Biological Slavery under Blacks Is Worse than Social Slavery under Whites

Contrary to the impression viewers have been getting lately from films like 12 YEARS A SLAVE(not without a certain degree of masochistic ‘white guilt’ self-righteousness), the lives of black slaves in the South were not uniformly bleak, cruel, and inhuman. While there were cruel and sadistic slave-owners, there were also many kindly and decent ones who took care of their slaves reasonably well. In this regard, the TV series ROOTS was closer to the truth. Some slaves lived under nice ‘enlightened’ masters while others lived under nasty masters. It was rather like the condition of dogs and cats. If a dog or cat’s master is real nice, the dog or cat might as well be in heaven. If the master is nasty, it’s hell for the poor creature. Of course, all slaves in the South had to work hard, but in this regard, their lives were no different from most white folks around the world, America included, who had to toil from sunup to sundown. Most American whites were not large plantation owners or rich folks. They spent their entire lives working on farms and in factories. The conditions of many whites could be harsher than that of black slaves. Black slaves worked no harder than most white farmers in Europe and were, in most respects, much better off than Russian serfs. And of course, black slaves in the South had it much better than most people in non-white nations, especially under the barbaric rule of non-white elites.

But man doesn’t live on bread alone. Even if a free white farmer and a black slave had to work equally hard and ate the same kind of food and lived under similar conditions, the white man had the advantage of full legal rights and all the psychological benefits that came with it. While the law in Southern states made provisions for the well-being and decent treatment of black slaves, it was nothing like being free and being legally protected under the system of democratic government. Also, no man wants to feel himself to be the property of another man, at least in a world defined by concepts of liberty and freedom. To be sure, in certain societies, some people didn’t mind being the properties of the king, noblemen, or the state since they were raised to think and feel that way from cradle to grave. In Japan, elements of the lower castes were willing to give their lives for their masters and preferred death in the name of honor and loyalty(to their masters) than be free of their obligations. (Obligations and servitude, even if often unjust and harsh, at the very least provided the servants or slaves with a sense of purpose and meaning. It’s like dogs would rather serve a master than roam around freely. There is an element of dog-psychology in all humans. Indeed, when slaves are suddenly freed by their master, they might feel anxiety than liberation for they knew their lot under slavery but don’t know their future under freedom. This explains why a large segment of Russians longed for the old Stalinist days after the fall of communism and the economic devastation of the 1990s. At least things were steady in the good ole bad ole days. And Germans were all too willing to give up their freedoms to Hitler in exchange for security and stability. And even black slaves in America, when offered the chance of freedom and return trip to Africa, declined. They’d rather live under white folks than be free as an African savage. At least under white folks, you knew where the next meal was coming from, whereas in Africa, you might have to hunt a hippo that turn around and might bite your black ass in two, or worse, some black tribe might capture you and have you for dinner, especially if you were an albino.) And the Janissaries(enslaved boys from Christian families trained to fight for the Sultan) in the Ottoman Empire were raised to believe in the honor of serving their Muslim lord. They took pride in their roles as warrior-slaves against Christendom, the very realm into which they’d been born.
Even so, not all forms of slavery are the same. Some forms of slavery may take away your freedom and property but ‘spiritually’ make you feel empowered as a part of the collective. This was the appeal of communism. It took away individual property and freedom, but the people were made to feel as ‘comrades’ united in struggling for the common goal of creating a ‘better world’. In contrast, some forms of slavery are more nakedly honest, and perhaps the most extreme was Nazi slavery(of non-Germans) that made the slaves know that they were no better than cattle and would be treated as such. As Nazi ideology was rooted in biology than spirituality, Nazis didn’t care if non-Germans had souls or not. Germans were seen as the higher breed of pure wolves while certain other races were seen as inferiors breeds of dogs or mongrels.

The American South justified its slavery on loftier grounds, not least because the dominant cultural heritage even in the South was Christianity(even more so than democracy, which had been gained through independence from the British as the result of the efforts of mostly northern and mid-southern forces than deep southern ones; more key battles were fought in the north than in the south). Defenders of slavery argued that black Africans, being so wild and savage, needed to undergo a historical and cultural transformation so as to become worthy of living as free men alongside white folks. This line of argument believed that even though slavery would be wrong when applied to civilized white folks, it would do some good for Negroes who’d learn the virtues of hard work, discipline, order, organization, and obligations. (After all, before white folks gained freedom, they too had been civilized from brutality and barbarism through long yrs of iron discipline and servitude under kings and noblemen. In other words, there could be no short cut from barbarism or savagery to civilization. Spiritually, culturally, and perhaps even biologically, a people had to progress gradually from brutality — the world of black African savages — toward civilization where free men had rights. It took whites thousands of years to become civilized enough to be finally worthy of democracy and freedom, and so, it made no sense for blacks, the least civilized people in the world, to make a sudden jump from savagery to freedom. Ideally, they had to undergo the process of discipline, organization, thrift, and industriousness under the presumably benign guidance and management of white folks who’d made the arduous historical transformation earlier. So, if slavery was an evil when applied to civilized men, it could be a blessing, a helping hand, if applied to savages who had no concept of God and higher values. It’s like it’s wrong to treat an adult as a child, but it’s also wrong to treat a child as an adult. Of course, modern Americans scoff at views such as this when applied to Negroes, but the Liberal and even Conservative reluctance to pass proper judgment on bad black behavior suggests that there is a tendency to view Negroes as a bunch of children who simply cannot be judged like the rest of humanity. It’s like we shouldn’t expect Negroes to act like full-fledged adults since they are naturally ‘childlike’.) Thus, white Southerners rationalized black slavery as a kind of civilizing mission. The Negroes had to be fully tamed through the generations before they could rightfully claim equal freedom and full legal rights.

In any case, the Negro’s lot as a slave essentially depended on the moral character of his master. Was the master kindly and decent and did he take care of his slaves? Or was he mean and nasty and treat his slave like a dog and unduly call him ‘nigger’ too often? Of course, even the kindly master used cruel means to maintain order and discipline when Negroes rebelled or ran off. Even a kindly master may order a whipping to teach a lesson to the runaway slave, and other slaves would be made to watch the whipping as a lesson lest they too ‘get rabbit in their blood’. It’s like what the Strother Martin character says in COOL HAND LUKE. He can be a real good guy or a real mean son of a bitch. And of course, there were a whole bunch of masters who were neither too kindly or too mean but something in between.
.
Therefore, it’s difficult to defend slavery on the basis that some masters were indeed humane, relatively speaking. The fact remains that the slave’s condition depended on forces beyond his control and will. If a master was mean and nasty, he still had to work for that master. He couldn’t, like a free worker, just quit and go off to find another job. The slave was stuck in his place. Also, even if a master was nice and kindly, the slave had to always be mindful to be on his best behavior and act servile to ensure that the master will continue to treat him nice. So, when push came to shove, a slave under a good master was no freer than one under a bad one. So, at least from the moral perspective of our times, slavery cannot be defended on the basis that some masters were decent and good. At best, it can be argued that slavery in the Deep South was not uniformly the horror show that film-makers and others would like us to believe.
At the very least, we can all agree that the central fact of the SOCIALLY SANCTIONED SLAVERY in the American South was that the slave was at the mercy of the master. The master had to be good for the slave to lead a decent life since the slave lacked the freedom to make his own mind and decisions. And to that extent, American slavery was an unjust system — though much preferable to the kinds of slavery practiced by barbaric Asians, cruel Arabs, and savage black Africans, none of whom saw anything wrong with slavery(even of their own kind).

But the same kind of problem exists in the case of BIOLOGICAL SLAVER. American Slavery in the South was a form of Social Slavery. White masters ruled over black slaves because whites were better armed, had the power of law on their side, and were better organized to maintain their form of power structure. Whites ruled over blacks not because they were tougher or naturally more dominant than blacks but because they’d created a mighty civilization that had given them a decisive advantage over the non-white parts of the world that lacked big ships, guns, factories, and the like.
Abolitionists demanded the ending of slavery on the religious/spiritual ground that all men of all races and colors were equally the children of God and imbued with souls equally dear to Him. Abolitionist, who were religious fanatics, didn’t care about biological factors or issues — and were even hostile to science. They thought in terms of God, God, and God, and they were certain that as long as all humans had souls equally loved by God, it was sinful for one group to enslave another group for whatever purpose or reason. Of course, not all Abolitionists were religious fanatics. Some came to support the Abolitionist Movement and sought to free the blacks, but they still believed in the inequality of races and wanted to keep blacks separate from whites. Abraham Lincoln was such a man. He wanted to free the slaves but also saw them as dangerous innate savages and wanted them shipped back to Africa or to relocated to some place in South America.

In the 20th century, many white liberals swallowed the notion that all races are the same except for skin color. The leftist Jewish takeover of anthropology had a deep impact on social thought. Also, WWII and the great crimes of Nazi radical racism cast a pall over the very notion of the science of races; the baby came to be thrown out with the bathwater. With the so-called ‘free world’ having defeated the oppressive systems of Fascism, Nazism, and Japanese militarism, Americans felt good about themselves as not only the proud defenders of but ardent crusaders for the land of freedom and equality. Also, the Cold War with Communism pressured the US to make social reforms, especially in the area of racial equality, so as to neutralize Soviet Union’s accusation of ‘racism’ as the defining characteristic of American capitalism/imperialism. For US to win over the hearts and minds of the Third World(the main battleground during the Cold War), it just wouldn’t do to have TV images of Bull Connors unleashing his dogs on Negroes beamed all over the world.

