Decoding the Racial Political Discourse
During a discussion on MSNBC's The Cycle concerning Mitt Romney‘s assertion that President Obama should "take [his] campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago", Touré, the program's co-host and designated angry black man, got angry:
“That really bothered me,” he said. “You notice [Romney] said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us.”
“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization,’” Touré said to the apparent shock of his co-panelists. “You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”
Naturally this led to a battle between Touré and conservative co-host S.E. Cupp. She took particular issue with the fact that Touré admitted that VP Joe Biden‘s “chains” comments were divisive, but is now calling Romney a “racist” for saying the Obama campaign is “angry.”
“Do you see how dishonest that is?” she asked.
Touré denied calling anyone a racist, which prompted Cupp to say, “Certainly you were implying that Mitt Romney and the base will respond to this dog-whistle, racially-charged coding, and hate Obama, the angry black man?”
“Absolutely,” he replied.
“That’s so irresponsible,” Cupp answered back.
“This is not a revolutionary comment,” Touré later said. “This is a constituency all-white party that rejects the black vote.”
Indeed, anti-White rhetoric in media and politics is a long-term trend. Touré's comments call to mind Cassandra Jackson's Huffington post article from June, Why the War on Affordable Health Care is a War on Blacks and Latinos, which I discussed in a podcast titled Guilt-Tripping.
Niggerization, if the term has any meaningful sense, describes a political environment such as we have today, whereby race-conscious blacks like Touré freely project their own racial fears and animosities onto hopelessly deracinated Whites like Romney. This niggerization was preceeded and is enabled by judaization, whereby race-conscious jews lecture and lord over deracinated Whites. For example, in faulting the Republican party for being too White, Touré is simply aping the attitudes and tactics of race-conscious jews. As Harold Meyerson wrote in 2008:
Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz reiterated the point in January:
There is a reason that the Democratic Party is far more diverse than the Republican Party, because the natural home, politically on major issues to Hispanics, to women, to Jews, to Asian-Americans, the diverse spectrum -- to African Americans.
The entire spectrum of diversity is comfortable in the Democratic Party because we stand up for the issues that matter to those communities and Republicans shun them.
Non-Whites who participate in the discourse hosted by the thoroughly judaized corporate media are expected to wear their racial identity on their sleeve and regularly present their race-based grievances against Whites. Any White who might respond from a perspective explicitly favorable to Whites has already been excluded or removed. The deracinated Whites who remain can only sputter helplessly about how "divisive" and "irresponsible" their unrestrained racial antagonists are, the pretense being, despite constant reminders otherwise, that the only responsible divide is ideological.
The most notorious icons of Whiteness - Romney, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity - are strictly judeo-conservative, afforded their limelight only so long as they profess love and respect for jews and Israel. Tellingly, it is these deracinated, pro-jew Whites who are most often identified as "nazis", accused of using dog-whistles to appeal to Whites, while secretly hating jews.
What we see here are the reality-inverting, guilt-tripping tactics I referred to in my discussion of Jackson. Non-Whites are using the jewish playbook, passively-aggressively accusing Whites of sneakily conspiring to stereotype, scapegoat, and even war on them. One clear marker is how they unapologetically assert their Otherness even as they pathologize and demonize Whites for noticing. It taps into decades of cultural marxism and anti-White propaganda, and is ultimately based on a centuries-old jewish blame-shifting narrative that put Whites on the defensive back when blacks were still in chains.
The simple fact is that non-Whites are waging and currently winning a war against Whites. It is a war the vast majority of Whites will not think or speak of, much less fight. The more Whites concede, the more non-Whites demand. Their chauvinists fight more or less openly for the interests of their people, allying with each other against Whites. All Whites get in the judaized, niggerized mainstream is indirect, ineffective code-speak.
