NYT’s Pro-Trump Letters Fail to Mention White Interests
In an act of self-congratulatory magnanimity, the New York Times has run a big batch of Trump-supporting letters [ ‘Vision, Chutzpah and Some Testosterone’ JAN. 17, 2018]
Every single one fails to mention the only thing worth mentioning: white people.
They may, per Kevin MacDonald, actually sublimated and submerged their actual feelings so far down that they themselves are not conscious of what they actually feel. I think he calls this implicit whiteness.
Explicit whiteness, of course, is what Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor and others do, which for the rest of us makes it extremely difficult to maintain employment, keep from getting punched in the face, or angrily ordered out of a house in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner. So implicit whiteness is a pretty logical state for whites.
But the Trump phenomenon lays it bare. Of course Donald Trump is an egomaniacal pig. But he has come as close to being a white advocate in the White House as we’ve had in the modern era, and that’s how he was elected.
In other words, if Hillary Clinton had been up against a war-wounded Marine with a strict Baptist lifestyle who also happened to have called for walls and Muslim bans, you could say his sterling character — not any pro-white positions — got him elected.