0 comment Wednesday, September 3, 2014 | admin
Blogger ''Jetbrane'' at the Iron Ink blog muses on the coming demographic turning point, the predicted loss of our majority status in 2042. He quotes a line of dialogue from the movie 'Braveheart':
The trouble with Scotland is that it�s full of Scots�.If we can�t get them out, we�ll breed them out."
apparently spoken by King Edward 'Longshanks' in the movie. Whether he actually said such a thing in real life I don't know; I do know Hollywood, and even 'conservative' Mel Gibson sometimes puts words in the mouths of historical personages that may or may not be established as words they actually spoke.
Assuming Edward said this, or harbored sentiments along those lines, it is certain that our present-day rulers, who have the temerity to pretend that 'representative government' still exists, do in fact harbor the intent to replace us or 'breed us out'.
So Jetbrane's analogy is an apt one. He continues:
Part of the theme of Braveheart was the will of the Scottish people to retain their own unique ethnic identity over against the attempt by the English to destroy Scottish culture and ethnicity. This is a theme that is likewise picked up in the film "Rob Roy." I�ll venture to guess that when most people viewed these films they were outraged by the attempt of the English to squash Scottish identity, ethnicity and culture as it was depicted in the film.
The attempted destruction of a set people and culture may raise the ire of movie goers but it seemingly barely raises the blood pressure of Americans as life imitates art in America.''
He makes reference to the recent report of the dwindling numbers among the White majority, and our looming loss of majority status in 2042. As he says, this coming change is not an accident or the result of some freak occurrence, but is an engineered, deliberate transformation of America, produced by collusion between government and the schools (government-run) and lately, by our mainline churches -- and even now, by some formerly conservative churches which have become infatuated with the liberal 'emergent' church movement.
And of course the faceless 'globalist' manipulators are the force at the center of it all.
It�s an odd thing that many Christians can watch Braveheart and cheer like wild when the Scots defeat the English attempt to crush their ethnicity and culture, and yet they get all contemptuous when some Americans desire to keep their ethnic and cultural identity accusing them of silly things like racism. Similarly, people would have understood that any ending of Braveheart where the Scots lose their ethnic, cultural and national identity would have been unsatisfactory but yet they have no problem with the prospect of America losing its ethnic, cultural and national identity.''
Amen to that. I also find it passing odd; I cannot understand how people can have become so utterly captured by this PC, one-world ideology in such a short time.
In the time of William Wallace, of course it was not some kind of sinister, worldwide plan as it appears to be now; it was simply the usual struggles over territory and power.
But as to why the many Americans wildly cheer on Braveheart and the Scots defeating the stereotypically-evil 'Saxons' while obtusely remaining blind to the obvious parallels with what is happening to us today, I can't quite explain.
Maybe some of you who have seen the movie Braveheart can clarify this for me: in the movie, was it made clear that 'Braveheart' Wallace was actually fighting to preserve his kin, his heritage, his birthright? Or was it shown as simply a battle for an abstract ideal like 'freedom'?
I have seen many promos for the movie, with Braveheart, face painted blue, bellowing ''Freedom!!!' The impression I got from that image is that maybe the movie soft-pedals the angle of fighting for one's people, hearth and home and heritage, while emphasizing that Braveheart was willing to fight or die for 'Freedom!' rather than blood and soil.
If I am wrong, I am confident some of you will correct me.
Even if the movie did not present the struggle between the Scots and the English this way, I have a suspicion than many historically illiterate Americans would read it this way nonetheless. We have been fed so much of this abstract proposition stuff that we seem to think that our country came into existence solely on that basis, and that all of our forefathers shed their blood and died in past wars solely for abstract ideas like 'Freedom!' or, (perish the thought) 'democracy' rather than for kin, home, hearth, and posterity.
I truly think that the idea of a nation consisting of a people tied mostly by blood and birth, and only incidentally by ideas and ideals, is a foreign one to many Americans today, especially those born after the P.C. reign began.
So now we have a populace who can bristle with indignation over the plight of Braveheart's Scots, threatened with loss of their land and possibly their very existence as a people, yet somehow these Americans cannot perceive any analogy to their own situation.
One more side note about how Americans seem to have embraced the Braveheart movie, cheering on the Scots against the 'villainous' Sassenachs: maybe because of our own Revolutionary struggle against the British, many Americans are inclined to see the British as villains in these historical movies. And the fact that most such movies portray the English as foppish, effete scoundrels does not help much, either.
I think it fairly likely that, of an average Braveheart audience, most of the people watching (who were probably nearly all White, I would wager) who were cheering the defeat of the English were themselves likely to be of more English ancestry than Scots. But somehow the English end up being the side we cheer against. It's ironic. Is this just part of our somewhat knee-jerk sympathies for the 'underdog'? I think it's a dangerous tendency to automatically assume that the 'underdog' is the good guy, and that sympathy of ours is no small part of our suffering millions of immigrants to overrun us. We see them as the poor underdogs, and maybe we feel it would be ungallant of us to treat them sternly. It might appear much like beating up on a weakling, so we try to be magnanimous and treat them as unthreatening objects of charity.
I am descended from people on both sides of the conflict shown in Braveheart; I am not anti-Scots in any way. I love Scottish culture and the Scots people I have met. I just wish that we needn't villainize the English in the process of showing these historical struggles. The Scots and the English are really near cousins, as recent DNA studies have shown. We should not have to pick a side; they are all our kin.
But back to the blog entry. In the comments following, the usual arguments about how 'White' is not an ethnicity, unlike Scots, are made. And also the argument about 'cultural adoption' by immigrants: if the brown-skinned folk who are coming to take our places can adopt our culture, where's the problem?
The discussion never reaches the conclusion, as I have, that race or ethnicity and culture are intertwined, but it's a somewhat interesting discussion nonetheless.
One commenter somewhat grudgingly says 'American' may be an ethnicity but that we are too young to be a 'race'. At least the commenter does not say that 'race' is only a social construct, but that's rather faint praise.
We have to somehow surmount this common notion that it's somehow abhorrent or radical to assert that Americans are an ethnicity or that any mention of the White race being somehow part of American identity is verboten. There is no escaping the fact that the founding stock of this country was White and that they were conscious of that fact, and that they were predominantly of English, or more broadly, British descent.
The truth is never 'racist'. It just is.
It should not have to be so difficult to get more Americans to see what is glaringly obvious about our demographic jeopardy, but the indoctrination has been so thorough and so characterized by propaganda overkill, that it will be an uphill struggle, to say the least.
The trouble with Scotland is that it�s full of Scots�.If we can�t get them out, we�ll breed them out."
apparently spoken by King Edward 'Longshanks' in the movie. Whether he actually said such a thing in real life I don't know; I do know Hollywood, and even 'conservative' Mel Gibson sometimes puts words in the mouths of historical personages that may or may not be established as words they actually spoke.
Assuming Edward said this, or harbored sentiments along those lines, it is certain that our present-day rulers, who have the temerity to pretend that 'representative government' still exists, do in fact harbor the intent to replace us or 'breed us out'.
So Jetbrane's analogy is an apt one. He continues:
Part of the theme of Braveheart was the will of the Scottish people to retain their own unique ethnic identity over against the attempt by the English to destroy Scottish culture and ethnicity. This is a theme that is likewise picked up in the film "Rob Roy." I�ll venture to guess that when most people viewed these films they were outraged by the attempt of the English to squash Scottish identity, ethnicity and culture as it was depicted in the film.
The attempted destruction of a set people and culture may raise the ire of movie goers but it seemingly barely raises the blood pressure of Americans as life imitates art in America.''
He makes reference to the recent report of the dwindling numbers among the White majority, and our looming loss of majority status in 2042. As he says, this coming change is not an accident or the result of some freak occurrence, but is an engineered, deliberate transformation of America, produced by collusion between government and the schools (government-run) and lately, by our mainline churches -- and even now, by some formerly conservative churches which have become infatuated with the liberal 'emergent' church movement.
And of course the faceless 'globalist' manipulators are the force at the center of it all.
It�s an odd thing that many Christians can watch Braveheart and cheer like wild when the Scots defeat the English attempt to crush their ethnicity and culture, and yet they get all contemptuous when some Americans desire to keep their ethnic and cultural identity accusing them of silly things like racism. Similarly, people would have understood that any ending of Braveheart where the Scots lose their ethnic, cultural and national identity would have been unsatisfactory but yet they have no problem with the prospect of America losing its ethnic, cultural and national identity.''
Amen to that. I also find it passing odd; I cannot understand how people can have become so utterly captured by this PC, one-world ideology in such a short time.
In the time of William Wallace, of course it was not some kind of sinister, worldwide plan as it appears to be now; it was simply the usual struggles over territory and power.
But as to why the many Americans wildly cheer on Braveheart and the Scots defeating the stereotypically-evil 'Saxons' while obtusely remaining blind to the obvious parallels with what is happening to us today, I can't quite explain.
Maybe some of you who have seen the movie Braveheart can clarify this for me: in the movie, was it made clear that 'Braveheart' Wallace was actually fighting to preserve his kin, his heritage, his birthright? Or was it shown as simply a battle for an abstract ideal like 'freedom'?
I have seen many promos for the movie, with Braveheart, face painted blue, bellowing ''Freedom!!!' The impression I got from that image is that maybe the movie soft-pedals the angle of fighting for one's people, hearth and home and heritage, while emphasizing that Braveheart was willing to fight or die for 'Freedom!' rather than blood and soil.
If I am wrong, I am confident some of you will correct me.
Even if the movie did not present the struggle between the Scots and the English this way, I have a suspicion than many historically illiterate Americans would read it this way nonetheless. We have been fed so much of this abstract proposition stuff that we seem to think that our country came into existence solely on that basis, and that all of our forefathers shed their blood and died in past wars solely for abstract ideas like 'Freedom!' or, (perish the thought) 'democracy' rather than for kin, home, hearth, and posterity.
I truly think that the idea of a nation consisting of a people tied mostly by blood and birth, and only incidentally by ideas and ideals, is a foreign one to many Americans today, especially those born after the P.C. reign began.
So now we have a populace who can bristle with indignation over the plight of Braveheart's Scots, threatened with loss of their land and possibly their very existence as a people, yet somehow these Americans cannot perceive any analogy to their own situation.
One more side note about how Americans seem to have embraced the Braveheart movie, cheering on the Scots against the 'villainous' Sassenachs: maybe because of our own Revolutionary struggle against the British, many Americans are inclined to see the British as villains in these historical movies. And the fact that most such movies portray the English as foppish, effete scoundrels does not help much, either.
I think it fairly likely that, of an average Braveheart audience, most of the people watching (who were probably nearly all White, I would wager) who were cheering the defeat of the English were themselves likely to be of more English ancestry than Scots. But somehow the English end up being the side we cheer against. It's ironic. Is this just part of our somewhat knee-jerk sympathies for the 'underdog'? I think it's a dangerous tendency to automatically assume that the 'underdog' is the good guy, and that sympathy of ours is no small part of our suffering millions of immigrants to overrun us. We see them as the poor underdogs, and maybe we feel it would be ungallant of us to treat them sternly. It might appear much like beating up on a weakling, so we try to be magnanimous and treat them as unthreatening objects of charity.
I am descended from people on both sides of the conflict shown in Braveheart; I am not anti-Scots in any way. I love Scottish culture and the Scots people I have met. I just wish that we needn't villainize the English in the process of showing these historical struggles. The Scots and the English are really near cousins, as recent DNA studies have shown. We should not have to pick a side; they are all our kin.
But back to the blog entry. In the comments following, the usual arguments about how 'White' is not an ethnicity, unlike Scots, are made. And also the argument about 'cultural adoption' by immigrants: if the brown-skinned folk who are coming to take our places can adopt our culture, where's the problem?
The discussion never reaches the conclusion, as I have, that race or ethnicity and culture are intertwined, but it's a somewhat interesting discussion nonetheless.
One commenter somewhat grudgingly says 'American' may be an ethnicity but that we are too young to be a 'race'. At least the commenter does not say that 'race' is only a social construct, but that's rather faint praise.
We have to somehow surmount this common notion that it's somehow abhorrent or radical to assert that Americans are an ethnicity or that any mention of the White race being somehow part of American identity is verboten. There is no escaping the fact that the founding stock of this country was White and that they were conscious of that fact, and that they were predominantly of English, or more broadly, British descent.
The truth is never 'racist'. It just is.
It should not have to be so difficult to get more Americans to see what is glaringly obvious about our demographic jeopardy, but the indoctrination has been so thorough and so characterized by propaganda overkill, that it will be an uphill struggle, to say the least.
Labels: American Identity, Demographics, Displacement, Ethnic Differences, Ethnic Identity, History, Political Correctness
0 comment Monday, September 1, 2014 | admin
For what it's worth, "n/a" over at race/history/evolution notes posts some information on 'State-level differences in personality', from a report called "The Geography Of Personality; A Theory of the Emergence, Persistence and Expression of Geographic Variation in Basic Traits".
It's interesting stuff; from what I have read, it seems to tally with my own personal perceptions based on my having lived in and spent time in various states. For instance, guess which states are the highest-scoring states in 'neuroticism'.
NEUROTICISM
Personality traits: Anxious, stressful and impulsive.
Highest-scoring states: West Virginia, Rhode Island, New York, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Arkansas.
Lowest-scoring states: Alaska, Oregon, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Washington, Arizona, Nebraska, North Dakota, Nevada.
The first state listed surprises me, but the fact that New York is among the highest-scoring is not surprising to me. No offense to any reader living there, or hailing from there, but New Yorkers do seem to fit the profile listed above as being 'anxious, stressful [sic], and impulsive.'
I guess that's why I never liked the Seinfeld show; it had too much of that neurotic energy about it, like many of the real-life New Yorkers I knew. Where else do you meet 'average' people who have spent years in analysis? It's a hobby, or more accurately, a lifelong project for some people there.
Again, no offense to New Yorkers, but there is something to the stereotypes. And those of us with personality traits which diverge from the norm in a given area are like fish out of water there. It's better to be among people who exhibit similar outlooks and character traits in order to feel most at home.
The state I now live in is one of the lowest-scoring on neuroticism, which again does not surprise me. This state also has a low score on 'extraversion' which is also evident here. People here can be very nice and are very polite, but they are not easy to get close to, nor particularly welcoming to people from other areas -- unless of course, said people are immigrants, in which case they are treated with exaggerated niceness. Still, people here are rather standoffish.
The states that score highest on openness are also for the most part very liberal states. That, too, figures.
The trait of conscientiousness is found more frequently in some Southern states as well as some 'heartland' states. Same with 'agreeableness.'
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Personality traits: Dutiful, responsible, self-disciplined.
Highest-scoring states: New Mexico, North Carolina, Georgia, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Florida, Arizona, Missouri.
Lowest-scoring states: Wyoming, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine, Alaska, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York.
But the question is: why do various states exhibit varying levels of these traits, with certain states showing a tendency to have a sort of identifiable persona? Is there something in the air and water that makes people in different states different? Would moving to one of these states make me or anyone else become the 'typical' resident of that state? Maybe -- to a limited extent. I often wondered if staying in that overcrowded multicultural warren that is New York City would turn me into a real New Yorker. No doubt it would have some effect on me if I had stayed there forever, but I don't think it would change my basic traits.
If the people in Washington State manifest different traits than the people in New York (City or state) it would probably be because the people who settled Washington State tended to be people of different ethnic stock than those in New York or Massachusetts. The early pioneers in the West tended to be Anglo-Saxon (New England stock, sometimes via the Midwest) or Scandinavian or German. New York obviously received many more Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans.
It isn't the 'culture' which makes the person or the ethnic group, but vice-versa.
If I were planning to look for a new home, I would seek out the states where people had higher levels of conscientiousness and 'agreeableness' and lower levels of 'openness' and neuroticism.
It's interesting stuff; from what I have read, it seems to tally with my own personal perceptions based on my having lived in and spent time in various states. For instance, guess which states are the highest-scoring states in 'neuroticism'.
NEUROTICISM
Personality traits: Anxious, stressful and impulsive.
Highest-scoring states: West Virginia, Rhode Island, New York, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Arkansas.
Lowest-scoring states: Alaska, Oregon, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Washington, Arizona, Nebraska, North Dakota, Nevada.
The first state listed surprises me, but the fact that New York is among the highest-scoring is not surprising to me. No offense to any reader living there, or hailing from there, but New Yorkers do seem to fit the profile listed above as being 'anxious, stressful [sic], and impulsive.'
I guess that's why I never liked the Seinfeld show; it had too much of that neurotic energy about it, like many of the real-life New Yorkers I knew. Where else do you meet 'average' people who have spent years in analysis? It's a hobby, or more accurately, a lifelong project for some people there.
Again, no offense to New Yorkers, but there is something to the stereotypes. And those of us with personality traits which diverge from the norm in a given area are like fish out of water there. It's better to be among people who exhibit similar outlooks and character traits in order to feel most at home.
The state I now live in is one of the lowest-scoring on neuroticism, which again does not surprise me. This state also has a low score on 'extraversion' which is also evident here. People here can be very nice and are very polite, but they are not easy to get close to, nor particularly welcoming to people from other areas -- unless of course, said people are immigrants, in which case they are treated with exaggerated niceness. Still, people here are rather standoffish.
The states that score highest on openness are also for the most part very liberal states. That, too, figures.
The trait of conscientiousness is found more frequently in some Southern states as well as some 'heartland' states. Same with 'agreeableness.'
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Personality traits: Dutiful, responsible, self-disciplined.
Highest-scoring states: New Mexico, North Carolina, Georgia, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Florida, Arizona, Missouri.
Lowest-scoring states: Wyoming, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine, Alaska, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York.
But the question is: why do various states exhibit varying levels of these traits, with certain states showing a tendency to have a sort of identifiable persona? Is there something in the air and water that makes people in different states different? Would moving to one of these states make me or anyone else become the 'typical' resident of that state? Maybe -- to a limited extent. I often wondered if staying in that overcrowded multicultural warren that is New York City would turn me into a real New Yorker. No doubt it would have some effect on me if I had stayed there forever, but I don't think it would change my basic traits.
If the people in Washington State manifest different traits than the people in New York (City or state) it would probably be because the people who settled Washington State tended to be people of different ethnic stock than those in New York or Massachusetts. The early pioneers in the West tended to be Anglo-Saxon (New England stock, sometimes via the Midwest) or Scandinavian or German. New York obviously received many more Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans.
It isn't the 'culture' which makes the person or the ethnic group, but vice-versa.
If I were planning to look for a new home, I would seek out the states where people had higher levels of conscientiousness and 'agreeableness' and lower levels of 'openness' and neuroticism.
Labels: American Character, Ethnic Differences, Regional Differences
0 comment Wednesday, May 28, 2014 | admin
At Steve Sailer's blog, there is a post on National Merit Semifinalists, and of course the Asian issue becomes the main point of discussion in the comment thread.
At the time I am writing this, there are 164 comments, and only one or two of them seem to come to the obvious conclusions.
It's rather ironic that a number of posts accuse the regular posters of anti-Asian bias, which is amusing to me because I see just the opposite among that group of commenters: they admire Asians, specifically East Asians, to an almost fawning degree. They are very much in awe of the high IQs of East Asians (although usually credit is given to 'Asians' in general) and of their superior academic skills and study habits.
It seems to be widely accepted, even on the pro-White right, that East Asians are much more intelligent than Whites. Fine; credit where due. But as one or maybe two commenters imply, if high IQs and academic prowess don't result in a people's homeland being more liveable and more well-functioning, then are they really as super-intelligent as most seem to think them to be?
Why are so many of the people from the high IQ East Asian countries bound and determined to leave and to come to the West? Oh yes, we know, for ''opportunity'' or ''a better life.'' But why not use that superior brainpower to create opportunity and a better life in their homeland?
As always, I am a big believer in results. Intelligence will out. The highly intelligent, or those of ''superior'' minds, should be able to create countries that are liveable, countries where people are not eager to escape. Of course, the Japanese have created a very liveable and safe society, given that no society is perfect. All credit to them.
However the rest of East Asia hardly looks like the work of intellectually superior people.
Having high intelligence on paper is insignificant if no proof is shown in the kind of environment these superior intellects create for themselves.
Or maybe, as some commenters suggest, something besides IQ is at work in making successful countries -- or individuals.
One thing that exasperates me (still) is the almost-universal belief that 'culture' shapes people; to me, this idea is a cop-out, a way of avoiding the elephant in the room: race, and the differences in abilities among the various races. Perish the thought that we might consider that the people themselves produce the culture, and it reflects their innate qualities and strengths and weaknesses. Where, for heaven's sake, does the vaunted Asian culture, with its emphasis on learning and academic success, come from?
The people make the culture, not vice versa. And genetics, to a great extent makes the people.
But it seems many Americans are wary of any such thoughts. So we go on pretending that, exposed to the right cultural influences, all races could achieve at the same level. Right.
At the time I am writing this, there are 164 comments, and only one or two of them seem to come to the obvious conclusions.
It's rather ironic that a number of posts accuse the regular posters of anti-Asian bias, which is amusing to me because I see just the opposite among that group of commenters: they admire Asians, specifically East Asians, to an almost fawning degree. They are very much in awe of the high IQs of East Asians (although usually credit is given to 'Asians' in general) and of their superior academic skills and study habits.
It seems to be widely accepted, even on the pro-White right, that East Asians are much more intelligent than Whites. Fine; credit where due. But as one or maybe two commenters imply, if high IQs and academic prowess don't result in a people's homeland being more liveable and more well-functioning, then are they really as super-intelligent as most seem to think them to be?
Why are so many of the people from the high IQ East Asian countries bound and determined to leave and to come to the West? Oh yes, we know, for ''opportunity'' or ''a better life.'' But why not use that superior brainpower to create opportunity and a better life in their homeland?
As always, I am a big believer in results. Intelligence will out. The highly intelligent, or those of ''superior'' minds, should be able to create countries that are liveable, countries where people are not eager to escape. Of course, the Japanese have created a very liveable and safe society, given that no society is perfect. All credit to them.
However the rest of East Asia hardly looks like the work of intellectually superior people.
Having high intelligence on paper is insignificant if no proof is shown in the kind of environment these superior intellects create for themselves.
Or maybe, as some commenters suggest, something besides IQ is at work in making successful countries -- or individuals.
One thing that exasperates me (still) is the almost-universal belief that 'culture' shapes people; to me, this idea is a cop-out, a way of avoiding the elephant in the room: race, and the differences in abilities among the various races. Perish the thought that we might consider that the people themselves produce the culture, and it reflects their innate qualities and strengths and weaknesses. Where, for heaven's sake, does the vaunted Asian culture, with its emphasis on learning and academic success, come from?
The people make the culture, not vice versa. And genetics, to a great extent makes the people.
But it seems many Americans are wary of any such thoughts. So we go on pretending that, exposed to the right cultural influences, all races could achieve at the same level. Right.
Labels: American Diversity, Culture, Education, Egalitarianism, Ethnic Differences, Immigration, Intelligence, Multicuturalism
0 comment Monday, April 28, 2014 | admin
I've decided that this 'honest dialogue' thing is a good idea, and in the interest of contributing to the discussion, I thought it might be useful to remind ourselves of some of the 'dialogue' contributed by others over the last 15 or 20 years, when many of us were not really paying attention.
"At no moment in my life have I ever felt as though I were an American." - Toni Morrison
"The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean Algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and Ballanchine ballets don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history." - Susan Sontag
"Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." - Mary Frances Berry, Civil Rights Commission head, 1991
"Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get
out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. . . ." - Augustin Cebada, quoted by Barbara Coe, in Reconquista: The Takeover of America, 1991
"We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are ****ting in their pants with fear! . . . I love it!" - 'Professor' Jose Angel Gutierrez, ibid.
"I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder." - 'Professor' bell hooks [sic], from A Killing Rage
"And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem." - African Studies 'professor', Dr. Kamau Kambon
''When I consider the enormity of the white man's crimes against humanity ... Against the poor. Against my mother and my father. Against me ... I think ... Let the earth marinate in poisons. Let the bombs cover the ground like rain. For nothing short of total destruction will ever teach them anything!' - Alice Walker, 'In Search of Our Mother's Gardens'
Also see here for more from Walker along these lines : What can the White man say to the black woman?
"When talking about the history of this great country, one can never forget that America was built upon the genocide of Native Americans and enslavement of African people. To say otherwise is criminal." - Spike Lee, quoted in LA Times, 7/7/2000
"I'm convinced AIDS is a government-engineered disease. They got one thing wrong, they never realized it couldn't just be contained to the groups it was intended to wipe out. So, now it's a national priority. Exactly like drugs when they escaped the urban centers into white suburbia." - Spike Lee (again), quoted in Detroit Free Press, 9/9/1992
This is just a small sampling of the 'dialogue' to date, as contributed by the other side, the only side which gets heard in our useless media. Our side has been oddly silent thus far, except for the occasional protest 'not me, I'm no racist', which, to be fair, is about all we are allowed to say in this rigged 'dialogue.'
But in principle I think dialogue could be a good thing, and I expect to have more to say on this, though I have a feeling it is not what our masters want to hear.
"At no moment in my life have I ever felt as though I were an American." - Toni Morrison
"The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean Algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and Ballanchine ballets don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history." - Susan Sontag
"Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." - Mary Frances Berry, Civil Rights Commission head, 1991
"Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get
out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. . . ." - Augustin Cebada, quoted by Barbara Coe, in Reconquista: The Takeover of America, 1991
"We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are ****ting in their pants with fear! . . . I love it!" - 'Professor' Jose Angel Gutierrez, ibid.
"I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder." - 'Professor' bell hooks [sic], from A Killing Rage
"And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem." - African Studies 'professor', Dr. Kamau Kambon
''When I consider the enormity of the white man's crimes against humanity ... Against the poor. Against my mother and my father. Against me ... I think ... Let the earth marinate in poisons. Let the bombs cover the ground like rain. For nothing short of total destruction will ever teach them anything!' - Alice Walker, 'In Search of Our Mother's Gardens'
Also see here for more from Walker along these lines : What can the White man say to the black woman?
"When talking about the history of this great country, one can never forget that America was built upon the genocide of Native Americans and enslavement of African people. To say otherwise is criminal." - Spike Lee, quoted in LA Times, 7/7/2000
"I'm convinced AIDS is a government-engineered disease. They got one thing wrong, they never realized it couldn't just be contained to the groups it was intended to wipe out. So, now it's a national priority. Exactly like drugs when they escaped the urban centers into white suburbia." - Spike Lee (again), quoted in Detroit Free Press, 9/9/1992
This is just a small sampling of the 'dialogue' to date, as contributed by the other side, the only side which gets heard in our useless media. Our side has been oddly silent thus far, except for the occasional protest 'not me, I'm no racist', which, to be fair, is about all we are allowed to say in this rigged 'dialogue.'
But in principle I think dialogue could be a good thing, and I expect to have more to say on this, though I have a feeling it is not what our masters want to hear.
Labels: Ethnic Differences, Ethnic Division, First Amendment, Freedom Of Expression, Political Correctness