• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Is it white guilt or white FEAR that accounts for white people's support of Obama and other idealized blacks?

It's been commented by many that the reason why so many white
liberals--and even many conservatives--support Obama is due to white
guilt. Remember that many conservatives dearly wished for Colin Powell
as president in the 90s.
But, how much of this is about guilt? Or, is it really guilt masking
fear? Or, is it guilt masking racial submission before the superior
negro?

I'm not convinced that guilt is the main factor behind Obama's
popularity among whites. After all, how do we account for the great
support Obama's gotten from Jews, young people of all color, and
highly educated people of all backgrounds. Most of these people--and
their ancestors--had nothing to do with American slavery and racial
discrimination. Many of them came and settled in the North where most
of the factories were or they moved westward.  Far fewer immigrants
went to live in the South than stayed up in the north, moved to
midwest, or westward.  Of course, one could argue that ALL Americans
benefitted directly or indirectly from black labor--during slavery and
post-slavery. But, the same could be said of any other group. Many
generations of whites toiled on the land, farming night and day. They
cleared the forests, made the land safe for law and order, and built
farms and factories.  Many worked for little pay and did backbreaking
work. Yet, they built the heavy industries which benefitted all
Americans. After all, the reason why the Union won the Civil War was
because of advanced industry in the North. Who worked in those
factories under conditions which were often less humane than what
black slaves experienced in the South?  So, the end of black slavery
had much to do with white toil in the factories in the North.
Also, westward expansion had much to do with the railroads, and all
Americans greatly benefitted from them, not least blacks who found
jobs as porters. Who built the bulk of them? Chinese-Americans, and
these people worked under conditions far worse than what black
Americans experienced. It's estimated that up to 10% of the Chinese
labor forced died from working on the tracks. They also had to face
much racial hostility and violence. But, it's thanks to them that we
all benefitted. All peoples--white, black, Hispanic, etc, etc--were
able to move from East to West or vice versa. So, should we all pay
reparations to all Chinese-Americans in the US because they were
worked like slaves for a pittance and then were discriminated against
until after WWII?(Oddy, affirmative action in California favors the
descendants of whites who oppressed the Chinese over Chinese students
whose ancestors had been treated as third-class citizens or non-people
in this country.)  And, of course, America wouldn't have been possible
if American Indians had been kicked off their lands. It's because
Indians were kicked off the lands that America went from a vast
continent of nomadic savages to a united national state ruled by law
and order. But, it was a sad story for the Indians who lost their way
of life and their sacred ancestral lands. But, do we lose sleep night
and day worrying about Indians? I don't think so.

So, how much are black-related issues really about guilt? If Americans
are so guilt-conscious, would they be as swept up in the Obama
campaign if he were an American-Indian candidate? Or, a Chinese-
American candidate whose ancestors worked on the railroad?  Or,
Japanese-Americans whose ancestors were imprisoned during WWII?
Somehow, I don't think so.  Though Americans treated Chinese-Americans
miserably, 98% of Americans say they would not vote for a Chinese-
American candidate--even if his ancestry in America goes back to the
19th century when the first Chinese arrived to toil on the railroad.
Now, notice the excitement over Obama whose black ancestry isn't even
American but purely African. So, Obama's black ancestors never
experienced slavery under whites. Indeed, Obama's black African
ancestors may have been slave-owners of fellow black Africans; Obama's
black side of his ancestry never experienced American slavery under
whites. If anything, his American side is entirely white and had owned
slaves long ago; so, Obama is has slave-owners on both sides of his
family--white slaveowners and African slave-owners.
It would be fair to say that the people who suffered most in the US
were American Indians. The majority of them were wiped out by disease.
And, then their lands were taken from them from the whites. Though
blacks were brought here as slaves, their ancestral homeland always
belonged to blacks--even during the age of imperialism--and today
black Africa is nearly all black, especially after brutally kicking
out whites and Asian-Indians.  American Indians, on the other hand,
really lost their homeland to other peoples. They ended up on
reservations. They were mistreated. They're still some of the poorest
people in this country--though recently casinos helped them some. But,
do you hear much about American guilt over Indians? Would there have
been such a wild excitement about an American-Indian president?
Surely not.

If white liberals are motivated by guilt, how come there isn't much
emotional commitment to Chinese-Americans and American-Indians?
American Jews suffered far less than Chinese-Americans and American-
Indians, but far more Americans--96%--say they would vote for a Jewish-
American candidate for president than a Chinese-American
candidate(even one whose American ancestry goes back to the 19th
century) or a American-Indian(who lived in the Americas 1000s of years
before the arrival of whites).  The Holocaust wasn't committed by
Americans. If anything, over 400,000 Americans died fighting the
Nazis. (Jewish gratitude for this has been to compare white American
treatment of blacks with Nazi treatment of the Jews. Notice that the
Jewish-run media will not tolerate anyone comparing Israeli treatment
of Palestinians with past American treatment of blacks.  Also, if
anything was comparable with Nazi treatment of Jews, it was communist--
often domianted by Jews--treatment of the 'class enemies'. But, we
don't hear much of that from liberal-Jewish dominated PBS, NPR, and
such ilk.) So, guilt is not the main motivating factor for white
excitement for a black candidate.  After all, if guilt was such a
motivating factor, why were most white Americans unwilling to vote a
black guy for president in the past when there was greater reason for
white guilt?  Surely, Americans had more reason to feel guilt in the
40s, 50s, and 60s than they do now. Back then, there were still racial
discrimination or vestiges of it.

It seems to me that the main factor for the wild support for Obama has
more to do with fear than with guilt. But, admitting fear is far more
difficult than professing guilt.  Expressing fear means that you're
afraid, chicken, and cowardly. Or, it could mean you're paranoid,
prejudiced, or hostile. Professing guilt implies that you still have
control over your feelings and values. It also means that you're
motivated by moral principles than by animal emotions--as in the case
with fear. But, would there be such a desperate desire to have a black
president if not for the fear of blacks? To be sure, it's fear mixed
with guilt. (Whites want to embrace blacks and make amends but find
many blacks fearsome and obnoxious. The white heart wants to love to
negro but the white body wants to run from the negro... yet at the
same time, it wants to put out to the studly negro.  Among white
women, there is both the fear AND fantasy of black rape. One of the
biggest hits among white girls was 'niggaz for luv' which was about a
gang of blacks raping a white girl.)
It's not just the presidency but in just about everything. White
people try to put a 'model black' atop a pedestal, even above more
qualified whites? Why?  One reason is the desire to show society that
you're not 'racist'. You can say, 'see, I not only allowed a black guy
into my club but put him above me. So, I'm no bigot'.  But, the bigger
reason seems to be the hope that such a sterling 'role model' may goad
all those not-so-nice blacks to start acting kind, decently, and not
scare whitey.  In the past, the black role model has to be 'perfect'--
a black guy who acted totally white. But, such is now considered
'uncle tom'-ish and culturally imperialist. So, the liberal concept of
the ideal black guy is one who retains the black hipness and jivey
coolness BUT smiles more than grimaces, shouts with joy more than
hollers in rage. Will Smith is the archetype of this breed of the new
negro.  At times, we allow him to get angry or lose it, but he always
has a GOOD reason for his rage or fury; we want to convince ourselves
that rage among good blacks is always righteous--and charismatically
masterful.  And, once he's made his 'black power' gesture, he goes
back to smiling at us. Obama is no less a Hollywood creation than Will
Smith. If he didn't exist, he would have to be invented, which he, of
course, was.

The thing that worries most Americans is 'race'. But, 90% of racial
worries involve blacks. The worries about Mexicans is more about
culture and nationality than about race. Whites are not racially
afraid or fascinated with Mexicans. Most white people see Mexicans as
short, funny-looking, and decent people--when there aren't too many of
them. Racially, whites don't feel threatened by Mexicans--unless their
numbers are overwhelming--, and whites aren't fascinated by the
Mexican style. Americans mostly like Mexican food. And, there isn't
much racial problems with Asians or Arabs either. Arabs could be a
cultural problem--like in Europe--, but Arabs--or Muslims of whatever
kind--are mostly invisible in the US.   So, 'race' is really a code
word for the Black Problem. There is a black problem because (1) there
are many blacks and their numbers keep expanding (2) they are
naturally stronger (3) they are naturally more aggressive, self-
centered.   We might also add the fact that blacks are generally less
intelligent, but this is both worrying and a blessing to many whites.
Because blacks are generally less intelligent, more of them will fall
through the cracks academically--therefore economically. This is
worrying because it means we'll likely have a large permanent
underclass. But, it is also a relief to many whites because it means
that many physically tougher/rougher blacks won't compete with white
males in many professions or take all the best looking white women who
are increasingly lusting after the negro over white men. It means that
interracial relationships will be limited somewhat.  More and more
white women may have developed 'jungle fever' for the brawnier black
male, but because so many black guys are socio-economic basketcases
white males can breathe a sigh of relief. If blacks were as smart as
the Jews or even as white gentiles, they would have achieved far
greater economic success. And, white males in all levels of life would
today be much more pussified--reduced to beta male status--than they
already are.  After all, consider the data of Asian female/white male
relationships. Because white males are just as successful economically
as Asian males, the latter don't have a socio-economic advantage over
the taller, stronger white male. So, we see great many Asian females
going with white males than with the dorky gawky Asian males. This
might have happened to white males if not for the fact that blacks are
generally less intelligent. Though the physique of black males is far
more impressive than that of white males, physical strength doesn't
count for much in socio-economic success unless one is an elite
athlete in certain sports. Another thing that keeps blacks down
economically is their wildness. Though this can be a plus in the
charisma department, wild personalities are less likely to have the
patience and diligence necessary to study in school and hone one's
skills for a good job.

On the one hand, many whites--especially the males--are relieved that
blacks aren't as intelligent as whites and, therefore, less successful
than whites economically.  It means that the bulk of quality white
females will still stick with white males. Still, white society is
deeply worried about the black problem because the underclass keeps
expanding due to high birthrates among blacks. (Even the welfare
reforms of the 1990s didn't do much to change the main trend among
blacks. Just look at New Orleans 8 yrs after the Welfare reform. Same
shit. Just look at the South Side of Chicago.  Just look at most of
Washington DC.) There is a sense of shame that a nation as great and
rich as the US still has so many cities and towns where so many
people--often black--are poor, hopeless, and crazy. But, there is also
the matter of fear. There are many towns and parts of cities where
white people--or non-blacks in general--dare not tread.  There's
nothing more potentially fearsome in a city than a bunch of black
thugs or hoodlums.  And, if crime occurs, the police arrives 15
minutes after you call 911.  If blacks wanna mess you up in a town or
city, they can do so with impunity. And, they've acted violently all
over the place with the full knowledge that they are toughest and
everyone is scared of them.  To speak of this truth gets you labeled a
'racist'. Also, as no one's going to help you in the case of a black
attack since they are afraid of retaliation. So, the ONLY option is to
leave the part of the city where blacks have taken over. As a result,
mean and nasty blacks completely take over a community and make it
even worse.
What has happened racially in America is rather simple. One doesn't
have to a genius to figure it out. All one needs is honesty, but
that's in short supply in our liberal ideology driven society. (Even
conservatives dogmatically stick to the notion of 'race is just a
myth' and pretend that race is purely a matter of skin color. Then,
how come China, a nation of 1.3 billion, cannot come up a single
runner to make the finals in men's 100, 200, and 400 m sprints?
Jamaica, a nation of few million blacks, has produced many great
runners. And, how come Israel has more great scientists than all of
black Africa--and even Asia--combined?)  So, we keep dodging the real
issue, and both sides merely resort to calling the other side
'racist'.  The real truth is that Nature is racist and really created
different races--though all humans are of one species--with different
physical, emotional, and intellectual attributes. Though all people
are mostly similar genetically, the differences manifested in social
reality are considerable and account for much of the problems we face
today. By 'racism', we mean race + ism; the belief that races exist
and that differences exist.  We don't mean 'racist' as synonymous with
being bigoted.   A socialist is not necessarily murderous or hateful
toward capitalists or the rich; he may simply believe that certain
human goals can only be achieved collectively through the government.
Similarly, a racist isn't necessarily a racial supremacist who thinks
his race is better than other races. Besides, racial inferioritism can
be just as or even more deadly than racial supremacism.  If a people
feel inferior to another people and fear that the other race--stronger
or more intelligent--will come to dominate them, they may do to the
'superior' race what hutus did to the tutsis in Rwanda.  Many Arabs
have an inferiority complex when it comes to European Jews, the
Ashkenazi kind. The most intelligent people on Earth, the Ashkenazi
Jews have come to control the US and use the full power of the US to
back Israel against the Arabs. (This is why both Jews and blacks would
rather pretend--for now, anyway--that race is a myth. Though Jews and
blacks pretend to fear white supremacism, what they really fear is
white inferioritism. If whites realize that Jews are smarter and that
accounts for the fact that Jews, who only make up 2% of US population,
rule this country, whites may grow fearful and hostile toward Jews.
Similarly, what blacks fear most is whites coming to realize that
blacks are not only the racial-physical superiors to whites but using
that superiority to intimidate and beat up white boys and take white
women.  In the past, liberals tried to convince us that there was NO
physical advantage among blacks over whites. But, that has been
untenable in a sports-obsessed culture such as ours. So, what liberals
are trying to convince us now is that black physical superiority only
manifests itself in positive ways.  We are only to see black
superiority as winning the championship for the hometeam or winning
the Gold Medal for the USA. We are supposed to ignore the fact that
for every gold medal won for the USA by a black athlete, ten thousand
whites get black eyes from the black fists. And, conservatives have
been too afraid to speak the truth either because they are soooooo
afraid of the word 'racist'. White conservatives are just as foolish
as white liberals. They too have their dream negro, such as Thomas
Sowell or Shelby Steele. There is this foolish idea that if white
conservatives put upon the pedestal guys like Sowell and Steele, most
blacks in urban areas will read their books and become nice wonderful
negroes. Pure idiocy.  Sowell and Steele may be good people, but
fantasizing about blacks via few 'model negroes' is a wasted effort.
Besides, most blacks will never ever turn onto conservatism which
calls for self-control and responsibility; blacks just naturally love
to act up and act crazy. Conservatism is anathema to them not just
ideologically but emotionally; it's asking blacks to 'act white'.
Anyway, both Jews and blacks fear white inferioritism more because
inferioritism gives those who feel inferior the moral advantage in a
society such as ours which has been founded upon christian principles
of the 'meek shall inherit the earth'.  It was white supremacism in
the past which negated the moral authority of whites. There was white
supremacism which treated blacks as lesser humans or Nazi ideology
which saw Jews as subhuman. Against the supremacist ideology was the
liberal egalitarian ideology. But, it turned out that nature is
racist. No matter what we want to believe in terms of ideals, Jews
were bound to rise above whites, and blacks were bound to whup white
boy's ass in the realm of reality. So, there is a danger that liberal
egalitarianism will go the way of white supremacism--dustbin of
history--, and what will remain is white inferioritism. Whites,
feeling inferior to Jews and blacks, may become far more dangerous to
both; whites will not act in the name of racial supremacism--
arrogance, contempt, chauvanism, etc--which is unjustifiable but in
the name of racial survivalism--resistance to Jewish exploitation and
black violence--which may be deemed justifiable.  The rape of Germany
in the latter stages of WWII was deemed far more justifiable than the
German destruction of other countries. Germans did it to establish
their superiority, but Russians and Poles were said to have committed
brutal acts against Germans in order to survive and defeat the Nazi
oppressors.  Because Jews own and run our media, they control what we
can think and say. And, they wanna make us believe in the myth of
racial egalitarianism. Or, they'll admit there are some racial
differences, but that's no problem because diversity will harmonize
the best attributes of each group to create the best of all worlds.
So, Jews will advance our computer technology and medicine, blacks
will win for the hometeam and dance for us, Mexicans will cut our
lawns, whites will work in the factories, Asians will fix our
computers, and Muslims will drive our taxis.)
If we were to put a 1000 Vietnamese and a 1000 blacks on a deserted
island, and if only Vietnamese were given guns, what would happen?
Vietnamese would have the technological upperhand, but they would know
that if they let go of their guns, most of the racial violence will be
black-on-Vietnamese. Most of the rapes will be black on vietnamese.
Most of the interracial unions will be black male and vietnamese
female.  Black females would not look upon the scrawny Vietnamese men
as desirable male partners, and Vietnamese males would look upon black
females as tough bigass mamas. And, even if a Vietnamese male tried to
get closer to a black female, a black male might kick his ass.  This
is natural racism.
So, suppose Vietnamese decide to hold onto the guns. Suppose they use
their guns to keep the blacks away from their territory or to keep the
blacks down.  On the one hand, this looks like 'racism' but it is only
social racism in response to natural or biological racism. Because
nature created blacks and Vietnamese differently, Vietnamese, in order
to maintain their pride and security, feel a need to keep the blacks
down or away through artificial means.
Now, suppose the Vietnamese go all out and decide to wipe out the
blacks.  Would this have been due to ideology of racial supremacism or
due to fears of racial inferioritism?  It would most likely have been
the latter wrapped in the former. No people want to admit to acting
out of feelings of inferiority. For 1000s of years, man killed
dangerous animals out of fear but justified it as showing man's
mastery over nature--or as god having given nature to man to use to
his enjoyment.
Now, suppose both the Vietnamese and blacks on the island have no
guns. Good many blacks may want to leave the Viets alone and live in
peace as decent people. But, all communities have thugs, trouble-
makers, louts, etc.  Both blacks and Viets would have such people.
But, black thugs would be much tougher than Viet thugs.  And, if
tensions break out as a result of black thugs whupping Vietnamese,
many blacks--even decent ones--may side with black thugs than with
Vietnamese. This is simply because people like to side with their own
kind.  Blacks may look down on the Vietnamese as weak and scrawny.
They may feel superior to the Viets. But, feelings of racial
supremacism may not necessarily be more hostile/dangerous than
feelings of racial inferioritism. Contempt and condescension are
generally less murderous than fear and dread.  We may look down on
pigeons and ducks as lowly creatures, but we leave them alone because
they don't threaten us; but we don't want cougars and bears among us
because they are physically far stronger--superior--to us and scare
us.  We may admire the strength of lions but we don't want lions
roaming around anywhere near us. We may admire lions more than
squirrels, but we'd rather have squirrels amongst us than lions. This
may explain why American whites feel closer to blacks--the lions of
sports--than to short stubby Mexicans but prefer to live next to
Mexicans than to blacks.  As with lions, many whites want to admire
black power from a safe distance. Whites may not admire short stubby
Mexicans who cut their lawns, but Mexicans--unless huge in number--are
no physical or sexual threat to white males or sexual fantasy/dread
figures for white females.

To be sure, contempt borne of superioritism can lead to a kind of
fear.  Suppose that on our hypothetical island, some blacks feel that
their tough blackness is becoming diluted by mixing with the scrawny
and ugly Viets. Looking upon Viets as ugly and misshapen subhumans,
this may lead to black genocide against the Viets. But, blacks will
not live in fear and dread of Vietnamese--if unarmed--as Vietnamese
may live in fear and dread of blacks. Of course, if a people who feel
superior are outnumbered by inferior people by a huge margin, that is
also a cause of fear. Anyway, the reasons as to why people feel racial
hostility are different in each case.

We only need to look at the problems in the US.  Ask most black
people, and they'll say they have nothing against integration with non-
blacks. But, ask most non-blacks and they'll say they only want a
fixed or limited number of blacks. So, if blacks say they would like
to live in a neighborhood that's 50% black 50% white, whites will say
they'd prefer a neighborhood that is 95% white and 5% black.  On the
face of it, whites look more 'racist' than blacks, but only if we
dismiss a crucial fact--blacks are tougher and meaner than whites.  A
group of beagles may be less favorably inclined toward being put in
the same yard with a group of pitbulls. Does this mean that pitbulls
are less 'racist' than beagles?   Though liberals will scoff and
ridicule these assertions, let us examine liberals by their behavior
than by their words.  They also act out of fear and prefer to live in
areas that are considerably absent of blacks. For all their 'anti-
racist' noise, white liberals act perfectly racist. They too cannot
ignore the facts of natural racism. They too fear the reality of black
violence and aggression.

So, this explains the liberal obsession with Obama.  On the one hand,
they've been ideologically raised  to be anti-'racist'.  They were
spoonfed the dogma that 'race is a myth'.  Society is all about
environment and history.  There are no races and 'racism' is a a total
lie discredited with the demise of Nazism and the triumph of the Civil
Rights Movement.  To be sure, certain radical racial assumptions have
been discredited. But, does that mean that race itself is a myth or
that people are really all alike except for the color of their skin?
Well, liberals would like to think so. And, they genuinely want to
like blacks. And, they really like some blacks--the intelligent, well-
educated, and well-heeled ones. But, what about all those crazy
blacks?  What can be done about them?  All the social spending failed.
All the programs failed.  Many blacks seem to take pride in their
craziness and aggression.  Black leaders are mostly of the deranged or
hustling sort--the Wrights or the Jacksons.   Though liberal guilt
really does exist, it's liberal fear that is far more important in our
racial politics. And so, Obama is the libearl hope of The One who will
forever change our racial impasse. Whites and blacks will all come
together under Obambrella.

Most of the so-called progress has come about out of fear than guilt.
Nothing frightens white America more than blacks getting together and
raising hell. Take the Don Imus controversy about 'nappy headed
ho's'.  Would there have been widespread white condemnation had it not
been for black rage? I doubt it. Indeed, suppose Imus had made a nasty
crack about Hindus or Chinese, and neither community raised such a
fuss; besides, a bunch of angry Chinese- or Hindu-Americans doesn't
frighten whites as much as a bunch of angry blacks; so, whites--even
white liberals--wouldn't have gotten so worked up over Imus's remarks
about Hindu or Chinese-Americans. In contrast, blacks frighten white
folks. Still, whites don't want to admit that they reacted out of fear
so they dress up their expressions of outrage in guilt. (Remember the
LA riots when blacks went around smashing Asian stores? On Arsenio
Hall, an Asian woman got out in front and expressed outrage at the
outcome of the trial, but was she really expressing anger about the
trial or trying to convince blacks that Asians shared their pain so
please stop attacking Asian people and businesses? At any rate, her
expressed anger over the trial had more to do with fear of blacks than
sympathy with Rodney King. Indeed, suppose there had been no LA riots.
I doubt if much of the nation would have been so eager to make Rodney
King into such a saint. And, consider George Bush. When the verdict
was declared, he said he agreed with the jury; but when the riots
erupted, he said he found the verdict outrageous and would call for a
federal trial. Again, it was white fear masquerading as moral
conscience.)  And, notice the fact that "Birth of a Nation" is almost
never shown on TV or in revival houses. Why is this?  Is it because
the movie is more offensive than other movies or is it because whites
fear that blacks may raise hell?  Suppose blacks were few in number in
the US and were mostly a silent minority--despite the history of
slavery and all that. Would we really be so sensitve about black
issues purely out of guilt-conscience?  After all, it's because
American Indians are smaller in number and far less vocal that they
still show many Westerns on TV.  Suppose Indians numbered 40 million
people, were strong as hell and could whup any whitey, and had loud,
angry community leaders. It's possible that most Westerns would not
see the light of day--no more than Song of the South or Amos and Andy.
And, if blacks weren't so vocal and scary, we might have "Birth of a
Nation" and "Song of the South" routinely on TV.  People like to act
like as though their actions are based on much thought and moral
reasoning, but more often than not, they are acting out of crude
emotions such as fear and then try to rationalize their responses
along moral lines.
And, we see the same thing in Europe with the Muslims.  Europeans self-
censor themselves so as to offend Muslims. But, is this really out of
sensitivity and guilt over past imperialism or is it fear of radical
islam which threatens violence against infidels who 'desecrate' images
sacred to Islam? Europeans don't want to admit they are acting out of
fear and would like to fool themselves and us that they are acting out
of principles of tolerance and progressivism, but really?

Now, suppose blacks had suffered much in the past as slaves but are a
physically scrawny people--like the Vietnamese. And, suppose they made
up only 1% of the population and mind their own business.  Also,
suppose that there are currently 40 million Iranian-Americans in this
country.  Suppose they are big and tough--more so than whites--,
meaner, and troublesome in many ways. Suppose they run and control
many cities--like blacks and Muslims control many areas of Paris--in
America.  Suppose they are very touchy and sensitive and start a riot
if they feel slighted by some comment by a politician or celebrity.
Suppose Iranian-Americans had no real history of suffering in the US.
Given this state of affairs, what would our racial politics be like?
Would we be far more sensitive to blacks or to Iranian-Americans?  I
dare say Iranian-American issues would be much more important than
black-American issues. Though there would be more reason to feel
guilty about black-Americans, Iranian-Americans would command most of
our attention, fear, and even admiration. Being tougher than other
peoples, Iranian-Americans would be our sports 'heroes' and would
dominate in youth culture, especially music.  On the one hand, there
would be loathing of Iranian-Americans as violent, thuggish, and
aggressive. But, there would also be fascination for Iranian-Americans
as masterful and badass. And, since we fear them so much, we would be
very sensitive about offending them. In this scenario, we'd be more
worried about Imus offending big, tough, numerous, and nasty Iranian-
Americans than scrawny, quiet, and far less numerous black-Americans--
even though black Americans would be the real victims of American
history.  Notice that Americans are generally far more sensitive to
issues pertaining to Mexican-Americans than Chinese-Americans. Why is
this?  Did Mexican-Americans suffer more than Chinese-Americans?  No.
It's because Mexican-Americans are far more numerous and more vocal
than Chinese-Americans. (Besides, even when Chinese-Americans are
vocal, they draw more laughter than fear--or sympathy. Their dweeby
nasal voices, no matter how justified or agonized, don't gain our
attention, admiration, sympathy, and respect. We simply want the
stupid chink to just shut up. We are naturally 'racist' in that our
sympathies have preferences. We find it sadder to see a lion in pain
than a hyena in pain. We feel sadder for a harpooned whale than for a
slaughtered pig--though they are of equal intelligence. Bio-aesthetics
has much to do with the way we feel.  Because blacks have deep, rich,
and loud voices, we believe that their pain is greater and more
intense and more epic than the suffering of whiny voiced chinks or
dweeby voiced Mexicans--or funny voiced Hindus. Racism is wired in the
way we see and react emotionally.  This is why Hollywood movies cast
certain peoples in roles that call for sympathy. Artists know that we
are much more likely to sympathize with people with certain voices,
looks, etc.)

Guilt just doesn't answer the central question. If Americans really
cared about guilt, they should really be obsessing over American
Indians and Chinese-Americans. But, Americans would rather support a
Jewish candidate over a Injun or Chinee candidate though Americans
have far less reason to feel guilty toward America Jews. Of course,
Jews have an advantage since they used their smarts to make a lot of
money and buy up all the media outlets and gain control of the
academia. With such power, Jews made it seem as though they are the
saints of history and had been noble victims all along. Jews also made
all of us feel guilty about the Holocaust though most of mankind had
NOTHING to do with it.  Jews tied the Holocaust with the entire
history of 'anti-semitism', and fooled everyone to feel guilty; so, if
you don't like Jews, you're marginalized as an evil closet-Nazi.  So,
it's fear of being labeled 'anti-semitic' more than genuine knowledge
of Jewishness that has made Americans so pro-Jewish.  Americans are
fearful of what they'll be labeled as if they say they would not vote
for a Jewish candidate. Why, that would be anti-semitic. But, there is
no negative label attached to saying one would not vote for a Muslim-
or Chinese-American candidate. One might call that 'racist', but
'racism' is, 99% of the time, a label reserved mostly for blacks.
Racism in the US generally means being hostile or fearful of blacks.
And, it's the only racism that we are really worried about because we
FEAR blacks. Blacks hollering about racism is far more frightening
than American-Indians or Chinese-Americans whining about racism.
Chinese-Americans and American Indians may remind us to be more
sensitive and we may comply, but we are not scared out of our pants
when Chinese complain. If Sarah Silverman had sardonically said "I
love niggers" rather than "I love chinks", and if blacks had hollered
about racism, she would not only have been fired but many white
liberals--not least Jews--would have come forward and denounced her.
But, when whiny and wimpy Chinese-Americans complained, we just wished
they would shut their chinky mouths and lighten up.

Anyway, there is something other than fear that explains the white--
especially white liberal--support of Obama. There is a growing sense
among whites that blacks are the real ubermensch, and all non-blacks
should bow down before the superior blacks. The ideal of black
ubermenschhood is both founded in reality and in ideality.  In
reality, blacks are stronger, more commanding in their expression and
style, generally taller, and so on.  White liberals have taken this
'more powerful' aspect of blackness and have invested it with
spiritual values. The liberal conceit is that since blacks are more
'powerful' and 'masterful', these superior traits must become
associated with higher and nobler values--generally of Western
origin.  So, we have Morgan Freeman narrating stuff written by white
liberals which would have us believe that nothing is deeper, nobler,
and more dignified than black soul expressing Western values. Or, we
have "I have a Dream Speech" by Martin Luther King which was written
by a clever Jew.  Or, we have black actors in Hollywood cast in
uplifting or morally serious roles. Even the likes of Ice Cube and Ice-
T have been noble-ized by certain roles though they've been nothing
more than thugs in real life.
White liberals want to take the tougher, more powerful, and more
masterful rough diamond of blackness and turn it into a perfect
diamond of civilization at its peak.  This romanticism has more to do
with white wishful thinking than actual black inner-reality.  What
came out of the real Martin Luther King was not 'I have a dream' but
'I'm fuc*ing for god' while he banged away on prostitutes in motels.
Or, it was cackling foul-mouthed accounts of how he got drunk and beat
up some women. White liberals hoped to mold the masterful power of
Martin Luther King into something uplifting and transcendental.
Though people like King--and Oprah, Will Smith, Obama, etc--have gone
along with this wishful charade--as they had much to gain as
individuals from whitey delusions--, they knew it was all an act.
And, the act reached both its apotheosis and apocalypse with Muhammad
Ali.
Muhammad Ali stood out as a POWERFUL and MASTERFUL black figure who
wouldn't play by white rules. He would not be tamed or remade by white
ideals, even liberal ideals. He would not be a noble black champion
but a nasty, badass, mofo, and abrasive champion. His blackness was
not filtered thru white idealism and longing; he didn't care for the
'western representation of the negro' of the traditional afrophilic
school of thought in western culture. White people long ago understood
that blacks were more powerful and masterful in personality and
physicality--blacks were superior in 'body and soul'. This filled
whites with idealism and fear.  There was idealism in the sense that
the robust black man could be molded into an ubermensch of sorts, a
kind of fusion of natural power/charisma with civilizational/spiritual
ideas.
Idealistic liberals believed that Black man had powerful raw material
but had no civilizational principles. White man had civilization but
lacked the raw charisma of blacks. So, whites wanted to coach the wild
black man to become civilized superman,  just as it's been the dream
of a white sports coaches to take raw talent off the streets of the
inner city and shape it into all-star material who would be role model
for all blacks.  There was an idea that the black raw material can go
further than any other kind, but it needed coaching by the progressive
experts.

In the magazine Standpoint, there is a book review of some novel
called "Wolf Totem" by a Chinese guy.  In the novel, some Chinese
looks upon the strong, nomadic Mongols as white liberals look upon
blacks.  The author sees Chinese as overly civlized, sheepish, and
wimpy; he looks upon Mongols as having superior wolfish raw material.
Chinese are advanced but lacking in vitality and virility. Mongols are
wild but have the raw material of masterfulness and powerfulness.
Through the novel, the author wishes to graft Mongol-virility onto the
Chinese character.  In the Western Liberal case, whites wanted to
graft the high western ideas onto the raw black material.  Take the
movie "AI" where we see a black woman expound on some profound moral
questioning in the opening of the movie. It's the sort of thought that
is unlikely to come out of the mouths of most blacks who are not
philosophically or morally inclined. (Black morality comes down to one
thing: 'gimme more, honkey'.  If morality is about feeling concern for
OTHER people and weighing all pros and cons, there's precious little
of it among blacks. Black morality is totally self-centered; it's
always about other peoples owing blacks something. Blacks may seem
moral because of their yammering about slavery, but it's all about
self-interest.   Though Jews too are very absorbed in their own
history and grievances, there is much Jewish thought on Jewish
failings--at least among Jews themselves--and the suffering of non-
Jewish peoples. Jews have have felt far more sympathy toward blacks
than vice versa.  Jews have shown interest in the suffering of other
peoples around the world.  Jewish owned magazines discuss horrors in
Africa, Asia, etc. but most black magazines only expound on matters
that are black, black, black. Oprah mostly cares about Africans.)
Anyway, it's funny that a stupid looking black woman in the movie
would be the one to pose the most intellectually and morally profound
question in the beginning of the movie.  Now, why would a black woman
say something that might have come out of Hannah Arendt or Simone
Weil?  It's because of white liberal(in this case, Jewish)
romanticization of the black. The idea is that since blacks are so
powerful/masterful and suffered much in history, they would exhibit a
profound fusion of the masterful and moral. Of course, reality is
something very different.  Most blacks are trashy, childish, and
stupid.
But, the privileged and over-educated white people who came to control
our media and culture don't know much of actual black reality. They
know black reality through PBS and other such biased crap.  And, they
also know blacks through pop music and sports. Pop music and sports
make white people aware of the masterful superiority of blacks. PBS
and public education fills them with the notion of noble black
victimhood under evil whites. So, white liberals think, "blacks are
made of naturally superior material; this fact, combined with their
history of suffering,  made them into profoundly moral saints". Even
if such is not so, white liberal want to believe in that myth
desperately.
So, we have hannah-arendt-as-black-woman in AI or morgan freeman's
soulful narration in the opening of 'War of the Worlds'.  Even
Freeman's mutterings of half-baked cliches in VISA commercials during
the Olympics is supposed to be profound and spiritual because... well,
they've been muttered by Freeman, the negro with the voice of eternal
wisdom.
Or, we have all these black judges in movies as though blacks have
some profound natural instinct for justice and higher truth--all
expounded with their god-like booming voice and penetrating stares.
Never mind that the actual black justices on TV court shows are trashy
clowns mugging for money and attention. White liberal dreams die hard--
as long as liberals actually live in segregated areas and fantasize
about the ideal negro than come face to face with actual negroes.

Anyway, Muhammad Ali wouldn't play by the rules. He would not be a
noble negro. He didn't just reject the role of the 'uncle tom'
champion of the Joe Louis kind. He rejected the idea of dignity in
sports and sportsmanship altogether.  At a time when the Civil Rights
Movement was trying to allay white fears by promoting the idea that
differences between whites and blacks were only skin-deep, Muhammad
Ali was flaunting his badass blackness that could whup any white ass.
Not only whup white ass but laugh about it. He brought back Jack
Johnsonism all over again. But, Ali became more acceptable as years
passed for three reasons. One was Islam which gave him some discipline
in life. Though Black Muslim movement was anti-American, it also
called for some kind of moral purpose in life. So, Ali avoided the
kind of trashy lifestyle that ruined Jack Johnson and turned off many
whites. Also, the media had come under the influence of Jews, and even
though many Jews were worried about Ali's antics and Islam, they
figured they had too much to lose if they alienated as big black star
like Ali. If Ali could not be won over towards whites, whites would
have to be won over towards Ali. And, since the early 70s, we've had
one media campaign after another to make Ali some kind of great hero,
humanitarian, leader, saint, and etc. We are supposed to look upon all
of his rude, childish, idiotic, and obnoxious antics as good for
American society--and as the role model for all black males. It's
gotten to the point where Ken Burns would have us believe that even
Jack Johnson is a positive role model for black America. If Burns
actually dealt with REAL reality, he'd realiz that there is no paucity
of Jack Johnsons in black America--not least in the prisons.
The third reason why Ali eventually won the American public was that
America changed much in the 60s. A decade of rebellion and radicalism,
Muhammad Ali fit into the cultural iconography somewhere between Che
Guevara and Mick Jagger.  His brash style, which might have turned off
whites in another time, was seen as 'liberating' and 'cool' in the era
of rock n roll and whatnot. But, if we look at the real Ali beyond the
myth, he was a great boxer who was  entertaining in an eddie murphy
sort of way. He was no saint, no leader, no humanitarian, no hero.
Without his powerful fists, he would have amounted to nothing in life
but childish clown.

Just as we've tried to hide our fear of blacks with profession of
guilt, we've been trying to fool ourselves that Muhammad Ali's antics
were noble because he was the hero among blacks in the 60s and 70s.
We are, in effect, saying that 'might is right'. Suppose Ali had been
only an inferior boxer, and he had gotten his ass whupped by the likes
of Jerry Quarry and George Chuvalo. Would we be saying that the Ali
style and behavior were exemplary and noble? No, we elevate everything
about Ali because he was the best boxer of his era. But, is something
nobler or of higher value simply because it's associated with someone
with great physical power? Isn't such the logic of the animal world or
of thuggery? Isn't it the very anti-thesis of what Christianity and
Western civilization stood for? Ali-ism is a form of might-is-
rightism. Because he was the best boxer in his era, and because we
want to promote him as a role model, we've come to see everything
about Ali as near spiritual and mythic. But, if we divorce his
character and his behavior from his great feats as a boxer, are they
of any use to our society?  There is no paucity of blacks who are just
like Muhammad Ali in our streets and in schools. Many black students
act in the classroom like Ali acted before journalists; teachers are
intimidated and even pushed around.  White liberals are sending a
mixed, contradictory, and self-defeating message. On the one hand,
they say blacks need to sober up and succeed in life as normal people.
On the other hand, they keep hyping and mythologizing blacks who are
out-of-control and crazy; we are supposed to look upon Ali's antics
and the boorishness of rappers as the model of 'liberated' behavior--
not only for blacks but for all of us.

Anyway, there has been this attempt to mold and shape the raw
'masterful' and 'powerful' black material into something higher and
nobler. There has been something akin to a Pygmalion complex; it might
be called the Jigmalion complex.  We also saw this with the Jason
Blair story. Jason Blair was an lazy, no-good, incompetent, and
punkass jerk, but his white boss only saw what he wanted to see. He
saw Jason Blair as a Sidney Poitier or Will Smith movie character. He
saw Blair as a noble negro or not-as-yet-noble-negro who could be made
into a noble negro with the support, love, help, and compassion of
white liberalism.  Never mind that Blair was a punkass fool all along.
His white boss ignored the reality of what Blair was in favor of dream
of what he could be made into.  The Jason Blair story is indicative of
the irrationalism of white liberalism. For all the professed
rationalism and skepticism, white liberals are blindly religious when
it comes to black issues.
Was the Blair episode purely or primarily about guilt?  No, though
many liberals would like to think so. Though liberals will admit guilt
can be blinding, it also implies conscience and redemption. Guilt
alone doesn't explain the romanticization of Jason Blair. We must also
take into the account the fear of black reality.  On the one hand,
Blair's white boss at the NY Times had a black nanny as a child. She
was a loving woman, and he may have grown up feeling guilt that he, a
privileged white boy, been taken care of by a underpaid negress. But,
he was surely also aware of the racial problems afoot in society, not
least in NY. What is the #1 problem in any big city? It's black
thuggery. So, the white boss was in a moral quandry. He felt guilt for
his privileged upbringing vis-a-vis blacks. He may have felt that the
negress nanny spent much of her time taking care of a white boy and
had to neglect taking care of her own black brood. So, the white boss
dude may have thought he should make amends by taking good care of
Jason Blair. He may have seen Blair's sullenness as justifiable since
white folks had kept the negro down for so long. But, mixed with the
guilt was fear.  The boss dude wanted to like black folks but much of
NY had been ruined by blacks.
And, the only strategy for reducing crime that finally worked somewhat
was 'fascist'--increasing more police power under Giuliani--and
'racist'--driving many urban blacks into other areas. So, white
liberals in NY probably felt even more guilt after the Giuliani
mayorship. On the one hand, whites certainly benefitted from greater
police power and pushing blacks out into other areas. But, this meant
that liberals had acted more out of fear than out of guilt.  It's
because white liberals like to run away from blacks or push blacks
out--by making property values too high for many urban blacks--that
they may feel guilt(rather than because of the history of slavery).
Now, the dirty secret.  Why do whites run or push blacks out by
economic means?  Because of fear. And, it's not just socio-economics.
Middle class and rich whites are much less likely to panic and run
from poor whites, Asians, or even Hispanics. Poor non-blacks are less
strong, less aggressive, and less likely to scare affluent white
folks.
Anyway, fear of blacks is understandable and is something felt by all
Americans, even blacks. Even most blacks fear other blacks far more
than they fear other non-blacks. Again, it's not just about socio-
economics.  A poor black will not fear a poor Vietnamese or poor
Polack. A poor black will fear another black guy who may be tougher
than he.

So, we must ask ourselves. How much of white liberal support of blacks
is about guilt and how much is it really associated with fear? And,
how much is it a gradual accomodation to the idea that blacks are the
ubermensch because they are the natural wolves among men in contrast
to tame dogs that non-blacks are.  It's as though white liberals are
dweeby tamed dogs who are impressed by the power and personality of
the wolfish blacks.  But, they are also fearful of the wolf.  And,
it's as though the dweeby dogs had ganged up together against the wolf
and mistreated it in the past. (Even a wolf cannot win against 20
beagles.) So, there is a mixture of admiration/fascination, fear/
loathing, and guilt/remorse.  To make amends, suppose the dogs wanna
welcome the wolf. But, the wolf acts wolfish than doggish. It is too
aggressive and mean. But, it's also more masterful and powerful. So,
the dogs try to encourage to wolf to retain its masterfulness and
powerfulness but in the name of dignity, nobility, and spirituality.
Will it succeed? Of course not, but the wolf is happy to play the game
as it has much to gain from it.  The wolf is playing fox. And, so we
have the racial dynamics in America today. We have tame dweeby
liberals dogs. We have fearsome and masterful blacks.  We have dweeby
liberals wanting to turn fearful blacks into noble blacks. Blacks,
figuring they must play this schtick for the time being since they are
still outnumbered, will tone down their wolfishness and play the
clever fox.  Whites may know that this is a charade or not, but they
are so desperate to believe in some kind of miraculous racial harmony
that they've willfully blinded themselves.

Now, consider the following scenarios.

In one, a TV station has the option of showing several cartoons which
lampoon different ethnic groups--like the old Warner Brothers cartoons
or even Tom and Jerry.  One makes fun of blacks, another makes fun of
hillbillies, another makes fun of Hawaiians, another makes fun of
Hindus, another makes fun of Chinese, and another makes fun of
Muslims. As the Tv station looks through the cartoons, they are less
likely to be offended by some than others.  What would be the main
reason for the differences in the responses?  Guilt? Or, would it be
fear? Suppose the TV people come upon a cartoon that really makes
nasty fun of Hindus or Chinese or Hawaiians. They may express
obligatory disapproval but would they express shock and outrage--the
kind expressed by many people over the 'nappy headed hos' remark by
Don Imus? Probably not.  What is there to fear from the Hindu or the
Chinese community? At most, some whiny or funny voiced people might
call up the station and lodge a protest. Or, some Asian community
activist will try to call attention. But, the TV folks will not feel
threatened with bodily harm or scared to death with mobs of angry
people screaming outside their station.

But, suppose the TV people came upon a cartoon stereotyping blacks in
a nasty way. The people at the station will grimace, express outrage,
say it's vile and disgusting, and intolerable. They may sincerely
believe that they are being 'progressive' and 'sensitive', but could
the response be due  to subconscious fear of what blacks might do IF
the cartoon were aired?  Also, other than crazy black rage to worry
about, it must be admitted that far more Americans have been
conditioned to be sensitive toward blacks than towards other people.
There is this funny notion that blacks in America suffered 1000x more
than any other people on this planet, and so it's the duty of all
Americans--even non-white Americans who never owned slaves--to
sympathize with blacks. But, notice there is no burden put on blacks
to feel sympathy with any other people.  Anyway, the TV people, who
might have been amused by cartoons attacking Chinese or Indians, will
hiss and spew outrage over the cartoon attacking blacks. They'll say
there's no way this can air on Tv.  But, if the cartoon had made fun
of fat Hawaiians, the response may have been different.

After all, isn't it funny how old cartoons have been censored
selectively? All the parts making fun of blacks have been snipped out
but  other racial or ethnic stereotypes have been kept in. Liberals
will argue thus:  that blacks suffered much more than other racial
groups in America and were especially  negatively stereotyped, and so
we must make special amends to blacks and show special regard for
black feelings.  But, is this really convincing? Can we say that
Chinese-Americans were any better off than blacks from the 19th
century to the first half of the 20th century? In many ways, Chinese-
Americans were treated worse. And, American Indians were treated worst
by far. But, I'll bet TV people are more likely to keep a funny
American Indian stereotype in a cartoon than a funny black
stereotype.  One could argue that black stereotypes have been more
outlandish than those of others, but this is because black personality
is more outlandish to begin with.  That blacks are wilder and more
expressive is no myth. So, black stereotypes tended to emphasize black
craziness. In some way, both Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali were living
black stereotypes. Eddie Murphy and Mr. T are also living black
stereotypes. So, the nature of black stereotype merely reflected the
wild and crazy nature of blacks in real life. Who is generally more
aggressive and wilder?  A white woman or a black woman? Who is
generally more loud and outspoken?   A black American or a Mexican-
American?  Now, all stereotpyes simplify and generalize. But, they are
all based on a kernal of truth. So, it's not like blacks were
especially targeted for special negative treatment but that black
stereotypes were likely to be more outlandish because blacks were more
outlandish.  This is true of Italians as well. Notice that stereotypes
of Italians tend to be more extreme than those of Norwegians or
Swedes. Why is this? It's because Italians have a more flamboyant,
crazy, and temperamental personality.  So, the Italian 'greaseball'
stereotype was bound to be more 'offensive' and 'extreme' than a
Swedish 'potatohead' stereotype.

Anyway, the reason why people in the media are especially sensitive to
black feelings has much to do with fear. And, we can also see the role
of fear in the case of Muslims. Suppose someone working in TV had to
show one cartoon among the following. One made fun of Hindus, one made
fun of Chinese, one made fun of Hawaiians, one made fun of Christians,
and one made fun of Muslims.  Now, we know how sensitive--and
deranged--Muslims are. Though Americans aren't guilt-ridden about
Muslims, good many people in the media are scared to death of Muslim
threats. People are even more afraid in Europe. I'll bet the people in
TV will be least likely to show the anti-Muslim cartoon.  Of course,
if you ask them why they will not show an anti-Muslim cartoon when
they've shown anti-Hindu or anti-Chinese cartoons, they'll say they
wanted to show sensitivity toward Muslims and not make fun of other
peoples. But, then why would they have been willing to play an anti-
Hindu or anti-Chinese cartoon?
To be sure, fear of Muslims isn't such a big factor in the US as yet.
There are plenty of negative Muslim characters in movies, mostly as
terrorists. Even so, Americans in the media will not dream of
depicting Muhammad as a person.  Hollywood will not dare make a movie
about Muhammad, even a positive film about Muhammad.  And, notice that
even PBS documentaries on Muhammad will not have an actor play him in
certain segments--like we often have dramatization of key historical
figures in other documentaries.  So, even secular PBS is sensitive to
Muslim feelings. Since Muslism go crazy at the notion of Muhammad
being depicted in human form, even scholarly documentaries about
Muhammad obeys Sharia law.

Though people in the media will insist that fear had nothing to do
with it and that they were only trying to be sensitive, we know that
fear will have been a major factor. After all, Christians find the
idea of a non-virgin Jesus to be offensive, but the publishing
industry and Hollywood gave us "The Davinci Code". So much for
sensitivity.  This was because Christians generally don't get angry or
go crazy about such movies. Movies such as "Hail Mary" and "Last
Tempation" did lead to protests, but no violence was threatened or
perpetrated by Christians. Also, even if Christians were to show great
hostility and even threaten violence, anti-Christian and anti-white
artists would have the protection of the powerful institutions in this
country.  The media, academia, government, ACLU, and other powers-that-
be would support the 'freedom of speech and expression'.  So, the
offending artist can still depend on the support of influential people
who matter and all the institutions.  The powers-that-be would argue
that protecting freedom is much more important than social
sensitivity.  But, the powers-that-be offer their support only
selectively. If some KKK guy was threatened with censorship, it's
doubtful that people in the media, academia, governments,  lawyers in
NY, Amnesty International, etc would champion his cause for freedom.
At most, the powers-that-be would say the the KKK cretin should have
the right to free speech but no moral, financial, legal, and etc
support would be forthcoming.

In the late 80s, there was a controversy at the School of the Chicago
Art Institute.  One artist--a white guy--drew a painting of the late
Harold Washington in lingerie. Black politicians stormed the gallery
and took down the painting. The security didn't do anything. The
people at the Art Institute paid lip service to the need for freedom
of expression but did more to apologize to the black community and
didn't denounce what had taken place. They didn't insist that the
painting be put back on the wall.  But, not long afterwards, a black
communist artist displayed an artwork where an American flag was put
on the floor so that people may step on it.  Many veterans protested
the artwork and called for its removal from desecration. The powers-
that-be at the Art Institute supported the artist 100% and said there
can be no compromise with freedom of speech.  Though the veterans were
angry, they were non-violent, and so the art institute had much less
to fear. Unlike black politicians, the protesters didn't try to rush
into the gallery and remove the artwork. So, there was less of a fear
factor. But, no matter the intensity of the protest, the artist and
the people at the Art Institute knew they had the full backing of the
powers-that-be: academia, media, other art galleries run by liberals
and leftists, lawyer groups, etc.
Indeed, there is a knee-jerk defense of this double standard. Liberal
and leftist curators at museums and galleries will say that leftist,
anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Western, or anti-
hetero art must be showcased because they are not propaganda but
subversive and thoughtful works of art that makes us think and
question the power structures that govern our lives. But, they say
they will not show rightwing or 'racist' art because such is only
'propaganda'. So, freedom is speech is selective and conditional;
speech should not be free if it's 'hatefully propagandistic'.  (To be
sure, even propaganda can be art; all we need do is consider films
such as Battleship Potemkin and Triumph of the Will.)  Much of this
has to do with ideology and dogma. But, there is also an element of
fear. There is nothing an art curator--generally white and dweeby--
fears more than black mobs screaming before his museum or gallery.
Also, if something offends blacks, the curator will have almost no
backup or support from the powers-that-be. Notice that the powers-that-
be stood behind the Art Institute over the Flag-on-floor art but
stayed mum when black politicians removed the painting of Lingerie
Washington. Same is true in the academia. Afro-centrism has made a
malarky of the study of Classics, but Mary Lefkowitz has been just
about the ONLY figure in the Classics department to stand up to the
Afrocentric madness. She expected her peers to support her, but she
was all alone. The powers-that-be in the academia may have
intellectually agreed with her but they were afraid to taking on the
blacks and may have felt 'white liberal guilt' in regard to blacks.
So, there was a mixture of fear and guilt. That a lone Jewess took on
a whole bunch of negroes goes to show Jews can be a great people at
times.

Of course, there is also the matter of fear of the powers-that-be.
The issue of gays is especially pertinent in this case.   Most people
don't fear gay people or even a mob of gay people. A bunch of angry
gays don't scare us like a bunch of angry blacks. Also, gays, no
matter how angry, are not likely to act as suicide bombers or do some
other crazy stuff that Muslims love to do. But, why have we become so
sensitive to gays? It's because gays have been favored, protected,
lionized, and idolized by the powers-that-be.  Through the media and
academia, we've all been shown this glowing image of the gay in tv
show after tv show, in movie after movie, so forth and so on.
Meanwhile, those opposed to the gay agenda have all been stereotyped
by the powers-that-be as repressed puritanical nuts like the ultra-
conserative father in "American Beauty". Also, the term 'homophobia'
has been disseminated far and wide. In some ways, homos have become
the victims of choice after blacks and Jews.  Many people regard the
AIDS epidemic as a kind of homocaust. Though gays are to blame for
that mess, we are supposed to see gays as victims akin to Jews killed
by the Nazis.  Never mind that gay behavior spread AIDS and nearly
bankrupted our healthcare industry. We are supposed to blame ourselves
for not having done more to save the homos who were buggering one
another like crazy in bathhouses--deathcamps in the Homocaust were
built by gays themselves. No one killed Michel Foucault but himself.
Or, we are to believe that gays acted that way because we didn't allow
them to marry--Andrew Sullivan's canard.
Though most of us don't fear gays like we fear blacks, we fear public
stigmatization associated with 'homophobia'--like we fear
stigmatization associated with 'anti-semitism'. This is because the
powers-that-be--largely Jewish--have brainwashed us day in and day out
to regard Jews and Homos as perfect saints. Those who don't suck up to
all the demands of Jews and Homos are said to be sick in the head.
Feminists can trash traditional motherhood, attack the family for
being 'patriarchal' and oppressive, characterize men as beasts and
rapists, capitalist male bosses as sexual harassers, and so on and on.
The powers-that-be give cover to that kind of hatred and meanness.
But, if we dare criticize gay culture or the gay agenda, we are all
sick 'homophobes'. And, many young people have bought into this
bullshit--not because the pro-gay people have presented any good
argument but because the powers-that-be used movies and TV shows to
popularize, legitimize, and normalize gay behavior. The powers-that-be
ozzie-n-harrietized or father-knows-best-ized the gay community. Gays
on TV are the most clean-cut figures in popular culture. And, young
people, caught up in celebrity culture and basing their moral/social
judgment on what's hot and what's not, have come to think that gayness
is just as normal and healthy as normal sexuality. Notice that the
powers-that-be have been careful to hide the REAL nature of much of
gay community. So, we are to believe that your average lesbian is
Ellen.  Since she's so cute like Ringo Starr, how can we deny her
anything, right? This the new soft tyranny of the Liberals.

Finally, consider another scenario. There is a room with a bunch of
people.  You have an big angry black guy.  A dweeby Hindu guy. A
Muslim with a bomb strapped to his chest. A Jew with  a lawyer sitting
next to him.   A nerdy Chinese guy.  A dumb Polack. And, an average
liberal American white person. Suppose a swarthy Italian who likes to
insult people enters the room.

In the first scenario, suppose the Italian cracks a nasty joke about
the Polish, Hindu, or the Chinese guy. How is the white liberal likely
to react. He might think that the joke is uncool but he might still
find it kinda funny. The black guy will likely crack up as blacks love
to hear funny shit about other people and are totally insensitive to
others. Anyway, the point is the white liberal guy will not go into
some kind of moral outrage overdrive.
But, suppose the dago had cracked a joke about the black guy. Suppose
the black guy goes into a rage and acts like he wants to kick
everyone's ass in the room just in case they found the joke funny.
What would the white liberal do in this scenario? He would likely show
disgust at the joke and try to convince the black guy and take a stand
beside the black guy against the 'racist' joke.  In fact, everyone in
the room will likely concur, denouce the Italian guy, and say such a
joke is intolerable. But, is this really out of sensitivity or fear?
Isn't it mainly to calm the big angry black guy down?

Or, suppose the Dago took out a pen and drew a cartoon of Muhammad.
Suppose the Muslim says he'll blow himself up and kill everyone in the
room because his religion has been defiled. Again, the white liberal--
and others--will join in denouncing the Italian in no uncertain terms
and try to convince the Muslim guy that everyone totally sympathizes
with him against the rude Italian.
Or, suppose the Dago made a crack about the Jew. The Jew, with his
powerful lawyer, will threaten to sue the Dago for defamation or 'hate
crime', and others all learn that they better not mess with the Jew.

To complicate matters, suppose we add a cute woman, a man who likes
the woman, and a gay guy to the original group. Suppose the Dago
enters and makes a gay joke. Suppose the man who loves the woman
laughs at the joke. But, suppose the woman--whose idea of social
values have been shaped by TV, movies, and celebrity culture--believes
that 'homophobia' is evil and that she will not date a man who's
'homophobic' and laughs at a gay joke. Because the powers-that-be have
made women--especially white women--of America into such brainwashed
sheep of Jews and gays, most guys fear appearing 'homophobic'; they
might lose their girls whose idea of social values have been formed
from Oprah, Ellen, and Will & Grace.

But, we should keep in mind how selective all of this is.  If a guy is
harshly critical of Muslims or Islamic culture/history in the presence
of a liberal educated woman, she will not necessarily see him as a
bigot or a tard. Same would be true if he expressed deep misgivings or
even some hostility toward Germans, Chinese, or Hindus. But, if he
criticized Jewish power or culture, the liberal educated woman would
find him a lout, a boor, and an bigot--an 'anti-semite'. Why? Because
stupid Americans have been brainwashed to think that everything about
Jews is perfect and wonderful. So, even as Jewish intellectuals freely
pontificate about the shortcomings, evils, dangers, and problems of
all sorts of people in the world, anyone who says similar thing about
Jewish power, values, culture, or history is seen as an evil 'anti-
semite'. Why is this? It's due to a combination of guilt, favoritism,
and fear.  There has been much guilt-peddling in relation to the
Holocaust. But, the Jewish-run media has also made depicted Jews as
especially lovable and have covered Middle East affairs where Jews
have been mostly the good guys against bad Arabs. So, we see the Jews
in Israel as our home team. We love and favor Jews; even poor whites
sympathize with millionaire Jews as Holocaust victims.  But, there is
also fear. There is fear of Jewish power which is mighty and get you
blacklisted from your career. But, there is also fear of goyim
brainwashed by Jews.  Most goyim will see you as an evil person if you
criticize Jewish power. Not only Jews but many goyim will ostracize
and reject you if you dare question Jewish influence. If anyone calls
up conservative Talk Radio and bashes Muslim, Chinese, or French
power, that is fair game. But, if anyone has the slightest misgivings
about Jewish or Zionist power, even the most rightwing Talk Radio
hosts will call you an 'anti-semite' and a bigot. Since people don't
want to be ostracized or shunned by their peers--most of whom have
been brainwashed by the powers-that-be--, even free-thinking people
feel a need to repress what they are really feeling about certain
groups.

To be sure, there is much politically incorrect racial stereotyping
today which makes fun of whole bunch of races, religions,and such.
But, they must demonstrate that they are making fun of making fun of
stereotypes or that they are making fun of the hypocrisy of censorship
than actually making fun of certain groups. So, Southpark's
surprisingly bold stereotyping of Jews is less an attack on Jews than
a playing with Jewish stereotypes.

Antworten