Not too long ago, a woman by the name of Jonna Ramey wrote an open letter to “White Supremacists” in a newspaper, entitled “What is wrong with you?” This open letter got some attention, in the general “yaass Queeen slaayy!!” variety of leftists on Twitter and such who take any opportunity to shame and humiliate their ideological foes and run with it like they were trying to make a 90-yard touch down. And since I’m bored, I figured I’d respond to it. Not because I’m a white supremacist (I’m not) but because I figure I know more about the current “white supremacist” movement than she does and why shouldn’t I educate people if I have the knowledge.

After all, with everyone always screaming “Educate yourself!” I figured the education has to come from somewhere, and I might as well be helpful. I might be an a-hole, but I’m not 100% a dick.

So here’s the letter itself:

I am a 67-year old American white woman.

So already we’re starting a letter protesting white people engaging in identity politics by…engaging in identity politics. I mean, is the fact she’s white or a woman supposed to be super relevant here? I’ll give that if it was a black person complaining about “white supremacy” they’d be ignored off hand simply because they would profit directly from the destruction of white identity politics by removing some of the competition. But despite what she may think, the fact she’s white is not going to get her any special privileges with the white supremacists she’s arguing with. If anything, probably the opposite (assuming she isn’t a (((Ramey))) that is). After all, as white supremacists are fond of saying: “Traitors get the rope too.”

My parents enlisted in World War II to fight fascism.

Did they though?

Here’s a thing no one likes to talk about with WWII and the Fascists. Most Americans…didn’t give a fuck. They honestly didn’t. They didn’t want to get involved in another European war that had nothing to do with them. Hell, a lot of Americans liked Hitler, and wished they had someone like him over here. He was a strong leader, who took shit from nobody, and managed to take Germany from being the world’s worst place to live to the world’s best place to live. Everyone likes to sneer at the fact he was Time’s Person of the Year, but the simple fact is there were very valid reasons at the time he was chosen, and people everywhere loved him.

Sure, FDR and the Us  government hated him, but that was for very practical reasons. Hitler’s labor based economy had proven itself far more effective than their own Debt based economies where everything was owned by the banks who had helped create the Great Depression. Hitler was a living, successful example to their enemies that there were functionally better systems out there, and that was a threat to their power.

Here’s another thing…the US got into the war because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and most of those who enlisted, at least in the first years, did so because they wanted to kill the Japanese. It was FDR who threw everything into fighting the Nazis, because that’s what he wanted. Most Americans still didn’t give much in the way of fucks except for Hitler had joined Japan in the war. It was hatred of the Japs, not the Nazis, that drove most enlistment. The Draft was another story. So when she says her parents enlisted to fight Fascism, I have to ask if it was the Nazis, or the Japanese attack, that truly inspired them.

They both served; my mother was a nurse, my father navigated bombers. They lost friends in that bloody war so that all the world could be free of fascism.

And I bet you if they saw what the USA is today, they would have resigned their commissions and come straight home.

I mean, you seriously expect me to believe that a nice, young Christian couple from the 30’s would be cool with all the transgenderism, communism, horrible anti-white racism and discrimination, open homosexuality and gay marriage, Islamic violence, and a whole host of other issues we have today that to them back then would have been unconscionable? Because if you do…you’re delusional.

We’re talking about a generation that hung black men on trees for making a pass at a white girl. You expect me to believe they would hear about something an Islamic Grooming Gang and listen to one word about how they shouldn’t be Islamophobic? Please. You’d be lucky if they didn’t go in there and shoot or hang every Muslim man in the area. And you can forget about transgender bathroom rights. Someone would have gotten an asskicking at the least.

Oh sure, they might not have been fans of fascism, but don’t go thinking that means they’d be anywhere close to where we are now ideologically or socially.

They lost friends in that bloody war so that all the world could be free of fascism. They did not fight so that some white people could claim supremacy or that Nazis could openly walk the streets of America.

I would love to hear the opinions of this woman’s Father during the ’60’s and the civil rights movement. Just, for you know, curiosity’s sake. Because given the time period her parents probably did hold some beliefs that would be considered “white supremacist” by this woman and the rest of society.

And, of course, we must recognize that in fighting to free the world from Fascism, we left the world open to Communism…which in a lot of ways is objectively far worse than Fascism.

As for the claim that they didn’t fight so Nazis could be free to march in the streets, is she trying to claim that her family fought with the intention of not upholding the tenants of the USA? That they fought with no intentions that speech should be free, but rather silenced because it was “hateful?” Frankly, I find that rather hard to believe, knowing what I do of Americans from the 30’s and how they were fierce nationalists who would brook no arguments against the freedom of speech. Frankly this sounds more like “mommy and daddy fought for the world I believe in, not the world they had!”

White person to white supremacist person: What is wrong with you?

Honestly? Autism.

To listen to a number of autists, austism is largely the refusal of one’s brain to perceive how the world actually is vs how most people envision and act as the world is. It’s a lot like the AI Conundrum, where AI’s seem to automatically go “Racist” according to most people. Autists perceive the world as raw data and facts, and then “logically” or “mechanically” connect that data to see the world.

So you have a normal person look at society and say “All races are the same,” and you have an autist look at society and see that statistically Whites and Asians do better educationally and that Blacks are the majority of crime statistics despite being a fraction of the population, and the autist looks at society and goes “all races =/= same.”

So when an “autist” looks at a set of crimes, one being a group of whites who attack a black man yelling “kill the nigger” who get charged with hate crimes, and another where a group of blacks butcher a white person screaming “kill the cracker” who are not charged with hate crimes, the “autist” concludes that this is not equal treatment and there is a bias against white victims of violence. Thus the system is “anti-white.”

On the other hand, objectively, there is nothing wrong with “white supremacists.” After all, if the game is Identity Politics (which it is), then the functional thing for whites to do is play the game. If you have four guys at a table playing poker, and a fifth man joins them in playing poker…then there is nothing wrong with the fifth man. He is, objectively, functioning within the system as he should and playing the same game that everyone else is. Now, when it comes to white supremacy, for some reason four people can be playing poker at the table, but if the fifth man sits down, he’s supposed to play blackjack…because its “Wrong” for him to play poker. Because of his race.

It really make’s the autism scream.

People of European heritage are doing just fine in the world. They run most of the world’s institutions, hold much of the world’s wealth, replicate as frequently as other humans. You’re not in any danger here.

And this is just objectively false.

Most of us can’t find good jobs. Most of us can’t afford a house. Most of us can’t even afford to get married, much less have children. Most of us are lucky if we’re living paycheck to paycheck. Most of us are horribly, horribly in debt. Those of us who aren’t in debt…well, we don’t have much beyond being out of debt.

As for running most of the world’s institutions, at the risk of sounding like a Nazi…that’s not true either. Sure, Whites are a significant part of most of the world’s institutions, but Jewish people actually represent closer to the controlling interest than do whites, with most of the major institutions having Jewish representation of somewhere between 50-80% depending on the industry. As for the world’s wealth…again that would be Jews over Whites. Hell, I think there’s some Jewish family called the Rothschilds or something with about half a dozen living, and they’re each worth something like $222 Billion dollars a piece. To put that in perspective, the wealthiest White person, Bill Gates had less than $100 Billion at his personal best. Steve Job’s net worth was only $10 billion. Elon Musk: $21 billion.

As for reproducing at the same rate as other humans, this too is objectively false. Whites are reproducing at an average of <2, where as Hispanics, Blacks, and Muslims are all closer to a 6-12 rate. The only group anywhere near close to Whites is Asians. The simple truth is that in 30 years, White Europeans will be a minority in every single one of their native countries, and the USA is projected to have a White Minority in about 50 years at present rates.

Objectively…there is “danger” there. Certainly, things aren’t as rosy as Ramey would like to believe. And one need only do some digging into South Africa to realize what happens to a white minority.

The world is changing, that’s true. Others want a piece of the pie. They work for it, strive for it and earn it. Technology (robotics) is having a greater effect on your job prospect than immigrants.

Let’s do a thought experiment.

John is a second generation American. Jose is an illegal immigrant. Both work in construction. To hire John, a construction company has to deal with a whole lot of regulations about work safety and pay. To hire Jose, they don’t, and he’ll work for cheaper. John is less likely to have a job than Jose, and what job he does have will have lower wages due to competition with Jose’s lower wages.

John and Jose both have sons, John Jr and Jose Jr. Both go to school. John Jr has to get a part time job to help pay for things. Jose Jr’s family qualify for government aid because Jose “doesn’t have a job.” Jose Jr gets to use his free time to study, he becomes valedictorian. John Jr’s job means less time to study, he graduates with a B- average.

John jr and Jose jr apply for college. Jose is a valedictorian, he gets scholarships. He’s also a Dreamer, he gets more scholarships. And he’s Hispanic, which means he gets Hispanic only scholarships. Jose jr also gets preferential admission to better schools because he’s Hispanic and that helps their diversity quotas. John jr doesn’t get scholarships. He has to take out a loan. He doesn’t get to go to the best schools, he has to go to the ones he can afford. Unfortunately many of them already have their quota of white students, so he has to go further down the list of good colleges, to okay colleges, and maybe even a poor college.

John jr and Jose jr both get their degrees in the same subject: Business Management. Jose’s got a ton of scholarships and doesn’t have to work. John has to get a full time job to pay for his housing, tuition, and loans. Jose gets to study more, John does not. Jose graduates at the top of his class. John…doesn’t, he’s mid pack.

Now they look for jobs. Jose is a Hispanic, valedictorian, 4.0 genius. He gets hired by one of the best companies for middle management, because it will look good for them to have a Hispanic guy and show they care about the Hispanic community. John spends a year looking for work and finally manages to get an entry level position at some no-name corporate office.

Now, did Jose earn his life the same way John did? If Jose’s dad hadn’t been there to compete with John’s dad, John Sr might have gotten a job that paid well enough so that his son didn’t have to work, in which case John Jr might have been able to study enough to become valedictorian, head to the best schools with enough scholarships to pay his way, and get the better job.

It’s easy to say “robotics will effect you more than illegal immigration” but it’s simply not true. Sure, it might be true 30 years from now, but right here, right now? It’s not. The simple fact is that illegal immigrants do drive down wages, do compete for jobs, and do increase the tax burden on citizens. And claiming they or their children “earn” their place isn’t exactly true, because thanks to government aid, social programs, etc, they have a much, much easier time “earning” what they get because they don’t have to worry about some of the expenses that regular, lawful citizens have to deal with.

Hell, even with both people being legal citizens, the story is uneven. Affirmative action, racial only scholarships and academic intensives, rigging/adjusting test scores based on the race of the test taker, create a whole host of positive and negative modifiers for “Earning.” A black student can do objectively worse on tests like the SAT than an Asian student does by several hundred points, yet the black student will be taken over the Asian student in some cases. A black student could do the same level of worse against a White student and will bet taken over the white student in most cases.

Did the black student really “earn” his new place at university even though he did worse than his Asian and White fellows? Or was he given his place at the expense of those who earned it? This is a complaint of “white supremacists.”

Going forward, tackling corporate control and climate change will need all our attention, ideas and energy. Put down your Tiki torches and trite flags and get involved in some real work.

And what, exactly, is the real work?

Don’t get me wrong, I think we really need to work on this whole “corporate control” thing, but let’s be entirely honest here and admit that one of the things that got the “White supremacists” marching in the first place was…corporate control. The ability of corporations to silence people, kick them out of platforms or venues they had paid to use, all because of their race or their ideas. To protest the abuses done by corporations.

As for climate change, well, most scientists seem to be of the opinion that even if we stopped the use of everything “greenhouse” related…it’s already to late. We’re fugged. So there’s no “real work” to be done there because none of it matters anymore. Best thing we can do is prepare for the crash and maybe try to group up in some form so that we’re capable of fighting off all the other fuckers for what resources are left. In which case “white supremacy” isn’t such a terrible idea because the Gods know no one else is going to have a problem grouping up by race to kill everyone else for whatever’s left.

Also, her pappy and mammy fought for a number of those “trite flags” and for someone whose making a big deal about their sacrifices that seems rather dismissive to me.

By the way, the world won the war against Nazi fascism in the 1940’s, just as America won the war against the Confederacy in the 1860’s. Aligning with two lost causes just labels you as profound losers.

And the USA lost the war of 1812 and the Vietnam war. Guess those who believe in the USA and its ideals are just profound losers who can’t get over a set of beliefs that clearly lost. Like, only ideologies that win are worth anything, duh. And I suppose because Pagans lost to Christians, shouldn’t listen to those beliefs. And since Christians constantly got btfo’d by Muslims, suppose we should just throw that out. And since the Muslims lost to the Brits we should chuck Islam. And since the Brits lost to the USA, chuck them out too?

“Might makes right, hurr durr,” the idiot proclaims, because Ideas are to complex for them.

The simple truth is, military success doesn’t dictate if something is right or wrong. Yes, the allies beat the Nazis, and the Union beat the Confederacy. But it wasn’t by having the “right” ideology or better morals. If anything, it was by having worse morals. The Union won the civil war in large part to things like “Sherman’s March to the Sea.” A nearly 300 mile march which consisted of nothing except burning entire cities to the ground, raping women, slaughtering live stock, and salting the earth. The allies won WWII in large part to the fact they bombed entire cities out of existence, butchering their civilian populations in veritable hellfire.

It wasn’t moral superiority or the righteousness of their cause that created these victories. It was literal war crimes. Ramey mentions her father being a navigator for a bomber. Meaning he probably bombed civilians in their homes for the simple fact they were German. Women. Children. Slaughtered by bomb and fire. And this is evidence of the superiority of Union and Allied morals.

“You lost, so shut up,” is a horrible argument when that loss is not based on debate, but violence beyond the pale. The Confederate army conducted itself as honorable gentlemen, who sought to battle nobly. In the first years of the war, at any time, the Confederacy could have seize D.C. and the President and dictated terms of their choosing, but they didn’t, because they felt that would be an immoral victory. In turn, they lost to an army that felt it morally right to rape and burn their own nation. The Nazis endured three long months of civilians being bombed by the RAF before they ever started their own attacks on British civilians, and then they focused mostly on London while the Allies attacked any city they could, no matter how small. The Nazis would shoot any man caught engaging in rape. The allies let their soldiers rape to their hearts content after the victory.

So who was the better? Who was the more moral? One side acted in a civilized manner, the other acted like a barbarian horde burning and raping to their hearts content. But the barbarians won through harsher brutality than their foes. And now we are told to honor the brutish barbarian because “might makes right.” And then you complain when those you don’t like start to act as brutal as  your “heroes.”

And finally, white person to white person: Like my parents before me, I will not stand idly by nor give up my rights or the rights of other American because you think you are better than some of us. It doesn’t work that way. All Americans stand shoulder to shoulder against your hatred and bigotry.

So Ramey here will…strip away the rights of Americans she doesn’t like, in the name of preventing them from “stripping away the rights of Americans” she does like. I mean, the USA is a nation built on Ideological Freedom, and that happens to include “white supremacy,” and anything that happens to get labeled “white supremacy” by a bunch of ideological bigots who can’t stand people believing differently from them.

I mean, you can find ideas distasteful, but the simple truth is people have the right to have them regardless. And you don’t have the right to ban them simply because you don’t like them. Don’t get me wrong, it would certainly be nice if we could ban certain ideologies, but the price for freedom is, well, freedom. The instant you start trying to dictate that certain ideas can’t be allowed and the use of force to suppress them, it simply becomes a race to see who can get the most sticks the fastest.

And then I suppose it comes down to who is willing to kill the most people in the most brutal manner possible in order to make sure they’re top dog. And then whoever wins gets to laugh and claim their the winners, regardless of how good or bad their ideas actually were, or what their opponent’s believes happened to be.

Which, frankly, I don’t know is the kind of world I really want to live in. I mean, I’m willing to adapt as needed, to play the game at the table, but I do have my preferences.

What’s wrong with white supremacists? Nothing, really. Not functionally. They’re just playing the same game everyone else is. And those that claim to be better than them got there mostly through brutality and barbarism, not actually having better ideas or arguments. Oh, we like to think so, but the truth is the Civil War and WW2 weren’t won by having a better moral position. They were won by being a bigger asshole and sometimes being 100% a dick. It ain’t right, it ain’t fair, but that’s how it is.

Just because you’re the monster who won, doesn’t mean you’re not still a monster or that you’re a better monster than the other guy was. You’re still a monster and you did monstrous things to win. Those things don’t become good simply because you did them or what you believe. Pretending otherwise just makes you a hypocrite.

 

Hela Bless