Why Do White Progressives Deny & Despise Own Race?

Worthy of Our Contempt

By Paul Krugman, July 31, 2016 (LINK to article)

"the great majority of these not-crazy Republicans are still supporting Mr. Trump for president. And we have a right to ask why."

 I can only speculate, of course, but I suspect it has a lot to do with a semi-conscious rejection of "progressive" ideology, which is premised on white racial self-denial and self-contempt.

I say "semi-conscious", because I don't think they are fully aware of what it is they reject, anymore than the "progressives" who embrace it are. If they were, they would reject it too, I'm sure.

Modern neuroscience (see Why You Don’t Know Your Own Mind by Alex Rosenberg) has demonstrated that we are largely motivated by the subconscious, which rationalises our behaviour without us understanding it.

Why are America's still largely white elites making a moral virtue and imperative of reducing their own race to an ethnic minority in the country their European forebears founded? Can you imagine any other race or ethnic group doing the same? Of course not. Because it is not a virtue, but madness. Total madness.

Donald Trump clearly has his faults, but at least he doesn't deny and despise his own race, the way his "progressive" opponents do.

Mainstream academic and political ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt demands an explanation, which I believe I can provide.  It began as an understandable overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust, which quickly became part of the state's age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, which I elaborate on HERE.

Left Provoking "Far-Right" Backlash

Germany, Caught Between Two Violent Extremes

By Anna Sauerbrey JULY 28, 2016 (LINK to article)

" . . fear that the attacks will change the character of Germany itself, destroying the tolerant, cosmopolitan identity that we have assiduously built over decades, and that we cultivate as if it were a prize flower."

Frau Sauerbrey is speaking for herself and the political left that is her tribe, but not for a majority of Germans, I am sure, who are as unhappy about mass immigration into their already overpopulated country and the multi-ethnic society that comes with it, as most other West Europeans are, including myself.

The natural decline of Western Europe's native population is a godsend, given how overpopulated we are, as is (or rather, was) our racial and cultural homogeneity, which our ruling elites decided to put an end to - probably not consciously, but nevertheless, though the madness of mass non-European immigration.

There is method to this madness, of course, which I elaborate on HERE.

The Left fears a "far-right" backlash, which is inevitable, once it becomes more widely recognised that  "celebrating DIVERSITY" is Orwellian newspeak for Native Europeans (in America, white Americans) to celebrate our own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (we have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities) and ultimate demise.

Tragically, but typically, "progressives" have managed to put themselves on the wrong side of history.

I the blog I have linked to and other blogs you will find links to in it, I attempt to explain this. Only by recognising and understanding our mistakes can we correct them.

Progressives Take Heed as You Push Us Towards the Brink"

A Cure for Trumpism

by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, July 15 2016 (LINK to article)

"an unsubtle emphasis on white identity and white nostalgia."

There is nothing subtle about it when black and Latino Americans assert their ethnic identities, and many white Americans are clearly sick of having their own ethnic identity trampled underfoot, primarily by their own white elites, including, it seems, everyone who write for the NYT.

The support for Donald Trump is an inevitable response to the ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt that has gained ascendency amongst virtually all western elites, initially in overreaction to Nazism and the Holocaust (see this BLOG), but subsequently as part of the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, whereby society is divided into a morally superior, now supposedly unprejudiced, "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) more prejudiced, less "colour-blind", masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

In America the situation for whites is precarious, because already well on their way to becoming an ethnic minority (which Big Brother state expects them to "celebrate"), but in Europe, where whites are the indigenous population the situation is very different.

Native whites, once awoken from their slumber to their betrayal by their own elites, will fight for their continent, and win, or take western civilisation, which they created, with them. So take heed, you "progressives" as you push us, with your "moral supremacism", towards the brink.

"Progressives" are the Extremists

What is German?

by Anna Sauerbrey, May 26 2016 (LINK to article)

The extremists in this debate about national identity are in the political mainstream, they are "progressives" like the author of this piece and like the NYT itself.

Race and culture are BOTH central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. national, identity, which "progressives" clearly don't want people to have, but to identify instead with the artificial, power-political construct of the state they are citizens of.

How to explain this "progressive" attitude towards national identity?

It began as an overreaction to the evil of Nazism, which took racial and cultural identity to criminally insane extremes. We have now gone to the exact opposite,  but equally insane extreme of denying the importance of race, ethnic origins and the cultural baggage which inevitably accompanies them, altogether.

A NYT editorial, The price of Fear, in response to the Paris terror attacks last November provides the following warning:

“In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way”

This is exactly what has happened on a massive scale in the West's overreaction to the evil of Nazism and the Holocaust. See BLOG in which I elaborate.

Questioning Progressive Self-Righteousness

Standing With Brussels Against Terrorism and Fear

By the Editorial Board, March 22 2016 (LINK to editorial)

"the response to terrorism must also be . . a rejection of demagogues and xenophobes who would exploit public fears and tears."

Meaning anyone questioning the wisdom of successive western governments having allowed mass Muslim immigration into their countries, which the NYT and other "progressives" have long championed.

Is it really so difficult for progressives to question their own "progressive" values and attitudes? It seems so.

The truth is that so-called "progressive" values and attitudes are not nearly as progressive, i.e. enlightened, as most progressives believe, in which respect they are very much like the Catholic Church, i.e. so convinced of their own self-righteousness, that it doesn't occur to them to question their core beliefs.

I would like to invite members of the Editorial Board, and other progressives, to read my blog on how, in my view, western civilisation has been led badly astray by self-righteous "progressives" like themselves: LINK.

Obama, An Internationalist, Unsentimental about Europe

Obama's Flawed Realism

By Roger Cohen, March 18 2016 (LINK to article)

"Obama emerges as an internationalist, unsentimental about Europe . . "

Which is why globalist "progressives" love him, while the nativist, white Right hates him.

It is important to understand this, rather than indulging one's "progressive" sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority, because otherwise it will rip America, and Europe, apart in civil war.

Why would a self-identifying African American like Obama feel sentimental about Europe? Clearly, he identifies emotionally far more with his African heritage, despite enjoying the fruits of centuries of European civilisation, which he seems to take it for granted, like most whites also do.

That he views climate change as a bigger threat than terrorism, reveals his wisdom.

He is a wise African American, who is "unsentimental about Europe", Europeans and European Americans (apart from some white members of his immediate family). He is far more sentimental about Africa, Africans and African Americans.  And why wouldn't or shouldn't he be?

He was the obvious choice of President for African Americans and for white Americans,who have embraced the ideology of racial self-denial and self-contempt prescribed by western academia, initially in overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust (as well as those of European imperialism, slavery, Jim Crow and Apartheid), which addresses a sense of racial guilt, but conveniently for the West's white elites, also serves as an instrument of socio-political intimidation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did (see BLOG in which I elaborate).

The Left's Blindness to Dire Consequences of Mass Poor-World Immigration

Mrs. Clinton’s Mixed Immigration Message

By the Editorial Board, Feb. 12 2016 (LINK to article)

"Mrs. Clinton has shown an unfortunate tendency to oscillate between harshness and compassion on immigration questions."

It's NOT "unfortunate", but inevitable when you face up to reality, which the "progressives" on the Editorial Board seem incapable of doing. Instead, they have to show "compassion", no matter what: even when the lifeboat they are in is being swamped my masses of drowning people, they insist on dragging ever more on  board. Never mind that the lifeboat itself will eventually sink, and everyone - even those who built and operate the lifeboat - will be in danger of drowning.

OK, so America is a BIG lifeboat and it is hard to imagine that it might eventually sink, but that is exactly how many on the "right" feel about "Spaceship Earth", assuming that because of its size - and past experience - it can take everything and anything we throw at it in our pursuit of economic growth and "progress".

They have no sense for its limited resources and carrying capacity. And it's the same with "progressives" when it comes to immigration.  They think that western states (and not just America) can take in an endless stream of poor-world immigrants with no dire consequences. But they are wrong. Just as those who believe in the limitless carrying capacity of our planet are.

What is blinding "progressives" to this reality? It is, I suggest, an ideology which began as an understandable OVERREACTION to Nazism and the Holocaust, but transmuted into something else, far less benign (see my blog on The West's Overreaction to Nazism).

Racial Self-Contempt of the Liberal Left

How Stupid Is Iowa?

By Timothy Egan, Jan 29, 2016 (LINK to article)

To my pleasant surprise, my comment was approve and published by the NYT (LINK). This is the longer, revised version I was intending to post here in its stead:

"Trump can call for a police state pogrom against 11 million people and be rewarded, because a majority of Republican caucusgoers are white, native-born and believe that electing a demagogue will make American white again."

The contempt which "progressives" like Timothy Egan show for their own race is breath-taking.

They can’t express such contempt for other races, of course, but only for their own race, which, ironically and paradoxically, reinforces their sense of moral superiority as “anti-racists".

They don't see it themselves, because they live in an ideological bubble, their views reinforced my fellow "progressives", who see any co-ethnics failing to share their sense of racial self-denial and  self-contempt as "white supremacists".

How is one to understand such blindness and madness on the part of people convinced that THEY are the enlightened ones?  It is their own sense of being enlightened and morally superior, of course, which blinds them. Most of them mean well, which is why I refuse to see them as enemies. They are just misguided. Which is how they see people like ME, of course: misguided, "hateful" and full of "white supremacy".

I guess we are ALL deluded and misguided to some extent. But I'm not hateful or full of white supremacy. For better and for worse, I identify with my own race, which seems to me a natural and healthy thing to do. Denying and despising one's own race, as "progressives" are ideologically bound to do, strikes me as unnatural, unhealthy and pretty perverse.

I want to enlighten them, but they are convinced that I am the one in need of enlightenment, i.e. who should embrace THEIR ideology of racial self-denial and self-contempt. But I'm damned if I will. I have too much racial self-respect.

I have also discovered, I believe, the cause of their unnatural and unhealthy attitude of racial self-denial and self-contempt, which began as an understandable OVERREACTION (something the NYT itself warns of an editorial following the Paris attacks) to Nazism and the Holocaust, and which I elaborate on HERE.

Understanding America’s Obsession with Race

I sent a shorter version of this post to the opinion section of the NYT on Nov. 10 2015 in the vain hope that they might publish it.

America’s obsession with race - as reflected in the media, including the NYT - is a consequence, I suggest, of suppression of its importance. The same phenomenon in regard to sex has a much longer history. 

Fearful of the consequences of not doing so, social/state authority seeks to suppress awareness and discussion to them both, which results in our unhealthy obsession with them.

The situation is very confused, because the suppression is far from complete or uniform, varying from individual to individual. And what we suppress we don’t like talking about. If we could freely talk about them, they wouldn’t be suppressed.

The suppression of sex has been greatly relaxed in recent decades and, not withstanding some negative effects (promiscuity, VD, teenage pregnancies, etc.), most would agree that, on the whole, this is a good thing. Sex is an extremely important matter, and it is better to acknowledge this, so that we can deal with it at a personal level consciously (and conscientiously), rather than suppressing it and submitting (or not) to the commands of external authority.

Suppression of the importance of race, on the other hand, is still very much mainstream, especially amongst those who consider themselves “progressives”, with many even denying the existence of race altogether, dismissing it as a “social construct” only of importance to “bigots” and “racists”, much as women admitting to having sexual desires would once have been demonised as “wanton whores” or the like.

Why are the same “progressives” who are for sexual liberation, so fervently opposed to “racial liberation”, i.e. ending our denial and suppression of its importance?

Obviously, fear of the consequences (e.g. racial supremacism) is one major reason. But another, more powerful reason, I suggest, is the sense of moral superiority and authority which goes with it, and is not just a personal matter, but also has huge social, professional and political implications.

Denial and suppression of the importance of race (not in the way that racial supremacists believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group identity) has been fashioned, mainly by academics, into an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, with "racism" i.e. the natural human inclination towards racial prejudice, playing the same role that "original sin" once did, thereby serving the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

America's Policy of Forced Desegregation

Ending the Cycle of Racial Isolation

By the Editorial Board Oct. 17, 2015 (LINK to editorial)

1st post 

"The Ethel Lawrence Homes subdivision validates the idea of developing affordable housing, “both as a social policy for promoting racial and class integration in metropolitan America”

What right do the authorites have to socially engineer society in this way, instead of leaving people to live in the kind of communities they prefer to live in?

This is precisely what most people hate about "socialism", the way it forces people to live according to state ideology.

Most people prefer not to live in a DIVERSE communities, but amongst people of similar race, culture and wealth as themselves.

DIVERSITY, in the form multi-racial and multicultural society, is a consequence of globalisation and mass migration, which are relatively modern phenomena, certainly on the scale that we are now experiencing them.

Why do "progressives" insist on ramming it down the throats of those who clearly don't want it?

It's because state IDEOLOGY (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology) says that those who are "colour-blind", love DIVERSITY and racial mixing are "morally superior" to those who don't.

It serves the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, just as medieval church ideology once did, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

2nd post

  "Affordable housing done right can be a powerful tool for improving lives"

It is also a powerful tool for implementing state racial ideology, which now serves America and other western "democracies" as an instrument of socio-political intimidation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did.  

Original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) has simply been replaced by "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group, which was made responsible for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism), which only submission to priestly/academic/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as "bigots" and "racists".

Why has this not been recognised by the academics we look to as authorities in understanding society and the state? Because, like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, they are themselves privileged clients and employees of the state, with a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.