Category: racism

Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a Racist?

Let us consider this question.

Read this.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (henceforth, AOC) calls the Negrophilic leftist Trump a “racist” and engages in nonsensical justification for her accusation.  But is AOC herself a racist against White people?  And does she have the moral right to criticize Trump on racial issues?   I argue the answers to those questions are Yes and No.

First, AOC promotes a dishonest and anti-White narrative about Unite the Right – that “Neo-Nazis murdered a woman.” The violence at Unite the Right was initiated by leftists, who were there to use thug tactics to break up a legally convened rally.  The death in question was the direct result of one individual – Fields – who had no direct connection to the organizers of the rally, and the death – regardless of the politicized jury verdict – was possibly not in any way premeditated, not “murder,” and may in part been due to the pre-existing health problems of the individual killed. Any “Neo-Nazis” present had no intention or desire for violence, and to argue otherwise is so fundamentally dishonest as to constitute grand-scale gaslighting. It also suggests an animus toward White people and specifically an animus against those Whites who defend their racial interests in the same manner that non-Whites such as AOC do for their own people.

Second, and more importantly, AOC supports policies on race and immigration that – by the definitions of the UN Genocide Convention – promotes White genocide.  If one takes the UN Genocide Convention seriously, and applies its standards fairly to all people, there can be no other conclusion than what I have just stated.  If this is so, then it is reasonable to further conclude that any person who supports genocidal policies holds a racial animus against the targeted population.

So – is AOC an anti-White racist?  The only conclusion based on all of the above is Yes.

Does AOC have the moral right to criticize Trump on race? Hardly, if the designation of AOC being a genocidal racist holds.  And there is another reason the answer to this second question must be No. Consider the following. Trump has a history of catering to Black interests – such as with “criminal justice reform” or a pardon for the violent abuser Jack Johnson – and a history of associating with Black racial leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. So, AOC, when you establish a history of catering to White interests, and when you establish a history of associating with David Duke and Richard Spencer, then get back to us with your opinions about Trump’s alleged “racism.”  Otherwise, you are nothing but a low rent hypocrite.  And an anti-White racist.

Advertisements

Sports Teams Names

Not “racism.”

Question: If names like Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, etc. are a reflection of White racism and meant to mock and ridicule (in this case, Amerindians), then why aren’t there sports teams with names mocking groups also alleged to be victims of White racism?  

Why no Atlanta Coons?  Detroit Dindus?  California Wetbacks?  Seattle Gooks?  New York Sheenies?

Is it possible that the Amerindian names reflect respect for the fighting skills and aggressiveness of Amerindian tribes, qualities that sports teams naturally want to represent?

The fallback view is that while the names are not intentionally racist, they are still unintentionally “insensitive” to the “feelings” of Amerindians, and as such need to be eliminated.  

Well, I don’t know.  We live in a society in which America’s leading newspaper, the New York Times, is an out-and-out hate organization, knowingly hiring a Korean racist with an established intentional pattern of spewing bigotry against White people.  I would think that that intentional racism has priority over the unintentional, no?

As to the argument that anti-White racism is not a problem, or is “impossible to exist,” because “Whites have all the power,” I must say it is mighty strange.  After all, the people who “have all the power” can be insulted, threatened, and humiliated with impunity, and those who are “powerless” are so sacrosanct that any joke (Barr) or even comments meant against bigotry (Papa John’s) causes a White (or even Jewish in the case of Barr) person to get canned.

It’s also strange that a people who have “all the power” are being subjected to state-sponsored genocide, and are discriminated against by law (in addition to by politically correct custom).  It’s strange that James Watson was reduced to selling his Nobel Prize while Al Sharpton is a friend of Presidents, respected political commentator, and speaker at a major political convention.  

All mighty strange, indeed.

Yellows Say: Colored is Best

Of course they do.


Certainly, no one should have any problem with Chinese living in China having anti-White, pro-colored attitudes.  The problem occurs when China is – as exists for many years – one of the largest sources of immigrants to the USA.

The “colored is best” commercial was an anti-wop male feature apparently coming from wopland, but nevertheless doesn’t change Chinese colored-power memes.

This Is Conservatism

Conservatives: enemies on our left.

Piece of filth Kevin D. Williamson, cuckservative extraordinaire, expresses the conservative view of racial nationalists:

Yes, there are racists in the world, and they are engaged in politics, mainly in the form of basement-dwelling losers with Dungeons & Dragons avatars oinking about on Twitter. They are a significant consideration if you are Donald Trump’s psephological engineers. 


And this is the conservative worldview on race relations:
Everybody understands racism, too, and all people of good will reject it…

We can debate “no enemies to our right” (that is, if there is anyone to your right), but as far as enemies on your left – everyone to your left is an enemy, including and especially conservative trash, like the Jew-loving and Negro jock-sniffing losers at National Review, feebly “fighting battles” to the amused mockery of the Left, and defending a “conservatism” which is exactly what extreme liberalism was 50 years ago. And 50 years from now, assuming a nation called “The United States of America” still exists, and that National Review still exists as a forum of mainstream cuckservatism, then the “Kevin Williamsons” of the future will be defending the “extreme conservatism” of Obamacare, Black Lives Matter, gun control, open borders, UN control of the US military, etc. (also known as the Jeb Bush 2016 political platform).

In a White ethnostate, conservatives should be among the first to be strung up. They are the lowest form of filthy scum imaginable – what would have been considered the shitlibs of the 1950s are the “conservatives” of today. The conservative motto: always surrender. Yesterday’s lost position is “backwards” and rejected by “all people of good will,” and the latest leftist victory becomes enshrined as the new status quo to be defended by cuckservative numbnuts – until such time that position is defeated by the Left, and is abandoned for a new “conservatism” even farther to the left than before.

The Bunker Syndrome

Lack of political maturity.
I was recently reading in the news about a group of English soccer fans who, while chanting “we’re racist,” refused to allow a Negro to board a train in Paris. This was, as one can imagine, inflated into an international incident, plastered across newspapers and websites, certainly more important to the System than those mild shenanigans in Rotherham (completely forgotten about by now).  Let us for a moment forget that a Negro has no business being in Paris to begin with, and consider the deeper meaning of this incident.
When such things occur, I wonder about the perpetrators.  Of course, we do not know who they are, but I very much doubt that these are any sort of real racial nationalists or ethnonationalists. I wonder who they vote for back in England, who they support. Maybe the Conservatives. Maybe even Labour (do you doubt it?). Maybe – “at best” – some support the UKIP.  If Nick Griffin was running for office how many of those “racist” soccer fans would vote for him, as opposed to the mainstream conservatives?  Most likely, not a single one. The “bigotry” of these soccer fans is personal, not political. There may well have been alcohol involved. Typical of the juvenile and feckless creatures Whites have become, displeasure over race replacement does not manifest in practical political action, but in carefully hidden disquiet that will rarely erupt in a silly display of (drunken?) hooliganism.
There used to be a TV show popular in 1970s America, All in the Family, with one of the most famous characters in television history: the blue-collar White bigot Archie Bunker.  This being a Jewish-created show, Bunker was of course shown as ignorant and buffoonish, no surprises there. But, that said, he did – and still does – represent something about Whites that remains a serious problem for nationalist progress.
Despite all of Bunker’s anger and frustrations toward minorities (and also White ethnic Catholics), he was – what?  A neo-Nazi? No, not by a longshot.  Bunker was a supporter of Richard Nixon, the Republican President who promoted affirmative action and busing. Bunker gave his ardent support to a politician who enacted policies that were complete anathema to Bunker’s fundamental racial beliefs.  Thus, the problem: Bunker’s racialism never expressed itself in practical politics, it never manifested in a manner that could influence public policy or in any way modify the historical currents to which he objected.  Like White “bigots” the world over, Bunker’s racialism was private, manifested in “venting,” and bluff displays of “politically incorrect” verbal bravado (and even that is forbidden today), not in any sort of useful activism, not even in making the right choice on election day.  
White “bigotry” is childish, useless, sterile.  It accomplishes nothing but to energize the anti-White Left, and give more ammunition to the forces of White dispossession.  I’ve had Bunkers in my family; I’ve known their behavior well.  You the reader may have had the same experiences in your family. Folks who sputter with venom about “the niggers and the spics,” and yet go on to vote for Nixon or Bob Dole or George “Open Borders” Bush or John McAmnesty or any of the others.  These are folks who are deeply upset about illegal immigration and who will rail against “dem wetbacks crossin’ the border” but then they’ll flock to the polls and eagerly vote for a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio. Their bigotry is all “hot air,” it is “sound and fury signifying nothing.”  And as their world crumbles around them, they begin to find that even this harmless venting, this juvenile name-calling, even that is no longer allowed. it is “hate speech,” and they has better learn to just “shut up” and vote for whatever White-hating, immigrant-loving, far-Left GOP candidate is being championed by FOX news.
There are some who would make excuses for the Bunkers. Why, they say, there’s no choice on the ballot!  Better Nixon than McGovern!  Putting aside the issue of why the Bunkers allowed their nation to be stolen from them, so they are constantly presented with such non-choices, the fact remains that, even why a small level of choice is in fact presented to them, they don’t take advantage of it.  David Duke ran for President several times. He did very poorly. What fraction of “White bigotry” supported Duke?   A small fraction indeed.  Pat Buchanan is a moderate paleoconservative and no racialist, and it is true he was part of the Nixon administration. But compared to other Republicans, Buchanan at least represents a sliver of difference compared to the neoconservative juggernaut.  How did Buchanan’s Presidential aspirations fair?  Also poorly.  Republican primary voters, far more “conservative” than the general White population, favored the likes of Bush Sr. and “civil rights Republican” Bob Dole over Pat Buchanan.  If even someone like Sessions, a System Republican who takes a hard line against immigration, were to run for President, do you doubt that the Archie Bunkers would still vote for Jeb and Marco, all the time muttering under their breath about the “illegals stealing our country?”  
Europeans are not much better.  Significant fractions of Europeans express strong opposition to mass immigration in opinion polls, and then these same people cheerfully go to the ballot box to vote for a Merkel, a Sarkozy, a Cameron, or worse. I have no doubt that in, say, Greece, the fraction of the population vehemently against immigration is significantly larger than the fraction who vote for Golden Dawn.  But these “bigots” will instead vote for pro-immigration conservatives or even for Syriza. 
The problem is not just that we need to “wake more White people us,” it is that those who are at least partially awakened refuse to act upon their beliefs and upon their “awakened” status.  Like Archie Bunker, they’ll mutter and complain, shout racial slurs at soccer games, prevent Negroes from boarding trains, leave comments on Internet blog threads, but they won’t even vote the right way in the complete privacy of the ballot.
This “Bunker Syndrome” represents a major impediment to progress: even when Whites know,  they do not act.  Even when they know, they will not vote for the far-Right.  Even when they know, they remain complicit in their own dispossession.  So, the “movement” had better be aware that it is not enough to educate and “awaken,” one must somehow instill political maturity and seriousness into a population that behaves like a bunch of semi-retarded children. That will not be an easy task.

Addictive Pathological Altruism?

The following is a hypothesis, not “movement” solipsist pontificating.

Both the “movement” and HBDers often discuss the pathological outgroup altruism extant among Europeans, and relatively lacking in other groups.  The HBDers would stress clines of this within Europe itself, with meta-Germanic NW Europeans being more prone to this than other groups (topics discussed at, e.g., Evo and Proud as well as The Occidental Observer).  So, one can view  a major dichotomy with respect to pathological altruism being Europeans vs. non-Europeans, with the Europeans being further divided between NW Europeans and other groups, and the non-Europeans being divided as well (e.g., groups like Jews and East Asians likely being particularly ethnocentric and non-altruistic). Thus:

Northwest Europeans > Other Europeans >>> Most non-European peoples > More extreme non-European ethnocentric types.

Of interest are the mental processes occurring as one moves to the left of that spectrum, in the direction of more maladaptive outgroup altruism. I theorize that the “rewards” are not only social approval or avoidance of “guilt” but, importantly, positive feelings experienced as a result of these behaviors – feelings of euphoria, bliss, calm, lowered stress, etc., possibly mediated by endorphins, varying neurotransmitter levels, decreased stress hormones, etc.  I speculate that ethny-abnegating actions cause a biochemical brain reaction that is experienced positively and may be, in a real sense, addictive.  This may be an aberrant signaling due to imprinted mental feedback that would be more adaptive in a homogeneous society.  For example, in the homogeneous context, a muted form of outgroup altruism, allowing for alliances outside the extended family, would allow for the type of disinterested politics essential for building social capital, to enhance social harmony and, perhaps, to boost individual fitness through adapting the individual to “fit in” better in complex Western societies.  However, in racially diverse, heterogeneous societies, particularly societies in which altruists live among highly ethnocentric non-altruists, this addictive behavior is maladaptive, both on a group and individual level, as it has spiraled out of control.  Being addictive and easily manipulated by a certain Levantine Tribe, the outgroup altrusim is no longer muted, but excessive, and is no longer confined to extra-familial co-ethnics, but to peoples of widely divergent genetic origins.  Indeed, given globalism, even homogeneous nation states can be harmed by excess outgroup altruism, as they would invest heavily in those outside their nation at the expense of those within.  The maladaptive nature of excess outgroup altruism in the context of globalism and multiculturalism is a serious problem for Western Man. 

Of course, unlike the HBDers, I do not propose that these behaviors are purely biologically determined, there are important cultural influences as well. But, there is likely predispositions in different populations to becoming physically addicted to excessive outgroup altruism, and the biological underpinnings of this contribute to the hypothesis presented here.

Hence, racial liberalism can be seen as a form of mental illness, an addiction to certain mental stimuli that, in current environments, decreases fitness. I would predict that the same mental modules that find “release” in acts of ethnoracial masochism would also tend to favor a similar “release” in acts of sexual masochism – the same patterns of abnegation and pleasure in self-denial would obtain.
This analysis (see page 141) suggests that sexual masochism is predominantly a Western phenomenon.  The author proposes certain theories for this, and for the fact that such practices started becoming noticed around 1500 AD.  Those theories may or may not have validity; however, the author’s observations also can be interpreted according to the hypothesis presented here.  Thus, the Western localization of masochism is consistent with the ideas presented in this post – that European peoples are more prone to achieve mental “release” through thoughts and actions that are self-abnegating.  Further, the 1500 AD time point may have biological as well as (as the author suggests) cultural significance – if one accepts Frost’s theories about genetic pacification.  If Westerners were becoming increasingly selected for altruistic, pacified types starting around half-a-millennium ago, then it would not be surprising that submissive and (at least symbolically) self-destructive sexual practices would become more prevalent.  This would tie into the idea that Europeans are prone to become “addicted” to the positive mental feelings induced by acts of self-abnegating outgroup altruism.

The author suggests that there are differences in the predisposition to masochism even within Western societies, with the upper classes demonstrating this more than the lower. Again, these differences can have biological as well as cultural explanations: upper class Westerners, as a group, are likely more pacified, outgroup-altruistic, “over-civilized,” etc. compared to the lower classes. Consider the stereotypes of (1) the effete limousine liberal, the SWPL-style progressive upper-class White oozing with concern with coloreds, contemptuous of other Whites, physically non-aggressive; and (2) the lower class blue collar “White bigot” who displays a more healthy attitude of ethnocentrism and a down-to-earth physicality. Which is more likely to be involved is self-abnegating sexual masochism? Which is more likely to be involved in ethny-abnegating sociopolitical masochism? I would suggest that a similar difference in brain chemistry (albeit possibly of lesser magnitude) would obtain between upper/lower class Whites as between Whites and non-Whites: upper class Whites would experience positive mental feelings as a result of ethnoracial-abnegation, while lower class Whites would more likely feel angry, threatened, and otherwise upset and at unease. There must be differences between people beyond ethnicity and class: hence, racial nationalists would be “constructed” to react to ethnoracial-abnegation with anger and disgust, while racial liberals would feel bliss. Whether these differences extend to interpersonal relations and to the sexual sphere remains to be determined.
A question would be how to deal with all of this.  It would be helpful if biocultural/societal mechanisms can be put into place that would release these positive feelings for adaptive within-group altruism, rather than of the outgroup manner. 

I have no solutions at present, but hope that these theories can evolve into more testable hypotheses, producing data that can be utilized to formulate therapeutic approaches for enhancing European ethnocentrism and a more strictly ingroup altruism.

Indeed, in a perfect world, sufficient funding, coupled to a lack of sociopolitical restrictions, would allow for hard science (not Lynnian pseudoscience) research on neurobiology and biochemical psychiatry to determine the neurological pathways underlying the mechanisms outline here (assuming they exist as proposed).  The objective would be to design methods to repress negative outcomes such as excessive outgroup altruism and topromote positive, healthy, and adaptive outcomes, such as increased ingroup altruism, intolerance, ethnocentrism, and racism.