Print this post Print this post

Inventions of a Lesser Kind

George Weinberg

1,559 words

Many if not most of the fixtures of our modern age that make life easier, less painful, and more enjoyable we possess because of some very smart, determined American men who decided to invent things that would improve the lives of their countrymen. Let me offer just one example: Charles Kettering from Dayton, Ohio, in the early years of the twentieth century, knew that there must be an easier, safer way to start an automobile than to stand in front of the car and crank a very stiff, metal handle that could accidentally snap back with enough force to break an arm or leg. Someone needed to figure it out. So, he put his formidable intelligence and considerable energy to the task and. . . voila, the electric starter. Only the very old among us now can recall the days before a simple turn of a key got your car started instead of a full-bodied, potentially hazardous “ordeal.” Kettering also invented the electric lights for automobiles that made driving at night much safer. 

The combination of Charles Kettering’s inventive genius and its contribution to the ease and safety in the lives of millions of people is a small part of a much larger story of American invention and its inventors — Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, the Wright Brothers — to name just a few of the greatest. There are many more lesser-known and recognized inventors. Early and mid-twentieth century inventors eased the lives of modest-means Americans with an explosion of labor-saving, modern appliances: electric washing machines and dryers, power lawn mowers, vacuum cleaners, and refrigerators, to name just a few. Air conditioning post-WWII made hot, hot, sticky places like Houston, Miami, St. Louis, and New Orleans more livable. 

American invention has, unfortunately, taken a different — shall we say, less ameliorative — turn. Today, our busiest, most “productive” inventors don’t come out of factories, laboratories, or machine shops. Unlike Charles Kettering, they are not exceptionally smart. Worse, their inventions don’t make anyone’s life any easier, safer, or more enjoyable. Thanks to them, our lives are more miserable. 

Where do they come from? Universities. What do they invent? Grievance vocabularies. These inventors are themselves the products of a late-twentieth-century invention known generically as the “Studies Curricula.” Here is sampling from the prestigious University of Michigan’s subject-majors that an undergraduate student can pay $18,000 a year in tuition and fees to pursue: Afroamerican and African Studies, Women’s and Gender Studies, Latina/Latino Studies, Social Class and Inequality Studies. My personal favorite, however, is Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Sexuality Studies. The “studies” you see listed here are replicated and multiplied in universities across the country from the elite/selective to the “We’ll accept anyone who can breathe and pay the tuition” bottom-rung. A patent search produced by alums from any of these programs would be, to put it kindly, highly disappointing. The graduates of these programs do, however, come away with a learned vocabulary of accusations, eviscerating invective, insults and slurs, and an in-your-face attitude they use to intimidate any unsuspecting bigots who might happen to stumble across their paths.

The post-1960s “studies curricula” is the epicenter of a deluge of unpatented inventions that are now part of daily American life. Generically, these inventions fall into the categories of “isms” and “phobias,” suffixes that become part of the labels we have all become painfully familiar with, labels that no one wants to be branded with. “Sexism,” “racism,” and “homophobia” are a mere sampling. They just keep coming. Most recently from the brainpower of a Queer Studies “researcher”: “transphobia”. “Transphobe” is a technical term for a parent who objects to his daughter being forced to share locker facilities with a guy who thinks he’s a girl.

You can buy Stephen Paul Foster’s novel Toward the Bad I Kept on Turning here.

Let’s select one of these established, highly successful inventions to illustrate how they work, “homophobia.” George Weinberg, a psychologist, is the inventor of record: he coined the term in the late 1960s. With the invention of “homophobia” in our midst we discovered — well, uncovered — “homophobes,” lots of them. Most of us, it would seem, at that time. Now, a dedicated social justice warrior might want to argue that Professor Weinberg merely devised a label to identify what had been in long existence. Not really. “Homophobia” is a weaponized ideological invention that masquerades as a diagnostic term for a defect in the mental health of people who themselves are perfectly healthy. “Homophobia” was invented to turn the disapproval of homosexuality into a pathological condition.

This was somewhat challenging, given that the disapproval of homosexuality is rooted broadly across most cultures with religious sanctions that reach back for millennia. A disapproving person can be an intelligent, rational interlocutor you can debate with and understand. To illustrate: “I love my son, but I disapprove of his homosexuality; it conflicts with my Christian beliefs.” This is completely understandable and rational. No hatred is expressed. The speaker is justifying his moral judgment of his son on religious grounds. Perhaps you, the other participant in this conversation, don’t share his religious beliefs. But you don’t (yet) get to dictate what religious doctrines are permissible and how they are to be interpreted. A phobia, on the other hand, is by definition irrational, a psychic impairment. Homophobes are not rational. They are sick. You don’t debate sick people. If they refuse treatment, you isolate them. 

