How Does Racism Harm Whites

I encountered this question several days ago on a blog called Resist racism:

I asked this question once in a seminar full of white people. Got no answers. Have you got one?

I read the responses and noticed that none addressed what seemed to me the most obvious answer. So I left the following comment:

How does "racism" harm Whites? Isn't it obvious? It's a weapon specifically crafted and primarily used against Whites! You didn't get an answer at your seminar because most Whites fear that saying as much will cost them their employment and/or social standing. To be White and to complain about racism only gets you accused of racism. Duh. Was it a "diversity" seminar? Double duh.

The idea of racism, especially the version promoted by "anti-racists", is actually anti-Whitism, as this blog and so many of the comments here confirm. The obvious harm to Whites is that the oh so politically correct scapegoating and verbal hatred eventually seeps into some of the weaker minds, creating a depraved and dehumanized image of Whites that justifies outright discrimination and assault.

Consider item 4 in Kim's comment above from October 29, 2007 at 1:14 pm. What makes a 12-year-old attack a stranger just because they are of another race? Race-based hatred placed in their head by their parents, teachers, and role models. Where is the hate coming from today? It's coming from anti-racists in the blogosphere, in politics, the media, and in academia, and it's directed entirely at Whites.

"Racism" has been used to silence and shame and disarm Whites in their own homelands. Homelands that, because Whites are now defenseless, have been thoroughly colonized by non-whites. Non-whites who detest Whites. And of course the reeeaaal reason for immigration is because Whites are just lazy and greedy and want to exploit the immigrants. In other words the immigration that's costing Whites their jobs and raising their taxes is really just another good reason to blame and hate Whites!

Whites are lectured by anti-racists that their forefathers' treatment of non-whites was wrong. Then we are told by anti-racists that we deserve similar mistreatment, today, by virtue of the fact that we had the wrong colored forefathers. Any objection is called "racist" - and is further proof of "privilege" that is taken to justify the harm being done to us. What people do not resent aliens moving into and disrupting their communities, telling them what they can say and do, telling them their race is evil, and especially so if they speak against aliens? If that's a crime then every race on the planet is guilty of it.

But anti-racists say only Whites can be "racist", which we are told every day is the most evil thing a person can be. We are told Whites are so thoroughly "racist" that many are not even aware of it! By simply socializing with other Whites or complaining about race-based mistreatment Whites simply demonstrate their guilt. The only out is to renounce Whites and join non-whites in attacking Whites who will not do so - just as the pathetic self-hating whites here are doing.

As with my sortie against the reality-based totalitarians at Pandagon, described in Anti-Racism and its Genocidal Fanatics, I posted on topic and crapped squarely on the fundaments of Resist racism's unreality-based fundamentalism. Then I watched and waited for a response. Nobody wrote but some days later my comment just disappeared. I noticed yesterday and reposted it. It's gone again.

One of the many commenters on the original post is Tim Wise:

Wise is the author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son, and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White. A collection of his essays, Speaking Treason Fluently: Anti-Racist Reflections From an Angry White Male, will be published in the fall of 2008. He has contributed chapters or essays to twenty books, and is one of several persons featured in White Men Challenging Racism: Thirty-Five Personal Stories, from Duke University Press. He received the 2001 British Diversity Award for best feature essay on race issues, and his writings have appeared in dozens of popular, professional and scholarly journals. Wise has also been a featured guest on hundreds of radio and television programs worldwide.

So here we have an archetypical anti-Whitist - an "anti-racist" whose income and acclaim derive from his tireless efforts to validate and channel resentment and hatred toward Whites. A race "scholar" whose peculiar scholarship is scapegoating Whites. Precisely the kind of anti-White anti-racist I was referring to in my comment.

It may be useful to know that Wise is jewish, not White. And like other prominent anti-White jews he seems to thrive on confusion and hypocrisy. For example consider what he writes at Resist racism:

Though it is certainly true that racism’s impact on whites is far less than that on people of color, there are several serious injuries to whites (call it “collateral damage” for lack of a better phrase) that come from white supremacy and privilege. The ones already mentioned are good ones, but here are some more:

