It's a curious and deeply frustrating experience to see public intellectuals, journalists and academics chat among themselves about how you, your people, do not deserve to even constitute being ''a people'' with interests, rights, to be, in effect, removed from the discussion entirely. All you are left with is to watch, to peep through the window as the powerful and not so great decide your fate and the morality within which your group should exist.
Such were my thoughts this week when a fellow patriot sent me a message alerting me to a discussion taking place on Twitter between three Jewish men, David Aaronovitch, a far left Zionist who writes for the Times and the Jewish Chronicle. Jonathon Portes, who works for various Big Money think tanks and Globalist outlets, he was the architect of Tony Blair's mass immigration project and now spends his career developing economic based arguments for mass migration into Britain and Europe in general. The third is Eric Kaufman, a professor at Birkbeck University, London.
The story begins with the Financial Times publishing an article by Professor David Goodhart, Goodhart works with Kaufman at a think tank which has been, quite correctly, coming to the conclusion that the recent surge in ''anti-politics'' and ''populism'' are an expression of white racial self interest. Goodhart, and an upcoming book, contend that policy makers will have to accept that white people have racial interests and will warp the politics if those needs are not being met. In the Financial Times Goodhart writes:
The question of legitimate ethnic interest is complex. Multiculturalism is premised on the rights of minorities to maintain certain traditions and ways of life. But liberals have usually been reluctant to extend such group rights to majorities.
They have justified this reluctance on two grounds. First, the white majority in the US and Europe is itself so diverse it makes little sense to talk of a culturally homogenous majority (though the same might be said for most minorities too).
Second, majorities have been so numerically dominant that their ways of life have felt threatened only in a few small pockets.
The latter is clearly no longer the case, especially in the US where the non-Hispanic white population is now only a little over 60 per cent. In several UK cities, the white British are now a minority too.
So three Jewish men, Kaufman being the least worst by far, discuss whether it should be legitimate for white people to have racial interests, and when a genuine white person intervenes and compares the situation to that in Israel, which Aaronovitch endorses! they are told ''Fuck You!'' and then blocked. I tried myself to join the discussion and I too was completely ignored. They simply don't want to know what actual white people might have to say on the issue, they discuss us as scientists discuss rats in a laboratory.
It seemed that that would be the end of the matter, until a few days later...
The Times is behind a paywall so I shan't link to it, but in any case Aaronovitch spends much of his article explaining the FT article so I'll simply extract the more relevant and interesting points Aaronovitch makes.
Notice that right in the sub-headline it is stated pointblank that white people can never be allowed ethnic self interest without it being inherently ''racist''. Aaronovitch himself has magically transformed his ethnicity, white people are no longer ''they'' but ''us'' and ''our''. Talking on Twitter with other Jews, white people are ''they'' switching back to his day job at The Times and addressing a predominately white readership, Aaronovitch is reborn as a white man:
Let’s talk about whites. Readers of other colours are welcome to listen in, but this is really about us and our legitimate white self-interests, which are not at all the same thing as racism.