People who attack physically homosexuals because they are homosexuals: Aren’t they homophobes? No. There is a more established word to describe them, one that everyone will agree upon: “criminals.”

There is a similar pattern with “Islamophobia,” a more recent invention. Given what we know about the fanaticism of certain Islamic sects, the violence against Christians, and the subjugation of women in many Islamic countries, is it not reasonable, based on self-interest, for Western people to resist large-scale immigration of people from Islamic countries? But disapproval of Islam, like that of homosexuality, has been converted into a “phobia.” An “Islamophobe” is a person in the grip of a pathological fear of Islam: rationally-based disapproval has been converted into a sickness. To repeat: you don’t debate sick people. You listen to them only to discern the “symptoms” of their illness so that they can be “cured.”

From phobias we move to the potent “isms.” There are a number of them, but the most important “ism”-invention is “racism.” It has a much longer and more complicated history than the recent phobia inventions. “Racist” began post-WWII as a word to describe the beliefs of the defeated National Socialists in Germany. It quickly migrated and attached itself to American segregationists and then more broadly to white Americans who discriminated against black Americans. It barely paused. “Racism” has now moved beyond a belief that one might hold. All white Americans simply by virtue of being white are considered to be “racists.” It’s in “our DNA,” as former President Obama so eloquently put it. “Racism” even infects inanimate objects like statues, monuments, and twenty-dollar bills. 

“Racism,” however, has begun to run out of gas. No white person in his right mind wants to be a “racist.” It’s not good for your career, your social standing, or your reputation. White people now go out of their way to strenuously deny that they are racists if only to remain employed. So: we’ve arrived at a point where “racism” is everywhere, yet no white person can be found who even under torture would admit to being “a racist.” Such a conundrum demands a creative solution: thus, “systemic racism,” an invention that gives new meaning to chutzpah.

With “systemic racism,” what white people think or say about being racists doesn’t matter an iota. “Racism”, whether they realize it or not, is a heritage thing. Their white, slave-owning, European ancestors put the “system” in place, a system that incidentally continues to attract “people of color” from all over the world. No matter. Whites exclusively benefit from it — “white privilege” — which makes them racists. It’s the entire system, not individuals, that is to blame, which is why their European heritage is under assault and its cultural symbols are being erased. Its descendants bearing their “whiteness” are collectively pronounced guilty of hatred and bigotry that is mysteriously expressed by voting for a black man to be their President and making a martyr out of a black career criminal, a violent one, who died while resisting arrest. 

So, I conclude with several questions to ponder. Which of these two inventors has made America a happier, safer more enjoyable place to live: Charles Kettering or George Weinberg? How do the “inventions” from the university grievance factories make our lives better and America more of a friendly community? How long will it take for white people to wake up and figure out that “systemic racism” is only going to get worse and the blame for it will fall like a fury on their diminishing posterity? 

If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive.

Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.



  1. Peter
    Posted February 10, 2021 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    While all that is true… still the most blatant aspect for me is: people don´t fight back. I blame much more all these normal Whites who don´t fight back rather than the thugs who promote these schemes.

    Another thought at reading the article… maybe someone can finally explain to me, regarding this favorite rightist subject: homosexuality, and more precisely: “disapproval of homosexuality” : WHY… is it necessary to disapprove of something that is, at least for me, disgusting and repelling? You have to disapprove of behavior that is possibly harmful but ATTRACTIVE like e.g. drinking. There´s this tired trope that critics of homosexuality are themselves secret homosexuals but… YOU suggest that you find homosexuality attractive by finding it necessary to DISAPPROVE of it ! Otherwise you would say, it´s disgusting and repelling and you don´t want to be confronted with it.

    For whom here is homosexuality secretly attracitve? I really would like to know… maybe I´m missing something and somehow many men find homosexuality attractive while I always assumed that they feel, like me, that it´s disgusting and repelling?

    • Broseph
      Posted February 11, 2021 at 2:41 am | Permalink

      The whole “ you must be secretly attracted to men because of your revulsion towards homosexuals” is just another jiujitsu move designed to silence criticism. I’ve heard it time and again, usually accompanied by the declaration that “all” the biggest critics of homosexuality in public life turn out to be closeted homosexuals.

      • Peter
        Posted February 11, 2021 at 6:16 am | Permalink

        You have not read, or not understood, my argumentation.

        • Memebro
          Posted February 11, 2021 at 9:52 am | Permalink

          So, by your logic, does disapproval of miscegenation mean that you actually find it attractive? I’m simply replacing “homosexuality” with “miscegenation”.

          I disagree with your basic premise.

          I find eating Brussels sprouts to be disgusting. Also, eating most any insect is repulsive and foul. However, I do not necessarily think that the solution is to decree laws that prohibit the consumption of such items. It is enough, for me, to simply encourage a culture that is disapproving of eating insects and to decline Brussels sprouts whenever they are offered to me.

          Am I AGAINST having laws that ban insects as food, or the consumption of Brussels sprouts? Not necessarily. I do, however, think it is appropriate to debate and investigate the issue, and if it can be shown that ingesting these items is harmful, in a meaningful way, even if it is simply broadly harmful to a decaying society, then perhaps such a ban should be considered.

          The same goes with homosexuality and miscegenation. Like it or not, we live in a world where there are homosexuals and people of color. We are forced to live among them. Sometimes, as is the case of homosexuality, it might even be a loved one who is gay, and we might not want our child locked in a prison for the “crime” of following impulses. Is homosexuality harmful for society? I would argue that it is, but I’m not sure that criminalizing it was ever the answer.

          There are, however, cultural things that are wholly appropriate to discourage such practices. They worked for a very long time. There are even regulatory things that can keep such practices minimized. Not allowing a deluge of gay references in pop culture (decency laws) and allowing people to publicly express contempt for the practice without losing their job…these are just a few ways that the practice and culture was kept “under control” for a very long time.

          Am I wholly against laws that ban homosexual behavior? No. But I also don’t lie awake worrying about it at night. I’m more apt to think that there are ways to discourage it without criminalizing it.

          None of these comments indicate any kind of fondness or attraction to homosexuality. They indicate a broader concern for the overall direction that I think a healthy, sane society can be guided without creating an overly militant and intrusive culture.

          P.S. you WILL see me consistently hold opinions that are critical of degenerate behaviors. But I’ll always have just enough libertarian in me to stop short of criminalizing every little thing that I’m repulsed by.

          • Peter
            Posted February 11, 2021 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

            The word “disapprove” implies both a)attractive and b)harmful. That is my premise. I deem that as indisputable, otherwise we don´t speak the same language.
            The article explicitly says: “disapproval of homosexuality”, so it says that homosexuality is both a)attractive and b)harmful.
            So why do “rightists” deem homosexuality as attractive? To whom, to how many? If it´s only attractive to few: how is this then one of the pivotal primary subjects of “rightists”? If it´s attractive to many: where are these many? I have not come across a great many homosexuals.
            Why, how, is it harmful? If it´s only few homos, it has no effect, if there are many homos: are we supposed to think that these many homos all force themselves to be hetero so that´s why I don´t see any homos? The argumentation just doesn´t make any sense, and that casts a shadow on other issues that are represented by the “Right”.

            So far I have no answers to:
            -to how many males is male homosexuality attractive
            -what is the harm of male homosexuality

    • Vehmgericht
      Posted February 11, 2021 at 7:46 am | Permalink

      I don’t think there is anything wrong with homosexuality per se. Many great persons, admired on this site, from Plato to A. E. Housman, have been homosexual.

      However I think that there is a lot wrong with the contemporary ‘gay’ culture, construed as a mixture of debauch and Marxian liberation struggle, and in particular that we are enjoined to approve of it at risk to our livelihoods and reputations.

      Let us not therefore confound the former with the latter, but rather follow the Greeks and Romans in accepting an irreducible aspect of human nature.

  2. Chi Mpanzee
    Posted February 11, 2021 at 2:24 am | Permalink

    I must be a Wein&/orBerg-phobe

  3. White Asian Mulatto
    Posted February 11, 2021 at 3:15 am | Permalink

    Not an ism or phobia, but “Hispanic” is clearly one of their most successful inventions. Even those who should know better use it because it’s popular and well known, as opposed to the accurate but normy-brow-furrowing “mestizo.” I would love to know the history of the Census Bureau’s adoption of this term and its infamous accompanying footnote “Can be of any race.” Who came up with that? Who approved it?

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace