Implicit Whiteness

The Tea Party and the GOP: Heading for Divorce

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, William A. Galston makes some points that reinforce the still expanding racial fault lines in America (“The Tea Party and the GOP Crackup“) noted in my previous post. The take home message is that there is a rift between (White) Tea Party Republican base representing traditional American conservative rural and small town values versus corporate America and the emerging non-White majority. As always the rhetoric does not explicitly mention race, but it’s looming in the background like the proverbial 800-lb. gorilla. Tea Party Republicans are in the Jacksonian tradition of American politics.

Jacksonians care … passionately about the Second Amendment …. They are suspicious of federal power, skeptical about do-gooding at home and abroad; they oppose federal taxes but favor benefits such as Social Security and Medicare that they regard as earned. Jacksonians are anti-elitist; they believe that the political and moral instincts of ordinary people are usually wiser than those of the experts ….

These Republicans believe that their country has been taken away from them. They are

aroused, angry and above all fearful, in full revolt against a new elite—backed by the new American demography—that threatens its interests and scorns its values.

That’s the crux of the problem in a nutshell. The new hostile elite that has been ascendant since the 1960s has solidified its power by importing a new people—people who want big government, high levels of government services, more immigrants that look like themselves, and who care nothing for the traditional people and culture of America.

Galston points out that most Tea Partiers think that minorities get too much attention from government; 65% view immigrants as a burden on the country. Contrary to elite opinion, they are better educated than the general population and are more likely to be middle class (50%) or upper-middle-class (15%). They are socially conservative on issues like gay marriage. Many are small businessmen who abhor high taxes and government regulation. They have strong economic reasons to oppose the current trend.

Galston concludes:

It’s no coincidence that the strengthening influence of the tea party is driving a wedge between corporate America and the Republican Party. It’s hard to see how the U.S. can govern itself unless corporate America pushes the Republican establishment to fight back against the tea party—or switches sides.

The problem is that corporate America is part of the hostile elite—with a globalist outlook, favoring policies that gut the US labor market and highly susceptible to lawsuits by activists and race hustlers if they deviate in the least from the path of righteousness as defined by the diversitycrats. They are not going to switch sides. Indeed, corporate America is a major employer of diversitycrats.

And so much of the really big corporate-derived money in the Republican party comes from ethnically motivated members of the hostile elite, like the Republican Jewish Coalition (which supports gay marriage and the immigration surge) and Sheldon Adelson in particular. According to ProPublica, Adelson donated at least $98 million and perhaps as much as $150 million to Republican candidates and causes in the last election cycle, mainly motivated by his obsession with Israel. This is the highest total for any individual in American history. But Adelson is no fan of anything remotely resembling Tea Party attitudes.  VDARE’s Patrick Cleburne notes that Adelson describes himself as a “social liberal” in favor of “socialized-type” health care. Definitely not a Tea Partier.

So we have one part of the Republican Party that is furious that their country is being taken away from them, while the other part—the one with most of the money—is actively involved in their dispossession.

This is not a marriage made in heaven. Again, the Tea Party Republicans are “aroused, angry and above all fearful.” In fact, it looks to me like fertile ground for an implicitly White third party. Republican votes, if not Republican money, come from its Tea Party base. A third party with such a Tea Party platform  may not win given that the hostile elite has imported a new electorate opposed to everything the Tea Party holds dear. But when it’s obvious that they can’t win, that’s what revolutions and secessions are made of.

Implicit Whiteness Sightings: Shutting Down the Government and Talk of Secession

Always quick to spot a racial angle that they think will put White people in a bad light, there has been quite a bit of comment on the racial angle to the government shutdown/debt ceiling crisis. The New Yorker came up with “Where the GOP suicide caucus lives,” the point of which is that the Congresspeople who are shutting down the government are from rural areas where pretty much everyone is White. Here’s where the villains live:


While the most salient demographic fact about America is that it is becoming more diverse, Republican districts actually became less diverse in 2012. According to figures compiled by The Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman, a leading expert on House demographics who provided me with most of the raw data I’ve used here, the average House Republican district became two percentage points more white in 2012.

The members of the suicide caucus live in a different America from the one that most political commentators describe when talking about how the country is transforming. The average suicide-caucus district is seventy-five per cent white, while the average House district is sixty-three per cent white. Latinos make up an average of nine per cent of suicide-district residents, while the over-all average is seventeen per cent. The districts also have slightly lower levels of education (twenty-five per cent of the population in suicide districts have college degrees, while that number is twenty-nine per cent for the average district). …

In short, these eighty members represent an America where the population is getting whiter, where there are few major cities, where Obama lost the last election in a landslide, and where the Republican Party is becoming more dominant and more popular. Meanwhile, in national politics, each of these trends is actually reversed. Read more

What the Immigration Debate Really Should Be About

Editor’s note: It strikes me that until we talk explicitly about racial/ethnic genetic interests, we cannot win. The 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was based on an explicit assertion of an ethnic status quo which assumed that each group currently in the country had an interest in maintaining their ethnic representation. The Boasian attack on the concept of race, continuing now as an article of faith among all elites in the West, is the most powerful weapon against White interests and the continuation of the West as anything remotely resembling the civilization of a particular people. This consensus against mentioning White racial interests is vigorously policed in the media, the political arena, and even in most positions of employment.  Ted Sallis argues that, as the result of losing this battle, conservatives launch a host of arguments, many of which are likely veiled attempts to retain White demographic predominance; but these arguments will inevitably fail.  When conservatives bewail what has happened while at the same they time reject Darwinism, they should realize that it was the successful attack on Darwinism that is the greatest intellectual disaster for Whites and their civilization. Kevin MacDonald

I have previously written about the ongoing immigration amnesty travesty.  Since that essay, there have been some stirrings of rebellion against the Establishment’s promotion of immigrant interests vs. that of native White Americans.  These stirrings have not yet been particularly effective.  However, regardless of the ultimate outcome regarding this legislation, I note that the arguments on both sides strictly hold to aracial concerns.  It seems that no one is “getting it.”  Let’s take a look at some of the common immigration arguments, particularly from the anti-amnesty side, and evaluate why they ultimately miss the point. Read more

Implicitly White themes in “The Hobbit”


bag end

The Hobbit is a bit long, and some of the scenes could have been edited down. But I am not really complaining. It held my interest. The only thing is that it has a sort of “one thing after another for no good reason” feel—the result of a lot of padding needed to make a trilogy of movies out of a short novel. But when you look at the garbage put out by Hollywood, The Hobbit is certainly most welcome.

There are a lot of good things here. You have to marvel at the 3-D magic and computer graphics, especially in the fighting and chase scenes. Of course, I am relatively unjaded when it comes to computer graphics in movies because I am rarely inspired to enter the enemy-controlled territory of the local cinema.

There are some really beautiful scenes set in the forests, fields, and mountains of New Zealand. The scene with Gollum and Bilbo Baggins, set in an underground lake, is hauntingly beautiful—with rocky crags and still, dark waters, illuminated as if by the moon. Read more

What’s up with Alex Jones?

How fortuitous.  Just the other day I had resolved to write about radio show host Alex Jones on this blog. He’s the hyper-provocative host of I’ve only recently begun listening to his broadcasts and am stunned at what he’s getting away with.

Because I respect the background knowledge that so many TOO readers have exhibited, I intended my blog as an appeal for opinions and background on Jones.

Now Kevin MacDonald’s latest posting on Glenn Beck’s implicit anti-Semitism (National Review Fires Derbyshire) provides the perfect framework for my appeal. To wit: Is Alex Jones peddling anti-Semitism?

Let me explain.

I’ve long understood MacDonald’s discussions on implicit Whiteness, as I’m sure most readers have, too. MacDonald ties that to the recent spate of firings of media people who have made implicit appeals to White interests. He then adds:

However, appealing to implicit Whiteness, implicit race realism, and implicit anti-Semitism translates to good ratings, so we will continue to see this sort of programming directed at White audiences—programming that feeds into their very legitimate fears, frustrations, and anxieties, not only about the current state of affairs but also about their future in a society where Whites are no longer the majority.

MacDonald’s article is based on Richard Spencer’s comments  on the Derbyshire affair which include some very clear examples of implicit race realism:

The Blaze and Breitbart (Beck’s and Breitbart’s answers to the Huffington Post) have filled their webpages with salacious stories of various flash-mob attacks and general Black misbehavior. As I write (Sunday, April 8), the top story on The Blaze is about the New Black Panther Party’s call for a “race war.”

On the same night that Breitbart declared John Derbyshire to be a non-person for talking about the dangers of Blacks, its best-read story was one on a unsuspecting White Man who ventured into Black Baltimore and was attacked and stripped of all clothes and possession by a feral gang.

Refining it further, Spencer writes, “The new wave of conservatives, represented by Breitbart and Beck, have peddled implicit racism; they’ve made a great deal of money off implicit racism. But the trick only works if they shun and condemn anything approaching actual White Nationalism.” Read more

Policing the Media: National Review Fires John Derbyshire

Peter Brimelow has a wonderful article at, mentioning John Derbyshire’s firing from National Review and noting that

in the last few years, an astonishingly long list of MSM journalists have been eliminated because they challenge, or are thought to be about to challenge, the MSM’s Leftwing consensus—for example, Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan. Even Rush Limbaugh has come under attack.   (“Help Save Immigration Patriots From Living In “A State Of Constant Fear”!”)

Brimelow might have added  Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas, and now M. J. Rosenberg. Yes, Alan Dershowitz and the rest of the organized Jewish community (including the ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and “major Jewish leaders”) are rejoicing that Media Matters “separated itself” from Rosenberg, who was fond of calling the Israel Lobby “Israel Firsters.”

One can only imagine the pressure put on Media Matters, their contacts in the White House, and on Jewish donors like Penny Pritzker who are the backbone of funding for both the Democrats and Media Matters. For Media Matters, what goes around comes around: They have been influential in getting rid of people like Glenn Beck removed from Fox News by pressuring advertizers, but they cannot withstand the financial fallout of a campaign by Dershowitz to get rid of one of their own staffers for political reasons.

But the big recent story is Derbyshire, an articulate race realist. His critics on the left and among mainstream conservatives are horrified at what Derbyshire wrote, but routinely fail to rebut his ideas. Would even the most benighted liberals want their kids to violate Derbyshire’s rules on “statistical common sense”? I thought of Derbyshire when I read “Report shows widening gap between Ethiopian pupils and other Israelis.” We can expect to find similar stories in the U.S., on the children of Ethiopian immigrants, along with stories on how the schools are failing them.

I’d love to post Derbyshire’s race-realist stuff at TOO, but he’s not likely to want to publish here because we deal with Jewish issues. Race realism doesn’t imply realism when it comes to Jewish issues. I guess being a philosemite does not necessarily protect one from the forces of evil. Indeed, even being Jewish is no protection. As Alex Kurtagic notes, Robert Weissberg was quickly removed as a National Review contributor when it was found out that he had recently given a talk at the AmRen convention. Read more

The Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Affair: Enter the SPLC (and CSULB) Thought Police

Mark Potok of the SPLC apparently thinks that my comments on the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman affair present an opportunity to at last get me fired from  my position at CSULB (“Anti-Semitic California Prof Now Attacking Black People with Lies“). (Good grief! What a title! Potok could have written headlines for The Daily Worker.) This latest effort is part of a long campaign against me, dating back to 2006; and yes, Virginia, the $PLC should be seen as a Jewish activist organization.

I have indeed appeared on the David Duke radio show in recent weeks and intend to do so in the future. The SPLC continues the tired practice of labeling Duke “the ex-Klansman”—the usual guilt by association argument. After watching David Duke’s videos and reading his writings, I decided that I agree with the vast majority of what he is saying. His main mantra that he repeats at the beginning of every radio show is that all peoples have a right to a homeland and to have sense of peoplehood—what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism.” The problem, of course, is that only White people of European descent are enduring a suicidal wave of non-White immigration that will make them relatively powerless minorities in areas they have controlled for hundreds, and, in the case of Europe, many thousands of years.

As do I, Duke repeatedly calls attention to the hypocrisy involved in the mainstream Jewish community and activist organizations. In the Diaspora in the West they  advocate multiculturalism and massive non-White immigration, while steadfastly promoting Israel as a Jewish ethnostate where Jewish racialism is alive and well.

While people like Duke must live with the label of “ex-Klansman” in the mainstream media, supposedly reformed far left radicals and even terrorists like Bill Ayers are welcomed into polite society and have positions at prestigious universities.

In their attack on me, the SPLC exonerates Martin by noting that he had no juvenile criminal record. But let’s have a little common sense here. The Miami Herald (but not the New York Times or any other elite media)  (see “Multiple Suspensions Paint Complicated Portrait of Travvon Martin) reported that

the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called “irrelevant” and an attempt to demonize a victim. Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds. Trayvon was asked if the jewelry belonged to his family or a girlfriend. “Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend. Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery …

So you have a non-wealthy male high school student with a whole lot of valuable women’s  jewelry, no credible explanation of how he got it,  and what is described as a burglary tool in his backpack. I never said or wrote that he was convicted, but if you believe that Martin got the jewelry legitimately, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. It’s certainly legitimate to bring this up when addressing the issue of media bias in how it has presented Trayvon Martin.   (Now a neighbor of Zimmerman is saying that all eight recent robberies in the housing complex were committed by “young black males.” Hmmm.)