Disagreeing with blacks is racist

Posted by Rusty Mason on July 12, 2006, 10:31 PM | #

In typical Jewish fashion, Prager gets the argument wrong:

“I could not imagine anything more detrimental toward abolishing racism and to enhancing black progress in America than such an attitude.”

Why should Whites give a damn about enhancing black progress?  Most don’t, of course, they only pretend to to avoid being called racists by Blacks and Jews.  What a shill.

Posted by Calvin on July 12, 2006, 11:08 PM | #

“I could not imagine anything more detrimental toward abolishing racism and to enhancing black progress in America than such an attitude.”

We could try celebrating and promoting all of the most negative aspects of Black American “culture” ie, machismo, promiscuity, bad parenthood, violence, contempt for education, criminality, etc., when Blacks find that this kind of behaviour annoys Whites, tell they that tell them it’s because White people are racists. When they find that this type of behaviour has negative economic consequences tell them that their poverty is really a result of historical and ongoing White racism. Is there really a group of people out there who would do something so malevolent and devious?

Posted by Steven Palese on July 12, 2006, 11:43 PM | #

Svyatoslav asks,

I’d like to see something of a more scholarly nature on this subject

This phenomenon of white meekness is partly driven by Gramscian theory. If you don’t understand Gramscian theory, you cant understand what’s happening.

GRAMSCIANISM - IMPORTANCE

We start the new century and the new millennium with a problem of major proportions: the seemingly unstoppable march of political correctness through American institutions and life.

Fonte contrasts “two competing worldviews” that are currently struggling for dominance in America. It would be fair to say that the two really are at war: Fonte somewhat euphemistically calls the contest an “intense ideological struggle.” One he calls “Gramscian”; the other, “Tocquevillian,” after the intellectuals he credits with having authored the respective warring ideologies: the Italian neo-Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, author of Prison Notebooks and other works, and the French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, author of the influential Democracy in America.

[Actually, it would be fair to say one is eating the other for breakfast every morning, not that they are “at war"]

It becomes clear that one cannot understand either the meteoric rise or apparent immunity of political correctness to attack without understanding Gramsci. Rarely would I recommend actually studying a Marxist social philosopher, but this guy merits our attention.

[...]

Antonio Gramsci’s name is not exactly a household word. Many people concerned about political correctness have no doubt never heard of him. To describe him as important, however, is probably the understatement of the new year. He sketched, in works such as Prison Notebooks, the basic outline of the agenda that would begin to be implemented in American colleges and universities, and then carried to the rest of society, in the final quarter of the 20th century. The efforts accelerating in the 1990s, no doubt helped along by having one of their own (perhaps it was two of their own) in the White House. Clearly, we find echoes of Gramsci’s notion of an “organic” intellectual in today’s calls for more and more “diversity” in all areas of society: universities, the workplace, etc. The mass conversion of “traditional” intellectuals to the Gramscian struggle helps explain why this diversity is a diversity of faces and not ideas. “Traditional” intellectuals have power, especially in education. The gatekeepers control who is admitted to the academic club, and the “traditional” intellectuals control the gatekeepers. Today, an outspoken conservative might as well not even apply for an academic appointment in a public university. But feminists of all stripes and colors (and sexual preferences and fetishes) are more than welcome!

GRAMSCIANISM - ELEMENTS

Oppressor/oppressed model: Gramsci agreed with Karl Marx that every society could be divided into “oppressor” and “oppressed” classes (e.g., Marx’s own “bourgeois” and “proletariat"), but for the first time, expanded the latter into an ensemble of subordinate, marginalized groups instead of a single, homogeneous group.

Hegemonic ideology: the pervasive and mostly tacit use of a system of values that supports and reinforces the interests of the dominant groups. See below for more on this key concept.

Counter-hegemony: system of values favoring the repressed groups that would undermine or delegitimize the hegemony-created consciousness; before there could be any “revolution” in Marx’s sense. The point is to create a new kind of “consciousness” free of the values that allow the dominant group(s) to repress the subordinate groups.

“Organic” intellectuals: intellectuals belonging to the repressed groups and making an effort to undermine the “hegemony” with the assistance of any “traditional” intellectuals they could persuade to defect from the dominant point of view. They will flourish as the roots of counter-hegemony grow. In other words, Gramsci was recommending recruiting radicalized women, members of minority groups, and others into the fold – affirmative action before that term was coined. Changing the minds of “traditional” intellectuals was particularly valuable, as they were already well positioned within the dominant educational institutions. The “long march through the institutions” – a phrase we also owe to Gramsci – began.

Controlling language: There are only systems of value that represent either the interests of those in power or of those not in power; and one of the jobs of “organic” intellectuals is to develop systems of value that will undermine the former. Capturing control over language, especially the language of morality, has a major role to play in this because of the doors it opens to psychological control over the masses.

Deconstruction (critical theory): The academic movement known as “deconstruction,” however one defines it, is a systematic effort to destroy the legitimacy of the values of “dominant groups”: straight white Christian males of (non-Marxist) European descent. The values to be destroyed: truth as the goal of inquiry, transcendent morality as the guide to human conduct, freedom and independence as political ideals, hiring and contracting based on merit. All are rationalizing myths of the dominant consciousness, in the Gramscian scheme of things.

MORE ON HEGEMONIC IDEOLOGY

Gramsci began with the insight that, most of the time, political power in liberal democracies is exercised not through government use of force (imprisoning political dissenters, killing protestors, etc.), but through a dominant world-view, or ideology. This commonly-held set of ideas and symbols legitimates existing rulers, helping them to win the citizens’ consent, or at least acquiescence.

Gramsci defined hegemony as the process by which the dominant classes or class fractions, through their privileged access to social institutions (such as the media), propagate values that reinforce their control over politics and the economy. These values form a dominant ideology. The dominant ideology in any society is a set of common sense assumptions that legitimates the existing distribution of power. Ideology makes this structure of power seem “natural,” “normal,” or “inevitable,” and therefore beyond challenge.

Through ideology, ruling groups attempt to universalize their own interests as the interests of all.

Gramsci argues that it is by these ideational means, rather than through the coercive force of the state, that ruling groups maintain their power. And power is most effectively exercised not through overt inculcation and censorship, but “also and especially (by) the ability to define the parameters of legitimate discussion and debate over alternative beliefs, values and world views”.

Instead, for theorists of hegemony, the creation and spread of ideology is a very complex process. Cultural institutions play a key role in perpetuating aspects of the dominant worldview. These include the family, religious organizations, and the mass media, among others. Some argue that hegemonic ideology acts primarily as a kind of social glue that holds together the farflung and diverse peoples of contemporary democracies.

Source: Understanding the Culture War: Gramscians, Tocquevillians and Others

In short, for as long as whites accept the underlying Gramscian premise that we are “in power” and “the oppressors”, we’re completely defenseless against ALL minority groups - not just blacks.

I’ll discuss counter-Gramscian theory in the next post.

Posted by James Bowery on July 12, 2006, 11:45 PM | #

“As a rule, hybrids do not represent the form exactly intermediate between the parental strains...Those traits that pass into hybrid association entirely or almost entirely unchanged, thus themselves representing the traits of the hybrid, are termed dominating, and those that become latent in the association, recessive.”
- Gregor Mendel (1865)

“...mutations are most frequently in the direction of inactivation and that for physiological reasons inactivation should generally behave as recessive.”
- Sewall Wright (1929)

“If two beavers working on the same dam have different genes for dam height, the resulting extended phenotype will reflect the interaction between genes, in the same way as bodies reflect the gene interactions. There could be extended genetic analogues of epistasis, of modifier genes, even of dominance and recessiveness.”
- Richard Dawkins (1982)

Freedom is the ability to express self-interest.

Oppression is the inability to express self-interest.

Slavery is the compulsion to express other-interest.

Dominance acquires freedom by taking it from others, resulting in oppression if not slavery.

To the extent that phenotypes extend outside the bodies within which their genes reside (as described by Dawkins) genetic dominance (as described by Mendel) has social implications. To the extent that mutations tend to be recessive (as described by Wright) those social implications are the oppression and slavery of recently evolved populations by older populations when they come into intimate contact through ecological mixing.

This is the essence of hypothesis of genetic omnidominance; The GOD Hypothesis.

Posted by Steven Palese on July 13, 2006, 12:07 AM | #

Counter-Gramscian theory is Gramscian theory with two key differences:

First, the oppressor/oppressed model changes to reflect the new reality. Gramscianism posits whites as “oppressors” and the various Politically Correct darlings as the “oppressed”. However, that is no longer true. As detailed in my leaflet, whites no longer have power, Jews do. Hence, whites are now the “oppressed” and Jews the “oppressors”. See where I’m going?

Second, the hegemonic ideology that sustains the regime changes to reflect the new reality. Gramscianism posits our traditions and institutions ("dead white male” stuff) as the hegemonic ideology. Again, that is no longer true. Hegemony is now held by Gramscians - as a look at any college syllabus will amply demonstrate. Thus it is the Gramscian premise described above, that whites are “in power” and “the oppressors”, that forms the current hegemonic ideology.

This new hegemonic ideology, that whites are “in power” and therefore “the oppressors” is the glue that holds the Jewish-supremacist system together. This belief is also known as the Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory. This theory also happens to be a racial theory because it justifies and legitimises discrimination against a group based on their race. That group is us. This racial theory is the regime’s hegemonic ideology. Here’s three examples of this new hegemonic ideology in action:

GOVERNMENT
“Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.” Chairman Mary Frances Berry, US Commission on Civil Rights

UNIVERSITIES
“Only whites can be racist” Cornell University

SCHOOLS
“[Racism is] The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites).” Seattle school district

In summary:

Gramscian theory - deconstruct the regime’s hegemonic ideology in order to destroy the regime.

Counter-Gramscian theory - deconstruct the Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory in order to:
a) Stop Gramscianism in its tracks by deconstructing its core premise that whites are “in power” and “the oppressors”.
b) Start counter-Gramscianism by substituting Jews for whites as the ones “in power” and “the oppressors”.
c) Keep going until the Jewish-supremacist sytem is destroyed.

This leaflet is a weapon designed to destroy this anti-white racial theory that represents the regime’s hegemonic ideology. Look again at the three examples provided above, particularly the Seattle school district. How would that anti-white racist nonsense survive if you drop the leaflet on the table and ask the simple question, “If we have relatively more social power then why are my children worth less than a third of a person?”

Note that counter-Gramscianism is only distinct from Gramscianism insofar as the actors and target hegemonic ideology have been updated to reflect reality. Everything else is absolutely identical. Counter-Gramscianism is merely a choice of words designed to avoid confusion, no more. Don’t look for theoretical innovations in it because there aren’t any.

As I said in the previous post, white meekness is partly driven by Gramscian theory. There is a second driver: the dual persecution strategy outlined in the last part of the counter-Gramscian leaflet itself.

Conclusion. White meekness is driven by a) our acceptance of anti-white racial theories that frame us as being “in power” and “the oppressors” and b) because our leaders - who would have fought them - have been and continue to be persecuted by Jewish-supremacist organizations. We have been squeezed into this submissive state by the Gramscian attack on one side and the dual persecution strategy on the other.

Posted by ben tillman on July 13, 2006, 12:23 AM | #

Absolutely brilliant, James.

Posted by ben tillman on July 13, 2006, 12:29 AM | #

Counter-Gramscian theory is Gramscian theory with two key differences....

We’ve been imbued with a false consciousness.

Posted by Stanley Womack on July 13, 2006, 01:18 AM | #

Prager: “But apparently it is the norm in American life to so fear being called a racist that individuals as well as institutions react to blacks as they would to children — humoring them rather than taking them seriously.”

This is typical of the Prager Mind—“white” people are afraid of being called racist for speaking up in mixed-race contexts, therefore “whites” are racist for “humoring” blacks.

That’s a double-whammy, all right.

However, there is a way to talk in mixed-race contexts and it is not even difficult. It’s just the reverse of the “theory of slurs” in our syllabus—don’t be contemptuous, don’t claim a supremacist position that allows one to do the naming, and don’t seem to see them as a monolithic whole. Most “white” people don’t understand this, but if you are able to understand how to rebut hate speech against you without whining, you understand how to talk with most African Americans. It’s really not hard.

This does not apply, by the way, to street criminals, rapists, bullies, set-ups like those by Jane Elliot, or those attempting to score racial points. This is true anyway whether the provocateur is black, bronze, yellow, red, or white.

But it does apply to most office, conference, commercial, and one-on-one situations. Our members talk with African Americans using our European American voice (with a decent sense of self-respect) and we get along very well.

Posted by onetwothree on July 13, 2006, 03:42 AM | #

Is actual hegemony incompatible with maintaining hegemony? There has to be, eventually, some sort of attitude that allows for a _deserved_ rulership, such that it doesn’t lose morale. Our Jewish friends advertise great hardship while possessing great power--but I don’t think ordinary people can finese that contradiction so well. For one thing, “ordinary people” are more numerous than 2 percent of the population--and that “2 percent” strengthens claims of oppression.

As to whites avoiding disagreements with blacks--I think it goes beyond a mere race question. I have been in meetings (all white) in which a normally quiet individual suddenly spoke up and said something--not very intelligent, maybe, but very self-assurred. In such situations, people tend NOT to contradict the person. It’s odd. There’s a way of formulating an opinion that makes it hard to argue with--using emotional language, for example. I mean: Pretend this whole paragraph was replaced by “That guy doesn’t know nothing! Hmmph.” How do you argue with that?

Posted by Guessedworker on July 13, 2006, 07:42 AM | #

Well, I generally keep contact with non-whites to the polite minimum.  That way we never get beyond superficialities unless they press some gratuitous multicultural orthodoxy on me (which has happened).

But blacks I shut out.  I have no interest in talking to them whatsoever, no interest in explicating myself or society to them or disabusing them of their opinions.  Their young males I judge to be just a potential source of trouble, and the only circumstance under which I could anticipate any interaction with them is self-defence.

A more honest question that Prager might have asked is: “Why should European-Americans be pissed to argue with people whose behaviour and unpromising capacities they know only too well?

Posted by Rusty Mason on July 13, 2006, 02:03 PM | #

Steven,

I like the direction of your idea but I’m concerned about something.  The Anti-Grammy Whammy seems to be, at best, a way to return White power to the level of Jewish power; it would make us equal in power, not give us back all of our freedom. 

How do you propose to counter the illusion that 2% of the population could not control the majority?  This is an especially intractable problem in a society (Western) that prides itself on being a democracy (p-toow!), where the majority supposedly rules.  I think that overcoming the 2% illusion must be part of the initial strategy.

Sorry if you’ve talked about this already too, but have you addressed the idea of Freedom of Association as a mantra or battle-cry?  It is this lack of freedom that keeps Whites from forming any strong legal organizations, living areas, or treasuries.  FoA is already an accepted, even if unspoken, principle of conservatives and would be difficult for the oppressors to attack openly.  I’d like to see this idea treated in your strategy.

Posted by ben tillman on July 13, 2006, 02:33 PM | #

However, there is a way to talk in mixed-race contexts and it is not even difficult.

It’s simply a matter of speaking without fear.  I am not morally disarmed, so I have no fear.

Posted by Søren Renner on July 13, 2006, 02:56 PM | #

Is there a link to a PDF of Steven Palese’s pamphlet? Surely he would not object to copies being printed and distributed.

Posted by Søren Renner on July 13, 2006, 03:02 PM | #

But blacks I shut out.  I have no interest in talking to them whatsoever. . .

Guessedworker, you and I are of a feather—if one may preen.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 13, 2006, 04:00 PM | #

Erm, no one may not.  Unless one is talking about feathers of this kind.  (There’s some pretty good nose art on that site, btw)

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on July 13, 2006, 08:42 PM | #

Well, there is something to be said for the idea that different motives spur the same behavior; whites avoid disagreeing with blacks out of contempt, or fear, or both.  However, that falls apart in the setting Prager describes.  No one with a scrap of self-respect would let Prager’s “child” explanation get in the way in an investigatory setting.  Sure, one might indulge children as a matter of expediency, but not so far as to sway a jury.  So, Prager’s full of it and fear is the only explanation, in this context.

Posted by Calvin on July 14, 2006, 01:41 PM | #

It’s worth pointing out that Gramscianism is itself counter-Darwinian. Darwin assumed that hegemony was a symptom of superior genetic fitness. Gramscians insist that disparities in power are purely the result of exploitation. This is a truly risible falsehood and so-called “academics” should be ashamed for having fallen for it.

A marked power disparity exists between parents and children. Parents are not the oppressors of their children. Parents (or at least 99% of them) make tremendous sacrifices to protect and provide for their children. A Gramscian power analysis obliges us to believe that the parents are oppressing the children and that without parental exploitation the children would be able to enjoy the same lifestyle as adults. This is nonsense. If Gramsci were right Olympic gold medal winners are the oppressors of silver medal winners; people with learning difficulties are being oppressed by intellectuals and ugly people are being oppressed by good looking people.

A Darwinian analysis of the racial situation in modern Europe and America would conclude that a situation exists where White people were putting the interests of non-Whites before their own interests in ways which were detrimental to their existence as an ethno-cultural group.  There are two Darwinian explanations for this behaviour; either Europeans possess a unique genetic flaw (hyper-altruism?) that fatally compromises their evolutionary fitness, or Kevin MacDonald is right and a third group are imposing their will upon Euros. 

Gramscian theory insists that European hegemony results not from superior talent but from a superior willingness to exploit other groups. Gramscians posit this theory despite overwhelming evidence that non-Whites are at least as oppressive as Caucasians when the opportunity arises. Three examples spring to mind; the Muslim slave trade; modern Southern Africa and the apartheid state of Israel. Basically, Gramsci’s theory is a more academically respectable version of Elijah Muhammad’s ridiculous assertions that Whites are “blue-eyed devils” created in a laboratory by a malign genius called Yacub.  Both teories are just acceptable ways of saying White people are evil and should be accorded no more consideration than cockroaches.I don’t find this terribly convincing. Shit! I must be a racist then

Posted by Steven Palese on July 14, 2006, 08:05 PM | #

onetwothree,

Our Jewish friends advertise great hardship while possessing great power--but I don’t think ordinary people can finese that contradiction so well. For one thing, “ordinary people” are more numerous than 2 percent of the population--and that “2 percent” strengthens claims of oppression.

Rusty makes the same point. I’m aware of this and while I’ve been stressing only one anti-white racial theory, there’s actually three of them in play. Your objection could be recast as a variation of the Majority Deference theory:

This racial theory holds that “majorities must serve minorities unless the minority is white”. It is a racial theory because its discriminatory logic applies exclusively to whites. For example, suggesting the reverse, that white minorities in South Africa or Detroit should have not equal but superior rights is widely considered insane.

Basically, I propose the objection be countered with a vivid South Africa analogy that demolishes the notion that power is a function of numbers. An extreme way of doing so would be, “Oh yea, I remember South African uncle toms saying the same thing to deflect attention from their white masters.”

a normally quiet individual suddenly spoke up and said something--not very intelligent, maybe, but very self-assurred. In such situations, people tend NOT to contradict the person. It’s odd. There’s a way of formulating an opinion that makes it hard to argue with--using emotional language, for example.

Yes, better to be cocksure and wrong than defensive and correct. Never, ever be defensive.

Rusty,

Anti-[Gramscian approach] seems to be, at best, a way to return White power to the level of Jewish power; it would make us equal in power, not give us back all of our freedom.

Gramscianism completely cripples the group in power - as it is doing to us. The only flaw it suffers from is that at some point, owing to its success, the group being crippled is no longer in power and the Gramscian premise de facto disappears, though the perception remains.

Of course, if (big if) we successfully exploit this flaw and turn Gramscianism against them, then we too would lose the premise at some point and they could flip it back at us again. But we are so far from even starting the counter-Gramscian attack I wouldn’t worry about it.

How do you propose to counter the illusion that 2% of the population could not control the majority?  This is an especially intractable problem in a society (Western) that prides itself on being a democracy (p-toow!), where the majority supposedly rules.  I think that overcoming the 2% illusion must be part of the initial strategy.

Actually it is part of the initial strategy - it’s identified as one of the three anti-white racial theories we need to destroy. Can it be included in the leaflet? Possibly - but space is tight and I would have to remove something else. Do you and 123 think that the Majority Defernce theory is problematic enough to warrant doing so?

Sorry if you’ve talked about this already too, but have you addressed the idea of Freedom of Association as a mantra or battle-cry?  It is this lack of freedom that keeps Whites from forming any strong legal organizations, living areas, or treasuries.  FoA is already an accepted, even if unspoken, principle of conservatives and would be difficult for the oppressors to attack openly.  I’d like to see this idea treated in your strategy.

No I haven’t considered it and I know I should. We have until the September to get our ideas straight - the battle begins this fall semester. I’m glad you showed up at the JQ debate at the phora - that’s where these ideas will be hammered out.

Soren Renner,

Is there a link to a PDF of Steven Palese’s pamphlet? Surely he would not object to copies being printed and distributed.

I would’t object at all but note that it is still “under construction”. It appears the overall argument and factual basis are sound but the terminology needs changing. Check the debate at the phora for an update on how the terminology has already been changing - we’ve tentatively dropped “Judeo-fascism” in favor of “Cryptarchy” and are experimenting with “ZioNazi”. Also note that there is a space at the end for the “what we are adn what we want” message. If you tell me what you want placed there, I’ll make you a custom pdf. In our case the message is:

PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE FREELY

With one exception, all groups on campus have representation. The administration continues to deny whites a student union on the grounds that in U.S. society, whites are “in power”, “privileged” and “the oppressors”.

This racial theory is known as the Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory. It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against individuals based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual status or financial condition and therefore denies innocence as a defense.

We ask that either all groups be given representation or none. As long as this reasonable equal rights demand is denied, volunteers will continue to distribute this leaflet. This leaflet is designed to embarrass the administration by demonstrating that the racial theory they base their denial upon is incorrect. 2nd class whites are not “in power”, not “privileged” and not in a position to be “the oppressors”. To join us in our equal rights struggle please visit http://ourblog

As you can see our agenda is very specific to our campus battle and is unlikely to match yours. The final part of the leaflet will have to be rewritten to suit your purposes.

One final note: This leaflet is designed as a threat device to soften campus administrations toward the idea of giving us equal rights in representation. It’s not actually for distribution unless they want a fight. The idea of having a lealfet as hardcore as this one inserted throughout hundreds of thousands of library books will make them break into a cold sweat. They know and we know they’ll be eaten alive by Inner Party orgs if they let this one spin out of control.

Calvin,

I agree that Gramscian theory’s underlying ideological basis is as flawed as the rest of the neo-Marxist intellectual swamp it hails from. Nevertheless, we must recognize its critical importance and treat it the same way a soldier would treat a cache of enemy maps and plans that fell into his hands.

Posted by Calvin on July 14, 2006, 10:11 PM | #

“For example, suggesting the reverse, that white minorities in South Africa or Detroit should have not equal but superior rights is widely considered insane”

That’s a good point.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on July 15, 2006, 04:03 PM | #

WOMACK AND ONE TWO THREE are nothing more than apoligists,or mullatoes themselves.Such crap could not come from the mouth of a White person.I spent 25 years in enginering jobs,and NEVER heard a NEGRO offer a significant input at any meeting,contribute to any design,or,in general,earn his keep.Just more white mans burden-alive and well in corporate America.Now,we’re going to “assimilate"20 millionILLEGAL wetbacks! Health Insurance consumes 10-15% of your annual income,home and auto insurance another 10-12%,property taxes about5-7%[to feed the NEA,and ignorant Blacks and illegals]-When will Whites wake up,and say “ENOUGH”?  Semper Fi!

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 15, 2006, 04:45 PM | #

“ When will Whites wake up,and say “ENOUGH”? “

When New World Order shills, disinformation hucksters and redirect agents such as John Ray are ignored by all concerned parties. That’s when.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on July 16, 2006, 12:30 AM | #

“New World Order shills, disinformation hucksters and redirect agents” Steve-impressive phraseology-covers the entire gambit of assholes leading us into the turd-world.Now,if we could reach the Homer Simpsons---Oh well,it,s just an old man’s dream. Regards. NST

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on July 16, 2006, 01:07 AM | #

SVYATOSLAV[or whatever]-RATSHIT!Your required knowledge of Gramscian theory does not impart ignorance on those of us who can tell a NEGRO from a White,and their relative worths.And Alexis de Torqueville was anything but an egalitairian,more aligned to the American prolitariat,as his missives portrayed .I feel sure he was also IGNORANT of your vaunted Gramscian THEORY{look up the defination of theory] I don’t like to get into pissing contests with you schollary types,but this far from the point take on the base subject {Black Racism,in case you forgot},evolves into the nether-world of academia.BTW-do you have a REAL name?

Posted by Steven Palese on July 16, 2006, 03:13 AM | #

Zach, sorry about that oversight. The phora thread is here

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on July 16, 2006, 08:09 PM | #

SVYATOSLAV[or whatever]-RATSHIT!Your required knowledge of Gramscian theory does not impart ignorance on those of us who can tell a NEGRO from a White,and their relative worths.

Nick, trade in that shotgun for a rifle, you’re hitting wide of the mark.  I’m so new (and clueless) to the Gramscian thing I don’t even like using the word!

And yes, I have a real name: Aloisius Weatherby Foggenbottom.

Posted by Stanley Womack on July 16, 2006, 09:42 PM | #

Before Nick Tamiroff blasts posters with the quaint label “mullatoes,” he may want to consider this saying:

<< A wise man knows his own father.  >>

Posted by ben tillman on July 17, 2006, 02:31 AM | #

“New World Order shills, disinformation hucksters and redirect agents” Steve-impressive phraseology-covers the entire gambit of assholes leading us into the turd-world.

Yes, and apparently our own Senators get suckered by the flim-flam of the “redirect agents”.  From VDare:

From:  Vito Danelli [e-mail him]

I’m thinking that some sort of challenge should be issued to the members of the U.S. Senate who voted for S.2611.

Could any of them, I wonder, answer any questions from that 800-plus page legislation?

I’m reminded that, during the 2004 Presidential Campaign, Ralph Nader was interviewed by Pat Buchanan for the American Conservative magazine.

The following is an excerpt of what Nader said to Buchanan about the World Trade Organization (WTO), another massive piece of legislation that no one read.

“Did you hear about my challenge to Colorado Senator Hank Brown?

“We put a challenge out before WTO was voted in 1995 because we went all over Capitol Hill and had never found any Member of Congress or a staffer who had ever read the proposal.

“So I said, ‘I’ll give $10,000 to the favorite charity of any Congressman who will sign an affidavit that he or she has read the WTO agreement and will answer ten questions in public.’

“The deadline passed. Nobody. So I extended it a week. A quarter to 5:00 on Friday, the phone rings in our office. It is Hank Brown, and he said, ‘I don’t want the $10,000 to charity, but I will take you up on it. How much time do I have?’

“I said, ‘Take a month.’

“So Brown reserves the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the interrogation.

“It gets better. The press is all there, and Brown is in the witness chair. We have 12 questions, and he answers every one. They weren’t all simple either. It was really impressive.

“And I said, ‘Thank you very much. That was really commendable,’ and we start to get up.

“Then Brown announced, ‘Wait. I have something to say. You know, I am a free trader, and I voted for NAFTA, but after reading the WTO agreement, I was so appalled by the anti-democratic provisions that I am going to vote against it and urge everyone else to.’

“The next day, there was almost no press. It shows you the bias against anybody who challenges those multinational systems of autocratic governance that we call ‘ trade agreements.’

“And Brown didn’t convince one extra senator.

“Once when I testified before the House Ways and Means Committee, I had to say some nice things at the beginning: ‘Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, it is indeed a pleasure to testify before a committee of Congress that has read this proposed trade agreement.’

“The Chairman looked at me and asked: ‘What makes you think we did?’

“Let’s put it this way: ‘it is impossible to exaggerate the dereliction of diligence in the Congress.’” [“Ralph Nader: Conservatively Speaking”, The American Conservative, June 21, 2004]

Posted by LaToyia on December 16, 2007, 08:27 AM | #

Whites who have expressed interest in these theories seem to be feeling powerless. There was a time when “THE POWER” was never expressed, due to the fact that there was an un-said understanding that PREVAILED and was never challenged as you see today. But as you are being outnumbered, time, resources, power--they are very critical at this point. Reading the Bible will give you some insight that “Satan is the ruler of this system of things” and “the world is passing away and so is it’s desire.” So who cares, as your theories and ideas will soon be turned into ashes.