A terrible thing can have good consequences. It can be a clarifying moment. An obvious example is the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. The event was a human tragedy and a terrible blow to the United States militarily. It left the U.S. interests and people in the Philippines at the mercy of the Japanese armed forces. But it galvanized the country to such an extent that millions of young American men immediately enlisted in the armed forces and everyone else steeled themselves for the imminent war.
So, that’s the archetype. Now drop your sights ten levels down and observe a clarifying moment on a much smaller stage. Over the last couple of years, the left has been using the persistence of internet records to banish anyone who has ever said anything that is now politically incorrect. An example that comes to mind is the libertarian journalist Kevin Williamson who was hired and fired by the Atlantic over the course of a few hours because some left-wing trolls dug out his anti-abortion tweets and shamed the Atlantic into firing him. Of late, the right has been trying to use the same trick. Mike Cernovich produced a very large number of tweets by Hollywood director James Gunn that flippantly espoused pedophilic opinions. His employer, Disney, terminated him immediately. And most relevantly, The New York Times fired Quinn Norton, a white woman, back in February for having twitter comments that people thought were racist or anti-gay.
Now comes Sarah Jeong. She was just hired for seemingly the same job that Quinn Norton was fired from and the evidence of anti-white racism in Jeong’s Twitter feed is more than knee deep. In fact, it seems to be practically an obsession. A mountain of quotes has been circulating on this situation. The New York Times answered these criticisms by saying that Jeong was just responding in kind to racists and she will not be penalized because of it. So, it’s official. The New York times will fire white people if there is even a pretext for calling them biased but it will ignore even blatant anti-white racism by non-whites. For the average reader of this blog I don’t think any of this is a shock. Basically, it’s business as usual at “the Gray Lady.” But who it might shock are normies. They may have thought that we are all equal in front of the internet mob. They might have imagined that the New York Times would always prefer to avoid the appearance of harboring an openly racist employee. Well, if they’re paying any attention at all to the details of this case they will see that they were wrong and the New York Times didn’t. That should be a clarifying moment. The New York Times says it’s okay for a non-white journalist to openly express racial hatred against white people.
It occurs to me that the correct way to handle this is not to complain to the New York Times. They obviously don’t care. But how about their advertisers. Would for instance, a company like Disney respond to complaints from its customers by pulling ads from the New York Times? How about Walmart? Could they be persuaded to pull ads? Seems like a worthwhile thing to do. But at least it’s clear who the New York Times cares about and who it despises. Clarification noted.
Back on May 28th John Derbyshire wrote an article called “Electoral Gold for the Stupid Party—the Anti-Anti-White Vote.” The gist of the article is that the white population of the United States may finally have reached the point where being demonized by the Left will force them to vote the self interest of their racial identity rather than political affiliation. And the way it was couched was that even people who normally considered American identity as a non-racial concept would recognize that they were now being attacked for no other reason than because they were white. And that rather than allow themselves to be victimized any further they would vote their own interest.
This seems to me to be a very useful way to look at the situation. It recognizes the need for a defensive action to counter a hostile race-based ideology. And it allows people to determine who is part of the problem and who is not.
The first category are the egregious offenders. These are the people teaching our children about “white privilege” and patriarchy and anyone who uses the term cis-gender in anything other than an ironical way. These people are trying to destroy this country by any and all means possible. Examples of this group would be Antifa and that psychotic assistant professor, Melissa Click at the University of Missouri who assaulted the journalist and called for “some muscle” as she tried to remove journalists from a campus protest.
The second group is anyone who thinks these people make sense or even think they’re harmless. These people are helping or at least tolerating this dysfunction. This is a very large group and includes all of the people on the Left and also people on the right who can’t or won’t see what’s happening. This would include people like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush or any of the NeverTrumpers. These people are just as big a problem as the first group.
The third group is anyone who doesn’t fall into either one of these first two categories. By the logic of the Alt-Right it will soon include the majority of white Americans and no one else. That assumes that every other racial group will see disenfranchising white people as the best strategy to advance their own interests. But I hold out the hope that by strenuously resisting the Anti-White propaganda and labelling it as discrimination we can convince large numbers of other groups to avoid accepting these positions and eventually delegitimize them all together.
And the best way to resist this Anti-White agenda is to support Donald Trump. By his executive actions and by his judicial appointments he is bending the federal government away from the support that the Obama administration and its judicial appointments were giving to this agenda. But in addition, we must make sure that every other elected official we vote for is on our side. Whether it’s the Governor, Mayor, Town Councilman or PTA Representative. And we need to look at the companies we patronize. We should always let a company know if it is working against our interests. Complaining and even boycotting an offensive corporation is a good way to get our message out there.
One thing I’ve recently begun is to compile a list of Right-leaning (or at least non-Left leaning) businesses. I call it my “Directory of Right Wing Businesses.” Currently it’s a rudimentary effort in only a few categories but my intent is to solicit information from site visitors and other sources to make it comprehensive. In this way I would like to provide a resource for people who prefer to support people who believe in the same things they do. This will also make it less likely that they will be de-platformed by a website hosting service or a monetizing company if that company objects to their ideology. If you have any suggestions please drop by and list these companies for others to benefit from.
And finally I like the framing of the movement as a resistance to a discriminatory practice. I think it links it back to the larger issue of Anti-White practices now codefied into the US Government. I am referring to all the racial and sexual entitlement programs that actively discriminate against white people in general and straight white men in very particular. These need to be recognized as unjust and addressed along with these other egregious ideas.
The more I thought about this idea from Derbyshire’s post, the more interesting it became to me. After all, if someone like Roseanne can be fired for making a joke, why can’t public outrage be used to get some college professor or administrator fired for propagandizing our kids about “white privilege” or other such anti-white slanders. The only difference is protected status and if we get wise to ourselves we can overcome that disadvantage through sheer numbers. Think about it. If 10,000 complaints bombard the Dean’s office at a college wouldn’t that make a lovely impression on the board of Trustees and the President of the University.
But the bigger point is that Anti-Anti-White avoids the stigma of White Nationalism. You aren’t trying to organize whites as an identity group. You are fighting against an unjust practice, anti-white bias. Theoretically people of other races should be sympathetic to the cause and could be added to the movement. In reality they won’t. But that’s beside the point and in fact will be one of the advantages. It will highlight that identitarian movements are zero sum games.
Once people start to see how much of the system is rigged against them , it’s only a small step to considering how they can maximize their standing in this hierarchy. Eventually, once it’s been legitimized by public opinion it can be used by politicians to signal their sympathy with white voters. And even better, once it’s established as a point of view, it will become easy to use it to expose the crazies who talk about these things as anti-white racists. Can you imagine the pleasure of using the racism card against some white left-wing university professor? Because just because he’s white doesn’t mean he isn’t biased against white people. After all racism is an equal opportunity profession.
Yeah, I’m definitely starting to like this thing. There are still a lot of angles that need to be considered to maximize the yardage it can give us but I definitely like the idea of becoming an aggrieved minority. Next up will be working this for men and then straight people. After all, each of those is an under attack minority.