The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
White Leftists on Black Agency
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Taken from the beginning of America’s third great religious revival, the percentages of GSS respondents, by race and also by political orientation among whites, who attribute blacks having “worse jobs, income, and housing than white people” at least in part “because most just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty” follow:

This is one of those issues where non-blacks are only allowed to entertain the dominant white liberal position that black free will has nothing to do with anything. This is what “having an honest conversation about race” means.

Blacks are allowed to entertain the idea around other blacks but not around non-blacks, especially whites. They are also permitted to turn the idea over in comedic situations–or at least they used to be able to:

GSS variables used: RACDIF4, YEAR(2012-2018), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Black community, GSS 
Hide 82 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Lol, that Chris Rock is one funny …er… African American!

  2. Michael Scott explains the difference between the white and black bars on your graph, A.E.:

    • Thanks: Mallory M.
  3. You can’t win a Culture War without control of the Culture Industry

    Ultimately the guerillas must reach a stage of engaging in conventional warfare with the support of a foreign government.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @216


    You can’t win a Culture War without control of the Culture Industry.
     
    As if culture is involved. An American's idea of culture is yoghurt.
    , @Not My Economy
    @216

    No such thing as a culture war, it’s just war. The side that’s winning the war is destroying the “culture” of the loser, because that’s the entire point of war, to destroy the enemy.

    But big agree, we do need some allies and fast. What can we offer, that’s the bottom line. Why should anyone who’s already got some power support us instead of just going along with what they have?

    Replies: @128, @dfordoom

  4. anon[162] • Disclaimer says:

    “worse jobs, income, and housing than white people” at least in part “because most just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty” follow:

    A family I know has a retarded daughter. She was born with some kind of problem. She’s over 20 and cannot read. Not in the “I don’t read cursive” sense, but really cannot read. Not for lack of effort on the part of teachers, she just doesn’t have the critical brain wiring to match symbols with sounds with concepts. The extended family will care for her all her life, because that’s what people do. But there’s no way she will ever have a job, or income, or her own housing, because she doesn’t have the mental ability.

    It’s not her fault. It’s not through lack of effort she cannot read. She’s still a human being with a family that cares for her.

    The median IQ of American blacks is still 85, although many have very good verbal acuity. That means a whole subset of American blacks are above 100 and a roughly equal sized group are below 70. Someone with an IQ of 70 will never have the same job as someone with an IQ of 100, nor will they have income, nor will they have housing. There’s not much that they can do, although a differently ordered society would make things for them to do.

    We can’t have a real conversation because we can’t talk about the Gaussian distribution around 85 in terms of variance so we can’t admit that some black people are employable only at a very menial level. It’s not their fault, and it’s not through lack of effort. It’s genetic variance, just as albinoism is genetic variance. We don’t blame albinos for their condition, but we do keep them out of the sun and in some parts of the world, put them under heavy guard for the sake of their lives.

    The first step to wisdom is to call things by their right names. This statement is probably hatespeech.

    • Thanks: Mallory M.
    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @anon

    Great post!

    My one quibble is to ask when it was determined that the average Black was 85? Middle class Blacks typically only have 1 or 2 children while the welfare class has more. I suspect that the average Black iq is lower than that now.

    Combine that with higher self-esteem and extroversion, greater aggression and sex drive, and less ethical and empathetic, there's quite a toxic brew inside a Black body and mind.

    Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker

  5. Black people should be more offended by white SJWs than anyone else. They are the only group who thinks black people are not smart enough to be responsible for their own actions. White SJWs think that black people are retards/children at best, and, more likely, no more than exotic pets that exist as virtue signalling props for white SJWs.

    I keep waiting for black criminals to specifically target white SJWs for crime. They are the easiest possible targets, and are probably naive enough to fall for some very basic ruses designed to lower one’s guard. Enough incidents like this, and the whole SJW edifice may implode.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Thomm


    I keep waiting for black criminals to specifically target white SJWs for crime.
     
    I live for the day.
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @Thomm

    Normies agree with liberals that people are alike all over, that they want the same things and are capable of the same things. The reality is no they don't and no they can't.

    Conservatives also absolve Blacks of responsibility for their actions. They blame the low Black test scores on bad schools and the teachers' unions and high Black abortion rate on Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Blacks are held not to be responsible for their failures and dysfunction

    Replies: @James Speaks

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Thomm

    "I keep waiting for black criminals to specifically target white SJWs for crime."

    When I lived in London the girl downstairs was robbed at knifepoint by a black guy (I was woken by her frantic ringing at my bell) and during the Brixton riots of the early 80s a house of girls up the road opened the door to a whole gang with knives who took everything of value they could. They were relieved it wasn't worse.

    I'm not sure any minds changed. Maybe when older they decided London wasn't the place to raise kids, but everyone thinks that whether they've been victimised or not.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    , @james wilson
    @Thomm

    Blacks despise SJW types. It's instinctive and blacks are nothing if not instinctive. They do not despise people who actually hate them; they may respect them as enemies sometimes do. Blacks will continue to leave the SJW be, just so long as their meager gravy train continues but the relationship is quite tenuous. No one respects grovelling with the possible exception of the SJW.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Thomm


    Black people should be more offended by white SJWs than anyone else. They are the only group who thinks black people are not smart enough to be responsible for their own actions.
     
    No, they're not.

    What evidence is there that black people are smart enough to be responsible for their actions?
  6. Hispanics know what’s up. White liberals should go play in traffic

  7. Am I reading this correctly that Whites are the most liberal group here? Very intresting that Hispanics come out on top. Probably because enough of them are out hustling and taking over vast swathes of lower income professions. Wonder how much of the Asian response in a pro black direction is due to too much college education.

  8. I don’t think this is unique to blacks, or unique to any other demographic in the USA. White left-liberals are so immersed in their own narrative about how the world works that they tend to process other cultures wholesale through the lens of their own priorities and outlook. How they treat religion is one example: Christianity and Islam in particular are boiled down to pseudo-racial categories (“white” and “brown”, specifically, which for modern SJWs translates to “Bad” and “Good”), which is ironic given that those two religions are explicitly universalist-and therefore racially agnostic-in their theology.

    It’s ultimately somewhat narcissistic and a perverse reverse-image of the “White Man’s Burden” to assume that all the ills of the developing world stem from Western colonialism, as an another example: taken to a logical conclusion, the places would have basically no history before Westerners arrive.

    I’m not going to bash the notion of having preconceptions of how things work altogether, since we all have our preconceptions that we must use in order to navigate the world, since nobody except God can know everything. The more you assert you don’t, the more likely you are to be held captive by them. But most people, to some extent, have to acknowledge that other viewpoints exist and deal with them. That’s not the case for the managerial class.

  9. I always thought it odd when hereditarians (of all people!) use the basic-bitch conservative argument of “racism of low expectations”; I’ll illustrate it in a quick monologue:

    Mr Conservatism Inc.: “Hah! I got you this time Liberals! The REAL reason you believe in Affirmative Action for Blacks is because you think Blacks are DUMB! You, Liberals, are the REAL racists! Gotcha!”

    A person whose IQ is 85 (the US Black average) is equivalent to an average White person when he’s 16-years-old! If you’re 16, you CAN’T vote (!), nor drink, nor smoke…

    If a non-particularist (which I think’s wrong, BTW ‒ but that’s another matter, entirely) definition of ‘agency’ is applied ‒ Yeah: Blacks DO lack agency!

    Steve Sailer has noted the irony: The Supreme Court has decided that people whose IQs are 75 or lower (frankly, I forgot the exact number) cannot be subjected to the Death Penalty i.e. because people like these simply cannot fully COMPREHEND what they do… Guess what! There’re way more Black people (as a percentage) with those low IQ scores than Whites.
    Food for thought: Perhaps the SCOTUS case above is invalid under DISPARATE IMPACT! 🙂

    • Replies: @res
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    A person whose IQ is 85 (the US Black average) is equivalent to an average White person when he’s 16-years-old! If you’re 16, you CAN’T vote (!), nor drink, nor smoke…
     
    Where do you get that? Looking at this particular subtest the average IQ line exceeds the -1 SD (85 IQ) adult level at age 10.
    https://mindsbasis.blogspot.com/2016/03/rasch-measure-of-intelligence-age-2-25.html

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tXLt9eo5s6Q/VvlvcmScDkI/AAAAAAAAAMU/Vx12AxqJYcYiGwwNSxFp7jA9mbfqNLcDA/s640/rasch%2Bintelligence%2Bscore%2Bvs%2Bage%2Bremake%2B1.png

    Alternatively (and this is probably a better guide) looking at the NORM sheet in David Becker's IQ spreadsheet:
    https://www.researchgate.net/project/Worlds-IQ
    We see that for the SPM+ 2007 GBR normalization (has the best age range for looking at this) a raw score of 33 (column AP) is equivalent to an IQ of 86.24 at age 18.5 and an IQ of 99.41 at age 12.5.

    So by that measure, an IQ 86 adult is roughly equivalent to an IQ 99 12.5 year old.

    Pretty depressing if you stop and think about it. From the same table an IQ 91.90 adult (RS 35 in column AP) is roughly equivalent to an IQ 99.79 15 year old.

    Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht

  10. Presumably HBD supporters would attribute “black struggles” to other causes as well, just different ones.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @RSDB

    Not necessarily. They could easily attribute "black struggles" to lack of motivation and willpower, and attribute lack of motivation and willpower to HBD. That's likely the case, too, in fact.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  11. @RSDB
    Presumably HBD supporters would attribute "black struggles" to other causes as well, just different ones.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Not necessarily. They could easily attribute “black struggles” to lack of motivation and willpower, and attribute lack of motivation and willpower to HBD. That’s likely the case, too, in fact.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Achmed E. Newman

    If you believe in the power of innate intelligence, you'd logically end up being more understanding of those lower on the intelligence scale, not less. But there's a strong aversion to discussing that in American culture, because we desperately want to believe that our own natures are infinity malleable.

    (IMO, implicitly telling someone with an IQ of 90 that they are lazy, worthless, and at fault for not becoming a six-digit earning professional is not just counterproductive, but cruel.)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

  12. @Achmed E. Newman
    @RSDB

    Not necessarily. They could easily attribute "black struggles" to lack of motivation and willpower, and attribute lack of motivation and willpower to HBD. That's likely the case, too, in fact.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    If you believe in the power of innate intelligence, you’d logically end up being more understanding of those lower on the intelligence scale, not less. But there’s a strong aversion to discussing that in American culture, because we desperately want to believe that our own natures are infinity malleable.

    (IMO, implicitly telling someone with an IQ of 90 that they are lazy, worthless, and at fault for not becoming a six-digit earning professional is not just counterproductive, but cruel.)

    • Agree: El Dato, iffen
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @nebulafox

    Perhaps the biggest white lib do-gooder ever known was Albert Schweitzer. He spent a large part of his altruistic life in Africa. From Schweitzer’s NYT obit:


    ...Schweitzer regarded most native Africans as children, as primitives. It was said that he had scarcely ever talked with an adult African on adult terms...

    "I let the Africans pick all the fruit they want," [Schweitzer] said. "You see, the good Lord has protected the trees. He made the Africans too lazy to pick them bare."

    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0114.html

     

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @nebulafox


    IMO, implicitly telling someone with an IQ of 90 that they are lazy, worthless, and at fault for not becoming a six-digit earning professional is not just counterproductive, but cruel.
     
    You don't need to keep telling them. That's only been necessary because years of Socialism and Civil Rites has produced a class of people who believe they have more coming to them then they deserve. None of this would be necessary without the welfare state. Whatever the reason for black "struggles" , it wouldn't be a problem for anyone besides those with the "struggles".

    Interesting bug there - I can't put

    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @nebulafox

    If they're white.

    I wonder what Michelle (aka as Big Mike) Obama's iq is?

  13. @anon
    “worse jobs, income, and housing than white people” at least in part “because most just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty” follow:

    A family I know has a retarded daughter. She was born with some kind of problem. She's over 20 and cannot read. Not in the "I don't read cursive" sense, but really cannot read. Not for lack of effort on the part of teachers, she just doesn't have the critical brain wiring to match symbols with sounds with concepts. The extended family will care for her all her life, because that's what people do. But there's no way she will ever have a job, or income, or her own housing, because she doesn't have the mental ability.

    It's not her fault. It's not through lack of effort she cannot read. She's still a human being with a family that cares for her.

    The median IQ of American blacks is still 85, although many have very good verbal acuity. That means a whole subset of American blacks are above 100 and a roughly equal sized group are below 70. Someone with an IQ of 70 will never have the same job as someone with an IQ of 100, nor will they have income, nor will they have housing. There's not much that they can do, although a differently ordered society would make things for them to do.

    We can't have a real conversation because we can't talk about the Gaussian distribution around 85 in terms of variance so we can't admit that some black people are employable only at a very menial level. It's not their fault, and it's not through lack of effort. It's genetic variance, just as albinoism is genetic variance. We don't blame albinos for their condition, but we do keep them out of the sun and in some parts of the world, put them under heavy guard for the sake of their lives.

    The first step to wisdom is to call things by their right names. This statement is probably hatespeech.

    Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Great post!

    My one quibble is to ask when it was determined that the average Black was 85? Middle class Blacks typically only have 1 or 2 children while the welfare class has more. I suspect that the average Black iq is lower than that now.

    Combine that with higher self-esteem and extroversion, greater aggression and sex drive, and less ethical and empathetic, there’s quite a toxic brew inside a Black body and mind.

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    It amazes me how many professional black women there are with NO kids. In fact among black women in the professional circles I come across, 0 children is the most common number. Likely they can't find high earning black men to match them.

    Somebody is picking up the slack.

    To be fair, professional white people also have few children. Clearly white proles are picking up the slack since the TFR is still 1.6, and professional urban whites must be below 1.

    1 century of white dysgenics will undo thousands of years being forged in war. 1 century of black dysgenics is likely worse, but I'm not sure how it will turn out.

    Replies: @anon, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

  14. @216
    You can't win a Culture War without control of the Culture Industry

    Ultimately the guerillas must reach a stage of engaging in conventional warfare with the support of a foreign government.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Not My Economy

    You can’t win a Culture War without control of the Culture Industry.

    As if culture is involved. An American’s idea of culture is yoghurt.

  15. Anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @Achmed E. Newman

    If you believe in the power of innate intelligence, you'd logically end up being more understanding of those lower on the intelligence scale, not less. But there's a strong aversion to discussing that in American culture, because we desperately want to believe that our own natures are infinity malleable.

    (IMO, implicitly telling someone with an IQ of 90 that they are lazy, worthless, and at fault for not becoming a six-digit earning professional is not just counterproductive, but cruel.)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Perhaps the biggest white lib do-gooder ever known was Albert Schweitzer. He spent a large part of his altruistic life in Africa. From Schweitzer’s NYT obit:

    …Schweitzer regarded most native Africans as children, as primitives. It was said that he had scarcely ever talked with an adult African on adult terms…

    “I let the Africans pick all the fruit they want,” [Schweitzer] said. “You see, the good Lord has protected the trees. He made the Africans too lazy to pick them bare.”

    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0114.html

  16. @Thomm
    Black people should be more offended by white SJWs than anyone else. They are the only group who thinks black people are not smart enough to be responsible for their own actions. White SJWs think that black people are retards/children at best, and, more likely, no more than exotic pets that exist as virtue signalling props for white SJWs.

    I keep waiting for black criminals to specifically target white SJWs for crime. They are the easiest possible targets, and are probably naive enough to fall for some very basic ruses designed to lower one's guard. Enough incidents like this, and the whole SJW edifice may implode.

    Replies: @Realist, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @YetAnotherAnon, @james wilson, @Reg Cæsar

    I keep waiting for black criminals to specifically target white SJWs for crime.

    I live for the day.

  17. @nebulafox
    @Achmed E. Newman

    If you believe in the power of innate intelligence, you'd logically end up being more understanding of those lower on the intelligence scale, not less. But there's a strong aversion to discussing that in American culture, because we desperately want to believe that our own natures are infinity malleable.

    (IMO, implicitly telling someone with an IQ of 90 that they are lazy, worthless, and at fault for not becoming a six-digit earning professional is not just counterproductive, but cruel.)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    IMO, implicitly telling someone with an IQ of 90 that they are lazy, worthless, and at fault for not becoming a six-digit earning professional is not just counterproductive, but cruel.

    You don’t need to keep telling them. That’s only been necessary because years of Socialism and Civil Rites has produced a class of people who believe they have more coming to them then they deserve. None of this would be necessary without the welfare state. Whatever the reason for black “struggles” , it wouldn’t be a problem for anyone besides those with the “struggles”.

    Interesting bug there – I can’t put

  18. @Thomm
    Black people should be more offended by white SJWs than anyone else. They are the only group who thinks black people are not smart enough to be responsible for their own actions. White SJWs think that black people are retards/children at best, and, more likely, no more than exotic pets that exist as virtue signalling props for white SJWs.

    I keep waiting for black criminals to specifically target white SJWs for crime. They are the easiest possible targets, and are probably naive enough to fall for some very basic ruses designed to lower one's guard. Enough incidents like this, and the whole SJW edifice may implode.

    Replies: @Realist, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @YetAnotherAnon, @james wilson, @Reg Cæsar

    Normies agree with liberals that people are alike all over, that they want the same things and are capable of the same things. The reality is no they don’t and no they can’t.

    Conservatives also absolve Blacks of responsibility for their actions. They blame the low Black test scores on bad schools and the teachers’ unions and high Black abortion rate on Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Blacks are held not to be responsible for their failures and dysfunction

    • Replies: @James Speaks
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel


    Blacks are held not to be responsible for their failures and dysfunction.
     
    With lifeboat ethics it is necessary to withhold resources from blacks and deliver to whites and asians. Unless one doubts that civilization is nearing a resource crunch, you owe it to your children and grandchildren to apply lifeboat ethics and ensure the survival of your DNA.


    Paradoxically, the crowd most likely to accept and act upon global climate change and resource depletion is the tree hugging SJW crowd that loves blacks, and the group mst likely to reject the reality of diminished resources is the so-called conservative/realism group.

    Seems logical to preach lifeboat ethics to the touchy feelies and realism, crime and punishment to the people who still believe in reality and the law.
  19. @nebulafox
    @Achmed E. Newman

    If you believe in the power of innate intelligence, you'd logically end up being more understanding of those lower on the intelligence scale, not less. But there's a strong aversion to discussing that in American culture, because we desperately want to believe that our own natures are infinity malleable.

    (IMO, implicitly telling someone with an IQ of 90 that they are lazy, worthless, and at fault for not becoming a six-digit earning professional is not just counterproductive, but cruel.)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    If they’re white.

    I wonder what Michelle (aka as Big Mike) Obama’s iq is?

  20. Sure, go ahead, blame the victims again. Ignore the statistic that only 21% of black Americans live under the poverty line. Convince yourselves that calls for justice conceal a sinister agenda to steal the little freedom the one percenters allow you. No matter how much courage and dignity black Americans display, you rush to comment here on what monkeys and morons and freeloaders and criminals they all are: and you have the colossal gall or incredible stupidity to think your mindless hatred has no demoralizing effect on your countrymen. When people know that no matter what they accomplish, they will never earn your respect, they simply ignore you, and more importantly we all are inspired by you to do whatever is necessary to keep your sickness from reinfecting the larger community. Refusing to understand that an injury to one is an insult to all, you consign yourselves to irrelevancy.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Observator

    Looting is dignified.

    Replies: @128

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Observator

    "Refusing to understand that an injury to one is an insult to all"

    This is much better understood in a homogeneous society. Life in the U.S. would be more peaceful if racial separation was the norm. I believe that the vast majority of whites and blacks would prefer separate communities. This is just human nature. It is the white elites and their managerial class that continues to push and impose integration.

  21. @Observator
    Sure, go ahead, blame the victims again. Ignore the statistic that only 21% of black Americans live under the poverty line. Convince yourselves that calls for justice conceal a sinister agenda to steal the little freedom the one percenters allow you. No matter how much courage and dignity black Americans display, you rush to comment here on what monkeys and morons and freeloaders and criminals they all are: and you have the colossal gall or incredible stupidity to think your mindless hatred has no demoralizing effect on your countrymen. When people know that no matter what they accomplish, they will never earn your respect, they simply ignore you, and more importantly we all are inspired by you to do whatever is necessary to keep your sickness from reinfecting the larger community. Refusing to understand that an injury to one is an insult to all, you consign yourselves to irrelevancy.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @SunBakedSuburb

    Looting is dignified.

    • Replies: @128
    @Daniel Chieh

    Kill all burn all loot all? It can coexist with a pretty effective military.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

  22. The clip ages well, except for the bit about no black people in Minnesota.

  23. I’ll believe that blacks have collectively started to function in our society when their debit or credit cards stop declining for trivial amounts of money. Anyone who works in the hospitality industry can tell you that this happens when blacks try to rent hotel rooms.

  24. This graph shows that blacks are capable of holding sensible views about life if they have the right incentives to express them.

    BTW, in the interest of saying something positive about our Hispanic newcomers, to their credit compared to blacks they treat work more seriously, and they maintain more stable family structures. I can see why our elites have preferred Hispanics over blacks as the new servant class.

  25. It’s one of the most curious aspects of the progressive religion – that blacks are uniquely incapable of self-determination and therefore no area in which they come up short is at all attributable to black people themselves. This also means good whites need to make sure other whites are kneecapped (but not themselves) in education, hiring, you name it to allow black people to flourish. Naturally, most good whites also put the lie to their beliefs that black people are really just like them only oppressed by ensuring they live nowhere near them and their kids don’t go to school with them either. This should be pointed out constantly and hopefully it guilts some of them into putting their money/kids where their mouth is.

    • Replies: @Not My Economy
    @Arclight

    > guilts some of them into putting their money/kids where their mouth is.

    Will never happen... not capable of feeling guilt, only shame.

  26. @216
    You can't win a Culture War without control of the Culture Industry

    Ultimately the guerillas must reach a stage of engaging in conventional warfare with the support of a foreign government.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Not My Economy

    No such thing as a culture war, it’s just war. The side that’s winning the war is destroying the “culture” of the loser, because that’s the entire point of war, to destroy the enemy.

    But big agree, we do need some allies and fast. What can we offer, that’s the bottom line. Why should anyone who’s already got some power support us instead of just going along with what they have?

    • Replies: @128
    @Not My Economy

    Because from an Chinese perspective, Whites can be genocided off this planet and they can still do pretty well, as for Africa they can just bribe the elites? In fact that just gets rid of a competition from a peer competitor and also avenges what happened during the Opium Wars.

    , @dfordoom
    @Not My Economy


    But big agree, we do need some allies and fast. What can we offer, that’s the bottom line.
     
    The alt-right has little or nothing to offer. It doesn't even have an actual political base. The elites want nothing to do with it. The white middle-class is overwhelmingly Woke and won't touch it with a barge pole. The chances of any explicitly right-wing political movement gaining support from the white working class are slim. The chances of a right-wing movement gaining support from poor whites are non-existent. Mainstream white Christians are too Woke to support the alt-right, and the talk of secession and separate countries means there's zero chance of getting the crazy Evangelicals on board.

    So the alt-right has little to no chance of gaining any kind of mass support even from whites.

    And there is no reason for any non-white even to contemplate being allied with the alt-right.

    The very limited support that the far right in Europe and Britain gets comes from Zionists and the LGBT crowd and they only support the far right insofar as hatred of Muslims is concerned. In the US there's no chance of getting Zionists as allies because of the crazed Jew-haters in the alt-right (not that any sane person would want Zionists as allies).

    And added to all that is the problem that the far right horrifies virtually all women.

    Why would anyone want to ally themselves with such a movement?

    If you want nationalism it's going to have to be some kind of left-wing nationalism. Right-wing nationalism has no future.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Reg Cæsar

  27. @Arclight
    It's one of the most curious aspects of the progressive religion - that blacks are uniquely incapable of self-determination and therefore no area in which they come up short is at all attributable to black people themselves. This also means good whites need to make sure other whites are kneecapped (but not themselves) in education, hiring, you name it to allow black people to flourish. Naturally, most good whites also put the lie to their beliefs that black people are really just like them only oppressed by ensuring they live nowhere near them and their kids don't go to school with them either. This should be pointed out constantly and hopefully it guilts some of them into putting their money/kids where their mouth is.

    Replies: @Not My Economy

    > guilts some of them into putting their money/kids where their mouth is.

    Will never happen… not capable of feeling guilt, only shame.

  28. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @Thomm

    Normies agree with liberals that people are alike all over, that they want the same things and are capable of the same things. The reality is no they don't and no they can't.

    Conservatives also absolve Blacks of responsibility for their actions. They blame the low Black test scores on bad schools and the teachers' unions and high Black abortion rate on Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Blacks are held not to be responsible for their failures and dysfunction

    Replies: @James Speaks

    Blacks are held not to be responsible for their failures and dysfunction.

    With lifeboat ethics it is necessary to withhold resources from blacks and deliver to whites and asians. Unless one doubts that civilization is nearing a resource crunch, you owe it to your children and grandchildren to apply lifeboat ethics and ensure the survival of your DNA.

    Paradoxically, the crowd most likely to accept and act upon global climate change and resource depletion is the tree hugging SJW crowd that loves blacks, and the group mst likely to reject the reality of diminished resources is the so-called conservative/realism group.

    Seems logical to preach lifeboat ethics to the touchy feelies and realism, crime and punishment to the people who still believe in reality and the law.

  29. @Daniel Chieh
    @Observator

    Looting is dignified.

    Replies: @128

    Kill all burn all loot all? It can coexist with a pretty effective military.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @128

    The three "all" strategies did not really help the Japanese very much; their most impressive victories were usually done in lieu of that, and it was executed as a wastage/revenge strategy when the war was essentially lost anyway(second part of Imjin, for example).

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Johann Ricke

  30. @Not My Economy
    @216

    No such thing as a culture war, it’s just war. The side that’s winning the war is destroying the “culture” of the loser, because that’s the entire point of war, to destroy the enemy.

    But big agree, we do need some allies and fast. What can we offer, that’s the bottom line. Why should anyone who’s already got some power support us instead of just going along with what they have?

    Replies: @128, @dfordoom

    Because from an Chinese perspective, Whites can be genocided off this planet and they can still do pretty well, as for Africa they can just bribe the elites? In fact that just gets rid of a competition from a peer competitor and also avenges what happened during the Opium Wars.

  31. @Not My Economy
    @216

    No such thing as a culture war, it’s just war. The side that’s winning the war is destroying the “culture” of the loser, because that’s the entire point of war, to destroy the enemy.

    But big agree, we do need some allies and fast. What can we offer, that’s the bottom line. Why should anyone who’s already got some power support us instead of just going along with what they have?

    Replies: @128, @dfordoom

    But big agree, we do need some allies and fast. What can we offer, that’s the bottom line.

    The alt-right has little or nothing to offer. It doesn’t even have an actual political base. The elites want nothing to do with it. The white middle-class is overwhelmingly Woke and won’t touch it with a barge pole. The chances of any explicitly right-wing political movement gaining support from the white working class are slim. The chances of a right-wing movement gaining support from poor whites are non-existent. Mainstream white Christians are too Woke to support the alt-right, and the talk of secession and separate countries means there’s zero chance of getting the crazy Evangelicals on board.

    So the alt-right has little to no chance of gaining any kind of mass support even from whites.

    And there is no reason for any non-white even to contemplate being allied with the alt-right.

    The very limited support that the far right in Europe and Britain gets comes from Zionists and the LGBT crowd and they only support the far right insofar as hatred of Muslims is concerned. In the US there’s no chance of getting Zionists as allies because of the crazed Jew-haters in the alt-right (not that any sane person would want Zionists as allies).

    And added to all that is the problem that the far right horrifies virtually all women.

    Why would anyone want to ally themselves with such a movement?

    If you want nationalism it’s going to have to be some kind of left-wing nationalism. Right-wing nationalism has no future.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @dfordoom

    "The elites want nothing to do with it. The white middle-class is overwhelmingly Woke and won’t touch it with a barge pole. The chances of any explicitly right-wing political movement gaining support from the white working class are slim. The chances of a right-wing movement gaining support from poor whites are non-existent."

    Strange then that Candidate Trump was elected on a platform that the alt-right were more than comfortable with, and inspired (and still inspires) millions of Americans.

    If President Trump loses in November it'll be because he was "all mouth and no trousers" as we say in the UK.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @dfordoom


    If you want nationalism it’s going to have to be some kind of left-wing nationalism.
     
    Impossible. Aliens vote more to the left than natives. The left will always cater to the aliens.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  32. res says:
    @Vergissmeinnicht
    I always thought it odd when hereditarians (of all people!) use the basic-bitch conservative argument of "racism of low expectations"; I'll illustrate it in a quick monologue:

    Mr Conservatism Inc.: "Hah! I got you this time Liberals! The REAL reason you believe in Affirmative Action for Blacks is because you think Blacks are DUMB! You, Liberals, are the REAL racists! Gotcha!"

    A person whose IQ is 85 (the US Black average) is equivalent to an average White person when he's 16-years-old! If you're 16, you CAN'T vote (!), nor drink, nor smoke…

    If a non-particularist (which I think's wrong, BTW ‒ but that's another matter, entirely) definition of 'agency' is applied ‒ Yeah: Blacks DO lack agency!

    Steve Sailer has noted the irony: The Supreme Court has decided that people whose IQs are 75 or lower (frankly, I forgot the exact number) cannot be subjected to the Death Penalty i.e. because people like these simply cannot fully COMPREHEND what they do… Guess what! There're way more Black people (as a percentage) with those low IQ scores than Whites.
    Food for thought: Perhaps the SCOTUS case above is invalid under DISPARATE IMPACT! :-)

    Replies: @res

    A person whose IQ is 85 (the US Black average) is equivalent to an average White person when he’s 16-years-old! If you’re 16, you CAN’T vote (!), nor drink, nor smoke…

    Where do you get that? Looking at this particular subtest the average IQ line exceeds the -1 SD (85 IQ) adult level at age 10.
    https://mindsbasis.blogspot.com/2016/03/rasch-measure-of-intelligence-age-2-25.html

    Alternatively (and this is probably a better guide) looking at the NORM sheet in David Becker’s IQ spreadsheet:
    https://www.researchgate.net/project/Worlds-IQ
    We see that for the SPM+ 2007 GBR normalization (has the best age range for looking at this) a raw score of 33 (column AP) is equivalent to an IQ of 86.24 at age 18.5 and an IQ of 99.41 at age 12.5.

    So by that measure, an IQ 86 adult is roughly equivalent to an IQ 99 12.5 year old.

    Pretty depressing if you stop and think about it. From the same table an IQ 91.90 adult (RS 35 in column AP) is roughly equivalent to an IQ 99.79 15 year old.

    • Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht
    @res

    I got 'that' from here: One way to comprehend an IQ of 70 is to think in terms of mental age. For example, for adults an IQ of 70 is equivalent to a mental age of 11 years. So the normal range of mental ages in Africa is from 7 to 16 years, with an average at 11 years.
    https://vdare.com/articles/i-q-why-africa-is-africa-and-haiti-haiti

    So, if a 70 IQ individual is basically a 11-years-old, then a 85 IQ should be equivalent to around 16-years-old.

    Replies: @res

  33. @Thomm
    Black people should be more offended by white SJWs than anyone else. They are the only group who thinks black people are not smart enough to be responsible for their own actions. White SJWs think that black people are retards/children at best, and, more likely, no more than exotic pets that exist as virtue signalling props for white SJWs.

    I keep waiting for black criminals to specifically target white SJWs for crime. They are the easiest possible targets, and are probably naive enough to fall for some very basic ruses designed to lower one's guard. Enough incidents like this, and the whole SJW edifice may implode.

    Replies: @Realist, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @YetAnotherAnon, @james wilson, @Reg Cæsar

    “I keep waiting for black criminals to specifically target white SJWs for crime.”

    When I lived in London the girl downstairs was robbed at knifepoint by a black guy (I was woken by her frantic ringing at my bell) and during the Brixton riots of the early 80s a house of girls up the road opened the door to a whole gang with knives who took everything of value they could. They were relieved it wasn’t worse.

    I’m not sure any minds changed. Maybe when older they decided London wasn’t the place to raise kids, but everyone thinks that whether they’ve been victimised or not.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @YetAnotherAnon

    I think someone here mentioned a female probation officer who was assaulted by one of the diverse and then testified for his early release for parole in sympathy to him.

    It is a religion of self-sacrifice.

  34. @dfordoom
    @Not My Economy


    But big agree, we do need some allies and fast. What can we offer, that’s the bottom line.
     
    The alt-right has little or nothing to offer. It doesn't even have an actual political base. The elites want nothing to do with it. The white middle-class is overwhelmingly Woke and won't touch it with a barge pole. The chances of any explicitly right-wing political movement gaining support from the white working class are slim. The chances of a right-wing movement gaining support from poor whites are non-existent. Mainstream white Christians are too Woke to support the alt-right, and the talk of secession and separate countries means there's zero chance of getting the crazy Evangelicals on board.

    So the alt-right has little to no chance of gaining any kind of mass support even from whites.

    And there is no reason for any non-white even to contemplate being allied with the alt-right.

    The very limited support that the far right in Europe and Britain gets comes from Zionists and the LGBT crowd and they only support the far right insofar as hatred of Muslims is concerned. In the US there's no chance of getting Zionists as allies because of the crazed Jew-haters in the alt-right (not that any sane person would want Zionists as allies).

    And added to all that is the problem that the far right horrifies virtually all women.

    Why would anyone want to ally themselves with such a movement?

    If you want nationalism it's going to have to be some kind of left-wing nationalism. Right-wing nationalism has no future.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Reg Cæsar

    “The elites want nothing to do with it. The white middle-class is overwhelmingly Woke and won’t touch it with a barge pole. The chances of any explicitly right-wing political movement gaining support from the white working class are slim. The chances of a right-wing movement gaining support from poor whites are non-existent.”

    Strange then that Candidate Trump was elected on a platform that the alt-right were more than comfortable with, and inspired (and still inspires) millions of Americans.

    If President Trump loses in November it’ll be because he was “all mouth and no trousers” as we say in the UK.

    • Agree: VinnyVette
  35. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Thomm

    "I keep waiting for black criminals to specifically target white SJWs for crime."

    When I lived in London the girl downstairs was robbed at knifepoint by a black guy (I was woken by her frantic ringing at my bell) and during the Brixton riots of the early 80s a house of girls up the road opened the door to a whole gang with knives who took everything of value they could. They were relieved it wasn't worse.

    I'm not sure any minds changed. Maybe when older they decided London wasn't the place to raise kids, but everyone thinks that whether they've been victimised or not.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    I think someone here mentioned a female probation officer who was assaulted by one of the diverse and then testified for his early release for parole in sympathy to him.

    It is a religion of self-sacrifice.

  36. It is a religion of self-sacrifice.

    Or just “a religion. Like with God’s grace, and stuff.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Truth

    You may like this book and this discussion. It surrounds the pre-modern notions of race, ethnicity and the fluidity in certain cultures - namely blacks vis-a-vis ancient Arab culture.

    Peace.

    https://twitter.com/claritasbooks/status/1270595381122998274

    Absolutely fascinating topic and written by a traditional Muslim scholar (who is a black convert) that I regularly keep up with. Here is the whole interview:
    https://soundcloud.com/claritasbooks/the-negro-in-the-arab-muslim-consciousness

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Truth

  37. @Thomm
    Black people should be more offended by white SJWs than anyone else. They are the only group who thinks black people are not smart enough to be responsible for their own actions. White SJWs think that black people are retards/children at best, and, more likely, no more than exotic pets that exist as virtue signalling props for white SJWs.

    I keep waiting for black criminals to specifically target white SJWs for crime. They are the easiest possible targets, and are probably naive enough to fall for some very basic ruses designed to lower one's guard. Enough incidents like this, and the whole SJW edifice may implode.

    Replies: @Realist, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @YetAnotherAnon, @james wilson, @Reg Cæsar

    Blacks despise SJW types. It’s instinctive and blacks are nothing if not instinctive. They do not despise people who actually hate them; they may respect them as enemies sometimes do. Blacks will continue to leave the SJW be, just so long as their meager gravy train continues but the relationship is quite tenuous. No one respects grovelling with the possible exception of the SJW.

  38. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @anon

    Great post!

    My one quibble is to ask when it was determined that the average Black was 85? Middle class Blacks typically only have 1 or 2 children while the welfare class has more. I suspect that the average Black iq is lower than that now.

    Combine that with higher self-esteem and extroversion, greater aggression and sex drive, and less ethical and empathetic, there's quite a toxic brew inside a Black body and mind.

    Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    It amazes me how many professional black women there are with NO kids. In fact among black women in the professional circles I come across, 0 children is the most common number. Likely they can’t find high earning black men to match them.

    Somebody is picking up the slack.

    To be fair, professional white people also have few children. Clearly white proles are picking up the slack since the TFR is still 1.6, and professional urban whites must be below 1.

    1 century of white dysgenics will undo thousands of years being forged in war. 1 century of black dysgenics is likely worse, but I’m not sure how it will turn out.

    • Replies: @anon
    @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    It amazes me how many professional black women there are with NO kids. In fact among black women in the professional circles I come across, 0 children is the most common number. Likely they can’t find high earning black men to match them.

    Very clear example of hypergamy at work. There are more of such women than there are Stedman Grahams to wife them up. Any of them who do succeed in snagging a man of any color will be pretty possessive, because they are lottery winners. Some of them will ease into lesbianism sometime over 40.

    To be fair, professional white people also have few children. Clearly white proles are picking up the slack since the TFR is still 1.6, and professional urban whites must be below 1.

    Insert the opening to Idiocracy here. It's a must see movie in many ways. That's why it was de facto banned from theaters.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @Truth

    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    You are correct, but I was thinking of married couples.

    Hard enough for professional White women to find a mate of equal status, but it's long been harder for Black women.

    A Black former co-worker who worked in Office Services was 35-years-old and had five children by three different women. He's helping pick up the slack. At least he worked a legitimate job. Many of the bucks siring the babies don't.

    Replies: @anon

  39. @Truth

    It is a religion of self-sacrifice.
     
    Or just "a religion. Like with God's grace, and stuff.

    Replies: @Talha

    You may like this book and this discussion. It surrounds the pre-modern notions of race, ethnicity and the fluidity in certain cultures – namely blacks vis-a-vis ancient Arab culture.

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    Absolutely fascinating topic and written by a traditional Muslim scholar (who is a black convert) that I regularly keep up with. Here is the whole interview:

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Talha

    There's a different view of "the Negro in Arab-Muslim culture here. I don't think things have changed too much since 1909 in that neck of the woods.

    https://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2006/11/sudan-incident-1909.html


    And then there was a thunder of galloping hoofs and I was in the middle of a crowd of Arab horsemen who'd suddenly appeared from nowhere.

    I said: 'Peace be upon you.' I thought this was Sheikh Musa arriving with the usual Arab bluster and fantasia.

    But there was no reply. 'And upon you the peace' and nobody dismounted to greet the Governor's representative on the river. All the Arabs carried the long dervish spear and a few of them had old Remington rifles. Then I noticed the leaf-shaped spear heads and some of them were red.

    Again I said, 'El Salaam aleikum' and still there was no response.

    I said, 'I have come as arranged by the Pasha to make peace on the border. Where is Sheikh Musa?'

    Pax Britannica and all that. How fantastic!

    What should Arabs want with the peace when the finest sport in the world was to be had at the expense of the unbelieving dogs of Dinkas? Infidel and uncircumcised Dinkas, flaunting their shame before the pious Moslems. The ride through the night - the fording of the boundary river - the mad gallop over the plains - the chase of the slim, shrieking Dinka and the long spear piercing his shining naked back....

    The slender naked black girls lifted from the cattle posts and strapped, struggling, to the great saddles.

    The mob of cattle driven bellowing to the north.... The boasting of great deeds done that day, in the safety of the camp fires fifty miles away ...

    There it was. They looked on it all from a slightly different angle.
     

    Replies: @Talha

    , @Truth
    @Talha

    I will listen later.

    Replies: @Talha

  40. anon[143] • Disclaimer says:
    @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    It amazes me how many professional black women there are with NO kids. In fact among black women in the professional circles I come across, 0 children is the most common number. Likely they can't find high earning black men to match them.

    Somebody is picking up the slack.

    To be fair, professional white people also have few children. Clearly white proles are picking up the slack since the TFR is still 1.6, and professional urban whites must be below 1.

    1 century of white dysgenics will undo thousands of years being forged in war. 1 century of black dysgenics is likely worse, but I'm not sure how it will turn out.

    Replies: @anon, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    It amazes me how many professional black women there are with NO kids. In fact among black women in the professional circles I come across, 0 children is the most common number. Likely they can’t find high earning black men to match them.

    Very clear example of hypergamy at work. There are more of such women than there are Stedman Grahams to wife them up. Any of them who do succeed in snagging a man of any color will be pretty possessive, because they are lottery winners. Some of them will ease into lesbianism sometime over 40.

    To be fair, professional white people also have few children. Clearly white proles are picking up the slack since the TFR is still 1.6, and professional urban whites must be below 1.

    Insert the opening to Idiocracy here. It’s a must see movie in many ways. That’s why it was de facto banned from theaters.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @anon


    Insert the opening to Idiocracy here. It’s a must see movie in many ways.
     
    I've met two or three people who don't think that Idiocracy is a work of genuine genius - and they have some characteristics in common... viz., their shit's all retarded and they talk like a fag.
    , @Truth
    @anon


    Insert the opening to Idiocracy here. It’s a must see movie in many ways. That’s why it was de facto banned from theaters.
     
    Yeah. Although the 10% occupancy didn't help much. It's cool we got President Camacho in 16' though.
  41. Mexicans and Cubans have no historical reason to not like American blacks, so their “take” on the race problem has more legitimacy — you can’t chalk it up to centuries of prejudice and cultural programming. It’s merely observational. That should make the black community sit up and take notice. Maybe it really isn’t all about racist crackers.

  42. @Talha
    @Truth

    You may like this book and this discussion. It surrounds the pre-modern notions of race, ethnicity and the fluidity in certain cultures - namely blacks vis-a-vis ancient Arab culture.

    Peace.

    https://twitter.com/claritasbooks/status/1270595381122998274

    Absolutely fascinating topic and written by a traditional Muslim scholar (who is a black convert) that I regularly keep up with. Here is the whole interview:
    https://soundcloud.com/claritasbooks/the-negro-in-the-arab-muslim-consciousness

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Truth

    There’s a different view of “the Negro in Arab-Muslim culture here. I don’t think things have changed too much since 1909 in that neck of the woods.

    https://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2006/11/sudan-incident-1909.html

    And then there was a thunder of galloping hoofs and I was in the middle of a crowd of Arab horsemen who’d suddenly appeared from nowhere.

    I said: ‘Peace be upon you.’ I thought this was Sheikh Musa arriving with the usual Arab bluster and fantasia.

    But there was no reply. ‘And upon you the peace’ and nobody dismounted to greet the Governor’s representative on the river. All the Arabs carried the long dervish spear and a few of them had old Remington rifles. Then I noticed the leaf-shaped spear heads and some of them were red.

    Again I said, ‘El Salaam aleikum’ and still there was no response.

    I said, ‘I have come as arranged by the Pasha to make peace on the border. Where is Sheikh Musa?’

    Pax Britannica and all that. How fantastic!

    What should Arabs want with the peace when the finest sport in the world was to be had at the expense of the unbelieving dogs of Dinkas? Infidel and uncircumcised Dinkas, flaunting their shame before the pious Moslems. The ride through the night – the fording of the boundary river – the mad gallop over the plains – the chase of the slim, shrieking Dinka and the long spear piercing his shining naked back….

    The slender naked black girls lifted from the cattle posts and strapped, struggling, to the great saddles.

    The mob of cattle driven bellowing to the north…. The boasting of great deeds done that day, in the safety of the camp fires fifty miles away …

    There it was. They looked on it all from a slightly different angle.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Did you actually listen to the talk?

    How is this incident a "different view" of the subject matter? It is well known that Arabs ran slave raids against non-Muslim blacks in Africa and shipped them to the interior as laborers or concubines. In fact, many of those were Afro-Arabs (a result of Arab/black couples - whether married or via concubinage), like the elites of Zanzibar, for instance this guy (Tippu Tip):
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Tippu_Tip_1889.jpg

    What most don't know is that there was also a flow of slaves (though lesser in number) from Arabs and Turks to West African Muslim kingdoms as slave soldiers and concubines. You can check the writings of men like Ibn Battuta for details.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Talha

  43. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Talha

    There's a different view of "the Negro in Arab-Muslim culture here. I don't think things have changed too much since 1909 in that neck of the woods.

    https://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2006/11/sudan-incident-1909.html


    And then there was a thunder of galloping hoofs and I was in the middle of a crowd of Arab horsemen who'd suddenly appeared from nowhere.

    I said: 'Peace be upon you.' I thought this was Sheikh Musa arriving with the usual Arab bluster and fantasia.

    But there was no reply. 'And upon you the peace' and nobody dismounted to greet the Governor's representative on the river. All the Arabs carried the long dervish spear and a few of them had old Remington rifles. Then I noticed the leaf-shaped spear heads and some of them were red.

    Again I said, 'El Salaam aleikum' and still there was no response.

    I said, 'I have come as arranged by the Pasha to make peace on the border. Where is Sheikh Musa?'

    Pax Britannica and all that. How fantastic!

    What should Arabs want with the peace when the finest sport in the world was to be had at the expense of the unbelieving dogs of Dinkas? Infidel and uncircumcised Dinkas, flaunting their shame before the pious Moslems. The ride through the night - the fording of the boundary river - the mad gallop over the plains - the chase of the slim, shrieking Dinka and the long spear piercing his shining naked back....

    The slender naked black girls lifted from the cattle posts and strapped, struggling, to the great saddles.

    The mob of cattle driven bellowing to the north.... The boasting of great deeds done that day, in the safety of the camp fires fifty miles away ...

    There it was. They looked on it all from a slightly different angle.
     

    Replies: @Talha

    Did you actually listen to the talk?

    How is this incident a “different view” of the subject matter? It is well known that Arabs ran slave raids against non-Muslim blacks in Africa and shipped them to the interior as laborers or concubines. In fact, many of those were Afro-Arabs (a result of Arab/black couples – whether married or via concubinage), like the elites of Zanzibar, for instance this guy (Tippu Tip):
    What most don’t know is that there was also a flow of slaves (though lesser in number) from Arabs and Turks to West African Muslim kingdoms as slave soldiers and concubines. You can check the writings of men like Ibn Battuta for details.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Talha

    This is precisely what he was talking about regarding pre-modern peoples (like blacks and Arabs) being able to flow between racial categories:
    http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/True_Negros/Children.jpg

  44. @Talha
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Did you actually listen to the talk?

    How is this incident a "different view" of the subject matter? It is well known that Arabs ran slave raids against non-Muslim blacks in Africa and shipped them to the interior as laborers or concubines. In fact, many of those were Afro-Arabs (a result of Arab/black couples - whether married or via concubinage), like the elites of Zanzibar, for instance this guy (Tippu Tip):
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Tippu_Tip_1889.jpg

    What most don't know is that there was also a flow of slaves (though lesser in number) from Arabs and Turks to West African Muslim kingdoms as slave soldiers and concubines. You can check the writings of men like Ibn Battuta for details.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Talha

    This is precisely what he was talking about regarding pre-modern peoples (like blacks and Arabs) being able to flow between racial categories:

  45. @anon
    @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    It amazes me how many professional black women there are with NO kids. In fact among black women in the professional circles I come across, 0 children is the most common number. Likely they can’t find high earning black men to match them.

    Very clear example of hypergamy at work. There are more of such women than there are Stedman Grahams to wife them up. Any of them who do succeed in snagging a man of any color will be pretty possessive, because they are lottery winners. Some of them will ease into lesbianism sometime over 40.

    To be fair, professional white people also have few children. Clearly white proles are picking up the slack since the TFR is still 1.6, and professional urban whites must be below 1.

    Insert the opening to Idiocracy here. It's a must see movie in many ways. That's why it was de facto banned from theaters.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @Truth

    Insert the opening to Idiocracy here. It’s a must see movie in many ways.

    I’ve met two or three people who don’t think that Idiocracy is a work of genuine genius – and they have some characteristics in common… viz., their shit’s all retarded and they talk like a fag.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  46. @Talha
    @Truth

    You may like this book and this discussion. It surrounds the pre-modern notions of race, ethnicity and the fluidity in certain cultures - namely blacks vis-a-vis ancient Arab culture.

    Peace.

    https://twitter.com/claritasbooks/status/1270595381122998274

    Absolutely fascinating topic and written by a traditional Muslim scholar (who is a black convert) that I regularly keep up with. Here is the whole interview:
    https://soundcloud.com/claritasbooks/the-negro-in-the-arab-muslim-consciousness

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Truth

    I will listen later.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Truth

    No problem, at your convenience.

    Peace.

    Also, a more in depth lecture on the subject at the college where he is faculty (starts around 8:35) - including questions and answers:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0RMTRd6X_s

    Replies: @Truth

  47. @anon
    @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    It amazes me how many professional black women there are with NO kids. In fact among black women in the professional circles I come across, 0 children is the most common number. Likely they can’t find high earning black men to match them.

    Very clear example of hypergamy at work. There are more of such women than there are Stedman Grahams to wife them up. Any of them who do succeed in snagging a man of any color will be pretty possessive, because they are lottery winners. Some of them will ease into lesbianism sometime over 40.

    To be fair, professional white people also have few children. Clearly white proles are picking up the slack since the TFR is still 1.6, and professional urban whites must be below 1.

    Insert the opening to Idiocracy here. It's a must see movie in many ways. That's why it was de facto banned from theaters.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @Truth

    Insert the opening to Idiocracy here. It’s a must see movie in many ways. That’s why it was de facto banned from theaters.

    Yeah. Although the 10% occupancy didn’t help much. It’s cool we got President Camacho in 16′ though.

  48. @Truth
    @Talha

    I will listen later.

    Replies: @Talha

    No problem, at your convenience.

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    Also, a more in depth lecture on the subject at the college where he is faculty (starts around 8:35) – including questions and answers:

    • Replies: @Truth
    @Talha

    Good info. Bin Hamid Ali is interesting.

    Replies: @Talha

  49. @res
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    A person whose IQ is 85 (the US Black average) is equivalent to an average White person when he’s 16-years-old! If you’re 16, you CAN’T vote (!), nor drink, nor smoke…
     
    Where do you get that? Looking at this particular subtest the average IQ line exceeds the -1 SD (85 IQ) adult level at age 10.
    https://mindsbasis.blogspot.com/2016/03/rasch-measure-of-intelligence-age-2-25.html

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tXLt9eo5s6Q/VvlvcmScDkI/AAAAAAAAAMU/Vx12AxqJYcYiGwwNSxFp7jA9mbfqNLcDA/s640/rasch%2Bintelligence%2Bscore%2Bvs%2Bage%2Bremake%2B1.png

    Alternatively (and this is probably a better guide) looking at the NORM sheet in David Becker's IQ spreadsheet:
    https://www.researchgate.net/project/Worlds-IQ
    We see that for the SPM+ 2007 GBR normalization (has the best age range for looking at this) a raw score of 33 (column AP) is equivalent to an IQ of 86.24 at age 18.5 and an IQ of 99.41 at age 12.5.

    So by that measure, an IQ 86 adult is roughly equivalent to an IQ 99 12.5 year old.

    Pretty depressing if you stop and think about it. From the same table an IQ 91.90 adult (RS 35 in column AP) is roughly equivalent to an IQ 99.79 15 year old.

    Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht

    I got ‘that’ from here: One way to comprehend an IQ of 70 is to think in terms of mental age. For example, for adults an IQ of 70 is equivalent to a mental age of 11 years. So the normal range of mental ages in Africa is from 7 to 16 years, with an average at 11 years.
    https://vdare.com/articles/i-q-why-africa-is-africa-and-haiti-haiti

    So, if a 70 IQ individual is basically a 11-years-old, then a 85 IQ should be equivalent to around 16-years-old.

    • Replies: @res
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    I got ‘that’ from here: One way to comprehend an IQ of 70 is to think in terms of mental age. For example, for adults an IQ of 70 is equivalent to a mental age of 11 years. So the normal range of mental ages in Africa is from 7 to 16 years, with an average at 11 years.
    https://vdare.com/articles/i-q-why-africa-is-africa-and-haiti-haiti

    So, if a 70 IQ individual is basically a 11-years-old, then a 85 IQ should be equivalent to around 16-years-old.
     
    That's a pretty good source (2004 article by J. Philippe Rushton), but I think you have misinterpreted it. It uses the old style formulation of IQ as mental age (I would say the approach I gave is more accurate, but let's analyze Rushton's way).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_age

    Here is the relevant excerpt from Rushton:

    We found African university students averaged an IQ of 84. In some studies, by other researchers, they have scored lower (IQ = 77). In still others of our studies, highly-selected engineering students who took math and science courses in high school scored higher (IQ = 103).

    Assuming that, like university students elsewhere, the African university students on average score 15 points above the general population, the African general population average of about 70 would appear to be corroborated.

    One way to comprehend an IQ of 70 is to think in terms of mental age. For example, for adults an IQ of 70 is equivalent to a mental age of 11 years. So the normal range of mental ages in Africa is from 7 to 16 years, with an average at 11 years.

    Eleven-year-olds, of course, are not retarded. They can drive cars, build houses, and work in factories—if supervised properly. They can also make war.

    In terms of mental age then, the Africans who drop out of primary school correspond to 7-year-olds. Those who get to high school correspond to 11-year-olds. The top university students we tested correspond to 16- and 17-year-olds.

    Adult Whites, by contrast, have mental ages ranging from 11- to 24-years, with an average mental age of 16- to 18-years.

     

    The mental age calculation for ratio IQs is: IQ = Mental age ÷ Physical age × 100

    If you substitute in the values Rushton uses you can see what physical age he is using for his adult references.

    At 70 IQ (mental age 11) we have: Physical age = Mental age * 100 / IQ = 11 * 100 / 70 = 15.7
    At 103 IQ (his "top university students", this is what I think you misunderstood as 85) we have:
    16.5 * 100 / 103 = 16.0

    For 16 year olds with IQ 85 we calculate a mental age of
    Mental age = Physical age × IQ / 100 = 16 * 85 / 100 = 13.6

    So using Rushton's method we calculate a mental age of 13.6 for IQ 85 (rather than your 16). I think my estimate of 12.5 from my earlier comment using Becker's spreadsheet SPM+ norms is likely to be more accurate.

    P.S. An additional data point from Becker's spreadsheet is that a SPM+ raw score of 28 is equivalent to an IQ of 71.70 at age 18.5 or an IQ of 99.02 at age 9. So my calculation is actually more pessimistic about the mental age of African adults than Rushton's is. His method estimates a mental age of 11 years for IQ 70.

    Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht

  50. res says:
    @Vergissmeinnicht
    @res

    I got 'that' from here: One way to comprehend an IQ of 70 is to think in terms of mental age. For example, for adults an IQ of 70 is equivalent to a mental age of 11 years. So the normal range of mental ages in Africa is from 7 to 16 years, with an average at 11 years.
    https://vdare.com/articles/i-q-why-africa-is-africa-and-haiti-haiti

    So, if a 70 IQ individual is basically a 11-years-old, then a 85 IQ should be equivalent to around 16-years-old.

    Replies: @res

    I got ‘that’ from here: One way to comprehend an IQ of 70 is to think in terms of mental age. For example, for adults an IQ of 70 is equivalent to a mental age of 11 years. So the normal range of mental ages in Africa is from 7 to 16 years, with an average at 11 years.
    https://vdare.com/articles/i-q-why-africa-is-africa-and-haiti-haiti

    So, if a 70 IQ individual is basically a 11-years-old, then a 85 IQ should be equivalent to around 16-years-old.

    That’s a pretty good source (2004 article by J. Philippe Rushton), but I think you have misinterpreted it. It uses the old style formulation of IQ as mental age (I would say the approach I gave is more accurate, but let’s analyze Rushton’s way).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_age

    Here is the relevant excerpt from Rushton:

    We found African university students averaged an IQ of 84. In some studies, by other researchers, they have scored lower (IQ = 77). In still others of our studies, highly-selected engineering students who took math and science courses in high school scored higher (IQ = 103).

    Assuming that, like university students elsewhere, the African university students on average score 15 points above the general population, the African general population average of about 70 would appear to be corroborated.

    One way to comprehend an IQ of 70 is to think in terms of mental age. For example, for adults an IQ of 70 is equivalent to a mental age of 11 years. So the normal range of mental ages in Africa is from 7 to 16 years, with an average at 11 years.

    Eleven-year-olds, of course, are not retarded. They can drive cars, build houses, and work in factories—if supervised properly. They can also make war.

    In terms of mental age then, the Africans who drop out of primary school correspond to 7-year-olds. Those who get to high school correspond to 11-year-olds. The top university students we tested correspond to 16- and 17-year-olds.

    Adult Whites, by contrast, have mental ages ranging from 11- to 24-years, with an average mental age of 16- to 18-years.

    The mental age calculation for ratio IQs is: IQ = Mental age ÷ Physical age × 100

    If you substitute in the values Rushton uses you can see what physical age he is using for his adult references.

    At 70 IQ (mental age 11) we have: Physical age = Mental age * 100 / IQ = 11 * 100 / 70 = 15.7
    At 103 IQ (his “top university students”, this is what I think you misunderstood as 85) we have:
    16.5 * 100 / 103 = 16.0

    For 16 year olds with IQ 85 we calculate a mental age of
    Mental age = Physical age × IQ / 100 = 16 * 85 / 100 = 13.6

    So using Rushton’s method we calculate a mental age of 13.6 for IQ 85 (rather than your 16). I think my estimate of 12.5 from my earlier comment using Becker’s spreadsheet SPM+ norms is likely to be more accurate.

    P.S. An additional data point from Becker’s spreadsheet is that a SPM+ raw score of 28 is equivalent to an IQ of 71.70 at age 18.5 or an IQ of 99.02 at age 9. So my calculation is actually more pessimistic about the mental age of African adults than Rushton’s is. His method estimates a mental age of 11 years for IQ 70.

    • Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht
    @res

    I now think that 'mental age' is not a good indicator of much.
    Apparently, one's IQ begins to decline in the mid-20s (although that sounds hard to believe, to me) but a man's earnings apex is in his 40s and 50s; also: who would trust a 21-year-old (sharpest age, IQ-wise) to, say, be the President? I'd much rather have a mid-50s (that is to say, his IQ has been degenerated substantially) man in that sort-of office.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  51. @128
    @Daniel Chieh

    Kill all burn all loot all? It can coexist with a pretty effective military.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    The three “all” strategies did not really help the Japanese very much; their most impressive victories were usually done in lieu of that, and it was executed as a wastage/revenge strategy when the war was essentially lost anyway(second part of Imjin, for example).

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Daniel Chieh

    The Three Alls policy was a very tactically effective response against the Hundred Regiments Offensive: the Communists never launched a major expedition against the Japanese again and stuck to low-intensity guerilla fighting which mainly tied down Wang Jingwei's boys rather than the Japanese. The main effect of the Communist insurgency on the Japanese was minor logistical disruptions that, in the context of highly stressed Japanese supply lines, were definitely felt, but it didn't change the fact that the KMT was doing the bulk of the work against the IJA.

    As I've stated ad nauseum as an Unz commentator, tactical ass-kickings mean diddly-squat without a coherent strategic/political end result, a reality that the American government is spectacularly bad at understanding over a half century after Tet.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Johann Ricke
    @Daniel Chieh


    The three “all” strategies did not really help the Japanese very much
     
    This wasn't some new and unique strategy. It's a fairly basic principle - interdict your enemy's supplies and he starves to death. The 3 alls strategy depleted the enemy's manpower, food and shelter. For instance, in Alexander's time, the solution was, after the high-casualty Battle of Persian Gate, to kill all the men of Persepolis and sell the women and children into slavery.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate
    https://www.livius.org/sources/content/diodorus/alexander-sacks-persepolis/

    Was he some psychopathic exception, the moral equivalent of a maniac who killed babies and ate them? No. In that era, the line between surplus and famine was a thin one. No army had enough surplus to sit around waiting to be attacked by rebels and then launching hunting expeditions. The defeated would submit or die, with mass killings of the kin of known rebels used as a deterrent against hit-and-run rebel attacks (i.e. guerrilla warfare).

    An echo of Alexander's approach was replicated in the 20th century - where the hard-fought Battle of Shanghai was followed by the Massacre at Nanjing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre

    If the Japanese had confined their attentions to China, and set about the methodical task of pacifying it, instead of venturing further afield and adding the West to their list of military adversaries, it would likely have overcome Chinese resistance over the long run. After all, even Chinese civil wars typically took decades to conclusively resolve in the victors' favor. But Japanese decision makers were men in a hurry. Their impatience was what sealed the fate of their territorial ventures, such that they not only lost all their gains, they also lost what had been acquired in decades past.
  52. @Daniel Chieh
    @128

    The three "all" strategies did not really help the Japanese very much; their most impressive victories were usually done in lieu of that, and it was executed as a wastage/revenge strategy when the war was essentially lost anyway(second part of Imjin, for example).

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Johann Ricke

    The Three Alls policy was a very tactically effective response against the Hundred Regiments Offensive: the Communists never launched a major expedition against the Japanese again and stuck to low-intensity guerilla fighting which mainly tied down Wang Jingwei’s boys rather than the Japanese. The main effect of the Communist insurgency on the Japanese was minor logistical disruptions that, in the context of highly stressed Japanese supply lines, were definitely felt, but it didn’t change the fact that the KMT was doing the bulk of the work against the IJA.

    As I’ve stated ad nauseum as an Unz commentator, tactical ass-kickings mean diddly-squat without a coherent strategic/political end result, a reality that the American government is spectacularly bad at understanding over a half century after Tet.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    As I’ve stated ad nauseum as an Unz commentator, tactical ass-kickings mean diddly-squat without a coherent strategic/political end result, a reality that the American government is spectacularly bad at understanding over a half century after Tet.
     
    Agreed.
  53. @nebulafox
    @Daniel Chieh

    The Three Alls policy was a very tactically effective response against the Hundred Regiments Offensive: the Communists never launched a major expedition against the Japanese again and stuck to low-intensity guerilla fighting which mainly tied down Wang Jingwei's boys rather than the Japanese. The main effect of the Communist insurgency on the Japanese was minor logistical disruptions that, in the context of highly stressed Japanese supply lines, were definitely felt, but it didn't change the fact that the KMT was doing the bulk of the work against the IJA.

    As I've stated ad nauseum as an Unz commentator, tactical ass-kickings mean diddly-squat without a coherent strategic/political end result, a reality that the American government is spectacularly bad at understanding over a half century after Tet.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    As I’ve stated ad nauseum as an Unz commentator, tactical ass-kickings mean diddly-squat without a coherent strategic/political end result, a reality that the American government is spectacularly bad at understanding over a half century after Tet.

    Agreed.

    • Agree: Talha, iffen
  54. who attribute blacks having “worse jobs, income, and housing than white people” at least in part “because most just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty” follow:

    The people who disagree with this statement must be race realists who understand that the lower IQ of blacks would necessarily hold them back, regardless of their level of “motivation or willpower.”

    It is puzzling, however, that Liberal Democrats seem to be the group most aware that black motivation is futile in the face of their low-IQ.

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian
    @Hypnotoad666


    The people who disagree with this statement must be race realists who understand that the lower IQ of blacks would necessarily hold them back, regardless of their level of “motivation or willpower.”
     
    It is naive to think willpower and genetic traits are the only factors to getting good jobs, income and housing.

    https://qz.com/455109/entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-gene-for-risk-they-come-from-families-with-money/

    Generational wealth, connections, non-academic education (what's called "good breeding" in old-fashioned English, basically training in higher-class dialect and manners) matter. Growing up with poison in your body (lead, fetal alcohol syndrome) and cultural poison in your mind ("thug life is cool, studying and working is for losers") can make any inborn intelligence useless. Stereotypes about your group being applied to you personally matter - e.g. all Arab restaurants here are euphemistically called Mediterranean and mosques are called Islamic centres, I suppose to avoid scaring people by associations with terrorism.

    Lol even models now get successful not as much by genetic beauty and trained gracefulness, but expensive plastic surgery and their parents financing their Instagram promotion.
    https://youtu.be/S3m5pezHMro

    Replies: @Toronto Russian, @res

  55. @res
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    I got ‘that’ from here: One way to comprehend an IQ of 70 is to think in terms of mental age. For example, for adults an IQ of 70 is equivalent to a mental age of 11 years. So the normal range of mental ages in Africa is from 7 to 16 years, with an average at 11 years.
    https://vdare.com/articles/i-q-why-africa-is-africa-and-haiti-haiti

    So, if a 70 IQ individual is basically a 11-years-old, then a 85 IQ should be equivalent to around 16-years-old.
     
    That's a pretty good source (2004 article by J. Philippe Rushton), but I think you have misinterpreted it. It uses the old style formulation of IQ as mental age (I would say the approach I gave is more accurate, but let's analyze Rushton's way).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_age

    Here is the relevant excerpt from Rushton:

    We found African university students averaged an IQ of 84. In some studies, by other researchers, they have scored lower (IQ = 77). In still others of our studies, highly-selected engineering students who took math and science courses in high school scored higher (IQ = 103).

    Assuming that, like university students elsewhere, the African university students on average score 15 points above the general population, the African general population average of about 70 would appear to be corroborated.

    One way to comprehend an IQ of 70 is to think in terms of mental age. For example, for adults an IQ of 70 is equivalent to a mental age of 11 years. So the normal range of mental ages in Africa is from 7 to 16 years, with an average at 11 years.

    Eleven-year-olds, of course, are not retarded. They can drive cars, build houses, and work in factories—if supervised properly. They can also make war.

    In terms of mental age then, the Africans who drop out of primary school correspond to 7-year-olds. Those who get to high school correspond to 11-year-olds. The top university students we tested correspond to 16- and 17-year-olds.

    Adult Whites, by contrast, have mental ages ranging from 11- to 24-years, with an average mental age of 16- to 18-years.

     

    The mental age calculation for ratio IQs is: IQ = Mental age ÷ Physical age × 100

    If you substitute in the values Rushton uses you can see what physical age he is using for his adult references.

    At 70 IQ (mental age 11) we have: Physical age = Mental age * 100 / IQ = 11 * 100 / 70 = 15.7
    At 103 IQ (his "top university students", this is what I think you misunderstood as 85) we have:
    16.5 * 100 / 103 = 16.0

    For 16 year olds with IQ 85 we calculate a mental age of
    Mental age = Physical age × IQ / 100 = 16 * 85 / 100 = 13.6

    So using Rushton's method we calculate a mental age of 13.6 for IQ 85 (rather than your 16). I think my estimate of 12.5 from my earlier comment using Becker's spreadsheet SPM+ norms is likely to be more accurate.

    P.S. An additional data point from Becker's spreadsheet is that a SPM+ raw score of 28 is equivalent to an IQ of 71.70 at age 18.5 or an IQ of 99.02 at age 9. So my calculation is actually more pessimistic about the mental age of African adults than Rushton's is. His method estimates a mental age of 11 years for IQ 70.

    Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht

    I now think that ‘mental age’ is not a good indicator of much.
    Apparently, one’s IQ begins to decline in the mid-20s (although that sounds hard to believe, to me) but a man’s earnings apex is in his 40s and 50s; also: who would trust a 21-year-old (sharpest age, IQ-wise) to, say, be the President? I’d much rather have a mid-50s (that is to say, his IQ has been degenerated substantially) man in that sort-of office.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    >Apparently, one’s IQ begins to decline in the mid-20s (although that sounds hard to believe, to me) but a man’s earnings apex is in his 40s and 50s;

    I don't buy that for a second. Einstein's famous for what he did at 26, but he did his most intellectual formidable work in his mid-30s after vastly upgrading his mathematicial toolbox. He wouldn't have been able to do that if his IQ was declining appreciably, IMO.

    I do think IQ does eventually decline with age, variable with lifestyle and genetics, of course. Most people just don't think as quickly in their 70s as they did in their 30s and 40s. But mid-20s is usually not that age. And IQ has no correlation to lots of traits you want in a leader. Some of America's likely highest-IQ Presidents were just not cut out for the office personality-wise (Hoover, Carter) or did extremely stupid, impulsive things in office (Nixon, Clinton).

  56. @Talha
    @Truth

    No problem, at your convenience.

    Peace.

    Also, a more in depth lecture on the subject at the college where he is faculty (starts around 8:35) - including questions and answers:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0RMTRd6X_s

    Replies: @Truth

    Good info. Bin Hamid Ali is interesting.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Truth

    He's a super-interesting man; solid traditional credentials in the Maliki school, very academic and also does not buy into the left-liberal nonsense. I get some of the best posts from him on my Twitter timeline:
    https://twitter.com/BinhamidAli/status/1270521412982157313

    More examples below...I get a lot of positive "let's move forward" vibes from him and often post some of his stuff on UNZ.

    Imam Yasin Dwyer is another solid one. Imam Zaid Shakir...we are really blessed to have some of these men as leaders in our community.

    Peace.

    https://twitter.com/BinhamidAli/status/1269975581602373635

    https://twitter.com/BinhamidAli/status/1270872066569326592

    Replies: @RSDB

  57. @Truth
    @Talha

    Good info. Bin Hamid Ali is interesting.

    Replies: @Talha

    He’s a super-interesting man; solid traditional credentials in the Maliki school, very academic and also does not buy into the left-liberal nonsense. I get some of the best posts from him on my Twitter timeline:

    More examples below…I get a lot of positive “let’s move forward” vibes from him and often post some of his stuff on UNZ.

    Imam Yasin Dwyer is another solid one. Imam Zaid Shakir…we are really blessed to have some of these men as leaders in our community.

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @RSDB
    @Talha

    I don't know if he covers this (probably) but the proxy war between the Portuguese and Ottomans in Ethiopia is one of the more interesting little corners of history.

  58. @Vergissmeinnicht
    @res

    I now think that 'mental age' is not a good indicator of much.
    Apparently, one's IQ begins to decline in the mid-20s (although that sounds hard to believe, to me) but a man's earnings apex is in his 40s and 50s; also: who would trust a 21-year-old (sharpest age, IQ-wise) to, say, be the President? I'd much rather have a mid-50s (that is to say, his IQ has been degenerated substantially) man in that sort-of office.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >Apparently, one’s IQ begins to decline in the mid-20s (although that sounds hard to believe, to me) but a man’s earnings apex is in his 40s and 50s;

    I don’t buy that for a second. Einstein’s famous for what he did at 26, but he did his most intellectual formidable work in his mid-30s after vastly upgrading his mathematicial toolbox. He wouldn’t have been able to do that if his IQ was declining appreciably, IMO.

    I do think IQ does eventually decline with age, variable with lifestyle and genetics, of course. Most people just don’t think as quickly in their 70s as they did in their 30s and 40s. But mid-20s is usually not that age. And IQ has no correlation to lots of traits you want in a leader. Some of America’s likely highest-IQ Presidents were just not cut out for the office personality-wise (Hoover, Carter) or did extremely stupid, impulsive things in office (Nixon, Clinton).

  59. The two kinds of power. Power-as-means-of-force. Power as moral authority. Ideally, the existing Power has both. It controls the apparatus of violence, which is ‘inherent’ in any system. After all, there has to be the threat of force, coercion, or violence in case people, especially criminals and radicals, get out of hand. Ideal power would also possess moral authority, and most people would look upon the Power as just, valid, and legitimate.

    If there is only power-as-means-of-force, the system can be maintained but only by brutal repression and/or bread-and-circus mass-bribery(which is costly and effective only for the duration of good times). The right-wing militarist regimes that ruled with ‘death squads’ in Central America had the power of means(especially with the backing of the US), but they lacked moral authority. Same could be said of the Shah of Iran. He had the ruthless means of keeping power by brutality and mass torture. He also had the backing of the US, and there was economic growth that pacified a sector of the population. But most Iranians saw him as illegitimate, and he got no respect.

    In contrast, the Castroite Regime of Cuba had, at least for a time(and perhaps even now to some degree), the combination of the means of force and moral authority. It not only set up a ruthless system of control but came to power with the mandate of the people who welcomed the revolution as national liberation from a puppet tyrant backed by the CIA and the Mafia. During the Cold War, massive Soviet support made life in Cuba better than in most Latin American nations. There was less freedom, but many Cubans accepted it as the cost for independence from Yanqui Imperialismo.

    Now, from the perspective of moral reasoning, what may be deemed morally justified in a particular time and place may not pass muster. We may say communism is a bad idea and a dead end, and History has indeed passed such judgement on the ideology. And we may look upon the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as ultimately tragic because it led to theocratic tyranny. Still, even if a bad(or even evil) system comes to power, it may be regarded as morally legitimate to the people of the time and place. This was certainly true among many Germans who, at least before things began to go south during World War II, regarded Adolf Hitler’s regime as justified, indeed the savior of the German volk, nation, and honor. And plenty of Chinese, despite the horrors of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, have continued to regard the CCP as the legitimate authority in China. And for all his brutality and violence, Stalin had plenty of admirers in the USSR when he was alive(and even after his death).
    Moral authority can derive from various sources or reasons. It could be that the new power is a marked improvement over the earlier one. For many Germans, things were much better in National Socialist Germany than in Weimar Germany. Many Russians feel that things got much better under Vladimir Putin than when Russia was ruled by Jewish globalist oligarchs and their stooge Boris Yeltsin. (The Putin legitimacy cannot be understood apart from the hellish 1990s.) But moral authority could also be the product of mass propaganda. Mao Zedong remained legitimate in China despite the massive failure of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution because CCP controlled all media and education. Even if Mao made things worse, the young ones were only taught one thing, and everyone got the news from a single source. So, moral authority isn’t the same as true morality. In a system, the majority of people can support a cult of immorality as having moral authority while condemning true morality as the work of the Devil. We have that in the US, where so many people, even ‘conservatives’, now support ‘gay marriage’ and worship globo-homo-mania while howling with rage at defenders of true marriage and sanity on sexual reality.

    If some systems have the power-as-means-of-force but lack moral authority, some groups have the power of moral authority but lack the means of force. In time, the latter can struggle to gain hard power and triumph. In Iran, the revolutionaries gained moral authority among the people, and mass unrest eventually led to Shah’s dethronement and the rise of the Ayatollahs in government. In Vietnam, the national-communists who waved the Ho Chi Minh banner were legitimate in the eyes of many whereas the regime in the South was regarded as a puppet of US imperialism. Granted, plenty of Vietnamese didn’t want to be ruled by the communists and would have preferred national independence/liberation minus the Leninism-Stalinism. But the southern regime was so lacking in authority and legitimacy that it failed to muster real support, the kind that might have led to a successful defense of the south. Eventually, the Vietnamese in the north, with more legitimacy and discipline, prevailed over the southern regime that could only maintain power with backing of US imperialism and bribery through bread-and-circuses(or rice-and-blackmarket) made possible by foreign cash infusions.

    Speaking of the problems of power-as-means-of-force and power as moral authority, we are witnessing something surreal in the West. Even now in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe, the power-as-means-of-force is still controlled mostly by whites. Look at most of the upper echelons in the military, government, law firms & courts, police departments, intelligence services, and the like, and most of the members are white(or Jewish). There are prominent non-whites, usually blacks, but they are mostly tokens presented to the public as the FACE of the power that is still mostly white in actual operation.
    But the problem is, due to endless PC and anti-white propaganda, whites no longer have much in the way of moral authority. In some ways, they have something close to NEGATIVE moral authority; they might as well be the Devil Incarnate. When the Evil Race controls most of the power-as-means-of-force, the moral implication is they must give it up OR use their power ONLY to redeem their evil white selves or rectify the evil conditions resulting from ‘white supremacy’ or ‘white privilege’, i.e. whites must use power to negate white power. We saw in the recent riots the result of such thinking. White people-of-power had the material means to shut down the violence and restore order, but many of them thought that they, as Evil People, had no moral authority to use the power in such manner. (To be sure, the ‘paralysis’ was also cynical and calculated, a means for the Deep State to make Donald Trump look either too weak, impotent, and incapable to rule OR too tyrannical in calling on the military to restore order.) Initially, it seemed New York would be spared the worst of the rioting because Jews are just too powerful there, but the ‘moral logic’ spread there as well. Mayor Bill DeBlasio’s shtick has been as an Apologetic and Atoning white man, i.e. since whites lack the power of moral authority, DeBlasio felt compelled to use his political authority in support of blacks and against whites(or anyone disregarded by blacks).

    If whites got power-as-means-of-force but hardly any moral authority left, blacks don’t have much in the way of power-as-means-of-force but have come to dominate power as moral authority. While there are plenty of blacks in government, military, and even in some police departments, most of the upper command structure is still dominated by whites(and of course, most elite blacks are in the pocket of Jewish oligarchs, as has been so obvious with the likes of Barack Obama and Susan Rice). During the Civil Rights Era, blacks gained moral authority over whites because of the Struggle-against-Oppression Narrative. But it was far from total moral authority or moral apotheosis; MLK was a controversial figure in the eyes of many, most Americans opposed race-mixing, and George Wallace found much popularity. But since then, the MLK cult has become the new religion. Nelson Mandela has been lionized as the second greatest man ever. Most American kids think the story of Harriet Tubman is 50% of US history. Hollywood gave us the Magic Negro in stuff like GREEN MILE. And as blacks are into ego-tripping self-worship, they’ve promoted nothing but themselves. Ironically, the rise of black nihilism also fed into black moral authority. After all, while one aspect of Americanism is the preening moralism — the City on the Hill vision — , the other is the cult of the winner and disdain for losers. People dream of coming to the US to win as Tony Montanas, not to be losers. So, even though most blacks in sports and pop culture have been demented, stupid, lecherous, immoral, or imbecile, the successes made blacks seem ultra-badass-cool in the American(and global) imagination. As Americanist winner-takes-all nihilism has infected the world, the black rapper and black athlete idolatry have made people the world over especially reverential about blackness. Indeed, the reason why the American Indians, though theoretically of even greater moral authority as the Ultimate Victims of American History, are neglected by Americans and the World is because they score low in the game of winner-takes-all nihilism that defines Americanism. In an Americanized world that prizes idolatry over humanism, nihilist points adds to moral authority. Blacks-as-thugs get more hugs.

    We are now at the crossroads in history where whites still got most of the power-as-means-of-force but don’t know what to do with it during times of crisis as they lack moral authority to act, especially against blacks who commit the most violence. And blacks got the most moral authority, but they are frustrated because they don’t control the power-as-means-of-force. Why not? Blacks will say it’s due to the history of ‘racism’, but it’s due to black ineptitude, criminality, laziness, stupidity, and irresponsibility. After all, whether one has moral authority or not, the proper way to rise up the ladder of power-as-means-of-force is to master skills, finish school, gain credentials, and demonstrate ability & accountability. Many blacks utterly fail in this. So, even though whites are more than eager to hand over their illegitimate power to blacks who now hog moral authority, the process of power-transference is undermined by the fact that too many blacks remain unqualified to gain and hold any lever of power. The problem isn’t White Discrimination but Black Incrimination. Black performance or behavior too often incriminates them as foolish, stupid, violent, inept, irresponsible, demented, and/or jive-ass.
    At this juncture in history, many whites are more than willing to hand over power-as-means-of-force to non-whites, especially blacks. But the people they favor most, blacks, are least adept at working in the current system to gain the credentials to take the power from whites. Whites, as redemptive devil incarnate, are telling blacks, “Look we are worthless, and you blacks are holy. We don’t deserve what we have, and it should all go to you. So, if you just finish school, act half-way decent and responsible, you can have my job and my status. You can marry my daughter and even do my wife. I will cuck before you and wash your feet and kiss your ass. Just finish college and earn the credentials, and everything I have is YOURS. Look how we made Obama the president simply because he smiled and said nice things.” So, whites are willing to hand over all power to blacks as the true master race because blacks are deemed superior in body and soul. But every time whites try to hand over the silver platter, blacks knock it down and mess it all up. (Look what blacks have made of Zimbabwe and South Africa, but let’s just pretend blacks are natural saints.)

    This is all very confusing. It’s further confused because whites claim to be in atonement mode but feel zero moral guilt about what they did to Palestinians and Arabs in their mindless support of Zionist supremacism. And blacks seem to be of two minds as well. On the one hand, blacks pretend to be allies with all the oppressed of the world against white supremacism and white privilege. At the same time, blacks seem most eager to take over the Power created by whites and act as the new imperialist masters of the world. After all, if blacks are truly appalled by supremacism, why don’t they denounce blacks in the military? Aren’t black military men participating in the US imperialist domination over other parts of the world? Aren’t blacks taking part in the Zionist Wars that have killed so many Arabs and Muslims? Didn’t Obama wreck entire nations? But blacks don’t seem to be bothered by any of that AS LONG AS they perceive the US military as an empowerment vehicle for blacks. So, do blacks really want to resist and end the Power System created by whites or do they just want to take over as New Masters of it? Is supremacism okay with blacks as long as THEY get to dominate the power-as-means-of-force? Is black consciousness like that of Jews? We know from the Jewish Experience that Jewish criticism of Wasp Power wasn’t to destroy the power itself but to take it over so that the US empire would be controlled by Jews. The very Jews who’d once denounced US militarism and imperialism in the 60s were later the biggest cheerleaders of US global power once their tribe was at the helm.

    Indeed, how do Jews fit into the current crisis? Are Jews also white and lacking in moral authority? Or, as Holocaust Whites, are they exempt from the label of Whites-as-Devil-Incarnate? But what of New York Jews having employed heavy-handed white police to cut down on black crime? And what of Jews having urged white police across the US to take pointers from Israel in controlling the black criminal elements? As yet, Jews still have a lot of moral authority as the Shoah Narrative has been baked into the Western Consciousness, but when so much of Jewish Privilege seems like ultra-white-privilege to blacks and non-whites, how long can Jews sustain this? In the recent riots, Jews publicly sided with black rioters who’ve been granted moral authority to ‘protest against racism’, but they seem very nervous and uncomfortable because Jewish Urban Well-being owes so much to white policemen controlling the unruly blacks. Jews are mixing oil & water and getting violent reactions from the melting pot turned frying pan.

    Again, moral authority isn’t the same as true morality. That blacks got so much moral authority is absolutely scandalous. True, blacks were enslaved and faced discrimination through much of American History, but history is never static. It’s ridiculous to regard blacks NOW on the basis of blacks THEN. It’s like it’d be stupid to regard Chinese NOW on basis of how Chinese were 100 yrs ago. Back then, China was the Sick Man of Asia. Today, it is a rising or even risen power. Germanic Barbarians were once victims of Roman conquerors. Later, they were rulers over the Romans. And sometimes, history changes fast. Jews were on the ropes in Europe during World War II, but they are now rulers of the West. Also, black behavior owes more to evolution over 100,000 yrs than 200 yrs of slavery. Besides, black conditions in America were hardly all that oppressive by world/historical standards as most of human history has been about oppression, wars, empires, slavery, and etc. The real problem with blacks is they evolved to be the thug-hunter-warrior race. Blame evolution in Africa where black traits were selected for mastery in chucking spears at hippos and beating on bongo drums and shaking booty. That’s why blacks succeed in sports and funky music while often failing with books and math.
    So, black moral authority is really a joke(but then ‘woke’ is a joke, or joke that no one gets). It is more the product of Jewish propaganda, white gullibility, black megalomania, American nihilism, and Jungle Fever/Jungle Faith. Jews pushed black holiness to bait whites with ‘white guilt’, thereby making them subservient to Jews(as ‘fellow victim’ allies of blacks). In the post-Christian world, white imagination hungered for a new god, and the Magic Negro filled the void(along with globo-homo, it seems). Blacks just can’t get enough of themselves, and the American Obsession with sports and pop music turned blacks into demi-gods. So many Americans look to Jay-Z and Ice-Cube’s twitter feed for ‘moral instruction’ and ‘spiritual guidance’. This is why even a lowlife moron like George Floyd, who died more from bad drugs than a white knee, is now suddenly bigger than even Michael Jackson.
    But then, moral authority can even be held by the Devil, as homos and trannies have so well illustrated. Most people are incapable of moral reasoning, and their sense of good-and-evil really derives from manipulation of idolatry, iconography, and mantras. Just chant ‘black lives matter’ a bunch of times while envisioning George Floyd as some angel, and that’s Moral Authority in the Current Year. Donald Trump says St. George is looking down upon us from heaven. More likely, an angel has a knee on the ghastly Negro’s neck and is about to cast his stupid black ass down to hell.

    In the past, whites had both power-as-means-of-force and much moral authority. Look back 100 yrs ago to 1920, and it was a proud white nation. Look back 50 yrs to 1970, and it was still a nation where whites had material power and moral power, though slipping. But now, the US is a Jewish-controlled world. Jewish Power is real as both means-of-force and moral authority. Jews do control most of the top institutions and many top industries. Jews not only hog Deep State power but use Antifa as paramilitary goon force to terrorize white patriots. Antifa is their ‘Luca Brasi’.
    Jews also have moral power as the Shoah People. But because Jews are nervous about being perceived as powerful, their power-as-means-of-force is mostly hidden. If Jews said, “We rule America with material power backed by moral authority”, things would be somewhat less confusing. But while Jews make a big deal of their moral authority, they try to hide their actual means of power. As a result, many people are confused as to who really rules America. Jews rule America, but Jews say “White Privilege Rules America”(which would suggest American Power is illegitimate). Jewish Power is the uppermost of White Privilege, but Jews position themselves as allies of Diversity against White Privilege.
    Now, things might be clearer if white goyim spelled it all out and said, “No, Jewish-White Privilege rules America, and we white goyim are now just cuck-collaborators of Jews who hold the supreme power. We whites do as Jews tell us to, like waging Wars for Israel, hating on Russia & Iran, supporting Zionist ‘genocide’ of Palestinians, and arresting more blacks to make cities safer for Jews and homos.” But as whites who say such would be condemned of ‘Antisemitism’ and hounded out of their positions, whites just go on with the charade that THEY rule America while Jews are saintly allies of blacks and Diversity oppressed by White Privilege. But such a grand narrative means that the Existing Power System in the US is utterly lacking in moral legitimacy and undeserving of moral authority. If indeed US is ruled by White Privilege, then it is ruled by Evil because White Privilege is, as we’ve all been told over and over, an ill-gotten product of history of white supremacy.
    Current Power would seem legitimate if Jews said they got the power since they do have moral authority(as the noble and tragic Shoah People). But Jews are too nervous about being blamed for all the problems IF they were to openly admit their dominant position in the US. After all, admission of power has a way of eroding moral authority as most people tend to blame those in power for whatever goes wrong. (Wasps admitted they ruled America, and guess what happened? They got blamed for everything and lost legitimacy.) It’s like the Castroite regime in Cuba and the Ayatollahs in Iran began with lots of moral authority but much of the respect has eroded away over the years. So, if Jews want to maintain their identity as Holy Holocaust People in pristine condition, it’s not wise to admit that they now have the power and, as such, are responsible for all that go wrong in the US and the world. (Netanyahu’s arrogant style of “I rule the goyim” has undermined the moral authority of Zion in the eyes of the world.)

    Anyway, whites are cucks of Jews, but the Jewish Narrative says White Privilege(of the goy kind mostly) rules America. The notion of ‘white privilege’ implies that the power held by whites is illegitimate. Then, the ONLY way to make the power legitimate is by handing it over to those with moral authority. Jews got the moral authority but don’t want to admit they got the power. How about to homos? Jewish Media and Academia imbued homos with great deal of moral and ‘spiritual’ capital, and so many Americans now eagerly vote for any ‘gay’ candidate on grounds that homos got moral authority. And for awhile, it seemed homos would spearhead gentrification and make big cities safe of the Negro Criminal Menace. Also, as Obama belonged to Jews and homos, he spent most of his presidency pushing the Section 8 line, or More Gentrification. But then, Obama had to prove his street cred with blacks and dabbled with BLM, not knowing it would blow up big time. And then Donald Trump happened, and Jews got desperate with various means to unseat him. They tried the Russia Collusion hoax, the Ukraine Impeachment, the Covid Crisis, and then black riots. Riling up black rage was deemed especially necessary as Jews began to fear that Trumpism might make blacks think twice about supporting the Democratic Party that seemed more about globo-homo and immigration than conditions for blacks. If Trump offered more jobs to blacks, the Democrats could at least offer them free loot in the form of riots. But the riots are also blowing up in Jewish faces as blacks tend to be rather unruly and strike out in every direction, especially in blue cities. While Jews could handle homos like well-trained dogs, unleashing black rage is like letting pit-bulls run loose. You never quite know whom they will maul next. Homos march in parades, blacks loot in riots. Homos raise property values for yuppies, blacks drive down values and drive out businesses. (Another reason why the Democrats may be pandering more to blacks is that immigration decreased under Trump. Perhaps, Democrats hoped that MORE IMMIGRATION would eventually make black votes less essential to the Party. After all, California would be comfortably Democratic even without the black vote as all those yellows and browns vote Democratic. But if immigration continues to ebb, Democrats will have to shore up black votes.)

    Still, we all got the memo: (1) Blacks got supreme moral authority and have the right to rule but don’t rule. (2) Whites got no moral authority and don’t deserve to rule but rule with all their ill-gotten white privilege. Then, what is to be done? Hand over power to blacks? But how many blacks are well-schooled and ready for such task? The Current West says the unruly blacks should rule over whites who have no right to rule but rule anyway due to legacy of ‘racism’, the greatest evil of all time in the whole universe, but it has no means of bringing about the necessary transference of power because whites continue to be better-credentialed while blacks continue to fail.
    Besides, the Jews who really do rule choose to remain in the shadows while blaming White Privilege, thus spreading the impression that the West is ruled illegitimately by whites who are utterly lacking in moral authority. White apologetics makes for poor authority of power. Then, it’s no wonder that Jews and whites were, for a time, so happy with globo-homo as the face of US power. For Jews, homos were useful and loyal proxies of Jewish Supremacist Power, and for deracinated and cucked whites, homo power seemed white-friendly and imbued with moral authority(in a world where decadence was the New Normal in righteousness). But there was something so shallow and hollow about homos(and then trannies) as the stalwart face of moral authority in the West, especially as so many homos were affluent and working so chummily with the Deep State, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Wall Street. In time, it just seemed like a deviant form of White Privilege. It’s so much more compelling to run with a narrative that involves slavery, whipping, lynchings, police brutality, and ‘innocent’ black men being killed in the streets by ‘racism’. But how long will it take for blacks to earn the credentials and gain the skills to receive the power that is being handed to them on a silver platter by cucky-wuck whites?

    • Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read
    @Priss Factor

    More! More! More!



    Just kidding.

    , @Talha
    @Priss Factor

    For the love of God, man!!! Use the MORE tag! At least for half of the post.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Priss Factor

    , @The Soft Parade
    @Priss Factor


    "It’s so much more compelling to run with a narrative [solution ] that involves slavery, whipping, lynchings, police brutality, and ‘innocent’ black men being killed in the streets by ‘racism’."
     
    ah compellable me ...stop it !
  60. @Priss Factor
    The two kinds of power. Power-as-means-of-force. Power as moral authority. Ideally, the existing Power has both. It controls the apparatus of violence, which is 'inherent' in any system. After all, there has to be the threat of force, coercion, or violence in case people, especially criminals and radicals, get out of hand. Ideal power would also possess moral authority, and most people would look upon the Power as just, valid, and legitimate.

    If there is only power-as-means-of-force, the system can be maintained but only by brutal repression and/or bread-and-circus mass-bribery(which is costly and effective only for the duration of good times). The right-wing militarist regimes that ruled with 'death squads' in Central America had the power of means(especially with the backing of the US), but they lacked moral authority. Same could be said of the Shah of Iran. He had the ruthless means of keeping power by brutality and mass torture. He also had the backing of the US, and there was economic growth that pacified a sector of the population. But most Iranians saw him as illegitimate, and he got no respect.

    In contrast, the Castroite Regime of Cuba had, at least for a time(and perhaps even now to some degree), the combination of the means of force and moral authority. It not only set up a ruthless system of control but came to power with the mandate of the people who welcomed the revolution as national liberation from a puppet tyrant backed by the CIA and the Mafia. During the Cold War, massive Soviet support made life in Cuba better than in most Latin American nations. There was less freedom, but many Cubans accepted it as the cost for independence from Yanqui Imperialismo.

    Now, from the perspective of moral reasoning, what may be deemed morally justified in a particular time and place may not pass muster. We may say communism is a bad idea and a dead end, and History has indeed passed such judgement on the ideology. And we may look upon the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as ultimately tragic because it led to theocratic tyranny. Still, even if a bad(or even evil) system comes to power, it may be regarded as morally legitimate to the people of the time and place. This was certainly true among many Germans who, at least before things began to go south during World War II, regarded Adolf Hitler's regime as justified, indeed the savior of the German volk, nation, and honor. And plenty of Chinese, despite the horrors of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, have continued to regard the CCP as the legitimate authority in China. And for all his brutality and violence, Stalin had plenty of admirers in the USSR when he was alive(and even after his death).
    Moral authority can derive from various sources or reasons. It could be that the new power is a marked improvement over the earlier one. For many Germans, things were much better in National Socialist Germany than in Weimar Germany. Many Russians feel that things got much better under Vladimir Putin than when Russia was ruled by Jewish globalist oligarchs and their stooge Boris Yeltsin. (The Putin legitimacy cannot be understood apart from the hellish 1990s.) But moral authority could also be the product of mass propaganda. Mao Zedong remained legitimate in China despite the massive failure of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution because CCP controlled all media and education. Even if Mao made things worse, the young ones were only taught one thing, and everyone got the news from a single source. So, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. In a system, the majority of people can support a cult of immorality as having moral authority while condemning true morality as the work of the Devil. We have that in the US, where so many people, even 'conservatives', now support 'gay marriage' and worship globo-homo-mania while howling with rage at defenders of true marriage and sanity on sexual reality.

    If some systems have the power-as-means-of-force but lack moral authority, some groups have the power of moral authority but lack the means of force. In time, the latter can struggle to gain hard power and triumph. In Iran, the revolutionaries gained moral authority among the people, and mass unrest eventually led to Shah's dethronement and the rise of the Ayatollahs in government. In Vietnam, the national-communists who waved the Ho Chi Minh banner were legitimate in the eyes of many whereas the regime in the South was regarded as a puppet of US imperialism. Granted, plenty of Vietnamese didn't want to be ruled by the communists and would have preferred national independence/liberation minus the Leninism-Stalinism. But the southern regime was so lacking in authority and legitimacy that it failed to muster real support, the kind that might have led to a successful defense of the south. Eventually, the Vietnamese in the north, with more legitimacy and discipline, prevailed over the southern regime that could only maintain power with backing of US imperialism and bribery through bread-and-circuses(or rice-and-blackmarket) made possible by foreign cash infusions.

    Speaking of the problems of power-as-means-of-force and power as moral authority, we are witnessing something surreal in the West. Even now in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe, the power-as-means-of-force is still controlled mostly by whites. Look at most of the upper echelons in the military, government, law firms & courts, police departments, intelligence services, and the like, and most of the members are white(or Jewish). There are prominent non-whites, usually blacks, but they are mostly tokens presented to the public as the FACE of the power that is still mostly white in actual operation.
    But the problem is, due to endless PC and anti-white propaganda, whites no longer have much in the way of moral authority. In some ways, they have something close to NEGATIVE moral authority; they might as well be the Devil Incarnate. When the Evil Race controls most of the power-as-means-of-force, the moral implication is they must give it up OR use their power ONLY to redeem their evil white selves or rectify the evil conditions resulting from 'white supremacy' or 'white privilege', i.e. whites must use power to negate white power. We saw in the recent riots the result of such thinking. White people-of-power had the material means to shut down the violence and restore order, but many of them thought that they, as Evil People, had no moral authority to use the power in such manner. (To be sure, the 'paralysis' was also cynical and calculated, a means for the Deep State to make Donald Trump look either too weak, impotent, and incapable to rule OR too tyrannical in calling on the military to restore order.) Initially, it seemed New York would be spared the worst of the rioting because Jews are just too powerful there, but the 'moral logic' spread there as well. Mayor Bill DeBlasio's shtick has been as an Apologetic and Atoning white man, i.e. since whites lack the power of moral authority, DeBlasio felt compelled to use his political authority in support of blacks and against whites(or anyone disregarded by blacks).

    If whites got power-as-means-of-force but hardly any moral authority left, blacks don't have much in the way of power-as-means-of-force but have come to dominate power as moral authority. While there are plenty of blacks in government, military, and even in some police departments, most of the upper command structure is still dominated by whites(and of course, most elite blacks are in the pocket of Jewish oligarchs, as has been so obvious with the likes of Barack Obama and Susan Rice). During the Civil Rights Era, blacks gained moral authority over whites because of the Struggle-against-Oppression Narrative. But it was far from total moral authority or moral apotheosis; MLK was a controversial figure in the eyes of many, most Americans opposed race-mixing, and George Wallace found much popularity. But since then, the MLK cult has become the new religion. Nelson Mandela has been lionized as the second greatest man ever. Most American kids think the story of Harriet Tubman is 50% of US history. Hollywood gave us the Magic Negro in stuff like GREEN MILE. And as blacks are into ego-tripping self-worship, they've promoted nothing but themselves. Ironically, the rise of black nihilism also fed into black moral authority. After all, while one aspect of Americanism is the preening moralism — the City on the Hill vision — , the other is the cult of the winner and disdain for losers. People dream of coming to the US to win as Tony Montanas, not to be losers. So, even though most blacks in sports and pop culture have been demented, stupid, lecherous, immoral, or imbecile, the successes made blacks seem ultra-badass-cool in the American(and global) imagination. As Americanist winner-takes-all nihilism has infected the world, the black rapper and black athlete idolatry have made people the world over especially reverential about blackness. Indeed, the reason why the American Indians, though theoretically of even greater moral authority as the Ultimate Victims of American History, are neglected by Americans and the World is because they score low in the game of winner-takes-all nihilism that defines Americanism. In an Americanized world that prizes idolatry over humanism, nihilist points adds to moral authority. Blacks-as-thugs get more hugs.

    We are now at the crossroads in history where whites still got most of the power-as-means-of-force but don't know what to do with it during times of crisis as they lack moral authority to act, especially against blacks who commit the most violence. And blacks got the most moral authority, but they are frustrated because they don't control the power-as-means-of-force. Why not? Blacks will say it's due to the history of 'racism', but it's due to black ineptitude, criminality, laziness, stupidity, and irresponsibility. After all, whether one has moral authority or not, the proper way to rise up the ladder of power-as-means-of-force is to master skills, finish school, gain credentials, and demonstrate ability & accountability. Many blacks utterly fail in this. So, even though whites are more than eager to hand over their illegitimate power to blacks who now hog moral authority, the process of power-transference is undermined by the fact that too many blacks remain unqualified to gain and hold any lever of power. The problem isn't White Discrimination but Black Incrimination. Black performance or behavior too often incriminates them as foolish, stupid, violent, inept, irresponsible, demented, and/or jive-ass.
    At this juncture in history, many whites are more than willing to hand over power-as-means-of-force to non-whites, especially blacks. But the people they favor most, blacks, are least adept at working in the current system to gain the credentials to take the power from whites. Whites, as redemptive devil incarnate, are telling blacks, "Look we are worthless, and you blacks are holy. We don't deserve what we have, and it should all go to you. So, if you just finish school, act half-way decent and responsible, you can have my job and my status. You can marry my daughter and even do my wife. I will cuck before you and wash your feet and kiss your ass. Just finish college and earn the credentials, and everything I have is YOURS. Look how we made Obama the president simply because he smiled and said nice things." So, whites are willing to hand over all power to blacks as the true master race because blacks are deemed superior in body and soul. But every time whites try to hand over the silver platter, blacks knock it down and mess it all up. (Look what blacks have made of Zimbabwe and South Africa, but let's just pretend blacks are natural saints.)

    This is all very confusing. It's further confused because whites claim to be in atonement mode but feel zero moral guilt about what they did to Palestinians and Arabs in their mindless support of Zionist supremacism. And blacks seem to be of two minds as well. On the one hand, blacks pretend to be allies with all the oppressed of the world against white supremacism and white privilege. At the same time, blacks seem most eager to take over the Power created by whites and act as the new imperialist masters of the world. After all, if blacks are truly appalled by supremacism, why don't they denounce blacks in the military? Aren't black military men participating in the US imperialist domination over other parts of the world? Aren't blacks taking part in the Zionist Wars that have killed so many Arabs and Muslims? Didn't Obama wreck entire nations? But blacks don't seem to be bothered by any of that AS LONG AS they perceive the US military as an empowerment vehicle for blacks. So, do blacks really want to resist and end the Power System created by whites or do they just want to take over as New Masters of it? Is supremacism okay with blacks as long as THEY get to dominate the power-as-means-of-force? Is black consciousness like that of Jews? We know from the Jewish Experience that Jewish criticism of Wasp Power wasn't to destroy the power itself but to take it over so that the US empire would be controlled by Jews. The very Jews who'd once denounced US militarism and imperialism in the 60s were later the biggest cheerleaders of US global power once their tribe was at the helm.

    Indeed, how do Jews fit into the current crisis? Are Jews also white and lacking in moral authority? Or, as Holocaust Whites, are they exempt from the label of Whites-as-Devil-Incarnate? But what of New York Jews having employed heavy-handed white police to cut down on black crime? And what of Jews having urged white police across the US to take pointers from Israel in controlling the black criminal elements? As yet, Jews still have a lot of moral authority as the Shoah Narrative has been baked into the Western Consciousness, but when so much of Jewish Privilege seems like ultra-white-privilege to blacks and non-whites, how long can Jews sustain this? In the recent riots, Jews publicly sided with black rioters who've been granted moral authority to 'protest against racism', but they seem very nervous and uncomfortable because Jewish Urban Well-being owes so much to white policemen controlling the unruly blacks. Jews are mixing oil & water and getting violent reactions from the melting pot turned frying pan.

    Again, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. That blacks got so much moral authority is absolutely scandalous. True, blacks were enslaved and faced discrimination through much of American History, but history is never static. It's ridiculous to regard blacks NOW on the basis of blacks THEN. It's like it'd be stupid to regard Chinese NOW on basis of how Chinese were 100 yrs ago. Back then, China was the Sick Man of Asia. Today, it is a rising or even risen power. Germanic Barbarians were once victims of Roman conquerors. Later, they were rulers over the Romans. And sometimes, history changes fast. Jews were on the ropes in Europe during World War II, but they are now rulers of the West. Also, black behavior owes more to evolution over 100,000 yrs than 200 yrs of slavery. Besides, black conditions in America were hardly all that oppressive by world/historical standards as most of human history has been about oppression, wars, empires, slavery, and etc. The real problem with blacks is they evolved to be the thug-hunter-warrior race. Blame evolution in Africa where black traits were selected for mastery in chucking spears at hippos and beating on bongo drums and shaking booty. That's why blacks succeed in sports and funky music while often failing with books and math.
    So, black moral authority is really a joke(but then 'woke' is a joke, or joke that no one gets). It is more the product of Jewish propaganda, white gullibility, black megalomania, American nihilism, and Jungle Fever/Jungle Faith. Jews pushed black holiness to bait whites with 'white guilt', thereby making them subservient to Jews(as 'fellow victim' allies of blacks). In the post-Christian world, white imagination hungered for a new god, and the Magic Negro filled the void(along with globo-homo, it seems). Blacks just can't get enough of themselves, and the American Obsession with sports and pop music turned blacks into demi-gods. So many Americans look to Jay-Z and Ice-Cube's twitter feed for 'moral instruction' and 'spiritual guidance'. This is why even a lowlife moron like George Floyd, who died more from bad drugs than a white knee, is now suddenly bigger than even Michael Jackson.
    But then, moral authority can even be held by the Devil, as homos and trannies have so well illustrated. Most people are incapable of moral reasoning, and their sense of good-and-evil really derives from manipulation of idolatry, iconography, and mantras. Just chant 'black lives matter' a bunch of times while envisioning George Floyd as some angel, and that's Moral Authority in the Current Year. Donald Trump says St. George is looking down upon us from heaven. More likely, an angel has a knee on the ghastly Negro's neck and is about to cast his stupid black ass down to hell.

    In the past, whites had both power-as-means-of-force and much moral authority. Look back 100 yrs ago to 1920, and it was a proud white nation. Look back 50 yrs to 1970, and it was still a nation where whites had material power and moral power, though slipping. But now, the US is a Jewish-controlled world. Jewish Power is real as both means-of-force and moral authority. Jews do control most of the top institutions and many top industries. Jews not only hog Deep State power but use Antifa as paramilitary goon force to terrorize white patriots. Antifa is their 'Luca Brasi'.
    Jews also have moral power as the Shoah People. But because Jews are nervous about being perceived as powerful, their power-as-means-of-force is mostly hidden. If Jews said, "We rule America with material power backed by moral authority", things would be somewhat less confusing. But while Jews make a big deal of their moral authority, they try to hide their actual means of power. As a result, many people are confused as to who really rules America. Jews rule America, but Jews say "White Privilege Rules America"(which would suggest American Power is illegitimate). Jewish Power is the uppermost of White Privilege, but Jews position themselves as allies of Diversity against White Privilege.
    Now, things might be clearer if white goyim spelled it all out and said, "No, Jewish-White Privilege rules America, and we white goyim are now just cuck-collaborators of Jews who hold the supreme power. We whites do as Jews tell us to, like waging Wars for Israel, hating on Russia & Iran, supporting Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians, and arresting more blacks to make cities safer for Jews and homos." But as whites who say such would be condemned of 'Antisemitism' and hounded out of their positions, whites just go on with the charade that THEY rule America while Jews are saintly allies of blacks and Diversity oppressed by White Privilege. But such a grand narrative means that the Existing Power System in the US is utterly lacking in moral legitimacy and undeserving of moral authority. If indeed US is ruled by White Privilege, then it is ruled by Evil because White Privilege is, as we've all been told over and over, an ill-gotten product of history of white supremacy.
    Current Power would seem legitimate if Jews said they got the power since they do have moral authority(as the noble and tragic Shoah People). But Jews are too nervous about being blamed for all the problems IF they were to openly admit their dominant position in the US. After all, admission of power has a way of eroding moral authority as most people tend to blame those in power for whatever goes wrong. (Wasps admitted they ruled America, and guess what happened? They got blamed for everything and lost legitimacy.) It's like the Castroite regime in Cuba and the Ayatollahs in Iran began with lots of moral authority but much of the respect has eroded away over the years. So, if Jews want to maintain their identity as Holy Holocaust People in pristine condition, it's not wise to admit that they now have the power and, as such, are responsible for all that go wrong in the US and the world. (Netanyahu's arrogant style of "I rule the goyim" has undermined the moral authority of Zion in the eyes of the world.)

    Anyway, whites are cucks of Jews, but the Jewish Narrative says White Privilege(of the goy kind mostly) rules America. The notion of 'white privilege' implies that the power held by whites is illegitimate. Then, the ONLY way to make the power legitimate is by handing it over to those with moral authority. Jews got the moral authority but don't want to admit they got the power. How about to homos? Jewish Media and Academia imbued homos with great deal of moral and 'spiritual' capital, and so many Americans now eagerly vote for any 'gay' candidate on grounds that homos got moral authority. And for awhile, it seemed homos would spearhead gentrification and make big cities safe of the Negro Criminal Menace. Also, as Obama belonged to Jews and homos, he spent most of his presidency pushing the Section 8 line, or More Gentrification. But then, Obama had to prove his street cred with blacks and dabbled with BLM, not knowing it would blow up big time. And then Donald Trump happened, and Jews got desperate with various means to unseat him. They tried the Russia Collusion hoax, the Ukraine Impeachment, the Covid Crisis, and then black riots. Riling up black rage was deemed especially necessary as Jews began to fear that Trumpism might make blacks think twice about supporting the Democratic Party that seemed more about globo-homo and immigration than conditions for blacks. If Trump offered more jobs to blacks, the Democrats could at least offer them free loot in the form of riots. But the riots are also blowing up in Jewish faces as blacks tend to be rather unruly and strike out in every direction, especially in blue cities. While Jews could handle homos like well-trained dogs, unleashing black rage is like letting pit-bulls run loose. You never quite know whom they will maul next. Homos march in parades, blacks loot in riots. Homos raise property values for yuppies, blacks drive down values and drive out businesses. (Another reason why the Democrats may be pandering more to blacks is that immigration decreased under Trump. Perhaps, Democrats hoped that MORE IMMIGRATION would eventually make black votes less essential to the Party. After all, California would be comfortably Democratic even without the black vote as all those yellows and browns vote Democratic. But if immigration continues to ebb, Democrats will have to shore up black votes.)

    Still, we all got the memo: (1) Blacks got supreme moral authority and have the right to rule but don't rule. (2) Whites got no moral authority and don't deserve to rule but rule with all their ill-gotten white privilege. Then, what is to be done? Hand over power to blacks? But how many blacks are well-schooled and ready for such task? The Current West says the unruly blacks should rule over whites who have no right to rule but rule anyway due to legacy of 'racism', the greatest evil of all time in the whole universe, but it has no means of bringing about the necessary transference of power because whites continue to be better-credentialed while blacks continue to fail.
    Besides, the Jews who really do rule choose to remain in the shadows while blaming White Privilege, thus spreading the impression that the West is ruled illegitimately by whites who are utterly lacking in moral authority. White apologetics makes for poor authority of power. Then, it's no wonder that Jews and whites were, for a time, so happy with globo-homo as the face of US power. For Jews, homos were useful and loyal proxies of Jewish Supremacist Power, and for deracinated and cucked whites, homo power seemed white-friendly and imbued with moral authority(in a world where decadence was the New Normal in righteousness). But there was something so shallow and hollow about homos(and then trannies) as the stalwart face of moral authority in the West, especially as so many homos were affluent and working so chummily with the Deep State, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Wall Street. In time, it just seemed like a deviant form of White Privilege. It's so much more compelling to run with a narrative that involves slavery, whipping, lynchings, police brutality, and 'innocent' black men being killed in the streets by 'racism'. But how long will it take for blacks to earn the credentials and gain the skills to receive the power that is being handed to them on a silver platter by cucky-wuck whites?

    Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Talha, @The Soft Parade

    More! More! More!

    [MORE]

    Just kidding.

    • LOL: Truth
  61. Not really apropos of anything, but in the 19th century the expression “working like a n-word” meant working extremely hard:

    Let’s see if this post gets me banned from Unz or something.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @RSDB

    Reminds me of one of the best tracks by Public Enemy.

    Peace.

    Best lines:
    My boss told me "yo nigga you're fired"
    'Cause my body told me "yo nigga you're tired"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfvEd6qai2s

  62. @RSDB
    Not really apropos of anything, but in the 19th century the expression "working like a n-word" meant working extremely hard:

    Let's see if this post gets me banned from Unz or something.

    Replies: @Talha

    Reminds me of one of the best tracks by Public Enemy.

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    Best lines:
    My boss told me “yo nigga you’re fired”
    ‘Cause my body told me “yo nigga you’re tired”

  63. @Priss Factor
    The two kinds of power. Power-as-means-of-force. Power as moral authority. Ideally, the existing Power has both. It controls the apparatus of violence, which is 'inherent' in any system. After all, there has to be the threat of force, coercion, or violence in case people, especially criminals and radicals, get out of hand. Ideal power would also possess moral authority, and most people would look upon the Power as just, valid, and legitimate.

    If there is only power-as-means-of-force, the system can be maintained but only by brutal repression and/or bread-and-circus mass-bribery(which is costly and effective only for the duration of good times). The right-wing militarist regimes that ruled with 'death squads' in Central America had the power of means(especially with the backing of the US), but they lacked moral authority. Same could be said of the Shah of Iran. He had the ruthless means of keeping power by brutality and mass torture. He also had the backing of the US, and there was economic growth that pacified a sector of the population. But most Iranians saw him as illegitimate, and he got no respect.

    In contrast, the Castroite Regime of Cuba had, at least for a time(and perhaps even now to some degree), the combination of the means of force and moral authority. It not only set up a ruthless system of control but came to power with the mandate of the people who welcomed the revolution as national liberation from a puppet tyrant backed by the CIA and the Mafia. During the Cold War, massive Soviet support made life in Cuba better than in most Latin American nations. There was less freedom, but many Cubans accepted it as the cost for independence from Yanqui Imperialismo.

    Now, from the perspective of moral reasoning, what may be deemed morally justified in a particular time and place may not pass muster. We may say communism is a bad idea and a dead end, and History has indeed passed such judgement on the ideology. And we may look upon the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as ultimately tragic because it led to theocratic tyranny. Still, even if a bad(or even evil) system comes to power, it may be regarded as morally legitimate to the people of the time and place. This was certainly true among many Germans who, at least before things began to go south during World War II, regarded Adolf Hitler's regime as justified, indeed the savior of the German volk, nation, and honor. And plenty of Chinese, despite the horrors of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, have continued to regard the CCP as the legitimate authority in China. And for all his brutality and violence, Stalin had plenty of admirers in the USSR when he was alive(and even after his death).
    Moral authority can derive from various sources or reasons. It could be that the new power is a marked improvement over the earlier one. For many Germans, things were much better in National Socialist Germany than in Weimar Germany. Many Russians feel that things got much better under Vladimir Putin than when Russia was ruled by Jewish globalist oligarchs and their stooge Boris Yeltsin. (The Putin legitimacy cannot be understood apart from the hellish 1990s.) But moral authority could also be the product of mass propaganda. Mao Zedong remained legitimate in China despite the massive failure of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution because CCP controlled all media and education. Even if Mao made things worse, the young ones were only taught one thing, and everyone got the news from a single source. So, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. In a system, the majority of people can support a cult of immorality as having moral authority while condemning true morality as the work of the Devil. We have that in the US, where so many people, even 'conservatives', now support 'gay marriage' and worship globo-homo-mania while howling with rage at defenders of true marriage and sanity on sexual reality.

    If some systems have the power-as-means-of-force but lack moral authority, some groups have the power of moral authority but lack the means of force. In time, the latter can struggle to gain hard power and triumph. In Iran, the revolutionaries gained moral authority among the people, and mass unrest eventually led to Shah's dethronement and the rise of the Ayatollahs in government. In Vietnam, the national-communists who waved the Ho Chi Minh banner were legitimate in the eyes of many whereas the regime in the South was regarded as a puppet of US imperialism. Granted, plenty of Vietnamese didn't want to be ruled by the communists and would have preferred national independence/liberation minus the Leninism-Stalinism. But the southern regime was so lacking in authority and legitimacy that it failed to muster real support, the kind that might have led to a successful defense of the south. Eventually, the Vietnamese in the north, with more legitimacy and discipline, prevailed over the southern regime that could only maintain power with backing of US imperialism and bribery through bread-and-circuses(or rice-and-blackmarket) made possible by foreign cash infusions.

    Speaking of the problems of power-as-means-of-force and power as moral authority, we are witnessing something surreal in the West. Even now in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe, the power-as-means-of-force is still controlled mostly by whites. Look at most of the upper echelons in the military, government, law firms & courts, police departments, intelligence services, and the like, and most of the members are white(or Jewish). There are prominent non-whites, usually blacks, but they are mostly tokens presented to the public as the FACE of the power that is still mostly white in actual operation.
    But the problem is, due to endless PC and anti-white propaganda, whites no longer have much in the way of moral authority. In some ways, they have something close to NEGATIVE moral authority; they might as well be the Devil Incarnate. When the Evil Race controls most of the power-as-means-of-force, the moral implication is they must give it up OR use their power ONLY to redeem their evil white selves or rectify the evil conditions resulting from 'white supremacy' or 'white privilege', i.e. whites must use power to negate white power. We saw in the recent riots the result of such thinking. White people-of-power had the material means to shut down the violence and restore order, but many of them thought that they, as Evil People, had no moral authority to use the power in such manner. (To be sure, the 'paralysis' was also cynical and calculated, a means for the Deep State to make Donald Trump look either too weak, impotent, and incapable to rule OR too tyrannical in calling on the military to restore order.) Initially, it seemed New York would be spared the worst of the rioting because Jews are just too powerful there, but the 'moral logic' spread there as well. Mayor Bill DeBlasio's shtick has been as an Apologetic and Atoning white man, i.e. since whites lack the power of moral authority, DeBlasio felt compelled to use his political authority in support of blacks and against whites(or anyone disregarded by blacks).

    If whites got power-as-means-of-force but hardly any moral authority left, blacks don't have much in the way of power-as-means-of-force but have come to dominate power as moral authority. While there are plenty of blacks in government, military, and even in some police departments, most of the upper command structure is still dominated by whites(and of course, most elite blacks are in the pocket of Jewish oligarchs, as has been so obvious with the likes of Barack Obama and Susan Rice). During the Civil Rights Era, blacks gained moral authority over whites because of the Struggle-against-Oppression Narrative. But it was far from total moral authority or moral apotheosis; MLK was a controversial figure in the eyes of many, most Americans opposed race-mixing, and George Wallace found much popularity. But since then, the MLK cult has become the new religion. Nelson Mandela has been lionized as the second greatest man ever. Most American kids think the story of Harriet Tubman is 50% of US history. Hollywood gave us the Magic Negro in stuff like GREEN MILE. And as blacks are into ego-tripping self-worship, they've promoted nothing but themselves. Ironically, the rise of black nihilism also fed into black moral authority. After all, while one aspect of Americanism is the preening moralism — the City on the Hill vision — , the other is the cult of the winner and disdain for losers. People dream of coming to the US to win as Tony Montanas, not to be losers. So, even though most blacks in sports and pop culture have been demented, stupid, lecherous, immoral, or imbecile, the successes made blacks seem ultra-badass-cool in the American(and global) imagination. As Americanist winner-takes-all nihilism has infected the world, the black rapper and black athlete idolatry have made people the world over especially reverential about blackness. Indeed, the reason why the American Indians, though theoretically of even greater moral authority as the Ultimate Victims of American History, are neglected by Americans and the World is because they score low in the game of winner-takes-all nihilism that defines Americanism. In an Americanized world that prizes idolatry over humanism, nihilist points adds to moral authority. Blacks-as-thugs get more hugs.

    We are now at the crossroads in history where whites still got most of the power-as-means-of-force but don't know what to do with it during times of crisis as they lack moral authority to act, especially against blacks who commit the most violence. And blacks got the most moral authority, but they are frustrated because they don't control the power-as-means-of-force. Why not? Blacks will say it's due to the history of 'racism', but it's due to black ineptitude, criminality, laziness, stupidity, and irresponsibility. After all, whether one has moral authority or not, the proper way to rise up the ladder of power-as-means-of-force is to master skills, finish school, gain credentials, and demonstrate ability & accountability. Many blacks utterly fail in this. So, even though whites are more than eager to hand over their illegitimate power to blacks who now hog moral authority, the process of power-transference is undermined by the fact that too many blacks remain unqualified to gain and hold any lever of power. The problem isn't White Discrimination but Black Incrimination. Black performance or behavior too often incriminates them as foolish, stupid, violent, inept, irresponsible, demented, and/or jive-ass.
    At this juncture in history, many whites are more than willing to hand over power-as-means-of-force to non-whites, especially blacks. But the people they favor most, blacks, are least adept at working in the current system to gain the credentials to take the power from whites. Whites, as redemptive devil incarnate, are telling blacks, "Look we are worthless, and you blacks are holy. We don't deserve what we have, and it should all go to you. So, if you just finish school, act half-way decent and responsible, you can have my job and my status. You can marry my daughter and even do my wife. I will cuck before you and wash your feet and kiss your ass. Just finish college and earn the credentials, and everything I have is YOURS. Look how we made Obama the president simply because he smiled and said nice things." So, whites are willing to hand over all power to blacks as the true master race because blacks are deemed superior in body and soul. But every time whites try to hand over the silver platter, blacks knock it down and mess it all up. (Look what blacks have made of Zimbabwe and South Africa, but let's just pretend blacks are natural saints.)

    This is all very confusing. It's further confused because whites claim to be in atonement mode but feel zero moral guilt about what they did to Palestinians and Arabs in their mindless support of Zionist supremacism. And blacks seem to be of two minds as well. On the one hand, blacks pretend to be allies with all the oppressed of the world against white supremacism and white privilege. At the same time, blacks seem most eager to take over the Power created by whites and act as the new imperialist masters of the world. After all, if blacks are truly appalled by supremacism, why don't they denounce blacks in the military? Aren't black military men participating in the US imperialist domination over other parts of the world? Aren't blacks taking part in the Zionist Wars that have killed so many Arabs and Muslims? Didn't Obama wreck entire nations? But blacks don't seem to be bothered by any of that AS LONG AS they perceive the US military as an empowerment vehicle for blacks. So, do blacks really want to resist and end the Power System created by whites or do they just want to take over as New Masters of it? Is supremacism okay with blacks as long as THEY get to dominate the power-as-means-of-force? Is black consciousness like that of Jews? We know from the Jewish Experience that Jewish criticism of Wasp Power wasn't to destroy the power itself but to take it over so that the US empire would be controlled by Jews. The very Jews who'd once denounced US militarism and imperialism in the 60s were later the biggest cheerleaders of US global power once their tribe was at the helm.

    Indeed, how do Jews fit into the current crisis? Are Jews also white and lacking in moral authority? Or, as Holocaust Whites, are they exempt from the label of Whites-as-Devil-Incarnate? But what of New York Jews having employed heavy-handed white police to cut down on black crime? And what of Jews having urged white police across the US to take pointers from Israel in controlling the black criminal elements? As yet, Jews still have a lot of moral authority as the Shoah Narrative has been baked into the Western Consciousness, but when so much of Jewish Privilege seems like ultra-white-privilege to blacks and non-whites, how long can Jews sustain this? In the recent riots, Jews publicly sided with black rioters who've been granted moral authority to 'protest against racism', but they seem very nervous and uncomfortable because Jewish Urban Well-being owes so much to white policemen controlling the unruly blacks. Jews are mixing oil & water and getting violent reactions from the melting pot turned frying pan.

    Again, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. That blacks got so much moral authority is absolutely scandalous. True, blacks were enslaved and faced discrimination through much of American History, but history is never static. It's ridiculous to regard blacks NOW on the basis of blacks THEN. It's like it'd be stupid to regard Chinese NOW on basis of how Chinese were 100 yrs ago. Back then, China was the Sick Man of Asia. Today, it is a rising or even risen power. Germanic Barbarians were once victims of Roman conquerors. Later, they were rulers over the Romans. And sometimes, history changes fast. Jews were on the ropes in Europe during World War II, but they are now rulers of the West. Also, black behavior owes more to evolution over 100,000 yrs than 200 yrs of slavery. Besides, black conditions in America were hardly all that oppressive by world/historical standards as most of human history has been about oppression, wars, empires, slavery, and etc. The real problem with blacks is they evolved to be the thug-hunter-warrior race. Blame evolution in Africa where black traits were selected for mastery in chucking spears at hippos and beating on bongo drums and shaking booty. That's why blacks succeed in sports and funky music while often failing with books and math.
    So, black moral authority is really a joke(but then 'woke' is a joke, or joke that no one gets). It is more the product of Jewish propaganda, white gullibility, black megalomania, American nihilism, and Jungle Fever/Jungle Faith. Jews pushed black holiness to bait whites with 'white guilt', thereby making them subservient to Jews(as 'fellow victim' allies of blacks). In the post-Christian world, white imagination hungered for a new god, and the Magic Negro filled the void(along with globo-homo, it seems). Blacks just can't get enough of themselves, and the American Obsession with sports and pop music turned blacks into demi-gods. So many Americans look to Jay-Z and Ice-Cube's twitter feed for 'moral instruction' and 'spiritual guidance'. This is why even a lowlife moron like George Floyd, who died more from bad drugs than a white knee, is now suddenly bigger than even Michael Jackson.
    But then, moral authority can even be held by the Devil, as homos and trannies have so well illustrated. Most people are incapable of moral reasoning, and their sense of good-and-evil really derives from manipulation of idolatry, iconography, and mantras. Just chant 'black lives matter' a bunch of times while envisioning George Floyd as some angel, and that's Moral Authority in the Current Year. Donald Trump says St. George is looking down upon us from heaven. More likely, an angel has a knee on the ghastly Negro's neck and is about to cast his stupid black ass down to hell.

    In the past, whites had both power-as-means-of-force and much moral authority. Look back 100 yrs ago to 1920, and it was a proud white nation. Look back 50 yrs to 1970, and it was still a nation where whites had material power and moral power, though slipping. But now, the US is a Jewish-controlled world. Jewish Power is real as both means-of-force and moral authority. Jews do control most of the top institutions and many top industries. Jews not only hog Deep State power but use Antifa as paramilitary goon force to terrorize white patriots. Antifa is their 'Luca Brasi'.
    Jews also have moral power as the Shoah People. But because Jews are nervous about being perceived as powerful, their power-as-means-of-force is mostly hidden. If Jews said, "We rule America with material power backed by moral authority", things would be somewhat less confusing. But while Jews make a big deal of their moral authority, they try to hide their actual means of power. As a result, many people are confused as to who really rules America. Jews rule America, but Jews say "White Privilege Rules America"(which would suggest American Power is illegitimate). Jewish Power is the uppermost of White Privilege, but Jews position themselves as allies of Diversity against White Privilege.
    Now, things might be clearer if white goyim spelled it all out and said, "No, Jewish-White Privilege rules America, and we white goyim are now just cuck-collaborators of Jews who hold the supreme power. We whites do as Jews tell us to, like waging Wars for Israel, hating on Russia & Iran, supporting Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians, and arresting more blacks to make cities safer for Jews and homos." But as whites who say such would be condemned of 'Antisemitism' and hounded out of their positions, whites just go on with the charade that THEY rule America while Jews are saintly allies of blacks and Diversity oppressed by White Privilege. But such a grand narrative means that the Existing Power System in the US is utterly lacking in moral legitimacy and undeserving of moral authority. If indeed US is ruled by White Privilege, then it is ruled by Evil because White Privilege is, as we've all been told over and over, an ill-gotten product of history of white supremacy.
    Current Power would seem legitimate if Jews said they got the power since they do have moral authority(as the noble and tragic Shoah People). But Jews are too nervous about being blamed for all the problems IF they were to openly admit their dominant position in the US. After all, admission of power has a way of eroding moral authority as most people tend to blame those in power for whatever goes wrong. (Wasps admitted they ruled America, and guess what happened? They got blamed for everything and lost legitimacy.) It's like the Castroite regime in Cuba and the Ayatollahs in Iran began with lots of moral authority but much of the respect has eroded away over the years. So, if Jews want to maintain their identity as Holy Holocaust People in pristine condition, it's not wise to admit that they now have the power and, as such, are responsible for all that go wrong in the US and the world. (Netanyahu's arrogant style of "I rule the goyim" has undermined the moral authority of Zion in the eyes of the world.)

    Anyway, whites are cucks of Jews, but the Jewish Narrative says White Privilege(of the goy kind mostly) rules America. The notion of 'white privilege' implies that the power held by whites is illegitimate. Then, the ONLY way to make the power legitimate is by handing it over to those with moral authority. Jews got the moral authority but don't want to admit they got the power. How about to homos? Jewish Media and Academia imbued homos with great deal of moral and 'spiritual' capital, and so many Americans now eagerly vote for any 'gay' candidate on grounds that homos got moral authority. And for awhile, it seemed homos would spearhead gentrification and make big cities safe of the Negro Criminal Menace. Also, as Obama belonged to Jews and homos, he spent most of his presidency pushing the Section 8 line, or More Gentrification. But then, Obama had to prove his street cred with blacks and dabbled with BLM, not knowing it would blow up big time. And then Donald Trump happened, and Jews got desperate with various means to unseat him. They tried the Russia Collusion hoax, the Ukraine Impeachment, the Covid Crisis, and then black riots. Riling up black rage was deemed especially necessary as Jews began to fear that Trumpism might make blacks think twice about supporting the Democratic Party that seemed more about globo-homo and immigration than conditions for blacks. If Trump offered more jobs to blacks, the Democrats could at least offer them free loot in the form of riots. But the riots are also blowing up in Jewish faces as blacks tend to be rather unruly and strike out in every direction, especially in blue cities. While Jews could handle homos like well-trained dogs, unleashing black rage is like letting pit-bulls run loose. You never quite know whom they will maul next. Homos march in parades, blacks loot in riots. Homos raise property values for yuppies, blacks drive down values and drive out businesses. (Another reason why the Democrats may be pandering more to blacks is that immigration decreased under Trump. Perhaps, Democrats hoped that MORE IMMIGRATION would eventually make black votes less essential to the Party. After all, California would be comfortably Democratic even without the black vote as all those yellows and browns vote Democratic. But if immigration continues to ebb, Democrats will have to shore up black votes.)

    Still, we all got the memo: (1) Blacks got supreme moral authority and have the right to rule but don't rule. (2) Whites got no moral authority and don't deserve to rule but rule with all their ill-gotten white privilege. Then, what is to be done? Hand over power to blacks? But how many blacks are well-schooled and ready for such task? The Current West says the unruly blacks should rule over whites who have no right to rule but rule anyway due to legacy of 'racism', the greatest evil of all time in the whole universe, but it has no means of bringing about the necessary transference of power because whites continue to be better-credentialed while blacks continue to fail.
    Besides, the Jews who really do rule choose to remain in the shadows while blaming White Privilege, thus spreading the impression that the West is ruled illegitimately by whites who are utterly lacking in moral authority. White apologetics makes for poor authority of power. Then, it's no wonder that Jews and whites were, for a time, so happy with globo-homo as the face of US power. For Jews, homos were useful and loyal proxies of Jewish Supremacist Power, and for deracinated and cucked whites, homo power seemed white-friendly and imbued with moral authority(in a world where decadence was the New Normal in righteousness). But there was something so shallow and hollow about homos(and then trannies) as the stalwart face of moral authority in the West, especially as so many homos were affluent and working so chummily with the Deep State, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Wall Street. In time, it just seemed like a deviant form of White Privilege. It's so much more compelling to run with a narrative that involves slavery, whipping, lynchings, police brutality, and 'innocent' black men being killed in the streets by 'racism'. But how long will it take for blacks to earn the credentials and gain the skills to receive the power that is being handed to them on a silver platter by cucky-wuck whites?

    Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Talha, @The Soft Parade

    For the love of God, man!!! Use the MORE tag! At least for half of the post.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Talha

    She should really lay off those midnight lattès.

    , @Priss Factor
    @Talha


    Use the MORE tag
     
    Tags are for _ags.

    Replies: @Truth

  64. @Thomm
    Black people should be more offended by white SJWs than anyone else. They are the only group who thinks black people are not smart enough to be responsible for their own actions. White SJWs think that black people are retards/children at best, and, more likely, no more than exotic pets that exist as virtue signalling props for white SJWs.

    I keep waiting for black criminals to specifically target white SJWs for crime. They are the easiest possible targets, and are probably naive enough to fall for some very basic ruses designed to lower one's guard. Enough incidents like this, and the whole SJW edifice may implode.

    Replies: @Realist, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @YetAnotherAnon, @james wilson, @Reg Cæsar

    Black people should be more offended by white SJWs than anyone else. They are the only group who thinks black people are not smart enough to be responsible for their own actions.

    No, they’re not.

    What evidence is there that black people are smart enough to be responsible for their actions?

  65. @Talha
    @Priss Factor

    For the love of God, man!!! Use the MORE tag! At least for half of the post.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Priss Factor

    She should really lay off those midnight lattès.

  66. @dfordoom
    @Not My Economy


    But big agree, we do need some allies and fast. What can we offer, that’s the bottom line.
     
    The alt-right has little or nothing to offer. It doesn't even have an actual political base. The elites want nothing to do with it. The white middle-class is overwhelmingly Woke and won't touch it with a barge pole. The chances of any explicitly right-wing political movement gaining support from the white working class are slim. The chances of a right-wing movement gaining support from poor whites are non-existent. Mainstream white Christians are too Woke to support the alt-right, and the talk of secession and separate countries means there's zero chance of getting the crazy Evangelicals on board.

    So the alt-right has little to no chance of gaining any kind of mass support even from whites.

    And there is no reason for any non-white even to contemplate being allied with the alt-right.

    The very limited support that the far right in Europe and Britain gets comes from Zionists and the LGBT crowd and they only support the far right insofar as hatred of Muslims is concerned. In the US there's no chance of getting Zionists as allies because of the crazed Jew-haters in the alt-right (not that any sane person would want Zionists as allies).

    And added to all that is the problem that the far right horrifies virtually all women.

    Why would anyone want to ally themselves with such a movement?

    If you want nationalism it's going to have to be some kind of left-wing nationalism. Right-wing nationalism has no future.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Reg Cæsar

    If you want nationalism it’s going to have to be some kind of left-wing nationalism.

    Impossible. Aliens vote more to the left than natives. The left will always cater to the aliens.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Reg Cæsar



    If you want nationalism it’s going to have to be some kind of left-wing nationalism.
     
    Impossible. Aliens vote more to the left than natives. The left will always cater to the aliens.
     
    That simply isn't so. The New Left has for several decades liked immigration but the Old Left was quite nationalistic and quite unenthusiastic about immigration. What little remains of the Economic Left is sill highly sceptical of immigration (Bernie Sanders made his real feelings about immigration very clear).

    In fact the Economic Left must of necessity be anti-immigration, and in general fairly nationalistic.

    If the Economic Left ever revives it is likely to again be anti-immigration and fairly nationalistic. It's also likely to be fairly socially conservative, just as the Old Left was socially conservative.

    Replies: @anon

  67. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    It amazes me how many professional black women there are with NO kids. In fact among black women in the professional circles I come across, 0 children is the most common number. Likely they can't find high earning black men to match them.

    Somebody is picking up the slack.

    To be fair, professional white people also have few children. Clearly white proles are picking up the slack since the TFR is still 1.6, and professional urban whites must be below 1.

    1 century of white dysgenics will undo thousands of years being forged in war. 1 century of black dysgenics is likely worse, but I'm not sure how it will turn out.

    Replies: @anon, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    You are correct, but I was thinking of married couples.

    Hard enough for professional White women to find a mate of equal status, but it’s long been harder for Black women.

    A Black former co-worker who worked in Office Services was 35-years-old and had five children by three different women. He’s helping pick up the slack. At least he worked a legitimate job. Many of the bucks siring the babies don’t.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Hard enough for professional White women to find a mate of equal status, but it’s long been harder for Black women.

    Hypergamy is not satisfied with equal status.

  68. @Hypnotoad666

    who attribute blacks having “worse jobs, income, and housing than white people” at least in part “because most just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty” follow:
     
    The people who disagree with this statement must be race realists who understand that the lower IQ of blacks would necessarily hold them back, regardless of their level of "motivation or willpower."

    It is puzzling, however, that Liberal Democrats seem to be the group most aware that black motivation is futile in the face of their low-IQ.

    Replies: @Toronto Russian

    The people who disagree with this statement must be race realists who understand that the lower IQ of blacks would necessarily hold them back, regardless of their level of “motivation or willpower.”

    It is naive to think willpower and genetic traits are the only factors to getting good jobs, income and housing.

    https://qz.com/455109/entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-gene-for-risk-they-come-from-families-with-money/

    Generational wealth, connections, non-academic education (what’s called “good breeding” in old-fashioned English, basically training in higher-class dialect and manners) matter. Growing up with poison in your body (lead, fetal alcohol syndrome) and cultural poison in your mind (“thug life is cool, studying and working is for losers”) can make any inborn intelligence useless. Stereotypes about your group being applied to you personally matter – e.g. all Arab restaurants here are euphemistically called Mediterranean and mosques are called Islamic centres, I suppose to avoid scaring people by associations with terrorism.

    Lol even models now get successful not as much by genetic beauty and trained gracefulness, but expensive plastic surgery and their parents financing their Instagram promotion.

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian
    @Toronto Russian

    *Old school supermodels have expensive plastic surgery too, to hide signs of aging; nepotism models get their whole faces redone at age 18.
    https://www.betrendsetter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/bella-hadid-nose-job.jpg

    Replies: @Truth

    , @res
    @Toronto Russian


    It is naive to think willpower and genetic traits are the only factors to getting good jobs, income and housing.
     
    Agreed. Just as it is naive to think willpower and genetic traits don't matter at all for getting good jobs, income and housing.

    Now that we are done agreeing false dichotomies are lame, any thoughts on how much those factors do matter?

    Replies: @Toronto Russian

  69. @Toronto Russian
    @Hypnotoad666


    The people who disagree with this statement must be race realists who understand that the lower IQ of blacks would necessarily hold them back, regardless of their level of “motivation or willpower.”
     
    It is naive to think willpower and genetic traits are the only factors to getting good jobs, income and housing.

    https://qz.com/455109/entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-gene-for-risk-they-come-from-families-with-money/

    Generational wealth, connections, non-academic education (what's called "good breeding" in old-fashioned English, basically training in higher-class dialect and manners) matter. Growing up with poison in your body (lead, fetal alcohol syndrome) and cultural poison in your mind ("thug life is cool, studying and working is for losers") can make any inborn intelligence useless. Stereotypes about your group being applied to you personally matter - e.g. all Arab restaurants here are euphemistically called Mediterranean and mosques are called Islamic centres, I suppose to avoid scaring people by associations with terrorism.

    Lol even models now get successful not as much by genetic beauty and trained gracefulness, but expensive plastic surgery and their parents financing their Instagram promotion.
    https://youtu.be/S3m5pezHMro

    Replies: @Toronto Russian, @res

    *Old school supermodels have expensive plastic surgery too, to hide signs of aging; nepotism models get their whole faces redone at age 18.

    • Replies: @Truth
    @Toronto Russian

    I used to think that as well, but the truth is that supermodels get extensive plastic surgery to hide signs of masculinity, which starts to show late-20's or so. Elite "female" supermodels are all males.

  70. res says:
    @Toronto Russian
    @Hypnotoad666


    The people who disagree with this statement must be race realists who understand that the lower IQ of blacks would necessarily hold them back, regardless of their level of “motivation or willpower.”
     
    It is naive to think willpower and genetic traits are the only factors to getting good jobs, income and housing.

    https://qz.com/455109/entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-gene-for-risk-they-come-from-families-with-money/

    Generational wealth, connections, non-academic education (what's called "good breeding" in old-fashioned English, basically training in higher-class dialect and manners) matter. Growing up with poison in your body (lead, fetal alcohol syndrome) and cultural poison in your mind ("thug life is cool, studying and working is for losers") can make any inborn intelligence useless. Stereotypes about your group being applied to you personally matter - e.g. all Arab restaurants here are euphemistically called Mediterranean and mosques are called Islamic centres, I suppose to avoid scaring people by associations with terrorism.

    Lol even models now get successful not as much by genetic beauty and trained gracefulness, but expensive plastic surgery and their parents financing their Instagram promotion.
    https://youtu.be/S3m5pezHMro

    Replies: @Toronto Russian, @res

    It is naive to think willpower and genetic traits are the only factors to getting good jobs, income and housing.

    Agreed. Just as it is naive to think willpower and genetic traits don’t matter at all for getting good jobs, income and housing.

    Now that we are done agreeing false dichotomies are lame, any thoughts on how much those factors do matter?

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian
    @res


    Now that we are done agreeing false dichotomies are lame, any thoughts on how much those factors do matter?
     
    Depends.

    Success of a classical musician is almost all talent and hard work: family money won't save you from striking a false note. Family can pay for your training, buy a good instrument, happen to have an uncle who is big in the music industry, etc. It helps but will be useless without talent and hard work.

    In business, on the other hand, kids of the boss are often made managers and forgiven for their screwups. A financial cushion can make a difference between a business that fails and one that survives.

    Pioneer America was a meritocratic setting because your life depended on you working like a horse and having practical talents. I'm reading a book about Colorado settlers now, and there are examples of people being poor from lack of talent no matter how hard they work, and people being poor from lack of willpower (drinking away the money they earn). The family and status the settler came from, however, didn't make much difference.

    Modern Russia is nepotistic. A privileged caste has everything, puts their kids in all good positions and the rest are left to survive as they can. We could see it even in this Covid pandemic: the government made big efforts when the virus threatened the elite returning from Italian vacations, and stopped caring when it became the problem of ordinary people outside the main cities.

    I wrote this to show that (how much those factors matter for success) is highly specific for an area of employment, location, time, and who knows what else. To determine it for the American black population you have to look closely at many factors. Including the subset of this population, as it isn't all the same.
  71. @Talha
    @Priss Factor

    For the love of God, man!!! Use the MORE tag! At least for half of the post.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Priss Factor

    Use the MORE tag

    Tags are for _ags.

    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @Truth
    @Priss Factor


    Use the MORE tag

    Tags are for _ags.
     
    OK, it's settled; please use the MORE tag.
  72. @Toronto Russian
    @Toronto Russian

    *Old school supermodels have expensive plastic surgery too, to hide signs of aging; nepotism models get their whole faces redone at age 18.
    https://www.betrendsetter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/bella-hadid-nose-job.jpg

    Replies: @Truth

    I used to think that as well, but the truth is that supermodels get extensive plastic surgery to hide signs of masculinity, which starts to show late-20’s or so. Elite “female” supermodels are all males.

  73. @Priss Factor
    @Talha


    Use the MORE tag
     
    Tags are for _ags.

    Replies: @Truth

    Use the MORE tag

    Tags are for _ags.

    OK, it’s settled; please use the MORE tag.

  74. @Observator
    Sure, go ahead, blame the victims again. Ignore the statistic that only 21% of black Americans live under the poverty line. Convince yourselves that calls for justice conceal a sinister agenda to steal the little freedom the one percenters allow you. No matter how much courage and dignity black Americans display, you rush to comment here on what monkeys and morons and freeloaders and criminals they all are: and you have the colossal gall or incredible stupidity to think your mindless hatred has no demoralizing effect on your countrymen. When people know that no matter what they accomplish, they will never earn your respect, they simply ignore you, and more importantly we all are inspired by you to do whatever is necessary to keep your sickness from reinfecting the larger community. Refusing to understand that an injury to one is an insult to all, you consign yourselves to irrelevancy.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @SunBakedSuburb

    “Refusing to understand that an injury to one is an insult to all”

    This is much better understood in a homogeneous society. Life in the U.S. would be more peaceful if racial separation was the norm. I believe that the vast majority of whites and blacks would prefer separate communities. This is just human nature. It is the white elites and their managerial class that continues to push and impose integration.

  75. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    You are correct, but I was thinking of married couples.

    Hard enough for professional White women to find a mate of equal status, but it's long been harder for Black women.

    A Black former co-worker who worked in Office Services was 35-years-old and had five children by three different women. He's helping pick up the slack. At least he worked a legitimate job. Many of the bucks siring the babies don't.

    Replies: @anon

    Hard enough for professional White women to find a mate of equal status, but it’s long been harder for Black women.

    Hypergamy is not satisfied with equal status.

  76. @Daniel Chieh
    @128

    The three "all" strategies did not really help the Japanese very much; their most impressive victories were usually done in lieu of that, and it was executed as a wastage/revenge strategy when the war was essentially lost anyway(second part of Imjin, for example).

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Johann Ricke

    The three “all” strategies did not really help the Japanese very much

    This wasn’t some new and unique strategy. It’s a fairly basic principle – interdict your enemy’s supplies and he starves to death. The 3 alls strategy depleted the enemy’s manpower, food and shelter. For instance, in Alexander’s time, the solution was, after the high-casualty Battle of Persian Gate, to kill all the men of Persepolis and sell the women and children into slavery.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate
    https://www.livius.org/sources/content/diodorus/alexander-sacks-persepolis/

    Was he some psychopathic exception, the moral equivalent of a maniac who killed babies and ate them? No. In that era, the line between surplus and famine was a thin one. No army had enough surplus to sit around waiting to be attacked by rebels and then launching hunting expeditions. The defeated would submit or die, with mass killings of the kin of known rebels used as a deterrent against hit-and-run rebel attacks (i.e. guerrilla warfare).

    An echo of Alexander’s approach was replicated in the 20th century – where the hard-fought Battle of Shanghai was followed by the Massacre at Nanjing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre

    If the Japanese had confined their attentions to China, and set about the methodical task of pacifying it, instead of venturing further afield and adding the West to their list of military adversaries, it would likely have overcome Chinese resistance over the long run. After all, even Chinese civil wars typically took decades to conclusively resolve in the victors’ favor. But Japanese decision makers were men in a hurry. Their impatience was what sealed the fate of their territorial ventures, such that they not only lost all their gains, they also lost what had been acquired in decades past.

  77. @Talha
    @Truth

    He's a super-interesting man; solid traditional credentials in the Maliki school, very academic and also does not buy into the left-liberal nonsense. I get some of the best posts from him on my Twitter timeline:
    https://twitter.com/BinhamidAli/status/1270521412982157313

    More examples below...I get a lot of positive "let's move forward" vibes from him and often post some of his stuff on UNZ.

    Imam Yasin Dwyer is another solid one. Imam Zaid Shakir...we are really blessed to have some of these men as leaders in our community.

    Peace.

    https://twitter.com/BinhamidAli/status/1269975581602373635

    https://twitter.com/BinhamidAli/status/1270872066569326592

    Replies: @RSDB

    I don’t know if he covers this (probably) but the proxy war between the Portuguese and Ottomans in Ethiopia is one of the more interesting little corners of history.

  78. @Priss Factor
    The two kinds of power. Power-as-means-of-force. Power as moral authority. Ideally, the existing Power has both. It controls the apparatus of violence, which is 'inherent' in any system. After all, there has to be the threat of force, coercion, or violence in case people, especially criminals and radicals, get out of hand. Ideal power would also possess moral authority, and most people would look upon the Power as just, valid, and legitimate.

    If there is only power-as-means-of-force, the system can be maintained but only by brutal repression and/or bread-and-circus mass-bribery(which is costly and effective only for the duration of good times). The right-wing militarist regimes that ruled with 'death squads' in Central America had the power of means(especially with the backing of the US), but they lacked moral authority. Same could be said of the Shah of Iran. He had the ruthless means of keeping power by brutality and mass torture. He also had the backing of the US, and there was economic growth that pacified a sector of the population. But most Iranians saw him as illegitimate, and he got no respect.

    In contrast, the Castroite Regime of Cuba had, at least for a time(and perhaps even now to some degree), the combination of the means of force and moral authority. It not only set up a ruthless system of control but came to power with the mandate of the people who welcomed the revolution as national liberation from a puppet tyrant backed by the CIA and the Mafia. During the Cold War, massive Soviet support made life in Cuba better than in most Latin American nations. There was less freedom, but many Cubans accepted it as the cost for independence from Yanqui Imperialismo.

    Now, from the perspective of moral reasoning, what may be deemed morally justified in a particular time and place may not pass muster. We may say communism is a bad idea and a dead end, and History has indeed passed such judgement on the ideology. And we may look upon the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as ultimately tragic because it led to theocratic tyranny. Still, even if a bad(or even evil) system comes to power, it may be regarded as morally legitimate to the people of the time and place. This was certainly true among many Germans who, at least before things began to go south during World War II, regarded Adolf Hitler's regime as justified, indeed the savior of the German volk, nation, and honor. And plenty of Chinese, despite the horrors of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, have continued to regard the CCP as the legitimate authority in China. And for all his brutality and violence, Stalin had plenty of admirers in the USSR when he was alive(and even after his death).
    Moral authority can derive from various sources or reasons. It could be that the new power is a marked improvement over the earlier one. For many Germans, things were much better in National Socialist Germany than in Weimar Germany. Many Russians feel that things got much better under Vladimir Putin than when Russia was ruled by Jewish globalist oligarchs and their stooge Boris Yeltsin. (The Putin legitimacy cannot be understood apart from the hellish 1990s.) But moral authority could also be the product of mass propaganda. Mao Zedong remained legitimate in China despite the massive failure of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution because CCP controlled all media and education. Even if Mao made things worse, the young ones were only taught one thing, and everyone got the news from a single source. So, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. In a system, the majority of people can support a cult of immorality as having moral authority while condemning true morality as the work of the Devil. We have that in the US, where so many people, even 'conservatives', now support 'gay marriage' and worship globo-homo-mania while howling with rage at defenders of true marriage and sanity on sexual reality.

    If some systems have the power-as-means-of-force but lack moral authority, some groups have the power of moral authority but lack the means of force. In time, the latter can struggle to gain hard power and triumph. In Iran, the revolutionaries gained moral authority among the people, and mass unrest eventually led to Shah's dethronement and the rise of the Ayatollahs in government. In Vietnam, the national-communists who waved the Ho Chi Minh banner were legitimate in the eyes of many whereas the regime in the South was regarded as a puppet of US imperialism. Granted, plenty of Vietnamese didn't want to be ruled by the communists and would have preferred national independence/liberation minus the Leninism-Stalinism. But the southern regime was so lacking in authority and legitimacy that it failed to muster real support, the kind that might have led to a successful defense of the south. Eventually, the Vietnamese in the north, with more legitimacy and discipline, prevailed over the southern regime that could only maintain power with backing of US imperialism and bribery through bread-and-circuses(or rice-and-blackmarket) made possible by foreign cash infusions.

    Speaking of the problems of power-as-means-of-force and power as moral authority, we are witnessing something surreal in the West. Even now in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe, the power-as-means-of-force is still controlled mostly by whites. Look at most of the upper echelons in the military, government, law firms & courts, police departments, intelligence services, and the like, and most of the members are white(or Jewish). There are prominent non-whites, usually blacks, but they are mostly tokens presented to the public as the FACE of the power that is still mostly white in actual operation.
    But the problem is, due to endless PC and anti-white propaganda, whites no longer have much in the way of moral authority. In some ways, they have something close to NEGATIVE moral authority; they might as well be the Devil Incarnate. When the Evil Race controls most of the power-as-means-of-force, the moral implication is they must give it up OR use their power ONLY to redeem their evil white selves or rectify the evil conditions resulting from 'white supremacy' or 'white privilege', i.e. whites must use power to negate white power. We saw in the recent riots the result of such thinking. White people-of-power had the material means to shut down the violence and restore order, but many of them thought that they, as Evil People, had no moral authority to use the power in such manner. (To be sure, the 'paralysis' was also cynical and calculated, a means for the Deep State to make Donald Trump look either too weak, impotent, and incapable to rule OR too tyrannical in calling on the military to restore order.) Initially, it seemed New York would be spared the worst of the rioting because Jews are just too powerful there, but the 'moral logic' spread there as well. Mayor Bill DeBlasio's shtick has been as an Apologetic and Atoning white man, i.e. since whites lack the power of moral authority, DeBlasio felt compelled to use his political authority in support of blacks and against whites(or anyone disregarded by blacks).

    If whites got power-as-means-of-force but hardly any moral authority left, blacks don't have much in the way of power-as-means-of-force but have come to dominate power as moral authority. While there are plenty of blacks in government, military, and even in some police departments, most of the upper command structure is still dominated by whites(and of course, most elite blacks are in the pocket of Jewish oligarchs, as has been so obvious with the likes of Barack Obama and Susan Rice). During the Civil Rights Era, blacks gained moral authority over whites because of the Struggle-against-Oppression Narrative. But it was far from total moral authority or moral apotheosis; MLK was a controversial figure in the eyes of many, most Americans opposed race-mixing, and George Wallace found much popularity. But since then, the MLK cult has become the new religion. Nelson Mandela has been lionized as the second greatest man ever. Most American kids think the story of Harriet Tubman is 50% of US history. Hollywood gave us the Magic Negro in stuff like GREEN MILE. And as blacks are into ego-tripping self-worship, they've promoted nothing but themselves. Ironically, the rise of black nihilism also fed into black moral authority. After all, while one aspect of Americanism is the preening moralism — the City on the Hill vision — , the other is the cult of the winner and disdain for losers. People dream of coming to the US to win as Tony Montanas, not to be losers. So, even though most blacks in sports and pop culture have been demented, stupid, lecherous, immoral, or imbecile, the successes made blacks seem ultra-badass-cool in the American(and global) imagination. As Americanist winner-takes-all nihilism has infected the world, the black rapper and black athlete idolatry have made people the world over especially reverential about blackness. Indeed, the reason why the American Indians, though theoretically of even greater moral authority as the Ultimate Victims of American History, are neglected by Americans and the World is because they score low in the game of winner-takes-all nihilism that defines Americanism. In an Americanized world that prizes idolatry over humanism, nihilist points adds to moral authority. Blacks-as-thugs get more hugs.

    We are now at the crossroads in history where whites still got most of the power-as-means-of-force but don't know what to do with it during times of crisis as they lack moral authority to act, especially against blacks who commit the most violence. And blacks got the most moral authority, but they are frustrated because they don't control the power-as-means-of-force. Why not? Blacks will say it's due to the history of 'racism', but it's due to black ineptitude, criminality, laziness, stupidity, and irresponsibility. After all, whether one has moral authority or not, the proper way to rise up the ladder of power-as-means-of-force is to master skills, finish school, gain credentials, and demonstrate ability & accountability. Many blacks utterly fail in this. So, even though whites are more than eager to hand over their illegitimate power to blacks who now hog moral authority, the process of power-transference is undermined by the fact that too many blacks remain unqualified to gain and hold any lever of power. The problem isn't White Discrimination but Black Incrimination. Black performance or behavior too often incriminates them as foolish, stupid, violent, inept, irresponsible, demented, and/or jive-ass.
    At this juncture in history, many whites are more than willing to hand over power-as-means-of-force to non-whites, especially blacks. But the people they favor most, blacks, are least adept at working in the current system to gain the credentials to take the power from whites. Whites, as redemptive devil incarnate, are telling blacks, "Look we are worthless, and you blacks are holy. We don't deserve what we have, and it should all go to you. So, if you just finish school, act half-way decent and responsible, you can have my job and my status. You can marry my daughter and even do my wife. I will cuck before you and wash your feet and kiss your ass. Just finish college and earn the credentials, and everything I have is YOURS. Look how we made Obama the president simply because he smiled and said nice things." So, whites are willing to hand over all power to blacks as the true master race because blacks are deemed superior in body and soul. But every time whites try to hand over the silver platter, blacks knock it down and mess it all up. (Look what blacks have made of Zimbabwe and South Africa, but let's just pretend blacks are natural saints.)

    This is all very confusing. It's further confused because whites claim to be in atonement mode but feel zero moral guilt about what they did to Palestinians and Arabs in their mindless support of Zionist supremacism. And blacks seem to be of two minds as well. On the one hand, blacks pretend to be allies with all the oppressed of the world against white supremacism and white privilege. At the same time, blacks seem most eager to take over the Power created by whites and act as the new imperialist masters of the world. After all, if blacks are truly appalled by supremacism, why don't they denounce blacks in the military? Aren't black military men participating in the US imperialist domination over other parts of the world? Aren't blacks taking part in the Zionist Wars that have killed so many Arabs and Muslims? Didn't Obama wreck entire nations? But blacks don't seem to be bothered by any of that AS LONG AS they perceive the US military as an empowerment vehicle for blacks. So, do blacks really want to resist and end the Power System created by whites or do they just want to take over as New Masters of it? Is supremacism okay with blacks as long as THEY get to dominate the power-as-means-of-force? Is black consciousness like that of Jews? We know from the Jewish Experience that Jewish criticism of Wasp Power wasn't to destroy the power itself but to take it over so that the US empire would be controlled by Jews. The very Jews who'd once denounced US militarism and imperialism in the 60s were later the biggest cheerleaders of US global power once their tribe was at the helm.

    Indeed, how do Jews fit into the current crisis? Are Jews also white and lacking in moral authority? Or, as Holocaust Whites, are they exempt from the label of Whites-as-Devil-Incarnate? But what of New York Jews having employed heavy-handed white police to cut down on black crime? And what of Jews having urged white police across the US to take pointers from Israel in controlling the black criminal elements? As yet, Jews still have a lot of moral authority as the Shoah Narrative has been baked into the Western Consciousness, but when so much of Jewish Privilege seems like ultra-white-privilege to blacks and non-whites, how long can Jews sustain this? In the recent riots, Jews publicly sided with black rioters who've been granted moral authority to 'protest against racism', but they seem very nervous and uncomfortable because Jewish Urban Well-being owes so much to white policemen controlling the unruly blacks. Jews are mixing oil & water and getting violent reactions from the melting pot turned frying pan.

    Again, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. That blacks got so much moral authority is absolutely scandalous. True, blacks were enslaved and faced discrimination through much of American History, but history is never static. It's ridiculous to regard blacks NOW on the basis of blacks THEN. It's like it'd be stupid to regard Chinese NOW on basis of how Chinese were 100 yrs ago. Back then, China was the Sick Man of Asia. Today, it is a rising or even risen power. Germanic Barbarians were once victims of Roman conquerors. Later, they were rulers over the Romans. And sometimes, history changes fast. Jews were on the ropes in Europe during World War II, but they are now rulers of the West. Also, black behavior owes more to evolution over 100,000 yrs than 200 yrs of slavery. Besides, black conditions in America were hardly all that oppressive by world/historical standards as most of human history has been about oppression, wars, empires, slavery, and etc. The real problem with blacks is they evolved to be the thug-hunter-warrior race. Blame evolution in Africa where black traits were selected for mastery in chucking spears at hippos and beating on bongo drums and shaking booty. That's why blacks succeed in sports and funky music while often failing with books and math.
    So, black moral authority is really a joke(but then 'woke' is a joke, or joke that no one gets). It is more the product of Jewish propaganda, white gullibility, black megalomania, American nihilism, and Jungle Fever/Jungle Faith. Jews pushed black holiness to bait whites with 'white guilt', thereby making them subservient to Jews(as 'fellow victim' allies of blacks). In the post-Christian world, white imagination hungered for a new god, and the Magic Negro filled the void(along with globo-homo, it seems). Blacks just can't get enough of themselves, and the American Obsession with sports and pop music turned blacks into demi-gods. So many Americans look to Jay-Z and Ice-Cube's twitter feed for 'moral instruction' and 'spiritual guidance'. This is why even a lowlife moron like George Floyd, who died more from bad drugs than a white knee, is now suddenly bigger than even Michael Jackson.
    But then, moral authority can even be held by the Devil, as homos and trannies have so well illustrated. Most people are incapable of moral reasoning, and their sense of good-and-evil really derives from manipulation of idolatry, iconography, and mantras. Just chant 'black lives matter' a bunch of times while envisioning George Floyd as some angel, and that's Moral Authority in the Current Year. Donald Trump says St. George is looking down upon us from heaven. More likely, an angel has a knee on the ghastly Negro's neck and is about to cast his stupid black ass down to hell.

    In the past, whites had both power-as-means-of-force and much moral authority. Look back 100 yrs ago to 1920, and it was a proud white nation. Look back 50 yrs to 1970, and it was still a nation where whites had material power and moral power, though slipping. But now, the US is a Jewish-controlled world. Jewish Power is real as both means-of-force and moral authority. Jews do control most of the top institutions and many top industries. Jews not only hog Deep State power but use Antifa as paramilitary goon force to terrorize white patriots. Antifa is their 'Luca Brasi'.
    Jews also have moral power as the Shoah People. But because Jews are nervous about being perceived as powerful, their power-as-means-of-force is mostly hidden. If Jews said, "We rule America with material power backed by moral authority", things would be somewhat less confusing. But while Jews make a big deal of their moral authority, they try to hide their actual means of power. As a result, many people are confused as to who really rules America. Jews rule America, but Jews say "White Privilege Rules America"(which would suggest American Power is illegitimate). Jewish Power is the uppermost of White Privilege, but Jews position themselves as allies of Diversity against White Privilege.
    Now, things might be clearer if white goyim spelled it all out and said, "No, Jewish-White Privilege rules America, and we white goyim are now just cuck-collaborators of Jews who hold the supreme power. We whites do as Jews tell us to, like waging Wars for Israel, hating on Russia & Iran, supporting Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians, and arresting more blacks to make cities safer for Jews and homos." But as whites who say such would be condemned of 'Antisemitism' and hounded out of their positions, whites just go on with the charade that THEY rule America while Jews are saintly allies of blacks and Diversity oppressed by White Privilege. But such a grand narrative means that the Existing Power System in the US is utterly lacking in moral legitimacy and undeserving of moral authority. If indeed US is ruled by White Privilege, then it is ruled by Evil because White Privilege is, as we've all been told over and over, an ill-gotten product of history of white supremacy.
    Current Power would seem legitimate if Jews said they got the power since they do have moral authority(as the noble and tragic Shoah People). But Jews are too nervous about being blamed for all the problems IF they were to openly admit their dominant position in the US. After all, admission of power has a way of eroding moral authority as most people tend to blame those in power for whatever goes wrong. (Wasps admitted they ruled America, and guess what happened? They got blamed for everything and lost legitimacy.) It's like the Castroite regime in Cuba and the Ayatollahs in Iran began with lots of moral authority but much of the respect has eroded away over the years. So, if Jews want to maintain their identity as Holy Holocaust People in pristine condition, it's not wise to admit that they now have the power and, as such, are responsible for all that go wrong in the US and the world. (Netanyahu's arrogant style of "I rule the goyim" has undermined the moral authority of Zion in the eyes of the world.)

    Anyway, whites are cucks of Jews, but the Jewish Narrative says White Privilege(of the goy kind mostly) rules America. The notion of 'white privilege' implies that the power held by whites is illegitimate. Then, the ONLY way to make the power legitimate is by handing it over to those with moral authority. Jews got the moral authority but don't want to admit they got the power. How about to homos? Jewish Media and Academia imbued homos with great deal of moral and 'spiritual' capital, and so many Americans now eagerly vote for any 'gay' candidate on grounds that homos got moral authority. And for awhile, it seemed homos would spearhead gentrification and make big cities safe of the Negro Criminal Menace. Also, as Obama belonged to Jews and homos, he spent most of his presidency pushing the Section 8 line, or More Gentrification. But then, Obama had to prove his street cred with blacks and dabbled with BLM, not knowing it would blow up big time. And then Donald Trump happened, and Jews got desperate with various means to unseat him. They tried the Russia Collusion hoax, the Ukraine Impeachment, the Covid Crisis, and then black riots. Riling up black rage was deemed especially necessary as Jews began to fear that Trumpism might make blacks think twice about supporting the Democratic Party that seemed more about globo-homo and immigration than conditions for blacks. If Trump offered more jobs to blacks, the Democrats could at least offer them free loot in the form of riots. But the riots are also blowing up in Jewish faces as blacks tend to be rather unruly and strike out in every direction, especially in blue cities. While Jews could handle homos like well-trained dogs, unleashing black rage is like letting pit-bulls run loose. You never quite know whom they will maul next. Homos march in parades, blacks loot in riots. Homos raise property values for yuppies, blacks drive down values and drive out businesses. (Another reason why the Democrats may be pandering more to blacks is that immigration decreased under Trump. Perhaps, Democrats hoped that MORE IMMIGRATION would eventually make black votes less essential to the Party. After all, California would be comfortably Democratic even without the black vote as all those yellows and browns vote Democratic. But if immigration continues to ebb, Democrats will have to shore up black votes.)

    Still, we all got the memo: (1) Blacks got supreme moral authority and have the right to rule but don't rule. (2) Whites got no moral authority and don't deserve to rule but rule with all their ill-gotten white privilege. Then, what is to be done? Hand over power to blacks? But how many blacks are well-schooled and ready for such task? The Current West says the unruly blacks should rule over whites who have no right to rule but rule anyway due to legacy of 'racism', the greatest evil of all time in the whole universe, but it has no means of bringing about the necessary transference of power because whites continue to be better-credentialed while blacks continue to fail.
    Besides, the Jews who really do rule choose to remain in the shadows while blaming White Privilege, thus spreading the impression that the West is ruled illegitimately by whites who are utterly lacking in moral authority. White apologetics makes for poor authority of power. Then, it's no wonder that Jews and whites were, for a time, so happy with globo-homo as the face of US power. For Jews, homos were useful and loyal proxies of Jewish Supremacist Power, and for deracinated and cucked whites, homo power seemed white-friendly and imbued with moral authority(in a world where decadence was the New Normal in righteousness). But there was something so shallow and hollow about homos(and then trannies) as the stalwart face of moral authority in the West, especially as so many homos were affluent and working so chummily with the Deep State, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Wall Street. In time, it just seemed like a deviant form of White Privilege. It's so much more compelling to run with a narrative that involves slavery, whipping, lynchings, police brutality, and 'innocent' black men being killed in the streets by 'racism'. But how long will it take for blacks to earn the credentials and gain the skills to receive the power that is being handed to them on a silver platter by cucky-wuck whites?

    Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Talha, @The Soft Parade

    “It’s so much more compelling to run with a narrative [solution ] that involves slavery, whipping, lynchings, police brutality, and ‘innocent’ black men being killed in the streets by ‘racism’.”

    ah compellable me …stop it !

  79. @res
    @Toronto Russian


    It is naive to think willpower and genetic traits are the only factors to getting good jobs, income and housing.
     
    Agreed. Just as it is naive to think willpower and genetic traits don't matter at all for getting good jobs, income and housing.

    Now that we are done agreeing false dichotomies are lame, any thoughts on how much those factors do matter?

    Replies: @Toronto Russian

    Now that we are done agreeing false dichotomies are lame, any thoughts on how much those factors do matter?

    Depends.

    Success of a classical musician is almost all talent and hard work: family money won’t save you from striking a false note. Family can pay for your training, buy a good instrument, happen to have an uncle who is big in the music industry, etc. It helps but will be useless without talent and hard work.

    In business, on the other hand, kids of the boss are often made managers and forgiven for their screwups. A financial cushion can make a difference between a business that fails and one that survives.

    Pioneer America was a meritocratic setting because your life depended on you working like a horse and having practical talents. I’m reading a book about Colorado settlers now, and there are examples of people being poor from lack of talent no matter how hard they work, and people being poor from lack of willpower (drinking away the money they earn). The family and status the settler came from, however, didn’t make much difference.

    Modern Russia is nepotistic. A privileged caste has everything, puts their kids in all good positions and the rest are left to survive as they can. We could see it even in this Covid pandemic: the government made big efforts when the virus threatened the elite returning from Italian vacations, and stopped caring when it became the problem of ordinary people outside the main cities.

    I wrote this to show that (how much those factors matter for success) is highly specific for an area of employment, location, time, and who knows what else. To determine it for the American black population you have to look closely at many factors. Including the subset of this population, as it isn’t all the same.

  80. @Reg Cæsar
    @dfordoom


    If you want nationalism it’s going to have to be some kind of left-wing nationalism.
     
    Impossible. Aliens vote more to the left than natives. The left will always cater to the aliens.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    If you want nationalism it’s going to have to be some kind of left-wing nationalism.

    Impossible. Aliens vote more to the left than natives. The left will always cater to the aliens.

    That simply isn’t so. The New Left has for several decades liked immigration but the Old Left was quite nationalistic and quite unenthusiastic about immigration. What little remains of the Economic Left is sill highly sceptical of immigration (Bernie Sanders made his real feelings about immigration very clear).

    In fact the Economic Left must of necessity be anti-immigration, and in general fairly nationalistic.

    If the Economic Left ever revives it is likely to again be anti-immigration and fairly nationalistic. It’s also likely to be fairly socially conservative, just as the Old Left was socially conservative.

    • Replies: @anon
    @dfordoom

    The New Left has for several decades liked immigration but the Old Left was quite nationalistic and quite unenthusiastic about immigration.

    Where are all those Old Lefties now? Not in the "autonomous zone" of Seattle or Portland, that's for sure. In fact I bet you can't find any outside of retirement homes, slightly moldy bookstores, geezer-politics coffee shops and so forth. Last time I was in Seattle I saw a few in a bookstore, arguing over some esoteric leftard dead issue.

    What little remains of the Economic Left is sill highly sceptical of immigration (Bernie Sanders made his real feelings about immigration very clear).

    If little remains that might explain why they don't matter. Not in politics and not socially.

    In fact the Economic Left must of necessity be anti-immigration, and in general fairly nationalistic.

    Point to a country where such a Left exists.

    If the Economic Left ever revives it is likely to again be anti-immigration and fairly nationalistic. It’s also likely to be fairly socially conservative, just as the Old Left was socially conservative.

    "If...likely...if...likely" just come out and write "ought!", get it out of your system.

    OK Boomer!

    What century do you live in?

    lol.

  81. TBH the blacks in my area are nice middle class people, mostly from the Caribbean (descendants of slaves too). A building where many of them live is right next to mine, it’s poorer (rental) but I haven’t seen or heard of them being a nuisance or shooting someone. The shooting reports always come from Jane&Finch, a hellish social housing block in northern suburbs. And this shaped my view that the right social conditions and incentives (including those that come from within the community itself) can make any ethnicity live like civilized people. I couldn’t care less about their formal school scores that Americans are obsessed with equalizing, not everyone is supposed to be a nerd, it’s OK if you want to dance at a carnival in the tropical sun more than cram. But not being an asshole to yourself and your neighbor is mandatory.

    One could argue that these people are selected by Canada’s immigration system for their intellect, but to cut this system you mostly need good English and a demanded (not intellectual) job. English is already their native language, so it’s not such a hard-to-jump bareer to them.

  82. anon[998] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    @Reg Cæsar



    If you want nationalism it’s going to have to be some kind of left-wing nationalism.
     
    Impossible. Aliens vote more to the left than natives. The left will always cater to the aliens.
     
    That simply isn't so. The New Left has for several decades liked immigration but the Old Left was quite nationalistic and quite unenthusiastic about immigration. What little remains of the Economic Left is sill highly sceptical of immigration (Bernie Sanders made his real feelings about immigration very clear).

    In fact the Economic Left must of necessity be anti-immigration, and in general fairly nationalistic.

    If the Economic Left ever revives it is likely to again be anti-immigration and fairly nationalistic. It's also likely to be fairly socially conservative, just as the Old Left was socially conservative.

    Replies: @anon

    The New Left has for several decades liked immigration but the Old Left was quite nationalistic and quite unenthusiastic about immigration.

    Where are all those Old Lefties now? Not in the “autonomous zone” of Seattle or Portland, that’s for sure. In fact I bet you can’t find any outside of retirement homes, slightly moldy bookstores, geezer-politics coffee shops and so forth. Last time I was in Seattle I saw a few in a bookstore, arguing over some esoteric leftard dead issue.

    What little remains of the Economic Left is sill highly sceptical of immigration (Bernie Sanders made his real feelings about immigration very clear).

    If little remains that might explain why they don’t matter. Not in politics and not socially.

    In fact the Economic Left must of necessity be anti-immigration, and in general fairly nationalistic.

    Point to a country where such a Left exists.

    If the Economic Left ever revives it is likely to again be anti-immigration and fairly nationalistic. It’s also likely to be fairly socially conservative, just as the Old Left was socially conservative.

    “If…likely…if…likely” just come out and write “ought!”, get it out of your system.

    OK Boomer!

    What century do you live in?

    lol.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS