But liberals also believe in "original sin", the notion that we all inherit a corrupt soul and that we can only absolve ourselves through faith and its attendant demands. Thus, as a proxy for salvation through Christ, liberals demand adherence to the leftist racial doctrine that necessitates complete racial integration and views whites as a pernicious collective in both modern and historic times.Yet in this post-racial era, modern leftism has taken it even further. Besides whites being collectively responsible for the (relatively benign) sins of their forefathers, merely being white or evoking "whiteness" is now seen as morally wrong. The article begins with a picture of Romney's large, smiling, well-dressed, fit family. God forbid, an entire family of good-looking white people!
Leftists then argue that one can exonerate himself of "original sin" through deeds like forced desegregation, support of unlimited immigration, support of affirmative action, and advancement of the basic hate-whitey ideals. Only then, when a white person has fully accepted his inherent depravity and rejected his presumed white privilege through deeds can he be considered a moral individual.
But the horror continues (\sarcasm). Mr. Seigel notes the surreptitious ways Romney messages to potential voters. In doing so, Mr. Seigel's argument reduces to him complaining, basically, that upstanding white people even exist. Seriously, just read this below and ask yourself what the heck Romney is doing wrong?!
It is a whiteness grounded in a retro vision of the country, one of white picket fences and stay-at-home moms and fathers unashamed of working hard for corporate America.Allow me to summarize: Romney dresses well, is exceedingly polite, and has a genuine respect for the founding traditions of this country. And Mr. Seigel complains!? I don't say this with exaggeration - this might be the most insanely hateful article I've ever read. It's borderline genocidal - as in wishing those of a particular ethnic or racial background would stop existing as such. Mr. Seigel presents Romney's probity, even his mere existence as a stable white man, as something immoral and worthy of moral censure.
Contrast that with Mr. Romney’s meticulously cultivated whiteness. He is nearly always in immaculate white shirt sleeves. He is implacably polite, tossing off phrases like “oh gosh” with Stepford bonhomie. He has mastered Benjamin Franklin’s honesty as the “best policy”: a practiced insincerity, an instant sunniness that, though evidently inauthentic, provides a bland bass note that keeps everyone calm. This is the bygone world of Babbitt, of small-town Rotarians.
He speaks of the founding fathers and the Declaration of Independence as phases of national creativity that we are destined to live through again. He frequently accompanies his recitative with verses from “America the Beautiful.”
We see here the endgame of liberalism - they don't even want conservative white people to exist. They view the "bygone world of...small-town Rotarians" as somehow wrong, evidently because these insulated social environments do not possess all the diversity of New York private schools and Mr. Seigel's synagogue. No longer does the left abide by "live and let live". Whiteness, and the edifying personality traits consistent with whiteness, opens one up to criticism from the ruling class.
I can't stress this enough. Mr. Seigel bashes Mitt Romney for merely existing as a venerable white man, nothing more. How sick.
138 comments:
Lee Siegel is infamous for being a nasty little dickhead. He got caught sockpuppeting at The New Republic's blog and was let go. So now the NYTimes has hired this creep. Figures.
Well, maybe shit like this will finally be the death knell of "respectable" leftism. We can only hope.
This is just another of many permutations of the same basic article - a New York Jew exclaiming that "Wow, flyover country is so WEIRD that it's kinda CREEPY."
And this surprises you because...?
The feigned innocence- make that obliviousness- of someone like you who ought to have a clue by this point is embarrassing.
Get a clue already.
Romney isn't "flyover." Romney is "country club."
Well, he's a Mormon. A more genteel type of flyover?
No, Romney is not a more genteel type of "flyover". He is the direct genetic and cultural descendent of the East Coast WASP elite that ruled this country from 1620 up to about 1970. I think it's simply a cultural reflex that a lot of Jewish liberals see a man like Romney and think "that's the enemy" because for most of recent Jewish history people like Romney were, if not the Enemy, certainly the people keeping Jews out of Country Clubs, the right schools, the good neighborhoods, mocking Jews for their uncouth manners and dress, etc. The resentment that Jews of Siegel's generation feel towards elite WASPs can't be understated.
Speaking as a mature flyover caucasian, it's beyond obvious to me that the contempt held by eastern elites like Siegel for "small town Rotarians" exceeds anything I've ever seen amongst Scots/Irish Americans for blacks. That the NYT would employ this POS tells you all you need to know about that rag.
I'm not a Romney supporter, but, good God, reading Siegel's piece gives me a certain affinity for the guy. He represents so much that the elite's loathe: an attractive, large, highly productive white family, a lovely, supportive stay-at-home mom/wife, and offspring with religious faith and career ambitions and without felony convictions.
Clean living white people have become literally reprehensible to the elites. Just how far off can the collapse be?
Peter A, while I agree with your post, your second sentence would be more appropiate had you suggested that Romney is "perceived" as descended from east coast WASP elites. Though it could be said that Romney had a privileged upbringing, his father spent years as a common tradesman and never attended college. The Romneys were not exactly the Rockefellers.
We are witnessing the last gasp of people who feel they are losing "their" country. But that America had almost no place above domestic servitude for People of Color; and this is my country, too. I have a black friend who had a WWII veteran dad couldn't use his GI bill to buy a house in Levittown. He went to college but couldn't become an automotive engineer (nobody hired Black ones in those days). Both my freinds grandmothers were maids. my freind's mom only escaped it by leaving the south.
The "good ole days" of America was "better" if you were a white male. It sucked for everybody else and all the misplaced nostalgia and fear are not going to make it return.
Still, time can't be reversed. White supremacy and the white race will be seen as an aberration
I agree with Mr. Siegel. As a white man I, for one, will not feel comfortable voting for Romney unless he runs with Marco Rubio as his VP and only communicates with the public by rapping à la Warren Beatty in "Bulworth."
Yeah. Tell me again, Anon, how we're better off today now that those black women who formerly worked as maids instead waddle through the checkout lines with their EBT cards. Got it.
When a plot is ripe it can no longer be concealed. The same can be said for the jealousy and hatred most minorities have towards whites. Mr. Siegel’s resentment towards people who look like me can barely be contained or disguised any longer so why even try. The same will be true for the entire Democratic Party and its various parts as they vote for Obama with the same spirit in their hearts. Win or lose, the nastier the 2012 is, the better it will be for the right because it will be neigh impossible to ever view minorities as our moral betters or victims, just angry failed bigots with a chip on their shoulder.
We are all Kulaks now.
These attitudes put 9/11 in perspective, don't they?
Remember, this is not limited to some random journo-garbage at the NYT. This is the general attitude of the New Yorker.
Attitudes like these are the reason why I don't support the War on Terror.
The singular mistake Bush-era Republicans made was thinking that "New York" is an American city. It is a city full of rootless cosmopolites who think they are citizens of the world, not real Americans.
At this moment, red-state Republican soldiers are putting their lives on the line to protect democrat, blue-state civilians from the diversity they imported. Imported diversity hijacked a plane full of Democrats, crashed it into a skyscraper full of Democrats, and did all of this in a Democrat city...yet some mother from Lubbock, Texas has to wring her hands over her son's fate in some desert hellhole.
Can someone please explain to me what a liberal like SEE-GUL produces in New York? Does he make, grow, mine or move anything? Can someone explain to me what New York City even produces that is of value to anyone living outside of New York? Is there any item purchased that even has a "Made in New York" label on it?
Really, why does "flyover country" need New York?
for most of recent Jewish history people like Romney were, if not the Enemy, certainly the people keeping Jews out of Country Clubs, the right schools, the good neighborhoods, mocking Jews for their uncouth manners and dress, etc.
The most striking thing about "Jewish history" is to the extent to which it is a work of fiction.
White supremacy and the white race will be seen as an aberration
Then so will the affluence and life of ease which nitwits such as yourself and your black friends currently enjoy.
"The most striking thing about "Jewish history" is to the extent to which it is a work of fiction."
Or, as the great Elie the Weasel wrote:
Some events do take place but are not true; others are—although they never occurred.’
In other words, Tribe is truth. If it works for the Tribe, it is truth. If it doesn't, it's a vicious lie.
I believe it was Malcom X who said in his autobiography that he would rather the "snarling, Southern, white man" than the more subtle Northern Liberal for which it was OK to be friends with blacks, but would NEVER let his daughter marry one. Something to that effect - been a long time since I read it and it does certainly deserve a re-read.
So true, in today's sickening political environment. Every time I hear some veiled reference to Obama's "incompetence" it makes my skin crawl because we all know, deep down, what that kind of statement references, and why it is so easy and painless for Republicans to stand up in Congress and say their main goal is to make him a one term President. Sick, but true.
White Americans have traditionally classified any person who has known African ancestors as Black Americans, and they think of themselves as normal, everyday, "REAL AMERICANS". White racism is as American as "God, mother and apple pie."
Siegel is to be congratulated for bearing witness to the racism that pervades contemporary Republican politics. However, I disagree with his conclusion that Mitt Romney is not a racist. Mitt Romney is not a virulent or overt racist, but he is appealing to the racist values of White American voters by proclaiming that he is a "real American" and that Barak Obama is "other." I would argue that Mitt Romney is a polite, passive white racist.
Every time I hear some veiled reference to Obama's "incompetence" it makes my skin crawl because we all know, deep down, what that kind of statement references
It references the fact that Obama has been one of the worst presidents in US history. The only reason he still has a shot at winning a second term is because all the anti-white racists who make up the Democratic party will vote for him no matter what, based on his skin color.
If he had white skin and had presided over the same dreadful economy, he would not have the slightest chance of reelection.
Mitt Romney is not a virulent or overt racist, but he is appealing to the racist values of White American voters by proclaiming that he is a "real American" and that Barak Obama is "other." I would argue that Mitt Romney is a polite, passive white racist.
I would argue that you are an illiterate moron with the IQ of a head of cabbage.
Romney has not proclaimed that he is a "real American" and that Obama is "other".
The most notable characteristic of the modern "liberal" is his complete disconnect from reality. He inhabits a fantasy world of his own creation.
Please. Do you really think the GOP would want a white Democratic incumbent reelected, or that they would deliberately reject or sabotage a black candidate for the GOP ticket just because of his race?
Do you really think the GOP would want a white Democratic incumbent reelected, or that they would deliberately reject or sabotage a black candidate for the GOP ticket just because of his race?
For a liberal, truth is whatever he wants it to be at any instant in time. Understand this and you'll understand the futility of trying to reason with them.
Romney on Obama
I browsed the first ten results and I could not find any quotes in which Romney attacked Obama on the basis of his race or foreign upbringing. So if you have any examples of how Romney treats Obama as "the other", can you provide them?
I look at the silver lining here...the Lee Siegel's of the world will only unite those of us who were mushy about Romney. Unless R.P. runs third party, I'll now vote Romney out of spite for fuckfaces like Siegel.
But this line in his post which you quote stuck out at me the most:
"Contrast that with Mr. Romney’s meticulously cultivated whiteness. He is nearly always in immaculate white shirt sleeves. He is implacably polite, tossing off phrases like “oh gosh” with Stepford bonhomie."
As if Romney consciously "cultivated" his whiteness rather than just being a white man who acts a certain way. Siegel's jab is just as egregious as Joe Biden's and Harry Reid's comments about the "clean" and "articulate" Barack Obama which sent many liberals into a furor.
So Siegel is actually doing us a favor by admitting that politeness and cleanness are white characteristics. Thanks, Lee, you've done a lot of heavy lifting for us alt-righters.
Chuck, Being a WASP myself, I feel I can speak for Romney about “whiteness”. He does not have to act white, he is white. He just has to act like himself. I suspect much of the resentment seeping out of Siegel is that no matter how much he wishes he were white or acts white, deep down, he will always be a Jew ( and I don’t mean that like a bad thing).
"The "good ole days" of America was "better" if you were a white male. It sucked for everybody else and all the misplaced nostalgia and fear are not going to make it return."
And Africa was what a paradise of opportunity for education and achievement for blacks?
Oh, wait, no it wasn't.
Historical fallacy, anyone?
"if you have any examples of how Romney treats Obama as "the other", can you provide them?"
we don't need not stinking examples. Romney is white, therefore he thinks it even if he doesn't say it and even if he says the opposite.
Just as people projected onto Obama what they wished him to be, the same folks project all manner of crap onto Romney because they bigoted against him because of who he is.
all right whatever whites are awesome and People of Color suck
HOWEVER
People of Color have tons of kids
whites have few kids
white women are increasingly having the babies of Men of Color
GAME OVER
Jewish race hatred of European American caucasian people on display for everyone to see. This hatred of European people is the norm in the Jewish community. Siegal probably dreams of gulags for European Americans, like the jewish created and run death camps in the Soviet Union.
The story of the Jewish people up to the XIXth and XXth centuries was a story of weakness, slavery, oppression and exclusion.
Due to many facts, the most prominent being that in Ancient Times, where the political world map was not fixed and the planisphere was open to conquest, the nature and personality of Jews prevented them from ever being able to gather a working army of Jewish soldiers.
The only reports we have of a Jewish army comes from the Bible, and the details reported being surrealistic, we can only conclude that like many things in Jewish history, it was invented.
From that point, the life as a diaspora, the oppression in ghettos, the eternal revolt against human nature, genes and autocracies which is so prevalent in their philosophical, scientific and journalistic works.
It's pretty normal that they hate Whites, or at least have resentment against them.
I would argue that Mitt Romney is a polite, passive white racist.
Ahh, we should be so lucky.
Lee Siegel writes for The Nation, which means he is an Orc, an enemy of the human race.
Here is his fat little face with his standard issue Leftist tweed jacket and black turtle neck. A walking, talking cliche!
http://cache.jezebel.com/assets/images/7/2010/04/leesiegel.jpg
RE: This bit of bait-and-response:
"'White supremacy and the white race will be seen as an aberration '"
"Then so will the affluence and life of ease which nitwits such as yourself and your black friends currently enjoy.'"
Why do people keep feeding the troll due amounts of rage and indignation. It's obviously like heroin to the fool to do as much.
Worse, he doesn't represent the real version of what you dislike; no liberal is that cookie-cutter and stupid.
if only 'the opposition' was so oafish in going about their business.
from a real black man to a pseudo black avatar troll: Why don't you go away? You can't write; you can't think; you certainly can't offer comprehendible rebuttal to what you see stated here; you're just another black stereotype (though, personally, I don't believe you're really black; that goes back to your studied typos and over-the-top vapidity; no one could do that unconsciously).
Why do people keep feeding the troll due amounts of rage and indignation.
Assuming that he's a troll, I did not reply with rage and indignation. I replied with a calm factual statement. America is and has been a wealthy country because it has been populated predominately by people of European origin. White people, if you like. As the population changes and whites become a minority, it will become a poorer country.
i have said several times that i am not black
i am white
We are witnessing the last gasp of people who feel they are losing "their" country. But that America had almost no place above domestic servitude for People of Color; and this is my country, too. I have a black friend who had a WWII veteran dad couldn't use his GI bill to buy a house in Levittown. He went to college but couldn't become an automotive engineer (nobody hired Black ones in those days). Both my freinds grandmothers were maids. my freind's mom only escaped it by leaving the south.
The "good ole days" of America was "better" if you were a white male. It sucked for everybody else and all the misplaced nostalgia and fear are not going to make it return.
Still, time can't be reversed. White supremacy and the white race will be seen as an aberration
Didn't you already post this in another thread, you dumb nigger?
Shouldn´t the title read:
"New York Times Hates Hates, HATES White Men Merely for being White Men" ?
"Wow, flyover country is so WEIRD that it's kinda CREEPY."
As another commenter noted, Romney isn't flyover at all. At least that type of enmity sort of makes sense - the haughty New York Jew lamenting the cultural backwardness of Sarah Palin types.
But Romney is refined and upper middle-class. He's polite and seemingly nice, with a wonderful family. How can anyone hate Romney for representing the good middle-class neighborhoods and families that we all what to live in and amongst?
Interestingly enough, this is the blurb about his most recent e-book on amazon...
"In a dazzling attack from a liberal perspective, legendary controversialist and award-winning author Lee Siegel addresses himself directly to the liberal elites who, he argues, have betrayed their constituents, degraded reformist politics, and alienated independent voters who should be sympathetic to the liberal agenda.
Siegel argues that liberalism repels potential allies because voters know that, for the liberal elite, the fix is always in. Cushioned by high-powered connections, attending the same exclusive schools, exempt from their own virtuous prescriptions, obsessed with their own gene pool and with raising super-children, liberal elites cannot hide their contempt for the average middle-class person of modest ambition, little sophistication, and humble means.
It is ironic that these elites are now condemning President Obama for compromising and appeasing. Compromise with and appeasement of anyone with power, money,and status are deeply embedded elite instincts. Having elevated an inadequate figure to the presidency in order to flatter their moral vanity by electing a black man, the liberal elites are scapegoating Obama for embodying their own worst qualities."
Sounds almost like our dear blogger
I would argue that you are an illiterate moron with the IQ of a head of cabbage.
He's copy-pasting comments from the NYT thread.
Troll, when people say "try to be more like MLK," they don't mean the plagiarism.
My favorite MLK quote (while humping a prostitute in a room wired by the FBI): "I'm fucking for Gawd!"
As another commenter noted, Romney isn't flyover at all.
Like I said, he's a Mormon.
Mormons = Utah, large, blonde families = flyover
But you're right, Romney is also pretty WASPy which is why Siegel seems a bit perplexed by him, and not just merely hostile.
It's a short road from saying "Iowa is too White" to saying "Whites are too alive".
One is on the same page as KMac.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/01/lee-siegel-the-horror-of-implicit-whiteness/
Hunh??
HR Lincoln—
Though it could be said that Romney had a privileged upbringing, his father spent years as a common tradesman and never attended college. The Romneys were not exactly the Rockefellers
His father was Chairman and CEO of American Motors and then Governor of Michigan, and was a multimillionaire.
"Win or lose, the nastier the 2012 is, the better it will be for the right because it will be neigh impossible to ever view minorities as our moral betters or victims, just angry failed bigots with a chip on their shoulder."
If this happens, it will be a worthwhile sequel to the Summer of 2011. The morning of May 31, 2011 was a watershed moment for whites, when they awakened to being targeted directly by various mahogany mobs (and blacks in general) with a press, police, and government that did everything possible to pretend it was something other than what it was.
HR Lincoln--
Speaking as a mature flyover caucasian, it's beyond obvious to me that the contempt held by eastern elites like Siegel for "small town Rotarians" exceeds anything I've ever seen amongst Scots/Irish Americans for blacks.
This is largely a post WWII phenomenon and is rooted in Jewish intellectual elites fears of a conservative lower middle and middle middle class religious right jack booted uprising against them and their position in elite American life from Hollywood to journalism, a la Hitler’s brown shirts. Only a few fully articulate this but some do. For some reason and somehow they’ve gotten other lefty intellectual white elites (who are primarily wasps if not Jewish) to join them in this disdain.
Well the primary mechanism is constantly accusing whites who aren’t falling all over themselves making lefty or at least PC proclamations of their own anti-racism, of being at least suspect on the closet racist charge. As if noticing racial differences is some ultimate evil.
Sounds almost like our dear blogger.
Also from Amazon:
Don't mistake Siegel for a venomous conservative. By his own admission, he supports single-payer health care, an equitable tax code, gay marriage, gun control, and other popular lefty causes.
In other words, he's the typical sort of crank who writes for The Nation. These are people that view the New York Times as a far right, "establishment" newspaper because I guess it doesn't call for putting Sarah Palin into Gulag or whatever.
He's one of these guys that can't quite break into the trendy Liberal elite he desperately wants to belong to (he lives in New Jersey, Allah be praised), so he masquerades himself as the champion of the workin' man (as if he would spend ten seconds with one).
I grant he seems aware enough to know that the Liberal elite doesn't give a rat's patootie about the constituencies they claim to serve, but he's also so stupid that he thinks the way to serve the working class is some REAL Liberalism!
I'm betting his parents were old school Jewish Reds, and he's a red diaper baby that didn't get the memo from Lefty Central that "we don't give a shit about working class white people any more."
Anonymous (Adopt a pseudonym will you, it’s annoying to have all the different anonymouses about.)
I have a black friend who had a WWII veteran dad couldn't use his GI bill to buy a house in Levittown. He went to college but couldn't become an automotive engineer (nobody hired Black ones in those days).
I don’t believe in housing desegregation. I think the fair housing act of 1965 should be mostly or entirely repealed. I think people should be able to live in neighborhoods of their own kind if they want to, as most people especially when raising children in families do, including most blacks, research has shown.
Harvard's Putnam interviewed 30,000 Americans in a massive study and was forced against his druthers to conclude that having to live among racial diversity lead to less community spirit and participation, less neighborliness, and greater distrust of strangers in the community, including even of one's own ethnicity.
This study has never been significantly challenged. Liberals just don't like to talk about it. Mass diversity, it showed, is our weakness, not our strength. (Oh a little not so mass diversity in our urban cores can be a good thing for variety of cuisine and what not. But mass diversity, esp. of including historically long term lower performing groups such as NAM's -- not so much.)
There was other suburban housing other than Levittown. As well blacks could build their own Levittowns if they had the drive and gumption, just as Jews built their own suburban communities such as Scarsdale when there was still residential discrimination against them in some suburbs (but not others).
Anonymous (Adopt a pseudonym will you, it’s annoying to have all the different anonymouses about.)
The "good ole days" of America was "better" if you were a white male. It sucked for everybody else and all the misplaced nostalgia and fear are not going to make it return.
To a rounding error all there were in America before 1970 (when the Immigration act of 1965 started kicking in) was whites and blacks. They were the good ole days for white women too. White women (and probably black ones as well) were happier before 1970 than they are now. Social science studies have shown their happiness has declined steadily since the feminist revolution from the late sixties on. Women who wanted to could and did become lawyers and doctors, journalist and scientists and so on before 1970. The main thing that changed the percentage of women who went into professional careers post college and the percentage that went to college, was a cultural change in what women “should” and thought they did want, rather than laws enabling them to or forcing down insurmountable barriers of discrimination. Instead what’s happened is that women have gotten tons of affirmative action alongside blacks since 1970.
Before 1970 there was in by far most of the country only whites and blacks. We had precious few Hispanics then, and they were mostly in the American SW. The East Asians we had were less than a percent and concentrated in California, mostly San Francisco, and NYC.
Blacks did far better in the north and west before the civil rights laws than is now commonly thought. Jim Crow laws were a thing of the SE but not other parts of the country. There was some individual discrimination against blacks in the north and west, but blacks could eat at most restaurants and stay at most hotels for example. I would guess that blacks were getting better primary and secondary educations in the north say in 1960 than they are today. Thomas Sowell thinks so, and points to many examples of excellent black schools before the mid 1960’s uproar.
There were substantial numbers of black millionaires who rose up in the early and mid 20th century. There was a black upper class in the north before the civil rights laws. E.g.:
The Girl Friends, Inc., was founded in 1927 in New York City. The group, composed of many individuals from well-respected black upper class families, has many philanthropic and cultural activities that include raising money for charities and also sponsors social activities for its members.[16] It includes about 40 chapters in major American cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles and Atlanta.[16] There are around 1,300 members. Women are admitted after being nominated by at least two existing members and then approved by at least two-thirds of that particular chapter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Black_Upper_Class
White Americans sent men to the moon and safely back again at a time when the nation was about 90% white and the rest black.
Anonymous--
Still, time can't be reversed. White supremacy and the white race will be seen as an aberration
As I copiously illustrated in a very long few comments here, white men created the modern world soup to nuts, beginning in 1450 with Gutenberg's invention of the mass production printing press, which made relatively cheap journals, pamphlets and books available on an elite mass level almost immediately, and helped jump start the world's first true interrelated scientific revolution, also exclusively the work of white men. Then we conquered most of the world.
Anonymous—
I believe it was Malcom X who said in his autobiography that he would rather the "snarling, Southern, white man" than the more subtle Northern Liberal for which it was OK to be friends with blacks, but would NEVER let his daughter marry one.
Of course I’d never let my daughter marry a black man, and wouldn’t want her dating one either. For one thing my grandkids will be classified by their family on the father’s side and their classmates and friends as black, not neutrally mixed but black, and will have all sorts of pressure on them to adopt black American culture as their own, which insofar as it’s different from my wasp white American culture I largely dislike. They will tend to be alienated from myself and my white wife.
As well there’s just too much racial hostility on the part of blacks towards whites for me to let her marry black. Even if her husband wasn’t like that at all (which is unlikely though he might mask it at first) his friends and probably family will be that way. There would be enormous pressure on her to lean over backwards to adopt black points of view as to what’s cool and attractive, taste in all sorts of things, why black white gaps exist, and so on.
Most black parents don’t want their kids to marry white either. Black women sure as hell generally resent the hell out of more successful back men tending in high percentages to want to date and marry white women.
Every time I hear some veiled reference to Obama's "incompetence" it makes my skin crawl because we all know, deep down, what that kind of statement references, and why it is so easy and painless for Republicans to stand up in Congress and say their main goal is to make him a one term President. Sick, but true.
Black people vote on the basis of racial solidarity one hell of a lot more than white people do. Obama got some 98% of the black vote. He got just under half the white vote. He won’t this time though that’s for sure. He and his administration are just too damn liberal, and to learning towards blacks and against whites esp. white men. No thanks. It’s high time whites started voting their own interests much more, the way all other groups in the country do.
Anonymous—
I would argue that Mitt Romney is a polite, passive white racist.
He’s probably a race realist, like myself and OneSTDV. He’s a smart guy who is capable of thinking outside the box.
Your attempt at shaming is getting you absolutely no place around here.
Hey One : that Romney-hating article was buried inthe back pages of Sunday's "Sunday Review."
I'm wondering if you spotted it by going to crimesofthetimes.com
(we read the New York Times so you don't have to).
Sincerely,
- Arturo
Anonymous—
People of Color have tons of kids
whites have few kids
The TFR of American black women is only slightly higher than that of white ones, 2.1 vs 1.85.
white women are increasingly having the babies of Men of Color
GAME OVER
Naahhh. Just 0.7% of married white women are married to black men.
Doug: YHBT.
Doug is the biggest fish of all.
What really pisses me off about this article - Romney's family is not the type of beer-swillin', pickup-drivin', farmin' rednecks that engage in justifiably bad behavior (watch Teen Mom on MTV if you want proof of this).
While most leftist (and Jewish) criticism of working class whites is about culture, at least one can legitimately criticize teen pregnancy, drug use, loud neighbors, welfare, etc.
But Romney's family are a great symbol of America. They look like what America should be and they very likely act like the types of people you want to have in your circle of friends.
And I disagree with those that classify them as snotty WASPs. Sure, Romney went to Harvard but I believe his kids went to BYU. And they just don't look like snooty preps that you find on the East Coast, the ones that go to HYP and St. Grottlesex. They look like a decent, nice family of GASP white people.
That's what it comes down to - it's not about bad behavior or cultural divergence. This is pure hatred of Romney and his family merely for being white.
"I have a black friend who had a WWII veteran dad couldn't use his GI bill to buy a house in Levittown."
Affirmative action and set-aside went by different names back then... what were they again? I'm sure you remember.
I can tell stories like this, too. Except mine aren't 60+ years old. They're from last year to the last twenty years, and none of the victims of government-ordered, lawful discrimination were black.
Interesting take on this from across the pond. The Irish Savant is a stimulating blog, by the way, apart from the post in question.
The link would be helpful!
http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2012/01/my-transition.html
This is an expression of an elite attitude that is professionally advantageous in the current cultural environment.
The attitude is eliminationist anti-whiteism. The people who think like this, and it's a very privileged, powerful set, will not be entirely happy till we are gone.
just to say, i don't think you personally are a racist, and i agree with this post, but when you let a Svigor rant and rave about "niggers" (and Jews elsewhere) you can't really be surprised when people get a certain impression of your site, beyond just un-PC.
just to say, i don't think you personally are a racist, and i agree with this post, but when you let a Svigor rant and rave about "niggers" (and Jews elsewhere) you can't really be surprised when people get a certain impression of your site, beyond just un-PC.
I generally do delete use of the word "niggers", only allowing it when describing extremely savage behavior such as last summer's mob beatings. But this troll has really pissed people off so I let it slide.
Regarding Jews: while I presume Svigor gets more "candid" on his site and others, he has generally been rather even-handed discussing Jews here. So I haven't deleted too many of his Jew-themed comments.
The comments here are ironic because it is Romney himself who sees him/associates himself as an 'outsider'.
-----------------
http://nymag.com/news/politics/mitt-romney-2011-10/index1.html
"“Even he didn’t come from affluence,” Rehnert insisted. “He wasn’t a trust-fund guy.”
Perhaps what he meant was: Romney wasn’t a Wasp. He never really talked to his co-workers about his Mormonism, but he sometimes joked with Jewish colleagues about how their religions made them all outsiders. Even for those who worked with him, Romney had an inscrutable quality"
To whoever said, that at least Romney sent his kids to BYU or whatever.
-------
But they have done little to dispel the impression that Romney is a little too polished and aristocratic. Three of the five attended Harvard Business School, like their father, and showed up wearing versions of Romney’s jeans-and-blazer campaign trail uniform.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8988358/US-Election-2012-This-time-around-Mitt-Romneys-sons-are-more-scarce-on-Republican-campaign-trail.html
But they have done little to dispel the impression that Romney is a little too polished and aristocratic. Three of the five attended Harvard Business School, like their father, and showed up wearing versions of Romney’s jeans-and-blazer campaign trail uniform.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8988358/US-Election-2012-This-time-around-Mitt-Romneys-sons-are-more-scarce-on-Republican-campaign-trail.html
That family (see article's picture) does not look "aristocratic." Simple as that.
As for where his kids went - where did they go to undergrad? That's far more important in shaping social and political attitudes.
And if you really think Romney is 'on your side', this should put an end to it.
"The Romney-Netanyahu relationship dates back to the 1980's, when the two were colleagues at the Boston Consulting Group."
"He and Netanyahu worked together early in their careers as consultants at the Boston Consulting Group."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47613.html
--------
It's even on Romney's own website.
Mitt Romney: “I've also known Bibi Netanyahu for a long time; we worked together at Boston Consulting Group. The last thing Netanyahu needs to have not just a person who's an historian but somebody who is also running for president of the United States stand up and say things that create extraordinary tumult in his neighborhood
http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2011/12/romney-lets-work-together-israel-because-were-partners
Doug1-
Romney's dad, George, began his adult work career as a lath and plaster carpenter; I was wrong about him never attending college; he attended briefly at two different schools, but never came close to graduating.
George didn't become a multimillionaire until AMC common stock soared in value, in 1959, by which time Mitt was 12 years old. When Mitt was born, the family lived in an upper middle class neighborhood within the city of Detroit, just blocks down Seven Mile Road from the hospital in which I was born.
My point was that Mitt's upbringing, while fairly considered privileged, was hardly old-money privileged.
"As I copiously illustrated in a very long few comments here, white men created the modern world soup to nuts, beginning in 1450 with Gutenberg's invention of the mass production printing press, which made relatively cheap journals, pamphlets and books available on an elite mass level almost immediately, and helped jump start the world's first true interrelated scientific revolution, also exclusively the work of white men. Then we conquered most of the world."
And ironically, on an evolutionary, long-term viewpoint, this sealed our biological death.
Think about it. No Thomas Edison, no MTV, Jersey Shore or Jon Stewart.
This is a tragedy that will certainly interest the historians of the future (if there are any ; maybe sophisticated human civilization was a random anomaly).
"The Romney-Netanyahu relationship dates back to the 1980's, when the two were colleagues at the Boston Consulting Group."
Hey, I didn't know this. Interesting.
Christianity commands having a large family, but forbids wars of conquest. This explains the confusion of the West; constantly following a cycle of expansion and guilt. Christianity is inherently unstable.
Christian monogamy means that conquered people are wiped out. Not only men, but also women and children are killed.
So basically all pathologies of the West, both the atrocities AND the guilt about it, are inherited from Christianity.
That said, I am part North African. North Africans are part West African. Under the one-drop rule, I am Black.
OneSTDV should stop bitching about things, and should do something productive.
Lucille, the threads attract like minds. In that order OneSTDV should examine himself.
Pat, lay off the booze.
There are some "like minds," but also plenty of unlike minds. I never found this site to be an echo chamber.
Perhaps what he meant was: Romney wasn’t a Wasp.
Early and traditional Mormons are about all WASP’s from New England, by way of upstate New York, then Illinois, and finally Utah. Whether or not Mormonism is a sect within Protestantism is debated. Evangelical protestants think it definitely isn’t; I’m not sure what Episcopalians and Church of Christ members think – probably they don’t give it much thought.
The reason why OneSTDV's threads are full of the disaffected non-Whites is that the blogger won't lay it on the line.
He won't come to the natural conclusions.
So, they see a way in, they inveigle their way into the obvious doubt, and prey upon it.
Not mentioning the unmentionable just makes one more of a target. It's a sign of weakness. Of doubt.
Take IHTG for instance, he knows who his people are and he's not afraid to stand up for them. I credit him for that. I admire that. I respect - that.
But, you know, when you write a post such as this (as good as it is I should add) and say "(yes, we all notice it too) " and then ignore that very point - well - in they come, like buzzards to a soon to be carcass.
Well, that's five times in a row that Gewgle rejected my word verification, even though it was correctly-entered every time.
just to say, i don't think you personally are a racist, and i agree with this post, but when you let a Svigor rant and rave about "niggers" (and Jews elsewhere) you can't really be surprised when people get a certain impression of your site, beyond just un-PC.
Lol. See, free speech is "beyond just un-PC."
I don't throw around "nigger" either, but I sure as hell haven't removed it from my lexicon. Why should I? Jews and Blacks haven't stopped saying "White trash," have they?
But let's move beyond me for a moment. Your fundamental dishonesty should be more disturbing to you than any shocking words I might be using. How is a terse sentence a rant? When you're upholding the values of BRA ("nigger" is apostasy), lying is okay? One terse sentence becomes "ranting and raving"? And how does calling a nigger a nigger amount to talking about "niggers," anyway? Another lie - you transformed the epithet I applied to one total asshole, a textbook case of a nigger if there ever was one, into a "rant and rave about 'niggers.'" Essentially, you're saying no Blacks are niggers, which even Chris Rock (very, very publicly) disagrees with. (Funny thing is, the guy claims to be White and I don't care if he is, or what his race is - he's still a nigger to me)
This kind of deception is morally objectionable. Doing it for BRA is off the scale. Calling people names isn't even in the ballpark.
Look to the beam in your own eye, son.
Christianity commands having a large family, but forbids wars of conquest. This explains the confusion of the West; constantly following a cycle of expansion and guilt. Christianity is inherently unstable.
Do the Scriptures actually command large families, or do they only encourage them? Citations, please. As for wars of conquest, I'm definitely going to need a citation on that one, or I'm calling bullshit. God certainly commanded wars of conquest, I know that much.
OneSTDV should stop bitching about things, and should do something productive.
I know. That's how Jews got so far with the Culture of Critique - by never bitching. It's how Blacks got so far with the "Civil Rights" movement and BRA - by never bitching. We should follow the Black/Jewish model of stoic, silent, productive positivity.
My goal is to get Whites bitching 1/10 as much as Jews and Blacks do. Then I can retire having increased White bitching a million-fold.
http://svigor.wordpress.com/
Doug's right. Genetically speaking, old-line Mormons are more Anglo-Saxon than American Anglo-Saxons* are.
("WASP" is a smear word; all Anglo-Saxons are White (if you want to prefix someone with "White" in this manner, try Jews instead, it makes sense there), and Protestantism is their default religion (if you want to prefix Anglo-Saxons, try "Catholic," since they're the exception))
http://svigor.wordpress.com/
Make no mistake, a North African playing on your Anglo-Saxon sensibilities (stoicism, regarding the Culture of Critique as feminine, etc.) is not trying to help you. He's gaming you. Middle-easterners and Muslims know how the game is played. They know culture-war perfectly well.
http://svigor.wordpress.com/
Lucille, you want to have kids right? You want your kids to grow up free, healthy and to be the best that they can be, right?
I'm on your side Lucille. There are many more just like me, protective, caring, waiting, defensive, aggressive. You know what you want hey Lucille?
Yet, when one writes "(yes, we all notice it too) " you must feel it in your loins, know it in your heart, that here is someine that won;t lay it on the line. Here is an equivocator. Someone who will 'consider' the situation. Give it some thought.
Your boy is in the lake, drowning - who do you want, who will save him?!
Mr "(yes, we all notice it too) " or me, Lucille?
You know it, IHTG knows it, IHTG knows who he wants to hang by him. He knows tough times and desperation and those that will stand with him.
It won't be a surprise from a Christmas present from Daddy fresh home from Iraq. It will be someone who says: "(yes, we all notice it too) ": and says exactly what he noticed and - damns them to hell.
God certainly commanded wars of conquest, I know that much.
Whoops, my bad. What I meant to say was:
God certainly commanded wars of conquest in pursuit of an ethnic homeland for the faithful, I know that much.
(If we take the Scriptures as God's word, rather than just fairy tales, and his law as having any intellect behind it at all, it seems clear that God wants everyone to have an ethnic homeland, and fight a war to get one if necessary. And I have to take agree with Black liberation theology here; if God doesn't want all peoples to have for themselves what he granted to the Hebrews, then he's not a universal, omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent God for all peoples, but merely the tribal god of the Hebrews; God doesn't get to mandate ethnic survival for the Hebrews only and retain his status as benevolent - if you're the religious type and put God first, all of this puts real limits on how you can interpret Scripture)
http://svigor.wordpress.com/
- "I don't throw around "nigger" either, but I sure as hell haven't removed it from my lexicon. Why should I? Jews and Blacks haven't stopped saying "White trash," have they?"
The white equivalent of "nigger" is not "white trash," "honkey," or "cracka."
It's "racist."
Romney respects the Constitution? LOL.
@ Pat:
OK, let's see what we agree on. Do Jews have a unique paranoia regarding whites? Yes. Do Jews have a non-reciprocated intolerance towards white Christians? Yes. And here's two Jews who agree:
http://www.jewcy.com/post/are_christians_more_tolerant_than_jews
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021455.html
Are Jews disproportionately involved in leftist intellectual movements? Yes. Have Jews been involved in some movements for the purpose of undermining white society and thus "protecting" themselves? Yes. Again, here's a Jew that agrees:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021352.html
But in the end, it ain't all the Joos. They still only comprise about a third of the intellectual class, not to mention that many of them hate Israel too so their motivation is primarily globalist leftist. And look at immigration-restriction and HBD - lots of Jews there.
Look, no one disputes some of the Jewish qualities I note above - we've read Bloom's artilce on Iowa and the article cited for this post. But if you don't like the discourse here, in that the blogger and the commenters don't blame Jews enough, then please do not comment here.
It is inappropriate that you continue coming here and hijacking threads to try to convince people of your ideas. You're free to find sites which espouse the same sort of ideas you do, but if you are not happy with the type of discussion here then do not comment. The comment section here is not your personal soapbox and stop treating it as such.
PA says,
The white equivalent of "nigger" is not "white trash," "honkey," or "cracka."
.....It's "racist."
Actually, as truthfully as I can see it, in Nikcrit's world, I see blacks use the 'N'-word infinitely more than I do "honky,' "white-trash," "cracker" or any other anti-white slur you can imagine; moreso mucho than 'racist' (or 'rayciss' as you guys like to parodize.)
But in the end, it ain't all the Joos. Who said it was? Did I ever say that all our problems are directly sheeted home to Jews (or Joooos as you put it, for some reason)?
No I didn't.
It is inappropriate that you continue coming here and hijacking threads to try to convince people of your ideas.
What ideas? Completing your own logic? What's your solution OneSTDV, wallow in despair porn? I thought you were a go forward, can do sort of Yank. I thought you were a fighter, good old USA type.
Yet you keep on bringing these subjects up and refuse to mention the fact that the people who say that Iowa is "too white" are Jews, or in this very post, won't state the obvious but rather make some diminishing remark as to the validity of identifying the racial type of the person criticising Whites. If you refuse to assess all the evidence then, well, someone else will mate.
If you don't want me to comment at your blog then say so and I won't. In the meantime, it's the internet and I'm on it. If you want to come across like you're White and have my interests along with yours, yet deliberately undermine my cause then - I'm going to call you out on it.
It's not a threat, just the facts. You say "Joooos" and I simply name the racial type who consistently undermines White America. Doesn't mean it's all "the Jooooos" but it does mean it is "the Joooos".
You have a problem with that - I don't know why. I thought you were White. At least that's the impression you try to impart. Perhaps you aren't and have other allegiances.
"You have a problem with that - I don't know why. I thought you were White. At least that's the impression you try to impart. Perhaps you aren't and have other allegiances.
Ahhhh! Pro-white-rightist McCarthyism; the new menace: call it "The 'NAM Scare.';"Have you now or have you ever been deemed to bore a genetic haplotype other than white caucasoid ----- just a simple yes or now please!"
Where's Whiskey? Shouldn't he be here by now?
Whiskey is such a piece of shit. Jews don't deserve him. Hand to God, after Whiskey's said his (fucking stupid) boilerplate on Jews, mind-control rays, how fewer Jews = fewer immigration problems in Europe, and White housfraus mind-controlling the media oligarchs into debasing the White race for the umpteenth time, I want to shove the nearest Jew into an oven. He's like the patient zero of anti-Semitism.
That was me. I was so busy asking God for the opportunity to knock Whiskey's teeth out that I forgot to sign my name.
Er, and I forgot again. :D
Svigor
The white equivalent of "nigger" is not "white trash," "honkey," or "cracka."
It's "racist."
This is true.
Svigor
But in the end, it ain't all the Joos.
I don't think it is, either.
They still only comprise about a third of the intellectual class
Like I said, I don't think it's all Jews, either. But let's be real here:
1. 40% of the Forbes 400 is nothing to sneeze at.
2. Media domination is nothing to sneeze at.
3. Domination of Wall Street is nothing to sneeze at.
4. etc.
5. A head count of the intellectual class is a deceptive metric. Imagine a choir warming up with no song sheet. Two-thirds have no agenda, and the other third have a song they really want to sing. What is the whole choir going to be singing, in short order?
6. Another way of stating 5, cohesiveness is a force multiplier. And it's force that wins battles, not numbers.
7. The agenda being pursued accords with Jewish ethnic interests, and thwarts White ethnic interests. So a leftoid Jew is fundamentally different from a leftoid White. (I can go on forever about how very different leftoid Jews and leftoid Whites are).
not to mention that many of them hate Israel too
What do you mean by "hate" and "many," here? I'm genuinely curious. I've always asked people to follow up on this and I never get an answer.
so their motivation is primarily globalist leftist. And look at immigration-restriction and HBD - lots of Jews there.
Erm, yeah, plenty of Jews in HBD...and the vast majority of them still pursue Jewish interests. They're still carrying water for the tribe. Auster converted to bloody Christianity and still carries water for the tribe.
As for globalist leftist, erm, that's very much in Jewish ethnic interests. Globalism = 1 gov't to bribe/subvert/influence. Leftism = safe haven for Jews.
Basically, Jews are a necessary, if not sufficient condition. Without them, the left would be losing, not winning. They're the officer corps. The generals.
Svigor
"Auster converted to bloody Christianity and still carries water for the tribe"
I'm not on the MacDonaldian deterministic side with the Judischefrage (although Siegel and Whiskey are really, really pushing me in that direction.)
Still, what's your beef with Auster? I find him very good on thus subject.
Even Blacks are known to directly oppose their own ethnic interests. Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly.
And not that it's really Germane, but I distinctly remember watching Farrakhan on C-Span once, and he was criticizing Jews, and he gave a sort of sly look at the camera, leaned in, and said in an intimate tone, "and you know, maybe White folks ought to look to secure their interests against Jewish influence," or words to that effect. That bought him a lot of cred in my book.
Svigor
"Auster converted to bloody Christianity and still carries water for the tribe"
I'm not on the MacDonaldian deterministic side with the Judischefrage (although Siegel and Whiskey are really, really pushing me in that direction.)
No *@!(ing $&#damn shit. I have never, ever felt like physically assaulting someone over something online. But I found myself wishing I could punch him in the face. I don't get that mad over this stuff. I get het up and write some purple prose, but I never actually wish harm on any specific person. The thought never even occurs. But damn if I didn't spend about a half an hour wishing I could punch him in the face, repeatedly. He's such a mendacious, cowardly little wretch.
Still, what's your beef with Auster? I find him very good on thus subject.
He is "good." I'd recommend him over 99% of my own race on the subject, sad as it is to say (on several levels). But he still carries Jewish water, affords them a special place in his heart.
My thing with Auster has a lot more to do with his methods, though (he's a paltroon). I didn't really mean to mention his name in a bad way, there.
Svigor
OneSTDV—
And look at immigration-restriction and HBD - lots of Jews there.
Ummm. There are lots of Jews who pseudonymously agree with HBD aka are race realists. And a few like Levin who do it under their real names and as intellectual professionals.
However there are precious few Jews who are for immigration restriction, even pseudonymously on the web. A few exist, but not many. When they are for clamping down on illegal and other excessive immigration they’re almost always or from what I can recall always also HBDers.
"And not that it's really Germane, but I distinctly remember watching Farrakhan on C-Span once, and he was criticizing Jews, and he gave a sort of sly look at the camera, leaned in, and said in an intimate tone, "and you know, maybe White folks ought to look to secure their interests against Jewish influence," or words to that effect. That bought him a lot of cred in my book."
The following is verbatim from a interview with Farrakhan conducted Henry Louis Gates Jr., from a chapter in his book, "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Black Man":
Gates: "Do you know anything about your white ancestry?"
Farrakhan explained that his father was very light-skinned and had straight hair, and that his mother had told him that his father's parentage was, in fact, white Portugese. Then, he said, "I'm going to tell you something. You really want to know what I think? I think they were members of the Jewish community."
This sounds like a fantastical joke, but it is highly probable, given what we know about migration to the West Indies..... Nearly all the people of Iberian descent in Jamaica and the Barbados, even today, are of Sephardic Jewish ancestry.
"I believe that in my blood, and not in a bad way," Farrakhan said. "Because when I was a little boy, I used to love listening to the Jewish Cantors in Boston. They had a program, and every week I would listen. I was struck by the Cantor, and I've always loved the way they sing or recite the Torah." Farrakhan is always happy to elaborate on his admiration for Jewish musicians."When my mom put that violin in my hand, and I fell in love with that instrument, I was never thinking Jew, Gentile, anything like that," he said. "But all my heroes were Jewish. The greatest was Jascha Heifetz, and I loved him then and I love him now. I was driving my car when it came over the news that Vladimir Horowitz, the pianist, had passed. I pulled my car over to the side of the road and I said a prayer for his soul."
He went on: "If in my lineage there are Jews, I would hope that, in the end, before my life is over, I not only will have rendered a service to my own beloved community of black people but will also have rendered a service to the Jewish community."
As for whether Mormons are a denomination of protestantism, I say they are. First of all they are clearly Christians. They clearly believe not only in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but also that he's the son of God.
Second of all they are a mutation of protestantism. I'm not sure exactly which strains but given their New England roots, I'd guess primarily Congregationalists (Puritans) and also perhaps attracted in Presbyterians (also Puritan type Protestants).
So they add a book or two to their bible. Big deal. The official Catholic which also became with minor variations the Protestant bible, too some hundreds of years after the death of Christ to be settled upon what was in and what was out. Ok this is purported fairly new revelation in the Mormon case, but so what? There's no rejection of any of the prior Protestant revealed bible that I know of, or if any, only on minor issues I think, from listening to the haters a little.
It's clear that the true emotional reason for the animosity towards Mormons by many Evangelicals
oops ...
Is polygamy in their formation and early history, only given up in order to become accepted as a state of the US.
A combination of moral indignation and envy suppressed by moral indignation among Evangelicals, would be my assessment.
Although of course in today's divorce law world by far most men would be out of their minds to want more than one wife they're legally one way obligated to.
Nickrit, I didn't understand your response to me. Do you agree or disagree with my assertion that "racist" is the n-bomb for whites?
Still, time can't be reversed. White supremacy and the white race will be seen as an aberration
As I copiously illustrated in a very long few comments here, white men created the modern world soup to nuts, beginning in 1450 with Gutenberg's invention of the mass production printing press, which made relatively cheap journals, pamphlets and books available on an elite mass level almost immediately, and helped jump start the world's first true interrelated scientific revolution, also exclusively the work of white men. Then we conquered most of the world.
Someone will just go on the Sir Tim Berners-Lee created WWW and state that a black man did all these things, as taught in Black History Month, and that will make it so.
Doug good catch, I forgot to respond about immigration.
Svigor
Nickrit, I didn't understand your response to me. Do you agree or disagree with my assertion that "racist" is the n-bomb for whites?
I guess so, if you mean: what is the equal to 'nigger' in terms of social penalty and alienation.
However, the difference that comes immediately to mind in me when comaparing 'nigger' with 'racist' is this: the former imparts immutable inferiority by dint of genetic consignment; the latter a mutable state that's redeemable after a initial choice or position.
see, dude doesn't "rant and rave," yet says View from the Right, probably the most thoroughly anti-liberal blog i've come across, somehow "carrying water for the Jews." why, because he's pro-Israel and doesn't give groups like Hamas the benefit of the doubt on the idea that they'll peacefully coexist once they get their Palestinian state? the horror.
and someone else referenced Kevin MacDonald, who believes that Jews are programmed through evolution to undermine Western society. how is this not directly comparable to Nazi "scientific" anti-Semitism against Jews as a race? obviously if his thesis is true and Jews are anti-Western genetic automatons then Hitler had the right idea correct.
the alt-right likes to make a show of how superior it is to both leftism and mainstream conservatism, but when you have this level of obsession with Jews as consisting 100% of "1%" masterminds it comes across as the far Left's mirror image
North Africans do not have to be Muslim. Islam was imposed by Arabs on the indigenous population.
I at least do not use 'Anonymous'.
Re "The Mittening" - I don't think you read Svigor's reply very carefully. He concurs that Auster's blog is generally excellent (well written and well-researched). I generally check it out daily, but like others, I find Auster's petty personal vendettas and smug superiority tiresome, along with his constant excuses for Jews. He actually had a good post denouncing Andrea Mitchell for her "Iowa's too White" screed, and rhetorically questioned whether American Whites would have allowed the immigration of her ancestors had they known they'd be working for the destruction of traditional, Christian America. This post seemed a significant break with Auster's previous dictum that the only permissible criticism of Jews is as liberals, rather than as specifically liberal Jews (note Svigor's mention of the significant differences between Jewish and non-Jewish liberals). Auster rapidly backtracked shortly thereafter, insisting he in no way stated Jews should not have been allowed to immigrate. He merely wanted Christians to demonstrate some active "self respect" and force the Jews to adhere to the implicit "bargain" they allegedly agreed to when coming to America. Thus is the issue turned on its head - from criticism of Andrea Mitchell's arrogant Jewish disdain for traditional America to criticism of traditional America for not disciplining Andrea Mitchell. The fault is always with others.
My apologies, One, I do not want to further hijack the thread towards pro/anti Auster camps, but Svigor (and Pat) have made an important distinction, with which I concur, and I wanted to add my attempt to explain it a bit more clearly.
FWIW, would you agree (I mean you, One) that calling someone a "Jew-hater" is analogous to "racist" in its intended pejorative and condemnatory tone? That's another example of "carrying the Jews' water" on the web - responding to any less than complimentary mention with cautions about anti-semitism and descending to the full-on invective of "Jew hater." Personally, I'm rather tired of it.
And not that it's really Germane, but I distinctly remember watching Farrakhan on C-Span once, and he was criticizing Jews, and he gave a sort of sly look at the camera, leaned in, and said in an intimate tone, "and you know, maybe White folks ought to look to secure their interests against Jewish influence," or words to that effect. That bought him a lot of cred in my book.
Svigor
Farrakhan looks like his PGI (personal genetic interests) may have more in common with White than Black Americans.
First off, Siegel misses the whole Whiteness thing.
Let us just assume that "America turns into a majority non-White nation soon." Like next week. Lets just assume it. Now lets assume that non-Whites want AT LEAST as much money from Whites (the Pew Hispanic Trust estimates MEDIAN White household net worth = $115K, Black = $5K, Hispanic = $6K) to fund welfare, SNAP, TANF, WIC etc. plus schools and the other stuff comprising the Welfare state, including massive government employment.
WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?
The entire, and I do mean ENTIRE Civil Rights / Welfare structure is built upon Whites paying taxes to give to Blacks/Hispanics so they don't riot. That is basically it.
Whites as a minority, will not only have punitive taxation to pay for the impoverished (mostly Hispanic) majority but second/third class status and legal protection. Already LA is deciding not to impound unlicensed drivers cars in violation of State law because they're mostly illegals.
That my friends is a reliable recipe as exists for civil war. Of whatever variety, a sub-rosa Prohibition one, an active violent one, a "cold" one that "goes Italian" (no taxes paid, the state evaded as in Italy).
THAT is utter disaster. As a comfortable, NYC liberal, Siegel ought to be raising the roof for more White guys. Who the HELL is going to pay for NYC style stuff?
Jay-Z? Michelle Obama? Tupac's estate? Illiterate laborers from Michoacan? Their kids? Let's get real.
Let me also say, this is standard stuff among the elite. I see this all the time among older White Catholic guys. I see it among the IT White guys. It is rampant among SWPL folk.
And its all about the eternal struggle among the Smart Set against the rural outlanders. You'd see that in Versailles, and in NYC today. Jews just follow along the crowd there the way they intermarry (which is a lot).
In my view, the Puritan culture spread out, mutated and joined with Quaker utopian pacifism, and moved out (Fischer's Albion's Seed points this out) to the Pacific Northwest, California, the Upper Midwest, and the Mid-Atlantic States.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, you get the communal-oriented, "progressive," utopian, "we are better than you are" stuff that absent Christian theology is straight Puritan, and before that straight Danelaw (where the Puritans came from) Scandi communalism. Meanwhile in places like Missouri, or Kentucky, you get more backwoods attitudes (tradition good, government bad, etc.)
Anti-White attitudes are ENDEMIC any time you get a firmly entrenched elite, that is one based on government/media/legal/academic strangleholds, on a semi-hereditary basis. That's a "White People Problem" -- a unity and communitarianism for bad ends that pops up over and over and over again, among Nordic/Scandinavian/German peoples. You don't see that in Slavic-Catholic Poland, or the Czech Republic, or Italy, or Ireland.
In my view it is a symptom of the loss of Protestant Christianity for the form of a post-Christian, post-Calvinist mutant religion, based on pre-ordained "saved" (who are "Good White people by not being racist") and damned (people like me). You see this most in Gay Guys in San Francisco, that gay guy Morford in the Chronicle writing about Obama as a "Lightworker" straight out of "Charmed" and "White Lighter" etc. Losing Christianity let the worst instincts culturally of Protestant / Nordic-Germanic peoples to congregate in them. With every strength a weakness.
Look at Stieg Larsson. He's the poster child as much as Siegel for that world-view. I WISH Jews had retained their identity, their sense of separateness. Can you see Bibi Netanyahu advocating "hey lets flood Israeli with Black Africans!" Or Golda Meir?
i agree that Auster is very doom-and-gloom nitpicky, not the type of guy you'd want to lead a political movement (or have a beer with,) but nonetheless i find his blog useful as comprehensively attacking liberal premises, something other conservative blogs tend to eschew in favor of bet-hedging (National Review) or mocking/reducing it to "status competition" (alt-right,) which has some truth and is fun for mocking liberal hysterics, but doesn't convince new generations to challenge entrenched liberal ideas, even if they find the most radical leftist characters goofy.
still i try to ignore people's noticeable personality quirks as best i can if they do good writing.
as for anti-Semitism of course like everything it's overused, especially by advocacy groups like the ADL who exist to overuse it. however, given that Israel is a prospering state that essentially follows a lot of the ethnic "national preservation" principles that the alt-right loves to talk about, of course charges of anti-Semitism are gonna be made when people use a double standard, turn into PC leftists and treat it as an evil racist theocracy. this is not to say that everything's swell for the Palestinians and they should exist in the current arrangement forever, but there's as much a reflexive anti-Israeli tendency on the alt-right as there is generic pro-Israeli sentiment from the major political parties, and a lot of it smacks mostly of projecting a dislike of leftist American Jews onto Jews everywhere.
and theories like those of MacDonald, who someone mentioned, are anti-Semitic by definition. you can't defend what is essentially an attempt to scientifically classify Jews as evil-by-design through anti-PC posturing. i brought him up cuz from what i can tell he's treated respectfully in large segments of these types of blogs.
I see this all the time among older White Catholic guys....Jews just follow along the crowd there the way they intermarry (which is a lot).
Oh for fuck's sake!
Jesus OneSTDV, you get insulted by my comments re Jews yet you never twig at anything by Whiskey.
Double fuck and CUNT!!!
Just read the rest of Whiskey's comment:
I WISH Jews had retained their identity, their sense of separateness.
Jesus wept.
Come on OneSTDV, how do you let this bullshit pass without a flicker? Here's this fuck knuckle Whiskey lying to our very faces, blaming Whites, Protestants, Catholics, Puritans anything and everything - except for Jews.
It's all "tha Whites" is it? Not "the Jooooos". So it's quite allright for Whiskey, who you link to, to spout off constantly like an injsane Jewraeli spammer about "it's all the Whites!" but Christ you'll come down like a ton of bricks if anyone threatens your precious "Joooooos".
I'm calling you out OneSTDV. You're a bullshitter. You're a god damned Jew and you're running some diversion here, same fake patriotism away from your co-ethnics.
If you aren't then you'd slap down this Whiskey in a second. So do it. Slap him down.
regarding Whiskey:
"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic.
First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid.
If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about.
Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again.
But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. He had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.
I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying."
First off, Siegel misses the whole Whiteness thing.
First off, Siegel is a Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
He hasn't missed the whole whiteness thing - that's his fucking point you lying "Scotch-Irish" cunt.
you can't defend what is essentially an attempt to scientifically classify Jews as evil-by-design...
Classifying everything into absolutes of evil vs good is a Jewish thing. What's good for the Jews = Good, what's not = evil.
Your paraphrasing of KMac is Jewish in that regard.
KMac's writing does not "classify Jews as evil-by-design" but that they are ethno-centric to the nth. And in that light they judge all and sundry. What's good for the Jews may be bad for us is KMac's point, not that Jews are evil.
And on the subject of Israel and her militant racism, this is something I support. I want for Whites what Jews have in Israel. I would support Israel if Jews supported me and mine like so. But Jews exist as a nation in Israel and as a nation in their diaspora. The latter serves Isreal by undermining us. That is what I hate.
If they would deal with integrity and reciprocate what's good for them as being good for us then I too would reciprocate. But they don;t and won't. They tore down South Africa and oppose the BDS, having successfully dismantled it in Oz. The very same people, like Barry Cohen, who fought long and hard in boycotting South Africa now demand that the BDS be shut down as anti-semitic.
Can't you see how this enrages people like myself? Won't you for a minute walk in our shoes?
Lately we have another Jew in Marke Leibler demanding that we have a referendum on our constitution to acknowledge our racism in treatment of Aboriginals, yet he works for Keren Hayesod and received the "Israel Goldstein Award from Israeli President Shimon Peres" for "“considered and practical” support for the Jewish State".
Why the double dealing? Can't you see that this would enrage Whites? That these Jews are instrumental in undermining our nations while we must support theirs, an overt expression of their separateness, their uniqueness, their race?
Pat - phenomenal comment. Your plea for them to understand the roots of your anger will be disregarded, I fear. That's the whole point, of course (which you well understand already). They will not concede the double -dealing or double standards in the first place, and their logistical permutations (a la anonymous' excellent comment) will leave you enraged at their duplicity, single-mindedness, and self-pity. And around and around we go - one reason (among many) I detest lawyers. Ooh, hate fact, Jew hater, alert, alert!
@Whiskey
"I WISH Jews had retained their identity, their sense of separateness."
Pat already responded sufficiently, but I still want to point out just how dumb this statement is from Whiskey.
sorry dude, if the definition of them as negatively "ethnocentric to the nth degree" is an evolutionary, genetic fact they can't escape, then that's definitionally anti-Semitic (something i'd think anti-Semites would wear as a badge of honor -- it'd make sense to be anti-Semitic right?) you see this all the time in the paleosphere where even Jews who take the most far-right positions imaginable are suspected of being some kind of secret Zionist agents.
someone like MacDonald can't get this close to the edge of Nazi justification -- ve must clean out ze Jews for ze benefit of Western society -- and then whine about being attacked because of "PC."
if HBDers didn't lean so hard on everyone as 100% prisoners of genetics they'd have a lot more wiggle room to attack dominant Jewish attitudes without the anti-Semitic card being pulled. as is though, you can't classify an entire group as not only genetically inferior but evil (or genetically superior but evil and self-serving as an unavoidable evolutionary result in this case) and then protest against anti-Semitic charges when such views fit its textbook definition.
Mittening, where you say the definition of them [Jews] as negatively "ethnocentric to the nth degree" is an evolutionary, genetic fact they can't escape, you need to understand that the negative influence is on *us*.
Jewish ethnocentrism is only negative in the context of where it runs up against other people's ethnocentrism. And where it does, people like yourself call *us* anti-semitic for asserting our own ethnicity over and above yours. The term "anti-Semitic" can only be understood now in that prism. Anti-Semitic means someone Jews don't like and has nothing whatsoever to do with an ignorant or bigoted hatred of Jews over and above all other races.
There is no avoiding the charge of "anti-Semite" whenever a non-Jew asserts his own race's priorities over and above that of Jews. That, by definition, is what anti-Semitism is.
Jews such as yourself refuse to accept that Kevin MacDonald (and Whites in general) has any claim whatsoever to his own ethnic priorities. You want to be simultaneously White and Jewish on that score. That these are two different races is something that you will not tolerate. Yet, at the same time we must acknowledge your separateness and uniqueness.
It's double dealing, and the fact that you invoke Godwin's Law in your comment demonstrates your own ethnocentrism to the nth, which you obviously cannot escape.
Here's another way of seeing it: In Israel Jews face an existential threat from Islam. On that basis Jews have created laws to diminish Islamic presence with Israel. Makes sense to me, makes sense to everyone. Matter of fact it was one of the arguments made by the British as to why they should not support the creation of an Israeli state in the very heart of a dominant Islamic presence. Be that as it may, there Israel is. And we, Whites, can see the problem - the existential threat and the necessity for your race laws.
Yet, should I or K Mac note the existential threat of Jewish double dealing with us in our lands (Jewish diaspora) - perverting our universal concepts of egalitarianism, individual rights, democracy without interference from religion, and turning these against us - we are anti-Semites.
Where Paleos and the like have gone wrong in pointing out Jewish duplicity when it comes to race in Israel and race in their diaspora, is that they have approached it from a left wing perspective, validating in many ways leftist nullification of race reality.
What should be asserted is that yes, Israel does face an existential threat (even though of their own making - no one made them Zionists bent on a homeland in Israel) and so do we, in our lands. From our position there is not much wrong with Israeli approaches in Israel to Palestinians and the like from a race perspective, and much to support.
The problem is, once again, were we to support Israel for being a good, natural and right expression of nation, and demand the same expression for ourselves we immediately, as always, become anti-semites.
i'm Catholic, not Jewish. although apparently i have a very small amount of distant Jewish ancestry, so clearly that's corrupted me.
it's not "invoking Godwin's Law" to make Nazi comparisons with someone who's writing is essentially an attempt to provide its scientific rationale. sure, i doubt MacDonald will say he wants all Jews destroyed. but when he says that they are the U.S.'s enemies as an unavoidable evolutionary fact, how's he gonna act shocked when some of the, let's say, more "interesting" characters on the white Right take that as the inevitable conclusion.
and basically assuming that anyone who can disagree with such a thesis is Jewish as you've done, which would include most people (Jew-brainwashed sheeple all i'm sure,) isn't gonna earn you much cred against the "don't call me anti-Semitic!" whining. i've seen people do this to the blog owner as well.
anyway, like i said it's not the critique of dominant Jewish attitudes that is anti-Semitic. it's the attempt to tie it entirely in with genetics, as MacDonald does. he might not vocalize the kind of virulent anti-Semitism you find in the far corners of the web (Stormfront etc.) but really all they're doing is tearing away the intellectual veneer and taking his ideas to their logical final solution.
I'm calling you out OneSTDV. You're a bullshitter. You're a god damned Jew and you're running some diversion here, same fake patriotism away from your co-ethnics.
He hasn't missed the whole whiteness thing - that's his fucking point you lying "Scotch-Irish" cunt.
You sound like a crazy person. Whiskey rants, everyone mostly ignores him (PA has characterized him as 1/10 insight, 9/10 nonsense) - maybe you should do the same.
And I fully agree with the sickening hypocrisy of some Western Jews who support Israel's ethno-"racism", yet go full-on multicultural zealot when it comes to the West.
And I haven't denied that Jews have played a disproportionate (though this does not MEAN it's all them) role in Western liberalism.
So what the fuck are you spazzing out about? What are you always so pissy about in my comment section? Why are you constantly attacking me? Why are you the only non-leftist commenter who can't keep his shit together and have a normal discussion devoid of palpable animus towards like-minded individuals?
Why are you the only commenter who can't make a comment that isn't soaked in anger and resentment and caustic enmity, especially directed at people who apparently want the same larger goals that you do (independent of who you and them may blame for the West's problems)? Why are you the only commenter who regularly attacks me and goes into drunken rants? Why are you the only commenter that regularly complains about my moderating?
I'm honestly tired of it, especially so because you attack me constantly. If you want to a have a reasonable discussion about Jews, I will allow that. I've posted a number of posts concerning what would could deem "Jewish-criticism" (hell in this very post I imply Seigel's hypocrisy by nothing the [lack of] "diversity of his synagogue"). I'm not adverse to discussing Jewish participation in leftism or unique Jewish opposition towards Western, race-based conservatism. But you're the only commenter who can't seem to engage in these conversations without spazzing out. There are a number of commenters here who have some non-positive opinions on Jews (e.g. Doug1, Sheila, Nine-of-Diamonds, Mangan), yet they all engage in judicious discourse on the issue. They don't sound, quite frankly, like a raving drunk lunatic half the time.
In sum, settle down or go away. And stop telling me what to think or what my opinions should be.
[P.S: Were you actually accusing me of a being some sort of fifth-column? LOL.]
I think Pat Hannagan's fear is that your blog is misdirecting youngsters who might otherwise evolve politically in what he considers more positive directions.
You should regard this as a compliment. Pat thinks your blog is very influential and that you're charismatic.
Well, it's either that, or he's just a bully who sees you as the epitome of the effete, limpwristed conservative, who he can't help but pick on. In that case, he's doing the blogosphere equivalent of shoving you into your locker and stealing your lunch money everyday.
i didn't even notice that post.
Jews Jews everywhere...it's not anti-Semitic it's the TRUTH!@##$!$
Plus, rantings like Pat's actually dissuade bloggers like myself and Mangan from even discussing Jews altogether. Mangan even preemptively turned on comment moderation after writing his last Jew-themed post.
[A well-known "founding stock" alt-right personality who actually doesn't even like Jews once complained to me in an e-mail about anti-semitic commenters in HBD comment threads.]
Pat responses to Whiskey were entirely justified, in my opinion.
Whiskey,
How many Quakers do you know?
There's a lot of questions of me there to answer OneSTDV, which have been well answered subsequently in the first paragraph of IHTG's comment. Yes, I would say that IHTG has summed up better than I could why I spaz out as you put it.
That others don't comment like a raving drunk lunatic half the time. is probably because they're not that at any time. Though it's an absurd characterisation to say that "half the time" my comments are like that. I'd say, maybe, 1/10th of the time?
What's wrong with us anyway that we don't get enraged, drunk or not? Whether I'm drunk or not, I'm a raging sort of fella. Should see me when the girls start screaming about something in the yard and I go into protect mode. It's a natural instinct that I find hard to contain and am not keen to contain since I see it as a good thing. Why you aren't enraged by Whiskey's comments is something I find profoundly disturbing. And why I find myself questioning my assessment of your ultimate allegiances. But, I cannot know them, only from what you write and where I see inconsistencies I point them out.
Look OneSTDV, if you don't want me to comment then say so. You have my email, write to me even and say "You know what Pat, get the fuck off my blog!" And I will. No worries.
rantings like Pat's actually dissuade bloggers like myself and Mangan from even discussing Jews altogether. You don't know that, you can't speak for Mangan. If it dissuades you though, why? If I'm a raving drunk spaz head what does that have to do with the veracity of your thoughts? I don't see Israelis condemning the more vociferous and blatantly racist, in the hate sense, of their people. Why must we tip toe around the extremes of our own people and publish constant apologies for them sullying our reputations? You don't own my comments, they don't reflect on you.
But that they always get up your nose where Whiskey's don't tells me something. Whiskey *is* a fifth-columnist yet he gets the VIP pass at Alt-Right blogs. The majority of commenters at Mangans speak of their hatred for his thoughts and spamming and how it dissuades people from going to these Alt-Right blogs. But, nup, nothing wrong with Whiskey, he can slate Whites, all Whites, with gay abandon but touch the "Joos" down comes the hammer.
My assessment of Mangan's actions, judging by what he's written? He doesn't moderate through fear of his commenters but through fear of what organisations like the ADL might do to him. Mangan, unlike yourself, does not post with an alias. That's a whole different kettle of fish and why I apply a different standard to comments at your blog. You aren't personally in the firing line, your name isn't on the line. There is no equivalence.
To use that hackneyed phrase, at the end of the day, this is just a blog. A place to vent, argue, rage, and debate that which we can't in daily life for fear of...you know who.
This is an avenue to spread the word, so to speak, and if I could convert you then I'd have a better man on my side than I could be, arguing in my corner. Blogs won't change the world, in and of themselves, but as a font for information dissemination and knocking over some of the modern icons and shibboleths, it's revolutionary.
That's why I write, and argue. Sometimes I'm drunk, mostly I'm not. If I lose it it's not necessarily because I'm drunk but angry. Maybe you should try getting thoroughly pissed off some time, maybe even with a six pack thrown in (though it's not for everyone). In either case it's good for your soul. Next morning the doors of your perception are cleansed, and you're ready to go to work again, in the ongoing struggle.
For a Catholic you sure have an extreme devotion to Jews Mittening. Did you ever pray for "the perfidious Jews" at Good Friday Mass Mittening?
I'd like to know what you make of that prayer, since you are a Catholic. You'd be even aquainted no doubt with the modern prayer that omits that phrase but prays for the conversion of the Jews. What are your thoughts on that?
Are you also aware that "anti-semitism" is not a sin?
And you did invoke Godwin's Law. You cannot treat with a White person expressing a well reasoned, academic, respected volume of work without going to the lowest slur you can make and drag in a Nazi spectre.
What's more, I rarely complain about moderation OneSTDV. Matter of fact you've deleted my comments before without a word of protest from me.
Delete away, it's your blog.
i'm still waiting what the "scholarly" anti-Semites solution to "the Jewish problem" is. expel them? legal discrimination? one-state solution for Israel so it ceases to be Israel? i eagerly await the not-Nazi-in-any way answer, since i'm clearly being unfair with that.
and the anti-Semitism isn't a sin remark. well i wasn't talking about sin in any case, but clearly your OK with being anti-Semitic, since Jews alone as The Enemy of Civilization is perfectly rational in your mind. why not just embrace it then? anti-Semitic pride!
I already explained to you what anti-semitism actually is. That you're fixated on the term gives you away. You're no Catholic.
Allright, my comment in explanation to your queries was deleted for some reason. Can I just say then that IHTG has it:
I think Pat Hannagan's fear is that your blog is misdirecting youngsters who might otherwise evolve politically in what he considers more positive directions.
You should regard this as a compliment. Pat thinks your blog is very influential and that you're charismatic.
I have said several times now that you should "take it as a compliment".
the Nazis weren't anti-Semitic, they were just patriotic ethno-nationalists who were called anti-Semitic cuz the Jews didn't like them revealing their crafty plans. got it.
it's not "invoking Godwin's Law" to make Nazi comparisons with someone who's writing is essentially an attempt to provide its scientific rationale.
He's a scientist, and you have no basis for questioning his motivations. And you have no idea what his books say, so everything you say about him makes you look ridiculous.
^this is what i mean when i say the racialist Right turns into the Left on this issue. how can you question a theory that classifies all Jews as evolutionary enemies of white Gentile society? he's a scientist!!!
i trust you accept all the "scientific studies" that validate leftist premises.
There is no such theory. You're hallucinating.
Politeness and conscientiousness (in the sense of duty more than drive for achievement) and an attitude that we all have to be tough and put up with a little suffering now and then are distinguishing factors of Conservaties as distinct from Liberals, who see these traits as terrible things (as opposed to breaking any taboos and being insulting in the name of winning arguments and "setting people free", as opposed to chilling out and partying, as opposed to trying to solve every little bump and scrape that anyone suffers, no matter the long term consequences).
Not surprising that they hate this and will try to racialise it and identify it with Whiteness to problematise it.
Post a Comment