The White Man

The White Man has been getting a lot of press today:

1.) Nell Irvin Painter (negro) has a new book out called “The History of White People.” It purports to be a history of whiteness from Greco-Roman Antiquity to the present. I’ve ordered the book off Amazon and will be writing a review for OD.

2.) The Democrats are worried about arousing the ire of “Angry White Men”, especially the blue collar working class, who are deserting the Democratic Party in droves. Such is their mental picture of White Nationalists:

The Republicans:

The money quote: “And blue-collar white men, who make up only 11% of the workforce, constitute 36% of those who have lost jobs. In total, nearly half of the recession’s casualties are white men, having held 46% of all jobs lost.”

So much for “white privilege.”

About Hunter Wallace 11898 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

15 Comments

  1. … to the 21st century America and explains how, in the era of Obama, our once-narrow concept of whiteness has become at once far broader …

    She’s right about that part.

    The author opposes Nordicism in particular, which a lot of people here such as Matt “Jews are just smart white people” Parrott agree with the anti-racists in opposing.

    Despite their smug lectures that we’re all the same, they’re still unable to say that the races are 100% genetically the same. Small differences have dramatic results.

  2. I saw her on The Colbert Report episode 39, she’s incredibly obnoxious.

    At least she acknowledges that America was founded by and for whites.

  3. Mark,

    If we’re speaking in purely genetic terms, then I believe they’re a managerial caste selected for intelligence and self-discipline from among a practically-extinct sub-race which I would characterize as having been originally pretty much White. I do believe that the Jews that look White are White, genetically. I go out of my way to avoid bringing that opinion up, since it’s irrelevant in the face of the fact that Jews identify as non-White, identify with a group which is inclusive of non-Whites, are generally hostile toward Whites, and firmly belong to a separate ethnonational tribe altogether.

    I’m not opposed to Nordicism or any other specific sub-racial identity – in its European ethnonational context. I’m opposed to splintering the White American identity here in America. Keep pretending that you’re “more racist than thou” for being a Nordic hobbyist. Go with that. But stop lying about my record. Stop pretending that I’m some sort of anti-racist activist for believing that Italians are White people, too.

  4. White skin privilege indeed. When whites are dispossessed and digging out of garbage cans Jews and non-whites will still be agonizing over white racism and skin privilege.

    I love the fact that we have a negress instructing us on white history when her race had no history until they were brought to America as slaves and later educated by whites. Salon points out that we share 99.99% of the same genes which proves race is a figment of everyone’s imagination. What they fail to tell people is that many honest scientists admit that the .01% represents vast and unbridgeable genetic differences between the races, oops, I mean the various social constructs.

    Since we share 98.5% of our genes with chimpanzees I guess we should integrate them into our societies as well.

  5. But it is only white people’s countries and white people themselves that these liberals call for intergration and anihilation, if these same libs said these things about an African or Asian nation it would be called genocide. Remind them of this and do not let them off the hook.

  6. However, the usually intelligent Henry Makow is publishing a freak who claims that whites have only been distinct from blacks for about four centuries.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAR20100322&articleId=18263

    quote:’In response to this threat, the landed elite “relaxed the servitude of white labourers, intensified the bonds of black slavery, and introduced a new regime of racial oppression. In doing so, they effectively created the white race – and with it white supremacy.”[6] Thus, “the conditions of white and black servants began to diverge considerably after 1660.” Following this, legislation would separate white and black slavery, prevent “mixed” marriages, and seek to prevent the procreation of “mixed-race” children. Whereas before 1660, many black slaves were not indentured for life, this changed as colonial law increasingly “imposed lifetime bondage for black servants – and, especially significant, the curse of lifetime servitude for their offspring.”[7]

    A central feature of the social construction of this racial divide was “the denial of the right to vote,” as most Anglo-American colonies previously allowed free blacks to vote, but this slowly changed throughout the colonies. The ruling class of America was essentially “inventing race.” Thus, “Freedom was increasingly identified with race, not class.”[8]

    It is out of this that ideas of race and later, ‘race science’ emerged, as eugenics became the dominant ideology of western elites, trying to scientifically ‘prove’ the superiority of ‘whites’ and the ‘inferiority’ of ‘blacks’. This would carry a dual nature of justifying white domination, as well as providing both a justification for and excuse to oppress black people’

    So this writer clearly didn’t read any of the medieval Arab writers who wrote about black inferiority – and certainly this writer didn’t read Maimonides, who despised blacks.

    • Maimonides and Ibn Khaldun on r/K selection and the difference between Eurasians and archaic Congoid hominids:

      “Their nature is like the nature of mute animals…they are not on the level of human beings, and their level among existing things is below that of a man and above that of a monkey, because they have the image and the resemblance of a man more than a monkey does.” –Guide for the Perplexed

      “Africans have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated…Beyond [West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings.” –Muqaddimah

      “Eat each other”: https://books.google.com/books?id=LGLUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA232#v=onepage&q&f=false, http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/congo1.html, http://archive.is/hCvhN

      “Not rational beings”:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen#IQ_and_academic_achievement, [search: black high time preference], [search: black marshmallow test]

      The ninth-century Arab and Persian explorers usually compiled on “list of racist Arab quotes about the Zanj” lists would have had a field day with “30 Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” “Race, Evolution and Behavior,” “White Girl Bleed a Lot,” “Erectus Walks Among Us,” Chimpout, Chimpmania, CoonTown, and Tom Shelly’s site.

  7. If we’re speaking in purely genetic terms, then I believe they’re a managerial caste selected for intelligence and self-discipline from among a practically-extinct sub-race which I would characterize as having been originally pretty much White. I do believe that the Jews that look White are White, genetically. I go out of my way to avoid bringing that opinion up, since it’s irrelevant in the face of the fact that Jews identify as non-White, identify with a group which is inclusive of non-Whites, are generally hostile toward Whites, and firmly belong to a separate ethnonational tribe altogether.

    That’s completely nonsensical. They are no more extinct than white subraces are. In fact they have more subracial integrity due to strong ingroup loyalty. Originally they were Semitic, and still are albeit with European admixture.

    “If they look white they are white” is ambiguous and relative, it is not a reliable standard other than excluding obvious cases of non-whites. As can be proven many times over, looking white, a relative term, differs from person to person, and can often include non-white admixture. Historically, racial laws and citizenship were based on ancestry not personal opinion of a person’s whiteness.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Greg_E_Pyle.jpg

    I’m not opposed to Nordicism or any other specific sub-racial identity – in its European ethnonational context. I’m opposed to splintering the White American identity here in America.

    It was splintered from the beginning, it was British, Anglo-Saxon, Celto-Germanic in its foundation. If you don’t oppose it in Europe there is no reason to oppose it in America.

    Keep pretending that you’re “more racist than thou” for being a Nordic hobbyist. Go with that. But stop lying about my record. Stop pretending that I’m some sort of anti-racist activist for believing that Italians are White people, too.

    The only pretentious hobbyist here is you. You think you’re some kind of great leader? You have a lame blog and post here, and that makes you some kind of big shot? You used to be a Jew-ass-kisser over at AmRen who denied posts from people like us here at OD. It doesn’t take much to be holier than you.

    I’ve pointed out nothing but the truth and you know it, you just can’t handle being called on your BS. Stop creating straw men.

    For the record I was courteous to you from the beginning, but for ideological differences you personally attacked me.

    People don’t have to be outspoken Nordicists, they are Nordicist in their choices. When white nationalists show images of whites, of their ideal, they prove me right and you wrong.

  8. Mark,
    I never claimed to be a great leader. You assume I’m being arrogant or thinking I’m a big deal when that’s just not the case. This whole tiff escalated because I mistook your nastiness for joking and played along, only to discover that you’re deadly serious about disliking me.

    I regret joking with you and I never intended anything I aimed at you in a hateful or mean-spirited tone. I’ve learned my lesson and will treat you respectfully and at arm’s-length from here forward.

    I’m proud of my work for AmRen. It’s not the place for the JQ. I’m not going to debate it with you.

  9. I’m proud of my work for AmRen. It’s not the place for the JQ. I’m not going to debate it with you.

    I can’t say I’ve ever been proud of or satisfied with the moderation at Amren. In fact, I regularly found it extremely irritating. Some oxymoronically “white Jewish and proud” cretin drags Jews into the conversation, or tells lies or half-truths in their favor, but I don’t get to respond? If they’re going to block Jew-criticism, they should block Jew-boosting and gratuitous philo-Semitic comments as well. In fact, they should delete every post referring to Jews, unless it’s the topic (something I’ve seen maybe twice in the years I’ve been reading their headlines).

  10. This whole tiff escalated because I mistook your nastiness for joking and played along, only to discover that you’re deadly serious about disliking me.

    I regret joking with you and I never intended anything I aimed at you in a hateful or mean-spirited tone. I’ve learned my lesson and will treat you respectfully and at arm’s-length from here forward.

    Newsflash: I was joking with you, I joke a lot, breaks up the monotony.

    The tiff was an ideological difference, which you then escalated by attacking me personally. I have always addressed your arguments not your character until you attacked me. Your recollection of events is clouded by personal bias.

    You have made me dislike you by your numerous insults. Apparently merely having a different viewpoint and supporting Northern European racial preservation in America, which is what the vast majority of people mean when they say white here, makes you angry and paranoid. You decided the way this would go. So your way of dealing with this is to be passive-aggressive, act superior, and pretend you’re innocent. I see a lot of that around here.

  11. Oh rub it in. The Sunday NYT book review has as it lead review and cover story The History of White People by Nell Irvin Painter. The review is up now on their website; it is all you would expect from the New York Times.
    I don’t know how there can be any white people in this world who do not see what is going on but I am surrounded by them.

  12. Here’s some thing well in the same vein as Pointers work except perhaps a little bit more bizarre.
    http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/a_theoretical_persective_on_black_male_sexuality_in_america
    FROM:
    In my opinion, race and racism is the core, the crux and must be the focal points of any intelligent discussion on Black sexuality. I theorize that, based on historical documentation, the perceived libido, black-male-sexual-energy and vitality has always been a site of contention for certain peoples. Fear of black sexuality from ancient history forward is approached in my research as a discourse on sexual insufficiency, trepidation, malfunction and myriad underlying psychosis of the oppressing fraction. I posit that one of the roots causes of black-male-castration and lynching in the Ante-bellum south and afterwards

    Is there any doubt that we are entering into the most basic, primative struggle; a racial struggle of not only physical violence but a struggle that is attemping to corrupt our minds.

Comments are closed.