Perhaps that race war is closer than you thought Cleve?

[hermyhermit]

This is just..... scary.

How much is a plane ticket to Australia again? And can I get a permanent visa fairly easily? I think it may be time to leave the ship, it is sinking pretty fast.

It has been a while since I have seen a group of people that carry such self-hatred as extremely left white liberals. The scary part is, they are a large part of American academia which means they can raise lots of others of European lineage to hate themselves too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14386-2003Jun19.html?nav=hptop_tb


Maybe this is just the start. Maybe next we will need to give up part of our property as well as repayment for this "whiteness" we suffer from. Then after that we can burn the books. Revisionist history at its finest. Scary stuff.

[Jason McCullough]

Read more (http://maxspeak.org/gm/archives/00001261.html), oh panicky one.

[Robert Sharp]

Jason, do you have a link to where Horowitz says that white studies is about exterminating the white race? Because he does NOT say that in the quote in the original article. What he says is that it portrays whites as evil.
That's not the same thing. So the self-hate criticism may or may not be valid, but to say anything about extermination is pushing it.

At any rate, I don't understand why the answer to this problem is to make whites aware of their own race. Why not make everyone else FORGET about race? If we are saying all the races are equal scientifically, then the only difference is cultural. So why not just talk about different cultures?

One thing in particular that bothers me is when people say that economics and similar fields are racist. This is an odd claim. Not many people say science is racist for example. Are Newton's Laws of Motion somehow biased because Newton was white? So in what sense is economic theory racially biased? It may just happen that white people are the first to worry about certain things, or to put things in certain ways. If those things are useful or accurate, who cares who came up with them?

OTOH, I understand the point about history being biased in perspective. This does happen, but it can't be fixed by biasing it in other ways. For instance, we can't say that Hannibal and Cleopatra were black (just because they lived in Africa) in order to take away a Eurocentric bias. That's just fictionalizing history in order to try to fix it. That kind of bias would be intentional. But we SHOULD try to understand that just because a people wasn't inventing guns or ships, etc. that they weren't important. cultures have different evolutions and priorities. The Zulu culture wasn't inferior just because it was eventually defeated, any more than the Mayan culture was, or even Greek culture (which was also defeated). I think we do need to eliminate those kinds of biases. I just don't want it to go too far the other way in an attempt to balance out past discrepencies.

[antlers]

Jason, do you have a link to where Horowitz says that white studies is about exterminating the white race?

He doesn't mention the extermination of the white race, as such. He does say they "call for the abolition of whiteness" in such a tone as to imply they were calling for the extermination of the white race--at least that's the way the Post presented it.

In any case, 'Whiteness Studies' may be one of those many academic ideas that are pretty good (or at least interesting) among the people that thought them up (think communism) but become disastrous when put in practice by the evil or idiotic.

[Ben Sones]

At any rate, I don't understand why the answer to this problem is to make whites aware of their own race. Why not make everyone else FORGET about race?

Tell that to the orcs and humans. They never get along. Well, except for that one time.

[Jason McCullough]

One thing in particular that bothers me is when people say that economics and similar fields are racist.

I keep hearing about this, but I've never seen an example. And on the drafting Egyptians/Hannibal as black thing, that's something confined to the outliers of black studies and the various nationalist movements, I think; no one appears to take it very seriously.

Here's a fun game: can you find anything mentioned in the article that they're doing that's bad? I can't, really.

The closest Horowitz quote I can find is this:

"It's so evil that one author has called for the abolition of whiteness," he said. "I have read their books, and it's just despicable."

But Max is more or less accurate; Horowitz thinks liberals are out to immolate themselves or something, and his crazy rantings tend to bleed over into more respectable outlets.

[Cleve Blakemore]

... with perhaps a few exceptions.

[bmulligan]

can you find anything mentioned in the article that they're doing that's bad? I can't, really.



Yes, I can. Here are some quotes from various students describing the outcome of their 're-education'

. "I would never not choose to be someone's friend because they are white, but I think it's important to have friends of color,"

I would not choose friends because of color, but it's important to choose friends because of color. A blatent contradiction which is impossible to integrate into a consistant philosophy.

"was really, really hard . . . both personally and as a white person, because you really want to take the focus off you and your whiteness."


They are being taught to take the focus off their own identity.

"other classes, like economics, politics and history, are about whiteness. They are written by and are about white people."


Translation: Everything else we learn in school is white biased, and therefore must be wrong

"the class was beneficial, because it brings to light that white people, too, are racialized."

Racialized? WTF does this word mean? By whom are whites racialized? themselves? Others of different races? The question is purposefully unanswerable. And now for the most poignant comment by a recent graduate of indoctrination:

"I am racist. It's not on the surface, but it's in me. Day to day I hear racist comments, and people don't even know what they're saying."


Translation: I am guilty. The evilness is inside me. Because I have been told that all white knowledge is wrong, I can now identify other whites who are evil like me.

They are attempting to destroy a 'culture' by destroying identity, replacing the moral code with a contradictory one. Leaving the victim helpless, unable to act, not knowing if their actions can ever be 'good' because they are inherently 'evil'.

Sounds like organized religion to me. Lost souls waiting for a savior to show them 'the way'. Can I get an "AMEN!" ???


and whats this nonsense of non culture-bashing?
OTOH, I understand the point about history being biased in perspective. This does happen, but it can't be fixed by biasing it in other ways. For instance, we can't say that Hannibal and Cleopatra were black (just because they lived in Africa) in order to take away a Eurocentric bias. That's just fictionalizing history in order to try to fix it. That kind of bias would be intentional. But we SHOULD try to understand that just because a people wasn't inventing guns or ships, etc. that they weren't important. cultures have different evolutions and priorities. The Zulu culture wasn't inferior just because it was eventually defeated, any more than the Mayan culture was, or even Greek culture (which was also defeated). I think we do need to eliminate those kinds of biases. I just don't want it to go too far the other way in an attempt to balance out past discrepencies.

Equating the inportance of various cultures simply because they all existed at one point in time is the same revisionist history you claim to want to avoid. Aversions to value judgements for the sake of courtesy only obscures valid anaylsis of a cultures importance or relevence to our own. Don't we measure things based on our own experiences? Shouldn't the value of a culture be based on our own culture? Simply saying all culures have equal importance is just a nice way of saying:" I'm too scared to be labled a racist"

[Ben]

Goddamn, I hate so many people. Hermy is pretty clearly either a sockpuppet of Cleve or the worst person on earth. The people who run these classes really deserve a brutal, brutal beating with a clue stick. And McCullough worships at the feet of anyone left of center while mistrusting anyone with the slightest hint of any beliefs diverging from the Green party handbook.

McCullough, you don't see any problems with something like black studies being about the history and achievements of the black race but white studies being a trial of whiteness? (I also enjoy your relative attitudes towards Moore and Horowitz, who are two sides of the same coin. You are just shamelessly biased.)

The absurd lengths that liberals go to about race just give racists targets they can shoot down. Bullshit that race is a mental construct; facial structure, skin color, height? This is as absurd as the liberal delusion that gender is enviromental. Christ, why do you people do this shit? Just because you want it to be true doesn't mean it's true, no matter how much you'd like it to be. Nobody(sane) has more trouble with that concept than liberal academics. Cleve is playing his own little game here, obviously.

Sharp- I disagree on the cultures. How important could a culture that wasn't winning wars or inventing stuff be? It's not racism to say that the Native Americans sucked. They did. Several European civilizations, a couple of Arab empires(geographically and/or culturally, so I can count the Moors and the Egyptians under this), some Asians, those guys had their shit together . They were inventing or conquering or building or something of importance, something worth remembering. The Native Americans were absurdly behind the curve on these things. They were shooting each other with primitive bows over hunting grounds while Europeans had flintlock muskets and commercial farming. What can we learn from the Mohawks? Why should we remember the Zulus?

No empire is eternal, not every defeat is at the hands of a superior civilization, but it's not that hard to figure out who had their shit together and who thought that charging semi-modern rifles with spears was a good idea.

[Jason McCullough]

My perceived political opinions are funny.

Sharp- I disagree on the cultures. How important could a culture that wasn't winning wars or inventing stuff be? It's not racism to say that the Native Americans sucked. They did.

Do you define your self worth by the stuff you invent over your lifetime?

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Sharp- I disagree on the cultures. How important could a culture that wasn't winning wars or inventing stuff be?... What can we learn from the Mohawks? Why should we remember the Zulus?

No empire is eternal, not every defeat is at the hands of a superior civilization, but it's not that hard to figure out who had their shit together and who thought that charging semi-modern rifles with spears was a good idea.
Well, sometimes it works (http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/isandhlwana/isandhlwana.htm), doesn't it?

Anyway, I think you've been playing too much Civilization.

[Chris Nahr]

Do you define your self worth by the stuff you invent over your lifetime?

I do believe Ben was talking about cultures, not individuals, which is probably why he wrote "cultures" rather than "individuals". Regardless, why shouldn't successful inventors be proud of their inventions? That sounds like an eminently plausible basis for high self esteem.

[bmulligan]

because what you invent doesn't belong to you, it belongs to everyone. Why should anyone get more credit than anyone else? Why should anyone else have more self-esteem ?

[Jason McCullough]

Do you define your self worth by the stuff you invent over your lifetime?

I do believe Ben was talking about cultures, not individuals, which is probably why he wrote "cultures" rather than "individuals". Regardless, why shouldn't successful inventors be proud of their inventions? That sounds like an eminently plausible basis for high self esteem.

That's not what I meant. We don't consider an individual's life "worthless" if they just work, get married, and have kids; you don't have to change the world. Why does it suddenly become important for a society? I mean, yeah, I'd rather live here and now than at any time in Zulu society; but why on earth would you not remember the Zulus? Do you throw away the stats of everyone in baseball who doesn't win the MVP?

Jared Diamond (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393317552/qid=1056233234/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-7931188-4266318?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) is far more coherent than I am on this, and makes a good case it's all based on initial starting conditions anyway.

[Robert Sharp]

At any rate, I don't understand why the answer to this problem is to make whites aware of their own race. Why not make everyone else FORGET about race?

Tell that to the orcs and humans. They never get along. Well, except for that one time.

Crap, I forgot about them!

[Sharpe]

I was going to cite the Jared Diamond book but Jason beat me to it. His earlier books is also excellent and touches on the topic here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060984031/qid=1056233941/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/104-4063550-1092769

Also, last year I read an extremely good book on the issue of nature/nurture and the social/political consequences:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1056233992/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-4063550-1092769

Both are pretty interesting reads.

On the topic of "whiteness" studies, there's definitely a lot of idiocy regarding race/gender and victimization going on in Academia. I was at UC Berkeley in the late 80s when a lot of these theories were being developed and attended lectures by people on multiple sides of these issues like Alan Dundee, Vincent Sarich and Todd Gitlin. There was a HUGE amount of foolishness going on - many people believed things like "racism is one-way, from the white power structure down to the oppressed minorities, ONLY" (completely disregarding the whole issue of situational power, and the fact that stereotyping goes on amongst ALL groups.)

