What are some good conservative/right periodicals?
| ,.,.,..,,,.,..,,.,..,. | 02/02/22 | | ,.,..,.,..,.,.,.,..,.,.,,..,..,.,,..,.,,. | 02/02/22 | | ,.,.,..,,,.,..,,.,..,. | 02/02/22 | | TEEN W0LF | 02/02/22 | | ,.,.,..,,,.,..,,.,..,. | 02/02/22 | | There's always a link in Kenosha | 02/02/22 | | ,.,;,;,.;,.;,.;,,,,;,.,; | 02/02/22 | | ,.,.,..,,,.,..,,.,..,. | 02/02/22 | | Adolf Anderssen | 02/02/22 | | ,.,;,;,.;,.;,.;,,,,;,.,; | 02/02/22 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 2nd, 2022 5:51 AM
Author: ,.,.,..,,,.,..,,.,..,.
I
already have a WSJ subscription but am looking to get something that
has more in-depth/long reads (and preferably something I can get in
print).
Is the Christian Science Monitor worth it? National Review seems a little old school. Anything else out there?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5022069&forum_id=2#43891235) |
Date: February 2nd, 2022 5:56 AM
Author: ,.,..,.,..,.,.,.,..,.,.,,..,..,.,,..,.,,.
https://www.imperiumpress.org/product-page/firstness-journal-issue-3
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5022069&forum_id=2#43891239) |
 |
Date: February 2nd, 2022 6:01 AM
Author: ,.,.,..,,,.,..,,.,..,.
Interesting - can you tell me more about it? Looks relatively new.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5022069&forum_id=2#43891244) |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2022 6:48 AM
Author: ,.,.,..,,,.,..,,.,..,.
Suggests at dinner party that everyone read "Hollywood’s Jews Get Their Wandering Papers"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5022069&forum_id=2#43891287) |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2022 6:57 AM
Author: There's always a link in Kenosha
180 - when are you inviting us over?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5022069&forum_id=2#43891302) |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2022 7:21 AM
Author: ,.,;,;,.;,.;,.;,,,,;,.,;
I’ve
been working the “Hollywood apartheid” beat since before it was hip.
Four years ago I reported on the USC Annenberg School’s push to force
Hollywood to insert “inclusion riders” (“diversity” casting guarantees)
in all industry contracts, and I predicted that soon enough those
“riders” would be mandatory, and white actresses would be most severely
affected in terms of lost work.
And last year I reported on the mandatory diversity quotas and
hiring caps (no more than 30% white actresses, and that 30% must be
divided between real women and trannies) adopted by the streaming
services that these days comprise the core of the business.
So yeah, I was right. It’s now mandatory, and white actresses are hardest-hit.
“This is surely not what Hollywood’s liberal Juden had in mind when they opened the doors to this shit.”
Also last year, I predicted that the quotas and caps would
create a “Jewish question,” in terms of, are Jews white (capped) or
nonwhite (quota’d)? My attempts to elicit answers from the streaming
services were unsuccessful.
But thanks to a recent piece on Bari Weiss’ Substack (penned by
two respected L.A. journalists), we can deduce the answer: The caps and
quotas are now everywhere (all streaming services, TV networks, and
movie studios), everyone’s afraid to speak out against them, and Jews
are capped as white in production jobs.
Through my past and occasionally present work in casting I deal
mainly with actors, so I’ve been most acutely aware of the effects of
the hiring caps on that demo. The Substack piece concentrated mainly on
writers and showrunners, and to be honest, I was rather stunned that the
ethnic cleansing is so aggressive regarding off-camera jobs. I knew it
would be ruthlessly enforced for actors, because changing the industry’s
cosmetics is the easiest way to mollify nonwhite malcontents, most of
whom think a “showrunner” is a guy who competes in exhibition relays.
But it was jarring to learn how deep the disease has spread. This isn’t a cancerous wart…it’s penetrated the industry’s bones.
Many of the insiders who were interviewed for the Substack piece
spoke anonymously, and were only identified by color. But of those
named, most were Jews. Of course, the authors take the safe route of not
drawing attention to this fact. The only explicit mention of Jews in
the piece comes toward the end when the authors point out that the new
$484 million Academy Museum of Motion Pictures completely erases Jews
from the history of Hollywood: “It’s missing any mention of the small
band of mostly Jewish emigres from Eastern Europe who created the film
industry. The people without whom there would be no entertainment
industry.”
The museum pays tribute to blacks, trannies, and even Native
Americans, but no mention of the people who created Hollywood in the
first place.
The Substack authors present this omission, once again, safely:
It’s PC Hollywood catering to wokeness by hiding the fact that the town
is a meritocracy built by impoverished immigrants.
Get those dudes some Bengay because they’re straining. What the
omission actually means is that Jews are now white, to be erased along
with all other whites.
From their own industry.
This is surely not what Hollywood’s liberal Juden had in mind when they opened the doors to this shit.
But let’s backtrack a bit. Black Americans never needed quotas
in Hollywood. No more than they needed them in sports. All blacks needed
in both fields was the removal of the race-based discriminatory
employment barriers that hampered them in the first half of the 20th
century.
Jews, well aware that black audiences were hungry for
entertainment in the segregated South, launched a kind of sista studio
system just for blacks. Between the 1920s and 1950s, over 500
full-length all-black movies, produced by Jews like Leo Popkin and
Alfred Sack, were filmed and distributed to “colored” theaters in
Southern states where millions of blacks paid to see “their people” in
Hollywood films remade with a black cast.
It was a hugely successful racket, but to the Hollywood Jews, it
wasn’t personal, in that, it’s not that these Jews liked segregation.
But there was money to be made in the South, and the sound business move
was to milk both sides of “separate but equal,” with white films in
which blacks were relegated to funny sidekicks or dance acts, and black
films in which handsome (usually light-skinned) blacks played all the
roles.
When society changed, Hollywood Jews put their money and talent
into socially conscious mainstream black films, and schlocky
blaxploitation fare. Again, it was just business.
Eventually, as big-earning black superstars became a norm in Hollywood, Jews were there for that, too.
All that mattered, at any point in the timeline, was that Jews ran the table.
What’s happening now is that Jews are being dispossessed from a
world of their creation. This ain’t like being kicked out of Madrid or
Vienna; over the centuries Jews got used to being expelled from other
people’s kingdoms. But this is their kingdom; everyone else is the
immigrant.
It turns out that Jews underestimated their soul brothers. The
Substack piece details how black producers are using the caps and
quotas, along with heavy-handed strong-arm tactics, to become the new
power brokers and kingmakers in town (Jews are used to being mugged by
schvartzes in the street, but not on the studio lot!).
There’s an irony here that’s somewhat amusing. While ordinary
blacks are getting squeezed out of L.A. by gentrification (led by Jewish
real-estate developers) and Hispanics (brought in by Jewish-backed
immigration policies), blacks are squeezing Jews out of their figurative
neighborhood, with Hispanics playing both sides (being white when it
benefits them, and “colored” when they can take advantage of the
quotas).
Jews, blacks, and beans, a modern-day Three Stooges act, taking
turns slapping each other. Except Jews have always been Moe. Now they’re
Shemp.
In another year they’ll be Emil Sitka.
I want to be clear about what I’m saying, and what I’m not
saying. I’m not claiming that Jews “control Hollywood” in a
conspiratorial sense. There are no cabals in this business. This is an
industry where every smile is fake and every handshake oily. Everyone’s
out for themselves, and alliances are short-lived. But one of the
reasons for the massive Jewish presence behind the scenes is that West
and East Coast Jews are literally born speaking the language of the
industry.
If I went to Nova Scotia to become a fisherman, the lingo would
be a foreign tongue to me. “Tack that scoot-rung; bilge that jimp.”
As a Beverly Hills yid, I’d be lost.
But I grew up speaking Hollywood.
Generally, most American Jews grow up immersed in that language.
Whether or not they make a career out of it, there’s an understanding
that they can if they want to, and if they do, they’ll fit in perfectly.
So the psychological toll of being informed that they’re now
capped, that beyond a certain number they’ll be barred from the business
because of their skin color, is severe. You can feel the anxiety in the
panicky words of the Jews interviewed for the Substack piece; they’re
rattled.
I’m reminded of a controversy from 2015, when Conan O’Brien’s
comedy writer Andrés du Bouchet (winner of two prestigious awards: Guy
Who Looks Least Like a Comedy Writer and Guy Who Looks Least Like He
Should Be Named “Andrés du Bouchet”) blasted the fact that the “cool
kids” were displacing the nerds on late-night shows:
Comedy in 2015 needs a severe motherfucking shakeup. No
celebrities, no parodies, no pranks, no mash-ups or hashtag wars. I’m
fat. And shove your lip-synching up your ass. Prom King Comedy. That’s
what I call all this shit. You’ve let the popular kids appropriate the
very art form that helped you deal. Fuck. None of the funniest stuff
ever involved celebrity cameos.
Du Bouchet’s point was that the average comedy writer is a
nebbish who’s always used humor as a way to compensate for, shall we
say, physical and aesthetic limitations, and now giggling frat boys like
Jimmy Fallon and talentless loafs like James Corden are redefining
comedy to mean “handsome A-lister does a walk-on.”
Well, as Peter Griffin would say, “You think that’s bad…” Now
the nerdy nebbishes are being told they can’t even get hired because of
their ethnicity.
For Hollywood Jews, that’s an earthquake.
It’s also inevitable. The minute 1619 theology (backed largely
by Jewish elites in politics, academia, publishing, and the news media)
became the left’s religion, the Jewish experience no longer counted as
exceptional. “Fuck yo’ Ellis Island refugee bullshit. You dih-int come
here in chains. You came here freely, so you ain’t no more oppressed
than them Mayflower mutherfuckers.”
That’s why the history of Hollywood was erased at the new
museum. In 1619-land, Samuel Goldwyn gets no more victim points than
Myles Standish (it’s also why the notion of a political “black/brown
coalition” is so laughable; 1619ism also dismisses the Hispanic
immigrant experience, but that’s a topic for another column).
It would be easy to chuckle unsympathetically at what’s
happening to Hollywood’s Jews, to spout some kind of snarky “chicken
soup’s coming home to roost” one-liner. But that kind of reasoning is
unhelpful. Racial apartheids are always bad, and if you take a “serves
’em right” attitude for one, you’re just encouraging more of them, until
eventually you’re on the ass end of one yourself.
The most ridiculous thing about the Hollywood caps and quotas is
that they seem predicated on the notion that there’s a finite number of
movies and TV shows that can be churned out per year, so nonwhite
set-asides are needed. But that’s just not true. There’s no limit to the
amount of content that can be produced in any given year. If you want
to have more black-led content, the solution isn’t to ban whites; if you
want more black joke writers, the solution isn’t to ban Jews. The
solution is to make more content. A writers’ room can have any number of
participants. Don’t fire; just hire more.
Unless…unless the goal isn’t diversity but punishment.
Retribution. Study any racial cap-and-quota system throughout history:
Jim Crow South, Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, 20th-century Fiji.
It’s always about keeping one group down. It’s never about “equity.”
It’s about the empowered telling the disfavored, “I want to keep you
stifled. I want to artificially inhibit your chances of success.”
We should be honest about this: Hollywood’s caps and quotas are
not about adding blacks but subtracting whites. And now Jews are finding
out that for the purposes of this discussion, they’re as white as Grace
Kelly. If “whiteness is a state of mind” (the ideology pushed by the
Ibram X. Kendis and funded by the Shlomo Oyveygenbergs), then Ashkenazi
Tay-Sachs DNA don’t count for shit.
You white, kike. And you capped, sucka.
Now, to what extent Hollywood can prosper with power brokers
named D’Jaunte and Trevarious instead of Joshy and Isaac remains to be
seen. Can the 1619 Hollywood business model survive, long-term?
We’ll examine that question next week, when I recount the tale of the Jew, the shiksa, and the million-dollar tranny.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5022069&forum_id=2#43891343) |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2022 7:23 AM
Author: ,.,.,..,,,.,..,,.,..,.
the Jew, the shiksa, and the million-dollar tranny tp
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5022069&forum_id=2#43891346) |
|
Date: February 2nd, 2022 7:25 AM
Author: ,.,;,;,.;,.;,.;,,,,;,.,;
Lothrop
Stoddard (1883-1950) was, in many respects, decidedly a man of his
times. Like many intellectuals of his generation, he devoted the bulk of
his writing to the nascent field of social science, hoping to harness
the discipline not only to explain the past and present, but also to
affect positive changes in the future. He can accurately be surmised as a
disciple of Madison Grant, who was himself the intellectual progeny of
Arthur de Gobineau by way of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. The Rising
Tide of Color, the 1920 geopolitical and anthropological work for which
Stoddard was and is best known, shows Grant’s influence not only in its
division of the Aryan race into three subcategories (Nordic, Alpine, and
Mediterranean), but also in its overriding pessimism and anxiety about
the future of white civilization, a trait characteristic of the
post-First World War generation of Right-wing intellectuals.
However, Stoddard departed from Grant in meaningful ways and, while
some of Grant’s work is commendable, Stoddard’s deviations from it are
almost uniformly for the better. In The Passing of the Great Race, Grant
suggested that the Nordic race was characterized by a set of sublime,
masterful traits which were absent from lesser races, including the
other Caucasoid races. Stoddard, by contrast, is less interested with
these subdivisions than with the fate of the larger racial community.
Grant wrote the preface to The Rising Tide of Color, and the word
“Nordic” appears far more often in those thirty-two pages than in the
remaining three-hundred some pages of the book. As one would expect,
Stoddard is guilty of some of the purity-spiraling which characterized
his generation of racial theorists and remains a problem for white
activism today, but these forays into excess are easy to overlook in
favor of the more relevant argument and his obvious admiration for a
greater racial community.
Stoddard has some positive things to say about non-white races,
even as he views geopolitical circumstances naturally drawing them into
conflict with whites. For instance, Stoddard praises the Chinese for
their laboriousness. The Japanese are praised for their rapid
industrialization, and the West is chastised for having underestimated
their abilities. Stoddard even praises the Islamic Revival as
regenerative within its particular cultural context, restoring to the
Arab world a vitality which had been lost within the bureaucratic
Ottoman Empire, and he portrays Arabs as some of the world’s fiercest
warriors. Stoddard’s advocacy of racial hygiene thus has the goal of
preserving the distinctive traits of all races, not just a particular
subset of the Caucasoid race. In this sense, he has more in common with
many on the New Right than does Madison Grant.
In The Rising Tide of Color, Stoddard made a number of
predictions which have proven startlingly accurate, if not wholly
original. Stoddard’s thesis, in essence, is that the apparent hegemony
of Europe in his day would be short lived – white civilization would
soon be overrun by the “colored” races. Unsurprisingly, he does not
predict that this circumstance will be brought about by non-whites
overtaking whites in terms of ability. Rather, this usurpation of the
West would be a simple metric of quantity over quality, the result of
higher birth rates among non-whites. These higher birth rates, he notes
ironically, would not be possible without the medicinal, technological,
and political changes brought to Africa and Asia by European colonists.
At stake here was not just the displacement of whites from their
traditional homelands. Stoddard, who had previously written The French
Revolution in San Domingo, was well aware of the probable fate of white
minorities. The dysgenic tragedy of the First World War, which Stoddard
aptly portrayed as meaningless but unfairly blames almost exclusively on
the Germans, is portrayed as accelerating the onset of this
catastrophe.
Stoddard foresaw that capitalism would encourage the importation
of non-white labor that would outcompete whites not in its quality, but
in its quantity and its willingness to work for practically nothing.
This willingness is owed to the fact that, given the Malthusian
pressures triggered by the overpopulation of their nations, even the
most meager subsistence would be preferable from their perspective.
Needless to say, this prediction has been made manifest in the United
States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and elsewhere. Stoddard predicted
that the Islamic Revival would bring the Muslim world into war against
the West and that black Africans would align with Muslims in this
effort. Stoddard predicted that internecine rivalries between non-whites
would be put aside in favor of a sort-of rainbow coalition that would
persist up until the moment that the white world had been defeated. He
also predicted that the moral grandstanding about national
self-determination during and after the First World War would make
continued maintenance of the massive European colonial empires an
impossibility. This seems obvious in retrospect – the values codified at
Versailles both incentivized the creation of nationalist movements
across the European colonies and made the ruling position blatantly and
indefensibly hypocritical – but it must not have been to the
contemporary British and French ruling class, who made efforts (with
varying degrees of intensity) to cling to their empires into the 1960s.
He predicted that the Bolsheviks would persuade discontented colored
nationalists to the cause of Communism. He predicted that Japan would
challenge the West for hegemony over Asia – another accurate prediction,
although its impressiveness is mitigated by the fact that this was
already a widespread belief following the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
He also presaged Samuel Huntington by prophesying that the struggle
between various races and cultures, rather than Marxist materialist
concerns, would be the primary cause of conflict and consciousness in
the twentieth century and beyond.
The Rising Tide of Color was well-received, despite being panned
by the eminent anthropologist Franz Boas, who (in keeping with his
Jewishness) was endeavoring to remove all racial considerations from a
field historically composed almost exclusively of racial studies.
Stoddard took the implications of his research seriously, and worked to
prevent the catastrophe he foresaw from becoming a reality. To this end,
he helped lobby for the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act, much admired by
contemporary and modern Rightists, which created an immigration system
based upon quotas designed to preserve the traditional ethnic makeup of
the United States. This seems to have alleviated much of his pessimism,
as his 1927 book Re-forging America: The Story of Our Nationhood
celebrates the (sadly, illusory) palingenesis of the US and its founding
stock. Reflecting the non-racial dysgenic concerns described within The
Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Underman (1922),
Stoddard helped promote eugenicist policies, working alongside Margaret
Sanger to create the birth control movement. He also spent time as a
correspondent in the Third Reich, of which he held an ambivalent view.
Nonetheless, German government officials naturally preferred giving
interviews to Stoddard rather than to the more hostile William Shirer.
During and after the Second World War, Stoddard, like many of his
generation, was shut out from even supposedly conservative publications.
The man and his work were suddenly heretical to the intellectual and
political establishment, and he was silenced to such an extent that his
death in 1950 went practically unreported in the press.
Today, the unfortunate veracity of Stoddard’s predictions has
reignited interest in his scholarship, sympathetically in dissident
circles and, of course, negatively in the establishment. The similarity
of his predictions to the “Great Replacement” which we observe today
will not be lost on any conscious reader. It is safe to say that this is
the reason that Stoddard has recently begun reappearing in Leftist
publications. The Left uses Stoddard to demonstrate that anything but an
open border is racist and evil, and those articles are exactly the kind
of insipid, smooth-brained commentary you would expect – in essence,
Stoddard proves that “orange man bad.” Another article positions
Stoddard as evidence for the dangers of academic and speech freedoms. A
slightly (but only slightly) more interesting article suggests that
Douglas Murray is the heir apparent to Stoddard’s legacy, a somewhat
accurate assessment nonetheless muddled by the asinine, copy-and-paste
commentary suggesting that the displacement of whites is at once a
ridiculous conspiracy theory and an inevitable force of nature that we
should celebrate and embrace. The establishment Right has also recently
begun smacking around Stoddard, using him to tar Planned Parenthood as
part of its ridiculously misguided and self-destructive campaign against
abortion rights.
It will doubtless be a shock to all Counter-Currents readers to
learn that none of this mainstream pabulum is worth the time invested in
reading it. However, there has been one recent article regarding
Stoddard which caught my attention and which, through its enshrinement
in Stoddard’s Wikipedia entry, has now become part of his popular
legacy. The article, published in The New Yorker and penned by Ian
Frazier, regrettably grabbed my attention with the clickbait headline
“When W. E. B. Du Bois Made a Laughingstock of a White Supremacist.” I
immediately knew, based on the fact that he had once engaged in a public
debate with Du Bois, that the eponymous “supremacist” was Stoddard.
Moreover, I immediately knew that the article must be laughably
disingenuous, given that Du Bois was not remotely close to Stoddard in
terms of ability (and given that it was published in The New Yorker). Du
Bois is a beloved icon of the modern American Left, a fact attributable
to his blackness, his constant demands that whites change their
societies to include and advance blacks, and his Marxism.
Du Bois is uniformly portrayed as an inimitable genius, rivaled
only by Emile Durkheim and Franz Boas as a founder of social science.
However, when one actually examines his ideas, it becomes obvious that
not only was he wrong about practically everything but, worse, he also
had nothing novel to say. Every single one of Du Bois’ supposed
contributions to social science can more meaningfully be attributed to
someone else. The term “color line” to describe racial segregation was
coined by Frederick Douglass (and, at any rate, is hardly an insight),
and the argument that the concept of race only exists to justify
capitalist exploitation was clearly lifted from Karl Marx’s theories of
superstructure and false consciousness. Du Bois’ most celebrated
achievement, elucidated in The Souls of Black Folk, is the theory of
“Double Consciousness,” wherein blacks are forced to consider themselves
through white racial conceptions. Even this is lifted from elsewhere,
little more than a modified version of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s concept of
the same name. Moreover, double consciousness’ claim that black
Americans are forced to inexorably struggle to reconcile a black
ethnocultural identity with their existence in a European cultural
context has always struck me as a direct contradiction of Du Bois’ race
negationism. Race, when it is conceived by whites, is a social construct
created to justify exploitation. When conceived by blacks, race is an
innate reality of existence, and Pan-African cultural traits persist
within the black soul regardless of their physical location.
Nonetheless, and despite the much more numerous successes of his
arch-rival Booker T. Washington, Du Bois was regarded as the leading
black intellectual of his day. In The Rising Tide of Color, Stoddard had
explicitly cited Du Bois as an example of the growing non-white
resentment that would undermine and eventually destroy white
civilization. This, coupled with Stoddard’s constant willingness to
express his ideas in front of even uniformly hostile audiences (he even
gave a speech to all-black Tuskegee University in 1926), led to a 1929
debate between Stoddard and Du Bois in Chicago. The debate was Du Bois’
brainchild, and was thus held in front of a largely black audience and
reported on primarily by the black press. One is thus forced to wonder
what Stoddard thought this debate would accomplish. At the time, there
remained some slight degree of optimism that blacks and whites would
both remain in their proverbial lanes, with blacks following the example
of Booker T. Washington and his Atlanta Compromise. Indeed, Stoddard
referenced Washington’s metaphor of the American races as a hand (in
which each race is kept distinct, like the fingers, but works together
for the betterment of all) during the debate. But Washington’s path,
which focused on black self-improvement, cultural assimilation, and
interracial cooperation until black-white parity was achieved, was
always a longshot; it required blacks to possess low time preference. Du
Bois’ way – simply demanding that white society change to fit black
expectations by appealing to the white sense of fair play and
benevolence – was always going to be an easier sell.
To borrow a beloved Leftist expression, everything about the
debate was “rigged.” The New Yorker article, like the magazine’s Jewish
readership and the debate’s contemporary audience, has of course already
made up its mind on who won the debate before a single word is relayed.
Author Ian Frazier mocks Stoddard as a “nut,” citing his belief in
“germ-plasm” as the conveyor of genetic information. Stoddard’s
understanding of this process retrospectively comes across as nonsense,
and The New Yorker clearly feels that it is no excuse that he was
writing at a time when no one on Earth understood it much better.
Likewise, the black correspondents who recorded the details of the event
from which we are to draw our conclusions represented The Chicago
Defender, which had called Stoddard “the high priest of racial baloney,”
and The Baltimore Afro-American, which had at once rejected the premise
of The Rising Tide of Color while simultaneously celebrating its
statistics showing that non-white people outnumbered whites worldwide.
The central question of the debate was “Shall the Negro Be
Encouraged to Seek Cultural Equality?,” a concept which had never been
relevant to Stoddard’s research but was the entire raison d’etre for Du
Bois’ career. Moreover, the framing of the question was such that, even
at the time, it would have been impossible to make a cogent argument
against it. The contrary position, that whites should actively
discourage blacks from bettering themselves, would not have been how
segregationists presented their position. And, of course, Du Bois was
not asking for whites to “encourage” blacks to “seek” their own
achievements – that was the position of Booker T. Washington, his hated
nemesis. Du Bois’ goal was to dissolve white institutions, or at least
inject blacks into them, and to accomplish a Marxist redistribution of
wealth along racial lines.
The debate began with the moderator presenting Du Bois as “one
of the ablest speakers for his race not only in America but in the whole
wide world,” while Stoddard was “a man whose books and writings and
speaking have made his views known to many hundreds of thousands of
people both in this country and abroad.” In other words, Du Bois is
among the most brilliant people in the world, and Stoddard is someone
who is literate enough to convey his ideas through the written word. Du
Bois’ speech at the debate was typical for him and the precedent of
black activism he established: He argues that everyone should be given
cultural equality freely rather than having to seek or earn it, that
since Abolition blacks have a list of accomplishments with “few
parallels in human history” (though what these are is not stated), and
that the white race has actually done far more ill for the world than
good. Nordic whites, he says, have inflicted war, suffering, and tyranny
on more people than any other group, a position that could be found
restated verbatim in any modern Leftist publication. The same could be
said of his next argument, which is that science (in the abstract) has
proven that the races are equal in their aptitudes.
Du Bois also says that Stoddard is hypocritical for opposing
miscegenation, for it is whites that have brought about the majority of
interracial interaction in the world via exploration and colonization.
Moreover, it is only arrogance which leads whites to believe that blacks
would want to copulate with them in the first place. In the very next
breath, Du Bois asserts that racial categorization itself is ridiculous
because, as a mixed-race person himself, he is both Nordic and negro.
This obvious contradiction – wherein he chastises whites for
miscegenation before immediately saying resisting miscegenation is
foolish – gets no commentary from The New Yorker, which presents Du
Bois’ argument as brilliant at every turn, carefully luring Stoddard
into a rhetorical trap. Du Bois finishes by saying that the US is
founded upon Christian values, which it betrays by denying equality to
blacks; in essence, that “this is not who we are.” What is most striking
about Du Bois’ speech is that it reveals that the Left simply never
changes. Their rhetoric today is the very same as it was ninety years
ago. While it has never ceased being emotionally manipulative and
intellectually bankrupt, you can hardly blame Leftists for sticking to a
script which has won them a practically uninterrupted string of major
victories.
Stoddard, for his part, does not even address Du Bois’ points.
His proposal is the maintenance of the “separate but equal” dictum
established by Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the races are kept apart not
based on claims of superiority, but simply on the basis of racial
difference. The New Yorker predictably presents this as a distortion of
his beliefs, but I have little doubt that Ian Frazier never read The
Rising Tide of Color, which makes the same essential argument. This
brings us to the climactic moment of the debate when, as The New Yorker
tells it, Du Bois makes a laughingstock of Stoddard, exposing his
“unintentionally funny” ideas for just how ridiculous they are. Let us
see how Du Bois’ brilliant dialectical style unfurled in full flower,
ensnaring this hapless, “Nazi-loving” fool in its wake.
Stoddard says that “the more enlightened men of southern white
America” are trying to ensure that, while the races are kept separate,
that the facilities to which they have access are nonetheless equal in
quality. This elicited laughter from the black audience, who found the
claim to be ridiculous. Stoddard then informed them that he did not see
the joke, apparently eliciting more whooping. Angered, Stoddard rebutted
that bi-racial cooperation of the Atlanta Compromise mold was making
more progress than anything Du Bois was attempting – another apt
prediction, for Du Bois died having accomplished none of his goals. Du
Bois gave up on “progress” in the US and eventually moved to observe and
admire Mao Zedong’s brutality in China before settling in Ghana. His
NAACP was and remains little more than a debating and protesting
society. From its inception in 1909, the NAACP incessantly complained
for over fifty years until other acronymous black organizations, aided
by the bayonets of the National Guard and the Cold War exigencies of
“winning hearts and minds,” ended the white near-monopoly on American
political power.
The duplicity of The New Yorker’s portrayal here is so obvious
that I have to imagine even those few goyim foolish enough to regularly
sift through its wretched pages were able to at least sense a slight
tingling in their temporal lobe. Clearly, Du Bois did nothing to “make a
laughingstock” of Stoddard. Stoddard simply stated his beliefs in front
of an audience so hostile to them that they met his arguments with
incredulous laughter. The same result would befall anyone today who
attempted to suggest before a black audience that Affirmative Action is
racially biased or that Michael Brown was not a gentle giant. One
wonders what the response would have been if Du Bois had returned
Stoddard’s courtesy by conducting a debate in front of an educated,
pro-white audience. How might they have reacted if Du Bois had made his
claim that science disproves human genetic variation?
Ironically, the 2019 retrospective on this debate in The New
Yorker is evidence of the veracity of Stoddard’s ideas. The entire
informational apparatus of the US has been seized by vengeful non-whites
and their self-destructive white allies, and is now used as a vanguard
for affecting anti-white sociopolitical change. The rest of society is
already taking and will continue to take the same course as whites
become an increasingly scarce minority. Barring a miracle reversal, the
“rising tide” which he feared and helped delay will subsume whites,
subjecting them to the conditions which have befallen white minorities
everywhere around the world.
Published: September 5, 2019 | This entry was posted in North
American New Right and tagged articles, Blacks in America, Lothrop
Stoddard, North American New Right, originals, race realism, race
relations, W. E. B. DuBois. Post a comment or leave a trackback:
Trackback URL.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5022069&forum_id=2#43891353)
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment