Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
The New Brighton, Minnesota City Council recently held a meeting that degenerated into a “cat fight” when a Nice White Liberal lady was attacked as a “racist” by the White anti-White mayor for refusing to acknowledge “white privilege.”
Panelist Burg would bring up the term “white privilege.” She intimated how everyone in the room was incapable in walking in others’ shoes.
That’s when the conversation took a tense turn. Bauman said she “resented” Burg’s talk of privilege, as if the life she had somehow required no effort.
“Because I’m white, you think I was privileged my whole life?” she asked. “Are you kidding?”
Johnson’s voiced changed. She said Bauman was “the exact reason” New Brighton needed a task force. If Bauman didn’t understand white privilege, the mayor continued, she was handicapped in representing the community in its entirety.
“What you have just said,” Johnson said, “is the most racist – ”
“Excuse me?” interrupted Bauman. “Don’t you ever, ever accuse me of that. You have no basis to say something like that in public.”
The mayor offered clarification: “Let me rephrase it. That statement was one of the most racist things I’ve ever heard. … That statement that you’re not feeling the white privilege thing.”
The anti-White lady began to cry, overcome with emotion, and actually used the classic SJW line that she was “literally shaking” because the liberal lady had denied she had “white privilege.” It used to be that being against “racism” was a given and you’d receive no pushback. But “racism” as a concept morphed from “hating someone because of the color of their skin” to “not being actively anti-White.” The mayor received pushback and that stripping of her moral authority gave her an emotional breakdown.
As Bob Whitaker famously said, anti-whiteness is not “like” a religion – it IS a religion. It is not a rational assessment of social reality, it is a superstitious cluster of ideas. NPI’s Richard Spencer, in a famous speech titled “Why They Hate Us,” pointed out how many White people’s ideas about “racism” are deeply held beliefs, tied with emotions of shame and guilt, with a decidedly religious character – very similar to Victorian notions of sexuality and inherently evil.
The Nice White Lady at the New Brighton City Council meeting reacted with anger at being accused of “racism” – and the anti-White mayor burst into tears when she received pushback against the idea that all White people had “White privilege.” The incident was not two people having a rational discussion about social policy, it was two White women in an emotional confrontation about the religious notion of sin.
In many American Evangelical Christian cultures, a typical way that a young person, even a child, is “saved” is by showing them images of Jesus being tortured on the cross, making the child feel that he or she is guilty of all sorts of heinous sins, and that it is his or her fault that Jesus was murdered. Often times the child will cry and then beg to be forgiven, as children are traumatized by the idea that they caused the torture and death of some innocent person they didn’t even know.
When they “accept responsibility for their sins” by “accepting Jesus into their heart” they are then “forgiven” provided that they are constantly on guard against committing any more “sins.” This is, of course, textbook child abuse, a form of causing emotional trauma that without the cover of religion would never be acceptable.
The “anti-racist” religion works in precisely the same way. I recall in high school, in a mixed class of whites and blacks, being shown pictures of lynchings and slaves being whipped, and all the white kids were told that this was “our fault.” The black kids were of course humiliated and angry, and the teachers were quite explicit that the black kids had the “right” to be angry at the white kids, and the white kids had the duty to feel guilt and shame.
The way the white kids could be “forgiven” for their “sin” of “racism?” Why, to become anti-white and to constantly be on guard against the “sin” of “racism” in their daily life.
Without the veneer of “anti-racist” religion, this sort of “anti-racist awareness training” would be considered nothing but child abuse and the purposeful abuse of children leading to emotional trauma. — Hipster Racist, http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/11/30/excerpt-from-human-sin-or-social-sin/
Anti-Whiteness has replaced Christianity as the religion of post-1960s White America. Original sin has been replaced with “racism” and “white privilege.” Jesus Christ has been replaced with Martin Luther King. Satan has been replaced with Adolph Hitler. Anti-whiteness is not rational, it is an irrational and superstitious religion. The conflict between the two White women at the City Council meeting had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with irrational superstitions about “racism” and “white privilege.” When Johnson called Bauman a “racist” she was essentially calling her a “witch” in league with Satan.
Anti-Whites are receiving more and more pushback – there is starting to be a cost to being anti-White. But the anti-Whites aren’t going to stop just yet.
In economics and business decision-making, sunk cost refers to the cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered. In traditional microeconomic theory, only prospective (future) costs are relevant to an investment decision. Traditional economics proposes that economic actors should not let sunk costs influence their decisions. Doing so would not be rationally assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits.
Evidence from behavioral economics suggests this theory fails to predict real-world behavior. Sunk costs do, in fact, influence actors’ decisions because humans are prone to loss aversion and framing effects. In light of such cognitive quirks, it is unsurprising that people frequently fail to behave in ways that economists deem “rational”.
The entire facade of anti-Whiteness is based on the idea that it’s moral, the religious notion that people of European ancestry are uniquely evil and born with original sin. In order to atone for this original sin, White people must marry someone of another race, promote mass immigration into White countries and only White countries, make public apologies and displays of subservience for other races, and demean and disparage white people, white history, and white culture – while at the same time loudly proclaiming such things don’t exist.
But if what they are doing is actually immoral – if it’s actually driven by hate, not love, then these people are guilty of crimes. Some could be prosecuted. Some will be socially ostracized. What do they have to show for decades of anti-white actions?