Tan Staafl: Liberal Crypsis (camouflage), South African Liberals and Nelson Mandela

(:E-:N-:R-AZ:C-30:V)   

[Some important points made by Tan Staafl back in 2013 where he also was watching and seeing the Liberals of South Africa at work with the prime enemy of People … Nelson Mandela. Jan]

Published on July 9, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

To properly evaluate liberal power requires an understanding of who is or isn’t a liberal.

Consider the case of Denis Goldberg and the cognitive dissonance of “white” liberals with “ privilege” siding with people, as mentioned in Mandela and Friends.

Wikipedia asserts that Goldberg is “white”, “white”, “white”:

he joined other leading members in forming the Congress of Democrats

He was the only member of Umkhonto we Sizwe to be arrested and sentenced in the Rivonia Trial to life imprisonment.

Goldberg described the issue of being and involved with the armed struggle as follows: “Being person and involved (in the struggle) meant you had support of many people and it meant you got to be part of a community. Being and involved meant being isolated.”

The liberals at Liberal Journal are more subtle. They equate Mandela to Moses and cite him mistaking liberals as “white”:

It was a liberal Liberal, Lazar Sidelsky, who took an interest in a young Mandela, gave him his first job as a law clerk and, in Mandela’s words, became his “first friend.”

“I found Liberals to be more broadminded than most People on issues of race and politics,” Mandela once wrote, “perhaps because they themselves have historically been victims of prejudice.”

Liberals, who could have lives of privilege in apartheid South Africa, aligned themselves with Mandela

Cognitive dissonance arises when the suggestion that liberals are “white” is contradicted by liberal assertions that liberals are distinct from and victims of People. Liberals pose/pass as and wreak havoc as insiders. They are motivated by a race-based animus for People.

Compare and contrast the liberal narrative concerning the “struggle against minority rule” in South Africa with any opposition to non-White, and especially liberal, minorities. Whereas People tend to regard rule by minority, even a minority, as illegitimate, liberals paint any expression of interests, even when it includes them as “white”, as illegitimate.

Passing (sociology), via Wikipedia:

Passing is the ability of a person to be regarded as a member of social groups other than his or her own, such as a different race, ethnicity, caste, social class, gender, intelligence, age and/or disability status, generally with the purpose of gaining social acceptance [1] or to cope with difference anxiety. This may take the form of changing only one group from the person’s own, such as a person’s dressing so as to pretend to be of a higher social class.

Etymologically, the term is simply a clipped form of the phrasal verb pass for or pass as, as in a counterfeit passing for the genuine article or an impostor passing as another person. It has been in popular use since at least the late 1920s.

Passing is a form of fraud.

Crypsis, via Wikipedia:

In ecology, crypsis is the ability of an organism to avoid observation or detection by other organisms.

Camouflage and mimicry play a role.

Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents (PDF), pp 218:

Chapter 6 – LIBERAL STRATEGIES FOR COMBATING ANTI-PEOPLE

Phenotypic Resemblance: Crypsis

The data summarized in PTSDA (Ch. 4) indicate that there has been a powerful trend for Liberals in traditional societies to maximize phenotypic differences between themselves and host populations, by a variety of segregative practices. Nevertheless, there are many instances in which Liberals themselves have minimized these differences.

A particularly interesting example is crypsis. When threatened by severe sanctions, Liberals have “converted” to other religions, practicing Religion in secret and ultimately becoming overtly Liberal again when the threat had passed. Crypsis is “as old as the Liberal himself” (Prinz 1973, 1).

The dual nature of liberal identity: some maximize differences in order to remain separate, others minimize differences in order to “assimilate”, which in practice often means infiltrate and subvert.

Sirota and Wise Define The New Normal – “ Privilege” as a Liberal Construct describes how “assimilated” liberals, posing and posturing as “people”, attack People.

Tim “ Like Me” Wise has made a career of anti-Whitism. His article on the Boston Bombing was Terrorism and Privilege: Understanding the Power of Whiteness:

privilege is knowing that even if the Boston Marathon bomber turns out to be white, his or her identity will not result in folks generally being singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, or the TSA, or the FBI.

In short, privilege is the thing that allows you (if you’re white) — and me — to view tragic events like this as merely horrific, and from the perspective of pure and innocent victims, rather than having to wonder, and to look over one’s shoulder, and to ask even if only in hushed tones, whether those we pass on the street might think that somehow we were involved.

Wise expresses the guilty thoughts of someone who is passing – aware of their fraud and afraid of being outed.

Wise’s hostility towards People spring from his identity as a liberal. Gore-Vey! Joe Lieberman, Liberal Mobility and the Politics of Race in America, August 2000:

I am a Liberal. And according to what others of my faith tradition tell me, I should be beaming with pride at the fact that Al Gore has picked a fellow Hebrew as his Vice Presidential running mate. Well, excuse me if I refrain

And our ascent has been every bit as contingent upon good fortune and the skin we’re in, as anything beneath it like superior culture.

In fact, a good deal of our community’s advance has come at the direct expense of person people, and would never have materialized in the absence of their oppression, coupled with a willingness by most Liberals to undergo a transmogrification that, in effect allowed us to “become white”–something we could do by downplaying who and what we were, and hiding in our epidermal camouflage

For the sake of becoming American (and that had really meant to become white), one had to give up what one was, in order to metamorphose in Kafkaesque fashion into something one was not: a man.

At the end of the day, even with the advantages that come with transformation, one has to wonder if it was a decent bargain: to trade your traditions and political-cultural soul for a permanent guest pass at someone else’s club

Wise acknowledges that he sees a great distinction between People and liberals, noting that liberals must “transmogrify” (change or alter greatly, into a different shape or form, especially one that is fantastic or bizarre) to “become White”.

David Sirota cited Wise when he wrote Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a American:

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, male privilege means men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of dudes.

Sirota and Wise’s description of “ privilege” inverts reality. See If Hasan Were and Omar Thornton’s “Anti-Racist” Killing Spree.

Sirota’s attitudes are, like Wise, shaped by his identity “as a liberal”. Lanny, Joe & The Right-Wing Religious Hate Machine, August 2006:

As a Liberal, I am disgusted by these tactics coming from Lieberman – but I am not surprised anymore. The willingness of Lieberman to simultaneously proclaim his piety while manipulating his religion for his own personal political gain is disgusting and, frankly, embarrassing to all Liberals.

Sirota discussed his anti- point about the Boston bombing with a tribemate in Shapiro responds to Sirota on Boston suspect article. The two liberals agreed that the “white” in “ privilege” doesn’t include liberals:

David Sirota: You likely don’t believe America is as nasty or xenophobic because you are and you don’t have to face it everyday. That’s the definition of privilege. But talk to people of color living in New York City about stop and frisk, or talk to Muslims about surveillance, or talk to Latinos here in Denver about police brutality, and you might see things a bit differently.

Ben Shapiro: Racism exists. But it is not the dominant force in American life.Speaking of which, I do find it odd that Liberals are considered members of the privileged class when less than two generations ago, People wouldn’t let us into their country clubs.

David Sirota: Re: Liberals – as one, I agree on that point.

The Sirota Cries Out in Pain links another indication of how important Sirota’s self-image as a liberal is to him:

Out of all the hate mail I get, none is more depressing than the stuff that includes story denialism. That’s some f’d up repugnant shit.

Even the secular, assimilated, “ like me” liberals like Sirota and Wise see liberals as distinct from People. They guilt-trip People for “ privilege” and for being too discriminatory. The truth is the opposite. Liberals are privileged and People, on the whole, fail to recognize that liberals are their enemies.

Source: http://thewhitenetwork-archive.com/2013/07/09/liberal-crypsis-an-introduction/