Let’s agree Trump is a racist (properly defined). Good for him!

The New York Times recently published an “op-ed” piece titled, “Trump is a Racist. Period.” by Charles Blow.

Charles Blow is an angry middle-aged Black man who writes a twice-weekly column for the Times. He’s divorced with three kids and openly bisexual. Mr Blow graduated Magna Cum Laude from Grambling.

Professionally, Mr Blow is definitely obsessed with “racism.” Which is pretty much the prerequisite for Black “op-ed” writers in major newspapers (scream “racism” and scream it loudly). Come to think of it, I can’t recall the last time I read an op-ed piece by a Black columnist that wasn’t in some way correlated with racism. The last one I remember was in the Dallas Morning News, in which the author theorized that high Black mortality rates were due to a combination of cruel treatment by White doctors and a lack of Black doctors. She even went so far as to blame the City of Dallas for not producing more Black doctors — all the direct result of systemic racism, of course, not the fact that a minimum of 120 IQ is needed to meet the intellectual requirements of an MD (85 is avg Black IQ).

If you review Mr Blow’s articles, the subject matter may change to some degree, but the premise is usually the same: “Racism” this. “White supremacy” that. Trump called Haiti a “shithole” and played golf on MLK day, so that proves once and for all that he’s a racist. Blah, blah, blah. Nothing of substance, only stale garrulity.

Even when Mr Blow’s commentary isn’t focused explicitly on “racism,” such as his recent piece regarding the Mueller investigation into Russia, there is still an implicit racial undertone. It’s seems as if he fantasizes about radical racism:

If this were Barack Obama, Tiki-torch-toting Nazis would have descended on the White House and burned it to the ground. Not only that, America’s racist folks masquerading as religious folks would have used Obama’s moral failing as proof of a black pathology.

However, my purpose isn’t to critique Mr Blow’s efforts at perfecting the art of literary victimhood, but rather his opinions. After all, freedom of speech is one of the pillars of “White supremacy.” Which, ironically enough, enables people like Mr Blow to publicly call the most powerful man in the world racial epithets on a daily basis. The fact is that if Mr Blow couldn’t write about “racism,” he wouldn’t have anything to write about.

In reality, the rhetoric surrounding race has been hijacked and weaponized for political gain by those with an anti-White agenda. A word that has transcended its literal definition and evolved into a slur used relentlessly against non-conforming Whites as a modus operandi for character assassination.

Similarly, the word “faggot” was used on the playgrounds in the 80s and 90s. The term was used to insult a boy’s masculinity by implying that he was homosexual. Although the implications weren’t based on sexuality (nobody thought the accused was actually gay), it was elementary psychological warfare. Once a boy was labeled a “faggot,” he might as well have been one in the eyes of his peers. The term “racist” works in the same way.

The reason that racism is such a powerful concept is because it provides legitimacy to the inadequacies within the Black community. In other words, accusations of White racism are excuses for Black failure. So if Black people couldn’t blame White people for their failures, it would force them to be held accountable for their own actions. And their actions have determined them a significant liability to the prosperity of American society.

Mr Blow knows this, which is why he hyper-focuses on racism. Because if the racists he redundantly chastises were actually the racists of his lore, he would likely be experiencing the idea of “White supremacy” in the “shithole” known as Liberia. And contrary to what the cuck Lindsey Graham said, America is more than just “an idea.” If America were just “an idea,” Liberia would be a thriving Black utopia, as their constitution creates a system of government modeled on the United States. “White supremacy” just isn’t the same without White people at the reins.

But Mr Blow doesn’t want to debate the existence of White racism. That’s useless to a man who’s well-paid to find it everywhere. He prefers to use his paid platform as a bully pulpit to cast judgment in the name of tolerance.    

I find nothing more useless than debating the existence of racism, particularly when you are surrounded by evidence of its existence. It feels to me like a way to keep you fighting against the water until you drown.

The debates themselves, I believe, render a simple concept impossibly complex, making the very meaning of “racism” frustratingly murky.

So, let’s strip that away here. Let’s be honest and forthright.

Racism is simply the belief that race is an inherent and determining factor in a person’s or a people’s character and capabilities, rendering some inferior and others superior. These beliefs are racial prejudices.

Racism can only exist if race exists. That’s what race is; variation within the species between groups that evolved in different places for thousands of years. And it needn’t imply that race is a “determining factor, but it’s quite compatible with research indicating Blacks are different than Whites on certain important traits like IQ and that this average difference has major influences on outcomes like academic performance.

I may not be a Magna Cum Laude from Grambling, but even I understand that race just means differences. And, as with anything, differences shape perception. We don’t need scientific theory to justify observable reality. It is what it is.

Mr Blow’s definition of racism is somewhat acceptable. A person’s race does render “some inferior and others superior,” but only on specific traits (which is why the Olympic 100-meter dash is pretty much an all-Black event). That’s kinda the whole idea. It’s a two-sided coin. Either we’re all the same (one race, the human race), or we’re all different (race is real).

One of the typical questions racial realists get asked when dealing with anti-racists is: “Do you think Whites are racially superior?” To which the reply should always be: “Superior in what?”

Specificity and statistics can generate data, such as with IQ or genetic predispositions for disease. But there is no algorithm that formulates racial inferiority/superiority on a universal scale. And there will always be outliers that contradict the stereotype.

Furthermore, racial differences have a tendency to be moralized. But they shouldn’t be. It’s not always a case of right or wrong; good or bad. Even if White people were scientifically determined to be an inferior race, that shouldn’t eliminate Whites from collectively pursuing self-determination as a people (nor any other race for that matter). Whites are roughly 7% of the world’s population, and according to current fertility rates, that number is dropping by the day.

The history of America is one in which white people used racism and white supremacy to develop a racial caste system that advantaged them and disadvantaged other.

The history of America is one in which European settlers braved the unknown and carved out the greatest nation on the planet with their bare hands and innovative minds. It was a nation created by White men for White people. To this very day, non-Whites from all over the world are literally dying to leave their shithole countries and come reap the benefits of “White supremacy.”

And make no mistake about it, “White supremacy” is why non-Whites come to White countries.

It is not a stretch to say that Trump is racist. It’s not a stretch to say that he is a white supremacist. It’s not a stretch to say that Trump is a bigot.  

Those are just facts, supported by the proof of the words that keep coming directly from him. And, when he is called out for his racism, his response is never to ameliorate his rhetoric, but to double down on it.

I know of no point during his entire life where he has apologized for, repented of, or sought absolution for any of his racist actions or comments.

Instead, he either denies, deflects or amps up the attack.

Trump is a racist. We can put that baby to bed.

“Racism” and “racist” are simply words that have definitions, and Trump comfortably and unambiguously meets those definitions.

We have unfortunately moved away from the simple definition of racism, to the point where the only people to whom the appellation can be safely applied are the vocal, violent racial archetypes.

The problem with this rhetoric is that it’s just an empty hole. It doesn’t mean anything; it’s just name-calling. Mr Blow has to know this. He’s a really smart man (did I mention he was Magna Cum Laude of Grambling?), which is why he attempted to define his rhetoric before he fired it off repeatedly. He wanted to make it seem like what he was saying actually meant something. He even tried to explain his progression from logical “racism” to rhetorical “racism” (“We have unfortunately moved away from the simple definition of racism…”).

The simple acknowledgment that Trump is a racist is the easy part. The harder, more substantive part is this: What are we going to do about it?

First and foremost, although Trump is not the first president to be a racist, we must make him the last. If by some miracle he should serve out his first term, he mustn’t be allowed a second. Voters of good conscience must swarm the polls in 2020.

Of course it’s easy to call someone names. It’s also ignorant.

We know exactly what “they’re” going to do about it: Call Trump names. Pretend like the economy isn’t booming. Call Trump names. Ignore the fact that the Black unemployment rate isn’t at its lowest in decades. Call Trump names.

What do you think Mr Blow will say when that “miracle” happens? You know, the miracle of democracy. Where an elected official (in this case the POTUS) gets to perform the duties the American people elected him to do. Do you think when that happens that Mr Blow will use his privileged platform to unite the country, as Blacks so often claim they want to do? Or do you think he’ll peck away at his six favorite keys (r-a-c-i-s-t)?

See, people like Mr Blow only respect democracy when democracy produces the results they want. So when they can’t get the votes, they import them. Anybody with an ounce of logic knows that immigration, legal and illegal, is about two things: capitalism for many business first GOP politicians, and demographic change for the Democrats. Simply put, money and votes.

As a person of “good conscience,” I’ll be at the polls in 2020 (God willing). I’ll be voting for the candidate who doesn’t apologize to liberal race-hustlers for hurting their feelings. But most importantly, I’ll be voting for the candidate who doesn’t have desires to turn America into a shithole.

And finally, we have to stop giving a pass to the people — whether elected official or average voter — who support and defend his racism. If you defend racism you are part of the racism. It doesn’t matter how much you say that you’re an egalitarian, how much you say that you are race blind, how much you say that you are only interested in people’s policies and not their racist polemics.

As the brilliant James Baldwin once put it: “I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do.” When I see that in poll after poll a portion of Trump’s base continues to support his behavior, including on race, I can only conclude that there is no real daylight between Trump and his base. They are part of his racism.

When I see the extraordinary hypocrisy of elected officials who either remain silent in the wake of Trump’s continued racist outbursts or who obliquely condemn him, only to in short order return to defending and praising him and supporting his agenda, I see that there is no real daylight between Trump and them either. They too are part of his racism.

When you see it this way, you understand the enormity and the profundity of what we are facing. There were enough Americans who were willing to accept Trump’s racism to elect him. There are enough people in Washington willing to accept Trump’s racism to defend him. Not only is Trump racist, the entire architecture of his support is suffused with that racism. Racism is a fundamental component of the Trump presidency.

It’s impossible to eliminate “racism” from democracy in a multiracial society. What really scares people like Mr Blow is the possibility that Whites will awaken from their egalitarian stupor and enter the game of identity politics. Because if that happens, Whites would have realized that it would be suicide to become a demographic minority in their own countries. Particularly when all other racial groups (Jews, Asians, Hispanics, Blacks) correlate politics with racial identity to the rate of at least 80%.

I suspect that Mr Blow and his cohorts know that it’s not if, but when the sleeping White giant awakens. My guess is that he’ll be hungry. And history has shown us that the White giant has a voracious appetite for power. As Eduardo Galeano once put it: “History never really says goodbye. History says, ‘see you later.’”

