Whitey, Wake the **** Up Thread

Discussion in 'Happy Hour' started by Don Wassall, Jan 14, 2018.

  1. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Anti-Racism As Slave Morality

    by Emmanuel Spraguer

    There are arguably two strains of moral values observable within systems of slave morality — those which arise organically from the masses to satisfy psychological needs of theirs, and those which are imposed upon the masses to keep them adrift, docile, powerless, and thus easily ruled over. Anti-racism is of the latter type. It is a moral value inculcated into whites by white-haters and specifically designed to keep whites enslaved.

    [​IMG]

    Examples of the former type of slave morality are values like meekness, altruism and “body positivity.” They are values and movements that the weak buy into largely on account of their status as weak links and degraded members of a society. These values are an inversion of reality (a re-sentiment in Nietzsche-speak), a way to make their obvious shortcomings and incontinence seem noble or good, an illusion that magically transforms failure into success (much like the way the left has turned bad decision making, poverty and/or habitual criminality into commodities based on faux victimhood). Most Marxist values have a similar dimension and are rooted in a kind of learned helplessness or culture of loserdom. It is easier to deny that good things are good, or to claim that bad things are good, than to put in the hard work necessary to actually succeed or prosper. The logic is that since one is a loser and will always be a loser, instead of rising up, adapting to one’s circumstances and improving oneself, the solution is instead to change the world around you, by removing all those systems and standards which make one’s loserdom so unmistakable. If there is no wealth, no one is poor (not really true), if there is no beauty, no one is ugly (if only!). The Marxist (and Cultural Marxist) values of hard equality and anti-hierarchy are at least partially rooted in this kind of reality-inversion driven by deep psychological need.

    The problem is not me, it’s the system! Ergo, we must completely remake the system!

    Anti-racism on the other hand is top-down. It is a way for out-ethnics (white-haters) to keep whites down, and ideally to eliminate them altogether. It is a morality taught to the slaves to keep them submissive and powerless. The slaves can’t organize if you tell them that slaves are not a group of people with common interests, but an illusion, a social construct. And no group organizes or revolts if its members are broken, dispirited, or ashamed of themselves and their history. So whitey, make no mistake about it, you are not a race, you are not a people, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a white supremacist fascist lunatic. You’re just afraid of a changing world and haven’t got the skills to survive in that brave new world. Got it, loser? Signed, your anti-asperistic Cultural Marxist overlords.

    [​IMG]

    It is time for whites to overcome the “anti-racist” mindset which serves as the moral foundation for our dispossession. Let it go and the folly, the sheer insanity of letting our lands be overrun by hostile out-ethnics becomes undeniable. We are being conquered and destroyed by people who take their tribal and racial interests very seriously. Very seriously. To those conquering us, “anti-racism” is just a means to get their hands on our lands, our money and our women, nothing more. Ethnic networking, out-group discrimination and tribal thinking are all ubiquitous in the Jewish, Muslim, Hispanic and black communities. Peddling anti-racism is a kind of psy-op, a way to break down the white enemy’s sense of self and community, nothing more. It is for those foolish, idealistic, Middle-American whites (translation: gentiles) to practice, no one else could be that self-denying (translation: maladapted). It is a morality for the other, not for oneself. Furthermore, it aligns perfectly with the anti-white Western power class’s interests & worldview. All of you cheap, disposable, substitutable peons on the bottom rung of society are equal, we at the top are less equal. Anti-racism is also a moral standard only applied to whites, and only whites take it seriously. They have turned our magnanimity against us, and we have submitted half-willingly.

    We have thereby shackled ourselves by a false morality, a slave morality. We are fighting with two hands behind our backs as our enemies pummel us into extinction.

    The surest way for whites to overcome this “anti-racist” slave morality is to finally see it for what it is, namely a weapon wielded by peoples who hate us, specifically crafted to destroy us and the wonderful civilization we have built. That’s what it is. That’s all it is.

    Racism for many successful peoples is normal, natural and healthy, especially in moderation. The only alternative is open-borders, dhimmitude, brownification/blackification and our wholesale self-destruction. The evidence for this viewpoint is overwhelming. Anti-racism, especially as applied, but even if unselectively applied, entails disaster for white people. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to harm you and deep down probably hates you. It’s obvious. You know this by the way the non-whites and anti-whites telling you this typically behave. These folks, especially non-white “anti-racists” take their own racial interests quite seriously. Indeed, they often put those interests above all else.

    I have never, not even once, engaged in an internet debate with a self-described “anti-racist” which didn’t culminate in them throwing around anti-white racist slurs and invective. Not even once, in hundreds of debates. Anti-racists are always and everywhere deeply, committedly anti-white. If anti-racism as a cardinal moral value was good for you, they wouldn’t believe in it, nor would they jam it down your throat. “Anti-racism” is harmful to whites, to our material interests and to our communities.

    Indeed, to anti-white leftists and the anti-white Western power class, that is its most cherished feature.

    [​IMG]

    The enemies of the white race (like Tim Wise and Noel Ignatiev) don’t believe in practicing anti-racism toward you, they believe in you practicing anti-racism toward them! A morality meant only for you, taught to you by your enemies but not practiced by them, is not a true morality, it is not universalizable, it is a slave’s morality. They teach you that slave morality because they know it hurts you as much as it helps them. If you buy into it you’re a damned fool, you are effectively an Armenian day-laborer paving the road to Deir ez-Zor in the years preceding World War I.

    It is time for whites to adopt pride in our race and our accomplishments, to prize once again nobility and strength of will, as our ancestors did, to reinstitute a master morality as it were. Slave morality isn’t good for anyone. So the choice is yours: cower before your depraved, anti-white masters who would whip you for micro-aggressions and for loving and standing up for your heritage, or get off your knees and pick up the whip white man, the future is yours to tame.

    https://altright.com/2018/01/13/anti-racism-as-slave-morality/
     
  2. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    The Shithole Debate

    Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, January 13, 2018

    Even the libs know that Trump got it right.

    President Donald Trump has been a disappointment in many ways. He’s inspired a fanatical leftist counter-reaction. The racial dissident movement is weaker after his first year in office than it was before he was elected. And the demographic transformation of America continues.

    Yet we should not regret his election, for President Trump has the singular ability to reveal truths our opponents would prefer to leave unspoken. Sometimes, he bluntly announces these truths himself. Sometimes, the reactions of his foes speak more loudly than even he ever could. Both phenomena are at work in “Shitholegate,” a media firestorm that despite its crudity has sparked what may be the single most important debate on immigration policy since the Jordan Commission.

    According to Senator Dick Durbin, President Trump questioned why the United States continues to accept immigrants from “shithole” Africa countries and Haiti. Senator Durbin took it upon himself to leak these comments to the press, which duly reacted with outrage. “Shitholegate” may be the single largest scandal of President Trump’s administration, at least in terms of media reaction.

    It is revealing that Senator Durbin felt justified in releasing comments from a private conversation. Such an action, as Senate Republicans have pointed out, shows Democrats were never serious about negotiating an immigration compromise.

    We don’t even know if President Trump used the exact words Senator Durbin says he did, since no Republicans seem to be backing his account, and the White House has denied it. But even assuming Senator Durbin’s account is correct, immediately repeating the contents of a private conversation to hostile outsiders is more than a breach of trust. It makes ordinary conversation impossible, since no one has the right to question orthodoxy, even in private.

    Of course, that’s precisely the kind of country we live in today. And, as is entirely typical in these cases, the outrage over “Shitholegate” is over the term the president used, not whether what he said was true or false. Essentially, the President of the United States is being accused of blasphemy—dissenting from the unexamined contention that African nations are wonderful, and immigrants from them benefit us. Every screaming editorial, outraged TV journalist, and expletive-laden tweet can be summarized thus: He’s not allowed to say that.

    What makes this maddening is that not only is President Trump right, but the immigration position of his opponents is dependent on his being right. Of course those nations are “shitholes.” If they weren’t, leftists wouldn’t have to argue that their citizens should be allowed to stay in the US.

    One of the countries President Trump was supposedly referring to was El Salvador. Because of an earthquake back in 2001, 200,000 Salvadorans—whether here legally or illegally—got temporary permission to stay in the United States. Critics say they should not be sent back to a poor country plagued by gang violence. In other words, even though there is no extraordinary emergency in El Salvador, we shouldn’t send Salvadorans back home because it is, in fact, a shithole.

    It was only a short time ago the horrific nature of these nations was used to explain why their citizens want to come here. Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the most prominent open-borders Republicans, called Mexico a “hellhole” in 2013, not to insult Mexico, but to explain why Mexicans want to leave. Likewise, few still pretend that the migrants flooding Europe really are Syrians fleeing civil war. The main reason they come is to escape poverty; their countries are shitholes.

    President Trump is actually agreeing with the Left’s analysis. But since he intends to use the argument to limit immigration rather than encourage it, it becomes immoral. Race realists see this game all the time. If Jared Taylor points out America will soon become majority non-white, it is alarmist and offensive. If a leftist does it, it is positive and praiseworthy.

    President Trump also says he wants more immigration from Europe, and this has prompted the usual absurdities from the Beltway Right. Erick Erickson, the original “cuckservative,”tells us African immigrants are preferable to “socialist” immigrants from Norway. David French’s wife Nancy complains that the president thinks her adopted Ethiopian daughtercomes from a ”shithole” country. Well, if she didn’t, the Frenches wouldn’t have any reason to brag about having adopted her.

    Former CIA head John Brennan even claims that “Lady Liberty” and the Founding Fathers are “weeping” over President Trump’s statements. Of course, the Founding Fathers were by today’s unabashed standards white nationalists. As for Haiti, they refused to recognize the Haitian government and Thomas Jefferson called the slave revolt “a terrible engine, absolutely ungovernable,” and hoped France could suppress it. The Founding Fathers, would, if anything, think President Trump was a dangerous egalitarian.

    Many commentators assert that regardless of what Americans themselves want, the country will only grow more “diverse.” Mexican President Vicente tweeted that not even the president can say who is welcome in the US and who is not, suggesting that it is illegitimate to limit immigration from anywhere. America therefore does not really exist except as a pile of wealth to be taken by anyone who shows up. It does not have identity, interests, or an independent existence. Therefore, it cannot exercise any discrimination in admitting new residents. A “moral” immigration policy, in this conception, is essentially the death knell for America.

    But facts matter, and racial reality asserts itself in the performance of different groups once they arrive. Reason magazine tells us it doesn’t matter where you come from, “it matters what you do while you are here.” Well, most non-white immigrants get on welfare at rates far exceeding that of European immigrants, but this is precisely what we are not allowed to debate. The whole point of the media hysteria is to avoid any discussion of what kind of society Third World immigration brings.

    And leftists know this. When it comes to where to live, where to go to school, and where to buy property, leftists, like everyone else, avoid “bad neighborhoods.” Their attempts to pretend they don’t notice differences between neighborhoods and nations is self-discrediting. As Steve Sailer points out, using a “diversity visa” or random admissions for universities such as Stanford would destroy the quality of the university, yet status-conscious liberals pretend these things are good for America.

    Even Rich Lowry of National Review scored a victory when he asked Joan Walsh of The Nation if she would rather live in Norway or Haiti. She refused to answer, tacitly conceding his point. When angry liberals say they are going to leave the country if a Republican wins the White House, they say they are going to Canada or Europe. No one says he is going to Mexico, and certainly not Haiti.

    [​IMG]
    October 3, 2016 – Port-au-Prince (Credit Image: © Bahare Khodabande/EFE via ZUMA Press)

    Of course, there is a problem with looking at country of origin as the source for immigration. Because of immigration which has already occurred overseas, it is no longer clear who is coming from Britain or France. It is not geography but genetics that predict future performance. Whites from South Africa will perform better in the United States than Senegalese whose passports say they are French. Black Americans, despite being here for centuries, have created cities and neighborhoods that can be characterized as “shitholes,” forcing other Americans to figure out ways to escape them without admitting what they are doing.

    If you go by what people do, rather than that what they say, nearly everyone agrees with President Trump. Yet we are witnessing a blunt attempt to shut down debate and police speech in order to promote an open-borders immigration policy. As global demographics change, borders become increasingly necessary. Every person reading this and especially every Third World immigrant knows that Donald Trump has done nothing more than shine a light on harsh reality.

    It remains for race realists to explain why it is not only permissible, but moral to resist replacement. Public policy should not be defined by cowardice and hypocrisy. And America was not founded in order to become just another shithole.

    https://www.amren.com/commentary/2018/01/the-shithole-debate/
     
  3. booth

    booth Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2015
    Messages:
    182
    Location:
    n.c.
    Todays white youth are being betrayed by three things, the entertainment industry, the school systems, and their guilt ridden parents. All three think being white is racist and should give in to all the wants and demands of negroes. They all tell the same old tired stories about how negroes were denied their rights and should be paid reparations for mistreatment and kidnapped from their homeland. I have lost family members and so called friends for my beliefs. I stand by them. I was told from the time I could understand right from wrong, that you get what you earned and no more. That ever time something is given to you for nothing someone else is paying for it. If they beat one of ours we beat two of theirs. I see very few whites willing to stand up and defend themselves against negroes , let me tell anyone who reads this, yes they will fight but they feel pain and bleed just like I do. They tend to want to sucker punch you so drop the hammer on their ass first and fight to one of you don't get up. Hell yes I have gotten beaten, but I put those on the back shelf of my mind and remember the ones I won , it helps me through some rough times.
    Grow some balls white people. We need men to be like men were in the 40s through the 70s. No, I can't beat anyone any more but least I am willing to fight.
     
  4. chris371

    chris371 Mentor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    553
    Hear hear!
     
  5. Charles Martel

    Charles Martel Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    7,060
    My country is being overrun by huge numbers of people from India.

    Canada is on the way to becoming a real sh*thole like India.





     
  6. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    The God Of White Dispossession

    Conservatives might think it cute to quote some of King's more libertarian utterances back at liberals, as a form of “PC Judo.” But in the end, they will be the losers of such a gambit.
    • RICHARD SPENCER

      [​IMG]
      “MLK Day” has become the high holy day of the American liturgical calendar. No other statesman, not Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln, is deemed worthy of a holiday all to his own. And no other national holiday seems to carry such relevant, pressing meaning for Americans as the third Monday in January. The 4th of July has become an excuse for a backyard barbecue. The MLK anniversary, on the other hand, inspires Americans to ask who we are and what our higher ideals should be.

      NPI’s co-founder, Samuel Francis, who was active in the debates about the institution of the holiday in mid-’80s, recognized then that the significance of Martin Luther King Jr. stretched far beyond the legal and political technicalities of the Civil Right Act. The celebration of the man represented a great change in how Americans understood their nation.

      "[T[he true meaning of the holiday is that it serves to legitimize the radical social and political agenda that King himself favored and to delegitimize traditional American social and cultural institutions — not simply those that supported racial segregation but also those that support a free market economy, an anti-communist foreign policy, and a constitutional system that restrains the power of the state rather than one that centralizes and expands power for the reconstruction of society and the redistribution of wealth. In this sense, the campaign to enact the legal public holiday in honor of Martin Luther King was a small first step on the long march to revolution, a charter by which that revolution is justified as the true and ultimate meaning of the American identity. In this sense, and also in King’s own sense, as he defined it in his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, the Declaration of Independence becomes a “promissory note” by which the state is authorized to pursue social and economic egalitarianism as its mission, and all institutions and values that fail to reflect the dominance of equality — racial, cultural, national, economic, political, and social — must be overcome and discarded.

      "By placing King — and therefore his own radical ideology of social transformation and reconstruction — into the central pantheon of American history, the King holiday provides a green light by which the revolutionary process of transformation and reconstruction can charge full speed ahead. Moreover, by placing King at the center of the American national pantheon, the holiday also serves to undermine any argument against the revolutionary political agenda that it has come to symbolize. Having promoted or accepted the symbol of the new dogma as a defining — perhaps the defining — icon of the American political order, those who oppose the revolutionary agenda the symbol represents have little ground to resist that agenda."

      Sam is all too correct that “MLK writ large” has become the foundation of American identity; in many ways, the situation is far worse than the one he depicted in 1998.

      At the time, Sam described a pitched battle between MLK’s egalitarian “Dream” and “traditional American social and cultural institutions,” which he describes, in Cold War language, as “anti-Communist foreign policy,” free-markets, and the Constitution.

      What Sam might not have grasped in 1998, but understood fully later, is that by the turn of the 21st century, the MLK counter-culture was (and is) the Establishment. There are precious few “traditional American social and cultural institutions” that do not honor MLK or treat “The Dream” as informing their missions.

      And this is not solely the case for the more overtly liberal ones like the Department of Education. No less a putative bastion of conservative values than the U.S. Army is led by men like Four-Star General George Casey, who in 2009, in response to a Muslim Army Major who murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers as an act of jihad, averred,

      What happened in Fort Hood was a tragedy. But I believe it would become an even greater tragedy if our Diversity becomes a casualty. And it’s not just about Muslims. We have a very diverse Army; we have a very diverse society; and that gives us all strength.

      MLK unites the Left (tactical disputes between Malcolm X and the pacifist reverend have long since gone by the wayside). And in a strange way, he unites the Right as well. “Judged By The Content Of Their Character” is the central (if not sole) argument against multiculturalism and affirmative-action offered forth by self-styled “conservatives.” And King is counted as an American icon and hero not only at left-wing and liberal gatherings but at those of the “Religious Right” and Beltway Republicans.

      Glenn Beck—who, in his radio and television programs and mass rallies, has created a kind of religion of MLK—might actually turn Sam’s polemic on its head and claim that MLK is the hero of American foreign policy and Constitutional government. And he would, in a sense, be correct—even in the matter of foreign affairs. Washington’s violent incursions into the Middle East are invariably accompanied by promises that all shall vote, women shall attain undergraduate educations, and minorities shall be empowered.

      Despite conservatives’ wishful thinking, The Dream—in all its manifestations—is the antithesis of a free society. Government’s enforcing that all people and businesses make judgments non-racially is, in itself, a totalitarian notion and has, in fact, resulted in a massive interventionist infrastructure and bureaucracy. (Rand Paul tepidly hinted at as much during his 2010 Senate campaign.) The costs of the industry of “civil rights” and “diversity training” in the workplace can be measured in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, per year. (And pace conservative revisionism, the actual Martin Luther King Jr. unequivocally advocated most all of the measures done in his name.)

      More deeply, “non-discrimination” as a value is the enemy of all tradition, not just the Anglo-Saxon American society it has helped destroy. The version of The Dream that conservatives like—that of interracial hand-holding and vague libertarianism—is ultimately a vision of race-less, family-less, class-less, history-less individuals, happily experiencing equality with other individuals of various shades, all integrated by the marketplace and government. Tradition is, at its root, about being a part of something larger than oneself. The Dream is about becoming a self-contained atom.

      Conservatives might think it cute to quote some of King’s more libertarian utterances back at liberals, as a form of “PC Judo.” But in the end, they will be the losers of such a gambit.

    • Martin Luther King Jr., a fraud and degenerate in his life, has become the symbol and cynosure of White Dispossession and the deconstruction of European civilization. We shall overcome!
    https://altright.com/2018/01/15/the-god-of-white-dispossession/
     
  7. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    MLK DID NOT WANT A COLORBLIND SOCIETY

    [​IMG]

    by Laramie Hirsch

    I was listening to Glenn Beck on the radio last week. He was bemoaning the fact that this country has race problems, that we are supposed to be a colorblind society, and that we are supposed to be judging each other on the content of people’s character. Then he whined asked how things have gotten to this point, why race relations were so strained. I laughed at his cluelessness and turned off my radio.

    Ronald Reagan signed Martin Luther King Jr. into our American tradition on November 2, 1983. And so now he shares a status with Christopher Columbus and George Washington. And yet, the Left hates what Regan has done with MLK. Why? Because Reagan cherry-picked a line from one of King’s speeches to portray him as an advocate for a colorblind society:

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.The Left does not like the idea of a colorblind society. They want blacks to be black, Hispanics to be Hispanic, Asians to be Asian, and whites to be devils. The only ones to be held to the seemingly-impossible standard of racial colorblindness are white conservatives like Glenn Beck, who will parrot this Regan-era, token idea to their detriment.

    To the Left, supporting a colorblind society means opposing the interests of civil rights and debasing the aims of black civil rights activists. The Left explains that putting everyone on a level playing field defangs MLK and destroys his legacy. In fact, treating everyone in this universal style is actually regarded as “colorblind racism.”

    Per The Left: A Universal, Colorblind Society Is A Desert

    The Left in this country wants it both ways: they don’t want to have blacks judged by the color of their skin. Yet these same people do not want blacks to have their ethnicity ignored. In one breath, they will complain about how blacks are isolated as “the other” when it comes to receiving special attention. In another breath, they demand that preferential treatment due to blackness continue.

    “[P]rograms that are overtly race-conscious come with a serious downside. They have a segregative effect. Things like school busing and affirmative action, by herding all the black people in through the black people pipeline, serve to overemphasize the otherness of blacks, further distancing them from the white majority by insisting on treating them differently.” – Tanker Colby, “Politicians have abused Martin Luther King Jr’s dream”For leftwing academics such as this, whites are required to do a series of mental gymnastics. First, we are supposed to be racially conscious of the different ethnicities we encounter. After that, we are to then become racially neutral in our actions, or in other words, we resume ignoring the elephant in the room. Whites must become “racially neutral,” and shed their own in-group preferences.

    This is only required of the whites. It’s no wonder that virtue-signalers like Glenn Beck are so confused. Whites may be happy to throw away their “white card,” but it is clear that the Left does not want blacks to burn their “black card.” This is the position the Left maintains today, and it is what MLK would have supported if he were alive.

    Leftist academics, such as Profesor Ronald Turner, resent the myth built up around King. Again, they despise the idea that “judged by the content of their character” is used to promote universalism. The following is from Turner ‘s article, titled The Dangers of Misappropriation: Misusing Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Legacy to Prove the Colorblind Thesis:

    This statement has been wrenched out of the social and political context in which King lived and died and has been misappropriated by some proponents of colorblindness who erroneously argue that “if colorblindness was good enough for Martin Luther King... then it ought to be good enough for a society that still aspires to the movement’s goals of equality and fair treatment.” This incorrect and ahistorical perversion of King’s statement distorts his actual views and legacy, and illustrates the dangers of the misuse of “acontextual snippets.”Putting blacks on a level playing field with whites is a bad and dangerous thing, according to Turner. In fact, according to this academic, a colorblind society isn’t even a moral position, but for Turner, colorblindness is somehow only a policy-based decision. If colorblindness means that it’s wrong to discriminate against blacks, then it’s also wrong to discriminate in their favor.

    Politicians have abused Martin Luther King Jr’s dream” For leftwing academics such as this, whites are required to do a series of mental gymnastics. First, we are supposed to be racially conscious of the different ethnicities we encounter. After that, we are to then become racially neutral in our actions, or in other words, we resume ignoring the elephant in the room. Whites must become “racially neutral,” and shed their own in-group preferences.

    This is only required of the whites. It’s no wonder that virtue-signalers like Glenn Beck are so confused. Whites may be happy to throw away their “white card,” but it is clear that the Left does not want blacks to burn their “black card.” This is the position the Left maintains today, and it is what MLK would have supported if he were alive.

    Leftist academics, such as Profesor Ronald Turner, resent the myth built up around King. Again, they despise the idea that “judged by the content of their character” is used to promote universalism. The following is from Turner ‘s article, titled The Dangers of Misappropriation: Misusing Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Legacy to Prove the Colorblind Thesis:

    This statement has been wrenched out of the social and political context in which King lived and died and has been misappropriated by some proponents of colorblindness who erroneously argue that “if colorblindness was good enough for Martin Luther King... then it ought to be good enough for a society that still aspires to the movement’s goals of equality and fair treatment.” This incorrect and ahistorical perversion of King’s statement distorts his actual views and legacy, and illustrates the dangers of the misuse of “acontextual snippets.”Putting blacks on a level playing field with whites is a bad and dangerous thing, according to Turner. In fact, according to this academic, a colorblind society isn’t even a moral position, but for Turner, colorblindness is somehow only a policy-based decision. If colorblindness means that it’s wrong to discriminate against blacks, then it’s also wrong to discriminate in their favor.

    Another academic, Professor Donna Murch would agree with Turner. She also argues against MLK’s supposed colorblindness, arguing that it is the enemies of affirmative action who continue this myth, and that “only direct intervention by a strong federal government could counteract the historical disparities wrought by the overlapping forces of race and class, forces that were unlikely to disappear.” The government must intervene…but for how long? Indefinitely? Or does the intervention only last until Black Power attains a status that finally overcomes the social order?

    Old wounds must be kept alive and fresh to perpetuate an entitlement welfare lifestyle. Their position has nothing to do with equality and certainly nothing to do with equity. The Left wants to keep Affirmative Action, and they continue to demand reparations for all blacks for the slavery of their ancestors.

    For the Left, the content of a man’s character means nothing. It all boils down to your ancestral DNA. If you are black, you are encouraged to spurn universalism, embrace your in-group preferences, and demand what you can from whites as you crush them beneath a mountain of white guilt. Concern for whites be damned, for Turner, colorblindness is the “rallying cry of conservatives who seek to protect white males from racial oppression.” And ultimately, society is left thinking that those conservative white males deserve no protection from racial oppression in their direction.

    In a 1986 press conference, President Reagan stated his desires for American society:

    We want a colorblind society. The ideal will be when we have achieved the moment when no one–or when nothing is done to or for anyone because of race, differences, or religion, or ethnic origin; and it’s done not because of those things, but in spite of them.This naive hope of our president is the same civic nationalist principle of the Catholic Church. Universalism–a heavenly state of society in which “there is neither Jew nor Greek”–is the Christian goal we should be aiming for. With great difficulty, the righteous state of universalism is a state we’ve been trying to attain since Christ. Yet it appears that this is a far-fetched and unobtainable goal, even for Catholics who fall into the politically correct trap of White Guilt. And certainly, the Left will have none of this universalism. They will be happy to stand back and watch the Right fall on their own swords, as conservatives continue this song and dance of reaching for equality.

    The brutal truth is that the Left is only interested in Black Power. In their eyes, white conservatives are guilty of trying to implement a colorblind regime. Our universalism is an attempt to subordinate blacks to white hegemony. The Left argues that blacks don’t want to be colorless, raceless Americans. They enjoy their hyphenated status. So, when whites try to claim that Martin Luther King Jr. stood for a colorblind society, they are guilty of “laissez-faire racism.”

    Conclusions

    The Left does not believe in equality. If only they would admit it. Since Ronald Reagan, many on the Right have had the goal to treat everyone equally without reference to context, situation, history or culture. The Left hates this. “Conversations” between the Right and Left are too volatile to reach a point of understanding this. Furthermore, a great number of white people on the Left and Right infantilize blacks, regarding them as incapable of holding these kinds of discussions.

    To add injury to insult, white, Leftist, Berkeley PhDs are allowed to tell us that “we must cleave our understanding of King from notions of colorblindness.” However, if we turn that around and have people on the Right agree with Martin Luther King Jr., and these same right-wingers say they also want to not be colorblind in regards to their own whiteness, then they are deemed to be racists and white supremacists.

    If a train of black people hold parades, cars, floats, and marching bands celebrating their blackness and their hero Marin Luther King Jr–who did not like colorblindness–then, that is just fine. They are vindicated by a government holiday created to help bridge black and white Americans. However, if the Right tries to hold a rally to unite one another and celebrate the Caucasian population of the United States…well, then, they are a gaggle of racists and bigots who deserve to have their gathering sabotaged by the local government. What happened in Charlottesville, Virginia last August was an atrocity in the public eye. But the marches of black pride in the streets on Martin Luther King Jr. Day will be a celebration.

    All peoples of color are allowed to celebrate their race and ethnicity. You whites must practice colorblindness. This universalism of whites is not for blacks, and if blacks try to adopt a colorblind mindset, then they are labeled as oreos and Uncle Toms, among other things. And if Whites dare to abandon this cage of colorblindness proscribed for them since the Reagan era–if they dare to acknowledge their ethnicity in any positive way–then they will suffer the physical consequences from the government, from the media, from the Left, and from the cowardly politically correct “moderates” who cower in fear and indirectly serve the Left.

    https://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2018/01/mlk-did-not-want-colorblind-society.html#more
     
  8. booth

    booth Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2015
    Messages:
    182
    Location:
    n.c.
    All whites should read or hear George Wallace's inaugural address of 1963. He lays it out in plain talk how whites and blacks could work and coexist with out the interference of the federal government ,separate but equal. One of the greatest speeches ever given equal to anything Kennedy, Reagan or MLK ever gave.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  9. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Great article:

    The Great White War

    by Jim Goad

    There is no one I hate more than someone who tries to tell me whom I hate.

    For a quarter-century now I’ve made it very clear that most of my hatred—and there’s quite a lot of it, I never run out—is intra-racial. While those who have a death grip on media and education would love to pretend that I sit around all day stewing about blacks, I find myself incapable of mustering nearly the sort of searing animus toward my Negroidal brethren that I consistently feel toward liberal white coastal elites, who have their heads planted so far up their own asses and are so drunk on the notion of their moral irreproachability that they can’t possibly conceive anyone would hate them, much less some lowly, foulmouthed plumber’s son who grew up in a brick row home and views white liberal pieties as shallow, self-serving extravagances that help no one but themselves—specifically, their self-image.

    These are the people who tell me I vote against my interests while they actively spit on my interests.

    These are the ones who endorse trade and immigration policies that don’t adversely affect them yet have rendered much of working white America hopeless, suicidal, and strung out on pills.

    They are the ones who are statistically far more likely to be descended from the white slave-owning class than they are from the far more numerous descendants of white indentured servants, yet they’ve successfully scapegoated poor whites and left them bearing the brunt of black resentment.

    These are the ones who’d like to imagine that Klansmen and skinheads and cops are roaming the streets indiscriminately beating and murdering nonwhites. They are either ignorant of the modern statistics regarding interracial violence or they’ll find some half-assed sociological excuse to justify it. Living largely as they do in gated and secure communities, they rarely get their hands dirty with such trifles, anyway.

    These are the ones who are cheering the idea that white demographic decline is inevitable, naively believing that the dusky hordes whom they’re welcoming in by the millions and among whom they’re fanning anti-white resentment will somehow not see them as white, too, and thus just as guilty and deserving of retribution as any meth-smoking, rusty-trailer-dwelling, Alabama hilljack.

    In a 2013 article for Taki’s Mag, Steve Sailer listed America’s four racial groups:

    • Blacks
    • Bad Whites
    • Good Whites
    • Misc.

    John Derbyshire has subsequently fused “goodwhites” and “badwhites” into all-purpose terms describing the primary combatants in America’s “Cold Civil War”:

    …that is, the everlasting struggle between, on the one hand, the Progressive goodwhites who dominate our country’s mainstream culture—the Main Stream Media, the universities and law schools, big corporations, the federal bureaucracy—and, on the other hand, the ignorant gap-toothed hillbilly redneck badwhites clinging to their guns and religion out on the despised margins of civilized society.

    In an article critical of Derb, this blogger sketches out a rough delineation between goodwhites and badwhites:

    Goodwhite: a White involved in an inter-racial marriage, with mixed-race children, who vigorously defends and promotes race-mixing, who is very pro-Jewish, and who is suitably hostile to White nationalism. If on “the right”—a good cuckservative.

    Badwhite: a White who disapproves of race-mixing, is skeptical of Jewish behavior, and supports White nationalism.

    According to former porn industry blogger Luke Ford, only the badwhites don’t realize they’re in a war:

    Only the “bad whites” for the most part do not realize they are in a war. The good whites (Liberals, Leftists, Feminists, Democrats, SJW, SWPL hipsters, Atheists, LGBT, pro-choice advocates, gun control advocates, etc.) are seeking to destroy any and all political power and influence still held by the “bad whites’ (Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Christians, red-necks, white nationalists, gun rights advocates, pro-life advocates, heterosexual white males, et al), so the “good whites” will be able to completely have their way in transforming America into a country they believe will be more “just and equal”. With them firmly in charge of it all, of course.

    It has long been my contention that the overwrought and frankly embarrassing paroxysms of agony and outrage that have followed Donald Trump’s election is nothing more than the goodwhites’ paranoia that the yahoos have awakened and may be out for blood. Trump may have been born to wealth, but unlike Hillary Clinton (who slammed “deplorables”) and Barack Obama (who spoke of bitter clingers and speaks more like a goodwhite than even most goodwhites do), Trump speaks in a vernacular that is badwhite to the core.

    Despite the fact that hardly anyone these days is willing to contest the fact that Stalin and Mao killed far more people than Hitler did, they’ll still purse their lips, clench their sphincters, and say that Hitler was worse because he didn’t kill people for what they thought, but for who they were, and his victims had no control over that.

    What they overlook is the fact that at least Hitler targeted people who lacked consanguinity with him; Stalin and Mao killed their own people, which, in an evolutionary sense, seems like a far deeper betrayal.

    And this is what the goodwhites are cheering—the suppression, silencing, displacement, demonization, and in some cases, the outright extermination of people that they are much more closely related to genetically than the exotic oppressed racial pets that live tucked far away from them and that they fetishize safely from afar.

    Killing a stranger whom you may feel is legitimately threatening you is one thing; fratricide is quite another. And yet the goodwhites seem to feel that their open and gleeful fratricidal malice toward their less fortunate brethren is somehow virtuous rather than hateful.

    In her book Good White People, Shannon Sullivan takes the sanctimonious middle-class goodwhites to task for projecting their own guilt complexes onto the easily despised and perennially maligned rednecks and white trash.

    So far, so good. I appreciate her gesture in calling goodwhite sanctimony out for the self-serving vanity project that it is.

    However, she and I reach a fork in the road when she encourages both the goodwhites and badwhites to accept their role in dismantling the “illness” of whiteness and forge ahead hand-in-hand to build a racially just and equitable society—but, as is ALWAYS the case, she offers no timelines or quantifiers for exactly how or why our society is currently unjust, nor any spreadsheets with graphs that will show exactly when “justice” has been achieved and everyone can finally quit whining once and for all. Unlike her, I think it’s OK being white. And what the goodwhites don’t realize is that I wouldn’t care either way if they hadn’t beaten me over the head since childhood with the idea that there’s nothing OK with being white.

    If there is to be war in America’s streets, there is no group I would more eagerly battle than the goodwhites. They are the tattletales and snitches and teacher’s pets of the white race. And unlike many other potential foes—who would probably at least put up a good fight—the goodwhites are far too soft and clueless to face the wrath of the awakened badwhite.

    http://takimag.com/article/the_great_white_war_jim_goad/print#axzz551hqHPfK
     
  10. sport historian

    sport historian Master

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,478
    Jim Goad, to use an old expression, hits the nail on the head.
     
  11. werewolf

    werewolf Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    5,409
    The Judeo-communists invented the word "racist/racism", and as far as I know it was the Franz Boas anthropology crew, which included the infamous hoaxer Margaret Mead, that took over the American Museum of Natural History from pro-white white men that founded and operated it, like Madison Grant, who were responsible. Its first known usage in the English language was in 1933, according to Websters Collegiate Dictionary. They are using that one single word that they invented in 1933 to destroy the White race and western civilization. First they softened up the populace with it and then came the invasions and the dispossession.
     
  12. Freethinker

    Freethinker Master

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,653
    Location:
    Brooklyn, New York
    Excellent article by Jim as usual.

    When you are a Bad White, like I am, surrounded on a daily basis by Good Whites, you realize like Jim does that these people are insufferable. A Cold Civil War is an apt way to describe things right now. We will never see eye to eye on nearly anything with these people yet we are forced to share the same government. It’s an insane and untenable situation that can only end with this war going hot.
     
  13. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Conman O’Brien
    January 23, 2018 by CH

    Conan O’Brien, caught in the vapors of a major virtue signaling attack, went to Haiti for a three-day show special to troll Trump about his labeling Haiti a “shithole”, and to morally preen before his un-vast audience of soy-saturated snarklibs. Oh, and to blatantly lie about his real opinion of Haiti.

    What followed was an epic self-own and the germination of a new 4chan meme: #ConanHaiti featuring Conan’s coconut mug drinking face ‘shopped into photos of the real Haiti that liberal Whiteys sticking to the designated tourist area don’t (want to) see.

    First, the self-ownage in the photo Conman O’Brien posted ostensibly to needle Trump and his Heritage America Army.

    [​IMG]

    You’ll notice in the background that, outside of the swanky resort perimeter Conman was staying at, the hills of Haiti are completely denuded of leafy vegetation. That’s because the local shitholies burnt everything for firewood and let their pigs and goats roam free to reproduce past the ecology’s carrying capacity.

    Also, that coconut he’s drinking from likely was imported from an island that still has coconut trees. And why is his hair dry? Poseur, much?

    Conman was staying at the Wahoo Bay Beach Resort, a heavily guarded and patrolled tourist trap that the average Haitian would love to rob blind and machete to death the pale guests if they could get past the locked and loaded security.

    He was at one of the finest resorts in Haiti, the rates for which are $254 a night, which is a very a hefty price for a country where the average person makes a little over $400 a year.

    [​IMG]

    Conman’s virtue snivel was so egregious that shitlords brought the meme magic with a fury. Incoming!…

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    As soon as establishment comedians give in to the urge to toe the shitlib line, they stop being funny. Sanctimony was meant to be mocked by comedians, not adopted as a central theme of their act.

    This is why we on the Maul-Right are winning. We’re the mockers, now. And the libs are the mocked. Only good things can come from this cultural realignment. Good things…..like, oh, Truth and Beauty.

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/01/23/conman-obrien/
     
  14. Riggins44

    Riggins44 Master

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,101
    Location:
    Virginia
    Very funny. I love the term "shitlib". It's so descriptive.
     
  15. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    This Big Lie rhetoric by Michael Moore is right out of the communist handbook. He should be talking about Jewish privilege, but that would entail being honest rather than being part of the Eradicate White Men agenda. The vast majority of the White men who watch Trump's State of the Union address tonight will be struggling financially and in other ways. Moore should dedicate his ill-gotten riches to uplifting the plight of Appalachian Whites.

    Far-left film maker Michael Moore called for America to be “cleansed” of its “white male privilege” during a speech in New York last night.

    Moore was giving an address at the ‘People’s State of the Union’ event in Manhattan, which was derided by its critics as having nothing to do with “the people” and everything to do with mega-rich celebrities lecturing Americans about how to think and vote.

    Asserting that the removal of Donald Trump and Mike Pence from office, “Still won’t be enough,” Moore said, “We must remove and replace the system and the culture that gave us Trump in the first place.”

    “He did not just fall out of the sky and land in Queens,” Moore continued.” He is a result….of us never correcting the three original sins of America – a nation founded on genocide, built on the backs of slaves and maintained through the subjugation of women to second class citizenship and economic disempowerment.”


    https://www.infowars.com/michael-moore-america-must-be-cleansed-of-its-white-male-privilege/
     
  16. Heretic

    Heretic Master

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    2,600
    From the excerpts I saw of the Grammy's, it looks like White men have now been thoroughly "cleansed" of participating in that. Soon, all forms of entertainment will be the same.
     
  17. werewolf

    werewolf Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    5,409
    The media masters are trying to make "white man" into a curse word.
     
  18. booth

    booth Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2015
    Messages:
    182
    Location:
    n.c.
    I wish ever white man in America would have to serve one freaking week in a prison made up of a majority of black inmates , they could see what their future looks like if they don't start standing up for their race starting right now.
     
  19. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    No double standard here, move along, nothing to see. . .

    Jews Ask Canada to Take Israel's African Cast-Offs
    January 31, 2018

    [​IMG]
    (left, Beach, Tel Aviv)

    Organized Jewry only believes in diversity if it's for the goyim. That's why it is asking Canada to integrate more of Israel's 38,000 African migrants. Welcome to the New World Order. The West serves Israel's needs even if they lead to world war. In the West, only Israel is allowed to retain its racial character. Thus, Organized Jewry "combats" antisemitism. This is why unorganized Jewry must speak up.

    by Henry Makow Ph.D.


    At first, I thought Canada's AIPAC was asking Netanyahu to settle African migrants in Israel. "Now that is refreshing," I thought,"and consistent with Organized Jewry's commitment to 'diversity.'" But on further examination, I realized that this was another instance of Organized Jewry's hypocrisy and chutzpah. Organized Jewry wants us to take Israel's castoffs.

    The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs is "a national, non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to improving the quality of Jewish life in Canada by advancing the public policy interests of Canada's organized Jewish community."

    These "interests" apparently involve relieving Israel of the burden of 38,000 hapless migrants, mostly from Sudan and Eritrea. The CIJA petition implies Canada is already taking Israel's cast-offs and demands Canada take more :

    "Act Now! Ask the Government of Canada to resettle more African asylum-seekers from Israel.
    Many in our community are concerned with the situation facing African asylum-seekers in Israel. As Canadians, we can make a difference by encouraging the Government of Canada to continue playing a constructive role.

    Over the last number of years, tens of thousands of African asylum-seekers have come to Israel as the first safe country they could reach.

    [​IMG]
    This issue shouldn't fall on Israel's shoulders alone. It is a global challenge requiring a global solution.

    Canada has taken a lead in sharing international responsibility to help these asylum-seekers, by aiming to resettle thousands in Canada. This reflects the close partnership between Canada and Israel.

    But there is an urgent need to expand the capacity of the Canadian mission in Israel to process asylum-seekers. This would reduce the backlog and allow more of them to resettle in Canada.

    There are many groups in Canada ready on the ground to help with resettlement. All that is required is action from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

    We need your help! Email Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship. Encourage the government to take action to ensure more of these asylum-seekers can come to Canada. We'll send a copy of your message to your local MP.

    http://cija.ca/asylum/

    ISRAEL'S WOEFUL RECORD
    Israel has approved fewer than 1% of asylum applications since it signed the UN Refugee Convention six decades ago. In contrast, Canada approves about 50%. About 40,000 people have applied in the past year.

    Israel has offered their migrants, whom they call "infiltrators" $3500 to leave voluntarily. Otherwise, they will be imprisoned. Israel is hiring "inspectors" to round up migrants but isencountering opposition both domestically and abroad.

    An Ethiopian fashion model who lived in Israel called it"one of the most racist countries in the world." This is enforced as follows:

    1) Jewish Right of Return: With very few exceptions, only Jews can immigrate. Outside of Russian immigration, immigrants to Israel must prove that their mother was or is Jewish. Christians cannot immigrate to Israel. Muslims most certainly cannot immigrate to Israel.

    Why have such a racist law on the books when 20% of the population are Muslim Arabs? Simple. Zionists claim that only Jews deserve a homeland.

    2) Jewish Marriage Law

    Jews cannot marry anyone other than Jews. Muslims in Israel cannot marry anyone other than Muslims. Even secular Jews cannot marry Christians or Muslims in Israel. This is the law. To marry outside one's faith, couples need to leave Israel to countries like Cyprus where they can marry and return as a married couple. Even apartheid South Africa abolished the Prohibition of Mixed Marriage act in 1985, prior to which time whites could not marry blacks and vice versa. In Israel, this racism is still going on today! Not just similar to Apartheid, WORSE than Apartheid. In Judaism, to be Jewish, one's mother must be Jewish. This is Judaism's only requirement. Since you do not have to believe in God, let alone obey him, Judaism obviously is not a religion.

    A correspondent writes: "The African migrant workers are treated the worst by far. They are truly the untouchables. In fact, I've never seen an African, other than an Ethiopian Jew, inside any Israeli home, mall or major supermarket.
    [​IMG]
    (Huot detention camp for migrants)

    They almost invariably live in one area near the Central Bus Station in Tel Aviv, many homeless, most crowded in small rooms. The Israeli government doesn't know what to do with them, and it's a big problem. They live in slums, are treated terribly, and are looked at as feral cats or rats. They are called names, they are heavily discriminated against.

    And Israel is nothing like America in terms of "anchor babies." Being born in Israel does not guarantee one citizenship unless the baby is Jewish. For non-Jews born to non-citizens, the child is not a citizen and is subject to deportation."


    CONCLUSION
    Migration is a weapon, an invasion. It's how Israel was established in the first place. It's the globalist's means of dispossessing the founding peoples of the West.
    These people are economic migrants. Three billion people worldwide who live on roughly $2 a day would be happy to join their ranks. Our hearts break for genuine refugees but the most efficacious means of looking after them is near their homelands so they can return and rebuild their countries.
    [​IMG]
    I generally support Israel's immigration policies. I believe every country has a right to retain its racial character. No one criticizes Japan or China for doing this. Obviously, the Masonic Jewish (Illuminati) agenda is to deny this right to the goyim in the west. I agree with Trump's policy to preserve America's demographic character. I regard supporters of illegal immigration as traitors.

    I am an assimilated Jew. I identify with people of European origin. I came to Canada legally and I support legal immigration that reflects our demographic character.
    Jews have Israel. They don't need another national homeland. Americans, Canadians, British, French, Australians, Germans, and Swedes do. Central bankers and their Masonic toadies in government, education, and media have subverted and eroded their national identity. ("We will destroy every collective force but our own," say the Protocols of Zion. 16)

    To me, a racist is someone who thinks people are predefined by race. I am not a racist. I believe people are defined as individuals. We are all different based on our individual inheritance and experience.

    I believe humanity is a family of races, each bringing something to the party. I don't believe in racial superiority. I stand in awe of Black musicians like Milt Jackson or athletes like Henry Burris. I stand in awe of fellow Jews like Artie Shaw. I'm all for large racial minorities. I just don't want to be one. I don't want to be a minority in Canada just because globalists want to use migrants to integrate the West into their one-world tyranny.

    https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/01/zionists-petition-israel-to-take.html
     
  20. werewolf

    werewolf Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    5,409

     
  21. DixieDestroyer

    DixieDestroyer Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    9,006
    Location:
    Dixieland
    She needs a long walk off a short pier...complete with some concrete heels.
     
  22. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Feminist Icon was Insane -- Says Her Sister
    February 10, 2018

    [​IMG]
    Feminist icon Kate Millett passed away last September at the age of 82. Her 1970 book Sexual Politics, called "the Bible of Women's Liberation" by the New York Times, launched Millett as what the Times called "a defining architect of second-wave feminism." In a cover story that same year, TIME magazine crowned her "the Mao Tse-tung of Women's Liberation."

    Kate's younger sister Mallory, a CFO for several corporations, resides in New York City with her husband of over twenty years. In a recent interview with Mark Tapson, this brilliant, articulate and outspoken woman exposes her sister's lifelong mental illness and scathingly dissects feminism's satanic agenda.

    "Kate was mentally ill for as long as I remember...Kate's life story is a saga of our family desperately trying to have her involuntarily received into a mental institution where they may have helped her."

    "My thesis is this: when men ran the world and women ran society we had a chance to conduct our lives in some semblance of balance, but women have abdicated their running of society and thus, it has collapsed dramatically."

    Makow: Nutcases like Kate Millet are empowered by the Masonic Jewish bankers and media to destroy the social fabric. See also: Betty Friedan-How Jewish Dysfunction became Universal AND Shulameth Firestone-Death of a Feminist . Organized Jewry and Freemasonry are subversive forces in the most profound sense. In a satanic cult, sick is healthy. That's why these very sick women are given prophet status.

    Source: Front Page Mag

    (Edited by henrymakow.com)

    MT: Can you tell us a bit about Kate's mental instability, and if you think it had anything to do with her radicalism? Or vice versa - do you think her radicalism affected her mental state?

    MM: Kate was mentally ill for as long as I remember. She was five when I was born and our elder sister Sally says that once I arrived, Kate was hanging over my bassinet plotting my murder. We shared a bedroom from my birth. From my earliest memory, I recall trembling from the vibrations of her insanity. She was the most disturbed, megalomaniacal, evil and dishonest person I have ever known. She tried to kill me so many times that it's now an enormous blur of traumatizing horrors. She was a sadist, a torturer, a deeply-engrained bully who took immense pleasure in hurting others. Incorrigible and ruthless, she was expelled multiple times from every school she attended. I spent my childhood with heart hammering as I tiptoed through the house so as not to be noticed by the dreadful Kate. Our mother was helpless, paralyzed with terror in the face of Kate.

    [​IMG]
    (left, Mallory)

    It's a grinding hardship to bring oneself to write such harsh things about one's own blood. It took some bucking up for me to start telling the truth. I must say here that, always and forever, I had a reservoir of love for my sister Kate, but reality trumps all and her brand of nihilistic darkness was an implacable obstacle. I spent decades laboring to reason her into the light. One day my counselor guessed it: "So, do you understand that you're trying to make your sister sane?"

    "I know," I said, thinking of her stiff smile, which was never real. Her smile was that chilling kind in which the mouth is rigidly arranged into a smile shape showing all the teeth, but it's obviously a joyless mask. "If only she could be happy. If only she could cease being so agitated and miserable."

    "You cannot make that happen," said my advisor. "We cannot talk another into sanity. That's entirely up to her."

    "But what can I do?" I pleaded.

    "Sometimes, you just have to leave the room." I understood in a flash that, so loyally attached to her was I, it had never occurred to me I could actually, simply, leave the room.

    ATHEISM

    Kate announced her atheism very early on and the vacuum created sucked in even more corruption, lying, stealing, fury and domination of others. If God and the afterlife are abandoned then you're going to be cranky, morose, generally angry, and it's simple to toss out the Ten Commandments. I would venture that her mental instability created her affinity for the atheism of Marxism. To quote Dennis Prager: "My belief in God and the afterlife keeps me sane. The thought that just this life is all there is would mean that life is random and pointless. It means I will never again see those I love. This would drive me mad. I don't see how it wouldn't drive anyone mad who cares about suffering and who loves anyone. So, is there an afterlife? If there is a God, of course, there's an afterlife."

    Most everyone on the left is atheistic, depressed, dark and miserable, and they want us all to be miserable. Winston Churchill said, "Socialism results in the equal sharing of misery." They detest happiness. Nothing makes them more miserable than another's happiness. There is no more comedy! Since they swooped in and took over Hollywood and Broadway, everywhere you search for comic relief is dark, dark, dark. Surf through 200 TV channels and it is grim, grim, grim and then there's a dismemberment. Our "entertainment" has become death, terror, horror and filth. Americans were funny people - funniest in the world after the Brits. First, they lost humor and then we followed. Tina Fey? Major funny-killer. Lena Dunham? A disgrace! Saturday Night Live? David Letterman? Kill me, just shoot me.

    LIBERALS EVINCE TALMUDIC HATRED OF THE GOYIM

    I love the term "Feminazi," as these humorless women are, indeed, fascists, killers of faith and society. So many people think the rise of women and the evisceration of our culture are somehow coincidental. But it's been calculated and deliberate. It's the only way America can be "fundamentally transformed" into the Marxist test-tube to dazzle the world. It's the result of HATE: hating God, hating life, hating society, hating men, hating babies, hating history, hating our fathers, hating our families, hating our white male Founders, hating happiness, hating heterosexuality, hating Western civ. Is this not madness?

    I was with them at that table as they founded the Women's Movement and NOW. The entire stated point of their activities was to destroy the American family and with that, Western Civilization. Is this not crazy? They were tooth-grittingly determined. They were driven by destruction and deeply violent impulses toward men and the patriarchy. Their goal? To establish a matriarchy in order to end all war because that's what men do, wage war. They believed that if women ran everything there would be no more war. In their madness they have conspired to destroy masculinity, drugging our little boys while trying to remake them into little girls and thus, emboldening our enemies who now see us as easy pickings. No nation is easier to overwhelm than one which has feminized the men and put females at the head of the tribe. Matriarchies never survive - never have, never will!

    So, they plotted for Hillary Clinton to go to the White House simply because she was female. She is a proven liar, a persecutor of her husband's sexual victims, a woman whose campaign for President was remarkably incompetent. Yet, they were certain (still are) that she was up to running America and to be the Leader of The Free World! She couldn't even run her own campaign. But that didn't matter to Kate and her pals. She was a woman and that was enough. Is this not sexism? Is this not madness?

    KATE'S LIFE STORY

    Kate's life story is a saga of our family desperately trying to have her involuntarily received into a mental institution where they may have helped her. She vividly chronicles most of it in two of her books, FlyingandThe Looney-Bin Trip. Over and over our elder sister Sally, our mother and I, and various nephews and nieces endeavored to have her hospitalized.

    This was especially true after an incident when I was trapped alone with Kate in an apartment in Sacramento for a week and she did not allow me to sleep for five days as she raged and ranted, eyes rolling in her head, frothing at the mouth and holding chats with "little green men." Not knowing a single person in Sacramento, I had nowhere to turn. Too terrified to go to sleep, I wasn't sure she even knew who I was but I could imagine a butcher knife thrust into my back as I slept. Big sister Sally came from Nebraska to rescue me.

    [​IMG]
    After that, there was an enormous effort by the family wherein we all took Kate to court for legal commitment in Minnesota. She hired a male feminist hotshot New York lawyer and managed to swim back out into the world to hurt, menace, and harm ever more people. When Sally called last September to say Kate dropped dead in a Paris hotel room that morning, I was flooded with such indescribable relief that she could no longer spread her filth, lies and misery, nor could she go on threatening the lives and safety of others.

    Once, she wrote an entire book describing her deep passion for her lover, Sita. Sita's response was to kill herself. My biggest anxiety about Kate has always been that one day she would take out a family of five on the Saw Mill River Parkway as - laced with liquor, wine, lithium, marijuana, and God knows what else - she hurtled, ranting and raging, up that difficult road. For many years I have braced for that call in the night.

    INTERVENTION

    She had enablers everywhere. She was worshiped on all seven continents. We did a massive intervention with twelve of us: family and friends, a psychiatrist, two ambulances standing by, several cops, and she managed to elude us all by hopping on a plane for Ireland. Her "instability," as you put it, was apparent enough to both airline and cops in Shannon that she was committed by the police straight from the plane to an Irish psychiatric ward whereupon her ubiquitous groupies - this time Irish - managed her escape through a second-story window in the middle of the night.

    Without a doubt, over time, once she became enmeshed in the larger group of leftist activists around the world, her madness, buoyed by their lunacy, became even greater and more impossible to penetrate. Their groupthink is so dense, so full of lies, the vocabulary is so deceptive and intricately designed to brainwash, that just to witness it and their interactions from a distance is beyond alarming. After we buried our mother I never spoke with Kate again, as I'd finally come to accept that there is no honest communication with this mental illness that is today's liberalism. Finally, I left the room.

    MALORY'S GENERAL TAKE ON FEMINSM

    Mark Tapson: Your sister was an icon of female empowerment, but what do you think the reality of feminism has been for generations of women since Kate helped launch the second wave of the movement?

    Mallory Millett: How bizarre it is to have to argue the obvious; to have to prove over and over again what is self-evident so let me be as offensive as I possibly can: Men are men and women are women. They are essentially different and designed for a natural division of labor. Period.

    I get a kick out of the feminists' love affair with the word "empowerment." They have clever formulas for ensnaring hapless souls into their deceits. One of their slicker moves is to create a vocabulary designed to get around long-held beliefs, mores, taboos or fears. "Pro-choice" is their Newspeak euphemism for the casual murder of a human being; "Dreamers" means illegal immigrants; "Progressives" denotes a group dragging us back to the cave; "Sanctuary City" means a place where no actual US citizen is safe. This "empowerment" thing makes me especially crazy.

    We need only go back to Eden in Genesis where God commanded Adam not to eat a certain apple. Eve demanded he eat it. Adam obeyed Eve against the will of God Himself. That's not power? It only proves that man will do anything to please woman even if it means going against the wishes of his Almighty Creator. The point of the story is not that woman is evil but that woman is all-powerful and definitely runs the show. Woman sets the boundaries. Man is lost if he is surrounded by bad women. Mae West's famous double entendre is so appropriate: "When women go wrong, men go right after them." The Genesis admonition to women is to be careful of your influence over others because you already, innately, wield great power... actually, if we believe The Bible, all the power.

    Having had that power, feminists were so greedy for more that they destroyed our society in order to prove they were exactly like men. In doing so they have destroyed the American family and our children which has resulted in the demolition of society. We are now in a world where Satanism is on the rise, where judges are removing the Ten Commandments from city squares, where abortion is a mere trifle. We allowed [the late atheist activist] Madalyn Murray O'Hair to remove prayer from the classroom and Kate Millett to remove mommy from the home. Deadly combo!

    My thesis is this: when men ran the world and women ran society we had a chance to conduct our lives in some semblance of balance, but women have abdicated their running of society and thus, it has collapsed dramatically. Women forced their way into the running-the-world deal and now we have a world gone mad. And the beautiful society which we Western women built is in tatters. Moms decided they were the same as men so they deserted the home and babies to grab their briefcases and rush out to run the world.

    When women ran society power emanated from the home. Men labored to keep their families sheltered, warm, clad and fed while women mostly stayed in the home to run the children and the community. Mother oversaw the household and carefully watched the children's behavior. Most of the neighborhood women knew each other and had informal meetings in their living rooms and kitchens, called "coffee klatches."

    It was here that the community developed ground rules on how to manage children and husbands. Any mother was free to chastise anyone else's child should they misbehave. It was pretty unheard of for someone to say, "How dare you correct my child!" They would agree amongst themselves what was desired behavior. Good manners were required and trained. Neighbors backed each other up. It was expected.

    The essential rules that Moms formed in their infants and homes radiated outwardly into streets, schools, offices, boardrooms, departments, factories and agencies to form the framework of Western ethics. The communities, churches and schools all echoed the same values because most people went to Church or Temple and so, the foundation of our mores being Judeo/Christian, Mom's rules were designed by the Ten Commandments. Many towns didn't lock their doors, even at night.

    So, after fifty years of the almighty "consciousness-raising" experiment to empower women, and during the recent Harvey Weinstein [sexual assaults] scandal, what we are hearing from the little girlish voices of the victims is, "I froze, I was paralyzed. I gave in because I didn't know what to do. I was terrified!" Hey, that's some weird kind of empowerment. When I was a girl we did what our moms instructed: we yelled "NO," slapped his face, and left the room or called a cop.

    FEMINISM- COMMUNISM IN DRAG

    MT: Many people aren't aware of feminism's roots in cultural Marxism, but you were present at early meetings of the revolutionaries who would go on to form NOW, the National Organization for Women. Can you tell us what you witnessed behind the scenes about their true aims?

    MM: In 1969 I attended consciousness-raising sessions in New York City with my sister, Kate, where a group of 10-15 women sat around a long oval table and plotted the New Feminist Movement and the founding of NOW. Their template was Mao's China and the group confessionals conducted in each village in order to "cleanse the people's thinking." The burning objective of Kate's "consciousness-raising" was "the destruction of the American family," as she deemed it "a patriarchal institution devoted to the oppression and enslavement of women and children."

    They went on to form NOW and, with that organization, achieve their stated goal of taking down the Patriarchy through a massive coordinated promotion of promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, abortion and homosexuality. Their proposed method was to infiltrate every institution in the nation: the universities, the media, primary and secondary schools, PTAs, Teachers Unions, city and state governments, the library system, the executive branches of government as well as the judiciaries and legislatures.

    One of their most desired results was the smashing of every taboo in Western culture. Imagine that! Think of that alone! The normalizing of every taboo: polygamy, bestiality, Satanism, pornography, promiscuity, witchcraft, pedophilia - all activities which rot the human soul and city. Nothing burns down a society with such dispatch and totality as the unleashing of taboos.

    [​IMG]
    My sister Kate decided her contribution would be to establish Women's Studies courses at every U.S. college and university, which she efficiently executed. On examination, these courses emerge as nothing more than Marxism 101. Kate taught that the family is literally a slave unit with the man as the bourgeoisie and the women and children the proletariat. Two of her own books were required reading. In these classes, young girls are conditioned into murderers who will dispense with their own precious unborn child as readily as a dirty Kleenex without a twinge because "it's my body." I can't hear of the 70 million Americans killed before birth without a catch in my heart over Kate's role in this. She taught girls to "be an outlaw; be a damned outlaw, cuz all the laws were made by evil white men. Be a slut and be proud of it!" Now we have girls parading about with the word "SLUT" emblazoned across their tee-shirts. Orgies? "Absolutely! Try everything. There are no rules." So the woman whose job it is to construct the basic rules threw them all to the wind. Then she ran away from home and from any babies she didn't kill in order to run the world.

    We've had women running the SEC, the Secret Service, the IRS, the DNC, yada yada yada. They run so many things now and a great many are under investigation with one female head of department after another either lying or refusing to answer legitimate questions being asked by the people (i.e., congressional committees). Aren't public officials required to answer to the people? "Be an outlaw, be a damned outlaw!"

    So, they infiltrated every system and department in education, media, entertainment, government, justice, Wall Street, you name it and they're there. For decades since they started their stealth invasion the father in every sitcom has been debased and, most of all, clueless. I am dumbfounded at the efficiency with which these women recruited others and wheedled their way into everything in fifty short years. Oh, yes, woman is one hell of a powerful force. Now, we have a nightmare army of militant feminists: Lois Lerner, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Huma Abedin, Nancy Pelosi, Oprah Winfrey, Samantha Power, Elizabeth Warren, Cheryl Mills, Maxine Waters, Donna Brazile, plus the main outlaw, Hillary Clinton, lying and obfuscating us into chaos. That's what outlaws create: chaos!

    Today, 60% of babies who escape abortion are born outside of marriage. On top of that they are miserably reared, thrown into child-care shortly after birth, with not only a lousy education but a miseducation in classrooms infiltrated by Mao, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Howard Zinn, Naom Chomsky, Marx, and Saul Alinsky rather than readin', writin', and 'rithmatic, American History, and Civics. Our children now score poorly compared with other countries, whereas before the feminist "experiment" we led in almost all categories. In 1964 we had 90% literacy and 5% illegitimate births. We now score shockingly low on literacy (38% of American men read at the lowest levels; only 11% of men and 12% of women are proficient readers.)

    [​IMG]
    (Kate in old age)

    I would say that raising several ill-prepared fatherless generations of slackers, meth and opioid users, porn dogs, disheveled rockers, and illiterates speaks poorly of any degree of empowerment in parenting. Most parenting is done by absent single women since two-thirds of mothers are raising their youngsters outside of marriage. So, we have the filthy clothes, ten o'clock shadows on guys, shocking grammar, plethora of tattoos, sullen misfits in torn filthy clothing listening to violent hate-filled so-called music; entitled attitudes and non-existent manners say it all. Empowerment? Why,the facts scream that feminists are two generations of the worst-ever educators of America's children. In what manner does this speak of empowerment? Woman, by your fruits are you known! And those fruits didn't come out of your briefcases.

    MT: In obituaries upon Kate's passing, the news media wrote largely glowingly of her influence, but what do you think the good and bad of her feminist legacy has been?

    MM: As I scan the wreckage of our beautiful America, knowing that my own sister was in great part responsible, I feel as if my heart has been kicked down the stairs. So, on pondering this question about the good and the bad of militant feminism, it reminds me of the joke in which the reporter asks, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

    https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/02/Feminist-Icon-Kate-Millett .html
     
  23. Heretic

    Heretic Master

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    2,600
    Great piece. Great interview. Mallory is one enlightened woman, unlike her wretched, innately evil, sister.

    Unfortunately, the damage was already done and "her filth, lies and misery" live on and has spread into every institution of the West even after her death.
     
  24. Thrashen

    Thrashen Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    5,117
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    From the article about Kate Millett:

    "Kate was mentally ill for as long as I remember. She was five when I was born and our elder sister Sally says that once I arrived, Kate was hanging over my bassinet plotting my murder. We shared a bedroom from my birth. From my earliest memory, I recall trembling from the vibrations of her insanity. She was the most disturbed, megalomaniacal, evil and dishonest person I have ever known. She tried to kill me so many times that it's now an enormous blur of traumatizing horrors. She was a sadist, a torturer, a deeply-engrained bully who took immense pleasure in hurting others. Incorrigible and ruthless, she was expelled multiple times from every school she attended. I spent my childhood with heart hammering as I tiptoed through the house so as not to be noticed by the dreadful Kate. Our mother was helpless, paralyzed with terror in the face of Kate."


    I've never heard anyone describe their own sibling in such a fundamentally negative manner as Millett's sister describes her in the quote above.

    As is tradition in the USSA, this viscous, psychotic, hateful brute has been awarded numerous awards, honors, has a "Center for the Arts" named after her, and has been enshrined in the "National Women's Hall of Fame."

    I've noticed that most American feminists seem to invariably hail from one of two ethno-religious backgrounds...Jewish or Irish Catholic. Millett was the latter. Like most Fems, she was a real looker!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  25. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    The Abbreviated Auster: Why Do Jews Support Mass Immigration?
    February 20, 2018 by CH

    Lawrence Auster passed away a few years ago, but his stamp on maul-right discourse lingers. In my estimation, he was a Jew of sufficient based-ness that I’d put him in the same rarefied company that includes Stephen Miller and Mickey Kaus. Here is Auster explaining the reason for Jewish support of mass nonWhite and nonChristian immigration into Gentile host nations:

    [​IMG]

    That’s a highball of truth right there. The peculiar Jewish psychological profile of neuroticism coupled with psychopathy predicts this exact sort of behavior toward the majority culture. From a historical vantage, it’s incredibly short-sighted.

    And we see this jewish predilection playing out in every imaginable way. Today, Jewish provocateurs assemble groups of child soldiers in Florida, following the de Jesus Cruz shooting, to agitate for gun control, which is really goyim control.

    If the thesis that diaspora jews are most paranoid about a White Gentile uprising against them is true, then OF COURSE jews would want their Gentile hosts completely disarmed.

    Yet instead of wisely reflecting on their own motivations and simmering resentments, jews prefer to take the moon shot of rendering the goyim toothless and impotent.

    RIP Auster, you had a critical word or two to say about this blog, but you are honored here because your writing will be looked back on as prescient during a time of turbulence. You were one of the few jews who could cast a judgmental eye at the flaws and foibles of your own tribe. If only there were more like you in positions of influence.

    ***

    Given that this post meandered a bit into the topic of gun control, a word from your esteemed host:

    Trump should not concede an iota to the shrieking shitlibs on their “gun control” issue.

    As sure as snide follows gay, that first tiny concession will lead to more concessions, and bigger concessions, until the 2nd Amendment is a historical relic.

    This is because the goal of shitlibs is total disarmament of Heritage Whites. If it was about stopping violent crime, shitlibs would be all for effective methods like racial profiling and long prison sentences. But they aren’t. So they’re lying about their real motive.

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/201...-auster-why-do-jews-support-mass-immigration/
     

Share This Page