Search Box

Thursday, February 26, 2015

White liberals as Uncle Toms

Black people who do not show racial solidarity are sometimes called Uncle Toms. Black people deemed to be overly immersed in white culture are occasionally referred to as "Oreos."

(Just ask any college-educated black how he feels about Clarence Thomas.)

French people who sided with the Germans during World War Two were called "collaborationists" and reviled by their fellow Frenchmen.

Jewish people who criticize Israel are sometimes referred to as "self-hating Jews." The highest contempt in that community is reserved for Jews who convert to Christianity.

Hispanic-Americans who favor stricter border controls and deportations are generally regarded with contempt by other Hispanics.

Such traitorous types are also referred to in other times and cultures as quislings, fifth columnists, Benedict Arnolds, and Judases.

(None of these are terms of endearment.)

There's no such equivalent term for traitorous whites.

European-Americans --  to use a term no one ever uses -- are the only ones lauded for cheering their own demise, their coming minority status.

Has any other group in history ever exhibited this sort of mass suicidal insanity before? Bill Clinton famously said he looked forward to the day when whites were a minority in this country. Has there ever been another world leader in history who has ever said anything remotely similar?

One has to wonder how blacks really feel about white liberals. Do they feel solidarity with them? Do they admire their suicidal bent? Or are they a little mystified, and perhaps even a little disgusted, by such whites?

White liberals: please bear in mind that you're not really getting blacks to like you by groveling. On a personal basis, they probably just wonder why you're such a weakling.

One also has to wonder if blacks ever dismayed that the whites who seem to be on their side politically are usually the wimpiest ones. Do they ever view these guys as "brothers in arms" in any sense?

Or do they instinctively sense that  these guys are merely low testosterone poseurs who are using blacks to somehow prove their own moral superiority?

You simply never hear blacks praising the white liberals who flutter around them. When was the last time you heard Al Sharpton -- or any black -- say something like, "Yeah, I'm proud to have this strong warrior on my side."

(I can't recall such an instance either.)

So, the question remains, what should self-hating whites be called?

There's a screaming need for a universally recognized, derogatory term for them.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

One issue with so called "white people" , many of the leftists whites , while appearing white, are in fact jewish and thus do not identify with other whites and are actively hostile to WASP interests.

Many of the whites in media, if they are not jewish, must agree with the jewish world view to get hired.

another issue with liberal whites, if they are not jewish they are most likely anglo saxon protestants. Probably half the whites in America would be antagonistic toward WASPS and vice versa.

The wealthy WASPS and Jewish whites have conspired to keep working class whites down ...it is intentional and has been going on for centuries. They do not fear Latinos and blacks will take power from them , but do oppose the non-WASP whites obtaining more power. The best way to keep working class whites out of power is to elevate blacks and hispanics while demonizing the whites who are outside the power structure.

Steven said...

Mexicans are half white so if half of America becomes Mexican and then they mix with the whites, the remaining population will be three quarters white. African Americans are only three quarters African.

Just a thought.

John Craig said...

Anon --
You're right, Jewish people don't see their interests as being allied with other whites, so operate from a different angle. The Tim Wise's and Mark Potok's of the world are in fact acting in their own ethnic self-interest, or at least in what they see as their own ethnic self-interest.

I do think the political distinctions between the WASPs and the other whites has faded over time, though it's true, you rarely see, say, Italian-Americans featured prominently in the liberal (anti-white) pantheon.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Most of the Mexicans who come north are not half-white, they're mostly Amerindians. There's a huge dichotomy down there, most of the Mexicans you see on Mexican TV are almost if not pure white, and while the population as a whole has a sizable fraction of mestizos, the population as a whole is still overwhelmingly Amerindian.

Steven said...

Granted, it wasn't the most well researched comment.

I just looked up:

'
A 2014 publication summarizing population genetics research in Mexico, which have included three nationwide surveys and several region-specific surveys, found that in the studies done to date, counting only studies that looked at the ancestry of both parents: "Amerindian ancestry is most prevalent (51% to 56%) in the three general estimates, followed by European ancestry (40% to 45%); the African share represents only 2% to 5%.... In Mexico City, the European contribution was estimated as 21% to 32% in six of the seven reports, with the anomalous value of 57% obtained in a single sample of 19 subjects. European ancestry is most prevalent in the north (Chihuahua, 50%; Sonora, 62%; Nuevo León, 55%), but in a recent sample from Nuevo León and elsewhere in the country, Amerindian ancestry is dominant."
'
I don't know what to make of that.

I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. The Americas were populated by Amerindians when Europeans moved there (its wasn't a native European land) so it seems fair for the continent to end up mixed.

The only real reservation I would have is the whole issue of IQ and the possibility that genotypically lower IQ Mexicans (which I can't say I'm convinced of) will have a degenerative affect on American society.

If it wasn't for that, would there be any real reason to want to oppose it? Isn't it just small minded and childish to reject people because they look a bit different when we are all human? Why not just accept that the mix of phenotypes is part of your society? I think Amerindians are good looking with cool faces so it doesn't bother me from that point of view.. If it wasn't for the IQ doubt, I'm not sure I would really care about this.

I don't think your endocrinal system should completely overule your ability to reason beyond tribal instincts. Whites have been ahead of the game on a lot of things- maybe we are ahead of the game on this- universal ethical thinking.

Plus there has always been mixing where races met geographically, in North Africa and central Asia.

Steven said...

From wikipedia, 'interracial marriage in the US'

"Although only 7% of married African American men have European American wives, 12.5% of cohabitating African American men have European American partners. 25% of married Asian American women have European spouses, but 45% of cohabitating Asian American women are with European American men—higher than the percentage cohabiting with Asian men (less than 43%)"

It seems to me it is not only whites who are not particularly concerned about preserving their race. People of all races are willing to marry interracially.

John Craig said...

Steven --
That's a higher percentage of European ancestry than I would have guessed. In any case, this post wasn't a diatribe against race mixing -- I'm the ultimate example of that -- but about whites who, unlike any other race that I can think of in history, actively work against their own interests (economically, socially, and, ultimately, biologically).

The problem with universalist thinking is, it doesn't work when only one group practices it.

Anonymous said...

off topic but speaking of intelligence and athletic ability -

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/02/what-its-like-to-be-a-polyamorous-genius.html

jewish guy, 168 iq, plays semi pro baseball. self reported slight asperger's. i honestly can't figure if this guy is blindly machiavellian or kinda retarded. oddly enough, he's freakishly tall.

Steven said...

"...unlike any other race that I can think of in history, actively work against their own interests (economically, socially, and, ultimately, biologically). "

Historically that would include whites too so you may as well just look at now.

This is what I think you are mainly referring to: white countries have the highest levels of immigration into them from people of other races while white people are not voting against it.

I don't know about attitudes in America but that's not entirely true in Europe where there is widespread opposition to immigration.

Perhaps America is a special case, with its history of conquest of native American lands and racial slavery.

Also bear in mind that one of the main reasons for the movement of people this way is because white countries are the most developed ones with the freest societies. Americans aren't pouring over the border into Mexico. Nobody is sneaking into the middle east, except jihadists.

I looked at one of the only non-white developed countries- Japan- and the number of immigrants there is now about 2 million and there is yet massive opposition.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, I'm referring to immigration, but also affirmative action and issues of crime and social customs in general.

And you're absolutely right, the countries which people want most to emigrate to are those which have been historically white majority countries.

John Craig said...

To the Anon whose comment I didn't post --
C'mon, I'm supposed to "approve" all comments, I can't post something which recommends certain groups be killed.

Steven said...

Last comment:

Whenever I read or hear discussions of immigration in America, its always mentioned how white people, the Irish and Italians, were the immigrants in the past and they were poor at first too and this is just the same. So I think America's particular history does have a big influence.

Your history of slavery and segregation obviously lead to the affirmative action policies, whether you agree with them or not. They are an attempt to compensate and basically give blacks a leg up, having had a foot on their neck for so long.

Lastly, you've got to consider how the elites in business, the media and politics might influence this for their own reasons. Cheap labour? Economic growth with population growth?

If you criticise whites who argue for non-white immigration, doesn't that ultimately come down to a problem with race mixing? isn't that the ultimate problem with it- that pure Europeans will be bread out of existence? (even though they will still have descendants).

John Craig said...

Steven --
This post had nothing to do with race mixing. It had to do with loyalty to one's group.

Also, a history of slavery does not necessarily lead to affirmative action. What it should lead to is an abolishment of slavery. Right now affirmative action helps Mexican-Americans, who were never slaves, rent immigrants from places like Somalia who were not descended from slaves, etc.

Steven said...

Okay you weren't talking about race mixing. I was just taking the idea 'loyalty to whites= anti-hispanic immigration' to its logical end. You might have just been talking about letting another group in to share the power & possibly have some negative impact on whites, for example economically.

I'm against affirmative action for the record.

Anonymous said...

i totally get it john. i was more than alittle cheesed off when i wrote that. please put this up, in case the nsa is building a file on you or me.....

i wonder how guys like taylor and sailer stay sane and stable. it takes a lot out of you, knowing how the world is going these days.

John Craig said...

Anon --
I'm friends with Taylor, he's a pretty tough cookie.

Anonymous said...

they used to call them "n!@@er lovers"

but today the term does not fit, since leftists seem to have abandoned Blacks, in favor of multi-culturalism

while massive immigration from Latin America is not good for working class whites, it will be more harmful to Blacks, as their political power will be diminished and they will be pushed out of jobs and even pushed out of their neighborhoods by the invading Latinos. Typically Latinos have animosity toward Blacks ,

Anonymous said...

All countries have immigration laws (which should be enforced, especially in our own country). What baffles me is why these illegal immigrants don't want to remain in their own countries. Many of these foreigners could use their God-given abilities to build up and make their own countries better, but instead, they want to take advantage of the supposed "perks" that are available to them in the countries that they invade.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
I don't see (most of) these illegal immigrants as evil people; they're just people who are looking for a better life. If I were a poor Mexican, I'd strongly consider doing the same. But the problem for this country is, low IQ immigrants from Third World countries general don't have the same "God-given abilities," as you put it, that many Americans do, which is why they were unable to "make their own countries better" in the first place.

Anonymous said...

I understand the IQ factor. It just seems to me that these foreigners should be making "a better life" for themselves (and future generations) in their own countries. Some of these foreigners come from beautiful parts of the world.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
I agree that they SHOULD; it's just that they CAN'T.