Category: academia

Inherent Racism of Multiculturalism

More Salter analysis.

I am going to quote, and comment on, several excerpts, not to critique the entirety of the whole piece, but rather to illuminate certain points important to this blog and to the interests of Whites in general. In all cases, emphasis added.

This article follows from my review for Quadrant of the SBS documentary Is Australia Racist? which was hosted by Ray Martin, funded by Screen Australia (and therefore the taxpayer) and aired on Sunday, 26 February 2017.1 The program was grossly inaccurate and biased against Anglo Australians. In other words, it was typical of the wide-borders multicultural propaganda awash in the mainstream media over the last half century. 

Here, I look behind the program’s glossy façade to examine another long term feature of multiculturalism: its academic enablers. I look more closely at the program’s four academic experts, their on-screen claims and previous writings. It is important to look behind the smooth opinions of laymen such Ray Martin if we are to discover whether the linked policies of massive immigration and minority privilege have any basis in reason and scholarship.

That’s what Salter’s essay is about.  Let’s look at certain important excerpts.

Prof. Dunn’s publication list is a window into academic multiculturalism. His research is funded by the academic and multicultural establishments. He researches racism and ethnic discrimination but, it seems, only when committed by mainstream Australians. He is not interested in Anglos being victimised, only in their transgressions against others, which includes denials of racism and privilege. These, together with immigrant victimhood, are treated as axiomatic. For example, he states that the “new racism” is a distinctly Anglo view of the nation as assimilationist, ethnocultural, or egalitarian. He argues that it is racist to assert the equality of all Australians, because this (supposedly) denies white privilege…Jakubowicz argues that multiculturalism is a fraud because it benefits the (allegedly) dominant Anglo population. British and Australian governments have claimed that their societies have been tolerant of diversity, reflecting genuine expressions of Anglo-liberalism. In fact these governments “disguise systematic structures of racialised inequality masked by surface egalitarian discourses.” 

This account resembles Dunn’s view that egalitarianism is a form of Anglo racism.

This is astonishing, and reflects the extreme radical drift of the Left on racial issues.  The old bywords of equality and egalitarianism, once a bulwark of the leftist worldview, are now considered forms of “Anglo” (i.e., White) racism!  Multiculturalism, which oppresses the White majority while empowering non-White minorities, is a “fraud” because it “benefits” the very group it viciously oppresses.  The very things leading to White demographic displacement – let us be frank, White Genocide – mass migration, assimilation, multiculturalism – are now considered by the Left to be manifestations of “White racism” and “White Privilege.”

The Left has drifted so far into the fever swamps of revolutionary madness that slow White genocide is not only insufficient but akin to White Supremacy – not only must the pace of displacement be increased, but Whites must be constantly humiliated, disempowered, subjugated, slandered, and tormented, all the while being gaslighted by being told they are privileged racists living in a White supremacist society.  In truly Orwellian fashion – nay, even to extremes Orwell could not imagine – a majority group being systematically dispossessed and destroyed is told that the System destroying them is a pro-majority fraud working for majority benefit and reflecting the majority’s selfish racism!  By analogy, Auschwitz was a bastion of Jewish Supremacy, and the Holomodor an example of Ukrainian Privilege.

By any objective, rational standards, the Left is stark, raving mad.  But, perhaps it is not madness bit just pure, crystalline, rock-hard hatred.  The fundamental basis of the modern Left is an unquenchable racial hatred of Whites, and the need to humiliate Whites while destroying them.  Destroying Whites alone is not enough; Whites must be made into a subaltern, despised caste, while all the time being told they are “privileged.”

To summarize: The Right can no longer assume that their opponents are merely sincere but deluded egalitarians who foolishly, but goodheartedly want equality for all peoples.  No, the opponents are revolutionary extremists so consumed by hate that the complete eradication of the hated White enemy is not good enough; Whites must be ritually humiliated as they are being eradicated.

Jakubowicz also shares Dunn’s assumption that Anglos dominate Australia’s racial hierarchy. “In most Western societies Christian values or Christian social institutions dominate public debate and public practice.

