Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Wednesday, May 08, 2013

Segan and O'Hehir's Big Damning White Problems

Google Glass's White Male Problem, PCMag.com, by Sascha Segan, 1 May 2013:
Does anyone who isn't a white man have Google Glass?

This is starting to get disturbing. Since Google Glass demo units started appearing a few weeks ago, proud Google Glass users have been spewing selfies all over the Internet. And except for the hired help in Google's demo videos, every single Google Glass owner I've heard a word from appears to be a middle-aged white male, usually with some receding hairline action going on there. There's even a Tumblr devoted to the phenomenon.

This is a big problem.

I say this as a middle-aged white man with extremely little hair. Google Glass is just breaking out of the dream stage, and our society is grappling with these wearable items: what they do, how to use them, and how we shouldn't use them. People who aren't white, middle-aged males need to be part of that conversation, but I don't see that happening right now with Glass.

People from non-Western-European-descended, non-male gender and ethnic groups have different perspectives on technology and society that could help shape Google Glass and how it's used.

For Segan Whites are "disturbing", a "big problem". Why? Because he sees Whites as distinct and different from non-Whites - a fact which Segan and PC Magazine willingly acknowledge, at least so long as it serves an argument in favor of non-Whites.

One of the reasons I so love reporting on mobile technology is that it's tremendously egalitarian, and it crosses all gender, ethnic, and class lines. My peer group of mobile tech writers is whiter and maler than America as a whole, but it isn't the complete white-out we're seeing with Google Glass early adopters.

So Segan likes pretending everyone is equal and dislikes when reality confounds his fantasy. His "peer group", however White, either shares his White-abnegating attitude or is unwilling to challenge it.

Google Glass, and wearables in general can change our society. That includes everyone. Being the vanguard of a major new product category, with so many possible societal ripples, makes Glass more important than a typical game or website whose usage naturally skews to one ethnic or gender group.

If the direction of this societal change is being determined entirely by a socially homogenous group of guys (no matter how hard they try), it's going to be a less useful technology for that.

Who is "us"? Who comprises this society of "ours" that Segan thinks "we" should be so worried about? Who is this homogenous group determining the direction of societal change?

The prevailing wisdom of the current anti-White regime is that race is "entirely a social and political construct". Yet somehow Segan is able to judge who is "white" just by looking at faces.

Based on his face - as well as his name and his anti-White attitude - I think Sascha Segan is a jew. I think a large fraction of the men in the Tumblr he links look like jews. I say this as a White man who recognizes that jews are different from Whites.

Even setting aside biological differences, Segan's own line of argument suffices to make the point. Jews have a completely different perspective than Whites do. On the one hand, jews see jews as distinct from Whites, with jews as victims and Whites as their oppressors. On the other hand, Whites see jews as victims and also mistake them for "white". It's no mystery why so many Whites make this mistake. Jews constantly espouse these jewish perspectives at the same time they pathologize and demonize Whites for expressing any kind of White perspective.

In this case the difference between Whites and jews is even more glaring than usual. Segan is specifically blaming "whites" for a phenomena that is in fact even more markedly jewish. Would Segan have written an article about the disturbing big problem that too many Google Glass wearers are jews? Would PC Magazine have published it?

On Tuesday I talked about another example of this White problem meme I had recently run across. The Oscars’ old, white, male problem, Salon.com, by Andrew O'Hehir, 21 Feb 2012:

On one hand, the evidence dredged up by an extensive Los Angeles Times investigation into the membership of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is damning: The Oscars are being decided by 5,765 voting members (itself a smaller number than usually reported) who are 94 percent white.

O'Hehir is another jewish-looking, jewish-sounding anti-White critic. To him an organization being 94 percent White is not only a "problem", it's "damning". Unlike Segan, O'Hehir doesn't even try to explain why. An anti-White attitude is simply taken for granted at Salon.

Now, it’s also true that my reaction to all this diligent legwork by a team of at least seven Times reporters can be summarized with a colloquial phrase that begins with “No” and ends with “Sherlock.” No one who has paid attention to the Oscars or the Academy — or the American film industry at large — harbors any illusions about who’s running the show, or believes that Oscar voters have much in common with Americans or moviegoers at large. Indeed, the borderline-cruel caricature of a typical Oscar voter, often bandied about in private by journalists and publicists, is of a 70-something retired actor, certainly white and probably Jewish, who wears sky-blue slacks and white patent leather shoes and lives in Brentwood or Beverly Hills. That seems to be almost exactly what the Times investigation has revealed.

My emphasis.

Whereas Segan ignored jews while he was blaming Whites, O'Hehir actually calls attention to what he's doing. He conflates Whites and jews, while in the same paragraph he acknowledges that he and anyone else who's paying attention can see there's a clear distinction.

For O'Hehir, like Segan, the problem is a certain concentration of "white" faces. How many have to identify positively as White to be a problem? It doesn't matter. The problem is "white".

It’s worth noting, by the way, that the Times pointedly did not inquire into the religious or ethnic affiliations of the Academy’s white members. I can’t deny being curious about the question of how Jewish the Academy is these days, and you might be able to construct a non-offensive argument for why that’s relevant information. But it’s information that ugly people would use for ugly reasons, and you can’t blame the reporters and editors involved for not jabbing a stick into that particular hornets’ nest.

It's worth noting that O'Hehir explictly describes how different jews are from Whites. Counting and calling "whites" a problem is relevant and non-offensive. It's something O'Hehir does and Salon enables. Counting jews, on the other hand, is offensive, irrelevant and ugly. These are two totally different kinds of problem. If they look "white", "white" is the problem. Noticing jews makes them swarm and cause you problems.

One response is to say “so what,” as some people do in the Times piece. The Academy is a private membership organization, which is devoted to burnishing the image of the film industry and has never claimed to represent the public at large. It can give out awards however it wants, and people aren’t required to watch.

Once again, this only highlights the difference between jews and Whites. When someone in the jewsmedia calls out a so-called White problem they don't lose their job. Instead Whites are expected to get busy increasing diversity, which means in effect to make whatever is being criticized less White. Even a passive "so what" is regarded as confirmation of the supposed problem. It's a moot point because there isn't a White left in the jewsmedia who would even dare say "so what", never mind point out that jews aren't White.

In contrast, "so what" is a typically jewish response to a criticism like this, and it is deployed in a decidedly aggressive manner. Regarding Hollywood, for example, Ben Stein and Michael Medved expressed this attitude. Both made the same basic argument: Yes, jews run Hollywood, and if you think that's a problem then you're the problem.

Jews take this hostile attitude toward criticism specifically because they are acutely aware of and attached to their jewishness. They voice their hostility toward Whites specifically because they don't identify as White. This is a problem for Whites.

Labels: , , , , ,

white

18 Comments:

Blogger FlippityFloppity said...


Sascha Segan
Columnist and Managing Editor for PCMag Mobile, PCMag.com
iPhone: 40.749424,-73.885323 • Website
Sascha Segan tweeted...

"And here I am left on Twitter for the tribulation. I'm such a Jew."

5/09/2013 06:34:00 AM  
Blogger FlippityFloppity said...

http://www.google.com/diversity/workforce.html

No white ERG duly noted. Jewgle and jew google appear to have been taken before the 2 jews at google had time to incorporate it into the empire.

http://www.thefriedmans.net/jewgle/

there it is:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!forum/soc.culture.jewish.moderated

and

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!forum/soc.culture.white.moderated ????????

maybe i needed to capitalize?

5/09/2013 06:55:00 AM  
Blogger FlippityFloppity said...

excerpted from j-moderated google groups:

> Is it not the case that
>someone can cease to be a Jew?

No. That is not the case. He can lose the benefits of being a Jew,
but he can't stop being a Jew. If he was born a Jew or if he
converted properly to Judaism.

>We have the Orthodox claiming he is a Jew and subject to halaka.
>We have procedures for someone entering the tribe. We should
>have easier procedures for leaving it.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. We don't have any procedure, easy or hard.

Can a human stop being a human, a lion stop being a lion, a fish stop
being a fish? Nor can we Jews stop being Jews.

--

5/09/2013 07:00:00 AM  
Blogger DiverCity said...

Tanstaafl, this is brilliant:

"Counting and calling "whites" a problem is relevant and non-offensive. It's something O'Hehir does and Salon enables. Counting jews, on the other hand, is offensive, irrelevant and ugly. These are two totally different kinds of problem. If they look "white", "white" is the problem. Noticing jews makes them swarm and cause you problems."

What is it about the vast majority of whites that makes us so gullible and susceptible to these Jedi mind tricks? I suppose it's a herdish quasi-religious desire to fit in which causes most to turn off otherwise critical thinking faculties.

5/09/2013 09:37:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

What is it about the vast majority of whites that makes us so gullible and susceptible to these Jedi mind tricks?

What makes any X susceptible to infiltration/exploitation by Y? It starts and ends with an inability to discriminate X from Y.

5/09/2013 01:27:00 PM  
Blogger Porter said...

What makes any X susceptible to infiltration/exploitation by Y? It starts and ends with an inability to discriminate X from Y.

This is so fundamental that it often evades observation. And it speaks to why arab muslims seem so preternaturally immune to weaponized jewish bullshit: they understand that jews aren't them.

5/09/2013 04:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What is it about the vast majority of whites that makes us so gullible and susceptible to these Jedi mind tricks?"

As stated it's largely that Jews recognize the Jewish/White distinction but most White people don't but also White people have been their environment for 2000 years and so they're adapted to us. Their behavior is adapted to our weaknesses and the ones who weren't ethno-centric, shameless, vile, treachorous or paranoid enough to survive in that environment assimilated instead.

We're left with the end-result of that process - honed to peak hypocrisy by evolution.

5/09/2013 07:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What is it about the vast majority of whites that makes us so gullible and susceptible to these Jedi mind tricks? I suppose it's a herdish quasi-religious desire to fit in which causes most to turn off otherwise critical thinking faculties."

No, it's primarilly intra-White division and competition.

5/10/2013 07:14:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Speaking of Jedi mind tricks, here's that professional anti-White jew Sirota, at it again, Return of the anti-Muslim bigots:

“These are not the droids you’re looking for” – one reason that Obi Wan Kenobi quote is so well known and so often invoked with a wink is because it succinctly captures American politics’ most favorite bait and switch: the tactic whereby partisans deny the existence of a phenomenon that’s there for everyone to see, all so that the phenomenon can continue unabated. This Star Wars-ism, indeed, is a perfect way to understand the way Islamophobia works in America – and not because of Tatooine’s arabian aesthetic (it was filmed in Tunisia), but because the way so many seem intent on pretending anti-Muslim sentiment doesn’t exist, all to make sure it continues to flourish.

The jew-firster/Israel-firster/neocon/counterjihadis are not the droids you're looking for! What jewish lobby? That phenomenon does not exist!

Sirota argues, once again, that the real problem is sneaky dishonest Whites.

5/10/2013 09:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What question do I recall never being asked of a professional jew by a white gentile: Do jews represent the best interests of whites?

Of course they never allow that question to be asked because jews would have us believe that every descendant of Japheth has done them wrong at some point in our respective histories and are therefore always in a penitential state vis a vis them working off our "moral debt" to them. As a "criminal" "other" people we have no right to seek our own self-interest.

It is time we wrote "debt paid full" on the next existential check we write to them and any other non-white people who have adopted the sheeny's strategy.

What is the sheeny's strategy? Never allow the interaction between a jew and non-jew to be characterized as a negotiation where each side (1) has different interests and (2) has to exchange something of value. Instead. characterize every negotiation as immediately following a pogrom that naturally and always creates an existential debt pre-existing to the negotiation owed by the white gentile to the jew. The only issue in the negotiation is how onerous the terms of repayment will be.

In fact, according to them it is IMPOSSIBLE for the jews and their brown proxies ever to us owe us anything because the jews and their proxies are ALWAYS the aggrieved party when entering into a negotiation.

What is the stumbling block in overcoming this situation? Focusing on the jews and not those purporting to represent our interests who have often been bought off. We need to focus on what those who represent us say on our behalf with laser-like precision and shout down/remove anyone who admits that we "owe" the jews and their brown proxies something. If we did just this we will have made significant progress.

After that we can work on preventing situations from arising where they enter our existential supermarket as a people and as a people engage in a slip-and-fall scam, where again, we owe them a perpetual annuity as a people.

5/10/2013 11:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What makes any X susceptible to infiltration/exploitation by Y? It starts and ends with an inability to discriminate X from Y.

Lots of White people do recognize jews as a separate group. Unfortunately, they regard jews not as infiltrators but as "God's chosen people".

5/10/2013 01:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024334.html

5/10/2013 07:59:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

God's chosen people

Ys are just like Xs, only better.

This double-think gets applied not only to Y=jews, but to a point any Y who can serve as an alien/immigrant/Other proxy for jews, God or not.

5/11/2013 03:27:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

From an article about "Jewgle"

Have you ever been using Google to search for something and thought to yourself ‘man, I wish there was a more Jewish version of Google to search on’? Neither have I, but a family named the Friedmans have. So they came up with their own search engine called Jewgle.

You can search the things that matter in any Jew’s life: Web, Torah, Talmud, Jews, and Maps. Just beware, because at the end of the day, even Jewgle will nag you about calling your mother. Speaking of which, did you call your mother today? Stop searching and call your mother. Atleast, that’s Jewgle’s motto.


More Jewish than Google? How is that even possible?!

5/11/2013 12:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Axe Head said...

We already call Google "Joogle" and "Jewgle". The desire for a more Jewish Google is to hide the fact that it is already Judaized.

5/11/2013 01:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When blacks start using glass, it'll be to record flash mobbing and polar bear hunting in first person. By all means, send some demo versions to WorldStarHipHop.

5/12/2013 07:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Phoenix said...

OT take a look at this novel, Capricorn Cell, at: www.cprcll.com Definitely pro-White and doesn’t ignore Jewish complicity in the anti-White genocide.

5/16/2013 01:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

Tan: The prevailing wisdom of the current anti-White regime is that race is "entirely a social and political construct".

The Jewish discourse is that races are all the same, but that White people still need to be replaced, so as to increase diversity. According to Jews, equality doesn't mean that everyone is entitled to his own separate existence. Equality means that White people have to be replaced, while Jews and Mexicans do not have to be replaced. That is because everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.

So, the Jewish discourse doesn't make sense if we think it is based on general humanistic principles. The Jewish outlook is really anti-White. That is what makes it coherent. In other words, antiracist is a Jewish code word for anti-White. It's important not to leave out the word 'Jewish' in Bob's mantra.

Unlike Jews, many White people are really anxious of being fair and not hurting non-Whites. They are sincerely antiracist. They are not anti-White, even though they may be dishonest to themselves. Their dishonesty is that they ignore the harm done to White people. They think they adopted their antiracist positions out of high-mindedness, when in fact, they are simply conforming to pressure from the Jewish media. They are taking the path of least resistance, even though they are militant about it.

Sagan: "Does anyone who isn't a white man have Google Glass? This is starting to get disturbing."

First, the Jews were Black slave traffickers. Then, in the 20th century, they started saying that Blacks should not be prevented from succeeding in life, from getting into White schools, from getting in the White House, from being in movies... And now, Jews basically find it disturbing that White people still exist.

In the case of representation in Hollywood, Harvard, Congress, and so on, a case could be made that in all fairness, every race should be represented at the top in proportion to their share of the population at the bottom, even though Blacks are less intelligent. But we have to see this in the context of mass immigration and race replacement. Every American Senator represents 3 million people on average. Does it mean that, as White people get replaced, non-White immigrants progressively earn the right to have new non-White Senators, so that the diversity of the population will be reflected in the diversity of their representatives?

That doesn't make sense. If non-Whites complain that they are not well represented at the top, and that they cannot be adequately represented by White people, it means that they agree with us that people are not interchangeable. It means that the race-replacement policy is immoral. That is why non-White immigrants should not be better represented at the top. They should simply be expelled from western countries.

There is the same Jewish problem in France, where a state institution (CSA) is in charge of making sure that the diversity of the population in reflected in the diversity found in the media. Its chairman is the Jew Olivier Schrameck. It recently published a new study (in French) showing that there are too few non-whites in the French media. Of course, the truth is that the French media are heavily Jewish, and that the non-Whites should not be in France in the first place.

6/01/2013 05:10:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home