from population genetics studies.
By Ian Jobling • 12/26/08
During the past few weeks, I’ve been devoting almost all my working hours to creating the new White America site, and, consequently, have not had the time and energy to write any new original articles for Inverted World. Coding a large, complicated website is tedious, finicky work. Not only am I adding a lot of new features, like a forum, but I’m also taking this chance to clean up the old Inverted World code, which forms the basis of the new site. After you’ve run a website for two years and expanded it in piecemeal fashion, it becomes such a crazy quilt of kludges and quick fixes that it becomes incomprehensible even to the person who designed it. It all needs to be sorted out and rationalized. This type of work goes fastest when you completely immerse yourself in it, so I think I had better just finish up White America rather than writing any new articles for Inverted World. I can safely say that I’ll be done with the new website in three weeks, and quite possibly sooner. During this time, I’ll continue to update the “Briefly Noted” section with news links. Of course, the controversial nature of my message adds difficulties to my work. As long-time readers of this website know, I’ve long wanted to acquire software that would enable readers to fax or e-mail Congress automatically. Such software must be leased from vendors, most of whom charge much more than I can afford. However, I did manage to locate two vendors who offered decent products at a reasonable price. Unfortunately, as soon as I told them the name of the website on which their software would be installed, they refused to have anything more to do with me. One of the vendors, whose website proudly proclaimed their non-partisan nature, sent me this e-mail after canceling my account:
Subject: terms of service violation
Hey, we do not permit use by groups organized around race.
I replied:
There’s nothing in your terms of service document that says groups organized around race can’t use your service. Your termination of my account also blatantly contradicts your claim that your company “is completely non-partisan.” You don’t know anything about my organization except that it’s called “White America,” and yet you ban it in contradiction of your stated principles. By the way, would you allow the NAACP to use your service? That’s an organization based on race.
You disappoint me.
I didn’t get any response, of course. Lots of people warned me that such things would happen if I named the website White America, and I knew they were right, but I’m still disappointed. Anyway, because of these incidents, as well as the prohibitive pricing of other vendors, I’ve decided to abandon for now my quest for an automatic way of contacting Congress, although I will take the matter up again in the future. We’ll just have to send the activism e-mails manually as before. And I’m not going to name the site anything different because White America is the right name.
We can console ourselves with the reflection that, even though life might be bad for us heretics, we are treated much better than we used to be. Today, they might deny us the use of their information technology, but they don’t force us to drink hemlock or crucify us or throw us in a dungeon until we recant.
And if you’re still feeling bad, maybe you’ll be cheered up by thinking about my new and much improved website, complete with a forum, a system for meet-ups, an activism center, and all sorts of other great stuff. So, please be patient while I download, code, and configure—I promise it will be worth the wait. And Happy New Year to you all!
By Ian Jobling • 12/14/08
In the poll asking what readers want from the planned White America Forum, the most popular answer is a means to meet like-minded people in your area. I’m happy to provide such a service, but I’m not sure of the best way to go about it. The system that seems best to me right now is to create a section in the White America Forum for discussing local issues and meeting others in your area. In this section, there would be one sub-forum for each of the fifty states. People could go into the forum for their state, talk about local issues, and arrange to meet up with each other. If communities formed in certain areas—say the Chicago or Atlanta areas—second-level sub-forums could be created for them within the appropriate state forum. Eventually, someone within a local community could take over responsibility for administering that community’s forum.
The problem with this system is that it could be exploited by hostile interlopers. Many of the people who would want to use such a meet-up system have valid concerns about concealing their identities from those who wish to harm them by exposing their involvement in the pro-white cause or in some other way. Of course, the stigma attached to the pro-white movement is outrageous and unjustified, since I’m sure none of you would get up to anything illegal or even unethical. However irrational, though, the stigma does exist, and people’s desire for privacy must be respected.
This meet-up system would, consequently, work only if communities used procedures to protect privacy. Of course, no one would have to make any information about themselves available in the forum itself, where pseudonyms can be used. Before admitting a new member, communities would do well to test his good faith through an interview, whether by phone or in a meeting with an individual screener in a public place. Communities should consider other rules to protect people’s privacy. For example, they may want to make it clear that members do not have to reveal their real names to the rest of the community.
This system is, it seems to me, open enough to allow pro-whites easy access to communities, but cautious enough to screen out most hostile interlopers, as well as neo-Nazis and other undesirables. Of course, the system is not risk free, but then nothing of value in life is. I think trying to cut down on risk further would make the meet-up process so cumbersome that no one would bother to use it.
Leave comments to tell me what you think of this system and suggest other ideas.
By Ian Jobling • 12/12/08
Since more than 20 of you voted yes for a forum in yesterday’s poll, I’ve decided to install a forum on the new White America site. Today I have a new question for you that will help me as I set the forum up: What do you most want to use the forum for? Do you want to discuss current events, scientific matters concerning race, possible activism? Or do you want the board to be a way of meeting like-minded people in your area? Or something else?
By Ian Jobling • 12/11/08
A lot of people have told me that they want forum (something like this, only dealing with race), and so I’m considering adding one on to the new White America website, which I’m hard at work on. The White America Forum would be a place where pro-white race realists could discuss issues free from anti-Semitism. I’d be happy to add a forum, but since setting it up and administering it would cost me a lot of time and some money as well, I’d like to make sure there is a real demand for it. If 20 people answer yes in the first poll below, I’ll go ahead and set up the forum. Also, a second poll asks if you would be willing to make a donation to support the costs of a forum—the best forum software costs $100 per year. Leave comments if you’ve got any ideas about this.
By Ian Jobling • 11/8/08
I’m hard at work on the new White America site and will, consequently, be publishing articles less frequently than I have in recent months. Anyway, if you want to tell us your thoughts about the Obama victory and what it portends for our country, comment on this thread. That way you’ll be providing content and giving me a break to do other things.
By Ian Jobling • 10/22/08
A discontented former Little Green Footballs fan recently discussed a purge of so-called “fascists” and “racists” at that website that began after one commenter defended my work and Lawrence Auster’s. I left a comment linking to my blog post on the incident and explaining why I’m not a fascist, hoping I might get a decent discussion of race realism going with the moderates who traffic the site. However, it was not to be: I was immediately set upon by a couple of professional anti-Semites named tanstaafl, who runs the blog Age of Treason, and Greg Polden. Due to my history of criticizing their crude, distorted worldview, such people seem to lie in wait to pounce on me wherever I turn. Tanstaafl and Polden’s comments were based on the usual Kevin MacDonald view of Jews as a conniving, “hyperethnocentric” lot working for the downfall of white Gentiles. The owner of the site dissociated himself from the discussion in disgust after reading their stuff. I responded to this pair of gremlins that MacDonald’s theory of Jewish society had recently been discredited by David I. Lieberman. Lieberman’s article is no emotional denunciation, but a review of academic studies that finds that Jews are far from the clannish, authoritarian, hypocritical monsters of MacDonald’s fancy, as I have myself argued. Indeed, Lieberman proves that the grounding principles of MacDonald’s work have no basis in the relevant scholarly literature at all. Lieberman has shown elsewhere that MacDonald distorts the meaning of the sources that he uses.
Anti-Semitism is, however, like Freudianism, an obsessive interpretative system whose proponents see all criticism directed against them as proof that they are right. Thus, for Polden, the very fact that Lieberman and I had challenged MacDonald’s theory was further evidence that it was true. If you admit that you want to kill your father, then you’ve proven the existence of the Oedipus Complex, but if you deny you want to kill him, you’ve proven the complex is so terrifyingly potent that it needs to be repressed. Anti-Semitism works according to the same sort of logic.
Indeed, the analogies between anti-Semitism and Freudianism don’t end there. Both are early 20th century ideologies that have since been so effectively discredited that they are no longer able to do serious harm. (At least, in the West. Anti-Semitism in the Islamic world is a serious matter.) However, both of them have left behind pernicious stereotypes that discredit the work of legitimate intellectuals: serious psychologists, on the one hand, are plagued by the perception that their work is ridiculous Freudian psychobabble, and race realists are all supposed to be Nazis. Both ideologies also seem to inspire a madness for typing, resulting in floods of repetitive and mind-numbing verbiage. Speaking of that, see Tanstaafl’s post about the incident on his blog. You won’t read any commentary about Lieberman’s article, but you will find out what a duplicitous, cowardly, boot-licking traitor I am.
Reasoned criticism of obsessive interpretative systems has little impact on its champions. Consequently, they must be ignored, ridiculed, even purged. Though I don’t like the Little Green Footballs purge, I’m a big fan of purges whose victims are clearly idiots. Consequently, I will continue to purge my comment queue of all dire ruminations sent in by tanstaafl and his like. I might let one or two comment every once in a while just so my readers and I can slap them around a bit. It’s a shame though that other websites let anti-Semites stink up discussion threads, as this lazy tolerance prevents serious communication from taking place.
By Ian Jobling • 10/15/08
I just came across this post at Brett Steenbarger’s stock trading blog Traderfeed. Steenbarger recently looked up bank ratings and found that there were some banks in America doing perfectly well.
There’s a story that the financial media is missing entirely, and it’s about the segment of the banking system that is working just fine. These are not the largest banks, and—for the most part—they don’t operate in the largest markets. Rather, they tend to be located in small towns that have seen neither boom nor bust in real estate markets. They did not involve themselves in subprime lending, and they did not make large real estate construction and development loans. They have never involved themselves in trading in derivatives; they take in deposits, make prudent loans, and stick to what they know best: the needs of their communities.
The places he’s talking about are in Illinois, and I think we know the racial demographics of small mid-Western towns.
There’s an America that doesn’t live by credit cards, that is grounded in community, that treats banking as a stewardship, and that makes decisions prudently and conservatively. We don’t hear about that America very much in recent media reports, but it may just hold the keys to unlock many of our current dilemmas.
It’s a terribly sad reminder of what the old America was and what it could have gone on being had we not ruined it through massive non-white immigration. It’s the new America, composed of the “improvident races,” that is at the root of this crisis. Of course, the new America now has grown so large and troublesome that we barely remember the old America exists.
By Ian Jobling • 10/14/08
The minority activist group ACORN has been receiving a lot of damaging publicity recently for its implication in voter registration scandals and the subprime mortgage debacle. Investigations into the organization’s voter registration practices are underway in 15 states, and a lawsuit has been filed in Ohio. A number of congressmen have called for the immediate cessation of all federal funds to ACORN. Today’s action alert asks you to urge your US senators and representatives to join in this effort and to do everything in their power to see that the organization is prosecuted. Your e-mails will serve not only to damage this noxious group, but also to discredit Barack Obama, who has a long history of allegiance with ACORN. Thanks for doing your part!
By Ian Jobling • 10/1/08
Over the past couple of weeks, more and more commentators have noticed the connection between the financial crisis and affirmative action lending policies—in fact, doing a search on “affirmative action lending” at Google news results in thousands of hits. Yet, despite all of the panic and finger-pointing on Capitol Hill recently, affirmative action lending has barely been mentioned. We need to get our Congressmen to give this issue the prominence that it deserves. That’s why I urge you to send the last action alert if you haven’t yet, or to send it again if you already have. I revised and beefed up the alert today and included more links on the background of the financial debacle. This is a cause in which pro-whites have popular support and which we can win.
By Ian Jobling • 9/17/08
With yet more news of bankruptcies and massive bailouts in the financial sector, it is time to pressure politicians to repeal the affirmative action lending policies that caused financial institutions to issue so many risky loans. Please send the message in today’s new action alert or one of your own composition to your US representative and senators.
By Ian Jobling • 8/13/08
John McCain, the candidate that pro-whites love to hate, recently gave me a pleasant surprise when he endorsed Ward Connerly’s ballot initiative in Arizona to end affirmative action there. The new Inverted World action alert contains a sample e-mail message that you can send to McCain congratulating him for taking this courageous stance and encouraging him to make ending affirmative action a central plank in his campaign. There is another e-mail message for conservative pundits asking them to make an issue of affirmative action so that McCain will do the right thing. Thanks for doing your part!
By Ian Jobling • 7/29/08
Today’s action alert asks you to e-mail Congress in support of the E-Verify program, which allows employers to verify the legal status of workers and has been effective in discouraging illegal immigration. Thanks for doing your part!
By Ian Jobling • 7/27/08
The British National Party has started up a television channel using an online service. You’ve never seen TV like this before! It’s a great way of getting their message across. Check it out!
By Ian Jobling • 7/15/08
Yesterday, Sen. John McCain endorsed anti-white racial hatred by speaking before National Council of La Raza. Additionally, he pledged support for illegal alien amnesty. In this week’s action alert, I’ve written two sample e-mails: one for McCain chiding him for accepting this speaking engagement, and another for conservative commentators asking them to make an issue of McCain’s pandering to far left Hispanic activists. Please send the e-mails or others of your own composition to make sure that Republicans understand that cozying up to the NCLR is not in their interests.
By Ian Jobling • 7/11/08
Kevin MacDonald’s theories about the causes and consequences of Jewish intellectual movements are one of the dogmas of racial right and paleoconservative intellectuals. As I explain in my article about his Culture of Critique, MacDonald thinks that Jews promote multiculturalist, anti-Western—in short, leukophobic—doctrines that undermine white Gentile racial pride and identity in order to weaken Gentile resistance to the Jewish pursuit of power. Jews are hypocrites in MacDonald’s view because they support Jewish nationalism while undermining Gentile nationalism. As he says, Jews “[oppose] the idea that the United States ought to be a European nation,” but “have been strong supporters of Israel as a nation of Jewish people” (Culture of Critique, p. xxxiv). While MacDonald and his followers have a strong case that Jews promote leukophobia, their accusations of hypocrisy are on shaky ground. Rather, today’s Jewish liberals are consistently hostile to both Jewish and Gentile nationalism. Jewish hostility to Gentile nationalism would thus seem to be motivated by disinterested intellectual principle than by a lust for ethnic power.
Consider Steve Sailer’s recent remarks on the VDARE blog about a nasty attack on Italian ethnic identity published by a certain Michael Kimmelman in the New York Times. Kimmelman sneered at how drearily Italian Italy remained with its “all-white, all-native, monoethnic” TV programs and bigoted preference for spaghetti over falafel and curry. Sailer casually commented, “Do you ever get the impression that Kevin MacDonald has secretly bought a controlling interest in the New York Times and is rewriting its articles to make them prove his theories correct?”
That Sailer felt no need to justify his dig at American Jews demonstrates the dogmatic acceptance of MacDonald’s theories among the paleoconservative, racial right community that VDARE caters to.
It’s lucky for Sailer that he didn’t have to substantiate his accusation, as I don’t think he would have been able to. I don’t dispute that the Times is dominated by Jewish liberals, and I myself have taken Jewish Times columnists like Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, and Roger Cohen to task for their leukophobia. However, when Sailer asserts that the Times proves MacDonald correct, he is also accusing Jewish liberals of hypocritically promoting Jewish nationalism while undermining that of Gentiles. That claim falls flat, however.
If Sailer were right, you would expect pro-Israeli groups like CAMERA and Honest Reporting to love the Times. However, that is far from the case. Both groups are indignant over the paper’s anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian bias, and they marshal more than enough evidence to convince reasonable people of their case. It would seem, then, that the Jewish liberals who dominate the Times are just as reflexively critical of Jewish as of Gentile nationalism.
The Times publishes discredited Palestinian propaganda that weakens Israel and demonizes it for defending itself against aggression. For example, a recent editorial by the Lebanese writer and former PLO member Elias Khoury falsely implies Israel was the aggressor in its 1948 War of Independence when, in fact, the Israelis were defending themselves against Arab attack.
Khoury also asserts, as though it were an established truth, the discredited lie that Jews conducted a premeditated campaign of “comprehensive ethnic cleansing” against Palestinians during that war. As CAMERA says in its reply to Khoury, historical research has demonstrated that the Israeli government never had any plan to expel Palestinians and made no efforts to do so during the 1948 war.
Had the Arabs not chosen to launch a war of aggression against the nascent State of Israel, had they not attempted to erase the Jewish presence through violence, had they accepted the UN Partition Resolution calling for two states existing side-by-side, and had Arab leaders not urged their constituents to leave their homes until such time as they succeeded in obliterating the Jewish state, there would have been no Palestinian displacement and no Palestinian refugees.
Khoury goes on to blame the Israeli wall of separation and checkpoints for making Palestinians’ lives a “hell on earth.” Khoury makes no mention of the history of Palestinian terrorism that made such security measures necessary, nor does he give the Israelis credit for having tried to come to a reasonable compromise with the Palestinians.
The Times has also given credence to the bogus claim that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a legally sanctioned “right of return” to Israel. If granted, this return would swamp Israel with millions of hostile refugees and threaten the state’s Jewish character. The Times, then, condones demographic suicide for Israelis as well as white Americans.
Jewish journalists at the Times show the same anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian bias. Take Steven Erlanger, until recently the Jerusalem bureau chief for the Times. The conservative blog TimesWatch takes Erlanger to task for casting Islamic terrorist organizations in a sympathetic light. The journalist has:
talked of PLO terrorist leader Yasir Arafat’s “heroic history” in January 2005 and has issued sympathetic profiles of Palestinian terror bombers. Erlanger once opened a story by referring to Hamas as “the Islamic group that combines philanthropy and militancy.”
CAMERA has collected its many complaints about Erlanger here.
In sum, far from proving MacDonald correct, Times articles undermine his theory of Jewish hypocrisy. The paleoconservative cliche that Jewish liberals are guilty of a double standard in their views of Gentile and Jewish nationalism seems to be without foundation. A much better explanation of Jewish leukophobia is diversity snobbery, which afflicts both Jews and Gentiles alike.
It’s likely that many of the other claims made by MacDonald and his followers would prove just as threadbare if submitted to careful scrutiny. The more I think about MacDonald’s ideas, the more I suspect that they are paranoid fantasy rather than useful social science.
By Ian Jobling • 7/8/08
I’ve decided that my resolution to publish at least one blog entry every weekday, which I’ve been fairly faithful to since January, was probably a bad idea. On rereading them, I’ve found too many of my daily blurbs show signs of haste and do not achieve the precision and trenchancy that I aspire to in my writings. Also, the energy I’ve had to put into daily commentary has delayed my composition of full-length articles. So I’m going to slow down and see how that works out. My tentative project is to publish at least one weekly column of around 1,000 words every Friday and an action alert most weeks. I may or may not publish other brief items as well. I’ll have to change the name of the blog from “The Daily Realist” to something else. Any suggestions?
There is certainly no lack of daily commentary from a race realist, pro-white perspective on the web these days. Check out the sites in the links section in the right sidebar of the home page.
By Ian Jobling • 7/3/08
A standard canard of race deniers is to cast scorn on the idea that biological races can be defined genetically. You will often hear the chattering class assert that racial differences are only skin deep and that commonsensical racial classifications, such as black, white, Asian, and so forth, do not designate meaningful genetic groups. As Kenan Malik said in a recent article in the Times (London):
Race has no scientific meaning because there is no such thing as a “natural” human population. Migration, intermarriage, war and conquest, forced assimilation, voluntary embrace of new or multiple identities (whether religious, cultural, national, ethnic or racial), social rules for defining populations such as the “one-drop rule” in America—these and many social other factors ensure that there are no such things as fixed natural populations.
Malik’s statement, however, is politically correct disinformation that has been refuted by geneticists. A substantial body of research has demonstrated that human beings are divided into genetically different population groups that correspond to commonsensical racial classifications.
|
| Neil Risch’s chart of genetic clusters derived from population genetics studies. |
In a 2002 article, Stanford genetics professor Neil Risch and his colleagues provided dozens of examples of population genetics studies that have affirmed the validity of commonsensical racial classifications. Risch concludes that the racial taxonomy in the chart to the right, which is taken from the article, best describes the overall clustering of human genetic differences: “Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry—namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.”
Risch acknowledges Malik’s point that in places races are mixed and difficult to categorize. However, this fact should not blind us to the fact that the overwhelming majority of humans can be classified straightforwardly as one racial group or another. The mere fact that categories have fuzzy boundaries does not invalidate them.
Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level.
Risch also responds to the point that racial differences are only skin deep. He points out that none of the population genetic studies he cites as evidence for racial differences examined genes related to skin pigment. However one dices and slices the genome, no matter what criteria one chooses, the same racial differences always emerge:
none of the population genetic studies cited above…used skin pigment of the study subjects, or genetic loci related to skin pigment, as predictive variables. Yet the various racial groups were easily distinguishable on the basis of even a modest number of random genetic markers; furthermore, categorization is extremely resistant to variation according to the type of markers used (for example, RFLPs, microsatellites or SNPs).
Risch concludes that the “race-neutral” approach to medicine recommended by many pious academics would hinder our efforts to fight disease as racial classifications are an effective label of medically relevant genetic differences. Contra Malik then, race is essential to scientific research, not an irrelevant distraction.
Three years later, Risch provided a powerful demonstration of his thesis—a summary of the research is here; the journal article is here. Risch and his colleagues collected DNA samples as well as self-reported racial designations from 3,600 subjects in the US and Taiwan, who were white, black, Asian, and Hispanic. Without having looked at the racial designations, the researchers collected information about 326 DNA regions that vary among people and fed it to a computer program designed to come up with DNA groupings. The computer came up with four major groups, which, in all but five cases, corresponded to the subjects’ racial designations: there was one computer grouping for whites, another for Asians, and others for blacks and Hispanics. As Risch concluded, “This shows that people’s self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background.”
Bottom line: race is real, despite the disinformation put about by newspaper charlatans. Deal with it!
By Ian Jobling • 7/2/08
As the Dow plummets to new lows as a result of the mortgage crisis, I thought it was a good time to write on this issue to the Senate, which is currently considering a bailout bill for banks that made bad loans. The e-mail in my new action alert urges Senators to acknowledge and repudiate the affirmative action housing policies that led banks to issue so many irresponsible loans.
By Ian Jobling • 7/1/08
A number of articles on The Inverted World have argued that leukophobia, or fear and loathing of whites, is the class ideology of the highly-educated professionals, whom I call the “destructive class.” Today’s NYT column by David Brooks on financial support for Barack Obama is further evidence for this thesis. Obama has a massive lead over McCain in all employment sectors requiring advanced degrees:
As in other recent campaigns, lawyers account for the biggest chunk of Democratic donations. They have donated about $18 million to Obama, compared with about $5 million to John McCain, according to data released on June 2 and available at OpenSecrets.org.
People who work at securities and investment companies have given Obama about $8 million, compared with $4.5 for McCain. People who work in communications and electronics have given Obama about $10 million, compared with $2 million for McCain. Professors and other people who work in education have given Obama roughly $7 million, compared with $700,000 for McCain.
Real estate professionals have given Obama $5 million, compared with $4 million for McCain. Medical professionals have given Obama $7 million, compared with $3 million for McCain. Commercial bankers have given Obama $1.6 million, compared with $1.2 million for McCain. Hedge fund and private equity managers have given Obama about $1.6 million, compared with $850,000 for McCain.
I would quibble with Brooks on one point. He says:
Political analysts now notice a gap between professionals and managers. Professionals, like lawyers and media types, tend to vote and give Democratic. Corporate managers tend to vote and give Republican.
My examination of survey data in Class and Racial Liberalism shows that, although business managers and executives were more conservative than professionals in the 1970s and 80s, there is little difference in their political perspectives now. I have found no statistics on the OpenSecrets website that contradict my view. Brooks’ words are rooted in an antiquated vision of American class politics.
Since we’re on the subject, I’ll return to a favorite talking point of mine. The data make clear that today’s leukophobia is due much more to class conflict than to ethnic conflict between Gentiles and Jews. I’ll quote from the Class and Racial Liberalism article:
The majority of the racial right is under the impression that Jews are primarily responsible for the reign of racial liberalism [or leukophobia] in America. This theory has been strengthened by Kevin MacDonald’s book on Jewish influence in America, The Culture of Critique.
It is certainly true that Jews are more racially liberal than white non-Jews. In 2004, 90 percent of Jews agreed that immigration benefited America against only 53 percent of white Protestants and 49 percent of white Catholics.
However, because they make up such a small share of the population, Jews are also only a tiny minority of racial liberals. In fact, only five percent of whites who believe immigration is beneficial are Jews, and four percent of those who said it was very important that the government should protect the rights of minorities.
By contrast, 15 percent of white racial liberals had a graduate degree and 18 percent earned more than $110,000 per year. This fact suggests that the wealthy and educated play a greater role in promoting racial liberalism than Jews do.
Jews have been sparse among the ranks of racial liberals ever since the GSS began. In 1972, the survey’s first year, for example, only 7.5 percent of whites who supported busing were Jewish. Though Jews are disproportionately liberal, then, it is absurd to hold them responsible for the prevalence of racial liberalism.
By Ian Jobling • 6/26/08
I won’t be able to post today due to a power outage at my home. Also, I will be out of town from tomorrow morning until Monday evening and will resume posting on Tuesday. I may or may not be able to moderate comments while I’m away. Next week, I will post a new full-length article and an action alert.
By Ian Jobling • 6/25/08
In the past couple of weeks, I’ve started writing about negative stereotypes of whites, which are a major component of the leukophobia, or hostility to whites, that dominates our culture. In posts on the Matrix movies and an alternative rock song called “Don’t Call Me White,” I’ve shown that one stereotype about whites is that we are natural fascists, repressive, violent, secretive, and conspiratorial. Especially revealing of stereotypes about whites are racial hate hoaxes, such as the Duke rape and Jena 6 cases, in which false accusations about whites committing acts of racial hatred gain widespread credence. The hoaxes are believed because people leap to conclusions, and it is stereotypes that cause them to do so. The Duke rape case reveals two stereotypes about whites that are particularly entrenched in the mind of our journalistic and academic elites: that whites harbor violent hatred of minorities in their hearts and that whites are privileged. In case any of you don’t remember, the Duke lacrosse players were pilloried in the press and by Duke professors before there was any indictment in the case or any reason to take seriously black stripper and prostitute Crystal Mangum’s accusations that the players had raped her. In Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Case, Stuart Taylor, Jr. and K. C. Johnson give many examples of this rush to judgment. Nancy Grace, host of her own CNN show, for example, “took special joy in excoriating the lacrosse players, cheering on guests who did the same, and hectoring those who dared to suggest the possibility of innocence.”1
In fact, many journalists admitted that stereotypes had caused them to leap to conclusions. Sharon Swanson of the Raleigh, NC based News & Observer said:
When this case first made national news, I was viewing the scenario through the prism of white liberal guilt. I felt somehow responsible that young black women were still being exploited by affluent young men in the South. I stereotyped the entire Duke lacrosse team.2
What then are the stereotypes about whites that caused the rush to judgment? The first is that white people cherish a violent hatred for minorities in their hearts. Indeed, William Chafe, former dean of the Duke faculty, compared the case to the Emmett Till murder, a real hate crime against a black man that took place more than fifty years earlier.3 If you believe the emotions that motivated the murderers of Emmett Till are still common among whites, then it is natural that you would believe Mangum’s claims.
The case appealed to another stereotype about whites as well: that we are privileged. In fact, Duke faculty and news commentary on the case implied, completely without evidence, that whites secretly commit a rash of crimes against non-whites that is covered up by the fascist, pro-white establishment. Thus, Prof. Houston A. Baker said in a public letter to Duke administrators that the lacrosse players were the beneficiaries of a “culture of silence that seeks to protect white, male athletic violence.” The players were “white, violent, drunken men… veritably given license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech.” Their crimes were “safe under the cover of silent whiteness.”4
Although they were was more subtle, the newspapers picked up on this theme. The players’ privileged status was a constant theme of newspaper commentary, and they peppered their articles with sentiments like the one conveyed by this quotation from a Duke student: “Is this going to be a team of rich white men who get away with assaulting a black woman?”5
Of course, neither of these stereotypes is true. According to a Pew Research Center poll, only eight percent of whites have unfavorable view of blacks. Blacks are more likely to be unfavorable to whites than the other way around. Moreover, whites can scarcely be called privileged when people are so eager to believe evil of us. Affirmative action has made blacks and other minorities the real privileged class in America.
So some of the most common stereotypes about whites are that we are fascists, that we hate non-whites, and that we are privileged. Discrediting these stereotypes is a key component of pro-white activism.
By Ian Jobling • 6/24/08
Sometimes I come across stories that would be diminished by the addition of commentary. Here are two examples:
By Ian Jobling • 6/23/08
The Atlantic just published a superb article by Hanna Rosin about how 1990s efforts to move public housing recipients out of the inner city have resulted in an explosion of crime in neighborhoods to which former ghetto dwellers relocated in large numbers. During the Clinton administration, many cities tore down old crime-infested projects and gave their residents “Section 8” housing vouchers that they could use where they wished. Also, cities built spiffy new projects away from the inner city. The end result of these policies may be a massive increase in crime, rather than the decrease liberals hoped for, however. The new discovery about crime patterns is substantially owing to a collaboration between crime expert Richard Janikowski and his wife, Phyllis Betts, an expert in public housing. The two examined patterns of crime in Memphis.
Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Betts’s map of Section8 rentals… 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.
The new suburban housing projects do not seem to have cured public housing recipients of their old ways. Rosin interviewed Leslie Shaw, a black woman “11 years crack free,” who left her old inner-city project, Dixie Homes, after it was demolished in 1997 and moved to a suburban project called Springdale Creek. Shaw had been delighted to hear that the new project was a gated community and hoped her standard of living would improve there.
But slowly, she told me, Springdale Creek has started to feel less like a suburban paradise and more like Dixie Homes. Neighborhood boys often kick open the gate or break the keypad. Many nights they just randomly press phone numbers until someone lets them in. The gate’s main use seems to be as a sort of low-thrills ride for younger kids whose parents aren’t paying attention. They hang from the gate as it slides open; a few have gotten their fingers caught and had to be taken to the emergency room.
When Shaw recounts all the bad things that have happened at Springdale Creek, she does it matter-of-factly (even as a grandma, she says, “I can jump those boys if I have to”). Car thefts were common at first—Shaw’s neighbor Laura Evans is one of about 10 victims in the past two years. Thieves have relieved the apartment management company of some of its computers, extra refrigerators, and spare stoves. A few Dixie boys—sons of one of Shaw’s friends—were suspected of breaking the windows in vacant apartments. Last year, somebody hit a pregnant woman in the head with a brick. In the summer, a neighborhood kid chased his girlfriend’s car, shooting at her as she drove toward the gate; the cops, who are called in regularly for one reason or another, collected the spent shells on the grass. “You know, you move from one place to another and you bring the element with you,” said Evans, who stopped by Shaw’s apartment while I was there. “You got some trying to make it just like the projects.”
Memphis is not unique in this respect. University of Louisville criminologist Geetha Suresh has noticed the same pattern:
In her research, Suresh noticed a recurring pattern, one that emerged first in the late 1990s, then again around 2002. A particularly violent neighborhood would suddenly go cold, and crime would heat up in several new neighborhoods. In each case, Suresh has now confirmed, the first hot spots were the neighborhoods around huge housing projects, and the later ones were places where people had moved when the projects were torn down. From that, she drew the obvious conclusion: “Crime is going along with them.” Except for being hand-drawn, Suresh’s map matching housing patterns with crime looks exactly like Janikowski and Betts’s.
The exportation of public housing recipients has actually led to increases in crime in some cities because local police departments, used to low crime, are unprepared to deal with the influx of ghetto dwellers:
Much research has been done on the spread of gangs into the suburbs. Jeff Rojek, a criminologist at the University of South Carolina, issued a report in 2006 showing that serious gang activity had spread to eight suburban counties around the state, including Florence County, home to the city of Florence, which was ranked the most violent place in America the year after Memphis was. In his fieldwork, he said, the police complained of “migrant gangs” from the housing projects, and many departments seemed wholly unprepared to respond.
Moreover, spreading out welfare recipients results in an increase in the number of neighborhoods susceptible to serious social disorder:
Since 1990, the number of Americans living in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty—meaning that at least 40 percent of households are below the federal poverty level—has declined by 24 percent. But this doesn’t tell the whole story. Recently, the housing expert George Galster, of Wayne State University, analyzed the shifts in urban poverty and published his results in a paper called “A Cautionary Tale.” While fewer Americans live in high-poverty neighborhoods, increasing numbers now live in places with “moderate” poverty rates, meaning rates of 20 to 40 percent. This pattern is not necessarily better, either for poor people trying to break away from bad neighborhoods or for cities, Galster explains. His paper compares two scenarios: a city split into high-poverty and low-poverty areas, and a city dominated by median-poverty ones. The latter arrangement is likely to produce more bad neighborhoods and more total crime, he concludes, based on a computer model of how social dysfunction spreads.
Consequently, many previously peaceful cities are now experiencing unprecedented crime waves. Some crime experts see this phenomenon as the front of a “gathering storm.”
Lately, though, a new and unexpected pattern has emerged, taking criminologists by surprise. While crime rates in large cities stayed flat, homicide rates in many midsize cities (with populations of between 500,000 and 1 million) began increasing, sometimes by as much as 20percent a year. In 2006, the Police Executive Research Forum, a national police group surveying cities from coast to coast, concluded in a report called “A Gathering Storm” that this might represent “the front end … of an epidemic of violence not seen for years.” The leaders of the group, which is made up of police chiefs and sheriffs, theorized about what might be spurring the latest crime wave: the spread of gangs, the masses of offenders coming out of prison, methamphetamines. But mostly they puzzled over the bleak new landscape. According to FBI data, America’s most dangerous spots are now places where Martin Scorsese would never think of staging a shoot-out—Florence, South Carolina; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Reading, Pennsylvania; Orlando, Florida; Memphis, Tennessee.
My sympathies go out to all readers in these new crime hotspots, which are getting a painful lesson in racial reality.
By Ian Jobling • 6/20/08
A few days ago, I wrote that the word “white” has become a term of insult. A song by NOFX, a popular alternative rock band, called “Don’t Call Me White” allows me to expand on this point. (The lyrics and a YouTube video of a performance follow.) The singer, who is white, finds this racial designation intolerable, and explains his feelings in the song. According to the song, calling someone “white” is to accuse him of being part of a “conspiracy,” evoking black conspiracy theories about whites creating AIDS to kill off blacks and planting drugs in black neighborhoods.
The singer claims it is unjust to call him white because the term:
Represents everything I hate:
The soap shoved in your mouth to cleanse the mind
The vast majority of sheep
A buttoned collar, starched and bleached
Constricting veins, the blood flow to the brain slows
They’re so fuckin’ ordinary white
According to the song then, just as in the Matrix movies, the word “white” implies that one is a member of a conformist, fascist establishment that darkly conspires against the rest of the world.
People who think I’m hypersensitive may point out that other races engage in self-mockery, too. The difference is, though, that the term “white” has no positive connotations to balance out the negative ones. Being “black” may mean that you are irresponsible and even criminally inclined, but the term also has the connotations of spontaneity and courageous rebellion against the established “white” order.
Besides, the tone of the song isn’t humorous, but bitter. The singer clearly regards being called “white” as a deadly accusation, filled with “malice” and “spite.”
The negative connotations attaching to the term “white” automatically discredits anyone who speaks in their name. The word must be detoxified before anyone will listen to us.
Don’t Call Me White, by NOFX
Don’t call me white, Don’t call me white
Don’t call me white, Don’t call me whiteThe connotations wearing my nerves thin
Could it be semantics generating the mess we’re in?
I understand that language breeds stereotype
But what’s the explanation for the malice, for the spite?Don’t call me white, Don’t call me white
Don’t call me white, Don’t call me whiteI wasn’t brought here, I was born
Circumsized, categorized, allegiance sworn,
Does this mean I have to take such shit
For being fairskinned? No!
I ain’t a part of no conspiracy,
I’m just you’re average Joe.Don’t call me white, Don’t call me white
Don’t call me white, Don’t call me whiteRepresents everything I hate,
The soap shoved in your mouth to cleanse the mind
The vast majority of sheep
A buttoned collar, starched and bleached
Constricting veins, the blood flow to the brain slows
They’re so fuckin’ ordinary whiteDon’t call me white, Don’t call me white
Don’t call me white, Don’t call me whiteWe’re better off this way
Say what you’re gonna say
So go ahead and label me
An asshole cause I can
Accept responsibility, for what I’ve done
But not for who I amDon’t call me white, Don’t call me white
Don’t call me white, Don’t call me white
Don’t call me white, Don’t call me white
By Ian Jobling • 6/19/08
Today’s action alert asks readers protest the Tucson Unified School District’s appalling promotion of anti-white racial hatred, as detailed here. Thanks for doing your part!
By Ian Jobling • 6/18/08
According to Tom Horne, Arizona’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD) “Raza Studies” department is teaching students that the United States is a racist state, that Hispanic students should rebel against white rule, and that Mexican activists who threaten to kill whites are heroes. As Superintendent Horne says in a letter requesting that the citizens of Tucson abolish the program:
As I will describe, the evidence is overwhelming that ethnic studies in the Tucson Unified School District teaches a kind of destructive ethnic chauvinism that the citizens of Tucson should no longer tolerate.
The very name “Raza” is translated as “the race.” On the TUSD website, it says the basic text for this program is “the pedagogy of oppression.” Most of these students’ parents and grandparents came to this country, legally, because this is the land of opportunity. They trust the public schools with their children. Those students should be taught that this is the land of opportunity, and that if they work hard they can achieve their goals. They should not be taught that they are oppressed.
One of the textbooks is Occupied America (5th ed.). One of the leaders it talks about is described as follows: “José Angel Gutiérrez was one of the leaders, and he expressed the frustrations of the MAYO generation. His contribution was indispensable; it influenced Chicanos throughout the country.”
One of Gutiérrez’s speeches is described as follows:
“We are fed up. We are going to move to do away with the injustices to the Chicano and if the ‘gringo’ doesn’t get out of our way, we will stampede over him.” Gutiérrez attacked the gringo establishment angrily at a press conference and called upon Chicanos to ‘kill the gringo,’ which meant to end white control over Mexicans.”
The textbook’s translation of what Gutiérrez meant contradicts his clear language. In describing the atmosphere in Texas where Gutiérrez spoke, the textbook states: “Texans had never come to grips with the fact that Mexicans had won at the Alamo.” (P. 323.) It is certainly strange to find a textbook in an American public school taking the Mexican side of the battle at the Alamo.
Another textbook is The Mexican American Heritage (2nd ed.). One of the chapters is “The Loss of Aztlan.” Aztlan refers to the states taken from Mexico in 1848: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Colorado. This chapter states: “Apparently the U.S. is having as little success in keeping the Mexicans out of Aztlan as Mexico had when they tried to keep the North Americans out of Texas in 1830.” (P. 107.) In other words, books paid for by American taxpayers used in American public schools are gloating over the difficulty we are having in controlling the border. This page goes on to state: “…the Latinos are now realizing that the power to control Aztlan may once again be in their hands.”
As Horne notes, the term of Aztlan invokes the Hispanic nationalist ideology of the group M.E.Ch.A:
When I was at Tucson high school, the librarian was wearing a M.E.Ch.A. tee shirt. If you Google M.E.Ch.A., you will find its goals and constitution. In the introductory paragraph, M.E.Ch.A. states:
“We are Chicanos and Chicanas of Aztlán reclaiming the land of out [sic] birth (Chicano and Chicana Nation); 2) Aztlán belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture…”
In section 2 of the M.E.Ch.A. Constitution it states:
“Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent.”
One former TUSD teacher, John Ward, who taught in the Raza Studies program has described the general tone of instruction:
But the whole inference and tone was anger. (They taught students) that the United States was and still is a fundamentally racist country to those of Mexican-American kids.
Individuals in this (Ethnic Studies) department are vehemently anti-Western culture. They are vehemently opposed to the United States and its power. They are telling students they are victims and that they should be angry and rise up…
By the time I left that class, I saw a change (in the students), he said. An angry tone. They taught them not to trust their teachers, not to trust the system. They taught them the system wasn’t worth trusting.
According to Horne, the director of the Raza Studies program hates the white man:
Hector Ayala was born in Mexico, and is an excellent English teacher at Cholla High School in TUSD. He reports that the Director of Raza Studies accused him of being the “white man’s agent,” and that when this director was a teacher, he taught a separatist political agenda, and his students told Hector that they were taught in Raza Studies to “not fall for the white man’s traps.”
Tucson teachers who oppose the Hispanic nationalism of the school system are afraid to speak out. Journalist Doug MacEachern writes in the Arizona Republic:
I have interviewed several other employees of TUSD in recent weeks, all of whom have witnessed the program firsthand or who have discussed the Ethnic Studies program with students taking it. None of them would speak on the record. All asked that their names not be used and that any chronicle of their experiences not include details that could be traced back to them.
They are fearful. And for good reason.
“There’s a lot of people who know this problem is occurring,” one TUSD employee said. “They won’t do anything for two reasons. One, they know (the program) is so much bigger than they are. And, two, you’re going to be called a racist.”
I will post an action alert on this matter tomorrow.
By Ian Jobling • 6/17/08
Over the past week, I, as well as a number of other writers, have been the targets of a great deal of abuse from Charles Johnson, owner of the popular website Little Green Footballs, and his readers. In comment threads like this and this, I have been called a “fascist” by Johnson himself and a “neo-Nazi” by his readers. Johnson even suggested that readers put on a “Hazmat” suit before they came to Inverted World, so toxic does he deem my ideas. As if these unjustified slurs weren’t enough, LGF readers plumbed the depths of infantile triviality by mocking my penis size, an insult so stupid that I christened them the “kindergarten conservatives.” This hostility is particularly disappointing as the missions of LGF and IW are, at bottom, very similar: both websites are dedicated to the defense of Western values, like individualism, pluralism, tolerance, and the rule of law. Like the LGF community, I believe America has been the world’s foremost defender of Western values, and I support our nation’s protection of Israel and campaigns against our enemies abroad. Also like the LGF community, I fear the Islamization of Europe, as Islamic values are contrary to Western ones.
I also share LGF’s bitterness towards the anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-war left. While I am not a supporter of Pres. Bush because he is a liberal on matters of race and immigration, I recognize that he has been the victim of many unfair attacks from the “Bush lied, people died” crowd. I was always glad that blogs like LGF were around to call the left on its smears.
Finally, I share LGF’s contempt for anti-Semitism on the American right. In fact, I’ve been a vocal critic of anti-Semitism, and I even left my job at American Renaissance magazine because my former employer, Jared Taylor, would not denounce anti-Semitism among his followers. I opposed Ron Paul in the Republican primaries because of his belief that the Israeli and Palestinian sides are morally equivalent and because of the smears of Jews published in his name.
My public statements on these issues should put to rest any fears that I am a “neo-Nazi” or a “fascist.” I am a critic of neo-Nazism and a proponent of Western freedoms, not the totalitarianism that is an essential characteristic of fascist regimes.
The only philosophical difference between the LGF community and myself is that I think some differences in psychology and culture among the races are certainly or probably rooted in biological, genetic differences. This belief is what makes me a “race realist.” There is overwhelming evidence that the black/white IQ gap, whose nature and causes have been studied intensively by psychologists, is rooted in biology. For other differences among the races, the evidence is less clear. Nevertheless, I think the race realist theory is the only plausible explanation of the fact that, despite generations of intense efforts to bring about socioeconomic equality among the races, such substantial gaps still exist between American whites on one hand and blacks and Hispanics on the other across a wide range of socioeconomic indicators, including high-school and college graduation, crime, income, wealth, out-of-wedlock births, and so forth.
I am particularly interested in cultural differences in tolerance, perhaps the fundamental feature of Western society, which undergirds the value we place on freedom of speech. I see little evidence that non-whites share our respect for tolerance. Islam is the clearest example: a 2006 poll of British Muslims found that a full 68 percent do not think free speech for people who insult Islam should be legally protected. The recent campaign against Mark Steyn, which has been noted at LGF, is further evidence of Muslims’ lack of respect for free speech. Other non-white groups seem to feel the same. If anyone makes serious criticisms of blacks and Hispanics, these groups do not accept it in an understanding and broad-minded spirit. No, they tell the critic to shut up and call for punishment.
If I am right that cultural differences among the races are rooted in biology, the impending emergence of non-white majorities in Western nations is a threat to the values that all of us cherish. Our prosperity depends on the maintenance of a law-abiding, educated populace. Our freedoms depend on a broad-minded tolerance of dissent.
While I appreciate LGF’s defense of Western values, I do not think you appreciate the nature of the threat the West faces; consequently, I think your defense will prove ineffective. My position is that the only way to preserve Western values is to ensure that Western nations retain white majorities and commit themselves to the protection of our racial spirit. This is not an opinion I have arrived at lightly, and I hope you will spend some time reading the links above before you dismiss it.
It’s likely that my most mean-spirited detractors at LGF will not be convinced by this, and will continue droning on about fascists, neo-Nazis, and my penis. Nevertheless, I am sure that there are many LGF readers who are smarter and better than that, who are capable of reading and of giving unpopular ideas a fair hearing. If you are one of these people, I welcome you and look forward to your comments and your cooperation in preserving the West.
By Ian Jobling • 6/16/08
You don’t think of Portland, OR being a violent place, but there has been a stunning rash of random attacks on white passengers by non-whites in that city’s MAX municipal train system. In the most recent incident, a white woman from Vancouver was assaulted by black teens. Welcome to America! The attack will be prosecuted as a hate crime.
An assault by five teenagers on a North Portland MAX train this week revived worries about mass transit safety since several high-profile incidents last winter.
Teenage boys and girls punched, used racial epithets and stole the purse of a 28-year-old Vancouver woman who was taking her first-ever MAX ride early Monday evening. The woman, who is white, had just had a conversation with the teens, who are African American and were harassing another woman, according to Portland police.
“It was completely traumatizing and absolutely horrifying for me,” said the Vancouver woman, who did not want to be identified for fear of retaliation. “It seemed like forever.”
Last year, a Hispanic illegal alien teen beat a 71-year-old white man unconscious at a MAX station. Police suspected the attack was a gang initiation. There are more details here.
In the November attack, Gresham police said Chilcote was followed by three teens when he left the MAX train at the Gresham Central Transit Center. Chavez-Garcia taunted him by calling him an old man. With the others watching, Chavez-Garcia beat him, even after he lay motionless on the ground. A detective found Chilcote unconscious at a crosswalk near the station, at Northeast Eighth Street and Kelly Avenue, bleeding from the head.
Nine days after the attack, Chilcote spoke of it from a wheelchair at OHSU. He suffered double vision, and one side of his face was paralyzed. He had trouble hearing, speaking and swallowing…
[Chavez-Garcia’s attorney] said showing off may have had something to do with [the attack], but he also thinks alcohol and his client’s borderline low IQ contributed.
Chavez-Garcia started using marijuana and methamphetamines when he was 14 or 15. He stopped after seeing his best friend fatally shoot himself while high on meth.
“To cover the pain, he started drinking. He started knocking back 40s daily,” Bertoni said, referring to the 40-ounce beers the teen drank.
Chavez-Garcia will likely serve his time at the MacLaren Correctional Youth Facility in Woodburn. Although it’s unknown how he entered the country, he is not a citizen and he will likely be deported once he completes his sentence.
In February, three whites were injured by blacks in a racially-motivated attack at a MAX station:
Dawn Swallow, who has a black eye from the attack, told KATU News that “three tall black guys crossed the road and kept saying ‘you ain’t black, you ain’t black,’ and hit us.”
She was punched and knocked to the ground.
Her son, Tyler Swallow-Jones, said he went to help his mother back up when he was set upon by an attacker. He said he was hit in the head and fell to the ground.
While I was googling this subject, I came across this page where someone has diligently compiled stories about crime on the MAX. Here’s the page for 2008. There are at least fifty stories so far, and the year’s only half over. I haven’t looked at all the stories, but where the race of the criminal is mentioned, it seems it’s always a black or Hispanic.
There were 20 assaults and six robberies on the MAX system in the first 11 months of 2007.
In Portland, Oregon, home of nutty-crunchy Sierra Club types!
Pretty scary!
By Ian Jobling • 6/13/08
On Monday, I’ll be publishing a response to the abuse that I and other race realists and pro-white activists have been subjected to at the Little Green Footballs blog in the comments section of this article. Lawrence Auster and his commenters have written a good summary of events, as well as tart commentary on the mindless ranting about “neo-Nazis” that LGF owner Charles Johnson and his fans have been indulging in recently. I was tempted to ignore the abuse, but it’s important to respond to this because LGF is one of the most popular and influential conservative blogs. Besides, I’ve been writing about how race realists should deal with slander recently, and responding to the LGF commenters will be a good opportunity to develop my thoughts on that subject. If any of you have advice about how I should respond to this incident, I’m listening. As background, you might want to read some of my articles on anti-Semitism in the pro-white movement. Here’s a preview: I oppose it!
The Insanity of $David Duke$
Why I Started This Website
The Decline of $American Renaissance$
Here are some comments from LGF that either mention me by name or refer to a comment that does.
I only saw one line in that piece that I would really quibble about.
“Even David Duke, the neo-Nazi and former Klan boss who is the closest thing the movement has to a real intellectual these days…”
They got a fistful of pseudo intellectuals with fancy degrees these days.
Jamie Kelso, Ian Jobling, Virginia Abernathy, Lawrence Auster, Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, Gordon Lee Baum, Marcus Epstein, etcetcetc…
SLPC is actually six months to a year behind the curve.
Their numbers have risen from a one time 1990’s low of around 20,000 to well over a quarter of a million in separate groups at last estimate. That’s just the US based groups.
One neo-nazi is a threat. Every neo-nazi is a threat.
Is that a difficult concept?
EXPECT NO MERCY,
R
Ian Jobling is a flat-out racist.
They’re like frickin pod people! Makes you afraid to sleep.
wtf.
And these people are supposed to be educated?
Skinheads, DocMartins, _itler salutes, nazi party trappings, and the like are not “traditional European” anything, you assholes.
The US is not returning to segregation or Jim Crow, no matter how “traditional” you and the rest of your White Nationalist ilk might think it to be.
Did you skip 1945 in history class? Did you miss that whole Civil War-Civil Rights thing?
There are quite a few people masquerading as “mainstream conservatives” who are crypto-fascists. Pat Buchanan is by far the most visible, but when you dig down you find people like Auster and Jobling and Jared Taylor and Vdare.com and their fellow travelers.
I don’t want anything to do with these people. They’re not conservatives, they’re Neanderthals, no matter how they try to dress it up in deceptive language.
I’d also like to thank the LGF commenter calling himself “Q” for posting this defense of me. Of course, Q was banned from commenting on LGF for trying to inject sanity into this frenzy. No good deed goes unpunished.
You may disagree with their politics or philosophy, but it’s ludicrous to call Lawrence Auster or Ian Jobling, of all people, “pro-nazi”, let alone “neo-nazi” (unless your definition of a nazi is “someone I deem totally uncool”).
Auster is a traditionalist conservative and an outspoken critic of paleocon pathologies. (Also, he’s of Jewish ancestry.)
Jobling broke with American Renaissance over their failure to decisively disassociate themselves from the real nazi scum. He’s a supporter of Jews and Israel and an opponent of Ron Paul.
SPLC hysterics is a poor guide to the actual state of things.
By Ian Jobling • 6/12/08
Yesterday, I posted an action alert on Macomb County (Michigan) Sheriff Mark Hackel’s astonishing statement that he was unsure whether hate crimes laws applied to crimes against whites. Today’s action alert asks readers to e-mail Sheriff Hackel to make sure that he recognizes all races in Michigan are entitled to equal protection of the law.
By Ian Jobling • 6/11/08
Today’s new action alert asks readers to e-mail conservative pundits asking them to publicize a miscarriage of justice. On the night of May 31, a group of 20 to 30 black teenagers committed unprovoked wilding-style attacks on at least four white people in Mount Clemens, Michigan, leaving one with a fractured skull. Despite the fact that there appears to be no motive for these crimes other than racial hatred, Macomb County Sheriff Mark Hackel has said that he probably will not charge the criminals with a hate crime and that he even doubts whether whites are protected by hate crime laws. Please ask conservative pundits to inform Sherriff Hackel and the rest of America that people of all races are entitled to equal protection of the law.
By Ian Jobling • 6/10/08
Two commenters on last week’s entry What Do You Say When Whites are Denigrated? accused me of excessive sensitivity in taking offense at a line from the film The Matrix Reloaded: “You can’t make me do anything, you old white prick!” A commenter calling himself Realist said that the insult to whites that I perceived was all in my imagination. Another commenter, B.B, said, “Reacting to racial hyper-sensitivity with more racial hyper-sensitivity doesn’t seem like a particularly productive tactic to me.” I think these two commenters are trapped in an obsolete and suicidal mindset. If whites are to survive, we’re going to have to develop a fighting spirit, and that means we have to become more sensitive to insults and learn to answer them. Realist argued that “white” was not being used as a term of insult in the phrase I cited because it’s conventional for people to put random adjectives that have no real meaning in front of insult words.
What Realist says may be valid in some cases, but it is clear that the Matrix movies have a point to make about whiteness that Neo is hammering home in his insult. In case any of you don’t know, the Matrix movies imagine a future in which machines have taken over and project a simulacrum of reality, the Matrix, for human beings so that the machines can exploit them for their own purposes. The movies pit the forces of the machines against those of “Zion,” the name for the humans who have realized what the machines are up to and wish to liberate the rest of mankind.
I don’t think anyone would deny that these movies have an aggressive “anti-racist” agenda. In fact, they are one of the best fictional expressions of the myth of the fascist establishment that I know of. The machines take a human form as a sinister police force and as the Architect, who explains the workings of the Matrix to Neo and against whom Neo directs the insult in question. All of the human manifestations of the machines are white. The racial diversity of the Zion resistance, however, is heavily emphasized. Essentially, the film pits a conformist, repressive, violent, secretive, and entirely white establishment against the racially diverse, individualist, and extremely sexually liberated forces of resistance. Neo’s insult stems from the underlying agenda of the movie, which is to connect whiteness with fascism. In fact, in the same scene, television screens show the images of George Bush Sr. and Jr. along with Hitler, thus implying that contemporary America is a fascist or proto-fascist state.
I also reject the assertion that my attitude towards the denigration of whites is equivalent to that of blacks and other minorities who see racial denigration where none exists. Obnoxious stereotypes about whites are ubiquitous in American culture. Among the most common stereotypes are that whites are rich spoiled brats; that we are excessively rational, controlling, unemotional, and sexually repressed; and that we take a sadistic pleasure in treating non-whites unfairly. In case you doubt me, look at the portrayal of whites in the film Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, a consummate expression of leukophobia.
Even worse, whereas well-funded and powerful minority organizations exist to respond to complain about racial stereotypes of blacks, Hispanics, and Jews, there is no organized resistance to the denigration of whites. Consequently, except in the most extreme and salient cases, such as that of Jeremiah Wright, the denigration of whites goes completely unchallenged.
The days when whites could afford to take a dismissive attitude toward racial denigration against them are gone. That attitude was appropriate when whites held an unassailed dominance over American society that could not be threatened by insults. But in a time when half of American children under 5 are non-white and when our school system and popular media are eradicating our cultural identity, whites have to learn to fight for their survival. And that means that we have to be sensitive to denigration and learn to respond to it. Moreover, it means we have to develop a spirit of racial solidarity that gives other whites the benefit of the doubt when they take offense, rather than reflexively dismissing their concerns.
What Realist and B.B label hypersensitivity, I see as the will to racial survival and the fighting spirit. That’s why we all need to become a bit more “hypersensitive.”
By Ian Jobling • 6/9/08
We live in an age in which sanity on racial and ethnic issues is so rare that we are astonished to encounter it. Thus yesterday, I was amazed to read this article about a recent law passed by the Russian government banning non-Russians from certain classes of retail jobs. In the future, any time you buy a newspaper, a pound of apples, or a bottle of perfume in Russia, the person selling it to you will be a Russian, not a Chinese, Chechen, Tajik, or Georgian. Thus the Russian nation proudly sides with its own people against the leukophobic, multiculturalist Western establishment. The article is well worth reading, particularly for its priceless quote from an “anti-racist” activist who says that things were much better under the communists!
Russia-for-Russians law seen as racist pandering
*New Zealand Herald* MOSCOW - Migrant workers in Russia found themselves legislated out of a job yesterday after a controversial new law reserving retail jobs for ethnic Russians came into force. The legislation, which has been described as state-sponsored racism by human rights activists, bans non-Russians from working in large swaths of the country’s retail sector. It will affect Russia’s food and clothing markets and the thousands of roadside kiosks that sell anything from newspapers to cosmetics. Until yesterday it was not uncommon to visit a market staffed exclusively by migrant workers from across the former Soviet Union. Now hundreds of thousands of migrant workers from countries such as Georgia, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan are looking for new jobs. In Russia’s Far East such positions have typically been filled by Chinese migrant workers and many of them appear to have already returned home. At Ussuriysk’s vast market near the Chinese border almost all the stalls were reported to be deserted. “We had hoped good sense would prevail … This could disrupt the economy and bring many problems,” said Sergei Simakov, a district councillor from Ussuriysk. Some commentators have raised fears that prices may rise as employers are forced to pay higher wages and wonder if ethnic Russians will be willing to take up jobs that entail working 12-hour days. At Moscow’s famous Dorogomilovsky food market several stalls were denuded of their usually exotic mixture of fruit and vegetables from across the former Soviet Union. In their place hung signs that read: “Wanted: Salespeople. Must be Russian.” Officials from the migration service raided a Moscow market in a sign that the Kremlin expects the new law to be scrupulously followed. A spokesman for the Federal Migration Service said the raid proved that the new law was effective. “Considering that this particular market has 1200 trading stalls and only four foreigners were detected you can conclude that in general the law is working.” The Kremlin insists that there is nothing racist about the law that it says is intended to protect the rights of ethnic Russians who have complained of being squeezed out of the retail sector by migrant workers. But human rights activists say nationalism is on the march ahead of crunch parliamentary elections in December and a presidential election next March and have accused the state of pandering to racists. Allison Gill, head of the Moscow office of Human Rights Watch, said in the Soviet era Russia was famous for promoting “friendship between peoples”, hosting large numbers of students from the developing world. “But now that slogan seems to have been turned on its head. It is now Russia for Russians.”By Ian Jobling • 6/6/08
I’ve posted 13 race realist action alerts on this site since February. According to a previous poll, about 30 people were acting on the alerts. That’s pretty good for starters, and hopefully more of you are joining in with each passing week. As I plan future alerts, it would help me to know which action alerts you thought were most likely to be effective. Please send in comments explaining your choices.