Case in point.  By some mysterious circumstance beyond our comprehension, the dominant group is being demographically and culturally displaced, while being castigated by the likes of Jakubowicz.  That’s some strange dominance, I’ll tell you that for nothing.

In Jakubowicz’s view Anglo Australians have no legitimate ethnic interests. Their only ethical option is complete acquiescence to minority demands, which do represent legitimate group interests. His call for Chinese-Australian inclusion makes no reference to numbers. Like other mainstream multiculturalists, he treats the displacement of Western populations as not worth mentioning. Note also his cavalier attitude towards Australian security despite acknowledging the growth of Han nationalism and its linkage to Chinese economic and military power. These potential threats can only be exacerbated by the growing Chinese presence in Australian politics and business, which Jakubowicz sees as an encouraging trend.

Pure hatred of Whites as Whites.

It is relevant that Beijing is already utilising Chinese-Australian individuals and organisations as agents of influence in this country, a development that is alarming security analysts. Chinese voters have been swayed by ethnic interests for many years, an example being Prime Minister John Howard’s loss of the seat of Bennelong in 2007. Sam Dastyari, a Labor powerbroker, was forced to resign from parliament after he allowed improper influence by local Chinese businessmen; his foreign policy pronouncements were slavishly pro-Beijing. Chinese community leaders helped defeat the Abbott government’s attempt to reform the draconian section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is true that apart from the important matters of identity and security, Chinese have been in the main high quality immigrants with stable families, an admirable work ethic, low crime rates, and strong educational outcomes. 

That last part: Oh, no; just…NO.  Maybe Salter has a reason to be moderate here and praise Chinese qualities, akin to the slavish obsessions of HBDers.  But these positive qualities – even if we were to assume they are all true – are not the point.  Even the loyalty issue is not the point.  The point IS Salter’s own paradigm of ethnic genetic interests; Chinese are a biologically (and culturally) alien intrusive subspecies in the Australian human ecology and for that reason – and that reason alone should be sufficient regardless of other considerations – Chinese immigration must be prevented.

But the Chinese population has risen from close to zero to about five percent of the population since the 1970s, concentrated mainly in capital cities. This success largely invalidates attempts to portray them as victims. Instead the issue of greatest import to Australia concerns their loyalty. If Markus and other academics had asked the obvious questions the political class would be informed on Chinese ethnicity and business cohesion, matters of national security at a time when China has become the world’s second largest economy and is increasingly activated by nationalism. Decades ago they would have realised that many Chinese Australians feel, or will come to feel, allegiance to their ancient homeland. Some would have come to respect Australia’s founding leaders for sparing the country a large Chinese minority. They would have been right to ask what madness led governments to squander this social capital by introducing a potential fifth column into the country?

True, but how about squandering the genetic capital?  One can debate the presence, and place, of non-Anglo Whites in Australia; that’s one issue – but as regard non-Whites the situation should be unambiguous and not even a required topic for debate: they do not belong.

Some factor is missing from the picture. Why the bias against Anglos?

The most overtly Marxist of the four, Kevin Dunn and Andrew Jakubowicz, may have replaced the bogey of the capitalist exploiter with the bogey of an ethnic exploiter, Anglo Australia. 

And what did the old time Marxists want to do with the “capitalist exploiters?”” What did they do once coming to power?  That’s what the Racial Marxists of today are planning for Whites.

Professors Markus and Paradies have different theories but arrive at a similar conclusion, that white racism is the main risk to the joys of permanent open borders and multiculturalism…One thing we do know is that Dunn, Markus and Jakubowicz were willing to work with Martin and Paradies, self-declared ethnic loyalists, in making a documentary that dealt in part with the latter’s identity group. It is not obvious how individuals motivated by leftist ideals could cooperate to make a program that furthered an ethnic agenda. Jakubowicz has called for Chinese Australians to establish an ethnic lobby.

An ethnic lobby for “Chinese Australians” would no doubt be welcomed by the “HBD race realists.”

Andrew Markus is Professor of Jewish Civilisation at Monash University, a chair funded by the late Richard Pratt, a generous philanthropist for Jewish causes in Australia, Israel and elsewhere. As the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted on Pratt’s death, many of his philanthropic gifts went to Israel’s universities, the integration of new immigrants (all of whom are Jewish due to Israel’s strict immigration laws) and disadvantaged Israelis. That shows love for his people, a noble sentiment. But what is Markus, supposedly a radical cosmopolitan, doing accepting funds from an ethnic nationalist? Would not a cosmopolitan shy away from a vertically integrated ethnic enterprise in which a Jewish academic is paid by a Jewish donor to study Jewish affairs? Markus has spent his professional life criticising Australia and other Western countries for immigration policies that were mildly discriminatory compared to Israel’s. Yet it seems he has never criticised Richard Pratt or the Israeli leadership, all dedicated ethnic loyalists. Indeed, he has co-authored a paper praising Israel’s discriminatory immigration policy.2

Jewish dual morality; the enemy revealed.  But some on the “Far Right” tell us that Jews are “White Men of the West.”  Do you, dear reader, really believe that?

Multiculturalism was always a regime imposed on a reluctant majority by a triumphant left-minority alliance. 

How did that alliance become triumphant?  One cannot exempt Whites themselves from blame; indeed one must place significant blame on this race of cowardly lemmings.  The failure of the “movement and its inept “leadership” must also be held accountable.

…Anglos and whites in general are rapidly being reduced to minority status due to bipartisan immigration policies imposed by the major parties and the cultural establishment. If Anglos are dominant and racist, as Dunn insists, why have they been cowed and silenced by political correctness? There is no doubt that Anglo-Australians are the prime target of the human rights apparatus. As observed by Stephen Chavura, a political scientist at Macquarie University, “Multicultural discourse is about silencing any who would dare to criticise the way immigration and integration have been conducted since mass immigration shifted from Europe to Asia and the Middle East in the mid to late 1970s.”14 Anglo-Australians look very much like a subaltern ethnic group, leaderless and prevented from complaining even while losing their country.

And yet they are “dominant” and “privileged.”  

IV

Conclusion and Policy Implications

One lesson of this review is that Australians should not be intimidated by academic titles and media fame. Individuals with high positions and the title of “professor” can peddle transparent falsehoods, as can the university courses they teach. Policy makers should be looking for ways to circumvent the leftist censorship in the social sciences and public broadcasting and re-establish a robust market of ideas.

But how?  We need concrete proposals.

The deep state has been dragging Australia down with suicidal ethnic policies for half a century…The vanguard of the new morality are the elites. Indeed, capture of the elites has been a triumph for the broad and disparate progressive tide. In Australia, like the US, elites in government, business, the public service, and civic organisations are embracing progressive ideas […] The sheer size of the professional class now dealing with the new morality is immense.27

And while this professional class was being assembled, the mainstream Right was babbling about “tax cuts” and “economic growth” while Der Movement was pontificating about Kali Yuga, subfractional admixture percentages, the racial provenance of Leonidas, the “men who can’t tell time,” cephalic indices, Pyramids of Atlantis and Ultima Thule, and “being snug in your hobbit hole.”  Plenty of blame to go around, no?

The leftist professional class described by Kelly consists of several mutually-supporting components. The main sources of personnel are university departments of humanities and social science. Left-dominated universities develop doctrine and train professionals to man the many positions in the media, bureaucracies, unions, political parties, and schools used to suppress Anglo resistance under the cover of human rights. The mainstream media play a vital role in instructing the public and intimidating majority activists. An important arm of the infrastructure is equal opportunity and affirmative action offices employed by universities, corporations and unions, who develop and manage multicultural programs at state and federal levels.

How to dismantle this?  How to build Rightist equivalents?  And, also, we need an analysis on how self-serving affirmative action “infrastructures” were built within the “movement.”

Again, it is not surprising that multicultural ideologues fear the rise of parties that could begin to build an ethnic infrastructure for the majority. The greatest danger to them is not temporary defunding of particular projects, but the creation of a professional class of national activists able to work in and with government agencies to neutralise and then replace the system of minority-left supremacy. 

A danger they seem they will not have to worry about for some time.

