Jonah Goldberg writes:

"Double standards breed resentment and rage, regardless of ideological orientation. There's a reason white supremacists co-opt the language of the left, demanding identity politics for white people."
-Jonah

Though I think Jonah Goldberg has written a fine article I find this view very annoying. Jonah Goldberg is concerned about anti white racism because it might encourage white identity politics. Has Jonah ever attacked Jewish identity politics and in group preference? I doubt it. Well I think identity politics are great. Jews do it, Blacks do it, Asians do it, whites better start doing it. Multiracial socities fracture along racial lines. People start to block vote as races not as individuals. If whites don't wise up and start playing as a team they will pay the price. THEY WILL NEVER CONVINCE OTHER GROUPS NOT TO PLAY IDENTITY POLITCS.

White people have to understand that there is a narrative going around that whites are the most evil people on earth. At the same time the white population is declining. This will probably end in a genocide.

If you want to understand the extent of hatred for whites just search for "The Couple | Open Relationships | Netflix" on youtube.

We Jews have been pogromed, expelled, and genocided many times over the last 2000 years. I am also the great grandson of Holocaust survivors. I was trained my whole life that it can always happen again and to be ever vigilant. And also to speak up if it happens to anyone else. Now my gut tells me that something very bad will happen to white people when they become a minority in America. So I'm speaking up.

Amy writes

"People who, like me, believe in a "content of their character" view
--Amy

Ya liberals really don't believe in this dream of MLK stuff anymore.

Seems like a good way to keep ensuring future white racists

"Seems like a good way to keep ensuring future white racists"
--Nicolek

I'm more concerned about the actual anti-white racism.

Also I can't think of any other race of people that allows other races to move into their countries on mass. So it seems to me white people are the least racist people on Earth, thus I don't understand why they are the only ones ever attacked for racism.

Honestly I have to say that as a Jew in a white country I have recieved splendid treatment. I'm sad to say that whites living in Israel would not be treated as well by my people.

If we import the Third World we get Third World problems -

https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/08/british-mep-if-we-import-the-third-world-we-get-third-world-problems/

But Jewish cat, who are the whites?

Are Jews white? Jews often seem to by everyone as white when needed, non-white at other times.

I don't know who whites are.

I know Jews, Irish, Italians, Germans, Cheks, Greeks, Turks, Hungarians, Protestants, Catholics, Welsh, Scots, Poles, etc.

If these groups want to have various identities they celebrate and the cultures they have created, that's fine.

Because of their shared history of slavery and its legacy, African Americans are also a reasonable culture.

But whites? That literally seems to play into "whiteness studies" the studies that support white privilege, racism = power + prejudice, and all that crap.

Are Jews white? Are Asians white? Go ask Harvard, then ask yourself.

Don't forget the Persians and the Russians Jerry.

White - when 'D - all of the above' isn't an option.

On the one hand, you've got people saying that dividing us into camps by race is fostering racism. And, on the other hand, you've got people saying that racism has already divided us into camps by race. Chicken, or egg?

The main aim of the '60s civil rights movement was to bring us all together, to make sure everyone got an opportunity to chase the American Dream. Whether the movement succeeded can be debated - probably endlessly.

The main aim of modern identity politics is to divide us; to stratify what each group is and is not allowed to do or say. Each race must act and be seen as a separate culture; being ever vigilant in spotting and defending against appropriation. That means each race must have public advocates arguing in its favor and defending its positions and privileges. For that to be effective, each group must think and behave alike, in lockstep; the individual must be crushed.

Collectivism - whether imposed as socialism or fascism - is the chief impediment to human progress. Only when the individual is free - free to hate or love or be indifferent - do we as a species make progress.

"Seems like a good way to keep ensuring future white racists."

Nicole makes a good point. Even if one puts aside the moral issues for a moment, in sheer socio-political tactical terms, assigning an original sin to a group, from which no redemption is possible, is stupid. What is the motivation for this group to behave ethically? There isn't one. They are damned no matter what they do. The lesson they learn isn't "oh gee, I had better spend my life atoning for the sin of my existing". The lesson is, "behaving morally is for suckers". And the whirlwind is reaped.

In the end, it becomes impossible to separate the people who have racism in their hearts from the people, like Jewish Cat, who have figured out that identity politics is how the game is played. Racism, then, is no longer a sin; it's just a tactic.

And Jerry is right in that "white" is a pretty recent concept. People of my great-grandparents' generation would not self-identify as "white"; they would identify as English, Scottish, Irish, German, Polish, Italian, etc. "White" is a bucket that the Left has found useful to put its enemies in. The Left retains the privilege of assigning to the "white" bucket anyone that displeases it. Conservative blacks are "acting white". Hispanics who don't toe the line are "white Hispanics". Women who stray off the reservation are "white men without penises" (even if they aren't white). As is the case with pretty much all of the language they use, the Left defines "white" as meaning whatever it wants it to mean at a given moment.

"The main aim of the '60s civil rights movement was to bring us all together, to make sure everyone got an opportunity to chase the American Dream. "

Of course, to the Left, that stuff was never anything more than recruiting slogans. What's happening now is what they intended all along. As David Horowitz has said, regarding the Left: "It's never about the issue. It's always about the revolution."

Even if accepted the definition of racism as depending upon structural power and social institutions favoring one race over another (which is actually called institutional racism), such a definition would not exclude black people.

For instance, let's say someone in the United States devoured the "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and became completely convinced that communism was the best possible government there could be, and that all nations should become communist today. And that in nations where communism failed, it's only because communism wasn't instituted properly and that if it was just done right, it would work and be the best possible government of all.

You'd say, without too much fear of contradiction, this guy is a communist, right?

He wouldn't say, "Oh, no! I can't be a communist because communists have never been in power in the United States!"

He's communist because he believes in communism. It has nothing to do with the institutions of power and privilege.

By the same token, anyone who believes institutions of power and privilege based on race is a racist...if we were to accept the Left's dishonest proposition that being a racist depends upon power and privilege. The system the person lives under is completely irrelevant.

Believe in affirmative action? You're a racist.

Want a BET channel, but not a WET channel,? You're a racist.

Believe in a Black Student Government on college campuses but there is no need for a White Student Government? You're a racist.

"But Jewish cat, who are the whites?
Are Jews white? Jews often seem to by everyone as white when needed, non-white at other times.
I don't know who whites are.

Are Jews white? Are Asians white? Go ask Harvard, then ask yourself."
--Jerry

When I say white I mean people of European descent.

Also Jerry I don't believe you. First of all no one has any trouble finding out who whites are when they need to attack whites for being racist or figure out who not to hire to meet diversity quotas.

Second no one plays this silly game with any other race.
"Is Samuel L. Jackson black? How could you possibly tell? What is black anyway. Black is just a social construct."
Ya, no one really buys this bullshit.

This "what is white" thing is just a tatic to prevent whites from forming a group identity.

As for Ashakanazi Jews like myself we are a hybrid between whites and middle easterners. There is a dispute in our community weather we are white or not (I say we are not though I won't go into my reasons). But since Ashkanazi Jews population wise are less than 1/50 the size of the European population I don't think this question matters very much in practical terms.

here is a simple way to test it: in Rwanda, hatred against an ethnic group was stirred up by the government resulting in genocide. Was this not racism? Perhaps if we call it "racial hatred" it will all be clearer.
"But it is morally daft to celebrate or condescendingly explain away bigotry against whites as some sort of historical comeuppance for the sins -- real or alleged -- of their ancestors." Thomas Sowell has dissected this nicely. How can I be guilty of something that happened before I was born? While it may be true that there is a legacy effect on minorities of things that happened long ago, I personally did not cause this. If we are going to have comeuppance for sins of our ancestors, what about the black slavers in Africa who actually captured the black slaves that were sold? What about blaming all blacks for the crimes of others of their race? This last one at least has temporal logic.
Every group of people has negative views about certain or many other groups. Singling out one of these types of hate as OK will lead to lots more hate.

You guys don't get it. White doesn't strictly mean caucasian or European. It means 'the enemy'. Asians can be white, jews can be white, even blacks can be white when the Left wants to attack them.

You're making the same mistake that Jonah and a lot of Conservatives make, to take Progressives on good faith. There is no point in trying to reason with them. They don't care whether what they're saying is fair or even accurate.

They hate you and want to establish a pretext for harming you. It's that simple.

As it has been said, if you are white*, you may not have an interest in identity politics, but you'd better believe that identity politics has an interest in YOU.

IMO, it is now too late to avoid having the white population evolve into a (well-armed) camp, set in opposition to the other camps WHICH HAVE ALREADY FORMED. The european-american demographic decline, combined with the rabid race-baiting of the various groups defining the left, makes a "white" political and social identity, and thus solidarity, inevitable.

* Who is included as "white" for these purposes is indeed a slippery concept, and probably will be determined more by cultural factors than just skin tone. As I was taught by Thomas Sowell in college, prejudice in personal encounters is much more a function of socio-economic difference than race -- i.e., we are more likely to have a negative reaction to a poor-looking white man than a rich-looking non-white man. The same goes for someone who can speak articulately, and someone (of any race) who cannot.

This is not racist. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Scott is alleged to have referred to Chang as "ching-chang" and "the ching-chong" to multiple voters outside polling precincts during last Tuesday's election. She's also said to have called one of Chang's campaign volunteers an “immigrant,” saying “you don’t belong here” and “I want you out of my country.”

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/08/16/detroit-rep-bettie-cook-scott-on-asian-opponent-dont-vote-for-the-ching-chong

Anyone offering odds on when Trump first tweets the words "anti-White"?

> This is not racist. Nothing to see here. Move along.
> Scott is alleged to have referred to Chang as
> "ching-chang" and "the ching-chong"

Scott is Black, so by definition she can't be racist.

> As for Ashakanazi Jews like myself we are a hybrid between whites and middle easterners. There is a dispute in our community weather we are white or not (I say we are not though I won't go into my reasons). But since Ashkanazi Jews population wise are less than 1/50 the size of the European population I don't think this question matters very much in practical terms.

I think you have proven my point.

They've got no trouble figuring out who is white -

A list of white farmers whose lands are to be seized without compensation in South Africa has been published by the local minority rights group AfriForum.

https://www.rt.com/business/436143-south-africa-white-farmers/

"I think you have proven my point."
--Jerry

Just because there are some tricky cases where it's hard to classify someone as white does not mean that whites don't exist as a catogary. You know how blue and green still exist as seperate catagories even though they have some overlap called aqua?

Does the media ever have a hard time figuring out if someone is white when they need to call them racist?

Did the people who wrote these articles have trouble finidng out who was white?
https://imgflip.com/i/1vz637

The only reason people attack the concept of white people as a category is because they are afraid of whites organizing as a collective.

Jerry no one believes you have trouble figuring out what a white person is. Why are you lying? Why can't you argue honestly?

Jewish cat, peace. I don't think that's what Jerry meant. What he's doing is pointing out that "white" as an ethnicity is, historically, bullshit. Which is part of your point too; you've noted how anyone that displeases the Left gets lumped into "white" regardless of their actual ethnicity. For that matter, "black" and "Hispanic" are also bullshit; taking Hispanic as an example, there's Spanish, Mexican, Cuban, Brazilian, Argentine, etc., and they are all quite different. (For instance, I know first hand that many Cubans have no use for Mexicans.) Lumping them into "Hispanic" based mostly on surface features is an invention of the Left, one that they engage in for their own pursuit of power.

Leftism is basically the Cluster B personality disorders (narcissistic, sociopathic, borderline, histrionic) cast in the form of politics. (Leftism is not liberalism; in fact, it's quite anti-liberal, in the classical sense.) A characteristic of Cluster B people is that they must have scapegoats, on which to blame their own failings. The Left has lately decided that whites, and white males in particular, are a scapegoat group. Another one is Jews; the Left has fully embraced Antisemitism, as we've seen recently with Louis Farrakhan and Jeremy Corbin.

If you want to trigger incoherency on the issue, point this out:

You can only blame the dominant culture for not providing prosperity to all if they are actually the only source of it.

Asking other cultures to step up their game doesn't work - they must see a need, then fill it themselves, as Asians are in fact doing today.

It remains that some Hispanics are traveling thousands of miles, at great personal risk and cost, to arrive at a job others will not take in a country those others despise - while taking handouts from its people.

-----

PS: not only the Spanish, but the Portuguese are counted as "Hispanic" by Federal guidelines. Make of that what you will. There is money to be made in confusion.

Cousin Dave Says:

"Leftism is basically the Cluster B personality disorders (narcissistic, sociopathic, borderline, histrionic) cast in the form of politics. (Leftism is not liberalism; in fact, it's quite anti-liberal, in the classical sense.) A characteristic of Cluster B people is that they must have scapegoats, on which to blame their own failings."

I hate to break it to you, but the political left has no monopoly on scapegoating people.

The entire "unite the right" group were busy protesting with chants of "jews will not replace us"... those folks aren't from the political left regardless of how much you might like to distance yourself from them.

Similarly, it is the political right that is busy scapegoating all manner of social problems onto immigrants.

To be honest, your own insistence that all of the scapegoating is coming from folks on the political left... who you then seek to dehumanize by classifying the entire lot as mentally ill... is in and of itself a form of scapegoating.

How about we focus on addressing the issues instead of trying to vilify entire swaths of humanity?

If you want to argue that there are folks on the left scapegoating and it is wrong I am with you... but when you act like this is a "pathology" unique to folks with differing political philosophy I am going to point out your hypocrisy.

"Because of their shared history of slavery and its legacy, African Americans are also a reasonable culture."

WOW, this is wrong - because that "shared history" is of a region less than a tenth the size of the continent; behold the hoax, so pervasive that you never thought about it.