Why is there so much anti-Caucasian hostility these days, and how come no one is taking all of this bitter, bigoted honky-phobia seriously?
By: Jimbo X
JimboXAmerican@gmail.com
@Jimbo___X
"Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.
Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.
Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.
Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away."
- James Webb
"All I want for Christmas is white genocide."
- George Ciccarello-Maher
If you've never seen 2015's Kingsman, you should. Not only because it's one of the better comic book adaptations out there, but because it contains a scene that pretty much sums up the contemporary post-liberal weltanschauung on "diversity."
There's this one part where a spy visits a church in Appalachia which is supposed to be some sort of stand-in for the Westboro Baptist Church - even though in the film, the pastor is virulently racist and the real Fred Phelps was honored by the NAACP. But - digression. Anyway, the scene more or less concludes with all of the hate-filled rubes - those inexcusable homophobes and racist scalawags they are - being brutally maimed, mutilated and massacred to the tune of Lynyrd Skynryd's "Freebird." Now, contextually, the movie does make up some sort of convenient in-universe explanation (oddly enough, a black billionaire is trying to make the human species go extinct to prevent global warming by making peoples' heads explode with free SIM card implants), but deep down, we all know why the scene was included. To put it bluntly, it's pretty much every modern liberal's fantasy come to life - the vicarious extermination of the white race via highly stylized CGI guts and gore.
Now, of course, liberals don't want ALL white people to die. They just want the ones that refuse to kowtow to their multiculturalism uber alles religion and vote Republican to die in an orgy of graphic, kinetic violence. The problem there is that they've so firmly embedded resentment of the white man inside the heads of their minority constituents that they've grown to genuinely despise the entire Caucasoid race. What makes this especially self-defeating (and really, party-destroying) is that it's a truly indiscriminate antipathy of white people that has been engendered and encouraged, which means the honky-hating planks of the Democratic base make no distinctions between Donald Trump supporters in Michigan, actual Klansmen in Mississippi, latte-sipping pseudo-socialists in New Hampshire or even the big donor Jewish folks in New York and L.A. It's the classical "Frankenstein fuck-up" that Dems won't realize until it's about 20 years too late. Sure, all of the politically charged leukophobia was meant to JUST get rid of the whites that voted for the other side, but after the aPOCalypse comes, the brainwashed hordes coked up on self righteous fury will inevitably - if not outright instinctively - turn to liberal white meat to fulfill their insatiable hunger for tribal vengeance.
A couple of years ago I wrote an article called "The Marginalization of the Heterosexual, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male." Now, at the time, I was still in my shit-headed college liberal phase, so of course, I had plenty of nonsense to spout about the non-existent "wage gap" and the absurdities of "reverse racism," but - for the most part - I still stand by the article's core thesis. Yes, bad shit may be happening to white men, but by and large, white men still have a disproportionate amount of economic and political power in these United States. And while white males' share of the demographical pie continues to get smaller and smaller, I still think it's going to be a long, long time before white men in the United States can justly consider themselves second-class citizens ... in any capacity.
But that doesn't mean I believe in the liberal fairy tale of white male privilege, either. The thing is, since white people are the majority in the U.S. (well ... until 2040, at least), of course they're going to make up both the high and low ends of the nation's socioeconomic totem pole (although Jews and Asians both post higher annual incomes than whitey, but shh! We're not supposed to talk about that annoying little trifle.) And if you're wondering why white folks seem to have a disproportionate amount of economic and political clout, the answer you're looking for isn't racism, but classism. Harvard and Berkeley studies pretty much tell us inherited wealth is the key to economic and political success in these United States, and since more white people have successful parents to inherit preexisting money and prestige from, what's supposed to be the surprise there?
That said, you'd have to be one ignorant S.O.B. to say there isn't a lot of anti-white hostility on the Internet ... and virtually all of it is coming from leftist-progressivists who see the inevitable demographic decline of the white man as some sort of proxy victory for socialism and (ironically enough) egalitarianism. "If only we could rid of all those worthless white people in states that don't matter like Idaho and Arkansas, by golly, we would FINALLY have ourselves that hyper-diverse Wonderland of total equality we've always dreamed of!" Hell, even liberal whites themselves have wholeheartedly embraced the ethnomasochism epidemic, with many declaring their whiteness - you know, that thing none of them had any control over - as some sort of sociocultural original sin. Of course, no one ever turns that on its head and asks if all white people have to answer for slavery and KKK lynchings, how come all black people can't answer for the nation's highly disproportionate number of interracial rapes and the Moors' conquest - and subsequent enslavement - of the Mediterranean peoples. Just why is inherent racial guilt only mandated for Caucasians and not the Chinese, Indians and pretty much the descendants of every African nation on Earth - when they too promoted slavery, ethnic tribalism and long, bloody conquests of less advanced peoples? How come only the descendants of British and German people are supposed to feel hereditary unworthiness because of what their great, great, great, great, great, great grandfathers probably didn't even do, but nobody ever gives the Native Americans shit for practicing cannibalism and ritualistic torture for centuries before Paleface even arrived stateside? Why must all white people feel intrinsic shame for the institution of American slavery - despite the fact that barely 8 percent of all families in the U.S. at the HEIGHT of slavery actually owned slaves and most white people at the time were much likelier to be the offspring of people brought to the colonies in bondage themselves - but nobody's demanding all black people feel intrinsic shame for Uganda's track record of child sacrifice (which, unlike slavery in America, continues to this day throughout sub-Saharan Africa?)
Of course, there's no question as to why so many People of Color (a term that always miffed me, seeing as how black is actually the absence of color) hate Whitey with the same indiscriminate fury that old Adolf fostered for Der Jude - because the media and academia tells 'em to hate 'em because THAT'S supposedly a central part of their ethnic identity. All these publishing empires and TV channels and highfalutin, ivory tower-perched, taxpayer subsidized college propagandists want everybody who isn't white to feel as if being victimized by El Honky is some sort of common bond for them and their kind. It's cult programming 101 - if you want to get a disparate group of people who (ideologically and perhaps even physiologically) are totally incompatible to "unite," you give them a shared enemy that purportedly threatens their very livelihood at every conceivable opportunity. The U.S. and Russia didn't have Jack Shit in common circa 1943, but the fear and loathing of the Third Reich gave them something to circle jerk to. It's the same deal today - Asians, blacks and Latinos have practically zero cultural commonalities, but you can (temporarily) get them working on the same page if you can get them worked up enough about the Great White Menace running roughshod over all of them.
So Democrats - even though most of them are rich white motherfuckers themselves - have gone to great lengths to get virtually everybody who isn't a.) white, b.) straight, c.) a Christian, or d.) a man to hop aboard their war wagon under the pretense that white, straight, Christian men were going to fuck them up royally.
Now, the effectiveness of this - as an actual political strategy - is disputable. It worked wonders in 2012, for sure, but in 2016? Eh, as evident by who is sitting in the Oval Office right now, not so much. The problem with this approach is that it requires 100 percent hive mind uniformity, and to be frank, most minorities in America are too smart to fall for that (after all, they should know full well the social hazards of castigating an entire group of peoples just 'cause.) Deep down they know that pledging undying allegiance to a political party means ultimately having to abandon their core ethnic identities to better serve the lord ideology, and at the end of the day, the only people they truly want running their lives are their damned selves. Really, the only people who fall head over heels for the "hate whitey" ruse are white democrats themselves, and boy, do they EVER swallow that claptrap hook, line and sinker.
 |
| Ha ha ha, that's what you get for choosing to be poor, you stupid white asshole! |
People of Color aren't masterminding this whole anti-white shtick, and they sure as hell aren't the ones keeping it well-financed. The white-shaming campaigns (pogroms?) are bank-rolled by extremely wealthy, predominantly white liberals who THINK a general white population too guldarn ashamed of all the shit 99 percent of white people 300 years ago didn't even do will be much more willing to accept multiculturalism and globalization as moral imperatives, when in reality, they're just methods of socially engineering an economy and a cultural environment where the rich get richer, the poor become poorer and the middle class all but disappears.
You have to be a mush-headed college kid or some 20-something ne'er-do-well for the all encompassing white antipathy to be even remotely appetizing. Even if you aren't white yourself, you'd have to be one cynical - if not gleefully ignorant - sack of shit to brand all white people as one-dimensional, intrinsically evil or amoral people. Odds are by the time you are 30 or 40, you've learned to NOT evaluate people based on broad generalizations but take them on their own merits - in other words, you judge people by the content of their character as opposed to their skin color. The entire liberal Tao is an utter bastardization (well, really, more like motherfuckization) of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s post-racial utopian dream. Rather than triumph over the prejudicial ways of yore, they're actively encouraging people to simply flip the script and foster a "natural" distaste for a different kind of social "other."
And for what? What exactly did white people do that's worthy of such universal condemnation? Every fucking ethnic group in history has - at one point - enslaved people of a different ethnic group (including the tribes of Africa and Latin America.) Every fucking ethnic group has attempted to conquer at least one other ethnic group and tried to take land, artifacts and even people that formerly didn't belong to them (again, the tribes of Africa and Latin America are just as guilty of this as the Europeans and Asians.) Every fucking dominant ethnic group in a multicultural society has sought to reinforce its societal supremacy - and no, as evident by the tribalistic strife in Rwanda, Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya, this isn't simply an after-effect of America's most over-used (and vaguely defined) scapegoat, racism. Simply put, there is nothing that white Americans did THROUGHOUT the history of America that every other fucking hegemonic ethnic group hasn't already done. And unlike the majoritarian ethnic groups in China, Japan, India, Mexico or - irony of ironies, pretty much any country in Africa - white Americans have actually gone to great lengths to cede power to smaller minority groups, as evident by the nation's menagerie of race-based hiring quotas and affirmative action academia policies that favor non-white beneficiaries for simply not being white while penalizing white applicants simply for being white. If American whites really are the bigoted boogeymen the liberals have made them out to be, they're doing a pretty poor job of playing prejudiced pricks, seeing as how the United States of America may very well be the least racist country on the planet.
In the lead up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the slow demographical death of white people - in particular, low-income rural white people in flyover country - was practically celebrated by the media. By proxy of supporting Donald Trump, the lowly agrarian and Appalachian Caucasian was demonized as subhuman scum, a bunch of backwoods neanderthals who, at best, were too inbred and/or retarded to be worth saving and at the worst, were literal Nazi mountaineers, whom are actively engaged in trying to kill every black, gay, Muslim and feminist in the country. Their slow, geographical demise at the hand of migrant Muslims and Hispanic border jumpers isn't just something that shouldn't be mourned, it should be seen as a winning predicament for civilization itself. Once these sorry, hate-filled cracker motherfuckers are out of the way, then human progress - perhaps even human evolution itself - can finally crank into overdrive.
Of course, nobody really tells us what happens ONCE whites stop being America's hegemonic racial group (and if you're wondering when that might be, the U.S. Census Bureau projects it'll be neck and neck between whites and Hispanics come 2100, with Asians likely outnumbering African-Americans for third place.) All you really have to do is look at countries like the U.K., the Netherlands and even Canada - all places where there are dozens of "major" political parties - to see what's going to eventually happen here; with every voting bloc heavily balkanized, we're inevitably going to be seeing elected officials who win maybe 20 or 25 percent of the national (or even state-level) vote winding up in power because the glut of also-rans (and their ethnic voting base) are scattered so widely across the political spectrum. There's no way the Democratic Party can continue to be the floating ark of all non-white-male voters and stay relevant politically; as evident by the pioneering work of sociologist Robert Putnam, diversity - much to the chagrin of its globalism-espousing cheerleaders - does a much better job of dividing people than uniting them. Without that Great White Adversary (TM) serving as the adhesive that holds all those divergent groups together, the liberals are poised to witness their great multicultural society collapse like the tower of Babel.
The frank reality is that all ethnic groups - intrinsically - are isolationists and healthily xenophobic. Authors Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld made this clear as day in their 2014 tome The Triple Package, which examined why certain ethnic enclaves in the U.S. - including the Chinese, Jews, Nigerians and even Mormons - seem to produce an inordinate number of successful business people. Their central thesis is that these groups are disproportionately successful because they foster a particular sense of cultural superiority tempered by a concomitant sense of tribal inferiority and a steadfast dedication to impulse control. Ultimately, their allegiance isn't to a particular party, but their own kind; they feel as if they individually owe it to their shared collective identity to be successful, or at the very least, better off than their rivaling ethnic counterparts.
