It seems that the democrats are currently flummoxed about what strategy they can attack Trump 2.0 with. The accusations of him being a FascistNazi Voltron monster practically fell flat, especially after the 2024 election breakdown on who voted for him. It seems they are trying to concoct a new tactic of using political activist judges to curb any reforms or analysis of various gov't departments. Time will tell how this works out for them. As more revelations of flippant spending of tax dollars are shown, it seems that Trump only gets stronger with more of the public behind him.
Trump needs to get the judicial impeachment wagon rolling. There should be no quarter left untouched by Trump's "return to the rule of law" policy. These flagrant abusers of the judicial, legislative, and executive functions must be discovered, exposed, prosecuted, removed, publicized, shamed, and exiled from ever "serving" again. The current practice where "the process is the punishment" MUST be stopped once and for all.
It won't work against judges as these are supposed to be independent and only responsible to their conscience. Like super-jurors. It might work against district attorneys who are basically the commonwealth lawyers for their district. Anyway, I think a district attorney should be appointed by the mayor, not elected independently. Just as attorney general is appointed by the President. DA A Bragg wouldn't have gone where he has gone if he were a lawyer appointed by Eric Adams.
I opine that DA's, who are provincial agents where I live, should be appointed by the provincial governor. Likewise, I opine that all police in a province should be state police, as they are in the city where I live. Where I Iive, the city police department was taken over by the provincial government during the 1930's when a local criminal gang ran the city government. (I reside in Kansas City, Missouri, USA.)
Maybe in NYC, the DA is a city government official.
But surely an electorate that elected Bragg could also have elected a mayor who would have appointed someone as bad as Bragg.
That Mayor Adams doesn't happen to be as bad as DA Bragg was just the luck of the draw. The result could as easily have been a woke mayor and a semi-sane DA. In fact the last mayor, de Blasio, was basically a woke lunatic.
Many people are politically illiterate. Point in case: the AOC electorate. Because of this, it makes sense to have a unified executive at the federal, a second unified executive at the state, and a third unified executive at the community level. Otherwise, the electorate doesn't realise who is responsible for their problems.
We have all gone through the Obama/Trump-being-persecuted/stymied/Biden/Fauci/etc. years and we're looking to restore the Republic to pre-Obama unity and peace. Without the Bushies.
And for the record, I hate Sin, not people. We're all in this thing together, let's win. IMHO.
Pre-Obama unity and peace was really white defenseless against subversion and power-grabbing by ethnic groups that hate whites. If liberalism brought you to this point, of what use was liberalism?
The root of modern Western liberalism is white guilt and its conjoined twin, white saviorism.
(You can tell this is a sacred sore spot because it's rarely ever mentioned and may be the most significant social phenomenon with so few words and tomes discussing it—people 100ish years ago didn't publish much disputing the divinity of Jesus or his virgin birth, this would have been social suicide aka blasphemy—same goes here).
Ours is an age of conspicuous compassion and thus our most elite and educated had to find a new better way to show that their halos shined brightest. Anyone can claim to love the poor and oppressed, but how about hating your own people and culture!? Anyone can claim to be morally superior but sending your kids off to a racial Struggle Session at school really shows your devotion to the Cause of Justice & Equality.
Hating Whitey and all his works just became another marker of social superiority, like a $5k handbag, and the Good Whites separated themselves from the Bad Whites by shelling out cash to black people to tell them how evil and oppressive they are. It's like a Gucci hairshirt!
If being afflicted with white guilt means you're wise and compassionate, then publicly performing it every day from your pulpit makes you the wisest of all, and thus most deserving to rule. Our progressive overclass throughout the West just wants to be christened a new First Estate with divine imprimatur to rule the rest of us, and if all it takes is paying a few angry blacks to whip them in the town square, even better!
The White Man's Burden lives on as the White Woman's Emotional Burden.
Great post -- you get it, CP. Your comment is right in line with the years of comments I made back on Steve's old site about 'Substitute Savior Syndrome'. I'll repeat here a comment I made there not too long ago, updated slightly:
Hatred is the expression on the face of Wokeness, but it’s not its heart.
At the core lies pride. The Woke are suffused with it, bathe in it, gorge themselves on it. From the day they watch their first Disney you-go-girl-of-color cartoon, to the day they receive their first kindergarten lessons in ‘social justice’ and ‘sustainability’, to the day they deplatform their first badthinker at college, to the days upon days upon days they watch TV shows and Hollywood movies and YouTube videos, they hear the same Satanic message whispered sweetly in their ears: you are special; you are enlightened; you are so good and so powerful that you can change – nay, save – the world.
Yes, of course the Woke are shown – constantly – people who look just like they do being denigrated and demonized, but they understand that they are different: they have been granted a spark of insight that’s inaccessible to the oiks around them.
So do the Woke proclaim their gospel to these benighted brothers? Of course not. But who then are the Woke to save? With odious condescension, they claim dominion over the lives of people who don’t look or act like them. The Woke will save the PoC and the LBGTQetc — i.e. victims who are incapable of making their own choices and taking responsibility for their own lives. They will be grateful for the Woke’s loving guidance, and the sacrifices the Woke make (signaled in neon with claxons), on their behalf.
So why do the Woke hate, hate, hate? Because they are terrible saviors. They know, deep down, that they aren’t really saving anyone – that is a job beyond the best of us, and they are far from the best. The people they pretend to save resent and rebel against them, for good reason. The whole Woke world is a sham -- it's exactly what Trump/Musk/DOGE has been exposing with their takedown of USAID.
At this point, someone must take the blame. The Woke turn on their gormless, benighted brothers, labeling them as wreckers or running dogs or saboteurs or deplorables. All the frustration and anger and resentment the Woke have accumulated in their deluded quest to save the world are projected outward as sheer hatred of the people like them who won’t join them.
