Counter-Currents
Robert Jensen
3,414 words
Robert Jensen is an archetypal Leftist academic: a feminist, an anti-capitalist, an anti-imperialist, and someone who belivies in institutional racism. He was denouncing “white privilege” well before doing so became fashionable, and his feminism is of the radical variety, at odd’s with today’s wishy-washy “girl boss” posturing. I read his book Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity as a teenager, and was impressed that unlike most conservative critics of porn, Prof. Jensen had actually done his homework. He interviewed people who worked in porn, and went through the gruesome task of watching the stuff in order to better understand it. Last week, he agreed to let me interview him via e-mail. We discussed, among other things, foreign policy, global fertility rates, and of course America’s favorite drug.
Hubert Collins: You are best known for your work covering two issues: pornography and racism. What I find interesting is that your views about race and racism have entered the mainstream. In 2005, when you published your book The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege, very few people outside of academia discussed or were even aware of the concept of “white privilege.” Everybody knows about it now, and even presidential candidates talk about it. Similarly, you criticized sports teams using American Indian names in the early nineties. That was not a common opinion back then, but today, teams are renaming themselves.
Meanwhile, your body of work on porn has not really gone anywhere (no offense). While it’s easy to find articles and TED talks about pornography’s harmfulness, our culture is absolutely saturated in it. The percentage of all web searches that relate to porn is in the double digits. In the 1980s and 2000s, Republican attorneys general prosecuted pornography. In the 2010s, there was a Republican President whose past dalliances with a porn performer were publicly known.
What do you think accounts for the difference in influence between your work’s two main subjects?
Robert Jensen: First, it’s important to acknowledge that my writing on whiteness and racism from the 1990s and early 2000s was not particularly original. W. E. B. Du Bois’ The Souls of White Folk was published in 1901, and James Baldwin’s essays on whiteness came in the early 1960s. Peggy McIntosh’s essay on white privilege was in 1989, and David Roediger’s book Wages of Whiteness came out in 1991. American Indian groups were organizing against Native nicknames and mascots in the 1970s. It’s not false modesty to point out I was following others.
I also have written a lot about pornography, anchored in the radical feminist critique, and there I’ve been following the work of women such as Andrea Dworkin. I hope I have contributed something distinctive to that analysis, but by the time I started writing, women had been developing the critique for 20 years.
That said, you’re right about the feminist anti-pornography movement not gaining the traction in the mainstream in the same way that anti-racist ideas have in the same period. In fact, the feminist challenge to the sexual-exploitation industries (pornography, prostitution, stripping, massage parlors) has lost ground, not only in mainstream culture but in liberal and postmodern feminist circles. Much of the political Left embraces the “sex work” analysis, which legitimates that sexual exploitation, even though such support goes against Left analysis and principles. And, of course, we’ve watched religious conservatives support a presidential candidate who had an affair with a pornography performer and who more generally embraces the sexual objectification of women.
Why the difference? One is that the pornography industry has successfully used technology that makes it easier and cheaper for people to access sexually explicit material, leading many people to think there’s nothing we can do about the problem. But I think the deeper reason is that patriarchy — institutionalized male dominance, anchored in men’s claim of a right to control women’s sexuality and reproductive power — has been woven so deeply into the fabric of everyday life for so long that it’s extremely hard to dislodge. Patriarchy, which is thousands of years old, has proved to be a particularly tenacious system of social control.
HC: So is that to say that sexual hierarchies are more entrenched in society than racial hierarchies?
RJ: I would say entrenched differently, and in some ways more vexing. One aspect of this is the support for patriarchy by some women, which I think is more common than support for white supremacy among non-white people. Some non-white people cut deals with white supremacy, of course, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone who wasn’t white say, “Yes, I believe white people really are smarter.” But a significant number of women will say, “Yes, I believe men should be in charge.”
You Can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
I don’t pretend to fully understand these dynamics. But at the core, patriarchy is about reproduction (a central drive for any organism) and sexuality (a powerful force in our lives). White supremacy shapes some reproductive and sexual policies, but it is not as centrally about those questions. White supremacy emerged out of struggles for control of resources and coerced labor, and the quest for wealth is also a powerful motivator. But it’s different than a hierarchy rooted in reproduction and sexuality, and bound to play out differently.
None of this means that patriarchy is always more salient than white supremacy in understanding human suffering. In many situations, racism can be a more powerful force than sexism, and vice versa. And these systems interact and reinforce each other. Life is too complex to come up with equations that explain and predict.
HC: Racial stereotypes and pornography are indelibly linked, and you’ve written about that as well. Your focus is generally about how black men are portrayed as animalistic, primitive, and insatiable beasts in the very popular “interracial” genre that is overwhelmingly black men and white women. You’ve noted that this genre is popular with white men, and not just black men as is commonly assumed, making it akin to a modern minstrel show. Having worked the cash register at more than one place that rents porn, I can say two things about this: First, yes, many white men rent these videos, which I always found incredible; and second, many black men also rent these videos, and it was quite clear that they found them empowering, not demeaning. I imagine many black men find the same “racial catharsis” in these videos that they find in rap music that spits invective at police and whites or non-pornographic revenge films such as Django Unchained. What would you say to blacks who enjoy this type of pornography?
RJ: The porn producers I interviewed all said that the “black on white” pornography (black men having sex with white women) is made with the assumption that most viewers will be white men. But your suggestion about why black men might find it arousing makes sense as well. A niche market created for one group can also appeal to another group for different reasons.
My friend Gail Dines is the first person who explained to me that if the core appeal of pornography is the sexual denigration of women, then it’s not surprising that white men might find the racialized sexual denigration of women exciting. The same point goes for what Gail calls “pseudo-child pornography” that uses young-looking women — those over the age of 18, but who look younger — to simulate adult exploitation of teenagers. This was Andrea Dworkin’s key insight: Pornographers sexualize domination and subordination. They use every hierarchy that exists to intensify the sexual charge.
HC: Would you be willing to say that interracial pornography demeans white people as well? I get that talking about “reverse racism” isn’t exactly your beat, but the white women in interracial porn are almost always portrayed as bimbos who cannot resist the forbidden black fruit, and often talk openly about how white men are uniformly sexually incompetent, being just a bunch of nerds and weaklings. Some of the most brutal interracial porn, such as the popular White Trash Whore series, depicts whites through an even more demeaning lens: As a bunch of ignorant, poor, and incestuous hicks.
RJ: First, I would say that in some basic sense, pornography demeans everyone. It typically portrays women as objectified bodies that exist primarily for male sexual pleasure. It routinely portrays men as amoral sociopaths who value their sexual pleasure over the health and welfare of others. Second, the use of “white trash” stereotypes in pornography and more generally is not reverse racism but rather a consequence of white supremacy and capitalism. Black people didn’t invent the idea of white trash; higher-status white people did. White supremacy, like patriarchy, is a system that tries to naturalize hierarchy, and that plays out in complex ways. Wealthy white people created hierarchies within whiteness as a vehicle for controlling poor and working-class white people.
I have argued that people who get labeled “white trash” should reject the “white” and embrace the “trash” — that is, reject the pathology of white supremacy and embrace solidarity with other marginalized people to challenge concentrated wealth and power. In that sense, I think of myself as white trash.
HC: Along with other observers, you’ve talked about how pornography is constantly getting more extreme — another thing I can confirm from having rented out the stuff. You memorably quipped, “Even pornographers acknowledge that they can’t imagine what comes after all this. One industry veteran told me that everything that could be done to a woman’s body had been filmed.” Do you have any guesses as to what comes next? I used to wonder about this myself, and could never come up with anything.
RJ: Most pornographers likely would have no moral qualms about increasing the level of overt violence in their material, but they worry that going too far would spark a cultural backlash and risk legal repercussions, which puts profits at risk. They have pushed the culture further than anyone could have predicted 30 years ago, when I first started writing about this. But pornography producers fear there is a tipping point, beyond which resistance will intensify. The negative reaction to media coverage of Pornhub’s illegal use of girls is an example. The industry had to back down a bit. Meanwhile, while the “legitimate” pornography industry calculates these risks, others are uploading all sorts of overtly violent porn, revenge porn, rape porn. And there remains a more secretive trade in child sexual abuse materials (what we used to call child pornography), which is clearly illegal. Where will all this lead? It’s hard to predict, but I’m sorry to say that I don’t think we’ve reached the end of this process of sexualizing cruelty and degradation.
HC: Do you think pornography can be eradicated? To what extent should the legal system play a role in making porn hard to get?
RJ: Gail Dines points out that we are in the midst of the largest unregulated social science experiment in history: What happens when you raise a generation with easy access to sexist and racist hardcore pornography, starting when children are not yet emotionally and sexually mature? The simple answer is, “bad things happen.” As radical feminists have argued for decades, the current regulatory system of criminal obscenity law is a failure. In the 1980s, feminists proposed a civil-rights approach that would take power away from the state and put it in the hands of the people harmed by the production and use of pornography. With modifications, I think that approach could be useful. But given the nature of Internet technology and the current cultural support for the sexual-exploitation industries, it’s hard to imagine law making much of a dent, at least in the short term.
HC: That’s probably enough about porn. You’re a staunch opponent of American military intervention. Do you think the anti-war Left and the anti-war Right will ever be able to work together to effectively fight the bellicose alliance between Wilsonian liberalism and neoconservatism? As a teenager, I loved this idea, but these days, not so much. I think Paul Gottfried makes a strong case for doubt in his 2010 article, “Is a Left-Right Antiwar Coalition Possible?”
RJ: I want to be clear that I’m an opponent of the use of United States military power to extend US dominance. That is, I’m against imperialism. It’s possible to imagine the use of an international military force, of which the US military could be a part, to prevent a humanitarian disaster in some part of the world. But no US military operation in my lifetime (I was born in 1958) has been motivated by such a goal.
It’s plausible that in some other historical moment, the Left and some elements on the Right could have cooperated to challenge imperialism. But given the deeply reactionary and irrational nature of the current dominant Right-wing groups in US politics, it’s difficult to imagine collaboration. The Left could, however, reach out to conservative people — understood as different from anti-democratic Right-wing political forces — with an anti-militarism message that is part of a larger appeal for creating a decent, sustainable society.
HC: I’m a bit surprised by this claim. I’ve found that nearly all left-of-center people view NATO’s intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s as humanitarian. Why don’t you?
RJ: The conflicts after the breakup of Yugoslavia were complex, and there were times that US and NATO forces prevented more killing. But I said “motivated” by humanitarian goals, and it’s hard to argue that was the case, as the United States sought to solidify its dominance after the fall of the Berlin Wall, what George H. W. Bush called the project of creating “a new world order” after the Cold War.
Here you will find a difference between the liberals of the Democratic Party, who usually supported President Clinton’s policy, and more critically-minded Leftists, who generally did not. That’s a familiar pattern: Democrats often object to Republican-initiated conflicts but fall in line behind a Democratic administration (and vice versa), while the Left maintains a principled critique of imperialism. The 1999 US bombing of Yugoslavia is an example. Calling it a NATO operation didn’t make it legal, and the claim that it prevented genocide is, to say the least, dubious.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
I don’t want to suggest that every politician is crass and supports policies only to expand and solidify US power. There have been people in Congress who consistently opposed militarism, for example. And in theory, what has become known as the “Responsibility to Protect” is a sound idea for a collective obligation to protect vulnerable populations. But in practice, it is applied according to the cynical interests of powerful states. If the United States really supported the principled application of international law, for example, most of the top officials in the Bush administration would have surrendered themselves to the International Court of Justice to be tried for crimes against peace and war crimes.
HC: In the coming decades, fertility rates in the West will stay below replacement level while fertility rates in Latin America, the Middle East, and most of Asia will plateau. Essentially, only sub-Saharan Africa will grow. Between climate change, economic inequality, and possible Malthusian collapse, it seems inevitable that a human tsunami of African immigrants will head for Europe and America. What do you think happens next?
RJ: First, the problem isn’t that fertility rates are falling but that they aren’t falling fast enough. That problem is exacerbated by extended human longevity in the high-energy/high-tech era, creating an unsustainable human population. The immediate need is to dramatically reduce per capita consumption in the First World — not just of the top 1% or top 10%, but of everyone except the poorest. The age of affluence is drawing to a close. The long-term challenge is to get to a sustainable human population, which is likely half of the current 8 billion and maybe half of that again. That means fewer births and a different attitude toward death.
A sensible and humane policy would be for the United States and all the developed nations to open their borders to unrestricted movement, part of the project of creating an equitable distribution of wealth in the world. That’s a tall order, given the political appeal of xenophobia, not just today on the Right but throughout human history.
HC: But once there are billions of Africans heading for an old and infertile Europe, what scenario do you think is most likely: that the Old Continent invites a new era of multiculturalism, like Angela Merkel’s Germany, or makes itself into a fortress, like Viktor Orbán’s Hungary? I myself wonder if a kind of intercontinental war might break out.
RJ: I’m always hesitant to make predictions, in part because conditions can change quickly. But given recent history — both the large migrations due to war and climate, and the rise of authoritarian White Nationalism — one would have to assume that many countries will create more barriers to migrations. Localized conflicts seem inevitable, though whether it would lead to expanded wars is anyone’s guess.
HC: You are a dyed-in-the-wool feminist. What’s your pitch to Right-wing men (who are most of the people reading this interview) for why they should be feminists, too?
RJ: I would start with a bit of history. Humans have been successful in evolutionary terms because of our capacity for cooperation and a long history of generally egalitarian social relations, including relations between men and women. Our gathering-and-hunting ancestors did not, for the most part, organize their societies in hierarchical fashion, and different sex roles didn’t automatically result in institutionalized male power. Patriarchy is a rather recent phenomenon, arising only after the rise of agriculture and, ironically, what we call civilization. So, it’s important to reject the idea that patriarchy is “natural,” in the sense of always present in human history and therefore inevitable. It was not and is not.
To Right-wing men, I would make the same argument that I make to Left-wing men, that embracing patriarchy makes it impossible for men to be fully human. When men invest their sense of self in the rigid, repressive, and reactionary gender norms of patriarchy, they cut themselves off from their full humanity. When men believe they can own or rent women’s bodies, they destroy the possibility of experiencing real intimacy. So, it’s always important for men to support feminism for moral reasons, to help advance justice. But it’s also in men’s self-interest, to be willing to give up some of the short-term material benefits of patriarchy to embrace a fuller range of human emotions and capacities than patriarchy allows. That’s why I say that radical feminism is not a threat, but a gift to men.
HC: What makes you most optimistic about the future, and most pessimistic?
RJ: I don’t think in terms of optimism or pessimism. I try to deal with reality. To me, that means recognizing we are moving toward levels of ecological instability and social decline that will, at some point, be best described as “collapse.” In some parts of the world, that collapse is already underway, but eventually it will become a global reality. The high-energy/high-technology era is drawing to a close. Either we plan rationally for change, or larger forces will direct that change in ways that will be inhumane and destructive beyond our imaginations. I don’t think that’s pessimistic, because by dealing honestly with reality, we can make more intelligent decisions about how to focus our attention on projects that will be most useful. Planning for a down-powered future requires us to make a lot of choices about what to hold onto and what to leave behind. Those decisions require an honest accounting of the biophysical limits of the planet and of human nature, especially our tendency to use as much energy as we can get our hands on.
HC: Any final thoughts? Perhaps a book recommendation?
RJ: Given my last answer, I am tempted to recommend my forthcoming book, co-authored with Wes Jackson: An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity, which will be published by the University of Notre Dame Press in fall 2022. But that’s more self-promotion than recommendation. So, with the same concerns in mind, I recommend The Path to a Livable Future: A New Politics to Fight Climate Change, Racism, and the Next Pandemic by Stan Cox. Stan is a friend, and one of the smartest people I know personally. He’s a skilled plant breeder, most recently working on perennial sorghum, and a sharp political analyst. He also has a wickedly dry sense of humor that I appreciate.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
48 comments
The part about pornography reminded me of the late Norm McDonald speaking frankly about the evolution of his porn addiction.
He said it started out with just normal one man one woman scenes. Then he knew he had a problem when he was saying to himself “what’s the matter this broad? She only has five cocks in her ass. Get her outta here! She’s no player.”
Good interview. The Achilles heel of these principled leftists is that they are all about the natural world when talking about overpopulation, climate change and resource scarcity, but when it comes to male-female relationships and what makes a society healthy and ticking, patriarchy and racial awareness are rejected. He needs to go back to hunter gatherers for his ideal male-female dynamic. Sounds iffy.
He’s right about the destructiveness of pornography, for the consumers as well as the participants.
“It’s plausible that in some other historical moment, the Left and some elements on the Right could have cooperated to challenge imperialism. But given the deeply reactionary and irrational nature of the current dominant Right-wing groups in US politics, it’s difficult to imagine collaboration.”
Later:
“A sensible and humane policy would be for the United States and all the developed nations to open their borders to unrestricted movement, part of the project of creating an equitable distribution of wealth in the world.”
He bitches about right-wing irrationality and then argues that allowing everyone into developed nations is sensible.
This guy is what I would call a “smart retard”.
Clearly, he knows a lot, but he allows his egalitarian ideology to get in the way of common sense.
Jensen believes- falsely IMHO- that First World nations/The West consume too much energy and that’s bad for the environment.
He is overjoyed that birth rates are declining throughout the West because less people means less resource depletion.
He then advocates open borders so billions of Third Worlders will migrate to the West and cause record high pollution/resource depletion. Does this make sense?
Thank you for posting this article, it’s interesting to get a look into the Cuckold mind.
I’d like to note his comment here:
“But I think the deeper reason is that patriarchy — institutionalized male dominance, anchored in men’s claim of a right to control women’s sexuality and reproductive power — has been woven so deeply into the fabric of everyday life for so long that it’s extremely hard to dislodge. Patriarchy, which is thousands of years old, has proved to be a particularly tenacious system of social control.”
… is utter bullshit. I totally agree with feminists that pornography is horrible, but it has not a whit to do with “patriarchy”.
Sexuality is the most powerful tool of control that women have over men. Pornography is the societal-wide exercise of that control. On the individual level, women are at their most powerful when they are young, fertile, charming, and pretty. Even a naive 17 year old girl can topple a seemingly powerful middle aged man with her looks and charm. (Happens all the time).
On a societal-wide basis, pornography cripples young men and stunts them. It becomes an addiction and addictions are weaknesses, not strengths. I used to smoke cigarettes, and tobacco companies had power and control over me. I was never in control.
Again, it is a societal-wide scale-up of female sexual power, but it is through the proxy of an industry that is dominated by a group of people who we’ll just say don’t particularly have white men’s best interests at heart and want to see them become powerless.
I can’t agree as pornstars are hardly powerful. Whether they’re exploited victims or not is a different issue. It has not led to a scale up of female sexual power at all. The instant access to quick wank material on the part of young men has deflated that, not expanded it.
OK let me dissect what you are saying.
The first question I have to ask is, by powerful, what do you mean? This means different things to different people. Do you mean powerful as in “leader of the free world” powerful? Do you mean “CEO of a large corporation” powerful? Do you mean simply wealthy and able to live life on your own terms?
Is the question we are asking about power and gender to be measured by individuals or are we measuring it as a society-wide phenomenon?
I would agree with you that individual porn stars aren’t necessarily very powerful. But that is true of male porn stars just as well as female. They (both male and female) don’t make a whole lot of money at it as a whole. I would agree that even at that level, men tend to benefit individually more than women in the long term. A well endowed male porn star can have a long career on into middle age. The “benefits” of the job probably suit him more and more as he ages. I mean, what normal man wouldn’t find some enjoyment in having sex with attractive, beautiful women in the prime of youth well into middle age, even if it is in the context of a job.
However, male porn stars rarely become “stars”. Opportunities for men in that industry are also much harder to come by. The men are just placeholders in porn films, the women are the stars. So when porn producers have a cadre of reliable men to choose from, they don’t have the same motivation to recruit “fresh young faces”.
All of this is to say that pornstar exploitation has nothing to do with the power that pornography gives women over men. Pornstar exploitation is no different than any other worker exploitation that benefits wealthy people. But for this argument I’m not interested in the impact on individuals. I’m interested in the broader impact that pornography has had on women as a group and men as a group.
As a whole, pornography has benefitted the 4 billion women on earth more than the 4 billion men, and has specifically benefitted white women and to a lesser degree asian women, because they are the two races that men want to look at naked.
Pornography increases the level to which pretty young women an object of desire for men, which gives women more power, the kind of power that women are most adept at wielding. It is natural for men to desire women, but pornography creates a higher level of objectification and a higher degree of leverage for women to control men. And again, we have to understand that the definition of “power” isn’t as narrow as “becoming president of the United States” or “CEO of Time/Warner”. If it were that narrow, why would why of us be concerned with it? Because 99.999% of us have no chance (men OR women) at ever attaining that level of power, and that has nothing to do with the sexual organs we were born with.
How does porn increase the amount of sexual power that the average women holds over the average man? I’m not entirely certain I understand your argument. Are you saying that watching porn increases the desire for women on the part of men?
You’re still framing it at the individual level.
There is a reason why the current wave of feminism rationalizes “sex work”, prostitution, pornography, etc.
If the current goal of women’s liberation is complete and total reproductive rights for women with no regard for men, then the key is shifting the role of women away from motherhood (patriarchy) to compete sexual liberation (with abortion and birth control to facilitate it). When men view the role of women as completely sexual, it breaks down the trust that men have in women, making it more difficult to pair bond. This is the complaint that most young men have with young women today. They instinctively want a woman who will make a good wife and mother, but they primarily see the pool of women their age as oversexualized and untrustworthy.
This is meaningless at the individual level. I’m not concerned with individuals. I’m concerned with the bigger picture.
When women do not feel obligated to marry and birth children, they are free to pursue whatever they want. That is power. Pornography aids this by breaking down the normal, healthy relationship between men and women. Everything becomes tainted, expectations unrealistic, and none of this leads to healthy family formation, which is the foundation of “patriarchy”.
It also weakens men and retards their development. The overall effect is to shift power away from men and toward women.
Okay, but how does that increase the power of women? You said that men are uninterested in modern woman because she is oversexualised and untrustworthy. That hardly increases her power.
That said, I don’t disagree with most of what you say as such, and I can think of a certain tribe that is benefiting from this, but I don’t think that it is women.
All I can say is that we are both men and we are both naturally viewing things from the perceptive of men. It is difficult to work it out in our minds how things that seem demeaning and dehumanizing can counterintuitively give women a sense of power. But the modern world is upside down and backwards. Victimhood shouldn’t give blacks or gays or transgenders power either. It should be a sign of weakness that they constantly complain about being oppressed by whites, straights, men, Christians women etc. But counterintuitively it is claims of victimhood that actually gives them power. That’s because we have transitioned out of a patriarchal society into a matriarchal society. Therefore concepts like female promiscuity no longer apply because that’s a patriarchal concept.
I really can’t open up the window of the female mind to another man. If I could adequately explain women to men, I’d be a wealthy man indeed. You have to be able to work this out in your own head, but you have to be willing to examine the norms that have endured for thousands of years and flip them upside down to understand everything in the modern world.
And yes, that specific tribe is the beneficiary of all this, undoubtedly. It isn’t that women are *actually* more powerful, it’s that they have internalized all of the anti-natal propaganda for decades now and their minds have been rewired to think of sexual freedom as empowering. It’s kind of like Orwell’s 1984 slogan “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”
A sensible and humane policy would be for the United States and all the developed nations to open their borders to unrestricted movement, part of the project of creating an equitable distribution of wealth in the world.
I have tried in my life to take a differentiated approach to ideas and people, not to jump too quickly into either/or, but to honor the good and reject the bad. Perhaps it’s lower energy with my advancing age or perhaps it’s my heightened clarity about the desperate state our White nations are in, but once a man (and I don’t know he still accepts that binary patriarchal identity tag) says something like that, he could be Einstein 2.0 and I would never read or listen to anything that came from his mouth, pen or keyboard again. Yes, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, but if there’s a bomb inside, you just run for your life.
And I would wish for him, as I do for all coddled intersectional Lefties, that some day he would be forced to live inside the “sensible and humane” world that he wants to impose on the rest of us, with no escape. And that it would be televised.
I’d love to drive a van full of oppressed humanity to the homes of these “intellectuals”. It would be great!
No no, that’s only in order for you and me. The campus intellectuals will carve out a quiet retreat for themselves.
Yes, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, but if there’s a bomb inside, you just run for your life.
The two things Jensen is correct about: he criticizes Israel and the transgender movement.
“A sensible and humane policy would be for the United States and all the developed nations to open their borders to unrestricted movement, part of the project of creating an equitable distribution of wealth in the world.”
I think that, subconsciously, leftists think: we can’t raise Africa up, so let’s drag Europe down, because equality!
That is a great way of looking at this whole problem. Similar to the theory that leftists hate themselves more than they love non-Whites.
A sensible and humane policy would be for the United States and all the developed nations to open their borders to unrestricted movement, part of the project of creating an equitable distribution of wealth in the world.
That moment when the willingness to learn more about your views is sapped.
Of course. Note how the idiot merely assumes that his understanding of the morally loaded term “equitable” is correct. First, this “academic” is misusing that term. He means “equal”. So why is a more equal distribution of wealth in the world equitable? As a typical leftist, he feels no obligation to address this issue (if, in his ideological myopia, he’s even aware of it, which is doubtful). I would argue that the presumptive confiscation of justly earned assets, which is required to make wealth more equal, and which is embodied in his proposal to allow masses of poor Third World peoples to come colonize lands whose wealth, by definition, they played no role in creating is … theft, which is inherently evil.
Moreover, of course, Jensen shows no awareness of (or concern for) other issues that might arise from such radical demographic reconstruction: eg, the destruction visited upon ancient cultures and folkways, which give primary meaning to real lives, by such mass population relocations. He further misunderstands population ecology, specifically, that sudden radical increases in material prosperity, which is what the colonizing alien invaders of the wealthier countries would garner by virtue of their Camp of the Saints invasions, tend to result in huge increases in fecundity (increases that would be unlikely to be offset by corresponding decreases in already subpar native fertility as the indigenous of the wealthier nations suddenly got dramatically poorer, given the already well-known differences in both IQ and related ability to delay present satisfaction in pursuit of more profitable, or simply other, distant goals, between First and Third World peoples). IOWs, flooding the First World with Third Worlders would very likely result in huge net increases in global fertility, at least for a while – though doing this would also hasten the collapse of those countries, which in turn would eventually result in huge demographic die-offs, as the wealth of the First World was rapidly consumed by population groups lacking the ability to replace it.
It would be a situation analogous to that line from the song in the Jeff Bridges movie Crazy Heart: “When you’re falling it feels like flying … for a little while …”.
It is hard to take someone seriously who thinks “white supremacy” exists. Yes, whites created the most successful societies. That is not because of “racism.” It is due to high intelligence and the ability to cooperate.
Jensen also says this: “Humans have been successful in evolutionary terms because of our capacity for cooperation and a long history of generally egalitarian social relations, including relations between men and women.”
Change the word “humans” to “Europeans” and he would be somewhat correct. But all societies are patriarchies because patriarchy – like inequality – is natural.
He has some decent insights into pornography but even there he misses the mark somewhat. Still, a good look into the poisoned leftist mind and why we must be free of such specimens.
I disagree that being an anti-imperialist is a leftist characteristic. See John Quincy Adams’ July 4th address in 1821 when he was Monroe’s Secretary of State. I remember Pat Buchanan being interviewed in 1992 and he said he wanted to return the Foreign Policy of John Quincy Adams. Pat Buchanan was hardly a leftist. Our country got off the right track with Lincoln but really got off it with McKinley with War with Spain and the empire. There is an excellent speech by William Graham Sumner called “The Conquest of the United States by Spain”.
Whew! I haven’t been to college in ages, but that was like a mini-refresher in critical theory.
“The age of affluence is drawing to a close.” That reminded me of Gothmog the Orc’s line from The Lord of the Rings – “The age of man is over!”
Anyway, so he’s talking about rapidly depopulating the planet by 75%, a proposal that would’ve made Joseph Stalin tremble with moral outrage. But even after this massive engineered die-off, we also have to let in the hordes of Africans who’ve overpopulated themselves so they can take our land and resources in the name of “equity”. Huh?
Tell you what. He can be the change he wants to see in the world. He can invite a dozen homeless People of Color ™ to his house as permanent guests, with permission to help themselves to his property, in the name of making up for past injustices.
As for the radical feminism stuff, Robert, if you’re on here, please get your self-respect back: https://rainbowalbrecht.wordpress.com/2019/10/13/do-you-want-to-be-a-male-feminist-ally/
Some leftists can be interesting to hear from, but not this guy. His anti-porn activism makes no difference at all compared to his absurd theories about everything else.
RJ: First, the problem isn’t that fertility rates are falling but that they aren’t falling fast enough. That problem is exacerbated by extended human longevity in the high-energy/high-tech era, creating an unsustainable human population… The age of affluence is drawing to a close. The long-term challenge is to get to a sustainable human population, which is likely half of the current 8 billion and maybe half of that again. That means fewer births and a different attitude toward death.
Does that “different attitude toward death” mean euthanasia for those “unsustainable” elderly who cause a “problem” by living too long? Other radical environmentalists have advocated that in the past.
Jensen appear to be part of the awful Degrowth movement, who advocate we lower our living standards/immiserate ourselves to save the planet.
In the 1980s these activists falsely claimed the earth could only sustain 500 million people so the rest had to go. So Jensen’s claim that our planet could allow 2 billion makes him a little more generous than past Leftists.
The overpopulation problem (and it is a real ecological concern, perhaps the ultimate one, apart from nuclear weapons mass exchanges) cannot be properly understood except in light of the dysgenic issue. The Earth has a finite carrying capacity. It is somewhat higher if we will accept a lower standard of material existence; lower if we want greater prosperity. But there is an ultimate limit to how many people the planet can support indefinitely at any given standard of living (defined in terms of consumption of physical resources {“inputs”}, whether renewable or unrenewable, and production of pollution {“outputs”}). Thus, barring mass mortality in nasty ways (pandemics, wars, genocide, famines), human populations will have to be controlled in some way (to avert these greater horrors).
What should be the criteria by which we decide (at least morally; in all practical likelihood, overpopulation will get resolved either via pandemics or unavoidable wars over diminishing resources, starting with fresh water) which peoples and nations should be allowed to reproduce, and at what rate? It seems obvious to me that the standard should be who benefits humanity the most vs. the least. The greatest benefactors should be allowed the most fertility; the least, the least. This principle should apply between peoples, though it could also, if necessary, be applied to discriminate between low and high quality individuals within tribes.
Jensen’s views are especially idiotic when considered in this light.
This is excellent content. Thank you, Hubert Collins for giving CC readers insight into the mind of a leftist don. Regarding feminism, I recommend Jonathan Bowden’s lecture “Lilith before Eve”, which canalyzes the successes and failures of feminism. Among their successes has been the effectiveness of making their agenda extremely personal, i.e., bringing their politics, their worldview close to the everyday lives of everyone, everywhere all the time. Yet despite intellectuals like Andrea Dworkin, passionate activism, marches to “reclaim the night”, etc. feminist efforts against the commercialization of sex, against the porn industry have run into a brick wall. Why is this? One reason might be that the solution they seej would require exactly what Professor Jensen rejects: patriarchal morality. Ideals of truth, duty towards oneself, justice in the sense of Kant’s categorical imperative, traditionally masculine virtues, would do far more than anything this man advocates.
Robert Jensen is identical to the pathetic, self-hating White dolts I have to listen to every Thanksgiving, and Christmas when I go visit my pathetic family.
They all came from relatively large families (their parents had 3 to 5 kids), and just about every single one of them are genetic failures (they didn’t and won’t have their own children). They are genetic dead ends. I bet this shabbos goy Jensen and his brain-dead White goy wife probably think they are geniuses for killing off their own family line like my family is doing. These clueless White leftists actually consider themselves “smart” when they parrot the views of the jewish puppet masters that have led them astray. Countless Jews hate White gentiles and will convince Whites it is better to not breed. Then those same jews will inevitably have 3 children of their own.
Jensen is so hopelessly fooled. Seriously….Nick Cannon drones on endlessly for 7 minutes talking about how White gentiles are inferior cave people and genetic defects and nothing happens to him. Would that happen in a “White supremacist” society? Cannon then says two sentences about jews, and within a day, he is groveling to jews to not destroy his career. Whoopie Goldberg talks smack about White people constantly and nothing happens to her. Would that happen in a “White supremacist” society? She says one little thing jews object to, and she is removed from her show for 2 weeks. In an interview, Rick Sanchez on CNN said:
Pete Dominick: [Jon] Stewart’s a minority as much as you are. He’s Jewish.
Sanchez: Yeah. Yeah. Very powerless people. Please. What are you, kidding?
Dominick: You’re telling me that….
Sanchez: I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they – the people in this country who are Jewish – are an oppressed minority? Yeah.
The result? Rick Sanchez was FIRED. Seriously. If Rick Sanchez mocked White gentiles and said “sure, White people are oppressed”, what White leftist out there honestly believes he would have lost his job? Come on robert jensen, and your stupid barren shiksa wife, and all other White, shabbos goy leftist suckers for that matter, wake up!!!! Connect the dots you drooling morons. It is not White gentiles that dominate hollywood and the msm, and the US middle east policy, etc…..it is jews. They are the establishment. THEY are the ones you aren’t allowed to criticize or critique. You can condemn, harass, and criticize White people all you want and nothing will happen to you. Duh. American companies have given hundreds of millions of dollars to black identity politics groups like BLM. Those same companies have given $0 to White identity politics groups. Obviously (to anyone with any sense – clearly White leftists aren’t counted in this) this is NOT something that would happen if this was an “Institutionally wayciiis, White supreeeemist” establishment.
Seriously, these self hating White leftists can’t be this dumb. Can they? They know they can talk smack about White gentiles all day, but they NEVER talk about jewish power. Why? Because, clearly, they know who has the power and who will punish them. It surely isn’t White gentiles that wield this kind of power and influence in the media and elsewhere.
I looked up jensen after reading this article (by the way, I want those 15 minutes of my life back for reading this article). Jensen is just a typical clueless shabbos goy White neoliberal that is too stupid to realize he is just doing the bidding of the high verbal IQ jews that hate him and his people (White gentiles). When I looked him up, “related links” showed other pictures of 7 other “feminists” – ie, ideological leaders of suckers like jensen. Here they are:
Catharine MacKinnon (apparently a goy)
Naomi wolf (Jew)
Betty Friedan (Jew)
Cathy Young (Jew)
Andrea Dworkin (Jew)
Ellen Willis (Jew)
Susan Faludi (Jew)
So, out of literally 7 out of 8 are jews. Considering this is 87.5%, and jews are only 2% of the US population, I would say this is pretty statistically significant. So, if these brainwashed, self hating White leftists like jensen were the least bit curious…..with these jews being so over represented among the leadership you would think they would be a little bit interested in what these jews thought about White gentiles. Well, jensen, you stupid, stupid old man, if you are reading this, here is a little about what these jews think about YOU and your people (White gentiles) – see the video links below. You’ve wasted your life jensen, and you have been a battering ram against your own people, on behalf of a hateful, spiteful tribe that wants to wipe your people out. Great job, moron:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iWbyflgIyyEJ/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/geTsbJzeKKzl/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/gvYtp7D9vLE8/
Awesome rant. You could add that, while secular Jews actually have below replacement fertility (and high rates of Gentile intermarriage), the Orthodox Jews marry within their tribe, and have extremely large families. The latter are perfectly aware that “demography is destiny”, and are intelligently (and, yes, for them, admirably) practicing competitive breeding. Whites need to do the same. We, including Christians, need to make high white fertility be seen to be a moral (indeed, divine) imperative (for whites, who, after all, are dwindling unto possible future extinction; for other races – except perhaps the Japanese, for whom my underlying moral/theological argument, in light of their own population decline, would also be applicable – fertility limitations should be actively encouraged, or even mandated as a condition for receipt of socialist welfare benefits).
His only good point (that may be unconscious) is when he is talking about the “anti-democratic White Nationalists”; he is correct. National Socialism, Traditional ancien regime, Fascism, Monarchy and Benevolent Dictatorships all belong in the Far Right category of systems of governance.
It is interesting that his most poignant observation was merely in passing and had nothing to do with the subject at hand; typical classical liberal, they know everything but lack any semblance to humanity.
This type of Leftist will also spout on and on about, “muh social services”, and “muh free medicare”; all talk and no action. I have become quite sick of listening to these guys, whining about how unfair the world is, but without a lick of hide in the game.
How did these “intellectual liberals” become our thinkers and leaders? What poison.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Some of the doozy’s:
“Some non-white people cut deals with white supremacy”
“Sometimes my pets misbehave.”
“The porn producers I interviewed all said that the “black on white” pornography (black men having sex with white women) is made with the assumption that most viewers will be white men.”
Who are the porn producers, Bob?
“Black people didn’t invent the idea of white trash; higher-status white people did.”
He could’ve ended this sentence after the fourth word.
“I have argued that people who get labeled “white trash” should reject the “white” and embrace the “trash”.”
He has no problem with identity politics for Whites, as long as they identify themselves as trash.
“The immediate need is to dramatically reduce per capita consumption in the First World — not just of the top 1% or top 10%, but of everyone except the poorest.”
Who are the “poorest”, Bob?
“A sensible and humane policy would be for the United States and all the developed nations to open their borders to unrestricted movement.”
It’s sensible and humane to commit national suicide.
“So, it’s always important for men to support feminism for moral reasons, to help advance justice.”
Another way to put this:“You should like what I like because I like what I like.”
“I try to deal with reality.”
Yeah, gonna have to try a little harder than you have been.
—
Great interview Mr. Collins.
Someone above said this guy is a “smart retard”. I’d probably switch out “smart” with “educated”. Either way, he’s anti-White and we shouldn’t have to share a country with him.
He’s also married to some ugly folk singer eight years his senior. One guess as to who wears the pants in that relationship!
Well, that’s 3,414 words you’ll never get back.
Alcohol is far more destructive than pornography.
In what way? Physically, perhaps (DUIs, weapons discharges, accidents like falls), but not spiritually and socially. Perhaps illegal narcotics usage is more destructive than porn to white society.
Not inherently more destructive in a spiritual sense. Well, unless you draw the line for pornography at Playboy.
I often see strong attitudes against drunkenness from working class background people (overwhelmingly still in the working class for the most part); due to what I assume is previous bad experience with the effects of alcohol. No offense, but I think the combination of being drunk while working class is what leads to bad situations, not alcohol itself. All through college I didn’t have any acquaintance who wasn’t getting plastered most days of the week. Never met finer people. (Realities may vary by geographical location, of course.)
If patriarchy existed in the way Jensen thinks it does, the feminist movement would barely have gotten off the ground, let alone reached the position of high influence it has today.
This quote by Jensen stood out to me:
“In fact, the feminist challenge to the sexual-exploitation industries (pornography, prostitution, stripping, massage parlors) has lost ground, not only in mainstream culture but in liberal and postmodern feminist circles.”
Jensen’s lack of self-awareness here is jarring and unbecoming for a man of his knowledge. Postmodernism is just as integral to Radical Feminism as it is to Liberal Feminism. Both use the tool of Deconstruction to advance their agenda, and both can accurately be described as schools of the Deconstructionist Left.
Jensen may not like some of the specific conclusions drawn by Postmodernists/Deconstructionists in the LibFem camp – I would imagine, for example, that he isn’t too fond of trannies and their all out assault on biological womanhood – but that does not make him any less complicit in supporting the Postmodern worldview, which is that everything is an imaginary construct, “we” create our own reality, and nothing is determined, fixed, or inherent.
Deconstruction lies at the heart of Leftist rot. Especially Social Liberalism. Jensen and his ilk are fundamentally at war with reality as it actually is. They wish to replace it with how they want it to be. To be a “Racist” – to accept that race is biologically real, that different races exist and are identifiable, that different races have different traits, that these traits are inherent and unchangeable, and that these traits can be objectively superior and/or inferior for handling specific conditions – is to accept and be at peace with how God, or Nature, created us. Inner peace can only be found by submitting to and coping with reality, not waging war with it and trying to control it.
Race and gender are not social constructs. They are biologically immutable characteristics that only transhumanism offers any promise of altering – and sure enough, most RadFems, LibFems, and Leftists are suspicious of transhumanism as well. Leftists always reveal their true agenda in the end: To tear humanity down, control us, dominate us, and return us to the squalor and misery of 10,000 BC (these people worship primitive tribes and hunter gatherer societies for a reason) all while they live up in the skies in Elysium. That’s been their agenda for a long time.
Brilliant comment. This is what I would have said if I had a higher verbal IQ. These people are at war with reality, with nature. To think someone can live as long as this guy and not recognize the importance of genetics on culture, personality, intelligence, etc says all one need to know about him: Godless, arrogant fool.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about american imperialism.
Regards
Lots of great critical comments (along with a few of mine). This guy Jensen is a fool and a douchebag (and bio-traitor, of course). What a scandal that he gets to spend his days teaching and writing (drivel), while much smarter and better men like us have to work the real, boring, free market, profit/loss jobs which pay the taxes to support his “research” (he was a long time professor at UT-Austin; ie, a public employee!). The result of this is not only his type’s opportunity to brainwash college age morons by the tens of millions, but also the huge deficit in non-leftist scholarship, and associated surplus in radical crap, that puts the Right at a huge disadvantage in all contemporary public debates.
The proper response to DEFUND THE COPS! is DEFUND THE COLLEGES! (I have advocated since the 90s that the Right, including the GOP, go to war with the universities; I think this would be increasingly popular on the Right, esp. as our base becomes more working class-centric.)
On another note, why has this interview been conducted at all? Would Mr. Collins like to justify himself? I ask because I notice this growing tendency among the younger members of the White Right to want to “dialogue” with the Left. Why is that, exactly? Do these young guys (Chris Roberts at AR is getting to be notorious for this) think that by such “reaching out” they’re going to make racial converts of leftists? This strikes me as exceedingly stupid. The Left today is literally defined by its racial treason and cuckoldry. It nearly cannot discuss any issue without sniveling about race (on behalf of nonwhites, never genuinely oppressed whites). Why give “airtime” to these fools (who certainly don’t lack media exposure)?
Here’s a suggestion for Hubert Collins et al. The idea of these Q&As is a good one. It’s the target that was poorly chosen. So, why don’t you in the future ‘reach out’ to others more or less identified as being on the Right, but not the White or even Nationalist Rights? How about trying to start a dialogue with figures on the Religious Right, or among the libertarian and others (eg, neoliberal) in the free market crowd? How about trying to dialogue on race with mainstream GOP leaders? Many will decline, but some might respond – and those interviews would likely be far more useful to us than leftist bloviation. I would like to hear what prolifers have to say about black crime and BLM supremacy. I want to hear an open borders libertardian explain how importing endless millions of New Democrat Voters (like, oh, say, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Pramila Jayapal, etc) is helpful in the fight against socialism. I want a GOP politico to discuss why it’s wonderful to export millions of manufacturing jobs to our competitor cum future enemy Communist China.
And just maybe, in confronting non-racial Rightists with our views, embedded within our questions, we will make some converts or at least allies. Isn’t this the more intelligent approach? The Left is the enemy and always will be.
I agree, we should have more interviews with those on the center right that are not exposed to intelligent dissident right ideas. That being said, I’m not opposed to occasional interview with leftist academics like Robert Jensen. Its purpose is not to covert the interviewee but rather to expose the audience in their arguments directly. It’s something the left doesn’t do and it makes them intellectually weak. They are terrified of an honest debate or even to allow our augments to be heard on neutral grounds. Personally, this interview reinforced my assurance that we are on the side of truth. Jensen’s drivel was mostly a collection of empty platitudes and illogical arguments. My only quip is that I wish Collins pushed back a little more and made Jensen a bit more uncomfortable.
I agree with your sentiment but I don’t think it’s a bad idea to interview a classical leftist. Someone who doesn’t hate the right, with at least some original ideas. Perhaps someone estranged from the psychotic/neurotic mainstream left. But this guy is an unimpressive shitlib with no redeeming qualities. Itd be like interviewing AOC or something. Totally pointless.
“I want to hear an open borders libertardian explain how importing endless millions of New Democrat Voters (like, oh, say, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Pramila Jayapal, etc) is helpful in the fight against socialism.”
The libertarians in my area ( rural Texas ) and on the sites I occasionally check oppose open borders, because they violate property rights, the non-aggression principle, and freedom of association and its corollary freedom of disassociation. Presidential candidate Ron Paul publicly supported the right of secession and the right of ranchers and farmers along the border to form armed groups to defend their families and land with lethal force.
Still, I too would want to hear all of your suggested interviews.
I knew Ron at one time; even did some work for one of his campaigns. He was/is better in private than on the record. But even some of his own most fervent supporters (eg, like Walter Block and Ryan McMaken, among some others, at the Mises Institute) remain either open borders-ites, or at least “uncomfortable” with the “coercion” of border closure. And there are plenty of weaker libertardians, such as those at CATO and Reason magazine, who “just love theyselves as much of that immigrant diversity as they can get.” So interviewees shouldn’t be too hard to locate.
Personally, I’d like to see some real hard-edged interviews with prominent members of the Christian Right. There are a lot more of them than libertardians, with far more being ethnoculturally normal, and thus potentially “awakenable”.
Not sure what’s the point of interviewing a typical boomer shitlib. No original ideas, buys into ‘white supremacy’ religion and blank slatism, open borders, feminism. The nationalist right has absolutely nothing in common with idiots like this. Even when you tried to extend an olive branch re: right/left anti-war factions joining forces, hes too stupid and arrogant to negotiate in good faith. Pseudo-intellectual, Godless scum. This monster would put us all into gulag.
Maybe if all the Negro people — the original peoples of Africa — moved out of Africa and then ‘displaced’ all the White people, we could all move to the bounteous continent of Africa ourselves and make something of the place. But actually, Africans need Whites just to keep them alive — through welfare payments in Europe and North America, and missionary money and coddling by White sob sisters in Africa. Think positive! If ever we die out completely, they won’t be far behind.
The term ‘white supremacy,’ has only come about over the last few years because ‘white privilege’ was not anti-white and hateful enough. Anybody using it unironically is a moron.
Male feminists are either liars trying to get laid, nutcases who have been brutal to women in the past and trying to get expiation (and get laid) for it, or modern leftist woman-worshippers who enjoy having their penises and ego trampled by women who despise their weak kind.
As for interracial sex and American sexual repression in general, it’s kind of fascinating to see extreme left and extreme right come together in base visceral sexual revulsion and fear of unbridled sexuality. Christian sex-revulsion is a hilariously horrible thing indeed, and a major contributing factor to America’s violent atmosphere of fear and flesh loathing. Pure madness.
Will say one other thing on interracial porn. Not a big fan, unless it’s a white man with an attractive black woman. Cuck white men watching black men fuck their wives are a very uniquely American phenomenon. Because white women being pleasured or raped by black men has been such a deep-rooted constituent part of the white American psyche for so long, with black men portrayed as big-dicked ultra-virile fucking bucks (and of course they play up to that image, cos it suits their misogynist ‘playa’ egos), a white man watching his white wife fucked by a black man serves two weird purposes:
One, you get guys who just like watching their women fucked by other men, not caring about the race of the guy cucking them, and they feel a sexual frisson out of watching this creepy stuff to masturbate over later.
Two, and more contentiously and importantly, there is an interracial homoerotic charge from watching a black guy fuck their missus. They really want to fuck the guy themselves, gay interracial sex is such a taboo (unless you’re that closet case Quentin Tarantino, with multiple instances of interracial rape in his films – get the feeling it may come from personal experience, but that’s another story altogether), and they would get a TREMENDOUS sexual kick from being fucked by a black man. So watching their wife take a black cock is the nearest most of them will ever come to thus verboten gay union, and in the coupling they, in their mind, are the white woman being fucked. Creepy, deranged, and hilarious as fuck. Just a thought.
One last thought.
Aybody who uses the term ‘patriarchy’ unironically instantly informs me they are not going to say anything worth listening to, so I always like it when they do so very early in a conversation, to save me listening to anything else they have to say. Saves me wasting my valuable time.
Sorry for my belated reading of and comment on this great article. The sincerely self-convinced and hardcore Leftist Robert Jensen did make a few rational and reference-worthy points, admittedly, which made me at least willing to listen to his arguments and draw useful points from the perspective of an avowed and ardent advocate of White Nationalism who I am. Meanwhile, I also discerned some wildly off-mark and sophistry-awash observations made by this guy. To give just one, and in my view, the most saliently ludicrous, duplicitous and off-putting example, which appears in his response to the interviewer’s question on fertility rate and predicted African influx into White countries, the answer from Mr. Jensen is not only naive, illusive, irrational and inane, but also utterly irrelevant and evasive, and flatly unfair and insidious, which largely detracted from and frittered away the validity and persuasiveness of his overall argument.
Incidentally, to Mr. Jensen’s remark “but I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone who wasn’t white say, “Yes, I believe white people really are smarter.” But a significant number of women will say, “Yes, I believe men should be in charge.”, I have a visceral response from my standing as a steadfast non-White supporter for White Nationalism.
I would like to tell him that I, together with many other honest and impartial non-Whites like me, will not hesitate to say: “Yes, we do believe white people really are intellectually and philosophically more developed and are more capable of creating and sustaining an advanced civilization and an all-roundly better society. And yes, all factors considered, the world will objectively be a better place if the White people is in charge.” I would also imagine that some of the even more informed among us may put the Japanese on par with, or on an auxiliary position to the White race, as the only exception of non-Whites capable of building and maintaining an advanced, civilized, and high-trust society.
I don’t think any knowledgeable and fair-minded non-White would refrain from making such an honest confession.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment