Two More Comments on Articles Demonising Donald Trump

When Whites Just Don’t Get It, Part 7

By Nicholas Kristof, Oct. 1 2016 (LINK to article)

"only 39 percent of Trump supporters believe that President Obama was born in the United States."

This, I suggest, is an example of Freudian displacement behaviour. Not allowed to admit publicly, or perhaps even to themselves, that they have difficultly accepting a black president, they invent other grounds for rejecting him.

In the land of the free, people are not free to say what they really think or how they really feel in regard to race, because if they do they will be demonised as "racist".

European societies have always been ruled by a supposedly morally superior elite. It used to be the clergy, of course, with their religious ideology. Now its the clergy's modern heirs and counterparts in academia, politics and journalism, with a more secular, racial ideology (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology) who are the moral supremacists, telling others how they should and shouldn't feel.

Racial prejudice is the new original sin, which only submission to priestly/academic/state authority and ideology can save us from eternal damnation for, not as sinners, heathens or heretics, as in the past, but as bigots, xenophobes or racists.

No one with any self-respect allows themselves to be told how they should think or feel, which is why millions are turning to Donald Trump. He may be very imperfect, but at least he does not belong to America's moral supremacist, liberal elite.

How Could Anyone Vote for Trump?

By Gail Collins, Sept. 30 2016 (LINK to article)

"It’s possible Trump is just riding a swell of white-male alienation."

White males, for better and for worse, played a very dominant role in making not just America, but western civilisation at large , what they are.

Most recently, they both created and defeated fascism (militarily and intellectually) and put men (white men, of course) on the Moon, but for some reason they have turned against themselves, embracing an ideology white racial self-denial and self-contempt.

More subconsciously than consciously, support for Trump is, I think, a reaction to this.

One might wish for someone better than Trump, but beggars can't be choosers. It is either him or Hillary, and Hillary makes no secret of her contempt for her own race, in which regard, she is just a typical liberal, of course.

The NYT is a liberal newspaper, and there are many liberal values and attitudes that I agree with, but what I cannot accept is this ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which is perverse, an overreaction, I believe to the evils of slavery, Jim Crow, Apartheid and, above all, Nazism and the Holocaust, all of which white men were largely responsible for, but which white men also defeated.

I appeal to the NYT and its white liberal readers to look inside themselves and examine their attitude towards their own race, which has little to do with skin colour, but a great deal to do with ethnic origins, one's ancestors and cultural heritage.

In defence of Xenophobia and Nativism

A Judge’s Message to the Xenophobes

By the Editorial Board, March 5 2016 (LINK to editorial)

". . the xenophobic politics now inflaming the presidential primary campaign [and] . . venomous nativism coming from Donald Trump . ."

Of course, xenophobia can be nasty, as can nativism, but both are inherent to human nature, which is very tribal. 

Clearly, our tribal nature needs to be controlled in an acceptable and civilised fashion, but this is not what the Editorial Board is advocating. Instead they are DEMONISING it, and with it, human nature itself.

Not so long ago it was human sexuality, i.e. particular forms of it (now deemed a private matter and no business of the state) that was demonised, and before that it was our propensity (inherited from Adam and Eve) to disobey divine, i.e. priestly and state authority, which was demonised as "original sin" and, we were told by the priesthood, would lead to eternal damnation, unless we submitted to church/state authority and ideology.

Human tribalism and prejudices (perfectly natural, in favour of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group) are the new "original sin", which only submission to state ideology and authority (now firmly in the hands of "progressive academia", who are heirs of the medieval clergy) can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens or heretics, as in the past, but as "racists", "nativists" and "xenophobes".

Xenophobia is just one side of a single coin, on the other side of which is love of the familiar and one's own.

We should be working WITH human nature, not DEMONISING it as a source of spurious moral authority, power and personal advantage.

Woodrow Wilson, Racist or White Nationalist?

The Case Against Woodrow Wilson at Princeton

"[Woodrow Wilson] was an unapologetic racist"

Is it really racist, i.e. evil, to identify with one's own race - even when it is white?

We don't think that Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians are being racist when they seek to defend and preserve their own ethnic and racial identity and interests, although we perhaps would if they were in a position of power and likely to severely disadvantage other races or ethnic groups, as America's dominant white majority clearly is.

I'm not defending Woodrow Wilson's actions, which clearly disadvantaged blacks, but to call it racist, i.e. evil, is going too far, I suggest, showing a lack of understanding of human nature and our natural tendency to identify with our own tribe, race or ethnic group.

Woodrow Wilson is guilty of identifying with and seeking to promote the interests of his own race, for which he can be justly criticised, but shouldn't, I think, be demonised.

Ethnic minorities are not demonised for expressing their own, distinct sense of ethnic identity, so why are members of America's white ethnic minority demonised for doing the same? Is it just because whites are the ones in positions of power which they are likely to abuse, or is there more to it? I think there is more to it: see BLOG in which I elaborate.

State Demonisation of Human Nature

Loving Freely

By Jennifer Finney Boylan, Oct. 23 2015 (LINK to article)

"All of us — men and women, gay and straight, cis and trans — deserve to be loved."

I'm sure that if we ourselves love, then we will be loved back by at least some of those we love, but not necessarily straight away or even in our own lifetime.

Everyone should be free to be themselves, and it is terrible how even democratic states, until very recently, made it illegal for many people to be themselves in so far as their sexuality was concerned.

The state has always demonised certain aspects of human nature, as a means of socio-political intimidation and control. It used to be "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority), then human (especially female and gay) sexuality; now it is "racial prejudice", i.e. 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.

It is in the very nature of the state to intimidate and control society, in order to achieve its primary purpose of facilitating its SELF-exploitation, to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense of society at large, its well-being and long-term survival. This is why all past civilisations have fallen, as soon will ours, unless we quickly recognise the cause: http://philosopherkin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/civilisation-evolutionary-cul-de-sac.html