Majorityrights News > Category: White Genocide: America

America’s White Saviors

White liberals are leading a ‘woke’ revolution that is transforming American politics and making Democrats increasingly uneasy with Jewish political power

AMERICA’S WHITE SAVIORS, By Zach Goldberg, Tablet, United States, 5 June 2019:

A sea change has taken place in American political life. The force driving this change is the digital era style of moral politics known as “wokeness,” a phenomenon that has become pervasive in recent years and yet remains elusive as even experts struggle to give it a clear definition and accurately measure its impact. Where did it come from? What do its adherents believe? Is it just something happening inside the Twitter bubble and on college campuses or is it really spreading across the social and cultural landscape and transforming the country as sometimes appears to be the case? In reality, “wokeness”—a term that originated in black popular culture—is a broad euphemism for a more narrow phenomenon: the rapidly changing political ideology of white liberals that is remaking American politics.

Over the past decade, the baseline attitudes expressed by white liberals on racial and social justice questions have become radically more liberal. In one especially telling example of the broader trend, white liberals recently became the only demographic group in America to display a pro-outgroup bias—meaning that among all the different groups surveyed white liberals were the only one that expressed a preference for other racial and ethnic communities above their own. As woke ideology has accelerated, a growing faction of white liberals have pulled away from the average opinions held by the rest of the coalition of Democratic voters—including minority groups in the party. The revolution in moral sentiment among this one segment of American voters has led to a cascade of consequences ranging from changes in the norms and attitudes expressed in media and popular culture, to the adoption of new political rhetoric and electoral strategies of the Democratic Party. Nor has this occurred in a vacuum on the left as the initiatives set in motion by white liberals have, in turn, provoked responses and countermeasures from conservatives and Republicans.

In a recent Vox article based partly on the dissertation research I’ve been doing as a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Georgia State University, Matthew Yglesias described this ongoing transformation as “The Great Awokening.” In Yglesias’ account: “In the past five years, white liberals have moved so far to the left on questions of race and racism that they are now, on these issues, to the left of even the typical black voter. This change amounts to a ‘Great Awokening.’” There is no simple or single explanation for how this process got started. It appears to be driven by an interplay of factors: preexisting tendencies among white liberals; a series of polarizing events like the police shooting of Michael Brown and subsequent riots in Ferguson, and the migrant crisis; the rise of millenials as a political force, and the explosion of social media and “woke” clickbait journalism. The years between 2012 and 2016 were a watershed for white liberal racial consciousness. But the seismic attitudinal shifts of those years have implications that go beyond race: They are also tied to a significant decrease in support for Israel and—perhaps more surprisingly—a rise in the number of white liberals who express negative attitudes about the perceived political power of American Jews.

As white liberals have come to place far greater emphasis on racial injustice, they have also endorsed reparative race-related social policies in greater numbers. This is evident across a range of issues: the rapid growth in white liberals who favor affirmative action for blacks in the labor force; in the increase in white liberals who feel that we spend too little on helping blacks, and that the government should afford them special treatment; in the increase in white Democrats who think it’s the government’s job to ensure “equal income across all races”; and in the increase in white liberals and Democrats who think that white people have ‘too much’ political influence.

At the same time, there are growing levels of support for policies without such obvious connections to race. For instance, between 1965 and 2000, the percentage of white liberals preferring increased immigration levels never deviated far from 10%. From the mid-2000s to roughly the end of President Obama’s term in office, this figure gradually ascended into the 20-30% range. As of 2018, it sits at over 50%. Then, there is the marked shift in attitudes toward Israel. Between 1978 and 2014, white liberals consistently reported sympathizing more with Israel than the Palestinians. Since March of 2016, this trend has turned on its face: Significantly more white liberals now report greater sympathy for the Palestinians than for Israel.

[...]

For the woke and their allies, these rapid changes are heralded as signs of progress, leading at times to harsh criticism of anyone who would stand in their way. This ideological stridency and triumphalist attitude can be powerful weapons against political opponents but are alienating—perhaps deliberately so—to moderates and conservatives. But, in a sense, no one is put in a more strained and problematic position by the politics of white liberals than the white liberals themselves. The woke elite act like white saviors who must lead the rest of the country, including the racial minorities whose interests they claim to represent, to a vision of justice the less enlightened groups would not choose for themselves.

Consider, for instance, that black and Asian Democrats and liberals are significantly more supportive of restrictive immigration policies and less positive toward racial/ethnic diversity than their white counterparts. Black and Hispanic Democrats and liberals are more sympathetic toward Israel than the Palestinians (likely due in part to the fact that they tend to be more religious). They are also more likely to part ways when it comes to contemporary social and gender-identity issues, including views of the #MeToo movement. In all, though they do converge on some issues, the attitudes and policy preferences of the woke white left are unrepresentative of the “marginalized communities” with whom they are supposed to be allies. And as woke liberals play a leading role in party politics, the Democrats, who are increasingly defined by their embrace of diversity and progressive stances on issues of racial justice, appear to do so, at least partly at the direction of a small white elite.

The Moral Foundations of the Modern White Liberal

To understand the motivations behind the “great awokening” we must first review some of the basics of political psychology. Social scientists use a model called “The Big Five personality traits” or “five-factor model” to describe how the relative prevalence of key character traits—extroversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism—shapes an individual’s political orientation. A large body of work in this field consistently finds that liberals score significantly higher than conservatives on the personality trait “agreeableness” and more specifically on its sub-dimension of “compassion.” In social science studies like these, agreeableness represents the tendency to be altruistic, tender-minded, cooperative, trusting, forgiving, warm, helpful, and sympathetic. The trait is closely linked with empathy and compassion toward the suffering of others. However, the relative lack of agreeableness in conservatives doesn’t meant they don’t care about the suffering of others. Rather, it suggests that liberals have a broader scope of empathy. Compared to conservatives who prioritize the well-being of the in-group—family, local community, or nation—liberals show relatively greater concern for the plight of out-groups, if not the world as a whole.

Closely related to agreeableness are the moral foundations of “harm/care” (e.g., “whether or not someone suffered emotionally”) and “fairness” (e.g., “whether or not some people were treated differently than others”). Moral Foundations Theory argues that ideological differences derive from the weight people ascribe to a core group of moral considerations: harm/care, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. A substantial line of research reveals that, out of these moral considerations, liberals generally attach the most importance to the foundations of harm/care and fairness. While conservatives also tend to rate these foundations as important, their moral compass is broader and includes a greater concern for violations of purity (e.g., “whether or not someone was able to control his or her desires”), loyalty (e.g., “whether or not someone did something to betray his or her group”), and authority (e.g., “whether or not someone respected the traditions of society”). As with empathy, the liberal concern for harm/care and fairness relates to a larger set of targets (e.g., animals, the needy in other countries) than it does for conservatives, who are generally more concerned with threats to the in-group. The liberal conception of ‘harm’ is also far broader, which lowers the threshold at which their moral alarms are triggered.

An example of how these psychological characteristics and moral foundations can be manifested in politics and policy can be seen in the graph below, which shows white responses to measures of empathy toward racial and ethnic minorities.

As the graph above shows, white liberals—especially the self-identified “very liberal”—are significantly more likely to report intense or extremely frequent feelings of tenderheartedness, protectiveness, and sensitivity when considering the circumstances of racial and ethnic out-group members. A related graph below displays the average differences in feelings of warmth (measured along a 0-100 scale) toward whites vs. nonwhites (i.e., Asians, Hispanics, and blacks) across different subgroups.

Remarkably, white liberals were the only subgroup exhibiting a pro-outgroup bias—meaning white liberals were more favorable toward nonwhites and are the only group to show this preference for group other than their own. Indeed, on average, white liberals rated ethnic and racial minority groups 13 points (or half a standard deviation) warmer than whites. As is depicted in the graph below, this disparity in feelings of warmth toward ingroup vs. outgroup is even more pronounced among whites who consider themselves “very liberal” where it widens to just under 20 points. Notably, while white liberals have consistently evinced weaker pro-ingroup biases than conservatives across time, the emergence and growth of a pro-outgroup bias is actually a very recent, and unprecedented, phenomenon.

READ MORE...

As one comes to expect of Dannis, this is an intelligent discussion centering largely on the recent Youtube purges.

However, despite my appeals, Dennis still does not make a distinction between our would-be left and their left, an international, anti-White, YKW directed left, which are social “unionionizations” of sorts, in “coalition”, so the rule structuring stories go, against a would-be White unionization, a White left ethnonationalism.

It is an important mistake; there are significant reasons why YKW want us to identify “the left” as the enemy and by reaction, for White identity to be right wing and liberal.

Whereas in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s blacks and women were the PC victim groups most flamboyantly promoted by YKW, now promotional advocacy of the third major PC victim union in coalition, gays, is being stepped-up. And they are succeeding to get the right to over react to this red cape (or rainbow cape, as it were).

It is not that the campaign and marketing of gay pride is a good thing for Whites, and there is a good argument aired by Dennis - an 8 minute video by Vertigo Politics Now, called, “the last White man” discussing how gays are ideal model consumers for the corporate agenda….and of course we don’t want homosexuality encouraged, especially not for those whose inborn nature could go either way…

Nevertheless, we must be careful, particularly regarding clever arguments like this, that would get us wrapped-up in reaction, chasing after the red caping, er rainbow caping, of YKW anti-White coalition building. ...like feminism and black advocacy as unions in YKW directed hands, it is important rather, for Whites to not react into right wing anti-social unionization altogether, against the compassion for our reasonable and accountable marginals and non ideal forms that it would allow for, and consider instead social organization to be a strictly non-White thing, as YKW has weaponized it against Whites and would have us believe is THE “left.”

A danger, of course, in being heavy handed in reaction to what is maybe about 2% of the population, is that as Whites react to the YKW rainbow caping, in right wing idealism of gender differentiation and into militant anti-queerism; try to imagine the pressure on teenage White boys to do utterly stupid and self destructive things in order to prove that they are not gay…

..and try to get the social point that the YKW have misrepresented and misdirected in their gross distortions, that most people are not ultra masculine or ultra feminine - they occupy a normal range which should not be made to feel queer, call it normal pride, if you will.

In service of reconstructing White social systemic homeostasis, it is important not to react, become overly fixated in chase after the red capes, black power, feminist capes, rainbow capes as the YKW wave them against us in great exaggeration and distortion of the concept of working-hypothesis of social unionization (which would include ethnonationalism); right wing reactions that seek warrant beyond the social realm, above nature or below human nature, become inherently unstable for their lack of social accountability and correction - as the social unionization would otherwise sustain.

They didn’t have quite the excuse to go after Regina as they did Reginald, but if they did ...well, they just lack education, has nothing to do with distinctive black hyper assertiveness…

READ MORE...

Or is it rather unite and conquer?

......unite right wing reactionaries against “the left” (don’t be so “divisive” as to “punch right”) and conquer (erstwhile White/ethnonational social systemic homeostasis)?

With Majorityrights having recently been taken off of the WN/news aggregate site formerly known as “the White Right Hub” and now the “Goebbels Report” after MR had the nerve to question the wisdom of their promoting “The Greatest Story Never Told” in the name of White morale and unity? as it features wholesale lies from Goebbels - e.g., that Poles killed 58,000 German civilians interwar - in order to “justify” invasion of Poland…the question comes into relief again:

What part is Regnery playing in promoting the socially disorganizing right wing identity among Whites in their reaction to affliction? and is a Germanic/Jewish element among Regnery using this to promote divide and conquer among Whites?

What begs these questions?

Following MR having called-out the White Right Hub for featuring this highly inaccurate and destructive propaganda, they did replace the feature (“Greatest Story Never Told”), with a headline of a Polish woman who had a child with a black, who then, typically, abandoned her.

A comment appeared on MR - “LOL, you (DanielS) were being trolled and didn’t even realize it.”

This is quite Jewy. I cannot imagine mocking Germans for their mudsharks. And it casts suspicion on this spirit of unity that these right wingers claim to be promoting and how I am the one supposedly sowing discord.

Not long after, none other than Regnery’s pet, Richard Spencer, was being featured atop The Goebbels Report…

...tagging along on this occasion was a new luminary in the Regnery right wing tentosphere, Josh Neal, who, in turn, is apparently being encouraged to bring along other nubies on the WN scene, like Richard Houck, to play the same old Regnery German/Jewish game of pandering to the White American demographic in their reaction.

Regnery is apparently sponsoring much of the dubious right wing White identity - such as Richard Spencer’s NPI and Mike Enoch’s TRS.

Norvin tells me that a character going by the nom de plume of “Privada” is acting as a producer (gate-keeper) for those going on (what I’m guessing is) the Rengery approved circuit.

Related at Majorityrights:

On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master

Regnery and Spencer, central umbrellas in the Regnery Tentosphere. Richard Thpenther thays, “If you’re not right on “the PQ” (Polish question), we’re going to purge you from thith movement” - (((Alternative Right))).

Regnery Publishing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regnery Publishing is a conservative book publisher based in Washington, D.C. An imprint of Salem Media Group, it is led by president Marji Ross. The company was founded by Henry Regnery in 1947.[3][4][5]

Regnery has published books by authors such as former Republican Party chairman Haley Barbour, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, columnist Michelle Malkin, Robert Spencer, pundit David Horowitz, Vice President Mike Pence and his family and Barbara Olson.

Again, Regnery is known to sponsor many right wing projects, including those that “White Nationalists” are involved in, apparently sponsoring TRS (see here, here and here as to why that’s particularly dubious) in addition to Spencer’s NPI (among the manifold dubiousness of that outfit, for example, here).

Below are samples from the most recent tweet to tweets not far down the line (even though some of the dates are old) from Regnery president, Marj Ross, indicating a kosher aesthetic.

Marji Ross on Twitter:

Marji Ross Retweeted

Dave Sussman, Whiskey Politics
‏
@DavidSussman
20 Dec 2018

.@Regnery inspires new authors! Learn how to get published, catch up on 2018’s best books & what’s upcoming in 2019 as Marji Ross joins me at #WhiskeyPolitics.
Produced by Praemonitus Communications @6foot2inhiheels.
@SebGorka @VP @AnnCoulter @YouTube

Ep. 156 - Marji Ross with Regnery Press
Regnery’s gift to budding authors: How to get published. Marji Ross, President and Publisher at Regnery Press shares with Dave Sussman her favorite books of ...

.....

Sebastian Gorka DrG
‏
Verified account

@SebGorka
2 Oct 2018
More
The Great One has spoken.

Thank you @marklevinshow!

        One week today:

https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Fight-Recovering-Americas/dp/162157640X …

 

https://twitter.com/SebGorka/status/1047169524175437825

.....

Marji Ross
‏
@MRossRegnery
30 Aug 2016

As many of you know, in my spare time, I’m a football nut. If you love #NFL, check it out https://www.amazon.com/Are-Ready-Some-Football-2016/dp/1535150858/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472579189&sr=8-1&keywords=are+you+ready+for+some+football+book ….

.....

Shellie Blum
‏

@shellieblum
9 Jun 2016
More
Replying to @MRossRegnery
@Regnery @oreillyfactor You did a great job! It’s nice 2 hear someone in the traditional Publishing World be authentic! #books

0 replies 2 retweets 1 like
Reply   Retweet 2   Like 1   Direct message

....

Marji Ross
‏

@MRossRegnery
26 Apr 2016
More
Meeting with the incredibly talented and beautiful #Stacey Dash to plan the launch of her upcoming Regnery book!

Alexandra Levine talks with Dave Sussman:

Alexandra Levine with ‘Jews for Trump’ discusses Trump, Israel & being a Conservative Jew

(((Alexandra Levine and Dave Sussman))) an act featured by the The Regnery Circus

..................................................

Paul Gottfried, Gilad Atzmon and David Cole Stein are three ready examples of Jews who are taking the kind of right wing and philo-Germanic perspective that is characteristic of the Regnery circus (even if Stein and Atzmon are not published by Regnery, they are common as “the good Jews” among Regnery discourse-promotional circuits).

Buchanan, Gottfried and Spencer. Along with President Reagan, Buchanan is a descendant of (((Frank Meyers))) “fusionism” (Judeo-Christianity + Enlightenment objectivism), so too Paul Gottfried; and Gottfried, a German Jew, tends to see “the bad Jews as Slavic”; of high relevance, Gottfried’s fear of intersectionality against “The Left” had him call for damage control misdirection against a White Left ethnonational response to Jews in their ascendance to unprecedented hegemony circa 2008, calling for a Paleoconservatism 2.0, an Alternative Right, which Richard Spencer took up - a tentosphere of right wing reactionaries now usually being called “the dissident right” after Spencer and his Alt-Right brand name were predictably steered into destruction.

   
David Cole-Stein, adversary of “The Left”, supported early holocaust revisionist efforts, a proud German-Jew who detests Slavic Jews.

   
Atzmon, philo-Germanic, anti-Zionist
...offering some insider critique of Jewish power and influence
(probably as semi conscious damage control)
but otherwise basically a liberal.

Related at Majorityrights:

Kristol>NeoCon>Meyer>Paleocon> Gottfried>Francis>NPI> Gottfried>AltRight/lite> Paleocon>Bannon>Trump

Richard Thpenther’s (((Altright tentosphere))): “PQ” (Polish question), Goldstein’s false opposition

On The Regnery Circus Big-Tent-O-Sphere, Featuring Richard Spencer as its Ring-Master

From whence comes the eclecticism of the alternative right big tent concept.

The Alternative-Right’s big tent, would additionally include the Jews for some unknown reason.

The alternative right’s big tent, already too inclusive - includes Jews as well

Big Tent quartermasters faced with fresh spate of pro-Jewish pandering from Donald Trump.

Unite the Right Charlottesville: successful neocon/liberal operation forces wedge against paleo-Cohn

“Dissident Discourse /w Majority Rights - Ethnocentrism Extravaganza”

The title would probably more accurately read “Daniels Speaks with Faustian Spirit”, who, with the help of a bit of right wing trolling from the chat, “an extravaganza” of right wing trolling, offers up challenges to the platform that DanielS is promoting. I was expecting a more unfettered occasion to set out some ideas, and not particularly delighted to deal with challenges from right wingers, particularly those advocating Christianity/Jesus, Nazism/Hitler, Scientism/Might Makes Right etc., but with Faustians’ platform of Dissident Discourse and his obvious concern for our common cause and enemies of the interests of European peoples, the underlying will is good to allow our discourse to move on its course to agreement, alignment and coordination.

Published on Youtube, Apr 1, 2019, #CNN #News

Samantha Josephson, a 21-year-old University of South Carolina senior, was found dead in a field about 14 hours after getting into a vehicle she mistakenly thought was her Uber, police in Columbia, South Carolina said.

CNN’s Dianne Gallagher has the latest developments. #CNN #News

Jen Scharf is an egomaniac promoting an attempted diversion of White interests that she calls “The Church of Entropy.”

She balks at our natural and active WN concern for a consistent genetic legacy of our kind, and proffers that White men will be made “happy” by passively accepting her hokus pokus wizardry about being reincarnated into ...well, whatever, a Mulatto, a rabbit, who knows what she has in mind. She claims to be a reincarnated Indian (that’s what whack job that she is) come to enlighten White people.

Here are my exchanges with her as I exposed her as an agent of misdirection. As a result, she does not want anything to do with me - not “in any way, shape or form” - to which, of course, I say LOL! it is quite fine with me.

Here is the article that I am referring to in response to Jen Scharf calling me a “drama queen”:

Rapper films girlfriend crying-out for parents hours before overdose death, 400 meters from hospital

Daily Mail, “Rapper boyfriend of Holby City star’s daughter ‘filmed her dying and called her a drama queen after he gave her psychedelic drug at Bestival - but didn’t call 999 in case he was arrested”, 5 Feb 2019.

And I commented on a remark of hers to Clair Khaw, that I was using these “wizard terms, like ‘modernity.”