|
|
|
Mulatto Supremacism From the hubris of objectivism to the implicative force of Mulatto Supremacism  Jack Johnson and Etta DuryeaShe waited for him in Montreal from where they fled to Europe and then Mexico for 7 years to escape his charges on The Mann Act. Finally, in 1921, she left him on the basis of his infidelity. From the hubris of objectivism to the implicative force of Mulatto Supremacism
However, that is not the case. We are in the confused upshot of modernity, where racial classificatory bounds have been ruptured by the prohibition of classification through “rights.” Despite the prohibition, we need to classify in order to make sense. Defacto classifications tend to remain - those too salient to ignore forming a charmed loop – Women and Blacks. Our more sublime European women emerge more one-up than ever given the prohibition of racial bounds; pandered to from all angles, they become more articulate and powerful gatekeepers than ever, even the puerile among them; whatever natural tendency they may have to incite genetic competition only exacerbated. While Blacks, a form tens of thousands years older than Europeans and having less to lose due to their low investment offspring strategy, fit directly into the atavistics of the void; as it favors the directness of primeval alpha male behavior; and disadvantages the sublimation of even a Duryea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Duryea) - as opposed to his kind, theirs is rather a form which, evidently, for its evolutionary circumstance, had quantified and maxed-out masculinity by comparison to the more gender balanced and sublimated European. Hence, you’ve got a situation among the disordered fall-out of modernity in which even puerile White females have a great deal of power to assert their perspective and inclinations, often well more than their wisdom and experience merits; add to that the hubris of objectivism, and Blacks have opportunity to impose their hyper-masculinity. That Jews have large responsibility for prohibiting discrimination against Blacks is a truism there is no need to deny, as there is ample evidence. However, that is not all the story as even a casual glance at the White girl down the street getting mushy and weak at the knees over a Black man will attest. For some White girls, at least, Blacks are like drugs and they are like drug addicts. OK, Jews are enormously representative of pushers, but the problem is there, at least to some extent, Jews or not - part of it has been the fault of objective hubris, whether religious or scientistic – call it swarthy objectivism, if you will.
 Johnson and wife Irene Pineau………….. Jack Johnson (March 31, 1878 – June 10, 1946) was the first Black heavy weight boxing champion. Though there was at least one Jewish connection to his rise to power and influence, it does not approximately represent the kind of facilitation that Blacks receive today from Jewish advocacy. In fact, it was at (Wiki) “the height of the Jim Crow era, that Johnson’s reign as champion (1908–1915) took place. The Jim Crow laws were state and local laws in the United States enacted between 1876 and 1965. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a “separate but equal” status for African Americans.” Hence, despite these relativist measures, Jack Johnson represents the objectivist side of the problem (not so much the side of Jewish machinations), i.e. the part that is “our fault.” Though farther investigation may well turn more evidence against them, in cursory inspection it is hard to blame this one on Jews; although a significant turn in his boxing prospects did come from his training by a Jewish immigrant - then boxing veteran, Joe Choynski.  Joe Choynski and Jack Johnson behind barsIn 1901 Joe Choynski boxed Johnson and knocked him out in the third round. They were both arrested after the fight and went to jail together for 23 days. There, Choynski coached Johnson in some of the skills that would lead to his boxing success; whereupon he was not to be defeated, but to lord himself as heavyweight championship of the world and objectively entitled for 7 years. Choynski and Johnson had been arrested after the fight – you see, there were attempts to make boxing illegal; as there were efforts to make it illegal, period, not only as it may profit Blacks. We will get to the significance of that in a moment, as we will get to the significance of the fact that the first recognized heavy weight boxing champion, John L. Sullivan, refused to box Blacks whatsoever. This convention of champions refusing to box Blacks was maintained until 1908, when after long pursuit, much goading and a promise of a larger purse, champion Tommy Burns gave in; and in1908 he was utterly humiliated by Johnson. Much of the goading consisted of the usual right wing hubris: charges of Blacks being yellow, that they have no character, they are too stupid to beat a White man, etc. Unflatteringly, some of that right wing goading came from the left wing White racialist, Jack London – he should have known better; but there were things to learn. Johnson did not only taunt and humiliate his White opponents in the ring. Not only did he win huge money and lavish himself with fine clothing, cars, an altogether flamboyant life style, but publicly flaunted, sometimes two at a time, the company of White women – women who, judging by appearance, many of us would be quite satisfied to call our wives. This was at a time prior to the Frankfurt School’s influence in America or any sort of Jewish hegemony, for that matter – not in the media, not anywhere in The U.S. - yet. At a time when segregation was still dejure in the south and defacto in the north, when it was still normal to refer to Blacks as niggers, when harassing a White woman could get a Black killed, Johnson traveled openly with White women. Hattie McClay was among the first and Belle Schreiber later came along, then Lucille Cameron. So, we are looking at a problem that is not all Jewish in the making. Some of it can be attributed to the White women for being spoiled, selfish and shortsighted, some of it is the fault of White men for not having White class, for allowing matters to be placed within the wrong framework: in this case, the objectivist criteria of boxing’s weight divisions. With that, Johnson fought Whites and Blacks, making good money for the time, as much as a thousand dollars a fight (free market non-theory?); and the press profited too. Though it would be typical to write-off his mudsharks as stupid White trash, not all of them were prostitutes. “Johnson was married three times. In January 1911, Johnson married Etta Terry Duryea. A Brooklyn socialite and former wife of businessman Charles Duryea” (Duryea, who we’d mentioned in opening as the more sublimated European type, was the engineer of the first gasoline powered motor car in America – a highly accomplished man – indeed, his car outperformed even Benz’s in staged competition. In fact, his wife met Johnson at a car race in 1909. “Their romantic involvement was very turbulent. Beaten many times by Johnson and suffering from severe depression, she committed suicide in September 1912, shooting herself.”  Jack Johnson and yet another White wife, Lucille Cameron“Less than three months later, on December 4, 1912, Johnson married Lucille Cameron.” She was the one from our interest arouser at the top, who fled to Canada, Europe then Mexico with him. She was a prostitute. Nevertheless, her mother did everything in her power to get her away from Johnson. Despite all, Cameron did stick with him through that flight from conviction, undoubtedly sharing him with other women, including Mata Hari (http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plik:Mata_Hari_6.jpg&filetimestamp=20110807175429) and Lupe Velez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lupe_Velez_Argentinean_Magazine_AD_3.jpg); even waiting for him after he spent a year in jail – the deal he made in order to come back to the U.S. She only divorced him officially in 1924 because of his infidelity. “The next year, Johnson married Irene Pineau. When asked by a reporter at Johnson’s funeral what she had loved about him, she replied, “I loved him because of his courage. He faced the world unafraid. There wasn’t anybody or anything he feared.” Johnson would say about his choice of partners: “I have the right to choose who my mate will be without the dictates of any man. I am not a slave. Because my ancestors came here before anyone had dreamed of the U.S., I consider myself a pure American.” - Jack Johnson “He wouldn’t let anybody define him. He was a self-defined man. The issue of being Black was not relevant. But the issue of being free and a total person was totally relevant.” - James Earl Jones “Jack Johnson was a pure individual; he did everything the way he wanted to do it…I think Jack Johnson embodied the American ideal of being able to go where you want to go based on your abilities. If he had not been the heavy weight champion, nobody would have been talking about him. Nobody would be talking about him if besides being able to fight, he had decided to live a life short of being a free man; which meant that he made people upset because they had a circumscribed idea of what the life of a free man should be for him.” - Stanely Crouch - Writer “So long as I do not interfere with any other man’s wife, I shall claim the right to select the women of my own choice. Nobody else can do that for me. I am not a slave. I have the right to choose who my mate shall be without the dictation of any man. I have eyes and I have a heart and when they fail to tell me who I shall have as mine I want to be put in a lunatic asylum.” - Jack Johnson (a.k.a. John Locke) “He was a self defined man. Jack didn’t tow any lines; I wouldn’t say that is what got him in trouble, society was in trouble. He was just being himself. He didn’t present himself as a man of the people or doing good for his people. He didn’t play that game. He wasn’t willing to cut off his balls just to present himself as a non-threatening creature outside of the ring… If you had your way, wouldn’t you eliminate all of the competition? In terms of race, get rid of all the Black guys and keep the women Black and White; that would be the ideal.” - James Earl Jones Jones’ second wife, Cecelia Hart Get that? It makes sense to him to get rid of White men and keep their women. And as if we would necessarily want Black women.. Wimpy White biographer, Randy Roberts, quotes W.E.B. Dubois: “even in this case, W.E.B. Dubois says I may disagree with his choice, but he has that choice, it’s his right and we can’t take it away from him. And he hasn’t done anything wrong.” “Neither Jack Johnson nor his race invented prize fighting. So why now this national disfavor? It comes down to this unforgivable Blackness.” There’s your rights babble for you, prior to its full throttle exploitation by Jews - in the last two examples coming from W.E.B. Dubois, who was literally, a mulatto supremacist. ..remember our point that they tried to ban prize fighting before Johnson. Nevertheless, for a big pay day, a promoter did allow champion Burns to fight Johnson, despite his “unforgivable Blackness.” The question is, should it really be emasculating to lose a boxing match to a gorilla? Listen to Johnson’s hyper-assertiveness with regard to Burns: “If I would have killed Burns for the language that he used with me, I would have been fully justified.” This is coming from someone who had no part in 41,000 years of European evolution and yet claimed the right to choose European women. However, verbal insults are justifiable cause for homicide. You might compare that to the disposition of the man who would one day defeat him, Jess Willard, who “hated boxing and saw no good reason to hurt his opponent.” That Blacks might thrive in the hyper-masculine arena (void of technological adjustments that Jim might recommend – adjusted for the White man’s kind of masculinity) should be no great surprise. Actually, boxing probably should be illegal, irrespective of the race question, so as not to select for that type and waste lives in senseless endeavor. Nor is it particularly true that Whites only tried to outlaw boxing because of Johnson. There had been attempts and arrests of non-Black fighters several times prior to Johnson’s reign. At any rate, the attempt to outlaw boxing as inspired by Johnson’s exploits reflects some understanding of incommensurability. Jews alone do not explain women’s gravity to Negroes. To understand how we are to defend ourselves, we must begin to set out some additional important factors – differences that make a difference. Objectivism does just the opposite, it reduces the number of qualitative factors in order to compare and quantifiably measure. Hence, a myriad of potentially crucial factors are swept aside - a Jack Johnson might be objectively seen as the best boxer, heavy weight champion, entitled to all the spoils there are, with warranted assertability and no apparent counter-argument. As is typical with the experience of theory, it becomes entwined with concreta and spawns factors recognized belatedly, post hoc – That is, I will likely add to and modify this list, and happily invite commentators to contribute as well. But for now, let me set down some important factors swept aside in objectivism: 1. Incommensurability – mismatched paradigm. Comparing Whites and Blacks is to compare the rule structures of qualitative evolutions that should not be compared as they are profoundly different paradigms: their logics are significantly different. Blacks are undoubtedly evolved to abide by different logics of action and meaning. 2. What makes a man distinctly human? Aristotle asks. It is not speed - a horse can run faster. It is not arm strength – a gorilla is more distinguished inasmuch, etc. 3. And, he asks, with humans being mammals, what do we care about most? Relationships – not, for example, objective boxing skills. 4. Moreover, Aristotle determines that as humans are biological creatures, we require optimal amounts of need satisfaction; not the objectively greatest quanta – the criteria of quantification, in fact, becomes toxic in biology. Significantly, the reflective and reflexive responses of creatura (of which which we are a part; and which entail the adjustments of learning, as a special distinction for us, as humans) tend to be imperviously ignored as well. Hence, the optimal requirements and reflexive responses of biology (including learning) are additional factors that tend to be cast aside by objectivist criteria. Of course this gets a little complicated, but misapplication has tended to have to do with merging what C.G. Jung called pleroma (physics metaphors) with creatura, biological metaphors which would express biological types of responses, accordingly. 5. Genotype / phenotype: For example, Johnson was born 1878 and died in 1946. My great-grandmother was born in 1860 and she died in 1967. While Johnson was undoubtedly a stronger phenotype, it is debatable as to who was the stronger genetically. For other examples, if White women are the most coveted, and White men create them genetically (along with the most efficient society), who are the more valuable men? 6. Ecology, human, social and environmental: the increase in mulattoes does not necessarily correspond with the elimination of Blacks proper, nor does it necessarily allow for the continued existence of Whites proper – in fact, it likely destroys significant and qualitatively distinguished kinds of Whites (how many times have we seen the most qualitatively differentiated White women sucked into the Black hole of miscegenation?). Not only would objectivist criteria destroy qualitative kinds, but the ecological processes of both the lifespan and the evolutionary process would also be disrupted. 7. Because Blacks are an older form and have bio-hegemony, a bio power which, as it corresponds with a hyper-masculinity (including higher levels of testosterone) lacks sublimation, they are not altogether productive; rather, they are able to push aside some of these qualitative factors which are likely to be important in the long run. This negative characteristic is being instilled through mulattoes while the beneficial sublimation of Whites is being lost. 8. Because they are of the primordial element, Blacks can spawn another sort of Jewish group virus in some form of mulattoes. 9. Mulattoes come across as the answer to answers, “the synthesis” among the Marxist dialectic - especially given exacerbation of the female tendency to incite genetic competition amongst the prohibition of racial classification. 10. Hermeneutic factors, the narrative encompassing of qualitative matters over history and space / utilizing the social agreement of how things count through language’s capacity to encompass matters over time and space. Nevertheless, partly due to objectivism, these factors are ignored (undoubtedly more that we will discover) and we have an upshot of mulatto supremacism. We are confronted with an additional profound challenge - there are compelling mulattoes. The point challenged is that they are not worth the destruction that comes along with them: We need stress that mulattoes do not put an end to Blacks proper nor the ways that come along with them: Blacks have evolved tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years, prior to European differentiation. More, their kind of selection has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper assertive kind of people: less sublimated, their most serious expressions being more sex partners, younger, single parent families, poverty, violence, disease, exponential population growth, over-grazing, arrogation and destruction of resources. The impact on evolutionary patterns, societal and other ecological diversity, is not something that White women should be blind to, or allowed to play stupid about. Miscegenation is easily equal to rape and pedophilia; and The White Nation ought to establish that rule. Some women may have an inclination to Blacks, scientistic objectivism might verify this as fact and confer pseudo legitimacy, but that does not mean we should void our social agency to intervene. Some men may have a natural inclination and think they should be able to take and rape women as they see fit, or that they might like a nice, tight, nine-year-old girl – but we say “No” to that, as a collective, and we are right. OK, so we’ve gone into this bit about Jack Johnson to make it clear that we need to argue, to flesh out qualitative differences that make a difference, even where Jews are not distorting the facts. We need to establish rules using the provisionally-transcendent and relative leverage of social agreement; otherwise, if nothing else and speaking in merely objective terms, we can breed away with every race. It would not be hard to find a myriad of examples of prodigious miscegenators, even prior to Jack Johnson. Going back to the 1800’s freed slave Frederick Douglas was another who had White wives (a Jewish one too, I believe). True, we can also trace Jewish influence through Christianity and that is a very accurate contention, but not nearly as plain and direct as Jewish causality today.  Jimi Hendrix and Cathy Etchingham - blacks were so uncommon in England at the time she met him that Hendrix was the first one she’d ever become acquainted with. If Jimmy Hendrix is “the best guitar player,” is music worth his White trophy women (including English women not likely to be heavily under the Jewish spell, quite then), among legion? Would you rather have music or a woman? Notice how rules for promiscuity are largely set-aside by women for these Negroes. It is hard to articulate the harems that some of them have and have had. To allow for a situation where creatures like Mike Tyson and Nigel Benn can become millionaires through the exercise of their hyper-masculine skill is nothing less than insane. In Nigel Benn’s case, we have a boxer who was rewarded for his victory that severely brain damaged Gerald McClellan - not that I care about that, but what came along with his boxing championship: great wealth, legions of women, including this sickening story that I’d called attention to previously. The point is, we’ve got to begin to invoke these argumentative strategies, not only naming the J (though that we must, as we have seen repeatedly, there will be those who try to reintroduce alien antagonists into our class), but also those potentially effective arguments which call attention to the differences which make a difference between Whites and non-Whites.
The charge of mulatto supremacism, or something suggestive as much, will additionally serve in forcing Whites to underscore the qualitative differences, and have them take a second look before challenging Blacks and Mulattoes on a foolish, sheer quantitative basis. John L. Sullivan and Jack Dempsey did not box Blacks. If such an archaic sport as boxing is to be practiced at all, that certainly would be a proper line to draw. The loss of even one woman, like Lucille Cameron - http://www.fanpix.net/2739567/013218563/jack-johnson-and-lucille-cameron-picture.html - to her mother, who tried desperately to fight for her; or a wife, as was the case for Charles Duryea, http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large_lightbox/hash/ec/21/ec21de0c4f01c6aac72a9364f95e4e0c.jpg can be nary the end of the world. Some call it soul destroying – It is like cutting down a rain forest or witnessing the end of a species. It is, in a very real sense, the extermination of a vast evolutionary differentiation. Again, we have a real problem not only in the bio-power of Blacks and its hyper-masculine opportunism among modernist disorder, there are other significant challenges in upshot as well: the offspring of interracial pairings can, sometimes anyway, be attractive, at least to some. http://www.popscreen.com/p/MTA1MzUyMTk4/Amazoncom-Bearcat-Wright-Ronald-Cohn-Jesse-Russell-Books http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashida_Jones While it may not be a problem for me, in that I am all too aware of what the patterns that come along with them are like, I am all too aware of the sublime loss and brutal imposition that they represent, it is not necessarily a lesson that will be learned quickly enough by a next generation. This is a real challenge. While most Mulattoes probably are not very appealing – they are usually hideously symmetrical; and typically have many of the generally unappealing features of Blacks - there are some who are good looking and not altogether stupid. While I might have the resource to reject them outright, what might a person who is young and unformed yet know? He/she might think others are merely jealous. We need to make clear the kinds of patterns that are coming along with Blacks and mulattoes as well as the qualities lost in Whites.
Mulatto Supremacism is a term referring to the defacto inclination or deliberately promoted agenda of those who deem Mulattoes - half Black/half indigenous-European or half Black/half other non-Black - as being a superior people. It is exemplified in the statement that Mulattoes have “the best of both worlds”; by those who claim that mixed race, viz. Mulatto, people and children are “more beautiful” (1); “superior”; and by those who criticize intermarriage within an ethnicity as “inbreeding” while extolling the virtue of Mulatto out-breeding. Mulatto supremacists may come to the position as a result of scientism (2) which, being causal in its notion of necessity, precipitates “natural” inclination and a more arbitrary bio-power in contrast to patterned genetic depth, involvement and accountability to (e.g.) indigenous-European individuals, cultural patterns and habitats. Besides scientism, mulatto supremacists may be instigated to the position, deliberately or defacto, by Jewish politics, its activism and various means of antagonizing European ethnocentrism; or by the likes of international corporate interests. Mulatto supremacism is likely to be at least as great a hazard to native Europeans as Jewish and other forms of elitism have been, as it stems from a longer evolved element. The oldest people in the world, Bushmen, are some 150,000 to 200,000 years older than European differentiation; much older than Jewish as well, and in that respect, have the element to spawn another sort of Jewish group genotype; moreover, in taking a list of countries by birthrate: some 44 of the first 51 countries in per capita birthrate are Black African; hence their sheer numbers are potentially overwhelming; along with the masculine bio-power of their long pre-evolution; which, in the disorder of modernity, can work to their favor and their mulatto offspring’s favor in mating with White women as they are void of traditional contexting. Hence, it just may be more dangerous than Jewish elitism one day. Though the uspshot of mulatto supremacism has much to do with Jewish elitism, its use and abuse of the theories of Karl Marx, Freud, The Frankfurt School, the likes of Herbert Marcuse (3), rabbinical scholarship(4), Talmud and much more. For its admixture of a long pre-evolved people, coming along with the prohibition placed on the racial bounds of White classification through the perverted notion of rights, Mulatto Supremacism(5)(6) hence, is a significant hazard to the ecology of cultural diversity, genetic diversity and biodiversity(7).  Murphy and Butcher(1) AfroRomance - where love is more than skin deep… March 19th, 2008: “Are Mixed Race Children Better Looking? Posted by Ria - “Well, I am sure you have heard of that. I am also sure that some people have had interracial relationships for this reason only. Why do people believe that if an interracial couple has children that they will instantly produce beautiful babies?” Is getting into an interracial relationship for the sole reason of getting ‘beautiful babies’ the right reason to date interracially? ... on 9 April 2008:..“I have never seen a child that was of two races that was not beautiful… They have the best of two worlds, both genes from both sides.” (2) Scientism is the crass misuse of “scientific” thinking, decontextualiztion which rationally blinds its practitioners to and from accountability; and to their relative group interests with the pretext of objectivism; its reflex, severe relativism, supposedly beyond their personal motives. Young White folks may be particularly susceptible to mulatto supremacism, whether through a wish for the simple account and innocence of objectivism, through peer pressure; media influence; habits inculcated through the interpretive/critical theory of the Frankfurt School or more (3); perhaps insecure about their personal viability, as they are not yet sufficiently educated to the depth and significance of their native-European heritage. The confluence of this immature judgment uncritiqued is likely to increase the altogether unjust pairings of young White females and young Black males; particularly given incommensurate breeding styles and differing ages of maturity (Black boys maturing earlier than White boys) as Rushton describes; a puerile judgment that may not to be fully appreciative of the differing levels of sublimation between the cultural groups. In fact, a mediating choice, the mulatto, may appear as “optimal” among the disorder of classifications. (3) “Liberating tolerance,” Marcuse wrote, in contrast to “indiscriminate tolerance” or “repressive tolerance,” would be “intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left.” This duality “would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion of propaganda, of deed as well as of word.” It was important that intolerance apply to regressive words as well as to regressive deeds, because, for Marcuse, words had real consequences, and if the consequences were to be avoided, the words must be silenced.” The Daily Helmsman Online: Number of interracial marriages up, says census; Yann Ranaivo, Staff Reporter, Issue date: 4/24/07 Section: News - “According to U.S. Census Bureau marriage statistics, interracial marriages have multiplied since the 1960s and doubled in 2005 compared to 1990. Further Census figures showed that the periods from 1960 to 1990, and the five years following the turn of the millennium saw the biggest jumps in interracial marriages. It was also reported that blacks and whites have had the highest increase in marriages outside of their race in the last three decades. Although less apparent in Memphis, some University of Memphis students say they believe the figures are proof of changes in perspective and taboo beliefs. However, other students who have lived a majority of their lives in the Greater Memphis area said the change has only been apparent in specific areas, The University being a particular one.” (4) There are several Biblical references to hostility between the people of Israel and the people of Edom (e.g., 2 Samuel 8:12-14; 2 Kings 8:20-22; Psalm 137:7), and it is possible that some of the narrative of Genesis is intended to explain the origins and justification of that hostility. The Edomites (also known as Idumeans) came to be dominated by the larger kingdom of Israel, but from time to time fought wars with Israel throughout Israel’s history. Approximately 1000 years after Esau’s and Jacob’s common birthday, God expresses extreme anger and condemnation upon the Edomites such as in the prophesies of Malachi 1 and Obadiah 1. However, although the Bible follows the convention of describing the Edomites by the name of their long-dead patriarch Esau, the specific reasons given for God’s anger involve then-recent sins of the Edomite people, not of the individual man Esau. The prophesies of Obadiah and Malachi indicate that the Edomite culture will be destroyed during the end times. In Obadiah Chapter 1:18, it is declared: “And the house of Jacob shall be fire and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau shall become stubble, and they shall ignite them and consume them, and the house of Esau shall have no survivors, for the Lord has spoken.” According to rabbinical studies, Edomites were the progenitors of Rome. The Talmud use Rome as a synonym for Edom in many of his volumes. Because the Romans adopted Christianity as their religion and was the bedrock for western civilization, Christians and/or European nations and their descendents are sometimes referred to as Edomites. According to the same tradition through the prophecies in Obadiah and Malachi refer the Messianic age, where Edom will be ruled by the messiah and the people of Israel eternally.  Taussaint declares revolution of Haitian Blacks, a precursor to Mulatto supremacism Andre Regaud, leader of the Haitian Mulattoes
(5) André Rigaud - see Columbia Encyclopedia: “1761-1811, Haitian mulatto general… he believed in ‘the superiority of mulattoes.”
ChickenBones: A Journal for Literary & Artistic African-American Themes - Toussaint Chronology: “In 1799 the mulatto general André Rigaud enlisted the aid of Alexandre Pétion and Jean Pierre Boyer, asserted mulatto supremacy, and launched a revolt against Toussaint.”...the genocide of the Whites that followed on what is now Haiti is a well known event.
 W.E.B. Dubois(6) W.E.B. Du Bois and the Dandy as Diasporic Race Man; in Miller, Monica L.; Callaloo - Vol. 26, Number 3, Summer 2003, pp. 738-765; The Johns Hopkins University Press: “W.E.B. Du Bois and the Dandy as Diasporic Race Man” argues that Du Bois’s concern with black male leadership style began before the writing of Souls and continues well after it, in his less well-known writing. While still a young scholar, Du Bois wrote about an African American “feminine man” who, in joining with the more “masculine” Teutonic would produce a common human/American civilization by a racial division of labor.” (7) Barack Obama, Berlin, Germany, July 24th, 2008: “The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.” Again, if one takes into account the list of countries by birthrate, the catastrophic implication for Europe of “tearing down the walls” is clear and its Mulatto upshot apparent.
If McCain had only won, we’d have had a sniveling White objectivist President in The Oval Office to pardon Jack Johnson: “May 25, 2011 (Reuters) - Senator John McCain and Representative Peter King said on Tuesday they would reintroduce a resolution to pardon boxing legend Jack Johnson.”
Raising the charge of Mulatto Supremacism is both valid regarding one of the worst effects of what Jews and Blacks are doing to the White race while confronting neither group directly so as to initiate direct response; nor failing to use the leverage of their own potential grievance as to the matter.
Comments:2
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:32 | # Seal and Heidi Klum’s kids:
I HATE TO PICK ON INNOCENT KIDS, but this kinda disproves the “popular” notion that mixed race parents invariably produce better looking kids. — Secondly, Halle Berry (mulatto) is held up as the epitome of beauty. I find her sexy in some ways but she’s definitely not beautiful in a feminine way. In fact her facial features on balance are more masculine than feminine. I’ll bet MOST white men see her the same way I do.
Bottom Line: White women are the epitome of beauty and femininity. OTOH, whilst many black women are sexy, they lack the trait of femininity. But alas, since the 1960s, the radical feminists (mainly Jewish) are trying their best to destroy femininity in White women. 3
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:48 | # DanielS, to pick out a prize fighter as an exemplar of “individualism” while going on about “modernity” without pointing out the role that JudeoChristianity (and other organized religions going back at least to the Dorian invasion of the Greeks and Aryan invasion of the Dravidians) had in obliterating natural duel from the culture of Europe, would merely be to exhibit a kind of intellectual myopia, were it not for the fact that I have pointed out to you as well as others the profound evolutionary difference between fighting with your fists in an exhibition and fighting with the tools known as weapons in nature. Without that as an evolutionary psychological anchor, your analysis is adrift in a raging storm. 4
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:56 | # Thorn, you will never see a fair rendering of Halle Berry’s mother, in comparison to Halle Berry herself. Its silly to claim Halle Berry is unattractive. She is attractive and she gets it in degraded form from her mother. It is not so easy to cover up the degradation when the mother is a famous beauty: <table><tr><td>Christie Brinkley</td><td>Billy Joel</td><td>Their Daughter</td></tr><tr><td> 5
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:07 | # The Daily News reports that:
6
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:53 | # /. DanielS, to pick out a prize fighter as an exemplar of “individualism” He is not just an example of individualism, Jim. He is an example of Black individualism. while going on about “modernity” without pointing out the role that JudeoChristianity
I don’t know Jim. I don’t want to accuse you of projecting about myopia and duels, but… were it not for the fact that I have pointed out to you as well as others the profound evolutionary difference between fighting with your fists in an exhibition and fighting with the tools known as weapons in nature. Well, you did call attention to something significant there - I think, give credit where credit is due. You deserve a great deal. Without that as an evolutionary psychological anchor, your analysis is adrift in a raging storm. But of your last remark, I disagree: I knew exactly where I was going with this, was not lost at all. 7
Posted by Pat on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:55 | #
Olivier Martinez is an Iberian-French swarthoid. It’s not surprising that this is how he “fights”. 8
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:58 | # DanielS writes: “I don’t know Jim. I don’t want to accuse you of projecting about myopia and duels, but…” Its OK. As you well know it will have no affect on me at this point—that is unless you can give me good reason to ignore 600 million years of sexual evolution other than the “blank slate” notion of human nature or its moral equivalents. 9
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:19 | # Posted by James Bowery on December 31, 2012, 05:58 PM | # DanielS writes: “I don’t know Jim. I don’t want to accuse you of projecting about myopia and duels, but…” Its OK. As you well know it will have no affect on me at this point—that is unless you can give me good reason to ignore 600 million years of sexual evolution other than the “blank slate” notion of human nature or its moral equivalents. Well, I am definitely not of the blank slate school. I’m wondering at this moment if that is where Locke slipped the mickey. We come equipped, endowed, sure…but what’s your point? Some White men have good capabilities to put together and utilize high tech weaponry. OK. good point, but everything else except technology and the imitative theory of beauty is just nonsense? 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 01:09 | # Happy New Year to you all. May 2013 bring an advance in the noble cause in which we labour. (I trust you have taken a cup o’ kindness, Graham - or even two.) 11
Posted by Zale on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 03:07 | #
It all matters not really because this is just another anti-American, Anglo-phobic side show, a false flag operation, concocted by the local parasite to deflect attention from the real threat to founding Americans at the beginning of the 20th century… mass Catholic and Jewish migration from Eastern and Southern Europe. 12
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 03:07 | # Happy New Year everyone! GW yes indeed I sampled one or two rather good drams of the water of life tonight. But I’m getting old so I am calling it a night before I have too many! Have a good one people. 13
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 07:26 | # ...Happy New Years All! Posted by Zale on December 31, 2012, 10:07 PM | # Tommy Burns (June 17, 1881 – May 10, 1955), born Noah Brusso, is the only Canadian born World Heavyweight Champion boxer…According to his biographer, Burns insisted, “I will defend my title against all comers, none barred. By this I mean white, black, Mexican, Indian, or any other nationality. I propose to be the champion of the world, not the white, or the Canadian, or the American. If I am not the best man in the heavyweight division, I don’t want the title.” Burns was also the first heavyweight champion to give a Jewish boxer a shot at the crown. Burns defeated Joseph ‘Jewey’ Smith in a fight staged in Paris. He also fought a bout with a Native American on his way to the Championship. According to one biography, he also had two black sparring partners and was married for a brief time to a black woman. At a time when most white fighters adhered to the so-called “color-line”, refusing to fight African Americans, Burns had half a dozen contests with black boxers prior to his clash with the legendary Jack Johnson [in Australia]. I knew that Tommy Burns was born Noah Brusso, and that Brusso is apparently an Italian name. His first name, Noah, however, is unusual for an Italian. I have to check to see if his mother was Jewish. As for his being a liberal - well, a traitor is a traitor. Perhaps there is something to your theory that Southern and Eastern Europeans were natural liberal activists in Canada because they perceived themselves discriminated against by its Anglo-Saxon power structure. I don’t know. I don’t focus much on Canada. But I can tell you unequivocally that Southern and Eastern Europeans do not identify with non-Whites in America or Europe; I don’t think they do in Australia or South America either. I sincerely doubt that any such alliance between them and non-Whites in Canada was anything more than provisional where it existed at all. But we’ve been through this before; your hatred of Southern and Eastern Europeans in Canada is so noted - you believe they are the key to all the problems there. I doubt it, but that’s your point. As for Southern and Eastern European immigrants in The UK, as I have said before, I am against it. I have always been against “The E.U.” This essay in no way, shape or form is meant to distract from any issues that concern a native European people.
This accusation is absolutely absurd. I have no intention to distract from any immigration issues, my concern is where any White women are lost to their co-evolutionary men; and the potential threat of miscegenation and mulattoism. As for Catholics, I am not a Christian of any sort. I do not advocate the mass influx of any peoples into a native Europeans’ land - including immigration from other kinds of native Europeans. With regard to Jews, I was explicit:
14
Posted by Guest Lurker on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 08:04 | # I hate to sound like a psycho-analytical jew here, but statements like: “For some White girls, at least, Blacks are like drugs and they are like drug addicts.” are an attestation more of your own psychological baggage than any reality. Really, it’s pretty evident you’ve developed something of a morbid obsession here. How many posts and articles to do have to write carping about this supposed fascination these alleged hyper-masculine black super studs have over white girls? You made a brief appearance on Counter-Currents a while back where you denounced Nietsche along the lines that his will to power notion favored black masculinity over white masculinity. You seem to be constantly haunted by the specter of the black sexual superman and his irresistible and almost praeter-human sexuality. You might be surprised to know that not everyone is as over-awed and made to feel insecure by this so-called black “hyper-masculinity” you keep obsessing about as you obviously are yourself. For god’s sake, spare yourself the embarrassment and get a grip. The only reason blacks are able to throw their weight around these days with impunity is because of political correctness, media indoctrination, stringent hate crime laws against those white men that so much as even look at them askance, etc., etc. Your own posts would suggest you yourself have fallen victim to the media hype portraying blacks in a way that any awakened white man should me able to see through. Give it a rest already dude. 15
Posted by DanielS. on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 08:04 | # “I will defend my title against all comers, none barred. By this I mean white, black, Mexican, Indian, or any other nationality. I propose to be the champion of the world, not the white, or the Canadian, or the American. If I am not the best man in the heavyweight division, I don’t want the title.” Burns was also the first heavyweight champion to give a Jewish boxer a shot at the crown. Burns defeated Joseph ‘Jewey’ Smith in a fight staged in Paris. He also fought a bout with a Native American on his way to the Championship. According to one biography, he also had two black sparring partners and was married for a brief time to a black woman. At a time when most white fighters adhered to the so-called “color-line”, refusing to fight African Americans, Burns had half a dozen contests with black boxers prior to his clash with the legendary Jack Johnson [in Australia].” This does, however, perfectly illustrate a kind of objectivist criteria and hubris 16
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 08:39 | # /, I hate to sound like a psycho-analytical jew here, but statements like: “For some White girls, at least, Blacks are like drugs and they are like drug addicts.” are an attestation more of your own psychological baggage than any reality. But you do sound that way. No psychological baggage here. I am happy where and to the extent that White women are not interested in Blacks.
Yes, there is a toxic overvaluation of masculinity in Nietzsche and an explicit endorsement of Blacks as lacking resentment, their quickly digesting issues and being done with them. His view probably does pander to puerile females, favoring their view myopically gazing toward masculine traits. You seem to be constantly haunted by the specter of the black sexual superman and his irresistible and almost praeter-human sexuality. Are the scientific data in my head? The birthrates? The dating, mating and marriage patterns? Poverty? Violence? Jesus, I talk about so many things in this essay that concern Whites, I’d have to say the fact that you pluck this issue out is reflective of your psychology, not mine. You might be surprised to know that not everyone is as over-awed and made to feel insecure by this so-called black “hyper-masculinity” you keep obsessing about as you obviously are yourself. Well, I am glad that people are not awed by it: but they should be aware of it: I call them hyper-masculine based on experience and evidence. They are a much older form. They have more testosterone. They are more aggressive - which corresponds with more sex partners; violence; rape.. So, while I do not want you, or anybody else, to be in awe or insecure, I don’t want Whites to be caught off guard, either. Their is a great deal of misrepresentation and disinformation about Blacks in the media - portraying them as if they are benign. There is even too much of that soft peddling of Blacks in White Natiionalism.
Listen dear, I have a grip.
Take your disinformation elsewhere. People will suffer for your advice, not mine.
That is probably the main reason and I have never denied that, but it is not the only reason and it should not preclude a supply of additional argumentative resource - especially given PC circumstance, Jewish and other rhetoric against White men; and on behalf of Blacks, miscegenation and mulattoes. Your own posts would suggest you yourself have fallen victim to the media hype portraying blacks in a way that any awakened white man should me able to see through. I have experienced them; there is all sorts of evidence to corroborate what I say and against what you suggest - that they are quite so benign for White interests. Give it a rest already dude. Fuck you asshole. 17
Posted by Guest Lurker on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:16 | # “Oh yeah, you are the Nietzsche head. I was satisfied that I had defeated your argument, but you went on like a faggot defending the homoerotic Nietzsche cult to the last.” I’d mangle you in person for talking shit to me anonymously on a forum like that, you rude cowardly little punk. But no, I wasn’t your opponent on counter-currents. I was just lurking there and reading the comments. “Fuck you asshole.” I live in the L.A area. If you live anywhere remotely nearby, let me know. Would love to test your courage in person, you sniveling little virginal sissy. Back to bed and wetting yourself having nightmares about those scary black guys taking white girls away from your effeminate ass, scared shitless worthless trash talking gutter snipe. 18
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:42 | # .. “Oh yeah, you are the Nietzsche head. I was satisfied that I had defeated your argument, but you went on like a faggot defending the homoerotic Nietzsche cult to the last.” I’d mangle you in person for talking shit to me anonymously on a forum like that, you rude cowardly little punk. Yeah? You are so polite, Screw you.
Alright, so we disagree anyway - you might also notice that I haven’t commented there in any form for months - let alone in high quantities or on a single topic.
I live in the L.A area. You would
You know me and my psychology, huh? Back to bed and wetting yourself having nightmares about those scary black guys taking white girls away from your effeminate ass, scared shitless worthless trash talking gutter snipe. You address people as “dude” and write off threats to Whites as psychologically imaginary - that is the sure sign of lowly White trash of an L.A. stripe. You’ve become enculturated to that as normal - its your misfortune. It won’t be ours. 19
Posted by X on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:55 | # “Some prominent White spokesman claim that if we could only deal with the J.Q., that Blacks would be strategically easy to deal with – a weekend operation. There is probably a great deal of truth to that if – if we were talking about World War II era warfare – and we were not dealing with the current manifestation of war, which includes all sorts of psychological manipulation along with the razing of time immemorial rules and safeguards of gender relations.” The barriers against the “weekend operation” can be smashed down quite easily, if the will is there. Women. mulattoes and other ‘barriers’ will just have to accept the new way of doing things. The problems highlighted in this article are not problems once you stop viewing the world with late 20th century eyes. Jack Johnson’s ‘superiority’ was, as with all negro pugilists due to physiological rather the psychological reasons: thicker cranial bones, more robust wrist bones, longer arms. Add these enormous advantages to a desire to avenge himself against ‘racist’ Whites, and the odds are that he would successful. Rigid segregation and repatriation, whether forced, assisted or merely voluntary will resolve the negro issue. Those women who have betrayed their own people through miscegenation and any offspring they may have acquired would need to be regarded as a lower social class with few rights. Miscegenation should not be tolerated by individual or the state. But modern White ‘man’ could never countenance such measures; but he will talk and type, talk and type. Become men or go extinct. 20
Posted by DanielS. on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:28 | # // “Some prominent White spokesman claim that if we could only deal with the J.Q., that Blacks would be strategically easy to deal with – a weekend operation. There is probably a great deal of truth to that if – if we were talking about World War II era warfare – and we were not dealing with the current manifestation of war, which includes all sorts of psychological manipulation along with the razing of time immemorial rules and safeguards of gender relations.” The barriers against the “weekend operation” can be smashed down quite easily, if the will is there. IF
The problems highlighted in this article are not problems once you stop viewing the world with late 20th century eyes. This, I do not agree with. The reason I talked about Johnson is because he was flourishing mostly by means of objectivism and not at a time When Jewish PC held sway - unless you want to include Christianity as a Jewish influence, which I think is valid. Nevertheless, there are these sorts of problems and they have been exacerbated by present day media, academia, etc.: Hence, we need to articulate the differences between the races more accurately as they have been so distorted by media.
I didn’t say he was superior. He may have been a better boxer than those he fought - my point is, so what?
..faster twitching muscle fibers, etc. etc. And there are, have been, Whites who are kicking Black ass too…
Again, my point is so what? Why engage them in criteria that we do not value and which do not display our distinguishing and more significant abilities?
I largely agree. But until we are able to enforce separation, we have to give people a fighting chance - what for and how. There is some danger in their bio-power.
Miscegenation should be made illegal - a crime equal to rape or pedophilia. I don’t know about retroactive punishment for miscegenation; however, non-White offspring would simply not be allowed in a White nation.
As I’ve said, I agree.
I don’t know how many men will countenance such measures, but this is an address to whom it may concern. As for talk and type, we have to agree upon the rules first, then garner a larger consensus. Then we can consider the various ways to act. 21
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 13:17 | # “Tommy Burns” it says here..
I don’t know how true it is that he was German… but..
That would be even less reason to be ashamed of having been beaten by Johnson (and even more reason why he should not have fought him). ..and he had a sad ending: Life after boxing
22
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 16:18 | # James @ 4 said: “Its silly to claim Halle Berry is unattractive.” Of course Thorn would never make such a claim. Thorn said Halle Berry is sexy. Now on to what’s reeeeeeeeeeally important: You’re the Reason Our Kids are Ugly - Lorretta Lynn & Conway Twitty 23
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 16:44 | # /. Let’s take your latest horseshit:
James @ 4 said: “Its silly to claim Halle Berry is unattractive.” Of course Thorn would never make such a claim. Thorn said Halle Berry is sexy.
The late great Andrew Breitbart confronts OWS protesters. I dig the way he gets right up in their grills and calls them freaks and animals. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o
But as a consolation, his legacy lives on. Yes, we know that you love Jews, and that their virus lives through you.
24
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:42 | # DanielS writes: “We come equipped, endowed, sure…but what’s your point?” Those who believe we come “equipped, endowed” includes those who believe that what we do from there is arbitrary within those constraints. Of course it isn’t arbitrary unless you believe creation itself is arbitrary and hence “meaning” is merely “emergent”, whatever that means. A creature that questions its own creation is insane. A man who questions the importance of masculinity is insane in a way that dwarfs any beliefs about civilization by a 600 million to 10 thousand ratio. 25
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:42 | #
See my post @ 2.
Again, for the umpteenth time, WRT Jews: Some Jews I like, some I despise. OTOH, you, Daniels, hate them all. That attitude of yours is both immature, but more importantly, it further marginalizes our (as small as it is) movement to the outer fringes of the outer fringe of society. The truth is oddball/eccentric extremists like dainels bring great big smiles to the rat faces of those at the SPLC. Daniels gives Hideous Heidi legitimacy. More importantly, the JQ MUST be well thought through and put in its proper perspective. Intelligent clear thinking people do just that.
PS, It wouldn’t surprise me the least bit if daniels himself turns out to be an COINTELPRO agent for the FBI, SPLC, or some other sort of anti-White group. But then again I’m probably giving him too much credit. 26
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:08 | # Posted by James Bowery on January 01, 2013, 12:42 PM | # DanielS writes: “We come equipped, endowed, sure…but what’s your point?” Those who believe we come “equipped, endowed” includes those who believe that what we do from there is arbitrary within those constraints. Of course it isn’t arbitrary unless you believe creation itself is arbitrary and hence “meaning” is merely “emergent”, whatever that means. I didn’t and wouldn’t say it was arbitrary, Jim.
Well, I don’t question masculinity: I do think there is a such thing as too masculine, however - a characteristic of Blacks (including their women). 27
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:15 | # Posted by Thorn on January 01, 2013, 12:42 PM | # Halle Berry is boring looking. A typical symmetrical mulatto mannequin. See my post @ 2. Yes, we know that you love Jews, and that their virus lives through you. Again, for the umpteenth time, WRT Jews: Some Jews I like, some I despise. OTOH, you, Daniels, hate them all. No I don’t Thorn. Don’t put words in my mouth and don’t lie.
I disagree
That is, people very unlike you, Thorn.
PS, It wouldn’t surprise me the least bit if daniels himself turns out to be an COINTELPRO agent for the FBI, SPLC, or some other sort of anti-White group.
But then again I’m probably giving him too much credit. Yeah, you are supposed to go to your Jewish friends or credit - oy! 28
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:28 | # I put the problem differently: It is not that blacks are “too masculine”, it is that so many blacks aren’t adequately human. Civilization empowers these “subhumans” in a way that Nature’s morality does not. Mike Tyson isn’t “too masculine”. Mike Tyson is inadequately human. Barack Obama is also inadequately human and he is “half white”. In the morality of Nature, placed among adequately human beings, both Tyson and Obama would be evolutionary history in very short order. 29
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:49 | # /. I put the problem differently: It is not that blacks are “too masculine”, it is that so many blacks aren’t adequately human. Civilization empowers these “subhumans” in a way that Nature’s morality does not. Mike Tyson isn’t “too masculine”. Mike Tyson is inadequately human. Barack Obama is also inadequately human and he is “half white”. In the morality of Nature, placed among adequately human beings, both Tyson and Obama would be evolutionary history in very short order. That is a valid statement and I don’t see a need to dispute it - I think your hypothesis would be proven true; without artificial restraints, they would be blocked from power. However, while I will not ask you to adopt it, I will maintain the notion of “too masculine” or “hyper-masculine” as I believe it to be descriptive. “Descriptive” is a word usually used for more positive, physical explanations, rather than “interpretive”, which is applied for somewhat more speculative attributions.
It is the same with “mulatto supremacism” - in some contexts, it would be very poor rhetoric. I don’t propose it as a term that ought to be used in just any occasion and without sufficient tact. In fact, it is more the phenomenon than the term that I am interested in - there may well be another term that is more tactful, that does not put us rhetorically “one-down” when we use it - for example, maybe the mulatto virus or the mulatto cyborg would be better, etc.
30
Posted by Guest Lurker on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:51 | # “You know me and my psychology, huh?” It’s on full display for the entire world to read, virginal cuck. I’d be willing to bet money that outside of perhaps a prostitute, you’ve never actually had a physical relationship with a white woman. You’re too scared witless by the idea your puny self won’t satisfy her like the all mighty nigger cock would, and that ultimately you’d be cuckolded by her. “Here we go, the expert psychologist again, defending all of his harmless negro and mushark friends from the imaginary threats that I perceive.” Not defending niggers or mudsharks, you defective unsavory filth. But there is the issue of why you would keep repeating the same pet peeve over and over again to a forum of WN, as if you’re trying to demoralize or recruit company into your misery by venting your spleen. Your obsessive posts repeatedly exaggerating the importance of marginals who are into niggers who would be numerically even more inconsequential were it not for the societal conditioning serve absolutely no other purpose. 31
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:32 | # //// “You know me and my psychology, huh?” It’s on full display for the entire world to read, virginal cuck. While I might pride myself on being honest, I can extend my honesty to saying your charge of my being a virgin is very far from the truth. I’d be willing to bet money that outside of perhaps a prostitute, you’ve never actually had a physical relationship with a white woman. Good for your wallet if you don’t make that bet.
Wrong again.
Not defending niggers or mudsharks, you defective unsavory filth. But there is the issue of why you would keep repeating the same pet peeve over and over again to a forum of WN, as if you’re trying to demoralize or recruit company into your misery by venting your spleen. Well, that might be how you take it, but you are wrong; perhaps you have not read carefully, but that is definitely not my motive. I am an optimist. But I also believe in fighting. If I make White guys a bit mad, raise consciousness and add argumentative repertoire, that’s good.
You are terribly wrong. These issues are not in my head. They are out there and a problem. That you try to say that there is not a problem should bring suspicion rather upon you. I have repeated some things for the purpose of this essay, because I believe it is an important subject to treat; and I wanted to bring to bear relevant ideas. I am not very concerned if they are redundant to what I have said elsewhere. I had seen Alex Linder remark that he liked the angle of “mulatto supremacsm” - he had seen one of my comments here. That is when I began thinking about updating some older material. I also like the fact that here, I can correct grammatical errors and so forth that I cannot do on other sites.
32
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:53 | #
But nothing! I’d like to say you’re just a slippery unaccomplished sophist but that would be the wrong take. Maybe just slippery would suffice? Pseudo intellectual perhaps? Anyway, Guest Lurker @ 14 has your number. As a matter of fact I’ve come to the same conclusion as GL long ago. How couldn’t we? Ask yourself danny: if a couple of average blokes like us can easily see the source of what’s bedeviling you, don’t you think most anyone can? BTW, danny, anyone that has lived actual life in a predominantly black environment for any ‘extended’ period of time (be it a working environment, neighborhood, or whatever), knows the VAST MAJORITY of black males are FAR from being alpha-males - maybe 5 to 8% max. 33
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 03:25 | # <em>Posted by Thorn on January 01, 2013, 03:53 PM | # Thorn, I note that you like White women best and do not like Halle Berry so much. I’d really rather not fight with you, but..
pseudo impllies I am pretending about something - it doesn’t fit.
That is what I mean. Ask yourself danny: if a couple of average blokes like us can easily see the source of what’s bedeviling you, don’t you think most anyone can? I’ve just explained to you that your “deep analysis” isn’t true. Moreover, it is utterly idiotic at its basis: it is like saying, “oh you are just insecure that gorilla might beat you up, therefore you should not recognize it for what it is and discriminate against it.” Yes, what you are saying is that stupid. BTW, danny, anyone that has lived actual life in a predominantly black environment for any ‘extended’ period of time (be it a working environment, neighborhood, or whatever), knows the VAST MAJORITY of black males are FAR from being alpha-males - maybe 5 to 8% max. You are not using “alpha male” in the same sense that I am: as I use the term, it is not a compliment - it corresponds with social irresponsibility: and again, we are talking about patterns, marked though they are, not an entire distinction between Black and Whites males.
34
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 04:23 | # You’ve been advised by your betters, danny. Nuff said 36
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 11:27 | # The Enemy have been pushing race-mixing in our faces for a long time, and unfortunately it is a growing trend. Indeed, it will continue to grow (as I’ve noted for many years now), as the social and ideological barriers to interracial coupling have been completely discredited, pretty much everywhere, and society is becoming ever more ‘diverse’ as well as increasingly geographically and professionally ‘integrated’ [I have a WN-oriented friend in Georgia (the state, not the country!), for example, who tells me that while black/white is still mostly frowned upon, at least among most whites of his acquaintance, other mixed combos, esp for white men (eg, white/Latina), are mostly not]. Most people really don’t care that much about politics, and especially about such an abstract issue as racial preservation. Even among white conservatives, who may not like seeing mixed race couples, the real issues related to race are visceral. They don’t like modal black behavior, whether street criminal or racial whining; resent affirmative action; and are apprehensive about nonwhite immigration, for cultural, safety and, if knowledgable, economic reasons; perhaps, post-2012, for electoral reasons, too. But most conservative whites don’t think in terms of civilizational decline or racial extinction (which is why sophisticated WN thought will never be hugely influential; we need to reach our benighted brothers by blatant appeals to self-interest - eg, “minorities + white liberals already elected Obama; what will happen to our assets, property and capitalist prosperity when the whole USA has the demographic profile of California, thanks to unstopped immigration?”). Thus, I doubt very many whites really oppose miscegenation that strongly. For myself, I get far angrier at seeing white women hooking up with Asian men, something that is becoming very common, not only in CA, but even among ‘elites’ across the country. I’m starting to see pictures of Asian (Oriental and Indian) men with white brides, sometimes attractive ones, too, in the “Weddings” column of my Ivy League university semi-annual alumni bulletins. This bothers me far more than seeing some worthless white slut with her black boyfriend (just saw another pair today, with a mulatto toddler, in a Sports Authority store). Usually (though not always, alas!) white women who hook up with blacks are dysgenic. This is not the case with the rising numbers of white females + Asian males, however. Many of those WFs are “good girls”. Given how sexually unprepossessing your typical gook is, I can only ascribe this phenomenon to a catastrophic loss of social status of white men. My sisters never dated nonwhites, but they, too, consider the black man/white female more understandable than the Asian man/WF, which they similarly find inexplicable (as in, “what could she possibly see in ... that?!). Anyway, female sexual desire (and not only marital choices) appears to me to be influenced by non-aesthetic criteria to a far greater degree than male desire (I guess “no duh”). It can change over time. When white men have allowed themselves to be laughed at and abused for so long, it does lower our sexual value in the eyes of women. I’ve seen this firsthand over decades of pursuing women. Throughout my entire adult life, white men have steadily declined in attractiveness to women, esp to white women. I had a brief fling with a woman some years back who told me casually that, while she herself was “more into” white guys, generally white men were considered kind of boring and “so yesterday” (the correct word she did not employ was ‘passe’ (with accent)). This was LA. I have no sociological data on this, but her estimation of the lowered status of white men rang true to my experience (and that of some of my long time ‘player’ friends). Women are mostly weak and conformist. Rarely does one encounter a woman standing proudly apart from the crowd on some genuine issue of principle. If white men allow themselves to be treated like weenies and douchebags, then the attractiveness of all of us will decline (hence weak white liberal men harm the chances for successful seduction of even high quality white men). White men really need to start acting like self-confident men again. 37
Posted by Suburban_elk on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:02 | # What is the “hubris of objectivism”? Is it meant a disinterest in one’s own kind and way, a considering others, more primitives in these examples, as equal objects? Then the hubris is that one’s own interests are so secure that they need no special consideration? What is a “sublimated” type? Why the example of Duryea particularly, is he pointed to for excellence in mechanics and industry and Yankee know-how, or is there something else? The European type is “sublime” because its male form is less centered on archaic forms of masculine behavior, mainly aggression? How or why is that called sublime? Does such balance in character, which is probably indisputably there, bring about or play into, a more sublime state of mind or being in a social world? Does “sublime” suggest or imply that such balancing forces in the personality have to evolve deeply into the organism? 38
Posted by Suburban_elk on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:19 | # There is the answer to the question on the Duryea guy - his wife went over to the Dark Side. The other questions stand. Also, bio-power of Blacks - is this some sort of scientific term, because in terms of persuasion and rhetoric Whites could do no worse. But it is White genes being recessive against Black? Personally i am not interested (or qualified) to consider the science here, but would be willing to pursue some thoughts on it, if they were presented in clearer terms. These “older forms” and “archaic structures”. On the question of evaluating propaganda and rhetoric, i say the charge of Mulatto Supremacism is excellent, it gets to a lot. It is interesting how some of the argumentation here, on the topic of, White reaction to the jungle bunny taking his women, was so similar to a discussion on another blog at this same time, but that really is the oldest concern in the the book, so maybe not so unusual. But, the question of how much respect to accord the black man. Is he an intelligent gorilla, and can i beat Mike Tyson with 10 meters of cordage and a piece of flint, on an island of the coast of Iceland. (I certainly would hope so, but.) It is a topic that is relevant. They are evolving (of course, obviously, etc.), but it has been pointed out, look at historical pictures of blacks from the 19th century compared to today, and they do not look to be the same dumb apes. And that humor is not (truly) meant to be disparaging, why people are so sensitive about being compared to our nearest animal relatives. 39
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:34 | # Posted by Suburban_elk on January 02, 2013, 07:02 AM | # What is the “hubris of objectivism”? Is it meant a disinterest in one’s own kind and way, a considering others, more primitives in these examples, as equal objects? Then the hubris is that one’s own interests are so secure that they need no special consideration? That is fairly approximate to what I meant. A particular disinterest in one’s kind might not always color the hubris, but it may, in some cases. The hubris of objectivism probably has as often to do with an overconfidence in one’s place atop pure criteria and along with that, the superiority of one’s motives - indeed, beyond subjective interests and interests relative to one’s kin. It can also make for an abbreviated (insufficient), smug form of social accountability - if not disingenuous, perhaps naiive. Using the more universalizing paradigm of equality/non-equality has to do with this hubris as well - one takes the narcissistic view that one can readily compare and determine the better among creatures that might have some radically different properties (perhaps valuable properties which have little to do with that which is compared). It is narcissistic in that it may see the other, their rules, constitutional, cultural, whatever, as being more the same than they might in fact be. So that yes, in some cases, a more primitive form might be thought to be equally compared and defeated. It can also be the case that one may be too secure so that they perceive their own as needing no special consideration - good point - that would be a particular case, or aspect, of the hubris of objectivism. I do believe that Duryea is an example of excellence in mechanics, industry and know how - thus, an example of sublimation and creative social achievement as opposed to a brute who merely satisfies his visceral urges. The example of Duryea was a happy surprise to my argument. As I looked into the example of Johnson, it just so happened that Duryea was there as the husband of a woman who Johnson took up. I say happy, because theoretically, I was glad for the relevant example to problematize the notion that our demonstrable achievement will necessarily win the day. I do believe that we need demonstrable achievement; but we also need the promulgation of sufficient argument and rule structures in our defense. That would correspond with the number 10, hermeneutics, that I just added to the list of theoretical aspects that are swept aside in objectivism. It is something to augment the thought of a Bowery, a Kurtagic, a MacDonald, a GW. What I meant by sublimation, as I understand, comes from Nietzsche (though popularized by Freud): it means various creative expressions as a result of a certain amount of delay and suppression of sexual gratification. Rushton talks about how Whites have a later age of sexual maturity than do Blacks; and that they have a more high investment parenting style (fewer children but more care). I would say these are examples of “more sublimation.” Though we are not so sublimated as Orientals as to become mechanistic and worker bee, hive creature-like. Thus, I lean toward the conventional Eurocentric prejudice, that we are more creative as a result of our balance and variegated expression.
Well said. Very articulate. How or why is that called sublime? Does such balance in character, which is probably indisputably there, bring about or play into, a more sublime state of mind or being in a social world? It seems that at best that it can bring about finer achievement, yes. It can also make for a more tortured and strange personality - for example, we have some people who are high on logic, but coming up short in judgment.
I’ll give you my subjective answer because you are asking me and because I want to give you quick feedback; not to present myself as an authority beyond question - I think yes. 40
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:55 | # This seems to be the the most distinguished question in your next post: Also, bio-power of Blacks - is this some sort of scientific term, because in terms of persuasion and rhetoric Whites could do no worse. I think bio-power is a very useful term, yes. I saw it in Foucault - not that I am recommending him, but the term (which he also meant to look upon as potentially dangerous) is one that we can use. I am not a scientist either, but I believe that when looking at examples of Blacks the examples of bio-power would multiply; not so much because of where they are from but because they are so much older. I think of the White scientist who put his sperm in a dish to compete with a Black sperm - finding the Black sperm more vigorous. Example will probably not be hard to come-by. And no, these sorts of examples are not meant to intimidate, depress, make Whites pessimistic or afraid: they are put forward toward better, more honest understanding of what we are up against. Where their “bio-power” is less than Whites, well that’s great. I do not think that Blacks or Mulattoes are better. I believe the way of life that we create is better and that that is the most important consideration. However, there are challenges that come from non-Whites, some are very powerful phenomenon that are best not to underestimate (Sunic makes the point that we can overestimate people too - The Old Man makes the astute observation that Blacks, being verbal, can sound much smarter than they really are). Yes, I do believe that “mulatto supremacism” can be a good angle, at times and in places. It has to be said in the right way, probably with an attitude of condescending disparagement from above it - not with a tone of fear and anxiety. I like the tact of the charge because, as I’d said: Raising the charge of Mulatto Supremacism is both valid regarding one of the worst effects of what Jews and Blacks are doing to the White race while confronting neither group directly so as to initiate direct response; nor failing to use the leverage of their own potential grievance as to the matter. That is it can be tactful as you are not attacking Jews with the charge, you are not attacking Blacks with the charge (though you can expect to find them treating mulattoes as Blacks, at times), so it is more tricky for them to defend against: at the same time, you are hitting one of the most destructive things that they are doing to us. I am not claiming that it will always work, like a mantra. But it should be a good tool in our kit. 41
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:03 | # Re White/Latina pairings, it all depends on the race of the Latina. As we know designation of Latina or Hispanic is not race specific. Hence a White/Latina pairing could acually be a White/White pairing. Secondly, if you’re a decent looking white guy wearing appropriate attire, it’s a peice of cake to pick up white chicks at your local night club. An offer to buy her a drink opens the door. If she accepts, it’s all up to you after that….. However, if your like daniels and try to impress the chicks by striking up a conversation about the ontology project at MR, then proceed to explain to her how the Jews are destroying the white race your not going to get very far. But not all is lost for danny boy. Someday he’ll figure it out. He’s a bright boy. Now go wrap some more tape around the broken frame on your glasses, danny, and sit and think about it for awhile. PS, Contrary to what the media would have us beleive, the VAST majority of white women want and seek white husbands. 42
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:21 | # However, if your like daniels and try to impress the chicks by striking up a conversation about the ontology project at MR, then proceed to explain to her how the Jews are destroying the white race your not going to get very far. I have done my share of nerding-out and failing as a result, with women. However, the context is important to me. I cannot relate to women who are all too comfortable with the anti-racist rules that be.
Thanks. I don’t wear glasses, but even where I do not particularly enjoy the challenges of a Thorn or Guest Lurker, it is good for me to grapple with them and for others to see that because these sorts of contentions will be. PS, Contrary to what the media would have us beleive, the VAST majority of white women want and seek white husbands. I understand that, but the losses are still significant and unacceptable, the challenge is there. You really don’t have to go far out of your way.. 43
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:32 | #
No truer statement has ever been made about blacks here at MR. Blacks can talk their asses off, but when it comes time to actually doing something—especially of a hands on technical nature—they freeze up and stand there with their thumbs up their behinds….then make excuses….
44
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:58 | # /.. For a White woman to say that she does not like White men because they are “boring” is a perfect example of her having “higher grumbles” on a hierarchy of needs. ...to say that they are “yesterday” would be an example of a modernist valuation. 45
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 03 Jan 2013 04:31 | # Thorn@41 I think you might live among less degenerate people than I do. I have not made any kind of review of whatever sociological data exists on the prevalence of interracial fraternization and/or marriage and miscegenation, but I know what I see and experience. I would hope (and even expect) that most white females still want white husbands, but they are clearly more open than ever before to hooking up with nonwhites; are doing so at greater rates than ever before; and finally, have mostly dropped race as a personal selection criterion (by which I mean, an independent concern for themselves, as against a factor for other reasons, such as familial disapproval - which will be mostly dissipated within another generation - or fear of ‘identity conflicts’ or ethnocultural discrimination for their offspring). I personally know decent quality white females (“quality” determined here by socioeconomic class and IQ, not racial loyalty), for example, who ended up marrying white guys (and now have lovely white children, thank goodness!), but who, however, had, at different points in their dating histories, been involved with nonwhites, and who might well have married nonwhites had the particular circumstances aligned themselves that way. In other words, the fact that they did not marry nonwhites was wholly circumstantial. Thus, as the number and integration of nonwhites continues to grow, I expect more and more white females will end up marrying and/or getting impregnated by nonwhites. The end results of these trends, as I’ve pointed out here at MR in the past, is that there will be ever fewer race-pure whites in each generation, both relatively and absolutely (especially if the immigration invasion continues at its current pace) - but the racial nationalist sentiment among them will only grow, especially as they become progressively more impotent to legislate their already outlying ideological and cultural preferences. WPs of the Amren/vdare variety (NOT the WNs of the MR/Counter-Currents crowd, whose anti-semitism and especially anti-Christianity will always leave them utterly politically marginalized, at least in the US) are eventually going to win the intra-Right struggle, becoming dominant within the broad-based conservative movement. But it will be a Pyrrhic victory, as WPs - and whites in general - will have only a loud voice but no power, exactly as is the case with the CA GOP today. White ingathering and secession are our only hope. 46
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Jan 2013 05:01 | # I would add that there is not only a danger in underestimating and misrepresenting the sheer number of miscegenating women, but also their quality. There is, moreover, something to be said for the line that if there were one it would be too many. To pooh-pooh the matter or sheerly blame men for it are typical liberal ruses that open the floodgates of destruction. In the US, I don’t know if there is a free area. I was told that Wet Virginia is so White, and I guess it is, demographically. But the last time I passed through, on a successive evening and morning, I saw two of the most exquisite White women with just plain Negroes: one couple in a bar that I stopped in; another then next morning, as I was seated next to them for breakfast - the White girl was so fine that I had to walk out after saying a few choice words.
“My best friend is 100% nigerian black, he is more kind and more intelligent than the average human being. In other word even if you believe another race is ugly how can you hate a human being for being ugly.” People probably do not hate another because they are ugly; however they may have an very strong aversion to their unattractiveness, perceiving it as dangerous to their own health - whether it may bring infirmity along with it, resentment, or the potential to multiply a genetic difference that would overwhelm and eliminate their own distinction. Such is the case with your Nigerian friend. Their population is tripling. Their cultural patterns are dangerous to Europeans and others in many other ways besides. There is an old adage: The Uncle Tom and The Oreo - just what we need! It is these sorts who open the flood gates for the vast and destructive patterns of non-Whites 47
Posted by daniels on Thu, 03 Jan 2013 05:06 | # “Immaturity” is another, typical psychological ruse, which is used to ignore vast paradigmatic differences in favor of universal comparison. 48
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:22 | # Leon, I must admit I’ve been out of the dating scene for over thirty years. Last June my wife and I celebrated our 32nd anniversary. WOW how time flies! Anyway I’m well aware of the decline of moral restraints and the breaking down of prohibition of interracial coupling. Marriage data doesn’t even come close to reflecting the true picture of how widespread interracial sex actually is. So I have nothing to disagree with you in general. However, I still know, if given the choice, most white women (mentally mature women of child bearing age) would much rather marry a white man than a griod or loid.
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/print#axzz2Gv68Yxv0 Here’s another ugly truth people in the dating scene should be aware of: 48% of black women have genital herpes. Which begs the question: From whom do they contract their genital herpes? (hint: it’s from their MANY black partners) Add to that all the other STDs Negroes carry and that alone should be enough to scare any sane white person away from even the thought of dating them. Given all I just said, Daniels does deserve credit for bringing up a legitimate topic of discussion. ————— “Between Herpes and AIDS…I don’t care if I ever get laid again!” -George Carlin ... 49
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 03 Jan 2013 20:11 | # That John Derbyshire article is a pretty good baseline for a common sense approach to behaviour/conduct for whites in America. I more or less ‘spontaneously’ followed the same guidelines - but I had read up about crime patterns before I went to live in the USA. Knowledge is power - at least some of the time. 50
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Jan 2013 20:54 | # One wonders if that little piece by Derbyshire goes some way towards answering the question (sort of) with which he finished his essay for National Review Towards a white minority, published on 25th May, 2007:
51
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:36 | # Derbyshire has many good things to say. Metzger says that his six kids all married White. I asked him how he managed that. As I recall, he said you have to start them very young. The Mexican kids wanted to play with his kids but he wouldn’t allow them. He said that even he felt guilty about that; but he’d seen what happened to the parents who did let their kids play with non-Whites. Regarding their farther developing years, he said that he was not too emphatic on the issue; on the theory that if you are too insistent, the kids might rebel. Similarly, he advised that they read books on both sides - though of course, he had to provide the books which present our side. 52
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:14 | # Well, GW, Homo americanus is a truly bizarre creature - apparently, their magical thinking with regard to the power of their individual sovereignty and the ‘promise of America’ induces a state of epilanthonamai as they drift down the Ameles potamos. Of course Homo americanus is utterly committed to view that Americanism (in both theory and practice) is the highest and fullest expression of the human as such - the nation beyond and above of all others. One that transcends the antediluvian concept of nation based upon a regime of jus sanguinis - no, everyone and everything has its place under this new regime of ‘spaceless’ universalism. America as the universal exception. This cosmopolitan, radically pluralistic non-nation (it started but hasn’t ended in religious liberty/pluralism) is shaped by the idea that the only criterion for a legitimate place within the polis is simply acceptance of the rule of the rule. The constitution as the cardinal holy relic of this civic and cultural religion of radically individualistic liberty. This is such a deeply embedded assumption (that Americanism is the representation of the best of all possible political and personal ideals - America as a sort of socio-political Platonic ideal made real) - that it is simply unthinkable and unimaginable to them to even admit the possibility that this metaphysical commitment is a delusion or even a dangerous and ultimately deadly illusion. Witness the general sense of deep hurt, bewilderment and anger (from most Americans) if one attacks the ‘ontological’ roots of America and suggest it is far from being the joyous terminus of human history. Americans still think that, in essence, they dwell in Elysium - despite all evidence to the contrary. Perhaps the incessant logorrhea devoted to the notion of the superiority of the American way of life - has any nation in history been more concerned with boasting of its own wonderous nature? - is, in fact, a psycho-political form of over-compensation? Yes aren’t other ‘particularist’ peoples such as old Europeans, with their historically ‘thick’ concepts of ethnicity and their ‘blood’ nations, so passé and ‘backward’ compared to the stupendous Republic of Liberty (for all) - or so goes the America story - but perhaps this merely covers a deeper modality of Nietzschean ressentiment over what has so obviously been lost? So much so that out of a false sense of pride they would rather commit a form of collective self-destruction than openly admit that the American political experiment - foundationally grounded upon a historically and philosophically radical conception of personal liberty and maximally atomistic ‘freedom’, has been a profound mistake. But then Homo americanus - on the whole - seems to have little room for tragedy - imaginatively, intellectually, let alone politically. America might, in the centuries to come, be looked upon as an historic folly of enormous hubris. Imagine, if you will, the Japanese carving out a part of Africa and declaring it will be a superior version of Japan forever more. Naturally, one would think such people as lacking any form of wisdom. The American question rather fits the aphorism of Stuart Chase “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.” It is difficult to be seriously engaged in political thought yet neutral on the idea of Americanism. For true believers America and Americanism is unquestionable good beyond all others. It’s a political theology not a sober, hard-headed examination of the facts on the ground. European intellects of the majesty of Heidegger and Schmitt both articulated that Americanism was a profound danger to European man. I, for one, am prepared to give such concerns a serious hearing. Are the likes of John Derbyshire? 53
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Jan 2013 05:34 | # I don’t know about Derbyshire, but I can agree, and I’d bet that many Americans would too. There are powerful pressures on Americans, but their rootlessness and “open-mindedness” will make a percentage of them corrigible to European Nationalist and communitarian aims. Dr. Lister, I do enjoy your cartoons, as well as this life portrait of homo-americanus, I am not being facetious. I want to draw only one caveat: the supreme pronunciation of the valuation of the freedom of individual choice as extolled in the The Euro-DNA Nation is underscored in a measure of stealth and practicality of America’s circumstance in order to facilitate an assortocracy to undo its Cartesianism. Its transcendent valuation of freedom as such does not apply to European Nations (a person may not merely choose their European Nation or community): rather, that assortocracy is meant with a profound eye toward the preservation and reconstruction of European natives in their rooted, historical places. The over-arching structure proposed is European in name and nature; its governance proposed for your/our interests against other and antagonistic powers. That does, however, entail enough freedom of choice for diaspora to discriminate on behalf of their/our European kind - a freedom not currently afforded them.
56
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:12 | # Ah oh! Ilana Mercer is at it again! Close your eyes if you’re allergic to her writings. HEH!!! In her latest article she reffered to Dear Leader as “The snake in the grass spat, slithered and hissed its way back to the White House.” Then she goes on to bash members of her own tribe: Called Barbara Walters a “boorish broadcaster”. Referred to Gloria Borger as a “CNN ghoul”. Accurately described the unctuous Bill Kristol as “the neoconservative kingpin with his broad Cheshire-Cat grin.” (Of course she’s using neoconservative as a pejorative.) There’s more goodies packed in her article. http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/no-country-for-old-white-men/
57
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:15 | # Posted by uh on January 04, 2013, 10:05 AM | # this was beautiful. Am I to be surprised shit-head? It could have been you, authoring Guest Lurker’s stupidity. Now, is the matter really that I am intimidated and discriminating against Blacks for their studliness? Would I welcome frail and diminutive little Blacks? Or is it rather that Black cultural patterns are vile and totally destructive? Just because you have become accustomed to getting reemed during your jail terms does not mean that other people ought to shrug-off the damage that living proximally with Blacks entails. Nor should they refrain from countering Jewish disinformation about them. We are not supposed to care but rather treat the violence and destruction done as trivial - just how stupid can you be? Where were the studly men like you and Guest Lurker to entice this woman among legions of others from their nig boyfriends? http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=615874 Do you think that I would care and complain if you and Guest Lurker had this woman instead because you are such studs? Apparently, according to you and him, there are no problems that a secure man should not simply ignore. How fucking stupid are you? Now, for a true yawner, look at Thorn’s post number 12 under the Security-Financial complex; if you want to do some good (though I already know that you do not) turn your harassment and criticisms to what might do some good. Otherwise, why not go back to viewing porn if you get off on posts like Guest Lurkers’? Thorn maintains Christianity and Capitalism are what we need to save us. It is rather an unfortunate trajectory of those rebelling from communist circumstances that they are overcompensating in the direction of those things from which we really need to be moving from, if we are to save ourselves as a people. They are overcompensating against (overly-rigid) social organization and on behalf of the invisible hand of the so called free market. To insist upon Christianity and the invisible hand of free market capitalism is to prohibit thinking and social responsibility to our people - exactly what we do not need. And he is still doing Ilana Mercer’s bidding - take Thorn with you somewhere else. 58
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:50 | #
Only in part, danny. Only in part. However those two elements are absolutely required for whites to flourish.
You have back-asswards, danny. But that’s typical of all you live in a bubble leftist “intellectuals”. Listen and learn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0TMOerW-eM&feature=player_embedded 59
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:06 | # You have back-asswards, danny. But that’s typical of all you live in a bubble leftist “intellectuals”.
60
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:08 | # “Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing from experimental psychology. He would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away his scholar’s gown, bid farewell to his study, and wander with human heart throught the world. There in the horrors of prisons, lunatic asylums and hospitals, in drab suburban pubs, in brothels and gambling-hells, in the salons of the elegant, the Stock Exchanges, socialist meetings, churches, revivalist gatherings and ecstatic sects, through love and hate, through the experience of passion in every form in his own body, he would reap richer stores of knowledge than text-books a foot thick could give him, and he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul.”—Carl Jung 61
Posted by DanielS. on Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:19 | # Jung’s giving advice to look at reality and learn from it is just fine. 62
Posted by Silver on Sat, 05 Jan 2013 04:51 | #
Argh, who the hell here do you suppose isn’t aware of any of that? Even if the subject deserves to be delved into more deeply the wretched manner of your babble about it elucidates nothing. I bet I speak for more than a few people in wishing out loud that you’d take a long break. I hate putting it so bluntly but it need to be said. Yes, your heart’s in the right place, but your brain is scattered all over the place. The content of your posts wears people down and the volume of your posting wears people out. Just look at the subtitle of this post: Geezus, I’m already panting. Why don’t you take some time off, calm down, do some reading and educate yourself on what really matters. Then you might come back in a position to make a positive difference. The nonsense you’re spamming this blog with isn’t helping at all.
63
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 05 Jan 2013 07:23 | # Posted by Silver on January 04, 2013, 11:51 PM | # Would I welcome frail and diminutive little Blacks? Or is it rather that Black cultural patterns are vile and totally destructive? Argh, who the hell here do you suppose isn’t aware of any of that? No, Silver, “they” are not aware of that; if they were, they would not accuse me of being motivated by sheer insecurity. Therefore, of necessity, this is about setting-out the fundaments in some respects: because some people clearly don’t get what the motives are. Even if the subject deserves to be delved into more deeply the wretched manner of your babble about it elucidates nothing. I disagree. I bet I speak for more than a few people in wishing out loud that you’d take a long break. You know Silver, this is really a projection; it is the folks here who want to proselytize about Christianity and the virtues of sheer capitalism who need to take a break: at least go to another site. I hate putting it so bluntly but it need to be said. Yes, your heart’s in the right place, but your brain is scattered all over the place. No it isn’t silver, I know exaclty where I am going. It may not be what you want to hear, but inasmuch, I am beginning to suspect you.
I post when it is relevant; and again, you do not speak for everyone, nor am I obstrutcing others from posting; if they come here and want to act as Jewish sycophants, I will challenge them, however. Just look at the subtitle of this post: “From the hubris of objectivism to the implicative force of Mulatto Supremacism” Geezus, I’m already panting. Silver, you apparently don’t think that European people really matter. Then you might come back in a position to make a positive difference. The nonsense you’re spamming this blog with isn’t helping at all. You are trying to be intimidating, but it simply is not true. It is just one post, it is not the only subject matter I care about, but it deserved treatment and people like you are trying to say it is obsessive. That might be what people who are not conscientious want to hear, but it isn’t accurate Silver. We’ve already pretty much established that you are not particularly caring about the cause here; it is rather a tangential issue for you; that is why people who try to doctor it and/or provide different angels are considered obsessive or scattered by you. I’ve been ready to move on to thinking about Graham’s post and to move onto other topics, but you came here with this spam so I have to address it being satisfied that you are acting in pejorative diversion.
64
Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Sat, 05 Jan 2013 16:02 | # Any bets this reality show never airs? But if it does, what will it signal….or more importantly, what will it trigah wit da nigahz?
65
Posted by Suburban_elk on Sat, 05 Jan 2013 20:27 | # How could anyone post, if they did not care. The mole aside, it is unlikely; everyone reps their own interests. (Except for those who do not; that is a problem that has to be solved with math or ontology or something.) The soap is eternal, idn’t. The topic was mulatto supremacism. Blacks with their thick skulls and fast twitch. It works for them on this competitive island. That is our problem. 66
Posted by Suburban_elk on Sat, 05 Jan 2013 20:46 | # The forces of the world are aligned against the good people. All stories tell of such. The long good fight. Aka, no intellectual solution; which is not to say, no value: sharpen the sword, pass time. There will be a poem or a story or a song, or there will not. 67
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:41 | # .. Ja Mon, Da Wiggers is di Babylonians too! ...Rastafarians have their version of The Babylonians as well: Whites being the Babylonians while Negroes are the true Israelites. Haile Selassie is held to be some kind of re-incarnated Jesus Christ from Ethiopia. Ja mon, Iron like a Lion in Zion, is Bob Marley the half Jewish half Negro. This stuff has had surprising influence on Whites. Back in the early 70’s my brother had Al Anderson visit our house to play with their local group prior to Anderson becoming the guitarist for Bob Marley and The Wailers. Never could I guess that music, let alone that life style, would have so much staying power and influence - I guess it’s being a license for bad behavior is a part of it ...impacting many a wigger …to see pretty White girls with dread locks – foo! Middle class White kids who haven’t been beaten enough. Remind them of Selassie and Marcus Garvey’s Rastafarian principles - that Blacks should stay in Africa and not mix with Whites! Ja Mon, Da Wiggers is Babylonians too! http://rastaheadwraps.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=4_77 68
Posted by Suburban_elk on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 02:30 | # down at the River the fire is not out though being in ritual 69
Posted by daniels on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 05:39 | # / Posted by Suburban_elk on January 10, 2013, 09:30 PM | I want you to define “the good people” as an abstraction, and for me and non-Whites to be included under that rubric for you.
It is a universal story, your history is not really important.
Don’t think about these things. sharpen the sword, pass time. Just be quiet, it doesn’t matter that Wikipedia would not allow for an article about Mulatto Supremacism - saying it was not real - even though it is a palpable phenomenon which effects us all.
Then go there.
“Growth” is to feed on Whites, to consume and to assimilate them into a mulatto cyborg… It bears a striking resemblance to the rapacious, international capitalist notion of growth. 70
Posted by Suburban_elk on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:08 | # daniels, your translation misses the point entirely. What is the point of a poem; not in its explanation, or explication. However i will give you this: your response, Then go there, is right. 71
Posted by Suburban_elk on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:16 | # Let us hope there is no diminuition in olive branches. Descriptive vs prescriptive. My comments are meant reflectively. Questioning motives, is absurd. Are your motives questionable; used to questioning? 72
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:28 | # daniels, your translation misses the point entirely. It could be, and if you speak in riddles it is all the more possible. 73
Posted by Suburban_elk on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:29 | # Your questioning of motives i called absurd, but it is apropos. I seek to reconcile the hard line here; because i do not like it. 74
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:35 | # Maybe I should not have questioned your motives, but I’ve seen you prescribe passivity a couple times now, and for me, a red flag goes up with that… sorry if I misunderstood. 75
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:38 | # p.s., I just came out from where I was having dinner, to be greeted by a pretty girl waking with a butt ugly negro, I mean ugly…and in a town that is all White, I cannot see the excuse…how dare she bring that here to this ancient place.. 76
Posted by Suburban_elk on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:08 | # the long good fight is failure. the clarion call a trumpet; who hears. is it gabriel or Eonwe who blows the horn? 77
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:43 | # the long good fight is failure. the clarion call a trumpet; who hears. is it gabriel or Eonwe who blows the horn?
Gabriel at the gates of heaven..(the gate..“ghetto”) I see fatalistic passivity in this, acquiescence. ..perhaps if you would speak English?
78
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:23 | # WHILE MY GLOCK .40 CALIBER GENTLY SLEEPS by Angry White Dude I look at you all, 79
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 17:07 | # Still the right-winger awkardly creeps. I don’t know how how how the right-winger became perverted, he was inverted.. He was a Federal provocateur too… I don’t know how how how, no one alerted you… 80
Posted by Suburban_elk on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 17:25 | # I see a fictional character immersed in fictional characters but see the ghetto is the gate war and conquer 81
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:47 | #
Yup, just as I suspected! REALITY shows about blacks are verboten in BRA. ———————-
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/oxygen-drops-plans-for-all-my-babies-mamas/
82
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:12 | # Re: Black Run America (BRA) “BRA doesn’t mean that America is run by Black people; it means America—at every level of society—is run for the benefit of Black people, to the detriment of everyone else.”—Paul Kersey 83
Posted by DanielS. on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 05:04 | # Super Bowl XLVII Date February 3, 2013, 6:30 p.m. ET Baltimore Ravens San Francisco 49ers
(trashed by refugees after hurricane Katrina and refurbished for millions as the hallowed home of negrophilia-ball) MVP Attendance (millions of stupid White people)
85
Posted by DanielS. on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:30 | # Greg Jones proposes marriage to a human woman at the Super Bowl 86
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:18 | # I remember a few years back I made the mistake of watching the Country Music Awards. Much to my surprise (not really) Rhianna was prominently featured. WTF (I asked myself) is this mulatto doing at a country music award show? She’s a pop singer! WTF are the producers thinking? Of course we know what they’re thinking. The diversity freaks that control the entertainment industry are making sure there isn’t any entertainment niche anywhere for whites only. They had to make sure the county music genre is polluted with “diversity” so they rubbed the fans’ noses in diversity via Rihanna. The really sickening part was that the audience seemed to be more than thrilled she was there performing. Country music fans, it sems, aren’t much better than nigger-ball fans. BTW, I see the promoters of NASCAR (of which I’m NOT a fan [BORING!]) are trying to attract blacks too. 87
Posted by DanielS. on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:01 | # Diversity would be a proximally ideal aim, were the idea not perverted, reversed in by Jewish academics to mean its opposite in fact - integration…sure, one ramification of this phoney “diversity” would be the mulattoism. 88
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:32 | # I think you’re right, DanielS, but I use the term “diversity” as its commonly understood. 90
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:12 | # Noting that Henry Ford’s series on “The International Jew” was being published starting in 1920, not fully outside of the Jack Johnson era, I have begun to take a more careful look at what promotion Jewish interests may have given to Jack Johnson. Looking at “The six fights for which the major films were made, starring Johnson”: Johnson-Burns (film released in 1908) Gaumont, The Motion Picture Patent’s Company, Kalem and Vitagrpah were apparently largely responsible for these films and their distribution. None of these companies seem to be Jewish owned or operated. Might have a look at the newspapers of the day and perhaps foreign propaganda.. 92
Posted by daniels on Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:36 | # “Dessalines’s advisers, however, pointed out that the white Haitians would not disappear if the women were left to give birth to white men, and after this, Dessalines gave order that the women should be killed as well, with the exception of those who agreed to marry non-white men.[8] Contemporary sources claim that 3000 people were killed in Cap-Haïtien, but this is considered unrealistic, as only 1700 white people remained in the city after the French evacuated.[10] One of the most notorious of the massacre participants was Jean Zombi, a mulatto resident of Port-au-Prince who was known for his brutality. One account describes how Zombi stopped a white man on the street, stripped him naked, and took him to the stair of the Presidential Palace, where he killed him with a dagger. Dessalines was reportedly among the spectators; he was said to be “horrified” by the episode.[12] In Haitian Vodou tradition, the figure of Jean Zombi has become a prototype for the zombie.[13] By the end of April 1804, some 3000 to 5000 people had been killed[11] and the white Haitians were practically eradicated.” 93
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:45 | # Cassius Clay / Zbigniew Pietrzykowski Light Heavy Weight Final, 1960, Rome The impartial observer will conclude that Pietrzykowski clearly won the fight and should have been awarded the gold. However, a modicum of hot-dogging on Clay’s part was apparently enough to stimulate negrophilia among the judges and rob the decision for the Lousville-Lip. 94
Posted by Chris Weber on Sun, 15 Dec 2013 12:27 | # If a white person favors black people in any way then they themselves have somewhere in there history a black ancestor. Which means that they are not white to begin with. Maybe, when God created the beasts they were created, and then he created Adam. Anyway Mulattoes will never side with white people ever no matter how far back they have a black Ancestor. Attitude towards other people is what gives them away, 95
Posted by Michelle my Belle on Sat, 14 Mar 2015 08:10 | # https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/univision-fires-rodner-figueroa-michelle-obama-182010184.html Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of “Planet of the Apes.” Figueroa, who’s known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show “El Gordo y la Flaca” in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama. “Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she’s from the cast of ‘Planet of the Apes,’ the movie.” 96
Posted by black crypsis on Fri, 15 May 2015 08:21 | # When looking into an indignation from days prior to the Internet’s (and interracial couples) taking such hold - specifically, an affair that was had by simian pro-basketball player, Pat Ewing, with a White cheerleader - I found photos of the White cheerleader; physically, she is OK, pleasant looking: But in this inquiry I was confronted again with the disquieting fact that the “black” (really mixed, mulatto, quadroon, not sure) wife who was cheated-on by Pat Ewing, was perhaps even more attractive. Or, lets say, she could easily be said to be a more attractive and viable replacement at first blush by one not socialized into understanding the patterns that go along with her blackness, what injustices to our people went into her admixture, and by contrast the patterns that go along with European peoples. When you watch her speaking, she does not speak with the typically dour, low voice of a black woman, nor with the stereotypical manner of a self-righteous, hyper-assertive sheboon either: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBHjgLZfFeo This underscores the importance of science to get beneath the ostensible and mere common sense apprehension. Also why socialization to understanding of patterns is so important for the puerile. Need for socialization to the value of our people and ways and the perils of mulattoes may be somewhat less a problem for White males since, unlike females, they are not born to be quite so acquiescent in order to get along, particularly as they are made aware in immediate terms when engaging with black females, even the ones that are mixed and not as bad looking as bluegums, that it tends not to be worth it as it means having to deal with not only an entirely different world, where they cannot unfold their evolved way of life and its attendant, dominant technology, but also where they must instead engage unfavorable criteria - subject to PC strictures of the moment and episode - where the demeaning, hyper-assertive antagonism of black males can dominate; and the more typical sheboones can be overbearing to White male breeding. More, a White male tends to see black ways, even mixed, as going backwards in evolution and against his finer quests. In a word, the exceptions to the rule of black female ugliness are not worth it. The battle of perception must be fought and won. Socialization to the European classification and way of life is imperative to invoke through pursuit of its cultural hegemony for our people, at very least, through both argumentation and the demonstrably preferable ways of life and precious DNA that correspond with Whites as opposed to mulattoes. Nevertheless, it remains a perceptual difficulty and one that calls for rhetoric to invoke the pattern of socialization for puerile Whites and to instill confidence and loyalty; to ward off the pseudo objectivity of puerile White girls as well, who may see such mulatto kinds as justification for miscegenation and a challenge to be assimilated by breeding mulattoes as well. Toward that end, it is necessary to take advantage of black female indignation with miscegenating White women.
Her Mother While the bodies of these women, White vs mulatto, are not readily compared in these examples - that would require Majority Rights patented “soft core pornography” criteria for assessing beauty - White skin of itself can be said to be more beautiful and exciting when unclothed. However, where possible to compare body structure, one will notice that subtlety, suppleness and sublime asymmetry tends to be lost in mulatto atavism. The big shoulders, thighs, sinewyness, vulgar symmetry, the ugly round buttocks of black women often manifest in mulatto women’s bodies as well, even where uglier black features and nappy hair do not show in the head. In other words, while White women may not always be the better looking, the obvious point is that attractive mulattoes can be gate-openers to what we do not want to put up with - the consequences and everyday patterns of black behavior. Hideous and alien to European ways though it is, this is typical black behavior: <iframe width=“560” height=“315” src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/h01ACk6jy-M” frameborder=“0” allowfullscreen></iframe> 97
Posted by Fuck the word "mulatto" on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 00:37 | # half Black Half White? Then youre a Hestanfell For pride, unity and militant supremacy join HMTFF. We are the ultimate race 98
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 15:57 | # Why am I not surprised to find that you are from Sweden, Doshmynthrill? 99
Posted by Hollywood conditioning on Thu, 25 May 2017 20:28 | # Psychological backgrounding:
100
Posted by Haitians invading Canada on Wed, 23 Aug 2017 18:07 | #
101
Posted by Sir Henry Cooper on Fri, 25 Aug 2017 13:38 | # Sir Henry Cooper describes fight with Muhammad Ali (then Cassius Clay) and the context.
Cooper knocks Clay down with one among several solid lefts..
To his credit, Ali was quite articulate in his denunciation of race mixing. 102
Posted by Mayweather's purse $100M on Sat, 26 Aug 2017 12:11 | #
104
Posted by Steve Bannon interview brought to you by... on Fri, 08 Sep 2017 04:40 | # Mulatto supremacists
105
Posted by The birth of the clinic on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:14 | # 1) That power does not only come from top down, as in the case of “bio-power” (which this article sees Africans as having). Power can come from different and changing directions and sources - coalitions, for another example. 2) In a classic use of hermeneutics, he illustrates that the birth of an idea can be traced to a particular point in history - e.g., the “birth of the clinic” and particular kinds of “mental illness.” ... ...the category of “the Caucasian race”.... the term “racism.” ..regarding truth claims made by authorities and their tendency to take away your agency, it can be found again by looking into the historical contingency of truth claims: 39:00 - 42:40 106
Posted by Trump pardon's Jack Johnson on Thu, 14 Jun 2018 08:35 | #
107
Posted by Miss Egenation France on Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:36 | #
108
Posted by Claire Khaw's Mulatto Supremacism on Thu, 19 Sep 2019 04:24 | # Comment below this posted stream that Claire Khaw deleted: We must crush Claire’s Mulatto Supremacism, as her call for the restoration of Patriarchy is no resistance to liberalism but rather the instantiation of the brute upshot of Abrahamism’s universalism - an alliance of mystery meat and Jewry. Islam being an infamous mystery meat factory. 109
Posted by Arnold Cream on Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:36 | # This punch may have been delivered to Ezzard Charles, not Arnold Cream (a.k.a., “Jersey Joe Walcott”).
Image screenshot from Rocky Marciano - 1966 Australian TV Interview Ok, Joe Louis was over the hill, but Marciano did what he was supposed to do in that case - he crucified him.
110
Posted by Tyson Fury on Tue, 25 Feb 2020 07:33 | # Just In : Tyson Fury Destroys Deontay Wilder, Wins WBC Title 111
Posted by mancinblack on Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:03 | #
So there you have it. Wilder was weighed down by Black History. My heart bleeds almost as much as his mouth and ear did. Not to worry. After all, Tyson did punch Wilder back to the seventeenth century and leave him…history. 112
Posted by Teddy Atlas on Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:44 | # 113
Posted by Bio-Power on Mon, 20 Jul 2020 06:57 | # I stopped reading Foucault after the first book of his that I read, The History of Sexuality: The Use of Pleasure. I was intrigued by the title, which indicated a classical Epicurean inquiry, a worthy avenue it seemed to me. However, except for the provocatively useful, but un-elaborated upon term, “bio-power”, there wasn’t much that i found to be of use in the text. On the contrary, I found him coming back repeatedly to the idea that (some) ancient Greeks (allegedly) considered homosexual pedophilia normal as transparent justification for his own predilection among this contextual relativization of history. Even so, the term “bio-power” provides a clue as to an angle that can be used in inquiry and warning as to how it is that Africans can be a danger, i.e., not merely antagonistic, but having capacity, dangerous capability ...e.g., as a people some 200,000 years evolved prior to and thus compared to the precarious 41,000 years of European evolution. There are several advantages to this angle which I will not elaborate on, but only add that it helps to mitigate against the Nazophiles who try to minimize black antagonism, looking upon themselves and their singular concern for the J.Q. as the ultimate in sophistication (and not naivete). It also goes to show that sometimes a book a thousand pages long can be justified by one term or even the title. While I had always meant to read Foucault’s most important books, Discipline and Punish and Birth of the Clinic for the provocative angles that Foucault takes on social problems, I never got around to it having been turned off enough by Foucault’s pedophilia apologetics and having read enough people quoting the texts to get the idea… Josh Neal, Alex McNabb, Jefferson Lee and Thampster have a discussion in and about Foucault having apparently been provoked by the same term - bio-poltics/bio-power - and finding the same thing, the Foucault does not elaborate. However, they have a decent discussion in and about what Foucault’s lecture on bio-politics does talk about, neo-liberalism… ....“the market (and its infamous ‘magic hand’) becomes the space of truth.” ....while the panel ventures some into Birth of The Clinic and Discipline and Punish.
Post a comment:
Next entry: The security-financial complex
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Nigel Benn
Lisa Andrews with hers and Nigel Benn’s offspring, Harley
</td><td> 
</td><td>
</td></tr></table>
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:29 | #
There is a profound asymmetry here – black women are simply not desired by white men.
There is an article about the ‘racism’ going on at eHarmony and the like at the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/dec/23/ethnicity-dating
A snippet from it:
“Why do only white men pay for overpriced matchmaking services? And why don’t they want to date black women? And why does the service even matchmake on racial grounds in the first place?
Well, I was soon confronted head on with my own naivety. Ethnicity is a big deal when it comes to dating services. I subscribed to eHarmony for the purposes of writing this column, and as well as learning that I strongly agree that I am optimistic and well dressed, not great at resolving conflict and sometimes leave my room untidy, I also answered three questions about race and ethnicity. My own, the one I want my partner to belong to, and how much this matters.
It matters quite a lot, I have discovered. A study of Yahoo! Personals profiles revealed only 7% of men on that site were willing to date black women. OKCupid, after studying the messaging patterns of more than 1 million users, concluded on its official blog that, with online dating, black women got the “cold shoulder” and “racism is alive and well”.
One expert found a very scientific explanation for this. Men think that black women are too bossy.”
No sorry love the truth is that most European men simply don’t find black women physically attractive at all. It’s only oddballs or those without any options that go down this route (in my personal experience). As a graduate student I knew an Irish student in the same department. After finishing his studies he told everyone that his greatest ambition or life-goal was to go to Africa to work and to ‘enjoy’ the women of that continent. This was at an event he had organised at the time - a meal for graduate students from the department at the only African restaurant in town – BTW the authentic African food was truly awful in every regard – taste, texture, smell, visually.
The key point however is that this Irish chap is the ugliest man I’ve ever seen in person. Genuinely his face could have passed as a horror mask.
The other chap of my acquaintance that admitted to copulation with black women was an old retired (white) professor of linguistics – he was of limited financial means and had no immediate family (think he might have been divorced). Anyway he openly told the group of guys he was drinking with (of which I was one) this background information and that he also hired black ‘ladies of the night’ because he still needed sex and those women were more ‘cost-effective’ on his limited budget, and he no longer cared from whom he ‘got it’ from! Price elasticity at work, yes?