Review of Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility
Robin DiAngelo
White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
Beacon Press, 2018.
I first encountered Robin DiAngelo three years ago, during my investigation of the Jewish origins and intellectual currents of Whiteness Studies. DiAngelo was then just another relatively minor speaker and academic on the university/consulting network in Whiteness Studies, and I was undecided then, and remain undecided, as to whether DiAngelo is wholly, in part, or not at all Jewish. She didn’t feature in my essay at all, and, when I looked over my old notes a few days ago, she appeared only as a name scribbled in the margins. As it happens, her ancestry is relatively inconsequential in light of the fact that White Fragility, published in 2018 but reaching bestseller status in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, is heavily and transparently influenced by Jewish thought and by Jewish pioneers in the field she now finds so conducive to fame and fortune. I don’t make a habit of buying the texts of the opposition, but when certain of them reach a significant level of academic or popular attention (look for it in your child’s school curriculum), it’s probably necessary for someone among us to carry out some form of intellectual reconnaissance, and to bring back for wider consideration the most essential of the gathered information. This was my approach to Jean-Paul Sartre’s widely-read and overly-praised Anti-Semite and Jew, and so, when I heard DiAngelo had managed to make herself a bestselling author, I headed to my local bookstore, where dozens of copies had been helpfully stacked on a table devoted to “in-demand” literature on race and racism.
My first action on picking up a copy of White Fragility was to turn to the bibliography. I knew what I’d see, and it was a gratifying and familiar feeling to see so many names from my research on Whiteness Studies. They were almost all there, protruding from the page like shunned relatives at a family reunion — Noel Ignatiev, George Lipsitz, Ruth Frankenberg (described in White Fragility as “a premier white scholar in the field of whiteness studies”), Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, along with helpful co-ethnics like Thomas Shapiro, David Wellman, Sander Gilman, Larry Adelman, and Jay Kaufman. These are DiAngelo’s mentors and intellectual forbears, and I could tell, scanning through this list of names and works, that White Fragility was sure to boast very many references to “fellow Whites,” and streams of inducements to abandon White ethnic interests. These expectations weren’t disappointed. White Fragility is the kind of book that can be written in two months, read in two days, and forgotten in two hours, but Robin DiAngelo’s text is also a deeply pernicious piece of work, utterly contemptuous of the “normie” Whites it aims to convert to a more radical form of racial self-abnegation than they currently demonstrate. In fact, the work is so hostile and ideologically loaded that it can’t help but present a kind of dialectic, wherein certain truths are revealed in spite of itself. As such, I have to confess that I learned something from White Fragility, even if it isn’t what DiAngelo had in mind.
What is White Fragility?
“White Fragility,” as a theory, is confirmation of my belief that inducing guilt in Whites was never the end goal in itself. It’s never simply been about making us feel bad about ourselves or our ancestors. White Fragility, White guilt, and indeed Whiteness Studies as a whole, is fundamentally about power. Those of you familiar with the New Testament will recall the verse from John’s third chapter, wherein John the Baptist declares that Christ “must increase, but I must diminish.” Power and influence never simply disappear, but rather transfer. John (and it is entirely inconsequential whether you regard him as historical or fictional) was aware that as a popular local mystic or holy man, his mere continued presence was an obstacle to the local growth in power of Christ, and so he made a conscious decision to diminish himself. Likewise, we are living in an age where Whites continue to have some social, political, and economic power, but where large and growing numbers of non-Whites are seeking to obtain what remains of this power. For them to “increase,” it has been declared that we must diminish. Whiteness Studies is fundamentally about making us willing and enthusiastic participants in our own decline. When Blacks or Jews demand a reduction of, or end to, White power or wealth, it means that they want that power or wealth. Despite all sloganeering, there can be no equality in power among races. Not now, not ever; only ruthless and unceasing competition.
White guilt, in itself, is certainly an act of psychological diminishment, but the message of DiAngelo’s text is fundamentally that this psychological diminishment has not led to a desired correlation in material or structural diminishment. Whites merely feeling sorry for themselves isn’t enough for their competitors, if it isn’t accompanied by a wholesale transfer of power, land, and other resources. In this context, “White Fragility” is an indictment and insult levelled at White progressives merely frozen by fear of racism accusations and White guilt. In short, White Fragility is a horrifying call for Whites not simply to be paralyzed by White guilt, but to become active participants in their decline, and willing accomplices in their political and demographic destruction.
DiAngelo’s introduction begins with accusation. America “began with the attempted genocide of Indigenous people and the theft of their land. American wealth was built on the labor of kidnapped and enslaved Africans and their descendants.” So far, so familiar. But the book very quickly moves to an outline of the theory of White Fragility. I actually found this, and some other chapters on the same theme, extremely interesting, because DiAngelo, and presumably other Whiteness Studies activists, are keenly aware that Whites are peculiarly concerned with morality and with appearing to be good people (all of which is very much in keeping with the arguments and research of Kevin MacDonald). For example, DiAngelo writes on the fear White progressives have of being perceived as racist: “We consider a challenge to our racial worldview as a challenge to our very identities as good, moral people. Thus, we perceive any attempt to connect us to the system of racism as an unsettling and unfair moral offence. … One of the greatest social fears for a white person is being told that we have said or done something racially problematic.” Of course, the groundwork for the connections among White ethnocentrism = Racism = Morally Bad were laid by Jewish academics over many decades. The problem for Jewish activists and incentivized Whiteness Studies traitors is that this moral terror has resulted in what they perceive to be paralysis and inaction.
Actual “racists” aren’t really discussed in White Fragility, and where they are, it’s clear that they aren’t the target of the title of the book. In fact, DiAngelo points out: “Of course, some whites explicitly avow racism. We might consider these whites actually more aware of, and honest about, their biases.” In other words, even if we’re moral monsters in DiAngelo’s eyes, we aren’t “fragile.” Again, because of the extremes of the some of the dialectics here, certain truths emerge. DiAngelo remarks early in the book that “race matters,” something that many of our readers would agree with, even if it’s from a slightly different angle than the author intends. She also argues that:
All humans have prejudice; we cannot avoid it. … People who claim not to be prejudiced are demonstrating a profound lack of self-awareness. Ironically, they are also demonstrating the power of socialization — we have all been taught in schools, through movies, and from family members, teachers, and clergy that it is important not to be prejudiced. … Everyone has prejudice, and everyone discriminates.
I couldn’t agree more: Whites have been uniquely affected by mass propaganda designed to brainwash them into viewing as morally evil something that is natural and instinctive to all humans.
The real targets of this book are White progressives who profess anti-racism, and because I also possess many frustrations in relation to this demographic, I couldn’t help but agree with some of DiAngelo’s characterizations. Take, for example, this gem:
I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color. I define a white progressive as any white person who thinks he or she is not racist, or is less racist, or in the “choir,” or already “gets it.” White progressives can be the most difficult for people of color because, to the degree that we think we have arrived, we will put our energy into making sure that others see us having arrived. [emphasis added]
I think this is a beautiful indictment of the demonstrative and showy nature of White anti-racists who simply love to engage in social theatrics in search of kudos, approval, and incentives without really understanding the deeper destructive meaning of anything they’re doing. DiAngelo has contempt for people like this because they place all their energies into grandstanding instead of helping in the transfer of real power and wealth. I have contempt for them because they place all their energies into grandstanding for short-term personal benefits while stabbing their ancestors, contemporaries, and progeny in the back.
The book’s first chapter, “The Challenges of Talking to White People About Race,” is devoted to convincing White progressives that they are in fact racist, and that they need to become better allies in their own racial destruction. The message here is quasi-spiritual; Whites are told that their quest for racial redemption will be lifelong, lasting until the day they die. Their existence is an ontological problem, the only solution to which is an endless quest to compensate for simply existing:
Interrupting the forces of racism is ongoing, lifelong work because the forces conditioning us into racist frameworks are always at play; our learning will never be finished.
I really wish more White moral grandstanders would understand that, ultimately, they will never be given a “pass” by our enemies once they’ve accrued enough kudos, or groveled enough, or displayed enough platform sympathy with Blacks, or any other ethnicity that happens to be Victim of the Month. They will only ever be temporary tools, held in contempt as much for their weakness as their whiteness.
Another interesting feature of the chapter is its attack on White individualism, presented here as a myth that prevents Whites from taking collective responsibility for alleged historical wrongs. For DiAngelo,
Individualism is a story line that creates, communicates, reproduces, and reinforces the concept that each of us is a unique individual and that our group memberships, such as race, class, or gender, are irrelevant.
DiAngelo’s problem with White individualism is that it’s a barrier to White guilt, and also a barrier to Whites perceiving alleged advantages in employment and social advancement in a society in which they enjoy a demographic majority. Again, due to the dialectic at play, I happen to agree that individualism among Whites is a problem in certain contexts. It’s just that in my perspective it’s a barrier to the explicit assertion of White ethnic interests and collective action in pursuit of those interests. In fact, without widespread awareness of an ethnic threat, it seems almost impossible to convince Whites to see themselves as a group and to act as one. A further obstacle to White ethnocentrism is decades of social conditioning in which Jewish propaganda is dominant. Even DiAngelo concedes that “reflecting on our racial frames is particularly challenging for white people, because we are taught that to have a racial viewpoint is to be biased.” Unfortunately, DiAngelo doesn’t ask who did the “teaching” in this regard, and she certainly doesn’t consider the broader implications of what she’s saying.
In the second chapter, “Racism and White Supremacy,” DiAngelo trots out the “race is a social construct” trope, with footnotes for her claims leading invariably to a section of bibliography that reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list. Black academic Ibram Kendi is quoted as arguing that “if we truly believe that all humans are equal, then disparity in condition can only be the result of systemic discrimination.” I agree, but I think the problem isn’t systemic discrimination but the belief that all humans are equal. Eliminate that belief and disparity in condition is neither surprising nor subject matter for conspiratorial conjecture. But alternative theories and beliefs like mine don’t feature in DiAngelo’s book, which has the air of a religious text, and issues utterances with an authority that demands faith rather than reason. There is an interesting section in the chapter denying that there can be an anti-White racism, with DiAngelo remarking:
People of color may also hold prejudices and discriminate against white people, but they lack the social and institutional power that transforms their prejudice and discrimination into racism; the impact of their prejudice on whites is temporary and contextual.
Let’s set aside that horrific last statement, and focus for a moment on the unstated premise underlying the first. Isn’t it more or less the stated goal of “Whiteness studies,” White guilt, the theory of “White Fragility,” Black Lives Matter, and the massive power of multicultural propaganda to lead to the further diminishment of White social and institutional power? As stated at the outset of this review, this power is destined for the hands of ethnic interlopers. We know full well which of these ethnic groups will take the lion’s share of that power, because they have their hands on most of it already. The question is therefore: why should Whites hand what remains of their social and institutional power to hostile groups that will unquestionably ensure that their prejudice is enacted on Whites in a way that is far from “temporary and contextual”? What possible incentive could adequately convince Whites to sign up to such a Devil’s pact? Isn’t the entirety of White guilt built on a psychotic and media-induced fantasy — the idea that if Whites would just give up all remaining power in their hands the world would enter an age of racial peace and harmony? DiAngelo doesn’t even touch on areas like this, preferring instead to subject the reader to a steady stream of meaningless gibberish, such as a lengthy rumination on the theories of Ruth Frankenberg who, we are told, gave birth to such dazzling notions as “whiteness is multidimensional.” DiAngelo then caps the chapter by treating us to the heights of Jamaican philosophy, where one Charles W. Mills advances a conspiracy theory titled “the racial contract” which involves:
A tacit and sometimes explicit agreement among members of the peoples of Europe to assert, promote, and maintain the ideal of white supremacy in relation to all other people of the world. … It is the unnamed political system that has made the modern world what it is today.
And there you have it — this Jamaican genius has discovered the Protocols of the Elders of Europa.
Charles W. Mills: A Caribbean Socrates
The same themes are repeated in the third chapter, “Racism After the Civil Rights Movement.” DiAngelo again attacks “fragile” Whites who claim to be color-blind, pointing out that they merely believe that it’s racist to acknowledge race and therefore flee into a denial of reality. The only real novelty in the chapter, and one I found highly entertaining, was DiAngelo’s list of racist behaviors exhibited by fragile Whites. These include “acting nice” and “being careful not to use racial terms or labels.” But such phrasing is all the rage now, as in the New York Times podcast series “Nice White Parents” which explores hypocrisy among progressive Whites expressing all manner of liberal pieties—but moving heaven and earth to avoid sending their children to schools with large numbers of POC.
The next chapter, “How Does Race Shape the Lives of White People?,” is probably the strangest of the book because, if DiAngelo is indeed White (and not someone with some Jewish ancestry), then it represents a very disturbing and irrational detachment from reality and common sense. For s start, DiAngelo seems to view even the mundane aspects of White ethnic homogeneity as pathological. She writes:
As I move through my daily life, my race is unremarkable. I belong when I turn on the TV, read best-selling novels, and watch blockbuster movies. I belong when I walk past the magazine racks at the grocery store or drive past billboards. I belong when I see the overwhelming number of white people on lists of the “Most Beautiful.” … I belong when I look at my teachers, counsellors, and classmates. I belong when I learn about the history of my country throughout the year and when I am shown its heroes and heroines — George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Amelia Earhart, Susan B. Anthony, John Glenn, Sally Ride, and Louisa May Alcott …
All of this is presented as negative and sinister, to which one can only ask: what is the alternative? To hand over one’s nation and territory to others, so that you can cease to belong? What then? DiAngelo comments:
It is rare for me to experience a sense of not belonging racially, and these are usually very temporary, easily avoidable situations. Indeed, throughout my life, I have been warned that I should avoid situations in which I might be a racial minority. These situations are often presented as scary, dangerous, or “sketchy.”
I can’t image why. What I do suggest is that in order to help clarify her theoretical framework, Robin DiAngelo should, with all reasonable haste, relocate to an area in which she is most certainly not going to belong racially. Since she views “un-belonging” with great enthusiasm, while confessing she has no real experience on which to base this view, she should find the Blackest of Black areas and spend some quality time there — time that isn’t “temporary, easily avoidable.” I think, in the course of such an experiment, she will truly, honestly, encounter some helpful folks that will be only too glad to show her how fragile she can be.
By far the most entertaining chapter of the book comes within the last 50 pages. Titled “White Women’s Tears,” it’s an indictment of that infamous sight — bawling, wailing, and normally overweight White women clutching themselves in feverish grief over the death of some poor Black gangbanger who just happened to get shot while rushing a police officer. DiAngelo is probably correct in asserting that this is a self-indulgent demonstrative act designed to heighten status (“I’m moral, good, and empathetic”) and get attention from men of all races (“I’m vulnerable right now, and need attention and resources”). Some of the anecdotes in this regard, from DiAngelo’s “Whiteness” seminars are priceless, normally involving some weak-minded woman breaking down at the revelation she’s “racist,” and they went some way to compensating me for the purchase price and hideous ideology of the book. Above all, they confirmed to me that what we see unfold before us is both tragedy and farce, and that our situation is no less dangerous for that:
A black man struggling to express a point referred to himself as stupid. My co-facilitator, a black woman, gently countered that he was not stupid but that society would have him believe that he was. As she was explaining the power of internalized racism, a white woman interrupted with, “I think what he was trying to say was … “ When my co-facilitator pointed out that the white woman had reinforced the racist idea that she could best speak for a black man, the woman erupted in tears. The training came to a complete halt as most of the room rushed to comfort her and angrily accused the black facilitator of unfairness. … Meanwhile, the black man she had spoken for was left alone to watch her receive comfort.
Conclusion
DiAngelo scathingly remarks on incidents like this that “when we are mired in guilt, we are narcissistic and ineffective.” Essentially, the new direction of Whiteness Studies and its intellectual corollaries will be to wean Whites away from demonstrative habits of virtue signaling and into active participation in racial decline. We can expect to see in the near future (and we already to some extent have with the Black Lives Matter riots) a greater emphasis on Whites becoming active “anti-racists.” It will become increasingly difficult for Whites to appear simply as “not racist.” Active, enthusiastic activity on behalf of the ethnic power-grab will be demanded, and anything less will be portrayed with disdain as “fragility.” DiAngelo concludes her book with the blunt assertion that “a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” White identity is therefore to be destroyed wholesale, and White ethnic interests crushed alongside it. DiAngelo proclaims with all the vigor of the subversive or the brainwashed that she will “strive for a less white identity, for my own liberation and sense of justice.”
Liberation and justice. These words were uttered a long time ago in France. The beheadings started soon after.
“I was undecided then, and remain undecided, as to whether DiAngelo is wholly, in part, or not at all Jewish”. She says she was raised a Catholic and I have found no evidence that she is Jewish. In interviews she has referred to Jews as “they” rather than we/us.
Even if an American is not Jewish, he or she is likely to be either pro-Jewish, brainwashed by Jews, or afraid of speaking up about Jews.
Jews are always the elephant in the room, and they like it that way.
The vast majority of Americans are, therefore, effectively Jewish. So are nearly all media.
The reason Whites and most everyone else can’t speak frankly about Jews and Blacks is that when they do, they are dumped on. You can insult Whites and Christians though.
For the most part, you can only say nice things about Black, Jews, and Hispanics.
If you do criticize them, it better be said in the most tactful of ways.
Good analysis. Jewish Privilege rules America. Jews own and control the Media.
– “Jews are always the elephant in the room, and they like it that way.
The vast majority of Americans are, therefore, effectively Jewish. So are nearly all media.”
“Jews are always the elephant shit in the room, and they like it that way.”
“Even if an American is not Jewish, he or she is likely to be either pro-Jewish, brainwashed by Jews, or afraid of speaking up about Jews.
Jews are always the elephant in the room, and they like it that way.”
That’s exactly right.
So then, how about a book titled,
Jewish Fragility: Why It’s So Hard For Jewish People To Talk About Jewish Supremacy
But we can rest assured that such a book won’t ever be published, let alone become a best-seller.
Proof that Jewish Supremacy isn’t a myth, but White Supremacy is.
To the relief of actual Catholics, she is a Catholic no longer. Catholicism is Faith; it is commitment to God and his revelation within the structure of worship and redemption devised once for all time by his Son. It is also something else, something quite simple: a club, one with dues and rules. In common with other clubs, you break the rules egregiously or fail to pay your dues, you are out the door.
Whatever else it may or may not be, being Catholic is not a permanent genetic misfortune, such as being deaf in one ear or being Jewish.
Will Ms. DiAngelo ever return to the Faith, to the club? Don’t bet on it. Mid- and late life conversions are extraordinarily rare events, deathbed repentance and conversion rarer still. On the one hand, Ms. DiAngelo’s self-knowledge is plainly deficient and her character is plainly weak. On the other, her commitment to (((the powerful group))) that has facilitated the make-believe esteem she now revels in is also so plain that a Damascene event would alone suffice to bring her to her senses. No horse player alive would ever lay a tenner on such an event happening again.
Hi, Pierre. Regarding late in life repentence, deathbed conversions, and conversions in general.
To this day, I don’t think that either Lawrence Auster or Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s conversions were sincere. You see, they had logical, suspicious, paranoid minds and thought there just might be a wee possibility that the whole Heaven/Hell/Judgment Day business was correct. Covering all bases is what was going on with them – like the Cardinal and Michael Corleone in Godfather Part III. Mike didn’t want to confess his ghastly sins after 30 years, feeling no remorse for his actions, so the kindly Lamberto sweet-talks him into doing a confession by saying, and I quote, “I hear you are a practical man; what have you got to lose?” LOL. Beware of those who “convert”. The Cardinal understood these things, how people function.
Then there’s the story of Lenny Kravitz’s father, Russian Jew, as told by Lenny. Now, that might have been the real thing – he saw bats swirling around his hospital bed and rats crawling. Later, close to death, he saw angels in the room. “Because of Jesus”, he said to his son. And that was it.
But I guess that I am getting carried away.
Amen to all, dear B.
Thomas Fleming of Chronicles magazine thought that Nathanson preferred fame to morality, and Fleming detested him accordingly. Noting the indecent haste with which Nathanson switched from celebrity career abortionist to celebrity abortion opponent, Fleming said that anyone with integrity who had made a genuine conversion would have spent months, perhaps years, doing penance, far from the limelight, in horrified awareness of the grave wrongs he had committed.
Pascal’s Wager. . .God knows who is playing this game- those who do will soon feel the heat.
We’re talking about two of the three Abrahamic religions.
“Abrahamic religions” is a term coined for use in the academic racket called Comparative Religion, a pastime with no more substance or intellectual rigor than Black Studies or Women’s Studies. Not at all coincidentally, like those other two rackets, the purpose of Comparative Religion is, not to contribute to the stock of human knowledge, but to advance an agenda: the destruction of Christianity via trivialization of the religious impulse as primitive rather than profound.
In historical, intellectual, and practical terms, there is more genuine meaning in saying, for example, that three fads originated in California than that three religions began with Abraham.
Thank you Andrew Joyce! Your essay confirms every reason I wince and bristle with forced resignations, firings and apologies.
I strongly encourage everyone to read the linguist John McWhorter’s essay “The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/
Deftly written, McWhorter accuses DiAngelo of infantilizing Blacks, arguing that he does not need “. . . wider society to undergo teachings in how to be exquisitely sensitive about my feelings.” He makes quite a number of other productive points.
I’ve listened to a half dozen or so of McWhorter’s chats with Glenn Loury (see for example, https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/59533) and I am constantly left in admiration of his rational, reasoned, non-emotional approach to race issues. His premier handicap, however, is that McWhorter is lamentably unaware of the Frankfort School origins of the anti-racism catechism that he decries.
The McWhorter you hear has little in common with the one I’ve been hearing for twenty years and then some. Every insight he has comes with a side order of grandiosity, and anyone asking for seconds gets a refill of only the side. McWhorter lacks neither intelligence nor insight, but their summed weight is not large enough to render his smugness bearable.
Here as elsewhere, it should not pass notice that with exceptions countable on the fingers of one hand, the black thug class and the black smug class agree that the source of their myriad social, moral, and intellectual deficiencies is whitey.
“McWhorter accuses DiAngelo of infantilizing Blacks”
Wake me up when there’s an article in a mainstream publication that focuses on the harm that DiAngelo does to Whites instead of blacks. Until then, it’s all just part of the same kosher dialectic.
ROBERT MARLIN, your point is very well taken. In fact, after I posted my comment and re-read it, I regretted that I didn’t quote a few of McWhorter’s numerous offerings of harms DiAngelo does to whites. For example, regarding DiAngelo’s list of no-no’s whites must not utter, McWhorter laments:
“Whites aren’t even allowed to say, “I don’t feel safe.” Only Black people can say that. If you are white, you are solely to listen as DiAngelo tars you as morally stained.”
PIERRE de CRAON — You clearly have more experience with McWhorter than I who only became aware of him within the past month. Nonetheless, after 5 podcasts, I have not yet heard him express any personal feelings of “social, moral, and intellectual deficiencies,” let alone aimed “whitey.” I particularly respected his reasoned analysis of the Trayvon Martin Hoax. That said, I will listen closely in the future, and i thank you for the heads up.
Here is a link to McWhorter’s review in the “Atlantic” of DiAngelo’s book. Note the utterly blithe adoption of the tyrannical Establishment’s vocabulary and assumptions as early as the first sentence of the second paragraph. In a courtroom, any competent lawyer who heard the phrase “amid the protests following the death of George Floyd and the ensuing national reckoning about racism” would be on his feet declaring, “the statement assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor.” Things get far worse very quickly. Read and see.
A little background. McWhorter’s celebrity began with “Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America” (2000). That book—one of the first since a 1960s book by Bob Teague, the first black on-air reporter in New York City, to suggest that black people’s own faults of personality and character contribute to explaining white people’s distrust and dislike of them—won him somewhat more criticism than praise. Teague’s assertion of black responsibility for black problems efectively ended his career. McWhorter, a man not especially burdened with integrity, had no intention of similarly allowing truth to stand athwart success.
Subsequently and consequently, McWhorter saw the light and corrected the “problem” with “Authentically Black: Essays for the Black Silent Majority” (2003). That book won him an appearance on C-SPAN’s Booknotes (where I first saw him) and permanent entrée to Brian Lamb’s personal Hall of Veneration. Since then, McWhorter has adroitly kept a foot in the door of the (((hard-left Establishment))) by never saying anything to suggest that forced integration of (((their))) communities is or ought to be on the cards. Say what you like about the Jews, but their ability to see and exploit sycophancy ought to be a lesson to us all.
Look at the matter this way: Would a man who is a welcome and esteemed presence at CNN ever be such were he even suspected of doubleplusungood thinking about the nature and roots of black degeneracy?
Anyone who toadies to the Jews and reinforces the Establishment’s narrative is no friend of white people and no friend of this website. I respectfully suggest that you should regard McWhorter with the utmost wariness. He does not have your interest or your welfare at heart.
Kosher Dialect =
The Kosher Sandwich =
A Kosher Certified Culture =
Kosher Supremacy.
But people still think that circled “U” on their food wrap is a registered trademark!
Frankfurt School.
Excerpt from Chapter 4 of DiAngelo’s book: “White solidarity requires both silence about anything that exposes the advantages of the white population and tacit agreement to remain racially united in the protection of white supremacy.”
If only Robin DiAngelo would substitute “white” for “jew” to unmask how her statement in fact applies with kosher precision to the founders of her catechism.
I too have tried in vain to establish whether or not this woman is of the Tribe.
Thanks for “taking one for the team” by reading her drivel so the rest of us don’t have to.
Why should I talk about racism?
This woman DiAngelo is obsessed with racism herself that’s for sure and she knows it damm well. And now she wants to blame others for her weakness hahaha!
‘For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of’ Luke 6:45.
Simply profoundly clear and excellent. Thank you.
That Elaine Benis hair tho.
You think you’re spongeworthy?
DiAngelo is our ally. The single biggest hurdle we face in dealing with all of our racial problems is the sanctimony of the good whites. DiAngelo is right about this. Dealing with race is in a sort of paralysis because of the goody-two-shoes whites who get to play anti racist and yet live no differently (as JS observed) than do members of the Klan. To move things ahead we need a lot of new energy injected into the current milieu. Our side swells its ranks largely through the efforts of our enemies and not through our own efforts. DiAngelo sounds like she’s the girl to bet on in furthering our needs by energetically prodding good whites to stop play acting.
We’ll lose some but we’ll probably win a lot more. What people do is a lot more telling than what people say in public.
Until recently I lived in Marin County, the land of very very very very…good whites. Maybe even the best of their kind. In private conversation they make most of the contributors and commenters here sound reasonable and gentlemanly. A year or so ago George Lucas was fighting the local zoning board over expanding his movie making facilities. NIMBY can out in full force so he threatened to turn the land over to a Section 8 developer. Yowza! What a sorting mechanism. The longer the threat hung over everyone’s head the more and more hysterical many became. I’d bet the breakdown was at least 90% to kill off Section 8. If it had ever gotten to actually breaking ground we’d have had mobs of well heeled locals burning each day’s construction to the ground. I doubt most good white enclaves outside of urban districts are all that different.
DiAngelo is our best option on the table right now in doing something about how good whites gum up the social works. A white fragility workshop, a string of them with assignments, in every workplace, community center, classroom,etc. Get good whites to think collectively and then as a group weigh their group options as presented to them by people like DiAngelo.
I’m confident things will loosen up and move forward, just not in the way Robin is pining for.
Given the recent milestones reached by NASA and the news about the Voyager spacecrafts and the launching of the rocket rover to Mars one has to ask the question about Blacks in the aerospace programs and what if anything was achieved by such? Go here and be amazed as I was:
https://www.blackengineer.com/news/trailblazing-black-engineers-at-nasa/
If there is a black or asian man, or even better, woman in any organisation involved with astronomy or other science topics, the Quest TV science channel will always find them and include them prominently in their TV show for an interview.
In one episode of ‘How do they make that?’ it was about resin figurines, and they made a model of a black sheriff and his family, and made a little speech about the contribution of African Americans to the US. When it was about the banjo, we were told that blacks gave it to the US, when it was about Eskimo snow shoes they acted as if the pattern of weaving the leather strips was some major accomplishment for mankind ‘that has been passed down for generations’.
And they have blacks presenting English history programmes as if it is a shared history in England. I suppose they are just doing what the Jews have been doing for much longer – acting as one of us when it suits, although the Jews get away with it more easily due to appearance.
Excellent writing as always. When we win, rather than burn DiAngelo’s book, we’ll make Andrew Joyce’s essay the preface.
“And there you have it — this Jamaican genius has discovered the Protocols of the Elders of Europa.” LOL
Is it racist for Jews to marry Jews, Whites to marry Whites, and Blacks to marry Blacks?
When there were personal ads in liberal alternative newspapers (rather than online as now), I used to see things like SWM (Straight White Male) wants SWF (Straight White Female).
What, a liberal guy wanted a White girl? My how “racist.”
I think online dating services ask for preferred race now, don’t they? They used to.
Is that racist? I don’t think so, but they allow it.
People have preferences. This is now considered racist.
A valuable contribution by Dr. Joyce. This is the sort of analysis he really excels at, and he’s right to see the impatience behind the new wrinkle in race relations- the barely suppressed anger at Whites who “say all the right things” but aren’t doing enough to actively reduce White people’s share of the goodies. As they said at CHAZ, “take ten dollars out of your pocket and hand it to the first black person you meet”.
The histrionics of White females are also wearing thin with the harder radicals, with an occasional grumble thrown their way concerning the plays for attention and virtue points. The “Karen” meme is erupting out of this anxiety over selfish vs. true believer motivations. I think we will see these tensions increase.
To answer the stupid question on the stupid book’s cover: it’s hard for white people to talk about racism in the same way it’s hard to talk about fairy tales. Racism doesn’t exist in the west any longer among whites, only among non-whites.
Excellent article. The way in which DiAngelo positions herself so frantically as being one of the whites that she so eagerly wants to get annihilated, gives the game away: she clearly thinks we may think otherwise and that she has to convince us that she is one of us. Beethoven does not have to call himself someone who is interested in music: his life’s work speaks for itself, we know. DiAngelo looks and expresses herself as a race-baiting jew who hates white peopler: her life’s work also speaks for itself: we know that she is defintiely not one of us.
What is frantic about her positioning? I watched her video and she didn’t seem frantic. I think she very well could be one of us and believe what she says
But If De’Angelo is white, then she is one of the Tribe’s greatest accomplishments because she is no high IQ intellectual but rather just a multi cult Ph.d from our debased university system, She may be proof that the Sanhedrin has colonized the ordinary goyish mind
” But If De’Angelo is white, then she is one of the Tribe’s greatest accomplishments because she is no high IQ intellectual but rather just a multi cult Ph.d from our debased university system, She may be proof that the Sanhedrin has colonized the ordinary goyish mind ”
Amen to that . Jewish zealots have repeatedly proven that
ad hominem is the most successful and main tool for invalidating an argument without risking the hazards of dealing with content .
