So Counter Currents publisher Greg Johnson was arrested, and banned
from Norway, because he might say something TPTB don't like.

The story of his arrest is titled Anarcho-Tyranny in Oslo and is
found here:

And the full speech he intended to give in Oslo, is titled
"The Very Idea of White Privilege", and is found here:


This para can be considered a tl;dr:

  The main reason to reject the claim that America is a white
  supremacist society is the fact that some non-white groups—chiefly
  East Asians and certain communities of South Asians—do better than
  whites in key indicators of success, such as educational
  attainment, income, and law abidingness, and they did so before
  anti-white discrimination and non-white tokenism became rampant. If
  American whites were intent on creating systematic white privilege
  and supremacy, we failed miserably. White racism is not a
  sufficient explanation for differing racial outcomes in America.

Here is an extract:

  A privilege is an advantage that you enjoy and others don’t.
  Privilege is inherently unequal. Special privileges are the
  opposite of equal rights. White privilege means advantages enjoyed
  by whites just in virtue of their race—rights not enjoyed by
  non-whites. White privilege is a form of hereditary privilege.
  Whites do nothing to earn or merit white privilege over and above
  simply being born. White privilege thus refers to a whole range of
  unequal and unearned—and thus unjust—advantages enjoyed by whites
  and denied to non-whites in the societies that whites created.
  White privilege is just another word for white “racism.”

  The concept of white privilege has exploded in American public
  discourse in the last five years, coinciding with the so-called
  “great awokening,” namely the wave of Left-wing hysteria and
  gaslighting set off by the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown hoaxes,
  namely the claims that two blacks who were killed while committing
  crimes were actually the real victims, innocent victims of white

  The concept of white privilege has provoked a great deal of
  eye-rolling and healthy anger from whites. This manifestation of
  white toughness has, absurdly, been termed “white fragility,” which
  is a clear sign that the Left is not just out of touch with reality
  but simply thinks that it can be conjured up or banished with word

  Whites reject the idea of white privilege for various reasons.

    - Some think that racism is a terrible thing, but they don’t
      think that they or their societies are guilty of it.

    - The vast majority of white people work very hard and never had
      anything given to them, so they resent the idea that they
      benefit from unearned privileges.

    - Others think there is nothing wrong with racial inequality and
      believe that white privilege is just another politically
      correct moral swindle in which non-whites seek unearned
      advantages by accusing good-hearted whites of spurious offenses
      for which they can buy forgiveness.

  But as much as I applaud this pushback against white privilege, the
  concept is not entirely meaningless. For instance, within the
  lifetimes of some people reading this, whites enjoyed legal
  privileges denied to non-whites in Apartheid South Africa and the
  American South.

  But there is not a white society in the world today in which whites
  enjoy such legal privileges over non-whites. Even the idea of
  nationality through descent is being chipped away as a form of
  privilege. Indeed, in South Africa and the United States,
  non-whites now enjoy privileges over whites, both legally and
  through massive private discrimination.

  Yet, even with decades of official and unofficial non-white
  privilege behind us, certain non-white groups are more likely than
  whites to be uneducated, poor, and in trouble with the law—to name
  just three important factors in overall social well-being.

  The official explanation for these lingering inequalities is
  “racism,” that is to say: white malevolence, as well as “systemic”
  forms of inequality. According to this theory, since all peoples
  want to thrive in white societies and have equal inherent potential
  to do so, the fact that some groups conspicuously do not thrive
  needs to be explained.

  Since white people are the architects of these societies, they are
  obviously the ones to blame. Thus white people must be hectored and
  browbeaten and reeducated. We must be punished by affirmative
  action and reparations. And we must endure having our societies
  torn apart and rebuilt over and over again, until racial equality
  is attained. Because nothing stands in the way of racial equality
  except white institutions and ways of life, white ignorance and
  ill-will, white guilt and white privilege—or so they say.

  But it is increasingly difficult to believe this viewpoint because
  legal white privileges have been overturned and replaced. White
  privilege has not, moreover, been replaced by a classical liberal
  meritocracy, in which all people are subject to the same rules and
  judged on individual merit, but by a system of non-white privilege.
  But even with the system rigged in their favor, some non-white
  groups conspicuously lag behind whites in a vast number of indexes
  of social well-being. (An excellent summation of these differences
  is Richard Lynn’s The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality
  Worldwide [Augusta, Ga.: Washington Summit Publishers, 2008].)

  Even though anti-racist activists and non-whites find it
  increasingly difficult to point to any specific cause of persistent
  inequality, they just know that it is somehow white people’s fault.
  This is why the Left has resorted to increasingly “occult”—i.e.
  hidden and mysterious—explanations for persistent racial

  Since fewer and fewer whites are consciously racist, the problem
  must be unconscious racism somehow keeping certain groups down.
  Unconscious racism is a real phenomenon, but how far does it
  explain persistent inequality? (On unconscious racism, see Kevin
  MacDonald’s “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism,” The Occidental
  Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 4 [2006].)

  Since fewer and fewer whites hold negative racial stereotypes about
  other groups, and non-whites are still displaying stereotypical
  behavior, non-whites must be sabotaging themselves because of the
  “threat,” the mere specter of negative stereotypes existing in
  their own minds—and this is still white people’s fault, somehow.

  Since explicit, legal racism has been dismantled and even reversed,
  the legacy of past racism must still exert a subtle influence that
  is powerful enough to cancel out the effects of much more recent
  systems of non-white privilege, somehow.

  The classic statement on white privilege is Peggy McIntosh’s 1989
  essay, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,”
  where she writes:

    I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of
    unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but
    about which I was “meant” to remain oblivious. White privilege is
    like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions,
    maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank

  All of these “privileges” are simply aspects of having a
  homogeneous homeland, of belonging to a community of people with
  whom you share a common biological and cultural heritage. In white
  societies, one can call this “white privilege.” But in Asian
  societies, one would call it Asian privilege and in African
  societies, African privilege. Furthermore, it is too crude to speak
  about this simply in terms of broad racial categories. Instead, we
  should speak about Norwegian privilege in Norway, Japanese
  privilege in Japan, Swazi privilege in Swaziland, and the like. It
  would also be nice to live in a world in which stateless peoples,
  like Palestinians and Kurds, have similar privileges.

  It is fun to visit foreign lands, but it can be alienating,
  stressful, and psychologically exhausting to actually live in one,
  and this is the everyday experience of minorities and stateless
  peoples in other people’s homelands. The cure to this problem is to
  give every people a land of their own where they can feel at home
  rather than constantly alienated.

  Many of McIntosh’s alleged privileges of being white are more
  accurately described as the absence of the disadvantages of being
  black. These include:

  McIntosh describes black disadvantages as white privileges because
  she wishes to absolve blacks for these problems and blame whites.
  Unfortunately, many anti-black stereotypes—for instance, black
  criminality and financial irresponsibility—are not just dreamed up
  by evil-minded white people. They are based in experience. Of
  course most blacks are not criminals and spendthrifts, but enough
  of them are that it is rational for whites to be vigilant around
  blacks they do not know, a burden of suspicion that falls equally
  upon the problem minority and the blameless majority.

  One of the central contentions of the Black Lives Matter movement
  is that blacks are arrested for crimes at a greater rate than
  whites simply because of white racism. But objective data shows
  that blacks are arrested for crimes at pretty much the same rate
  that they commit them. (See for instance, Edwin S. Rubenstein’s The
  Color of Crime: Race, Crime, and Justice in America [Oakton, Vir.:
  New Century Foundation, 2016].) Thus, if Black Lives Matter wishes
  to lower the black arrest rate, they should work to lower the black
  crime rate.

  But there is not a single politician in America who has the courage
  to simply tell blacks to commit fewer crimes. Instead, police
  departments are being intimidated into giving blacks license to
  break the law with impunity. Police are also more likely to use
  violence with white suspects than blacks in comparable situations.
  This is objectively a system of black privilege. (On Black Lives
  Matter and the collapse of policing blacks, see Heather MacDonald’s
  on “the Ferguson effect.”
  On the over-policing of whites in America, including increased
  chances of death by cop, see Richard Houck’s “Law Enforcement and
  the Hostile Elite,” Counter-Currents, June 20, 2018.)

  Blacks feel oppressed in white societies by negative white
  stereotypes. But the most momentous of these stereotypes are based
  on experience. Thus it is rational to use them as guides in dealing
  with black strangers. Because of this, no amount of reeducation is
  going to banish them. (For a more detailed discussion of the
  rationality of experience-based prejudices, see the title essay
  of my book In Defense of Prejudice.)

  As long as multiracial societies persist, whites will continue to
  resent blacks for not living up to white standards, and blacks will
  continue to resent whites for imposing alien standards. The
  ethnonationalist solution to such irreconcilable differences is
  racial divorce: the creation of homogeneous sovereign homelands, to
  the extent that this is possible, for all distinct peoples who wish
  to exercise this right. (I discuss the concepts of ethnonationalism
  and homogeneity, and how they can be achieved humanely in The White
  Nationalist Manifesto.
  Also see my essay, “Irreconcilable Differences: The Case for Racial

  The main reason to reject the claim that America is a white
  supremacist society is the fact that some non-white groups—chiefly
  East Asians and certain communities of South Asians—do better than
  whites in key indicators of success, such as educational
  attainment, income, and law abidingness, and they did so before
  anti-white discrimination and non-white tokenism became rampant. If
  American whites were intent on creating systematic white privilege
  and supremacy, we failed miserably. White racism is not a
  sufficient explanation for differing racial outcomes in America.

  We have an alternative hypothesis based on the science of Human
  Biological Diversity. The differing levels of education, income,
  and law-abidingness—to name just three factors—among racial groups
  in America are precisely what we would predict given measurable
  differences of IQ and sociopathic personality traits between the
  races. For a survey of the effect of IQ on a wide range of social
  outcomes, see Richard Lynn’s The Global Bell Curve. On racial
  differences in personality traits beyond just IQ, including
  psychopathy, see Michael Levin’s Why Race Matters (Oakton, Vir.:
  New Century Books, 2016).

  Different races really are different. That means that when
  different races live in the same social system, subject to the same
  laws, institutions, and incentives, some will inevitably flourish
  better than others. There will never be a social system that is
  equally conducive to the flourishing of all races and cultures.
  Such inequalities will persist even if we institute remedial forms
  of discrimination in favor of groups who lag behind.


Reply via email to