JEWS: ENEMIES?FRIENDS?
Malcolm Azania
multi-track problems.
The model of Whitesupremacy bases its descriptions on functionality, that
is, what people and things actually *do.*
ANY person or institution whose actions tend to defend or extend
the interests of Whitepower in the arts, the economy(ies), politics,
society, academia (etc) is therefore described as Whitesupremacist.
However, this is a broad description, and it's hopefully
understood that such a description refers to the aggregate of a person's
actions... that's why LBJ is fairly described as a Whitesupremacist, EVEN
THOUGH he signed a Civil Rights Bill into law (whose over-all merit I
leave for you in the US to decide). That's why Ronnie Reagan is fairly
described as a Whitesupremacist EVEN THOUGH he made MLK Day.
Of course, the model does not (need to) speak to an individual's
colour. That's why Gatscha Buthelezi and Clarence Thomas and that big
talk-show circuit ass hole Drew Brown (Flight Captain Sellout) are all
Whitesupremacists.
What does this have to do with Jewish people?
Anyone who asserts that ALL Jews at ALL times are either our
friends or our enemies in ALL THAT THEY DO is obviously wrong. The group
that is defined as "Jews" in the USA is most notable for their relations
to us, IMHO, in that they are WHITE. Although they are low on the White
social ladder, and of various states on the White economic ladder, they
are well placed on the White media and academic ladders. In these areas,
their actions (because we can't read thought) can be analysed.
What's clear is that a great many of them are (in aggregate terms
of their actions) Whitesupremacists.
Some of them have been very noble in a variety of struggles. I
have respect for George Breitman, for instance, who wrote and edited
books on/by Malcolm X. But as a group, Jews are, of course, Whites, and
overall, the aggregate of White actions and INactions is Whitesupremacist
(ditto male actions re: Malesupremacy). But for us to exonerate them as a
group because they have been persecuted by their fellow Whites seems to
me short-sighted. Worse still, I think many of them use their
exploitation/slaughter by other Whites to make us believe that they
understand us and sympathise with us better than do other Whites. To a
small extent, this is true.
But a massive component of individual and group mentality is
one's own sense of and actual possession of power, and there is no
question that, even given the social exclusion of Jews in many social and
employment spheres by other Whites, as a community, they are exerting far
more in the way of self-determination than are we. Although our economic
power is massive (here's a small but illustrative example: we buy one out
of every four movie tickets in the US. Think about it.), it's expressed
uncritically and passively.
Since our sense of and possession of power is vastly different as
a community than it is for American Jews, it's naive to suggest that
we're similar enough to be "natural allies."
Besides, power understands power, and power allies itself with
power. You cannot have any fruitful "alliance" with ANYone (even on a
social or personal level) if there is a significant imbalance of power
between you. See Carmichael & Hamilton's *Black Power.*
Jews are White. And as per the truism, some are good and some are
bad. But it's not individual personalities that are our analytical or
practical concerns. It's GROUP DYNAMICS AND POWER. Whites will
consciously or unconsciously continue to defend and extend
Whitesupremacy, either by action or inaction.
And as the model of Whitesupremacy predicts, tragically, so will we.
"It takes a nation of millions to hold us back."
How many "millions" of us are there?
Xu, us em maa-xeru!
(Splendour, power and triumph [of Ra]!)
Minister Faust
Ralph Dumain
of the Jewish "comunity". If you actually had studied some Jewish culture
and history, and the history of the labor movement, you wouldn;t say the
dumb stuff you do. First, study your subject, then criticize.
Malcolm Azania
: Yes, but you are so ignorant you don't even know the internal dynamics
: of the Jewish "comunity". If you actually had studied some Jewish culture
: and history, and the history of the labor movement, you wouldn;t say the
: dumb stuff you do. First, study your subject, then criticize.
I've no interest in starting an electronic war, but in the interests of
intellectual honesty, at least I had the guts and the decency to make an
actual argument with identifiable assertions and path of reasoning that
allows one in a systematic fashion to take issue with it.
If you care to rise about juvenile name-calling ("ignorant" and
"dumb") and actually address ANYTHING that I said with ANY degree of
specificity, please do. I'm sure others who post here would be delighted
to see what you have to say.
In reality, I believe we all have much to learn from each other,
which is one reason that I don't so arrogantly presume as to tell someone
whom I don't know and have never met and with whose ideas I have very
little familiarity that he has not studied his subject. Indeed, you have
no idea what I have or have not studied. The fact that you provide ZERO
evidence to support your wafer-thin "rebuttal" of my argument suggests
that it is YOU who have failed to study--otherwise why make such a weak
counter-"argument"?
If you have something valuable to contribute, do.
By the way, I'd love to hear what others have to say on the subject.
Marius Johnston
: Generally speaking, single-track explanations fail to encompass
: multi-track problems.
: The model of Whitesupremacy bases its descriptions on functionality, that
: is, what people and things actually *do.*
: ANY person or institution whose actions tend to defend or extend
: the interests of Whitepower in the arts, the economy(ies), politics,
: society, academia (etc) is therefore described as Whitesupremacist.
There is one large flaw in your BS about "white supremacy". It assumes that
all whites are the same in culture, history, economic status and beliefs.
What is racist is YOUR belief in "white supremacy". You have made sweeping
generalizations about people BASED solely on the color of their skin and that
is about as racist as you can get. For example you say , "Whites will
consciously or unconsciously continue to defend and extend
Whitesupremacy, either by action or inaction."
This statement says that all white people are biggots in their heart of hearts
and they will allways and forever fuck over (more the merrier) any person who
is not white any way they can so that they can keep all that power to
themselves (and get more if they can). Your monolithic paranoia is pathetic.
A casual glance anywhere will show you up.
Of course this is a never ending tit you can feed off of because blacks only
constitute 12% of America.
: However, this is a broad description, and it's hopefully
: Xu, us em maa-xeru!
: Minister Faust
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Eusa 5:..in tu the hart uv the stoan hart uv the dans. Evere thing blippin +
movin in the shiftin uv thay Nos. Sum tyms bytin sum tyms bit. Riddley Walker
Marius Johnston Mar...@netcom.com
Malcolm Azania
I find it amazing how many people fail to understand the rudiments of
intelligent discussion. One of the most important things when you're
rebutting someone is actually to BOTHER TO READ WHAT THIS PERSON'S
ARGUMENT *ACTUALLY IS* rather than what you *WISH IT TO BE.*
I'm going to demonstrate this principle by putting numbers next
to Marius's "rebuttals" and then next to the portions of my ORIGINAL
posting where I've anticipated similar lines of "thinking" and address them.
I should also like to point out that something that is very
common on this group is that the less intelligent an individual's
response is, the more likely it finds recourse to petty name calling and
swearing.
Let's begin:
Marius Johnston (mar...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Malcolm Azania (maz...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: : Generally speaking, single-track explanations fail to encompass
: : multi-track problems.
**ITEM ONE:
: : The model of Whitesupremacy bases its descriptions on functionality, that
: : is, what people and things actually *do.*
: : ANY person or institution whose actions tend to defend or extend
: : the interests of Whitepower in the arts, the economy(ies), politics,
: : society, academia (etc) is therefore described as Whitesupremacist.
: There is one large flaw in your BS about "white supremacy". It assumes that
: all whites are the same in culture, history, economic status and beliefs.
**SEE ITEM ONE ABOVE AND ITEM TWO BELOW**
: What is racist is YOUR belief in "white supremacy".
You are confounding racism with bigotry. Bigotry is the hatred of an
identifiable group based on superficial rationale. Racism is a power
system of global mastery employing exclusion, revision of history,
genocide, penal systems, armies, etc. To be a racist (ie,
Whitesupremacist--the only form of global racial mastery that has evey
existed), I would have to be engaged in DEFENDING or EXTENDING racism,
ie, Whitesupremacy. Many non-Whites in fact ARE racists--that is to say,
the defend and/or extend Whitesupremacy--good examples are Gatscha
Buthelezi and Clarence Thomas. However, I neither extend nor defend WS.
What you presumably mean is that I am a bigot. Your argument is crippled
for two reasons: 1, you have failed to demonstrate in any way that I hate
Whites, or any other group for spurious reasons, and 2, your implication
is that any hostility to Whites en masses is automatically spurious.
You have made sweeping
: generalizations about people BASED solely on the color of their skin and that
: is about as racist as you can get. For example you say , "Whites will
: consciously or unconsciously continue to defend and extend
: Whitesupremacy, either by action or inaction."
**SEE ITEM OMEGA for reference to how ANYBODY of WHATEVER COLOUR can be a
Whitesupremacist, because the model is a FUNCTIONAL one, not a telepathic
one; unlike you, I don't claim to see the thoughts of others; I say
"consciously or unconsciously... defend and extend WS" because a) Bigots
are conscious haters. WS doesn't require ANY hatred. All it requires is
an identifiable unequal and unjust allocation of power. This is an
observable, verifiable status; b) not all Whitesupremacists are
bigots--that is to say, do not consciously hate by race; by definition,
this would make their maintenance of WS "unconscious"; your erroneous
remark about what is in the "hearts of Whites" has nothing to do with my
argument. I speak of observable actions and privilege, not the ether or
emotions or thoughts.
: This statement says that all white people are biggots in their heart of hearts
: and they will allways and forever fuck over (more the merrier) any person who
: is not white any way they can so that they can keep all that power to
: themselves (and get more if they can). Your monolithic paranoia is pathetic.
: A casual glance anywhere will show you up.
As I've demonstrated above, most of what you are attacking is a straw man
that has nothing to do with my argument. As far as paranoia goes, well,
again, you're presuming telepathy. If you are referring to a paranoid
*argument*, you have yet to demonstrate this.
: Of course this is a never ending tit you can feed off of because blacks only
: constitute 12% of America.
As far as any White tit, thank you, I have no use. The problem that so
many "liberal Whites" have is that we DON'T want your tits of whatever
sort they
Reparations are a different matter: the White War against the
World (1500 til present) for global mastery has resulted in the slaughter
of a minimum of 200 million people. The European Slave Holocaust alone
destroyed continental civilisation and drained a minimum of 50 million
people (possibly as high as 100 million--see G. Stavrianos, *Global Rift*
for a conservative estimate--Stavrianos is White, by the way, Marius).
I would never suggest that Germany should not have paid reparations
to World Jewry. In fact, I would say that this was a positive move. Well, we
didn't lose just 6 million. Hell, the Belgians killed 2.5 times that in
the Congo alone (see your own writer, Mark Twain). We don't want your
tits, Marius. What we want is what is owed to us.
Your country was BUILT BY US. We want what is ours.
Oh--by the way--maybe you should bother to
read the by-line in the future--I'm in Canada, so don't bother to imply
that I want any of your State's "welfare" (which of course is what you
mean when you bring up the nonsense about "tit"--and your welfare remark
IS a racist remark!).
: : However, this is a broad description, and it's hopefully
**ITEM TWO:
: : Jews are White. And as per the truism, some are good and some are
: : bad. But it's not individual personalities that are our analytical or
: : practical concerns. It's GROUP DYNAMICS AND POWER. Whites will
: : consciously or unconsciously continue to defend and extend
: : Whitesupremacy, either by action or inaction.
**ITEM OMEGA:
: : And as the model of Whitesupremacy predicts, tragically, so will we.
: : "It takes a nation of millions to hold us back."
: : How many "millions" of us are there?
The real problem, of course, is that most Whites don't want to recognise
that they actually have a situation that is their responsibility to
absolve. If Mark gets $10000 from Peter and never gives it back, but
invests it and gets wealthy, while Peter lives and dies a pauper, Peter
has gotten a raw deal. Nothing can be done for him.
But his son, Peter Jr., also,
will live and die a pauper unless circumstances change. If he can
overcome the deficit of material and morale disadvantage of seeing his
father's diminution, he might succeed. Stats say otherwise. But Mark Jr
probably will succeed. Why? Because of material advantage afforded by his
father's dishonesty. You see, even though Mark Jr didn't swindle either
Peter Sr. or Peter Jr., his material success is owed to (its roots are in)
the swindling of Peter Sr. by Mark Sr.
Even with the death of both fathers, the *estate* of Mark OWES
the *estate* of Peter. Mark's succees is inextricably LINKED (notice I
say "linked"--I do not say, "owe exclusively to--" but then again, why
should I even bother to emphasise this delineation? After all, this
thread has demonstrated that many who "rebut" never have the intellectual
honesty, decency or acumen to address themselves to the ACTUAL STATED
argument) to his father's dishonesty. And Peter's deficit is inextricably
LINKED to his father having been swindled.
An honest Mark knows that he therefore has a debt that must be repaid.
A selfish, uncaring Mark who simply wants to keep ill-gotten
gains and say, "don't blame me, blame my ancestors" shrugs of his
responsibility, then has the nerve to attack Peter as a paranoiac who's
asking for a handout.
Tell me, if you [I'm addressing the rhetorical "you"] steal my wallet,
and I ask for it back, why do you call me the one who wants "money for nothing?"
Minister Faust
Marius Johnston
: I find it amazing how many people fail to understand the rudiments of
No, that is not what "racism" is. The word "race" has no power connotations,
nor has it ever, a quick glance at the OED will show that simple fact. Now
for "racism". Racism"
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities
and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular
race." (Webster's 7th New Collegiate Dictionary)
"Racism" has nothing to do with power either, it is a *belief system* based on
differences. Thus anyone can be a racist. For example, Francis Welsing writes:
"Since Melanin is a superior absorber of all energy, it is essential to
establish this understanding of God and "all energy". The fact that the
albinos (whites) lack melanin may also help to explain why they have quite a
different concept and understanding of God,...[why] they 9whites0 lack
"spirituality" and the *capacity* [my*] to tune in to, and thereby establish
harmony and justice in, the universe. [thinly valed 'white devil arguement]
Further. because they *lack the melanin sensory system*, they cannot intuit
that all is one." (The Isis Papers p. 171) Here we have it. Black people are
superior to white people because blacks are endowed with melanin which confirs
upon them special powers of perception. White people are evil because,
lacking melanin they can not tell right from wrong. This is racism Welsing is
a racist.
Bigotry is either "the state of mind of a bigot" or "behavior or beliefs
ensuing from such a mind."
White supremacy is racist if it is based on the above definition of "racism".
It is expressed by acts of bigotry or prejudice. The reason why White
supremacy or black supremacy is racist is bacuse it is not true and is based
on skin color.
There is no such thing as "white supremacy" (the group) because all whites are
not superior nor think themselves as such. In order to approximate
correctness you will have to further refine your group and demonstate their
racist mindset (see definition above)
: To be a racist (ie,
: Whitesupremacist--the only form of global racial mastery that has evey
: existed),
This is a foolish statement. It never existed.
: I would have to be engaged in DEFENDING or EXTENDING racism,
: ie, Whitesupremacy. Many non-Whites in fact ARE racists--that is to say,
: the defend and/or extend Whitesupremacy--good examples are Gatscha
: Buthelezi and Clarence Thomas. However, I neither extend nor defend WS.
: What you presumably mean is that I am a bigot. Your argument is crippled
: for two reasons: 1, you have failed to demonstrate in any way that I hate
: Whites, or any other group for spurious reasons, and 2, your implication
: is that any hostility to Whites en masses is automatically spurious.
I have no idea whether you hate white people or not but you are making race
based conclusions that are not true
: You have made sweeping
: : generalizations about people BASED solely on the color of their skin and that
: : is about as racist as you can get. For example you say , "Whites will
: : consciously or unconsciously continue to defend and extend
: : Whitesupremacy, either by action or inaction."
: **SEE ITEM OMEGA for reference to how ANYBODY of WHATEVER COLOUR can be a
: Whitesupremacist, because the model is a FUNCTIONAL one, not a telepathic
: one; unlike you, I don't claim to see the thoughts of others; I say
: "consciously or unconsciously... defend and extend WS" because a) Bigots
: are conscious haters. WS doesn't require ANY hatred. All it requires is
: an identifiable unequal and unjust allocation of power.
Again you are confused. It has nothing to do with power. It has everything
to do with "racism"
: This is an
: observable, verifiable status; b) not all Whitesupremacists are
: bigots--that is to say, do not consciously hate by race; by definition,
: this would make their maintenance of WS "unconscious"; your erroneous
: remark about what is in the "hearts of Whites" has nothing to do with my
: argument. I speak of observable actions and privilege, not the ether or
: emotions or thoughts.
: : This statement says that all white people are biggots in their heart of hearts
: : and they will allways and forever fuck over (more the merrier) any person who
: : is not white any way they can so that they can keep all that power to
: : themselves (and get more if they can). Your monolithic paranoia is pathetic.
: : A casual glance anywhere will show you up.
: As I've demonstrated above, most of what you are attacking is a straw man
: that has nothing to do with my argument. As far as paranoia goes, well,
: again, you're presuming telepathy. If you are referring to a paranoid
: *argument*, you have yet to demonstrate this.
: : Of course this is a never ending tit you can feed off of because blacks only
: : constitute 12% of America.
To extend my statement,blacks will NEVER have more than minority power in this
country, yet you would have this be supremist and racist. This is self serving
at best.Yet you persist. I wonder why.
: As far as any White tit, thank you, I have no use. The problem that so
: many "liberal Whites" have is that we DON'T want your tits of whatever
: sort they
: Reparations are a different matter: the White War against the
: World (1500 til present) for global mastery has resulted in the slaughter
: of a minimum of 200 million people.
Never happened. "White people" (a racist fiction) never fought the world.
This is why I am calling you a bigot and a racist.
: The European Slave Holocaust alone
: destroyed continental civilisation and drained a minimum of 50 million
: people (possibly as high as 100 million--see G. Stavrianos, *Global Rift*
: for a conservative estimate--Stavrianos is White, by the way, Marius).
: I would never suggest that Germany should not have paid reparations
: to World Jewry. In fact, I would say that this was a positive move. Well, we
: didn't lose just 6 million. Hell, the Belgians killed 2.5 times that in
: the Congo alone (see your own writer, Mark Twain). We don't want your
: tits, Marius. What we want is what is owed to us.
YOU are not owed ANYTHING other than the same rights and obligations as any
other citizen in America.
: Your country was BUILT BY US.
Black people did not build this country. Where on earth did you get BS from?
: We want what is ours.
: Oh--by the way--maybe you should bother to
: read the by-line in the future--I'm in Canada, so don't bother to imply
: that I want any of your State's "welfare" (which of course is what you
: mean when you bring up the nonsense about "tit"--and your welfare remark
: IS a racist remark!).
Time for a reread. I said, "Of course this is a never ending tit you can feed
off of because blacks only constitute 12% of America." The "it" refers to
claims of supremacy. You need to read more carefully AND buy a dictionary.
: : : However, this is a broad description, and it's hopefully
Get a life.
: The real problem, of course, is that most Whites don't want to recognise
: Minister Faust
Ray Wood
would seem to be that Blacks are inherently Black Supremacists.
I disagree with your ideas. I don't thing Jews are White Supremecists.
I think they are just looking out for what is best for them, just as we
Blacks (and everybody else) generally do.
Of course, if I am right, that would mean that if Blacks were on the
top of the Economic ladder instead of Whites, Blacks would be abusing
the rights of Whites the way many Whites do us now.
I admit to believing that men of every race are basically capble of all
sorts of racist acts, unless they are wise enough to follow the will
of God instead of their own flesh.
Ray Wood , raw...@rd1.racal.com
Malcolm Azania
: A corollary of your theory that Jews are inherently White Supremacists
: would seem to be that Blacks are inherently Black Supremacists.
have read an excerpted or partially quoted version), I stated a much
broader idea--that Whites (not specifically Jews... it could as easily
have been Irish, or Croatians) are *functionally*--not *intrinsically*
Whitesupremacist.
I'm fairly disappointed that people have not responded carefully
to my specific wording. I was speaking of a power system (allocation of
resources, decision-making, prestige, social power, academic & media
control, etc) that is White dominated.
It's interesting to me that two of the items I stated that I
assumed would gather the most reaction have garnered NOT ONE:
a) that because ANY person of whatever colour whose actions or
inactions tend to defend or extend the interests of Whitesupremacy
(whether these in/actions are conscious or not) is a Whitesupremacist
(this is a *functional* definition--it in NO WAY addresses one's
character, whether one hates or loves, one's thought or character--it
discusses the net effect of ACTIONS), this means that the majority of US
can be defined as Whitesupremacists... hence PE's title, "It takes a
nation of millions to hold us back." That doesn't only mean White, it
means Black.
b) I also stated that there is another system called
*Malesupremacy*. Once again, it is a functional definition that I use. I
don't hate women consciously, and I don't believe that I do unconsciously
(although by definition, I could not know if I did). But you see, this
Supremacy model is not concerned one whit with whether I hate or not. For
instance, if I hated women, or was a Whiteman who hated Blackpeople--but
I lived in a cave--then my ACTIONS (for this is what the model
addresses... and inactions only where a person/actor could reasonably be
expected to be able to act) could in no way be seen as Supremacist re:
women or Afrikans.
This model is not concerned with thoughts or disposition, but
effects.
So back to the point... I assumed that many folks would be
hostile as all hell that I was describing not only most men, but most
women as Malesupremacists. But no response. This isn't bait--this is a
sincere question. Why? Did people miss this point? Or were people more
understanding of the notion that men (as a group) have more power over
the world than women, and that women are (by effect of their in/actions)
the partners (willing/unwilling does not need to be addressed by this
model) to this malesupremacy.
: I disagree with your ideas. I don't thing Jews are White Supremecists.
: I think they are just looking out for what is best for them, just as we
: Blacks (and everybody else) generally do.
Well, once again, I'm not arguing, as the tone of the above seems to
imply, that Jewish people or even most Whites for that matter get up in
the morning, wring their hands, emit an evil laugh, and say, "Oh... how
good it is to be EVIL! How good it is to control them! Come, let us
orchestrate more conspiracies!" No. You see, this notion of "looking out
for what's best for you" can often be (need not be, but can often be) the
key to a Supremacy system. If you and I were Jews in Germany in 1933, and
we saw some Nazis doing their thing, you could say, "Oh, they're just
looking out for what's best for them." But I would fairly retort, No,
their actions and inactions pose a threat to us... and their definition
of "what's best for them" is faulty anyway.
Now before anyone runs away frothily and starts saying that I
was comparing Jewish people to the Nazis, stop. I'm illustrating a hole in
the reasoning. Obviously, malice was a big part of many if not most Nazis
social/political orientation (though genocide was not known to most of
them originally--it was only known by those who needed to know: the ones
who had the power to make it happen), and while malice on a social level
of Jew vs Black does form a part of many Jewish American and Afrikan
American minds, I don't believe that genocidal intentions (or even overly
threatening intentions) form a part of most these minds (obviously, the
disturbing case of those who cheer the words of Khalid Muhammad are a
frightening exception... I'm sure there are concomitant zealots on the
Jewish side).
The point is, however, that "what's best for us" can often be
arbitrary. I would argue, for instance, that the historical, aggregate
male "sense" of "what's best for us" vis-a-vis women has not only been
incorrect re:men, but dangerously misguided re:women.
In the case of different nationalities or ethnic groupings,
especially in the case of Whitesupremacy, Whites (through in/actions)
fail to oppose and may defend/extend Whitesupremacy (as may we). This can
take the form of where we shop, for whom we vote and why, which products
we buy, whom we fail to boycott, what educational proposals we support, etc.
However, in a context in which people come together to discuss
HUMAN interests, "what's best for us" can suddenly become WHAT'S BEST FOR
HUMAN BEINGS...or the planet as a whole. Suddenly the real threat--that
of the powerful against the powerless, can become apparent. Ultimately,
the common thread of Whitesupremacy, Malesupremacy and
Capitalistsupremacy is SUPREMACY. The majority or Whites, while on the
world stage gaining some material benefits from Whitesupremacy, lose out
on the human benefits. The same is true of men re:Malesupremacy and human
benefits.
Ultimately, our goal is to appreciate human difference as a
source of beauty and diversity, not as an opportunity to exploit or harm
through neglect.
: Of course, if I am right, that would mean that if Blacks were on the
: top of the Economic ladder instead of Whites, Blacks would be abusing
: the rights of Whites the way many Whites do us now.
I'm not satisfied that that is automatic--it is also true that it is not
an "anti-given"--that is to say, that it couldn't happen. However, there
is no historical precedent for this. Also, I do not worry that women's
strides for equality will result in Femalesupremacy. HOWEVER, if the
formerly oppressed continue to imbibe, and do not slough off, the values
of their oppressor, then I guarantee you, given a shift in power, this
WILL happen. The Narns come to mind.
: I admit to believing that men of every race are basically capble of all
: sorts of racist acts, unless they are wise enough to follow the will
: of God instead of their own flesh.
You said it, Brother.
: Ray Wood , raw...@rd1.racal.com
By the way, Ray... I hope that you took none of what I said as
patronising or vindictive. I'm a little exasperated by the way that some
people have addressed my posting, including calling me a bigot. In fact,
my posting do not even address the issue of bigotry or personal/ethnic
hatred, nor did I accuse anyone of race hatred. If I sounded
short-tempered, it's because of this context, not because I failed to
appreciate your polite tone, which took issue with my ideas, and not with
me. I look forward to your next posting.
Finally, to all the others whom I see engaging in invective on this
group, I must say that the only thing gained through this kind of
argumentation is heart strain. Br. Ray disagreed with my case, but did so
without being disagreeable. We have enough strain in our lives, without
turning on the computer to get stressed out. So may I suggest that the
spirit of politeness that motivates Friendly Friday be used to guide more
of our postings, and that we also diminish sarcasm, name-calling, and
flame-baiters who just want attention (you know who I'm talking about).
Xu, us, em maa-xeru,
Minister Faust
Ray Wood
have really given this a lot of thought. And, you can not see my face
or judge my body language, so you will have to take my word that what I
am about to say is all in fun.
Get a life, Minister!
But, seriously, I think we ended up agreeing on most points. But, perhaps,
there was a difference in emphasis. You mention WhiteSupremacy several
times, but never gave BlackSupremacy equal time.
I hoped to emphasize more strongly that BlackSupremacy is just as possible
as WhiteSupremacy.(and just as abhorent) )).
Ray Wood , raw...@rd1.racal.com
Patick Crotty
I must agree{58ppF with Mr. Wood's condemnation of all
types of supremacist {8866 movements, which serve only
to polarize relations in an already
- ERROR: Write error
weary nation.
(Sorry if this is mangled, but my text editor is acting up)
--
{Patrick Crotty ----------- "When all was said and done, he
Malcolm Azania
: But, seriously, I think we ended up agreeing on most points. But, perhaps,
: there was a difference in emphasis. You mention WhiteSupremacy several
: times, but never gave BlackSupremacy equal time.
I think I'd be more worried if I saw any evidence whatsoever that
such a thing were likely (or even possible). As it stands, it's about as
likely as Mohawk or Cree or Iroquoi global supremacy (which is what I'm
talking about--global supremacy, not rule in, say, a single country...
however awful a given country might have it, there's a leap between a
dictatorship in one country and global hegemony).
: I hoped to emphasize more strongly that BlackSupremacy is just as possible
: as WhiteSupremacy.(and just as abhorent) )).
I don't believe that there is *any* evidence to make a statement
as strong as the above. "Just as possible"? You'll have to demonstrate
means, motive and previous history to make a case for that. For instance,
if you were to make an argument for Japanese supremacy of a brutal sort
over Asia, you'd have an easy time making a case (Greater East-Asian
Co-Prosperity Sphere... Japanese slaughtered 15 million Chinese before
end of WW II, beginning in the 1930's--this is 2 1/2 TIMES the
Nazi-Jewish death toll, but totally forgotten in the West), because
history backs you up.
However, if you feel you can make a case, backed up with
evidence, for Blacksupremacy (global, or at least hemispherical) go
ahead. I'd be interested to see what you can come up with.
: Ray Wood , raw...@rd1.racal.com
Minister Faust
Ray Wood
> However, if you feel you can make a case, backed up with
>evidence, for Blacksupremacy (global, or at least hemispherical) go
>ahead. I'd be interested to see what you can come up with.
Well, I have to start with my tried and true axiom:
UNTIL SOMEONE PROVES, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THAT ONE RACE
OF GROUP OF PEOPLE IS INFERIOR TO ANOTHER, I REFUSE TO EVEN CONSIDER
SUCH FOOLISHNESS.
So, believing that all men are equal, I naturally assume that Black
folks can be just as heroic and/or ignorant as Whites. Also, we should
probably begin by agreeing on a definition of what constitutes a
Supremacist frame of mind. I suspect, and you may correct me, that
I consider our discussion to be on a frame of mind, while you consider
our discussion to be on a social state of enpowerment. I.E., for me to
exhibit BlackSupremacy, I would have to be enpowered to act in a superior
manner towards a White person.
Whites racists set fire to a brother here in Florida, Black racists
murder Amy Biehl. One could argue that those Black South Africa brothers
were not enpowered, but they certaining had the power to snuff out the
life of a good, decent woman who happened to be White.
Crown Heights. Lubavitcher vigilantes refer to Black youths as niggers
and animals. Black young men go up to a Jewish child in a stroller
and state in so many words that the child did not deserve to live. Now,
those young brothers sure sound to me as if they felt superior to Jews.
How am I doing so far?
Ray Wood , raw...@rd1.interlan.com
Ms Mocha
I don't know, Ray, but I don't think that you are doing too well. I believe
Malcolm
asked for a case backed up with evidence, while you merely gave tit for tat in
a series of incidents. Certainly no one is denying or belittling these
incidents; however, the issue as it appears to me is whether black people have
the power to/will take over the world backed only by the principle that black
people are superior, which is something that is not evidenced in your
incidents.