Wednesday, May 13, 2009

White Advocacy: Ideas for Alternative Media

One major force brainwashing most Whites against thinking and acting ethnocentrically is the mainstream media (MSM), which includes newspapers, magazines, TV, radio and their internet outposts. Like all of our "civil society" institutions, the MSM constantly treats the smallest assertion of White identity or ethnocentrism as racism or supremacism while hypocritically supporting much stronger racial identity and ethnocentrism among ALL non-White groups. This was an important factor in my realizing that the left is not really "celebrating" other groups so much as despising Whites.

So one important strategy for White advocates is to subvert, replace or neutralize the impact of these various anti-White institutions. Essentially we're in a deep hole and, barring some unforeseen catastrophic event, it will take many years, much effort and much better organization to dig ourselves out.

Regardless of the many possible futures of the US, Whites must fight against the pervasive anti-White double standards that currently dominate our "civil society". Hopefully our system will be open to reform, and it is even possible that a fair, color-blind society could be recovered where Whites' ethnic interests, identity, peoplehood and survival are treated with the same respect as other groups, but unfortunately, we're on a radically different course and have been for decades.

Some Causes of the Mainstream Media's Anti-White Bias


The MSM are dominated by corporate interests, White guilt, multiculturalism, political correctness and disproportionate Jewish influence, among others. Part of this anti-White environment is propagated because the left has gradually taken control of our "civil society" over the last fifty years, so they're able to strongly influence many facets of our culture and society, including co-opting many of our cognitive elites, which further strengthens the forces for the left.

The left has changed the rules by first claiming to create a color-blind society, but then heaping contempt on color-blindness in favor of excoriating Whites and their supposed "White Privilege" and explicitly rejecting the color-blind ideal. This, among other evidence, demonstrates their bad faith and animosity to Whites. Of course many on the left probably don't interpret the evidence this way, so part of our advocacy must be to grapple with the various leftist arguments and values in their strongest, most cogent forms, to be able to rebut them, so we can recapture some of our lost brethren and reduce the losses of our cognitive elites in the various cauldrons of leftist indoctrination. I plan to explore this issue in a future post. It's also important to understand the psychology and motivations that drive leftists and how this manifests in their activism and behavior.

While the left obsesses over equality of outcome between Whites and NAMs (non-Asian minorities), and insists upon coercive law to create an unnatural parity, I've never seen the slightest concern on their part to level disparities between Whites and Jews, which are about as large, or between Jews and NAMs, which are truly massive, or between Asians and NAMs, or all the various intra-group disparities. If the left is truly concerned with disparate outcomes, why do they focus upon one particular dispartity instead of considering the full set of disparities? Of course, if they confronted the existence of these many disparities, they would have to seriously question their belief that the primary cause of the Black-White disparity is anti-Black racism and discrimination by Whites.

Pressures on Existing Mainstream Media


Fortunately several forms of media are struggling financially, primarily from the emergence of the internet, which radically changes the possibilities and economics of information dissemination as well as increasingly draining the advertising that most media channels rely on to fund their operations. Stories seemingly appear daily lamenting the tribulations of the third estate. Yeehah!

The media frequently pushes diversity, multiculturalism, anti-White rhetoric, White guilt and politically correct lies, and it suppresses "hate facts", contrary stories or dissenting views of the diversity party line. They particularly favor hiding non-White crime against Whites, including some shockingly brutal atrocities, like the Knoxville Horror, the Witchita Massacre or the killing of the White Polish-American Marine Sgt. Janek "Jan" Pawel Pietrzak and his Black wife, Quiana Jenkins-Pietrzak, by four Black Marines, including two of Sgt. Pietrzak's underlings.

An analysis of Google or Google News stories discussing Sgt. Pietrzak demonstrate that many of the modest portion of the MSM that covered the story, obscured the fact that all four of the killers were Black. Look at how sparse the Google News coverage is over the last month even though new court testimony is currently ongoing. Google News only shows one non-local, English language newspaper covering the story, The New York Daily News, and they don't mention in this story that the four killers were Black, although they had been one of the few MSM outlets to do so previously.

Our MSM masters insult our intelligence by not even mentioning the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there is a racial angle to the killing. This ABC News link contains NO mention of the racial angle and the embedded video also refuses to articulate any possibility of a racial motive, preferring to blather on about the mysterious motive that will probably be forever unknown. It's only tribute to the possibility of a racial angle was their showing the mug shots of all four suspects which demonstrates they were all Black. What the ABC News video actually does is use coded language that might sail over the heads of some average or below-average people who might interpret their language literally, while conveying a subtext that implies a racial motive is present, particularly through their grandiose evasions and subtle clues in framing the story including the images shown and the background details about the couple, but by explicitly refusing to articulate this, they're demonstrating the power of political correctness to enforce a grossly dishonest interpretation of reality in spite of our "lying eyes". Ultimately it's an exercise in raw power to condition the viewers to recognize and submit to the officially approved limits of allowed speech and thoughts in our increasingly totalitarian society.

This is a classic illustration of Theodore Dalrymple's observation:
Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

We're supposed to believe that the killers savagely killed Mr. and Mrs. Pietrzak, including rape and sexual abuse of his wife, for a simple robbery. Even worse a CNN transcript of a show from the day before most of the initial stories were published demonstrates that the full details of the story were common knowledge, and presumably all the MSM reporters basically knew the same facts, yet they deliberately chose to hide many of these important details. Note that a few newspapers did report the fact that the four killers were Black, but many deliberately left this out, along with other details indicating the gratuitious violence, rape and racist graffiti.

Also, the authorities are guilty in this little charade, since if it had been a Black sergeant and his White wife savagely killed and raped by four White underlings with racist graffiti at the crime scene, they definitely would've pushed for any applicable hate crimes, under massive pressure from a firestorm of international media coverage and howls of outrage by the Black "leadership" gang of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, among others, and, oh yeah, the press and the rest of our "civil society" would INSTANTLY call it a horrible hate crime. There would likely be many statements released by legions of academic activists denouncing the brutal White racism gripping America and hundreds of candlelight vigils would be held across the county with guilt-drenched SWPLs denouncing their Whiteness (really meaning all those non-enlightened troglodyte White masses). Yet for the Pietrzak family slaughter, the MSM don't dare mention the term hate crime (same for the prosecutors up to this point that I've seen). Hate crime? Nah, it's just a robbery gone wrong.

I personally think hate crime law is a travesty and should be completely scrapped in favor of only enforcing the law based on the criminal's actions without trying to puzzle out whether politically incorrect throughts were motivating the criminal, but given the existence of hate crimes, they should be applied objectively, uniformly and fairly. Obviously in this case and several other notable cases, horrific hate crimes have been committed against Whites with absolute silence from our worthless "civil society". The easy test for double standards is whether people think or act differently when identities are interchanged as I illustrated above.

The media is losing credibility because of their blatant political correctness and dishonesty in hiding and obscuring Black and immigrant crime, among other taboos. "Coincidentally", the big and little lies they push also benefit globalist, corporate interests and a small, wealthly elite, while marginalizing non-elite Whites and the middle and working classes in general. Blacks are and will be hurt more in the future by massive third world immigration, but their "leadership" doesn't care.

The government is also losing credibilty with their handling of this case. These sorts of double standards are exactly why I've given up on the color-blind society and realized it's a huge con game with Whites as total chumps (and I don't think I'm alone in making this conclusion).

Although this media bias hasn't gone unnoticed, and even though many average people might feel uneasy about the media, they don't have any viable alternatives, since even "conservative" media is really mostly neoconservative and in thrall to corporate interests, which also supports much of the politically correct, multicultural agenda, including massive legal immigration and amnesty.

The rise in cynicism and the loss of credibility coupled with the technological possibilities of the internet provide an opportunity for serious alternatives to arise.

Closely related is the development of alternative cultural production and the arts which I'll consider in a separate post.

First I'll lay out some reasons why a diverse alternative media that begins reaching a wider audience seems inevitable, and after considering the specific alternative channels, I'll consider other facets of alternative mass media. America has had a variety of alternative media channels for many decades. In the realm of newspapers and magazines, a wide variety of relatively low circulation offerings have probably been available stretching back to the founding of our republic and certainly many niche publications covering the full political spectrum from far-right to far-left have been available throughout the 20th century.

The internet has enabled a wider audience to see alternative perspectives with very little effort or cost to the consumer, while many of the traditional media costs, like printing and mailing have been eliminated for internet publications. Not surprisingly, many new internet-only publications have sprung up reaching much larger audiences than were previously possible.

Basically I believe it will soon be possible for a variety of alternative viewpoints to begin reaching a much wider audience than previously possible because technological changes will let mass consumers easily bypass the current corporate-controlled distribution channels, like TV cable networks or limited radio channels, using internet-based devices. It will be interesting to see how the established media react to the onslaught of competition from so many diverse sources, including various ethnic advocates, the full spectrum of political beliefs from far left to far right, quirky subcultures and bands of amateur individuals, among others.

Let's now consider some specific media.

Alternative Magazines


Alternative magazines are probably the most successful form of alternative media with the widest current readership. They've blossomed in the internet era as the quintessential example of how internet technologies make it much cheaper to produce and distribute content, enabling an end run around corporate control mechanisms, like limited exposure through bookstores, magazine stands, etc. By using various open-source products and tools, including sophisticated content management systems, attractive, powerful and professional sites can be developed very inexpensively. As new web technologies are developed, web savvy activists can stay right at cutting edge.

Magazines are typically distinguished from newspapers in being delivered on a weekly or monthly basis instead of daily and including more analysis and background rather than raw news coverage. But this distinction seems be eroding somewhat as most online magazines have daily online content that supplements their traditional periodical content.

A few good examples are VDARE, Taki's Magazine and antiwar.com. I trust VDARE on immigration and other topics far more than any MSM source. Taki's Magazine is an internet-only magazine offering a traditional or paleoconservative perspective that has been pushed out of the entire MSM by liberals and neoconservatives with very few exceptions like Pat Buchanan, who probably has to mask his real views at least a little to avoid losing his media role. Many of us who imbibed the neoconservative party line from National Review, the Weekly Standard, Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, now realize there is a much wider universe thanks to the alternative media available mostly through the internet. Likewise antiwar.com gives a critique of American imperial and war policies rarely seen in the MSM.

There are hundreds and even thousands of additional sites covering the full spectrum politically and focusing on different target audiences and subject areas. A goal of White advocates is to support existing White-friendly sites while creating and supporting more. When I say White-friendly, I mean it probably doesn't push White advocacy hard, but rather completely rejects the typical anti-White assumptions of the MSM and includes positive views of Whites, probably mostly implicitly, is open to questioning all the current sacred cows and provides a more respectful view of White advocates, among a wide range of voices. Separate media outlets might take up White advocacy more directly. The goal is to encourage an open, honest dialogue and fair treatment.

Part of the propaganda war against Whites is accomplished through subtle (and not-so-subtle) injections of anti-White digs into stories concerned with other matters. We can use the same techniques in the media we control and influence. This should be particularly effective in other domains, like cultural production. So, for example, other topics, like family, parenting, cooking, lifestyle, travel, cultural, educational and many other subjects can be developed that support subtle, non-overbearing White-friendly rhetoric. The goal is to displace a noticeable portion of the audience currently given to corporate media that nearly universally pushes political correctness, multiculturalism and anti-White subtexts. Some of these new media can even be financially self-supporting or lucrative through revenue streams currently going to anti-White corporations. Others may run mostly on volunteer labor with charitable donations or White-friendly foundations supporting the core costs. One approach might be to create more regional and community content to build local participation and identity instead of our current phony top-down, leveled, national culture driven by the manipulative values of our elites and corporations desiring good, little consumers buying lots of crap they mostly don't need.

An excellent project would be to create a White-friendly current events magazine that competes with Time, Newsweek and US News and World Report while keeping the costs much more contained through mostly web operation and skillful use of volunteer labor and organization. Hopefully it could eventually be reasonably self-supporting and synergize with a network of White-friendly companies, organizations and other media allies. Many of the skills used to create professional alternative media have market value, so volunteer labor can also gain valuable experience, skill enhancement and networking to further the volunteer's career while fulfilling activist passions.

Another approach is to aggregate content from several existing alternative magazines to create a higher-reach virtual magazine. This can also act as advertising for the original publications by making more readers aware of the different specific sites. A related concept is to create a Reader's-Digest-like magazine that simplifies and highlights the most important points both for time-limited readers and average readers with non-elite literacy skills. Imagine providing Steve Sailor summaries accessible to the everyday folks along with their ability to navigate to additional detail if they need convince their peers of the substance of the points. An important goal is to enable both our elites and average citizens learn to rebut the left's arguments and rhetoric through facts, logic and our own rhetorical techniques for offense and defense. This is an important part to trying to salvage our "civil society" by opposing and ultimately reversing its current anti-White bias.

I believe that print-on-demand technology, e.g. at an airport booth, will make it feasible to create inexpensive hardcopy magazines for those wanting to read physical media while cutting out pretty much all of the traditional costs and complexities of physical distribution. But many consumers won't bother with reading physical media when they can directly read the content over the web, including the proliferation of flexible new devices. Imagine an Amazon Kindle-like device with another two or three generations of development where you have high-quality color screens that look like paper where you're wired into the internet to follow links, look up unknown words, automatically delve into greater detail for topics discussed in articles, etc. And new magazine content can be automatically retrieved if the user chooses.

Even better, some of these devices will likely enable a full range of media viewing, including magazines, newspapers, audio, radio and TV, as well as sophisticated information management tools. A major goal is for White advocates to be on the cutting edge in developing and exploiting these many changes both to benefit economically as well as spreading our message.

Alternative Newspapers


As mentioned earlier newspapers are under particular market pressure for many reasons including the loss of subscribers as many consumers shift to internet for their daily news, while their primary sources of advertising revenue, including classified ads, are transferred to other channels, like the internet and direct mail. And, as previously discussed, a fair number of people are aware that newspapers are not providing the full story for many important issues, are beset by political correctness and multicultural ideology, and that most are owned by a handful of corporations closely interconnected to our ruling elites, but there aren't too many alternatives.

Most newspapers rely on a few news services, like the Associated Press or Reuters, to provide much of their national and international coverage and pretty much all of these services are aligned with the globalist, multicultural elites. Many of the European news services are closely tied to the state elites, commonly receiving government financing and various monopolistic advantages, and it clearly shows in their coverage.

Even much of the traditional alternative press, which is normally somewhat liberal or leftist, is being bought by corporations to target their predominantly SWPL readers. Some local, alternative conservative newspapers also exist, for example, publishing weekly.

A critical way to gain credibility is to exploit the dishonesty of the current media by bolding covering the stories suppressed by the MSM, particularly politically incorrect crime. The public craves accurate and honest information but the current elites don't want to provide it because it directly conflicts with their goal of radically transforming our country demographically and politically, meaning their plans are directly against the interests of most of the native population, but they don't want the chumps to understand this. Imagine sites that keep reliable and detailed statistics and stories regarding politically incorrect local crimes and other attempted official malfeasance, like when police in some large cities try to keep crime statistics down by discouraging victims from filing crime reports. If the general public knew there were reporters and activists committed to fighting this official corruption, it would be much harder for the elites to continue their current con game, because sympathetic sources, including those within our institutions, would know they'd have trustworthy reporters to inform.

Unless the elites try to create a totalitarian state, they will be unable to stop the free flow of information. If they do try to create the totalitarian state, they will likely find they've gone to far and have caused a major rebellion against their usurpations, at least if they try within the next decade or two.

It is vital that we create some White-friendly newspapers, including many local ones and at least a few national and international ones. A service can be created by pooling together the resources of many local actors with some national and international resources supported by the many local papers and other organizations, foundations and donors who value these alternatives. Many of the national and international resources can actually be part of an international network of people cooperating to provide wide coverage while mostly using local resources in each case. For example, hundreds and even thousands of European volunteers and advocates could provide substantial coverage throughout Europe for worldwide audiences, just like thousands of American workers can provide American coverage for European audiences as well as Americans. Some of this already exists on the internet, but it hasn't been organized to synergize into effective national and international networks.

Many of the local newspapers can start by supplementing existing local newspapers. So instead of attempting comprehensive local coverage, they can start by focusing on those stories normally supressed by corporate media. They can also act as critics of the local papers by demonstrating the various devious and dishonest ways that stories and events are censored and slanted by corporate media. They can also provide truly free speech related to local issues, unlike many existing newspapers which censor many politically incorrect comments. I believe a better approach than censorship is to provide various tools that allow people to filter out intellectual sabateurs without actually suppressing free speech. For example, in an open forum, some people might try to disrupt honest argumentation by creating many nuisance posts. Eventually such commenters will lose their credibility with most readers who will ignore anything they say. I believe tools could be built that would allow full freedom of speech while empowering users and groups of users to overcome those who essentially argue in bad faith and detract from useful discussions. Other tools could also help in supporting or rebutting arguments by pointing to more detailed arguments and evidence. The goal is to encourage honest, open-minded and thoughtful consideration of many different perspectives to try to come up with the truth and the best policies. I plan to discuss this more in a separate post.

Much of this work can be done purely using the internet and various low-cost or free content management tools. Guides can be created to help intelligent average citizens act as effective fact checkers, researchers, reporters, writers and editors. I also suspect that many older, retired citizens who are deeply concerned about the direction and future of our country will volunteer, and since they are retired, they are less able to be intimidated for fear of their future career. So ultimately much less money would be needed because we could harness more activist and volunteer labor and we would not be so concerned about making money. The more success this media achieves, the more volunteers, donors and supporters it will attract. Parts of the media could also pursue various media-related revenue streams which would both empower themselves while denying those resources to the anti-White corporate media.

One way local volunteers and workers, in many cases relative amateurs, can act as effective reporters is to get out and do much of the tedious legwork that is a vital part of genuine reporting. That involves attending various official or community meetings, talking with many different people within the community, pooling and analyzing local information, much like an intelligence gathering operation, analyzing various official and legal records, building relationships with various power brokers, bureaucrats, elites and average workers within many different organizations, and assertively using laws like the Freedom of Information Act to compel the authorities to provide information in the public interest. Evasive or deceptive behavior by authorities can be exposed to create public pressure for keeping them honest. As these movements gain more credibility, it will be much easier for sympathetic or self-interested members of institutions like government, corporations, organizations, etc, to act as sources, including anonymous whistle blowers. Obviously great care must be taken when working with anonymous sources who sometimes have selfish interests for selectively leaking some information or disinformation. Alternative newspapers and news services can have a public web page with different ways to contact reporters to provide information, providing tips on internet anonymity, uploading documents securely over the web, phone calls, personal meetings and even clock-and-dagger techniques for the extremely cautious, like Deep Throat used during Watergate. Also, as they gain prominance, officials will be forced to give these reporters the same rights they given to other professional reporters.

By focusing on honesty, accuracy, objectivity, fairness and long-term credibility, trust can be built up among Whites and non-Whites alike. The core of White advocacy to me is that Whites are merely arguing for simple fairness so that they are treated no worse or better than any other group and that we can pursue our interests just as much as other groups are allowed and encouraged to. White Advocacy to me is about being pro-White rather than anti-Black or anti-Jewish. Sure, some parts of other communities sometimes do things we consider anti-White and we'll criticize them for that, just as it would be reasonable for members of other communities to criticize Whites if they believe Whites have behaved unfairly, like various historical injustices Whites have committed against Blacks, Native Americans or Jews that needed to be rectified and atoned for. Ultimately, we need to look to the future and try to build a positive, healthy and fair society, and I think free speech, inquiry and debate are critical tools to achieving that.

A major goal for much of this new alternative media is to be White-friendly so that our perspectives, beliefs and arguments are treated with the respect, objectivity and fairness they rarely receive in any MSM. Critical scrutiny would also be applied to current sacred cows whose misdeeds are currently shielded by the MSM. The overriding goal is to overturn the current political correctness and de facto censorship that help to deeply corrupt our "civil society" and to reach out to our currently brainwashed average citizens and cognitive elites. Although there would likely be many different niches within the White advocacy ecosystem, I think this relatively moderate one is the most important because it can help the most in deprogramming large numbers of our people and breaking the political correctness stifling much of public conversation.

Print-on-demand stations that rapidly print magazines or newspapers in airports or news kiosks, can be exploited. For example, if a customer knows they're going to go by a certain kiosk, they can order their desired product and prepay for it using standard online payment systems so they'll be assured of not having any significant wait. There might even be a fully automated disbursement system where they enter a purchase code and it automatically dispenses their order with no human intervention. They can choose which stories to include in the printout based on their interests. So each person may get the parts that most interest them. Perhaps it typically takes 20 or 30 seconds to print out a typical custom newspaper (it probably won't have the huge volume of ads that current ones do) and by preordering they can avoid any delays from competing customers. Although the printers would probably be designed so that customers rarely have to wait longer than three minutes under most circumstances even if they walk up. Of course within a few years you'll be able to have your mobile device detect your location and automatically show you local kiosks and their availability and let you quickly make your desired order. This shows how current magazine and newspaper distribution could be radically changed for those demanding paper copies.

But probably most people would dump paper altogether and just read the content over the web or on new-and-improved devices, as discussed above for magazines.

Alternative TV


TV is the critical media for reaching our average citizens. Many average and below-average people don't read all that much but watch plenty of TV. This is a crucial media that must be challenged both for news and for culture production, which I plan to discuss separately. TV can also be valuable for our cognitive elites, with high-quality, thoughtful and articulate programs being an important niche we must cover, i.e. a PBS alternative.

Imagine brutally honest documentaries done with professional graphics and reporters intelligible to average TV viewers directly confronting topics like Non-Asian Minority crime or immigration and how various elites benefit from deceiving the general public about these problems. I think within a year or two such shows would capture significant market attention, even if it was secret guilty pleasure of borderline SWPLs. Imagine frequent, vivid illustrations of how our country is being colonized and transformed into an alien land, which normally Hollywood and the MSM love to hide while propagandizing us with warm little lies. Imagine an investigative news magazine that targets Hollywood, the MSM, corporations, the refugee industry, and the full universe of our politically correct, multicultural and leftist enforcers. Imagine talk shows with experts like Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailor and Jared Taylor instead of the usual liberals and neocons. Of course I'm all in favor of useful debates between a wide range of people including leftists, liberals, various non-White advocates, neocons, moderates and others. The problem is that paleoconservatives, race realists and other perspectives have been almost entirely excluded from MSM exposure and the exposure they typically get has negative framing.

Pretty much all the news programs produced today like morning, noon, nightly and late night news as well as actual breaking news and special events could be covered. Also the full range of support and analysis, like talk shows, interviews, documentaries, debates, group discussions and many others. We should be open to emerging and innovative formats, especially those exploiting new technological possibilities that encourage wider community participation. Various technologies like voice masking could be used to encourage participation in controversial subjects while political correctness still reigns.

The critical innovation will be a new generation of devices that will allow TV sets to connect to the internet and download content, essentially bypassing our current satellite, cable and broadcast channels. These have revolutionary potential to break the corporate control currently applied to all of these capital-intensive or physically constrained distribution channels. So new virtual networks and stations can be created that anyone can "tune into" over the internet. If people like what they see, they will explore other offerings on these channels and related media, and they will recommend these channels to their friends and family.

The new devices can be based on open standards and even open-source software with new features being added periodically. They would have disk storage and act like a DVR where they can hold store shows, perhaps even hundreds or thousands of shows before they run out of space. They might very easily allow extra storage like external hard disks to be added that can boost the available storage. They might even allow customers to use and support peer-to-peer networking so the users can donate some of their internet bandwidth, particularly when they're not using it, and some small portion of their storage to hosting general content, so that there no central server is needed to host the content. Instead the general public can mostly use each others' storage devices to retrieve the shows, which makes media distribution time and cost much lower for content creators. Peer-to-peer technologies can also have very high-performance. Based on upcoming internet improvements, many people will probably be able to watch high-definition TV shows, including news, with at most a short delay to cache a little data to improve the quality of the performance. But people could also automatically download the shows they know they want to see so they can watch without having to worry about network problems disrupting the show.

Even slow network connections would be able to download shows of interest with high quality, it would just take more time, so they would wait to watch the show until after it is fully or nearly downloaded. Like DVRs the devices would be able to both download new content while playing currently stored content. The software could make it easy to create disks to store the shows to share with others who may not have internet access or for archiving. These devices could have reasonably intuitive on-screen menus and help to make them easy for average users. Since they're hooked to the internet, they could download audiovisual help that explains the devices, or allow users to browse help forums on their TV looking for help with their problems or to post a question. The device could probably enable full blown web surfing and other information services and tools as well as TV, especially now that most TVs will be high-definition. Some new internet-TV synergies may be possible, allowing the TV content to be playing in part of the screen while enabling other tools to work next to that. For example, the user may make text or audio notes that comment on the TV show, perhaps to investigate or clarify some point. Friends or virtual communities could interact while watching a show together or a user could create comments and questions for other members of a virtual community synchronized with different parts of a show. One use of the capability would be for activists to critique and analyze existing shows to help create guides debunking MSM propaganda and manipulation.

The tools to create news programs and documentaries, like cameras and editing equipment are much cheaper than historically, so low-cost equipment can be used to create professional-looking shows. Ideas, techniques and software can be shared and developed by this network of local channels, further lowering costs and improving effectiveness.

So given the possibilities of this new technical infrastructure, we want to create a White-friendly alternative media just like for the magazine and newspaper segments. In fact many of the same people can contribute across these different media, for example, doing research and journalistic leg work, and the different organizations can closely collaborate and cross-promote one another. Again, local people can start by covering the set of local stories that are currently suppressed and heavily slanted to build up market credibility. These various local virtual channels can pool their efforts with other local channels to create virtual national channels, perhaps with a small dedicated national or international staff.

As far as advertising, among other possibilities, we can promote local manufacturers, businesses, organizations and individuals that are committed to strengthening local communities and American workers instead of offshoring, outsourcing and insourcing foreign workers like so many amoral, traitorous corporations. Ideally we'd create some alternate retail channels that supply American products made by real Americans. I'll explore those ideas in a separate post. Funding could include donations from appreciative audiences. Using the internet many small donations would go far in helping these enterprises stay solvent. For example, viewers could become sponsors of a yearly series by paying $10, or if they particularly like a show, they can give a $5 donation. They could buy moderately priced disk sets for their personal use or to give as gifts.

One interesting application would be to capture an MSM news show, like the nightly news and then wrap critical content around it so that average people can see where the corporate media is trying to manipulate and deceive them. This can be linked to proof, like detailed documents and stories that elaborate on this for those that want to verify the accuracy of the critiques. This approach can be applied to any TV production, including cultural production, documentaries, public debate, government meetings, etc.

These media can tie into partners in other media, like web sites, magazines, newspapers, radio, organizations, etc. One goal within White advocacy is to create broad networks that collaborate and synergize.

If a network became large and professional enough, it might eventually be hosted by traditional cable or satellite systems. The network could also be something of a grab bag that has a wide-range of shows, particularly early on when less content is being produced.

Alternative Radio


New communication technologies will make inexpensive audio feeds through the internet or personal mobile devices possible so that traditional radio can be supplemented or displaced, just like TV. The main goal is to make it extremely easy and convenient for average people. The same points made for other media pretty much apply to radio as well.

General Strategy of Alternative Media


It is likely that as alternative media becomes more successful, the MSM will feel pressured to be more honest in their coverage of issues, since they'll have been embarrassed by the detailed exposure and critiques they will suffer. This would be good since it would demonstrate success in improving our "civil society" to be more honest and less anti-White.

Since our highest goals are not making money and serving our corporate masters, we can be free to pursue any innovations that emerge, even if they don't bring in revenue. It is likely that many new possiblities will arise in the future, some of which will likely have revenue potential.

A wide range of content targeted to different audiences should eventually be produced. For example we need to target average, above average and exceptional people. Other demographic segments should also be targeted like different age groups, both sexes, different subcultures, including blue collar workers, small businessmen, professionals, government, law enforcement and military, non-White groups, and even artsy, SWPL-types and committed leftists. Different segments may be reachable to some degree by packaging the message differently. In fact constructive relations with non-Whites can be enhanced when they hear an open and honest hearing of White advocacy which I see as pro-White but not anti-non-White, other than our desire to stop further non-White colonization of our country which will upset the ethnic balance of the nation and likely ultimately lead to serious societal problems if not checked. If Whites behave badly, they should be chided and likewise if non-Whites behave badly, they should also be held accountable. A major problem with our current "civil society" is its intentional rejection of a simple, fair standard like this in favor of anti-White ideology.

Although my personal preference is for scrupulously honest reporting and analysis, logically we'd want to have the full spectrum of voices, including those that directly confront various strategems and dirty fighting of the left without being constrained by slavish adherence to the Marquess of Queensberry rules. We need to learn from what our competitors are doing and not doing and also from our mistakes.

Providing Superior Services


Since our main goal is to encourage open dialogue and spread our message, we would be very flexible in helping consumers receive and manage our message. For example, we'd make it easy to retrieve archives, search for particular segments of interest, create notifications when user-specified subjects are to be discussed and so on.

Many of our programs would be more enjoyable because they wouldn't constantly be interrupted by annoying commercials which usually undermines any genuinely thoughtful exploration of a topic. Our shows would also be more interesting because we would enable full discussions unconstrained by the chains of political correctness. More accurately, we'd want to create several different virtual channels that would cater to different segments. One important target audience are the large group of Whites mostly brainwashed by anti-White ideology, so the channels targeting them would be more subtle and circumspect in countering the normal MSM propaganda while raising questions about typical MSM assumptions and values. As consumers are deprogrammed, hopefully many would begin exploring more blunt alternatives.

Since the most important parts of our alternative media would be highly truth focused, we could provide much more background and raw data for interested consumers to see the validity of our reporting. For example, detailed collections of legal documents, perhaps with a few blackouts for the reasonable privacy of innocent parties or irrelevant personal details, FOIA requests and their responses or denials, would be linked to stories, along with more background information and full interview transcripts, press conferences, etc. The goal is to provide much more raw material allowing truth auditing than the press normally provides. This sort of truth auditing can be done by well-organized teams of people.

Other sources could be linked or excerpted under fair use. With some improved software tools some of this effort may not be all that difficult and over time very powerful resources could be built up exploring many issues. For example related stories, topics, background, and many other facets could be interrelated. The tools could also be provided to consumers to help them deftly navigate and search these resources as well as enabling an extensive community that would ultimately help recruit further members and volunteers, while allowing vigorous debate with opponents which would help us sharpen our understanding and arguments, or even make corrections or alter our viewpoint when we're wrong.

Alternative Supplements and Watchdogs to Existing Media


I plan to do a separate post discussing a variety of information services that would act as resources for White advocacy and other topics, but one valuable service is the media watchdog. Some already exist, like Media Research Center, but it seemed to have a somewhat partisan GOP and neoconservative slant when I last followed it off-and-on a few years ago. Sometimes we could make use of existing media watchdogs, but we'd also want our own to expose media bias, manipulation and propaganda based on our concerns.

One very important service would be to dissect MSM stories and shows showing exactly how they lie, omit, distort and otherwise dishonestly report the news. Analysis of how they serve other interests could also be done, including navigating the web of corporate and financial relationships linking various power structures.

Part of the offerings would be classic examples of the various propaganda techniques to educate and sensitize the public to dishonest reporting, while another part would be ongoing analysis of everyday news. Much of this everyday analysis could be done by an organized set of amateur volunteers who could be trained and managed by more sophisticated leaders. They could also use powerful information tools and databases to explore other stories and facts related to the story. This technique could be applied to local, regional, national and international stories and the MSM stories could be linked to corresponding alternative media treatments or to alternative media supplements that provide additional details that the MSM left out. By providing these politically incorrect details that the MSM loves to omit, alternative media will both weaken the public's trust in the MSM while enhancing their own reputation.

Some Miscellaneous Thoughts


One key requirement for building these alternative media starting with limited resources is to begin organizing and managing those resources available to us more intelligently and strategically. By pooling a relatively modest contribution of money, time, intelligence, creativity, energy and drive from tens and hundreds of thousands of volunteers, we could achieve far more than just complaining over the internet. I plan to discuss this in a separate post.

Our new media organizations would periodically be infiltrated by leftists and others desiring to undermine them. We would need to be cautious to prevent them from undermining the trust that must be built up slowly and carefully. Since a key value is honesty and transparency, there aren't any particular secrets to hide, but we must still think strategically about how they might try to undermine our fledgling institutions using dirty tricks.

We'll need a group of White advocacy lawyers and legal organizations to help defend against various attacks from our opponents, including frivilous lawsuits designed to consume our resources and energy. If they play dirty, we can also use our creativity to return the favor.

If a censorship regime is created here, we'd need to apply a wide-ranging strategy to overcome this. This is actually a real issue, because many parts of the White world are already facing creeping totalitarianism and censorship much more serious than the US. We'll likely need to help support and strengthen many technologies and services designed to evade censorship and government control. We'd likely have to work on dispersing our content across many countries worldwide and helping average people learn how to work around official censorship using various software tools. Fortunately we wouldn't be alone because there any many different groups working to overcome government censorship.

It's also important to remember that not everyone in the government is happy with the direction things are moving, so one important goal is to encourage our natural allies within many elite-dominated institutions to help undermine the elite and corporate power grabs, corruption and malfeasance.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Some Comments Over at Roissy's

Update: 2009-04-29: 2nd update

I've actually done a bunch more posts (16+) on the second thread mentioned below. And they involve a lot of interaction with some other posters, including a typical Jewish, bad-faith douchebag. Head on over to Roissy's and check it out! I'm probably gonna be too lazy to copy all of these over to this post when you all can just read it all in context. That'll leave more time to finish up my giant post on subverting the MSM I hope to publish within a day or two.

Update: 2009-04-29

I've followed Latte Island's suggestion to copy the comments here as a courtesy. There are some very thoughtful commenters over at Roissy's though, so you might want to check them out in their full context, as well as some other commenters running other conversations that are interesting.

Original post with some editing

I've posted a number of somewhat long comments on two of Roissy's recent posts, discussing topics like Jews, Blacks, Whites, "civil society", immigration, etc.

The first thread discusses immigration and the demographic transformation of California.

First Thread: Text Message Of Dire Portent

First CommentLocal Copy of Comment
Second CommentLocal Copy of Comment
Third CommentLocal Copy of Comment

In the second thread I make much longer comments covering a variety of topics.

Second Thread: Sobering Thought of the Day


First CommentLocal Copy of Comment
Second CommentLocal Copy of Comment
Third CommentLocal Copy of Comment
Forth CommentLocal Copy of Comment

Roissy and some of his commenters are sharp and have interesting things to say.

If I make some more comments later, I'll add more links above. You all can also just jump to the thread and search for my handle, or you certainly might like reading over other folks comments as well.

I'm also working on a long post (and have been for a while) on ideas for subverting and replacing the mainstream media. I hope to have it finished in a day or two.

I'm curious whether folks like my giant posts, which I hope are somewhat logically coherent in covering a subject, or whether you all would like me to break them up into smaller chunks, perhaps with a "table of contents" post for a set of them. I'm not sure if they're so long, it gets to be a trial to read the whole thing.

Thread 1: Comment 1


Yeah, but how old are you G?

Are you over 45?

Thread 1: Comment 2


Well said Lucius.

To detail the implications of my question to G, California has radically changed demographically over the last 60 years, particularly since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

You can view the historical ethnic demographics for the US, including California at the US Census Bureau in Excel or PDF files.

The results for California (through 1990) indicate:








Year%White%Black% non-Hispanic White
194095.501.889.49
195093.664.4N/A
196091.975.6N/A
197089.017.0N/A but 76.27 from 15% sample, 78.00 from 5% sample
198076.187.766.60
199068.977.457.22
200659.86.243

The last line comes from the 2006 ACS Estimates according to Wikipedia.

So there have been large and rapid changes to ethnic demographics in California (no surprise).

Our traitorous elites would like to Californicate the rest of the country the same way if they can get away with it.

We shouldn’t let them.

Thread 1: Comment 3


@G

My point was that if you were a young man, you wouldn’t have been alive to witness the full scope of the demographic changes in California. You’ve only witnessed the latest incremental step in our out-of-control immigration, which might not look that radical if seen from the perspective of, say, ten years (although I’ve actually seen many natives report how much worse it has gotten over the last 10 years.


Thread 2: Comment 1


Obsidian said:

Voodude makes a powerful point that I’ve been thinking about for awhile now-why are people, who don’t live among or even near such “others” spend so much time thinking, writing, ruminating about said “others”? I mean, its pretty clear that Roissy and others, take great care not to rub elbows w/NAMs in any major way, if at all.

So…wassup with that?

To answer your point about rubbing elbows with NAMs, our "civil rights" laws deny the historic right of free association, so it is both illegal and abhorred by our "civil society" for a group of Whites to segregate themselves away (it's kosher for Jews though). As the country becomes more non-White, it will become more difficult to escape the third worlding of this country unless you have wealth or power. The old White ethnic neighborhoods of yesteryear that provided community and safety for non-elites are now a forbidden dream.

So why think about these issues? Because we're rationally analyzing the future of this country based on current trends and don't like what we see.

We already have plenty of evidence in from many areas of the country, like California, Florida, Arizona, New York, with the following results: wire-pulling-elites-living-in-gated-communities-with-lots-of-wealth? life is goooood! middle-and-working-class? life is not so goooood!

I personally get along well with foreigners and have always been interested in foreign cultures, languages and peoples. But in the same way that I respect those other groups and countries and don't think globalism should level all countries into controlled consumer cattle, or that the US should be imperialistically dictating to them, I respect my own nation and people and don't want to see it heavily colonized and transformed into something alien, particularly since this has been engineered very dishonestly. It's now "racist" to speak out against the transformation, while in 1965 it was promised that no such transformation would occur, in order to pass the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Likewise with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 where a "one-time" amnesty would be granted in exchange for future immigration control and border enforcement. They've lied through their teeth every time and deserve no more trust or credibility.

An example of what our elites have planned for us comes from america2050.org which is sponsored by some left wing foundations, global corporations and the Jewish J.M. Kaplan Fund.

Here's a quote:

America 2050 is a national initiative to meet the infrastructure, economic development and environmental challenges of the nation as we prepare to add about 130 million additional Americans by the year 2050.

America 2050 is guided by the National Committee for America 2050, a coalition of regional planners, scholars, and policy-makers to develop a framework for the nation's future growth that considers trends such as:

* Rapid population growth and demographic change
* Global climate change
* The rise in foreign trade
* Sprawling and inefficient land use patterns
* Uneven and inequitable growth within and between regions
* Infrastructure systems that are reaching capacity
* The emergence of megaregions

Look at the passion the Jewish J.M. Kaplan Fund has for "Migrations":

The Fund aims to support: a) comprehensive immigration policy reform for the United States; and b) the integration of immigrants into local and national communities. The former aim is pursued through grants for public education and advocacy. The latter is pursued by efforts, initiated by the Fund, to: bolster local immigrant-friendly policies and programs; highlight immigrant contributions to the commonweal; and establish, with the Migration Policy Institute, a new award – the E Pluribus Unum Prize – intended to honor government agencies, non-profit organizations, businesses, and individuals who have succeded in integrating recent immigrants and adding value to the larger community.

I wonder if the Kaplan family support the same policies for Israel that they do for the US? We've got plenty of third world non-Jews we could ship off to Israel so they too can enjoy the magically enriching benefits of diversity (Our Greatest Strength! TM) and marginalization within their own land.

Thread 2: Comment 2


Obsidian,

Thanks for your courteous reply. Let me answer your questions in two posts. Here's part one.

I'd be interested in hearing your ideas and opinions about the content of my posts.

I'm also curious if you believe our "civil society" is anti-White or not (e.g. Hollywood, mainstream media, academia, K12 education, government, etc)

Let me answer your second question first. Freedom of association is being denied to Whites when they can't create and participate in ethnocentric organizations, either legally or through social sanction. For example, the typical university has dozens of ethnic organizations catering to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews (as an ethnic group) and so on, but if Whites even establish non-racial organizations like Youth for Western Civilization, they are excoriated and shunned as racists and get their own $PLC bulletins. Again, this is NOT a White group, but they are effectively treated as if they were and considered beyond the pale.

So if Whites tried to establish White Engineers, White Student Association, White Lawyers, etc, they would be condemned as bigoted Nazis and their future career prospects harmed. Such are the blatant double standards governing our "civil society". Another example, in the House of Representatives, the Congressional Black Caucus has refused to seat White representatives who represent majority Black districts. Can you imagine our "civil society" approving of remotely similar behavior for any White group (such White groups aren't even allowed right now, meaning, they are technically legal, but anyone participating in an explicitly White ethnocentric organization is outcast as a racist Nazi, particularly by Jews, who have TONS of rabidly ethnocentric organziations for themselves)?

Another facet to traditional freedom of association was the ability of neighborhoods to legally control their ethnic or racial composition. This was overturned in the 1960s and unscrupulous real estate moguls used these legal tools to destroy ethnic neighborhoods, while making handsome profits and ensuring a constant supply of new customers with Whites continually being pushed to new, temporarily safe, expensive areas. In many cases remaining Whites and their children would suffer violence as the neighborhoods deteriorated. Detroit is a classic, if extreme, example. "White flight" was really ethnic cleansing against Whites in many cases.

You yourself have discussed the violent nature of Black urban areas in previous posts. Frankly many Whites want nothing to do with such environments. If a certain subgroup of Blacks prefer a thuggish and violent lifestyle, I'm OK with them pursuing such a life within their own spaces, but Whites, particularly non-elite, non-wealthy, Whites should also be allowed to pursue a healthy, safe environment for themselves and their families and defend their own spaces against violent aggression.

The next facet of your point revolves around the replacement for traditional freedom of association by the new implicit freedom based on wealth. So wealthy people can escape to nice areas filled with nicer people (excepting the recent trend toward Section 8 housing that intermixes some of the thuggish subclasses into areas they otherwise couldn't afford, although they normally target the middle class and not the rich). California now has many gated communities for just this purpose, analogous to long standing Latin American patterns for separating the classes. These were unnecessary before our recent "enrichment" by diversity.

So you are correct that since a larger number of Blacks are less wealthy, they are more limited in where they may live. It's not a legal restriction but an economic restriction that statistically affects Blacks more than most other populations.

One reason Blacks have a bad reputation as a group is their tolerance and coddling of the thuggish subclass responsible for so much crime and violence. Most Black leadership defends and excuses their bad behavior instead of properly condemning it. I also believe a disturbing portion of the non-thuggish Black majority shares this attitude and sympathizes with them, at least when they're sticking it to Whitey. Given all the anti-White propaganda coursing through our popular culture, educational system and so on, it's not too surprising that so many Blacks have a lot of anti-White hostility.

Thread 2: Comment 3


Obsidian,

Here's part two dealing with your first question.

The "short" answer for why Jews have both historically and currently are pushing so hard for third world immigration into America is that they consider this in their group interests. Professor Kevin MacDonald has documented in great detail in three books written during the 1990s. They benefit while displacing their traditional competitors, Whites, who they distrust as potential Nazis. This is demonstrated by a notorious quote by Jewish activist Earl Raab, from Chapter 7 of "Culture of Critique"):

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.
(Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, 1993 February 19, 23)

They are benefiting by displacing the traditional WASP leadership of the country while they fit in as "White" even though they have a great deal of hostility for the traditional population, which is frequently masked euphemistically as contempt for "flyover country". Many Jewish commentators including David Gelernter, Ben Stein and Michael Medved have discussed this.

An example of very disproportionally Jewish representation is their enrollment in top-tier universities, which then provide the most prestigious manpower for other elite institutions in government, media, academia, business, Wall Street, etc.

Look at the numbers of Jews attending various elite universities: THAT'S DISPROPORTIONATE! Where's the liberal and diversicrat outrage for 2% of the population taking 38% of Northwestern, 33% of Washington University (St. Louis), 30% of Yale, 28% of the University of Pennsylvania, 25.5% of Harvard, 25% of Brown, Columbia and Cornell, 21% of NYU, 18.3% of Michigan, etc? (NOTE: these are all outstanding schools and nearly all outstanding schools have way more than 2% Jews: do your own search: e.g. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is about 10% Jewish as is UC Berkeley: Those are large campuses that are 5 times disproportionate). Since Jews are categorized as White it turns out that (non-Jewish) Whites are strongly underrepresented at many elite universities, if we want to follow the affirmative action bean counting so sacred to our "civil society".

Of course, since Ashkenazi (European) Jews have an average IQ of around 110, it is to be expected that they will be somewhat overrepresented among the intellectual elites, but part of their disproportion also comes from ethnocentrism. For example, several years ago a study was done analyzing the citations of scientific papers and they discovered that Jewish authors tended to disproportionally cite other Jews and cite them more heavily, which could enhance their careers, since a major metric of academic success was how frequently your publications were cited.

Historically Jews across the broad spectrum of beliefs and organizations were nearly universally supportive of scrapping the traditional immigration restrictions, like the national origin quota, while in modern times, it is still extremely popular, but some dissenters have appeared, mostly because they fear the impact of Muslim immigration.

If not for the Jewish activism in promoting these policies, it never would've happened as thoroughly documented by Kevin MacDonald in his The Culture of Critique with Chapter 7 focusing on their role in overturning the national origin quota in 1965.

An excellent source for further exploring these issues is The Occidental Observer which contains many articles with copious links to additional sources of information. A basic philosophy of this site is that Whites should organize and behave ethnocentrically just as much as other groups, like Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Jews, are allowed and encouraged too.

Our civil society is now explicitly rejecting the color-blind society. For example, consider the many publically funded institutes at universities staffed by taxpayer-funded academics, like The Kirwan Institute.

Here's a full quote for context with particularly interesting parts in bold:

For some time now, the push for colorblind discourses, policies and practices around race and ethnicity in the United States has become more and more pronounced. Some justify this push with reference to the mistaken belief that nowadays racial identity has only marginal effects on a person's or group’s social interactions or access to social and economic opportunity. Some advocates for colorblindness go further: more than superfluous, they say, race talk of any kind is inherently divisive and pernicious.

At Kirwan, we agree that all too often implicit and explicit race talk has indeed been used to divide and alienate. At the same time, we believe colorblindness, though sometimes urged by people and organizations with the best intentions, is a mistake—one with profound consequences. The critical question is not whether to use race, but how to talk about race in a variety of contexts. That question is an empirical one we engage in through a number of projects. In some cases we specifically examine how people talk about race and how such conversations impact their behavior. In other work we look at how issue "frames" operate. And in still other projects we look at the efficacy of using class-based or universal policy approaches to racial matters.

In the Diversity Advancement Project, for example, the Institute is collaborating with the Center for Social Inclusion to develop strategies to increase public support for racial, ethnic and gender diversity in our public and private institutions. Our project on Democratic Merit aims to push colleges and universities toward greater investment in those communities and students whose success is needed to enhance the health and strength of our multiracial democracy. And in our projects on African American-Immigrant coalition building, we work to understand the conditions and contexts that facilitate constructive, institutionalized relationships across lines of race and nativity, and those that tend to undermine or preclude such relationships.

It is impossible to quickly summarize all of this work, much of it ongoing. What we can say is that context, audience, and environment all matter in determining how best to promote racial justice. We can also say that, drawing on our own efforts and those of numerous colleagues and experts, we expect to make steady progress toward agreement on how the findings of this growing field can usefully shape our collective social justice advocacy and activist practice.

Note that brazen advocacy and politics is pursued at an academic institution funded with public money and this is only one of many. Here's another one that also lists further such scams.

Of course for all their happy academic talk about "context", their idea of fairness and balance is Whiteness Studies, which is a direct attack on Whites, our identity, history, traditions and peoplehood, in constrast to EVERY other ethnic studies, which openly advocate for their ethnic group.

Consider one of the flagships of the Whiteness Studies movement, racetraitor.org:

The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.

The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in US society.

The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse.

RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race. It will encourage dissent from the conformity that maintains it and popularize examples of defection from its ranks, analyze the forces that hold it together and those that promise to tear it apart. Part of its task will be to promote debate among abolitionists. When possible, it will support practical measures, guided by the principle, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.

The editors publish things in RACE TRAITOR because they think that publishing them will help build a community of readers. Editorial opinions are expressed in editorials and unsigned replies to letters.

Yeah, right. "White trash" shares a more exalted status than Oprah, Chris Rock, Michael Jordon, Colin Powell or Barack Obama.

I don't see these academics ferociously calling on anyone to smash the Black race, which they would do if they were logically consistent. Likewise, Jews are much more successful than Whites (and, by transitivity, vastly more so than Blacks), yet I don't see any of them trying to deconstruct Jewishness or dismantle Jewish privilege.

F*** them and their double standards and hypocrisy.

Kevin MacDonald documents how substantial Jewish influence was mostly responsible for these "cultures of critique" (of Whites).

Thread 2: Comment 4


@chicnoir

You're correct that such national-origin organizations are permissible. But most American Whites have ancestors from many different European countries. Many government and corporate forms, including for new jobs, ask me if I'm "white", not of Irish or German descent. And since White people are demonized by Hollywood and our media and legally discriminated against by our government, this only strengthens our pan-European identity as Whites.

Some Jews argue that the Palestinian people don't really exist because they supposedly don't have a historic existence. Well, given their treatment over the last 120 years by Zionists, even if they didn't really exist two centuries ago, they sure do now.

The existence of White identity is much, much older than the anti-White leftists claim, as discussed in the comments on this thread. A few more comments down from this one, I give some excerpts and some google book searches anyone can run to see some proof.

If the pan-African Black identity is "celebrated", then White should be too.

Likewise given a Jewish identity encompassing Mizrahis, Ashkenazis, athiests, Buddhists (still considered Jews) and the full spectrum of Jewish religious belief from Reconstructionist to Haredi Jews.

Likewise for creating a synthetic "Asian" identity for American consumption. In Asia, they consider themselves Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, etc, first, second and third over pan-Asian.

The key insight that killed my lifelong belief in the color-blind society was that the left, as it takes over our "civil society", is motivated by hatred of Whites instead of love of non-Whites, and this is reflected in the increasing anti-White policies, rhetoric and ideology. The color-blind rhetoric was just a tool to dispossess Whites of their traditional society and as we are marginalized, ethnic politics will likely rule the day and Whites will be a hated scapegoat class, similar to the kulaks genocided in the millions by Stalinist Jews in the 1930s.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Illegal Alien Amnesty: The Last Straw

The New York Times is reporting that Obama wants to legalize the current hoard of illegals in this country by pushing legislation through Congress this fall. Naturally, they're promising to enforce the border and require employers to check that new employees are legal. Gee that sounds familiar... Oh yeah, they promised they'd do both of these things to pass the "one-time" amnesty in 1986.

How well did that turn out again?

Of course, they followed this "one time" amnesty with a whole sequence of one-off amnesties, 500,000, here, a million, there, with NO ENFORCEMENT except a few token scraps on occasion for the cameras. Here's more history.

When selling IRCA in 1986, they claimed there were around one million illegals, but they ended up legalizing 2.7 million at that time AND another 400,000 in a subsequent amnesty in 2000 for those who complained they were improperly excluded from the 1986 amnesty. How many of these 3.1 million have used family unification to legalize additional millions of immigrants? This time Obama is throwing around the ridiculous 12 million illegal figure that hasn't changed for years, even though the actual number is likely at least twenty million and perhaps even over 30 million.

The pack of lies continues.

I think this amnesty would be the last straw.

If amnesty passes, the last shred of legitimacy in the federal government will finally snap. The Constitution is essentially dead letter with activist judges, bureaucrats, legal scholars and activists evicerating the traditional understanding of objective law by bending it to their will using postmodern sophistry like Humpty Dumpty:




"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."
We have the illusion of continuing our historic Republic, but, in actuality, a critical core has been replaced by elite betrayal, Cultural Marxism, non-White supremacism, particularly Black and Jewish, corporatism, corruption and raw anti-White ethnic politics, which all act against non-elite Whites and our descendants.

The system is seriously broken and there doesn't seem much chance is reforming it.

As I've partially discussed in past posts and intend to discuss in the future, the US has become structurally anti-White in all the major institutions of "civil society" (media, Hollywood, advertising, K12 education, academia, law, corporations, government, wealthy foundations, organized religion, etc). Immigrants with no history in this country immediately benefit from affirmative action that explicitly discriminates against Whites. As an added bonus, Whites get to subsidize their displacement by non-White aliens through high taxes. But this isn't good enough for the White-hating leftists pushing for even more anti-White hatred, vilification and discrimination. The lower we fall, the more they want to kick us in the head, stomach and family jewels. It is staggering how much more overt and vicious anti-White hatred has become over the last twenty-five years. If we don't start fighting back, it will get a lot worse.

If amnesty passes, we need to stop supporting the current regime, and strategize how we can intelligently perform mass civil disobedience and weaken its perceived legitimacy. Regardless of the result of the push for amnesty, we need to begin seriously subverting the institutions that are destroying this country and colonizing it with armies of aliens. Concomitantly, we must be build a wide constellation of alternative groups and organizations that can wean both our average and elite citizens away from the pernicious control mechanisms used to turn them against their interests (media, Hollywood, K12 education, universities, corporations, etc), or at least give a significant fraction the awareness and tools for resisting much of that control.

It is critical that we have many different, independent movements and organizations that cover a broad spectrum of beliefs. Obsessing about ideological purity hurts our broader cause. We need to build bridges to our misguided kin and sympathetic non-Whites. Likewise, we need to defend the rights of our more extreme brethren and encourage others to genuinely try to understand their perspective. We must break the leftist and Jewish (see Neocons and Lawrence Auster) strategem of manipulating Whites into condemning those further to their right. More on this later.

When I say "this country", I mean what really matters: our traditional population and its culture, history, values and character that make us distinctive, not some abstract, universal ideology making us easy pickings for our elite overlords, particularly the Jewish ones, who advocate diametrically opposed policies for Israel. An outrage of modern America is that our healthy patriotism has been harnessed by our enemies to manipulate many Whites into supporting causes directly against their interests, like Neocon imperialism, American exceptionalism hubris, proposition nation ideology, anti-White discrimination, among others.

I plan to discuss relations between non-elite Whites and other groups, like elite Whites, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and so on in more detail later, as well as the fact that we must try to understand why some Whites have been co-opted to anti-White activism. One critical point: we must try to understand how they see the world, why they think their policies are highly moral and we must provide intellectually and morally persuasive arguments to rebut their strongest arguments while explaining our vision effectively.

One example of an anti-White institution is the Roman Catholic Church, which, for the last few decades, has relentlessly pushed open borders, propagandized its parishioners and transferred massive wealth from White members to illegal aliens and refugees, among others. A lot of Catholics aren't happy about this and some have voted with their feet by leaving the Church. A more constructive response is to start organizing, speaking out and talking with little old Catholic ladies, who normally leave lots of money to the Church, to educate them on how the Church has betrayed this country, its citizens and the Church's legacy. This isn't the Church of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen or Father Charles Coughlin. The Church would likely "rediscover its patriotism" if Whitey stopped paying the bills, or at least it might split into traditionalist versus social justice factions. Some rural parishes aren't getting the wall-to-wall indoctrination like the urban ones, so if they had more awareness of the problem, they could apply more pressure. Another approach is to pursuade millions of Catholics to convert to various Orthodox faiths that aren't agitating for the destruction of our country and people. A good chunk of illegal alien Hispanics go to church just to get free goodies and won't be contributing all that much to the Church's wealth in the future.

Similar efforts should be made in other churches fed up with the leftists gutting or inverting traditional beliefs in favor of "social justice". And the traditionalist dissenters shouldn't slink out quietly, but forcefully litigate to receive their fair share of church assets and property if the leftists don't want to share equitably.

Likewise for the rest of our "civil society" institutions now in thrall to evil or corrupt elites. More on this later.

The decline also reflects the cultural and moral decline of our mass population over the last half century. If we create alternatives to our current "civil society" institutions, we can reverse this decline, at least for a portion of our population.

If amnesty passes, I think the best we can likely hope for will be to break this country up into pieces, leaving those parts heavily populated by SWPLs, aliens, Jews and thuggish minorities the freedom to create their multicultural utopia, attempt to continue the American Empire for Israel and rabidly promote gay marriage, group marriage, child marriage, animal marriage, and whatever else they claim are inalienable human rights that are intuitively obvious to everyone decent. Whatever dudes. Nice knowin' ya.

To be clear I believe there is a small but important subset of certain minorities that is thuggish. A major modern corruption is that the ethnic leadership and a disturbingly large portion of the average folks within those minorities defend and excuse the thugs' atrocious behavior instead of anathamatizing it like Whites do for their own much smaller population of thugs. It's an important piece of evidence that they're behaving very ethnocentrically and we'd better behave likewise.

The more traditional parts of America can create a new and improved Constitution(s) that try to fix the fatal flaws of our current one and have more cohesive populations. By breaking up the country, we'll allow regional diversity where San Francisco can really step on the gas pursuing their philosophy to its logical conclusions without any concern for the "prudes" in Oklahoma. More power to 'em. I think it would be highly instructive for the survivors.

Roughly speaking we would break between the red states and the blue states, although there is no reason to preserve existing state boundaries, when many states have polarized subregions. There would be complications in handling a variety a urban areas, like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and so on, but in some cases they could have a good chunk of their metropolitian statistical areas and some countryside for additional growth while in others they might contain a much broader local region. The predominant population and values of the local community could determine the choices. I would anticipate some migrations between different regions by people wanting to live in an environment friendly to their values, culture, ethnic group or other interests.

There are many ways to partition the country and different approaches to how they would interrelate or not. To list just a few possibilities:
  • Articles of Conferation style weak central government with more powers devolved to the states, including some states banding together to enforce common secured borders

  • Breakup into several smaller independent countries, from two or three to twenty or thirty

    • Varying levels of cooperation between countries, e.g. economies, transportation, R&D, etc.

    • Different countries could have different Constitutions and follow different values and policies.

      For example, some could be ethnic nations, while others could be multiracial. The ethnic nations probably wouldn't be 100% pure, so much as overwhelming controlled by one ethnic group, and preferring to remain that way through strong control of the border and interior.

    • Some ethnic states may choose to limit Jews so their own population could lead and develop its own culture and institutions without being displaced by this high-performance, highly ethnocentric elite, just like Black nationalist states would likely choose to limit the role of Whites so Blacks would occupy most of the leadership and elite positions. Other states would likely be dominated by Jews as the elites or crypto-elites, so they would still have plenty of places to flourish.

    • Many details would need to be negotiated to disentangle existing commitments and allowing reasonably efficient transportation (this is secondary to sovereignty though)
There are many ideas related to breaking the US into more manageable parts and the notion is gaining momentum. It may also be possible to accomplish the division in a fairly civilized manner. Some models for the subsequent inter-American relationships would be the traditional American-Canadian relationship or the pre-EU modern Europe, where national borders were enforced but substantial interaction and trade still flourished. For this to become a reality, there must be many people exploring and developing many concrete ideas that can then be promoted among various segments of our population. More on this later.

Most Americans did not sign up for this highly risky social experiment that involves massively colonizing our country with low social capital or incompatible aliens. And frankly, even if some of the immigrants are great people with high abilities, like some Asians and even Africans (I know some professional Igbo that are impressive, including having very high marriage rates), why should our homelands be colonized, while their homelands remain ethnic strongholds. The con game is that pretty much ONLY Whites are being colonized.

If the elites think it's such a great idea, why don't we partition the country and try the experiment for fifty or one hundred years in perhaps 30% to 40% of the country and assess the results before committing the entire country. This is simple risk management.

Even worse, pretty much every White homeland in the world is simultaneously engaging in the same risky, essentially irreversible experiment. Whites need to wake up and take back at least a portion of our homelands for ourselves and our descendants. Sure, some Whites are culturally and racially suicidal. That's their right. But it's time the rest of us escape their insane gamble that will likely fail spectacularly with dire results for our people, forever.

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Anti-White Bias: University Scholarships

This post supplements: Debunking "One Million White Ethnic Scholarships ..." by Chris de Morsella

Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and other non-Whites receive many racially-oriented scholarships without stigma. Searching for "Black Scholarships" or "African American Scholarships" yields many sites that provide real scholarships or tell how to get them. The same is true for "Hispanic Scholarships", "Asian Scholarships" and "Jewish Scholarships". Look at the huge list of large corporate donors for just one source of Hispanic scholarships (here's a separate large source).

Yet searching for "White Scholarships" or "Caucasian Scholarships" yields very few hits for getting scholarships. Many of the hits are people questioning whether any exist and how to get them if they do exist. Other hits are for scholarships where the family name "White" is part of the scholarship's name, like "Wayne F. White Scholarships". The first and only link on the first page discusses White scholarships as pretty much being limited to some scholarships for Whites to attend public Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBSUs) that want to increase diversity for legal reasons since they're overwhelmingly Black.

The second results page contained another link listing a few actual White scholarships which I analyzed in detail in my previous post. As I discussed in my previous post, almost no White racial scholarships exist while the ethnic White scholarships that do exist are NOT racial scholarships but only require ethnic ancestry that some non-Whites can also claim: e.g. 1/4 Italian or 1/8 Polish. There was also one link by an explicit White advocacy group but it appears to be very small and apply to youth education unless they're misusing the word "secondary education".

Many other hits related to a few provocative attempts to create tiny, token White-only scholarships, like this ABC News story: Whites Only Scholarship Creates Outrage about the controversial attempt by the College Republicans of Boston University in 2006 to establish a one-time $250 scholarship for someone at least 1/4 White. Naturally the politically correct, multicultural crowd were outraged.

From the Harvard Crimson article above (emphasis mine):
But in interviews last night, several Harvard students said that the Caucasian-only scholarship was divisive.

“An act such as this is probably not going to help people on the other side of the table understand where the BU Republicans are coming from,” said Jason C. B. Lee ’08, president of the Harvard Black Students Association. “We’re open to discussion, but we think it should be done in a less inflammatory way.”

Leaders of Harvard’s political community agreed, criticizing the means used by the BU Republicans.

“If they want to have a serious debate about affirmative action, that’s one thing,” said Eric P. Lesser ’07, former president of the Harvard College Democrats. “But if they want to resort to these gimmicks, then that’s despicable.

“The statement they’re making is worthwhile,” said Mark A. Shepard ’08, the former vice president of the Harvard College Republicans, “but they are themselves engaging in discrimination to protest discrimination.”

“This idea is completely ridiculous,” Vijay G. Warrier ’09 said. “But if this scholarship is awarded, Indian-Americans should be allowed to apply because any reasonable usage of the term ‘Caucasian’ would include most Indians.”
All this outrage for a measly little $250 scholarship for someone who only has to be 1/4 White! The Black Student President thinks establishing a tiny scholarship for someone that is only 1/4 White is inflammatory? Wow. There are probably at least tens of millions of dollars per year in scholarships and grants ONLY for Blacks and it is "inflammatory" of Whites to create ANY vaguely White-based scholarship (1/4 White is not very restrictive)?

I'll take double standards for $1000, Alex.

There was a similar incident at the University of Rhode Island in 2006-2007 where the College Republicans ran an ad for a $100 scholarship and the Student Organizations Advisory and Review Committee tried to derecognize the College Republicans. The commissars only backed down when they came under public scrutiny by the national group FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).

This outrage at creating token White racial scholarships while ANY non-White racial or crypto-racial scholarships are encouraged is a ridiculous double standard that Whites should stop tolerating. Expose the one-way Color Blind Con Game (TM) to your friends and family! Discussion among ourselves is an important first step in breaking the power of our corrupt anti-White "civil society". We need to be pragmatic in recognizing that various people are at different levels of receptiveness, so our advocacy needs to be thoughtful targeted to each audience based on how much reality they can handle at that time. More on this in a future post.

It's time for Whites to advocate for themselves EXACTLY the same way that Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews and anybody but "hideous Whites" gets to do now. It's only fair.

We don't have much time left to fix our country because the demographics are going to be locked in soon. Once that happens, our options narrow considerably and the chance of serious ugliness increases. This topic requires more elaboration in a future post.

Probably the best we can hope for over the next three years is to prevent an illegal immigration amnesty and begin creating and strengthening alternative institutions to displace the societal control mechanisms that mentally enslave Whites directly against their interests (media, Hollywood, K12 education, higher education, advertising, etc). Again, more on this later.

Of course some of our strongest opponents are deracinated, leftist Whites and SWPL Whites. Special care needs to be taken convert more of our cognitive elites out of this subculture and to weaken its allure for our talented youth. Again, further thoughts in a future post.

Update: 2009-04-05:

It goes without saying one of our strongest opponents are a significant portion of the Jewish community, most of their organizations and many of their powerful members embedded in our elites. They have been and are strongly opposed to Whites pursuing ethnocentrism the way they rabidly do. See my Original Giant Post for my take on this with lots-o-links.

An interesting source discussing Jewish ethnocentrism is Israel Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" which appears to be fully available here.