"The liberals fucked black America up more than did the KKK or Jim Crow combined."
Byrdeye said...
• 1890: <20% single Black moms 1960s:• 23% single Black moms (3.1% for Whites)
• 2000+: 70% single Black moms
Notice the HUGE leap in single Black mamas right after the Jewish Power Movement of the 60s.
Remember, the NAACP was presided by Jews until 1977. And MLK Jr's main advisor/handler/speechwriter was...a Commy Jew - Stanley Levinson.
Fact is, Jews exploited "Black Rights" in the 60s as a proxy to stealthily fight their own way into the political and academic seats of power in this country. And once they were done with that, they dropped Blacks to rot in the ghetto like a bad habit - and hooked up with elite Anglos instead to form our beloved Zionist neocons today.
And any field negro who dares call this shit out gets burned at the stake as a public example. See MC Farrakhan and MC Wright
Michael Fisher said...
I see the "unafraid" white boy apparently ain't got an "obvious" answer. And it's not that he done disappeared since he just commented on the Assault.
Dang. I wish they would send some intelligent white people our way sometimes.
38 comments:
Aehhmmm. And white folks who classify themselves as what run and distribute your beloved Gangsta rappers?
Aside from that.
DV, looks like all you can think off is Jews,Jews, Jews, Zionism, Jews.
The Jews you are thinking off are just another faction of white folks. That white boy here is into social Darwinism which bullshit ain't exactly pro-black either.
Best we not get involved in the white folks' infighting, keep them all "Jew" and "Gentile" and whatever, out of our institutions, and let them fuck each other up. You know?
Well Mike, like most Negros (and plebeian whites for that matter) of your generation, you are incapable of discerning criticism of NeoCons, Zionist extremists, the state of Israel or the Israel lobby from criticism of the Jewish faith.
Judaism is an ancient, beautiful and deeply spiritual religion.
Unfortunately many thugs, manipulators, social engineers, criminals and warmongers characterize themselves as "Jews" which is as ridiculous as members of the mafia characterizing themselves as "Catholics".
In your eagerness to distill all conflict to overly simplistic matters of Black v. White, you dismiss much that you don't understand.
But you are a smart cat, and I'd value talking to you about it.
Please peep this piece on Israel Shamir, an Israeli writer, more or less banned in America. I think he offers an interesting perspective.
This discourse could benefit by some input beyond the simple (who is white, who aint white, who is black, who aint black distraction)
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/06jun/troubledjudaism.html
I challenge you to read it actually. Nah. I dare you.
I understand you have invested much in the "Global System of White Supremacy" theory, however, based upon recent events - I think you would even admit - the world is a bit deeper than Black v White.
-
DV, I've been reading Israel Shamir for years now.
I bet I likely know a bit more about Zionism and Jewish history than you think. I've written about it too. Take this piece, for example, which I wrote in response to Neo-Con Chief Norma Podhoretz' famous racist essay "My Negro Problem and Ours", or the piece
I posted by Dr. Clarke or even this post which was partially inspired by a post that you did.
Besides, as far as the role of white folks who classify themselves as Jews in the Marxist and Communist movement as well as Zionist movements is concerned, I'm pretty sure I know quite a bit more than the average guy. In fact, you might want to check out the history of the leaders of the Zionist movement and their response to Himmler et al.
Naw, you ain't got me beat on that one.
The fact still is, though, that these folks classify themselves as white. And who am I to argue with them?
So you got two or three or whatever factions of folks who say they are white and argue with each other about who is really white and who is not. I ain't taking sides in that argument.
At the end of the day, as far as black folks are concerned, they all are family. And you know that outsiders should never get involved in a family feud. Family tends to turn on non-family members. Ya know?
Ha, thanks for the post, DM - your blog KIX-ASS, if I must say so myself!
MF - You're right, "social Darwinism" isn't pro-Black, or pro-any race.
It plays no favorites, just allows self-determination in real-time. And if you feel too threatened by fair competition, then deep down you have an inferiority complex.
Look, competition and adaptation are keys to survival in our ever-changing environment. And Darwinism is Nature's mechanism for allowing that. Which we see at every level, btw.
For example, YOU were the result of a massive race between millions of sperm! And created by the WINNER! So, aren't you glad you got the winning genes, and not the losing ones?
Is Nature cruel? Maybe (in the short run, at least). But effective? YES.
The opposite of which would be Communism - where equal results are forced regardless of merit or effort. Where when everyone wins, everyone loses. And this, remember, was a Cainist idea and worldwide disaster... Remember, they always seek to reverse Nature. And push their meme WMDs on others, but not THEMSELVES in Israel. Lolz, funny that, eh?
Neither Social Darwinism nor biological Darwinism reflect social or biological reality. There are plenty of organisms (actually most of them) that survive and thrive via cooperation between the stronger and the weaker.
I suggest you keep that fascist bullshit on stormfront or VNN.
Lol, Darwinism/survival of the fittest/natural selection is not a biological reality? Hahahaaaa...is this really even debatable?
And now you play the race card in a scientific discussion. Are you sure you're not Jewish? Lolz...
Oh wait, "Fisher," hmmm...
Anyhow, life is all about survival. Why is that? Because any "deathwish" genes or memes are self-destructive and so don't survive to carry on.
As far as instances of the strong helping weak - that's usually game theory to ultimately propagate the survival of the species over the individual. Which still...boils down to survival.
byrdeye, there's a difference between the term "fittest" and "strongest". There's nothing that indicates that the "fittest" have to be the "strongest". Besides, there's always the question of "strongest", "weakest", or "fittest" in what context?
As to my being a Jewish person. If the name "Fisher" is the one thing that defines a person as being a Jew, then I certainly must be a Jew.
However, I have no idea what a Jew is. I've been asking the following questions of Jews and have received no answer. Perhaps you can tell me this:
What is it that a Jew does that no one else does?
And, since you are a white person, tell me as well, what is it that a white person does that no one else does?
there's a difference between the term "fittest" and "strongest". There's nothing that indicates that the "fittest" have to be the "strongest". Besides, there's always the question of "strongest", "weakest", or "fittest" in what context?
I agree. Hence, Darwinism uses "fittest" instead of "strongest." And it is entirely context-based, which is constantly-changing. That's why I said Darwinism plays no favorites. The "favorite" is self-determined moment-by-moment like a horse race that never ends.
I'll have to write a post later deconstructing Jewish behavior. But one common mental dysfunction can be neurotic, over-analytical thinking and anti-Occam's Razor - which you do seem to exhibit here. We also saw this with Marx, Freud, leading liberals, feminists and even Einstein - who as brilliant as he was, could not make the Zen leap to Bohr's quantum mechanics.
But if you are a staunch racial denialist, then I guess you should tell Jews, Blacks, Asians, Latinos and Whites that aside from culture, they all don't exist as such. Tell medical staffs and genome researchers that there are no genetic markers in such statistical groups. Protest against race-based affirmative action, if race doesn't exist. Tell a 5-yo who asks why he looks different that it's simply due to artificial social constructs, not genetics. And tell me why ~90%+ of NBA ballers, heavyweight boxers and Olympic sprinters are all Black? If race is just a "social construct?"
I don't know what all you believe, but just be consistent with it.
Well byrdeye, since you appear to know something that I do not, why don't you tell me what a black person looks like?
What are the "racial markers" that are common to all persons who you categorize as black that indeed, define them as black?
Yo relax ya weave, bro.
To answer your question - there are obviously some statistical phenotypical and a few genotypical markers that help to ID Blacks. And I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out some of these.
To address your underlying racial paranoia:
Again, you have allowed Jews to reframe genetics and race from a fearful, pseudo-neo-NAZI frame.
Instead of a scientific, human genome project frame.
You are clearly Fishing for something to disprove me with to yourself. That is fine, but I think it's the wrong approach on your end.
Our best scientists are blowing billions on genome research. Does that also make them neo-NAZIish?
Again, this goes back to the dumbing down of America and reframing anything truly relevant with fear or ridicule.
But one day, genetic therapy will become as common as plastic surgery - like it or not. It's already happened with our food and with human stem cell research. And once people believe they can CHANGE their genetics, then they will no longer try to DENY them. Funny thing, the human ego...
the byrdseye view is only about 20 years out of date - but it's always interesting to read the fans of racial pseudo-science profess things they don't adequately understand in support of their cherished superstitions.
it takes all kinds too. from the garvey-ite supremacists to the spineless accomodationists to the hard headed racial "realists" - all around the world - same flavor of ignorance...,
Lol, says who? Ivory-tower Jews who preach color-blindness but barricade themselves behind gated community walls and 25' tall concrete walls in the West Bank?
Go ask liberal Jewish pundit Al Franken where he sent his own son to school? Surely a diverse public school - and not an exclusive private Jewish school, right?
LOLZ
byrdeye...
"there are obviously some statistical phenotypical and a few genotypical markers that help to ID Blacks."
Well, if they are so obvious, why don't you name them?
"And I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out some of these.
Well, clearly you claim you have figured them out. I haven't.
Thus again, what are the objective biological markers that are common to all persons whom you categorize as black, that indeed allow you to define them as black?
byrdeye said...
"Lol, says who? Ivory-tower Jews who preach color-blindness but barricade themselves behind gated community walls and 25' tall concrete walls in the West Bank?"
Niiiiice ....
DV...
"Niiiiice ...."
DV, what is it with you and the rim jobs you like to do on any white guy who comes in here and talks some shit?
Analyze what the guy is saying.
Not that I care, but it's no wonder plenty of white folks think that we are a joke.
"Thus again, what are the objective biological markers that are common to all persons whom you categorize as black, that indeed allow you to define them as black?" Fisher
Translation: Who is white? Who is black? Who gets to choose?
Help me out Mike. What is the answer to the questions you pose?
"Not that I care, but it's no wonder plenty of white folks think that we are a joke." Fisher
"we"?
Uh ... bra. Again. Speak for yourself.
If you've been thought a joke. That's on you. Don't deflect your personal issues with broad categorical generalizations attributed to "black" people or "we".
As far as "rim jobs".
Your Freudian inner homo is popping up like Jack N The Box.
"Lol, says who? Ivory-tower Jews who preach color-blindness but barricade themselves behind gated community walls and 25' tall concrete walls in the West Bank?"
... is one hell of an observation. Regardless of the genotype of the person who wrote it.
If Byrdeye said it = niiiiice.
If Rabbi Foxman said it = niiiiice.
If Mike Fisher said it = niiiiice.
Black people are the most amazing human beings on the planet.
We don't need little punk ass "Affirmative Action Moments" to win debates.
DV...
"Help me out Mike. What is the answer to the questions you pose?"
DV, let your unafraid white guy answer the question since he knows these "obvious facts". Stop coming to the rescue of white folks all the time.
And what does cleaning white people's car wheel rims have to do with homosexuality? How did you get to that? Why do you associate an innocuous word with homosexuality? What's up with that?
I see the "unafraid" white boy apparently ain't got an "obvious" answer. And it's not that he done disappeared since he just commented on the Assault.
Dang. I wish they would send some intelligent white people our way sometimes.
denmark vesey said...
"Thus again, what are the objective biological markers that are common to all persons whom you categorize as black, that indeed allow you to define them as black?" Fisher
Translation: Who is white? Who is black? Who gets to choose?
Help me out Mike. What is the answer to the questions you pose?
Clash of epic titans!
"Your Freudian inner homo is popping up like Jack N The Box."
LMFAO. Sheer. Genius. Thanks, I needed that.
MF - You really want to know, huh? Because right now you are stuck in a classical liberal contradiction - of simultaneously denying race while embracing racial identity politics.
Sorry bub. You can't have both. You must get a pounding headache whenever you try to state your superposition.
Anyhow, I don't have all the ultimate answers on human genetics. And neither do most other people, currently. Hence, it is an ongoing research project in progress. See the global hapmapping.
However, race as we know it for all intents and purposes are simply identifiable statistical conglomerates of genes.
There are probably no absolutes here.
But, there are obviously certain genes that occur with higher frequencies along with others in certain groups.
Purebred Blacks do tend to have black, kinky hair and dark skin, for starters. Now those are just 2 small phenotypical trademarks - yet are already enough for me to visually tell if someone's Black with a very high degree of accuracy. Because such tightknit kinks are quite rare to find in any other race alone. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a non-Black person with really kinky hair. So, that in combination with skintone, etc - quickly identifies "Blacks" by process of elimination.
Of course, if you want to talk about mixed Blacks lacking such features who still ID as Black - then that's a separate sociopolitical, not scientific, discussion...
"I see the "unafraid" white boy apparently ain't got an "obvious" answer."
BTW - I didn't bother answering cuz I was busy and the answer is so blindingly obvious. Seriously, I have no problem whatsoever distinguishing between Blacks, Whites and Asians out in the real world 99+% of the time. Do you?
Yes, there are some blur zones - but a lot of that is due to racial mixing. But it's not hard to tell the difference between a purebred Swede, Korean and Nigerian, for example. Unless you're blind.
byrdeye...
"black, kinky hair and dark skin, for starters."
Hmmm....
Aside from the fact that the lack of "kinky" hair would then disqualify plenty of people from being "black", exactly how kinky (give me some concrete measurements, please) does this "kinky" hair have to be in order to qualify as "kinky enough to indicate black"?
Also, how "black" on a chromatic scale, does a skin have to be in order to qualify the person possessing the skin as "black"?.
Why did you select these particular markers to indicate a "race"?
Why not the "obvious" marker of height, for example? That is, all people whi are 5'7" tall make up a race of 5'7"?
Personally, I think that height is a much better "obvious" indicator of race. Don't you?
In fact, "pure-bred" 5'7" people who are mate with 6'4" people usually produce non-pure members of the 5'7" race o people who are of a height of 5'8 1/2" inches or so.
All in all, birdeye, you have not given an answer. "Tend" doesn't indicate anything. Nor does "kinky" without defining that word, nor "black" without defining that word.
Like I said, I wish they'd finally send some intelligent white boys our way.
Mike, if I may, why do you operate under the assumption ... that white people are the exclusive arbiters of these racial denominations?
Why do you grant them such exclusive power?
I mean, think about it. Look at your blog. Look at mine. Look at any basketball court or go in any barbershop. Brothas are always talking about race, Nigga this, white boy that, Sista this, Pinktoe that.
Now, back to your basketball game. If the white T shirts were given only to men who couldn't dunk, and the cats who were shirtless were crossing over, going baseline, and clapping boards - wouldn't that indicate that the distinction between white shirts and other was more than sartorial?
Yeah, that's why I said that the basketball analogy is imperfect. But let's look at it like that: The guy who's got the ball selects folks and has the power to make the non-white-jersey-wearing-guys think that they can't play ball. So they don't really try.
"Mike, if I may, why do you operate under the assumption ... that white people are the exclusive arbiters of these racial denominations?
Why do you grant them such exclusive power?"
Actually I don't. "Black" people do because enough of us insist on staying confused and refuse to ask questions.
Look around you. Not the just the piece of territory called the "United States", but look around the globe. Everywhere people who are classified as "white" on the average have a much better standard of living than, on the average, people classified as "non-white" and especially those people classified as "black".
Now the question is, "Why Is that?"
There are two possible explanations for that. (1) On a global basis "non-white" people, especially those classified as "black", individually as persons on the average are inherently (biologically)too stupid to get their shit together, or (2) on a global basis there exists a social framework that keeps "non-whites" and "blacks" on the average at a lower standard of living.
Now we've just established that there is no such thing as a "biological race" as counterintuitive as such a denial of biological race may seem. (but that's part of our training).
Thus possibility (1) falls by the wayside. That leaves only possibility (2).
Now a social framework is not made of concrete, wood, or such things, but it is a set of social relationships. And when there exists on the average inequality of living standards in a global society as ours has been for millenia now (but especially in the last 200 years), then that, logically, indicates on the average an existence of the inequality of opportunity (of access).
However, an, on the average, inequality of opportunity/access logically can only be maintained via the denial of such opportunity/access, on the average, to certain people in favor of other people. And that can only be maintained, on the average, via the rule by one set of folks over another.
Now rule is based on power. And power is based on two things: Kick ass (violence) and, since kicking ass is, in the long run, inefficient, keep your victims confused about what the fuck is happening. Con the mofos.
Should any wake up, apply violence openly and judiciously to encourage everybody else to go back to sleep.
But what happens if everybody wakes up? Plus, no one fears violence and death anymore?
In that case the system has to be refined so folks go back to sleep.
See that's what happened in South Africa in 1976. You had school children who en masse showed that they were not afraid to die or at least were prepared to die despite any fear thereof. It is only a small step from having no fear of dying to having no fear of killing.
So the folks that ran the system scrambled to recalibrate that shit and put up a Nelson Mandela as the new black Messiah.
But as Rev. Wright will tell you shit ain't changed fundamentally over there. In fact, for many folks it has gotten worse.
White Supremacy in a refined and new face.
Same over here. Only here we live in Massa's house (called the U.S. of A), and as a result of where we live geographically, we live on the average better than non-whites and particularly "blacks" out in the global plantation.
That don't mean that the system doesn't exist. it just means that the con job continues until we ask questions.
Now, most "black" folk don't ask questions, cause we like to show off how much we know. That's a fact.
I think there should be a rule instituted that someone suggested: For every question that a "white person" asks us we should have that white person answer 15 questions.
Con men don't like questions, ya know?
MF - Just look at the ridiculous lengths you must go to now to deny the obvious.
I don't need a "kinkmeter" to determine that this random guy is Black.
By denying race (at least with lip service, if not by actions), you are really denying yourself and the wondrous diversity of Nature.
Another liberal contradiction btw - yea, let's all celebrate diversity...while not admitting that any of us are actually diversely different.
Listen MF, quit trying to weasel out of your own trap now by dropping flares. You know damn well that you use the same heuristic to visually ID "Blackness" as I do. So, please drop the us vs. them card. How else can you be so engaged in Black identity politics...if Black doesn't exist in your mind?
Only White Jews think they can erase all racial problems by erasing race. Well, it may erase them for THEM, but not everyone else...
You are a walking contradiction and only the truth can set you free. But all you have to do now is say what you already actually think.
MF - I notice that you started your comments here talking about Blacks.
Now, you've subtly switched to "Blacks."
Although other races are still referred to without quotes.
Are you trying to reconcile your liberal dilemna with a semantic bandage here? Or just creating more artificial, flip-flopping distinctions? Race exists, no it doesn't, race exists, no it doesn't, etc?
Seriously, your last payload here was ALL ABOUT racial geopolitics. But, if race doesn't exist...what the hell are you referring to then?
LMAO. Why do dogs chase their own tails? Because it's fun, or because they really don't realize that they can't ever get it?
byrdeye...
"I don't need a "kinkmeter" to determine that this random guy is Black.
Well, looking of at the gentlemen's skin color I wouldn't say that his color is black.
Now if you say that this is the biological standard of "kinky" as displayed by that individual, what "race" would be a person who has the same skin color, but curly hair?
Also, the man is clearly a member of the "small ears" race. The small ears s race is very numerous and spread throughout all of the planet's geographic regions.
"By denying race (at least with lip service, if not by actions), you are really denying yourself and the wondrous diversity of Nature."
Not at all, in this case, I'm not denying race, I'm saying the small ears race certainly exists and that humankind is divided into small-ears-having people and non-small-ears-having people. Great diversity that is. If you don't think so, prove it.
"Are you trying to reconcile your liberal dilemna with a semantic bandage here? Or just creating more artificial, flip-flopping distinctions? Race exists, no it doesn't, race exists, no it doesn't, etc?"
Logically speaking, there exists only one "race", and that is the "white race".
And that is a socio-political reality. Quotation marks or non-quotation marks.
"Only White Jews..."
Oh, ok. So there are white people who are Jews?
Now if you say that this is the biological standard of "kinky" as displayed by that individual, what "race" would be a person who has the same skin color, but curly hair?
Well, that would require knowledge of his origin to know for sure. DNA testing and his family background could aid in that. Because ultimately, it comes down to where you fall on the "human" genetic family tree. We just use race as a convenient way to describe the main branches.
But whether by admixture, genetic drift or other possible factors - the existence of blur zones does not negate the overall usage of race as such statistical clumping. The categorization is still useful because there are vastly more inclusions than exceptions.
I mean, is a cat with 2 tails still a cat? And does that negate the general definition of a cat? Do hermaphrodites negate the definitions of male and female?
It's funny, but I feel our culture is following the 5-step grieving process about race and most are still stuck on DENIAL & ANGER. And you in particular are stuck halfway between denial and anger...
So there are white people who are Jews?
Jews were supposedly originally much darker and Semitic-looking. But over the years, they've become Whiter, likely due to continual admixture. Certainly, most of the elite policy-dictating Jews in America now would rarely be confused with any native Arabs.
bydeye, again you are not being logical. I think we're done. Thank you for the conversation.
^ Ooops, looks like you just ran out of pages in your government-issued pamphlet on race-denial.
Now you know why many Jews get so neurotic. Intellectual dishonesty creates auto-cognitive dissonance. In plainspeak - you're frying your brain with all your contradictory lies and denial about race.
You need to allow your natural wisdom to flow through again. Take care.
PS:
Logically speaking, there exists only one "race", and that is the "white race".
WTF? Well, if this is your definition of "logical," then no, my arguments are DEFINITELY not "logical" to you.
MF says:
white folks who classify themselves as what run and distribute your beloved Gangsta rappers?
Aside from that.
DV, looks like all you can think off is Jews,Jews, Jews, Zionism, Jews.
The Jews you are thinking off are just another faction of white folks.
Yet several comments later MF plays dumb again:
So there are white people who are Jews?
Do you only want others to say the things you already think but are afraid to fully admit? You know only the weak choose the path of deceit in life, right? Because the strong have no need to lie.
"So there are white people who are Jews?"
Oh, well, I guess I gotta comment on that one.
You never heard of a rhetorical question, oh so fearlessly behind an anonymous avatar hiding genius that you are?
You can do better.
Or maybe not.
^ Lol, and you can do better than rhetoric...
Or apparently not.
Good luck on figuring out what a "Black" person looks like. I wish you the best.
Post a Comment