Following on my last post, 'From the hate-free zone', I would like to bring up a few minor points that have occurred to me as I've been reading commentary around the blogosphere about the hate piece under discussion.
First of all, I don't know how many of you have heard the phrase 'hate-free zone', but around certain places in the Northwest which are the native habitat of the pious White liberals and their minority clientele, one sees these signs announcing that ''This is a hate-free zone'', meaning, we allow no free speech or free thought that does not comply with our politically correct standards. It also means, 'We (liberals and assorted victims) define what Hate is. We arbitrarily define 'hate' as being whatever we deem it to mean, depending on the needs of the situation. We will dictate what you may say and feel."
So wherever you see the sign ''hate-free zone'' you can be sure that no "hate" is allowed there -- but "hate," of course, means, above all, pro-White viewpoints. Hate is something that only Whites can be accused of, and hate is defined only by the Left and minorities. Nothing a minority or 'hate-free' liberal says can ever be hate, no matter how diabolically rage-driven or how threatening or how insulting or how ugly or how intimidating or how nasty. It is never 'hate' as long as it is done by minorities or in the name of minorities.
"Hate-free zones" are also logic-free zones and truth-free zones and sanity-free zones and decency-free zones.
And freedom-free zones.
Hate-free zones are more accurately free-hate zones, depending on who is doing the 'hating' or who is the self-appointed, self-serving definer of "hate." Hate-free zones means Whites and Whites alone are to be the targets of any ''hating'' that is being done -- though of course it is never really hate if the object is White, especially male, and most especially, Christian.
It's been interesting to see how the commentariat has discussed the hate missive by the inaptly-named author has been treated on different blogs and forums. Those with a less racially-conscious and more PC policy and readership tend to treat this as a case of ''the left'' going off the rails (since when have they been on the rails?) or, even more inaccurately, as a case of a ''self-hating White'' losing it.
The author of the piece, Mr. Wise by name (but not by nature), does not identify himself as White, hence the unhinged, rabid nature of his vitriol. If he himself does not think of himself as White (except when it suits his purposes to do so) then I will take him at his word, and not impose a White identity on him, nor should anybody else. Yet lots of people are insisting on doing this.
So for a moment we need to get back to definitions here. I've written before that the term 'White' is often abused or applied very broadly to such people as Iranians (their very name means ''Aryan'', didn't you know) and assorted other Middle Easterners, as well as some Hindus. Some people make 'Caucasian' a synonym for White, but that term, too, is broad. To me, White means a person of European descent primarily, and we can quibble about that, but by and large, that is what it means to most people. It's too bad terms like 'European-descended' are so cumbersome and pedantic sounding. But for now, White means European by ancestry if not birth.
Again, some people even on pro-White blogs and forums insist that if someone has one White parent and one non-white, that the person of such a union is 'half-White.' Really? I keep reading on AmRen, Free Republic (which granted is mainstream Republican) and other places that our pResident is 'half-White' or 'just as much White as he is black.' That kind of thinking is so patently absurd that I should not even have to address it. This idea is one that was never held by any normal American until after the PC age, and it needs to be examined.
Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and other 'halves' obviously do not identify as White, although they may let others assume that if the occasion seems to call for it. Otherwise they are vitriolic and hateful towards Whites.
What about the actual 'self-hating White', who seemingly does exist, and whose name, sadly, is Legion? I've used the term 'self-hating White' on a number of occasions on this blog. It's a facile description, but is it an accurate one? Actually most of the 'self-hating Whites' I've met are not self-hating at all, any more than Benedict Arnold or Simon Girty were 'self-hating Americans'. No, such people may actually love themselves, but hate the race they come from, or at least have absolutely no affection or natural allegiance to the people from whom they spring. But this does not mean at all that they hate themselves. I think the term 'self-hating' is a creation of the Left. I first heard it used in various books in reference to Jews who appeared to be negative toward their own Jewish identity, and then in describing blacks who supposedly were 'self-hating' because Evil Whitey had taught them to hate their origins and their people. Oftentimes the 'self-hating' description is used, disparagingly, by Liberals and minorities toward, say, blacks who may be less liberal or less militant about their racial identity. I've heard it used by the left and by blacks about people like Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice. Now, I assure you Condi Rice does not hate herself, and in fact is not loath to play the race card when she feels the need.
Is anybody really 'self-hating'? Maybe some very troubled people are, but in many cases it is a deceptive term. The Bible tells us that no man "ever yet hated his own flesh," and I believe that is true. Observation tells me it is true.
But I know that most liberal Whites do not hate themselves; far from it. They wake up every morning and congratulate themselves for their superior sensitivity, caring, and compassion. They see themselves as more 'highly evolved', and I mean this literally. Some of my liberal acquaintances believe that the human race is ''evolving'' to a higher plane of existence in which we will all transcend the 'reptile brain' and our backward affinities, such as those for nation, race, tribe, or kin, and for ''divisive'' religions like Christianity. They believe, in many cases that they are the forerunners of a new kind of human being, and that we who hold to the traditional allegiances and loves, are backward, atavistic, un-evolved, and ''throwbacks'' to a more primitive time.
This is not a self-hating attitude on their part. It is a self-loving, self-congratulatory attitude. It is part of what makes them so insufferable and so arrogant in their attitudes towards the rest of us.
So no, Mr. "Wise-by-name-but-not-by-nature" is not a self-hating White, and if his own words are to be believed, he is not even White. You either are, or you are not. He is not. He believes that highly-evolved liberals and their vibrant and diverse clientele will inherit the earth when we "throwbacks" are extinct, whether it happens naturally, or they help us along.
The actual Whites who abase themselves, or those who spew venom against their own people are not hating themselves. They have mentally and emotionally distanced themselves from their blood kin and have decided that they are part of some other group based on their correct political views or on their 'evolving' status. Or they are misinformed, like some mainstream Republicans, who have somehow swallowed the PC version or history and believe race really is inconsequential. They care nothing for their roots or their ethnic group or race; they see everything in terms of political labels, which are just another type of sports team to be rooted for.
These people are actually more to be pitied than censured, but sometimes it is hard to sympathize with them, since they can't seem to empathize with their own people.
But the Left and their minority minions have succeeded in 'demonizing', to use their term, a natural kin affinity. They have coined words like 'racist' and 'xenophobe' to diminish and pathologize those who behave like natural, normal human beings. We, meanwhile, have no such labels with which to fight back. To call them ''racists'', as many on the mainstream right are increasingly doing, is not only ineffectual, but actually it works in favor of the left, as we have two factions of Whites calling each other ''racist'', no doubt to the amusement and glee of our enemies. That has got to stop. It is stupid and counterproductive. It is a waste of time, and it further strengthens political correctness.
To me, it seems that anybody who claims to have transcended normal ties of blood and kinship is some kind of freak of nature, or perhaps a deviant in a racial sense. That attitude is not natural, and just as the Left has normalized sexual perversion, where people feel unnatural attractions for the same sex or for other inappropriate objects, they have normalized unnatural racial feelings. They are the masters at calling evil good, and good evil. To them, sexual perversions are not only natural, but to be praised. It's the same with their condemnation of natural racial bonds, and their praise of treason toward their own. It's another form of deviancy -- which, as typifies them, is celebrated as a good thing.
Let them pursue their preferences, but they must stop trying to criminalize those who choose the natural and the traditional ways, and stop trying to impose their thoughts and beliefs on the rest of us. Doing so is totalitarian.
