Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Reply to New York Magazine's Article "The Man Who Invented Identity Politics for the New Right"(on Steve Sailer) by Park MacDougald & Jason Willick

A Response to an article that ran on May 1, 2017.

"...Sailer Strategy: the divisive but influential idea that the GOP could run up the electoral score by winning over working-class whites on issues like immigration..."

Everything in politics is 'divisive'. If we want unity, why have TWO or more parties? Why not a one-party system like China? Or Japan which has effectively been one-party state in the postwar period.
Also, Democratic Politics has been more divisive because of its stress on identity politics catering to non-whites for special consideration/treatment.
Now, if Democrats accepted non-whites and if Republicans rejected them, one could argue that Democrats strive to unify all Americans whereas Republicans divide Americans between whites(okay) and non-whites(not okay). But that is not American politics. Democrats win over non-whites with special favors that are often detrimental to whites, especially those of lower classes. Blacks are offered 'affirmative action' in admission/hiring, Hispanics are offered 'affirmative immigration'(aka tolerance of illegal immigration), and 'progressive' PC blames all problems on White Conservatives(while lionizing White 'progressives' as the 'good whites' who heroically play the role of 'white knight' in defending the 'poor huddled masses' of non-whites). Also, homos were handed the supremacist power to alter the meaning of marriage, a privilege denied to Polygamists and Incest-sexuals. Democrats also play sexual politics by driving a wedge between white women and white men. Feminist ideology teaches white women that white men, at least those who refused to be cucked, are the source of all evil. Indeed, it should be obvious by now to all honest observers that the so-called Second-Wave Feminism was less about 'liberating' all women than about driving a wedge between white men and white women. The agenda was conceived with an understanding between Jewish men and Jewish women that the best way to weaken the white race was to break the sacred/sexual bond between white men and white women. Divide and Conquer the white race by setting white women against white men and then by urging them to identify more with Jews, homos, and non-whites. Also, by pushing feminism, both high-IQ Jewish men and Jewish women would come to dominate many of the elite institutions and industries, therefore leaving fewer positions for white men. The fact that Jewish feminists are now totally supportive of pornography indicates that these Jewish-driven agendas — Second-Wave Feminism, Legalization of Pornography, Promotion of interracist Jungle Fever, Globo-Homomania, etc. — are really about "Is it good for Jews?" While people like Betty Friedan and other Second-Wavers may not have been consciously working for Jewish Interests, the fuller picture of the agenda has emerged over the years, and who can deny that Jews benefited the most? And why do Jewish feminists support pornography and why were most of them silent about White Slavery in Israel that lured and exploited thousands of Slavic women? Why if indeed Jewish feminists care about ALL women equally? Because, when push comes to shove, whether it's Jewish feminists or Jewish 'male chauvinist pigs', all their orchestrations and manipulations inexorably lead to more power/wealth for Jews and more impoverishment/dispossession/humiliation for whites whom Jews regard not as full-fledged human beings but as commodities like wheat, corn, and pigs.

The GOP party line has been more unifying in opening the party to all comers on the basis of colorblindness. (One exception is with Jews. Both parties go of their way to favor Jewish interests and Israel uber alles. Jewish supremacism is the real supremacism in the US, but it goes unaddressed because Jewish power controls the media. New York Magazine certainly doesn't address it for what it is: supremacism.) If the GOP must not favor whites, it must also not favor non-whites if it is to be colorblind. Favoring one group over another leads to the divisiveness, which is why the Democratic Coalition threatens to become a Demolition among various races and classes. Ironically, even as Progs accuse the GOP of being divisive, the bogeyman of the Evil White Male is the ONLY factor that keeps the Democratic Coalition united. They are united by hate of Whitey as scapegoat for everything that is wrong. Such is their 'intersectionality'.

American Politics is not about anti-white vs pro-white. It is about anti-white vs anti-anti-white. GOP hasn't been pro-white in anything for a long time. It is just less anti-white than the Democrats. But even this anti-anti-whiteness is pretty weak, with Bush II having pandered more to blacks and Hispanics, indeed much more than to whites, his voter base. Indeed, American Politics puts white gentiles(unless they happen to be homo, tranny, or members of the elites) in moral deficit vis-a-vis other groups, especially blacks and Jews. This is why even the GOP feels this need to suck up to Jewish supremacism and Magic Negro cult.
American Politics says it's okay for non-whites to be pro-identity, but it is wrong for whites to be pro-white. GOP's line is generic pro-Americanism. Even so, it is not explicitly anti-white like the Democratic line has become over the years. The PC narrative is that non-whites flock to Democrats because the GOP won't have them. In truth, non-whites flock to Democratic Party because they get special favors than mere equality, which is what the GOP offers. If one side offers equality while another side offers bribes, why wouldn't you go for the latter? More free stuff. (East Asians may pay a price from policies such as Affirmative Action that favors blacks and browns over yellows but, being so status-obsessed and conformist, most ideologically servile East Asians in the West would rather be associated with the Democrats who rule the biggest/richest cities and elite college towns.)

But then, things get weirder because, even as the Democratic or 'progressive' line is anti-white, most of Real White Privilege is located in the 'progressive' communities of Silicon Valley, elite colleges, upscale yuppie neighborhoods, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Pentagon, and etc., all of which are bastions of elite Jewish & White power/privilege.  In some ways, it seems the anti-white rhetoric of Democratic elites is a ruse to mask 'white privilege', which is okay if billed as 'liberal'. After all, the Clintons got pretty far. So did the Kerrys and Tim Caines and Jerry Browns of the world.
Indeed, the Democratic Party is more appealing to the educated elites, successful people, and the 'cool' crowd because status-narcissism goes hand-in-hand with moral narcissism. These people want wealth, privilege, and power, but they also want to feel 'cool' and morally justified. Since the Democratic Party and most 'creative' types are Liberal, rich and successful people want to be with the Liberal Creative types. Also, the Holy Three in the US are Jews, blacks, and homos, and all three are in the Democratic Party. In contrast, the Southern Strategy won the GOP temporary electoral advantage but saddled them with neo-Confederacy in a nation where there is no greater sin than 'racism'. KKK is the most hated symbol in the US, and the Deep South is connected with it. Of course, Black Crime & Terror has done far more damage than KKK ever did, but the Narrative decides what is worth remembering and paying attention to. The American Narrative resets to TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD over and over.
Also, the Democratic Party got legacy of New Deal and Civil Rights movement. Even though Democrats eventually abandoned the working class, the GOP has hardly reached out except in symbolism of flags and guns. Anyway, symbolic legacy eventually runs out of steam when it loses all semblance with reality. One could argue that the New Deal legacy finally ended for the Democrats with the demise of Hillary. But the New Deal legacy had had nostalgic appeal to Big Labor for a long time. Democrats also have the Civil Rights legacy. As blacks are seen as holy in America, this means a lot. There is no greater evil in the Current Year than 'racism'. Because JFK and Johnson led the way in the Civil Rights Era, Democrats came to own the issue. Also, blacks turned overwhelmingly Democratic, though one wonders if this has more to do with the Civil Rights bill or massive welfare increases under Lyndon B. Johnson. (Maybe if Trump offers Negroes bigass reparations, blacks will finally move on over to the GOP. Civil Rights Legacy may be lost to Democratic Party if it plays the homo card and immigrant card too much at the expense of blacks.) Given the iconic value of the Civil Rights Era and near-worship of MLK, Democratic Party has the Moral Advantage over the GOP. And this is why most successful people prefer to be associated with the Democrats EVEN THOUGH they don't want to live with most blacks. Your average Prog would prefer to live in a safe white community(even a conservative one) than in a black democratic town, but he still wants to be morally and politically associated with the Party of Civil Rights. And then, the mass media made homos holy too, and Democrats came to totally own that issue. And since Homos came to be synonymous with both suffering(especially due to HIV epidemic, one that was caused by their behavior) and cool celebrity culture in Hollywood and fashion, successful people chose to become Democrats. So, the Democratic Party became party of both the have-lesses and the have-mosts. As a Democrat, the have-mosts and other elites can win some radical chic points by being members of the Party of Progress... even though their main obsession is really Privilege.

"Most liberals would take issue with citizenism as reactionary, and perhaps see it as a closeted form of the white nationalism openly championed by many bloggers on the alt-right. Yet Sailer describes citizenism as the best possible bulwark against ethnonationalist impulses."

As for the anti-immigration stance, it can be said to be pro-white since most immigrants are non-white, and white nationalists fear that more immigration-invasion will reduce white power in the US. On the other hand, anti-immigrationism is unifying than divisive. If current American citizens are to form into One United people, they need to work on what they have in common. Just when the American identity is becoming more confused(even more so with 50 new genders derived from 0.5% of the US population of trannies), the last thing we need is more immigration. US is diverse as it is. If anything, it is overly diverse and tearing at the seams. The divisiveness isn't the product of political machinations but demographic realities. If all these different Americans are to come together, there must be respect for Rule of Law. As different Americans have different cultural backgrounds and values, the one thing they must have in common is respect for Rule of Law. For this reason, illegal immigration must be ended and opposed as it violates Rule of Law, and the ideal of Citizenship. Stuff like amnesty leads to breakdown in Rule of Law and commonly shared principle of what makes a person American. If anyone can break in and become 'American', then Americanism is no longer about respect for Rule of Law but a grab-bag of who can get here by whatever nefarious means.

Also, even legal immigration needs to end. For white nationalists, the reasons are obvious. But even for non-whites, if they really want a united America of common identity and shared values, the urgent necessity right now is to encourage feelings of shared bond among all Americans, white, black, brown, and etc. (Besides, the MAIN ATTRACTION of US/Canada/Australia for non-white would-be-immigrants that they are White-Majority countries. Non-white masses are on the move not for 'democracy' or 'liberty' because most nations around the world are now democratic and offer plenty of freedom. Now, if the White-Majority is the very reason why non-whites want to move to the US, then it's worth noting hat endless non-white immigration will destroy the very thing that attracted the immigrants in the first place.) One has to be blind not to see the racial, cultural, and ethnic divisions all across America. When so much division is an undeniable reality in America, why bring in even more immigrants? How do we fix the problem of current divisiveness by adding more diversity, which leads to even more divisiveness? And what kind of a national elite cares more about possible-Americans-yet-to-be than for actual Americans who already are? It's a vapid shopoholic mentality applied on a global scale.
At any rate, non-whites are more likely to assimilate into white standards if they remain a decisive minority. They are more likely to respect the majority and try to fit into it. But as majority numbers and power decline, the minorities will be more demanding and contentious, also increasingly confused as to what really constitutes Americanism. Traditionally, Americanism entailed non-whites trying to become like White America. Now, Americanism entails non-whites defining 'True America' in rejection and revilement of White America. Especially with the notion of 'America is a nation of immigrants', there is the sense that newcomers fresh off the boat are More American than Americans, and if anything, Americans must reverse-assimilate to the World. Thus, the New Americanism is not about foreigners coming to dissolve into what was essentially White America but America dissolving into the World. White America as the Core American Ideal is replaced by various tribalisms from all over the world. (It is surely correct to say that Steve Sailer has a preference for White America, being white himself and respecting the European legacy and heritage. And Sailer never denied that like Conservative Inc types pretend they are totally for colorblind equality. No, Sailer prefers whites just like Jews prefer Jews and blacks prefer blacks. With Sailer, the real key is about finding the best compromise whereby each group gets something but can't get everything. Citizenism isn't white nationalism but it does offer something for whites in curtailing excessive immigration and defending traditional America. But it offers something for all groups who strive to be legal citizens. But American Politics of the Current Year assumes that it is wrong for white Americans to have any sense of white identity or interests at all. Whites must always prove themselves to be totally colorblind or especially deferential to Jews, Homos, and non-whites, especially blacks. But such arrangement is untenable. Why should white Americans be without white identity and white interests? The only sensible thing is to arrive at some formula where all groups get something but not everything. The current formula is one where whites get NOTHING, and that is unacceptable to any sane bunch of whites. It's like what Merlin says to Uther in EXCALIBUR in negotiations with the Duke of Cornwall:

Uther: "One land, one king. That is my peace, Cornwall." 
Cornwall: "Lord Uther, if I yield to the Sword of Power, what will you yield?"
Uther: "Me, yield?" 
Merlin: "He has given. Now, you must." 
Uther: "The land from here to the sea shall be yours... if you enforce the King's will." 

Citizenism, good or bad, is at least an attempt at compromise between white interests and other interests. But, Jewish-controlled Prog thought denies the validity of any white identity or interests. (Ostensibly, Jews say it is to suppress white 'racism', but in fact, it is to deny even the slightest vestige of white identity/interests so that deracinated whites will support and serve Jewish supremacist identity and interests.) Demise of Core White America is leading to more divisiveness all over America. Given that the bogeyman is 'white racism', all groups tend to blame 'white privilege' as easy scapegoat, but the real source of mounting problems is too much diversity and the lack of Core Americanism to hold the nation together. Diversity can be of peripheral value. It cannot constitute the core. It's like the Sun is the center of the Solar System. The diverse planets revolve around it. In the USSR, the core culture was Russia. But as the Russian core dwindled in population vis-a-vis non-Russians who came to represent 51% in the 1980s, the empire broke apart. China has Han Chinese as the core around with ethnic minorities revolve. Without that Han Core, China would begin to fray and tear apart.

The demise of white core is leading to more division in America. The great paradox of American politics is that Diversity has been made to revile the only thing that can hold the various diverse groups together: The White Core. In the past, the White Core served as the model of emulation for which various non-white groups. One might say White America, for all its faults, was the Model Majority as so many non-whites around the world were willing to permanently depart from their own peoples and cultures to become new citizens of a White Majority nation, one they were willing to emulate. Various non-white groups were different from one another but had in common the desire to be part of White America, culturally if not racially. Today, White America still functions as a glue for non-whites but as mutual object of hatred and contempt. Hating Whitey is the only thing that many non-whites have in common. (Even though the excuse given for hating whitey is that whites are oppressive and have all the privilege, it seems much of the acrimony is really driven by contempt for white weakness, not least because the once mighty white race seems so defenseless, timid, and cucky-wuck in face of all the insults and abuse hurled at it by even the poorest minorities, most recent arrivals, and even illegals. No one respects wimps and wussies. After all, it is the 'nice' spineless husband who is henpecked the most. As Jewish supremacism now rules the US and as most whites are deathly afraid of displeasing their Jewish overlords, they just take all the slings and arrows from non-whites because barking back, even with something as innocuous as "It's Okay to be White", would be very displeasing to their Jewish Masters. Current white behavior is more like that of dogs whose primary consideration is, "Will I displease my master?") It's useful for now because without whitey to hate, they will hate one another. For now, when browns are angry with blacks, they blame whites. When blacks are angry with immigrants, they blame whites. When yellows are angry with browns or blacks, they blame whites. When Jews are angry with Muslims, they blame whites. When Muslims are angry with Jews, they blame whites. If respect/awe/fear of whiteness brought various non-white groups together in the past around the orbit of the White Core, the repulsion to whiteness pulls them out of the orbit and eventually crashing into one another They keep saying Diversity is their Core Value, but diversity can never serve as the gravitational core of society. Diversity can only work as a peripheral entity revolving around a Solid Core.

Mexicans in California are more aggressive than in the past. Somalis in Minnesota have no respect for anything. They make demands like the US belongs to them. Multi-culturalists denounce 'divisiveness' but actually thrive on it, which is their bread-and-butter. Indeed, they admonished non-whites not to assimilate into white America and maintain their separateness politically and ideologically. Thus, non-whites have been made to see whites as the enemy than as the host to respect and assimilate into. Multi-culturalists even came up with the notion of 'micro-aggression' to make non-whites feel offended by any gesture, no matter how mild, made by whites. (Of course, non-white macro-aggressions are a bigger problem in America. Surely, people have more to worry about Mexican drug gangs and black thugs, but academics in their bubble world cook up nonsense 'injustices', such as the horror of whites asking, "Where are you from?") The message of multi-culturalism is bogus and hypocritical. It says, "we non-whites will reject and insult you whites, but you whites must accept and praise us at all times." In a way, it is a twist on Jewish attitude to white gentile America. Jews keep their culture of uniqueness and exclusion(toward goyim), but white goyim must be welcoming and open to everyone and everything Jewish.
It's like a card game where one guy can keep his cards in the hole but the other player has to show all his cards. And we see this play out over and over. So, the cast of HAMILTON insults Mike Pence, but Pence has to be gracious and accommodating. Kanye West and other nasty blacks dumped on Bush II, but Bush II goes out of his way to whimper, boo hoo, that the worst part of his presidency was hearing that a deranged rapper said he doesn't like black people. "But I wuv black people oh so very much, and I even gave tens of billions to Africa to prove I love them Negroes." (Not much love for Palestinians though, and no one seems to care, not even Liberals and Progs. Btw, if the progs at New York magazine are appalled by tribalism and nationalism, how do they feel about America's overwhelming support for Zionist ethnic-cleansers and Yinon-ist imperialists?)

Another reason why immigration is divisive is it has the effect of weakening the ties between native elites and native masses. We see this in the US, Canada, and EU. As US elites dedicate themselves more to Diversity via more immigration to create 'new Americans', they have less time to address the issues of Already-Americans. Also, when Already-Americans protest this injustice, the elites protectively hug the New Americans or Future Americans and denounce the Already-Americans 'racist' and 'xenophobic'. British and Canadian white elites do the same thing. This leads to class division, the Coming Apart as theorized by Charles Murray. This turns a nation from a organic system to a mere commercial enterprise. A company may fire workers and get new ones, but a family doesn't get rid of family members to get new family members. US and UK were once like a national family or at least national community. But with massive immigration, every American is treated like a worker by a faceless transnational corporation that can just hire someone else. America is an 'indispensable nation' where Americans are all dispensable. America is an 'exceptional nation' where Americans are not exceptional but replaceable by any bunch of 'New Americans'.

Everyone is expendable and replaceable, not only as worker but as citizen and patriot. Indeed, patriotism is impossible with this kind of globalist system where the Already-Americans are told they will soon be replaced by New Americans and must celebrate the fact of their demise. America goes form a nation of posterity to a nation of ceaseless 'imposterity', what with even illegals being labeled as 'dreamers' and 'what America is all about'. The fact that Hillary insulted so many Americans as 'deplorables' speaks volumes. She would rather hug non-Americans as soon-to-be-new-Americans over real Americans, some of whom have deep roots in the US. It's a strange state of affairs when the US elites care more about yet-to-be-Americans than already-Americans. Whom do these elites represent? American voters or foreigners? They might as well be for open ballots as well as open borders. If US must prioritize all the foreigners who want to come to America, why not let the whole world vote for American Presidents? After all, only letting Americans vote is 'exclusive'.
Anyway, as long as elections are national than global, shouldn't US leaders represent, first and foremost, the Already Americans? (But then, given US meddling and invasion of other nations, maybe people in invaded nations should be given the vote. If US can intrude into their affairs and turn upside down, maybe they should have a say in who gets to rule America since America sees fit to rule the world.)

"In Sailer’s view, people are naturally inclined to pursue “ethnic nepotism” — that is, to help those like themselves at the expense of those who are not. The goal of citizenism, therefore, is to redirect these energies by providing a more expansive definition of “us” than the race or tribe."

That is true. More Diversity has a way of creating a massive number of immigrant-voters whose main loyalty is to their kinfolks in other parts of the world than with fellow Americans. So, even Mexican-Americans side more with Mexicans in Mexico than with fellow Americans. Chinese-Americans prioritize allowing more Chinese into the US than working for the good of All Americans. Many Jewish Americans feel closer to Jews in other parts of the world than with other Americans. With Open Borders, Diversity leads to more divisiveness as each group will then try to bring more of their kind over to the US to gain more power for their own community. If Asian Indians could bring 100 million Hindus to the US, they certainly would. Thus, these groups no longer see the US as an already-made nation into which they must assimilate and become a part of. It turns into a contest of "How many of our own people can we bring to boost our ethnic leverage in the US?" They think more like colonizers and smugglers than immigrants. American turns into a game of Mr. Mouth: Feed the Frog. Each group thinks, "how many of our kind can we bring to the US as the big frog." It's like the Jewish kid trying to win favor for his cousin in RISKY BUSINESS.

Even though globalist elites politically embrace these immigrant types, the fact is they have little in common. The globalist elites live in their own world, and the immigrant groups(especially those without much chance of success) live in a separate world. And these immigrant groups don't get along with whites or blacks or other immigrant groups. So, we have a fraying of America along racial, ethnic, and class lines. Elites symbolically hug immigrants but live apart from most of them. In hugging immigrants as the 'Real Americans', they dump on the historic white masses and even black masses. Increasingly, white masses and immigrants won't get along. In the past, immigrants tried to fit into White America and regarded White America as the Core America. This was true enough in the mid-1970s. But due to rising non-white population, decay of white culture, and PC's attack on whiteness(and rise of black thug culture as the core Americanism and Diversity as national religion), there is nothing to assimilate to.

Multi-culturalist said past assimilation was unfair in favoring the norms of White America. Actually, it made perfect sense. Since whites founded, defined, and built the US — and since they were the solid majority until recently — , it was inevitable that US would be essentially an Anglo-European-American nation. (Besides, the Anglo-American formula for nation-building has been, far and away, the most successful, principled, and productive in the world.) If Chinese had founded America and populated it for most of its history, then assimilating into Americanism would have entailed assimilating into much that is Chinese. But history didn't play out that way. Europeans built America, so it's natural for newcomers to assimilate to European-American norms. But that would mean special place and prestige for whiteness as Core Americanism,and that is unacceptable to multi-culturalists, especially Jews whose resentment of Christianity never faded away.

"His specialty was a plain-spoken form of science journalism... but also infamous for applying, often in a blunt and inflammatory manner, such methods to alleged racial differences... Sailer popularized the term “human biodiversity” (HBD) — now a mainstay on the alt-right — ... which, despite winning a few lonely adherents in the academy, has been dismissed by critics as pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst."

ROTFL. Sailer can be blunt, yes. But inflammatory? That was never his style. If anything, Sailer's statements were spun as inflammatory by others prone to hyperventilation. The most obvious example is 'let the good times roll'. The actual piece was rather droll. If anything, "Let the good times roll" is a very mild understatement when it comes to characterizing black pathologies which blacks themselves have more colorful ways of describing. It's nothing like what Chris Rock or Fred G. Sanford said of black problems. If anything, Sailer made it as un-inflammatory as possible. But nutjobs like John Podhoretz went ballistic(despite his kind having said truly inflammatory things about Palestinians, Iranians, Russians, etc; for inflammatory, try Podhoretz and Jennifer Rubin's friend Rachel Abrams denouncements of Palestinians).

Rachel Abrams says Palestinian children are ‘devils’ spawn’– while Israeli children play with Transformers and draw your heart strings:

Sailer wasn't inflammatory, and this explains his limited appeal to those on the Alt Right who prefer redder meat. I personally would describe black pathology in a more colorful way. But PC overreacts, throws tantrums, and goes ballistic. It responds in inflammatory manner to cold facts, logic, and common sense. We saw this play out at Middlebury College over Charles Murray. PC crazies are easily triggered by anything. They see 'racism' in everything. And PC commissars snoop around for incorrect thoughts everywhere. It's hard to tell what is academics and what is satire. Get a load of this:

'Natural' in breastfeeding is also inflammatory apparently.

Indeed, the line "has been dismissed by critics as pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst" is typical of how PC turns interesting ideas into inflammatory rhetoric.
It is not HBD that is inflammatory. It's been very matter-of-fact. It is PC that is inflammatory in its hysterical and rabid derision of any challenge as 'pseudo-science' and 'eugenics at worst'.
Only an idiot or a pathological liar would deny the reality of race. It is so obvious, it is so evident everywhere in intelligence, muscularity, sports, mating, crime, violence, personality, and etc.
The 'critics' of HBD have no facts on their side. Just emotions. They are the ones who act in inflammatory manner but accuse others of being inflammatory even though Sailer, Murray, and others like them made their point in non-inflammatory manner. Also, shouldn't social/culture writers be blunt and plain-spoken? Those are just different words for honesty and forthrightness. PC has made people so disingenuous, self-censorious, and esoteric that simple honesty is triggering and 'inflammatory'. It's like the saying the kid in EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES is inflammatory. There are indeed some people who are willfully inflammatory. Michael Moore is one of them. Sometimes, Ann Coulter relishes throwing rhetorical Molotov Cocktails. But that's never been the style of Murray or Sailer. If their views are inflammatory, it's because PC threw molotov cocktails at those views.

"In his most infamous and widely condemned blog post, written during the unrest following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Sailer wrote that African Americans 'possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.' And he regularly plays up a sort of white grievance politics — grousing about 'black privilege' or complaining about Jordan Peele’s Get Out as 'a remarkably racist kill-the-white-people horror movie.' Sailer usually dances around blatantly bigoted remarks in his writing..."

This is where we need the concept of the Deep Self. Just like there is the State and the Deep State, there is the Self and the Deep Self.
The Prog Self and even mainstream Conservative Self fitfully denounce the notion that blacks are more likely to 'let the good times roll'. Given the holiness of blackness in PC narrative, it is simply unthinkable in proper circles to cast any negative aspersions on black character or nature.

But the Deep Self of Progs really agrees on 'let the good times roll'. After all, why are Progs so into black culture over other cultures? Blacks love to let the good times roll and be funky and colorful, and progs have a racial preference for blackness over other kinds of racial expressions. Black culture wallows in pathology and wanton sexuality and violence, and this is appealing to white progs because pop culture serves as the fantasy of anarchy and licentiousness.
Also, why do white Progs try to avoid black areas? Why do they seek to gentrify? They see too-many-blacks as trouble. Why did they elect Rudy Guiliani twice and why did they elect Michael Stop-and-Frisk Bloomberg three times? Why did they elect Clinton who locked up record numbers of blacks? Why do Progs say the military has been a constructive place for blacks? What does that imply? Why do Progs say that black kids must be taught and educated from earlier age? Why do white women go to Cuba and Africa to hook up with black men? Why are white boys so enamored of black athletes who act like thugs? White progs fear, loathe, and love blacks on the basis of racial differences. White progs prefer to see fewer blacks in their neighborhood and more blacks on TV. And the classic article about Hyde Park: Despite all the Nice things they SAY, white prog elites DO something quite different, summoning massive police force to control the blacks.

White progs are attracted to black wildness as entertaining and colorful, but they are also scared to death of black thuggery and aggression. So, despite what the Prog Self says, the Prog Deep Self is very much aware of racial differences. Everything a prog does is just as race-ist as what a conservative does. The Self says one thing, but the Deep Self senses something else and does something other.

As for 'black privilege', it certainly applies to the Obamas and fancy Negroes of the world who knows what buttons to push on the white psyche. Unlike most whites, the clever black with just enough intelligence and savvy can get very far just by making the right moves and noises. Barack Obama got to be president despite having done nothing in life because he knew what buttons to push, and this is true of a certain class of blacks. Of course, most blacks are too dim to understand this or play this, but those in the know can get very far. Blacks with modicum of talent can go much farther than any white or Asian person.

As for Jordan Peele's movie GET OUT, isn't it race-ist in the sense that is premised on natural black racial superiority? Even though I haven't seen it, isn't it about how white folks want to steal black bodies because they come with longer dongs and can play better basketball? If that is the premise of the movie, it sounds pretty HBD to me.

Progs are funny. They control music and entertainment, and they feature blacks as thugs, studs, and badass mofos. But if whites take notice of such stereotypical images and match them with social reality of black crime and violence, they are deemed as 'blatantly bigoted'.

We are admonished not to make statements such as "Let the Good Times Roll", but it's totally okay to feature blacks are crazy rappers with nothing on their minds but shooting people and humping ho's. Progs promote the image of the wildass black mofo badass killer and sex beast but get all antsy with a remark as tame and mild as 'let the good times roll'. I mean that is old school and tame compared to how blacks talk about one another these days:

1 comment:

  1. Diversity and divisiveness is ok because civic American nationalism (Reaganism, Trumpism, Conservative Americana, Ben Shapiro shit etc.) is about pushing neoliberalism and Victorian morality on other races and also on dissident whites ("degenerates"). This anglo shit has been conducted globally, since US is an empire and neoliberalism is pushed across board.

    It is emancipatory toward all those caught withing elitist expectations of the protestant white vampire. The conservative white can have his nazi laws and his nazi state only for himself, provided that state can be held at bay by military force or leveled to the ground like Hitler's Germany. But I don't think the elite White wishes his ethnostate because in that case he would not have been a vampire. He knows that most of humanity is non-white, non-protestant, non-germanic, non-western and that his only chance to enslave the humanity is not via nazi military conquest, but via neoliberal capitalism, neo-fascist compradorial juntas and christian reactionary-conservative propaganda.