2,091 words
Jewish comedian Jackie Mason once made an interesting point during a Q&A routine he did at the National Press Club back in 1993. He said that black people are like women. What did he mean by that? Not that blacks are weak or feminine in any way, but that both blacks and women (or, feminists, really) have a tendency to dictate how white men can speak to them. For example, if a white man calls a feminist a girl, or a Miss, that’s sexist. Why? Because feminists say so. Further, if a white calls a black a Negro (or, in Mason’s case, a schwartze), that’s racist. Why? Because the blacks say so. Of course, there are epithets that are always offensive: “bitch” and “nigger” are the two most obvious examples. What Mason was touching on, however, was how feminists and blacks constantly redefine what’s offensive – not due to any objective measure, but due to their own political agendas. This amounts to speech policing.
Mason, of course, was annoyed by this. Even more annoying was how he failed to mention that Jews are guilty of the same thing: always looking for anti-Semitism where there may or may not be any. Ever use the word “globalist” in a negative way? Guess what? You’re an anti-Semite. And it doesn’t matter if you say you’re an anti-Semite. It matters if they say you’re an anti-Semite. There is no benefit of the doubt given. It’s the same with blacks and feminists. The anti-male freakshow that was the Brett Kavanaugh hearing in November 2018 speaks for itself. Remember also the white Washington, DC staffer who used the word “niggardly” correctly in a sentence twenty years ago? Yeah, he was condemned as a racist by ignorant blacks who didn’t know the word’s Scandinavian origin or that it means “stingy.” A niggard, after all, is a stingy person.
In a sense, however, Mason was more correct than he realized. This kind of behavior is womanly – but in a bad sense. It’s basically petulance projected from a position of weakness. It’s self-centered, mean-spirited whining, and an attempt to gain influence without earning it. I believe most white men have a distaste for such behavior because it is not honest and it celebrates mediocrity. It’s also cowardly because it promotes belligerence without any formal declaration of hostilities. Furthermore, it chafes against the First Amendment and other Enlightenment principles that some of us still cling to in our less-enlightened age. If we have a God-given right to freedom of speech, then we have a right to be given the benefit of the doubt when we use the English language correctly. Sometimes a niggard is just a niggard.
But white men do not have freedom of speech these days, and we are never given the benefit of the doubt. We constantly cede the initiative to feminists and non-whites whenever we let them henpeck us into defensive measure such as apologizing for speech transgressions, arguing our innocence in good faith, or, even worse, self-censoring. The recent Steve King debacle in Congress shows that this is getting worse, not better.
Dealing with such abuse requires a paradigm shift that – so far – few white men are willing to make. Instead of bemoaning this state of affairs as unjust and wondering why the rest of the world can’t act like them, white men should recognize this as the new normal and start taking up some of these cowardly weapons for themselves.
I don’t like it, either. If it’s any consolation, we can attribute all this unpleasantness to the emancipation of Jews and blacks, and the advent of feminism, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This sort of thing became inevitable once these people were granted the same political rights as white men. Most Jews, blacks, and feminists can’t change their behavior, and it would be stupid of us to ask them to do so. Further, the power of the racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic charges are real. They can and have ruined lives; therefore we must take them seriously.
As the West becomes more feminized and more non-white, white men are rapidly approaching a fork in the road. Continuing along the path of race-blind civic nationalism will only lead to oblivion, since it does little to resist the leftward lurch of progress. This is tantamount to following gentlemanly rules of engagement, while feminist and non-white identity groups leech power and influence from white men by any means necessary. We must stop pretending that these groups are acting in good faith and recognize speech policing for what it is: an attempt to attain power and influence without having to earn them. It’s racist against whites, it’s sexist against men, and it is every bit as vicious and oppressive as its proponents claim white men to be. If we keep playing by the rules that blacks, Jews, and feminists lay down for us, white men will ultimately be powerless in their own countries and in their own homes.
Of course, white men could simply stop at this fork and do nothing. Despite the famous MGTOW logo, this is, in effect, what Men Going Their Own Way are doing: they are opting out of history. By encouraging men not to have children and stay home to lick their wounds, they are essentially giving up the struggle. It’s tempting to do this, especially after being victimized by a feminized legal system which often affords more rights to wives and mothers than to husbands and fathers. But giving up only hastens the leftward trip to oblivion for those men who don’t want to capitulate to the Left, or who are lucky enough to have married well. Hardly an acceptable solution – one that contradicts the fighting spirit that most white men possess, and have possessed for millennia.
Taking a right turn at this juncture would be optimal. This would ultimately entail the historic motion of breaking off from the declining West and reestablishing white ethnostates. Modes of government could then be formed which correspond better to human nature than the ones we have today. This sounds great, of course, and should be the end goal for any racially aware white person. However, this option is fraught with risk and likely will require a hot war or tremendous repressive measures to achieve. This is not to say that white men should give up on ever forming an ethnostate, but that we should recognize that we are not ready to do so just yet. And what can we do today to get ready for an ethnostate tomorrow? We can start by resisting the leftward pull of history. This will hasten the break and give us the greatest chance of success. After all, with the way things are changing demographically in the West, fighting for a white ethnostate in 2040, when whites will still make up around fifty percent of the population, will be a lot easier than doing it in 2080, when we will make up thirty percent or less. Since speech-policing white men is one of the Left’s primary measures of preventing this struggle from ever happening, this is what white men should resist most of all today.
“Resist,” however, is the operative word. One can say that Representative Steve King “resisted” the smears of the Left by proclaiming his innocence. According to him, the quotes attributed to him by The New York Times were incorrect and taken out of context. The Times claimed he said, “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization – how did that language become offensive?”, thereby insinuating that such language shouldn’t be offensive. King later explained that there should have been a period, not a dash after “white supremacist.” His implication was that while the labels “white nationalist” or “white supremacist” certainly are offensive (and often unfairly ascribed to conservatives), “Western civilization” should never be.
So did this “resistance” work? Of course not. King was unanimously slammed in Congress. Republican leadership removed him from all committee assignments. And, in an absurd move, Congress passed a resolution condemning “white nationalism and white supremacy as hateful expressions of intolerance.”
Apparently, to say that white men are guilty until proven innocent would be giving too much credit to our enemies. They have no intention of establishing our innocence at all.
Imagine that between the leftward and rightward courses in this upcoming fork is an impassable cliff. In no way can the present direction be maintained once we reach this fork. Whites will ultimately have to choose either the left (i.e., capitulation to “progress” as envisioned by our enemies, which will amount to demographic suicide) or right (i.e., the establishment of ethnostates which will guarantee our survival). There will be no middle ground. When defensively resisting speech policing by the anti-white Left, people like Steve King are not pulling us closer to the rightward path. They are trying to keep us on the present civic nationalist course, a course that, uncoincidentally, concurs with many mainstream interpretations of Christianity. Such a strategy exudes weakness since it is not the strongest one we have at our disposal, and further, it fails to acknowledge the rude impact we have waiting for us if we think that civic nationalism will save us in the end.
The best way to avoid the oblivion of the leftward course and going splat against this impassible cliff is to adopt the Left’s favored method of demographic warfare: speech policing. We must do unto them as they do unto us. Had Steve King and the Republican establishment responded to censure from the Left by decrying the anti-white racism of the Times and attacking the Democrats for saying racist things themselves, whites across the country would be freer to speak our minds about what’s plaguing our culture these days – and how can we solve problems without even being able to talk about them?
But this still isn’t enough. Whites shouldn’t merely wait for attacks from our enemies before springing into action. We should also aggressively hunt for signs of anti-white racism among our enemies and ding them for it. Every. Single. Time. We need to proactively police their speech. We need to constantly redefine what’s offensive to white people based on no other criterion than what’s best for us at any given time. To do this, we must find the kind of epithet that Jackie Mason was complaining about. Sure, there are the obvious ones like “cracker” and “redneck.” But our most powerful enemies will not resort to such crude attacks. They will veil their anti-white racism with other epithets, ones that can be quite deadly if used properly.
And what epithet do they use most often? Nazi. The other N word.
“Nazi” is the perfect weapon to use against white identitarians, since it galvanizes the Jews, who are the brains and money behind the Democratic Party. It also reminds the present generation of whites of whom their ancestors fought against in the Second World War. Nothing says “enemy” better than Nazi. Labeling someone a Nazi (or, more accurately, “nazi”) who has no affiliation with real Nazis and doesn’t parade around with Nazi paraphernalia not only permanently stifles that person’s voice in his own country, it also opens the door for all sorts of discrimination and abuse to be leveled against him, including violence. But since the vast majority of the people being called nazis these days are not Nazis, we can draw the conclusion that this epithet is not honest in the same way that a redneck does not need to have a red neck in order to deserve such an insult. No, “nazi” is nothing less than a racial slur designed to intimidate and oppress white people, white men most of all. It’s basically “nigger,” but for white people. Anyone who calls a white person a nazi because he is racially aware suggests that all racially aware whites are Nazis. This is tantamount to saying that racially aware whites should have no rights at all, while racially aware members of other races should.
That is racist.
If we are serious about resisting the Left and ultimately splitting off into ethnostates, we need to start using the same weapons the Left uses against us. This means blasting Leftist individuals and institutions every time the N word leaves their lips or pens. And that happens a lot. If we can start suing people on this basis, all the better.
And if anyone ever asks why such an epithet is so offensive, we should respond by saying “because we say it is.” That is all the reason we will ever need.
Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.
11 Comments
Embrace the words they call us instead or simply laugh them off. Once a word is used enough it loses all meaning anyways and they will never understand or sympathise with the “oppressors”(white males) plights. While whatever legit victimhood we would even have would still come below their own. Also even men including many white men today are childish,dependent,complacent and feminized and let this happen. We need a complete cultural overhaul in the West.
If we laugh off “Nazi”, it makes us weaker because we no longer have that as a rallying mechanism. The goal is to have trigger words like the Left does.
“Laughing off “Nazism”. “Nazism” is not a laughing matter from any point of view.
In my experience the only persons who are abused as “Nazis” are high-profile, public campaigners for White Nationalism, and such types should have the gumption and confidence in their cause to respond to their politicised opponents, that the allegation that the “Nazis”, that is the Germans, in the WWII murdered millions of Jews is nothing but the propaganda-lies of the British and US governments attempting to justify their Second World War.
Spencer J. Quinn writes of the Other N Word, “If we are serious about resisting the Left …”, then this is how to break the power of their words.
Looking around at age seventy-four, no siblings and no progeny – i.e.: as last of my bloodline – I think that at this writing, White Nationalism is a bridge too far. Yes, coalescence into our own ethnopoleis will happen, but not yet.
Think of the time, heat, and pressure required to produce a diamond as an analogy. Yes, this can be artificially replicated, and the socio-political analogs to the process are definitely existent phenomena today — but as yet in insufficient (though growing) force to create this coalescence.
When I and my cohort were growing up, the out-front order of the day was constitutional patriotism on a base of civic nationalism. This has been overtaken by events.
I like this article because it concludes that the only way forward is separation, which in America starts with a campaign for Partition.
Then a caveat is introduced: “we should recognize that we are not ready to do so just yet”
That is why we leverage the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which is what this language policing is based on, and use it to our advantage. In every possible opportunity or venue, just push one word: Partition. Do it for a year, then 2020 is “framed” favorably as a referendum on which side of the dividing line you wish to be behind.
First say, then do. Don’t cry that you can never do if you never say.
Remember also the white Washington, DC staffer who used the word “niggardly” correctly in a sentence twenty years ago?
Oddly, I was thinking about this episode a few days ago.
At the time of the white staffer’s verbal offense, he likely thought to himself that “niggardly” was a somewhat impressive-sounding word, more elevated than “cheap” or “stingy.” He didn’t hear “nigger” when he said “niggardly.” If he had, he wouldn’t have spoken it.
It’s unlikely that any white person speaking in a public space would make the same mistake today.
“Niggardly” must now be close to linguistic oblivion, simply because ignorant blacks are liable to complain angrily that “niggardly” sounds like “nigger,” and docile whites have learned that any word that resembles “nigger” must not be spoken. That “niggardly” and “nigger” have much different meanings is irrelevant.
Over time an informal rule has been established: Any word that might make a black person angry cannot be spoken by a white person, even if the source of the black person’s anger is his own ignorance. A white speaker must take the ignorance of black listeners into account before he speaks.
The anglosphere will survive the loss of “niggardly”; but the rule that brought about its demise is quite incredible. The worst liberal circa 1960 would have laughed at it.
Well said.
Reason number one million-something why diversity means we can’t have nice things.
Write some more for us, Irmin. We miss you.
Offended-black episodes can be both depressing and funny. Here’s one of my personal favorites, from 2008:
A special meeting about Dallas County traffic tickets turned tense and bizarre this afternoon.
County commissioners were discussing problems with the central collections office that is used to process traffic ticket payments and handle other paperwork normally done by the JP Courts.
Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections “has become a black hole” because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.
Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud “Excuse me!” He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a “white hole.”
That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.
[…]
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas-city-hall/2008/07/07/dallas-county-meeting-turns-ra
Video below, where you can see apparently competent whites having to deal with obviously incompetent blacks:
Black Holes are Racist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu2rluUb8ck
Kenneth Mayfield thought he could allude in public to the popular understanding that material can enter a black hole and never come out. It seemed a vivid and erudite way to describe an unexciting real-world problem: Paperwork was going into an office and apparently disappearing, just as spaceships and intrepid astronauts can disappear into black holes in SF stories.
We can be sure that Mayfield won’t make the same mistake twice. In the presence of negroes, any knowledge in his head about black holes will never again emerge from his mouth.
Well Irmin, Spencer the Junger must have tapped into some sort of synchronicity: I too just yesterday stumbled upon a reference to the David Howard affair in a totally random way–was the last thing on my mind. It’s worth exploring this watershed moment in the culture wars:
“On January 15, 1999, David Howard, an aide to Anthony A. Williams, the mayor of Washington, D.C., used “niggardly” in reference to a budget.This apparently upset one of his black colleagues identified by Howard as Marshall Brown, who misinterpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. As a result, on January 25, Howard tendered his resignation, and Williams accepted it.
“However, after public pressure, an internal review into the matter was brought about, and the mayor offered Howard the chance to return to his position as Office of the Public Advocate on February 4. Howard refused but accepted another position with the mayor instead, insisting that he did not feel victimized by the incident. On the contrary, Howard felt that he had learned from the situation. “I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind; that’s naïve, especially for a white person, because a white person can’t afford to be colorblind. They don’t have to think about race every day. An African American does.””
LOL thus does whitey turn rank cowardice into a virtue. Thus does whitey forfeit his native language to the prerogatives of black illiteracy.
Interestingly many liberals, even Julian Bond leader of the NAACP lined up in defense of the word:
“You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people’s lack of understanding”, he said. “David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back—and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them.”Bond also said, “Seems to me the mayor has been niggardly in his judgment on the issue” and that as a nation the US has a “hair-trigger sensibility” on race that can be tripped by both real and false grievances.””
Consider all that–finally in 1999– the dying breath of the terminally ill MLK myth. Only a few status-seeking whites or conveniently deluded jews believe that b.s. now
Read all about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22#David_Howard_incident
Offense implies violation of the social code. Whether something is perceived as offensive depends on the nature of the relationship between the parties and the context. You can say things to your brother or a buddy that you wouldn’t say to a stranger because there’s an established relationship of trust and confidence. Between racial groups there is invariably a low level of trust and confidence and therefore people tend to be quick to take offense. Blacks and Whites are so utterly different and have such an uncomfortable history together that I think there’s unlikely to ever be anything close to a high level of trust between the two groups. So to a large extent the problem is irreconcilable.
People also take offense at uncomfortable truths. An ugly person may be aware of their ugliness but will prefer not to have this fact mentioned. This allows for some level of self-deception. Blacks living in a white society tend to come up well short of white standards and at some level they must be aware of this.
Lastly, blacks long ago figured out that cries of offense and racism are like a magic button for gibs, concessions, and getting out of trouble. The moment whites stop responding to this, that will cut down this strategic whining which I suspect is a big proportion of the total volume.
The situation with women is somewhat different. With racial problems, the most natural solution is to minimize contact. That isn’t really an option with women. The causes are also a bit different. Women tend to be conformist and are very status conscious and prone to social signalling. Now that a substantial fraction of white women have absorbed a very toxic set of destructive values, things have been spiraling out of control. This problem is partly social, partly economic. Improve male wages, defund the bloated female-dominated economic sectors, and promote affordable family formation. Once men reassert themselves and the women should fall in line.
A good first step on both the race and sex fronts would be to shut down the incessant subversive propaganda and replace it with a pro-social propaganda. Our enemies our currently the ones setting the agenda, and it’s impossible to have a functional society without some understanding of the common interest and some mechanism for identifying problems and addressing them. We have many serious problems but for some strange reason the NY and DC media Jews don’t ever want to talk about those and in fact go to great efforts to cover them up and punish people who do talk about them. They do however want to talk incessantly about non-problems like gay marriage, transgender rights, the gender wage gap, and police bias.
Blacks: By Any Means Necessary
Jews: Buy Any Means Necessary
Whites: Bye Any Means