Fifty shades of black and the unbearable whiteness of being 38

Yesterday in Charlottesville, Virginia, one bunch of Nazis who knew they were Nazis fought another bunch of Nazis who seem not to know that they are Nazis.

The ones who know they are Nazis, displaying and shouting anti-Semitic slogans, are also called “white supremacists” – fairly enough, since that is what they are. And they are rightly condemned for it.

The ones who seem not to know they are Nazis are never called “black supremacists”, although that is what they are, even those who are not black. (Judging by the pictures of the riot in the press and on TV, the majority on that side were white.) And it’s hard to find public figures who will condemn them for it.

Black supremacism? Does it exist?

Of course it does. The Black Lives Matter organization will not allow you to say that all lives matter. To say so is to infuriate them.

So in the view of the Nazis who do not know (or anyway acknowledge) that they are Nazis, it is not supremacism as such that is wrong, it is only white supremacism that is wrong.

Whites must be abolished. Not the people who are white, necessarily – or not yet – but their whiteness must go.

Tom Ciccotta writes at Breitbart:

Stanford University will introduce a course this fall which will task students with considering “abolishing whiteness” and the ultimate goal of understand “what is the future of whiteness”, according to the institution’s course catalog.

The course, which is entitled “White Identity Politics”, will be taught by instructor John Patrick Moran, and analyze the “future of whiteness”.

For the uninitiated, the concept of “whiteness” refers to the social aspect of race.

According to the University of Calgary, “whiteness” is a socially and politically constructed learned behavior built upon the systematic privileges afforded to whites in Western society.

The Stanford course looks to abolish this social concept of “whiteness” through an analysis of what the course description alleges is “the rise of white identity politics in the United States” as a result of the 2016 Presidential election.

In fact it arose with the New Left who despaired of the proletariat as its chosen victim class, and decided to make revolution in the name of victim races instead. But everything now must be blamed on the election of President Trump in 2016. He is the Super Scapegoat – and white to boot!

Stanford Professor Tomás Jiménez explained that “whiteness” refers to “the set of behaviors and outlooks associated with the racial category, white”. Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States.

Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity.

What is the future of whiteness?

Ernest Miranda, a spokesperson for Stanford, told the College Fix that “abolishing whiteness” is a concept devised in the 1990s to encourage whites in the Western world to stop identifying as white in order to help end inequalities.

Harvard scholar Noel Ignatiev spoke about the concept of “whiteness” in a documentary on campus radicalism. He argued that “whiteness is a form of racial oppression”, and that “there can be no white race without the phenomenon of white supremacists”.

Noel Ignatiev is a lifelong fanatical white-hating white Marxist.

“Stop identifying as white”? Apparently, just as you can now call yourself a man even if you are a woman and “society” must accept that you are a man (and vice versa), so you can now call yourself black even if you are white and “society” must accept that you are black. You can and you must. “Society” can and it must.  Persons of all other skin colors must also “identify” as black (because only black lives matter) so there will be … what? fifty? shades of black. Then as an all-black nation, may Americans continue with their lives as usual?

This “identifying” of white men as black must be retrospective. It’s okay to enjoy all the discoveries and inventions made by white men, as long as from now on the discoverers and inventors are “identified” as black. Because white men’s science is not true, says a shade-of-black feminist woman physicist –

From Truth Revolt by Trey Sanchez:

Science shouldn’t be misconstrued as truth because most of the foundations were laid by white men, says Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, a particle physicist and philosopher of science at the University of Washington. Her argument appeared at Slate in an article titled, Stop Equating ‘Science’ with Truth.

Chandra Prescod-Weinstein

Prescod-Weinstein’s entire premise was built on the Google employee [James Demore] memo which laid out factual differences between men and women and why women are less likely to enter fields of science and technology:

It is impossible to consider this field of science without grappling with the flaws of the institution — and of the deification — of science itself. For example: It was argued to me this week that the Google memo failed to constitute hostile behavior because it cited peer-reviewed articles that suggest women have different brains. The well-known scientist who made this comment to me is both a woman and someone who knows quite well that “peer-reviewed” and “correct” are not interchangeable terms. This brings us to the question that many have grappled with this week. It’s 2017, and to some extant scientific literature still supports a patriarchal view that ranks a man’s intellect above a woman’s…

Science’s greatest myth is that it doesn’t encode bias and is always self-correcting. In fact, science has often made its living from encoding and justifying bias, and refusing to do anything about the fact that the data says something’s wrong.

Prescod-Weinstein puts “science” in quotations a lot in her piece because of its ties to Europe during the Enlightenment.

“Much of the science that resulted from this system, conducted primarily by white men, is what helped teach us that women were the inferior sex,” she writes.

And those systems have been passed on through the ages through bad education and apparently, she is finally telling everyone the truth in this article:

Most saliently in the context of the Google memo, our scientific educations almost never talk about the invention of whiteness and the invention of race in tandem with the early scientific method which placed a high value on taxonomies [classifications] — which unsurprisingly and almost certainly not coincidentally supported prevailing social views.

We never learned that former president and inventor Thomas Jefferson “hid behind science as a shield” because his writings about slaves being inferior to whites proved he was not “much of a scientist” as much as he was “a biased white supremacist”.

And then there was the stealing of ideas already known by indigenous peoples:

Very few curricula acknowledge that some European scientific “discoveries” were in fact collations of borrowed indigenous knowledge. And far too many universally call technology progress while failing to acknowledge that it has left us in a dangerously warmed climate.

Wait, how did climate change sneak in there? Is she saying that is “science” or science?

One of the top comments on this story really gets at the heart of the matter of what this feminist physicist is trying to say: “Obviously any science done by anyone not a young Black female with a degree in physics is at best bunk, but probably evil. We all need to throw away the Constitution because an evil White man wrote that, too.”

Prescod-Weinstein suggested in her conclusion that perhaps a new experiment is in order to take back science from the patriarchy:

Google bro would argue that we ought to consider the possibility that white women and racial minorities simply produce lower-quality work, which is why we struggle to be recognized as competent knowledge producers. It’s time to turn the tables on this debate. Rather than leaning in and trying endlessly to prove our humanity and value, people like him should have to prove that our inferiority is the problem. Eliminate structural biases in education, health care, housing, and salaries that favor white men and see if we fail. Run the experiment. Be a scientist about it.

But as she explained already in her article, it was men like “Google bro” that encoded their bias into scientific theory which would make any conclusions from the experiments null and void. And then where will she find the answers? Perhaps she’ll join other leftists and pursue their “own truth”.

Feminists are already black. All of them.

Mark Tapson writes, also at truth revolt:

As if anyone needed any more proof that liberal arts colleges are a worthless joke, Campus Reform reports that a self-described “feminist ethnographer” at Grinnell College in Iowa will be teaching a course in the fall which will focus on “attacking racism by making whiteness visible”.

Professor Karla Erickson, whose background is in American and Women’s Studies, will teach the four-credit special topics class called “American Whiteness”, which vows to explore “whiteness as a specific racial formation with a distinct history, proactive and defensive politics, and institutional and personal investments”.

Sounds like a great introduction to cultural Marxism.

Professor Karla Erickson

According to the course description, students will learn about the “historical expansion” of whiteness while discussing both the “formal and informal advantages that accrue to whiteness” and potential “challenges to whiteness”.  In other words, this course offers absolutely nothing of intellectual merit and is purely social justice indoctrination.

Erickson unsurprisingly refused to provide Campus Reform with a copy of the current syllabus, but CR found one for an identical course from the spring of 2015. It states, “Whiteness is, among much else, a very bad idea. It is quite possible to avoid hating white people as individuals but to criticize the ‘idea of white people in general’.” Well, that’s good to know, although we’re sure that anyone who would take or teach such a course is perfectly comfortable hating white people while pretending to be tolerant and inclusive.

Campus Reform notes that the 2015 syllabus also featured texts such as “Beyond the Whiteness of Whiteness” and “The Case for Reparations”, the latter of which encourages students to “take on the labor of interrogating and attacking racism by making whiteness visible”. We suspect, however, that the course will not be interrogating and attacking the blatant anti-white racism which “American Whiteness” promotes.

“This course is meant to facilitate a personal journey towards a better understanding of how whiteness functions in a racist nation, therefore sincere attempts at working through whiteness will be rewarded,” the 2015 syllabus states.

Take note, however: the course will not facilitate preparing you for learning anything useful or getting a job after college, unless you plan to become a feminist ethnographer who teaches social justice jargon-heavy courses to exacerbate the racial divide.

  • Faith Goldy sacked from Rebel Media, apparently:

    she went on a podcast from the Daily Stormer, and it was just too far. So we said goodbye.

    https://www.therebel.media/why_we_had_to_say_goodbye_to_faith_goldy

    The anti-semites on gab are buzzing with excitement at the news.

    • This story is getting more bizarre by the second:

      https://youtu.be/zTfSgnWeL48

      • I saw this. Astonishing, the great Ezra being so easily bamboozled! We intellectuals are natural gulls, most of us. We lack “street cred”. We know what’s wrong with the world, but we are helpless when we encounter it.

      • liz

        Yes, very odd. Any ideas on what’s going on here?

          • liz

            Thanks! There was also another one on there explaining it further. In it he mentioned Gavin Mcinnes is also leaving, but no explanation why. Hope he turns up somewhere else…Oh, well.

        • I’m really not sure, these video announcements are all we’ve got to go on it seems. It looks like mismanagement as far as I can make out.

          • liz

            Yes. Just saw where Gavin Macinnes announced he’s leaving to join a new media group. Sounds promising!

  • Mike

    It’s all a matter of evil. The melanin isn’t the problem. It’s the depraved hatred of whites that is the mother’s milk of black babies. They are raised to blame whites for their problems of social suicide. Blacks are both the problem and the solution here, but they cannot take responsibility for their toxic lives. That’s where we fit in.

    • These two ladies are bucking the trend at least:

      https://youtu.be/8Di2jktKvBY

      They are complaining that youtube here is censoring them/de-monetizing.

      • Diamond and Silk are delightful. Ardent Trump supporters. Intelligently idiosyncratic commentators. The admirable Lou Dobbs often has them on his evening Fox show.

  • Cogito

    This is an excellent article depicting further efforts of progressives (such as BLM and feminists) seeking to dismantle Western Civilization.

    BLM has no interest in saving black lives (or else they would be in Chicago guarding the citizens there) and feminists have no interest in protecting women (or else they would be protesting sharia law, genital mutilation, burqas…).

    No, their goal is simply to terminate our entire way of life.
    They just may succeed.

    • liz

      Yes, it’s amazing how anyone can miss the obvious omissions in their ‘concern’ for the victims they supposedly champion.

  • I’ve been thinking about anti-semitism in the so-called “alt-right” crowd lately, I might even write a post on it. Apparently Richard Spencer has claimed that he originated the term “alt-right” and he seems to be definitely anti-semitic at the sharp end, refusing to denounce Hitler apparently. I’m starting to think therefore that identifying as “alt-right” may not be entirely wise although the likes of Breitbart and Milo have embraced the term. According to Wikipedia the term “alternative right” predates Spencer’s use of the term “alt-right” so the picture is a bit confused, even more so because apparently one Paul Gottfried (who is Jewish) first used the full phrase.

    I don’t follow Alex Jones at all although he is increasingly hard to avoid these days, popping up everywhere – he even gets mentioned in the Daily Mail quite a bit although they describe him as a conspiracy theorist or “performance artist” (I tend to agree on the whole). He talks about “the Jewish Mafia” yet he doesn’t seem to be rabidly anti-semitic in a general way, he interviewed Ezra Levant and they seem like good friends really. Jones also apparently claimed to be partially Jewish in origin himself.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-trump-radio-host-george-soros-is-head-of-jewish-mafia/

    Another one who is getting harder to avoid is “Vox Day”. He says that he supports Israel’s right to exist. He’s on gab https://gab.ai/voxday, here’s a quote from one of his comments (this is in a discussion about AIPAC where he is accusing this organization of trying to destroy the First Amendment with the S.720 Israel anti-boycott act – which might be a fair point so far as that goes I don’t know, but then he says this):

    If Jews are going to try to take the First Amendment away from Americans, then they are no friends to America and deserve to be abandoned for the Nazis or terrorists or whoever else hates them.

    I’m not sure that AIPAC is really directly representative of all Jewish people in the US. Off the cuff remark or something more sinister?

    (btw Your website is responding very slowly and timing out today).

    • Yes, Chauncey, I agree: “alt-right” has become unrespectable for the reasons you say.

      The Times of Israel article is maddening. Soros was not a victim of the Nazis, he collaborated with them.

      AIPAC has too many Lefties in it. It is now headed by a Lefty. Ultra-stupid!

      Thanks for telling me about the website not responding quickly. I’ll see what I can do about it. No one else has told me they are having difficulty accessing it, but I’ll ask a couple of people to test it. Could it possibly be a glitch at your end?

      • Its back to normal now. I wasn’t getting the problem on other sites, only yours. I have had this happen before with your site a couple of times as well and it lasted half a day, I think it was on weekends so I just assumed it was down for maintenance and tried again later. Anyway just FYI, I’ll let you know if it happens again.

        • I think we have some interference with the website. In the light of what we all now know about Google, I am not surprised.

          • gab.ai has suffered a DDOS attack today – its been impossible to log in for hours. This is coming just a day after a Daily Mail article described the alternative social media platform as a safe space for the alt-right. There are plenty of different voices on there (including mine) in reality, and

            Gab bills itself as ‘an ad-free social network for creators who believe in free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of information online’

            Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4787632/How-far-Right-setting-tech-start-ups.html#ixzz4pqzFLZGp

            Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

            • This is an important development.

              The Left’s greatest victory was getting Nazism dubbed “right-wing”. Now they have only to say some organization is “right-wing” to have the connotation “Nazi” spring up in the unthinking mind (ie. most minds).

              It is good the the Right is fighting back and creating their own media. It is urgently necessary that the Nazi label be shifted back to where it belongs – on to the Left. Could a concerted effort do that, do you think?
              The actual neo-Nazis must be differentiated, separated by a wide distance from the real (conservative) Right – from Breitbart, Trump, Brexit, patriotism, anti-Islamism. Any ideas how this might be done, Chauncey?

            • Could a concerted effort do that, do you think?

              Certainly although alternative media will need to continue to raise its profile further before it can be effective at countering the suppression/saturation techniques of the Glozis. Pres. Trump is almost a one man band with his fake news mainstream media narrative at the moment, but obviously a very powerful one. Crucial to this I believe will be voices like Breitbart gaining access to TV and radio.

              I am trying to get that word Glozi (globalist socialist) that I invented into common usage as part of the counter-effort. I might write a dedicated post to explain the term and give examples of Glozis and what they do. The Glozi term also reminds people of the very fact you mention – that the “zi” bit means socialist. Maybe you could have some input from the US perspective on such a post? The Clintons really spring to mind – the example of Bill’s profiteering from speech engagements (that increased when Hillary become the foreign secretary). Soros’s activities as well obviously, not something I’ve studied in depth. We need to get that phrase “Lying by Omission” into common usage as well.

            • I will use and explain “Glozi”. Good coinage.

              “Lying by omission” needs to be seen and the fact of it taken into account.

            • The actual neo-Nazis must be differentiated, separated by a wide distance from the real (conservative) Right

              As I mentioned I am thinking of doing a write-up on anti-semitism among the new right-wing voices to this end, I think there is genuinely a problem there which gives the MSM ammunition, and I think we need to really highlight this and get a debate going. I have made some attempts at this just in comment discussions but usually its a conversation-ending topic. With people like Soros and Zuckerberg wielding such power in the world today its not so easy to change minds. The only really good argument I have so far is to say well what about Ezra Levant, Andrew Breitbart (raised Jewish), David Horowitz, Melanie Phillips, Gad Saad and so on. Hardly people who can be accused of trying to subvert the West for Zionist ends.

              Beyond that I see more hope in simply ignoring the mainstream media altogether as Trump has been fairly successfully doing. Send the MSM to Coventry is in my view the best way forward. Since the MSM has now effectively expanded the meaning of the word Nazi to include anyone who is opposed to immigration it seems to me that its probably futile to play the MSM’s game, we have to just walk away and start our own conversations I think.

              What’s more since I dare to think that white British people should continue to be a majority in the UK, perhaps I am a “white supremacist” myself! Just as Erdogan is a Turkish/Muslim supremacist, and Mugabe is a Black Zimbabwean supremacist and Netanyahu is an Israeli/Jewish supremacist and Xi Jinping is a Chinese supremacist and so forth. Once again the Glozi media have bent the meaning of the phrase to their ends so its become a weapon against anyone who opposes immigration.

              The fact that Breitbart is now ranked around 300th in the world globally and 66th in the US (according to Alexa) should give us hope that this strategy can be effective. The MSM have compromised themselves, lets just continue to call them out on their relentless biases and refuse to have a conversation with them.

            • liz

              Have you heard that the organizer of the “Unite the Right” Nazi group turned out to be an “Occupy Wall Street” Obama voter?
              Interesting development.
              There’s a big difference between being a nationalist and a supremacist. The Left conflates the terms – so easy to do protected in their safe cocoon thanks to the protected borders of the nation they despise!
              I think your term “Glozi”, showing the link of Globalism and Socialism to the Nazis, is great.

            • I hadn’t heard that, Obama must now quit with the weasel words and condemn his supporters explicitly. Hillary has apparently finally done the right thing:

              https://theunveiledfeminist.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/the-end-of-the-affair/

              Thanks, please use the word Glozi often in conversations!

            • No, no. Hillary is incapable of doing the right thing. Of course she condemns anything said or done by the Right. She just hoped nobody had noticed that KKK had endorsed her – and as usual the msm helped cover it up.

            • Oh yes that blog post was pure satire, Hillary would never do the right thing (she’s a Glozi).

            • liz

              Ha! Obama condemn his supporters? He’s probably helping the guy organize the whole thing!

    • liz

      I suppose its true that there are some anti semitic nazi types out there, but I dont think there are that many. (At least among whites- Muslims yes!)
      Which is what makes me think there may be something to a speculation I just read that that whole “white supremacist” rally was bogus, probably staged by leftists to smear the Right and incite more chaos and conflict which can then be blamed on Trump and his “racist” white supporters.
      (Don’t have the link right now, will try to find it)

      • VERY interesting.

        I hope you can find that link.

        Later: Thanks for the link, liz. Have posted the article on Facebook. May post it on the website too. The article makes a more than plausible case.

      • Yes of course the real danger today for the Jewish people is the Islamic anti-semitism that the press doesn’t really like to talk about.

        I saw a live video stream of the protest on the day at gab that looked real enough, there were lots of people with all sorts of different flags and symbols, quite bewildering. It looked almost like a medieval army – they had shields with different symbols (I think mostly identitarian type symbols not swastikas in that footage) and helmets but not weapons in that video (no longer available unfortunately).

        In another video (footage by Faith Goldy from Rebel media) some white protestors with guns had rocks thrown at them by BLM/antifa types but they didn’t retaliate:

        Here’s a video of some similar footage including confrontations:

    • Though there are still some thinking members of AIPAC, it is now headed by a Lefty who is therefore of course anti-Israel. So AIPAC is no longer to be trusted.

      So sorry about the slowness and timing out! No one else I have asked (in my neighbourhood) has been having trouble accessing this site normally. Is it possible there is a censor watching which sites you access?

      If I knew what to do to help, I would do it.

      Later: I have now asked our server to investigate thoroughly and put right whatever is wrong.

      • The most important thing with this is to keep communications going strong so that after a while we can either dismiss the events as just coincidence/glitches or else start to see a pattern. When I posted that March in Manchester post our website (for the first and only time) ground to a halt. Coincidence? Probably, but over time we might start to think otherwise, if it keeps happening.

  • President Trump has been coming under fire “amid criticism he did not explicitly condemn far-right groups” and the BBC gave this non-story about what Trump didn’t say headline billing on the front page. However as far as I can determine he responded in exactly the same way to the Scalise attack which I think as far as we know was also a terrorist attack by a single individual.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40919181

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40918466

    After the election the famous BBC wildlife presenter David Attenborough hinted it might be good if Donald Trump was assassinated, albeit in a fairly jokey spirit – the BBC were silent.

    • liz

      Yes, so nauseatingly predictable. If it were a muslim or a leftist that had rammed the car, all we’d hear would be “The motive for the attack is still unclear”, end of story.

  • BobC

    This was Martin Luther King Jr.’s idea: “Skin color is as irrelevant as eye and hair color.” I think it’s a good idea and it has the advantage of being true.

    • liz

      MLK managed to make too much sense – that couldn’t be tolerated!

  • liz

    So I guess all white people need to follow Rachel Dolezal’s example and start identifying as black. But wait, that would be “cultural appropriation”, wouldn’t it? Well, I’m sure as long as we identified as subservient, self-hating, perpetually guilt-ridden blacks, the black supremacists might tolerate us.
    Oh, and notice how it’s just fine to point out that “peer reviewed and correct are not interchangeable terms” when it suits a leftist’s purpose to question science they disagree with, but when it doesn’t suit their purpose, suddenly “the science is settled”, and anyone who questions it should be arrested (as in the case of “climate science”).