Jason - I DID hear people (mostly grad students teaching section) say things like "economics is inherently racist", "there is no objective reality" "objective reality is used to oppress less powerful groups" "reality is a social construct" and so forth. I actually had an Anthropology TA (teaching my section of Anthro 1) tell me that women's behavior during the menstrual cycle was caused by gender bias in society (!).

I lump this current "whitness studies" stuff in with that. One of the reasons the left in this country is in disarray is that in the academic study of social issues, a whole host of post-marxist, deconstructionist and other assinine theories have taken root. There are definitely people in academia who are so caught up in their fancy framework of post-modern theory that they don't see the social realities of our times.

Anyway, the conservative reaction to this is an over-reaction IMO. There's always going to be a certain amount of pie in the sky theorizing going on in academia. I survived 4 years of it and got a BS in History and I feel reasonably sane :). Then of course the harsh realities of law school beat the theoretical crap right out of me :). And being out in the working world did it even more so.

That's the solution! Everyone who applies to teach one of these whiteness studies class has to work for at least 2 years in a real business and make a net profit over that time. Then if they still want to teach that stuff, let em :).

Dan

[Robert Sharp]

Wait a minute here. Ben, are you saying a culture is only valuable if we can learn something from them? Or if they can defeat someone in a war? Or if they are "progressive", meaning they invented things? Those are odd claims. The Greeks never really conquered anybody until the Macedonians came along. Is that when they became valuable? They created thought and built buildings of course, but the Native Americans had thoughts too. The Spanish conquered lots of peoples. Does that make them a great culture? Were the Mongols or the Huns great people because they could wipe out towns?

I have to agree...you have been playing too much Civ :).

I would also like to point out to Mulligan that I did NOT say that all cultures are equal. I said there is no easy way to judge one culture better than another, except (as you said really) by our own perspective. I don't believe people shouldn't judge people or cultures. I would say the culture of Nazi Germany was a bad culture for a lot of reasons. What I AM saying is that anyone who can't at least try to understand WHY a culture does what it does, rather than just saying that they were "inferior" misses a lot of what is going on. Native Americans didn't invent things because there was no need for them to do so, not because they were necessarily stupid people.

[Robert Sharp]

That's the solution! Everyone who applies to teach one of these whiteness studies class has to work for at least 2 years in a real business and make a net profit over that time. Then if they still want to teach that stuff, let em :).

Dan

I agree with that. I am an academic myself and I am often amazed at just how naive many academics are about the "real" world. I had to work my way through college, and I think anyone in academics should have to at least try a "real" job for a while.

[Linoleum]

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide. It allows one to feel good while watching everything one believes in collapse and be destroyed." -- James Burnham

[Ben]

Jason- I didn't say that someone who goes to work everyday and raises a family had a "worthless" life(in fact, your use of "worthless" is borderline dishonest. I never used the word). But how many regular Joes can you name from 1643? A ton of people have lived productive, worthwhile lives. A handful of people are remembered. It's not racist or unfair to forget those John Q Publics, it's how it should be.

We do remember who invented things and who created works of art and who won victories, we don't remember who did a good job as a bricklayer or accoutant. Is that wrong? Should we teach our children about a 1950s car mechanic or a 1530s cobbler? I don't quite understand what point you think you were making or what you are arguing against. It appears, connecting the dots, that you think it's biased and unfair that we don't give equal coverage to Joe Footsoldier and Alexander the Great. Is that true? If you want to know who I think was a more important person, it really is Alexander. Sorry, "Joe", but you didn't get it done. The reasons for that are another story, but the facts speak for themselves. No matter how good you were at stabbing Persians, you didn't control the entire known world before you turned 35. Alexander should get books written about him, you should be consigned to the dusts of history.

Robert- Yes, I am. Importance is self-explanatory. If we can't learn something from them, why are should we waste our time when we could be studying someone we could learn from? The Zulus are only important in that they were an almost comic foil for some Europeans. The Greeks are important because of the wealth of art and thought they developed and the taking over the known world that Alexander did. We should study the Zulus in a comparative, "why were they so primitive" sense, but it's bullshit to pretend that the Native Americans and Greeks deserve equal attention or anything close to equal attention. There's no equivalence there.

The Greeks never really conquered anybody until the Macedonians came along. Is that when they became valuable? They created thought and built buildings of course, but the Native Americans had thoughts too. The Spanish conquered lots of peoples. Does that make them a great culture? Were the Mongols or the Huns great people because they could wipe out towns?

I was giving a variety of reasons a culture could be important, you don't have to qualify in every category. Hence the word "or". The Native Americans had thoughts? What's the Native American counterpart to "The Republic"?

They didn't need to invent stuff? History differs with you here. They damn well needed to invent stuff when whitey came over with his boomsticks. You want to divert this into an argument about morality or a difficult-to-define term like "greatness". No.

The Native Americans were not an important civilization. It's not Eurocentric to dismiss the Zulus and the Native Americans and all the other people who got swept aside by the real players of history. I'm not saying they were genetically inferior, I don't care about starting position. I'm talking about performance.

[Brad Grenz]

What's the Native American counterpart to "The Republic"?

I think it was burned by some Spanish priests along with the rest of the entire written history of the Mayas.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Before whitey came over to spoil the party Indians lived in a beautiful land with plenty of fresh water and food of many different varieties, were practically disease free, and very rarely had any major wars.
Big deal that they hadn't invented gun powder, they had no reason to, but they adapted plenty of plants to use as remarkably effective medicines and were even better hunters than the best European hunter by far.
The Huns and the like didn't invent permanent settlements until LONG after the rest of Europe and they STILL raged through and killed pretty much everyone, a cultures accomplishments in one area are not a watermark, just a benchmark. The Vikings were less advanced then the English yet managed to rape them every other day.
All I'm saying is that different groups of people need different things, the world was MUCH bigger in that day then it is today. Today you can use that logic, but not then.
Don't be close minded and useless fucks like Cleve and hermyherpes here, they're disgusting human beings that need a scapegoat and won't let knowledge into their pointy, bald skulls. You simply can not base your views on an entire race on one or two examples or what you read off of the KKK's website. Take people on a person by person basis.

And when the race wars come I'll be on this (http://www.tenisontwins.com/), and my sweetheart's, side. I look forward to splitting your bald pate with my shovel Cleve.

[Brad Grenz]

Good points, Cookiepants (no, I can't believe I said that either), the fact is advancement comes from adversity. The human race as we know it wouldn't be anywhere if the Ice Age hadn't been kicking the ass of our homonid ancestors (anybody else see Walking with Cave Men?). The Europeans got very good at fighting cause they were doing so much of it amongst themselves, and because they benefited from contact with most of the world which gave them access to inventions like gunpowder, algebra, the compass, steel, etc. And they used those things to make weapons of War. North America, isolated and lacking the same kinds of survival imperitives as existed in the Old World, didn't advance along the same line.

The risk of hubrus and elitism is missing the chance to actually learn from the defeated cultures of the world. At the same time moralizing about the course of "white" history is to deny the natural process of evolution. In the same way academia unduly glorifies certain marginalized cultures, it appears they taken the next step by unduly demonizing white culture. Some like to pretend that humans exist outside the process of natural selection, and that's simply not the case. Progress is by definition the product of conflict. There is no such thing as the perfect balance of nature or harmony between competing species. Evolution is the process by which one species attempts to gain an advantage of another, and it's no different with cultures.

[Jason McCullough]

That's hilarious, Sharpe. Good old Berkeley; what was the rational for economics being racist?

Ben, I'm not sure why we shouldn't remember the average people of history, or examine what the life of 1500s cobbler was like; it's interesting, teaches valuable things, and so on. What possible reason is there?

I don't care about starting position.

Tell your friends this the next time you play a game.

[Ben]

Cookiepants- Real Rousseauian there. They weren't noble savages, they were just regular savages. They did have diseases, just not European ones. And Europeans were exposed to a lot more because they weren't so insuar. The Native Americans didn't have majors wars because they didn't have major nations. They had tribal conflicts, but they simply didn't have the social structures necessary for a major war.

They were better hunters? What, genetically? They hunted a lot more because of the lack of commercial farming, but Europeans who tried to hunt were good at it. They had firearms and metal traps and stuff. I understand elementary schools are big on teaching Native Americans as being all in touch with nature and having a special understanding, but that's a crock. They hunted because they needed the meat and they knew the land because they lived there.

I'm assuming that post was a joke, because that's a real Disney version of history.


And the Vikings weren't less advanced than the "English". I guess you mean the Saxons, what we know as the English have a lot of Viking stock. The Vikings are the most underappreciated great civilization, they owned Europe. The Huns were nomads.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

The Native Americans were not an important civilization. It's not Eurocentric to dismiss the Zulus and the Native Americans and all the other people who got swept aside by the real players of history...
Bet they were pretty important to those who were (and are) part of those civilizations. "The real players of history?" What the hell kind of crap is that? What on earth is a real player of history? Do you have any criteria here, or is it just whatever civilizations you like?

...Some like to pretend that humans exist outside the process of natural selection, and that's simply not the case. Progress is by definition the product of conflict. There is no such thing as the perfect balance of nature or harmony between competing species. Evolution is the process by which one species attempts to gain an advantage of another, and it's no different with cultures.
Progress is not by definition the product of conflict. Well, at least I've never seen it defined as that, and I see no logical reason why it should be.
Regarding natural selection and cultures: That doesn't mean that things have to or should be like that, just because there's conflict now. If anything, should we not be working towards a more harmonious and balanced world to increase the happiness and well-being of all?

[ydejin]

...Some like to pretend that humans exist outside the process of natural selection, and that's simply not the case. Progress is by definition the product of conflict. There is no such thing as the perfect balance of nature or harmony between competing species. Evolution is the process by which one species attempts to gain an advantage of another, and it's no different with cultures.
Progress is not by definition the product of conflict. Well, at least I've never seen it defined as that, and I see no logical reason why it should be.

Progress doesn't come only because of conflict. However, conflict can cause considerable amounts of progress. The countries of Europe were in constant conflict during many parts of their history. Because of this, there was a constant need/desire to gain a competitive advantage. Contrast this with China, for example. China at various points in its history was probably more advanced than Europe. However, instead of extending its lead it pissed it away? Why? One fundamental mistake that China made was it began to worship the past. The right way to do things was the way things had been done in the past. The Mandarins stopped trying to innovate and innovation was not rewarded -- instead following tradition was rewarded. As a result the Chinese technological lead was lost.

If China had been surrounded by neighbors who were in constant technological competition with it and who were constantly innovating, they would have been less likely to turn inward and less likely to worship tradition. In turn their technological lead might not have been lost.

This isn't my theory, I stole it from Paul Kennedy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679720197/qid=1056252411/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/102-7520903-2859310?v=glance&s=books), but I do think it has some merit.

For another example of conflict driving progress, think World War 2 and the Cold War. World War 2 accelerated our understanding of atomic power and atomic energy. It also accelerated development of rocketry and jet engines. I'm sure there were numerous technologies whose development was accelerated as a result of the war. The Cold War was indirectly responsible for the space race and its accompanying technology gains.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Progress doesn't come only because of conflict. However, conflict can cause considerable amounts of progress...

Oh, I'm not disputing that. My point was only that progress does not require conflict, that progress is not by definition the product of conflict, as it was put.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Cookiepants- Real Rousseauian there. They weren't noble savages, they were just regular savages. They did have diseases, just not European ones. And Europeans were exposed to a lot more because they weren't so insuar. The Native Americans didn't have majors wars because they didn't have major nations. They had tribal conflicts, but they simply didn't have the social structures necessary for a major war.
They were better hunters? What, genetically? They hunted a lot more because of the lack of commercial farming, but Europeans who tried to hunt were good at it. They had firearms and metal traps and stuff. I understand elementary schools are big on teaching Native Americans as being all in touch with nature and having a special understanding, but that's a crock. They hunted because they needed the meat and they knew the land because they lived there.
I'm assuming that post was a joke, because that's a real Disney version of history. And the Vikings weren't less advanced than the "English". I guess you mean the Saxons, what we know as the English have a lot of Viking stock. The Vikings are the most underappreciated great civilization, they owned Europe. The Huns were nomads.

Hmm base insult 'j00 a jung$ter' never gets old. Since I've no real way of proving how old I am I'll leave it at this: You fuck dolphins.

Who do you think taught the Europeans tracking techniques? Who were always hired as guides? Who reached the Pacific ahead of Lewis and Clark to report the path back to them? I'm not talking all that mystical crap you're trying to pin on me, cold facts. Read any accounts of any battle against the Indians, 'excellent shot', 'fierce warrior' blahblahblah. But then again the ones reporting that HAD to be jung$ters, so their opinion doesn't count.

And hey, I did use the terms 'practically' and 'rarely' you wanna put words in my mouth asshole they should AT LEAST look like they could be interpretted that way.

Yes the Huns were nomads, what's your point, hmm could that be why they didn't have permenent settlements? You refute my arguments by defining my words. Way to lose cock hound.

[hermyhermit]

And when the race wars come I'll be on this (http://www.tenisontwins.com/), and my sweetheart's, side. I look forward to splitting your bald pate with my shovel Cleve.


You know, I clicked that link. Those are the whitest black women I have ever seen. High cheekbones, small european nose, skinny frame, long STRAIGHT hair.

I'm guessing the complete irony of that is lost on you, though it isn't at all surprising. You are really "down" with the sistas aren't ya? :roll:


And Ben, by the way, you have in the course of one thread gone from a raiving liberal lunatic to an almost completely rationale human being. *wild applause*

[Sharpe]

That's hilarious, Sharpe. Good old Berkeley; what was the rational for economics being racist?


You have to understand this to make sense of it: At Berkeley, many of the people who were heavily into the study of racial and gender issues, along with a pretty fair of the people in the social science departments were Marxists. Not vanilla liberals disparaged as commies by bmulligan but real, serious, academic Marxists, who believe in the dialectic of history, and so forth. Their analysis goes something like this: all of what we consider "objective reality" is really just a social construct, engineered by the groups in power to maintain their power and privilege and to keep the exploited minorities in a subordinate position. Under their theory, all people would be totally equal in nature and of course have equal access to property and wealth (yes they WERE the bugaboos of bmulligan's paranoid fantasies). So modern economics, based on ideas like private property, market based success and failure and so on, was a social construct designed to perpetuate the power of the wealthy and to suppress the natural rights of the oppressed. I am not sure what they would say if confronted with the hard math and statistics that drive modern econ, but the extreme members would probably also argue that math is a social construct designed to enforce the current social order (yah, 2+2=4 b/c the MAN says so!). You may boggle at this but I heard people make these exact arguments. Of course they would then go off into a deep and extended analysis of some aspect of culture, often with a lot of dense symbolic interpretation - demonstrating how, say, big boobs on PC game chars are a tool of oppression or something like that. Their basic attitude was that what we consider objective reality, math, science, econ, was really a heavily encoded set of social symbols which reinforce the power relations of the status quo.

I mean it sounds completely idiotic (and it is!) but there were significant chunks of people in serious academic positions spouting this stuff.

Dan

[Brian Koontz]

This reminds me of why university academia is garbage. Its kind of funny because they have their own insular *culture*. I mean, you're just walking down the street talking to people, then you step inside a university complex and BAM!... its a whole 'nother world.

I get the feeling sometimes that these people feel they'll catch some kind of disease if they step outside the university bounds. If they ever actually travel they do so under cover of darkness, furtively, and even then its only to go to another university.

Professor asks me where I'm from...

Prof: "University of Michigan?... Stanford?"

Me: "Umm... I'm from the real world."

Prof: "AHHH!" {Holds up a crucifix to protect himself}

[Brad Grenz]

Oh, I'm not disputing that. My point was only that progress does not require conflict, that progress is not by definition the product of conflict, as it was put.

Maybe you misunderstand my use of the word conflict. I don't mean it in the strict sense of military conflict, or violence between peoples.

What is progress? It is change. Why do things change? Because they need to. Why would something need to change? Because it is compelled by some form of conflict, be that military, commercial, environmental, social or whatever. If there is no compelling reason to change something, then it won't change. This is why most of our homonid ancestors aren't around any more. Some were so well adapted to their environment that they didn't change in a million years, never refined their tools, never grew bigger brains, etc. Having overspecialized they couldn't cope with competition from smarter species, or with drastic changes in the environment.

[Jason McCullough]

.....along with a pretty fair of the people in the social science departments were Marxists.

I keep forgetting they exist. I wonder if Official Marxism (tm) will finally die out with the next generation. The hilarious thing is that the social order *is* built on math, economics, whatever; but apparently that can't possibly be because they work. Not good enough for wacko land!

[Captain Cookiepants]

And when the race wars come I'll be on this (http://www.tenisontwins.com/), and my sweetheart's, side. I look forward to splitting your bald pate with my shovel Cleve.You know, I clicked that link. Those are the whitest black women I have ever seen. High cheekbones, small european nose, skinny frame, long STRAIGHT hair.
I'm guessing the complete irony of that is lost on you, though it isn't at all surprising. You are really "down" with the sistas aren't ya? :roll:
So, by your own admission, those two black women are, in every aspect but skin color, the same as white women?
And yet they're inferior?

I want you to think about this, I know it's a slim chance but-meh-I'm interested in what makes people so wrong.
So think about this: I knew what you were going to say, hours before you even saw my post I knew how you would respond, and I didn't even have to direct the statement at you. I just led you to it. So think about it: I was able to outsmart you, I proved myself smarter than you. Now why would you argue with a person smarter than you on ANY topic whatsoever? Is it just your general dislike of your betters?

Were you the type of person to read your textbook carefully to try to catch your teacher's mistakes? Did you double check your tests to see if they made a mistake? Are you looking for spelling and grammar mistakes in this post to make yourself feel better? Really, would you argue with Marilyn Vos Savant on how to find the diameter of a circle? Would you go back in time and try to lecture Henry Ford on how to run a business?
So why are you arguing with me? I've proven myself smarter than you, so wouldn't I be better equipped to think this subject over? To find info and research?

You can slap the 'Liberal' label all over me all you want, but the truth is that you disgust me. You're an embarrassment to the entire white race. You talk about how us weak white folk stick up for the inferior minorities, but did you ever stop to think that we're just trying to make up for the actions and words of ignorant fucks like you? Maybe we wouldn't have to do this type of shit if uniformed dicks like yourself would keep your slack jaws SHUT. Ever think of that?

Right now there's a chance that a minority is reading this right now, and there's a chance that that person is basing his entire opinion on white people on the bullshit spewing from your face hole. Kinda like how you base your views on your interaction with one or two black people you've talked to or read about.

Ever think of that? How much you're hurting the rest of us, and indeed your own fucked up 'cause'? It's like having a retard on your debate team. No matter what the sane, thinking individuals on the team say, there's going to come a point when that one useless, waste of flesh approaches the podium, and shorts out the mike with a three foot stream of drool.

And you know what? We're tired of apologizing for YOU, we just want to be ourselves, we don't want to be carrying around a drool buckets for you and your kind. Please die. Please? Just die. I promise you you'll get your own comfortable place in hell, just DIE already. No one wants you on this planet.

[Jason McCullough]

Related to "why should we care about those who aren't famous", a bit from MLK's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech:

Most of these people will never make the headlines, and their names will never appear in Who's Who. Yet, when years have rolled past and when the blazing light of truth is focused on this marvelous age in which we live, men and women will know and children will be taught that we have a finer land, a better people, a more noble civilization because these humble children of God were willing to suffer for righteousness' sake.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Oh, I'm not disputing that. My point was only that progress does not require conflict, that progress is not by definition the product of conflict, as it was put.

Maybe you misunderstand my use of the word conflict. I don't mean it in the strict sense of military conflict, or violence between peoples.

What is progress? It is change. Why do things change? Because they need to. Why would something need to change? Because it is compelled by some form of conflict, be that military, commercial, environmental, social or whatever. If there is no compelling reason to change something, then it won't change...

A compelling reason doesn't have to be a conflict, however. New medical procedures, for instance, are often not motivated by a conflict, but by a desire to keep people alive longer. Sure, you can define that reason as a conflict between people's desire to stay alive and the fragility of their bodies or whatever, but that's kind of stretching it a little.
Similarly, a lot of the basic scientific research that's done is done simply because those doing it find it interesting, not because it needs to be done. It might have lots of useful applications, but that's not always what motivates scientists.

[Anders Hallin]

I think I would specify what drives development as "want". I don't think "need" really cuts it across the board.
Quite often we want something because we need it, of course.

[Robert Sharp]

Ben, I think I understand what you are saying now, and I think we are talking around each other. You are talking about how important or useful a culture is TO US? Is that right? I was just talking in a general sense and making the point that just because a culture is not valuable to US (i.e. doesn't fit with our goals, doesn't do things we find useful, etc.) that doesn't make it a bankrupt culture. The Egyptians basically had the same culture for thousands of years. There was no real progress for most of that time. They invented some things, but over that period of time they didn't invent much (relative to other cultures). They had no NEED to change. The Nile flooded the same way every year. They had natural borders to prevent wars. They didn't even build chariots until someone came and conquered them with chariots. Does that mean they were a bad culture all that time? And suddenly they "woke up" and became a good culture by changing?

Don't get me wrong. I think change is valuable (though not always progressive...saying American culture is progressive is HIGHLY debatable. It doesn't seem obviously superior to any other cultures, except in terms of military/economic power). But that is an American standard. Is there any objective, or even good subjective, reasoning behind saying that it is THE standard to measure cultures?

[Ben]

hermy- Please, God, don't connect me with you. Attention everyone- just because hermy and I may possibly agree on some issues doesn't mean I'm a racist, please do not use racism as an ad hominem response to me.

The cause of progress- It's not conflict, it's not want, it's pain. Conflict is just a means to that end, and on the macro(cultural) scale the most common source of suffering. This is something I stole from a book about writing fiction. Your main character should be one who is suffering from the status quo, because only those who suffer have motive to act. Get somebody who doesn't like their life and you've got somebody who'll be willing to do something to change it.

Cookie- Slow down there chippy. Where the fuck is this coming from? I'm not calling you a jung$ter, I'm disputing your facts. Of course the Indians would be the guides, they fucking lived here.

Did they reach the Pacific first? Well, considering they crossed the Pacific to get here then some of them settled on the West Coast, yes, of course. They beat Europeans(and Africans) to all of the Americas. But the English reached the Pacific before the Iroquis. Excellent shots, fierce warriors? They probably were in better shape and had better individual combat skills because they needed to hunt for food and they were fighting against the urban poor of Europe. When they did fight professional soldiers it tended to be a massacre. Notice who owns the country now.

Oh, and for calling me a dolphin fucker I'm going to note your English skills need work.


Idar- The real players of history? The Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings, etc. It's not whatever civilizations I like, it's what civilizations mattered.

Jason- So you do think it's biased that we don't write books about individual cobblers? This isn't about learning the general situation of the 16th century working man. Do you see anything wrong with numerous biographies being written about Magellan but none about the guy who fixed his shoes? The average people of history do get remembered, but as a group. We know that many soldiers died, that many workers built, that many whatever whatevered. But it's not unfair or wrong that we don't know their names.

Robert- I was never saying that any culture was bankrupt or worthless. Just that some really sucked, and it's not racist or Eurocentric to point out that the Indians were way behind the curve. Tracing back significant modern developments to their roots, you aren't going through the Mohicans or Zulus. So, pretty much, yes, your restatement is correct.

There's also some of me backlashing against the not-really-stated-here "Oh, that's just Eurocentric" viewpoint that some liberal academics have used in combination with borderline fictional stories about the greatness of African and American civilizations. There's nothing wrong with Eurocentricism, it's definitely the continent you should study if you can only study one. Most of the important developments in history over the past couple of thousand years were in or around Europe.

[Jason McCullough]

So you do think it's biased that we don't write books about individual cobblers? This isn't about learning the general situation of the 16th century working man. Do you see anything wrong with numerous biographies being written about Magellan but none about the guy who fixed his shoes? The average people of history do get remembered, but as a group. We know that many soldiers died, that many workers built, that many whatever whatevered. But it's not unfair or wrong that we don't know their names.

Sharp- I disagree on the cultures. How important could a culture that wasn't winning wars or inventing stuff be? It's not racism to say that the Native Americans sucked. They did. Several European civilizations, a couple of Arab empires(geographically and/or culturally, so I can count the Moors and the Egyptians under this), some Asians, those guys had their shit together . They were inventing or conquering or building or something of importance, something worth remembering. The Native Americans were absurdly behind the curve on these things. They were shooting each other with primitive bows over hunting grounds while Europeans had flintlock muskets and commercial farming. What can we learn from the Mohawks? Why should we remember the Zulus?

I'm not arguing that other cultures were that great at fighting wars/curing cancer/whatever; I'm arguing that they still have interesting things to teach regardless. My reading is that you're strongly implying that a) their lives were meaningless and b) they have nothing of note to teach us because they didn't kill enough people. Am I incorrect?

[mtkafka]

I read that almost all the things that made our super civilization were by brown eyed people. Thats why if you have blue eyes, you're dumb. Theres a song by Van Morrion... called Brown Eyed Girl... thats racist. Shut up.

etc

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

The cause of progress- It's not conflict, it's not want, it's pain...

I'm sorry, but no. There are many causes of progress, pain might be one of them, but not THE cause of progress, any more than conflict, want, need or butterflies.

Idar- The real players of history? The Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings, etc. It's not whatever civilizations I like, it's what civilizations mattered.
How do you decide if a civilization "mattered?" Why do the Vikings matter, and who doesn't the Zulu? Just because Europeans didn't have contact with them doesn't mean they didn't matter at all. I mean, Europe was completely irrelevant to all of America up until Columbus got there, yes?


...There's nothing wrong with Eurocentricism, it's definitely the continent you should study if you can only study one. Most of the important developments in history over the past couple of thousand years were in or around Europe.
The past couple thousand of years? Try the past couple houndred. Before that, (and with the exception of Greece and Rome, which weren't all that) the Far and Middle East were more advanced and more important. We tend to focus on Europe simply because it's our history, and because the West is important today.

[Ben]

Jason- I have no idea what the hell point you are trying to make. No, they really don't have stuff to teach us. I mean, besides resolving any questions you had about Civilization's realism. Every culture passed through the stage of development that the Zulu's had in 1900, they had just done it thousands of years beforehand. It's redundant to cover the 1800s Zulus if you already tracked a more significant culture from prehistory.

You always want to put words like "meaningless" and "worthless" in my mouth, perhaps you could go argue with whoever is actually saying those things? Simple question: Do you see anything wrong the with disparity in coverage between Julius Caesar and a street performer of the time?

And if you really think that's what I'm implying, learn to read. Or at least learn to argue more honestly if, more likely, you know that's not what I'm saying.

Idar- No, it is pain. Conflict causes pain. Need is because of pain.

Why do the Vikings matter? Because they conquered a lot, they formed the base stock of the most successful future European cultures, and they explored a great part of the world. The Zulus dicked around South Africa until the English and Dutch came down and took care of them. On the path of history, do you really believe the Zulus played a bigger role than the Vikings?

And no, it really is the past several thousand. The Chinese had some remarkable advances in science and philosphy, but they were so insular that it took Europeans to start using those advances. Greece and Rome weren't all that? Unless you live in a dictatorship, your country's political system is derived directly from a Greek/Roman one. Greece and Rome have a tremendous influence on the modern world, which is a Western-dominated one, after all. Weren't all that? Who was?

Christ, you really are the anti-Eurocentric strawman I was talking about, aren't you? Not many people demean the importance of freaking ROME.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Idar- No, it is pain. Conflict causes pain. Need is because of pain.
You need to make a better argument. "Argh, it hurts so much! Must... find... general theory of relativity!" Perfectly content, happy people can make progress too, not just tortured souls. Scientists do most of their work purely because of the intellectual satisfaction it provides, not because of the results.

Why do the Vikings matter? Because they conquered a lot, they formed the base stock of the most successful future European cultures, and they explored a great part of the world. The Zulus dicked around South Africa until the English and Dutch came down and took care of them. On the path of history, do you really believe the Zulus played a bigger role than the Vikings?

And no, it really is the past several thousand. The Chinese had some remarkable advances in science and philosphy, but they were so insular that it took Europeans to start using those advances. Greece and Rome weren't all that...
Christ, you really are the anti-Eurocentric strawman I was talking about, aren't you? Not many people demean the importance of freaking ROME.
I'm not denying the importance of Rome (or Greece) in respect to European history. It should perhaps be noted that they were more Mediterranean civilizations than purely European ones, since that is where their interests lay. Rome was greater than anything seen in Europe until the end of the Middle Ages, but that's not saying much, really. And no, neither the Greeks nor the Romans were the most fantastic civilizations of history. Rome's greatness was mainly due to it's great ability to take other cultures' stuff.

If you knew anything about the Greek and Roman political systems, you would know that they were pretty dissimilar. They are also only superficially similar to the systems democratic nations have today.

After the dominance of these societies in the south of Europe ended a little under 2000 years ago, Europe entered a new era. It lasted a while, it was called the Dark Ages, and it was called that for a reason. Europe did not become as prominent as it is now before the Renaissance. Up until then, there were other regions of the world that were more advanced.

Both before and after the Ancient European cultures, there were myriads of civilizations in the Far East and the Middle East far more advanced and populous than in Europe.

The Vikings are important in the history of Northern Europe, the Zulu are important in the history of Southern Africa, the Inca are important in the history of America, etc. Do not confuse the history of Europe with the history of the world, just because we happen to dominate it at the moment.

EDIT:...The Zulus dicked around South Africa until the English and Dutch came down and took care of them.
Do you know anything about Zulu history? Because if you do, I would think that 'dicking around' doesn't really cover the events of the early 19th century.

[Ben]

Idar- There were significant differences in the Greek and Roman forms of government, congratulations. That's irrelevant to my claim of influence. The term Greek, after all, includes 3 major and several minor subcultures over a period of many hundreds of years. Thebes and Sparta had different forms of government. However, if you'd like to argue that other cultures played a more important role in the development of western liberal democracy, go right ahead. Before you start, though, you're wrong. So, is that what you were trying to say? Or were you just being contrarian?

Rome was greater than anything seen in the world at all, not just anything seen in Europe. Their standard of living was absurdly high. They conquered at will. They built things standing today. Their acheivements in science, the arts, whatever are unparalleled. What civilizations do you advance as superior? Maybe the Chinese? Maybe the Egyptians? I'd say the Greeks have a case, but you've already ruled them out.

Yes, the Romans took other people's stuff. The international system is Hobbesian nature, sorry. They were remarkable at incorporating elements of the cultures they conquered into their own, which seems to be a pretty good thing to a liberal. It wasn't like they burned the great works of Greece or anything.

Your timeline is a little screwy. A little under 2000 years ago? Who calls 1529 a little under 2000? Calling it the Dark Ages is actual bias. It wasn't very dark for the Vikings and Muslims, they were thriving.(You'll note I included them as those that mattered.) My exact phrase was in and around Europe, specifically to include the great Middle Eastern and Northern African civilizations. The Chinese were also chugging along just as they had been, that was a remarkably static situation. East Asia is a another pocket of importance, a number of interesting and significant cultures were in there.

From 1400-present, the history of Europe(to put it a bit more offensively, white people) is the history of the world, however. They explored and conquered and by 1800 or so there wasn't a whole lot of the world they hadn't touched.

Idar, pray tell, what were the great accomplishments of the Zulu that you speak of? I won't lie, I don't know very much about the Zulus.

[Jason McCullough]

No, they really don't have stuff to teach us.

You always want to put words like "meaningless" and "worthless" in my mouth, perhaps you could go argue with whoever is actually saying those things?

Uh, Ben?

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

However, if you'd like to argue that other cultures played a more important role in the development of western liberal democracy, go right ahead. Before you start, though, you're wrong...
I don't know, the western cultures that actually implemented them, maybe? The French, the British, the Americans? My main point was that there are very few similarities between whatever form of government one might at find in either Athens or Rome at any point in time, and what the west enjoys today; modern political systems are the product of modern societies.

Rome was greater than anything seen in the world at all, not just anything seen in Europe. Their standard of living was absurdly high...No, it wasn't. Only the very small upper class lived in absurd luxury, and that only during the late republic and the Imperial period. The vast majority of Roman citizens lived in relative poverty, and were often malnourished. The huge social differences only increased as the Roman Empire grew.
They didn't conquer at will, either. Do you know who were their main rivals were, after they razed Carthage? The Parthians. (http://www.parthia.com/) They conquered lots of stuff too, and gave as good as they got against the Romans, especially if you figure in the Sasanid "continuation". Does that make them just as great? The Roman ability to conquer stuff was more a combination of their excellent military tactics, an ability to levy large amounts of troops, and a social structure that heavily encouraged conquest and military triumphs by the upper class than a superiority over other civilizations. Often (1st Punic war, the early italian wars, etc.) it was more a matter of throwing legions and fleets at the enemy until he was exhausted.
It's kind of hard to say "best civilization up until..." because the criteria are not obvious. The various Chinese civilizations are easily their equals in some fields, others conquered much, still others were better at trade, invention, culture, etc.
Yes, the Romans took other people's stuff...
Just trying to point out that the Romans didn't have an original bone in their body. They invented very little; their main innovations were in architecture, warfare, and due to their social structure, law. Their arts and philosophy were just copies of the Greeks'; Roman plays were often just translations of Greek ones. Their science was virtually nonexistent, certainly nothing compared to the Greeks, or even the mathematics of India. The wealth of the city of Rome itself was, during the late Republic and Empire, a result of the things they took from those they conquered. Not just ideas, but actual, physical stuff they stole in large quantities. If that makes you great, well, OK.

Your timeline is a little screwy. A little under 2000 years ago? Who calls 1529 a little under 2000? Calling it the Dark Ages is actual bias. It wasn't very dark for the Vikings and Muslims, they were thriving.
It's the Dark Ages in European history.
The Vikings weren't thriving any more than the rest of Europe. They might have been invading the British Isles and Normandy, and raiding here and there, but they were not more advanced. It was more a question of motivation and social structure.
The Chinese were also chugging along just as they had been, that was a remarkably static situation.
Static? Chinese history? I don't know much about it, but I know that it was only beginning to become somewhat static around this time.

From 1400-present, the history of Europe(to put it a bit more offensively, white people) is the history of the world, however. They explored and conquered and by 1800 or so there wasn't a whole lot of the world they hadn't touched.
Yes. However, the history of Europe prior to ca. 1500 isn't really all that interesting to all those non-westerners out there, they often find the history of their own cultures rather more interesting.

Idar, pray tell, what were the great accomplishments of the Zulu that you speak of? I won't lie, I don't know very much about the Zulus.
Conquering most of South Africa. The Zulu were a very young nation when they were defeated by the British; they arose in the second half of the eighteenth century. They managed to conquer their neighbours, and founded a kingdom that survived its de facto founder, Shaka; it was a new social identity that survives to this day. This conquest was made possible through progress in the field of killing other people. It might also be noted that though the Zulus still mainly fought with spears, the Anglo-Zulu war was a real war, not just the British steamrollering the Zulu. The Zulu forces inflicted significant (thousands) of casaulties on the British; the British won because of their superiority in applying organized violence.

[Robert Sharp]

Actually, Ben, I agree with your general point that people go too far against the Eurocentric viewpoint. The Europeans are very significant to Western history. But it DOES seem a bit ethnocentric to judge all other civilizations based solely on how they affected America or Europe. Tell me this: who was more influential to African history...the Vikings or the Zulus? Do you think the Zulus ever even heard of the Vikings? Or vice versa? Your claim the the Vikings matter more because they were more influential assumes what seems like a narrow view of history. Yes, they influenced a certain strand of history, perhaps a broader strand than the Zulus (hard to measure such things). But does that make them more historically important (which seems to be your real claim, rather than objectively important, which is what I originally thought you meant)? The Zulus were the most powerful warrior nation of their day, in their area of the world, and they even gave the English some trouble for a while. They were an empire that covered more ground than the Vikings (as far as solid rule goes).

And that's still Western hemisphere. There are still lots of other parts of the world. For instance, the Middle East dominates religious history to a large degree. Asia has a completely separate historical lineage, of which America (and even Europe) play pretty small parts, until VERY recently. And even now, the influence over there isn't as great as people seem to think.

I say all this in sincerity because I think you are making some good points, but we seem to be missing each other somewhere.

BTW, what was the original topic again?

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Actually, Ben, I agree with your general point that people go too far against the Eurocentric viewpoint. The Europeans are very significant to Western history. But it DOES seem a bit ethnocentric to judge all other civilizations based solely on how they affected America or Europe...

And in conclusion, I agree with you somewhat. I think.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with us placing an emphasis on the history of the West, because we are the West; it's our history. We just shouldn't confuse it with the history of the World. The history of America isn't "some people and the Incas and stuff dicked around for a while and then the Europeans came and kicked their asses." Things still happened before the Europeans came, making those things, those cultures, important to the history of America.
Is that vaguely what you are saying?

[Ben]

Well, I'm going to start trying to wrap this up.

The Incas aren't important to the history of the Americas, they are the history of the Americas. Same with the Zulus with Africa, and whatnot. Their importance is undefined. The Spanish are important to the history of the Americas.

Part of the problem here may be the difference between the history of a region and the history of a culture, though. The history of the United States is the history of the people who were part of the United States, and it's a much different history than the history of North America, or the history of the Western Hemisphere, or of the human race, or of the world. In each case, different cultures have different levels of importance.

Also, Idar, the Chinese culture was static in that it was essentially the same culture for many thousands of years. That's pretty remarkable, most cultures die out and get replaced and then those guys get conquered. The Chinese sat there tooling along doing their thing for thousands of years.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Well, I'm going to start trying to wrap this up...In each case, different cultures have different levels of importance.
Depending on the interpretation, I agree with you somewhat. Good enough for leisurely internet debate. :)

Also, Idar, the Chinese culture was static in that it was essentially the same culture for many thousands of years...
Meh. To some extent, maybe, but pretty drastic changes occurred. The situation (political etc.) wasn't very static, at any rate;).

[freeman]

I'm wondering how Cleve feels about the seeming superiority of african americans in the fields of traditionally-white sports and, in his own case, game development?

[freeman]

When they did fight professional soldiers it tended to be a massacre. Notice who owns the country now.

If by massacre, you mean the Europeans were slaughtered, then you are right. Otherwise this statement is so wrong it is baffling. Any study of the European conquering of the Americas will basically reveal that the Europeans were pWned in almost every straightforward battle they fought during the westward expansion. They basically took the Americas through deceit and deception, using the so-called civilized tribes to help wipe out the more aggressive tribes, and then systematically killing off the people who helped them (ie, smallpox and wholesale massacres such as the Trail of Tears).

[hermyhermit]

I'm wondering how Cleve feels about the seeming superiority of african americans in the fields of traditionally-white sports and, in his own case, game development?

You think that is an accident?

Again, your liberal soaked mind does not understand this very simple concept.

"African-Americans" were selectively bred and picked like cattle. Go to Africa, you think every black man there is more muscular and fit then your average white man? They come in all shapes and sizes and a good majority of them are not the mesomorphs you see here in the USA. (Though admittedly they still have less body fat genetically, and the reason for that is well documented.)

The reason the American variety is so physically superior is simple economics my friend. You are a slave ship captain. You need the strongest and most able physical specimens both in hopes that they survive the long voyage and also to turn the best profit for a very good strong worker. So are you going to take a random sample?

No, you are going to take the most muscular men you can find and the women with the largest child bearing hips so that they do not die during childbirth and you are going to pack them on your boat. Do that for a few hundreds years and guess what? You have engineered a race much as we do with cattle.

You can whine about it, you can stomp up and down, you can shout to the heavens, and you can be outraged about it, but what you cannot do is deny it.

What is really unfortunate is that our ancestors were very foolish in not thinking about the long term implications of FREEING these large muscular men a good deal of whom had violent tendencies. Now fast forward to 2003 and we have our present situation which is ok in the sports world, but where I live and in my line of work, it isn't so good. Especially when you compound the fact that repeat offenders get to spend time in jail all day getting even bigger and stronger. Makes the job quite a bit harder doesn't it?

[Jason McCullough]

"African-Americans" were selectively bred and picked like cattle. Go to Africa, you think every black man there is more muscular and fit then your average white man? They come in all shapes and sizes and a good majority of them are not the mesomorphs you see here in the USA. (Though admittedly they still have less body fat genetically, and the reason for that is well documented.)

The reason the American variety is so physically superior is simple economics my friend. You are a slave ship captain. You need the strongest and most able physical specimens both in hopes that they survive the long voyage and also to turn the best profit for a very good strong worker. So are you going to take a random sample?

No, you are going to take the most muscular men you can find and the women with the largest child bearing hips so that they do not die during childbirth and you are going to pack them on your boat. Do that for a few hundreds years and guess what? You have engineered a race much as we do with cattle.


Oh, god. An item of note: those sold into slavery were almost entirely captured in raids by other tribes; needless to say, they probably weren't able to round up the best and brightest.

[freeman]

I was actually more interested in the second part of my question.

Edit: Also, hermy, are you saying that the slave-selection process is the reason african americans are great at golf? Because, if so, I think you are really onto something.

[hermyhermit]

Oh, god. An item of note: those sold into slavery were almost entirely captured in raids by other tribes; needless to say, they probably weren't able to round up the best and brightest.

Thanks boy wonder, I'm well aware of where the bulk of the "material" came from, but you think all the good ones got away? Sophmoric. Of course, there would be some good picks and the best ones were chosen time and again so the genetic selection took hold. This isn't news.

[Cleve Blakemore]

[quote=freeman]I'm wondering how Cleve feels about the seeming superiority of african americans in the fields of traditionally-white sports and, in his own case, game development?

Game development? You must be crazy. There are about as many black game developers as there are black French poetry analysts.

Although I will never have the genes to play basketball as do the plate-lipped bonobos, none of those shiny bucks will ever have my kind of upper body strength. Although I hear tell that they produce the greatest long distance runners in the world in Kenya, the fact is in my 40 years no black man has ever beaten me at any distance over 800 meters.

One of the best days of my life was beating a field of over a hundred brothers in the Army on a timed obstacle course. You should've seen the look of shock on homey's face watching a white boy who was better on the monkey bars than any of the soul brothers. I actually finished the course with a fifteen second gap between me and the second man, a black islamic E-4 with his righteous self. He was almost blushing from embarrassment. The other homeys were hooting and shrieking with excitement and anger that "dat demm stopwatch be racially profiling de brudders. Dat be whitey's trip, dem time concepts and what-not. De brudder finish second, sho, but he be stylin' with de flair. We be bringin' de case fo discrimonatin' and gettin' de repamarations."

It's not a question of what sports they excel at, it's what sports are emphasized on televitz. Whites have on average, greater upper body strength and greater long term running endurance than all but narrow breeds of Kenyan peoples. There are an awful lots of sports dominated exclusively by whites but they don't get airtime or sponsorship.

While boxing gets worldwide coverage (highly specialized sport with rules slanted to favor black genes in all regards) nobody ever covers ultimate fighting, which tends to be dominated by whites without exception. Forcing white men to fight black men by punching them in the head is a rigged game. It is not an equal contest in any regard.

[freeman]

Game development? You must be crazy. There are about as many black game developers as there are black French poetry analysts.

If you reread my question, I was specifically referring to their superiority to you. I can think of at least two black game developers who have finished several games each. And I'm not talking about internet casino games, either. I'm just saying is all.

It's not a question of what sports they excel at, it's what sports are emphasized on televitz. Whites have on average, greater upper body strength and greater long term running endurance than all but narrow breeds of Kenyan peoples. There are an awful lots of sports dominated exclusively by whites but they don't get airtime or sponsorship.

Like golf and tennis?

While boxing gets worldwide coverage (highly specialized sport with rules slanted to favor black genes in all regards) nobody ever covers ultimate fighting, which tends to be dominated by whites without exception.

I wish we had .sig files. This is the most moronic statement I have ever read. Ultimate fighting? You are awesome. Plz. don't ever leave us again.

[Gary Whitta]

The other homeys were hooting and shrieking with excitement and anger that "dat demm stopwatch be racially profiling de brudders. Dat be whitey's trip, dem time concepts and what-not. De brudder finish second, sho, but he be stylin' with de flair. We be bringin' de case fo discrimonatin' and gettin' de repamarations."


Ban this toad.

[Cleve Blakemore]

The other homeys were hooting and shrieking with excitement and anger that "dat demm stopwatch be racially profiling de brudders. Dat be whitey's trip, dem time concepts and what-not. De brudder finish second, sho, but he be stylin' with de flair. We be bringin' de case fo discrimonatin' and gettin' de repamarations."


Ban this toad.

Gary, just drop to your knees and squeal like Ned Beatty in the love scene from Deliverance. Don't leave any lingering doubts about your sexuality, please, there might still be a few lurkers who are not convinced of your full-fledged hummitude. If there is anybody left out there who harbors the slightest confusion, please help clear it up. Then go take a break and make yourself a delicious man-goo smoothie.

[hermyhermit]

Ban this toad.

Why don't we ban you instead you fucking liberal cry baby.

Don't read the thread if it offends you, if you are that easily offended perhaps some Self Affirmation tapes may be in order? You seem to be a very delicate little flower. I had a few girlfriends like that.

[freeman]

Cleve's obsession with masculinity and homosexuality has become more transparent than the silk nighty he wears when the door is locked tight and his package is tucked firmly between his thighs. I can almost see him blowing kisses to himself in a mirror and whispering "I'd fuck me. Oh, I'd fuck me good!"

We should all try to be more masculine, like Cleve. And these guys:

http://www.gaybarcelona.net/personajes/tom/t28.jpg

[Captain Cookiepants]

Tell me something Cleve: when's the last time you waddled out of your filthy hole and actually talked to, let alone seen a black man? I really do want to know just how much experience and worldly knowledge you have. Name for me the places you've lived and just how many black men and women in what fields of study you've met.
Also riddle me this rimjobber: where's the huge list of other universal geniuses who back you up? When's Steven Hawking ever said 'Kill dem niggers' in his cyborg voice? Where the article Savant did on how worthless black people are? Why is it that ALL racists are complete r-tards with low breeding and less teeth then 'thumb-by bones'?
Oh I forgot, MENSA came out with a statement but the Jew media covered it up.
And one last question: why do you only respond to my posts with gibberish and random fat rage? Everyone else ranks an uber-witty 'I'll enjoy seeing your flaming corpse' or a hella-original 'yawn', but not me.
And to beat Hermit to the punch: liberal liberal liberal liberal. Remember Hermy: being original hurts, best to say the same fucking thing over and over again.

[Gary Whitta]

Why don't we ban you instead you fucking liberal cry baby.

Don't read the thread if it offends you, if you are that easily offended perhaps some Self Affirmation tapes may be in order? You seem to be a very delicate little flower. I had a few girlfriends like that.

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz...

[Cleve Blakemore]

Tell me something Cleve: when's the last time you waddled out of your filthy hole and actually talked to, let alone seen a black man? I really do want to know just how much experience and worldly knowledge you have. Name for me the places you've lived and just how many black men and women in what fields of study you've met.
Also riddle me this rimjobber: where's the huge list of other universal geniuses who back you up? When's Steven Hawking ever said 'Kill dem niggers' in his cyborg voice? Where the article Savant did on how worthless black people are? Why is it that ALL racists are complete r-tards with low breeding and less teeth then 'thumb-by bones'?
Oh I forgot, MENSA came out with a statement but the Jew media covered it up.
And one last question: why do you only respond to my posts with gibberish and random fat rage? Everyone else ranks an uber-witty 'I'll enjoy seeing your flaming corpse' or a hella-original 'yawn', but not me.
And to beat Hermit to the punch: liberal liberal liberal liberal. Remember Hermy: being original hurts, best to say the same fucking thing over and over again.

Cookiepants, nearly every nobel prize winner from William Shockley to Albert Schweitzer to Linus Pauling has commented on the absolute irrationality of racial egalitarianism. I'm not going to try to fill in the blanks of your Oxford education going back to the 1800's victorian era. As for all racists being redneck illiterates, well unfortunately for you several recent liberals in the popular press have conceded that white nationalists clearly tend to be high IQ, middle class working professionals, mostly technical and engineering type people with real jobs. Just because Jerry Springer rolls out his Nazi mental patient on a weekly basis does not anything approximating reality make.

The really funny part of your post was the first part. Straight up Oxford gayboy line of questioning.

I served in the Army for four and a half years where I was a minority amongst black soldiers for that entire time. I bunked, ate, served, worked and slept less than three feet from black soldiers during that entire four years and of course as statistics clearly demonstrate time and time again, the hardest of hardcore racists are produced in direct proportion to proximity with blacks. As you move farther out into crackerland far from black living space into mallworld where most white people think Morgan Freeman is a typical black guy, racism decreases to the extent people are only exposed to blacks on the televitz conditioning device.

After leaving the army in '85 I moved to New York and worked, lived and dealt on a daily basis with thousands of black people as part of my job as Senior Systems controller at STREET NEWS, a paper published for homeless people in New York. I know everything there is to know about black people, they don't have any secrets from me. I spoke to them, negotiated with them, helped them get medical assistance, housing, drug counseling on a 24/7 basis, so thick in the black man's world I was having trouble breathing. I'm probably the only white person you have ever known who has worked in Harlem on a daily basis via the subway when I managed the distribution center up there.

When I was in the military I saw how blacks live off-duty and what they do with their minds and their time. Suffice it to say, I have more respect for caged zoo animals. The blacks that I have known in my life were largely occupied with three primary goals in life : loose shoes, tight p***y and a warm place to s**t. I've seen dogs with more complicated psyches and a nobler spirit. I have eavesdropped on their conversations when they grew so accustomed to me they phased me out. When I was pretending to fold socks in the barracks, I have overheard them talking for hours about the bitches they are going to rape, the enemies they are going to shoot and the wickedness they are going to work on a daily basis. It can honestly be said of them they never truly rest ... like the devil in the story of Job, passing up and down in the Earth always seeking some other hideously evil deeds to perpetrate on the world, each more horrific and grotesque than the last. The black man is truly bestial in nature, his heart always set on some thick numb evil he is going to do, his mind insensible and ruthless, bereft of conscience or guilt for anything he might do.

[freeman]

You should Ultimate Fight those assholes.

[Gary Whitta]

The black man is truly bestial in nature, his heart always set on some thick numb evil he is going to do, his mind insensible and ruthless, bereft of conscience or guilt for anything he might do.

Surely, SURELY this post signals the end of Blakemore's reign of madness on QT3?

How can this be allowed to go on?

[Captain Cookiepants]

Oh sorry Cleve, I should have specified that I will be requiring reputable links to any claimns you make. Oddly enough I don't take the word of fat fuck racists. So unless you can provide a link, it doesn't exist. KTHX.

You ever think that maybe you were in the fuck up platoon? Cause I'm gonna go out on a limb and state that Collin Powell might have more on his mind then words you're so adowably too shy to say (you want me to get Fruedian on that little slip of yours Cleve? Mommy spank you too hard and it turns out you liked it Cleve?)
So to recap your arguments: 'Trrruuusssttt me, this has been said, and I was in the fuck-up unit until the Army's free donut policy was revoked.'
Oh also: 'The best job I could get was at a newspaper for the homeless, they have no secrets from my amazing mind taking abilities...NO SECRETS!!!!'
Jesus Cleve, you just shit yourself on that one.

[Cleve Blakemore]

Hmmm.

How do you post a counter argument to direct human experience?

You can't. You could argue some crazy notion, like your sense of reality is skewed, you should trust mine which was honed in the basket weaving halls of iron at Oxford ... etc. etc. or maybe it was just THAT PARTICULAR group of bonobos you encountered that were DD40 drinking serial rapists.

Cookiepants, I'd be what some might call a man's man. I doubt if somebody would mistake you even for a man. In addition to being a working class intellectual who has dug ditches and built fire positions for years on end, I'm somebody who has been away from his parent's house for longer than a one hour trip to 7-11 to stock up on snacks.

There's probably about 4 guys in the history of the U.S. Army who have entered field artillery with IQs of 158 Stanford Binet, I'm one of them. I was uniquely qualified to learn from that kind of close proximity to blacks for that long, but hardly the only one to learn something from it.

As I said before, statistics indicate that all the evil haters you speak of are people who have had the misfortune to actually dwell in close cohabitation for any length of time with our enricher friends. That's their real sin, they were involuntarily unhooked from the Matrix for a while.

Gary Whitta, you're a joke. One more shrill squeal of indignation from you is one too many. "He thaid the evilth thingth! Banth himth! Banth himth!"

[freeman]

I'd be what some might call a man's man.

I've called you that twice now.

[Gary Whitta]

I'd be what some might call a man's man.

Doesn't take too much to read between the lines and figure out what that means. It must get lonely out there in the deep dark Outback, where the men are men and so are the women.

My guess is Cleve got gang-banged by a bunch of black guys in his unit of elite fuck-ups, which is (a) what has turned him gay, and (b) resentful of blacks because of it.

When you look at it that way, suddenly everything he says makes perfect sense. Which is a miracle, really.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, god. An item of note: those sold into slavery were almost entirely captured in raids by other tribes; needless to say, they probably weren't able to round up the best and brightest.

Thanks boy wonder, I'm well aware of where the bulk of the "material" came from, but you think all the good ones got away? Sophmoric. Of course, there would be some good picks and the best ones were chosen time and again so the genetic selection took hold. This isn't news.

In other words, I'm right that the initial selection "stock" was pretty cruddy from a physical standpoint, and you're doing the la-la-la thing.

[Jason McCullough]

The black man is truly bestial in nature, his heart always set on some thick numb evil he is going to do, his mind insensible and ruthless, bereft of conscience or guilt for anything he might do.

Surely, SURELY this post signals the end of Blakemore's reign of madness on QT3?

How can this be allowed to go on?

Yeah, if anything's going to do it.

Cookiepants, nearly every nobel prize winner from William Shockley to Albert Schweitzer to Linus Pauling has commented on the absolute irrationality of racial egalitarianism.

This is hilarious on so many levels.....

[freeman]

Cleve notes:

For those just tuning in, here is a quick summary of what Cleve has revealed, over several threads, in the last few hours:

Despite his enormous brain, he was placed in some sort of retard unit in the US Army. His time in the short-barracks gave him a secret key, a Rosetta Stone if you will, that granted him understanding of the black man's mind and actions. Many indisputable truths were revealed to Cleve. Among them: The black man wants to rape and kill, and is bad at Ultimate Fighting.

But Cleve's big brain was tormented. As he carefully studied the black man's actions, in particular a drunken, late night rendezvous involving a penis and a mouth, he noticed a peculiar physical sensation - his pants grew uncomfortably tight. "What is this strange manifestation on my manhood?" He asked himself? Cleve thought he had overcome the strange emotions after besting his fellow soldiers on the monkey bars. But still the boners continued, and his fellow soldiers continued to exclude him from their reindeer games.

His understanding of "The Black Man's World" was only deepened by his time working with the homeless. (As studies have shown, all black men are either homeless or lived in Cleve's barracks). These dirty, outcast men did not arouse the same feelings in Cleve that his muscular, gay-sex engaging bunkmates had. He knew he had the problem licked, but moved far away from the black man, to the Australian outback, just to be sure.

Now Cleve has found a cure for his boners. He posts angry, ill-informed missives on computer game message boards. Or he works out. Because, as everyone knows, gay men totally hate working out. Cleve is not gay. He is "a man's man."

[bmulligan]

It can honestly be said of them they never truly rest ... like the devil in the story of Job, passing up and down in the Earth always seeking some other hideously evil deeds to perpetrate on the world, each more horrific and grotesque than the last. The black man is truly bestial in nature, his heart always set on some thick numb evil he is going to do, his mind insensible and ruthless, bereft of conscience or guilt for anything he might do.

You can't be serious......all this based on skin color? Surly you must be generalizing about particualr 'cultural' groups rather than blanketing all blacks with your statements. I know whites who are just as beastial, just as perverse, just as inhuman.

I have friends who are black, hispanic, arab, jew, who are my brothers in spirit, because we share the same philosophy. I fail to see how skin color can be the determining factor for behavior when it's thought that drives behavior.

[mtkafka]

Its possible he really might be a repressed homosexual. It's kind of sad he hasn't accepted it yet. Cleve, its okay to be gay.

etc

[Cleve Blakemore]

It can honestly be said of them they never truly rest ... like the devil in the story of Job, passing up and down in the Earth always seeking some other hideously evil deeds to perpetrate on the world, each more horrific and grotesque than the last. The black man is truly bestial in nature, his heart always set on some thick numb evil he is going to do, his mind insensible and ruthless, bereft of conscience or guilt for anything he might do.

You can't be serious......all this based on skin color? Surly you must be generalizing about particualr 'cultural' groups rather than blanketing all blacks with your statements. I know whites who are just as beastial, just as perverse, just as inhuman.

I have friends who are black, hispanic, arab, jew, who are my brothers in spirit, because we share the same philosophy. I fail to see how skin color can be the determining factor for behavior when it's thought that drives behavior.

Genes determine behaviour. "Culture" is simply what pours out of the groove that is cut by genes. Genes determine intelligence, personality, general problem solving ability, appearance and potential.\

Neurologically speaking, thoughts themselves are prime motivators of nothing. They are echoes of processes that take place in the subconscious. Studies have shown that the conscious thought to do something almost always trails the biological initiation of the action itself.

Logic is much overrated and generally the last refuge of a scoundrel. Anybody who pretends mankind is motivated by logic in their activities doesn't understand logic or mankind.

[Cleve Blakemore]

William Shockley

William Bradford Shockley, who was born on Feb. 13, 1910, and died August 12, 1989, belongs in our pantheon of saints because, with the invention of the transistor, he made electro-space possible. Before the transistor, computers filled huge, refrigerated rooms -- frosted to keep cool all the thousands of hot vacuum tubes needed to keep them humming along. Before the transistor, Arthur C. ClarkeÕs geosynchronous communication satellite, running on vacuum tubes, was simply an impossible dream. That satellite, filled with millions of vacuum tubes (and dozens engineers to replace them as they burned out) would have been as big as Manhattan Island.

Shockley got his undergraduate degree from CalTech in 1932, and his Ph.D. four years later at MIT. Then he went to work at Bell Labs. A little more than a decade later, he and two colleagues, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain, came up with the transistor. It was a piece of gold foil wrapped around a plastic knife, pressed against a block of germanium that had an electrical connection at its base. Their device was primitive, but they had invented a new, immensely more efficient kind of valve to let electricity flow, or not flow, and amplify it. Now a great deal of the worldÕs work could, and would, be done -- at the speed of light.

Now, very large numbers of transistors and their accompanying circuitry can be built on to a small chip cut from a thin wafer of silicon, to form an integrated circuit. In 1986, electronic engineers could put as many as one million transistors on one chip. Today, they have succeeded in upping that number to almost one billion. The amazing thing is that chips are made, mainly, of silicon, the most common element on the earthÕs crust.

Bill Shockley didn't remain at Bell Labs. As he and his colleagues were winning a Nobel Prize for their discovery (they shared the $38,633 prize money), Shockley went west, to set up a semi-conductor lab at Beckman Instruments, and, then, his own Shockley Transistor Co. He began lecturing at Stanford in 1958, and went on to do a great deal of original research in electronics and allied fields. He still holds some 90 patents.

Then, in 1973, Shockley shifted gears. He entered the field of eugenics -- specifically the relationship between race and IQ. Blacks, he pointed out, consistently score 10 to 20 points lower on their IQ tests than whites do. Critics leaped to attack him. First, they said, IQ tests are "culturally loaded." Second, even in "culture-free" tests, the lower black scores are explainable in terms of the black environment. And third, dissemination of these notions give aid and comfort to bigots everywhere.

The problems were not scientific, of course, but political. Shockley went beyond his scientific findings to suggest practical conclusions not directly deducible from his data. He said, for example, that society should sterilize those with low intelligence.

At Stanford, Shockley was burned in effigy, his Lincoln spray-painted, his classes disrupted by demonstrators dressed in bed sheets. For seven years, colleagues from his own National Academy of Sciences tabled his requests for a hearing, then, sidestepping the cow pies of controversy, encouraged him to publish his findings in scientific journals, and make them subject to peer review.

Shockley did go on to publish. No one was able to refute his science. Public opinion? The conventional wisdom came down to this: so what, if blacks score lower on IQ tests? IQ isn't everything. There are other norms -- of intelligence, of creativity, of service, of simple humanity. All human blood runs red. And the electron is color blind.

(My dog's blood is red, too. Reparamations for canines, now!)

[Cleve Blakemore]

"I have given my life to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There is something that all white men who have lived here, must learn and know; that these individuals are a sub-race; they have neither the intellectual , mental or emotional abilities to equate or share in any of the functions of our civilisation.

"I have given my life to try to bring unto them the advantages which our civilisation must offer, but I have become well aware that we must retain this status; white, the superior, and they the inferior; for whenever a white man seeks to live among them as their equal, they will either destroy him or devour him, and they will destroy all his work; and so for any existing relationship or for any benefit to this people let white men from anywhere in the world who would come to help Africa remember that you must continually retain this status; you the master, and they the inferior, like children that you would help or teach. Never fraternise with them as equals, never accept them as your social equals ; or they will devour you; they will destroy you."

- Dr. Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Prize for peace, in his 1961 book, From My African Notebook.

(Another evil hater!)

[Cleve Blakemore]

I like people. I like animals, too -- whales and quail, dinosaurs and dodos. But I like human beings especially, and I am unhappy that the pool of human germ plasm, which determines the nature of the human race, is deteriorating.

- Linus Pauling

(on and on, ad nauseum, you want me to list all European geniuses going back to 1000 A.D. ... um, no I can't because its a waste of time)

[The Narrator]

His heterosexuality questioned, Cleve retreated into posting large chunks of outdated science as an attempt to deflect the attention away from his lust for the black man. Soon, he would be sobbing uncontrollably at his desk, his head cradled on his flabby arms. Within weeks, Cleve would lose interest in everything, even his two favorite pasttimes: moderating the temperature on the air conditioning unit and cooking rats.

[Cleve Blakemore]

My "flabby arms!" Dude, my 19 1/4 inch guns could probably stop an RPG shell when they're not curling 160 KG on the Nautilus Biceps Machine. I could literally crush your skull like a walnut in the crook of my elbow with the slightest exertion.

[hermyhermit]

Cleve paints with too broad a brush, I agree with that.

"All blacks are this.." "All Jews are this..."

I do not follow that line of reasoning. I cannot because I work with many black people everyday that simply break that stereotype completely. (Yes Cookiepants, I unlike you work in "Da Hood", you just read about it sitting on your fat white ass in your safe Crackerville, US residence.)

However, that being said, I think the liberal slant of this board which seems to be the majority simply has a hard time understanding the reality of the situation. You see things packaged up all nice for you on television. You see the token black guy in your crackerland neighborhood with his blonde wife and wave to him every morning thinking, "Gee what a friendly fellow!".

He isn't the norm. He is far from it, especially the deeper you get in the city. Fuck, the BLACK people I work with hate black people too in some ways. Much in the same way they are trying to teach whites self-hatred now the blacks already harbor much of this and I cannot blame them. But the truth of the matter is when you simply cannot know just by looking but statistically the odds are in favor of the person you are looking at being criminally minded, its makes it difficult.


I pity the officers I work with because of this but they themselves will admit that as a people they are very broken on a number of levels.

Come walk in my shoes for one week and you will be running home pissing down your leg, but someone has to do the job so fat white people like you can stay safe and wave to your token black neighbors smiling and thinking happy thoughts. If it wouldn't get me instantly fired I'd bring my digital camera in here and out with me and show you all the happy noble black men I deal with on a daily basis. Hell, I'd love to get some recordings of the things they have to say about all you friendly white liberal types. Your wives are of particular interest to them. No, not all black people are bad and violent. But a whole fuck of alot are, a disproportionately large amount. And even black people who have their heads screwed on straight will tell you this.

Want to see what I see every day my little liberal Crackerville, US friends? This guy who was a reporter and went on police ridealongs says it better than I could, read:


http://www.fredoneverything.net/Underclass.shtml

[Gary Whitta]

My "flabby arms!" Dude, my 19 1/4 inch guns could probably stop an RPG shell when they're not curling 160 KG on the Nautilus Biceps Machine. I could literally crush your skull like a walnut in the crook of my elbow with the slightest exertion.

...and thus, by working out 16 hours a day to increase his physical strength to its absolute maximum, Cleve ensured that he'd be ready the next time a half-dozen black guys tried to hold him down and take turns. Yeah, he'd make damn sure THAT never happened again.

[The Narrator]

Cleve brustles when his man-guns are called into question, forgetting that with a quick Google image search, any of the board's resident "girly mens" could easily see that he is, indeed, a tub of goo.

[Cleve Blakemore]

I've known enrichers who were decent, intelligent people. Almost average intelligence and in some cases perhaps above average.

This has nothing to do with anything. It proves their Bell Curve intersects ours - great, let's see them build a civilization like our own back in the mother country. I can see the way-cool latinos discussing the virtues of proxy networks over a Tab in the coffee rooms of Mexico City right now, just one headstart program away from utopia. What's stopping them?

What is so magic about the soil in North America, Australia and Europe that enrichers sneak themselves into cargo containers to get here by any means possible? Is there a good mojo in the soils where whitey stands and a bad mojo at home?

Explain. You're all full of crap to the gills.

[The Narrator]

HermyHermit became increasingly aware that his mentor and idol, the genius Cleve Blakemore, was not only gay, but possibly kidding. Terrified, he tried to distance himself from his earlier diatribes, admitting that there were "good jews" and, possibly, "good blacks." He was not, however, able to come up with a better term than "Crackerville, US," and was sadly forced to use it twice in one post.

[Cleve Blakemore]

Cleve brustles when his man-guns are called into question, forgetting that with a quick Google image search, any of the board's resident "girly mens" could easily see that he is, indeed, a tub of goo.

You're insane, dude. I'm a hefty lad but that ain't no goo you're looking at there. That's thick, knotted cords of superdense muscle that border on comical overdevelopment sans steroids.

I'll have to post some digital photos on VaultCo showing me training in the gym. I think in a pair of shorts and a tee-shirt it would suddenly hit you that I'm actually so overdeveloped it borders on ridiculous.

I max the stack for 14 reps for every single Eagle Cybex machine in the gym, hack squat 620 kgs and incline press around 140 kg all for 12 reps or better. You don't get that way from sitting around in front of your keyboard masturbating and surfing like you fellas.

[The Narrator]

Cleve continued arguing with what was, at its core, a lame literary device that was solely intended for humor purposes. But the diameter of his biceps could not remain in doubt. Angered to the point of abandoning his trademarked, thesaurus-dependent accusations of homosexuality, Cleve resorted to calling The Narrator "dude." He then flexed his arms repeatedly, trying to catch a glimpse of their magnitude in the glass of his monitor. "I am strong," he said, soothingly to himself. "I am strong like the mighty oak." Somewhat reassured, he leaned back and enjoyed a creatine shake, and jacked off three consecutive times to pictures of Jason Hall.

[hermyhermit]

admitting that there were "good jews"


Better recheck your source material there fucknut. I never *once* commented on Jews, that was all you dripping liberal pussies who jumped in with the Jew comments revealing that you TOO paint with the broadest of brush strokes just like your friend Cleve does.

(Said in whiny liltling liberal tone)"Hermy said Bad Things(tm) about blacks, he hates JEWS TOO!"

Irony tastes good doesn't it?

[Cleve Blakemore]

You're a fuggin' idiot, tiny lad. I guess I'll have supplant my usual modesty and post some digital photos of my ginormous comic book physique up here.

A single well placed blow to your thin-shelled cashew nut skull from one of my beefy mitts would convert your head to a fine puree gray paste splattered liberally on the surrounding furniture. It would be like a fully loaded moving van hitting a balloon full of soup broth at 90 miles an hour.

Jason Hall is the stringiest gay pinup model I've ever seen. His homo muscles would look great plastered over the cover of a jerk-off rag like Men's Fitness but I'm afraid this diminutive shrew would not last 30 seconds in the gym with myself and the other biologically normal men I train with. Poor Jason's stringy salted leather calves look like all the rage in Ethiopian famine-stricken regions. I've seen Welsh chickens with thicker leg muscles. All form, no content.

[bmulligan]

Logic is much overrated and generally the last refuge of a scoundrel. Anybody who pretends mankind is motivated by logic in their activities doesn't understand logic or mankind.

Brilliant, Cleve, you can transcend logic. How infinite in faculty. In apprehension how like a god !


I fail to see the logic in your argument. You base your opinions on the logical conclusions of your experiences. You quote the findings of scientists who use logic to draw their conclusions. You use logic to concoct your timeline. Or am I wrong? Perhaps you have simply transcribed the genetic outline of the universe and are simply showing us a small portion of its secrets.

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

I served in the Army for four and a half years where I was a minority amongst black soldiers for that entire time...

Wow, that was a really interesting biographical story, Cleve.

Have you had any experiences with Jews? Love to hear about it...

[Jason McCullough]

"Hey, I invented a transistor! I'll bet I'm good at sociology too!"

[The Narrator]

HermyHermit, backed into a corner, forgets what "irony" means, and proceeds to once again prove himself to be, not only more ignorant than Cleve, but far less entertaining.

[Cleve Blakemore]

Logic is much overrated and generally the last refuge of a scoundrel. Anybody who pretends mankind is motivated by logic in their activities doesn't understand logic or mankind.

Brilliant, Cleve, you can transcend logic. How infinite in faculty. In apprehension how like a god !


I fail to see the logic in your argument. You base your opinions on the logical conclusions of your experiences. You quote the findings of scientists who use logic to draw their conclusions. You use logic to concoct your timeline. Or am I wrong? Perhaps you have simply transcribed the genetic outline of the universe and are simply showing us a small portion of its secrets.

Ever notice how multiculturalism and Marxism have been unopposed successfully using logic the past twenty years? All the logical arguments in the world have not made the slightest dents on this nutty whacky toxic ideology's inroads into our culture.

Reading the Bill Shockley mini-bio, notice how Shockley consistently lost arguments with detractors who appealed to emotion and ridicule whereas Bill wasted time trying to reason with them?

Like I said, logic is obviously the resort of the weak and powerless. The Bolshevists conquered Russia with gibberish and propaganda, not logic. Logic is largely ineffectual when emotional appeals are made to the mob. Only the smallest minority of mankind has the patience to listen to logical arguments and that is why they always fail to check subversion which proceeds apace through sheer quantity of confusing and self-contradictory ideas. The common man wants to hear slogans, not ideas. Poor Bill Shockley was wasting his time.

[The Narrator]

Cleve recovered from his anger at The Narrator, and took a moment to inform the board that his homosexual fantasies did not include Jason Hall. As a display of his "usual modesty," however, he did not name names regarding the true object of his male lust. That would remain a secret, he thought, and a little smile crawled across face as he remembered the shadowy barracks of his youth, and a Gonorrhea-laced bullet dodged only by the location of his bunk.

[bmulligan]

Logic may be ignored by the weak but they are inevitably controlled by it.
Their masters use it deftly to heard them into submission as you have repeatedly described.

[Cleve Blakemore]

Cleve recovered from his anger at The Narrator, and took a moment to inform the board that his homosexual fantasies did not include Jason Hall. As a display of his "usual modesty," however, he did not name names regarding the true object of his male lust. That would remain a secret, he thought, and a little smile crawled across face as he remembered the shadowy barracks of his youth, and a Gonorrhea-laced bullet dodged only by the location of his bunk.

I actually refused to bunk with diversity pals because I lived in terror of the sheer mass of trailing ear-mites, crotch-worms and boody bugs that followed same. Reality is a racial profiler!

I think the Sergeant Major ordered one guy's linen BURNED, not just washed, so lice-ridden he of the bronzed burrhead was. They had guys with flamethrowers destroy it in a saferoom. Apparently this young enricher lad had neglected to choose carefully from among the available hos and contracted a testicle termite so vociferous it could only be eliminated by fire like a medieval curse.

[hermyhermit]

Here is another gem for your liberal types.

Get those wallets open!

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Slavery.shtml

[Gary Whitta]

Here is another gem for your liberal types.

Get those wallets open!

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Slavery.shtml

Why do all your links come from the same site? And why does that guy look exactly like Max Hardcore?

[hermyhermit]

Here is another gem for your liberal types.

Get those wallets open!

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Slavery.shtml

Why do all your links come from the same site? And why does that guy look exactly like Max Hardcore?


The links are of no concern to you. You are one of the most flaming liberals on this board. I was refering to maybe the more moderates that still have a chance to be saved. Were you to even CLICK on that link, much less try to interpret the rationale argument and logic contained within you would probably spontaneously combust. I recommend you steer clear of most of what that man is saying in his various columns.

[Gary Whitta]

The links are of no concern to you. You are one of the most flaming liberals on this board. I was refering to maybe the more moderates that still have a chance to be saved. Were you to even CLICK on that link, much less try to interpret the rationale argument and logic contained within you would probably spontaneously combust. I recommend you steer clear of most of what that man is saying in his various columns.

I did click on the link. I didn't spontaneously combust, but I am now wondering why one of the greatest pioneers of anal pornography of the last decade is moonlighting as a radical social commentator.

[Cleve Blakemore]

Fred is brilliant. I'd trade his homespun, simple unpretentious writing for a thousand libraries filled with academic gibberish.

[The Narrator]

HermyHermit, upset that yet another of his idols was outted in the very same thread that toppled the mighty Cleve, was so incensed he failed to notice that he called Gary Whitta a "flaming liberal" before threatening that Mr. Whitta, already metaphorically ablaze, would "spontaneously combust." In this manner, HermyHermit pioneered a literary device that would come to be known as "the redundant and self-negating metaphor."

[Captain Cookiepants]

My "flabby arms!" Dude, my 19 1/4 inch guns could probably stop an RPG shell when they're not curling 160 KG on the Nautilus Biceps Machine. I could literally crush your skull like a walnut in the crook of my elbow with the slightest exertion.
So did you get that in the fuck-up unit in the army Clevey? Was General mommy around enough to make sure you did plenty of push ups before you got your daily juice box and anal raping?
And no Cleve, no one wants you to keep going back over all the geniuses dating backwards, we would like you to name one not born while Africa was a dark spot on a map with 'Here there be monfterf' written in blood on the back of a dead Dutchman.
And again, no one is taking a deluded fat fuck-up's word, so link please.

[The Narrator]

Captain Cookiepants put the finishing touches on his retort, assuming that the scathing wit of his words would be enough to offset his lack of efficient line breaks or his inclusion of a Cleve quote that had any relevance whatsoever to his own post. His assumption was incorrect. Luckily for the Captain, the common cliche that begins "when you assume..." didn't apply in this instance, though it would have if the word was simply "assu."