An editorial in The Independent newspaper on Wednesday May 21st 2008 blamed the recent outbreak of racial, ethnic and xenophobic violence in South Africa on economic inequality due to the legacy of apartheid.
Yet again the liberal left sought to blame whitey for every problem and treat Black Africans as mere infants unable to be responsible for themselves, even though the ANC have been in power in South Africa since the fall of apartheid.
This theory of Liberal Racism, where the White Race is seen as uniquely evil and blamed for all the ills of the planet both past and present, is simultaneously balanced with a theory of Liberal White Supremacism. Liberal White Supremacism is the liberal theory that the White race has a 'moral duty' in respect of its 'more advanced liberal culture of tolerance and equality' to spread the White Liberal Model all around the planet. Simultaneous to this Liberal White Supremacism also posits the 'inferiority' of all those racial and cultural groups which do not achieve the 'racial and cultural standards' of the White race and the White Liberal Model, and therefore that all indigenous cultural, social, moral, political traditions must be surrendered to the superior White Liberal Model. Liberalism is the ultimate model of imperialism, for it depicts its conquests as moral victories.
Liberalism makes no sense, and as a result the only meaning of modern liberal societies is consumerism.
Yet when when racism occurs in the UK and is committed by poor white working class people against immigrant workers, immigrant run businesses etc that are taking their housing, taking their jobs and lowering their wages they are simply called evil. No excuses are ever made for the racism of the poorest and most excluded whites, only ever poor non-whites.
This racial disparity exists because the ideology of racism is political not scientific. The Liberal Model of Racism is simply an aspect of Marxism.
The Liberal Model of Racism blames racism on economic inequalities. The idea that racism exists due to inequality is simply a Marxist ideological position.
It implies that until the perfect communist state exists in all countries across the plant that racism will exist as an aspect of economic inequality. This belief is unprovable ideological nonsense.
It is the pseudo-science of socialism, communism and liberalism.
The fact is that even in both communist and socialist states their still existed the most vicious racists and racism - Stalin persecuted and purged cossacks, chechens and jews, China wages war against ethnic muslim separatists, Cambodia exterminated whole tribal groups. Communism had its own pathology of racism as much as Capitalism and Consumerism. This is simply because the theory that races can live together is flawed.
Ethnic minorities were deported and purged by Stain his Great Purges and murdered in Gulags and artificial famines under the process of Stalinist Russification, which opposed Leninist Russification which is the present model of Multi-culturalism in the UK.
Multi-culturalism in the UK is a form of Leninist Russification where the nation state is seen solely as a soviet union of various racial, ethnic, religious and cultural groups that each have been allowed enter and to colonise Britain. No central national British narrative exists, and all the strands of British society are to respected as equal (even though this depends upon the refusal to recognise history and the national historical narrative). This thereby allows British society to be controlled by economic or political mechanisms based on the support of the soviet blocs within British society.
Stalin targeted the Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Kalmyks, and others. Shortly after the war, he deported many Ukrainians and Balts to Siberia as well.
In every form of human society at every point in human history, racism has existed.
Arab Muslims enslave and kill Africans in the Sudan, the Romans regarded the Kelts as barbarians, Zionist Jews regard the Palestinians as inferior, the Rwandan Tutsis hated the Hutu’s, the British called the Germans 'the Huns' and dehumanised them in the First World War and the United States called the Japanese "yellow monkeys" in their propaganda during World War Two and the Japanese in World War Two called Whites 'apes'.
Racism is a feature of all races, human societies and economic models.
Human beings are simply not designed by nature for racial assimilation. They are designed for racial differentiation.
Racism is caused when mono-racial nations and societies have racial diversity imposed upon them. Racism exists solely because races are forced together.
In mono-racial and mono-ethnic societies racism does not exist. Racism exists only when different racial and ethnic groups are forced together.
Economic inequality may increase racism but economic equality will never stop racism.
The only way to prevent racism is to recreate monoracial nations and societies, or at the very minimum ensure that alien groups remain below a three percent social threshold to ensure that no future demographic and cultural clash between the different groups begins.
Until recognition of the racialist principles exists and this occurs then the spectre of racism shall continue to afflict all human societies.
Race itself is not a product of false consciousness, false science or political ideology. Racial diversity exists as a scientific reality.
It is theories of racial supremacism that are myths. In their own homelands into which they have evolved, the racial group created in that environment is better suited to survive in that environment. This is simply environmental and evolutionary science applied to humanity instead of animals.
Racial supremacism in all its forms from the Nazis, Zionism, the Nation of Islam to Stalinism is political.
The attempt by the liberal left to conflate racism and racial supremacism with Racialism is the "Great Lie" that sustains the liberal paradigm. Race is the product of hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution.
Race exists at both the genetic level and the geographical.
Different races exist because human beings evolved to adapt to different environments around the globe.
In their own homelands each race is better adapted for survival.
To say this is not racism but Racialism and is simply reality.
Racialism itself is simply the natural tendency of like preffering to live with like. A few aberrant individuals in all human societies may seek out and enjoy the company of racial strangers, mainly because of their unique psychological issues or media conditioning, but most human beings prefer to stick to their own kind.
Birds of a feather flock together as they say. Even in nature one never sees starlings roosting with sparrows or brown bears mating with black bears.
Racialism does not cause racism.
Racism is caused by ignorance of the science and wisdom of Racialism.
Racialism is simply the science, study and recognition that racial differences exist.
Racial differentiation is itself speciation in action. It is an ongoing evolutionary process, and recent research has shown that human evolution, racial differentiation and human speciation is accelerating.
The reality of the fundamental racial differences between human beings cannot be consigned to the dustbin of history in the name of the illusion of ideological equality. These differences have real individual and social pathologies and impact in a plethora of ways upon racially mixed societies.
In times of economic prosperity these pathologies may be minimised and repressed to manageable levels, but in times of economic collapse they erupt and can devastate societies. The idea that Racial integration could work is after communism the greatest myth of the 20th century. The downfall of the myth though may prove to be the trigger for the collapse of the 21st century.
Here are the definitions we should be using ;
1) Racialism is the study of the existence of human racial diversity and the genetic basis of racial differentiation and the scientific investigation into, and theories of, how race and racial diversity act as dynamics in human societies in respect of their impacts upon individuals, social groups, environment, cultures, social complexity and social / national cohesion.
2) Racism is a manifestation of individual actions and social pathologies. It is primarily caused as a product of political elites placing ideological theories before historical experience and natural laws as defined by Racialism. Racism is caused when politicians refuse to apply the logic and scientific wisdom of Racialism to human societies. Racism is group based competition played out at the level of individuals in human societies. Racism exists in all racial groups and also in all human societies.
3) Universal Racism exists and is created in human societies because races have been encouraged or allowed to misceginate, integrate and assimilate throughout history. Universal Racism as manifested in the individual actions and political choices of individuals or race based groups cannot be disassociated from the wider historical, anthropological, social, racial, political, economic and cultural context of the nations and societies they exist within . This theory of Universal Racism is a universalist theory and applies to all human racial groups across all human evolution and all human societies, both primitive and advanced.
4) Racial supremacism is a political theory posited by one racial group in order for that racial group in any given society, either mono-racial or multi-racial, to hold social dominance. All human racial groups have at some point in their histories and social models espoused a theory of racial supremacism. Racial supremacism theories are more prevalent in racially diverse societies especially multi-racial and multi-cultural pluralistic democracies. This is simply because the model of Multi-Culturalism rewards those groups within society that organise around the principal of ethno-communalism. Therefore the emphasis on ethnocentric group dynamics creates an ethnic consciousness within those groups that is susceptible to ethno-supremacism.
20 comments:
In addition, in order to achieve universal Liberalism, the nature of man must be changed from what is to new Liberal man.
New Liberal man is to be the future model citizen of Liberal Utopia.
Evidence of this re-engineering of human nature to new Liberal man is all about us - needless to say it won't work, in fact everything we are witnessing is against human nature and is doomed to failure.
If the Liberal project continues unabated, the inevitable consequences of Liberalism will be a world without whites, and it is toward this end which Liberalism is intended.
"The only way to prevent racism is to recreate monoracial nations and societies, or at the very minimum ensure that alien groups remain below a three percent social threshold to ensure that no future demographic and cultural clash between the different groups begins."
It's interesting that you came to such a conclusion (above) when you also made the statement below:
"the Rwandan Tutsis hated the Hutu’s, the British called the Germans 'the Huns'"
You included two examples of "same race" hatred to prove that monoracial societies are best when it comes to keeping racism at bay. Both Hutus and Tutsis are black (different culture perhaps). White is white whether its English or German (although different nations). So the reader would accurately conclude that monoracial societies really do not bring the peace that its proponents claim.
As for the 3% how would you decide who stays and who doesn't?
Mono-racial societies are not utopias, ethnic conflict will always exist in racial groups and may be triggered on many grounds eg economic competition - its just that multi-cultural and multi-racial societies add ANOTHER layer of conflict to already existing ones -in effect adding fuel to the fire.
The assertion is provable that mono-racial societies are more stable relatively than multi-racial societies has been nothed through history from the arab scholar Ibn Khaldun in 1332 to Ferdinand Tonnies in his theory of Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft in 1887.
Utopias do not exist, but the fact is that certain forms of societies are more stable than others in relative terms.
The 3 % issue is simple enough - we must deport all foreign criminals, illegal entrants, over stayers, extremists that threaten our society, those with crminal offences commited in the UK, economic migrants, asylum seekers who no longer require sanctuary here and all those who organise to threaten our democratic and secular society.
All those regardless of their colour or religion that fit the above crieteria must go.
Guests invited into your house that abuse their rights and our rights must be evicted.
"The assertion is provable that mono-racial societies are more stable relatively than multi-racial societies has been nothed through history from the arab scholar Ibn Khaldun in 1332 to Ferdinand Tonnies in his theory of Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft in 1887."
I don't think that the sentiments of "scholars" from hundreds or thousands of years ago can be applied today. Also, claims would have to be evident from what we see in the world today. For example, would you classify various black African societies as more stable than the average multiracial European city? What about Arab/Islamic societies? Also, I would classify a multiracial society such as the US as the most stable and socially advanced society there is. Could be a bit of bias on my part since I am American, but I won't deny the reality I see.
I agree that monoracial societies are not utopias (nor are multiracial environments). I do, however, believe that monoracial tensions decrease the more multicultural our environments become.
The statements of Newton on gravity and the statements of Archimedes on the displacement of water are truthes still applicable today. Scientific Truth does not have a sell by date.
Black African societies have been destabilised for a myriad reasons ranging from disease, climate problems, mass emigration (such as the theft of their doctors and nurses for the NHS), intellectual theft of their civil society building classes by the west, tribalism and a myriad other problems.
In fact I firmly believe that a Black racial consciousness is an essential for the stability of Africa, as it would end the insanity of historical tribalism and aggressive nationalism (which arose as a result of the creation of artificial 'nations' in Africa during the era of European imperialism )that has plagued the continent.
An Africa bsed on a racial consciousness would be far more stable Africa than one afflicted by tribalism, national hatreds, ANC and Mugabe type racist communism,led by military dictatorships, religious dictatorships based on sharia law and also corrupt western backed oligarchies.
America is not a stable society -
1 in 100 of its citizens are in prison. More blacks in the US GO INTO JAIL THAN INTO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
America is not a stable society, it is an oligarchy in its ivory towers that barely contains the anarchy on its streets that is defined as 'crime'.
Arab societies are now 'slave states' where the elites have imported in mainly asian slave workers to do their work for them whilst they grow fat on their oil money.
Most Arab nations are more racist than South Africa was under Apartheid, yet this is never reported in the news. They are not stable as poverty and rising populations will cause these states to explode in the next few decades - with disastrous effects on the West as we exist in total dependence on their oil.
In the whole of history not one multi-racial society has remained stable - Egypt under the Pharoahs, Europe under the Romans, The British Empire, the United States, the Soviet Union.
Egypt expelled the Jews. The Romans slaughtered millions of europeans to impose their version of multi-racial Imperialism and when Rome fell Europe lay waste. The fall of the British empire led to partition and the slaughter of millions. The creation of the United States led to a war to throw off the British crown and then a civil war and ongoing race war defined as 'crime'. The fall of the Soviet Union and its enforced version of Leninist / Stalinst mult-culturalism led to the savagery of the Balkans wars.
When this model of modern multi-culturalism collapses then in a frenzy of atavism Europe will revert to its organic roots, the same way it did when Rome fell and the Soviet Union fell.
How many times do people have to repeat the tragedies of history before they realise that Man is what he is, not what the ideologues want him to be.
"The statements of Newton on gravity and the statements of Archimedes on the displacement of water are truthes still applicable today. Scientific Truth does not have a sell by date."DOL
The two you describe may be applicable today, but scientific truth does have a sell by date. That is what makes science different from religion. After all, it was a scientific fact to some that the earth was flat. But back to the point, people change, water doesn't. S.W.I.M?
Black African societies have been destabilised for a myriad reasons ranging from disease, climate problems, mass emigration (such as the theft of their doctors and nurses for the NHS), intellectual theft of their civil society building classes by the west, tribalism and a myriad other problems.--DOL
Such is an example of a monoracial society that is not stabilized. But I disagree a bit on the cause. Black African societies aren't stable due to corrupt African despots and governments in general.
"In fact I firmly believe that a Black racial consciousness is an essential for the stability of Africa, as it would end the insanity of historical tribalism and aggressive nationalism (which arose as a result of the creation of artificial 'nations' in Africa during the era of European imperialism )that has plagued the continent. An Africa bsed on a racial consciousness would be far more stable Africa than one afflicted by tribalism, national hatreds, ANC and Mugabe type racist communism,led by military dictatorships, religious dictatorships based on sharia law and also corrupt western backed oligarchies." -- DOL
I'm going to have to disagree. Black racial consciousness will do nothing to improve Africa. From my experience, Africans are some of the most racially aware people. Yet, their continent is still in the state it's in. From my point of view, Africa will have to changed from the top (governments) down rather than the bottom up (racial consciousness).
"America is not a stable society -
1 in 100 of its citizens are in prison. More blacks in the US GO INTO JAIL THAN INTO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION".--DOL
This claim has been debated due to the implications. But lets say it's true...it leaves out an important fact, more blacks are law abiding citizens than criminals. There are also figures that show this refers to the black male population within a CERTAIN AGE GROUP (not even those of college age, but older) rather than blacks as a whole. Therefore, it is a bit misleading.
"America is not a stable society, it is an oligarchy in its ivory towers that barely contains the anarchy on its streets that is defined as 'crime'. --DOL
Not quite. What we are is a republic officially and a democracy in essence. Our current administration may make it appear to be an oligarchy but it's just a show. America really is in essence ruled by "the majority".
"Arab societies are now 'slave states' where the elites have imported in mainly asian slave workers to do their work for them whilst they grow fat on their oil money.
Most Arab nations are more racist than South Africa was under Apartheid, yet this is never reported in the news. They are not stable as poverty and rising populations will cause these states to explode in the next few decades - with disastrous effects on the West as we exist in total dependence on their oil."
Yet again, we see an example of an unstable monoracial society. Yet, I really have no argument here except that it is racism that will cause Arab states to explode...that is, if one believes those states aren't exploding currently.
"In the whole of history not one multi-racial society has remained stable - Egypt under the Pharoahs, Europe under the Romans, The British Empire, the United States, the Soviet Union.
Egypt expelled the Jews. The Romans slaughtered millions of europeans to impose their version of multi-racial Imperialism and when Rome fell Europe lay waste. The fall of the British empire led to partition and the slaughter of millions. The creation of the United States led to a war to throw off the British crown and then a civil war and ongoing race war defined as 'crime'. The fall of the Soviet Union and its enforced version of Leninist / Stalinst mult-culturalism led to the savagery of the Balkans wars." --DOL
With the exception of your inclusion of the United States, you appear to be citing monoracial conflicts to prove your point against multi-racialism. It is possible that you know something about those references that I don't. To me, multiculturalism is quite different from multiracialism. You appear to be speaking of the former.
But back to the U.S. and the revolutionary war. I believe that is a case where war may have been necessary. It was a successful attempt to rid the US of a tyrannical British king. Maintaining the British crown here would have been detrimental. So in a nutshell, the United States is a stable multracial society.
"When this model of modern multi-culturalism collapses then in a frenzy of atavism Europe will revert to its organic roots, the same way it did when Rome fell and the Soviet Union fell.
How many times do people have to repeat the tragedies of history before they realise that Man is what he is, not what the ideologues want him to be."
Since I don't live in Europe I can only go by what I see and read here. If Europe collapses, it is its own fault. It's sordid history makes it vulnerable to repeat the same mistakes. Multiculturalism isn't the problem in and of itself. The problem is that Europe is way too passive in its handling of chaos.
Hi again,
1) You are correct in that some scientific truths EVOLVE to become more accurate (eg the change from a sun dial to an atomic clock or instruments to measure distance, optics etc), but the nature of a scientific truth is that it is revised not scrapped. The flat earth theory was not science, as it was not based on the empirical scientific methodology - rather it was conjecture wrongly classified as science. Any flat earth theory cannot a priori be a scientific theory because it was based solely on unscientific conjecture not scientific reality. The critique of Tonnies and Khaldun are both based on a posteriori observation of actual reality, and are therefore scientific as they follow the scientfic methodology.
2) why are african societies unstable then - look at Rhodesia under white rule and Zimbabwe under black rule. To blame climate is false, as Rhodesia is the same country that Zimbabwe was, and yet under white rule it fed the continent of Africa and was called 'Africas bread basket', now it is a place of famine and terror and starvation.
3) Arab societies are not mono-racial societies, they are multi-racial slave states with massive imported in non-Arab populations. The presence of any mass immigrant labour force in any nations is evidence that it is not a mono-racial society and that the immigrant mass is a socially destabilising mass.
4) Egyptians and jews are not the same race, and Egypt included indo-europeans, jews, semites and nubians. Roman soldiers in Britain included blacks such as Septimus Severus who had a syrian wife. Rome was a multi-racial empire not a mono-racial empire. Black roman soldiers, Arab semites, Jews, etc all served in the Roman legions. The soviet union covered caucasians, slavs, mongols, cossacks, ethnic chinese and a vast amount of other racial and ethnic groups. Look up the racial and ethnic groups in the soviet union, egypt and Roman Empire.
The US has never been a stable multi-racial society - look up and research the numbers of race crimes against whites by blacks in the US and also race crimes against all communities in the US. The numbers are vast. If you also classified crimes of blacks against whites as racial crimes instead of just crimEs, then you would see a vast and terrifying figure for the numbers of inter-racial crimes in the US.
4) IF EUROPE COLLAPSES IT WILL BE ITS OWN FAULT AND YOU ARE 100 % CORRECT. This is because it chose to ignore the lessons of history and attempted another coerced experiment of multi-racial societies.
"4) Egyptians and jews are not the same race, and Egypt included indo-europeans, jews, semites and nubians. Roman soldiers in Britain included blacks such as Septimus Severus who had a syrian wife. Rome was a multi-racial empire not a mono-racial empire. Black roman soldiers, Arab semites, Jews, etc all served in the Roman legions. The soviet union covered caucasians, slavs, mongols, cossacks, ethnic chinese and a vast amount of other racial and ethnic groups. Look up the racial and ethnic groups in the soviet union, egypt and Roman Empire."
Wow, it looks like you might know more about their racial make up than I do. However, I don't see the same evidence that multiracialism is the cause.
"2) why are african societies unstable then - look at Rhodesia under white rule and Zimbabwe under black rule. To blame climate is false, as Rhodesia is the same country that Zimbabwe was, and yet under white rule it fed the continent of Africa and was called 'Africas bread basket', now it is a place of famine and terror and starvation."
I am beginning to wonder if there is a "culturally linguistic" misunderstanding in our conversation. I'm refering to your use of the word climate. I'll assume you mean societal mindset. If I am rightly interpreting you, then I'd have to say that climate is at fault. As for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, it would have been a horrible place for me under white rule as well as black.
"The US has never been a stable multi-racial society - look up and research the numbers of race crimes against whites by blacks in the US and also race crimes against all communities in the US. The numbers are vast. If you also classified crimes of blacks against whites as racial crimes instead of just crimEs, then you would see a vast and terrifying figure for the numbers of inter-racial crimes in the US."
We will have to agree to disagree on the stability of the United States. I live here so I experience this country on a daily basis. As for the crime figures, most crimes in the US are not interracial. There is no need for me to be terrified at the number of black on white crimes since it would pale in comparison to the number of black on black crimes. That would be more terrifying to me. Besides, racism is blown way out of proportion here usually by those who claim to be its victim. There are often claims of racial tensions even when race has nothing to do with the circumstances at hand. Therefore, the US is stable and other nations could learn from us.
1) Multi-racialism is not the primary cause of the collapse of those empires, it is the fact that they became empires that caused their collapse. Empire that becomes multi-racialst in nature through expansion and invasion has itself breached the rulesof the natural order, in that in order to create an empire you have to breach the bio-regionalist principles of nationalism. Empires always collapse = therefore do not build an empire.
2) When I use the word climate I refer to environment. The land of Rhodesia that once fed africa can now no longer feed its own people. Rhodesia was not a perfect society, and nor would I claim it to be. But it was a better society for the people who lived their, black and white, than the society they are living in today.
In the UK 70 % plus of the land is owned by just 3 % of the population. Most of those are the descendants of Norman invaders in the 11th century. Land was stolen from us during the Highlnd clearances, the enclosures acts and still today ownership of the land is almost feudal. There was more land in the UK owned by a minority of whites than in Rhodesia. In Rhodesia the indigenous blacks still owned their own land, in the UK the indigenous peopl were robbed of their land. Yet whilst land ownership based on race was an issue in Rhodesia, it has never been an issue in the uk based on ethnicity eg the scots having their land taken from them by the Normans, the welsh by the Normans, the irish by the Normans and the anglo-saxons by the normans. This double standard is political, not rational.
In Rhodesia blacks were better off under minority rule white government than they are today under majority rule black government. In rhodesia under smith they did not starve, under mugabe today everyone both black and white do starve.
3) Black on black crime in the US is an ongoing tragedy and nightmare. Just as in the UK the majority of black deaths are caused by their felllow blacks killing each other. Much of this is due to racism in that west indians hate africans, somalians hate nigerians etc etc. Gang wars in the uk between black gangs are out of control, with black on black gun crime out of control.
Political correctness will not solve this crisis, and so as whites mutter their politically correct rubbish, the black community watch their youth slaughering each other.
Bullets do not discriminate on the basis of colour and we have already seen innocent people killed in the crossfire.
Yet those that seek to debate this issue are called racists mainly by white liberals because the issue is about the black community.
White liberals would rather black youth die than the problems of the blak community such as gun crime, knife crime, gangs, racism, drugs and the insane bling culture of greed and depravity are discussed.
White liberals are the enemy of society and us all.
"In Rhodesia blacks were better off under minority rule white government than they are today under majority rule black government. In rhodesia under smith they did not starve, under mugabe today everyone both black and white do starve."--DOL
HHmmm, in case you haven't figured it out, I am black. As crazy as it may sound, I WOULD RATHER STARVE than live under white rule in Rhodesia or the former Apartheid South Africa. Seriously.
"3) Black on black crime in the US is an ongoing tragedy and nightmare. Just as in the UK the majority of black deaths are caused by their felllow blacks killing each other. Much of this is due to racism in that west indians hate africans, somalians hate nigerians etc etc. Gang wars in the uk between black gangs are out of control, with black on black gun crime out of control."
That is truly shocking since I have often heard it claimed that the UK is a much safer society than the US. I am certain that white on white crime must be a problem as well.
"White liberals are the enemy of society and us all."--DOL
I'd take it a step further. Liberals of all races are a danger to society as well as the extreme right. The best place to be is in the "middle" of the lane or "purple" as some would describe it.
Out of curiosity, how does a white nationalist come to like the music of Public Enemy, NWA, or Ice-T (your profile). It's a bit off topic I know, but I could not help but note the irony.
1) saying you would rather starve than live under white rule is easy to say living in America, when your kids are starving in front of you then what matters is them simply having a full belly not politics. The white rhodesians who lived under smith stayed loyal to the country and continued to feed everyone - black and white - whilst mugabe launched ethnic cleansing against the tribes that opposed him and also began to racially target whites. Mugabe killed more of the nations black tribes than the whites ever did. Mugabe is racist against both whites and blacks. Now both whites and blacks starve whilst ethnic cleansing of blacks and whites continues apace. Now ask yourself what was better for the average black or white - Rhodesia or Zimbabawe ?
2) white on white crime in the UK is a problem, eg paedophilia, burglary, car theft etc etc but the black community suffers from gang crime, gun crime and knife crime on amajor basis. The black on black race wars on the streets of the UK are a vast problem, and growing worse. Look up Damilola Taylor on the internet and read how the child was targeted and killed by west indian kids because he was african.
3)I agree all liberals are a danger, but white liberals are a disease that is more dangerous due to their mania for political correctness and reflexive ' post imperial guilt'.
4)Chuck D I have always admired for his intelligence and his call for black solidarity. His lesson of community cohesion is a lesson for us all. His music captures the essence of a community in revolt against 'The Power', and therefore is not just great to listen too but the albums also contains raw power and passion. His books are superb to read and his ideas not afraid to challenge stereotypes held by whites, blacks and other communities. Plus Public Enemy albums are great to listen too in relation to the quality of the rap lyrics, the production and the use of beats and samples. Public Enemy still lead the way as the prime force in revolutionary rap.
Ice T is one of the great rap lyricists, up their with Eminem and his albums have always been entertaining. He has never been afraid to challenge genres or his audience. His Body Count work contains some of the best rap / rock fusions yet created, along of course with Cypress Hill who also fused rock and rap. He created the first Crime Rhymes to reflect what was happening in his community at the time, and as such he can be seen as a chronicler of the urban black experience in the late 20th century. He sought to re-politicise black youth and therefore is an important, if under respectd, black voice.
NWA were a raw and powerful wake up call to America, the voice of a generation that were lost and at war with themselves. They reflected the gang culture that is now afflicting the UK. They say that the UK is always 15 years behind the US , and therefore by understanding the music of the US that reflects contemporary urban culture today one can see what is going to happen in the UK in the next decade or so. The gang war era that NWA rapped about is what we are now experiencing in the UK.
Rap Music in the US was originally a street uprising, it happened in spite of the music press and record companies. In the UK the music industry is dominated by the music media and promote talentless idiots like Pete Doherty and boy bands. Rap was an uprising against this control of music as a genre and an industry, just as Punk was before it got swallowed up by the best of the music industry.
I also like nationalist rock bands such as Sleipnir, Fire and Ice, Saga, The Bully Boys, Skrewdriver etc etc.
This is because they also are the white version of Public Enemy and NWA, in that they are and were uprisings against the control of the idiots that dominate the music industry.
I prefer my music raw rather than refined for mainstream tastes. This is why I also like Wagner, Sigur Ross, White Zombie, The Doors, etc etc bands that did not comprimise.
I do not find the anti-white racism in NWA and Public Enemy shocking, just as I do not find the racism in The Bully Boys or Skrewdriver shocking, as both genres reflect a hatred for society and an uprising against The Power.
If you dont like it then turn it off - is my motto.
I admire those who tell it how it is, the rebels from Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Elvis, Jonny Cash etc etc and all those who defy conventions for their truth.
To me censorship is merely how idiots ensure we all remain as idiotic as them.
Better the world be offended than a single truth remain untold.
"1) saying you would rather starve than live under white rule is easy to say living in America, when your kids are starving in front of you then what matters is them simply having a full belly not politics"--DOL
I once visited a forum with blacks (from Zimbabwe--possibly expats) who basically branded Rhodesia as an unofficial slave state. While they wanted to be rid of Mugabe, they felt that living there now would have been better than under racist white rule (i.e. Rhodesia). It certainly must have been better for whites, but not for blacks. Mugabe is perhaps just more of the same garbage.
It is not about politics, but dignity. So living under such oppressive, racist conditions is one of the worst kinds of degradation. Starving is more honorable.
)Chuck D I have always admired for his intelligence and his call for black solidarity...Ice T is one of the great rap lyricists...NWA were a raw and powerful wake up call to America, the voice of a generation that were lost and at war with themselves."--DOL
I don't have much of a problem with Chuck D, but I have to disagree with you on NWA and Ice-T. Their videos and lyrics suggest the most blatant disrespect of women which continues in much of rap music today. I won't bother to take that any further since its pointless to do so, but I'm sure you've heard.
"To me censorship is merely how idiots ensure we all remain as idiotic as them."
I won't bother to ask for forgiveness for my idiocy, but I believe in censorship. I firmly believe that society would be a lot better off if people weren't so fearful of it. Of course, it should be applied with caution.
Hi again,
I think you have the wrong idea on what Rhoedia was like, it was not perfect (far from it ) but in relative terms it was far better for the black populations of those nations than Zimbabwe under MUGABE or South Africa under the ANC.
Remember that during the time of Rhodesia the government was fighting the Mugabe communist insurgency whose primary victims were other blacks who were despised by Mugabe and his tribal group.
2) Starving is not honourable. Slavery is not about physical chains, it is about mental chains. You can be a free man in chains as long as you retain your identity, pride and as you say dignity.
A slave may fight to free himelf from slavery, as the ancient Greeks did who were enslaved and the ancient Europeans under Rome or the whites europans who were captured by the Islamist slave raiders from the Middle East who were riding and enslaving entire villages in England and Ireland up until the middle of the 18th century.
Starving to death is undignified and the end to any possibility of freedom. Look at the images of Ethiopia in the news today and then ponder on whether slavery, and the chance of eventual freedom , is worse than watching your children starve to death in front of you and then knowing you will die as well.
Slavery is not unique to the black race , look up on the internet the history of the Islamic slave raiders who raided England all through the 17th and 18th century and the read about the millions of white europeans taken into slavery into the middle east by arab slave raiders - at the same time as the same arab slave traders were hunting, capturing and selling black slaves - such as they still do in the Sudan and across Africa today. Look up the extent of the white sex slavery in the UK today from the Balkans and the extent of black slavery in africa under Islam today. The problem is huge.
I agree that both Ice T and NWA are misognyistic - but they were reflectin that in their own communities.
A problem cannot be solved unless it is first recognised, and Ice T has frequently spoke about how he attacked misogny through his lyrics - it may be BS but who really knows ?
NWA were a mirror on American society and showed the deaths being caused by gang wars in black communities, again they reflected the problem.
Censorship is the enemy of democracy. What we are prevented from knowing is primarily to protect those people in power who are doing things they do not want us to know.
I would rather know the truth than be patrionised with lies or deceptions.
"2) Starving is not honourable. Slavery is not about physical chains, it is about mental chains. You can be a free man in chains as long as you retain your identity, pride and as you say dignity."--DOL
But the physical chains would always result in mental chains. A slave cannot have her own identity, pride or dignity. After all, she is only a slave.
"Starving to death is undignified and the end to any possibility of freedom. Look at the images of Ethiopia in the news today and then ponder on whether slavery, and the chance of eventual freedom , is worse than watching your children starve to death in front of you and then knowing you will die as well."--DOL
I notice you mentioned "the chance of eventual freedom" which changes the perspective a bit. I don't recall that being in the equation before. If there was a chance to be rid of racist white rule and at the same time avoid a leader such as Mugabe, than the former would be better (as long as it's temporary).
"Slavery is not unique to the black race , look up on the internet the history of the Islamic slave raiders who raided England all through the 17th and 18th century"
Absolutely it is not unique to blacks. I'll take it a bit further and admit that black Africans are partly to blame for the African slave trade. As for the Islamic responsibility, what can anyone expect? Let's just say that there are plenty of reasons why I cannot be a friend of Islam http://lormarie.com/2008/06/14/the-prophet-muhammads-crying/
I hope you don't mind the link...just wanted to make myself as clear as possible. I am also a bit surprised that you don't see it as a threat, as per one of your more recent posts.
Hi again,
Mental slavery is far more pernicious than physical slavery, as mental slaves do not realise they are in chains. The slave in physical chains can fight for freedom, the mental slave is unable to recognise neither their slavery or the existence of freedom.
2) There was no slavery in Rhodesia and the fact that white rule was ended and black rule came to pass is proof that no slavery existed. Their may have been racism and class bigtry but neither of those are slavery. In Rhodesia the blacks may have been second class citizens, but they were still citizens with rights and laws to protect them. That is why many served the Rhodesian government against Mugabe and his terror in the tribal terrrists who ethnically cleansed the Matabeleland.
3) Read the final comments I put on the Islam issue article - in order to fight a meme one must create 'anti-memes' in order to neutralise that meme.
Al Qaeda will not be defeated until the meme of Islamism is defeated. That wil take new anti-Islamist memes to win over hearts and minds.
The military struggle against a meme will not work unless counter memes are deployed to undermine the meme that is recruiting the soldiers of Islam to fight.
P.S I had a look at your site - why is it Obama gets your vote ?
What specific policy is that won you over to him ?
What do you think of the fact that his first speech when winning the nomination was to say to AIPAC he would always support Israel , instead of giving a speech to the American people saying he would support them ?
What do you think of his support for free market capitalism, offshoring of US jobs to china and globalism ?
"2) There was no slavery in Rhodesia and the fact that white rule was ended and black rule came to pass is proof that no slavery existed. Their may have been racism and class bigtry but neither of those are slavery."--DOL
Just for the record, I am aware that there was no slavery in Rhodesia in the traditional sense. I was speaking figuratively.
"P.S I had a look at your site - why is it Obama gets your vote ?
What specific policy is that won you over to him ?"--DOL
I would have to say that the number one reason I support Obama for POTUS is because of his consistent position against the war in Iraq (Clinton was not at all consistent). In 2003, you would be hard pressed to find a person who did not support or at least understand the perspective of the Bush administration regarding Iraq. Obama, on the other hand, was one of the few voices against the war. His "prediction" that this would become a chaotic mess was spot on. It is personal for me since I come from a military family (brother served in Iraq twice). I firmly believe that the reason why he's so popular is because he appears to be a candidate that Americans want; someone who is concerned about our own country's interests instead of sending our youth off to die for others who really don't appreciate our sacrifice (and that according to Arab-American journalist, Laila Al-Arian, sp). Is it realistic to think that American troops will leave Iraq just 3 days after Obama gets into office? No, but at the very least, we will start the process or come up with a plan.
"What do you think of the fact that his first speech when winning the nomination was to say to AIPAC he would always support Israel , instead of giving a speech to the American people saying he would support them ?"
I don't know that that was his first speech. If I am not mistaken, his first speech was in Virginia. But even if it was his first, I don't read too much into it. If he wants to support Israel, that's his business. After all, he may be president of the United States (POTUS) which includes those who are Jewish, not just black or white America. Support for Israel is important to many within the Jewish community here. A president has to at least try to please everybody even if he can't succeed in that.
"What do you think of his support for free market capitalism, offshoring of US jobs to china and globalism ?"--DOL
It's my understanding that Sen. Obama would only support agreements that would benefit the United States (like decreasing or eliminating benefits for companies who outsource jobs). We shall see I guess.
I don't agree with everything that he stands for. But he stands for something I believe is crucial, ending the mess in Iraq.
Hi,
Obama has never served in the military so the idea that he 'understands' the conflict is suspect. He may have been briefed on it, but he doesnt understand the reality on the ground.
I have friends who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and most agree it is all a waste of time.
But Obama is not going to be able to end the war in Iraq, he is just doing what Kenneddy did nd lieing to the public to get elected.
J.F.K promised to end the war in Vietnam before he was elected and he increased the troop numbers and escalated the war. The democrats all lie about the war before they get elected and arry on as noral after being elected.
THE US WILL BE IN IRAQ FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS.
That is the plan. Obama will be elected for five years. He cannnot and will not be able to change a thing.
Obama is just a puppet of the media like all presidents, and the real government in America is the shadow government of the military industrial block and the media - and Obama cannot defy that power structure.
Do you really think Obama and all potential presidents are elected to change things ?
They are elected to keep things the same - as his grovelling to AIPAC proved.
The New Boss is always the same as the Old Boss. Thats why the new boss is allowed to be elected.
He will just continue the war as AIPAC, the oil barons, the military industrial block, the media and the christian fundamentalists and christian zionists all want the wars.
A president cannot ever defy that cabal of crooks and loonies, and therefore the war will continue.
Obama cannot change the policies on globalism, as the US debt crisis in public and government debt and the petro-dollar recycling system depends on globalisation of the US economy.
You will just get more of the same free market globalism that wil continue to strip away US jobs into China and India.
Obama cannot change a thing.
He is just another puppet.
If democracy changed things, the government would ban it.
"Obama has never served in the military so the idea that he 'understands' the conflict is suspect. He may have been briefed on it, but he doesnt understand the reality on the ground."--DOL
First I'd like to say that I can't believe the conversation has been going on this long. But back to the point, those in the military and government are privy to much more information than the civilians are. So I'd say that Obama, McCain, and Clinton knew a lot more than what we can imagine.
"THE US WILL BE IN IRAQ FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS."--DOL
If Iraq really came under a US influence, they would be better off. But, the US will not be in Iraq for 100 years...probably not even another 10.
"Obama is just a puppet of the media like all presidents, and the real government in America is the shadow government of the military industrial block and the media - and Obama cannot defy that power structure."--DOL
The position of POTUS is probably the most powerful of all heads of state. I would hardly call any president a puppet. I would call them an enforcer of their respective shadow government if you will. But what is the shadow government? It is my personal opinion that there are two shadow governments in the US. One being "blue" the other "red". Depending on which government takes power, so does their shadow government. Case in point, the choosing of the VP is NOT up to Obama no matter what he may claim. The powers that be in the DNC will make that decision just as they convinced Clinton to end her bid. So the Dems and GOP each have their shadow governments and will control the military.
"He will just continue the war as AIPAC, the oil barons, the military industrial block, the media and the christian fundamentalists and christian zionists all want the wars."--DOL
There are a looootttt of people in the Democratic left who aren't as sympathetic to the goals of "AIPAC" as there are on the right. Again, we shall see.
Obama has not been elected, therefore he is not privy to confidential security breifings on Iraq. He knows only what he is allowed to know and therefore his opinions are frankly irrelevant. He is not military trained, he is a lawyer.
The shadow government is neither red or blue - it is green, the color of the dollar. Its loyalty is to the corporations that control the US arms industry and who ensure the US is the baddest bad ass on the block. WHo builds the jets and tanks, and apaches and missiles are the real power in the US, as they ensure the security of the US. Politics is simply an extension of war. The wars between nations may be hot or cold, but the wars are permanent. Presidents are transient.
A president is transient, the military industrial block is eternal. The dollar is eternal. A president is elected to serve the shadow government not the people. They are owned by the media, who are also controlled by the shadow government. A president is elected to serve the interests of the shadow government, as whilst presidents come and go the security of the US and its global power remain at all times of the utmost primacy.
The Democrats are as riddled with political correctness and dominated by AIPAC as the right - the left are craven in their obedience to AIPAC and Israel, as Obama has proved.
The new boss is the same as the old boss.
Sorry, but nothing can change as Obama is not able to change anything. He doesn t have the power to control the media and he dare not challenge the shadow government and he will never confron AIPAC and the lobby groups who dominatr politics.
He will do as he is told, as do all presidents.
"Obama has not been elected, therefore he is not privy to confidential security breifings on Iraq."
Actually, Obama, McCain, and Clinton are all US Senators. Besides, what I actually said was that they are privy to much more information than "lay people". Thus, they have more information than we do.
"The shadow government is neither red or blue - it is green, the color of the dollar. Its loyalty is to the corporations that control the US arms industry and who ensure the US is the baddest bad ass on the block. WHo builds the jets and tanks, and apaches and missiles are the real power in the US, as they ensure the security of the US. Politics is simply an extension of war. The wars between nations may be hot or cold, but the wars are permanent. Presidents are transient.--DOL
We will have to agree to disagree on the shadow government issue especially since I know that the United States is like night and day depending on which political party is in control.
"He will do as he is told, as do all presidents."--DOL
As long as he does what he is "told" by the right people (i.e., not the UN or ANY international entity), I'm fine with that.
Post a Comment