Tuesday, February 07, 2012

The folly of whiteness studies and those Duluth billboards

The town of Duluth in Minnesota has hit the headlines. The white mayor of that town, Don Ness, has backed a billboard campaign attacking white people for enjoying a racist, unearned privilege.

What's that all about? It goes back to an academic movement called whiteness studies.

There is a split between liberals when it comes to race and ethnicity. Liberals generally agree that race should be made not to matter in society. For right liberals that means adopting the idea of being colour blind, including to one's own race. But left liberals take things further. They explain racial disparities the same way they explain disparities between men and women. They believe that a dominant group created a false category (whiteness) in order to impose a system on society which granted them an unearned privilege at the expense of the "other".

That makes whiteness exceptional in a negative sense. It connects whiteness, as a matter of definition, to supremacism and racism. That's why students at the University of Delaware were taught, in compulsory diversity training sessions, that:

[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.

Whiteness studies is an academic spin-off of this left-liberal approach to race. The academics teaching these courses are concerned that whites have bought into the "I am colourblind" mentality, so they want to force whites to confront their whiteness and their privilege.

And what exactly is white privilege supposed to consist of? Two things are emphasised. First, whites are supposed to have better educational and employment outcomes not because they have worked hard or created stable forms of community and family life, but because they benefit from hidden privileges which advantage them.

Second, whites are thought to be privileged because, as the majority group, they get to set community norms, i.e. to define what is normal.

But neither of these supposed instances of privilege really stands logical scrutiny. First, when it comes to education and employment, whites are not the most privileged group in America - Asians are. In 2010 the median income for Asian-Americans was a considerable 18% higher than that for white Americans. In terms of professional outcomes, Asian-Americans are doing remarkably well:

In the year 2000, 4.1% of America's population was Asian American, but Asian Americans were 13.6% of doctors and dentists, 13.2% of computer specialists, 9.9% of engineers, 6.1% of accountants, 8.7% of post-secondary teachers (such as uni professors) and 6.9% of architects.

They are doing well, in part, because of a high level of family stability and a strong commitment to education and career. But their success undermines the claims of the whiteness theorists. After all, Asian-Americans aren't white and nor are they a majority. And yet not only have they done well, they have done better than whites when it comes to employment and income. How could they have done this if the whole system was based on securing white privilege?

Second, whites are supposedly privileged because as the majority they get to set the cultural norms that they feel comfortable with but which don't suit those from other races. But if that is true, then it undermines the original liberal claim that categories of race have no real content and can be made not to matter. What liberals are admitting to, in adopting this argument, is that if you put one large group of people from one race together they will create a culture that will feel alien to those of another race.

And, furthermore, if the argument is true, then the logical response is the exact opposite of what is being demanded by the left-liberals in Duluth. If it is a privilege to live within your own cultural norms, and a hardship to be deprived of this, then it makes sense to preserve the cultural norms of the 90% majority. Why attack something that is an important good to such a large number of people within a community?

Has there been opposition to the billboards? Yes, but from what I've seen mostly as a defence of the right-liberal position, that the billboards are racially divisive, we're all just humans, can't we forget about race etc. The problem with that position is that it doesn't allow white Americans to assert a collective defence. And the attacks are likely to keep coming. In Duluth, for instance, there are left-wing churches offering courses titled "Cracking the shell of whiteness". Similarly, the billboard campaign is supported not only by the mayor's office, but also by the local YWCA (an astonishingly left-wing outfit), and by the local campuses of the University of Minnesota and the University of Wisconsin Superior.

Where is the pushback going to come from? It won't happen if white Americans don't identify with a communal tradition of their own. If white Americans take a right-liberal position, they will be left as individuals to complain about the situation, whilst being hamstrung in offering any real resistance.

Finally, the discussion at VFR of this issue is worth reading.


  1. I think you are missing the point, entirely. The main reason all of this bs started, was because YWC (youth for Western Civilization) had a table, and they were passing out copies of the CONSTITUTION.