I like a lot of what you wrote but, Calvinist, but some terminology I'd like to propose to make more precise or explicit, as follows:
By "the Woke" you are really talking about people that meet two characteristics, it seems to me:
(1.) You are talking about White-Western people of Christian origin. (And, at core, really people of full NW-European descent even if others of Western-Christian origin can still be full-fledged members of "The Woke"); and
(2.) You are (also) talking about "Woke activists." What in the mid-2010s came to be called "social justice warriors". You are NOT talking the passively-Woke. Most anyone in the West is trained to be passively-Woke (or is, let's say acculturated to such). Actions>Beliefs.
The "social justice warrior" type is often someone who is outright struggling with personality-disorder-like problems. Or who is simply immature. A lot of Woke-activism is really immaturity, of course. The difference is the Diversified wider society lacks the self-confidence our forefathers had (would have had) to rebuke these people very much, and because of an increasingly post-Western elite (i.e., a now-heavily non-Western New Elite, whose ethics and attitude to Truth are not ours).
Those who push Wokeness who are from outside the Western-Christian ethnocultural tradition are, at best, only partial members of "the Woke" (as you describe it). They are aspiring TO the perceived White-Western ideal. This is quite a different motivation from the core of "the Woke" as you've given it, I think. Non-Western Woke people are, most often, smooth-talking opportunists with other goals, self-serving if sometimes reasonably well-concealed. (Actually, this applies to "anti-Woke" people too, such as my suspicions about Vivek Ramaswamy and others.)
"So do the Woke proclaim their gospel to these benighted brothers? Of course not. But who then are the Woke to save? With odious condescension, they claim dominion over the lives of people who don’t look or act like them. The Woke will save the PoC and the LBGTQetc — i.e. victims who are incapable of making their own choices and taking responsibility for their own lives. They will be grateful for the Woke’s loving guidance, and the sacrifices the Woke make (signaled in neon with claxons), on their behalf. ..."
[T]he liberal script has three characters: (1) the liberal, who represents the principle of goodness, defined as compassion toward and inclusion of nonwhites/non-Westerners and other victims; (2) the non-liberal, who represents the principle of evil, defined as greed, discrimination, and intolerance toward nonwhites/non-Westerners and other victims; and (3) the nonwhite/non-Westerner or other victim, who is not a moral actor in his own right or even a fully formed human being, because his very function in the script is not to do anything but rather to be the passive recipient either of the liberal’s goodness or the non-liberal’s wickedness. If the nonwhite/non-Westerner were a moral actor, then his own actions, including his bad actions, would have to be judged. But to judge him negatively would be to discriminate against him, which would be to violate the very meaning and purpose of liberalism—the elimination of all discrimination against nonwhites/non-Westerners. Therefore the nonwhite/non-Westerner cannot be seen as a moral actor—as a human being who acts and is responsible for his actions."
If you look at who originally started pushing the anti-white hate, e.g. back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, you'll find that in most instances it was Jews. Their religion encourages them to feel hatred and fear of non-Jews, especially whites, and to look forward eagerly to the destruction of white civilization which they identify with Rome and with Jews' enemy "Edom". Whites have their own, different reasons for being willing to accept this self-hatred, probably a combination of a racial tendency to feel guilt with the cultural background of Christianity.
Anti-whitism started with Rousseau in the 18th century, and he was definitely not Jewish. French philosophes really loved tales of Brave Indians slaughtering the Anglo settler-colonials. Ever heard of the Noble Savage?
(A) One reason is that race relations leftism was probably not created by people being loyal to any traditional religion. Just the opposite is much more likely.
Thus, although Old Testament religion is obviously ethnicist, that is not the issue with Jewish advocacy of race relations leftism. The issue is infection with the radic-lib mental virus in combination with lack of resistance to it. (Readers of Steve's postings mostly have pretty good resistance, but it is very likely that we're all infected.)
The difference between a useful meme and a mental virus is a self-destructive tendency resulting from a meme that we can call a virus. Other people have books on transmission of mental viruses and on resistance, so I'll shut up about that topic.
I agree with Barnabus that what we now know as hating whites might be traced to the European Enlightenment, but it is difficult to attribute a destructive meme to Rousseau. It seems to have developed gradually.
(B) I also have to disagree based to a large extent on personal knowledge of persons' racial characteristics. Most Ashkenazi Jews are racially purebred northern European. Those not purebred northern European are whites per normal classification, which does not require genetic ability to have alabaster skin. Other Jews have not had much political influence in the USA during the last 50-60 years.
Thus, race relations leftist Jews are definitely showing infection with the radic-lib mental virus and failure of resistance.
I would say that Western liberalism is the root of white guilt rather than the other way around (it's also not clear to me that the woke really feel guilty about anything: they seem to be supremely self-confident). Here's a longish comment (sorry, no 'more' tag at substack) I left at unz after Sailer originally posted the article:
I agree that this anti-white hatred and related DIE phenomenon are not primarily the consequence of the Frankfurt school, even if the latter has influenced the former’s vocabulary and helped its ‘intellectual’ leaders frame things, and I also agree that courting votes from the Democratic client groups incentivizes the Democratic Party to demonize whites, but I do think there is a deeper ideological basis to the anti-white hatred and wokery that stems directly from liberalism:
Equal freedom is both the legitimizing foundation and the goal of liberalism. Yet things remain stubbornly and manifestly unequal. To admit that certain things might be unequal by nature would threaten the liberal project because it would suggest that there may be features that cannot be subsumed under the principle of equal freedom and would represent a potential rival principle for social organization. Liberalism likewise cannot *itself* be the cause of existing inequalities because this would demonstrate its incoherence and delegitimize it.
Instead, liberalism insists that inequalities are socially constructed, the result of traditions and patterns of thought that have been shaped by institutions and the culture to privilege certain groups over others. Extant inequalities then are due to a privileged ‘oppressor’ group that uses these institutions to benefit themselves at the expense of underprivileged ‘oppressed’ groups. Since all humans are naturally equal, the fact that some groups are not equal in certain respects must be because they are being oppressed by some other group of people. The oppressor group represents an obstacle to equal freedom for the oppressed. To achieve equal freedom then, the oppressor group and their power structures must be weakened or eliminated.
This framing helps to explain some of the apparently contradictory features of modern liberalism: many favored liberal policies that appear on their face to be antithetical to equality are in fact measures aimed to achieve true equality for oppressed groups by targeting at the oppressor group du jour that stands in the way of equal freedom. The current anti-white hysteria, for example, is a consequence of whites being regarded as the oppressor group, who benefit from inherited privileges and institutions that were originally shaped for their advantage.
"Western liberalism is the root of white guilt rather than the other way around.."
ultimately yes, for sure, esp in re how liberalism gradually supplanted and replaced Christianity but retained its underlying moral architecture, retaining a sacred victim at the center of its moral universe but making that victim a rotating cast of poor brown Others and making the Parable of the Good Samaritan sacred dogma. But by now it's more of a symbiosis.
And I also don't think all or most SJWs and Blue Tribers feel "guilty" but (probably also like how many of our ancestors went to church weekly but in their hearts didn't really have faith) they know that their social etiquette requires them to always burn a pinch of incense for the sacred minority du jour, as they know this is what all Good People do and they want to retain their rep as one of the Good.
The hatred is basically just massive envy - whites allegedly cannot tie their shoes without a person of diversity around to guide them, but in reality everywhere one turns one is confronted with evidence of white excellence in organizing complex systems and society. Those incapable of replicating or caring for these works just want to destroy it, and you can see this on a small scale when for instance a city spends some large sum of money to renovate a park in an 'underserved' community. It’s quickly wrecked with landscaping trampled and playground equipment ruined by the ungrateful residents. Unfortunately a non-negligible share of whites believes against all evidence that the shortcomings of pet demographics are just due to the infringement of whiteness, so naturally it must be abolished so our moral betters can take their rightful place at the helm of society.
Steve, anti-whiteism most definitely IS Communist/Marxist in origin. It goes back to the 1920s when Stalin's COMINTERN told US Communists to recruit blacks. They even advocated the establishment of an all-black "nation" in the Deep South.
Does anybody remember Becky? Remember when she tried to ruin every pool party, child of color’s Kool-Aid stand, and barbecue, because the potato salad was too spicy for her? Whatever became of her?
I love that the Right has fully embraced the Karen-word. Paul Joseph Watson, for one, freely uses the word with fulsome, gleeful contempt, and it’s totally deserved. No matter how bad LaQueefa or Shoshanna may be, the self-righteousness and perfidy of the AWFL Army is unmatched in history. The epithet is also flexible, fungible, if you will; the name of Scandinavian origin can, and has been, effectively used against women of all races, and against, for lack of a better term, “men” of whatever sex or pronoun preference
If I understand your point, I agree. I know Steve is against the word as racist and sexist, but I must admit, it perfectly encompasses a kind of (almost always) woman (and not necessarily white) who has always bugged me. This is the " may I speak to a manager" person. She injects herself into situations that have nothing to do with her and attempts to impose her own arbitrary, and often spontaneous, moral standards. Honestly one of the worst kinds of people I encounter with frequency in my admittedly blessed life.
Can I have a non-misogynist term for it? It's hardly all women who engage in this behavior but the overwhelming majority of them, in my admittedly unscientific analysis, are women. I don't see why it's a racist term. I think this behavior is, if anything, more common in black women. Is the problem that we assigned a human name to it rather than a neutral term like an agent noun?
I have definitely been hassled by men who have an unwanted opinion on my behavior, but it's always in some way involving them, like my dog pooped on their lawn and they want to make sure I do an excellent job picking it up. OTOH I once had a lady (who was dying of cancer) demand that I spray the spot where my dog peed in a public park.
It's possible that I misunderstand how most people use the term. To me it's a person who wants the world altered to accommodate them and they have no problem issuing orders to strangers to make it so.
Simply, the Democrats are the anti-white party. Tens of millions of American whites hate their own race. Feminists. Unmarried white women. Cat women. Homosexuals. Jews. The IT community. College profs. Bureaucrats.
Representative Steve King was hounded out of office for saying the pro White words below: “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” he told The New York Times — was lacking in all plausible deniability and nuance, devoid of the high and low pitch tones calibrated for certain ears, experts say. It was an endorsement of white supremacy in the form of a rhetorical question. And it came at a time when King’s Republican Party is struggling with its political prospects.
"Rep. Steve King crossed the line on race by using a bullhorn, not a dog whistle" Jan 16, 2019
If you cannot say"White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization---how did that language become offensive"without losing office, it is all over.No one defended him, he lost and that was that.
I would suggest that Ed West is correct, these anti White beliefs are a matter of social status. Like Rob Henderson 'luxury beliefs'
Ed West
"I’ve long believed that political beliefs work as status-markers, and have become more so in recent decades as other signals have declined in importance. People will adopt positions not just out of sincerity, partisan loyalty or conformity, but because they signal social status. Crime and immigration are the most obvious examples, because liberal positions are associated with higher education levels. Low-status members of society are less likely to benefit from freedom of movement, and more likely to be victims of crime. At best these views are vulgar."
Agree, and it wasn't just Steve King getting hounded out of Congress.
Sailer's subtitle describes "The right’s unwillingness to mount a coherent defense against racist anti-white animus", but there were—and are—plenty on the right willing to do so, it's just that—as with Steve King in the high-tier—any writer who mounted a defense against anti-whitism would not be published by the prestige press (middle tier), and any ordinary citizen who mounted a defense on social media (lower tier) was promptly booted from the platform. (The social media censorship algorithms probably included all of Sailer's conjugations of "anti-white" among their banned words lists.)
Full-spectrum media control: turns out it matters. Who knew?
Tennessee Coates is a good example of how the current communist system creates anti-white racists.
Coates was just a soft little lowwit comic book nerd scared of the big Black Thugs in his neighborhood and embarrassed he'd let his militant black father down by being less-than-tough and less-than-smart. Coates then climbed up hoping to be a mid-brow forgotten token black columnist at a second-rate publication and marry some mixed or (perchance to dream) non-black girl and live in a decent suburb.
He didn't hate whites, heck, he rather liked them in his comic books and at band camp, and they never beat him up or threatened him like the local black thugs. And of course he loved their sisters.
But then Coates discovered that his babbling incoherencies, if tuned to Hate Whitey words, would suddenly rocketed him to Smartest Black Man Alive status among the D-communist set. So he was pushed beyond all measure to the top of the intellectual food chain, like a Tom Zenk-type wrestler pushed to the moon---only to find out that, like Zenk, Coates couldn't really wrestle. At a certain point Coates's handlers realized their error as the Shiny New wore off their Hate-Whitey Negro-of-the-moment and he was revealed to them as just a babbling mess.
So Coates's been shunted off to the side since, but he still rants about hating whitey because that's what got him attention, money, and non-black groupies not too long ago.
>Their entire 21st Century strategy is in tatters: they imported and/or concocted all that sweet Diversity, only to discover that the Diverse like that epitome of everything wrong with whiteness, Donald J. Trump
No, the vast majority of non-Whites still vote against the Right as they always have, in every Western nation.
It's good that some percent changed their vote. But let's not pretend like "look-I'm-not-racist" Breitbarters that the hallowed non-Whites have now changed to being right-wing, which they never will be.
They voted against the Dems because of their two exceptionally bad candidates, who had caused massive inflation and hurt the voters' economy. Had the Dems run a more ordinary Democrat candidate they would have won. The majority of voters said they wanted anyone but Biden and Trump to vote for. ("Kamala wasn't Biden!" But she was his vice president.)
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were extraordinary political instincts and were once in a generation political talents. It seems that the Democratic Party coalition requires a candidate with a lot of political talent to win a president election with Biden being the exception to the rule.
However, the Biden Administration forgot that inflation is what causes political careers to die. It seems that the Trump Administration is forgetting the same thing.
Obama's talent was being a Black man who could speak like a White man. (Thanks to his mother, not his bigamist father who abandoned her - how typical.) If he wasn't Black he would have been nothing in the party, as he had no particular talent except talking about grievances. He was also the creation of David Axelrod who got him into the Senate, and who brought his close friend Rahm Emanuel into the presidential campaign - Emanuel made sure Obama got more money from the big banks than any other candidate that year, and he became the establishment candidate instead of Hillary.
And of course, so many Whites swooned over the Black who could talk like a White, who promised to end the neocon wars (heh) and who would "heal" the country, so they wouldn't be called racists anymore if they voted for him. Finally a Black they could vote for, as they had longed to do. It hardly even mattered what he said.
Then once in office he borrowed more money in three years than Bush borrowed in his two terms, in order to be re-elected, and the media pulled out all the stops, as shown by the NYT vastly increasing its use of the long list of leftist buzzwords in that year.
The image of Obama as cool was carefully constructed. But with so many photographs of him, there are several who show how awkward and effeminate he really was, something the media edited out.
If Steve would read more books instead of doing word counts on the NY Times, he would have learned that the Democrats in the early 2000's thought demographics was destiny because Democrats did not think they would lose so many working class non-college whites. Democrats pandered to blacks to boost the historically lower black voter turnout while not doing much to appeal to whites and especially non-college educated whites.
One might want to read a book written in 2023 or at least listen to a podcast of Ruy Teixeira promoting his book rather than going back to something published in 2002.
"If Trump had won by rallying more whites to vote for him, Democrats would have announced that that just proves they were right all along about Trump and his voters being vicious white racists who deserve their Great Replacement....[But Trump made] inroads in 2024 with practically every imaginable diverse group..."
There was a slight mood-shift, not a political realignment.
The key states of the Sailer Strategy, all in the White-Midwest, were decisive. Both Trump's victories came down to White vote-shifts in several states. The national level mood-shift was not key electorally.
The Trump bandwagon taking on some more Nonwhites is a kind of sideshow, in other words, and they only shifted because they sensed a section of the White-Middle had shifted. IOW, the narrative being repeated in the entry here is confusing cause and effect. See also:
The term have used for the last 50 years or so to distinguish hatred of whites from generic "racism" is "race relations leftism". Obviously, the term has not caught on, but I write very little on this topic for public consumption.
Excellent of course, but doesn't the legal environment described by Jeremy Carl (which I think Steve also reviewed) play a large role?
https://americanmind.org/salvo/is-it-okay-to-be-white/
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/view/the-unprotected-class/
Here' my review of Jeremy's book:
https://www.takimag.com/article/its-not-okay-to-be-white/
Thanks for the links!
It seems that the democrats are currently flummoxed about what strategy they can attack Trump 2.0 with. The accusations of him being a FascistNazi Voltron monster practically fell flat, especially after the 2024 election breakdown on who voted for him. It seems they are trying to concoct a new tactic of using political activist judges to curb any reforms or analysis of various gov't departments. Time will tell how this works out for them. As more revelations of flippant spending of tax dollars are shown, it seems that Trump only gets stronger with more of the public behind him.
Trump needs to get the judicial impeachment wagon rolling. There should be no quarter left untouched by Trump's "return to the rule of law" policy. These flagrant abusers of the judicial, legislative, and executive functions must be discovered, exposed, prosecuted, removed, publicized, shamed, and exiled from ever "serving" again. The current practice where "the process is the punishment" MUST be stopped once and for all.
It won't work against judges as these are supposed to be independent and only responsible to their conscience. Like super-jurors. It might work against district attorneys who are basically the commonwealth lawyers for their district. Anyway, I think a district attorney should be appointed by the mayor, not elected independently. Just as attorney general is appointed by the President. DA A Bragg wouldn't have gone where he has gone if he were a lawyer appointed by Eric Adams.
I opine that DA's, who are provincial agents where I live, should be appointed by the provincial governor. Likewise, I opine that all police in a province should be state police, as they are in the city where I live. Where I Iive, the city police department was taken over by the provincial government during the 1930's when a local criminal gang ran the city government. (I reside in Kansas City, Missouri, USA.)
Maybe in NYC, the DA is a city government official.
> "DA A Bragg wouldn't have gone where he has gone if he were a lawyer appointed by Eric Adams."
Why not?
Eric Adams would have dismissed him.
But surely an electorate that elected Bragg could also have elected a mayor who would have appointed someone as bad as Bragg.
That Mayor Adams doesn't happen to be as bad as DA Bragg was just the luck of the draw. The result could as easily have been a woke mayor and a semi-sane DA. In fact the last mayor, de Blasio, was basically a woke lunatic.
Many people are politically illiterate. Point in case: the AOC electorate. Because of this, it makes sense to have a unified executive at the federal, a second unified executive at the state, and a third unified executive at the community level. Otherwise, the electorate doesn't realise who is responsible for their problems.
Well, lived experience.
We have all gone through the Obama/Trump-being-persecuted/stymied/Biden/Fauci/etc. years and we're looking to restore the Republic to pre-Obama unity and peace. Without the Bushies.
And for the record, I hate Sin, not people. We're all in this thing together, let's win. IMHO.
Pre-Obama unity and peace was really white defenseless against subversion and power-grabbing by ethnic groups that hate whites. If liberalism brought you to this point, of what use was liberalism?
Nope, anti-whitism really started with Barack Hussain.
The root of modern Western liberalism is white guilt and its conjoined twin, white saviorism.
(You can tell this is a sacred sore spot because it's rarely ever mentioned and may be the most significant social phenomenon with so few words and tomes discussing it—people 100ish years ago didn't publish much disputing the divinity of Jesus or his virgin birth, this would have been social suicide aka blasphemy—same goes here).
Ours is an age of conspicuous compassion and thus our most elite and educated had to find a new better way to show that their halos shined brightest. Anyone can claim to love the poor and oppressed, but how about hating your own people and culture!? Anyone can claim to be morally superior but sending your kids off to a racial Struggle Session at school really shows your devotion to the Cause of Justice & Equality.
Hating Whitey and all his works just became another marker of social superiority, like a $5k handbag, and the Good Whites separated themselves from the Bad Whites by shelling out cash to black people to tell them how evil and oppressive they are. It's like a Gucci hairshirt!
If being afflicted with white guilt means you're wise and compassionate, then publicly performing it every day from your pulpit makes you the wisest of all, and thus most deserving to rule. Our progressive overclass throughout the West just wants to be christened a new First Estate with divine imprimatur to rule the rest of us, and if all it takes is paying a few angry blacks to whip them in the town square, even better!
The White Man's Burden lives on as the White Woman's Emotional Burden.
"The Gucci hair shirt." I like it. 👍
Porter from back in the day used to call the Constitution the conservative prayer shawl.
lol thx
Great last line.
thanks!
Great post -- you get it, CP. Your comment is right in line with the years of comments I made back on Steve's old site about 'Substitute Savior Syndrome'. I'll repeat here a comment I made there not too long ago, updated slightly:
Hatred is the expression on the face of Wokeness, but it’s not its heart.
At the core lies pride. The Woke are suffused with it, bathe in it, gorge themselves on it. From the day they watch their first Disney you-go-girl-of-color cartoon, to the day they receive their first kindergarten lessons in ‘social justice’ and ‘sustainability’, to the day they deplatform their first badthinker at college, to the days upon days upon days they watch TV shows and Hollywood movies and YouTube videos, they hear the same Satanic message whispered sweetly in their ears: you are special; you are enlightened; you are so good and so powerful that you can change – nay, save – the world.
Yes, of course the Woke are shown – constantly – people who look just like they do being denigrated and demonized, but they understand that they are different: they have been granted a spark of insight that’s inaccessible to the oiks around them.
So do the Woke proclaim their gospel to these benighted brothers? Of course not. But who then are the Woke to save? With odious condescension, they claim dominion over the lives of people who don’t look or act like them. The Woke will save the PoC and the LBGTQetc — i.e. victims who are incapable of making their own choices and taking responsibility for their own lives. They will be grateful for the Woke’s loving guidance, and the sacrifices the Woke make (signaled in neon with claxons), on their behalf.
So why do the Woke hate, hate, hate? Because they are terrible saviors. They know, deep down, that they aren’t really saving anyone – that is a job beyond the best of us, and they are far from the best. The people they pretend to save resent and rebel against them, for good reason. The whole Woke world is a sham -- it's exactly what Trump/Musk/DOGE has been exposing with their takedown of USAID.
At this point, someone must take the blame. The Woke turn on their gormless, benighted brothers, labeling them as wreckers or running dogs or saboteurs or deplorables. All the frustration and anger and resentment the Woke have accumulated in their deluded quest to save the world are projected outward as sheer hatred of the people like them who won’t join them.
I like a lot of what you wrote but, Calvinist, but some terminology I'd like to propose to make more precise or explicit, as follows:
By "the Woke" you are really talking about people that meet two characteristics, it seems to me:
(1.) You are talking about White-Western people of Christian origin. (And, at core, really people of full NW-European descent even if others of Western-Christian origin can still be full-fledged members of "The Woke"); and
(2.) You are (also) talking about "Woke activists." What in the mid-2010s came to be called "social justice warriors". You are NOT talking the passively-Woke. Most anyone in the West is trained to be passively-Woke (or is, let's say acculturated to such). Actions>Beliefs.
The "social justice warrior" type is often someone who is outright struggling with personality-disorder-like problems. Or who is simply immature. A lot of Woke-activism is really immaturity, of course. The difference is the Diversified wider society lacks the self-confidence our forefathers had (would have had) to rebuke these people very much, and because of an increasingly post-Western elite (i.e., a now-heavily non-Western New Elite, whose ethics and attitude to Truth are not ours).
Those who push Wokeness who are from outside the Western-Christian ethnocultural tradition are, at best, only partial members of "the Woke" (as you describe it). They are aspiring TO the perceived White-Western ideal. This is quite a different motivation from the core of "the Woke" as you've given it, I think. Non-Western Woke people are, most often, smooth-talking opportunists with other goals, self-serving if sometimes reasonably well-concealed. (Actually, this applies to "anti-Woke" people too, such as my suspicions about Vivek Ramaswamy and others.)
"So do the Woke proclaim their gospel to these benighted brothers? Of course not. But who then are the Woke to save? With odious condescension, they claim dominion over the lives of people who don’t look or act like them. The Woke will save the PoC and the LBGTQetc — i.e. victims who are incapable of making their own choices and taking responsibility for their own lives. They will be grateful for the Woke’s loving guidance, and the sacrifices the Woke make (signaled in neon with claxons), on their behalf. ..."
This is a good expression of something Lawrence Auster often wrote about, for example here (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/019417.html):
[T]he liberal script has three characters: (1) the liberal, who represents the principle of goodness, defined as compassion toward and inclusion of nonwhites/non-Westerners and other victims; (2) the non-liberal, who represents the principle of evil, defined as greed, discrimination, and intolerance toward nonwhites/non-Westerners and other victims; and (3) the nonwhite/non-Westerner or other victim, who is not a moral actor in his own right or even a fully formed human being, because his very function in the script is not to do anything but rather to be the passive recipient either of the liberal’s goodness or the non-liberal’s wickedness. If the nonwhite/non-Westerner were a moral actor, then his own actions, including his bad actions, would have to be judged. But to judge him negatively would be to discriminate against him, which would be to violate the very meaning and purpose of liberalism—the elimination of all discrimination against nonwhites/non-Westerners. Therefore the nonwhite/non-Westerner cannot be seen as a moral actor—as a human being who acts and is responsible for his actions."
If you look at who originally started pushing the anti-white hate, e.g. back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, you'll find that in most instances it was Jews. Their religion encourages them to feel hatred and fear of non-Jews, especially whites, and to look forward eagerly to the destruction of white civilization which they identify with Rome and with Jews' enemy "Edom". Whites have their own, different reasons for being willing to accept this self-hatred, probably a combination of a racial tendency to feel guilt with the cultural background of Christianity.
Anti-whitism started with Rousseau in the 18th century, and he was definitely not Jewish. French philosophes really loved tales of Brave Indians slaughtering the Anglo settler-colonials. Ever heard of the Noble Savage?
I disagree for two reasons.
(A) One reason is that race relations leftism was probably not created by people being loyal to any traditional religion. Just the opposite is much more likely.
Thus, although Old Testament religion is obviously ethnicist, that is not the issue with Jewish advocacy of race relations leftism. The issue is infection with the radic-lib mental virus in combination with lack of resistance to it. (Readers of Steve's postings mostly have pretty good resistance, but it is very likely that we're all infected.)
The difference between a useful meme and a mental virus is a self-destructive tendency resulting from a meme that we can call a virus. Other people have books on transmission of mental viruses and on resistance, so I'll shut up about that topic.
I agree with Barnabus that what we now know as hating whites might be traced to the European Enlightenment, but it is difficult to attribute a destructive meme to Rousseau. It seems to have developed gradually.
(B) I also have to disagree based to a large extent on personal knowledge of persons' racial characteristics. Most Ashkenazi Jews are racially purebred northern European. Those not purebred northern European are whites per normal classification, which does not require genetic ability to have alabaster skin. Other Jews have not had much political influence in the USA during the last 50-60 years.
Thus, race relations leftist Jews are definitely showing infection with the radic-lib mental virus and failure of resistance.
I would say that Western liberalism is the root of white guilt rather than the other way around (it's also not clear to me that the woke really feel guilty about anything: they seem to be supremely self-confident). Here's a longish comment (sorry, no 'more' tag at substack) I left at unz after Sailer originally posted the article:
I agree that this anti-white hatred and related DIE phenomenon are not primarily the consequence of the Frankfurt school, even if the latter has influenced the former’s vocabulary and helped its ‘intellectual’ leaders frame things, and I also agree that courting votes from the Democratic client groups incentivizes the Democratic Party to demonize whites, but I do think there is a deeper ideological basis to the anti-white hatred and wokery that stems directly from liberalism:
Equal freedom is both the legitimizing foundation and the goal of liberalism. Yet things remain stubbornly and manifestly unequal. To admit that certain things might be unequal by nature would threaten the liberal project because it would suggest that there may be features that cannot be subsumed under the principle of equal freedom and would represent a potential rival principle for social organization. Liberalism likewise cannot *itself* be the cause of existing inequalities because this would demonstrate its incoherence and delegitimize it.
Instead, liberalism insists that inequalities are socially constructed, the result of traditions and patterns of thought that have been shaped by institutions and the culture to privilege certain groups over others. Extant inequalities then are due to a privileged ‘oppressor’ group that uses these institutions to benefit themselves at the expense of underprivileged ‘oppressed’ groups. Since all humans are naturally equal, the fact that some groups are not equal in certain respects must be because they are being oppressed by some other group of people. The oppressor group represents an obstacle to equal freedom for the oppressed. To achieve equal freedom then, the oppressor group and their power structures must be weakened or eliminated.
This framing helps to explain some of the apparently contradictory features of modern liberalism: many favored liberal policies that appear on their face to be antithetical to equality are in fact measures aimed to achieve true equality for oppressed groups by targeting at the oppressor group du jour that stands in the way of equal freedom. The current anti-white hysteria, for example, is a consequence of whites being regarded as the oppressor group, who benefit from inherited privileges and institutions that were originally shaped for their advantage.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/sailer-the-hate-that-dare-not-speak-its-name/#comment-6547793
"Western liberalism is the root of white guilt rather than the other way around.."
ultimately yes, for sure, esp in re how liberalism gradually supplanted and replaced Christianity but retained its underlying moral architecture, retaining a sacred victim at the center of its moral universe but making that victim a rotating cast of poor brown Others and making the Parable of the Good Samaritan sacred dogma. But by now it's more of a symbiosis.
And I also don't think all or most SJWs and Blue Tribers feel "guilty" but (probably also like how many of our ancestors went to church weekly but in their hearts didn't really have faith) they know that their social etiquette requires them to always burn a pinch of incense for the sacred minority du jour, as they know this is what all Good People do and they want to retain their rep as one of the Good.
The hatred is basically just massive envy - whites allegedly cannot tie their shoes without a person of diversity around to guide them, but in reality everywhere one turns one is confronted with evidence of white excellence in organizing complex systems and society. Those incapable of replicating or caring for these works just want to destroy it, and you can see this on a small scale when for instance a city spends some large sum of money to renovate a park in an 'underserved' community. It’s quickly wrecked with landscaping trampled and playground equipment ruined by the ungrateful residents. Unfortunately a non-negligible share of whites believes against all evidence that the shortcomings of pet demographics are just due to the infringement of whiteness, so naturally it must be abolished so our moral betters can take their rightful place at the helm of society.
Steve, anti-whiteism most definitely IS Communist/Marxist in origin. It goes back to the 1920s when Stalin's COMINTERN told US Communists to recruit blacks. They even advocated the establishment of an all-black "nation" in the Deep South.
Does anybody remember Becky? Remember when she tried to ruin every pool party, child of color’s Kool-Aid stand, and barbecue, because the potato salad was too spicy for her? Whatever became of her?
I love that the Right has fully embraced the Karen-word. Paul Joseph Watson, for one, freely uses the word with fulsome, gleeful contempt, and it’s totally deserved. No matter how bad LaQueefa or Shoshanna may be, the self-righteousness and perfidy of the AWFL Army is unmatched in history. The epithet is also flexible, fungible, if you will; the name of Scandinavian origin can, and has been, effectively used against women of all races, and against, for lack of a better term, “men” of whatever sex or pronoun preference
If I understand your point, I agree. I know Steve is against the word as racist and sexist, but I must admit, it perfectly encompasses a kind of (almost always) woman (and not necessarily white) who has always bugged me. This is the " may I speak to a manager" person. She injects herself into situations that have nothing to do with her and attempts to impose her own arbitrary, and often spontaneous, moral standards. Honestly one of the worst kinds of people I encounter with frequency in my admittedly blessed life.
It's wonderful to have a word for it.
I usually agree with your comments but not this one. It’s a misogynist term.
Can I have a non-misogynist term for it? It's hardly all women who engage in this behavior but the overwhelming majority of them, in my admittedly unscientific analysis, are women. I don't see why it's a racist term. I think this behavior is, if anything, more common in black women. Is the problem that we assigned a human name to it rather than a neutral term like an agent noun?
I have definitely been hassled by men who have an unwanted opinion on my behavior, but it's always in some way involving them, like my dog pooped on their lawn and they want to make sure I do an excellent job picking it up. OTOH I once had a lady (who was dying of cancer) demand that I spray the spot where my dog peed in a public park.
It's possible that I misunderstand how most people use the term. To me it's a person who wants the world altered to accommodate them and they have no problem issuing orders to strangers to make it so.
I find the “Karen” term to be not just anti-white but misogynist.
Simply, the Democrats are the anti-white party. Tens of millions of American whites hate their own race. Feminists. Unmarried white women. Cat women. Homosexuals. Jews. The IT community. College profs. Bureaucrats.
Representative Steve King was hounded out of office for saying the pro White words below: “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” he told The New York Times — was lacking in all plausible deniability and nuance, devoid of the high and low pitch tones calibrated for certain ears, experts say. It was an endorsement of white supremacy in the form of a rhetorical question. And it came at a time when King’s Republican Party is struggling with its political prospects.
"Rep. Steve King crossed the line on race by using a bullhorn, not a dog whistle" Jan 16, 2019
If you cannot say"White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization---how did that language become offensive"without losing office, it is all over.No one defended him, he lost and that was that.
I would suggest that Ed West is correct, these anti White beliefs are a matter of social status. Like Rob Henderson 'luxury beliefs'
Ed West
"I’ve long believed that political beliefs work as status-markers, and have become more so in recent decades as other signals have declined in importance. People will adopt positions not just out of sincerity, partisan loyalty or conformity, but because they signal social status. Crime and immigration are the most obvious examples, because liberal positions are associated with higher education levels. Low-status members of society are less likely to benefit from freedom of movement, and more likely to be victims of crime. At best these views are vulgar."
Agree, and it wasn't just Steve King getting hounded out of Congress.
Sailer's subtitle describes "The right’s unwillingness to mount a coherent defense against racist anti-white animus", but there were—and are—plenty on the right willing to do so, it's just that—as with Steve King in the high-tier—any writer who mounted a defense against anti-whitism would not be published by the prestige press (middle tier), and any ordinary citizen who mounted a defense on social media (lower tier) was promptly booted from the platform. (The social media censorship algorithms probably included all of Sailer's conjugations of "anti-white" among their banned words lists.)
Full-spectrum media control: turns out it matters. Who knew?
Tennessee Coates is a good example of how the current communist system creates anti-white racists.
Coates was just a soft little lowwit comic book nerd scared of the big Black Thugs in his neighborhood and embarrassed he'd let his militant black father down by being less-than-tough and less-than-smart. Coates then climbed up hoping to be a mid-brow forgotten token black columnist at a second-rate publication and marry some mixed or (perchance to dream) non-black girl and live in a decent suburb.
He didn't hate whites, heck, he rather liked them in his comic books and at band camp, and they never beat him up or threatened him like the local black thugs. And of course he loved their sisters.
But then Coates discovered that his babbling incoherencies, if tuned to Hate Whitey words, would suddenly rocketed him to Smartest Black Man Alive status among the D-communist set. So he was pushed beyond all measure to the top of the intellectual food chain, like a Tom Zenk-type wrestler pushed to the moon---only to find out that, like Zenk, Coates couldn't really wrestle. At a certain point Coates's handlers realized their error as the Shiny New wore off their Hate-Whitey Negro-of-the-moment and he was revealed to them as just a babbling mess.
So Coates's been shunted off to the side since, but he still rants about hating whitey because that's what got him attention, money, and non-black groupies not too long ago.
Sad!
>Their entire 21st Century strategy is in tatters: they imported and/or concocted all that sweet Diversity, only to discover that the Diverse like that epitome of everything wrong with whiteness, Donald J. Trump
No, the vast majority of non-Whites still vote against the Right as they always have, in every Western nation.
It's good that some percent changed their vote. But let's not pretend like "look-I'm-not-racist" Breitbarters that the hallowed non-Whites have now changed to being right-wing, which they never will be.
They voted against the Dems because of their two exceptionally bad candidates, who had caused massive inflation and hurt the voters' economy. Had the Dems run a more ordinary Democrat candidate they would have won. The majority of voters said they wanted anyone but Biden and Trump to vote for. ("Kamala wasn't Biden!" But she was his vice president.)
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were extraordinary political instincts and were once in a generation political talents. It seems that the Democratic Party coalition requires a candidate with a lot of political talent to win a president election with Biden being the exception to the rule.
However, the Biden Administration forgot that inflation is what causes political careers to die. It seems that the Trump Administration is forgetting the same thing.
Obama's talent was being a Black man who could speak like a White man. (Thanks to his mother, not his bigamist father who abandoned her - how typical.) If he wasn't Black he would have been nothing in the party, as he had no particular talent except talking about grievances. He was also the creation of David Axelrod who got him into the Senate, and who brought his close friend Rahm Emanuel into the presidential campaign - Emanuel made sure Obama got more money from the big banks than any other candidate that year, and he became the establishment candidate instead of Hillary.
And of course, so many Whites swooned over the Black who could talk like a White, who promised to end the neocon wars (heh) and who would "heal" the country, so they wouldn't be called racists anymore if they voted for him. Finally a Black they could vote for, as they had longed to do. It hardly even mattered what he said.
Then once in office he borrowed more money in three years than Bush borrowed in his two terms, in order to be re-elected, and the media pulled out all the stops, as shown by the NYT vastly increasing its use of the long list of leftist buzzwords in that year.
The image of Obama as cool was carefully constructed. But with so many photographs of him, there are several who show how awkward and effeminate he really was, something the media edited out.
I partially agree, but remember "She is for they/them; Trump is for you".
Yes, the cultural insanity on the Left also contributed.
If Steve would read more books instead of doing word counts on the NY Times, he would have learned that the Democrats in the early 2000's thought demographics was destiny because Democrats did not think they would lose so many working class non-college whites. Democrats pandered to blacks to boost the historically lower black voter turnout while not doing much to appeal to whites and especially non-college educated whites.
Huh?
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2002/10/21/Election-2002-Emerging-Dem-majority/91131035238710/
One might want to read a book written in 2023 or at least listen to a podcast of Ruy Teixeira promoting his book rather than going back to something published in 2002.
Where Have All the Democrats Gone? https://www.google.com/books/edition/Where_Have_All_the_Democrats_Gone/W8-oEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
Steve, is your full article still available at www.chroniclesmagazine.com?
It is to me.
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/view/the-hate-that-dare-not-speak-its-name/
Sorry about that. I did not realize there was a second link at the end of the substack post.
"If Trump had won by rallying more whites to vote for him, Democrats would have announced that that just proves they were right all along about Trump and his voters being vicious white racists who deserve their Great Replacement....[But Trump made] inroads in 2024 with practically every imaginable diverse group..."
There was a slight mood-shift, not a political realignment.
The key states of the Sailer Strategy, all in the White-Midwest, were decisive. Both Trump's victories came down to White vote-shifts in several states. The national level mood-shift was not key electorally.
The Trump bandwagon taking on some more Nonwhites is a kind of sideshow, in other words, and they only shifted because they sensed a section of the White-Middle had shifted. IOW, the narrative being repeated in the entry here is confusing cause and effect. See also:
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2024/11/12/revisiting-the-sailer-strategy-after-the-trump-2024-victory-whites-cast-80-of-trumps-votes-but-some-call-the-sailer-strategy-obsolete-why/
The term have used for the last 50 years or so to distinguish hatred of whites from generic "racism" is "race relations leftism". Obviously, the term has not caught on, but I write very little on this topic for public consumption.
The Hate that never shut up