A conversation about race

Posted by exPF on February 21, 2009, 02:51 PM | #

Thanks Soren for all the work you’ve done coordinating these different thinkers and interviewing people, and participating in this in real life. When I started on this site, I wrongly had you pegged for a fashionable anarchist misfit of the kind that were plentiful at my university, because of the taste for surrealist humor. Forgive me.

Regarding the video, I can add this:

You have the idea or heuristic of ‘racism’, which has two common applications:

1. An objection that racial categories have been consciously or unconsciously used in decision making or reasoning processes.

However: in the case of supposedly unconscious use of racial categories, a white man is often guilty until proven innocent, in other words racism is assumed wherever inequality of outcome is present. Therefore it happens in practice that

  1b. Any inequality of outcome favoring whites, which was under human control, can be considered an example of unconscious racism.

x:1. The only exception to this rule is when the government or media uses race-based policies, in order to correct the results of a previous ‘racism’. A strict definition would have to regard this as ‘racism’, but the government-derived racist policies are done in the spirit of inclusion, and to combat past racisms.

Interesting facets of racism:

1. Accusations of racism often spring unashamedly from the same desire for racial aggrandizement which the supposedly racist behavior is attributed to. Its ‘racism’ that very often motivates accusations of ‘racism’. This conundrum is resolved by never applying rigor in the psychological analysis of the motivations of non-whites. Instead, the universalist tendencies of whites are projected onto them despite evidence to the contrary.

2. With a fine enough psychological caliper, racism (kin favoring, similarity selection, distaste for minorities) can be discovered in almost any thought process or decision. If not in that decision, in a prior decision leading to the one in question.

3. The ability to apply racism in a retrograde manner to analyze (in the same sloppy way) decisions made in the past, means that the number of cases of racism multiplies beyond all possibility of quantification.

Left wing radical theorists who allow these parameters (fineness of psychological caliper, time) to approach infinity, reach a conclusion that puts them at odds with the rest of the mainstream left: Noel Ignatiev says that whatever we do, we will never overcome racism. Racism is a part of whiteness and can never be overcome without the complete destruction of ‘whiteness’ (i.e. the white race). I think Guessedworker would word this differently, but I suspect he would fundamentally agree with it. (outside of the paradigm of ‘whites as oppressor’, ‘whiteness as evil’, etc.).

If you apply equal rigor for both sides (i.e. white and non-white) it would also be
problematic.

Posted by q on February 21, 2009, 08:33 PM | #

So what else is new? As Plato said: “The masses are incurably ignorant.”

Posted by q on February 21, 2009, 08:51 PM | #

And btw, chasing away Diamed was pretty ignorant too!

Posted by Captainchaos on February 21, 2009, 09:34 PM | #

q: “And btw, chasing away Diamed was pretty ignorant too!”

Who says he can’t come back?  I’d dearly love to see that crypto-Jewish pussy explain why he’s such a greasy Hebe.

Posted by Søren Renner on February 21, 2009, 09:57 PM | #

If anyone chased anyone I must have missed it. And if he was “crypto” then I am an aardvark. Pussy, yes, aye aye Captainchaos on that. Blistering barnacles!

Posted by Armor on February 21, 2009, 10:31 PM | #

My essay of the day
Subject: words in -ism

Words in -ism often have imprecise meaning.
(leftism, rightism, multiculturalism, feminism, sexism…)
When such a word comes up, we have to listen to the whole sentence, sometimes the whole speech, before we know what to make of it. The word has no precise meaning in itself, but it is supple and receives meaning from the context. It can be annoying, but I think the availability of those words facilitate the expression of ideas in conversation.

Racism is a special case: it is mostly used as a dishonest weapon. It is such a powerful accusation that it should always be clarified, but it never is, which makes it easy to use and difficult to answer.

Posted by Lurker on February 21, 2009, 10:56 PM | #

Who chased Diamed away?

I missed that too, other than banning him how could he be ‘chased away’, seems to me he can show up when he wants.

Of course he might be a little shamefaced what with being caught red-handed and all.

Here is where I make my now regular request that MR link to Tanstaafl’s site.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 21, 2009, 11:26 PM | #

“Noel Ignatiev says [...] Racism is a part of whiteness and can never be overcome without the complete destruction of ‘whiteness’ (i.e. the white race).”  (—PF)

That’s obviously wrong since (even granting Ignatiev’s suppositions) it can be overcome by the complete destruction of Negroes and Jews while leaving “whiteness” (the white race) intact.  Paraphrasing Stalin, No non-whites or Jews, no white racism.

Ignatiev says he doesn’t want genocide, only the destruction of “white privilege,” but because what he calls “white privilege” inheres in the white genome it’s impossible to “get rid of it” without getting rid of whites themselves, presumably to be accomplished in an Ignatiev-run world by government-enforced intermarriage (or, what amounts to the same thing, strict government interdiction of any group behavior by whites that tends to reduce intermarriage). 

The other thing this genocidal former Harvard professor gets wrong is in thinking that if a white has two marriage choices, white and non-white, he is morally obligated to take the non-white.  That whites are collectively guilty of racist evil is shown very simply by the continued existence of the non-mulattoized white race.

All that of course is circular, and only begs the question the same way as, for example, saying in advance that the distinct colors blue and yellow are not permitted to exist, but are morally obligated to mix together to make green.  Morally obligated?  But I thought we were trying to see under what circumstances they were morally obligated.  No, they’re just morally obligated.  Because Ignatiev says so.  I see.

What you have in Jews like Ignatiev and Alon Ziv is the most shocking shamelessness.  These Jews, absolutely consumed by Eurochristian hatred, are so desirous of getting Euros genocided they can’t control their Freudian ids but put them on display right out in the open for all to see, not just not caring but not even aware.  In Freudian terms, such Jews have no superego, only ids and egos.  It’s like the stereotype of the grasping Jew:  he’s so much under the exclusive control of his id, with no intervention from his superego because he has none, that he doesn’t even care that his graspingness is on display for all the world to see:  he can’t control it, it’s in his Jewish genome.  Same explanation to account for these Jews like Ignatiev and Ziv who openly, right in broad daylight, grasp after Euro genocide:  the one type of Jew grasps after gold to pour through his fingers and stuff his pockets with, the other after the genocide of Euros.  Neither can control the impulses of his utterly unrestrained Jewish id.

Posted by Captainchaos on February 21, 2009, 11:33 PM | #

Lurker: “Of course he might be a little shamefaced what with being caught red-handed and all.”

I want a show of hands, how many think Diamed is really a Jew?

If he would just come clean, I would have no problem with him making main posts again, about how he, you know, wants to mix our race out of existence - no biggie.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 21, 2009, 11:40 PM | #

By the way, anyone wondering why I talk this way about Jews?  My answer to that is a question:  Who attacked the other first?  These Jews attacked Euros first and wholly unprovoked.  Their genocidal and unprovoked attacks take away all normal societal obligation on me to speak delicately about them, about their motivations, and about their race.  Let them call off their attack, or let their Jewish brethren muzzle them which ought to have been done a long time ago, and I for one will get back to proper delicateness in talking about their characteristics.  But as long as their genocide agenda continues I’ll defend my race from their filthiness and use the frankest language doing it.  Where are the Jews stepping forward to restrain Ziv and Ignatiev?  Nowhere.  Not one in sight.  Then let them shut up:  they have no moral standing.

Posted by Armor on February 22, 2009, 12:53 AM | #

Does Ignatiev have any influence? Is he well known? Does he get invitations from the media, and publicity for his books? Is he friends with respected Jews, and a member of Jewish organizations? What is the main outrage: the fact that he is not boycotted by his students?

government-enforced intermarriage (or, what amounts to the same thing, strict government interdiction of any group behavior by whites that tends to reduce intermarriage)

That is a good description of what Western authorities, not just Ignatiev, are aiming at.

Posted by danielj on February 22, 2009, 07:48 AM | #

According to racial liberals: Racism = Prejudice Plus Power

Have fun watching that equation fade into obscurity now that Obama is thoroughly ensconced in the welcoming arms of the Zionist ruling caste.

Does Ignatiev have any influence? Is he well known?

No. He is at Mass Art. Artists don’t even take Mass Art seriously.

Posted by danielj on February 22, 2009, 07:51 AM | #

Noel Ignatiev says that whatever we do, we will never overcome racism. Racism is a part of whiteness and can never be overcome without the complete destruction of ‘whiteness’ (i.e. the white race).

I get it! He is just an anti-collectivist Libertarian! It is the collective ‘white Race’ (which is so nebulous according to its detractors that it can’t be defined under other circumstances) that is the problem. Noel doesn’t have a problem with individual white persons.

I’m relieved.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 22, 2009, 09:08 AM | #

Daniel: According to racial liberals: Racism = Prejudice Plus Power

According to this member of the radical right, at least, racism is the absence of kindness in the absence of kind.

This is a morally neutral, true definition of a - according to this film - supposedly slippery concept that defies efficient definition.  Not for us.

I agree with PF’s comment at the head of this thread.  I think racism is something in which we urgently need to separate out the faux-morality of universalist thought.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 22, 2009, 04:22 PM | #

”Does Ignatiev have any influence?”  (—Armor)

Lots of it, mainly because most Jewish academics think essentially the same way.

”Is he well known?”

Yes.

”Does he get invitations from the media, and publicity for his books?”

I don’t watch enough television to know how much media time the Jews grant him.  As for his books, they’re known to all college students.  He’s quite well known in academic/university circles.

”Is he friends with respected Jews, and a member of Jewish organizations?”

The former without a doubt; the latter certainly also, if one counts a certain type of political oprganization as “Jewish.”

”What is the main outrage: the fact that he is not boycotted by his students?”

One thing I was denouncing in my comment was the absence of a public verbal thrashing given to him by any Jewish élite individual or group spokesman.  The Jews are mute where he’s concerned. 
______

Incidentally, when Ignatiev says the white race is a social construct, he doesn’t mean there didn’t use to be white people then someone somehow socially constructed them, giving them white looks.  He means the Euro race was already there, but every time intermarriage was an option and a white chose not to exercise that option, preferring instead to marry white, another brick was laid in the “social construction” of the white race, or rather in the social “maintenance in existence” of the white race, and thanks to enough whites preferring to marry white enough of the time, the white race keeps getting maintained in existence “socially,” by which he means “artificially.” 

If that’s how he wants to think of it, it’s true that whites are a “social construct” but it’s trivial and a tautology:  everything that could obliterate itself but doesn’t is a social construct by that reasoning.  If it didn’t exercise the option open to it of destroying itself, its ongoing existence is “artificial” or “socially constructed.” 

The fact that enough Jews marry Jewish to maintain the Jews in existence when there are goys galore all around them to marry, dropping the Jewish religion, means, by Ignatiev’s lights, Jews are at least as “socially constructed” as whites (more so actually, since Jews, though a distinct race, 1) are less a distinct race than are Euros, and 2) Jews actually did, within recorded history, lay down, by their own choice, the conditions for their eventual transformation into a distinct race, something whites, who sprang up spontaneously eons ago, didn’t do). 

So Jews are at least as much a social construct as whites (more so, actually), but so what?:  what does that mean?  So are, let’s say, the Chinese:  by Ignatiev’s lights they too are a social construct because, though they all have the option of either remaining celibate or of committing suicide and wiping out the Chinese race in those two ways, the numbers of them choosing not to exercise those two options are sufficient for the Chinese race to continue in existence.  That they don’t avail themselves of those options means in the Ignatiev sense that Chinamen are a “social construct”:  they could’ve committed autogenocide but didn’t. 

Any group that has the option of putting itself out of existence but doesn’t can be said to be “a social construct” in the same ridiculous way:  “You had the chance to go out of existence but didn’t take it.  Therefore you are naught but a social construct.”  That’s Ignatiev’s reasoning.

Basically, Ignative is annoyed that Euros aren’t marrying Negroes, and he invents this whole “social construct” schtick to voice his displeasure with the situation.  Remember, the first desire of the Jew is always to get the Euro race-replaced.

Ignatiev’s other schtick, “white privilege,” arises from inborn traits whites can no more eradicate (and wouldn’t want to if they could) than Negroes can their advantage in lower incidence of skin cancer:  the Negroes can only lose that advantage by going extinct since the advantage inheres in their skin-color genes.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 22, 2009, 04:47 PM | #

He’s also wrong about Irish immigrants to the U.S. being viewed at first as “non-white” or even as “functionally non-white.”  Steve Sailer and Prozium have pointed this out:  it’s a complete crock.

Iggy is just another Jewish academic spouting the same pro-race-replacement anti-Euro crap they all either spout or sympathize with.  Nothing new here.  It’s purely the result of Jewish Euro-hatred more poisonous than so-called Euro “anti-Semitism” ever was.