← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 6030 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2003-04-07
2003-04-07 13:14 | User Profile
Iraq war shows up divide between white and black in US
The war in Iraq is illuminating a racial divide in America, a profound rift in thinking between blacks and whites. Different histories and different experiences are bringing many people to different conclusions. Among black Americans, just 29 per cent support the war, while 78 per cent of white Americans do, according to a March 28 Gallup poll... It is not lost on many blacks that the war is raging at the precise moment the US Supreme Court is contemplating the future of affirmative action.
url: [url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567570237.html]http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/...9567570237.html[/url]
2003-04-08 06:45 | User Profile
All the blacks at my job are against this war. Whites have the advantage in intelligence but blacks have the advantage in wisdom (common sense about life). Only whites seem to fall for this bullsh!t that is why we have the trouble that we do . :(
2003-04-08 12:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by John Crichton@Apr 8 2003, 00:45 All the blacks at my job are against this war. Whites have the advantage in intelligence but blacks have the advantage in wisdom (common sense about life). Only whites seem to fall for this bullsh!t that is why we have the trouble that we do . :(
I'm think it's more race than wisdom. Blacks still think that this government represents White interests. Let's say that at some future point in time the Whites regain control in Rhodesia and South Africa, and President Al Sharpton wants to send in the military because his administration believes that they have weapons of mass destruction and they want to use them on us because they hate us for our diversity and multiculturalism. Is there any doubt about what side the US blacks would take?
2003-04-08 14:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by John Crichton@Apr 8 2003, 01:45 ** All the blacks at my job are against this war. Whites have the advantage in intelligence but blacks have the advantage in wisdom (common sense about life). Only whites seem to fall for this bullsh!t that is why we have the trouble that we do . :( **
Mr Chricton, the few blacks at my job are anti-war and they think Bush is a dangerous fool. Can't argue with them there. Same with Leftists. Political affiliations and political lines are being obliterated and rendered useless by George W. Bush. "You're either with us or against us" Bushisms makes many former enemies suddenly friendly!! One thing blacks have that many more whites could use is: cynicism.
2003-04-08 17:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by xmetalhead@Apr 8 2003, 14:12 **Mr Chricton, the few blacks at my job are anti-war and they think Bush is a dangerous fool. Can't argue with them there. Same with Leftists.
Political affiliations and political lines are being obliterated and rendered useless by George W. Bush...... One thing blacks have that many more whites could use is: cynicism.**
I wonder what the neocon take, and the mainstream GOP take, will be on this. I can see the mainstreamers grumble "d*** ungrateful of them, we try to be the war party of Charles Krauthammer and David Frum, but blacks just think we're still the war party of Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and Trent Lott."
Watch carefully. I suspect the neocons and National Reviewers will say basically its because the GOP still lacks "compassion and outreach" to the black community, but there is a complicating factor of course, black "anti-semitism".
2003-04-08 20:26 | User Profile
**All the blacks at my job are against this war. Whites have the advantage in intelligence but blacks have the advantage in wisdom (common sense about life). Only whites seem to fall for this bullsh!t that is why we have the trouble that we do . **
It's not wisdom; it's the fact that, with the move into the Republican Party and co-option of dispensationalist denominations, the Jewish group has hijacked the paths of information flow that determine how the white cattle view the world. If people and institutions trusted by the black population were similarly hijacked, I don't think any "wisdom" would prevent them from falling for just about any BS that was presented to them.
2003-04-08 21:26 | User Profile
Let's not give the negroes too much credit for independent thought here. There's a reason they vote as a block, and it has precious little to do with their agreeing with democratic ideals and policies. Only by coming together and supporting the party that owns them do they get their annual allowance of free shtuff, and if massah is officially opposed to the new Iraq war, by golly so are they.
2003-04-08 22:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Apr 8 2003, 16:23 If Clinton were doing the bombing, the coloreds would be thumping their chests in favor of the war more loudly than anyone else. Think of them as mirror images to the "Freepers" who opposed Clinton's "war crimes" while eagerly serving as cheerleaders for Bush's!
Hmmm... Freepers: White Republican Negroes? :D Guess that's what wiggers become when they grow up. :P
2003-04-09 08:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Apr 8 2003, 20:26 ** > **All the blacks at my job are against this war. Whites have the advantage in intelligence but blacks have the advantage in wisdom (common sense about life). Only whites seem to fall for this bullsh!t that is why we have the trouble that we do . **
It's not wisdom; it's the fact that, with the move into the Republican Party and co-option of dispensationalist denominations, the Jewish group has hijacked the paths of information flow that determine how the white cattle view the world. If people and institutions trusted by the black population were similarly hijacked, I don't think any "wisdom" would prevent them from falling for just about any BS that was presented to them. **
I agree with you, MW.
I try to see things now in evolutionary terms. I read on VNN a while back that we're like an ant colony that is invaded by a group of ants that specializes in mimicing the host colony's system of scent signals. It comes in, starts emitting aromas like the colony's leaders, and the host colony just falls in line and starts serving them.
We face an analogous situation. An alien group and their allies have hijacked the information flow. We're not ants, after all - we humans deal in abstract images rather than chemical smells. We humans take our signals for normative group behaviour in the form of words, images and narratives, and we naturally assume that the persons in charge of the information flow are the group's leaders. Thus the reaction that we get for telling the truth is in effect: "hey man, fall in line with the group thinking. These are our leaders that are speaking, and we need to listen respectfully for the good of the group. If you were the leader, you'd be talking on the box in my living room, but you're not on that box so you're not a chief but just an Indian like me. So quit threatening group cohesian and fall back in ranks!"
It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that most people are followers rather than leaders - we really do only need a few chiefs to look after the tribe. The problem is that our chiefs and shamans are not of our tribe looking out for us as our own "natural aristocracy". They are rather foreign imposters bent enslaving us. The sheeple assume naturally but falsely that Fox News have tribal interests close at heart.
I would add here an insight that Yggdrasil gave us concerning the neo-con marketing effort of this war. That is, the Likudnik foreigners manipulating our images are consciously playing on our evolved instinct for sexual display in pursuing this war. Yggdrasil points out that we whites seem to have an exagerated need for altruistic causes, such as the ruinous Crusades and the Vietnam War, the self-dispossessing regimes of Affirmative Action and Celebrating Diversity, as well as other wars and causes that work directly against their own group interests. These are wildly altruistic acts from both an individual and group perspective that seem to afflict our race in particular, and the question is what it is about our evolved natures that accounts for this.
Yggdrasil theory is gleaned from Prof. Miller's "The Mating Mind", which argues quite convincingly that "altruism is a sexual ornament." This is indeed an extremely important and insightful book. Like the handsome young Pope preaching the first Crusade in France, the virile young John Kennedy asking us to bear any burden in the pursuit of world freedom, or a college professor of mine very publicly turning down a deanship so that a black woman could be promoted, our evolved desire for lavish displays of selfless chivalry are piqued and used to manipulate us.
Yggdrasil hasn't yet posted his review of the "Mating Mind", but his existing writing indicate that altruistic sexual display is the psychological marketing hook for this war. Our corporate masters are using appeals to our sense of lavish ritual display (which are great when serving some important tribal interest), and satire and ridicule are the antidote. To repeat: the best way we can best fight the war is to hinder the group reinforcement for such displays through satire and ridicule of those making the displays.
I have basically no talent for that, but we do have cartoonists and other satirists (our own Il Ragno comes to mind) who probably should be used as our main guns. I wish that we could concentrate more fully on that.
Remember, if this theory is correct (and I think it is), we cannot hope to win using rational argument alone. We post here all the time and carp about how illogical and blind our enemies and their sheeple are, but we're mostly just whistling in the dark by doing so. We need to get a bigger share of the media and blast the sheeple with satire and ridicule of those who answer the siren call of the neo-cons.
Walter
2003-04-09 18:04 | User Profile
Walter
Altruism as a form of sexual display is one of those "I wish I'd said that" moments. It certainly explains alot.
It explains those self hating white boys who, repelled by their own DNA, are among the most zealous promoters of diversity and minority interests while all the while denying that whites have any common interests.
And I suspect that the professor you mentioned was motivated more by hubris and the desire to be perceived as selfless than by selflessness itself.
Morton Kondracke that middle aged neocon latent HS cheerleader has written how he walks a thin line between caring for his wife and using it in order to appear noble. Many people who care for the sick and infirm do it, as crazy at it may sound, for selfish reasons. It makes them martyrs, objects of pity or imbues in them an aura of saintliness that they crave.
It is easy to seduce people into advocating things that are clearly not in their best interests. You must appeal to their vanity. They must believe they are doing something that will be perceived as noble. It isn't enough that they think it is noble. In many cases they probably don't. That is irrelevant anyway. What is important is what others think.
That's how you get white men spouting imbecilities like "diversity is our strength" then 2 sentences later contradicting themselves by saying "we'll all be better off when there is only one color, brown". Men motivated by, as you put it, sexual display are likely to say and do irrational things. And no logical arguement is going to dissuade them.
2003-04-09 19:33 | User Profile
It may be time for a WN version of Swift's A Modest Proposal!
Whites should be advised to trade homes with blacks and force their daughters into becoming free prostitutes for black athletes. Adopting Somali jigaboos is also highly advised.
Zionist Christian/Rapture Bunny types should be urged to commit suicide and take their families along with them, but not before willing all their earthly possessions to the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the ADL. Tell them they will then surely attain their heavenly reward. If they cannot stomach suicide, then they should become unpaid maids and manservants to New York jews as penance for the church not doing enough to stop the hollowcost.
Southern Whites should be told to lynch themselves with a knotted Confederate flag.
White men in particular should be urged to kill themselves, or at least undergo castration. If married, they should be pushed to bring home crackheads for their spouses to service.
If they want altruism, let's force feed it to 'em!
All satirically, of course.
I mean, they're essentially doing all this anyway, but just more slowly.
2003-04-10 05:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by eric von zipper@Apr 9 2003, 18:04 ** Walter
Altruism as a form of sexual display is one of those "I wish I'd said that" moments. It certainly explains alot.
**
Eric, Nice post.
Geoffrey Miller's "The Mating Mind" is a must read.
My right honorable friend NeoNietsche will be interested in his take on his namesake's philosophy.
Miller points out that Darwin believed in two evolutionary processes: (1) "survival of the fittest" selection, which is the kind we usually associate with Darwinism and that consists in having sharper teeth to catch prey, or better camoflage to avoid predators, and (2) "sexual selection" that works simply by making oneself more attractive to potential mates, such as a peacocks tail.
The essential insight about (2) sexual selection is that it operates on a "handicap" principal; i.e. it is valuable only if it is utterly useless for survival purposes (as in (1) "survival of the fittest" selection) and burns energy lavishly. Thus, the peacock's tail actually works strongly against the individual peacock under (1) - it gets the bird noticed easily by predators and slows down its escape. But this is precisely why it is valuable as sexual advertising - a nice big colorful tail says to peahens: "hey, look at me! I'm so fit that I can grow this huge energy-wasting tail that gets me noticed by predators, but I'm such a badass peacock that I take it in stride. Mate with me!" Another example Miller mentions are the daredevil antics of some African antelopes, the males of which cavort over the backs of lions in order to impress the does. They're saying: "Look! I laugh in the face of mortal danger because I'm such a great young buck. These lions? Bah! It is to laugh!" And the does go crazy.
Again, this advertising of necessity must burn energy and be directly against the survival interests of the individual in order to work.
Miller then applies this insight (the handicap idea is only about 25 years old, suggested by an Israeli scientist) to humans. He sees many of the things that make us most human - art, poetry, wildly developed language, wit and humor - as being the products of natural selection. Oscar Wilde's insightful aphorism that "all art is useless" comes to mind.
Miller also sees human altruism as being a sexual ornament. He notes that charities make big public displays for their donors. Miller mentions Jane Fonda's finding Ted Turner's lavish billion-dollar gift to the United Nations irrestistably sexy - a nice illustration. Humans throughout history have engaged in ruinously expensive feasting (we have it with weddings), such as the Potlatch ceremonies of our own North West Indians.
Chivalry - altruistic military displays - were all bound up with sexual selection and "courtly love poetry."
I can't nearly do the book justice here, but it's very much on the "must read" list.
One last word - the two types of evolutionary processes are very much in tension, and I think that Miller is on to something when he sees the stuffy and traditionalist Victorian morality as associated with the dominance of the values of (1), and the reaction against that as exemplified by Nietsche with his celebration of the Dionysian as advocating the dominance of the values of (2). The "transvaluation of all values" was from this perspective a plea to bring acknowledge and celebrate our evolved instincts for beauty and breathtaking displays, instead of the exclusive diet of utilitarian bread-and-butter survival values.
Walter
2003-04-10 11:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Apr 10 2003, 07:50 ** In public presentations, a pervasive undercurrent of 'the sacrifices called for in pro white activism are too high for most people' might be very persuasive. Emphasizing the estrangement and social sanctions, as well as some opportunistic pictures of starving white children, could be very powerful. I know that the pictures of trolleys loaded with corpses in Dresden that were recently circulated were very powerful. **
Wintermute:
Right on the money, oh frosty one.
Yggdrasil mentions how the IP media have successfully associated WN with low sexual status indicator. The stereotype is toothless trailer park trash, like the Squeeler Brothers in the movie "Deliverance" - they'd make bad husbands, that's for sure, and no female should mate with them. That's the not-too-subtle message. Conversely, celebrating diversity is marketed as an indicator of high sexual fitness - white boys with the right anti-white attitudes can get laid, so long as they use a condom and don't produce any white children. It's a really effective way to kill us off - playing on the sexual vanity of our fecund youth.
We need to attack the marketing problem on that point - WN is not low status, it is rather associated with clean cut white men who care for their families so much that they take on horrible risks to ensure their communities are safe and in tact, etc.
We need more marketers in the movement, that's for sure.
Walter
2003-04-10 15:05 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 10 2003, 05:43 ** We need to attack the marketing problem on that point - WN is not low status, it is rather associated with clean cut white men who care for their families so much that they take on horrible risks to ensure their communities are safe and in tact, etc. **
Pursuant to this, does anybody remember that picture of (I believe) a National Alliance rally, with a good hundred or so White Nationalists all clean-cut and well-dressed? I can't seem to locate it.