Category Archives: Race

Hater Fareed Zakaria “Reminds Us” That Racism Is In The West’s DNA

America, Multiculturalism, Race, Racism, The West

In “State of Hate: The Explosion of White Supremacy,” hater Fareed Zakaria remind us all “how deeply embedded is the idea of racial hierarchy in western civilization.”

“In fact,” the prick editorializes, “in some ways it’s in the DNA of the modern west because from the 16th and 17th centuries, as Europe grew richer and stronger, it began to assume that its material success must be a result of its superiority, religious or ethnic or racial. This view built on centuries of western success has taken deep root and not just among whites. People across Asia [pronounced “Ashia” by Zakaria] and Africa prefer light skin to dark.”

In his propaganda piece, Fareed takes care to conflate white nationalism with white supremacy, and fails to say whether the West can migrate to Pakistan, India and China en masse, without the people of those countries and their representatives protesting.

And should Pakistanis, Indians and Chinese protest the flooding of their countries by millions of whites who begin to change the character of these countries—will Fareed characterize native protest as racist protest?

Fuck Fareed.

TRANSCRIPT.

NEW COLUMN: Why Conservatives Ignore White-Hating Politics

Multiculturalism, Race, Racism, Republicans

NEW COLUMN IS “Why Conservatives Ignore White-Hating Politics.” It’s currently on WND.COM and The Unz Review.

In “It’s Not ‘Identity Politics,’ It’s Anti-White Politics,” I questioned whether the term “identity politics” vaguely comports with our racial politics on tera firma. The answer was a resounding “no.”

For, “Whatever is convulsing the country, it’s not identity politics. Blacks are not being pitted against Hispanics. Hispanics are not being sicced on Asians, and Ameri-Indians aren’t being urged to attack the groups just mentioned. Rather, they’re all piling on honky.”

Since the ire of America’s multicultural multitudes is directed exclusively at whites and their putative privilege, not at each other, anti-white animus is the more appropriate term.

The “identity politics” term is an elaborate construct hot-housed in the postmodernist university. Yet, commentators, conservatives too, cleave to abstracted definitions developed in citadels far removed from reality. Duly, the author of “Why Identity Politics Kills Democracy” harps on the  “political selfishness” that comes with a “fanatical fetishization” of “group identity.”

“A politics of whiteness is a scourge. A Hispanic politics is a scourge. An LGBT politics is a scourge. A plutocratic politics is a scourge. A feminist politics is a scourge.”  The only “true politics,” bewails our author, is one that “unites individuals under a single identity: citizen.”

Group hug.

In relation to reality, this kind of conservative political preening is a bit of a farce. Why so? Because undergirding the factional identity politics so roundly condemned is a practiced anti-whiteness.  Hispanic, LGBT, plutocrat and feminist: All would concur. The road to their political salvation is in collaborating to extinguish “white dominant culture.

Used in the main by media conservatives, “identity politics” is invoked, consciously or unconsciously, it would seem, because conservatives want to be nice. To be nice, one must remain in denial of things not nice. Conservatives refuse to come to terms with the fact that our politics are almost exclusively anti-white, and not anti-Other, more exotic identities.

It’s also considered politically incorrect or “racist” to advocate on behalf of whites—even if whites qua whites are being dangerously maligned and marginalized; even if there is an anti-white sentiment that runs through our institutions, both public and private.

And woe betide those who perpetuates the idea of white ethnocide, say in South Africa. She herself is, then, libeled as a racist. …

… READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN, “Why Conservatives Ignore White-Hating Politics,” is currently on WND.COM and The Unz Review.

NEW COLUMN: White Guilt: Where Does It Originate And How To Fight It

Christianity, Hebrew Testament, IMMIGRATION, Judaism & Jews, Nationalism, Race, The State, The West

NEW COLUMN IS “White Guilt: Where Does It Originate And How To Fight It.” It’s on The Unz Review and on WND.COM.

An excerpt:

Is white guilt a Christian affliction? Edward Gibbon would probably say so.

Gibbon was the genius who wrote, in 1776, the 12 volumes that comprise “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” wherein he saddled nascent Christianity with the downfall of the Roman Empire, no less. (I read the 1943 version, which was “condensed for modern reading.”)

By so surmising, Gibbon brought upon himself the wrath of “bishops, deans and dons”—not to mention that of the great Dr. Samuel Johnson’s biographer, James Boswell. Boswell called Gibbon an “infidel wasp” for “the chapter in which he showed that the fall of Rome was hastened by the rise of Christianity.”

And indeed, Gibbon seems to point toward Christianity’s self-immolating, progressive, pathologically inclusive nature, remarking on the courting by early Christians of “criminals and women.” [Not my words.]

Even more infuriating to his detractors was Gibbon’s prodigious scholarship. “No one could disprove Gibbon’s basic facts,” notes American author Willson Whitman.

Whitman, who wrote the 1943 Foreword to the abridged version, remarks on how “Gibbon outraged the Christians of his era by suggesting the ‘human’ reasons for the success of Christianity.”

“Among these reasons [Gibbon] noted that Christianity … attracted to its ‘common tables’ slaves, women, reformed criminals, and other persons of small importance [Whitman’s words, not mine]—in short that Christianity was a ‘people’s movement of low social origin, rising as the people rose.” [His words, not mine.]

To go by Gibbon, Christianity might be called the Social Justice movement of its day. Gibbon certainly seemed to suggest so.

In no way was Gibbon, who “professed Church of England orthodoxy,” diminishing Christianity’s centrality to Western civilization, or its essential goodness and glory. He was just following the evidence.

With Gibbon’s historical analysis in mind, it’s difficult to dispute that America, once identified as a staunch Christian country, seldom stands up for and safeguards Christian interests.

Trust Tucker Carlson to take note. On April 22, 2019, less than two minutes into this broadcast, the TV anchor observed that American foreign policy imperils the already imperiled Christian communities across the Muslim world. For one, the ancient Iraqi Christian community is a shadow of what it was under Saddam Hussein.

To their own dwindling, Western flock, American and European Christian leaders seldom offer succor and support. More often than not, church leaders are inclined to scold Westerners and berate them for insufficient procreation.

Take Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput. For outbreeding Christianity, Chaput offered praise for Islam as a civilization—as if civilizations are great because of huge numbers, rather than human capital—namely, people of superior ideas, abilities and sensibilities; people capable of innovation, exploration, science, philosophy, to say nothing of mercy and charity.

Has not Christianity’s great heart been instrumental in ameliorating famine, and thus enabling Muslim Africa’s population explosion? …

…  READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN, “White Guilt: Where Does It Originate And How To Fight It,” is on The Unz Review and WND.COM.

 

 

Christianity And White Guilt

Christianity, English, History, Race, Religion, The West

White guilt is a Christian affliction. Not for nothing did Edward Gibbon saddle Christianity with the downfall of the Roman Empire.

Gibbon is the genius who wrote the 12 volumes that make up “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” [1776].  ( I read the 1943 version, which was “condensed for modern reading.”)

Gibbon brought upon himself the wrath of “bishops, deans and dons”—not to mention that of Dr. Johnson’s biographer, James Boswell. Boswell called Gibbon an “infidel wasp” for “the chapter in which he showed that the fall of Rome was hastened by the rise of Christianity.”

And indeed, Gibbon seems to point toward Christianity’s self-immolating, progressive nature, remarking on the courting by early Christians of criminals and women.

Willson Whitman—he wrote the 1943 Foreword to the abridged version—remarks on how “Gibbon outraged the Christians of his era by suggesting the ‘human’ reasons for the success of Christianity … Among these reason [Gibbon] noted that Christianity … attracted to its ‘common tables’ slaves, women, reformed criminals, and other persons of small importance [his words]—in short that Christianity was a ‘people’s movement of low social origin, rising as the people rose.”

I wonder: If to go by Gibbon, can Christianity be called the Social Justice movement of its day? Gibbon seemed to suggest so.