I'm here, I read. Everyday. All yall, you too Ex, like to hear yourselves talk.Yall the most pontificatin niggaz I've encountered in a long time. Yall are too busy trying to insult one another to see the validity that represents a portion of what you are saying. You asked for a consensus from the jury (so to speak). Here it is.
1. Mike, make a point and stop asking so many god damn questions. I've been waiting for a year now. Come wit it. I repeat, Socrates should have been shot.
2. Ex, I agree that recognizing a long standing power structure is not the same as living as a victim to that power structure. However, can you not see where, in general, Black folk would be well served by discarding anything that can be used as a justification for a failure to achieve. What I mean is, what's the harm in proclaiming, loudly, as DV does, "to hell with white folks and their so-called power, we can do anything we want to."
3. Birdeye, you are new here and I havent completely read all your stuff but I did see your retort to me last week that my question regarding your race is evidence of "my focusing on the wrong thing." Not really, but I didn't have time to debate it with you. While I certainly don't think of me and mine as less-than because of it, if you think your race or anyone's race is of no consequence your nuts. I do not support wearing one's race on their sleeve, but I'm all for carrying a lil bit in one's coat pocket. If yall understand what I'm getting at, cool, if not, too bad, I have a job.
4. DV, I appreciate 100% what Denmark Vesey stands for in the theoretical sense. There are, however, practical circumstances where the powers that be may flex their muscle to the detriment of Black folk. This cannot be denied. In this respect Mike and Ex are correct. However, as stated, aint a damn thing wrong with tootin our own collective horns and constant self proclamation. The practice has served me rather well.
5. Cnu, I dont know what I want to say to you yet.
"For the record and DV can confirm this, the very first time I saw DV claim the title Blackest man in America I issued a challenge on the spot and asked for a recount." Exodus
Denmark Vesey said ...
That's absolutely correct. I remember that. That's when I knew I liked this cat. He felt where I was going with that.Fisher ... never has understood it.
And I must admit, I was a little disappointed that I allowed this conversation, particularly with Brother Ex, to deteriorate to the point that it did.
I blame myself for the majority of that deterioration. The brother has always been sincere and conscientious with his contributions. Pressed for time, and spread a bit thin (Playing Afro-Saxon Socrates) I did not always give his input, the response that it deserved.
Robyn, thank you for throwing the necessary yin into our yang. It was getting a little too dicky in here anyway.
1. Ex, never mistake my attacks upon "The Global System of White Supremacy", as an attack upon you. You one of the baddest cats I've encountered. Big ups.
However, expect me to continue to viciously attack the traps of all Group Identity politics. I invite you to express yourself however you see fit.
2. For the record. Fisher is an incredible dude. Fascinating cat. Wouldn't want to spend the weekend with him, but he aint no ordinary Negro off the street. Yeah, yeah he got some issues which have intertwined in his politics. But Fisher aint scared. I'd go to war with him.
3. CNu .... shit. Most dynamic intellect on the internet. History is going to know this cats name. His posts should cost money to read.
4. Byrdeye. My new favorite white boy. He is on some shit, ya'll don't see yet. He's got the ZioNut mindfuck by the balls. If it were up to me, his class would be mandatory at all black schools in America.
5. Skip. A religious fanatic with a bad case of turrets. But I like him. My personal project. If I can save his soul, start calling me John The Baptist.
6. Robyn .... ahhhhhh Booooga Boo. The heart n soul of DVblogspot.com Going to make somebody a bad wife.
7. Submariner ... more impressed with this cat than I am with myself. Only Renaissance Man on the internet.
8. Intellectual Insurgent ... if I wasn't already married. First woman I've met completely unencumbered by the feManist mantra. Should be required reading for all young women in the public school system.
94 comments:
Nice last post Ex.
I'll make sure I'm a little quicker on the draw next time.
Robyn kicks ass. And takes prisoners.
DV, your shout outs sound like a really good toast at a wedding. One of these days, maybe everyone will actually sit face-to-face in a room.
I'm calling the seat next to Fisher!! :-) Because I'm so damn charming, he's going to love me in person (even more than he already loves me online) even if I am an Egyptian, Arab, 5'2", lawyer-turned-housewife, Sagittarius, who used to date a Creole, spunky "ex-White" woman. LOL!!
La di da la la.
Everybody happy now?
Fuck that. Let's take this shit on another level.
Ya'll geniuses go and figure out a counter to these arguments. Logically.
To wit:
"Originally Posted by [white nationalist] MiamiGirl
'Whites are superior in every sense'
That's completely spurious and counter-productive: While Whites have undoubtedly produced a great body of knowledge and achieved tremendous prowess in many fields, we are not 'superior' in every sense. Remember that each race developed under unique circumstances, thus the races developed different relative strenghths (sic) and weaknesses.
'Other races are sub-human'
Nonsense. This is a corollary to my previous statement: You wouldn't call a brown bear a "sub-bear" and polar bears the "master bears", despite their obvious phenotypic differences. Each is suited to its particular environment --problems only arise when they are no longer in their ideal environment.
We must remember what we are fighting for --cultural presrvation (sic) and sovereignty.We must not confound this with irrational hatred of those who differ from us."
Here's a German National Socialist's answer:
"Well, that would be relevant had one bear made an accomplishment over the other. However, with humans this rationale is not applicable, or acceptable. The belief of White superiority should not be up for discussion because it is fact. The White race has made an unparalleled amount of development from ancient times to modern times. We have invented present and early systems of thought, technology, science, society, government, and so on. Without the White race the world, meaning Asia in particular, would have stayed completely stagnant in all of these fields.
Although Asians would have presented minor advancements, you and I both know that without White generosity, their current state of development would be about two thousand years behind and without any significant progression. Why is this? Well, this is due to the fact that Asians do not possess a broad scope of cognitive/mental ability in comparison to that of Whites. As a result, before White intervention, they did not advance through technology, science, etc because of that inability. Haven’t you ever wondered why Japan is the most technologically advanced nation in Asia? Well, it’s because of America. All of the other Asian nations are far behind, and in correlation to this, those nations have not been exposed to Western culture as vividly.
As for the Africans, well, I didn’t include them in my previous statement because it’s fairly obvious that Africans are inferior to Whites in every sense of the meaning. They have invented nothing in their history and consequently have failed to progress past the Age of Stone – about six thousand or more years behind that of us White men. Therefore, the only contender to Whites for racial superiority is Asians, but it has been made clear that they are not as broadly evolved in all fields of survival and intelligence. As a result, Whites are superior.
So, whether you believe the races are equal or that they have different advantages and disadvantages, I encourage a discussion with you, and please, do present a worthwhile rebuttal."
Y'all's challenge:
Deconstruct both arguments with 200 words or less. And no: "But, but, but, we built the Pyramids", bullshit.
1. A random white boy or white girl does not represent the feelings and opinions of all white people.
2. A random black man damn sure does not represent the feelings and opinions of all black people.
3. Is it truly "evidence of advancement" when a society creates technology that poisons the earth, the sea, the air and eventually kills said society?
4. Is not the need to argue group superiority evidence of individual inferiority?
5. Is not the argument of group subservience, evidence of thinly veiled individual subservience?
There's no such thing as "white people". If so, point to them.
There's no such thing as "black people".
Both concepts are abstractions, memes, notions, ideas.
There are people who happen to be white.
There are people who happen to be black. I happen to be the blackest amongst them.
DV...
"1. A random white boy..."
Interesting response on the whole.
Now how about you, birdeye? Take a crack at it.
Mike is incorrigible, like that crazy old uncle you love but can't take nowhere. And I can't do too much of anything substantive in 200 words or less. So stop counting and bear with me.
The concepts of "white" and "Black" were developed in response to the visually verifiable phenomena that darker skinned phenotypes tended to be genetically dominant to lighter skinned phenotypes. At some point in human history, this mostly superficial difference was elevated to the level of prime directive in the mind of the group that was phenotypically different and at a distinct numerical disadvantage when compared to the vast majority of the world's population. It may have developed in conjunction with other power dynamics in religion and culture. This is significant because, while it's not the only driving force in human history, it has had the greatest effect. There have been and still are many other power dynamics at play, sexism, nationalism, religion, resources, economics, etc. But a close examination of the course of human history has convinced me that the ongoing dynamic between people who classify themselves as white and non-whites remains the core issue.
The concept of race was developed by people who believed the world was flat. Just as we have abandoned the one fallacy we should be abandoning the other. The science has been there for decades. But we steadfastly refuse to release the concept of race. Why is that; what drives that; is the real question that must be answered.
The only thing reasonable in the first perspective is that people in different places did develop differently. After that it's just a soft shoe supremacy screed. It may have been about cultural preservation and sovereignty back when we were still in the stone and iron age. But anyone who thinks this way now is behind the times and has failed to recognize that the man on the other side of the globe is in many respects, just as close as the man on the other side of town. Pride in one's history and people is distinctly different from a desire for sovereignty.
