The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America Apart

[NefeshBarYochai]

https://www.amren.com/features/2024/05/the-respectable-right-discovers-anti-white-hostility/

Conclusion

As Mr. Carl writes, white Americans today “suffer from downward
economic mobility, declining fertility, rising drug addiction and
depression, and narrowing opportunities, all piled onto a false
presumption of privilege.” Any vestigial advantages they may still
derive from belonging to America’s historical majority are “informal
and evanescent cultural legacies,” whereas “the discrimination they
experience is . . . increasingly legal and formal.”

Obviously, if there were any real “white privilege,” non-whites would
be trying to “pass” for white (as they once did). Instead, we see a
flight from white. The reported American Indian population ballooned
from 0.4 percent in 1970 to nearly 3 percent in 2020, not due to any
explosion in fertility but to an increase in Elizabeth Warren-style
claims aimed at getting non-white privilege.

Mr. Carl acknowledges that whites are not merely the victims of
anti-white hostility, but often its most enthusiastic perpetrators. He
combines a defense of whites as a group with harsh criticism of these
white progressives, writing that their “moral mania has made them,
without question, the most destructive group in American life. No real
solution to our racial problems is possible until they either reject
their current anti-white animus or are removed from their positions of
power and authority.”

The endgame of the current system is “the expropriation of land,
property, and other wealth from whites” and the institution of “a
permanent regime of anti-white employment and legal discrimination.”
As of now, he writes, “appeals to expropriation are usually indirect,”
but over time they “will become more direct and in need of less
justification as the political power of white Americans continues to
decline.”

Two developments make this clear. The first is the growing success of
the reparations movement:

Black reparations will open the door to massive multi-trillion-dollar
payments to any group that can seize the holy grail of victimhood. We
aren’t going to win this fight by nibbling around the edges, by
compromising, or by saying that groups deserve reparations for this
but not for that. We must pull up root and branch the entire concept
of mass racial reparations.

The alternative is likely to be “racial extortion on an unimaginable
scale,” possibly leading to “interethnic violence and a collapse of
American society.”

The second recent development is a practice imported from Canada: land
acknowledgements. It is no common for institutions built by whites to
“acknowledge” that they are on land taken from this or that tribe. As
the author points out, the entire practice is intellectually
incoherent, since the particular group whose lands whites occupied
were seldom or never the first group to hold them. An honest land
acknowledgement might sound something like: “Our ancestors took this
land from the Chippewa, who had previously driven out the Sioux to
another place where they would go on to massacre the Pawnee,” etc.,
etc. More importantly, such “acknowledgements” are “an intellectual
precursor to expropriation,” and deserve to be taken seriously as
such.

Mr. Carl reports that some readers of early drafts of The Unprotected
Class were enthusiastic about his ideas but felt that “a non-white
ought to write such a book instead of him.”

Somehow a white person advancing arguments that white people should be
treated fairly was seen as unseemly. It’s an understandable political
instinct for anyone who has been involved in American politics in
recent decades, but ultimately it’s an attitude we need to eliminate.

It is whites’ failure to organize in defense of our own interests that
had made the anti-white regime possible. As Mr. Carl writes,
“non-whites have organized and made powerful demands, while whites
have focused on broad, gauzy appeals to . . . universal rights” that
have proven “almost completely ineffective.” It is time for us to make
strong demands.

As noted, we have looked here at only a few of the twelve realms of
anti-white discrimination Mr. Carl discusses. The reader should get
the book itself for the full story. I am unaware of any mainstream
book on race published since American Renaissance was founded 34 years
ago that pulls so few punches.


The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America
Apart, Regnery Publishing, 2024, 369+xviii pages,

[Sharx335]

Post by NefeshBarYochai
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/05/the-respectable-right-discovers-anti-white-hostility/
Conclusion
As Mr. Carl writes, white Americans today “suffer from downward
economic mobility, declining fertility, rising drug addiction and
depression, and narrowing opportunities, all piled onto a false
presumption of privilege.” Any vestigial advantages they may still
derive from belonging to America’s historical majority are “informal
and evanescent cultural legacies,” whereas “the discrimination they
experience is . . . increasingly legal and formal.”
Obviously, if there were any real “white privilege,” non-whites would
be trying to “pass” for white (as they once did). Instead, we see a
flight from white. The reported American Indian population ballooned
from 0.4 percent in 1970 to nearly 3 percent in 2020, not due to any
explosion in fertility but to an increase in Elizabeth Warren-style
claims aimed at getting non-white privilege.
Mr. Carl acknowledges that whites are not merely the victims of
anti-white hostility, but often its most enthusiastic perpetrators. He
combines a defense of whites as a group with harsh criticism of these
white progressives, writing that their “moral mania has made them,
without question, the most destructive group in American life. No real
solution to our racial problems is possible until they either reject
their current anti-white animus or are removed from their positions of
power and authority.”
The endgame of the current system is “the expropriation of land,
property, and other wealth from whites” and the institution of “a
permanent regime of anti-white employment and legal discrimination.”
As of now, he writes, “appeals to expropriation are usually indirect,”
but over time they “will become more direct and in need of less
justification as the political power of white Americans continues to
decline.”
Two developments make this clear. The first is the growing success of
Black reparations will open the door to massive multi-trillion-dollar
payments to any group that can seize the holy grail of victimhood. We
aren’t going to win this fight by nibbling around the edges, by
compromising, or by saying that groups deserve reparations for this
but not for that. We must pull up root and branch the entire concept
of mass racial reparations.
The alternative is likely to be “racial extortion on an unimaginable
scale,” possibly leading to “interethnic violence and a collapse of
American society.”
The second recent development is a practice imported from Canada: land
acknowledgements. It is no common for institutions built by whites to
“acknowledge” that they are on land taken from this or that tribe. As
the author points out, the entire practice is intellectually
incoherent, since the particular group whose lands whites occupied
were seldom or never the first group to hold them. An honest land
acknowledgement might sound something like: “Our ancestors took this
land from the Chippewa, who had previously driven out the Sioux to
another place where they would go on to massacre the Pawnee,” etc.,
etc. More importantly, such “acknowledgements” are “an intellectual
precursor to expropriation,” and deserve to be taken seriously as
such.
Mr. Carl reports that some readers of early drafts of The Unprotected
Class were enthusiastic about his ideas but felt that “a non-white
ought to write such a book instead of him.”
Somehow a white person advancing arguments that white people should be
treated fairly was seen as unseemly. It’s an understandable political
instinct for anyone who has been involved in American politics in
recent decades, but ultimately it’s an attitude we need to eliminate.
It is whites’ failure to organize in defense of our own interests that
had made the anti-white regime possible. As Mr. Carl writes,
“non-whites have organized and made powerful demands, while whites
have focused on broad, gauzy appeals to . . . universal rights” that
have proven “almost completely ineffective.” It is time for us to make
strong demands.
As noted, we have looked here at only a few of the twelve realms of
anti-white discrimination Mr. Carl discusses. The reader should get
the book itself for the full story. I am unaware of any mainstream
book on race published since American Renaissance was founded 34 years
ago that pulls so few punches.
The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America
Apart, Regnery Publishing, 2024, 369+xviii pages,

Very interesting. Yet another reason to hold the feet of the self-styled
progressives "to the fire".

[%]

Post by Sharx335

Post by NefeshBarYochai
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/05/the-respectable-right-discovers-anti-white-hostility/
Conclusion
As Mr. Carl writes, white Americans today “suffer from downward
economic mobility, declining fertility, rising drug addiction and
depression, and narrowing opportunities, all piled onto a false
presumption of privilege.” Any vestigial advantages they may still
derive from belonging to America’s historical majority are “informal
and evanescent cultural legacies,” whereas “the discrimination they
experience is . . . increasingly legal and formal.”
Obviously, if there were any real “white privilege,” non-whites would
be trying to “pass” for white (as they once did). Instead, we see a
flight from white. The reported American Indian population ballooned
from 0.4 percent in 1970 to nearly 3 percent in 2020, not due to any
explosion in fertility but to an increase in Elizabeth Warren-style
claims aimed at getting non-white privilege.
Mr. Carl acknowledges that whites are not merely the victims of
anti-white hostility, but often its most enthusiastic perpetrators. He
combines a defense of whites as a group with harsh criticism of these
white progressives, writing that their “moral mania has made them,
without question, the most destructive group in American life. No real
solution to our racial problems is possible until they either reject
their current anti-white animus or are removed from their positions of
power and authority.”
The endgame of the current system is “the expropriation of land,
property, and other wealth from whites” and the institution of “a
permanent regime of anti-white employment and legal discrimination.”
As of now, he writes, “appeals to expropriation are usually indirect,”
but over time they “will become more direct and in need of less
justification as the political power of white Americans continues to
decline.”
Two developments make this clear. The first is the growing success of
Black reparations will open the door to massive multi-trillion-dollar
payments to any group that can seize the holy grail of victimhood. We
aren’t going to win this fight by nibbling around the edges, by
compromising, or by saying that groups deserve reparations for this
but not for that. We must pull up root and branch the entire concept
of mass racial reparations.
The alternative is likely to be “racial extortion on an unimaginable
scale,” possibly leading to “interethnic violence and a collapse of
American society.”
The second recent development is a practice imported from Canada: land
acknowledgements. It is no common for institutions built by whites to
“acknowledge” that they are on land taken from this or that tribe. As
the author points out, the entire practice is intellectually
incoherent, since the particular group whose lands whites occupied
were seldom or never the first group to hold them. An honest land
acknowledgement might sound something like: “Our ancestors took this
land from the Chippewa, who had previously driven out the Sioux to
another place where they would go on to massacre the Pawnee,” etc.,
etc. More importantly, such “acknowledgements” are “an intellectual
precursor to expropriation,” and deserve to be taken seriously as
such.
Mr. Carl reports that some readers of early drafts of The Unprotected
Class were enthusiastic about his ideas but felt that “a non-white
ought to write such a book instead of him.”
Somehow a white person advancing arguments that white people should be
treated fairly was seen as unseemly. It’s an understandable political
instinct for anyone who has been involved in American politics in
recent decades, but ultimately it’s an attitude we need to eliminate.
It is whites’ failure to organize in defense of our own interests that
had made the anti-white regime possible. As Mr. Carl writes,
“non-whites have organized and made powerful demands, while whites
have focused on broad, gauzy appeals to . . . universal rights” that
have proven “almost completely ineffective.” It is time for us to make
strong demands.
As noted, we have looked here at only a few of the twelve realms of
anti-white discrimination Mr. Carl discusses. The reader should get
the book itself for the full story. I am unaware of any mainstream
book on race published since American Renaissance was founded 34 years
ago that pulls so few punches.
  The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America
Apart, Regnery Publishing, 2024, 369+xviii pages,

Very interesting. Yet another reason to hold the feet of the self-styled
progressives "to the fire".

that's some pretty kinky sex

[Bill Sloman]

Post by NefeshBarYochai
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/05/the-respectable-right-discovers-anti-white-hostility/
Conclusion
As Mr. Carl writes, white Americans today “suffer from downward
economic mobility, declining fertility, rising drug addiction and
depression, and narrowing opportunities, all piled onto a false
presumption of privilege.” Any vestigial advantages they may still
derive from belonging to America’s historical majority are “informal
and evanescent cultural legacies,” whereas “the discrimination they
experience is . . . increasingly legal and formal.”
Obviously, if there were any real “white privilege,” non-whites would
be trying to “pass” for white (as they once did). Instead, we see a
flight from white. The reported American Indian population ballooned
from 0.4 percent in 1970 to nearly 3 percent in 2020, not due to any
explosion in fertility but to an increase in Elizabeth Warren-style
claims aimed at getting non-white privilege.

This is all total nonsense. Elizabeth Warren wasn't trying to get any
non-while privilege by reporting her family tradition of some
American-Indian ancestry. She might have been trying to put down a
marker as being somebody who wasn't worried about admitting it, but that
falls a long way short of a claim on any (non-existent) non-white privilege.

<snip>

And of course this kind of nonsense is even less tolerable on
sci.electronics,design than it might be on rec.sport.tennis

[john larkin]

Post by NefeshBarYochai
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/05/the-respectable-right-discovers-anti-white-hostility/
Conclusion
As Mr. Carl writes, white Americans today “suffer from downward
economic mobility, declining fertility, rising drug addiction and
depression, and narrowing opportunities, all piled onto a false
presumption of privilege.” Any vestigial advantages they may still
derive from belonging to America’s historical majority are “informal
and evanescent cultural legacies,” whereas “the discrimination they
experience is . . . increasingly legal and formal.”

I don't see that. Except for some dense blighted urban pockets, people
seem happy, polite, helpful, and healthy. People talk to strangers of
all sorts. Every size and shape and color of people are marrying and
having really beautiful hybrid kids. I'm expecting some
Irish-Italian-Taiwanese brats in the family presently.

My city has no racial majority so the food is great. Dumplings. Dragon
Rolls. Lisagna. Clam chowder. Michelin-rated burrito joints.

One semi-humorous psycholgical affliction here is "melanin envy" as in
"I wish I didn't have such flimsy pasty boring white skin." I have
that; I'll burn after a half hour in the sun.

Progress isn't monotonic but it's happening.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin

Post by NefeshBarYochai
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/05/the-respectable-right-discovers-anti-white-hostility/
Conclusion
As Mr. Carl writes, white Americans today “suffer from downward
economic mobility, declining fertility, rising drug addiction and
depression, and narrowing opportunities, all piled onto a false
presumption of privilege.” Any vestigial advantages they may still
derive from belonging to America’s historical majority are “informal
and evanescent cultural legacies,” whereas “the discrimination they
experience is . . . increasingly legal and formal.”

I don't see that. Except for some dense blighted urban pockets, people
seem happy, polite, helpful, and healthy. People talk to strangers of
all sorts. Every size and shape and color of people are marrying and
having really beautiful hybrid kids. I'm expecting some
Irish-Italian-Taiwanese brats in the family presently.
My city has no racial majority so the food is great. Dumplings. Dragon
Rolls. Lisagna. Clam chowder. Michelin-rated burrito joints.
One semi-humorous psycholgical affliction here is "melanin envy" as in
"I wish I didn't have such flimsy pasty boring white skin." I have
that; I'll burn after a half hour in the sun.
Progress isn't monotonic but it's happening.

But John Larkin also thinks that Donald Trump has "common sense".
It may just be that he is sympathetic to a fellow-narcissist, but it
does raise question marks about his judgement.

[Pluted Pup]

