Hypothesis: the Alt-Right and SJWism are both white Millennial based movements reacting differently to the exact same root cause.
— Faith and Heritage (@faith_heritage) August 24, 2017
Great thread.
Hypothesis: the Alt-Right and SJWism are both white Millennial based movements reacting differently to the exact same root cause.
— Faith and Heritage (@faith_heritage) August 24, 2017
Great thread.
Peter Beinart writes in the Forward:
Today’s anti-Semitism isn’t like the anti-Semitism of 100 or even 50 years ago. Overwhelmingly, it comes not from society’s winners but from its losers. Jews no longer press their noses against the gates of restrictive country clubs, Ivy League universities or white shoe law firms. Jews no longer yearn to be accepted by America’s elite WASP families. We already are. The man who currently occupies the White House watched with satisfaction as his eldest daughter became an Orthodox Jew. The woman he defeated watched happily as her daughter got married under a chuppah.
Today’s anti-Semitism emanates less from society’s elites than from the people who feel victimized by them. This doesn’t mean the new anti-Semitism isn’t dangerous. It doesn’t mean Jews shouldn’t respond with outrage and mobilization. But it does mean that, if only to protect ourselves, we must combat the economic and cultural dysfunction that is contributing to neo-Nazism’s rise.
Sunday’s Washington Post profiled six young men who marched for white supremacy in Charlottesville. It described victims of “an economy capsized, a job market contracted, a student-loan crisis erupted,” who found a scapegoat for their woes, and a sense of belonging, in organizations that preach hate. Matthew Parrott, who was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome at age 15, grew up in a mobile home. At Indiana University, students from wealthier backgrounds “made fun of my accent and overbite and they called me ‘white trash’ and ‘hillbilly.’ I was never able to identify with a single person.” Until he found white supremacists. Peyton Oubre, from Metairie, Louisiana, couldn’t find a job after high school: “I could put in 500 applications and receive one call,” he said. He blames blacks for taking all the jobs. Tony Hovater, of Dayton, Ohio, grew radicalized while touring with his metal band through decaying, mostly white Rust Belt and Appalachian towns. “You see how a complete system failed a group of people,” he told the Post. Yet the media, he says, discusses only the African-American poor.
How to make well-meaning Americans into antisemites?
Make sure they read Peter Beinart’s Forward article…
Beinart, a light Zionist ‘intellectual’ has kindly revealed how American Jews reacted when they heard the “neo-Nazis” chant, “Jews will not replace us.” Some were fearful, but, Beinart asserts, many others were somehow amused by it. “Replace you? Where, behind the counter at Wendy’s? We’re successful, industrious, upper-middle class. You’re the dregs of society. Replace you? Don’t kid yourselves. When it comes to America’s class hierarchy, we replaced you and your kind long ago.”
One might advise Beinart that looking down on Goyim and calling them ‘neo Nazis’ and ‘supremacists’ while simultaneously engaging in his own tribal self-love, supremacist exercise is a very dangerous game.
Beinart claims that ‘white nationalists’ are largely a dysfunctional group of economy victims. “Studies show that in purely economic terms, white supremacists don’t differ much from the population as a whole. But they do differ from Jews, who are America’s wealthiest religious group.”
But “they [the ‘neo Nazis’] don’t just differ financially,” Beinart continues, “they differ culturally, too. They are far less likely to have been raised in stable homes.” Beinart then quotes a study by the Southern Poverty Law Center that points out that“one of the most common background characteristics [of ‘neo nazis’] is some kind of family disruption, whether that be divorce or parental abandonment, a parent becoming incarcerated, or substance abuse by one or both of the parents.”
Beinart apparently doesn’t know that Right wing thinkers blame the Jewish intelligentsia, largely the cultural Marxists, the Frankfurt School and Wilhelm Reich for the destruction of the Church, the eradication of family values, the obliteration of the patriarchal family and so on. Rightly or wrongly, the white nationalists see the Jewish elite as at the core of their plight. One would expect Beinart to make a minimal effort to learn the white nationalists’ argument before he writes about the topic.
In the most supremacist and stereotypical manner, Beinart counsels his fellow Jews to fool the goyim. “For synagogues, countering the conditions that produce neo-Nazism might involve assisting a church in a troubled area. Why? Because …white working-class Americans who attend church are less likely to experience divorce, addiction and financial distress.”
Beinart advises Jews to throw dollars at churches not because religion bonds the nation, but because it is good for the Jews. The church maintains the Goyim’s tranquillity and stops their kids from drifting toward “neo-Nazism.”
Beinart’s recipe for fixing American society is throwing money at white goyim. I really believe that someone should explain to Beinart that American society isn’t a zoo and white people aren’t monkeys.
Beinart ends his article recycling the usual Jewish Tikun Olam (fixing the world) mantra. “We (the Jews) answer hate by repairing the country in which we live.” This might be the time for Beinart, The Forward and their followers to stop trying to repair countries and the world. They would do better to self reflect. Probably a good place to start is by asking why all of that animosity has happened again, just 70 years after the liberation of Auschwitz.
Thomas B. Edsall writes in the New York Times:
Ashley Jardina, a political scientist at Duke, puts it this way:
When the dominant status of whites relative to racial and ethnic minorities is secure and unchallenged, white identity likely remains dormant. When whites perceive their group’s dominant status is threatened or their group is unfairly disadvantaged, however, their racial identity may become salient and politically relevant.
White voters for whom racial identity is important include a minority faction of white supremacists, but as a whole they constitute a much broader and encompassing group. In an Aug. 16 essay for The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage, Jardina wrote:
The whites marching on Charlottesville were only a small segment of a much larger population for whom the politics of white identity resonates. The vast majority of white Americans who feel threatened by the country’s growing racial and ethnic diversity are not members of the KKK or neo-Nazis. They are much greater in number, and far more mainstream, than the white supremacists who protested in Virginia over the weekend.
In a separate essay on the Post’s Monkey Cage site in March 2016, Tesler and Sides explained that
Both white racial identity and beliefs that whites are treated unfairly are powerful predictors of support for Donald Trump in the Republican primaries.
Once Trump secured this “white identifier” base — making him competitive in a multicandidate field — he was positioned to expand his traction among traditional Republicans, including a decisive majority of those who backed Mitt Romney, John McCain and George W. Bush.
What are the views of “white identifiers”?
According to Jardina, these voters
are more likely to think that the growth of racial or ethnic groups in the United States that are not white is having a negative effect on American culture.
And they are
much more likely to rank illegal immigration the most important issue facing the U.S. today, relative to the budget deficit, health care, the economy, unemployment, outsourcing of jobs to other countries, abortion, same-sex marriage, education, gun control, the environment or terrorism.
Perhaps most important, Jardina found that white identifiers are
an aggrieved group. They are more likely to agree that American society owes white people a better chance in life than they currently have. And white identifiers would like many of the same benefits of identity politics that they believe other groups enjoy.
In other words, most — though by no means all — white identifiers appear to be driven as much by anger at their sense of lost status as by their animosity toward other groups, although these two feelings are clearly linked.
Tesler argued last November, after the election, that the
Trump effect combined with eight years of racialized politics under President Obama, means that racial attitudes are now more closely aligned with white Americans’ partisan preferences than they have been at any time in the history of polling.
Just over a decade ago, political scientists were discounting the significance of white identity in elections.
Steve Sailer writes: “Winners are successful at portraying themselves as deserving their property. The Bible, for example, goes to great lengths to honor Abraham. The reverence paid to him is seen as justifying his distant heirs’ possession of the Holy Land. Conversely, the wickedness of the Canaanites, as recounted in their enemy’s book, explains why they didn’t get to keep their possessions.”
* And a popular alt-right argument says that, anti-immigration or anti-diversity views will always be frustrated in a democracy because … There is a majority constituted of (1) a minority of male deep cucks, plus (2) a majority of women (who mostly sub-consciously favour importing & encouraging more aggressive young males, very commonly ‘diverse’ ones)
It’s said that USA Trump 2016 was a unique one-off, because you had palpable alpha male candidate (very rare), against super-unpleasant corrupt female with male cuck entourage (worse than usual) … women were drawn to the alpha as well as men
It’s said this explains why anti-immigration etc tends to ‘peak’ around 40% of voters … whereas it is said that anti-immigration would win if women didn’t vote … and that voter profiles look like this
Male voter segments
1 – Oligarchs
2 – Cucks, oligarch fellow-travellers & opportunists
3 – Most males, who have a ‘rebel’ streak, & can be motivated to defeat the minority of 1+2 above
Female voters
1 – Overall tend to get along & go along with dominant oligarch policies
2 – When males around them are significantly cucked & gov-fostered feminist policies – alimony etc – are in place –
– (a) Women’s feminism etc will erupt but never satisfy the women, and
– (b) Women will be drawn to favour non-cucked young male arrivals / minorities – ‘welcome refugees’, & thus support the oligarch programme to import migrants / foster ‘diversity’, against indigenous rebel males … who will always seem ‘weak’ because they didn’t grab power
It is said that men are in fact more ‘shocked’ by migrant or minority crimes, rapes etc than women … women are biologically, sub-consciously drawn to having more young males around who will fight & compete, such men are more instinctively attractive to women, & now migrant / minority males have more of this secretly appealing aggressive image ‘women like the bad boys’
It is said that anti-immigration is basically a male interest … with women voting, anti-immigration cannot triumph, they say … It is said that women sub-consciously have little respect for men who do not seize power against the cucks-plus-women alliance … power-grabbing minorities or migrants are instinctively more attractive to them.