63 replies
  1. GeorgeKocan
    GeorgeKocan says:

    Walter Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. As a black man, he does write about racism in his latest column, but he totally contradicts the kinds of arguments which Blow relies on. He noted that blacks did well, even better on academic tests than whites, in segregated schools. He argues that blacks endure many social problems not because of racism but because of a failing school system. Black intellectuals can say things like that in the Democrat media because, well, they are black. They enjoy an immunity which white writers do not. In his essay, he failed to note the most important feature of modern public education: Democrats run the system. In Chicago, Democrats run everything that matters, the media, the government and the schools. Drive-shootings occur regularly in Chicago as do graduates of schools who cannot read. These reflect Democrat values (or lack thereof) not racially ingrained black values. Perhaps, mentioning the role of the Democrat Party in the corruption and degeneration of the black population in the US goes too far and has no protection coming even from a black intellectual.

    • Ger Tzedek
      Ger Tzedek says:

      Then there is Thomas Sowell. I must say that at a glance I agree with everything he has to say. Maybe not at a second reading.

      It has become very clear. Jews destroyed the Western system, and this destruction overwhelmingly affected stupid people. Blacks are overrepresented among stupid people. Stupid people are overrepresented in prisons because they are easier to catch.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      When are you going to stop your tiresome shilling for the Republican Party, of which you are an employee, George? And when are you going to stop calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party? Didn’t you get the official memo, now fifty years old, wherein your fellow party hacks decided to put at least this aspect of their clownish conduct to bed?

      • GeorgeKocan
        GeorgeKocan says:

        I joined the Republican Party around the time that Nixon ran the first time for president. I lived in Chicago, a city completely and utterly dominated by the Chicago Democrat Machine, an Irish creation. I did not go ape over John Kennedy because he was Irish and a Catholic and young and good-looking. I do not remember exactly why I preferred Nixon. Maybe because he successfully prosecuted the commie Alger Hiss. Maybe because he everyone expected me to go along with the Democrat herd, led by Richard J. Daley. Nevertheless, I learned over time that liberals, who resided mostly in the Democrat Party were full of baloney. The GOP never employed me. I happily volunteered to walk the streets and ring doorbells for its candidates, which were usually conservatives. In this country, only two viable political parties exist. The GOP professes an ideology and a history which I find more compatible with my own, which is based on the moral law, US Constitution and the Austrian school of economics. I refuse the use the term ‘Democratic’ for the Dem party, because I do not believe that it really represents democracy. Rather it represents a socio-fascist ideology and its energetic practice.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      Clarence Thomas has made similar arguments.

      And Barbara Jordan argued to reduce immigration, as did Cesar Chavez (before he supposedly supported Reagan’s amnesty). But the media doesn’t report on them. The media manufactures truth.

      Regarding Republicans: Some Democrat candidates are still better than the chosen Republican candidates. The individual is what matters, not the party. In one-party states, it’s the primary that matters.

      Many US Senators are essentially Democrats, if not outright anti-Americans. I’ve never understood why Americans trust such people with a police state… I’ve met some “radical” activists who’ve told me I was chasing people away in warning the police state would be abused. Too many believe in the GOP BS.

      • GeorgeKocan
        GeorgeKocan says:

        The Democrat Party is a criminal organization using socio-fascism as a cover for its depredations. Certainly, knowing the individual candidates personal history and voting record helps in the decision to vote. But, even a possible conservative Democrat has an obligation to support the criminals leading the party, con-men like Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. What good is it to vote for Democrat Lipinski just because he votes for pro-life bills, when he has to publically support air-heads like Nancy Pelosi?

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          … and you have to support the criminals leading your party—not that you’ve ever shown reluctance to do so. Evidently it provides you a rationale to persist in hating the Irish, along with heaven alone knows what else.

          In short, reading your rubbish about Republican “principles” is repellent. People for whom principles matter don’t trade them in for a party’s membership card, least of all a party hip deep in the fraud of “representative democracy.”

          • GeorgeKocan
            GeorgeKocan says:

            Hillary and Barak and other high ranking Democrats have committed indictable crimes and yet they go free to do what they want. The political power of the Irish has been a problem for a long time. The elder Richard J. Daley ran with a criminal street gang when he was young called the Hamburgs. Street gangs had enough power to elect their own guys to office. They still do in Chicago’s black neighborhoods. They are all Democrats. All follow the Democrat ideology of socio-fascism and support fellow Democrats to perpetuate their racket. The Irish, Daley family still dominates politics in Chicago. I know of a woman alderman in Chicago who has an Italian name, but her in-laws are Irish and connected with the political machine. As a matter of ideology, as a matter of the platforms Republican stand on, they represent the moral law. They have no problem with the Ten Commandments depicted on a monument standing on public property. Democrats do. Republicans support family values and oppose abortion, the normalization of homosexuality and the “transgender” fiction. Certainly, defectors exist, but they do not define the party. In the US, only 2 viable political parties exist. A voter either votes for the constitutionalists (Republicans) or for the socio-fascists (Democrats). I support the Republicans. Whom do you support?

  2. Mitchell Mark Jones
    Mitchell Mark Jones says:

    I can’t find one single time that anyone, especially black people called Trump a racist before he decided to run for POTUS. He was given awards, and accolades by Jesse Jackson and other black leaders for his generosity towards the black community in NYC. Yet now he’s a racist.

  3. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    “…He’s a really smart man (did I mention he was Magna Cum Laude of Grambling?)…”

    Was he really magna cum laude or rather magna cum actione affirmativa ?

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Similarly, there seems to exist nowadays a new title besides doctor honoris causa. It is doctor coloris causa.

    • Jud Jackson
      Jud Jackson says:

      I think Grambling is an Histoircally Black College. So he could well be magna cum laude full stop. The competition isn’t that stiff.

  4. Robert Henderson
    Robert Henderson says:

    Because Man is differentiated profoundly by culture, the widely accepted definition of a species – a population of freely interbreeding organisms sharing a common gene pool – is unsatisfactory, for clearly Man is more than an animal responding to simple biological triggers. When behavioural differences are perceived as belonging to a particular group by that group as differentiating members of the group from other men, they perform the same role as organic differences for they divide Man into cultural species, that is, they spectate by culture.

    In assessing what Man is, an analogy with computers can be made. As hardware, a particular model of computer is practically identical to every other computer which is classified as the same model. But the software available to every computer of the same model is not identical. They may run different operating systems, either completely different or different versions of the same program. The software which runs under the operating system is different with different versions of the same program being used. The data which is input to the computer varies and this in turn affects the capabilities of the computer.

    It clearly makes no sense to say every computer of the same model is the same even if the computer is loaded with the same software. But of course not all computers are of the same model. They vary tremendously in their power. The same software will run at very different rates because of this. Storage and memory size also vary tremendously. Some computers cannot run programmes because the programmes are too large. We may call all computers computers , but that is to say little more than that all animals are animals, for computers range from the immensely powerful super computers – the homo sapiens of the computer world as it were – to the amoeba of the simple chip which controls lights being put on or off in a room depending on whether someone is in it.

    Are the circumstances of computers not akin to those of Man? Do not the racially based differences in IQ correspond to the differences in power of older and newer computers? Do not different languages represent different operating systems? For example, think how different must be the mentality of a native Chinese speaker (using a language which is entirely monosyllabic) to that of a native English speaker (using a polysyllabic language) simply because of the profound difference in the structure of the language. A language will not merely impose limits on what may be expressed it will effect the entire mentality of the individual, from aesthetic appreciation to social expression. Is not the experiential input analogous to the holding of different data?

    Even societies which have had very racially mixed populations for a long time display a remarkable ability to maintain retain racial distinctions over very long periods of time – Brazil is an excellent example of this, with social class being very much graded by skin colour. To argue that racial difference is not important to the choice of a mate is as absurd as arguing that the attractiveness of a person is irrelevant to the choice of a mate.

    In Freakonomics Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner cite a study made of a US dating site (the full story is on pp 80-84). The site is one of the largest in the US and the data examined covered 30,000 people equally divided between San Diego and Boston. Most were white but there was a substantial minority of non-white subjects.

    The questionnaire the would-be daters had to fill in included a question choice on race as “same as mine” and “doesn’t matter”. The study compared the responses by white would-be daters (those from non-white were not analysed) to these questions with the race of the emails actually sent soliciting a date. The result in Levitt and Dubner’s words was:

    “Roughly half of the white women on the site and 80 percent of the white men declared that race didn’t matter to them. But the response data tell a different story The white men who said that race didn’t matter sent 90 percent of their e-mail queries to white women. The white women who said race didn’t matter sent about 97 percent of their e-mail queries to white men.

    “Is it possible that race really didn’t matter for these white women and men and that they simply never happened to browse a non-white date that interested them?”

    Or, more likely, did they say that race didn’t matter because they wanted to come across especially to potential mates of their own race as open-minded?” In short, around 99% of all the women and 94% of all men in the sample were not willing to seek a date of a different race. How much stronger will be the tendency to refuse to breed with a mate of a different race?

    An analogy with computers can be made. As hardware, a particular model of computer is practically identical to every other computer which is classified as the same model. But the software available to every computer of the same model is not identical. They may run different operating systems, either completely different or different versions of the same program. The software which runs under the operating system is different with different versions of the same program being used. The data which is input to the computer varies and this in turn affects the capabilities of the computer.

    It clearly makes no sense to say every computer of the same model is the same even if the computer is loaded with the same software. But of course not all computers are of the same model. They vary tremendously in their power. The same software will run at very different rates because of this. Storage and memory size also vary tremendously. Some computers cannot run programmes because the programmes are too large. We may call all computers computers , but that is to say little more than that all animals are animals, for computers range from the immensely powerful super computers – the homo sapiens of the computer world as it were – to the amoeba of the simple chip which controls lights being put on or off in a room depending on whether someone is in it.

    Are the circumstances of computers not akin to those of Man? Do not the racially based differences in IQ correspond to the differences in power of older and newer computers? Do not different languages represent different operating systems? For example, think how different must be the mentality of a native Chinese speaker (using a language which is entirely monosyllabic) to that of a native English speaker (using a polysyllabic language) simply because of the profound difference in the structure of the language. A language will not merely impose limits on what may be expressed it will effect the entire mentality of the individual, from aesthetic appreciation to social expression. Is not the experiential input analogous to the holding of different data?

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      A shorter example of your explanation on results of the dating site would be a visit to a grocery store. People buying an apple may say it doesn’t matter which one, but they will seek out a particular variety, then sort through that variety for the one they want, depending on the personal concept of what is the best characteristics of that variety. Few, if any, would just walk over and pick any apple of any variety.

        • Frank Hilliard
          Frank Hilliard says:

          Well, of course. First the family, then the extended family, the village, the tribe, the confederation of tribes. All these people live lives, get married, have disputes, trade and worship. The combination of all these habits and patterns is culture and to the extent it holds together, is society. Suggesting that society creates the genome is like putting the effect before the cause.

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Franklin Ryckaert says:

            Marxists don’t acknowledge nature. According to them everything is a “social construct”, even race and gender. The fact that differences (and therefore inequalities) are fixed in nature goes against their whole ethos.

  5. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    The Njew York Times is a Literary Shit Hole.

    Trump is not a Racist.
    Trump is a Racial Realist.
    Plenty of non-Whites,
    who may not be geniuses,
    but who do their best to hold down productive jobs and want to live in an honest, open and fair society,
    voted for Trump.

    I have no doubt in my mind that, had the occasion called for it, Trump would have labeled Inner City Detroit as a Shit Hole as well.

    I have the argument as to whether Trump is a Racist all the time with the foreigners who reside in Iceland.
    They invariably point out that every country has elements of a “shit-hole-ism” within them and my response is usually;

    “Give me one example of a “shit hole” in Iceland?”

    That invariably begins the battle of obfuscation and evasion by the foreigner because at the end of the day…, there is not one single solitary shit hole in all of Iceland!
    The entire country, including the air they breath and the water they drink is largely clean as can be!

    Then I ask the same question about Sweden and the answer in this case is:
    But who lives in Malmo?
    People who originate from Shit Hole Nations!

    Today I confronted the local Spanish Language Instructor from Mexico about the shit hole characteristics of Mexico.

    He of course resorted to the same liberal bull-shit about there being shit holes in every country and then proceeded to call me names!
    However, if all countries are, as he claimed, equally endowed with their fair share of shit holes, my next question would have been:
    “Then why are you in Iceland?”
    The problem was,
    as is the case with most lower IQed idiots and lying Jews,
    if they can not win an argument based on reason,
    they quickly escape the discussion.

    It is so funny because when I initiate the exact same conversation with a mentally ill, liberal Icelander,
    asking him where the shit hole in Iceland is…,
    at least he is intelligent enough to point to the National Assembly!

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      One of your most measured, focussed, clever, and certainly funniest posts I’ve read. Hats off to you, Sir !

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      asking him where the shit hole in Iceland is…,
      at least he is intelligent enough to point to the National Ass!


      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:

        It sounds humorous, I know, but attitudes are changing in Iceland.

        The Icelander who responded with,
        “…the National Assembly…”,
        was indeed psychologically ill,
        possibly neurologically damaged and
        definitely a ” multi-culti-itise ” liberal.

        A few years ago, I doubt he would have given the answer he gave me.

        Recently in Iceland, there have been tacit but firm “relationship” reexaminations of Iceland’s connection to both the EU and Schengen.

        Brussels has condemned Iceland because of a recent law introduced by a female member of the Bright Future Party that will hopefully make Male Circumcision (female circumcision is already illegal) illegal.

        Of course the (((usual suspects and their Islamic bed-fellows))) in the EU condemned the move for the usual “…cultural insensitivity…” reasons and asked other EU nations to join in their condemnation of the Icelandic initiative.
        This is a very stupid thing for (((them))) to do to Iceland.

        Icelanders have time and time again shown that whenever the EU begins to shout and holler about something (((they))) are opposed to,
        Icelanders more determinedly that ever show Brussels the middle finger and move more aggressively in their proposed legislative direction.

        Even though Icelanders hardly ever give a politically incorrect opinion in public,
        their personal understanding about the Malfeasant Jews and the Freemasonic shit-pile that runs this “…Frozen Banana Republic…” is quite up to
        “…TOO speed…”.

        Iceland is doing very well without being part of the EU and most of their problems really took off after Iceland joined Schengen.
        After the above idiotic Schengen move by Iceland, not only are East Block and “Shit-hole Economic Refugees” able to come here and cause trouble, they also undercut Icelandic wage and quality standards and drive the best young people from the nation to start new lives countries like Norway.

        The Jews who “…service…” the tourism industry want low-wage surfs and obedient front-men for their hotels not to mention their drug & sex industry operations and other traditional sectors of the economy like the fisheries.

        If young Icelanders continue to abandon their Homeland for other Scandinavian nations, by the time they return in ten years time, the take-over by Jews and minorities will almost be irreversible…, much like in Central and Western Europe.

  6. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    One must wonder whether Blow (and any other Black ‘racist’ splutterer) is capable of looking upon a White person and saying approvingly: ‘He is not a racist’. Who might such a White person be … perhaps someone to whom Blow feels superior, like, say, the White window cleaner in his employ? But then, that window cleaner, if pushed, is far more likely than the POTUS to come out with a pretty basic racial epithet. (I’m sure that Blow has experienced his kind often enough!) So does Blow’s notional non-racist White have to be, on his own private social-evlaluation system, his superior? Who knows? Perhaps for him being White is ipso facto to be superior, and therefore racist, social standing notwithstanding? Is being Chinese/Japanese/Iranian/Arabic also to be racist? And being Black … is that ipso facto racist too? Well, why not? When Blacks heave the ‘racist’ slur they always do it as Blacks. (Obviously: how could they do it otherwise?)

    When will this be enough? I do wish it would stop. For, you see, I’m a racist, radically so: I love race. Without race, the tapestry of life would lose a huge amount of its aesthetic pleasure. Let us at all cost preserve race. Let all of us shout loudly with pride: ‘I’d rather be my race than any other race!’ You go first, Mr Blow!

  7. Irene
    Irene says:

    There is no racism in perfectly harmonious societies where the homo sovieticus or the homo christianus rules. After all race is a social construct, we all descend ftom Adam and Eve, came from Africa and stuff.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      Ahh… Yes, indeed. The .. umm .. “origins” of race. We all originated from Adam and Eve – somewhere in lower Mesopotamia, I’m informed by those worthies who assure me they know. But we all also came “out of Africa” first, of course – in order not to hurt the feelings of Blacks, who might feel a trifle… uninvolved.

      Don’t worry – you’re not alone. I’m regularly having to re-calibrate my own YCMTSU (You Couldn’t Make This s*** Up) Detector too.

      • Weaver
        Weaver says:

        Descending from Adam and Eve needn’t mean sharp differences don’t exist. Creationism and Evolution-from-Monkeys both suggest we developed from a single couple. Even Young Earth Creationists must acknowledge the indisputable differences among races. Noah had 3 sons; yet we have 4 races (5 if Jews get their own category). And we might in truth have more racial groups if including Pygmies (and probably some other group I’m unaware of).

        So, Christianity cannot explain the origin of these racial differences, but it doesn’t deny them either. How can the Truth deny the truth?

        Christians should hold GK Chesterton’s “Patriotic Idea” as the ideal: A world of distinct nations; “a chorus of superlatives”.

        Some pagan Creationism seems to argue a particular group originated separately.

        What sets my YCMTSU detector off is when I see this website debate things like Lysenkoism vs. Darwinism, as if such were anything other than a strawman.

  8. Leon
    Leon says:

    Only ignorant tools love to play the Race Card and then pretend to be Saints. Every adult on this planet past, present, and future are has been, is, and will be Racist with the exception of one group, the mentally ill who can not connect with reality. Every human is a racist and the greatest Racist and Liars are Jews.

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      Leon, prithee! I have just told everyone (above) that I am profoundly a racist because I love race and want to preserve it. I’m not pretending to be a saint; I actually am one. Wouldn’t you say?

      Hang it! I hoped to persuade at least some people on this thread that we can cause a seismic shift in the contemporary concept of ‘racist’ by making it a label of love. That would piss them off! But no-one has come at it. So I’ll add a bit more enticement: Rather than get indignant when someone levels ‘racist’ at us, why do we not smile sweetly and say ‘Oh, thank you! You really are very kind!’ (‘Bollocks’ will also do, of course. But I prefer to give my redefintion a good burl.)

      • Kate McAllister
        Kate McAllister says:

        “I hoped to persuade at least some people on this thread that we can cause a seismic shift in the contemporary concept of ‘racist’ by making it a label of love.”

        Sophie, how about this:

        or RAACIST!

  9. joe six pack
    joe six pack says:

    When it comes to racism, for the last fifty years, the public forum has engaged in Definitional hypertrophy, i.e. moving the goal posts, on how racism is defined. It used to be, back in the sixties, racism was a Birmingham regulation mandating where you sat on a bus or what water fountain you used, nowadays racism has expanded to mean ‘noticing race’ esp. for Whites.
    But human truth of racism is contained in a Broadway musical, Avenue Q, ‘Everyone’s a Little bit Racist’ even Mr. blow and his colleagues.
    Regarding Trump, what bothers Mr. Blow and others like him is Trump does not feel guilty. Trump is not a slave to others opinions, Trump has sorted his head out in the hard knocks world of NYC and is not susceptible to the normal elitist dog whistles of disapproval. There is a great piece on Trump’s guilt and lack thereof written by an Emory English Prof(Emory!!!), Mark Bauerlein.

    I recall during the GOP primary debates when one of the moderators asked if anyone was angry? The questioner’s tone tacitly said, ‘you know white guys are not allowed to be angry.’ and Trump replied”I am angry” much to the shock and dismay of the moderator.
    Trump got my vote and contribution at that moment.

    • Pat Kittle
      Pat Kittle says:

      True, Trump is refreshingly immune to Black intimidation.

      If only he were as immune to (((you-know-who intimidation))).

  10. ariadnatheo
    ariadnatheo says:

    I saw no evidence that Trump is a “racist.” Trump isn’t anything except maybe a quantity of viscous liquid that takes the shape of the bottle it’s poured in, and the bottle he is in now (and has been all his life) is labeled “kosher.”
    I also fail to see any evidence that encourages hope of the “giant” awakening. The giant is in deep slumber and mentally incompetent when awake.
    Good luck at the polls in 2020

  11. conradcgaarder
    conradcgaarder says:

    The timidity, the stupidity, with which we adopted the idea that our society should become, vis-a-vis its immigration policy, color-blind, and that we should “judge (immigrants) only by the content of their character.”
    Utter nonsense. But the Left was able to use the whole hoopla of Civil Rights and Martin Luther King to convince people of the moral necessity of such foolishness and to cow the sensible doubters into silence.

