Noam Chomsky says that anti-racism is class war against working class White people

The liberal intelligentsia took up “civil rights” 50 years ago, and found it paid pretty well. It was quite a party, because it was supported by the oligarchs and plutocrats. And it was probably fun for a lot of them to shit on ordinary white people, even their own “racist relatives,” and say, “ha ha, the culture is on our side.”

But anti-whitism has always been driven by the oligarchy, and only remuneratively enforced by the liberals. It was always about beating down lower class and middle class white people, making us culturally and legally subordinate. And liberals enjoyed it and many still enjoy it.

But the top liberal intellectuals are noticing a problem. Below are three examples — Noam Chomsky, Eric Alterman and Paul Collier of the British magazine “The New Statesman.” Collier puts in a lot of liberalist filler to try and cover his butt, but his “10 blocks” are devastating to the whole project of liberalism and multiculturalism. In fact, it is an acknowledgment of Keith Alexander’s motto, The project of liberalism is doomed when multiculturalism succeeds.

In bashing down white people, the oligarchs and their paychex liberals have created the 21st century Dystopia of diversity, multiclturalism, low wages, the Knockout game, mudsharking, Mexicans and Guatemalans taking jobs that should go to American teenagers, and many many many more assaults on our lives and our quality of life.

When liberalism comes down, it’s coming down hard. The USSR was brought down by it’s own politicians. Liberal intellectuals themselves are starting to chip away at their own Berlin Wall of political correctness. I made this post because when liberals attack their own ideology, they do it with the insight of insiders. We hate the PC but since we had no part in crafting it or enforcing it, but only being victimized by it and fighting it, we don’t see it from the inside. We can’t imagine what it has been like to be a “civil rights” supporter, and then (apparently) become disillusioned with the whole project. Of course to admit such a thing outright invites a “racist” witch hunt, so they don’t admit it outright, but they sure beat around the bush very hard.

So they know it doesn’t work. How do we push this thing over the rest of the way? The best idea I can come up with is that we become individually powerful and wealthy, and then work with one another on a model of informal friendship and business networks, and raise a generation of strong children who will at least survive the Dystopia, at best, overthrow it and seed a new, pro-white, Traditionalist culture.

Noam Chomsky admits — antiracism is antiwhite.

One big problem is that the white working class has been pretty much abandoned by the political system. The Democrats don’t even try to organize them anymore. The Republicans claim to do it; they get most of the vote, but they do it on non-economic issues, on non-labor issues. They often try to mobilize them on the grounds of issues steeped in racism and sexism and so on, and here the liberal policies of the 1960s had a harmful effect because of some of the ways in which they were carried out. There are some pretty good studies of this. Take busing to integrate schools. In principle, it made some sense, if you wanted to try to overcome segregated schools. Obviously, it didn’t work. Schools are probably more segregated now for all kinds of reasons, but the way it was originally done undermined class solidarity.

For example, in Boston there was a program for integrating the schools through busing, but the way it worked was restricted to urban Boston, downtown Boston. So black kids were sent to the Irish neighborhoods and conversely, but the suburbs were left out. The suburbs are more affluent, professional and so on, so they were kind of out of it. Well, what happens when you send black kids into an Irish neighborhood? What happens when some Irish telephone linemen who have worked all their lives finally got enough money to buy small houses in a neighborhood where they want to send their kids to the local school and cheer for the local football team and have a community, and so on? All of a sudden, some of their kids are being sent out, and black kids are coming in. How do you think at least some of these guys will feel? At least some end up being racists. The suburbs are out of it, so they can cluck their tongues about how racist everyone is elsewhere, and that kind of pattern was carried out all over the country.

Eric Alterman echoes Chomsky thing here:

John Derbyshire mentioned an article in the New Statesman (a left wing British political magazine) that says a discouraging word about immigration.

I fear that the open door, multiculturalism and generous provision of public services may be the social policy equivalent – another impossible trinity. This is because the major social risk posed by rapid migration combined with multiculturalism is not that the society polarises but that it atomises. It’s not that England would descend into violence but that our tacit norms of co-operationand generosity would gradually be undermined.