But something interesting happens when you wedge these very specific in-groups into larger out-groups - they become combative. For example, although Chinese and Japanese people are both technically Asian, the two ethnic groups feel no sense of solidarity or brotherhood - in fact, their entire mutual history is pretty much nothing but a running list of hostilities, resentments and actual genocides. Along those same lines, Jews can easily be wedged into the same greater ethnic bloc as Muslims as members of the Arabian genus, but both sides foster such a great historical hatred of one another that they'd rather blow each other to smithereens before accepting they share SOME kind of ancestral, cultural or especially genetic common link.
 |
| Our prejudiced, patriarchal society is clearly kinder to these people than the Obamas. |
The strange thing is, this is something we DON'T take into consideration when talking about "white people." What exactly makes somebody white, to begin with? Do you consider Italians and Spaniards the same ethnic group as the Irish and Scots? Are Greeks and Estonians culturally the same as Siberians and Scandinavians? Or does simply hailing from Europe genetically constitute "whiteness" across the board by proxy? And if that's the case, how come white folks never drudge up all of the historical oppression they've faced as a universal social policy bargaining chip? You guys ever hear of the Spanish Inquisition? Or how about Oliver Cromwell? If black Americans are entitled to reparations for slavery, aren't white Americans entitled to reparations for feudalism?
For fuck's sake, a lot of these anti-white social media shit stains don't even take the time to differentiate class differences between whites in the country right now. Can't they see how fundamentally absurd it is to grant a universal "white privilege" to people born in dirt poor rural communities, which are not only devoid of the ample job opportunities in urban environments, but completely shut off from the same generous social entitlement benefits and free-to-all public utilities that inner city P.O.C. have had access to for 50 years? Close to half the nation's impoverished people are white, and the majority of its homeless people are likewise melanin-deprived - yet you coddled, entitled and yes, PRIVILEGED, little anti-white snots have the audacity to bemoan their non-existent sociocultural advantages as some sort of sticking point to guarantee you MORE free stuff from the government?
The more I reflect on the Black Lives Matter fad from a few years ago, the more I'm convinced the whole thing was a actually an enormous anti-white dog whistle. For god's sake, you had kids receiving full rides (on the public dime) to IVY LEAGUE schools belittling white people, regardless of socioeconomic differences, for preferential social treatment and, yes, far-reaching social privilege. Meanwhile, Nobel Prize winning economists were releasing studies revealing uneducated, middle-aged white males in rural communities were literally dying off at a rate rivaling the death rates of gay men at the height of the AIDS epidemic - clearly, yet another symptom proving that ALL white people, socioculturally, are doing better than the spoiled black millionaires confusing lab equipment for Klan members across our nation's college campuses.
Think, for a moment, what kind of historical antecedents exist for a culture that gave birth to something like Dear White People - i.e., weekly dispatches blaming a singular ethnic group for all of society's ills and injustices. Not only is it considered fashionable to hate on an entire ethnic bloc because of the color of their skin and the perceived entitlements that comes along with it, it's actually deemed a nigh-mandatory moral calling. In fact, denouncing white people for - well, just being white - is such an entrenched part of our cultural tradition that the idea of white people showing the same kind of ethnic group pride as blacks, Hispanics or even gays is considered socially taboo.
Hell, I don't think Joey Goebbels did as good a job convincing the Krauts to foster a distaste for the Jews as well as our mass media is trying to get the citizenry to dislike white people. It's an unscientific, irrational and totally manufactured ideal that's been elevated to status as unquestionable truth - to question the existence of "white privilege" is to commit the closest thing modern U.S. society has to cultural heresy. Not only is that perspective "wrong," it's unthinkably, unfathomably wrong and must be stamped out to prevent the hideous injustices of yesteryear from re-emerging.
 |
| Why wouldn't I and millions of others want to heed the advice of a self-loathing ethnomasochist? |
If all of this highly fashionable anti-white conservative/Red State honky rancor seems somewhat familiar, it's because the things multiculturalists are saying about nativists now is the EXACT same thing that hardcore racists were saying about blacks 100 years ago. The perceived anti-liberal/anti-globalist white in this day and age isn't just criticized for an unpopular perspective, he's literally degraded as subhuman scum - not just ideologically, but genetically and biologically a lesser human product.
But what really gets me is the lukewarm response from white people. Can you imagine ANY other ethnic group in the U.S. laughing off such widespread cultural derision and scapegoating? Do you think if college students ran around decrying "Jew privilege," the Chosen would ignore it? If a whole bunch of demonstrators started marching up and down the street demanding less Asians in the workforce, do you think local Indians and Chinese residents would acknowledge the validity of the protesters' concerns? If a talking head went on TV and asked black America to apologize for their long history of criminal misgivings, do you think any black American anywhere would feel intrinsic shame and say to himself "yes, I do bear the full weight of my entire race's sins on my shoulder, and not only should I recognize them, but dedicate my life to atoning for them?"
Never in history (that I'm aware of, anyway) has there been a group of people so masochistic as to not only not care about their own civic persecution, but actively strive to eliminate themselves as an ethnic bloc. Instead of fearing their loss of sovereignty, they embrace the prospects of alien rule, praying for their kind's political death like one of those suicidal cults waiting for the Hale-Bopp Comet to whisk them away to paradise.
Except the "paradise" they're clamoring for is actually a third world purgatory with a diminished quality of life for all peoples. I am reminded of the chilling words of Patrick J. Buchanan in his 2012 tome Suicide of a Superpower - "absent an authoritarian regime or dominant ethnoculture, all multiracial, multiethnic and multilingual nations are ever at risk of disintegration."
So what happens to our diverse utopia sans that pitiful and pathetic white "over-culture" holding everything together? Will a surging Hispanic minority-majority simply become the new overbearing "whites" come 2150, or without a core demography, will the nation wind up splintering off into a bunch of proxy mini-nation states along ethnic lines?
From what I've gathered, U.S. whites - in particular, the working class, rural Republican whites - are vilified by progressives NOT for their historical misdeeds (remember, the first Democratic President genocided the Indians and pretty much ALL of the state politicians during the reign of Jim Crow in the bad old days of the South had big old "Ds" next to their names), but because they represent the nation's biggest barrier to multiculturalism and globalization. So captivated by this romantic notion of diversity - and the open-borders and open-trade wonderland it facilitates - that Dems are willing to demonize themselves in order to bring the John Lennon commie nirvana to fruition.
The problem, though, is that never in history has a truly multicultural society succeeded. That's because - as much as we may hate it - tribal identity always triumphs over group politics. That's why the entire Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, the horn of Africa, Central America, the North Caucasus region of Russia and migrant-strewn Europe is such a festering shithole of racial resentment nowadays. And lest we forget historically,World War I and World War II were both brought about by aggrieved nation states trying to redraw the border lines around ethno-identities.
So yes, the U.S. white population is declining, but who gains from that? Certainly not Black Americans, whose share of the national populace is expected to remain static over the next century. The overall Asian population in the U.S. supposed to quadruple, but to be frank, they already have disproportionate economic and political power in the States already. If demographics truly are destiny, that means the civic decline of the white has only one real beneficiary, and that's the Hispanic base (which, again, is supposed to climb to nearly 40 percent - perchance even 50 percent - of the U.S. national populace come 2100.)
Which begs this unthinkable, unanswerable question - how exactly would minority citizens fare any better under a dominant Hispanic society as opposed to a dominant Euro-Caucasian one? Sorry kids, but a quick gander at how well Central American migrants fare in Mexico - or the soaring rates of Hispanic on black violence in America's inner cities - shouldn't exactly fill you with optimism for our post-white Latino-led multicultural utopia.
At the end of the day, though, maybe it's just the fact that people need a convenient scapegoat to pin all their blames and failings on. Today, all you young whipper-snappers are persecuting rural, conservative whites for fucking up the country and holding back national progress, in much the same way the Germans kept blaming all of society's ills on the Jews in the 1930s. Or how the Hutus blamed the Tutsis for everything sucking in Rwanda in the early 1990s. Or how the Japanese blamed the Chinese for everything in the lead up to World War II. Or how the Turks blamed the Armenians for everything before WWI. Or how the Indians blamed the Muslims and the Sikhs for everything in the 1940s.
As cliched as it sounds, history really does repeat itself. The victims and the victimizers may change, but the narrative pretty much remains unchanged - as this lamentable Wikipedia article surely demonstrates.
Alas, today's anti-white crusaders for transnational progress appear to have forgotten that. Little do they know that inhumane brutality in the name of diversity doesn't differ an iota from inhumane brutality in the name of ethnonationalism.
After all - dead is dead, regardless of the ideology that produced the corpse.
