“It’s OK To Be White” Strikes Again, And Drives People Crazy Again! GOOD!

The first Ethics Alarms post about the trolling masterpiece “It’s OK to be white” was in 2017. The message, apparently launched by those puckish trouble-makers at 4Chan,  first appeared on stickers appearing on the Harvard campus, sparking an idiotic response from an African American dean. I concluded, in part, that the sticker campaign was brilliant “no matter who came up with it or what the motive was,”;  that anyone who was troubled by the message is part of the problem the stickers are responding to, and  that the stickers would have  been harmless if they were treated as harmless, and they should have been.

The Ethics Alarms’ self-appointed Voice of the Woke at the time took umbrage, saying, “The stickers are stupid. No one disputes that it’s OK to be white….The correct response from average citizens to this display of faux persecution should be mockery and ridicule, not outrage.” Realizing a hanging curve over the middle of the plate when I say one, I replied in part, ,

“You know, it’s easy to deal with any problem if you make up your own facts. Nobody says its not OK to be white? This list took me less than 10 minutes:


Then there’s the Ethics Alarms anti-white racism tag…https://ethicsalarms.com/tag/anti-white-racism/ All resulting in THIS:

As I may have mentioned, I was explicitly told that the only reason I was not hired as an Assistant US Attorney in DC …a life and career-altering result for me…was that I was white. Now, I think it is reasonable to assume that if I was not hired because I was white, there was something “not OK” with my being white. I’m not unhappy or bitter about this, but it happened.

The problem with being an ideologue… is that it requires distorting reality.

Well, the perplexing message made another appearance over the weekend, also in the Boston area. Some  wag hoisted a large white banner that featured the motto in bold black lettering,  only to have it torn down by another motorist. The Anti-Defamation League of New England’s Executive Director of the ADL’s Boston office, Robert Trestan, issued the following indignant and counter-factual statement that echoed that Harvard dean’s silliness two years ago:

“It’s pretty disappointing to see people in Massachusetts using a platform like that to disseminate a message that excludes people and targets people.”

Whom did that message “target”? Whom did it exclude? What language does the ADL speak, since it’s obviously not English. Black Pride events, Black Lives Matter rallies, the old “Black is beautiful” campaign—none of these were condemned by the ADL as “excluding” or “targeting people,” but a sign that says “Whites don’t suck” does?  An explanation of this strange reasoning is in order, except that would be unfair, because there is no logical explanation for the outrage over the stickers, the banner and their message. White supremacy is bigotry and racism, but proclaiming white adequacy is offensive?

The closest thing to a coherent explanation of why the slogan is “hateful” is based on guilt by association, and the same dubious logic that holds that the “OK” sign is now a white supremacy symbol, the result of another 4chan prank. If it is okay to be white, and it is, the fact that white supremacists say so doesn’t make the statement any less true or benign.

Add this to the issues I’d love to have raised in the Democratic candidates debates. What’s offensive about the slogan, “It’s OK to be white”? Mr. Biden? Senator Warren? Senator Booker? Should white American be ashamed of their race and heritage? If they are not ashamed, should they be allowed to say so?

28 thoughts on ““It’s OK To Be White” Strikes Again, And Drives People Crazy Again! GOOD!

  1. If there was a continent where there were 44 countries, 87 ethnic groups, over 200 languages spoken, and over two dozen different faiths followed including Islam, would you say it was all right to lump everyone from that continent under one category? Would you say it was all right to classify everyone from that continent as bad?

    If not, then why is it OK to lump everyone from Europe, for that’s the continent I speak of, into the blanket classification “white” and then say white people are the cause of all the world’s problems?

    I’m thinking of researching a couple more statistics, and then posting this, but I don’t dare, because it would be immediately jumped on as racist.

    It is perfectly acceptable for blacks to proclaim their blackness is bold, or powerful or something like that. It’s also perfectly all right for them to self-segregate in an African heritage House in college or on blacks only retreats. It’s perfectly okay for them to say they need to take a break from white people. It’s perfectly okay for them to say they can’t deal with the microaggressions and barely veiled racism. Flip the races involved, and you couldn’t do any of those things without being called a severe racist.

    It gets even better after that. Now it’s becoming problematic to have pride and even specific European heritage. you can’t celebrate Columbus because he started a long series of horrible things, and that’s all that the history of the Americas consists of. How long, I wonder, before they come for saint Patrick’s Day, saying that it is too Catholic or too white? However, dare to point out that maybe dr. Martin Luther King was less than perfect and had some skeletons in his closet and you risk being attacked.

    the fact is that guilt can sometimes be a more powerful opponent than any battlefield foe. Try to defeat the enemy by force, and you may lose, but fill him with guilt and self-hatred and he may well defeat himself. The left is hoping that all opposed to them will simply defeat themselves.

  2. I am beginning to believe that so many feel guilt not from the acts of the past but by their own behavior today that seek to atone for their own behaviors by attempting to be a highly woke person.

    This is a extension of Jack’s apology scale. Apologize for something you had no hand in to gain favor to avoid apologizing for their actual behaviors.

  3. White supremacy is bigotry and racism, but proclaiming white adequacy is offensive?

    Yes, of course it is. Because the ADL, BLM and others are trying to tell us, without going too far, that white people are inadequate and non-whites are superior.

    This is their message. They can deny that intent until they are blue in the face, but you can’t deny that the logic of their pronouncement espouses this very idea.

    When you become what you hate, you have achieved (and arguably surpassed) your Peter Principle level of incompetence. That’s where these white-hating groups are.

  4. Why is the slogan hatred? Easy peasy: it’s not true! It’s not okay to be white! I’m not sure why BLM or the ADL don’t just come out and say this in this situation. It hasn’t been okay to be white for about thirty years now. Any more than it’s okay to be a straight guy. Or a Christian. Or self-reliant. Or wealthy to even a minor degree. That’s what sends people around the bend.

    • Some do. A woman who runs black women only retreats in Costa Rica said that her only tip for white people was to stay away from black people and go hang with other white people. She also said that white people shouldn’t have passports, they’ve done enough damage to the world already. Aaaaall right.

      What’s the difference between that and me saying Muslim passports should only be good in the Muslim world and they should not be allowed to travel to Europe or the Americas because they have “done enough damage?”

    • “It hasn’t been okay to be white for about thirty years now. Any more than it’s okay to be a straight guy. Or a Christian. Or self-reliant. Or wealthy to even a minor degree.”

      You forgot old.

      Maybe the political left should be picking a person that’s woke in every way as their candidate for President; a young, non-white, atheist, gay, female, who’s poor. Is there any politician that fits that bill?

  5. A “white supremacist” would never say, ” It’s okay to be white.” But, then, most people have never met one, much less talked to one for a couple of hours. Had they ever done so, they would not toss around the appellation so freely and foolishly. Most “white folk” are generally bigotry free, a byproduct of seventy years of propaganda and indoctrination. Certainly, they don’t see another white person and immediately feel a sense of fellowship, or expect special treatment; blacks immediately start “jiving” with each other…not all, of course, but enough. Evidently, it’s not only okay to be black but a reason to celebrate and expect preferential treatment from strangers having nothing in common but perceived pigmentation. If a strange white person walks up to another white person, starts coming on like a long-lost brother (or “sistah”) and expecting instant complicity, that race-oriented white will likely get a cold shoulder rather than the secret wp handshake. A great many folk are now hesitant to say everything is👌lest someone think they might be one of “those people.” After all, it’s hard enough just being white these days without being tagged as something worse.

    • RalphV:

      “Certainly, they don’t see another white person and immediately feel a sense of fellowship, or expect special treatment; blacks immediately start “jiving” with each other…not all, of course, but enough. Evidently, it’s not only okay to be black but a reason to celebrate and expect preferential treatment from strangers having nothing in common but perceived pigmentation.”

      But, what you are describing is not particularly a racial thing. It is generally far more of a human thing. I remember travelling in Italy one time. My companion and I were on a bus going into town from the airport. We were approached by a guy who immediately struck up a conversation. Why? Because he was an American studying in Italy and he inferred we were Americans, as well. He invited us over for dinner and showed us a few sights around town.

      He had a particular connection to us that he did not have around him very much.

      I imagine that there is a similar thing in society with black people. One of the arguments about “privilege” is that, generally, white people can go about most days without running into black people, but most black people interact with white people on a daily basis. So, when a black person is around another black person, they feel something like that connection you feel when you run into an American overseas. Whereas, when a white person runs into another white person on a typical day, they think, “what do you want?”