This distinguished professor provides justification for the chosenite jewmasters favorite intellectual opposition weapon at this link __
https://aeon.co/users/quassim-cassam
Cassam’s article supporting ad homionem is at this link __
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/bad-thinkers?utm_source=pocket-newtab
As Charles W Mills said, “It is the unnamed political system that has made the modern world what it is today.”
If the modern world began with Martin Luther’s revolt against the Church then we can name the culprit. “Scherr, an enemy of the Catholic Church, puts the blame on Luther for the absolute despotism and union of the church and sate in every place in Germany where the reformation obtained a footing. In his German Culture, Third Edition, page 260, he says, ‘Luther was the originator of the doctrine of unconditional surrender to civil power.That two and five make seven he preached, that you know. But if the civil power should proclaim that two and five are eight, then you must believe ut against your better sense and judgment..”
My source is O’ Hares, The Facts About Luther. I’m sure O’Hare would agree with Andrew Joyce that, “Power and influence never simply disappear, but rather transfer.”
Interesting observation and something I wasn’t aware of. Thanks.
Fantastic as always Andrew. Some great points raised, and some awful ones quashed.
This book appears to be getting under the skin of people at either ends of the spectrum, and I can’t help but wonder if in the long run, it may become more of a help than a hindrance.
“Victims” of “White fragility” are themselves so fragile that they demand (& get) ever more “Safe Spaces” in places that are already so safe they have to make up ever more hate-crime hoaxes in order to claim any victimhood at all.
It is simply yet another anti-white propaganda link book, written by an anti-white author. In other words, it is part of the relentless psychological war against whites. Objectively promotes the White Genocide ..
Robin is fortunate indeed. I haven’t felt a sense of belonging in any of these situations for fifty years, and I know damn few people who have.
Andrew Joyce calls this statement horrific. Perhaps it is, but once the micron-deep layer of coyness is abraded away, it is also stunningly frank, since at least in the material quoted by Dr. Joyce for the reader’s pleasure, there is nothing to suggest that Ms. DiAngelo excludes interpreting the context as this terrestrial life and the “temporary” timespan as the period from the cradle to the grave.
(Mod. Note: Thanks Pierre. Your concern has been forwarded to “higher powers”.)
Robin DiAngelo is a race traitor, and a willing tool of the Jews. Never would I read such nauseating propaganda as in this book.
However, it does generate an interesting review by Andrew Joyce. He has enabled me to sample excerpts from this absurd book. Apparently, it’s not aimed at me. It’s aimed at fools suffering from White Guilt, to get them to more actively betray their own race and themselves.
Quote from the book (via this article) – “Interrupting the forces of racism is ongoing, lifelong work, because the forces conditioning us into racist frameworks are always at play. Our learning will never be finished.” That is because racism is natural and healthy, not “conditioned.” It can only be countered by endless brainwashing and propaganda. It is “ongoing, lifelong work” to oppose human nature, and it serves no useful purpose.
Whether or not DiAngelo is a Jew, she has definitely been influenced by them, including the Frankfurt School. Whiteness Studies (sic) programs are anti-White propaganda, not real academic studies. In a healthy society, it would not be subsidized by the state.
Education should be removed from the State- unless one believes that everyone is State property.
Yeah Tedesco, race traitor. I had until recently a mind that was pretty well washed by the Sanhedrin. I’m an old boomer who went to good schools – read Jewish – and did conscientiously struggle to believe that all men were created equal despite everything I saw in my life. But about 2.5 years ago, I found out that Ms. Diangelo’s video was being shown in my local library to a bunch of young people and I got curious. As I watched her online, I found myself quite reflexively , and spontaneously, thinking “race traitor”. I simply couldn’t believe that I had such a thought. But I did and moreover I didn’t feel bad about it at all. I sort of tried to feel bad but it didn’t work. Despite my good Frankfurt school education, I was on the road to mental health. This is why I suspect that Diangelo may be a tipping point for many of the mind washed Euro Goyim. She really is over the top. I think she can trigger instinctual racial affirmation even among white people in Weimar America
Robin DiAngelo has made a publication which made her in some way important. Therefore from her point of view she made the right thing.
For us (we= the normal white people, for example I am a German farmer) this publication is one of thousands of attacks upon our existence as white folk that wants to live in its own lands and that wants to give its way of looking (=that means its existence in the world) to the next generation.
In order to live, for us it is not enough to counter this book in the details of the chain of thoughts. Such books are constructed in a way that they seem to be logical, convincing.
The most important thing that we need to do is to say: We want to live. We do not want to die. Our children and grand children shall live. They shall live in a country of their own. We can accept only a small number of strangers living within our country. In case we would allow to much of them to come in, we would destroy our own future and that of our children.
In case that we have the above thought as ground-stone (or basis or axiom) of our chain of thougths, than we put it into life by saying it loudly.
And than we can put our ground-stone side-by-side with the ground-stone of Diangelo´s chain of thoughts. And you can compare easily the two chains-of-thought, you can see the differences and you can the the future outcome: Either we shall live or we shall be destroyed.
The books like that of Diangelo can stand only in case that the other opinion (our opinion) is suppressed, either by our own fear of speaking loudly and/or be other influences.
I am glad that I may give comments to the Occidental Observer. I feel honour that it is possible for me to do so.
The quickest way to lose an argument is to accept an opponent’s premises.
How many of the left’s major premises have been, either explicitly or tacitly, accepted by the right side?
Hello TJ, thank you for your comment to my comment.
“The quickest way to lose an argument is to accept an opponent’s premises.”
I agree to hundred percent.
“How many of the left’s major premises have been, either explicitly or tacitly, accepted by the right side?”
For my person I can answer “zero”.
The left´s set of groundstones is constructed in such a way that all chains of thought wich will go out from these points will lead to the destruction of the white race. And for example the UNO-principles or the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM)” are such “thought-framing-instruments”.
You can see easily that they are evil, they are crazy, and the news media tell us: They are good, it is our moral duty to accept it.
Therefore for us it is the most important thing that we accept none of the left side`s premises but that we say loudly: “We want to live. The life of us and our folk and our race in our countries is the most important thing for us and all those who will hinder us to live are deadly enemies”.
The own life of a group is the guideline of it´s thoughts and thought-buildings and world-views.
They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself . . . . They are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man. -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semihuman cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves. . . . That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good. -Ayn Rand ,Age Of Envy
Consider the full meaning of this attitude. Values are that which one acts to gain and/or keep. Values are a necessity of man’s survival, and wider: of any living organism’s survival. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action, and the successful pursuit of values is a precondition of remaining alive. Since nature does not provide man with an automatic knowledge of the code of values he requires, there are differences in the codes which men accept and the goals they pursue. But consider the abstraction “value,” apart from the particular content of any given code, and ask yourself: What is the nature of a creature in which the sight of a value arouses hatred and the desire to destroy? In the most profound sense of the term, such a creature is a killer, not a physical, but a metaphysical one—it is not an enemy of your values, but of all values, it is an enemy of anything that enables men to survive, it is an enemy of life as such and of everything living. –Ayn Rand ,Age Of Envy
Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to make different choices, the egalitarians propose to abolish the “unfairness” of nature and of volition, and to establish universal equality in fact—in defiance of facts. Since the Law of Identity is impervious to human manipulation, it is the Law of Causality that they struggle to abrogate. Since personal attributes or virtues cannot be “redistributed,” they seek to deprive men of their consequences—of the rewards, the benefits, the achievements created by personal attributes and virtues. It is not equality before the law that they seek, but inequality: the establishment of an inverted social pyramid, with a new aristocracy on top—the aristocracy of non-value. —(((Ayn Rand))), Age Of Envy
Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior by Helmut Schoeck is a must read. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjIiDqNRH6A
“The books like that of Diangelo can stand only in case that the other opinion (our opinion) is suppressed, either by our own fear of speaking loudly and/or be other influences.”
Yes Karlfried and a certain people have every intention of suppressing our opinions about a lot of things but especially opinions criticizing the justifications for the Anglo -American war against your country 80 years ago. This people has to suppress our opinion, our arguments, and our research as well as instill fear in us because this certain people have told some of the biggest lies in history about your people and they cannot live with the revelations which will sooner or later occur if people like us are allowed to go on speaking and discovering. But then you must know all this having already experienced the Occupation. We are just learning it here. Heads up Kamerad. Good to hear from you.
Karlfried: “Such books are constructed in a way that they seem to be logical, convincing.”
– these people devote their whole lives to the art of deception so they can say good is bad and bad is good.
“ground-stone (or basis or axiom)” … ‘corner stone’ , as used in English translations of the Bible, but I know what you mean.
joyce and macdonald really MUST tell unz he can’t republish their stuff anymore. the guy is as phony as a $3 bill. i would be surprised if his site isn’t used to track its visitors and commenters. there’s an (((organization))) behind unz, and everyone who doesn’t desert him is either autistic or on his (((team))).
I never took the bait. Over the years I’ve seen it two or three times. Or course, I knew Unz to be Jewish.
You and the Viscount could give antisemitism a bad name
From Taki Mag: “A recent investigation by the Washington Free Beacon suggests that DiAngelo has falsely created the impression that she donates a massive chunk of her sizeable income toward any cause or charity that would measurably improve black living standards. It also suggests that she has fabricated elements of her supposedly impoverished youth. The piece hints that, based on her husband’s Instagram account, the pair spend time exclusively with other well-heeled white people.” https://freebeacon.com/culture/the-wages-of-woke-2/
“…with footnotes for her claims leading invariably to a section of bibliography that reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.”
Great line! It resonates. I could say something similar about my social science education. Meanwhile you could get a Ph.d in sociology and never even hear of people like Werner Sombart , the great German social scientist and National Socialist who wrote The Jews and Modern Capitalism. I participated in one of the greatest brainwashings in history. But I was on the wrong end of it
The left taking “anti-racism” in this direction seems like it would be beneficial for us, by eliminating the race-blind middle ground and forcing people to choose between being pro-white or anti-white.
Karl – exactly, and we should not assume the left use good tactics. Another mistake of theirs was immigration increased too rapidly so the white people are waking up. Slowly slowly was working better but they got too impatient and wanted to see the downfall in their own lifetimes. It will not take much more to provoke a backlash. Jews have provoked many of these in the past. Also the left have gone too far in siding with BLM so strongly, which puts a lot of whites off the left. See the falling revenue of US sport now they are heavily involved with BLM – and the Gillette ad was a bad move also in antagonising men & putting men off the left. A lot are waking up
It would be counterproductive , in most cases , to try and force people to declare their pro/anti White loyalty unless there was at least a 2 out of 3 chance they would declare being proWhite .
Thanks again Andrew for the deep dive into the masochistic lunacy of Ms. DiAngelo’s snarky scribbling. I would have to concur with Yves Vannes comments above, to wit: these racial bolshevik ideologues, along with the Negro rioters, (and their White anarchist accomplices) are helping to wake up the hitherto complacent White “normies”. Whites are just now starting to sense the danger, and coming under a racial siege is what it will take to create White solidarity.
A Joyce: “White guilt, and indeed Whiteness Studies as a whole, is fundamentally about power”
Perhaps the motive is simply a hatred of the superior – 100% hatred and animosity, and 0% of the motive is personal gain of power or money. Consider the the Jews in France who are now having to flee to Israel – did they gain any money or power by making France less white? No, they lost their businesses and much of their wealth (selling their houses and businesses) when the muslims that they invited over turned on them, as they knew would happen.
Clearly those who hate whites – including some blacks, some whites and some Jews – are acting very strongly against self-interest when they seek to destroy the system that provide them with wealth, security, health care, and generally a very high standard of living. What they are doing is to try and sink the luxury liner in which they too live and thrive, as their hatred of the people who run/own the ship is stronger than their self-interest. They are prepared to sink the ship in which they too live. (However, they will selfishly take the best lifeboats for themselves, which means get what they can as the boat sinks/country collapses).
Evidence for this (that hatred is the motive, not power or money) is that exactly the same fanatical and obsessive energy against whites was displayed a few decades ago against the whites in Rhodesia and whites S.Africa, in circumstances where there was clearly nothing to gain – no money, no power for any of the main protagonists, whether they were in politics, the MSM, education or just ‘unimportant’ people such as those who comment on social media today and who had no influence at all and no connections to Africa (and no connection to the Frankfurt School).
For all these white groups who hated white rule in Africa with an intense passion, for all of them there was no power or money gain to be had, yet their passion was maintained at a fanatical and intense level for decades until the hated whites were removed from power (and of course the blacks, who they claimed to champion and care for, lost their jobs, wealth, healthcare etc as everyone knew would happen, and resumed their tribal conflicts – showing that the claim of the anti-white left to be ‘caring’ and ‘on the side of the underdog’ were false claims, as the blacks ended up much worse off, as the white activists knew they would. Much worse off, with war, disease, starvation & corruption – these things were the price these ‘caring’ lefties were very happy for the blacks to pay. ‘Do-gooders’ is therefore an inappropriate term for the lefties, as they knew they were bringing bad on the blacks).
The white people in the British parliament and media, and all other white-haters everywhere, they all preferred Mugabe to Ian Smith, Mugabe who was under the influence of his backer – communist China. Where was this assumed self-interest for British MPs or the MSM or Jews, where was this supposed self-interest that many assume must have been their motive for the British government to fanatically oppose white rule in Rhodesia and strongly support Chinese influence in its place? Clearly not one iota of money or power was their inducement for favouring China over their own people, so it can only have been anti-white animosity as the motive for handing power in Africa and resources such copper reserves over to China).
In a collapsed, corrupt basket-case economy, there is no money or power to be had, including for the banks, who make nothing once the economy has gone (of course the new leaders’ own tribe will gain financially, and those who work in the Aid Industry will gain, but these gains only reach a few). So the devotion to the anti-white cause was exactly as fanatical then a few decades ago as it is today, when there was no power or money gain to be had for whites or Jews, apart from a relatively small number in the state-financed Aid industry, which is the recipient of billions a year for the corrupt left to distribute between the connected white lefties and corrupt blacks.
Kevin MacDonald describes the way white genes make the white person individualistic and other races group-oriented. This behaviour is part of displayed animal behaviour, and does not arise from thinking logically about self interest, it arises from being wired to think like this. Perhaps almost *all* behaviour is wired for in the same way, and very little is based on logic. Was it logical for the white nations to destroy each other in WWII? Is it logical for voters to keep on voting for politicians who want open borders for the West when at least 80% of the same voters strongly oppose the very policy they keep voting for?
A cat’s behaviour is 100% from its wiring and 0% based in logic. So it fights its pampered neighbour today even when there is no shortage of food. The domestic cat is therefore a slave to its wiring in a way that causes behaviour that had a use once in the wild, but now only leads to stress and injury – ie the domestic cat is wired to act against self-interest and this compels it to fight its neighbour. Just because humans *can* think logically it does not mean they apply this to their political behaviour especially in relation to voting. Maybe humans too are slaves of their wiring that make them do things against self-interest, in particular, whites are wired to follow the set culture even when logic would tell them that the culture is clearly against their self-interest.
Re Merccer, I think Hitler said if the Jews get Palestine, it will give them somewhere to run.
These points about hatred and genetic wiring contradicting self interest are very good. However it is complicated with Jewish Power. I think the Jews are a very hierarchical people and the top of the hierarchy is sometimes willing to sacrifice the more ordinary Jew for the hierarchie’s goals.
International Jewry wants to destroy the white nation state and ultimately whites; it thinks this is good for Jewish economic neoliberalism and will benefit Israel which will be the last real nation state . If Big Jewry has to do its work by hurting ordinary Jews. as in the French case, maybe they think “so be it”? There is precedent. International Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933 but I have read that the German Jews – at least the more ordinary sort – asked the international Jews to lay off National Socialism as the German Jews were the ones who would take the flack from resentful gentile Germans. But International Jewry recognized Hitler’s economics as a threat. German Jews’ fates notwithstanding, international Jewry had a plan for Germany and didn’t lay off. the rest is history – sort of.
@Achilles Wannabe – I take your point and other races are also willing to sacrifice their own for a cause, and at the family level this is what honour killing in muslims is about – sacrificing your own children even, in this case for the family’s honour.
And certainly the persecution of the Jews in Germany is the event that is most important to Jews today in terms of promoting the line that Jews are persecuted and victims of white racism, which must therefore be relentlessly opposed (‘stamped out’ even – although the racism of all other races can be encouraged).
Melanie Philips, prominent intellectual Jew in Britain (a conservative Jew, used to write for the Spectator magazine & has often been in the MSM, but ousted from the Spectator, in my opinion due to her being too right-wing), explained how pivotal the H is in shaping the current thinking of the West. She said this about two weeks ago as a guest on Peter Whittle’s Youtube channel, although the way she phrased it was from the J’s point of view, but she let slip just how monumental the impact of the H is today in shaping the attitudes of white ppl. I do not think she is hostile to white ppl, eg she opposes mass immigration to the West, but nevertheless she is still loyal to her tribe, no matter what they get up to. I would look it up except I am unwell at present and might not reply again for a while, as the state-run NHS in Britain has abandoned most treatments at present ‘due to Coronovirus’ – which is the best excuse this state-run organisation has ever had to justify doing even less than usual, whilst on full pay of course, as they currently abandon the patients. In their view, the best kind of hospital to work in is one in which there are no patients. (And the MSM even got the people to clap every Thursday night at 8pm for 5 minutes on their doorsteps for this organisation recently, run on the principles of equality and diversity and socialism).
I am not sure about this sentence of yours: “asked the international Jews to lay off National Socialism”, but I understand the rest of your argument as a whole, and it makes sense, bearing in mind just how important the sacrifice of German Jews has been in shaping the anti-white narrative after the War.
Sorry. I should stop using Americanisms. By ‘laying off” I meant that the German Jews actually asked the international Jews to stop criticizing National Socialism. At least that’s what I read. It is so hard to find out what really went on in Germany in the 20’s and 30’s. But of course that has been((( the plan)))
Good luck with your health issues,
” Was it logical for the white nations to destroy each other in WWII?”
Most Westernworld Whites are at least nominal Christians of either the Catholic version or Protestant version ; and Christianity is a sheeple oriented religion of self-enslavement to the chosenite jewmasters ( not to insinuate that jews do not accommodate the enslavements nor insinuate that the RCC never opposed jews in a time past ). Therefore , Whites slaughtering other Whites at the behest of their jewmasters is simple obedience to their moral authority superiors .
The author’s name is Robin Di’Angelo. “Robbing the Anglo.” That’s all I need to see. Hahahahah.
What a loser.
Pterodactyl-excellent comment! I think another useful analogy or metaphor is Captain Ahab from Melville’s” Moby Dick” . Ahab hates “the great white whale” so much that he’s willing to sacrifice his ship, his crew and even his own life in order to kill it. Alana Mercer, the Jewish former South African author of the book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” is a real life example. Her father , a rabbi, was a keen proponent of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. She sees the infamous Helen Suzman as a good person. When the Anti Apartheid movement gained power and turned her homeland into a hellhole, she did what Jews always do-she and her family hopped aboard the next flight to Tel Aviv. Meanwhile unfortunate South African white gentiles left behind are now living in plywood huts without electricity or plumbing. There’s a lesson to be learned from this-that’s how we’ll wind up if we’re not vigilant.
@Blowtorch Mason – very appropriate comparison from ‘Moby Dick’ – and what a coincidence the whale being white, but that was probably because it was easily identified for the purpose of the plot and nothing to do with people who are white, although some decades later (today) this detail now becomes relevant. However, at that time, whiteness was seen as a quality.
“- There’s a lesson to be learned from this-that’s how we’ll wind up if we’re not vigilant.”
The important question is, to what level do we have to sink before our race wakes up to what is happening to it? At present there are always other white places for wealthy whites who wreck white nations to flee to, but one day there will be no more safe havens, and also no-one to protect the Jews from those who want to drive them into the sea, no-one to give them billions of dollars a year. The lack of safe havens might cause the apolitical super-wealthy to rethink, although the super rich lefties such as those who run the big tech companies, in my opinion they will never abandon their anti-white urges no matter if the price is that they are no longer rich or safe.
Blowtorch Mason: “unfortunate South African white gentiles left behind are now living in plywood huts without electricity or plumbing. ”
A truly sickening trait amongst some whites in the West generally is that even now when the blacks run S.Africa and oppress and murder the whites, even now that this is happening, still many non-political whites seem more willing to send money/aid to poor blacks than to poor whites, and there is no wave of sympathy swelling up in the West right now for the whites in S Africa.
I really hope this is due to the lies and misinformation of the MSM. I refer to ‘neutral’ whites who send money, as the non-neutral lefty whites are different and against us anyway.
A most disgusting event was the way the British PM T May danced with the black tribal leaders a year or so ago in S Africa on a trip to show whose side she was on, and this did not stop the white people in her constituency from reelecting her at the next election.
“… this did not stop the white people in her constituency from reelecting her at the next election.”
The vast majority of Westernworld Whites are politicly retarded ( not mostly an IQ issue in this case ).
Aid to poor whites in South Africa is being blocked by the government there.
A Joyce “Likewise, we are living in an age where Whites continue to have some social, political, and economic power, but where large and growing numbers of non-Whites are seeking to obtain what remains of this power.”
Perhaps the stronger force is not other races seeking power, rather anti-white whites seeking to give it to them. In other words, our urges to surrender are of more of an influence than their urges to conquer. Perhaps the muslims want actual power so they can subjugate and conquer us for ‘honor and glory’, but the blacks do not want power so much as ‘free stuff’ (reparations) and higher status (respect). The Jews are in a category of their own.
Perhaps the third world races are a little taken aback as to why we would want to submit to them from a position of strength, and are puzzled about the way the strong West invites the weak third world to conquer them.
Some foreigners assume the West must surely, somehow, be acting in self-interest, and they try and work out what that could be. Sometimes they conclude the West’s foreign policy must be to access resources such as oil reserves in the Middle East, but in that case, why did the West eagerly pull out of Africa and leave its natural resources for the Chinese to take? And why would the West make such huge sacrifices in the recent Middle East Wars in terms of lives and money – all this for oil – then Obama/Clinton types do not want to access the US’s own oil reserves and fracking gas, and it is only because of Trump that the US now uses its own reserves. The Democrats prefer to close down their domestic oil production (due to ‘global warming’). So if they do not want their own oil, they are hardly going to fight wars for arab oil.
But the foreigners must surely struggle to work out the self-interest angle of inviting millions of third word immigrants to the West and then giving them our houses and free money as benefits, and many will assume that ‘Alah must be making the infidels do this’.
The truth is that the West is actively opposed to its own self interest at present and actively seeking its own downfall, due to the lefty whites within our populations taking over – and this type of white has a hatred of the superior from their genes, and the only solution for the West is that this type of white be exiled, perhaps to Africa, to remove the bad self-hating genes from our gene pool.
The other races understand self-interest, and they understand corruption, and jealous and malice, but they do not understand self-harm such as the West currently indulges in. However, white people do, for example, a young graduate might say ‘we deserve our downfall as punishment for our racism’. (And not just Jews posing as whites – actual whites also). No person from any other race would ever utter such words in respect of their own race, and this confirms Kevin MacDonald’s ideas about different races having very significant differences in behaviour from the genes, which are so far apart between white races and others that for some behaviour traits there is actually zero overlap – zero Africans/arabs seek the downfall of their own race whereas perhaps 15% of white race populations do. Zero white people could partake in group murder of the daughter/sister for dishonouring the family, whereas honour killings are common in some other races.
A Joyce: “DiAngelo’s introduction begins with accusation. America “began with the attempted genocide of Indigenous people and the theft of their land.”
A very important topic for white-advocates is the history of whites living in the US before ‘Native Americans’, and being genocided by them, and the suppression of any scientific evidence that supports this alternative history. For example, if ancient bones are found in the US today, it is actually illegal to test them genetically, and they must be handed over to Native Americans for disposal according to their religious customs. Does this not set off alarm bells? What are they afraid might show up if bones are analysed for race? That the bones are of white people who were genocided by Native Americans? – ie a reverse of the current narrative. There was a court case in which some academics won the right to test some human remains and they were found to be white. This is described in Richard Dewhurst’s academic book on the subject of ‘white giants’ predating the ‘Native Americans’ that was reviewed on Red Ice Radio. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMnYKp6ikHQ about white ‘giants’ in N America).
The Jew Franz Boas was influential in closing down the research into ancient civilisations in the US that were not ‘Native Americans’. He was influential in the Smithsonian Institute. This closing down of research was continued by the Smithsonian Institute who controlled museums in the US in most of the last century and this one too. http://www.rla.unc.edu/Publications/NCArch/SIS_22.pdf
(In a TV programme on ‘Quest’ or similar, and they were not allowed to show viewers any photos of some bones in an archaeological site, and the TV programme makers could see nothing wrong with this and the presenter was bowing reverentially as he told us, bowing at the alter of the ‘Native Americans’)
“The Jew Franz Boas was influential in closing down the research into ancient civilisations in the US that were not ‘Native Americans’. He was influential in the Smithsonian Institute”
God only knows what other important discoveries have been shut down due to being potentially harmful or contradictory to their narrative.
A Joyce: “Whites expressing all manner of liberal pieties—but moving heaven and earth to avoid sending their children to schools with large numbers of POC.”
I think it was A Joyce in a Red Ice interview mentioned that in past centuries the prosperity of the king (and the wealthy elite) was tied to the success of his people, so the elite had an incentive to favour the welfare and prosperity of their own people, and the people’s downfall was the king’s downfall, and making the people poor (or, today, multiracial – another harm inflicted) would make the king poor also, but these days the wealthy can still keep their wealth and privilege and power (and still live amongst other white people) even if they betray their own people., so the tie has broken.
So the wealthy left can give their own people multiracialsim, but they do not have to partake in the consequences themselves. If their own country collapses, they can just relocate to a different white country. Eg wealthy whites in S.Africa can easily move out during the final collapse stage, and their wealth is not tied to the success of their own people left behind in S.Africa.
So the wealthy in white countries often have no loyalty to their people as their personal success/safety/wealth in the modern world is not tied to the success of their people as it was centuries ago. This is why it would be a good idea to tax the super-rich – as most are socialists anyway they could not object.
I completely loathe this woman and her very being. Not only being a traitor but to profit off of shaming your own people and aiding and abetting in their genocide.
The title of the book is highly manipulative as such. It attempts to make white people feel fragile, weak and so on.
The reason for the well though out manipulative language is to make the reader and people seeing the title feel weak and vinerable and fragile. Week people can’t put up a fight against the invading masses of blacks, poc’s and so on.
This is the reason for her usage of this wording to kill all opposition by the “pen is sharper than the sword” technique.
And I do think she looks a bit jewish and old egyptian (who were often inbred and mixed with blacks to like 8 %) and also alot of Italians especially southern and southern euriope in general are partially arab and black even though often in smaller percentages, like 4 %.
She’s probably alot more mixed than the averege southern European.
But who knows there are people in the UK who are part black or north african that look just like most other whites (probably the roman empire thing or something) and they did a test in the USA and 4 % of people who thought they were white were partly sub saharan african.
Also my appologies to the moderator for having earlier used the n-word term or similar. I had no idea that kinda language could get a homepage shut down. What about free speech hey. That’s certainly weird you can’t use a term that is still common in many parts of the world that black / sub africans use themselves and that was historically just a racial term…
——
(Mod. Note: Robert, thanks for understanding about those “N-bombs”. Of course most TOO readers are acutely aware of the hypocrisy embedded in “the system”, but we still are under it. Let’s keep TOO great!)
A Joyce: “it seems almost impossible to convince Whites to see themselves as a group and to act as one.”
– this did happen in Germany, but only when the people were starving and their wealth gone. Russians also have this trait, but this would be more useful to the white race if they could also stop admiring Stalin and have instead some regret about the harm they have caused in the last century by embracing and spreading communism. At present they still celebrate the conquering of Germany each year with a military parade, celebrating Stalin’s victory, and so how can they help other whites when they still see us as the enemies? We cannot count on their help, only their gloating over our demise.
A Joyce: “for short-term personal benefits while stabbing their ancestors, contemporaries, and progeny in the back”
These are the worst whites – far worse than BLM blacks or Jews of malice, as these are the enemy-within collaborators. In my view they have genes that are bad for our race, and the presence of such genes in the population can be explained in terms of genetics and animal behaviour – an analogy is a parasite-host relationship between species, except with humans it is within a species with the lefties being the parasites. For a very loose analogy think of an ant colony – there is a balance between workers and soldiers and the population will always have both types. I realise the workers/soldiers are not antagonistic to each other, but it is just a weak analogy to convey how one population can have very different types, and there is a reason for this based in genetics and behaviour.
In a human population there are ‘takers’ (the left) and ‘makers’ and both lifestyles are valid in the sense that they lead to being able to ‘gain stuff’ – ie be successful in gaining resources for themselves and their offspring and therefore reproducing. When the ‘takers’ are very small in proportion they have an advantage as the thief is king in the land of the honest. But they cannot get too numerous or there is no-one to live off. An equilibrium results, with perhaps about 15% strong lefties.
What happened in the West is not that the takers got more numerous, but that modern wealthy society where (a) the state is very rich and controls our lives (b) the takers run the MSM, in these conditions the takers have taken over. It is like the parasite doing so well that in the end the host is destroyed.
In past centuries a different type of white person had the upper hand and they set the culture – not the takers, the makers, In the past, it was those who could win land by force and guard it – a type who has all the qualities that used to be admired by the culture, but which today are despised by the culture, so that such types today are shunned when government jobs are being filled.
So in the same way as the parasite can kill the host, in the same way the West is allowing those whites who hate it to run it ((and encouraged and financed by any other race that also seeks our downfall)).
Perhaps the reason the left hate the West is simply that this trait goes hand in hand with their ‘taker’ mentality – you need to hate the superior and view them as the enemy so that you can rape and pillage and steal and then sleep peacefully at night with no conscience to hinder you. To these white lefties, their own people are superior, they hate the superior due to their genes, so they hate their own people. As this hatred is in their genes, the only solution if whites want to exist is for these anti-white whites who have these poison genes to be exiled to Africa – which they love anyway.
Based on the summer events of 2020, it appears black fragility is what should be reckoned with. Look at all the yard signs and countless messages posted in store windows. I keep imagining a Mr Rogers type consoling a fragile little child saying “you matter. you’re special. Yes, you matter.”
I doubt that many people are buying her book. Libraries buy books through the American Library Association that pays the author royalties. I think the demand is manufactured. It’s a scam.