Labels: anti-white, debbie wasserman schultz, harold meyerson, media, mitt romney, msnbc, politics, race, toure
posted by Tanstaafl at 8/23/2012 03:27:00 PM
47 Comments:
I love this site. I agree with you on everything. In the case of Lawrence Auster and the like, the Jews are trying to hijack race realist conservatism just like they hijacked traditional conservatvism. It really bugs me to see how accepted they are among some racially aware Whites. If not for Jews there would be no reason for race realism.
Journolist was a largely jewish "liberal" media cabal. Portions of their email was leaked after the 2008 election, including a discussion of how to defend Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright. Spencer Ackerman advocated going on the attack using charges of "racism":
It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?
Ackerman also reported on his own use of the tactic:
I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?
Four years on and they're still using the same tactic. The "conservative" jews (like Auster) are not going to call out the "liberal" jews who are driving it. That would be "anti-semitic". If Whites want to be free of this sick manipulation we're going to have to recognize who's doing it, why they're doing it, and fight them.
More along the same lines.
Can a splash of color change image of Republicans?:
A poll this week by NBC shows that, against Obama, Romney could expect to win precisely zero support among African Americans. The poll had a wide margin of error, but clearly the Republican is fighting a losing battle.
Hispanics meanwhile said they preferred Obama over Romney by 63 to 28 percent -- a more than two-to-one margin.
David Bositis, of the Joint Center on Economic Studies, a think tank studying issues of concern to the black community, denounced a "to make them look something unlike what they in fact are. They are a white party."
Bositis said the Republican policy platform -- both at the convention and in Congress -- is seen as anathema to the interests of many minority voters.
And he attacked Republican-led efforts in key election battleground states to tighten voter identification requirements -- moves that many analysts say would disproportionately affect minorities and the poor.
"Why would any black voter support the Republicans when the Republicans are trying to take their votes away? That's more basic than anything else. If you want to take my vote that means you really want me out of the way," he said.
Why would any White voter support either party? The Democrats are a non-White party funded largely by jews. They are openly critical of White concerns while obsequiously pandering to non-White concerns. The Republicans, also funded largely by jews, are a bit behind, but heading the same direction.
Jews have two parties actively seeking to serve their interests, non-Whites have one, and Whites have none. Meanwhile, the judaized media narrative inverts reality, painting this situation as biased in favor of Whites.
Tan, your analysis above at 9:59 is absolutely spot-on.
In general, and certainly for Whites, the difference between the jackass party and the elephant one is the difference between driving off a cliff at 100 mph or at 50 mph. You are dead either way.
Obama deserves to lose in a landslide but I’ll wager he is going to win and probably comfortably so. I can only hope this will serve to wake more Whites up and hasten the demise of the stupid and, yes, evil GOP.
We have the same nonsense here in Britain. The idea of voting for either main party, Labour or Conservatives seems absurd to me now.
Paul Kersey running SBPDL loves to hammer on the black man. After a while it felt like picking on the retarded kid in class.
Great thread running at the Daily Telegraph:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100177915/radical-islam-revives-an-ancient-hatred/#disqus_thread
Moderation is pretty light, you can score some pretty good points and they will stand. YKW out in force though.
Paul Kersey running SBPDL loves to hammer on the black man. After a while it felt like picking on the retarded kid in class.
Ive listed SBDL as 'controlled opposition' at majorityrights.com for this reason. Of course its possible he is doing it to open peoples eyes, a gateway subject, but Ive got my doubts.
I think its part of a strategic withdrawal, laying the groundwork by YKW, throw blacks under the bus as they have Muslims.
Maybe Kersey is using the right tactics. That way he won't get marginalised like those of us who openly identify the Jewish role in White problems. A lot can be said between the lines. Once Whites begin asking questions about why they're being fucked over so much the answer will become increasingly apparent. As it did for me.So let SBPDL do its job for now.
Maybe Kersey is using the right tactics. That way he won't get marginalised like those of us who openly identify the Jewish role in White problems. A lot can be said between the lines. Once Whites begin asking questions about why they're being fucked over so much the answer will become increasingly apparent. As it did for me.So let SBPDL do its job for now.
Better yet, let's help SBPDL and other pro-Jew sites "do their job" by heaping as much criticism upon them as possible, to make sure that nobody mistakes them for serious WN. We wouldn't want them to be marginalized, would we? It's for their own good.
Im sure SBDL is helping - to a degree. But we need other sites that pick up where he stops and he stops short of YKW.
He was interviewed on VoR and maybe I misheard but he may have implied that he was holding back for tactical reasons. Which is why Im not 100% convinced he is a false flag.
Regarding SBPDL et al: It is a gateway site and serves that purpose even if not by conscious design. The black plague is so societally rapacious that it requires concentration to maintain the hypnosis of anti-racism. Many lack the discipline to do so and subsequently start believing their eyes more than their ears.
These are the neophytes gateway sites attract. And they must be nourished with puréed peas before they can digest firmer foods. As teeth emerge, many will find the meat here more to their appetite. And for those who do not...well, imbuing his readers with a wholesome antipathy for the negro isn't a totally fruitless exercise.
Good points Porter.
Regarding SBPDL et al: It is a gateway site and serves that purpose even if not by conscious design.
It's funny how people get so defensive of these phony opposition sites and think they should be off-limits to criticism. The logic doesn't really make sense. Okay, let's say it's a gateway, and that discussing the actual causes of the problem instead of lying and inventing fake causes would really alienate people. Well, then what is the harm in us criticizing them? If it's a "gateway", then in theory there should be some mechanism in place to get people THROUGH the goddamn gateway and on to the next stage, which would seem to necessarily entail pointing out that the "gateway" ain't exactly giving you the full story. Yet doing that is evidently something people like Porter and others here apparently don't want to see.
It looks more like "gatekeeping" than a "gateway" to me. A way of confusing and misdirecting people who would have found their way to real WN, but instead get stuck on some stupid nigger-bashing site.
There's a recent video of Nick Griffin (British National Party) where he explains that the Counter-Jihad movement is false opposition. According to Counter-Currents, his exposé is excellent, even though "it is truly disgusting to see how Griffin lies to blur Jewish responsibility".
( Counter-Currents - Direct YouTube link)
I think the Counter-Jihad movement has been both a gateway and a gatekeeper. Their plan was to be gatekeepers, but it worked partly as a gateway to the Jewish problem. They went to a lot of trouble to feed us puréed peas so we would side with them against the Muslims. But now, it looks like the counter-jihad movement was really a nursery for anti-Jewish White Nationalists. Did they waste our time, or did they unwittingly give us a leg up?
If SBPDL is helping to break the hypnosis of anti-racism, that's rather a good thing, in spite of its unpleasant tactics. It doesn't matter if they have other motives.
Anonymous: "laying the groundwork by YKW, throw blacks under the bus as they have Muslims."
Neocons and counter-jihadists are only a minority among Jewish activists. The Jews as a whole still side with the non-Whites against the Whites.
Nony, if you were to go criticize SBPDL immediately you'd only be swimming in my wake.
Here is the only question germane to this off-topic: For the typical reader, do gateway sites facilitate a pro-white mindset or do they stunt this development in individuals who would otherwise experience it in their absence? You seem to embrace the notion that more people would come to an Occidental Observer if sites like SBPDL didn't exist. Perhaps. We'll call it the School of Immaculate Perception.
But for the vast majority of mesmerized whites who watch with confusion and anxiety as their living space is overrun with inebriated la razas, asian calculators, and ever more feral africans running riot in their blood, I will submit that their first visceral response is not, "Those fucking heebs!"
Instead they vent on the antagonist they can see. They look for a gateway. Without which, instead of "getting stuck on some nigger bashing site" they would get stuck on some mainstream site. Instead of exposure to incipient WN sentiment, they would be exposed to more hack neo-connery. Nigger bashing is not as prosaic as the slur implies. It cultivates a sense of racial polarization and solidarity. It encourages the erstwhile colorblinds to start thinking in terms of us/them and who/whom. And for many, the NQ leads directly to the JQ.
Here's an open question to all: did you arrive at your own state of judeo awareness through epiphany or progression? The answer should be clarifying.
"I think the Counter-Jihad movement has been both a gateway and a gatekeeper. Their plan was to be gatekeepers, but it worked partly as a gateway to the Jewish problem."
From their point of view setting up a site that acts as a gatekeeper to 90% of their visitors but a gateway to the other 10% is still a win while for us 10% is better than nothing so...oddly symbiotic.
Hey Tan, I was over in England this weekend and tried to access this site from a public library and was astonished to find it blocked under the heading "hate site", lol!
Who knew you were so famous!
Well done :)
Ps: LOVE the conversation on this post and yes, although I too came to JQ awareness through the 'Counter-Jihad' I am now highly critical of it and Auster in particular for many of the reasons stated. Plus, I actually attended the Amren conference this year and was floored by the dominance of jews upon its content.
They need to be hammered....and HARD.
Here's the latest from our favorite fifth columnist:
"A reader sends this very apposite quotation of Voltaire’s:
To learn who rules over you, simply find out whom you are not allowed to criticize.
What Voltaire says is roughly true of all societies. But in liberal society there is a further twist. In liberal society you are not even allowed to identify who rules over you.
Why is this so? Because, as Jim Kalb pointed out many years ago, liberal society is the sole form of society in which the powerholders deny that they exercise power. They claim that they stand only for everyone’s equal rights."
His website would be useful if some app or add-in could change "liberalism" to "jews" and "ideology" to "racial interests."
Why is this so?
Simple. Because "liberalism"! Auster is an expert at pretending he's explaining something while not doing it. Most of what he says amounts to a vapid, circluar, it's-bad-because-it's-liberalism-because-liberalism-is-bad.
From Auster's initial response to Toure, Democrats take the racism charge where no racism charge has gone before:
The Democrats’ campaign of ever-wilder racism charges against the Republicans, labeling as “racist” statements and positions not remotely corrected with race, is extremely significant. But it is not surprising. It is of the essence of liberalism and of the tyrannical rule of liberalism over our society.
Auster sees this "liberalism" everywhere. For example, the post just before that is titled Why almost all conservatives today are liberals and don't realize it. He never does explain why, just as he never explains where all this "liberalism" comes from.
In the Toure piece a commenter tried to go deeper, and actually brought up Marx and Freud. But it went nowhere. Mention of the "Frankfurt School" rarely appears on Auster's site, but as recently as April somebody else brought it up. Auster's snippy response:
Personally I consider the blaming of the Frankfurt School for every ill under the sun to be a lazy mental reaction from which conservatives ought to wean themselves.
The Frankfurt School was a highly influential source of arguments pathologizing and demonizing Whites for every ill under the sun. It was essentially a jewish intellectual movement, composed largely of jews and others who were interested in serving the best interests of jews.
Like the Frankfurt School, Auster is more eager to defend jews from "anti-semitism" than anything else, so naturally he doesn't want anyone talking about the Frankfurt School. He would rather spread the blame as widely as possible, pinning every ill under the sun on "liberalism", by which he means everybody except jews.
Porter: "did you arrive at your own state of judeo awareness through epiphany or progression?"
Resenting our replacement by other races is something natural and instinctual. But our natural feelings are inhibited by all the propaganda. So, every White Nationalist has to go through an conscious rebellion against the reigning anti-White climate. It has to be a spontaneous rebellion of individuals against the system. But now, it can be helped thanks to the internet.
Judeo-awareness is something else. It isn't natural to suspect that our institutions have been hijacked by the Jews. Few people will find out about the problem all by themselves. You have to be told about it. In fact, you have to be told about it repeatedly.
After 9/11, I read neoconnish blogs for some time (mainly instapundit), when the blogosphere was still in its infancy. I liked their condemnation of leftism and Muslim terrorism. Then, I noticed that they didn't disapprove of immigration. I began noticing the large number of Jews. At one point, they indulged in some childish French bashing because president Chirac opposed the invasion of Iraq. One thing I didn't like is that they said there was a growing problem of antisemitism in France. Some of them were deliberately blaming Arab anti-Jewish sentiment on White people. Then, on a variety of White nationalist websites, I learned about the crucial responsibility of Jews in the race-replacement crisis. Basically, I was told about the problem by other White Nationalists, on the internet. But neocon websites helped me become fed up with the Jews.
"their first visceral response is not, "Those fucking heebs!"
Instead they vent on the antagonist they can see."
I have always been appalled by third-world immigration. My visceral response, until I learned that the Jews played a crucial role, was to bash the leftists, not the immigrants. I think most White people are like me: they may blame the immigrants for being violent and uncivilized, but they are not so stupid that they won't blame the government and the media for importing them. So, for people like me, nigger bashing would be kind of a regression, compared to bashing the liberals.
Even so, nigger bashing is a good way to defend free speech, it's a relief from political correctness, it encourages Whites to take their own side, it sends the message that it's all right to talk and joke about race... And it doesn't prevent anyone from bashing Jews and liberals.
But if I'm going to listen to Jew-friendly nationalists, I like better Jared Taylor's approach. Reading AmRen.com made me more aware of the cold facts about race (IQ stats + rape stats). The reality is worse than I suspected. Another good approach is simply to inform people about misdeeds committed by Blacks everyday.
Thanks for that Scott. I had a gnawing suspicion there was some malign influence, some eminence grise, that had turned this country's institutions against the posterity of its founders.
And who are these puppeteers that may never be criticized? Liberals...just say it sotto voce lest we are overheard. Indeed, the testicles of otherwise stoic men seek interior refuge at the prospect of naming the liberal. There is no surer path to ruin than to openly admit one's disdain for this group. Fortunately we have warriors like Lawrence of Judea to carry our banner into the enemy's hissing nest.
Seriously, The Austere can put on a better show than this. Given the obvious answer, I wouldn't have touched that Voltaire quote with a ten foot nose. His peanut gallery should feel insulted.
Update: He clarifies that it is actually the "diversity ideology" that rules us. These diversity ideologies were apparently using the liberals as patsies all along.
Here's an open question to all: did you arrive at your own state of judeo awareness through epiphany or progression? The answer should be clarifying.
I actually started not liking jews before I understood much about race in general. Mostly by observing how jews were able to manipulate the US into supporting Israel despite our not having an interest in doing so, and also observing that they were the main force pushing for the Iraq War and that the stated reasons for the war (WMDs) didn't make sense. Interacting with pro-Israel jews in person was what really left me with a negative impression more than anything else.
An understanding of racial issues came separately. I looked at what was going on and sought out people who were talking about racial issues. I skipped over the paleocon and AmRen type shit entirely and I suspect that's what most people do. Once you're ready for this stuff, I don't think you're really going to be put off by criticism of jews, even if you don't understand it yet, and that's why I have no sympathy for jew-excusers like SBPDL or AmRen. I don't see any evidence that these people serve as useful gateways. Buchanan's books sell millions of copies, he was on TV for a long time, and his columns were widely read - how many of those people are WNs today? Probably not many. Ergo, the "gateway" theory has little to back it up.
The best approach is to give people as much of the truth as you can muster up. Stuff like Amren, Auster, or SBPDL is just getting in the way and throwing people off course.
For me it was a progression of epiphanies: about muslims, immigration, race, and finally jews.
For me,
it was getting banned from a forum.
