Posts Tagged ‘implicit whiteness’

Institutional Failure: The Limits of “Implicit Whiteness.”

March 20, 2010

Looks like I was right about two things.

 Parodying the mindless support of white Americans for institutions which actively seek to displace them, I wrote:

 U…S…A…U…S…A…U…S…A…What’s that?…You’re not chanting along?…What are you?…Some kind of liberal/commie/terrorist?…Nothing a Sean Hannity “Freedom Concert” (at least I think that’s what they’re called) won’t fix!”

 Well, I was correct…they are called “Freedom Concerts.”  I was also correct in my long-held belief that Sean Hannity is the trash of humanity.

 From James Edwards at The Political Cesspool:

 “Since 2003 Hannity and his scam have raised over $43 million dollars from trusting, good hearted conservatives who want to honor those men and women who have been injured or killed in American uniform. Out of over $43 million dollars, Freedom Alliance has given $1.8 million dollars to the people it claims to be raising all this money for. That’s less than 4% of donations going to help the soldiers. Where’s the rest of it go? According to one source, a whole bunch of it goes to pampering Sean Hannity and his family and friends as they fly to these concerts in private jets, with private limos, and lots and lots of luxury hotel suites.”

 “You’re a great American Sean!”  I wouldn’t be surprised if he charged the widows and orphans of deceased soldiers for admission to these concerts.  “My Dad Died For Israel And All I Got Was This Lousy Hannity T-Shirt!”

 “Implicit whiteness,” the practice, not the theory of (which is entirely accurate), has rapidly gone from slightly pleasing me to disgusting me.  It has reached its functional limits.  White Americans naturally identify with the military.  The problem is that the military no longer serves the ethnic interests of whites.  But pieces of trash like Hannity guilt whites into supporting whatever war for Israel Americans are dying for, the implication being that if you don’t support the war effort, you’re not supporting your fellow white Americans.  So, “implicit whiteness” leads to the blood and treasure of whites being expended in support of the interests of another ethnic group.  Another example is evangelical Christianity, which has been warped by our elites into support for Christian Zionism and adopting black childrenThe problem with “implicit whiteness” is this:  whatever symbolic American institution whites place their faith in will end up being used by other ethnic groups to either support their ethnic interests or to actively oppose the interests of whites, only now they will have the tacit approval of whites in doing so.  Nothing but explicit racialism will work anymore.  “Implicit whiteness” leads nowhere.  It will go nowhere because American institutions no longer serve, and now actively oppose, the interests of white Americans.

 Gradually, I think that more and more on the racial right are starting to wake up to the fact that institutional failure is a reality.  The racial right used to view American institutions as unfair (i.e. “hate crimes” laws) but functional.  It’s no longer just about fairness.  Whites can’t count on American institutions to serve them at all.  I think the saga of this year’s American Renaissance conference opened a lot of eyes.  It wasn’t a matter of the criminal justice system taking a crime against whites less seriously than a comparable crime against minorities…it’s that the criminal justice system basically ignored the crime against whites entirely.  They just refused to protect AmRen.  When a society refuses or is unable to carry out one of its basic functions, defending you against unjustified aggression, it has failed in its main purpose, and you are an idiot if you to continue to voluntarily support it.  “Institutional Failure” is becoming the emerging consensus.

 In this article, the interaction between “implicit whiteness” and institutional failure meshes nicely:

 Writing in The American Conservative, in a very well written article that may be painful for some to come to terms with, John Derbyshire describes the existing national social structure, conspiring against Sam Francis’ fabled “Middle American Radicals,” in the following terms:

 “A ruling class had established itself with aid from [minority] underclass allies to whom it had given promises of provision and protection [paid for by middle and working class whites].”

 Derbyshire, like Francis, is correct.  He goes on to make a prediction about what awaits the most recent manifestation of the MARs/ “implicit whiteness” phenomenon, the “tea parties”:

 “The Tea Partiers will be marginalized by appeals to political correctness, a thing easily done as practically all of them are white. The less committed will drift away; the minority that remain will be folded into the Republican Party, after first being subjected to a brief, painless operation to remove the “R” from “MAR.” Peace will descend, and all will be as it was, the elite secure in its power, the underclass secure with its dole, the middle classes back on the treadmill to pay the bills run up by the elites and their clients.”

 Again, Derbyshire is unfortunately correct.

 Due to mass immigration and declining white birthrates, primary among other factors, the demographic situation for whites has deteriorated to the point where it is probably no longer even possible to effectively defend their group interests at the national political level.  Even if it may still be theoretically possible, which it won’t be for long, it is no longer plausible that it will happen.  As far as a “top-down” movement…just look at our current hostile elite.  It’s dominated by a hostile Jewish elite, and those white gentiles least committed to our interests.  Any attempt to “retake” the elite of American society would be an even steeper uphill struggle than the impossible attempt to “retake” our society on the national political level.  The sad fact of the matter is that American institutions, as they exist today and will for the foreseeable future, no longer serve the interests of whites, and in fact, actively seek to displace them.  This fundamental dynamic will not change.  This seems to be a hard concept for whites, in particular men, over the age of about 45, to come to terms with.  But come to terms with it they must.  The institutions that currently control American life will simply need to be excised from the White community in as much as is possible.  That means dropping out of them and creating our own, smaller, parallel institutions, which may end up serving only the committed few…at least as first.  I’m sure this feels to a lot of older whites like “surrendering” the relatively homogenous America of their childhood, but what they need to understand is that that “America” no longer exists and is not coming back.  This may be painful to accept, but then again many necessary truths are.  With this in mind, two predictions of my own:

 1) If I’m ever fortunate enough to become a multi-billionaire (quick…somebody get me a Goldman Sachs job application), I plan on paying Kevin MacDonald to write books about the various random topics or thoughts that float into, and out of, my head.  I recently purchased both Separation And Its Discontents and A People That Shall Dwell Alone (I would urge everyone to do the same), and have been skimming through them as best as I can manage with the limited time I seem to have available (to be sure though, I AM very lazy).  One of the intriguing things about SAID so far seems to be its explanation of various societal phenomena in history as reactions to the group evolutionary strategy of Judaism.  As I wouldn’t do his work justice, I won’t try to sum it up shortly and sweetly here, but will instead just recommend that you read it yourself.  From what I’ve read so far, one recurring, and interesting, characteristic, noted by MacDonald, of the European reaction to successful Jewish resource competition with the native population, throughout the ages, has been economic collectivism.  For example, one of the reactions of circa 15th century-Spain’s artisan class, to the economic success of the “New Christians” (Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, some of whom remained covert practitioners of Judaism), was to form guilds and trade unions, admittance to which was determined by the Spanish racial purity requirements of the “limpieza” laws (SAID, Chapter 4).  You can’t win the game if you’re not allowed on the field.  As a firm believer in the existence of cycles (for every ebb there is a flow) in nature, I am confident that while our situation will continue to deteriorate…it will only deteriorate so far before it reaches rock bottom.  Eventually, spurred on by their own individual deteriorating economic conditions, whether intended as explicitly racial or not, whites will begin to create their own economic institutions, out of necessity, that will reduce the amount of economic resources that flow from whites to non-whites.  An example that I like to give is the rise of credit unions.  They seem to be springing up all over, and many credit unions are rapidly reducing the criteria required for membership.  It makes sense.  Large banks, led disproportionately by Jews, made bad loans to unqualified black and Hispanic borrowers.  When these loans went south…well, somebody had to pay for the multi-billion dollar bonuses to our Jewish financial elite.  So naturally, the interest rates of hard-working whites, who had continuously made their payments, were raised.  Faced with the prospect of subsidizing underperforming minority loans, and paying for the required profit margin (needed to fund bonuses for Jewish banking executives) of the banks through higher monthly payments, many whites are opting out and joining credit unions, who do not exist for the purpose of turning a profit (funding Jewish bankster bonuses), where they can earn a higher return on savings, and pay a lower interest rate on loans.  The number of non-profit organizations conducting business-like activities will only continue to increase in the foreseeable future.  They will be disproportionately operated by whites and will disproportionately serve whites. Whether they are aware of the racial reasons for their abandoning American institutions and forming their own, or not, white Americans will do so largely individually and unconsciously as a matter of necessity.  The end result will be largely the same as if the motivation had been explicit.

 2) The emerging pro-white movement will find its most enthusiastic and effective supporters in whites who are currently between the ages of around 25-35, and have IQ’s largely in the 110-120 range.  Too many of those older than this age bracket will be unable to accept the necessity of abandoning a large part of the American social infrastructure and territory (later on).  Too many of those younger than this age bracket will have been raised in multicultural America, and view it as “just the way things are.”  Those between 25 and 35 now are probably old enough to remember at least some of the way things used to be, yet young enough to be exposed to the most radical of demographic driven “change,” drawing the unmistakable conclusion that it won’t be undone at a national level.  Those with IQ’s above 120 are more likely to be co-opted by acceptance into the elite.  Those with IQ’s below 110 are more likely to be unable to understand the facts of their dispossession and/or unable to effectively challenge it.  Those in-between will be smart, capable, and have nothing to lose.  When deteriorating economic conditions force a reduction in the budgets for the military and law enforcement, look for support in the growing ranks of unemployed former members of the armed services and police departments.

 I may very well be wrong.  I guess only time will tell.  At least one thing is for certain…no future leaders of the emerging pro-white movement will be found in the ranks of Sean Hannity “Freedom Concert” attendees.  Sean Hannity may indeed be a “great American”…he’s also a piece of shit.  If you accept the fact that “America” is now nothing more than a set of institutions in a given geographic jurisdiction, which seek to actively dispossess whites in that given jurisdiction in order to enrich non-whites in that jurisdiction and abroad, then the two descriptions of Hannity are not contradictory.