is Jeremiah Wright necessarily wrong about racial differences or crudely correct? and what honkers need to do in order to survive in the new order.
animalishness
recently, wright said a lot of incendiary stuff about racial
differences between blacks and whites. he spoke of differences in
musical sense, ways of learning, personality, and way of thinking.
liberals were embarassed, obama distanced himself from wright, and
conservatives were calling wright a 'racist'. now, wright is clearly
a deranged bigot in the sense of having a kneejerk hatred against
certain peoples. he's also mightly chauvanistic about his blackness.
but, isn't it rather disingenuous on the part of conservatives to use
the 'racist' card against wright? many conservatives have denounced
as politically correct the people who drove larry summers from his
presidency at harvard. conservatives have defended, if not
necessarily agreed with, charles murray who has long argued that there
are innate differences in IQ among the races. there have been articles
in Commentary, National Review, American Conservative, American
Spectator, and others that weighed in matters of innate racial
differences. yes, our constitution guarantees equal rights and
political freedom to all people, but many conservatives have been open
to the idea of innate racial differences.
and, wright seems to agree. indeed, many blacks agree, though they are
not so outspoken as wright. this goes to the heart of the liberal/
conservative divide. the truth is many people on the so-called
liberal side are not really liberals. only white gentile liberals--
and, to a lesser extent, jewish liberals--are genuine liberals.
blacks and hispanics have joined forces with white/jewish liberals for
their tribal interests. also, even among white liberals, only the
well-educated folks are genuinely liberal. many blue collar democrats
are, in many cases, socially conservative tribalists who support the
democratic party because it offers more benefits. the reason why many
blue collar whites drifted toward the republican party was because
they perceived rich white/jewish liberals who run the democratic party
as shifting their attentions and favors toward blacks and hispanics in
the 60s.
so, let's not fool ourselves that blacks are liberal... anymore than
muslims in europe who seek protection and favoritism under
multiculturalism are liberal. it's a matter of alliance than
allegiance. similarly, stalin sided with the US in WWII not because
he was a democratic capitalist but because he needed the US in the war
against germany.
many whites are confused when so many blacks have a favorable opinion
of people like louis farrakhan and wright. even jesse jackson--who
has mastered the art of mouthing off liberal pieties--is more a black
nationalist than a liberal. the fact is, if conservatism offered
more freebies and favors to blacks, blacks would all vote republican
overnight.
if jesse jackson is genuinely liberal, why does he rub his shoulders
with the likes of farrakhan? why do blacks who profess to admire
martin luther king also admire elijah muhammad, and others of his ilk?
why do leading black intellectuals like cornel west and michael dyson
stress black unity and afrocentrism more than universal liberal
values? for blacks, liberalism is a tool, a weapon. it is not an
ideal. their true ideal and identity center around black power and
black interests.
this is all the more true because blacks are not a very intellectual
people. their politics and culture are essentially emotion/hormone
based. it is about FEEEEELING than than thinking. indeed, thinking in
the western sense is considered incompatible with black ways of
thinking. this is why even neo-marxist intellectualsl like cornel west
and michael dyson are more about style of expression that quality of
thought. they be jazzy or hiphoppy intellectuals.
there's been a strain of this attitude and mindset thru much of black
cultural history. stanley crouch and wynton marsalis--and many
others before them--have argued that jazz is essentially a black
musical form and not only in the historical/cultural sense. they argue
that black creativity is rooted in black genes. the crudest form of
this idea was expressed by leonard jeffries. due to his lowly academic
credentials and simplistic terminology, it was easy to dismiss him as
a crank. and, it must be said that wright is hard to take seriously
because of jiveass clownishness. also, his views on these matters are
overly generalized and simple-minded. but, there is some truth to his
assertions which should be addressed by the more academically
credentialled.
take jazz, for instance. there are some black extremists who insist
that it's entirely black, and that all white involvment in jazz is
just a case of 'honkey stealing from the black man'. this is, of
course, ludicrous. black africans, on their own, could not have come
up with jazz. for starters, they didn't have clarinets, trumpets,
saxophones, bass, and pianos. if jazz is something that naturally
flows out of blackness, then all blacks around the world should have
come up with jazz. but, that was not so. jazz is the fusion of african
and anglo influences in american music. blacks of latin america
developed different styles of music resulting from the fusion of the
african and latin. but, it must still be said that the core musical
sensibility of jazz is rooted in blackness, even in the genetic
sense. notice that even afro-latin music which isn't jazz has many
common musical expressions as jazz--and not only because of influence
of jazz. much of the rhythmic and funky styles of afro-latin music
developed independent of jazz.
also, notice that the music of native americans of both south and
north america and parts of asia have certain similarities. it could
well be that each race has a certain collective musical archetype
stamped into its souls. such could be a facet of differences among
racial personalities. while anyone can adopt and practice the masks
of any culture, there is no denying that some things come naturally
within a people while some things must be learned from other peoples.
so, it could be argued that jazz came naturally to blacks whereas it
was learned--expertly in some cases--by non-blacks. of course, there
is a great range of personalities in any culture, so it could be
argued that there are some white people for whom jazz seemed almost
natural. but, each race more of certain traits than others. by
nature, most japanese are more inhibited than blacks.
put aside races and consider individuals. anyone can model himself on
other people but there are certain feelings which are natural to an
individual and certain feelings which must be emulated from others;
every human personality is the midpoint between natural personality
and adopted personality. (an indian and an african may both adopt the
same british accent and manners, but there will still be differences
arising from their differences in natural personality. this is why
even a black person who learns to speak proper american english is
still different in certain ways than a mexican-american who does the
same. similarly, even a white guy or asian guy who learns to act black
are never fully black.) this is why george w. bush has been a poor
leader in his effort to model himself on reagan. for reagan, the
assured style of leadership came naturally whereas we see strain on
the part of dubya.
or, suppose john edwards tried to act like barack obama. he can
sincerely try and even become semi-competent but he would still seem
unnatural. at best, it would be a pale imitation, at worst pathetic
parody. this is why it seems so ludicrous when non-blacks try to act
black. but, it can equally seem phony when some blacks try to act non-
black. barbra streisand would look stupid trying to be grace kelly
and vice versa. this isn't just a matter of looks but natural
personality.
now, wright said that blacks use their right brains whereas whites use
their left brains. also, blacks think subjectively while whites think
objectively. and, blacks are creative whereas whites are rational.
whites can design and make instruments such as saxophones and pianos,
but it takes negroes to really explore all the creative possibilitiies
of the instrument. blacks are to creativity what they are to sports.
rational whites can invent sports and their rules, but it takes the
negro to push them to the limit. there is even a variation of this
idea in the way we compare jews/germans and whites/asians. many jews
have commented that germans are thick-skulled and good with machinery
and engineering but not nimble, fluid, and creative in their thinking
process when it comes to advanced theory. germans can build rockets,
but it takes a jew to come up with E = MC2. regarding whites and
asians, it's often been remarked that while asians are diligent,
dedicated, and cooperative, they lack individual brilliance. so, asian
musicians can learn to play music perfectly--especially in a non-
improvisatory form such as classical muisic--but lack the creativity
and originality among whites. indeed, while there have been many
expert asian-american musical performers, there have been few
composers.
in the case of improvisation vs composition, the prevailing--though
often unspoken--truism is that blacks are better at former while
whites are more comfortable with the latter. whites think more about
their music whereas blacks know what works/doesn't work according to
instant feeling and sense of groove. because improvisation has been so
crucial to jazz, nearly all the biggest pioneers of new forms and new
expressions have been black. also, as much of jazz is about high
intensity and quick/slippery hooks, whites have been outboxed by
blacks. many whites have become adept at all forms of jazz but
mainly thru much practice than personal invention. there are many
whites can do dizzy gillespie and coltrane, but could a white guy have
come up with bebop in the first place?
as heavy metal has demonstrated, whites can surely be good at
intensity, especially with the help of high amps of electricity. but,
intense white music tends to be HEAVY whereas intense black music can
be both powerful and slippery. this is why big tough white guys lose
to big tough black guys in boxing. white guys have the size and
strength but not the natural explosive power and nimble sense of
motion. ali could punch and dodge. he could attack and dance.
it would be dishonest for anyone in this day and age to say that a
black man is simply a white man with black skin, or a white man is
simply a black man with white skin. it would also be stupid to say an
ashkenazi jew is simply a burmese with a hooked nose, or a burmese is
an ashkenazi jew with darker complexion. there are racial
personalties--as well as differences in IQ, physical strenght, etc--
among different peoples. we are generalizing, of course, but
generalities do matter. the reason why more men than women are in jail
is because men are generally stronger and more aggressive. while
there are cases of female-on-male assault, the overwhelming cases of
intersexual crime are male on female. and, this also explains the high
rate of black on non-black crime. also, the fact that jews have
become so powerful and rich must be attributed largely to their higher
innate IQ. many people may not want to discuss these matters for
whatever reason, but truth is truth. and, if liberalism is really
about openmindedness, we should freely talk about these issues. also,
if conservatives are opposed to politically correctness, they should
not kneejerkedly accuse wright of 'racism'. it's enough to accuse
wright of rage, hatred, contempt, etc. just because wright is a
louse doesn't necessarily mean that all the ideas he espouses are
wrong. indeed, the reason why Obama has been such a successful
candidate owes much to his race. over the yrs, many whites have come
to regard blacks as the tougher, sexier, more charismatic, and more
soulful race. when voters saw john edwards next to obama, they saw a
dweeby white guy next to a studly negro. much of white feelings about
blackness is rooted in race. if blacks were, in terms of physicality
and personality, like bolivian indians or vietnamese, there would have
been no gushing worship of martin luther king, oprah, and obama. but,
the other side of white admiration of blackness was white envy/fear of
the mighty fearsome scary negro. so, obama is appealing as a kind of
midway point. he has cool soulful blackness, but he doesn't scare
white folks like mike tyson does. indeed, he looks half white, which
he is. obama represents the next step in the civil rights movement
and also the hope of dilutocide(watering down racial potency of
blackness by having more black men screw white women)as the final
solution to racial problems.
in the 50s and 60s, most white liberals regarded progress as blacks
gaining equal rights. many white males didn't see it as a threat to
white male pride. but, with blacks taking over sports, whupping white
boys on the streets, and such, there was an unspoken white barrier
against the idea of interracial relationships. thru pop culture--
tv, movies, music--, the racial barrier was maintained for a long
time. blacks ruled urban streets and sports, but white males were the
archetypal males defining americanness. but, things really changed in
the 80s with the film "jungle fever" which challenged the final taboo
and the rise of hiphop. prior to hiphop, most white girls were
listening to and dreaming of white rock stars. with rise of hiphop and
interracism promoted as the ideal by liberal jewish dominated popular
media, most white girls were listening to black music and fantasizing
about black guys. eventually, denzel washington, jamie foxx, and will
smith dethroned white actors as The American Archetpye. notice that a
recent denzel movie is called AMERICAN gangster, not african-american
gangster. african-american is now more archetypally american than
anglo- or white-american. and, obama is the biggest beneficiary of
this. on top of that, far more american kids know who harriet tubman
and rosa parks were than any dead white male, american or otherwise.
on the one hand, there is the image of blackness as tough, badness,
masterful, superior, cool, hip, and awesom. on the other hand, there
is the image of blackness as noble, victimized, enslaved, wronged, and
owed. it's a funny schizo kind of mix, but its appeal is not
surprising in a christian culture such as the US. after all, how
christians feel about jesus is a combination of both pity/sympathy/
guilty and awe/respect/worshipfulness. jesus was the poor victim of
man but also the all-powerful son-of-god. though he was superior to
us all, he chose victimhood because he was so noble. there is a
similar narrative to our view of black-american history. blacks are
bigger, stronger, cooler, badasser, and superior to us... but, as
slaves, they suffered the ennobing indignity at the hands of mean,
ugly, nasty white folks. so, the roots of this rather pernicious and
sick way of looking at a people and history is rooted in christianity
which made people both pity and worship the son of man/god.
anyway, it should not be surprising if black have swallowed this
narrative hook, line, and sinker. it's only natural that wright would
say jesus was really a black man who'd been killed by white italians.
in a way, it echoes the long tradition of gentiles accusing jews of
having killed jesus. but, it must be said that white gentiles also
felt a great sense of guilt over the death of christ. all christians
were made to feel far more guilt than righteousness over the suffering
and death of jesus. in western tradition, there was a powerful sense
that WE ALL killed jesus--though jews may been more responsible than
most. we all jeered at jesus. we all rejected jesus. we all betrayed
jesus. but, jesus loved us still and died for our sins. so, western
christianity has made many of its adherents reflect on their history,
society, and power. this is why anglo christians called for end of
slave trade. this is why abolitionists in america called for end of
slavery. this is why many whites called for racial progress in the 50s
and 60s. of course, not all whites agreed but enough did to make
profound social changes. so, christianity has filled the West with
not only pride but shame. and, this shame of one's sinfulness led
whites to change their ways.
but, why is there a lack of such reflection in the black church and
among black folks? how come blacks don't feel 'we too killed
jesus?' (instead, they all claim to be black jesuses, pure and
perfect, done wrong by the evil white race who are guilty for
EVERYTHING.) why is it all WE, WE, WE are so noble, so great, so
high and mighty, so perfect, so blah blah blah while it's all up to
the honkey to apologize and kiss our booties? one may say, it's
partly because blacks have been the weaker group in america. it
generally requires a sense of power and security for a people to feel
generous and magnanimous. since whites have had the most power, they
could afford to be compassionate. but, this alone doesn't explain
black rage and righteousness. american indians have much to be angry
about--even more so than blacks--, but they are more reflective and
forgiving. also, chinese and japanese americans have much to be angry
about, yet they are part of a silent minority. to be sure, blacks
make up a larger group. greater numbers mean greater confidence,
pride, aggressiveness. in china, chinese can be awful self-righteous
and aggressive, throwing stones at US embassy and the like. but, if we
compare the social reality of asians and africans/american blacks, it
seems blacks are more prone to aggressive and wild behavior.
so, why do blacks feel this way? why are they so unreflective?
wright put his finger on this when he said blacks 'think' more
subjectively whereas whites--and presumably other non-blacks--think
more objectively. subjectivism can easily morph into self-centered,
self-aggrandizing, self-righteous, and self-serving. it's incapable
of seeing the world, people, and issues thru anything but one's own
thoughts and feelings. that blacks may feel righteous due to their
experience of slavery is only natural; what's really repulsive about
black self-righteousness is an almost total disregard or uninterest in
others. there is some of this among jews and others too, at least
morally. for many jews, it's holocaust, holocaust, holocaust. for
many poles, it's as though the polish victims of WWII were only
christians and not specifically the jews. even so, jews have shown
great deal of interest and sympathy for suffering peoples all over the
world--though their form of help often did more harm than good. and,
though poles feel righteous in poland, they don't go around telling
the whole world that it should feel sorry for polacks. american
blacks are not only ignorant and uninterested in the suffering of
mankind throughout the world thru history but think what they
experienced in america is the worst thing that ever happened and all
the peoples should feel sorry for blacks, do blacks favors, and learn
wisdom of black nobility. it's morally sickening. this is all the
more hilarious when american blacks think what they underwent in the
20th century was worse than what other peoples--russians, chinese,
poles, ukrainians, cambodians, etc, etc--had went thru.
why do blacks feel this way? the obvious culprits are stupid black
leadership, sappy pussyboy white liberal pampering of black mentality,
general ignorance, etc. one may even argue that it's due to the
generally lower intelligence among blacks. but, intelligence is
probably less important than racial personality. as wright said,
black mentality is naturally more subjective. it's essentially a
matter of feeling. after all, dumb people can be very empathetic,
self-effacing, and selfless--like Forrest Gump. or, consider animals
like dogs which often think more of its master than itself. also,
highly intelligent people can be higly self-centered and blind to the
realities of others. there have been no lack of very intelligent
people for whom their subjective reality was the only reality.
consider the case of loeb and lebowicz of the famous chicago murder
trial.
so, one of the reasons for black self-centeredness is rooted in the
black racial personility and mindset. notice that even intelligent
blacks on all those PBS documentaries are so full of themselves,
morally narcissistic, self-promoting, self-aggrandizing, self-
adulating. of course, they couch their high self-regard in the
language of 'social justice', 'tolerance', 'progress', etc, but it's
really about 'we blacks, we blacks, we blacks', or more like 'me black
as spokeman for all blacks'. it means social justice for blacks,
tolerance for blacks, progress for blacks, favorite treatment for
blacks, special recognition of blacks, etc, etc. when blacks mention
other peoples, it's only to use them as tool for black interests. so,
when wright talks about hiroshima or nagasaki, he isn't in the
slightest bit interested in the actual victims of the bombing. he just
wants to use it as a moral hammer against whites. now, there is some
of this among all people. jews will be for open or closed national
borders depending on their impact on jewish interests. in the US, jews
want open borders because they are a minority, but in the case of
israel jews want closed borders to keep the ragheads out. also, much
of jewish support of blacks has really been about jewish interests.
nevertheless, it's also true that there was much sincerity on the part
of jews to make US a fairer society for all. and, jews have supported
blacks and other groups even when those minority groups have not been
so friendly to jews. and, there have been a good number of jewish
authors like tony judt who's been capable of seeing the dark side of
jewish history and power--role in communism and impact on
palestinians. so, jews are capable of some objectivity. though all of
us see, feel, and think about the world in subjective terms--myself,
my people, my interests, etc--, many of us are capable of--and make an
effort of--understanding the world thru perspectives other than our
own. so, even if jews are 70% subjective in their view, there is the
30% that is objective. conservative whites are also around 70/30.
rich liberal whites are around 30/70, not least because they can
afford to be generous from their privileged positions. but, blue
collar democrats are like 80/20. blacks are 99/1. it's 99%
subjective and maybe 1% objective. this explains why michelle obama
said she was really only proud of her country when her husband had the
chance of being president. for michelle, blackness = nobility,
goodness, truth, righteousness, soulfulness, dignity, etc, etc. and,
she was finally appreciative of (still majority) white america because
it finally realized that blackness is the REAL thing. (would she be
really proud of US if it came close to electing an hispanic president?
or, even a black president who's not her husband? of course not.)
now, michelle obama is no dummy, even if she's been an affirmative
action baby. she's more intelligent than most americans of any race.
yet, why is her view of american history and society so subjective?
why is it so afro-centric? of course, the afro-centric vs eurocentric
dichotomy never made sense because (1) idea of africa is a discovery
and conception of the West (2) eurocentric was never purely
eurocentric. greeks were awful proud of their culture and history but
also highly curious and even respectful of the cultures around them;
they didn't see all non-greeks as barbarians. also, one of the
advantages of western civilization has been its ability to be self-
critical and self-reflective. to an extent, no one can escape one's
cultures any more than one can leap out of his own body and see the
world thru different eyes. but, the west did more than other cultures
to imagine how reality may appear to other peoples or from different
perspectives. (it's european curiosity, objectivity, historical
interest, and archaeology which recovered and revived much of the lost
cutlures of the world. though blacks make the ludicrous claim that
ancient egyptians were negroes, the fact is most blacks would never
have known about ancient egypt if not for western archaeology,
studies, and spreading of knowledge around the world). there was a
strong universal streak in western culture; western culture was
neither strictly 'eurocentric' nor universal. it was euroversal--
western subjectivity striving toward a more objective understanding of
humanity, the world, and the cosmos. westerners were one of the few
peoples who realized that culture doesn't equal truth and also that
there is a reality outside one's own cultural reality. the myths and
customs of a culture don't determine mathematical principles or the
structure of the atom. (in contrast, both hindu and chinese view of
physical reality could not be separated from their cultural notions of
sacredness and mysticism. it was the west that was first able to
separate the scientific--objective--from the sacred--subjective, and
also historical truth from the demands of political power.)
so, it can be argued that the ability to think objectively is key to
liberalism, rationalism, and a civil society. especially in a nation
like the US, which is made up of many peoples, every american needs to
be able to see beyond 'myself and my people' in order to live with
other peoples. while every person and people have their own
subjective reality, they must also be able to go beyond such in order
to understand others and coexist along shared principles of truth. we
all need to be more objective in our thinking. murder is murder,
whether a white person kills a black person, or vice versa. in
contrast, the jury decision on the emmit till case was white justice
than justice, and the acquittal of OJ was black justice than justice.
justice based on such racial or social subjectivity cannot make a
democracy function well.
but, is objectivity merely a matter or product of thinking? if so,
all people could master proper thought thru education and practice.
but, what if objective thinking is rooted in emotional personality?
what if some people are less inclined to think objectively because of
their emotinal makeup? and, what if such emotional makeup is more
prevalent among certain races.
it's been said that one of the determining factors of personality is
hormone level. higher one's testasterone level, the more likely the
person is to be aggressive, self-centered, lacking in empathy, and
demanding the attention/affection for others. this is why males are
more problematic than women, generally. and, this may account for why
blacks are more problematic than whites. blacks have higher hormone
levels. it makes them more aggressive, less inhibited, more sexual,
more self-centered, and more self-promoting. of course, very low
hormone levels are not desirable either. it leads to the madness of
north korea where millions slavishly cower--with sincerity and
devotion--before some tyrant even though he is starving them. or,
consider much of japanese history where the masses sheepishly cowered
before the samurai who, in turn, cowered before their lords. while
there has been much asian aggression thru history--especially the
mongol invasions--, these attacks have been cases of slavish minions
blindly following the orders of their overlords; mongols were not like
the more individualistic greek or viking invaders. as a collective,
this can make asians formidable. masses of yellow horde slavish to
their masters can be more dangerous than a ragtag bunch of thugs who
are always fighting among themselves. one could argue that germans
during WWII were pretty obedient, but like the spartans they were not
slavish. nazism was anti-democratic but didn't demand germans to
sheepishly bow down before hitler like japs did before their emperor;
indeed, i doubt if germans would have acceded to hitler demanding that
they all grovel before him. among nazis, there was a sense of the
proud individual standing proud and tall even if individualism as an
ideology was frowned upon. but, there has been little sense of
individuality--let alone individualism--among asiatics. it's a new
idea in asia, but notice that even with democracy and individualist
ethos in places like south korea, taiwan, and japan, the populations
in those countries have been far more group oriented. one could argue
that this is due to culture, why did that kind of culture develop so
prevalently among asians? isn't a part of it rooted in the asiatic
genetic makeup?
it's instructive to compare democratic asian nations with autocratic
arab nations. in terms of racial personality, even arabs living under
autocratism are livelier and more individualistic than democratic
asians. the arab way of thinking is not open-minded and their social
mores are repressive, but the racial personality of the arabs is still
not slavish as is the case of japanese and the like. no matter the
political system or social values, the basic racial personality
remains amongst all peoples. centuries of american history tried to
make blacks obedient, submissive, timid, gentle, and such, but once
blacks gained more and more freedom, all the social conditioning
melted away and blacks reverted to their natural racial personality--
which we see in its pure form today among hiphoppers and people like
wright. of course, this is not true of all blacks. tiger woods is
half-asian and even his black side is part-cherokee(cousin of asian
race). that may explain his easier nature and his willingness to not
make a fuss about some sports commentator who joked he should be
'lynched' by his collegues.
now, one can be white or asian and still be highly loyal to 'my
side'. but, it's generally true that whites and especially asians are
less me-centered than we-centered or idea-centered. this may account
for weakness of african nations. from top to bottom, africans think
of Me before the We. so, african leader cares mainly for himself; the
bureaucrats care mainly for themselves; and same is true of the
people. the reason for widespread AIDS in africa is due to the self-
centered sexual practices of african males. because african society
is brutish and backward the males have kept power over their women,
and women who act up get beaten up. in the US, where women's rights
are protected, black men and women have been at war with eachother,
each side asserting the ME(as evident in many TV judge shows where
endless stream of black men and women talk shit and blame everything
on the other)which was one of the reasons for the fall of the black
family in america; once black have freedom, they lose all sense of
responsibility and respect for others.
now, consider china. chinese are awful proud but as a people than as
persons; also, ideas and values count for more than the 'me'. (also,
even megalomaniac chinese don't like to flaunt their 'greatness' as
openly and shamelessly as black do. they feel more comfortable in
dressing up their powerhunger in various forms of social
respectability. also, even such folks invest much in their own
children as heirs-to-the-throne whereas many megalomaniac black men
care too much about themselves to pay much attention to the needs of
their kids.) the nation, the culture, the community, the family, the
values, etc are the real focus of pride than the ME among chinese
peoples. so, even as a chinese guy may want to get ahead in life, he
wants to win the approval and respect of the people of his community.
he wants to succeed as part of the 'we'. also, concepts matter more
to whites and asians than to blacks. take someone as evil as himmler.
because of his racial ideology, you might think he was a self-centric
jerk like wright. actually, no. himmler was more loyal to his racial
theory than to himself. he was a fanatical servant of the theory he
believed in. so, even as he was ambitious and ruthless, there was
something higher than himself. but, this isn't the case with louis
farrakhan and wright--or any african leader. judging by his style,
it's obvious that farrakhan is more enamoured of himself than his
ideology. same goes with wright; as far as he's concerned, jesus
serves him than vice versa. he doesn't so much bow down before jesus
as use jesus as a rag with which to wipe the sweat off his brow. they
are fundamentally no different than idi amin or mugabe--or jacob
zuma. their personal greatness counts for more than any ideology.
even the evil hitler chose to die in his bunker along with his dream
of empire, but can you imagine idi amin choosing to go down with the
sinking ship?
as with most other african tyrants, it was always more about himself
than his nation, his culture, his people, or any idea. there was much
of this muhammad ali. though all boxers want glory, most white boxers
saw themselves as being part of a long proud tradition. they had
respect for the history and for the future of boxing. but, extremely
self-centered ali, his imitators, and many other blacks have acted as
though boxing history was zilch before they came along.
so, if we wanna get to the root of the black problem, we just discuss
their racial personality. that, even more than their generally low
IQs, account for the problems among blacks. wright, farrakhan, jesse
jackon, sharpton, mugabe, jacob zuma, etc, etc are not dumb people.
indeed, they are smarter than your average white. but, their racial
personality makes them self-centered, or as wright would say,
'subjective' in the way of their thinking(and feeling). for blacks,
truth is whatever FEEEEEEELS right than what can be demonstrated as
correct thru an objective and rational process. traditionally, all
peoples and cultures preferred to stick to 'our' truth to any sense of
objective truth. but, some peoples--especially westerners--came to
believe that such biased truth was not enough; they sought the
objective truth detached from the sense of truth based on 'my' or
'our' interest or moral validation. so, many whites felt that the
american southern narrative that said 'american slavery was justified
because it civilized black savages' was too self-serving and self-
justifying; white man needed to understand slavery from a less
subjective perspective. white people felt that the black side of the
story should also be regarded and understood. but, as it turned out,
black sense of reciprocation and mutual understanding faded as the yrs
passed in the 60s; just when whites were trying hard to see reality
thru more objective lens, blacks insisted on seeing it thru a
thororougly subjective moral/historical lens of black power-ism.
martin luther king had spoken of mutual understanding, but more and
more blacks turned to afrocentrism which opted for a purely subjective
view of society and history. everything black was justified, good,
noble, and great while everything white had to be vilified,
denigrated, or attacked. prior to the 60s, the general black fear of
whites--and the respect for the white man instilled in them thru the
centuries--had kept the full power of black racial personality in
check. in the 30s and 40s, white america would not have tolerated a
muhammad ali--especially with the still bitter memory of jack johnson.
also, many black leaders felt that white fears had to be allayed
BEFORE blacks could really assert themselves. so, blacks opted for the
trojan horse tactic, consciously or subconsciously. blacks in the
50s instinctively knew that if they acted crazy--like how snoop dogg
and 50 cents are acting today--, whites would not have supported the
civil rights movement. so, blacks acted like they had no rage or
hatred in their hearts. they were into non-violence and so on. of
course, there were cracks in the movement early on but until the mid
60s, most blacks maintained the charade. but, with the sudden rise of
suicidal white radicalism, counter culture, and lunacy, more and more
blacks felt emboldened to abandon their inhibitions and assert their
true sense of blackness and black power; the black predator smelled
the blood of the white prey. something similar happened with in the
recent democratic primaries. the majority of blacks initially
supported hillary over obama because they thought whites would not go
for a black candidate. but, once blacks realized that there were
enough pussyass suicidal whites who might go with obama, blacks felt
emboldened and 90% of them went with obama. blacks realized that many
white voters were going against their own white candidates and
interests, and so took the opportunity to boldly wave the banner of
black power. similarly, had the white community been more united in
the 60s, blacks wouldn't have been so emboldened to go from non-
violence to rage politics. but, when blacks realized that great many
white youths were waging an all-out cultural and political war against
their white elders, blacks smelled blood and ditched the 'uncle tom'
schtick.
the problem of today's white liberalism is it encourages blacks where
blacks need the least amount of encouragement. because of their
naturally subjective nature, blacks need to be goaded more toward
objective way of thinking than toward self-centeredness. this is
difficult but necessary and possible--consider shelby steele and
thomas sowell. of course, it's not necessarily true that a black guy
is objective in thought simply because of his political views.
clarence thomas is conservative but very subjective and unreflective
in his feeling and thinking. he thinks himself right, right, right.
for this reason, whether one's more subjective or objective is
essentially a matter of personal/racial personality than ideology or
thought processes. pat buchanan, for instance, was born with an
highly subjective mentality. he was also brought up to espouse a
tribal/racial mindset. still, even he's more capable of objectivity
and reflection than most blacks. though he's pro-white-american, he
will admit to the evils committed by whites. he doesn't go around
saying whites are the best in the world. his emphasis is on whites
having a secure world of their own than whites lording over everyone
else. but, there is a lordly element in the new blackness, and this
has been encouraged by sheepish white liberalism which stupidly thinks
that cowering before blacks is some kind of virtue. (despite all the
hate spewed by wright, some white liberals still claim that he's a
good man. part of this is due to radical contrarianism, a notion that
further ones' political allegiance is from mainstream white
assumptions, the more progressive and advanced it must be. it's as is
to say, 'i'm SOOOO openminded that i see goodness in what most people
regard as evil'. this is the mentality that made so many white
intellectuals revere mao and che at one time. but, there is also the
element of sheepish white kowtowing before the more commanding and
charismatic black figure. and, there is also the judeo-christian
notion of purging one's guilt thru taking abuse. though wright says
nasty and hurtful things about whites, some white liberals might find
this therapeutic as deserved punishment for all the sins committed by
whites. besides, wasn't it noble for jesus and many saints to be
abused and not complain? so, why shouldn't white liberals suffer the
same taunts, especially for all the evils their ancestors have
committed? of course, jesus and saints were not attacked for their
sins but for their purity. so, it's all very confused. a white
liberal who sat thru wright's sermons felt like both a perfect saint
undergoing torment AND as a sinner who's being punished for one's
sins. she felt both pure and profane. a white liberal listening to
wright feels that wright's hatred is merely the product of white
evil. so, in a way, a white liberal feels she's saving the soul of
wright by absorbing all the evil built up inside his soul during the
long history of white evil. it's like the priest in The Exorcist
telling the Devil 'take me, take me' and jumping out the window.)
when whites stood together and firm, blacks knew they had to
compromise and act in terms of mutuality. but once whites began to act
sheepish, sorry, guilty, and pussy, black people's natural racial
personality came to the fore. blacks were amazed and delighted that
white liberals were deeming any crazy expression of blackness as
noble, uplifting, liberating, and etc. and, these white liberals--
among whom jews were prominent--gained control over the media,
academia, entertainment, and cultural criticism(most importantly in
movie and rock criticism, the most influential conduit of
'intellectual' ideas in our mass youth driven culture.) while
liberals insisted that whites had nothing to be proud of and should
cower in shame for all historical crimes, blacks were encouraged to be
loud, proud, crazy, and enraged. blacks loved this because they got
tired of playing the Negro for so long. but, it was not just a matter
of cultural pride but racial arrogance. this is why black pride
movements in the US have been different than pride movments of other
groups and races--though all groups have been inspired by and try to
ape the black model. expressions of negro pride are far more
aggressive, brash, cocky, arrogant, hateful, enraged, and mindless
than those of others. and, if it takes a large number of non-black
minorities to come together in order to gather confidence for pride,
it only takes an handful of blacks in a room to think they are the
greatest things in the world.
this is the main reason why david horowitz broke away from the
movement(the other major reason was the horrors that followed
communist takeover of indochina). horowitz had joined with blacks to
fight against white bigotry and oppression, but soon found out that
the prevailing mentality among blacks was of the diva-esque scthick of
kathleen cleaver and other black bitches. he got tired of black
panthers types walking around without their shirts and flexing their
muscles. he understood that the core of black power movement was
essentially black nazism. as it turned out, black powerism proved to
much less than nazism or communism because of its self-destructive
subjectivism. nazi germans were into german/aryan power but also
unity, cooperation, coordination, and togetherness. there was a
Strong sense of WE that subdued sense of Me. in the black power
movement, the subjectivity of ME had the upperhand over the
subjectivity of WE. for all their talk of black power, black unity,
and black pride, most black radicals and activists cared more of Me
than We. this was due to the subjective nature of black emotions and
mentality. this is why among communist systems around the world,
the asian varieties were more formidable than african varieties.
even under terrible and tyrannical conditions under tyrants like mao,
chinese could still do certain things together because their sense of
WE was more powerful than their sense of ME. after mao died, deng
encouraged the little 'me's within the larger context of WE. under
mao, it was all WE. maoism was everything and there was no concept of
individual me. deng understood that economic growth would have to
focus on all the little me's working on their own plots of land and
running their own businesses. but, the little me's--farmers,
businessmen, and such--should also be mindful of the WE.
among blacks, this has rarely worked. for all their talk of WE, it's
always been ME, ME, ME. there is no functional WE to balance out the
hyper-ME. so, black panthers were all soon dealing in drugs,
indulging in sex, and various forms of criminality for petty personal
pleasure. blacks who gained political office only cared about ME.
like idiots in africa, they stripped and looted everything they can
get their hands on for quick profit than working together with other
blacks to build something solid and lasting.
just look at the black leaders across america. jesse jackson who
pilfered NAACP funds to bribe his secretary impregnated by him. the
mayor of detroit. al sharpton. the lunacy of wright and farrakhan.
cornel west who designates HIMSELF as a prophet. at least when the
governor of NY got caught in the sex scandal, he apologized and
resigned. when blacks get caught, they don't even try to apologize
but pontificate like they're jesus, martin luther king, malcolm x, and
james brown put together. remember marion barry and his drug use?
worse, many of these hustlers and swindlers maintain loyalty in the
black community by playing on their subjective emotions. like blues
singers, they start cracking jokes or acting like they was just having
fun, and 'it's just a black thing which white folks wouldn't
understand, and the white man is just trying to bring me down and
etc'. and, black masses listen to this stuff, cackle, go wink wink,
and think, 'dat nigger done what i woulda done'. easy money or easy
pussy, gots to have it when you can! so, everytime some black leader
or politician gets caught, all he or she has to do is crack jokes,
shuffle, hustle, and act like it's all part of being black. this is
why many africans don't deserve our sympathy. they supported the very
thugs who are now oppressing them. again and again, they support the
kind of people who play up the notions and emotions of the infantile
ME. notice that nelson mandela was handpicked and well-groomed by
whites before he took power, but the future of south africa will fall
into the hands of truly black figures like jacob zuma, and the nation
will go to hell.
anyway, even though wright described blacks as subjective and right-
brained in a complimentary manner, he unwittingly opened the window
that makes us glimpse into and understand black dysfunctionality.
like pampered, spoiled, tantrum throwing children, blacks have an hard
time with any objective or fair idea of reality. it's always ME, ME,
ME and then a little of WE, WE, WE. but, the ME usually defeats the
purpose of WE. indeed, had hitler been a leader of blacks, he
wouldn't have been able to build up a mighty war machine because his
people would have all been looting society for their own benefit.
germans looted property from the jews but worked well among themselves
and respected one another's dignity as germans. but, for all the noise
about black pride and unity, blacks are always insulting, assaulting,
robbing, raping, and murdering one another. this happens in every
city, every town, every neighborhood, every street, every house.
black male respect for the black female is a myth when most black guys
only sweet talk their women into sex and rarely stick around. just
look at all those TV judge shows where punkass black guys took
advantage of black women who were talked into giving loans which were
never intended to be paid back. this is an epidemic in the black
community--the notion that black men should manipulate their women for
easy sex and money and then go look for new pussy; this is also
something many jungle feverish white women find out about black men.
many white women have come to expect short term sex than longterm
relationship with black men because black guys usually don't stick
around long if there's more new pussy to be had. this is not black
guys' fault because they are just naturally more sexual, less
inhibited, and more aggressive. for them, it's natural to get new
pussy all the time while lying and cheating their girlfriends. this is
why black morality only worked well on a primitive tribal level where
everyone could watch one another within a single enclosed community;
it's much harder to violate social laws when you live in a tightknit
social community where everyone knows everyone, and the whole
community will come down hard on your ass if you act like a 'crazy
nigger'. but, in the modern setting, individual is freer than ever.
if whites and asians are naturally restrained--have internal built-in
emotional/behavioral brakes--in a free society, blacks cannot resist
the full opportunity of freedom for easy sex and criminality and
jiveassedness. and, because whites are naturally more inhibited, even
sexually loose whites tend to be more discrete about their affairs
than blacks who act all funky and wild in the open. there is far
more open sexual harassment, sexual expression, lewdness,
shamelessness, and funkery among blacks than among whites or asians.
(it could be argued that the black mentality/emotionality are not
suited for modern freedom and democracy for reasons stated above. they
have little in the way of internal brakes. cats can be allowed to
wander outside because they are naturally cautious and inhibited
whereas a dog has to be kept on a leash because it will chase after
everything, bite people, and go bonkers if allowed to run free.
perhaps, there's a reason why blacks never developed the idea of
democracy and modern freedom; they simply wouldn't have known how to
handle it, or objectively and self-critically think thru it and
perfect it. blacks need to live under strict control of village
tribalism--traditional africa--, police statism--castro's cuba where
blacks don't act up and go crazy as in haiti or brazil--, or white
dominated america--where blacks were put 'in their place'. let blacks
run free and they mess with us and our place. radical democraticists
think all races and cultures can prosper under western style liberal
democracy, but that may be a myth. there may be a link between the
race/culture of a people and the political system most suited to them.
in the case of asians, they possess enough internal brakes to counter
the anarchic implications of freedom and democracy, but their
democracy may never be as robust or healthy as western democracy
because the majority of asians are naturally too sheepish and slavish
to assert their sense of individuality. at any rate, race trumps
culture. many of us may wish that the culture of christianity may
pacifiy or calm the wildness of blacks and make them more reflective,
but the opposite has happened. blacks have junglified christianity
into a wild jiveass song-and-dance routine where james-brown-like
preachers howl and scream and taunt and flaunt while their lunatic
jungle bunny savage mofo flock act crazier than apes in a zoo. in all
seriousness, i find the behavior of many animals to be more
'civilized' than that of blacks--especially at church. some
psychological scholar named Zinn on mclaughlin one-on-one tv show
spoke of spiritual mindfulness in religious practices around the
world, but there is only mindlessness in the black church were
braggartism rules the day.)
if blacks are all about ME, and asians stress the WE, it's possible
that western civilization made the greatest progress by being
somewhere between the ME and WE. it's the ME that is creative but
it's the WE that is stable and supportive. without the supportive or
stable WE, the creativity/individuality of ME cannot go too far. if
einstein had lived in zaire or some african country, how far could he
have gotten as a physicist? he was able to spend many hours thinking
of his theories because he was a part of a social order that made
food, shelter, housing, etc possible for most people.
maybe blacks in the US believe they should take the leading national
role because they are creative/individualistic/subjective/charismatic
while whites--and others--should play a supporting role. in other
words, let the honkeys, hispanics, and asians do all the mundane and
dull rational stuff while blacks provide the vision and the dream.
let the white boy design and manufacture the musical instruments but
step aside for the black man to play the melody. let the white boy
build the dance hall but let the blacks play the music and teach lame
white boys and girls how to dance. let the jews run hollywood with
all its boring finances and such, but let the blacks dominate the
silver screen--like denzel and will smith. let white parents produce
the white girls but leave it to the black men to show them what real
sex is and that 'if go black, there's no going back'. okay, so the
white man invented democracy and the modern economy and shit. but, let
the black man be the spiritual and cultural leader of america. white
boys have no charisma and are a bunch of faggots. and that white bitch
hillary need to shut up and admit that what she REALLY wants is to be
fuc*ed by a black man. indeed, one could see hillary's campaign as the
last stand of a white woman in resisting the sexual power of the black
man. when will hillary realize that she really wants to lose and be
dominated sexually by obama? when will hillary realize that REAL MEN
are like the ones she knows--dweeby white guys. she may have grown
accustomed to seeing the likes of john edwards--and even her husband--
as pushovers but she can't push a black guy around. and so on and
on. it looks like that is the subconscious narrative of american
politics at this moment, though no one will admit it. in a world
where white males have lost respect, dignity, and confidence, hillary,
as a white female is trying to take charge and resisting the reality
that the real usurper of white maledome is black maledom, not
feminism. indeed, when will hillary realize that the rise of black
power and culture has not only dealt a powerful blow to white maledom
but to white-dominated feminist femaledom? most white girls turned
away from feminism because of the powerful sexual appeal of black
popular culture. having grown up on hiphop, more and more white girls
fantasized of being groupies to the NBA than emulating ugly, overly
intellectual, white feminists whose image and ideas were shaped by
ugly, gawky, radical jewish hags. just watch MTV or open up Rolling
Stone. it's black culture galore. it's about the tough black macho
stud and the black skankass ho whose main desire is to be dickslapped
by the big nigga.
and, there is the element of sports. even when white girls see sports
with their white boyfriends, they see that the primary icon of
malehood in the US is now black. whether it's football, basketball, or
even baseball, the top guys are black. if we add tiger woods, blacks
have taken over just about everything. so, even if they have white
boyfriends, white girls really dream of black guys. this is all the
more reinforced by hollywood's main stars now being black. also, as
interracism is more accepted today, whenever a white girl with a white
boyfriend sees a white girl with a black boyfriend, the former feels
that she's with a beta male--flabby, slow, lame, and smaller dicked--
and feels jealous of the white girl with the black male. in the past,
the sight of a white girl with a black guy made her a pariah, or at
best, an oddity with peculiar tastes. but now, it is the white girl
with the black guy who's seen as the woman with the ideal guy.
also, women now talk more openly about all sorts of issues and
matters. in the past, a bunch of white women would have been more
discrete or inhibited in discussing their fantasies or sexual
experiences. but now, they talk about everything. and, so many girls
hear stories from their friends who've had interracial sex with
negroes and gush about how muscular the negro was, how powerful the
orgasm, and etc. so, more and more white women gravitate toward the
negro.
so far, it looks like hillary, having been of a previous generation,
has resisted this mindset. her idea of working with blacks has
essentially been political. culturally, she's been closer to the
leftwing jewish radicalism than african-americanism. she worked as a
lawyer for black radicals in the 60s and 70s but it was out of
political solidarity, not out of her respect for black studliness.
she was too brainy and intellectual-oriented to feel easy with afro-
sensuality. indeed, she spent her yrs as the governor's wife looking
frumpy and cerebral. she wants to feed, clothe, house, and medically
treat negroes. she wants to have the upperhand. she wants to be
scarlett o'hara after the white males have faded or gone away. due to
8 yrs of bush and cheney, white males have lost a lot of legitimacy.
but, like rhett butler, most white male voters have walked away from
her, finding her shrill and ridiculous. hillary thought she could
stand strong like scarlett and do things her own way. who needs the
men? but, then came obama on her plantation, and he wants to be
master of the house and fuc* her real good. but, she just can't
surrender. oh, she's for emancipation and for taking care of
negroes, but have a negro take possession of her and take over her
mansion? as obama carries her up the stairs, she's kicking and
screaming. and where are the white boys? you got the pussified
liberal white boys who cower before blacks and mutter 'we're unworthy,
we're unworthy', and we got conservative whites who aren't much
better, worshipping martin luther king as the greatest man that ever
lived. most conservatives are gimpy dilbertish dorks, brainless gun
nuts, or those who think lower taxes is the solution to everything.
mccain is a class act but looks too old to many folks.
anyway, the only solution for the white race is racial consciousness.
this doesn't have to be bigoted but it's more necessary than ever. in
this sense, david duke is right. it makes no sense for white
americans to insist on an American without hyphens when so much our
politics, culture, and identity has been hyphenated. so, don't reject
multiculturalism but practice it. let there be white pride month,
white cultural centers, white studies, white churches, the national
association for the advancement of white people, white unity, etc,
etc. critics will say everything in our society is about white
people, and there is some truth to this. much of what is taught in
schools are the product of white civilization--history, science,
culture, religion, etc. but, schools approach them from a critical
and even condemnatory angle. notice that multiculturalism
'celebrates' and 'promotes' non-white cultures. so, black studies
don't so much study black history or black culture as endorse it at
the expense of white culture. and, same is true of women's studies
and gay studies. in contrast, much of whiteness or western culture is
only criticized, vilified, and condemned.
so, white studies and related fields would essentially be conservative
white promotion of western history, culture, and civilization. if
universities will not allow such, we can still have it thru other
channels. we can set up institutions and organizations outside the
institutions dominated by liberals and leftists. gradually, a movement
can build that will pressure mainstream institutions to allow white
power/white pride organizations. (christmas is fine, but white folks
should celebrate european pagan holidays that celebrate something
uniquely western. like athena day, thor day, odin day, augustus day,
etc. if jews have hannukah, chinese have chinese new year, and
negroes have kwanzaa, it's about time white folks had holidays that
were only for white folks, white heritage, white pride, white unity,
white power. promote white pride and culture within the tent of
multiculturalism. it makes little sense for whites to insist on
everyone joining the Big Tent when everyone is setting up their
special tents; i say white people should set up their own special tent
of white american culturalness. within this special comprehensive
white tent, there can be smaller tents for irish, germans, russians,
poles, etc, etc. it will unite all white americans. also, whites can
establish organizations that demand white rights and bring our
attention to discrimination and mistreatment of white americans by the
government, black crime, or jewish dominated media--which portray most
villains as blonde and blue-eyed. in all the superhero movies, most
criminals are white though most of our urban thugs are black or
hispanic. why should whites be vilified at every turn?) if
multiculturalist non-whites promote themselves at the expense of
whites, whites should do the same at the expense of non-whites.
whites should say white man invented this, that, etc. white man made
this progress, that progress. white man was the first to invent
science. the first to end slavery. indeed, at every point in white
history, compare white society with those in africa, arabia, asia,
meso-america, etc. whites come off better. be aggressive morally,
politically, socially, and historically. NO ONE respects weakness and
pussyboyness. no amount of liberal white good intentions will earn
any respect for white folks from non-whites. nazis, commies, and
militarist japs only understood, feared, and respected power. white
liberals powerfully stood up to nazis but was weak against commies,
and are downright pussy when it comes to non-white minorities. just as
rotten kids don't respect wimpy parents no matter how nice the latter
try to be, rotten minorities will not respect wimpy do-goody whites.
indeed, black politics and attitudes started to get worse just when
whites became more pussy, wimpy, and 'understanding' in the 60s. one
could argue that american whites had a right to be tough with japs
since japs attacked the US whereas they have no moral right to exert
any authority over blacks. but, this is bull. one could also argue
that japan attacked US in response to aggressive western imperialism
in asia; one could as easily defend jap rage as black rage. in the
end, it's power that counts. no matter how well-intentioned one is, he
won't win respect without power. white liberals in US and europe think
things will improve if they are ever more pussy, sappy, guilt-ridden,
sorry, apologetic, and so on. but, many non-whites have no mutualist
or reciprocal notions; many are infantile, closed-minded, and self-
righteous show of white weakness will not lead to greater
understanding but only greater militancy and more outrageous demands
from non-whites. the MORE europeans try to nicely accomodate muslims
and african immigrants, the more the darkies will make bigger demands.
stupid white liberals think, 'if we go one extra step to be nice and
pussyish, non-whites will finally come around and hug us'. wrongo.
contrary to what jesus said, one should NEVER turn the other
cheek...unless one wants to die as a saint.
also, white pride and power organizations can disseminated far and
wide the important warnings of people like pat buchanan who correctly
sees the death of the west.
so, play by the rules of multiculturalism. promote white culture,
white race, white everything.
and, multiculturalists have no right to complain since they are the
ones who said all american identities must be hyphenated. so, whites
in america should primarily see themselves as WHITE-americans than
merely americans. there's no longer any point in begging non-whites
to be part of america or white-america. just declare a unique proud
sense of white americanism. just as all multicultural identities are
exclusive, so should white american identity be. will this lead to
balkanization? so be it, as it's happening already regardless of what
whites think. but, at least whites--except for pussyish turncoat
liberals--will constitute a powerful and proud united block instead of
acting like a bunch of sappy lamos begging all americans to adopt a
generic identity.
the more whites insist on an all-inclusive-american identity, both
white and american identities will become more generic and bland.
culture defines itself not only thru inclusion and diversity but also
thru exclusion and uniquery. an all-inclusive culture is impossible,
and multiculturalists understand this very well. indeed, there never
was a pure form of americanism but only various forms of americanism;
for the most part, white americanism was the most dominant. the more
inclusive americanism tries to be, the less white and western it must
become.
such watered down shopping mall/consumerist americanism is not
culturally nourishing nor appealing to most americans--which is why
even white kids seek cultural identity thru non-white identities.
whiteness has become the Brady Bunch Blah whereas other cultural
identities retain something strong and flavorful. white americans, in
their wish to make americanism more appealing to non-whites, have
erased or condemned many things in western/american history and
heritage that might offend non-whites. but, when you do this to
culture, it become flavorless. all cultures and histories have
elements of war, conquest, exploitation, slavery, etc. yet, do you
see africans condemn their own culture because of all their historical
sins? do you see japanese put down samurai culture because samurai
were oppressive folks? do you see american indians trash their own
culture because they practiced human sacrifice, slavery, and tribal
warfare? they are not apologetic, and so their culture still retains
their flavor, power, and appeal--even for whites who want some
cultural flavor in their lives. now, it's a good thing that whites and
westerners have been more self-critical, reflective, and reformative;
indeed, such ability made it possible for the West to make progress
and fix its problems and mistakes; but, there's a limit to self-
criticism. there's a point where it become self-loathing and suicidal,
which is really stupid in a world filled with sharks and wolves who
are always on the watch for weakness and sniffing for signs of blood.
if conservatives want white kids to feel greater appreciation,
respect, and pride in western culture, they must promote an identity
that isn't merely generically 'american' but powerfully and less
apologetically white- or western-american.
in a way, multiculturalism is welcome for it has liberated whites from
liberal cosmopolitanism. liberal cosmopolitanism has tried to create
a social identity that was not uniquely white, western, nor american.
initially, this was preached to all races and peoples in america, but
once identity politics arose in the late 60s and morphed into
multiculturalism in the 80s, the liberal cosmopolitanism was dealt a
serious blow. minorities were encouraged to think in terms of cultural
than individual identity. in a way, the left had turned right.
in the early part of the 20th century, there was a struggle between
the idea of civilization(liberal) and kultur(conservative). the
civilization side argued for universalism, cosmopolitanism,
individualism, rationalism, etc whereas the kultur side argued for
particularism, traditonalism, blood and soil-ism, and so on. when
leftist ideology merged with third world National liberation movements
and race-based social movements in the first world(civil rights
movement, etc), the idea of cultural, racial, and national identity
became crucial to the idea of progressivism. so, leftism took on the
mantle of kultur. well, well, just when white folks thought the idea
of kultur was destroyed forever with the fall of nazism, it's been
revived by the left. so, it's about time white folks, via the opening
made possible thru multiculturalism, adopt the kultural ideal again
and promote white identity, white nationalism, white history, white
racial consciousness, white this and that. of course, lefists will
say whites have no right to do such since kulturalism is ONLY reserved
oppressed and marginalized people. well, whites can say 'FUC*
YOU!'. whites can point to all the oppressive, tyrannical, and
barbaric practices of non-whites. it's not like whites invented
slavery, oppression, tyranny, war, genocide, and such thru history.
and who are jews to be preaching to goyim when jewish communists
killed millions? besides, white numbers are dwindling, and there are
many communities in america--and europe--where whites are now the
minority and suffer attacks by non-whites. also, white goyim no
longer have the main power in the US since much of the power and
wealth are held by liberal jews.
why should whites ditch racial/cultural/national consciousness when
others promote it for their own interest? if there are charges of
'racism', it's about time whites grew immune to them and expose the
term as meaningless. indeed, conservatives should not use the term
'racist' ever. the proper word is 'bigoted'. racism is true because
nature and evolution created different races with different
attributes. is it racist to not to want to live with blacks because
(1) blacks are stronger and (2) potentially more dangerous if
criminal? is that 'racist'? so what? racism sounds rational to
me. by the way, all those liberal whites are 'racist' in their actual
behavior as they try not to settle in black areas.
also, if anti-whites keep bringing up images of emmit till and the
holocaust, whites should use the victim-of-black-card. there are so
many innocent white victims of black thugs and bigots who specifically
target white victims. why aren't they being emmit-tillized? why
isn't the site of the crime being commemorated by a statue or
memorial? how come there are no marches organized by whites against
black racial bigotry and violence? there should be annual
pilgrimages to those sanctified sites where savage blacks killed
innocent whites. even 50 yrs after the fact, they are still coming up
with stuff like the play 'the ballad of emmitt till', yet how come
there's no remembrance of the 1000s of whites who are brutalized,
raped, and murdered by blacks every year? (what's really funny is the
fact that Obama got in trouble recently for calling a white female
reporter 'sweetie'. it was deemed an act of sexual harassment, so what
does that say about emmit till? maybe, he wasn't such an innocent
victim after all but a lowlife sexual harasser. today, many black guys
feel brazen to make all sorts of remarks to white women in public.
and, if a white guy today said something smartass to a black woman,
her boyfriend would kick the white boy's ass worse than what emitt
till got.) americans remembered the alamo, and blacks remember
emmit till. but, how come no one remembers the victims of blacks?
the case of emmit till and anne frank shows that quantity is less
important than quality. crime statistics are just numbers. if you
say 1000s of whites were killed by blacks, it has far less impact than
a photo of a single victm, a heart-rending story, the nature of the
horrible crime, etc. in the 80s, some asian-american filmmaker made
a documentary called 'who killed vincent chin?' and thus memorialized
vincent chin as a victim of All of White America. there have been
many white american victims of black crime and illegal alien crime.
we are given statitistics but no human story of a single person.
indeed, pat buchanan would probably be more effective if he did an
investigative piece of journalism and wrote a book on a single white
victim of black crime, illegal alien crime, or some such(muslim crime
in europe) that emitt tillized or anne frankenized the tragedy. that
brings it far closer to home than numbers about how US population will
only be 1% white by 2020.
as for the jews, it's time to use the commie card. if jews keep
using the holocaust card to undermine white goy moral authority, we
must use the commie card to undermine jewish moral authority as jews
played a big role in communism. also, holocaust was a german crime
and must NOT be blamed on all whites or christians. if all whites and
christians are guilty for the holocaust--despite the fact that far
more whites gentiles died in WWII than jews--, then ALL Jews are
guilty of communism. jews have every right to remember the
holocaust, honor its victims, and teach the world the lessons drawn
from it. but, jews have no right to act totally innocent nor to use
the holocaust as a card to silence all their cultural, ideological, or
political enemies. it's outrageous that jews who've been so chummy
with communists or totally silent about the great famine in ukraine,
great leap forward in china, and the killing fields of cambodia should
be preaching to us about how all of us better remember the holocaust
and see jews as the perfect saint martyrs of all time.
Treadleson
> recently, wright said a lot of incendiary stuff about racial
> differences between blacks and whites. he spoke of differences in
> musical sense, ways of learning, personality, and way of thinking.
> liberals were embarassed, obama distanced himself from wright, and
> conservatives were calling wright a 'racist'. now, wright is clearly
> a deranged bigot in the sense of having a kneejerk hatred against
> certain peoples. he's also mightly chauvanistic about his blackness.
....
So....what's your point?
ZerkonX
> charles murray who has long argued that there are innate differences in
> IQ among the races. there have been articles in Commentary, National
> Review, American Conservative, American Spectator, and others that
> weighed in matters of innate racial differences.
Look here.
Human beings haven't the knowledge much less the understanding to know
what IQ means. All tests carry a unintended and/or intended bias of their
designers. It is impossible to totally eradicate this.
IQ's of the urbanized are higher than rural people is another favorite
flag. This opens up a whole new aspect on the race/IQ business.
Given any Human group of two or above there will be differences. They are
seen only because the similarities are so overwhelming.
In the US, Europe and other parts of the world this topic should be
regarded as nothing more than flame-bait. No matter what magazine, TV
show, scientist, or radio squawker tells us. It is an impractical issue
in this day in age.
Robert Cohen
Certainly, imho, the following are truths:
The human being is a product of genes & environment.
A child whom has potential for abstract thinking ability such as in
math & hidden creative talent such as in music composition ought to
be stimulated, encouraged, challenged, and reinforced by environmental
conditioning, experiences and reward.
The seeds of rare plants should be be maximally cultivated, watered,
and fertilized.
Gifted Roman Catholic nuns & brilliant priests--forbidden by
authoritarian doctrinal interpretation to reproduce--has surely been a
disadvantage to human progress.
I've be told by an anthropologist that during the Iron Age that Africa
comprised the most advanced civilizations.
APPARENTLY urban American Jews in the 1930s and 1940s made up a
substantial amount of the NBA (professional basketball players), since
(apparently) Blacks were forbidden to participate, and perhaps since
White Gentiles weren't then as behaviorally reinforced in basketball.
I sense that the differential
"15 percent standard deviations" are products of cultivation:
Oriental, Caucasian, Black differences are (perhaps) the products of
environment.
Jared Diamond's book, "...Gunpowder.....," which I listened to on
audio cassettes a coupla years ago, explains his thesis about
environment and situational opportunity which are not based upon
genetics.
Chica
"animalishness" <animal...@live.com> wrote in message
news:a9314750-9255-430f...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
animalishness
don't be so politically correct. the simple fact is einstein would
score higher on an IQ exam than forrest gump.
Babs
But Forrest Gump had that box of chocolates!
turtoni
> score higher on an IQ exam than forrest gump.
>> babs:
>> But Forrest Gump had that box of chocolates!
And he could run like the wind!
kevirwin
how long did it take you to type all that, and how did you select the
forums to post it in?
I could also ask what kind of reception you expect, but............
K e v
Martin Grossman
loopy... a kind of mirror image of the Wright stuff... there are so many
subgroups within that broad designation, there is no there there... does
it include Hungarians and Appalachian descendants of WASPs from England?
Dutch and Irish folks... all the various ethnic groups have their own
special gifts and celebrations... my friend the late wonderful poet John
Woods had a funny little poem called something like "Having No Ethnics
to Speak Of" that was a satirical look at the subject... this guy has
quite a fixation...
Don Phillipson
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:18:43 -0700, animalishness wrote:
> > charles murray who has long argued that there are innate differences in
> > IQ among the races. there have been articles in Commentary, National
> > Review, American Conservative, American Spectator, and others that
> > weighed in matters of innate racial differences.
On May 24, 6:44 am, ZerkonX <Z...@X.net> wrote:
>> Human beings haven't the knowledge much less the understanding to know
>> what IQ means. All tests carry a unintended and/or intended bias of their
>>designers. It is impossible to totally eradicate this.
>> . . .
>> In the US, Europe and other parts of the world this topic should be
>> regarded as nothing more than flame-bait. No matter what magazine, TV
>> show, scientist, or radio squawker tells us. It is an impractical issue
>> in this day in age.
> don't be so politically correct. the simple fact is einstein would
> score higher on an IQ exam than forrest gump.
But these may be simpler still:
1. Americans tend to think colour matters a lot. At least some
other nationities think it does not matter at all, or ought not to.
2. Many Americans think IQ matters somewhat: at least some
people point out that, whatever may be believed about these
abstractions, democracy runs on "one man, one vote." I.e.
Einstein's vote counts the same as Forrest Gump's (and
Mrs. Gump's too, whether she is black or white.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Don Phillipson
news:932c09ae-774c-4833...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> A child who has potential for abstract thinking ability such as in
> math & hidden creative talent such as in music composition ought to
> be stimulated, encouraged, challenged, and reinforced by environmental
> conditioning, experiences and reward.
>
> The seeds of rare plants should be be maximally cultivated, watered,
> and fertilized.
This would be useful only if we could foresee in the seed what sort
of plant it will produce. Experienced school teachers know
no objective test can (yet) do this: it takes months of daily contact
with each individual child.
So the practical implication is that all children should be "stimulated,
encouraged, challenged, and reinforced," at least until their personal
strengths manifest themselves in real ability.
TBerk
wrote:
> yeah, what a rant... i couldn't read it all..
>
> this guy has quite a fixation...
>
I could be wrong but I think this guy is Gaza on a particularaily long
tear.
He has been haunting the NG for quite some time now. When he is On
Topic I tend to try and play nice with him but that has also been a
long time now.
If you start out to prove something, not find the truth but just to
support what you _know_ the truth to be, you can find all kinds of
supporting evidence.
TBerk