There have been many attempts to explain the nature and cause of the intolerant Left’s dominance of the universities…These accounts fail to explain why cosmopolitan, anti-Western ideology has prospered. A satisfactory explanation remains elusive. The academic literature on the subject agrees that the left’s takeover of elite culture began early in the twentieth century. Sociologist Eric Kaufmann has traced the starting point back that far in the United States. The process lasted for two or three generations, ending in the 1950s to 1960s when the takeover of elite universities was completed.31

And all doing this time the Right did nothing.  In my lifetime the two periods in which the Left has grown by leaps and bounds (after the 1964-1974 leftist political explosion) was during the Reagan and Trump Presidencies (the latter we see unfolding on a daily basis).  Does that tell you anything? The Right declares victory and then sits around and does nothing while allowing the Left to roll up one real victory after another.  The Right is not serious.  After all, look at the stupidities that Der Movement concerns itself with.

As already noted, there is some doubt that multiculturalism is unambiguously leftist. The SBS program’s attack on Anglo-Australians reveals that, despite its rhetoric, it can be seen as coming not only from the Left but also from individuals well to the right of One Nation. Multiculturalists mobilise ethnic constituents, their tribes, by warning them of threats from another tribe, Anglo Australia, which they vilify with accusations of racism.

But what to do about it?  We all know this is true.  What now?

It will be difficult to correct the social sciences and humanities while respecting the autonomy of scholars and the universities that employ them. Another hurdle is the fact that Australian academe is connected to international disciplines that are themselves politicised. If a way could be found, governments would be justified to defund intellectually corrupt courses and academics. The funding instrument might also be used to establish centres of excellence that champion science and disinterested scholarship over ideology. These centres would offer students real alternatives, and society real experts. Such reform will not be possible while governments of both sides of politics remain under the thumb of the powerful multicultural lobby. A parallel approach might work to reform public broadcasting.

But how exactly to get started?  We can never “get over the hump” from proposing these obviously beneficial ideas to even the slightest beginning of any real progress.  We require fresh ideas and careful planning, followed by competent implementation.

Screen Australia should be abolished or, preferably, reformed to defend traditional values. It should be feasible to reduce the high level of inaccuracy evident on ethnic and cultural themes in public broadcasting. Programs such as Ray Martin’s should not progress beyond the proposal stage. Their poor scholarship and ethnic bigotry should have ruled them out. The media and academic elites examined in this review give first loyalty to political values ahead of curiosity and intellectual openness. They and their enablers need to be exposed before Australia can begin to rebuild its national identity and social cohesion.

You can expose them, but to oppose them you will need your own competing infrastructure. I do not see anyone on the Right capable of building such.  Given the current inept “leadership” any budding infrastructure would be infiltrated by the first Swede or movie critic who walks in the door.

However, as philosopher Michael Walzer has noted, it is not feasible or desirable to abolish ethnocentrism in an open society. Instead, the multiple ethnic loyalties found in Australian society must be balanced. Decades of impotent criticism of the ABC show that balance can only be achieved among channels, not within individual channels. And that can only be achieved by establishing a counterweight, a network that take the side of Anglo Australia.

Another good analysis by Salter.  Imagine if all the money that has been wasted on the Happy Penguins had gone instead to fund Salter, so as to allow him to commit full time to ethnological/nationalist analysis and also to advising political activists worldwide.  If you want to contribute to Salter’s work, do so as described here.  Give generously.

Advertisements

Power, Approach, and Inhibition

It applies to Der Movement.

Let’s give credit to the gamesters for bringing this to our attention.  PDF here.

We can ignore the absurd sociopolitical implications and statements in this paper made by the (obviously leftist) authors; e.g., that European-Americans are socially more powerful than are Coloreds and men are socially more powerful than women, while the reality of today’s Multicultural America is that the White man is a low caste subaltern demographic, discriminated against by both law and politically correct custom, and that the socially dominant groups are Jews, Coloreds, and shrieking feminist harridan women.

In all cases, emphasis added.

The fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense that Energy is the fundamental concept in physics . . . The laws of social dynamics are laws which can only be stated in terms of power. (Russell, B. 1938. Power: A new social analysis. London: Allen and Unwin, page 10.)

We define power as an individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments.

That’s as good definition as any.  One can think of ways this applies to Der Movement.  One example – withholding access to blog forums and “banning” critics from participation.

Elevated power, we propose, involves reward-rich environments and freedom and, as a consequence, triggers approach-related positive affect, attention to rewards, automatic cognition, and disinhibited behavior. In contrast, reduced power is associated with increased threat, punishment, and social constraint and thereby activates inhibition-related negative affect, vigilant, systematic cognition, and situationally constrained behavior.

This is key.  Why do people always want positions of authority? To think it is only about material rewards betrays a strictly economic-materialist worldview.  Status?  Yes, but status leads to power itself, and what good is status anyway?  The satisfaction of exercising authority and getting your ideas actualized?  Self-actualization itself?  Why are any of those things desirable?  Answer – it leads to: less stress, lower cortisol levels, more testosterone, more uninhibited behavior, a more positive affect in every way; people in power feel better, they are objectively better even at the level of their hormones.  Those not in power are depressed, anxious, inhibited, wary and worried, have a negative affect, more stress, and a negative hormonal profile.  Think of the contrast: a person who makes decisions about others, or another person who has decisions made about him by a powerful manager.  The first person controls his fate, the second person has his fate controlled by someone else.  Who do you think actually has more stress?  Feels better or worse?

When those in power complain about how “stressed” they are, and the “burdens” of “power and responsibility,” that is just a bunch of “squid ink” to fool their subordinates.  In reality, it are those subordinates who are the stressed and burdened.  If those in power were really “suffering” so much, why don’t they just resign their positions of authority and let someone else do it, eh?

Authority is power that derives from institutionalized roles or arrangements…Dominance is behavior that has the acquisition of power as its end, yet power can be attained without performing acts of dominance (e.g., leaders who attain their positions through their cooperative and fair-minded style). Thus status, authority, and dominance are all potential determinants of power as we define it.

Including “status” as a “movement leader.”

Powerful managers, as a consequence, valued subordinates’ performances less, attributed subordinates’ efforts to their own control rather than subordinates’ motivations, and desired greater distance from their subordinates.

Look at the tinpot “leaders” of Der Movement, who exemplify these traits very precisely.

Certain physical characteristics…are also associated with elevated power.

Such as Der Movement’s ethnic affirmative action program.

…we predict that elevated power will be associated with increased positive mood (Hypothesis 1) High-power individuals more frequently experience and express positive mood and emotion. Low-power individuals more frequently experience and express negative mood and emotion. This pattern of results was observed across various measures of affect, measurement contexts, and determinants of power (e.g., peer ratings, ethnicity, and SES).

That was discussed above.  Power improves quality of life.  It is the ultimate stimulant.  Powerlessness is a depressant.

We propose that high-power individuals, who are disposed to approach, will attend to potential rewards rather than to threats and as a consequence will construe others through a lens of self-interest…We further expect low-power individuals to selectively attend to punishments and threats (Hypothesis 7). The literature on anxiety lends indirect support to this hypothesis.

Potential rewards, like the tin cup panhandling.  Or sex. The increase in positive affect is the primary reward, but why not enrich yourself in other ways at the same time?

elevated power is associated with more automatic, less complex styles of reasoning, whereas reduced power increases controlled information processing, deliberation, and the complexity of thought.

“Less complex styles of reasoning.”  See – Extreme vetting meaning “are you Swedish?”  Charlottesville Ragnarok.  Decades of constant failure and an inability to build an infrastructure.  The inability to realize you need such an infrastructure before “going public.”  Regurgitating fossilized dogma over and over again.  The constant Man on White Horse Syndrome mistakes, repeated endlessly.  Adulterous trailer park soap operas.  Gambling away supporter donations.

Proposition 12: Elevated Power Increases the Likelihood of Socially Inappropriate Behavior

Behold Der Movement!  Drunken Beavis-and-Butthead podcasts.  Acting like jackasses.  Petty feuding.  Adultery with colleagues’ wives. Gambling with supporter donations. The list goes on.

More generally, we would expect factors that reduce the freedom with which the powerful can act to dampen approach-related tendencies. In fact, many social values and practices, from conceptions of virtuous leaders to institutionalized checks and balances, have as their very purpose the placing of constraints on those with power. Drawing on extant literatures, we propose that three processes—stability of power relations, accountability, and social values embodied in cultural and individual differences—act as constraints, thus moderating the effects of power on affect, cognition, and behavior.

Note the importance of accountability (and see the next point, below).  Of course those in power in Der Movement want to protect their petty fiefdoms by reacting hysterically to anyone who wants to hold them accountable.  Those in power have an inherent distaste for accountability, which by its very nature restrains their power and suppresses the positive affect they derive from that power.

The excesses of powerful leaders—their propensity for disinhibited behavior and stereotypic, error-prone social perceptions—are certain to feed into the processes that lead to changes in leadership.

And that is one key to EGI Notes – enabling the processes that hold “movement” “leadership” accountable for their behavior and for their failure, leading to “changes in leadership.”  “Error prone perceptions” – isn’t that interesting, particularly how I have been chronicling how Der Movement’s “leaders” are constantly wrong, while the “crazy and bitter” Ted Sallis is constantly correct.

Leaders can of course justify their power and its rewards by contributing positively to whatever they are leading, by benefiting others as they themselves benefit, by producing value for others, for their people, and for society.  In this manner, the positive affect and other rewards of power can be viewed as justified compensation.  But if the leaders are inept – at times, actually destructive – then they are just free-riding parasites.

Bunker Syndrome Redux

An example of leftist hypocrisy as well.

Some time ago, I wrote about “The Bunker Syndrome,” an affliction that characterizes many Whites of rightist inclinations. You have White folks with healthy instructs about race and culture, but they are unwilling to actually do anything productive about it.  Rather than attempting to actualize their beliefs in the real world, and engage in activism, they’ll just spout some “bigoted” remarks, or “act out” in public, accomplishing nothing except making themselves (and others who share their beliefs) look bad.

Let’s consider this situation.  Yes, a New York lawyer named “Aaron Schlossberg” raises questions as to his ancestry – or should we say (((ancestry))) – but that’s irrelevant to the main issues at hand.  Ignore that Levantine possibility for the time being, and let’s look at this through the paradigm prism of “a ‘White’ person making rightist, politically incorrect comments.”

Now, the persecution of Schlossberg is wrong, but his behavior is a perfect example of The Bunker Syndrome – lots of loud “acting out” of “bigoted” opinions but no actualization of his views in the real world.  Indeed, we read, emphasis added:

The website for Schlossberg says he is a lawyer with a focus on commercial and insurance law and notes that he speaks Spanish and some French, Mandarin Chinese and Hebrew, in addition to English. His law office advertises that it can take phone calls in four foreign languages, an irony that was not lost on many commentators on social media.

If Mr. Schlossberg feels so strongly about the sanctity of public English speaking, then perhaps his law office should only have accepted phone calls in that language?  More to the point, if he feels so strongly about immigration, illegal immigration, immigration enforcement, rightist politics, and cultural preservation, then, instead of public displays of Bunkerism, he could have used his legal training to help those on the Right, instead of practicing “commercial and insurance law” for a “vibrant” clientele.  Even if he didn’t want to help any “anti-Semitic Nazis” there are those on the Right who would welcome him – indeed, the Alt Wrong would much prefer a New York lawyer named “Aaron Schlossberg” over some greasy low-IQ Afrowop or some Romanian dancing the hora (long may it turn).  Then there is the whole Alt Light, the Paleocons, and the Donald Cuck administration.  There’s a wide range of opportunities for someone with legal training to help the Right, instead of acting like a jackass in a restaurant.

This is the problem with all the “Bunkers.” They’ll say this or that but not actually DO anything productive in the political or metapolitical sphere to advance their beliefs.  In fact, their “acting out” typically has the consequences (apart from harming themselves) of delegitimizing their beliefs and generating (undeserved) sympathy for the targets of their ire.  They are not even helping to promote racial balkanization, since their behavior is a dead end resulting in the aforementioned sympathy for their targets, and embarrassment for those who share their basic beliefs.  There is no real “heightening of the contradictions” here.  That Black guy who walked into a restaurant with a MAGA hat and got harassed actually did more to promote balkanization than did Schlossberg yelling about calling ICE on some Spanish speakers.

In comment threads in articles about Schlossberg, one sees the typical leftist mantra that spews forth when anyone with rightist sympathies is subjected to oppressive social pricing: “free speech has consequences” and “free speech protections of the First Amendment only refer to a lack of government persecution and have nothing to do with private consequences” etc.  These same leftist hypocrites (redundancy) were silent however when Fresno State claimed an inability to discipline NEC land whale Jarrar due to…drum roll please…free speech and the First Amendment.  And keep in mind Jarrar’s antics not only included the public comments about “amazing racist” Barbara Bush but also the incident with the ASU hotline number.  Consequences for any of that?  Absolute zero. Consequences for Schlossberg expressing his private opinion in a private setting?  Kicked out of his office and having elected officials submitting complaints for him to be disbarred.  

There are some on the Left who call those on the Far Right “hypocrites” on the free speech issue because, as they say, “if you guys were in charge, you wouldn’t allow free speech.”  Of course, leftists accusing others of hypocrisy is breathtaking….well, hypocrisy, as well as an insane level of projection.  But as to the “accusation?”  Fair enough…if I were in power, I wouldn’t allow free speech for the Left; they would be silenced just as they now silence the Right.  But it is not “hypocrisy” because a Sallis State would not pretend to be a “democracy” with a “First Amendment” and would not engage in dishonorable cant about “freedom” to justify interfering with the sovereignty of other nations. A Sallis State would also not cherry-pick law enforcement nor would it engage in cowardly techniques of social pricing (also applied in a cherry-picked, inconsistent manner) in order to evade the letter and spirit of the law.

The Left does not respect freedom of expression in the context of a “democracy” centered on a “Bill of Rights” (and Europe is even worse).  So, why should they expect the Far Right to respect freedom of expression in a national socialist authoritarian state?  Are they delusional or merely retarded?

In any case: if there are rightist lawyers (or other useful professionals) out there, please learn from the Schlossberg case.  We don’t need more Archie Bunkers.  The Bunkers didn’t save America from being transformed and destroyed.  We don’t need you spouting off in a restaurant, we need you in a courtroom (or wherever your skills can be best utilized) advocating for the Right.

Griffin Reviews Hawley

A better book review.

Robert Griffin, who phone interviewed me a long time ago for one of his books, seems to me to be a good man and an honest academic.  I am pleased he has written a critical analysis of Hawley’s Alt Right book, a review that is perhaps more objective than the more positive reviews given by (ego-driven?) individuals interviewed by Hawley and featured in the book and who no doubt are positive about the publicity (good for panhandling drives, I guess).

As per Hawley, Griffin notes his obsession about “racism” and “supremacy” and, indeed, anyone who, like Hawley, would write the following is intellectually suspect:

Throughout this text, I use the term ‘white nationalist’ largely because that is the term used by many on the Alt-Right to describe themselves.  But I acknowledge the critique that white nationalism was a term invented to make white-supremacist views more palatable.

True enough, Hawley uses weasel words such as “I acknowledge the critique” without openly saying whether he agrees or disagrees with it (although his fulminations against “racism” is a possible clue here). The bottom line is that the “critique” in question is politically-motivated libel and slander, and is objectively false.  An honest academic would have pointed out the emptiness of the critique and the clear differences between nationalism and “supremacy,” but, as Griffin suggests, Hawley may have been more concerned about his upcoming tenure application as he is about White “racism” and “supremacy.”

I give Griffin’s review a 10 out of 10.

In Der News, 2/20/18

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

If Romney is a sociopath, what does that make Trump?  Cuckadoodledoo!