A long time ago, a book about Peak Oil got me interested in the gold market. Being a new investor I started reading and posting on a certain gold forum: Lots of freewheeling stuff, guns and ammo, preps for TEOTWAWKI, theories about gold manipulation shenanigans, conspiracies theories of all stripes: It's The Freemasons; It's the Lizards from Nebiru; It's the Alien Agenda; It's The Illuminati; It's the Club of Rome whut did it, etc., etc.
One day I asked, naive little me -- I made mention that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have a really weird, astonishing verisimilitude to the reality we see about us. Where and how did they originate?
I got a terse memo from the moderator that posts about conspiracies regarding jews are NOT allowed on this forum, and a permanent ban without so much as a single prior how-do-you-do.
HUH? So, we can "expose" the "Alien Agenda" of The Illuminati on this "truth-seeking forum", but not ask any questions about any subjects that relate in any way to jews? Why not?
Severely butthurt, I started poking about those "awful" "insane" "unhinged" forbidden "anti-semite" sites.
Oh, man. All those rotten goings-on those forum posters had attributed to Freemason secret handshakes and David Icke's Reptilians? Were much more, occams-razor-like, aptly explained by the fact that jews, being rich and ethnocentric and verbally aggressive, have got hold of the pinchpoints of power and hire their own.
SANITY regained.
Only because the sanity-restoring forums I was now reading also discussed the low-level race war that blacks are waging against Whites did I even start to think about the NQ.
So for me, nigger crime awareness came AFTER the jew-skepticism.
>Anonymous said...
8/29/2012 06:13:00 PM
Once you're ready for this stuff, I don't think you're really going to be put off by criticism of jews, even if you don't understand it yet, and that's why I have no sympathy for jew-excusers like SBPDL or AmRen.
----------------------
What if you are not ready for this stuff? I think it's fair to say that people move through this in stages and each stage prepares them for the next. So being open to race immigration issues may not mean you are ready for full on race issues, let alone confronting the jews.
SBPDL allows 'pointing out the jews' in the comments. Amren doesn't or only a little. (I hardly visit those sites now so maybe things have changed.)
I think what is important is the intent of these sites. Why are they minimizing, to whatever degree, discussion on jews? Is is an active attempt to misdirect or is because of ignorance, to not make waves, or a desire to be socially acceptable, etc.?
If it is a active attempt to misdirect then that puts them into the enemy camp.
> I don't see any evidence that these people serve as useful gateways. Buchanan's books sell millions of copies, he was on TV for a long time, and his columns were widely read - how many of those people are WNs today? Probably not many. Ergo, the "gateway" theory has little to back it up.
-----------------
How do you assess the evidence, though? Is someone who senses that something stinks in Denmark and goes and reads Buchanan's books yet doesn't turn fairly soon into a National Socialist, a lost cause? Not likely. Because we know that Buchanan's books just point in a White direction. One thing can lead to the next.
>The best approach is to give people as much of the truth as you can muster up. Stuff like Amren, Auster, or SBPDL is just getting in the way and throwing people off course.
----------------
Hitting brainwashed Whites full blast with the 'truth' of the matter is in most cases going to get rejected. Some people, like yourself and to a lesser degree myself are inclined to respond well.
As Porter has suggested the food needs to be matched to the level of 'maturity', case by case. That all said, sites like Gates of Vienna and Auster are misdirects. Amrem, I'm still thinking about, but suspect that Taylor just simply doesn't want to incur the wrath of the jews because it will upset the great good he feels he is doing.
Like climbing a mountain, it is for most best done slowly but surely, while for a few it is done in leaps and bounds. We need a whole range of sites catering for beginners to the hard core. We know our enemies will attempt to sabotage all of them, so the battle continues and fingers will be pointed, sometimes correctly and others not. We have to get used to that 'fog of battle' and deal with it.
Thanks Anon.
A real shortcut would be the Mantra. It hits, between the eyes, all types, from sleepwalkers to rabid anti-whites. Who can deny that that EVERY white country is being indunated with non-whites and whites are demanded to assimilate? It's Genocide in plain site.
"Hey Tan, I was over in England this weekend and tried to access this site from a public library and was astonished to find it blocked under the heading "hate site", lol!"
I'm sure this is a naive and probably pointless question, but is there any acknowledgment or pushback in the mainstream English press (or society in general) against stuff like this? I mean banning sites like this at public library computers (!) is crossing another Rubicon on the way to a completely unfree society.
sk : "Genocide"
I like the phrase race-replacement better than genocide. Fred Scrooby used to use that phrase on MajorityRights. It's a good description of what's going on today, and it's compatible with Bob's mantra, I think it can be used in everyday language, it's hard for our opponents to deny that it is happening, and it's hard to give a moral justification for that.
"Race-replacement" contains the idea that immigration isn't a simple addition of diversity, it's a subtraction of whiteness. And it works one way only: Whites being replaced by non-Whites.
Armor Good grief! What do you call the replacement of whites by non-whites EVERYWHERE?
Interesting reading on those progressions. Like Tan, my own can be concluded succinctly with, "finally jews." One observation:
We whites rarely allow enemies to monopolize our scorn.
'Genocide' may be correct but it sounds more like a one-off event.
'Race-replacement' is a good phrase because it describes a process.
And its a process we are undergoing, its easier to point to the increments of immigration and alien births and say "Theres your process right there" than say genocide and have people demand to see the piles of bodies they have been conditioned to associate with genocide.
Thats my take anyway.
I ended up seeing the light by starting as pretty liberal person until 9/11 saw me lurch into a kind of neo-con position. Im sure thats where YKW would like people to stop.
But I carried on reading blogs and so on. Found myself at Vdare and that was a break with the neo-con line. Then from there to Steve Sailer.
That broke my remaining racial egalitarianism and I wasnt a neo-con of any sort after that and pretty soon I was up to speed on the JQ.
So for me I became conscious of racial crime disparities and the JQ at much the same time.
YMMV
Anonymous 9:25 Yes, race-replacement sounds better than what is really intended, GENOCIDE. So lets just leave that word for little white kids to deal with when they grow up,if they can.
Your right. Genocide IS a one off event. Permanent!
My path to judaeo-awareness was also transitional, from NRO to Derb to Sailer to K Mac. But that's not to say I didn't have a good grasp of 'jewishness' beforehand via personal interactions.
Actually, now that I think about it, I was well on my way to judaeo-awareness just from reading classical literature, history, and e.g. Nietzsche. But the 20th century, a/k/a the jewish century, required a skilled sherpa like K Mac to guide me through. Tanstaafl too.
@katana
"Like climbing a mountain, it is for most best done slowly but surely, while for a few it is done in leaps and bounds. We need a whole range of sites catering for beginners to the hard core. We know our enemies will attempt to sabotage all of them, so the battle continues and fingers will be pointed, sometimes correctly and others not. We have to get used to that 'fog of battle' and deal with it."
Spot on.
@sk
I agree genocide is the best word as genocide is the logical end result of PC idealogy but a lot of the brainwashed have only been brainwashed to support the process and won't have thought about the end result.
Anonymous: "a lot of the brainwashed have only been brainwashed to support the process and won't have thought about the end result"
That is one of my favorite subjects. We too are submitted to the brainwashing, and we can see how it works in our own minds. It works illogically and incoherently. The pressure will make it difficult for us to tell people against the danger of race-replacement, even though most people, deep-down, are with us. But we can use oblique ways to cheat the censorship that we have internalized. For example, a lot depends on the choice of words. And if the brainwashing prevents us from criticizing the process, we can still criticize the end result.
The leftists are more brainwashed than anyone else, and they don't care about logic. Instead of coherent opinions, all they have is nihilistic postures. They like to destroy society, but deep down, they wish society would survive their assaults so they can keep destroying it. Among the leftists, there is a phenomenon of one-upmanship whereby everyone wants more immigration. The craziest one wins the debate. But actually, most of them don't want any immigration at all, they just want to win the debate. They will say that they are in favor of more diversity, but will never say that they support race-replacement and the extinction of White people. And in fact, they don't support that. They haven't thought of what is the end result of immigration. They only support the process. So in the end, no one is suicidal, not even the leftists.
Among normal people, the pressure of propaganda makes it difficult to use some words and to be straightforward about the immigration problem. But if we ask them if they think we must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children, they will say yes.
sk - Anonymous 9:25 Yes, race-replacement sounds better than what is really intended, GENOCIDE. So lets just leave that word for little white kids to deal with when they grow up,if they can.
Your right. Genocide IS a one off event. Permanent!
sk - Im not disagreeing with you. I dont mean race replacement sounds better than genocide in the sense it sounds 'nicer' or that Im belittling whats happening.
Race replacement is the process of our genocide.
Telling someone what we are seeing is genocide just gets a response of "Well, who are all these white people then?" or "Where are all the bodies?" or "There are millions of white people in the world, wtf are you talking about?"
You get the idea.
But race replacement is an easier concept to sell and illustrate. Most people in most white countries could look back over 10 years say and notice the increase in non-whites. The process is visible.
It will end in our genocide but its like the old slow boiling frog idea. Warm it up slowly until its boiling and it wont notice.
If we shout genocide, sure some people will listen but most will just paddle around the pan saying "Whats the problem, waters is lovely in here, its not boiling, why do you say that?"
We need them to notice that no, its not boiling but to emphasize that the water is definitely getting warmer and that they can see where that process is leading.
The leftists are more brainwashed than anyone else, and they don't care about logic.
I don't see a whole lot of logic among conservatives either. How much logic is there in "counter-Jihad"? That whole scene is based around ideas that are rather obviously untrue. It's nothing but a bunch of absurdities cooked up by jews to get us to fight their wars.
Among the leftists, there is a phenomenon of one-upmanship whereby everyone wants more immigration.
Uh, really? Where can I observe this? I think immigration has very little grassroots support among any segment of White people.
I don't agree using the word genocide is premature. 1965,maybe,not now. When the water boils, the frog is dead. It's getting HOT. The attempt to destroy EVERY white country,in whole or in part, bu massive 3rd world immigration and assimilation IS GENOCIDE.
Anonymous 12:31 : "Uh, really? Where can I observe this? I think immigration has very little grassroots support among any segment of White people."
You are right. I wrote "leftists", but I really meant extreme-leftists, radical leftists, loony leftists... By the way, if you refuse to take a screen name, why not at least take a number, so we'll know if this is your first or your tenth comment on the same page?
@sk
consistent message :)
And if you really want to knock a leftist back on his heels,
when he asks "Where's the bodies?"
come back with, "That's the kind of question a Holocaust Denier asks."
Here's an open question to all: did you arrive at your own state of judeo awareness through epiphany or progression? The answer should be clarifying.
The latter for me. I came it to through Usenet. In 1998 after MacDonald's second book on Jews (SAID) came out, Matt Nuenke was spamming excerpts to various newsgroups. I read an excerpt, and my perspective changed immediately.
First, MacDonald's resolved a longstanding problem for me: how could my ethnic cousins back in Germany and Austria have done something as monumentally evil as "The Holocaust"? I realized that they started it, and they had formed a separate moral community that recognized no rights for outsiders; reciprocally, then, we owed them no rights. "The Holocaust" thus became not a matter of right and wrong but a simple matter of us and them.
Second, it explained my puzzling observations from my college years in which the (mostly Jewish) Leftists I hund out with didn't practic what they preached. The whole thing seemed to be a way of gaining political power, but none seemed personally ambitious. MacDonald's work provided a framework into which these facts fit very neatly.
I got jew awareness first mostly thru David Duke's books.
Thanks for this site.
And all the people who comment on it.
It's so great to see all intelligent White people discussing these important issues.
Post a Comment
<< Home