UPDATED (8/5/020): The Smithsonian Shows Errant Whites How To Go Native

America, Capitalism, Culture, Multiculturalism, Racism, The West

1 Reply

The Smithsonian has some section called the National Museum of African-American History and Culture, as Steve Sailer points out. Thereon is a depiction of Whiteness. It’s meant to insult. Instead, it describes the values that have built a civilization, chief of which is delayed gratification or time preference.

Time preference rates, a term used by Austrian economists, is the degree to which different people discount the future in favor of immediate gratification.

To paraphrase Max Weber, it was the ascetic “Protestant Ethic” that gave rise to the “Spirit of Capitalism,” and to prosperity. Image Via Sailer:

My gut reaction to the Whiteness page was: Is the Smithsonian promoting Whiteness? Can’t be! Some exaggerated emphasis on the Protestant Ethic and obedience, since the most impressive rebels have been … pale patriarchs. In all, a flattering assessment of a creed to aspire to.”

Missing in the Smithsonian’s malign description of white mannerisms—namely the affect—is that a silent majority whose “culture” is being crowded out finds such WASPY mannerisms comforting and familiar; a sign of professionalism, dignity, decorum and rationality. Profoundly alien and disturbing are the wretched excesses we see on the street, of late, often from white youths, whose parents have gone native,* as the Smithsonian seems to advise.

Incidentally, the Smithsonian certainly doesn’t use the “oppressive” “King’s English.”

The world’s “largest museum, education, and research complex” describes itself as “a community of learning and the opener of doors.” Is the Smithsonian a doorman? The stupefying of the English language continues apace in the Anglo-sphere, under institutional auspices. Ugly English.

The Smithsonian certainly doesn’t use white, “oppressive” language to describe what it does.

* “Go native”: “become less refined under the influence of a less cultured, more primitive, or simpler social environment.”

UPDATED (8/5/020):

De-whiting:

UPDATED (3/22/022): MERCER DOMAINS BANNED BY DEEP TECH FACEBOOK

Cultural Marxism, Donald Trump, Free Speech, Ilana Mercer, IlanaMercer.com, Liberty, Political Correctness, Technology

5 Replies

“Not everything that’s banned by social media is worth reading. But the time is fast approaching when one can say with confidence that most of what isn’t banned is not worth reading.”—ILANA MERCER.

Or, at least, is unimportant. (Self-serving hyperbole? Maybe a smidgen.)

Facebook has banned both my domains: Even mention of their names is flagged on Facebook.
I’ve mentioned the latest blog post on Facebook by directing readers to Twitter.

Note how I’ve already censored myself, removing a perfectly fine adjective from the blog’s description on Facebook (“Wall Of Moms? More Like Wall Of [Feral] Flesh.”)

In any case, my guru confirms the following: “It looks like Facebook has banned www.barelyablog from posting to Facebook. It looks like they’ve also banned ilanamercer.com. Their reasoning is that you’ve ‘violated their Community Standards.’ What the violation was they will not say.”

Image

Indeed, the “Continue” button leads only to more Kafka:

Image

Disagreeing with Deep Tech gets one nowhere.

“You’re obviously doing something right,” suggested a Twitter friend. First it was, “If you’re not called a racist, you’re doing something wrong.” Now it’s, “If you’ve not been banned by Deep Tech, you’re doing something wrong.”

Another asked, “Why the concerted effort at censorship by big tech right now, do you think?” For me, Arthur Pogonatus, the marginalizing has been ongoing for 20 yrs. First the Republicans when, in 2002, this writer came out against Bush’s Iraq war–and for being independent on most issues. In 2018, I’m told, Wikipedia, the Southern Poverty Law Center of “encyclopedias, banned me. Banishing has been ongoing from one faction or another.

The best description of the New America comes courtesy of my colleague, Fred Reed, writing on the Unz Review, which has also been banned by Facebook and has become a haven for dissidents:

Congress does nothing, one parry neutering the other and all bought and paid for by special interests, by Wall Street and the arms makers and the big corporations. Local governments submit to the rioters or stand aside as the burning goes on. This is not society. It is chaos.

I agree with the Reed paragraph that precedes the one just posted, but, see, I can’t post it, because, this time, people on the Right would evince an allergy to aspects of the objective truth and they’d “blow.”

Fred’s right. “It’s Gonna Blow: Be a Miracle if it Don’t.”

A Washington Post writer compared the “fight against big tech [to] the fight against organized crime.”  I’m not sure this comparison holds. For one, what fight?

Certainly, the author fails to mention the plight of those on the speech spectrum who’ve incurred the wrath of Deep Tech. In particular, those of us on the dissident right who’ve been banned and lack political representation or hefty champions (other than one small woman, whom I call “The Force”: Michelle Malkin).

It’s certainly not Don Trump, Jr. See “Is Political Participation Predicated On Views About Holocaust?”

RELATED: “The Anatomy of A Twitter Blocking — My Own,” Ilana Mercer, June 27, 2019

UPDATE (3/22/022):

Wall Of Moms? More Like Wall Of Feral Flesh

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Law, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Terrorism

They’re fat and feral.

Yet, the New York Times waxes fat about the Wall of Flesh moms:

Wearing matching shades of white or yellow, the women of the “Wall of Moms” in Portland, Ore., have become instant icons of the city’s protests, though the mothers nightly gatherings only began last Saturday and the city’s protests have been going on for more than a month.

They join a long line of mothers’ protests against state violence and what they view as authoritarianism around the world, including in South Africa, Sri Lanka, Argentina and Armenia, which have shown that mothers can be particularly effective advocates for a cause — but also that there is a catch.

In truth, the delicate “moms” currently being championed as freedom’s protectors by the malfunctioning media are engaged not in free speech but in vandalism and pyromania. (No wonder their spawn are werewolves. That DNA has been sequenced; the science is settled.)

This is what Andy Ngo’s close coverage of them reveals:

And the great Ms. Malkin for sharing:

 

* Image courtesy New York Times

UPDATE III (9/30/020): The Meta On ‘Cancel-Culture King’ Ben Shapiro

Celebrity, Conservatism, Critique, Free Speech, Political Philosophy

From his comfy perch alongside establishment conservatives, Ben Shapiro regularly whinges about the de-platforming of members of his center-right, ideological cabal. This, as he vilifies and ostracizes those on the alt- and dissident right.

Understand, Ben. It’s all in the meta: Your methods are of a piece with the methods of the Left. For you can’t claim to support unfettered speech if you actively work to fetter those whose speech you abhor.

The Alt-Right asks questions. This is not despicable, as Mr. Shapiro terms the faction. The Alt-Left throws punches. This is despicable:

Daily Wire puff piece about its own editor here.

More me on Ben-Shap here.

“Ben Shapiro Attacks The Dissident Right.”

The Great Lady herself. Ms. Malkin knows that Ben-Shap deceives people into thinking he’s really smart by going “300 RPM”:

Conservatives are most certainly interested in cancelling conservatives and libertarians to their right.  Ben Shapiro is the “king of such cancellation culture,” as Ms. Malkin points out. And she is still standing, railing against the “two-faced pundits and keyboard warriors.” Bravo!

America First is why Shapiro, who is ConInc subsidized, tried to cancel Michelle. “There is no money in telling the truth (don’t I know it: was cancelled 20 years ago). … The young men Ben-Shap opposes pose a threat to his business model.” David Rubin is another intellectual mediocrity. True again. Been saying this for years.

UPDATE I (8/2/020):

UPDATE II (9/25): Ben Shapiro says “the 2ndAmendment only applies to ‘guns that are in common use’ and that if the #guns are not determined by government officials to be in common use, that they can “theoretically be restricted by the state.”

UPDATE II (9/30): Ben on the first presidential debate.