A Telling Quote

It explains much.

From the novel Majestrum by Matthew Hughes:

A lifelong habit of being right also had the effect of diminishing one’s social appeal, especially among those who prefer to keep the bubble of their various illusions a safe distance from a needle-sharp and probing intelligence.

There probably is not another sentence in the history of literature that more accurately reflects the true underlying reasons for the hostility of “movement leaders” for the “crazy and bitter” Ted Sallis.

And the whole interplay is amplified by the “rage of a privileged class” effect of affirmative action beneficiaries smashing up against the wall of the Peter Principle, and taking out their frustrations on those who have more ability but who are not part of the quota set.

It’s unfortunate that such attitudes stand in the way of pro-White interests, and of properly utilizing the available human material to advance those interests, but it is what it is.

Justice for Michael Douglas

Not the actor.

In response to this, I say: hey, Laura, given the dark stain in your past, why don't you just shut your filthy mouth?  Instead of making excuses for the young man you killed, why don't you come clean, after all these years, about it?  Were you driving drunk? Why no sobriety test?  Did you harbor a grudge against the victim?  Was it all really an accident?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Yeah, maybe, just maybe....

Laura Bush is an enigma wrapped in another enigma. She is shy, beautiful, bookish, and in 1963, she blew through a stop sign and killed a guy. It was probably an accident. Perhaps it was simply youthful recklessness. Or maybe, just maybe... it was murder. Join Mrs. Bush for this intimate evening of reminiscences: of her childhood in Texas, of her marriage to George W. Bush, and of their rapid ascent to the very pinnacle of world power. Don’t miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get up close and personal with the woman behind the Decider.

You know, there is no statute of limitations on murder.  Nothing stops authorities from reopening the Michael Douglas case to see if there is any evidence to put before a grand jury.  It can be done right now.  It should be done right now.  Why not?  If there is nothing wrong there, if there is nothing to hide, why not reopen the case and put all questions to rest?  Speaking of rest: Can Michael Douglas finally rest in peace?

Justice for Michael Douglas!

Alt Right Aesthetics

A brisk fisking.

Read here.

1. Aesthetics matter more than optics

It Doesn't (sic) matter what you do, it matters what you look like while you do it. They hate you, no matter what. You can save an entire school bus of children from drowning in a river in a flash flood, but the second your politics are revealed they will hate you and try to discredit and destroy you. Are we clear? Yes? Good. It doesn't actually matter what you say, hardly anyone will remember it unless it's exceptionally profound and you are a person of note. It matters what you look like, a well kept man is immediately notable versus a disheveled bum. How you are dressed -clean, well-fitted, matched- and what your hair looks like -effort vs no effort- your footwear -appropriate shoe for the occasion- and, if in person, how you smell. These are the things that impact people and it happens in 1/10th of a second. If you can make someone like or trust you in 1/10th of a second they will second guess everything that comes after that, you can only do that visually. First impressions are forever. If in doubt, start with the footwear and move upwards.

There is some value here; it is true that many people, a large fraction of the masses, judge almost entirely by appearance, by aesthetics.  Also, even those people who pay attention to the message also are influenced by aesthetics.  So, obviously, this is all important.  But taken literally as written, point one is absolute nonsense.  Really?  No one at all will pay attention to anything you say? Really?  So Trump won the Presidency because he was better dressed than, first, Jeb and Rubio and Ted and then, later, Clinton?  The best dressed man won?  If all that matters is aesthetics than “suit-and-tie” Jared Taylor and “metrosexual” Richard Spencer would be our Senators from Virginia already.  Yes, first impressions are forever.  But if you think that a good pair of shoes can completely substitute for a compelling message than you’re dumber than the average “movement” Nutzi.

2. Not everyone is an erudite gentleman. Nor should they be.

To the untrained eye this may seem in opposition to my previous point. It is not. 

Actually it is.

Authenticity is as much a part of aesthetics as anything else. 

Which is why you wrote: 

How you are dressed -clean, well-fitted, matched- and what your hair looks like -effort vs no effort- your footwear -appropriate shoe for the occasion- and, if in person, how you smell.

Cosmopolitan dwelling fellas, you ain't getting a country boy in a suit and tie if he isn't getting married or burying a relative, and that is okay. Some of the issues you have with “optics" is expecting a regionally distinct nation to follow the rules of only one region; which is exactly what the liberal coastal elites have been doing for decades! Speaking of regional conflicts...

OK, so a farmer wearing dirty boots and smelling like cow manure is A-OK.  Start with dem dere footwear and move upwards.

3. The South is for Southerners

There is no rational reason to concede ground to an enemy preceding a war, unless you have an advanced strategy to counter the push. You don't volunteer your losses ahead of the game, and you certainly don't reveal your hand of what you find most valuable. Alienating swaths of people by volunteering their homes as tribute to the very people who swarm their neighborhoods making them unsafe and barely habitable may seem like a funny meme or a rational concession; but it isn't and by the by, I don't hear an alternative where you give up your homes and flee to the South. The idea of an ethnic homeland for our people is a good one, but we need to think smarter than Balkanizing the United States of America.

Alright, I see nothing wrong with this.  I previously, it is true, wrote essays favoring this sort of racial portioning, but I see the point.  If White Southerners can seize and hold territory, more power to them.  Let’s see how it all falls out.

4. Shitposting isn't going to save the world

These ideas have to make it into the real world where people live. Even the people you have contempt for have life experiences they can relate to our ideology. Why? Because the things that you've noticed aren't unique to you just because you noticed them already for what they are. Online we live in a polarized meta-reality of extremes. Fascist or Marxist. Right or left. Genocide or victory. Those extremes simply don't exist on the typical person's radar. There is a season for all things and now is the season to forge real life connections with real life people. The way forward is not tiki-torches and marching, it is a quiet, responsible conversation about real affairs that matter to the man or woman in the street.

So then, basically the entire Alt Right “strategy” up until this point has been wrong.

5. Stop trying to purge people!

What kind of whacked out brain-fry drug den did you just crawl out of to think that any white person to the right of center is disposable? Identify them for what they are, and then utilize whatever it is they do or can do to benefit our immediate concerns. We have other concerns than just Zionism. We have to get legislation passed or stopped. We have to spread the word of first and second amendment breaches and violations. We have to talk about immigration. We have to talk about MS-13 and other gang activity. We have to have discussions existing on the internet that we don't have a million hours in the day to have. I personally am very critical of basic CivNat conservatives. They are weak and ineffective at conservatism, but i never advocate for purging their huge, beautiful, rarely banned platforms. Stop being ridiculous. Immediately.

I disagree; the “big tent” approach, a form of mainstreaming, was, is, and remains a failure.  Although “purging” may be the wrong approach; ignoring in some cases can be better.  However, if someone promoting failed approaches is occupying your niche space, an ideological and memetic battle is necessary.

6. There's no such thing as "Punching Right"

Nobody is above criticism. Nobody is above harsh criticism. Nobody. 

Including all the Quota Queens?  Now, don’t get all “crazy and bitter” on us here.

This doesn't mean that person needs to be “purged” from the movement. We refine ourselves through defending our positions, we refine our arguments by having them more than once, and losing more often than we win. We refine our ideology through discussion; and you aren't the gatekeeper of how that discussion is meant to be hosted. Anyone who has put their name or pseudonym forward accepts the inevitability that they will be challenged intellectually, morally and spiritually. There is surely no reason to schism between fans of this guy or that guy. That guy is not the be-all end-all, and this guy is only the guy until we find a better guy. Avoid cults of personality.

Err…the entire “movement” is based on “cults of personality” – hence all the catfights and feuding.  And does the “inevitability” of criticism apply to “milady” who has her crew of white knights ready to defend her honor (or what passes for it).

7. Get a thesaurus

Stop using words you know will get you banned on leftist social media platforms. The English language is the best language on the planet; and there are about 40 legitimate words that aren't bannable for every bannable word you type. For example whore is bannable, strumpet is not. Retarded is bannable, simple is not. Understand that in one moment we talk about white excellence and in the other we show that we can't learn, collectively, how to stop saying bad words and getting shut down. Adapt.

OK. Fine.

8. Quit pretending you don't want women talking about politics

Yes you do. You need women to talk about politics. You may not want them in politics or to hold office, after all,who does; women are inherently terrible at it. Please though, stop with the ridiculous assertion that you want women to stop talking about current affairs or identity issues. It's an aphrodisiac when a woman agrees with you about topics that you care deeply about. For her to understand what concerns you and why, is a comfort to you. To be able to vent your frustrations to someone who can hear you and can fathom your concern is a boon. Do you really want to come home to dinner, start moaning about Mueller, communists or the latest political compromise in direct opposition to your immediate needs and be met by a blank stare? No. We are a partnership, always. If you happen to be the very small amount of men who actually hate women, shut up and get out of the way of the men who would like to make lots of babies with the women that you despise.

See the response to #6 above.  Women can’t have it both ways – first, wanting to be involved “just like the guys” and then whining at the slightest criticism and hiding behind white knights who come charging out from behind Patrik Hermansson’s notepads.

9. Jews aren't that powerful.

I am not suggesting you should give them a single moment of respite from pointing out each and every instance they exercise what influence they've been permitted to have.

I said permitted.

They are not innovative or cutthroat or fun. They merely exhibit an enviable in-group bias. This is the fundamental crux of the relationship between the West and those Jews who take advantage of systems we create for their group benefit. It is not every Jew you meet in day to day life; and therefore our attention to relations between our peoples as a whole should be fair, polite, but firm. The cry of antisemitism arises when the grand arch of Zionist influence is threatened- because it can be taken away from them in an instant, as has been done in many other civilizations throughout history. They cannot outperform us, purely based on the relative sizes of our populations; it is a logical strategy to shape a society to better suit your own interests, given this understanding. It is our role to politely refuse such machinations.

Be polite!  Always mention that they have a high, high-IQ and are HuWhyte Men of the West.

Ultimately, though the Jewish lobby has poisoned our society in many respects they will ultimately only destroy themselves with success; just as a parasite cannot live without a host, they cannot live without the protection of Western Civilization, either in our lands or in Jerusalem. We can recognize this reality in the declining Jewish population in the West, through intermarriage and emigration to Israel. This force is in a process of decline in the West- for as much as we can say demography is destiny, this is true for all peoples. It is thus far more important in this context that you rediscover your power and learn to start saying, "No, thank you. This is not in our interest. Good day."

Can we say “No, thank you” to the poseurs, quota queens, and cosplay actors of Der Movement?

Absent of criticism we cannot take the steps necessary to accomplish our collective goals. It is what happens within our small but growing community that sets the stage for the future battles we will face; be they culturally, politically, or in some cases physically. We need to learn to turn into ourselves and each other, first to strengthen from within and only after that push forward into the mire that awaits us. If we do, then bleak prospects will become victorious battles rather than nihilistic concessions and defeat.

Alas, some people in Der Movement have skin thinner than a microtome slice and cannot take any criticism at all.  Those are the “leaders,” by the way.  Much confidence inspired!

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Good point from the Chinaman.  The Alt Right is best described by the latter.  All bluster, no preparation whatsoever.

In Der News, 6/16/18

Some news.

Greg Johnson:

Mainstreaming is not the path to political success.

Indeed, it is not.  There’s more in the podcast attacking mainstreaming, none of which will surprise readers of this blog, since the crazed Ted Sallis has been making these same points for years, including at the time when Counter-Currents featured breathless podcasts of Johnson and Le Brun concerning Ms. Le Pen’s mainstreaming heroics and her electoral chances (and we all know how that turned out).

So, two lessons in all of this:

1. Mainstreaming is a recipe for political failure.

2. If you want to know the cutting edge of Far Right thought, read EGI Notes.  You’ll read here first what others belatedly realize weeks, months, or years later.

Rodney Martin’s good sense:

There is INSUFFICIENT Base Support (Resources) in the existing Political & Social dynamic to USE to build a Pro-White “traditional” political Movement that PARTICIPATES in the EXISTING System.  

We MUST stand apart & build our own, they may mock us as the Masses mocked Noah as he built the Ark. But when the time comes, like Noah, we DON’T let them in.

We MUST understand that we will NOT build Mass Support and over take the EXISTING System.

We MUST give up on the temptation for instant gratification and embrace the virtue of patience, planning, preparing and building.

We MUST understand that NO ONE need know what we are doing.  Media whoring is a vice that has proved deadly.

We MUST ACCEPT that we will NOT take OUR Country Back, anymore than we can bring our favorite Grandfather back from the dead.

We MUST NOT be “Average Americans”

We MUST be a brotherhood without regard to perceived economic, social or  intellectual standing.   There can be NO “Classism”

We MUST ACCEPT the fact that NOT ALL “White People” are “White”.

We MUST REALIZE we CAN do MORE with LESS.

We must choose Quality OVER Quantity

WE DEFINE who we are by fully defining who we are NOT, and who we will NOT accept. 

There is nothing wrong with the concept of our own “Community”, it has yet to be built.

Amren hero Seth Grossman.  He’s…HuWhyte!

Roissy whines:

Where is Jeff Sessions in all this? High treason occurs under his nose and…wtf is he doing about it? Waiting to pounce when the time is right? Jeff, the midterms are just months away; you don’t have much time left to make a move before a horde of screeching anti-American mystery meats and pussyhatters take the lower chamber.

Hey, I thought that “Sessions as Attorney General alone justifies Trump’s election?”  Don’t you know that “America’s Senator” is just doing what he does best: standing around helplessly looking dumbfounded?

It’s interesting how both Sessions and Giuliani, under Trump’s employ, represent ethnic stereotypes.  Sessions – so restrained he’s practically inert; Giuliani - bombastically undisciplined, rolling around like a loose cannon, shelling his own side as much as his opponent.

The Movement’s Good Old Boy Mafia Strikes Again

One of the boys.

It’s Derb.

Notice the mention, and link to, Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents.  I am sure readers of EGI Notes can think of certain blogs dealing with race, science, immigration, politics, etc. that go unmentioned by Der Movement, Inc.  Now, you may argue, goodwhite Derbyshire can hardly be expected to link to blogs or blog writers who have been sharply critical of him.  It’s only natural.

That's some low information moralizing, friends.  The following are some of Johnson’s characterizations of Derbyshire made at the Counter-Currents blog (emphasis added):

Derbyshire, by the way, is not a White Nationalist at all. He is a conservative cognitive elitist who is married to a Chinese woman and has two non-white children. Beyond that, he has attacked White Nationalists in the most scurrilous terms, referring to AmRen attendees as “latrine flies” and attacking Kevin MacDonald on the most swinish possible grounds. It is only when this sucking up to Jews and centrists failed to save him from the charges of racism that he began to associate with White Nationalists, who were all too willing to cross his palm with silver. Frankly it is disgusting that the donations of White Nationalists are being sluiced into the pockets of this opportunist.

2. RE Derbyshire. Yes, every dog should get one bite. But Derbyshire has been at it long enough to show his agenda. Of course, Derbyshire has “grown” a bit in recent years. At one time, he referred to Am Ren attendees as “latrine flies.” But he changed his tune after Jared Taylor crossed his palm with silver. He’s a fox in the henhouse, eating the lunches of genuine pro-whites.

I first learned of Derbyshire when he penned his critique of Kevin MacDonald and his defense of the craven philosemitism of National Review. That was all I needed to know. He is a loathsome individual, and I avoid his work completely.

You were saying?

Now, in actuality, I agree with Johnson that Derbyshire is a “loathsome individual” and I would go further and say VDARE is a loathsome blog.  They have an agenda that is not compatible with pan-European racial nationalism and therefore their behavior is to be expected.  However, the point is not that the Alt Wrong should be citing the genuine Far Right, the point is simply to demonstrate that there really is a “one of the boys” network – a “mafia” if you will – within the “movement” in which affirmative action recipients, despite harsh attacks against one another, will still consider each other “one of the boys” while those outside the quota system are not.  As Der Movement (hypocritically) likes to say about affirmative action when it is used by the System to favor Negroes and other Coloreds – affirmative action is corrosive of merit, of accomplishment, of quality. Endless decades of “movement” failure are thus explained.  That is the point.

Behold Theranos (Again)

An example of the “wimmin” that post-wall harridan Melinda wants to fund with the money from Rick Moranis-look-a-like Bill.

Read here.  Excerpts and comments:

All of this can be applied to “The Movement.” To be completely frank, there are plenty of frauds and con artists in our scene. 

What website are you writing for again?

In fact, there are probably more sociopaths and swindlers in an edgy sociopolitical set than in America’s business community.[1] Unfortunately, there are very few books dedicated to dissecting and examining “The Movement”’s many dangerous people. 

Well, there’s a blog (not a book) - EGI Notes, but I’m “crazy and bitter.”  The author of this piece is obviously not. Obviously.

However, an examination of a parallel social disaster can be extrapolated to match one’s own circumstances and serve to enlighten one in a way which might lead to progress.

Oh yes, indeed.

Carreyrou’s story of Theranos starts in November 2006 and ends in March 2018. His sources are mostly former employees. Central to the story is a Stanford dropout named Elizabeth Holmes.[3] Holmes was from a prominent family that had been successful in business, as well as in military and government service. She grew up in a high-class neighborhood in Washington, D.C. 

In other words, she is “one of the gals.”  Just like Mudshark Annie.  Indeed, the have some romantic preferences in common, it seems.

Holmes deliberately dressed like Steve Jobs. She also faked a deep voice when speaking (her voice can be heard changing in this video). Her leadership style was typical for a dynamic leader of a start-up company. 

It seems to me her style was more typical of a padded cell, but, hey, I’m crazy, so I should know, right?

Holmes enjoyed a flurry of good press and flattery . . . but the machines didn’t work, hadn’t worked, and weren’t about to start working. It was all an elaborately-constructed fraud. An October 2015 Wall Street Journal article exposed the company. Looking backwards, it is probable that Theranos was a fraud from the start…

I agree, many parallels to Der Movement.

This is the first politically correct aspect of this. All that talk about “girl power” and “strong, independent womynz” is a powerful metapolitical influence that led otherwise experienced men to fund the venture, and for a time stopped anyone from asking hard questions about her.

But when people on the Right question the “womynz” in the Alt Right, they get critiqued by Counter-Currents white-knighting.

As a result of Holmes’ respectable social background…

Cue the affirmative action song…

Anyone in Theranos who questioned the reality of the situation was shown the door. 

Or “banned” from a blog, eh?   How is Der Movement different?

There was also a culture of nepotism. 

Ethnic nepotism in Der Movement.  Hint: it’s not only the Asians and Afrowop Mafiosos who practice that.

It’s All Fraud East of Suez

He hired a group of Indians to run the lab. None were qualified, and they fed into the culture of incompetence described above. Because they came on H1-B visas, they couldn’t complain about their working conditions.

Hey! These are Asian cogelites!  GNXP says we need “hundreds of thousands” more of these every year.

Carreyrou’s description of Balwani’s actions match much of what I’ve seen dealing with Asians in my own career. In short, they all “ain’t right.” In this case, I am referring to Asians in the broad sense, not just Indians. A true grasp of cause and effect seems to elude them. The scientific method didn’t originate in India or China. Essentially, east of Suez, it’s all a fraud. 

Except Steve Jobs, eh?

Learning How to Spot a Fraud

Things that mesh with the PC narrative (or any narrative) too well are often frauds. Theranos was political correctness run amok. There was a “strong womyn” running the show. 

But if you criticize the “strong womyn” making Alt Lite podcasts, Alt Right white knights (some of them apparently have no experience with women apart from blood relatives) come out to hysterically defend them.

She was in an interracial relationship. 

Just like Derbyshire.

Theranos was filled with “immigrant strivers.” In talks, Holmes invoked buzzwords as though they were part of a magical spell. She told audiences to “believe in yourself.” Others joined in on the spell-casting. General Mattis called the company a “game changer.”

Imitating the form of a thing is not the same thing as the thing itself. Elizabeth Holmes’ look and back-story was a crude imitation of the outer forms of accomplished men. The truth is, it didn’t matter how Steve Jobs dressed. What he did was actually get results.

Jobs was 50% Syrian Arab – Syria being “east of the Suez.”  But, hey, why should facts and logic get in the way of a Counter-Currents post, with the current brilliant crop of Alt Righters leading the way.  They are low information, but so what?

Beware of promises to simplify that which is very complex. Experts in the field of medicine who had really undergone the complex process were the ones to call Theranos’ bluff. (A good example of an expert with great technical knowledge spotting a fraud can be found here.)

But when someone with technical knowledge in the life sciences calls out HBD pseudoscience and “movement” race fraud, then they are labelled “crazy and bitter.”  Hypocrisy.

Elizabeth Holmes left a trail of destruction in her wake. 

Just like “movement” leaders.

On a final note, one must again emphasize the cliché that all that glitters is not gold. Things that are politically correct, i.e. “women and minorities,” always need a second, harder look. Do not enter into a transaction with any Asian that is any more difficult than bazaar levels of sophistication.

Does that include Asians infiltrating pro-White websites and organizations?  Does that include the HBD fraud?  Does that include Silk Road White nationalism?

Notes

[1] Another insight into the Theranos disaster is the idea that the government, in this case the Food and Drug Administration, can help get rid of quacks. It is clear that the libertarian ideological model of “small government” would have allowed Theranos to carry out its swindle longer than it should have.

Libertarianism is an absurdity.  The fact that the Alt Right had its genesis through libertarianism tells you all you need to know about the stupidity, superficial juvenile attitudes, and aberrant ideology.

[3] Holmes was also descended from Charles L. Fleischmann (1835-1897), a wealthy manufacturer of yeast. Fleischmann was Jewish but married outside of the group. So while she had some Jewish ancestry, it is impossible to put Holmes in any ethnic category other than that of Wilmot Robertson’s American Majority.

Hey, she’s OK then.  After all, she has a Nordish ranking of 2.6439751, so what’s the problem?  She left a trail of destruction in her wake, but she’s still a whole lot better than a bunch of greasy five foot tall Afrowop brownsters scurrying around like roaches over the landscape of a once great country they ruined.

Holmes probably would have been more successful if she had concentrated on medical issues more in her “wheelhouse” – such as novel testing approaches for vaginal yeast infections.

White Privilege is Leftist/Colored Bullying

Lessons of the schoolyard.

I have written on this topic before, but it is useful to set down a brief but comprehensive summary of the problem.  Therefore, here I make three arguments:

1. White Privilege, as defined by the Left as racially-specific advantages possessed by Whites, does not exist.

2. Even if White Privilege existed, it would be justified.

3. Attacks against Whites, re: White Privilege, are simply bullying against Whites because Whites, as a race, are a bunch of pathetic, mewling, cowardly weaklings.

1. The argument that White Privilege does not exist can be briefly subdivided into three parts.

A. A people being demographically dispossessed in their own nations – even in their ancestral homelands of Europe – are obviously not privileged.  Mass immigration into White nations, against the wishes of the populace and imposed by a hostile elite, is not “privilege.”  It is genocide. Declining White birthrates and increasing White suicide rates are not signs of “privilege” – they are signs of oppression and despair.  The opioid crisis among White Americans is not “privilege” – it is hopelessness and despair.  The fact that most politicians in White nations are racially White means nothing, as most of them are openly hardcore anti-White.  The question should be – whose interests do those politicians represent?

B. A people discriminated against de jure by law (affirmative action, hate speech laws in Europe that criminalize natives speaking up in defense of their own group interests) and de facto by political correctness, pop culture, and social pricing, is not “privileged.”

A people not allowed to organize on the basis of their own identity and in defense of that identity and its interests are hardly “privileged” – it is the complete opposite.  A people whose racial spokesmen are attacked in the streets with impunity, mocked by the leftist establishment, ridiculed in their own nation by aliens, deplatformed by corporations, and selectively targeted by the legal system – such a people are the opposite of “privileged.”  The English in Rotherham were, and are, not “privileged.”  White Americans and Europeans who cannot safely walk the streets of their own cities are not “privileged.”  Compare James Watson – reduced to selling his Nobel Prize after being “unpersoned” for merely suggesting the possibility of racial differences in intelligence – to Al Sharpton – whose activist career is summarized here – who was a friend of Presidents (Obama), speaker at political conventions (Democrat), a mainstream political commentator (MSNBC) – and we see the reality of Colored Privilege vs. the fantasy of White Privilege.

C. Although I disagree with Sailer about the census, he is correct about “The Flight from White.”  You see, Whites are so privileged that groups petition to NOT officially be counted as White.  South Asians previously successfully removed themselves from the White category, and the MENA group wants to do the same now.  People with any hint of “Indian Princess” ancestry in their family trees are desperate to be seen as non-White.  Whites pose as non-White, trying to “pass” in the other direction.  It is a strange sort of “privilege” indeed that people are so very eager NOT to partake of; it seems that the “invisible backpack” is a burden too heavy for anyone to want to carry.

2. Even if it did really exist, White Privilege would be justified, because it would not be “privilege” at all, in the sense of an undeserved largess (which actually describes Colored Privilege).  One would not call Bill Gates “privileged” at Microsoft – it is his company.  The Chinese are not “privileged” in China – it is their own country.  Likewise, Whites are not “privileged” in their own nations – instead, it are the alien peoples given advantages in White countries who are the ones truly privileged.  And if White Americans are “privileged” because they have a higher per capita net worth than Blacks and Hispanics, then Jews and Asians are privileged even more.  Oh, the latter have their goodies because of “intelligence” and “hard work.”   Yeah, and Whites are pretty smart and hard-working too, by the way – building nations that Jews and Asians want to migrate to.  

3. If accusations of White Privilege are absurd - and they are – why do they exist?  It is the lesson of the schoolyard: those who are weak and allow themselves to be bullied will continue to suffer so.  Accusations of White Privilege made in the context of White Oppression and White Powerlessness are a form of bullying from the Left/Colored Alliance.  Because Whites are a race of pathetic mewling cowards and never push back against this bullying they can expect more of it, just like the boy who allows himself to be pushed around in the schoolyard can expect nothing but more abuse.  If the boy fights back, even if he loses, the bullying will likely stop, especially if he gets some good “licks” in; bullies do not like victims who fight back, since they prefer the meek and powerless.  The abusive bullying of Whites as a race will decline in proportion to the extent that Whites actively and explicitly defend their interests as a race.

Ironically, it is precisely because Whites are not privileged that they are accused of being so.  If Whites had true privilege no one would dare bring it up in fear of the consequences.  It is only because Whites are a subaltern low-caste group that they can be bullied and gaslighted by being accused of having “privilege” while they are in reality a vilified powerless group losing their nations and their future.

I suppose that the real, hidden meaning of "White Privilege" is the privilege of being born as someone of European descent, and all that means racially, and with respect to being a legitimate heir to the Classical and Western/Faustian High Cultures.  There's racial envy and resentment involved, and a desire to tear down those that the Guks view, at least subconsciously, as better than themselves.