RSS
In recent days, the New York Times has been worked up over the White People Menace. For example:
What It’s Really Like to Work in Hollywood*
(*If you’re not a straight white man.)
That’s why the the man who made the most money in Hollywood, David Geffen and his $6 billion, is straight.
Oh, wait, Geffen has famously been not straight since his ill-fated fling with Cher in the 1970s.
Julia Roberts may not take the NYT’s premise that her career in Hollywood has been held back by her lack of straight white maleness as seriously as modern manners demand.
But Julia’s a trouper, so she gamely came up with this suitable anecdote:
Today, the NYT is back with a front page blockbuster revelation:
The Faces of American Power, Nearly as White as the Oscar Nominees
By HAEYOUN PARK, JOSH KELLER and JOSH WILLIAMS FEB. 26, 2016We reviewed 503 of the most powerful people in American culture, government, education and business, and found that just 44 are minorities. Any list of the powerful is subjective, but the people here have an outsize influence on the nation’s rules and culture.
But what I was struck by was the New York Times’ statement by implication that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are “not white:”
So, Conquistador-Americans Ted Cruz, Robert Menendez, and Marco Rubio are, despite appearances to the contrary, “not white,” but self-identified Native American Elizabeth Warren is not not white.
Got that?
There will be a quiz.
Other paladins of nonwhite power, according to the NYT, include Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, who looks like a sleeker, more expensively-suited version of the dad on Modern Family. (I can vaguely recall buying one of the mayor’s grandfather’s expensive suits around 1982 for job interviews.)
Meanwhile, the GOP is exploring an independent Presidential bid?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/doors-gop-consulting-independent-219859
Affixing stars of david to the relevant mugs would be a too-interesting exercise.
Jews are white again!!!
Social Construction of Race, Racial Construction of Society.
But white or not white, ELITES dominate.
Most elites are white(or Jewish), but most whites are not part of the elite. Worse, the elites, whatever they may be, don’t care about the white masses.
It’s like Zimbabwe. Mugabe and the elites are black. But they don’t care about the black masses.
So, to say that Zimbabwean blacks rule Zimbabwe would be rather pointless.
So, who cares if the elites are white when they don’t care about the white masses?
If white elites are so good for whites, why are they trying to replace native whites with foreigners?
With leaders like Merkel and McCain, who needs non-white elites?
"If white elites are so good for whites, why are they trying to replace native whites with foreigners?"
You continually throw around the terms "elites", "native whites", "white masses", and "anti-whites". It would be actually helpful if you were able to define them explicitly.
Native whites are technically foreigners. They were never the original inhabitants of the Americas. They arrived here as invaders, I mean settlers and immigrants.
Regarding the elites, do they not have the liberty to serve their own interests? Must they always represent their race collectively, and neglect their own individual pursuits?
Must all whites be in lockstep philosophically and politically? Do whites have the liberty to make their own decisions when it comes to racial matters?
Rather than complain about these "elites", why don't you actually run for political office on an "anti-elite campaign"? Are you that impotent as to not be able to challenge the elites?Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Hrw-500, @iSteveFan, @JSM, @Anon
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/doors-gop-consulting-independent-219859Replies: @Anon
They bitch about Trump running as a third party candidate if he doesn’t get the nomination but then come up with stuff like this.
What percentage of the NYT list about who “controls” Hollywood and music are of Jewish origin?
If people shared that NYT article and pointed out that 40%-80 percent of those industries were controlled by a group that comprises 2% of the population, the NYT would think twice about running another “old white men” *cough cough* article.
… neither are Jews. But hey, the Times already knows that.
In fairness, according to the rules of American ethnicity — with the benefits of affirmative action and so on — Rubio and Cruz really aren’t “white.”
The rules are insane, of course, but Rubio and Cruz, under these insane rules, are Latino rather than white.
Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, is not Native American under any rules. She has no legal status as a tribal Indian and journalists investigating her family tree found zero evidence that she has any Native American ancestry whatsoever.
NY Times speak with forked tongue.
Yes, she is genetically a European, but she identifies as an indigenous princess! And as Caitlyn Jenner has shown, what you imagine must be honored by the healthy, the productive and the rational. Otherwise you are discriminating!
Once again, I am unable to understand how this hating-on-white-people thing is supposed to work as a long-term strategy. Children being born today will never know a world in which jokes about a black president were a staple gag of stand-up comics.
I probably sound like a broken record on this point, but has the left ever bothered to think about how they might be setting up a situation where the White Power Skinheads eventually seem like the most reasonable people in the room? Why do they think the charge of “racism” will still hold its sting when nobody is available who can calmly and reasonably explain why we decided it was bad in the first place?
Is it possible that this is just a socially acceptable way for whites to occasionally brag about how they’re still number 1 and how they just can’t seem to stop winning at everything? 🙂 I mean, the list is diverse enough to show that minorities of all types get to compete for the top spots so victory is all the sweeter!
Seriously, I doubt the Times really expects to stoke any real outrage with this article. It’s just an interesting article which needed an acceptable hook, I guess.
Photo please of the NYT’s Board of Directors and Editorial Board and tell them to STFU.
But what I was struck by was the New York Times’ statement by implication that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are “not white:”
Same for Cuban-American Eddy Cue of Apple. They have no concept of the Mestizo/non-Mestizo distinction, which is the actual fault-line of ethnic differences. Not Hispanic/Non-Hispanic.
The Grey Lady only counts Hispanics as white when they shoot black teens.
You can be both Latino and white as the definition of Latino is someone from or descended from people from Latin America, and Latin America is defined as those countries or islands in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean where Spanish or Portuguese is spoken.
So you could be an Argentine of German descent and still be Latino and white. Both Rubio and Cruz appear to be of white Spanish descent mixed with other European, and not Native American, African, or Taino, as far as one can determine.
So if George Zimmerman were elected to the Senate, what would the NYT consider him?
What about Clarence Thomas? Eric Holder? How about Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan? Do they not wield some influence in the US? How about Ben Carson, he’s running for president after all? Surely Obama, the great unifier who was half-white when up for election but quickly turned black, should be a non-white on this list. If you can’t list the president as someone of power, then who can you list? Probably plenty of others to add to this list. About the only time the NYT has intentionally tried to leave brown people out of a picture. Usually they’re trying to pack them in front and center to the exclusion of white guys.
Whatever the reason they left Obama out, it's likely the same reason the NYT recently compared acts of terror committed in the US by Muslims to those committed by non-Muslims, showing they are roughly equal in frequency, and began counting on the obviously random date of September 12, 2001.
"Hey, we wanted to write a piece about how people in power are too white so we picked 503 of the most powerful people by criteria not calculated to prove or exaggerate our point."
I probably sound like a broken record on this point, but has the left ever bothered to think about how they might be setting up a situation where the White Power Skinheads eventually seem like the most reasonable people in the room? Why do they think the charge of "racism" will still hold its sting when nobody is available who can calmly and reasonably explain why we decided it was bad in the first place?Replies: @Daniel Williams
I think more and more white people are having “Well shit, then I guess I’m racist” moments these days than ever before.
More tedious anti-White stuff, by conspicuous status signalers on how well-off they are, they don’t have to worry about a tidal wave of the Third World coming in.
What this signals to the ordinary White man is that the door is closing, forever, to any ambition they might have to even a middle class life. Its like a Trump election ad, given that an anti-White jihad will get up every White person’s back that is not extremely secure, meaning Hollywood big shots who made their pile and a few other corporate types.
Lets be honest about what this really is — slavery justification shaming. Most of the “prosperity” since the 1970s consists of semi-slave labor of illegal aliens working dangerous jobs with low pay and making the labor costs of elites and those who aspire to be elite but remain stuck in the chattering classes just dirt cheap.
All those “fabulous” ethnic restaurants? Or hipster trendy ones? Built on slave illegal labor. Same with the kitchen and bath remodels, the coke supplied to people like Matty Yglesias, who thought Evelyn Waugh was a woman, and the hookers supplied to the various media/corporate types. [The Secret Service penchant for Latina hookers is likely something just picked up by the examples of the people they protect and serve under — in other words Washington’s upper management.]
Incidentally, Cruz isn’t even full Cuban like Rubio. He’s half-Cuban, half-Irish/Italian I believe. Plus he has a Southern accent and is a Southern Baptist, or at least pretends to be.
Rubio at least is full Cuban, and he had parents who were a bartender and a maid and apparently worked at mob affiliated casinos and hotels, which sounds really Cuban-y.
Marco Rubio's Parents
___
Ted "Felito" Cruz's ParentsReplies: @Reg Cæsar, @Steve Sailer, @BB753, @AndrewR
I’m very concerned that someone is going to take these graphics and highlight the Jewish Americans among them and then post it on Twitter. And this will give the very unfair impression that the horrible trope that Jews have power in America is actually true.
Come on guys, it’s 2016: there ARE Jews in the US who don’t have so much power.
Rubio at least is full Cuban, and he had parents who were a bartender and a maid and apparently worked at mob affiliated casinos and hotels, which sounds really Cuban-y.Replies: @Hail, @Kat Grey
Marco Rubio’s Parents
___
Ted “Felito” Cruz’s Parents
Cruz is a damned sight whiter than those other Calgary natives who made it big in the States, Tommy Chong and his brother-in-law Floyd Sneed.Replies: @Hail
Hard to say from old pics, but Rubio's parents do not look 100% Iberian.Replies: @AndrewR
The mendacity is stunning. As is the stupidity. The arbitrariness befits a 95-IQ flunky. Pure white Spaniards and Spanish/Irish mixes are “minorities” just because of their Spanish names, buts somehow Ernest Moniz is not. Jews at 2.5% of the population aren’t a minority and somehow are white despite their genetic dissimilarity. The ugly truth is that the NYT will tell any lie that fits the narrative.
Dunno. The Confederacy sure seemed to think that Judah P Benjamin was White…..
Exactly. (Which is what you get for letting Judah P Benjamin into the club...!)Replies: @syonredux
MMMM, does that mean that I count as mixed-race? What with my English-Scots father and Ashkenazi mother….
Does this mean that Cortes and Pizarro aren’t White?
Thus I advise most Whites in America to start adopting Spanish surnames , so your children and grandchildren can take advantage of the goodies available to Latnos.
I suppose the Pope is also not white, although both his parents were born in Italy…so Chris Christie would be considered Latino if he was born in South America ? maybe Romney could be hispanic (his father was born in Mexico) and Romney speaks Spanish , unlike Marco Rubio.
Too greasy?
I need implants; since having a couple teeth out recently, those damned Garcettis sure hurt the gums.
Marco Rubio's Parents
___
Ted "Felito" Cruz's ParentsReplies: @Reg Cæsar, @Steve Sailer, @BB753, @AndrewR
Felito’s look like David Horowitz and Stanley Ann Dunham.
Marco’s are essentially a cigarette ad minus the product.
Cruz is a damned sight whiter than those other Calgary natives who made it big in the States, Tommy Chong and his brother-in-law Floyd Sneed.
He could be a brother of Ian Paisley. Seriously.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Marco Rubio's Parents
___
Ted "Felito" Cruz's ParentsReplies: @Reg Cæsar, @Steve Sailer, @BB753, @AndrewR
Little Ted looks like a handful in that photo: a lot of smart lip from that kid, I bet.
The key strategy of Cultural Marxism is to enlist sexual minorities as vanguards of the “revolution” AKA “What is good for Jews?”.
LGBTers may make up 2-5% of the population but they make up 30-40% of the NYT editorial board and an even higher percentage of its non Jewish membership.
The “intersectionality” of non-white and/or LGBT and/or Jewish accounts for much of the ferocity of the “Anti-White” hatred in the Cultural Marxist Media.
This extends to the Neoconservative movement as well where there is an active enlistment of various stooges who are closet cases, like Lindsey Graham, Rubio, Richard Lugar????….
The question remains that while Rubio is obviously gayer than a 3 dollar bill and therefore a blackmailed Neocon lackey, what really qualifies Ted Cruz as a true minority and a “friend” to Jews???
Ted Cruz true “minority status” is that he is an ultra fringe Christian Dispensationalist/Zionist who believes that Israel is entitle to lands as far north and east as the Euphrates and west to the Nile.
The problem with Trump and his supporters are that they are overwhelmingly cisgendered Christian whites who are not Dispensationalists.
Social Construction of Race, Racial Construction of Society.
But white or not white, ELITES dominate.
Most elites are white(or Jewish), but most whites are not part of the elite. Worse, the elites, whatever they may be, don't care about the white masses.
It's like Zimbabwe. Mugabe and the elites are black. But they don't care about the black masses.
So, to say that Zimbabwean blacks rule Zimbabwe would be rather pointless.
So, who cares if the elites are white when they don't care about the white masses?
If white elites are so good for whites, why are they trying to replace native whites with foreigners?
With leaders like Merkel and McCain, who needs non-white elites?Replies: @gruff, @Corvinus
Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses
Wait one. The power in Challahwood is “mostly white”?
Oy vey, I’m cancelling my subs to two dozen Jewish newspapers and magazines that have assured me otherwise all these years!
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/193450/run-this-town
See the piece on the Thalberg Award at the bottom of the second piece. Oscar? Who cares? The real winners get an Irving.
Social Construction of Race, Racial Construction of Society.
But white or not white, ELITES dominate.
Most elites are white(or Jewish), but most whites are not part of the elite. Worse, the elites, whatever they may be, don't care about the white masses.
It's like Zimbabwe. Mugabe and the elites are black. But they don't care about the black masses.
So, to say that Zimbabwean blacks rule Zimbabwe would be rather pointless.
So, who cares if the elites are white when they don't care about the white masses?
If white elites are so good for whites, why are they trying to replace native whites with foreigners?
With leaders like Merkel and McCain, who needs non-white elites?Replies: @gruff, @Corvinus
“So, who cares if the elites are white when they don’t care about the white masses?”
“If white elites are so good for whites, why are they trying to replace native whites with foreigners?”
You continually throw around the terms “elites”, “native whites”, “white masses”, and “anti-whites”. It would be actually helpful if you were able to define them explicitly.
Native whites are technically foreigners. They were never the original inhabitants of the Americas. They arrived here as invaders, I mean settlers and immigrants.
Regarding the elites, do they not have the liberty to serve their own interests? Must they always represent their race collectively, and neglect their own individual pursuits?
Must all whites be in lockstep philosophically and politically? Do whites have the liberty to make their own decisions when it comes to racial matters?
Rather than complain about these “elites”, why don’t you actually run for political office on an “anti-elite campaign”? Are you that impotent as to not be able to challenge the elites?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASfshLLFzkReplies: @AndrewR
You dammus.
No, they don't have to serve MY interest --- if I only cared about MY interest, I'd be a far-left socialist for free stuff for me --- , but they should NOT go against the interest of the people. If successful people wanna make money and become rich, they have my blessing(and that of most Americans who appreciate initiative in people). But if they use their power to hurt the people in general, then they be held accountable.
Lately, I've been gravitating more toward patriotic socialism not because I want free stuff. I never felt envy for the rich. I never felt bothered by inequality per se. I began to turn against the elite capitalists because being successful isn't enough for them. Their greed is boundless. They will ever undermine and destroy their own nation to get ever richer and richer. Globalism made the super-richer superduper-richer. Nothing is enough for them.
And they don't stop at economics. They are know-it-all ideologues who push nation-destroying libertarianism, massive open borders, decadent homo agenda, etc.
They are utopians or mistopians who think they should use their riches to remake the world. That Zuckerberg turd boy is working with German traitor elites to drown that nation with Arab-semite invaders.
It's like this. Selling bad drugs isn't just about economics. That's why drug-dealing is illegal(though it seems pot isn't so bad and maybe should be legalized). If selling certain things is bad for the community, it should not be sold. It's not just about business and individuals. Look at Mexico. Corrupt politicians, corrupt cops, corrupt drug dealers, corrupt everyone just act in self-interest and have no sense of nationhood(despite all the empty rhetoric about MEHICO!!)
Furthermore, elites are not content to just be rich. They wanna change society by buying politicians, controlling powerful institutions, lobbying government.
Suppose there is a forest and lake that is a great benefit to the community. Suppose some rich guy uses his money to lobby the local government to allow him to chop down trees and pollute the lake for short-term profit. Can we isolate his individual action from the interests of the community? Elites have great power. They can affect other lives. That's why they have to care. Also, while it's impossible to fix and save the world, much can be done within the nation, therefore, elites should serve their own nation above all. Consider some rich Zionist bribed environment groups like Sierra Club to support massive immigration.
Once the world is taken over by globalist elites, we have people like Soros making trouble all over --- Ukraine, Syria, Ferguson, etc --- while ripping everyone off.
"Must all whites be in lockstep philosophically and politically? Do whites have the liberty to make their own decisions when it comes to racial matters?"
No, one of the great things about America was the power of individualism. Most revolutions fail in the long run cuz they are overly collectivist. A great leader comes along and tells everyone to obey, and people obey. So, nothing get done unless the leader conceives of and approves it. This is why all those lefty Latin American revolutions fail. Some 'great man' comes along, makes a lot of promises, and people just wait around to be told what to do or to get free stuff.
America was different. Americans understood that real revolutions happen at the individual level in all walks of life. True revolution isn't about top-down command structure but about brilliant minds in art, science, technology, business, culture, music, and etc doing their own thing. Of course, the government and institutions have to maintain property rights and rule of law.
This is why US has been on revolutionary footing since the beginning. A million micro-revolutions are more important than one big macro-revolution. The reason why USSR failed was cuz it was about macro-revolution micro-managed by the state.
America was about micro-revolutions by countless individuals adding up to macro-outcomes all around.
But no one is just an individual. No one's life is just about business or money. It is about race, culture, and history.
Of course, some people may say that they feel no affinity or loyalty to any race, culture, or group. Okay fine. But then, the people should also have the freedom to reject such a person since he rejects them and only sees people as consumers to get rich from, as pigs feeding at the trough. If rich globalist Americans have no feeling for the American middle class and workers, okay. Then, American workers should give the middle finger to them too. It's understandable why the globo-rich don't give a crap about nationalism. They can move and live luxuriously anywhere. They fail to realize that for the vast majority of people, their nation is essentially all they have.
If a nice small town in America is flooded with immigrants and 'refugees', the people of that community lose even the one thing that was dear to them: a world to call their own.
Furthermore, individualism seems to be a poor center of one's being. How long do individuals last? Just several decades. Making individualism at the center of being is like making believe that one is the center of time and space. Ridiculous. We are links in a continuum.
And indeed, people who balance individualism with identity are the ones who are most formidable. Look at Jews. Highly individualistic but also profoundly into identity and community. It goes to prove that one can excel as individual and still live for something greater and deeper. Your average Jewish individual lives for 80 yrs. Jewish race has lasted for 3,500 yrs. An existence of mere 80 yrs should trump the history, identity, and culture of 3,500 yrs? That's just vapid narcissism. No individualism can live forever(not even close) but identity can be passed down forever. Individualism is trapped in a lifetime. Identity, culture, history, and community can last through the ages. Those who only think in terms of 'me, me, me' only belong to themselves. So, if they feel nothing for us, we should feel nothing for them. (But notice how powerful globalist Jews, who sneer at us and our interests, say that we should do everything to support and safeguard their interests of race, identity, and history. So, the likes of Roger Cohen spits on our identity and interests but then says we must do ever more to support Israel. It's amusing that Jews don't us to be like them. Ironically, when Jews see gentiles thinking and acting like Jews, they see 'Nazis'.)
"Rather than complain about these “elites”, why don’t you actually run for political office on an “anti-elite campaign”? Are you that impotent as to not be able to challenge the elites?"
That is a great idear. Gimme $100 million, and I will run.Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @rod1963, @Corvinus
Ask Menachem Mendel Schneerson
I’m a racist.
But they’re not… To be white you must be an American of northwestern European ancestry. Is their ancestry northwestern European? Yeah, I thought so.
I like it , we instantly get more "minorities" in congress and winning Oscars....Al Pacino, Francis Ford Coppola , Bradley Cooper (half Latin, like Cruz), Leonardo DiCaprio , Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell ...are just a few of the recent non-white oscar nominees.
The Italians should start demanding to be categorized as Latinos , Mayor De Blasio would embrace it and the mafia could use their minority status to target the RICO statutes which racially profile them.Replies: @e, @International Jew
Marco Rubio's Parents
___
Ted "Felito" Cruz's ParentsReplies: @Reg Cæsar, @Steve Sailer, @BB753, @AndrewR
Cruz has probably some Northern African in him through his Canary islander dad’s ancestry. Akin to Berber. So still pretty white.
Hard to say from old pics, but Rubio’s parents do not look 100% Iberian.
It's like the time I introduced my Brazilian friend to my roommate. After my friend left, my roommate said "where's he from?" After I told him, he said "Really? He looks white." I said "No kidding. All four of his grandparents were born in Germany."Replies: @Hail, @Reg Cæsar
I think the distinction here is if you are Hispanic and approved by the establishment then you are classified as non-white. If you are Hispanic and despised by the establishment then you are classified as white. They haven’t completely caught on to the convenience of their own game. They could apply this logic with a twist when it suits them, for example Black thugs could be classified as non-Black so as to suit the current narrative. Then instead of suppressing stories about Black on Black crime, they could pose these as non-Black on Black crimes. If your political views change so could your classification.
the conquistadors are considered white, but their children born in the Americas and all their descendents are automatically classified as Latino , even their blond blue-eyed GGGGG grandchildren born in Canada to Irish mothers will be labeled hispanic if they have a Spanish surname….it is almost like the one drop rule…..if one of your 16 GG grandparents were born in Mexico , you qualify as a Latino…even if the GG grandparent born in Mexico was an immigrant from Germany.
Thus I advise most Whites in America to start adopting Spanish surnames , so your children and grandchildren can take advantage of the goodies available to Latnos.
How terrifying that the founding demographic of a country be so prominent in the country’s political leadership and institutions. More hand wringing is required to fix this problem. I bet the staff who write for the NYT are a near representation of the USA as a whole, after all I’m sure they wouldn’t want to be called out on their hypocrisy.
Just another complaint that Blacks don’t pull their weight in American society. It is rather repetitive, don’t you find?
Cruz and Chris Christie have about the same amount of northwestern Euro ancestry….I suppose Rudy Giuliani and Christie should not be considered white americans….Latino is a more accurate description.
I like it , we instantly get more “minorities” in congress and winning Oscars….Al Pacino, Francis Ford Coppola , Bradley Cooper (half Latin, like Cruz), Leonardo DiCaprio , Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell …are just a few of the recent non-white oscar nominees.
The Italians should start demanding to be categorized as Latinos , Mayor De Blasio would embrace it and the mafia could use their minority status to target the RICO statutes which racially profile them.
LGBTers may make up 2-5% of the population but they make up 30-40% of the NYT editorial board and an even higher percentage of its non Jewish membership.
The "intersectionality" of non-white and/or LGBT and/or Jewish accounts for much of the ferocity of the "Anti-White" hatred in the Cultural Marxist Media.
This extends to the Neoconservative movement as well where there is an active enlistment of various stooges who are closet cases, like Lindsey Graham, Rubio, Richard Lugar????....
The question remains that while Rubio is obviously gayer than a 3 dollar bill and therefore a blackmailed Neocon lackey, what really qualifies Ted Cruz as a true minority and a "friend" to Jews???
Ted Cruz true "minority status" is that he is an ultra fringe Christian Dispensationalist/Zionist who believes that Israel is entitle to lands as far north and east as the Euphrates and west to the Nile.
The problem with Trump and his supporters are that they are overwhelmingly cisgendered Christian whites who are not Dispensationalists.Replies: @anonymous, @Reg Cæsar
Don’t forget Obama and Hillary.
The issue is do they trade on the status as a”minority” to help achieve status in society? Steve’s diversity before diversity series was about folk like vp Curtis and Dumas who were unquestionably non-white but unquestionably part of the culture. A Rubio trades on his ancestry a lot more than a Cruz and the ur example is BHO adopting a American black identity after college. Nothing against them for endorsing him but all the “supposedly” republican pundits talking about the picture of Haley,Scott and Rubio and wanting that to be the future pissed me off. I can support Scott because I like his policies and be against Rubio because of his, but how much melanin is on stage shouldn’t enter into it.
Maybe we should have a minimum national melanin quota. For the parties ie 1 Tim Scott equals 6 Ben Jealous or 3Charlie Rangel or is that too directly racist?
Rubio at least is full Cuban, and he had parents who were a bartender and a maid and apparently worked at mob affiliated casinos and hotels, which sounds really Cuban-y.Replies: @Hail, @Kat Grey
If white Cubans were not considered truly white Ricky Ricardo would not have been Lucy’s husband. The only black and white that was allowed on 1950s American television screens was the film. All Americans accepted Desi Arnaz as a white man and he was darker than Rubio.
http://www.thewrap.com/paula-deen-deletes-twitter-picture-of-her-son-bobby-in-brownface/Replies: @syonredux
Ho hum. Just another example of the slow but steady slide into irrelevance of a once-great newspaper.
The NYT is a monument to the fact that people are stupid.
That would depend on his party affiliation.
Yeah, that was me 15 years ago. Now I’m well into “(counter-)racism is a moral duty,” territory, and I’m working on the “anti-Semitism is a moral duty” thing.
Or we could just ignore the ‘sperg.
Hence all the Affirmative Action for Russians, Italians, Hungarians, etc. And the “get out of badwhiteness free” cards for same. And the total lack of hostility toward them from media and academia. Etc.
No, “can be called Nazi in the absence of evidence” would be a better definition. So would “leftists are trying to divide and conquer you.”
Me too. But neither of us is a true race-ist.
Surely Obama, the great unifier who was half-white when up for election but quickly turned black, should be a non-white on this list. If you can’t list the president as someone of power, then who can you list?
Whatever the reason they left Obama out, it’s likely the same reason the NYT recently compared acts of terror committed in the US by Muslims to those committed by non-Muslims, showing they are roughly equal in frequency, and began counting on the obviously random date of September 12, 2001.
“Hey, we wanted to write a piece about how people in power are too white so we picked 503 of the most powerful people by criteria not calculated to prove or exaggerate our point.”
"If white elites are so good for whites, why are they trying to replace native whites with foreigners?"
You continually throw around the terms "elites", "native whites", "white masses", and "anti-whites". It would be actually helpful if you were able to define them explicitly.
Native whites are technically foreigners. They were never the original inhabitants of the Americas. They arrived here as invaders, I mean settlers and immigrants.
Regarding the elites, do they not have the liberty to serve their own interests? Must they always represent their race collectively, and neglect their own individual pursuits?
Must all whites be in lockstep philosophically and politically? Do whites have the liberty to make their own decisions when it comes to racial matters?
Rather than complain about these "elites", why don't you actually run for political office on an "anti-elite campaign"? Are you that impotent as to not be able to challenge the elites?Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Hrw-500, @iSteveFan, @JSM, @Anon
I await your explanation of how the red man emerged spontaneously from the soil in the Americas.
It's called science.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-native-american-origins-dna-20150721-story.html
"If white elites are so good for whites, why are they trying to replace native whites with foreigners?"
You continually throw around the terms "elites", "native whites", "white masses", and "anti-whites". It would be actually helpful if you were able to define them explicitly.
Native whites are technically foreigners. They were never the original inhabitants of the Americas. They arrived here as invaders, I mean settlers and immigrants.
Regarding the elites, do they not have the liberty to serve their own interests? Must they always represent their race collectively, and neglect their own individual pursuits?
Must all whites be in lockstep philosophically and politically? Do whites have the liberty to make their own decisions when it comes to racial matters?
Rather than complain about these "elites", why don't you actually run for political office on an "anti-elite campaign"? Are you that impotent as to not be able to challenge the elites?Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Hrw-500, @iSteveFan, @JSM, @Anon
That reminds me of a video I saw on Youtube made by a guy nicknamed Ourfolkchannel. Skip it to 1:26 about the part with Native Americans and whites.
It’s obviously stupid to say that Menendez, Rubio and (especially) Cruz aren’t white, but there would be some logic in it if one was engaging in some sort of pro-white advocacy. For instance, a radical white supremacist who couldn’t stand seeing a single nonwhite in the Senate might say “look, there are six nonwhites in the Senate! This is outrageous!” As long as no one challenged the premise that Menendez, Cruz and Rubio aren’t white and the premise that having more than three nonwhites in the Senate is bad, the white supremacist would have a very solid case.
What I really don’t understand is why these SJWs cry about too many white people in power (or as Oscar nominations) while simultaneously counting white people as non-white. Here we see this with Cruz, Menendez and Rubio and I’ve also seen it done with white Mexicans counted as non-white in an article about how the #OscarsSoWhite. I mean obviously SJWs are stupid but one would think that, at least at the purportedly elite level of the NYT, they could find SJWs that have enough sense to not sabotage their very own arguments. I guess there’s not a single SJW with a triple digit IQ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASfshLLFzkReplies: @AndrewR
This guy claims that the MRCA of all humans was alive 6-7 mya. This is off by well over an order of magnitude. Not that this error bothers me personally but it makes his argument look weak. An SJW only needs to, accurately, say “actually the MRCA of all humans was around only about 1 to 2 kya.” Actually I’ve seen studies that say the MRCA of all humans was around only a few thousand years ago but even if we go back to the point when all humans with any descendants alive today are the ancestors of all humans alive today, that wouldn’t have been more than 1 or 2 kya. Of course in those thousands of generations a lot of evolution has taken place.
Travis, Good point about Pope Francis, the other day the Times or WaPo said that the pope addressed the Mexicans in Spanish, which is of course his birth language. Recently he was referred to as the first Hispanic pope, so whatever floats their boat I guess.
On a number of occasions by now I’ve seen Arnaz and Ball’s marriage referred to as “interracial.” And I think some of these were in “reputable” publications, not just random SJW blogs. I’d google it but I’m not feeling like a masochist for ignorance today.
Yeah it pissed me off when Rubicuck said “look at me, Governor Haley and Senator Scott all up here on stage. Look how inclusive the GOP is!”
Not only is he not even in the same league of minorityhood as Scott (and to a lesser extent Haley), but that is just a dumb thing to say to begin with. You never saw Thatcher say “look how inclusive the Tories are!” She never listed her gender as a reason to support her or a reason to laud her party. This whole “look how diverse we are” comes from a place of weakness. “Please don’t hate us, progressives! Look how diverse we are!”
I like it , we instantly get more "minorities" in congress and winning Oscars....Al Pacino, Francis Ford Coppola , Bradley Cooper (half Latin, like Cruz), Leonardo DiCaprio , Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell ...are just a few of the recent non-white oscar nominees.
The Italians should start demanding to be categorized as Latinos , Mayor De Blasio would embrace it and the mafia could use their minority status to target the RICO statutes which racially profile them.Replies: @e, @International Jew
Well, perhaps it’s my age, but I can recall a time when Americans of Italian or Spanish descent were referred to often as “Latin.”
Is Cruz really loved by the establishment?
More so than Trump which I gather from the months and months of "any minute now voters will come to their senses and pick Jeb or anyone but Trump".
Hard to say from old pics, but Rubio's parents do not look 100% Iberian.Replies: @AndrewR
Either way, if his name was John Williams no one would think he was “nonwhite” for a nanosecond. But people see a Spanish name or learn about Latino ancestry and they’re like “durr he’s a PoC”
It’s like the time I introduced my Brazilian friend to my roommate. After my friend left, my roommate said “where’s he from?” After I told him, he said “Really? He looks white.” I said “No kidding. All four of his grandparents were born in Germany.”
"If white elites are so good for whites, why are they trying to replace native whites with foreigners?"
You continually throw around the terms "elites", "native whites", "white masses", and "anti-whites". It would be actually helpful if you were able to define them explicitly.
Native whites are technically foreigners. They were never the original inhabitants of the Americas. They arrived here as invaders, I mean settlers and immigrants.
Regarding the elites, do they not have the liberty to serve their own interests? Must they always represent their race collectively, and neglect their own individual pursuits?
Must all whites be in lockstep philosophically and politically? Do whites have the liberty to make their own decisions when it comes to racial matters?
Rather than complain about these "elites", why don't you actually run for political office on an "anti-elite campaign"? Are you that impotent as to not be able to challenge the elites?Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Hrw-500, @iSteveFan, @JSM, @Anon
First, as others have pointed out the Indians did not just spring up in North America. They came from another continent as well. Additionally once in the Americas the various tribes fought with one another over territory. So more than likely territory inhabited by one tribe was territory that was forcibly taken from another.
Second, the USA is more than just a geographical unit on a map. If you consider the USA to just be a geographic entity, then you could claim that whites and even the Indians are invaders. But since the USA is much more than geography and encompasses unique political, economic and social institutions, you could look a the creators of those institutions as the true natives. In that case whites, at least those descendant from the Founding Stock, would be considered native.
After all millions of people are not coming here today for our geography. There are much nicer geographic locations with more favorable climes in the New World. Nor are people coming here to live in Cherokee or Apache societies. They are coming here because of what was created by our unique political, economic and social institutions.
Really, Mr. Historian? I did not know such facts. So what you are saying is that throughout history 1) there are inhabitants of one land, who had migrated there, who have been removed by force by another group, or 2) there are inhabitants of one land, who had migrated, who enabled other groups of people to join them. Interesting...
"After all millions of people are not coming here today for our geography."
No, immigrants come here to make a better life for themselves, just like immigrants of yesteryear.
"After all millions of people are not coming here today for our geography."
Created by colonists and immigrants.
Or they think straight up that Iberians aren’t white. Obviously Iberia does have a different history than northern Europe, and certainly many Iberians could pass for natives in “nonwhite” countries like Lebanon or Morocco, but it’s still pretty stupid to lump Antonio Banderas in with Hooleeahn Castro.
And where’s the Confederacy now?
Exactly. (Which is what you get for letting Judah P Benjamin into the club…!)
"If white elites are so good for whites, why are they trying to replace native whites with foreigners?"
You continually throw around the terms "elites", "native whites", "white masses", and "anti-whites". It would be actually helpful if you were able to define them explicitly.
Native whites are technically foreigners. They were never the original inhabitants of the Americas. They arrived here as invaders, I mean settlers and immigrants.
Regarding the elites, do they not have the liberty to serve their own interests? Must they always represent their race collectively, and neglect their own individual pursuits?
Must all whites be in lockstep philosophically and politically? Do whites have the liberty to make their own decisions when it comes to racial matters?
Rather than complain about these "elites", why don't you actually run for political office on an "anti-elite campaign"? Are you that impotent as to not be able to challenge the elites?Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Hrw-500, @iSteveFan, @JSM, @Anon
Hey Corvinus, I fart in your general direction! What’s that you say, I wasn’t able to define “your general direction” specifically, therefore the stink doesn’t bother you? COOL!!
With "white" and "anti-white", there are a number of definitions and caveats and idiosyncrasies to consider.
No, "can be called Nazi in the absence of evidence" would be a better definition. So would "leftists are trying to divide and conquer you."Me too. But neither of us is a true race-ist.Replies: @Ragno
Hence all the Affirmative Action for Russians, Italians, Hungarians, etc. And the “get out of badwhiteness free” cards for same. And the total lack of hostility toward them from media and academia. Etc.
Yeah, after 50+ years of gangster movies in which a pot-bellied thug in a torn wife-beater drools linguini down his chin, I always think “Thank God the New York Times likes us!”
Not to make too much of a point of this, but once you leave the American South, hostility to encroaching inner-city savagery – blacks in particular – has generally been left to the “Russians, Italians, Hungarians, etc.” (See Hawkins, Yusuf – or ask Al Sharpton about the provenance of his stab wound.) Whenever real-life orcs have been storming the bridge, you can always find “Americans of northwestern European ancestry”….or at least their backs, as they are generally in full retreat.
I believe this phenomena even has an official name: “white flight”. (Too bad the English, Germans, Swedes, etc, can’t practice it in their own homelands, or they surely would.)
lol. So the NY Times…which is now on record as using the term “white Hispanic” (George Zimmerman), suddenly now thinks that “Hispanic” and “white” are mutually exclusive.
And they wonder why non-lefties don’t trust the NY Times.
Marco Rubio's Parents
___
Ted "Felito" Cruz's ParentsReplies: @Reg Cæsar, @Steve Sailer, @BB753, @AndrewR
Papa Cruz looks like Vlad Lenin
"If white elites are so good for whites, why are they trying to replace native whites with foreigners?"
You continually throw around the terms "elites", "native whites", "white masses", and "anti-whites". It would be actually helpful if you were able to define them explicitly.
Native whites are technically foreigners. They were never the original inhabitants of the Americas. They arrived here as invaders, I mean settlers and immigrants.
Regarding the elites, do they not have the liberty to serve their own interests? Must they always represent their race collectively, and neglect their own individual pursuits?
Must all whites be in lockstep philosophically and politically? Do whites have the liberty to make their own decisions when it comes to racial matters?
Rather than complain about these "elites", why don't you actually run for political office on an "anti-elite campaign"? Are you that impotent as to not be able to challenge the elites?Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Hrw-500, @iSteveFan, @JSM, @Anon
“Regarding the elites, do they not have the liberty to serve their own interests? Must they always represent their race collectively, and neglect their own individual pursuits?”
You dammus.
No, they don’t have to serve MY interest — if I only cared about MY interest, I’d be a far-left socialist for free stuff for me — , but they should NOT go against the interest of the people. If successful people wanna make money and become rich, they have my blessing(and that of most Americans who appreciate initiative in people). But if they use their power to hurt the people in general, then they be held accountable.
Lately, I’ve been gravitating more toward patriotic socialism not because I want free stuff. I never felt envy for the rich. I never felt bothered by inequality per se. I began to turn against the elite capitalists because being successful isn’t enough for them. Their greed is boundless. They will ever undermine and destroy their own nation to get ever richer and richer. Globalism made the super-richer superduper-richer. Nothing is enough for them.
And they don’t stop at economics. They are know-it-all ideologues who push nation-destroying libertarianism, massive open borders, decadent homo agenda, etc.
They are utopians or mistopians who think they should use their riches to remake the world. That Zuckerberg turd boy is working with German traitor elites to drown that nation with Arab-semite invaders.
It’s like this. Selling bad drugs isn’t just about economics. That’s why drug-dealing is illegal(though it seems pot isn’t so bad and maybe should be legalized). If selling certain things is bad for the community, it should not be sold. It’s not just about business and individuals. Look at Mexico. Corrupt politicians, corrupt cops, corrupt drug dealers, corrupt everyone just act in self-interest and have no sense of nationhood(despite all the empty rhetoric about MEHICO!!)
Furthermore, elites are not content to just be rich. They wanna change society by buying politicians, controlling powerful institutions, lobbying government.
Suppose there is a forest and lake that is a great benefit to the community. Suppose some rich guy uses his money to lobby the local government to allow him to chop down trees and pollute the lake for short-term profit. Can we isolate his individual action from the interests of the community? Elites have great power. They can affect other lives. That’s why they have to care. Also, while it’s impossible to fix and save the world, much can be done within the nation, therefore, elites should serve their own nation above all. Consider some rich Zionist bribed environment groups like Sierra Club to support massive immigration.
Once the world is taken over by globalist elites, we have people like Soros making trouble all over — Ukraine, Syria, Ferguson, etc — while ripping everyone off.
“Must all whites be in lockstep philosophically and politically? Do whites have the liberty to make their own decisions when it comes to racial matters?”
No, one of the great things about America was the power of individualism. Most revolutions fail in the long run cuz they are overly collectivist. A great leader comes along and tells everyone to obey, and people obey. So, nothing get done unless the leader conceives of and approves it. This is why all those lefty Latin American revolutions fail. Some ‘great man’ comes along, makes a lot of promises, and people just wait around to be told what to do or to get free stuff.
America was different. Americans understood that real revolutions happen at the individual level in all walks of life. True revolution isn’t about top-down command structure but about brilliant minds in art, science, technology, business, culture, music, and etc doing their own thing. Of course, the government and institutions have to maintain property rights and rule of law.
This is why US has been on revolutionary footing since the beginning. A million micro-revolutions are more important than one big macro-revolution. The reason why USSR failed was cuz it was about macro-revolution micro-managed by the state.
America was about micro-revolutions by countless individuals adding up to macro-outcomes all around.
But no one is just an individual. No one’s life is just about business or money. It is about race, culture, and history.
Of course, some people may say that they feel no affinity or loyalty to any race, culture, or group. Okay fine. But then, the people should also have the freedom to reject such a person since he rejects them and only sees people as consumers to get rich from, as pigs feeding at the trough. If rich globalist Americans have no feeling for the American middle class and workers, okay. Then, American workers should give the middle finger to them too. It’s understandable why the globo-rich don’t give a crap about nationalism. They can move and live luxuriously anywhere. They fail to realize that for the vast majority of people, their nation is essentially all they have.
If a nice small town in America is flooded with immigrants and ‘refugees’, the people of that community lose even the one thing that was dear to them: a world to call their own.
Furthermore, individualism seems to be a poor center of one’s being. How long do individuals last? Just several decades. Making individualism at the center of being is like making believe that one is the center of time and space. Ridiculous. We are links in a continuum.
And indeed, people who balance individualism with identity are the ones who are most formidable. Look at Jews. Highly individualistic but also profoundly into identity and community. It goes to prove that one can excel as individual and still live for something greater and deeper. Your average Jewish individual lives for 80 yrs. Jewish race has lasted for 3,500 yrs. An existence of mere 80 yrs should trump the history, identity, and culture of 3,500 yrs? That’s just vapid narcissism. No individualism can live forever(not even close) but identity can be passed down forever. Individualism is trapped in a lifetime. Identity, culture, history, and community can last through the ages. Those who only think in terms of ‘me, me, me’ only belong to themselves. So, if they feel nothing for us, we should feel nothing for them. (But notice how powerful globalist Jews, who sneer at us and our interests, say that we should do everything to support and safeguard their interests of race, identity, and history. So, the likes of Roger Cohen spits on our identity and interests but then says we must do ever more to support Israel. It’s amusing that Jews don’t us to be like them. Ironically, when Jews see gentiles thinking and acting like Jews, they see ‘Nazis’.)
“Rather than complain about these “elites”, why don’t you actually run for political office on an “anti-elite campaign”? Are you that impotent as to not be able to challenge the elites?”
That is a great idear. Gimme $100 million, and I will run.
But notice how powerful globalist Jews, who sneer at us and our interests, say that we should do everything to support and safeguard their interests of race, identity, and history. So, the likes of Roger Cohen spits on our identity and interests but then says we must do ever more to support Israel. It’s amusing that Jews don’t us to be like them. Ironically, when Jews see gentiles thinking and acting like Jews, they see ‘Nazis’.)
Of course they don't want us to copy them(that is the lower classes), as it basically nullifies their strategies for wealth and power acquisition. They want us to remain prey. Hence the constant promotion by the elites of "rugged individualism" over tribalism and nationalism(both of which are countered by the elites promotion of organized sports to absorb and redirect the emotional energy of lower class whites).
Look at the political establishment/Wall Street over the last 70 or so years. All they promoted for working and middle-class whites was cut throat capitalism and individualism and socialized capitalism for the wealthy and connected. Gold for thee and stones for the rest of us.
As a result white American society began to atomize and rot, community and cultural support for individuals withered and died and then replaced by consumerism, drugs, TV and organized sports. Poor substitutes for the organic emotional, intellectual and spiritual safety net built up over thousands of years.
It also made us easy prey for the elites to shove their insane utopian schemes down our throats. We were are so fragmented we couldn't even mount any sort of defense against them.
What happens when the interest of the people is are the interests of elites?
“I began to turn against the elite capitalists because being successful isn’t enough for them. Their greed is boundless.”
It’s capitalists. Not “elite capitalists” or “crony capitalists”. Do you propose strict laws to limit their machinations? What are the potential consequences of such laws?
“They are know-it-all ideologues who push nation-destroying libertarianism, massive open borders, decadent homo agenda, etc.”
Assuming that this is the agenda of the elites. Could it not be that this agenda are the interests of the people?
“That Zuckerberg turd boy is working with German traitor elites to drown that nation with Arab-semite invaders.”
Just when you were speaking some sense, you have to go back to your default. Your Jooish fetish is beyond the pale.
“They wanna change society by buying politicians, controlling powerful institutions, lobbying government.”
Is it not the same tactics employed by your beloved white nationalists?
“Consider some rich Zionist bribed environment groups like Sierra Club to support massive immigration.”
Source, please.
“No, one of the great things about America was the power of individualism.”
So, you state that whites do not have to be lockstep philosophically and politically. Does that not defeat your “anti-white” meme whenever whites make their own individual decisions regarding race, culture, and identity?
“If a nice small town in America is flooded with immigrants and ‘refugees’, the people of that community lose even the one thing that was dear to them: a world to call their own.”
What happens when white people in that community desire to have immigrants and refugees? Are these whites “anti-white”?
I like it , we instantly get more "minorities" in congress and winning Oscars....Al Pacino, Francis Ford Coppola , Bradley Cooper (half Latin, like Cruz), Leonardo DiCaprio , Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell ...are just a few of the recent non-white oscar nominees.
The Italians should start demanding to be categorized as Latinos , Mayor De Blasio would embrace it and the mafia could use their minority status to target the RICO statutes which racially profile them.Replies: @e, @International Jew
So would Cicero and Caesar have, if the question had ever been put to them, “Who is more ‘Latin’, an Italian or the mixed offspring of Iberians and…um, far-far-eastern Scythians”?
Full conflict of interest disclosure: we Ashkenazi Jews are more or less half-Italian by ancestry.
He’s the official Rassenpapst these days?
Exactly. (Which is what you get for letting Judah P Benjamin into the club...!)Replies: @syonredux
Dear fellow, Judah P Benjamin did yeoman’s work on the behalf of the Confederacy.
I’ve spotted that, too. More proof that people are idiots.
e, I grew up as an Italian American, born in 1946, we were often referred to as swarthy and greasy, so Latin sounds rather charming to me.
iStevefan, I dub him Corvinus, The Contrarian, with his perpetual pout.
Now, I don't feel that way at all. So, were nativists wrong in their assessment?
Not only that, just look at how he engages the camera. He’s a natural. His parents are math nerds, where does that come from? Too bad his role models for the center of attention were oily Texas preachers.
Most light skinned Cubans [including Castro] are in actuality light skinned Spaniards with a degree of ad mixture from Jew, North African, maybe a slight amount of American Indian but not much. In contrast to a Puerto Rican not much mixing with black African either?
You dammus.
No, they don't have to serve MY interest --- if I only cared about MY interest, I'd be a far-left socialist for free stuff for me --- , but they should NOT go against the interest of the people. If successful people wanna make money and become rich, they have my blessing(and that of most Americans who appreciate initiative in people). But if they use their power to hurt the people in general, then they be held accountable.
Lately, I've been gravitating more toward patriotic socialism not because I want free stuff. I never felt envy for the rich. I never felt bothered by inequality per se. I began to turn against the elite capitalists because being successful isn't enough for them. Their greed is boundless. They will ever undermine and destroy their own nation to get ever richer and richer. Globalism made the super-richer superduper-richer. Nothing is enough for them.
And they don't stop at economics. They are know-it-all ideologues who push nation-destroying libertarianism, massive open borders, decadent homo agenda, etc.
They are utopians or mistopians who think they should use their riches to remake the world. That Zuckerberg turd boy is working with German traitor elites to drown that nation with Arab-semite invaders.
It's like this. Selling bad drugs isn't just about economics. That's why drug-dealing is illegal(though it seems pot isn't so bad and maybe should be legalized). If selling certain things is bad for the community, it should not be sold. It's not just about business and individuals. Look at Mexico. Corrupt politicians, corrupt cops, corrupt drug dealers, corrupt everyone just act in self-interest and have no sense of nationhood(despite all the empty rhetoric about MEHICO!!)
Furthermore, elites are not content to just be rich. They wanna change society by buying politicians, controlling powerful institutions, lobbying government.
Suppose there is a forest and lake that is a great benefit to the community. Suppose some rich guy uses his money to lobby the local government to allow him to chop down trees and pollute the lake for short-term profit. Can we isolate his individual action from the interests of the community? Elites have great power. They can affect other lives. That's why they have to care. Also, while it's impossible to fix and save the world, much can be done within the nation, therefore, elites should serve their own nation above all. Consider some rich Zionist bribed environment groups like Sierra Club to support massive immigration.
Once the world is taken over by globalist elites, we have people like Soros making trouble all over --- Ukraine, Syria, Ferguson, etc --- while ripping everyone off.
"Must all whites be in lockstep philosophically and politically? Do whites have the liberty to make their own decisions when it comes to racial matters?"
No, one of the great things about America was the power of individualism. Most revolutions fail in the long run cuz they are overly collectivist. A great leader comes along and tells everyone to obey, and people obey. So, nothing get done unless the leader conceives of and approves it. This is why all those lefty Latin American revolutions fail. Some 'great man' comes along, makes a lot of promises, and people just wait around to be told what to do or to get free stuff.
America was different. Americans understood that real revolutions happen at the individual level in all walks of life. True revolution isn't about top-down command structure but about brilliant minds in art, science, technology, business, culture, music, and etc doing their own thing. Of course, the government and institutions have to maintain property rights and rule of law.
This is why US has been on revolutionary footing since the beginning. A million micro-revolutions are more important than one big macro-revolution. The reason why USSR failed was cuz it was about macro-revolution micro-managed by the state.
America was about micro-revolutions by countless individuals adding up to macro-outcomes all around.
But no one is just an individual. No one's life is just about business or money. It is about race, culture, and history.
Of course, some people may say that they feel no affinity or loyalty to any race, culture, or group. Okay fine. But then, the people should also have the freedom to reject such a person since he rejects them and only sees people as consumers to get rich from, as pigs feeding at the trough. If rich globalist Americans have no feeling for the American middle class and workers, okay. Then, American workers should give the middle finger to them too. It's understandable why the globo-rich don't give a crap about nationalism. They can move and live luxuriously anywhere. They fail to realize that for the vast majority of people, their nation is essentially all they have.
If a nice small town in America is flooded with immigrants and 'refugees', the people of that community lose even the one thing that was dear to them: a world to call their own.
Furthermore, individualism seems to be a poor center of one's being. How long do individuals last? Just several decades. Making individualism at the center of being is like making believe that one is the center of time and space. Ridiculous. We are links in a continuum.
And indeed, people who balance individualism with identity are the ones who are most formidable. Look at Jews. Highly individualistic but also profoundly into identity and community. It goes to prove that one can excel as individual and still live for something greater and deeper. Your average Jewish individual lives for 80 yrs. Jewish race has lasted for 3,500 yrs. An existence of mere 80 yrs should trump the history, identity, and culture of 3,500 yrs? That's just vapid narcissism. No individualism can live forever(not even close) but identity can be passed down forever. Individualism is trapped in a lifetime. Identity, culture, history, and community can last through the ages. Those who only think in terms of 'me, me, me' only belong to themselves. So, if they feel nothing for us, we should feel nothing for them. (But notice how powerful globalist Jews, who sneer at us and our interests, say that we should do everything to support and safeguard their interests of race, identity, and history. So, the likes of Roger Cohen spits on our identity and interests but then says we must do ever more to support Israel. It's amusing that Jews don't us to be like them. Ironically, when Jews see gentiles thinking and acting like Jews, they see 'Nazis'.)
"Rather than complain about these “elites”, why don’t you actually run for political office on an “anti-elite campaign”? Are you that impotent as to not be able to challenge the elites?"
That is a great idear. Gimme $100 million, and I will run.Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @rod1963, @Corvinus
You’re gonna need a shorter stump speech.
Please clap.
If people shared that NYT article and pointed out that 40%-80 percent of those industries were controlled by a group that comprises 2% of the population, the NYT would think twice about running another "old white men" *cough cough* article.Replies: @Ivy
NYT cognitive dissonance is a feature, not a bug.
They weren’t considered to be of the same stock as ordinary Americans of the time, if that’s what you’re trying to say. They were considered exotic and were described as “Latin”. To portray Desi Arnaz, you need to put on brownface:
http://www.thewrap.com/paula-deen-deletes-twitter-picture-of-her-son-bobby-in-brownface/
Polish institutions?
He was a Jewish leader thought to be messiah, who told the world Jews are not white. But something far far superior. Any more questions?
Classic.
You dammus.
No, they don't have to serve MY interest --- if I only cared about MY interest, I'd be a far-left socialist for free stuff for me --- , but they should NOT go against the interest of the people. If successful people wanna make money and become rich, they have my blessing(and that of most Americans who appreciate initiative in people). But if they use their power to hurt the people in general, then they be held accountable.
Lately, I've been gravitating more toward patriotic socialism not because I want free stuff. I never felt envy for the rich. I never felt bothered by inequality per se. I began to turn against the elite capitalists because being successful isn't enough for them. Their greed is boundless. They will ever undermine and destroy their own nation to get ever richer and richer. Globalism made the super-richer superduper-richer. Nothing is enough for them.
And they don't stop at economics. They are know-it-all ideologues who push nation-destroying libertarianism, massive open borders, decadent homo agenda, etc.
They are utopians or mistopians who think they should use their riches to remake the world. That Zuckerberg turd boy is working with German traitor elites to drown that nation with Arab-semite invaders.
It's like this. Selling bad drugs isn't just about economics. That's why drug-dealing is illegal(though it seems pot isn't so bad and maybe should be legalized). If selling certain things is bad for the community, it should not be sold. It's not just about business and individuals. Look at Mexico. Corrupt politicians, corrupt cops, corrupt drug dealers, corrupt everyone just act in self-interest and have no sense of nationhood(despite all the empty rhetoric about MEHICO!!)
Furthermore, elites are not content to just be rich. They wanna change society by buying politicians, controlling powerful institutions, lobbying government.
Suppose there is a forest and lake that is a great benefit to the community. Suppose some rich guy uses his money to lobby the local government to allow him to chop down trees and pollute the lake for short-term profit. Can we isolate his individual action from the interests of the community? Elites have great power. They can affect other lives. That's why they have to care. Also, while it's impossible to fix and save the world, much can be done within the nation, therefore, elites should serve their own nation above all. Consider some rich Zionist bribed environment groups like Sierra Club to support massive immigration.
Once the world is taken over by globalist elites, we have people like Soros making trouble all over --- Ukraine, Syria, Ferguson, etc --- while ripping everyone off.
"Must all whites be in lockstep philosophically and politically? Do whites have the liberty to make their own decisions when it comes to racial matters?"
No, one of the great things about America was the power of individualism. Most revolutions fail in the long run cuz they are overly collectivist. A great leader comes along and tells everyone to obey, and people obey. So, nothing get done unless the leader conceives of and approves it. This is why all those lefty Latin American revolutions fail. Some 'great man' comes along, makes a lot of promises, and people just wait around to be told what to do or to get free stuff.
America was different. Americans understood that real revolutions happen at the individual level in all walks of life. True revolution isn't about top-down command structure but about brilliant minds in art, science, technology, business, culture, music, and etc doing their own thing. Of course, the government and institutions have to maintain property rights and rule of law.
This is why US has been on revolutionary footing since the beginning. A million micro-revolutions are more important than one big macro-revolution. The reason why USSR failed was cuz it was about macro-revolution micro-managed by the state.
America was about micro-revolutions by countless individuals adding up to macro-outcomes all around.
But no one is just an individual. No one's life is just about business or money. It is about race, culture, and history.
Of course, some people may say that they feel no affinity or loyalty to any race, culture, or group. Okay fine. But then, the people should also have the freedom to reject such a person since he rejects them and only sees people as consumers to get rich from, as pigs feeding at the trough. If rich globalist Americans have no feeling for the American middle class and workers, okay. Then, American workers should give the middle finger to them too. It's understandable why the globo-rich don't give a crap about nationalism. They can move and live luxuriously anywhere. They fail to realize that for the vast majority of people, their nation is essentially all they have.
If a nice small town in America is flooded with immigrants and 'refugees', the people of that community lose even the one thing that was dear to them: a world to call their own.
Furthermore, individualism seems to be a poor center of one's being. How long do individuals last? Just several decades. Making individualism at the center of being is like making believe that one is the center of time and space. Ridiculous. We are links in a continuum.
And indeed, people who balance individualism with identity are the ones who are most formidable. Look at Jews. Highly individualistic but also profoundly into identity and community. It goes to prove that one can excel as individual and still live for something greater and deeper. Your average Jewish individual lives for 80 yrs. Jewish race has lasted for 3,500 yrs. An existence of mere 80 yrs should trump the history, identity, and culture of 3,500 yrs? That's just vapid narcissism. No individualism can live forever(not even close) but identity can be passed down forever. Individualism is trapped in a lifetime. Identity, culture, history, and community can last through the ages. Those who only think in terms of 'me, me, me' only belong to themselves. So, if they feel nothing for us, we should feel nothing for them. (But notice how powerful globalist Jews, who sneer at us and our interests, say that we should do everything to support and safeguard their interests of race, identity, and history. So, the likes of Roger Cohen spits on our identity and interests but then says we must do ever more to support Israel. It's amusing that Jews don't us to be like them. Ironically, when Jews see gentiles thinking and acting like Jews, they see 'Nazis'.)
"Rather than complain about these “elites”, why don’t you actually run for political office on an “anti-elite campaign”? Are you that impotent as to not be able to challenge the elites?"
That is a great idear. Gimme $100 million, and I will run.Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @rod1963, @Corvinus
Nice synopsis of the elites and the Jews.
But notice how powerful globalist Jews, who sneer at us and our interests, say that we should do everything to support and safeguard their interests of race, identity, and history. So, the likes of Roger Cohen spits on our identity and interests but then says we must do ever more to support Israel. It’s amusing that Jews don’t us to be like them. Ironically, when Jews see gentiles thinking and acting like Jews, they see ‘Nazis’.)
Of course they don’t want us to copy them(that is the lower classes), as it basically nullifies their strategies for wealth and power acquisition. They want us to remain prey. Hence the constant promotion by the elites of “rugged individualism” over tribalism and nationalism(both of which are countered by the elites promotion of organized sports to absorb and redirect the emotional energy of lower class whites).
Look at the political establishment/Wall Street over the last 70 or so years. All they promoted for working and middle-class whites was cut throat capitalism and individualism and socialized capitalism for the wealthy and connected. Gold for thee and stones for the rest of us.
As a result white American society began to atomize and rot, community and cultural support for individuals withered and died and then replaced by consumerism, drugs, TV and organized sports. Poor substitutes for the organic emotional, intellectual and spiritual safety net built up over thousands of years.
It also made us easy prey for the elites to shove their insane utopian schemes down our throats. We were are so fragmented we couldn’t even mount any sort of defense against them.
“I await your explanation of how the red man emerged spontaneously from the soil in the Americas.”
It’s called science.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-native-american-origins-dna-20150721-story.html
“First, as others have pointed out the Indians did not just spring up in North America. They came from another continent as well. Additionally once in the Americas the various tribes fought with one another over territory. So more than likely territory inhabited by one tribe was territory that was forcibly taken from another.”
Really, Mr. Historian? I did not know such facts. So what you are saying is that throughout history 1) there are inhabitants of one land, who had migrated there, who have been removed by force by another group, or 2) there are inhabitants of one land, who had migrated, who enabled other groups of people to join them. Interesting…
“After all millions of people are not coming here today for our geography.”
No, immigrants come here to make a better life for themselves, just like immigrants of yesteryear.
“After all millions of people are not coming here today for our geography.”
Created by colonists and immigrants.
Odd. My Ashkenazi grandfather was quite certain that the English were the master race. His proof: Shakespeare, Newton, and Darwin.
So he was the Rassenpapst?At least while he was above ground?
http://www.thewrap.com/paula-deen-deletes-twitter-picture-of-her-son-bobby-in-brownface/Replies: @syonredux
So were lots of people who were not of Northwestern European stock.
So were the Italians.
More like tanface. Say, Catherine Zeta Jones’ hue.
But more Western European.
No trace of the steppe on the elder Señor Cruz’s face.
It's like the time I introduced my Brazilian friend to my roommate. After my friend left, my roommate said "where's he from?" After I told him, he said "Really? He looks white." I said "No kidding. All four of his grandparents were born in Germany."Replies: @Hail, @Reg Cæsar
It goes to show how ignorant Americans really are about Hispanics (who have sharp racial divisions themselves, at home), a group now exceeding 20% of the U.S. population. I wonder if this will ever change.
Cruz is a damned sight whiter than those other Calgary natives who made it big in the States, Tommy Chong and his brother-in-law Floyd Sneed.Replies: @Hail
Look at Ted Cruz’s father in a 2013 picture.
He could be a brother of Ian Paisley. Seriously.
I’m actually a bit interested in the Garcetti family. When I read that Eric Garcetti was touting himself as Mexican, I assumed that father Gil had married a Mexican lady. Actually, it turns out that District Attorney Gil was himself the son of two immigrants from Mexico (father originally from Italy; Eric’s mother is Russian Jewish). Somehow, back during the OJ days, no one ever talked about LA having a Mexican DA.
More so than Trump which I gather from the months and months of “any minute now voters will come to their senses and pick Jeb or anyone but Trump”.
You dammus.
No, they don't have to serve MY interest --- if I only cared about MY interest, I'd be a far-left socialist for free stuff for me --- , but they should NOT go against the interest of the people. If successful people wanna make money and become rich, they have my blessing(and that of most Americans who appreciate initiative in people). But if they use their power to hurt the people in general, then they be held accountable.
Lately, I've been gravitating more toward patriotic socialism not because I want free stuff. I never felt envy for the rich. I never felt bothered by inequality per se. I began to turn against the elite capitalists because being successful isn't enough for them. Their greed is boundless. They will ever undermine and destroy their own nation to get ever richer and richer. Globalism made the super-richer superduper-richer. Nothing is enough for them.
And they don't stop at economics. They are know-it-all ideologues who push nation-destroying libertarianism, massive open borders, decadent homo agenda, etc.
They are utopians or mistopians who think they should use their riches to remake the world. That Zuckerberg turd boy is working with German traitor elites to drown that nation with Arab-semite invaders.
It's like this. Selling bad drugs isn't just about economics. That's why drug-dealing is illegal(though it seems pot isn't so bad and maybe should be legalized). If selling certain things is bad for the community, it should not be sold. It's not just about business and individuals. Look at Mexico. Corrupt politicians, corrupt cops, corrupt drug dealers, corrupt everyone just act in self-interest and have no sense of nationhood(despite all the empty rhetoric about MEHICO!!)
Furthermore, elites are not content to just be rich. They wanna change society by buying politicians, controlling powerful institutions, lobbying government.
Suppose there is a forest and lake that is a great benefit to the community. Suppose some rich guy uses his money to lobby the local government to allow him to chop down trees and pollute the lake for short-term profit. Can we isolate his individual action from the interests of the community? Elites have great power. They can affect other lives. That's why they have to care. Also, while it's impossible to fix and save the world, much can be done within the nation, therefore, elites should serve their own nation above all. Consider some rich Zionist bribed environment groups like Sierra Club to support massive immigration.
Once the world is taken over by globalist elites, we have people like Soros making trouble all over --- Ukraine, Syria, Ferguson, etc --- while ripping everyone off.
"Must all whites be in lockstep philosophically and politically? Do whites have the liberty to make their own decisions when it comes to racial matters?"
No, one of the great things about America was the power of individualism. Most revolutions fail in the long run cuz they are overly collectivist. A great leader comes along and tells everyone to obey, and people obey. So, nothing get done unless the leader conceives of and approves it. This is why all those lefty Latin American revolutions fail. Some 'great man' comes along, makes a lot of promises, and people just wait around to be told what to do or to get free stuff.
America was different. Americans understood that real revolutions happen at the individual level in all walks of life. True revolution isn't about top-down command structure but about brilliant minds in art, science, technology, business, culture, music, and etc doing their own thing. Of course, the government and institutions have to maintain property rights and rule of law.
This is why US has been on revolutionary footing since the beginning. A million micro-revolutions are more important than one big macro-revolution. The reason why USSR failed was cuz it was about macro-revolution micro-managed by the state.
America was about micro-revolutions by countless individuals adding up to macro-outcomes all around.
But no one is just an individual. No one's life is just about business or money. It is about race, culture, and history.
Of course, some people may say that they feel no affinity or loyalty to any race, culture, or group. Okay fine. But then, the people should also have the freedom to reject such a person since he rejects them and only sees people as consumers to get rich from, as pigs feeding at the trough. If rich globalist Americans have no feeling for the American middle class and workers, okay. Then, American workers should give the middle finger to them too. It's understandable why the globo-rich don't give a crap about nationalism. They can move and live luxuriously anywhere. They fail to realize that for the vast majority of people, their nation is essentially all they have.
If a nice small town in America is flooded with immigrants and 'refugees', the people of that community lose even the one thing that was dear to them: a world to call their own.
Furthermore, individualism seems to be a poor center of one's being. How long do individuals last? Just several decades. Making individualism at the center of being is like making believe that one is the center of time and space. Ridiculous. We are links in a continuum.
And indeed, people who balance individualism with identity are the ones who are most formidable. Look at Jews. Highly individualistic but also profoundly into identity and community. It goes to prove that one can excel as individual and still live for something greater and deeper. Your average Jewish individual lives for 80 yrs. Jewish race has lasted for 3,500 yrs. An existence of mere 80 yrs should trump the history, identity, and culture of 3,500 yrs? That's just vapid narcissism. No individualism can live forever(not even close) but identity can be passed down forever. Individualism is trapped in a lifetime. Identity, culture, history, and community can last through the ages. Those who only think in terms of 'me, me, me' only belong to themselves. So, if they feel nothing for us, we should feel nothing for them. (But notice how powerful globalist Jews, who sneer at us and our interests, say that we should do everything to support and safeguard their interests of race, identity, and history. So, the likes of Roger Cohen spits on our identity and interests but then says we must do ever more to support Israel. It's amusing that Jews don't us to be like them. Ironically, when Jews see gentiles thinking and acting like Jews, they see 'Nazis'.)
"Rather than complain about these “elites”, why don’t you actually run for political office on an “anti-elite campaign”? Are you that impotent as to not be able to challenge the elites?"
That is a great idear. Gimme $100 million, and I will run.Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @rod1963, @Corvinus
“but they should NOT go against the interest of the people.”
What happens when the interest of the people is are the interests of elites?
“I began to turn against the elite capitalists because being successful isn’t enough for them. Their greed is boundless.”
It’s capitalists. Not “elite capitalists” or “crony capitalists”. Do you propose strict laws to limit their machinations? What are the potential consequences of such laws?
“They are know-it-all ideologues who push nation-destroying libertarianism, massive open borders, decadent homo agenda, etc.”
Assuming that this is the agenda of the elites. Could it not be that this agenda are the interests of the people?
“That Zuckerberg turd boy is working with German traitor elites to drown that nation with Arab-semite invaders.”
Just when you were speaking some sense, you have to go back to your default. Your Jooish fetish is beyond the pale.
“They wanna change society by buying politicians, controlling powerful institutions, lobbying government.”
Is it not the same tactics employed by your beloved white nationalists?
“Consider some rich Zionist bribed environment groups like Sierra Club to support massive immigration.”
Source, please.
“No, one of the great things about America was the power of individualism.”
So, you state that whites do not have to be lockstep philosophically and politically. Does that not defeat your “anti-white” meme whenever whites make their own individual decisions regarding race, culture, and identity?
“If a nice small town in America is flooded with immigrants and ‘refugees’, the people of that community lose even the one thing that was dear to them: a world to call their own.”
What happens when white people in that community desire to have immigrants and refugees? Are these whites “anti-white”?
You do realize that Italians were considered by nativists in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s as being unfit for American society, right? It had nothing to do with Italians being white or European. It had everything to do with Italians alleged cultural deficiencies.
Now, I don’t feel that way at all. So, were nativists wrong in their assessment?
“Your general direction” actually has context compared to “white” and “anti-white”. See, I would be able to ascertain whether your stench came from in front or behind (heh!), from the left or right, from the North, South, West, or East.
With “white” and “anti-white”, there are a number of definitions and caveats and idiosyncrasies to consider.
LGBTers may make up 2-5% of the population but they make up 30-40% of the NYT editorial board and an even higher percentage of its non Jewish membership.
The "intersectionality" of non-white and/or LGBT and/or Jewish accounts for much of the ferocity of the "Anti-White" hatred in the Cultural Marxist Media.
This extends to the Neoconservative movement as well where there is an active enlistment of various stooges who are closet cases, like Lindsey Graham, Rubio, Richard Lugar????....
The question remains that while Rubio is obviously gayer than a 3 dollar bill and therefore a blackmailed Neocon lackey, what really qualifies Ted Cruz as a true minority and a "friend" to Jews???
Ted Cruz true "minority status" is that he is an ultra fringe Christian Dispensationalist/Zionist who believes that Israel is entitle to lands as far north and east as the Euphrates and west to the Nile.
The problem with Trump and his supporters are that they are overwhelmingly cisgendered Christian whites who are not Dispensationalists.Replies: @anonymous, @Reg Cæsar
…when the rightful owners of those tracts are the Chaldeans and the Copts.
It's like the time I introduced my Brazilian friend to my roommate. After my friend left, my roommate said "where's he from?" After I told him, he said "Really? He looks white." I said "No kidding. All four of his grandparents were born in Germany."Replies: @Hail, @Reg Cæsar
Was that before or after Gisele Bündchen came on the scene?
Overall, the mafia movies of the past 50 years have glamorized the mafia. The fat mafiosi are usually just background characters.
He could be a brother of Ian Paisley. Seriously.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Wow.
I don’t think she’s as well known as you think
Corvinus, Of course they were wrong.. Didn’t we just bury a Italian American SC justice? And you still seek to rankle the masses here.
Actually, you admitting the nativists were wrong will rankle the masses here.
“Corvinus, Of course they were wrong. Didn’t we just bury a Italian American SC justice? And you still seek to rankle the masses here.”
Actually, you admitting the nativists were wrong will rankle the masses here.