The Charge of White Racism

Friends of Rape: How Feminist Liberals Help Sex-Crime to Flourish

Deafeningly. That’s how liberals would have reacted if the victims in Rotherham had been Pakistani, the rapists White and the cover-up organized by the Conservative party and its allies in the right-wing media. If the scandal had been like that, the Guardian would have boiled with righteous wrath and indignation: “The horror of it. At least 1,400 victims subject to sixteen years of rape, torture and degradation. These right-wing officials and journalists should be put on trial for their active, wilful complicity in these racist atrocities. Then we should lock them up and throw away the key.”

I think it would have gone something like that. But alas for liberals, it wasn’t evil right-ringers who were complicit in the horrors of Rotherham: it was golden-hearted liberals. Which political party gave rape-gangs the go-ahead year after year? Not the Conservatives or the British National Party, but feminist Labour, champions of the poor and vulnerable. Which newspaper dictated the multi-culti, rape-friendly politics of left-wing councillors and social workers in Rotherham? Not the Daily Mail or the Times, but the feminist Guardian, that staunch opponent of sex-crimes and patriarchal oppression. And you don’t have to take my word about the Guardian’s role in more than a decade of rapes, beatings and psychological torture:

Labour MPs: Left ignored sex abuse

A culture of Left-wing political correctness led politicians and officials to ignore the plight of young girls who were being sexually abused by Asian men, Labour figures have warned. Ann Cryer, an MP from 1997 until 2010, told The Sunday Telegraph how she had feared being called “racist” when, in 2002, she exposed a sex-abuse scandal involving Pakistani men in her constituency of Keighley, West Yorkshire. A “politically correct Left just saw it as racism”, she said.

At the same time, Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, revealed that even now some of his colleagues disapproved of his efforts to uncover child abuse, because some were “obsessing about multiculturalism”. It follows the exposure last week of the scale of child sexual abuse in Rotherham. An inquiry estimated that at least 1,400 girls as young as 11 were assaulted and raped by gangs of Asian men over a period of 16 years. Some had guns pointed at them or were doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight. Mrs Cryer recalled how there was a politically correct Left that saw her fight as racism. “At the time I was dealing with this, 2002-04, political correctness was playing a big part. The Guardian at that time hardly mentioned these things… because it was so politically correct.” (Labour MPs: Left ignored sex abuse, The Daily Telegraph, 30th Aug 2014)

Read more

Is Tom Wolfe a Race Realist? Part 3 of 3


Part 1; Part 2.

Mauve Gloves & Madmen, Clutter & Vine, a collection of short fiction and non-fiction, includes a very sympathetic portrait of US pilots operating over North Vietnam during the years 1965 to 1967. But by far the most notable essay in the book is, “The Me Decade and the Third Great Awakening,” Wolfe’s critique of the Baby Boom generation, the Me Generation. The Baby Boomers have been rightly criticized for being self-absorbed to the point of narcissism; though subsequent cohorts have not been more virtuous. It is worth quoting at length from this essay, for Wolfe exhibits his conservative bona fides as he faults Baby Boomers for discarding what he describes as the “age-old belief in serial immortality.”

The husband and wife who sacrifice their own ambitions and their material assets in order to provide a ‘better future’ for their children … the soldier who risks his life or perhaps consciously sacrifices it, in battle … the man who devotes his life to some struggle for ‘his people’ that cannot possibly be won in his lifetime … people (or most of them) who buy life insurance or leave wills … are people who conceive of themselves, however unconsciously, as part of a great biological stream. Just as something of their ancestors lives on in them, so will something of them live on in their children … or in their people, their race, their community – for childless people, too, conduct their lives and try to arrange their postmortem affairs with concern for how the great stream is going to flow on. Most people, historically, have not lived their lives as if thinking, ‘I have only one life to live.’ Instead, they have lived as if they are living their ancestors’ lives and their offsprings’ lives and perhaps their neighbors’ lives as well. They have seen themselves as inseparable from the great tide of chromosomes of which they are created and which they pass on. The mere fact that you were only going to be here a short time and would be dead soon enough did not give you the license to try to climb out of the stream and change the natural order of things. The Chinese, in ancestor worship, have literally worshipped the great tide itself, and not any god or gods. For anyone to renounce the notion of serial immortality, in the West or the East, has been to defy what seems like a law of nature.[1] (Ellipses in original)

Read more

Profits of Hate: The SPLC goes for the gold in the Sikh Temple Shooting

As soon as authorities identified the alleged culprit in the Sikh Temple shooting spree near Milwaukee, which left six worshipers dead, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) wasted no time capitalizing on the tragedy.


Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich, the dynamic duo of “hate,” fanned out across the airwaves after a search of the SPLC “database” struck gold.

Wade Michael Page, identified by police as the alleged shooter, was no ordinary tattooed musician or gang member. Page wasn’t merely a disgruntled bigot, but a “frustrated” neo-Nazi skinhead who led his own “racist white-power band.” According to Potok and Beirich, “we have been following him since 2000” when he attended “Hammer Fest” — described as the Lollapalooza of skinheads.

The profile of the shooter wasn’t the garden-variety sociopath, such as the alleged Aurora, Colorado, shooter James Eagan Holmes, or Jared Loughner, who recently pleaded guilty to murder charges in the Tuscon, Arizona, shooting that injured Rep. Gabby Giffords, or Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech mass-murderer who single handedly killed 32 and injured 25 others on April 16, 2007.

Under surveillance supposedly for a dozen years, the alleged Sikh killer was a known entity. He was, according to Potok, a major player on the skinhead “scene.”

Not to be outdone by the SPLC, the ADL posted a photo of Page in front of a Nazi flag. The ever-vigilant monitors of “hate” were busy feeding news organizations what they wanted to hear: this alleged killer was special, a lone-wolf terrorist on a hateful killing spree. He may indeed have been just that, but thus far the authorities have been unable to substantiate the shooter’s motive. Read more

The Usual Suspects Angered by Pat Buchanan’s Appearance on James Edward’s Radio Show

Pat Buchanan, always a gentleman, refuses to back down when asked by NPR about his most recent appearance on The Political Cesspool Radio Program. (See also the current TOO featured video for the entire interview.) Note especially Pat’s unintimidated response to the interviewer’s point that ADL head Abe Foxman condemned the interview: “I think there’s an awful lot of smearing being done by the Anti-Defamation League frankly over the years of individuals who simply disagree with them maybe about U.S. policy toward Israel.” Exactly. As Joe Sobran famously said, these days anti-Semites are people that Jews don’t like.

In the meantime, the story of Pat’s latest interview with us is quickly becoming a top news story. Here is one example, from Huffington Post:

African American political advocacy group Color Of Change has called for MSNBC to fire longtime analyst (and even longer-time lightning rod) Pat Buchanan for what it called his “white supremacist ideology.”

The advocacy group sent petition letters to its members on Tuesday. The letter said that MSNBC gives Buchanan a platform to pass off his often loaded remarks as “legitimate mainstream political commentary.”

While Color of Change cited comments made by Buchanan from as early as March 2008, the advocacy group highlighted Buchanan’s new book “Suicide Of A Superpower” and a Saturday appearance on the controversial radio show “The Political Cesspool” (whose host has described his ideology as “pro-white”) as current reasons the network should fire Buchanan.

“Buchanan has just published a book which says that increasing racial diversity is a threat to this country and will mean the ‘End of White America.’ This weekend, to promote his book, he went on a white supremacist radio show…” read the “Fire Pat Buchanan” petition letter.

Buchanan also appeared on NPR’s “The Diane Rehm Show” on Tuesday and further discussed his new book and radio show appearance on “Political Cesspool.”

He defended his decision to visit the radio show and asked “Am I supposed to go and vet all the people on these shows and get the list from [Anti-Defamation League chief] Abe Foxman on what shows I can go on to?”

Make no mistake, friends, in today’s political climate, false accusations such as “white supremacist,” “racist,” and “anti-Semite,” simply mean “unapologetic conservative white person.” These are just intimidating words that are employed to try and make folks like me, who liberals truly hate, go away. I wrote a book about this concept. Read more

Kyle Kusz on Andre Agassi

In a previous blog I commented on Kyle Kusz’s cultural Marxist analysis of White males in extreme sports. I can’t resist also commenting on Kusz’s outrageous discussion of another one of those oppressive White athletes, Andre Agassi. After Agassi’s redemption as an athlete (where he turned his career around after a long stretch of not taking tennis seriously), Kusz claims that Agassi’s later image of “white masculinity is implicitly invested in notions of personal responsibility, sovereignty, self-determination and the disavowal of structural privileges of any kind. … His response to his episode of suffering [during the period when he was a tennis underachiever] enabled the fantasy of extraordinary will and limitless energy of white men ” (p. 56).

In other words, Agassi’s personal determination to get his tennis career back on track counts for nothing. His career magically got back on track because he was able to take advantage of structural privileges only accorded to White men. Just being White allows one to overcome all obstacles. Hey Kusz: Know any White guys, even rich White guys, who have failed despite all their structural privileges? Read more

James Edwards’ "Racism Schmacism: How Liberals Use the ‘R’ Word to Push the Obama Agenda"

James Edwards is becoming a very important force in the movement for White advocacy. He hosts the The Political Cesspool, a weekly 3-hour radio show where he interviews a range of personalities on their ideas (including me on more than one occasion). And he has become a director of the American Third Position, a political party that aims makes an explicit appeal to White identity and White interests.

James is exactly the kind of young person who is making a big difference for our cause. He is articulate and well-informed.

Now James has come out with Racism, Schmacism, an important book cataloging the ways that White people are intimidated by the charge of racism. This fear makes people like John McCain rather lose an election than be called a racist for bringing up unpleasant things about Obama:

John McCain lost, and he lost badly, because he decided it was better to lose the election than to be called a racist, no matter how unfounded the charges. So he went around denouncing people associated with his campaign who dared refer to Barack Hussein Obama by his legal name, and he denounced an ad run by a state GOP group that featured Jeremiah Wright screaming “God damn America!” And what good did it do him? Not a bit. All the cowardice he displayed in a desperate attempt to avoid being called the “R-word” was for nothing.

As you can see from this passage, Racism Schmacism is well-written. Very entertaining. But also very fact-based. There are numerous references to news events and articles if readers are interested in further information.

The book recounts a series of incidents that collectively show that White Americans have become cowering fools, terrified of being labeled a racist. There’s Keith Sampson, “one of the most vicious and despicable racists in the United States. In fact, Keith Sampson is so filled with vile racism that he couldn’t keep it to himself, but had to shove his hate down the throats of his black co-workers” by reading a scholarly book on how the University of Notre Dame defeated the Ku Klux Klan during the 1920s.

There are also hilarious accounts of Whites caving in to political correctness — hilarious if they didn’t show the depths to which White people have sunk in their abject, craven cowardliness. The federal “hate crime” investigation into the kid who ate a ham sandwich in school. The mayor who prohibited White police officers from eating bananas on duty.

But this fear of offending aggrieved minorities and other darlings of political correctness has very real consequences. It is the ultimate weapon of the left, and Edwards shows that it is being used to shut down free speech. Organizations like the $PLC and the ADL use the ‘r’ word very liberally to prevent the expression of ideas they don’t like. As he notes, “an ever-increasing number of articles in law reviews and academic journals make the argument that the First Amendment doesn’t protect ‘hate speech.’”

In the end, you are racist just by being White—it really doesn’t matter what you say or do:

Folks, you will never be able to understand politics and culture in today’s America unless you grasp this fundamental truth at the root of more and more political and cultural battles in this country: A racist is a white person.

Racist equals white person, and white person equals racist.

All white people are racist, and they’re always racist, and they will always be racist.


Write that down in your day planner, make a note of it on your Blackberry or iPhone, put little sticky notes all over your house, or whatever you have to do until this message sinks in. Because until you grasp this, less and less of what’s going on in this country will make any sense at all, and you’ll be at the mercy of the liberal mainstream media, aggressive and hostile racial pressure groups, and white liberals (who are deluding themselves by thinking they’re not racists.)

This book, while entertainingly written, has a deadly point. White people will be utterly defeated unless they can summon the courage to adopt an explicit identity as White people and an explicit concern about White interests.  We have to get over being terrified of being called a racist.

The fact is that everyone has ethnic interests — including people of European descent. A great many other identifiable groups in multicultural America have a strong sense of ethnic identity and interest. Only White people cower in fear of asserting their racial identity and interests.

Jewish groups have been very positive about the recent study showing that Judaism is much more than a religion but that Jews constitute a biological descent group. An article in the Forward crows “We Are One Genetically.” And, as everyone knows, Jews have a strong sense of their interests in maintaining an ethnostate. But Jewish activist organizations have been very effective in repulsing attempts to label Jews as racists. And Jews are completely unperturbed by being called racists. All this while at the same time leading the charge against White America.

We have to be able to do stand up proudly and explicitly assert our White identity and White interests. James Edwards’ book is definitely a step in the right direction. Information on the book can be obtained by clicking on this link, or click here to buy directly.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Those Dreaded All-White Juries, Again

Christopher Donovan: To follow the path of the White advocate is to encounter, every so often, situations of unremarked absurdity that make you want to scream.  First, for the absurdity itself.  And second, for the fact that nobody seems to notice the absurdity.

The media drumbeat against the “all-white jury” is one such situation.  The New York Times is now weighing in again, accusing prosecutors in the South of wrongfully excluding Blacks from juries.  Of course, reporter Shaila Dewan never bothers to mention that defense lawyers want Blacks ON the jury for reasons that mirror why prosecutors want them OFF.

The story itself is a farce.  Dewan mocks a prosecutor for calling one potential Black juror unsophisticated for spelling “Wal-Mart” as “Wal-marts.”  Really?  A New York Times reporter doesn’t consider that a sign of unsophistication?  It’s pretty easy to imagine Ms. Dewan attributing unsophistication to a White person for doing the same thing.

On this thin reed, Dewan then opines that “Arguments like these were used for years to keep Blacks off juries in the segregationist South, systematically denying justice to Black defendants and victims.”  Were they, really?  This particular line is both sweepingly unsupported and oddly rhetorical.  But precision is never the order of the day when the press deals with race.

Dewan lines up her SPLC-type sources one after the other, never bothering to reach out to anyone but the prosecutor himself for a different take — and knowing full well he can’t talk.  I guess this is what Spiro Agnew meant when he called the press “a gang of cruel faggots.”

Sigh.  Allow me to reiterate my point.  It’s total hypocrisy for Blacks to complain about the exclusion of Blacks from juries because their motivations for doing so are based on the same generalizations as those made by prosecutors.  They know — as well as prosecutors — that Blacks don’t convict Blacks.  Therefore, Black defendants want them on juries, and prosecutors don’t.  It’s that simple.  Same analysis, different conclusion.  Is this really a quest for “justice”, or a quest for a legal victory, no matter the facts?

Why won’t the press ever look into THAT?  If it’s a big racist lie that Blacks are predictable in their behavior as jurors, wouldn’t the press be rushing to tell us so?

And does the press ever wonder why Blacks are such frequent defendants that this is even an issue?

And does the press ever wonder whether the Black defendant did, in fact, commit the crime charged?

And does the press ever stop to wonder whether it’s being racist against whites by casually assuming that no “all-White jury” could ever render a fair verdict?

I’d love to ask Shaila Dewan these questions, but I’m pretty sure she won’t be taking my call.

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

Bookmark and Share