But as things turned out, the races were not equal, and the differences weren’t limited to skin color. In general, blacks are less intelligent than whites, though blacks have superior talents in certain mental areas, just as rhythmic patterns and making jazzy and funky music. Blacks also have more colorful ape-like charisma. Like a chimpanzee, blacks can talk and act in an amusingly brash manner that delights white folks to no end. It’s no wonder THE JEFFERSONS was one of the most popular shows of all time even though George Jefferson did little else but insult white folks by hollering at them like an intelligent ape. He was colorful. So was Eddie Murphy during his heyday. (In a way, whites have valued blacks as their darker id, the repressed animal nature that has no inhibitions about sex, aggression, dominance, and pleasure. So, white people sometimes let loose and try to dance like blacks, talk like blacks, gesticulate like blacks. The have sexual fantasies of having sex with blacks or even indulge in such acts. Jewish-controlled porn peddles such fantasies, and not surprisingly, much of porn since the late 90s involve black males and white females. It’s as if white girls want the singing voices of black females, as if white guys want the muscles and penises of black males, and as if white girls wanna be ravaged by the Negro stud. White boys wee in their pants in awe of feats by black athletes, and white girls cheer for black sports kings and put out to them after the games. Thus, part of the appeal of blackness is in the allure of animal amorality or even immorality. The natural black beast, like King Kong, breaks free of the shackles of civilization & its obligations and rampages around seeking total dominance for the sake of power and pleasure. It’s like the experiment in ALTERED STATES where William Hurt’s character reverts to a stronger and more aggressive form of early ape-man. It’s a gangster fantasy, which accounts for the popularity of the ‘gangsta’ image of so many black rappers, which white rappers try to ape with varying degrees of success. Thus, it’s rather ironic that so many white ‘progressives’ are upset with black attitudes against homosexuality. On the one hand, white ‘progressives’ take delight in the wild and unruly aggressiveness of black masterfulness that ruffles the feathers of white society — white ‘progressives’ credit wild black energies for having liberated repressed and dull white people from their old priggish and prissy ‘Victorian’ and ‘Puritanical’ hangups — , but on the other hand, white ‘progressives’ — who are ideologically neo-puritanical in their bent — are so very distressed and perturbed by the fact that so much of wild black energies are of a hostile, nasty, and vicious nature, especially against certain groups favored by ‘progressives’, such as homosexuals. But, this is rather like celebrating the glorious wild energies of a tiger or grizzly bear but then getting upset over the fact that they don’t make for good table manners. ‘Progressives’ want black to run wild and free but not punch out nice Liberals like Matthew Yglesias. They admire and cheer on blacks for singing and shouting whatever’s on their minds — or lack of them — without inhibition, but if the words coming out of the mouths happen to be ‘faggot’ or ‘Jew motherfuc*er’, ‘progressives’ get awful upset, which is rather like setting a wild dog loose to run around in a kitchen but then getting all miffed because it ate all the caviar. This is further complicated by the fact that ‘progressives’ subscribe to the notion that there’s no such thing as a race, which means there can be no racial differences; if that is really the case, why do ‘progressives’ worship blacks for being better athletes, having more powerful voices, being better dances, being more colorful personalities, and having bouncier butts on the women and bigger penises on the men? To confuse the matter even further, the appeal of black animality is intermixed with the notion of the Negro as the spiritual savior of white folks. This side of the myth would have us believe that blacks are so noble that they have no time or energy for sexual interests or violence. Even a mountain-sized Negro in GREEN MILE has no thoughts of vengeance, no thoughts of sex with white women — or any kind of women — , no desire to beat up white boys and fuc* them in the ass as so many powerful black males to do white men in America and South Africa. The ONLY thing the Noble Spiritual Magic Negro ever wants to do is to love and redeem mankind, and of course, MLK played this role to the hilt, though his closeted real nature was closer to King Kong, as his main passion away from the camera and microphone was to have endless orgies, drink like a fish, and cuss like Eddie Murphy. Western morality since the 1960s is utterly confused and unstable since its core myth tries to have the cake and eat it too, i.e. it would have us believe that the ‘Nigga’ as the amoral animalist fantasy of raw power and domination is compatible with the Magic Negro as the spiritual fantasy of higher truth and transcendence.) But when it comes to most areas of intelligence involving logical problem-solving, math, and reading, blacks have been proven to lag behind other races. To be sure, there are cultural factors to this, but if blacks were naturally smart like Jews, they would show more interest in brainy matters as smart people generally gravitate to things that challenge their minds, just like fast and strong people naturally gravitate toward athletic or physical pursuits. No amount of cultural upbringing is going to turn a dumb black woman into an intellectually curious person. Even Michelle Obama, who had the advantage of being admitted to Princeton and Harvard Law School via ‘affirmative action’ never had a single original thought in her entire life. She’s just a bundle of politically correct and Afro-centric cliches picked up from patronizing professors who passed and recommended her on the basis of race.

But all said and done, the most crucial factor that underlies the racial relationship between whites and blacks is not intelligence but physical-and-emotional differences. While it’s true that dumb people achieve considerably less and end up as economic burdens on society, they are not necessarily destroyers of civilization nor much of a threat to the smarter members of society purely on the basis of their lower IQ. Suppose most blacks had low IQs and were physically like Emanuel Lewis, the little Negro child star of WEBSTER. While a bunch of them might fail in school and live on welfare(and be something of an economic burden), would they pose a threat to the white race? Of course not. There are plenty of dumb ‘white trash’ folks, but the problems they cause to the general population is nothing like the damage done by blacks.

So, what is the crucial difference between whites and blacks? It’s about time that the White Right stopped beating around the bush. White Right always complains that the media — controlled by Jews and Liberals and cowardly Conservatives — don’t properly report black-on-white crime, but the White Right itself is too wussy to deal with the true nature of such violence, namely that blacks are physically stronger and tougher than whites(by a considerable margin) and emotionally more aggressive. Blacks are also naturally more psychopathic, i.e. lacking in qualities such as empathy, self-criticism, reflectiveness, conscience, and shame. And I suspect in due time, with advances in genetic research, all these observable facts will be proven with hard data, which may be why the forces of political correctness are currently working extra-hard to expose whites to such a heavy dosages of ‘white guilt’ radiation so as to render them defenseless against political correctness even with the emergence of scientific data proves that many blacks are unfit to live alongside whites — or, more accurately, whites are physically unfit to live safely alongside stronger and nastier blacks. White people will still go on weeping over sanctimonious MLK speeches even when the hard facts of biology demonstrate that whites would be much better off living separate from blacks.

Anyway, the problem with social slavery was that even though some white slave owners were decent and kindly men, the indisputable fact was that blacks lived at the mercy of white power. Blacks had to hope and pray that whites who had power over them were good because if they weren’t, blacks could be treated harshly, and worse, there wasn’t much they could do about it.

A similar problem hangs over white people living under the system of BIOLOGICAL SLAVERY. In an integrated neighborhood, whites might be left alone or treated kindly by decent blacks who are kindly and conscientious, and of course, such blacks exist just as there were decent white slave owners. But there are also nasty and brutal blacks who are lacking in conscience and any sense of remorse. (Worse, the ‘white guilt’ narrative that predominates in America imbues even horrible blacks who commit the worst kinds of crimes with a sense of righteousness, i.e. their violence against whites was just payback for what the ‘cracker honkeys’ had done to blacks in the past; and of course, films like TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE will only harden such perspectives, not least among violent black thugs.) Since blacks are generally stronger than whites, nearly all whites in an integrated community are biological slaves of blacks. Though whites have legal rights that protect them from bullying, intimidation, hostilities, and crime, the fact is there is no way a white person can effectively rely on the law all the time for protection from Negro bad behavior. For one thing, the cops have better things to do than to be protecting whites from every case of intimidation and bullying from blacks as the integrated community could be reeling from rapes, shootings, robberies, murders, and other kinds of mayhem. Also, even when the police arrive, it’s often too late as the thug took off already after brutalizing the white victim. Also, many whites are afraid to call the cops for fear of reprisals. If the cops arrest a certain Negro for having attacked you, his family members and friends might come after you and your family in ways big and small. So, even though the law and the police do exist to ensure equal protection for all citizens, the fact remains that in an integrated community, blacks will biologically rule over whites because the power of the law only goes so far in our lives. In schools, white guys who are attacked by blacks will also be unlikely to report the abuse since (1) little will be done about it as the bullies aren’t legally adults and will only be slapped on the wrist (2) white guy will be seen as a ‘pussyboy faggot’ for not fighting his fight and instead relying on school authorities and (3) the black attacker doesn’t care if he’s suspended since such types don’t give a crap about studying anyhow and (4) the black attacker will hurt the white kid even worse for having told on him. (There is also the problem of ‘micro-aggressions’ against whites. A black guy might ‘play’ with the white boy like a toy. He will do everything within the law to belittle, taunt, and humiliate the ‘white boy’ without throwing the first punch. Thus, he hasn’t violated any law. If the ‘white boy’ walks away, he’s been pussy-whipped. If he talks back and escalates the situation or, in a fit of uncontrollable white rage, throws the first punch, the black guy will be justified in whupping the white boy’s ass. There are psychological means by which tougher guys can mess with weaker guys, as in the scene in SHANE where Jack Palance’s character legally manipulates the ‘sodbuster’ to dig his own grave. He is ‘owned’ by Palance’s character. The oft-heard term among young people today is ‘own’, and Oprah’s channel has the same name. In an integrated neighborhood, blacks OWN whites physically and psychologically. Physically, blacks can beat up whites. Psychologically, blacks can mess with whites without whites doing anything about it out of fear. Also, blacks sexually own whites. If blacks have a thing for a certain white girl in school, they can make sure that white boys don’t go near her for if they do, they’ll get their asses kicked. And white girls often submit to such sexual ownership by blacks since women naturally want to be dominated and conquered by alpha males. The only chance for whites in such a situation is to study harder, make something of their lives, and move out of the neighborhood, but ‘affirmative action’ hampers the social progress of poor whites as it favors blacks and rich whites over poor whites; and even if they make it out of the troubled community, there are Section 8 programs to relocate lots of bad blacks to the very areas that whites fled to.) Of course, such white victims don’t have any defender in the Jew-run media that cackle with glee over black-on-white-gentile violence(Jews only care when blacks attack Jews) nor among white conservative elites who seem more eager to recruit more blacks to the GOP(as trophy Negroes that prove that Republicans aren’t ‘racist’) than to call attention to the problems of biological slavery suffered by so many whites who are stuck in integrated communities and OWNED by blacks.

Thus, under biological slavery, whites have a choice between decent black biological masters or nasty black biological masters. Either way, whites are under a form of slavery, a biological one at that, which is far worse than the social one, because, while social slavery can be ended by new legislation and social values, nothing will change the nature of biological slavery. It’s like no matter how many laws we pass and enforce, most sexual violence will be male on female since men are stronger than women. Thus, the sexual threat of violence is always male-on-female, and that makes women the biological slaves of men, and to this extent, feminists have a point. But what feminists overlook is that women have a natural attraction to the power of men. By their very nature, women want to be with strong men who can ‘own’ them emotionally and sexually, if not legally. This passion and desire make the unequal relationship between men and women not only tolerable but meaningful and blissful for both partners. Even if women want to be equal with men legally, they want to meet men who are stronger and more masterful. Even lesbians have an hierarchy of the alpha female and beta female. And this sexual attraction between unequal sexes is what ensures the survival of humanity. Without the unity of men and women, no race can survive.

In contrast, there is no need for one race to co-exist with another race to survive. Japan will be Japan even if not a single Negro sets foot on the island. Norway will continue to be Norway forever even if not a single Japanese or African sets foot on Norway. So, races don’t need one another. While all races have much to gain by learning from one another, trading with one another, and even mating with other races, no race needs to mix with other races in order to survive and thrive. And some races are bound to lose out if they mix with other races. Suppose we were to mix Russians with Vietnamese. Clearly, Russian men, being stronger and bigger, will win out over Vietnamese men. While Russian men will be taking lots of Vietnamese women, Vietnamese men will not only lose their own women to beefier and bigger Russian men but they won’t be getting much Russian poon either since Russian women will still prefer bigger and beefier Russian men to scrawny Vietnamese men. Of course, one could argue that Russians will lose out too. If a whole bunch of Russian men mix with Vietnamese women, their Russian-ness will become diluted in a genetic sea of yellowness.

Same goes for blacks and whites. Despite all the rosy and idealistic yammering of ‘thinkers’ on both the mainstream ‘left’ and mainstream ‘right’, the fact is racial integration between blacks and whites can only lead to the biological slavery of whites being OWNED by blacks. In schools all across the nation, the racial violence is overwhelmingly black on white. In prisons, black thugs rape white inmates in the ass. In sports, blacks dominate over white guys who are relegated to bench-warming status and to the humiliation of watching white blonde cheerleaders shaking their asses for black athletes who mostly clobber white guys. In streets, in buses, and other public places, blacks swagger around like they OWN the whole world while white boys are reduced into dickless wimps who are afraid of being knocked out by ‘teens’.

Sure, there are good, kindly, and decent blacks, but that means whites are at the mercy of blacks being nice to them. Since blacks are stronger than whites, blacks don’t have to worry about whether whites are nice to them or not. Even nasty white guys can easily be whupped by tougher blacks. So, blacks can rule over both nasty whites and nice whites, but whites, being weaker, cannot rule over blacks. Thus, whites have to hope and pray that blacks are nice than nasty. If a black guy is like Arthur Ashe, wonderful. But if he’s like Mike Tyson, it’s big doodoo.

Now, suppose whites were stronger than blacks, i.e. stronger than both nice Negroes like Ashe and nasty Negroes like Tyson. Whites need not worry since the nice Negro won’t mess with them and since, if the nasty Negro messes with them, they can whup his jigger-jiving ass.
But reality being what it is, whites are only okay with blacks when blacks are nice, whereas blacks are okay regardless of whether whites are nice or nasty. Nice whites won’t mess with Negroes and even nasty whites are too afraid of blacks to mess with them. Thus, blacks are the lions, the masters of the community, whereas whites are like the weaker hyenas who always have to be on the lookout for nasty lions. (Also, even nice Negroes will come to sexually own the white race since even nice Negro men will lust after white chicks no less than nasty Negroes; and since nice Negroes are tougher than white men, white women will go with nice Negroes. Whether white women go with nice Negroes or nasty Negroes, it’s a humiliating loss for white men. Similarly, regardless of whether Negresses slept white nice white masters or nasty white masters, it was a case of white social slavery owning and humiliating the pride of black males. Would it have been much of a consolation for black males in the Deep South during slavery if the nice white massuh than a nasty white massuh slept with their mother, wife, or daughter? Pathetically enough, a whole bunch of white guys welcome the union of nice Negroes and white girls. It’s as if they’re so afraid of the accusation of ‘racism’ that they wanna show "how far they’ve come in the goal of racial harmony", though, of course, this "racial harmony" is premised on stronger Negroes making their moves on white territory and owning white females sexually and owning white males psychologically. Of course, some white guys hope that by offering or surrendering their white women to nice Negroes, the latter will protect the whites from nasty Negroes. And indeed, the psycho-politics as to why so many whites voted for Obama owes to such an psychology. White folks OWE and black folks OWN.)

During the age of social slavery, all whites has legal and institutional advantage over all blacks. Even a poor white knew he was a free man and legally on equal footing with rich whites. He also knew he could never be a slave. But even relatively well-off blacks who were given decent tasks by their rich and kindly white slave masters knew that their welfare depended on the kindness and mercy of decent whites. If they were to fall into the hands of nasty whites, their rights could be stripped overnight and they could be reduced to being ‘cotton picking Negroes’ again.

So, if one thinks about it, the dynamics between social slavery and biological slavery is pretty much the same. The slave side depends on the good will of the master side. As long as whites live next to lots of blacks, their well-being depends on the decency of blacks since nasty blacks can push them around and beat them up real good. Also, even nice Negroes will come to OWN white women and wussify white males as beta-male second-raters in the sexual marketplace.

Thus, the ONLY WAY for white people to be free at last, free at last, and free at last is to invoke the necessity of RACIAL RIGHTS, i.e. all races have a right to live in peace and safety for the sake of their own self-preservation and posterity. Since integration with blacks leads whites being biologically OWNED by blacks, whites are being reduced to the status of the slave race under stronger blacks(and more intelligent Jews). For whites to be free and to determine their own future and fate, they need to break free from this biological bondage.

--------------------------

So much of PC idiocy is the product of a mono-moral narrative where one side was totally good and the other side was totally bad.

That is the template of how the US sees race relations.

Whites were totally bad, whereas non-whites, esp blacks, were totally good.

It’s a cartoon vision of history, and it mortally wounds white moral pride since NO JUSTIFICATION has been offered for the Segregationists. Thus, they had no reason but PURE EVIL in having opposed Martin L. King and Civil Rights Marches.

So, all the rightness and justification during the Civil Rights Era are placed with blacks & allies and NONE with whites who opposed the movement.

Now, if blacks were just whites with dark skin, the anti-segregationists would have been right, more or less. Why deny full rights to a people solely based on skin color?

But races do exist and racial differences are real and go beyond skin color. Whites southerners(and northerners too as it turned out) had good reasons to fear social equality with blacks since blacks are the superior race when it comes to physicality, aggression, thuggery, and etc. It’d be like integrating retrievers with pit bulls. Same species, but different races.

So, while the laws were legally unfair to blacks, getting rid of those laws would have been biologically unfair to whites. Blacks would act aggressively toward whites, and lots of whites would get hurt. White guys would lose male pride and see their women go with stronger Negroes. What humiliation, what shame. Interracism is ‘racism’ insofar as women go with men of another race on the premise that they are superior as men.

And even though white northerners mocked white southern 'bigots', the Liberals in NY an Chicago and Detroit and etc. all discovered the same truth. They too began to be terrorized by black thuggery and moved away from darkening areas. White flight was due to white fright of the stronger meaner more aggressive Negro.

So, a mono-moral narrative is bogus. We need a duo-moral narrative that tries to understand both sides. (We do such for Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East Conflict. We know Jews are oppressing Palestinians, but we also know that if angry Palestinians were given full equal rights, they will violently strike out at Jews whom they see as occupiers and imperialists. So, both sides have legitimate fears and rages. We don’t use mono-moral narrative on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.)

Now, the Civil Rights Movement was a compelling one for blacks. They had a right to be angry and demand justice.

BUT, justice for blacks could only lead to all sorts of problems of whites who were likely to be treated like Jerry Quarry at the fists of Ali and Frazier.

THAT side of history should be told as well. From a biological viewpoint, whites did have some compelling moral justifications for opposing racial integration and social equality.

And given what happened to NY and other cities due to rising black crime and thuggery, we’ve seen how White Liberals sneakily resorted to massive incarceration, gentrification, and stop and frisk to control blacks or push them out demographically. They talk of ‘racial justice’ but act in ways that increase haute-segregation for themselves. Notice how rich Lib cities just get whiter and more Jewish(and maybe more Asian).

Also, if Nixon used the Southern Strategy against Democrats in 68 and 72, Liberal elites used the Foreign Strategy. They used immigration to use yellows and browns as buffers between themselves and dangerous blacks. In other words, let yellows and browns get beat up by blacks instead.

And by filling the Democratic Party with more immigrants, the party became more viable in the long run because a Black Party is bound to fall to ruin like Detroit.

In contrast, a party where browns and yellows increasingly count more than blacks is viable for the white/Jewish/homo overlords of the Dem party.

Foreign Strategy vs Southern Strategy.

Review of MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON by Bob Rafaelson.

MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON is an outstanding film. Rare is the period film set in a non-Western locale that seems strangely authentic and devoid of overly exotic fetishism and/or preachy moralizing. To be sure, there have been many decent genre movies about whites in Africa hunting, warring, and adventuring. The older ones tend to romanticize the white man as upright, dashing, and fun in contrast to natives who are generally either noble/innocent or savage/dangerous. The later ‘revisionist’ movies tend present whites as greedy exploiters and non-whites as the oppressed burning with righteous rage. Most of them, whether traditional or progressive, tend to share a set of cliches and plot formulations. The revisionist films may have turned things upside down, but they still functioned within similarly simpleminded sets of assumptions, with predictable conclusions about good and evil.

Thankfully, MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON was based on the actual events surrounding the search for the source of the Nile, so the extent of ‘creative license’ was restricted by the nature of the source material itself. Of course, many movies purporting to be based-on-true-events tend to be no less fanciful or cliche-ridden than purely fictional films, but MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON, like Sidney Lumet’s PRINCE OF THE CITY, is a notable exception.
When this film came out in 1990, I ignored it for the simple reason that the director’s name was associated with films such as FIVE EASY PIECES, KING OF MARVIN GARDENS, and BLACK WIDOW. BLACK WIDOW came out three yrs prior to MOUNTAINS and struck me as only adequate. Bob Rafelson’s fame was then--as is now--most closely linked with FIVE EASY PIECES, which along with EASY RIDER, catapulted Jack Nicholson to the pantheon of leading actors of his generation. Though considered an important work at the time, a ‘cultural event’ heralding a new era of personal film-making in America, it hasn’t aged particularly well; Nicholson particularly looks miscast as a classical-pianist-turned-drifter. It was heavier on attitudinizing and mannerism than on truth. KING OF MARVIN GARDENS, Rafelson’s next film, has its defender and detractors. Let’s just say I couldn’t make myself care for the characters or plot, a sure sign that the film was more head than heart. Even so, given what has become of American cinema, FIVE and KING are understandably cherished as special works made at a time when American cinema seemed to be maturing into an artform along the lines pioneered by European masters. Anyway, given Rafaelson’s legendary status as one of the key personal directors of the early 70s, his foray into ‘epic filmmaking’ with MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON struck me as a kind of ‘selling out’ to middlebrow respectability. It seemed as if he was trying to be David Lean.

If I recall correctly, MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON didn’t make much money and won no special plaudits from the critics. Most of the reviews were favorable but not ecstatic. I recall catching Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel on their nationally syndicated show praising the film highly, but I don’t think it made either’s Best Movies of the Year list. In time it was forgotten, and I doubt if most people even heard of it. Even within the film community, Rafelson will continue to be associated with FIVE EASY PIECES than with anything else.
This is too bad since MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON is by far Rafelson’s best film and indeed one of the best movies about the era of British Imperialism. It’s interesting that some of the best period films about British history have been made by Jewish directors who actually rose to prominence by making films about the restless post-imperial ‘present’. FIVE EASY PIECES was very much a film of its time, and Mike Leigh, the Anglo-Jewish director of the superb TOPSY-TURVY, came to prominence through socially conscious drama such as HIGH HOPES and NAKED. Though having made their name by plunging their hairy arms into the rough-and-tumble cesspool of the here-and-now, they later seemed to drawn to another time and place, an earlier era when the distinctions among the classes, nationalities, races, sexes, and cultures had been more clearly demarcated. (One thing FIVE EASY PIECES and MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON have in common is the theme of privileged white men adrift in the world. The difference is the characters in MOUNTAINS still believe there is much to discover whereas the attitude of the protagonist in FIVE seems to be there’s nothing left to discover. Everything’s been mapped, and life is too easy. FIVE EASY PIECES is about the difficulty of making peace with the unbearable ease of life. So, the hero goes out of his way to seek trouble, to get lost. If the heroes of MOUNTAINS venture off in search for something new and unknown, the anti-hero of FIVE EASY PIECES crawls away to hide from the world but can’t find any refuge. Everything becomes too familiar, too boring, and too same too fast. In psychological terms, he can’t hide from the world because he can’t run from himself.) Given the implicit political material of MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON or TOPSY-TURVY, Rafelson and Leigh could have had a field day with politically correct critique of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and cultural prejudice. Yet strangely enough, TOPSY-TURVY is Leigh’s most big-hearted work, by which I mean his feelings are humanist than ideological. Perhaps, it’s easier to wax romantic about the past since, good or bad, it’s lost and gone forever. However one may feel about the British explorers/exploiters and their cultural assumptions in the Victorian era, we can rest assured--with relief or grief--that the likes of them shall never walk this earth again.

Many interpretations can be drawn from the characters and events in MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON, but Rafelson is to be commended for leaving the final judgment to the audience. He has approached the material with respect, reverence, and even awe. For however we may feel about Western imperialism, there’s no denying that some British explorers were men of great vision and courage as well of vanity and a bit of madness. This may explain the film’s failure with the general audience and film scholars. People want to be told what to think. They want good guys vs bad guys or a sermon about social or historical evils. They want sweeping epic grandeur and sensationalization of the exotic--either as colorfully noble or wickedly savage.

MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON doesn’t present its two main characters as grand heroes nor as ‘evil racists’. And the diverse cast of natives comes in all sorts of shapes, sizes, temperaments, and convictions. There is no easy truth, no easy emotion. Indeed, Rafelson restrains from overt emotionalism even when the expedition arrives at Lake Victoria, the source of the Nile. Rafelson makes us share not only in the explorers’ excitements and dangers but their anxiety, doubts, and frustration. The existential is melded with the exhilarating and exhausting. It is one of the most thoughtful period ‘epics’.

It’s interesting to watch the British, the most advanced people on Earth at the time, trekking forth in near-primitive and hapless conditions through much of the journey, often dependent on sheer luck and accident to advance few extra miles for long stretches. And that some native Africans willingly joined this seemingly insane adventure tells us how desperately poor and/or bored they must have been. If you wanna be crazy, why not go all the way and follow the great crazy white man with the biggest craziest ideas?
One may argue that most of the Africans only register as manual laborers or strange tribesmen, but the story is essentially and unapologetically told from the perspective of white explorers--based on their written records. It makes no pretense to hide its ‘Eurocentrism’ or to be ‘balanced and fair’(with token moments to ‘get to know the darkies better’). Whatever limitations or prejudices this may pose to the current orthodoxy, it is more honest in some ways. As an artist seeks the truth, he should dwell on truth he knows best than pretend to care about peoples he knows nothing about. (I haven’t read PASSAGE TO INDIA--surprise, surprise--, but David Lean’s adaptation seemed to be marred by an overeagerness to be ‘fair’ to the dotters--and to everyone. It all seemed strained and possibly even a bit condescending.) MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON shows us the world through the minds, eyes, and feet of British explorers of privileged background. It doesn’t pretend to be about the whole truth, which is too vast and complex for any single artist or work to grasp. But, the film is very much aware of its limitations, which is why Rafelson doesn’t deliver moments portending the revelation of some great truth. No “magic negro” nor “white man’s burden” moment. Though grand in scope, it is thoughtfully humble of heart and mind. If anything feels wrong throughout the movie, it is the musical score which is typical of the feel-good epics Hollywood churns out now and then. The shaded complexity of the characters and drama is sometimes thickly overlaid with gushing false notes of the score, but then music is often been the worst element in many films.

The two main characters are Richard Francis Burton, a Scotsman, and John Hanning Speke. Speke is from an aristocratic family and a member of the British Royal Society. He takes to hunting and adventure with an enthusiasm bordering on the boyish--but also vanity, impatience, and fragile pride. But, he is a man of his word, of considerable courage and commitment. He lives by a code of honor, however limited such things may be. His strengths are inseparable from his flaws. No matter the distance he travels, the peoples and cultures he encounters, and the lessons he learns(or should learn), there is always the touchy-proud and uptight/upright aristocrat about him. His inner compass sustains him through the toughest times, but it always points back to Britain. Even when he finally sets his eyes upon Lake Victoria which he believes to be the source of the Nile, it’s more a moment of official than personal triumph. In his heart, he’s done it for the Royal Society, the Queen, the Empire.

Richard Burton is different, which accounts for the not infrequent tensions flaring up between Speke and him. But, they also make a natural pair with complementary talents and skills. Burton is the dashing and daring explorer who has an easy rapport with the natives; he’s adept at tuning into the signals of different cultures. Burton is something of a paradox; he feels at home everywhere because he feels at home nowhere. Adventure is his home.
His dream of finding the source of the Nile is personal than social or political. Perhaps the fact that he’s a Scotsman of lesser privilege--cultural and class--infused him with a certain ambiguity about the British Empire. He feels as an outsider even though officially he’s an insider.
Perhaps, we cannot fully appreciate this unless we take into account how the British Empire was dominated by men of certain classes in certain southern regions of Britain. Even so, we shouldn’t make too much of this. Burton is thankfully not an overbearingly politically correct(thus anachronistic) figure of white guilt and conscience. He’s not a walking Gandhi-the-movie. There is no doubt he is ultimately a man of the Empire who feels pride in his identity. After all, it’s the empire that allows him to travel around the world as privileged member of a great power.
He supposedly knows 23 languages, read most of the great holy texts in their original languages, and loves to mingle with and learn about other cultures. Though he marries a white woman, she’s fascinated with him precisely because he’s so restless and adventurous; he’s a conquering hero, not a stuffy homebody. He even seems to dally with native women.
When Speke first seeks him out, he’s sitting in a Mosque with Muslims. Some on the White Right may denounce him as the original Globalist or cosmopolitan type, but such views would be rather historicist, not to mention churlish and petty.
Richard Burton was both an emblematic man of his time and a rare man of his time. He was interested in the peoples and cultures around the world, but he was no dreamy-eyed radical utopian. A Globalist is someone who seeks to force the entire world into the NWO; a Globalist tries to squeeze all the people into one global village. Burton, in contrast, thinks and acts as an individual. He doesn’t wish for the world to be like him or follow his lead. Indeed, he relishes the fact that he himself is special, an oddity, a man of too great an intelligence, imagination, and curiosity to be satisfied with British or nationalist ‘provincialism’. But he knows most people can never be like him.
Burton’s ‘cosmopolitanism’ is individualist than ideological. But, ‘cosmopolitan’ may not be the right word, for it implies an urban-centric view of the world that wishes to stress the universality of man and human rights. Burton does have a basic and even universalist view of human morality, but he is drawn more to the differences among peoples and cultures than to whatever generic commonality they may share.
If there’s always the upright Briton within Speke wherever he goes, there is always the maverick loner in Burton even when he’s back in Britain. Burton is the more charismatic of the two, though the headstrong discipline of Speke was no doubt crucial to the success of the expedition. Burton is an exciting figure but also a lonely one. Restless in his quest for knowledge and adventure, he feels at home nowhere--not in Britain, not in any part of Africa. His love of Africa is less about the fondness for particular peoples or cultures than for the thrill of ‘discovering’ yet another native tribe or natural treasure just over the mountain, around the shoreline, across the valley, and so on. In his adventures, he’s like Odysseus, but if Odysseus had a faithful wife who longed for his return, Burton’s wife seems to be turned on by the fact that her man is a kind of ‘rock star’ who always has to play master of the world.

Near the end of the movie, Burton criticizes British imperialist politics and calls for fuller appreciation of Africans and their cultures. This speech carries the element of nobility of heart and mind without the preening self-aggrandizing feel-good righteousness that define most films of this type. We can’t help but to sympathize with Burton’s sentiments because we followed him through the travels and travails. Just as what soldiers see and sense on the frontline is different from what politicians see and think from far away--consider soldiers in Iraq as opposed to neocons running the policy in Washington--, Burton’s words carry the weight of real experience.
It should be noted that the depiction of most of the white-African-Arab relations seem well-researched and open-minded. It’s not reduced to a simple message of evil white man oppressing poor blacks or barbaric Muslims good for nothing but slitting throats of innocents.
Along the journey, we discover the Arab role in East Coast African slave trade; but, we also see how Arabs have settled in the region and become a part of the landscape. As the expedition enters more deeply into tribal areas--where some natives have never seen a white man--we come upon tribes which still practice slavery and commit cruel acts of torture. When Burton and Speke enter the village of one particularly unpleasant tribe--in which a black friend of Burton is tortured and killed--, Burton is deeply distressed and perhaps even filled with doubt as to his respect for different cultures and tribes. (And, it must be said the only reason why Burton can enjoy his various adventures is because there is a political and economic center called Britain. If such didn’t exist and if Burton had to fend for himself all alone in the world, could he be a man-of-the-world? As much as he feels at home all over the world, he is respected as a white man only because of the riches and power of his imperial domain. The black cargo carriers and other servants who joined the expedition--of which they have little clue--are in awe of the rich and powerful white man because of the white man’s power. Indeed, the vicariousness of being a white man in the wider world is revealed when Burton and Speke later come upon a hostile tribe that has no knowledge of the white man or the white man’s power. Perhaps, this is something modern white liberals don’t quite recognize about themselves in relation to the larger world. They go to poor Third World countries and feel rich and powerful; they are treated with a degree of respect and awe by the locals. Thus, a kind of White Man’s Burden overtakes their mind, even if it’s of the more ‘progressive’ and do-goody brand. White liberals don’t understand that the natives’ respect for white folks has everything to do with the power and wealth of the white world, not out of any respect for white people themselves.)

Though the main story revolves around the search of the source of the Nile River, the great journey serves as a metaphor for soul-searching as well. At one point, Burton saves a runaway black slave from lions. The saved man pledges his life to Burton and joins the expedition. He proves to be indispensable. Along the way, Burton comes down with swollen legs, and he has to be helped along for the rest of the journey. With failing legs, in his weakness and vulnerability, Burton becomes more reflective and thoughtful.

Anyway, the expedition comes upon a particularly hostile and troublesome tribe, and it turns out that the slave-saved-from-the-lion had escaped from these very people. Though Speke and Burton somehow--indeed barely--manage to put themselves on friendly footing with the tribal king, the recaptured slave is cruelly put to death. This happens right before Burton’s eyes in the tribal king’s hut while Speke is away to complete the final leg of the expedition. Though Speke fails to ascertain for sure that the mountain lake is the final source of the Nile, he’s convinced by its sheer size and grandeur. Just when he revels in triumph and glory, Burton feels lost and forlorn in the tribal village where the African he’d saved and befriended was killed for no-good-reason. I don’t know how much of this part of the story was based on actual records or fabricated for the movie, but it’s compelling as drama. Burton fails to make it make to the end of the journey and set his eyes on the great lake--eventually to be named Lake Victoria--, but he makes a discovery of his own, one that is Conrad-ian in nature. It’s as if the search for the source of the life-giving Nile was also a exploration of the source of all that is good and evil in man.
In the hostile tribe that gave Burton so much grief, there is a king who seems divided between feelings of good and evil. The king draws his power, glory, and meaning from an adviser given to corruption and sadism, proud warriors, handsome children, and primitive ingenuity in building huts and the like. This primitive setting is neither an innocent Eden nor a savage hellhole; like any world of man, it’s one where forces of good and evil vie for relative advantage. The king’s balance of morality hovers between words whispered into his ears by a cruel & cunning adviser and an inner voice--and things around him--that indicate otherwise.
It is worlds apart from the world of the British Empire, but we later see similar problems surface in London, the greatest center of the world back then. There’s the ‘provincialism’, the preening and haughty pride, and manipulations and machinations of the powerful and the cunning. In opposition are the wider and more generous world views of men of bigger hearts(and maybe bigger minds).
Thankfully, none of this is done in a cartoonish way nor in a stuffy “Masterpiece Theater”.
Still, parallels remain. Different cultures are indeed worlds apart, but the foibles of men of a great empire can also be found in men of primitive of tribes. And though Burton is sickened by an African tribe that still practices and trades in slavery, the fact remains that north Africa was opened to the world by Arab slave traders and one of the earliest interests of the British in Africa was the slave trade. MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON makes us feel a certain moral anguish but also reminds us that all peoples’ hands are soiled by ‘sins’ of cruelty and exploitation.

There is a coda to this story in keeping with the overall tone of the movie. It is not a simple feel-good nostalgic nor triumphalist movie, nor is it a movie with a moral or message that finally sums it all up. Through misunderstanding, a rift develops between Burton and Speke, one that is personal as well as academic. Though the official reason for the disagreement centers on the validity of Lake Victoria as the source of the Nile, the emotions and politics--and business--behind the debate go deeper. Initially, Speke chose not to proclaim with absolute certitude that he had definitively discovered the source of the Nile and waited to work out the details with Burton. But, an unscrupulous ‘friend’ misinforms Speke about Burton’s allegedly nefarious rumors and agenda behind his back; therefore, an angry and even spiteful Speke comes to see Burton as a rival if not an outright enemy. By the time Speke discovers the truth about the lie, it’s too late and the damage has been done. And though the film is only suggestive on this, Speke finds the only way redeem his honor.

A truly remarkable movie for those who want to experience in sights and sounds what it may have been like to be at the forefront of worldshaking discoveries when the British Empire was at its peak. Today, it should also serve as a warning to all peoples and individuals who think that no empire or glory is ever permanent.

How American Exceptionalism Invites Anti-Americanism.

Good many conservatives promote the idea of American Exceptionalism as a hallmark of what America is all about. Our nation is supposed to be a ‘City on a Hill’ and a beacon of freedom to all other peoples around the world. US is supposed to stand for progress and human rights, and so forth and so on. They mention the Founding Fathers and Ronald Reagan. Didn’t the Founders establish a new kind of country, one where all people were equal and free. Didn’t Reagan speak of the struggle between Freedom and the Evil of Communism?

As ideas go, American Exceptionalism isn’t necessarily bad, at least in its moderate form. Yes, America has much that is unique and worthy of respect and emulation. There has never been a nation quite like the United States. And, US had probably has done more good for the world as a whole than any other country as a model, defender of freedom–against Nazism and communism–, and even as an interventionist. But, all ideas turn nasty and harmful when it becomes either dogmatic/fundamentalist or radical. Neocons took American Exceptionalism to absurd heights, whereby America could invade and rebuild other nations. One could argue that neoconservative foreign policy was really Zionism-by-other-means than a true Wilsonian policy of spreading democracy around the world–after all, no neocon ever argued for invading Sudan or Nepal. However, there have been neocons–especially the non-Jewish ones–who sincerely believed in some Messianic role America must play in order to spread human rights and democracy. They often invoke the name of Reagan, but I’m not sure Reagan would have been flattered. Though Reagan took the Cold War very seriously, what he meant by the ‘city on a hill’ metaphor was that US should try to be the best it can be; let other nations look to America as a model if they wish, but do not force the American way or system on other peoples. So, Reagan pulled out of Lebanon when things got hairy. When Asian nations like South Korea, Taiwan, and Philippines were ripe for democracy, Reagan didn’t stand in their way. But, at no point did Reagan say US should actively intervene to promote democracy in those countries. His policy was keep them as close allies, and when the people over there demand freedom, let things work out according to the inner dynamic within those countries.

Many of today’s American conservatives promote a rather arrogant and contemptuous–triumphalist–kind of American Exceptionalism. They constantly point to how US won the Cold War as if that has somehow vindicated American superiority for all time. They rest on their laurels and take American greatness for granted. They are blind to the dangers of this kind of dogmatic American Exceptionalism.

For starters, more one brags about oneself, the more one opens oneself to scrutiny–moral, ethical, legal, economic, political, etc. What is the biggest danger in politics? Hypocrisy. With American Exceptionalism blaring from the loudspeakers, many conservatives have become drowned in their own excessive pride. So, Americans brag that only they truly understand freedom, liberty, human rights, progress, decency, rule of law, and etc. Somehow, we are better than other peoples and nations. Naturally, this kind of attitude fills non-Americans with resentment. They understandably want to scrutinize everything about America to see if indeed America is such a great utopia of freedom, liberty, human rights, and rule of law. Even if the evidence shows America to be better than most countries, the reality is bound to fall far short of what is trumpeted by American Exceptionalists. A person calling himself a saint is stained more by a simple infraction than someone who admits he’s not perfect and commits a more grievous wrong.

When George W. Bush and his neoconservative buddies went around telling the world how great and decent America is–enough to play God in whether to invade and rebuild other countries–, most of the world was intimidated and offended. When US bombed Iraq with ‘shock and awe’, it was as if Dubya was playing righteous and almighty Jehovah or Jehubya smiting Saddam and Gomorrah. Since Americans made such a big deal of how good and decent they were, scandals such as those at Abu Gharib were bound to send shockwaves all over the world. American treatment of Iraqi POWs may not have been much worse than how other countries treat prisoners, but abuses at Abu Gharid were committed by a nation that elevated itself as a shining CITY ON A HILL. We all love to prick the self-righteous balloon with needles to see how many of its contentions are true convictions or false concoctions. The more George W. Bush and his supporters insisted on their goodness and nobility of intentions, the more their enemies at home and abroad pointed to and exposed all the things that had gone wrong in Iraq and Guantanamo. Conservatives were saying, ‘we can do whatever we want because we are so good and special’, and the rest of the world held a mirror up to them and said, ‘if you’re so good, why do you do such nasty shit?’ Thus, American Exceptionalism invites Anti-Americanism.

This is why we need America to be NORMAL country. This isn’t to say US is just like any other nation nor that there aren’t things about the US which are indeed admirable and even exceptional. It is rather an admittance and realization that, all said and done, Americans are people too and, as such, often fallible, foolish, deluded, and limited in what they can do. Americans should see themselves and exert themselves around the world as normal people trying to be better than as an exceptional people who can arrogantly rest on their laurels.

Also, we must keep in mind that American Exceptionalism today isn’t what it was long ago. Long ago, AE was displayed and practiced from a position of power. When the white man said America was a damn great country, he sure meant it and damn well intended to make sure everyone else in America agreed, whether they belonged to a minority group or recently arrived as immigrants. Back then, AE was a judgment on non-whites and newcomers, not on whites themselves. It was as if Anglo- and Northern European whites had built a great nation and had every right to ask non-whites and newcomers, ‘are you good enough to enjoy the freedom, rights, and opportunity of this great exceptional country?’ So, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics all sought to prove themselves as worthy of being good Americans. So, newly arrived immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe also sought to assimilate into the new nation by proving themselves worthy. As the traditional white elite and masses held most of the cards in the moral equation, American Exceptionalism was indeed a potent weapon for settled white Americans. 

But, what has happened to America since the 60s? America went through a great crisis of identity, confidence, unity, and continuity. The Black Power Movement–aka Civil Rights Movement–, the hellishness of Vietnam War, the rise of youth rebellion and hedonistic nihilism, and myriad other social upheavals threw a monkey wrench–or several of them–into the fan of American Exceptionalism. AE no longer was an issue of “are non-whites and new arrivals good enough for America the Beautiful and Exceptional” but rather, “are whites good enough for the ideals they’ve been trumpeting since the founding of this country?” What had once been an offensive weapon for white America turned into a defensive shield, and the shield has been getting battered more and more every year.

Blacks began to aks, “if you honkeys be so good and noble, why you done use us as slaves, mothafucka?” Non-white immigrants began asking, “if America for no discrimination by race, creed, or color, why white people favor white immigrant over non-white immigrant?” Mexican-Americans began to ask, “hey gringo, if America no imperialismo, why you take Mexican land?” Much the same happened with Christianity. One time, it had served as the offensive weapon that justified Western domination of the world–to spread the word of God and Christian civilization. But, as time went by, the conquered peoples and liberal elements among the whites began to ask, “if Christianity is all about love and sharing, how come white Christians conquerored, raped, pillaged, murdered, and exploited so many people?” Thus, Christianity eventually became a moral liability for Western civilization.

The lesson to draw from this is moral HUBRIS is a bad bad thing. Eventually, it begins to undermine one’s own power by raising questions among the oppressed or less fortunate, among the conscientious of your own kind, and even among neutral observers. If you tell oppressed peoples that they are living in a wonderful and exceptional society where all are equal and free, they will one day ask, “if that’s so, how come we are not free as you are?” And, if you raise your own children with the idea that they are living in the most wonderful country in the world, there will come a day when the kids–if they are conscientious–will look around at all the bullshit, imperfections, and hypocrisies and ask, “if our country is SO GOOD, how come there’s so much that is BAD?”

Consider the issue of American slavery. All societies practiced slavery through the ages, and American form of slavery was actually milder and humane than most. But, why does American slavery get more negative attention than all the other kinds in Africa, Asia, Middle East, Latin America, etc. A major reason is because Americans have been telling the world that United States has always been an exceptionally free, equal, and progressive country. Now, it may well have been true that, relatively speaking, America had always been freer and more progressive than most nations–even during the time of American slavery, as rest of the world also practiced slavery, often far worse forms. But, when Americans deliriously brag about American history and society as if America had been 99% good and 1% bad, they invite the rest of the world and anti-American critics at home to dig up all the dirt about how America was no Promised Land.

Finally, can we really say United States today uniquely stands for human rights, freedom, and equality? There are other democracies in the world, and many happen to be more obsessed with human rights and do-goody-ism than America. Sweden and Norway, for instance, give far more in foreign aid in per capita terms than does the United States. European Human Rights commissions are busy 24/7 in trying to resolve problems around the world. European nations are more committed to the idea of egalitarianism than America is–though Americans can argue that America has always been for political and legal equality, not economic equality. (But, in a nation where lawyers who are bought and sold make the laws, can we really say everyone is equal under the law in America?)

On the subject of freedom–especially in speech and expression–, America is indeed the exception as even Western democracies like Canada and Europe now have extensive laws censoring what goes by ‘hate speech’. But, American freedom in this area is not respected around the world but increasingly regarded in the same manner as Death Penalty–as something excessive, barbaric, uncouth, and regressive. Modern concept of human rights has gone from freedom to correctness, and supposedly the most progressive countries in the world now restrict freedom of speech for the sake of human rights. Indeed, Canadians often say such nonsense as, ‘we respect freedom of speech, we don’t worship it.’ What they worship is political correctness, and much the same can be said of most of Europe.

Does this mean that EU is now being inflated with its own moral Hubris, what with all the human rights commissions, all the save-the-world mantras, and PC formulations for multiculturalism and ‘gay rights’? Perhaps, but EU can get away with this stuff more than Americans. Why? Because US is the premier military power in the world, thus seen as a not just a moral bully but a military bully. In the context of American world hegemony, many nations are likely to view European moral righteousness as a necessary–if sometimes unpleasant–counterbalance against American domination through business, pop culture, and the military.

Problems of the IMPERIALISM OF GUILT and the Hypocrisy of Western Liberal Criticism of East Asia.

There's a running theme in Western liberal criticism of East Asia which is rather odd and amusing: the notion that East Asian nations are unnaturally and obsessively homogeneous unlike the more diverse and 'progressive' nations around the world. East Asian homogeneity is especially jarring to Western liberals since East Asia is the most successful part of the world outside the West. East Asia challenges the notion that a nation must be diverse in order to make social, political, and economic progress. Japan, Taiwan, and Korea all developed and progressed politically, economically, and socially while remaining racially homogeneous. (It seems a nation doesn't have to be racially diverse to draw from diverse ideas and innovations from around the world. You don't need Frenchmen to have French restaurants, you don't need Germans to make quality machine parts. From the outset of their Westernization, Japanese observed, learned, copied, and made their own revisions and innovations. Rest of Asia followed.)

Anyway, the liberal narrative would have us believe diversity = progress/innovation/prosperity while homogeneity = reaction/stagnation/poverty. We've been lectured on and on about why Spain was eclipsed by other European nations; it banished diversity by kicking out Muslims and then the Jews. And, we've been told us that Vienna was a cultural paradise in the early 20th century because of the diversity. (Perhaps, their success had less to do with diversity per se than with the presence of smart/talented Jews. After all, suppose Vienna had kicked out gypsies, Serbs, and Croats but kept the Jews. It probably would have still been culturally and intellectually interesting. Suppose Spanish kicked out Muslims but kept the Jews; the economy might have continued to thrive. So, the key to success wasn't just open diversity but selective diversity. A scientific project with only Ashkenazi Jews would be more successful than one with Pakistanis, Zimbabweans, Bolivians, etc. Btw, wasn't Spain eclipsed by Great Britain, an even more racially homogenous country?)

Western liberals are troubled with the rise/success of East Asia since it doesn't fall into their historical/moral paradigm. It was bad enough that East Asian rightwing regimes(even the Chinese Communist Party become essentially a quasi-fascist patriotic party after Mao's death)proved to be more progressive and successful than leftwing regimes(such as North Korea, Maoist China, and communist Vietnam), but now Western liberals are faced with having to explain why racially and culturally homogeneous East Asia has made the most amount of progress(outside the West).
So, it's no wonder that the liberal media would take every opportunity to point to the 'evils' of 'racism' and 'xenophobia' in East Asia(though almost never against Zioinist Israel). Western liberals would have us fear and loathe the rise of East Asia since it's not the triumph of diversity and progressive values but of nationalism, 'racism', and reaction.

But, there is one big problem with this view. First, there is the problem of what might be called the IMPERIALISM OF GUILT. It projects Western notion of historical guilt onto other peoples. This has been MOST offensive in regard to Palestinians. Since the West oppressed Jews and committed the Holocaust, there is the notion that antisemtism is evil. But, it doesn't seem to occur to many Westerners--esp. in the US--that Arab hatred of Jews has its own context and logic. Palestinians hate Jews not because of racial ideology but because Jews took Palestinian land. To accuse Palestinians of the evil of antisemtism is to the apply the IMPERIALISM OF GUILT. It's as though the entire world has to conform to the Western notion of historical guilt and right/wrong when the non-Western world operates by different histiography and experience. Similarly, maybe the Korean dislike for foreigners has less to do with 'racism' and more to do with historical insecurity due to having suffered invaders from Mongolia, Manchuria, Japan, Russia, etc. for example, Japanese or Koreans may still be nasty, unpleasant, and pigheaded, but to use the charge of 'racism' may miss the point or the nuances of how they see history--their own and of the world. Similarly, maybe not every instance of anti-Gypsy feelings among Europeans is a case of neo-Nazism; maybe, it has something to do with the fact that Gypsies have a shameless criminal culture and go from place to place to commit all sorts of petty robbery.

Of course, as East Asians have grown rich or richer, they may now indeed look down on 'dirty' foreign workers in their own countries. But, even here, we must take into account class context and differences. To rich East Asian businessmen or affluent liberal global elite, the presence of foreigners could mean cheap labor or sign of political progress. To poorer East Asians, it could mean competition and loss of cultural identity. For poor or poorer people, cultural identity and traditional values are all they have.

Another problem with the liberal Western view of East Asia is the moral contradiction of their argument. On the one hand, Western liberals condemn the entire history of Western expansion, conquest, 'exploitation', slave trade, spread of diseases, rape, and etc. We are told over and over of how white people invaded the Americas, shipped blacks across the Atlantic, settled in places in South Africa, forced sex on natives or non-whites, used and exploited non-white labor(such as Chinese railroad workers). Yet, the reason why much of the world became diverse is precisely because of Western imperialism and expansion. Without it, there wouldn't be a single black person in the Americas. South Americans would all be pure-blooded native 'Indians', not mestizos of mixed blood(initially the result of Hispanic rape of native women). South Africa would be all black than having a substantial white and Asian population. USA would be less diverse if whites hadn't brought over non-whites for slave work or cheap labor--to pick cotton, to lay down railroad tracks, to pick tomatoes, to clean bedpans of old white people, etc. So, this DIVERSITY that white liberals so proudly extol had largely been accomplished through conquest, rape, slavery, and exploitation of cheap labor. Diversity was FORCED on the native 'Indians' who never had a chance to say "NO, we don't wanna be invaded, lose our lands to whites and blacks and other newcomers, and mix our blood with the invading peoples." Blacks never had a chance to say, "NO, we don't wanna be shipped across the seas and made to work on plantations." So, even as Western liberals condemn the history of imperialism, they are most obsessed with and supportive of the product of that evil historical process: DIVERSITY. It's like condeming interracial rape but praising its outcome. Western liberals are wittingly or unwittingly rationalizing and even justifying--through a roundabout way--their conquest of the world.

Seen from this angle, their ideological attack on East Asia is both understandable and funny. East Asia is the only part of the world that never fully came under Western imperialism. Japan modernized early, China was too big and homogenous for any one power to dominate. Korea was colonized by Japan. Also, East Asia was reasonably advanced, unified, resistant to Western diseases, and populous. So, East Asia could not be conquered and raped like native 'Indians' of the Americas. Also, as East Asia was mainly inward looking, it didn't import millions of slaves from Africa. (Japan did try to join the imperialist club but ultimately failed miserably and LOST EVERYTHING). So, Asian homogeneity exists because it was spared or resisted the aggression of the West and also because it never imported huge numbers of blacks nor conquered non-Asian territories. (Sure, they exploited their own kind, but that doesn't fall under the rubric of 'racism' or 'imperialism'.)

You'd think this is a GOOD thing: not being invaded & having your nation/culture wholly altered by imperialists--as happened to the "Indians" of the Americas, racial cousins of Asians--or not having brought millions of African blacks to work as slaves on rice paddies or bamboo fields.

Instead, white liberals trash East Asia for its lack of diversity and for its obsessive homogeneity. Would white liberals like East Asians more if East Asians had been conquered and raped(and racially altered)like "Indians" of America or if East Asians had forcibly imported 3 million blacks from Africa? East Asia would surely be more DIVERSE, just as much of the Western sphere is diverse--mainly because diversity had been forced on non-white peoples.

Of course, diversity is today being forced on the white majority of Europe and North America, as if the only way to wash away the sins of imperialism and 'racism' is to now 'rape' the white population as well. All said and done, diversity was mostly the policy of the elite. White elites decided to explore and conquer new lands, to rape and enslave non-whites. Now, the white elite wants to mongrelize most whites as well. In both cases, the vast numbers of people had NO SAY in any of this. The natives of Mexico were never given a chance to say NO. And, American and European whites also aren't allowed to say NO. If you say NO in the USA, you're demeaned as a 'xenophobic racist' and blacklisted. If you say NO in Europe, you're locked up for 'hate crimes'. Western imperialism has morphed into the imperialism of guilt and into auto-imperialism. Long ago, the white elites used white masses to conquer non-white worlds. Today, the white elites use non-white masses to conquer the white world. Just consider the Labor Government policy of increasing non-whites to maintain elite liberal power.

So, this may explain the hypocritical hostility of white liberals against East Asia.

Are Black Problems the Product of White Conditioning?

Many white people complain that black tend to be lazy, dependent, criminal, loud, aggressive, and anti-intellectual. Black people complain that this is due to the centuries-old legacy of white slavery and discrimination that followed. They say that black people were ‘bred’ this way by white folks. So, if black students don’t take their studies as seriously as white students, it’s because white people had long tried to keep blacks illiterate and ignorant in the past. If black people tend to be dependent and lazy, it’s because they weren’t allowed to develop a work ethic.



But, are these complaint really true? Are black problems solely or mainly the product of white wrongs done to blacks? Was it because whites ‘bred’ and/or conditioned blacks in ways that proved to be destructive or dangerous? Upon close inspection, there’s a problem with what we shall the Bred Theory. "I gots no bread cuz the way I was bred."



If blacks today are the way they are because white people ‘bred’ them that way, two questions are in order. Did white people really ‘breed’ or condition blacks that way? And, if blacks act in the way they’ve been ‘bred’ by whites, why are the results so uneven and haphazard?



For instance, let us assume that blacks don’t care about studying because they weren’t allowed to read and write when as slaves and also because of inadequate educational facilities provided to them after Emancipation. Let us assume this is all true, the implication being that is it very difficult if not impossible for a people to break out of habits ‘bred’ into them. But, why are blacks so good at sports and funky music? Though blacks were made to mostly perform manual labor, they were discouraged and even forbidden from athletic endeavors. Whites felt threatened by black physicality and tried to prevent the rise of black champions in boxing, for example. White boxers went out of their way to duck a fight with Jack Johnson. When Johnson finally became champion, whites desperately looked for the Great White Hope. In baseball and football, blacks were kept out for much longer. So, if white folks had one message to blacks, it was "STAY OUT OF SPORTS, NIGGER!" Yet, even though white folks had tried to ‘breed’ blacks away from athletic professions, blacks have long been passionate about and outstanding in the field of sports.



Then consider the area of funky music. White slave masters forbade Negroes from owning or beating on drums. Negro drum music was seen as crazy and savage; worse, they could be used as means of communication by slaves readying to flee or rebel. Also, whites wanted black to be orderly and obedient, so blacks were not encouraged to be funky and wild-ass. In other words, blacks were ‘bred’ to be gentle, kind, obedient, and even noble in an innocent way–like the Negro singing "Old Man River". Even in the famous anti-slave novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Negro is a suffering saint who takes his beating as a kind old soul.

IF blacks are supposed to act the way they were ‘bred’, how come they are so wildly into funky music, aggressiveness, uppityness, and etc? How is it that blacks have easily over-ridden all these conditioning

and effects of ‘breeding’ but cannot overcome the supposed aspects of conditioning that keep blacks down. Whites never ‘bred’ blacks to rape white women, but black men seem to specialize in that field. How come? White people never conditioned blacks–at least not until the late 60s–to be uppity, wild, or aggressive. Yet, a lot of blacks are uppity, wild, and aggressive. How come?



There’s a great contradiction in the black charge against white people. On the one hand, blacks claim that whites robbed them of their culture, and therefore, American blacks have forever been torn from their rich roots, and this is why they are spiritually, morally, and soulfully lost. (Funny that Africans with their roots intact are worse off, poorer, still practicing witchcraft, tribal warfare, and even cannibalism.) Yet, at the same time, blacks take pride in music such as blues, jazz, soul, and rap(and even rock) as a proud and inextinguishable continuation of their African roots and soul. Which is it? Did white people cut them off from their roots or are those roots still alive in funky music? Can blacks break out of white man’s conditioning or not? Supposedly, they can’t break out but they can break dance. Did white masters who wanted their slaves to remain docile encourage them to dance like wild crazy lunatics?

Of course, one could argue that white masters did enjoy blacks dancing and ho-de-do shuffling as a form of entertainment–and also to keep blacks childlike and innocent. But, I suspect this was tolerated because blacks naturally seemed so pent-up and restless with rhythm and oogie-boogie beat regardless of their social situation. Masters probably thought it was better to let wild black slaves release their excess jungle energy through shuffling ho-de-do dancing because it might explode in dangerous ways if completely repressed. The fact that Spanish masters in Latin America didn’t have the equivalent of oogie-boogie shuffling/dancing slaves of indigenous origin tells us that blacks were naturally than socially conditioned to be restlessly funky in one way or another–shuffling ho-do-doing docile manner or rapping fist-pumping aggressive manner. Though Mexican mestizos and Indians like to fiesta, they don’t git down and funky!!!! The natives of the Americas were originally Asiatic and tend to be inhibited and ‘lame’ than like their racial cousins across the Pacific.



Now, let’s look at how white people really ‘bred’ the blacks. It’s true that white people conditioned blacks to be ignorant and illiterate. So, let us say that is the reason why blacks are intellectually lagging in America. But, whites also conditioned blacks to be hardworking and thrifty. Surely no white slave owner in the South or a white factory owner in the North wanted a lazy black. Also, whites wanted blacks to be thrifty because a wild Negro who drank too much and got wild was no good for work on Monday morning. White people also ‘bred’ the Negro to be respectful of law and order. White folks also ‘bred’ Negro men to stay away from white women. White folks also ‘bred’ blacks to not act uppity, aggressive, hostile, or angry. Some of these conditioning could be said to be bad, some of them good. At any rate, most white people wanted blacks to emulate Booker T. Washington than Jack Johnson.

Now, if the main problem blacks face is the difficulty of breaking out of their ‘breeding’ or conditioning, why is that blacks found it SO EASY to break out of so many areas of conditioning while they seem incapable of breaking out of others? For centuries, white people didn’t ‘breed’ or condition blacks to be aggressive, criminal, loud, brash, uppity, jive-ass, howling-all-the-time, threatening, sexually promiscuous(though some black families were sadly separated by their members being sold off to other masters, most black families remained intact because white slave-owners wanted it that way. It was generally thought that a slave with a family made a happier and better worker).



On the one hand, blacks say they cannot break out of the mold that white folks put them in. On the other, blacks are always yapping, boasting, and howling about how they control their own destiny and don’t give a shit about what white folks told them for centuries. Though whites tried to rob black men of their manhood for a long time, black men today flaunt their manhood and often put white men down as ‘white boys’. Yet, these very same blacks say there’s NO WAY they can break out of the mold of the ‘dumb nigger’ that the white men put them in. Aint it strange how certain forms of conditioning are so easy to violate, break, and overturn while others are so impossible?



If blacks have used the history of white conditioning as excuse for their economic failure, Jews have done the same to explain their economic success. Jews will say they excel as lawyers, bankers, and businessmen because white folks forbade them to own land. Unable to work as ‘dumb’ farmers, Jews were forced to excel in business and finance, leading to their great success. There must be some truth to this, but why isn’t it true with gypsies who were also forbidden from owning land? And why is that so many Chinese, Japanese, and Germans, the majority of them formerly of peasant background, turned out to be fine businessmen? Both blacks and Jews are falling back on the paradigm of White Guilt, according to which blacks are not economically and intellectually successful because of white oppression while Jews are economically and intellectually successful because of white oppression. This way, if anyone complains of Jewish power, wealth, and influence, Jews can say their success is merely the product of their victimization at the hands of white gentiles!! Yes, Jews are a very clever people. No wonder they make good lawyers. Indeed, even many of the excuses used by blacks today were actually developed by Left wing Jews. (By the way, if social or historical conditioning is so absolutely crucial, how come Jews have come to excel in music and art when their religion forbade them to dabble in such fields for millennia? I do not discount the significant impact of history and social factors and indeed recognize them as important. Rather, my point is they are insufficient in answering all the questions often raised today.)



To find the truth, we need to look at biology as well as history. Blacks today are largely the way they are mainly due to biology. In the past when they were not free, they had to suppress their own biological nature–or face the wrath or hostility of whites. Today, they are free, and thus every generation of blacks has been able to express its TRUE NATURE to a greater degree–thus reverting to their ‘jungle’ origin. (If reactionaries hark back to monarchy, reversionaries hark back to savagery. How ironic that the most technologically advanced nation on Earth has as its dominant mainstream culture a form of music that is utterly reversionary.) What is black biological nature? They are stronger, more aggressive, more colorful, wilder, and etc. Those factors, rather than history, account for the way blacks are today.

Same is true of Jews. It may well be that Jews, driven to professions such as usury by Christians, did develop finer financial skills than most other people. But, the level of Jewish success and power in America cannot be explained by that alone. We must take into account Jewish genius. Of course, most Jews are not geniuses. If the average Jewish IQ is 115, it means your average Jew is only bright. It also means that there is a fair number of dumb Jews. But, the smart ones are VERY SMART, and in a free meritocratic nation like the US, the sky is the limit. These Jews make billions, create networks, and help others in the Jewish community. Trickle Down Effect tends to be ethno-centric or racial among all peoples. Rich Jews help less rich Jews out. Rich blacks help less rich blacks out. Rich Irish help less rich Irish out. Rich Poles help less rich Poles out. Of course, it is politically incorrect or ‘racist’ for rich Anglos to help less rich Anglos out. Because supersmart Jews are so smart and become superrich and super powerful, the less smart Jews are likely to benefit much more than less smart gentiles whose top members aren’t as talented. This is especially true in the black community where many of its elite achieved success through politics than through business. Black elite gained power through the art of leeching off others than through the art of creating and producing.



This is a topic that needs more consideration however.