Monday, January 06, 2014

Amy Chua to white liberals: you are not elite

Amy Chua is famous for being a Chinese American tiger mom. With her Jewish American husband, Jed Rubenfeld, she has written a new book which is startlingly outside the usual liberal narrative.

Chua and Rubenfeld have decided to write about why some groups in America do better than others:
"That certain groups do much better in America than others — as measured by income, occupational status, test scores and so on — is difficult to talk about"
So which groups do they identify as doing best? They list eight:

1. Jews
2. Chinese
3. Indians
4. Iranians
5. Nigerians
6. Lebanese
7. Cubans
8. Mormons

Note that the only white Americans included in the list are the Mormons, who aren't part of the core white liberal population.

Chua is correct that Asian Americans do better on average than white Americans - I noted that myself back in 2008.

It is significant that mainstream whites are being left off the advantaged list. For decades, white liberals have attacked their fellow whites as being privileged. Here, though, we have a Chinese American and a Jewish American identifying most whites as being part of a losing group when it comes to seeking high position in American society.

There's something else of significance to consider. Although white liberals like to see themselves as being anti-establishment, at the same time they like to see liberalism itself as an elite ideology - as something that confers status and prestige.

But Rubenfeld and Chua take the opposite view. They see liberalism as a losing ideology - as something best avoided if you want success:
in modern America, a group has an edge if it doesn’t buy into — or hasn’t yet bought into — mainstream, post-1960s, liberal American principles.'

So what does confer success according to Rubenfeld and Chua? They believe there is a triple package which drives people onward. The first is having a sense that the group you belong to is superior to others; the second is a feeling of personal insecurity; the third is impulse control.

I don't think Chua gets it entirely right here. I do think it helps if you have a sense that you belong to a high achieving group. I can remember as a boy in the 1970s the positive sense that Anglo-Australian men had of themselves as being masculine high achievers, particularly when it came to the roles of pioneers, soldiers and sportsmen. I don't remember the focus of this being a feeling of superiority over others, though. It was a positive self-focus, rather than being a superiority complex.

Nor were Australian men insecure. I think Chua focuses on this because she believes that therapeutic parenting styles, in which children are forever positively reinforced, leads to low achievement. She prefers the tiger mom style in which children are held to difficult standards of achievement.

By impulse control Chua and Rubenfeld apparently mean the ability to resist the impulse to give up.

I don't think that Chua and Rubenfelds' book, by itself, will discourage white liberals. It's likely that white liberals will respond by thinking that without liberalism you get dangerous claims of superiority, chauvinism etc.

However, the book does point to a different political scenario than the one we've had over the past 50 years. It's a scenario in which new ethnic elites confidently assert their success in terms of their own values, self-consciously rejecting the liberal values of the older, declining elites.

It's one way that liberalism might begin to lose prestige as an elite ideology.


  1. Wouldn't we consider most American Jews to be white Americans? As a group, Jews in America generally seem to buy into the liberal or progressive political principles -- though there are some high-profile Jewish Americans who have openly rejected liberalism. The names William Kristol, David Horowitz and David Mamet come to mind. The idea of being among the "chosen people" can be experienced as both a blessing and a curse -- incorporating the first two characteristics identified by Chua and Rubenfeld. While the Hebrew religious tradition might be said to feature impulse control, many rather out-of-control radicals in America have been of Jewish heritage.

    1. "I don't think Chua gets it entirely right here." [...] "It was a positive self-focus, rather than being a superiority complex."

      And whites became losers on a historically unprecedented scale, which backs up Chua.

      "Nor were Australian men insecure."

      And whites became losers on a historically unprecedented scale, which backs up Chua.

      In inter-ethnic competition for very high stakes, the side that is at war and knows it is likely to win; the side that has no sense of being or wanting to be "superior" to other racial / ethnic / religious groups and is not threatened by them (hence is lacking in insecurity) is practically sure to lose; the only question is to whom.

    2. Can specific groups of Asians, like the Chinese, compete with Jews on this level? Depending on circumstances: yes.

      Can non-Jewish whites, whose educated elites are imbued with a liberal ideology that calls for whites on top to shame and punish other whites for playing as a team, while approving of non-white solidarity, compete with that? Of course not.

      The liberal ideologies of whites in the best position to stifle in-croup solidarity and effective collective competition, guarantees continuing and cumulative defeat for all whites - especially those not in a position to pursue individualistic strategies like selling out other whites subordinate to them in order to curry favor with important non-white allies.

    3. Titus, a few points in reply to your first comment. When Chua talks about being insecure, she means at a personal, psychological level. I wouldn't want to belong to a group of men who are insecure in the way that Chua is talking about - it's not masculine. As it happens, Anglo-Australians in the late 1800s and early 1900s were acutely aware of their vulnerability - there were many warnings not to be complacent (C.J. Dennis springs to mind, as well as some of the federation poets). This insecurity didn't bring success in the long run; what really mattered was the developing world view of the intellectual, political and religious elites - it would have been better to have sounded the alarm about this internal threat rather than the external ones.

      As for feeling superior, I don't see why logically this is necessary. What *is* necessary is that you have a sense of belonging to a unique people, with a collective culture and soul, that draws your love and attachment, and a sense of duty to defend it.

      That existed in Australia but was gradually suppressed by the elites.

      Titus, be careful of Chua's mindset - it's not a perfect one to follow. She is one of those materially ambitious diaspora Chinese who associates "superiority" with social status and wealth. That is what drives her, rather than a love of and loyalty toward an ethny. If marrying a successful Jewish person is a marker of superiority, then she'll do it, regardless of her own Chinese ancestry.

      It is not social superiority that we are after is it?

    4. Mark Richardson: "Titus, be careful of Chua's mindset - it's not a perfect one to follow."

      It's better than the mentality of anti-white upper class liberal whites.

      Mark Richardson: "It is not social superiority that we are after is it?"

      No indeed.

      But she has studied how market dominant minorities dominate the disempowered masses under modern conditions.

      That is relevant, as our entire upper class is anti-white, so that whites other than this traitor class are the subordinated masses; and we are being genocided by a global drive for mass non-white immigration and forced assimilation only in white countries and in all white countries, regardless of local conditions, local histories, local traditions and local culture.

      The Germans are told they have to submit to mass immigration out of Holocaust guilt, the Americans because "proposition nation!", the English and the French because of the sin of colonialism, and countries that were never imperialist because they are too white and prosperous and must share more. The blather may vary, but the policies it is used to advance are always and everywhere the same and always they lead toward a world without whites.

      So I think you can put away all navel-gazing theories about how we're doing it to ourselves for reasons internal to us, in our own culture and history.

      Those who have studied ethnic conflict in the modern age are the experts on what ails us.

  2. Does anyone want a country full of Amy Chua's. While these people are great for BMW sales they seem to be awful people.

    1. asdf: "Does anyone want a country full of Amy Chua's. While these people are great for BMW sales they seem to be awful people."

      Is anyone lower than upper-class anti-white white liberals selling our their ethnic kin, their posterity and their entire race?

    2. BMW and awful people go together like the beach and bikinis. Not just a personal bias but widely observed in various regions.

  3. Anonymous,

    American Jews consider themselves white and also American, but they generally regard themselves a very much apart from, and superior to, white America as a whole.

  4. Of course I knew that this Asian woman was not going to be married to a fellow Asian man before I read this article (I saw the headline in todays newspaper).

    I doubt she realises the message she is sending to her male brethren.

    Savvas Tzionis

    1. She isn't Asian. Nor is she Chinese. She is a narcissistic American with a superiority complex. She uses her ethnicity as a point of difference to her white, liberal neighbours in an attempt to be seen as different. She can't even speak Chinese. Call me narrow-minded but if you can't speak Chinese - you're not.

  5. While I don't necessarily consider Chua a prototypical Chinese (see a breakdown of Chua below), she certainly embodies something I felt when I lived in Asia. There is a certain deadness to individual life. A very materialistic and insecure view that is great for making people consumer/strivers but terrible for the actual mental health of the individual. It's one of the reasons I don't live over there.

    If white society collapsed Asia would be a good backup, but its clearly a backup. Do any of us really want to live that way?

    1. asd: "If white society collapsed Asia would be a good backup, but its clearly a backup."

      For whom?

      asd: "Do any of us really want to live that way?"

      We wouldn't. We'd be gone.

  6. "It's one way that liberalism might begin to lose prestige as an elite ideology."

    As they say: from your lips to God's ears.

  7. Well, whatever her obvious faults, Amy Chua has at least put eugenics back on the agenda. (And if you think eugenics is risky, try dysgenics.)

    Lee Kuan Yew, for the better part of half a century, has been attempting to tell the world that modern conscienceless welfarism - i.e. bribing Muslims and white trash with taxpayers' money to reproduce - is not only unconscionable from a moral point of view; it has the additional disadvantage that it does not bloody work. For proof that it does not bloody work, ask even the most work-shy inhabitants of modern Greece, Spain, Portugal etc. etc.

    This is what Singapore's elder statesman was saying 45 (!) years ago:

    ""Free education and subsidized housing lead to a situation where the less economically productive people in the community are reproducing themselves at rates higher than the rest. This will increase the total population of less productive people. Our problem is how to devise a system of disincentives, so that the irresponsible, the social delinquents, do not believe that all they have to do is to produce their children and the government then owes them and their children sufficient food, medicine, housing, education and jobs...We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two. We will regret the time lost if we do not now take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellectually and culturally anemic.

    "I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn't be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn't be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters - who your neighbor is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use."

    It seems to me that Mr Richardson's employers in the school education field will not let him get away with running a conservative website forever. One day they will find out that this website actually exists, and when they do find out, bang will go his prospects of continued employment in the industry. I would like to think that he could earn a living expounding the present website's ideas in such outlets as Quadrant and News Weekly, or perhaps in the Daily Mail's Australian edition, should that get up and running. But I am not remotely optimistic about the courage or moral strength of these publications' editors.

    1. Well, whatever her obvious faults, Amy Chua has at least put eugenics back on the agenda?

      From what I've seen of the book, it goes heavily into cultural reasons for this superior performance rather than just ascribing it to genes, so I'm not sure just how much it puts eugenics back on any so-called agendas. Also, what agenda are you talking about? I think you mean something more along the lines of "public debate" or "topical," but I don't think eugenics has ever left the public debate.

    2. We talking about the same Lee that failed monstrously at getting smart people to breed.

      Dysgenics is a problem with smart people having too few kids, not poors having to many.

  8. It is significant that mainstream whites are being left off the advantaged list. For decades, white liberals have attacked their fellow whites as being privileged.

    There are a lot of fallacies in your analysis. Starting with the idea that performing better is the same as being privileged. For example, in the early 20th century Jewish people were outperforming upper crust WASPs academically and intellectually but their entry into the Ivy Leagues and corporate America was seriously constrained. A slightly above-average but extremely well-connected WASP tended to be more comfortable and employable than a high performing Jew. In the early 20th century, the WASP would be more privileged and elite but the Jew would be a better performer. See the difference and you'll see why this book by Chua does not break a white liberal's narrative in the way that you think.

    1. Anon, you can't claim that there are a lot of fallacies in an analysis and then give evidence of just one.

      Second, the argument you make misses the point. The point I made in the post was that white liberals like to think that liberalism confers elite status. Chua and Rubenfeld are arguing that the opposite is true and that it is groups which avoid modern liberalism which have the best chance to occupy elite social positions.

      Nor do I see the relevance of the argument you make. I don't know if what you write is true of the early twentieth century. What I do know is that when it comes to groups tagged as "oppressor" groups, you are not, under the rules of liberalism, allowed to defend yourself on the grounds that you have performed well and earned your position. Only the groups tagged as "oppressed" groups get to run that line.

      That's why it's significant that Rubenfeld and Chua no longer identify mainstream whites as privileged. In fact, they argue that poor whites are the least defended group within American society.

    2. If Ron Unz's work is correct then Jews are no vastly overrepresented in elite institutions relative to their merit. Somebody always gets the privilege, what matters is what they do with it. Have Jews done good things with it?

  9. One thing I think that you might be missing (perhaps the US is different in this regard than Oz) is that the white liberal elites do not identify with being "white" in terms of having solidarity with lower totem pole whites -- at least not in the US. By contrast, they despise lower totem pole whites for the most part when they are not busy scrounging around for their votes to win elections. They do very much see themselves as being "separate" and "superior", not by virtue of their race/ethny (which they find embarrassing, in many cases, because it is associated with so many things they hate, from football to NASCAR to beer drinking to Christianity and so on -- these things make the white elites embarrassed to be white), but by virtue of their membership in the elite, which is seen by many of them as being meritocratic to some degree.

    The "personal insecurity" angle works for Jews and Asians and the other groups Chua talks about, but not for the elite whites (and by elite whites I don't mostly mean corporate CEOs, but elite opinion makers, academics and cultural elites -- many of whom are still white). But they do have the other parts -- a feeling of superiority, and a sense of impulse control/future time orientation.

    So, yes, Chua does get it right for Asians and Jews (although to be honest this is not generally the case when it comes to Asians -- Chinese in China are just as ability-stratified as any other ethny is, while the emigrant overseas Chinese are an extremely small and self-selected group by comparison), but not for white elites. Among whites, there is a huge amount of class/elite based hatred and recrimination.

    1. That's why it's significant that Rubenfeld and Chua no longer identify mainstream whites as privileged.

      I already explained this mistake you're making. Rubenfeld and Chua are not examining privilege. They're examining success and achievement. You're conflating two different things.

      Again, PRIVILEGE is different than ACCOMPLISHMENT and ACHIEVEMENT. A privilege is something you just get for doing nothing. An achievement is something you earn through hard work. For example say I have a middle manager job, but I was lazy throughout school and am still a lazy worker and got my job mostly for being the son of the boss and on the basis of my education, which I also got due to my dad's alumni connections. Now say that you are the CEO, but you busted your ass to become CEO by studying and working like a dog from the first day of school.

      You, the CEO, have more accomplishment and achievement, and therefore are more successful, but I on the other hand am still more privileged, because you couldn't get away with being as lazy as I was my whole life and get a cushy middle manager job.

      Not only are privilege and achievement not the same thing, they're almost opposites. The more one needs to achieve in order to be successful, the less privileged they actually are. The most privileged person is the one who has inherited everything he owns and worked for none of it.

    2. Anon, I don't understand the point you're making. Are you claiming that liberals would still see whites as privileged even if it's recognised that they are no longer part of a group that is doing well? Surely there's a point at which such a view is no longer tenable. Note, for instance, that it is now becoming common for white working-class boys in the UK to be thought of as doing so poorly that they are being treated as a "disadvantaged" group.

      Anon, I hope you are not claiming that whites in the US did well because of privilege rather than because of accomplishment and achievement.

    3. Anon, I hope you are not claiming that whites in the US did well because of privilege rather than because of accomplishment and achievement.

      What I am doing is responding to specific points you are making. You claim the following:

      It is significant that mainstream whites are being left off the advantaged list. For decades, white liberals have attacked their fellow whites as being privileged. Here, though, we have a Chinese American and a Jewish American identifying most whites as being part of a losing group when it comes to seeking high position in American society.

      What I'm saying is that the type of privilege liberals accuse elite whites of having is not the same as the type of earned achievement that Chua and Rubernfeld are saying their "triple threat" groups have. Her high-achieving groups are not examples of privilege, they're examples of achievement.

      To use another analogy: The monarchy of England used to have more political power than the U.S. Presidency. Now the U.S. President is often called the most powerful man in the world while the British monarchy is basically just a figurehead with no real political power. So does this mean that the U.S. President is now more privileged than the British Royal Family? No, because despite the decline in power, the British Royal Family is entirely from inheritance, while the Presidency has to be earned. British monarch = privilege. US President = achievement.

      The same logic applies here. You claim that pointing out these groups as high achievers will prove liberals wrong about white privilege. My point is that it won't because privilege and achievement are two different things, allowing a liberal to still hold on to the idea that whites are privileged even when their achievements are declining.

      Surely there's a point at which such a view is no longer tenable. Note, for instance, that it is now becoming common for white working-class boys in the UK to be thought of as doing so poorly that they are being treated as a "disadvantaged" group.

      Sure, but a liberal can always just call that a class issue rather than a racial one. They can also claim that a black working class child of similar circumstances is still worse off due to discrimination and other issues and use that to claim that within the confines of their class level, working class whites are still more privileged than working class blacks.

      I'm not saying these are my personal opinions. I'm just trying to show that these findings will not cause any cognitive dissonance among liberals. Their existing ideas of white privilege can easily coexist with Chua and Rubenfeld's findings.

    4. Eventually whites will be doing so badly that, among whites, only very prejudiced anti-whites will continue to see whites as privileged, but anti-white non-whites, who will have overwhelming numbers, will continue to see them as privileged to the end, as Boer farmers being murdered at a genocidal rate are still seen as privileged. Pampered "white devils" still afflicted Zimbabwe too, last time I looked.

      Whites who are anti-white have self-interested reasons to hold on to their opinions a long time. First, it's their job; being a "political correctness officer" is tacitly a part of many job descriptions. Second, among whites liberal opinions continue to be status markers, and whites who are politically correct and anti-white have essentially given up on competing with non-whites, preferring to elevate them. (Like Barack Obama.)

      If you are an ideologically anti-white white person, changing your opinions to be anti-genocide and pro-white will not improve your status, it will only hurt it. It will hurt you because by anti-white rules you will lower your status among whites. It will not help you in relation to non-whites who hold non-liberal opinions, because by anti-white rules, they out-rank you anyway.

      What's needed is for anti-white opinions to be unacceptable or at least markers of low status among whites. Then, for anti-whites who are white, changing your opinion to be anti-white would be a status-enhancing move and it would therefore happen more often.

    5. Mark, a point that is perhaps parallel to the ones Anon and Titus are making: in the US, it has long been the case that the Anglo elite -- particularly those segments of said elite who can trace their ancestry to puritan new England -- have demonstrated an ability to say one thing and do another. Thus, while "traditional family is a choice we cannot impose on others," they themselves live rather conventional, bourgeois existences.

      This allows them to preserve themselves while destroying everyone else, especially whites outside that circle. The whites to whom Rubenfeld and Chua refer as those "falling behind" are those outside the elite circle. The elite whites, meanwhile, can be determined rather easily by looking for those who persist in conventional patterns despite preaching against them. They succeed in the face of their doctrines; this they take as evidence of their inherent superiority -- they don't see the conflict, because to them it's all about their attitudes and their "being" at some deep level, and not about their actions.

      They are, in other words, still Puritans. They succeed because they are "elect". To Catholics such as you and me, this might take a while to get; I don't know if there is anything similar in Australia, the seed populations for which came from quite different strata of British society.

  10. As far as the threat to white liberals goes, well yes in countries like Australia where there is a minority at least as smart as whites, PLUS the values Chua discusses, that minority - under current conditions the Chinese - will take more and more of the market, eventually owning most of the wealth and dominating the economy. In the USA Chinese will not take over from white liberal Jews though, they will at most be the number two group as you see at the elite US Universities. Britain by contrast has no large high-ability group (Jews are influential, but too few to dominate Britain's economy & society), we do have substantial south-Asian and middle-Eastern minorities but they lack the ability to dominate the top of the pyramid, leaving a mostly indigenous white elite in charge.

    Does this indicate that Australia with a Chinese elite might move away from Liberalism as the reigning ideology? One could envision a Singapore-isation of Australia, perhaps a Lee Kuan Yew type as Prime Minister, and certainly whites playing second fiddle to a dominant non-Liberal Chinese elite. Might that loss of white dominance even be a price worth paying for the death of Liberalism, if it helps ensure white survival? Should you welcome your new Overlords? >:)

  11. "It was a positive self-focus, rather than being a superiority complex."

    Even in a monoracial high school, e.g., the nerds, jocks, tall, short, out-of-towners, transcendent cool and the uncategorized know they have a status of sorts and this shapes their behavior to some extent. The nerds feel inferior to the jocks (at least in mate selection) and so on. Some will have a "superiority complex" without even trying.

    Asian cultures seem to be more prone to pride and honor/shame behaviors which align closely with feelings of group superiority. In the West we have overcome much of that pathology and reduced it to competing individuals. You are right to put a sense of "superiority" generally in a bad light.

    Yet the focus must be simultaneously inward and outward. So how does the focus on others take shape? Consciousness of your position relative to others is unavoidable.

  12. I haven't read the book yet, but I am familiar with an earlier book 'World on Fire' with a similar theme. In that book she was taking a global view of successful minorities. In my book The Howard Legacy - displacement of traditional Australia from the professional and managerial classes I took up the same theme for Australia, but with emphasis on the hereritable aspects. In Australia the selective immigration programme means that the immigrants have high cognitive ability and since intelligence is three quarters heritable (American Psychological Association) the minority will naturally take over. In the book I demonstrate that in 2005 by analysis of enrolments at universities that overseas born and Australian born non english speaking backgrounds are heavily represented in the lucrative and prestige professions - optometry 57%, dentistry 55%, pharmacy 51%, medicine 34%, management and commerce 32% The over-representation of ethnic Chinese in those fields of study compared to the numbers in the general population. is 8, 7, 5, 3, 3 respectively
    The situation is not quite as selective in the USA, but we can reasonably assume that the immigrants will be those with higher intelligence.
    Whites who write books like Chua are castigated as racist or given the silence treatment to avoid discussion. (I know, it happened to me.) It is the same with comedy. Jewish jokes , 'wog' jokes and so on are OK only when they are told by Jews, 'wogs' etc

    1. Ironically this is why we need to take back the words "Racist" and "White supremacist". Just as the African Americans took back the word "Nigger", and the Homosexuals claimed the word "Gay".

      It's all apart of the European peoples struggle to claim back our culture and right to preserve our ethny.

      It's already started on the internet and in Europe, just wait in the next few years for it to start hitting the comedian clubs and on social media all over...

    2. Craig, I disagree. Why should we be called "white supremacists" merely for wanting what other ethnic groups/races want, which is to continue their existence? We have to challenge the idea that whites are exceptional in a negative sense and exist only for the purposes of supremacy. The model for us is what is happening in the men's movement: significant numbers of men are challenging the idea that men are an oppressor class without moral status or rights. They are doing this by challenging the filtering in which only those aspects of life in which men are advantaged and women disadvantaged are given coverage. Because there are men from the political class taking part, it has reached a point at which it is difficult to suppress.

    3. Craig, it's true that, with a lot of help from the anti-white mass media, blacks did take official ownership of the word "nigger".

      In doing that, they became more dominant over whites, because in this and many ways, they can talk s**t at whites and whites can't talk back. Simultaneously we saw the rise of black thug "culture". This made blacks more effective at ethnically cleansing whites, because whites naturally flee black brutality. That's "white flight".

      But was that good for blacks themselves? I doubt it.

      For example, Treyvon Martin revelled in the identity of a "NO_LIMIT_NIGGA". That made him more of a threat to non-blacks like George Zimmerman. But for Treyvon Martin himself, that was a straight road to a worthless criminal life, and a death that served the black grievance industry but didn't do him any good. (No children to carry on, no heroic stories about how dad died for his country or whatever.)

      I think the lesson of the "nigger" label is: when it comes to appropriating and internalizing labels, be careful what you wish for.

    4. Mark Richardson: "Why should we be called "white supremacists" merely for wanting what other ethnic groups/races want, which is to continue their existence?"

      That's a totally valid argument based on justice and practical necessity to focus on continuing our existence.

      There's another based on modeling. Who plays this game and wins? Asians and Jews for a start. Do they call themselves "Chinese supremacists", "Jewish supremacists" and so on? No. Learn from the best; these are not good labels to accept and internalize.

      There is a third argument. "White supremacist" is a hostile term imposed by anti-white intellectuals, and it includes an intellectual under-structure that is poisonous for us.

      When people use the label "white supremacist" or "white supremacy" you should ask:

      "Supreme over whom? And should they be here in the first place?"

      Historically, white homelands were all-white. Nobody was better or worse for being white or non-white. And that was best for us in every way.

      When we whites rule over other races, it generally works out terribly for us. Three familiar examples: Haiti, Zimbabwe, South Africa.

      In Sweden, before anti-whites started pushing non-white mass immigration, there were no non-whites in the homeland to be supreme over.

      Now there are, but the basis for hostile racial relations featuring supremacy and subordination was laid by anti-whites, not loyal whites. "White supremacy" by every measure of civilized behavior in comparison with Somalis is clearly very bad for the Swedes.

      The anti-whites are blaming us for inter-racial conflicts that they create without our consent, and that, as I said above, typically end in disaster for us. We should reject a label that pins these deadly scenarios on us.

      Anti-whites also push the label "white supremacist" to deny that there is any real, biologically-based white identity. (Which is a lie.) Instead, they say whiteness is a scam that is all about being supreme over non-whites. So when you buy into that term, you're accepting the poisoning of your identity by anti-whites, people who may look like us but have no loyalty to us.

      If anti-whites who have wholly European descent and support this label "white supremacist" thought that was a good, healthy identity, either they would stop trying to pin it on us, or they would accept it and consequently become loyal, anti-genocide whites. They never do either of these things. I say we assume they know what they are doing, and the label is a bad one.

      Being (very temporarily) "supreme" over hordes of non-whites in our homelands is exactly what we should not want. It will lead to political, cultural and genetic disaster, but before that it means a false construction of our identity.

      What we should want is: "you have your country, I have mine, we both have what we need for our races to thrive, so let's have no conflict." And our identity should be biologically based and not up for grabs.

    5. Tacitus, that is an excellent comment. I particularly want to underline this point:

      Historically, white homelands were all-white. Nobody was better or worse for being white or non-white.

      Growing up in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne in the 1970s that is how it was. There was no scenario by which you might feel inferior or superior - there was just an enjoyment of your own culture and identity (I even remember having a feeling in those days of "far horizons" - so different to today.) It has been described as an Australian "dreaming" - it was focused on an enjoyment of and absorption in one's own being rather than an assertion against someone else's.

    6. Now I understand better what you mean when you said, "It was a positive self-focus, rather than being a superiority complex."

      You were right. I missed the point a little there. Without the Australian "dreaming", which I share, it sounded "flat" and un-competitive.

      It wasn't just a positive self-regard, and it would have been dull if it had been. It was a dreaming harmony, like a big, quiet choir, and the subject of the song was: us, all together in our proper space with a young and growing sense of what "our space" was, how mysterious and wonderful, how precious.

    7. Nevertheless this harmony failed, because there were too many in the national elite that were alien to it, that felt alienated from it, and were hostile to it. It was not hostile to them, but they were hostile to it, and to the white race in Australia.

      And they were not curious about where we were going and where we could go by ourselves. Our "elites" were mystically dead, incurious, oblivious blockheads, full of hostility and contempt and untouched by insight.

      This applies most strongly to our intellectuals, but not only to them. I remember being repulsed by a chef on television who was acting unpleasantly smug because, she emphasized, there was NO Australian cuisine. Only (the sop to our national pride!) Australian produce, which could be used to make superior foreign cuisines (mastered by rote by chefs like her). It had obviously never occurred to her that as an Australian chef, the creation of this cuisine was her responsibility, and that a complete lack of creativity ought to have been a point of shame rather than pride for her.

      Imagine Russian music if the Mighty Five had despised the Russian people and not wanted to articulate its spirit as expressed in the nation's folk music; or Polish music if Chopin had had a similar attitude that the less great music Poland had the more he was exalted above the worthless masses; or imagine if Sibelius, instead of composing Finlandia had taken smug, hostile satisfaction in announcing that the Finns had NO national music (only perhaps some venues in which foreign music might be played).

      Australia's "elites" did not love the people. They were not willing or able to channel the spirit of the people. Thus they were incapable of anything of serious value, whether it should have been wise, beautiful, good or anything else.

      All you can ask from a hollow elite like that is that they not screw things up badly, so that the magnificent race they felt too good to work for would still be available for later and better generations of intellectuals and creators to draw inspiration from, like drawing water from an unpolluted well.

      But this also proved to be far above them.

  13. Peter Wilkinson: "In my book The Howard Legacy - displacement of traditional Australia from the professional and managerial classes..."

    I hope it comes out on Kindle, though I doubt I'll find it feel-good reading.

  14. "By impulse control Chua and Rubenfeld apparently mean the ability to resist the impulse to give up."

    Perhaps by impulse control she simply means having low time preference rates - the ability to resist the temptation of instant gratification in favour of long-term success.

    The gradual shift to high time preference rates over the past century has been on of the major factors in the decline of white civilisation. If the Nanny State will take care of everything why not go for instant gratification?

  15. I guess I should of explained myself more so, and I'm guessing no one here has particle experience in places like South Africa, Rhodesia or perhaps even outback Aboriginal communities, trust me you'll feel like a white supremacist within weeks. Unless you want to continue being "Colour blind" which is more so destructive then supremacy itself. In America the anti-whites call people like I, my father and grandfather "Crackers". In Australia we were called "Protectors", funny enough my shield of Arms title is "Protectors", it's what my ancestors did for the Kings of the middle ages.

    Plus it's the anti-whites that label us "white supremacist" whether you like it or not. My purpose is to take the micky out of the anti-whites and to show they are the "white supremacists". In fact the anti-whites put their "white supremacy" on show when they call me "Red neck", "Hillbilly", and "White Trash", in their eyes I'm the lowest of the low. In fact they'll think the same of you MR R and Mr TDT, the anti-whites call you the "Intellectual White supremacist", who pushes the "Red necks" into their racist frenzy ways.

    I was going to give you a real life example of an unconscious anti-white Liberal White supremacist, my father in-law, but I don't have enough time. This person claims not to be racist ad infinitum, and will accuse me of the white supremacy title. Don't listen to what the anti-white Liberal White supremacist says, watch what they do...