The Chinese threat. Emphasis added:

Wray pointed to China’s use of unconventional intelligence sources as an example of its reach.
He said “collectors” — what the intelligence community calls people who collect intelligence on behalf of agencies or governments — had infiltrated US universities.
“I think in this setting, I would just say that the use of nontraditional collectors — especially in the academic setting, whether it’s professors, scientists, students — we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around the country,” Wray said.
They’re exploiting the very open research-and-development environment that we have, which we all revere, but they’re taking advantage of it,” Wray said, adding that there was a “naiveté” among academics about the risks posed by foreign nationals at US universities.
The Institute of International Education found that US universities admitted more than 1 million international students in the 2015-16 school year, nearly 329,000 of which were Chinese students.

That’s all true, but the infiltration of Chinese – and in general Asian – interests is not restricted to academia, or business.  As I have repeatedly warned here, they are infiltrating the “movement” through several weak points – “chinks in the armor” so to speak – including HBD and, of course, the sexual weakness of beta male Type I activists for the East Asian women who are pimped off on them.  Indeed, over the past few years, there have been an increasing number of East Asian and Hapa females (of course, females) settling down in various “movement” precincts, as well as White males (not men) in the “movement” not even bothering to hide – nay, at times, even celebrating – their yellow fever.

And getting back to academia, don’t forget the cogelites at GNXP telling us we need ”hundreds of thousands” of “high-IQ” Asian immigrants per year.  After all, who’s going to do STEM and staff our universities?  Certainly not low-IQ White lulzers, hiding out in their parents’ basements, engaged in fervent onanism to Asian porn.  

Will Sessions do this?  But, no.  He’s too “busy” uselessly standing around looking like a dumbfounded Howdy Doody. Trump had other (non-quota queen) choices for Attorney General, people who, while they were politically inferior to Sessions, would have actually done something, and that something would have been whatever Trump wanted.  Instead, we get Howdy Doody time, except the ventriloquist is missing and the dummy just flops around lifelessly.

Overcoming the Plutocratic Insurgency

Far-Right economic revolution.

What he says about academia, tenure, and academic freedom is right on target, despite what anti-intellectual low-brow (and failed academics who pretend to be high-brow) Type I “activists” believe.  For example, how long would KMacD have lasted at CSULB if he didn’t have genuine tenure (genuine tenure being an increasingly rare characteristic)?

To the broader point, extreme pushback against the globalist plutocratic elites is coming, and the Far-Right needs to be on the correct side in this struggle – the side of the economic “left.”  I put “left” in scare quotes because the “socialism” in “national socialism” does not equate to Marxism, but refers to the subordination of economics to political and racial objectives, instead of the other way around, which is what the Rule of Money have brought us today.

Laissez-faire capitalism has to go, plutocracy and oligarchy have to go, the idea that the “Right” broadly defined has to side with “big business” has to go as well.  And all the Alt Wrongers, with their ”sweet business deals” and their vision of a Jewish/Asian-dominated globalist society that differs from our current situation only in that it lacks Negroes and Hispanics has to go as well.

The Revolution has to be comprehensive: economic as well as racial, cultural, social, etc. We need to take the lead, and not let the anti-White Left take leadership of the anti-plutocratic resistance by default.

We need to acknowledge realities (including AI/automation, which is coming) and make sure the People benefit, not the Plutocracy, we need to support the “citizen’s dividend” idea, social credit, a distributive economy, but one based on racial principles, for our own people.

And as for all the libertarians, the HBD Alt Wrongers, the suit-and-tie conservatives who think that ghetto gang bangers are the only problem – they themselves are part of the Problem, not part of the Solution.

Economic Justice has to be part of the program to save Race and Civilization. Of Red, White, and Black, the Red component cannot be forgotten.

Der Youth Will Save Us!

The omega race.

Read this.

So, a sample of White college students are such hysterical SJWs that ~2/3 of them would rather “hold their hands in near-freezing water” than have “(falsely) high scores of implicit racism” sent around in email.  This is the generation that’s going to save us from all the dastardly “boomers?”

That’s not to defend “boomers” – but are Millennials (and those younger) any better?  The Alt Right should probably stop their generational dog whistling and deal with reality, which is rather harsh.