Skinning the Invisible Knapsack, Part 5 of 5

1280px-chrysler_building_midtown_manhattan_new_york_city_1932

Among schoolgoys, there is a rather vindictive prank one can do to a classmate who has left his backpack or bookbag unattended, known as skinning. The bag is emptied of its contents, turned inside out, and then zipped back up with all of its contents inside.

In 1988, Peggy McIntosh published one of the seminal works in the far-left dominated academic field which has come to be called “Whiteness Studies” in a number of circles. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” is an excerpt taken from a working paper produced by the women’s studies department of Wellesley College, and lists 50 “daily effects of white privilege” in the first-person perspective of the author from her experiences. Though McIntosh tried to cover herself by claiming her examples shouldn’t be generalized, her work is obviously not read that way in the identity politics dominated Obama years. If even some of these privileges existed in the 1980s, you would be hard pressed to find them now. A sacred text of the anti-white/third worldist/regressive left, Invisible Knapsack could use a good skinning. Here is a critical assessment of privileges 41-50.

  1. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

Well to be fair, I could see this being an issue for illegal mestizo immigrants or inner-city black crime suspects, both of which took steps to put themselves in bad situations. So in general, yes, if my paperwork is in order and I don’t signal that I might have trouble paying I should be fine.

  1. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.

Dialing back to the beginning of McIntosh’s list, this is another money issue. Living in a homogenous White community is expensive. And that is really the only way to avoid this, especially for children, who do not control the circumstances of their upbringing.

  1. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.

I am sure some leftist somewhere has a canned explanation ready about how people with White privilege make bad leaders due to innate inertia or ignorance. What we really need to do is replace most White leaders, because equality. After all, we are repeatedly told that companies with ethnically or racially diverse leadership perform better. What implies of course, is that White leadership is bad. In other words, group A is better than group B. You can only say negative things about Whites as a group. Imagine if you tried to argue why people of color make bad leaders…

  1. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race.

I think now even areas of European history are getting rewritten to focus on non-Europeans, to say nothing of the various “x studies” departments in the universities. The 1980s must have been swell. Now if there is any academic focus on Whites, it is probably from a hostile perspective, e.g. the anti-white education platform of blacklivesmatter.

  1. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.

I am just going to repeat my answer to privilege 6, which was about representation on television and in print.

>I can expect to see people of my race criticized for being represented at all, let alone widely represented. In fact, I can expect to see people celebrate the replacement of actors of Whiteness or of White roles with non-white ones, e.g. the widely-acclaimed Hamilton musical, diversity in comics, etc. Meanwhile the 2016 movie Gods of Egypt was widely condemned as racist for casting White people as North African deities.

  1. I can chose [sic] blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color and have them more or less match my skin.

Wow, dark-skinned people are living in a nightmare. Just get the bandages with Scooby-Doo on them or something. Truly we live in an oppressive caste society.

  1. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us.

Depends where you go, obviously.

  1. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.

Again, this depends where you go. If you move into a non-white neighborhood, that’s gentrification and considered immoral. But if you move out of a non-white neighborhood, that’s White flight and also immoral.

  1. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.

I hope so. But it’s not 1980 anymore, and we can’t count on society to instruct us to practice heterosexual monogamy as the ideal family. Never mind that such family units are the building blocks of civilization and required for its continuity—it would be bigoted to support them as ideal when there are all these other alternative lifestyles that need to be viewed as equal. Because if all lifestyles aren’t treated equally that would be bad.

  1. I will feel welcomed and “normal” in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.

I will be told I am unimportant and on the way out as a cultural and political force, that my experiences are inauthentic relative to those who embody “struggle,” and that my personal interests are problematic. I will be condemned for taking my own side. Or I can cuck and be accepted as an ally.

Well, that’s a wrap. All fifty points of petulant whining shot down by our trademark TRS snark and wit. The next time you see someone spouting anti-white nonsense about privilege, combine rhetoric with hatefacts and shut it down.

See also: PART 1, PART 2, PART3, PART4

Posted in Ideology | Tagged , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Castizo America: The Synthesis of Civic Nationalism and Liberalism

The largest obstacle to the victory of the cultural marxist left in the United States is probably civic nationalism, the deracinated attachment felt mostly by White people to the United States and “traditional” values. Even after decades of mass immigration and social poisoning, a massive bloc of the White population still loves its country. They have voted for a man who promises to restore it, Donald Trump, and to do so on a politically incorrect platform of nativism and protectionism. But President Trump cannot bring back yesteryear’s America. The country is too diverse and liberal now, as the policies of those in power the last few decades did what they were supposed to do. So ethno-nationalists offer a more radical solution: creating a White homeland.

The most obvious problem for White nationalists in the United States is that we do not live in a White country (well, not anymore). This can make our relationship to practical politics and policymaking quite estranged from mainstream concerns. Whatever our recommendations may be, skepticism comes as a natural response. Whites, while they lean towards one party over the other, are not nearly as tribal as non-whites. And what White nationalists are concerned with is tribe. Ethno-nationalism calls for the creation of a separate White homeland from parts of the United States proper, e.g. the Amerikaner Free State (1, 2). This would entail partition or balkanization of the Union, not something the average White normie is remotely interested in. Clearly, an ethnostate will not be happening in the short-run, leaving White nationalism in a metapolitical limbo.

As such, there is indeed a LARPy element to proposing an ethnostate. Much like proposing a Jewish nation-state to a late 19th century audience, White nationalism finds a deficit of both popular and elite momentum. The case has been made about why such a state would be beneficial, but it lacks a motivating context among our people. No truly paradigm shattering events have occurred for them to see the wisdom and utility of our plans and predictions. You can geographically move away from diversity (for now); you don’t need full-blown separatism (yet). While being told they will become a minority makes White voters more conservative, does it make them more nationalistic? This is not the same as having one’s illusions destroyed by dramatic events or feeling the boot of an exploitative oppressor (as opposed to a managerial one). National liberation movements feed on those sorts of things, and the occupation government is a delicate one. Perhaps more importantly, no powerful people in our society are active White nationalists.

Besides separatism, another nationalist pathway is through the Trump administration, which could establish an implicitly pro-White deep state to keep power in the hands of civic nationalists for more than two terms. Arguably it must accomplish this, or “Trumpism” will simply be a bad memory for the left in a decade. But this too is a bit of a stretch, and relies on President Trump having long-term visionary plans about the direction of the United States and executing on them. That’s not to say he doesn’t have them, but there are obviously limits to how much he can do in our favor (especially given his particular cabal of advisors and courtiers). Populists are good at getting elected to be sure, but running (and rigging) the state is something entirely different. The potential comes from President Trump’s nationalistic inclinations and experience as the executive of an organization. If ethno-nationalism is an extreme variant of civic nationalism, then whatever he does to move the country towards one moves it towards the other. But the movement must take place or else it remains pure speculation. Moreover, building a deep state is no easy task, let alone the cultural superstructure needed to eventually render it obsolete as a security measure. Executive actions are insufficient.

Continue reading

Posted in America, Ideology, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

The Dark Age

kek-kalki2

Just in case you didn’t notice, we do in fact live in a dark age. The Dark Age even. Capital letters, fam. Kali Yuga.

Everywhere that the golden light of Truth ought to be shining in glory, we are instead mired in the misery of our conditions, conditions which have persisted since time immemorial and which seem to only get worse. Conditions that blind us, conditions that warp us, conditions that force us to cope in ways we hardly think about anymore since we’ve become so accustomed to debasement. The world’s most fantastically wealthy society, in which men live with luxuries and wonders as those the ancients described their gods as having, is the most miserable and unhappy, the most inefficient at reproducing itself, and the most susceptible to destruction by both invading forces and internal rot.

Where did it all go wrong? Was it Obamacare? The sexual revolution of the 1960s? World War II? World War I? The French Revolution? The American Revolution? The English Civil War? The fall of Constantinople? The fall of Rome? The Bronze Age Collapse? Animal husbandry?

You didn’t choose to be born into this. You didn’t pick your family, your tribe, your race. You didn’t have a say in your upbringing. You didn’t really pick the people you’ve met along the way. You didn’t always believe what you believe now. You might like to think you had an awakening and discovered all of your principles in one flash of illumination and have kept them as diligently as the soldier at Pompeii, but you haven’t. And even had you kept them, you are just throwing yourself against the storm.

No one really wakes up one day and decides they want to participate in the eternal struggle for mastery. You are drafted and conscripted into it, and probably spend half the time doubting the whole thing. But that’s how having faith works. You doubt.

You shouldn’t be in this war. You cannot win this war. Your brothers are not who they say are. Why do you fight?

I don’t have all the answers. I just know there are those who want to destroy us because that’s what they’ve made it their lives’ work to do. They probably don’t know why either. You don’t know why. I know you have your theories; I have my theories. They don’t care about them. We’re both the same enemy to them, and knowing our differences is just a matter of tactics for them.

Oh sure, we can intellectualize it all, and explain all fancily with our neologisms and social commentary and analysis, but at the end of the day, you don’t really know what the hell is going on or how it got so bad, or really how to fix it. You’ve just got your theories, and thought you were supposed to have your allies.

Either you fight and win and pass the torch on to those closer to the end of the Dark Age, or you take it and burn everything down and lose, damning those coming after you to something worse.

Think about what you actually want. Decide what you stand for and who you stand with. When you essentially say that someone is corrupted by the Dark Age and cannot serve Truth in any capacity whatsoever, you could be talking about anyone. Yourself even. Because whatever it is that makes you think you’re holding the high ground, it isn’t nearly high enough. Victory has not arrived.

How do you get there? Do you get there by tearing down everyone reaching for it but falling short? Or do you stand against those trying to make sure you don’t reach it at all?

Do you believe we are faced with total destruction or not? The city is burning, so let’s debate the firefighters on whether or not they’ve got the best equipment for the job.

Posted in Meta | Tagged , , , | 24 Comments

Look at You, You’re the Fake News Now

sphere-chess.jpg

The meme war continues to twist and turn mere days into 2017, and Trump continues to ravage the left at trans-dimensional backgammon. I know, I know; ascribing Trump’s broadsides to 4-D chess is overused and generally a big-if-true kind of deduction, but hear me out.

The mainstream media came up with the “fake news” moniker to describe the horribly bad clickbait outlets that were posting sensationalized lies on real-ish sounding URLs during the 2016 election. For example, if you read that Hillary Clinton had been arrested from a site with a URL like abcnewsnow(.)com, and then proceeded to share it on Facebook and Twitter, you got pranked. A lot of low information conservatives, especially boomers, had a propensity for consuming fake news, and discrediting those blatantly false sources thus also served to discredit the politics of the people who were reading them.

Because perception matters more than reality, the ideology of those baited was ridiculed as something as stupid as its lowest-information followers. The meme became that Trump voters were a bunch of village idiots being fed a steady diet of fake news from Russian shills or something like that. But liberals expanded fake news to include just about anything conservatives believed about Clinton, terrorism, illegal immigration, etc. In doing so they created their own fake news mindset, where truth mattered far less than weaponized perceptions.

But those people lost; Trump won. And now he’s beginning to turn the screws on them. At his first press conference this year, he rejected the questioning of a mewling CNN reporter, labeling the outlet as “fake news.” The linguistic kill-shot has returned. Just as the patriots melted down statues of the king to make ammunition, Trump has taken the left’s memes away from them.

Continue reading

Posted in Politics | 12 Comments

Skinning the Invisible Knapsack, Part 4 of 5

conquistadors

Among schoolgoys, there is a rather vindictive prank one can do to a classmate who has left his backpack or bookbag unattended, known as skinning. The bag is emptied of its contents, turned inside out, and then zipped back up with all of its contents inside.

In 1988, Peggy McIntosh published one of the seminal works in the far-left dominated academic field which has come to be called “Whiteness Studies” in a number of circles. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” is an excerpt taken from a working paper produced by the women’s studies department of Wellesley College, and lists 50 “daily effects of white privilege” in the first-person perspective of the author from her experiences. Though McIntosh tried to cover herself by claiming her examples shouldn’t be generalized, her work is obviously not read that way in the identity politics dominated Obama years. If even some of these privileges existed in the 1980s, you would be hard pressed to find them now. A sacred text of the anti-white/third worldist/regressive left, Invisible Knapsack could use a good skinning. Here is a critical assessment of privileges 31-40.

  1. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

I see them spammed nonstop in the mainstream media. In fact, their opinions are given much more weight as authentic truth than anything someone with white or male or cishet privilege could produce. All major (and minor) Western universities go out of their way to both produce and emphasize these perspectives.

  1. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

If by my culture you mean the mainstream American public opinion that is tailored by a few dozen media outlets, then I am made aware very frequently how problematic it is to not submit to the moral authority of other tribes’ experiences.

  1. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.

Look if you are of a certain ethnicity and you eat food associated with that ethnicity you are going to have a specific body odor and people will correctly make the correlation. Deal with it. Oh and genetics has an influence on body type—so you can expect there to be racial and/or ethnic traits.

  1. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

I will be told I have a White savior complex, no matter how hard I cuck. I need to just shut up and listen, and do what I am told to the letter in order to be a “good” ally, i.e. a politically domesticated White person. On the other hand, if I don’t worry about racism, I am racist because silence is consent and I am collectively and congenitally guilty for not speaking out against it.

  1. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

Right, because I am literally ineligible for affirmative action programs, i.e. diversity hiring. Literally. As a White male I cannot be a diversity hire. No one would suspect I was hired for diversity purposes any more than they would suspect I am actually two chimps in a human costume. This doesn’t sound like an unearned privilege, it sounds like an undeserved penalty—that I am ineligible by birth for certain positions in the workplace. It’s on people of color to fight this “privilege,” not me.

  1. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.

I mean, there is an angry White male stereotype… and if you aren’t a kale-munching Democrat numale you are probably going to get people accusing you of it.

awm

  1. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.

Don’t even get me started on how every profession semi-skilled or higher has some kind of racial or ethnic umbrella organization or association, except for whitey. Working-class Whites get nothing—and the liberal theory is that we don’t need any kind of ethnocentric networking because apparently deracinated elite WASPs are going to hand us jobs for being White.

  1. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.

A better question would be to ask how much affirmative action you will get—zero if you are not part of a protected class. You can pick any industry or bureaucracy in the country and game their affirmative action program if you are eligible, and should they commit the odious transgression of not having one, make a big a stink about it until they cave. Because if anyone has the nerve to say that an x can’t do y in the current year, it will be an international incident.

  1. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.

This is true. But this is an earned stereotype as result of collective good behavior, which requires maintenance by individuals belonging to the in-group. Different cultures value time and the very concept of time differently; read about the folkways of the Puritan colonists if you don’t believe me, or the Mexican concept of the siesta. This is literally a thing—different peoples perceive and use time differently.

  1. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

Yes. We make the best tenants, guests, and customers. This is another earned stereotype. Sorry about that! We will try to be more of a nuisance from now on to level the playing field, since other groups seem to not care about collectively doing a better job.

The next time you see someone spouting anti-white nonsense about privilege, combine rhetoric with hatefacts and shut it down.

See also: PART 1, PART 2, PART3

Posted in Ideology | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Border Mindset

castelloplan_redraft-0

The particular borders of a state change over time. History bears witness to this process. Wars, invasions, annexations, revolutions, rebellions, collapses, and the like have confronted human attempts at territorial organization, probably since our earliest days. This area gets annexed to the crown, that area gets taken by invading forces, and that area all the way over there is de facto under our control since the local ruler obeys us. Borders expand and contract like the tide. In a sense, the fixity of borders is a lot like the concept of peace—it prevails in the absence of war but otherwise is a fantasy.

So yes, borders,in the sense of the exact delineations of state control over territory, fluctuate. But there is always a Border. Something separates the people of Territory A from Territory B in the hearts and minds of each respectively. Under ordinary conditions, each tribe has its turf, and has organized itself for the purposes of using, stewarding, and guarding that area. Such is the origin of the state, affectionately called one’s country. If a country doesn’t have a Border—a recognized distinction between its territorial population and foreigners—that means something has gone horribly wrong in the machinery of the state. The continuity of the freedom, liberty, and posterity of the nation are at risk. It could mean the army has been defeated in the field and the enemy has crossed into our land. It could mean the authorities tasked with perimeter defense are incapable of carrying out their duties, or unwilling to do so. It could mean a clique of traitors has opened the city gates. It could mean the country has lost its independence, and to speak of the Border would be anachronistic. But above all, the absence of the Border means that the inhabitants of the land (and their descendants) under the state have lost their claim of exclusivity to it. The tribe has, for all points and purposes, collapsed. Its territory is nullified and its people will be amalgamated or destroyed. The country is up for grabs (if it hasn’t already been taken possession of).

The borders can shift but if the Border is destroyed—if that distinction of one and land its people from other lands and peoples dissolves—the state ceases to meaningfully exist or possess territory for the use of its original people.

Continue reading

Posted in America, Ideology, Immigration | Tagged , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Has the Alt-Lite Embraced the [North American] New Right?

nrvor

Since the Alt-Right tends to be a little extreme for the average pro-Trump blogger or supplements salesman, the loose collection of civic nationalists and cultural libertarians we’ve taken to calling the Alt-Lite or Alt-RINOs has started grasping for a label to give itself. Lately that seems to be “New Right,” as opposed to what they presumably regard as the pre-Trump “Old Right,” i.e. (((neocons))) and cuckservatives.

Does anyone have the heart to tell them? Are the r/TheDonald crowd really ready to go out of the frying pan and into the gas chamber?

New Right is already in contemporary use, referring to Europe’s identitarian movement(s), as well as our local derivation, the North American New Right. Now, presumably these Alt-Lite types neither know what the New Right is nor care how the label is used by others. They’re not the most politically well-read people—many such cases!

Continue reading

Posted in Meta, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 24 Comments