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.

Free Speech's Jewish Problem

Facebook’s Holocaust-Denial Hate-Speech Problem, Lloyd Grove, The Daily Beast, 18 Aug 2011 (my emphasis):

Is Facebook in denial about Holocaust denial?

For years, international organizations opposing anti-Semitism have been urging the planet’s preeminent social-networking platform to delete any content that asserts the Nazi-orchestrated extermination of 6 million Jews never took place.

And for years, officials of Facebook, boasting more than 750 million active users, have refused, insisting that mere denial of the Holocaust, however “repugnant and ignorant,” doesn’t constitute “hate speech” as defined by Facebook’s Terms of Service policy prohibiting “content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” (Which gave a huge opening to TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington, who noted that while Facebook was meticulously removing photos of breast-feeding women, it was allowing the proliferation of Holocaust-denial pages. His mordant headline: “Jew Haters Welcome At Facebook, As Long As They Aren’t Lactating.”)

Facebook’s critics—including such groups as the Anti-Defamation League and the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, which describes itself as an Israeli-led “alliance of statesmen, parliamentarians, diplomats, journalists, legal experts, NGOs and scholars”—argue that Holocaust denial is, by definition, an expression of hatred for the Jewish people.

“Holocaust denial is basically a form of classic anti-Semitism,” said Deborah Lauter, ADL’s director of civil rights and its cyber-hate response team. “It’s anti-Semitism per se because it serves as a powerful conspiracy theory that basically says the Jews have manipulated history to advance their own worldview, whether to create sympathy or world domination. In other words, we have fabricated this monstrous event in history in order to further our own hidden agenda.”

Facebook spokesman Simon Axten doesn’t see it that way.

“We find Holocaust denial to be repugnant and ignorant, just as we object to many of the other ideas expressed on Facebook,” Axten told me via email this week. “We’ve come to the conclusion that the mere statement of denying the Holocaust is not a violation of our policies. We recognize people’s right to be factually wrong about historical events.”

The controversy surrounding Facebook’s free-speech position isn’t especially new. It has been a matter of anxiety among Jewish groups at least since November 2008, when blogger and attorney Brian Cuban—the less-famous brother of Dallas Mavericks owner and Dancing With the Stars contestant Mark Cuban—sounded the alarm and prompted a spate of media attention.

But the issue bubbled up anew last month when a group of survivors of the Nazi death camps wrote to Facebook asking that the company’s broad-minded policy be reversed. It came up again on Tuesday, when Australian computer scientist Andre Oboler and Canadian lawyer David Matas, co-chairmen of the Global Forum’s Online Anti-Semitism Working Group, released a letter they sent to Facebook founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg after they attended what Oboler calls a “frustrating” video conference with an executive of Facebook’s European operations. The Facebook exec politely listened to the group’s concerns, Oboler told me from Melbourne, then reiterated the company line.

“We call on Facebook to abandon its insistence on treating Holocaust denial in a context-free manner, in which it is considered nothing more than the rejection of a historical event,” Oboler and Matas wrote to Zuckerberg. “The context makes it clear that there is no meaningful distinction between Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred against Jews … We ask that Facebook recognize Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech, issue a statement to this effect, and do its utmost to remove Holocaust denial from the Facebook platform.”

In his email, Facebook’s Axten stated that “in practice, we end up removing the vast majority of Holocaust denial content that’s reported to us because it’s explicitly hateful or threatening. Most instances of Holocaust denial on Facebook (or anywhere else) are accompanied by threats or clearly anti-Jewish statements, which run afoul of our policies. We remove these as quickly as possible when they’re reported to us, and the result is that there is actually very little of this kind of content on Facebook.”

ADL’s Lauter gives Facebook, and especially Axten, credit for “seriously engaging” on the issue, and supports his claim that the company has been responsive to reports of hate speech. She notes that she has led several workshops in Palo Alto, Calif., with key Facebook employees to alert them to the nuances of Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, and related concerns. But she disputes Axten’s assertion that there is "very little of this kind of content on Facebook.”

“We’re talking probably hundreds of thousands [of Facebook-hosted pages and postings] as a general problem,” she told me. “The metrics are hard to do. We would love it if, as part of their internal operations, Facebook would help with a system for coming up with those metrics, so we could see benchmarks—is it getting worse or better? How do you quantify the incidence of anti-Semitism? The whole flood of the Internet shows that, and you can’t even document the number of people expressing their hate thoughts.”

Oboler pointed out that Holocaust denial is codified as hate speech and thus against the law in 13 European countries, including Germany and Austria, and that Facebook manages not to violate local ordinances by blocking the various denial pages in the relevant jurisdictions. He said his colleagues, “who have been approaching Facebook with an open mind and in a spirit of cooperation to solve this problem, are becoming increasingly frustrated with Facebook’s irrational stubbornness on this issue and their attempts to blur the issue.”

The irony, of course, is that Zuckerberg and many of his employees are Jewish, and Oboler speculated that “maybe, as a result, they are bending too far in the other direction to let everybody know that they support free speech.”

Facebook’s Axten acknowledged in his email: “Many of us at Facebook have direct personal connection to the Holocaust, through parents or grandparents who were forced to flee Europe or relatives who could not escape. We believe in Facebook’s mission that giving people tools to make the world more open is the best way to combat ignorance and deception, though we recognize that others may disagree.”

The irony here is not in the good-jew/bad-jew theatrics. Despite their phony concerns about free speech the article makes clear that the "vast majority" of the content any self-righteous jew regards as repugnant, ignorant, or hateful is removed as quickly as possible. The hyperventilating and special pleading here is about removing what remains. Their jew-centric debate is about just how special the special protection for jewish sensibilities should be.

If there's any irony here it's in so many hyper-sensitive, hyper-critical jews portraying themselves as a group as the victims while they argue amongst themselves about just how far to push the victimization of those who vex them.

(Examples of the consequences of jewish hostility and the kind of criticism they don't want to hear can be found in UK Thought Criminals Sheppard and Whittle Jailed in LA.)

John Robb's Global Guerrillas

Via John Robb on Tribalism at The Occidental Quarterly I followed a link to Robb's blog Global Guerrillas where he focuses on:

Networked tribes, systems disruption, and the emerging bazaar of violence. Resilient Communities, decentralized platforms, and self-organizing futures.

Here's his About page.

I'm not sure what to make of Robb, but here's what I think so far. His analysis of globalism is broad, incisive, and critical, and comes from a technologically informed point of view outside the false dichotomy of partisan politics. He provides interesting opinions and links, though his writing is larded with jargon. Only cryptically, by reading between the lines, can he be understood to recognize the tribal jewish influence that so dominates the West's politics, finance, and media. He seems a typical deracinated White, for whom even a keen interest in tribalism and communities and opposition to globalism appears not at all motivated by an overt awareness of or sympathy for his own tribe.

His essay Containing Chaos (unfortunately no longer freely visible in it's entirety) begins:

We are now engaged in a conflict that will dictate whether we succeed or fail in the 21st century. Our adversary in this conflict is, in short, the threat posed by globalization.

and concludes (my emphasis):

Disruptions that result in societal and economic chaos occur most readily in societies where the health and vigor of a society has decayed. In other words, the social and economic system that the nation-state administers must be seen as fair and just, and it must deliver tangible results to the greatest number of people possible. Anything less than this and societal breakdown becomes extremely likely should disruption occur, since the allure of participation in oppositional groups, from black-market crime to guerrilla/terrorist groups, will outweigh outcomes available through participation in the status quo. In short, the nation-state will lose its legitimacy with large subsets of its population.

Here's an example of not delivering results: The incomes of the bottom four-fifths of Americans have fallen 10 percent, adjusted for inflation, over the last three decades, despite massive improvements in worker productivity. For an example of not being just and fair, we need not go far: Self-dealing financial elites defrauded markets and the government of trillions of dollars realized during the 2008 financial panic, and not one of them went to jail.

In order to retain legitimacy at a level that allows some freedom of action, the government must endeavor to deliver real economic progress to its constituents. That means that every policy should be slaved to increasing incomes in line with increases in worker productivity, and improving the long-term financial wealth of the greatest number. (The best way to measure the success of government efforts in this regard are increases in the median incomes of individuals.) One method of achieving this, already mentioned above, is to remove barriers to community resilience. Community resilience has the potential to substantially improve the incomes and quality of life for the greatest number by reducing end-user costs, creating jobs, and spurring massive leaps in innovation.

The greatest threat to achieving this outcome lies in the potential for parasitic interests to gain control of government function, since one of the quickest routes to illegitimacy is through the appearance of corruption. This unfortunate outcome was evident in the 2008 financial meltdown, as special interests proved capable of snaring trillions in subsidies from the public treasure for no apparent improvement in the lives of most citizens.

Robb's analysis is clouded by his conflation of both pro-globalist "self-dealing financial elite" tribalists and anti-globalist al-qaeda-like tribalists (mentioned earlier in his essay) as "parasitic interests". While Robb sees the jihadi threat clearly enough he seems unwilling or unable to confront the implications of his own analysis regarding the "parasitic interests" who control finance and drive globalism. That their fraud going unpunished implies not the potential to gain control of government function, but that they have already gained it. That this control goes unheralded and uncriticized in the mainstream media implies that the "parasitic interests" also effectively control media function.

The "parasitic interests" who illegitimately control the Eurosphere's government, finance, and media have made it clear that their most feared and detested enemies are White tribalists. For us repression and punishment are considered normal and deserved, especially in response to opposition to the "parasitic interests" whose genocidal immigration policies are swamping our homelands with hostile non-White tribalists.

UPDATE 16 July 2009: A bit more of Robb's essay Containing Chaos is available at The Occidental Quarterly Online, including this paragraph:

News in the age of the global supernetwork is often startling. It features an endless procession of crushing financial panics, unexpected food shortages, sharp commodity price spikes, brazen terrorist attacks that have shut down major cities from New York to Sao Paulo to Mumbai, and much more. These extreme events form a pattern of behavior that should serve as an alarm. They are an indication that the system we have come to rely upon, the global supernetwork that connects us to each other and all manner of goods and services is entering a period of extreme turbulence, where we careen from crisis to crisis at an increasing rate and incremental severity. At worst, it may even be an indication of a looming catastrophic failure of indeterminable duration.