Post by NefeshBarYochai
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/05/the-respectable-right-discovers-anti-white-hostility/
Conclusion
As Mr. Carl writes, white Americans today "suffer from downward
economic mobility, declining fertility, rising drug addiction and
depression, and narrowing opportunities, all piled onto a false
presumption of privilege." Any vestigial advantages they may still
derive from belonging to America´s historical majority are "informal
and evanescent cultural legacies," whereas "the discrimination they
experience is . . . increasingly legal and formal."
Obviously, if there were any real "white privilege," non-whites would
be trying to "pass" for white (as they once did). Instead, we see a
flight from white. The reported American Indian population ballooned
from 0.4 percent in 1970 to nearly 3 percent in 2020, not due to any
explosion in fertility but to an increase in Elizabeth Warren-style
claims aimed at getting non-white privilege.
Mr. Carl acknowledges that whites are not merely the victims of
anti-white hostility, but often its most enthusiastic perpetrators. He
combines a defense of whites as a group with harsh criticism of these
white progressives, writing that their "moral mania has made them,
without question, the most destructive group in American life. No real
solution to our racial problems is possible until they either reject
their current anti-white animus or are removed from their positions of
power and authority."
The endgame of the current system is "the expropriation of land,
property, and other wealth from whites" and the institution of "a
permanent regime of anti-white employment and legal discrimination."
As of now, he writes, "appeals to expropriation are usually indirect,"
but over time they "will become more direct and in need of less
justification as the political power of white Americans continues to
decline."
Two developments make this clear. The first is the growing success of
Black reparations will open the door to massive multi-trillion-dollar
payments to any group that can seize the holy grail of victimhood. We
aren´t going to win this fight by nibbling around the edges, by
compromising, or by saying that groups deserve reparations for this
but not for that. We must pull up root and branch the entire concept
of mass racial reparations.
The alternative is likely to be "racial extortion on an unimaginable
scale," possibly leading to "interethnic violence and a collapse of
American society."
The second recent development is a practice imported from Canada: land
acknowledgements. It is no common for institutions built by whites to
"acknowledge" that they are on land taken from this or that tribe. As
the author points out, the entire practice is intellectually
incoherent, since the particular group whose lands whites occupied
were seldom or never the first group to hold them. An honest land
acknowledgement might sound something like: "Our ancestors took this
land from the Chippewa, who had previously driven out the Sioux to
another place where they would go on to massacre the Pawnee," etc.,
etc. More importantly, such "acknowledgements" are "an intellectual
precursor to expropriation," and deserve to be taken seriously as
such.
Mr. Carl reports that some readers of early drafts of The Unprotected
Class were enthusiastic about his ideas but felt that "a non-white
ought to write such a book instead of him."
Somehow a white person advancing arguments that white people should be
treated fairly was seen as unseemly. It´s an understandable political
instinct for anyone who has been involved in American politics in
recent decades, but ultimately it´s an attitude we need to eliminate.
It is whites´ failure to organize in defense of our own interests that
had made the anti-white regime possible. As Mr. Carl writes,
"non-whites have organized and made powerful demands, while whites
have focused on broad, gauzy appeals to . . . universal rights" that
have proven "almost completely ineffective." It is time for us to make
strong demands.
As noted, we have looked here at only a few of the twelve realms of
anti-white discrimination Mr. Carl discusses. The reader should get
the book itself for the full story. I am unaware of any mainstream
book on race published since American Renaissance was founded 34 years
ago that pulls so few punches.
The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America
Apart, Regnery Publishing, 2024, 369+xviii pages,

'doesn't pull punches'?

Where does it cover Jew against White?

[Pluted Pup]

Post by Pluted Pup

Post by NefeshBarYochai
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/05/the-respectable-right-discovers-anti-white-hostility/
Conclusion
As Mr. Carl writes, white Americans today "suffer from downward
economic mobility, declining fertility, rising drug addiction and
depression, and narrowing opportunities, all piled onto a false
presumption of privilege." Any vestigial advantages they may still
derive from belonging to America´s historical majority are "informal
and evanescent cultural legacies," whereas "the discrimination they
experience is . . . increasingly legal and formal."
Obviously, if there were any real "white privilege," non-whites would
be trying to "pass" for white (as they once did). Instead, we see a
flight from white. The reported American Indian population ballooned
from 0.4 percent in 1970 to nearly 3 percent in 2020, not due to any
explosion in fertility but to an increase in Elizabeth Warren-style
claims aimed at getting non-white privilege.
Mr. Carl acknowledges that whites are not merely the victims of
anti-white hostility, but often its most enthusiastic perpetrators. He
combines a defense of whites as a group with harsh criticism of these
white progressives, writing that their "moral mania has made them,
without question, the most destructive group in American life. No real
solution to our racial problems is possible until they either reject
their current anti-white animus or are removed from their positions of
power and authority."
The endgame of the current system is "the expropriation of land,
property, and other wealth from whites" and the institution of "a
permanent regime of anti-white employment and legal discrimination."
As of now, he writes, "appeals to expropriation are usually indirect,"
but over time they "will become more direct and in need of less
justification as the political power of white Americans continues to
decline."
Two developments make this clear. The first is the growing success of
Black reparations will open the door to massive multi-trillion-dollar
payments to any group that can seize the holy grail of victimhood. We
aren´t going to win this fight by nibbling around the edges, by
compromising, or by saying that groups deserve reparations for this
but not for that. We must pull up root and branch the entire concept
of mass racial reparations.
The alternative is likely to be "racial extortion on an unimaginable
scale," possibly leading to "interethnic violence and a collapse of
American society."
The second recent development is a practice imported from Canada: land
acknowledgements. It is no common for institutions built by whites to
"acknowledge" that they are on land taken from this or that tribe. As
the author points out, the entire practice is intellectually
incoherent, since the particular group whose lands whites occupied
were seldom or never the first group to hold them. An honest land
acknowledgement might sound something like: "Our ancestors took this
land from the Chippewa, who had previously driven out the Sioux to
another place where they would go on to massacre the Pawnee," etc.,
etc. More importantly, such "acknowledgements" are "an intellectual
precursor to expropriation," and deserve to be taken seriously as
such.
Mr. Carl reports that some readers of early drafts of The Unprotected
Class were enthusiastic about his ideas but felt that "a non-white
ought to write such a book instead of him."
Somehow a white person advancing arguments that white people should be
treated fairly was seen as unseemly. It´s an understandable political
instinct for anyone who has been involved in American politics in
recent decades, but ultimately it´s an attitude we need to eliminate.
It is whites´ failure to organize in defense of our own interests that
had made the anti-white regime possible. As Mr. Carl writes,
"non-whites have organized and made powerful demands, while whites
have focused on broad, gauzy appeals to . . . universal rights" that
have proven "almost completely ineffective." It is time for us to make
strong demands.
As noted, we have looked here at only a few of the twelve realms of
anti-white discrimination Mr. Carl discusses. The reader should get
the book itself for the full story. I am unaware of any mainstream
book on race published since American Renaissance was founded 34 years
ago that pulls so few punches.
The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America
Apart, Regnery Publishing, 2024, 369+xviii pages,

'doesn't pull punches'?
Where does it cover Jew against White?

I ordered the book anyway. What's with another
book that I disagree with?

[john larkin]

Post by Pluted Pup

Post by NefeshBarYochai
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/05/the-respectable-right-discovers-anti-white-hostility/
Conclusion
As Mr. Carl writes, white Americans today "suffer from downward
economic mobility, declining fertility, rising drug addiction and
depression, and narrowing opportunities, all piled onto a false
presumption of privilege." Any vestigial advantages they may still
derive from belonging to America´s historical majority are "informal
and evanescent cultural legacies," whereas "the discrimination they
experience is . . . increasingly legal and formal."
Obviously, if there were any real "white privilege," non-whites would
be trying to "pass" for white (as they once did). Instead, we see a
flight from white. The reported American Indian population ballooned
from 0.4 percent in 1970 to nearly 3 percent in 2020, not due to any
explosion in fertility but to an increase in Elizabeth Warren-style
claims aimed at getting non-white privilege.
Mr. Carl acknowledges that whites are not merely the victims of
anti-white hostility, but often its most enthusiastic perpetrators. He
combines a defense of whites as a group with harsh criticism of these
white progressives, writing that their "moral mania has made them,
without question, the most destructive group in American life. No real
solution to our racial problems is possible until they either reject
their current anti-white animus or are removed from their positions of
power and authority."
The endgame of the current system is "the expropriation of land,
property, and other wealth from whites" and the institution of "a
permanent regime of anti-white employment and legal discrimination."
As of now, he writes, "appeals to expropriation are usually indirect,"
but over time they "will become more direct and in need of less
justification as the political power of white Americans continues to
decline."
Two developments make this clear. The first is the growing success of
Black reparations will open the door to massive multi-trillion-dollar
payments to any group that can seize the holy grail of victimhood. We
aren´t going to win this fight by nibbling around the edges, by
compromising, or by saying that groups deserve reparations for this
but not for that. We must pull up root and branch the entire concept
of mass racial reparations.
The alternative is likely to be "racial extortion on an unimaginable
scale," possibly leading to "interethnic violence and a collapse of
American society."
The second recent development is a practice imported from Canada: land
acknowledgements. It is no common for institutions built by whites to
"acknowledge" that they are on land taken from this or that tribe. As
the author points out, the entire practice is intellectually
incoherent, since the particular group whose lands whites occupied
were seldom or never the first group to hold them. An honest land
acknowledgement might sound something like: "Our ancestors took this
land from the Chippewa, who had previously driven out the Sioux to
another place where they would go on to massacre the Pawnee," etc.,
etc. More importantly, such "acknowledgements" are "an intellectual
precursor to expropriation," and deserve to be taken seriously as
such.
Mr. Carl reports that some readers of early drafts of The Unprotected
Class were enthusiastic about his ideas but felt that "a non-white
ought to write such a book instead of him."
Somehow a white person advancing arguments that white people should be
treated fairly was seen as unseemly. It´s an understandable political
instinct for anyone who has been involved in American politics in
recent decades, but ultimately it´s an attitude we need to eliminate.
It is whites´ failure to organize in defense of our own interests that
had made the anti-white regime possible. As Mr. Carl writes,
"non-whites have organized and made powerful demands, while whites
have focused on broad, gauzy appeals to . . . universal rights" that
have proven "almost completely ineffective." It is time for us to make
strong demands.
As noted, we have looked here at only a few of the twelve realms of
anti-white discrimination Mr. Carl discusses. The reader should get
the book itself for the full story. I am unaware of any mainstream
book on race published since American Renaissance was founded 34 years
ago that pulls so few punches.
The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America
Apart, Regnery Publishing, 2024, 369+xviii pages,

'doesn't pull punches'?
Where does it cover Jew against White?

One major cause of anti-semitism was that both Christians and Muslims
considered usury, lending money at interest, to be sinful. So people
and kings had to borrow from Jews to finance their farms and
businesses and wars. It was then more convenient to have inquisitions
and pogroms and genocides than it was to pay them back.

[bitrex]

Post by john larkin

Post by Pluted Pup

Post by NefeshBarYochai
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/05/the-respectable-right-discovers-anti-white-hostility/
Conclusion
As Mr. Carl writes, white Americans today "suffer from downward
economic mobility, declining fertility, rising drug addiction and
depression, and narrowing opportunities, all piled onto a false
presumption of privilege." Any vestigial advantages they may still
derive from belonging to America´s historical majority are "informal
and evanescent cultural legacies," whereas "the discrimination they
experience is . . . increasingly legal and formal."
Obviously, if there were any real "white privilege," non-whites would
be trying to "pass" for white (as they once did). Instead, we see a
flight from white. The reported American Indian population ballooned
from 0.4 percent in 1970 to nearly 3 percent in 2020, not due to any
explosion in fertility but to an increase in Elizabeth Warren-style
claims aimed at getting non-white privilege.
Mr. Carl acknowledges that whites are not merely the victims of
anti-white hostility, but often its most enthusiastic perpetrators. He
combines a defense of whites as a group with harsh criticism of these
white progressives, writing that their "moral mania has made them,
without question, the most destructive group in American life. No real
solution to our racial problems is possible until they either reject
their current anti-white animus or are removed from their positions of
power and authority."
The endgame of the current system is "the expropriation of land,
property, and other wealth from whites" and the institution of "a
permanent regime of anti-white employment and legal discrimination."
As of now, he writes, "appeals to expropriation are usually indirect,"
but over time they "will become more direct and in need of less
justification as the political power of white Americans continues to
decline."
Two developments make this clear. The first is the growing success of
Black reparations will open the door to massive multi-trillion-dollar
payments to any group that can seize the holy grail of victimhood. We
aren´t going to win this fight by nibbling around the edges, by
compromising, or by saying that groups deserve reparations for this
but not for that. We must pull up root and branch the entire concept
of mass racial reparations.
The alternative is likely to be "racial extortion on an unimaginable
scale," possibly leading to "interethnic violence and a collapse of
American society."
The second recent development is a practice imported from Canada: land
acknowledgements. It is no common for institutions built by whites to
"acknowledge" that they are on land taken from this or that tribe. As
the author points out, the entire practice is intellectually
incoherent, since the particular group whose lands whites occupied
were seldom or never the first group to hold them. An honest land
acknowledgement might sound something like: "Our ancestors took this
land from the Chippewa, who had previously driven out the Sioux to
another place where they would go on to massacre the Pawnee," etc.,
etc. More importantly, such "acknowledgements" are "an intellectual
precursor to expropriation," and deserve to be taken seriously as
such.
Mr. Carl reports that some readers of early drafts of The Unprotected
Class were enthusiastic about his ideas but felt that "a non-white
ought to write such a book instead of him."
Somehow a white person advancing arguments that white people should be
treated fairly was seen as unseemly. It´s an understandable political
instinct for anyone who has been involved in American politics in
recent decades, but ultimately it´s an attitude we need to eliminate.
It is whites´ failure to organize in defense of our own interests that
had made the anti-white regime possible. As Mr. Carl writes,
"non-whites have organized and made powerful demands, while whites
have focused on broad, gauzy appeals to . . . universal rights" that
have proven "almost completely ineffective." It is time for us to make
strong demands.
As noted, we have looked here at only a few of the twelve realms of
anti-white discrimination Mr. Carl discusses. The reader should get
the book itself for the full story. I am unaware of any mainstream
book on race published since American Renaissance was founded 34 years
ago that pulls so few punches.
The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America
Apart, Regnery Publishing, 2024, 369+xviii pages,

'doesn't pull punches'?
Where does it cover Jew against White?

One major cause of anti-semitism was that both Christians and Muslims
considered usury, lending money at interest, to be sinful. So people
and kings had to borrow from Jews to finance their farms and
businesses and wars. It was then more convenient to have inquisitions
and pogroms and genocides than it was to pay them back.

OP is posting material from a white supremacist website like AmRen
previously, they are dead to me.

OP is not anti-war, they are just a Jew-hater. There is no place for
Jew-haters in the anti-war movement. there is no place for Jew-haters on
the left (though they do sometimes try to put themselves here.)

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur>

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by john larkin
One major cause of anti-semitism was that both Christians and Muslims
considered usury, lending money at interest, to be sinful. So people
and kings had to borrow from Jews to finance their farms and
businesses and wars. It was then more convenient to have inquisitions
and pogroms and genocides than it was to pay them back.

Mostly correct. Usury was charging excessive interest rates. While
in college in the 1960's, I was the local loan shark. The college
(Cal Poly, Pomona) had large number of foreign exchange students,
mostly from Iran and Saudi Arabia. They were all the son's (no
daughters) of the rich upper classes in their countries. All these
students were granted very little pocket money by their parents on the
assumption that if they lacked the funds to play around, they would
spend their time studying. It didn't work, but that was the plan. So,
the students went to disreputable sources (like me) for borrowing
money. I had no trouble getting paid because I knew that the very
last thing they wanted was for me to inform their parents of their
son's activities.

My last loan was to a "white man" who begged me for a loan. I
shouldn't have done it, but made the mistake of charging over 10%
simple interest, which was the limit for usury for personal loans.
<https://www.anandlaw.com/usury-law-limitations-on-interest-rates-charged-on-loans/>
When he couldn't pay me back, he filed a complaint with the local
district attorney's office. Since I was obviously guilty, I made a
deal to forgive the loan and close down my business in trade for
dropping the usury charges.

The anti-semitic fear of bankers originated with Jesus, who threw the
"money changers" out of the temple in Jerusalem. That meant that
Jesus, and therefore God, take a dim view of handling money and
banking. The result was that Christians were prohibited from engaging
in banking. Since nobody was interested in loaning money without also
collecting interest, a way around this prohibition needed to be
contrived. Anyone borrowing money was expected to provide a "gift" to
the lender as well as providing something of value as security.

Repayment was a problem for the Templars. They were a Christian order
and therefore could not charge interest or handle money. They had an
easy solutions. If one wanted to borrow money, they had to have one
of their sons join the order. The loan was also not considered a loan
into today's sense. It was a "gift". That meant it did not need to
repaid until the lender asked for repayment. Repayment was usually in
the form of another "gift" of greater value. No money changed hands.

That worked reasonably well until the rise of the guild system, which
were monopolies on lucrative occupations. In keeping with the
traditional anti-semitic policies, the European Jews were
systematically excluded from all the guilds leaving low wage manual
labor the only work available for Jews. However, the one profession
where Jews were allowed was banking because none of the Christians
were allowed to engage in banking. The Christian tolerated this
exception because the Jews could be purged at any time if there were
difficulties repaying the loans. The Christian borrowers kept things
reasonable because they knew they would eventually need another loan.

[bitrex]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by john larkin
One major cause of anti-semitism was that both Christians and Muslims
considered usury, lending money at interest, to be sinful. So people
and kings had to borrow from Jews to finance their farms and
businesses and wars. It was then more convenient to have inquisitions
and pogroms and genocides than it was to pay them back.

Mostly correct. Usury was charging excessive interest rates. While
in college in the 1960's, I was the local loan shark. The college
(Cal Poly, Pomona) had large number of foreign exchange students,
mostly from Iran and Saudi Arabia. They were all the son's (no
daughters) of the rich upper classes in their countries. All these
students were granted very little pocket money by their parents on the
assumption that if they lacked the funds to play around, they would
spend their time studying. It didn't work, but that was the plan. So,
the students went to disreputable sources (like me) for borrowing
money. I had no trouble getting paid because I knew that the very
last thing they wanted was for me to inform their parents of their
son's activities.

They'd likely just sadly remark "I fell in with the wrong crowd" if
caught (despite almost nobody ever meeting a self-declared member of
"the wrong crowd")

[john larkin]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by john larkin
One major cause of anti-semitism was that both Christians and Muslims
considered usury, lending money at interest, to be sinful. So people
and kings had to borrow from Jews to finance their farms and
businesses and wars. It was then more convenient to have inquisitions
and pogroms and genocides than it was to pay them back.

Mostly correct. Usury was charging excessive interest rates. While
in college in the 1960's, I was the local loan shark. The college
(Cal Poly, Pomona) had large number of foreign exchange students,
mostly from Iran and Saudi Arabia. They were all the son's (no
daughters) of the rich upper classes in their countries. All these
students were granted very little pocket money by their parents on the
assumption that if they lacked the funds to play around, they would
spend their time studying. It didn't work, but that was the plan. So,
the students went to disreputable sources (like me) for borrowing
money. I had no trouble getting paid because I knew that the very
last thing they wanted was for me to inform their parents of their
son's activities.

I'm sure none of that loan money was spent on beer or Playboy
magazines.

I'm reading a surprisingly interesting book now,

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0C24RDJNK

I'm a german-irish protestant-catholic mutt, but I've always had close
Jewish friends (and girlfriends) for some reason. They were smart,
kind, friendly, and neurotic. Fun.

(There were dark rumors in my family of a bit of Jewish ancestry and,
much worse, a hint of French.)

[Joe Gwinn]

Post by john larkin

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by john larkin
One major cause of anti-semitism was that both Christians and Muslims
considered usury, lending money at interest, to be sinful. So people
and kings had to borrow from Jews to finance their farms and
businesses and wars. It was then more convenient to have inquisitions
and pogroms and genocides than it was to pay them back.

Mostly correct. Usury was charging excessive interest rates. While
in college in the 1960's, I was the local loan shark. The college
(Cal Poly, Pomona) had large number of foreign exchange students,
mostly from Iran and Saudi Arabia. They were all the son's (no
daughters) of the rich upper classes in their countries. All these
students were granted very little pocket money by their parents on the
assumption that if they lacked the funds to play around, they would
spend their time studying. It didn't work, but that was the plan. So,
the students went to disreputable sources (like me) for borrowing
money. I had no trouble getting paid because I knew that the very
last thing they wanted was for me to inform their parents of their
son's activities.

I'm sure none of that loan money was spent on beer or Playboy
magazines.
I'm reading a surprisingly interesting book now,
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0C24RDJNK
I'm a german-irish protestant-catholic mutt, but I've always had close
Jewish friends (and girlfriends) for some reason. They were smart,
kind, friendly, and neurotic. Fun.
(There were dark rumors in my family of a bit of Jewish ancestry and,
much worse, a hint of French.)

DNA may not be your friend.

I always thought that I was half Ohio German farmer and half New
Orleans white mongrel. Turned out I was about a quarter Irish, and so
on, so my Mother's theory about 100% German could not be complete.

Despite all the Jewish girlfriends, no Jewish roots.

My Irish wife found all this hilarious.

Joe Gwinn

[john larkin]

Post by Joe Gwinn

Post by john larkin

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by john larkin
One major cause of anti-semitism was that both Christians and Muslims
considered usury, lending money at interest, to be sinful. So people
and kings had to borrow from Jews to finance their farms and
businesses and wars. It was then more convenient to have inquisitions
and pogroms and genocides than it was to pay them back.

Mostly correct. Usury was charging excessive interest rates. While
in college in the 1960's, I was the local loan shark. The college
(Cal Poly, Pomona) had large number of foreign exchange students,
mostly from Iran and Saudi Arabia. They were all the son's (no
daughters) of the rich upper classes in their countries. All these
students were granted very little pocket money by their parents on the
assumption that if they lacked the funds to play around, they would
spend their time studying. It didn't work, but that was the plan. So,
the students went to disreputable sources (like me) for borrowing
money. I had no trouble getting paid because I knew that the very
last thing they wanted was for me to inform their parents of their
son's activities.

I'm sure none of that loan money was spent on beer or Playboy
magazines.
I'm reading a surprisingly interesting book now,
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0C24RDJNK
I'm a german-irish protestant-catholic mutt, but I've always had close
Jewish friends (and girlfriends) for some reason. They were smart,
kind, friendly, and neurotic. Fun.
(There were dark rumors in my family of a bit of Jewish ancestry and,
much worse, a hint of French.)

DNA may not be your friend.
I always thought that I was half Ohio German farmer and half New
Orleans white mongrel. Turned out I was about a quarter Irish, and so
on, so my Mother's theory about 100% German could not be complete.
Despite all the Jewish girlfriends, no Jewish roots.
My Irish wife found all this hilarious.
Joe Gwinn

I grew up in New Orleans and when I reached The Age of Reason (32 in
my case) I moved to San Francisco.

NOLA is cool in many respects. It's not so much a southern city but an
island of weirdness that happens to be in the South.

But not a good place to design electronics. The culture is all wrong.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by john larkin

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by john larkin
One major cause of anti-semitism was that both Christians and Muslims
considered usury, lending money at interest, to be sinful. So people
and kings had to borrow from Jews to finance their farms and
businesses and wars. It was then more convenient to have inquisitions
and pogroms and genocides than it was to pay them back.

Mostly correct. Usury was charging excessive interest rates. While
in college in the 1960's, I was the local loan shark. The college
(Cal Poly, Pomona) had large number of foreign exchange students,
mostly from Iran and Saudi Arabia. They were all the son's (no
daughters) of the rich upper classes in their countries. All these
students were granted very little pocket money by their parents on the
assumption that if they lacked the funds to play around, they would
spend their time studying. It didn't work, but that was the plan. So,
the students went to disreputable sources (like me) for borrowing
money. I had no trouble getting paid because I knew that the very
last thing they wanted was for me to inform their parents of their
son's activities.

I'm sure none of that loan money was spent on beer or Playboy
magazines.

Probably not. I only knew of a three students who were caught. All
disappeared literally overnight. When I asked about one, everyone
pretended that they didn't know anything. My guess is that not
knowing any better, the loan money was used for baksheesh, without
which nothing gets done in the middle east. It's origin goes back to
the method of repaying loans in the form of a "gift". Baksheesh can
be a bribe, tip, gift or payment for illicit services depending on
country and social status:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baksheesh>

[Q] What's the difference between a bribe and a commission?
[A] A commission is paid after the transaction. A bribe is paid in
advance. Otherwise, they're the same.

In the middle east, no sane businessman would risk their profits on
the goodwill of the customer and a delayed payment. There's little to
prevent the customer or buyer from hopping on their camel and
disappearing into the desert, leaving the seller holding the bag, but
not the payment or profit. It's a different culture, as the US
learned in Iraq and Iran.

Most of the students from the really wealthy families brought along a
servant to carry the books and deal with all the mundane tasks
including baksheesh. The servants were loyal to the family and not
the student, which made it impossible for the student not to get
caught. Because the servant had family back in the old country,
bribing the servant was impossible.

In the dormitories, I did something rather stupid. I was in the
common bathroom shower etc. One of the foreign exchange students
pointed to a urinal and asked "what's that"? Without much thought, I
answered "It's a foot wash" and promptly disappeared. When I returned
the next day, I discovered that student had interpreted my joke as an
insult and sent the servant out to kill me. Eventually, they decided
that killing a student did not offer proper respect to the school and
was not in accordance with their responsibilities as a proper guest.

Post by john larkin
I'm reading a surprisingly interesting book now,
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0C24RDJNK

Not available now on Amazon. This looks like it might work:
<https://tabletmagstore.com/merch/p/zionism-the-tablet-guide>
$28. Thanks. It does look interesting. However, I have a problem.
Prior to cataract surgery in Jan 2024, I could barely read from a book
and then only in 15 minute intervals. After the surgery, it took me
another 2 months to recover. The result was a large backlog of
reading material. I'm catching up, but have vowed not add to the
backlog for a while. Incidentally, reading on the computer screen was
tolerable because of better fonts, dark mode, colored text and larger
characters. I also used a screen reader and AudioBooks.com with
limited success. I'll take a look at the book when I have more time.

Post by john larkin
I'm a german-irish protestant-catholic mutt, but I've always had close
Jewish friends (and girlfriends) for some reason. They were smart,
kind, friendly, and neurotic. Fun.

My ancestors were Polish-Jewish for at least 3 generations. Past
that, I don't know. Most of those coming from Europe after WWII
married Americans if there were immigration problems, or Jewish if
they were properly sponsored. They also kept in touch through various
organizations, which also served as a social club and matchmaking
service:
<https://www.the1939society.org>
The next 2 generations married almost randomly but about half remained
Jewish and educated their children in Jewish traditions.

Post by john larkin
(There were dark rumors in my family of a bit of Jewish ancestry and,
much worse, a hint of French.)

Do a DNA ancestry test and be a little more certain. I've never
bothered to run a DNA ancestry test but some of my cousins have done
so. The results were a mixed mess but did verify that my ancestors
were from eastern Europe.

[bitrex]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
In the dormitories, I did something rather stupid. I was in the
common bathroom shower etc. One of the foreign exchange students
pointed to a urinal and asked "what's that"? Without much thought, I
answered "It's a foot wash" and promptly disappeared. When I returned
the next day, I discovered that student had interpreted my joke as an
insult and sent the servant out to kill me. Eventually, they decided
that killing a student did not offer proper respect to the school and
was not in accordance with their responsibilities as a proper guest.

Heh, sometimes when some senior citizen at the grocery store starts
trying to talk to me I tell them I'm on Her Majesty's Secret Service and
am working undercover as a Czechoslovakian airline mechanic, and that's
why I can't talk right now. so I know where you're coming from.