Implicit Whiteness and the Republicans

Greg Johnson


Kevin MacDonald’s work on the concept of “implicit whiteness” in his essay “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism” (acacdemic version) is a major breakthrough for White Nationalism. Ethnocentrism—usually stigmatized as “xenophobia” and “racism”— is a preference to be around genetically similar people. Anti-ethnocentrism—a preference for people unlike ourselves—is sold today as “diversity,” the secret ingredient that adds “strength” wherever it is found.

According to MacDonald, ethnocentrism is a natural phenomenon, hard-wired into the oldest and deepest levels of the brain. Anti-ethnocentrism, however, exists as a conscious moral conviction. From a psychological point of view, therefore, anti-ethnocentrism is relatively superficial, even though it currently dominates our culture and politics.

Advertisement

Anti-ethnocentrism is dominant because its advocates control the forces that shape our explicit consciousness: education, the arts, the news and entertainment media. But unconscious ethnocentrism persists and can never be extirpated because it is hard-wired into the brain.

Thus when leftists accuse Whites of “unconscious” racism, they are correct. Unconscious White ethnocentrism manifests itself in affiliation patterns. In particular, MacDonald cites country music, NASCAR, and the Republican Party as foci of implicitly White affiliation.

But because ethnocentrism is hard-wired, anti-racists can’t really do anything about it. At best, anti-racist “consciousness raising” can only institute a permanent state of inner psychological conflict.

The leftists thought that by controlling the explicit culture, they could eliminate ethnocentrism once and for all. But they can’t. They can only create a psychologically draining conflict between our conscious convictions and our conscious instincts. And they can never rest, because if they let up on the conditioning for just a minute, they may see all their gains—and all their power—swept away.

Contrary to enemy propaganda, ethnocentrism is a perfectly normal and healthy psychological trait. A racially aware individual who consciously believes that his ethnocentric instincts are morally right, enjoys inner psychological harmony, the peace of mind that is denied to anti-racists, who exist in a constant state of inner conflict between their natural instincts and their unnatural moral convictions.

Anti-racists are, in a real sense, mentally ill, whereas those of us who are self-consciously and proudly ethnocentric are mentally healthy (at least in that respect). And, because so much of the mental energy of anti-racists is drained away in internal conflict, other things being equal, we “racists” are stronger, happier, and more capable of transforming the world.

Thus MacDonald’s research is cause for hope:

1. The left cannot win, because they can only control our conscious convictions but not our unconscious instincts.

2. Nature is on our side, because in their hearts, people want what we want.

3. Time is on our side, because anti-racism introduces internal psychological conflicts that are bound to be debilitating over the long run.

What is the path to racial salvation? Ultimately, it is a metapolitical struggle to gain control of the forces that shape people’s conscious convictions about what is right. Once we can bring people’s conscious convictions in line with their deepest instincts, the resistance to the political changes we seek will fall as a matter of course.

Unfortunately, the import of MacDonald’s research is often misunderstood when applied to party politics. The euphoric reaction of some White Nationalists to the Republican gains in the recent midterm elections is a case in point. White Nationalists are claiming that “we” have taken control of the House, that “we” have made significant progress toward immigration restriction, that “Whites” are taking our country back.

White Nationalists were, of course, mostly spectators in the last election. “We” White Nationalists did not take control of the House, the Republicans did. So this talk about what “we” won is based on the power of make believe, in exactly the same way that a Giants fan says that “we” won the World Series. Fans form an imaginative identification with “their” team and vicariously experience their triumphs and tragedies as their own.

I have seen obese couch potatoes pantomiming touchdowns and toddling around beer-sodden rec rooms in victory laps, pumping their fists in the air as if they were star athletes. I have seen rock concerts where countless teenage boys, bombed out of their minds, play air guitar and feel like the crowd is cheering for them. In men, testosterone production actually rises and falls based on the performance of their sports teams. It may be good, clean fun. But it is not the foundation of sober political analysis.

Boys will be boys.

The misuse of the idea of “implicit Whiteness” is another factor contributing to giddiness about the Republicans and the Tea Party. Yes, the Republicans may be benefitting from implicit ethnocentrism on the part of Whites, but that is a far cry from explicit White Nationalists enjoying any sort of political power or influence.

First of all, the fact that Republican voters may be motivated by unconscious ethnocentrism does not imply that they are receptive to explicit White Nationalism. Most Republicans would vehemently reject the “accusation” that they have any racial fellow-feeling at all. Yes, this resistance to White racial consciousness is waning, partly because it is just tiring to fight against one’s natural instincts, and partly because White Nationalists are slowly getting our message out through the internet and through personal interactions. But we have a long metapolitical educational process ahead of us before we can turn implicit Whiteness into widespread explicit Whiteness.

Second, the fact that Republican voters may be motivated by implicit racial consciousness does not mean that Republican politicians will serve White interests. Quite the contrary, they would be the first to deny any hint of racism. They would deny it strenuously.

Republicans have a long history of taking the money, efforts, and votes of explicitly conservative and pro-life voters . . . and then betraying them. Why, then, would one expect them to be responsive to the merely implicit racial consciousness of White voters—many of whom would deny they are racially conscious altogether?

The sad truth is that Republicans will not cater to the interests of Whites even out of the “base” motive of self-preservation. In their hearts, Republicans know that their party is doomed by the rising tide of color. But they will doanything rather than admit this fact and work to preserve the White majority.

Just as their corporate masters are committed to the racial replacement of White workers, Republicans are committed to the racial replacement of White voters by winning the votes of responsible, hard-working blacks and browns. Sure, most of them know it is a pipe dream. But they are more afraid of being called racists today than of their party disappearing in a generation.

Other Republicans are committed to staving off political death through racial gerrymandering and ever more intense exploitation of the shrinking White voter base. They are praying for the left to rile up Republican voters by promoting further “progress” toward insanity: socialized medicine for pets, tax-funded sex change operations, the right to marry one’s pet, and the like. Republicans will do just about anything but speak the dreaded “w” word.

The barriers to moving the Republicans toward explicit Whiteness can be appreciated with an analogy. Imagine an organization consisting largely of unmarried men that has an explicitly anti-homosexual culture yet a pattern of recruiting and promoting young men based largely on sex appeal. Such an organization could accurately be described as “implicitly” or “latently” homosexual. Would such an organization, therefore, be a likely ally for the homosexual lobby?

Of course not. Its members would frantically rebuff any proffered alliance. Individually, many of the members might be sympathetic. But any sympathies would be cancelled by fear of the disapproval of their peers, because status in the organization depends on conformity to the explicit culture, and those who dissent from the party line will be replaced by those who toe it.

The same is true of explicitly White Nationalists trying to reach out to latently White Republicans. Status in Republican circles depends on adherence to anti-racism (except, of course, in the case of Zionism, which must be subsidized with tax dollars). Even if every leading Republican felt, in the privacy of his or her own mind, that anti-racism is nonsense, what are the chances that they would all level with one another at the same time? Because if a courageous individual stuck his neck out on his own, he might find his honesty turned against him by somebody who believes the exact same thing but is more concerned with gaining advantage over him in a struggle for personal advancement.

In fact, I believe that White Nationalists are more likely to find allies on some issues among Black and Hispanic nationalist groups, since members of these organizations don’t need to constantly prove their anti-White credentials like Republicans do. And that is the full measure of Republican depravity.

As I have argued elsewhere, the 2010 Midterm elections turned out about as well as could be expected for White Nationalists, given that racially conscious Whites are a tiny, despised, and almost voiceless minority. Let’s not forget that of the hundreds of candidates who ran, only Jim Russell in New York’s 18th district is an explicit advocate for White interests, and he lost by a landslide.

Kevin MacDonald’s work on implicit Whiteness is a conceptual breakthrough for White Nationalism, a source of hope for the long run viability of our cause. But let’s not get carried away by elections. But there is still a vast gulf between implicit and explicit Whiteness, a gulf that politics alone cannot bridge.

Greg Johnson is the Editor-in-Chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, Ltd. He can be reached at editor@counter-currents.com.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

44 Comments to "Implicit Whiteness and the Republicans"

  1. phil white's Gravatar phil white
    January 20, 2012 - 12:37 pm | Permalink

    It is true that non-whites don’t have to prove their anti-white credentials like republicans, but smilarly that is also why white liberals were the first to condem Zionist atrocities and wars for Isreal. Liberals don’t have to prove they are not anti-semitic bigots.
    As to liberals welcoming immigration and race mixing I don’t believe that is a form of insanity. Plenty of Southern boys married Japanese females right after 1945. Liberalism wasn’t that culturally dominate then.
    Our Practical Politics seminar told us that 20% of any population has absolutely no problem with diversity.
    To think that ethnocentrism is the only normal mental state is as false as is would be to think that masculinity is the only normal mindset for a human being.
    I posit that any human mental or personality trait that is wide spread in time and extent has a natural purpose.
    Anti-ethnocentrism satisfies that criteria.
    The obvious answer as to why liberal attitudes toward inclusiveness are genetically necessary (if only in 20% of a population) is that a 100% ethoncentric population is likely to exhaust itself in border wars and inbreeding.
    Of course inbreeding avoidance is no longer a valid reason for liberal inclusiveness, as it was 10,000 years ago in a time of sparse populations will travel possible only by foot.
    It is no longer a problem of McCoys having only Hatfields as neighbors.
    Human gentic adaptation to modern conditions appears to be rather slow. Perhpas we are finally thining out the herd when it comes to gentic knee jerk liberals. Abortion and contraception and careerism are hopefully leaving whites with fewer liberals in each generation.

  2. A Swain's Gravatar A Swain
    November 16, 2010 - 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Whites who promote racial discrimination policies against their own ethnic kin are, self-hating psychos. They hate themselves for being who they are. Truly, a sign of deep-seated mental illness.

    Racism is a perfectly natural mindset since it is a manifestation of one’s naturally-occurring survival instinct and not what self-hating White Marxist Liberals and their multitudes of enabled non-White opportunists insist the term means, ie, race hate.

    The mentally unbalanced Marxist Liberal elite have got to be toppled from power and thrown to those same wolves they, the idiots, enabled. If the wolves fail in their duty to devour them then it’s up to future White ethnoNationalist administrations to facilitate this extremely essential undertaking for as long as it takes to eradicate the menace.

    The said task can, under no circumstances, be neglected on account of it being literally a matter of life and death for the whole of the White race.

  3. Ex-Pro White Activist's Gravatar Ex-Pro White Activist
    November 15, 2010 - 8:25 am | Permalink

    A number of years ago I adopted a remarkably simple litmus test for contemplating and grading all things political, socio-political and political-economic: “Is it good for white babies?” Period. Clearly this was somewhat inspired by “Is it good for theJews?” But it was more inspired by many millenia of white behavior up to the last 100 years or so.

    It has really helped focus me on essentials, place virtually everything into proper perspective and cut through the blizzard of chaff surrounding us all.

    As a simple example, this outlook led me on 9-12-01 to start a ceaseless lecture to three then elementary and middle schoolers: NOT YOUR WAR! NOT YOUR PEOPLE!

    Oh, do I sense some shocked sensibilities here? Here’s the third part of that lecture: “Watch what Chelsea Clinton and the Bush daughters do about this. You do the same.”

    Job 1 is stop feeding the beast. Stop feeding Jewish dominated media with ad dollars – a/k/a with their method of “political campaigns”. Stop feeding the ZOG forces with cannon fodder for more wars for their lands while they flood yours with aliens.

    And just maybe pro-white academics might take a lead in diverting the flow of white students and money. Here again, stop feeding the beast. Cut off the Duke University faculties and Shakti Butlers that comprise most of modern Amerokwan higher ejewkashun.

  4. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    November 14, 2010 - 9:13 am | Permalink

    An excellent column by Greg Johnson. His references to the ‘inner conflict’ dilemma that affects these white ‘anti-racists’ is dead on the money. I’ve got an old white friend from my time in the military – divorced 5 times, and he finally settled on a Filipino woman for his last, and apparently final wife. I’ve known this guy for over 30 years, and he’s a Southerner, and we used to be able to discuss race issues honesty and even swap jokes of a racial nature, but ever since he latched onto his non-white wife – the changes that have come over him are nothing short of pitiful. I do not allow the fact that he has a non-white wife to temper my passion for advocating for white ethnic interests whenever we have discussions about politics, third world immigration into America and the deliberate dispossession of the White founding stock of America. This makes him extremely uncomfortable – and he resorts to parroting the standard line of anti-white baloney that he was trained to repeat by his electronic jewish brainwashing device (TV), which basically says that whites are never to be allowed to have or express any concern for their legitimate ethnic interests.

    I can see the conflict that Greg cites all over this guy’s face, whenever we discuss this subject. He hates Obama, but couldn’t explain the difference between a traditional conservative and one of these despicably evil ‘neo-cons’ if someone put a gun to his head and ordered him to cite 3 differences between the two. So, in addition to being a race traitor, he compounds his betrayal of his own race by voting for neo-cons – who are more anti-white than most anti-white liberals.

    This guy is a perfect illustration of just how destructive and racially suicidal it is for whites to race mix; the second they do, they stop being white and are totally transformed into the race of their partner. They can never again be counted on to take the side of their own race in any conflict or competition that arises between whites and non-whites. No wonder our wiser white ancestors were savvy enough to pass laws against miscegenation.

  5. GT's Gravatar GT
    November 13, 2010 - 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps Ex Pro-White Activist will allow me to speak for him.

    Racialism fails because it is easier for middle-class whites to preserve their status and genetic legacy by climbing aboard the multicultural love-train.

    By climbing aboard the love-train middle-class whites, especially those in the upper region, can retain the financial and marital benefits of the present EZ money monetarist system – live in nice houses in guarded communities up on the hillside above the smog, send their children to exclusive schools comprised of jews, Asians, and whites, etc.

    The overwhelming majority of middle-class whites are urbanites. Urbanites are financially dependent on the present system. They will not do anything that would jeopardize their position or that of their children – ever. Furthermore, most haven’t the mental wherewithal to be “secret” racialists anyway. Why? Secret racialism for life is just too hard. One slip up – just one – is all that’s needed to destroy one’s marital, social, and economic lifestyle. That is why online racialism is overwhelmingly comprised of aged pensioners and the chronically under- /unemployed.

    There will be no “usurping” the system from within ala The Turner Diaries or the jewish “Long March Through The Institutions.”

    The only practical solution is to build an alternate system capable of competing with the mainstream system. Such a system would contain overt and covert elements. The effort would require mental and physical work, and risk. There would be mistakes, death, and no guarantee of success. Such a system would be local, ground-based, family and friend-oriented, and grown through technical example, physical leadership, and word of mouth. It would be the diametric opposite of almost everything that is presently advocated online. Such a system would be rural and suburban, and originate in the blue-collar and lower middle-classes.

    This is, I think, what Ex Pro-White Activist is about.

    It certainly is what I’m about.

    The difference between EPWA and myself is this: despite the Internet “handle” EPWA cares about the Internet Bowel Movement. I don’t give a fig about it. The liberation of the white underclass, should it come, will come from elsewhere.

  6. GT's Gravatar GT
    November 13, 2010 - 2:02 pm | Permalink

    “Not everyone who thinks “microcommunities” are insufficient unto the day is ipso facto a “monetarist” race traitor. ”

    I know it’s difficult to believe, but I am not XPWA. There actually is a handful of people in the bowel movement whose thoughts run paths similar to my own. Really. XPWA is one of them.

    Interesting that you think I believed microcommunities were sufficient to win the day for us. Not true of course. They were a necessary part of a larger scheme; however. But then, you’re an active participant at MR – a website overwhelmingly comprised of conservative EZ money monetarist race traitors who wish to retain the very system which has put us on this blog and others like it in the first place. Microcommunity networks require thought and labor. Racialist lawyers, academics, pot-bellied pensioners, IT guys – monetarists all – don’t labor. Labor is beneath them. They want to have and eat the cake that others must die for.

    It won’t work. The fools are fated to become increasingly frustrated over time and grow smaller in numbers. Tim Wise is absolutely correct about all of that. It’s easier for racialist monetarists to protect their social status and “genes” by supporting the very MultiKult that has consigned the white underclass to hell. All they have to do is get their minds right and stay on top – “white preservation is dysgenic” and all that – while quietly marrying white, live in guarded and gated communities up on the hill, and sending their children to white/oriental/jewish schools.

    Assuming we’re alive in 20 years and have not moved on to something else or have been suppressed on the Net, let us compare notes on how far Greg Johnson’s “metapolitical” efforts have taken us.

  7. Dedalus's Gravatar Dedalus
    November 13, 2010 - 9:22 am | Permalink

    venona November 12, 2010 – 5:38 pm | Permalink The standard of living enjoyed by most whites in the US (and around the world) over the course of the last 60 years has led to a sense of complacency that the cultural Marxists have used to full advantage.

    Exactly! Great post!

    In fact, I think Whites unwilling to face facts today remind me of Job. Job took a lot of abuse, a lot. But it wasn’t until God covered him in boils that he finally said, “Enough!”
    Or, as the PC Whites of today might say, “Yo, Enough Dude!”

    Capitalism isn’t bad because it’s focus is principally material and economic. Humans are bad for failing to see that once their material needs are in line they are FREE to focus more on their spiritual lives.
    Humans are bad to the extent that they are willing to use their economic success as an excuse to ignore matters moral and intellectual and the relationship between the two.
    And those two are dependent upon a notion of daily growth, which itself implies the need to step out of one’s comfort zone on a ocassion long enough to look at themselves from right angles, as it were, and do the hardest thing there is for humans to do, ie; engage in self-criticism without allowing any anxiety to interfere with that self-examination.
    Needless to say, the average White Westerner is simply not interested in that. And that’s why the two guys in the above photo playing air guitar look like two overgrown children.

    Pull the plug on their goodies and you might get them to react. Only problem is what kind of reaction can we expect from people who have carefully trained themselves to not react?
    Even when what they should react to is in fact a serious threat to them.

  8. Lance Odell Greyson's Gravatar Lance Odell Greyson
    November 13, 2010 - 12:49 am | Permalink

    “but dont they only need to control our conscious convictions until we become a minority? then it doesnt matter what we hold in our conscious, we wont wont have the political power to protect our interests. in the U.S., thats just 30 more years; in London, it’s just 15.”

    This is where the concept of balkanization and the Ethno-state come in.

    Given the current shape the USA is in it is a good bet it won’t exist 30 years from now. Remember the Soviet Union was more powerful, larger, and even Whiter, while still being married to a multi-ethnic ideology, and even it didn’t survive!!!

  9. Give Them An Incentive To Be Pro-White's Gravatar Give Them An Incentive To Be Pro-White
    November 12, 2010 - 9:04 pm | Permalink

    If Republican politicans are anti-white in order to attain status and money, then maybe white advocates could give these politicians some “financial incentives” to become pro-white?

    I’m sure if politicians, journalists and companies thought there was money to be made from being pro-white, then they would be falling over themselves to prove their loyalty to whites. Give them incentives to be pro-white.

    • mark's Gravatar mark
      November 13, 2010 - 12:27 am | Permalink

      Give Them An Incentive To Be Pro-White said:

      If Republican politicans are anti-white in order to attain status and money, then maybe white advocates could give these politicians some “financial incentives” to become pro-white?

      I’m sure if politicians, journalists and companies thought there was money to be made from being pro-white, then they would be falling over themselves to prove their loyalty to whites. Give them incentives to be pro-white.

      If it takes money to motivate them, they’re not worth having. If it takes money to gain their support, they are improperly motivated and they’ll betray us for money, too.

      We need “true believers” who are spiritually and ideologically motivated and who cannot be compromised. We see in the movement today certain individuals who hope to gain financially at some future point and take the position that we should not upset the economic order. They have one foot in the White advocacy movement and one foot on Wall Street, and it’s disgusting.

  10. dan neil's Gravatar dan neil
    November 12, 2010 - 7:52 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Greg miss seeing you the TOQ table at events, Kmac is doing a splendind job and we are going to grow. I am greatful to see you wrighting here this is a good article I hope we will see more of you.

  11. BlueFrog's Gravatar BlueFrog
    November 12, 2010 - 6:42 pm | Permalink

    There are two sides to a coin. If you voted against Obama because he is black then you are a racist. If you voted for him (in part) because he is black then you are also a racist. So, with over 90% of blacks voting for Obama, who are the true racist in American society?

  12. venona's Gravatar venona
    November 12, 2010 - 5:38 pm | Permalink

    The standard of living enjoyed by most whites in the US (and around the world) over the course of the last 60 years has led to a sense of complacency that the cultural Marxists have used to full advantage. But a sense of implicit whiteness lingers, despite the 24/7/365 brainwashing campaign from the media.

    The US national debt stands at $13.7 Billion, or $124,000 per taxpayer. The foundation of our economy has been outsourced to the third world. Life is going to get much more difficult for many whites in the very near future, and perhaps more importantly, whites will witness people of color behaving in a manner inconsistent with how they have been portrayed on TV.

  13. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    November 12, 2010 - 5:28 pm | Permalink

    “There will not be any reverse White Gramscian Long March back through these institutions.”

    They had to do it that way because there was no possibility of them being able to persuade adults.

    They had to capture the schools, universities and MSM because they need to get at people when they’re young and naive.

    It’s easier for us because we can persuade adults (in theory).

    (Once they’ve been de-programmed first).

    • ML's Gravatar ML
      November 15, 2010 - 9:15 pm | Permalink

      @Wandrin

      But that’s evading the central problem: the capture of youth. Let’s not pretend it’s easy, or even assume it is probable, to deprogram adults; which is why the Long Gramscian March (great f-ing phrase) went through the schools and promoted counter-culture, goyim at their most malleable. That we have to deal with adults is a very great disadvantage, from a psychological point of view. That leaves us with i) those who already tend to our side, ii) the children we can produce and train ourselves, and iii) reaching out to students via the professions. Losing prospects, in fine. I don’t care what the MR guys think can be done, or what kind of analysis can be put together, we cannot switch enough people off to the program in which they’ve been reared. Who was it said that there are 650,000 Sikhs in the US and no one cares what they think, so why would anyone perceive us as a threat, far fewer than 650,000?

      That the only way out is through the kids, to paraphrase the man, is not falsified by the way being barred. Inability is no disproof. We either find a way to recapture young minds, or we’re really, truly, for all time finished.

  14. hi's Gravatar hi
    November 12, 2010 - 5:18 pm | Permalink

    “The left cannot win, because they can only control our conscious convictions but not our unconscious instincts.”

    but dont they only need to control our conscious convictions until we become a minority? then it doesnt matter what we hold in our conscious, we wont wont have the political power to protect our interests. in the U.S., thats just 30 more years; in London, it’s just 15.

  15. Ex-Pro White Activist's Gravatar Ex-Pro White Activist
    November 12, 2010 - 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Greg,

    What is the path to racial salvation? Ultimately, it is a metapolitical struggle to gain control of the forces that shape people’s conscious convictions about what is right.

    You are broadly correct, and certainly correct about the intrinsic incorrigibility of the Republican Party.

    However, it’s the Jew who slithers into and subverts institutions from within. There will not be any reverse White Gramscian Long March back through these institutions. The Jew is not as weak-minded and weak-willed as the gutless white males he displaced. He knows exactly what he’s about. “Consistency is the hobgoblin of a tiny mind”, as any sneering Jew will tell you. They are certainly not troubled by those hobgoblins. Jews Rule is their only rule.

    We are therefore left with building new organizations to generate the necessary forces to do this. The good news is it has never been easier or more economical to do this. The bad news is there are almost no signs of physical interest in doing this apart from a few pleasant and very obscure literary efforts.

    XPWA

  16. Bo Sears's Gravatar Bo Sears
    November 12, 2010 - 1:10 pm | Permalink

    The cure for people being afraid of calling themselves “white” in public discourse is to find a way to do so that won’t scare the other diverse white American peoples.

    That way has been known and explained and implemented for several years.

    http://www.resistingdefamation.org/PDF/whAuth.pdf

  17. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    November 12, 2010 - 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Matt,
    “I would go one step further than you and assert that a great deal of White “anti-racists” are only exploiting the anti-racism construct as a weapon in in-group status competition.”

    Agree, most white “anti-racists” don’t really believe it either or they did when they were young but gradually stopped believing it in private but keep up appearances in public for the sort of reasons you describe – also simply for employment reasons.

    I should have said the only people who actually believe in “anti-racism” are a small sub-set of white “anti-racists.”

  18. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    November 12, 2010 - 12:15 pm | Permalink

    The two fat boys in the picture look like the type you see wearing Big Ten sweatshirts, or maybe Notre Dame, or West Virginia sportswear. :)

    Sometime when you encounter one of these characters in line at the grocercy store, enquire when they were at OSU, Penn State or Michigan. Chances are you will find out they are high school dropouts, or at best went to the local community college. :) But, you do have adults who pack the stands at $70 dollars a pop for a ticket plus refreshments to see a lot of non-Whites play with balls. West Virginia is really pathetic—White kids in the stands, blacks on the field in a state with few blacks in the population. What’s wrong with this picture?

    I’m willing to bet, that Jews are way over represented in the stands at professional sporting events. First, a lot of these events are on Sunday, second the Jews can afford it or die trying to afford it. :) I can only think of one of my pals, a very White guy, who was a fourth string Divison One quarterback, who has pro football season tickets—and I know a lot of people!

  19. Geiseric's Gravatar Geiseric
    November 12, 2010 - 11:48 am | Permalink

    @Wandrin:
    “jews don’t actually *believe* in or practise “anti-racism” – as a disparate impact study of Hollywood, the MSM, Wall Street banks or the New York Times would show. They invented the “anti-racism” ideology as a weapon to attack white people with. That’s sort of the whole point.”

    As Dr. MacDonald has pointed out on several occasions, it is hard, if not impossible, to distinguish between deception and self-deception, between conscious strategies and unconscious “instinctive” behavior.

    “Non-whites who adopt “anti-racism” don’t *believe* in it either – not in a holistic sense – they just see it as a weapon to attack white people with and a method to gain stuff for their group.”

    That’s why I pointed out that Johnson’s generalizations are obvious exaggerations.

    @Matt Parrott:
    “… a great deal of White “anti-racists” are only exploiting the anti-racism construct as a weapon in in-group status competition. It’s been my experience in real world discussions that the case against “racism” boils down to an ingrained understanding that to be pro-White is to be vulgar, low-status, and “trashy”. It’s simply not “respectable”, and respectability is to the SWPL what chivalry was to the Medieval knight.”

    This has a lot to do with culture. Ethnic interests compete within the framework of Euro-American culture. White non-/anti-racists behave according to existing cultural codes in which moral universalism gives socio-cultural capital and therefore status. The same cultural codes make White ethnocentrism look like primitivism, viz. caveman-like behavior. White advocates often fall into the caveman-talk-trap.

  20. Sherwoodian's Gravatar Sherwoodian
    November 12, 2010 - 11:16 am | Permalink

    Time Wise compliments Sewanee students for not asking “challenging questions.”

    Sewanee costs White parents $46,000 per year. (The Diversity all get free ride scholarships in effort to increase Sewanee’s much needed Diversity.)

    For that $46,000 x four years, White parents can be assured that their White children are learning to:

    1. Never ask a challenging question when encountering a University sponsored anti White hatemonger on campus with a question such as, “What faith do you have in the blacks such that if we rid society of White privilege and social inequality by lowering ourselves down to their level that they will not keep pulling us down even further?”

    2. Never even think to challenge anti White hatred, because it is now the normal, accepted, and expected mainstream attitude on college campuses and in any corporation or institution that hosts Diversity speakers and hires Officers of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion.

    “As it turns out, about 400 people came to my talk at Sewanee (also known as the University of the South) — an incredibly conservative campus — and none caused trouble or even asked a challenging question.

    http://www.timwise.org/2010/11/talking-loud-and-saying-nothing/

    In that case, Sewanee should no longer be allowed the proud reputation as “conservative.” It now should be called ” extremely liberal and dangerously radical.”

    Maybe the $46,000 is money well spent. White college students will graduate from Sewanee knowing how to keep their mouths shut and will therefore not be targeted for career oppression and marginalization by the Diversity Enforcers and the new, rising Multicultural Elite who embrace and demand their own unearned Diversity Privilege while punishing high achieving and meritorious Whites.

    Students who speak up and ask the “challenging questions” will be targeted as “potentially dangerous extremists who need watching, and certainly are still holding onto unacknowledged and outdated biases, and possibly are real racists who retain a shameful nostalgia for the ‘innocence and purity’ of Jim Crow segregation.”

  21. Dedalus's Gravatar Dedalus
    November 12, 2010 - 10:31 am | Permalink

    What Greg Johnson is talking about here is in fact a human constant. I refer to it as “the gap between language and reality.”
    The gap is created by confusing our cultural or personal beliefs with absolute truths.
    Which is why everyone from Ameican Indians to European Christians have interpreted the failure to live up to those “truths” as a sign of one’s guilt. Not a flaw in the belief, because it’s not really viewed as a belief. Obviously, this conviction that one’s belief as really a truth is what has always been used to justify killing members of a rival “truth.”
    After all, two truths is one too many.

    For example. Some American Indians of southwestern United States for centuries practiced a rain dance in the hopes that the Gods would send rain. When the rain didn’t come they didn’t conclude that there are no Gods or that rain comes within a seasonal range but sometimes falls outside of that range, or is even ocassionally random and uncertain. Not at all. They put it down to some bad dancing. The solution? Stop dancing and get themselves some new Gods that would teach them a thing or two about meteorology? No. They got busy practicing their dancing.

    The work of men like Joseph Campbell is worth studying and knowing. But honestly, I prefer more behavioral interpretations of myth and ritual since his has the tendency to slide off into the sentimental, as the PBS The Power of Myth made perfectly obvious. It was used, as everyone knows, by the Multiculturalists, as a primary tool of their propaganda.

    And why was it so effective, in spite of the fact that it simply reinforced that split between language and reality? Well, for the same reasons the Indians blamed a lack of rain on bad dancing. Exactly because it allowed them to reinforce the “belief as truth” conviction. They’re not called “myths” for nothing.

    For me, this is the heart of the matter. The human tendency ( I say tendency out of politeness ) to convert beliefs into truths.

    Every time (and in virtually every part of the world, within every race) a belief does not conform to reality we blame ourselves.
    Instead of facing the fact that our beliefs are just that, beliefs, interpretations, and not “truths.” The notion of Original Sin comes irresistably to mind.
    Let’s call this “Redemptionism.”
    If the interpretation offered here is at all on the right track then then maybe it’s time for a little anti-redemptionism.
    “Anti-racist”? How about anti-reality. But that is something that the human race suffers from, not just the anti-racists..

    That redemptionism is still a universal constant, relatively unchallenged throughout the world (exactly because people don’t identify it as redemptionism) is the explanation I would offer for our ignorance of Romanticism.
    Romanticism, which marked the sharp break from the failure of a Judeo-Christian-Enlightenment ideology (Right and Left), starting with Kant and Goethe and many others and culminating, though not completing, it’s drive toward reality in the work of Nietzsche and later Vaihinger and in science Boltzman, was the first giant, lonely, and courageous step mankind has taken out of the hell of redemptionism (a hell that always promises heaven).

    And “Hell” is the right word. Because redemptionism encourages us to violate ourselves in order to preserve a “truth” that is in fact a lie. No wonder so many Romantic figures saw Milton’s Satan as a hero. And what was Satan’s crime? He disobeyed authority, offered an innovation, organized a group of like-minded people, and put it all into political action.
    My kinda guy. In short, the Devil was God’s guilty conscience. Well, time for God’s Devil to come out of hiding, because there’s nothing to feel guilty about now.

    In any event, Romanticism is the first and, so far, only attempt by man to see his thoughts as instrumental and not constitutive. The world would be much better off acknowledging and valuing such an individual, and, more importantly, a collective of such individuals, than in giving false praise to your average, run of the mill, scared shitless, PC conformist. Who in their right mind believes that a PC floor mat is a power of example and a beacon of hope for future generations?
    No one, I would hazard. Either way, Romanticism is the number one reason why I am proud to be of European descent. Or, to put it baldly, it’s the number one reason why, in the words of Mick Jagger circa 1974, “I’m glad I’m White.”

    • ML's Gravatar ML
      November 15, 2010 - 9:02 pm | Permalink

      Dude-alus,

      Great effing comment. I’d gladly forsake the rest of white nationalist commentary for this one bit:

      “Because redemptionism encourages us to violate ourselves in order to preserve a “truth” that is in fact a lie. No wonder so many Romantic figures saw Milton’s Satan as a hero. And what was Satan’s crime? He disobeyed authority, offered an innovation, organized a group of like-minded people, and put it all into political action.”

  22. November 12, 2010 - 10:07 am | Permalink

    Wandrin,
    The only people who genuinely *believe* in “anti-racism” are brain-washed white people and if some level of “racism” aka ethno-centricity is natural and maybe even *neccessary* then this conditioned belief would obviously be unhealthy at some level.

    I would go one step further than you and assert that a great deal of White “anti-racists” are only exploiting the anti-racism construct as a weapon in in-group status competition. It’s been my experience in real world discussions that the case against “racism” boils down to an ingrained understanding that to be pro-White is to be vulgar, low-status, and “trashy”. It’s simply not “respectable”, and respectability is to the SWPL what chivalry was to the Medieval knight.

  23. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    November 12, 2010 - 9:58 am | Permalink

    On reflection Gaiseric has a point. As long as white anti-racists *believe* they have the moral high ground that would probably outweigh any nagging instinctive doubts. However if they ever started to lose their belief in their moral rightness then i’d imagine they could crumble quite fast.

    • November 12, 2010 - 12:41 pm | Permalink

      I disagree. Of course a higher degree of moral fervor makes it easier to suppress one’s natural impulses, but those impulses are still there and still in conflict with one’s conscious convictions.

    • Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
      November 12, 2010 - 1:23 pm | Permalink

      Yeah it’s the suppression i meant.

  24. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    November 12, 2010 - 9:53 am | Permalink

    “Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism goes hand in hand with anti-racism”

    Erm, no it doesn’t. jews don’t actually *believe* in or practise “anti-racism” – as a disparate impact study of Hollywood, the MSM, Wall Street banks or the New York Times would show. They invented the “anti-racism” ideology as a weapon to attack white people with. That’s sort of the whole point.

    Non-whites who adopt “anti-racism” don’t *believe* in it either – not in a holistic sense – they just see it as a weapon to attack white people with and a method to gain stuff for their group.

    The only people who genuinely *believe* in “anti-racism” are brain-washed white people and if some level of “racism” aka ethno-centricity is natural and maybe even *neccessary* then this conditioned belief would obviously be unhealthy at some level.

  25. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    November 12, 2010 - 9:44 am | Permalink

    “The Liberal tradition is by and large a protestant tradition.”

    The multicult isn’t based on the Liberal tradition it’s based on cultural marxism. Liberal is a useful codeword to use with people who are still plugged into the matrix but as soon as they are ready for it the “liberal” codeword should be replaced with the “cultural marxist” codeword.

    “Yet he never dwells too much on that history that created those grudges.”

    This is true but if we didn’t have a hostile elite dominating our media and education the more morally questionable bits of our history would be toned down and tucked away like they are in countries like Japan or China or Israel.

    They use our liberal tradition as a weapon against us. They are not remotely liberal themselves.

    • November 12, 2010 - 10:23 pm | Permalink

      @ “Liberal is a useful codeword to use with people who are still plugged into the matrix but as soon as they are ready for it the ‘liberal’ codeword should be replaced with the ‘cultural marxist’ codeword.”

      Why?

  26. Geiseric's Gravatar Geiseric
    November 12, 2010 - 8:48 am | Permalink

    >”Anti-racists are, in a real sense, mentally ill, whereas those of us who are self-consciously and proudly ethnocentric are mentally healthy (at least in that respect).”

    Obviously, Johnson is oversimplifying things and his (pseudo-)argument is easily refuted by the Jewish case as described and analyzed by Dr. MacDonald. Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism goes hand in hand with anti-racism, and anti-racism is obviously part of non-White ethnic strategies. Even White anti-racists cannot be pathologized per se, as Johnson seems to suggest.

    • November 12, 2010 - 12:39 pm | Permalink

      Jews are consciously and instinctively highly ethnocentric. They only preach anti-racism for us.

    • November 12, 2010 - 3:15 pm | Permalink

      Of course some Jews fall for this anti-racism propaganda too. But apparently they are acceptable casualties in the war against the nations.

      Aggressive Jewish policies in the Middle East guarantee that a certain number of Jews will be killed in reprisal, but these are also considered acceptable casualties by the Jewish leadership.

      Beyond that, miscegenation is less destructive to Jews than us. One can have a Jewish identity merely by virtue of a taint of Jewish blood. But even a taint of non-white blood means that someone is non-white.

    • Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
      November 12, 2010 - 3:40 pm | Permalink

      “Of course some Jews fall for this anti-racism propaganda too.”

      One analogy would be them randomly tossing cultural grenades which have a damaging effect inversely proportional to IQ. Although they take some casualties, proportionally speaking they come out ahead.

    • Geiseric's Gravatar Geiseric
      November 12, 2010 - 5:14 pm | Permalink

      “Jews are consciously and instinctively highly ethnocentric. They only preach anti-racism for us.”

      Yes, but they’re not necessarily mentally ill when they do what they do.

    • November 12, 2010 - 5:30 pm | Permalink

      No, and I did not imply that Jews are mentally ill when preaching one thing and practicing another.

    • Geiseric's Gravatar Geiseric
      November 13, 2010 - 6:06 am | Permalink

      “I did not imply that Jews are mentally ill when preaching one thing and practicing another.”

      The what did you mean when you wrote that ”Anti-racists are, in a real sense, mentally ill, whereas those of us who are self-consciously and proudly ethnocentric are mentally healthy (at least in that respect)”?

  27. November 12, 2010 - 8:41 am | Permalink

    There’s an editing error starting in the third paragraph.

  28. Bigmo's Gravatar Bigmo
    November 12, 2010 - 3:46 am | Permalink

    There is a tendency to over play the “left” when it comes to such issues. A lot of the reason why explicit White identification is problematic has as much to do with American and European history as it does white Leftist activism. Its only when people can see that White racial idenitification would not lead to some dehumization of the “other” that you will see people not intimidated by it. There is a tendency here to downplay that history and over play Leftist contribution to that stigma. Macdonald cites many times how US history has created “historic grudges” by Blacks and others against Whites that can haunt Whites if they becaome a minority and lose political control. Yet he never dwells too much on that history that created those grudges. Rather, macdonald focuses on Leftist activism.

    The Liberal tradition is by and large a protestant tradition. Its that tradition that seperated Christianity from Judaism or Islam. Its not a Jewish invention. Jews flocked to that tradition because they are a minority. And now Muslims are doing the same. In a predominantly Jewish or Muslim societies, liberalism would be dead.

  29. Spyro's Gravatar Spyro
    November 12, 2010 - 2:39 am | Permalink

    Greg, your comparison of White Latency and concealed homoerotics is most apt and clarifying. I recall Kevin McDonald making a similar point about the psychological breakthrough and courage we need as White Nationalists. Gay liberation could not occur until gay people, gutsy and inured to public scorn, but driven by moral compulsion, CAME OUT and campaigned on their own behalf. We too face some of our fiercest resistance from those who are conflicted about their racial sense of belonging, and it is our job to make them fully conscious.

    Right now mainstream conservatives take prominent liberals to task for engaging in White Flight and choosing private schools. But their point is most distressing: “We’re blinder about race!”
    Obviously, the real point is that even liberals don’t take their own faulty advice. Perhaps we should out closet racialism among Republicans, while being absolutely clear that it is the closetry we disapprove of. Naturally, this analogy isn’t perfect since we want to enjoin conscious White identity and solidarity on the race as a whole, and not just on an a priori racialist subset of it.

    • November 12, 2010 - 12:37 pm | Permalink

      I think that it is a very bad idea to “out” people who wish, for whatever reasons, to maintain public silence about their racial beliefs. In my essay “Explicit White Nationalism,” http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/explicit-white-nationalism/, I argue the following:

      How can we forge cordial and productive relationships between explicit White Nationalists, including those who use pen names, and those who choose to remain silent? A couple of points of etiquette are a good start:

      1. Everyone who comes to White Nationalism needs to determine his own level of involvement and explicitness.

      2. Everybody else needs to respect those decisions. White Nationalists have the right to be silent. White Nationalists have the right to use pen names.

      This implies that:

      1. It is wrong for explicit WNs to denigrate people who choose to remain silent or use pen names.

      2. It is wrong for explicit WNs to “out” people who choose to remain silent or use pen names.

      Human motives and decisions are complex. From the outside, we cannot presume to know why people choose to remain silent or adopt pen names. These decisions cannot, therefore, be taken ipso facto as evidence of cowardice, venality, stupidity, or dishonesty. And even if such motives do play a role, people can grow in courage, idealism, and understanding.

      People of good character can have good reasons for remaining silent or concealing their names. Explicit White Nationalists who cannot or will not understand that are a danger to the movement. They drive people away who could otherwise contribute. And they create a climate of fear and suspicion that makes it difficult for the people who do stay to work together.

      When explicit WNs hector and brow-beat silent WNs to get off the bench, or when they excoriate people who use pen names, the natural conclusion of sensible and cautious people is: “Somewhere down the road, this guy is going to start ‘outing’ people.” They are right to be worried, and explicit WNs need to step up and say something about it. The scolds and outers need to be reprimanded, and if they persist, they need to be shunned. It is the only way that the explicit movement can gain credibility and begin to grow.

3 Trackbacks to "Implicit Whiteness and the Republicans"

  1. on August 21, 2011 at 2:57 pm
  2. on November 13, 2010 at 2:37 pm
  3. on November 12, 2010 at 3:03 am

Comments are closed.