Mirrors of Privilege

Posted on December 8, 2009 by Hunter Wallace

Via Racism Review.

Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

This entry was posted in Anti-Racism, Anti-White, Christianity, Discourse Poisoning, Films, PC, Religion, The Jewish Question and tagged Anti-Racism, Anti-White, Christianity, Hate Speech, The Jewish Question, White Privilege. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to Mirrors of Privilege

White Preservationist says:

December 9, 2009 at 7:50 pm

Junghans:”‘Jew Wise’ is much more logical than the emotionally loaded Jewish canard of so-called ‘anti-Semitism’.”

Lately I have somewhat preferred the term ‘Judeoskeptical’ (or ‘Jew-skeptical’) for some reason.

One can always simplify things by just writing or saying ‘anti-Jewish’ in lieu of ‘anti-Semitic,’ though.
Svigor says:

December 9, 2009 at 7:56 pm

Make that “Its.”
Adopt the term, adopt its baggage.

I’m no linguist, so I don’t know the extent of the down side (I can make a few educated guesses), but I know the up side in our being agile and ever-evolving in our use of language is that we turn the Jewish campaign to control the language into a big black hole of money.

It’s the same with symbology. When an American uses NSDAP symbols, he’s paying a dividend to the Jewish campaign. Basically, he’s making the billions invested by Jews into this campaign pay off. The rub is we can’t be quite as fast-moving with symbols because they need a degree of permanency to be useful.
White Preservationist says:

December 9, 2009 at 7:59 pm

Svigor:”“Gentile” is a slur, too. It’s basic etymology is “heathen.” I notice KMac has stopped using the word.”

Yes, ‘Gentile’ is definitely a slur. I’ve never used it and I’ve always hated that term, even before I knew hardly anything about Jews — it was like I was instinctually against it or something.

Even though the slur ‘Gentile’ is technically of Latin extraction, in my eyes using that word means stooping down to using Jewish-dictated terminology, seeking to neatly separate all of humanity in to only two categories: ‘Jew’ or ‘Gentile’ (non-Jew)

I’ve always preferred ‘non-Jew’ to that very irritating word ‘Gentile,’ and I think others should as well.
Svigor says:

December 9, 2009 at 8:01 pm

Jew-wise
Jew-aware
Judeo-skeptic
etc.

But I think the easiest way is to go Fred’s route and simply characterize it as normalcy (though healthy, not normal, is more accurate), and use jargon to describe those who don’t qualify (“philo-semite,” etc.).
Svigor says:

December 9, 2009 at 8:07 pm

I’ve always preferred ‘non-Jew’ to that very irritating word ‘Gentile,’ and I think others should as well.

I’ve always felt that the most apt is “human vs. Jew,” but I don’t employ it because it’s so easily misinterpreted. To reactionary philo-Semites (majority of our folk) it means “Jews ain’t hyooman,” when what I mean by it is a sort of just reaction to what Jews really mean (especially historically) by Jew vs. gentile.
Greg Johnson says:

December 9, 2009 at 8:12 pm

We have to start living like free men sometime, and the one thing immediately within our power is our language.

We have to accept that any word or euphemism we use to describe ourselves will be targeted by our enemies for stigmatization. There is no way to dodge that.

It is as useless as trying to dodge raindrops, and it is as unworthy of a dignified adult. If you are caught in the rain without an umbrella, it is better to maintain one’s dignity and get a little wet but keep moving forward to one’s destination rather than to scurry around, dashing from one bit of shelter to another. You will get wet anyway, waste your time, be distracted from your goals, and lose your sense of dignity to boot.

I am a racist and an anti-Semite and a white man (not a “European-American”). Our enemies have done their best to stigmatize these terms. We need to do our best to make them badges of honor and enlightenment.
Greg Johnson says:

December 9, 2009 at 8:33 pm

RE “Gentile”: I try not to use that term, and I discourage my writers from using it. I prefer “non-Jews,” as in “Jewish hatred for non-Jews.”

RE “Jew-wise”: This is my preferred term. I did not invent it, but I have been trying to popularize it recently, with some success, I think. I will not dodge the label “anti-Semite,” and I will often use it in appropriate contexts to describe myself. But I prefer “Jew-wise” because it is more specific (because it names the Jew) and has a positive connotation (who would not want to be wise?).

I do not like the term “philo-Semite” because it is non-specific and has a positive connotation. I instead prefer to speak of people who have a fondness for Jews (it sounds vaguely unsavory), a preference for Jews (it sounds vaguely immoral as well as unsavory, like having a “preference” for little boys) or, more often, people who are tools or dupes of the Jews. It is less economical, but more specific and carries the right connotations.

Instead of wasting time defending ourselves from the charge of anti-Semitism, why not think of ways we can put the patriotards on the defensive? I would love to see those people arguing that they are not dupes or tools of the Jews. “Rush, why do you have such a strong fondness for Jews?” “Senator, why do you prefer Jews to your own people?” “Congressman, why do you put Israel first?” “Sean [Hannity], when are you going to wise up and stop being a tool for Jewish propaganda?” “Do Jews pay you to tell these lies, or are you actually naive enough to believe them?”
Svigor says:

December 9, 2009 at 9:05 pm

We have to accept that any word or euphemism we use to describe ourselves will be targeted by our enemies for stigmatization. There is no way to dodge that.

I think you’re contradicting yourself here. When someone targets you, the best way to avoid being hit is to dodge. Pathologizing words costs money. Switching to a new word is free. Say Jews switch to targeting “Jew-wise.” Well, once they’ve spent enough money, we move on to “Jew-aware” or whatever. Besides, wouldn’t you rather the ADL use “Jew-aware” in place of “anti-Semitic”? I would. What if we start using “smart” as our code word? What, the ADL’s going to start calling us smart?

Guerrilla warfare works just as well intellectually as it does militarily.
Svigor says:

December 9, 2009 at 9:14 pm

Seen this yet HW?

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon: Anti-Semitism: The Case of Honduras
Sam Davidson says:

December 9, 2009 at 9:24 pm

I agree with Greg Johnson. I am a racist anti-semite. If I called myself anti-Zionist the left would still label me an anti-semite. It doesn’t matter what you call yourself because your enemies will call you what they want. This is why so many American conservatives get called racists for opposing illegal immigration. Alot of these conservatives are actually race-mixers, like Lou Dobbs and Chris Simcox – but they still get called racist.

Presently I’d rather let people know my views in the most direct manner possible. I’m not trying to convert my enemies but rather reach out to those who aren’t aware of what’s going on. The best way is to draw a straight line. “The Jews run our mass-media, financial sector, and control significant parts of our government. They hide the damage caused to our nation by non-whites in an effort to weaken the current White majority.”
TabuLa Raza says:

December 9, 2009 at 9:25 pm

jews consider themselves the only true humans, so it should be humans vs. humans. Reminds me of spy vs. spy. Isn’t MAD magzaine a jewish publication?
http://cache0.techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/spy-vs-spy_tofu_prv_2.png
Hunter Wallace says:

December 9, 2009 at 9:26 pm

I prefer “racialist” to “racist.”
Mark says:

December 9, 2009 at 9:45 pm

You should use language that has the desired effect, obviously. During your conversations with people find out which terms are understood the best and accomplish your goals. I’ve found that race realist works well with the average person.
Henrik says:

December 9, 2009 at 9:53 pm

Greg Johnson has made an excellent comment.

It brings to mind Confucius’s Rectification of names.

He argued that “social disorder often stemmed from failure to perceive, understand, and deal with reality. Fundamentally, then, social disorder can stem from the failure to call things by their proper names, and his solution to this was the rectification of names.”

In our context, we can see how “the failure to call things by their proper names” has contributed to racial disorder, decline, and dispossession.

This duplicitous appropriation of our language, our control over naming, and our culture, has led us to conflate interests, loyalties, and identities.

As Greg Johnson said, it’s time to stop wasting time on the defensive and to start calling things by their proper names.
Greg Johnson says:

December 9, 2009 at 10:31 pm

RE Svigor: If somebody throws sticks and stones at you, of course you should try to dodge them. But it is as undignified to dodge words as it is to dodge raindrops.

We are going to have to face a lot more than harsh language if we are going to win this battle. Ask yourselves if you want a man who is afraid of harsh language next to you in a foxhole.

Again, we have to start living like free men sometime. Begin here.
Greg Johnson says:

December 9, 2009 at 10:49 pm

RE Sam Davidson: You are absolutely right to remind us that we are not trying to convert leftists. We are trying to convert open-minded people in the vast muddled middle. There are various ways of doing this, and we should have as many approaches as we can, tailored to all different constituencies, and a whole spectrum of organizations and ideologies, a set of rungs by which the brightest and bravest can climb up to full enlightenment. But nobody will get there unless at least some of us say what full enlightenment really is: clearly, unambiguously, without euphemisms and soft soap and playing patty cake.

Most racialists I know come out of the right wing in America. I certainly did. It is a huge burden, though, because the whole ethos of the American right is set by some of the stupidest, most cowardly, deep-dyed dishonest people on the planet. It is so corrupting that those of us who come out of that ethos need a thorough delousing.

I remember one occasion where I listened to two right-wingers, both of whom I knew to be atheists, passionately discussing theology, one of them impersonating a Catholic, the other impersonating a Calvinist. What made this a tragedy rather than a mere farce is that they both would have reacted in terror and lashed out at me if I attempted to confront them with the absurdity of the situation.

Level up or die people!
Svigor says:

December 10, 2009 at 2:48 am

If I called myself anti-Zionist the left would still label me an anti-semite. It doesn’t matter what you call yourself because your enemies will call you what they want.

What you’re saying is that if a court is going to find you guilty regardless, you might as well plead guilty, even if you’re innocent. Nonsense. If someone hurls a false accusation at me, and I accept it, everyone assumes it’s true. If I reject it, some will believe me, or at least give me the benefit of the doubt.

Why this should be an issue of contention between literate adults is beyond me.

This is why so many American conservatives get called racists for opposing illegal immigration. Alot of these conservatives are actually race-mixers, like Lou Dobbs and Chris Simcox – but they still get called racist.

Do they go around calling themselves racists?

What if the media started referring to you as a child molester? Are you going to start self-identifying with the label? Using your logic, you’re going to follow along with their lie, for God only knows what reason.

This is so simple that my intuition tells me the argument you’re using is not a serious one. You must have another reason, that you aren’t stating for whatever reason.
Svigor says:

December 10, 2009 at 2:59 am

I’ve found that race realist works well with the average person.

It’s good coinage because it conjoins a deconstructed word with a positive word. It’s also the sort of term our enemies would never willingly use to identify us because it would create unnecessary work (i.e., they’d have to deconstruct a word that carries positive connotations).

RE Svigor: If somebody throws sticks and stones at you, of course you should try to dodge them. But it is as undignified to dodge words as it is to dodge raindrops.

Nonsense. The raindrops analogy sucks. If I reject a raindrop, it still lands on me. If I accept a raindrop, it still lands on me. If I reject a charge of x, I have begun to fight it. If I accept a charge of x, we proceed directly to sentencing.

We are going to have to face a lot more than harsh language if we are going to win this battle.

Moving the goalpost. No one here was talking about having a thick skin vis-a-vis accusations. We were discussing addressing yourself the way an enemy addresses you. According to you, if they start calling us “assholes,” you’ll follow suit, which has absolutely nothing to do with having a thick skin.

I’ve had this conversation about a zillion goddamned times at Stormfront, it’s the sort of thing that drove me away from that place.

Again, we have to start living like free men sometime. Begin here.

Living like a free man is distinct from accepting your assertions about tactics. Living like a free man is viewing our respective arguments and choosing the best course for oneself. Start there.
Svigor says:

December 10, 2009 at 3:00 am

This has NOTHING to do with being tough, or being free, or being the kind of comrade good enough to be in your foxhole. It’s got to do with you wanting everyone to do things your way. FUCK THAT.
Parler White says:

December 10, 2009 at 3:03 am

Greg Johnson,

I instead prefer to speak of people who have a fondness for Jews (it sounds vaguely unsavory), a preference for Jews (it sounds vaguely immoral as well as unsavory, like having a “preference” for little boys) or, more often, people who are tools or dupes of the Jews.

Any of the “phobia” terms can be reversed to “philia” with carries unpleasant connotations: Judeophilia, xenophilia, homophilia, etc. They are all perfectly legitimate words of course but sound like hemophiliac or pedophile.

Who was the politician that said “in his youth my opponent was a thespian down at the university, where the boys and girls matriculate together”?

“Rush, why do you have such a strong fondness for Jews?” “Senator, why do you prefer Jews to your own people?” “Congressman, why do you put Israel first?” “Sean [Hannity], when are you going to wise up and stop being a tool for Jewish propaganda?” “Do Jews pay you to tell these lies, or are you actually naive enough to believe them?”

This is nearly mainstream rhetoric on the internet, from both the right and the left, with possible use of euphemisms like “zionist” etc. I’ve long maintained that “liberal” started out as a code for “Jew” – “liberal media” “liberal Hollywood” “liberal trial lawyers” – but that most conservatives had forgotten by the Rush Limbaugh age.
Svigor says:

December 10, 2009 at 3:06 am

I think it also has to do with National Socialism. I.e., rehabilitating it. More power to you, count me out.
Fred Scrooby says:

December 10, 2009 at 3:25 am

“I’ve long maintained that “liberal” started out as a code for “Jew”” ( — Parler White)

That sounds plausible. I never thought of that. I bet that’s right.
Parler White says:

December 10, 2009 at 3:39 am

Scrooby, wasn’t it when the John Birch Society purged Revilio Oliver that the Jewish Question became off-limits to the populist right, and when Buckley purged the Jew-wise whites from the elite right? Isn’t that when all the typical right wing labels for the traditional enemies turned into the generic term “liberal”?

One of the things that made me Jew wise was trying to figure out who exactly these “liberals” were that every kept complaining about.

Scrooby in one of your posts you mentioned a technique Jews use to blunt reactions from whites, first, claim that it’s not Jews but someone non-denominational “liberal” that is the problem, and two, claim you are anti-Jew for thinking it was the Jew. I’ve seen that tactic over and over again, you spelled it out quite succinctly, thanks.
Z.O.G. says:

December 10, 2009 at 4:23 am

“Judeophilia”

Nice! I think this one could grow legs.
Grimoire says:

December 10, 2009 at 6:07 am

Judeophilia has the stumps of a severe amputee for legs, it’ll need a skateboard to get around.
Nobody cares about whether or not you hate jews. How many revolutionary or counter revolutionary movements are nurtured by a bunch of cranks burning effigies on internet comment threads?
Answer: zero or about sweet-dik.

Do you jews or liberals are winning because they hang out spitting on sidewalks and repeating the same thing over and over and over again?

Theodor Andorno said his work was part of a larger movement that aimed to place the authorative (or white conservative) personality into a ‘psychic cage’ with no options but a bitterness that would only increase his bonds.

This psychic cage is pretty much what i see here.
Grimoire says:

December 10, 2009 at 6:11 am

previous comment, 2nd paragraph should be
‘do you think jews or liberals…..’

I was not accusing anyone of bieng a jew. Although it would be good heeb joodoo to try to keep people bitching mediocre digs instead of using their brains for the reason they were given them.
Z.O.G. says:

December 10, 2009 at 7:21 am

Nobody cares about whether or not you hate jews.

You care. Because you’re a Jew.
Z.O.G. says:

December 10, 2009 at 7:22 am

The term “racist” is a Jewish Communist agitprop term jointly invented by Leon Trotsky and Max Hirschfeld.
Z.O.G. says:

December 10, 2009 at 7:22 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky
Z.O.G. says:

December 10, 2009 at 7:22 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld
Z.O.G. says:

December 10, 2009 at 7:25 am

Hirschfeld more so than Trotsky. Hirschfeld is the one who really put the the word “racism” on the map.
Kulaks Never Learn says:

December 10, 2009 at 7:35 am

“Hirschfeld more so than Trotsky. Hirschfeld is the one who really put the the word “racism” on the map.”
__

However, it was the Beast Trotsky who used it with murderous frequency against Russian and Ukrainian nationalists who resisted and did not wish to become part of ‘Homo Sovieticus’, or ‘New Soviet Man’.

It was also used primarily during the 1920′s, before falling out of favor and being replaced with the equally nonsensical smear term ‘Kulak’.
Kulaks Never Learn says:

December 10, 2009 at 7:40 am

79 Z.O.G.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky
__

Whew, Trotsky/Bronshtein looks like Lucifer in the Wikipedia picture.

Damn, those hideous Khazar genes, no wonder they want to dilute them and mix with northern European humanoids as much as possible. Jeesh.
OldRight says:

December 10, 2009 at 9:06 am

Svigor
If I reject a charge of x, I have begun to fight it. If I accept a charge of x, we proceed directly to sentencing.

The jew is evil, collectively the jew combines to create the world cancer called jewry. Every jew who does not fight jewry is part of jewry and shares in jew guilt.

I hate jews. Jews should suffer collective punishment. The leaders of jewry should be hanged. The average jew on the street should be stripped of much of its wealth (much of which it obtained only because of the criminal syndicate that is the jew tribal network) to be paid as reparations to whites and then deported.

I don’t reject the charge, if I did I’d sound like Pat Buchanan protesting that he’s not racist.
Sam Davidson says:

December 10, 2009 at 4:56 pm

Svigor, you’re assuming I accept false labels, which isn’t true. If anyone accused me of being a criminal I’d take legal action against them. I can’t deny racism or anti-semitism for the reason that I fully believe in superior/inferior races and that Jews need to be removed from positions of influence in the West.

SamDavidson: I oppose the domination of our institutions of government, finance, and media being in the hands of Jews.
Reporter: Mr. Davidson, you realize your statement is totally anti-semitic?
SamDavidson: Of course, do you support the Jewish control of your nation?
B: Well, uh, no but it’s a free country, and why should Jews be discriminated against?
SamDavidson: Hijacking our foreign policy? Subverting our culture? Promoting race-mixing? Refusing to give black-on-white crimes national media coverage? I don’t know, you pick one!
Sam Davidson says:

December 10, 2009 at 5:04 pm

That post was poorly written, but I think it gets my point across.
Svigor says:

December 10, 2009 at 7:25 pm

The jew is evil, collectively the jew combines to create the world cancer called jewry. Every jew who does not fight jewry is part of jewry and shares in jew guilt.

I hate jews. Jews should suffer collective punishment. The leaders of jewry should be hanged. The average jew on the street should be stripped of much of its wealth (much of which it obtained only because of the criminal syndicate that is the jew tribal network) to be paid as reparations to whites and then deported.

I don’t reject the charge, if I did I’d sound like Pat Buchanan protesting that he’s not racist.

See, this is an explanation I can accept. It’s not for me, but it doesn’t try to be anything other than what it is, and I don’t see you challenging anyone’s motives or worth if they don’t agree with you.
Svigor says:

December 10, 2009 at 7:28 pm

Svigor, you’re assuming I accept false labels, which isn’t true. If anyone accused me of being a criminal I’d take legal action against them. I can’t deny racism or anti-semitism for the reason that I fully believe in superior/inferior races and that Jews need to be removed from positions of influence in the West.

I have to repeat here my response to OR; more power to you, but not for me.
White Preservationist says:

December 11, 2009 at 2:59 am

“NEA’s 3.2 Million Members Gain Access to Online Diversity Training Course”

GAITHERSBURG, MD–December 7, 2009– The National Education Association (NEA) Academy has partnered with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency, to offer the NEA’s 3.2 million members access to the ADL’s online professional development tool, ‘Making Diversity Count.’

- http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Education_01/5668_01.htm
Steve in the Swamps says:

December 12, 2009 at 12:40 am

Robert Campbell, Comment #43: I read one of the quotes on the website.

“Two random Koreans are likely to be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.”

LOL! They truly think we are lacking in basic intelligence.
Steve in the Swamps says:

December 12, 2009 at 1:09 am

And the website made the same argument regarding 2 Swedes and a Sengalese.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply