Every Time Starbucks Cucks, Another White Person Grows a Spine

 From: http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/

Previously on SBDPL: The Business Model of Starbucks Explained: The Reason 86% Black Jackson, MS Doesn’t Have a Starbucks

What percent of Starbucks customer do you think are white people? I’d wager the number is near 80 percent.

We can all pretend to #RaceTogether, but in the end we know it’s all a lie. [Fake Starbucks coupon aimed at blacks uses the N-word, USA Today, 4-18-18]:

Fake Starbucks coupons purporting to offer free coffee to African Americans are making the rounds on social media.

Our grandchildren will learn about this image, a powerful reminder Black-Run America held white people and their civilization hostage for decades as we refused to concede our ancestors knew better when it came to interracial relations…
The voucher, believed to be a hate-filled prank crafted by the white-supremacy movement, features a QR code that, when scanned, reveals the N-word.
The bogus certificate surfaced Wednesday amid legitimate calls for a boycott over Starbucks’ decision to phone 911 to have police arrest two black men at a downtown Philadelphia location because they hadn’t bought anything last Thursday. They were denied use of a restroom even though they explained they were waiting for a friend. The furor arose over what is viewed as a double standard compared to how white customers are treated. 
As for the phony coupons, “This is completely false and in no way associated with Starbucks,” Jaime Riley, a spokeswoman for the coffee chain, said in an e-mail. “They cannot be redeemed in our stores.”
Several different versions of the same coupon are circulating.
The so-called “Let’s Talk Coupon” reads, “We’re sorry. We know we can do better. Starbucks values all people of color and we are working on employee sensitivity training. The best dialogue starts over a cup of coffee and we’d like to buy you one.”
The apology and the reference to having open conversations about racism are references to real actions Starbucks has taken. CEO Kevin Johnson has apologized for last week’s incident. On Tuesday, the company announced plans to close all company-owned stores in the U.S. for the afternoon on May 29 for racial-bias training.
The voucher says the offer for a free beverage of any size and any variety is valid from April 18 until May 18. One version of the coupon adds that it’s for “People of Color only”, while another says, “Limited to persons of African American heritage and/or identity at time of exchange.”
In addition to the faux legalese, the coupon features the Starbucks logo, the company’s iconic shade of green and photos of the chain’s drinks.
To use the coupon, baristas are told to use the discount code 1488, which is an allusion to two numbers white supremacists have embraced.
The so-called “14 Words” is a white-power slogan and 88 is a reference to “Heil Hitler,” words that both begin with the eighth letter of the alphabet.
NAACP spokesman Malik Russell called the coupon “an unfortunate response” to steps civil rights organizations are taking to improve how the country deals with racism.
“Individuals are seeking to take advantage of these discussions to create more dissension,” he said. “That’s not the direction we need to be going in.”

The only direction black people believe we should be going is one where the destination ensures Africans in America get free coffee for life and the right to confiscate white owned-property/retirement savings as reparations.

That’s always what #RaceTogether meant, a one-way monologue instead of a dialogue on race, for whites have no legitimate voice when presented with a list of racial grievances from blacks.

Colonization By Indian Leftists—the Downside of “Merit-Based Immigration”


“Merit-based immigration” is seen as the gold standard of immigration reform by many Republicans and conservative policy wonks. But it could lead to their political ruin.

We already have a clear window into what a merit-based policy could bring to the political landscape: look at the Indian colonization of Seattle’s Eastside—the area across Lake Washington from Seattle which stretches from Sammamish in the south to Bothell in the north. It has been transformed, in roughly 25 years, from a region that leaned Republican into a cesspool of socialism.

It all started with the rise of Bill Gates’ Microsoft in Redmond, followed by likeminded corporate titans who gorged themselves on the delights of Indian staffing agencies that exploit the H1-B visa program. Once a foreign worker’s H1B status expires in six years, them it’s time for an employment-based green card. These green cards have for years been handed out like popcorn with curry on top to almost any Indian techie who agrees to work for, on average, one-third lower pay than American tech workers. [Wages Falling But Congress Wants MORE Guest Workers, by Leo Hohmann, WND.com, March 16, 2016]

In 1969 the first Indian-migrant family arrived in Redmond [What It Was Like To Be Redmond’s First Indian Family, by Liz Jones, Kuow.org, November 18, 2014]

By 2014 Redmond had 7,921 Indians and Microsoft had transformed the city’s demographics [Redmond, WA Population and Races, USA.com, 2010-2014 statistics]

In the words of a retired academic who resides on Washington’s Willapa Bay coastline and blogs at darkgalaxies.org:

Microsoft was an American-led company for many years until its upper leadership became Indian, beginning with the head of personnel some 20 or so years ago. Although the data released by the company is hard to interpret, employees note that the firm is a plurality Indian company in employees, as well as in leadership.

(Pretty clever of the Indians to colonize Microsoft. Pretty foolish to let the Indians colonize Microsoft.)

[Microsoft Diversity Policy, by Admin 777, February 25, 2018]

While Microsoft was turning Redmond into an Indian colony, similar transformations were taking place all over the Eastside. In King County (which also includes Seattle, although most Indians live on the Eastside) the population was 4,000 by 1990. But, as Kuow.org’s Jones wrote:

Then the Microsoft ‘Boom’ happened. And since 1990, the Asian Indian population in King County has tripled every decade. Census estimates from 2013 show 58,465 Indians living in King County.

But I wonder if the quoted numbers are too low. Indians occupy hundreds of apartment complexes and you can drive for miles through new developments of single-family homes where you see Indian women walking on the sidewalks wearing traditional Indian dress. I hear of classrooms in which virtually every student is Indian. You can go into a big-box store in Redmond and the large crowd of shoppers is overwhelmingly Indian—only two or three whites are visible at any given time.

There are an estimated 13,500 illegal Indians in Washington State. And, according to an Indian advocacy group, there are 300,000 Indians waiting to obtain employment-based green cards in the US and 30,000 in Washington State. [Birds In A Cage: The Indian Green Card Backlog, by Melissa Hellmann, Seattle Times, February 21, 2018]

The huge influx of Indians may seem harmless—other than to the displaced American workers, but who cares about them?—but the political fallout impacts everyone in Washington State.

The 45th Legislative District—which stretches along much of the Eastside (including the suburbs of Redmond)—had a Republican representing it in the Washington State Senate. But when Republican Sen. Andy Hill died it became a foregone conclusion that, given Indian leftist propensities (a National Asian-American survey found 77 percent of Indian voters voted for Hillary against Trump), Indian Democrat Manka Dhingra would win.

Alexander Burns and Kirk Johnson reported for the New York Times:

Dow Constantine, the King County executive and a Democrat, said that the once very real political divisions of the region—Democratic-leaning Seattle on the West Side of Lake Washington, Republican-leaning enclaves to the east—have been shattered by demographic change, too, especially as the immigrants who came to work in tech jobs encouraged others in the countries they left to follow them.

[Poised for West Coast Dominance, Democrats Eye Grand Agenda, by Alexander Burns and Kirk Johnson, New York Times, November 4, 2017]

The significance of this: the election of Dhingra gave the Democrats control of the Washington State Senate—they already had the House and the governor’s mansion. That virtually guarantees Washington residents will be subjected to the full Democrat wish list—a carbon tax, an income tax, a capital-gains tax, a tax per-mile driven, and wholesale gun-control laws.

It also means more resistance to President Trump’s efforts to enforce immigration laws. Sujeet Rajan wrote in News India:

…Dhingra’s win will also be an endorsement of many of the liberal, anti-Trump positions she has taken, including supporting the now nationally-recognized state Attorney General Bob Ferguson in his numerous lawsuits to overturn Trump’s travel ban on some Muslim countries, and help illegal immigrants from deportation…

[Why Manka Dhingra Is Important For Democrats, by Sujeet Rajan, New India Times, October 13, 2017]

Unfortunately, the election of aggressive, Leftist, pro-immigration, anti-enforcement Indian politicians is not confined to Washington State. All over the country there are Indian and Asian enclaves created by the tech industry’s desire for a cheap imported workforce. And all over the country there are an increasing number of Indians seeking political power. Ronak D. Desai in Forbes reported a statement by Deepak Raj and Raj Goyle:

At a time when so many of our values are under attack, Indian Americans are stepping up to run, win, and lead. Last Tuesday, 25 of them won their elections in New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington State. We already know of 50 candidates on the ballot next November—so it is critical that we lay the groundwork now to elect the most viable candidates who reflect our community’s values. Our community is on the rise.

[Why Indian Americans Were Among The Biggest Winners in U.S. State & Local Election, by Ronak Desai, Forbes, November 19, 2017]

Forbes’ Desai noted that five Indians were elected to Congress—all Democrats.

Why do Indians vote this way? In an interesting analysis, Jayant Bhandari writes that “India is an extremely irrational, superstitious, and tribal country…India was long associated with Britain and has imported western institutions, ways of living, technology, etc., over the last 200-300 years, but has failed to import the concept of reason.”

Bhandari goes on:

[Indians] can only think in terms of might is right, street-smartness and political connections. Such a society cannot have any understanding of the principles of the Ten Commandments, or have respect for the individual and liberty.”

Bhandari writes of India’s Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Modi:

Under Modi’s reign, as the institutions which the British left continue to get destroyed, liberties are falling, taxes are going up without any improvements in public service, and the regulatory burden has increased significantly. The country is getting increasingly centralized as well, and brought under Modi’s command. He believes he has to do more of all these things to ensure India remains on a path to growth. This is a recipe for disaster.

[India: The World’s Fastest Growing Large Economy, by Jayant Bhandari, Acting Man, February 2, 2017]

Is it any wonder Indians in America overwhelmingly vote for the same kind of government? Ironically, because of short-term greed, corporate elites are bringing in future voters who will impose a high-tax, centralized, and over-regulated anti-business regime here—a regime which would certainly not have given corporations the recent historic tax cut and ongoing deregulation?

But if Indians aren’t the right choice for merit-based immigration, then who—Chinese? A Chinese friend of mine who recently visited Taiwan told me that Taiwanese are increasingly siding with Mainland China because they want to be on the side of a country growing in wealth and power. This person said trying to talk to them about human rights, freedom, and democracy was like trying to upload a new brain to a robot.

This friend agreed that the combination of an ancient culture and new wealth tends to give both Indians and Chinese an arrogant feeling of superiority—that they have nothing to learn from Americans about individual freedom and democracy. They are here to make money. They don’t want to assimilate and become real Americans.

The only chance of saving the freedom created by our Founding Fathers: a moratorium on all immigration.

Ethnic Civil War in California is Unavoidable, Prepare Accordingly

In 2014, Latinos will surpass whites as largest racial/ethnic group in California. … In 2000, California’s 33.9 million residents were 46.6% white non-Hispanic, 32.3% Latino, 11.1% Asian American or Pacific Islander, 6.4% black non-Hispanic and about 1% Native American.Jan 24, 2014

The demographers agreed: At some point in 2014, Latinos would pass whites as the largest ethnic group in California.

Determining when exactly that milestone would occur was more of a tricky question. Counting people isn’t like counting movie ticket receipts.

The official confirmation had to wait until new population figures were released by the Census Bureau this summer. The new tally, released in late June, shows that as of July 1, 2014, about 14.99 million Latinos live in California, edging out the 14.92 million whites in the state.

The shift shouldn’t come as a surprise. State demographers had previously expected the change to occur sometime in 2013, but slow population growth pushed back projections. In January 2014, the state Department of Finance estimated the shift would take place at some point in March.

Ethnic Civil War in California is Unavoidable

From the Chicago Tribune:

The past has never been the past. We are a country that has been at war with itself for most of its existence.

But it isn’t just a case of white versus black or dysfunctional party politics. Conflict never stands apart from systemic failure, but peaks at a time of convergence. And that is where we are.

Of course, President Donald Trump is the poison in the water, but he came along at a time when black churches, once front and center of the civil rights movement, haven’t really shown any sign of an organized effort to publicly call out bigotry.

And Trump is not responsible for the NAACP becoming as outdated as its acronym, relegating itself to a booking company that issues travel warnings.

It is not Trump’s fault that for eight years of the Obama administration, Democrats rested on self-righteousness at having elected the first black president — blind to the fact that one victory, no matter the magnitude, doesn’t guarantee the health of the party or the nation.

Being anti-Trump is not policy, but with serious issues like global warming cast aside, opposing Trump is the only way for Democrats to stand for something, anything.

And even though only second-string Republicans show up for interviews in defense of Trump, not enough Republicans have had the courage to act in favor of saving the democracy.

Indeed, for many in Trump’s administration, this moment in history is more than they were ever due, and they’ll hold on to it with both hands.

Meanwhile, progressive whites have for the most part retired to the suburbs, satisfied that being friendly and accepting was enough to outweigh bigotry.

And the generations that sprang from this unintentional complacency took their own path forward.

Regarding Hispanic and Latino Americans, now the largest ethnic minority in the U.S., Trump has done a good job intimidating this population to the extent that even legal immigrants would rather be silent than risk becoming a target of bigots.

Having witnessed the mob mentality at Trump rallies, and the skirmishes that have already taken place in some communities, is it really too far a stretch to imagine chaos in our neighborhoods?

That common purpose cannot reside comfortably with individual rights is proof of our lack of courage in the face of adversity.

In this moment we are nothing like our Founding Fathers.

America is dying, and diversity and multiculturalism advanced by jewish interests to control, manipulate, ethnically cleanse and eventually genocide the founding white majority of America is why America is dying. This process CANNOT BE UNDONE. The only remaining option is trial by fire, whites must prepare themselves, physically, economically, and materially for the collapse of their nations, for only then do we have a chance at taking back what is ours by birthright, and removing the threats to our people. Collapse is without a doubt coming.

We have the ONLY argument that is undeniable in our moral right to fight and remove any and all threats to our people:

From http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.ae/

They’re not us: In-group preference

‘Birds of a feather flock together.’  With the glaring exception of ethno-masochistic modern NW Euros, preferring to be with one’s own kind is the norm in all times and places. Even today, does anyone raise an eyebrow at Chinatown, Greektown, or Little Havana?

Sticking with our own kind in NYC

As it is a sentiment so universally indulged in by all ethnic groups, one can hardly fault our forebears for sharing it.

Benjamin Franklin

Founding father and polyglot Benjamin Franklin, for example, in his 1755 Observations concerning the increase of mankind, &c:

‘Which leads me to add one remark: That the number  of purely white people in the world is proportionally very small. …  I could wish their numbers  were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our  planet, by clearing America of woods, …,  ‘Why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its  people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red?’

Why indeed? And even he admitted his bias:

‘But perhaps  I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.’

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson, quoted above, expounds further on these differences:
Dancing slaves in Brazil

‘[Blacks] are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient.  … In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. . . .’

Diversity Has Failed, Only question remains is how long do we have before this nation begins to break along racial lines. With the way things are accelerating, not much time is left.

If you doubt the jewish Influence in the collapse of our nation your deny reality in your stupidity.

Winston Churchill  on the jew said:

The Bolshevik movement was widely seen as being fomented by powerful Jews. Winston Churchill, in a 1920 editorial, Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People:

‘There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. 

‘Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders . . . In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been take by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.’

Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm, in a 1922 editorial in the Chicago Tribune, shared the same view:

A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a bad insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can do mischief – even by pogroms, if necessary. The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism in Russia, and Germany too. I was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I bitterly regret the favors I showed the prominent Jewish bankers.’

Richard Nixon on the Jew

Nixon, quoted earlier, said this in a 1973 phone call with ((((((Henry Kissinger)))))) on an upcoming US-Soviet summit:

An old trope still hanging on (‘((((((AIPAC))))))’ = American Jewish Lobby)

‘Let me say, Henry, it’s gonna be the worst thing that happened to Jews in American history,’ Nixon said. ‘If they torpedo this summit — and it might go down for other reasons — I’m gonna put the blame on them, and I’m going to do it publicly at 9 o’clock at night before 80 million people,’ he vowed. ‘I won’t mind one goddamn but to have a little anti-Semitism if it’s on that issue,’ adding: ‘They put the Jewish interest above America’s interest and it’s about goddamn time that the Jew in America realizes he’s an American first and a Jew second.’

Harry Truman

Truman too resented them pushing their own group interests. Henry Wallace, Sec. of Commerce, in his memoirs on 1946 negotiations over the new Jewish state:

May 16, 1948 headline

Truman was ‘exasperated’ over Jewish pressure that he support Zionist rule over Palestine. Wallace added ‘Pres. Truman expressed himself as being very much ‘put out’ with the Jews. He said that “Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was here on Earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?” Pres. Truman said he had no use for them and didn’t care what happened to them.’

H.G. Wells 

Author H.G. Wells pointed out the same:

‘Zionism is an expression of Jewish refusal to assimilate. If the Jews have suffered, it is because they have regarded themselves as a chosen people.
‘A careful study of anti-Semitism prejudice and accusations might be of great value to many Jews, who do not adequately realize the irritations they inflict.’

Some of our favorite novelists were ethnic realtalkers

Roald Dahl

Beloved writer Roald Dahl (of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory fame) said in a New Statesman interview:

‘There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.’

Jews have long been criticized for their perceived dishonesty towards out-groups.

Fyodor Dostoevsky

Dostoevsky, cited above in Diary of a Writer (1877), also says:

The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia, Alphonse Mucha, 1914

‘And, in truth, the whole activity of the Jews in these border regions of ours consisted of rendering the native population as much as possible inescapably dependent on them, taking advantage of the local laws.  ….  ‘In this respect the Jew preserves all his originality as compared with other Russian aliens, and of course, the reason therefore is that status of his, that spirit of which specifically breathes pitilessness for everything that is not Jew, with disrespect for any people and tribe, for every human creature who is not a Jew.’

Mark Twain

Twain, whom we cited earlier, mounted a spirited defense of the Jew as a fine upstanding citizen and good businessman, yet still conceded (1899) that:

He has a reputation for various small forms of cheating, and for practising oppressive usury, and for burning himself out to get the insurance, and for arranging cunning contracts which leave him an exit but lock the other man in, and for smart evasions which find him safe and comfortable just within the strict letter of the law, when court and jury know very well that he has violated the spirit of it.’


No less than Napoleon accused them of exploiting outsiders. From an 1806 speech before the Council of State:

‘The Jews have practiced usury since the time of Moses, and oppressed the other peoples. Meanwhile, the Christians were only rarely usurers, falling into disgrace when they did so. We ought to ban the Jews from commerce because they abuse it . . . The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from the fundamental nature of this people.’

((((((Emmanuel)))))) Kant

Philosopher ((((((Emmanuel)))))) Kant, from an anthropology lecture he gave throughout the latter 1700s:

1910 postcard satirizing Jews’ exploitation of out-groups

The Palestinians [Jews] living among us have, for the most part, earned a not unfounded reputation for being cheaters, because of their spirit of usury since their exile. Certainly, it seems strange to conceive of a nation of cheaters; but it is just as odd to think of a nation of merchants, the great majority of whom, bound by an ancient superstition that is recognized by the State they live in, seek no civil dignity and try to make up for this loss by the advantage of duping the people among whom they find refuge, and even one another.


French Enlightenment hero Voltaire made similar observations, worded somewhat more harshly:

‘We find in them only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.’

H.L. Mencken

Writer H.L. Mencken characterized them as vain and lacking in courage:

‘The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack any of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom.  Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display.’

T.S. Eliot

Poet T.S. Eliot, in a 1925 personal letter, found them envious:

The poet whose work spawned ‘Cats’

I am always inclined to suspect the racial envy and jealousy which makes that people [Jews] inclined to bolshevism in some form (not always political).’ Later, in a 1933 lecture, he talked about the importance of ‘unity of religious background…. Reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.’

((((((Karl Marx))))))

((((((Karl Marx)))))), himself of Jewish descent, accused his own group of being money-hungry:

What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury.What is his worldly god? Money. . . . What is the foundation of the Jew in this world? Practical necessity, private advantage. . . . The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.’

Some of the most intelligent, pragmatic, driven and ruthless Men in History Understood the Jewish question. It is undeniable their role in the destruction of the west and its white nations.

Differences in character– in future orientation, in out-group attitude, in patriotism– tend to kill multiculturalist dreams in the egg. Ethnic groups with vastly different characters simply do not live comfortably side-by-side. Our forebears, we now see, were not so squeamish about these prickly truths as we are.

Time is here for whites to cast of their white guilt, and start think whats good for our race and people, WE COME FIRST.

A Model of Enlightenment

“Enlightenment,” like “humanism” or “romanticism,” is a big general term through which we try to build up a mental construct out of a very great number of facts. No such construct can possibly include, without exception, all the facts of eighteenth-century culture. We might attempt to take a single real individual, and build from his life and work a man “typical” of the Enlightenment. Were we to do so, we could do much worse than to pick Thomas Jefferson. Even more representative would be a combination of Jefferson, Franklin, and Thomas Paine; in fact, the construction of a nonexistent but “typical” enlightened man is by no means a bad approach to this classical problem. (It should be noted that colonial and early national America was very much a part of the Enlightenment.) Here, however, we shall deal directly with ideas in order to construct a kind of “model” of the world view of the Enlightenment, fully aware that in fact we are not constructing a model even in the sense now fashionable in such social sciences as economics, but are using an old and well-tried literary device–that is, empirical, even commonsensical, generalization. Three key clusters of ideas form our model of the world view of the Enlightenment; Reason, Nature, Progress.


Reason was to the enlightened man a kind of common sense sharpened and made subtler by training in logic and “natural philosophy” (science). Like any other physiological function, reason was held to work always and in substantially the same way in all human beings as Nature designed them. But–and this is important–in enlightened eyes, environmental conditions (institutional and cultural environment, rather than physical environment–in temperate climates at any rate), had in the West in the eighteenth century corrupted the normal physiological working of Reason in most human beings. For this corruption the eighteenth century held especially responsible the wider cultural environment. Church, state, social, and economic class, superstition, ignorance, prejudice, poverty, and vice all seemed to work together to impede the proper functioning of Reason.

The philosophes, could they have been polled in the modern way, would probably have ranked the Roman Catholic church—indeed, all Christian churches—as the greatest single corrupting influence. Priests were selfish, cruel, intolerant. Voltaire’s “crush the infamous thing” rang through the century. But at bottom the greatest evil of the church, for the enlightened, was its transcendental and supernatural base, which put faith and revelation above reason.

In the great French Encyclopedia, under the article on philosophe, appears the revealing sentence, “Reason is to the philosophe what grace is to the Christian.” And just as grace is available to the true Christian, so Reason, for the philosophe, is available to the truly enlightened, once the proper environmental conditions are achieved. The philosophes and their followers certainly held that the necessary environmental changes would take some time and effort, though Condorcet in his Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Human Mind (1794) held that Western man was on the threshold of the final push into a wholly reasonable world. Moreover, in this reasonable world, if there might persist some inequalities in reasoning power among men, these would not be considerable. Helvetius, in his Concerning the Mind (1758), is convinced that potentially all men have roughly equal powers of understanding.

Locke, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), provided the philosophical and psychological foundation on which the philosophes constructed their faith in Reason. For Locke denied all “innate ideas,” among which were the Christian truths of revelation, and held the mind to be a tabula rasa on which experience (that is, environment) inscribed a content. Obviously, if you can control this experience you can control the formation of the mind, the character—all that counts in a man. That sturdy faith in “cultural engineering,” new, as a widespread one, in its assertion of the possibility of changing all human beings for the good by changing their environment, and in particular their education, from infancy on, has survived in diminished forms to this day.


Nature, the second great cluster of ideas in our model of Enlightenment, is closely meshed with that of Reason. In perhaps over-simple terms, reason, properly working, enabled human beings to discover, or rediscover, Nature beneath the concealing corruptions of religion, social structure, convention, and indeed, beneath the often misleading impressions of sense experience not properly organized by Reason. Though the average enlightened man would not have admitted it, this Nature was in part a hypostatized conception of the beautiful and the good. It must be understood against two antitheses. First, there is the “super-” or “supernatural” —the miracle, the revealed truths of religion. For the enlightened, all these are simply figments of the imagination, nonexistent, indeed at bottom priestly inventions designed to keep men ignorant of the ways of Reason and Nature. Second, there is the “unnatural.” Unlike the supernatural, the unnatural does indeed exist. The unnatural, the artificial, the burdens of irrational customs and traditions accumulated through historic time, are for the enlightened the form of evil takes in this world. It must be noted that in simple naive logic the enlightened had as much trouble over the problem of the origin of evil as did the Christian. How the natural got to be unnatural was a question as difficult to answer as how an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God allowed Adam to bite into the apple. Rousseau, for example, in the Essay on the Origin of Inequality (1754), blames the lapse from the state of Nature on the first man to fence in a piece of land and say, “This is mine.” He does not explain why this natural man acted so unnaturally.

Nature, then, is quite simply the “good” —a set of ethical and aesthetic goals or standards. In specific content these standards were not in fact greatly different from those of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. There was no doubt a strong touch of Hellenism in the eighteenth, as in the sixteenth, century. The Enlightened was this-worldly enough, and by no means ascetic. Its characteristic ethics (Helvetius again, or Jeremy Bentham, will do as examples) was hedonist and instrumentalist. Yet only among a few circles of court and nobility was the eighteenth century a time of moral looseness, cynicism, and corruption, and even in such circles, there often cropped up what we should call the strain of social consciousness. The enlightened despot (Joseph II of Austria), the enlightened nobleman (Lafayette), were hardly self-indulgent sensualists. There was, in fact, a touch of puritanism in the enlightened, as in almost all who really hope to make men over completely.

Some writers, especially in the second half of the the century, were “primitivists.” They held that there had once been on earth a state of Nature in which men lived free from evil. Some placed this state of Nature in a distant, semi-classical past, the Golden Age of Hellenistic tradition. Others found this state of Nature in their own time, though Chinese who believed in decency, not in a theistic God, and among those noble savages, the Red Indians of America. But for the most part, eighteenth century writers seem to have had at most no more than a half belief in the historical reality of an idyllic state of Nature; even Rousseau seemed aware that the state of Nature is what we would now call a myth, a useful form of what we would now call propaganda for the new order. So too was that very popular political concept, the “social contract”; this device brought “natural” ethics into practical politics as the natural rights of man.


The third cluster of ideas is summed up in the word “progress”” Americans especially are so accustomed to accepting the notion of Progress as something self-evident that they find it hard to realize how new this doctrine really is. The central doctrine of development in the Judaeo-Christian tradition is that of a lapse from an original perfect state, that of the Garden of Eden; and in so representative a Christian view of world history as Augustine’s City of God, a better state, though seen to be ahead as well as behind, is not one attained by the steady improvement of man’s lot on this earth in the civitas terrena, but by a promise of a Second Coming of Christ. The Hellenistic tradition favored a variety of cyclical theories, with a Golden Age degenerating to a Silver Age and thence to an Iron Age before the process started all over again. The humanists of the Renaissance, as well as the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were trying to recapture a past they both believed much superior to their present.

The clearest beginnings of a belief that the present is better than the past came in the late seventeenth century in what in France was called the “quarrel of the ancients and the moderns” and in England the “battle of the books.” The issue was a literary one: can a writer in the late seventeenth century achieve work equal to, perhaps better than, that of the great writers of Greece and Rome? At the moment the battle was no more than a draw, but in the early eighteenth century the moderns began to win out in public opinion. The French reformer and philosopher Turgot, in a speech at the Sorbonne “On the Successive Advances of the Human Mind” (1750), outlined a complete doctrine of progress, which at the hands of his friend and disciple Condorcet in the above-mentioned Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Human Mind becomes an extraordinarily optimistic utopia of indefinite progress toward what has been called a doctrine of “natural salvation” —the attainment by everyone of immortality in this flesh on this earth.

The average man, even though enlightened, could hardly fly as high as did Condorcet. Moreover, the eighteenth century lacked what Darwin in the nineteenth century was to provide, a systematic theoretical explanation of the biological workings of an evolutionary process from “lower” to “higher,” interpreted as Progress. The enlightened man tended toward a simple view that the agent of progress is the increasingly effective application of Reason to the control of the physical and cultural environment. Education became one of the major ways in which Reason was to do its work of reform. From Locke to Rousseau and Pestalozzi, the Enlightenment produced a series of very important writings on educational theory, and saw the beginnings of serious experimentation in the field.

This is hardly the place to attack the knotty problem of the relation between the key ideas of the Enlightenment and the complex currents of the full historical record of the period. There is clearly no single one-way “cause” involved, but many among them the example of natural science, clearly cumulative and “progressive”; the beginnings of the extraordinary technological advances of our Western civilization; a very considerable and widespread economic growth—of course not evenly distributed as to class and geographical location, but still much greater, in France above all, than historians once believed; and reinforcing all, a “climate of opinion” favorable to enterprise. These factors, and many others which are by no means well understood, helped make the Enlightenment the take-off point of modern Western civilization, so unique in its concrete material achievements.

From the “Encyclopedia of Philosophy” by Collier-Macmillan limited, 1967

Willful Ignorance: Why We Stay Oblivious to Facts that Threaten Our Health and the Planet

Renegade Editor’s Note: Although this article is specifically dealing with willful ignorance regarding our health and the environment, it could be applied to many of the subjects with which we deal.

By Anna Hunt

How many times have you read or heard that refined sugar and processed meats are bad for you? Or how many pictures have you seen that show plastic pollution pervading the oceans? But yet, many of us remain willfully blind to these fundamental facts. We make very little changes in our lifestyle even though our habits may be destroying our bodies and planet. Why does this happen?

In her book Willful Blindness, Margaret Hefferman argues that it is our human nature to willingly ignore the facts, even if they are destructive.

Failing to see – or admit to ourselves or our colleagues – the issues and problems in plain sight can ruin private lives and bring down corporations. ~ Margaret Hefferman

Willful Ignorance is Just Easy

Each one of us has constructed our own specific set of beliefs. We base them on our past experiences, ideas and relationships with others.

Your beliefs are hard-wired into your brain. Thus, instead of taking the time to assess contradictions and form doubts, you willfully rationalize your beliefs.

Let’s be honest. It’s easy to block out uncomfortable realities (like prevalence of the herbicide glyphosate in food products marketed to children…or the fact that seven million tons of plastic end up in the oceans each year.) These facts can be scary and difficult to digest. Truly accepting them would require thought and action, and who has time for that!

No one wants to be called dramatic, or Debbie-downer, or conspiracy theorist. Frankly, we just want to be accepted by our peers. Conformity often trumps rationale. Take a moment and think: how often do you use your culture, social norms or identity to justify your point of view or action? I’m definitely guilty of it.

Cognitive psychologist, Albert Bandura, states:

…people transform harmful practices into worthy ones, coming up with social justification, distancing themselves with euphemisms and numbers, ignoring the long-term consequences of their actions.

I would guess we’re all guilty of rejecting contradictions to our beliefs about what lifestyle is acceptable, especially if they make us uncomfortable.

Researchers Daniel T. Gilbert et al. from The University of Texas at Austin examined why this happens. They suggest that “belief is first, easy, and inexorable and that doubt is retroactive, difficult, and only occasionally successful.”

What Gilbert et. al. found is that when an idea or fact supports a belief, then we accept it passively without much efforts. Yet, when an idea or fact create doubt, we need the cognitive ability and motivation logically evaluate it.

Basically, we have to make ourselves disbelieve our initial belief. That, my friends, takes effort. Many of us are not willing to put in that effort. Hence, we’re back to willful ignorance.

Hefferman states:

People are about twice as likely to seek information that supports their own point of view as they are to consider an opposing idea.

The Influencers of our Beliefs

What’s concerning is that many of our beliefs are shaped by corporations and media. We do not give this much thought, because very few people are willing to talk about subliminal programming. (This is a perfect example of willful ignorance!)

Yet, most generations living today grew up in front of the TV. Newscasters, Hollywood producers, and advertisers have been feeding ideas of what is right, what is acceptable and what should be ridiculed.

The problem is surmounted with the influence of religions, educators and governments. Most of these have their own agendas, unbeknownst to us during our childhood and young adulthood.

It’s OK to Change Your Mind

What’s exciting is that we now live is a completely different world than even 20 years ago. We have access to massive amounts of information. It is all at our fingertips.

Social psychologists, activists, and thought leaders, such as Hefferman, are able to share their knowledge, experience and wisdom with the masses.

Where the challenge lies is in our willingness to give thought to contradictions. It’s ok to consider information that oppose the official story you were fed in school or the marketing pitch of massive corporations. It’s ok to change your mind.

Perhaps milk “Does not do A Body Good.” When you’re drinking a Coke, you don’t “Catch the Wave”…instead you pollute the wave. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not weird but smart to homeschool, opt out of politics, and stop reading/watching the news.

Ms. Hefferman writes in the book:

Whether individual or collective, willful blindness doesn’t have a single driver, but many. It is a human phenomenon to which we all succumb in matters little and large. We can’t notice and know everything: the cognitive limits of our brain simply won’t let us. That means we have to filter or edit what we take in. So what we choose to let through and to leave out is crucial. We mostly admit the information that makes us feel great about ourselves, while conveniently filtering whatever unsettles our fragile egos and most vital beliefs.

It may be beneficial to reflect on what you’re filtering out because it intimidates your ego. Next time something contradicts one of your beliefs, it may be a noteworthy practice to give these new ideas some thought.

Anna Hunt is writer, yoga instructor, mother of three, and lover of healthy food. She’s the founder of Awareness Junkie, an online community paving the way for better health and personal transformation. She’s also the co-editor at Waking Times, where she writes about optimal health and wellness. Anna spent 6 years in Costa Rica as a teacher of Hatha and therapeutic yoga. She now teaches at Asheville Yoga Center and is pursuing her Yoga Therapy certification. During her free time, you’ll find her on the mat or in the kitchen, creating new kid-friendly superfood recipes.



This article (Willful Ignorance: Why We Stay Oblivious to Facts that Threaten Our Health and the Planet) is copyrighted by Awareness Junkie, 2018. It is reposted here with permission. You may not copy, reproduce or publish any content therein without written permission. Feel free to share this article on social networks and via email. If you have questions, please contact us here.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Waking Times or its staff.

Race War is Total War


Most of the wars between the nations of Medieval Europe were limited wars in which knights fought knights and generally left the peasants alone. Those wars were limited because their objective was to extend one king’s lands and tax base at the expense of another king. In other words, they were economic wars in which the peasant class was considered to be part of the valuable property being fought over. The king whose army was advancing and winning did not want to kill off his hard-won assets.

Race wars are total wars, always. There is no honorable restraint in the fighting, such as that between nations in Medieval Europe. A race war aims at securing land and resources for a people grown aware of their biological similarity and with the kinship which that similarity implies. There can be no trace of the opposing side left alive within the territorial boundaries because such a remnant would renew the conflict when they became more numerous and able to wage war again.

Soldiers engaged in race war will rape, torture, and kill the enemy’s women, children, and little babies. There is none of this Golden Rule thinking. One race will win and gain the land; one race will lose and perish utterly, unless they flee first.

Black “criminals” already do with such things with the Whites victims who fall into their clutches. We call them criminals; they are really the vanguard troops of the enemy forces. Any limitation on their ruthlessness isn’t based in chivalry, but rather in fear of provoking an effective counterattack—a possibility even today. As the threat of counterattack becomes less creditable, the predation of non-Whites on Whites will intensify proportionately.

Dismal as they are, those are the rules. Man did not write them; nature did. The necessity of engaging in total war is simply that the enemy has been, is, and will continue to engage in total war against us. That necessity arose because of the liberal belief in racial equality and the liberal sentiment of universal human brotherhood. Let’s never make those mistakes again, assuming that we survive the catastrophic consequences of making them this time.

The Black “reverends” who wield so much influence over rioting niggers occupy a position analogous to that of commanding generals. The street nigger recognizes that the Black “reverend” does not really mean what his words say. When the Black “reverend” holds up his arms and preaches brotherhood, the street nigger understands it to be a signal for a temporary cessation of violence to allow the Jewish media time to brainwash the Whites into placidity again.

When the time comes for another riot or for another vicious wave of anti-White crime, the “reverends” will signify it by speaking more loudly than usual about White racism. Then will come another period of niggers invading the homes of Whites to rob, rape and kill. Then will come more Black riots in American cities. Then will more White teenagers be shot in the head on a snow-covered soccer field. Then will more White women be snatched off bicycles or out of cars, taken to a motel, raped, skinned alive, and drowned in a tub of bleach.

The only race not engaged in total war, to the extent they might dare, are Whites. The reason for the White failure to compete as their non-White opponents are competing is Jewish brainwashing, carried on by every major outlet of the mass media. The brainwashing induces internal divisions based on varying degrees with which Whites are insulated from the realities of racial competition. The more insulated Whites are generally more liberal, at least in their racial views. The greater is the familiarity of Whites with non-Whites, the less liberal (on race) they are.

As is typical in “democratic” societies, ignorance swamps wisdom and thereby hobbles efforts for an effective collective defense. The more liberal Whites ensure that their more sensible “racist” brothers can’t defend themselves without facing retaliation from White police officers and from ambitious White lawyers and judges.

If White people don’t kick the habit of interfering with each other’s survival tactics, the White race will become extinct. The enemy, seeing clearly what must be done to us, with a will to do those things to us, will vanquish us, unless we develop a racial consciousness that is at least the equal of that which our opponents have. We must learn to accept, and to practice, total war. Being Whites, we will never enjoy it. Like it or not, though, our survival depends on our employing it.

The White lawyer must never defend a nigger, no matter how green his money is. The White preacher must never declare that the negro is our equal in the sight of God. The White judge must understand that only Whites are citizens of the United States because the 14th Amendment is fraudulent, hence null and void. The White teacher must refuse to teach Blacks. The White school bus driver must leave Spics at the bus stop. The White policeman must shoot his gun into the crowd of rioting niggers with every intention of killing every rioting nigger.

Total war. It’s the only option left.