The Great Silencing
By • 3/4/08Everyday, the atmosphere created by the dominant “leukophobia” (or fear and loathing of the white race) of our age becomes more and more stifling. People have become so convinced of the inherent evil of whites that the barest hint of white resistance to the destruction of their culture is greeted by reflexive censorship and retaliation. The result is what I call “the great silencing.” Three recent stories make the silencing audible.
YouTube Caves in to Islam
A couple of weeks ago, I described Dutch politician Geert Wilders’ campaign against the Islamization of Holland. Wilders plans to air a film on Dutch television that demonstrates the “fascist” nature of Islam and its repression of women and homosexuals. The Dutch government is worried that the film might result in rioting and anti-Dutch sentiment in the Islamic world, but is acknowledging Wilders’ right to free expression. However, YouTube, owned by Google, has folded to Islamic pressure:
YouTube has agreed to scrub material critical of radical Islam after Pakistan’s religious police crashed the popular site in protest. Score another one for the Islamofascists.
The worldwide outage—and anti-speech outrage—occurred after Pakistani authorities ordered local Internet service providers to block access to a YouTube video they deemed “highly provocative and blasphemous.”
The offending video was a trailer for a Dutch documentary set for release next month that shows in detail how Islamic doctrine is an “inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror”…
Meantime, YouTube is giving in to its blackmailers in Pakistan by removing “highly profane and sacrilegious footage” that was offensive to Islam, including cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
“The Man Who Must Not be Middle-Named”
Meanwhile, Cincinnati talk show host Bill Cunningham is being raked over the coals by the American media and political establishment, including John McCain, for mentioning the middle name of Barack Hussein Obama at a Republican rally.
When a conservative talk show host introduced Sen. John McCain at an Ohio rally this week and referred to his possible opponent by his full name—”Barack Hussein Obama”—he highlighted a probable attack strategy, should Obama get the Democratic nomination: American xenophobia.
If the ascendancy of Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic race shows that Americans’ attitudes toward race and gender have evolved, the latest round of media images alluding—incorrectly—to an overseas Muslim upbringing for Obama will test the degree to which Americans fear foreigners in a post-Sept. 11 world. Obama is a Christian who never worshiped at a mosque and was raised in a secular household. He attends the United Church of Christ.
Though Obama may not have been reared a Muslim—Cunningham never said he was—his campaign raises the prospect that America might be ruled for the first time by a non-white. It is natural for Americans to be worried about this prospect, and remarks like Cunningham’s are an indirect expression of their legitimate fears. A rational culture would encourage whites to articulate and discuss their fears, rather than dismissing them as the product of a mental disease called “xenophobia.”
The witty nickname for Obama, “The Man Who Must Not Be Middle-Named,” comes from the excellent blog Tongue Tied.
Are whites the real aliens in America?
The bare mention of the word “wetback” in a class has caused Brandeis University to threaten Professor Donald Hindley with termination and place a monitor in his class.
In his fall 2007 course on Latin American Politics, Professor Hindley allegedly used terms that at least one student found objectionable. Brandeis has steadfastly refused—despite multiple requests—to disclose to Hindley in writing precisely what offended the complaining student(s). According to Hindley, however, he explained to his class that Mexican migrants in the United States are sometimes referred to pejoratively as “wetbacks.” After a flawed investigation, Hindley was informed by Director of Employment Jesse Simone that he was guilty of making “statements in class that were inappropriate, racial, and discriminatory,” and that he thus had violated Brandeis’s non-discrimination and harassment policy. As punishment, Provost Marty Krauss threatened Hindley with termination and placed a monitor in his classes.
The university, which has not apologized for its treatment of Hindley, is so paranoid about white racism that it must punish a professor on the mere accusation that he said something “racial” during a class. In such an atmosphere, would any professor dare to make a serious critique of the impact of Hispanic immigration on the US? If a (presumably Hispanic) student has such power to inflict these indignities on a white man, who are the real aliens in this country?
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
As Orwell observed: “At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to contradict ‘received wisdom’, but anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy can find himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing”.
The great silencing occasioned by leukophobia is an act of suppression so widespread, so effective and taken for granted, that it’s virtually impossible to oppose and protest it in the workplace, the public square, or in the mainstream media. Which, of course, is why blogs like The Inverted World are flourishing on the internet.
By on 3/5/08 at 8:49 am
Orwell also wrote in 1945,
“The old-style contemptuous attitude towards ‘natives’ has been much weakened in England, and various pseudo-scientific theories emphasising the superiority of the white race have been abandoned(7). Among the intelligentsia, colour feeling only occurs in the transposed form, that is, as a belief in the innate superiority of the coloured races. This is now increasingly common among English intellectuals, probably resulting more often from masochism and sexual frustration than from contact with the Oriental and Negro nationalist movements. Even among those who do not feel strongly on the colour question, snobbery and imitation have a powerful influence. Almost any English intellectual would be scandalised by the claim that the white races are superior to the coloured, whereas the opposite claim would seem to him unexceptionable even if he disagreed with it. Nationalistic attachment to the coloured races is usually mixed up with the belief that their sex lives are superior, and there is a large underground mythology about the sexual prowess of Negroes.”
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
“Leukophobia” is nothing new.
By on 3/5/08 at 3:01 pm
@Mac:
Thanks for the apposite quotation which I found in the description of Colour Feeling (under Transferred Nationalism) in the Orwell essay you refer to. I had not quite appreciated the long history of “leukophobia”, and had supposed it originated within the sensibility of our contemporary “intelligentsia”.
By on 3/5/08 at 4:03 pm
Since Google is in the business of providing communication services via YouTube and making money out of the process, this makes them a public service provider in my understanding. How is it then, that they can choose to deny freedom of speech to someone that they do not like? Can they not be sued for infringing the 1st Amendment rights of those whose legitimate political speech they refuse to allow? This needs to be tested very soon, I think.
It is extremely important that the Big O be called by his middle name precisely because of what it tells us about him. If my name is George (it is not), then what possible right would I have to object to being called George? In the same way, there cannot possibly be any legitimate objection to calling B. Hussein Obama by his name, Hussein? That is his name!
Regardingly Hindley, you say, “According to Hindley, however, he explained to his class that Mexican migrants in the United States are sometimes referred to pejoratively as “wetbacks.” For anyone, even an illegal mestizo alien (a wetback) to object to this is absurd. All the man did was to make a statement of fact about how a group of people are sometimes described by others. He did not endorse the term, he did not use it himself, he did not advocate that others use it. He simply talked about a usage that is a fact. I use it myself and have all my life; I grew up in South Texas where there were wetbacks that got past the Border Patrol even before the BP were made helpless.
This is reminiscent of the incident some years ago when a group of blacks got up in arms over the use of the word “niggardly,” thinking that it was a racial slur. All that they did was to expose their own profound ignorance, but that did not slow them down one bit. As I recall, a court sided with them against the user of the word, even though it was entirely correct and was no abuse of anyone.
Ah, America! What has happened??
By on 3/4/08 at 10:10 pm