The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
On Racism
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If white people are racist, how was Obama twice elected president of the United States? That such questions do not occur to those shouting “white racism” indicates weak minds, the presence of anti-whites out to make mischief, and people who speak on the basis of an unexamined assumption that has been drilled into their heads.

The unexamined question is: Are white people racist by nature? Those who say whites are racist by nature simultaneously claim that hundreds of thousands of Lincoln’s soldiers died in order to free black people from slavery and that white people in the North carried on a relentless long war against white people in the South for the benefit of black people.

It is these same racist white people who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act 56 years ago and permitted the establishment of racial quotas and contract set-asides for blacks that gave blacks rights and privileges that white people do not have.

If white people are so racist, how can it be that many of them are upset about George Floyd’s death from police violence and some joined the protests? Either white people are racist by nature or they aren’t racist by nature. If whites are not racist by nature, how can it be that the New York Times is leading the rewriting of American history with its 1619 Project that explains the United States as a country founded on the racism of white people?

Such questions do not occur to Anthony DiMaggio who writes for CounterPunch —Revolution, Not Riots— .

DiMaggio repeats the propagandistic mantra that Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis—thank God not Southern—police is another sign of the structural violence against people of color. So what is police violence against white people? Are white people murdered and brutalized by police because of their skin color? Is this structural violence against white people?

You think police don’t use violence against white people? How uninformed you are! In 2017 police shot to death more than twice as many white people as black people. In 2018 police shot to death almost twice as many white people as black people. In 2019 57% more white people than black people were shot to death. So far in 2020, 35% more white people than black people have been shot to death by police.

Neither black nor white people know this for reasons I explain here—

A multicultural racially diverse society, which the United States has become as a result of illegal immigration and the change in immigration law in 1965, cannot survive if race hatred is a feature of the society. In the US, white liberals have been teaching black Americans to hate white Americans for decades. Black people have been indoctrinated into believing that every unpleasant feature of their existance is due to white racism. In many white people, this indoctrination has engendered guilt that causes them to excuse and make excuses for black violence. The effect over time is to make blacks more angry and whites less willing to resist violent acts of anger and to blame themselves instead. The survival of such a society is problematical. Watching Washington foment conflict with more unified societies, such as Russia and China, is scary.

None of those screaming racism are interested in stopping police violence. Police violence against members of the public is a product of police training, not of racism. Those screaming racism don’t want the violence corrected by reforming the way police are trained. They want the violence to continue as it is useful for their agenda of using white racism to create white guilt and black anger. This is the way to revolution. In Marxism, there was only class warfare between workers and capitalist—the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie—but in Cultural Marxism or Identity Politics there is racial oppression, gender oppression, homosexual oppression, and oppression against the disabled and elderly. All of these oppressed people become alienated from society and potential supporters for revolution.

However, Cultural Marxism could also brew counterrevolution. Some whites might see where this is heading and the realization could create opposition to the attack on white people. Some regard Trump’s election as president as an indication that white Americans realize that they have been abandoned by the Democrat Party. Unless you are a well-to-do white liberal on the east or west coasts, the Democrat Party has written you off. White people, including the working class that formerly was represented by the Democrat Party, have been defined by Hillary Clinton as “the Trump deplorables.” Whites are already second-class citizens, especially if they are straight males, and they are being set up for worse to come. Politicians, except for Trump, are too scared of media attacks to confront the propaganda with the truth.

Of course there are racists, but the assumption that these animosities exist only between skin colors is problematic. In modern times the most extreme manifestations of racial violence are tribal between blacks themselves, such as the Rwandan genocide, the mass slaughter of Tutsi by the Hutu.

Indeed, the black slave trade is the product of blacks themselves and has its origin in 1600 in the slave wars fought by the black Kingdom of Dahomey. Dahomey’s use of black slaves for economic production predates the cotton plantations in the US south. One would think that these well known and totally documented facts would be a part of black studies in universities, but such facts are unacceptable to the ruling ideology. Karl Polanyi’s history of Dahomey and the Slave Trade has simply disappeared. It is as if it never was written. It has gone down Big Brother’s Memory Hole even before the digital revolution created Big Brother.


Whites, of course, have committed far more violence against one another than they have against people of color. Think of the war of the American north against the South, of all the wars between Europeans, the two wars between the US and Great Britain, capped off by World War I and World War II. White people have killed far more white people than people of color.

Even white language is said to be racist. The banned n-word is said to be symbolic of white racism. But every white ethnicity has been called names that are slurs— dago, polack, frog, limey. The Irish are bog-trotters.There is a range of slurs for Germans—kraut, boche, hun. Blacks have plenty of pejorative names for whites. For example, “Miss Ann” or “Ann” is a derisive reference to white women and to any black woman who is regarded as acting as if she is white. Blacks also use pejoratives for blacks. An oreo is a black person who is regarded as acting like a white person. Aunt Jemima is a black woman who is friendly to, or kisses up to, white people. A black man who does the same is Uncle Tom. American whites have pejoratives for one another—cracker, hillbilly, redneck. People in the south of England call those in the north northern monkeys. There are pejoratives for every ethnicity. Jews call gentiles goy. Latin Americans call North Americans gringo. Ukrainians call Russians moskals. If slurs are an indication of racism, then the entire population of the world is racist.

For decades the FBI has had a department that monitors white supremacists. The scarcity of white supremacists has encouraged the FBI to create, or to encourage the creation of, such groups, just as the FBI was organizing “terrorist plots” that they could break up in the aftermath of 9/11. A budget needs a reason.

Where do we see evidence of white supremacists? Are statues of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan being pulled down? Is the Lincoln Memorial covered in graffiti? Are white supremacists rewriting American history in the universities and at the New York Times? Where are their magazines and newspapers? Who are their representatives in government and media? What is the power of such an invisible group?

In contrast, Antifa is a terrorist organization associated with organized violence. Yet it is white supremacists who are being blamed for the pre-delivery of convenient stockpiles of bricks in the protest areas of the cities where blacks are protesting George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police. How did white supremacists know which cities and which locations in the cities protests would take place? When the point is to blame white people such questions do not matter to those doing the blaming.

But the questions do matter to a racially diverse multicultural society. Such a society cannot survive the cultivation of racial enmity. When the goal is revolution, not reform, racial enmity is the weapon.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
Hide 29 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Delta G says:

    Paul has most certainly hit it out of the park and its a Tape Measure Job as used to be said when one of the great Home Run Hitters launched a record long ball. Remember them, Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, Hank Aaron, Willy Mays, Babe Ruth and lots of others who were White, Black even Hispanic.

    Wow, I agree 100% with Paul. My advice to those who think that White people should give a rats ass about Black people any longer is die soon, send photos and then go to hell.

    Just like the invasion and attacks in the Middle East only created more terrorist. The BLM only serves to create anti-Black racists where there were none before. You have to give Obama credit for being truly 1 dum fuk.

    It is difficult to see this stuff without having uncontrolled vomiting.

    • Agree: Tsar Nicholas
  2. Beautiful once again,poetic I say.
    How long,how long must we sing this song?
    I was told we’re # 1,but I guess obesity,drug addiction,alcoholism etc.
    doesn’t count for much anymore.


  3. Rich says:

    Mr Roberts apparently hasn’t yet learned the true meaning of the word “racist”. It simply means White. It’s a synonym. It has no other meaning. Because it now has no other meaning, it actually means nothing.

    • Agree: jbwilson24
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
  4. I agree with Rich. Trying to have a rational discussion with someone calling you “racist” is pointless because it’s an ideological construct meant to smear the unrepentant. It devolves into an x or y is “real racisssst” nonsense

  5. MarkinLA says:

    WHY do people waste all this time trying to prove they or their group is not “racist”? Just quit wasting your time. When ever I see these idiots rambling on about racism, I just reply that they need new material, this doesn’t work any more. I don’t waste my time defending myself.

  6. Lin says:

    —Lincoln didn’t fight the civil war to free the black slaves

    ” ..My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..”
    —Lincoln wanted to deport black ex-slaves to the Caribbeans and Liberia

    And obviously his confederate assassin made a very very BAD mistake
    Many of the so called ‘progressives’ are confused. What’s ‘progression’? It literally means moving forward.
    Q:What’s the engine of progression? A:Technology and economics.
    The best examples of progress are 1)Gender equality and abolishment of slavery.
    –Females were/are considered ‘inferior’ because they’re less muscular and couldn’t handle well weapons like archery, sword…and farm ploughing animals. But the advent of steam and internal combustion engines and gun powder have made male muscule power advantage in most situation irrelevant.
    –When an ancient feudal lord wanted cheap labours to harvest his land, a good way is to buy/import slaves from the slave markets or waged tribal wars to capture slaves. But steam and internal combustion engines and mechanization have made slaves less economical. Of course conscious robots/androids could be slaves of the future.
    –LGBT movement doesn’t belong to the above prime examples of human progression because since time immemorial, a small % of human statistically are queer. The most gay friendly civilization was ancient Greece(80% of ancient greek males had homo experience)and they kept slaves. The ottomans decriminalized homosexuality a century before England did and the ottomans kept slaves until the early 1910s.
    Is racism bad? Yes, because it prevent certain groupings of society to reach their potential(and with the subsequential social problems) and thus is bad for the economy of the whole society.

    • Replies: @Lin
    , @GeeBee
  7. Lin says:

    A: Is LGBT part of human rights movement? Q: Sure it’s just like it’s a human right to consume 100 proof alcoholic drinks, meat of undangered animal species if life style choice is a human right.

  8. the New York Times is leading the rewriting of American history with its 1619 Project that explains the United States as a country founded on the racism of white people

    I have asked the “White privilege” and “founded on the racism of white people” morons, why they would expect the founders of the “New World” countries not to develop those countries for people who were not like them. I usually get blank stares, so I continue: my ancestors came here about 180 years ago from Scotland, and went into asshole of the world with people like themselves to break land, farm, build schools and create a society; do you think they were doing that for Africans or Asians unknown to them, or their friends and families? The blank stares continue. How do these people feed themselves?
    One of the greatest political thinkers of the 20th century, Enoch Powell, said in an 1995 interview

    What’s wrong with racism? Racism is the basis of nationality.

    In context, Powell had always maintained that racism (racialism) originally had two meanings:
    1) acknowledging that there are differences between people and races; and
    2) hating or thinking one was inherently superior to a person solely because of skin colour.
    He openly admitted to being the former.

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golems
  9. Another excellent essay Mr. PCR.
    That book about Dahomey and the Slave Trade seems unavailable. I’ll keep searching for it.

    Another good book is “Complicity”, about the North’s complicity in slavery during the 18th and 19th centuries. All of those cotton mills.

    When you’ve grown up in the South and endured all of these slurs you eventually tire of all of the hypocrisy.

  10. Lagertha says:

    Estonians and Finns were the first slaves, btw. Beautiful women were the diamonds of the time.

  11. Franz says:

    Very deep thanks for this piece from PCR.


    Lincoln Memorial covered in graffiti?

    Not yet. But the old Ebony magazine started running articles on Lincoln in (when else?) 1968. Because he was — gasp — a racist.

    But I wouldn’t put no graffiti on it, no. I’d rather we shove the whole of it in the river and turn Washington, DC into Potomic Lake.

    Can’t drain the swamp, flood it.

  12. GeeBee says:

    ‘When an ancient feudal lord wanted cheap labours to harvest his land, a good way is to buy/import slaves from the slave markets or waged tribal wars to capture slaves.’

    While I’m by no means disagreeing with the main points of your post, it always amuses me to witness Americans attempting to comment on British/European history, and especially so when they attempt to analyse the feudal system, or ancien régime as it was known. Feudal lords used the indigenous people to till the land and harvest the crops, as well as to provide what was known as Corvée work, whereby these same people were obliged to carry out work on behalf of the manor, such as darinage, maintenance, construction etc.

    These people were, as I say, the residents of the manor, most of whom were serfs. They were, in effect, the property of the feudal lord, and as such (in common, I might add, with negro slaves in the American South) enjoyed many advantages not available to ‘free men’. They had no worries about money, as all their needs were provided by the manor. They were housed and clothed and cared for, as is natural to anyone wishing to preserve his most valuable property, especially so when that property comprised human assets.

    As Benjamin Disraeli said, in a speech to the House of Commons in 1845, in which he sought to prevent the disintegaration of the great landed English estates (which were under threat from an attempt – successful as it turned out – to abolish the ‘Corn Laws’):

    ‘When [in 1066] the Conqueror carved out parts of the land, and introduced the feudal system, he said to the recipient, “You shall have that estate, but you shall do something for it: you shall feed the poor; you shall endow the Church; you shall defend the land in case of war; and you shall execute justice and maintain truth to the poor for nothing.

    ‘It is all very well to talk of the barbarities of the feudal system, and to tell us that in those days when it flourished a great variety of gross and grotesque circumstances and great miseries occurred but these were not the result of the feudal system; they were the result of the barbarism of the age. They existed not from the feudal system, but in spite of the feudal system. The principle of the feudal system, the principle which was practically operated upon, was the noblest principle, the grandest, the most magnificent and benevolent that was ever conceived by sage, or ever practised by patriot.‘

    • Replies: @Lin
    , @Rich
  13. Are white people racist by nature?

    Whites are racist. But the truth is that ALL human beings are racist or, more accurately, tribalist by nature. Human beings are naturally inclined to prefer people who look, talk and act like themselves over others who are different (though this inclination can be overridden in various circumstances), so even if the USA was all-white you’d still have tribalist competition between, say, Texans versus Californians. This is simply a biologically evolved survival mechanism that is present, not just in humans, but in animals too.

    A certain degree of tribalism will always be present in any society, but I think the point of a “good” government is to create policies to minimize tribalist violence within their country and maximize the cooperation between the various tribes/races for common benefit, such as having them collaborate to improve the country’s infrastructure (i.e. the state operates under a ‘strength in unity’ paradigm). In contrast, a “bad” government would fan the flames of tribalism to exploit the masses to maintain control and for self enrichment (i.e. the state uses a ‘divide and conquer’ tactic). In the USA, the latter mindset seems to be predominant among the elites, hence why you have such racial violence in the country.

  14. It seems to me that an adequate response to claims of racism and white privilege is simply to point out the success of many other non-white ethnicities: Chinese Americans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Indians, Pakistanis, Jews, Arabs, even Latinos and African-born blacks. Most of these groups are actually doing better than whites and all are doing better than native-born blacks. How is that consistent with “white privilege”? Why aren’t they all lagging?

    Instead I join those who think the liberal narrative holds blacks down for the good of white plutocrats (who fund the left massively.)

  15. @Curmudgeon

    In context, Powell had always maintained that racism (racialism) originally had two meanings:
    1) acknowledging that there are differences between people and races; and
    2) hating or thinking one was inherently superior to a person solely because of skin colour.
    He openly admitted to being the former.

    Henrik Verwoerd, who was actually born in the Netherlands, pretty much said the same thing in South Africa.

    He was equally vilified then later assassinated for his pragmatism. Multiracial societies are inherently problematic and he has been vindicated by time.

  16. Lin says:

    Feudal lords used the indigenous people to till the land and harvest the crops, as well as to provide what was known as Corvée work, whereby these same people were obliged to carry out work on behalf of the manor, such as darinage, maintenance, construction etc.

    The big majority of agricultural land owners were definitely descendents of feudal lords,’indigenous’ or invaders. Such system worked in ancient time when the population density was not high OR if the crop yield sufficed to feed the rural population.(Human population did grow slowly over the centuries).If either of these 2 conditions couldn’t be met (before the advent of industrialization to employ the surplus labours), the consequence is revolution.
    Another population density related example is the issue of public defecation in india. Actually their ancient guru Manusmriti asked people to defecate far away from home. It was quite workable when population density was low. In fact in ancient time all over the world, toilets even when available were quite gross. Toilets, sewage drainage and human excrement related issues only popped up when human built big cities.

  17. Rich says:

    Very interesting take on feudalism. If correct, it would explain the average European’s love of socialism. Having lost their Lord, they have now become serfs of the government. ‘Cradle to grave’ and all that. American negroes are similar in that they aren’t protesting to be ‘free’, they want more from their new ‘master’, the government. The biggest White demonstrations I remember were the Tea Party ones, where people demonstrated to get the government off their backs.

    I’d’say there will eventialky be a return to some kind of feudalism, because, as is unfortunately becoming apparent, a plurality want to be ‘taken care of’ by someone. Being free is hard.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
    , @Wyatt
  18. Pat Boyle says:

    I take the opposite view. Mr. Rich think’s the term racism means nothing. I thing the difficulty is that it means many different things – some very different from what others may mean. Here are three – there are others.

    1. The predominant liberal belief is that racism means race hate of whites aimed at blacks. This is the “Bull Connor” theory of racism. Bad white men driven by evil race hatred. Think KKK. If you object to any black behavior. You are hater and a racist.

    2. Another common belief is that race is not a valid concept. This is a corollary to the belief that everyone is the same in all important characteristics. These racists are just ignorant of the true state of affairs in science. Race isn’t real. It’s just a social construct. If you don’t know this, you are a racist.

    3.There is also the conspiracy theory of racism. Capitalists have exploited the black man, stolen his labor and built a great nation from it. Now they use all manners of oppression to keep him down so they can continue to benefit from black talent and labor.

    All three of these theories of racism are bunk.

    Whites don’t hate blacks, although a lot of blacks hate whites. Race is a valid taxonomic concept, a subdivision from the category of species. Blacks have contributed virtually nothing to modern American culture and civilization.

    I need to get some lunch. You probably agree with me on these points. If not, post your objection and I’ll write more later.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  19. GeeBee says:

    Quite right. What ails today’s world more perhaps than anything else is this bogus fetish of ‘freedom’. The great majority of people in the world are at best uncomfortable with it, and at worst, are driven to depression and ultimately suicide by being forced to live in a society where, they are constanly told, ‘all men are created equal’ and worse still, ‘all men are born free’. Many people find the challenge inherent in this idea that they are ‘free’ intolerable: it sets them up for a life that is perceived, both by themselves and others, as one of ‘failure’

    Human societies evolved, over a period that is not entirely clear, but which was certainly in the order of 100,00 years, in thriving traditionalist cultures, only to have the cynical devices of post-traditionalsit mercantile societies thrust upon them, by degrees, from about the late 15th-century, to their general distress. One thinks of the great Victorian philosopher and man of letters Thomas Carlyle (a contemporary and great friend of Charles Dickens) who, in his work Shooting Niagara (1867), stated an uncomfortable fact that is surely an alarm bell in the night for our own times, by saying:

    ‘Our accepted axioms about ” Liberty,” ” Constitutional Government,” ” Reform,” and the like objects, might begin to be suspected as perhaps only conditionally true; that taken unconditionally, or under changed conditions, they are not true, but false and even disastrously and fatally so. Ask yourself about ” Liberty,” for example; what do you really mean by it, what in any just and rational soul is that Divine quality of liberty? That a good man be ” free,” as we call it: that he be permitted to unfold himself in works of goodness and nobleness, is surely a blessing to him and to those about him. But that a bad man be “free,” permitted to unfold himself in his particular way, is contrariwise the fatallest curse you could inflict on him and all his neighbours.

    ‘Him the very Heavens call upon you to persuade, to urge, induce, compel, into something of well-doing; but if you absolutely cannot – if he will continue in ill-doing – then for him (I can assure you, though you will be shocked to hear it), the one “blessing” left is the speediest gallows you can lead him to.’

    What is beyond any doubt is that today we inhabit a world in which any species of objective reality is anathematised and trivialised by the immense power that we know as the Media-Entertainment Complex – a foul, all-powerful and deleterious entity not unlike Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ (whose unending task it was to disseminate propaganda and outright lies) – so that any obective assessment, much less the acceptance of reason and evidence, is simply dismissed by use of ‘Newspeak’ terminology. Thus, anything deemed threatening to the establishment consensus is automatically sent down the ‘memory hole’ by the simple means of attaching to it certain key words. These include ‘hate’; ‘intolerance’; ‘racist’; ‘patriarchal’; ‘right-wing’ and ‘extremist’.

    Thus we are witness to the appalling spectacle of the wisdom of the ages being subsumed beneath modish, facile, puerile and intellectually bankrupt notions that – were they allowed to be subject to the close scrutiny of reason and evidence – would be exposed as the dismal intellectual ordure that they assuredly are.

    So yes, an instinctive love of ‘socialism’ is in our European bones. Interestingly, Karl Marx identified this, and he actually spoke of ‘feudal socialism’ in Das Kapital. In doing so, he correctly identified the collectivism that endured under feudalism, but of course the old fraud anathematised it by the facile expediant of attaching to it one of those very key phrases, beloved of the Left, by which (they believe) any intrisnsic value that any such inconvenient idea inimical to their cause might possess is automatically negated. In this particular case, the damning word that Marx attached to it was ‘reactionary’.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  20. TG says:

    So the rich are looting the nation in a way not seen since Russia under Yeltsin. Our manufacturing jobs have been shipped off to China, the remaining jobs are increasingly set to be taken by an increasing (yes, INCREASING) number of indentured foreign workers, rents are unaffordable, medical care is unaffordable, education is unaffordable, people are crushed by debts they will never be able to get out from under now matter how long they live, and the government has been giving trillions of dollars in both massive long term tax cuts and direct cash payments to the super-rich.

    When the ‘stimulus’ crumbs are gone, how to deflect public anger away from those truly responsible?

    Cry racism, and unleash the dogs of political correctness!

  21. Only 10 Unarmed USA Blacks were killed by Police in 2019. These facts need to be repeated and repeated. Approximately 200 are killed every year, but that includes about 190 who were armed with guns and knives.

    This is NOT a big problem.

  22. Wyatt says:

    Aristotle believed there was such a thing as natural slaves. No one has ever shown me why that isn’t the case given how many people are willing to eat shit, smile, and ask for seconds. The unfortunate consequence of having so many people who cannot think for themselves is startling and it gets worse as more people get popped out by the year.

    Thankfully, Mother Nature punishes stupidity.

  23. Menes says:

    All you have to do is read the comments at this very site to see how deeply entrenched, how consuming, how obsessive is the racial hatred of blacks among a large percentage of whites. No one with a clue will believe you if you deny something so obvious. The world knows it. Most everyone believes it.

    • Replies: @Rogue
  24. The Eye says:

    To Menes— Perhaps so in some cases, but like Smith- Barney— they’ve earnnnnedd it.

  25. @Pat Boyle

    “Race is a valid taxonomic concept, a subdivision from the category of species.” I basically agree here — but: it’s question of emphasis & balance. Nature & nurture are valid, but accurately distinguishing the contribution of each is much harder.
    “Blacks have contributed virtually nothing to modern American culture and civilization.”
    This is an exaggeration: blacks have contributed to US culture in significant ways. Sport, food, language, music & dance are obvious ones. (whether one values the contribution is another matter).

  26. @GeeBee

    Feudalism was “reactionary” ? — of course: the old aristocracy did react to the rise of bourgeoisie who were to eventually supplant them in wealth & power (although many aristocrats transitioned into the bourgeoisie).
    Was Marx “against” feudalism? From the Communist Manifesto:
    “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors,” and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment.” It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless and indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade.”

  27. Rogue says:

    how obsessive is the racial hatred of blacks among a large percentage of whites

    Not in my opinion. But many Whites, myself included, are sick to death of Black criminality and Black victimhood status. And the way the MSM, unscrupulous politicians and others lie about these things. Which is also what I pick up from the comments.

    Like this BLM nonsense. A statistical truth has been mentioned several times in the alt-media – though absolutely not in the MSM – that the vast majority of Blacks in the USA are killed by fellow Blacks, not by the police. Nor is there any indication that Black cops, or other ethnic minority cops, do their policing any less forcibly (for want of a better term) than their White peers. Yet the lying MSM and BLM narrative is not about Black on Black violence, which it should be, but about “White racist cops”. I’m sure there are racist cops, but statistically far more Black people would be alive and healthy if Black criminals did not resort to the levels of violence that they do. White people also die from police brutality and shootings, but apparently this doesn’t matter.

    And again with BLM, I accept it so long as it applies to all people, not just Blacks. But, no, apparently one is rayciss if saying “all lives matter.”

    I’m not American nor do I live in the USA. I live in a country where, typically, Black criminality is the bane of so many peoples lives – mostly Black lives, but plenty of White lives too.

    So that is what “a large percentage of Whites” hate – false narratives, hypocrisy, a hostile media, hostile lying politicians, hostile celebs and elites in general – and even hostile big business and tech.

  28. GeeBee says:

    Thanks for the quote from The Communist Manifesto. In fact, I was wrong to attribute Marx’s ideas concerning feudal socialism to Das Kapital: I had originally seen them in The Communist Manifesto and had misremembered the source. As you will know, Marx and Engels examined existing types of socialism in Chapter 3 of that work, which was titled “Socialist and Communist Literature”. There they dismissed them as being unfit to sit with what they called ‘the march of modern history’. They thus gave a cursory assessment of all such competing ‘brands’ of socialism and, like an evangelical Christian attempting to dismiss competing faiths, fell to an overly simplistic and entirely prejudiced ‘demolition’ of them sufficient only to serve their own ends, but unconvincing to those with a more analytical perspective.

    In their view, therefore, none of these potential rivals to their own revolutionary zeal matched up to their own pet theory of ‘revolutionary socialism’, with its ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ and ‘the class struggle’. Add to this the notion of the ‘permanent revolution’ (an idea that is normally associated with Bronstein – or ‘Trotsky’ if you will – but which none the less was originally given the name by Marx) and one can easily see that Marx’s contempt for feudalism was more or less total.

    So in answer to your question: ‘Was Marx “against” feudalism?’ the answer can only be “Yes”, especially bearing in mind that he lumped his dismissal of ‘feudal socialism’ together with ‘Petty-Bourgeois Socialism’ and ‘German Socialism’ under the first sub-heading of Chapter three, to which he actually gave the title: ‘Reactionary Socialism’.

  29. Very good as always! I am intrigued by the FBI office devoted to investigating “white supremacy.” I would like to read some elaboration on that topic. Which organizations are suspected of being FBI shills, if it would be possible to state this without fear of civil action? Would these probably be obvious to Unz readers, or are they well disguised?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS