Fwd: [ptop-hackers] The problem with intellectually insecure whites - Mailing list pgsql-www

Another guy that can be blocked generally please...


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lawrence Auster <lawrence.auster@att.net>
Date: Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Subject: [ptop-hackers] The problem with intellectually insecure whites
To: ptop-hackers@pgfoundry.org


The problem with intellectually insecure whites

Kevin MacDonald

January 19, 2009

America will soon have a white minority. This is a much desired state
of affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape
public opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues — at
least in the long run. After all, it's difficult to come up with an
historical example of a nation with a solid ethnic majority (90% white
in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural
power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military
invasions, great battles, and untold suffering.

And it's not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view
their own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative.
Indeed, as I have noted previously, it is striking that racial
nationalism has triumphed in Israel at the same time that the Jewish
intellectual and political movements and the organized Jewish
community have been the most active and effective force for a
non-white America. Indeed, a poll in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman
was the second most popular politician in Israel. Lieberman has
advocated expulsion of Arabs from Israel and has declared himself a
follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leading pioneer of racial
Zionism. The most popular politician in the poll was Benjamin
Netanyahu — another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are also Jabotinskyists.

The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass
murder after a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering
assault designed to provoke Palestinian retaliation — which then
becomes the cover for claims that Israel is merely defending itself
against terrorism. This monstrosity was approved by overwhelming
majorities of both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush administration
did its part by abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the US
Secretary of State as a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli
Prime Minister. This is yet another accomplishment of the Israel
Lobby, but one they would rather not have discussed in public. People
might get the impression that the Lobby really does dictate US foreign
policy in the Mideast. Obviously, such thoughts are only entertained
by anti-Semites.

But I digress.

In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the
mainstream media is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan
("For the media, the less whites think about their coming minority
status, the better") has noted that the media, and in particular, the
New York Times, are quite uninterested in doing stories that discuss
what white people think about this state of affairs.

It's not surprising that the New York Times — the Jewish-owned
flagship of anti-white, pro-multicultural media — ignores the issue.
The issue is also missing from so-called conservative media even
though one would think that conservatives would find the eclipse of
white America to be an important issue. Certainly, their audiences
would find it interesting.

Now we have an article "The End of White America" written by Hua Hsu,
an Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a
rather depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on
the most important question confronting white people in America.

Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great
Gatsby in which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: "Have you read The
Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?" … Well, it's a fine
book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don't look out
the white race will be—will be utterly submerged. It's all scientific
stuff; it's been proved."

Buchanan's comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard's
The Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as "rationalized hatred"
presented in a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This
wording that will certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As
Hsu notes, Stoddard had a doctorate from Harvard and was a member of
many academic associations. His book was published by a major
publisher. It was therefore "precisely the kind of book that a 1920s
man of Buchanan's profile — wealthy, Ivy League–educated, at once
pretentious and intellectually insecure — might have been expected to
bring up in casual conversation."

Let's ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009
an Ivy League-educated person, "at once pretentious and intellectually
insecure,"  would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as
Hsu. To wit:

The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of
American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995's White
Man's Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John
Travolta, that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are
subjugated to their high-class black oppressors. There will be
dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts
of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial
hierarchies over everyone's lives, producing a culture that's more
likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather
than members of a caste or identity group.

The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America
without a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or
historical basis for claims like "the demographic shifts of the next
40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over
everyone's lives, producing a culture that's more likely than any
before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of
a caste or identity group."

Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color
blind future. The election results continue to show that white people
are coalescing in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are
increasingly the party of a non-white soon-to-be majority.

Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority
that it will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond
contemporary concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative
action? Hsu anticipates a colorblind world, but affirmative action
means that blacks and other minorities are certainly not treated as
individuals. And it means that whites — especially white males — are
losing out on opportunities they would have had without these policies
and without the massive non-white immigration of the last few decades.

Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits
required for success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that
40 more years of affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired
by the minority lobbies. Indeed, in Obama's America, blacks are
rioting in Oakland over perceived racial injustices, and from
2002–2007, black juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black
juvenile homicide perpetrators increased 43%. Hence,  the reasonable
outlook is for a continuing need for affirmative action and for racial
activism in these groups, even after whites become a minority.

Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of
relatively talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over
a decade ago, "The United States is well on the road to being
dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business,
professional, and media elite."

Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites
about the future. An advertizing executive says, "I think white people
feel like they're under siege right now — like it's not okay to be
white right now, especially if you're a white male. ... People are
stressed out about it. 'We used to be in control! We're losing
control'" Another says, "There's a lot of fear and a lot of
resentment."

It's hard to see why these feelings won't increase in the future.

A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural
confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander
saying, "I get it: as a straight white male, I'm the worst thing on
Earth." A professor comments that for his students "to be white is to
be culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when you ask
them to talk about who they are is, 'I don't have a culture.' They
might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they
feel bankrupt when it comes to culture … They feel disadvantaged, and
they feel marginalized."

This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years
whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the
most prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points
out, the most vibrant and influential aspect of American popular
culture is hip-hop—a product of the African American urban culture.

The only significant group of white people with any cultural
confidence centers itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small
town values of traditional white America. For this group of whites —
and only this group — there is  "a racial pride that dares not speak
its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead—a
suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for
folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the
association of a working-class white minority with 'the real
America.'"

This is what I term implicit whiteness — implicit because explicit
assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites
that dominate our politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu
notes, "cannot speak its name."

But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white
working class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the
rest of white America are imposed from outside. Although there may
well be characteristics of whites that facilitate this process, this
suppression of white identity and interests is certainly not the
natural outcome of modernization or any other force internal to whites
as a people. In my opinion, it is the result of the successful
erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish
intellectual and political movements.

The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people
these days are far more likely to believe in the utopian future
described by Hsu than in hard and cautious thinking about what the
future might have in store for them.

It's worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites
who mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have
soaked up from the school system and from the media. Most people do
not have much confidence in their intellectual ability and look to
elite opinion to shape their beliefs. As I noted elsewhere,

A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that
it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential
institutions of the West, and it became a consensus among the elites,
Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Once this happened, it is not surprising
that this culture became widely accepted among people of very
different levels of education and among people of different social
classes.

Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But
they know that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of
the New York Times and the Washington Post, and even conservative
commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are all on page when
it comes to racial and ethnic issues. This is a formidable array, to
the point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent from this
consensus.

I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get
people to believe that people who assert white identity and interests
or who make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are
morally degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed.
Obviously, all of these adjectives designate low status.

The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and,
because of its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic
minorities in America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New
York Times, the academic left, and the faux conservatives that
dominate elite discourse on race and ethnicity are intellectually
bankrupt and can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or
ignoring the scientific findings.

This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like
Fitzgerald's Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that
their ideas are respectable and part of the mainstream. But the
respectable mainstream gives them absolutely nothing with which to
validate themselves except perhaps the idea that the world will be a
better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes
the pathetic Christian Lander: ""Like, I'm aware of all the horrible
crimes that my demographic has done in the world. ... And there's a
bunch of white people who are desperate — desperate — to say, 'You
know what? My skin's white, but I'm not one of the white people who's
destroying the world.'"

As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that
feeling of desperation is like — what it's like to be a self-hating
white. We must get to the point where college-educated whites proudly
and confidently say they are white and that they do not want to become
a minority in America.

This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life
of gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as
Best Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural
left. But is has an important message that should resonate with the
millions of whites who have been deprived of their confidence and
their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly
gay even in the face of dire consequences, whites need to tell their
family and their friends that they have an identity as a white person
and believe that whites have legitimate interests as white people.
They must accept the consequences when they are harassed, fired from
their jobs, or put in prison for such beliefs. They must run for
political office as openly pro-white.

Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested
for congregating in public. Now it's the Southern Poverty Law Center
and the rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment
that harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it's the same
situation with the roles reversed. No revolution was ever accomplished
without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of
white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no
exception.

But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white
majority is foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope
that racial and ethnic identifications will disappear and that they
won't continue to influence public policy in ways that compromise the
interests of whites.

It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of
minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant
whites. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of
minority groups attempt to influence public policy, including
immigration policy, against the interests of the whites. Placing
ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky,
given the deep sense of historical grievance fostered by many ethnic
activists and organized ethnic lobbies.

This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been
unanimous in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and
Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are
typical of a great many African Americans and Latinos, and especially
among the ethnic activists from these groups. The "God damn America"
sermon by President Obama's pastor comes to mind as a recent notorious
example.

The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give
pause to anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does
not carry risks. The Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic
angle: To a very great extent, Jews and other non-Russians ruled over
the Russian people, with disastrous consequences for the Russians and
other ethnic groups that were not able to become part of the power
structure. Jews formed a hostile elite within this power structure —
as they will in the future white-minority America; Jews were "Stalin's
willing executioners."

Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century seem
particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the
many American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for leftist versions
of social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to
support racial Zionism and the mass murder, torture, and incarceration
of the Palestinian people in one of the largest prison systems the
world has ever seen. Such people may be very different when they
become a hostile elite in a white-minority America.

Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the
"transformation" of Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the
words of [a] Jewish commentator, G. A. Landau, "cruelty, sadism, and
violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical
activity." And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A. Bromberg, noted
that:

the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of
"unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness"…. The convinced and unconditional
opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for
the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken
being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad
person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. ...

After the Revolution, ... there was active suppression of any remnants
of the older order and their descendants. ... The mass murder of
peasants and nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion
of the previously existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a
Leningrad University professor noted, "in all the institutions, only
workers and Israelites are admitted; the life of the intelligentsia is
very hard" (p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to the
Russification that accompanied World War II, "the Russian
Federation…was still doing penance for its imperial past while also
serving as an example of an ethnicity-free society" (p. 276). While
all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged
to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an
anti-majoritarian movement.

The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in
white-minority America it will not be workers and Israelites who are
favored, but non-whites and Israelites. Whites may dream that they are
entering the post-racial utopia imagined by their erstwhile
intellectual superiors. But it is quite possible that they are
entering into a racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty in which
whites will be systematically excluded in favor of the new elites
recruited from the soon-to-be majority. It's happened before.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State
University–Long Beach.


URL with hyperlinks:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Hsu.html
------


Who Benefits From White House Scandal(s)

"Monica-gate" did have Israeli origins

By Michael Collins Piper — AFP

Republican critics of President-elect Barack Obama are
enthusiastically shouting "gotcha" in the wake of allegations that
Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) was secretly trying to sell Obama's
vacant Senate seat. However, there are much bigger long-term policy
implications at work behind the scenes.

The truth is that Illinois politics—particularly in Obama's home base
of Chicago—have long been known as a cauldron of venal political
corruption with a handful of powerful secret interests directing the
course of events. Even if Obama has "clean hands," the thread of
corruption surrounding the governor and other Democratic power brokers
may start to unravel, implicating many close Obama associates.

Already, Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is
being implicated in the context of the bizarre Senate seat-for-sale
tragicomedy.

TheWatergate affair, which came to light as a result of a break-in by
operatives linked to the Republican Nixon administration, snowballed
into a more-wide-ranging series of scandals involving influence
peddling, obstruction of justice, bribery, illegal campaign
contributions, etc, netting a host of GOP figures and ultimately
bringing down Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew.

Although an argument can be made that there was a secret agenda behind
the Watergate affair—that it was effectively a coup d'etat designed to
topple Nixon (who was intent on cleaning house in official Washington
and redirecting U.S. foreign policy against the long-standing "special
relationship" with Israel)—the fact is that the scandal did entwine
the president and prevent him from acting as he wished, and kept Nixon
at bay for the two years following the 1972 election (which Nixon won
by a landslide) until he was forced out of office.

The ongoing revelations in Illinois may well have a similar impact on
the new Obama administration, keeping the president on edge,
essentially destabilized.

This is precisely what happened with the so-called "Whitewater"
scandal that enveloped Bill and Hillary Clinton from virtually the
first days of his administration, ultimately leading—through a tangled
series of events—to the Monica Lewinsky mess, involving Bill Clinton's
illicit affair with a White House intern.

Despite the common (and quite inaccurate) perception— particularly by
Clinton's many "conservative" critics—that somehow the "liberal media"
lionized Clinton during his presidency, nothing could be further from
the truth. In fact, the truth is that throughout his presidency,
Clinton was very much under fire from the mass media in America.

The record demonstrates that it was that media— which is controlled by
Jewish families and financial networks sympathetic to Israel—which
played such a large part in promoting public knowledge of the scandals
surrounding the Clintons.

The January 4, 1999 issue of The Nation featured a revealing article
by Michael Tomasky which examined this phenomenon in quite revealing
detail.

Tomasky pointed out that it was actually The New York Times—the
flagship "liberal" newspaper—which played a substantial part in
leaking many damaging revelations from the long-running investigation
of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton by Special Prosecutor Ken
Starr. Tomasky wrote: "At every crucial turn and pivot, the Times'
editorial page has marched in lockstep with the prosecutor and his
cheering section."

"Why is this worth remarking on?" asked Tomasky. Because, he pointed
out, "on national matters, [the Times' editorial] page serves as more
of an ideological Baedeker, instructing the country's elite as to what
constitutes responsible liberal opinion."

In other words, The New York Times—voice of the pro-Israel elite—was
telling its readers that it was "okay" to support Ken Starr's
maneuvering against Clinton. And so the question, then, was why one of
America's most liberal presidents would be the target of the editorial
wrath of the very liberal New York Times.

The answer it was that it was because Bill Clinton was perceived to be
insufficiently supportive of the demands of Israel. In fact, the
Lewinsky scandal forced the president into retreat as far as pushing
Israel was concerned—much to the delight of Israel's Likud.

On Jan. 27, 1998 The Washington Post let the cat out of the bag when
it reported that "last week, Clinton demonstrated he could not compel
the Israelis to meet their responsibilities for a further military
pullback. This week [in the wake of the scandal] he is even less
capable, if only because people in his own party, not to mention the
Republicans, will not support a policy of greater pressure on Israel."

Should there be any doubt that Bill and Hillary Clinton were certainly
aware that the Lewinsky affair was being promoted by Israel's
Likudniks and their American allies, bear in mind that at the height
of the Lewinsky frenzy the first lady publicly called for the creation
of a Palestinian state. This was a clear shot over Israel's bow, much
to the shock of Israel's U.S. partisans.

The first lady was, as a consequence, thrashed relentlessly by
Israel's partisans, but there's no question that this was an obvious
and calculated provocation by Hillary (and certainly her husband)
meant to show her husband's enemies that the Clintons could play
hardball with Israel if necessary.

Although the Clinton administration itself formally distanced itself
from Hillary's remarks, the point had been made.

Ultimately—some seven years later, in December of 2005—the truth about
the Israeli role in utilizing the Lewinsky affair to put pressure on
Clinton emerged.

Television evangelist Jerry Falwell couldn't resist bragging and
admitting the truth: he and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
"Bibi" Netanyahu did conspire— at a critical time—to trip up Clinton
and specifically use the pressure of the Lewinsky scandal to force
Clinton to abandon pressure on Israel to withdraw from the
occupiedWest Bank.

Falwell's confession didn't make national news—as it should have.
Instead, the preacher's confession came buried in a lengthy story in
the December 2005 issue of Vanity Fair, describing the flourishing
love affair between American evangelicals such as Falwell and
hard-line Jewish extremist forces in Israel then under the leadership
of Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu.

The admission by Falwell confirmed precisely what this author first
revealed in The Spotlight in 1998 and later recounted in a lecture
before the Arab League's official think tank, the Zayed Centre in Abu
Dhabi, in March of 2003.

Although, following my lecture, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of
B'nai B'rith, a lobby for Israel, denounced as a "bizarre conspiracy
theory" my charge that "Monica-gate" did have Israeli origins, the
assertion by Falwell that the public unveiling of the Lewinsky affair
forced Clinton to pull back on pressuring Israel confirmed exactly
what I had charged.

Regarding Falwell's recounting of how he worked with Netanyahu in
undermining Clinton's pressure on Israel, Vanity Fair reported:
  On a visit to Washington, D.C. in 1998, Netanyahu hooked up with
Jerry Falwell at the Mayflower Hotel the night before [Netanyahu's]
scheduled meeting with Clinton. "I put together 1,000 people or so to
meet with Bibi [Netanyahu] and he spoke to us that night," recalls
Falwell. "It was all planned by Netanyahu as an affront to Mr.
Clinton. . . . The next day, Netanyahu met with Clinton at the White
House. "Bibi told me later," Falwell recalls, "that the next morning
Bill Clinton said, 'I know where you were last night.'" The pressure
was really on Netanyahu to give away the farm in Israel. . . . It was
during the Monica Lewinsky scandal . . . Clinton had to save himself,
so he terminated the demands [to relinquish West Bank territory] that
would have been forthcoming during that meeting, and would have been
very bad for Israel.

What Falwell did not mention—at least as reported by Vanity Fair—is
that his meeting with the Israeli leader took place on the very
evening before the mass media in America broke open the Monica
Lewinsky scandal with much fanfare.

Nor did Falwell mention that one of Netanyahu's leading American
publicists, neo-conservative power broker William Kristol, was the
first American media figure to publicly hint (in the days before the
scandal was officially unveiled) that there were forthcoming
revelations regarding a sex scandal about to be unveiled to Clinton's
detriment.

The story of Clinton's imbroglio with Israel is something Bill and
Hillary Clinton would prefer be forgotten, but the lesson of Israel's
success in using such a scandal to batter Clinton is not something
that Israel and its media allies will forget.

Barack Obama stands warned as his administration is now the subject of
a frenzy of investigation and cover up surrounding corruption within
the circles that brought him to power.

Source: http://www.davidduke.com/general/how-the-zionist-network-holds-scandals-over-american-politicans_7008.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the
Lawrence Auster
Newletter.  If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please
let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284

Thanks,

Lawrence Auster,
238 W 101 St Apt. 3B
New York, NY  10025
Contact: lawrence.auster@att.net


_______________________________________________
ptop-hackers mailing list
ptop-hackers@pgfoundry.org
http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/ptop-hackers




--
Selena Deckelmann
Open Source Bridge - http://www.opensourcebridge.org
PDXPUG - http://pugs.postgresql.org/pdx
Me - http://www.chesnok.com/daily