Sunday, 12 November 2017

SHOULD WE KEEP CALLING THE GOYIM RACIST?


A year on from the meteoric rise of a resurgent White Nationalism and the victory of the implicitly racist Trump campaign, there have been a few intelligent attempts by the Jewish intelligentsia to wrap their minds around what’s happening.  (((Slate))) features an article by (((Isaac Chotiner))) where he asks (((Peter Beinart))) about his fascinating proposal that perhaps they’re calling the goyim “racist” too much.

Right off the bat, this echoing echo chamber echoes the kosher consensus that voting for Trump was a racist act and just about all Republican goyim are at least a little bit racist. “How Democrats Might Help the Republican Party be Less Racist” is a hapless attempt at self-reflection which projects just how much they despise and distrust White gentiles.

Isaac opens up the conversation with a totally fair and objective perspective on the 2016 election.
However we want to define people, and whether “racist” is the right label for them, a lot of people—46 percent of voters—just undeniably voted for a racist. How do we talk about them?
It’s deniable. According to the Commander-in-Chief, “Number one, I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life. Number two, racism, the least racist person.” Trump himself denies it. And speaking as an actual racist, I deny it, too. A racist is somebody who is actually loyal to his own racial group, much like Isaac and Peter are fiercely loyal to their racial group–Jews. Somebody who dog whistles or panders a bit to vaguely racial themes isn’t necessarily one of us, and a huge obstacle to the growth of White Nationalism is that absolutely anybody can pretend to care about White families long enough to win an election and then go right back to caring only about money and power.

Beinart agrees with his beloved race-baiting blacktivist friend Ta-Nehisi Coates (a MacArthur-bonafide “genius”), who believes White Americans owe his people “reparations.”
One of the points that Ta-Nehisi Coates has made repeatedly that is very well taken is that journalists should not think like political consultants. So, it may be politically unwise to call those people “deplorable” and to call out their racism, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
After shoring up his anti-racist bonafides by confirming that he agrees with the fancy black guy that most white people are racist, he moves in with an exciting new idea:
But I do think that in applying the term racist or bigot, except in the really extreme cases, it makes sense to try to apply the term towards an act or a policy or a statement rather than to a person. […] We should try to focus these terms on policy and action rather than individuals.
Brilliant! Instead of calling every white guy a racist, we need to call everything white guys do racist. After all, every real estate transaction, school choice, career decision, and hobby project that white guys do surely has some sort of “disparate impact” on the ever-fragile people of color. White guys are so racist that they’re also pretty much racists when they’re trying to be not-racist, becoming insipid “white saviors.” If the idea rings familiar, then it’s probably because you’ve also been stuck in a dive bar listening to some drunken boomer explain that black men aren’t necessarily “niggers” unless they’re behaving like “niggers.”

It’s the same basic idea, only offered by arrogant racist Jews instead of your alcoholic racist co-worker. Pretend that you don’t dislike or categorically condemn the class of people you dislike and categorically condemn, playing a deliberately dishonest word game where they could theoretically dodge your ire by meeting your standards. It’s for the best that we borrow an idea from the better part of the Black community and hop off of the euphemism treadmill. “Nazi” is the n-word for disobedient white people, and the R word is our word, an epithet for any and all white men who don’t bend the knee to these anti-white coffee shop cosmopolitans.
I certainly am not suggesting that we should take these terms out of parlance, because goodness knows we are in the Trump era, where so much of this deserves that. But I also think that they have such power because there is this sense, rightly or wrongly, amongst conservatives, that conservatives genuinely seem to believe, a lot of them, that they are routinely and unfairly tagged with these terms.
It’s boggling how the mechanics of Jewish Supremacism just sort of operate out in the open like this, with the two men openly agreeing that they’re anti-white and wish to manipulate whites to serve their globalist agenda. Perhaps it’s a habit from back when intellectual discourse wasn’t quite so accessible by lumpen like myself. “Trust me. I am also venomously hostile to them. But let’s pretend not to be so we can more easily sneak up on them.”
You mentioned in your piece what Marco Rubio said about Black Lives Matter a long time ago, where he kind of tried to show some empathy for people who are feeling like race relations in the country needed to change, and you pointed out that when Republicans do things like this that, Democrats can and should highlight them and applaud them.
Bipartisanship is alive and well, but only for Jews. It only exists now for supporting Zionist war abroad and anti-White signaling and policies at home.
I agree with you, but I think that this is so bad for the country. The country needs a less racist conservatism, or less bigoted conservatism, if not a nonbigoted—I mean, many people say our liberalism is bigoted too, so it depends on from what perspective you’re seeing this.
If these people aren’t even quite convinced that American liberalism is “anti-racist” enough, why aren’t they more hospitable toward secession and/or localism? I mean, if they genuinely believe that about a hundred million whites in America are toxically, dangerously racist, why wouldn’t they want to establish political distance? The answer is obvious: They want to defeat, destroy, exploit, and (most of all) humiliate us. This is Jewish tribal ressentiment of the White Christian overlords. It’s an ancient, medieval hatred, one which cannot tolerate a separate peace.

They seek to anesthetize the American right, which is currently experiencing a defensive reaction to these people, with a gamification of the powerful racism allegation, condescendingly smiling and clapping for conservatives who cuck on identity issues, …the only issues that truly matter to these people.
And I think to have some level of sensitivity that certain things are radical changes for people, again especially older people. And that we want to kind of appreciate, if they’re moving in the right direction and becoming more tolerant than they were, it may be smarter to celebrate that in hopes that they will continue to move in that direction than to kind of slam them for not being as far along as the most woke liberals are.
A new sort of “woke” is emerging on the right, one which groans when Rubio cucks to Black Lives Matter even more loudly than the K Street Jews are golf clapping for him. A new generation of White youth have internalized contemporary identity politics and then inverted them to stand for the one identity which it’s nearly illegal to defend and support. Measures like the one proposed in this article are too little, too late. And it’s not like the contemporary leftists and minority activists are even capable of slowing their roll for their own sake. Moral panics don’t work like that, and the anti-white moral panic will continue racializing and radicalizing white folks until we’ve become a political force strong and confident enough to silence them.

Originally published at Trad Worker

Support us on Patreon and Hatreon

1 comment:

  1. yeah, reality itself will radicalize the necessary number of whites...unfortunately, when that finally happens we will be in _quite_ a bad situation...

    ReplyDelete

SWEDISH BLEEDING

Not sure if victim of "diversity rape" or toxic feminism. by Duns Scotus It's really hard to know what's going o...