I haven't really added my own two cents because I think the terms and names being bandied about are often used so imprecisely and are widely misunderstood or misconstrued by many people. I honestly don't know which of the labels which are being thrown around, often as insults, I should accept. I simply align myself with the traditional views of Americans in general before the P.C. era began. I think as most Americans thought before the propaganda began to eat away at our common sense and our capacity for honesty.
I don't espouse any kind of 'supremacism'; I believe in freedom of association. I believe that people innately gravitate to those of their own kind, and those more like themselves. The fact that there are some anomalous people among us who do the opposite does not in any way disprove that we generally favor our own, by natural predisposition. This is how the world works. We start with a natural bond with family and household, then our preferences go outward to extended family/kin and to neighborhood, town, and locality. Then and only then do our allegiances reach outward to the larger nation of which we are a part by descent. If we have no natural affections for our own we are likely to be poor citizens of the larger nation and sorry human beings in general.
I do believe, and this is the real heresy for the PC faithful, that there are unquestionably differences among the various races. And yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as race. It is not a 'social construct.' I suppose these facts alone put me in the 'race realist' category.
So where do my allegiances lie in this debate? The discussion seems to be about 'white nationalism' more or less, and I am not sure that the principals in this debate all hold the same definition of that term, which makes for a rather opaque discussion, with a lot of going in circles and talking past each other.
But here is one thing which Gottfried says which does not sit well with me.
Most of my acquaintances, who are not associated with explicitly political websites, have no desire to hear politically incorrect truths, and are certainly not interested in expressing them at their peril.''
I am not sure who is being referred to here, but why would a scholar or a seeker after truth (which all honest people should be) want to avoid certain truths, or approve of others who avoid certain truths, just because those truths are deemed off-limits by the PC totalitarians? This is a dismaying viewpoint all the way around.
There certainly are times and places to express certain truths, and times to be discreet; those of us who blog anonymously certainly believe this. But the honest person, who believes that vitlally important things are at stake in this discussion, will not adopt a 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' attitude simply for self-serving reasons. We can all speak and write about these things in certain contexts, and in fact I feel duty-bound to do so. We ignore or deny truth at our own peril. Truth is not subject to a 'democratic vote' and it is not based on 'consensus' or popularity. Truth just is, and it is no respecter of persons.
But here's the rub in the piece:
I also find myself disagreeing with my respondents about the obviousness and immediacy of that danger faced by white Americans because of our present social policies. Note these policies are put into effect with the explicit or implicit consent of the white majority. If our administrative and educational policies, which are often admittedly demeaning to white people, were perceived as injurious to those affected, one might expect to see the public rising up in anger. But exactly the opposite is happening. Tens of millions of white Americans are eager to give their votes to a presidential candidate who spent 20 years ardently courting black nationalists. Obama’s wife, Michelle, who routinely targets whites as racists, enjoys far more enthusiastic affection among white Americans than do any or all of the white nationalists currently residing in the U.S.
While such behavior is bizarre, it seems that if white Americans felt as oppressed by racial minorities as white nationalists think they should, they would have noticed their plight and have tried to change it. The fact, however, is that those whom white nationalists consider white victims are not as numerous or as embittered as white nationalists would want us to believe.''
Gottfried ignores or dismisses the very pervasive and powerful brainwashing (and it is no exaggeration to call it that) delivered by the educational establishment and the media. And maybe he is just not aware of the growing dissatisfaction and spirit of outrage that is apparent in many newspaper comment sections as well as in certain politically incorrect corners of the blogosphere -- not to mention in real life. And more importantly, he is admitting quite explicitly that he does not share the feelings of majority White Americans, most of whom are fed up and exasperated with the constant drumbeat of racial grievances and complaints. Many such people are not by any stretch of the imagination 'white nationalists' but neither are they deaf, dumb, and blind. They see and hear what is going on. Many 'average' not-very-political Americans sense that things are very wrong and that their children's future is very cloudy, to say the least. They have an inchoate sense of injustice and alienation which most don't quite know what to do with. But I suppose you wouldn't know that if you live in some kind of intellectual/academic urban enclave surrounded by other out-of-touch people.
I've written before about 'Ellis Islanders' vs. Americans. Those of recent immigrant stock, which by definition means those of non-Anglo-Saxon/European ethnicity, simply do not see things as we 'old Americans' do. Is it xenophobic to say that? So be it; I've seen far too many examples of the syndrome in real life. It may be depressing for some of us old-stock Americans to face this fact, but there it is: we have no trustworthy allies in our struggle for survival. Gottfried, for all his surface friendliness towards us, does not share our sense of peril, or see any threat to our survival. And if he does, he sees it in a detached, dispassionate, if not indifferent, way.
The Ellis Islander sees us as 'other', as the privileged descendants of the colonists who made life hard for their immigrant great-grandparents. I cannot help but think there is almost always a lingering resentment and alienation, and at best, a sense of difference from us, a plain inability to see America as we see it.
Gottfried thinks we have brought this situation on ourselves -- as if our system really allows any meaningful participation by us. The two candidates presented to us are both anti-white and avidly pro-open borders. How is this reflective of the expressed will of the people?
And here, the trump card comes out: the victim card. ''My ancestors suffered the most; quitcher whining,'' is the implicit -- actually, rather explicit -- message.
As should be apparent, I do not have much sympathy for most of the white majority whom the white nationalists in their populist fervor celebrate; nor do I think this majority is being unfairly discriminated against, given the fact that they themselves support parties and politicians who enact the discrimination against them. Unlike my Jewish relatives whom the Nazis booted out of Europe, white Americans are a majority who would be able to control their destinies, if they chose to. That they behave differently is the result of two circumstances: one, they have not been abused to a point where they would notice or care what is happening to them; and two, the putative victims are too infantile and too eager to throw their ancestors under the bus in order to court liberal favor.''
I suppose this piece should be seen as a necessary bit of cold water being dashed on us: now we can wake up from this dream that anybody who is not 'of us', by his own perception, cannot be counted on to be a voice or an advocate or a champion of our people. We have to speak for ourselves and stop this vain search for 'others' to side with us or speak for us.
It may be 'xenophobic' but I will assume that anybody who is not old-stock American has some other competing interest or agenda. So far, reality seems to indicate that to be the case.