. White America, has become very good or increasingly skilled at covering its racism, and still pursues self-serving outcomes using what appears to be neutral, non-racist methods. Thus real estate agents for decades no longer posted openly racist ads, but would quietly steer "undesirable" minorities to lesser property. White city councils would no longer send forth police to attack negroes who failed to leave "sundown towns" at night, but became more sophisticated- keeping them out by a subtle web of zoning controls and regulations that reduced the supply of housing (minimum lot sizes, rent controls etc). If you make things costly enough, minorities who tend on average to be less able to afford these costs decrease- meaning less culluds in certain whiter neighborhoods and schools. All of these are seemingly neutral things, but their end result is to boost white hegemony. If liberalism had failed to produce this outcome, it would be out of business a long time ago.

    .
    4) Liberalism helps certain segments of white people more than others- but in any event, its still white people overall gaining. Support for black civil rights for example helps white Jews. When restrictive covenants locking certain "undesirable groups" out of certain neighborhoods were struck down or voided for example, Jews benefited because such covenants ALSO locked out Jews, regardless of their affluence. In cases such as US versus Lake Lucerne for example, the covenants in questions banned BOTH Jews and blacks. Naturally more affluent Jews would be able to take advantage of the housing opened up, and the nice thing is, nobody can tell at a glance if you are Jewish or not. You appear white, so that's all right. Blacks never had that luxury. While many things are presented as if they are geared towards "helping the culluds" - the primary gainers are white.


    .
    6) Liberalism helps pacify, fob off or co-opt the culluds with token gestures, while the real resources remain in white hands. Hence a few Black History Month activities where Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver and other hoary staples are celebrated, or kids in elementary school make pinatas in celebration of “diversity” are relatively harmless things that keep the culluds relatively quiet and happy- "beads for the natives." Liberals can say- see we are all not sneering racists or bigots – we are including y’all in the great rainbow or smelting pot or whatever. Its a lot more efficient “management strategy” and less stressful for white people than a continual campaign of black or brown bashing, which provokes fierce push-back and counter-reaction. The "tokenism" strategy has also worked in discrimination conflicts - where court cases can be settled with via small concessions, tokenism and muted consent agreements, that prevents larger scrutiny of the white edifice of cronyism and favoritism.

    .
    5. Liberalism helps White people get paid. Conservative libertarians like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have long pointed out such patterns and their works are studded with examples. How do liberals help white people get paid? Integration in the 1960s and 1970s provides some examples. Liberals ensured that white people:

    (a) got huge amounts of federal money to ease along better facilities for blacks,
    (b) the money could be and was diverted to improve white facilities as well -more so when the old black ones were destroyed,
    (c) white people got more jobs as the black teachers and administrators were displaced,
    (d) white people gained even more jobs as white bureaucrats- soaking up the fed money being put into social programs,
    (e) whites profited from social policy like “affirmative action” that actually made whites its biggest beneficiaries (white women, in particular),
    (f) the end of legalized Jim Crow opened up numerous profitable transactions for whites with blacks
    (g) whites gained in profitable real estate transactions as older housing stock in formerly “reserved” white communities could be unloaded on “the coloreds”.
    (h) white politicians gained politically by freeing up the black vote


    .
    6) Liberals help white people by saying things are to help the culluds, when in reality, the primary beneficiaries are other white people. While many rail against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they conveniently skip over the fact that it covers white women as well, who numerically have been the biggest beneficiaries. The suppression of discrimination based on gender was a huge boon for whites- helping in everything from equal pay for the same work and hours, more opportunities at all levels of the workforce, to more consistent application of laws. To a smaller extent later things such as AA quotas also have benefited white women particularly in government jobs or jobs covered by government contracts. The primary beneficiaries, are again, white. This strategy has another bonus- it makes white people look extra good. See we have a few things in place to help the culluds, and um, by the way, we are the main beneficiaries. Smile...

    The people who were marching for ‘Civil Rights’ were the same people who were carrying ‘Better Red Than Dead’ signs and were known as “Pinkos”, Fellow Travelers and Useful Idiots.

    What planet are you from?

    Read More
  35. UNit742 says:
    “Rosa Parks” seamstress? If you believe that you know nothing. She was a trained political agitator sent to a radical academy by her white sponsors and, if you believe her story ( I don’t) her motivation was a personal dislike for the bus driver over an incident from years before but the Montgomery, Alabama ordinance on passenger seating was ridiculous as it was vague and more a matter of a bus drivers discretion than anything else. Remove ‘race’ from the ordinance and replace it with ‘elderly or handicapped’ and it would be entirely legal today as long as it was enforced uniformly

    LOL well keep in mind that Rosa Parks WAS a seamstress. Whether she worked for the NAACP or not she still was a seamstress. And most everyone knows Rosa Parks was an NAACP member. It is no secret. It just happened, on that particular day, she decided to make her move. Sure. And the Montgomery matter was more than a simple matter of bus driver discretion. It was a law on the books that was enforced. Most bus drivers did in fact enforce it.

    And you are wrong when you say simply remove race and substitute handicapped and it would be OK For one thing, the ordinance required black passengers to give up their seats for white passengers, and that includes the “colored” section when the buses were full. It was all geared towards white convenience and privilege. What law today remotely requires anything similar? Your example doesn’t add up.

    .
    The real economic disaster for blacks was not segregation it was the end of it. If you had lived in a segregated city in the United States you would have known that blacks were not forced to do without restaurants, hotels or stores because they were denied access to white owned businesses, they simply had their own.

    The point was not that blacks had no restaurants, hotels or stores. It was (a) laws that forced them to locate those establishments wherever white people dictated, which was in a constricted range of areas, usually, but not always, less profitable, with the worse facilities and services. However no similar laws forbid white people from entering “colored” areas, or mixed areas with a lot of blacks to reap the profits. See the difference? Which is one reason there was often conflict over service. In some areas there were no similar negro facilities, made so by deliberate white design, to enhance white profit. Even when there was no explicit legal rule, the rigged game of subtler “under the table” restrictions, or atmosphere disadvantaged blacks for generations.

    White restaurants and stores were often allowed to operate freely, while black ones were hedged about with a variety of restrictions. Same pattern with white unions. They forbid colored tradesmen from working all but the most menial jobs in certain areas, but then greedily hogged the most lucrative work in the black areas as well. Again, everything was geared for white privilege and profit. That is the harsh reality of American history which many seem intent on denying. But no amount of denial will change the truth, which by the way is very well documented in everything from books to court cases.

    But even aside from white manipulation, simple fairness and decency, particularly to the hundreds of thousands of black veterans who fought in WW2 should have affected white consciences. Fortunately it did for SOME, which is one reason a man from Missouri, by no means a flaming liberal, did the right thing in some ways for blacks. He was oft criticized for “moving too slowly” or “moving too fast”, but to his credit, to America’s credit, he did the right thing. Unfortunately the right thing was not in the minds of millions of white Americans. And as a result they paid the price in decades of upheaval , turmoil and embarrassment, with negative fallout even today.

    http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/150/blackworkersmurderedtru.jpg

    ^^The man from Missouri…

    As a note aside, in the summer of 1962, during a visit to my mothers hometown, she gave me some money to go the movie theatre. I remember the movie was “How The West Was Won” and I decided I would go and sit in the balcony. The usher stopped me and informed me the balcony was reserved for negro customers! So much for my ‘white privilege’.

    Well the thing is, the balcony was the most distant place from the screen, hence they stuck the blacks back there- again the worse spot, while reserving the best for white people, even though the same money was paid in many of these cases. So you did get your white privilege as a youth. On more serious matters, in some towns with similar theaters, if you were black and were not out of town by sunset you risked a beating not by local racists but by white officers of the law. And in most of those Jim Crow towns, if you were black, you could not own a movie theater in certain “reserved” areas, as dictated by white people, for their own benefit. That’s just some of the differences. As a white youth, you had it made in dozens of different ways. Read biographies of black youth who grew up in the Jim Crow south, guys like author Richard Wright and so on. The reality is a lot grimmer.

    .
    That said, there is now an effort in many Southern cities to preserve what remains of the historical black business districts because they did exist. The bars, nightclubs, hotels, restaurants and even banks! They, like many small white owned businesses, went out of business when segregation ended and the great homogenization of America began. When the Walmarts , McDonalds and other national chains destroyed downtowns all across America.
    Sure, and that was the downside, not only for the segregated places, but in general as the Wal-Mart’s and big chains destroyed the old line community facilities. The upside was the removal of long standing and unjust barriers, that had they not been in place, would have given blacks a much fairer, better chance of getting an economic foothold. The fact that it took until 1964 for even minimal basics to be implemented, and years of subsequent litigation and combat after that, just shows what white America was, and in some cases, still is. The removal of segregation barriers was a boon for blacks at all levels, and the continued rise in managerial and technical occupations, numerous other jobs, the opening up of more decent housing etc, the ability to actual open a business in a better area without being sandbagged, etc- all these things were positives. Interestingly, many right wingers rail against the civil rights laws that opened u such things, and would roll back America to where it was circa 1957. Convicted felon and adulterer Dinesh D’souza for example calls for a roll back of the Civil rights Act of 1964, as do an assortment of white libertarians. Beneath the veneer, much of the old racism still lurks. In fact some right wingers do not even bother to hide it anymore.

    .
    . You just wait and this issue will re-emerge in some community when Muslims attempt to impose segregated seating by sex!
    Hopefully this will not happen. The book Peter references above shows how antiracism is being used not to deal with “race” per se, but to further other agendas. Antiracism is simply the cover story. Hence “gay” marriage activists have hijacked solid civil rights arguments to push their agenda. The fanatical/radical Muslims I believe will eventually be brought to heel, but in the meantime, they, and others, will collaborate with both the white left, and the white right to bash and destroy Jews, but also perhaps Christians.

    It is sometimes assumed that only the white left abhors Christianity, but the white right has long had a distinct anti-Christian strain. Oh there are “Aryan churches” and such but their message is antithetical to the fundamental Christian message. Christianity is viewed as a weak point, something for weaklings, because it speaks of peace between peoples, all men as sinners needing the redemption, and brotherhood in one faith, etc. All this is anathema to racial purists and agitators, who continually sneer at and rail against such faith. During the civil rights era segregationists were driven to fury at how King gained traction by so often appealing not in the usual political terms, but based on the common faith. King and a white southern preacher named Billy Graham could find common ground even in those tumultuous times. And it was Christian abolitionists who while by no means perfect, played a great part in making the moral case against slavery and they were roundly mocked and attacked by what would be “conservative” elements back in that day. It should not be automatically assumed that Muslims will be the PRIMARY threat in years to come. In the days of upheaval to come, the Right will be well represented contributors.

    Read More
  36. It is often the case that those cast as evil monsters by anti-racist ideologues, both black and white, are much more moderate. Consider Gen. Nathaniel Bedford Forrest of Memphis. Universally damned as the leader of the Fort Pillow massacre and founder of the Ku Klux Klan, he was actually racially liberal in his beliefs just a few years after the war as this link explains.

    In an invited speech to a negro society in Memphis shortly after the Civil War, he encouraged negros to (in effect) “be all that you can be” and was roundly cheered and applauded by the negro audience.

    Was he in favor of race-mixing and marriage? I sincerely doubt it. Was he in favor of random violence or ethnic cleansing of blacks? I sincerely doubt it. Would he have favored quotas and forced bussing? I think not.

    He existed in that great middle ground, that continuum of opinion that (as you explain) has been completely erased by anti-racist ideologues.

    I call it “the Mandingo-ization of American history” (after the 1957 book of the same name by Kyle Onstott).

    Read More
  37. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Maybe all ‘hate words’ should be banned.

    All judgmental/negative words must go. They are hateful and spread hateful feelings.

    For example… ‘ugly’. It is hateful. And ‘gross’. And ‘stupid’.

    Eventually, even ‘hateful’ must go since it is hateful to call someone ‘hateful’.

    But then, even ‘love words’ must go since to say something is ‘good’ implies that its opposite–bad–must also exist.

    We must end up like the pod people. Neutral.

    Read More
  38. Kat grey says:

    I would like to see the features of my offspring in the faces of my future grandchildren not those of an alien race.
    Sure, and no one is grudging you that. Be all you can be- and if you want more white kids- more power to you. Assorted Muslims or “immigrants” aren’t roaming the suburbs preventing white people from reproducing. The ball is entirely in the white court. What is preventing more white babies are things like : (a)white disparagement or downgrading of the traditional family- seen in such things as the embrace of homosexuality and “gay” marriage, (b)failure of white women to marry and reproduce enough in early adult years, and (c) huge white rates of abortion that are killing off the millions of cute white babies of the next generation White Russia for example kills 2 white babies for each one born. Why aren’t white “role models” getting their house in order, given the fact of declining white demographics?

    .
    The media and schools have been poisoning the minds and souls of white youth by making them feel guilty for historical events that happened long before they were born and as such out of the realm of their control and responsibility.

    Not really. Actually the media has in many ways made white youth feel very good about themselves. In fact historical events ARE PRECISELY portrayed as SO LONG, LONG AGO, said white youth need not worry about them. This is a primary complaint by many white antiracists. See Edward Bonilla-Silva for example- on the “dismissal tactic” so often employed. Far from cringing in guilt, many of today’s white youth feel absolutely none at all, or dismiss the past as just so much distant, dusty history. White antiracists are constantly lamenting the LACK of so-called “white guilt.” Vast waves of reputed “white guilt” allegedly “crippling” white people, would be startling news to most black people. Wherefore are these weeping legions of white penitents?

    .
    the sheer magnitude of European contribution to world civilisation and culture has been slowly but surely whittled away in favour of liberal creations such as Black History month, not to mention the plethora of books, films and documentaries which are deliberately falsifying history.

    Not so. If anything the situation is exactly the opposite of what you describe. If anything publishers go out of their way to protect white sensibilities. Let’s take the US Civil War for example. Until well into the 1970s it has been presented in a distorted version via numerous standard textbooks and curricula- such as the claim that the Civil War had little to do with slavery, and indeed certain powerful right wing ideologues, such as the UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) inflicted their own version of “conservatively correct” history on the curriculum for generations. As one article notes elsewhere as to this distortion:

    “..for decades, publishers of school textbooks went out of their way not to offend delicate Southern sensibilities in their treatment of the Civil War. One longtime publishing executive told me that when he got into the business in the 1960s, it was common to see two different versions of school history textbooks—one for in the Deep South and one for everywhere else, “and the difference was how you treated the Civil War.” By the mid-twentieth century, even textbooks that did not repeat the UDC party line still tiptoed carefully through the minefield. Take this passage, for example, from a widely used 1943 high school history textbook, which depicts a slave-holding South of stately mansions and benevolent slave owners:

    “The confederates . . . believed they were fighting for the democratic principle of freedom to manage their own affairs, just as the thirteen colonies had fought in the Revolutionary War.” The same textbook describes the Ku Klux Klan as a group that “sometimes” resorted to violence in its effort to retake local governments from the hands of incompetent former slaves. A 1965 textbook used in Alabama public schools taught another key point of the lost cause creed—that slavery was a benign institution..

    Publishers don’t offer a special “Southern” version of history anymore; these days, they cater to individual state educational standards, though some states—like California and Texas—have a disproportionate national influence on what those standards are. The problem today, the former publishing executive told me, is that “with so many state standards, the books have become in the last ten years longer, blander, more visual, certainly—and more inclusive. There’s so much to cover.” The result is like light beer: better tasting, less filling. With no space to truth-squad a 150-year-old public relations campaign, today’s texts simply strive not to offend; they don’t perpetrate the lost cause myth, but they don’t do much to correct it, either..”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

    .
    Whites are increasingly being depicted as Johnny-come-latelies on the historical stage and are even being told that they are not indigenous to Europe!!

    Dubious. Can you cite any SPECIFIC examples in schools where this is so? If anything the reality is quite different. And in what sense are whites “indigenous” to Europe? Are you counting Neanderthals? Are you counting the modern humans that migrated out of Africa and settled in Europe? What? Who? Here’s what some looked like for example:

    http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3941/backflowblues.jpg

    Are you counting the people who also came from the Middle East to help form the ancient European gene pool in certain eras? At what point is “white” a “true” European category? Why are people in Europe thousands of years before “whites” appeared, NOT indigenous? Where are your specifics? Do you have anything credible to put on the table besides your own shaky personal opinion?

    .
    This all comes on the back of persistant demands by goverments to disarm all white people around the globe making us vulnerable and helpless in the face of racist attacks such as those which are carried out in Zimbawe and South Africa.

    Really now? Last I seen millions of white Americans proudly own and tote around their guns. Why, some even shoot up white elementary schools and movie theaters. And in Europe white gunmen like Anders Breivik shoot up summer camps filled with white youth (body count about 60) in their spare time. White South Africans are among the best armed people per capita in the world. Where exactly are these vast hordes of white people being denied their guns?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kat Grey
    White birthrates in Europe are down mainly due to the high level of youth unemployment: young people cannot afford to start familes until they are in theor late 20s and often 30s!! Homesexuality has nothing to do with anything; there have always been gays. The west has finally seen fit to grant them a modicum of human rights while the rest of the world lags behind. As is likely to do so for decades. Abortion does kill off a high number of white babies, however, the alternative would only send desperate girls to the backstreet abortionists and that would result in death or inability to reproduce. It's a case of Catch 22 really. You have overlooked the over-population scare in the 1970s when "experts" all predicted that we were having too many children which would cause a worldwide famine. As I recall vascectomies rose after that. My suggestion to increase the white birthrate among the western white working class is to raise the minmum wage and stip ALL Third World immigration.

    As far as white guilt and the minimalisation of white contributions to civilisation, all you have to do is pick up the Guardian newspaper or read the verbal trots spewed out by professors like Noel Ignatiev who has the sheer effrontery to claim we are nought but a "social construct". He should try that shit on the American Indians and see how far he gets!! Then there is Hollywood which first flung wide the doors to white self-abnegation when it aired the series Roots. In 1977 if memory serves me right. The only decent whites in this roiling cauldron of Caucasian castigation were those "crackahs" who pathetically abased themselves before the blacks. Affirmative Action is a major manifestation of white guilt which is used a a bullwhip to keep Scots-Irish whiteys in the fast food chains and Walmarts.

    I think most grammar school children know that white people are indigenous to Europe. There has been considerable input from the Middle East and Asia via the Mongol and Hun invasions but any left-winger who dares deny white people's history and ethnic roots in Europe are lying blackguards and scoundrels intent on undermining white identity. It will no longer work. We are hip to your tricks.

    Ah the Anders Breivik diversionary tactic. As if a Breviek goes on the rampage in Europe everyday. Enrique, you are basically cherry-picking people and random events as a means to maintain the liberal lie that whites are not being displaced and socially engineered out of existance due to mass immigration itansported in the bilge of multiculturalism and elitist self-interest embarrassingly disguised as humanitarianism.
    , @Gallo-Roman
    Kat Grey: "Whites are increasingly being depicted as Johnny-come-latelies on the historical stage and are even being told that they are not indigenous to Europe!!"

    EC: Dubious. Can you cite any SPECIFIC examples in schools where this is so? If anything the reality is quite different.

    Very amusing. You deny that any such thing is being promoted, and then immediately proceed to promote it yourself...

    And in what sense are whites “indigenous” to Europe?

    ...with a lot of hand-waving gobbledegook where you pretend to believe that people are using "white" in some eternal essentialist sense based on skin color, rather than as shorthand for an identifiable genetic and cultural grouping.

    I've noticed that anti-whites have a habit of playing dumb and throwing around the straw man of skin color when they get called on their nonsense. Though, to be fair, some of them really are that dumb. So maybe I'm being unfair here and you're an honest guy, just in over his head. If so, let me gently point out the unlikelihood that anybody here is either unaware of or in denial about the existence of those people "who also came from the Middle East to help form the ancient European gene pool in certain eras". Their contributions form part of the genome of indigenous Europeans, who do, as a matter of fact, exist. We know who they are, and we can identify them and distinguish them from people who are not Europeans. We can do this with other groups of humans, too, all over the world, whom we call "indigenous" even though they, too, come from lineages that can be traced back to other places, and ultimately to Africa, just like Europeans. So don't let the word "indigenous" confuse you. It doesn't mean "autochthonous".

    EC: Are you counting Neanderthals?

    Speaking of Neandertals, I recently saw, in a museum in France, a fine example of what Kat is talking about. Now, French museums, at least those of my experience, tend to be less dumbed-down and lacquered with social-engineering propaganda, than American ones. But in this case some busy little apparatchik had managed to debase standards and inject some ham-handed "no such thing as a native European" propaganda into a corner of an otherwise decent Neandertal exhibit. Visitors were breathlessly informed that Neandertals were the only real Europeans , so no real Europeans existed anymore, and all modern populations in Europe are descended from immigrants from the Middle East.

    No, not "partially descended". No, no further information, historical or genetic, provided or expanded upon, to ameliorate the shameless misinformation-by-omission. Lol: "Here, let me subtly insinuate into your brain with a sledgehammer this railroad spike of correct perspective on contemporary mass immigration." So much for Gallic subtlety.
  39. The author goes to great lengths to state that he is anti “antirascism” – clearly this means that he is “proracism.” He states that he is proracism for intellectual rational reasons. Is this true?

    Given the very ugliness and bloodiness of tribalism and racism in human history – would it not be rational for him to deny being a “racist” as the rest of us understand “racism” to be? Should he not state categorically that he is anti Jim Crow, and anti segregation, and pro equal opportunity?

    I too believe that there are genetic differences in different groups of people from different geographic locations. But I do not call myself a racist – I call myself a geneticist.

    What is the author’s reason for insisting on being anti “antirascism” – when justifying “racism” is so deleterious to the whole of humanity.

    The Hippocratic oath says “do no harm” – isn’t the author doing back door harm with his word play?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Given the very ugliness and bloodiness of tribalism and racism in human history"

    Really?

    Tribalists tended to mind their own business. It was the universalists who tended to invade and rub out other cultures.

    Roman universalists. Christian universalists. Islamic universalists. Communist universalists. They conquered and invaded all over the world.

    Anti-imperialist movements were tribal in nature. GET OFF OUR LAND. IT BELONGS TO US.

    Imperialism destroyed the tribal sovereignty of peoples.
    , @Curle

    Given the very ugliness and bloodiness of tribalism and racism in human history – would it not be rational for him to deny being a “racist” as the rest of us understand “racism” to be?
     
    I believe the author would challenge your assumption (indoctrination based perhaps) that tribalism, and thus racism, has only a bloody or ugly side. To the extent it enables some groups whose collective behavior is more civilized than other groups to retain a group identity and thus retain more civilized behavioral norms might be easily argued as a manifestly good effect. In other words, that the good coming from tribalism outweighs the bad on the whole.
  40. @Enrique Cardova
    Joe Webb says:
    Our usual answer for why Liberalism is so strong is White Altruism. That is certainly there. Maybe we should consider another genetically driven psychological operation. That would be juvenile dependence on peers, the earlier juvenile dependence on parents having been outgrown.

    Actually the reason liberalism is so strong is not so much white altruism, but mostly white SELF-INTEREST. Liberalism would not be in business unless it add value for white people. Liberalism has helped white elf-interest in the following ways:

    .
    1) Liberalism helped ease white American embarrassment during the Cold War. As credible scholars show, (Dudziak 2011-Cold War Civil Rights) calls for less raacism and greater tolerance were an integral part of the US winning the Cold War against stinging Soviet propaganda thrusts on America's racial hypocrisy- purporting to be fighting for democracy abroad, when it refused to guarantee democracy at home for those citizens who happened to be black. This is why even conservatives like Ike ordered his Little Rock Desegregation actions and other civil rights measures of his admin to be broadcast in numerous languages on Voice Of America and other international PR organs. Ike took such pains with a mere internal American matter in response to often accurate Soviet reports of American hypocrisy, demonstrating that white America was attempting to clean up its own house.

    .
    2) Liberalism helps white America look good, and conceal or obscure its dirty linen. White America has also benefited psychologically by the concealment of its dirty linen. White America always wants to look good, to not be seen as the open, snarling racist beast that was white Nazism. Minimal effort on civil rights (how big of a concession was it really to let some black guy eat a hamburger 2 tables down?) demonstrated "something was being done" but as Ike himself pointed out- such actions would not affect "the hearts of minds" of white people. Ike was right in part. White America's "hearts and minds" may be far from changed. It had to clean up certain OPEN abuses to maintain its self-image of virtue, but deep down plenty of old hatreds remain. This does not mean that positive change has not happened- it has.


    .
    3) Liberalism helps whites maintain white hegemony and cover their biases using "soft" means, that pacify the cullluds and white dissenters. White America, has become very good or increasingly skilled at covering its racism, and still pursues self-serving outcomes using what appears to be neutral, non-racist methods. Thus real estate agents for decades no longer posted openly racist ads, but would quietly steer "undesirable" minorities to lesser property. White city councils would no longer send forth police to attack negroes who failed to leave "sundown towns" at night, but became more sophisticated- keeping them out by a subtle web of zoning controls and regulations that reduced the supply of housing (minimum lot sizes, rent controls etc). If you make things costly enough, minorities who tend on average to be less able to afford these costs decrease- meaning less culluds in certain whiter neighborhoods and schools. All of these are seemingly neutral things, but their end result is to boost white hegemony. If liberalism had failed to produce this outcome, it would be out of business a long time ago.

    .
    4) Liberalism helps certain segments of white people more than others- but in any event, its still white people overall gaining. Support for black civil rights for example helps white Jews. When restrictive covenants locking certain "undesirable groups" out of certain neighborhoods were struck down or voided for example, Jews benefited because such covenants ALSO locked out Jews, regardless of their affluence. In cases such as US versus Lake Lucerne for example, the covenants in questions banned BOTH Jews and blacks. Naturally more affluent Jews would be able to take advantage of the housing opened up, and the nice thing is, nobody can tell at a glance if you are Jewish or not. You appear white, so that's all right. Blacks never had that luxury. While many things are presented as if they are geared towards "helping the culluds" - the primary gainers are white.


    .
    6) Liberalism helps pacify, fob off or co-opt the culluds with token gestures, while the real resources remain in white hands. Hence a few Black History Month activities where Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver and other hoary staples are celebrated, or kids in elementary school make pinatas in celebration of “diversity” are relatively harmless things that keep the culluds relatively quiet and happy- "beads for the natives." Liberals can say- see we are all not sneering racists or bigots – we are including y’all in the great rainbow or smelting pot or whatever. Its a lot more efficient “management strategy” and less stressful for white people than a continual campaign of black or brown bashing, which provokes fierce push-back and counter-reaction. The "tokenism" strategy has also worked in discrimination conflicts - where court cases can be settled with via small concessions, tokenism and muted consent agreements, that prevents larger scrutiny of the white edifice of cronyism and favoritism.

    .
    5. Liberalism helps White people get paid. Conservative libertarians like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have long pointed out such patterns and their works are studded with examples. How do liberals help white people get paid? Integration in the 1960s and 1970s provides some examples. Liberals ensured that white people:

    (a) got huge amounts of federal money to ease along better facilities for blacks,
    (b) the money could be and was diverted to improve white facilities as well -more so when the old black ones were destroyed,
    (c) white people got more jobs as the black teachers and administrators were displaced,
    (d) white people gained even more jobs as white bureaucrats- soaking up the fed money being put into social programs,
    (e) whites profited from social policy like “affirmative action” that actually made whites its biggest beneficiaries (white women, in particular),
    (f) the end of legalized Jim Crow opened up numerous profitable transactions for whites with blacks
    (g) whites gained in profitable real estate transactions as older housing stock in formerly “reserved” white communities could be unloaded on “the coloreds”.
    (h) white politicians gained politically by freeing up the black vote


    .
    6) Liberals help white people by saying things are to help the culluds, when in reality, the primary beneficiaries are other white people. While many rail against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they conveniently skip over the fact that it covers white women as well, who numerically have been the biggest beneficiaries. The suppression of discrimination based on gender was a huge boon for whites- helping in everything from equal pay for the same work and hours, more opportunities at all levels of the workforce, to more consistent application of laws. To a smaller extent later things such as AA quotas also have benefited white women particularly in government jobs or jobs covered by government contracts. The primary beneficiaries, are again, white. This strategy has another bonus- it makes white people look extra good. See we have a few things in place to help the culluds, and um, by the way, we are the main beneficiaries. Smile...

    Liberalism helped ease white American embarrassment during the Cold War.

    Embarrassed in front of who? White people.

    Liberalism helps white America look good, and conceal or obscure its dirty linen.

    Look good to who? White people. Dirty according to whose morals? White peoples.

    Liberalism helps whites maintain white hegemony and cover their biases using “soft” means, that pacify the cullluds and white dissenters.

    Why would they need to cover their biases? Because they have convinced themselves and others that it is sinful for them to be biased in favour of whites.

    According to you, “Liberalism” aids white hegemony by first making favouring white hegemony a sin, and then covertly abetting it. If whites wanted to promote white hegemony they would just promote white hegemony overtly. There is nothing to stop them, except their own hijacked sense of altruism.

    Read More
  41. @Enrique Cardova
    Kat grey says:

    I would like to see the features of my offspring in the faces of my future grandchildren not those of an alien race.
    Sure, and no one is grudging you that. Be all you can be- and if you want more white kids- more power to you. Assorted Muslims or "immigrants" aren't roaming the suburbs preventing white people from reproducing. The ball is entirely in the white court. What is preventing more white babies are things like : (a)white disparagement or downgrading of the traditional family- seen in such things as the embrace of homosexuality and "gay" marriage, (b)failure of white women to marry and reproduce enough in early adult years, and (c) huge white rates of abortion that are killing off the millions of cute white babies of the next generation White Russia for example kills 2 white babies for each one born. Why aren't white "role models" getting their house in order, given the fact of declining white demographics?


    .
    The media and schools have been poisoning the minds and souls of white youth by making them feel guilty for historical events that happened long before they were born and as such out of the realm of their control and responsibility.

    Not really. Actually the media has in many ways made white youth feel very good about themselves. In fact historical events ARE PRECISELY portrayed as SO LONG, LONG AGO, said white youth need not worry about them. This is a primary complaint by many white antiracists. See Edward Bonilla-Silva for example- on the "dismissal tactic" so often employed. Far from cringing in guilt, many of today's white youth feel absolutely none at all, or dismiss the past as just so much distant, dusty history. White antiracists are constantly lamenting the LACK of so-called "white guilt." Vast waves of reputed "white guilt" allegedly "crippling" white people, would be startling news to most black people. Wherefore are these weeping legions of white penitents?


    .
    the sheer magnitude of European contribution to world civilisation and culture has been slowly but surely whittled away in favour of liberal creations such as Black History month, not to mention the plethora of books, films and documentaries which are deliberately falsifying history.

    Not so. If anything the situation is exactly the opposite of what you describe. If anything publishers go out of their way to protect white sensibilities. Let's take the US Civil War for example. Until well into the 1970s it has been presented in a distorted version via numerous standard textbooks and curricula- such as the claim that the Civil War had little to do with slavery, and indeed certain powerful right wing ideologues, such as the UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) inflicted their own version of "conservatively correct" history on the curriculum for generations. As one article notes elsewhere as to this distortion:


    "..for decades, publishers of school textbooks went out of their way not to offend delicate Southern sensibilities in their treatment of the Civil War. One longtime publishing executive told me that when he got into the business in the 1960s, it was common to see two different versions of school history textbooks—one for in the Deep South and one for everywhere else, “and the difference was how you treated the Civil War.” By the mid-twentieth century, even textbooks that did not repeat the UDC party line still tiptoed carefully through the minefield. Take this passage, for example, from a widely used 1943 high school history textbook, which depicts a slave-holding South of stately mansions and benevolent slave owners:

    “The confederates . . . believed they were fighting for the democratic principle of freedom to manage their own affairs, just as the thirteen colonies had fought in the Revolutionary War.” The same textbook describes the Ku Klux Klan as a group that “sometimes” resorted to violence in its effort to retake local governments from the hands of incompetent former slaves. A 1965 textbook used in Alabama public schools taught another key point of the lost cause creed—that slavery was a benign institution..

    Publishers don’t offer a special “Southern” version of history anymore; these days, they cater to individual state educational standards, though some states—like California and Texas—have a disproportionate national influence on what those standards are. The problem today, the former publishing executive told me, is that “with so many state standards, the books have become in the last ten years longer, blander, more visual, certainly—and more inclusive. There’s so much to cover.” The result is like light beer: better tasting, less filling. With no space to truth-squad a 150-year-old public relations campaign, today’s texts simply strive not to offend; they don’t perpetrate the lost cause myth, but they don’t do much to correct it, either.."

    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

     

    .
    Whites are increasingly being depicted as Johnny-come-latelies on the historical stage and are even being told that they are not indigenous to Europe!!

    Dubious. Can you cite any SPECIFIC examples in schools where this is so? If anything the reality is quite different. And in what sense are whites "indigenous" to Europe? Are you counting Neanderthals? Are you counting the modern humans that migrated out of Africa and settled in Europe? What? Who? Here's what some looked like for example:

    http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3941/backflowblues.jpg

    Are you counting the people who also came from the Middle East to help form the ancient European gene pool in certain eras? At what point is "white" a "true" European category? Why are people in Europe thousands of years before "whites" appeared, NOT indigenous? Where are your specifics? Do you have anything credible to put on the table besides your own shaky personal opinion?


    .
    This all comes on the back of persistant demands by goverments to disarm all white people around the globe making us vulnerable and helpless in the face of racist attacks such as those which are carried out in Zimbawe and South Africa.

    Really now? Last I seen millions of white Americans proudly own and tote around their guns. Why, some even shoot up white elementary schools and movie theaters. And in Europe white gunmen like Anders Breivik shoot up summer camps filled with white youth (body count about 60) in their spare time. White South Africans are among the best armed people per capita in the world. Where exactly are these vast hordes of white people being denied their guns?

    White birthrates in Europe are down mainly due to the high level of youth unemployment: young people cannot afford to start familes until they are in theor late 20s and often 30s!! Homesexuality has nothing to do with anything; there have always been gays. The west has finally seen fit to grant them a modicum of human rights while the rest of the world lags behind. As is likely to do so for decades. Abortion does kill off a high number of white babies, however, the alternative would only send desperate girls to the backstreet abortionists and that would result in death or inability to reproduce. It’s a case of Catch 22 really. You have overlooked the over-population scare in the 1970s when “experts” all predicted that we were having too many children which would cause a worldwide famine. As I recall vascectomies rose after that. My suggestion to increase the white birthrate among the western white working class is to raise the minmum wage and stip ALL Third World immigration.

    As far as white guilt and the minimalisation of white contributions to civilisation, all you have to do is pick up the Guardian newspaper or read the verbal trots spewed out by professors like Noel Ignatiev who has the sheer effrontery to claim we are nought but a “social construct”. He should try that shit on the American Indians and see how far he gets!! Then there is Hollywood which first flung wide the doors to white self-abnegation when it aired the series Roots. In 1977 if memory serves me right. The only decent whites in this roiling cauldron of Caucasian castigation were those “crackahs” who pathetically abased themselves before the blacks. Affirmative Action is a major manifestation of white guilt which is used a a bullwhip to keep Scots-Irish whiteys in the fast food chains and Walmarts.

    I think most grammar school children know that white people are indigenous to Europe. There has been considerable input from the Middle East and Asia via the Mongol and Hun invasions but any left-winger who dares deny white people’s history and ethnic roots in Europe are lying blackguards and scoundrels intent on undermining white identity. It will no longer work. We are hip to your tricks.

    Ah the Anders Breivik diversionary tactic. As if a Breviek goes on the rampage in Europe everyday. Enrique, you are basically cherry-picking people and random events as a means to maintain the liberal lie that whites are not being displaced and socially engineered out of existance due to mass immigration itansported in the bilge of multiculturalism and elitist self-interest embarrassingly disguised as humanitarianism.

    Read More
  42. History could have played out differently. Initially a tool in the struggle against Nazi Germany, antiracism became critically dependent on a postwar context of decolonization and Cold War rivalry. Without this favorable context, it would have had much more trouble seizing the moral high ground and locking down normal discourse. Its revival would have likely stalled at some point.

    The first war against a militaristic Germany didn’t have that effect though, it was if anything quite the opposite. But what was energised by WW1 was women’s suffrage. After 1920s half of the white population was given the right to vote, and that may have altered politics somewhat.

    If it springs from Europeans’ past genetic selection for pacification, cooperation, empathy and altruism, then antiracism may always have been unstoppable in the long run. Slow but sure at first, but with increasingly runaway results.

    Read More
  43. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Art
    The author goes to great lengths to state that he is anti “antirascism” – clearly this means that he is “proracism.” He states that he is proracism for intellectual rational reasons. Is this true?

    Given the very ugliness and bloodiness of tribalism and racism in human history – would it not be rational for him to deny being a “racist” as the rest of us understand “racism” to be? Should he not state categorically that he is anti Jim Crow, and anti segregation, and pro equal opportunity?

    I too believe that there are genetic differences in different groups of people from different geographic locations. But I do not call myself a racist – I call myself a geneticist.

    What is the author’s reason for insisting on being anti “antirascism” - when justifying “racism” is so deleterious to the whole of humanity.

    The Hippocratic oath says “do no harm” – isn't the author doing back door harm with his word play?

    “Given the very ugliness and bloodiness of tribalism and racism in human history”

    Really?

    Tribalists tended to mind their own business. It was the universalists who tended to invade and rub out other cultures.

    Roman universalists. Christian universalists. Islamic universalists. Communist universalists. They conquered and invaded all over the world.

    Anti-imperialist movements were tribal in nature. GET OFF OUR LAND. IT BELONGS TO US.

    Imperialism destroyed the tribal sovereignty of peoples.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    “Tribalists tended to mind their own business. It was the universalists who tended to invade and rub out other cultures.”

    How about 150,000,000 who died at the hands of governments in the last century. Tell us that those who actually did the killing and dying where not doing it for their tribal governments. Going off to die, feeds on our own personal tribal psychological feelings to protect those who are local to us. We humans are suckers for the war flag.

    Those “universalists” of yours all are seeking to maintain power of their own tribal governments. It is true that powerful tribes take over small tribes – they just become larger tribes. “Universalists” make even bigger tribes.

    Biological “tribalism” is humanities greatest millstone.
  44. @Enrique Cardova
    Kat grey says:

    I would like to see the features of my offspring in the faces of my future grandchildren not those of an alien race.
    Sure, and no one is grudging you that. Be all you can be- and if you want more white kids- more power to you. Assorted Muslims or "immigrants" aren't roaming the suburbs preventing white people from reproducing. The ball is entirely in the white court. What is preventing more white babies are things like : (a)white disparagement or downgrading of the traditional family- seen in such things as the embrace of homosexuality and "gay" marriage, (b)failure of white women to marry and reproduce enough in early adult years, and (c) huge white rates of abortion that are killing off the millions of cute white babies of the next generation White Russia for example kills 2 white babies for each one born. Why aren't white "role models" getting their house in order, given the fact of declining white demographics?


    .
    The media and schools have been poisoning the minds and souls of white youth by making them feel guilty for historical events that happened long before they were born and as such out of the realm of their control and responsibility.

    Not really. Actually the media has in many ways made white youth feel very good about themselves. In fact historical events ARE PRECISELY portrayed as SO LONG, LONG AGO, said white youth need not worry about them. This is a primary complaint by many white antiracists. See Edward Bonilla-Silva for example- on the "dismissal tactic" so often employed. Far from cringing in guilt, many of today's white youth feel absolutely none at all, or dismiss the past as just so much distant, dusty history. White antiracists are constantly lamenting the LACK of so-called "white guilt." Vast waves of reputed "white guilt" allegedly "crippling" white people, would be startling news to most black people. Wherefore are these weeping legions of white penitents?


    .
    the sheer magnitude of European contribution to world civilisation and culture has been slowly but surely whittled away in favour of liberal creations such as Black History month, not to mention the plethora of books, films and documentaries which are deliberately falsifying history.

    Not so. If anything the situation is exactly the opposite of what you describe. If anything publishers go out of their way to protect white sensibilities. Let's take the US Civil War for example. Until well into the 1970s it has been presented in a distorted version via numerous standard textbooks and curricula- such as the claim that the Civil War had little to do with slavery, and indeed certain powerful right wing ideologues, such as the UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) inflicted their own version of "conservatively correct" history on the curriculum for generations. As one article notes elsewhere as to this distortion:


    "..for decades, publishers of school textbooks went out of their way not to offend delicate Southern sensibilities in their treatment of the Civil War. One longtime publishing executive told me that when he got into the business in the 1960s, it was common to see two different versions of school history textbooks—one for in the Deep South and one for everywhere else, “and the difference was how you treated the Civil War.” By the mid-twentieth century, even textbooks that did not repeat the UDC party line still tiptoed carefully through the minefield. Take this passage, for example, from a widely used 1943 high school history textbook, which depicts a slave-holding South of stately mansions and benevolent slave owners:

    “The confederates . . . believed they were fighting for the democratic principle of freedom to manage their own affairs, just as the thirteen colonies had fought in the Revolutionary War.” The same textbook describes the Ku Klux Klan as a group that “sometimes” resorted to violence in its effort to retake local governments from the hands of incompetent former slaves. A 1965 textbook used in Alabama public schools taught another key point of the lost cause creed—that slavery was a benign institution..

    Publishers don’t offer a special “Southern” version of history anymore; these days, they cater to individual state educational standards, though some states—like California and Texas—have a disproportionate national influence on what those standards are. The problem today, the former publishing executive told me, is that “with so many state standards, the books have become in the last ten years longer, blander, more visual, certainly—and more inclusive. There’s so much to cover.” The result is like light beer: better tasting, less filling. With no space to truth-squad a 150-year-old public relations campaign, today’s texts simply strive not to offend; they don’t perpetrate the lost cause myth, but they don’t do much to correct it, either.."

    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

     

    .
    Whites are increasingly being depicted as Johnny-come-latelies on the historical stage and are even being told that they are not indigenous to Europe!!

    Dubious. Can you cite any SPECIFIC examples in schools where this is so? If anything the reality is quite different. And in what sense are whites "indigenous" to Europe? Are you counting Neanderthals? Are you counting the modern humans that migrated out of Africa and settled in Europe? What? Who? Here's what some looked like for example:

    http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3941/backflowblues.jpg

    Are you counting the people who also came from the Middle East to help form the ancient European gene pool in certain eras? At what point is "white" a "true" European category? Why are people in Europe thousands of years before "whites" appeared, NOT indigenous? Where are your specifics? Do you have anything credible to put on the table besides your own shaky personal opinion?


    .
    This all comes on the back of persistant demands by goverments to disarm all white people around the globe making us vulnerable and helpless in the face of racist attacks such as those which are carried out in Zimbawe and South Africa.

    Really now? Last I seen millions of white Americans proudly own and tote around their guns. Why, some even shoot up white elementary schools and movie theaters. And in Europe white gunmen like Anders Breivik shoot up summer camps filled with white youth (body count about 60) in their spare time. White South Africans are among the best armed people per capita in the world. Where exactly are these vast hordes of white people being denied their guns?

    Kat Grey: “Whites are increasingly being depicted as Johnny-come-latelies on the historical stage and are even being told that they are not indigenous to Europe!!”

    EC: Dubious. Can you cite any SPECIFIC examples in schools where this is so? If anything the reality is quite different.

    Very amusing. You deny that any such thing is being promoted, and then immediately proceed to promote it yourself…

    And in what sense are whites “indigenous” to Europe?

    …with a lot of hand-waving gobbledegook where you pretend to believe that people are using “white” in some eternal essentialist sense based on skin color, rather than as shorthand for an identifiable genetic and cultural grouping.

    I’ve noticed that anti-whites have a habit of playing dumb and throwing around the straw man of skin color when they get called on their nonsense. Though, to be fair, some of them really are that dumb. So maybe I’m being unfair here and you’re an honest guy, just in over his head. If so, let me gently point out the unlikelihood that anybody here is either unaware of or in denial about the existence of those people “who also came from the Middle East to help form the ancient European gene pool in certain eras”. Their contributions form part of the genome of indigenous Europeans, who do, as a matter of fact, exist. We know who they are, and we can identify them and distinguish them from people who are not Europeans. We can do this with other groups of humans, too, all over the world, whom we call “indigenous” even though they, too, come from lineages that can be traced back to other places, and ultimately to Africa, just like Europeans. So don’t let the word “indigenous” confuse you. It doesn’t mean “autochthonous”.

    EC: Are you counting Neanderthals?

    Speaking of Neandertals, I recently saw, in a museum in France, a fine example of what Kat is talking about. Now, French museums, at least those of my experience, tend to be less dumbed-down and lacquered with social-engineering propaganda, than American ones. But in this case some busy little apparatchik had managed to debase standards and inject some ham-handed “no such thing as a native European” propaganda into a corner of an otherwise decent Neandertal exhibit. Visitors were breathlessly informed that Neandertals were the only real Europeans , so no real Europeans existed anymore, and all modern populations in Europe are descended from immigrants from the Middle East.

    No, not “partially descended”. No, no further information, historical or genetic, provided or expanded upon, to ameliorate the shameless misinformation-by-omission. Lol: “Here, let me subtly insinuate into your brain with a sledgehammer this railroad spike of correct perspective on contemporary mass immigration.” So much for Gallic subtlety.

    Read More
  45. Harold says:
    Embarrassed in front of who? White people.
    Yes, and not only white people but others as well. You see white people asserted certain moral and ethical claims, as the foundation of their various cultures, and as justification for certain actions. Well these claims were measured against actual white behavior, and the results embarrassed white Americans. US claims to be a democratic leader for example were measured against its denial of 10% of the population the vote, depending on the state, and era. The results were embarrassing for a country that billed itself as the top democracy of all. So were white Amricans embarrassed in front of other white people, both at home and abroad? Sure.

    .
    Why would they need to cover their biases? Because they have convinced themselves and others that it is sinful for them to be biased in favour of whites.
    It was more a matter of the contradictions and hypocrisy exposed, when various claims were measured against actual white behavior. For example certain guarantees of the US Constitution were found to be meaningless when actual white compliance with them was examined. Certain bold statements regarding “free markets” were found rather thin gruel, again, when measured against actual white behavior. And some of that behavior was quite sinful, which is/was why it had/has to be covered. Consider the murder of black railroad employees by white union thugs so whites could take over their jobs, for example, as discussed by US President Harry Truman below. Truman sought no “altruism” – but to do the right thing- quite different concepts. And he was prepared to pay the price to do the right thing.

    http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/150/blackworkersmurderedtru.jpg

    .
    If whites wanted to promote white hegemony they would just promote white hegemony overtly. There is nothing to stop them, except their own hijacked sense of altruism.
    Actually there is plenty of reason to do it covertly, as the Truman example shows above, and many other examples. And World War II exposed the contradictions and hypocrises of white racism as never before. Even the Nazis tried somewhat to cover their tracks and conceal the full extent of their racist actions- from writing up bogus reports to justify the mass murder of Jewish children as “anti-partisan operations”, to the ultimate in cover schemes-the crematoriums and mass graves of the Shoah, designed to make “the Jewish problem” “disappear.”

    And you seem to think simply doing what is right is a form of “altruism” and thus something for weaklings. This type of reasoning was integral to Nazi thinking- common decency, and right moral sensibilities were dismissed as something for weaklings, for “soft” people. Time and time again people were persuaded to ignore common moral foundations of decency in the name of “racial purity.” This they did quite overtly. The outcome was systematic mass murder on a scale unseen in human history. Ordinary accounts, cooks, butchers, etc killed and killed zealously and willingly, even when given the chance to opt out- – thus proving they were not “altruistic weaklings.”

    And you seem to equate exercising one’s constitutional rights with “altruism.” But such rights are not a favor granted by the government- they are rights that derive FROM the people. Government is no “altruistic” giver of rights- like some king in England handing down indulgences to the peasants. That’s now how the US constitution works. Fair-minded whites who sought to ensure that blacks got a fair chance to exercise their Constitutional rights were not engaging in any “altruistic” exercise. They were helping to remove unjust barriers erected by other whites to hinder or destroy the exercise of those rights. That is no “altruistic giveaway” at all. That is exercising what people are already guaranteed under the Constitution. The only “hijacking” going on is by those who unjustly sandbagged, blockaded and even murdered people to bar them from their rights.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kat Grey
    Enrique, um, er, it was not kings, in England or elswhere, who handed down indulgences but rather the Catholic Church. Martin Luther was quite indignant over this practice.
    , @Harold
    If whites abandoned anti-racism, their biases would no longer embarrass them. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that whites benefit from anti-racism because it allows them to cover their biases. If whites abandoned anti-racism there would be no hypocrisy with regards to their behaviour. Therefore, it makes no sense to say whites benefit from anti-racism because it allows them to appear unhypocritical. See?
  46. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/05/16/asian-american-groups-accuse-harvard-of-racial-bias-in-admissions/27438565/

    This got me thinking about the difference between Jews(and white Hispanics) and Asians, especially East Asians.

    East Asians are suckassers who wanna be white or white-like. So much so that they are taking on white-like attitudes. Even though Asian nations are not white and were Third World-ish not long ago, Asian nations wanna be seen as being on par with European nations.

    Economically, this is a good thing. But in terms of political outlook, it’s a disadvantage because the nature of white mentality has changed. During the Age of Empire, to be white-like meant to be proud, aggressive, domineering, and confident. So, when Japan sought to be white-like 100 yrs ago, it meant nationalism, imperialism, and even a bit of ‘racism’. So, to be white-like 100 yrs ago meant being proud and aggressive.

    Today, white nations are still economically aggressive but politically and morally on the defensive. They bleat, “We are sooooo sorry for all our historical sins, ‘racism’, ‘white privilege’, and blah blah blah.”

    So, if rich Asian nations and Asian-Americans try to politically/ideologically emulate the outlooks of whites today, it means they too must think in terms of “what do we owe to OTHER peoples/races?” instead of “what are OUR interests and what do OTHERS owe to us?”

    Instead of developing yellow pride(East Asian) or curry-brown pride(Hindu), yellow/brown pride turns into an ersatz form of ‘white guilt’.

    So, the politically savvy thing for non-whites to do is to ECONOMICALLY emulate the successful whites but politically/ideologically emulate the outlook of Third World and People of Color, i.e. play the victim.

    And this is where Jews and white Hispanics have been far more adept than Asians have been, especially the yellow East Asians. Jews and white Hispanics are clearly more white than any Asian, Chinese or Indian. And Jews and white Hispanics played a prominent role in imperialism, conquest, slavery, and even ‘genocide’ in the New World. So, they should share in the ‘white guilt’.

    But Jews act as though the Holocaust cleansed them of all ‘historical sins’. And white Hispanics argue that even one drop of non-white blood makes them ‘people of color’. So, if some Cuban guy is 99% white and 1% black, he still counts as person of color. If some Mexican guy is 90% white and 10% Indio, he’s a person of color. And even if he’s totally 100% white, he politically counts as a person of color because of his people’s ‘victimization’ by yanquis or gringos. Yanqui Imperialism supposedly cleansed all ‘historical sins’ from white Hispanic hands.

    So, even as Jews and white Hispanics economically emulate whites — and in the case of Jews, have far surpassed whites — , they politically and ideologically emulate the outlook of the Third World, the People of Color, the ‘diversity’ crowd. (Turkish whites do the same thing, the sly lowlife bastards.)

    I think Asian-Americans, in their slavishness toward whiteness, failed to do this up until recently. Though there’s been some lip-service about yellow power or Asian unity, the fact is most Asians wanna be white. Look at Asian-Indians and their skin cream to look lighter. Indeed, discrimination against darkies is common in India. For all their PC yammering, it’s difficult to think of a more racially/ethnically conscious and hierarchical society than Hindu Indian. No wonder Islam had such appeal to lots of Indians who felt oppressed or constricted by the racial rules of Hinduism(that somehow coincided with British Imperialist ideas about class and race). Or consider what Amy Chua said of Ivy League schools. Though there’s plenty of Chinese males and Chinese females at places like Harvard and Yale, the Chinese-American girls want their wombs stuffed with white or Jewish semen. They might as well wear undies with the sign ‘Chinese Male Exclusion Act’ or hang a sign on their bedroom doors ‘No Dogs and Chinese Males Allowed’–or ‘Asian women are a story of the bravery of love, with 6’4 white guys or Jewish guys with the meaters’. And there’s plastic surgery galore in Asia, and Japanese grow to comics and cartoons where everyone looks white-like.

    Asians have been trying to be white-like in everything, and not only economically but in terms of political outlook and ideology. This has led to Asian-Americans taking on white outlook on social morality. Since whites, as successful and wealthy people, are supposed to feel obligated to take care of OTHER peoples, Asians feel that they should emulate the white way–and even take on particular ‘white guilt’ issues, i.e. since whites feel guilty about blacks, Asians should too even though Asians never oppressed blacks(and even though many Asians have been attacked by black thuggery and crime). Asians feel that, instead of bitching about their own victimhood and etc, they should play the magnanimous role as successful people who should care about OTHER peoples. If whites are in ‘white guilt’ mode, Asians must emulate whites and feel defensive about their own ‘yellow privilege’ as the OTHER ‘white privilege’.

    But Asians are figuring out that this is a huge disadvantage to them. Also, Asians cling to academics since they got nothing else going for them. Unless Asians make it in school, their uncoolness factor in all other areas turn them into social zeros. This is especially true of Asian males who, without money, are nothing in the sexual marketplace.

    So, I think we are seeing a kind of shift in recent Asian assertiveness in their lawsuit against Harvard and etc.

    They are beginning to emulate Jews and white Hispanics than white gentile America(but ironically, Jews and white Hispanics, though white themselves, are trying to deny such political outlook to Asians. Jews and white Hispanics reject the burden of ‘white guilt’ themselves, but they want it to apply to Asians who are advised to just shut up and accept academic discrimination.)

    Jews and white Hispanics want economic success but also political sense of ‘victimhood’.

    And which group has played this better than the Jews? They have so much wealth and power but still act like victims of discrimination. Even Jewish billionaires retell the story endlessly about how their grandfather wasn’t admitted to some lousy Wasp country golfing club.

    Or consider the TV show MADMEN that would have us believe that US is a Nazi nation.

    I think part of the Jewish anger/envy/resentment is aesthetic. If the Jewish envy/resentment had only been economic, it would have weakened by now. As Jews would have gained more money, they might have stopped feeling so ‘oppressed’ and bitter. But aesthetic differences remain. Jews envy the way Wasps look. It’s like the envy that Albert Brooks feels for the better-looking William Hurt character in BROADCAST NEWS.

    So, even as Jews took over advertising, Jewish men are still bitter that the Wasp Look is the better sell than the Jewish Look. Jews got the industry but whites/wasps still dominate the Image. Jewish men envy white male looks, and they lust after white female looks; and Jewish women envy white female looks.

    Madmen Tv show is more about the power of the look and style than the power of power. No matter how rich or successful, the ugly guys FEEL weaker vis-a-vis the better-looking guy.

    Even as Jews loathe Nazism and its cult of ‘Aryan’ beauty, Jews themselves are addicted to this particular cult of beauty. Jews may own advertising but Wasps still own the image that people want. It’s like Donald Sterling owned the LA Clippers but the cult of prowess was owned by black athletes who made him look foolish by hanging with his girlfriend. Despite all his wealth and privilege, Sterling was bitter.

    Anyway, Jews have this way of economically emulating and surpassing whites BUT carrying like Third World victims of ‘white privilege’.

    For a long time, Asians and Asian-Americans, in their slavish worship of all-things-white, tried to emulate not only white economics but white politics/ideology. But if Asian nations emulate the political attitudes of European nations, they won’t be on the moral offensive(we are victims and the world owes us!) but on the moral defensive(we are victors and we must take care of the world); is it any wonder that Japan and Korea are trying so hard to be Politically Correct to win plaudits as the ‘other white nations’? They are suckass nations that try to be honorary European nations or America.

    In contrast, Jews in Israel and white Hispanics adamantly stick with the “we are Third World victims of the white First World” narrative.

    And we can see this in Geller, Sheldon Adelson, Abe Foxman, Benjamin Netanhayu, and etc.

    Read More
  47. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I think the issue of ‘racism’ is secondary to the issue of ‘who, whom’.
    The problem of Nazism and Holocaust was that the victims were Jewish.
    Suppose Nazis had been friendly toward Jews, protected Jews, and etc. and instead carried out the Holocaust against Bulgarians.

    Would it have been a big deal? The Jewish Holocaust was a big deal because Jews have held immense power and have come to hold even greater power.

    Consider the issue of the Armenian genocide or ‘Armenian genocide’. If indeed we are so anti-’racist’ and so sensitive about issues of genocide, how come Israel sides with Turkey? How come Obama won’t use the G-word? How come Jewish-Americans don’t pressure him to go there? How come there is no outrage among white Americans over American administration to call it ‘genocide’?

    And consider the issue of Nakba and the oppression of Palestinians. If indeed Jews and white Americans have become so anti-’racist’, why has America, even Liberal America, been so much more pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli than pro-Palestinian even though Palestinians have been oppressed much more than blacks in apartheid South Africa?

    When Israel was bombing Gaza into rubble not long ago, all 100 Senators voted to support Israel. So much for anti-’racism’. And most Americans didn’t care.

    And if Americans today are so appalled by movies like BIRTH OF A NATION and THE SEARCHERS for their ‘racism’, how come they are hardly fazed by movies like RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, TAKEN(swarthy Muslims kidnap pure white daughter to be made into sex slave), RED DAWN remake, and others of their kind that play on racial fears?

    And how come Jews like Victoria Nuland are mum about Neo-Nazis in Ukraine who are making things tough for Russia? She calls them ‘freedom fighters’.

    How come Jews are totally okay with the notion of the SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN US AND ISRAEL, even though it means US racially and ethnically favors one nation/people over all others?

    It’s all ‘who, whom’, and it always was.

    Ironically, even though ‘anti-racism’ purports to be about racial equality, it is actually governed by perceptions of racial superiority.
    As the article above noted, blacks became prominent in music and other cool stuff like sports. Whites may have had ambivalent and even hostile feelings toward black achievements in such areas, but they were also dazzled and impressed. As blacks gained more ‘cool’ factor, their plight and problems gained greater attention and sympathy over the problems of other races.
    Blacks got more sympathy for ‘equality’ due to perceptions of their ‘superiority’, especially in music and sports.

    And of course, Jews gained immense prestige in science, medicine, arts, music, comedy, business, law, academics, and etc. Though Jews officially went on and on about ‘racial equality’, they themselves proved that they are superior to other groups due to higher intelligence and creativity. Thus, Jews gained immense power, and it was in awe of that power that white Americans became so admiringly and fearfully slavish to Jewish demands.
    Same is true of homo power. Officially, it’s all about ‘equality’, but it’s really about homo power and privilege since Homos are so prominent in elite institutions and industries–and favored by Jewish elites.

    After all, ‘marriage equality’ only applies to homos, not to incest-sexuals or religious polygamists(who don’t have the power that homos have).
    So, look not to change in ideology but in the change of who has the power.

    Even ‘equality’ is a tool used by those with the power to wield unequal power over others.
    Just ask the Palestinians what the Jewish ideology of racial equality has done for them.
    Just ask the Tibetans what the Chinese Communist ideology of equality has done for them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kat Grey
    I wonder if white guilt would exist today if Jimi Hendrix had never been born? Or if he had been Japanese instead of black?
  48. @Art
    The author goes to great lengths to state that he is anti “antirascism” – clearly this means that he is “proracism.” He states that he is proracism for intellectual rational reasons. Is this true?

    Given the very ugliness and bloodiness of tribalism and racism in human history – would it not be rational for him to deny being a “racist” as the rest of us understand “racism” to be? Should he not state categorically that he is anti Jim Crow, and anti segregation, and pro equal opportunity?

    I too believe that there are genetic differences in different groups of people from different geographic locations. But I do not call myself a racist – I call myself a geneticist.

    What is the author’s reason for insisting on being anti “antirascism” - when justifying “racism” is so deleterious to the whole of humanity.

    The Hippocratic oath says “do no harm” – isn't the author doing back door harm with his word play?

    Given the very ugliness and bloodiness of tribalism and racism in human history – would it not be rational for him to deny being a “racist” as the rest of us understand “racism” to be?

    I believe the author would challenge your assumption (indoctrination based perhaps) that tribalism, and thus racism, has only a bloody or ugly side. To the extent it enables some groups whose collective behavior is more civilized than other groups to retain a group identity and thus retain more civilized behavioral norms might be easily argued as a manifestly good effect. In other words, that the good coming from tribalism outweighs the bad on the whole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    “In other words, that the good coming from tribalism outweighs the bad on the whole.”

    I am not very good at saying this – but God gave us gonads and he gave us brains. Both give us direction in our future actions. Groups are formed around gonads and groups are formed around thought systems. These two different action taking systems should not be confused.

    Tribalism is biologically based system of organization. A tribal reaction is a visceral reaction based on group psychological emotions.

    When a group has a better thought system that is intellectual organization. Intellectual organization has done great things for humanity.

    We must chose the thought system over the biological system.
  49. Peter, great column.

    Could you elaborate a little more on the following?

    African Americans were viewed no longer as an embarrassment

    Given this is history that doesn’t make it into modern texts, perhaps you could point to the manner in which this embarrassment manifest itself? How did white Americans express their embarrassment? Are you speaking of white contempt for black American culture and norms generally? That white Americans lost their fear of being stigmatized should they socialize with black Americans?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold
    Frost hasn’t been commenting here recently. Maybe you could try asking him at the following link:
    http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2015/05/age-of-reason.html
  50. Gallo -Roman sez:
    You deny that any such thing is being promoted, and then immediately proceed to promote it yourself.
    Not at all. In fact specific examples of textbooks and their Civil War treatment were given above which debunk your claim. It is amusing, and telling, that you duck those examples.

    .
    you pretend to believe that people are using “white” in some eternal essentialist sense based on skin color, rather than as shorthand for an identifiable genetic and cultural grouping.
    But you yourself subscribe to essentialist thinking. If indeed as you claim, whites are an identifiable genetic grouping by what parameters do you define them? And let’s take culture since you mention it. By what parameters do you define “white culture” if it is part of that identifiable grouping? When Glenn Beck was asked about this some years ago by Katie Couric, he ran away from the question multiple times.

    .
    anti-whites have a habit of playing dumb and throwing around the straw man of skin color when they get called on their nonsense.
    But how can skin color be a mere “strawman” when you yourself intimate that it is an integral part of whites as an “idenitifable” genetic and cultural grouping? You are contradicting yourself. If skin color is a “strawman” on what basis then do “whites” become your “identifiable” grouping? Explain the contradiction in your claim. It seems you are in over your head.

    .
    Their contributions form part of the genome of indigenous Europeans, who do, as a matter of fact, exist. We know who they are, and we can identify them and distinguish them from people who are not Europeans. We can do this with other groups of humans, too, all over the world..
    OK, then you should be able to explain why skin color is a “strawman” as regards your “indigenous” Europeans. And if white is “shorthand for an identifable cultural and genetic grouping,” why are you running away from your own shorthand, by calling it a strawman?

    .
    Now, French museums, at least those of my experience, tend to be less dumbed-down and lacquered with social-engineering propaganda, than American ones. But in this case some busy little apparatchik had managed to debase standards and inject some ham-handed “no such thing as a native European” propaganda into a corner of an otherwise decent Neandertal exhibit.

    Your vigenette is questionable for no credible French museum would advance the claim that- as you say: “Neandertals were the only real Europeans , so no real Europeans existed anymore, and all modern populations in Europe are descended from immigrants from the Middle East.” The very text on the exhibits would contradict what you claim the man said. He would have no incentive or grounds to say such when the very Exhibits he points to say something else, right there in front of everybody. If he were pushing this “sledgehammer” propaganda line as you claim, then he would be a very dumb Frenchman. Maybe in your haste to build YOUR own “HBD correct” strawman, you lost something in the translation.

    Read More
  51. @Priss Factor
    "Given the very ugliness and bloodiness of tribalism and racism in human history"

    Really?

    Tribalists tended to mind their own business. It was the universalists who tended to invade and rub out other cultures.

    Roman universalists. Christian universalists. Islamic universalists. Communist universalists. They conquered and invaded all over the world.

    Anti-imperialist movements were tribal in nature. GET OFF OUR LAND. IT BELONGS TO US.

    Imperialism destroyed the tribal sovereignty of peoples.

    “Tribalists tended to mind their own business. It was the universalists who tended to invade and rub out other cultures.”

    How about 150,000,000 who died at the hands of governments in the last century. Tell us that those who actually did the killing and dying where not doing it for their tribal governments. Going off to die, feeds on our own personal tribal psychological feelings to protect those who are local to us. We humans are suckers for the war flag.

    Those “universalists” of yours all are seeking to maintain power of their own tribal governments. It is true that powerful tribes take over small tribes – they just become larger tribes. “Universalists” make even bigger tribes.

    Biological “tribalism” is humanities greatest millstone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "How about 150,000,000 who died at the hands of governments in the last century. Tell us that those who actually did the killing and dying where not doing it for their tribal governments."

    40 million who died in the Great Leap Forward died over tribalism?

    10 million killed by Stalin died for tribalism?

    Khmer Rouge killed 2 out of 7 million. It wasn't out of tribalism.

    WWI flared up due to imperialism, not tribalism. It was the result of clashes of empires trying to hold together various tribes who wanted to go separate ways and be left alone. Austrians should have let Serbians go. And it's a good thing the Soviet empire broke apart and new nations were formed along tribal lines.

    Btw, Russians lost 20 million in defense of the motherland. They fought and died for tribal reasons. I can't think of a better reason. Tribal defense of the motherland from foreigners.

    And if you think people shouldn't fight tribally to defend the motherland, then you are one of those globalist imperialists.

    There would be peace in Europe if Europeans acted tribally and kept Muslims and Africans out.
    And if they forbade globalist Jews from pushing open borders and multiculturalism.
    But globalism and 'diversity' mongering is gonna bring about a disaster worse than WWI and WWII combined.
  52. @Curle
    Peter, great column.

    Could you elaborate a little more on the following?

    African Americans were viewed no longer as an embarrassment
     
    Given this is history that doesn't make it into modern texts, perhaps you could point to the manner in which this embarrassment manifest itself? How did white Americans express their embarrassment? Are you speaking of white contempt for black American culture and norms generally? That white Americans lost their fear of being stigmatized should they socialize with black Americans?

    Frost hasn’t been commenting here recently. Maybe you could try asking him at the following link:

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2015/05/age-of-reason.html

    Read More
  53. @Curle

    Given the very ugliness and bloodiness of tribalism and racism in human history – would it not be rational for him to deny being a “racist” as the rest of us understand “racism” to be?
     
    I believe the author would challenge your assumption (indoctrination based perhaps) that tribalism, and thus racism, has only a bloody or ugly side. To the extent it enables some groups whose collective behavior is more civilized than other groups to retain a group identity and thus retain more civilized behavioral norms might be easily argued as a manifestly good effect. In other words, that the good coming from tribalism outweighs the bad on the whole.

    “In other words, that the good coming from tribalism outweighs the bad on the whole.”

    I am not very good at saying this – but God gave us gonads and he gave us brains. Both give us direction in our future actions. Groups are formed around gonads and groups are formed around thought systems. These two different action taking systems should not be confused.

    Tribalism is biologically based system of organization. A tribal reaction is a visceral reaction based on group psychological emotions.

    When a group has a better thought system that is intellectual organization. Intellectual organization has done great things for humanity.

    We must chose the thought system over the biological system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Curle

    We must chose the thought system over the biological system.
     
    How about the thought system that some biology works at some tasks on the whole and in groups of like kind to achieve certain goals better than other biology? Go ahead and try and use golden retrievers as herding dogs, but those who choose border collies will have consistently better outcomes. And, choosing better is a thought system as well. Segregation is also a thought system.
    , @Enrique Cardova
    When a group has a better thought system that is intellectual organization. Intellectual organization has done great things for humanity.

    It has, but it has also done some of the greatest evil, indeed expanded it on a mass industrial scale. The German thought system was quite rational, and systematically organized to murder tens of millions of innocent people. And it was led by high IQ people- many of the top leaders of the SS for example held doctoral degrees. And Propaganda chief Goebbels earned a PhD from Heidelberg University.

    It was not simply a matter of say invading and conquering some place. The SS carried detailed lists of priests, bankers, teachers, even upwardly mobile peasants, etc all marked out to be murdered. And it was effective at times in what the Germans called "decapitating" Polish leadership or people who helped guide the society, though it could not totally crush Polish resistance. Its like the US invading Canada and murdering the minister of every church, and half the school teachers in every school.

    Then there was the German "cleansing" of the disabled and handicapped. Again, it was efficiently and intelligently organized- a systematic organization. Note- these were not Jews or Slavs, but fellow white Germans. Initially the killing was directed against "useless" white children, but it soon expanded. The killing zones were shrewdly located in the East, out of general public scrutiny, and the SS umbrella (Main force SS, Order Police and "Totenkopf" concentration camp guard units) kept things "in house." Hospitals and nursing homes were emptied and the white victims shipped in railroad cars to the eastern killing fields, and then the murders of thousands of disabled white kids and adults proceeded.

    It was a thought system that was very rationally organized. Eventually the white Poles also shared the fate of the white Germans- entire towns and districts of handicapped white kids, adults, psychiatric patients, and such like deemed "weak" -met their end, and indeed, the use of vans configured to kill with gas was pioneered early on there. (Rhodes, 2002. Masters of Death: the SS Einsatzgruppen)

  54. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Art
    “Tribalists tended to mind their own business. It was the universalists who tended to invade and rub out other cultures.”

    How about 150,000,000 who died at the hands of governments in the last century. Tell us that those who actually did the killing and dying where not doing it for their tribal governments. Going off to die, feeds on our own personal tribal psychological feelings to protect those who are local to us. We humans are suckers for the war flag.

    Those “universalists” of yours all are seeking to maintain power of their own tribal governments. It is true that powerful tribes take over small tribes – they just become larger tribes. “Universalists” make even bigger tribes.

    Biological “tribalism” is humanities greatest millstone.

    “How about 150,000,000 who died at the hands of governments in the last century. Tell us that those who actually did the killing and dying where not doing it for their tribal governments.”

    40 million who died in the Great Leap Forward died over tribalism?

    10 million killed by Stalin died for tribalism?

    Khmer Rouge killed 2 out of 7 million. It wasn’t out of tribalism.

    WWI flared up due to imperialism, not tribalism. It was the result of clashes of empires trying to hold together various tribes who wanted to go separate ways and be left alone. Austrians should have let Serbians go. And it’s a good thing the Soviet empire broke apart and new nations were formed along tribal lines.

    Btw, Russians lost 20 million in defense of the motherland. They fought and died for tribal reasons. I can’t think of a better reason. Tribal defense of the motherland from foreigners.

    And if you think people shouldn’t fight tribally to defend the motherland, then you are one of those globalist imperialists.

    There would be peace in Europe if Europeans acted tribally and kept Muslims and Africans out.
    And if they forbade globalist Jews from pushing open borders and multiculturalism.
    But globalism and ‘diversity’ mongering is gonna bring about a disaster worse than WWI and WWII combined.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Serbia was independent of Austria at the time of WW I. The conflict between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia was over Bosnia-Herzegovina which was taken from the Ottoman Empire by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1878. Serbia believed that this territory should be part of "Greater Serbia".
    , @Art
    Tribes and tribalism are for losers. The worst part of tribalism is not tribes fighting each other – it is intra tribe fighting.

    Tribes have rulers – fighting to become a ruler gets a lot of innocent people killed.

    Who wants to part of an intra tribe biological pecking order – give us freedom from all that.

    Don’t we want to identify, with what we as individuals have accomplish, instead of what our gang did to the other guys? Is being a Republican or Democrat, or being a black or a white the sum of your life, is that what you hang your hat on? Or are you an accomplished human being most proud of what YOU have created that uplifts all?

    If you want to think of yourself as part of a superior gang, you are not part of the flow stream of Western thought.
  55. @Enrique Cardova
    Harold says:
    Embarrassed in front of who? White people.
    Yes, and not only white people but others as well. You see white people asserted certain moral and ethical claims, as the foundation of their various cultures, and as justification for certain actions. Well these claims were measured against actual white behavior, and the results embarrassed white Americans. US claims to be a democratic leader for example were measured against its denial of 10% of the population the vote, depending on the state, and era. The results were embarrassing for a country that billed itself as the top democracy of all. So were white Amricans embarrassed in front of other white people, both at home and abroad? Sure.


    .
    Why would they need to cover their biases? Because they have convinced themselves and others that it is sinful for them to be biased in favour of whites.
    It was more a matter of the contradictions and hypocrisy exposed, when various claims were measured against actual white behavior. For example certain guarantees of the US Constitution were found to be meaningless when actual white compliance with them was examined. Certain bold statements regarding "free markets" were found rather thin gruel, again, when measured against actual white behavior. And some of that behavior was quite sinful, which is/was why it had/has to be covered. Consider the murder of black railroad employees by white union thugs so whites could take over their jobs, for example, as discussed by US President Harry Truman below. Truman sought no "altruism" - but to do the right thing- quite different concepts. And he was prepared to pay the price to do the right thing.

    http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/150/blackworkersmurderedtru.jpg


    .
    If whites wanted to promote white hegemony they would just promote white hegemony overtly. There is nothing to stop them, except their own hijacked sense of altruism.
    Actually there is plenty of reason to do it covertly, as the Truman example shows above, and many other examples. And World War II exposed the contradictions and hypocrises of white racism as never before. Even the Nazis tried somewhat to cover their tracks and conceal the full extent of their racist actions- from writing up bogus reports to justify the mass murder of Jewish children as "anti-partisan operations", to the ultimate in cover schemes-the crematoriums and mass graves of the Shoah, designed to make "the Jewish problem" "disappear."

    And you seem to think simply doing what is right is a form of "altruism" and thus something for weaklings. This type of reasoning was integral to Nazi thinking- common decency, and right moral sensibilities were dismissed as something for weaklings, for "soft" people. Time and time again people were persuaded to ignore common moral foundations of decency in the name of "racial purity." This they did quite overtly. The outcome was systematic mass murder on a scale unseen in human history. Ordinary accounts, cooks, butchers, etc killed and killed zealously and willingly, even when given the chance to opt out- - thus proving they were not "altruistic weaklings."

    And you seem to equate exercising one's constitutional rights with "altruism." But such rights are not a favor granted by the government- they are rights that derive FROM the people. Government is no "altruistic" giver of rights- like some king in England handing down indulgences to the peasants. That's now how the US constitution works. Fair-minded whites who sought to ensure that blacks got a fair chance to exercise their Constitutional rights were not engaging in any "altruistic" exercise. They were helping to remove unjust barriers erected by other whites to hinder or destroy the exercise of those rights. That is no "altruistic giveaway" at all. That is exercising what people are already guaranteed under the Constitution. The only "hijacking" going on is by those who unjustly sandbagged, blockaded and even murdered people to bar them from their rights.

    Enrique, um, er, it was not kings, in England or elswhere, who handed down indulgences but rather the Catholic Church. Martin Luther was quite indignant over this practice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    I meant indulgences in the paternalistic sense of government granting fundamental rights, that democratic theorists hold instead reside in and derive from the people, as if they were merely indulging the peasants at whim.
  56. @Realist
    Very good points. Groups that do not have the same intelligence, abilities or values do not get along. It is as simple as that.

    You’d be burned at the stake for saying that in Sweden.

    However true that it is.

    Read More
  57. @Priss Factor
    I think the issue of 'racism' is secondary to the issue of 'who, whom'.
    The problem of Nazism and Holocaust was that the victims were Jewish.
    Suppose Nazis had been friendly toward Jews, protected Jews, and etc. and instead carried out the Holocaust against Bulgarians.

    Would it have been a big deal? The Jewish Holocaust was a big deal because Jews have held immense power and have come to hold even greater power.

    Consider the issue of the Armenian genocide or 'Armenian genocide'. If indeed we are so anti-'racist' and so sensitive about issues of genocide, how come Israel sides with Turkey? How come Obama won't use the G-word? How come Jewish-Americans don't pressure him to go there? How come there is no outrage among white Americans over American administration to call it 'genocide'?

    And consider the issue of Nakba and the oppression of Palestinians. If indeed Jews and white Americans have become so anti-'racist', why has America, even Liberal America, been so much more pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli than pro-Palestinian even though Palestinians have been oppressed much more than blacks in apartheid South Africa?

    When Israel was bombing Gaza into rubble not long ago, all 100 Senators voted to support Israel. So much for anti-'racism'. And most Americans didn't care.

    And if Americans today are so appalled by movies like BIRTH OF A NATION and THE SEARCHERS for their 'racism', how come they are hardly fazed by movies like RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, TAKEN(swarthy Muslims kidnap pure white daughter to be made into sex slave), RED DAWN remake, and others of their kind that play on racial fears?

    And how come Jews like Victoria Nuland are mum about Neo-Nazis in Ukraine who are making things tough for Russia? She calls them 'freedom fighters'.

    How come Jews are totally okay with the notion of the SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN US AND ISRAEL, even though it means US racially and ethnically favors one nation/people over all others?

    It's all 'who, whom', and it always was.

    Ironically, even though 'anti-racism' purports to be about racial equality, it is actually governed by perceptions of racial superiority.
    As the article above noted, blacks became prominent in music and other cool stuff like sports. Whites may have had ambivalent and even hostile feelings toward black achievements in such areas, but they were also dazzled and impressed. As blacks gained more 'cool' factor, their plight and problems gained greater attention and sympathy over the problems of other races.
    Blacks got more sympathy for 'equality' due to perceptions of their 'superiority', especially in music and sports.

    And of course, Jews gained immense prestige in science, medicine, arts, music, comedy, business, law, academics, and etc. Though Jews officially went on and on about 'racial equality', they themselves proved that they are superior to other groups due to higher intelligence and creativity. Thus, Jews gained immense power, and it was in awe of that power that white Americans became so admiringly and fearfully slavish to Jewish demands.
    Same is true of homo power. Officially, it's all about 'equality', but it's really about homo power and privilege since Homos are so prominent in elite institutions and industries--and favored by Jewish elites.

    After all, 'marriage equality' only applies to homos, not to incest-sexuals or religious polygamists(who don't have the power that homos have).
    So, look not to change in ideology but in the change of who has the power.

    Even 'equality' is a tool used by those with the power to wield unequal power over others.
    Just ask the Palestinians what the Jewish ideology of racial equality has done for them.
    Just ask the Tibetans what the Chinese Communist ideology of equality has done for them.

    I wonder if white guilt would exist today if Jimi Hendrix had never been born? Or if he had been Japanese instead of black?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "I wonder if white guilt would exist today if Jimi Hendrix had never been born? Or if he had been Japanese instead of black?"

    Hehe. LOL.

    Anyway... imagine MLK as a Japanese-American guy with a weak voice.

    Same magic?
  58. @bjdubbs
    I think Stogumber is right, I don't see many Google instances of Volkismus. It is definitely a word but doesn't appear to have a wide currency in German. The simplest explanation for the origin of the word "racism" is that -ism was attached to the word race.

    “Volkism” has no currency at all in Germany. It simply doesn’t exist and I don’t know where Mr. Frost found it.

    Read More
  59. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    @Peter Frost:
    It is extremely unlikely that “racism” is an attempt at translating something like “Volkismus”.
    Between Hitlers preference for “Rasse” (race) over “Volk” and the fact that the Nazis drew on authors like Chamberlain (whose antisemitism would also tend towards privileging “Rasse” over “Volk”) and Gobineau (who wrote in French), there is no support to be found for a derivation that would make “racism” appear to be related to the less virulent of the two strains of German nationalism (the romantic-idealistic one which relished being able to point at linguistic differentiation – like “Volk” vs. populus/people/peuple – and speculating about vague semantic correlates thereof).
    The simple fact of the matter is that “racism” is not any kind of translation but just a combination of a widely used term with a lexologically highly productive suffix.
    Critical use of “racism” basically starts in the 1920s with Théophile Simar. And Hirschfeld, whose book “Racism” secured wider currency for the term, clearly wanted to espouse an anthropoligical concept just as much as Boas et. al. did, although he didn’t offer any detailed discussion beyond his roundabout rejection of traditional ideas. BTW, Hirschfeld lectured in the U.S. in 1931. While he wrote bis German manuscript in 1933/1934, he may well have employed the term “racism” years earlier.

    Read More
  60. @Kat Grey
    Enrique, um, er, it was not kings, in England or elswhere, who handed down indulgences but rather the Catholic Church. Martin Luther was quite indignant over this practice.

    I meant indulgences in the paternalistic sense of government granting fundamental rights, that democratic theorists hold instead reside in and derive from the people, as if they were merely indulging the peasants at whim.

    Read More
  61. @Priss Factor
    "How about 150,000,000 who died at the hands of governments in the last century. Tell us that those who actually did the killing and dying where not doing it for their tribal governments."

    40 million who died in the Great Leap Forward died over tribalism?

    10 million killed by Stalin died for tribalism?

    Khmer Rouge killed 2 out of 7 million. It wasn't out of tribalism.

    WWI flared up due to imperialism, not tribalism. It was the result of clashes of empires trying to hold together various tribes who wanted to go separate ways and be left alone. Austrians should have let Serbians go. And it's a good thing the Soviet empire broke apart and new nations were formed along tribal lines.

    Btw, Russians lost 20 million in defense of the motherland. They fought and died for tribal reasons. I can't think of a better reason. Tribal defense of the motherland from foreigners.

    And if you think people shouldn't fight tribally to defend the motherland, then you are one of those globalist imperialists.

    There would be peace in Europe if Europeans acted tribally and kept Muslims and Africans out.
    And if they forbade globalist Jews from pushing open borders and multiculturalism.
    But globalism and 'diversity' mongering is gonna bring about a disaster worse than WWI and WWII combined.

    Serbia was independent of Austria at the time of WW I. The conflict between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia was over Bosnia-Herzegovina which was taken from the Ottoman Empire by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1878. Serbia believed that this territory should be part of “Greater Serbia”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    True that. But a part of Bosnia was indeed a part of Serbia.

    It's like the struggle in Northern Ireland, which Irish saw as occupied by British empire.
  62. @Art
    “In other words, that the good coming from tribalism outweighs the bad on the whole.”

    I am not very good at saying this – but God gave us gonads and he gave us brains. Both give us direction in our future actions. Groups are formed around gonads and groups are formed around thought systems. These two different action taking systems should not be confused.

    Tribalism is biologically based system of organization. A tribal reaction is a visceral reaction based on group psychological emotions.

    When a group has a better thought system that is intellectual organization. Intellectual organization has done great things for humanity.

    We must chose the thought system over the biological system.

    We must chose the thought system over the biological system.

    How about the thought system that some biology works at some tasks on the whole and in groups of like kind to achieve certain goals better than other biology? Go ahead and try and use golden retrievers as herding dogs, but those who choose border collies will have consistently better outcomes. And, choosing better is a thought system as well. Segregation is also a thought system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    "Segregation is also a thought system."

    Yes - it started with the apes.
  63. Priss Factors says:

    I think the issue of ‘racism’ is secondary to the issue of ‘who, whom’. The problem of Nazism and Holocaust was that the victims were Jewish.
    Only in part. The main problem was not necessarily that Jews got killed. There are actually several factors in the mix. For one thing you have the scale, the systematic mass murder in an industrial fashion and the extreme cruelty deployed. How do you get around whipping thousands of children to drive them into gas chambers for example? Granted it was an efficient process if you wanted to murder millions of “sub-human” children quickly. Another reason the Holocaust revolts big, over and above its horrific methods, is because it was perpetrated by Germans, hailed in many quarters, even now, as the epitome of European progress and civilization. “Civilized” people like “us” are not “supposed” to do such things the propaganda line went. There goes our claims about how so much more moral and better we are than everyone else. The Nuremberg trials in part could be seen as an attempt to reclaim that moral ground.

    .
    Suppose Nazis had been friendly toward Jews, protected Jews, and etc. and instead carried out the Holocaust against Bulgarians.
    But they almost as well just a bit further east of Bulgaria. They did also extend their “cleansing” work not to Bulgarians, but to other “lesser breeds” of Slavs, in Poland, Russia and elsewhere. Bulgaria escaped because its regime collaborated in part with the “New Order.” And by the way, Bulgaria saved its Jewish population from deportation to concentration camps.

    .
    Consider the issue of the Armenian genocide or ‘Armenian genocide’. If indeed we are so anti-’racist’ and so sensitive about issues of genocide, how come Israel sides with Turkey? How come Obama won’t use the G-word? How come Jewish-Americans don’t pressure him to go there? How come there is no outrage among white Americans over American administration to call it ‘genocide’
    How come conservative white American presidents have ALSO sided with Turkey and refuse to push the genocide issue? How come there is no outrage among white Americans about white conservative presidents likewise refusing to condemn Turkey, but indeed for decades embracing Turkey and shipping it tons of weapons? Why should they only be SELECTIVELY upset at Obama?

    .
    And consider the issue of Nakba and the oppression of Palestinians. If indeed Jews and white Americans have become so anti-’racist’, why has America, even Liberal America, been so much more pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli than pro-Palestinian
    A fair point.

    When Israel was bombing Gaza into rubble not long ago, all 100 Senators voted to support Israel. So much for anti-’racism’. And most Americans didn’t care.
    Why are the white right wingers, who are against radical antiracists, etc among the staunchest supporters of Israel?

    .
    And if Americans today are so appalled by movies like BIRTH OF A NATION and THE SEARCHERS for their ‘racism’, how come they are hardly fazed by movies like RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, TAKEN(swarthy Muslims kidnap pure white daughter to be made into sex slave), RED DAWN remake, and others of their kind that play on racial fears?
    Rules of Engagement is an obscure movie no one heard about, and having little cultural significance, compared to Birth of A Nation, which was a cultural touchstone. Birth of the Nation was made such by white right wingers- they celebrated it, and made it THEIR rallying cry and instrument of mobilization. Who says white America was “appalled” by it? To the contrary, white America embraced it. It was so popular that it was among the first movies screened at the White House by a white president.

    .
    how come Jews like Victoria Nuland are mum about Neo-Nazis in Ukraine who are making things tough for Russia? She calls them ‘freedom fighters’.
    If she is “mum” about the Neo Nazis- how can she at the same time be calling them “freedom fighters”?

    .
    How come Jews are totally okay with the notion of the SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN US AND ISRAEL, even though it means US racially and ethnically favors one nation/people over all others?
    Who says the US favors Israel over all other nations?. Why are there still thousands of American troops in whiteGermany, and have been for over 50 years? And how come billions of US dollars were spent on the Marshall Plan to reconstruct white Europe if only “those durn Jews” were giting’ all the cash?

    .
    As the article above noted, blacks became prominent in music and other cool stuff like sports. Whites may have had ambivalent and even hostile feelings toward black achievements in such areas, but they were also dazzled and impressed. As blacks gained more ‘cool’ factor, their plight and problems gained greater attention and sympathy over the problems of other races. Blacks got more sympathy for ‘equality’ due to perceptions of their ‘superiority’, especially in music and sports.

    rather dubious. Blacks first became “prominent” in the Western Hemisphere because as slaves they made money for white people. And was not their “cool” factor in sports and entertainment that moved some whites to want to abolish slavery but a vicious system that not only killed thousands in transport, both externally and internally, but that destroyed families, inflicted numerous cruelties and held people in bondage for multiple generations.

    Fast forward to the Civil Rights movement and it was not “cool” black sports and entertainment that created progress, but the need to (a) fix the huge inefficiency of the Jim Crow system, (b) reap the profits being blockaded and lost by that inefficiency, (c) meet the legitimate demands of people white and black who fought for democracy in WWII but did not see it at home, (d) ease the embarrassment of white America in the Cold War as both friends and opponents pointed out the absurdities of America’s position and claims, (e) rein in white violence and greed that was an embarrassment even internally and (e) simple justice and decency under the very same US constitution white people kept quoting. “Cool” black singing and dancing had little to do with it.

    Jesse Owens may have been a great athlete that increased American prestige with his victories overseas, but at home in numerous venues, he still went to the back of the bus, or would have his head beat in, if he attempted to vote. When a tired President Harry Truman said enough is enough, and referred to a black veteran just home from the front after fighting for America, who had his eyes gouged and blinded by white racists, he was not thinking of any “cool” singing and dancing.

    .
    And of course, Jews gained immense prestige in science, medicine, arts, music, comedy, business, law, academics, and etc. Though Jews officially went on and on about ‘racial equality’, they themselves proved that they are superior to other groups due to higher intelligence and creativity. Thus, Jews gained immense power, and it was in awe of that power that white Americans became so admiringly and fearfully slavish to Jewish demands.

    That Jews have prospered and have taken many leading positions is without doubt. But they are not necessarily “superior” to the others. As background info from Ron Unz shows Jewish performance has lagged behind Asians on some counts, yet Jews continue to be over-represented at elite educational institutions. And it may be that as you say ” white Americans became so admiringly and fearfully slavish to Jewish demands” but the question arises- why are white ring wingers among those doing the most bowing and scraping to the putative “Jewish menace”?

    .
    Same is true of homo power. Officially, it’s all about ‘equality’, but it’s really about homo power and privilege since Homos are so prominent in elite institutions and industries–and favored by Jewish elites. After all, ‘marriage equality’ only applies to homos, not to incest-sexuals or religious polygamists(who don’t have the power that homos have). So, look not to change in ideology but in the change of who has the power.

    OK point taken, but how to explain pure white Nordic Sweden which has been a leader in pushing for such things as “gay” marriage, since the 1970s? Long before the issue gained triumph in the US. Why would these white “role models” be pushing this?

    .
    ———- You keep blaming the Jews for everything, but consider the recent TIME magazine story below on a camp for “transgendered” kids. These mostly white kids are between 6 and 12 and they have them cross-dressing. Look at young white lads below being “gendered” or “getting in touch” with themselves as girls.

    The organizer Lindsay Morris does not seem to be a Jew. How do you explain white “role models” pushing such corruption? Jews are not forcing white people into this.

    http://time.com/3743987/gender-creative-kids/

    White kid being “gendered” or “sensitized” into his female side:

    http://millana.tumblr.com/image/55612822737

    http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5106d439e4b01d5a75f35d79/t/5553c088e4b05be4fb5036c9/1431552139664/?format=1000w

    ^^Where are the Jewish “elders” behind this? Isn’t this a product of some white people but you are trying to blame the Jews for it? Aren’t you and others trying to deflect internal white corruption on to the Jews? Many who seem quick to blame the Jews for everything negative, run away from the INTERNAL factor of white corruption and decadence.

    Read More
  64. @Ace
    You'd be burned at the stake for saying that in Sweden.

    However true that it is.

    Yes, many Swedish people are stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Anti-tribalism is no antidote to horrors.

    Jim Jones was an anti-tribalist. His community included people of all colors.

    But imagine if the world were controlled by men like Jim Jones.

    Holy Cow.

    In a way, tribalism is just the way our mind works.

    Even universalism turns into just another form of tribalism or meta-tribalism.

    There is tribalism of materially-rooted stuff like blood and soil.

    But there is also the tribalism of the mind, of righteousness, of concepts.
    Even universalism works in terms of 'us vs them' since universalists see themselves as righteous and demean tribalists as wrong. So, they wage on tribalists. Communism was ideological meta-tribalism.

    Also, there is no single universalism. Every school of universalism claims to be right. So, Catholics, Protestants, Sunnis, Shias, Buddhists, Spreading Democracy Crowd, and etc. claim to be the true universalists. It too leads to 'us versus them' view of the world. Though anti-tribal in ideology, they are tribal in mindset.

    So, even if we transcend racial tribalism, we end up with ideological tribalism. Is it any wonder that Stalinsts and Trotskyites and Maoists and Titoists and etc never saw eye to eye on anything?

    And think of all the denominations hatched by Protestantism.

    And look at all the bickering among the Liberal side in America. If not for the KKKrazy Glue to hold the Democratic coalition together, there's no way homos, Jews, blacks, East Asians, South Asians, Mexicans, trannies, old school feminists, new school slut feminists, Muslims, Hollywood oligarchs, Las Vegas oligarchs, and white working class can stick together.

    Also, given the natural tendency of man toward tribalism, getting rid of one form of tribalism only fills the vacuum with other kinds of tribalism.
    So, if whites say, 'we reject white tribalism', it doesn't lead to all groups abandoning their tribalism. Instead, the vacuum created by white rejection of white tribalism makes room for Muslim tribalism, Jewish tribalism, homo try-ball-ism, black tribalism, La Raza tribalism, and etc to fill the vacuum. Is it any wonder that the weakening of white identity has only boosted non-white identity politics in places like the UK?

    One reason why white society is ailing is the vanishing of the Butt Sniff Ritual factor.

    Ever look at dogs and other animals? Those in the same pack may wander off separately, but at the end of they day, they all return and then rub each other and sniff each other's butts, and etc. It's a way of re-establishing the animal version of virile and confident 'blood and soil' mentality. Apart and away from one another, they had to tread carefully and anxiously in hostile/strange territory. But back in the pack, they feel confident as a group. They can relax, sniff each other's butts for identification and camaraderie. Rub each other and mix scents of the pack/tribe.

    Whites used to be like this. Apart from home/community, they would act proper, nice, and official with a sense of decorum, especially when dealing with different groups.

    But once they got together again, they would use racial slurs, make ethnic jokes about others, laugh about it, and etc. Some might say such behavior is 'racist', but it's not necessarily hostile or nasty. It's just a way of butt-sniffing to replenish a sense of tribal unity, confidence, and cohesiveness. It's a way of saying, I'm white, you're white, and we recognize each others' butt odors, and we smell alike unlike them other folks.

    So, whites tread carefully outside the community, but within the community, they sniffed each other's butts and felt virile and strong again. They could let go of their inhibitions, thump their chests, and talk big. It's like when white folks get together in THE SEARCHERS, they say some not-so-nice stuff about Indians. It's like the guys in Cassavetes HUSBANDS can say anything about anything to one another. They belong to the same tribe.

    The thing it is natural for EVERY group to act like this. It is normal. The rule is 'behave among those who are different than you BUT hold nothing back among your kind'. The need for caution among others who are different makes you lose confidence in yourself since the main thing is to get along and be sensitive at all times. So, if you want your confidence to be replenished, it has to be in your community where you can crack jokes about people of different races you work with.

    Every group does this. Among themselves, blacks talk shit about everyone else and laugh about it. Among Mexicans, there is endless rants about gringos, Negroes, chinos, and Jewos. Among homos, there's endless hissy pissy bitching about straights. Among Chinese, there is endless talk about about foreign devils.

    But among whites, even this butt sniff ritual has been lost. To be sure, this is truer of some white groups than others. Traditionally, Italian-Americans have been more into butt sniff rituals. Just look at Scorsese movies where the Italian-Americans are always saying riotous things about various ethnic groups.. And Jews love to bitch endlessly about wasps and other northern european whites. And judging by the hacking of Hollywood emails, they talk a lot of crap about Negroes too.

    This scene is a riot:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrkKL45qB0Q

    But it seems Northern Europeans have lost this butt sniff ritualism. Partly, it's due to Protestantist emphasis on proper behavior 24/7. Correct manners, correct behavior, correct language, correct thoughts, correct actions. Protestantism is anal than butt-sniff. It tries to wipe the butt so clean that it smells like soap. This mentality did wonders for making a well-ordered and efficient society but removed something hearty and organic.

    But the other reason is the rise of PC. With Jewish elites controlling much of media and academia(and with their ear on every 'bad white behavior') , the slightest whiff of white gentile butt-sniffing came tremendous public shaming. This is one reason why Jews especially hate Wasp country clubs where genteel wasps might be whispering Jewish jokes to one another, like 'how do you drive a Jew crazy? Put him in a round room and tell him there's a penny in a corner.' Actually, Jews are too smart to fall for such a trick. It would have to be a dumb Polish convert to Judaism.

    Anyway, the fact is it's still permissible for non-white groups to indulge in butt-sniff rituals. So, even as they behave among people who are different, their confidence levels are replenished when they return to their community and talk without inhibitions about other groups.
    So, Hindu-Americans get together and talk crap about everyone else.
    So, Mexican-Americans get together and talk crap about everyone else.
    So, black-Americans get together and talk crap about everyone else.
    So, Jewish-Americans get together and talk crap about everyone else, especially wasps and Muslims.

    But, white folks, especially of Northern Eurpoean descent, are not allowed to this. And pressure against it comes from both within and outside the community. Protestantist emphasis on clean mindset and Jewish media sensitivity to even the slightest hint of 'bad white behavior' have made whites inhibited and paranoid even within their own community.

    If you're a Mexican American, you might act like a nice Gomez-er among non-Mexicans. But when you return to the Mexican community, you can rip gringos, negroes, chinos, and Jewos and everyone will laugh with you and have a good time. No one will look at you as a 'bad racist Mexican'. They'll serve you cerveza with lime and tacos.

    But if you're a white guy and return to a white community and start talking like Archie Bunker, they look at with PC judgmentalism. Even your friends and family members may reject you.
    And if you crack a homo joke, your boyfriend or girlfriend might drop you.

    When whites stopped sniffing each other's butts, they lost the race/culture war.
  65. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jim
    Serbia was independent of Austria at the time of WW I. The conflict between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia was over Bosnia-Herzegovina which was taken from the Ottoman Empire by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1878. Serbia believed that this territory should be part of "Greater Serbia".

    True that. But a part of Bosnia was indeed a part of Serbia.

    It’s like the struggle in Northern Ireland, which Irish saw as occupied by British empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kat Grey
    Except that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK as was the entire island of Ireland before the Free State came into being.
  66. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Kat Grey
    I wonder if white guilt would exist today if Jimi Hendrix had never been born? Or if he had been Japanese instead of black?

    “I wonder if white guilt would exist today if Jimi Hendrix had never been born? Or if he had been Japanese instead of black?”

    Hehe. LOL.

    Anyway… imagine MLK as a Japanese-American guy with a weak voice.

    Same magic?

    Read More
  67. @Art
    “In other words, that the good coming from tribalism outweighs the bad on the whole.”

    I am not very good at saying this – but God gave us gonads and he gave us brains. Both give us direction in our future actions. Groups are formed around gonads and groups are formed around thought systems. These two different action taking systems should not be confused.

    Tribalism is biologically based system of organization. A tribal reaction is a visceral reaction based on group psychological emotions.

    When a group has a better thought system that is intellectual organization. Intellectual organization has done great things for humanity.

    We must chose the thought system over the biological system.

    When a group has a better thought system that is intellectual organization. Intellectual organization has done great things for humanity.

    It has, but it has also done some of the greatest evil, indeed expanded it on a mass industrial scale. The German thought system was quite rational, and systematically organized to murder tens of millions of innocent people. And it was led by high IQ people- many of the top leaders of the SS for example held doctoral degrees. And Propaganda chief Goebbels earned a PhD from Heidelberg University.

    It was not simply a matter of say invading and conquering some place. The SS carried detailed lists of priests, bankers, teachers, even upwardly mobile peasants, etc all marked out to be murdered. And it was effective at times in what the Germans called “decapitating” Polish leadership or people who helped guide the society, though it could not totally crush Polish resistance. Its like the US invading Canada and murdering the minister of every church, and half the school teachers in every school.

    Then there was the German “cleansing” of the disabled and handicapped. Again, it was efficiently and intelligently organized- a systematic organization. Note- these were not Jews or Slavs, but fellow white Germans. Initially the killing was directed against “useless” white children, but it soon expanded. The killing zones were shrewdly located in the East, out of general public scrutiny, and the SS umbrella (Main force SS, Order Police and “Totenkopf” concentration camp guard units) kept things “in house.” Hospitals and nursing homes were emptied and the white victims shipped in railroad cars to the eastern killing fields, and then the murders of thousands of disabled white kids and adults proceeded.

    It was a thought system that was very rationally organized. Eventually the white Poles also shared the fate of the white Germans- entire towns and districts of handicapped white kids, adults, psychiatric patients, and such like deemed “weak” -met their end, and indeed, the use of vans configured to kill with gas was pioneered early on there. (Rhodes, 2002. Masters of Death: the SS Einsatzgruppen)

    Read More
  68. @Priss Factor
    True that. But a part of Bosnia was indeed a part of Serbia.

    It's like the struggle in Northern Ireland, which Irish saw as occupied by British empire.

    Except that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK as was the entire island of Ireland before the Free State came into being.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    Not really. The native Irish (i.e. the Catholics) have always opposed British rule in Ireland. It is only the British colonists (i.e. the Protestants) who support the British occupation of the north of Ireland.
  69. @Priss Factor
    "I wonder if white guilt would exist today if Jimi Hendrix had never been born? Or if he had been Japanese instead of black?"

    Hehe. LOL.

    Anyway... imagine MLK as a Japanese-American guy with a weak voice.

    Same magic?

    Kyu Sakamoto had a rather melodic voice…

    Read More
  70. @Priss Factor
    "How about 150,000,000 who died at the hands of governments in the last century. Tell us that those who actually did the killing and dying where not doing it for their tribal governments."

    40 million who died in the Great Leap Forward died over tribalism?

    10 million killed by Stalin died for tribalism?

    Khmer Rouge killed 2 out of 7 million. It wasn't out of tribalism.

    WWI flared up due to imperialism, not tribalism. It was the result of clashes of empires trying to hold together various tribes who wanted to go separate ways and be left alone. Austrians should have let Serbians go. And it's a good thing the Soviet empire broke apart and new nations were formed along tribal lines.

    Btw, Russians lost 20 million in defense of the motherland. They fought and died for tribal reasons. I can't think of a better reason. Tribal defense of the motherland from foreigners.

    And if you think people shouldn't fight tribally to defend the motherland, then you are one of those globalist imperialists.

    There would be peace in Europe if Europeans acted tribally and kept Muslims and Africans out.
    And if they forbade globalist Jews from pushing open borders and multiculturalism.
    But globalism and 'diversity' mongering is gonna bring about a disaster worse than WWI and WWII combined.

    Tribes and tribalism are for losers. The worst part of tribalism is not tribes fighting each other – it is intra tribe fighting.

    Tribes have rulers – fighting to become a ruler gets a lot of innocent people killed.

    Who wants to part of an intra tribe biological pecking order – give us freedom from all that.

    Don’t we want to identify, with what we as individuals have accomplish, instead of what our gang did to the other guys? Is being a Republican or Democrat, or being a black or a white the sum of your life, is that what you hang your hat on? Or are you an accomplished human being most proud of what YOU have created that uplifts all?

    If you want to think of yourself as part of a superior gang, you are not part of the flow stream of Western thought.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Tribes and tribalism are for losers. The worst part of tribalism is not tribes fighting each other – it is intra tribe fighting."

    Your mama is a loser. Your daddy too.

    "Tribes have rulers – fighting to become a ruler gets a lot of innocent people killed.
    Who wants to part of an intra tribe biological pecking order – give us freedom from all that."

    We are not talking of tribalism as in street gangs or Conan the Barbarian stuff. We mean it in the modern sense. Love of country, culture, and heritage IN YOUR OWN LAND. Why shouldn't the Finns love being Finnish in Finland? Why shouldn't Viets love being Vietnamese in Vietnam?

    "Don’t we want to identify, with what we as individuals have accomplish, instead of what our gang did to the other guys? Is being a Republican or Democrat, or being a black or a white the sum of your life, is that what you hang your hat on? Or are you an accomplished human being most proud of what YOU have created that uplifts all?"

    You're such a fool. The problem isn't tribalism or anti-tribalism per se. It is radicalism.
    Radical tribalism is bad because it blinds one tribe to the worth of other tribes. But one can be a sensible tribalist and say, "My folks have something--land, heritage, history, identity--worth preserving, and OTHER tribes also have something worth preserving too, and we respect that."
    Is there something wrong with Germans respecting Japan's right to be Japanese, and Japanese respecting Germany's right to be German? Tribalism only gets in trouble when one tribe commits imperialism on another tribe. That way, the power of one tribe violates the rights of another tribe.

    All ideas have value to some extent. So, tribalism is good to a point. And anti-tribalism is also good to a point. But if either is radicalized, it causes problems.
    Radical anti-tribalism tries to wipe out the heritage, race, and identity of peoples around the world. It's like communists destroying tons of stuff in Russia in the name of erasing the evil past. It's like Mao's Cultural Revolution in the name of starting from Year Zero. But a people's worth comes from history and heritage.

    Also, identity and individuality serve one another. They can be opposites but they can also be partners. Identity gives individuality focus, direction, a sense of past and future. Also, individuality wants to serve something bigger than oneself. And what better than identity?
    After all, ultimately individuals don't live forever. They only last for several decades. Also, most individuals are NOT great. They are not Howard Roarks or Luke Skywalkers or Thomas Edisons or Albert Einsteins. Most individuals are ordinary folks meant to be Joe Schmoes.
    So, they want to be a part of something bigger than themselves. They are not gonna be Picasso, Proust, Newton, or Beethoven.

    Most individualities don't amount to much. So, people want their individuality to gain meaning in association to something. And that's where identity comes in. If you have a strong identity, then your individuality gains meaning and purpose and direction in relation to that identity. It's like your body needs bones to have structure. Without bones, your body is just a blob of flesh. It's the bone that give it support.

    Same with identity and individuality. Identity provides structure and support to individuality. Individualism offers freedom and choice but ultimately for what? What do you want to stand for, what do you wanna support, what do you want to defend? Also, you didn't create yourself. You are the product of the line of your people. And after you die, your children will carry on with your legacy. What connects a people across space and time? History, heritage, culture, race, and etc.

    Is it a coincidence that the Jews have been both the most tribal and the most individualistic of peoples? Jewish tribalism was so strong that it survived over 3000 yrs even though Jews often led nomadic existence for long stretches. But it was precisely because Jews were so strong, proud, and adamant in their tribal pride that they were also powerful individuals. Their individuality developed with the idea that it was blessed by God and had a higher purpose of serving God and preserving the Jewish race and culture. Moses was a powerful individual but why? He had to lead his people. King David too.

    Without identity, individuality for most people just means pop culture, hedonism, narcissism, gambling, watching TV, and acting chidlish and never growing up. Like you.

    "If you want to think of yourself as part of a superior gang, you are not part of the flow stream of Western thought."

    Oh how precious. So, there is a specific thing called 'western thought' -- as opposed to eastern, southern, and northern thought -- BUT, we shouldn't be tribal.
    In arguing that western thought is different from other thoughts, aren't you being tribal?
    But then, you offer a paradox, i.e. what makes western thought unique is it is uniquely universal.

    Boy, it sounds like people who say America is 'exceptional' because, unlike all other nations, it isn't tribal. So, America is 'exceptionally' 'un-tribal'.
    But isn't the very notion that a nation is 'exceptional' a form of tribal thinking? And what has such mentality done in the Middle East and North Africa in the name of spreading 'democracy' and 'human rights'? Looks like a mess over there.
  71. @Curle

    We must chose the thought system over the biological system.
     
    How about the thought system that some biology works at some tasks on the whole and in groups of like kind to achieve certain goals better than other biology? Go ahead and try and use golden retrievers as herding dogs, but those who choose border collies will have consistently better outcomes. And, choosing better is a thought system as well. Segregation is also a thought system.

    “Segregation is also a thought system.”

    Yes – it started with the apes.

    Read More
  72. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factoid"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Art
    Tribes and tribalism are for losers. The worst part of tribalism is not tribes fighting each other – it is intra tribe fighting.

    Tribes have rulers – fighting to become a ruler gets a lot of innocent people killed.

    Who wants to part of an intra tribe biological pecking order – give us freedom from all that.

    Don’t we want to identify, with what we as individuals have accomplish, instead of what our gang did to the other guys? Is being a Republican or Democrat, or being a black or a white the sum of your life, is that what you hang your hat on? Or are you an accomplished human being most proud of what YOU have created that uplifts all?

    If you want to think of yourself as part of a superior gang, you are not part of the flow stream of Western thought.

    “Tribes and tribalism are for losers. The worst part of tribalism is not tribes fighting each other – it is intra tribe fighting.”

    Your mama is a loser. Your daddy too.

    “Tribes have rulers – fighting to become a ruler gets a lot of innocent people killed.
    Who wants to part of an intra tribe biological pecking order – give us freedom from all that.”

    We are not talking of tribalism as in street gangs or Conan the Barbarian stuff. We mean it in the modern sense. Love of country, culture, and heritage IN YOUR OWN LAND. Why shouldn’t the Finns love being Finnish in Finland? Why shouldn’t Viets love being Vietnamese in Vietnam?

    “Don’t we want to identify, with what we as individuals have accomplish, instead of what our gang did to the other guys? Is being a Republican or Democrat, or being a black or a white the sum of your life, is that what you hang your hat on? Or are you an accomplished human being most proud of what YOU have created that uplifts all?”

    You’re such a fool. The problem isn’t tribalism or anti-tribalism per se. It is radicalism.
    Radical tribalism is bad because it blinds one tribe to the worth of other tribes. But one can be a sensible tribalist and say, “My folks have something–land, heritage, history, identity–worth preserving, and OTHER tribes also have something worth preserving too, and we respect that.”
    Is there something wrong with Germans respecting Japan’s right to be Japanese, and Japanese respecting Germany’s right to be German? Tribalism only gets in trouble when one tribe commits imperialism on another tribe. That way, the power of one tribe violates the rights of another tribe.

    All ideas have value to some extent. So, tribalism is good to a point. And anti-tribalism is also good to a point. But if either is radicalized, it causes problems.
    Radical anti-tribalism tries to wipe out the heritage, race, and identity of peoples around the world. It’s like communists destroying tons of stuff in Russia in the name of erasing the evil past. It’s like Mao’s Cultural Revolution in the name of starting from Year Zero. But a people’s worth comes from history and heritage.

    Also, identity and individuality serve one another. They can be opposites but they can also be partners. Identity gives individuality focus, direction, a sense of past and future. Also, individuality wants to serve something bigger than oneself. And what better than identity?
    After all, ultimately individuals don’t live forever. They only last for several decades. Also, most individuals are NOT great. They are not Howard Roarks or Luke Skywalkers or Thomas Edisons or Albert Einsteins. Most individuals are ordinary folks meant to be Joe Schmoes.
    So, they want to be a part of something bigger than themselves. They are not gonna be Picasso, Proust, Newton, or Beethoven.

    Most individualities don’t amount to much. So, people want their individuality to gain meaning in association to something. And that’s where identity comes in. If you have a strong identity, then your individuality gains meaning and purpose and direction in relation to that identity. It’s like your body needs bones to have structure. Without bones, your body is just a blob of flesh. It’s the bone that give it support.

    Same with identity and individuality. Identity provides structure and support to individuality. Individualism offers freedom and choice but ultimately for what? What do you want to stand for, what do you wanna support, what do you want to defend? Also, you didn’t create yourself. You are the product of the line of your people. And after you die, your children will carry on with your legacy. What connects a people across space and time? History, heritage, culture, race, and etc.

    Is it a coincidence that the Jews have been both the most tribal and the most individualistic of peoples? Jewish tribalism was so strong that it survived over 3000 yrs even though Jews often led nomadic existence for long stretches. But it was precisely because Jews were so strong, proud, and adamant in their tribal pride that they were also powerful individuals. Their individuality developed with the idea that it was blessed by God and had a higher purpose of serving God and preserving the Jewish race and culture. Moses was a powerful individual but why? He had to lead his people. King David too.

    Without identity, individuality for most people just means pop culture, hedonism, narcissism, gambling, watching TV, and acting chidlish and never growing up. Like you.

    “If you want to think of yourself as part of a superior gang, you are not part of the flow stream of Western thought.”

    Oh how precious. So, there is a specific thing called ‘western thought’ — as opposed to eastern, southern, and northern thought — BUT, we shouldn’t be tribal.
    In arguing that western thought is different from other thoughts, aren’t you being tribal?
    But then, you offer a paradox, i.e. what makes western thought unique is it is uniquely universal.

    Boy, it sounds like people who say America is ‘exceptional’ because, unlike all other nations, it isn’t tribal. So, America is ‘exceptionally’ ‘un-tribal’.
    But isn’t the very notion that a nation is ‘exceptional’ a form of tribal thinking? And what has such mentality done in the Middle East and North Africa in the name of spreading ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’? Looks like a mess over there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    “Radical anti-tribalism tries to wipe out the heritage, race, and identity of peoples around the world.”

    This all comes down to the word “radical” – t0 me that means force – and force means government – and government means tribalism. All those “radicals” you complain about are all pro-government types. They are busy making a new tribe.

    What I mean by “tribalism” is group of people getting together to use force on other people.

    Go to a St. Patrick’s Day parade – attend the Sons of Italy functions – eat great ethic family meals = but leave it at that – never gang up with others and attack someone different.

    p.s. Don’t pat yourself on the back because you are Irish or Italian, or whatever – do not declare yourself superior because of your parents gonads.
  73. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factoid"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Realist
    Yes, many Swedish people are stupid.

    Anti-tribalism is no antidote to horrors.

    Jim Jones was an anti-tribalist. His community included people of all colors.

    But imagine if the world were controlled by men like Jim Jones.

    Holy Cow.

    In a way, tribalism is just the way our mind works.

    Even universalism turns into just another form of tribalism or meta-tribalism.

    There is tribalism of materially-rooted stuff like blood and soil.

    But there is also the tribalism of the mind, of righteousness, of concepts.
    Even universalism works in terms of ‘us vs them’ since universalists see themselves as righteous and demean tribalists as wrong. So, they wage on tribalists. Communism was ideological meta-tribalism.

    Also, there is no single universalism. Every school of universalism claims to be right. So, Catholics, Protestants, Sunnis, Shias, Buddhists, Spreading Democracy Crowd, and etc. claim to be the true universalists. It too leads to ‘us versus them’ view of the world. Though anti-tribal in ideology, they are tribal in mindset.

    So, even if we transcend racial tribalism, we end up with ideological tribalism. Is it any wonder that Stalinsts and Trotskyites and Maoists and Titoists and etc never saw eye to eye on anything?

    And think of all the denominations hatched by Protestantism.

    And look at all the bickering among the Liberal side in America. If not for the KKKrazy Glue to hold the Democratic coalition together, there’s no way homos, Jews, blacks, East Asians, South Asians, Mexicans, trannies, old school feminists, new school slut feminists, Muslims, Hollywood oligarchs, Las Vegas oligarchs, and white working class can stick together.

    Also, given the natural tendency of man toward tribalism, getting rid of one form of tribalism only fills the vacuum with other kinds of tribalism.
    So, if whites say, ‘we reject white tribalism’, it doesn’t lead to all groups abandoning their tribalism. Instead, the vacuum created by white rejection of white tribalism makes room for Muslim tribalism, Jewish tribalism, homo try-ball-ism, black tribalism, La Raza tribalism, and etc to fill the vacuum. Is it any wonder that the weakening of white identity has only boosted non-white identity politics in places like the UK?

    One reason why white society is ailing is the vanishing of the Butt Sniff Ritual factor.

    Ever look at dogs and other animals? Those in the same pack may wander off separately, but at the end of they day, they all return and then rub each other and sniff each other’s butts, and etc. It’s a way of re-establishing the animal version of virile and confident ‘blood and soil’ mentality. Apart and away from one another, they had to tread carefully and anxiously in hostile/strange territory. But back in the pack, they feel confident as a group. They can relax, sniff each other’s butts for identification and camaraderie. Rub each other and mix scents of the pack/tribe.

    Whites used to be like this. Apart from home/community, they would act proper, nice, and official with a sense of decorum, especially when dealing with different groups.

    But once they got together again, they would use racial slurs, make ethnic jokes about others, laugh about it, and etc. Some might say such behavior is ‘racist’, but it’s not necessarily hostile or nasty. It’s just a way of butt-sniffing to replenish a sense of tribal unity, confidence, and cohesiveness. It’s a way of saying, I’m white, you’re white, and we recognize each others’ butt odors, and we smell alike unlike them other folks.

    So, whites tread carefully outside the community, but within the community, they sniffed each other’s butts and felt virile and strong again. They could let go of their inhibitions, thump their chests, and talk big. It’s like when white folks get together in THE SEARCHERS, they say some not-so-nice stuff about Indians. It’s like the guys in Cassavetes HUSBANDS can say anything about anything to one another. They belong to the same tribe.

    The thing it is natural for EVERY group to act like this. It is normal. The rule is ‘behave among those who are different than you BUT hold nothing back among your kind’. The need for caution among others who are different makes you lose confidence in yourself since the main thing is to get along and be sensitive at all times. So, if you want your confidence to be replenished, it has to be in your community where you can crack jokes about people of different races you work with.

    Every group does this. Among themselves, blacks talk shit about everyone else and laugh about it. Among Mexicans, there is endless rants about gringos, Negroes, chinos, and Jewos. Among homos, there’s endless hissy pissy bitching about straights. Among Chinese, there is endless talk about about foreign devils.

    But among whites, even this butt sniff ritual has been lost. To be sure, this is truer of some white groups than others. Traditionally, Italian-Americans have been more into butt sniff rituals. Just look at Scorsese movies where the Italian-Americans are always saying riotous things about various ethnic groups.. And Jews love to bitch endlessly about wasps and other northern european whites. And judging by the hacking of Hollywood emails, they talk a lot of crap about Negroes too.

    This scene is a riot:

    But it seems Northern Europeans have lost this butt sniff ritualism. Partly, it’s due to Protestantist emphasis on proper behavior 24/7. Correct manners, correct behavior, correct language, correct thoughts, correct actions. Protestantism is anal than butt-sniff. It tries to wipe the butt so clean that it smells like soap. This mentality did wonders for making a well-ordered and efficient society but removed something hearty and organic.

    But the other reason is the rise of PC. With Jewish elites controlling much of media and academia(and with their ear on every ‘bad white behavior’) , the slightest whiff of white gentile butt-sniffing came tremendous public shaming. This is one reason why Jews especially hate Wasp country clubs where genteel wasps might be whispering Jewish jokes to one another, like ‘how do you drive a Jew crazy? Put him in a round room and tell him there’s a penny in a corner.’ Actually, Jews are too smart to fall for such a trick. It would have to be a dumb Polish convert to Judaism.

    Anyway, the fact is it’s still permissible for non-white groups to indulge in butt-sniff rituals. So, even as they behave among people who are different, their confidence levels are replenished when they return to their community and talk without inhibitions about other groups.
    So, Hindu-Americans get together and talk crap about everyone else.
    So, Mexican-Americans get together and talk crap about everyone else.
    So, black-Americans get together and talk crap about everyone else.
    So, Jewish-Americans get together and talk crap about everyone else, especially wasps and Muslims.

    But, white folks, especially of Northern Eurpoean descent, are not allowed to this. And pressure against it comes from both within and outside the community. Protestantist emphasis on clean mindset and Jewish media sensitivity to even the slightest hint of ‘bad white behavior’ have made whites inhibited and paranoid even within their own community.

    If you’re a Mexican American, you might act like a nice Gomez-er among non-Mexicans. But when you return to the Mexican community, you can rip gringos, negroes, chinos, and Jewos and everyone will laugh with you and have a good time. No one will look at you as a ‘bad racist Mexican’. They’ll serve you cerveza with lime and tacos.

    But if you’re a white guy and return to a white community and start talking like Archie Bunker, they look at with PC judgmentalism. Even your friends and family members may reject you.
    And if you crack a homo joke, your boyfriend or girlfriend might drop you.

    When whites stopped sniffing each other’s butts, they lost the race/culture war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kat Grey
    Ironically and shamefully the very ethnic group which brought the concept of Freedom Of Speech and had it enshrined in the US Constitution is the one who is being silenced by silent, stealthy Draconian means
  74. @Priss Factor
    "Tribes and tribalism are for losers. The worst part of tribalism is not tribes fighting each other – it is intra tribe fighting."

    Your mama is a loser. Your daddy too.

    "Tribes have rulers – fighting to become a ruler gets a lot of innocent people killed.
    Who wants to part of an intra tribe biological pecking order – give us freedom from all that."

    We are not talking of tribalism as in street gangs or Conan the Barbarian stuff. We mean it in the modern sense. Love of country, culture, and heritage IN YOUR OWN LAND. Why shouldn't the Finns love being Finnish in Finland? Why shouldn't Viets love being Vietnamese in Vietnam?

    "Don’t we want to identify, with what we as individuals have accomplish, instead of what our gang did to the other guys? Is being a Republican or Democrat, or being a black or a white the sum of your life, is that what you hang your hat on? Or are you an accomplished human being most proud of what YOU have created that uplifts all?"

    You're such a fool. The problem isn't tribalism or anti-tribalism per se. It is radicalism.
    Radical tribalism is bad because it blinds one tribe to the worth of other tribes. But one can be a sensible tribalist and say, "My folks have something--land, heritage, history, identity--worth preserving, and OTHER tribes also have something worth preserving too, and we respect that."
    Is there something wrong with Germans respecting Japan's right to be Japanese, and Japanese respecting Germany's right to be German? Tribalism only gets in trouble when one tribe commits imperialism on another tribe. That way, the power of one tribe violates the rights of another tribe.

    All ideas have value to some extent. So, tribalism is good to a point. And anti-tribalism is also good to a point. But if either is radicalized, it causes problems.
    Radical anti-tribalism tries to wipe out the heritage, race, and identity of peoples around the world. It's like communists destroying tons of stuff in Russia in the name of erasing the evil past. It's like Mao's Cultural Revolution in the name of starting from Year Zero. But a people's worth comes from history and heritage.

    Also, identity and individuality serve one another. They can be opposites but they can also be partners. Identity gives individuality focus, direction, a sense of past and future. Also, individuality wants to serve something bigger than oneself. And what better than identity?
    After all, ultimately individuals don't live forever. They only last for several decades. Also, most individuals are NOT great. They are not Howard Roarks or Luke Skywalkers or Thomas Edisons or Albert Einsteins. Most individuals are ordinary folks meant to be Joe Schmoes.
    So, they want to be a part of something bigger than themselves. They are not gonna be Picasso, Proust, Newton, or Beethoven.

    Most individualities don't amount to much. So, people want their individuality to gain meaning in association to something. And that's where identity comes in. If you have a strong identity, then your individuality gains meaning and purpose and direction in relation to that identity. It's like your body needs bones to have structure. Without bones, your body is just a blob of flesh. It's the bone that give it support.

    Same with identity and individuality. Identity provides structure and support to individuality. Individualism offers freedom and choice but ultimately for what? What do you want to stand for, what do you wanna support, what do you want to defend? Also, you didn't create yourself. You are the product of the line of your people. And after you die, your children will carry on with your legacy. What connects a people across space and time? History, heritage, culture, race, and etc.

    Is it a coincidence that the Jews have been both the most tribal and the most individualistic of peoples? Jewish tribalism was so strong that it survived over 3000 yrs even though Jews often led nomadic existence for long stretches. But it was precisely because Jews were so strong, proud, and adamant in their tribal pride that they were also powerful individuals. Their individuality developed with the idea that it was blessed by God and had a higher purpose of serving God and preserving the Jewish race and culture. Moses was a powerful individual but why? He had to lead his people. King David too.

    Without identity, individuality for most people just means pop culture, hedonism, narcissism, gambling, watching TV, and acting chidlish and never growing up. Like you.

    "If you want to think of yourself as part of a superior gang, you are not part of the flow stream of Western thought."

    Oh how precious. So, there is a specific thing called 'western thought' -- as opposed to eastern, southern, and northern thought -- BUT, we shouldn't be tribal.
    In arguing that western thought is different from other thoughts, aren't you being tribal?
    But then, you offer a paradox, i.e. what makes western thought unique is it is uniquely universal.

    Boy, it sounds like people who say America is 'exceptional' because, unlike all other nations, it isn't tribal. So, America is 'exceptionally' 'un-tribal'.
    But isn't the very notion that a nation is 'exceptional' a form of tribal thinking? And what has such mentality done in the Middle East and North Africa in the name of spreading 'democracy' and 'human rights'? Looks like a mess over there.

    “Radical anti-tribalism tries to wipe out the heritage, race, and identity of peoples around the world.”

    This all comes down to the word “radical” – t0 me that means force – and force means government – and government means tribalism. All those “radicals” you complain about are all pro-government types. They are busy making a new tribe.

    What I mean by “tribalism” is group of people getting together to use force on other people.

    Go to a St. Patrick’s Day parade – attend the Sons of Italy functions – eat great ethic family meals = but leave it at that – never gang up with others and attack someone different.

    p.s. Don’t pat yourself on the back because you are Irish or Italian, or whatever – do not declare yourself superior because of your parents gonads.

    Read More
  75. @Antiracism « American Buddhist Net
    […] …Words like “racism,” “social Darwinism,” and “hereditarianism” create the impression that a single monolithic ideology prevailed before the triumph of antiracism. Actually, the truth was almost the reverse. There was initially a wide spectrum of beliefs, as is normally the case before one belief pushes out its rivals and imposes its vision of reality. Antiracism triumphed because it was more ideological than its rivals; it possessed a unity of purpose that enabled it to neutralize one potential opponent after another. Often, the latter were unaware of this adversarial relationship and assumed they were dealing with a friendly ally. (Source) […]

    Check out the PBS documentary on Leni Reifenstahl. “Hitler’s favorite film propaganist.” You will note at the beginning a snippet from the opening of Reifenstahl’s documentary on the 1936 Olympics which begins with a very blond and blue-eyed (you can see it even in B&W) runner who was selected by Riefenstahl as perfect to represent the “Deutsche Volk” by carrying in the torch for the last lap of the relay arriving from Athens, carrying it into the newly constructed example of Nazi (Albert Speer) architectural style, the Berliner Sportpalast.

    Only one slight problem. One little bit of cognitive dissonance. Leni Riefenstahl’s chosen young man was … Russian born and bred. Of course! Which ethnic group lies closer to the Aryan originals: the Germanic or the Slavic? (Hint: which language group is closer to proto-Indo-European? Germanic or Slavic?) And far more blond and blue-eyed than Hitler was, no doubt, Prince Alexander Nevsky himself, the Swedish pirate who founded the Russian nation!

    As another exhibit, I could bring forward from the writings of Romain Rolland, frequent mention of the greatness of the French race. And, yes, that would be the famed Nobelist in literature (1915). The Prize Committee explained that it had been awarded to Rolland “as a tribute to the lofty idealism of his literary production and to the sympathy and love of truth with which he has described different types of human beings.”

    “Types” eh? Types? But not races. Heaven forbid! “I am so ashamed – mortified really – of my ‘race’! So sorry. So sorry.” But I am not sorry about any of that, unless there is something specific for me to be sorry about. I am also not therefore, rushing off in pursuit of Mark Green’s “white racial solidarity” … solidarity is forged in the crucible of life’s struggles … or not … depends on what happens, no? So, yes, be careful out there. No doubt about that and just because the birds around you are of like feather … don’t suppose that they won’t do you dirty too if that’s the type they are.

    Jesus had it right when he noted that it’s what’s inside that counts. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” Matt. 23:27 (KJV)

    So, it may be that many blacks or many whites that you meet are ” somewhat unintelligent, unattractive and uncivilized” … could that mean something about yourself, about the pathways that you are following? On still other pathways, you may find many blacks and many whites that are intelligent, attractive and civilized. Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo.

    Some definitions of ‘race’ from my American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

    1. A local geographical or global population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

    2. Mankind as a whole.

    3. Any group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality or geographical distribution.

    4. A genealogical line: lineage, family.

    5. Any group of people more or less distinct from all others: the race of statesmen.

    Read More
  76. @Priss Factor
    Anti-tribalism is no antidote to horrors.

    Jim Jones was an anti-tribalist. His community included people of all colors.

    But imagine if the world were controlled by men like Jim Jones.

    Holy Cow.

    In a way, tribalism is just the way our mind works.

    Even universalism turns into just another form of tribalism or meta-tribalism.

    There is tribalism of materially-rooted stuff like blood and soil.

    But there is also the tribalism of the mind, of righteousness, of concepts.
    Even universalism works in terms of 'us vs them' since universalists see themselves as righteous and demean tribalists as wrong. So, they wage on tribalists. Communism was ideological meta-tribalism.

    Also, there is no single universalism. Every school of universalism claims to be right. So, Catholics, Protestants, Sunnis, Shias, Buddhists, Spreading Democracy Crowd, and etc. claim to be the true universalists. It too leads to 'us versus them' view of the world. Though anti-tribal in ideology, they are tribal in mindset.

    So, even if we transcend racial tribalism, we end up with ideological tribalism. Is it any wonder that Stalinsts and Trotskyites and Maoists and Titoists and etc never saw eye to eye on anything?

    And think of all the denominations hatched by Protestantism.

    And look at all the bickering among the Liberal side in America. If not for the KKKrazy Glue to hold the Democratic coalition together, there's no way homos, Jews, blacks, East Asians, South Asians, Mexicans, trannies, old school feminists, new school slut feminists, Muslims, Hollywood oligarchs, Las Vegas oligarchs, and white working class can stick together.

    Also, given the natural tendency of man toward tribalism, getting rid of one form of tribalism only fills the vacuum with other kinds of tribalism.
    So, if whites say, 'we reject white tribalism', it doesn't lead to all groups abandoning their tribalism. Instead, the vacuum created by white rejection of white tribalism makes room for Muslim tribalism, Jewish tribalism, homo try-ball-ism, black tribalism, La Raza tribalism, and etc to fill the vacuum. Is it any wonder that the weakening of white identity has only boosted non-white identity politics in places like the UK?

    One reason why white society is ailing is the vanishing of the Butt Sniff Ritual factor.

    Ever look at dogs and other animals? Those in the same pack may wander off separately, but at the end of they day, they all return and then rub each other and sniff each other's butts, and etc. It's a way of re-establishing the animal version of virile and confident 'blood and soil' mentality. Apart and away from one another, they had to tread carefully and anxiously in hostile/strange territory. But back in the pack, they feel confident as a group. They can relax, sniff each other's butts for identification and camaraderie. Rub each other and mix scents of the pack/tribe.

    Whites used to be like this. Apart from home/community, they would act proper, nice, and official with a sense of decorum, especially when dealing with different groups.

    But once they got together again, they would use racial slurs, make ethnic jokes about others, laugh about it, and etc. Some might say such behavior is 'racist', but it's not necessarily hostile or nasty. It's just a way of butt-sniffing to replenish a sense of tribal unity, confidence, and cohesiveness. It's a way of saying, I'm white, you're white, and we recognize each others' butt odors, and we smell alike unlike them other folks.

    So, whites tread carefully outside the community, but within the community, they sniffed each other's butts and felt virile and strong again. They could let go of their inhibitions, thump their chests, and talk big. It's like when white folks get together in THE SEARCHERS, they say some not-so-nice stuff about Indians. It's like the guys in Cassavetes HUSBANDS can say anything about anything to one another. They belong to the same tribe.

    The thing it is natural for EVERY group to act like this. It is normal. The rule is 'behave among those who are different than you BUT hold nothing back among your kind'. The need for caution among others who are different makes you lose confidence in yourself since the main thing is to get along and be sensitive at all times. So, if you want your confidence to be replenished, it has to be in your community where you can crack jokes about people of different races you work with.

    Every group does this. Among themselves, blacks talk shit about everyone else and laugh about it. Among Mexicans, there is endless rants about gringos, Negroes, chinos, and Jewos. Among homos, there's endless hissy pissy bitching about straights. Among Chinese, there is endless talk about about foreign devils.

    But among whites, even this butt sniff ritual has been lost. To be sure, this is truer of some white groups than others. Traditionally, Italian-Americans have been more into butt sniff rituals. Just look at Scorsese movies where the Italian-Americans are always saying riotous things about various ethnic groups.. And Jews love to bitch endlessly about wasps and other northern european whites. And judging by the hacking of Hollywood emails, they talk a lot of crap about Negroes too.

    This scene is a riot:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrkKL45qB0Q

    But it seems Northern Europeans have lost this butt sniff ritualism. Partly, it's due to Protestantist emphasis on proper behavior 24/7. Correct manners, correct behavior, correct language, correct thoughts, correct actions. Protestantism is anal than butt-sniff. It tries to wipe the butt so clean that it smells like soap. This mentality did wonders for making a well-ordered and efficient society but removed something hearty and organic.

    But the other reason is the rise of PC. With Jewish elites controlling much of media and academia(and with their ear on every 'bad white behavior') , the slightest whiff of white gentile butt-sniffing came tremendous public shaming. This is one reason why Jews especially hate Wasp country clubs where genteel wasps might be whispering Jewish jokes to one another, like 'how do you drive a Jew crazy? Put him in a round room and tell him there's a penny in a corner.' Actually, Jews are too smart to fall for such a trick. It would have to be a dumb Polish convert to Judaism.

    Anyway, the fact is it's still permissible for non-white groups to indulge in butt-sniff rituals. So, even as they behave among people who are different, their confidence levels are replenished when they return to their community and talk without inhibitions about other groups.
    So, Hindu-Americans get together and talk crap about everyone else.
    So, Mexican-Americans get together and talk crap about everyone else.
    So, black-Americans get together and talk crap about everyone else.
    So, Jewish-Americans get together and talk crap about everyone else, especially wasps and Muslims.

    But, white folks, especially of Northern Eurpoean descent, are not allowed to this. And pressure against it comes from both within and outside the community. Protestantist emphasis on clean mindset and Jewish media sensitivity to even the slightest hint of 'bad white behavior' have made whites inhibited and paranoid even within their own community.

    If you're a Mexican American, you might act like a nice Gomez-er among non-Mexicans. But when you return to the Mexican community, you can rip gringos, negroes, chinos, and Jewos and everyone will laugh with you and have a good time. No one will look at you as a 'bad racist Mexican'. They'll serve you cerveza with lime and tacos.

    But if you're a white guy and return to a white community and start talking like Archie Bunker, they look at with PC judgmentalism. Even your friends and family members may reject you.
    And if you crack a homo joke, your boyfriend or girlfriend might drop you.

    When whites stopped sniffing each other's butts, they lost the race/culture war.

    Ironically and shamefully the very ethnic group which brought the concept of Freedom Of Speech and had it enshrined in the US Constitution is the one who is being silenced by silent, stealthy Draconian means

    Read More
  77. @unit472
    Anti-Marriageism seems to be regnant now in US foreign policy in regards to Africa where any nation passing laws against homosexual activity are subject to economic and political pressure from Washington. Ironic in a way because just a few years ago it was the same US government that was funding programs to encourage monogamous and safe sex lifestyles to Africa in order to stop the AIDS epidemic then devastating much of Africa.

    From public health point of view, criminalizing homosexual conduct makes sense in the same way that mandatory vaccination does. We don't give much credence to some religious fanatics objections to having their children vaccinated against polio or measles because their 'freedom' to not inoculate their children against those diseases puts at risk the health of others. For the same reason Africans could reasonably argue that they are not going to condone homosexual conduct and imprison those caught engaging in it as a public health measure.

    Africans could reasonably argue that they are not going to condone homosexual conduct and imprison those caught engaging in it as a public health measure.

    For me, the public health argument is the over-riding concern and I’m amazed how it is overlooked in discussion of homo behavior. Lesbians are a non-issue for the most part, but gay men engage in behavior that is just plain dangerous. There isn’t a public health expert anywhere who would advocate constant contact with human fecal matter nor the insanely dangerous introduction of fecal matter into the bloodstream. Yet this is exactly what gay men do, with multiple partners, over and over and again. They ingest fecal matter orally and anally. They introduce feces into the bloodstream through anal fissures. And then they walk amongst us potentially infecting any who happen to come into close enough contact with them even in non-sexual manner.

    I’m constantly asking supporters of “gay rights” if they are aware of what, exactly, gay men actually do. Almost invariably the answer is “no.” And it’s not just “no,” but it’s “I don’t want to know.” The behavior is so repugnant to most that they don’t even want to think about it.

    Read More
  78. @unit472
    Look if I want the 'conventional wisdom' I wouldn't be reading this blog. Your post reeks of stale propaganda. "Rosa Parks" seamstress? If you believe that you know nothing. She was a trained political agitator sent to a radical academy by her white sponsors and, if you believe her story ( I don't) her motivation was a personal dislike for the bus driver over an incident from years before but the Montgomery, Alabama ordinance on passenger seating was ridiculous as it was vague and more a matter of a bus drivers discretion than anything else. Remove 'race' from the ordinance and replace it with 'elderly or handicapped' and it would be entirely legal today as long as it was enforced uniformly. You just wait and this issue will re-emerge in some community when Muslims attempt to impose segregated seating by sex!

    The real economic disaster for blacks was not segregation it was the end of it. If you had lived in a segregated city in the United States you would have known that blacks were not forced to do without restaurants, hotels or stores because they were denied access to white owned businesses, they simply had their own. As a note aside, in the summer of 1962, during a visit to my mothers hometown, she gave me some money to go the movie theatre. I remember the movie was "How The West Was Won" and I decided I would go and sit in the balcony. The usher stopped me and informed me the balcony was reserved for negro customers! So much for my 'white privilege'. That said, there is now an effort in many Southern cities to preserve what remains of the historical black business districts because they did exist. The bars, nightclubs, hotels, restaurants and even banks! They, like many small white owned businesses, went out of business when segregation ended and the great homogenization of America began. When the Walmarts , McDonalds and other national chains destroyed downtowns all across America.

    Also, Thomas Sowell and Ann Coulter have both spent a great deal of ink debunking the “segregation was terrible for negroes” trope. As you said, the end of segregation was disastrous for negroes as the negro owned businesses were forced to compete directly with much stronger white owned businesses and the negro customers overwhelmingly stopped supporting their neighborhood bankers, grocers, etc, and moved to the “better” white owned ventures for their needs. The same thing happened in schools as the brightest negro parents pushed their comparatively bright and well-behaved children into white schools leaving the negro schools as home to the most dysfunctional negro children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    Baloney. The end of segregation was not "disastrous" for blacks. The end of segregation was overall a boon for them. In SOME cases, such as the quick destruction of some thriving black schools, with black parents given no or few choices, there were negatives, but every credible history of the Civil Rights Movement acknowledges the great relief that the excrescence of Jim Crow was over with. And Thomas Sowell does nt distort the picture as you are. Like every economist, and like most historians of the Civil Rights Movement, everybody realized there were tradeoffs to be made, but the net results were positive. Every social movement or policy has tradeoffs to make.

    Sowell acknowledges that in SoME cases problems happened, i.e the good schools destroyed, etc. And that is nothing new. Hell leftist WEB DUbois said there were tradeoffs and that things like the black business districts were pluses. BUT he also noted that if the black businessmen had been allowed to transact freely in the market, including being able to locate a business where you wanted, their profits would have been GREATER, and black employment would have been greater.

    Segregation was set up to benefit whites and exploit blacks. The much touted black business districts were fine as far as they went, but they were often handcuffed entities, forbidden to relocate to "white" areas either by law,or by various underhanded "freezeout" methods or via threat of white terrorist violence. Black building contractors are an example. Time and time again there were restrictions on their operations. WHite unions and politicians sandbagged them into less profitable "colored" areas, but when business was slow for whites, or new opportunities open up that could deliver better yields, they quickly pushed into the supposedly "reserved" colored areas, to greedily hog opportunities there as well.

    On the labor front the same thing. One research study in Miami notes how practices there mirrored racist white practices nationwide. The black workers were sidetracked into forming their own "independent" unions, but like black businesses, these were truncated entities, forced to the margins, so whites could hog most of the benefits. QUOTE:


    “Throughout the first half of the decade, not a single construction-related union admitted black applicants, no matter how highly qualified. This left black craftsmen, who were determined to work as skilled mechanics.. with little recourse but to form their own unions.. Generally these organizations served as segregated auxiliaries of the regular white unions..

    These Jim Crow unions had difficulty conducting business. Discriminatory hiring-hall practices, for instance, limited the scope of employment for African-Americans. Invariable, white union bosses enforced “gentlemen's agreements” restricting black operatives to job sites in “colored” districts while reserving all work in white areas for whites. During the mid-1950s, union managers violated these covenants whenever business in white areas tapered off, however, “furloughing” black artisans so that out-of-work whites could find employment in black neighborhoods..

    Workmen in “colored” auxiliaries paid union dues to the main local, but they seldom received voting rights or other privileges.. labor contracts secured for white union members. Furthermore, not one of Miami’s segregated unions allowed its black members to receive apprenticeship training, effectively denying them access to the craft opportunities and vocational instruction that prepared white operatives for career advancement..

    “Unions representing carpenters, painters, tilesetters, sheetmetal workers, and nearly all other building tradesmen held firmly to the color bar, refusing to admit qualified black mechanics.. By the same token, union leaders continued to enforce covenants preventing black artisans from working outside “colored” areas. And not infrequently, union officials maintained this arrangement by compelling contractors to refuse jobs to black workmen. In 1955 for example, when one contractor attempted to employ African-American carpenters on a “white” project, he was informed by the AFL business agent that “he’d better lay off if he didn't want something to happen to his building.”
    --Eric Tscheschlol, 1977. “So Goes The Negro”: Race and Labor in Miami, 1940-1963. Florida Historical Quarterly, Summer 1997, 42-67
     

    ^Note the use of white threats above to prevent operation of "free markets"- a common pattern in US history despite much glowing talk about "free markets." below to. On paper it all looks fine- "official" black unions just like the "official" black businesses. Wow everything on paper is so "equal"- look it the culluds have their own union and own storefronts. But what was the reality? The so called "equality" just like the fake"separate but equal" doctrine elsewhere under Jim Crow, was bogus, and every credible historian acknowledges the same, rendering your claim on this score, bogus as well.

    .
    As for schools, the main problem for blacks was HOW desegregation was implemented, and HOW whites got paid, not the fact that segregation/Jim Crow deserved a well deserved death. In many cases whites were quite malicious- quickly tearing down black schools that were sources of community pride and achievement, and implementing the wholesale firing of experienced black administrators, teachers and coaches. The quick destruction was shaped to enhance white profit, for new federal monies coming down to aid education were shifted to white controlled districts, and could be used for the benefit of whites therein on their side of town. And new school facilities constructed with all that flowing federal money were built mostly with white contractors and labor, including the same racist union labor noted above. This was a second point of white profit.

    A third angle was that the firing f the black teachers and coaches open up numerous available slots- quickly filled by whites. A fourth point of white profit concerned the many "magnet" schools that sprung up, many with brand new state of the art facilities- designed to slow "white flight," But even here white people manipulated the game for their profit. Many of the magnets operated with a quota for whites, and since white numbers were not as large, many black kids were kept languishing on long waiting lists until the white quota had been filled- locked out of the new facilities- which by the way were built with the same white racist union labor. Not only did segregation benefit whites and rig the game, but when DE-segregation finally came whites also rigged that for their own profit was well.

    In short much of the problem with desegregation is NOT the FACT of desegregation, but HOW desegregation was implemented.

  79. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/06/fatwa-fatigue/392075/?fb_ref=Default

    Muslims have fatwas.

    We have PC.

    Muslims say ‘this’ is taboo, ‘that’ is unholy.

    SJW Jihadists say ‘this’ is ‘racist’, ‘that’ is ‘homophobic’, so-and-so is ‘micro-aggressive’.

    Religious or secular, there are taboos all around.

    Americans find it amusing/offensive when Muslims do it but are blind to all the rules in America that forbid certain kinds of free speech and expression.

    And Canada is now going for PC fatwa against boycotting Israel.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/robert-fisk-canadas-support-of-israel-is-dangerous-10256597.html

    Read More
  80. I like the comments without Peter. The posts are where I can get his latest thoughts, and I am reading the post much more carefully now. The comments can be skimmed through saving time. And I can use the skip button for the naysayers.

    Read More
  81. @Stan D Mute
    Also, Thomas Sowell and Ann Coulter have both spent a great deal of ink debunking the "segregation was terrible for negroes" trope. As you said, the end of segregation was disastrous for negroes as the negro owned businesses were forced to compete directly with much stronger white owned businesses and the negro customers overwhelmingly stopped supporting their neighborhood bankers, grocers, etc, and moved to the "better" white owned ventures for their needs. The same thing happened in schools as the brightest negro parents pushed their comparatively bright and well-behaved children into white schools leaving the negro schools as home to the most dysfunctional negro children.

    Baloney. The end of segregation was not “disastrous” for blacks. The end of segregation was overall a boon for them. In SOME cases, such as the quick destruction of some thriving black schools, with black parents given no or few choices, there were negatives, but every credible history of the Civil Rights Movement acknowledges the great relief that the excrescence of Jim Crow was over with. And Thomas Sowell does nt distort the picture as you are. Like every economist, and like most historians of the Civil Rights Movement, everybody realized there were tradeoffs to be made, but the net results were positive. Every social movement or policy has tradeoffs to make.

    Sowell acknowledges that in SoME cases problems happened, i.e the good schools destroyed, etc. And that is nothing new. Hell leftist WEB DUbois said there were tradeoffs and that things like the black business districts were pluses. BUT he also noted that if the black businessmen had been allowed to transact freely in the market, including being able to locate a business where you wanted, their profits would have been GREATER, and black employment would have been greater.

    Segregation was set up to benefit whites and exploit blacks. The much touted black business districts were fine as far as they went, but they were often handcuffed entities, forbidden to relocate to “white” areas either by law,or by various underhanded “freezeout” methods or via threat of white terrorist violence. Black building contractors are an example. Time and time again there were restrictions on their operations. WHite unions and politicians sandbagged them into less profitable “colored” areas, but when business was slow for whites, or new opportunities open up that could deliver better yields, they quickly pushed into the supposedly “reserved” colored areas, to greedily hog opportunities there as well.

    On the labor front the same thing. One research study in Miami notes how practices there mirrored racist white practices nationwide. The black workers were sidetracked into forming their own “independent” unions, but like black businesses, these were truncated entities, forced to the margins, so whites could hog most of the benefits. QUOTE:

    “Throughout the first half of the decade, not a single construction-related union admitted black applicants, no matter how highly qualified. This left black craftsmen, who were determined to work as skilled mechanics.. with little recourse but to form their own unions.. Generally these organizations served as segregated auxiliaries of the regular white unions..

    These Jim Crow unions had difficulty conducting business. Discriminatory hiring-hall practices, for instance, limited the scope of employment for African-Americans. Invariable, white union bosses enforced “gentlemen’s agreements” restricting black operatives to job sites in “colored” districts while reserving all work in white areas for whites. During the mid-1950s, union managers violated these covenants whenever business in white areas tapered off, however, “furloughing” black artisans so that out-of-work whites could find employment in black neighborhoods..

    Workmen in “colored” auxiliaries paid union dues to the main local, but they seldom received voting rights or other privileges.. labor contracts secured for white union members. Furthermore, not one of Miami’s segregated unions allowed its black members to receive apprenticeship training, effectively denying them access to the craft opportunities and vocational instruction that prepared white operatives for career advancement..

    “Unions representing carpenters, painters, tilesetters, sheetmetal workers, and nearly all other building tradesmen held firmly to the color bar, refusing to admit qualified black mechanics.. By the same token, union leaders continued to enforce covenants preventing black artisans from working outside “colored” areas. And not infrequently, union officials maintained this arrangement by compelling contractors to refuse jobs to black workmen. In 1955 for example, when one contractor attempted to employ African-American carpenters on a “white” project, he was informed by the AFL business agent that “he’d better lay off if he didn’t want something to happen to his building.”
    –Eric Tscheschlol, 1977. “So Goes The Negro”: Race and Labor in Miami, 1940-1963. Florida Historical Quarterly, Summer 1997, 42-67

    ^Note the use of white threats above to prevent operation of “free markets”- a common pattern in US history despite much glowing talk about “free markets.” below to. On paper it all looks fine- “official” black unions just like the “official” black businesses. Wow everything on paper is so “equal”- look it the culluds have their own union and own storefronts. But what was the reality? The so called “equality” just like the fake”separate but equal” doctrine elsewhere under Jim Crow, was bogus, and every credible historian acknowledges the same, rendering your claim on this score, bogus as well.

    .
    As for schools, the main problem for blacks was HOW desegregation was implemented, and HOW whites got paid, not the fact that segregation/Jim Crow deserved a well deserved death. In many cases whites were quite malicious- quickly tearing down black schools that were sources of community pride and achievement, and implementing the wholesale firing of experienced black administrators, teachers and coaches. The quick destruction was shaped to enhance white profit, for new federal monies coming down to aid education were shifted to white controlled districts, and could be used for the benefit of whites therein on their side of town. And new school facilities constructed with all that flowing federal money were built mostly with white contractors and labor, including the same racist union labor noted above. This was a second point of white profit.

    A third angle was that the firing f the black teachers and coaches open up numerous available slots- quickly filled by whites. A fourth point of white profit concerned the many “magnet” schools that sprung up, many with brand new state of the art facilities- designed to slow “white flight,” But even here white people manipulated the game for their profit. Many of the magnets operated with a quota for whites, and since white numbers were not as large, many black kids were kept languishing on long waiting lists until the white quota had been filled- locked out of the new facilities- which by the way were built with the same white racist union labor. Not only did segregation benefit whites and rig the game, but when DE-segregation finally came whites also rigged that for their own profit was well.

    In short much of the problem with desegregation is NOT the FACT of desegregation, but HOW desegregation was implemented.

    Read More
  82. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Interesting video.

    Dr. Wizard of Oz says fat shaming never ever works.

    Supposedly, it makes fat people even more depressed and only makes them eat more.

    Well, it got me thinking…

    If ‘fat shaming’ doesn’t work because it makes obese people depressed and eat even more, why would ‘hate shaming’ work? Wouldn’t ‘hate-shamed’ people just get angrier/more depressed and hate even more? Sounds logical to me.

    If ‘fat-shaming’ doesn’t work, maybe ‘hate shaming’ should be ended too.

    ——

    As for the argument(about ‘fat chicks’) between Oz and this creature called Roosh, I think they both got it wrong.

    I think fat-shaming doesn’t get to the point of the issue.

    Roosh focuses on the symptoms than on the psychological cause of why women have become so fat.

    Paradoxically, Roosh and fat chicks have something in common: they’ve embraced the psychological culture of shamelessness and excess.

    Roosh is shameless in his sexual appetites. He wants to bang as many chicks as possible. He feels no shame that he sleeps around all over the world. Instead of finding a nice woman, settling down,and committing himself to family life, his idea of love is humping as many women as possible. He has a huge sexual appetite. He’s male slut. Sluttony is sexual gluttony.

    If Roosh is shameless about his sexual appetite, some women are shameless about their culinary appetites. They want to eat as much as possible because it is so pleasurable. Their sense of pleasure is such that they want to have the cake and eat it too and get five more cakes. They take pleasure from gluttony, and they’ve become shameless about it.

    So, we have sexual sluttony that Roosh stands for, and culinary gluttony that fat chicks stand for.

    Roosh is so into screwing around that he’s given up on meaningful relationships, marriage, and family.

    And fat chicks are so into pigging out that they’ve given up on meaningful weight control and looking good.

    So, in terms of their infantile excess, Roosh and fat chicks have something in common.

    In truth, everything in life gains meaning through a sense of limits and moderation. A man should seek meaningful relationship, find someone to love and commit to, have children, and devote himself to his kids. It’s the Vito Corleone way. Manhood isn’t about how many women you humped. it’s about finding the right woman and loving one’s wife and children and growing into grandfatherhood.

    Likewise, the meaning of eating isn’t only about pleasure. One has to be mindful of how much food one really needs. One doesn’t need all those calories. One needs to find pleasure in things other than food. And one has to favor healthy foods like veggies and meat over sugary junk food.

    The problem is our culture has become shameless and infantilized. Our consumer culture says consume more, consume more. Indulge in hedonism. It subverts all sense of limits. It says excess is good.

    More is more.

    So, we have the likes of Roosh calling on men to hump as many women as possible, and we have food companies urging women to pig out as much as possible.

    Roosh is a Walmart humper, and fat chicks are Walmart eaters.

    Moderation is best.

    Read More
  83. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Now that you’ve spammed several irrelevant links to the topic at hand, will you actually be returning to your standard user name, or continue trolling?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    They are totally relevant if you think tangentially.
  84. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Now that you've spammed several irrelevant links to the topic at hand, will you actually be returning to your standard user name, or continue trolling?

    They are totally relevant if you think tangentially.

    Read More
  85. @Kat Grey
    Except that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK as was the entire island of Ireland before the Free State came into being.

    Not really. The native Irish (i.e. the Catholics) have always opposed British rule in Ireland. It is only the British colonists (i.e. the Protestants) who support the British occupation of the north of Ireland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kat Grey
    Let me address your points one by one. First of all the native Irish were not Catholic but pagan Druids as Catholicism is not indigenous to any European nation or kingdom.It arrived in Ireland in the 5th century. And indeed the Catholicism practised in the Irish kingdoms prior to the Cambro-Norman invasion of 1169 was actually Celtic, hence the Papal Bull of Laudibiliter in 1155 which gave the King of England the right to Ireland. The later invasion by Strongbow aided and abetted by the King of Leinster provided the muscle by which Rome enforced its doctrines including clerical celibacy upon the Irish church. Secondly Ireland was never a colony but rather an integral part of the UK. Indeed it was only ever united within an English context and Cromwell was actually the first republican to ever set foot in Ireland! Thirdly there was much intermarriage over the centuries between the Irish, Normans, Welsh and later Scottish and English Protestant settlers. In point of fact eastern Ulster has closer links historically and geographically to western Scotland than the rest of Ireland. Have you heard of the early medieval Kingdom of Dalriada? This comprised parts of eastern Ulster and western Scotland in the 6th and 7th centuries.
  86. Enrique takes us off on this same tangent almost every week. I do not see what the travails of black Americans have to do with immigration. Actually blacks in the US may be bigger losers from immigration than other people. Especially if immigrants are eligible for affirmative action in competitive fields such as academia.

    We seem to have a lot of libertarians commenters who object to unions, religions, self aware ethnic communities; just about any institution that interferes with their picture of humans as liberal individualists with rights but no particular allegiance. But in fact every human community that ever existed has has seen itself very differently, that is why we live in nation states. People have the right in international law to leave their own country, but no right to be admitted to a country of their choice, other than their own. What race migrants are is neither here nor there.

    Whether non Europeans are in any important way different to the people of Italy or Britain is not the reason they don’t have right of entry. However, if it is asserted that immigrants are necessarily biologically equal to the population of the country they want to live in, “the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Actually blacks in the US may be bigger losers from immigration than other people. Especially if immigrants are eligible for affirmative action in competitive fields such as academia."

    It depends on which group of blacks we are talking about.

    Immigration is advantageous to government-employed blacks because it ensures Democratic victory, which means more government jobs, many of which will go to blacks.

    Not good for blacks looking for low-paying labor, but most blacks don't want those jobs anyway.
    , @iffen

    People have the right in international law to leave their own country, but no right to be admitted to a country of their choice, other than their own.
     
    What rule covers the situation where some group tells a person that this is not your country anymore?
  87. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sean
    Enrique takes us off on this same tangent almost every week. I do not see what the travails of black Americans have to do with immigration. Actually blacks in the US may be bigger losers from immigration than other people. Especially if immigrants are eligible for affirmative action in competitive fields such as academia.

    We seem to have a lot of libertarians commenters who object to unions, religions, self aware ethnic communities; just about any institution that interferes with their picture of humans as liberal individualists with rights but no particular allegiance. But in fact every human community that ever existed has has seen itself very differently, that is why we live in nation states. People have the right in international law to leave their own country, but no right to be admitted to a country of their choice, other than their own. What race migrants are is neither here nor there.

    Whether non Europeans are in any important way different to the people of Italy or Britain is not the reason they don't have right of entry. However, if it is asserted that immigrants are necessarily biologically equal to the population of the country they want to live in, "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies".

    “Actually blacks in the US may be bigger losers from immigration than other people. Especially if immigrants are eligible for affirmative action in competitive fields such as academia.”

    It depends on which group of blacks we are talking about.

    Immigration is advantageous to government-employed blacks because it ensures Democratic victory, which means more government jobs, many of which will go to blacks.

    Not good for blacks looking for low-paying labor, but most blacks don’t want those jobs anyway.

    Read More
  88. Enrique takes us off on this same tangent almost every week. I do not see what the travails of black Americans have to do with immigration.

    Its you who are off base again Sean. The topic is antiracism in this thread. Up above it was asserted that segregation’s end was “disastrous” for blacks, something most antiracists would reject and that indeed, credible scholarship shows is dubious. In fact antiracists argue that their perspective is critically needed because of acceptance of similarly dubious “disaster” claims above, and the use of similar arguments by segregationists inthe past to justify Jim Crow. See leading antiracist Bonilla-Silva’s “Racism without Racists” for example.

    Here’s a citation by someone very skeptical of these arguments, but with a twist. The person speaking is not another liberal antiracist, but conservative US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Quote:

    “The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks,”.. no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent leaders… The worst forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”
    –US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas 2006.

    .
    Antiracism is not the result a conflict between different nations or races; it’s the conflict between the ethics of an earlier stage of our own civilisation, and the unfolding end game developments.

    Somewhat dubious. Antiracism, does by definition involve “conflict between different nations or races.” In fact conflict is a central theme of antiracist writings, and indeed racist writings. Conflict between lesser and superior breeds or “races” for example is integral to the mindset of today’s racists, and that of the Fuehrer, some 60 years before.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nico

    In fact conflict is a central theme of antiracist writings, and indeed racist writings. Conflict between lesser and superior breeds or “races” for example is integral to the mindset of today’s racists, and that of the Fuehrer, some 60 years before.
     
    Ooohoohoohoo! You mentioned Hitler! S-s-so sc-sc-SCARED!
  89. Priss Factor [AKA "The Todd Conspiracy"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    This ‘anti-racist’ business is built on a paradox.

    The Hate Pleasure Paradox.

    The fact is it’s pleasurable to hate. Not all the time but sometimes.
    Hate is fun because we evolved to fight, hunt, beat, kick butt, and rah rah.

    Kids love to fight and say nasty things. They often feel mean, nasty, envious, jealous, etc.

    From young age, kittens and puppies fight. It’s play fight, but it is fun derived from aggression. It is ‘play hate’.

    Boys love ‘hate toys’ like plastic guns, rubber knives, tomahawks, robots with weapons systems, etc.

    And kids love movies and stories with good guys and bad guys. The pleasure comes from hating and destroying the ‘bad guys’.

    Sports brings out the tribal hunter in us. We cheer like mad for our side and we love when the other side is cremated.

    Hating is fun and pleasurable. Hate was not a sin among savages and barbarians. And plenty of civilizations urged hatred of others. Assyrians were especially brutal.
    For most of human history, there was no sin attached to hate. Such sin existed only with Christianity. Most other cultures raised kids to hate certain groups and peoples.

    Even civilizations and ideologies that didn’t make hate a premium(and instead promoted higher values) nevertheless found room for hate.

    The Hate Pleasure Principle needed an outlet.

    So, Jews, even as they professed the wisdom of God, were filled with contempt for gentiles, especially Christians.

    So, Christians, even as they preached the love of God, saw the world in terms of themselves and the no-good Heathens.

    So, Muslims, even as they called upon the brotherhood of man, called on the faithful to slay the infidel.

    So, communists, even as they spoke of liberation and equality, promoted hatred of the bourgeoisie and the capitalists.

    They all made room for hatred since hating feels good. It makes one feel righteous, holier than thou, superior, and justified. Also, it was an outlet for pent-up animal energies in us. We are hunters by nature. We need to hunt witches–even micro-witches–if we can’t hunt buffalo or enemy tribesmen.

    And hate propels us. It feels good.

    But hate can be ugly and dangerous. So, no one calls what they feel ‘hate’.

    They give it some higher name.

    It’s like justice is really revenge but sounds better as ‘justice’.

    So, we mask the pleasure of hating with labels as ‘diversity’, ‘equality’, ‘social justice’, raising ‘rape awareness’, ‘combating racism’.

    In the name of fighting ‘hate’, people get to enjoy their own hate principle.

    It’s like we love to see violence but justify it by siding with the ‘good guy’ vs the ‘bad guy’.

    By claiming to fight ‘hate’, we can enjoy all the hate in the world. We are allowed to hate, hate, and hate the KKK, Nazis, white supremacists, and etc.

    Go hunting, boys!!!

    But what happens when all the obvious targets are hunted down?

    As there is less ‘hate’ in the world, shouldn’t ‘progressives’ take it easy and be happy?

    But they still have the Hate Pleasure Principle. They still feel a craving for the joy of hating.
    (Also, the elites seek to keep people under control by energizing people’s hate against potential rivals. Without such diversionary tactic, the people might either become decadent and apathetic OR they may direct their hatred at the ruling class with most wealth and power.)

    But if there’s less ‘hate’ to hate, how do people derive pleasure from hatred?

    They have go for small fry since the big whales and fishes are gone.

    So, now it’s about hating on ‘micro-aggressions’.

    And since ‘white supremacy’ is hard to find, we must get our hate jollies by hating on ‘white privilege’.

    Still, the whole thing is really fueled by the fact that hating is fun.
    Complex and ambiguous emotions make us feel uneasy. They force us to think.
    But hate is fun because the feeling is so simple, and the dichotomies are so easy in terms of ‘us versus them’.

    It must have been fun for Sabrina Rubin Erdely to hate on UVA ‘Aryan’ frats and make them the object of national ‘progressive’ hate.

    Hate is also fun for those with resentments.

    So, all the uncool guys who don’t belong to a fraternity found a handy reason to hate a frat and feel good hating it.

    Ostensibly, it was about justice. But ‘justice’ provided the moral cover to their fun of hating something.

    So, ‘anti-hate’ is just the latest cover for the joy of hating.

    HAAAAATE!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite
    will you shut up already about hate. I hate hearing so much about hate.

    Actually all the founders of the revealed religions (you mentioned most of them) did proscribe hate very strongly. The tried to make love a rule. Love, not as in "I love you madly," but simply acting in a beneficent way, with special attention towards those for whom you are least inclined to bear good feelings. But as you say, hate is a part of human nature, one of the hardest to overcome, and something which should not be overcome in all instances. Some things deserve hatred.
    However, they say hate does not have the power of love. I think we don't yet know how to use that particular emotion. The first thing you must love and care for is yourself and those for whom you are responsible. I think that is what makes these white liberals so despicable. The ones that run the media leave me jaw dropped as they cover for criminals as long as they are not white. At least the actions of the various "pocs" make sense by comparison. They cover only for themselves.

  90. @Joe Walker
    Not really. The native Irish (i.e. the Catholics) have always opposed British rule in Ireland. It is only the British colonists (i.e. the Protestants) who support the British occupation of the north of Ireland.

    Let me address your points one by one. First of all the native Irish were not Catholic but pagan Druids as Catholicism is not indigenous to any European nation or kingdom.It arrived in Ireland in the 5th century. And indeed the Catholicism practised in the Irish kingdoms prior to the Cambro-Norman invasion of 1169 was actually Celtic, hence the Papal Bull of Laudibiliter in 1155 which gave the King of England the right to Ireland. The later invasion by Strongbow aided and abetted by the King of Leinster provided the muscle by which Rome enforced its doctrines including clerical celibacy upon the Irish church. Secondly Ireland was never a colony but rather an integral part of the UK. Indeed it was only ever united within an English context and Cromwell was actually the first republican to ever set foot in Ireland! Thirdly there was much intermarriage over the centuries between the Irish, Normans, Welsh and later Scottish and English Protestant settlers. In point of fact eastern Ulster has closer links historically and geographically to western Scotland than the rest of Ireland. Have you heard of the early medieval Kingdom of Dalriada? This comprised parts of eastern Ulster and western Scotland in the 6th and 7th centuries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    Thirdly there was much intermarriage over the centuries between the Irish, Normans, Welsh and later Scottish and English Protestant settlers.
     
    I am currently reading some history of the Norman conquest. I find it interesting that time and again the Normans in Ireland would "go native", even changing their names, and lead a rebellion. Normans would come and put down the rebellion and install "real Normans" as rulers and the whole cycle would play out again. Must have been the lure and charm of the "wild Irish".
  91. @Enrique Cardova
    Enrique takes us off on this same tangent almost every week. I do not see what the travails of black Americans have to do with immigration.

    Its you who are off base again Sean. The topic is antiracism in this thread. Up above it was asserted that segregation's end was "disastrous" for blacks, something most antiracists would reject and that indeed, credible scholarship shows is dubious. In fact antiracists argue that their perspective is critically needed because of acceptance of similarly dubious "disaster" claims above, and the use of similar arguments by segregationists inthe past to justify Jim Crow. See leading antiracist Bonilla-Silva's "Racism without Racists" for example.

    Here's a citation by someone very skeptical of these arguments, but with a twist. The person speaking is not another liberal antiracist, but conservative US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Quote:

    “The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks,”.. no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent leaders... The worst forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”
    --US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas 2006.
     
    .
    Antiracism is not the result a conflict between different nations or races; it’s the conflict between the ethics of an earlier stage of our own civilisation, and the unfolding end game developments.

    Somewhat dubious. Antiracism, does by definition involve "conflict between different nations or races." In fact conflict is a central theme of antiracist writings, and indeed racist writings. Conflict between lesser and superior breeds or "races" for example is integral to the mindset of today's racists, and that of the Fuehrer, some 60 years before.

    In fact conflict is a central theme of antiracist writings, and indeed racist writings. Conflict between lesser and superior breeds or “races” for example is integral to the mindset of today’s racists, and that of the Fuehrer, some 60 years before.

    Ooohoohoohoo! You mentioned Hitler! S-s-so sc-sc-SCARED!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I get the distinct feeling Enrique is a 'converso' !
  92. @Sean
    Enrique takes us off on this same tangent almost every week. I do not see what the travails of black Americans have to do with immigration. Actually blacks in the US may be bigger losers from immigration than other people. Especially if immigrants are eligible for affirmative action in competitive fields such as academia.

    We seem to have a lot of libertarians commenters who object to unions, religions, self aware ethnic communities; just about any institution that interferes with their picture of humans as liberal individualists with rights but no particular allegiance. But in fact every human community that ever existed has has seen itself very differently, that is why we live in nation states. People have the right in international law to leave their own country, but no right to be admitted to a country of their choice, other than their own. What race migrants are is neither here nor there.

    Whether non Europeans are in any important way different to the people of Italy or Britain is not the reason they don't have right of entry. However, if it is asserted that immigrants are necessarily biologically equal to the population of the country they want to live in, "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies".

    People have the right in international law to leave their own country, but no right to be admitted to a country of their choice, other than their own.

    What rule covers the situation where some group tells a person that this is not your country anymore?

    Read More
  93. @Kat Grey
    Let me address your points one by one. First of all the native Irish were not Catholic but pagan Druids as Catholicism is not indigenous to any European nation or kingdom.It arrived in Ireland in the 5th century. And indeed the Catholicism practised in the Irish kingdoms prior to the Cambro-Norman invasion of 1169 was actually Celtic, hence the Papal Bull of Laudibiliter in 1155 which gave the King of England the right to Ireland. The later invasion by Strongbow aided and abetted by the King of Leinster provided the muscle by which Rome enforced its doctrines including clerical celibacy upon the Irish church. Secondly Ireland was never a colony but rather an integral part of the UK. Indeed it was only ever united within an English context and Cromwell was actually the first republican to ever set foot in Ireland! Thirdly there was much intermarriage over the centuries between the Irish, Normans, Welsh and later Scottish and English Protestant settlers. In point of fact eastern Ulster has closer links historically and geographically to western Scotland than the rest of Ireland. Have you heard of the early medieval Kingdom of Dalriada? This comprised parts of eastern Ulster and western Scotland in the 6th and 7th centuries.

    Thirdly there was much intermarriage over the centuries between the Irish, Normans, Welsh and later Scottish and English Protestant settlers.

    I am currently reading some history of the Norman conquest. I find it interesting that time and again the Normans in Ireland would “go native”, even changing their names, and lead a rebellion. Normans would come and put down the rebellion and install “real Normans” as rulers and the whole cycle would play out again. Must have been the lure and charm of the “wild Irish”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kat Grey
    Yes the Normans did become "more Irish than the Irish themselves" leading to the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1366. Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence was the driving force behind the enactment of the Statutes which were passed in a parliament he had summoned for that purpose; they ultimately proved to be a failure and Clarence left Ireland the following year. Intermarriage continued as before.
  94. You first comment here, as usual you start off saying the post is good in part, and then assert antiracism is a veneer and American society is thoughroghly racist. unit472 was replying to you off on your usual tangent; then came your >1000 word rejoinders detailing white perfidy, which ended as your comments at Unz increasingly do, by mentioning Hitler. Almost every week we are treated to the same historical indictment of racism, which is always whites’ racism in your examples (you apparently have trouble believing it of anyone else ) and allegations that the US is currently run by racists for their own ends. For the avoidance of doubt, Enrique. I think you being provocative in the aforementioned way draws comments off the subject of the post.

    The post, if we can get back to it, is questioning if antiracism is a an emerging ideology that is poised much as communism was 100 years ago. Thanks for mentioning ‘Racism without racists’ which is enlightening. the author isn’t on Unz, but he has to make do with being given a platform by CNN

    “The main problem nowadays is not the folks with the hoods, but the folks dressed in suits,” says Bonilla-Silva. “The more we assume that the problem of racism is limited to the Klan, the birthers, the tea party or to the Republican Party, the less we understand that racial domination is a collective process and we are all in this game.”

    It’s quite clear who the racists are supposed to be from the lumping of the tea party and Republicans with KKK . But it is made explicit

    Some whites confine racism to intentional displays of racial hostility. It’s the Ku Klux Klan, racial slurs in public, something “bad” that people do. [...] But for many racial minorities, that type of racism doesn’t matter as much anymore, some scholars say. They talk more about the racism uncovered … — it doesn’t wear a hood,.. what one Duke University sociologist calls “racism without racists.” Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, who’s written a book by that title, says it’s a new way of maintaining white domination

    Professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, of Duke University, (he got that plum job after writing of “gringoland.” and “United States of Amerikkka”) does not seem to have be suppressed by this supposed system of undercover domination supposedly run by whites unhinged by their subliminal racism. It is almost like the most prestigious institutions of society and the progressive intelligentsia were not run in the way you allege;-

    White America has also benefited psychologically by the concealment of its dirty linen. White America always wants to look good, to not be seen as the open, snarling racist beast that was white Nazism

    Fortunately you and Bonilla-Silva, a professor at an elite institution, have privileged access to the whole reality and understand the essence of whiteness to be racism. What people are learning at Duke and other universities is the potential justification for communist style demolition of societies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    racism without racists
     
    This is why white privilege is slowly being substituted for racism. A lot of ordinary white people are going along with what they are being told and are trying really hard to not be racist. After a while nothing much has changed and they start to wonder what is wrong. The new paradigm (God, I have waited forever to use that word) is fixed. If you are white there is no escape. Previously one could work on not being racist. You can't really work on not being white. This is where it all falls apart. We need to push it to white privilege instead of racism. At some point if you want to defeat them you have to get ahead, not just lob complaints from behind.
  95. @Sean
    You first comment here, as usual you start off saying the post is good in part, and then assert antiracism is a veneer and American society is thoughroghly racist. unit472 was replying to you off on your usual tangent; then came your >1000 word rejoinders detailing white perfidy, which ended as your comments at Unz increasingly do, by mentioning Hitler. Almost every week we are treated to the same historical indictment of racism, which is always whites' racism in your examples (you apparently have trouble believing it of anyone else ) and allegations that the US is currently run by racists for their own ends. For the avoidance of doubt, Enrique. I think you being provocative in the aforementioned way draws comments off the subject of the post.

    The post, if we can get back to it, is questioning if antiracism is a an emerging ideology that is poised much as communism was 100 years ago. Thanks for mentioning 'Racism without racists' which is enlightening. the author isn't on Unz, but he has to make do with being given a platform by CNN

    "The main problem nowadays is not the folks with the hoods, but the folks dressed in suits," says Bonilla-Silva. "The more we assume that the problem of racism is limited to the Klan, the birthers, the tea party or to the Republican Party, the less we understand that racial domination is a collective process and we are all in this game."
     
    It's quite clear who the racists are supposed to be from the lumping of the tea party and Republicans with KKK . But it is made explicit

    Some whites confine racism to intentional displays of racial hostility. It's the Ku Klux Klan, racial slurs in public, something "bad" that people do. [...] But for many racial minorities, that type of racism doesn't matter as much anymore, some scholars say. They talk more about the racism uncovered ... -- it doesn't wear a hood,.. what one Duke University sociologist calls "racism without racists." Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, who's written a book by that title, says it's a new way of maintaining white domination
     
    Professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, of Duke University, (he got that plum job after writing of “gringoland.” and "United States of Amerikkka") does not seem to have be suppressed by this supposed system of undercover domination supposedly run by whites unhinged by their subliminal racism. It is almost like the most prestigious institutions of society and the progressive intelligentsia were not run in the way you allege;-

    White America has also benefited psychologically by the concealment of its dirty linen. White America always wants to look good, to not be seen as the open, snarling racist beast that was white Nazism
     
    Fortunately you and Bonilla-Silva, a professor at an elite institution, have privileged access to the whole reality and understand the essence of whiteness to be racism. What people are learning at Duke and other universities is the potential justification for communist style demolition of societies.

    racism without racists

    This is why white privilege is slowly being substituted for racism. A lot of ordinary white people are going along with what they are being told and are trying really hard to not be racist. After a while nothing much has changed and they start to wonder what is wrong. The new paradigm (God, I have waited forever to use that word) is fixed. If you are white there is no escape. Previously one could work on not being racist. You can’t really work on not being white. This is where it all falls apart. We need to push it to white privilege instead of racism. At some point if you want to defeat them you have to get ahead, not just lob complaints from behind.

    Read More
  96. @iffen

    Thirdly there was much intermarriage over the centuries between the Irish, Normans, Welsh and later Scottish and English Protestant settlers.
     
    I am currently reading some history of the Norman conquest. I find it interesting that time and again the Normans in Ireland would "go native", even changing their names, and lead a rebellion. Normans would come and put down the rebellion and install "real Normans" as rulers and the whole cycle would play out again. Must have been the lure and charm of the "wild Irish".

    Yes the Normans did become “more Irish than the Irish themselves” leading to the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1366. Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence was the driving force behind the enactment of the Statutes which were passed in a parliament he had summoned for that purpose; they ultimately proved to be a failure and Clarence left Ireland the following year. Intermarriage continued as before.

    Read More
  97. In this alternate world, rational people would act rationally. They would not, for instance, be blindly sticking to antiracist principles—and insisting that everyone else do likewise—in the face of the demographic tsunami now sweeping out of Africa

    Somewhat of a dishonest (self deceived) perception. However European cultural based policies concerning race have failed (I’ll come back to that) any anthropologist worth their salt should recognize the ‘tsunami sweeping out of Africa’ had been in the first instance caused by colonialism knocking large parts of Black Africa out of its sustainable relationship to the land with the imposing of ‘sustained development’ in the European model (to the benefit of European peoples.) What we are seeing today is spillover or blow-back that has been result of imposed circumstance festering for quite some time. In fact you see the same imposition ongoing today with corporate neo-colonialism backed by European (notably French) and American military enforcement over resource control in geopolitical competitions with, example given, China, or ongoing competitions which are primarily based on resource control of 3rd party nations (e.g. Black Africa.) Much of Black Africa has been reorganized, and not to their own benefit, with this imposing control over nations precipitated on behalf of empire in several incarnations, past several centuries to present.

    Now, back to the failed policies of race in Europe and particularly America. When ‘White’ liberals (your ‘big-brained’ brothers and sisters) imagine up all sorts of ‘good things’ for disadvantaged groups, more often than not, they’ll get the solutions wrong. This rather reoccurring phenomena is due to the core historical issues are never addressed. For instance much of the Black American slums had been based on capitalism’s ‘leave your rural life for opportunity with factory jobs to improve your lot’ .. or that is, until the factories were no longer economically viable and the parent corporations pulled up stakes, abandoning the Black urban communities they created to become slums. They were capitalized upon and discarded at capitalism’s whim. No amount of consequent social welfare programs will repair inter-generational anger which comes of that abandoned in a trap with no capital to extricate oneself, short of forking over land to those who’d like to return to Plan A or ’40 acres and a mule’ with opportunity to become organic farmers in the modern incarnation, example given. Is capitalism too cheap to consider real remedies? Probably.

    Meanwhile, endless self-deceits play out to excuse the origin and real nature of the problems.

    Read More
  98. @Enrique Cardova
    Harold says:
    Embarrassed in front of who? White people.
    Yes, and not only white people but others as well. You see white people asserted certain moral and ethical claims, as the foundation of their various cultures, and as justification for certain actions. Well these claims were measured against actual white behavior, and the results embarrassed white Americans. US claims to be a democratic leader for example were measured against its denial of 10% of the population the vote, depending on the state, and era. The results were embarrassing for a country that billed itself as the top democracy of all. So were white Amricans embarrassed in front of other white people, both at home and abroad? Sure.


    .
    Why would they need to cover their biases? Because they have convinced themselves and others that it is sinful for them to be biased in favour of whites.
    It was more a matter of the contradictions and hypocrisy exposed, when various claims were measured against actual white behavior. For example certain guarantees of the US Constitution were found to be meaningless when actual white compliance with them was examined. Certain bold statements regarding "free markets" were found rather thin gruel, again, when measured against actual white behavior. And some of that behavior was quite sinful, which is/was why it had/has to be covered. Consider the murder of black railroad employees by white union thugs so whites could take over their jobs, for example, as discussed by US President Harry Truman below. Truman sought no "altruism" - but to do the right thing- quite different concepts. And he was prepared to pay the price to do the right thing.

    http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/150/blackworkersmurderedtru.jpg


    .
    If whites wanted to promote white hegemony they would just promote white hegemony overtly. There is nothing to stop them, except their own hijacked sense of altruism.
    Actually there is plenty of reason to do it covertly, as the Truman example shows above, and many other examples. And World War II exposed the contradictions and hypocrises of white racism as never before. Even the Nazis tried somewhat to cover their tracks and conceal the full extent of their racist actions- from writing up bogus reports to justify the mass murder of Jewish children as "anti-partisan operations", to the ultimate in cover schemes-the crematoriums and mass graves of the Shoah, designed to make "the Jewish problem" "disappear."

    And you seem to think simply doing what is right is a form of "altruism" and thus something for weaklings. This type of reasoning was integral to Nazi thinking- common decency, and right moral sensibilities were dismissed as something for weaklings, for "soft" people. Time and time again people were persuaded to ignore common moral foundations of decency in the name of "racial purity." This they did quite overtly. The outcome was systematic mass murder on a scale unseen in human history. Ordinary accounts, cooks, butchers, etc killed and killed zealously and willingly, even when given the chance to opt out- - thus proving they were not "altruistic weaklings."

    And you seem to equate exercising one's constitutional rights with "altruism." But such rights are not a favor granted by the government- they are rights that derive FROM the people. Government is no "altruistic" giver of rights- like some king in England handing down indulgences to the peasants. That's now how the US constitution works. Fair-minded whites who sought to ensure that blacks got a fair chance to exercise their Constitutional rights were not engaging in any "altruistic" exercise. They were helping to remove unjust barriers erected by other whites to hinder or destroy the exercise of those rights. That is no "altruistic giveaway" at all. That is exercising what people are already guaranteed under the Constitution. The only "hijacking" going on is by those who unjustly sandbagged, blockaded and even murdered people to bar them from their rights.

    If whites abandoned anti-racism, their biases would no longer embarrass them. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that whites benefit from anti-racism because it allows them to cover their biases. If whites abandoned anti-racism there would be no hypocrisy with regards to their behaviour. Therefore, it makes no sense to say whites benefit from anti-racism because it allows them to appear unhypocritical. See?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    If whites abandoned anti-racism, their biases would no longer embarrass them.

    What you are missing is that in the days when there was very little substantial organized white antiracism, as there is today, white people WERE embarrassed by racist white behavior.
    This can be seen during the Cold war. Indeed during the Cold War the Soviet Union scored huge propaganda points by mocking American democracy as hypocritical, putting the US claim to "freedom", "democracy" and "justice" continually on the defensive internationally. There are several books on this and how removing the embarrassment of segregation became a matter of US security and foreign policy strategy, such as "Cold War Civil Rights" by Mary Dudziak (http://mdudziak.com/cwcr.aspx). And as noted above private violence was a not uncommon occurrence against blacks simply exercising their rights to free markets, violence that the Soviets took careful note of, as well as how American governments, at various levels, often passed over said violence, or actively collaborated in it. The Soviets also noted how various American jurisdictions moved to impose ludicrous and humiliating restrictions on blacks - such as forbidding them to share phone booths, water fountains, or even pet cemeteries with whites (presumably the dogs would object), and the powerlessness or lack of desire of federal authorities to address these abuses.

    By 1960, America statesmen could see the damaging effect that the inefficient and repugnant elements of segregation had on the country's international standing, and Cold War strategies, and they moved to correct this. As early as the Truman administration, the federal government was citing the Cold War imperative in its legal briefs to the US Supreme Court in support of anti-discrimination and desegregation cases. Scholar M. Klarman (1994) notes that even conservative Dwight Eisenhower invoked the need to counter damaging Soviet propaganda attacks as justification for sending troops to enforce desegregation at Little Rock, Arkansas. Eisenhower moved to reap maximum propaganda value for his decision by having what should have been a mere internal American matter translated into 43 languages for broadcasting around the world via the Voice of America.

    Concrete incidents of diplomatic embarrassment continually dogged the US in the 1960s, as the diplomats of Third World nations were repeatedly subjected to the indignities of public and private discrimination and disrespect. Indeed, in 1957, US President Eisenhower himself felt compelled to invite a minister of newly independent Ghana to 'breakfast at the White House to make amends for the refusal of a Howard Johnson restaurant in Delaware to serve him.' Nor was Eisenhower the only president of the "free world" to be embarrassed by segregation in the US. The Kennedy Administration, was likewise hit with numerous incidents involving African diplomatic officials.

    President Kennedy himself made a personal appeal to Maryland civic leaders to cease and desist from segregation in motels, hotels and restaurants to bring an end to such incidents. The US State Department even called on realtors in Washington D.C., to lighten up on their discriminatory practices in the nation's capital, which was creating ugly diplomatic situations when bemused non-white foreign diplomats and officials tried to do normal business in the erstwhile "leader of the Free World." Secretary of State Dean Rusk was to write:


    "the biggest single burden that we carry on our backs in our foreign relations in the 1960's is the problem of racial discrimination here at home." (Klarman 1994)
     
    The snarling "let's be open" racism you seem to advocate was actually damaging to US foreign policy during the 1960s. If you are negotiating military basing rights in Asia or Africa for example, treating the diplomats sent to negotiate with you like dirt in your nation's capital is dumb, and is the last thing a shrewd nation wants to do or to be associated with. Has nothing to do with anti-racism- its just plain good common sense. And that's just one example.


    .
    Therefore, it makes no sense to say that whites benefit from anti-racism because it allows them to cover their biases.

    You are naive. As CONSERVATIVE scholars like Thomas Sowell shows, an anti-racist veneer can actually be MORE effective cover for certain things, than the snarling "let it all hang out" racism you seem to advocate. White liberals people who want to keep their neighborhood white for example will do a lot better (avoiding lawsuits, marches etc) if they enact subtle measures like zoning controls that suppress the supply of housing- such as bigger lot requirements, "green space" restrictions for "the children", etc etc. The end result- less minorities, whiter schools, whiter neighborhoods. The reason white liberals stay in business is that they bring value for white people. If they didn't- they would be out of business. They have learned the art of maintaining white hegemony using "soft" means. Does this mean that liberals did not sincerely want to clean up the worse abuses? No some are/were sincere, and they wanted to clean up the worse aspects, but in a way that did not threaten overall white hegemony. Naive conservatives have not yet learned the game.


    .
    If whites abandoned anti-racism there would be no hypocrisy with regards to their behaviour. Therefore, it makes no sense to say whites benefit from anti-racism because it allows them to appear unhypocritical. See?

    Again, rather naive. If whites abandoned anti-racism and adopted a "let it all hang out" racism, the game would be given away, and a lot of the "soft" measures now in place, would be exposed. This means fierce push back from the culluds. Ask yourself which is easier- to hold some trendy pablum seminars talking bout "diversity" and hiring a few tokens to keep the culluds happy or declaring a "No Non-whites" policy out in the open, that will provoke fierce negative responses?

    I understand what you are trying to say. Why shouldn't white people be openly racist, and proud of it? Let's not pretend anymore- lets just be racist. Sure. But even an open racist approach is STILL laced with hypocrisy. You see white people are proud of certain things and claims such as "bothersome" constitutional documents, and "inconvenient" arguments about equality before the law, government as representative by the people, and such like. If they came out and said "Well all those nice things we white people speak about - we really don't mean it" -then their previous 200 years of claiming special virtue and exceptionalism, and patting themselves on the back, would be exposed as simple hypocrisy. This is precisely the argument made by the Soviets in the Cold War. All the nice things spoken about like "democracy", "constitutional rights" or "the Free World" were meaningless propaganda.

    Fortunately there were some whites with a different vision of America, an America that was not a snarling racist camp like Nazi Germany, and someone that did take the things spoken above seriously, and as more than mere propaganda, and to their credit, as I note above re Harry Truman, they moved to rectify several wrongs, clean up abuses, and to his credit, put America on the right track. The reforms he enacted also did not at all threaten overall white hegemony.

  99. Sean, if I start off by saying something is good in part- I think it is. There are actually good points made in the articles of Frost, and many others, and in some comments. Matter of fact I defended Frost’s “execution cull” thesis in part re the decline of violence in Europe, and I commended Ron Unz’s sterling data on Jewish monopolization of certain things in yet other posts. And in turn I disagree with both on other points. You complain that I mention indictments of racism. I would not mention such things but you yourself and others every week, keep pouring on the same dubious claims about race, such as your notions that “Pygmies” are comparable to African refugees allegedly “swamping” Europe. For example- quote:

    Europeans are inherently as helpless against the correlation of forces they face as the Pygmies are against Bantu murder and sexual mutilation?

    I pointed out that this claim, and numerous others similar to it were rather dubious, and gave specific examples why- ranging from exaggeration re the Pygmy-Bantu conflict, to the fact that sub-Saharan refugee numbers to the EU have actually been DROPPING recently, due in large measure to vigorous interdiction by EU nations. These actual facts contradicted your notion of “helpless” Europeans.

    Re Hitler, he can’t be avoided in many antiracist discussions, for an assortment of right wingers (pick the label of your choice) essentially make arguments similar to the Fuehrer- such as the need to, or rationality of, purging the Jew parasitic infection off the host body, or various inferior sub-species of humanity. Statements like these are routine on this website all the time, and few object to them.

    Re antiracism as a veneer- this too is a point sometimes made by others here. See Sailer’s recent post on Anthony Weiner, who asserts that Jews “are not white.” I actually agree (in part) with Sailer (and say so)- that Weiner may be posing, saying trendy things- lip service- faux “solidarity” – but Jews can be very well white when they want to be. Hell I even point out that a number of Jews both tacitly and explicitly supported Enoch Powell’s National Front, and agree with Sailer on Jewish alarmism- how come for example in the 1980s when anti-Semitism public expression was relatively low, the Simon Weisenthal center had such fulsome Jewish support in California?

    I am no supporter of unfettered immigration by the way and have argued against some Mexican activist arguments re to be “reclaiming” California, pointing out that (a) the assertion of Spanish claims or jurisdiction based on Spanish rule is a dubious assertion of a WHITE COLONIAL claim- not anything by the native tribes, and (b) people from the valley of Mexico, multiple hundred miles distant have no inherent claim to California- they are not even indigenous to the area. The only people with any indigenous cred are the actual California Indians, not Mexican migrants from hundreds or thousands of miles away.

    .
    The post, if we can get back to it, is questioning if antiracism is a an emerging ideology that is poised much as communism was 100 years ago. Thanks for mentioning ‘Racism without racists’ which is enlightening.
    Indeed- I mention him because as a leading anti0racist writer, he ties legitimately into the discussion. I am glad you quote him, for when I say antiracists THEMSELVES complain about LIBERALS, or that white liberals can be often just as concerned about white hegemony as any right winger, I am not just merely asserting personal opinion, but pointing to one of the leading antiracist scholars who is on record. I don’t agree with him on some points by the way, particularly his habit of using certain things as a litmus test of goodness- such as AA quotas. And yes I don’t agree with him either with his broad brush lumping of tea partiers and Republicans. But then again, he is no worse that people here.

    .
    Cracker1 says:
    A lot of ordinary white people are going along with what they are being told and are trying really hard to not be racist. After a while nothing much has changed and they start to wonder what is wrong. The new paradigm (God, I have waited forever to use that word) is fixed. If you are white there is no escape. Previously one could work on not being racist.

    But here’s the thing, plenty HAS changed, for the better. America is no longer as bad as it was on the race score. I point this out against naysayers from the right who contend that civil rights have all been a failure, nothing has changed, woe, woe, doom and gloom etc. This notion, widespread in certain quarters, and often made on this site, is dubious. America is a better place on several counts, and it should be noted that more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats.

    As for the “white privilege” proponents, they say some true things in part, and do at times present incontrovertible facts. It is a fact for example that white unions locked out skilled blacks out of many trades, and even murdered some who had played by the rules and worked themselves up to better jobs, that the whites themselves coveted. But “white privilege” proponents, like Bonilla-Silva up above, lament their lack to traction for their argument among white people.

    In short, they are upset that most white people, do not feel any guilt at all, and indeed reject such or change the conversation when the topic comes up. This hardly sounds like an America filled with cringing white people, “swamped” and “paralyzed” with “white guilt.” This alleged America, so often asserted here and in many other quarters, simply does not exist in any substantial sense. It’s like those arguments that “white guilt” led white people to vote for Obama, as if they were too stupid to vote on any OTHER grounds. Some of these propaganda constructs are so laughable one wonders how intelligent people believe them, and espouse them with such messianic certainty, but they do.

    Read More
  100. @Harold
    If whites abandoned anti-racism, their biases would no longer embarrass them. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that whites benefit from anti-racism because it allows them to cover their biases. If whites abandoned anti-racism there would be no hypocrisy with regards to their behaviour. Therefore, it makes no sense to say whites benefit from anti-racism because it allows them to appear unhypocritical. See?

    If whites abandoned anti-racism, their biases would no longer embarrass them.

    What you are missing is that in the days when there was very little substantial organized white antiracism, as there is today, white people WERE embarrassed by racist white behavior.
    This can be seen during the Cold war. Indeed during the Cold War the Soviet Union scored huge propaganda points by mocking American democracy as hypocritical, putting the US claim to “freedom”, “democracy” and “justice” continually on the defensive internationally. There are several books on this and how removing the embarrassment of segregation became a matter of US security and foreign policy strategy, such as “Cold War Civil Rights” by Mary Dudziak (http://mdudziak.com/cwcr.aspx). And as noted above private violence was a not uncommon occurrence against blacks simply exercising their rights to free markets, violence that the Soviets took careful note of, as well as how American governments, at various levels, often passed over said violence, or actively collaborated in it. The Soviets also noted how various American jurisdictions moved to impose ludicrous and humiliating restrictions on blacks – such as forbidding them to share phone booths, water fountains, or even pet cemeteries with whites (presumably the dogs would object), and the powerlessness or lack of desire of federal authorities to address these abuses.

    By 1960, America statesmen could see the damaging effect that the inefficient and repugnant elements of segregation had on the country’s international standing, and Cold War strategies, and they moved to correct this. As early as the Truman administration, the federal government was citing the Cold War imperative in its legal briefs to the US Supreme Court in support of anti-discrimination and desegregation cases. Scholar M. Klarman (1994) notes that even conservative Dwight Eisenhower invoked the need to counter damaging Soviet propaganda attacks as justification for sending troops to enforce desegregation at Little Rock, Arkansas. Eisenhower moved to reap maximum propaganda value for his decision by having what should have been a mere internal American matter translated into 43 languages for broadcasting around the world via the Voice of America.

    Concrete incidents of diplomatic embarrassment continually dogged the US in the 1960s, as the diplomats of Third World nations were repeatedly subjected to the indignities of public and private discrimination and disrespect. Indeed, in 1957, US President Eisenhower himself felt compelled to invite a minister of newly independent Ghana to ‘breakfast at the White House to make amends for the refusal of a Howard Johnson restaurant in Delaware to serve him.’ Nor was Eisenhower the only president of the “free world” to be embarrassed by segregation in the US. The Kennedy Administration, was likewise hit with numerous incidents involving African diplomatic officials.

    President Kennedy himself made a personal appeal to Maryland civic leaders to cease and desist from segregation in motels, hotels and restaurants to bring an end to such incidents. The US State Department even called on realtors in Washington D.C., to lighten up on their discriminatory practices in the nation’s capital, which was creating ugly diplomatic situations when bemused non-white foreign diplomats and officials tried to do normal business in the erstwhile “leader of the Free World.” Secretary of State Dean Rusk was to write:

    “the biggest single burden that we carry on our backs in our foreign relations in the 1960′s is the problem of racial discrimination here at home.” (Klarman 1994)

    The snarling “let’s be open” racism you seem to advocate was actually damaging to US foreign policy during the 1960s. If you are negotiating military basing rights in Asia or Africa for example, treating the diplomats sent to negotiate with you like dirt in your nation’s capital is dumb, and is the last thing a shrewd nation wants to do or to be associated with. Has nothing to do with anti-racism- its just plain good common sense. And that’s just one example.

    .
    Therefore, it makes no sense to say that whites benefit from anti-racism because it allows them to cover their biases.

    You are naive. As CONSERVATIVE scholars like Thomas Sowell shows, an anti-racist veneer can actually be MORE effective cover for certain things, than the snarling “let it all hang out” racism you seem to advocate. White liberals people who want to keep their neighborhood white for example will do a lot better (avoiding lawsuits, marches etc) if they enact subtle measures like zoning controls that suppress the supply of housing- such as bigger lot requirements, “green space” restrictions for “the children”, etc etc. The end result- less minorities, whiter schools, whiter neighborhoods. The reason white liberals stay in business is that they bring value for white people. If they didn’t- they would be out of business. They have learned the art of maintaining white hegemony using “soft” means. Does this mean that liberals did not sincerely want to clean up the worse abuses? No some are/were sincere, and they wanted to clean up the worse aspects, but in a way that did not threaten overall white hegemony. Naive conservatives have not yet learned the game.

    .
    If whites abandoned anti-racism there would be no hypocrisy with regards to their behaviour. Therefore, it makes no sense to say whites benefit from anti-racism because it allows them to appear unhypocritical. See?

    Again, rather naive. If whites abandoned anti-racism and adopted a “let it all hang out” racism, the game would be given away, and a lot of the “soft” measures now in place, would be exposed. This means fierce push back from the culluds. Ask yourself which is easier- to hold some trendy pablum seminars talking bout “diversity” and hiring a few tokens to keep the culluds happy or declaring a “No Non-whites” policy out in the open, that will provoke fierce negative responses?

    I understand what you are trying to say. Why shouldn’t white people be openly racist, and proud of it? Let’s not pretend anymore- lets just be racist. Sure. But even an open racist approach is STILL laced with hypocrisy. You see white people are proud of certain things and claims such as “bothersome” constitutional documents, and “inconvenient” arguments about equality before the law, government as representative by the people, and such like. If they came out and said “Well all those nice things we white people speak about – we really don’t mean it” -then their previous 200 years of claiming special virtue and exceptionalism, and patting themselves on the back, would be exposed as simple hypocrisy. This is precisely the argument made by the Soviets in the Cold War. All the nice things spoken about like “democracy”, “constitutional rights” or “the Free World” were meaningless propaganda.

    Fortunately there were some whites with a different vision of America, an America that was not a snarling racist camp like Nazi Germany, and someone that did take the things spoken above seriously, and as more than mere propaganda, and to their credit, as I note above re Harry Truman, they moved to rectify several wrongs, clean up abuses, and to his credit, put America on the right track. The reforms he enacted also did not at all threaten overall white hegemony.

    Read More
  101. Enrique, The Pygmy analogy was to indigenous Europeans. Enoch Powell was never in the NF, he was Tory and then an Ulster Unionist MP . I can’t imagine what makes you think the number of African immigrants coming over the n the Med is declining. It seemed to me you were starting of your comments by seeming to agree with Peter in the opening sentence and then doing quite the opposite at very great length. (eg “Quite possibly. I more see antiracism as a proxy cover “, “Good points in part, but it remains an open question whether antiracism”, ” partially true”) .

    Anyway, the main complaint I have about your comments (yes I am complaining) is you cite the work of Sowell and now Bonilla-Silva in support of the view, which you have repeated in many comments of over 1000 words, that antiracism is a veneer to benefit whites though incompatible with both libertarian free exchange and socialist social justice. Yet you can’t have it both ways. Antiracist Bonilla-Silva, certainly not part of any white supremacy system , has a great job in an elite university. Sowell also has a place in an influential institution. There are also many scientists in the system who do experiments to expose subliminal unconscous racism, (in whites) see here. It is clearly white people who are the target of all this, and I really don’t think it is sane to conclude the system is being run for whites as such. In my opinion it is rapidly taking the form of hostility to whites as such, under the pretext of hostility to racism. There are many example of self styled progressive movements that began attacking the base population rather than outsiders. A community can be symbolic and based on an ideology such as antiracism.

    And you often bring the Nazis in. The argument, Enrique, seems to be that underneath the veneer of anti racism, whites are by nature Nazis., whether they know it or not. And just to hammer your point home you mention the inherent Nazism of whites over and over again. For example

    FORTUNATELY there were some whites with a different vision of America, an America that was not a snarling racist camp like Nazi Germany, and someone that did take the things spoken above seriously, and as more than mere propaganda, and to their credit, as I note above re Harry Truman, they moved to rectify several wrongs, clean up abuses, and to his credit, put America on the right track. The reforms he enacted also did not at all threaten overall white hegemony. [...]
    Lol, Anthony Weiner has not embraced any ideology where the “murder of millions of innocents was a glorious accomplishment that the Nazis could be proud of, and should be magnified, not denied.” A number of “Aryan” proponents have however, albeit in more muted terms. And a number of American scholars such as Kevin MacDonald find those murders a “rational” response of the hosts in dealing with perceived “Jew parasites” in the midst of a more pure, whiter society.[...]
    These days no one needs the traditional Ku Kuxer Klavern or Neo Nazi “Reich gruppe” meeting at a bar someplace. Things are more subtle, but the snarling bottom lines have not changed.[...]
    For one thing you have the scale, the systematic mass murder in an industrial fashion and the extreme cruelty deployed. How do you get around whipping thousands of children to drive them into gas chambers for example? Granted it was an efficient process if you wanted to murder millions of “sub-human” children quickly. Another reason the Holocaust revolts big, over and above its horrific methods, is because it was perpetrated by Germans, hailed in many quarters, even now, as the epitome of European progress and civilization.[...]
    This type of reasoning was integral to Nazi thinking- common decency, and right moral sensibilities were dismissed as something for weaklings, for “soft” people. Time and time again people were persuaded to ignore common moral foundations of decency in the name of “racial purity.” This they did quite overtly. The outcome was systematic mass murder on a scale unseen in human history. Ordinary accounts, cooks, butchers, etc killed and killed zealously and willingly,[...]
    Liberalism helps white America look good, and conceal or obscure its dirty linen. White America has also benefited psychologically by the concealment of its dirty linen. White America always wants to look good, to not be seen as the open, snarling racist beast that was white Nazism. [...]
    If Macdonald is correct about Nazism as a logical evolutionary strategy, then perhaps it could be said that the controllers of northwest Europe undertook actions to “select” for a more congenial European gene pool. Their continuous program of capital punishment executions culled lesser stocks- hindering their reproduction – while the Holocaust under the National Socialism evolutionary program liquidated putative “alien elements” from that gene pool as well. Europe’s many wars would be a third “culling” mechanism to purge and refine the European gene pool- and indeed the Fuhrer argued that war was a purifying mechanism that ultimately would improve the stock of the volk.[...]

    Read More
  102. Sean, I already gave you specific data on the African refugees from the UN’s own reports. As usual, you have no substantive reply or analysis or comment when your claims are debunked. So you simply duck and change the subject.

    As far as Bonilla-Silva you are getting incoherent. No he is not part of any white supremacy system and no one says that he is or was. He rather exposes certain aspects of that system, and he is correct on several points. In fact certain conservatives while maintaining support of conservative principles, frankly admit some of these points. For examples white liberals in some places have ensured all-white or mostly white neighborhoods by manipulating zoning rules to drive up the cost and reduce the supply of housing. Conservative segregationists in the south also used the same tactics, only more openly. I already gave you several specific examples. As usual, you duck them all, with no substantive reply. That tells me you concede the argument. You have nothing of substance to even put up in defense of your earlier claims. All you do is keep changing the subject.

    And as for the Nazis it is appropriate to mention, for some Jews like Weiner who float the “we are not white” meme invoke persecution under the Nazis to show they are also “sufferahs” like the blacks- indeed, worse suffferahs.

    Read More
  103. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Nico

    In fact conflict is a central theme of antiracist writings, and indeed racist writings. Conflict between lesser and superior breeds or “races” for example is integral to the mindset of today’s racists, and that of the Fuehrer, some 60 years before.
     
    Ooohoohoohoo! You mentioned Hitler! S-s-so sc-sc-SCARED!

    I get the distinct feeling Enrique is a ‘converso’ !

    Read More
  104. The UN said nothing of the kind. Syrian migrants are increasing as a proportion (because they have the money to pay smugglers) but the actual number of illegal immigrants from sub saharan Africa reaching Western Europe is by no means declining. But I see someone has went through the comment sections of many authors repeatedly saying there is an actual decline in numbers. Who is denying humans can be put in racial categories and yet is themselves categorizing migrants as caucasoids (in scare quotes, although they were the only person using that word)? Whose comments into every thread repeatedly troll and bring up Nazis as epitomising whiteness? Who keeps suggesting that anti racism is a facade behind which whites are just cunning racists, if not racial exteminationists nazis. Here are your comments

    It seems to me if US society was run for the benefit of whites as such there would not be funding for psychologists to be measuring whites responses to the hundredths of a second so as to prove and gauge the extent of their racism. See here. If Bonilla-Silva was exposing the system of the powers that be as rotten, would not be rewarded by that system? Would his colleagues at Duke like Katherine Hayles (postmodern literary critic and busying herself with a way to make transhumanism into some thing about racial ‘virtual bodies’) be made professors for coming up with stuff like this

    Read More
  105. […] not appear in the English language until the 1920s – see Peter Frost’s cultural history *. If you asked Shakespeare if he was a “racist,” he would not know what you meant. […]

    Read More
  106. […] its conjugations does not appear in the English language until the 1920s – see Peter Frost’s cultural history. If you asked Shakespeare if he was a “racist,” he would not know what you […]

    Read More
  107. @Mark Green
    Another very unsatisfying analysis by Peter Frost.

    'Racism' (the charge) is itself an epithet. It's a political tool, not unlike the defamatory term 'anti-Semite'. Its purpose? To impose silence. Why can't Frost figure this out?--or does he know all too well?

    Rhetorical canards of this kind are designed to undermine Free Speech. It's a dirty game of censorship. You can add the modern terms 'genocide' and 'Holocaust' to the mix. It's a kosher scam that has softened up the Western world towards hating 'racism' but accepting Zionism--not to mention numerous double-standards which benefit Diaspora Jews and disadvantage whites throughout the Western world. It's an amazing feat. Does Frost not care?

    Native-born white people living in Europe and America are being dispossessed. This matters because race matters. The racial transformation of the West then is urgent news for millions of us. Can we talk about it?

    Ironically, this enormous and unwanted transformation of the West is due in part to an unprecedented decline in white racial solidarity. A decline. Incredibly, the obsessive discussion (and denunciation) of white 'racism' by Frost and others is weakening white resolve when it's most needed. We want to preserve our white-majority civilizations. What's so unreasonable about that? But Frost wants no discussion of this. Who is he trying to fool?

    Racism (in America) must also be examined in its historic context. Sadly, Americans see many blacks as somewhat unintelligent, unattractive and uncivilized. This view is not due to racism. It comes from observation. Race involves genetic diversity and genetic variations. We're not all equal or compatible. Let's get real.

    As for 'racism', wars are sometimes tribal or regional or nationalistic. Ethnicity/race have often played a fundamental role in fomenting wars, true. But not always. In fact, modern wars have primarily involved ideology and/or economics and/or nationalism. Consider WWI and WWII, as well as the Russian Revolution and the Korean War. Race was incidental in most of these conflicts. After all, the Germans and the Japanese were united during WWII. White Americans and white Britons slaughtered white Germans. The Asian Japanese slaughtered the Asian Chinese. The Jews were hated by many Germans for their over-sized role in the spread of communism as well as the Jewish economic boycott of Germany which began in 1933. Plus, there's the infamous penalties imposed on Germany after the Treaty of Versailles. So why is Mr. Frost so obsessed with (white) racism? Nationalism and economics and ideology can be even greater perils.

    Granted, the centuries-long, US war on Native Americans had a huge racial element. Yet neither the Apache or Navajo or any domestic tribe get so much as a mention inside America's Holocaust Museum. How come?

    How about Israel's 60-year war on the indigenous Arabs? How cool is that! 'I Stand with Israel!' proclaims every viable US Presidential candidates. Do you as well, Mr. Frost?

    What all wars have in common is that one out-group gets slaughtered. Why can't Frost focus on this sad, enduring truth? Why is he so obsessed with (white) racism in an era where whites have given away the store?

    Ironically, as 'racism' has decreased in America, our nation's wars of aggression have increased. Who can we thank for that, Mr. Frost?

    I seem to recall … a whole host of laws restricting Jews in Germany in 1933. Not the other way round. This is the problem with those against White genocide. Too many Springtime for Hitler nutcases.

    Blacks are urban, easily mibilized to vote, the Managerial elite uses them to get goodies for themselves and cronies. A variation on the Chinese model. Don’t overthink this.

    Its always about the money.

    Read More
  108. There are not possibly enough Jews in the US to control it, create PC behavior, to deviuosly undermine White America and transform it int the well known Jewish, haven Brazil. Because Jews flock to Brazil and can’t get enough of São Paulo. Which is filled with bagel joints.

    There however quite enough govt and gvt dependent people to enforce pc. Example, nice White ladies teaching. Your lical newspaper and tv news.

    Diagnosing the problem matters. Govt managerial elites depending on Black core voters is the problem. The solution is breaking up the elites hold in the money. Possible movement to cut 2/3 rds of govt people and spending with every American no illegals getting a check.

    Read More
  109. @Priss Factor
    This 'anti-racist' business is built on a paradox.

    The Hate Pleasure Paradox.

    The fact is it's pleasurable to hate. Not all the time but sometimes.
    Hate is fun because we evolved to fight, hunt, beat, kick butt, and rah rah.

    Kids love to fight and say nasty things. They often feel mean, nasty, envious, jealous, etc.

    From young age, kittens and puppies fight. It's play fight, but it is fun derived from aggression. It is 'play hate'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLsMW2pnASo

    Boys love 'hate toys' like plastic guns, rubber knives, tomahawks, robots with weapons systems, etc.

    And kids love movies and stories with good guys and bad guys. The pleasure comes from hating and destroying the 'bad guys'.

    Sports brings out the tribal hunter in us. We cheer like mad for our side and we love when the other side is cremated.

    Hating is fun and pleasurable. Hate was not a sin among savages and barbarians. And plenty of civilizations urged hatred of others. Assyrians were especially brutal.
    For most of human history, there was no sin attached to hate. Such sin existed only with Christianity. Most other cultures raised kids to hate certain groups and peoples.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY8N_tSBDts

    Even civilizations and ideologies that didn't make hate a premium(and instead promoted higher values) nevertheless found room for hate.

    The Hate Pleasure Principle needed an outlet.

    So, Jews, even as they professed the wisdom of God, were filled with contempt for gentiles, especially Christians.

    So, Christians, even as they preached the love of God, saw the world in terms of themselves and the no-good Heathens.

    So, Muslims, even as they called upon the brotherhood of man, called on the faithful to slay the infidel.

    So, communists, even as they spoke of liberation and equality, promoted hatred of the bourgeoisie and the capitalists.

    They all made room for hatred since hating feels good. It makes one feel righteous, holier than thou, superior, and justified. Also, it was an outlet for pent-up animal energies in us. We are hunters by nature. We need to hunt witches--even micro-witches--if we can't hunt buffalo or enemy tribesmen.

    And hate propels us. It feels good.

    But hate can be ugly and dangerous. So, no one calls what they feel 'hate'.

    They give it some higher name.

    It's like justice is really revenge but sounds better as 'justice'.

    So, we mask the pleasure of hating with labels as 'diversity', 'equality', 'social justice', raising 'rape awareness', 'combating racism'.

    In the name of fighting 'hate', people get to enjoy their own hate principle.

    It's like we love to see violence but justify it by siding with the 'good guy' vs the 'bad guy'.

    By claiming to fight 'hate', we can enjoy all the hate in the world. We are allowed to hate, hate, and hate the KKK, Nazis, white supremacists, and etc.

    Go hunting, boys!!!

    But what happens when all the obvious targets are hunted down?

    As there is less 'hate' in the world, shouldn't 'progressives' take it easy and be happy?

    But they still have the Hate Pleasure Principle. They still feel a craving for the joy of hating.
    (Also, the elites seek to keep people under control by energizing people's hate against potential rivals. Without such diversionary tactic, the people might either become decadent and apathetic OR they may direct their hatred at the ruling class with most wealth and power.)

    But if there's less 'hate' to hate, how do people derive pleasure from hatred?

    They have go for small fry since the big whales and fishes are gone.

    So, now it's about hating on 'micro-aggressions'.

    And since 'white supremacy' is hard to find, we must get our hate jollies by hating on 'white privilege'.

    Still, the whole thing is really fueled by the fact that hating is fun.
    Complex and ambiguous emotions make us feel uneasy. They force us to think.
    But hate is fun because the feeling is so simple, and the dichotomies are so easy in terms of 'us versus them'.

    It must have been fun for Sabrina Rubin Erdely to hate on UVA 'Aryan' frats and make them the object of national 'progressive' hate.

    Hate is also fun for those with resentments.

    So, all the uncool guys who don't belong to a fraternity found a handy reason to hate a frat and feel good hating it.

    Ostensibly, it was about justice. But 'justice' provided the moral cover to their fun of hating something.

    So, 'anti-hate' is just the latest cover for the joy of hating.

    HAAAAATE!!!!

    will you shut up already about hate. I hate hearing so much about hate.

    Actually all the founders of the revealed religions (you mentioned most of them) did proscribe hate very strongly. The tried to make love a rule. Love, not as in “I love you madly,” but simply acting in a beneficent way, with special attention towards those for whom you are least inclined to bear good feelings. But as you say, hate is a part of human nature, one of the hardest to overcome, and something which should not be overcome in all instances. Some things deserve hatred.
    However, they say hate does not have the power of love. I think we don’t yet know how to use that particular emotion. The first thing you must love and care for is yourself and those for whom you are responsible. I think that is what makes these white liberals so despicable. The ones that run the media leave me jaw dropped as they cover for criminals as long as they are not white. At least the actions of the various “pocs” make sense by comparison. They cover only for themselves.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS