Alt Left: Even Ghetto Blacks Are Not Doomed to Uniformly Bad Behavior

Polar Bear: Blacks on the other hand will steal your cheap plastic lawn chair. Blacks are always up to no good on my block.

I have a feeling this is more universal than we think. I was talking to a Brazilian woman I knew well. I told her,

“You don’t want to be racist against Blacks, but it’s hard.”

Meaning it’s hard for obvious reasons. She immediately commiserated and said,

Yes, it’s hard. Here in Brazil, we have a saying about Blacks. “If they don’t steal from you when they’re coming, they steal from you when they’re going.” (obviously in Portuguese).

In other words, “If they don’t steal from you when they come in, they steal from you when they leave.”

They don’t really act all that bad around here in my city except that they are ghetto as Hell. I made friends with one older Black man though. He hated Whites but I was able to get through to him. Later he saw me with a hot 23 year old part-Black woman, so now he probably likes me even more.

We just don’t have many Blacks in this town, period. Hence they cause few problems, and they tend to keep their heads down because they don’t have any numbers, which is what they ought to do anyway. When you only have a small % of Blacks in a city, they tend to act pretty good, mostly because they simply don’t have any numbers. They still cause problems. Blacks like that always cause problems. But they don’t cause mayhem like they do when they have larger numbers, and the difference between problems and mayhem is all the difference in the world.

Further, they are surrounded by Whites and Hispanics who almost always act better than they do. To their credit, these typically ghetto Blacks imitate the Whites and Hispanics around them and act a lot better.

A lot of them still act like shit but still act a lot less shitty than they ordinarily would. They’re still antisocial but they are antisocial in petty, neighborly ways and not in serious criminal ways. Like always asking to borrow money and then you never see the money again. They see you with an expensive object and they “request” that you give it to them. Just typical ghetto nig shit, but they won’t menace you if you don’t fork over your property, and you can always quit loaning them money.

All the young women in their 20’s have at least one kid, obviously with no man in sight. However, these basically ghetto women are quite well behaved.

Also around here the better behaved Blacks dislike the more ghetto ones like I just described. So there are varying degrees of morality even among a hardcore Black population.

In addition, the Whites and Hispanics simply will not put up with any shit at all from these ghetto Blacks. They call these Blacks on their tiniest antisocial bullshit, so that tends to nip the usually mandatory escalation in the bud. I have often thought that if these ghetto Blacks around here were living in a Black ghetto, they would act a lot worse.

It’s so obvious to me that even ghetto Blacks are not doomed to any particular behavior level. It’s also painfully clear to me that their own kind not only serve as horrific role models but also don’t call these Blacks on much of any of their antisocial bullshit. They don’t call them on the little stuff, and they probably don’t call them on the bigger stuff.

Humans aren’t stupid. They’ll get away with just about whatever the Hell you let them get away with. White people act quite good, but we aren’t angels, and every White community has its scumfucks. We are only human after all. Living in White communities my whole life, I was told and learned the hard way that (White) people will get away with just about whatever you let them get away with. So this isn’t a ghetto Black thing. It’s a human thing.

The behavior of even ghetto Blacks can be markedly improved.

First of all, they need to be a minority, preferably under 25%. 25% Black seems to be a tipping point in many cities, after which things start to go seriously to Hell in a handbasket. Below 25% Black, you can look at the statistics of various pathologies, and they don’t rise that much from 5 – 10 – 15 – 20% Black. The city remains more or less livable.

But somewhere between 20-30%, most cities tip over. What follows is probably White flight, usually slow rather than fast, and worse than that is that the decently behaved Blacks (of which there are many – many millions!) start taking off too. Well-behaved Blacks aren’t stupid. They’re not going to sit around in some ghettoizing shithole due to racial solidarity. Sanity and safety trumps racial consciousness any day of the week.

This does not apply to wealthy Black areas like Ladera Heights in Los Angeles, and it probably doesn’t apply to small Black towns in the South where a remarkably decent authentic Black culture is often present.

Second of all, the small population of Blacks needs to be a part of a better behaved larger population, preferably White, Hispanic, or Asian. Ghetto Blacks act remarkably better even in majority-Hispanic cities because Hispanic pathologies are much exaggerated and they act better than most people think.

Third, the larger population needs to call these ghetto Blacks on their antisocial shit, starting with the most petty neighborly BS. Just shut it down before it even starts. Either due to this or due to the general environment, the better behaved Blacks start shutting down the bad actors too. People, even supposedly irredeemable ghetto Blacks, do respond to harsh correction at the societal level.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Face It: The Latest Riots are Multiracial Leftwing Antiracist Riots

Alpha Unit: I am responding to this narrative that all this destruction and violence is a “Black” thing. That’s not the whole story.

I would agree with you that the riots are not all a Black thing. Head on over to American Renaissance and see how these are being portrayed as Black riots. Well, there are Black riots in this country, but these don’t really qualify. In some cities, in these riots it is mostly Blacks rioting. Those are cities in the South like Atlanta, Louisville, Birmingham, and some other places that elude me at the moment. I believe there were Whites in the crowd in Atlanta though.

In general, the rioters were a mix of young Black, Hispanic, and White men, mostly antisocial and living on the edge of society, most without decent or any jobs or much to lose. I saw many young men rioting right alongside the Blacks. The Whites looked like skate punk and Antifa types. A lot of Whites were holding up BLM signs and chanting BLM slogans.

In LA, most of the rioters tended to be Hispanics.

In Las Vegas, the crowd was very mixed, mostly Hispanics with some Whites, even including White women, with a few Blacks in the mix too. The white rioters seemed to have more of the fancier materials you need to start a riot.

In Minneapolis, many of those smashing and setting things on fire were young White men, often skate punk types. In some cases, they worked right alongside inner city type Blacks. However, I did see an interview with a Minneapolis Black gang member who said that all of the gangs in the city (mostly Black) were working together in these riots to cause mayhem even though a lot of them were enemies normally.  So there is also a criminal gang element, but that shouldn’t be surprising.

The riots seem quite multiracial in New York, but it was hard to get a breakdown. There were a lot of Blacks but also some Whites.

There were many Whites in the Washington DC riots but also a lot of Blacks of course.

Rioters in Seattle and Portland tended to be young antifa type Whites.

Chicago seemed to have a lot of Blacks, but there were also Whites mixed in.

The truth is that these for the most part are multiracial riots. Yes, many rioters are Black, but there are quite a few young White and Hispanic men in the mix.

I will say one thing. It seems like most of the looting is being done by Blacks. I did see a few Whites looting in Minneapolis and New York. Hispanics are known to loot but I’m not aware of how many of them did. In the Rodney King riots, the looters were heavily Black and Hispanics. However, when they moved up to Hollywood, a lot of more or less regular young White men got in on, targeting high end items.

I was happy to see the stores of the rich looted and smashed up though. That’s who they should be targeting.

Looting does tend to be a Black thing. Hispanics don’t seem to loot as much, and it seems like a lot of Whites, even White rioters, are averse to looting. A White rioter will smash stuff up, set a building on fire but then refuse to loot other buildings. Not sure why that is, but I think Antifa doesn’t like looting. Plus a lot of Whites are afraid to steal or perhaps they even consider it morally wrong.

Alpha Unit: And leftwing people are not delusional for thinking there are rightwing people out there seeking to capitalize on these protests.

Correct, but I am seeing little evidence of this.

Three Bugaloo Boys went to a demonstration and tried to turn it violent, but the crowd did not buy it. Further, the Bugaloos are a mixed bag. Yes most are rightwingers, often racist ones. However, there are other Bugaloos who are on the left and a number of them are antiracists. So the Bugaloos are just a group of “tear it down” folks who are insurrectionists against the government for a variety of reasons – right, left, racist and antiracist. The only thing that unites them is the desire to smash it up and take down the state.

I am watching leftwing subs on Reddit, and all they ever say about these riots is that it’s White Nationalist racists and undercover police instigators who are setting off the  riots or even doing most of the damage. I went to the page of one liberal, and he said all the destruction was being done by White nationalists and undercover police instigators. He also said Russia was behind the riots.

Black people don’t want to think it’s their people rioting. That’s a typical human Dindu reaction. They are correct, the Black rioters are having a significant  amount of White and Hispanic help. That’s the better response. Pawning it off on cops and rightwing racists ain’t gonna cut it.

Leftwingers and antiracists object to the notion that these are leftwing antiracist riots. Once again this is the typical human Dindu reaction. Dindu reactions tend to be more of a human response than a Black cope. People don’t like to take responsibility when their group does bad things, so they blame it all on outsiders or better yet, their enemies.

Rightwingers are notorious for this but as we can see, leftwingers and antiracists are not immune to it either. The defenses are Denial and Projection. “Blaming other people” isn’t just something pathological people do. Most people go through life blaming other people in some way or other. I don’t object to blaming other people, but I think the less you do it, the better.

But that’s exactly what they are – these are indeed leftwing antiracist riots. And antifa-type and BLM (neither of which are organizations) elements do appear significant. The young Whites may be apolitical, or if they vote at all, they vote Bernie. The Blacks and Hispanics just vote straight Democratic if they even vote at all. I think a lot of these rioters are apolitical in the sense that they are outside of organized politics and might not even vote.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Leftwing Dindus: Who’s Behind the Riots?

Alpha Unit: LAS VEGAS (AP) — Three Nevada men with ties to a loose movement of right-wing extremists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government have been arrested on terrorism-related charges in what authorities say was a conspiracy to spark violence during recent protests in Las Vegas.

Federal prosecutors say the three white men with U.S. military experience are accused of conspiring to carry out a plan that began in April in conjunction with protests to reopen businesses closed because of the coronavirus.

More recently, they sought to capitalize on protests over the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in Minneapolis after a white officer pressed his knee into his neck for several minutes even after he stopped moving and pleading for air, prosecutors said.

The three men were arrested Saturday on the way to a protest in downtown Las Vegas after filling gas cans at a parking lot and making Molotov cocktails in glass bottles, according to a copy of the criminal complaint obtained by The Associated Press.

Make of this what you will.

So, did they spark any violence? No. What is the name of this group? Boogaloo Boys?

The vast majority of the people I see smashing stuff up, setting things on fire, and looting are young people. Many of them are young Black men who don’t exactly look like fine upstanding citizens. In the West many of the rioters are young Hispanic man who don’t exactly look like model citizens either. In all of these riots, and most particularly in Minneapolis, the smashers and burners were young White men who look something like antifa types or skate punks. Antifa has indeed had presence in these riots. Look at all the antifa graffiti.

The vast majority or rioters are young lumpen Black, Hispanic and White men. They live on the fringes of society and are estranged from mainstream culture. Many are anti-society. Most don’t seem to have much if any money. Many do not appear to be married or have children.

If these rioters vote at all, they may vote Bernie. The Blacks and Hispanics will either vote Bernie or simply Democratic if they even vote at all. These are leftwing riots all the way. Not even liberal riots. Leftwing riots, as in to the left of liberal Democrats. No party is behind this. Almost all Democratic Party politicians are condemning the violence. There are no organizations called antifa and Black Lives Matter.

Of course people on the left do not wish to believe that these are leftwing riots. Left-wingers, like everyone else, are Dindus. I suppose Blacks also wish to deflect the blame, and Blacks are the original Dindus. Leftwing Dindus are saying that all the rioting is being caused by far right racist White nationalists and undercover police instigators. This is simply the natural human tendency to deny and deflect blame whenever members of your group do something unsavory.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Genocide? What White Genocide?

My Mom laughs about these people. I mention Nordicists to her and she shrugs her shoulders, chuckles as if talking about a silly person, and asks:

Why don’t they just move to Iceland…or Idaho?

My sister hears it, shakes her head and starts giggling. I tell my Mom about White Genocide theories, and she just chuckles, shrugs her shoulders, and says:

Oh well, looking around at this town, I’d say White people are going to be around a pretty long time.

She’s right. Last time I went to an event in her town (I think Halloween dinner event), there must have been 75 people there, and I didn’t see one non-White. Lots of red hair too! Gingers are hardly going extinct despite WN handwringing, and with all this hair dye nowadays, who cares about hair color anyway?

I was looking around at that Halloween dinner crowd and thinking:

White genocide? LOL I don’t think so. Not yet anyway.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Of Course I’m Not a Racist

Polar Bear: I consider Robert antiracist with a soft spot for US Blacks.

Of course I am! I am a pretty mild anti (old school) but I am still an anti at my core (MLK style). How come these White Nationalist types are the only ones who get me right? They all say exactly this. All of the White nationalists say, “Hey look, man! You’re not one of us, ok? You’re an anti.” They often add that I’m anti-White. Wouldn’t you think if I were one of them, they would just come right out and say it?

I tell modern SJW scum this, and they start twisting themselves around in all sorts of weird human pretzels trying to make sense. Typically they say that racism goes beyond the Mighty Whitey types and White nationalists. Ok, fine, but isn’t there a bit of a continuum when it comes to this sort of thing? The guy next door who muses, “Boy, Blacks sure commit a lot of crime, don’t they?” is the same as Richard Spencer and Stormfront.

“Of course,” SJW’s say, “It’s all the same.” But do you see how insane that is? Jews think like this too. People around the watercooler laughingly comment that Jews are loud, rude, and obnoxious. Half of them are Judeophiles, but every Judeophile I ever knew said precisely this about Jews. The Jew sees that and according to this insane Jewish lunatic, those Judeophiles standing around the watercooler are exactly the same as the maniacs who threw his ancestors in the fire.

And of course the WN view is true because this is how I see myself. I assume that I see myself in a proper light. I would hate to think that others understand me better than I understand myself. I’m much too self-aware for that.

Really racism is a continuum of 0-100 I think. 0 is absolutely nonracist or antiracist. 100 would be completely racist, at least towards some particular group.I am thinking that there are not a lot of 0’s out there, but there are obviously some.

According to SJW’s, we all have to be zero’s on the scale! But why? It’s human nature to be somewhere on a continuum when it comes to most anything. This isn’t a purity contest or is it? SJW’s demand that people be 100% good and 0% bad. In this way, SJW’s very much resemble fundamentalists Christians, Muslims, and Jews. And of course they’re party-pooper turd-in-the-punchbowl no-funners like all of those dour religious types too. SJW’s are Church Ladies.

On that 0-100, WN’s would be racist towards most other groups so they would be close to 100’s; Nordicists are racist towards nearly everyone on the planet so they would be even closer to 100’s.

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Libertarianism and the Alt Left: Prospects for an Alliance?

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Peronismo definitely won’t fly in Libertarian circles. Argentina is used as a case study for a failed nationalized protectionist economy.

That’s probably not even true. They did great during the Peron years.

I think that the Trump years in general and this COVID-19 response in particular, both of which have been characterized by neoliberal or Libertarian policy and a Libertarian response to a crisis, respectively, has proven the abject failure of the neoliberal or Libertarian model. As if it had not been proven failed by the 2008 crash, which was caused wholly by this model.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: To unify all the nomadic tribes of the Alternative Steppe, three things are need. First, a rejection of central economic planning would have to be declared by right and left wingers. Second, constitutional or legislative limitations on the power of government to regulate. Essentially, castrate the FDA, FCC, FAA etc.* and legalize drugs

I absolutely will not go for either of those. Central planning is working great in China. Even South Korea, Japan, and Germany engage in central planning.

And we will never go along with gutting regulations. Alt Leftists are regulators. We are really Big Government types in a lot of ways.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: And third, a solution to the immigration problem.

There is no solution to this problem.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: The social-economic model, even if never explicitly stated as such, would be capitalism for corporations, socialism for individuals, and tyranny at the border, which is the inverse of what we have now. Warren Buffett agrees.

It’s the capitalism for corporations part that we are going to object to. That’s the whole problem right there.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: The Democrats will stay hopelessly in shambles for the next few elections until minority GDP and population both over take that of whites.

I wouldn’t count on that if I were you.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Deregulation is hard for leftists to accept because of the strong tendency to falsely conflate wealth redistribution with government regulation.

It is in fact that only thing that redistributes income at all. Absent that you just have never-ending growth of inequality until you pretty much have feudalism. Neoliberalism (or Libertarian economics) has failed everywhere it’s been tried. It’s only success stories are when it’s mixed with socialism. Most of the world rejects neoliberal economics. The US is a holdout. There aren’t many others.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I suggest aptitude AND loyalty testing for immigrants to keep the stupids or anti-westerns out.

That’s fine.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: No explicit racism, but it would effectively bring in only Christian Caucasians from Europe, Africa and the Middle-East, liberal East Asians and light-skinned Hispanics.

We would object to this part. Of course we want mostly high-quality immigrants, but they don’t have to be any particular race. High-quality immigrants of any race should be just fine.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Currently, strong regulation of consumer goods & services exists because, ex post fact, individuals can’t afford to sue companies for the damages their products may have caused. As IQ’s, automation, access to on-line information, and personal income increase worldwide, people could rely less on byzantine jurisprudence.

I don’t understand any of this.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: But as I see the tsunami of technology and globalization approaching to totally demolish the justification for our current system, I can’t help but take preparations for the utopia. We must agree on which anarchist utopia to usher in, lest our system turn into a Blade Runner dystopia.

The future will not be any type of anarchism. In fact the future will see a greater role for the state.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Complete Deterioration of Literary Criticism in the Last 40 Years

I like to read literary criticism sometimes because it’s some of the hardest stuff out there to understand, at least for me. Forget philosophy. Don’t even go there. Lit Crit is different. With Lit Crit it’s hard as hell to understand and it’s incredibly smart and dense, but you can pretty much understand most if not all of it, so it’s worth it. I call it giving my brain a workout, and to me it’s similar to going to the gym for your body.

I recently read a couple of Hemingway’s best short stories. Then I found and read two Lit Crit articles about them. Lit Crit is very useful this way. If you haven’t already read the work, I’m not quite sure how useful it is or how much you would get out it. But if you’ve read it, Crit is often great for explicating the work and explaining deeper meanings, themes, etc. hidden in the text.

One was in a journal called Journal of College Literature from 1980. It was remarkably down to earth for a Lit Crit journal, especially the issues around published around that time. So I started going through a few decades worth of the journal.

I noticed that the Lit Crit from ~40 years ago was much different and frankly much superior to the gobbledygook out nowadays. It then focused on individual books and was fairly straightforward, simply looking for explications of the events, characters, plots, and themes in the book.

As I moved forward a couple of decades, everything changed. Now it was all postmodernism. Lit Crit about individual works were less common. The crit became ridiculously politicized with SJW and PC Leftist slants towards everything. Now I am a Leftist myself (albeit a weird one) but for the life of me, I do not understand why we need to litter our Lit Crit with Leftist political theory.

In addition to Marxism, there was also inordinate focus on women (feminism, mostly a joke field called Women’s Studies), gays and lesbians (from the lens of a ridiculous and bizarre field called Queer Studies), Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other non-Whites (same thing- focus on non-fields like Black and Hispanic Studies), on and on.

Pretty much all they wrote about were these “oppressed minorities.” Cringey Queer Studies essays searched for and discovering non-existing homosexuality in perfectly straight stories (Did you know Moby Dick is a gay novel?) and secret homosexuality in completely straight authors (Did you know Shakespeare was gay?). It’s weird and stupid.

There was also a strange attempt to find some silly “woman angle” in novels where women were not particularly important to the story.
There was also a focus on older books written by women and minorities which are apparently good books merely because they were written by a minority or woman and not for any other reason.

Why Lit Crit has to be all about oppressed minorities is beyond me. Fine, some minorities are oppressed. We need a politics to address that. But why trash up Lit Crit with leftwing obsessions with minority groups? Last time I checked, straights, Whites, and men also existed. Can we maybe keep the politics out of our Crit and just talk about the books without turning everything into a political rally?

Another worse problem went along with this. The essays became dominated by postmodernism and were much harder to understand. There were references to philosophy scattered all through everything (particularly unintelligible Continentals like Sartre, Derrida, Lacan, Cixous, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Foucalt, Frankfurt School, DeLueze and Guattari).

That’s all fine and dandy but why can’t we keep unintelligible philosophers out of our Lit Crit? What do incomprehensible Frenchmen spouting nonsense have to do with the novels we read?

It is true that the essays became much more demanding, but there was also a lot of silly talk about things like the Body (?), the Male Gaze (!?), the Text, the Author, the Reader (Barthes), on and on with weird, silly postmodern concepts.

In addition, somehow they became strangely repetitive in that they obsessed over the same postmodernist tropes and views in essay after essay. After a while, it seemed like I was reading the same essay again and again and learning little about the actual books being discussed.
Finally, it became quite boring as a result of this repetition.

tl/dr: Lit Crit has completely deteriorated over the past 40 years. It’s now a swamp of barely comprehensible postmodernism and obsessions with women, gays and minorities. Leftist politics and incoherent Continental philosophers litter every essay, turning it from a brain workout into muddy slow trod up a mountain in the rain without boots or a poncho.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Alt Left Definition of Racism

Have you heard of the anonymous academic La Griffe du Lion?

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/

His best is where he explains how low black IQ may have cost Al Gore Florida and the Presidency.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/elec2000.htm

First of all, he’s not anonymous. He’s been doxed already.

Yes I have heard of him and he’s absolutely horrible. He’s a sociology professor at some university. I hate tossing the word racist around promiscuously like SJW’s do, but let’s face it, some Whites are indeed racist against Black people,  and he’s definitely one of them.

I’m not talking about race realism, which is just reciting facts that Black people don’t want to hear. Race realism per se is not racism, but 99% of race realists are actual racists, so I see why people say race realism is racism. However there are a few that are not. That’s basically been the project at this site since forever: to create a progressive, non-racist race realist discourse. It goes beyond that but that’s a good starter.

Race realism with a tone of animus is racist. Race realism without animus is not racist at all. I define racism as animus and I also propose that as an Alt Left definition of racism. And La Griffe De Lion is racist in that sense. He has actual animus towards Blacks and it shows in his writing.

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Black People’s Reaction to a White Man Dating a Black Woman

Alpha Unit: People tend to be possessive of the men or the women of their group. It’s been observed across races.

I’ve seen complaints from both American and non-American Black people about interracial relationships.

I understand where this possessiveness comes from, but it’s possible to get over it. Let grown people date and marry whoever they want.

Yeah, when I dated Black women, I caught some serious shit from Black men. I remember once they glared at me and really hated the fact that I was with this Black chick. It honestly freaked me out pretty bad since they were so up front about it.

The attitude was a mixture of hostility and puzzlement or bafflement, like I was weird in some disturbing way, and they couldn’t understand me. Sort of like, “What the Hell are you doing, man?! WTF? You’re fucking weird, man! What’s your problem?” Or maybe, “The nerve of you!” Something like that.

I asked her about it and she said:

“They don’t like that.”

“You mean a White guy with a Black woman?”

“Yes, Black men don’t like it.”

“Why?”

“I don’t know. They just don’t. It’s just the way they are. They’re like that.”

“They think I’m stealing one of their women?”

“Maybe.”

On the other hand, I would be out with a Black chick and see young Black women, and they seemed to be giving the Black woman a thumbs-up. “You go, girl! Good job, snagged yourself a White man.” Almost like I was a prize. It was an odd reaction but it made me feel pretty good. I’m not sure if Black women see White men are prizes. Apparently some of them do.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: How Do Liberal Whites Talk about Blacks Behind Closed Doors?

Tamerlane: Curious about what Whites truly think about Blacks (and other races) behind closed doors…

…besides the usual:

1) Blacks are stupid (have low IQ’s)
2) Blacks have low emotional self-control
3) Blacks have a criminal disposition
4) Blacks are lazy (low conscientiousness)

That’s about it. You won’t hear much beyond that from liberal Whites anyway.

1. The low intelligence is not regarded with contempt but instead as a simple fact. My mother in particular has been fascinated by this subject and has been studying it for many years,  probably 50 years. She thinks there is something  to it and it’s genetic. She’s heard of Arthur Jensen and William Shockley.

Some will argue against the race-IQ facts out of ignorance. I had one guy like that. His response was,
“No way…” but he had a funny little smile on his face when he said it. Then I argued that IQ tests did indeed show that Blacks on average were less intelligent. He argued against it for a while but then he caved. He had the same odd little smile on his face, sort of a curious smile. Then he said, “Well, of course. Of course they’re not as smart.”

On the other hand, I had a very racist friend 35 years ago, and we were discussing this subject. He said, “You mean niggers ain’t got no brains, right?” and he chuckled. I said yeah. And he said, “Well, yeah, obviously, of course.”

2. The low self-control is not discussed. It’s a rather sophisticated subject and most folks are just not intellectual enough to take it on.

However, perhaps along those lines, I did tell my mother about the candy bar experiments in the Caribbean and the US South where the Black children could not seem to delay gratification whereas almost all the White children choose to delay their pleasure.

She nodded her head with a tired expression that was somewhat cynical and said, “Well, of course.” She has also noted that Blacks mature earlier than other races, and she thinks this is  genetic. She noted that Blacks mature earliest and are least intelligent, and Asians mature latest and are most intelligent. She acted like this was genetic. She had that same sort of tired, cynical tone when she said that.

3. They would not say that Blacks have a criminal disposition. Instead they would say that Blacks commit a lot of crime for whatever reason and this is the main rationale behind anti-Black racism. I will talk about anti-Black racism, and they will say in an exasperated tone, “It’s the crime!”

There was a guy where I live, a psychopath and a gang member, part Black and part Hispanic Cuban-American, a criminal who later ripped me off for a $175 knife. I told him about the Black-crime thing, and he acted surprised at first and disbelieving or maybe just shocked. Then he nodded his head gravely and said, “They’re savages.” And this guy was part Black!

I forget what I did, maybe nodded my head or something crappy like that. I don’t like to be disagreeable. I don’t agree that Black people are savages, but I like my conversations to go smoothly. Then he said, “Well no wonder. They come from Africa. They’re savages over there in Africa.” I probably nodded my head to this one too, and sadly it’s a lot more true than the previous statement.

But born criminals? Nope, people don’t really say that. Sometimes it is implied but not stated, though. I remember my mother telling me about friends of hers who adopted a Black boy, and as he grew into an adolescent, he became a complete psychopath.

She said her friends were the nicest people, and he probably had the best upbringing. In other words, environment had nothing to do with it. The implication was that he had a genetic tendency and that this tendency was heightened due to his race.

4.You don’t hear much about Blacks being lazy, and a lot of people will argue against it and say they sure worked hard as slaves, etc. That was my line forever and I would probably still whip it out just to be a liberal ha ha.

However, my 87 year old mother, a liberal Democrat, thinks there is something to it. Not that there aren’t hard-working Blacks.

And by the way, one of her best friends started dating a Black man from Mississippi in her 80’s. I met the guy and he’s the coolest dude you ever met. My Mom was 100% supportive of this relationship. And she probably would not have been earlier in life. So even in that generation, things are changing. Dramatically.

I have these conversations most often with liberal Whites, and they generally police their speech pretty well. All of this talk is a bit taboo, and it’s not talked about much because it seems like it makes them uncomfortable. It’s as if they’d rather not discuss it, like these are uncomfortable or unpleasant truths.

But beyond that, no. No liberal ever discusses Black appearance in a negative way. That’s considered to be very gross racist thinking.

I’m not sure if there are other legitimate criticisms you can make of Black people. I think most liberals would say that the four above are a handful, if not too much to stomach right there. The last thing they want to do is hear any more negative stuff about Black people. They don’t want these things to be true and they think the fewer arguments like this, the better.

Racist jokes about Blacks are also frowned upon.  They’re considered to be somewhat gross and disgusting, rather uncouth. Maybe a bit vicious too. It’s sort of, “Hey, we don’t talk like that around here.”

There is a hint of exasperation about these conversations at times, if not cynicism. At least in my Mom’s case.

With liberals like my sister or my late father, you could not even bring up any of this without them blowing up and starting a huge fight. My sister hates the race-IQ argument  and noticeably squirms in her seat if you bring it up.

My father especially hated the race-IQ question. It was false, he said, because if it were true, “that means there’s no hope (for Blacks)!” Well, perhaps that is so, but it certainly doesn’t make the statement false. As you can see, a truthful statement for my father meant something he wanted to be true. If he didn’t want it to be true, it was simply a falsehood. I honestly believe the  vast majority of people think exactly like this.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Liberals, Racism, and the Purpose of This Site

RL: “What sort of racist attitudes? Describe.”

Alpha Unit: Robert, you’ve written more than once about the kinds of things even liberal or Leftist Whites say and do in private around “chosen Whites.” You’ve even stated that most Whites are racist to some degree.

Hmm, that’s just race realism though. Not really racism if you ask me anyway.

Most Whites are racist? In the sense of having some negative attitudes towards Blacks, sure, of course. SJW Whites are not common.

But yes, I know liberals, or more properly Centrist Democrats, who get quite racist behind closed doors, like with me for instance. Calling Blacks niggers and all that.

I don’t say anything. I’m not that guy’s Mom or his preacher, and I hate narcs and cops and anything resembling them, so I’m not about to tell anyone to tone down their speech. On the other hand, I don’t like it. Promiscuously referring to all Blacks as niggers in conversation is just…I dunno…gross?  It’s sort of disgusting, like food that leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Also, not chosen Whites, more like certain Whites. The ones who might be receptive to such heresies. Often the speech even behind closed doors is very well-policed, probably as it ought to be because if most White liberals said behind closed doors what they really think about other races, particularly Blacks, it probably wouldn’t be a pretty picture.

A lot of things are better left unsaid and a lot of speech is better off policed than let it all hang loose.

And there’s a lot of thoughts that are better left unspoken. I really don’t care what someone thinks of me. They can like me or hate me or anything in between. As long as they’re nice to my face, that’s all that matters. If they sweet-talk me to my face but then say, “God-damn that sonofabitch!” when I walk out the door, I’m not sure if I care about that too much, unless someone tells me about it, in which case, I won’t like it. For Chrissake, keep it to yourself, dammit!

Sometimes the talk behind closed doors even with those who police their speech can get overtly racist. Usually not me but others can get like that. Most people simply cannot critique another race without getting racist and shitty about it. Of course that is what we are trying to get away from here.

We engage in a lot of racial critique (of any and all races, really), and that critique includes the good as well as the bad, but we are trying to do it in as nonracist a way as possible.

Granted that’s pretty difficult, but that’s been the purpose of the site ever since I started way back with Liberal Race Realism, which was pretty much a flop and had to be abandoned. Beyond Highbrow – tell it like it is! But do so in as non-bigoted a way as possible, please. I mean there are ladies present, boys. Mind your manners please.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

White Suicidality and the Odd Specter of the Indian Hindu Nordicist, of All Things

We have yet another Indian Nordicist posting away in the comments section. With all due respect to the commenter, these guys crack me up. Why are all these light-skinned Indian wannabe Whites Nordicists for God’s sake? Remember the commenter Swedish Shit? Note that he chose Sweden. He lived in the UK but for a while there, he was lying and saying he was living in Sweden. Before that he had some name with words like Snow or White in it.

All of these Indian wannabe Whites are Nordicists. Hell, they are worse than Northern and Western Europeans themselves and their descendants here in North America (let’s call them WASPs for short though technically most are not).

Most Northern and Western European Whites in the US (I include myself here) gave up on Nordicism long ago. If you bring up some crap like “Italians aren’t White,” these Americans will dismiss you, saying, “Oh, that’s old-fashioned.”

Among the culturally liberal WASPs I grew up, Nordicism was extremely unpopular. The beach assimilated everyone. Pick up a surfboard, ride the waves, smoke joints, grow your hair long, fuck surfer chicks, and you’re “White” by default. Americans with Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Greek, Hispanic, or even Filipino ancestry were all pretty much assimilated into “Whites with some funny genetics.”

Because everyone simply acted White, no one cared about race and bringing it up was extremely taboo and majorly uncool. When all the groups act the  same, there’s no racism. Racism stems from difference, and different behaviors are prominent in that.

That’s why we Whites would rather hang with a middle class Black than a White wigger with his cap on backwards. The Black guy is basically “White” as far as we are concerned, and the  wigger is Black. Worse, he’s nothing but a nigger,  a White nigger, sure, but a nigger nonetheless!

A lot of the people I hang around would effectively evict him from the White race. We do this with some Whites, especially serious wiggers or scumbags.We simply inform them that they are no longer White and we start calling them niggers or making racist plays on words around  their names. As an example, there was a guy, a real scumbag who fell very low, named Meglar. That wasn’t his name, that was obviously just his nickname. Long story but anyway, moving on…

At one point, we informed him solemnly that he was no longer a member of the White race and he was now officially Black as far as we were concerned. We started making puns on his name, calling Nigler instead of Meglar. As with most White scumbags, criminals, drug addicts, and jailbirds, he was a major anti-Black racist, but not as bad as the WN kind.

So it’s a supreme insult to tell these working class White racists that they are no longer White and they are now Black; worse they are actual niggers. This with the knowledge that tens of millions of Blacks in the US are absolutely not niggers at all, and good for them.

I don’t even want to take a guess on the nigger population because I want to throw most Ghetto or really normative Black culture into that category, and I don’t like to call vast numbers of members of a race by racial slurs. It feels, you know, racist. And we liberals are viscerally uncomfortable with engaging in what we would call racist behavior. It’s a yuck factor.

After his eviction from our people, we’d tell him to move to Detroit to be around his own kind. And there’s some social race right there, exactly like the Brazilian kind.

We at the beach were practicing social race all the way back in the 1960’s. It’s not peculiar to South America, you know. Sure, there are a few Nordicists out there in my crowd, but people regard them as silly, weird, crazy, or awful. For instance, I have seen them tell Sicilians they are not White, and the Sicilian acted like he was going to punch the Nordicist’s face. A typical reaction with the crowd I hang with, and this was in an  all-White town.

Stormfronters and White Nationalist morons completely blew it by not giving up on Nordicism. White politics will never get anywhere unless you include the Meds and the Armenians, Georgians, Finns, Saami, Iranians, White Arabs, White Berbers, Turks, Albanians, certain people of the Stans and some Uighurs, a select few Afghans, Pakistanis and even Northern Indians, and yes, even Jews at the very least.

The notion that Jews are not White has always been a feint. Of course they are White. In fact, Jews are some of the Whitest Whites of all, as they have almost zero Black in them. Most European races absolutely have some Black in them. Germans have 1.5% for instance. With Portuguese, it’s up to 4-5% and with Sicilians, it is all the way to 5-7%.

WN’s never figured out that the more people you invite to the party, the better of a bash it is. They want to create a White state while hating most of the White people on Earth and calling them non-Whites. Good luck with that!

Sure, SJW Whites are suicidal, that’s obvious. But note that the White tendency towards suicidality extends all the way to the Mighty Whiteys themselves who condemn the racial suicidality of the liberal Whites.

So look. The WN’s are suicidal too. They want to preserve the White race while hating most Whites and casting them out of the race, leaving only a minority group that is actually really and truly pure White. WN’s gatekeep worse than Studio 54 in 1978.

You throw a party, then you throw most of the people out claiming that they weren’t invited and special enough to get in. That’s a good recipe for a crappy party, not to mention a few fistfights or worse around the keg.

Whites: the suicidal race. Prove me wrong!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

On the Difficult Case of Saint Henry Ford

I admit I am a bit of an antisemite. Not too much of one! Nazis are evil! But just a bit. You know those recipes that call for a “pinch” of this or that? I mean not 1/4 or even 1/8 of teaspoon. Less than even that! Well, that’s how antisemitic I am. Just a pinch.

Actually I think all Gentiles should be. Judeophilia is stupid as blind love for any race is stupid. No race should be worshiped blindly. We are all humans, and all human races are a bit evil or have that potential simply on account of being made up of humans, as humans are at least a bit evil, and that’s on a good day!

And as a “pinch antisemite” type, I have chosen to worship Saint Henry Ford as one of my antisemite secular Gods. Feel free to hate on me for that. I’m used to it.

Saint Ford was not perfect. No saint is, not even Saint Jesus. St. Ford’s scriptures, the long-running, Hadith-like commentaries in the great Dearborn Independent, are actually excellent and hardly antisemitic at all. They’re just one endless cynical and exasperated lament at the typically terrible Jewish behavior of the times. Check them out if you can dig them up. Fascinating stuff.

His greatest scriptural document, The International Jew, was excellent and was not even particularly antisemitic at all. In fact as antisemitic documents go, it’s one of the mildest and least offensive ones ever written. Antisemitic speech tends to be nasty as Hell, often murderous and not uncommonly genocidal. TIJ is neither. Further, it was written with a kind heart in the spirit of racial peace. It was actually an early antiracist tract!

He was mostly just exasperated with Jews for being such separatist, selfish, and Other-hating jerks. TIJ was a call for Jews to knock off the Gentile-hatred and especially the Jewish Ethnic Wars against the Gentiles, which were quite hot at that time.

At one point in the book his exasperation is clear. He points out that he never supported one pogrom and thought that pogroms were sickening and horrible. He called for the Jews to stop fighting us and smoke the peace pipe. He said Jews were too busy being Jews to be real Americans, and that was sad and frustrating.

Quit being Jews and start being Americans instead was the message. In other words, TIJ and even The Dearborn Independent are just a couple more works in favor of the assimilation of the Jews, which is generally a good and even progressive thing anyway. Unassimilated Jews don’t act real great. Face it.

Come,  Jews! Come join us Gentiles in building a better America!

Henry Ford, The International Jew

What a beautiful, albeit exasperated, remark! Of course the Jews didn’t listen, and I’m still not sure if they have joined the rest of us here in the US or not. I wish to believe they have, but I do wonder.

But even this scripture, TIJ, is flawed. Ford believed in the Czarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hate book that led to the murders of a lot of Jews. That book is just stupid.

And no, Jews don’t “act like that anyway even if it’s a forgery.” Bad argument. It’s just a stupid and wrong bit of hate speech and hate lie that killed a lot of people. Nasty stuff. Well, St. Ford ignorantly believed the Protocols. Dumb, almost criminal stupidity. His later meetings with Hitler were downright stupid too and even ignorantly wicked. He accepted the genocidal maniac Hitler’s praises, and that was more criminal idiocy.

He paid for it when the Jews tried to murder him by running his car off the road in the mid- 1930’s. Most people don’t know this and the Jews will scream, deny it and call you an antisemite for bringing it up, but oh yeah, it definitely happened all right. He almost died. He eased up on the Jews after, which I guess was smart.

My former Jewish girlfriend and I really split on the subject on St. Ford. Usually she agreed with everything I said about Jews and then one-upped me to go beyond that. Jews are profoundly antisemitic themselves as the sin is currently defined.

I defended St. Ford and boy was she mad. She really hated him. She grew up in Detroit and St. Ford was Antisemite Enemy #1 to Detroit Jews.

We had a fun relationship. During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1996, I openly supported Hezbollah and cheered them on right to her face. She would just laugh, tell me to shut up, and defend Israel. I’d say, “Go Hezbollah go!”, she’d laugh and retort and the match was on. Good times!

Once I asked her why she was defending Israel, and she thought a bit and said, “I ‘m defending my people.” Great answer. Nothing wrong with defending or supporting your people. Racial self-haters are rather disgusting to me. I even with Blacks to take pride in themselves.

Sure, Blacks are fucked up. Duh. But are you, a good Black person, fucked up too? Well, of course not. Then take pride in being a Great Black Man or Woman, whichever it is. Pride is always admirable and groveling is always disgusting, no matter the race or ethnicity.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

On the Phrase “Jerry Rigging” (And a More Racist Equivalent Phrase)

Polar Bear: There’s such a thing as Black stability. I went to college with a postal worker and had multiple black coworkers that remind me of the same black guy. Simple men that were easy to get along with.

More like Black practicality to me  rather than stability. But practicality itself is rather stabilizing, no? Black people are pragmatic. They have common sense. That’s one thing I really like about Black people.

You know that phrase called jerry-rigging? Well, another name for that is nigger-rigging. I know, racist. But people around me (My peers, not my parents and their friends – are you kidding?!) have been using that word my whole life in reference to their own actions, so I’m not even sure if it’s an insult.

I mean is it really a racist insult? A White person says he nigger-rigged something. Ok? That means…what? It means he’s acting like a nigger, right? That’s why I’m not even sure it’s all that racist. It’s sort of Whites calling themselves niggers, which doesn’t seem all that racist.

Incidentally, we Whites do call ourselves and each other niggers. It’s a lot more acceptable than calling Black people that word. I just called my friend a nigger or called myself a nigger? How is that racist? I mean it’s an insult when you use it against a Black…when you use it against a White, what does it even mean?

It’s like straight guys calling  each other fags, which is a lot more common nowadays than calling gay men that. How is that hatred of gays? I just called my friend a fag as a joke. That means I hate gay guys? Come  on.

Anyway, back to the subject.

Even people who almost never called Black people niggers would use that phrase nigger-rigging.

“How did you fix it?”

“Oh, I just kinda nigger-rigged it. It’s good for now at least anyway.”

Usually chuckles follow because that word is always sort of funny for some reason.

To nigger-rig or to jerry-rig (let’s switch to jerry-rigging – enough with uncomfortable words) something means a cheap, adaptive, half-assed yet workable and ultimately ingenious sort of a half-fix that is “good for now” but is not a long-term solution for the problem. It’s just a cheap, temporary fix.

It’s not a half-assed fix because you are lazy. It’s half-assed because you don’t have the materials on hand to fix it properly. But it’s a temporary fix that “works for now.” There is also a hint of ingenuity, inventiveness, cleverness, and adaptability in it. Which is why, despite the racism, the phrase is ultimately a compliment to Blacks.

Black people perhaps historically being often short on the money and materials needed to do a proper fix on something would then master the art of jerry-rigging (hence the version with the slur) not out of laziness but out of the necessity of the moment. Necessity being the mother of invention after all. Why do it? Because you don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, that’s why.

What I like about the idea of the association of Blacks with jerry-rigging is that it suggests that Blacks are inventive, clever, adaptive, and ingenious in a sense (in a practical, not world-class inventor) way. And if you know Black people well, you know that is indeed a characteristic of them. Jerry-rigging isn’t good for long-term fixes. What’s it good for? Short-term fixes which are needed for…what? How about survival? Black people know how to survive. I’ll give them that.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Being Good Little Boys Hasn’t Benefited Whites

Polar Bear: Whites really get nothing for being a good little boy. If anything you get more complaints and called racist more.

They just beat us up even more the more we get down on your knees, admit our guilt, and beg for forgiveness. Plus it sets you up for reparations and other bullshit. This is pretty typical. You supplicate yourself like that, people just think you are weak and beat you up even more.

Plus the White-hating SJWs are out for blood. They won’t settle for just an apology. I am convinced that they actually want to hurt Whites in some way or other, probably to elevate some non-Whites in their place. How many times have you seen demands for quotas these days in everything from the Oscars to IT, to, well, everything.

We’ve been pussing out for a while now, and all it makes them do is scream racism louder and louder. The feminists are very much the same way.

Most of these movements don’t have much of an endpoint where the grievance is resolved and everyone shakes hands and goes home and has a beer together. The model seems to be continuous grievance forever.

You give them some stuff and then they just move the goalposts again and scream even louder how oppressed they are. You see this exact same thing with the feminists. There’s no endgame. You can’t win. At some point you have to recognize that these people are your enemies and start fighting back against them.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The SJW’s Have It Wrong: Whites are Not the Worst People on Earth; Instead They Are the Best People on Earth

Examples: Americans feel bad about slavery and the American Indian genocide and have frankly already made significant reparations in all sorts of ways to both groups.

Don’t listen to Indian and Black SJW race hustlers. No one other than Whites would have sacrificed so much of their self-interest and behaved as altruistically towards formerly exploited groups as Whites have.

Show me one other group of people anywhere on Earth that has acted out this much guilt and self-abnegation and been so giving and even self-sacrificing towards people they used to exploit. You won’t find one single group of people anywhere on that has done that to anywhere near the extent that Whites have.

The SJW’s and Black and Indian race hustlers have it all wrong. Instead of being the worst people on Earth, Whites are actually the best people on Earth. And not for any of the reasons the White Supremacists say.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: An Overview of the Early Years of the Cuban Revolution, 1954-1961

transformer: What do you think of this article Robert? I don’t trust right wing sources but how literate was Cuba back in 1959?

That website is falsely named. It is not an “intellectual” website dedicated to the intellect and the pursuit of knowledge. Sure, it is an erudite, bright, and educated website, but the only intellectuals it appeals to are hard rightwingers. It’s basically the philosophy of your average American conservative Republican. Those sites are run by ideologues, and they are not very honest.

I will try to take apart this argument as best as I can, but if you Google these questions, there are many leftwing websites who offer far better rejoinders than I offer here, especially with more facts, figures, and dates.

That argument is not good because there was vast poverty in the countryside along with terrible health and dental care. There was vast inequality in Cuba. There was quite a bit of wealth in the cities, particularly in Havana, but the conditions in the countryside were awful, pure 3rd World.

To give an example, I believe that there may have been no doctors in Cuba outside of Havana. All of the doctors and dentists lived in Havana serving people with money for cash so they could make a lot of money. The Mafia owned Cuba, and Havana was a sleazefest full of criminals, gangsters, and prostitutes.

Blacks had essentially no rights at all. They actually lived under a strict Jim Crow-like segregation that was as bad as what existed in the South. The Blacks in Cuba were fucked.

The whole country was owned by foreign, mostly US, interests, including the sugar cane and tobacco fields, the cigar and nickel industries and the casinos and bars. A few country-sellers latched onto the large US corporations that ran everything in Cuba and got their fair share of the loot.

But the Cuban people as a whole, meaning the Cuban state, barely saw a nickel of profits from any of those foreign-owned fields and industries. There also was little or no trickle down effect from the foreign-owned industry. Most Cubans felt that Cuba had once more become a colony of the US. After all, it was more or less owned by US companies, right?

Cuba used to be a colony of the US. We stole it from the Spanish after the Spanish American War. US rule was not popular. Jose Marti is known as the liberator of Cuba. He led an insurrection in 1898 in which Cuba gained its freedom. The Philippines was also rebelling at this time.

But after the US left, in 1911, a new law was passed called the Platt (?) Amendment that basically said that the US still ruled Cuba and had a right to intervene in Cuba’s affairs anytime it wanted to.

Even the most rightwing anti-Castro Cubans are not particularly pro-US, and if you bring up that amendment, they’ve all heard of it, and they act angry about. After all, most anti-Castro types are Cuban nationalists. Cubans are very nationalistic and proud people. That amendment remained in place until Castro won the revolution in 1959.

Batista’s army collapsed without even much of a fight because at one point in the revolution, even the middle classes in the cities went over to Castro. When the middle class supports a revolution, you are out of power. Previously the middle class had probably been mostly neutral.

Batista was also horribly corrupt and no one was happy about that. As Castro overran Havana, Batista and his government flew out to the US on airplanes. The US lifted them out. There are still quite a few pro-Batista Cubans in the Cuban community in Cuba. That’s why the Cuban exiles are not popular in Cuba.

A lot of Cubans in the countryside were not literate. Even schooling was bad out there. And Castro did run a literacy program that got the country to 99% literacy very quickly.

Castro was middle or even upper-class himself. He was Galician of almost pure Spanish blood (Cuba is full of Galicians). He had just graduated from law school, and he was in fact an attorney. So he was a very smart guy.

Che was actually a physician! He graduated from medical school in Argentina and was granted a license to practice medicine. I’m not sure if he ever actually practiced medicine. He was also a very smart guy.

Che took a motorcycle tour around Latin America, and he was appalled at the poverty he saw there. He had grown up in Buenos Aires in a moneyed family, and this was a hidden secret about the continent for him. A book called The Motorcycle Diaries was later published using the notes he took as he traveled around South America.

He became radicalized by his bike tour. He heard about the Revolution in Cuba, and he went there to help them out pure idealism with stars in his eyes. Che was also White like Castro and came from old Buenos Aires money. He probably had Italian and Spanish blood at the least, like most Argentines.

He married in Cuba and had a couple of kids before he was murdered by the CIA in a hospital in Bolivia in 1967 after being arrested in the nation for rebellion. He was very good to his wife and young children. The wife and children are still alive. You can even go see his son if you go to Cuba and have the right connections.

His wife and kids remember him very fondly. Che was a selfless and altruistic man. There is a slogan in Cuba: “Be like Che.” It is very popular. It means to be selfless and idealistic and sacrifice for others, to not be selfish and greedy. The slogan is popular among university students in particular. If you go to Cuba, you will hear Cuban university students, male and female, saying that their philosophy is to “be like Che.”

There must have been something wrong with the Batista system because a lot of university students, teachers, etc. took part in the early demonstrations against Batista. At some point, the Left went to the mountains and took up arms.

Either before or after, Batista ran death squads that rampaged through Cuba’s cities, murdering teachers, students, and the unarmed Left in general. They murdered thousands of defenseless and unarmed Cubans this way.

The army would not even fight for Batista. That’s how corrupt he was. In fact, many of the anti-Castro Cubans fought with Castro in the mountains to get rid of Batista, but they turned on him when he went Communist. They felt betrayed. I don’t mind these exiles so much. I have spoken with some of their children. At least they fought with Castro. But they tend to be very bitter. They think they got double-crossed and backstabbed by Castro.

Castro was originally simply a social democrat, and the initial revolutionary program was a social democratic one.

However, it was a very nationalistic revolution, and they started seizing foreign-owned businesses very quickly. The Cubans offered to pay off the owners for the market value of the businesses over a 30-year period. That offer it still in effect. 100% of the people and corporations who got their property taken turned down that offer, possibly out of pride and certainly out of ideology.

So their businesses didn’t really get confiscated. Castro offered to pay full value for them, but these stubborn reactionaries turned down the offer. It’s their own damn fault they lost their businesses.

The seizing of the foreign-owned property went on for a couple of years and was extremely popular among the extremely nationalistic Cubans. So you can see that Castro’s revolution, like Mao’s and Ho’s, was also and perhaps primarily a nationalist revolution.

Castro went to New York soon after he took power, and he was greeted with large crowds of cheering supporters. Castro talked about how much he loved America and Americans. I believe he was sincere. A lot of the US ruling class – the rich and corporations – were very suspicious of Castro from the start. They didn’t trust him. They didn’t hate him. They were just very leery of him.

Castro asked for US support and aid to help rebuild the country, but the US had turned hostile  by then due to the business confiscations and refused to give him a nickel. This went on for a couple of years with each side getting more hardened until Castro finally turned to the USSR in desperation in 1961 for support since the US was flipping him off.

Castro’s argument was that he tried to have a relationship with the US, and we told him to go to Hell, so we forced him into the arms of the Soviets. He sealed an alliance with the USSR in 1961. The US promptly imposed a cruel embargo on Cuba which has been there ever since.

The embargo’s official justification was to cause so much poverty and misery in Cuba that the people would rise up and overthrow Castro. Here it is 60 years later, and we still give the exact same reason for the embargo. If the embargo is intended to cause the people to overthrow Castro, when is it going to start working? So far it’s been 60 years of utter failure, but we keep chasing the White Whale.

Over the next year, Castro grew increasingly radical, and by 1962, he abandoned social democracy, his originally ideology, and took up Marxism-Leninism. After Castro went Communist, a lot of his old comrades turned against him along with many others who were not happy with his turn to the hard Left. These contras took up arms, formed guerrilla bands in the mountains, and waged a brutal civil war that went on until 1970.

Yes, the Cuban government executed 10,000 people between 1959-1970, but almost all were for “rebellion,” typically armed rebellion. There have hardly been any executions since.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Social Democracy Only Works in Homogeneous Societies Is Often but Not Completely True

RL:

The US and a handful of other countries are literally the only countries on this planet that regard social democracy with outrage and want nothing to do with it.

A commenter responds:

Mithridates: Yeah, I suspect much of this attitude stems from the ethnic divisions within the US that no one is ever allowed to talk about in any sort of frank or intellectually honest manner. Of course the Pluto/Mammon-worship inherent in the American mythos is a influential factor as well.

But let’s explore the first:

Basically, Ethnos A, the group responsible for most of the country’s productivity, is forced at gunpoint to redistribute a portion of their wealth to Ethnos B (and C in some regions), and a good portion of Ethnos B takes that money, pisses it away on all sorts of stupid instant gratification fuckery and doesn’t add much of anything to the country’s overall productivity; in fact, a sizable minority of Ethnos B behaves in public like zoo animals.

And then A’s gets called horrible bigots if they object to this, and especially if they object to being forced to live within shouting distance of B’s.

Most of the countries with working social democratic economic arrangements tend to have been ethnically homogeneous for most of the period when these systems were in place. And now these countries have tried the mass immigration experiment, and the same sort of shitty results is happening in those places that we here in the US have been experiencing for many decades now.

Natural Law says that humans are extra-clever social primates who are predisposed to be open to sharing among others they consider to be kin. There’s a certain other Ethnos I won’t mention by name or even a single-letter set of punctuation marks that exemplifies this principle very clearly.

Anyway, expecting all members of an Ethnos to consider the entire planet’s population of clever hominids to be a part of their kin group is quite an aberrant expectation; only weird ideologies can invert what to everyone else is a common sense understanding of Natural Law principles. And finally, loving one’s own kin does not necessarily mean hating other kin-groups.

Of course everyone has always known that this is the dirty little secret for Americans’ hostility to socialism. This is why all of the American White Nationalists are also hardline economic Rightists, Republicans and Libertarians despite this being bad for most Whites. Race trumps economics for a lot of folks. Whereas in Europe, most of the nationalist groups, even the White nationalists, are explicitly socialist.

You’d be pissed to, eh?

Actually I am fully aware of this argument, but I’m not pissed at all. For one thing, I have never been part of the wealthy White group, so Whites with money can go pound sand. They are my class enemies. I think in terms of economics. Screw race. Do the rich Whites want to help the poorer Whites? Of course not. So why should I support them. Also I know quite a few low-income Whites who use those redistributive programs that Whites hate so much.

On the other hand, I am not a typical White person. I am very hard to the Left; in fact, I am an out and out socialist.

Many countries have health care for all despite being ethnically diverse. However, in a lot of these countries, public health care and education is simply underfunded, so the dominant group, whoever they may be, simply goes to private hospitals and schools. India is an excellent example of this as is much of Latin America.

All of the Arab World has social democracy under the rubric of Islam, or in the case of Lebanon, ethnic peace, and Lebanon is unstable for ethnic/religious reasons. And some Arab countries with prominent religious of ethnic minorities are very unstable or at war.

All of North Africa has social democracy except Morocco, although minority Berbers are dealt with by denial of their existence and roping them into the main group, Arabs. Ethiopia has tremendous ethnic diversity and some religious diversity, but they have a good working socialist system. Eritrea is the same but the main divide there is religious rather than ethnic.

Zimbabwe has a good working system although it has many tribes. Argentina and formerly Bolivia and Ecuador has or had working social democracies, although all three countries had serious instabilities; in all cases the rich objecting to sharing with the poor and with a racial element in Bolivia. A number of countries in Latin America do have social democracies, but they don’t work very well because the rich don’t want to share with the poor.

In a number of those countries such as Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Haiti,and Mexico also have an ethnic element in that the dominant rich group tends to be Whiter or lighter-skinned though not usually White per who don’t want to share with the poorer, darker, folks who are more mixed with Indian and in some cases Blacks.

A number of countries in Latin America have homogeneous populations, but the rich still don’t want to share with the poor, so that doesn’t solve everything. And historically speaking, most nations were quite homogeneous, nevertheless the rich still shared just about fuck all with everyone else and needed an actual revolution to be convinced to do so.

Russia and China has very good working social democracies although they have many minorities, although China and to some extent Russia has some ethnic warfare. Ukraine has a good system despite minorities and ethnic warfare. Vietnam, Cambodia, Bhutan, and Laos have good systems despite having anywhere to a couple to many ethnic minorities. Malaysia has a working social democracy and it has a large ethnic divide. Japan has minorities with an excellent social democracy.

Most of the former Soviet republics probably still have working systems although most have large minority populations.Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran have social democracies and minority groups. However, in Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran are currently embroiled in ethnic separatist wars.

Most of the countries with non-working systems are not only rightwing but also quite poor. Hong Kong is an exception. The government is very rightwing, but there are not ethnic problems. It’s all one ethnic group, but the rich ones hate the poor ones, just as it was traditionally.

Some are just poor. Most of Africa has social democracy, but it often doesn’t work well due to poverty. To some extent this is true in Pakistan, Mongolia, Yemen, Moldova, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma, and Thailand. It is also true in Ecuador, Guatemala, most of the Caribbean, Chile, and Paraguay. In these places, social democracy doesn’t work more due to poverty than to diversity.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

There Are Many Very Liberal Areas in the South

Polar Bear: You should leave the South. A # of Southern people I’ve met hate the South and left. Some even want it to burn down, which disgusts me. There are progressive areas in TN, Nashville for one. It feels a bit like the Hatfields and McCoys – progressive self-hating Southerners vs the old South.

Or at least move to a liberal big city, as the commenter suggested.

I went to Atlanta recently, and trust me, Jason would fit right in. Mostly liberals of one stripe or another, and most people, even Whites, vote Democrat. There is a huge hipster scene and in Five Points, you may be forgiven for thinking you are in San Fransisco by mistake.

There are transplanted Northerners everywhere, and there are hip, liberal Southerners from places like Mississippi and Alabama without a trace of a Southern accent who would not be out of place in any hipster paradise. I did some research and Atlanta is the 2rd most liberal metropolitan area in the US.

One thing I noticed though is that a lot of Whites who move to Atlanta from the North eventually turn rather racist against Blacks.

The women I was staying with, my girlfriend at the time, had come from Michigan and was a total antiracist when she showed up. Well, twenty years of living around Atlanta Blacks took care of that ideology.

I don’t think she was all that racist though because we often dealt with Blacks when we went out, and she was always very friendly and kind to them. Are hardcore anti-Black racists actually like that? I’m not sure if I am bothered. If they keep their racism to themselves, it’s just a thought crime, right? Why should anyone care if there’s no consequences flowing from their racist thoughts? I mean who cares? Let her think whatever the Hell she wants. When it translates into action is when we can start worrying.

I met a friend of hers, a guy from New York state who just seemed like your average hipster liberal, who said he was moving to Washington state. He seemed to have made a similar transformation. I asked him why he was moving, and he said, “Too many Gros, number One.” I’d never heard the word Gro (pronounced Grow) used before as racist slang, and for some reason I thought it was funny.

One of her roommates was a guy from Nicaragua. He was one odd bird – I believe he had Avoidant Personality Disorder – but he absolutely despised Blacks, and he was an extreme racist. You would be surprised at how many Hispanics are much worse anti-Black racists than your average White person is. The lack the shame that keeps a lot of us Whites from going over the edge. They don’t feel bad about being racist, whereas a lot of us Whites do.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Why I Hate the Cultural Left

You are an idiotic moron who claims to be Left but is a blatant rightwing White Supremacist with ego issues who posts crap all the time about ‘races’ and other such shit. I hope your blog gets taken down permanently!

I had to edit this for style because this guy is apparently not capable of writing the English language properly.

I’ve been getting bonehead comments like this from Cultural Leftards for many years now.

There’s the old chestnut about me being a rightwinger. Ok, then why do I always vote for Democrats. I wouldn’t vote for a Republican if you paid me, and it’s been this way since I started voting long ago. How come I absolutely despise all Republicans and other rightwingers such as Libertarians? How come I don’t even like most Democrats because I consider them too rightwing?

Also, could someone please show me a rightwing group anywhere in the US that I could join, please? Because I’ve looked around at rightwing groups in the US and even at various formations on the Net and in other countries and I can’t see any rightwing ideologies that I am interested in at all. Except maybe Russian conservatism or Putinism but the problem with that is that Russian conservatism is to the left of the US Democratic Party.

If I despise all rightwing ideologies, how could I be a rightwinger? Am I part of some ideology that has only me as a member? I’ve had this standing offer out there for a while now, and none of these losers has ever taken me up on this offer.

Whatever. This is in reference to this article. The article is titled What Did Africans Look Like 40-45,000 YBP? I noticed that that article caused this shithead to blow a few blood vessels, so I went and checked it out to how racist and White Supremacist and rightwing and evil it was because it must be all those things if this dipshit says it is, right?

Well, I went over and read through the whole thing. It is a discussion of human races and ethnic groups from an anthropological sense from the point of view of what their skulls look like. Perfectly legitimate subject. It does refer to several large races called Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Negroids. It also refers to races such as Negritos, Papuans, Khoisan, and Pygmies. All of these are absolutely human races.

The post makes no statements positive or negative about any of those groups. There is no White Supremacism, as nowhere do I try to imply that Whites or Caucasoids are superior to other groups.

I don’t even talk about superiority or inferiority. I just describe the races by looking at their skulls and comparing them. It also goes into how some ancient skulls looked. The post points out that all modern races, including Europids are modern, that is they all appeared in the last 15,000 years. It also talks about the Out of Africa movement of many of the Earth’s people.

First of all, White Supremacists as a rule all hate the Out of Africa theory because it basically states that White people came from niggers ha ha. Well, White folks just won’t have that. That’s just a bit too insulting, ok? A bridge too far.

Asians are a lot smarter. I pointed out once that all Asians came from Black people, and some Asian guy said, “So what? If you back far enough, we were all frogs.” I told my Mom and she said, “See? That shows you right there that Asians are smarter than White people.” She’s right.

Also White Supremacists really hate that model of an early Caucasian face because he doesn’t look White. Not to mention that he has a face that not even any mother could love. They claim that all Caucasian skulls look White for tens of thousands of years. White people be all ancient and shit! Not only that, but Whites wuz kangs! What’s next? We flew airplanes and developed nuclear power?

That article is about as utterly non-racist as an article about that subject can possibly be.

But you see, to the Cultural Left, if you write about race at all, especially if you suggest that there are different races of humans that have had different evolutionary trajectories, you are a vicious, evil, White Supremacist racist. Because apparently race doesn’t exist or some shit.

Well then, lets get rid of the hate crime laws then because if there’s no race, no one can be attacked on that basis, right?

While we are at it, let’s get rid of all civil rights and void all civil rights legal rulings. Since race doesn’t exist, no one needs to be protected against discrimination against something that doesn’t exist, right?

Let’s get rid of affirmative action and goals and all that crap because how can you have goals to fill X percent of positions in your company with this category or that of a nonexistent category?

Ready when you are, Cultural Left fucktards.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Repost: Caucasian Nationalism – A New Movement

Ha ha, this old post is so worth a repost. It was published 5 1/2 years ago! As you can see, it is totally not serious at all. The whole post is a big joke, written with my tongue firmly in my cheek. Have fun, boyos.

I just created this movement because no one else did. I did it because it is so dumb I do not expect anyone to join. It’s called Caucasian Nationalism.

I figure if you are going to be a racist, you may as well hate the fewest number of people possible.

I don’t have a breakdown on the population of humanity by race, but being a Caucasian Nationalist will possibly allow you to love as many as 1/3 of all humans as brothers. You won’t like the other 2/3, but most of them have big lips or squinty eyes anyway, so why would you want to like them in the first place?

Compare this to Nordicists who hate anyone not a Viking, Arab nationalists who hate the 97% of humanity who’s not a towel-head, and Orthodox Jews who hate 99.7% of humanity because they aren’t Hebes.

I advocate for the cause of all Caucasians everywhere, including Jews, Indians, Berbers, Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Tajiks, and Uzbeks. You need to be over 50% to get in.

If you have less than 50%, we will still pause a moment in your presence to bow before the Great White Man within you. That goes for US Blacks, Hispanics, Mongolians, Ethiopians, Altai, Uighurs, most US Amerindians and possibly Siberians.It is true that we will cleave off from a large section of humanity, but that is ok.

For the Asians, we will just fuck their women and take over their laundromats, and if the men object, we won’t care about these inscrutable yellow girly-men because they are skinny, wimpy, nearsighted, and weak, and we will kick their asses. If they try to defend themselves with martial arts, we will just respond with firearms.

For the Aborigines, Papuans, Melanesians, Polynesians and Micronesians, there is not much to do. They all live on islands, and Caucasians mostly don’t dig islands. Abos are pretty much history anyway, so no worries. Polynesians will be offered jobs playing steel guitar and dancing in our tiki restaurants.

Melanesians and Micronesians barely exist to us, and are too messed up to attack us, so we will let them catch rays on their beaches and leave us alone. No one even knows what a Papuan is.

For American Indians, if they are 51% or more White, they are in. Ok, that takes care of most of them right here. For the rest, we have not yet decided, but we will accept applications as White Man’s Squaw and for performing in our traveling cowboy and Indian shows. Other than that, they are sort of hopeless too, except for their casinos, but at any rate, they are not a threat.

If they ever get uppity and ornery, we will just mass-ship alcohol into their regions and get them all drunk like we did to the Chinese in the Opium War.

US Blacks will need to supply proof of at least 51% White ancestry to get in. The ones that don’t cut it, we will let them work as entertainers for our shows. We will also allow them to cook and wait tables for us in our fried chicken and rib joints. Other than that, we don’t have to worry much about them. Many US Blacks are too busy drinking, taking drugs, listening to gangsta rap, and murdering each other to bother us anyway.

Mestizos will need to submit applications to see whether or not they are over 50% White. If they are, they are in like Flynn. Too much Indian, the door. If they don’t dig it, they can go pray to the dead Aztec Gods and cast spells on us with their fake witches.

We beat ’em many times in the past, and it was usually a 15-0 wipe-out on our side. They barely got to third base. They will never get off the couch to rise again, and most are too overweight to do so anyway.

We don’t regard Amerindians, even with White admixture, as a serious threat to us. That they are considered a threat to entire nations is one of today’s best jokes. If they ever really rise up like Sendero, we will have to deal. Watchful waiting.

At first I thought that this was a brand-new movement, but unfortunately, one of the most horrible people on Earth, Alex Linder of Vanguard News Network, supports it too (although he wishes to excise all Jews and kill them). I’m a horrible person too, but I suspect that Linder has crossed the boundary of horribleness.

When I read that he was a pan-Caucasianist (except for the Jews), I had to respect him, or at least .0001% of him (like when I heard the Night Stalker loved cats). He wants to kill off a good portion of humanity, but at least he’s not a Nordicist, and he wants to save the East Indians, the Arabs and the Ainu. I felt there was a tiny speck of magnanimity amongst that black vision of his.

There is a very serious problem with Caucasian Nationalism. First of all, many of these folks will refuse to admit to being Caucasian. Others insist they are White, but no one else will believe them.

Tell a Malian they are White, and they will hug you and agree, but no one else will think they are. Jews truly despise the idea of being White, but they hate shvartzes even more, and Jews are certainly not Chinese.

Tell a Moroccan he is White, and he will embrace you, pack a bowl of hash for you in the waterpipe, invite you to marry his cousin, and start shouting about how the Berbers were the original humans. Tell a Pashtun he is White, and he will run up to you, kiss you on the cheek, invite you in for tea in the men’s room, and regale you with tales of being the original Aryans.

The real problem here is not one of identity; it’s more that so many of our Caucasian tribes hate each other so much they will never get together to join the movement, much less have each other over for tea. At the moment, many of them are busy massacring each other. This time-honored tradition is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Way to Counteract Racism Is to Talk to Racists, Not Scream at Them

Polar Bear: One thing I admire about openly racial folks is the mask is off. That’s how they honestly feel. The Godawful truth.

I agree with this. If you’re racist, for God’s sake, just admit it! There’s no shame in being a racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. person as long as you do not harm the people you dislike. Lots of people are bigots to one degree or another. It’s practically normal if you look at things worldwide.

Obviously it’s not optimal and I prefer for people to be as nonracist as they can bear to be, but that’s not always possible. I do think that racism is a sin. It’s bad behavior. But we are all bad to one degree or another. No one is innocent, dammit!

If you are racist, that’s a moral question between you and your pastor, God, or conscience. Take it up with God after you check out. Far be it for me to moralfag on people about their personal feelings and thoughts.

What I dislike a lot more is obviously racist people insisting that they are not racist. Come off it, man! If you’re racist, just admit! I mean it’s not the end of the world. Lots of people feel that way. So what! White racists are not friendly towards Blacks, but Blacks are even more racist against us than we are against them, so they shouldn’t talk.

Ok, you’re racist. Fine. No problem! However, then I would like to say:

“Hey, can we talk about this? You’re racist. Ok, fine. But why? Why do you feel that way? Do you really hate all of the people of this race? If so, why? Let’s explore this.”

We need to have conversations with racists, not scream at them or punch them. People just get their back up when you do that anyway. You catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Now the idea that Blacks should talk to the people who don’t like them and pick their brains sends most Blacks into a fury:

I’m not going to beg people to not hate me!

Well, that’s just fine.

But they don’t all feel that way. Remember that video I posted a while back about the Black guy who goes out to meet White racists? He asks them,

Why…do you hate me?

Just like that. He had a personal meeting with a Klansman. He and the Klansmen are now best friends! See, it works? Where did screaming at the Klansmen get us? Nowhere. Dialogue is always the answer.

Racism is a conflict, right? Like a conflict between warring or quarreling parties. Ok, when you have conflicts between warring or quarreling parties, who do we often treat these matters? Negotiations. Diplomacy.

Most wars are ended in the conference room, not the battlefield. If you insist on defeating your enemy in the battlefield, the guerrilla war goes on forever. Nations that are angry at each other patch up their differences via diplomacy all the time. How often would that happen if they sat there and seethed and hated each other? Not very often.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: White Supremacists Hate the Idea of Black People Being Improving Their Lot

Jason: Yes, of course, Blacks need to accept responsibility. But then they would be better Americans, and that wouldn’t be good for White Supremacists, would it – LOL?

Exactly.

Sometimes I think White Supremacists are evil. For instance, at American Renaissance, probably the mildest and most civilized WN site, they erupt with absolute fury and rage to any good news about Blacks. Posts about rising Black IQ in the US and the Third World fill them with fury and hate.

When I saw that is when I started thinking White Supremacists are simply evil.

I made that post earlier showing that Blacks are 13% of the population but only 16% of the killers of Whites, which shows that Blacks kill Whites at about the Black percentage of the population, which would be normal for any ethnic group.

The post also showed that at the moment, Whites are not at very much more risk of being killed by any random Black as they are by any random White. So Black homicide, at least at current rates of White caution around and avoidance of Blacks, poses little risk to Whites, about as much as other Whites do.

I showed that post to a White Supremacist, and he reacted with intense rage. He accused me of covering up for Black crime.

What are you trying to say?

He kept saying. He kept arguing that Whites were at extreme risk of being murdered by Blacks, even when I showed him they weren’t. He needed to be afraid of Black people!

See? It really pissed him off. He’s emotionally invested in hating Blacks due to Black crime, and then we show him that Black crime, at least homicide, is no more risky to Whites than White homicide, and this blows up his whole reason for his precious hatred of Blacks.

Hatred that he needs to hold onto for some reason because it’s part of his identity. He wants Blacks to be extremely dangerous to Whites. He doesn’t want Blacks to be little risk to Whites crime-wise. It blows up his whole world.

The White Supremacists complain that Blacks fuck up, and then people show how Blacks are getting their shit together, and these guys go off like volcanoes. Black people can’t win! They’re hated if they fail, and they’re hated if they succeed. These guys really don’t want Blacks to do better. They don’t want them to be smarter and I don’t even think they want them to commit less crime.

It messes up their White genocide theory. The better Blacks act the more they will mingle and breed with Whites, so more “White genocide.”

It messes up their beloved racism. All of their hate for Blacks is tied up in this idea of Black people acting bad, so when Blacks start acting better, that screws up their whole racist hate thing, which they love and cherish so dearly for various reasons, in part because it’s so much fun, but they have other reasons too. These people have a deep need for Blacks to be inferior – to be less intelligent, to be crime-ridden.

It ruins their feeling of superiority to Blacks. When Black inferiority in certain respects starts to lesson and Blacks start to close various gaps with Whites, guess what? Whitey’s not superior anymore! He’s no better than a nigger ha ha. Oh noes! The niggers are catching up to us! We can’t have that!

Feeling superior to Blacks, hating Blacks, and keeping the White race pure are far more important to them than Blacks being more intelligent or educated or committing less crime, which would be good for Blacks, Whites, and society at large.

What kind of people react with furious hatred towards good news? What a bunch of miserable, misanthropic, pessimistic scumbags.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Elvis Presley, “Can’t Help Falling in Love”

Wise men say
Only fools rush in
But I can’t help falling in love with you

Shall I stay?
Would it be a sin
If I can’t help falling in love with you?

Like a river flows
Surely to the sea
Darling, so it goes
Some things are meant to be

Take my hand
Take my whole life, too
For I can’t help falling in love with you

Like a river flows
Surely to the sea
Darling, so it goes
Some things are meant to be

Take my hand,
Take my whole life, too
For I can’t help falling in love with you
For I can’t help falling in love with you

I can’t believe how perfect this song is. They didn’t call him The King for nothing. I also can’t believe this song is from all the way back in 1961! I was four years old then. My Mom was 39 when this song came out. She always hated Elvis and all rock and roll for that matter. His first music was in 1954, so she would have been 22 then. It’s odd that she didn’t find popular music good at age 22.

However, Elvis was an immensely divisive character when he first came out. He swung his hips in a sexual way. They said he was making “Black music” or I guess more appropriately “nigger music.” Black music was seen as immoral, base, vulgar, obscene and obsessed with sex. Whites were supposed to be above all of that.

And in that sense, Elvis was probably one of the first true wiggers. Well God bless him.

I assume my Mom was on the side of the good White girls” who were upset by Elvis rude and dirty music. Probably only a slut or a poor or working class person would like a song like that.

My Mom actually grew up rich. She literally lived in a mansion! Her class of upper, upper middle, and middle class White women very much looked down on Black and Hispanic women and working class and poor White women, as they were thought to not be able to control themselves and they basically acted like disgusting women and whores.

  • No woman in my Mom’s circle would pick a fight with her husband.
  • None would attack his masculinity.
  • It was quite rare that my mother raised her voice at my father.

Good, White, classy wives didn’t do that low class, niggerish stuff. The worst thing you could act like in my Mom’s generation was a “woman of the streets.” And that’s how my Mom’s circle of women saw loudmouthed, obnoxious, combative, screechy, rude, disrespectful, husband-fighting Black, Brown and low and working class White women.

A proper woman was supposed to control herself and in general these types of women were “out of control” and “women of the streets (whores).” Somewhat disgusting, low class women (no matter their income) who couldn’t control themselves and respect their husbands like decent and proper classy White wives.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Ethnic Nationalists Who Only Love Their Own Kind and Don’t Hate the Other Are Just Fine

PB: Yes there are. My favorite Youtuber is one. The other side isn’t innocent. Are Whites to be saints while coloreds behave like savages? Silence the great White minds for Jewish psychobabble? It’s a stupid anti-White witch hunt.

They’re fine but they’re rare. And they’re not getting more common because they can’t. Think about it.

You know what? If you are a White Supremacist or White Nationalist or even an NS, and you don’t hate the other races much or at least you don’t talk about it, you know what? I honestly don’t mind if you think that way! That’s just fine.

You love your own kind. You feel most comfortable with them. You’d rather not deal with outsiders for whatever reason you don’t want to talk about. Or you think they’re not to blame for their bad behavior, so you don’t hate them.

All you do is love your people. That’s all you care about. Hate’s not for you because you’re a positive person, and hate poisons the soul. I know it’s a cliche, but trust me, it’s literally true. Been there and done that.

And if all you want to do is talk about how great your own are and how much you love your own people and you don’t diss the outsiders or act like they’re disgusting and inferior, you know what? Good for you, man. I will even support you. I’m glad everyone doesn’t feel that way, but if a few do, fine. I don’t know if it makes me an evil racist for letting these guys off the hook, but if it does, so what? Fine, I’m an evil racist then. So be it.

There’s nothing to worry about this catching on and becoming scary popular because it will never catch on because it can’t. This is due to the nature of such thinking. “I love my own kind and don’t really hate others, just prefer to be with my own kind is all” is a very difficult mental tightrope to walk on without falling into the net all the time.

People don’t like doing or engaging in cognitive crossword puzzles or Triathalons all day long. We’re lazy. We’re lazy thinkers. And I don’t blame us. I’m a lazy thinker too. We all are. Life demands it. If you had to ponder everything, you’d hardly be able to get out of bed.

Plus most folks like this like hating too much. Hating is actually pleasurable for these people, almost like a sensual experience of the body like hiking or dancing or listening to music or sex. It’s that much fun. A hatefest is like a Caribbean cruise for these types. So this attitude above ain’t never catching on, so quit worrying about it.

And yes, I have met a few White nationalists like this. There used to be as few on Amren, which is on the moderate end of White nationalism. They are quite uncommon though. 1%? 2%? Something like that. It’s too hard to do and plus most don’t want to do it because that kills all the fun. The fun of the hate. And hate literally is good times for these types. If you don’t believe me, go hang around their sites.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Most Identity Groups Don’t Like the “Other” Criticizing Them

They can take it from their own kind (maybe), but they can’t take it from outsiders. This is actually fairly normal behavior, and I’ve even been subject to it myself. It’s probably related to tribalism like so many things we humans do.

Polar Bear: Can good Blacks control the murderous street thugs? Can a small Jew take on Elite Jews? Sometimes the villain is stronger. These influential negative outliers are shit for everyone. As Robert’s stats suggest, bad Blacks are even worse for Blacks. Little Jews will likely get thrown out with the filthy bath water.

Nice.

Polar Bear: Can good Blacks control the murderous street thugs?

No, the good Blacks will not control the bad Blacks. And I wonder if they should. If a non-White told me, “Why don’t you police all those White thug criminals in your community?” I might tell them to fuck off.

It’s not the responsibility of well-behaved Blacks to police the others. They might want to do that but they have no obligation. The Blacks that are well-behaved have their own lives to think about. They need to think about themselves. They’re not the problem. They need to get that through their heads. If they wish to be racial ambassadors, that’s their choice, but their first responsibility first and foremost is to themselves, not to their damned “community.”

Nevertheless, I agree that we Whites police our communities to an extreme degree. I don’t think Blacks police their own  kind very much. They just seem to let them get away with murder and don’t hold them to any standard.

Polar Bear: Can a small Jew take on Elite Jews?

Orthodox Jews are often scammers or white collar crooks of some sort or another, but when they do that, they often explicitly state that they were only trying to rip off the Gentiles and not trying to rip off their own people. Honestly, they actually say that. I have heard Hasidics in upstate New York say those very same words.

Polar Bear: Little Jews will likely get thrown out with the filthy bath water.

Nevertheless a lot of Jewish white collar crooks are just thieves, scammers, and con artists. It’s hard to imagine how you can be a white collar criminal and steal millions of dollars while not stealing  from your own kind.

I’m sure a lot of Jews get taken by these guys too. These crooks do not have the ability to look at every mark and figure out if they are Jewish or not and refuse to fleece the Jews. So Jews do probably get screwed over heavily by Jewish white collar crooks, but no Jew will ever condemn those people.

You can’t. Jews don’t condemn their own kind. That’s treason and siding with the enemy. There’s this paranoid attitude of “we all hang together or we will all hang alone.”

Also there is a tendency to hush up the crimes of Jews to avoid antisemitism. In the early part of the century, the Jewish slums in New York often hid Jewish criminals on the run not because they thought what they did was ok but to avoid setting off a pogrom. To this day, Jewish crooks can usually run to Israel, and that state will protect them against  extradition to the “Gentile enemy.” Even child killers have done this.

I was on newsgroups full of Jews at one time, and when a Jew would start attacking a bad Jew or pointing out a bad thing that Jews did, the others would rush in to shut him up:

What are you trying to do? Start a pogrom?

Those were the exact words.

My mother went to a very heavily Jewish high school. She said whenever the papers talked about the arrest of some Jewish criminal, the Jewish students would all say:

Oh! This is a bad day for the Jews!

Like this crook getting arrested was going to bring it down on the rest of them.

So a lot of this is just self-preservation. A lot of what looks like wicked, sleazy, behavior on the part of the Jews can often be explained away as efforts at self-preservation and attempts to insulate and defend themselves against their enemies. That’s paranoid, but it’s also smart.

Polar Bear: As Robert’s stats suggest, bad Blacks are even worse for Blacks.

Black criminals absolutely nuke their own people. Their own kind get the vast majority of the onslaught from the Black crime epidemic.

Honestly, it really doesn’t effect the rest of us much, at least at the rate that we associate with Blacks (considering there is probably a lot of avoidance). As I pointed out, Blacks are 13% of population and 16% of the murderers of Whites. Black violent criminals effect Whites at close to their rate in the population which would be expected if they were any average human being. So Black violent crime does almost nothing to White people.

On the contrary, Black people get absolutely Hiroshima’d by Black violent criminals. 89% of the victims of Black murderers are other Blacks. Black women are 25X more likely to be raped by a Black man than a White woman. If Blacks single out anyone, it’s their own.

Yet when we bring up Black crime (which overwhelmingly effects Blacks and doesn’t effect non-Blacks very much), we get shouted down as racists or we are met with hostile silence.

Now, I understand that people don’t like others criticizing them. When we Whites criticize Blacks saying, “You all are getting genocided by your own violent criminals,” the average Black will respond by saying, “Fuck you.” People can take criticism from their own kind but they can’t take it from others.

I am the same way. Some Chinese started attacking Americans and I actually got my back up. And I’m the biggest America-hater out there. It’s just that it was insulting to be attacked by an outsider. Considering how little Black violent crime effects Whites, when we Whites bring it up, frankly, what we are (potentially) doing is showing massive empathy for the Black victims of these criminals because they pretty much only attack their own kind.

Now a lot of Whites just bring this up as a club to beat Blacks over the head with. But not all of us. We aren’t really dissing Blacks at all. Nevertheless, most Blacks will still say, “Fuck off,” because it’s insulting to be pitied by Whites. Also they will take the attacks on Black criminals as an insult to themselves and their people. They will ignore our sympathy towards the victims as insincere.

Nevertheless, you would think Blacks would talk about it among themselves. Do they not want to admit that anything is wrong? I agree it’s difficult to say, “Boy are we fucked up. We need to do something about this.” But sometimes you have to.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Why Do I Talk So Much about Black People, Jews, Indians, Etc. on Here?

A lot of people want to know this. The fact is that I am absolutely fascinated by racial issues! And I’m also a race realist for better or for worse. At the very least I would like to point out that at the moment there are some serious behavioral differences among races, ethnic groups, and religious people. I’m not saying what caused it. I’m just saying it’s there.

But you can’t say that nowadays because everyone’s a dindu. Everyone except for straight White men that is. We’re pure evil.

So my task as a race realist is to try to look at race realism (and ethnic, religious and for that matter gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity realism) in a liberal, progressive, or even Leftist light. Now a lot of people would say that’s impossible and that by being a race realist, I am automatically a rightwinger, conservative, reactionary, Rightist, or fascist.

I am absolutely fascinated by Jews! In a way, I am obsessed with them but not in the way that Judeophiles and anti-Semites are. I’m not in either category.

And keep in mind that I was going to convert to Judaism recently! Obviously I’m a huge antisemite if I was going to convert! I had a Jewish girlfriend and I told her I wanted to convert and she was going to help me. I have no idea why I wanted to convert. Probably just to be perverse. Or to stick it to all the idiots screaming antisemite at me.

My Mom was flustered:

Mom: Why do you want to convert to Judaism? Nobody wants to convert to Judaism. If you go to a rabbi and tell him you want to convert, he will look at you like you are nuts and ask, “Why on Earth do you want to be a Jew?” It’s like no sane person would actually want to be a Jew.

Me: I don’t know, Mom. I just want to be a Jew. Xxxxx is Jewish and I want to convert for her. She’s going to help me convert.

Mom: Well, another thing. You’re going to get a lot of prejudice. A lot of people are going to hate you. There will be discrimination. You want to be discriminated against? Why?

Me: I don’t care about discrimination, Mom. A lot people act like they hate me anyway. So not much will change.

(Shakes her head like I’m out of my mind.)

I am also absolutely fascinated by antisemitism. I had no negative feelings towards Jews at all until I was 44, and I started to find out what they were really like. But I had been around them most of my life. Now that I look back, they were pretty typically Jewish, but for some reason that never bothered me at the time.

I was always mystified. “Why on Earth to people hate the Jews?” I simply couldn’t figure it out. We were brought up in this silly Judeophilic family. Both of my parents had grown up with Jews and had many Jewish friends. Every time the subject of Jews came up, my parents acted like they were the greatest thing since Kleenex. They got these huge smiles on their faces, and it was like the Jews were some sort of super-race. Which of course is exactly what Jews think.

I still find antisemitism absolutely fascinating. I still wonder why on Earth people hate Jews. Why did they hate them in the past? Why did they hate them in Europe during World War 2? What did Jews act like back then?

Why were they hated and persecuted in Europe in the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Early Middle Ages? Why on Earth did they get thrown out of 109 countries? How did Jews behave back then? What could they possibly have done to get tossed out of nation after nation? I’m baffled.

The antisemites will say it’s because Jews are pure evil. Well, I’m not buying that, sorry.

Everyone else will say that Jews were dindus who dindu nuffin, and everyone just picked on them for no reason at all and scapegoated them when bad times hit. For some reason this doesn’t resonate much with me, though this is the only view you are allowed to have, as it’s the only (((approved view))).

If you meet a guy who tells you he’s been to 109 bars in your city, and he gets thrown out of every bar for absolutely no reason at all, what do you think? Is he really getting thrown out for no reason at all? Yeah right.

If you meet a guy who tells you he’s lived in 109 cities and towns all over the world, and everywhere he goes, everyone hates him, and they get together and try to throw him out of town for absolutely no reason at all, what do you think? Yeah right. I’m sure you got thrown out for no reason, dude!

I also find Blacks fascinating. Unfortunately, I am also absolutely fascinated by anti-Black racism. Why do people hate Blacks? What’s the reason?  Its’ fascinating! Why, why, why, why? Racists will say it’s because Blacks are pure evil, but I’m not buying it.

Blacks and antiracists will say it’s because people hate them because they’re different and how they look. I’m not buying that either. Forget it. No one is innocent. Remember when Ronald Biggs said that? He was right.

They will say, like the Jews, that racism against Blacks is so unfathomable that it is basically a mental illness. You’d have to be crazy to hate Black people. The unspoken assumption here is that Black people are dindus who dindu nuffin because if they did do bad things, racism against them wouldn’t be completely insane. See?

Well, that definitely lets Black people off the hook, but I’m not buying it. I’ve been observing racism and racists for much of my life, and I assure you they’re not nuts. Racism is not a mental disorder in any of the DSM’s, though there were efforts by antiracist clinicians to get it into DSM-5. The American Psychiatric Association found this so ridiculous that I don’t believe they even bothered to discuss it.

And they talked about some pretty weird stuff like Hebephilia, a preference for pubescent-aged minors. The APA agreed that Hebephilia was absolutely not a mental disorder. Not only that but they said it wasn’t even abnormal. It was perfectly normal to get aroused by minors of that age. Now if they won’t list Hebephilia for Chrissake, how the Hell are they going to list racism? They’re not, because racists aren’t nuts.

Sure, some crazy people are racists, but it’s not the racism that’s making them nuts. More like the other way around.

Now you might think I am letting racists off the hook, right? Nope, not at all. To me, racism is not a mental illness. It’s not a question of sane vs. crazy. Neither is psychopathy. I don’t buy that psychopaths are nuts either. Forget it.

Instead racism and psychopathy are questions of good versus evil.

Psychopaths aren’t nuts, they’re just bad, or evil if you will. And racists aren’t nuts either. I see racism as a moral question. I believe that true, pure, hardcore racism is bad. It’s like a sin. Racists are acting bad. It’s like a form of evil. It’s not nuts to hate a whole race of humans, but to me it does seem wrong. As in morally wrong.

If you do that, you’re bad. You’re a bad person, at least in a sense. Now a lot of us are bad people to one degree or another. I’m not here to moralfag on people. But it’s better to be more good than bad. And if you are racist, you are being bad in that sense. If you want to be good instead, quit hating whole races.

Now I have no idea why, but Black  people will not accept that racism is a form of evil or bad behavior. Nope, it has to be a form of insanity. This is possibly because if you say racism is bad or evil, it implies that the racist has some valid reason to feel this way, but it’s more that he needs to control himself and act good instead of bad.

The race question in the US, like the Jewish Question, is completely insane. You’re either a hardcore racist where you hate Blacks and think they are evil, in which case you are a White Supremacist, White Nationalist, or just a racist. That seems like a crazy position, and I don’t like to go to boards like that. I don’t like to see all that hate against Blacks. It’s upsetting.

Ok, so overt extreme racism bothers you. Good for you. That means you have to take the other default position, which is that Blacks are dindus, everybody’s always picking on them, and all of the many problems of the Black community are 100% due to White racism and not even 1% the fault of Blacks. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were true? But it’s not. It’s just not.

Well, those are your two positions.

Pick your poison. I’d like to choose a position halfway in between, sort of the Bill Cosby/Pat Moynihan position. Cosby argues that Black culture is the part of almost all Black problems. Those Blacks who are creating these problems are simply part of a bad culture. This culture causes them to act bad and do bad things.

I’ll go along with that. But if I do, I get tossed out of the second group (antis) and into the first group, the White Supremacists. Who I frankly despise.

So that’s what I am trying to do here. Work out a position on Jews, Blacks, and everyone and everything else that is opposed to the extremism of both the Left and the Right. Call it the Realism position.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Sure, Women Go With Conquerors but Usually Not with Genocidal Conquerors

Polar Bear: Women like the “winners,” from slave owners to invading NS Germans. We can’t un-close those legs. My point is being on top matters to women. This is a universal truth. When White women are invaded or conquered, it’s the same. To the victor go the spoils.

That may be so, PB, but the latest thinking is that for a variety of reasons, there was not a whole lot of slavemaster-slave sex going on, and what was going on was mostly with the house slaves. Even radical antiracist Black ultra-SJW’s are saying this, and if they’re saying it, it’s probably true because they’d be the last people on Earth to say that.

In truth, after the First Liberation (1865), 80% of Blacks were pure Black. No White genes at all. And the latest thinking is that a lot of the White genes that they did have went in during the last 20-30 years prior to the Civil War. You see, around 1830-1840, the plantation owners basically ran out of slaves. The slave trade itself was illegal and had ended ~1810, so they couldn’t import new ones.

What’s a slave owner to do? Simple, hire a bunch of those idle poor White men over there to work in the fields alongside the Blacks. And from 1835-1861, there were many Whites, almost all men, working in the fields alongside Blacks of both sexes.

A lot of these men were not married, and being dirt poor, they were not particularly racist. They got along quite well with the Black slaves. There was probably this attitude of, “Hey, we’re all fucked. We White men are fucked, and these Blacks slaves are fucked. None of us has a thing. Screw it.” There was a considerable amount of interracial sex between White men and Black women during this period.

If you consider that 80% of Blacks had no White in them in 1865, and almost 100% of true US Blacks now have an average of ~25% White in them, it’s quite obvious that there was a Hell of a lot of interracial sex going on from 1865  to the  present day.

In fact, Blacks were already heavily Whitened by the Second Liberation in 1964. And this was a period in which Blacks in the South lived under Jim Crow, and even Blacks  and West in the north lived under a lot of racial restrictions such as housing covenants, more or less legal if not mandatory discrimination in all sorts of ways, and sundown towns.

We had many sundown towns here in California. There are reportedly still a few sundown towns in the South. They are all-White towns of ~3,000 people in rural Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, etc. Apparently not a whole lot of Blacks are even keen on moving into those towns, so the sundown feature is not challenged.

Considering the extreme oppression that Blacks lived under in the South and to some extent elsewhere, it is quite amazing how much interracial sex went on in the century after the Civil War. And keep in mind that much of this sex was illegal, as miscegenation was against the law in many states.

Getting back to the original question, honestly, those slaves probably saw the slavemaster as more of an oppressor than a winner.

How many Jewish women got with Nazis? How many Palestinian women fuck Jewish men and vice versa? How many Kurdish women screw Turkish men? How many Hutu women got with Tutsi men? How many Carib women got with Columbus’ men? How many German women got with Russian men after 1945? How many Russian women got with German men after 1942?

People don’t dig genocide. They’re not into getting genocided. Sure, women get with conquerors in the modern era if the conquerors are relatively nice, especially if the war ends and the hostilities are all over. Most conquered women don’t get with genocidal killers of the other race.

Yes, a lot of German and Japanese women got with American men after the war, but we were not genocidal against Germans and Japanese. Especially after the war was over, there was not a whole lot of killing going on. There was some in Germany all right, in the camps where we put German POW’s, but those were soldiers, not everyday civilians.

Yes, some Frenchwomen got with Nazis, but the Nazis were not genocidal towards the French.

Indian women got with White men, but we were actually not genocidal towards their people, despite what you read. Most of the Indians died of disease, like at least 95% of them. The number of Indians killed by Whites was something like 7,000 in the whole history of the Indian wars.

Many Indian women in Latin America got with Spanish and Portuguese men, but the Spaniards were typically not genocidal. There was prejudice and discrimination but there was none at first when a lot of the genes went in.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Are Black Women Angry?

Polar Bear: With Black women, I don’t believe there’s method to the mayhem. They are frustrated and will lash out at anyone. The guy with an olive branch might get it the worst if she’s used to hard-knocking pimps.

Some are angry. My experience is simply that a Hell of a lot of Black women are somewhat psychopathic. Most are not actual psychopaths. Instead they are simply normal non-psychopathic people who nevertheless have a rather elevated psychopathy level. Keep in mind that the PCL goes from 0-19 before you get to psychopath level.

What were they like? Low on morals and empathy. Takers, not givers. Treat others like objects. A lot of them seemed to have some seething, deep-rooted anger in them. Or perhaps I was just seeing some psychopathy. Of course these were all more or less ghetto types, but it’s not that easy to distinguish between a ghetto Black and the middle class Blacks we have on this site, sadly.

The line between a middle class Black and a ghetto Black is fuzzy indeed, and a lot of the ghetto ones appear quite middle class at first. A lot of Blacks are “floaters.” They’re hard to put in one category, and there seem to be a lot of Blacks who sort of move back and forth between ghetto and middle class behaviors. It’s not like these are fixed qualities.

I’ve had a ton of dealings with middle class Blacks who more or less just acted like White people, and I had no problems with them whatsoever. Especially with the men. The women can be more difficult but they don’t degenerate into ghetto behavior. Something stops them, like they think that’s the lowest of the low.

Some middle class Black women are angry. The anger looks more like resentment more than anything else. Others are quite calm. They vary a lot. I got to know quite a few middle class Black women teachers when I taught school, and some of them seemed pretty pissed off.

The deeper you go into the heart of the ghetto, the more pissed off and resentful the female teachers look. In the deep ghetto, you get the feeling that a lot of middle class Black women hate Whites.

The middle class Black men, even in the heart of the ghetto, not so much. I’ve always gotten along pretty well with Black men for some reason.

I’m sort of a nigger myself (wigger) ha ha, so maybe we sort of hit it off on that basis. I’m not characterizing middle class Black men that way, trust me. I’m using that word more in the playful bad boy sense. I’m just saying that most Black men seem to like White bad boys because even middle class Black men often have a bit of bad boy in them. And apparently I come across as a bad boy.

Middle class Black men are pretty easy-going and relaxed people. They live to have fun. Plus they are not moralfags at all, more like the opposite. I don’t really deal with ghetto Black men. I don’t really like them and frankly I just avoid them. My feeling is that if you hang around with them even for a day or so, you’re probably going to lose something, particularly a bit of money at least. That’s just how it goes with such people.

One middle class Black teacher I knew always looked angry. She was really beautiful too. Dark-skinned but gorgeous and yet she always looked pissed. I felt sorry for her and I wondered why she felt so angry.

But one time I went into her room and approached her for the first time and she stopped her anger, looked very serious and became very submissive, ducked her head down, and addressed me as”Sir” in a very soft, submissive voice. I was too dumb back then to figure out that when a woman goes submissive in front you, she either wants to fuck or she’s horny. Because that’s how women act when they are horny. They simply go submissive.

I should have asked her out, but I was too chicken. Her third grade class was all Black, and they acted really bad. She was always screaming at them. Maybe that was why she was so angry, no idea.

But her submissive behavior is quite typical, believe it or not, especially the less ghetto they are. I’ve had sex with maybe 5-10 Black women, and they pretty much go totally submissive when you have sex with them, like any woman. They’re not angry or bossy in bed at all except maybe for some of the ultra-ghetto ones, and yes, I’ve been with them too ha ha.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Do Blacks Single Out Whites for Ill Treatment?

Kit: The author of the OP says he meets more Black people who mistreat him or whatever, than Whites – that’s because he is White. Those very same kind, wonderful White people would treat him very differently if he were Black. As a White person I have experienced this and witnessed it.

First of all, I would like to welcome our new commenter to the site.

I’m not sure what the argument is here. If the commenter is arguing that White people have been nice to me because I’m White, and they might have treated me a lot differently if I had been Black, I don’t have any answer to that question, but I’ll grant that there might be something to it. I can’t change from White to Black, so it’s hard to test the theory.

On the other hand, if the commenter is saying that Blacks treated me poorly because I’m White and they would have treated me a lot better had I been Black, I’m not so sure that that is true?

With all due respect, I don’t believe this. My brother says this too. He says they treat you badly because you’re White. They’re all out to get back at Whitey, and they screw us over any chance they get. I don’t believe this but there’s no good way to prove it one way or the other.

If this were true, they’d be very nice to their own kind, and that’s not so. The overwhelming majority of Black crime and no doubt shitty Black behavior in general is directed at their own kind. Blacks are 13% of the population but 89% of the victims of Black homicides. Blacks are going way out of their way to select their own kind for victimization.

As far as White people being nice to me because I’m White, well, maybe so. But a lot of those same people seem to be pretty nice to Black people too, though I don’t usually get the opportunity to test that out. I’m not Black and there are not many Blacks around, so I don’t see how they get treated.s

There are other things. I lived in White towns. I lived next door to some of the worst people in town. But their bad behavior only hit a certain level. It was mostly self-destruction and being total slobs. And these were poor Whites or White trash as people like to call them. The lowest Whites of them all. And even they did not act all that bad.

Then I moved to an Hispanic community and their bad people were much more frequent in number, maybe three times more, and they acted far worse than the White bad people did, maybe three times worse . It’s like they were setting the bar lower for bad behavior. But keep in mind that these were barrio Hispanics, and a lot of Hispanics don’t act like that.

Then I noticed the Blacks around here. Well there probably eight times more of them per capita than Whites! And their behavior is much worse than Whites, maybe eight times worse. It was also a lot worse than Hispanic bad behavior, maybe three times as bad. Now granted these are ghetto Blacks, ok? A lot of Black people (maybe half?) don’t really act like that in a major way.

And although not for the first time in my life, after having seen the different races in their native habitat like that and particularly living in a White town and then living in an Hispanic town and noticing the dramatic difference, I started really thinking about race and behavior in a huge way. It was like a door slammed right in my face. And this was when I was in my 50’s, mind you.

I also taught school. I taught in White schools, Hispanic schools and Black schools. Same thing. The Whites act best, the Hispanics are somewhat behind (though Hispanics act pretty good in school for some reason, maybe because they are taught to respect authority), and the Blacks were way worse. Like way, way, way, way worse.

Keep in mind that the Hispanics were barrio Hispanics. I also taught middle class Hispanics, and they absolutely acted way better. High school is probably about the same. They might even act better than Whites because of the respect for elders I discussed earlier. Junior high is pretty nuts, probably a lot worse than a White junior high. But junior high kids of any race don’t act real great.

Keep in mind that these were ghetto Blacks. I also taught middle class Blacks at a junior high. They drove me crazy and didn’t act good at all, but they weren’t really aggressive, hostile, and evil. Mostly they just would not sit down. Especially the girls. I used to think that there was a buzzer on their chairs, and after they would sit down for 30 seconds, the buzzer would buzz their butts and make them jump out of out of their chairs and start walking around and chatting.

And there again I saw all three races isolated, each in a majority group environment, and I saw this over and over for a number of years. After a while, you really wake up and start smelling the coffee.

However, I would say to be fair that there is a huge behavioral difference between middle class Black schools and ghetto Black schools.

There is a similar but not nearly as large difference between middle class Hispanic schools and barrio Hispanic schools.

With Whites, interestingly enough, there does not seem to be much difference between poor or working class White schools and middle class White schools.

All three of the cases for the three different races are quite different, and I am not sure why that is.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20