the White network - Tanstaafl Archive

Who’s White? – Part 3

Published on October 16, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Map of Indo European migrations from ca. 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan model.

Continued reading from Who’s White?, by John Law at Stormfront.

If someone were to say that they were 12.5% Amerindian then, as far as we’re concerned, that’s what they are, 1/8th non-White. This is something about which we can’t compromise. You’re either White or you aren’t.

After all, on an anonymous message board, we don’t have the person-to person contact that we do in the real world. We don’t have the visual clues, the body language, the vocal expressions, the facial expressions, the overall impressions that we can get in real person-to-person meetings. In personal encounters if someone looks White, sounds White, acts White, says they’re White, then we can pretty much assume they’re White. But on an anonymous message board we don’t have those visual and auditory clues. A poster can post a picture of anybody at all and claim to be that person but unless we have met that poster in person, we don’t know who they are. On an anonymous message board all we have is what a poster writes and if he writes that he is part non-White, then that’s what he is, part non-White.

Dr. William Pierce had this to say about the matter:

Who can say that he has no non-Aryan ancestry at all in his family tree? Not I. Most people can say who their parents and grandparents are. Only a few Americans can go back as far as four generations, however. I doubt that as many as one percent of Americans can go back six generations with any degree of certainty. Jews and liberals seize this fact to confuse people with the claim that we’re all mongrels, that there is no such thing as a “pure” race, etc. — therefore, it doesn’t do any good to try to preserve the White race, because it really doesn’t exist.

I’m sure that you are not fooled by that sophistry. We must be practical. We know that there is a White race, and that it is easy to select individuals from that race who constitute a relatively “pure” sub-group. I’m not an expert on Amerindian ethnology, but I do know that the Indians consisted of many tribes which were racially distinct, ranging from essentially Caucasoid to essentially Mongoloid. So if one has Indian admixture, it depends a lot on what tribe. As a very rough rule, if a person looks White and thinks of himself as White and is the kind of person our other members wouldn’t mind their sisters marrying-and if we know that he’s no more than one-sixteenth non-White, we consider him White.

As I said, that’s a rough rule. A person may believe that one of his grandparents was an Indian, because that grandparent lived on a reservation. But the fact is that many people who consider themselves Indians today and live on reservations are more White than Indian, due to earlier racial mixture between Whites and Indians.

This type of question, about being partly non-White, is asked endlessly on Stormfront. Some posters are asking an honest question but often others are anti-Whites desperately looking for ways to show that we are all mongrels, that there is no such thing as race, that miscegenation is good and natural, that we should all just go home and let things follow their course.

They may start with an extreme claim of some minuscule admixture, say 1/64th. Then, if we reject that for being non-White they say we are fanatics and if we accept them and their claim then we have started down the fatal slippery slope. If 1/64th is okay, they will ask, then 1/32nd must be okay too since there’s little difference between 1/64th and 1/32nd. And if 1/32nd is okay then 1/16th must be fine too. And so on down the slippery slope. Their agenda is to get us on that slippery slope because that slippery slope ends with “there’s only one race, the human race.” With that, the White race is defined out of existence.

Even after these antis are refuted, they come back a few days later asking the same question as if there had been no prior resolution in the hopes that they can snag a few newcomers and to plant the seeds of doubt. This continues on ad infinitum.

Another tactic of the egalitarian crowd is to try to reduce the basis of White Nationalism to something as absurd and as superficial as skin color. Our contention is that we are a distinct and unique people with our own culture, history and destiny. We have not only the right but the moral duty to perpetuate ourselves. To do anything less would amount to racial suicide. We go to great lengths to preserve bio-diversity, the spotted owls, snail darters, mountain gorillas, etc. etc. Are White Europeans any less worthy of preservation?

Another post that appears endlessly on Stormfront is the kind that denounces various European people as not being truly White. In answer to that false accusation, the National Vanguard has stated that:

Due to the generally deplorable understanding of race, it is necessary for us to emphasize that White people are the descendants of all historically European peoples, including the Irish, Slavs, Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, as well as the Germanic, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Saxon peoples, etc., so long as there is no discernible trace of non-White admixture. National Vanguard celebrates the cultural diversity of the White race. Our beautiful languages, traditions, and cultures are a strength. We are pan-European in our views and stand unconditionally opposed to conflicts between White peoples. Outside forces often exploit one White ethnicity against another. We do not excuse anti-White hatreds or historical “scores,” and will consistently work towards reconciliation and unity in places such as the Balkans and Northern Ireland. Our watchword is no more brothers’ wars.

So, again, in response to the question, “Who’s White?” we answer:

“Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions.” And if you tell us you’re not, we will believe you.

I’m John Law and thanks for listening.

Kurgan hypothesis:

The Kurgan hypothesis (also theory or model) … postulates that the people of an archaeological “Kurgan culture” (a term grouping the Yamna, or Pit Grave, culture and its predecessors) in the Pontic steppe were the most likely speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language. The term is derived from kurgan (курган), a Turkic loanword in Russian for a tumulus or burial mound. The Kurgan model is the most widely accepted scenario of Indo-European origins.

Urheimat is a:

German compound of Ur- “primitive, original” and Heimat “home, homeland”

Old Europe (archaeology):

Old Europe is a term coined by archaeologist Marija Gimbutas to describe what she perceives as a relatively homogeneous and widespread pre-Indo-European Neolithic culture in Europe, particularly in Malta and the Balkans.

In her major work, The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe: 6500–3500 B.C. (1982), she refers to these Neolithic cultures as Old Europe. Archaeologists and ethnographers working within her framework believe that the evidence points to migrations of the peoples who spoke Indo-European languages at the beginning of the Bronze age (the Kurgan hypothesis). For this reason, Gimbutas and her associates regard the terms Neolithic Europe, Old Europe, and Pre-Indo-European as synonymous.

According to Gimbutas’ version of the Kurgan hypothesis, Old Europe was invaded and destroyed by horse-riding pastoral nomads from the Pontic-Caspian steppe (the “Kurgan culture”) who brought with them violence, patriarchy and Indo-European languages.[2] More recent proponents of the Kurgan hypothesis agree that the cultures of Old Europe spoke pre-Indo-European languages but include a less dramatic transition, with a prolonged migration of Proto-Indo-European speakers after Old Europe’s collapse because of other factors.

Marija Gimbutas:

Marija Gimbutas (Lithuanian: Marija Gimbutienė) (Vilnius, January 23, 1921 – Los Angeles, United States February 2, 1994), was a Lithuanian-American archeologist known for her research into the Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of “Old Europe”, a term she introduced, and for her Kurgan hypothesis, the current most widely accepted of the Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses among scholars. Gimbutas’s conclusions that Neolithic sites in Lithuania and across Europe pointed to long-term stable egalitarian societies with women at the center materially and spiritually earned a mixed reception by other scholars, but became a keystone of the matriarchal studies movement and the Goddess movement.

In 1956 Gimbutas introduced her Kurgan hypothesis, which combined archaeological study of the distinctive Kurgan burial mounds with linguistics to unravel some problems in the study of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) speaking peoples, whom she dubbed the “Kurgans”; namely, to account for their origin and to trace their migrations into Europe. This hypothesis, and the act of bridging the disciplines, has had a significant impact on Indo-European studies.

Gimbutas gained fame — and notoriety — with her last three books: The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1974); The Language of the Goddess (1989), which inspired an exhibition in Wiesbaden, 1993/94; and her final book, The Civilization of the Goddess (1991), which based on her documented archeological findings presented an overview of her conclusions about Neolithic cultures across Europe: housing patterns, social structure, art, religion, and the nature of literacy.

The Civilization of the Goddess articulated what Gimbutas saw as the differences between the Old European system, which she considered goddess- and woman-centered (gynocentric), and the Bronze Age Indo-European patriarchal (“androcratic”) culture which supplanted it. According to her interpretations, gynocentric (or matristic) societies were peaceful, they honored homosexuals, and they espoused economic equality.

The “androcratic”, or male-dominated, Kurgan peoples, on the other hand, invaded Europe and imposed upon its natives the hierarchical rule of male warriors.

Every human language evolved from ’single prehistoric African mother tongue’:

Every language in the world – from English to Mandarin – evolved from a prehistoric ’mother tongue’ first spoken in Africa tens of thousands of years ago, a new study reveals.

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

8 Comments

Who’s White? – Part 2

Published on October 9, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Continued reading and commentary on a brief essay by Irmin Vinson, Racial Nationalism and the Aryans.

Traditionally Greek, Latin and Sanskrit were considered the closest languages to PIE, and much of the reconstructed Aryan proto-language is based on them. Modern Lithuanian, however, is the most archaic living language, closer to the original Aryan speech than any other. There is even an IE language, Tocharian, attested in Chinese Turkestan, which indicates that Aryans must have made an appearance in the Far East, a long-standing piece of linguistic evidence which has been recently confirmed by the discovery of the physical remains of a blond-haired people in China.

Perhaps the most famous proof for the prehistoric existence of PIE is the word for king: rex in Latin, raja in Sanskrit, ri in Old Irish, along with a host of other cognates. All are obviously variants of a common word for king. Since none of the peoples speaking these various languages were in physical contact with one another during the historical period — i.e. at a time for which written records exist — comparative philologists inferred that their respective languages must have evolved from a single proto-language, which is the only way of explaining the presence of the same word for “king” among such widely dispersed peoples. The Romans clearly didn’t borrow rex from the Irish or the Indo-Aryans; each had instead inherited their own word for “king” from a common ancestral language.

Philologists can also, moreover, safely conclude that the Aryans must have had kings prior to emigrating from their original homeland in southern Russia. In fact a fairly detailed body of evidence about prehistoric Aryan political organization, marriage practices, and religious beliefs can be reconstructed on the basis of the survival of common vocabulary in the various extant Indo-European languages: They worshiped a sky-god, they traced descent through the male line, they raised cattle, they drank meed [sic, mead], they used horse-drawn chariots (which they probably invented) as weapons of war, etc. Even the red, white and blue/green that appears in so many modern flags may have an Aryan pedigree. It is likely a survival from the Aryan tripartite social division of their communities into priests (white), warriors (red), and herders and cultivators (blue/green).

Aryans, or more specifically Indo-Aryans, make their first notable appearance in history around 2000-1500 BC as invaders of Northern India. The Sanskrit Rig Veda, a collection of religious texts still revered by modern Hindus, records (often enigmatically) their gradual subjugation of the dark-skinned inhabitants, the Dasyus: e.g. “Indra [=Norse Thor, Celtic Taranis] has torn open the fortresses of the Dasyus, which in their wombs hid the black people. He created land and water for Manu [=Aryan man]”; “lower than all besides, hast thou, O Indra, cast down the Dasyus, abject tribes of Dasas”; “after slaying the Dasyus, let Indra with his white friends win land, let him win the sun and water”; “Indra subdued the Dasyu color and drove it into hiding.”

With all-outstripping chariot-wheel, O Indra,

Thou, far-famed, hast overthrown the twice ten kings …

Thou goest from fight to fight, intrepidly

Destroying castle after castle here with strength. (RV 1.53)

The Aryans were remarkably expansionist, and almost everywhere they went they conquered and subjugated the indigenous peoples, imposing their languages and (to varying degrees) their religious beliefs on the natives, and receiving in turn contributions from the peoples whom they conquered. Aryan invasions — or more accurately, a long sequence of different invasions by speakers of Indo-European languages — swept across Old Europe beginning as early as the fourth millennium BC, and over time the conquerors and the conquered melded into specific peoples with distinctive languages. Most of the contemporary inhabitants of Europe, along with their respective early national cultures, are the result of interaction between successive waves of Aryan invaders and culture of the particular White people that they conquered and with whom they later intermarried, and as a result almost all modern European languages are members of the Western branch of the IE family tree.

The birth of a European culture, however, predates the arrival of the Indo-Europeans: The cave art of Lascaux, which some have identified as the first flowering of Western man’s creative genius, was the work of Old Europeans, as were Stonehenge in the North and the Minoan Palace culture of Crete in the South. A pan-European religious symbolism had already evolved, much of which was later incorporated into IE mythologies, including various regional adaptations of the ubiquitous Old European reverence for the Mother Goddess. Many of the principal figures in Greek mythology predate the arrival of Aryans, and during the course of ancient history Old European religious beliefs and practices continually reasserted themselves.

Europe is European because the conquerors and the conquered were members the same White race, different branches on the same family tree; India is a morass of poverty because the bulk of the conquered, with whom the Indo-Aryans eventually intermarried, were non-White Veddoids. The lesson is obvious. Even today high-caste Hindus can still be identified by their Caucasian features and light skin, and the poorest and most backward parts of India are generally the darkest.

As an aside, recent genetic studies have indicated that the Basques of Aquitaine and the Pyrenees are probably the purest form of Old Europeans as they existed prior to the arrival of Indo-European invaders. They evidently emerged from the invasions of Europe unconquered, and they remained sufficiently isolated to retain their own unique, non-IE language.

What Should We Call Ourselves?

The history of the Aryans, of which the preceding is a necessarily simplifying summary, is not merely an interesting curiosity; it has important implications for how we define ourselves. A German, for example, is Aryan only insofar as the original inhabitants of ancient Germany were conquered by invaders who spoke an Indo-European language. In no significantly genetic sense can he be called a pure Aryan. Even at the time of the Indo-European invasions of Old Europe the term had lost much of its original meaning as the name of a distinct ethnic group. During their successive migrations from their homeland the Aryans had absorbed other White populations and had acquired often distinctive physiognomies, along with mutually incomprehensible (though related) languages.

Racialist writing is often contaminated by a divisive Nordicism and a quasi-mystical adoration of the Aryan, and Hitler himself often used “Aryan” and “Nordic” interchangeably. But contrary to popular belief National Socialist race theorists never claimed that Germans were Aryans nor even that the bulk of the Germanic gene pool was Aryan. They argued, rather, that Nordics were more genetically Aryan than, say, Mediterranean Italians — a much more modest claim which has the additional virtue of being true. Northern Europe was sparsely populated prior to the Indo-European migrations into it, whereas Southern Europe already had an existing civilization and a much larger population. A Nordic German or Swede can thus rightly say that he is more Aryan than a Greek or a southern Italian, but he shouldn’t bother doing it, since the distinction is by now so immaterial that it only serves to divide Whites.

For the term Aryan to have any validity in a contemporary context, it can only denote members of the European cultures that arose from the interaction of IE-speaking (“Aryan”) invaders and the White Europeans who preceded them. It cannot mean Aryans proper, since no such people, in the strict sense, have existed for at least two thousand years.

An additional difficulty with “Aryan,” even if it is used in this loose sense, is that it still excludes a fair number of people most of us would consider White. In addition to Basque, Finnish and Hungarian are also not Indo-European languages, and neither Finns nor Hungarians are descendants of a people who spoke PIE. Yet both are obviously White.

“White” is thus preferable to “Aryan” as a name for the race whose existence we must secure, but White is also imperfect. We should never fetishize minor racial differences by turning insignificant gradations in “whiteness” into a hierarchy of relative degrees of racial purity. Most Italians, Greeks, and Spaniards are members of the Mediterranean branch of our White race, and they are generally somewhat darker than Nordics. Most Ashkenazi Jews are, conversely, physically more “white” than the average Greek. Yet these “white” Jews are the principal subverters of Western civilization, whereas Greeks, Italians, and Spaniards are among its principal creators.

What we really need is some classificatory term that indicates “non-Jewish people of European descent.” Unfortunately no such term exists. “White” and “Aryan” are acceptable substitutes only if we understand their deficiencies.

Euro-American racial nationalism differs markedly from the more ethnically based nationalisms of Europe. In Europe ethnic distinctions among Whites are a valuable political tool for preserving a “Europe of nations” against the forces of capitalist globalization and Third World immigration. But on this continent we are — for good or ill, and I think for good — an amalgam of different European ethnicities, despite our undoubted Anglo-Celtic cultural and legal core. It is inevitable, though unfortunate, that under these circumstances racialists will sometimes quibble among ourselves about the exact contours of the category “White,” that is, which ethnic groups are part of us and which are not. Yet what cannot be disputed, at least by anyone who wants to be constructive about the racialist movement on this continent, is that we all must define ourselves as Euro-American or perish. Otherwise we are simply an unconnected series of disparate ethnic groups, defenseless against a consciously anti-White “rainbow coalition” that aims to bury us all.

Also, Read this before asking, “Who’s White?”, from Stormfront, which is presented as Stormfront’s official position on the question. The original audio source is cited as White Hot Radio Podcast, November 3, 2006.

Good evening, I’m John Law, Stormfront Senior Moderator and National Vanguard member.

Tonight I’d like to address the first part of the term ‘White Nationalism’ and answer the question, “Who’s White?”

It’s a fair question, a fundamental question really. Our enemies have no trouble identifying us but sometimes people who are just becoming racially aware have difficulty answering this question. It’s the kind of question that can invite hair-splitting arguments or mind-numbing technical discussion. Those things are fine in their place but what folks really need to get started on this path of White Nationalism is a simple working definition that can be readily applied to almost any situation.

So in response to the question, “Who’s White?” we answer: “Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions.”

What comprises “European?” Those areas north of the Mediterranean and west of the Urals corresponding roughly to what was formerly known as European Christendom.

Note the word “wholly” — “of wholly European descent.” Sometimes a person might volunteer that he is some small part non-White, like 1/64th or 1/128th, and then ask if we still consider him White. The answer is that if a person identifies with his non-White part so much that he is concerned about it and feels compelled to tell us about it, then we consider him to be non-White.

The key point in both opinions, and my own, is that White is shorthand for people of European descent, with jews excluded.

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

5 Comments

Who’s White? – Part 1

Published on October 2, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

This is something everyone knows. Yet many people, and especially Whites, pretend at least some of the time that they don’t know who’s White, or equivalently, what White means. Worse, some pretend they do know, but that it means nothing or isn’t important to them.

The meaning of White is significant. It has existential, transcendental value for Whites.

Based on the negative, adversarial attitudes towards Whites and Whiteness reviewed in previous podcasts we could say Whites are:

the people who aren’t supposed to identify as a group, because we’re responsible for oppressing every other group
the people who aren’t supposed to think about who we are, except to take the blame for everyone else’s problems
the people who are supposed to open our societies to everyone else, because we don’t want to be stupid/crazy/evil “racists”

Many Whites have internalized this negative view of Whiteness. But this is not satisfying. It’s not positive. It’s not healthy.

So who is White? The short answer is that White means European, people of European heritage. This begs the question: Who is European?

So a better understanding of Whiteness requires a deeper understanding of European history. But as we’ve seen, what is taught in government schools and corporate media is poisonously anti-White. What Whites need is a narrative and explanation which incorporates a racial understanding, recounted from a positive, sympathetic point of view.

I begin an exploration of this longer answer by reading a brief essay by Irmin Vinson, Racial Nationalism and the Aryans. The sub-title is, Who Were the Aryans?

The Aryans were semi-nomadic Nordic Whites, perhaps located originally on the steppes of southern Russia and Central Asia, who spoke the parent language of the various Indo-European languages.

Latin, Greek, Hittite, Sanskrit, French, German, Latvian, English, Spanish, Russian etc. are all Indo-European languages; Indo-European, or more properly Proto-Indo-European (PIE), is the lost ancestral language from which those languages ultimately derive. The “Proto” indicates that the grammar and vocabulary of this long extinct language, probably spoken up until 3000 BC, are a hypothetical reconstruction by modern philologists [philology = the study of literary texts and written records]. Just as Romance languages like Italian and Spanish derive from Latin, so Latin derives from PIE.

Indo-European philology traditionally used “Aryan” both to denote a people, understood racially or ethnically, and the language group itself (“Aryan speech”), irrespective of the race or ethnicity of the people speaking its various branches. In the wake of National Socialist Germany’s defeat, the term fell out of general scholarly use in both senses, and “Indo-European” (IE) became the preferred designation of the language group, “Indo-Europeans” of both the people who occupied the original Aryan homeland and their descendants, who gradually spread out across Europe, much of the Indian sub-continent, and parts of the Near East. Racial nationalists are not, of course, obliged to adopt the timid PC-lexicon of contemporary scholarship, but we should be aware of imprecision of “Aryan” as a racial or ethnic classification.

Arya, meaning “noble,” appears in various Indo-European languages. Its plural form (Aryas=”nobles”) was probably the name the Aryans used to describe themselves prior to their dispersal, and it may survive in Eire (Ireland) and certainly survives in Iran (Airyanam vaejo=”realm of the Aryans”). The discovery of thousands of such cognate words in widely separated languages, along with similar grammatical structures, led philologists to conclude, early in the nineteenth century, that most European languages had evolved from a common proto-language spoken millennia ago by a distinct people who gradually left their original homeland in a series of migrations, carrying their language with them.

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

2 Comments

White Flight

Published on September 25, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Whites are not simply forbidden to discriminate ourselves from others and exclude them – racial integration is imposed by genocidal anti-White governments under the disingenuous guise of increasing diversity and equality. Demonized and betrayed from above, the White masses vote with their feet. Despite the 24/7 propaganda telling us we should celebrate it, Whites are instead trying to escape the dystopia non-Whites bring.

Where Mexicans go, there is Mexico. Where Africans go, there is Africa. Likewise, where Whites go, there is Whitopia.

EEOC Home Page. What You Should Know about the EEOC and Religious and National Origin Discrimination Involving the Muslim, Sikh, Arab, Middle Eastern and South Asian Communities.

Age of Treason: The Unspeakable Blackness of Section 8 and Crime:

On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.

Betts’s office is filled with books about knocking down the projects, an effort considered by fellow housing experts to be their great contribution to the civil-rights movement. The work grew out of a long history of white resistance to blacks’ moving out of what used to be called the ghetto. During much of the 20th century, white people used bombs and mobs to keep black people out of their neighborhoods. In 1949 in Chicago, a rumor that a black family was moving onto a white block prompted a riot that grew to 10,000 people in four days. “Americans had been treating blacks seeking housing outside the ghetto not much better than … [the] cook treated the dog who sought a crust of bread,” wrote the ACLU lawyer and fair-housing advocate Alexander Polikoff in his book Waiting for Gautreaux.

Polikoff is a hero to Betts and many of her colleagues. In August 1966, he filed two related class-action suits against the Chicago Housing Authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, on behalf of a woman named Dorothy Gautreaux and other tenants. Gautreaux wanted to leave the ghetto, but the CHA offered housing only in neighborhoods just like hers. Polikoff became notorious in the Chicago suburbs; one community group, he wrote, awarded him a gold-plated pooper-scooper “to clean up all the shit” he wanted to bring into the neighborhood. A decade later, he argued the case before the Supreme Court and won. Legal scholars today often compare the case’s significance to that of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

PRRAC – Alexander Polikoff’s Gautreaux Proposal:

Some 170 years ago, Alexis de Toqueville [sic] called racial inequality “the most formidable evil threatening the future of the United States.” Toqueville went on to prophesy that the evil of racial inequality would not be resolved — indeed, that it would eventually bring America to disaster.

Ending black ghettos wouldn’t end anti-black attitudes any more than ending Jewish ghettos ended anti-semitism. But it is not easy to find anything in American society that matches the black ghetto for its poisoning effect on attitudes, values and conduct.

Sixty years ago, Gunnar Myrdal wrote: “White prejudice and discrimination keep the Negro low in standards of living, health, education, manners and morals. This, in its turn, gives support to white prejudice.”

Suppose 50,000 housing choice vouchers were made available annually, were earmarked for use by black families living in urban ghettos, and could be used only in non-ghetto locations — say, census tracts with less than 10% poverty and not minority impacted. Suppose that the vouchers were allocated to our 125 largest metropolitan areas. Suppose also that to avoid “threatening” any receiving community, no more than a specified number of families (an arbitrary number — say, ten, or a small fraction of occupied housing units) could move into any city, town or village in a year.

Polikoff and those to whom he is a hero care only to help blacks, no matter the harm done to Whites. Polikoff also misrepresents Tocqueville’s views. Tocqueville saw the racial inequality of black and White as unresolvable. He implied that the evil disaster, to use Polikoff’s terms, would be brought about by declaring blacks equal and setting them free among us.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Wikiquote, Democracy in America, Volume I (1835):

The most formidable of all the ills that threaten the future of the Union arises from the presence of a black population upon its territory; and in contemplating the cause of the present embarrassments, or the future dangers of the United States, the observer is invariably led to this as a primary fact. (Chapter XVIII)

You may set the Negro free, but you cannot make him otherwise than an alien to the European. Nor is this all we scarcely acknowledge the common features of humanity in this stranger whom slavery has brought among us. His physiognomy is to our eyes hideous, his understanding weak, his tastes low; and we are almost inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and the brutes. (Chapter XVIII)

Brown v. Board of Education, Wikipedia:

The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans.

Brown was influenced by UNESCO’s 1950 Statement, signed by a wide variety of internationally renowned scholars, titled The Race Question. Another work that the Supreme Court cited was Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944). Myrdal had been a signatory of the UNESCO declaration.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO. The Race Question, Wikipedia:

The Race Question[1] is the first of four UNESCO statements about issues of race. It was issued on 18 July 1950 following World War II and Nazi racism. The statement was an attempt to clarify what was scientifically known about race and a moral condemnation of racism.

Half of the authors are jews, including notorious jews Claude Lévi-Strauss, one of the founders of ethnology and leading theorist of cultural relativism, and anthropologist Ashley Montagu.

The constitution itself stated that “The great and terrible war that has now ended was a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races.”

Massive resistance, Wikipedia:

Massive resistance was a policy declared by U.S. Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr. of Virginia on February 24, 1956, to unite other white politicians and leaders in Virginia in a campaign of new state laws and policies to prevent public school desegregation after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1954.[1] Although most of the laws created to implement Massive Resistance were negated by state and federal courts by January 1960, some policies and effects of the campaign against integrated public schools continued in Virginia for many more years; many schools, and even an entire school system, were shut down in preference to integration.

GUIDANCE ON THE VOLUNTARY USE OF RACE TO ACHIEVE DIVERSITY AND AVOID RACIAL ISOLATION IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, U.S. Department of Justice – Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Education – Office for Civil Rights:

Conversely, where schools lack a diverse student body or are racially isolated (i.e., are composed overwhelmingly of students of one race), they may fail to provide the full panoply of benefits that K-12 schools can offer. The academic achievement of students at racially isolated schools often lags behind that of their peers at more diverse schools. Racially isolated schools often have fewer effective teachers, higher teacher turnover rates, less rigorous curricular resources (e.g., college preparatory courses), and inferior facilities and other educational resources. Reducing racial isolation in schools is also important because students who are not exposed to racial diversity in school often lack other opportunities to interact with students from different racial backgrounds.5

For all these reasons, the Departments recognize, as has a majority of Justices on the Supreme Court, the compelling interests that K-12 schools have in obtaining the benefits that flow from achieving a diverse student body and avoiding racial isolation.6 This guidance addresses the degree of flexibility that school districts have to take proactive steps, in a manner consistent with principles articulated in Supreme Court opinions, to meet these compelling interests.

White flight, Wikipedia:

White flight is a term that originated in the United States, starting in the mid-20th century, and applied to the large-scale migration of whites of various European ancestries from racially mixed urban regions to more racially homogeneous suburban or exurban regions. It was first seen as originating from fear and anxiety about increasing minority populations.

However, some historians have challenged the phrase “white flight” as a misnomer whose use should be reconsidered. In her study of Chicago’s West Side during the post-war era, historian Amanda Seligman argues that the phrase misleadingly suggests that whites immediately departed when blacks moved into the neighborhood, when in fact, many whites defended their space with violence, intimidation, or legal tactics.

America’s Booming White Enclaves, TIME, 12 Oct 2009:

Traveling some 27,000 miles, African-American journalist Rich Benjamin roamed the United States from 2007 to 2009 exploring a major demographic shift that’s attracting remarkably little attention — the flight of white residents from cities and integrated suburbs into cloistered, racially homogeneous enclaves. Tidy communities such as St. George, Utah and Coeur d’Alene, Idaho — places Benjamin calls Whitopias — have grown at triple the rate of America’s cities in recent years, raising troubling questions about the country’s multiracial cohesion. The Stanford literature Ph.D. chronicled his adventure in a new book, Searching for Whitopia: An Improbable Journey to the Heart of White America, and spoke with TIME about what he found.

Let’s start with the title of your book — what is a Whitopia, exactly? It seems to be more than just a place where a lot of white people live.

Absolutely. A Whitopia has three things. First, it has posted more than 6% population growth since 2000. The second thing is that the majority of that growth — upwards of 90% — comes from white migrants. The third thing a Whitopia has is an ineffable social charm — a pleasant look and feel.
(Read “A Brief History of the NAACP.”)

You say that many Whitopias offer a high quality of life and tend to perform well on those “Best Places to Live” lists that run in magazines. Do you think people are also drawn to these places specifically for their whiteness?

The major draw to Whitopia is that they’re safe communities with good public schools and beautiful natural resources. Those qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race in many Americans’ minds. For some people, race is a major role, and they said so to my face, but most of the Whitopians I encountered aren’t intentionally practicing racial discrimination or self-segregation.

What is the danger Whitopias pose to America as a whole?

You can call me old-fashioned, but I’m an integrationist. A democracy can’t function at its optimum unless all members are integrated as full members.

A community full of like-minded people tends to enforce their own view of the world and closes off opposing viewpoints. You can go to parties in New York City where the liberal smugness is intolerable, because they’re only hearing liberal viewpoints. On the Whitopian conservative side, it’s spinning out of control. Look at the tea-bagger movement, where people are concerned their taxes are going to be wasted on minorities and illegal immigrants. Same with the movement that says Obama is not a citizen.

You, a black man, sat in on a white separatist retreat. How did that go over?

They were curious and shocked they had found a black man on their premises. A lot of the members of the church took pains to explain to me the difference between white supremacy and white separatism. They said, “We don’t think we’re better than you, we just want to be separate from you.”

We see that tendency to divide ourselves into identity groups in places all over the world, it seems, whether it’s by race or religion or political view. Is it simply human nature, do you think?

I just reject that argument. People in Whitopia would say, “Hey Rich, birds of a feather flock together. What’s the big deal?” Our government and businesses across the country make decisions every day that perpetuate segregation. When you say homes need to be built on a one-acre lot, when you say apartment renters can’t live in your community — these concrete policies are what contribute to segregation. It’s not in our biology, and it’s not natural.

Benjamin repeats the same Big Lie put forth in The Race Question. Race is real. It’s in our biology. The urge to be around people like ourselves is perfectly natural and normal. In fact Whites act on those urges despite hostile attempts to compel us to behave otherwise. Non-Whites don’t want us to discriminate ourselves from them or exclude them because they don’t think it’s good for them. We should just reject their arguments and do what we need to do because it is best for us.

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

19 Comments

Discrimination and Exclusion

Published on September 18, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

As important as guilt and pride are, discrimination and exclusion are even more critical to group indentity and integrity. Discrimination is “who is Us?” Exclusion is the act of separating Them from Us.

The original meanings of these two words represented perfectly normal and natural concepts. In recent decades cultural marxists have assigned them negative and distinctly anti-White meanings.

Discrimination (per Dictionary.com):

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3. the power of making fine distinctions

Synonyms

3. discernment, taste, acumen, perception.

Discrimination (per Wikipedia):

Since the American Civil War the term “discrimination” generally evolved in American English usage as an understanding of prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their race, later generalized as membership in a certain socially undesirable group or social category.[2] “Discrimination” derives from Latin, where the verb discrimire’ means “to separate, to distinguish, to make a distinction”.

Within the criminal justice system in some Western countries, minorities are convicted and imprisoned disproportionately when compared with whites.[9][10] In 1998, nearly one out of three black men between the ages of 20-29 were in prison or jail, on probation or parole on any given day in the United States.[11] Native Americans make up about 2% of Canada’s population, but account for 18% of the federal prison population as of 2000.[12] According to the Australian government’s June 2006 publication of prison statistics, Aborigines make up 24% of the overall prison population in Australia.[13]

In 2004, Māori made up just 15% of the total population of New Zealand but 49.5% of prisoners. Māori were entering prison at 8 times the rate of non-Māori.[14] A quarter of the people in England’s prisons are from an ethnic minority. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that five times more black people than white people per head of population in England and Wales are imprisoned. Experts and politicians said over-representation of black men was a result of decades of racial prejudice in the criminal justice system.

Exclude (per Dictionary.com):

1. to shut or keep out; prevent the entrance of.

2. to shut out from consideration, privilege, etc.

Social exclusion (per Wikipedia):

Social exclusion relates to the alienation or disenfranchisement of certain people within a society. It is often connected to a person’s social class, educational status, relationships in childhood[5] and living standards and how these might affect access to various opportunities. It also applies to some degree to people with a disability, to minority, of all sexual orientations and gender identities (the LGBT community), to the elderly, and to youth (Youth Exclusion). Anyone who deviates in any perceived way from the norm of a population may become subject to coarse or subtle forms of social exclusion.

Today various communities continue to be marginalized from society due to the development of practices, policies and programs that “met the needs of white people and not the needs of the marginalized groups themselves” (Yee, 2005, p. 93). Yee (2005) also connects marginalization to minority communities, when describing the concept of whiteness as maintaining and enforcing dominant norms and discourse.

From Towson University Student Proposes To Start A White Student Union On Campus, CBS Baltimore, 7 September 2012:

“We had to congregate together because we weren’t allowed to congregate with whites,” Julian Carroll, a junior at the university, said. “There is a difference between a White Student Union and a Black Student Union based on the history of America.”

Richard Vatz resigned as [faculty] adviser for that [Youth for Western Civilization] group. He says that just because the name changes, the principles don’t.

“When you have a group that calls themselves the White Student Union, their only purpose is generally hostility towards those who are non-white,” Vatz, a communications professor at Towson University, said.

Right now, no application is on file with the university to start the White Student Union. If it is discriminatory, it will not be approved.

“If inclusiveness is not the plan, then it will not be recognized by the Student Government Association,” Dr. Teri Hall, vice president of Student Affairs at Towson University, said.

Teri Hall (TowsonTeri) on Twitter.

Richard Vatz – Faculty & Staff – Department of Mass Communication and Communication Studies – Towson University. Down On Vatz, Baltimore Jewish Times, 27 July 2012.

From Letter to the Editor: Support white history, culture, by Matthew Heimbach, The Towerlight, 2 September 2012:

Kevin said:

Question: I am white… like really white. As in pretty much only from Western Europe, so naturally I’d be allowed to join right? However, I’m also Jewish, so does that nullify my entrance into the organization? You mention celebrating white culture, but do you deny the monotheistic religion from whence you came? Let me know Mattybear!

Sincerely,

Someone who already knows the answer.

From Interest for White Student Union grows, The Towerlight, 5 September 2012:

To say that “If blacks can have it, whites should have it too!” is a word trick. Do not fall for it. Blackness and whiteness are not symmetrical definitions. Blackness is defined by possession of black ancestry. Whiteness, on the other hand, is defined not by possession of white ancestry, but by NON-possession of non-white ancestry.

Someone like Barack Obama, for example, who has one black parent and one white parent, would be welcome in the Black Student Union but would be unwelcome in the White Student Union. This shows that a White Student Union is, BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF WHITENESS, more racist than a Black Student Union.

(Yes, I am “anti-white”, because “whiteness” is a racist construct.)

If these people really wanted fairness, they should form a student union that welcomes anyone with ANY QUANTITY of white ancestry, regardless of what other ancestry they may have. Only then would such a student union be equivalent to a Black Student Union that welcomes anyone with ANY QUANTITY of black ancestry. Think about it.

White pride (per Wikipedia):

Philosopher David Ingram argues that “affirming ‘black pride’ is not equivalent to affirming ‘white pride,’ since the former—unlike the latter—is a defensive strategy aimed at rectifying a negative stereotype”.[10] By contrast, then, “affirmations of white pride—however thinly cloaked as affirmations of ethnic pride—serve to mask and perpetuate white privilege”.

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

4 Comments

Guilt and Pride

Published on September 11, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

George Carlin on national and ethnic pride:

I saw a slogan on a guy’s car that said “Proud to be an American” and I thought “What the fuck does that mean?”

I’ve never understood national pride. I’ve never understood ethnic pride.

I’m Irish. All four of my grandparents were Irish, and when I was a kid I would go to the St Patrick’s Day parade and they sold a button that said “Proud to be Irish”, but I knew that on Columbus day they sold the same button only it said “Proud to be Italian”, then came Black Pride, and Puerto Rican Pride. And I could never understand ethnic or national pride, because to me Pride should be reserved for something you achieve or attain on your own, not something that happens by accident of birth.

Being Irish isn’t a skill. It’s a fucking genetic accident.

You wouldn’t say I’m proud to be 5’11”. You wouldn’t be proud to have a pre-disposition for colon cancer.

. . .

If you’re happy, that’s fine. Happy to be an American. Be happy, don’t be proud. There’s too much pride as it is. Remember: Pride goeth before a fall.

Arthur Schopenhauer:

The cheapest form of pride however is national pride. For it reveals in the one thus afflicted the lack of individual qualities of which he could be proud, while he would not otherwise reach for what he shares with so many millions. He who possesses significant personal merits will rather recognise the defects of his own nation, as he has them constantly before his eyes, most clearly. But that poor blighter who has nothing in the world of which he can be proud, latches onto the last means of being proud, the nation to which he belongs to. Thus he recovers and is now in gratitude ready to defend with hands and feet all errors and follies which are its own.

Arthur Schopenhauer, from Wikipedia:

Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated by only their own basic desires, or Wille zum Leben (“Will to Live”), which directed all of mankind.[25]

For Schopenhauer, human desire was futile, illogical, directionless, and, by extension, so was all human action in the world. He wrote “Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants”.

Pride, from Wikipedia:

Pride is an inwardly directed emotion that carries two common meanings. With a negative connotation, pride refers to an inflated sense of one’s personal status or accomplishments, often used synonymously with hubris. With a positive connotation, pride refers to a satisfied sense of attachment toward one’s own or another’s choices and actions, or toward a whole group of people, and is a product of praise, independent self-reflection, or a fulfilled feeling of belonging.

Pride can also manifest itself as a high opinion of one’s nation (national pride) and ethnicity (ethnic pride).

Asian pride emerged prominently during European colonialism.[21] At one time, Europeans controlled 85% of the world’s land through colonialism, resulting in anti-Western feelings among Asian nations.[21] Today, some Asians still look upon European involvement in their affairs with suspicion.[21] In contrast, Asian empires are prominent and are proudly remembered by adherents to Asian Pride.

The slogan [Black Pride] has been used by African Americans (especially of sub-Saharan African origin) to denote a feeling of self-confidence, self-respect, celebrating one’s heritage, and being proud of one’s personal worth. Black pride as a national movement is closely linked with the developments of the American Civil Rights Movement

White pride is a slogan used primarily in the United States to agitate for a white race identity and is traditionally closely aligned with white supremacy, white separatism, and other extreme manifestations of white racism.

White pride, from Wikipedia:

White pride is a slogan indicating pride in being white. The slogan has been adopted by neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations.

White pride advocates claim that there is a cultural double standard in which only certain ethnic groups are permitted to openly express pride in their heritage, and that white pride is not inherently racist, being roughly analogous to racial positions such as Asian pride, black pride, or non-racial forms such as gay pride.

Criticism

Philosopher David Ingram argues that “affirming ‘black pride’ is not equivalent to affirming ‘white pride,’ since the former—unlike the latter—is a defensive strategy aimed at rectifying a negative stereotype”.[10] By contrast, then, “affirmations of white pride—however thinly cloaked as affirmations of ethnic pride—serve to mask and perpetuate white privilege”.

Letter to the Editor: Support white history, culture, by Matthew Heimbach, The Towerlight at Towson University, 2 September 2012. Heimbach’s conclusion:

We must protect the security of Europeans and a future for the next generation.

This was followed a few days later by Interest for White Student Union grows, at The Towerlight, 5 September 2012:

Sophomore music education major Liam Hurlbut said he believes it is unfair for white students to have their own union.

“White power movements are illegitimate,” he said. “In the history of this country, whites never lost their power. They have always run this country and oppressed all other races. Even today whites have unearned ‘privileges’ in our society. Whites must recognize and reject this privileges to atone for the evils of our ancestors.”

Guilt and pride are opposites. The more time and energy you expend feeling guilty, the less you can feel pride, and at the same time, the more pride you feel, the less inclined you will be to accept guilt. Attacking White pride, in effect, helps inflict White guilt.

Pride arising from a satisfied sense of attachment toward one’s own kind and fulfilled feeling of belonging is perfectly normal and natural, even for Whites.

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

11 Comments

White Identity, Suppressed and Repressed

Published on September 4, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Commentary on three examples of anti-Whites inveighing against Whiteness, giving substance to the identity even as they try to tear it down.

In New Book Decrying ‘Slow Death’ Of White America, Pat Buchanan Warns That Minorities Lower Test Scores, at ThinkProgress:

Shannon Corwin · Top Commenter

Whiteness as a culture and identity is a myth. It was brought about during the early days of the colonies when rich white males saw that workers were finding common struggles with minorities. They aimed to drive a wedge in order to control the population. They fed the european settlers a lie, telling them they could have some land and a voice if they helped to keep the POC population “in check”. Before all this, european nations that were predominantly white did not bond over their “whiteness”. They fought each other as Frenchman, British, Spaniards, etc. I welcome the decline of White as an identity. Be proud of your heritage. Be proud of being French, German, Irish, or whatever. But understand there is no pride in simply being “White”. The things that Buchanan are saying only serve to divide the people, not unite them. Down with the white supremacist culture of America.

Jackie Rawlings · Top Commenter

Shannon you are a smart well educated American and girl you know your history well. The Good news is people like Pat are dying out and the new generations only look at racism as history. I loved reading US history and every time I pick up a book I learn a little more. I read President Obama isn’t our first bi-racial President but the 6th one. I learned from leaders like JFK, Dr. King and first from my parents that I am an American who happens to be of color.

Susan Sontag (born Rosenblatt), Dictionary.com:

The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and Balanchine [BAL-in-sheen] ballets don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.

Fear of a Black President, by Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic:

It is often said that Obama’s presidency has given black parents the right to tell their kids with a straight face that they can do anything. This is a function not only of Obama’s election to the White House but of the way his presidency broadcasts an easy, almost mystic, blackness to the world. The Obama family represents our ideal imagining of ourselves—an ideal we so rarely see on any kind of national stage.

What black people are experiencing right now is a kind of privilege previously withheld—seeing our most sacred cultural practices and tropes validated in the world’s highest office. Throughout the whole of American history, this kind of cultural power was wielded solely by whites, and with such ubiquity that it was not even commented upon. The expansion of this cultural power beyond the private province of whites has been a tremendous advance for black America. Conversely, for those who’ve long treasured white exclusivity, the existence of a President Barack Obama is discombobulating, even terrifying. For as surely as the iconic picture of the young black boy reaching out to touch the president’s curly hair sends one message to black America, it sends another to those who have enjoyed the power of whiteness.

In such ways was the tie between citizenship and whiteness in America made plain from the very beginning. By the 19th century, there was, as Matthew Jacobson, a professor of history and American studies at Yale, has put it, “an unquestioned acceptance of whiteness as a prerequisite for naturalized citizenship.” Debating Abraham Lincoln during the race for a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 1858, Stephen Douglas asserted that “this government was made on the white basis” and that the Framers had made “no reference either to the Negro, the savage Indians, the Feejee, the Malay, or an other inferior and degraded race, when they spoke of the equality of men.”

After the Civil War, Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor as president and a unionist, scoffed at awarding the Negro the franchise:

The peculiar qualities which should characterize any people who are fit to decide upon the management of public affairs for a great state have seldom been combined. It is the glory of white men to know that they have had these qualities in sufficient measure to build upon this continent a great political fabric and to preserve its stability for more than ninety years, while in every other part of the world all similar experiments have failed. But if anything can be proved by known facts, if all reasoning upon evidence is not abandoned, it must be acknowledged that in the progress of nations Negroes have shown less capacity for government than any other race of people. No independent government of any form has ever been successful in their hands. On the contrary, wherever they have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism.

The notion of blacks as particularly unfit for political equality persisted well into the 20th century. As the nation began considering integrating its military, a young West Virginian wrote to a senator in 1944:

I am a typical American, a southerner, and 27 years of age … I am loyal to my country and know but reverence to her flag, BUT I shall never submit to fight beneath that banner with a negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throw back to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

The writer—who never joined the military, but did join the Ku Klux Klan—was Robert Byrd, who died in 2010 as the longest-serving U.S. senator in history. Byrd’s rejection of political equality was echoed in 1957 by William F. Buckley Jr., who addressed the moral disgrace of segregation by endorsing disenfranchisement strictly based on skin color:

The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

Buckley, the founder of National Review, went on to assert, “The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote and would not know for what to vote if they could.”

The idea that blacks should hold no place of consequence in the American political future has affected every sector of American society, transforming whiteness itself into a monopoly on American possibilities. White people like Byrd and Buckley were raised in a time when, by law, they were assured of never having to compete with black people for the best of anything. Blacks used inferior public pools and inferior washrooms, attended inferior schools. The nicest restaurants turned them away. In large swaths of the country, blacks paid taxes but could neither attend the best universities nor exercise the right to vote. The best jobs, the richest neighborhoods, were giant set-asides for whites—universal affirmative action, with no pretense of restitution.

That’s right. That’s how it used to be. Whites didn’t think Whiteness was stupid, crazy, or evil and instead openly and actively pursued their best interests as Whites.

Coates cites Naturalization Act of 1790, the first law regarding who could become a US citizen, The Naturalization Act of 1790, which begins:

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof

Coates’ article is an example of the niggerization of politcal discourse, whereby race-conscious blacks freely project their own racial fears and animosities onto hopelessly deracinated Whites.

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

29 Comments

A Call for Pro-White Voices

Published on August 30, 2012 by Tanstaafl 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

1 Comment

Anti-White Identity

Published on August 28, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

1 Comment

Identity Politics

Published on August 21, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

2 Comments

Page 11 of 13« First ‹ Previous 7 8 9 101112 13 Next ›

Who’s White? – Part 3

Who’s White? – Part 2

Who’s White? – Part 1

White Flight

Discrimination and Exclusion

Guilt and Pride

White Identity, Suppressed and Repressed

A Call for Pro-White Voices

Anti-White Identity

Identity Politics

Listen

Programs

Recent Broadcasts/Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Policy