Advertising propaganda

I saw this ad back when I still had television, and it galled me.  The message was

THERE’S NO GREATER ACT OF HOSPITALITY THAN TO EMBRACE A

STRANGER AS ONE’S OWN. IT’S IN OUR NATURE,

If it is “in our nature” then why is there is a big propaganda machine trying to push this behavior?
And ’embracing strangers’ as temporary guests — especially when one’s business is hospitality — is a little different from the globalist project in which we have no say about the matter; our ‘strangers’ are permanent ‘guests’, it appears

Ultimately I think the ad is not just selling us on a hotel-resort, but meant to implant attitudes in the audience — like virtually every ad these days. Please, just sell a product or service which I can take or leave, but leave my mind alone.

Advertisements

Why we don’t need this

There are plenty of self-identified ethnonationalists, ‘realists’ and related categories of Whites who nonetheless still praise this kind of article. I think it’s detrimental to our interests. But why, you might ask?
Because firstly, the writer, though supposedly ‘on our side’ to an extent, is blaming Whites (albeit ‘white’ liberals) for the problems or dysfunctions of his folk.

“Let’s look at some of the ways white liberals use black people. One of the more obvious ways is for liberals to equate any kind of injustices suffered by homosexuals and women to the black struggle for civil rights. But it is just plain nonsense to suggest any kind of equivalency between the problems of homosexuals and women and the centuries of slavery followed by Jim Crow, lynching, systematic racial discrimination and the blood, sweat and tears of the black civil rights movement.”

Moderate and reasonable he may seem, but he is still reinforcing “the Narrative”, and this piece is aimed at his most avid readers: White Republicans (do any nonwhites read his writings?). Whether he does this intentionally I can’t say, but the net result is that his ‘respectable Republican’ readers get their daily recommended requirement of White guilt trips about the horrors of Jim Crow, slavery,  — and while we’re at it, let’s not leave out  Dixie Peach pomade ; why not? (Malcolm X in his biography wrote of the suffering of ‘conking’ his hair to make it more European-like. You see, Whitey was responsible for making blacks do that by destroying their self-esteem.)

This kind of moderate black apologetic keeps the Republican faithful still somewhat on the ‘respectable reservation’; it keeps them clinging to the belief in the salvageability of the ‘black culture’ they believe has been keeping black people down. This ‘black culture’ has been engineered or encouraged by ‘white’ liberals, so they say, or they blame agitators exclusively for the conflicts that are simmering around the country now. If only the media didn’t foment this disorder, and if Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson didn’t stir the pot, then we could all live happily ever after. If only the ‘black community’ would listen to Walter Williams, Tom Sowell, Clarence Thomas and the rest, they would see that ‘conservative ideology’ would work wonders, and they might all become entrepreneurs and successful self-starters. And so on. They just need to be delivered from the clutches of the Liberals and the race-agitators.

But is this true? Williams et al can write persuasively enough to keep this vain hope alive among the Respectable Right, the Republican faithful, and these wishful thinkers remain in a state of ambivalence. They don’t like feeling negative feelings toward blacks, even in the wake of the Ferguson intifada and the Garner brouhaha, and all the anti-White attacks. Or perhaps the more pragmatic Repubs just want more voters, so they try to win over the ‘reasonable’ blacks; GOP party officials scour the country for potential Williamses or Sowells or Allen Wests. And in their eagerness to find such men and women, they are willing to compromise in big ways, turning a blind eye to the fact that these potential ‘great black hopes’ often harbor very liberal or black-centric sympathies, despite their relative conservatism on certain points, usually economic ones.

I’ve been reading the writings of these ‘moderate’ or ‘conservative’ blacks for some years, and they certainly seem conservative when compared with their fellow blacks in general — but when push comes to shove, blood is thicker than water, or perhaps melanin is, anyway. Sowell, Williams, Condi Rice, and others will still show their ethnocentric allegiances when put to it.

Maybe they can be allies of sorts, but to see them as necessary spokesmen for us, or as ambassadors to the ‘African-American community’ who can speak for us and say the things we dare not say, or are not ‘allowed’ to say, is rather pitiful. The fact that we have to rely on them to speak for us is a symptom. Have we become so timid that we have to have others speak for us?

Above all, the reliance on ‘conservative’ minorities or the hope that they will one day join us and become just like us is simply a fantasy. Their worldview is not ours, and it is not outside forces, and contra Limbaugh, it is not ‘liberals’ that create this situation.
Nature does that.

Williams says:

“When black Americans finally realize how much liberals have used them, I’m betting they will be the nation’s most conservative people. Who else has been harmed as much by liberalism’s vision and agenda?”

We, ultimately. We have been harmed most of all by ‘liberalism’ while much of their agenda these days is actually benefiting blacks financially and career-wise. Affirmative action jobs which are often lifetime government jobs, housing in better neighborhoods thanks to Section 8, social programs of every description which have at least materially benefited blacks, plus the coddling with which the media indulges blacks and other minorities. We are the ones who have lost any advantages we once had. We’ve lost the confidence to speak freely, to speak for ourselves, to advocate for ourselves and our children, or to be proud of our ancestors. We’ve lost big-time, in terms of neighborhood and community damage, ‘White flight’, bad schools, enforced association, increased crime and social tension, not to mention all the lost lives, and the people who have been killed, injured, traumatized, intimidated, or otherwise hurt by the license given to blacks — as the latter all the while cry victimhood.

Not, it isn’t they who’ve been ‘harmed’ the most. The fact that Williams says this shows clearly that he does not see things from our side at all; he is still advocating for his people first and foremost, and deflecting any of that ”racism” that is always lurking everywhere.

Placing the blame on somebody — namely, our own

As usual, the ‘conservatives’ get in wrong in responding to the rantings of this female who thinks ‘reparations’ are due to her and her racial brethren (and sistren).

“I wonder where the descendants of the ‘DeWolf’ family are today. they should all have their houses burned and their finances seized,” Azealia tweeted. “This generation of young black kids needs to make a CONCERTED effort to seek out living descendants of major slave trading families. They Owe us Money.”

Now you may laugh this off as some addled  ‘celebrity’ who wants attention, but she is calling attention to the De Wolf family, whom she has supposedly researched as ‘slave traders’ and actually inciting ‘kids’ to burn down the houses of descendants of the De Wolf family. She demands seizure of  De Wolf family assets. Does this female have a clue that people’s finances and assets cannot legally be seized willy-nilly, just because some mob clamors for it? And does this dim bulb stop to think that there might be many people of the name De Wolf in this country or in Europe who may or may not be ”the” De Wolf family, whom she accuses of profiting from slave-trading? 

So it’s just not practical — nor is it constitutional or legal, nor is it ethical, to try to grab ‘reparations’ from even the proven descendants of those bad old De Wolf ancestors — who were, incidentally, doing something that was not forbidden by law in most places back then. Can we retroactively prosecute people, or sue them or seize their money based on their doing something that was not illicit then? If we can, why not sue the descendants of tribes that captured and sold slaves of other tribes? I wonder which side of that bargain Mz Banks’ ancestors were? Did her ancestral tribe(s) sell others to Arabs to be re-sold to Europeans? Or were they the captives, or both? Likely, the latter. It’s very possible her ancestors participated in the slave trade, selling as well as being sold.

That being said, if you read the comments on the ‘conservative’ forum you will see the usual responses, along the lines of  ‘my ancestors weren’t even in this country yet, so I’m not guilty’ or ‘my ancestors fought to free the slaves; I don’t owe reparations’ or ‘My g-g-grandfather was killed while fighting to free the slaves; do I get reparations?’  My question to the last kind of response is: did your ancestors’ willingness to kill fellow Whites — Southrons — result in a better world? Looking around me, I don’t think it did, because over half a million young mens’ lives were lost, the South was ravaged and impoverished, harsh Reconstruction continued the depradations, and this segued into the anti-White policies of the 20th century. It all led us right to where we are now. Slavery could have ended peacefully without 600,000+ sacrificed. Yet Lincoln et al wanted to prosecute the war to end talk of secession and cement the sacred ”Union”, which is more like a forced marriage.

But I don’t care to harp on that kind of vindictive note, unlike Banks and all the others who clamor for some kind of financial rewards for their sufferings — especially as they themselves never experienced any of it personally, and have only learned of it secondhand.  Without being taught by anti-White ‘whites’ they would not have any inkling about history; they care only about those facets of ‘history’ that profit them as a group.

My quarrel with the ‘conservatives’ who try to point the finger at other White Americans (Southrons or those who somehow were involved in slavery generally) is that they are taking the black claims at face value, and in essence consenting that somebody, some White, is in fact guilty, and does in fact ”owe” reparations to blacks, because blacks have a legitimate moral grievance.They must believe in the anti-White narrative of ‘White guilt’ and minority victimhood, and the idea that we all owe something to the noble savages whose Eden we invaded and destroyed. This is in fact accepting the liberal doctrine. No one who calls himself ‘conservative’ or in any way illiberal would accept that, as do the modern-day ‘respectable right’ or Republitarians and Libertarians who pass as conservatives.

At least, they should show some backbone and try to refute the legitimacy of such claims. And incidentally — how can calling for ‘burning the houses’ of innocent people be justified or tolerated? Conservatives have truly lost their moral compass when they do not immediately call out people who say such inflammatory things. A few do, but a great many cower and appease instead. Nonwhite Privilege in action: blacks can say whatever enters their heads, while Whites self-censor, stay silent, or are condemned if they speak out of turn.

Lastly, I’m appalled at the lack of solidarity or loyalty among Whites. If the people on that forum are principled people at all, they should not truckle to the likes of Mz Banks or lend any credibility at all to her claims, and they must stop throwing fellow Whites to the wolves by pointing the finger at other Whites. It’s called scapegoating or pandering, and it is traitorous in this case. Sadly, it’s not just the province of ‘liberals’ or progressives, but increasingly we see ‘conservatives’ doing it too. They apparently hope they will ‘be eaten last’ if they point the finger at another White.

Merry Christmas 2014

…A new wind rises out of the hills
of America, and it sings of new beginnings.
We do not need new keys that open
to new worlds,
but old keys, making turns in
old familiar locks such as enduring
honesty, integrity, deep silences, and roots
of faith and hope and love.
Old keys, trusted and tried, that always open
to a world of new beginnings.

Oh, let a new wind rise
out of the hills of America—
now, at Christmas,
and as the old year turns.

-Melva Rorem

I posted the above poem in entirety on a past Christmas Eve, on the old blog. I don’t post it in full now because much of it was written in a tone which seems to ring hollow in our present dire straits. But the last part, which is above, still holds true in ‘this present darkness’.
It’s much harder to maintain hope and optimism in this year of 2014. But we can hope and pray that 2015 will bring something better.
Meantime, I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to come.

PC ”conservatives”

Here’s another example of political correctness among ‘conservatives’. The writer is somewhat on the right track when speaking of demagogues and provocateurs ‘stirring up’ hatred on the part of blacks toward Whites. But right off the bat, he incorrectly represents history, specifically the history of the South after the War Between the States, during the so-called Reconstruction period. He implies that Whites ‘fueled the flames” of ‘racism.’

Presuming one believes in the ‘thought-crime’ known as ‘racism’, which is supposed to be a unique crime or sin of which only Whites can be guilty, how does he believe Whites, who were stripped of all power in the Reconstruction era in the South, ‘fanned the flames?’ Whites were disarmed, stripped of the franchise, deprived of property and Constitutional rights in the Reconstruction South. Blacks, along with carpetbagging Northerners, Southron traitors called ‘scallywags’ and such like were in charge. Whites were subject to being terrorized by this coalition of scoundrels. How, precisely, did Whites ‘fuel the flames’? They were not protected by the ‘law’, or what passed for the law, in the South during that time. Far from bringing about equality, the War had only reversed the roles; the North wanted to punish the South for having ”rebelled” and attempting to leave the Union and go their own way. Rather than simply putting blacks on a supposedly ”equal” footing (which no piece of paper or law could ever do, anyway) they set out to put the Southron people under the heel of the North, with blacks being given license to carry out depredations against Whites.

But the writer of the Breitbart article buys the liberal narrative of the South being the land of evil racists who oppressed the poor, helpless blacks, and lynched blacks for no reason, willy-nilly. Does this writer not see how the ‘liberal narrative’ of the history of black-White relations has brought us exactly to where we are now, with a perpetually aggrieved, black population, exercising a slow-motion vendetta against Whites, and making endless demands? The point of view the author subscribes to guarantees that this state of affairs can only get worse; there is no end in sight without a drastic change in our view of history. The present simplistic view of malicious Whites oppressing innocent, helpless blacks dooms us to endless conflict and endless guilt on the part of the liberal Republicans and Democrats, resulting in more subservient and appeasing behavior on our part.

There is a desperate, dire need for history to be re-examined, and for our side to be heard. Just google ‘Reconstruction’ and you will find countless stories told from the black point of view. Hardly any accounts told from a more even-handed view can be found anywhere on the ‘Net, much less a pro-White POV, and you can be sure your local Politically Correct library will have more of the same one-sided propaganda. Until this is changed, there is no escaping this trap we are in, of forever being the bad guys in our own country’s history.

Whatever protective actions the Southrons took during the Reconstruction era were not ‘fueling flames’ but simply self-defense, or defense of family and home. This is not what you were all taught in school, especially if you attended school since the reign of cultural Marxism. I was lucky enough to have been taught factual history in a Southern school, before PC subjugated the educational system.

There is so much misinformation about the South as you read various sources on the Internet, even among people who consider themselves ‘right-wing’ or ‘patriotic’; few care about Truth or facts anymore. Half-truths are whole lies, as the saying goes, and it’s vital that we try to look for the facts regarding that vital era in our people’s history. It matters very much; we can’t understand what is happening now, or why Southrons have a different outlook on the past.

Let’s answer the falsehoods when we encounter them; I wish more Southron bloggers would write about these things. Anybody who is an ethnopatriot or a true conservative should be concerned about the misunderstandings and outright lies from all sides on these issues.

"Most admired on the right"

The ‘right-wing’ respondents to a poll on the most admired public figure tell us something about the state of so-called ‘conservatives’ in America.

First, it’s probably a very safe bet that most of the respondents are White, because it’s just a fact that there are few non-whites who consider themselves ‘conservatives’ or even Republicans — much less ‘right-wingers.’ These respondents are of the variety proudly self-named ‘colorblind’ conservatives. In spite of the near-certainty that most of them are White, they picked 2 black men among their three most-admired.

There was a three-way tie for first place:

1) Scott Walker (63)
1) Clarence Thomas (63)
1) Thomas Sowell (63)

If you haven’t noticed, two of the three are black. And I’m not the least surprised, actually, that Sowell and Thomas are the two blacks among the top three. Sowell is practically worshiped by many ”conservatives”, but Clarence Thomas would seem to be a favorite because he was so hated by the lefty ideologues as an ”Uncle Tom” and a ”traitor to his race.” Otherwise I don’t know what his notable accomplishments may be; I suppose he might be a great man by contrast to the hacks and lefties on the Supreme Court.

Now, I am not an economist so I can’t say that Sowell is not a genius in his field. I’ve read some of his pieces over the years and he seems mostly sound in what he’s written. But if he were a White scholar with identical credentials and abilities, would he be nationally known, even if only among a rather small group of fans? I rather think the answer, if honest, would be ”no.” But we don’t live in an honest world, nor in a world in which people are ”not respecters of persons.” Those of us who are Christians are told we must not be ”respecters of persons”, in other words, to discriminate favorably towards someone because of their social standing, or lack thereof. We mustn’t exalt the rich man because he is rich and may do us favors, but neither should we discriminate in favor of the ‘have-nots’ just because they are have-nots. We judge the person by his fruits, ideally.

The Civil Rights revolution was engineered so that blacks would not be discriminated against; however, we merely put the shoe on the other foot. We now discriminate blatantly in favor of blacks — and Hispanics, women, homosexuals, ‘gender-confused’ people, immigrants, and on and on. Two wrongs don’t make a right — do they? Apparently they do; by discriminating against Whites we are proving that we have sworn off our ”racism” towards nonwhites. Conservative Whites, apparently having guiltier consciences than other Whites, seem to feel the need to overcompensate greatly by leaning over backwards to prove to one and all that there is not a racist cell in their bodies. So they spend a great deal of time searching for a black hero who says mildly conservative things, and focus their attention on him — or her, as with Condoleezza Rice.

One thing that should be noted about these heroes fawned over the Colorblind tribe: they generally prove to have feet of clay. Remember Colin Powell, who was pursued by both parties in the 1990s as a possible presidential candidate? He went on to disillusion most conservative Whites by his obvious liberal leanings and his lack of colorblindness towards Whites. Likewise Condi Rice, and her anecdotes of ‘racism’ back in the bad old days in Alabama. It seems she was oppressed by White department store clerks when she was a child. And so on. She went on to be among the 97 percent of blacks who voted for her kinsman in the last couple of elections.

Then there were Herman Cain, Allen West, Ben Carson. Enough said, although some continue to doggedly admire them regardless of their shortcomings as conservatives.

What I see in all this is that a certain number of White Americans have some degree of need, a real emotional need to have a black to admire — to overcompensate for their ‘unconscious racism’? To atone for their White guilt? To self-flagellate? To feel morally superior and to look down on their politically incorrect fellow conservatives? To fit in with their liberal colleagues or friends?

You might say the number of the respondents to this poll is too small to be significant. Maybe that’s true. But the fact that there are still — in spite of the events of recent months and years — a group of Whites who apparently identify with ‘Others’ more than with their own kin, and this is rather disheartening. We need to have some degree of solidarity amongst ourselves, as every other race or ethnicity seems to, but there are still some who are heavily conditioned to think otherwise.

Wanted: a cult deprogrammer.
We need to find heroes among our kinsmen, like every self-respecting folk.
Imagine that.

The ‘s’ word — again

Well, it isn’t exactly ‘secession’ that’s being mentioned in this case, but the break-up of the Union, and the source is Pravda, no less.

Actually, a Russian professor, back in ’08 I think, was predicting the breakup of the USA into several sections, and at that time most Americans were very wary if not hostile to the idea, but now Pravda is writing about carving out part of our country for blacks. Now, if an American, especially a conservative one, proposed that, a great howling would be heard from the Left, and accusations of ‘racism’, ‘apartheid’ and all the rest of the weapon-words would follow.

From the Pravda piece:

The recent riots in Ferguson, MO, prove conclusively that there is no way for there to be equality between the races because of this DNA difference. White America must face the fact that America, no matter how difficult or disliked, must give Black Americans land on which to establish their own “Palestine”, or Civil War will soon overcome this nation of Freedom.

Leaving the merits of this idea aside for the moment, it’s interesting to note that the Russians are putting this idea out there, and not for the first time. Professor Igor Panarin, in that story from 2008, even suggested that Russia might just re-claim Alaska from us. Wouldn’t they just love to do that. Was Panarin ‘predicting’ or was he dropping hints on possible plans on the part of the Russian powers-that-be? Are they trying these ideas out to see what reaction they get from our side? Or to try to implant that idea in the minds of the public here?

Over the last several years, a number of ethnonationalists have been recommending Russia Today (RT) as a good source of news, especially on subjects which are censored for politically correct reasons in the ‘free’ West. I was willing to give RT a try, and for a while, added it to my Roku channel list. I quickly found that yes, RT does cover some stories that our PC gatekeepers won’t touch, but it’s glaringly obvious that RT is anti-American, and pro-left. The news-readers and ‘pundits’ on RT are often expatriates from New York or elsewhere in the Western countries, and some of them are obviously progressives who choose to live elsewhere because they find the US not ‘progressive’ enough for them. The old cold war sympathies haven’t disappeared.

But would a break-up of the USA work? When we discussed (my then-commenters and I) the idea of secession or break-up back in ’08 and after, the consensus was that it was not a good idea, or that while it may be a good idea, it could never, ever, be done, so we should stop even thinking of it. I don’t know if popular opinion has shifted substantially. I suspect that even in much of the South, few would think it possible, or desirable. I wonder if recent events, which should convince the blindest among us that our country is already divided in spirit, would work a change in the minds of some skeptics?

The writers at Pravda, with their bias on display, tell us that we must make a homeland for blacks, implying that we owe them as much because of past ‘sins.’ This should tell those conservatives who admire Putin and Russia that the Russians haven’t changed much when it comes to racial questions since the old days, when they found a great deal of anti-American propaganda fodder in our racial conflicts.  They bragged of their own successful multicultural empire, proud of their ‘diversity’. They bragged of their ‘Lumumba University‘ which invited African students to Moscow — to indoctrinate them, of course, in Communism, and to train them for revolution in their homelands.

We see Pravda here trying to make hay from the Ferguson riots, and telling a biased version of the events that led to the riots. The writer’s name is an Arab name; Russia is still a multicult empire, not an ethno-state as some wish.

Russia may be up to their old tricks, or perhaps they never abandoned those ways. But they might, just by accident, provoke some discussion of certain questions relating to our country.

More details on a troubling story

At Free Republic, there’s more discussion of the Jessica Chambers murder, with some new details (based on part on rather sketchy sources, namely ‘social media’) which shows the troubling aspects of the whole story. It appears as though a very sordid set of people are at the heart of the whole thing, and it should be instructive to young women who fail to choose their company wisely, and to parents who don’t make a constant effort to ‘train up’ their children in the way they should go, before wrong associations are established. Oh, but ‘choosing wisely’ would be evil, as ‘choosing wisely’ is just another way of saying ‘discriminating.’ Yet the essence of parenting is to instill the quality of discernment, another word for choosing carefully — or ‘discriminating.’ He who teaches his children to be ‘welcoming’ and inclusive of anybody, regardless, is disarming his children, and leaving them vulnerable. To do that is a wrong against our children and posterity.

That aside, the victim was 19 years old, and had made her choices of associates; once our ‘children’ are that age, it’s no longer possible to exercise control over their choices. Maybe it’s not wise to have decided that the age of 18 is the magic age at which young people attain full control over their own lives, the age when parents must relinquish all authority over our sons and daughters. And when did 18 become that magic age? Possibly when our brilliant and wise political classes decreed that giving 18-year-olds the franchise was the right thing to do. The fact that there was a bonanza of potential young voters, as the baby-boomers began to reach that age, didn’t enter into the politician’s calculations, did it?  But suddenly ”if you’re old enough to be drafted or married, you have the right to vote” and to act as a fully responsible adult. But how many 18 or 19-year-olds today arereally adult in their judgments?

We may never know who is responsible for the death of Jessica Chambers — or the later victims of suspicious burnings in that same area.

But the discussion that you can see on that Free Republic thread will be going on indefinitely, as the social conditions in which the Chambers murder occurred continue to worsen. And because the vexed question of race is a part of the story, it will NOT be dealt with honestly; there will be obfuscation, cover-ups, denials galore, race-baiting, and blinkered attitudes on the part of many Whites, it seems. The ‘colorblind conservatives’ are the ones who are having the hardest time, it would seem, clinging to their illusions about how we are all the same, except for ”ideology” and ”culture.”

Reading through the comments I noticed some passing comments by the Republican and libertarian commenters who buy the liberal narrative about the history of  ‘Jim Crow’ and the bad old days, which show that without a doubt, many Republitarians or respectable-cons are basically radical egalitarians. In that respect they are in agreement with the ‘progs’. Yet each side considers itself the bitter enemy of the other, united though they are on the basic premises. How odd.

It often exasperates me that so little is taught in schools about the issues of the War Between the States and especially the aftermath — Reconstruction in particular, and how the bad old ‘Jim Crow’ system came about — and mostly why it came about. Even if a few rare Americans want to know more, there is hardly any honest history written about that period. Yet today’s crisis is very much a continuation of that period and its policies.

There are very few modern sources that are not tainted by political correctness and the blank-slatism and the egalitarianism that is nearly universal now.

It’s essential to ‘cleanse one’s palate’ by reading old sources, written by people nearer to those events, accounts which are free of the taint of Cultural Marxism and the radical views that dominate academia and the media now. Yet there are a few sources available through Archive.org. How long before the book-burners and the PC revisionists decide to eliminate those sources, lest somebody read the truth, or question PC authority? We can’t have that, can we?

I recommend some sources which provide some missing information and which let the other side, the politically incorrect side, be heard. But hearing both sides is a taboo now; we hear this blather about a ”dialogue on race” but under present conditions, only a monologue is heard, only one point of view, and that monologue is more of an ongoing harangue, a hectoring diatribe in which one side is perpetually and only the bad guy. We need both sides to be heard; a dialogue implies two contrasting points of view.

Lacking a real dialogue, the Freepers and other such confused ‘conservatives’ and libertarians need to read some sources such as these, from Archive.org:

A Defense of Louisiana (about Reconstruction)
Kemper County Vindicated, and a Peep at Radical Rule in Mississippi
The Recent Past from a Southern Standpoint
Reconstruction in Georgia

Without some background knowledge of that era, many conservatives will go on repeating lines like the one in the discussion at FR, about the ‘brutal, unjust Jim Crow laws.’ If we believe that the past and our ancestors were ‘brutal and unjust’ then we remain plagued with guilt and a feeling of responsibility for the situation that prevails now. Many of us end up being not just guilty but apologetic, always on the defensive, or else bitter towards our forefathers (“shoulda picked our own cotton”, etc.)  At some point we have to look elsewhere than in ‘mainstream [left-wing, culture-of-critique] ”history” books for the whole story.

Privilege

I can’t even make much sense out of this incoherent diatribe; all I get from it is more complaining and moaning about some imaginary ”White privilege.” And P.S., Ms Savali, if the word ‘Black’ merits a capital letter, then so does the word ‘White.’ Why is it that Whites are ”privileged” then we don’t merit having our name capitalized?
If Whites are ‘privileged’ then why is it that any White who attempts to defend himself or his folk in matters racial, is assailed with the invented word ”racist” or ‘supremacist’ instead of being thought a worthy defender of his people, as blacks who defend their people are considered? I suppose it is a sign of our ”privilege” that the left, the White left, whose mindless support blacks disdain, invented a word, ‘‘racism”, that can only be applied to White people and no other? That’s a ‘privilege’ I can do without, having a term of abuse, a special category of thought-crime, coined just for me and mine.

Talk about privilege: blacks and other minorities are always sinned against and never sinning. Criticizing blacks or other ”victim” groups is punished by job loss, career destruction, social ostracism (by the left and the politically correct ”right”), and even prosecution, in some countries. Blacks, however, can and do insult Whites and other races for that matter without any negative consequence whatever. That’s privilege for somebody, but it ain’t for Whites.

Blacks, too, are given carte blanche to riot, while if Whites protest, as in London when some White citizens went out to try to protect their neighborhoods in London during the riots of a few years ago, those Whites were pushed back by police while blacks and other minorities were allowed to burn and loot ad libitum.

Blacks have the privilege of being coddled by not having to meet standards — affirmative action, for example — and they have the privilege of having excuses made for every bit of misbehavior, up to and including murder. After all, — racism! Poverty! The legacy of slavery! White privilege! Blacks are not accountable or responsible for anything, and to expect them and other minorities to abide by standards is ‘racist’, because those standards were set up by Whitey, and Whitey is privileged and racist and bigoted and hateful. And if any of us protest, we are castigated.

Even writing a post like this on the Internet no doubt places the writer on a list, but when are blacks warned about ‘hate speech’ as they condemn and curse and bear false witness against us? I’ve never seen blacks accused of bigotry or ‘racism.’ And why is that, exactly? Because the word ‘racism’ was invented expressly to be used as a word-weapon against Whites, to silence us, to discredit any criticism or murmur of protest on our part. We are always in the wrong, automatically. By definition. Yes, the definition of ‘racism’ has been crafted so as to exclude blacks and other minorities from being guilty of it. ”Racism equals bigotry plus power.” How clever. How fortuitous.

So I can be a ”racist” by that definition but a black person can say something like this:

Leonard Jeffries (chairman of the African-American studies department of the City College of New York, interviewed in the May, 1995 issue of Rutherford magazine):
Q: But the black man is no longer a slave.
A: The slave should be waking up, thinking of ways to slit the slavemaster’s throat. . . .
Q: What kind of world do you want to leave to your children?
A:
A world in which there aren’t any white people. . . .”

Countless examples of this kind can be cited, enough to fill a book. And yet the mildest of criticisms, or even a carelessly-chosen word or phrase (“niggardly”, or “Black hole”, “picnic”, “nitty-gritty”) can be labeled ‘racist’ and censored, and the speaker fired, shamed, or driven out of polite society.

Who calls blacks and other minorities to account for their ‘hate speech’? Nobody, at least in the controlled media. Hmm. Exemption from responsibility for one’s actions? Sounds like privilege to me.

What’s worst is that in ‘White-privileged’ America, White Americans can be slaughtered in horrible, indescribable ways (the Knoxville atrocities, in which two young people were tortured and killed, or the Wichita Massacre, in which four White people, who were minding their own business, were slain) and their deaths downplayed, and their killers given light punishments. That is privilege, to be able to commit crimes of that magnitude and to have them minimized by a pro-black media and justice system.

And then we are ‘privileged’ — what an insane world this has come to be, in my lifetime.

Unless ‘privileged’ means being silenced and bullied by the media, by accusatory minorities and their left-wing White enablers and apologists — and I am sure it does not — then the privilege is not with us. The very fact that no article in the mainstream (so-called) media can express the point of view that I am expressing here is proof that we are not privileged to speak our minds, to voice our very justified grievances. Only minorities, with their unending complaints and accusations are allowed to have their point of view heard. Whites are not allowed to have pride in our folk, our ancestors, our considerable heritage, and not allowed to say we want to guarantee a future for our children. Our children are even accused of ‘racism’, even as babies. Remember the Newsweek magazine cover — or was it Time? — asking ‘Is your baby racist?‘ The question was rhetorical, of course, since the media in general have decreed Whites, even White babies, guilty. Guilty of ‘racism’, from birth. Even those guilt-crazed leftists who march in solidarity with blacks (and who, like one misguided White man, was attacked at a protest by the black beneficiaries of his sympathy) are racist because they are White. White=racist! Nobody with White skin escapes condemnation, politics notwithstanding.

And isn’t that what Whites were told was ‘bigoted’, to judge people as a group, to condemn all for what only ‘some’ did? We are convicted and punished for our ‘sins’ of thought, word, deed, and even a look that is judged to be ‘hostile’, but we don’t have a right to offer a defense. There is no legitimate defense, in our accusers’ eyes. We are perpetually guilty. We are guilty because of what our ancestors were alleged to have done, or what they didn’t do. Yet our society traditionally rejects generational guilt, of people being held to blame for what their ancestors — even our parents, much less remote ancestors — are alleged to have done.

I suppose that’s privilege?

Oh, there is privilege in this supposed ‘free and equal’ country, but it is not on our side. Privileged people are able to speak their minds, to defend themselves, their way of life, and their children’s futures. In fact, one doesn’t require privilege to be able to speak and think freely; isn’t that supposed to be automatically part of being an American, of living in a ”free country”? Forget privilege; free Americans are theoretically able to choose their companions rather being unable to associate freely, or to abstain from associating.

Truly “privileged” people set the standards and define the terms; they are not forced to kowtow to others, to grovel and speak deferentially to everyone who claims ‘victimhood.’ They are not forced to kneel and apologize to others as ‘leaders’ like Bill Clinton and so many other Whites have done to blacks. Truckling and apologizing, begging forgiveness for imagined slights, or wrongs done centuries ago — this is not what ‘privileged’ people do.

Who are ‘privileged’ people? Maybe people who live in a country created by someone else, where they can benefit from the accomplishments and know-how of others — people who ‘reap where they have not sown’ — those are privileged people. People who accuse and intimidate those unlike them, and who, though not willing to respect others, demand and get (unearned) respect or deference — those are privileged people. Such people feel no need to respect others, or to abide by laws and customs based on reciprocity toward one’s neighbors. That kind of one-sided ‘respect’ sounds like the kind of privilege traditionally accorded to nobility or royalty, not ‘equals’ in a republic.
 
Today’s privileged people can command sympathy and special treatment based on dubious claims of having been ‘persecuted’ or mistreated. Enter the idea of  “hate crimes”. Because this kind of claim is profitable to putative victims, there’s obviously a great incentive to allege wrongs by ‘hateful racists’ or bigots. How many ‘hate crime’ claims have been found to have been hoaxes and lies? Too many to count, but just off the top of my head, what about Tawana Brawley, the girl who claimed to have been gang-raped by Whites? The girl who launched Al Sharpton’s dubious ‘career’? For a more recent example, how about Crystal Gail Mangum, the false accuser in the Duke ‘rape’ hoax? How many lives did she ruin? And did the media ever admit that they supported the lies, and refused to hear evidence to the contrary? Hate crime hoaxsters should be shamed, but the dishonest, media enables these lies, and gives them credence automatically. And they are not harmless lies. These lies have ruined innocent people, and should be prosecuted in criminal court. But the lying media are a party to these falsehoods, and should be discredited. Left-wing Internet propaganda should also be discredited and shamed. But “White privilege” is not strong enough to stop all the false witness that is spread against White people.

Thus I contend that White privilege is laughably weak, if not totally imaginary. Since it doesn’t even get us better PR, does not protect us against the myriad lies that are told every day in the mendacious media, since it does not exempt us from being prosecuted for exercising our First Amendment rights, since our point of view is still banished form the public square, since we are not allowed to freely associate or not associate with those we choose — I contend that there is no evidence of White privilege. If a court of law had to decide whether this ‘White privilege’ exists, based on real evidence, any honest court would dismiss the case for lack of evidence.

That, of course, would be in a sane world, which our world today is surely not.
The privilege in this world goes to those who concoct some tale of ‘oppression’ or of being ‘offended’ by someone else’s words, or by their very presence. Most ‘victims’ complain that the world (usually meaning Whitey, and The Rich, which also means ‘Whitey’) has denied them Equal Opportunity, and Kept Them Down. Professional victims think that their lack of some desired good proves that somebody is cheating them, oppressing and persecuting them. And minorities, being told all their lives that ‘racists’ are thwarting them at every turn, that ‘racists’ are plotting to deny them their “rights”, believe they are the perpetual victims of scheming Whites. And they feel that this entitles them to compensation, benefits, even large sums of money for ‘reparations’ because of slavery suffered by their distant (five or more generations ago) ancestors. Shame on all those who promote this attitude, and who have created this insoluble problem of the aggrieved ‘victims’ who can never be satisfied.

The ‘Victim’, real or imagined, is King (or Queen) in this topsy-turvy world, the world in which the competent and the capable are somehow guilty for their accomplishments or personal abilities, while the have-nots, who fancy themselves as suffering from social injustices on a cosmic scale, are catered to, fawned over, appeased, even idolized and put on a pedestal.

This is where privilege lies, and it has created this absurd situation where supposed ‘suffering’ or oppression creates a class of bogus ‘nobility’ based on victimhood, who then feel that they are ‘owed’, big-time, and who become more demanding the more they are coddled.

Privilege is the word.