Jerry Abbot has something worthwhile to say and says it well. You do not have to agree. If you don't tell me or him WHY that is? Abuse is an admission of error, of being wrong.
Left Wingers Fear Debating Race
For as long as there have been public debates about race, liberals [ lefties ] have tried to restrict the spectrum of allowed speech by declaring their opponents' best arguments out-of-bounds. They corrupt the governing rules of forums with administrative policies that establish their own views on the subject of race as the only permissible views and define dissent as "hate speech." Then if anyone disagrees with the liberal thinking, he will be found guilty of "violating the rules" and banned.
words, the liberals gain the power to write the rules, and then they
cheat while writing them. Their justification is preventing offence
to racial minorities. Although there's nothing wrong with choosing to
remain silent in order to avoid giving offence, the freedom of speech
has a higher value than politeness does. When one value must be
sacrificed to preserve another, then the lesser should be let go and
the greater kept.
What the liberals are doing, of course, is levelling heresy charges against racism, and then acting as both prosecutor and judge of the matter. Whether racists sometimes make good arguments, in the sense that they include statements that are both important and true, doesn't matter to liberals, who don't consider truth to be a defence. The better a racist's argument is, the more it threatens to expose the errors of liberalism, and therefore liberals are more inclined to call for the censorship of thoughtful racist arguments than for the censorship of poor ones.
These are the same liberals who argue that anti-Christian themes in movies, such as Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ," and in art, such as Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" crucifix in a jar of urine, ought to be protected speech despite their offensiveness to many Christians. What blasphemous themes are to Christians, racist opinions are to liberals. Liberals always seek censorship of racist arguments so that they will not have to present opposing arguments that they might not be capable of presenting.
It isn't necessarily wrong to exclude points of view on a board. If the stated purpose of a forum is to glorify a particular god, race, political philosophy, or brand of consumer goods, then it's perfectly all right for the board's owner or moderator to come along and censor posts inconsistent with the forum's mission. You can legally criticize Jesus, but you shouldn't go into a church to do it. If you do, the preacher has the right to throw you out.
But when a board's stated purpose is to engage in debate, for the purpose of arriving at the truth, or at a better understanding of the reasons for disagreement, then a priori restrictions on unpopular views are hypocritical attempts to "fix" the debate so that only the popular point of view can seem to win. The advocates of the unpopular viewpoint (racists in this case) will be allowed only to score small points with their lesser and more oblique arguments, while the liberals can bring forth their whole array of verbiage unfettered by any fear that they will be censored.
To give the liberals ground for calling for the censorship of racist opinions, the rules of debate are written to exclude racist opinions and, even more especially, the reasoning behind those opinions. "Racist remarks" and "hate speech" are ruled illegal, and then the rule is used not only to prevent racial insults, but also to censor arguments that the liberals find to threatening too their belief system to deal with forthrightly.
That's how things are in most race-related debates. They are not so much "debates" as controlled pretences thereof. It's surprising to find a media venue that will host ideas that fall outside the spectrum of opinion that liberals are comfortable with, e.g., by letting racists present the case for racism, in their own write, unedited and without preconditions.
Note: The above short essay, "Debate Restrictions," was used as my answer to the question "Why is everybody so politically correct?" which appeared on Yahoo Answers. Someone reported it as being in violation of Yahoo's terms of service, and the Yahoo staff evidently agreed with the fink, since they deleted my answer and docked me ten points.
Race a heritable, biological, physical reality. It is not a "social construct."
The idea that race is a "social construct" has made me smile more than once during debates with liberals. Referring to human differences that are real – biological and innate – as "social constructs" is one of the ways liberals, including many Marxists and feminists, trivialize that over which they have no control. Harangue and confuse the multitudes as they may, liberals have never once seen their wishes overcome natural laws, and they never will.
The differences between the hominid races are as real (if not as large) as those between gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans. While it is true that only a small percentage of genes is responsible for racial differences, we do not judge the significance of those differences by counting genes. We judge their significance by the qualities and performance factors of the organisms that those genes create.
If one race-car engine differs only slightly in design from another race-car engine, but that little difference results in one having significantly more horsepower than the other, then what is the best way to judge the importance of the difference in design? By micrometers of cylinder diameter? By the viscosity of the motor oil? Or by the accelerations and top speeds of the race-cars?
I trust you now appreciate my argument.
What is "human dignity"? It isn't an organ, nor a hormone. It isn't biologically inherited, and, if it is inherited at all, it's by a theological sort of inheritance, say, as a human supposedly acquires a soul. Liberals are fond of saying that all people have inherent human dignity, but in what does it inhere? The spleen, the liver? I propose that all of the next four statements are equally silly:
Wolf, you may not eat me, for I have Human Dignity.
Lightning, you may not strike me, for I have Human Dignity.
Earthquake, you may not shake my house down on top of me, for I have Human Dignity.
Fellow humans, you must provide for me and carry me along on your backs, worthless though I am to you, for I have Human Dignity.
Although none of those four statements is more cogent than any of the others, the last one is the only statement likely to have an impact on its speaker's fortunes. Why? It's because humans have minds able to hold social constructs, and human dignity is a social construct. Physical realities, such as race and gender, are not in that class.
Why would anyone construct the idea of "human dignity"? Basically, to get power. One has "human dignity" more or less by the permission of liberals, who may strip it at will from whomever they don't like: racists, for example.
Nature produced the visible racial differences, which we usually notice on inspection. Liberals declare that those "cosmetic" differences are trivial. But then they declare that those are the only differences between the races. It would be a very strange thing indeed if nature, which created all of the heritable differences between races, had been aware of liberal sensibilities since the dawn of time, and had carefully permitted only those racial differences having no social significance of which liberals might disapprove. Do you see how silly is the case for racial equality? It presumes that nature was somehow required to do as the liberals would have done if they had been in charge of writing nature's laws. Why do liberals make this vast error?
Some criticism of liberals and the way they think is in order here. Liberals have allowed a destructive moral and social philosophy to form their political convictions, to confound their view of the world, and to corrupt the way in which their minds operate on information gathered by their senses. Their unsound manner of thought leads to conclusions that are not merely factually incorrect, but directly the opposite of truth. They've called race, which really does exist in nature, a social construct, and they have improperly reified the social construct "human dignity."
Liberals have confused the proper roles of perception, reason, and moral sense. More carefully thoughtful people try first to determine the facts of the world through the use of perception and reason, thus answering the question "What is?" But liberals try first to determine the facts of the world by using their moral sense, and they confuse the question of "What is fair?" with the question "What is?" Philosophers call that "the moralistic fallacy."
Liberals insist that everyone regard liberal ideas about fairness as the truth about the world. And that is the basis of the doctrine of racial equality. Scientifically, it belongs in the trash can.
Race a heritable, biological, physical reality. It is not a "social construct."
Race is not a social convention; it is a biological fact. Race (or breed) exists in many species, and it exists in ours whether we wish to admit it or not. It's obvious despite the existence of ancient racial hybrids and persons of recently mixed ancestry.
The White race originated in a harsh, cold environment. Evolution for Whites included a group selection favouring a certain amount of altruistic, reciprocating behaviour, which led to their having an inborn feel for concepts like justice, fair play, honour, duty and loyalty. White groups, living at the glacier's edge, often found altruism with reciprocity to be an advantageous way to live. It allowed evolution to operate through "kin-selection," in which an individual's sacrifice for his near relatives resulted in the preservation of more of his genes than would have been saved by more selfish behaviour.
Early European tribes whose members helped each other, sometimes at the cost of personal sacrifice, survived better (in the genetic sense) than those who were motivated by the principle of ego. That's why their traits have been preserved in us, despite the relatively recent advent of various forms of materialism.
Whites became civilized and grew very powerful. For a while, we dominated the world. But at some point or other we made two mistakes. One of them was our participation in slavery. We did not start slavery in Africa — the Blacks did that themselves. But we bought the slaves that Jewish traders (whose business offices were in London and Amsterdam) brought to our shores, and ever since they have been no end of trouble and expense to us.
Our other mistake was becoming culturally arrogant. In our arrogance, we assumed that the morality proper for White people is also proper for non-Whites, that the way Whites live is also the way non-Whites should live, and that our religion would be better for them than their own native beliefs. Were we ever wrong.
We mistakenly extended our in-group altruism to groups who had no intentions to reciprocate. We let the Jews persuade us that racial differences either do not exist or are not important, and, as a result, we lost to them the political control of our own countries. We can get it back, if we try hard enough, but first it is necessary to convince enough of our people that the liberal propaganda they've heard on the TV all their lives is nonsense.
That's difficult because of a human evolutionary trait that makes us trust the familiar with the presumption that it is truth. We believe what we have always believed before, or what we've long been told. During our evolution, this trust carried survival advantages because our experience was with nature itself. But in our modern world, much of our "experience," practically everything we know about the world beyond our own neighbourhoods, comes from the media pseudo-reality with which the Jews have been bedazzling us for the past several generations.
In a situation such as this, our biological habit of trusting the familiar betrays us, because many people are "familiar" with a glamorized and false picture of natural law and of human nature.
We rush to sacrifice our money in an orgy of alms-giving every time we're shown hungry Black African children, while similarly hungry White children in our own Appalachian mountains remain unfed. Charity is something that should begin at home. Institutions established by White people should serve White people first, foremost, and — apart from a specific mandate to do otherwise — exclusively.
Given enough time, the practice of undiscriminating altruism will destroy the White race. The other races will bleed us dry, and then they will sweep us away. It is probably the relative shortness of the human lifespan, compared to the march of events in history, that allows Liberalism, with its denial of the consequences of defying natural laws, to exist. You, personally, haven't seen Big Things happen, so you figure that Big Things just don't happen — like extinction.
If Whites do not check their altruism by bringing it back within the bounds of their own group, by "discriminating" on the basis of race, then Whites will be displaced by groups who consistently act in their own self-interest (i.e., by groups who are "more racist" than Whites are). One way or another, racism will exist in the future. The only question is whether there will be any Whites left in the world, or whether we will die out. Nature tests all living things, and its tests are always fair. Nature did not ask us for our preferences when it was making us. Ethnic and racial groups in proximity to each other always compete, and those who would survive had better learn to be serious competitors.
Psychological Conditioning: A slow but deadly form of warfare.
Until about 1970, the phrase "the White race" was used to refer to what most people now call "people of European descent." In fact, the former term is the more precise, whereas the latter is less specific and more malleable, and thus more prone to the sort of confusion under which non-Whites can play the "citizenship equals nationality" switcheroo game. In fact, race equals nationality:
(parallel word) nativity
(extract root) natal
(infer meaning) heredity
(reword meaning) bloodline
(reword meaning) race
Citizenship, by contrast, is membership in what, literally, is a country club. Countries are usually begun by races in order to provide them with political means for advancing their interests in the world. But races that get careless can lose control of their countries. Not only can their clubhouse be overrun by conquerors, but, alternatively, a race can lose control of its country by a steady influx of infiltrators, especially if those infiltrators are expert at dishonest tricks in the use of "parliamentary procedure."
The point, however, is that citizenship is not nationality. Race is nationality. Citizenship is a legal thing. Nationality is a biological thing.
Because it conveys our sense of race exactly, it was used by anthropologists and by laymen alike, but for reasons I'll get to shortly the use of the phrase "the White race" was rapidly abandoned beginning about 1970.
Today, almost any White person saying "the White race" in the company of Whites will get a bad reaction, the commonest being distaste and condemnation, both of which being often expressed in overly loud tones. People who are afraid to be seen as non-conformists tend to go overboard to show how perfectly they conform; it's a kind of defence mechanism for herd minds.
There's a sense of risk, now, in uttering the phrase "the White race," except as a diagram in a social lesson on political correctness. In about 20 years, the words that most particularly describe us went from being accepted anywhere to being banned from polite conversation. Those 20 years did nothing to the words or their meaning; it is our attitude about them that changed.
The decline of the phrase "the White race" is a symptom of a massive shift in White people's attitudes and behaviour that began about a century ago, was accelerated after the Second World War, and accelerated again about 1970. By 1990, nearly the entire White race had a form of Stockholm syndrome: a fear of offending non-Whites and a tendency to grovel before them. It's an adaptation that hostages and slaves often undergo, in order to endure the loss of their freedom and to survive the dangers of captivity. The infusion of the White race with this fear-motivated wish to please the foreigner was the Jews' single most important triumph with applied psychology via the mass media.
All sorts of tricks were used to instill fear in Whites through movies and television. I'll mention one of them to highlight the method. About 1970, television producers began to invent and dispense an ominous mystification of oriental martial arts: judo, karate, and later the Chinese and Korean variants. The Asians discovered and taught some useful fighting techniques based on the mechanics of human architecture, but the Jews created a psychological weapon from the idea itself, which they turned against White people to make them believe that "kung fu experts" are omnipotent, and any Asian person might be a "kung fu expert," so you'd better not mess with them. Instead, it is safer to give way any time your will and an Asian's wishes are in conflict. Let the Asian have what he wants, and maybe you won't get a karate chop for your impertinence.
Generalize that, and you've got the basis of the Jewish psywar strategy.
The Jews later expanded on the idea with a long string of TV dramas and movies showing small women (heroines of the stories) tossing large men (bad guys) over shoulder and then kicking them into submission. The obvious message was that good triumphs over evil. The subtexts, seldom mentioned but universally understood, were "women are good, men are evil" and "women who learn Asian martial arts can easily beat up on men." The feminists loved it, of course, but they were also under Jewish leadership.
Real life paralled art, even if the acting talent was inferior and the story endings were less tidily scripted. Whites were taught to fear non-Whites. White men and White women were estranged from each other. The "hard cases" in real life were shown TV dramas about hard cases whose stubborn adherence to old-fashioned ways caused them nothing but grief and harm, all of which was of course their own fault. The new ways were the righteous ways, the liberal ways, and anything in conflict with them, most especially the traditions of European culture, were evil and "outmoded" - if I may borrow the term the Jews used to refer to European tradition.
It's gone to the point, now, where White men are being erased from representation in commercial advertisements. Not completely so, since that would be too obvious. But watch your TV, or go into your nearest Wal-Mart or Rite-Aid and calculate the percentage of White men among the people who appear in the poster advertisements mounted around the store. White men are 36% of the American population (2005). But less than five percent of the people shown in the ads are White men. Why had you not noticed this already? If you happen to live in an area dominated by non-Whites, and believe that your local store's display ads are meant to reflect the racial proportions among the local residents, then I must assure you that this is not the case. In West Virginia, which is 96% White, White men are less than 5% of the people shown in the ads.
As I said, nearly every White person today has Stockholm syndrome. It's a disease of the mind that can be transmitted by mass media employed as agitprop weapons. But since the disease is so ubiquitous, and since nearly every White person acquired it at about the same time, it does not appear to us in its true form: a mental disorder. Instead, most Whites regard their ingrained fear of non-Whites (and the corollary self-righteous self-abasement) as normal. And they regard the few exceptions who never acquired that fear, or who cured themselves of it, as "racists."
To put it differently, racism is the normal, healthy condition. It's the condition that anyone who is not White usually has and sometimes flaunts.
Sometimes elderly White people committed to nursing homes experience a more intensive form of behaviour modification. Terror, backed up as necessary by deprivation or physical pressure, can eventually break anyone, however strong-willed he might be. It can convert a racist to a fervent espousal of racial equality. It can also do the reverse.
It's even more prevalent in prisons. Confined in prison among Blacks with no system of protection (such as a White prison gang), White prisoners acquire a layer of Stockholm syndrome more proximate than the layer imposed on the general public.
It happened to Patty Hearst too, for other reasons but by the same methods.
America was the Land of the Free. But now it's one gigantic Room 101 in Oceania's Ministry of Love. Bow down, ye Whites, and be ye traitors to each other, or the rats will be loosed on your faces! Most Whites have had the will to oppose Jewish multicultural aims cowed or beaten out of them, with the proportion of force to fear being determined by how readily the victim succumbs to fear.
The changes in outlook, from racism to professed liberalism, that intimidation can induce in some people in no way changes the meaning of state and federal crime statistics. The ten-to-one Black to White ratio in the per capita crime rates still means what it meant yesterday, and it will continue to mean the same thing even after ten million more elderly Whites undergo multicultural "conditioning" inside a nursing home.
Here's some good reading on race, Jews, and White nationalism.
Dr. William Pierce.
Dr. William Pierce (alternative).
The Jews and the leftists call it "Hate" because too many people know that it isn't Lies.
More links to come.
Errors & omissions, broken links,
cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if
you find any I am open to comment.
Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP Key. Home Page
Updated on Wednesday, 28 January 2015 09:31:20