← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln

Who's a White Supremacist?

Thread ID: 18925 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2005-07-01

Wayback Archive

Hugh Lincoln [OP]

2005-07-01 02:31 | User Profile

[B]Who’s a White Supremacist?[/B]

An [I]Originial Dissent[/I] Exclusive Essay

by Hugh Lincoln

The media loves the term “white supremacist.” It conjures an image of a frothing-mouthed skinhead screaming at the top of his lungs and giving a Nazi salute, or an antebellum Simon Legree grinning twistedly as he prepares to whip a slave.

The heavy implication is that a “white supremacist” is one of those unhinged malcontents who thinks that because he was born white, he’s better than everyone else. But the truth is that he’s an illiterate high school dropout hoarding a stash of illegal weapons in his basement. In the mugshots, he looks anything but supreme. Who could pass up a lurid tale about a “white supremacist”?

White supremacists, it would seem, are everywhere – even ultra-blue New York City. As I sit here typing, the back-to-back re-run television show “Law & Order” can be heard from the living room. A “white supremacist” character is screaming, “God meant the white man to have dominance over all the beasts!”

This, no doubt, is what the Manhattan DA must contend with on a daily basis.

To be sure, there are fools running around out there who practically beg to be called a “white supremacist.” Some don’t even bother with what I would imagine to be the threshold requirement of being white:

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2116623.stm[/url]

But you need not be an unread criminal to be tagged a “white supremacist,” or associated with “white supremacy.” Really, all you need to do is write or speak about race or immigration in a way that deviates by millimeters from multicultural dogma.

Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington, author of “Who Are We? Challenges to America’s National Identity,” is a recent and predictable target:

[url]http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/latinos03.htm[/url]

A cover story in the Salt Lake Weekly Times begins its coverage of last year’s race between Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah and primary challenger Matt Throckmorton with... statistics proving the supposed economic benefits of immigration? Robust and fact-based criticism of immigration reform efforts? Nah. Try Hitler.

[url]http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2004/feat_2004-06-17.cfm[/url]

That’s right. Oppose immigration – or even seek reform – and you must be a Nazi.

Now, I am among those who think that race and immigration are in fact linked as issues. I’m a little suspicious of immigration reformers who swear with wild gestures that race has nothing to do with their views.

But so what if it does? If this is somehow immoral or ill-informed, let’s be specific about why. Instead of, say, screaming about “white supremacists.” Whipping out Hitler is rarely the harbinger of substantive debate.

Guilt by “white supremacist” association is a media favorite. A New York Times story about a white Florida community’s objection to naming a road after Martin Luther King, Jr. unloaded the ultimate proof of the town’s backwardness: A “white supremacist” website was cheering the objectors (Not the American Renaissance site, but the Times site has the story archived). [url]http://www.amren.com/news/news04/05/10/kingstreet.html[/url]

The Times never did let us know the name of the “white supremacist” website, because a reader might then have logged on to see for himself what these folks were saying. No, the Times’ point was that these were bad people, plain and simple. You need not consider what they have to say. It’s enough to know that whatever cause they support is probably as bad as they are. You’re expected to read the words “white supremacist,” cluck your tongue, and move on.

Observe that when another race has an objection like the whites in Florida, nobody calls them “supremacists.”

In Queens months back, there was a proposal to name a community center after a police officer killed in the line of duty. Problem was, he was white. The community was black. But a local newspaper, the Southeast Queens Press (no Web presence), depicted the objectors not as racists or bigots, but brave defenders of their people who quite understandably preferred to have the center named after one of their own. Every vibration of their outrage was righteous.

But the white folks in Florida? Cast them down with the “white supremacists” on the Internet.

The term “white supremacist” – like its brethren, “bigot”, “hater” and “racist” – is meant not to accurately describe anyone’s political views, but to marginalize them.

This is because, even for one who would march up to the microphone and declare, “I am a white supremacist!” (an exercise for which I would recommend a bullet-proof vest and an 8-digit bank account), a calm examination of what this person believes and why would not be forthcoming. Denunciations from the White House and proper ladies fainting to the floor would be.

This is a problem because it silences the very real issues being raised by many so-called “white supremacists” and their supposed associates: inherited racial differences in intelligence and behavior, group incompatability impervious to legal sledgehammering, and unchecked immigration viewed from the prism of same.

Perhaps allowing discussion of these issues on the merits is the real no-no here. Because the racial and ethnic realities meant to be obscured by cries of “white supremacy” are so face-slappingly obvious that, once the scare barriers are removed, the debate would become short work indeed.

Races are different. They often don’t get along. The immigrants flooding America are overwhelmingly non-white. That matters.

What’s needed to steer everyone away from the discussion isn’t a heavy dose of counter-facts and arguments, but the cultivation of a climate of fear in which the slightest slip of the tongue on racial matters can get you disappeared.

Yelling “white supremacist” is a fine way to cultivate this climate.

Part of the problem from the media’s standpoint, I imagine, is that there isn’t really any agreed-up term for those who don’t believe that the multiracial society is the most desirable one.

Or at least one that isn’t deeply pejorative.

Ask around amongst the ranks of the doubters, and you won’t get any satisfying answers. “White nationalist” and “white separatist” have both been picked up on occasion (note how it might be difficult to be a “white supremacist” if you are a white separatist — how can you be supreme over groups you seek not to live with?).

Both are certainly bold tags in today’s political climate, but neither have quite the banished-from-the-salon ring of “white supremacist.” OK, well, they’d all be banished from the salon – but for the “white supremacist,” you’d call the police, too.

Let’s see. Could one be a “person opposed to the rapidly increasing displacement, degradation and loss of self-determination of white Americans, especially as the country’s demographics are expected to shift them to minority status by 2050”? A bit unwieldy, I concede.

“Advocate for white interests” (or “white advocacy group”) is positive but honest – and certainly more honest than calling Jesse Jackson a “civil rights activist” instead of an “advocate for black interests,” which is what he is.

Maybe the media could begin by asking what the person or group calls itself. Or at least give some thought to it otherwise.

Because, thanks in a large measure to the immigration tidal wave, the demographics of America are changing. And despite cheering from the Salt Lake Weekly Times to the New York Times, these changes are pushing the issues of race and ethnicity to the fore in ways that those who otherwise might counsel ignoring them cannot.

An increasing number of white Americans – none of whom have criminal records or menacing tattoos – are slowly but surely beginning to realize that the calls for “tolerance” and “diversity” in the New Multiracial America do not include them, except as quiet taxpayers, obedient shufflers and objects of ridicule.

Speak out about your objection to any of this, and you run the risk of being fired, physically attacked or, in Europe, jailed. Take it up ‘round the dinner table, and you risk being hounded as, yes, a “white supremacist.”

The headline in your town’s newspaper the next day will read, “White Supremacist Disrupts Dinner With Racist Ranting.” The story will quote Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center: “Our intelligence agents have had their eyes on this kid for a long time. Back in high school he wondered, while waiting for the peas to be passed, why the Black Club was OK, but not the White Club. At home from college for Christmas dinner, he said he feared affirmative action would keep him out of his chosen career. Clearly this is a dangerous racist, clinging to his sick fantasy of white supremacy. We’re glad the FBI now has him in custody, but how many more are out there? And why doesn’t he like chocolate desserts? I think we can all take a guess.”

I may well be expecting the impossible. I write as a partisan, and the media (though it would never say so) is filled to the brim with its own partisans. It’s war, no doubt about it. Yet the appeal is worth making, if for no other reason than the clearing of the battlefield a denial would bring.

Franco

2005-07-01 03:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Chiaro Scuro]"white supremacist" can be one of those hot-button media words like "thug" or "notorious gangsta rapper", designed to foster animosity between the races. My definition of a white supremacist is very simply, one who is under the delusion that white people are superior to any other race.[/QUOTE]

White people are indeed superior to any other race. In fact, Whites invented the world as we know it.

Franco

2005-07-01 03:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Chiaro Scuro]it's better to keep your mouth shut and let me think your'e not superior, than open it and make me think even less of you.[/QUOTE]

Why would I care what you think?

Franco

2005-07-01 03:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Chiaro Scuro]You responded to my post.[/QUOTE]

If you don't like the political ideology here at this forum, why not find another forum?

Snouter

2005-07-01 07:48 | User Profile

Good essay. It could be expanded quite a bit.

I recall a violent Latrino gang involved in drug trafficing and other crime in my state called the "Latin Kings" used to be classified as a cultural group by the politically correct establishment.

The Negro "White Supremist" from Boston was pretty funny.

The reporter and editor must have had an amusing discussion.

Editor: The ADL/SPLC/ACLU encouraged us to have a White Supremist headliner. Any ideas?

Reporter: Well there is this Negro who says he is a White Supremist and he wants to do things to Negro landmarks to start a civil war.

Editor: That will work. By the way, did he mention what a Negro landmark would be?

Reporter: Fried chicken fast food joints and housing projects.

xmetalhead

2005-07-01 13:29 | User Profile

Excellent essay, Hugh.

[QUOTE]White supremacists, it would seem, are everywhere – even ultra-blue New York City.[/QUOTE]

Here in the Belly of the NWO Beast, I'm often pleasantly surprised at the attitudes concerning non-White immigration by other Whites I meet. It seems this particular issue is too huge to ignore for anyone.....I mean, if Whites don't notice the drastic demographic changes in and around NYC and are not upset by it, then they're pretty much a blinded bleeding heart liberal or heavily medicated.....or both.

Stuka

2005-07-01 13:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]The media loves the term “white supremacist.” It conjures an image of a frothing-mouthed skinhead screaming at the top of his lungs and giving a Nazi salute, or an antebellum Simon Legree grinning twistedly as he prepares to whip a slave. [/QUOTE]Unfortunately, there are even some white nationalists who buy into this kind of thinking. They devise complex explanations about how they really aren't "white supremacists" because, after all, everyone is equal, and no one race is superior to the others. Races aren't superior, just different. :thumbd:

Excellent piece, by the way.

Hugh Lincoln

2005-07-01 14:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Stuka]Unfortunately, there are even some white nationalists who buy into this kind of thinking. They devise complex explanations about how they really aren't "white supremacists" because, after all, everyone is equal, and no one race is superior to the others. Races aren't superior, just different[/QUOTE]

Sigh.

I know. I wrote the essay to try resolving this stuff, but there just may be no conclusive way to do it. Of course, I don't need much convincing that when it comes to building stable, productive societies, whites are, in fact, [I]superior.[/I] Or "supreme." But taking the "races are different" tack has great diplomatic value, I think --- and not just diplomatic value, which is important, but [I]mental transition[/I] value for unawakened whites. If there's any group of people not yet ready for a hardcore "us v. them" mindset, it's the vast majority of white Americans. Thus, they will need to have some sort of universalist underpinning for what they're thinking in order for it to be appealing. The ol' "You wear your X and I'll wear mine" meme is an example of this. This may not be Linder's New Hardness, but it has value for our cause in that it sets the stage for separation. In some places I've seen it referred to as "Universal Nationalism."

I'm glad folks appreciated the essay. Except Chiaro, to whom we've said ciao.

Jess David Peterson

2005-07-01 15:23 | User Profile

Great work, Hugh Lincoln- The essay was a good read!

_

travis

2005-07-01 23:17 | User Profile

Good post, Hugh.

"Superiority"............. Someone please explain how races can be different without being superior? Aren't Blacks "superior" at basketball? Aren't Asians "superior" at physical coordination? Aren't Jews "superior" at cunning?

The fact that there are differences implies that one is better than the other.

No, I don't think Whites have superior intellect over Jews, or superior basketball playing abilities over Blacks......so I guess I'm not a "White Supremacist".. But in this day and age all I have to do is discuss racial differences and I'm labeled a "White Supremacist".

Ponce

2005-07-01 23:58 | User Profile

You had the Aztecs who were superior.

You had the Mayans who were superior.

You had the Egyptians who were superior.

You had the English who were superior.

You had the Americans who were superior.

You WILL have the Chinese who will be superior.

No matter who is what someone else will always become better.

What I would like to know is who do you consider "white", why hell, you even have Jews who are now "white" after interbreeding with every race in this world.