* Mahatma Gandhi was arguably a white supremacist. Gandhi’s rise to fame was in South Africa fighting for rights for wealthy Indians.
He firmly believed, “that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.”
He had deep contempt for the blacks, which he called Kaffir, as a race, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised – the convicts even more so…. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company!”
He preached, “We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do… by advocating the purity of all races.”
Of course, the dominant elites of today paint a completely different picture to suit their goals.
* I’d like to see a movie about the super racist, black hating, caste system supporting, ultra violent Gandhi who in his seventies slept naked with teenage girls and personally administered them enemas.
* People with experience on the ground considered the total disbanding of the Iraq government and social structure to have been a huge mistake, resulting in, at the least, the insurgency costing thousands of American lives.
But, consider this: virtually all the actions of the George W Bush and Obama administrations have had the objective of replacing rather secular governments in the Middle East with an Islamic government. Afghanistan is excluded, of course, as it already had an Islamist government.
Can we conclude that such uniform direction is simply the result of stupidity?
* Poles, at least, contributed enormously to the USA. Very many eminent scientists etc are/were of Polish descent, although you don’t hear about it. Poles are not a boastful people.
Likewise, there were/are many eminent Sicilians who contributed to the USA in all sorts of ways, yes, including crime – I got that in first.
* Try comparing a list of eminent Polish Americans with one composed of, say, Mexican Americans.
* Both men and women can have unrealistic standards but society has changed so that women don’t have to suffer the consequences of having unrealistic standards as much as formerly. When I was married, my wife complained about us not having enough money to buy a house or for her to quit work. We eventually broke up and she went off looking for a better guy. She never found the better guy and ended up on welfare. Meanwhile, as I got older I made more and more money and am now very well off. Even though my ex-wife is no longer married to me, I am still supporting her and a lot of other women like her through my taxes. I may want a super model but if I can’t get one on my own I certainly wouldn’t expect the government to provide me with one. Many women, though, would certainly go for having the government force men they aren’t married to be their economic provider. All you need to do is look at the voting patterns of unmarried females.
Plus one of the downsides of feminism was that it gave women the idea that they had a right to be happy, and if they weren’t, it was the fault of some guy.
See all the happy talk from divorced women in their 40s and 50s on any dating web site. Makes you wonder why they’re divorced if they are as special as they describe themselves. Delusional is a better word.
“The best protection (as the United States has demonstrated) is to institutionalize the concept of tolerance and diversity and to work tirelessly to ensure that the powerful impulses to segregate and divide are quashed. It is not easy. But it has made the United States the most successful experiment in cultural diversity in history — though only after a series of horrific errors, including slavery and the genocide against Native Americans and the devaluing of the role of women, were ultimately remedied. We’re not there yet.”
The atrocious, atomized, cultureless, homogenized, a-communal, faithless, greed-besotten sewer that is contemporary America is what he thinks is paradise. He might as well put an “I love Wiemar” bumper sticker on his car.
* It’s a racket. They identify as white when it suits them – as in when they’re writing pieces about how “We” whites need to share power and opportunities with other groups who haven’t earned them by objective standards. It’s usually framed as an admission – in other words, the author is admitting on behalf of whites that “we’re all awful and have unearned privileges” and therefore need to accept the aggressions of other groups passively. But when it suits them they consider themselves a “model minority.” Grandpa was excluded from the Country Club (the same one that excluded Catholics) after all. So all of the tacit, off the books networking and chauvinism and favoritism is remedial while in the very next breath they preach the false gospel of diversity, grievance, and affirmative action.
See an example of the weaselly, unctuous doubletalk and twisted logic.
Note that Judaism isn’t about honoring a covenant with God, worship, a code of moral behavior binding upon the individual, taking up the mantle of your dead forbears and passing it down to your issue or the like – rather, it’s about engaging in left wing agitation and punching down at badwhites. The only heartening thing about the piece is the comments.
* This end-part of the documentary is worth considering:
“… major flaw in the Spartan system. Its pathological elitism… Sparta was running out of Spartans… Spartan numbers were dangerously low. It produced a body bag syndrome.”
Today’s West is very different from Sparta, of course. Spartan society was very repressive and exclusive. The modern West is libertine and inclusive, especially with open immigration. Also, if only pure or near-pure Spartans could be citizens of Sparta, the modern West is more like the Roman Empire that granted citizenship to lots of different peoples.
But in a way, there is a common theme between Sparta and the modern West.
While the official ethos of the West is about equality and the People, the actual socio-economic reality plays out differently. There is a huge discrepancy between the Said and the Done. More than ever, white people are more elitist than ever. And because their standards are so high — like with the high IQ couple in the opening of IDIOCRACY — , they can only accept the best and feel contempt for everything else.
(Google uses the Frederick Douglas doodle as ‘virtue signaling’, the equivalent of aristocrats wearing golden crucifix necklaces. It speaks egalitarianism but serves elitism. Indeed, the reason why such elites be so full of put-on compassion for blacks is because they can afford no to live close to them. But those who’ve seen the reality come to know better.)
Educated whites are all about best jobs, best lifestyles, best schools for their kids. They may want to have kids, but not if the kids will get in the way of their success. And competition is more fierce than ever because of massive immigration. In many top schools, whites are squeezed by Jews, Asians, and affirmative action.
So, they cannot take it easy at all. When people like Zakaria and Chua berate white folks for not being competitive enough, they leave out the fact that Asian competition has increased the pressure on everyone.
Also, with generations of Americans who only knew affluence, good isn’t good enough. The greatest generation knew poverty and war, so good was good enough. Boomers were more indulgent, but even they knew something about hardships from listening to their parents. Also, they had an idealistic streak that said life isn’t all about money. But since the rise of Gen X, it’s been money, money, money, status, status, and status. It’s like what they say in RISKY BUSINESS.
Also, because white folks have no pride left cuz of the cult of ‘white guilt’ and PC, they can only find meaning in status and money; they no longer own the morality and righteousness.
Also, as racial segregation has come under attack, whites can no longer breathe freely and take for granted the living in safe white communities. They come under threat of integration with the Negroes. So, whites must make more money to ensure that they and their children can afford to live safely away from crime and social pathologies. Even as Libs are ideologically for racial integration, in terms of what they actually DO, they want to out-compete others so that they don’t have to live next to dangerous blacks. Also, having money and power means you can use Section 8 to drive out Negroes or use Stop-and-Frisk to pressure Negroes to behave.
Also, globalism threatens the middle class and working class. There was a time when white people without too much smarts or credentials could hope to get a decent playing manufacturing job and raise a family. But it is now much more difficult. To be average and normal is to be nowhere today. You have to win and at least be upper middle class. Everything else is nowhere. Since you have to work so hard to make it and rise up, you put family and having children behind. Also, since your children have to do really well to have a good life in the New America, you only want to have kids with high-IQ spouse and send the kid to the best schools. So, you might say all the nice-sounding libby-diddy egalitarian-inclusive stuff, but you cannot tolerate a spouse who is beneath your standards and you cannot feel inclusive about having a kid who is anything less than the best. (Of course, if you’re really well-off like Chelsea Clinton or the Romney’s, you might adopt some African baby as virtue-signaling).
Also, globalism has boosted radical individualism above all else. While proponents of globalism talk of all of humanity co-mingling and loving one another, the fact is it is difficult to maintain any kind of meaningful community with too much diversity. It’s one thing to be a German who feels part of German community. But if Germany were to fill up with tons of non-Germans and if these newcomers were to be considered ‘Germans’, the meaning of Germanness would go out the window. So, is a working class German supposed to regard marauding gangs of Africans and Muslims as fellow German brethren? Really? How can any German find meaning from German-ness from such lunacy. Some might suggest that Germans should just reject the very idea of Germanness and just see themselves as part of the ‘human race’. But the human races, ethnic groups, religions, and nationalities are too different, varied, and at odds to encourage and sustain any real kind of ‘brotherhood of man’ utopianism.
As globalism undermines meaningful nationalism, the ONLY game left is ultra-individualism to ensure that ‘me, me, me’ will make it and remain above the fray of increasing problems from diversity. This is what the EU elites are about. They talk about cooperation and diversity, but they are all about ultra-individualism so that they themselves won’t be affected by the global tide. They are perched on their individualist hills of privilege and don’t get swept up like the rest of the population. Globalism turns into ‘every man for himself’.
The best and most meaningful social unit for modern man is nationalism with strong borders. Over time, people within the borders develop a sense of common identity and unity. They have a balance of individualism and communalism. America used to be like this. Though globalists offer the promise that open borders will lead to more communalism and cooperation, the result is the very opposite. It is asking too much for a people of a nation to identify with ALL THE WORLD. For one thing, most peoples around the world look different, think different, have different interests, different histories, different narratives, different taboos, etc. Despite all the rhetoric, there is no unity but just a lot of division and distrust. In the current West, Nationalist communalism has been dealt a fatal blow, and Globalist communalism(“It takes a Village” nonsense) remains forever out of reach and impossible. So, what is the only game left? Ultra-individualism to make it to dry land while the rest of the world comes under the globalist deluge. It’s like the privileged couple in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
I would worry less about icebergs melting and seas rising than about borders melting and demographic third world tides rising and crashing into richer nations. The tsunami of the black sea from Africa and brown sea from India especially seem daunting, especially when the Indian government says it plans to export 300 million dotkins to other nations!!!
It’s like someone refusing to fix the broken plumbing and demanding that OTHER apartments take the water to relieve the room with the broken pipe.
Of course, Jews understand that nationalism and ethnicity are the best foundation for communal feeling and cooperation. It seems to work for Israel. Also, Jewish birthrates seem to be stable in Israel because there is a sense of common Jewish identity and purpose. Rich Jews tell middle Jews and poor Jews that they care about them and that they are all in it together. Rich Jews offer incentives for middle Jews to have kids and raise families. And even if middle Jews and poor Jews don’t have much, they have pride and meaning in being part of a Jewish nation who are taken care of and led by Jewish elites who care about Jewishness. It is not about ‘every Jew for himself or herself’. There is Jewish individualism but also Jewish communalism.
In a national-and-racial America than a globalist one, white elites would reach out to white masses. White elites would pursue policies that favor the interests of white masses. Thus, white masses would feel confident and proud. And they wouldn’t feel they must win, win, and win to have a meaningful life. You wouldn’t have to a total winner. Even if you’re a middle-class white or working class white, you would feel as a part of an identity, history, and community. It’s like South African white elites used to take care of their own, like Zionist Jews in Israel did.
But globalism says the white elites must not favor their own race. On occasion, white Americans may favor their own nation IF AND ONLY IF the national interests ‘coincide’ with those of globalist Zionists. So, Americans can be PROUD to be American in their patriotic hatred of Russians and Iranians(who pose no threat to white Americans and are targeted by the West ONLY BECAUSE Jewish elites don’t like them). So, whites can be patriotic American nationalists who hate Russia… but they better shut up about out-of-control immigration that is doing far greater harm to the US.
This goes for Negroes too. Negroes would actually do much better to find a way to work with white folks. White folks have most to offer to Negroes. White folks feel most conscience toward blacks. But globalism and mult-culturalism have convinced blacks that they should just growl at whites while allying with immigrants. But it’s the immigrants who are taking black jobs.
Anyway, if we ignore the bogus rhetoric and focus on the actual reality, globalism has increased pathological elitism among whites, especially white Libs. Whites can no longer be assured that this is their country or that elites care about them. If anything, elites in media hire punks like Zakaria who gloat and say, ‘you whiteys are dying off, haha’. White masses can no longer rely on white elites doing what is best for white people. And since the economy has been globalized, ‘American’ businesses will move capital and jobs all over the world to stay afloat and to maximize profits. At this point, even patriotic Americans cannot keep their factories in the US since they will lose out to others who send factories to nations with cheaper labor. Things have gotten so hectic that all white men and white women must work, work, and work to ‘thrive’. Thrive Mind is the New Hive Mind. So, forget about family and kids. They get in the way.
So, whites better win, win, and win cuz the game is now only about winners and losers with nothing in between. And the game is purely economic since whites are not allowed to have racial, national, historical, or cultural pride. In the past, one could be a white person with little but still find meaning in being a proud white man or an American. Now, such isn’t allowed. And this isn’t only true in the West but even in the third world and non-West. Latin American elites are now just cucks of US-style globalism. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, and etc are all following suit. They too suffer from white disease. Globalism, ultra-elitism, materialism, and PC have destroyed their birthrates. In Vietnam, young generation is raised on homo worship than on national pride. Russia resists but has come under tremendous economic and political pressure to go whole hog on globalism. Poland and Hungary resist, but they don’t have the firepower of globalism as controlled by US and EU dominated by Kosheria.
People in the advanced world have grown accustomed to the good life and can’t conceive of life’s meaning without more and more affluence.
Not long ago, the good life was buttressed by some degree of nationalism. The French were pretty nationalistic well into the 60s. Germans even through the early 90s believed in unique German identity.
But PC and globalism undermined nationalism. So, there is no meaning to life other than money, money, money, and status, status, status. Nationalism was supposed to be replaced by PC multiculturalism and worship of ‘diversity’, but it is near-impossible to feel meaningfully ONE with the entire world. I mean what does a Hungarian have in common with a Mexican, Zimbabwean, Kenyan, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Bolivian, Iranian, etc? The only meaningful identity for him would be Hungarian and then European. But such an idea is considered ‘far right’ and ‘neo-Nazi’. Worse, what kind of identity and meaning is ‘white guilt’ and ‘white shame’ and obsessing incessantly about Nazi in every cupboard and everything-is-’racist’?
When ultra-individualism and pathological elitism are the modes of white people in the New West, birth rates will naturally plummet. The successful will have kids ONLY IF they can be assured that their kids will be the best and go to best schools. Unless your kids win in life, they have no value.
But birth rates will also decline among other whites since they see no meaning to life except in winning. Knowing that they cannot win and will be deemed losers, what’s the point of marrying and having kids? And when even modestly stable lives are often beyond the reach of many white folks, why take a risk with family? (Some women have babies out of wedlock with ‘bad boys’ because they see it as ‘winning’. Since rappers, athletes, and punks dominate pop culture, a lot of trashy women have been Kardashianized. They become economic losers by mating with such lowlife punks, but since bad boys have the alpha-male winner style, even poor trashy women think they are winners by having the kids of top warrior thugs. It’s a jungle-tribal-primal concept of winning. Some white libs combine economic victory with primal victory. They make good money and win economically, but they also want a taste of tribal-primal victory, so they invite negroes to hump their wives in acts of ‘cuckoldry’. Even as they lose to the Negroes who do their women, they feel as victors cuz they can afford to provide such jungalo pleasure to their women and know that the women will remain married to them cuz they got the money.) There was a time when just being white, proud, and American was enough to want to have families. And even though every parent wants his or her kid to do well, there was love for kids and a sense of value in having them simply because it was deemed to be meaningful to be white, proud, and American. But such feelings are gone. Furthermore, too many white guys grow up tarded and think culture is getting tattoos on their ass, and too many white girls think culture is ‘twerking’. When many lower-class do have kids, it is as single mothers with men who don’t even stick around.
Indeed, libertine-ism has increased both extreme vulgarism and hyper-elitism. When US had a culture of shame, even the lowly folks knew it wasn’t proper to act too wild and crazy. This had a restraining effect on the masses, even the Negroes, most of whom were married and maintained family life. Since acting like pimps and whores were out of question, most men and women got married to enjoy sex and to have kids.
But libertine-ism has turned lowly blacks and whites into animal-beasks with no sense of moral vision.
The culture of shame also had a restraining effect on the rich who were frowned upon if they acted too out-of-control with their riches. But in our libertine era, not only do the lowly folks act like total animals but rich folks act like decadent self-indulgent kings-and-queens like Herod in JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, especially with homo-worship as the new religion of the West.
When winning is now so much about flaunting what you got — vice-celebrating as well as virtue-signaling — it isn’t good enough to win little. You have to win big. I suspect Bernie-Sanders-Socialism of upper-middle class folks is really about the resentment of the affluent for the super-affluent.
When it comes to the likes of Rothkopft, we should do as they do, never listen to what they say. Rothboy will never ever suggest for Israel what he suggests for the West.
In a nutshell, how the ‘best’ feel about the rest under globalism:
* The reason that men want to become elite (i.e. to acquire wealth and power) is to gain access to hot females. For them and their sons. Period. So Jewish male’s pronounced success at becoming elite led them to interbreed with shiksas, but not the reciprocal. The medieval Jews in Europe bred so successfully that they began taking prole jobs, at which point the prole natives (80%+ of the population) really got restless. (Leading to the Pale of Settlement, leading to Jews outreproducing to the point they were legally barred from buying farms to compete with indigenous slaves, leading to famine among Pale Jews, leading to the Bolshevik revolution…)
Jews have been very successful at becoming elites. But, because they’re easily distinguishable from most Europeans, most of the time, both in attitude and appearance, the Europeans whose elite they join automatically resent being partially ruled by outsiders. Welcome to humanity, that always has been and always will be how groups of discernibly different humans behave regarding resource scarcity competition.
Regarding your point about mate poaching leading to host-population backlash, you’re right. That and various other things Jewish elites do (arising from their intelligence and personality genes) pisses off the non-elite gentile host population and leads to “populism,” which Jewish voices typically denounce. Populism ranges from simple things like the 1920s introduction of an immigration moratorium, at the gentle end, to pogroms and Nazis at the really angry end. Remember: to hate is to want something to disappear. When Jewish elites overstep, as they inherently do by outcompeting others for resources (again, the definition of being elite) and not being able to stop themselves when they’ve had enough (e.g. America is sufficiently diluted to forestall the possibility of another Holocaust happening here. Stop the diversity crap!), native peoples who are facing resource scarcity want them gone.
* Like a smart businessman, Trump decided not to devote a lot of resources to Iowa, especially when the polls, until recently, showed him consistently trailing Cruz. Take the example of Mitt Romney, who in 2008 devoted a lot resources to Iowa (including spending a substantial sum on the meaningless “Ames Poll”) and lost by a healthy margin to Mike Huckabee, who, of course, went on to do very poorly in New Hampshire. In 2012, Romney didn’t spend a dime on the Ames Poll and little time in Iowa up until the last moment and initially was proclaimed the winner of the Iowa caucuses until a later recount showed Rick Santorum actually won by a narrow margin. Romney went on to win 39% of the NH primary, while Santorum got slightly under 10%.
I predict that the same result will occur this year. While Iowa and New Hampshire appear to be similar on the surface, with the same percentages of whites and same percentages of Hispanics, evangelicals do not play nearly the role in NH that they play in Iowa. That’s why politicians who do well in Iowa (Huckabee, Santorum) do miserably in NH. The polls have been showing the same pattern this cycle. That’s why I expect both Cruz and Rubio to do far less well in NH than they did in Iowa and Trump to win by a very healthy margin.
* DSA was founded by Michael Harrington, who was an old-timey Midwest Dorothy Day/settlement house type socialist. (He was born in St. Louis.) He became an ex-Catholic but reviled the pro-Stalin/pro-commie Catholics and Jews who were pushing Bolshevism. He was vehemently anti-Communist. He warned strongly that as people evolved past the need for religion, the values of “Jewish and Christian” western civilization not get lost. To my knowledge he never left his adopted home borough, Queens. (Link)
He was brilliantly prescient on the matter of globalization and western civilization. But I wrote him off in the mid 1980s as he refused to consider emerging research on genetics and race/intelligence. But I think he was probably a very good man. Just, like many Irish Catholics of his generation, not well adapted for anything after the 1970s.
Bernie was more the kind of NY Jew who did the civil rights tikkun olam thing in the ’60s…but fled to the Jewish agrarian heartland to the north as soon as he could, and stayed there. I view this as his pronouncement on how he feels both about white mainstream culture AND black/Puerto Rican culture.
To this day Bernie doesn’t know what to do about blacks, while the rest of us have had to muddle along in the Cibbil Frights Moooovement, right up to its apotheosis of vehement anti-white racism, without being able to look away politely and be jetted off to our next opportunity.
He is most certainly a communist in principle, if no longer in fact.
And like all SJWs he’s good at hawking ideology, not praxis, and doubles down on failure every time.
* I heard Laura Ingraham state last night on FOX that Rubio will be the Republican nominee. I think the road is far too long and Rubio is not doing terribly well in subsequent state polls (including Rubio’s home state of Florida) to be making such a prediction. But then Laura Ingraham does work for FOX. One other interesting thing I observed last night before I turned off the TV was that ace journalist Megyn Kelly, while trumpeting Cruz’s victory in Iowa, did not once make any observation about the poor history of Iowa winners in the next primary in New Hampshire. Here are winners of the Iowa caucuses and the NH primary the past six contested elections going back to 1980:
1980 GHW Bush Reagan
1988 Dole GHW Bush
1996 Dole Buchanan
2000 GW Bush McCain
2008 Huckabee McCain
2012 Santorum Romney
The history is so clear that it was a journalistic act of malpractice to not bring it up.
* It is really quite amazing that the white male has no real alternative other than the Republican party controlled by the Jewish Neocon warmongers.
* Both Paul in 2012 and trump in 2016 were ahead in the polls and ahead in the entrance polling yet managed to lose Iowa. I am sure the establishment hating both of them has nothing to do with those results, especially the missing precincts in the 2012 recount that included three college precincts that were missing.
* Who wins the general election is mostly determined by the economy, so Republicans will end up winning around 50% of the time and policy positions only change those odds on the margins. What actually matters is who wins the Republican primary.
In Congress this is even more salient. The vast majority of districts in the country are either solid Democrat or solid Republican. So if you’re a Republican, your only concern is about winning the Republican primary. The general election is an afterthought.
If Trump wins the primary, it will show aspiring Republican politicians that there’s a huge market for policies that actually benefit white middle class voters. It’ll only be a matter of time before you have more polished, experienced politicians running on the Trump playbook.
