Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say

Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, January 27, 2015

{snip}

After political correctness burst onto the academic scene in the late ’80s and early ’90s, it went into a long remission. Now it has returned. Some of its expressions have a familiar tint, like the protesting of even mildly controversial speakers on college campuses. You may remember when 6,000 people at the University of California–Berkeley signed a petition last year to stop a commencement address by Bill Maher, who has criticized Islam (along with nearly all the other major world religions). Or when protesters at Smith College demanded the cancellation of a commencement address by Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, blaming the organization for “imperialist and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide.” Also last year, Rutgers protesters scared away Condoleezza Rice; others at Brandeis blocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a women’s-rights champion who is also a staunch critic of Islam; and those at Haverford successfully protested ­former Berkeley chancellor Robert Birgeneau, who was disqualified by an episode in which the school’s police used force against Occupy protesters.

At a growing number of campuses, professors now attach “trigger warnings” to texts that may upset students, and there is a campaign to eradicate “microaggressions,” or small social slights that might cause searing trauma. These newly fashionable terms merely repackage a central tenet of the first p.c. movement: that people should be expected to treat even faintly unpleasant ideas or behaviors as full-scale offenses. Stanford recently canceled a performance of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson after protests by Native American students. UCLA students staged a sit-in to protest microaggressions such as when a professor corrected a student’s decision to spell the word indigenous with an uppercase I–one example of many “perceived grammatical choices that in actuality reflect ideologies.” A theater group at Mount Holyoke College recently announced it would no longer put on The Vagina Monologues in part because the material excludes women without vaginas. These sorts of episodes now hardly even qualify as exceptional.

Trigger warnings aren’t much help in actually overcoming trauma–an analysis by the Institute of Medicine has found that the best approach is controlled exposure to it, and experts say avoidance can reinforce suffering. Indeed, one professor at a prestigious university told me that, just in the last few years, she has noticed a dramatic upsurge in her students’ sensitivity toward even the mildest social or ideological slights; she and her fellow faculty members are terrified of facing accusations of triggering trauma–or, more consequentially, violating her school’s new sexual-harassment policy–merely by carrying out the traditional academic work of intellectual exploration. “This is an environment of fear, believe it or not,” she told me by way of explaining her request for anonymity. It reminds her of the previous outbreak of political correctness–“Every other day I say to my friends, ‘How did we get back to 1991?’ ”

But it would be a mistake to categorize today’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.

It also makes money. Every media company knows that stories about race and gender bias draw huge audiences, making identity politics a reliable profit center in a media industry beset by insecurity. {snip}

In a short period of time, the p.c. movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote recently in The New Republic.

Two and a half years ago, Hanna Rosin, a liberal journalist and longtime friend, wrote a book called The End of Men, which argued that a confluence of social and economic changes left women in a better position going forward than men, who were struggling to adapt to a new postindustrial order. Rosin, a self-identified feminist, has found herself unexpectedly assailed by feminist critics, who found her message of long-term female empowerment complacent and insufficiently concerned with the continuing reality of sexism. One Twitter hashtag, “#RIPpatriarchy,” became a label for critics to lampoon her thesis. Every new continuing demonstration of gender discrimination–a survey showing Americans still prefer male bosses; a person noticing a man on the subway occupying a seat and a half–would be tweeted out along with a mocking #RIPpatriarchy.

Her response since then has been to avoid committing a provocation, especially on Twitter. “If you tweet something straight­forwardly feminist, you immediately get a wave of love and favorites, but if you tweet something in a cranky feminist mode then the opposite happens,” she told me. “The price is too high; you feel like there might be banishment waiting for you.” Social media, where swarms of jeering critics can materialize in an instant, paradoxically creates this feeling of isolation. “You do immediately get the sense that it’s one against millions, even though it’s not.” Subjects of these massed attacks often describe an impulse to withdraw.

Political correctness is a term whose meaning has been gradually diluted since it became a flashpoint 25 years ago. People use the phrase to describe politeness (perhaps to excess), or evasion of hard truths, or (as a term of abuse by conservatives) liberalism in general. The confusion has made it more attractive to liberals, who share the goal of combating race and gender bias.

But political correctness is not a rigorous commitment to social equality so much as a system of left-wing ideological repression. Not only is it not a form of liberalism; it is antithetical to liberalism. Indeed, its most frequent victims turn out to be liberals themselves.

I am white and male, a fact that is certainly worth bearing in mind. I was also a student at the University of Michigan during the Jacobsen incident, and was attacked for writing an article for the campus paper defending the exhibit. If you consider this background and demographic information the very essence of my point of view, then there’s not much point in reading any further. But this pointlessness is exactly the point: Political correctness makes debate irrelevant and frequently impossible.

Under p.c. culture, the same idea can be expressed identically by two people but received differently depending on the race and sex of the individuals doing the expressing. This has led to elaborate norms and terminology within certain communities on the left. For instance, “mansplaining,” a concept popularized in 2008 by Rebecca Solnit, who described the tendency of men to patronizingly hold forth to women on subjects the woman knows better–in Solnit’s case, the man in question mansplained her own book to her. The fast popularization of the term speaks to how exasperating the phenomenon can be, and mansplaining has, at times, proved useful in identifying discrimination embedded in everyday rudeness. But it has now grown into an all-purpose term of abuse that can be used to discredit any argument by any man. (MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry once disdainfully called White House press secretary Jay Carney’s defense of the relative pay of men and women in the administration “man­splaining,” even though the question he responded to was posed by a male.) Mansplaining has since given rise to “whitesplaining” and “straightsplaining.” The phrase “solidarity is for white women,” used in a popular hashtag, broadly signifies any criticism of white feminists by nonwhite ones.

If a person who is accused of bias attempts to defend his intentions, he merely compounds his own guilt. (Here one might find oneself accused of man/white/straightsplaining.) It is likewise taboo to request that the accusation be rendered in a less hostile manner. This is called “tone policing.” If you are accused of bias, or “called out,” reflection and apology are the only acceptable response–to dispute a call-out only makes it worse. There is no allowance in p.c. culture for the possibility that the accusation may be erroneous. A white person or a man can achieve the status of “ally,” however, if he follows the rules of p.c. dialogue. A community, virtual or real, that adheres to the rules is deemed “safe.” The extensive terminology plays a crucial role, locking in shared ideological assumptions that make meaningful disagreement impossible.

{snip}

Every free society, facing the challenge of balancing freedom of expression against other values such as societal cohesion and tolerance, creates its own imperfect solution. France’s is especially convoluted and difficult to parse: It allows for satire and even blasphemy (like cartoons that run in Charlie Hebdo) but not for speech that incites violence toward individuals (like provocative comments made by the comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala). This may appear to Americans as a distinction without a difference, but our distinctions are also confused, as is our way of talking about free speech as it overlaps with our politics.

The right wing in the United States is unusually strong compared with other industrialized democracies, and it has spent two generations turning liberal into a feared buzzword with radical connotations. This long propaganda campaign has implanted the misperception–not only among conservatives but even many liberals–that liberals and “the left” stand for the same things.

It is true that liberals and leftists both want to make society more economically and socially egalitarian. But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace. (So, for that matter, do most conservatives.)

The Marxist left has always dismissed liberalism’s commitment to protecting the rights of its political opponents–you know, the old line often misattributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”–as hopelessly naïve. If you maintain equal political rights for the oppressive capitalists and their proletarian victims, this will simply keep in place society’s unequal power relations. Why respect the rights of the class whose power you’re trying to smash? And so, according to Marxist thinking, your political rights depend entirely on what class you belong to.

The modern far left has borrowed the Marxist critique of liberalism and substituted race and gender identities for economic ones. “The liberal view,” wrote MacKinnon 30 years ago, “is that abstract categories–like speech or equality–define systems. Every time you strengthen free speech in one place, you strengthen it everywhere. Strengthening the free speech of the Klan strengthens the free speech of Blacks.” She deemed this nonsensical: “It equates substantive powerlessness with substantive power and calls treating these the same, ‘equality.’ ”

Political correctness appeals to liberals because it claims to represent a more authentic and strident opposition to their shared enemy of race and gender bias. And of course liberals are correct not only to oppose racism and sexism but to grasp (in a way conservatives generally do not) that these biases cast a nefarious and continuing shadow over nearly every facet of American life. Since race and gender biases are embedded in our social and familial habits, our economic patterns, and even our subconscious minds, they need to be fought with some level of consciousness. The mere absence of overt discrimination will not do.

Liberals believe (or ought to believe) that social progress can continue while we maintain our traditional ideal of a free political marketplace where we can reason together as individuals. Political correctness challenges that bedrock liberal ideal. While politically less threatening than conservatism (the far right still commands far more power in American life), the p.c. left is actually more philosophically threatening. It is an undemocratic creed.

{snip}

{snip} The p.c. style of politics has one serious, possibly fatal drawback: It is exhausting. Claims of victimhood that are useful within the left-wing subculture may alienate much of America. The movement’s dour puritanism can move people to outrage, but it may prove ill suited to the hopeful mood required of mass politics. Nor does it bode well for the movement’s longevity that many of its allies are worn out. “It seems to me now that the public face of social liberalism has ceased to seem positive, joyful, human, and freeing,” confessed the progressive writer Freddie deBoer. “There are so many ways to step on a land mine now, so many terms that have become forbidden, so many attitudes that will get you cast out if you even appear to hold them. I’m far from alone in feeling that it’s typically not worth it to engage, given the risks.” Goldberg wrote recently about people “who feel emotionally savaged by their involvement in [online feminism]–not because of sexist trolls, but because of the slashing righteousness of other feminists.” Former Feministing editor Samhita Mukhopadhyay told her, “Everyone is so scared to speak right now.”

That the new political correctness has bludgeoned even many of its own supporters into despondent silence is a triumph, but one of limited use. Politics in a democracy is still based on getting people to agree with you, not making them afraid to disagree. The historical record of political movements that sought to expand freedom for the oppressed by eliminating it for their enemies is dismal. The historical record of American liberalism, which has extended social freedoms to blacks, Jews, gays, and women, is glorious. And that glory rests in its confidence in the ultimate power of reason, not coercion, to triumph.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • MekongDelta69

    “At a growing number of campuses, professors now attach ‘trigger warnings’ to texts that may upset students, and there is a campaign to eradicate “microaggressions,” or small social slights that might cause searing trauma.”

    These wusses have NO idea what a searing trauma is.
    What a weak and pathetic generation who go to ‘school.’

    • For “searing trauma” I recommend rocket artillery. There’s also being knocked into the sea when an 11-foot mako lands in the skiff one was just in. Child-abuse also works pretty well.

    • Who will scale the cliffs at Normandy, or storm the beaches of Iwo Jima?

      • Speedy Steve

        The same folks scaling the security fence. Oh there isn’t?

      • notyranny

        These gender neutrals can! …as long as it only takes one hand less they spill their mocha decaf lattes in the other.

      • MekongDelta69

        Don’t worry – The Pink Berets will swish their way to the top!

        aka The Fabulouth Fellath of Pointe du Hoc.

    • LHathaway

      I really don’t understand your point. Are you just repeating something someone else has said? Some ‘idea’? Are you trying to seize some kind of power (the same way leftists have) by making readers afraid to disagree with you? I really don’t think you have genuinely frightened any readers in any way . . .

      If the forces of political correctness were weak and pathetic, you wouldn’t be posting here underground on AmRen.

      I criticize you, but I’m sure, in some other post, or in some other conversation, you’re calling people ‘wussies’ is effective. I’m guessing your audience is likely other men. Men who likely in response ‘toughen’ up even more. Men are going to have to get in touch with their feelings . . . or at least speak up . . . if anything will ever change.

      • MekongDelta69

        Men are going to have to get in touch with their feelings.

        What’s this? A Barbra Streisand ‘wusses’ moment?

        I have no idea what you’re rambling about, and don’t care, but as the expression goes:

        If the shoe fits, wear it.

        • As a university undergrad, I once issued an invitation in a university computer forum to a “consciousness-lowering session” at my place off-campus. The instructions were “Bring a six-pack and a bad attitude.” The resulting freak-out by the PC-ers was epic.

  • Luca

    Having ones feelings hurt is subjective and to be expected in the real world.. there is no law against it. Speaking your mind is the birthright of every American Citizen.

    Besides…Political Correctness kills.

    • Anna Tree

      That’s what they want though, to make political correctness a law, to have outlaw words etc Wait until we get the “Office of Linguistic Truth” or the “Ministry of Truth”…

      • Jim Kental

        It’s already here……..

    • M&S

      Females form in-groups because they have long been do-nothing dependent outcasts in society. To be a member or ‘ally’ of such a group is first and foremost to be aware that solidarity rules all and then to understand that the definition of your loyalty with the group will be determined by others to further their own dominance hierarchy, not by you as a function of whether your argument/contention/disloyalty is factually correct.
      Blacks COME FROM a tribalist society where everything is shared based on a hierarchial allocation of resources. And whoa be unto those who try to gain more than those watching them do because that would be a come uppance in the tribal condition by which all blacks, belonging to the tribe by skin, believe that they are predominant within it.
      Both of these are slave responses to the truly empowered white males who built the structure of America and both of these are shortsighted in their failure to understand Nietzsche`’s warning that only those who create power can really understand morality, all others reflect it, using it as a weapon to undermine those who have so that they may take from the chaotic spoil their own share, unlasting as it may be.
      This is the reality behind ‘PC’ and it has but one solution: to face those who are NOT white but ARE patriarchal (Hispanics for Americans, MENA Islamics for Europeans) and realize that power is what you are willing to hold onto with utter disregard for morality or compassion. White liberated women will find themselves serving another (dominant by numbers and not-micro aggression) race as they never did white men and blacks will find themselves extinct while the Jews and Liberals who started it all, just to throw firecracker in the aquarium will be looking for ‘safer’ waters.
      Because the one thing that unchecked PC will lead to is unchecked greed and reproductive warfare between competing Genetic Algorithms which leads to resource depletion and hierarchialism by preference of race and familiarity -irrespective- of ‘PC’ submission or alliance.
      They are welcome to it. White men will be blended out of existence and with us the brilliance that made the modern world.

      • LHathaway

        Yer insane. *comment awaiting deletion*

        • M&S

          Re: Awaiting Deletion.
          I hope not and certainly not through any attempt on my part, just because you think me insane (I’ve been called far worse). I value opinions even when they are contrary and unsupported by reasoned arguments against mine and I treat such tolerance as a factual measure of proof that I don’t wish protective censorship other than the right to ignore responses I consider beneath me.
          To tackle what I imagine drives your statement:
          When I say that present female psychology derives from their mother’s-mother’s handed down perception of enslavement as an outcast group not allowed access to the open ended success model males as ‘people, not anatomy’, the implication is not that they can’t do anything but that -what- they do is so drudge uniform that they have no sense of it’s worth in themselves.
          Hence they are (or were) do-nothings as a function of advancing their own cause.
          It is this sense of grievance which has caused many of them to readily grab hold of revolutionary feminism which says: “You can do anything you want!” without regard to whether they are qualified or don’t have a primary biologic mission which is more important.
          There have always been hen parties to pass the gossip, relieve the stress and share the workload, just as their have always been bull sessions. And these groups or cliques have a hierarchial rules set which is tribal because they are (or were) perceived as being lonely outposts of sorority in brutal, man-dominated, world.
          To rebel against, or even a comment on the status quo of social condtions for females is to first and foremost pledge allegiance to the cause as defined by others through a probationary admissions process.
          And that is where women get their training as tribalists who brook no argument with ‘certain fundamental beliefs’, whether true in all, some or no circumstances.
          Tell a woman that she has 50% of a man’s upper body strength and 60% of his lower body strength. Tell her that her body is marbled with fat and as a result her cellular function, both aerobically and anaerobically, is inferior due to estrogen repressed metabolic burn (DHA has to get laid down somehow).
          Tell her that her gender has a typical -2 to -3 point IQ deficit compared to males of her race and that this is made worse by the fact that women’s skew is much tighter around that mean with a throw out to perhaps 125-130.
          Making them automatically non-competitive in a world where 135 and up are the movers and shakers among men and the rest of us simply learn to make do.
          And those women will look at you like you just advocated a return to the soft slavery of feminine submissive dependence. Whereupon they will get irate and start ‘womansplaining’ how wrong you are using typically irrational and subjectively unrelated monologue. Loudly.
          Shrug.
          If white women don’t reproduce on the order of 2-3 kids per womb, at the height rather than fall of their fertility (tight generations = minimal cohort gap in society as economics), then their ennobled freedom isn’t worth much compared to the brood stock of other racial groups who do.
          And their ‘attitude’ _will be replaced_ when white men are no longer around to protect them from the racial and social prerogatives of the Hispanics, Arabs and East Asians who all follow a more or less similar, repressive, domineering groomed-for-sex, social model to ensure the subservience of their own females.
          There now, am I still insane or just long winded?

          • LHathaway

            Move out of the #!*#!* #! way. Shut the H E double L up. It’s time for men and boys to start talking.

            You ‘reduced’ your first post to incoherence. Thus, communicating nothing of value you actually intended to. As to your second post . . .

            Shut the H E double L up. Move out of the #!*#!* #! way. It’s time for men and boys to start talking. Appreciate your ‘help’ though.

      • Luca

        Bipolar? Paranoid-Schizophrenia? Psychosis? LSD? Rainman?

  • HJ11

    Chait is Jewish, so of course he wants free speech to knock Muslims. It’s laughable how White conservatives quickly approve of such as Chait and try to make it seem as though it is a liberal who has come around to conservatism.

    One notable person who does this all the time is Rush Limbaugh. For example, let Jacob Javits (Jewish), say a few things that suit some conservative interests–but which mostly serve Jewish or Israeli interests–and you’ll hear Limbaugh singing his praise as a newly minted conservative, while conveniently forgetting to tell his audience that Javits (and others) are really just serving Jewish and Israeli interests.

    • Groovy

      Jacob Javits has been dead for around 30 years

      • HJ11

        My point remains.

        • nicholasstix

          When Javits was alive, he was universally acknowledged to be an
          extremely liberal Republican–no one ever called him “conservative”–and there was no talk radio behemoth Rush Limbaugh to praise him. Javits retired from politics in 1981, and died in 1986. Limbaugh’s talk show career begin in 1987.

          You have no point; you lied.

          • HJ11

            Focus on Lieberman.

    • Jim_Hitler

      The article is a classic example of “playing both ends”, and old Jew trick.
      It is also about 1000 times longer than necessary, and makes no mention of The Frankfurt School and the other kosher origins of PC.

      • TruthBeTold

        The subtext, as I read it, is that the author now sees political correctness as an unstoppable monster of which he is now a victim.

        He’s right in that regard. Anyone can now be denounced by anyone for any reason. To try to reason with a person is now impossible. Everyone is now guilty.

        I’m not sure where this is leading but as the author makes clear dissent and reason are now impossible.

        • LHathaway

          Anyone can now be denounced by anyone for any reason. To try to reason with a person is now impossible. Everyone is now guilty.

          Leading to? It sounds like being a white white boy and in third grade.

  • TruthBeTold

    The author is a dye in the wool liberal. Look him up. But even he sees the consequences and increasing absurdity of PC conformity. Liberals are now cannibalizing their own. Everyone can be found guilty of not supporting someones agenda.

    Conformity to anyone with an agenda opinion is impossible. Feminists used to support the Vagina Monologues but now a subgroup has arisen to tell us the VMs aren’t inclusive because they exclude ‘women without vaginas’.

    It’s becoming obviously absurd.

    PS: This guy, a raging liberal, is now being crucified for this piece. He is now being accused of being a closet conservative with a conservative agenda.

    These people are eating their own.

    • HJ11

      Chait is Jewish first and that trumps his liberalness. He is not coming around to being a conservative at all.

      • TruthBeTold

        I didn’t say he is. That’s what people on the left are now accusing him of doing. They’re feverishness working to condemn him, marginalize him, and discredit him as a traitor to the liberal cause.

        But that’s the whole point of his piece. No one can live up to the liberal standard.

        The Petulant Entitlement Syndrome of Journalists

        firstlook org/theintercept/2015/01/28/petulant-entitlement-syndrome-journalists/

        • M&S

          Knowing the symptoms doesn’t give a cure to the disease. In criminal or accident investigations the Root Cause is what matters and that cause is simply that whites have become so happy in their self-serving condition that they have lost the deep understanding that what they own is theirs solely because they deny it (by force) to the Rest Of World population with whom they don’t want to share wealth-genes-social standards _AND THEY DON’T CARE IF IT’S MEAN_.
          White Privilege SHOULD be real, to Whites interested in maintaining their place as their children’s assured future in a world which reflects their own genetic predilections for built societies and great achievement.
          The difference for us is that we imbue ‘law’ with a logic and rationale all it’s own rather than see it as an artifact of White Tribalism. It may be perfectly reasonable but if it’s not communally accepted as truth, it doesn’t pass the threshold do or do not test for achievement.
          This is why we fail. Because we are past admitting that others are not our equals and should not be given special treatment. We are on the far downslope of “We had better become stridently prejudiced whether we’re equal or not if we want to hold our own social systems together.” White Privilege thus MUST become openly admitted white preferential bias so that others stop feeling they can get anything from coming here because we simply won’t care that they are in need. They are not us.
          Whites (liberal or conservative) will never admit to the evolutionary psychology benefits of prejudice until they see what it means when this protective behavior is abandoned and by then it will be too late.

          • LHathaway

            maybe that’s because ‘evolutionary psychology’ is mostly a fraud. It certainly didn’t exist 40 years ago.

          • M&S

            “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow. ”
            (Kay, ‘Men In Black’)
            At it’s base, evolutionary psychology is that which enables the endogamous group to survive better. It may favor suicidal altruism for one’s own. It may promote selfishness or standoff hostility towards outsiders.
            But it is useful in the manner of being a selection advantaged behavioral type which promotes the generational geneflow of the individual or related genes.
            Racism (as indeed with every other gender, age, class prejudice) has been with us for as long as we have been like all the other animal species of the planet. Showing preferential treatment for our own kind.
            It would not have survived tens of millennia of selection proofing if it was not useful.
            Where people get the wrong idea is in assuming that it is an of/off switch rather than a gradiated slider effect which responds with increasing arbitrariness to the degree of the stimulus which triggers it. We DO HAVE rational control over the expression of the phenotype characteristic but we deny it’s instinctive ‘too far, too much, too big a loss’ conditioned response at our peril.

          • Anna Tree

            I agree except for the use of the term racism: to prefer your kin is not racism: the fact that I prefer my children doesn’t make me a hater of the other children, doesn’t make me a childrenism. The latter preference makes me a good parent, the former preference doesn’t have a word for it I think… a mix of patriotism/racialism/patriarchism, maybe let’s coin it: kinism.

          • BlueSonicStreak

            I think “genophilia” was supposed to mean something like that, although it has yet to catch on.

          • Anna Tree

            Thanks BlueSonicStreak, I will use the term genophilia from now on.
            – Etymology:
            Apparently coined by Sir Francis Galton, from Ancient Greek γένος (génos, “birth, race, kind”) + -philia.
            – Noun:
            (rare) Love of one’s own relations, tribe, kind or race.

          • M&S

            Anna,
            The fact is that we are all related at a distant cousin level.
            While the basis of racism likely evolved at the same time that we began encountering distinctly different peoples (once we left the safety of our glaciated, sub arctic, homelands) the ability accept and integrate new ideas capabilities is also useful -if- the genetic cost is not too great.
            This is particularly true for whites who have likely grown out of microbands of hunter brothers who desperately needed to ‘trade sisters’ as far and wide as possible to avoid inbreeding depression.
            The combination of these two benefits as highly dense evolutionary genecode overlaps for specific (time sense, conceptual reasoning, the ability to ‘dream big’) from within a small population group means that, even if you die to save another white, you in effect save your own gene patterns as Genetic Algorithm survival strategy and thus the /instinctive/ behavior to be open and supportative among other whites is beneficial, even if it harms you.
            No one is asking you, as a woman, mother or person, to trade your child for theirs. What I am saying is that the nature of white kindness and compassion to a fault (we are, by far, the world’s largest charitable givers) is that of a prehistorical environment where lack of stranger-fear was essential to survival.
            Among Whites.
            Kindred Effect as an endogamous group association is thus as much racial as it is nuclear family oriented.
            Because the ROW are anything but kind. They are dispassionate, tribal and viciously manipulative in their will to exploit others for dominance.
            Whites have been through the fire on this, several times: Asian Steppe barbarian cultures from the Caucasus and Caspian areas wrecked Greece; Germanic ones took out Rome, Byzantium was laid waste by Persia and then wiped from the map by Islam; all of which events involved genocidal slaughter of our people and mass exodus away from the threat.
            So it is just as likely, given the highly selective reductions in population and the relatively short time frame that real evolution goes on in, that our prejudices are fully tuned up.
            But we are being influenced, incorrectly and with evil intent, to ‘just accept’ our inundate and subsumation by outside cultures, most of whom have hurt our people before.
            And these cultures are centered around competing Genetic Algorithms (survival strategies written into the gene code) which will NOT acknowledge common ground because they are instinctively about the simple process:
            1. Survive: Childhood to breeding age.
            2. Reproduce: With a mate of equal or better station as success than you.
            3. Succeed: In raising your kids to the point where they can have children.
            The methods that they use to achieve this fundamental process (as societal models) are different but the underlying instinct is as raw and non-negotiable as any other force of nature.
            Whites, for whatever reason, are lacking in this absolutism of natural will. “Us or Nothing, there is no Compromise.” Even though it was quite evident as a socialized awareness as late as the Victorian era.
            It may have to do with the false belief in egalitarianist equity. It may be the industrial waste poison known as Fluoride.
            There is no doubt that we have gifts which the other races simply do not possess in like quantities if at all. And if they were to vanish from the face of the earth, we would survive.
            But not the other way around.
            For whites to be lost in the blendout of our genes into these lesser gene pools as an extinct population is unacceptable.
            So we must BOTH alienate ourselves from the multicult expression of sameness as unwanted attentions and influence from outside populations.
            AND regain moral and empathic connection with our own kind as a source of communally sensed ‘might is right when it’s all of us in agreement’ ability to protect our culture as genome. For no other reason than that our society IS our identity.
            We made it. We must protect it’s benefits solely for ourselves because resources are getting tighter and the other races simply will not stop breeding like rats as they extend a demanding hand for what is ours to own.
            Your race -is- your (extended) Kinship Group ‘Family’, whether you want to own all of it as such or not. It has to be this way. Because we need Armies of unyielding political will and if need be, violently annihilative force to keep our own property as rights.

          • Anna Tree

            Thanks M&S, I agreed with your previous post and still agree with this one, I just don’t think the word racism with its meaning of yesteryears, needs to apply here, that’s all. Genophilia is universal and normal, as you wrote a product of evolution. Probably racism too. I just prefer the former term as it implies more protection than aggression; for political or philosophical reasons, or because I am a woman (emotional reasons) I will concede.

          • LHathaway

            You’re attributing a political expression, modern day political expression, at that, to ‘evolutionary psychology’. It almost sounds like marxist economics (and science), something whose whole point of existence is political.

            If this is true, that evolutionary psychology has a predetermined political truth or expression (and that sure sounds like what you are putting forth as it’s representative) this is an admission that evolutionary psychology is really about politics. Therefore it is not science at all. As far as explaining away colored racism toward whites . . . you do an excellent job of doing that . . . I’m not Surprised evolutionary psychology is just another player on the field for team diversity?

            I must say I take some pleasure in reading Steven Sailor.

            In regards to what else you wrote, I think it’s just as likely, humans have an interest in those who are unlike them, at least in the sexual realm. I think you’d find more actual evidence of that, than whatever it is you’re able to conjuring up to make excuses for non-white racism . . . Maybe you’re just making out whites to be even worse than those displacing them? Hey, anything to keep a reaction toned down and in-check? And a people down trodden?

            You make a good point, at the end.

            I still think EP is a fraud. Like all social science (certainly that covered by the press) it’s true purpose is in it’s influence over the public? So evolutionary psychology is no different than any other science.

            Perhaps I give ‘racists’ too much credit . . . ? I would have to say in regards to Influencing the public. . that public being those few who pay attention to ‘evolutionary psychology’ . . . the purpose must be to make laymen dabble in it sound like blooming idiots. I Seriously suspect that could be it’s point . . .

            nah, it must be about providing cover for non-white racism? Why would it be different from any other news source?

          • M&S

            Politics is merely the group name for behaviors involving exploitation and dominance hierarchy by which resources are allocated unfairly based on labor.
            That said, it is again, not an absolute but a sliding scale between successful management necessary to sustain social growth while providing at least the appearance of individual social mobility improvement in class and property vs. repressive, oligarchic absolutist control without possibility of growth based on classism, racism or (artificial) Agendism as an induced fragmentary boundary condition defining separation lines poor and poorer as well as between elite and labor population groups.
            The better to One Ring them.
            Marxism lies at one pole: ‘Everyone Equal, even if they aren’t’ of Proletariat assumption.
            While Capitalism lies at the other with it’s assumption that ownership of past-achieved wealth equated to rights of greater access to future based equivalent, regardless of the direct labor involved. It literally seeks to ‘grow’ capital (money) for it’s own sake rather than as an expression of achievement, thereby stunting the opportunities for improved condition through heroic or studied action. It is terribly vulnerable to historicalism as heritable rather than meritorious wealth achievement with all the fear of loss and oppressive classism that goes with.
            I prefer Entrepreneurialism as a rewards process for those who can bring real gifts rather than just money to the process of ‘what makes society better makes you richer’ because the opposite is most assuredly not true.
            That said, I don’t believe I used those terms in reference to Evolutionary Psychology but they could be applied to it as competing Genetic Algorithms. One exploiting the labor force as the lowest common denominator of mass rule. The other dominating the resource pool with an exclusive monetary system of trade to which they are the sole ‘charge interest to issue currency’ controllers of exchange rate and total monetary inventory.
            From an economics standpoint, the problem with this absolutist vision of resources or workforce ennoblement is that there is always an outside agency at work in other populations with their own access-rights control over critically needed goods.
            If you cannot ‘buy in’ these people with exclusive deals above and beyond what even your own population gets (or defeat them in battle and outright seize the resources) your access becomes jeopardized. While at the same time, if, in order to maintain system rules you can never allow your own people to become ‘too comfortable’ in terms of owned wealth and drooping productivity, then they eventually start to lose faith and/or the ability to constrain their own spending habits within tighter and tighter limits of an ever widening arc of resource allocations that might best be expressed as ‘scramble the eggs, thin the soup’.
            This is where MY definition of a Genetic Algorithm as a group survival strategy which only works if it benefits the group as a whole (selection criteria) becomes predominant as an Evolutionary Psychology because it works regardless of economic mode and in direct competition with rather than ‘CItizen Of World’ sellout to competing outside groups.
            It is race normed because it is race associative. You cannot live within an evolutionary psychology group which doesn’t reflect certain, common, altruisms as expectations of social normed behavior.
            And it is the very fact that you have grown up together, in an evolutionary sense, from within a common environment which SHAPES those norms to a non-destructive level of conformity with each other’s needs.
            At it’s most basic, this is indeed about breeding rights as sexual Selection. And with real intermarriages being contained to within 4-5 percent of first generation stock and almost 70% followon generation hybrids (because neither parent race wants or gives social/economic/sexual access to them) I think it is fair to assume that we DO NOT in fact ‘seek the different’ simply to be doing so. Were it anything other than this, mankind would have hybridized to a muddy LCD average a long time ago.
            We seek the powerful to improve our position as personal genelines. That is Survive, Breed, Succeed genetic instinct.
            If blacks and Hispanics were powerful as a function of ability rather than quota in a society failing for want of putting merit rather than social engineering before all, I still don’t believe racial in-group prejudices would relax enough to allow miscegenation on a widespread scale sufficient to muddy us up. But if whites are ALSO genocidally disenfranchised and diplaced from their own homelands, then we will go extinct through a combined process of rape-theft of genes and property and destruction of the macro-model of Evolutionary Psychology as a Genetic Algorithm driven society construct.

          • LHathaway

            “not an absolute but a sliding scale between successful management necessary to sustain social growth while providing at least the appearance of individual social mobility improvement”

            What is social growth?

            “I don’t believe I used those terms in reference to Evolutionary Psychology but they could be applied to it as competing Genetic Algorithms”.

            What are these genetic algorithms you keep referring too. Al Gorisms?

            “they eventually start to lose faith and/or the ability to constrain their own spending habits within tighter and tighter limits of an ever widening arc of resource allocations that might best be expressed as ‘scramble the eggs, thin the soup'”.

            “What the h does ‘scramble the eggs, thin the soup’ mean?

            “‘what makes society better makes you richer’ because the opposite is most assuredly not true”.

            Very true. I suspect you’re right – even if I had to guess/think for a moment what the opposite was.

            Nice trying to tie this all in with racial advocacy, white advocacy one would have to guess. Nice try. Almost as if you mean it.

            You should get a bonus gold star among the hate-watch cell you work with and likely volunteered for. Bravo.

          • RationaliseThis

            Evolutionary psychology studies the interaction between behaviour, genes and evolution.

            For instance its clear that characteristics tendencies such as
            Intelligence
            temperament
            Self restraint or impulse control
            Introversion/extroversion
            Sex drive

            Have a genetic basis, consider the hormone oxytocin which makes one friendly and accepting.
            The idea is also that certain ideas such as religion or political ideologies evolve because they provide a particular ‘race’ or group of people a benefit.

          • HJ11

            No it’s not. The basic principles of evolution, when correctly understood, apply to all of existence.

          • tetrapod

            You’re correct. The moral directive should actually be “love thy WHITE neighbor” first. All other tribes — move to the back of the line and we might throw you some table scraps if it’s in our interest.

            This sounds harsh, but it’s nature’s way. Our pathological altruism has put us so at odds with nature we’ve become diseased animals that won’t even defend their own children.

          • Anna Tree

            We don’t use our white privilege but we should: this is how nature works as you said: you inherit what your parents worked for, and benefit from what you are good at doing. Especially since they all say we use it anyway.
            But they know our weaknesses, notably pathological altruism, and they use any of their strength against us like projecting, obviously they are using their non-white privilege all the time. And so blame us for the things we don’t do and the things they do. Again Orwell 101.

        • Nobody can live up to the PC standard. It’s a new religion in which being white is the Original Sin.

        • LHathaway

          Black men are OK with the liberal standard. White women have been OK with it up until recently, recently, as they themselves are less often shown as the face of ‘victimhood’.

          Dinesh D’Souza brought this up mildly in ‘illiberal education’. University administrators (and students) may be physically afraid of other faculty/students of color. The irony is, right now it is just words, shaming, job loss, but in the future it will be real fear of people of color next to them that animate them and enforce political correctness. That is not to say that those who wield political correctness now do not intend physical back-up. Those who wield political correctness, on some level, feel they are wielding the power of physical violence. They feel the force of violence is on their side, and they conjure up that image, that threat, to suite their ‘sensitive’ purposes. Right now, it is mostly words. . . In the future, I suspect it will be real physical fear of people of color beside them which will rule them. I suspect political correctness is just a small, unpleasant foretaste of what is to come.

          • Anna Tree

            Great points! Yes, the fear of terrorist attacks is also terrorism by itself.
            Similarly, bullies don’t always hit, bullied children give them what they want because of the fear. We still call an act stealing, when the criminal asks for the money and the victim give it for fear of what can happen if he doesn’t.
            Political correctness works BECAUSE we fear it: we fear it because PC encompasses already the many punishments it can trigger. And indeed, it could include violence too eventually.

          • LHathaway

            I’m suggested we fear political correctness on a physical level, or at least they intend for us to. There may be more to it than meets the eye.

      • propagandaoftruth

        I personally don’t know Chait, so have no idea what he considers himself first.

        Probably some form of “good person”, like all “progressives”. “Progressive” is code talk for “liberal”, adopted by liberals during the Bush presidency when “liberal” was a poisoned word. Now with the triumph of “liberalism”, it still means the same as “liberal”.

        “Progressive” is an obnoxious self appellation – insinuating all others are some form of “regressive”.

        Typical crypto-Marxist worminess.

        • HJ11

          It’s not what he considers himself, anymore than I am White because I consider myself White. He was born Jewish as I was born White.

          • propagandaoftruth

            Not Gilad Atzmon.

          • HJ11

            The point is not that all Jews have evil intent against Whites, but that one does not choose to be non-Jewish if one is born a Jew, any more than I can choose to be non-White since I was born White.

          • propagandaoftruth

            Brother Nathaneal?

          • HJ11

            He’s Jewish.

          • Speedy Steve

            Chait and I are both White. The difference is that I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; he was baptized with a pair of pruning shears.

          • HJ11

            Chait has white skin (lower case). He is not White (upper case).

          • Anna Tree

            How can Morrocan, Yemenites, German, Iranian or Chinese Jews all be of the same race?

            Yes there might be some common traits but there maybe some common traits between Mulatos and Whites, it doesn’t make the Mulatos and the Whites from the same race.
            I think White European Jews are Mediterranean or Levantine Whites. And Ethiopian Jews are blacks.

            Race realism is beyond ideology. One is white because of his DNA. One is a traitor because of his actions.
            Anti-white Jews are like any anti-white Whites, traitors to their race.

          • HJ11

            One is considered a Jew by Jews if one has a Jewish mother. There is a small percentage of Jews who are converts, but it is a tiny percentage and the most Orthodox Jews don’t recognize them as Jews.

          • Anna Tree

            1) You didn’t answer my question.

            2) About your “considered a Jew by Jews”: Are you Jewish to believe in their beliefs? I don’t think so. I am not jewish either so I don’t believe in their laws/beliefs. The same way I don’t believe when a transsexual man tells me he is a woman or when a child tells me he saw an unicorn in the back yard or when a liberal leftist tells me races don’t exist or that women and men are equal.

            People can think what they want it doesn’t make it true. I think Judaism is a religion, some Jews and Non-jews can think Jews as a race but it doesn’t make it correct. European Jews are whites not because they say so or not, but because a DNA test would say so. I read that article about that one Jew claiming Jews to be a race. Actually he is really claiming that Ashakanaz Jews are a race. Anyway, It doesn’t make it true. Some guy Rael from Quebec claims humans were scientifically created by aliens. And some blacks claim one mad black doctor created
            the whites. It doesn’t make it true. I follow the scientific method that needs empirical or measurable evidences and their testing.

            3) How do you know how much are converts? The only scientific text I read about this is from Razib Khan’s article “Genetics & the Jews” in DiscoverMagazine (Wade also made the same hypothesis):
            “During Greco-Roman times, recorded mass conversions led to 6 million people practicing Judaism in Roman times or up to 10% of the population of the Roman Empire. Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to each other and to French, Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/ Syrian Jewish groups and is incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs. The genetic proximity of Ashkenazi Jews to southern European populations has been observed in several other recent studies.
            Early history matters, and what these findings point to is that a
            division between western and eastern Jews which falls along the lines of Roman-Persian political division exists today even after 2,000 years. In terms of both culture and genetics there is “first mover” advantage.[…]

            So after 500 A.D. it seems that what may have occurred was that a Jewish Diaspora characterized by geographically determined genetic diversity, despite some common original Levantine origin, was genetically isolated from surrounding populations. This explains why there seems relatively little influx of Slavic genes into the Ashkenazim despite their long sojourn within Poland-Lithuania and later the Russian Empire. In contrast, the Roman Jewish community was already large in
            the days of Julius Caesar, and presumably intermarried with the urban proletariat of diverse origins.In an ironic twist these data suggest that modern Jews, in particular the Ashkenazim, but to a lesser extent the Sephardim as well, share common ancestry with gentile Europeans due to the unconstrained character of the pagan Greco-Roman world which Jews were to a great extent strident critics of. Contra Tertullian Athens had much to do with Jerusalem.”

            4) Yes orthodox Jews don’t recognize every conversions, but we are talking about converts of centuries ago. Jews are very mixed. Wouldn’t be surprised that some of those ashakanaz orthodox Jews are descendants of those converts too.

      • Caucasoid88

        Conservatives are mean, and that is why most Jews are liberal, even though, in the deepest sense, they are extremely conservative in everything they do: marry within ancestry, work hard, be independent, have a neutral family setting, etc.

        Ultimately, Jews seem to subscribe to liberalism for very childish reasons. But that’s just me.

        • HJ11

          No, they subscribe to liberalism because it has traditionally been mostly anti-White. Now, some, such as Chait, are conflicted. They want to be good liberals, but some of the threads in liberalism are bumping up against Zionism.

          • Ludwig

            Sir Winston Churchill wrote an article for the Sunday Herold that was published Feb.8,1920 titled Zionism vs. Bolshevism, A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People. Almost 100 years later the struggle continues, only now it’s Neo Conservatism vs Neo Marxism.

          • Speedy Steve

            $orry chum, it’$ about money.

          • Ludwig

            Absolutely. And when you can make money by promoting your own group’s interests, all the better. See Tim Wise or Bill Krystol.

          • JSS

            The chosenites will advocate for what is bad for Whites even at their own expense. They really cant help themselves. The current anti Zionist outrage on the left is just another example them going to far and not being as clever as they think they are.

        • JSS

          What is conservative about fractional reserve banking, the Frankfurt school, porn, the ACLU, NAACP, Bolshevism, Hollywood etc?

        • propagandaoftruth

          Some Jews, like David Cole, Gilad Atzmon, others, have dared call it like it is, but have been viciously attacked by the Jewish (Zionist) media kraken at least as viciously as if they were goy.

        • LHathaway

          You could be right. Most of them may be quite mean.

          Look at what they have turned us into . . .

    • David Ashton

      Not fast enough, but it’s a cannibalism worth watching.

    • propagandaoftruth

      He sounds like a libtard on the edge of being shunned. Trying to talk sense, trying to reach out to his “friends” who will now gleefully rip him to shreds.

      Yeah he’s Jewish, but that won’t save him ultimately.

    • Maximo Partagas

      I do enjoy when liberals turn on one another.

    • notyranny

      Wonderful to behold.

    • M&S

      Or they are generating a masking algorithm that makes them look amenable to sanity by a conservative white base that has threatened to ignore/abandon them as the power system they represent and in the schism that results destroys the leverage of hypermoralistic hierarchy by which they get ahead.
      You can’t be ‘more truthier’ in a ‘double plus bellyfeel’ way if those you have deemed ‘crimethinkers’ have tossed their hands and abandoned you to an argument you win in isolation.
      Never doubt the power of targeted propaganda to gain sympathy votes by saying the obvious ‘with regret’.
      They regret to inform you that they are playing you like a hooked fish, back into their net.

  • dd121

    It’s all part of the leftist agenda of controlling thought and expression. It’s a movement not meant to set us free, but rather confine us to the most repressive intellectual trend of the past 200 years.

  • Douglas Quaid

    The whole victim posturing and PC “You are not allowed to point out the obvious about gays, trannies, blacks, etc” blasphemy laws is a train that has removed the brakes in an attempt to lighten the load. This wont end well. Even commie pontificators like this chap are realizing it now.

  • OyVey00

    Didn’t political correctness basically start when you couldn’t call blacks negroes anymore?

    • propagandaoftruth

      It basically started in Russia in 1917 and has continued ever since.

      • Cindy

        I’ve recently been reading about the 1917 Russian revolution. If I’m interpreting correctly, they used political correctness and leftist values to control the people and make a socialist government.

        • propagandaoftruth

          Yeah, that’s what they do.
          Speech is evidence of thoughtcrime, soooo….
          Marxist communists mass murdered at LEAST 6 times as many as Germany and Japan did in the 20th century. I’d say more like 10 to 15 times, but what’s a few tens of millions here and there?
          The communists are also MUCH better at the thing. They are masters of slipping plausible deniability into the equation, like cutting off food to entire areas in order to purposely starve to death millions of uncooperatives, then claiming it was all just a bad harvest.
          Yet, while “far right” parties are regularly picketed, harassed, or have to continually monitor their speech, communist parties range freely and openly throughout Europe.

    • Speedy Steve

      Not really, it began with The Reformation in the 16th Century which gave England its first born-again dictator in the person of Oliver Cromwell. PC continued to slouch to The Enlightenment of the 18th Century which gave France the Reign of Terror and Napoleon. Socialism/Marxism/Bolshevism are merely the exponential increase of the 20th Century.

      • Ludwig

        Sorry chum, but I Don’t think PC in modern America is the result of some event in the 16th century.

        • M&S

          Perhaps not but since the social bias as left-right brain function dominance of our wills is something which has deep biological roots which are shared throughout history as power becomes overbearing or overbearingly attractive and social-good instinct is betrayed by personal instinct as the means to gain leveraged spoils from taking apart the system as a whole to devalidate the status of someone wielding power within it.
          If we understood the nature of victim entitlement as the projection of self-deeds or desires onto other’s just-gettin’-along behaviors, we would have a much better handle on how to keep liberals in their shell personalities from affecting this social dysfunction upon all of us. The bitter irony being that conservatives are actually much more interested in _what works_ than sabotaging those who do the work to have their own prestige/power/piece of action.
          Unfortunately, the way I see it, the only way our argument will be proven right is if the independent, ‘rugged individualist’ conservatives who judge right and wrong based on what works and what doesn’t are so completely crushed by a ‘democratic’ society exploited by the slave mentality of Nietzsche`’s dependent class that it becomes obvious that the truth of inequality is the truth of giving power to those who shape and create more of it.
          And that will be too little, too late, for our people.

        • Speedy Steve

          First; the founding of the United States was indeed a product of contemporary Enlightenment thinking with a strong dose of New England puritanism tossed into the mix — which prevented it from ending up with a French-style Reign of Terror.
          Second; Political Correctness was a term coined by Mao Tse Tung’s Revolutionary Guards during the 1960s.

          Now if straight White Christian families were put into a reservation, the first people demanding admittance would be atheist liberals.

          • One of the greatest AR comments of all time was on an AR thread about some crackpot leftist saying that white racists should be thrown into concentration camps. He said that if that actually happened, it would be the only prison that blacks would actually try to break into.

      • Weisheit77

        I agree. The precedent goes back to the round heads.

  • Bo_Sears

    There is something mildly exasperating about this essay, and it is possibly because it seems to take for granted that nothing can be done about this zany supremacism emanating from the hard left. But there is a lot to be done.

    First, always attack back by accusing the speaker or writer who attacks the diverse white Americans of being a bigot, a hater, and an essentialist. Always attack back at the speaker or writer, not the demographic affinity group of which he or she is a member.

    Second, always keep in mind that the diverse white Americans are searching for new terms, ideas, and ways to be in this New America, but our proper province is ourselves.

    There is a huge difference between explaining to your children about a particular group of others, on the one hand, and about explaining to your children about self-defense and staying conscious of any group of haters, killers, and crazy violent people.

    Another way to say this is to say that the business of the diverse white Americans is white Americans. It is apparently a very tough thing for white Americans to do, i.e., recognize that they are the group we must comment on, educate about itself, and stay away from categorizing any given demographic as evil or stupid. We need to start talking about ourselves and our children’s future, not the wackiness of every one else. It is a toughie, but we got over the wretched “sticks & stones” refrain over the past 20 years, and maybe over the next 20 years we can devise ways and means to focus our genius and our genetics toward preserving and strengthening ourselves. Not bashing the other is not a weakness, if it helps us to focus on us.

    • M&S

      Demography is destiny and if you attack the speaker, not the agenda (which is always pro-group and thus pro-race) which he speaks for, you end up either nulled by each other’s destruction of reputation. Or in an endless mudslinging he-sad/she-said condition.
      Never wrestle a pig, you just end up looking like an idiot but the pig loves it applies especially to ‘attack back’ on liberals.
      The reality is that race is not a social construct, societies are racial ones. And the society which could go to the moon and do all the other (genomics, robotics, fusion) things which are hard /because/ we wanted to see if we could master them _does not exist anymore_.
      Instead, we are in a hybrid, transitional, form which seeks to annihilate one genetic algorithm by socially as much as genetically denying it a way forward. This is an important acknowledgment to make because Genetic Algorithms are survival strategies writ large by centuries of fine tuning and societies are the /vehicle for expressing/ those ‘Get ahead, stay ahead, beat everyone else to the finish line on a fixed resource pool basis.’ those genetically imprinted behaviors in a most effective way.
      Only the slave classes who pretend to victim entitlement to cover for blatant lack of ability see society as a benefits engine. And it is their shortsightedness, coupled to their massive R-Breeding bad habits, which will destroy that benefits engine.
      Because as there are fewer of us, there will be more of them and more of them = fewer opportunities for High Intelligence get-ahead benefit for our best and brightest to sustain the lot of us. Not the majority of them.
      Year 2100 America will look like year 2015 Mexico. Where the capital city, third largest urban sprawl in the world, is 50% Colonia or slum.
      Until you tell your kids this honest fact along with some method or means by which you _explain to them_ you are going to turn it all around to provide their genome a better chance at life even if it costs the other races their welfare entitlements, nothing you say really means much and those children of today will have little or nothing to strive for in maintaining a world which is no longer by/for/about them.
      Demographics are destiny and our TFRs ensure our extinction before 2150.

      • Bo_Sears

        M&S, criticizing harshly the speaker or writer who defames us hasn’t hurt the ADL at all…at this time criticizing the demography of the speaker or writer for us is problematic because “not all.”

        What you have here is more analysis, and what I provided was ideas for what to do. We really need more of the latter, and less of the former. What are your action ideas?

        • M&S

          Jews get a free critique because nobody will call them on the Holocaust condition by which they can claim instant victim entitlement to the ‘Jew hating white’. You might as well grab that red armband with the spider on it right now.

          >>
          There is something mildly exasperating about this essay, and it is possibly because it seems to take for granted that nothing can be done about this zany supremacism emanating from the hard left. But there is a lot to be done.
          >>

          Can you provide an alternative employment system which rewards race-loyal whites with better incomes and more assured housing inherent to no going with the flow of multicult dystopia?

          As long as business hiring practicese are tried to racial quota systems you cannot.

          >>

          First, always attack back by accusing the speaker or writer who attacks the diverse white Americans of being a bigot, a hater, and an essentialist.

          >>

          Do you go to rallies or television shows where they speak? Do you bring a couple dozen of your most conservative white friends to say: “Hell yeah we like White Privilege!” and force people to think about what giving that up really means? If not you’re opportunities for shaming them for their racially harmful behavior is limited to print and online forums which are already self-censored to the point where you cannot hope for your ‘graphiti’ to survive the powerwashing of the mindless spots.

          >>

          Always attack back at the speaker or writer, not the demographic affinity group of which he or she is a member.
          >>

          They are not separable.

          A Jew who is back-footed about the genocidal Holocaust now ongoing in “Not our country to give away.” Palestine doesn’t scream out that you cannot Indian Giver expect them to return it to their rightful owners. Even for a free plane trip here.

          Instead, you will get an instantaneous: “Oh we poor Jews, once more hated unto dispossession of our lands, just like the 1930s and 40s. Nothing ever changes.”

          Try telling a white liberal that they are hurting their race whose society protects and enables them for the benefit of an outside group which is harmful to it.

          And they will do the same thing: instantly separating responsibility for their actions from the ‘White Supremacist’ ideals of yours.

          A Black will claim slavery as though they are not unfairly demanding your punishment for a crime not commited against them. A Hispanic will claim theft of Aztlan with the same racial-memory Brown Supremacy as they accuse you of.

          White’s ONLY defense is: “Look you are hurting our nation and we were better off without you because we were never victims like you and so are able to get along on our own, without you.”

          Which is the same as saying “Genocidal eviction is the only solution!” to a liberal.

          There is nothing there to be shamed into submission by the evil of their own actions against us as a future-event. There is no rational consideration for what a world without whites looks like when the admission of what whites have already done is the same as stating they have done nothing.

          It is instinctive and reflexive and joy-angry driven as a means of keeping those considerations separated: Whites would be better off without them. They would have nothing if they did not live I na white society filled with goods and services not invented by or for their betterment..

          >>
          Second, always keep in mind that the diverse white Americans are searching for new terms, ideas, and ways to be in this New America, but our proper province is ourselves.

          >>

          Indeed, and if you go looking for a fight, you will be isolating yourself from us because we cannot defend you from whatever sham charge you are framed with. And your simple existence as someone who tried to FIGHT BACK will be treated as proof of racism as an existential evil in whites.

          Rather than a common reality in ALL population groups. Because it is about pushing your own genetic algorithm uphill on evolution without regard to whether it is ‘better than’ the other competitors.

          Can you prove a Hispanic racist? Can you prove a black? Or a Jew? If not, through prejudicial selection of their own in preference to ‘fair merit’ selection in all conditions, you have no leg to stand upon beyond that of “We win when we are allowed to and you area parasite upon our proper system of merit driven reward.”

          Which you will never be allowed to say without being drowned out.

          >>
          There is a huge difference between explaining to your children about a particular group of others, on the one hand, and about explaining to your children about self-defense and staying conscious of any group of haters, killers, and crazy violent people.
          >>

          Your children will be the first ones to turn you in. Because they see their teachers every day in a setting of fellow students and the knowledge-gift you try to impart to them as unique individuals (i.e. adults capable of independent thought) will be outed in the confusion they suffer between loving you instinctively and wanting to believe in what they are told is ‘for the good of all of you’.

          >>
          Another way to say this is to say that the business of the diverse white Americans is white Americans.

          >>

          Trying to adopt another’s battle-speech code words as your own will not mask you from their scorn because the scorn is based on the certainty that THEY KNOW they don’t mean what they say. ‘Diversity’ /=/ Freedom of Association. It means ‘Mandatory Inclusivism’.

          ‘Equality’ /=/ Of Opportunity by Merit. It means ‘By Quota of Outcome’.

          The more you try to use their twisted logic to have standing in debating them, the more you confuse your own and become stand-alone vulnerable to the semantics witch hunt by which liberals and leftists trap and attack for reasons of power, not righteous decision.

          It’s a clique thing. And you will never have standing in it if you are white and male.

          >>

          It is apparently a very tough thing for white Americans to do, i.e., recognize that they are the group we must comment on, educate about itself, and stay away from categorizing any given demographic as evil or stupid. We need to start talking about ourselves and our children’s future, not the wackiness of every one else.

          >>

          Sir, it’s not that simple. Look at Common Core teaching on Youtube. Watch a girl struggle with symbol grouping rather than stack counting on a simple math problem, taking ten minutes to get wrong what she got right in 30 seconds doing it the ‘old math’ way.

          Realize that this style of education is what is being /designed/ to let low functionality ethnics participate in a society they are not otherwise qualified to do.

          Recognize that, along with the twisted math and the instruction sheet level English skills, they are being taught that ‘no one is less valuable’. Which means that no one is more valuable. And so your best bet is to be average so that you fit in with the herd. This has routes in psychological profiling that goes back to the 1960s but is now being taught, congruent with denuclearization of the family, as ‘anything which the group does is good, so long as it doesn’t get you into trouble’.

          And all of this, Federally mandated in trade for prior debt forgiveness is being cohered to a testing standard which means that if you don’t teach to the test (home school, private school, -whatever-) your child will not achieve passing grades and your ability to control and augment what he/she learns will be removed from your control even as their ability to participate in society will be even less than a 35% minority by 2060 dictates. You will be a minority rebel group, a Uyghur, inside a minority group of Dhimmies, living solely by dint of their ethnic worshiping jizzya.
          >>
          It is a toughie, but we got over the wretched “sticks & stones” refrain over the past 20 years, and maybe over the next 20 years we can devise ways and means to focus our genius and our genetics toward preserving and strengthening ourselves.
          >>
          Once they have your child’s will as replacements for your family and Kindred morality, his or her desire to remain genetically white will be lost, in a single generation, forever.
          Once the reality of a ten thousand year explosion of white evolutionary genetics is ruined by brown and black stupid, violent, primitivist regression, the ability to ‘focus’ anything will be lost.
          Here is the hard truth I want YOU to hear: Evolution is an arms race whereby little gains and losses are made on the way to a next-step evolutionary outcome by which not everyone are ‘as equals’ ready to participate. And some may not reach at all.
          This doesn’t mean annihilation but it does mean preservation.
          And that cannot happen in a homeland where racial exclusionary privileges does not protect the endogamous population from outside exploitation and predation.
          These are the twin truths which The Jews and their Liberal middle managers have contrived and connived to convince their foot soldier black and Hispanics is a ‘racist’ lie which will be overcome when the New Race is revealed as an amalgam of their own and white genetic and social outcomes. Hiding the taint of their ‘from race, society’ lack of evolutionary preparation.
          They think that, by proximity and gene flow they will be carried along. And that is simply not how evolution works. Leopards do not become lions. Which do not become Eagles.
          But in a world without Eagles, lions or leopards. Jackals still live.
          You want actionable ideas? Okay.
          1. The majority of the United States doesn’t want Stimulus, Obamacare, Open Borders, Common Core, Endless Wars not in our Interests. Our ‘democratically elected’ totalitarianly unanswerable oligarch politicians do not listen to our will.
          2. China is looking at endless, trillion dollar, deficits and the printing of money which is not coverable by any amount of oil, gold or exports and saying: “We want in.” As quiet ownership of stock in remaining successful businesses. Infrastructure. And land. Through a CRF funding council which amounts to managed oversight of all future loans on a ‘business sense’ basis of justifiable outcomes. Google: ‘China poised to play debt card’. Once they have control, they will _not_ have any incentive to see U.S. productivity become competitive again with their own globalist control over world markets. The easiest way to assure this is to do what the IMF did in Indonesia: stripping ALL social welfare benefits (clean water, education, medical) and leaving it to the numerically dominant Hispanics to win the attrition game while they stripmine our resources and resettle our lands.
          3. Our military signs oaths upon commission.
          To defend this nation against all threats, foreign and domestic. They are not doing so. That will stop when the money is no longer available to afford the status-symbol toys of a global military power (14 billion dollar aircraft carrier, 1.5 trillion dollar warplane etc. etc.) and they have to do real work against low-tech threats ‘as hired’ by individual white states who can find no other way to secure their existence but who are no longer officially ‘paying taxes’ to a disestablished or foreign-owned government.
          All of these internal corruption, external ownership, implosive fragmentation and martial ineptitude functions must come together for whites to have a hope of recovering OUR land exclusively for OUR PEOPLE. And nothing less than this will be evolutionarily salvageable because this planet doesn’t have the resources to sustain the R-Breeding non-whites for much longer.
          >>
          Not bashing the other is not a weakness, if it helps us to focus on us.
          >>
          Trading verbal barbs as character attacks is not about focus but rather the release of pent up, wasted, energy as angst. The only time an insult or an accusation has any meaning is when it is accompanied by the certainty of: “Or else.”
          Stop sabotaging us or else we will exclude you from our society.
          Stop pretending you have a right to force your ‘grand vision’ of divisive (for it is intended to divide, not unify) egalitarianism upon us or else we will declare war of secession and leave you DEAD instead of just dispossessed of all the power that has been entrusted to you.
          Our government is no longer a democracy. It does not do what we elect it to do: protect and advance our interests.
          For this alone they deserve utter divestment of their power and replacement by a system which, regionally or locally, allows majority populations to dictate their own outcomes. While they are still majorities and not fragmented micro-groups.
          This is the opportunity whites need to be _relevant_ again in determining our own fates. Not ‘cleverer’ in avoiding annihilation as a subject population to high TFR ethnics in our own homelands.

    • LHathaway

      No, what is wrong with this essay. . and political correctness. . is not necessarily it’s abuses or it’s overreach . . . it is that they are completely ignore that it is whites and men who are victims in our society. A society obsessed with victim-hood should at least get right who the victims are . . .If it must be all about victimhood, well, OK, but at least get right who the victims are. Is that too much to ask?

      You’re absolutely right, Bo. You’re very long winded but you get to the great point that it is up to us to tell our own stories. To speak up and talk about ourselves. Even our experiences as Whites. Reacting, talking about them (what they want) just gives them more power. Reacting (to whatever is in the news) is all they want from us, nothing more.

      “we can devise ways and means to focus our genius and our genetics toward preserving and strengthening ourselves”

      Come-on, maybe this would sound good in Better Homes and Gardens, but this is AmRen. It sounds like white supremacy. But then, I’m kidding myself? Everyone in the white consciousness movement owes their true allegiance to someone like ‘hate watch’ and they are only pandering to us. Nice job of pandering there. Yer on our side. Sure.

      • MrGJG

        “You’re very long winded but you get to the great point that it is up to us to tell our own stories”.

        Pot meet kettle.

      • Bo_Sears

        Hathaway, take a look at our online syllabus at Resisting defamation dot org for more information. It isn’t my organization, it is intended to grow into a white ADL.

        • LHathaway

          I’ve read through it, several times over the years. I see your latest version reads, ‘this is the final version’. I would suggest another version. But I’m never happy . . .

          Stop pandering to low-IQ or uneducated Whites? They have enough taste to see through it, I would hope. Just because you’re angry, doesn’t mean you are an idiot. And hire a public relations journalist or something. I hope you go nation wide.

          Congratulations with your great successes reforming local medial in California. I can only assume when you wrote them discussing anti-white bias you did so in a quite convincing and factual manner. May continued success be yours.

  • shawnmer

    Dear Lord, we are cowering to the ideological threats of CHILDREN! The adult Marxist professors aren’t left enough??

    What on earth happened to telling someone to get a life?

  • After political correctness burst onto the academic scene in the late ’80s and early ’90s, it went into a long remission.

    That’s news to me.

    Indeed, one professor at a prestigious university told me that, just in the last few years, she has noticed a dramatic upsurge in her students’ sensitivity toward even the mildest social or ideological slights; she and her fellow faculty members are terrified of facing accusations of triggering trauma–or, more consequentially, violating her school’s new sexual-harassment policy–merely by carrying out the traditional academic work of intellectual exploration.

    It’s the march of the overly self-esteemed helicopter parented SJW millennials.

    It also makes money. Every media company knows that stories about race and gender bias draw huge audiences, making identity politics a reliable profit center in a media industry beset by insecurity.

    Hence, the “why is my hot nude yoga class still hideously white” clickbait.

    a person noticing a man on the subway occupying a seat and a half–would be tweeted out along with a mocking #RIPpatriarchy

    Yes, it’s called “manspreading,” which has now become almost as much of a SJW sin as anti-Semitism. Almost.

    Social media, where swarms of jeering critics can materialize in an instant, paradoxically creates this feeling of isolation.

    Sam Francis, who died ten years ago this coming February 15, predicted pretty much this very thing when he noticed the rise of the internet and also that some of his ideological contemporaries thought it was necessarily going to be a instrument of decentralization and a hindrance to the left. “Not so fast,” was his retort.

    Mansplaining has since given rise to “whitesplaining” and “straightsplaining.”

    Another irritating feature of the SJW/social media crowd is the annoyingly rapid rate that new stupid portmanteau terms are being coined.

    The right wing in the United States is unusually strong compared with other industrialized democracies…the far right still commands far more power in American life

    That’s also news to me.

    The historical record of American liberalism, which has extended social freedoms to blacks, Jews, gays, and women, is glorious.

    Indeed it is. Liberalism extended social freedom to blacks, Jews, gays and “women” to oppress and hold the whip against the core of American society.

    • propagandaoftruth

      Ha ha! Chait is dead meat. Check out this brainwashed fem-Marxist harridan at Forbes.

      “I’m a white cisgender woman; there is only so much marginalization and silencing I can personally relate to. But just because a particular discussion doesn’t concern me personally, or rather, if it suggests that I am implicitly or explicitly culpable of perpetuating oppressive systems of thought and language, certainly doesn’t mean that I should dismiss it as having no value. Just the opposite! Privilege is blinding, and those of us who benefit from it are frequently going to need things pointed out to us that we can’t always see from our limited point of view. But Chait’s narrow presentation of the Binder community seems to suggest that if you do not personally have a stake in or can benefit from a particular discussion, then that discussion has a negative value. Chait is entitled to write essays from his own point of view, whether or not we agree with his position. But in this particular section of his essay, he appears to conflate his perspective with with that of the women who provided him access to material posted in a private community.”

      Later she rails at the anonymous women who let Chait into their private no-man’s land…

      “So why would any woman, whether or not she felt the Binders community was a direct benefit to her, provide Chait with access to privileged information that he could manipulate? The rules of Binders Full of Women Writers are very clear — at least 30,000 of us already know what they are — and I am aware that I am violating at least one of them now. But I am violating them with my byline attached. I wish these women would come forward and explain why they – writers and/or journalists themselves – would violate the rules of a protected women’s community for the explicit purpose of supporting a male journalist’s point of view.”

      Ooooh. Huffy and puffy she is! Chait’s soon going to be lucky to get published at Taki’s at this rate.

      Gulag bound now…

      • meanqueen

        “cisgender”??

        • propagandaoftruth

          Not gay…

    • nicholasstix

      “It’s the march of the overly self-esteemed helicopter parented SJW millennials.”

      As a helicopter dad, I resemble that remark!

  • JustJeff

    I don’t know, I think the Marxists had a point about giving your enemies free speech being a bad idea. That’s kind of how we ended up with political correctness and liberalism.

  • Steve_in_Vermont

    We need to keep all this (PC) in perspective. There are still countless thousands of communities in the country where PC is laughed at. Get way from the universities and into the more rural areas. Go to the local diners where locals eat. Bring up the idea of being PC. Then don’t let the door hit you on your butt on the way out.

    • propagandaoftruth

      Problem is, these PC passive aggressive bullies are insatiable. Ultimately there will be no place to hide at all because this is part of the American Marxist slow rot revolution.

      They dominate not only universities but the public schools too. One day there will not be a wilderness remote enough to escape it. At this rate.

      But enjoy the coffee.

      • LHathaway

        “They dominate not only universities but the public schools too. One day there will not be a wilderness remote enough to escape it. At this rate”.

        haha, we must be careful, or one day, the government may take over . . . ?

    • Anna Tree

      I sadly agree with Propaganda, it always starts in the universities and the media and then we get the “Ministry of Truth”…

      • propagandaoftruth

        I always sadly agree with you too, dear.

        • Anna Tree

          LOL sorry I didn’t put “sadly” in the right place. Here fixed:

          I agree with Propaganda, it always starts in the universities and the media, and then sadly we get the “Ministry of Truth”

          … that will hunt us up in those local diners in those white communities in the country where PC is laughed at…

          • propagandaoftruth

            I love you too, Anna Tree. 😉

      • Steve_in_Vermont

        In HS I did a book report on Orwell’s 1984. In college I did a dissertation on this in a course on government. This book should be required reading and open for discussion in every classroom. The parallels to todays government, and the direction we’re headed, are striking.

        • Anna Tree

          But so many have read the book (or The Tomorrow File by L. Saunders etc), and still we fell in the trap and are living in an Orwellian world. Some of us do get it, but most don’t.
          I can’t help but think most people have blind faith, to the mainstream religious or secular ideology of the day, maybe promoted by the elites. And the mob will go after whoever they are told.

          • Steve_in_Vermont

            Anna, I’ve come to the point where I’m (almost) paranoid about this. A day doesn’t go by when a politician doesn’t say something to remind me of Orwell. It’s even in our advertising. “Save big money now”, referring to spending as a means of “savings”. Everything is becoming “relative” with no absolutes. And as to “Free Speech” *,
            *Certain restrictions apply….contact your government for details.

        • Carney3

          A crucial book. But Brave New World arguably fits our current situation better.

    • MBlanc46

      Unfortunately, it’s not just the universities. It’s deeply entrenched in the corporate world and the government, as well. And many white citizens are terrified to violate it unless they’re absolutely sure they’re talking to like-minded people (such as those here).

      • propagandaoftruth

        I’ve just discovered Ben Shapiro. I like him. Check it out on youtube.

        I think he’s Jewish, by the way, lol…

        • MBlanc46

          I’ve seen some of his stuff. Thanks.

      • LHathaway

        and in a whisper.

      • Corporations signed onto Political Correctness because they are acutely aware that their deep pockets make them attractive targets for frivolous lawsuits.

        • MBlanc46

          And, I think, they fear that being called “racist”, “sexist”, or “homophobe” will be bad advertising.

    • M&S

      Rural communities are driven by church and tradition. They are not (as) exposed to the realities of racial multiculturalism displacing whites. And thus they are still as obsessive about the notion of absolute good rather than what is good for us, as any liberal from the big city.
      What white ruralists lack are three things:
      1. The ability or interest to do much about whatever pragmatic views they hold.
      2. A stable population base as their kids flee to the cities and Industrial agro tech overtakes small farms.
      3. A certainty of future in a world driven by ‘regional equity’ and ‘sustainable growth’ towards forced urban mega enclaves where teeth by jowl multicult destroys everything and the urban wilds are the province of the minority wealthy as the expanding colonial base of other nations (China) seeking property ownership to back our ever expanding debt to them.
      I spent summers in rural Missouri around Buffalo and Springfield. I know ‘salt of the earth’ types all too well. They are apt to either ‘Doesn’t effect me…’ indifference or evangelical ‘Can’t be that bad!’ refusal to believe in the possibility of evil being resident in the structured nature of social justice in a society where we are the victims.
      To say they are backward by a generation or three in their perception of the truth is to call a desert dry. The one thing they have going for them is what I call collective projection whereby, if they don’t like you, they can present a wall of bland nothing that is seemingly insurmountable but now that they are all aging out, even that has little meaning anymore.

    • Carney3

      Don’t be too sanguine about rural America. It’s in deep trouble. Heroin and oxycontin. Collapsing families, exploding illegitimacy. Huge influx from Latin America. Jobs drying up, food stamps rising (cashed in for Pepsi as an underground second currency). Obesity out of control.

  • Speedy Steve

    This is simply awful, I could only get halfway through the article before I needed blood pressure pills. Stupidity must be made painful somehow. Maybe townies should rampage through each and every campus cracking professorial and student skulls alike. Offended groups ought to be thrashed with the cat o’nine tails until these cringing milksop pyjama boys grow a pair.

    • You have inadvertently suggested my next home project: making a cat o’nines. I already have a South African sjambok, which is for beating the you-know-what completely out of the you-know-who’s, but a nice cat would be great. I’ll have to source the hemp rope online.

      Have you flogged your crew today?

      • Speedy Steve

        bumpersticker: Have you slugged your kid today?

      • De Doc

        Cold Steel fan?

    • M&S

      It’s not stupidity perse`. It’s a form of directed cunning as social intelligence and it has been tested and rated for since the late 1960s using various profiles questions which supposedly ‘have no correct answer’ but which are all tailored towards highlighting those with a communal ability to do whatever the group does (right or wrong) /up until/ the point where it gets you into trouble because group conformity is deemed more essential than ethical or logical correctness.
      It is now part of the Common Core control-think and it is breeding a generation of feral beasts in our children and making worse those children who were already close to the desired mean.
      Because it inspires a quasi-religious dependence on ‘what the government says is right’ for both forgiveness and acceptance.

  • notyranny

    To “reboot your PC (politically correct) hard drive” everyone should check out the YouTube video by Johnny Rebel called “Quit your Bitchin’ N****R”. It is hilarious !

  • JohnEngelman

    Political correctness means lying on behalf of social harmony. It is difficult to tell a friend or co-worker, “I like you, but I think you belong to an inferior race.”

    An outspoken race realist is like a guest at a Georgetown dinner party that the hostess worked her way through Vasser as a call girl. Even if most of the other guests know that is true, they do not want to be told.

    • Carney3

      This is exactly wrong. PC is not common sense politeness, self restraint, or thoughtful good taste. Chait explained this. It’s about brutally enforcing a neo-Marxist thought system, fanning the flames of an escalatingly hostile radical ideology, and ultimately about waging war against our culture and people.

      • JohnEngelman

        You exaggerate. Political correctness may endanger someone’s job. It does not put people in prison. Blacks lack the power to enforce it. It exists because there are things most whites do not want to be told.

        • Political Correctness does have the ability to put people in prison. Amicus curie is all it takes.

  • Georgia Boy

    “The modern far left has borrowed the Marxist critique of liberalism and substituted race and gender identities for economic ones.”

    This thought is good but then the mackinnon quote shows he doesn’t take it far enough. The Communist Manifesto is very straightforward about what it’s main idea is. History is the history of class struggles. Moden liberalism expands this from class (in the economic definition) to class in identity terms – race, gender, orientation, nationality, religion. All history, and literature, sociology, humanities, arts, every field, are viewed through this lens of the white, male, hetero, and cis oppressing others who arent those things. The modern left is Communism, doubled down on its past failures and more determined than ever to control us.

  • Usually Much Calmer

    This piece was written with reasonable care and long overdue.

  • Cid Campeador

    This is a bit or more than a bit off topic but I wanted a more appropriate story in which to bring this up. I chose this one due to it’s theme on PC.
    I might be “out there where the buses don’t run” but I got this notion that the Deflate Gate scandal was directed at the Patriots’ win due to their being the WHITEST team. I kept it to myself for a week and then cautiously brought up the scenario with some neighbors. To my surprise there were several who agreed that there IS a racial component to this supposed scandal. It’s almost as though they want to take the PATs out of the running “By any means necessary”
    Are there any other AMREN readers who share this sentiment ?

    • I know my biggest fan has so speculated. But to me, I don’t care either way. It’s just the latest obsession of the male half of the low information undertow. People who are more obsessed about the integrity of the PSI ratings of footballs than the integrity of elections and voting and politicians.

    • Spikeygrrl

      I might, if I had the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

      • meanqueen

        LOL! Well, I up voted him anyway because persecuting a white team for being white sounds completely plausible, even if I don’t really understand the details.

        • Cid Campeador

          Well as I said, it may be an off the wall idea. But let’s say hypothetically that they’re going after the Pats trying to prove that there was some nefarious tampering with the :”pigskins” on their part and given the Zeitgeist in the FTA, it wouldn’t be totally incredible that there are those who don’t want to see a predominantly”White” team take the trophy.
          We’re inundated with Afros in Sports, Entertainment and crime reporting. I’m at the point where I don’t write off any possible skullduggery when it comes to Black agitators aided and abetted by self hating White progressives to go after Whites in an attempt to prove that there’s just another plot to keep down the Afros.
          If this scenario turns out to be wrong, I will apologize.
          I’ll personally call Al Sharpton and like Don Imus, grovel for his forgiveness.
          Don’t any of you hold your breath.

  • The best defense against P.C. is to refuse to take it seriously. Mock the delicate blossoms who claim to be traumatized by your “microaggressions.” Pitilessly make fun of their ridiculous posturing. The key is to be the sole, unafraid grownup in a room full of overgrown babies.

    They can’t defend against that, because there’s no defense against, “You are a contemptible weakling. Cry about it.”

    Never acknowledge the validity of their outrage. So your words offended them to the point of actual trauma? They need therapy and probably medication. If they’re that low-functioning, it’s simply not your problem.

  • LHathaway

    The only interesting point the author makes is one that he only suggests: political correctness is causing men not to want to engage. Or perhaps another generation of men not to want to engage? It’s probably what it is meant to do. Leftists have a solution for everything, though. In this case, importing men who have not been subjected to K – 12 political correctness, and, if they have, well, these are the sort of men who are correct and not incorrect.

    This author is incorrect in his analysis of Marxism and censorship. In nations run by Marxism, where Marxists themselves have complete and total power, they also favor and practice censorship. So, in one sense, the author presents an idea opposite of the truth. To paraphrase Lenin (pretty closely) in a passage written promoting censorship, ‘why should a government allow freedom for a newspaper that wants to discredit the government’?

    (Whether intended by Lenin as irony or not) I have sympathy for this point of view. Who is kidding who, our newspapers (where we are supposedly free of censorship) are controlled, and have always been?

    I agree with some of what the author says but he is not presenting the full picture. If you have bad things to say about whites, their history, actions, as a group or as individual, this is not something hysterically punished, this is promoted and any ideas in this direction are considered education and enlightenment. Promoting these ideas may as well seem to be the whole point of universities, and government.

    “according to Marxist thinking, your political rights depend entirely on what class you belong to”.

    As in the Soviet Union, where some views were forbidden and some where promoted, looking at who is free to speak and who is silenced, one must conclude that the ‘victims’ are in power.

    Worse yet is that these are not ’empowered’ victims. These are those who benefit from the system. The only ones being discriminated against, dehumanized, and oppressed are white men. This was true in the late 1980’s. This is true today. Those held up as ‘victims’ are not so at all. They are oppressors, claiming victimhood in order to continue in their evil and nefarious aims.

    Railing and legislating against insults and stereotyping is one thing. Making a stink about those doing so, all the while blatantly doing the same thing (and in a much louder tone) not just in a personal manner but in an organized and official manner as part of pubic policy, well, that is political correctness. Political correctness is the enshrinment of insanity.

  • ViktorNN

    Since race and gender biases are embedded in our social and familial habits, our economic patterns, and even our subconscious minds, they need to be fought with some level of consciousness. The mere absence of overt discrimination will not do.

    What a stupid thing to say. What evidence is there of bias if there is no “overt discrimination?” And what other kinds of discrimination are there? “Covert discrimination?”

    And while we’re at it – enough with making race and gender biases the Most Important Problems in the World. If they’re such important problems then let’s do a thorough accounting of what the problems are precisely, and then solve them.

    Why haven’t we done that already? Because racial and gender discrimination are pretty much over with – there aren’t many significant “systemic” problems left to solve. This hasn’t stopped the left from complaining endlessly and insisting that systemic injustice still exists, but if you look at their laundry list of grievances, their demands are increasingly vague and trivial.

    At any rate, this is a commendable article, perhaps even important. It’s sure to drive SJWs into fits of rage so at least it has that going for it.

    • John Jackson

      Spot on! I was actually agreeing with his article until this part. Right then and there he showed he’s brainwashed too, maybe not as bad as the people he’s describing, but enough.

  • bubo

    What kind of adult would go into a death spiral because of a “micro-aggression?” Hell, what kind of child would? These hyper sensitive adult children need some reality infused into their lives in the worst way.

  • Albert

    The left is vehemently opposed to stereotypes and labeling, yet anyone who opposes their pc view is immediately labeled and their argument discredited on the grounds that the person who gave it must have a biased agenda. It’s come to the point where it is all but impossible to engage in an intelligent discussion with these people.

  • superlloyd

    What he describes is really a sideshow: The liberal/left eating itself as PC becomes every day more absurd.

    His invocation of the classical liberal ‘But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace.’ is a complete sham and an appeal for conservative solidarity in order to undermine it The type of liberal he describes hasn’t existed for over 50 years as it was destroyed by the process which eventually defined itself as PC. His beefs are trivial compared to the real, possibly irreversible damage PC has done and continues to do at an ever increasing rate.

    PC may be absurd, contradictory and ultimately unsustainable but it is the dominant meme in all Western society today and it aims to meld thought in a totalitarian way by semantic games and intimidation of anyone who dares to offer an alternative view, no matter how trivial e.g the Benedict Cumberbatch fiasco. This is done by public shaming, government mandated fiat and the real threat of losing one’s livelihood. It is destroying the West at an ever increasing rate and the groupthink it engenders is reinforced by laws against freedom of expression and freedom of association. PC is a cultural marxist religion that worships diversity and states as dogma that race is a social construct, that all cultures are equal and the white man is always guilty by default. These are its’ central tenets even though these are self contradictory lies.

    Dogma and faith based ideology has trumped reason and science. Science is cowed and rational debate doesn’t really exist as ‘micro aggressions’ and and the pulling of various sacred cow cards strangles freedom of expression at birth.

    PC is madness and death for civilisation.

  • jayvbellis

    Islam is the cure for PC.

    Whenever you see, hear some ugly, PC womyn spouting her nonsense , just subject her to public ridicule by bringing up Islamic realities.

    “Yes sweetheart, America really is the most racist, sexist, homophobic country in the world. So, you be leading gay and lesbian pride parades in Saudi Arabia? You know, maybe you are right America is too Eurocentric, maybe you should consider dressing and acting in the way they do things in Northern Nigeria – you know, FORCED TO COVER UP FROM HEAD TO TOE IN A BURKA, oh and sweetheart, you’ll also have to undergo female genital circumcision, genital mutilation”

    Watch the videos of Ezra Levant in front of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal when they tried to crucify him for thought crimes against Islamic immigration. He is always on the offense, never on defense. We must do the same.

  • De Doc

    What’s the old saying? The Revolution eats its own children? Perhaps a verse from one of the Pauline epistles captures it much more poetically:

    Gal 6:7. [ ] …for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

  • Herman

    When did political correctness go into a “long remission”?

  • HJ11

    Absolutely. It is time for Whites to come out of the closet AS Whites.

  • HJ11

    Yup. Bedroom genocide is a major concern among Orthodox Jews just as it is among awakened Whites. Miscegenation kiills…entire peoples.

  • Luca

    It will eventually devour all our rights. If we let it.

  • propagandaoftruth

    Thanks. I appreciate this. Explains much.

  • WR_the_realist

    I wasn’t aware that there was ever any hiatus in political correctness. It seems to go from strength to strength. It sounds like much of the difficulty can be avoided simply by not using Twitter.

  • Political Correctness is just the left trying to censor everyone else.

    Northwestfront(dot)org

  • BlueSonicStreak

    A very good description of what I endured on the left as well.

    Dozens of bullies materializing out of nowhere if you step out of line was absolutely my experience. At one point I had a left-wing blog where I agreed with most of the left’s ideas. I was a bit more traditional regarding some ideas, but generally toed the line, except on one thing – “Fat Acceptance.”

    If you agree with the left on one thing, you MUST agree with the whole package – or you’re not one of them, and they’ll jump on you like lions on a weakened gazelle. With only a few hits a day on my quiet little blog, I still managed to receive dozens of anonymous messages a week telling me that I was a horrible pond scum that should kill myself. All of this basically over affirming that fatness is physically unhealthy, and there is no such thing as “systematic oppression” of fat people. The screaming, hysterical reactions I got in response to saying this were wildly out of proportion.

    • newscomments70

      I have a similar experience working with younger Asians and Hispanics. They can be polite and helpful, but when it comes to politics they parrot left-wing radical professors and media about “white priviledge”, etc. They use the term “white trash” as it is going out of style. Any neo-con politician, such as Mitt Romney, would be labeled as a “racist, older white man, going extinct”. They believe that all pedophiles are older white men. To reiterate racial crime statistics would be met with shock and horror. They follow the Obama movement like mindless robots. Asians are considered the “model minority”, and Hispanics are thought to be “natural conservatives”. In reality, most of these groups hate whites and can’t wait to dismantle everything that whites have built. Superficially, whites can be friends with these groups, but unless you fully suport your own genocide, you will not be accepted. I feel that Asians are not naturally hateful people, but they gleefully absorb left wing propaganda. They remind me of Jews. About 20% are normal and realistic. About 80% are left wing radicals. There is a small number of white hispanics that side with whites, but most harbor animosity and prejudice against them.

    • One of my “fat acceptance” friends ended up needing a quadruple bypass operation at the age of about 40. She’s a very kind lady, and it was a real pity. Anyone who does that to themselves is clearly doing something seriously wrong. For a real shocker, look at black & white photos of Americans taken 100 years ago: almost no pathologically obese people! Food is cheaper in relative terms than it used to be, and sitting in an air-conditioned office doesn’t burn off calories the way old-school industrial labor did. There’s also the issue of fatty “convenience” foods and HFCS-laden soft drinks.

      • Speedy Steve

        Maybe the absence of television had something to do with it. At the Town of Warrenton Museum near here, they have a WW1 army uniform on display. It would be too small for today’s 8th graders.

    • Carney3

      “If you agree with the left on one thing, you MUST agree with the whole package – or you’re not one of them, and they’ll jump on you like lions on a weakened gazelle. ”

      It’s not just the left. I agree with the Left more than the Right on energy and environmental issues, in particular in getting off of oil for geostrategic and macroeconomic reasons, but also on conventional pollution and global warming, and I’m constantly attacked for it online by conservatives. On most other issues I’m far to the Right, but I get no credit for that, no trust when I say it, and I’m constantly assailed from all sides, with no defenders, accused of being a leftist, an Obama fan, a Marxist infiltrator, etc. I’ve been banned from National Review Online on more than one occasion over this issue.

      Within Republican circles I have often defended Mitt Romney on pragmatic and anti-amnesty grounds, since no other top tier candidate has opposed amnesty. Again constantly accused of being an establishment shill, a PC RINO, etc., which is beyond absurd, since I’m many notches to Romney’s right on immigration and racial issues, but am seeking a hard headedly rational strategy to mitigate the damage by actually winning elections and changing policy, and move the Overton window in our direction.

  • WilmotRobertson

    “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought”

    Orwell from his essay, “Politics and the English Language.”

    This is the intended function of political correctness: To change how the public perceives reality since reality itself cannot be changed.

  • Ograf

    All PC means to me is the outright denial of the truth despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. PC people are the ones who are so brainwashed they agree with anything to tow the line. The same kind of people that would have sworn they saw the emperors clothes. They should all drink the Kool-Aid, just tell them that is the magical cure.

    • Speedy Steve

      Or, as G. Gordon Liddy once said to a group of students at George Mason University,”America has a deep and abiding commitment to the Tooth Fairy.”

  • HJ11

    Good policy to a point. However, the reason why we must care about other AWAKENED Whites is because our personal survival is helped when there are more like us, and they also carry our White DNA Code in its AWAKENED state so their survival may be a little more remote from our own personal DNA survival, but its close enough to matter.

  • C. Magnus

    The part I found most interesting about this article was how the author distinguishes PC from liberalism, and puts forward that PC is actually antithetical to liberalism. Most alternative Right commentary wouldn’t even make the distinction – but perhaps there is some truth to this.

    What I do find unusual though, is his assertion that ‘the far right still commands far more power in American life’, I presume he means relative to the PC left (?). No idea how he comes to that conclusion.

    As I like to say, if the truth were politically correct, you wouldn’t need political correctness. It’s the antithesis of actual truth / correctness, so why trust anyone who espouses it?