White Anger

Moving Video: "I am an Englishman"

Kevin MacDonald: There are a lot of good videos coming out. Just lately someone sent me a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJQMz-fZzC0 (now blocked on copyrighted content grounds) video with clips from Enoch Powell and one on how Muslims are taking over the streets of Paris with tacit collusion of the French government. (Relatedly, the LATimes has an op-ed on the looming threat that Muslims pose to free speech in America.)

But the video that really got to me was a dramatic video (has been removed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9_ZWzC9N98&feature=youtu.be) titled “I am an Englishman.”

This is the statement of an English patriot who is angry that the England he loves is being taken away from him–“we who have inhabited this island fortress for an unbroken thousand years.” He asks the question about the immigrants put by his patron, Enoch Powell: “What can they know of England?” A good question given that immigrants, most notably Muslim immigrants, are bent on retaining their own culture and view traditional English culture with scorn.

If this does not move you, you are incapable of being moved. And of course the same points may be made about all Western countries, including the US.

This is the kind of media that strikes a chord with everyone. If the mainstream media broadcast this sort of thing widely and sympathetically, it would ignite a revolution.

"A Corrosive Loss of Confidence"

Ron Brownstein’s latest suggests that a political crisis is on the horizon, spurred by the disaffection of White voters and possibly leading to revolutionary stirrings and a movement toward a third party (“A Corrosive Loss of Confidence“).

Even as voters prepare to send more Republicans to Washington, polls show that Americans are not enthusiastic about the GOP. Indeed, the arc of disillusionment spreads beyond the two parties to virtually every major American institution. If November’s election allowed Americans the opportunity to fire not only members of Congress, but also the nation’s entire public and private leadership class, they might take it. This deep, broad, and visceral discontent is a recipe for social and political volatility.

Whites are more alienated from both major parties than non-Whites. Brownstein proposes that this is solely due to the economic downturn. I suspect that White disaffection also involves racial anxiety about the non-White future. Non-Whites doubtless feel optimistic about the long term future in a White-minority America, even if their present circumstances are difficult.

There is an apocalyptic tone to Brownstein’s essay—a belief that our new elite is out of touch with the great majority of Americans, that revolution may be just around the corner, and that third parties may be swept into power:

If polls existed just before the French Revolution, they might have returned results such as these. They point toward a widely shared conviction that the country’s public and private leadership is protecting its own interest at the expense of average (and even comfortable) Americans.

Because he sees the economic downturn as central, Brownstein sees a successful third party as headed by “a non-politician with a problem-solver pedigree” who is seen as able to turn the economy around.

He may be right, but the American Third Position believes that a prime mover of White disaffection is racial anxiety—amplified by the recession and by the perception that elites are completely out of touch with the interests and attitudes of the great majority of Americans. Good examples of the latter are recent court rulings that nullify popular sentiment on issues like the Arizona immigration law and California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Indeed, today’s op-ed page in the  LA Times shows the divide: The pro-homosexual marriage piece piously defending the courts and the anti-homosexual marriage piece emphasizing the undemocratic nature of the ruling: The “people’s will” was violated.

There is a feeling of powerlessness–that even strong majorities don’t matter any more. And that is indeed what revolutions are made of.

Bookmark and Share

Hans Prinzhorn’s Aphorisms

The current TOO article is an introduction to the thought of Hans Prinzhorn, a German (“Leadership and the Vital Order: Selected Aphorisms by Hans Prinzhorn,” translated by Joseph D. Pryce). Quite a few of his ideas resonate with recent essays here. Perhaps most central is this:

We can hold out no hope whatever for the successful creation of the sort of community that is constructed by ideologists on the basis of purely rational considerations, for the projects that are hatched out in the mind of the rationalist are most definitely not analogous to the development of living forms in nature, no matter how often the contrary position has been proclaimed by false prophets.

Prinzhorn is warning about the creation of blueprints for society without any concern for human nature. In the language of current psychology, intellectuals have constructed various utopian scenarios, taking advantage of explicit processing and often ignoring our evolved psychology (my academic version is here; see particularly the Discussion section).

Prinzhorn is also quite aware that these blueprints for utopian societies are typically couched in moral terms, historically often with a large flavor of Christianity–“the nihilistic Will to Power that conceals its true nature behind the cloak of such humanitarian ideals as humility, solicitude for the weak, the awakening of the oppressed masses, the plans for universal happiness, and the fever-swamp vision of perpetual progress.” As noted especially with the Puritans and their descendants, these moral prescriptions have a unique appeal to Western peoples–an aspect of Western individualism and concomitant moral universalism.

Reflecting the concerns of his time, Prinzhorn is most concerned with socialism, seeing it as “demagogic assault on the part of the inferior rabble against the nobler type of human being.” In our time, the greatest concern is the invasion of traditionally White nations by massive numbers of non-Whites.

This raises an interesting issue:  White advocates tend to gloss over social class and  IQ differences among Whites, seeing Whites as having interests in common as Whites. National Socialism bridged this gap, seeing the society as an organic whole based ultimately on a long cultural tradition and shared biological kinship, while nevertheless preserving a hierarchical structure of inclusiveness for all social classes. Because of the appeal of National Socialism to the German working class, the left shifted gears: In the post-World War II era, the most influential intellectual movements (e.g., the Frankfurt School, the New York Intellectuals, and pretty much the entire intellectual left) have championed mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the dispossession of Whites.

It is no accident that the  White working class has suffered the most from these changes–or that they are the most angered by the current regime. Nor is it an accident that this shift toward White dispossession by the left was championed mainly by Jewish intellectual movements given the very strong overtones of anti-Semitism characteristic of National Socialism and its conception of society based on blood kinship with roots in traditional German culture.

The result is a new elite, substantially Jewish but with a considerable component of deracinated Whites–many of them people like the sociopathic Morris Dees whose championing of  “oppressed” non-Whites has paid off handsomely for himself (see Steve Sailer’s “Morris Dees’ Poverty Palace“).

The question now is whether this new utopia of multiculturalism premised on White dispossession will ultimately fail because of the lack of fit with our evolved psychology–as Prinzhorn suggests. The research strongly suggests that multi-ethnic societies have a number of built-in costs–particularly greater conflict, greater psychological alienation from the society as a whole, and less willingness to contribute to public goods like health care.

There are signs that the left is beginning to be aware that the utopian transformations they have in mind are not going to be easily achieved in the long run and that there is a backlash brewing from dispossessed Whites. Nevertheless, for the left there is no going back–only an increasing commitment to manage these tensions, by force if need be.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: Emerging White Identity

Kevin MacDonald: Kalefa Sanneh’s New Yorker review of several books on “Whiteness” (“Beyond the Pale: Is white the new black?”) opens with a quote from an academic labor historian that shows how far we have to go to develop a proud sense of being White and having interests as Whites:

In 1994, the white labor historian David R. Roediger published an incendiary volume, “Towards the Abolition of Whiteness.” Paying special attention to unions and strikes, he traced the unsteady growth of American whiteness, a category that eventually included many previous identities that had once been considered marginal: Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish. “It is not merely that whiteness is oppressive and false; it is that whiteness is nothing but oppressive and false,” he wrote. “Whiteness describes, from Little Big Horn to Simi Valley, not a culture but precisely the absence of culture. It is the empty and therefore terrifying attempt to build an identity based on what one isn’t and on whom one can hold back.”

That’s the kind of stuff that passes for academic wisdom these days — a combination of biological ignorance combined with self-hating moral outrage against Whites. The fact is that there is an undeniable biological reality to races as descent groups and as a vast storehouse of genetic interests. But that is not the whole story. There is also a strong cultural component: “To a large extent cultural influences result from conflicts of perceived interest and political infighting, and multiculturalists … [and anti-White fanatics like Roedinger] are experts at this game.  Indeed, the #1 way that culture influences our concept of race is the denial by the political left that there is any biological basis for race at all.”

Sanneh’s carries on this tradition that the White race is nothing but a social construction, agreeing that “whiteness was built over centuries on a foundation of deceit and confusion and disguised political imperatives.” Historically, it is doubtless the case that Whites have utilized the concept of Whiteness to their advantage in certain times and places — just as other groups have always done. But the main disguised political imperative in the contemporary world involving race is that the people who insist on the unreality of the White race typically have strong racial and ethnic identities of their own, and they use this ideology to advance their anti-White agenda.

But Sanneh’s view is more subtle. He proposes that this social construction of Whiteness is becoming a reality:

It’s getting easier to imagine an American whiteness that is less exceptional, less dominant, less imperial, and more conspicuous, an ethnicity more like the others. …  The history of human culture is the history of forgeries that become genuine, categories that people make and cannot simply unmake. So we should probably stop thinking of whiteness as an error, and start thinking of it, instead, as a work in progress. Historians have sometimes framed the treacherous history of whiteness as the slow death of an idea. Perhaps it’s time we start viewing it, instead, as the slow birth of a people.

In commenting on Sennah, Pat Buchanan stops short of seeing the emerging White consciousness in racial terms: “The coming conflict is not so much racial as it is cultural, political and tribal.”

But, unlike Sannah, Buchanan correctly sees that the birth of a White tribe will result in conflict. It’s not going to be pretty, especially given the deep historical grudges, economic envy, and desire for social dominance that characterize the emerging non-White minority coalition and apparent in some of the books Sannah reviews. Sanneh’s idea of the emerging White ethnicity as “less exceptional, less dominant, less imperial” implicitly envisions White people happily heading into the political sunset and accepting their lowered status in a utopian world of ethnic and racial harmony. As noted repeatedly on this website, this is wishful thinking with a vengeance. Whenever Whites have ceded power, they have been physically endangered.

But as we head into a new era of difficult times for White people as they are increasingly pushed aside while heading for minority status, we can take solace in Buchanan’s point that “Adversity and abuse increase the awareness of separate identity and accelerate the secession of peoples from each other.” Quite right.

The anger of the Tea Partiers is just the beginning.

Bookmark and Share

Bill Clinton hints at desire to see anti-government speech restricted

Political elites, especially among the liberals, are beginning to be quite worried about the White rage they see all around them. A good indication of the hysteria is that Joe Klein of TIME wants Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin indicted for inciting sedition, and John Heilemann of New York magazine adds Rush Limbaugh to the list.

Bill Clinton is doing his part. In an interview with CNN pundit and former AIPAC lobbyist Wolf Blitzer, Clinton was not shy about expressing his dislike of the Tea Parties, and he hinted at his desire for tougher speech restrictions. Referring to the Oklahoma City bombing, Blitzer said “the hatred that Timothy McVeigh … had … , there are plenty of people like that right now” — to which Clinton replied “lot’s of them.” Blitzer said that there were many websites advocating “hate” and Clinton replied with silly platitudes about how the Internet can be used to learn how to make a bomb. The former president added that “websites are easily accessible and you can be highly selective and spend all of your time with people that are, you know, kind of out there with you” (emphasis mine).

Clinton noted that the Tea Party debate had to be kept “within the limits that the framers [of the Constitution] intended.” These kinds of mantras are designed to appeal to the attachment of Americans to the Constitution, even though the country has evolved in ways that would have been unthinkable to the framers. Needless to say, Clinton couldn’t care less about the original framers of the Constitution.

He added that “beyond the law there is no freedom, we can’t have violence or the advocacy of violence and we got to be careful when we get close to that, particularly if we’re in positions of influence.” Translation: The nightmare of the current regime is that respected, intelligent, influential people would begin questioning the legitimacy of the government.

Clinton tries to conflate the Tea Party movement with the Oklahoma City bombing:

By and large in the last fifty years, well at least since the early 70s, […] by and large these [problems] have been systematically coming out of the far right. Again I think that all those folks have a place in our political debate, we just have to know where to draw the line, and we have enough threats against the president, enough threats against the Congress that we should be sensitive to it. The 15th anniversary of Oklahoma City, I’m not trying to draw a total parallel, I’m just saying that we should be aware of this.  This is a vast echo chamber this internet, [in which] some are serious, some are delirious, some are connected, some are unhinged.

He then worried about “what certain words might do to people who are less stable.”

Of course, we know full well that politically-motivated violence is overwhelmingly committed by the Left. Exhibit A is the cancellation of the recent American Renaissance conference due to heavy harassment by leftist fanatics, which included death threats and led to cancellations by four different hotels. As Jared Taylor lamented, the story received no coverage from the mainstream American media, and law enforcement yawned. Leftist and minority activists are never prevented from meeting by conservatives.

In another interview with the New York Times, Clinton referred to Rep. Michele Bachmann who called the Obama administration “the gangster government” at a Tea Party rally. He said: “They are not gangsters, they were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do.”

“There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, “were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line.”

“Have at it,” he said. “You can attack the politics. Criticize their policies. Don’t demonize them, and don’t say things that will encourage violent opposition.”

Clinton and the rest of the liberal elites who control the media want business as usual:  polite political debate and wait for the next election. But for many of the tea partiers it’s beyond all that. They feel themselves abused and dispossessed. There is a desperation and intensity in the air.

This is an administration that crammed health care down the nation’s throat despite majority opposition. It is now poised to once again flout the majority by making citizens of the millions of non-White illegal immigrants and their relatives. In a situation like this, is it any wonder that people are questioning its legitimacy? Gangsters indeed!

Clinton is carefully and implicitly voicing his support for the banning of certain forms of speech that he sees as threatening the legitimacy of the ruling regime. Of course he feels personally threatened by the recent outbursts of rage coming from a large segment of the population. He knows he has contributed greatly to transforming the country and alienating them. He is a sought-after speaker — paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech and drawing thousands who buy their hundred-dollar tickets to see him deliver one platitude after another. The media paints him as a brilliant, warm-hearted guy who was a good and fair president. He obviously has a lot to lose in any movement that strongly criticizes a ruling regime that lavishes money and glory upon him. He is clever in dropping here and there a catch phrase like “you can attack the politics, criticize their policies [but] don’t demonize them, and don’t say things that will encourage violent opposition.”

The reason he carefully weighs his views is that he knows a majority of Americans are still deeply attached to the First Amendment and opposing it too directly and without nuances would be ill-perceived by many. Between the lines, he is advocating eventual hate speech legislation and considerable extension of government powers to muzzle people who challenge them.

William Davis (email him) is a freelance writer.

Bookmark and Share

The Dissolution of the Family among Non-Elite Whites: Review of “Red Families v. Blue Families” by Naomi Cahn and June Carbone

I heard Naomi Cahn and June Carbone talk about their book, Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture (Oxford, 2010), on Commie Radio Pacifica, so you can be sure there is a “progressive” message. As summarized in their op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor, the idea is that families in Blue State America are thriving, while families in Red State America are failing because they are too hung up on old fashioned ideas like sexual abstinence.

There is an obvious dishonesty in this approach because it completely ignores race in the analysis in an effort to pin the blame on traditional sexual beliefs and customs. Blacks and Latinos who live in urban areas and in very Blue States exhibit high rates of teenage pregnancy, non-marriage, and dropping out of the education process — much higher than Whites in Red State America.

So what they are really trying to explain is variation in family patterns among White people. And there they have a point. Red State White America is in a crisis. (Indeed, it’s no accident that Red State America is where most of the much-commented-on White anger is coming from.) The data they are summarizing really relate to some of the correlates of education which are in turn linked to IQ. But we have known at least since The Bell Curve that higher IQ people not only are more likely to go further in the  educational system, they are more likely to have stable marriages, they don’t have babies outside of marriage, and they begin child bearing later. These people are more likely to live in large urban and suburban areas where there are jobs for educated people.

The Whites in non-urban Red State America have a lot to be angry about. The present economic crisis is just the most recent disaster in the long pattern of dispossession of Whites who are less educated. Good jobs in the private sector have pretty much evaporated — the unions are gone and the jobs have been shipped overseas. These people see their communities invaded by racial and cultural aliens, many of them illegal, making a middle class life impossible. They see themselves losing political power to the coalition of minorities and elite Whites that has become the Democratic Party.

As The Bell Curve emphasized, since World War II the cognitive elite are pulling away from the rest of America. Hard economic times only make it worse.

And hard times are always difficult on families. As Cahn and Carbone note, “the latest studies show that as the economy has gone south, teen and nonmarital births and abortions have all increased. … Employment figures also demonstrate that male employment has fallen even further than female employment, making youthful weddings that much riskier.”

In evolutionary terms, the high-investment style of reproduction becomes non-viable as men are unable to provide for their families. Women start having babies sooner and don’t expect to receive support from males over a long period of time, especially where welfare programs are available.

Being on the left, however, C & C use this opportunity to propose that the real culprit is traditional family values. If we could just get rid of those Bible Belt ideas, all would be well:

Missing from this debate is recognition of the bankruptcy of traditionalist family values as policy for the postindustrial era. …

In the United States, states that emphasize abstinence-only education, limit public subsidies of contraception, restrict access to abortion – and, yes, oppose gay marriage – have higher teen birth and divorce rates.

Yet the failure of the family values movement simply produces another round of moral panic and calls for more draconian restrictions.

Their solution combines typical leftist utopianism with a very real program of lowering the birth rate of people with traditional values.

The solution? As we outline in great detail in our book “Red Families v. Blue Families,” there are three critical steps we can take: (1) promote access to contraception – within marriage as well as outside it; (2) develop a greater ability to combine not only work and family, but family and education; and (3) make sure the next generation stays in school, learns the skills to be employed, and cultivates values that can adapt to the future.

This is a nice distillation of the bizarre idea that all Americans have the potential to be college graduates with lots of skills suitable for a post-industrial economy. IQ never enters the equation. But this utopian future is just not going to happen. A far better program would be to provide better economic opportunities for White people, especially White males, whose prospects have been blunted by the present regime.

The fact is that traditional sexual attitudes worked perfectly well in the West to produce a very adaptive culture of high-investment parenting combined with individualist social institutions. C & C attempt to tar traditional values with the stigma of Muslim and African societies where female virtue is prized: “We are entirely sympathetic with those inclined to lock up their daughters from puberty until marriage, but we do recognize that the societies abroad most insistent on policing women’s virtue are locked into cycles of poverty.”

But there is no reason to suppose that the problem with Muslim and African societies is policing the sexual behavior of women. Other traits of these cultures are far more likely culprits,  including low average IQ and social institutions like cousin marriage and clan-based social and political systems.

The reality is that social support for high-investment parenting has always been a critical feature of Western social structure until the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Since then, all of the markers of family stability have headed south  — including divorce rates and births out of wedlock for all races and ethnic groups. (Nevertheless, there are very large differences between races and ethnic groups in conformity with Rushton’s lifespan theory of race differences.)

But this relative lack of social support for marriage has had very different effects depending on traits like IQ. For example, a well-known study in behavior genetics shows that the heritability of age of first sexual intercourse increased dramatically after the sexual revolution of the 1960s. In other words, after the social supports for traditional sexuality disappeared, genetic influences became more important. Before the sexual revolution, traditional sexual mores applied to everyone. After the revolution, genes mattered more. People with higher IQ were able to produce stable families and marriages, but lower IQ people were less prone to doing so, and these trends have been exacerbated by the current economic climate. Hence the Red State/Blue State dichotomy among White people observed by C & C.

And this brings me to thinking about Jews and particularly Jewish influence on sexual culture. In their book, C & C note that Jews tend to exhibit  the Blue State pattern— an unsurprising result given Jewish IQ patterns. A theme of Chapter 4 of The Culture of Critique is that the psychoanalytic assault on traditional Western sexual culture had a disparate impact on different IQ groups and benefited Jews:

Jews suffer to a lesser extent than [non-Jews] from the erosion of cultural supports for high-investment parenting, and Jews benefit by the decline in religious belief among [non-Jews]. As [Norman] Podhoretz (1995, 30) notes, it is in fact the case that Jewish intellectuals, Jewish organizations like the AJCongress, and Jewish-dominated organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union … have ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, attempted to undermine the public strength of Christianity, and have led the fight for unrestricted pornography. The evidence of this chapter indicates that psychoanalysis as a Jewish-dominated intellectual movement is a central component of this war on [non-Jewish] cultural supports for high-investment parenting. …

Although other factors are undoubtedly involved, it is remarkable that the increasing trend toward low-investment parenting in the United States largely coincides with the triumph of the psychoanalytic and radical critiques of American culture represented by the political and cultural success of the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s.

I then go into the academic version of the ideas presented here, especially the greater importance of social controls and traditional religious beliefs for people on the left side of the Bell Curve. (See here, in the  Conclusion).

There is nothing wrong with traditional Western sexual codes. C & C are trying to rationalize the destruction of the last vestiges of that culture by noting that people with traditional religious ideas on sexuality increasingly behave in ways that are contrary to those beliefs. But the problem is not the traditional culture. Rather it is the economic dispossession of non-elite Whites combined with a media culture that glorifies expressive individualism and uninhibited sexuality (i.e., drugs, sex, and Rock ‘n’ Roll) — a media culture that, in my view, was critically shaped by the Jewish intellectual movements reviewed in The  Culture of Critique.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Frank Rich is Right About One Thing

Christopher Donovan: The rage isn’t, in fact, about healthcare.  Nobody is throwing bricks through windows in defense of insurance companies.  Bricks get thrown when people are angry about very fundamental things, like racial displacement.

So, Frank Rich, the Jewish New York Times pundit with a history of white-bashing, is at least half right in the notorious Sunday column that drew 606 reader comments.  He is more correct on that point than “Laurie from Bartlett, NH”, a “tea party” sympathizer and one of 606 commenters on the column:

Dangerous piece. Horrified when I read this because this writer obviously has never attended a “tea party” and knows not of what he speaks. The Americans who are giving of their precious time,limited funds and heart wrenching courage should NEVER be demonized and misstated like this.There were 10,000 people in Nevada today,there will be thousands in Boston on 4/14…these are faithful,hardworking,honest Americans. They have seen the takeover of our biggest freemarket institutions by government. They are frightened,concerned and,yes,angry. How dare you misinterpret and misrepresent the message of this great uprising. This has NOTHING to do w/race..it has everything to do with what our fathers,grandfather,greatgrandfathers fought for..LIBERTY!! LIBERTY!! LIBERTY!!!

Laurie from Bartlett, NH

Rich is more correct on the white rage point than even the venerable Pat Buchanan, who weakly suggests in this reaction column that because some non-whites think immigration needs controlling, the “tea party” crowd isn’t necessarily white resistance by another name.

But Laurie is wrong.  Pat Buchanan is wrong.

It is about race.

Where I part sharply with Frank Rich, of course, is whether the white anger is justified — and requires organized action by whites to act on that anger.  He dreads the prospect, while I cheer it.

But Frank Rich, to my mind, is only part of our problem.  “Laurie from Bartlett, NH” is an equally bedeviling problem for white advocacy.  Here’s a (no doubt) conservative white woman who appears to have convinced herself that “This has NOTHING to do w/race…”  It instead has to do with “LIBERTY!!”  Among the liberating aspects of race realism and white advocacy is the abandonment of the belief that anyone anywhere is motivated by abstractions like “freedom” or “liberty”.  Of course, they’re not.  Blood and soil is more like it.  It seems to me that a more important task for us to persuade “Laurie from Bartlett, NH” to shake herself from slumber and realize what’s really going on.  I don’t think debating with Frank Rich will do any good.

There are fewer more disturbing trends than your average white conservative’s hyperventilating that “I’m not a racist” and “race has nothing to do with it — it’s about the free market!”  Trust me, white-conservative-in-denial:  admitting that race is real — and that whites have legitimate group interests — is like untying that other hand from behind your back.

As a reader service for TOO, I waded through all the comments.  Most, disappointingly, cheered Rich on.  Some openly disparaged whites, like this likely Jewish commenter:

We can’t say the GOP is not diverse. They run the gamut of white billionaires, white millionaires, white run-of-the mill McMansion “owners”, white trailer inhabitants, white gun nuts, to white oolitical opportunists, etc., etc.,

Anne Green from Columbia, MD

The “conservative” responses all took the tack of “Laurie from Bartlett, NH”:  don’t smear us tea party activists as “racists.”

There was, that I saw, a lone pro-white comment:

what a disgusting article. the real people who face discrimination are whites (that is, people of european descent). white students are purposefully rejected from colleges just because of affirmative action for ‘minorities’ (who will very soon become the majority.) meanwhile, white adults are denied jobs just for the color of their skin! this, my friend, is racism.

whites are becoming a minority in the usa, canada, europe, australia, etc. europe will become majority muslim. and yet, it is a sin to want to preserve one’s heritage? in the usa, we have indian groups, asian groups, black groups, but white groups are racist!

it is about time we fight for our rights, and values and culture. it is not racist, everyone else is doing it. it is just fighting against racism and discrimination that is facing whites all over the world.

John from USA

Quite right, John from USA.

As a post-script, I’m doubting that my letter will run in the NYT.  Here’s a piece by letters editor Thomas Feyer that sheds light on why.  He is, he says, the son of “survivors of Nazism.”  Where does this crap end, for God’s sake?

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

Bookmark and Share