      I would expect that, if America was 50% white and 50% black, you would not see that phenomena quite as much. But, again, just generally, I don’t think it is strictly an issue of skin color; it just happens to manifest itself in that way in the instances you describe.


    • It’s funny, Ralph. I make it a point when I’m in public (shopping centers, grocery stores, athletic events) to make eye contact with black people. It’s very interesting. Black people almost invariably look at people in public, unlike most others who simply avert their eyes. It’s fun. You make eye contact, and nod and they nod and smile back. It’s nice. Also, I’m bald and wear a hat for sun protection purposes. Big chrome dome. Black guys are into hats I guess, and invariably make some passing comment such as “Nice hat.” My daughter in law spoke of dating a black guy in high school. They went to a shopping center and noticing he greeted every black person familiarly, she asked him, “Does every black person know every other black person in Tucson?” to which he replied, laughing, “No, we just say ‘hi’ to people in public.”

    • Half-way through the post I started wondering if the problem was the allegedly coded “OK” in the message, if it were an allusion to the stupid “secret sign” that signals white supremacy. Then I decided that was layering stupid on stupid, and to hell with it.

    • Evidently, it’s not only okay to be black but a reason to celebrate and expect preferential treatment from strangers having nothing in common but perceived pigmentation. If a strange white person walks up to another white person, starts coming on like a long-lost brother (or “sistah”) and expecting instant complicity, that race-oriented white will likely get a cold shoulder rather than the secret wp handshake.

      I’ll concur that it doesn’t result in a WP handshake or “hey brother” moment, but if you do visit non-tourist places outside North America or Europe, people do certainly take note of others that have European ancestry.

      If nothing else, it’s likely to give you a few minutes of talking in English to someone.

    • Jared Taylor in a recent talk:

      “Of course, it is because although I am a citizen of the United States I am a European. My country was founded by men who were, in every important respect, European. Their language, their religion, their culture, their institutions were all profoundly and exclusively European. Their blood was European. My own ancestors were mostly English but some were Scots, Dutch, and French Huguenot.

      “Europe is my ancestral home, my spiritual and cultural home.

      “It is also the ancestral home for millions of other sons and daughters of Europe who live thousands of miles away. They live in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa. Many people from those countries are with us in spirit this evening, because for them too, there is nothing more important than the future of Europe, for they too, in their far-off lands, have also created Europe.“

      Salvaging and reviving genuine, self-respecting European identity — whiteness is not a comprehensive term — is highly good and thoroughly ethical. The more one studies the opposition to it, the more one is convinced of its importance.

      Those who don’t respect it are in the wrong.

  6. The idiotic reaction to this rather benign message stems from the Marxist Post Modern narrative promulgated especially on university campuses that the only correct view is to divided people between being members of an oppressed class and a oppressor class. Ethnic identity determines which you belong in so obviously being White means that you are part of the oppressor class. Never mind if you are some poor hillbilly somewhere with little education and few chances to advance yourself.

    • Is simply being a white person, oppressor class, in today’s world becoming equivalent to wearing a Scarlet Letter or a Star of David?

      If simply being white is considered being evil oppressors, and we all know that evil must be destroyed, then the only logical conclusion to anti-white “activism” or, better yet, non-white supremacy movement is to socially separate the evil from society, contain the evil where it can be effectively controlled, and in the end cleanse the earth of the evil.

      “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
      Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.
      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
      Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.”

      Martin Niemöller

      • Mmhmm. And recently when there was the whole flap over the so-called Travel Ban you started to see memes that read “First they came for the Muslims, and we said, “Not this time, motherfuckers!”

        Perhaps we should create our own that said “They came for the whites, and we chambered a round and said “Molon labe, assholes!” (supposedly Greek for “Come and take it!”)

      • Zteve writes:

        If simply being white is considered being evil oppressors, and we all know that evil must be destroyed, then the only logical conclusion to anti-white “activism” or, better yet, non-white supremacy movement is to socially separate the evil from society, contain the evil where it can be effectively controlled, and in the end cleanse the earth of the evil.

        Heaven but you are turning into a radical! What next? An It’s OK To Be White tee-shirt?

        Excuse me for the repetition but I think it is important: to understand the anti-whiteness movement as it is expressing itself today it is essential to understand the causal chain that led to it. It gained steam and force during the Sixties and got a tremendous amount of help from radical activists, most of whom were of a certain persuasion and who worked, consciously and deliberately, to establish the anti-White narrative. At this point, and in my own case, I state this as a fact, not as a supposition. The Revolutionary Spirit (E. Michael Jones’ term) needs to be understood: must be understood.

        But this is difficult when one’s own self is wedded, in one degree or another, to revolutionary and liberal-radical doctrine and ideology. Every element and every aspect of the Sixties is infused with this Spirit. And an entire generation, and a number of generations, was affected by it. It has become part-and-parcel of the way we see the world: our perceptual structure. This Spirit and its determining effects is obvious and visible among every person who writes on this Blog starting with Jack. Well, this is fitting of course: I am speaking about *your generation* (if I am right about your approximate age).

        In our tumultuous present, in our confused and topsy-turvy present, in a present of tremendous ideological confusion, it is not surprising that the class of persons that should be *conservative* and conserving can define no solid base within conservative and conserving principles. Since this appears to be true, some effort must be made to understand why this is so and how it came about. And again: the only way this can occur is through an historical analysis, a profound and critical cultural analysis, that traces out the ‘causal chain’ of radical and progressive ideologies. We live within their outcome, and we are (in varying degrees of course) wedded to these ideological predicates. I notice this very strongly in everything that you write. But I am aware — because I have a meta-political and meta-social position *above* the operative ideologies — that you (and most who contribute here) do not have a circumspect understanding.

        That leads to the observation that you often deal in *surface* not in *profundity*. You seem to clearly see the surface of events, and react in some degree against them, and yet at an ideological level you are powerless. But more than powerless you are ’embedded’ in confusion yet your Zoltarian personality seems not to allow you to see this. For all that you are fundamentally confused, you desire to be powerful and active: to right the wrongs that you perceive, rather dimly, in this strange present.

        In this confusion you are *emblematic* of a huge swath of America: and this America need to be defined. You are a member of the ‘original demographic’ and your ideological confusion — what has been done to you through *dumbing down* processes — is the problem that America faces, or more accurately put it is the challenge that America faces. You clearly understand *dumbing down* as an abstraction, but suffer under the realization, dim though it is, that it is you who have been dumbed down (you, your relatives, your community, your municipality, your state, and finally your Nation).

        It is a question that revolves around Identity and of Power. While confusion profoundly mystifies people — you are a prime example — the central issue, if it is honestly divulged and explained, is not complex. It is essentially that of dispossession. But to *see clearly* what has happened, and what has been done to you, and then how and why, is a bridge-too-far for you and for many who write here (trying as hard as possible to arrive at *clarifying certainty* and an actionable position from which to confront the dangerous processes in this present). You have been and you are now being dispossessed. But this issue is far larger than just having your access to Walmart curtailed (that was a cheap shot of course).

        In order to understand ‘dispossession’ one has to grasp a whole other causal chain that has become a kind of knife in the side of Europe out of which bleed its life. And the root of that slow death — inanition [exhaustion from lack of nourishment, starvation; lack of vigor, lethargy] — has come also as a result of (another) long causal chain. But *you* are incapable of seeing this because, of course, you have been dumbed down. It requires an historical perspectivism that you do not (seem) to have. What a horrifying quandary! The desire to see is there, the desire to assign cause, but the materials through which perception is possible are dampered, and yet the *bellowing ego* must bellow!

        You for example have latched to this Niemöller quote as an *explanatory vehicle*. And this is merely an extension of your previous latching onto The Wave (the TV movie indicating how White kids in the right conditions would reveal that they are really Nazis, for in truth that is the basic message of that strange ideological work: it is an extension of the core message in The Authoritarian Personality: essentially an anti-White tract. Therefore The Wave is, in logical effect, an anti-White tract borne out of Left-Progressive narratives and ideology).

        So, as you see, there is a great deal of material that has to be brought out into the open. Yet it cannot be brought out for a few, and interconnected, reasons. One is that to *see the present accurately* involves one in various dissident endeavors that run against the ‘standard national narrative’. It must be stated: there are a dozen different topics that cannot be openly discussed on this Blog nor in any forum that has any sort of ‘social standing’ that must be protected. You know those topics as do all those who participate here. Yet, to get out from under ideological control mechanisms — you must! You can’t — and yet you must. That too is a quandary.

        To me — though perhaps there is some exaggeration here — you *represent America*, or to put it more precisely you represent the America that needs to be politically and sociologically and ideologically awakened. It is a bizarre challenge because you seem to *kiss the hand* of those who crafted the ideological structures that most have influenced you.

        But remember: I am here to help. 🙂 [Of course now I shouldn’t have ended on this non-serious ironical note . . . but here my basic immaturity, as it always seems to, shines though! Oh what’s going to become of me!]

  7. ::: sigh :::

    Here we go again. No one that I am aware of — no one who is writing seriously and effectively on the Dissident Right — is using the term ‘white supremacist’. In fact they reject the entire idea of supremacy. Of being supreme or necessarily better.

    The movement of ‘White advocacy’ and ‘White well-being’ has roots in a kind of counter-liberalism and is a pretty direct response to governmental and social-educational machinations (you could say ‘Marxist-inspired’ and you would not be far from the truth) to ‘engineer’ what I call the Walmart American Culture or the Americanopolis. This term Americanopolis requires a solid definition. It indicates the ideological predicates of Progressive-Leftism and the object of ‘multi-culturalism’: the forced integration and dilution of homogenous white communities, states and nations, and creating the ‘multi-ethnic societies’ that certain people feel is good or best.

    This Left-Progressive idealism which is at the base of the Americanopolis has its ‘global’ advocates and its supporters within a global economic system run by (as the term commonly is) ‘elites’ whose interests are distinct and often opposed to that of native populations, and specifically the native populations of European and Europe-derived nations.

    If anything, those who are White advocates (or European advocates) wish to protect and in some instances reclaim their ‘super-majority’ status. So, in England for example they advocate for controlling, and also reversing, the demographics of the present Muslim (or African-Muslim) invasion as they call it. They notice that their cities are no longer ‘English’ and they react in various ways, and for various reasons, to this. Same in France to some degree and the same in Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark . . .

    Though simple, and very common-sense really, this notion of ‘self-preservation’ is opposed not only by Marxist-influenced ideologues (Antifa for short) but also by governments that are not exclusively run by a Marxian junta. I guess the reason is that they fear civil and social unrest.

    The phrase ‘Its OK to be White’ and all ancillary ideas connected with it are, for the Progressive’Marxist types (or however they should be defined) a sort of ‘gateway drug’ to other notions of identity . . . and then to more overy forms of ‘identitarianism’ which are, inevitably, pro-Europe, pro-Occident, anti-Marxist, pro-Nation (a whole other set of definitions), often also pro-mascuine and anti- our counter-feminist, and let’s not forget that they also tend to be, or become, traditionalist. That is, concerned for and involved in either older-school Christian ideas or in certain identitarian-based forms of paganism. These movement are, as I tried to explain to Chris, anti- or counter-liberal in numerous aspects.

    The phrase is not benign. Or I should say that while it is not malignant it is not non-problematic because of what it ramifies.

    You should be happy that — for the time being at least — you have the right to speak your mind and to say what you think and to advocate for it. In Norway the officials *detained* Greg Johnson (a notorious White advocate and a White Nationalist)(one who wishes to democratically reclaim super-majority status for the European majority) and are deporting him in advance of his scheduled talk at an advocacy forum.

    [ https://youtu.be/R7nHJ0jwnY0 ]

  8. An even-more-over-the-top insanely hysterical response this weekend to flyers saying, “It’s OK to be white,” and “Islam is right about women.” Out: Freedom of speech. In: Investigation of speech by University, local and state police and the FBI, with threatened expulsion from school and criminal and civil prosecution.


    [U]niversity President John Clark strongly condemned the materials and vowed to enforce the “severest disciplinary actions” regardless of whether students or someone off-campus made the flyers.

    “Have no doubt that we are treating this as an attack on our university community and making every effort to see that those responsible are caught and properly punished,” Clark wrote in a letter published late Friday afternoon. “I am fully committed to the absolutely necessary goal this does not happen again. We must be ever vigilant to protect our university against these hateful attacks.”

    University officials immediately reported the flyers to Danbury and state police and referred the messages to the FBI office in New Haven, all of whom were investigating who made the flyers on Friday, [a University spokesman] said.

    Clark slammed the incident as despicable, utterly unacceptable and disgusting and promised the school would punish whoever is found responsible, including expulsion if students were involved and even criminal or civil actions in court.

    “I want to state directly and without equivocation that if any member of our university community is found to be party to these revolting actions they will be subject to the severest disciplinary actions, including dismissal as well as possible civil and criminal actions,” Clark said.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.