Toxic Whiteness

ESSAY: I first came across the term ”White Privilege” about five years ago in an article in the Telegraph which was a response to Laurie Penny’s (surprise surprise) attempt to bring the idea into popular discourse in Britain. It was one of those occasions when you knew instantly an idea or policy is bad news, understanding the term itself and the theory of White Privilege was to be made aware that the enemy had been working on a new weapon which was in the process of being tweaked and polished before being rolled out onto the meta-political battlefield.

…And now it has.

White Privilege Theory emanates from the ”Social Science” wing of modern leftist thought, this is the field of study which has given us the tragic and insane ”Social Justice Warrior”. The standard response to White Privilege theory of the Ethno-Nationalist is to reject the entire premise out of hand, non-whites cannot be oppressed by whites if they are no longer living in our countries. Furthermore, the existence of White Privilege Theory as a valid subject within academia undermines the premise of the theory because if the society was directed toward ”privileging” whites above everyone else then why haven’t whites shutdown such studies?.

Like all other forms of Neo Marxist/Critical Theory, White Privilege was born on the American university campus and spread throughout the former white world, there’s even articles being written in Irish newspapers lambasting the Irish for their failure to recognize their privilege and how it disadvantages ‘people of colour’. Whether we like it or not, tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of white teens are now studying Social Science and White Privilege Theory and Critical Whiteness Studies(CWS). But what is it? what are they telling these kids and what will the effects of this field of study actually be on these fragile young white minds?

Posted in America, Nationalism, Whites | Comments Off on Toxic Whiteness

To Rubicon or Not to Rubicon

Spencer Quinn writes:

So here’s a question.

If Donald Trump were to lose the 2016 election by a wide margin, and then decide to straddle a tank and cross the Rubicon with the most of the US military and civilian militias behind him, should the Alt Right support him?

…So let me ask again, in light of where we are headed, would Donald Trump’s crossing the Rubicon now be such a bad thing? Such an act would run counter to the desires of the Founding Fathers, true. But, as we have seen, so has the actions of so many of our minorities for over a century now. We seem to be heading away from our civic origins no matter what we do. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers crossed a Rubicon of their own, did they not?

I don’t think Donald Trump will lose the election, in which case this dilemma can be put off for some time. Between the Wall, deportations, and the so-called Muslim ban, the America of the Founding Fathers will continue to eke out its existence—at least until the next presidential election. On the other hand, if Trump does lose, I certainly hope he take his lumps like a man and walk back from that Rubicon (if he’s tempted to go there at all, which I doubt). Life is still too good to warrant revolution. But if history has taught us anything, it’s that life never stays good for long.

Posted in America | Comments Off on To Rubicon or Not to Rubicon

WP: ‘He wants to become a cop. ‘Are you sure?’ his friends and family ask.’

All minorities are going to feel ambivalent or negative about the majority and enforcing the majority’s laws. This is nothing peculiar to blacks. It’s just basic social identity theory. There is no solution.

Most non-blacks don’t want to be around blacks, most non-Muslims don’t want to be around Muslims, and most non-Jews don’t want to be around Jews.

Washington Post:

He had grown up in Baltimore, been arrested, been slammed to the ground by a police officer. And now, all he wanted was to be one.

So Kyle Johnson flipped through his mail. It was a Wednesday in July, and he had just come home from his 5 a.m. shift at the airport, where he spent eight hours moving baggage around planes. A safe job. The kind no one has an opinion about.

He found the envelope he was hoping wouldn’t be there. It was from Morgan State University’s police department, the first agency Kyle applied to after graduating from a community college police academy. If they had wanted to hire him, they would have called.

“Okay,” he told himself. “On to the next.”

The next, if he were being practical, would be his home town Baltimore Police Department. They were hiring, and seeking minority candidates — actively recruiting locals, who would be familiar with the city and its problems.

But just that day, BPD had been on the 12 o’clock news again. Kyle saw it on the little TV in the airport break room. The charges against the officers accused in the case of Freddie Gray had just been dropped, meaning no one would be found responsible for the death of the Baltimore man who was 25 — Kyle’s age — when he fell into a coma in the back of a police van. Two weeks later, the Justice Department would determine that the Baltimore police had been disproportionately targeting and using excessive force against black people.

Already, Kyle’s Facebook feed was full of opinions on this new development in what seemed a never-ending story of never-ending conflict. More black men dead in Minnesota, in Baton Rouge; police officers slain in Baton Rouge, in Dallas. Each time, his friends and relatives fumed about injustice and fear. Kyle kept his opinions to himself. Rarely did anyone seem to have a solution. Except, he thought, the Dallas police chief, who gave a news conference to say: “We’re hiring.”

“We’ll help you resolve some of the problems you’re protesting about,” the chief, David Brown had said.

That’s what Kyle wants: If the battle is between cops and black people, maybe the solution is to be both.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on WP: ‘He wants to become a cop. ‘Are you sure?’ his friends and family ask.’

Josh Marshall: Twitter Has Too Much Free Speech Because It Is So Gentile


* it’s almost like those rights of Englishman were somehow more genetic than we thought

* Used to think free speech was an incidental casualty of diversity; now I see it’s deliberate.

* The CEO is a homosexual. Homosexuals only make up about 2% of the population. But leadership is to straight?

* I’m old enough to remember Jews being at the forefront of free speech rights. But maybe that was only for obscenity.

* Oy vey. Where to begin…

* the COO and “next CEO” is not jewish enough? Need to have at least 2 jews on the board.

* These people are really drawing a clear line in the sand lately. They’ll regret it when we cross it.

* there must be jewish supremacy in all news and social media organizations. Goy need their guidance.

* if Israel was less Jewish it would stop it’s atrocities against Palestinians. Israel is too Jewish.

Posted in Censorship, Jews | Comments Off on Josh Marshall: Twitter Has Too Much Free Speech Because It Is So Gentile

Jewish Neo-Con Bret Stephens: “The Plot Against America”

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* For the record. The self-righteous anti-nationalist elitist Bret Stephens is not the same (not at all) as the editor of the nationalist journal, one Brett Stevens. (Twitter). ( archive.)

Same name, just about, but almost political mirror images of one other. (Note that the nationalist Brett Stevens’ family had the name much, much earlier.)

* I think Jews or people with significant Jewish antecedents like Bret Stephens need to admit that many of them are internationalists or humanists at their core. I don’t think it’s anti-semetic to say that and in this they aren’t alone. Many new immigrant groups don’t have any particular connection to America it’s a place to live realitively easy and make some money to them.

The more people like Bret deny this the more of a backlash they’ll receive. There are millions of people who can’t pick up and move to Israel or India if things get sticky here. This is their land their ancestors have fought or lived through all or most of its important wars.

* Bashar Assad has done little more than offer lip service against Israel. He withdrew from Lebanon, and was willing to cooperate with the US for rendition (torture). As far as Syria goes, any of the competitors in the rebellion are unlikely to be as neutral as Assad has been.

Saddam was a horrible leader, I agree, but the solution should have been a coup, not an invasion.

Meanwhile, John McCain has found public occasion to praise Al-Nusra.

* “The GOP’s conversion to being a powerfully pro-Israel and philo-Semitic party is a relatively recent development. No law dictates that it is destined to be a lasting one.”

To put it bluntly, the above is exceedingly inflammatory.

When the crux of your editorial is that some are insane for believing in the Grand Unified Theory of the eeevil Jews, it doesn’t help when you admit to a conspiracy, unless you are rubbing our nose in it.

I don’t see why it is so incendiary to wish that we had a Middle East policy similar to that of Russia. I am not instinctually Anti-Israel, but we are being pushed into the rock (Neocons) and a hard place (1488s).

If a Jewish writer wants to call themselves a “conservative” in America, they need to support conserving America’s historic demographic and religious majority. If they cannot find the moral fiber to do that, they need to move to Israel.

* So Hillary is better than Trump because she called for the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which are no threat whatever to America. She said this “in one of her leaked Goldman Sachs speeches” – and yet the people who say there’s a clandestine alliance of financiers and politicians are haters!

* Peggy Noonan’s WSJ column this week includes this: “[Trump] was, as they say, declaring that he didn’t want to invade the world and invite the world.”

No mention from Ms. Noonan of who the ‘they’ is who say that.

* “That’s why it’s utterly unwise for politically conservative Jews to make common cause with Mr. Trump, on the theory that he’d be a tougher customer in the Middle East than Mrs. Clinton.”

How about on the theory that Hillary wants to bring millions of Muslims into the USA and raise taxes on Jews to fund giveaways to NAMs?

I don’t really have a problem with Hillary’s Israel policy, it is her America policy where I take issue.

I want a wall built around the civilized world and the barbarians kept out.

On the tax/migrants issue, Breitbart has a great investigative journalism series on one of the areas where tax/migrant issues intersect: the massive number of refugees who have TB, a disease that has been nearly eradicated among white Americans, but who are now being put at massive risk by third world migrants who have both standard TB and multi-drug resistant TB, or MDR TB.

Twenty cases of MDR TB, all foreign-born, were diagnosed in Wisconsin over the eight year period between 2005 and 2012, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Every single one of these cases was a third world migrant! Once they are here, if we don’t expel them, we have to treat them to protect ourselves. The cost is about $150,000 per case. Just another way these dull-normal Muslim masses are harming taxpaying Americans.

* My God. Why won’t the Jews just leave us alone?

* For Charles Lindbergh it was “war agitators,” notably those of “the Jewish race” (and the British).

“I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.”

* But let us not ignore that Stephens is deeply uncertain about the conservative Jews. Will they follow Trump or will they follow Stephens? In France, there is a stratum of Jews which has consistently voted for Le Pen – for the last decade, I’d say.

On the other hand, Jewish media are as good as American media in general to keep dissidents mute. So every alternative media would do a good work in giving the dissident Jews a voice. This includes the historical dissident Jews: Jewish Republicans, Jewish supporters of “America First”, of McCarthy etc.

* UK politics have been pretty interesting lately. Labour is in collapse mode right now because while most of its senior leadership is pro-Jewish, its membership is heavily minority and far-left whites who hate themselves, and they installed the Jeremy Coburn, an anti-semite-friendly humorless old Marxist, as party leader.

The elites and long-time party regulars in the party hated him from the beginning, but the hate grew over time and they attempted a coup, which failed when Coburn won the new party member election. At this point, no Jew or friend of Jews will do anything to support Labour anymore.

Meanwhile, the Teresa May has been gaining support as UKIP also is melting down along with Labour and its support going to her. She has been a pleasant surprise as PM, rejecting various schemes to ignore the Brexit vote, and is so popular that polls show if she called a snap election the results would be something like 485 Tory MPs to 135 Labour MPs. She is currently about as popular as Thatcher was at Thatcher’s absolute peak.

* That Bret Stephens reads The Daily Stormer is perfect for both of them. They fuel each other, which is unfortunate for American nationalists. Because there are talented Jews on the nationalist side (Mickey Kaus, Stephen Miller, Jared Kushner, etc.) and there are talented gentiles on the globalist side (Bret Stephens’s boss Paul Gigot, the Clintons, Lionel Barber of the FT, etc.), and there are also plenty of nationalist-sympathetic gentiles who would be turned off by the Daily Stormer crowd.

Stephens knows that, of course, which is probably why he wrote the column. Action-reaction. Good for him and Daily Stormer; bad for most Trump supporters.

* It’s inevitable that the Left will turn on Israel. Just as the Left has turned on whites because ‘white privilege’ is the only possible acceptable explanation for black failure and black aggression, so the aggression and failure of Islam can only be explained as being the fault of Israel. The alternative–blaming Islamic culture and societies for the mess they are in–is just too much for them to contemplate.

As the numbers of Muslims in the West continues to grow, you can expect the anti-Israel rhetoric to be ramped up the worse the Muslims behave, just as whites are blamed the worse blacks behave.

Lawrence Auster’s first law of minority-majority relations comes into play here.

* “unwise for politically conservative Jews to make common cause with Mr. Trump, on the theory that he’d be a tougher customer in the Middle East than Mrs. Clinton”

The WSJ should sack Mr Stephens for reheating ancient anti-Semitic tropes about dual loyalty.

* Proximity plus diversity clarifies the mind and help people realise that it’s The Current Year.

* What happened to American Jews in the 1930′s that they ‘shouldn’t have to relive’? The New Deal? The New York World’s Fair? The “Jewish Seat” on the Supreme Court?

* Once again, just as in the 1920s and 30s, the Rothschild’s international extortion racket is crumbling, and they are facing both a peasant rebellion from within, as well as the rise of peer-competitors (Russia & China) from without. Their only hope, then as now, is total war.

If Hellary wins the election, start digging your bomb shelters, people.

* McCarthy wasn’t an anti-Semite. For him Communist ideology wasn’t a Jewish proclivity but something that could strike anyone of any social background at any time, sort of like tuberculosis in the 19th century.

* Is there a Jewish equivalent of “The Talk”, about gentiles (of which famously Derbyshire wrote a white version)?

* “They meet in secret. Men of immense wealth; a woman of limitless ambition. Their passports are American but their loyalties are not. Through their control of international banks and the media they manipulate public opinion and finance political deceit. Their aim is nothing less than the annihilation of America’s political independence, and they will stop at nothing—including rigging a presidential election—to achieve it.”

Yeah, put that way, it is a pretty good summation.

* Miller and Kushner are directly part of the campaign so they don’t really count. There are much bigger forces backing Trump– Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, Williamsburg Hasidim, et al. and billionaires Carl Icahn, Stephen Feinberg, Steven Mnuchin, John Paulson, et al. If not for Savage and Drudge, Trump wouldn’t have been able to keep this election close. And if not for Savage, Trump’s winning political philosophy wouldn’t exist. Savage has pounded home the ‘borders, language, culture’ theme for decades and Trump is a self-confessed regular listener to Savage’s radio show. Trump has a very basic and singular plan and intends to use the best business skills to get it done. He’s not vexed with highfalutin political, economic, and historical theories and for anyone (like Stephens) to argue that Trump has some sophisticated crypto-fascist plot in mind– and they simultaneous say he’s a shallow-minded clown– is beyond ludicrous. But we’ve seen the MSM tie the bowl of Skittles analogy by Trump Jr. to Jospeh Goebbels’ racist philosophy, so any unhinged and disconnected attack is fair game in this election.

Btw, I think if Trump wins he can only do so much to merely slow the crumbling of America as we know it. I don’t see much chance of America not looking like Brazil in 10-15 years (sans an economic superpower up north to prop it up– esp. the globalist elites).

* It always amazes me how open Jews like Stephens are about asking the question: Is it good for the Jews.

You would think that they might worry a bit about other groups noticing and starting to ask the same question themselves. The fact that these other groups haven’t done so for at least 50 years doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future.

Then again, as smart as they are, Jews have a nasty habit of overplaying their hand.

* While Stephens is warning off the readers of the WSJ from falling for right-populist anti-globalist and conspiracy rhetoric (which he indicates carries anti-Semitic tropes), it is worth recalling that the left is replete with conspiracy rhetoric regarding “the Ruling Class”, “Imperialism”, “the Patriarchy”, “systemic racism”, “rape culture”, “gun culture”, widespread “homophobia”, and on and on. Was Bernie Sanders’ bashing of Wall Street, the Bankers, and the 1% also dog whistling anti-Semitic tropes?

BTW, am I alone in considering Stephen’s conflating of Stormfront with the Alt Right (no matter that Stormfront may be happy to do it themselves) an exercise in tarring folks like Steve or Derb with the 1488 brush? Are HBD or immigration criticism gateway drugs to Neo-Nazism? I’d be interested in Steve’s take on this.

* Bret Stephens has indeed had a stellar career and I wonder if his trajectory is due to his less sparkling stuff getting through irrespective of merit. He needs to run his stuff by someone with the Jew-to Jew confidence and authority to reign him in. I think the European gentiles-as-irrational-persecutors angle dissuades non Jewish higher editorial staff from being more critical of such pieces. As a result of (what I’m presuming has been) a hands-off on Stephens’s white-gentile-persecutors stuff he went further each time. But now the establishment that is virtually 100 percent against Trump is encouraging such pieces and Stevens is happy to oblige.

He thinks the biggest problem facing Israel is Iranian nuclear weapons, and a nuclear threat from Hillary is the answer. No, it’s the Arabs in the West Bank, and Hillary articulating the elite’s settled policy has publicly said they will have to be given the West bank for a (another) Palestinian state. Trump as president would let Israel solve that problem (why right wing Jews support him), but I suppose Stephens’s career would not go so well if he stopped being a tool of the US establishment in their house magazine.

* So, according to Stephens, the subject of discussion is never the real subject–it’s always a cover for what everybody’s really thinking about: the Jews. To discuss immigration is really to discuss the Jews. To discuss trade policy–it’s clearly just about the Jews. American political corruption: Jews again. Media bias: Jews. Increasing plutocratic power: the Jews and always the Jews.

The paranoia on display is embarrassing. Or is this wild speculation and accusation a manifestation of guilt? Of having been caught out pushing the Culture Critique a little too far, too fast?

* Re: Mr. Stephens seems to have had a pretty kick-ass career

Yes, by carefully avoiding in any way anything resembling independent thought or original research.

These are the words of a political hack parroting the party line.

Unfortunately, this is increasingly how one succeeds in the present climate.

It’s no longer the republic of letters; it’s the cartel of letters.

* Mood Affiliation + Victimhood Culture + High IQ Aptitude at Ex Post Rationalization

In the past 6 months we’ve really seen some incredible mental gymnastics justifying why “no, no, no, this is why Trump will actually persecute *my group* the most.” I’m actually kind of sad we only have a few more weeks of this election.

I feel like state of the art has nearly reached the point where authors make these conclusions while entirely foregoing any actual specific references to Trump at all. The field of formal logic may actually lose out on some potential breakthroughs when election mania is over.

Being on Trump’s secret genoice list has become a pretty trendy marker of status in America’s more cosmopolitan corners. Particularly so as his currently abysmal poll numbers make said persecution nearly hypothetical at this point.

* How many “conservative Jews” are there really? From where I’m standing the Jewish shadow government is getting pretty long in the tooth and for the most part are exactly the same people who egged on the Iraq war 15 years ago. They aren’t looking like they have too many successors and the best they can muster are such intellectual heavyweights as Jamie Kirchick and Ben Shapiro. I suspect that Stepehens, much like the Brezhnev-era Politburo, sees the cold abyss ahead of him and wants to do all he can until them.

* If it sounds as if Stephens is off his rocker, that could be because he is. Perhaps not known to the diaspora of white collar knowledge workers and sensitive types nodding their heads along to this scary campfire tale/Reichstag-porn, he’s distinguished himself at various times for anti-social pointless rancor even among his fellow New York editorial attack dogs (I think at some level this must be his objective). Imagine Ted Cruz but without the aw-shucks tweak. Mostly he seems to pick fights & lose them with “media reporters” — strange for a guy who babbles so much about strategy and leadership brio… Though a pre-Murdoch employee at the WSJ, as the bio shows he’s spent his entire working life in the News Corp archipelago.

* I’m ashamed to say that I can barely read the news these last couple months. It just puts me in a a horrible mood. Almost every headline about the election is an attack on Trump or his supporters, and they’re quite often dishonest/disingenuous.

That tweet from Yglesias about packs of people being allowed to beat up Jews and minorities is the epitome. It’s actually respectable these days to believe that Trump would end the rule of law in the United States.

I’m certainly still voting for Trump. Part of the point of the relentless news cycle is to depress his supporters. I’ve just had to go dark from mainstream media sites and social media for a couple of months. I recommend it to others.

* He normally writes like that. i.e. ominous/hallucinatory with a sort of sullen-televangelist flavor

For example, this bizarro-classic of B.S. artistry from June 2010, “Afghanistan: Eyes Wide Shut” (can read via Google News if the link hits WSJ paywall):

“Perhaps the job-secure Gen. Petraeus could press the administration to stop talking about withdrawal schedules and start using the word ‘victory’ with frequency and conviction. Or perhaps the general could, in his usual politic way, speak that way himself. Doing so would reassure our remaining Afghan friends and deter importuning outsiders. It might steady the unsteady Mr. Karzai. Above all, it would persuade the Afghans whose support we need that they won’t soon find themselves on the wrong end of a Taliban firing squad for having once sided with us.”

I’d note that not one person on the National Review masthead or “Fox News All-Star Panel” was extolling such delusional prospects for Afghanistan at the time. The neo-futurismo Johns Hopkins keyboard commandos had taken to dumping on Rumsfeld while touting the wonder-working power of surge-king Petraeus– OOPS…

* There is no firm evidence that banks and the media explicitly collaborate in any way. If it that was the case, we’d see a good degree of unusually inter-tangled business ties. It’s not like publicly traded multi-billion companies don’t have extensive records of their ownership and management. We’d expect to see major Keiretsu-style cross-holdings, or at least major common shareholders. We’d also expect to see it be quite common for executives from one sector to move to another. Wake me up when Lloyd Blankfein is named the next editor of the NYT. Overall banking and media are not anymore inter-tangled than any other random pair of industries in the US economy.

Yes, bankers and members of the media do often share quite common political opinions. At least when normalized to the median American. But that’s because each industry is disproportionately made up of wealthy, educated, coastal professionals. The same political opinions are widely held by pretty much every other cosmopolitan, educated, coastal professional. Regardless of whether they’re bankers, journalists, professors, doctors, lawyers or software engineers.

The reality is far more depressing than the conspiracy fantasies. If there was a cabal using their vast resources to manipulate public opinion, victory seems quite achievable. Stage a political uprising, a la Trump, and expose and castrate the few maestros at the top. Instead political trends ebb and flow in ways that are no more centrally orchestrated than high fashion. The march of political leftism is driven by the distributed cultural consensus of millions. Absent direct occupation and political re-education of New York, San Francisco and LA (a la the post-war occupation of Germany), there’s no silver bullet here.

* First, there is no question that the piece is more effective because it comes from a Jew. No politician actually has ever explicitly said anything like that because none would dare make such majority-as-proto-nazi accusations openly and moreover it would not be very convincing unless they were Jewish. Jeb went no further than saying the ways Mexicans were better. I think that like Erderly, being Jewish means Stephens gets far more leeway, from non Jews at least.

Also, in this case he is a hit man of the establishment with a licence for extremism in the defence of it, but not just another part of it. The non Jewish elite want Jews writing like that about Trump’s potential voters (non elite whites).Stephens had written such stuff before Trump, though not as extreme in its distrust and loathing of the majority non elite. I think many Jews would be likely to advise Stevens to tone it down, but that he is Jewish and writing such an attack piece is probably not a coincidence. Stephens’s function is to be an ideological Pittsburgh Phil, which he is temperamentally suited for. He enjoys his work.

* In the 50s, smoking out Soviet communists was a ‘plot against America’.

Today, working for peace with Russia (no longer communist) is a ‘plot against America’.

* Well, see, it’s the paranoid anti-Semites who are bringing it all on. The paranoid anti-Semites obsess about the Jews, prompting the Jews to obsess about the … Jews. But the very notion that Jews are worth obsessing about is nothing more than a paranoid anti-Semitic fantasy. So the goyim are to blame for Jewish self-obsession – and everything else.

In other words, we goyim should go off and play football, or work on our pickup trucks, or do whatever it is we’re supposed to be doing, while the Jews … do nothing that the goyim need to worry about. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.

Hey, Dancing with the Stars is on!

Posted in America, Jews | Comments Off on Jewish Neo-Con Bret Stephens: “The Plot Against America”