    A Big Black 'brovuh' came up, and after two sentences, said he was going to KILL the 'White Boy' who was passing out the CONSTITUTION, then said Chimp went and complained to the Mestizo 'Officer of Per- err, Diversity.' SHE then started a whole campaign of "White Guilt' BS, that then made the DEATH THREAT to the White Co-ed pale into insignificance.

    The liberals (remnants of the 1920's Bolshevik Socialists, (who first appeared in MN's Iron Range, almost as soon as the Bolsheviks killed the Czar) took up the propaganda cry, and now everyone in Duluth is acting like the 'holier-than-thou' liberals in my state always act- UTTERLY IRRATIONAL.

    Your use of stats for asians overlooks one very simple reason why Asians are not the 'problem'. Asians (by and large) are not CHRISTIAN.

    The ideology behind all socialism is Jewish. And there is a HATRED between the ideologues who were present at Calvary, and the ideology of those who are present at Duluth. It is the hatred of all non-Whites for the CHRISTIAN White Man of Old Europe.

    That is also why the liberal 'synagogues of Satan' (as the Bible describes them) are 'jumping on the Bolshevik Bandwagon' as well. They have been totally 'judaized' as St. Paul calls it.

    Once you understand this foundational meme, you then see why we still have the vast majority of politicos supporting 'Isra-hell' whether they are Dems or Republitards. They are all in the Jews' back pocket, just as Henry Ford noted, one hundred years ago.

    - Fr. John+

  2. The national YWCA has been radical left since 1970. The radical feminist stuff is predictable, but they have been militantly racial marxist since at least that date:
    However, in the YWCA of the U.S.A., the struggle to combat racism had begun early in its history, in the days of “service laced with social action” in the American South. This decade, however, ended with the epoch-making decision in 1970 to adopt the One Imperative, a statement which was rooted in the Christian purpose of the National Association, seeking “to respond to the barrier-breaking love of God in this day’, drawing together women and girls of diverse experiences and faiths, that their lives may be open to new understanding, and deeper relationships and that together they may join in the struggle for peace and justice, freedom and dignity for all people.”

    At the YWCA’s April 1970 Convention, it adopted the One Imperative: “To thrust our collective power towards the elimination of racism wherever it exists and by any means necessary.”

  3. I guess left liberals will focus on the widening income gap between whites and blacks as evidence of ongoing white racism.

    Like all races, whites are subconsciously "racist" (or ethnocentric)to some extent but that doesn't explain the income gap.

    Whites were more racist to Jews and Asians in the early 20th Century but that didn't stop both groups from becoming economically successful.

    In a capitalist society, its very difficult to stop a determined minority from becoming economically successful, and if anything, capitalism favours smart ethnocentric minorities over majorities, which is why Asians are doing so well in the US.

  4. Not everyone supports Israel Anonymous Fr John, the socialists positively loath it.

  5. The real thing to focus on is white liberal privilege(WLP).

    White liberals have all kinds of nice cushy jobs in government,academia,foundations, the media, etc. From these nice jobs, in the name of tolerance, they exclude conservatives.

    With all the money they make, priviliged white liberals can live in upscale residential areas, far from the maddening diversity they inflict on everyone else. WLP further exempts them from having to worry about affirmative action.

    Another great perk of WLP is feeling morally and socially superior to the rednecks, Middle Americans, Christians, and other subhumans who oppose human equality.

  6. We are toxic and uniquely evil but you can't stay away from us!

  7. Jesse_7

    Only the 'socialists' in nordic european countries.

    There are two types of socialists...gentile nordics and jewish.

    It's a continuum....a gentile becomes a socialist....then goes leftwards leftwards leftwards...and some go so far left they end up hitting the right :)

  8. Mark, just a thought when reading this article. Your blog is "Oz" Conservative not US Conservative so why do you refer to left wingers as "liberals" when we don't use this parlance in Australia much lest it be confused with the "Liberal Party"...

    I know there are plenty of US readers here, but struth mate!

    Just my 2c.

  9. There's also the fact that the billboards show that liberals have no respect for boundaries and are very condescending. The mayor's office has no business supporting billboards like this. Even if the mayor agrees with the point of the billboard, he should realize that the point is controversial and ideological enough that the City shouldn't be putting its imprimatur on it.
    Also, the billboards assume that the only thing people know about race is what they read on the billboard. It's condescending and arrogant to assume that if you put up a billboard that has a bumpersticker philosophy, it's going to change attitudes.

  10. yawn really now. the folly is people who supprt racism by practising microagressions which in ISA have some diabolical consequences. http://www.scoop.it/t/microaggressions and here http://respectblack.blogspot.com/2012/02/i-dont-hate-white-people.html thanks been a hoot

  11. so why do you refer to left wingers as "liberals" when we don't use this parlance in Australia

    It's been traditional in Australia to refer to the left as "left-liberals". Because the left has been dominant within political circles, it's not uncommon to hear phrases like "Australia's left-liberal political elite" or "Australia's left-liberal intelligentsia" Or "Australia's left-liberal political class".

  12. liberals have no respect for boundaries and are very condescending. The mayor's office has no business supporting billboards like this.

    Well, they certainly have no respect for boundaries in schools. The left-liberal teachers I work with push their beliefs onto students aggressively and relentlessly. I would say that at least 50% of the work of an English teacher in an Australian school is straight-out political propaganda and conversion. It's strengthened my belief that traditionalists need to work towards a school network of our own, or at least some sort of weekend or evening classes, or if not that then at least resources for parents to supply to their children as a counterbalance.

    The political propaganda is mostly of a white people are racist/we should have open borders variety.

  13. Thabomophiring,

    Microaggressions. I only wish that all that white people had to be concerned about were microaggressions. Our struggle is a larger one, an existential one - a macro one.

  14. Mark 8:12
    Apparently some think there's not enough indoctrination in the schools:


  15. Well, that's why I have such little sympathy for Aboriginal activists. Vietnamese boatpeople came here in the 70s with absolutely nothing. They didn't receive the governemtn handouts that Aboriginals get and they certainly encountered hostility in the broader community. But now look at the difference. In some parts of Sydeny you can't find a doctor who isn't Vietnamese. These people value hard work and education. They have won the respect of most people they come into contact with. If only someone would tell the left-liberals pushing the guilt/welfare agenda on Aboriginals.

  16. WillieMaize,

    Very interesting comments to that Guardian piece, though.

  17. microaggressions?

    Stop kicking the heads in of young white boys and gang raping white girls and we might be able to lose the 'Micro-aggressions".


  18. First of all I like reading your blog. Your concepts of right-liberal aka Republicans and autonomy is brilliant. Thank you for your efforts.

    I saw your mention of Asian-Americans and their success in the US and I thought I would say that when I went to uni in California from 1986-1990 at UC Berkeley the liberals that ran the school wanted to limit their numbers because they were "overrepresented". They used Affirmative Action to try and limit their numbers since they represented >50% of the total undergraduates. I believe the breakdown was:

    Asians 55%
    Caucasians 35%
    Blacks/Latinos/Others 10%

    (By the way I am an Indian born American who has lived here since 1973)

    I remember even back in 1986 the liberals who ran the university seemed to differentiate the "successfull" minorities from the "poor" minorities (Asians vs. Blacks/Latinos).

  19. I think the Jewish issue is relevant for at least two reasons.

    First, Jews and "Asians" make at least two groups that consistently do better than Whites, despite "White skin privilege". Yet the finger of accusation always points at the Whites. So there's something going on, and it's not honest.

    Second, Jews are at the top of the tree, especially in America, which is by far the most powerful historically White nation. Successful Asians can be singled out to be penalized by Affirmative Action, while Jews have the system set up in their favor much better than that. Indeed Jews give every indication of being a dominant elite in America, with great wealth, media control and so on. Yet still the accusing finger points always at Whites, including working class and rural Whiles who are far from having Jewish levels of privilege and power.

