Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

“The International Jew” Study Hour – Episode 10

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off  comments 

A Call for Pro-White Voices

Published on August 30, 2012 by in Blog

We would like to add one or more programs dedicated to commentary and analysis aimed at contemporary social, cultural and political trends of concern to Whites, and especially White Americans.

Subject matter would include family values and child-rearing, housing (White flight, Section 8), education (NCLB, home schooling), employment, finances (taxes, loans, investment), entertainment (music, television, films), sports and recreation (NASCAR, parks, camping), political partisanship (Tea Party, Blue Dogs, environmentalism), quasi-political movements (NRA, Oathkeepers, Preppers, Sovereign Citizens), and more.

Contact us if you are passionate about topics like this, have what it takes to get on a soapbox and speak intelligently about such topics on a regular basis, and are interested in doing so at the White network.

tanstaafl at thewhitenetwork dot com
carolyn at thewhitenetwork dot com

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 

Anti-White Identity

This installment addresses some feedback to the two previous installments, in the attempt to clarify and fill some gaps.

Also, I finish quoting and saying what I have to say about Identity Politics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

Liberalism and Identity Politics

. . .

Critics charged that the neutral citizen of liberal theory was in fact the bearer of an identity coded white, male, bourgeois, able-bodied, and heterosexual … This implicit ontology in part explained the persistent historical failure of liberal democracies to achieve anything more than token inclusion in power structures for members of marginalized groups.

A richer understanding of political subjects as constituted through and by their social location was required. In particular, the history and experience of oppression brought with it certain perspectives and needs that could not be assimilated through existing liberal structures. Individuals are oppressed by virtue of their membership in a particular social group—that is, a collective whose members have relatively little mobility into or out of the collective, who usually experience their membership as involuntary, who are generally identified as members by others [ie. biological identity, race], and whose opportunities are deeply shaped by the relation of their group to corollary groups through privilege and oppression (Cudd 2006).

Oppression, then, is the systematic limiting of opportunity or constraints on self-determination because of such membership: for example, Frantz Fanon eloquently describes the experience of being always constrained by the white gaze as a Black man: “I already knew that there were legends, stories, history, and above all historicity… I was responsible at the same time for my body, my race, for my ancestors” (Fanon 1968, 112). Conversely, members of dominant groups are privileged—systematically advantaged by the deprivations imposed on the oppressed. For example, in a widely cited article Peggy McIntosh identifies whiteness as a dominant identity, and lists 47 ways in which she is advantaged by being white compared with her colleagues of color. These range from being able to buy “flesh-colored” Band-Aids that will match her skin tone, to knowing that she can be rude without provoking negative judgments of her racial group, to being able to buy a house in a middle-class community without risking neighbors’ disapproval (1993).

Critics have also charged that assimilation (or, less provocatively, integration) is a guiding principle of liberalism. If the liberal subject is coded in the way Young (1990) suggests, then attempts to apply liberal norms of equality will risk demanding that the marginalized conform to the identities of their oppressors.

The take-away for Whites: “Identity politcs”, as such, is a jewish, cultural-marxist, anti-White construct. It is wrapped in dishonest universalist-sounding rhetoric, but is in fact defined and deployed solely in opposition to Whites. The essence of its notion of identity is victimization – with Whites portrayed, in a variety of ways, as oppressors, and non-Whites portrayed as oppressed.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 

The White Network Progress Report

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
37 Comments  comments 

The Queer Question – seen through the “crimes” of Charlie Rodgers and Johann Hari

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
34 Comments  comments 

“The International Jew” Study Hour – Episode 9

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
5 Comments  comments 

Identity Politics

In a multi-racial society all politics is identity politics, and the marxist conception of identity politics is all about serving the best interests of everyone except Whites.

From Wikipedia’s article on Identity politics:

Identity politics are political arguments that focus upon the self interest and perspectives of self-identified social interest groups and ways in which people’s politics may be shaped by aspects of their identity through race, class, religion, gender, sexual orientation or traditional dominance.

The term identity politics has been applied retroactively to varying movements that long predate its coinage. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. discussed identity politics extensively in his book The Disuniting of America. Schlesinger, a strong supporter of liberal conceptions of civil rights, argues that a liberal democracy requires a common basis for culture and society to function.

In his view, basing politics on group marginalization fractures the civil polity, and therefore works against creating real opportunities for ending marginalization. Schlesinger believes that movements for civil rights should aim toward full acceptance and integration of marginalized groups into the mainstream culture, rather than perpetuating that marginalization through affirmations of difference.

Still other critics have argued that groups based on shared identity, other than class (e.g.: religious identity or neurological wiring) [ie. the ideologic half], can divert energy and attention from more fundamental issues, such as class conflict in capitalist societies. Even those who support gay rights, ending racism or freedom of religion, for instance, may consider these side issues at best.

[Eric] Hobsbawm, in particular, has criticized nationalisms, and the principle of national self-determination adopted internationally after World War I, since national governments are often merely an expression of a ruling class or power, and their proliferation was a source of the wars of the twentieth century. Hence Hobsbawm argues that identity politics, such as queer nationalism, Islamism, Cornish nationalism or Ulster Loyalism are just other versions of bourgeois nationalism.

Eric Hobsbawm – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hobsbawm was born in 1917 in Alexandria, Egypt, to Leopold Percy Obstbaum and Nelly Grün, both Jewish, and he grew up in Vienna, Austria and Berlin, Germany.

Bourgeois nationalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bourgeois nationalism is a term from Marxist phraseology. It refers to the alleged practice by the ruling classes of deliberately dividing people by nationality, race, ethnicity, or religion, so as to distract them from possible class warfare. It is seen as a divide and conquer strategy used by the ruling classes to prevent the working class from uniting against them (hence the Marxist slogan, Workers of all countries, unite!).

Identity Politics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), from the section titled Liberalism and Identity Politics:

Critics charged that the neutral citizen of liberal theory was in fact the bearer of an identity coded white, male, bourgeois, able-bodied, and heterosexual … This implicit ontology in part explained the persistent historical failure of liberal democracies to achieve anything more than token inclusion in power structures for members of marginalized groups.

The central guiding principle behind today’s social and politcal zeitgeist is that White = bad, non-White = good. “Liberal democracies” are best characterized by the endless making of excuses for non-Whites and blaming Whites. The roots of this are in the emancipation of jews in Europe.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

How would William Pierce advise us today?

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
38 Comments  comments 

Vincent Reynouard – New Work and Censorship

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
12 Comments  comments 

“The International Jew” Study Hour – Episode 8

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 
© the White network