Robert Lindsay on Disingenuous White Liberals

Being a Disingenuous White Liberal is about not being a Southerner


In his recent interview with Voice of Reason, Robert Lindsay has some fascinating comments about the mindset of Disingenuous White Liberals.

DWLs are not stupid or misinformed. They know that race exists. They know that racial differences are intractable because even they believe that heredity is the likely culprit. This is why these people are seemingly so impervious to rational arguments.

How do we explain the insanity of anti-racism then?

As Lindsay explains to Stark, it has a lot to do with the need to not be perceived as a Southerner, especially a low class White Southerner like a Scots-Irish redneck or a hillbilly who is prejudiced against blacks.  Those people are “backward” and “ignorant.” They are not good liberals and enlightened progressives like us.

See, it is part of their ethnic identity: for many of these “Disingenuous White Liberals,” the essence of being a Yankee is not being a Southerner, which means not being a racist or a religious conservative. The White Southerner is “the Other.” We are their out-group. We are they to them.

Admitting that the South is right about the Black Undertow is not an argument that can be rationally weighed on its own merits. On the contrary, it is an existential challenge to the very core being of Yankeedom.

If the Southern redneck is smarter than the Harvard professor, what does that say about Yankee culture? If the South was right about African-Americans, what does that say about the last 150 years of American history? What does that say about the War Between the States and Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement?

How else can we explain the existence of Detroit and Philadelphia? The Whites who live in Michigan and Pennsylvania must be suffering from some kind of mass delusion  – a delusional and idolatrous belief in equality – to tolerate the destruction of their own civilization by African barbarism.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. To quote Charles Murray:

    “The topic of race and genes is like the topic of sex in Victorian England. The intellectual elites are horrified if anyone talks about it, but behind the scenes they are fascinated. I will say it more baldly than Dick and I did in the book: In their heart of hearts, intellectual elites, especially liberal ones, have two nasty secrets regarding IQ. First, they really believe that IQ is the be-all and end-all of human excellence and that someone with a low IQ is inferior. Second, they are already sure that the black – white IQ difference is predominantly genetic and that this is a calamity — such a calamity indeed that it must not be spoken about, even to oneself. To raise these issues holds a mirror up to the elites’ most desperately denied inner thoughts…

    But when people say one thing and believe another, as intellectual elites have been doing about race, sooner or later the cognitive dissonance must be resolved. It usually happens with a bang. When the wall of denial gives way, not only will the received wisdom on race and IQ change, the change will happen very rapidly and probably go much too far. The fervor of the newly converted is going to be a problem. I fully expect, if I live another twenty years, to be in a situation where I am standing on the ramparts shouting: “Genetic differences weren’t a big deal when we wrote The Bell Curve and they still aren’t a big deal.” ”

    Bold mine.

  2. amspirnational,

    I just read your post and it made me think about my high school years, since we’re apparently about the same age. Where I lived, on the east coast of Florida, there were very few blacks. There was no race problem – or racial reality staring us in the face. The big thing among my peers was being cool and surfing. As for the music, I never liked the twang either. I like it better now, the older the better. Few of my friends cared for it at the time. But none of them listened to the then heavily pushed “soul”, or even pop, frankly. 100% Rock. Probably just a geographic difference. If we had any Appalachians in school we weren’t aware of it.

    Previously, I attended what was then called junior high in north Florida. The whites were very race-conscious because there were many blacks. The school was majority black. Riots in the hallways, in the 60s. We had other things to think about than music. I bought Mein Kampf.

    Anyway, I like to read about experiences earlier in life and found your post interesting.

  3. Bill Yancey: I connect with you on the early days. Like David Lane said the 50s and early 60s are the past. As far as White Liberals — Pastor Martin Lindstedt calls them Whiggers. Whiggers are people who will fight to their death to keep this system in place. He says the Tribulation will clear them naturally. Its in the process of doing so right now. Check out Illumanation: The Secret Religion – Goldman Sacks. Good stuff on Jewish Mafia. Aryan Rennasance Society and Great White are good also. But me, I like the straight forward aggressive Buddy Tucker. He is from my cultural heritage and is the most out spoken message speaker ever. To me the worse White Traitors were the Kennedy Clan of the Northeast Liberal Establishment! So we got a mulatty prez, what about all the past White Traitor Presidents! No President in my life has been good, all of them were death to WHITE RACE! Hunters site is a breath of freah air!

  4. Looking at the exit polls for California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania and even Maine, it is, with the exception of a small majority in Pennsylvania, white Catholic majorities that voted for Obama. Essentially, the descendants of southern and eastern Europeans and Irish Catholics still stand against the WASP founding American. The exception is a state like Louisiana whose Catholic population is large and influential but of different ethnic origin.

    That sounds about right. The northern “white ethnics” live in the cities with the niggers, which you might expect would push them towards Republicans, but I guess they’re still aware that their old enemies still inhabit most of (or a lot of) the countryside — old habits die hard.


    What exactly do you mean when you say you’d rather live around niggers than “yankees”? Do you mean you know the niggers’ ways and believe there are some decent ones among them who understand and might respect yours, and provided that a distinction between the two groups can be maintained, a satisfactory modus vivendi could result?

    Looking at it as a dispassionate outsider, I think arrangement like that could work. There would need to be keen awareness of demographic issues; comprehensive tabs would need to be kept on demographic data; the ‘color line’ would have to be strictly policed; and — deep breath — ‘financially incentivized procreative intervention’ would need to occur to balance out inevitable breeches of that line.

    The rationale behind the last item is the assumption that propinquity leads to access, which leads to melding, which leads to race-replacement. So there needs to be a mechanism by which demographic losses are recuperated and balance restored, and the only way to do that is to bring into the world another white to replace the white lost. With that mechanism in place (including widespread support for and defense of it) losses can accumulate indefinitely. Without it, the end will inevitably be reached, regardless of how long it takes. (One or two more lax periods like, say, 1970-2010 will finish almost assuredly finish you off.)

    You can talk about your history and your traditions and whatever, and hope that might somehow reinvigorate consciousness, but whatever moral vigor that adds to the desire for existence, survival has technical requirements that have to be satisfied and at some point those will need to be discussed intelligently, competently and comprehensively. Unfortunately, racialists are not the sort of people who seem capable of it. Racialists are too into ‘being White’ (or in your case ‘being Southern’), too stridently identitarian to bother with the sorts of details the uncommitted are interested in and want answers to.

    You can comfort yourself that it was Jim Crow that sent the niggers packing, but in reality it was the draw of northern industry — if not, why would they have left? Where would there have been to go? As tough and unpleasant as they may have found it they would have stuck around. In time, it’s only reasonable to assume that the same techniques of guilt-induction would have been discovered and applied. You can blame the Jews for that, but all they did was hasten the same process that has occurred everywhere else on earth since time immemorial. At some point a tipping point of admixture is reached and the psychological stress of maintaining a hard line is too much to endure and collapse occurs. (Compare 1955 through 1970, for example: vigor–>exhaustion–>collapse.)

    To sum up, I don’t think you’re selling what people want. I don’t think you have anything that could compete with a genuine ‘anti-anti-white anti-racism’ (or a ‘pro-white anti-racism’) or an ‘everyman’s race-realism.’ It beats you because it gives racialists, non-racialists and non-whites (all three) something. Racialists get to keep their race (which they prize above all else); non-racialists who, if we take them at their word, never really cared about racial issues, can sleep easy with the essential fairness of any associated proposals; and non-whites can allow themselves to get over ‘racism,’ knowing it’s of the no-big-deal non-threatening kind. If you pay attention to his comments, I think you’ll see that the notoriously obstructionist (in these matters) ‘RKU’ (let’s not use his real name) is coming around to this view. (Why does he matter? Let’s just say he’s not someone you could accuse of posting from his mom’s basement. ) There’s sure to be others who’ll follow. I don’t think your Southern obsessions, or some Rudel’s esthetic obsessions, or “uh’s” — er, who knows? — or any of the grief-stricken despairists’ obsessions would stand a chance. (So go on, kid, do your worst.)

  5. I have always lived around blacks. Like most people here, I am used to them. The difference between the South and the North is racial conservatives. Most people here don’t believe in the revealed truths of anti-racism. They are adapting to the system and living under it, but privately they don’t believe in it.

    In the North, there are millions of White liberals. They really do believe in this nonsense. They drive racialists underground there in a way that doesn’t exist in Alabama. That is why Northern racialists are so much more likely to be Neo-Nazis.

    If I had to choose between a society with blacks or living among the thought police, I would take the blacks anyday.

  6. Re: Silver

    (1) We have already tried that arrangement. It was unstable. “African-Americans” would never go back to that arrangement after living through 50 years of BRA either. Especially when changing demographics could possibly give them statewide political power in Georgia and Mississippi.

    (2) Southerners are conservatives. They will respond more readily to a version of racialism that is presented to them as conservatism. By that I mean a return to something familiar and authentic, the racial beliefs of their ancestors, not something that is perceived as radical, revolutionary, and foreign – something like VNN Forum or Counter-Currents, for example.

    (3) There isn’t a racialist blogger on the internet who is more familiar with Jim Crow. I can assure you that the creation of the Jim Crow system between 1890 and 1910 (the push factor) and the relative integration of the Northern states (the pull factor) drove millions of blacks out of the South.

    Half the “African-Americans” in the South moved to the North and West under the Jim Crow system. It is worth observing who did not move. Southern Whites moved to the Midwest and the West during this period, but in nothing like the numbers of African-Americans.

    In the aftermath of abolition, there was a movement among blacks to move to the promised land of Kansas. Many of them actually moved there, but the formation of black communities in Northern cities facilitated a mass exodus from states like Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

    (4) I’m quite sure that my version of racialism which is coupled with Southern ethnonationalism, Christianity, and conservatism is far more attractive to my target audience than any of its rivals on the internet.

    (5) I’m not trying to convert the entire White race to my point of view.

    (6) We’re going to test that proposition: is anti-anti-White racism more attractive than Southern ethnonationalism to a Southern audience? I don’t think so. I think fundamentalism will always defeat watered down milquetoast racialism.

    In fact, I am willing to be that Southerners will respond much more readily to a version of racialism that is presented to them in terms of their culture, religion, history, heritage, and political beliefs.

  7. “I am willing to be that Southerners will respond much more readily to a version of racialism that is presented to them in terms of their culture, religion, history, heritage, and political beliefs.”

    Except that it hasn’t. The “New South” of today is way more soul-less and materialistic than the one I remembered from the 1960’s. Not that I’ll ever be back. It’s got a hot and fetid climate suited to nothing but jungle bunnies.

  8. Except that it hasn’t. The “New South” of today is way more soul-less and materialistic than the one I remembered from the 1960?s. Not that I’ll ever be back. It’s got a hot and fetid climate suited to nothing but jungle bunnies.

    Of course.

    Real Southerners are banned from (almost) every cultural institution in our society: television, film, magazines, newspapers, universities, churches, etc. The lone exceptions are the internet and the radio.

    Every cultural institution parrots the Northeastern Yankee liberal point of view on race and other subjects. It is genuinely surprising that things are not worse than they are today and that our culture has survived at all.

    The entire physical landscape of the South has been rebuilt in the image of Zenith, Winnemac: suburbs, commuter strips, big box stores, utilitarian designed shopping mall, etc. It is a bleak landscape that uneasily coexists in most Southern towns and cities with the indigenous landscape (such as historic districts and downtowns) that were built in the nineteenth century.

    The South actually has a mild climate in the spring, fall, and winter. It isn’t freezing cold here most of the year. We aren’t buried under twenty feet of snow. That is why Southerners are far more likely to spend more time outdoors than Yankees.

  9. I work in a quasi-academic environment with lots of disingenuous white liberals and lots of blacks. There aren’t any blacks on the academic side of the organization, but in an effort to embrace “diversity” upper management has a de facto affirmative action policy to bring blacks into the administrative and logistics side of operations.
    These two groups have to interact. The result is almost comical. It’s almost funny watching mild mannered, collegiate, nerdy, hyper-politically correct DWLs awkwardly dealing with rude, aggressive, frequently belligerent, lazy, demonstrably stupid blacks who oftentimes make a great deal more money with their diploma mill University of Phoenix masters “degrees” than the DWL’s make with legitimate academic doctoral degrees.
    For most of these DWLs, it’s their first real experience with blacks and their internal turmoil is obvious and palpable. What they repeatedly observe and experience is totally at odds with what they want to believe. They really do struggle with it.
    I used to be one of those DWLs.

Comments are closed.