Hillary Clinton’s speech on the Alt Right contains several predictable Leftist tropes. Perhaps more interesting is that she appears to have actually written part of it:
“When I was growing up, Simone Manuel wouldn’t have been allowed to swim in the same public pool as Katie Ledecky.”
The baby boomer experience of race differs greatly from that of millennials. Hillary grew up in a social environment where nearly everyone was white. In the sixties America had a strong white majority with a black minority of around 10% and a Jewish one of 2%. It was common for whites living in northern states to go through their entire lives seeing only a handful of nonwhites. Referring to whiteness was basically redundant because nearly everyone was white. Religion was the main indicator of difference. More interaction between blacks and whites took place in the South, but segregated schools kept white and black children apart, and anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in 17 southern states until the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in 1967.
White millennials have a different experience. Most have grown up alongside nonwhites. Although white millennials belong to one of many racial groups, they cannot express racial pride without suffering severe chastisement. Meanwhile other groups openly esteem their race with full moral sanction. Try hearing your black friends gloat about the first black president being elected while knowing you can never apply the same attitude toward a white candidate without being shunned by everyone. Not only that, a white person is expected to believe that he wants a black president because he is black. Other races’ racial pride is encouraged in high status venues such as academia and government while yours is considered among the staunchest of taboos. The only acceptable circumstances during which whites may only refer to their race are either to apologize for the actions of whites of the past or to express how ashamed they are of being a boring white person how they wish they were a more exotic, cultured nonwhite. Some white millennials, in a spirit of misguided chivalry, proudly think of themselves as not needing racial cohesion like other races do. This is a foolhardy perspective that will not benefit whites in the long run as whites decrease in number relative to other groups in the places they dwell. Finally, despite desegregation, housing patterns always seem to cline toward racial homogeneity, whether it be white hipsters gentrifying formerly black inner city neighborhoods or blacks chasing whites out of old rustbelt towns. Hillary, meanwhile, remains stuck in the past, projecting segregation onto the present where it doesn’t exist.
Another one of her tidbits:
“No one should have any illusions about what’s really going on here. The names may have changed. . . . Racists now call themselves ‘racialists.’ White supremacists now call themselves ‘white nationalists.’ The paranoid fringe now calls itself ‘alt-right.’ But the hate burns just as bright.”
Her speech writer seems to wax poetic, rhyming “alt-right” with “bright.” By the way, does anyone here refer to himself as a “racialist”? That sounds so ‘’90s, like carefully replacing “white” with “European-American,” as if our biggest problem was sematic.
Anti-whites often allege that White Nationalists have a lot of fear. On the contrary, thinking outside the politically correct box requires a suspension of fear. Going against the multi-cultural propaganda you’ve been fed since childhood takes more bravery than deferring to it. Normies on the other hand are terrified of thinking outside the box and are often traumatized by interacting with those who don’t. It seems Hillary or perhaps her speechwriter is engaging in a little projection here. Projection would also explain her “nothing new to see here” attitude towards the Alt Right. There is in fact nothing new about her beliefs because they are from the sixties Leftist culture, and even if her beliefs were new, they do not benefit whites.
Also, she refers to “hate” as a kind of evil abstraction to be combatted. The (((SPLC))) does something similar when it touts as its mission stopping “hate.” As far as I know, “hate” isn’t typing my words; I am typing them. I am a White Nationalist and to describe me as being the abstraction “hate” is a verbal sleight of hand that dehumanizes me in a morally pretentious way. The abstraction of “hate” is not who the SPLC ultimately combats because the SPLC never attempts to get “hate” fired from a job but rather white nationalists. They do not want to stop every instance of “hate” but only when it allegedly exists among groups they dislike. For instance, they do seek to stop Black Lives Matter from hating white people. Nor do they seek to stop more mundane hatreds. For example, they don’t want to combat hatred of gym class, bad-tasting food, kitsch art, waiting in line for a long time at the DMV, etc. They are mostly concerned with hatred when it has a white gentile face and an alleged nonwhite or Jewish target. Similarly, the (((Anti-Defamation League’s))) name implies it wants to stop “defamation.” This is ironic because the organization itself seeks to defame people’s character—the character of racially conscious whites and critics of Israel. Are they really for stopping all “defamation” or only defamation coming from their enemies? Or are they just for stopping their enemies? Likewise Hillary and the SPLC do not oppose all hate or just hate in the Alt Right but rather people in the Alt Right.
“State regulators fined one of Trump’s casinos for repeatedly removing black dealers from the floor. No wonder the turn-over rate for his minority employees was way above average.”
In a racially homogenous society no one suffers discrimination. For instance, in an all-black nation, no card dealer could complain of unfair treatment because of race. The fact is, however, that the closer blacks live to whites, the higher their incomes. Black-owned businesses prior to desegregation may have had comparatively more success due to having captive markets of their co-racials. However, if one examines black nations today, one sees that captive markets in those nations don’t seem to generate much wealth overall. Generally, blacks in white nations have better standards of living than those in majority-black nations. Black nations like 19th-century Haiti or 20th-century Zimbabwe that expel white populations tend to experience stinging poverty as an aftereffect. This makes sense because the overall average IQ of a group and thus nation tends to limit the potential of individuals in it and because IQ correlates with earning potential. With an insufficient number of intelligent individuals to direct business on a large scale, things fall apart.
Despite being less wealthy it seems that blacks living in majority black nations are more free-spirited and not filled with racial angst. In some sense both races are better off in their own societies, though only whites would end up just as wealthy. If blacks cannot compete on a group level with whites at card dealing, they should found their own casinos or acknowledge the reality that fewer of them will succeed as dealers when competing with whites. Ultimately, neither group should be vilified for failing to perform at equal rates in a white-owned casino because the races do not have the same bell curve for various traits, one of which is probably card dealing.
“He’d ban Muslims around the world — 1.5 billion men, women, and children — from entering our country just because of their religion.”
Would Hillary Clinton welcome 1.5 billion Muslims into America?
There are almost as many white gentiles around the world – approximately 1.3 billion, and leftists deny them the moral legitimacy to organize along racial lines just because of their race. The suppression of Golden Dawn in Greece is an example. Hillary should take her own side rather than that of Muslims, but first she would have to acknowledge that she has a side to take. (As a note of context, only a small percentage of whites have converted to Islam, and even if one counts Muslim Albanians as white, at least 99% of whites are not Muslim. Furthermore, Greg Johnson believes such converts would serve as a threat to unity in a white nationalist republic. It makes sense because about 99% of Muslims are nonwhite, and unlike Buddhism it is a militantly proselytizing religion which ranks having the Muslim faith above all else.)
“We all remember when Trump said a distinguished federal judge born in Indiana couldn’t be trusted to do his job because, quote, ‘He’s a Mexican’. . . To this day, he’s never apologized to Judge Curiel.”
That’s because Trump did nothing wrong.
According to Kevin MacDonald, “Judge Curiel is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego . . . [which] has ties to the National Council of La Raza.” If a white guy were to start a lawyer’s association named “The Race” for white people, he would probably be blacklisted and prevented from joining any law firms.
“Ever since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, America has distinguished itself as a haven for people fleeing religious persecution.”
She describes the pilgrims with the race-neutral terms of “immigrants” and “people.” This perspective would make sense coming from a baby boomer who does not believe it is meaningful to state she is white like the Pilgrims. White victim groups exist in her mind only as the ghosts who carved out the “proposition” for the proposition nation, i.e., the action-based void which other groups will eventually fill. However, I don’t like being thought of as a ghost. I want to be a thought of as a member of a living racial group that gets just as much recognition as others. Furthermore, Hillary offers us three scenarios of victimhood. The first is of whites in Europe oppressing white pilgrims, though racial characteristics are not mentioned. The second is of the white Donald Trump allegedly oppressing the Mexican judge Gonzalo Curiel, which fits the white perpetrator / nonwhite victim category. The third concerns black swimmer Simone Manuel as a potential victim of exclusion by whites. Why doesn’t Hillary portray a scenario involving a white victim and nonwhite perpetrator? It’s not like that scenario never occurs. A simple examination of crime statistics could serve as proof. Are whites in her mind always a raceless, default group? Or did her speech writer write all this and am I mistakenly directing criticism toward her?
The following quote is very misleading:
“So when a tweet gets under his skin and he wants to retaliate with a cruise missile, maybe cooler heads will be there to convince him not to.”
This means a lot from Hillary Clinton, who has approved and sometimes even orchestrated every war and foreign policy debacle of the last 15 years.
A common calumny against Trump is that he would start a war because of “fighting words.” There is no precedent for a major world leader in the nuclear age starting a war over personal insults. “Fightin’ words” may start fights between individuals, but they do not cause massive entanglements between multitudes of people. Well, maybe words such as “weapons of mass destruction” do, but the cool heads of cunning (((neo-cons))) propagate them and not heads of state speaking off the cuff. Furthermore, the neo-cons would sooner ally with Hillary than Trump because they despise Trump’s “America First” foreign policy. Simply because Trump shoots his mouth off doesn’t mean he’ll shoot missiles. What’s more, if wars in the modern age tend to come from administrations with neo-con cabinets, then Trump is as pro peace as it gets because his proposed cabinet is devoid of them.
Beyond that, even if we ignore her bloody record, even if she were not the preferred candidate of neo-con warmongers, the fact remains that Hillary Clinton is a woman and a liberal, which means that she is more likely to start wars simply because she will feel the need to prove that she is not weak.
1. Hillary Clinton, “Speech Transcript,” Vox, August 27, 2016 http://www.vox.com/2016/8/25/12647810/hillary-clinton-speech-alt-right
2. Howe Abbot-Hiss, “Review of Hive Mind,” http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/06/hive-mind/
3. Arthur Jensen, The g Factor (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1998), 568.
4. Kevin MacDonald, “Donald Trump, Judge Curiel, and (((Mean Tweets))),” Occidental Observer, June 7, 2016, Accessed August 26, 2016 http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/06/donald-trump-judge-curiel-and-mean-tweets-the-reality-of-ethnic-identification-in-multicultural-america/