1. Racism and white privilege/supremacy have served to trick working class white folks (the majority) into believing their interests were racial rather than economic/social, etc. The whole history of whiteness as a concept was created to divide and conquer class-based coalitions of Europeans and Africans in the colonies of what became the U.S. Instead of providing decent jobs, land and working conditions, the elite extended skin privilege to euros, no matter how poor, so as to get them on the “white” team. After these benefits were created (the right to own a little property, to serve on slave patrols, etc), rebellions diminished greatly. The divide and conquer worked. In the civil war, this same race privilege and identification with the elite on the part of working class and piss-poor whites led them to go off and fight to maintain rich folks’ property interests in slaves. Ironic, since the slave system actually undermined the wage base of working class whites (think about it, if I have to charge you a dollar a day to work on your plantation but you can get someone who is enslaved to do it for free, guess who gets the gig?). Then in the early days of the union movement, white labor leaders elevated whiteness above class interests by barring folks of color from their unions (supposedly to maintain the “professionalism” of the working class). This meant their unions were smaller, weaker and less militant, to the detriment of working people everywhere. So, historically, white privilege and racism against people of color has created an alternative form of property for whites (whiteness) which may pay psychological dividends, to be sure, and material ones too in a relative sense, vis a vis people of color, but which comes at the direct expense of their overall well being.

2. Racism and white privilege/supremacy generates a mindset of entitlement among those in the dominant group. This entitlement mentality can prove dangerous, whenever the expectations of a member of the group are frustrated. Principally this is because such persons develop very weak coping skills as a result of never having to overcome the obstacles that oppressed folks deal with every day and MUST conquer in order to survive. SO, as a result, it is the privileged (the beneficiaries of racism, and also, it should be pointed out, the class system) who are ill-prepared for setback: the loss of a job, stocks taking a nose-dive (who were the folks jumping out the windows in the great depression–not poor folks and folks of color, but rich whites who couldn’t handle being broke!) Likewise, if you look at the various personal pathologies that tend to be disproportionate in the white community (and upper middle class for that matter) they are interesting in that they all are about control–controlling one’s anxiety, emotional pain, or controlling and dominating others–like suicide, substance abuse, eating disorders, self-injury/mutilation, serial killing and mass murder (as opposed to just regular one-on-one homicide), sexual sadism killings, etc. Now, think about it, which group would be most likely to manifest a control pathology: the group that had never been in control, or the ones who always had been, and had long felt entitled to be, but who then had their expectations frustrated and snapped. Think Columbine (and the vast majority of the mass murder school shootings, for that matter–Va Tech was an exception to the rule on these things).

3. Not knowing how the world works is dangerous. White privilege and racism allow the dominant group to live in a bubble of unreality. Most days that’s no big deal I suppose. But every now and then reality intrudes on you and if you haven’t been expecting it, the trauma is magnified. So, when 9/11 happened, millions of whites were running around saying “why do they hate us?” because whites have never had to see our nation the way others do–we’ve been able to live in la-la land. But folks of color didn’t say this, because those without privilege HAVE to know what others think about them. Not to do so is to be in perpetual danger. So whites flipped out, and by virtue of being unprepared, pushed for a policy response (war) that folks of color were HIGHLY skeptical of from the beginning. But whites, enthralled by our sense of righteousness (itself a manifestation of privilege), pushed forward, convinced that the war in Iraq would go swimmingly. How’s that working out?

In other words, racism and privilege generate mentalities and policies that are dysfunctional, even deadly for whites as with folks of color. Folks of color are the first victims, to be sure, and the worst. But as someone else said, what goes around…

There is more I could say here, but these are a few of the key points I try to make when speaking about these issues, and in the re-write to my book White Like Me.

Wise says "white privilege" and "racism" are why non-whites hate us, and that White cluelessness about this is just one more way we demonstrate how racist and evil we are. The argument is circular, but I take Wise at his word. His hostility toward Whites comes through clearly.

Read his comment above again but now try to imagine he's casting similar aspersions on a group other than Whites. Try to imagine him for instance criticizing jewish privilege - the privilege to criticize everybody else, as harshly as you please, coupled with the magical power to deflect any criticism of yourself by calling it irrational anti-semitism - that special form of racism only a special race can suffer. You know, a real privilege, codified in various forms throughout the West.

We don't have to imagine how Wise would answer this. He already has. In PARANOID PREJUDICE: Debunking the 'Jewish Conspiracy' Wise not only dismisses concerns about wealthy, influential, and privileged jews - he thinks blaming jews is just another way "whites" express hate:

That's when my Internet penpals turn to the real source of their hatred and offer up what they consider the ultimate refutation of anything I have previously written: Namely, I am a Jew (usually a "dirty" one at that, they being quick with the adjectives), and this explains my desire, as they put it to "destroy the white race."

To this way of thinking (and I use "thinking" with caution here), Jews seek to destroy white unity via multiculturalism, immigration and affirmative action, so as to weaken the resistance of the white majority, thereby increasing our own power.

Although most Jews in America are from Europe, we do not qualify as white in this view, but rather as the ultimate social, cultural, and even genetic threat to white survival.

We are, in other words, viewed as a biological pollutant in the body politic.

"Destroy the white race" is how Noel Ignatiev describes his goal, using much the same "privilege" and "racism" rhetoric as Tim Wise. The idea of racism was derived from the idea of anti-semitism. Magnus Hirshfeld was among the first to popularize it. All three men share these ideas, and an animosity toward Whites. Whether or not they are "dirty" isn't important. That they are White-hating jews is. The White-hating part being self-evident, the jew part being not-so-evident but greatly helping to explain the former.

To the classic anti-anti-semitic way of thinking (and I use "thinking" with caution here), Whites who criticize jews who harm Whites are a special and completely irrational type of racist called an "anti-semite". In bigoted anti-anti-semitic minds there are no valid reasons to criticize jews whatsoever. But they feel free to criticize "whites" all day long. In fact, since "white" is just a social construct, and more than that, a monstrous social construct responsible for all the ills of the Western world and beyond, you can imagine all sorts of dastardly motives that make "whites" tick. You can blame today's "whites" for the evil deeds of any "white" in recorded history. Read some Ignatiev or Wise. This is what they do.

Accuse Whites of imaginary "privileges" and your opinions will appear in dozens of popular, professional and scholarly journals. You'll also be a featured guest on hundreds of radio and television programs worldwide. Accuse jews of blowing the holocaust out of proportion, or having wildly disproportionate representation and influence in finance, media, politics - or leading destructive ideologies - and well that's just crazy talk, paranoid prejudice. At least that's how privilege expert Wise sees it.

The belief that the Holocaust of European Jewry never happened, for example, which would have been considered prima facie evidence of cerebral damage just a few decades ago, is now widespread throughout parts of Europe. Likewise, beliefs that Jews control the media and U.S. economy are increasingly heard on the Internet and elsewhere.

So let us now dispense with the nonsense about Jewish power. The idea that we run everything as evidenced by our "overrepresentation" in media and finance is nothing short of insane, even based on the "evidence" for such a claim marshaled by those who believe it.

The same faculties the anti-racist Wise uses to concoct bogus reasons to blame Whites for harming everyone, including themselves, the anti-anti-semite Wise uses to concoct bogus reasons to excuse jews. There's no contradiction. These are two sides of the same coin polluting the body politic: Whites can do no right, jews can do no wrong.

- - -

How does "racism" harm Whites? It's a weapon non-whites, and especially jews, have used for decades. It's being used to justify our genocide, it will eventually cause our genocide, and then it will be used to excuse those responsible for our genocide.

Reproducing While White

Technically there aren't any laws against Whites reproducing, yet, but from the way the leaders of our politically correct anti-White regime act it sure seems they think it's a crime. To begin let's consider how they talk about overpopulation.

World population to hit 7 billion in 2012:

There are 6.7 billion people in the world today. The United States ranks third, with 304 million, behind China and India, according to projections released Thursday by the Census Bureau.

The world's population surpassed 6 billion in 1999, meaning it will take only 13 years to add a billion people.

By comparison, the number of people didn't reach 1 billion until 1800, said Carl Haub, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau. It didn't reach 2 billion until 130 years later.

"You can easily see the effect of rapid population growth in developing countries," Haub said.

Haub said that medical and nutritional advances in developing countries led to a population explosion following World War II. Cultural changes are slowly catching up, with more women in developing countries going to school and joining the work force.

That is slowing the growth rate, though it is still high in many countries.

There are countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East where the average woman has more than six children in her lifetime. In Mali and Niger, two African nations, women average more than seven children.

"There's still a long way to go in the developing world," Frey said. "A lot of it does have to do with the education of women and the movement of women into the labor force."

In the U.S., women have an average of about two children, which essentially replaces the population. Much of the U.S. population growth comes from immigration.

There are several noteworthy things here. First, the rate of population growth is astounding. It is absolutely swamping any savings we can make via the reduction, resuse, or recycling of resources. And the growth is in large part fueled by technology. Second, the population growth is occurring primarily in "the developing world", i.e. amongst turd worlders, not Whites. Third, the brainiacs in academia, government, business, and media know this all full well. They also know that sending women to school (meaning university in the West) and getting them obsessed with a career reduces the number of babies they produce. Rather than seeing this as an undersirable side-effect it instead seems they see this effect as more desirable than any other.

What is missing is also noteworthy. Here, and most other times when it is discussed, there is no linking of overpopulation with its consequences. The inevitable overcrowding, resource depletion and shortages, crime, and war. Nor is there any discussion how we might avoid this. For instance by acknowledging that Whites have greatly facilitated turd world population growth by sharing our technology and opening our borders, and that we might want to stop doing that.

Our progressivist-globalist leaders know the non-White population growth is unsustainable. They've known for decades. They're also apoplectic about the havoc it's wreaking on the environment. And yet they seem unable to say or do anything but the opposite of what should obviously be done. Rather than closing our borders and focusing our government funds on our own citizens, they instead glorify non-Whites, invite them to the West, and direct our aid and armies overseas. They condemn predominantly White Westerners for consuming a disproportionate share of the world's resources, but promote an agenda that increases predominantly non-white consumption. This is, for example, the premise of the Kyoto Protocol.

- - -

Jeffrey Sachs is a Columbia University economist who writes a monthly column, tragically misnamed "Sustainable Developments", for Scientific American. Sachs typifies progressivist-globalist thinking. Here's a sample, ordered chronologically:

December, 2002: Science to Save the World, "Economist Jeffrey D. Sachs thinks the science and technology of resource-rich nations can abolish poverty, sickness and other woes of the developing world."

Only a teaser is available online and I've long since thrown away the magazine this article was printed in. But the gist is clear. Sachs presumes the White man is both capable and morally obligated to abolish all the world's ills. It is Great Society thinking on a global scale. It is the liberal version of the White Man's Burden, with the emphasis on burden and with "resource-rich nations" as a euphemism for White. It's not even a good euphemism. The turd world isn't turdy because it lacks resources.

August, 2006: Lower Fertility: a Wise Investment, "Plans that encourage voluntary, steep reductions in the fertility rates of poor nations pay dividends in sustainability for everyone."

Here Sachs lays out what he thinks the US and Europe should do to address turd world overpopulation:

First, promote child survival. When parents have the expectation that their children will survive, they choose to have fewer children, with a net effect of slower population growth. Second, promote girls' education and gender equality. Girls in school marry later, and empowered young women enter the labor force and choose to have fewer children. Third, promote the availability of contraception and family planning, especially for the poor who cannot afford such services on their own. Fourth, raise productivity on the farm. Income-earning mothers use their scarce time in productive employment rather than childrearing.

Far from acknowledging that the technology of "resource-rich nations" has so far mostly increased the woes of "the developing world", and our own, Dr. Sachs prescribes more of the same medicine. He cannot face the fact that the main threat to child survival among turd worlders, whether in their homelands or in the White lands they colonize, is themselves. Not to mention that allowing them to live amongst us harms our own children. Every White knows this instinctively. That's why we go to such great lengths to find "good schools" in "nice neighborhoods". That's why intelligent non-whites try to surround themselves with as many Whites as they can, even while they whine about "racism".

Sachs supports turd world babies. He says we can stop africans from starving by helping their babies survive. Not only is this kooky, it's the opposite of the message bleeding heart liberals are sending to Whites, as I'll discuss below.

October, 2006: The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology, "Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets" antagonistic to a prosperous market economy?"

On average, the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance. Poverty rates are much lower there, and national income per working-age population is on average higher. Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups, just slightly higher in the Nordic countries. The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group, with larger surpluses as a share of GDP.

The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways. Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education. All of them, but especially Sweden and Finland, have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness. Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D, the highest ratio in the world today. On average, the Nordic nations spend 3 percent of GDP on R&D, compared with around 2 percent in the English-speaking nations.

Here Sachs is eager to prove that Friedrich von Hayek was wrong. That socialism does not inevitably lead to a centralization of control, and thus to tyranny and serfdom. Sachs points to the benefits of national socialism because he believes international socialism is a good idea. He is perhaps hoping nobody notices the two types of socialism are different.

Or perhaps Sachs is just blind. If so he has another curious blindness. There is a major difference between the "Nordic" and "Anglo-Saxon" countries that he doesn't mention. Vibrancy. Diversity. You know, what the progressivist globalists always say make us "stronger" by feeding the holy pyramid scheme they call The Economy, boosting GDP spending on such life necessities as crime fighting, prisons, private schools, health care, and motivating us to constantly move to "nice" neighborhoods when our old ones get too "vibrant". Nowadays they're beginning to experience vibrancy even in the national socialist Nordic states. The invaders love it. The natives not so much.

September, 2007: Ending Malaria Deaths in Africa, "One of the world's worst killers can be stopped soon if we make the investment".

We need to "invest" in increasing the number of turd worlders? Where do I send money? Oh, that's right, my wages are already garnished and if I refuse to pay I go to prison.

January, 2008: Crisis in the Drylands, "Sound economic solutions, not military ones, offer the most reliable route to peace for undeveloped nations."

Look closely at the violence in Afghanistan, Chad, Ethiopia, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan—one finds tribal and often pastoralist communities struggling to survive deepening ecological crises. Water scarcity, in particular, has been a source of territorial conflict when traditional systems of land management fail in the face of rising populations and temperatures and declining rainfall.

Washington looks at many of these clashes and erroneously sees Islamist ideology at the core. Our political leaders fail to realize that other Islamic populations are far more stable economically, politically and socially—and that the root of the crisis in the dryland countries is not Islam but extreme poverty and environmental stress.

What happened to overpopulation?

You know Jeff, I have looked closely, and what I see is muslims, whose proclivities toward tribalism and violence have for centuries kept their proclivity toward reproducing somewhat in check, are now enriched and unfettered, free to multiply and roam about the world. And I see this mainly as a consequence of the insane progressivist-globalist policies propounded by brainiacs like you. No it doesn't help that we simultaneously send our troops to establish police stations around the world but tie their hands in policing our own streets. So let's join together and call for our boys to come home from Afghanistan and Iraq and Germany and Korea and Japan and Djibouti and everywhere else so they can clean the gangs and criminals out of our own country. Whaddaya say?

March, 2008: Keys to Climate Protection, "Dramatic, immediate commitment to nurturing new technologies is essential to averting disastrous global warming."

So this year it seems Sachs has just completely forgotten about the population growth that he used to acknowledge drives the problems he's worried about. The solution he proposes is to pour more gasoline (technology) on the fire.

May, 2008: Surging Food Prices Mean Global Instability, "Misguided policies favor biofuels over grain for hungry people."

His proposals here amount to Whites helping turd worlders increase food production. So tomorrow there will be even more turd worlders to feed. This is what has passes for enlightened thinking at Columbia University and Scientific American since the end of WWII. This is why there are now 6.7 billion people on the planet.

- - -

Here are a couple of articles that typify the P-G reporting on the kind of crises created by population growth and turd world migration to the West. Note that neither one mentions any such connection.

Need to deal with water needs crucial:

"We're in a dry spell if not a drought," said California Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman. "We're in the second year, and if we're looking at a third year, we're talking about a serious problem."

Chrisman stopped short of saying the state would issue mandatory water rationing, which appears possible only if the governor declares a state of emergency. Rather, the burden will fall on local water agencies. Many, such as San Francisco and Marin County, have asked residents and businesses over the past year to cut water usage voluntarily by 10 to 20 percent.

Nevertheless, stricter water controls could be a continuing part of California's future. So might large-scale projects that aim to use water in new and better ways.

"We're facing some pretty grim circumstances that call for some bold action - recycling water, desalinating water," said Tim Quinn executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. "Above and beyond that, we have to invest in the sustainability of this system that our grandfathers constructed in the middle of the last century. It was developed with the convenience of human beings in mind, not aquatic beings."

Serious problems. Grim circumstances. Maybe then they should mention that in California immigration of the illegal variety alone accounts for more load on the system than officials project to save by rationing. The next time someone says how enriched we are by immigration ask if they're accounting for shortages - not to mention the prison, school, road, energy, and medical costs.

Here is some insight into why these problems aren't seen as problems by the brainiacs.

Water crisis to be biggest world risk:

Goldman Sachs advises investors to focus on the high-tech end of the world's $425bn water industry. But beware the consumer "backlash" against bottled water, now viewed as an eco-hostile waste of fuel.

It is eyeing companies that produce or service filtration equipment (which can now extract anything from caffeine to animal growth hormones by using nanotechnologies), ultraviolet disinfection, desalination technology using membranes, automated water meters and specialist niches in water reuse.

It is difficult to find a "pure play" on water equities. GE is a market leader in the field, but the sector makes up just 2pc of its colossal turnover.

See, it isn't a problem at all. It's really just an opportunity to profit.

It would be easy to continue, to provide more links to the thoughts of other brainiacs. The point is that many of the problems our leaders wish us to worry about, to donate our money, to join the military and die trying to fight the symptoms of, are not directly of our making. The world is not overpopulated with Whites. And the indirect technological contribution we Whites have made to population growth is not seen as a problem - it is instead what the brainiacs recommend more of.

- - -

I trust I've driven home that point. Now I have another to make. I wish to contrast the insane progressivist-globalist foreign policies with their insane domestic policies. I'd like to call attention to the fact that, as unwilling as they are to link non-white overpopulation and immigration to their negative consequences they are more than eager to link White problems to their causes, or to even blame Whites for things they are not responsible for.

I say "insane" but it really depends on your point of view. If you think Whites are inherently evil, congenital racists and nazis, then anti-White policies are perfectly sane. The sooner the world is rid of Whites the sooner non-whites will see nirvana. Likewise if you are concerned only with money, and in particular how much more you can make by expanding your market and driving down labor costs, then pro-non-white policies are perfectly sane. The more latinos, africans, and asians there are the more product we can move, and boy do those people know how to reproduce!

As a racially-aware White man I recognize the alliance of progressivist and globalist thinkers that control the West as my enemies. I see they demonize and steamroll anyone who stands in their way. That's why I call their policies insane. If you also see the insanity then perhaps it's because you're more White than you care to admit.

What did you think of the media-government assault on the FLDS community in Texas? Did you see it as a justified crackdown on weirdos who brainwash and abuse children, practice polygamy, who force teenage girls into marriage and pregnancy? Isn't it strange that in a country with such an cornucopia of immigrant and other non-white sources of real deviance and real crime that the authorities and media pundits spent so much time and effort hassling people whose most notable difference from other groups is that they are generally more peaceful and cleave more firmly to their religion and tradition than others? If polygamy, forced marriage, and child pregnancy are such terrible crimes then why is the government not more firmly moving against muslim and latino immigrants, and on that basis? Why does the media-government complex in accusing the FLDS of such things not even mention that there are far larger communities with those problems that they could raid and cart off in any urban area they care to look?

I think it's for the same reason that calling latino immigrants hard-working is normal, but calling White voters hard-working is racist. The same reason that criticizing islam is islamophobia but dunking a crucifix in urine is art. It all makes perfect sense if you realize White is out and non-white is in. The great crime of the FLDS is not abuse, compulsion, or even teen pregnancy. It eventually came out that those claims were fabricated or exaggerated. The greatest crime of the FLDS, the crime for which they cannot technically be convicted but which motivates all the fear and loathing directed toward them, is reproducing while White.

Here's a more recent example of the same phenomena.

Gloucester Teens Had Pact To Get Pregnant:

Schools Superintendent Christopher Farmer told WBZ's Bill Shields Thursday the girls had "an agreement to get pregnant."

Farmer said these are generally "girls who lack self-esteem and have a lack of love in their life."

"The common threat is the lack of self-esteem and purpose in life, and a lack of a sense of direction," said Farmer. "Young women wanting and needing affection."

Yeah well, that and watching popular movies like Juno and Knocked Up.

Strange isn't it, of all the high schools experiencing a rash of teen pregnancy, this one gets so much attention? Not if the girls are White. None of the articles I've read mention that they are - it's really just an educated guess. In 2006 there were 1162 Whites, 17 blacks, 39 latinos, and 6 asians enrolled in Gloucester High.

A recent graduate who had a baby during her freshman year told Time she knows why the girls wanted to get pregnant.

"They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally," Amanda Ireland, 18, said. "I try to explain it's hard to feel loved when an infant is screaming to be fed at 3 a.m."

This is deceptive. For anyone who doesn't yet have kids I can tell you the truth. Parenthood is the most challenging and fulfulling endeavor a human being can undertake. We are naturally suited to it. If you forgo child-rearing because you think the world is overcrowded, or getting out of bed at 3AM is a bummer, or you can't afford it, or you'd rather travel the world with your "partner", then you are sadly miscalculating. None of the negatives add up to even one "I love you" from your children. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the only reason you came to be is because an unbroken chain of ancestors succeeded in reproducing. If you choose not to do so you're not saving the world. You're choosing oblivion.

Beyond the social implications of the pregnancies, there are some legal questions being asked, including whether the men who fathered the babies will face charges of statutory rape.

If 20 black or latino girls in any school got pregnant would it be news? And since when do liberals consider statutory rape a bad thing? It's normal for blacks and latinos, and it's portrayed as normal for Whites on TV and in movies. It's common amongst the turd world refugees we're told we have to import in order to increase our vibrancy and diversity. Yet when Whites have babies suddenly a liberal lynch mob forms, upset and saying things they'd never say about anyone but Whites.

The Time article has more details.

Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High:

School officials started looking into the matter as early as October after an unusual number of girls began filing into the school clinic to find out if they were pregnant. By May, several students had returned multiple times to get pregnancy tests, and on hearing the results, "some girls seemed more upset when they weren't pregnant than when they were," Sullivan says. All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. Then the story got worse. "We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy," the principal says, shaking his head.

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester, where teen parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. "We're proud to help the mothers stay in school," says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.

But by May, after nurse practitioner Kim Daly had administered some 150 pregnancy tests at Gloucester High's student clinic, she and the clinic's medical director, Dr. Brian Orr, a local pediatrician, began to advocate prescribing contraceptives regardless of parental consent, a practice at about 15 public high schools in Massachusetts. Currently Gloucester teens must travel about 20 miles (30 km) to reach the nearest women's health clinic; younger girls have to get a ride or take the train and walk. But the notion of a school handing out birth control pills has met with hostility. Says Mayor Carolyn Kirk: "Dr. Orr and Ms. Daly have no right to decide this for our children." The pair resigned in protest on May 30.

Gloucester's elected school committee plans to vote later this summer on whether to provide contraceptives. But that won't do much to solve the issue of teens wanting to get pregnant. Says rising junior Kacia Lowe, who is a classmate of the pactmakers': "No one's offered them a better option." And better options may be a tall order in a city so uncertain of its future.

Of course many conservatives, devout Christians, and various crypto-White advocates see what's happening in Gloucester as a bad thing. Most consistently oppose illegitimacy. But since when do the revolutionary leftists at Time or any other mainstream media outlet criticize anyone for doing "too good a job of embracing young mothers"? When in doubt hand it out, isn't that the liberal mantra?

Where else are doctors resigning because contraceptives aren't made readily enough available? And what does birth control have to do with this anyway? By all accounts these girls got pregnant intentionally. If having babies is a bad thing, and preventing it is important enough to push contraceptives on communities against their wishes, then how about also recognizing that it isn't White girls in Gloucester or anywhere else who are overpopulating the world? If contraceptives are to be compulsory aren't there other places, other people, who it would make much more sense to start with? Wouldn't it make even more sense to close our borders so they, and we, might live and reproduce as we please?

We so often hear from the brainiacs that the turd worlders only sneak into our countries, evade our taxes, drink and drive without a license, join gangs, and attack Whites because they only want what's best for themselves and their children. Clearly that's true. Yet when Whites, outraged at our betrayal by a government that taxes us and sends the money overseas, which enforces even the pettiest micromanaging laws on us while leaving the border undefended and looking the other way when the invaders commit violent crimes, when we Whites speak up against this the media and political brainiacs call us nativists, xenophobes, and racists. They certainly do not say, hey, Whites just want what's best for themselves and their children.

This is because the real problem, the real crime, is reproducing while White. The people who think this aren't insane. They just don't like Whites. Some of them accuse Whites of wanting to load non-whites into boxcars and ship them to death camps. They say that because that's what they want to do to Whites. Once you realize this our crazy world makes alot more sense.

UPDATE, 23 June 2008: Flippityflopitty fowarded this email:

Dear Friends,

As we observe World Refugee Day (established by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to commemorate the spirit and courage of refugees each year on June 20), on behalf of Episcopal Migration Ministries, I want to thank those who attended Wednesday night's screening of God Grew Tired of Us, which not only tells the poignant story of three Sudanese refugees resettled in the United States, but also portrays the courage and strength of the greater global refugee population. We hope you enjoyed the movie and learned more about the journey of refugees and the work of EMM, who on behalf of the Episcopal Church, carries out the ministry it began more than 60 years ago to relieve the burden of the world's suffering through refugee resettlement and advocacy.

We encourage you to share the movie with friends and family; here is a link to the website <http://www.godgrewtiredofus.com/index.html> - you can also access the movie on Netflix.

With thanks,
Deb Stein
Managing Coordinator
Episcopal Migration Ministries

Visit the website, click About, and you'll find there's more to the poignant story of the three sudanese refugees:

Orphaned by a tumultuous civil war and traveling barefoot across the sub-Saharan desert, John Bul Dau, Daniel Abol Pach and Panther Blor were among the 25,000 “Lost Boys” (ages 3 to 13) who fled villages, formed surrogate families and sought refuge from famine, disease, wild animals and attacks from rebel soldiers. Named by a journalist after Peter Pan’s posse of orphans who protected and provided for each other, the “Lost Boys” traveled together for five years and against all odds crossed into the UN’s refugee camp in Kakuma, Kenya. A journey’s end for some, it was only the beginning for John, Daniel and Panther, who along with 3800 other young survivors, were selected to re-settle in the United States.

About 3797 more. Selected for "resettlement"! Transplanted to the US because our insane leaders don't think we have enough african vibrancy already. Did you know that?

See Refugee Resettlement Watch for more information about how our White-hating brainiacs go out of their way to import non-white cultures rich in polygamy and teen pregnancy, with tendencies toward violence and tribalism as a special bonus.

Who's on Top?

John Savage wrote an interesting post titled The Leftist Social Pyramid. It was not my intent but in commenting there I upset him, and he closed the thread to further comment. He may withdraw the post, which is his perogative, but I hope he doesn't. It begins like so:

This week, commenter Mark P. at VFR predicts a coming factionalization of the Left. This goes back to the question I keep asking: Why is the Left so monolithic, in the sense that we rarely hear of fights over whether one or another thing is a proper leftist principle? Whatever difficulties there have been in making the decisions, they seem to have been out of the public spotlight, and discontent among the losers seems to have done little damage to the overall movement.

I suggested last fall that there is a Hierarchy of Entitlement on the Left. To recap, non-Western immigrant groups seem to be at the top. The toleration of violence and even ethnic cleansing by these groups against native-born blacks demonstrates that these groups stand above blacks. The attempt to prosecute disabled whites for racist “hate speech” demonstrates that nonwhites still stand above the disabled, and the toleration of nonwhite violence against homosexuals demonstrates that nonwhites stand above homosexuals. The toleration of nonwhite rape of white women demonstrates that white women are considerably lower than any nonwhites, while white heterosexual men are at the very bottom.

My emphasis.

At my prompting we exchanged a few comments concerning where jews fit in this hierarchy. I argued they're on the top. John discussed it, but I think he would really have preferred to leave them unmentioned. It's a common problem. It supports the point I was trying to make. Of all the elephants in the room the jewish elephant is the one everyone seems most eager to ignore. Thus when someone will not ignore it it's easy to paint them as abnormal, just as John eventually did to me.

Whether or not jews are on top, they certainly are one of the most prominent, powerful victim groups in the "Leftist Social Pyramid". Opinion on anti-semitism is more monolithic than any other social or political principle in the West. It transcends left and right.

The principle of anti-semitism is this: no matter the merits of what you say, if it is critical of jews then you are insane. It doesn't matter whether you are ancient egyptian, contemporary korean, amerindian, leftist former president (Jimmy Carter), or rightist former presidential candidate (Pat Buchanan).

In a presentation titled For Fear of The Jews Joe Sobran said:

What, exactly, is "anti-Semitism"? One standard dictionary definition is "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group." How this applies to me has never been explained. My "hostility" toward Israel is a desire not for war, but for neutrality -- out of a sense of betrayal, waste, and shame. Our venal politicians have aligned us with a foreign country that behaves dishonorably. Most alleged "anti-Semites" would wince if Jews anywhere were treated as Israel treats its Arab subjects. Moreover, Israel has repeatedly betrayed its only benefactor, the United States. I have already alluded to the place Dante reserves for those who betray their benefactors.

These are obvious moral facts. Yet it's not only politicians who are afraid to point them out; so are most journalists -- the people who are supposed to be independent enough to say the things politicians can't afford to say. In my thirty years in journalism, nothing has amazed me more than the prevalent fear in the profession of offending Jews, especially Zionist Jews.

Emphasis mine.

I'm sorry if making this point upsets jews, or John Savage, or anyone else. I raise it because it's important. Not many people will discuss it calmly. John's accusation that I'm "unreasonable" and "see jews everywhere" is itself unreasonable - it imagines only two extremes: either jews are not worthy of mention, or they control everything. That's a false dichotomy. I reject it.