White racial consciousness was considerably stronger just a few decades ago. There was mass resistance to busing in the urban north just a few decades ago. Reagan used the Southern Strategy in his campaign. Even in the late 1980s, it was acceptable for Bush to bring up Willie Horton. In the mid 90s, Charles Murray was apart of the mainstream right.
Really, it seems like liberals have pushed the race debate way to the left over the last fifteen years. The reelection of Clinton in 1996, the ascendance of the neoconservatives, the Bush takeover of the right, and now Obama have done a lot to take America in that direction. Now even a completely non-racial movement like the Tea Party is branded racist.
Even now, it seems like things continue to shift even further left. I don't know what it'll take to win, but race realists are currently getting hammered harder now than ever before.
"… Japan is homogeneous. This means Japanese never even think about a host of problems that torment Americans. Since Japan has only one race, no one worries about racism. … When a company needs to hire someone, it doesn’t give a thought to ‘ethnic balance,’ it just hires the best person."
--------------------
My impression of Japan is that it doesn't worry about racism but is a racist society. It just isn't ashamed about it. Maybe it should be.
So, in hiring, the Japanese do practice "Affirmative Action" .... for the benefit of the Japanese and against ethnic minorities.
The problem of white identity is it's associated with supremacism while non-white identity is associated with victimism.
Black Identity has moral legitimacy in America because it's been defined by the victim narrative. This is why the King narrative is more powerful than the Nation of Islam narrative. Nation of Islam is black supremacist; though tolerated more than white supremacism, it is neither liked nor respected by white liberals and Jews. If most of black identity was about Nation of Islam and New Black Panthers, it would come under scrutiny and pressure. Indeed, one of the reasons why white liberals are so eager to embrace black victim-identity is to suppress the rise of black supremacist identity.
Racial identity functions within certain contexts. For example, when China was mostly poor, many Americans associated China with poverty and backwardness and felt a degree of compassion. When Chiang asked the US for help during WWII against the Japanese or when Mao said, 'Chinese people have stood up', many American progressives sympathized because they regarded Chinese as a proud but fallen nation in need for help to survive and rise. Chinese nationalism back then was a good thing. But with the rapid rise of China, Chinese nationalism worries us than inspires our sympathy. In the 80s, when the Mujahadeen were fighting the Soviet occupation, we sympathized with Afghan nationalism and Islamic Identity politics. Today, we are fighting those forces, and so we vilify Muslim Identity politics and try to persuade to become good democratic liberals. For Jews, Russian nationalism that defeated the Nazis was grand. But post-war Russian nationalism that targeted Jews was bad and scary. Many Europeans came to accept the need for Jewish Identity politics after WWII and Holocaust, but then many turned against the state of Israel cuz they came to see Jewish nationalism as the new imperialist-supremacism in the Third World.
Through European history, Russians felt no shame white Russian 'nationalism' against the Mongols since they were victims of the vile yellow horde. And Spanish Christians felt no shame about anti-Moorish and anti-Jewish passions(since Jews collaborated with Moors, like the far-right French collaborated with Nazis during WWII). It's good to be a victim. Victimization gives one the moral upperhand. America too was founded on the narrative of victimization(under King George III and Redcoats)and righteous violence. People bitch about the politics of hatred, but the Founding Fathers were master propagandists in the art of political hatred against 'tyranny'.
"Citizenism" is the best shot? Well, whatever. Citizenism is just an extreme version of modern democracy, even more extreme than Rousseau: exalt the General Will, except that for Rousseau at least it was the will of a nation, not just an aggregate of citizens. Nothing there about a nation's existence through time, nothing about stewardship, about preserving the past for future generations (whose?). Just the will of the citizenry, envisioned as the stockholders in a for-profit corporation.
If "citizenism" is just a stalking horse for white identity, then OK, I guess I can't complain about it. You do what you have to. I just hope that the citizenists (is it justified to use the plural?) don't believe their own PR.
"… Japan is homogeneous. This means Japanese never even think about a host of problems that torment Americans. Since Japan has only one race, no one worries about racism. … When a company needs to hire someone, it doesn’t give a thought to ‘ethnic balance,’ it just hires the best person."
I took a class on Modern Japan in college in the early 90s and know this isn't really true. Our professor mentioned a case where some thoroughly Japanized worker of Korean ancestry was ferreted out and fired. (I think the company was Mitsubishi). Also, the reason why so many Korean-Japanese are in the Pachinko and small retail business is because they are discriminated in major firms(even if they took on Japanese names and speak only Japanese). But then, I heard all Asian nations have similar policies, so Japanese aren't any worse than the rest; if anything, Japanese might still be more enlightened than the others; Chinese treat Tibetans far worse, Vietnamese and Koreans kicked out ethnic Chinese communities in the 70s.
Also, Japanese may hire the 'best' but they don't necessarily promote the best. Too much rests on seniority than individual merit. In the more meritocratic America--at least in certain sectors--, the best can rise very fast and bring about innovation. Feisty Jews especially have chutzpah in this regard. Even if Japan had brains like Sergei Brin or Mark Zuckerberg, they'd be too busy bowing and looking for positions in big firms than striking on their own and rising fast and hiring the and promoting the best and creating whole new industries.
"Perhaps Taylor can persuade enough Jews to get onboard to make white identity respectable in the MSM and thus with the media’s consumers, the public."
Can you point out at least one historical instance where gentiles were able to form a long lasting coalition with Jews, where it didn't lead to physical struggle in the end? [Ref: Kevin MacDonald (Author) -> A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples]
"Recall that neoconservatism emerged in the late 1960s, largely due to Jewish shopkeepers’ fear of black crime and Jewish civil servants’ fear of being fired by black politicians. Brilliant Jewish intellectuals like Nathan Glazer and Norman Podhoretz took their relatives’ complaints seriousl"
This is false. Neo-conservatism was grown out of the concern for the security of Israel. Strongly identifying Jews like Podhoretz felt that Left's pacifism was detrimental to America's ability to respond to Israel in time of need. Neo-conservatism's growth had very little to do with domestic issues such racism. As matter a fact, most Neocons are very liberal on social issues. [Ref: Jacob Heilbrunn (Author) -> They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons]
Before 1992, I had assumed ... that nobody consciously believed it—that they were just being hypocritical. But, after discovering Internet discussion groups way back in 1992, I can attest to the remarkable number of people who believe these talking points strongly enough to type them into a computer … anonymously.
This is true and it is dumbfounding. I daresay a majority of Whites actually believe the reigning orthodoxy.
The problem of white identity is it's associated with supremacism while non-white identity is associated with victimism.
Well, there's an element of truth in this, but it's really just the result rather than the cause. It's certainly true that "the narrative" dominates the society, but it's the media which constructs the narrative for almost everyone, and tells people whether 2+2=4 or whether 2+2 should instead be 17. To anyone with half a brain who has lived through the astonishing events of the last decade, this should be blindingly obvious.
The media completely controls the society. And without certain technological changes---such as the rise of the Internet---a vanishingly small percentage of people would even have any suspicions about this.
Step back in time fifteen or twenty years, and assume that almost all you knew about the ongoing sweep of world events (aside from the evidence of your own direct senses) came from a couple of magazines, a daily newspaper or two, and the television and radio news. How would you even knew to ask the questions that would raise doubts? Control over just a handful of choke-points can completely create the reality of the world around you, without your ever being the wiser.
I sometimes wonder whether some of the famous science fiction writers of the past were actually trying to tell us some of this, but in a subtle, rather allegorical manner...
Oh please Steve. Jews don't exhibit much control or power over cultural life in America. Heck half of the "Jews" are not even Jews. George Soros, born a Jew, is proud of helping Nazis in Hungary hunt down Jews, and sell off their property. He hates Israel and wants it destroyed. Is he a Jew?
Jews are too few in number, too prone to intermarriage and acculturation, and too divided (pro- and anti-Israel, identity, etc.) to shape American discourse. Most of the Jewish contribution to American cultural/political environment was done in the 1930's-40's, in Hollywood movies and comic books, and was pro-Patriotic/American.
Jews, I hate to break this to you Steve, are White.
How can you tell? Easy. If a Black guy angry at White guys wants to hurt you (or a group of Mexicans) and decides to target you, guess what, you're White. Simple as that.
You're looking for a scapegoat. Figuring what, 2-3% of American somehow have mind-rays controlling the other 98-97%? Come on, that does not pass the laugh test.
What you're failing to miss is WOMEN. Specifically College Educated White women. They love Obama, Oprah, Eat Pray Love, all that PC stuff. White Women are the source of PC. They are the main employed in PC factories of government, education, and media/infotainment. White College Educated Women DEPEND on anti-White sentiment. And benefit from it, not just employment, but sexually?
Who the hell was it that noted, men like Fair Maidens and women like Tall, Dark, and Handsome? Why ... Steve Sailer. And who else was it that noted that in a sexual marketplace, some men and women of different races will have different average attractiveness? Why Steve Sailer! White and Asian women the most feminine, Black men the most masculine, Black women the ... most masculine.
White Women on average certainly find Black men, much more testosterone, darkness, height, physique, on average compared to White men, more attractive. Of course, kids are 50/50 prospect for boys and girls, and a look at Bruce Willis's daughters tells you what masculine genes do to the feminine form.
PC and anti-White stuff continues because White women find non-White guys (some of them anyway) far more sexy, and conversely beta Male White guys "exposed" as lacking in the sexy compared to "hard" Black guys and even tall Hispanic guys.
Who do you think eats up the Magical Black person of wisdom anyway? Hint: it's not Joe Sixpack Sports-Fan.
"Columnist Maggie Gallagher has written that she thinks of herself as an American, a Catholic, and sometimes an Irish-American but adds:
‘I hate the idea of being white. . . . I never think of myself as belonging to the 'white race.' … I can think of few things more degrading than being proud to be white.’"
----------
Maggie Gallagher married out. She has a mixed race child. I would say this is the reason why she doesn't like to identify as white.
Is Sarah Michelle Gellar Jewish? What about her kid with Freddie Prinze Jr? What about say, Laura Prepon, or Amanda Bynes?
Jews generally are concentrated in Upper Class professions, where ... intermarriage is so prevalent, and cultural dissolution so rapid, that there are not many Jews left.
You're getting to the point where you're defining John Kerry as a Jew, to make any plausible case for "the Jews prevent Whites from self-identity." It does not fit.
I think White Identity is coming. It won't be KKK/Neo-Nazi types, but assertive NAACP type interest lobbying. The naked spoils battles, declining income, and troubled times guarantee it. Look at the Harry Potter books -- even a White PC woman longs for pre-Immigration UK.
Well, the Chinese for example weren't all that ethnically conscious in practice over the years. It was only after disasters such as the Yuan dynasty (first documented application of state-sponsored affirmative action, against Chinese of course) had been in force that some nationalist sentiment returned with the Ming.
And then that was forgotten quickly enough, and only came back to the fore after the British humiliated China in the 19th century.
Chinese sold each other out left and right for any and every reason. Americans are simply doing the same.
Jews have the Holocaust to bond them. Blacks Jim Crow and slavery. The Irish initially had Cromwell and the famine. The Armenians had their trouble with the Turks.
See what's been missing for American whites? It's pretty simple. We just haven't had our butts kicked for a long, long time. In fact, the only group of American whites with any consciousness at all are southerners -- because they were on the wrong end of a beatdown not too long ago.
It's just human nature to grow complacent with success. Sometimes I wonder whether the "Romans" no longer exist because they didn't lose for such a long time that they ceased to matter as an ethnicity.
You're looking for a scapegoat. Figuring what, 2-3% of American somehow have mind-rays controlling the other 98-97%? Come on, that does not pass the laugh test.
Mind and behavior manipulation is quite common throughout nature.
For example, here's a fungus that has learned how to control ants and turn them into zombies that work for them:
i remember going to the 2002 amren conference in virginia, when i had only been aware of this stuff for a few years, and was looking to see what other people were thinking about it, and what kind of future the movement might reasonably have. back in 2002 it looked like maybe there would be some slow and steady progress in favor of simply making the US less preposterously biased in favor of all other groups over europeans. this is all i personally was interested in. making things more fair, achieving an america that was as neutral as possible. equal opportunity, but not equal outcome.
fast forward to 2011 and jared can't even have the conference anymore. the most aggressive and hostile identity politics possible are not only accepted but encouraged for all other groups. yet taking a completely reasonable, self-defense position is not even allowed for europeans. mainstream thought and discussion on the topic does not even allow for europeans to have an identity.
i'm about ready to give up on this stuff. i'm totally demoralized watching who i consider to be my literal ethnic enemies win battle after battle on this topic. such a statement probably sounds ridiculous to a normal, intelligent, middle of the road person. talking about the political leaders of the united states as anybody's "enemy"?
but all you have to do is actually study this group of 1960s born and raised academics to see how truly anti-white and anti-american they are. after 10 years, you can't come to any other conclusion than, they literally are the enemies of the historic united states and the euro-americans who created it.
By the way, the tendency of Tea Partiers using Randian arguments that are devoid of ethnic concerns has an interesting twist: while Rand was not a fan of the crude collectivist form of racism for sure, she wasn't blind either, if you read between the lines.
She once referred to early Native Americans as "naked savages" on the Tom Snyder show. Not a very PC thing to say. Tom rushed passed it.
"Before 1992, I had assumed ... that nobody consciously believed it—that they were just being hypocritical. But, after discovering Internet discussion groups way back in 1992, I can attest to the remarkable number of people who believe these talking points strongly enough to type them into a computer … anonymously."
"This is true and it is dumbfounding. I daresay a majority of Whites actually believe the reigning orthodoxy."
'Diversity' and 'Tolerance' work in strange ways. They can serve as morally charged justifications for intellectual intolerance and homogeneity, as we find in so many media and academic outlets. But this is nothing new. Christians used 'Love' and 'Peace' to wage hateful wars and spill oceans of blood. And commies used 'justice' and 'liberation' to commit massive crimes and oppress millions. And Nazis used 'civilization' to act utterly uncivlized.
But we need to take two things into account. As journalism became more of a fancy elite profession, it turned more politically correct and status conscious. Many journalists of the past didn't learn their trade in top schools but worked themselves up from the ground floor, not least because far fewer people attended colleges before WWII. They wrestled their way to the top. Think of guys like Jimmy Breslin or Mike Royko. As such, they were harder, tougher, saw much more of real life, and had been less coddled and controlled as students and novices. And before Jews began to go to top schools, many went to city colleges. Many worked in small businesses owned by parents and saw more reality. Before whites moved to the suburbs, they lived in cities and experienced reality. They had fewer illusions about life.
But journalism, especially after Watergate, became a superstar profession, and most top journalist were created by elite colleges. And most kids came from privileged coddled backgrounds. AS such, they could afford to be compassionate and 'sensitive' and idealistic(and naive, since they knew about blacks from Cosby Show and PBS and MTV than from reality). And they were also more status conscious. They were afraid to say the wrong thing since they wanted to be 'popular', 'respectable', and 'liked'. 'Radical chic', after all, is really a form of respectability for bobos than true revolutionism. Just like 'popular' kids in highschools have their do's and don'ts, journalism became the same way. People like Reese Witherspoon in ELECTION began to become journalists.
Same is true of filmmaking. The old guys didn't go to film school---for one thing, there weren't any in their day. They worked their way up through the system. They were tough guys and gals. But with most filmmakers churned out by film school, cinema has become more correct and dorky. Early film school in the 60s and 70s had real energy, but it became more 'correct' and dogmatic by the 80s. Just like religion loses its freedom and fervor when it becomes organized, same happened with journalism and filmmaking. In some ways, one can say it got more 'professional', but it lost vitality and virility. Older generation columnists like Breslin, Hentoff, Royko, and Sydney J. Harris had more balls. And there hasn't been a filmmaker like Peckinpah or Aldrich in a long time. We now have kids making movies--kids even when they're full-grown. Just look at that dork Mark Romanek.
Another thing.. huge changes took place from late 80s to early 90s. When I started in college in the mid 80s, most kids were utterly apolotical. Indeed, one of the appeal of New Conservatism was the soothing amnesia, as if 60s and 70s, with their wars, riots, recessions, and scandals hadn't happened.
The cultural mood among youths was like RISKY BUSINESS. It was all about money and pulp patriotism(ala Rambo II). But things began to change rapidly in the late 80s, with boomer professors taking over campuses and teaching in a brash radical style. Most of my history professors in imd 80s were old liberals--gentlemanly, politically incorrect, open to all views. Some were eccentric but didn't push an agenda. But by early 90s, a new generation pretty much took over: shouting like Lenin, seething and hissing, pushing theiir agenda, insulting, shoving totally politicized lop-sided reading materials, etc., i.e. rhetoric class assigning readings only about blacks, gays, feminists, etc. During the Gulf War, a film professor told us to write a neo-realist scenario where Iraqis are being bombed by Americans! She also told us our grades would not be penalized if we skipped class to join the anti-war protest. Assignments and grades thus got linked to politcs.
Also, when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, much of cultural life was not politicized. There was culture over here and politics over there. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts were about camping. Boys Club was where boys and girls hung out to play air hockey, swim, or shoot pool. And most children's books and school yearbooks were just for fun. But by the 80s, the boomer radical influence infiltrated into everything. Every tv show, school yearbook, kids organization, kids books--Heather Has Two Mommies or a children's book on the LA Riots making the rioters out to be righteous victims, etc, etc, all came under the influence of ideology.
I don't recall anything about feminist stuff when I was a girl scout. It was about camping, marshmellows, sleeping bags,and scary tales. But today, PC stuff is shoved down the throat of every kid. There was no gay agenda in schools back in the 70s and 80s. Also, even 60s conterculture had plenty that was individulaistic, libertarian, anti-establishment, and rebellious. But by the time the likes of Bill Ayers took over colleges, their agenda has been to create pod people of every kid since cradle.
I recall MTV in the mid 80s was just about fun. By the late 80s and early 90s, it was pushing an agenda. So, the kids who grew up in the late 80s and 90s--those most likely to use the internet--were more PC than previous generations. Can things change so fast? Yes. German kids who grew up under Nazi education/culture were very different than older Germans. Chinese kids in the 60s only knew Mao, Mao, and Mao, leading to the Cultural Revolution. The people of the internet age in the early 90s were those more affected by PC-ization of society than older people, even if older by only few yrs. (Similarly, a black guy who graduated college in 1967 was bound to be very different than one who graduated five yrs earlier in 1962 before all hell broke loose.) And since then, things have gotten even worse.
If a kid was born in 1990, he or she grew up thoroughly under PC influence in EVERYTHING, from college classrooms to Archie comics with gay message. Why didn't my generation resist these changes? We grew up so apolitical that most of us didn't have the ideological weapon to do battle. Most conservatives of my generation were into Reagan and Rambo, or empty feel-good stuff. It was crass and materialistic philosophy of RISKY BUSINESS and FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF. Not the sort of stuff that creates warriors. But then, I was pretty far left in the mid 80s, so I guess I'm always in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You make it sound like Jews are little kids, and that all you have to do is give them some candy and they'll come to your side and sit down and be quiet. Your tone is condescending.
Also, how do you expect to reach to the Jewish community when you quote Kevin Macdonald, who is an anti-Semite?
Reaching out to the Jewish community must come from the heart, not based some self serving calculation, otherwise it won't work.
For example, how many White Americans can name at least 3 Jewish holidays? Probably very few. To build a new community, we must start by educating everyone. How can two communities join forces, when one knows very little about the other? The short answer is that it's not possible.
This quote from the article by Steve is also important too about White Identity movement:
It’s not so much that blacks, Asians, and Hispanics don’t want this to happen. None of these groups are really all that powerful. Blacks tend to be colorful but not too competent; East Asians competent but colorless; Latinos culturally lethargic and unenterprising.
No, the much more serious roadblock to the emergence of white identity politics: more Jews don’t want it to happen than do want it to happen.
Many Jews have strong reasons for their aversion to white identity politics, either irrational (the Cossacks are coming!) or rational (what’s in it for me?).
This, sadly, is the key problem. We have to figure out a way to neutralize as much Jewish resistance to White identity as possible. But I have no clue how to do this. Many Jews truly have an irrational fear of White Christians, despite American Whites being so good to them overall.
Does anyone know if the Orthodox Jewish community is more (or less) hostile to Whites in general? They seem generally more conservative and less concerned with PC stuff. And their numbers seem to be growing while secular Jews are shrinking.
Reaching out to the Jewish community must come from the heart, not based some self serving calculation, otherwise it won't work.
For example, how many White Americans can name at least 3 Jewish holidays?
How many Jews can name 3 Jewish holidays? Most of the secular ones I know don't seem too up on it either. Do Jews really care if we understand their religion? I'm not saying they don't, I just have no idea. It sure seems like White Christians have already gone way, way out of their way to make Jews feel included (Hanakuh wrapping paper!) and to honor their history. Could we study the Holocaust anymore thoroughly?
Jews down South seem more friendly to Whites (with exceptions). But Jews in NYC seem to have an almost visceral hatred for White Christians. Do you really think even more groveling would help?
Whiskey/T99/EvilNeocon has discovered something unknown to mankind, namely that stupid, lazy and selfish housewives invented Political Correctness while sitting on the couch at home. Previously, serious people had thought that PC was an outgrowth of Marxist thought, both “orthodox” Marxism and “Cultural Marxism.” But now we know that Suzy homemaker invented it and was not just a soft underbelly target of opportunity for the PC master class. Who knew? Other than Whiskey I mean.
"See what's been missing for American whites? It's pretty simple. We just haven't had our butts kicked for a long, long time."
No, it's about WHO controls the grand narrative. Christians had been kicking pagan butt for many centuries but still peddled the Christian-as-victims-of-pagan narrative(being fed to the lions by Romans and that stuff). You don't have to get your butt kicked to promote a sore-butt narrative. Consider US-Japan relations since the 19th century. US(and UK) first used threat of force(and then did use some force) to pry Japan open. And US and other Western nations pushed Japan around, which is why Japanese got so spitting mad(cuz it wasn't treated as an equal). Japan did attack and kill 3000 Americans at Pearl Harbor, but Americans killed many more(and committed some horrendous war crimes to defeat Japan in WWII). But when we think of US-Japan narrative, our main focus isn't Hiroshima, Nagasaki, fire-bombing of Tokyo, Perry's black ships that threatened to blow up Japan's harbors in the 19th century. Nor Japnese-Americans interned in camps. It's PEARL HARBOR and how WE were victimized by forces of evil. So, you see, victimization is really about what and how we choose remember the past(or characterize the present). Was Omar Thorton a murderous villain or poor victim driven to desperation? It all depends on the narrative spin and who has the power to do the spinning.
And how come there is no American consciousness about the victimization of Philippines? American occupation led to deaths of at least 200,000, though estimates go as high as a million. Because it's one of those forgotten things by both sides. Filipinos are more into soap opera and US aid than history or facts, and Americans just don't find lessons about Filipino history compelling or useful.
Also, victim narrative is a turn-on/turn-off thing. Right after WWII, Germans were not into the guilt thing. They were too busy surviving, and US were eager to rebuild New Germany as a bulwark against the Soviet Union(same with Japan). So, Germans didn't dwell on victimhood until they chose to later. And it wasn't until the 60s that Jews really began to turn Holocaust into a religion of sorts. And under Mao, the Rape of Nanking wasn't such a big deal, especially since it had been the city ruled by KMT during the Japanese invasion. But after Mao, with the rise of New China, the government has sacralized Nanking like Jews did with the Holocaust. Chinese under Mao barely knew or cared anything about the rape of nanking, but new generations of Chinese have been made to strongly 'identify' with it historically and morally. But Chinese don't much care about the victimization of Tibetans under Chinese rule. They spin that as yellow man's burden to help the lesser civilized folks, and most Chinese are led to believe that Tibetans are by and large happy and thankful for Chinese presence in Tibet.
Though Jews make a big deal of the Holocaust--as they have a right to--, they warn Ukrainians not to to do the same with 'Holodomor'. Abe Foxman met with Ukrainian leaders to more or less convey a veiled threat that Jewish-controlled USA won't do business with Ukraine if it sacralized 'Holodomor'. And though Jewish media made a big deal of Afrikaner oppression of blacks and idealized the ANC as champions of black victims, the opposite was the case with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, where Arafat and PLO were made out to be terrorist 'antisemites'.
Jews have been kicking butt since WWII, but they promote the narrative where only they got their butts kicked by evil goyim and the narrative their own butt-kicking of others is utterly morally justified. So, if Gazans kill a handful of Jews and if Jews retalitate by killing 2000 Gazan women and children, Jews are the 'poor victims' and 'righteous victors' while Palestinians are totally bad, something most white conservatives stupidly agree with.
I said: "I'd say Caucasian fits the bill for other populations who are White-ish, like Armenians."
I should've also said that Whites are a sub-group of Caucasian, of course. Clearly Europeans are more related to other Caucasians than to other populations, like South Asians or Arabs, etc.
Every possible reason already exits for Jews to stop the white gentile bashing, but there is absolutely no sign that there is any change on that front coming. Self interest alone would dictate that Jews would have let up on the anti-white gentile program, but this goes beyond rational calculation.
Look at the overwhelming support by ultra Zionist Diaspora Jews for the “Arab Spring”, the entire Neocon cabal, the entire Neoliberal cabal, the entire Left wing cabal, all of them have been crazy for the Arab street rising up at long last. Now it looks like the Arab street is going to take it right straight at Israel itself and that is very bad news for Israel. You won’t hear about it in the States (USA) but everywhere else you will hear news of unarmed protestors getting shot on Israel’s border. But Bill Kristol, Elliot Abrams, Podhoretz, Commentary, New Republic, Weekly Standard will all stand by the same bad policy that will harm the West and Israel.
Hard not to conclude that they hate the rest of us more than they love themselves.
Jews are currently at the top of the ethnic pecking order in the United States. The only real threat to their power would be some sort of anti-Semitic movement among the White population. Therefore it is obviously it is in the Jews' best interest for Whites to not have a sense of ethnic identity and for non-White immigration to continue, making Whites a politically powerless minority incapable of opposing Jewish authority. That all seems pretty clear. Why would so many here advocate something that is so clearly not in the best interests of Jews? Are you anti-Semitic?
White gentiles present no threat to Jews currently or in the foreseeable future. That can’t be said for Muslims, Hindus, Chinese and even Mexican and Central American natives. Jewish narratives have the power to move and intimidate white gentiles, but are totally ineffective against all the other groups one could name. Northern European whites are so individualistic that they present little risk of “group action” unlike nepotistic Asians.
So why do Jews support policies that will further displace the group they have the advantage over, white gentiles, with groups they don’t have an advantage over. It is a disastrous strategy for Jews and certainly isn’t doing white gentiles any favor either.
The only explanation is an irrational hatred that blinds one to the reality of what a legitimate course of self-interest would look like.
***Control over just a handful of choke-points can completely create the reality of the world around you, without your ever being the wiser.***
Godless capitalist has a great post about this and was linked by Roissy here.
"And like a man with a damaged nervous system, the West’s internal perceptions are out of sync with the external reality. Consider a hand on a hot stove. It does not matter if the lowly epithelial cells are burned by the million if the nerve cells refuse to communicate this truth to the seat of conscious action.
Similarly, the media is the nervous system of a civilization. The signals it chooses to amplify, dampen, or interpret control the response of the body. If paralyzed, it matters not if the body is hale and hearty and theoretically capable of action. A malfunctioning nervous system will leave an otherwise healthy body jerking around in response to phantasms of racism — or directing its efforts against its own cells."
Jews are currently at the top of the ethnic pecking order in the United States. The only real threat to their power would be some sort of anti-Semitic movement among the White population.
I'm afraid this is true. How does White identity help Jews? The only think I can even think of is if they begin to feel threatened by China. Could they realize their power is under threat if the Chinese and other Asians gain worldwide power? Would that make them think twice about destroying the US and Europe through mass immigration?
Whisky, please read Kevin Macdonald on the Jewish establishment's role in immigration policy. But I suspect you have already and your remarks are just propaganda. Robert Hume
America was great up to 1960 when Kennedy ruined it. Sadly all the travails and future disaters we have now are traceable to the disasterous Democrat administrations of 1960-8. That said, I increasingly incline to the view that either two things will happen: 1/. A general descent into Brazil Del Norte together with appalling levels of inequality, thievery, violence, danger and selfishness (the Armenians and Jews being clannish would thrive in such an ant-hill). 2/. The USA to split into 'ethnostates'.Such a split would require a leader and movement of real charisma as well as a viable support base, so is highly unlikely.Besides the establishment would infiltrate it and kill at birth with every means possible.
The problem with general 'white' America, of course, has been the lack of commonality and feeling amongst whites of differing ethnic stocks.Here, post 1960 was a real disaster.At that time it was 'WASP' country and the WASPs provided the paternalistic ideal to which the 'ethnics' would in time take their cue from and assimilate to.Apart from the Irish, with their hatred of England, most Europeans would have, in time, assimilated and dissolved. But since then we have seen a loss of WASP confidence and control, usurpation of power positions by Jews (who have largely taken over from the WASPs and don't have any paternalistic and assimilationist ideal), and the destruction of the whole racial dynamic and identity of 'American' (basically WASP and wannabe WASP),by massive uncontrolled third world immigration by people, in all frankness, just simply do not look like what an American was supposed to look like. Instead of a nation based on commonality of origin we have the human zoo.
even for people who keep up on 'this stuff' Taylor's book is pretty eye-opening when it comes to revealing the extent of a. minority conflict (black vs hispanic) and b. the extent to which the government tries to force diversity.
Side note, I had forgotten the stunning comments by clinton and Wes Clark when they were bombing Serbia- (paraphrase) "ethnic natioanlism is a 19th century idea we won't tolerate' we're going to make sure serbia joins the 21st century" So it was essentially an idealogical war.
Only with White people (and White as in European not Caucasian).
Africans couldn't care less about their role in the African slave trade.
Arabs couldn't care less about their role in the African slave trade.
Jews couldn't care less about their role in the African slave trade.
Victimization only gives one the moral upper hand with white people because only white people believe that justice can be balanced.
When it's not being used as a tool to get something from white people victimology is simply a kind of ethno-historical wardance - a recital of every casus belli the group has against other groups.
Hey Steve: got any suggestions for Jewish people who think they're white? I always thought I was white until discovering the views of most people who believe in HBD. ;) (Granted I'm not purebred and didn't absorb much anti-Christian prejudice, but...)
White identity exists but remains nascent because for now, the past of least resistance is to do nothing OVERT while with the other hand COVERTLY supporting white interests.
White people still vote for John McCain over Obama, and they still retreat to gated communities.
The real political platform, in my view, that will unite them is one that emphasizes some sense of value system that culminates, not starts, in racial awareness.
Whiskey, you have your own blog. If we are interested in your sexual fantasies, we can visit it. Please stop repeating the same stuff here and at Mangan's.
A few of my keen observations: Japan has a Korean minority and a sub-ethnic group (Burakumin) who are extensively discriminated against (the Koreans because of their foreign ancestry and the Burakumin because of their historical association with disreputable occupations - the Japanese equivalent of the Hindu sweeper class). The case of the Jews demonstrates the limits of race as a friend or foe category. Their long history of hostility towards non-Jews in general and Christians in particular make them the citadel of anti-Whiteness in America (despite their skin tone). As for white racial consciousness, mine is of the Ben Franklin variety: "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
"Reaching out to the Jewish community must come from the heart, not based some self serving calculation, otherwise it won't work."
Nonsense. Their hearts are in love with diversity. Jews are more likely to change when more of them get smacked on the head like Yglesias and see their tax bills soar to pay for the poor immigrants they are devoted to.
I'm constantly puzzled when men like Murray and Taylor pretend to be concerned about the interests of a race they've chosen to abandon by marrying out of it. To add insult to injury, they show disgust when whites act like whites instead of asians.
I've scratched my head many times while attempting a sort of psychoanalysis that would explain Murray, Taylor, et al. Is it a kind of buyer's remorse mingled with too much integrity to divorce and marry a suitable white woman? Are sites like Vdare and Am. Renaissance merely sadistic tools to entrap and vilify the whites that perhaps rejected the Murrays and Taylors for being too geeky?
You married out without being concerned about categorical imperatives. The rest of us will live or die or whatever. Go on with your lives and stop wasting other people's time and energy.
Since Japan has only one race, no one worries about racism.
Libtards hate this one. That racial diversity is the only way to make racism into an actual problem sets two ostensible libtard goals (diversity and racial harmony) at one another's throats.
The reigning upper middle class white view is that everyone should always act on the basis of Kant’s categorical imperative
Oh, I dunno about that. I can work within those confines, I think.
Indeed, they are a lot less distinctive in looks than are blacks and whites. But they fight anyway.
How come you never write about Social Identity Theory? Or at least, the fact that you can get otherwise indistinguishable people to start hating each other by separating them into groups and giving them differently-colored armbands? Well, I guess you have written about sports fans in this regard.
Jews are generally praised in the press for engaging in Jewish identity politics. So why would they instead want to engage in disreputable white identity politics? What’s in it for them?
If we can't beat 'em, why not join 'em? I don't know if this could work, but I'd at least like to have an long-term discussion about it.
As I’ve often said, conservative politics in the United States of America has nothing to do with free markets. It has a lot to do with identity politics and it has a lot to do with interest group politics.
=============================
increasingly, it looks like he's right. you're coming off more and more like an ethnic socialist
"White Identity" is already an anachronism. "IQ identity" is the future. At least in the Northeast it seems increasingly clear that High IQ Asians, Jews, ex-Catholics and Episcopalians are very comfortable socializing and marrying each other. Certainly within a few generations the elite classes will have incorporated so much Asian, Jewish and even high IQ Latino genes that they probably will be a different race from "pure whites" or "pure Asians", who will probably both be seen as classes of losers, and will generally have lower IQs than the elites.
This is why the King narrative is more powerful than the Nation of Islam narrative.
To really suss out why the King method is much more powerful than the NoI method, we have to disentangle outside influences (all your examples) from the question, "is it good for the blacks"? Unlike most races, blacks are clearly worse-off on their own, so black separatism is a non-starter. Basically, properly formulated black supremacism would look a lot more like the King method than the NoI method.
All of which makes this note sound false:
Indeed, one of the reasons why white liberals are so eager to embrace black victim-identity is to suppress the rise of black supremacist identity.
Black self-interest is the biggest roadblock to black supremacism. A sensible black nationalist sounds a lot more like iSteve commenter "Truth" than a black version of a white separatist.
There has been much mention made of the popularity of Obama/progressives among college educated white women.
How to get them to see the light?
The way to any woman's heart is through her children, especially her sons. The other party need only point out the diminishing opportunities for sons in a liberal-led culture. This means, of course, specifying what kind of sons--white.
At least two of my liberal friends have already noticed this w/out anyone pointing it out to them.
The others are on the verge of the same realization. The sooner someone in politics has the nerve to point this out (it will have to be done subtly in order to work), the better...but I've seen the beginnings of change, and Mr. Obama, in some of his more stupid moments, has already begun to make this clear.
True, I know of no politician running for POTUS who will actually state, "Qualified white men are being shut out over unqualified other applicants," but there are ways of getting the same message across w/out using "white."
I have no objection to their use of the word--in fact, I prefer it as it is the truth, but I can see people recoiling so as a matter of practicality, the politicians must speak euphemistically of the racial bias. It will work if they do it.
Mamma bear, educated or not, will get the message.
Jewish fears of/hostility to whites may not be permanent but practical. In the future, suppose whites make up only 25% of the population and the Jewish elite is confronted with an angry alliance of blacks and Hispanics whose numbers keep surging. Then, Jews many seek an alliance with whites. This happened in India under British rule. Initially, British imperialists fought the Muslim rulers of India; Brits even posed as liberators of the Hindus, and Hindus were favored over Muslims for most of British rule. But once Hindu Indians began to gain a kind of national consciousness and unite, Brits shifted their main alliance to Muslim Indians--which is one of the reasons why the relations between the Hindu and Muslim communities got strained in the 20th century. Though American Jews are part of America, they kinda see goy groups as different nations. It's like US allied with Soviet Union during WWII but then sided with China in the 1970s against the Soviet Union. Who said there's no permanent friends in foreign policy or something like it? Jews thinks this way.
Jews are too few in number, too prone to intermarriage and acculturation, and too divided (pro- and anti-Israel, identity, etc.) to shape American discourse.
Jewish division mostly centers around differing interpretations of what's good for the Jews. Questioning the question itself gets you labeled a self-hating Jew. There is remarkable agreement among Jewish elites, liberal or conservative, on subjects like immigration.
Between the Whiskey's usual BS ("Oh please, Steve, Jews don't exhibit much control or power over cultural life in America") and anonymous' blatant demand for pandering ("Reaching out to the Jewish community must come from the heart . . . to build a new community" all non-Jews must know at least three Jewish holidays) this thread has predictably degenerated to today's standard inversion of reality. Jews call themselves White when it's convenient to them. They define Jewishness as racial, cultural, or religious depending on the circumstances most beneficial to them. They are simultaneously demanding to be accepted as White racial "brothers" to European Christians and persecuted non-White minorities by other non-Whites. California politician Dan Adler is more openly ethnocentric because he believes it will help him in his 13.4% White district. The rest that is parroted here is mere obfuscating drivel to deny White Europeans a sense of ethnic identity or ethnic pride, while maintaining a sense of Jewish grievance.
I wonder how much the lack of white identity owes to paucity of talent among the White Right in arts, culture, academia, etc.
Think of blacks. Would they have gained such mythic aura as a people if not the for the soulful booming voice of MLK and James Brown, for the athletic prowess of Ali and others, their success in comedy, their prominence in porn, and etc, etc. Even white conservatives who were raised to be suspicious of blacks are drawn to black stuff. Who doesn't like Motown? Or listen to a song like SITTING ON THE DOCK OF THE BAY. Even if you don't like blacks, their expressiveness and colorfulness makes you want to like them. This may be why Mexicans, Asians, and Muslims don't get much respect from white Americans. They are less compelling in areas that most Americans find interesting and exciting.
But this goes for the White Right too. Most white talent in arts, culture, and ideas are liberal. And many are Jewish, and Jews are mostly liberal. But suppose most great rockers, actors, directors, writers, and etc had white right views. Or suppose even just 25% of them held such views. The white right would have far more support and legitimacy in popular culture, which also shapes popular thought.
Off topic, but here's a nice ad for Dan Adler, a Democratic candidate in the special election in California's 36th District. His campaign manager is actor Sean Astin ("LOTR" & "Rudy").
The ad features a thick-accented Korean woman claiming Adler can't represent her because he's not Korean. Adler responds that his wife his Korean, and that he's Jewish. The Korean woman proclaims "We minorities should stick together!"
Making one wonder: stick together...against who? And are Jews a minority, or are they white, or does the answer change depending on what's most beneficial to them at the moment?
Oh please Steve. Jews don't exhibit much control or power over cultural life in America.
Heh.
Heck half of the "Jews" are not even Jews.
What is that supposed to mean?
George Soros, born a Jew, is proud of helping Nazis in Hungary hunt down Jews, and sell off their property. He hates Israel and wants it destroyed. Is he a Jew?
Is this one guy intended to prove the preceding assertion? It doesn't. So he hates Israel and wants it destroyed. First, I'd like to know how he acts on this hatred. Is it just hot air, or does he pursue any goals to that effect? Because a couple seconds of hot air is not indicative of much. If I'm Ashkenazi and spend my whole life working in a career in anti-white psyops, like Tim Wise, should a couple of lines in an essay about how I "oppose Israeli apartheid" or whatever really get me a kewpie doll from white ethnopatriots? Really? They're supposed to be that big a bunch of suckers? Whiskey's version of white advocacy might be that tendentious and submissive and credulous - mine is not. "Is it good for the Ashkenazis?" does not inform my ethnopatriotism.
Second, being all-in for the Ashkenazi diaspora and hating the state of Israel doesn't obviate one's Ashkenazi-ness, or argue against "is it good for the Ashkenazis?" as raison d'etre.
Jews are too few in number, too prone to intermarriage and acculturation, and too divided (pro- and anti-Israel, identity, etc.) to shape American discourse.
So who has the numbers? English-Americans? Irish-Americans? Polish-Americans? Who?
So who is less prone to intermarriage? English-Americans? Irish-Americans? If Ashkenazis are "too prone to intermarriage," that means there's some real player around that isn't, right? Nope. Whiskey's lying, again. If not, he can name the group that intermarries less than Ashkenazis.
So who is less acculturated than the Ashkenazis, and running the show? Whiskey, your apologia sucks. Burn the midnight oil for a while and come up with a new one that isn't quite so insulting to the intelligence, eh?
Jews, I hate to break this to you Steve, are White.
How can you tell? Easy. If a Black guy angry at White guys wants to hurt you (or a group of Mexicans) and decides to target you, guess what, you're White. Simple as that.
So, the best example you have of Ashkenazi whiteness is the behavior of non-whites mistaking them for white. That's telling.
You're looking for a scapegoat. Figuring what, 2-3% of American somehow have mind-rays controlling the other 98-97%? Come on, that does not pass the laugh test.
But your straw men do pass the laugh test, of course.
What you're failing to miss is WOMEN.
Throw anyone and everyone under the bus to protect yourself, eh Whiskey?
They switched to that because they're highly ethnocentric (and thus opportunistic) and it's only natural to switch to such a powerful "secular" touchstone, given the decline of religion. But let's not kid ourselves, they've had their "something" for 3,000 years now. Don't buy into "The Narrative"; question it.
In fact, the only group of American whites with any consciousness at all are southerners -- because they were on the wrong end of a beatdown not too long ago.
You left out the part about Southern demographics (though I do agree, very much so, that a shared sense of loss is a powerful factor in group cohesion).
Also, how do you expect to reach to the Jewish community when you quote Kevin Macdonald, who is an anti-Semite?
So we have to ignore reality to "reach to the Jewish community"?
Do you really think even more groveling would help?
Yes, groveling is always a good thing. :)
Whiskey/T99/EvilNeocon has discovered something unknown to mankind, namely that stupid, lazy and selfish housewives invented Political Correctness while sitting on the couch at home.
One of the problems of white-rightism is it was dominated and defined too much by scum like Nazis and KKK who were filled with little more than arrogance and contempt(and lots of dishonesty); they were all about offense and no defense. To morally justify something, you have to present it as an act of rational defense. KKK had a chance to be legit as a defense league for whites against black threat. It could have been honest: Negroes are stronger on a one-on-one basis, and so whites need to stick together against black violence. And Nazis could have made the argument that Jews need to be critiqued and watched cuz they are smarter, therefore more likely to gain power and control over Germans.
Instead, the arrogant and supremacist KKK and Nazis couldn't admit that other races or peoples could be better at whites in anything. So, instead of defining their positions defensively, they defined them offensively. People sympathize with underdogs and victims, not bullies and thugs. KKK could have been an anti-black-thuggery league but it became a pro-white-thuggery league attacking even innocent blacks. And Nazis went after every Jew, even decent patriotic German ones.
This is why 'white identity' got tainted with ugliness: all offense and no defense in its justifications. To be sure, KKK and Nazis did spread fears of victimization under blacks and Jews, but they never clearly spelled out why it was happening. Since they were too proud-and-stupid-and-dishonest to admit that blacks had a natural advantage in strength and Jews had a natural advantage in wit, their explanation for black and Jewish power/threat was ... black and Jews are simply 'subhuman'. This was just ugly, irrational, and offensive.
It lacked the morally justifiable content as 'rational defense'. So, the New White Right must build on two facts: Negroes are tougher, Jews are smarter, and that is why we need to fear them; our fears would not be phobic but rational. We gotta keep a watch on Jews and blacks--just like weaker nations keep a watch on stronger nations; after all, don't Arab nations have a right to fear mighty Israel? After all, Jews use their form of rational defense to justify their fear of white goyim and Muslims.
Think. Why do we call the US military 'national defense' instead of 'national offense', though US has been invading and attacking more than being invaded or attacked? The idea of defense sounds better and more humane. So, we need a defensive white right based on rational fears and anxieties among whites.
And we also need to point out that there is more than one America. Affluent America is cocooned in their own safe zones and security, and so it doesn't care about poor or working class whites. Also, affluent America controls the media, the window to reality, so they can choose what to see, what not to see. They are the elitists in the movie ZARDOZ. They see themselves as Eternals and see us as Brutals. We need a Zed figure to outwit them and crush them.
We have ideas but we don't have the voice. It's like blacks had interests but didn't have the magic voice before MLK came along. And Nazis had ideas but didn't have the voice of power before Hitler. Good or bad, ideas alone won't do it. It needs to be conveyed by the voice. It's like Elvis gave life to the songs composed by people who themselves couldn't sing. We need people who can sing. Who can swagger, who can rock and roll with the punches in the public view.
Taylor is too genteel for this sort of thing. Also, because of the past poison of white right movements, new white rightists are eager to show that they are sane, rational, and not foaming at the mouth. This is good and necessary but also makes for blandness. We must not be rabid but we must learn to bark and bite in any political battle. If we can howl, all the better. We need theories and fact checkers, but we also need fighters in the ring. It's like GOP would have been nothing in the 80s if not for the charisma and magic of Reagan. In our age of mass media, charism and style count more than before. Reagan may have been more style than substance but he was one helluva fighter in the spotlight.
" White women find non-White guys (some of them anyway) far more sexy, and conversely beta Male White guys "exposed" as lacking in the sexy compared to "hard" Black guys and even tall Hispanic guys."
Wait, a minute, a month ago you were telling us that pasty, pale, faggy vampires were de riguer with women!?
I think Taylor just goes too far. Of course there are real differences between the races, but Taylor treats race as something absolute, and it isn't. It's just one (valid) way of classifying the human race. If you are a "lumper" you can talk about "Black Africans." If you are a "splitter" you can talk about "Armenians." Both are real.
The thing is, all human groups are fluid. For example, European ethnic groups that hated each other in Europe can merge in America to the point where their descendents (me, for example) cease to care about their origins, and see themselves simply as white Americans. Mexico is full of mestizos who don't think of themselves as either white or Indian. The Armenians in time could end up dissolving into white America and losing their separate ethnic identity. Would that be so terrible? There is no obvious reason why mixing and loss of difference at a higher (racial) level has to be any worse than at a lower (ethnic) level. In the long run (if there is a long run!) the races are going to mix, so why fight it now?
The real problem is not racial mixing per se, the real problem is the blacks! Here is a question for you: Imagine that the liberal expectations of the 60's had all come true, and that American blacks, freed from the yoke of oppression, had rapidly advanced in terms of economic and educational achievement, to the point where they were now more or less comparable with whites. (Liberal really did believe this would happen! For example, in The Disuniting of America, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. wrote about how certain liberals like himself had been of this, and how dismaying and disturbing the actual reality has been). If blacks in America were doing well today in school and in business, if we had lots of productive black scientists, if black crime rates were low, would you be anywhere near as worried about your daughter marrying a black man, or the prospect that in 100 years sub-Saharan Africans might make up one third of the human race, and be flooding out of Africa into Eurasian societies?
I sure wouldn't! I have no problem with whites mixing with other Eurasians, because other Eurasians are generally intelligent and capable peoples. (Islam is another problem of course, but it has nothing to do with race, so let's put it aside for now...). The problem with blacks is that they just don't seem to be as capable as the rest of the human race, and whenever there are too many of them everything just seems to go to hell. I don't want the world to go to hell, so that's why I worry about the blacks. (If we were facing the prospect of three billion Australian aborigines I would be just as worried, but it looks like we dodged that bullet).
So what is the solution? I see little prospect of any sort of "Eurasian Nationalism" becoming influential. A better prospect might be a revival of eugenics. Not the evil eugenics that says "kill the underman," but just a positive awareness that intelligence is important, has a big genetic component, and it is not equally distributed among different peoples around the world. If this became the default mode of thinking, then intelligent people would be able to talk openly about the problem of Africa (as well as dysgenics in their own populations), and with many minds focused on the problem, morally acceptable solutions might be found. It's a longshot, but at the moment this is my best hope.
"It’s perfectly natural to feel an instinctive kinship with any and all humans under certain circumstances. Ronald Reagan used to worry his less imaginative National Security Advisor, Colin Powell, by musing about how the Cold War would be over instantly if Earth were ever attacked by space aliens. Human kinship would far outweigh ideology if we ever needed to fight bug-eyed space monsters. Most people would feel a surge of kinship toward any human on a life raft menaced by sharks."
This is true. The opposite is also true. In an all-white world, groups may see and seek divisions among one another based on hair color, eye color, language, heritage, etc as happened in WWII when Hitler waged a great war on other whites--the so-called untermensch whites such as Eastern Slavs. And idiot Italians invaded Greece(even though Metaxas was pro-German).
Also keep in mind that there might be more than one alien arrival/invasion scenario. If aliens try to wipe out or enslave ALL of humanity, mankind might unite to fight the aliens. But if aliens wanna, say, just take over China or India or Europe and spare the rest of us, we might make a bargain with the aliens, like many French actually accepted Nazi occupation(even as a liberation from French socialist/Jewish rule). Ukrainians initially welcomes Germans as liberators. Hindus in India at one time preferred British invaders over Muslim Moghul rulers. I knew an Assyrian girl who emigrated to America after the Gulf War. She said her family was rich in Kuwait, and when Iraq invaded, many Assyrians sided with Iraqis as the new rulers(just like Spanish Jews sided with Moorish invaders). So, when Kuwait was liberated, angry Kuwaitis kicked out a whole bunch of Assyrians(most of whom were Christian). And so her family ended up in America to run some dinky dollar store business. (Ironic since America liberated Kuwait.) In most invasions, there are winners and losers. US invasion of Iraq was good for Shias and Kurds but hell for Iraqi Christians.
Another scenario would be non-invasion but massive immigration by space aliens. Suppose these aliens have an average IQ of 300 and ask us permission for entry since their home planet was destroyed. We allow them to settle in various countries. Within several yrs, they gain tremendous power with their super intellect. They also have technology beyond our understanding. They become our elite overlords within several yrs. Would most of us allow this, even if aliens gain power and wealth peacefully? Would we unite against the aliens as a threat to the human species? Or would some groups side with aliens, just like swapples side with Jewish elites against their own kind? I dunno. I suppose it depends on whether supersmart aliens have racial preferences. Also, what is space aliens call for more interstellar immigration of their own kind? And suppose they have cloning technology that can increase their numbers million fold in a few yrs?
Bill hits the important point, that a common identity is usually based on shared suffering or a shared struggle. Or at a bare minimum, some shared experience. White Americans don't have that, yet.
That was a good post on VDARE, excepting only your reflexive anti-Irish posture. Is there an reason to think that Ted Kennedy represented the Irish in America more than Reagan did, or more than Pelosi represents Italian-Americans, or more than McCain represents Scotch-Irish, or more than George W Bush represents Anglo-Americans?
"Jews are currently at the top of the ethnic pecking order in the United States. The only real threat to their power would be some sort of anti-Semitic movement among the White population."
The Hispanic population will eventually be more of a threat since they manage to be viewed as a victimized minority no matter how European they actually are; thus, there has been no attempt to engage in consciousness raising about their ethnocentric tendencies.
I'm beginning to think there was never any anti-white hatred out of the Jewish population. Instead, it seems, more educated European Americans out of mainstream protestant denominations and the Catholic church, Jews (many also European) and other assorted globalists went after the fundamentalist, working class white population in the US because what was in our best interest as opposed to theirs came into conflict.
This is the crux of the double game Steve plays. Nationalism is acceptable among the founding stock Americans as long as it can be controlled. Part of the process is indoctrinating what's left of such whites to accept a great amount of dissonance between the values sites like Vdare and iSteve pay lip service to and the incessant number of comments intended to undermine their self-esteem.
I've had enough of you and your funky brown friends, Sailer. Too bad you destabilized working class whites sufficiently that they can offer no resistance to the encroachments of the hordes of Hispanics pouring over our borders. I think the law of unintended consequences is working to full effect here. Yes, you replaced dirty, ignorant working class Scotch-Irish and English with what you preferred out of Asia. Then you forgot to have large families to replace us numerically as well. It's not just that it's too little, too late to build an alliance with what's left of us; it's that you and your friends(mostly not Jews)authored the very strategies designed to marginalize working class whites.
I had thought maybe people like Steve regretted participating in the Ivy League/wealthy WASP conspiracy to eradicate fundamentalist, working class America. I realize just how wrong I was: Sailer and Co. are panicked because their self-interests are now threatened by the uncontrollable demographic changes.
FYI, average+ IQ people will trust you more if you refrain from using dominance strategies such as trying to exaggerate the difference in competence/capacity between you and them. Journalism, for instance, is one of those fields in which there is an oversupply of highly capable potential writers. It's also the case that, just as in pop music, some quirk of personality will get a less capable person an advantage through popularity.
I am so sick of being treated with contempt by people who seem to need something from me despite their low regard for me and my ilk. No trust for you, Sailer, or Murray or Taylor or Brimelow or Buchanan!
Claudia: My impression of Japan is that it doesn't worry about racism but is a racist society. It just isn't ashamed about it. Maybe it should be.
Why? "Shame" implies they have some obligation to justify their preferences to the rest of mankind. Sez who?
So, in hiring, the Japanese do practice "Affirmative Action" .... for the benefit of the Japanese and against ethnic minorities.
Is that a good thing?
Depends on who you are. But this all speaks to the much more fundamental question of "what is the best kind of society for a human being to live in?" One with cultural homogeneity and continuity, a place to hang one's hat and feel at home, and from which one can engage with the wider world from a position of physical and psychological security? Or to be an itinerant "flexible labor" widget in a global deracinated sea of humanity? Or somewhere in between?
For example, how many White Americans can name at least 3 Jewish holidays? Probably very few.
Jewish religion doesn't really mean much to the culture at large. Part of this is by design - it isn't a converting religion and how many people, in a culture which is not that religiously orientated, are really going to be interested in the substance of a religion that doesn't really have much of a role for them in it or anything to say about their lives. There's just not much meaning there for anyone who isn't a Jew (or a Judaising Christian). (And to honest I'm not too sure if the Jewish religion really means too much to American Jews, as a whole.)
Now in terms of engaging with Jewish people, many people can name and admire various Jewish figures outside of the Jewish religious culture, in the fields of literature and science at least, and why what they did was important.
OT, Steve, but I just noticed that you have been quoted (if unnamed) on instapundit. I guess the circuitous quoting path is a form of cootie-laundering. (That is you, isn't it? Dear God, the commenters at Matt's are a thick lot.)
I wouldn't say St. Patricks Day is looked upon the same. What other ethic group would stand for their holiday to be one of accepted and expected drunkeness.
Of course, many whites don’t have a socially acceptable subracial identity like Irish. The huge numbers of German-Americans are discouraged from engaging in identity politics.
Germans are allowed no pride. Here in Chicago Goethe Street is pronounce ger-ta.
How can Mexicans afford these crazy fences?" I wondered to myself. It was only on a second visit that I realized the people turning their yards into fortified bunkers were Armenians.
So what you are implying by your statement is that the riots are almost certainly about economic class.
The Armenians have advanced themselves or already had the capital to afford such improvements which distances themselves from the Mexicans, which by your own observation deems them unable to afford such improvements.
But, the more relevant question in 2011 is: why would Armenians want to be white? What’s in it for them to identify primarily as white rather than as Armenian?
Nothing. Being Arneian, they are allowed to be Armenian and request social and economic privilege. There is no benefit to being "white" other than being "white".
President Obama would give a thoughtful, nuanced speech about this national trauma.
President Obama doesn't give speeches, he reads copy.
Steve - serious question - is there a reason why we are forbidden to point out that the guy's "true" name was Adolph Hiedler Frankenberger?
And that we now have DNA evidence which corroborates the legend?
I thought that iSteve was a place where we could speak honestly about these things - but maybe there are some truths which are too painful even for the HBD-o-sphere to contemplate?
"White Identity" is already an anachronism. "IQ identity" is the future.
Suuure. That's why China, Japan, and Israel all pursue "cognitively elite" immigration strategies.
At least in the Northeast it seems increasingly clear that High IQ Asians, Jews, ex-Catholics and Episcopalians are very comfortable socializing and marrying each other. Certainly within a few generations the elite classes will have incorporated so much Asian, Jewish and even high IQ Latino genes that they probably will be a different race from "pure whites" or "pure Asians", who will probably both be seen as classes of losers, and will generally have lower IQs than the elites.
Nope. Yellows, browns, and Ashkenazis will continue to protect their "breeding stock" in their ethnic homelands, and will continue to contribute to western territories (via one-way gene flow) from that untouched stock. Pursued over time, this strategy will result in a yellow and brown west (Ashkenazis don't have the numbers to compete, except for the managerial spot).
Whites, prevented from having such home territory, will disappear, unless they show some survival instincts.
Peter A had by far the best comment posted to this blog in at least a month:
"White Identity" is already an anachronism. "IQ identity" is the future. At least in the Northeast it seems increasingly clear that High IQ Asians, Jews, ex-Catholics and Episcopalians are very comfortable socializing and marrying each other. Certainly within a few generations the elite classes will have incorporated so much Asian, Jewish and even high IQ Latino genes that they probably will be a different race from "pure whites"
Steve, as a Californian you know that in the highly productive parts of California like Palo Alto, IQ identity has already replaced nearly all other forms of identity.
Readers of this blog who live in parts of the USA that lack super high IQ immigrants just don't understand the dynamic. Readers of this blog talk about immigrant Chinese secretly holding their Chinese racial and cultural identity close to them, or Brahmins from India scheming to preserve what is unique about their group.
The truth, on the ground, in the high IQ geographies and social circles is, young people with super high IQ are marrying other super high IQ young people at an accelerating rate. Northeast Asians, Askenazi, Elite WASPS, Brahmins, are all combining, and the rate is accelerating.
In many high IQ extended families it is very hard for racial identity to emerge because everyone has nieces and nephews who are mixed.
"I'm constantly puzzled when men like Murray and Taylor pretend to be concerned about the interests of a race they've chosen to abandon by marrying out of it."
Race mixing generally results in the end of racial identity.
The state with the lowest IQ white people in the United States is West Virginia. Few minorities live in West Virginia and there is little race mixing and thus white identity is very strong there.
There is not a 100% correlation between low IQ and white identity, there is certainly some correlation.
Nope. Yellows, browns, and Ashkenazis will continue to protect their "breeding stock" in their ethnic homelands, and will continue to contribute to western territories (via one-way gene flow) from that untouched stock bingo.
One huge blind spot in Sailer's theory regarding the importance of Jews in determining American policy: The same policies are implemented across the entire Western World, even in countries where Jews are a tiny minority with negligible influence.
even a completely non-racial movement like the Tea Party ...
Your overall point is accurate, but let's face it, the three main gripes of tea-partiers (and I'm one of them) are essentially racial. Immigration is about race even though, in line with your point, in recent years we've had to discuss it as an aspect of protection against terrorism. Health care "reform" is about race in the sense that most of us realize the real objective is simply make-work for blacks, similar to what's happened with the public schools. And anger over gov't spending is at least materially about race, in that public sector unions couldn't have gotten so powerful in the first place without the black thug element. We just have to start talking about race.
In many ways what Jared Taylor is saying is very similar to what Randall Kennedy. a black Harvard Law professor said in the Atlantic in an article in May 1997(online) titled
"My Race problem-and Ours." He said,"I find it difficult to accept that it is wrong for whites to mobilize themselves on a racial basis solely for purposes of white advancement but morally permissible for blacks to mobilize themselves on a racial basis solely for purposes of black advancement."
"… Japan is homogeneous. This means Japanese never even think about a host of problems that torment Americans. Since Japan has only one race, no one worries about racism. … When a company needs to hire someone, it doesn’t give a thought to ‘ethnic balance,’ it just hires the best person."
Of course, Japanese define 'best' differently than we do. They prefer people who are best at mindlessly following orders, repressing their own individuality, etc. In other words, best at not sticking out as 'better than the rest', which is considered bad form--show offy individualism. So, Japanese don't simply seek the best but those who can do the job well but also conceal, in the name of harmony, that they can do the job better than others.
"Of course, to well-indoctrinated Politically Correct white Americans, Japan’s lack of racial problems must seem like a bug, not a feature."
Japan's lack of a problem can be seen as a problem in its own right. Unlike US, which brought talented from all over the world, Japan is only Japan. US has lots of racial problems but also lots of racial and ethnic advantages in food, music, dance, movies, books, etc, etc. Something is always happening in the US because of this great mix. Even when wasps decline, Jews rise. Just when Italian Americans don't produce the talent they once did in cinema, Asian-Indians enter the scene, etc. History happens through problems. Too much can lead to disaster but total lack of problem is a problem in itself. Japan during the Tokugawa period was without problems, but that led to complacecy and ultra-conservatism to keep everything as it is. So, Japan fell behind. There were many problems between whites, blacks, Irish, Anglos, Germans, Jews, Greeks, Italians, Asians, etc, etc in America but all those problems made for a great and fascinating American narrative--much more so than the more homogeneously Anglo Australia or Canada. We wouldn't have Godfather movies without Italian-Americans. Some of the greatest talents in arts and culture were non-Anglos: Elia Kazan, Cassavetes, Coppola, Spielberg, etc. And chop suey aint half-bad. And though blacks drove Detroit to the ground, Motown sound was magnificent. Though Japan is without 'racial problems', they are huge fans of cultural products produced by the dynamics of American racial and ethnic problems. The American Western couldn't have been possible without the confrontation between whites and Indians--which was like Romans vs Germanic barbarians. And then Jewish Hollywood made a great myth out of it, as it also did with the gangster film. The Japanese samurai film is essentially an Eastern western and yakuza films owe much to Hollywood gangster flicks.
Not all problems are dynamic, productive, and creative; some are just destructive. But some do produce sparks of innovation, experimentation, new ideas, and new realities. And though much good can be said for Japan's homogeneity, it is a far more boring place than the US, though to be sure, law-and-order boredom is better than the kind of 'diversity' that has taken over cities like Detroit and entire areas of Los Angeles.
"Most whites do not have a racial identity, but they would do well to understand what race means for others. They should also ponder the consequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group."
They do but it's morally-bound than racially-survivalist. As whites, they are supposed to represent the best of humanity and embrace everyone. They replaced racial superiority with moral superiority. Even white guilt is a kind of moral supremacism--just like Christian guilt about Original Sin. Wallowing in one's sin and making a big show of it makes one feel holier-than-thou.
So, whites are morally racial than tribally racial.
"Race is an insignificant matter and not a valid criterion for any purpose—except perhaps for redressing wrongs done to non-whites. The races are equal in every respect and are therefore interchangeable."
This is one of those funny aspects of PC. Would any football team wanna replace its black players with Mexican players? Would any NBA team wanna replace its black players with Asian players? Would any chess club exchange its Jewish players with black players?
This is one of those things that PC liberals believe as 'ideality' but not as reality. It's like many Christians say they believe in God and Jesus and all that, but they also believe in evolution and hard science. It's amusing how many 'realities' the human mind can juggle at one time.
"My Race problem-and Ours." He said,"I find it difficult to accept that it is wrong for whites to mobilize themselves on a racial basis solely for purposes of white advancement but morally permissible for blacks to mobilize themselves on a racial basis solely for purposes of black advancement."
Which is one of the typical reasons why The Narrative (and not "dialog" or "discussion" or such pap) must be overwhelmingly dominant; it's okay for blacks to mobilize themselves for their own advancement because The Narrative gives them a pass.
"For Jared Taylor, a man of distinguished bearing, is unusual among American intellectuals in his empathy for people at the bottom. Protesting a 2005 Supreme Court decision mandating racial integration in prison cellmate assignments even when prison officials expect diversity might cause murder or rape, Taylor asked..."
Hey, what about sexual discrimination against women in prisons? If women in the military should have same rights as men--and even serve in combat in the future--, shouldn't men and women serve time as cellmates in the same prisons? Why should females be discriminated/banned from male prisons, and vice versa? Why, that's sexism!!! And how come men cannot compete in women's track and tennis and vice versa!! Sexism I tell you.
Recently, colleges have been moving toward coed dorm room assignments. Hurrah for victory against sexism. We need the same in prison cells. Let's allow male and female convicts to share the same cells! Some might say men are stronger than women and thus pose a threat to the gals, but that's just foul sexism. There are no sexual differences, which are purely socially constructed gender differences which can be overcome with proper sensitivity training.
Whatever the shenanigans of left-wing Jews, America was the WASPs to lose. They are outright masochists. They are more deluded than the Jews, because the Jews might have some reasons to promote PC, but the WASPs have none. Whereas Jewish narcissism is overt, WASP narcissism is dressed up and hidden--in typical WASP fashion--but perhaps deeper and more perverted for all that. Elite WASP narcissism took the same multicultural course in Canada after the 1960s, where Jews were too small in number and too marginalized to have played a major role. I don't mean to downplay the Jewish role in the US, which was considerable and nasty, but even so I think Sailer is ultimately engaging in unhelpful scapegoating.
Hey, speaking of "White Identity, it looks like your idol went out whimpering with his tail between his legs!
Yeah, I'm getting ready to slash my wrists as I type. Getting ready, I mean. I wouldn't actually slash my wrists as. I'm typing. You need at least one hand free to slash your wrists, and typing with one hand is a PITA.
I didn't want Trump to run, anyway. I did enjoy watching him punch Obama in the nose a few dozen times, though. Rhetorically punch, I mean. He would probably get in trouble for actually punching Obama in the nose. I wouldn't try that while typing, either. But you CAN rhetoricaly punch Obama in the nose while typing. Ha!
One thing white people can do is ally with blacks and Hispanics and bitch and whine 24/7 about Jewish wealth, power, and etc. And denounce Israel as 'racist'. Jews, driven to desperation, by hostility from whites, blacks, and Hispanics, may reach out for an renewed alliance with whites on more generous terms. Blacks and browns are useful to Jews because they can be pitted against whites. But if whites accepted black and brown power/interests and went after Jewish power--affirmative action for whites at expense of Jews--, then Jews wouldn't be able to use the white vs black/brown card. We let blacks/browns have their AA at white expense, and whites compensate by getting their AA at the expense of Jews. As long as blacks and browns keep getting theirs, they are not gonna stand up with/for the Jew when whites demand their share of the pie from the Jews.
As things stand now, there's no reason for Jews to broker any kind of deal with Jared Taylor, who has so little power and clout that he can't even book a conference room at a hotel. If Jared Taylors of the world were the elites who controlled the table, then Jews would wanna be invited to the table. But Jews now own and control the table. Why should they make any deal with Taylor, who has nothing to offer?
Or, if Taylor was the leader of most white people, like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson is the leader of blacks, then Jews might at least respect his power and try to come to terms with him on some level. But most whites don't even know why Taylor is, and the majority prolly don't even wanna be associated with him.
Before you make a deal, you gotta have the power to make the deal. Without the power, one is dealing with phantom armies, like Hitler in the final days in his bunker, ordering non-existent armies in his mind. Jews hold the straight royal flush while Taylor's cards don't even have a pair of 2's.
Whatever the shenanigans of left-wing Jews, America was the WASPs to lose. They are outright masochists.
I agree. Which means we should be trumpeting the shenanigans of left-wing Jews, and the WASP loss, to all and sundry. After all, the WASPs, outright masochists that they are, are absolutely no threat to Jews. Organized Jewry is a wasting their time and money. But that's okay, because we know how Jews like to waste time and money.
where Jews were too small in number and too marginalized to have played a major role.
That's what I keep telling people. In the modern world, one's influence, much less an ethnicity's, is definitely limited to close proximity. Say, arm's length? There can be no major role played by, say, white people, in, say, the culture of Japan.
I don't mean to downplay the Jewish role in the US, which was considerable and nasty, but even so I think Sailer is ultimately engaging in unhelpful
Hey Steve, I didn't think my bit about Taylor was out of line. I thought it was pretty nice, actually, for an evil old racist like me. Is she not Jewish, or something?
I was unaware that "white" had become a pejorative, until my then-teenaged stepdaughter announced to her mom and me that she wasn't white, she was "Greek" (i.e. her bio-dad's ancestry).
That said, if "white" continues to be used as an epithet, it will probably acquire (for some anyway) the same capacity to offend that the word "negro" seems to have these days.
"One huge blind spot in Sailer's theory regarding the importance of Jews in determining American policy: The same policies are implemented across the entire Western World, even in countries where Jews are a tiny minority with negligible influence."
Really, people should read Kevin Macdonald. He has traced the institutional influence of Jews on immigration in Australia, Canada, and Europe using the same techniques as in the US.
You may have thought you had a good argument, but you don't.
***Control over just a handful of choke-points can completely create the reality of the world around you, without your ever being the wiser.***
I know chomsky is far left, but he called this manufacturing consent. He looks at it from the left. It's an intereting movie even if you don't agree with him on a lot.
"I was unaware that 'white' had become a pejorative, until my then-teenaged stepdaughter announced to her mom and me that she wasn't white, she was 'Greek' (i.e. her bio-dad's ancestry)."
Funny thing about words. Black didn't wanna be 'negro' no more so they demanded to be called 'black'. But it sounded too stark and political, so they settled on 'African-American', to give it more of a cultural ring to it. And Asians don't wanna be called Oriental anymore because Eddy Said wrote that silly book.
I think maybe we need a new word for white. How about 'Andrean'?
US has lots of racial problems but also lots of racial and ethnic advantages in food, music, dance, movies, books, etc, etc.
That's just embarrassing. Do people who say this stuff really believe it themselves? Do they expect others to take it seriously? "Hooray, the US has people who can cook and dance in lots of different styles! What a great advantage!"
White Women on average certainly find Black men, much more testosterone, darkness, height, physique, on average compared to White men, more attractive
In what parallel universe is this true? Personally, I think you are projecting your own lack of success with white women onto all white men rather than examining the deficiencies that make you unattractive to women.
"White Identity" is already an anachronism. "IQ identity" is the future. At least in the Northeast it seems increasingly clear that High IQ Asians, Jews, ex-Catholics and Episcopalians are very comfortable socializing and marrying each other.
Also known as the assortative mating theory of autism.
But when we think of US-Japan narrative, our main focus isn't Hiroshima, Nagasaki, fire-bombing of Tokyo, Perry's black ships that threatened to blow up Japan's harbors in the 19th century. Nor Japnese-Americans interned in camps.
Are you even an American? If so, there's an itty-bitty chance that your experience is a total anomaly like you have asserted.
More likely, you're just brainwashed - mentally colonized. You take pride in believing that you're the only American who knows about the Japanese internment camps. I first learned about them in 1981 when I was ten. I heard about them in every history class since then, when they could fit them in between drawn-out, graphic descriptions of how people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We got to learn the timeline so every could be convinced that Truman just liked killing people. And yes, we heard about Perry.
Fine by me. If people want to believe Democrats just like killing people, I'm cool with that, especially when it's Democrats that do all the teaching, and Democrats are opening up new fronts in Libya when they're not busy firing 30mm uranium into Serbia. (I loathe Republicans too.)
Trouble is, I don't believe you. The last three conversations I've had mentioning WWII, with different people, centered on "American" (FDR) wickedness in sending the Japanese "all over the country" (on the western seaboard) into internment camps. On two of the occasions, the person doing the "contrite grieving" (leftist preening) assured me no other Americans knew about it.
the japanese have a stronger sense of group identity because, along with being a pretty homogeneous population, they have a longer, and more recent, history of inbreeding than do europeans (and americans). their genetic ties to one another are stronger than ours.
"Steve - serious question - is there a reason why we are forbidden to point out that the guy's "true" name was Adolph Hiedler Frankenberger?
And that we now have DNA evidence which corroborates the legend?
I thought that iSteve was a place where we could speak honestly about these things - but maybe there are some truths which are too painful even for the HBD-o-sphere to contemplate?
Sheesh."
The way I read the "DNA sting" is that Hitler's DNA was shown to be the same as various Hitlers/Huettlers still living in Austria, thus disproving the Frankenberg story. That aspect seems to have gotten no play at all.
Nor Japnese-Americans interned in camps. you forgot to mention that 3000 Japanese "american" citizens joined and served in the imperial army (that's japan not star wars) japanese were mad because they weren't treated 'equal'
Oh Gawd, another "people's history' reader investing Isteve.
>The only explanation [of Jews' pervasive anti-white campaigns] is an irrational hatred that blinds one to the reality of what a legitimate course of self-interest would look like.<
Talk about presumption! The Jews have been at it for 3000 years, buddy. They're still here.
The list of their extinct enemies is as long as my leg.
Could it be that Jews have a better sense of what their group interests are than you do?
What exactly IS your idea of Jews' "legitimate self-interest"? Are you hypothesizing a situation in which a helpless alleged 2% of the population is massacred by millions of powerful white gentiles with pitchforks? If so, you're way behind the times. Among white gentiles, there are only two (very broad) groups: insane liberals and Jesus-neutered hicks. Neo-Nazi movement? Don't make me laugh! In their phony parades march only FBI agents and defectives of the lowest kind.
There is no sleeping white giant.
Whites gentiles are not powerful.
We are on the way out demographically, even. In several states, we're a minority. A cowed, cringing, pathetic minority.
Jews don't have to play nice with white gentiles anymore. And they aren't. They haven't been for a while.
Repeat: whites as a group can't punch their way out of a paper bag.
A finger-wagging warning to Jews that they're risking anger is just laughable. It's later than we think.
More shockers. Jews are more than 2% of the population. They don't live exclusively in NYC or LA. Much of the world's money is defined and controlled by such entities as the IMF and the Federal Reserve; these are not and never were run by golden-haired WASPs named Caspar.
These statements may be anti-Semitic, but they're also factual.
Jews spurn your concern and your advice. And they always will. You're the one with the weak hand in this card game.
One of the problems of white-rightism is it was dominated and defined too much by scum like Nazis and KKK who were filled with little more than arrogance and contempt(and lots of dishonesty); they were all about offense and no defense.
The media is and always has been totally hostile to "white rightism," and has only ever uplifted (and thus encouraged) the worst "white-rightists" available. When you penalize something, you get less of it, so TPTB got less "sensible white rightism." And the commies were REAL charmers, but TPTB don't have too much to say about them, do they?
To morally justify something, you have to present it as an act of rational defense. KKK had a chance to be legit as a defense league for whites against black threat. It could have been honest: Negroes are stronger on a one-on-one basis, and so whites need to stick together against black violence. And Nazis could have made the argument that Jews need to be critiqued and watched cuz they are smarter, therefore more likely to gain power and control over Germans.
Hindsight is 20-20, I guess. The smart ethnopatriots could've been swaying high one-figure audiences in alleys all this time, but they missed the window. Sad, really. Or hey, maybe they didn't miss the window! Trees falling in forests, and whatnot, right?
So, instead of defining their positions defensively, they defined them offensively. People sympathize with underdogs and victims, not bullies and thugs.
I know. The Palestinian thing, plus all those Jewish PTB, have really made Jews persona non grata in America!
This is why 'white identity' got tainted with ugliness: all offense and no defense in its justifications.
I know, and since public perceptions are fixed once established, no amount of work is going to correct this. The last 40 years prove that!
Jared Taylor has exceptionally high IQ and an iconoclastic, creative personality. Like many white that share his intelligence and creativity level, he chose to marry someone of jewish ancestry.
Almost every significant intellectual or political or creative movement of the past 100 years has had people of Ashkenazi ancestry at the forefront. It shouldn't surprise you that creative leaders like Taylor choose to marry Jews.
Indeed, this is an HBD blog. The most profound expression of HBD is the desire to marry ashkenazi.
A high IQ wasp like Taylor that marries a female wasp will on average have lower IQ sons than he would have if he married an ashkenazi.
Indeed, many prominent wasps choose Jewish spouses for this reason. Remember that president clinton's daughter chose to marry an ashkenazi
Don't criticize Jared Taylor. He is simply trying to have high IQ children
Maybe white ethno-masochism has roots in Christian credo-masochism.
The Christian creed is masochistic, with all that stuff about Original Sin and 'my soul is impure with temptations and etc, etc'. But we must remember that there is a pleasure principle in masochism. A masochist hurts himself/herself but also enjoy the pain, either as catharsis or kinky turn on. This is why Jesus freaks have always freaked me out. They are always bashing themselves about sin but kinda enjoying the whole spectacle.
There is prolly some of this in Confucianism too, what with Chinese saying stuff like "my worthless house, my worthless wife, my worthless son, my worthless food"(in the movie GOOD EARTH), when in fact, they're getting their kicks by showing off how humble, modest, and fine-mannered they are.
Well, modern western man has less use of religion since he's secular. So, credo-masochism may have morphed into ethno-masochism. But again, there is the element of pleasure in this freakshow. White liberals really get a kick of showing how un-white or anti-white they are. If Christians feel their souls are tainted by sin, secular liberals believe their consciousness has been tainted by 'racism', and so they show off by publicly atoning for their historical sins and making a big spectacle out of it. When Tom Brokaw, on the day of Obama's victory, wept and said this nation came so far from the days when white guys like him were favored over others, oh boo hoo, you know he was getting his kicks as an atonement liberal.
And I heard so many stories from friends about German visitors in the US weeping and blabbering about how ashamed they are to be German, Nazi crime blah blah, Holocaust blah blah, etc, etc. that one might almost think these accounts are urban legends. But I remember back in highschool, a bunch of German exchange students stayed with us for two weeks, and they just had to present some slide show about some Holocaust memorial in their dinky little town. (It seems every town in Germany has one of those). Though the Germans seem to be debasing themselves, they are getting a kind of kick from the whole thing. By going boo-hoo, they are actually pleading for sympathy, showing off how conscientious and remorseful and moral they are, mugging for attention, and etc. I mean enough already.
"More likely, you're just brainwashed - mentally colonized. You take pride in believing that you're the only American who knows about the Japanese internment camps. I first learned about them in 1981 when I was ten. I heard about them in every history class since then, when they could fit them in between drawn-out, graphic descriptions of how people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We got to learn the timeline so every could be convinced that Truman just liked killing people. And yes, we heard about Perry."
What are you, a moron? I don't care about the internment camps(or about Hiroshima, etc). What's done is done, water under the bridge, and all that. MY POINT was victimhood is a SELECTIVE NARRATIVE that is constructed by careful choice of events that are strung together into a story. So, one could THEORETICALLY make the argument that Japanese have been victims of Americans, and indeed such people do exist in Japan--too many in fact. Many Japanese overlooked their bloody role in China and prefer to focus on their suffering in what they call the Pacific War.
Similarly, blacks are selective in their slave narrative. They leave out the fact that black Africans caught and sold blacks to whites. They leave out the fact that blacks have been practicing slavery for 100,000s of yrs. They forget that slavery still exists in Africa today.
Since all peoples have been victims and victors, all peoples can develop a victim narrative or victor narrative by picking and choosing only those events and memories they find useful.
So, I wasn't making a pro-Japan argument but merely arguing that victim narrative could be made in which Japanese are primarily victims of Americans or Americans are victims of Japanese. It's all in the telling.
Similarly, when we remmeber WWII, we focus on the great sacrifices of Americans in Normandy but overlook the much greater sacrifices by Russians in Stalingrand and Kursk. Victor narratives, like victim narratives, are selective constructions.
Steve missing the point again. There is nothing in it for the Jews to build up a White Racial identity. To the contrary, Jews would find themselves hurt a great deal if the white people in this country ever unified as a distinct race.
Thats why they always oppose it. Seeing Steve, and other white people, pander to Jews is just sad.
Maybe much of anti-white PC is more the reflection of white middle-class highschool neurosis than the agendas of blacks and Hispanics(and others).
After all, universities--the centers of ideas, ideologies, and political trends--are the bastions of middle class and upper-middle class whites and Jews than of blacks and Hispanics. Also, even black studies departments are influenced by ideas that spring from white intellectuals. Cornel West and Michael Dyson are well-versed in white leftist thought. And most Hispanic leftist academics are actually white! By and large, the main body of the academia in English, history, philosophy, classical studies, film studies, media studies, journalism, feminist studies, and etc is dominated by upper middle class whites.
Now, why would all these upper middle class whites take up the cause of blacks, browns, subalterns, third world, etc, much of which they know little about except as tourists, researchers(who always maintain a distance), statisticians, or cultural theorists? Of course, white leftist intellectuals will say it's out of their love of progress, justice, equality, and etc. But... really now? That's what they think and say, but is it how they really feel in their subconsious?
Ask yourself... what kind of people become intellectuals and academics? Jocks and popular kids in highschool? The cool kids and cheerleaders and prom queens? No, it's the geeks, the dorks, the fat-butted hags, pimpled faced wimps, the nerds, the gimps, etc. Psychologically, highschool yrs are the most important formative period for the rest of one's life. It's great for some but horrible for others. Some are bullied and others are ignored as if they don't even exist. It's a time when lots of kids feel envious, insecure, unsettled, and resentful for not getting the girl, not getting the guy, not making the sports team, not making the cheerleading team, not being asked to the prom, not being liked in class, etc.
Now, what happens after highschool? The smart kids--nerds, geeks, fat-butted hags--go to elite colleges, and they finally feel like they matter. They are among fellow geeks. They are kinda 'popular' in a world where all the brainless jocks and cool people have been filtered out. And they finally feel THE POWER. Since their image of the evil villain in highschool yrs was some popular white guy and girl(who had all the fun and glory), they seek revenge by identifying with the 'wretched of the earth'. Of course, they don't really wanna roll up their sleeves and live amongst the third worlders or blacks; instead, they wanna feel symbolically united with oppressed humanity--oppressed like they'd been in highschool by the glam-guys and glam-girls.
Now, one may ask, 'what about poor white kids who attended integrated schools and get bullied and shitfaced by blacks? Wouldn't they go to college and steer the academia toward a white power agenda?' Well maybe, that is if they did go to elite colleges. But in fact, most poor whites who attend integrated high schools are low-IQ and more likely to get a butt-tattoo or join the army than go to college after highschool.
Colleges, especially elite ones, are for upper-middle white/Jewish kids who felt belittled by jocks and babes in mostly white highschools. Since they felt left out of the fun and glamour in highschool, they compensate with power politics and intellectual/moral upmanship in college. They become like the girl in OLEANNA, except with brains. Also, their taking up of Third Worldism retroactively justifies their social failure in highschool. They can tell themselves that they CHOSE not to join in the fun cuz they had MORE IMPORTANT things on their mind, like 'social justice' and 'saving humanity', etc.
Of course, leftism has become cool and hip, and so even popular people now gravitate in that direction. Initially, radical feminists were fat-butted Jewish hags, but once it became a major movement, it began to attract good-looking women who came to edge out women like Andrea Dworkin. It's like interracism. When it was seen as lowly, generally ugly white women ignored by white men went with black men. But now that it's become the hot thing in mainstream society--what with Madonna sleeping with entire NBA--, good looking white women have edged out ugly white women as mates of black men.
So, much of PC liberalism is less about black power or brown power than the resentment of uppermiddle class white kids who didn't enjoy highschool and decided to get their revenge by identifying with the 'oppressed' around the world--oppressed by 'privileged powerful good looking popular white people, like those in highschool'. Since they remain in the Ivory Tower and don't have to deal with raw reality, they can choose to see/imagine the Third World according to their 'radical' theories. (It's like Karl Marx never stepped inside a factory, which is prolly why he romanticized the working class.) But the irony is the world is really owned and dominated by geeks like Bill Gates and George Soros than by kids who were popular in highschool.
I've met Jared Taylor. I met him at the AmRen conference in 2011 in Charlotte, North Carolina. I was sitting next to him at the restaurant he took us all to (there was only about twenty or so people there to listen to the speakers). I asked him where we should hold the next conference so that it wouldn't be sabotaged like this time and last year and he replied "Let's hold it in Haiti!" - he is a funny guy. I'm looking forward to buying his book.
...Indeed, this is an HBD blog. The most profound expression of HBD is the desire to marry ashkenazi.
A high IQ wasp like Taylor that marries a female wasp will on average have lower IQ sons than he would have if he married an ashkenazi.
Indeed, many prominent wasps choose Jewish spouses for this reason. Remember that president clinton's daughter chose to marry an ashkenazi
Don't criticize Jared Taylor. He is simply trying to have high IQ children ___
Wow, I have heard of propaganda but this takes the cake.
You can just as easily make the case that 'ashkenazis' marry, or desire to marry, Nordic Whites because they desire to appropriate the high intelligence and physical beauty genes that North West Europeans have in much higher averages than any other ethnic group.
In fact this is how they became White in the first place, by selectively interbreeding with the better of the Europeans for millenia -- so you really have to give credit to the European side of the ashkenazis ancestry for their mean IQ levels -- otherwise they would be little different from the sephardic, who are little different from Arabs and other Leventines and 'semites' in their cognitive levels.
Jodi wrote: ...all you have to do is actually study this group of 1960s born and raised academics to see how truly anti-white and anti-american they are. after 10 years, you can't come to any other conclusion than, they literally are the enemies of the historic united states and the euro-americans who created it.
This is because their brains have been pickled by Chomskism.
"I was unaware that "white" had become a pejorative, until my then-teenaged stepdaughter announced to her mom and me that she wasn't white, she was "Greek" (i.e. her bio-dad's ancestry)."
Yeah I have several friends that have Greek or Italian ancestry and claim they are not "really" white. It's pretty amusing. In fact, I used to do the same thing when I was younger- sortof. Like 99 percent of white southerners, my family claims to have a few dashes of Cherokee blood somewhere in there. So when I was 11 or 12 I went around claiming I was Native American....of course the fact that I had very dark hair despite mostly Northern European ancestry added to the temporary fantasy...
But hey: can you hardly blame some groups of white people for attempting to weasel out of being white, when whites are constantly portrayed as the bad guys in the media, public school curriculum, etc?
"One huge blind spot in Sailer's theory regarding the importance of Jews in determining American policy: The same policies are implemented across the entire Western World, even in countries where Jews are a tiny minority with negligible influence."
"The mounting "racial ratio" of nonwhite beneficiaries to white benefactors means the system will inevitably break down under the weight of numbers. At that point, white consciousness could be forced into existence."
I think the chances of the Liberal & Jewish elite going for white racial consciousness are rather low. It's perfectly possible the US could go the way of post-apartheid South Africa, which makes the Brazil option look attractive by comparison.
The only problem with turning into South Africa is that it would put an end to the American Global Empire, the USA would probably be too internally preoccupied, too poor, and too incompetent to engage in much force projection. At some point there would likely be an economic-military collapse similar to what occurred in the USSR.
"They are in that high IQ, cinematic masterpiece, named'idocracy' that you guys are always quoting."
Only way Judge could slip an anti-anti-intellectual message past American anti-intellectualism.
"But the irony is the world is really owned and dominated by geeks like Bill Gates and George Soros than by kids who were popular in highschool."
People seem to say this, but CEOs tend to be drawn from the ranks of former athletes as well. You're probably right that academics are getting back for their unpopularity in high school.
I am so sick of being treated with contempt by people who seem to need something from me despite their low regard for me and my ilk. No trust for you, Sailer, or Murray or Taylor or Brimelow or Buchanan!
Anonymous at 10:48 AM, you should have attached a name to your comment. It's one of the best I've read on iSteve. I understand Sailer's game and have no qualms with it: fostering a national sense of "White Identity" is good for his home state of California. I admire any man who is dedicated to a Lost Cause (and there's no bigger Lost Cause than the state of California). But Sailer should make better use of his talents and move back to Houston and become a champion of secession and white seperatism. Absolutley nothing scares the crap out of the American elite more than the thought of losing their stupid tool: the good American.
Maybe we should name the white race after some great figure in Western culture. After all, race is biologically about blood and culturally about spirit. Geographic naming of a race makes less sense today cuz of huge demographic shifts. White Americans are of European origin but permanently settled in the Americas and Australia, etc. As for using skin color, lots of Asian Indians are black, lots of blacks are lightskinned or brown, lots of East Asians are white, and lots of whites are brownish among the Latins and Greeks.
So, which white guy or gal--of myth, legend, or history--embodied the best of the Western spirit?
Take Odysseus. Smart resourceful guy. Far from perfect but heroic. Uses wit and strength to make it back home and win his wife and sonny back from the louts. In a way, this story is especially relevant to our time cuz the Western(especially American) Empire had been over-stretched and we lost focus. We need to come home both physically and psychologically and reclaim, defend, preserve, and build what is really OURS. Odysseus does just that. After joining in a ruinous war in Troy(which was really bad for both sides), he ventures homeward and faces all kinds of obstacles. But he overcomes them all, one by one. By wit, by muscle, by luck, by help of the gods. In the end, he loses all his men and almost his sanity but he hangs on and eventually wins. So, if the white race were to be called the Odyssean race(or Ulyssean race or maybe Ulyean race; or maybe Odyean), it'd be kinda nice.
Another candidate would be King Arthur, though I would go with 'Arthurean'(or maybe Arturean) than 'Arthurian' since the latter has been claimed already. Arthur was a great king, at least from what I saw in Boorman's movie. Unlike his father who was all passion and muscle, Arthur was muscle and brains. There is triumph and tragedy in the story--at least in the movie as I haven't read the book--,and it would surely be an honor to name the white race the Arthurean race.
Alexander the Great was a great historical figure but he was a reckless empire builder, the last thing we wanna be associated with today. So, he's out.
Of course, most white people are neither Greek nor Anglo, but all white people do share the same genes, similar cultural ideals and values. And there is a connection between Odysseus and Arthur cuz Greek culture influenced Roman culture and Romans ruled Britain for 4 centuries or something like that. So, spiritually, Odysseus and Arthur represent the spirit of all white folks. Also, the Greeks were the masters of Western civilization in the ancient world, and Anglos were the masters in the modern world.
PS. Maybe we can combine the two: Odyean-Arturean race, or Odyars or Odyart race,
"One huge blind spot in Sailer's theory regarding the importance of Jews in determining American policy: The same policies are implemented across the entire Western World, even in countries where Jews are a tiny minority with negligible influence."
In Canada, the current hate-speech regime is very largely the work of the Canadian Jewish Congress. In fact, I think the CJC would be happy to own that.
For example, the human-rights tribunals' jurisdiction over the internet derives from a CJC-led campaign in the late 1970s to stamp out "hate lines".
Apparently, some neo-Nazis had set up phone numbers you could call to hear pre-recorded anti-Jewish rants, and this urgently required government action. (When the interwebs thing came along, it seemed natural to apply the rules.)
>tribal identity is still strong among much of Asia -- so strong in fact that attempts to destroy Asian families via feminism and mass media haven't been nearly as successful as they were in the West. The deities of Confucianism are ancestral Chinese. Jewry and China will come to loggerheads<
Hate to break it to you, but Marxism had a certain effect on China last century. I believe Asian gentiles will fall for anything, just like white gentiles do.
Anecdotally, all Asian women of my acquaintance are outspoken about their ambition to marry Jewish men, basically, as they themselves say, on status/financial grounds.
Don't bet the farm on the Great Yellow Hope. It wouldn't surprise me to learn the elite is thoroughly interbred.
"Bill hits the important point, that a common identity is usually based on shared suffering or a shared struggle. Or at a bare minimum, some shared experience. White Americans don't have that, yet."
Not really true. A common idenitity can be constructed. For example, majority of whites in the US are not Anglo(but immigrants who arrived considerably later), but they share in the Founding Father myth.
White Hispanics were the oppressors of indigenous native peoples, but they constructed a narrative where they too are victims of white 'racism/imperialism'.
Recent African immigrants had ancestors who sold black slaves to whites, but they share in the same 'we poor blacks enslaved by whites' narrative.
And Hellenic culture and Christianaity didn't originated in Northern Europe, but N. Europeans came to powerfully identify with Ancient Greeks and Early Christians.
So, 'shared identity' can be constructed. It all depends on how mythically creative you are. Take 'people of color' which unites an Amazonian Indian with an Arab(though Arabs are culturally, racially, and historically close to whites). Maybe we need to call white folks the 'people of light' since they are light-skinned and did most to attain the light of liberty and truth.
Funny paradox about Jews is they are so 'liberal' because of their profound elephantine memory. We generaly associate historical memory with conservatism--remembrance and interest in one's past and heritage--and looking-ahead(into the future)with liberalism.
But, in American at least, the most amnesiac people tend to be conservative while the most memorisiac people tend to be liberal. If Jews weren't into books, history, ideas, archival research, etc, they would forget about past suffering and look at all the good stuff(or stuffering) they got in America. But Jews REMEMBER and their history was one of living/suffering under white Christian goyim. They cannot let this go.
Since so much of Jewish Identity has been formed as a kind of resistance against Pagan and Christian White community--Rome's sack of the Temple, Christian antisemitism, pogroms and exile, ghetto, dangers of conversion and assimiliation(even when goyim are nice), anti-Jewish laws, Holocaust, etc--, Jews may fear a loss of something uniquely Jewish if they really felt comfortable in the land of goyim. Jews don't want to be persecuted but the cult of persecution is key to Jewish pride, nobility, and identity. And they might fear losing it if they become just another member of the white club.
It's like a rebelious rocker punk loses something essential to his identity when he strikes it rich and famous and becomes just another member of the successful-folks-club. So, even with his fame an riches, he tries to maintain some kind of 'rebel' myth. This is true of the Left in general. They are now the Establishment but put on the 'adversarial underdog' act.
Most white kids are not political but wanna have fun, and it just so happens that they are less likely to alarm people if they remain within PC codes. Suppose you go to a dance club--with all sorts of races and peoples, etc--and say, 'I think everybody is cool and I love Obama and jazz'. You're cool, you're hip, you're anti-'racist'. But suppose you say, 'I think racial differences exist, I think Western Civ is in danger, and white people should develop their own identity'. It just aint cool.
So, the real power that the liberal elites has isn't over our minds but over our mindlessnesses. The elites wanna control what we FEEL--as a kind of vibe--than what we THINK about real issues cuz real thought undermines PC.
The issue of coolness was why Madonna-Paglia-ism won over radical feminism. Radical feminism in the late 60s and early 70s was kinda cool, but then the dour/sour lesbo sisterhood took over--the kind of women with overalls and no makeup. Girls got fed up with this, what with fat-butted hags telling them not to wear make-up and call everything 'rape'. This is where Paglia saw an opening and called for a new kind of ass-shake, partying, and cool feminism, which became the new thing. So, even feminists today try to be 'cool and hip and sexy'.
It could be Jews don't wanna really become part of White Identity since so much of their identity--morally, historically, culturally, spiritually, etc--has been defined in terms of suffering under white goyim, pagan(Roman)and Christian(medieval to modern Europe). Jewish Identity is more historical than Christian Identity which is more eternalist or timeless. Jews define themselves as much by what happened as what will happen. Christians are happy with what is or shall be.
Even as recently as 1940s, there was the Holocaust. And even as late as the early 70s, dimmer wasp law grads were favored over top Jewish law graduates by many prestigious law firms--if we believe Dershowitz in CHUTZPAH.
Even if there's no sign of antisemitism in today's America and Europe, Jews have defined their nobility, moral superiority, specialness, and etc in terms of suffering and victimization and injustice at the hands of white goyim. Even though Jews don't want to be persecuted or oppressed, they wanna maintain the cult of persecution and oppression. It is too much of a part of their identity, heritage, moral pride and self-aggrandizement. If they were to fully join the white club, they would lose that sense of specialness.
It's like when a rebel rocker punk strikes it rich-and-famous, he still wants to maintain that aura as an outsider/outcast/rebel since that was the essence of his identity and source of pride(and self-pity) in the wilderness.
Today, the Left has become the establishment but still maintains the cult of the avant-garde and pretend that they are sticking it to the Man when they are indeed the Man(and Woman and Gay).
Imagine this alternative scenario of the Resurrection of Jesus. Jesus returns back to Earth but Romans and Jews all apologize, hug Him, beg His forgiveness, and throw Him a big party. They even offer Him the key to the city and temple and offer Him the title of hononary Jew and Roman. Would Jesus have accepted? His whole identity of nobility and superiority was based on His suffering at the hands of man. If He accepts, He is no longer what He is. It's like in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST where Jesus realizes He must choose the fate on the cross to become the Messiah.
Also, keep in mind that it was not enough for early Christians to be accepted, tolerated, or embraced by Pagan Romans. They didn't want to be part of Pagan Rome but to change it. They felt morally superior. To join Pagan Rome would have been selling out to Satan.
Similary, Jews or the modern Jewsus, filled with moral pride and sanctimony, cannot be satisfied with being welcomed to the larger white goy community. It would be like selling their soul to the Devil who made them suffer through the ages. No, the ONLY peace with white goy community that Jews can accept is to convert them to the Jewish Ideology and Agenda, just like Early Christians could only be content with Pagan Rome becoming Christian.
"White racial consciousness was considerably stronger just a few decades ago. There was mass resistance to busing in the urban north just a few decades ago. Reagan used the Southern Strategy in his campaign. Even in the late 1980s, it was acceptable for Bush to bring up Willie Horton. In the mid 90s, Charles Murray was apart of the mainstream right."
Not really. The mainstream right never championed The Bell Curve and has been avoiding any direct talk on the scientific facts of race at least since Buckley purged "the extremists" from the conservative movement in the 1950s/60s. Since that time, pro-whites have existed in the margins and have had little influence.
The most the conservatives and the GOP have done is try to take advantage of "implicit whiteness" via things like the Southern Strategy and opposition to crime which was seen as code for black crime. But the right abandoned all attempts to either look objectively at race or to openly oppose cultural Marxism, and the result has been inevitable: they can't even defend implicit whiteness anymore, or even talk in code. They've swallowed the cultural Bolshevik kool-aid and now they simply can't do anything remotely pro-white, even things that would win them elections, like stopping illegal immigration or ending affirmative action.
"One huge blind spot in Sailer's theory regarding the importance of Jews in determining American policy: The same policies are implemented across the entire Western World, even in countries where Jews are a tiny minority with negligible influence."
You know that's a lie.
Wandrin,
Expanding on that: this person is falling for the fallacy that "Jews are a tiny minority, therefore they have negligible influence". This is obviously untrue, as anyone who has educated himself beyond a mere public school history education will be well aware: small minorities always have much greater influence then the majority. The democratic fallacy is that numbers count for everything in politics, but this doesn't even hold true in actual democracies: majorities may have more votes, but their opinions and views are shaped by the people who control the flow of information and the flow of money, and they have ALWAYS been a tiny minority. Jews are just the latest minority that happens to be in control.
The other fallacy this person is falling for, is the fallacy that the changes in policy (non-white immigration, cultural Marxist PC, etc) in Europe are unrelated to the changes in these same policies in the USA; so if Jews changed American immigration, for instance, and imposed cultural Marxism via the universities, someone else must have changed these things in Europe. This is false for two reasons: one, Jews are very well over-represented in power in many Western European countries (especially France and Britain), and, two, since WWII the USA has had immense influence (seen and unseen) over the internal politics of Western European countries. It doesn't matter if there are one or two or three or more layers of intermediaries between yourself and those who are ultimately in charge: the end result is the same.
The fact that the policy changes on, for instance, immigration in Europe followed the American example, shows you who is really following who here, and who is setting the agenda. Likewise I am old enough to remember when British conservatives in the 1980s/90s were laughing at PC as an "American fad" yet now it is rampant in Britain too. The same people are responsible in both cases and you have to be pretty simple minded to believe that Jews have neglible power in Europe, either directly as European Jews, or indirectly via their power within the USA/USG/US academia/US corporations/US NGOs and foundations/US financial systems/NATO, etc. Lots and lots of wire pullers; Europe has been a US colony since the end of WWII but there are powerful blinders on both sides of the Atlantic which enourage people to pretend otherwise.
"Sailer should make better use of his talents and move back to Houston and become a champion of secession and white seperatism."
LOL. The jokes on you. If you read Steve and actually think of what position he is for, he might be a plant by the NAACP. As a republican conservative (is he really conservative?), HBD can only be a tool for progressivism (or just a fun gimmick to make some coin). That's what Steve is - a progressive/conservative. Or maybe he's just a greedy, lazy absurdist WASP who's come to peace with American declinist corruption. But, I say again, you've all been had.
Maybe we should name the white race after some great figure in Western culture. After all, race is biologically about blood and culturally about spirit. Geographic naming of a race makes less sense today cuz of huge demographic shifts.[...]
Take Odysseus[...]
Another candidate would be King Arthur[...]
I like it. And Steve's suggestion for "Odyssean" for the whole and "Arthurian" for the subset. Romantic sap that I am.
A common idenitity can be constructed. For example, majority of whites in the US are not Anglo(but immigrants who arrived considerably later), but they share in the Founding Father myth.
Do you think that whites in America share a common identity? Or know much about the Founding Fathers?
"Do you think that whites in America share a common identity? Or know much about the Founding Fathers?"
That's why you gotta WORK ON IT. Even after the revolution, most Americans primarily defined themselves in terms of state origin: Virginian, Georgian, etc. They all became Americans because of the creation of a narrative of shared American destiny.
One of the reasons why Indians were so ineffective against the white man was because they were divided along tribal lines and couldn't form a shared/broad identity. Thus, it was easy for the white man to play divide-and-conquer with the red man.
Similarly, blacks in slave ships couldn't unite to fight white slavers cuz blacks came from various backgrounds and didn't speak the same language or eyed each other with hostility/suspicion. But over time, there did develop a shared black identity and a broad American Indian identity.
Identity if half-organic, half-mythic. It's organic in the sense that some identities are more natural--same race, language, nationality, etc. Prussia-dominated Germany was more organic than the Austro-Hungarian Empire made up of various ethnic groups. But, all communities are partly imagined, mythic, created. It depends on how the organic elements of a people are united and characterized as a larger entity. And this requires creativity, will, leadership, vision.
Anglos did a better job of it in the North Americas than Latins in South America. But then, Anglos, other than being politically more creative and energetic, had a more viably organic community to work with as North America was majority white. Latins in South America were a minority surrounded by indigenous folks. So, they were more ambivalent about nationalism since masses of non-white indigenes might use nationalism to overthrow white minority elite power.
In fact, I'm surprised that the small white elites ruled as long as they did in so many Latin American nations,. Maybe South American indigenes are by nature a more submissive people. Maybe mestizo-ization and mulatto-ization undermined the possibility of a strong united adversial movement against the alien elite--white conquerors. Well, it may explain why Jews want to mix the races as much as possible in the US.
Jews as the great stumbling-block of white unity does not pass the smell test. Regardless of what Jews did in the past to establish modern political ideologies, now there cannot be unity between white gentiles because you cannot unite the Conservatives and the devotees of the environmentally sustainable nanny state. Get rid of Jewish leaders in both movements, and they will carry on as usual. Maybe the nanny-staters will get even dumber in their rhetoric and maybe Conservatives will care about Israel less. But you are not going to get a yota more of unity.
So if you want unity, unite those people whose worldview is at least borderline similar to your own and forget about the other hundred million white people. What Jews will, or will be allowed, to join which camp will not make much of a difference.
Man, Taylor may write a good book, but his website sucks. He should just disable comments. That place is turgid. They should rename it to "American Retirees" or something.
You're too old and too dark for my mom.
Very funny. Is this where I go back to the tragic mulatto thing?
Now I'm trying to remember the fart jokes from Idiocracy. I can't remember any, but I bet they were "meta" or "ironic" or whatever you call it, putting it in the running for "worst example ever," right up there with Tropic Thunder.
White racial consciousness was considerably stronger just a few decades ago. There was mass resistance to busing in the urban north just a few decades ago. Reagan used the Southern Strategy in his campaign. Even in the late 1980s, it was acceptable for Bush to bring up Willie Horton. In the mid 90s, Charles Murray was apart of the mainstream right.
ReplyDeleteReally, it seems like liberals have pushed the race debate way to the left over the last fifteen years. The reelection of Clinton in 1996, the ascendance of the neoconservatives, the Bush takeover of the right, and now Obama have done a lot to take America in that direction. Now even a completely non-racial movement like the Tea Party is branded racist.
Even now, it seems like things continue to shift even further left. I don't know what it'll take to win, but race realists are currently getting hammered harder now than ever before.
"… Japan is homogeneous. This means Japanese never even think about a host of problems that torment Americans. Since Japan has only one race, no one worries about racism. … When a company needs to hire someone, it doesn’t give a thought to ‘ethnic balance,’ it just hires the best person."
ReplyDelete--------------------
My impression of Japan is that it doesn't worry about racism but is a racist society.
It just isn't ashamed about it. Maybe it should be.
So, in hiring, the Japanese do practice "Affirmative Action" .... for the benefit of the Japanese and against ethnic minorities.
Is that a good thing?
The problem of white identity is it's associated with supremacism while non-white identity is associated with victimism.
ReplyDeleteBlack Identity has moral legitimacy in America because it's been defined by the victim narrative. This is why the King narrative is more powerful than the Nation of Islam narrative. Nation of Islam is black supremacist; though tolerated more than white supremacism, it is neither liked nor respected by white liberals and Jews. If most of black identity was about Nation of Islam and New Black Panthers, it would come under scrutiny and pressure. Indeed, one of the reasons why white liberals are so eager to embrace black victim-identity is to suppress the rise of black supremacist identity.
Racial identity functions within certain contexts. For example, when China was mostly poor, many Americans associated China with poverty and backwardness and felt a degree of compassion. When Chiang asked the US for help during WWII against the Japanese or when Mao said, 'Chinese people have stood up', many American progressives sympathized because they regarded Chinese as a proud but fallen nation in need for help to survive and rise. Chinese nationalism back then was a good thing. But with the rapid rise of China, Chinese nationalism worries us than inspires our sympathy.
In the 80s, when the Mujahadeen were fighting the Soviet occupation, we sympathized with Afghan nationalism and Islamic Identity politics. Today, we are fighting those forces, and so we vilify Muslim Identity politics and try to persuade to become good democratic liberals.
For Jews, Russian nationalism that defeated the Nazis was grand. But post-war Russian nationalism that targeted Jews was bad and scary.
Many Europeans came to accept the need for Jewish Identity politics after WWII and Holocaust, but then many turned against the state of Israel cuz they came to see Jewish nationalism as the new imperialist-supremacism in the Third World.
Through European history, Russians felt no shame white Russian 'nationalism' against the Mongols since they were victims of the vile yellow horde. And Spanish Christians felt no shame about anti-Moorish and anti-Jewish passions(since Jews collaborated with Moors, like the far-right French collaborated with Nazis during WWII). It's good to be a victim. Victimization gives one the moral upperhand.
America too was founded on the narrative of victimization(under King George III and Redcoats)and righteous violence. People bitch about the politics of hatred, but the Founding Fathers were master propagandists in the art of political hatred against 'tyranny'.
"Citizenism" is the best shot? Well, whatever. Citizenism is just an extreme version of modern democracy, even more extreme than Rousseau: exalt the General Will, except that for Rousseau at least it was the will of a nation, not just an aggregate of citizens. Nothing there about a nation's existence through time, nothing about stewardship, about preserving the past for future generations (whose?). Just the will of the citizenry, envisioned as the stockholders in a for-profit corporation.
ReplyDeleteIf "citizenism" is just a stalking horse for white identity, then OK, I guess I can't complain about it. You do what you have to. I just hope that the citizenists (is it justified to use the plural?) don't believe their own PR.
"… Japan is homogeneous. This means Japanese never even think about a host of problems that torment Americans. Since Japan has only one race, no one worries about racism. … When a company needs to hire someone, it doesn’t give a thought to ‘ethnic balance,’ it just hires the best person."
ReplyDeleteI took a class on Modern Japan in college in the early 90s and know this isn't really true. Our professor mentioned a case where some thoroughly Japanized worker of Korean ancestry was ferreted out and fired. (I think the company was Mitsubishi). Also, the reason why so many Korean-Japanese are in the Pachinko and small retail business is because they are discriminated in major firms(even if they took on Japanese names and speak only Japanese). But then, I heard all Asian nations have similar policies, so Japanese aren't any worse than the rest; if anything, Japanese might still be more enlightened than the others; Chinese treat Tibetans far worse, Vietnamese and Koreans kicked out ethnic Chinese communities in the 70s.
Also, Japanese may hire the 'best' but they don't necessarily promote the best. Too much rests on seniority than individual merit. In the more meritocratic America--at least in certain sectors--, the best can rise very fast and bring about innovation. Feisty Jews especially have chutzpah in this regard. Even if Japan had brains like Sergei Brin or Mark Zuckerberg, they'd be too busy bowing and looking for positions in big firms than striking on their own and rising fast and hiring the and promoting the best and creating whole new industries.
"Perhaps Taylor can persuade enough Jews to get onboard to make white identity respectable in the MSM and thus with the media’s consumers, the public."
ReplyDeleteCan you point out at least one historical instance where gentiles were able to form a long lasting coalition with Jews, where it didn't lead to physical struggle in the end?
[Ref: Kevin MacDonald (Author) -> A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples]
"Recall that neoconservatism emerged in the late 1960s, largely due to Jewish shopkeepers’ fear of black crime and Jewish civil servants’ fear of being fired by black politicians. Brilliant Jewish intellectuals like Nathan Glazer and Norman Podhoretz took their relatives’ complaints seriousl"
This is false. Neo-conservatism was grown out of the concern for the security of Israel. Strongly identifying Jews like Podhoretz felt that Left's pacifism was detrimental to America's ability to respond to Israel in time of need. Neo-conservatism's growth had very little to do with domestic issues such racism. As matter a fact, most Neocons are very liberal on social issues.
[Ref: Jacob Heilbrunn (Author) -> They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons]
Believing the PC line:
ReplyDeleteBefore 1992, I had assumed ... that nobody consciously believed it—that they were just being hypocritical. But, after discovering Internet discussion groups way back in 1992, I can attest to the remarkable number of people who believe these talking points strongly enough to type them into a computer … anonymously.
This is true and it is dumbfounding. I daresay a majority of Whites actually believe the reigning orthodoxy.
The problem of white identity is it's associated with supremacism while non-white identity is associated with victimism.
ReplyDeleteWell, there's an element of truth in this, but it's really just the result rather than the cause. It's certainly true that "the narrative" dominates the society, but it's the media which constructs the narrative for almost everyone, and tells people whether 2+2=4 or whether 2+2 should instead be 17. To anyone with half a brain who has lived through the astonishing events of the last decade, this should be blindingly obvious.
The media completely controls the society. And without certain technological changes---such as the rise of the Internet---a vanishingly small percentage of people would even have any suspicions about this.
Step back in time fifteen or twenty years, and assume that almost all you knew about the ongoing sweep of world events (aside from the evidence of your own direct senses) came from a couple of magazines, a daily newspaper or two, and the television and radio news. How would you even knew to ask the questions that would raise doubts? Control over just a handful of choke-points can completely create the reality of the world around you, without your ever being the wiser.
I sometimes wonder whether some of the famous science fiction writers of the past were actually trying to tell us some of this, but in a subtle, rather allegorical manner...
Oh please Steve. Jews don't exhibit much control or power over cultural life in America. Heck half of the "Jews" are not even Jews. George Soros, born a Jew, is proud of helping Nazis in Hungary hunt down Jews, and sell off their property. He hates Israel and wants it destroyed. Is he a Jew?
ReplyDeleteJews are too few in number, too prone to intermarriage and acculturation, and too divided (pro- and anti-Israel, identity, etc.) to shape American discourse. Most of the Jewish contribution to American cultural/political environment was done in the 1930's-40's, in Hollywood movies and comic books, and was pro-Patriotic/American.
Jews, I hate to break this to you Steve, are White.
ReplyDeleteHow can you tell? Easy. If a Black guy angry at White guys wants to hurt you (or a group of Mexicans) and decides to target you, guess what, you're White. Simple as that.
You're looking for a scapegoat. Figuring what, 2-3% of American somehow have mind-rays controlling the other 98-97%? Come on, that does not pass the laugh test.
What you're failing to miss is WOMEN. Specifically College Educated White women. They love Obama, Oprah, Eat Pray Love, all that PC stuff. White Women are the source of PC. They are the main employed in PC factories of government, education, and media/infotainment. White College Educated Women DEPEND on anti-White sentiment. And benefit from it, not just employment, but sexually?
Who the hell was it that noted, men like Fair Maidens and women like Tall, Dark, and Handsome? Why ... Steve Sailer. And who else was it that noted that in a sexual marketplace, some men and women of different races will have different average attractiveness? Why Steve Sailer! White and Asian women the most feminine, Black men the most masculine, Black women the ... most masculine.
ReplyDeleteWhite Women on average certainly find Black men, much more testosterone, darkness, height, physique, on average compared to White men, more attractive. Of course, kids are 50/50 prospect for boys and girls, and a look at Bruce Willis's daughters tells you what masculine genes do to the feminine form.
PC and anti-White stuff continues because White women find non-White guys (some of them anyway) far more sexy, and conversely beta Male White guys "exposed" as lacking in the sexy compared to "hard" Black guys and even tall Hispanic guys.
Who do you think eats up the Magical Black person of wisdom anyway? Hint: it's not Joe Sixpack Sports-Fan.
"Columnist Maggie Gallagher has written that she thinks of herself as an American, a Catholic, and sometimes an Irish-American but adds:
ReplyDelete‘I hate the idea of being white. . . . I never think of myself as belonging to the 'white race.' … I can think of few things more degrading than being proud to be white.’"
----------
Maggie Gallagher married out. She has a mixed race child. I would say this is the reason why she doesn't like to identify as white.
Let's break apart, "What's good for the Jews."
ReplyDeleteIs Sarah Michelle Gellar Jewish? What about her kid with Freddie Prinze Jr? What about say, Laura Prepon, or Amanda Bynes?
Jews generally are concentrated in Upper Class professions, where ... intermarriage is so prevalent, and cultural dissolution so rapid, that there are not many Jews left.
You're getting to the point where you're defining John Kerry as a Jew, to make any plausible case for "the Jews prevent Whites from self-identity." It does not fit.
I think White Identity is coming. It won't be KKK/Neo-Nazi types, but assertive NAACP type interest lobbying. The naked spoils battles, declining income, and troubled times guarantee it. Look at the Harry Potter books -- even a White PC woman longs for pre-Immigration UK.
Well, the Chinese for example weren't all that ethnically conscious in practice over the years. It was only after disasters such as the Yuan dynasty (first documented application of state-sponsored affirmative action, against Chinese of course) had been in force that some nationalist sentiment returned with the Ming.
ReplyDeleteAnd then that was forgotten quickly enough, and only came back to the fore after the British humiliated China in the 19th century.
Chinese sold each other out left and right for any and every reason. Americans are simply doing the same.
Jews have the Holocaust to bond them. Blacks Jim Crow and slavery. The Irish initially had Cromwell and the famine. The Armenians had their trouble with the Turks.
See what's been missing for American whites? It's pretty simple. We just haven't had our butts kicked for a long, long time. In fact, the only group of American whites with any consciousness at all are southerners -- because they were on the wrong end of a beatdown not too long ago.
It's just human nature to grow complacent with success. Sometimes I wonder whether the "Romans" no longer exist because they didn't lose for such a long time that they ceased to matter as an ethnicity.
You're looking for a scapegoat. Figuring what, 2-3% of American somehow have mind-rays controlling the other 98-97%? Come on, that does not pass the laugh test.
ReplyDeleteMind and behavior manipulation is quite common throughout nature.
For example, here's a fungus that has learned how to control ants and turn them into zombies that work for them:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fungus-makes-zombie-ants
Whiskey said: "Jews, I hate to break this to you Steve, are White."
ReplyDeleteAshkenazi Jews are part White, i.e. part European genetically.
i remember going to the 2002 amren conference in virginia, when i had only been aware of this stuff for a few years, and was looking to see what other people were thinking about it, and what kind of future the movement might reasonably have. back in 2002 it looked like maybe there would be some slow and steady progress in favor of simply making the US less preposterously biased in favor of all other groups over europeans. this is all i personally was interested in. making things more fair, achieving an america that was as neutral as possible. equal opportunity, but not equal outcome.
ReplyDeletefast forward to 2011 and jared can't even have the conference anymore. the most aggressive and hostile identity politics possible are not only accepted but encouraged for all other groups. yet taking a completely reasonable, self-defense position is not even allowed for europeans. mainstream thought and discussion on the topic does not even allow for europeans to have an identity.
i'm about ready to give up on this stuff. i'm totally demoralized watching who i consider to be my literal ethnic enemies win battle after battle on this topic. such a statement probably sounds ridiculous to a normal, intelligent, middle of the road person. talking about the political leaders of the united states as anybody's "enemy"?
but all you have to do is actually study this group of 1960s born and raised academics to see how truly anti-white and anti-american they are. after 10 years, you can't come to any other conclusion than, they literally are the enemies of the historic united states and the euro-americans who created it.
By the way, the tendency of Tea Partiers using Randian arguments that are devoid of ethnic concerns has an interesting twist: while Rand was not a fan of the crude collectivist form of racism for sure, she wasn't blind either, if you read between the lines.
ReplyDeleteShe once referred to early Native Americans as "naked savages" on the Tom Snyder show. Not a very PC thing to say. Tom rushed passed it.
"Before 1992, I had assumed ... that nobody consciously believed it—that they were just being hypocritical. But, after discovering Internet discussion groups way back in 1992, I can attest to the remarkable number of people who believe these talking points strongly enough to type them into a computer … anonymously."
ReplyDelete"This is true and it is dumbfounding. I daresay a majority of Whites actually believe the reigning orthodoxy."
'Diversity' and 'Tolerance' work in strange ways. They can serve as morally charged justifications for intellectual intolerance and homogeneity, as we find in so many media and academic outlets. But this is nothing new. Christians used 'Love' and 'Peace' to wage hateful wars and spill oceans of blood. And commies used 'justice' and 'liberation' to commit massive crimes and oppress millions. And Nazis used 'civilization' to act utterly uncivlized.
But we need to take two things into account. As journalism became more of a fancy elite profession, it turned more politically correct and status conscious. Many journalists of the past didn't learn their trade in top schools but worked themselves up from the ground floor, not least because far fewer people attended colleges before WWII. They wrestled their way to the top. Think of guys like Jimmy Breslin or Mike Royko. As such, they were harder, tougher, saw much more of real life, and had been less coddled and controlled as students and novices. And before Jews began to go to top schools, many went to city colleges. Many worked in small businesses owned by parents and saw more reality. Before whites moved to the suburbs, they lived in cities and experienced reality. They had fewer illusions about life.
But journalism, especially after Watergate, became a superstar profession, and most top journalist were created by elite colleges. And most kids came from privileged coddled backgrounds. AS such, they could afford to be compassionate and 'sensitive' and idealistic(and naive, since they knew about blacks from Cosby Show and PBS and MTV than from reality). And they were also more status conscious. They were afraid to say the wrong thing since they wanted to be 'popular', 'respectable', and 'liked'. 'Radical chic', after all, is really a form of respectability for bobos than true revolutionism. Just like 'popular' kids in highschools have their do's and don'ts, journalism became the same way. People like Reese Witherspoon in ELECTION began to become journalists.
Same is true of filmmaking. The old guys didn't go to film school---for one thing, there weren't any in their day. They worked their way up through the system. They were tough guys and gals. But with most filmmakers churned out by film school, cinema has become more correct and dorky. Early film school in the 60s and 70s had real energy, but it became more 'correct' and dogmatic by the 80s. Just like religion loses its freedom and fervor when it becomes organized, same happened with journalism and filmmaking. In some ways, one can say it got more 'professional', but it lost vitality and virility. Older generation columnists like Breslin, Hentoff, Royko, and Sydney J. Harris had more balls. And there hasn't been a filmmaker like Peckinpah or Aldrich in a long time. We now have kids making movies--kids even when they're full-grown. Just look at that dork Mark Romanek.
Another thing.. huge changes took place from late 80s to early 90s. When I started in college in the mid 80s, most kids were utterly apolotical. Indeed, one of the appeal of New Conservatism was the soothing amnesia, as if 60s and 70s, with their wars, riots, recessions, and scandals hadn't happened.
The cultural mood among youths was like RISKY BUSINESS. It was all about money and pulp patriotism(ala Rambo II). But things began to change rapidly in the late 80s, with boomer professors taking over campuses and teaching in a brash radical style. Most of my history professors in imd 80s were old liberals--gentlemanly, politically incorrect, open to all views. Some were eccentric but didn't push an agenda. But by early 90s, a new generation pretty much took over: shouting like Lenin, seething and hissing, pushing theiir agenda, insulting, shoving totally politicized lop-sided reading materials, etc., i.e. rhetoric class assigning readings only about blacks, gays, feminists, etc. During the Gulf War, a film professor told us to write a neo-realist scenario where Iraqis are being bombed by Americans! She also told us our grades would not be penalized if we skipped class to join the anti-war protest. Assignments and grades thus got linked to politcs.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, much of cultural life was not politicized. There was culture over here and politics over there. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts were about camping. Boys Club was where boys and girls hung out to play air hockey, swim, or shoot pool. And most children's books and school yearbooks were just for fun. But by the 80s, the boomer radical influence infiltrated into everything. Every tv show, school yearbook, kids organization, kids books--Heather Has Two Mommies or a children's book on the LA Riots making the rioters out to be righteous victims, etc, etc, all came under the influence of ideology.
I don't recall anything about feminist stuff when I was a girl scout. It was about camping, marshmellows, sleeping bags,and scary tales. But today, PC stuff is shoved down the throat of every kid. There was no gay agenda in schools back in the 70s and 80s. Also, even 60s conterculture had plenty that was individulaistic, libertarian, anti-establishment, and rebellious.
But by the time the likes of Bill Ayers took over colleges, their agenda has been to create pod people of every kid since cradle.
I recall MTV in the mid 80s was just about fun. By the late 80s and early 90s, it was pushing an agenda. So, the kids who grew up in the late 80s and 90s--those most likely to use the internet--were more PC than previous generations. Can things change so fast? Yes. German kids who grew up under Nazi education/culture were very different than older Germans. Chinese kids in the 60s only knew Mao, Mao, and Mao, leading to the Cultural Revolution. The people of the internet age in the early 90s were those more affected by PC-ization of society than older people, even if older by only few yrs. (Similarly, a black guy who graduated college in 1967 was bound to be very different than one who graduated five yrs earlier in 1962 before all hell broke loose.) And since then, things have gotten even worse.
If a kid was born in 1990, he or she grew up thoroughly under PC influence in EVERYTHING, from college classrooms to Archie comics with gay message. Why didn't my generation resist these changes? We grew up so apolitical that most of us didn't have the ideological weapon to do battle. Most conservatives of my generation were into Reagan and Rambo, or empty feel-good stuff. It was crass and materialistic philosophy of RISKY BUSINESS and FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF. Not the sort of stuff that creates warriors. But then, I was pretty far left in the mid 80s, so I guess I'm always in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou make it sound like Jews are little kids, and that all you have to do is give them some candy and they'll come to your side and sit down and be quiet. Your tone is condescending.
Also, how do you expect to reach to the Jewish community when you quote Kevin Macdonald, who is an anti-Semite?
Reaching out to the Jewish community must come from the heart, not based some self serving calculation, otherwise it won't work.
For example, how many White Americans can name at least 3 Jewish holidays? Probably very few. To build a new community, we must start by educating everyone. How can two communities join forces, when one knows very little about the other? The short answer is that it's not possible.
This quote from the article by Steve is also important too about White Identity movement:
ReplyDeleteIt’s not so much that blacks, Asians, and Hispanics don’t want this to happen. None of these groups are really all that powerful. Blacks tend to be colorful but not too competent; East Asians competent but colorless; Latinos culturally lethargic and unenterprising.
No, the much more serious roadblock to the emergence of white identity politics: more Jews don’t want it to happen than do want it to happen.
Many Jews have strong reasons for their aversion to white identity politics, either irrational (the Cossacks are coming!) or rational (what’s in it for me?).
This, sadly, is the key problem. We have to figure out a way to neutralize as much Jewish resistance to White identity as possible. But I have no clue how to do this. Many Jews truly have an irrational fear of White Christians, despite American Whites being so good to them overall.
Does anyone know if the Orthodox Jewish community is more (or less) hostile to Whites in general? They seem generally more conservative and less concerned with PC stuff. And their numbers seem to be growing while secular Jews are shrinking.
Anonymous says:
ReplyDeleteReaching out to the Jewish community must come from the heart, not based some self serving calculation, otherwise it won't work.
For example, how many White Americans can name at least 3 Jewish holidays?
How many Jews can name 3 Jewish holidays? Most of the secular ones I know don't seem too up on it either. Do Jews really care if we understand their religion? I'm not saying they don't, I just have no idea. It sure seems like White Christians have already gone way, way out of their way to make Jews feel included (Hanakuh wrapping paper!) and to honor their history. Could we study the Holocaust anymore thoroughly?
Jews down South seem more friendly to Whites (with exceptions). But Jews in NYC seem to have an almost visceral hatred for White Christians. Do you really think even more groveling would help?
ReplyDeleteFor example, how many White Americans can name at least 3 Jewish holidays?
Um, a huge chunk of them? Pesach. Purim. Yom Kippur. Rosh Hashanah. There you go.
Do you really think that non-Jews have no exposure to Jewish culture?
Whiskey/T99/EvilNeocon has discovered something unknown to mankind, namely that stupid, lazy and selfish housewives invented Political Correctness while sitting on the couch at home. Previously, serious people had thought that PC was an outgrowth of Marxist thought, both “orthodox” Marxism and “Cultural Marxism.” But now we know that Suzy homemaker invented it and was not just a soft underbelly target of opportunity for the PC master class. Who knew? Other than Whiskey I mean.
ReplyDeleteIrving Kristol’s Ghost
"See what's been missing for American whites? It's pretty simple. We just haven't had our butts kicked for a long, long time."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's about WHO controls the grand narrative. Christians had been kicking pagan butt for many centuries but still peddled the Christian-as-victims-of-pagan narrative(being fed to the lions by Romans and that stuff).
You don't have to get your butt kicked to promote a sore-butt narrative. Consider US-Japan relations since the 19th century. US(and UK) first used threat of force(and then did use some force) to pry Japan open. And US and other Western nations pushed Japan around, which is why Japanese got so spitting mad(cuz it wasn't treated as an equal). Japan did attack and kill 3000 Americans at Pearl Harbor, but Americans killed many more(and committed some horrendous war crimes to defeat Japan in WWII). But when we think of US-Japan narrative, our main focus isn't Hiroshima, Nagasaki, fire-bombing of Tokyo, Perry's black ships that threatened to blow up Japan's harbors in the 19th century. Nor Japnese-Americans interned in camps. It's PEARL HARBOR and how WE were victimized by forces of evil. So, you see, victimization is really about what and how we choose remember the past(or characterize the present). Was Omar Thorton a murderous villain or poor victim driven to desperation? It all depends on the narrative spin and who has the power to do the spinning.
And how come there is no American consciousness about the victimization of Philippines? American occupation led to deaths of at least 200,000, though estimates go as high as a million. Because it's one of those forgotten things by both sides. Filipinos are more into soap opera and US aid than history or facts, and Americans just don't find lessons about Filipino history compelling or useful.
Also, victim narrative is a turn-on/turn-off thing. Right after WWII, Germans were not into the guilt thing. They were too busy surviving, and US were eager to rebuild New Germany as a bulwark against the Soviet Union(same with Japan). So, Germans didn't dwell on victimhood until they chose to later. And it wasn't until the 60s that Jews really began to turn Holocaust into a religion of sorts.
And under Mao, the Rape of Nanking wasn't such a big deal, especially since it had been the city ruled by KMT during the Japanese invasion. But after Mao, with the rise of New China, the government has sacralized Nanking like Jews did with the Holocaust. Chinese under Mao barely knew or cared anything about the rape of nanking, but new generations of Chinese have been made to strongly 'identify' with it historically and morally. But Chinese don't much care about the victimization of Tibetans under Chinese rule. They spin that as yellow man's burden to help the lesser civilized folks, and most Chinese are led to believe that Tibetans are by and large happy and thankful for Chinese presence in Tibet.
Though Jews make a big deal of the Holocaust--as they have a right to--, they warn Ukrainians not to to do the same with 'Holodomor'. Abe Foxman met with Ukrainian leaders to more or less convey a veiled threat that Jewish-controlled USA won't do business with Ukraine if it sacralized 'Holodomor'.
And though Jewish media made a big deal of Afrikaner oppression of blacks and idealized the ANC as champions of black victims, the opposite was the case with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, where Arafat and PLO were made out to be terrorist 'antisemites'.
Jews have been kicking butt since WWII, but they promote the narrative where only they got their butts kicked by evil goyim and the narrative their own butt-kicking of others is utterly morally justified. So, if Gazans kill a handful of Jews and if Jews retalitate by killing 2000 Gazan women and children, Jews are the 'poor victims' and 'righteous victors' while Palestinians are totally bad, something most white conservatives stupidly agree with.
I said: "I'd say Caucasian fits the bill for other populations who are White-ish, like Armenians."
ReplyDeleteI should've also said that Whites are a sub-group of Caucasian, of course. Clearly Europeans are more related to other Caucasians than to other populations, like South Asians or Arabs, etc.
Every possible reason already exits for Jews to stop the white gentile bashing, but there is absolutely no sign that there is any change on that front coming. Self interest alone would dictate that Jews would have let up on the anti-white gentile program, but this goes beyond rational calculation.
ReplyDeleteLook at the overwhelming support by ultra Zionist Diaspora Jews for the “Arab Spring”, the entire Neocon cabal, the entire Neoliberal cabal, the entire Left wing cabal, all of them have been crazy for the Arab street rising up at long last. Now it looks like the Arab street is going to take it right straight at Israel itself and that is very bad news for Israel. You won’t hear about it in the States (USA) but everywhere else you will hear news of unarmed protestors getting shot on Israel’s border. But Bill Kristol, Elliot Abrams, Podhoretz, Commentary, New Republic, Weekly Standard will all stand by the same bad policy that will harm the West and Israel.
Hard not to conclude that they hate the rest of us more than they love themselves.
Irving Kristol’s Ghost
Clearly Europeans are more related to other Caucasians than to other populations, like South Asians or Arabs, etc.
ReplyDeleteArabs are Caucasian.
Anonymous said: "Arabs are Caucasian."
ReplyDeleteSo you're right. Scratch Arabs. And South Asians, for that matter!
Let's make it East Asians and sub-Saharan Africans.
Jews are currently at the top of the ethnic pecking order in the United States. The only real threat to their power would be some sort of anti-Semitic movement among the White population. Therefore it is obviously it is in the Jews' best interest for Whites to not have a sense of ethnic identity and for non-White immigration to continue, making Whites a politically powerless minority incapable of opposing Jewish authority. That all seems pretty clear. Why would so many here advocate something that is so clearly not in the best interests of Jews? Are you anti-Semitic?
ReplyDeleteWhite gentiles present no threat to Jews currently or in the foreseeable future. That can’t be said for Muslims, Hindus, Chinese and even Mexican and Central American natives. Jewish narratives have the power to move and intimidate white gentiles, but are totally ineffective against all the other groups one could name. Northern European whites are so individualistic that they present little risk of “group action” unlike nepotistic Asians.
ReplyDeleteSo why do Jews support policies that will further displace the group they have the advantage over, white gentiles, with groups they don’t have an advantage over. It is a disastrous strategy for Jews and certainly isn’t doing white gentiles any favor either.
The only explanation is an irrational hatred that blinds one to the reality of what a legitimate course of self-interest would look like.
Irving Kristol’s Ghost
"Really, it seems like liberals have pushed the race debate way to the left over the last fifteen years"
ReplyDeleteBecause white people scare the bejeesus out of all people, ncluding themselves.
Not to mention all other species of planetary life.
***Control over just a handful of choke-points can completely create the reality of the world around you, without your ever being the wiser.***
ReplyDeleteGodless capitalist has a great post about this and was linked by Roissy
here.
"And like a man with a damaged nervous system, the West’s internal perceptions are out of sync with the external reality. Consider a hand on a hot stove. It does not matter if the lowly epithelial cells are burned by the million if the nerve cells refuse to communicate this truth to the seat of conscious action.
Similarly, the media is the nervous system of a civilization. The signals it chooses to amplify, dampen, or interpret control the response of the body. If paralyzed, it matters not if the body is hale and hearty and theoretically capable of action. A malfunctioning nervous system will leave an otherwise healthy body jerking around in response to phantasms of racism — or directing its efforts against its own cells."
"If a Black guy angry at White guys wants to hurt you (or a group of Mexicans) and decides to target you, guess what, you're White. Simple as that. "
ReplyDeleteThe mythical beast- the angry black man. So angry that he will kill any white. You slander black people.
Jews are currently at the top of the ethnic pecking order in the United States. The only real threat to their power would be some sort of anti-Semitic movement among the White population.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid this is true. How does White identity help Jews? The only think I can even think of is if they begin to feel threatened by China. Could they realize their power is under threat if the Chinese and other Asians gain worldwide power? Would that make them think twice about destroying the US and Europe through mass immigration?
I doubt it.
Whisky, please read Kevin Macdonald on the Jewish establishment's role in immigration policy. But I suspect you have already and your remarks are just propaganda.
ReplyDeleteRobert Hume
America was great up to 1960 when Kennedy ruined it.
ReplyDeleteSadly all the travails and future disaters we have now are traceable to the disasterous Democrat administrations of 1960-8.
That said, I increasingly incline to the view that either two things will happen:
1/. A general descent into Brazil Del Norte together with appalling levels of inequality, thievery, violence, danger and selfishness (the Armenians and Jews being clannish would thrive in such an ant-hill).
2/. The USA to split into 'ethnostates'.Such a split would require a leader and movement of real charisma as well as a viable support base, so is highly unlikely.Besides the establishment would infiltrate it and kill at birth with every means possible.
The problem with general 'white' America, of course, has been the lack of commonality and feeling amongst whites of differing ethnic stocks.Here, post 1960 was a real disaster.At that time it was 'WASP' country and the WASPs provided the paternalistic ideal to which the 'ethnics' would in time take their cue from and assimilate to.Apart from the Irish, with their hatred of England, most Europeans would have, in time, assimilated and dissolved.
But since then we have seen a loss of WASP confidence and control, usurpation of power positions by Jews (who have largely taken over from the WASPs and don't have any paternalistic and assimilationist ideal), and the destruction of the whole racial dynamic and identity of 'American' (basically WASP and wannabe WASP),by massive uncontrolled third world immigration by people, in all frankness, just simply do not look like what an American was supposed to look like. Instead of a nation based on commonality of origin we have the human zoo.
even for people who keep up on 'this stuff' Taylor's book is pretty eye-opening when it comes to revealing the extent of a. minority conflict (black vs hispanic) and b. the extent to which the government tries to force diversity.
ReplyDeleteSide note, I had forgotten the stunning comments by clinton and Wes Clark when they were bombing Serbia- (paraphrase) "ethnic natioanlism is a 19th century idea we won't tolerate' we're going to make sure serbia joins the 21st century"
So it was essentially an idealogical war.
"Victimization gives one the moral upperhand."
ReplyDeleteOnly with White people (and White as in European not Caucasian).
Africans couldn't care less about their role in the African slave trade.
Arabs couldn't care less about their role in the African slave trade.
Jews couldn't care less about their role in the African slave trade.
Victimization only gives one the moral upper hand with white people because only white people believe that justice can be balanced.
When it's not being used as a tool to get something from white people victimology is simply a kind of ethno-historical wardance - a recital of every casus belli the group has against other groups.
.
Hey Steve: got any suggestions for Jewish people who think they're white? I always thought I was white until discovering the views of most people who believe in HBD. ;) (Granted I'm not purebred and didn't absorb much anti-Christian prejudice, but...)
ReplyDelete"Stick Together"
ReplyDeleteWho are these guys sticking together against?
Depressing.
ReplyDeleteWhite Women on average certainly find Black men, much more testosterone, darkness, height, physique, on average compared to White men, more attractive
ReplyDeleteSilly Whiskey, I skipped over most of your post, but the best white girls I see are with white guys. Or with me lololol, when I am sober
White identity exists but remains nascent because for now, the past of least resistance is to do nothing OVERT while with the other hand COVERTLY supporting white interests.
ReplyDeleteWhite people still vote for John McCain over Obama, and they still retreat to gated communities.
The real political platform, in my view, that will unite them is one that emphasizes some sense of value system that culminates, not starts, in racial awareness.
Whiskey, you have your own blog. If we are interested in your sexual fantasies, we can visit it. Please stop repeating the same stuff here and at Mangan's.
ReplyDeleteA few of my keen observations:
ReplyDeleteJapan has a Korean minority and a sub-ethnic group (Burakumin) who are extensively discriminated against (the Koreans because of their foreign ancestry and the Burakumin because of their historical association with disreputable occupations - the Japanese equivalent of the Hindu sweeper class).
The case of the Jews demonstrates the limits of race as a friend or foe category. Their long history of hostility towards non-Jews in general and Christians in particular make them the citadel of anti-Whiteness in America (despite their skin tone).
As for white racial consciousness, mine is of the Ben Franklin variety:
"We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
"Reaching out to the Jewish community must come from the heart, not based some self serving calculation, otherwise it won't work."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Their hearts are in love with diversity. Jews are more likely to change when more of them get smacked on the head like Yglesias and see their tax bills soar to pay for the poor immigrants they are devoted to.
I'm constantly puzzled when men like Murray and Taylor pretend to be concerned about the interests of a race they've chosen to abandon by marrying out of it. To add insult to injury, they show disgust when whites act like whites instead of asians.
ReplyDeleteI've scratched my head many times while attempting a sort of psychoanalysis that would explain Murray, Taylor, et al. Is it a kind of buyer's remorse mingled with too much integrity to divorce and marry a suitable white woman? Are sites like Vdare and Am. Renaissance merely sadistic tools to entrap and vilify the whites that perhaps rejected the Murrays and Taylors for being too geeky?
You married out without being concerned about categorical imperatives. The rest of us will live or die or whatever. Go on with your lives and stop wasting other people's time and energy.
Since Japan has only one race, no one worries about racism.
ReplyDeleteLibtards hate this one. That racial diversity is the only way to make racism into an actual problem sets two ostensible libtard goals (diversity and racial harmony) at one another's throats.
The reigning upper middle class white view is that everyone should always act on the basis of Kant’s categorical imperative
Oh, I dunno about that. I can work within those confines, I think.
Indeed, they are a lot less distinctive in looks than are blacks and whites. But they fight anyway.
How come you never write about Social Identity Theory? Or at least, the fact that you can get otherwise indistinguishable people to start hating each other by separating them into groups and giving them differently-colored armbands? Well, I guess you have written about sports fans in this regard.
Jews are generally praised in the press for engaging in Jewish identity politics. So why would they instead want to engage in disreputable white identity politics? What’s in it for them?
If we can't beat 'em, why not join 'em? I don't know if this could work, but I'd at least like to have an long-term discussion about it.
hey steve, matt wrote this:
ReplyDeleteAs I’ve often said, conservative politics in the United States of America has nothing to do with free markets. It has a lot to do with identity politics and it has a lot to do with interest group politics.
=============================
increasingly, it looks like he's right. you're coming off more and more like an ethnic socialist
"White Identity" is already an anachronism. "IQ identity" is the future. At least in the Northeast it seems increasingly clear that High IQ Asians, Jews, ex-Catholics and Episcopalians are very comfortable socializing and marrying each other. Certainly within a few generations the elite classes will have incorporated so much Asian, Jewish and even high IQ Latino genes that they probably will be a different race from "pure whites" or "pure Asians", who will probably both be seen as classes of losers, and will generally have lower IQs than the elites.
ReplyDeleteThis is why the King narrative is more powerful than the Nation of Islam narrative.
ReplyDeleteTo really suss out why the King method is much more powerful than the NoI method, we have to disentangle outside influences (all your examples) from the question, "is it good for the blacks"? Unlike most races, blacks are clearly worse-off on their own, so black separatism is a non-starter. Basically, properly formulated black supremacism would look a lot more like the King method than the NoI method.
All of which makes this note sound false:
Indeed, one of the reasons why white liberals are so eager to embrace black victim-identity is to suppress the rise of black supremacist identity.
Black self-interest is the biggest roadblock to black supremacism. A sensible black nationalist sounds a lot more like iSteve commenter "Truth" than a black version of a white separatist.
There has been much mention made of the popularity of Obama/progressives among college educated white women.
ReplyDeleteHow to get them to see the light?
The way to any woman's heart is through her children, especially her sons. The other party need only point out the diminishing opportunities for sons in a liberal-led culture. This means, of course, specifying what kind of sons--white.
At least two of my liberal friends have already noticed this w/out anyone pointing it out to them.
The others are on the verge of the same realization. The sooner someone in politics has the nerve to point this out (it will have to be done subtly in order to work), the better...but I've seen the beginnings of change, and Mr. Obama, in some of his more stupid moments, has already begun to make this clear.
True, I know of no politician running for POTUS who will actually state, "Qualified white men are being shut out over unqualified other applicants," but there are ways of getting the same message across w/out using "white."
I have no objection to their use of the word--in fact, I prefer it as it is the truth, but I can see people recoiling so as a matter of practicality, the politicians must speak euphemistically of the racial bias. It will work if they do it.
Mamma bear, educated or not, will get the message.
Is the problem more Jews or White liberals in general? In Minnesota Lutheran Social Services imports and takes care of lots of immigrants.
ReplyDeleteJewish fears of/hostility to whites may not be permanent but practical. In the future, suppose whites make up only 25% of the population and the Jewish elite is confronted with an angry alliance of blacks and Hispanics whose numbers keep surging. Then, Jews many seek an alliance with whites. This happened in India under British rule. Initially, British imperialists fought the Muslim rulers of India; Brits even posed as liberators of the Hindus, and Hindus were favored over Muslims for most of British rule. But once Hindu Indians began to gain a kind of national consciousness and unite, Brits shifted their main alliance to Muslim Indians--which is one of the reasons why the relations between the Hindu and Muslim communities got strained in the 20th century. Though American Jews are part of America, they kinda see goy groups as different nations. It's like US allied with Soviet Union during WWII but then sided with China in the 1970s against the Soviet Union. Who said there's no permanent friends in foreign policy or something like it? Jews thinks this way.
ReplyDeleteJews are too few in number, too prone to intermarriage and acculturation, and too divided (pro- and anti-Israel, identity, etc.) to shape American discourse.
ReplyDeleteJewish division mostly centers around differing interpretations of what's good for the Jews. Questioning the question itself gets you labeled a self-hating Jew. There is remarkable agreement among Jewish elites, liberal or conservative, on subjects like immigration.
Between the Whiskey's usual BS ("Oh please, Steve, Jews don't exhibit much control or power over cultural life in America") and anonymous' blatant demand for pandering ("Reaching out to the Jewish community must come from the heart . . . to build a new community" all non-Jews must know at least three Jewish holidays) this thread has predictably degenerated to today's standard inversion of reality. Jews call themselves White when it's convenient to them. They define Jewishness as racial, cultural, or religious depending on the circumstances most beneficial to them. They are simultaneously demanding to be accepted as White racial "brothers" to European Christians and persecuted non-White minorities by other non-Whites. California politician Dan Adler is more openly ethnocentric because he believes it will help him in his 13.4% White district. The rest that is parroted here is mere obfuscating drivel to deny White Europeans a sense of ethnic identity or ethnic pride, while maintaining a sense of Jewish grievance.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much the lack of white identity owes to paucity of talent among the White Right in arts, culture, academia, etc.
ReplyDeleteThink of blacks. Would they have gained such mythic aura as a people if not the for the soulful booming voice of MLK and James Brown, for the athletic prowess of Ali and others, their success in comedy, their prominence in porn, and etc, etc.
Even white conservatives who were raised to be suspicious of blacks are drawn to black stuff. Who doesn't like Motown? Or listen to a song like SITTING ON THE DOCK OF THE BAY. Even if you don't like blacks, their expressiveness and colorfulness makes you want to like them. This may be why Mexicans, Asians, and Muslims don't get much respect from white Americans. They are less compelling in areas that most Americans find interesting and exciting.
But this goes for the White Right too. Most white talent in arts, culture, and ideas are liberal. And many are Jewish, and Jews are mostly liberal.
But suppose most great rockers, actors, directors, writers, and etc had white right views. Or suppose even just 25% of them held such views. The white right would have far more support and legitimacy in popular culture, which also shapes popular thought.
Off topic, but here's a nice ad for Dan Adler, a Democratic candidate in the special election in California's 36th District. His campaign manager is actor Sean Astin ("LOTR" & "Rudy").
ReplyDeleteThe ad features a thick-accented Korean woman claiming Adler can't represent her because he's not Korean. Adler responds that his wife his Korean, and that he's Jewish. The Korean woman proclaims "We minorities should stick together!"
Making one wonder: stick together...against who? And are Jews a minority, or are they white, or does the answer change depending on what's most beneficial to them at the moment?
Oh please Steve. Jews don't exhibit much control or power over cultural life in America.
ReplyDeleteHeh.
Heck half of the "Jews" are not even Jews.
What is that supposed to mean?
George Soros, born a Jew, is proud of helping Nazis in Hungary hunt down Jews, and sell off their property. He hates Israel and wants it destroyed. Is he a Jew?
Is this one guy intended to prove the preceding assertion? It doesn't. So he hates Israel and wants it destroyed. First, I'd like to know how he acts on this hatred. Is it just hot air, or does he pursue any goals to that effect? Because a couple seconds of hot air is not indicative of much. If I'm Ashkenazi and spend my whole life working in a career in anti-white psyops, like Tim Wise, should a couple of lines in an essay about how I "oppose Israeli apartheid" or whatever really get me a kewpie doll from white ethnopatriots? Really? They're supposed to be that big a bunch of suckers? Whiskey's version of white advocacy might be that tendentious and submissive and credulous - mine is not. "Is it good for the Ashkenazis?" does not inform my ethnopatriotism.
Second, being all-in for the Ashkenazi diaspora and hating the state of Israel doesn't obviate one's Ashkenazi-ness, or argue against "is it good for the Ashkenazis?" as raison d'etre.
Jews are too few in number, too prone to intermarriage and acculturation, and too divided (pro- and anti-Israel, identity, etc.) to shape American discourse.
So who has the numbers? English-Americans? Irish-Americans? Polish-Americans? Who?
So who is less prone to intermarriage? English-Americans? Irish-Americans? If Ashkenazis are "too prone to intermarriage," that means there's some real player around that isn't, right? Nope. Whiskey's lying, again. If not, he can name the group that intermarries less than Ashkenazis.
So who is less acculturated than the Ashkenazis, and running the show? Whiskey, your apologia sucks. Burn the midnight oil for a while and come up with a new one that isn't quite so insulting to the intelligence, eh?
Jews, I hate to break this to you Steve, are White.
How can you tell? Easy. If a Black guy angry at White guys wants to hurt you (or a group of Mexicans) and decides to target you, guess what, you're White. Simple as that.
So, the best example you have of Ashkenazi whiteness is the behavior of non-whites mistaking them for white. That's telling.
You're looking for a scapegoat. Figuring what, 2-3% of American somehow have mind-rays controlling the other 98-97%? Come on, that does not pass the laugh test.
But your straw men do pass the laugh test, of course.
What you're failing to miss is WOMEN.
Throw anyone and everyone under the bus to protect yourself, eh Whiskey?
Jews have the Holocaust to bond them.
ReplyDeleteThey switched to that because they're highly ethnocentric (and thus opportunistic) and it's only natural to switch to such a powerful "secular" touchstone, given the decline of religion. But let's not kid ourselves, they've had their "something" for 3,000 years now. Don't buy into "The Narrative"; question it.
In fact, the only group of American whites with any consciousness at all are southerners -- because they were on the wrong end of a beatdown not too long ago.
You left out the part about Southern demographics (though I do agree, very much so, that a shared sense of loss is a powerful factor in group cohesion).
Also, how do you expect to reach to the Jewish community when you quote Kevin Macdonald, who is an anti-Semite?
So we have to ignore reality to "reach to the Jewish community"?
Do you really think even more groveling would help?
Yes, groveling is always a good thing. :)
Whiskey/T99/EvilNeocon has discovered something unknown to mankind, namely that stupid, lazy and selfish housewives invented Political Correctness while sitting on the couch at home.
Precisely!
One of the problems of white-rightism is it was dominated and defined too much by scum like Nazis and KKK who were filled with little more than arrogance and contempt(and lots of dishonesty); they were all about offense and no defense. To morally justify something, you have to present it as an act of rational defense. KKK had a chance to be legit as a defense league for whites against black threat. It could have been honest: Negroes are stronger on a one-on-one basis, and so whites need to stick together against black violence. And Nazis could have made the argument that Jews need to be critiqued and watched cuz they are smarter, therefore more likely to gain power and control over Germans.
ReplyDeleteInstead, the arrogant and supremacist KKK and Nazis couldn't admit that other races or peoples could be better at whites in anything. So, instead of defining their positions defensively, they defined them offensively. People sympathize with underdogs and victims, not bullies and thugs. KKK could have been an anti-black-thuggery league but it became a pro-white-thuggery league attacking even innocent blacks. And Nazis went after every Jew, even decent patriotic German ones.
This is why 'white identity' got tainted with ugliness: all offense and no defense in its justifications.
To be sure, KKK and Nazis did spread fears of victimization under blacks and Jews, but they never clearly spelled out why it was happening. Since they were too proud-and-stupid-and-dishonest to admit that blacks had a natural advantage in strength and Jews had a natural advantage in wit, their explanation for black and Jewish power/threat was ... black and Jews are simply 'subhuman'. This was just ugly, irrational, and offensive.
It lacked the morally justifiable content as 'rational defense'. So, the New White Right must build on two facts: Negroes are tougher, Jews are smarter, and that is why we need to fear them; our fears would not be phobic but rational. We gotta keep a watch on Jews and blacks--just like weaker nations keep a watch on stronger nations; after all, don't Arab nations have a right to fear mighty Israel? After all, Jews use their form of rational defense to justify their fear of white goyim and Muslims.
Think. Why do we call the US military 'national defense' instead of 'national offense', though US has been invading and attacking more than being invaded or attacked? The idea of defense sounds better and more humane. So, we need a defensive white right based on rational fears and anxieties among whites.
And we also need to point out that there is more than one America. Affluent America is cocooned in their own safe zones and security, and so it doesn't care about poor or working class whites. Also, affluent America controls the media, the window to reality, so they can choose what to see, what not to see. They are the elitists in the movie ZARDOZ. They see themselves as Eternals and see us as Brutals. We need a Zed figure to outwit them and crush them.
We have ideas but we don't have the voice. It's like blacks had interests but didn't have the magic voice before MLK came along. And Nazis had ideas but didn't have the voice of power before Hitler. Good or bad, ideas alone won't do it. It needs to be conveyed by the voice. It's like Elvis gave life to the songs composed by people who themselves couldn't sing. We need people who can sing. Who can swagger, who can rock and roll with the punches in the public view.
ReplyDeleteTaylor is too genteel for this sort of thing. Also, because of the past poison of white right movements, new white rightists are eager to show that they are sane, rational, and not foaming at the mouth. This is good and necessary but also makes for blandness. We must not be rabid but we must learn to bark and bite in any political battle. If we can howl, all the better. We need theories and fact checkers, but we also need fighters in the ring.
It's like GOP would have been nothing in the 80s if not for the charisma and magic of Reagan. In our age of mass media, charism and style count more than before. Reagan may have been more style than substance but he was one helluva fighter in the spotlight.
Arabs are caucasian but not white. 'White' means Eurocasian.
ReplyDeleteIs Sarah Michelle Gellar Jewish? What about her kid with Freddie Prinze Jr?
ReplyDeleteGee, that's a tough one. Is a child with two Jewish parents Jewish?
"Reaching out to the Jewish community must come from the heart, not based some self serving calculation, otherwise it won't work. "
ReplyDeleteLOL
How many jewish people have you known?
Hey, speaking of "White Identity, it looks like your idol went out whimpering with his tail between his legs!
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110516/ts_yblog_theticket/trump-announces-he-will-not-run-for-president
" White women find non-White guys (some of them anyway) far more sexy, and conversely beta Male White guys "exposed" as lacking in the sexy compared to "hard" Black guys and even tall Hispanic guys."
ReplyDeleteWait, a minute, a month ago you were telling us that pasty, pale, faggy vampires were de riguer with women!?
I think Taylor just goes too far. Of course there are real differences between the races, but Taylor treats race as something absolute, and it isn't. It's just one (valid) way of classifying the human race. If you are a "lumper" you can talk about "Black Africans." If you are a "splitter" you can talk about "Armenians." Both are real.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, all human groups are fluid. For example, European ethnic groups that hated each other in Europe can merge in America to the point where their descendents (me, for example) cease to care about their origins, and see themselves simply as white Americans. Mexico is full of mestizos who don't think of themselves as either white or Indian. The Armenians in time could end up dissolving into white America and losing their separate ethnic identity. Would that be so terrible? There is no obvious reason why mixing and loss of difference at a higher (racial) level has to be any worse than at a lower (ethnic) level. In the long run (if there is a long run!) the races are going to mix, so why fight it now?
The real problem is not racial mixing per se, the real problem is the blacks! Here is a question for you: Imagine that the liberal expectations of the 60's had all come true, and that American blacks, freed from the yoke of oppression, had rapidly advanced in terms of economic and educational achievement, to the point where they were now more or less comparable with whites. (Liberal really did believe this would happen! For example, in The Disuniting of America, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. wrote about how certain liberals like himself had been of this, and how dismaying and disturbing the actual reality has been). If blacks in America were doing well today in school and in business, if we had lots of productive black scientists, if black crime rates were low, would you be anywhere near as worried about your daughter marrying a black man, or the prospect that in 100 years sub-Saharan Africans might make up one third of the human race, and be flooding out of Africa into Eurasian societies?
I sure wouldn't! I have no problem with whites mixing with other Eurasians, because other Eurasians are generally intelligent and capable peoples. (Islam is another problem of course, but it has nothing to do with race, so let's put it aside for now...). The problem with blacks is that they just don't seem to be as capable as the rest of the human race, and whenever there are too many of them everything just seems to go to hell. I don't want the world to go to hell, so that's why I worry about the blacks. (If we were facing the prospect of three billion Australian aborigines I would be just as worried, but it looks like we dodged that bullet).
So what is the solution? I see little prospect of any sort of "Eurasian Nationalism" becoming influential. A better prospect might be a revival of eugenics. Not the evil eugenics that says "kill the underman," but just a positive awareness that intelligence is important, has a big genetic component, and it is not equally distributed among different peoples around the world. If this became the default mode of thinking, then intelligent people would be able to talk openly about the problem of Africa (as well as dysgenics in their own populations), and with many minds focused on the problem, morally acceptable solutions might be found. It's a longshot, but at the moment this is my best hope.
"It’s perfectly natural to feel an instinctive kinship with any and all humans under certain circumstances. Ronald Reagan used to worry his less imaginative National Security Advisor, Colin Powell, by musing about how the Cold War would be over instantly if Earth were ever attacked by space aliens. Human kinship would far outweigh ideology if we ever needed to fight bug-eyed space monsters. Most people would feel a surge of kinship toward any human on a life raft menaced by sharks."
ReplyDeleteThis is true. The opposite is also true. In an all-white world, groups may see and seek divisions among one another based on hair color, eye color, language, heritage, etc as happened in WWII when Hitler waged a great war on other whites--the so-called untermensch whites such as Eastern Slavs. And idiot Italians invaded Greece(even though Metaxas was pro-German).
Also keep in mind that there might be more than one alien arrival/invasion scenario. If aliens try to wipe out or enslave ALL of humanity, mankind might unite to fight the aliens. But if aliens wanna, say, just take over China or India or Europe and spare the rest of us, we might make a bargain with the aliens, like many French actually accepted Nazi occupation(even as a liberation from French socialist/Jewish rule). Ukrainians initially welcomes Germans as liberators. Hindus in India at one time preferred British invaders over Muslim Moghul rulers.
I knew an Assyrian girl who emigrated to America after the Gulf War. She said her family was rich in Kuwait, and when Iraq invaded, many Assyrians sided with Iraqis as the new rulers(just like Spanish Jews sided with Moorish invaders). So, when Kuwait was liberated, angry Kuwaitis kicked out a whole bunch of Assyrians(most of whom were Christian). And so her family ended up in America to run some dinky dollar store business. (Ironic since America liberated Kuwait.) In most invasions, there are winners and losers. US invasion of Iraq was good for Shias and Kurds but hell for Iraqi Christians.
Another scenario would be
non-invasion but massive immigration by space aliens. Suppose these aliens have an average IQ of 300 and ask us permission for entry since their home planet was destroyed. We allow them to settle in various countries. Within several yrs, they gain tremendous power with their super intellect. They also have technology beyond our understanding. They become our elite overlords within several yrs. Would most of us allow this, even if aliens gain power and wealth peacefully? Would we unite against the aliens as a threat to the human species? Or would some groups side with aliens, just like swapples side with Jewish elites against their own kind? I dunno. I suppose it depends on whether supersmart aliens have racial preferences.
Also, what is space aliens call for more interstellar immigration of their own kind? And suppose they have cloning technology that can increase their numbers million fold in a few yrs?
Bill hits the important point, that a common identity is usually based on shared suffering or a shared struggle. Or at a bare minimum, some shared experience. White Americans don't have that, yet.
ReplyDeleteThat was a good post on VDARE, excepting only your reflexive anti-Irish posture. Is there an reason to think that Ted Kennedy represented the Irish in America more than Reagan did, or more than Pelosi represents Italian-Americans, or more than McCain represents Scotch-Irish, or more than George W Bush represents Anglo-Americans?
"Jews are currently at the top of the ethnic pecking order in the United States. The only real threat to their power would be some sort of anti-Semitic movement among the White population."
ReplyDeleteThe Hispanic population will eventually be more of a threat since they manage to be viewed as a victimized minority no matter how European they actually are; thus, there has been no attempt to engage in consciousness raising about their ethnocentric tendencies.
I'm beginning to think there was never any anti-white hatred out of the Jewish population. Instead, it seems, more educated European Americans out of mainstream protestant denominations and the Catholic church, Jews (many also European) and other assorted globalists went after the fundamentalist, working class white population in the US because what was in our best interest as opposed to theirs came into conflict.
This is the crux of the double game Steve plays. Nationalism is acceptable among the founding stock Americans as long as it can be controlled. Part of the process is indoctrinating what's left of such whites to accept a great amount of dissonance between the values sites like Vdare and iSteve pay lip service to and the incessant number of comments intended to undermine their self-esteem.
I've had enough of you and your funky brown friends, Sailer. Too bad you destabilized working class whites sufficiently that they can offer no resistance to the encroachments of the hordes of Hispanics pouring over our borders. I think the law of unintended consequences is working to full effect here. Yes, you replaced dirty, ignorant working class Scotch-Irish and English with what you preferred out of Asia. Then you forgot to have large families to replace us numerically as well. It's not just that it's too little, too late to build an alliance with what's left of us; it's that you and your friends(mostly not Jews)authored the very strategies designed to marginalize working class whites.
I had thought maybe people like Steve regretted participating in the Ivy League/wealthy WASP conspiracy to eradicate fundamentalist, working class America. I realize just how wrong I was: Sailer and Co. are panicked because their self-interests are now threatened by the uncontrollable demographic changes.
FYI, average+ IQ people will trust you more if you refrain from using dominance strategies such as trying to exaggerate the difference in competence/capacity between you and them. Journalism, for instance, is one of those fields in which there is an oversupply of highly capable potential writers. It's also the case that, just as in pop music, some quirk of personality will get a less capable person an advantage through popularity.
I am so sick of being treated with contempt by people who seem to need something from me despite their low regard for me and my ilk. No trust for you, Sailer, or Murray or Taylor or Brimelow or Buchanan!
So, in hiring, the Japanese do practice "Affirmative Action" .... for the benefit of the Japanese and against ethnic minorities.
ReplyDeleteIs that a good thing?
Depends on your frame of reference. It's a good thing for the Japanese.
Claudia: My impression of Japan is that it doesn't worry about racism but is a racist society.
ReplyDeleteIt just isn't ashamed about it. Maybe it should be.
Why? "Shame" implies they have some obligation to justify their preferences to the rest of mankind. Sez who?
So, in hiring, the Japanese do practice "Affirmative Action" .... for the benefit of the Japanese and against ethnic minorities.
Is that a good thing?
Depends on who you are. But this all speaks to the much more fundamental question of "what is the best kind of society for a human being to live in?" One with cultural homogeneity and continuity, a place to hang one's hat and feel at home, and from which one can engage with the wider world from a position of physical and psychological security? Or to be an itinerant "flexible labor" widget in a global deracinated sea of humanity? Or somewhere in between?
I'm absolutely convinced that the deracinated extreme is the most truly inhumane "ideal" ever proposed and sought by the mind of man; how comfortable one is elsewhere on the continuum probably varies greatly within and between groups. Why should one expect the Japanese to answer that question in the same way as anyone else? (Or for any people to answer that question from the recherché moral standpoint of Western "universalist" utilitarians?)
For example, how many White Americans can name at least 3 Jewish holidays? Probably very few.
ReplyDeleteJewish religion doesn't really mean much to the culture at large. Part of this is by design - it isn't a converting religion and how many people, in a culture which is not that religiously orientated, are really going to be interested in the substance of a religion that doesn't really have much of a role for them in it or anything to say about their lives. There's just not much meaning there for anyone who isn't a Jew (or a Judaising Christian). (And to honest I'm not too sure if the Jewish religion really means too much to American Jews, as a whole.)
Now in terms of engaging with Jewish people, many people can name and admire various Jewish figures outside of the Jewish religious culture, in the fields of literature and science at least, and why what they did was important.
OT, Steve, but I just noticed that you have been quoted (if unnamed) on instapundit. I guess the circuitous quoting path is a form of cootie-laundering. (That is you, isn't it? Dear God, the commenters at Matt's are a thick lot.)
ReplyDeleteWhereas a St. Patrick’s Day parade is exalting?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say St. Patricks Day is looked upon the same. What other ethic group would stand for their holiday to be one of accepted and expected drunkeness.
Of course, many whites don’t have a socially acceptable subracial identity like Irish. The huge numbers of German-Americans are discouraged from engaging in identity politics.
Germans are allowed no pride. Here in Chicago Goethe Street is pronounce ger-ta.
How can Mexicans afford these crazy fences?" I wondered to myself. It was only on a second visit that I realized the people turning their yards into fortified bunkers were Armenians.
So what you are implying by your statement is that the riots are almost certainly about economic class.
The Armenians have advanced themselves or already had the capital to afford such improvements which distances themselves from the Mexicans, which by your own observation deems them unable to afford such improvements.
But, the more relevant question in 2011 is: why would Armenians want to be white? What’s in it for them to identify primarily as white rather than as Armenian?
Nothing. Being Arneian, they are allowed to be Armenian and request social and economic privilege. There is no benefit to being "white" other than being "white".
President Obama would give a thoughtful, nuanced speech about this national trauma.
President Obama doesn't give speeches, he reads copy.
Steve - serious question - is there a reason why we are forbidden to point out that the guy's "true" name was Adolph Hiedler Frankenberger?
ReplyDeleteAnd that we now have DNA evidence which corroborates the legend?
I thought that iSteve was a place where we could speak honestly about these things - but maybe there are some truths which are too painful even for the HBD-o-sphere to contemplate?
Sheesh.
"White Identity" is already an anachronism. "IQ identity" is the future.
ReplyDeleteSuuure. That's why China, Japan, and Israel all pursue "cognitively elite" immigration strategies.
At least in the Northeast it seems increasingly clear that High IQ Asians, Jews, ex-Catholics and Episcopalians are very comfortable socializing and marrying each other. Certainly within a few generations the elite classes will have incorporated so much Asian, Jewish and even high IQ Latino genes that they probably will be a different race from "pure whites" or "pure Asians", who will probably both be seen as classes of losers, and will generally have lower IQs than the elites.
Nope. Yellows, browns, and Ashkenazis will continue to protect their "breeding stock" in their ethnic homelands, and will continue to contribute to western territories (via one-way gene flow) from that untouched stock. Pursued over time, this strategy will result in a yellow and brown west (Ashkenazis don't have the numbers to compete, except for the managerial spot).
Whites, prevented from having such home territory, will disappear, unless they show some survival instincts.
Steve,
ReplyDeletePeter A had by far the best comment posted to this blog in at least a month:
"White Identity" is already an anachronism. "IQ identity" is the future. At least in the Northeast it seems increasingly clear that High IQ Asians, Jews, ex-Catholics and Episcopalians are very comfortable socializing and marrying each other. Certainly within a few generations the elite classes will have incorporated so much Asian, Jewish and even high IQ Latino genes that they probably will be a different race from "pure whites"
Steve, as a Californian you know that in the highly productive parts of California like Palo Alto, IQ identity has already replaced nearly all other forms of identity.
Readers of this blog who live in parts of the USA that lack super high IQ immigrants just don't understand the dynamic. Readers of this blog talk about immigrant Chinese secretly holding their Chinese racial and cultural identity close to them, or Brahmins from India scheming to preserve what is unique about their group.
The truth, on the ground, in the high IQ geographies and social circles is, young people with super high IQ are marrying other super high IQ young people at an accelerating rate. Northeast Asians, Askenazi, Elite WASPS, Brahmins, are all combining, and the rate is accelerating.
In many high IQ extended families it is very hard for racial identity to emerge because everyone has nieces and nephews who are mixed.
"I'm constantly puzzled when men like Murray and Taylor pretend to be concerned about the interests of a race they've chosen to abandon by marrying out of it."
ReplyDeleteIt's a crazy little thing called love.
Race mixing generally results in the end of racial identity.
ReplyDeleteThe state with the lowest IQ white people in the United States is West Virginia. Few minorities live in West Virginia and there is little race mixing and thus white identity is very strong there.
There is not a 100% correlation between low IQ and white identity, there is certainly some correlation.
Claudia Zhao said...
ReplyDeleteMy impression of Japan is that it doesn't worry about racism but is a racist society.
It just isn't ashamed about it. Maybe it should be.
Yeah, like Israel should also be ashamed. At least the Japs are not killing anybody nowadays.
Nope. Yellows, browns, and Ashkenazis will continue to protect their "breeding stock" in their ethnic homelands, and will continue to contribute to western territories (via one-way gene flow) from that untouched stock
ReplyDeletebingo.
Taylor pretend to be concerned about the interests of a race they've chosen to abandon by marrying out of it."
ReplyDeleteTaylor married outside race??
There is not a 100% correlation between low IQ and white identity, there is certainly some correlation.
ReplyDeleteLook, it's Yan Chen!
One huge blind spot in Sailer's theory regarding the importance of Jews in determining American policy: The same policies are implemented across the entire Western World, even in countries where Jews are a tiny minority with negligible influence.
ReplyDeleteBen Tillman ftw
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I've got this straight: Aquinas was white, but Augustine wasn't? Thucydides was white, but Herodotus wasn't?
ReplyDeleteeven a completely non-racial movement like the Tea Party ...
ReplyDeleteYour overall point is accurate, but let's face it, the three main gripes of tea-partiers (and I'm one of them) are essentially racial. Immigration is about race even though, in line with your point, in recent years we've had to discuss it as an aspect of protection against terrorism. Health care "reform" is about race in the sense that most of us realize the real objective is simply make-work for blacks, similar to what's happened with the public schools. And anger over gov't spending is at least materially about race, in that public sector unions couldn't have gotten so powerful in the first place without the black thug element. We just have to start talking about race.
In many ways what Jared Taylor is saying is very similar to what
ReplyDeleteRandall Kennedy. a black Harvard Law professor said in the Atlantic in an article in May 1997(online) titled
"My Race problem-and Ours."
He said,"I find it difficult to accept that it is wrong for whites to mobilize themselves on a racial basis solely for purposes of white advancement but morally permissible for blacks to mobilize themselves on a racial basis solely for purposes of black advancement."
"… Japan is homogeneous. This means Japanese never even think about a host of problems that torment Americans. Since Japan has only one race, no one worries about racism. … When a company needs to hire someone, it doesn’t give a thought to ‘ethnic balance,’ it just hires the best person."
ReplyDeleteOf course, Japanese define 'best' differently than we do. They prefer people who are best at mindlessly following orders, repressing their own individuality, etc. In other words, best at not sticking out as 'better than the rest', which is considered bad form--show offy individualism.
So, Japanese don't simply seek the best but those who can do the job well but also conceal, in the name of harmony, that they can do the job better than others.
Taylor married outside race??
ReplyDeleteIt seems that several comments implied that he married a Japanese woman, but his wife's maiden name is Rich, which is not very Japanese-sounding.
"Of course, to well-indoctrinated Politically Correct white Americans, Japan’s lack of racial problems must seem like a bug, not a feature."
ReplyDeleteJapan's lack of a problem can be seen as a problem in its own right. Unlike US, which brought talented from all over the world, Japan is only Japan. US has lots of racial problems but also lots of racial and ethnic advantages in food, music, dance, movies, books, etc, etc. Something is always happening in the US because of this great mix. Even when wasps decline, Jews rise. Just when Italian Americans don't produce the talent they once did in cinema, Asian-Indians enter the scene, etc.
History happens through problems. Too much can lead to disaster but total lack of problem is a problem in itself. Japan during the Tokugawa period was without problems, but that led to complacecy and ultra-conservatism to keep everything as it is. So, Japan fell behind.
There were many problems between whites, blacks, Irish, Anglos, Germans, Jews, Greeks, Italians, Asians, etc, etc in America but all those problems made for a great and fascinating American narrative--much more so than the more homogeneously Anglo Australia or Canada. We wouldn't have Godfather movies without Italian-Americans. Some of the greatest talents in arts and culture were non-Anglos: Elia Kazan, Cassavetes, Coppola, Spielberg, etc. And chop suey aint half-bad. And though blacks drove Detroit to the ground, Motown sound was magnificent. Though Japan is without 'racial problems', they are huge fans of cultural products produced by the dynamics of American racial and ethnic problems. The American Western couldn't have been possible without the confrontation between whites and Indians--which was like Romans vs Germanic barbarians. And then Jewish Hollywood made a great myth out of it, as it also did with the gangster film. The Japanese samurai film is essentially an Eastern western and yakuza films owe much to Hollywood gangster flicks.
Not all problems are dynamic, productive, and creative; some are just destructive. But some do produce sparks of innovation, experimentation, new ideas, and new realities. And though much good can be said for Japan's homogeneity, it is a far more boring place than the US, though to be sure, law-and-order boredom is better than the kind of 'diversity' that has taken over cities like Detroit and entire areas of Los Angeles.
"Most whites do not have a racial identity, but they would do well to understand what race means for others. They should also ponder the consequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group."
ReplyDeleteThey do but it's morally-bound than racially-survivalist. As whites, they are supposed to represent the best of humanity and embrace everyone. They replaced racial superiority with moral superiority. Even white guilt is a kind of moral supremacism--just like Christian guilt about Original Sin. Wallowing in one's sin and making a big show of it makes one feel holier-than-thou.
So, whites are morally racial than tribally racial.
"Race is an insignificant matter and not a valid criterion for any purpose—except perhaps for redressing wrongs done to non-whites. The races are equal in every respect and are therefore interchangeable."
ReplyDeleteThis is one of those funny aspects of PC. Would any football team wanna replace its black players with Mexican players? Would any NBA team wanna replace its black players with Asian players? Would any chess club exchange its Jewish players with black players?
This is one of those things that PC liberals believe as 'ideality' but not as reality.
It's like many Christians say they believe in God and Jesus and all that, but they also believe in evolution and hard science. It's amusing how many 'realities' the human mind can juggle at one time.
"My Race problem-and Ours."
ReplyDeleteHe said,"I find it difficult to accept that it is wrong for whites to mobilize themselves on a racial basis solely for purposes of white advancement but morally permissible for blacks to mobilize themselves on a racial basis solely for purposes of black advancement."
Which is one of the typical reasons why The Narrative (and not "dialog" or "discussion" or such pap) must be overwhelmingly dominant; it's okay for blacks to mobilize themselves for their own advancement because The Narrative gives them a pass.
"For Jared Taylor, a man of distinguished bearing, is unusual among American intellectuals in his empathy for people at the bottom. Protesting a 2005 Supreme Court decision mandating racial integration in prison cellmate assignments even when prison officials expect diversity might cause murder or rape, Taylor asked..."
ReplyDeleteHey, what about sexual discrimination against women in prisons? If women in the military should have same rights as men--and even serve in combat in the future--, shouldn't men and women serve time as cellmates in the same prisons? Why should females be discriminated/banned from male prisons, and vice versa? Why, that's sexism!!! And how come men cannot compete in women's track and tennis and vice versa!! Sexism I tell you.
Recently, colleges have been moving toward coed dorm room assignments. Hurrah for victory against sexism. We need the same in prison cells. Let's allow male and female convicts to share the same cells! Some might say men are stronger than women and thus pose a threat to the gals, but that's just foul sexism. There are no sexual differences, which are purely socially constructed gender differences which can be overcome with proper sensitivity training.
Whatever the shenanigans of left-wing Jews, America was the WASPs to lose. They are outright masochists. They are more deluded than the Jews, because the Jews might have some reasons to promote PC, but the WASPs have none. Whereas Jewish narcissism is overt, WASP narcissism is dressed up and hidden--in typical WASP fashion--but perhaps deeper and more perverted for all that. Elite WASP narcissism took the same multicultural course in Canada after the 1960s, where Jews were too small in number and too marginalized to have played a major role. I don't mean to downplay the Jewish role in the US, which was considerable and nasty, but even so I think Sailer is ultimately engaging in unhelpful scapegoating.
ReplyDeleteHey, speaking of "White Identity, it looks like your idol went out whimpering with his tail between his legs!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm getting ready to slash my wrists as I type. Getting ready, I mean. I wouldn't actually slash my wrists as. I'm typing. You need at least one hand free to slash your wrists, and typing with one hand is a PITA.
I didn't want Trump to run, anyway. I did enjoy watching him punch Obama in the nose a few dozen times, though. Rhetorically punch, I mean. He would probably get in trouble for actually punching Obama in the nose. I wouldn't try that while typing, either. But you CAN rhetoricaly punch Obama in the nose while typing. Ha!
One thing white people can do is ally with blacks and Hispanics and bitch and whine 24/7 about Jewish wealth, power, and etc. And denounce Israel as 'racist'. Jews, driven to desperation, by hostility from whites, blacks, and Hispanics, may reach out for an renewed alliance with whites on more generous terms. Blacks and browns are useful to Jews because they can be pitted against whites. But if whites accepted black and brown power/interests and went after Jewish power--affirmative action for whites at expense of Jews--, then Jews wouldn't be able to use the white vs black/brown card. We let blacks/browns have their AA at white expense, and whites compensate by getting their AA at the expense of Jews. As long as blacks and browns keep getting theirs, they are not gonna stand up with/for the Jew when whites demand their share of the pie from the Jews.
ReplyDeleteAs things stand now, there's no reason for Jews to broker any kind of deal with Jared Taylor, who has so little power and clout that he can't even book a conference room at a hotel.
If Jared Taylors of the world were the elites who controlled the table, then Jews would wanna be invited to the table. But Jews now own and control the table. Why should they make any deal with Taylor, who has nothing to offer?
Or, if Taylor was the leader of most white people, like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson is the leader of blacks, then Jews might at least respect his power and try to come to terms with him on some level. But most whites don't even know why Taylor is, and the majority prolly don't even wanna be associated with him.
Before you make a deal, you gotta have the power to make the deal. Without the power, one is dealing with phantom armies, like Hitler in the final days in his bunker, ordering non-existent armies in his mind.
Jews hold the straight royal flush while Taylor's cards don't even have a pair of 2's.
Whatever the shenanigans of left-wing Jews, America was the WASPs to lose. They are outright masochists.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Which means we should be trumpeting the shenanigans of left-wing Jews, and the WASP loss, to all and sundry. After all, the WASPs, outright masochists that they are, are absolutely no threat to Jews. Organized Jewry is a wasting their time and money. But that's okay, because we know how Jews like to waste time and money.
where Jews were too small in number and too marginalized to have played a major role.
That's what I keep telling people. In the modern world, one's influence, much less an ethnicity's, is definitely limited to close proximity. Say, arm's length? There can be no major role played by, say, white people, in, say, the culture of Japan.
I don't mean to downplay the Jewish role in the US, which was considerable and nasty, but even so I think Sailer is ultimately engaging in unhelpful
Now you've got me interested. How so?
That was quite pithy SWiPpLe humor, Svigor. You and Woody Allen should work on a script.
ReplyDeleteHey Steve, I didn't think my bit about Taylor was out of line. I thought it was pretty nice, actually, for an evil old racist like me. Is she not Jewish, or something?
ReplyDeleteI was unaware that "white" had become a pejorative, until my then-teenaged stepdaughter announced to her mom and me that she wasn't white, she was "Greek" (i.e. her bio-dad's ancestry).
ReplyDeleteThat said, if "white" continues to be used as an epithet, it will probably acquire (for some anyway) the same capacity to offend that the word "negro" seems to have these days.
"One huge blind spot in Sailer's theory regarding the importance of Jews in determining American policy: The same policies are implemented across the entire Western World, even in countries where Jews are a tiny minority with negligible influence."
ReplyDeleteReally, people should read Kevin Macdonald. He has traced the institutional influence of Jews on immigration in Australia, Canada, and Europe using the same techniques as in the US.
You may have thought you had a good argument, but you don't.
Robert Hume
Robert Hume
***Control over just a handful of choke-points can completely create the reality of the world around you, without your ever being the wiser.***
ReplyDeleteI know chomsky is far left, but he called this manufacturing consent. He looks at it from the left. It's an intereting movie even if you don't agree with him on a lot.
Anonymous said: "For example, how many White Americans can name at least 3 Jewish holidays?"
ReplyDeleteHanukkah, Rosh Hashanah & Yom Kippur.
What do I win?! Do I get a cookie? ;-)
"I was unaware that 'white' had become a pejorative, until my then-teenaged stepdaughter announced to her mom and me that she wasn't white, she was 'Greek' (i.e. her bio-dad's ancestry)."
ReplyDeleteFunny thing about words. Black didn't wanna be 'negro' no more so they demanded to be called 'black'. But it sounded too stark and political, so they settled on 'African-American', to give it more of a cultural ring to it.
And Asians don't wanna be called Oriental anymore because Eddy Said wrote that silly book.
I think maybe we need a new word for white. How about 'Andrean'?
http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_of_Andrea.html
Gender: Both
Origin: Greek
Meaning: Man, warrior; manly
-----
Sounds about right for white race. Unity of the sexes, Greek origin, and warrior virtues.
'Andrean race'
'Andrean power'
'Andrean interests'
'Andrean virtues'.
'Andrean art'
'Andrean rights'
Sounds good to me.
Btw, my name is Eugene Berkowicz, so don't think I'm proposing my name to denote the white race. I would never be so presumptious.
US has lots of racial problems but also lots of racial and ethnic advantages in food, music, dance, movies, books, etc, etc.
ReplyDeleteThat's just embarrassing. Do people who say this stuff really believe it themselves? Do they expect others to take it seriously? "Hooray, the US has people who can cook and dance in lots of different styles! What a great advantage!"
White Women on average certainly find Black men, much more testosterone, darkness, height, physique, on average compared to White men, more attractive
ReplyDeleteIn what parallel universe is this true? Personally, I think you are projecting your own lack of success with white women onto all white men rather than examining the deficiencies that make you unattractive to women.
"White Identity" is already an anachronism. "IQ identity" is the future. At least in the Northeast it seems increasingly clear that High IQ Asians, Jews, ex-Catholics and Episcopalians are very comfortable socializing and marrying each other.
ReplyDeleteAlso known as the assortative mating theory of autism.
But when we think of US-Japan narrative, our main focus isn't Hiroshima, Nagasaki, fire-bombing of Tokyo, Perry's black ships that threatened to blow up Japan's harbors in the 19th century. Nor Japnese-Americans interned in camps.
ReplyDeleteAre you even an American? If so, there's an itty-bitty chance that your experience is a total anomaly like you have asserted.
More likely, you're just brainwashed - mentally colonized. You take pride in believing that you're the only American who knows about the Japanese internment camps. I first learned about them in 1981 when I was ten. I heard about them in every history class since then, when they could fit them in between drawn-out, graphic descriptions of how people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We got to learn the timeline so every could be convinced that Truman just liked killing people. And yes, we heard about Perry.
Fine by me. If people want to believe Democrats just like killing people, I'm cool with that, especially when it's Democrats that do all the teaching, and Democrats are opening up new fronts in Libya when they're not busy firing 30mm uranium into Serbia. (I loathe Republicans too.)
Trouble is, I don't believe you. The last three conversations I've had mentioning WWII, with different people, centered on "American" (FDR) wickedness in sending the Japanese "all over the country" (on the western seaboard) into internment camps. On two of the occasions, the person doing the "contrite grieving" (leftist preening) assured me no other Americans knew about it.
Stop lying to yourselves.
With Trump out, who do we vote for? Ron Paul?
ReplyDelete"White Identity", the musical:
ReplyDeleteThe Book of Mormom Broadway Play.
Check out Hello or All-American Prophet
Although about Mormons, the play captures the insane niceness of white people while mercilessly savaging them.
the japanese have a stronger sense of group identity because, along with being a pretty homogeneous population, they have a longer, and more recent, history of inbreeding than do europeans (and americans). their genetic ties to one another are stronger than ours.
ReplyDelete"Steve - serious question - is there a reason why we are forbidden to point out that the guy's "true" name was Adolph Hiedler Frankenberger?
ReplyDeleteAnd that we now have DNA evidence which corroborates the legend?
I thought that iSteve was a place where we could speak honestly about these things - but maybe there are some truths which are too painful even for the HBD-o-sphere to contemplate?
Sheesh."
The way I read the "DNA sting" is that Hitler's DNA was shown to be the same as various Hitlers/Huettlers still living in Austria, thus disproving the Frankenberg story. That aspect seems to have gotten no play at all.
"Germans are allowed no pride. Here in Chicago Goethe Street is pronounce ger-ta."
ReplyDelete20 years ago it was pronounced "go-thee" and is now pronounced "gur-tah" as in German as Chicago has grown more sophisticated.
Nor Japnese-Americans interned in camps.
ReplyDeleteyou forgot to mention that 3000 Japanese "american" citizens joined and served in the imperial army (that's japan not star wars)
japanese were mad because they weren't treated 'equal'
Oh Gawd, another "people's history' reader investing Isteve.
The only practical eugenics is smart guys spreading their seed around. Missionaries.
ReplyDelete>The only explanation [of Jews' pervasive anti-white campaigns] is an irrational hatred that blinds one to the reality of what a legitimate course of self-interest would look like.<
ReplyDeleteTalk about presumption! The Jews have been at it for 3000 years, buddy. They're still here.
The list of their extinct enemies is as long as my leg.
Could it be that Jews have a better sense of what their group interests are than you do?
What exactly IS your idea of Jews' "legitimate self-interest"? Are you hypothesizing a situation in which a helpless alleged 2% of the population is massacred by millions of powerful white gentiles with pitchforks? If so, you're way behind the times. Among white gentiles, there are only two (very broad) groups: insane liberals and Jesus-neutered hicks. Neo-Nazi movement? Don't make me laugh! In their phony parades march only FBI agents and defectives of the lowest kind.
There is no sleeping white giant.
Whites gentiles are not powerful.
We are on the way out demographically, even. In several states, we're a minority. A cowed, cringing, pathetic minority.
Jews don't have to play nice with white gentiles anymore. And they aren't. They haven't been for a while.
Repeat: whites as a group can't punch their way out of a paper bag.
A finger-wagging warning to Jews that they're risking anger is just laughable. It's later than we think.
More shockers. Jews are more than 2% of the population. They don't live exclusively in NYC or LA. Much of the world's money is defined and controlled by such entities as the IMF and the Federal Reserve; these are not and never were run by golden-haired WASPs named Caspar.
These statements may be anti-Semitic, but they're also factual.
Jews spurn your concern and your advice. And they always will. You're the one with the weak hand in this card game.
That was quite pithy SWiPpLe humor, Svigor. You and Woody Allen should work on a script.
ReplyDeleteI know. Something came over me. See, I could write pornos, too! But sadly, the positions were filled.
One of the problems of white-rightism is it was dominated and defined too much by scum like Nazis and KKK who were filled with little more than arrogance and contempt(and lots of dishonesty); they were all about offense and no defense.
ReplyDeleteThe media is and always has been totally hostile to "white rightism," and has only ever uplifted (and thus encouraged) the worst "white-rightists" available. When you penalize something, you get less of it, so TPTB got less "sensible white rightism." And the commies were REAL charmers, but TPTB don't have too much to say about them, do they?
To morally justify something, you have to present it as an act of rational defense. KKK had a chance to be legit as a defense league for whites against black threat. It could have been honest: Negroes are stronger on a one-on-one basis, and so whites need to stick together against black violence. And Nazis could have made the argument that Jews need to be critiqued and watched cuz they are smarter, therefore more likely to gain power and control over Germans.
Hindsight is 20-20, I guess. The smart ethnopatriots could've been swaying high one-figure audiences in alleys all this time, but they missed the window. Sad, really. Or hey, maybe they didn't miss the window! Trees falling in forests, and whatnot, right?
So, instead of defining their positions defensively, they defined them offensively. People sympathize with underdogs and victims, not bullies and thugs.
I know. The Palestinian thing, plus all those Jewish PTB, have really made Jews persona non grata in America!
This is why 'white identity' got tainted with ugliness: all offense and no defense in its justifications.
I know, and since public perceptions are fixed once established, no amount of work is going to correct this. The last 40 years prove that!
Steve,
ReplyDeleteJared Taylor has exceptionally high IQ and an iconoclastic, creative personality. Like many white that share his intelligence and creativity level, he chose to marry someone of jewish ancestry.
Almost every significant intellectual or political or creative movement of the past 100 years has had people of Ashkenazi ancestry at the forefront. It shouldn't surprise you that creative leaders like Taylor choose to marry Jews.
Indeed, this is an HBD blog. The most profound expression of HBD is the desire to marry ashkenazi.
A high IQ wasp like Taylor that marries a female wasp will on average have lower IQ sons than he would have if he married an ashkenazi.
Indeed, many prominent wasps choose Jewish spouses for this reason. Remember that president clinton's daughter chose to marry an ashkenazi
Don't criticize Jared Taylor. He is simply trying to have high IQ children
Sorry, brain fart: 3/4ths European-Caucasoid, not 7/8ths.
ReplyDelete^^^Hey T, are fart jokes always funny?
Maybe white ethno-masochism has roots in Christian credo-masochism.
ReplyDeleteThe Christian creed is masochistic, with all that stuff about Original Sin and 'my soul is impure with temptations and etc, etc'. But we must remember that there is a pleasure principle in masochism. A masochist hurts himself/herself but also enjoy the pain, either as catharsis or kinky turn on. This is why Jesus freaks have always freaked me out. They are always bashing themselves about sin but kinda enjoying the whole spectacle.
There is prolly some of this in Confucianism too, what with Chinese saying stuff like "my worthless house, my worthless wife, my worthless son, my worthless food"(in the movie GOOD EARTH), when in fact, they're getting their kicks by showing off how humble, modest, and fine-mannered they are.
Well, modern western man has less use of religion since he's secular. So, credo-masochism may have morphed into ethno-masochism. But again, there is the element of pleasure in this freakshow. White liberals really get a kick of showing how un-white or anti-white they are. If Christians feel their souls are tainted by sin, secular liberals believe their consciousness has been tainted by 'racism', and so they show off by publicly atoning for their historical sins and making a big spectacle out of it. When Tom Brokaw, on the day of Obama's victory, wept and said this nation came so far from the days when white guys like him were favored over others, oh boo hoo, you know he was getting his kicks as an atonement liberal.
And I heard so many stories from friends about German visitors in the US weeping and blabbering about how ashamed they are to be German, Nazi crime blah blah, Holocaust blah blah, etc, etc. that one might almost think these accounts are urban legends. But I remember back in highschool, a bunch of German exchange students stayed with us for two weeks, and they just had to present some slide show about some Holocaust memorial in their dinky little town. (It seems every town in Germany has one of those). Though the Germans seem to be debasing themselves, they are getting a kind of kick from the whole thing. By going boo-hoo, they are actually pleading for sympathy, showing off how conscientious and remorseful and moral they are, mugging for attention, and etc. I mean enough already.
"More likely, you're just brainwashed - mentally colonized. You take pride in believing that you're the only American who knows about the Japanese internment camps. I first learned about them in 1981 when I was ten. I heard about them in every history class since then, when they could fit them in between drawn-out, graphic descriptions of how people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We got to learn the timeline so every could be convinced that Truman just liked killing people. And yes, we heard about Perry."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you, a moron? I don't care about the internment camps(or about Hiroshima, etc). What's done is done, water under the bridge, and all that.
MY POINT was victimhood is a SELECTIVE NARRATIVE that is constructed by careful choice of events that are strung together into a story. So, one could THEORETICALLY make the argument that Japanese have been victims of Americans, and indeed such people do exist in Japan--too many in fact. Many Japanese overlooked their bloody role in China and prefer to focus on their suffering in what they call the Pacific War.
Similarly, blacks are selective in their slave narrative. They leave out the fact that black Africans caught and sold blacks to whites. They leave out the fact that blacks have been practicing slavery for 100,000s of yrs. They forget that slavery still exists in Africa today.
Since all peoples have been victims and victors, all peoples can develop a victim narrative or victor narrative by picking and choosing only those events and memories they find useful.
So, I wasn't making a pro-Japan argument but merely arguing that victim narrative could be made in which Japanese are primarily victims of Americans or Americans are victims of Japanese. It's all in the telling.
Similarly, when we remmeber WWII, we focus on the great sacrifices of Americans in Normandy but overlook the much greater sacrifices by Russians in Stalingrand and Kursk. Victor narratives, like victim narratives, are selective constructions.
Steve missing the point again. There is nothing in it for the Jews to build up a White Racial identity. To the contrary, Jews would find themselves hurt a great deal if the white people in this country ever unified as a distinct race.
ReplyDeleteThats why they always oppose it. Seeing Steve, and other white people, pander to Jews is just sad.
Maybe much of anti-white PC is more the reflection of white middle-class highschool neurosis than the agendas of blacks and Hispanics(and others).
ReplyDeleteAfter all, universities--the centers of ideas, ideologies, and political trends--are the bastions of middle class and upper-middle class whites and Jews than of blacks and Hispanics. Also, even black studies departments are influenced by ideas that spring from white intellectuals. Cornel West and Michael Dyson are well-versed in white leftist thought. And most Hispanic leftist academics are actually white!
By and large, the main body of the academia in English, history, philosophy, classical studies, film studies, media studies, journalism, feminist studies, and etc is dominated by upper middle class whites.
Now, why would all these upper middle class whites take up the cause of blacks, browns, subalterns, third world, etc, much of which they know little about except as tourists, researchers(who always maintain a distance), statisticians, or cultural theorists? Of course, white leftist intellectuals will say it's out of their love of progress, justice, equality, and etc. But... really now? That's what they think and say, but is it how they really feel in their subconsious?
Ask yourself... what kind of people become intellectuals and academics? Jocks and popular kids in highschool? The cool kids and cheerleaders and prom queens? No, it's the geeks, the dorks, the fat-butted hags, pimpled faced wimps, the nerds, the gimps, etc. Psychologically, highschool yrs are the most important formative period for the rest of one's life. It's great for some but horrible for others. Some are bullied and others are ignored as if they don't even exist. It's a time when lots of kids feel envious, insecure, unsettled, and resentful for not getting the girl, not getting the guy, not making the sports team, not making the cheerleading team, not being asked to the prom, not being liked in class, etc.
Now, what happens after highschool? The smart kids--nerds, geeks, fat-butted hags--go to elite colleges, and they finally feel like they matter. They are among fellow geeks. They are kinda 'popular' in a world where all the brainless jocks and cool people have been filtered out. And they finally feel THE POWER. Since their image of the evil villain in highschool yrs was some popular white guy and girl(who had all the fun and glory), they seek revenge by identifying with the 'wretched of the earth'. Of course, they don't really wanna roll up their sleeves and live amongst the third worlders or blacks; instead, they wanna feel symbolically united with oppressed humanity--oppressed like they'd been in highschool by the glam-guys and glam-girls.
Now, one may ask, 'what about poor white kids who attended integrated schools and get bullied and shitfaced by blacks? Wouldn't they go to college and steer the academia toward a white power agenda?' Well maybe, that is if they did go to elite colleges. But in fact, most poor whites who attend integrated high schools are low-IQ and more likely to get a butt-tattoo or join the army than go to college after highschool.
ReplyDeleteColleges, especially elite ones, are for upper-middle white/Jewish kids who felt belittled by jocks and babes in mostly white highschools. Since they felt left out of the fun and glamour in highschool, they compensate with power politics and intellectual/moral upmanship in college. They become like the girl in OLEANNA, except with brains. Also, their taking up of Third Worldism retroactively justifies their social failure in highschool. They can tell themselves that they CHOSE not to join in the fun cuz they had MORE IMPORTANT things on their mind, like 'social justice' and 'saving humanity', etc.
Of course, leftism has become cool and hip, and so even popular people now gravitate in that direction.
Initially, radical feminists were fat-butted Jewish hags, but once it became a major movement, it began to attract good-looking women who came to edge out women like Andrea Dworkin.
It's like interracism. When it was seen as lowly, generally ugly white women ignored by white men went with black men. But now that it's become the hot thing in mainstream society--what with Madonna sleeping with entire NBA--, good looking white women have edged out ugly white women as mates of black men.
So, much of PC liberalism is less about black power or brown power than the resentment of uppermiddle class white kids who didn't enjoy highschool and decided to get their revenge by identifying with the 'oppressed' around the world--oppressed by 'privileged powerful good looking popular white people, like those in highschool'. Since they remain in the Ivory Tower and don't have to deal with raw reality, they can choose to see/imagine the Third World according to their 'radical' theories. (It's like Karl Marx never stepped inside a factory, which is prolly why he romanticized the working class.) But the irony is the world is really owned and dominated by geeks like Bill Gates and George Soros than by kids who were popular in highschool.
I've met Jared Taylor. I met him at the AmRen conference in 2011 in Charlotte, North Carolina. I was sitting next to him at the restaurant he took us all to (there was only about twenty or so people there to listen to the speakers). I asked him where we should hold the next conference so that it wouldn't be sabotaged like this time and last year and he replied "Let's hold it in Haiti!" - he is a funny guy. I'm looking forward to buying his book.
ReplyDelete...Indeed, this is an HBD blog. The most profound expression of HBD is the desire to marry ashkenazi.
ReplyDeleteA high IQ wasp like Taylor that marries a female wasp will on average have lower IQ sons than he would have if he married an ashkenazi.
Indeed, many prominent wasps choose Jewish spouses for this reason. Remember that president clinton's daughter chose to marry an ashkenazi
Don't criticize Jared Taylor. He is simply trying to have high IQ children
___
Wow, I have heard of propaganda but this takes the cake.
You can just as easily make the case that 'ashkenazis' marry, or desire to marry, Nordic Whites because they desire to appropriate the high intelligence and physical beauty genes that North West Europeans have in much higher averages than any other ethnic group.
In fact this is how they became White in the first place, by selectively interbreeding with the better of the Europeans for millenia -- so you really have to give credit to the European side of the ashkenazis ancestry for their mean IQ levels -- otherwise they would be little different from the sephardic, who are little different from Arabs and other Leventines and 'semites' in their cognitive levels.
Jodi wrote:
ReplyDelete...all you have to do is actually study this group of 1960s born and raised academics to see how truly anti-white and anti-american they are. after 10 years, you can't come to any other conclusion than, they literally are the enemies of the historic united states and the euro-americans who created it.
This is because their brains have been pickled by Chomskism.
"I was unaware that "white" had become a pejorative, until my then-teenaged stepdaughter announced to her mom and me that she wasn't white, she was "Greek" (i.e. her bio-dad's ancestry)."
ReplyDeleteYeah I have several friends that have Greek or Italian ancestry and claim they are not "really" white. It's pretty amusing. In fact, I used to do the same thing when I was younger- sortof. Like 99 percent of white southerners, my family claims to have a few dashes of Cherokee blood somewhere in there. So when I was 11 or 12 I went around claiming I was Native American....of course the fact that I had very dark hair despite mostly Northern European ancestry added to the temporary fantasy...
But hey: can you hardly blame some groups of white people for attempting to weasel out of being white, when whites are constantly portrayed as the bad guys in the media, public school curriculum, etc?
"^^^Hey T, are fart jokes always funny?"
ReplyDeleteThey are in that high IQ, cinematic masterpiece, named'idocracy' that you guys are always quoting.
"One huge blind spot in Sailer's theory regarding the importance of Jews in determining American policy: The same policies are implemented across the entire Western World, even in countries where Jews are a tiny minority with negligible influence."
ReplyDeleteYou know that's a lie.
"The mounting "racial ratio" of nonwhite beneficiaries to white benefactors means the system will inevitably break down under the weight of numbers. At that point, white consciousness could be forced into existence."
ReplyDeleteI think the chances of the Liberal & Jewish elite going for white racial consciousness are rather low. It's perfectly possible the US could go the way of post-apartheid South Africa, which makes the Brazil option look attractive by comparison.
The only problem with turning into South Africa is that it would put an end to the American Global Empire, the USA would probably be too internally preoccupied, too poor, and too incompetent to engage in much force projection. At some point there would likely be an economic-military collapse similar to what occurred in the USSR.
"They are in that high IQ, cinematic masterpiece, named'idocracy' that you guys are always quoting."
ReplyDeleteOnly way Judge could slip an anti-anti-intellectual message past American anti-intellectualism.
"But the irony is the world is really owned and dominated by geeks like Bill Gates and George Soros than by kids who were popular in highschool."
People seem to say this, but CEOs tend to be drawn from the ranks of former athletes as well. You're probably right that academics are getting back for their unpopularity in high school.
I am so sick of being treated with contempt by people who seem to need something from me despite their low regard for me and my ilk. No trust for you, Sailer, or Murray or Taylor or Brimelow or Buchanan!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 10:48 AM, you should have attached a name to your comment. It's one of the best I've read on iSteve. I understand Sailer's game and have no qualms with it: fostering a national sense of "White Identity" is good for his home state of California. I admire any man who is dedicated to a Lost Cause (and there's no bigger Lost Cause than the state of California). But Sailer should make better use of his talents and move back to Houston and become a champion of secession and white seperatism. Absolutley nothing scares the crap out of the American elite more than the thought of losing their stupid tool: the good American.
"I know. Something came over me. See, I could write pornos, too! But sadly, the positions were filled."
ReplyDeleteUsually that requires having had sex.
"^^^Hey T, are fart jokes always funny?"
ReplyDeleteThey are in that high IQ, cinematic masterpiece, named'idocracy' that you guys are always quoting.
Uh, Sport, you thought Judge put the fart jokes in there to be "funny?"
Maybe we should name the white race after some great figure in Western culture. After all, race is biologically about blood and culturally about spirit. Geographic naming of a race makes less sense today cuz of huge demographic shifts. White Americans are of European origin but permanently settled in the Americas and Australia, etc. As for using skin color, lots of Asian Indians are black, lots of blacks are lightskinned or brown, lots of East Asians are white, and lots of whites are brownish among the Latins and Greeks.
ReplyDeleteSo, which white guy or gal--of myth, legend, or history--embodied the best of the Western spirit?
Take Odysseus. Smart resourceful guy. Far from perfect but heroic. Uses wit and strength to make it back home and win his wife and sonny back from the louts. In a way, this story is especially relevant to our time cuz the Western(especially American) Empire had been over-stretched and we lost focus. We need to come home both physically and psychologically and reclaim, defend, preserve, and build what is really OURS. Odysseus does just that. After joining in a ruinous war in Troy(which was really bad for both sides), he ventures homeward and faces all kinds of obstacles. But he overcomes them all, one by one. By wit, by muscle, by luck, by help of the gods. In the end, he loses all his men and almost his sanity but he hangs on and eventually wins.
So, if the white race were to be called the Odyssean race(or Ulyssean race or maybe Ulyean race; or maybe Odyean), it'd be kinda nice.
Another candidate would be King Arthur, though I would go with 'Arthurean'(or maybe Arturean) than 'Arthurian' since the latter has been claimed already. Arthur was a great king, at least from what I saw in Boorman's movie. Unlike his father who was all passion and muscle, Arthur was muscle and brains. There is triumph and tragedy in the story--at least in the movie as I haven't read the book--,and it would surely be an honor to name the white race the Arthurean race.
Alexander the Great was a great historical figure but he was a reckless empire builder, the last thing we wanna be associated with today. So, he's out.
Of course, most white people are neither Greek nor Anglo, but all white people do share the same genes, similar cultural ideals and values. And there is a connection between Odysseus and Arthur cuz Greek culture influenced Roman culture and Romans ruled Britain for 4 centuries or something like that. So, spiritually, Odysseus and Arthur represent the spirit of all white folks.
Also, the Greeks were the masters of Western civilization in the ancient world, and Anglos were the masters in the modern world.
PS. Maybe we can combine the two: Odyean-Arturean race, or Odyars or Odyart race,
"One huge blind spot in Sailer's theory regarding the importance of Jews in determining American policy: The same policies are implemented across the entire Western World, even in countries where Jews are a tiny minority with negligible influence."
ReplyDeleteIn Canada, the current hate-speech regime is very largely the work of the Canadian Jewish Congress. In fact, I think the CJC would be happy to own that.
For example, the human-rights tribunals' jurisdiction over the internet derives from a CJC-led campaign in the late 1970s to stamp out "hate lines".
Apparently, some neo-Nazis had set up phone numbers you could call to hear pre-recorded anti-Jewish rants, and this urgently required government action. (When the interwebs thing came along, it seemed natural to apply the rules.)
Cennbeorc
>tribal identity is still strong among much of Asia -- so strong in fact that attempts to destroy Asian families via feminism and mass media haven't been nearly as successful as they were in the West. The deities of Confucianism are ancestral Chinese. Jewry and China will come to loggerheads<
ReplyDeleteHate to break it to you, but Marxism had a certain effect on China last century. I believe Asian gentiles will fall for anything, just like white gentiles do.
Anecdotally, all Asian women of my acquaintance are outspoken about their ambition to marry Jewish men, basically, as they themselves say, on status/financial grounds.
Don't bet the farm on the Great Yellow Hope. It wouldn't surprise me to learn the elite is thoroughly interbred.
"Bill hits the important point, that a common identity is usually based on shared suffering or a shared struggle. Or at a bare minimum, some shared experience. White Americans don't have that, yet."
ReplyDeleteNot really true. A common idenitity can be constructed. For example, majority of whites in the US are not Anglo(but immigrants who arrived considerably later), but they share in the Founding Father myth.
White Hispanics were the oppressors of indigenous native peoples, but they constructed a narrative where they too are victims of white 'racism/imperialism'.
Recent African immigrants had ancestors who sold black slaves to whites, but they share in the same 'we poor blacks enslaved by whites' narrative.
And Hellenic culture and Christianaity didn't originated in Northern Europe, but N. Europeans came to powerfully identify with Ancient Greeks and Early Christians.
So, 'shared identity' can be constructed. It all depends on how mythically creative you are.
Take 'people of color' which unites an Amazonian Indian with an Arab(though Arabs are culturally, racially, and historically close to whites).
Maybe we need to call white folks the 'people of light' since they are light-skinned and did most to attain the light of liberty and truth.
OT
ReplyDeleteFascinating flick. Romy was a goddess.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/movies/12combat.html
Funny paradox about Jews is they are so 'liberal' because of their profound elephantine memory.
ReplyDeleteWe generaly associate historical memory with conservatism--remembrance and interest in one's past and heritage--and looking-ahead(into the future)with liberalism.
But, in American at least, the most amnesiac people tend to be conservative while the most memorisiac people tend to be liberal. If Jews weren't into books, history, ideas, archival research, etc, they would forget about past suffering and look at all the good stuff(or stuffering) they got in America. But Jews REMEMBER and their history was one of living/suffering under white Christian goyim. They cannot let this go.
Since so much of Jewish Identity has been formed as a kind of resistance against Pagan and Christian White community--Rome's sack of the Temple, Christian antisemitism, pogroms and exile, ghetto, dangers of conversion and assimiliation(even when goyim are nice), anti-Jewish laws, Holocaust, etc--, Jews may fear a loss of something uniquely Jewish if they really felt comfortable in the land of goyim.
ReplyDeleteJews don't want to be persecuted but the cult of persecution is key to Jewish pride, nobility, and identity. And they might fear losing it if they become just another member of the white club.
It's like a rebelious rocker punk loses something essential to his identity when he strikes it rich and famous and becomes just another member of the successful-folks-club. So, even with his fame an riches, he tries to maintain some kind of 'rebel' myth. This is true of the Left in general. They are now the Establishment but put on the 'adversarial underdog' act.
Most white kids are not political but wanna have fun, and it just so happens that they are less likely to alarm people if they remain within PC codes.
ReplyDeleteSuppose you go to a dance club--with all sorts of races and peoples, etc--and say, 'I think everybody is cool and I love Obama and jazz'. You're cool, you're hip, you're anti-'racist'. But suppose you say, 'I think racial differences exist, I think Western Civ is in danger, and white people should develop their own identity'. It just aint cool.
So, the real power that the liberal elites has isn't over our minds but over our mindlessnesses. The elites wanna control what we FEEL--as a kind of vibe--than what we THINK about real issues cuz real thought undermines PC.
The issue of coolness was why Madonna-Paglia-ism won over radical feminism. Radical feminism in the late 60s and early 70s was kinda cool, but then the dour/sour lesbo sisterhood took over--the kind of women with overalls and no makeup. Girls got fed up with this, what with fat-butted hags telling them not to wear make-up and call everything 'rape'. This is where Paglia saw an opening and called for a new kind of ass-shake, partying, and cool feminism, which became the new thing. So, even feminists today try to be 'cool and hip and sexy'.
It could be Jews don't wanna really become part of White Identity since so much of their identity--morally, historically, culturally, spiritually, etc--has been defined in terms of suffering under white goyim, pagan(Roman)and Christian(medieval to modern Europe). Jewish Identity is more historical than Christian Identity which is more eternalist or timeless. Jews define themselves as much by what happened as what will happen. Christians are happy with what is or shall be.
ReplyDeleteEven as recently as 1940s, there was the Holocaust. And even as late as the early 70s, dimmer wasp law grads were favored over top Jewish law graduates by many prestigious law firms--if we believe Dershowitz in CHUTZPAH.
Even if there's no sign of antisemitism in today's America and Europe, Jews have defined their nobility, moral superiority, specialness, and etc in terms of suffering and victimization and injustice at the hands of white goyim.
Even though Jews don't want to be persecuted or oppressed, they wanna maintain the cult of persecution and oppression. It is too much of a part of their identity, heritage, moral pride and self-aggrandizement. If they were to fully join the white club, they would lose that sense of specialness.
It's like when a rebel rocker punk strikes it rich-and-famous, he still wants to maintain that aura as an outsider/outcast/rebel since that was the essence of his identity and source of pride(and self-pity) in the wilderness.
Today, the Left has become the establishment but still maintains the cult of the avant-garde and pretend that they are sticking it to the Man when they are indeed the Man(and Woman and Gay).
Imagine this alternative scenario of the Resurrection of Jesus. Jesus returns back to Earth but Romans and Jews all apologize, hug Him, beg His forgiveness, and throw Him a big party. They even offer Him the key to the city and temple and offer Him the title of hononary Jew and Roman.
Would Jesus have accepted? His whole identity of nobility and superiority was based on His suffering at the hands of man. If He accepts, He is no longer what He is. It's like in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST where Jesus realizes He must choose the fate on the cross to become the Messiah.
Also, keep in mind that it was not enough for early Christians to be accepted, tolerated, or embraced by Pagan Romans. They didn't want to be part of Pagan Rome but to change it. They felt morally superior. To join Pagan Rome would have been selling out to Satan.
Similary, Jews or the modern Jewsus, filled with moral pride and sanctimony, cannot be satisfied with being welcomed to the larger white goy community. It would be like selling their soul to the Devil who made them suffer through the ages. No, the ONLY peace with white goy community that Jews can accept is to convert them to the Jewish Ideology and Agenda, just like Early Christians could only be content with Pagan Rome becoming Christian.
"White racial consciousness was considerably stronger just a few decades ago. There was mass resistance to busing in the urban north just a few decades ago. Reagan used the Southern Strategy in his campaign. Even in the late 1980s, it was acceptable for Bush to bring up Willie Horton. In the mid 90s, Charles Murray was apart of the mainstream right."
ReplyDeleteNot really. The mainstream right never championed The Bell Curve and has been avoiding any direct talk on the scientific facts of race at least since Buckley purged "the extremists" from the conservative movement in the 1950s/60s. Since that time, pro-whites have existed in the margins and have had little influence.
The most the conservatives and the GOP have done is try to take advantage of "implicit whiteness" via things like the Southern Strategy and opposition to crime which was seen as code for black crime. But the right abandoned all attempts to either look objectively at race or to openly oppose cultural Marxism, and the result has been inevitable: they can't even defend implicit whiteness anymore, or even talk in code. They've swallowed the cultural Bolshevik kool-aid and now they simply can't do anything remotely pro-white, even things that would win them elections, like stopping illegal immigration or ending affirmative action.
"One huge blind spot in Sailer's theory regarding the importance of Jews in determining American policy: The same policies are implemented across the entire Western World, even in countries where Jews are a tiny minority with negligible influence."
ReplyDeleteYou know that's a lie.
Wandrin,
Expanding on that: this person is falling for the fallacy that "Jews are a tiny minority, therefore they have negligible influence". This is obviously untrue, as anyone who has educated himself beyond a mere public school history education will be well aware: small minorities always have much greater influence then the majority. The democratic fallacy is that numbers count for everything in politics, but this doesn't even hold true in actual democracies: majorities may have more votes, but their opinions and views are shaped by the people who control the flow of information and the flow of money, and they have ALWAYS been a tiny minority. Jews are just the latest minority that happens to be in control.
The other fallacy this person is falling for, is the fallacy that the changes in policy (non-white immigration, cultural Marxist PC, etc) in Europe are unrelated to the changes in these same policies in the USA; so if Jews changed American immigration, for instance, and imposed cultural Marxism via the universities, someone else must have changed these things in Europe. This is false for two reasons: one, Jews are very well over-represented in power in many Western European countries (especially France and Britain), and, two, since WWII the USA has had immense influence (seen and unseen) over the internal politics of Western European countries. It doesn't matter if there are one or two or three or more layers of intermediaries between yourself and those who are ultimately in charge: the end result is the same.
The fact that the policy changes on, for instance, immigration in Europe followed the American example, shows you who is really following who here, and who is setting the agenda. Likewise I am old enough to remember when British conservatives in the 1980s/90s were laughing at PC as an "American fad" yet now it is rampant in Britain too. The same people are responsible in both cases and you have to be pretty simple minded to believe that Jews have neglible power in Europe, either directly as European Jews, or indirectly via their power within the USA/USG/US academia/US corporations/US NGOs and foundations/US financial systems/NATO, etc. Lots and lots of wire pullers; Europe has been a US colony since the end of WWII but there are powerful blinders on both sides of the Atlantic which enourage people to pretend otherwise.
I kind of like that idea of "Odyssean race" for all Caucasians and "Arthurian race" for northern Europeans.
ReplyDelete"Uh, Sport, you thought Judge put the fart jokes in there to be "funny?"
ReplyDeleteWell, that was one of my general preconceptions about commedic films.
"Maybe we should name the white race after some great figure in Western culture."
ReplyDeleteI vote, "The Steven Hawkings."
"Sailer should make better use of his talents and move back to Houston and become a champion of secession and white seperatism."
ReplyDeleteLOL. The jokes on you. If you read Steve and actually think of what position he is for, he might be a plant by the NAACP. As a republican conservative (is he really conservative?), HBD can only be a tool for progressivism (or just a fun gimmick to make some coin). That's what Steve is - a progressive/conservative. Or maybe he's just a greedy, lazy absurdist WASP who's come to peace with American declinist corruption. But, I say again, you've all been had.
Usually that requires having had sex.
ReplyDeleteYour mom doesn't count?
Maybe we should name the white race after some great figure in Western culture. After all, race is biologically about blood and culturally about spirit. Geographic naming of a race makes less sense today cuz of huge demographic shifts.[...]
ReplyDeleteTake Odysseus[...]
Another candidate would be King Arthur[...]
I like it. And Steve's suggestion for "Odyssean" for the whole and "Arthurian" for the subset. Romantic sap that I am.
"Your mom doesn't count?"
ReplyDeleteYou're too old and too dark for my mom.
"Maybe we should name the white race after some great figure in Western culture."
ReplyDeleteI vote, "The Steven Hawkings."
-----------
So, should the West be called 'Steverse', i.e. universe of the steven race?
A common idenitity can be constructed. For example, majority of whites in the US are not Anglo(but immigrants who arrived considerably later), but they share in the Founding Father myth.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that whites in America share a common identity? Or know much about the Founding Fathers?
"Do you think that whites in America share a common identity? Or know much about the Founding Fathers?"
ReplyDeleteThat's why you gotta WORK ON IT. Even after the revolution, most Americans primarily defined themselves in terms of state origin: Virginian, Georgian, etc.
They all became Americans because of the creation of a narrative of shared American destiny.
One of the reasons why Indians were so ineffective against the white man was because they were divided along tribal lines and couldn't form a shared/broad identity. Thus, it was easy for the white man to play divide-and-conquer with the red man.
Similarly, blacks in slave ships couldn't unite to fight white slavers cuz blacks came from various backgrounds and didn't speak the same language or eyed each other with hostility/suspicion.
But over time, there did develop a shared black identity and a broad American Indian identity.
Identity if half-organic, half-mythic. It's organic in the sense that some identities are more natural--same race, language, nationality, etc. Prussia-dominated Germany was more organic than the Austro-Hungarian Empire made up of various ethnic groups. But, all communities are partly imagined, mythic, created. It depends on how the organic elements of a people are united and characterized as a larger entity. And this requires creativity, will, leadership, vision.
Anglos did a better job of it in the North Americas than Latins in South America. But then, Anglos, other than being politically more creative and energetic, had a more viably organic community to work with as North America was majority white. Latins in South America were a minority surrounded by indigenous folks. So, they were more ambivalent about nationalism since masses of non-white indigenes might use nationalism to overthrow white minority elite power.
In fact, I'm surprised that the small white elites ruled as long as they did in so many Latin American nations,. Maybe South American indigenes are by nature a more submissive people. Maybe mestizo-ization and mulatto-ization undermined the possibility of a strong united adversial movement against the alien elite--white conquerors. Well, it may explain why Jews want to mix the races as much as possible in the US.
Jews as the great stumbling-block of white unity does not pass the smell test. Regardless of what Jews did in the past to establish modern political ideologies, now there cannot be unity between white gentiles because you cannot unite the Conservatives and the devotees of the environmentally sustainable nanny state. Get rid of Jewish leaders in both movements, and they will carry on as usual. Maybe the nanny-staters will get even dumber in their rhetoric and maybe Conservatives will care about Israel less. But you are not going to get a yota more of unity.
ReplyDeleteSo if you want unity, unite those people whose worldview is at least borderline similar to your own and forget about the other hundred million white people. What Jews will, or will be allowed, to join which camp will not make much of a difference.
Man, Taylor may write a good book, but his website sucks. He should just disable comments. That place is turgid. They should rename it to "American Retirees" or something.
ReplyDeleteYou're too old and too dark for my mom.
Very funny. Is this where I go back to the tragic mulatto thing?
Hey, anybody seen this yet?
Members of "El Nazi" Kidnapping Ring Apprehended
But unlike Steve, of course, Taylor is "taken seriously," lol.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm trying to remember the fart jokes from Idiocracy. I can't remember any, but I bet they were "meta" or "ironic" or whatever you call it, putting it in the running for "worst example ever," right up there with Tropic Thunder.
ReplyDelete"Jews as the great stumbling-block of white unity does not pass the smell test."
ReplyDeleteIf the MSM told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about crime the multicult would crumble within six months.
Nobody would be arguing over Obamacare if they realised they were being ethnically cleansed block by block.
"If the MSM told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about crime the multicult would crumble within six months."
ReplyDeleteIncluding the crime in the Middle East? white people pull of hundreds of murders DAILY there you know.