    • GeorgeKocan
      GeorgeKocan says:

      In my view we estimate behavior on the basis of various cues including race, clothing, speech, health, grooming, wealth etc.

  12. Peter
    Peter says:

    I never liked the way the word “NAZI” was flung around to constantly insult Germans. Jews led that effort. And now I don’t like the way the word “racist” is used to insult whites. The word did not bother me in the past. Now it does.

    I had more sympathy and compassion for blacks until the last few years. This website and others have informed me of many facts that I previously did not want to think about. My father is long gone, but I now understand why he didn’t want to move back to the racially mixed school district we moved away from many years ago. Thanks to “alt-right” websites, I read every day about the extremely violent crimes committed by blacks and Hispanics (to a lesser extent). It is obvious to me the motive is often racist when a black commits a crime.

    All this has made me lose sympathy for Charles Blow and other blacks, when in the past I would not have said anything. I suspect other whites are tired of being insulted by people that can’t compete, so make up for their inadequacies by insulting whites as “racist” too. This has certainly contributed to black on white crime and as owners of most of the American media. Jews are guilty of leading this effort too, again for their own benefit.

    Africa is a “shithole” and the few bright spots there were created by white colonizers. Unfortunately, once they leave those bright spots become less bright.

    I think if debates could be organized on the following subjects, the interest generated by these debates would be unprecedented. We would need a competent person (or “expert”) to represent each side of the debate and a fair moderator.

    1) Is IQ affected by someone’s race? I would hope the continents Asia and Europe would be contrasted with Africa and South America.

    2) Did the “holocaust” happen as described? What is the evidence of homicidal gas chambers? I would hope the many lies and lack of evidence surrounding this argument would be pointed out.

    3) Has the role of Jews in the 20th century and now the 21st been covered up and lied about? I would hope their role in leading communism, their leading role in the world wars and their roles in multi-culturalism, the destruction of the family and traditional values would be explored.

    I suspect the only reason we’ll never see these debates is because many already know which side would win those debates.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      Well-reasoned – but I’m afraid I don’t agree with you. The real reason we will never see those debates for those topics is very much simpler – as follows:

      1) Forbidden by militant Blacks (supported by Jews)

      2) Forbidden by Jews

      3) Forbidden by Jews

    • Kate McAllister
      Kate McAllister says:

      “I think if debates could be organized on the following subjects, the interest generated by these debates would be unprecedented.”

      But Dave, debates on your three provocative subjects are going on right now all ove the Internet, e.g. Jared Taylor’s recent debate with Tariq Nasheed, or Andrew Anglin’s recent debate with Sargon, both easily accessible on You Tube. But less than 1% of our population ever sees them, not due to censorship but rather lack of interest.

      Codoh.com has Holocaust facts available 24/7, and notably Paul Nehlen has recently started a one-man truth crusade regarding Jewish hegemony, a subject Kevin McDonald has brilliantly dissected for years.

      I got GOPe-woke around six years ago, and Jew-woke maybe 18 months ago. Most days, I wish I weren’t..

  13. Gilbert Huntly
    Gilbert Huntly says:

    Whites need to lose their fear of being called “racist”. Just say “Thank you”, and move on. Do not stoop to the conversation.

  14. Pat Kittle
    Pat Kittle says:

    Black “bisexual” Blow could walk down the streets in any White neighborhood in the country, especially at night, and have a FAR better chance of remaining physically intact than he would if the races in that scenario were reversed.


    And so do the Jew York Times shysters he works for.

  15. Grauhund
    Grauhund says:

    If whites attempted to live in black societies and integrate or live as they do, it’s likely those whites ( or a percentage thereof) too would be maladjusted, just as blacks are. We are a society which places a premium on qualities which people of African descent are not particularly known for. That doesn’t mean most of them cannot function at an acceptable level. Not everyone needs to understand calculus. It only means there will always be a permanent segment of that subgroup which will constitute our underclass. Short of culling thier here, it cannot be helped. It also means that the line at the black girls register at wall Mart will be make you old.

    • Johnson
      Johnson says:

      Debating with/about people like Blow is a pointless exercise. Everyone is wasting their time and energy and nothing will be achieved. Here is the reality, Blow and others like him are only able to say the things that they do because the group that shall remain nameless and never be criticized controls all the media, academia and the financial system. If they didn’t control the media do you think that people like Blow would be able to write the things that he does? NOPE. The group that shall not be named has enough power to destroy people’s careers if you are too careless with your opinions. Just one comment be it verbal or written is enough to wreck you. How many of us can afford to be unemployed and black balled so that you can’t find work? Speaking as someone whose career has been decimated by immigration (H1b) you really can’t say anything because if you do won’t have a job.

      Realize that this is the ultimate power. Years ago it was quite possible to voice an opinion and not be persecuted. Today the PC culture is completely out of control and its enabled by this group.

      Trump may not be the one but whites are waking up. This is why the group that shall not be named is ratcheting it up. They were so close to the finish line with Hillary and lost. They have realized they are losing their grip on the public opinion because the public is sick of being lectured and nobody cares what the academia nor the media has to say. Party is over.

      The question is how long will it take…. or will time run out.

  16. Bennis Mardens
    Bennis Mardens says:

    Blow is a hate filled anti-white bigot, and he is also VERY stupid.
    I doubt that his IQ is above 90.

  17. Justin Thyme
    Justin Thyme says:

    There’s a good living to be had for race hustlers – non-white, that is. The New York Times has been hustling away since it fell into the hands of Jewish supremacists in 1896. It has one principal aim: to undermine the Constitution, and turn America into a shit hole.

  18. Fabrice
    Fabrice says:


    1) Is it better to be a straight man, a bisexual man or a gay man?

    According to NYT it’s better to be a bisexual man, in fact they loved and still loves Barack Obama and Charles Blow who is another bisexual man writes for them to attack a straight white man like Donald Trump, what a strange coincidence….!!

    2) Is it normal , is it logical, is it rational, is it an example of positive virtue?

    Not At All !!!!

    Hence, the real question is: how hell do American common people put up with this kind of situation?

    Best regards.

    Fabrice, greetings from Italy.

  19. Weaver
    Weaver says:

    The author is correct: It’s always been a question of “when?” I remember “white advocates” years ago writing how their ideas would inevitably be the future movement, so it was silly to condemn them. (I personally do dislike the scaremongers though.)

    Another interesting concept is how, currently most high quality whites pursue their individual interests such as advancing careers, starting families. But eventually these quality whites will turn to politics (broadly speaking). And I don’t mean the time-wasting team sport, but the real stuff – including culture war.

    I can’t recommend to many Dr. MacDonald’s works online (Overton Window is closed), but I do recommend other books which help push a person in that direction. Solzhenitsyn and GK Chesterton are the two I mention.

    The Internet has changed dramatically since I became politically aware in college. It used to be most whites devoutly believed in classical liberalism or another fantasy ideology. That has changed. It used to seem dangerous to let a white be trained by one of these “patriotic” groups, because he’d just walk out as a fanatical ideologue, when what’s needed is flexible, strategic, goal-oriented thinking (and someone who appreciates history and tradition, not ideals of how man ought to be). And I think we’re getting that now.

    If whites do persevere, we need a monument to Al Gore for inventing the Internet :p Without the Internet, I fear identity politics would have been led by white Al Sharptons.

  20. Tom Sunic
    Tom Sunic says:

    “Racism” in English, (i.e. “Rassismus” in the German language), is a relatively new noun that originated in the mid-1930s of the 20th ct. Europe. It was not in official usage. The NS state-sponsored, academic Meyers Lexikon, Germany, Vol. 9, Leipzig 1942, p. 76 notes: “Racism,”– originally a buzzword used in democratic –Jewish world struggle against the revival movements of peoples.” ( Rassismus, urspr. Schlagwort des demokr.-jüd. Weltkampfes gegen die völkischen Erneuerungsbewegungen). Today, in all European languages, the word “racism” has obtained a negative, demonizing, shut-up connotation.

  21. NoddingHead
    NoddingHead says:

    Trump is just another media-owned stooge. An actor with good Hollywood credentials . None of the red meat for nationalists he mentioned during the campaign will ever happen.

  22. Kate McAllister
    Kate McAllister says:

    Ironic that we’re the “science deniers,” when those guys have never heard of genetics.

    To them, there’s no difference between a pit bull and a cockapoo, and DNA is a racist myth.

    • GeorgeKocan
      GeorgeKocan says:

      The Marxists and their acolytes in the modern Democrat Party still live in the 19th Century, when Darwin and most biologists believed in Lamarkian theory that acquired characteristics can be inherited. This is the fundamental assumption of socialism, that by socially constructing reality, socialists can create a new species of mankind. By now, they should know better, but they do not care. It still works as a good cover for their con. They never give up the con.

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        Lysenkoism in Russia- to create a New Soviet Man.

        Actually the jewish Communists have succeeded, with their creation of Alfred E. New-Man. . .spawned from MAD Magazine in New York. . .the second Manhattan Project. . .

  23. HK Wills
    HK Wills says:

    Mr. Blow is painted into a corner by the facts of life: either his race (subspecies really) is the source of its mediocre social performance or it is some external force repressing its effulgence. To avoid sacrificing his self esteem he must choose the latter explanation. Given the two hundred plus year record of “racism” in America why doesn’t Mr. Blow just give up on it and return home ?

  24. GeorgeKocan
    GeorgeKocan says:

    The black race has suffered and been crippled by circumstances beyond its control. The slave-owners who prohibited blacks from learning how to read and destroyed their family structure were Democrats. The modern Democrats have made blacks the special project. In the cities like Chicago, Democrats run everything that matters. First and foremost they run the school-system, the print press, the electronic press, higher-education, the government, and the entertainment. They castigate Republicans as greedy, inept, immoral and racist. They promise to fix everything when elected. They have run this racket for the past 100 years and what do blacks have to show for it? They reliably vote for Democrats, at a rate up to 90%, although many cannot read and do basic math. But, what’s the problem? They vote Democrat, don’t they?

  25. john
    john says:

    The other day I was thinking about just how absurd the belief is that all races are equal. There are still hunter gatherer tribes in Africa that run around with spears and we’re supposed to believe that these people are the equal of western Europeans who, for example, engineer Mercedes-Benz? People who state that the races are all equal are either lying or they are damned fools.

Comments are closed.