Implicit Whiteness

Lee Siegel: The Horror of Implicit Whiteness

/178 Comments/in , , , /by

Lee Siegel

At TOO we often use the phrase “hostile elite” to describe our new, predominantly Jewish elite that has become ensconced in all the media high ground in America. Examples are legion, but it is hard to imagine a more blatant recent example of fear and loathing of White America than Lee Siegel’s “What’s race got to do with it?” (Well, maybe Rabbi Hammerman’s outburst against Tim Tebow comes close.) Published in the most mainstream of the mainstream media, the New York Times, Siegel is horrified by Romney’s Whiteness:

 The simple, impolitely stated fact is that Mitt Romney is the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory. Of course, I’m not talking about a strict count of melanin density. I’m referring to the countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways he telegraphs to a certain type of voter that he is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president. It is a whiteness grounded in a retro vision of the country, one of white picket fences and stay-at-home moms and fathers unashamed of working hard for corporate America.

Mitt Romney the candidate of implicit Whiteness. Read more

The Empire Attacks Ron Paul

/162 Comments/in , /by

The Iowa  vote is fast approaching, and with a possibility that Ron Paul could come out on top, the media is in full-fledged attack mode. Following pieces in The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, and the LA Times (pop quiz: What do these media outlets have in common?), the New York Times chimes in with “Paul Disowns Extremists’ Views but Doesn’t Disavow the Support,” by Jim Rutenberg and Serge F. Kovaleski. The goal is to link Paul to Don Black, Willis Carto, and, most of all, David Duke. The formula is simple: Start with a couple of old, fairly innocuous  old items from the Ron Paul Survival Report—including a concern about car-jackings by “urban youth” that ends by warning that “the animals are coming”;  and “a lament about ‘The Disappearing White Majority.” It then veers into some writing by Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell that did not appear in Ron Paul’s newsletter but has the virtue of linking Paul’s libertarianism with David Duke:

Mr. Rothbard called for a “Right Wing Populism,” suggesting that the campaign for governor of Louisiana by David Duke, the founder of the National Association for the Advancement of White People, was a model for “paleolibertarianism.”

“It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleolibertarians,” he wrote.

Arguing that too many libertarians were embracing a misplaced egalitarianism, Mr. Rockwell wrote in Liberty magazine: “There is nothing wrong with blacks preferring the ‘black thing.’ But paleolibertarians would say the same about whites preferring the ‘white thing’ or Asians the ‘Asian thing.’ ” Read more

Jamie Kelso at CPAC: Rights versus Interests

/295 Comments/in , , /by

Jamie Kelso’s experience at CPAC, on video here, shows how far we are from changing the rhetoric about race and immigration.

CPAC is sponsored by the American Conservative Union which claims it “represents the views of Americans who are concerned with economic growth through lower taxes and reduced government spending and the issues of liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values and national security.” But, whatever traditional values may be supported by the conference attendees, there is no evidence in the video that preserving White America is among them. Read more

More evidence for the racialization of American politics

/37 Comments/in , , /by

Some recent results of the November election amplify the theme of racialization of American politics that has been a theme at TOO for some time (e.g., here). Ron Brownstein’s “White Flight” has some familiar themes. 60% of Whites voted Republican (actually higher because the 60% includes Jews and Middle Easterners classified as White but who identify with the non-White coalition centered in the Democratic Party). Meanwhile, 73% of non-White voters backed Democratic House candidates, showing that non-Whites are even more biased in the direction of Democrats than Whites are in the direction of Republicans. Attitudes toward Obama were slightly more skewed.

Reflecting White anxiety about a non-White future, “minorities were almost exactly twice as likely as whites to say that life would be better for the next generation than for their own; whites were considerably more likely to say that it would be more difficult.”

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Becoming a minority could hardly be thought of as improving one’s life chances—indeed, it may be a whole lot worse even than current voters anticipate given that so many non-Whites hold historical grudges against the traditional people and culture of America. Read more

Racial Conflict and the Health Care Bill

/21 Comments/in , , , , /by

Of all the op-ed writers in the MSM these days, Ronald Brownstein seems most aware of the emerging racial fault lines in American politics — which means that his work has been a rich lode of material for my blog (see The looming racial chasm and Further Evidence for the Racial Polarization of American Politics).

His latest column (“Dems caught in populist crossfire“) gets at the racial nexus of the health care debate. Despite intensive attempts by the Democrats to pitch the health care bill as benefiting the middle class, White people don’t buy it. Most Whites (52%) think the law will benefit poor people, but only one-third think it will help the country and only 20% think it will help them. On the other hand, much higher percentages of non-Whites think that it will help them and help the country.

Further, he cites more evidence that White people are starting to believe in the Sam Francis analysis, as colored by contemporary events: The country is ruled by an elite of very wealthy people who created the financial disaster and are now benefiting from the government’s bailouts. While wealth is going steadily upward and increasing the gap with the middle class, the White middle class and the White working class are increasingly alienated and angry because wealth is going to non-White minorities at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Indeed, physical threats and vandalism directed against lawmakers in the wake of the bill’s passage has drawn the attention of the media and the political class. White rage has been a theme ever since Obama became president, but the temperature continues to rise.

Democrats are doing all they can to change public perceptions of the bill, but “skepticism that government will ever deliver for them is bred in the bone for many white voters, especially those in the working class.” Exactly. And it’s difficult to see how the Democrats are going to change that when these are the same people who want to legalize millions of mainly poor non-White immigrants who will then legally import tens of millions of their impoverished relatives — all of whom will then qualify for benefits like healthcare paid for mainly by White people.

These trends show once again that people are unwilling to contribute to public goods like government health care when the so many of the recipients who benefit the most are ethnically different than themselves. Liberals wring their hands and talk about how the White working class is not voting its economic interests, but these White people are definitely acting in tune with their ethnic interests, if only implicitly. Only a brain dead Marxist still worshiping at the altar of class warfare could fail to see that the political fault lines are fast becoming based on race, not social class. The fact that the Obama administration is widely and correctly seen as having rammed this down the throats of the American public is only going to make the anger more intense. November should be very interesting indeed.

America is entering the age when it will obvious to everyone that the much advertised era of racial harmony isn’t going to happen and that we are faced with an ever escalating if undeclared race war. It is a good sign that Whites seem to be realizing that the forces arrayed against them are a wealthy elite in alliance with a racially alien, predominantly poor underclass. In fact, the forces arrayed against Whites are even more starkly racial than that. The backbone of the Democratic Party is a coalition of  non-Whites — an alliance that includes a large Black and Latino underclass, as well as middle class and elite non-Whites, most importantly a large contingent of wealthy Jews and Jews with influence on the media.

The big picture is that beginning with Jewish intellectual movements — particularly the Frankfurt School, Jews have rejected a traditional Marxist analysis and began to see the White middle and working class as their enemy. After all, these classes had not embraced a communist revolution but had joined the fascist movement in Germany.

It is encouraging that polls indicate that Whites are aware that the elites are arrayed against them. It is a short step for them to develop an explicit understanding that Jews are vastly overrepresented among this elite, not only in the financial sector that created the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression and continues to benefit from the bailouts, but also in the elite media that promotes non-White immigration, rationalizes the multicultural status quo, and religiously avoids the topic of Jewish influence.  And they will become explicitly aware that wealthy Jews are the financial backbone of the Democratic Party and its coalition of non-White minorities.

With the failure of the traditional Marxist analysis, Jewish intellectuals became aware that racial and ethnic conflict is the name of the game. The post-WWII commitment of the organized Jewish community to massive non-White immigration in all Western countries is really an acknowledgment that it is, after all, a race war. It has taken some time, but it seems that White people are catching onto this as well, if only implicitly. Control of the cultural high ground by this hostile ethnic elite creates enormous barriers to making explicit the reality of racial conflict that is at the heart of the current political culture. But if very large percentages of Whites coalesce together politically, even if it is in the corrupt Republican Party, the reality of racial conflict will be simply too obvious for anyone to ignore. And then it will get really interesting.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Attention, NRA Members: It Isn't Just 'Liberals' Out For Your Guns

/33 Comments/in , /by

Christopher Donovan:  I receive “American Hunter”, a monthly publication of the NRA (along with “American Rifleman”, which is much of the same editorial material).  Its political writer is one Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s lobbying arm.  Cox does a pretty thorough job of reporting the details of anti-gun efforts in the United States, and his most recent target is Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City.  I can’t seem to find a web version (send me an e-mail if you find a link), but the special report in the April 2010 issue is headlined “Bloomberg to Obama:  Take ‘Federal Action’ on Guns”.  He emphasizes that Bloomberg is putting his own enormous wealth behind the agenda for firearm restrictions.

Nowhere, of course, does Cox mention that Bloomberg (or Frank Lautenberg, or Frank Luntz, or any of his allies) is Jewish.  (Amusingly, the illustration in “American Rifleman” shows a puppetmaster Bloomberg pulling the strings on various federal officials — the puppetmaster is a recurring illustrative theme of Jewish power.)  But the ethnic motivations here are too overwhelming not to mention.  Bloomberg, like many Jews, views guns as the nasty tools wielded by potentially anti-Semitic whites, who must be divested of this irrational vestige of white power.  That’s what makes him a “man possessed”, as Cox puts it.

Meanwhile, I attribute much of the force behind the gun rights movement to implicit whiteness.  Conservative, male and/or rural whites have had pretty much everything else stripped away from them, and hanging on to guns is a way for them to channel frustration and “make a last stand.”  So far, it’s worked.  A white man can be as full-throated as he wants on the gun issue, and nobody can call him a “racist.”

I don’t really see any other explanation.  The truth is that guns are inanimate objects, and I don’t see much danger of hunting rifles being banned.  In an all-white society, some sort of restriction on firearms probably wouldn’t be seen as controversial.  There would not, for instance, be the need for a handgun in case a black home invader broke in.

It’s the race issue that motivates the gun issue.  The racial and ethnic conflicts that we aren’t allowed to hash out directly are instead channeled into a proxy war:  rich and powerful Jews on the one side, conservative whites on the other.  We need more whites to understand this.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Race Bias and Conception Risk: Implicit and Explicit Whiteness in Action

/51 Comments/in , , , /by

A recent article in a top psychology journal (“Race Bias Tracks Conception Risk Across the Menstrual Cycle” shows that women have more race bias when they are most at risk for conception. Further, it shows that race bias is even stronger if the woman feels more vulnerable to sexual coercion.

The study once again shows a difference between implicit and explicit race bias. Implicit bias is unconscious. Implicit bias was shown by subjects taking longer to associate negative words like ‘horrible’ or ‘evil’ with photos of Whites than with photos of Blacks. (You can take a similar test here to see if you have implicit biases toward Blacks; around 80% of Whites do)  The study is saying that White women are more likely to have unconscious negative thoughts about Blacks when they are ovulating and this is especially the case if they think they are vulnerable to being raped.

Explicit bias, on the other hand, is assessed by rating how strongly subjects endorse negative racial stereotypes of Blacks (e.g., ‘‘Generally, Blacks are not as smart as Whites’’; ‘‘It is likely that Blacks will bring violence to neighborhoods when they move in’’). People tend to give more socially acceptable answers on race bias items compared to their unconscious, implicit attitudes.

Usually the differences between conscious and unconscious race bias are very large — especially for liberals. Liberals are supreme hypocrites when it comes to race. My favorite is the White affirmative action officer at a university who was horrified to find that she had strong unconscious biases toward Blacks.  Unconscious biases have been shown to have subtle effects on behavior.

What was surprising here was that these White women were also more likely to explicitly endorse negative stereotypes of Blacks when they were ovulating. The effect was weaker than for unconscious attitudes, but it was in the same direction and nearly as strong as for unconscious attitudes — what statisticians call a trend.

In other words, the hormones that make them ovulate are also making them less politically correct. Their unconscious negative attitudes about Blacks are more likely to leak out in their conscious opinions. The primitive brain wins out over the politically correct censor in the higher part of the brain, so that they become more conscious of their negative attitudes toward Blacks. They would therefore be better able to consciously plan ways to avoid them.

The other two tests of race bias were also quite explicit. In fact, the strongest single predictor of conception risk was explicitly stated fear of Black males. The subjects rated how “scary” photos of Black men and White men were. In general, these White women found photos of Black men scarier around the time they are ovulating — especially if they feel vulnerable to rape.

This shows that despite all the propaganda to the contrary, White women retain defensive attitudes — both consciously and unconsciously — about Blacks as potential rapists. The authors suggest that this psychological mechanism may work by being sensitive to the stereotype that Blacks are dangerous. In other words, White women’s evolutionary psychology is making them behave adaptively based on the stereotype that Blacks are more likely to rape. It works by making them avoid Black men, especially if they are ovulating and especially if they are in a situation where there is a danger of rape. And it is making them more conscious of the real threats posed by Black men and less likely to suppress these attitudes in order to be socially acceptable.

Of course, the stereotype has more than a grain of truth: The 2005 FBI Uniform Crime Report show that though Blacks are only 12.4% of the US population, they commit 33.6% of the rapes of White females.

Bookmark and Share