The other argument is specious in that they are patently false in many respects, and they fail to control for the fact that different people developed differently. The supposed intellectual and social "advancements" that Europeans made in response to their early environments is radically different from the intellectual and social development of a people living in the fertile Nile Valley. Comparison at this point is useless because there are too many differences to make any reasonable analogy. This fact means any attempts to rationalize any inherent superiority based on skin color as the prime genetic factor must be false. The only purpose of such attempts is the advancement of a supremacist oppression agenda.
I'm seriously considering renaming the Global System of White Supremacy Theory to the Global System of White Survival Theory, so as to assuage the negative implications that the word supremacy appears to convey. Not sure if that will address the Group Identity politics issue, but maybe it will better express the true value of the theory.
I would think that all politics by definition and practice would qualify as group identity politics. For the record, I see understanding and addressing the system for white survival as a means to remove the need for Group Identity politics. We just haven't gotten that far in this discussion yet. Mike Fisher started a conversation in this vein last week but I'm not sure where it went.
Dwight...
"The concepts of "white" and "Black" were developed in response to the visually verifiable phenomena that darker skinned phenotypes tended to be genetically dominant to lighter skinned phenotypes."
That quite a bold assertion. Can you back that up?
Also, if "dark" is genetically dominant, how do you account for the fact that if you mate a "dark-skinned" phenotype with a "light-skinned" phenotype you usually come out with a phenotype offspring who is lighter than the dark parent?
Still awaiting birdeye's deconstruction, by the way.
There have been and still are many other power dynamics at play, sexism, nationalism, religion, resources, economics, etc. But a close examination of the course of human history has convinced me that the ongoing dynamic between people who classify themselves as white and non-whites remains the core issue.
Ex, when you peer behind the veneer, don't you typically find that white-black, sexism, and other dynamics relate to resources and economics?
I am curious to hear how you separate sexism, nationalism or religionism from racism in terms of analysis of power dynamics. It seems, from history, that all are tools used by the elite to inspire the masses to fight resource battles for them. That is the story of every war.
Also, divide and conquer is a useful tool for rulers so, they look into their toolbox and pull out whatever works - whether it be racism, sexism, nationalism, etc. They keep the masses busy arguing over black and white, women and men, American and foreign, etc. while they laugh all the way to the Federal Reserve Bank.
It's one of cnu's unfalsifiable things. I have the evidence of history, but can I go back in time and psychoanalyze the progenitors of this mindset? My position is a composite of a number of congruent analysis on this subject. I can't quote chapter and verse.
It's very true that the offspring of a lighter person and a darker person will be both darker than the one and lighter than the other in most instances. That in no way changes the fact that for a group that identified itself by lighter skin could see that recognizable changes were occurring and come to the rational conclusion that, left alone, the lighter phenotypes would be absorbed into the darker by natural selection. The irrational thought process that this observation engendered, that this outcome must be avoided at all costs, is the root of the problem.
Insurgent, there is no doubt that the struggle for control of resources and wealth is at the center of even the white survival dynamic. They are almost part and parcel of the same thing. The battle of the sexes is almost as pervasive, but it can't rise to the level of "racism" because men and women need each other too much to take it to a one side or the other conclusion. Same thing for religion; no widely accepted religion requires abolishing all others by any means necessary. Jihadists don't want me to be a Muslim, they just want to be free to do it themselves.
Examine the power structure and what very quickly becomes apparent is that the vast majority of the upper echelon, of any reasonable assessment of people with power, are white males. This should quickly implicate both racism and sexism. It is undoubted that white women would benefit almost as fully as white men in this scenario, which leaves us right back where I started.
The tactic of racial division is used moreso now as a divide and conquer strategy, rather than a plea for racial solidarity in the face of potential racial extinction. But there is still a vocal segment of the self-identified white population that publicly advocates racial purity and pride and the deep rooted fear that for them miscegenation means racial suicide. how many other self described whites feel this way but keep silent, or would swear they don't feel this way but subconsciously they really do.
That these fears and sentiments publicly exist in this day and age and are not repudiated from the heavens by everyone else is proof enough that there is still a problem. That any people are still identified by racial characteristics is an anachronism, a relic of a former age, best relegated to the annals of human history as a fortunately temporary aberration.
"That in no way changes the fact that for a group that identified itself by lighter skin could see that recognizable changes were occurring and come to the rational conclusion that, left alone, the lighter phenotypes would be absorbed into the darker by natural selection." Ex
Brother Ex, forgive me, but I find this process fascinating. How did this come about?
Did white people hold a meeting, discuss this problem, and issue edicts accordingly?
When white Germans were killing white Russians in WWI, did they develop a similar "Supremacy Scheme" to justify that aggression?
When white Russians slaughtered white British and French soldiers in the Crimean war, was that motivated by a corresponding desire to preserve race?
When Kenya's Kikuyu take advantage of the system to dominate the Luo tribe, is that too motivated by a desire to preserve some esoteric notion of race?
When Kushite kings invaded lower Kemet and enslaved the people we now call Egyptians - were they attempting to preserve a phenotype?
I ask, because looking at the history of the world, even before Africans knew there was such a thing as "white people", there has been war, devastation, domination, slavery, prejudice, discrimination and .... Supremacy.
Why do we speak today, as if modern whites have a monopoly on this behavior and why do we pretend non-whites are the exclusive targets of it?
It's one of cnu's unfalsifiable things. I have the evidence of history, but can I go back in time and psychoanalyze the progenitors of this mindset? My position is a composite of a number of congruent analysis on this subject. I can't quote chapter and verse.
My man Dwight. You get the CNu MOST HONEST STATEMENT OF THE YEAR AWARD - for writing what you just now wrote.
There is no doubt that the struggle for control of resources and wealth is at the center of even the white survival dynamic. They are almost part and parcel of the same thing. The battle of the sexes is almost as pervasive, but it can't rise to the level of "racism" because men and women need each other too much to take it to a one side or the other conclusion. Same thing for religion; no widely accepted religion requires abolishing all others by any means necessary. Jihadists don't want me to be a Muslim, they just want to be free to do it themselves.
You are within a hair's breadth of a breakthrough here. Don't stop pushing now.
The ethology (behavioral complex) in question is simply killer ape ethology.
It appears time and time again across the annals of human history cloaked in different guises, but the whole pathetic schmear has always been with us. There IS something exceptional about racism brah, but we know fairly specifically what that "something" is.
As for what makes the modern instantiation of killer ape ethology so exceptional, we need look no further than its expression in mass media, and, its codification in the corporate apparatus and the projection of corporate objectives via the warsocialist state.
Here's my thing Dwight. If you really, really want to hack a system, it's imperative that you spend a great deal of time reconnoitering that system, the network in which it's embedded, and exactly how it works - in order to know for certain where its vulnerabilities reside and which of these can be successfully exploited. This is chess, not checkers brah. It's not enough to take take up an unfalsifiable position if you want to do the work involved in modifying such a system and getting away with it.
I ask, because looking at the history of the world, even before Africans knew there was such a thing as "white people", there has been war, devastation, domination, slavery, prejudice, discrimination and .... Supremacy.
Since before there were humans brougham...., now of course you realize DV, we're letting that blue-eyed devil off the hook for his racist tendencies because you and I share a proclivity for submissively kissing white ass? At least that's what I've repeatedly been told by the Internet's leading proponent of the utterly unfalsifiable religion of the global system of white supremacy....., so, it must be true.
Damn Craig. It's gonna take me all day to look over all that stuff. Killer apes sound rather interesting though. I'll get back to you in a bit.
DV, I wasn't there; I can't be sure. I have studied the development of cultural and societal norms however, and it's my understanding that something of this nature would develop over time, beginning with some overt discussion and activity, and others less obvious. Over time, I postulate that certain attitudes took on the strength of cultural norms and certain behaviors and systemic ideas and institutions took shape in response. Of course I could be wrong, and they actually did have a meeting.
Now in response to all the other questions; of course not. There is nothing about the white survival theory that says humans will not find many and various ways means and motivations to wreak havoc upon each other. I think it's unfair of you to hold me to that standard when I've not ever claimed that the white survival dynamic is the ONLY problem in the world. I just happen to think it's one of the two main problems, and it's the one we're debating the very existence of.
"...looking at the history of the world,... there has been war, devastation, domination, slavery, prejudice, discrimination and .... Supremacy." DV
Looking at the future of the world, can you envision a world free from all those things? I've tried, and it may be a pipe dream but I think we could get there, we could craft that solution, if we begin with a proper understanding of the problem.
"Since before there were humans brougham...., now of course you realize DV, we're letting that blue-eyed devil off the hook for his racist tendencies because you and I share a proclivity for submissively kissing white ass? At least that's what I've repeatedly been told by the Internet's leading proponent of the utterly unfalsifiable religion of the global system of white supremacy....., so, it must be true."
LOL ..... Ahhhhh Maaaaan
CNu. CNu. Bra. You are a baaaaaaad motherfucker. As my pops would say.
"Looking at the future of the world, can you envision a world free from all those things? I've tried, and it may be a pipe dream but I think we could get there, we could craft that solution, if we begin with a proper understanding of the problem." Exodus
Can I envision a world free from those things?
Yes.
Do I think that's a good thing?
No.
I like the world as it is.
I happen to be impressed with God's creation and consider humanity something of a success story.
I shy away from the forbidden fruit of Door Number 2.
Looking at the future of the world, can you envision a world free from all those things? I've tried, and it may be a pipe dream but I think we could get there, we could craft that solution, if we begin with a proper understanding of the problem.
Here's where DV and I diverge somewhat radically Dwight. I can envision just such a world. I know numerous instances where it exists in microcosm.
The only way the solution can be generalized, however, is via the impending collapse of oil dependent western dopamine hegemony, and, vigorous and proactive defense of these small local oases of genuine civilization as against what will be decades of horrible strife and predation.
Intentional communities capable of surviving the impending dark ages must never forget, and, they must be zealous like shaolin, like ninja clans - unlike their pacifist forbears from prior dark ages who were assaulted and exploited by those epochs' killer apes.
Lot's of chattering, no deconstruction. Only DV really started off not too shabbily, but, then, unfortunately, took three steps backward.
Nonetheless. Still awaiting birdeye's effort.
So, what's up birdie? Move on it. 200 words or less.
"The only way the solution can be generalized, however, is via the impending collapse of oil dependent western dopamine hegemony, and, vigorous and proactive defense of these small local oases of genuine civilization as against what will be decades of horrible strife and predation." CNulan
Then
There
Would
Be
Something
Else.
Thesis. Anti-thesis.
Naive rabbits dreaming of a world without wolves.
The rabbits would soon cease to exist at all.
The secular seesaw between environmental apocalypse (Global Warming) and economically convenient social utopia (Technocracy etc.) is nothing more than temporal faith based foolishness.
The rabbits would cease to exist.
Then so would the wolves.
Not my idea of the best possible scenario.
Mike, regardless of Birdie's reply, how much do you really think it takes to de-construct such patent nonsense? Besides, you already know where bird is coming from; he's not going to surprise you here.
Craig, I've contemplated the apocalypse scenario, and prepared for the worst, but I am not enamored with the survival parameters. I'd like to think there is a way to forestall what some think is inevitable.
Then
There
Would
Be
Something
Else.
"Dark Ages". It's happened before.
Global warming is unfalsifiable - which is why you never find me giving it a moment's notice. OTOH - what's headed this way economically, infrastructurally, and energetically - is not. What happens to complex civilizations is also reasonably well understood. Really, the only guesswork involved is how many of your favored killer apes are going to do one another. I'm thinking around 5.5 Billion would be a good number resulting in a minimal regret population in the aftermath.
Craig, I've contemplated the apocalypse scenario, and prepared for the worst, but I am not enamored with the survival parameters.
Me either Dwight, but I'm shaolin ready f'sho....,
Dwight...
"Mike, regardless of Birdie's reply, how much do you really think it takes to de-construct such patent nonsense?"
It is patent nonsense? Why would you assert that? Don't the historical facts as well as all of the IQ research appear to be in favor of the Nazi's argument? How would you know your assertion is correct?? Prove it.
But why should I go through the trouble of disproving psuedo-scientific psychobabble that was produced purely to justify the depredations and oppressive activities of professed white supremacists? Let me put it another way. If you let me set up the test or study parameters, administer the test or study, the interpret the results, I can come up with scientific evidence exactly the opposite of the findings of a few Nazi nuts. And it would be no more valid than theirs.
And are the historical facts you mentioned along the lines of this description of the African people. "They have invented nothing in their history and consequently have failed to progress past the Age of Stone". I'm supposed to seriously debate that? I'll pass, and you can keep that historical (or more aptly hysterical) fact, for what it's worth.
I'm past history 101 and so are you, and so are most of the people in here. That kind of rabid misrepresentation of the truth reached it's heyday 100 years ago. It's not worthy of rehashing now. and you don't want to rehash it. You want to try to catch bird with his pants down when he gives the appearance of agreement with this racist crap. He's apparently not going to give in to the temptation.
Just a suggestion; make the next move in your play. We shouldn't have to wait for bird to get some sense out of all this.
Well, let's look at reality. Everywhere you look blacks are pursuing a r-strategy, breeding like rabbits thereby causing scarcity of resources and thus civilized behavior all of which results in not exactly very intelligent things such as mutual slaughter in Rwanda, Congo, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Not to mention the indiscriminate and random criminal slaughter in the streets of black USA, Brazil, and South Africa.
If black people do not have a limited mental capacity in comparison with white people who, with few exceptions presently do not behave that way, what else would your explanation for such behavior be, Dwight?
Is that a result of your "Global System of White Survival"? Looks to me more to be the result of a "Global System of Black Suicide".
Facts are facts, Dwight.
So again, why are blacks following an r-strategy, and why are they particularly susceptible to outside manipulation by "the Jews" resulting in the following of this r-strategy?
If you can not, maybe DV wants to take a crack at it?
"Since before there were humans brougham...., now of course you realize DV, we're letting that blue-eyed devil off the hook for his racist tendencies because you and I share a proclivity for submissively kissing white ass? At least that's what I've repeatedly been told by the Internet's leading proponent of the utterly unfalsifiable religion of the global system of white supremacy....., so, it must be true."
I figured one of the blue eyed devils should chime in. DV, you seem to see the worlds in shades of
grey but your debating folks who see the world in black and white (literally) your never going to make any head way.
Well, C1 since you chimed in, perhaps you are able to deconstruct the arguments in 200 words or less. Or even take a crack at my last statement?
Actually Classical,
I think CNu was being facetious.
But if you read carefully, you will find there is only 1 cat here who pretends the world is as simple as black v white.
And I think he's half fuckin' around.
Nobody ... really ... believes that shit.
It defies the readily observable.
Apparently no one here is able (specifically among the blacks - no wonder, being blacks y'alls IQs likely being down the dumps, right?) or willing, specifically among the whites (I wonder why), to deconstruct either of the two white nationalist's statements nor my summary of birdie's positions.
I wasn't reffering to Cnu but Exodus and Mike. Who are the white nationalists again?
See above...
"To wit:
'Originally Posted by [white nationalist] MiamiGirl...'"
Exodus,
You seem to forget Europeans have killed each for hundreds of years and have seldom viewed each other as fellow travellers when it comes to skin color. Even the Nazis were not White Supremacists, they were German/Aryan supremacists. Most Poles don't look a hell of allot different from most Germans, but to the Germans they were inferior, subhuman, Untermenschen. It's incredibly simplistic to have a worldview based primarily on skin color.
C1...
"Even the Nazis were not White Supremacists..."
Interesting.
What would you conclude about C1 from this statement, Dwight?
C1, the facts are the facts. People who classify themselves as white have quite often found many and various ways means and motivations for wreaking havoc on each other. I believe I made this point earlier, but you are going to have to better than pointing out that whites kill other whites. So what? When have white people conducted a systemic, long term campaign of oppression against other people who they would classify as white, and the rationale for that oppression is because they were white?
It's interesting that you would criticize me for seeing the world in "black and white". I see the world as white and non-white, and I'm seeing the world as it is. Do you deny that there are people out there who are self-identified as white? I hope not since you happened to identify yourself as white right up in here. Since you are a white person please tell me, what is white? Where did that classification come from, why do you use it to describe yourself, and how does it affect your self determination? (oh God, I feel a Mike Fisher moment coming over me). I wouldn't be going all Socratic on you, but your premise that things are grey is intellectually dishonest if you identify yourself as a white person. Remember, people who identify themselves as white were the ones to create and enforce a system based these color line distinctions. So it's a bit hypocritical to now blame non-white people or any non-white person for calling B.S. on that system. That's what we are doing here. We are not trying to be divisive based on Black and white, we are trying to expose and exterminate the entire concept of race as the fraudulent, manipulating control mechanism that it is.
It really is simplistic to have a world view based on race in any respect. But don't blame me for that. Your fellow white people are responsible for it. I'm trying to bring it down, but that won't happen if self identified white people continue to pretend that there is no such thing as a white/non-white conflict dynamic.
Mike, C1 is a self identified white person. I know all I need to know based on that. I know that C1 hasn't really examined the consequences of whiteness.
I'm not quite ready to chop up Birdie r-theory just yet. When I glanced over it, the first thing that jumped out at me is that there appear to be a few logical fallacies in the reasoning. The fact that some groups of people have higher birth rates than others does not necessarily translate to all of the other conclusions that he postulates. There are any number of other circumstances that may play a much bigger role in the social disorders that you describe.
For example, all the social ills you describe above could be the result of a crabs in a barrel syndrome. The question you wold then need to ask is how did all those crabs get into that barrel? If there is a true lack of resources, is it because the native population exploded and depleted them or is it because outside forces "discovered", claimed, or otherwise co-opted those resources from their rightful owners?
So again, although I'm sure this will disappoint you, I won't be lured into a debate about a concept that may be lacking in logical rational foundation. I say that now with a caveat that I haven't fully studied Birdeye's position. I may find something of value in that theory after a bit more study.
"When have white people conducted a systemic, long term campaign of oppression against other people who they would classify as white," Exodus
Yes, Exodus. When?
95% of the "white people" who have ever lived have been peasant subsistent farmers, feudal serfs and indentured servants.
When have they ever acted as a collective in such numbers where it was safe to say "white people" did or did not do anything?
Black men are the dominant players in professional basketball.
Is it safe to say "Black people" dominate white people on the basketball court?
The majority of black Americans, unfortunately are obese with high blood pressure and cannot run up and down the courst 3 times, let alone "dominate anybody".
Those that do play basketball, happen to play like Gods. But those men are individuals and do not represent the other 700 million black people on Earth, any more than the handful of white men who dominate Wall St. represent the other 500 million white people on Earth.
I think you should review your use of broad categorical generalizations.
In 1830 an adult African male slave cost the equivalent of a Lincoln Navigator today. Less than 2% of antebellum whites ever owned a single slave.
Yet, the grammatically clumsy traffic in concepts like "whyte peepel owned slaves."
Nah. Elite capitalists, who happened to be white owned slaves.
Throughout history there have been elite capitalists, who have happened to be black who owned slaves.
There have been elite capitalists who happen to be white who owned white slaves.
Ever hear of YugoSLAVIANS or CzechoSLAVIANS? Entire nationalities of your White Supremacists who have been slaves for so long and so often - they actually have SLAVE as part of their national identity.
What was feudalism Exodus or Mike? What does word "serf" mean? It means SLAVE. Europeans were slaves in Europe for over 1,000 years.
Characterizing slavery / oppression as a white on non-white phenomena is anti-intellectual and self-defeating.
I don't even teach my sons bullshit like "blacks waz slaves and whytes waz slave ownus".
Fuck that.
I teach them slaves and slave owners alike throughout history have been white and nonwhite ... or black and non-black or Asian and non-Asian.
Why cripple their little minds with lopsided versions of history, that make them perpetual victims and whites perpetual villains?
Riddle me that?
You wind up attributing the attitudes and deeds of a few to the whole way too often in far too simplistic terms.
To add insult to intellectual injury, these systemic attributions are made over a backdrop that is admittedly unfalsifiable and therefore not subject to logical or factual proof.
It's absolutely equivalent to listening to a theologian misuse logic pursuant to "proofs" of theological premises and assumptions - an onerous practice that most of us tend to ridicule as "fundamentalism".
Frankly the proclivities of the cultural "racial realist" are not qualitatively different from the practices of the genetic "racial realists" - save for the fact that both dimwitted parties believe in things that they don't understand and demand that the rest of us suffer their superstitions.
Superstitions that they loudly, repeatedly, and offensively demand that the rest of us accept as true....,
If only these idiots could be heavily armed and shipped off to an island where they could slog it out with one another until nothing was left of them but a stinking greasy stain..,
What is the line of doctrine over which the Blefuscudians and Lilliputians differ?
(A) “All true believers shall break their eggs at the small end”
(B) “All true believers shall break their eggs at the big end”
(C) “All true believers shall break their eggs as they see fit”
(D) “All true believers shall break their eggs at the convenient end”
If I decided that I wasn't "white" since apparently white people just self classify an no one else does that for them ever (yeah right) what would most black
folks say upon seeing me? Would they accept my self proclaimed non whiteness? Would the New Black Panthers let me join since they accept non whites on ly?
"95% of the "white people" who have ever lived have been peasant subsistent farmers, feudal serfs and indentured servants." - DV
Very true, which begs the question of why they would support a system of oppression based on race when they had more in common with the poor non-whites they implicitly and explicitly helped to oppress than they did with the upper class of society. Why did the race struggle have so much more of an effect than the class struggle?
"When have they ever acted as a collective in such numbers where it was safe to say "white people" did or did not do anything?" - DV
Are you serious? The "white collective" has cooperated to dominate the entire continent of non-white Africa. The white collective collaborated to impose a level of chattel slavery heretofore unknown in human history on Blacks. to pretend otherwise, or to pretend that there have been equal instances of the same behavior is engaging in revisionist history. Not even the fact there there was a significant portion of white people who were against the policies of the majority mitigates what actually happened. The question here is why did it happen the way it did?
"Black men are the dominant players in professional basketball.Is it safe to say "Black people" dominate white people on the basketball court?" - DV
It's certainly factual to say that Black men are the majority of the players in professional basketball, and it might even be factual to say that Black men have made the most impressive accomplishments in the history of playing professional basketball. If any individual Black person dominates an individual on the court then it would be factual to say that that individual dominated the other, regardless of race. How exactly does this analogy apply to a discussion about a centuries old "SYSTEM" dedicated to the proposition of exercising control over everyone considered non-white for the purpose of ensuring white genetic survival?
"Nah. Elite capitalists, who happened to be white owned slaves." - DV
True. But the institution of chattel slavery in the Americas, and what it represented to people who categorized themselves as white, applied to virtually every white person of any economic strata. They did not all share equally in the bounty of the oppressive system, but they all participated to a degree or it would not have been possible.
"Throughout history there have been elite capitalists, who have happened to be black who owned slaves." - DV
True yet again. Now find one of those anywhere in history that was a part of a system that categorized people according to specious skin color differences and actively oppressed the different group out of fear of genetic annihilation.
"Ever hear of YugoSLAVIANS or CzechoSLAVIANS? Entire nationalities of your White Supremacists who have been slaves for so long and so often - they actually have SLAVE as part of their national identity." - DV
This is why these discussions break down so fast. On the surface, that analysis looks pretty good and virtually indisputable. It is however, a figment of your imagination. To wit:
Ptolemy identified tribes called Stavanoi and Soubenoi, and are one of earliest references under names similar to names from the 6th century. The names are written variously as Sklabenoi, Sklauenoi, or Sklabinoi in Byzantine Greek, and as Sclaueni, Sclauini, or Sthlaueni in Latin. The oldest documents written in Old Slavonic and dating from the 9th century use the word "slověne". Note the first vowel "o", rather than an "a" as in Greek and Latin.
* slovo means ("word, talk") thus slověne would mean "people who speak (the same language)", i.e. people who understand each other.
* slava means ("fame, glory" -related with slovo, because the glory goes from one man to another by word) thus slaviane would mean "people who are famous, glorious ", because in ancient times slavic tribes were great warriors and the fame about them went from one tribe to another.
* "The Name SLAV", Essays in Russian History, Archon Books, 1964. that the word sláva once had the meaning of worshipper, in this context meaning practicer of a common Slavic religion — similar to more modern destigations such as Christian or Muslim — and from there evolved into an ethonym.
* Roman Jacobson traditionally linked the name either with the word sláva ("glory", "fame", hypothetically reconstructed IE root *kleu-')
* Bernstein S. B [1], it derives from a Proto-Indo-European *(s)lawos, cognate to Greek λᾱ(ϝ)ός "population, people", which itself has no commonly accepted etymology.
* Max Vasmer suggests that the word originated as a river name (compare the etymology of the Volcae), comparing it with such cognates as Latin cluo ("to wash"), a root not known to have been continued in Slavic, however, and appearing in meanings of "to clean, to scour" in Baltic.
Parenthetically, the English word slave is derived from Middle Latin sclavus, from Greek Sklabenoi. By a similar process, Finnic languages use the word orya to mean slave, deriving it from Arya, the name of their ancient opponents.
Now DV it is incumbent on you to review any number of similarly grounded misconceptions you now possess and seek to find the truth because it is out there and it does matter. The sad part of it is it took me less than two minutes to debunk this "logic" of yours.
"What was feudalism Exodus or Mike? What does word "serf" mean? It means SLAVE. Europeans were slaves in Europe for over 1,000 years." -DV
And Europeans have been considered themselves a distinct and separate form of humanity from non-whites, especially Blacks for longer than that. Time is not the most relevant issue here. Degree and motivation are much more critical to the analysis. Besides, haven't we already stipulated that white folks found plenty of time to be cruel and inhumane to each other even while reserving a special level of enmity for non-whites.
"Characterizing slavery / oppression as a white on non-white phenomena is anti-intellectual and self-defeating." - DV
Recognizing it for what it is has actually been very very liberating for me. I don't feel defeated at all, on the contrary, I feel prepared to understand and combat the ongoing white survival dynamic. I feel empowered.
"I don't even teach my sons bullshit like "blacks waz slaves and whytes waz slave ownus". Why cripple their little minds with lopsided versions of history, that make them perpetual victims and whites perpetual villains?"- DV
There are many ways to cripple a young mind, and I do agree that anything that imparts a victim mentality or inferiority complex on a young mind should be avoided. To me that does not mean avoiding the evidence of history or the evidence of my eyes. It means understanding it and formulating effective strategies for overcoming oppression from any and all quarters.
You've failed to give me credit for realizing that the racial conflict dynamic that we are discussing is not the only front in this battle. I do recognize there are other issues as well. But we are talking about this one, so I confine my discourse to the subject matter at hand.
Dwight...
"I know that C1 hasn't really examined the consequences of whiteness."
Hmmm...
I think you had a Time Wise moment coming on there.
a la "racism is unconscious" within "white" people.
Are people like the Irish intimately involved in this GSWS which has essentially resulted in them getting their asses kicked by other white people for hundreds of years? Would they regard the British as fellow white brothers? Have they benefited from African colonialism when they never colonized anyone and were colonized by other white people?
DV...
"Yes, Exodus. When?
95% of the "white people" who have ever..."
You're mixing up apples and oranges here, DV.
Let's take your favorite subject, Zionists.
Not every Zionist is named Mort Zuckerman or Begin, or Ohlmert. Fact is, without all the little Zionists, the plumbers, soldiers, masons (fr building long, high, pretty walls), prostitutes, actors, garbage collectors, ad whatever, the Zionist social construct, that is Israel, could not exist.
Does that mean that only the top guns who, with characteristic frequency screw over the bottom layer of little Zionistas, are Zionists?
No.
Everybody is a cog in the social machine that is the System of Zionism.
Capice?
C1...
"Are people like the Irish intimately involved in this GSWS which has essentially resulted in them getting their asses kicked by other white people for hundreds of years?"
The Crips are divided into sub-sets who killed more of each other than of the Bloods. Does that make any Crip set any less Crip?
In any case, how did the Irish become white in the good 'ole USA?
Ever heard of the New York City Civil War draft riots?
They got "white" by proving to the other "whites" the one thing that is the ultimate essence of whiteness.
Killing "Niggers".
DV - Again, you bring the heat. You are absolutely right about slavery being widespread, multicultural and in all sorts of combos...
This even included American Blacks owning White slaves.
Although, of course only Jews would have us believe it was an exclusively White-on-Black phenomenom.
But as you mentioned, where did the word slave even come from? The WHITE Eastern European slavs...who were enslaved so much they became named for it.
---------
When have white people conducted a systemic, long term campaign of oppression against other people who they would classify as white
Lol, ever heard of Iosif Djugashvili "Stalin"? He killed about 40 million "Whites." Does that count? Although he was technically Jewish, so not sure if that still does in your book? :D
But aside from that, poor Whites have long been oppressed by elite Whites in their highly classist, feudal societies for ages. Nothing new there, and went on for centuries.
Or, we can talk about the Catholic Church's 356-year Spanish Inquisition - again, mass persecution, brutal medieval torture (far beyond anything Black slaves experienced) and oppression of Whites...by Whites. Again, for centuries...
Etc, etc..
---------
MF - I am writing some long blog posts to address your questions. But let's just say that many of our default reductionist/revisionist assumptions about NAZIs have been falsely-implanted by Jewish meme warfare. And that German Nationalist is a bit off too.
I have never regarded the Chinese or Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong.
Now, guess who wrote that, MF? (I'm sure Jews never taught you THAT in school!)
Truth is, most historical Western inventions and "discoveries" were all derivative of or preceded by the East. A quick Google search will reveal this simple fact. And I think even many "White supremacists" would even admit that most IQ studies do show that Asians and Jews average higher IQs than Whites.
[What German Nat is confused by is the temporary reversal of fortune caused by events in recent history. For example, ~120 million were killed in China alone from the Opium War and Communism (both Jewish imports). Meanwhile, the US enjoyed a huge technological surge during the end of the same timeframe from a post-war economic boom, psychedelic drugs and technological transfers from the Grey ETs.]
However, Whites were much better at marketing and commercialization. See "Technocrappy" or McDonalds. They just have the knack for making crap sound like gold. Hence, they made much more money and got more credit for inventions. They are not so much interested in the actual products as the transactional power they can derive from them.
Jews are similar here, in that they then excel at the commodification of this commerce. They specialize in the interfacing standards and universal exchange between diverse goods & services (i.e. - money system).
Of course, these are all very, very broad, over-simplified over-generalizations here...
"But, but, but, we built the Pyramids", bullshit.
Well, it may be bullshit. For even the ancient Egyptians distinguished themselves from other Africans. In fact, they referred to them as:
Nahasu = Strangers or barbarians: In Wolof (Senegal), a language as close to the Ancient Egyptian language as modern Egyptian, "nahas" means "good for nothing; worthless."
If that's true, then I would have to agree that Africans have not historically been very inventive - technology-wise. However, at least in modern times, some have shown an amazing aptitude and genius in other areas - such as music or performing. IOW - very body & "soul"-centered activities.
Oops, correction:
Jews (not Whites) - They are not so much interested in the actual products as the transactional power they can derive from them.
C1...
"If I decided that I wasn't "white" since apparently white people just self classify an no one else does that for them ever (yeah right) what would most black
folks say upon seeing me? Would they accept my self proclaimed non whiteness? Would the New Black Panthers let me join since they accept non whites only?"
Who gives a good fuck what the New Black Panthers or any black person would think or say? In a system of white supremacy they ain't got the power they are trying to get some.
The key is whether you would deny your "whiteness" vis a vis other whites.
For example, on government forms put "black". When applying for a job let your prospective employer know that you are indeed black. Maybe do a "Black Like Me" skin job thing (I think it can now be done safely) and live the rest of your life as a dark-skinned person.
But above all, you could just tell non-white people the truth.
Craig, I consider much of what you present to be unfalsifiable as well. How can you factually "PROVE", beyond any reasonable doubt, your Dopamine hegemony theories? Try as you might there will always be someone somewhere with an alternative theory that can challenge yours.
All I can do, all I try to do anyway, is present the most rational, reasoned, and logical thought process I have for why I believe what I believe. I'm not asking you to accept anything at face value, because while there may be little direct factual evidence or proof, my conclusions appear to be sound based on the information I have at my disposal. If you or anyone else has other information that would tend to make what I believe less probable, then I have no problems making the required alterations in my world view. That obviously hasn't happened yet, but I'm still hopeful.
C1, it's relevent to your condition that you jumped right away from how you identify yourself to how others, particularly non-whites would identify you. Can you give me one instance where non-white people systemically forced a racial classification on any other group? The point is that white folks created this all by themselves and white folks have got to at least participate in ending it. In other words, I have no problem giving up my classification of Black, since I didn't give it to myself and it brings nothing relevant to my self image. Are white people as a collective, or you in particular, willing to do the same? I guarantee you that even if you are, the collective is not. If they were, the U.S. census would be a much shorter document because the only question to be asked would be how many people live in your household.
If you reduce this to a discussion of individuals or small groups, it is possible to identify traits, characteristics, behaviors, norms or historical evidence that would tend to contradict some of the things I say. But as I said to DV, the fact that groups of white people have found the time and energy to be cruel and oppressive to other groups of white people, or the fact that not all "white" people benefited equally or at all from the system for white survival, does not invalidate or even impact the historical fact of the racial conflict dynamic between whites and non-whites.
The involvement of a person who self identifies as white begins with that self identification. The "white" group was created to mean something and it still means something. What does it mean to you?
Mike, Time Wise isn't all wrong when he makes that claim. Quite a bit of the behavior and norms that support the white survival system have been ingrained to the point of being a virtually instinctive reaction. That's not to say that a reversal of this conditioning is not possible, or that it is a justification of any kind.
byrdeye...
"Now, guess who wrote that, MF? (I'm sure Jews never taught you THAT in school!)"d
That particular quote was attributed to Adolf Hitler in what is supposed to be Martin Bormann's diaries.
And your point is?
^ Ah, you've done your homework.
Point is, was Hitler really a "White supremacist" if he freely admitted that Chinese & Japanese had a superior history to that of "Whites?"
But let's just say that many of our default reductionist/revisionist assumptions about NAZIs have been falsely-implanted by Jewish meme warfare.
Let me just add to this that America was ripe for Jewish manipulation and takeover because we had little history here and so Jews could pretty much indoctrinate everyone from a clean slate. While not having to answer for all historical events to the contrary - since many didn't happen here in this new country yet.
Even though anyone in the EU, ME or Africa knows that slavery was just a way of life for many (of all races) in those regions throughout history - Jews were able to surgically remove that long history and pretend like White American invented the practice as a B&W racist way to oppress Blacks. Reductionist, revisionist and racist to the core.
Oy vey.
Wow, well I guess if the ultimate essence of whiteness is killing blacks folks, I've never done that.
But above all, you could just tell non-white people the truth
So the next time I ask out a girl and she says "I don't date white guys" I can just calmly infor her that I'm actually black? Woo Hoo!
Dwight...
"
Mike, Time Wise isn't all wrong when he makes that claim."
How would you know. Are you white?
In any case, it's not logical. One can not, logically, classify oneself as "white" without understanding that "non-white" is something other than "white".
Te classification in and off itself is a racist action since it postulates race.
"Quite a bit of the behavior and norms that support the white survival system have been ingrained to the point of being a virtually instinctive reaction."
Yeah, sure, but that instinctive reaction is founded on and embedded in the conscious classification as "white".
The training of a soldier who has been trained to function as a soldier usually is aimed at getting to have that soldier react instinctively in certain combat situations. That doesn't mean he/she doesn't know that they are a soldier.
So the next time I ask out a girl and she says "I don't date white guys" I can just calmly infor her that I'm actually black? Woo Hoo!
And if you want to apply for Affirmative Action - feel free to check Black too.
After all, the same people who created Affirmative Action believe that race doesn't biologically exist and is merely a social construct. Therefore, by that logic, there is absolutely no reason why ANYONE can't be Black.
PERIOD.
C1...
"So the next time I ask out a girl and she says "I don't date white guys" I can just calmly infor her that I'm actually black? Woo Hoo!"
If it is a white girl, why not? Hey, you might get even more access that way.
I said tell non-white people the truth.
I said tell non-people the truth
You mean that I'm not really white?
You know what, I think I'm just going to be a different race every day of the week.
I'll be Black on Mondays.
White on Tuesdays.
Asian on Wednesdays.
Latino on Thursdays.
Jewish on Fridays.
Aboriginal on Saturdays.
And chill like an Eskimo on Sundays...
byrdeye...
"Point is, was Hitler really a 'White supremacist' if he freely admitted that Chinese & Japanese had a superior history to that of 'Whites?'"
As you should well know, white supremacy is about white supremacy and not about admitting or denying whether any people not classified as white had or have a superior or inferior history.
Racism is as science.
If admitting that the ancient Khemetians were indeed "black" will help maintain the system so be it. If not, so be it.
A scientist such as true racists are, can not afford to work based on fables. The racist may project those fables into the society at large, but when it comes to building, maintaining, and expanding a system of dominance, he/she must deal with the real facts on the ground.
If you, for example, believe that the Nazis for one minute thought that the Jews were an inferior and powerless group or "race", then you know nothing about National Socialism.
C1...
"You mean that I'm not really white?"
You might begin there and explain what the function of being white really consists of.
LOL. That's funny Byrd. Eskimo.
Fisher seems to suggest white people ... for some ... inexplicable reason ... out of thin air ... just decided ... to ... call themselves ... drumroll .... "white" ... and to refer to people of African origin ... for some other inexplicable nefarious reason ... God fobid ... (African drumbeat) "b l a c k".
Ahhhhhhhh!!! The horror!! The evil.
Whey dem bumbaclot get dat frum?!?!
Isn't it obvious people we now call "whites" should have been referred to as "Sponges" and people of African origin referred to as "Pretzels"?!
.... duh!
What the fuck were those white people thinking about!!!
LOL.
What cracks me up, is the assumption, black people are called black ONLY because white people say so.
For example. Me. Moi. I happen to be kind of CoCo colored brotha. You, Nutmeg mixed with some bitter sweet chocolate. Whatever you want to call it, it's that rich flavor of chocolate women all over the world can't seem to get enough. From Jamaica to Sweden. From Japan to Pensacola Florida this particular complexion is in high demand.
Do I call myself "African-American"? Nah. I'm black.
I just like the way it sounds.
From what I gather from Fisher, being referred to as "black" is something one doesn't choose, but something one is condemned to.
I don't get that.
If I wasn't black ... I'd want to be.
And I reserve room for white cats, Asian cats, Latino cats and Eskimo cats - to feel the same.
(But I know ya'll want to be black too ... but that's another story) lol
^^^ Yes.
White supremacy =/= White superiority
But, the NAZIs actually aimed at the natural creation of an Ubermensch - a "new" species of superhuman. One that used Nordic Whites as a base stock, but was not necessarily limited to that. Another portion of the recipe was the mythological Thule race and their remnants...some of which the NAZIs believed were amongst the Tibetans.
In short, they were attempting to recollect ingredients from multicultural sources and a mythological seed culture - and let Nature smelt them back together again to form a new breed of Supermen.
And of course, on a more earthly level, overzealous nationalism is a natural response to humiliating national defeat. See post-WWI Germany.
So no, I don't think they felt Jews were inferior or powerless, by any means. In fact, they felt screwed over by them - especially after finding out about the traitorous Balfour Declaration of 1917.
Exodus Mentality said...
Very true, which begs the question of why they would support a system of oppression based on race"
Ex. Help me out. I'd like to better understand your point.
How does the 36 year old, divorced, white male father of 3 by two different women, who drives 14 miles each way and details my car every second Thursday for $59.00 'support a system of oppression based on race'?
I mean, he may be a racist mufucka but he can shine some AMG rims like nobody bidness!
How does the 36 year old, divorced, white male father of 3 by two different women, who drives 14 miles each way and details my car every second Thursday for $59.00 'support a system of oppression based on race'?
I think r-game explains this scenario better than the race game - which is too often used as a proxy for the former...
When in fact, the 2 are not synonymous.
Like, what happens when a K-game Black meets an r-game White?
"Racial role-reversal," anyone?
The funny thing is...Jews are VERY K-game. That's how they amass all their wealth and power.
And yet they want everyone else to play r-game.
Not to mention, their occupationist homeland, Israel is the most racist apartheid in the world. Despite the fact that Jews rae always preaching "anti-racism."
Guess nothing gives them the competitive edge like telling others to do as they say, but not as they do.
DV...
"How does the 36 year old, divorced, white male father of 3 by two different women, who drives 14 miles each way and details my car every second Thursday for $59.00 'support a system of oppression based on race'?"
How does the 36 year old, divorced, zionist male father of 3 by two different women, who drives 14 miles each way and details a Palestinian's car every second Thursday for $59.00 'support a system of oppression based on Zionism?
CN- "If only these idiots could be heavily armed and shipped off to an island where they could slog it out with one another until nothing was left of them but a stinking greasy stain..,"
LOL. I'll nominate BrydEye with these idiotic statements-
"Well, it may be bullshit. For even the ancient Egyptians distinguished themselves from other Africans...
If that's true, then I would have to agree that Africans have not historically been very inventive - technology-wise. However, at least in modern times, some have shown an amazing aptitude and genius in other areas - such as music or performing. IOW - very body & "soul"-centered activities."
LOL! Make sure you bring enough guns and ammunition when you're shipped off to your special island.
How does the 36 year old, divorced, zionist male father of 3 by two different women, who drives 14 miles each way and details a Palestinian's car every second Thursday for $59.00 'support a system of oppression based on Zionism?
Good question Mike.
The answer: He doesn't.
The label "Zionist" no longer holds up to describe the true true perpetrators of Palestinian oppression in this scenario.
Let me say it again: The term "Zionist" no longer holds water.
Zionist is a term used by different people to mean different things.
My Great Grandmother is a Baptist woman from the south, she considers herself a "Zionist". Her church is First Cavalry Baptist Church of Zion.
She don't oppress no Palestinians neither.
So ... I'll distill my "label du jour" from Jew to Zionist to ... let's say Likudist.
Next week, it will be distilled further from Likudist to Illuminist and finally settle somewhere around ... Satanist.
Which is essentially what I told you last year when you begin this process of beating us in the head with the crudest of terms: "white".
Mike, when you going to distill?
Actually DV that's a very valid observation and question. We started out talking about a historical reference, regarding the fact that a very small number of whites actually owned slaves, and I said that the others supported the system.
Now you want to discuss how the average everyday ordinary white guy on the street today is supporting the system. And my observation is that the system has forgone much of the overt oppression that was its hallmark from conception, and evolved into something far less visible, but no less insidious. Therefore the explicit support of the lower classes of whites is not needed as much. The nightrider days are indeed over. But as I have said, and as Mike has said, the simple self identification as white is in and of itself a manifestation of the white survival dynamic. It is absolutely necessary for all those who could be classified as white to overtly maintain that classification against any and all empirical, rational, factual and logic that should tell them that the classification is unsound.
If all non-white people suddenly and completely ceased to recognize any phenotypical of genotypical difference between people of differing skin colors and physical characteristics it would have little to no effect on anything. For white people to do it means giving up a shared "racial identity" that has been established and nurtured for thousands of years. Even your car wash guy wouldn't do it. Chris Rock put it best in his last HBO special. You could be the richest guy that car wash dude has ever seen, and if you asked him would he rather be your Black self or his white self, he'll opt for staying white.
You are proud of being Black but you don't need it to establish your identity. You use it as a badge of honor to show that in spite of all they can throw at you, you will still be standing tall and proud. I can respect that. But you don't use it because you're afraid that if you don't Black people will cease to exist as a distinct group on this planet. There is a fundamental difference in those mindsets.
You are proud of being Black but you don't need it to establish your identity. You use it as a badge of honor to show that in spite of all they can throw at you, you will still be standing tall and proud. I can respect that. But you don't use it because you're afraid that if you don't Black people will cease to exist as a distinct group on this planet. There is a fundamental difference in those mindsets.Quite right. There is a fundamental difference. DV's mindset is absolutely provable. He'll confirm it for you on demand 24/7/365.
OTOH - what you've claimed universally for whites - is flatly ridiculous on the face of it. I suspect that neither C1 or Byrdeye would own up to any personal or subjective fear of genetic annihilation.
So on what evidential basis do you make and apply his a priori ridiculous claim?
White collective behaviour during the 20th century - expressed as industrial-scale internecine warfare certainly flies in the face of the "white fear of genetic annihilation" hypothesis - as the "white fear of annihilation by other white folks" called the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction was the dominant axis of political/economic tension for the bulk of the 20th century.
On this entire thread, I have yet to see a single empirical case or example given to substantiate the claim of a GSWS? For example, is the War for Oil Appropriation in Iraq a demonstrable instance of white supremacy?
If so, how so?
"DV's mindset is absolutely provable. He'll confirm it for you on demand 24/7/365." - CNu
And yet, what does his confirmation "prove" other than the fact that he is utterly convinced of his position, regardless of how incorrect it may be (see earlier reference to Slavic people).
"OTOH - what you've claimed universally for whites - is flatly ridiculous on the face of it. I suspect that neither C1 or Byrdeye would own up to any personal or subjective fear of genetic annihilation." - CNu
And yet, I made it clear that the "system" and dynamic behind white survival is not dependent on the independent activities of any individual member of the white collective to maintain is function and momentum. Rather like if you lose some skin of the tip of a finger it does not shut your system or even any part of your system down. C1 and Birdeye would almost certainly not admit to that and I wold hazard they are not really cognizant of it at a conscious level. Neither of them can even articulate why it is that they self identify or are identified as white, so I expect nothing else from them in that reagrd. But given enough observation, not much at all with Birdeye, I could certainly identify patterns of behavior and speech that would lead me to believe they did in fact operate with genetic survival as a prime motivating factor.
"So on what evidential basis do you make and apply his a priori ridiculous claim?"
As I have said, there is no one piece of evidence that will prove anything that I postulate. My beliefs are based a great deal of reading on a variety of subjects. I know you are familiar with Dr. Francis Cress Welsing. While I don't subscribe to everything she asys, her essay, "The Cress Theory of Color Confrontation" gives the best wrap up of all the factors that lead to a theory of white genetic survival as the only viable rationale for the way things are. I have yet to hear anything else that came close to making as much sense.
"White collective behaviour during the 20th century - expressed as industrial-scale internecine warfare certainly flies in the face of the "white fear of genetic annihilation" hypothesis - as the "white fear of annihilation by other white folks" called the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction was the dominant axis of political/economic tension for the bulk of the 20th century." - CNu
Must everyone make the same irrational objection to my position twice a day? Yes yes yes, white folks have been very inventive and show an amazing proclivity for mayhem and destruction even against people who look like them. "M-A-D" or crazy like a fox? They never used those weapons against a "white" population, only against a "non-white" population. And, all the "evidence" of history shows us that the white collective has reserved a special degree of oppression for non-whites, especially Blacks, and especially in the past 600-800 years when they became technologically capable of instigating that oppression.
"On this entire thread, I have yet to see a single empirical case or example given to substantiate the claim of a GSWS? For example, is the War for Oil Appropriation in Iraq a demonstrable instance of white supremacy? If so, how so?"
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I can't "prove" anything. I don't have a shred of empirical evidence to clarify their state of mind. The circumstantial evidence keeps piling up, but I will admit, it is mostly circumstantial.
I can see how the war for oil in Iraq is a product of the white survival dynamic in that control of resources, especially the resources of non-whites, is of paramount importance to the maintenance of the system. Of course it's just as easy to postulate that it's an Illuminati plot or simply rampaging capitalists whose only concern is profit. It may very well be a little of all of them.
My point is that my world view allows me room to develop what I consider to be effective strategies to confront the problems I envision. And we generally agree on the problems, just not the solutions. I don't know if I can develop an effective counter to a dopamine hegemony, or an effective counter to everybody is in it for themselves.
When you attack the theory I present because you think it's bad for me to think the way I do, I don't really have a problem with that. You are, after all, only looking out for my best interest. But I can't really respond to an attack that says only that my position is ridiculous without confronting the particulars of that position.
There is plenty of empirical evidence for the existence of the global System of Racism/White Supremacy.
All you have to do is look at who dominates the economic, political, military, education, entertainment, cultural, scientific, and sexual etc. institutional structures world-wide. Every institution of genuine power is dominated and run by directly or indirectly by people who classify themselves as white. Where there indeed are non-white people running similar institutions they are doing so largely in opposition to these white-run institutions in order to get from under the white-run institutions.
The fact that white supremacists are willing and able to kill each other and have done so disproves nothing. White supremacy is about supremacy against all comers.
In fact, white people are reclassified by other, more powerful white people, as non-white all the time. Thus you have perfectly "white-looking" Iraqi Arabs reclassified as Sand Niggers, or perfectly "white-looking" Germans reclassified by other white people as non-white "Asiatic" Huns during the Great War of 1914-1918.
I challenge Nulan to come up with, let's say 50 institutions of real, true, power in any and all areas of people activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex and War that are run by non-whites and that can not be overcome by equivalent existing white-run institutions.
Now. Keep in mind. "Supreme" does not mean "all-powerful", it just means supreme. First. More powerful than all others.
So Nulan. Put your money where your mouth is. In addition, as a bonus, let's see whether you can come up with non-white sources for your examples.
"All you have to do is look at who dominates the economic, political, military, education, entertainment, cultural, scientific, and sexual etc. institutional structures world-wide." MF
Who Mike, Men? The College Educated? Capitalists? Type A personalities? Virgos? The Liberal Bourgeoisie? Atheists? Evangelicals? Illuminists? Freemasons? The Bilderberg Group? The Tri-Lateral Commission? People over 50? Satanists?
or ...
People who dominate ... simply because they can?
Don't you think reducing whomever these "dominant" people happen to be, to the clumsy label ... "white" ... is self-defeating, off the mark and a wee bit anachronistic?
Why the obsession with whiteness?
DV, are you Nulan?
I think the guy can speak for himself. Yes?
But I can't really respond to an attack that says only that my position is ridiculous without confronting the particulars of that position.
You haven't presented a single particular instance of your position Dwight - so there's nothing here to which to respond. This is the sinister memetic beauty of what you're professing. You iterate your categorical belief in a "system" whose particulars you never, ever subject to particularization and the threat of logical and factual disproof. That is the delusional - and in many cases intractable - nature of unfalsifiable belief.
And, all the "evidence" of history shows us that the white collective has reserved a special degree of oppression for non-whites, especially Blacks, and especially in the past 600-800 years when they became technologically capable of instigating that oppression.
Your presence here now in all its particulars exemplifies the special degree of oppression for non-whites, especially Blacks?
Seems to me that that system rooted in fear of genetic annihilation has been singularly unsuccessful if examined along any measurable dimension. F'zample, how many more such genetic nemesis has this system "permitted" to come into existence, right here, in the homeland, over the past 50 years?
In addition to expansive population growth, how many more resources has the Black genetic nemesis acquired during that same period of time?
As soon as you begin to particularize your theory Dwight, it begins to dissolve into the utter silliness that it is. This is what accounts for the failure of any other researcher or scholar to take up Dr. Welsing's theory and attempt to advance it beyond its original expression.
Nulan. Name them. 50 institutions of real, true, power in any and all areas of people activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex and War that are run by non-whites and that can not be overcome by equivalent existing white-run institutions. Come on now, Nulan. Name 50 out of the thousands of them.
Nulan...
"F'zample, how many more such genetic nemesis has this system "permitted" to come into existence, right here, in the homeland, over the past 50 years?"
While I have yet to make up my mind about Dr. Welsing'd theory, the quote above, once again, demonstrates sloppy reasoning.
The survival of a group is not logically contingent
on the reduction or expansion of the population of another group. It is contingent solely on the group's ability to survive as a group within any environment. While the planet-wide "white" population certainly has been reduced in proportional terms, it has not so been reduced in terms of absolute numbers, and if fact, increased in term of those absolute numbers.
Thus this "counter-argument" is vapid, to say the least.
The real question that should be posed is how is it that in the face of an overwhelming population with color, the "white" population has not been "genetically annihilated" via planetary-wide cross breeding? Europe ain't exactly an island, you know.
So what's the mechanism that has prevented that?
My particulars are the observable phenomena of history and the present day. You can disagree with my analysis, but to pretend that that analysis is based on nothing more than fanciful notions from my mind (or the mind of Dr. Welsing) is patently untrue.
"Your presence here now in all its particulars exemplifies the special degree of oppression for non-whites, especially Blacks?"-CNu
Are you saying that because I am a "free citizen" of the U.S.A. that completely negates any possibility the a system for white genetic survival exists? Does that make sense even to you? Because the system is not absolute in it's control, or hasn't accomplished it's goals and agenda completely, it therefore cannot exist? This is your logical rebuttal? Oh wait, there's more.
"In addition to expansive population growth, how many more resources has the Black genetic nemesis acquired during that same period of time?"
So because our population has grown, either in absolute numbers or percentage wise, that means there is no such thing as a system for white genetic survival, regardless of the observable evidence of hundreds of years of history? How many resources have Blacks acquired? Well I have it on good authority that Black people controlled less than 1% of the wealth of this country on the eve of the Emancipation proclamation. In 2000, Blacks still control less than 1% of the wealth of this country. So even though we have a few rich Black folks, we have no wealthy ones to speak of. Is that just coincidence, or can r/K theory or dopamine hegemony offer a reasoned and rational thought process that can explain this observable and verifiable phenomena?
See, I can and will respond to any critique of what I believe. If that critique is so compelling as to make me revise or revamp my thought processes then so be it.
I find it very interesting that you attack my "unfalsifiable doctrine" with a completely unfalsifiable statement of your own, to wit: "This is what accounts for the failure of any other researcher or scholar to take up Dr. Welsing's theory and attempt to advance it beyond its original expression."-CNu
Is it your position that you can offer some proof for that statement? I don't buy it that Dr. Welsing's positions are so specious that they are unfit for further scholarly analysis or substantiation. If they were so very obviously wrong, other researchers would have had a field day chopping her up. They haven't, and they don't, and it's not because they don't think it's worth the time. Why haven't other scholars supported the theory? Fear maybe; lack of understanding probably.
You are responding with critique, even though you think I have no merit. Why would other scholars not respond vociferously to such a silly and easily discounted theory of racism, from an accredited psychologist among others?
In fact, I've seen several critiques, they are out there on the web. For the most part, they employ the same logical fallacies you, DV and others continue to trot out at me. Such as, "there can be no white survival dynamic because whites have killed other whites", or "there can be no white survival dynamic because Blacks have killed other Blacks", or "there can be no white supremacy because a few Black people are living high on the hog", or my personal favorite "there's no such thing as Black and white people anyway".
I am not in this to be right, I'd much rather be successful. To be successful in this endeavor requires an understanding of the problem to craft solutions. I'm endeavoring to help craft this understanding of the problem. So do continue to hold me accountable for my position. I'll just keep doing what I've been doing, responding as completely and specifically as I can to any critique.
My particulars are the observable phenomena of history and the present day. You can disagree with my analysis, but to pretend that that analysis is based on nothing more than fanciful notions from my mind (or the mind of Dr. Welsing) is patently untrue.
Dwight, you haven't presented a single particular from which you sustain the argument for an American System of White Supremacy much less a categorical GLOBAL SYSTEM OF WHITE SUPREMACY. No particulars, no argument, simply an unfalsifiable categorical assertion completely free of analytic underpinnings.
That's the very definition of a fanciful notion or superstitious belief, as compared and contrasted with a scientific assertion. (Haven't you wondered at least just a little bit why no other researcher has ever taken up Welsing's premise - anywhere in the world at all?) In a multi-polar global political economy, there would be considerable value in demonstrating that the anglo-american system of production was fundamentally white supremacist.
So because our population has grown, either in absolute numbers or percentage wise, that means there is no such thing as a system for white genetic survival, regardless of the observable evidence of hundreds of years of history?
Still holding out for some of those particulars on which you stake YOUR CLAIM. It's not my responsibility to prove your thesis for you - rather - it's your responsibility to credibly elaborate the underpinnings of your thesis - a task which you or no other proponent of the GSWS has here-to-date managed to do.
In 2000, Blacks still control less than 1% of the wealth of this country. So even though we have a few rich Black folks, we have no wealthy ones to speak of. Is that just coincidence, or can r/K theory or dopamine hegemony offer a reasoned and rational thought process that can explain this observable and verifiable phenomena?
I don't have anything to do with the former and dopamine hegemony is an encompassing description of a governance system of which racist governance methods were a local and temporary aberration. The reason Black folks are broke in the U.S. has more to do with Black flight and brain drain in the aftermath of the civil rights movement and the fair housing act. Black folks had an awful lot of hegemonically implanted pent-up demand for full participation in the dopaminergic consumerist society. Instead of political economic cohesion, and, preservation of a managerial and professional leadership class (by leader I mean direct, local role model and influence in the community - like a father is in the home) we became a minority that socio-politically centrifuged itself and spun out its densest and most valuable elements.
That said, I'ma leave you to your superstitions because life is too short to play Capt-Save-a-Ho with any stripe of fundamentalist true believer. You go ahead on with your religion and let us all know how it works out for you. Kay?
C1 and Birdeye would almost certainly not admit to that and I wold hazard they are not really cognizant of it at a conscious level. Neither of them can even articulate why it is that they self identify or are identified as white, so I expect nothing else from them in that reagrd. But given enough observation, not much at all with Birdeye, I could certainly identify patterns of behavior and speech that would lead me to believe they did in fact operate with genetic survival as a prime motivating factor.
Thanks for your complete prejudgment man, much appreciated.
Have you identified the pattern yet C1? Or still trying to extend the benefit of the doubt?
Fundamentalists only ever argue with themselves. The gist of the pathology revolves around and depends upon a closed belief system in which what you think and experience and what others should think and write is already established as a given within the fundamentalists head.
There's no point in engaging with that. You simply observe it, catalog its proclivities for future reference, and keep on moving.
Nulan...
"Have you identified the pattern yet C1? Or still trying to extend the benefit of the doubt?"
Translation...
"See Daddy? I'm a smart child."
Yep. that's me arguing with myself. There's no one else here but us wacko fundamentalists.
"The gist of the pathology revolves around and depends upon a closed belief system in which what you think and experience and what others should think and write is already established as a given within the fundamentalists head."-Cnu
I make no apologies for having thoroughly considered my position, and having come to the conclusion that it is more valid than any other explanation, conducting myself accordingly. Is it your contention that you have a position on, say dopamine hegemony, and yet what you think and say on the subject isn't to some extent "established" by the parameters of what you believe regarding dopamine hegemony? Makes no sense to me, but hey, do your thang bro. I'm going to go have another one of those arguments with myself (masquerading I guess as classical one).
C1, I'm not going to apologize, it was not intended negatively, and you can feel free to prove me wrong. This may be one of those times when I haven't made myself quite plain.
It has been my observation that the vast majority (in fact all of them so far) of self identified white people with whom I have had this conversation have been unaware of even the possibility that their self classification carries with it the burden of whiteness. It means something to be white or else you wouldn't claim it.
"I suspect that neither C1 or Byrdeye would own up to any personal or subjective fear of genetic annihilation."-CNu
I notice you didn't accuse CNu of prejudice for the above statement. He said pretty much the same thing I did, but you didn't object to it then. Is it pre-judging you when I asked you to tell me what self identifying as white meant to you and you declined to answer? Am I wrong to assume that if you don't answer, it's likely because you don't have an answer? Perhaps I am. Give me a reason to think otherwise and I will modify my opinion.
I don't really want or need your apology Exodus, does not matter to me. Just don't be too mad about others have preconceptions about yourself when you do the same thing. As far as calling myself white, like I told Mike, his idea of me just telling everyone I wasn't white would not work either. Everybody from Rev. Wright to your black man and white man in the street would still say "your white" so what's the point? You guys are even out of step with Fisher's hero Farrakhan on this one, what would he call me if he saw me? Would he except my profession of non
whiteness?
C1, you just claimed I was out of line for prejudging you and then you turn around and do the same thing to poor Rev. Wright and Minister Farrakhan. I can see why you wouldn't need my apology since you apparently don't really have a problem with prejudging people after all.
Mike already told you that it does not matter one little iota what me or him or any other non-white person thinks if you decide to classify yourself as non-white. That is completely off the point. The question is why do you self identify as white? It's a complete dodge to say that you do it because some people who have no power over your self-determination might think it strange of you if you didn't.
Everyone has preconceptions man. Just like I told Nulen, if you have lived to adulthood and come to no conclusions at all about how you should be conducting yourself, then you may actually have no preconceived notions. Of course you probably have no other notions worth having either. The problem comes when you refuse to examine your preconceived notions critically in the face of opposing viewpoints. I don't think that applies to me at all. I try to fully address all opposing viewpoints to the best of my ability. Does it apply to you? Will you be so kind as to address my viewpoint rather than making it personal between you and I.?
I'm not making it personal Exodus, my point was that you and Mike are even in disagreement with Rev Wright and Farrakhan about white being not connected to being European. I identify as a human being and and individual, I'm not a white national and have no particular interest in some idea of whiteness. As far as being white, in America blond hair and blue eyes with obvious European descent equals white. I can deny being white all I want and it won't make any difference to the vast majority of folks in this country. I have had friends and lovers from all different skin colors and the possibility that I could have achild with someone who might not have my skin tone does not bother me, it's not genetic annihilation, it's only that if you feel skin color is connected to your sense of identity.
C1, may I ask how tall you are?
Post a Comment