    This is a crooked game, and there has to be a suspicion that those in positions of power have rigged it to the detriment of lower-class Whites.

  20. "Daybreaker said..."
    here we go...

  21. Daybreaker,

    I agree with you that the success of Jews in America is another example of a minority group who were not held back by a "racist system" which supposedly stops blacks from succeeding.

    But the instigators of the problems in Duluth are clearly not Jews but your standard WASP liberals. There are a couple of very lefty churches, the local YWCA, and the mayor's office run by Don Ness who are pushing the anti-white agenda.


    Thanks for your comment.

  22. I've said my bit on what I see as the down side for Whites of modern Christianity on other occasions, and I don't want to go there again in this thread, so I'm letting the lefty churches and the YWCA through to the keeper.

  23. I want to see Richo explain how people have thought through "liberalism" to the extent he has, and have given it as much thought, as he has, have jotted down each and every dot point, as he has, and written manifestos, as he has, to justify their choices.

    If you have spent so much time trying to work out liberalism Richo, while all about you go through living it Richo, maybe the cause of the disease isn't what you think, and is far simpler than your complexities will allow?

    The majority of people don't think through life like you do mate. They operate on far, far, simpler values, needs and wants. You really ought to step outside yourself for a minute and consider it. Say, consider Jesse, who just plugs his ears whenever the wicked witch says her name. He doesn't want to hear it, doesn't want to know the truth, fears it, wraps it, like fish and chips, in his favourite religion. Makes him feel better, good about himself. Whenever you've got someone else to blame, twist it up in endless theories, life becomes one big conspiracy, which makes his life so much easier.

    Face it Richo, you're spending your days in honour to your literary onanism, ode to your vanity here at your blog, too afraid to name names, too scared to state the truth. So you publish it as an ebook and tag along with the righteous, begging crumbs of links, like the dog you know you are.

  24. Nice invective but what's your point, its all the Jews? We've got to grip that rail to appreciate the situation? Most people sit around all day thinking about the Jews? I'd happily talk about the Jews, as it seems a lurking preoccupation, madness?, that sooner or latter jumps up on the right side of politics,and which clearly hasn't benefited from being left in the dark, but that discussion has been closed down more than once.

    I don't think Mark would appreciate placing me on his level btw.

  25. I really wish you would, as you say, examine your own motives for singling out this one supposedly monolithic people. For if nothing else the credibility of the right side of politics.

  26. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/no-vote-at-all-is-better-than-a-win-for-the-no-20120123-1qdyk.html



  27. Anonymous: "Mark & Jesse don't want to talk about anything concrete Daybreaker. They need to academically deconstruct "Liberalism", they need to tilt at windmills, makes them feel like - men."

    I never intend to show such disrespect for people who are arguing against the bad system we have and for something more balanced and healthier.

    What Mark Richardson is doing is worthwhile, and he has the right to set the scope of the problems he is willing to take on.

    Even when arguments are only successful because they are pushed by state or quasi-state power controlling mass-media and educational systems to produce an immersive false reality where it seems there is no alternative, and even if the agenda behind the propaganda is shaped by ethnic, racial, cultural and religious interests of vulgar specificity, ultimately the destructive doctrines, particularly feminist anti-family doctrines, do take the form of arguments, and they've got to be analyzed and countered as such.

    Sneering at the hopelessness of the task, or denigrating the decent people trying to do it, is worthless and just contributes to a sense of hopelessness and the false perception that there is no alternative which it is a main aim of modern propaganda to produce.

  28. There's power through intimidation and coercion, and there's power through ideology and misperception.

    The power of politically correct coercion is tremendous in modern Western societies. Many decent people can't tell the truth at work or they'd be fired or at least kill any prospects they might otherwise have. And there's nothing any words Mark Richardson or I or you, Anonymous, can say that will change that. We're like dissidents self-publishing in the Soviet Union, not really affecting the system at all.

    Power through ideology is different. Nobody forced Don Ness, mayor of Duluth, to put up those posters. He thought it was a good idea. It doesn't matter who wanted to put that skewed scale of values in his head, he now has that false worldview, and that means power for some people and oppression for others.

    Unlike the coercion machine, which is put in place largely by government (encouraged by those who can make hefty financial contributions to the proper parties and politicians), and which is effectively immune to review by those without such resources, the ideological system can be challenged effectively by much smaller resources than were used to put it in place.

    No you can't create a revolution in many minds with just an ebook or a pamphlet. But when you present clear, calm, truthful reasoning, and there's no counter to it, you raise doubts in people's minds. And reality is already raising doubts, because the official story on what life is about is unbalanced, unrealistic and unproductive of good results. And maybe the person who's just read your ebook has recently read something else that raised doubts in their mind.

    And maybe the person who would have been the next "mayor of Duluth" thinks again. Maybe he isn't sure after all that this kind of propaganda is a healthy thing. Nobody is making him do it. There are many other things he could do that would certainly be beneficial. So he drops the next "billboards" style provocation.

    It's not folly to hope for such things.

  29. Anonymous: "Got all upset over Jews being blamed for vegetarianism at OneSTDVs did you Daybreaker?"

    Off-topic but I'll answer anyway.

    Though a lot of people say that the Jews are guilty of nothing, only a mad few say that they are guilty of everything, and I'm not one of them.

    I just don't think organized Jewry is behind vegetarianism. I don't think the evidence is strong enough, and I don't think the cause is sufficiently well supported by Jewish values to make that a big issue for people who already have a lot to do.

    I do think organized Jewry is behind the bad law under which Andrew Bolt was unjustly convicted as a racist. It seems that that law would not be in place without continuing Jewish support. But I don't have direct proof of that.

    So maybe a diminishment of freedom of speech in some areas really is "a Jewish plot" of sorts but "eat your veggies" isn't.

    I'm just trying to call things as fairly as I can, without devils or angels.

    The trouble is, what looks fair and reasonable to me might look naive to some, and will certainly look antisemitic to others (as many Jews are practically of the "Jews are never guilty of anything" school and regard dissent from that as antisemitism). And we can never settle this, unless politicians start announcing their motives honestly.

    "Yes we have that law on the books purely for Jewish money." "No the government isn't spending your money on pro-vegetarian propaganda because of some Jewish push, we're doing it because my guru told me it was a good idea." Do you think politicians will ever come clean like that? I don't think there's a prayer.

    So it's reasonable to me that Mark Richardson refuses to start into that. We can't often show how much money is going into the political system or to who or what it's buying. (If anything.) So where these destructive ideas come from is off the table. What's relevant is what's publicly accessible: these are bad ideas, and here's why, and here are some ideas that would be better.

  30. Anonymous: "We've been hoping for 40-50 years Daybreaker, hows THAT worked out for us?"

    Personally I wasn't hoping for all that time, if only because until quite recently I was deluded. And if I can help anyone else be a bit less deluded, I think that's a worthwhile use of my time.

    Anonymous: "The time is ripe for action."

    No really it's not.

    The time will be ripe for action when all the money and power isn't lined up on the side of leftism, when rich White people think it's cool to support the interests of poorer White people, when White politicians are willing to support their own people and nations again as they were in generations past, and when there is at least significant counter-force in academia, big media and the cultural production industries so that lefties can't keep the people whose long term interests are being destroyed by the present system blind in a world of illusion.

    Till then the time is ripe for patiently doing what little we can do, including talking online.

  31. btw, what OneSTDV said was innocuous and genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of a concern of his.

    He paid it an intellectual regard, for which you upbraided him on some "racist", "anti-semitic" implied accusation.

    OSTDV is no anti-semite of any stripe, which you would well know. Yet you got stuck into him over such an innocuous post.

    Your behaviour raised some flags for me. I have yet to see Mark Leibler gtet called on his attack on our constitution, with references to his race and religion. Yet you flew straight into OSTDV.

    I know what is of more importance, and take it so do you. Which makes me wonder about you.

  32. Here's what I want. I want White people to survive and thrive. And I specifically want Australia, which was established by the toil of good White people to be a national home for White people in perpetuity to be what it was established to be.

    That's not slighting any other race, but I don't want us to go the way of the dodo bird. There is no such thing as a good post-White world in my eyes, and no such thing as a good, moral political program in which (oh by the way) White people won't be able to recognize themselves as a people, won't be able to organize to defend their interests, and won't be able to prevent their vanishing away.

    I think it's flipping insane that most of the political programs that are dominant in the Western world today do have that (oh by the way) built into them, and that anti-White hate propaganda like the Duluth posters is normal, and that if you object to this cold genocide you are seen as an evil hater.

    I don't want the original meaning of my country to be destroyed. I think Australia has an much right to be a national home for White people as Israel has to insist that it remain a national home for the preservation of Jewish people.

    Globally, White people are in awful trouble. We need habitat. If we don't have habitat of our own, we'll go the way of the passenger pigeon.

    But more than that, we need to get to a healthier culture than we have, and a wiser one than that which we once had, one that built up the nation but didn't give any intellectual, ideological support to ordinary people doing the right thing, so that when healthy normality was stigmatized, pathologized, problematized and destabilized by malicious intellectuals and by mass communications in the wrong hands, people were defenseless, they didn't know what to do, and whichever of the options presented to them they took, things got worse because all the options where some variety of social poison.

    If we can live and have a future as a good, wise people, I'm happy.

    I don't care who regards me as an ally.

  33. Why am I impolitely (by modern standards) emphasizing the "White"? Because there is an anti-White agenda with official power and lots of money and media behind it, and when people are denigrated, stigmatized and harmed as a race, you have to be so polite as to mention race in order to oppose that.

  34. Well done Pat, you got your neo-nazi mates to show up. How's your neo-nazi club going? Advanced the cause of anything recently? Kicked in anyone's teeth of late? Stayiing out of trouble?

  35. As Bolt says ("http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/theres_always_another_bush/")

    "There’s always another Bush…"

    And if no candidate has an absolute majority, coming into the convention, the Republicans may yet end up with someone electable:

    "Al Cardenas, head of the American Conservative Union, has said that Republican turmoil might lead to a brokered convention in which Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, would emerge as a “possible alternative” party nominee."

    Invade Iran.

    How many more Australians must be killed, in war (invade the world), or at home (invite the world), just so Israel may have a racial homeland, which is denied us at pain of prosecution?

  36. Go Jews! You poor idiots, it helps if you can put a face on something you don't like doesn't it.

  37. Anonymous: "You though, you write long winded christianist nothingness..."

    "chistianist?" I hadn't realized you were an Andrew Sullivan fan.

    Look, all I want is what good people have wanted for thousands of years before Jesus: for my kind not to be exterminated, for us to have a home and a future, for us to be good enough to deserve that future and wise and tough enough to keep it no matter who doesn't want us to have one.

    And it turns out the wisdom is even more necessary than toughness, against the kind of enemies we have.

    So let's at least try to mimic the virtues of wisdom, including calm.

  38. "Anon" began with

    "Yes, that too. What about, complete and utter f*g c**t? Probably too much, but close.

    and by the time (in only his, what, 2nd post?) he'd gotten to

    "Face it Richo, you're spending your days in honour to your literary onanism, ode to your vanity here at your blog...begging crumbs of links, like the dog you know you are."

    I knew exactly what this was:

    This is a satanic attack, Mr. Richardson. The superfluity and yet overpowering stench of his venom made that much clear. It's as if the primary purpose of his posts was simply to tear you to pieces.

    And indeed, you can be sure that this is exactly what the Evil One has in mind for you.

    "Anon"/"Pat" whoever the poor soul is, is lost. Turn him over to Satan that he might learn not to blaspheme.

    But as for you, sir, protect yourself from his attacks and shut the door of your good blog to these foul emissions from hell.

  39. Getting back to the actual post.

    Discussion of ideology is this case is highly relevant. Educated people are influenced by ideology, and educated people in this particular US state (which is conspiciously Scandinavian) seem to be particularly prone to left liberal ideology.

    Even if Jews came up with the ideology of left liberalism (and I'm sceptical since whites certainly invented right liberalism and left wing anarchism before Jews had any political influence) why are these particular whites so influenced by it?

    If someone put a message like this up in Italy, it would probably be pulled down over night by a rival group of nationalists.

  40. You're right, CC, though this is true of most Protestants, not just Scandinavian.

    I don't mean to say that ethnicity is irrelevant here. It's just that German Lutherans, progressive Mennonites (especially those; fortunately, there aren't many of them), and German/English Methodists are also conspicuously leftist.

    Last year, I attended the North American Mennonite Youth Conference. The entire place was pasted over by signs much like the billboards in this post. Computer kiosks had been set up around the convention center where attendees could take a test to determine how racist they were (no joke).

    It was sick. I only stayed for half a day and decided to get the heck out of there after I was confronted by a group calling themselves the "PinkMennos". You can guess what they were about.

    It was a sick, sick freakshow, and it made me want to weep for what these minions of Satan have done to Christ's church.

    But the Mennonites aren't Scandinavian. They are largely Swiss-German and Dutch, depending on the region of the U.S.

  41. Bartholomew, maybe the Anonymous commenter was possessed by the demon Liberalism.

    You should reach out to him.

  42. For anyone reaching this point of the thread and wondering why it became disjointed half way through, we were visited by some anti-semites in full-on attack mode. I deleted most of their comments as being offensively personal attacks on myself and other commenters here.

    Daybreaker, there's a lot of good sense in your comments. I thought the following particularly worthwhile:

    when you present clear, calm, truthful reasoning, and there's no counter to it, you raise doubts in people's minds. And reality is already raising doubts, because the official story on what life is about is unbalanced, unrealistic and unproductive of good results. And maybe the person who's just read your ebook has recently read something else that raised doubts in their mind.

    And maybe the person who would have been the next "mayor of Duluth" thinks again.

  43. One of the anti-semitic commenters had this advice for me:

    The majority of people don't think through life like you do mate. They operate on far, far, simpler values, needs and wants. You really ought to step outside yourself for a minute and consider it.

    But of course I've considered it. I've had 20 years worth of political activism. What that's taught me is that politics is controlled not by the majority of people but by a minority who are most committed to politics.

    Unless you get a foot into that class of political people, then you don't get very far.

    You don't need a majority of the political class, but you need enough to lead and to shape ideas.

    A good example of this is the anti-feminist movement. For years, the feminists had it all their own way. But a point was reached at which the unity of the political class began to break. Increasing numbers of men became anti-feminist, to the point that when feminist pieces are printed at the left-wing Guardian newspaper the bulk of commentary is now critical.

    So the men's movement has reached the first breakthrough phase. That's great, but there's a problem. We traditionalists haven't progressed enough to have had a large role in this movement. So it's mostly been led either by liberal men, or those responding viscerally to feminism, or by those stuck in a kind of political nihilism. It would have been better if traditionalist could have led the break with feminism in a more productive direction.

    So what we have to do when it comes to issues of race and ethnicity is to build up a traditionalist leadership and when that breakthrough moment happens, assert a positive and productive leadership.

    And that is gradually happening. Ten years ago, there was little principled opposition to liberalism outside a small readership of View from the Right (in the Anglosphere anyway). Now there's enough of us that we're beginning to be recognised as a movement.

    All that we can do is to push the process along as quickly and effectively as we can. I'd like to get to the stage at which we can begin to "institutionalise", e.g. have local branches, or parishes, or evening schools etc. But we're not quite there yet.

  44. Hear, hear. People will support the movement in different ways but our task is the same, to change the political culture and environment that we operate in.

  45. Even if Jews came up with the ideology of left liberalism (and I'm sceptical since whites certainly invented right liberalism and left wing anarchism before Jews had any political influence) why are these particular whites so influenced by it?

    When were these ideologies invented by whites, and how did "racism" nonetheless remain so pervasive right up into the 1960s, even in Sweden? Why did almost no one consider "racism" to be incompatible with liberalism for so long?

  46. William,

    Left-liberalism in its modern form came about in the late 1800s as a reaction to the predominant right-liberalism. J.S. Mill was something of a bridge between classical (right) and social (left) liberalism. Other leading figures were Green, Hobson and Hobhouse. As far as I know, none were Jewish.

    As for your second question, you have to distinguish between radical forms of liberalism (everything all at once) and mainstream forms of liberalism (one thing at a time).

    Radical liberals have long sought to obliterate predetermined qualities like race. Think of the poet Shelley who declared in the 1820s that the New Man was to be:

    Sceptreless, free, uncircumscribed, but man
    Equal, unclassed, tribeless, and nationless,
    Exempt from awe, worship, degree, the king
    Over himself

    Or think of the Chinese reformer Kang who tried to introduce Western liberalism into China in the 1890s and who argued that in the reformed society:

    there will be no individual or group differences, there will be no separate nations...all will be equal and free

    ...he argued for the eventual abolition of state boundaries and the unification of all nations on earth...racial differences would gradually disappear when "all races will merge into one”

    Most liberals were not so radical. They moved from issue to issue. For much of the 1800s the focus was on religion and feminism rather than race.

    Even so, it's not true that liberals were happy to accept racial distinctions until the 1960s. Most Anglosphere nations, for instance, had either no or few limits on immigration in the late 1800s. That includes America, the pre-federation Australian states and the UK.

    Australia decided to go mulitculti in cabinet meetings in the early 1940s. That was during the Prime Ministership of John Curtin.

    Curtin was a bit of a mixed figure. As a young man he became associated with the internationalist socialism of the English radical Tom Mann. Mann wanted a socialist movement which:

    "gets rid of national frontiers ... Narrow patriotism therefore disappears, and a true cosmopolitanism takes its place"

    Curtin became a leading figure in Mann's Socialist Party here in Melbourne. The party grew to have 1500 members in Victoria by 1907. Curtin wrote a lead article in the first edition of the paper defending a revolutionary internationalist socialism - he argued not only for revolutionary violence but for a specifically internationlist movement which would welcome comrades "other than of Australian or British origin".

    But later on, as a Labor politician seeking election, Curtin did call for immigration controls to restrict cheap labour from overseas.

    Even so it was Curtin's wartime cabinet which did ultimately decide on a multicultural future for Australia.

    So you have to go well back before the 1960s to ask what went wrong. The decisions in Australia were made in the 1940s and the men who made those decisions had their formative years in the early 1900s.

  47. Why is whiteness studies allowed to persist?
    Why hasn't legal action been taken against the Universities that are supporting it.
    It is clearly hate speech, vilifying "white" people. It is no different from the Nazis "juden" propaganda.
    It isn't even Australian as far as I know it originates in the US.
    Do people realise Universities can be sued?

  48. Anon,

    If we were better organised we would set up a legal fund and run a test case. At the very least we would embarrass those universities running whiteness studies courses.

    It's an example of something positive that could be done with a little organisation.

  49. I came across this news item on critical race theory. I seem to recall you had an interest in that.

    In Arizona, Censoring Questions About Race:

    In recent weeks, the state of Arizona has intensified its attack in its schools on an entire branch of study — critical race theory. Books and literature that, in the state’s view, meet that definition have been said to violate a provision in the state’s law that prohibits lessons “promoting racial resentment.” Officials are currently bringing to bear all their influence in the public school curriculum, going so far as to enter classrooms to confiscate books and other materials and to oversee what can be taught...