Tag Archives: Anti-white bigotry

Media Coverage of Crimes and Anti-white bias

Steve Sailer posts about a new book by Jon Krakauer about a rape at a small college in Montana. He asks the question why the press, including the New York Times, has paid so much attention to this case, but not other rape cases at higher profile schools. He sees that the pattern is that cases in which the accused rapist is white gets coverage, while those in which the accused rapist is black get much less.

The press has a pattern of focusing on white crimes (UVA) while ignoring others, and of always taking the anti-white side in disputes (Duke Lacross, Ferguson.) This has the effect of demonizing white men. It’s not just that it paints a false picture of reality, it’s that it teaches people that it’s good and noble to criticize whites in an unfair manner. We see the results of this everywhere.

We can’t fight against this kind of anti-white bigotry unless we recognize it and name it, over and over again. Until the overarching pattern is documented, clear and undeniable.

Steve has the point that the left’s ideology is fringe vs core. But in practice, “fringe vs core” takes the form of anti-white bigotry. I imagine the typical journalist doesn’t wake up in the morning thinking to group libel whites, it’s more like they want to avoid “punching down” on a “vulnerable powerless minority.” But it is still functionally equivalent to anti-white bigotry, even if it’s not what they are consciously aiming for, even if they don’t realize they’re doing it. And it’s what we need to fight against.

And by doing so we can fight anti-core, anti-majority sentiment at the same time. We say anti-white bigotry is wrong at the same time we say anti-majority sentiment is wrong. Majorities have the right to be proud of their heritage, meaning whites have a right to be proud of their heritage. That majorities have a right to a home and to pass it onto their children, meaning whites have a right to a home and to pass it onto their children. The general principle is enhanced by its prime example, they fit together hand in glove.


The Errors in “Racism = Power + Prejudice” and “Punching down”

Steve Sailer links to a column by Ross Douthat in the New York Times which discusses the concept of “punching down”.

The punching down idea comes from the same mindset that says racism = power + prejudice, and since blacks/Muslims don’t have power, they cannot be racist.

There are three critical mistakes in this line of thinking:

1) First, it is not about how much power a group has, it is about how that group uses its power.

As Douthat mentioned, Charlie Hebdo provides an example. Whites in France have more power than Muslims, but the whites at Charlie Hebdo used that power to create satire, while the Muslims used it to kill.

Interracial crime is another example. Whites as a group have more power than blacks, but when it comes to killing, raping and assaulting, blacks use what power they have to do more of it, and this imposes enormous costs and suffering upon whites who live near blacks. This suffering matters. All this happens despite blacks being “powerless”.

On the opposite hand, you have whites. Cowardly and demoralized, whites in Rotherham were not even willing to defend their adolescent girls from Pakistani gang-rapists due to fear of being called racist.

2) Alliances: Political and social power comes from alliances. When looking at how much power a minority group has, you have to ask “who are they allied with?” And when you do that, some weak groups turn out part of powerful coalitions.

Let suppose blacks want affirmative action policies to benefit them. Blacks are only 13% of the population, they couldn’t force such policies through on their own. But when blacks ally with hispanics and white liberals, then you have a coalition that can impose AA policies. And if white conservatives aren’t willing to use their power to defend their interests, the black/liberal coalition will triumph.

Another example, homosexuals don’t have the power on their own to enact gay marriage, they can only do so as part of an alliance with the political left. Then they’re driving a bulldozer.

3) Internal Divisions: A group like “white Americans” could be very powerful if they were united, but what if it is weakened by internal division? You end up with rich vs poor, liberals vs conservatives, and “anti-racists” who despise their fellow whites. Class, ideology, and internalized racism tear apart white solidarity.

Applied to an issue like immigration, and we see whites lack the power to defend their own interests. The rich want cheap labor, liberal politicians want cheap votes, and “anti-racists” feel a burning moral duty to turn whites into a minority everywhere they exist.

Whites don’t feel solidarity with one another and without that whites have no power as a group.

The “anti-racist” idea of racism = power + prejudice, applied to say whites can’t be victims of racism, falls apart. The left is obsessively talks about power, but here they don’t employ even the most basic understanding of how power works. Nothing I wrote above is complicated.

How can an idea born in academia and embraced by so many distinguished intellectuals have such basic errors? It’s not because they’re stupid. It’s because they are not pursuing truth at all; they are caught up in an all consuming anti-white bias. This new definition of racism wasn’t created to deepen our understanding of society, it was created to dehumanize whites and trivialize the loss of our countries, our heritage, and our posterity.

Academic leftism as it exists today isn’t intellectually serious, it just exists to put an intellectual veneer upon anti-white bigotry.

From a review of “Boyhood”

Movie reviewer Steven W. Thrasher writes in The Guardian:

“indeed, when we are left longing so clearly for Mason’s success despite his being a rather mediocre shit – it reinforces a supremacist mindset about the value of darling white boyhood”

Hoping a young person, even a “rather mediocre” young person, will be see some degree of “success” in life is just basic human decency. But for a leftist like this movie reviewer, regarding white men with basic human decency is incredibly dangerous because it raises an issue much more important to them than basic human decency, and that is the all-important specter of white supremacism. For them, white people having normal human feelings for other white people is white supremacism. For them, white people just going about their lives is white supremacism.

This is demented anti-white bigotry.

I think most white racists, even of the stormfront variety, if they were to watch a movie about a young black man growing up they would somewhere in their hearts want to see him attain a decent life, rather than fall into crime, drugs, or such disaster. This is just normal human empathy, and I don’t think they would feel guilty about feeling this way.

But the left has become so thoroughgoing in their anti-white bigotry that they consciously and intentionally try suppress normal feelings of empathy and basic human decency when they are directed towards white men.

By writing about it in such a way this critic gives a warning to others: “you also had better feel guilty about any human decency you might feel towards whites.”

Since the emotions involved are basic human nature, demonizing them turns them into a convenient left wing equivalent to original sin. Only by submitting to a baptism of diversity training and critical race theory can a white be saved from the danger to their soul posed by having these feelings.

Steve writes a lot about how the left won’t let empirical evidence place any limits on their anti-white ideology, but this is an example of how they won’t let human emotion get in their way either. It’s a small and unimportant example compared to Rotherham, but still instructive.

How Anti-White Bigotry Works

One reason anti-white bigots are not held to account is because the way their bigotry works is new and unique, and therefore we haven’t taught ourselves to recognize it as such.

Historically, expressions of bigotry consisted of crude slurs directed against people of other races. Anti-white bigotry doesn’t work at all like this. It works to demonize whites very slowly, piece by piece. Every individual step is deniable, but taken altogether they are not. We don’t have an intellectual framework for understanding it, so we don’t put the pieces together. And, very importantly, it’s usually other whites who are doing the attacking. Anti-white bigotry is what the left would call “internalized racism”.

Liberalism is too sophisticated to just come out and say “whites are devils.” Instead it says lots of other things that indirectly add up to the same result.

There are two ways racism can work. Lets use a chess king on a chessboard as a metaphor. If you wanted to totally denigrate everything the chess piece does, you could point to it and call it the “n-word”. No matter what move the king makes, it’s still carries the n-word around, and is thereby stigmatized. (As Malcolm X said: even when a black man earns a Phd, he’s still just a n-word.) That’s how old fashioned KKK racism works.

But liberal anti-white bigotry works differently. Instead of pointing to the king and calling it nasty word, it exhaustively analyses every individual move the piece could make and declares each move to be sinister and evil. It’s moves up: that’s racist. It moves down: that’s white privilege. It moves left: that’s gentrification. It moves right: that’s white flight. It moves diagonal: that’s a microaggression, or cultural appropriation, or some other nonsense. And so on and so on, putting whites under a microscope, looking at every thought, word and act in the worst possible light, blaming them for every problem, or just making up slander.

This is a lot more work than old fashioned racism, but liberalism has no shortage of intellectuals willing to do that work. And through it all they never come out and say “Whites are devils” but it all adds up to the same thing.

This is the mechanism by which anti-racism turns into anti-white bigotry, even for those liberals who didn’t necessarily set out to be anti-white bigots. I call this piecemeal racism, since it attacks its target one step at a time, rather than all at once as with traditional racism. Methodical racism might be another good term for it.

The beauty of it is that it is indirect and deniable, passive aggressive. Any individual part of the overall pattern can go unnoticed as anti-white bigotry, or if it is noticed it can be denied as being motivated by hatred. It is only when you see the pattern as a whole that it becomes clear that whites are being totally and comprehensively denigrated.

And I think in some cases liberals might not even notice what they’ve become. Its deniability means they can deny it even to themselves. They don’t use blatant slurs, and they try to appear academic. But I think on a psychological level their approach couldn’t help but turn into hatred: when so much time and effort is dedicated to uncompromising adversarial critique of a group of people, how could it not turn into hatred? That’s just how human nature works.

Call Anti-white Bigotry by Its Name

One important step in fighting anti-white bigotry is to label it as such.

It needs to be called “anti-white bigotry” because that term is absolutely clear, self-explanatory, and uncompromising.

Feckless mainstream conservatives have invented numerous terms that avoid stating the blunt truth of what we are dealing with and only obscure the issue:

-”double standards” : these exist yes, but are mere symptoms a single underlying principle: anti-white bigotry.

-”reverse racism”: when people hear the term racism they associate it with anti-black bigotry, the “reverse” part is too indirect, and the left has taken to defining racism as “power plus prejudice” which can be refuted, but is a waste of time.

-”who whom”: Apologies to Steve, but this is too obscure. Lenin’s dictum does sum up the mindset of identity politics in an abstract sense, but it doesn’t clearly state exactly what we are dealing with, which is anti-white bigotry.

-”political correctness”: this is too vague and can refer to all kinds of leftist thought control, from feminism to anti-racism. I think it also trivializes, since people tend to associate it with petty things like calling short people vertically challenged. It’s become a joke, and anti-white bigotry isn’t a joke.

-”Cultural Marxism”: no one who hears this term for the first time can have any idea of what it means. If explaining your vocabulary requires a history lesson about the evolution of Marxist theory from the Marx to Lenin to Gramsci to the Frankfurt School, then it’s useless for activism. And it sounds like pretentious jargon.

-”Anarcho-tyranny”: again no one who hears this for the first time can know what it means. It sounds like jargon. And like double standards, it is just a symptom of a deeper cause.

Call it “anti-white bigotry”.