White Pathology/Guilt

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

/70 Comments/in , , , /by

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.

Period.

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

Amy Biehl Syndrome

/24 Comments/in , /by

Every so often, a tale from the world of current events manages to stand on its own as summation of the white genocide.  The murder of Amy Biehl was one such tale.  Biehl, a pretty, blonde Californian studying at Stanford, traipsed off to South Africa in the early 1990’s to assist blacks during the apartheid challenges.  One day, she was surrounded by a group of blacks (unaware of her being ‘on the good side’, if you will) who stoned her to death.

To white advocates, the implications of the tale are obvious.  But for those new to white consciousness, let me explain.  First, Biehl was an attractive, well-off white woman, and obviously bright (she did make it into Stanford).  As white advocates, we bemoan the fact that our best and brightest are so indoctrinated against their own race that they’d dive into dangerous situations to help non-whites — and worse, those in conflict with whites.  They’ve been conditioned all their lives to believe that a virtuous life means running to a far-off land to “help” the non-whites, who suffer only because of colonialism or some other white-caused unfairness.  They are not taught, by contrast, that becoming a wife and mother and helping their own race is virtuous.  No, the opposite:  those are contemptible courses.

So, that’s one level on which “Amy Biehl Syndrome” is a problem.  The other is the sheer irony of the death:  these women end up killed by the very “noble” non-whites they seek to help.  To white advocates, what this shows is that these are ill-spent efforts:  underlying the mission is an assumption that the non-whites will be grateful for the white help.  But in truth, many of these non-whites are violence-prone and so lacking in discernment that they’d kill a white person willing to help them.  This in turn reveals the deep-seated racial differences that make co-existence very difficult.

And on a third level, the parents of Amy Biehl actually forgave the black killers and shook their hands.  White advocates see this as the Stockholm Syndrome of our dispossession — rather than react in a normal, healthy way by becoming angry, we actually get on bended knee to ask the forgiveness of the murderers of our race.  We’ve become a race that wants to apologize for not dying off quickly enough.  It boggles the mind.

Was the recent murder of a white girl who sought to be a “mule” for illegals an example of Amy Biehl Syndrome?  Possibly — or this girl may have been acting out of cash-driven self-interest.  But one element, at least, is there:  a young white woman who’s been brainwashed by multiculturalism to the point that she doesn’t recognize the danger of venturing into Mexico on such a mission.  She watched “Dora the Explorer” and thus believes that Hispanics are all nice people.

When I lived in Park Slope, Brooklyn, I’d read a story every few months in the New York tabloids about a young, idealistic white woman from the midwest who’d come to New York to work in the inner city public schools, only to be stabbed in the back (literally) by young black thugs.  Another white life lost to multicultural lies, I would think.  She was convinced by a hundred different propaganda points that this would be an “exciting” life (not that I was totally immune, since I was living there myself.)

The consequences of diversity propaganda are real.  Whites — often the best whites — end up dead.  We must teach them that true virtue today lies in defense of their race.

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

Bookmark and Share

Whites’ lack of empathy for other Whites

/67 Comments/in , , , /by

There are doubtless a great many factors accounting for the general willingness of Whites to allow themselves to be pushed aside and to voluntarily become a minority amid a sea of non-Whites, most of whom hold historical grudges against them. My general view is that these cultural transformations are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting tendencies of Europeans toward individualism interacting with the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of Europe.

The problem with individualism is that we have weak ties to other Whites and we don’t have a sense (yet) of common fate. In other words, we are low on ethnocentrism. We hear about a White person who was victimized by a Black criminal or denied a promotion or admission to a university in favor of an “underrepresented minority”, and we don’t feel empathy for the victims simply because they are White. We don’t feel any psychological pain when we hear that White working class men have moved out of an area because their jobs have been taken by illegal Mexican immigrants.

At a rational level, Whites may well think that victimization of Whites is morally wrong. Hence the finding that Whites support ending affirmative action and ending immigration (especially illegal immigration) as has been shown in California and other states. But I suspect that there isn’t any real gut feeling of empathy with other Whites. And it’s the gut feeling of empathy that in the end motivates the sort of behavior that can really begin to alter things politically.

This was demonstrated recently in a study that scanned the brains of Black and White subjects viewing Black and White victims of Hurricane Katrina (Race and Empathy Matter on Neural Level, Science Daily). Everyone reported empathy for the victims. This is a verbal judgment that reflects nothing more than conventional morality. People certainly would not want to tell the experimenter that they have callous disregard for suffering.

But the brain’s emotion centers told a different story. Black subjects had empathic responses to Black victims, and the more ethnocentric Blacks had stronger emotional responses. Whites on the other hand, did not show any empathic responses to people of either race.

It’s not that Whites are incapable of empathy. Images of family members would doubtless result in strong empathic responses among Whites — responses that would motivate helping family members. Indeed, all the research shows much stronger family bonds among Whites than among Blacks — bonds that are motivated at least in part by empathic concern for family. But in general, we just  don’t get emotionally aroused when we see Whites  suffering or victimized.

And it also suggests that the many Whites who do behave altruistically toward Blacks or other non-Whites are not acting out of an emotional imperative of empathy, but for some other  reason — quite possibly social approval. What better way these days to show you are a good person?  I thought about this today when viewing a photo of Sandra Bullock with her newly adopted Black baby. Of course, it may be misplaced maternal affection.


But this lack of empathy for other Whites is a problem for political action on behalf of Whites. People are motivated far more by emotions than by rational appraisals. The  empathy among Jews for Jewish suffering is legendary. As Walter Benjamin once said, Hatred and [the] spirit of sacrifice . . . are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grandchildren. (Illuminations, 1968, 262)

There is undoubtedly variation among Whites for ethnocentrism, implying that at least some Whites would be upset by the suffering of other Whites more than by the suffering of, say, Blacks. In other words, they would have the same pattern that Blacks show, only reversed.

Personally, I have found that I do have an emotional reaction to Whites being victimized. This could be because I am more genetically inclined toward ethnocentrism than most Whites. But it could also be influenced by living in Southern California where Whites are now a minority. Social psychologists have shown that members of majority groups do not have the same sense of an ingroup feeling as do members of minority groups.

The good news is that as Whites become a minority, ingroup solidarity–and empathy for other Whites–would be expected to increase. And getting involved in White advocacy with like-minded others doubtless has the effect of reinforcing and increasing those tendencies, especially when it is not at all difficult to imagine nightmarish scenarios of the future for Whites. Such nightmarish scenarios have a great deal of emotional impact, especially when they are graphically depicted. That is the reason why we will not see such depictions in the media.

The bad news is that even with empathy for other Whites, there are still huge barriers for Whites to really get involved in White advocacy — barriers such as losing one’s job and social ostracism. The power of the left to inflict economic pain is huge, as recently shown by the burgeoning movement to inflict economic sanctions on Arizona for having the temerity to enact a law aimed at getting rid of illegal aliens.

But having empathy for other Whites would certainly be a great first step in the right direction–and probably a step that is necessary if we are going to see really intense commitment by Whites to change the current regime.

My view is that these cultural transformations
are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting deep-rooted
Winter 2006-2007 / MacDonald 23
tendencies of Europeans (individualism, moral universalism, and science)
and the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of
EuropeMy view is that these cultural transformations
are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting deep-rooted
Winter 2006-2007 / MacDonald 23
tendencies of Europeans (individualism, moral universalism, and science)
and the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of
Europe..

Bookmark and Share

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

/26 Comments/in , , /by

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

A Tale of Two Rich Guys, Haim Saban and Charles T. Munger

/36 Comments/in , , , /by

A Sacramento Bee op-ed by Dan Morain points out that the motives for all the money going into a California ballot proposition on redistricting are hidden from the public. The two men couldn’t be more different. Haim Saban, the billionaire media tycoon, wants the politicians to redraw boundaries so that the Congressional seat of Howard Berman, a Jewish politician who is strongly pro-Israel  is protected from the ever expanding Latino population. As Morain notes, Saban’s only motivation in life is to advance the cause of the Jewish state, famously telling the New York Times “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”

It’s interesting that activist Jews are now worried that there will be fewer Jewish politicians with the rise of the same minorities that Jewish activist organizations have been so eager to populate the country with. Organizations like the ADL have expressed concerned that new ethnic blocs will not be appropriately sympathetic to Jewish causes such as Israel. Their solution is not to try to stem the tide of non-White immigration but to make political alliances with the new arrivals and, as indicated by Saban’s actions, skew the political process in a way where Jewish political assets (particularly money) will still be effective.

Charles T. Munger is a completely different story. Munger, a Stanford physicist,  is also very wealthy, his wealth stemming from his father’s partnership with Warren Buffet. Munger wants a citizen’s panel to draw the redistricting lines in the hopes that politics will be less partisan — a position that sounds like high-minded idealism. As a Republican, he may well want more  Republicans, but as Morain notes, he is almost certainly wrong about that. If he really wanted to have more Republicans elected, he should have invested his money in anti-immigration efforts. No matter how California is redistricted, Latinos and other minorities are going to continue to increase in political power while Whites are increasingly dispossessed.

So Munger is tilting at windmills while Saban is helping his people. There is a great deal of wealth controlled by people like Munger, but in general its wasted on things like this. As I noted in an earlier blog:

One of the biggest problems for European-Americans is that wealthy non-Jews seem far more interested in funding the opera or getting their name on a building at the local university than in helping their people. A good example is the Chandler family who formerly owned the L. A. Times. They had no interest in the media, and the company is now controlled by Sam Zell, who is Jewish. The family remains wealthy but in general seems to be involved in finding fun and interesting ways to spend their time (one of them flies around the world to attend the opera; another is into building outsize model trains) rather than influencing the world.

Munger is more politically involved than the Chandlers, but his efforts are absolutely useless in really achieving anything remotely beneficial to Republicans — or, more importantly, White Californians.

Bookmark and Share

The Monstrous Winston Churchill

/159 Comments/in , /by

In his book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, Pat Buchanan places particular emphasis on the role of Winston Churchill for his role in promoting both World War I and World War II.  Buchanan is scathing in his criticism of Churchill, correctly pointing his bellicosity, his vanity, and his desire for personal power. There are also strong hints of his corruption as a result of being rescued by wealthy Jews from near bankruptcy after the stock market crash of 1929.

Buchanan carries on this theme in a recent column on the Katyn executions, Pat Buchanan once again comments on Winston Churchill’s treachery.

When Polish patriots, whose sons had flown with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, went to … Churchill to demand that he get answers from Stalin about the atrocity, he brushed them off.

“There is no sense prowling around the three-year-old graves of Smolensk,” said the Great Man.

At Stalin’s request, Churchill bullied the Poles into acceding to Soviet annexation of all the Polish land Stalin had been awarded for signing his pact with Hitler.

Michael Colhaze’s current TOO article, To Be a German, Part II, credits Buchanan with shedding light on the truly horrifying spectacle of Churchill. Ever the artist, Colhaze expresses it beautifully:

[It boils down] to one single, terrible truth, namely that this man and his paymasters were the instigators not only of the death of Britain’s and America’s finest young men, but also of the greatest carnage, the worst fratricide committed in Mankind’s entire history. It is really here, in the inordinate hate for Germany as the old heartland of our incomparable Christian-European civilisation, that the roots can be found for the ever intensifying assault on the White Man’s right to exist.

I wonder sometimes how this man must have felt during the twilight years of his life. Terrible, most likely. Fiddling with some pitiful canvas utterly devoid of human warmth, let alone artistic gratification. Abandoned by his old paymasters because that’s what they inevitably do once you’ve lost your expediency. Deserted by his political cronies who knew damn well what mess he had landed them in. Prowling the casinos of Monte Carlo where a greasy Onassis dropped an occasional chip into his pocket since he had blown his pension already at the tables. Bored to death by all the glorifications and laurels and distinctions which honoured, as he himself knew perfectly well, only the one great lie that was his life.

Churchill’s philosemitism is legendary. This review of three books on Churchill’s relations with Jews indicates that indeed, he was “among the greatest friends the Jewish people have had.” The record shows that Churchill repeatedly stood up for Jewish interests throughout his entire very long career in politics — often in opposition to those around him. Churchill’s family was philo-Semitic and socialized with Jews; he received expensive gifts as a young man from Jewish friends of his father. In Parliament, Churchill was an eloquent spokesman for Jewish immigration, and later he had a long career in support of Zionism.

He left a long record of activism for Jewish causes and was rarely deterred from these, even when he found himself in a distinct minority. When overruled by his own Cabinet, he often sought ways around the problem to help Jews and Zionism. The personal and official papers consulted in these studies confirm the picture of a man who rejected anti-Semitism in public and private, something that can be said of very few of his colleagues.

Churchill may have been the greatest friend the Jews ever had. But he certainly was not a friend for his own people.

Bookmark and Share

Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?

/33 Comments/in , /by

Another White male — the list is endless — has been fired for poltically incorrect speech.  Allen Zaruba, an adjunct art professor at Towson University in Maryland, quickly dropped to his knees to beg for forgiveness, and even welcomed his own firing.

It’s not even clear from the story what, exactly, Zaruba said, reminding me of Sam Francis’ writing in Race and the American Prospect that racial issues today are what sexual issues were during the Victorian age.  You might well have seen “Governess Fired for Mentioning Unmentionables” in the English press a century ago.

“I will never use that term again,” Zaruba told the Baltimore Sun. “It is absolutely transgressive.”  Transgressive?  Is that the opposite of Barack Obama’s “transformative”?

But was there a spark of resistance in his mind?  The story ended this way:  “Despite taking responsibility for his error, Zaruba said his firing
raises troubling questions about the power of political correctness in modern society.  Are we in for another state of McCarthyism?’ he said. ‘We have to have compassion and realize that people are not perfect.'”

The problem, Allen, is that there is no “compassion” for Whites.  You — and so many like you — are under the impression that non-Whites, once in power, will extend compassion to Whites.  Let me correct this misimpression:  they won’t.

Liberal Whites like Amy Biehl assume that their halos will distinguish them in the eyes of Blacks from “bad” characters like Eugene Terreblanche, but they won’t.  They don’t care if you’re a full-fledged Klansman in Alabama or a hippie-dippie art teacher in Maryland.  If you’re White, you’re going under the multicultural steamroller.

That is racial reality, and more whites need to check into it.

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

Bookmark and Share