With an open door, migration keeps accelerating beyond this level so that diasporas keep expanding, thereby increasing diversity. In turn, beyond a point diversity starts to undermine the co-operation and generosity on which egalitarian policies rest. This is why the trinity of policies judged desirable by liberal intellectuals may be impossible.

With the current state of knowledge, such questions remain open. The analytics suggest that the net effects of migration follow an inverse-U pattern: moderate migration is modestly beneficial, whereas rapid migration carries potentially large risks. We lack the research to determine where our society is along this inverse U.

My guess is that, to date, Britain has had net benefits. We do, however, know that uncontrolled migration accelerates. Consequently, at some point the costs of additional diversity would outweigh the benefits. We do not know at what rate diasporas are being absorbed. Hence, we do not know what rate of migration would be compatible with stable diasporas. We do not know at what point particular social conventions would start to crack in the face of rising diversity. We do not know what the costs of such cracks would be.

In these circumstances, liberal intellectuals who dismiss concerns about future migration, as distinct from the complaints about its past effects, are being cavalier at other people’s expense. It is the indigenous poor, existing immigrants and people left behind in the countries of origin who are potentially at risk, not the middle classes.

Liberal intellectuals are being cavalier at other peoples’ expense. That’s a good way to put it.


About Rob

Come with me if you want to live
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Noam Chomsky says that anti-racism is class war against working class White people

  1. mindweapon says:

    Interesting comments in the Statesman article. Commenter “Stick, End, Wrong” tries to call immigration restrictionists “selfish” and tolpuddle and others bodyslam him.

    tolpuddle1 • 10 days ago
    The trouble with the liberals who enthuse about mass-immigration, is that they’re thoroughly bad and selfish people kidding themselves that they’re good people – because they have “good” opinions !
    54 •Reply•Share ›
    Stick, End, Wrong tolpuddle1 • 10 days ago
    Sharing is selfish? The doublethink is strong in this one.

    Perhaps the people you label as “liberals”, whether o not they actually are, just recognise that mass-migration has been happening throughout history, that “we English” are immigrants ourselves, and that the attitude of “I’ve got mine, you lot can go soak” is the very antithesis of a civilised society.

    This might come as a shock, both capitalists and socialists believe in the free movement of people. And where that leaves your “liberals” narrative, I don’t know.
    5 17 •Reply•Share ›
    Ralph Musgrave Stick, End, Wrong • 9 days ago
    Stick, end, wrong trots out that tired old myth about the English being a nation of immigrants. The reality is that immigration for several centuries prior toWWII was on a minute scale (nothwithstanding the Huguenots) compared to post WWII. And as to Normans and Angles and Saxons, that was an invasion, not migration.

    And as to the fact that there is a moral obligation to share, that is not an argument for immigration: we can share by donating to and giving technical assistance to less developed countries.

    But it’s nice to see the pro-immigration lot in these comments so far not descending their usual moron behaviour: screaming insults like Nazi, racist, xenophobe at anyone who disagrees with them.
    48 •Reply•Share ›
    sam stevenson Stick, End, Wrong • 9 days ago
    Not all socialists believe in “free movement”. Some recognize it as the tool to permanently reduce worker wages that it actually is. It’s good of you that giving is so high on your priority list, but methinks you aren’t one of the ones (lower class, non-skilled) that “gives” the most, in the face of relentless migration.
    33 •Reply•Share ›
    Will Podmore sam stevenson • 6 days ago −
    Good one Sam.
    Karl Marx said to the First International back in 1867, “in order to oppose their workers, the employers either bring in workers from abroad or else transfer manufacture to countries where there is a cheap labour force.” Or both, we should add.
    Migration is a key way for the employers to mobilise and exploit cheap labour. The employers generally back both EU membership and mass migration: both help them to keep wages down and profits up.
    The British working class comprises all, wherever they are from, of whatever colour or creed, who live here permanently and sell or want to sell their labour power. We recruit into our trade unions all our fellow workers resident here, without discrimination.
    More than 20 per cent of our under-25s are out of work, nearly a million young people. So Britain doesn’t need migrant labour: employers and governments want it. So governments talk of restricting immigration but actually encourage it.
    11 •Reply•Share ›

    tolpuddle1 Stick, End, Wrong • 9 days ago
    People who really do share, are of course, as you say, unselfish. Liberals, however, do not share themselves – for example by sharing their homes, or jobs, with migrants. Clearly, at a time of housing and economic crisis, someone must.

    In other words, liberals (and socialists too) have high principles, but expect other people to meet the costs of these ; and in a world of scarcities, there ARE costs. (Though the idiots who think the world is always going to get richer and richer and better and better may imagine otherwise). The capitalist motivations for supporting mass-immigration are of course beneath contempt.

    The way of helping people in the developing world is to adjust the world economy to give them a better deal – destroying Britain to show how generous you supposedly are, isn’t going to help anyone; those who travel here are clambering on board a boat that is already sinking for other reasons; mass-immigration merely hastens the process and will magnify the severity of the forthcoming shipwreck (quite possibly this winter).

    The mass-migration in today’s world is unprecedented in speed and scale – certainly England hasn’t seen anything remotely like it since 1066. England survived because previous waves of immigrants were assimilated; partly because the multi-cultural industry didn’t then exist, but mainly because of a shared Christian faith, severely inapplicable this time.

    You should seek not to be a hypocrite (like other liberals and socialists) pretending to share, but that rare thing – a sincerely good person – who actually DOES share, though this comes at a very high cost in self-sacrifice.

  2. mindweapon says:

    Big Bill workforlivn • 6 days ago −
    We are told by liberals in the USA that Mexican immigrants are good because they “do the job that [lazy, entitled, evil Christian union workers] won’t do.” Yes, we know what code words are.

    But once the immigrants are in the country (and continue to be the peasants they yearn to be), we are told we must create hundreds and hundreds of welfare and education programs, teach their kids to read (when they don’t want to), create special jobs for them to do, waste millions inspiring them to be doctors, lawyers, and rocket scientists.and affirmatively hire and specially train them because (and this is the truly weird part) it is BAD that they are “willing to do the jobs Americans do”.

    So we are burdened with turning Mexican peasants into high achievers. In fact, it is positively racist that they are “doing the jobs Americans won’t do.”

    So there are massive costs to immigrants, particularly peasant immigrants, who, by and large, just want to continue being peasants in America–better paid peasants, with big pickup trucks and a fishing boat, perhaps, but peasants nonetheless.

    Because to the liberal, their very peasant existence in America is Evil and Racist. Liberals invite them here because they are dumb and work for peanuts, and then they raise taxes so they can spend tens of millions of dollars trying to re-engineer their entire culture and turn them into rocket scientists.

    Which. of course, means we have to import a NEW generation of peasants to replace the LAST generation of peasants to “do the jobs that Americans won’t do.”

    This is nothing short of insanity.

    Brian • 5 days ago
    It’s not just a matter of third-world immigrants embracing English ‘culture’. It’s also a matter of the survival of ethnic distinctiveness. There are people in England whose ancestors have been there since time immemorial. It is their HOME. Why are those people obligated to be cheerfully absorbed into a uniform beige mass of humanity? What is wrong with having an England populated by actual Englishmen, maintained for the benefit of themselves and their posterity? Did the WW2 generation fight so their nation could, a half-century later, be invaded without a shot fired? _We do not want to be replaced._

  3. Brandon says:

    Don’t get your hopes up. They still have to suffer the consequences of their behavior. They can put their so-called eye opening where the sun don’t shine. Don’t rejoice in this feint.

  4. Denise says:

    The Hebes are beginning to appreciates the fact that their Dark Pets couldn’t care LESS about their Holohoax garbage, will not DO for them as beautifully as the Pal Goy have, and wil kill THEM in a second. Laughing as they do.

    Here is a recent Michael Weiner clip:

    He goes full on Kommissar Kike. RACIST as HELL.

    Then there is this:

    This Tad THING is a POS. If it’s not a Jew – he’s worse. A Shabbos Goy Heretic Race Traitor.

    Read the Comments. The new tactic is outright lioes. Blatant, outright LIES.

    • mindweapon says:

      that’s pretty funny!

    • A.Ralston says:


      Well done.

      The convoluted “thought” processes of White Zionist Christians always astonishes me. The mere attempt to fathom the logical, epistemological, and ethical implications of the “chosen-tribe” concept will short-circuit a normal healthy brain.

      Arguing with these race betrayors, who oppose Life and Goodness, is probably futile…but, then again, I realize that you, with impressive and commendable passion, are doing so more to address the uncommited remnant than to change the minds of the Adversary’s slave-legions.

      • Denise says:

        Thanks! I may or may not change any-one’s mind, at this point,. I fervently believe the 2014 is when RaHoWa goes LIVE, when Obamacare touches down like a thermonuclear bomb.

        The havoc this will unleash will MAKE people deal with reality, and look for real answers. The Jew miasma is already lifting – the Hebes would not have to push so hard with all this agitprop, were they still in control of The Narrative.

        Our job is to point the newly awakened in the right direction.

        The Rapture Retards are full on mental. They need to Rapture Up ASAP.

  5. Wally D. says:

    It’s always a learning experience to catch a glimpse inside the mind of ones enemies, especially as it finally dawns on them that they’ve become very visable targets in the Knockout game.

    • Can a thirdworld-immigrant who is on an amok tear, distinguish between a Jewish person and a non-Jewish white person? I think not: Every Jewish person with whom I have ever been acquainted, looks at least as white as I am.

      • Wally D. says:

        Orthodox Jews stand out like sore thumbs.

      • Sam says:

        Ah Ha something I can answer. Look at these pages.

        Notice a lot of Jews, especially the upper ones in control, have a slanted forehead. Also look how the lower back of the head jumps out. No I don’t believe they are Neanderthals but they might be Neanderthal hybrids. There was a paper I read one time that said way back when, (3000 B.C. ??) way back, a group of people came out of the Caucasus area and after that there was large scale burning and devastation of settlements. To add even more to that weirdness here’s a paper on a bigfoot?/human hybrid.

        Look at the children. Kinda Jewey looking huh. Now this may mean nothing but maybe it does. Jews always attempt to hide what they are. Remember how the study of skulls was (so-called) dis-created by the “Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould. Come to find out he lied, lied , lied. Why? What was he covering up. Could it be the study of skulls is important? Also remember what the Jews did to anthropology. Boas ruined it. All people are the same…blah…blah…blah. They kicked out the former head of anthropology Coons who wrote, “The Races of Man” , a good read. Why? Sometimes , like Pravda, you can learn more by what they aren’t saying than what they are saying.

        To get even farther out there’s a guy who would hate me to death if he thought that anyone was saying Jews were Neanderthal hybrids.

        So I’m not saying that just noticing how the children looked. He believes, best I can understand, that they are hybrids of these.

  6. We can’t imagine what it has been like to be a “civil rights” supporter, and then (apparently) become disillusioned with the whole project.

    I can. I think John Derbyshire has pointed out before that, when the Civil Rights movement was first starting out, people thought that it had an endpoint, that within 20 years or whatever, all these problems would disappear. That hasn’t happened. So there is a “cold, dark despair” about the whole thing which nobody wants to face, least of all someone whose youth was tied up with the movement in some way or another.

    Here’s a relevant article about this mindset:

  7. countenance says:

    I keep getting Noam Chomsky and Noel Ignatiev (who is also tangentially in the news lately) mixed up.

  8. Johnsonas says:

    Reblogged this on Johnsono ne'Blog'as and commented:
    Anti-racist = anti-white

  9. Pingback: Jew Noam Chomsky Admits that “Anti-racism” is Class War Against Working Class White People |

  10. MOISHE (NOT) says:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s