September 18, 2019, 10:31:27 PM
Login with username, password and session length
Members Latest Member:
Most online today:
(July 03, 2005, 06:25:30 PM)
Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum
Essays and Reasonings
Topic: room 101 (Read 99308 times)
Re: room 101
Reply #15 on:
February 28, 2005, 09:35:18 PM »
the german invention of race
Reply #16 on:
March 03, 2005, 11:14:10 AM »
. . . Ancient Indian Conquest told in Modern Genes *LINK*
Posted By: three_sixty
Date: Tuesday, 1 March 2005, at 3:53 p.m.
In Response To: Re: THE GERMAN INVENTION OF RACE (seshatasefekht)
San Francisco Chronicle, 26 May, 1999
History of Ancient Indian Conquest Told in Modern Genes, Experts Say
Robert Cooke, Newsday
Like an indelible signature enduring through a hundred generations, genes that entered India when conquering hordes swooped down from the north thousands of years ago are still there, and remain entrenched at the top of the caste system, scientists report. Analyses of the male Y chromosome, plus genes hidden in small cellular bodies called mitochondria, show that today's genetic patterns agree with accounts of ancient Indo-European warriors' conquering the Indian subcontinent.
The invaders apparently shoved the local men aside, took their women and set up the rigid caste system that exists today. Their descendants are still the elite within Hindu society.
Thus today's genetic patterns, the researchers explained, vividly reflect a historic event, or events, that occurred 3,000 or 4,000 years ago. The gene patterns ``are consistent with a historical scenario in which invading Caucasoids -- primarily males -- established the caste system and occupied the highest positions, placing the indigenous population, who were more similar to Asians, in lower caste positions.''
The researchers, from the University of Utah and Andhra Pradesh University in India, used two sets of genes in their analyses.
One set, from the mitochondria, are only passed maternally and can be used to track female inheritance. The other, on the male-determining Y chromosome, can only be passed along paternally and thus track male inheritance.
The data imply, then, ``that there was a group of males with European affinities who were largely responsible for this invasion 3,000 or 4,000 years ago,'' said geneticist Lynn Jorde of the University of Utah.
If women had accompanied the invaders, he said, the evidence should be seen in the mitochondrial genes, but it is not evident.
According to geneticist Douglas Wallace of Emory University in Atlanta, the work reported by Jorde and his colleagues ``is very interesting, and is certainly worth further study.''
Along with Jorde, the research team included Michael Bamshad, W.S. Watkins and M.E. Dixon from Utah and B.B. Rao, B.V.R. Prasad and J.M. Naidu, from Andhra Pradesh University.
UPWARDLY MOBILE WOMEN
By studying both sets of genetic markers, the research team found clear evidence echoing what is still seen socially, that women can be upwardly mobile, in terms of caste, if they marry higher-caste men. In contrast, men generally do not move higher, because women rarely marry men from lower castes, the researchers said.
``Our expectations in this natural experiment are borne out when we look at the genes,'' said Jorde. ``It's one of the few cases where we know the mating situation in a population for 150 generations. So it's kind of a test for how well the genes reflect a population's history.''
The ancient story holds that invaders known as Indo-Europeans, or true Aryans, came from Eastern Europe or western Asia and conquered the Indian subcontinent. The people they subdued descended from the original inhabitants who had arrived far earlier from Africa and from other parts of Asia.
During the genetic studies, in 1996 and 1997, researchers took blood samples from hundreds of people in southern India. The analyses compared the genes from 316 caste members and 330 members of tribal populations, looking for signs of Asian, European and African ancestry.
In the mitochondrial genes passed along by females, Jorde said, they could see the clear background of Asian genes. ``All of the caste groups were similar to Asians, the underlying population'' that had originally been subdued.
But, he added, ``when we look at the Y chromosome DNA, we see a very different pattern. The lower castes are most similar to Asians, and the upper castes are more European than Asian.''
Further, ``when we look at the different components within the upper caste, the group with the greatest European similarity of all is the warrior class, the Kshatriya, who are still at the top of the Hindu castes, with the Brahmins,'' Jorde said.
``But the Brahmins, in terms of their Y chromosomes, are a little bit more Asian.''
So the genetic results are ``consistent with historical accounts that women sometimes marry into higher caste, resulting in female gene flow between adjacent castes. In contrast, males seldom change castes, so Y chromosome'' variation occurs only as a result of natural mutations, Jorde said.
CASTE SYSTEM STILL ALIVE
He added that even though India's ancient caste system was abolished legally in the 1960s, it is still entrenched socially.
``People are very well aware of their caste membership,'' he said, noting that in some cities the housing is still arranged along caste lines. So ``one might argue, unfortunately so, that it (the caste system) does exist in people's minds.''
In terms of who marries whom, the researchers described the Hindu caste system as ``governing the mating practices of nearly one-sixth of the world's population.''
The blood samples taken from tribal people in southern India are still being analyzed, Jorde added.
But so far, ``the tribal populations are more similar to the lower castes than to anyone else, similar to the original residents of India,'' he said.
Reply #17 on:
March 03, 2005, 11:18:53 AM »
Bible of Aryan Invasions *LINK*
Posted By: three_sixty
Date: Thursday, 3 March 2005, at 11:10 a.m.
In Response To: Re: racism: who has the right to define 'racism' (livelyup)
Bible of Aryan Invasions
Aryan Invasions & Genocide of Negroes, Semites & Mongols
The Bible of Aryan Invasions, Vol. I
by Prof. Uthaya Naidu
The discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization in the 1920s brought to light a suppressed chapter of Indian history, namely the large-scale destruction and genocide perpetrated over 1000 years by the Aryan invaders on indigenous Negroid Sudras, Mongoloids and Semites. However, this episode is blatantly denied by the Brahmin-controlled press of India, which propagates highly distorted versions of history, and even goes to the extent of denying that any genocide took place. Such distortion of history leads to the continuation of crimes against humanity; the massacre of Sudroid Tamils in Sri Lanka by Aryan Buddhists and the genocide of Dalits by the Brahmanist Republic of India after 1947 are merely consequences of the negationist mindset. In order to comprehend current Caucasoid-Negroid conflicts in South Asia, it is necessary to comprehend the full history of the engagement. In order to solve the current Arya-Sudra problem in India a clear unbiased understanding of history is required. This book seeks to address some of these concerns, and hopes to provide a factual account of atrocities perpetrated by the Aryan invaders.
This book demonstrates that the Aryan invasions were the most severe catastrophe to afflict the Indian subcontinent. In fact, several Holocausts occurred during this period :
The Semitic Holocaust - This refers to the annihilation of the Indic Semitic peoples comprising the Indo-Assyrians (`Asuras') and the Indo-Pheonicians (`Pnais').
The Sudra Holocaust - By far the most severe Holocaust was that inflicted upon the Sudra Negroids, who were exterminated from all of North India. Under the impact of the Aryan invasions, the Sudroid race broke up into the disparate units of Dravidians, Kolarians, Dalits and Adivasis. The Dravidian Brahui isolate surviving in Baluchistan is an extremely northern isolate of the ancient Sudric stock.
The Naga Holocaust - The Indo-Mongoloid populations of Eastern India were also massacered during the Later Aryan invasions in what is referred to as the Naga or Kirata holocaust.
The behaviour pattern of the invaders was not limited to slaughter during war-times, but embraced the large-scale persecution of indigenous populations. There were several aspects to the invasions, which were as follows :
Mass slaughter of non-Aryans not only during war but also during peacetime.
Establishment of the Vedic Apartheid (`caturvarna') System based on varna (race, or skin colour).
Vedic human sacrifice (`purushamedha') of large numbers of non-Aryans by Vedic Brahmins.
Forced Labour extracted from non-Brahmins.
Capture of large numbers of non-combatant men, women and children as booty and their sale into slavery in Aryan households.
Forcible conversion of people, initially to the Vedic religion, and later to the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, mainly to Vaishnavism.
Reduction of the Status of first non-Aryans and later non-brahmins to that of sub-humans through prevention of learning and destruction of non-Brahmin literature and culture.
Destruction of temples belonging to pre-Brahmanic religions like Shaivism, Shaktism and Tantrism and their replacement with Vedist and Vaishnava mandirs.
Impoverishment of the non-Aryans, and later of non-Brahmins, through religious fraud, appropriation of land, discriminatory taxes, and confiscation of womens' properties after the Sati ritual.
Nor was this conflict over with the end of the Brahmanic Dark Ages in 1000 AD. The Vijayanagar Kingdom of South India re-imposed the harsh Vedic apartheid caste system, whoch was again adopted by the Maratha kingdom. During the Anglo-Brahmin colonial era, this Aryan revival spread from the South and infected the more liberal Islamicised North. The Government of India also permits the continuation of the Vedic caste system in many parts of its territory.
Tnis book does not attempt to study all aspects of the age under question, but shall present a brief account of the events. By necessity, the ghastly nature of the Aryan invasion makes any such task extremely unpleasant. More so, when one comes to Brahminist politics, with its ruthless Kautilyan creation and destrucion of entire states and peoples. Yet all throughout, I have kept a basically objective view of events.
Kwaku Bendele aka Chosen
Re: room 101
Reply #18 on:
March 03, 2005, 02:29:46 PM »
I couldn't tell you I don't know Peace just wanted to let you know some things I don't know
Kwaku Bendele aka Chosen Warrior Prince
Re: room 101
Reply #19 on:
March 03, 2005, 05:02:58 PM »
peace and hotep,
wow, chosen, what a way withe words.
Re: room 101
Reply #20 on:
March 07, 2005, 10:08:40 PM »
TOP TEN (+2) WHITE REACTIONS TO THE HISTORY AND SU
« on: Jun 28th, 2003, 8:08am » Quote
Posted By: Bantu-Kelani
Date: Saturday, 28 June 2003, at 3:29 a.m.
This is written by brother, NOAH THE AFRICAN from another website. It should serve as a Powerful response to the Naïve Caucasians who refuse to acknowledge their Racism past and present, denying it still exists....
"Top Ten (+2) white reactions to the history and subject of race in America" by NoahTheAfrican.
--Here is a list that I created early last year, developed from my interactions with whites on the subject matter of race. I dug it up from the BET.COM archives. I think it is apropos and germane given the recent visit we have enjoyed from our good friends at protestwarrior. To their credit, they did not follow the script completely, but you will definately note where they DID!
1.Avoid discussing the topic. Most whites are very uncomfortable with the topic of race. The human nature reason is that humans have a tendency to NOT want to talk about subject matter that will invoke a sense of GUILT or GUILT by association. Thus, whites, in light of irrefutable empirical evidence and data revealing the evils committed by white people against non whites, they may feel that the risk are greater than the potential rewards from discussing or debating the issue of race.
2. Attack the messenger. When a the words of humans are truthful and irrefutable, those who brave a response will usually try to destroy the credibility of the messenger in the hope that by discrediting the messenger, the message will then be discredited. This will manifest digressing from the substance of the message and to begin to attack the form, tone, temperament and motivation of the author or speaker.
3. Point to the guilt of others. Humans, when confronted with their transgressions or their group transgression, will attempt nullify their guilt by pointing out others who have done things bad or wrong in an attempt to draw a moral equivalence of degree and kind so that they will not appear as being out of the ordinary in their actions. This manifest in on the subject of race via whites attempt to claim that blacks are just as racist as whites and that blacks sold their own people into slavery. Regardless of the degree of truth in those assessments are the fact at hand, which is the guilt of the white society, and the fact that blacks did not enslave and degrade whites for centuries…FOR PROFIT.
4. Deny that the past has an impact upon the present. This occurs when the facts cannot any longer be swept under the rug, so then the aim becomes to deny that the past has any relation to the present problems people face. Thus, the people can then say that those things in the past were terrible, but that all the players and actors are now dead and nothing can or should be done about it. This conveniently ignores that every action produces a reaction and that the present is in fact 99.999% the creation of the past and that black problems of today are directly and indirectly linked to past actions of this society.
5. Call to move on. This is an attempt to get blacks to stop focusing on the history of how or problems came about;which just happens to caste aspersion upon white society. What this call ignores is that it is not the HISTORY of race that keeps the race issue alive with blacks. Rather, it is the social and economic deprivation of blacks today relative to whites today, that are the direct and indirect effects of past racially prejudice and discrimination, that keeps the topic of race from being moved passed.
6. Accuse the messenger of hate. Even though their may exist nothing in the conversation or debate that are evidence of hate, whites will assume the messenger to be filled with hate and anger due to what psychologist terms; "Projection";. Which is the phenomenon of humans projecting what would be their motives, behavior and reactions as being the motive behavior and action of others. Thus, in essence giving insight into their own though processes and not that of the messenger.
7. Accuse the messenger of creating racism. Many whites will use the rhetoric of people who point out racial injustice as causing them [whites] to become racist or to see blacks in a negative light, when they did not before. This is what I call circular racism, which is contemporary white racism supposedly fueled by the reaction manifested from blacks to past white racism. Since every action creates a reaction, this creates a type of kinetic white racism that is self generating an infinite loop of racism.
8. Visceral, emotional responses. This is what happens when all else fails and this is usually when the subconscious mind takes control of the conscious mind and reveals racial prejudice and beliefs of white supremacy stored in the recess of their mind via the psychology of suppression and denial. But of course, they will rationalize that these feeling and belief are the product or reaction to the messenger and not something engrained in them by society or their observations.
9. Try to convince blacks of their fortune. The goal here is to highlight the fact that blacks in America live better than blacks back and Africa, therefore, we should feel fortunate for the enslavement and oppression of 10 generations of our forefathers. They want to take the social and economic juxtaposition of blacks and whites and place it upon African Americans vs Africans outside America. However, the slave trade, colonization and exploitation stagnated most black people around the world, while facilitating and fueling the uplift of Western civilization. If Europeans had stayed in Europe and Africans in Africa, I dare say that it would be the average European with a much worse off lot in this world, than it would be for blacks of the world.
10. Love America or Leave it. This is when they say get out of America and go live in Africa if this is such a bad place. Again, the goal is to get ride of US (blacks) as opposed to trying to get ride of the legacies and responsibility of America's mistreatment of us that manifest in so many problems today. This approach also prevents them from having to change their ways or to introspect their own racism that contributes to the problems black face and the social and economic gaps. Besides, that, why leave something that generations of your family lived in humanity to create. None has more right to any current fruits, than do black people, but white still disproportionately enjoy the fruits of our ancestors sacrifices as well as the sacrifices of their ancestors and others.
11) My ancestors did not own any slaves and I should not be held responsible for something that happened before my ancestors arrived here. This should actually move to the top 5. The first fallacy of this response is that it erroneously assumes that black oppression was limited to slavery. They can then reason that those acts were terrible but that all the victims and villains are now dead. However, black oppression was not simply limited to being the property of whites. Most historians on the racial history of Africans in America say that the most brutal period for blacks in the country were the first few decades after the fall of the post slavery reconstruction period also known as the "Jim Crow" era. In actuality, blacks were oppressed overtly up until the late 60's in America, and there are Millions of survivors living today.
Also, whites must understand that America is a representative republic, where the majority rules. Thus, when the citizens of a republic such as ours, allows the discrimination and oppression of a segment of the population, then the citizenry is complicit. The reason being that this is a country of the people for the people and by the people, thus, the people are responsible. Furthermore, all American citizens inherit the assets as well as the liabilities that this nation has accrued from the past. It is a package deal that cannot be split up. Each citizen is allowed to enjoy the fruits and benefits of America that they nor their ancestors created, yet, you never find white citizens objecting to their use of the assets and privileges based upon their lack of involvement in their creation. But in blatant hypocrisy, they want to deny their citizenship responsibility to past debts based upon not having created or contributed to them. If they [whites] can rationalize not being responsible to the debts, then they have also rationalized the taking away of their rights to assets created in the past not related to them or their ancestors. Thus, the only solution for them would be to leave the country…right.
12) We are Superior. These whites do not even bother to pretend. They come right out with their prejudice and are not at all shamed of it. The other responses are usually the responses or tactics of whites who are in denial or who are trying to hide from themselves and hide if from us as well.
The fallacy that most whites assume is that it is so-called black leaders who inspire the masses of blacks to think the way we do, when nothing could be further from reality. It is simply the HISTORY and CONDITIONS that black people live with contemporarily, relative to whites, plus the continued effects of current white racism and ignorance, that keeps the fire burning. The issue of race will never subside until the legacy of past racism and the social and economic gaps between the races are eliminated.
Furthermore, I would like to add that it seems whites equate DISCUSSING RACE and RACISM and its HISTORY, as making one a RACIST. Therefore, I am left to assume that they must feel that NOT discussing race and racims and its history, makes one free from being a racist. I think that a new term shoud be coined. One that examines the history and ramifications of racism. It should be called...raceOLOGY. I get sick of hearing white accuse blacks of being racist for simply NOTING HISTORY.
Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Re: room 101
Reply #21 on:
March 07, 2005, 10:27:46 PM »
« on: Jan 13th, 2004, 11:11am » Quote
Contrary to what the media often portrays, the large majority of white people are beset by superiority/racist complexes. The problem is that since it has become politically incorrect to be overtly racist, racism has taken on a far subtler edge than earlier on in history. Hollywood portrays racists/White Supremacists as being profane, being armed with guns and as having swastikas tattooed on their arms and chests. This representation attempts to put across that it is only a few isolated whites are racists, thus separating the perpetuation of racism and white supremacy away from the general population, which in itself is far from the truth. Those who manifest their ignorance very overtly are easy to spot but those who come disingenuously with polished rhetoric of 'one love', ‘unity' and 'we are all one people' are harder for the sleeping masses to spot. In spite of the proclamation by many Whites, that they are not racist, evidence to the contrary overwhelmingly exposes this charade. Whether people like it or not, racist/sexist superiority attitudes are imbedded and conditioned by media, family, friends, institutions, religions and the education system and thus racism and white privilege is the norm and not the exception.
Many Whites try to sidestep their complicity in the whole global system of White Supremacy, yet still continue to uphold and benefit from the plethora of white privileges that underlie the dynamics of White Supremacy. This automatic privilege and status given to White/light skin people is internalized and normalized by many, but to the non-whites who continually get the worse end of the stick, there is hardly any illusions about the existence of equality or justice. Unless Whites deal with themselves holistically, which involves them reasoning and coming to terms with their past misdeeds, the highest they can reach is to be patronising and subtly manifest their superiority complexes on those around them.
Centuries of existing in this Eurocentric framework has meant that the African psyche has been much bombarded by many false values and notions, and the resulting inferiority complexes has meant the perpetuation of ignorance, arrogance and racism. Thus, there are Black people (especially lighter skinned Blacks) themselves who have become neo-colonial agents of White Supremacy by perpetuating the principle of 'white over brown over black'. This reality has been very hard for Black people who are high up in this hierarchy of White Supremacy to come to terms with. This Colourism among Blacks occurs along a wide spectrum of complexion/features, with those with lighter/whiter tones and more European features are given preferences while those closer to the other end of the spectrum that is those with dark skin/kinky hair are discriminated against. Thus the lighter skinned more European looking person is given preferences over the dark skinned, kinky haired African, who is often automatically hit with the worse that White Supremacy has to offer. This ignorant conditioning of ‘lighter/whiter skinned people are superior' and more beautiful is very pervasive and reinforced constantly by friends, family, media and the education system.
Then there are those who prescribe the mindset of colorblindness to deal with the scourge of racism. This attitude represents real blindness as it is ignorant of the fact that race in itself is not the problem(does not cause racism) but rather ignorance. Thus, since people being of different races is not the real problem, then being colorblind won't solve racism, which is a manifestation of conditioned ignorance. People coming to terms with their own role in the global system of racism, gender discrimination, injustice and inequality, will be an important step in overcoming a lot of such societal ills. It is vastly erroneous to think that the ideals of peace, love, unity and equality could ever exist in the absence of truth and justice, which can only come as a result of reasoning through certain critical issues.
There are many Whites and even some Blacks who cannot understand how Black people could be angry at Whites for the centuries of slavery, colonialism, racism and outright brutality meted out to Black people across the globe. Anger in fact, can be legitimate response, especially given the history of Eurocentric oppression and the day-to-day reality of racism, media propaganda and miseducation that Blacks face presently and have faced for centuries. African people have a right to be angry just as they have a right to stand up against the continued Eurocentric hegemony and the blatant arrogance and ignorance of Western Civilization. Any attempt to stand against the Eurocentric mindset with its inherent characteristics of racism, gender discrimination and cultural chauvinism, is often deemed angry, ranting, racism, emotional, hateful and/or divisive. This conditioned response ignores the real issues and realities that Black people have to deal with from day to day and implicitly supports the status quo of blind faith, inequality, oppression and injustice that has become so acceptable.
Reasoning and resolution of such issues such as gender discrimination, racism, class and other social ills will benefit all, as slavery not only enslaves the slave, but also enslaves the slavemaster. Thus it in the interest of all humanity that these issues are deal with and not continually swept under the carpet and ignored, as is done now by those that hold power and perceive that the revelation of such truths will affect their greedy accumulation and monopolistic control of wealth, media and resources. The higher up the pyramid shaped social structure, the more motivated people are to maintain the current social order as long as it remains the source of, and reinforces their high societal status and false privileges. The knee-jerk reactions of those who have a vested interest in veiling the truth, or by those who are conditioned to blindly follow the status quo should in no way prevent the truths and legitimate experiences of many from surfacing and being discussed thoroughly in society. It is only when people realize that reasoning about issues such as race and gender discrimination is necessary and is not divisive, racist or irrelevant, that people can engage these issues and transcend them.
Re: room 101
Reply #22 on:
March 07, 2005, 10:33:54 PM »
The White Problem
« on: Apr 1st, 2004, 6:11pm » Quote
The White Problem
by Chris Brazier
So often ‘the race problem' is seen as black people's fault. But they didn't create racism – and they certainly don't benefit from it. Chris Brazier argues that white people should now accept that they are the problem.
I once interviewed Bob Marley. My editor's idea was to send someone who wasn't a fan, who wouldn't write in hushed tones about the latest insights of the man who put Third World music on the popular map. And I obliged with a piece that poured incredulous scorn on Marley's head for his faith in Rastafarianism and even slightly ridiculed the way he talked - he was spicing his speech with Jamaican patois and I found it quite difficult to understand. The editor loved it, naturally -- but it was shot through with racism. Yet at the time I would have considered myself a passionate opponent of racism, campaigning against it both in print and on the streets.
There's nothing unusual in this - white people often think they're ‘against' racism without understanding it or their own contribution to it. And this issue of the New Internationalist may well be making the same mistake, hard though we may try to avoid it. It is an issue written by white people for white people - none of the contributors is black. This is not to deny the black perspective - on the contrary, black voices should be heard and acknowledged much more than they are now. But this magazine is a conscious attempt to acknowledge that racism is a white problem - our problem, and I apologise here to any black readers for addressing the magazine throughout to the white people who make up virtually all of the New Internationalist's subscribers.
We tend to think of racism as something perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan or the National Front - by 'another kind of person'. crop-headed, red-necked and aggressive in their pathetic notions of white superiority. That's a very comfortable view. Certainly no one should play down the pernicious effects of the extreme Right. But it is not the small fascist organizations which cause black people to die 20 years earlier than whites in Australia; which leave them twice as likely to be unemployed in Britain; which make their income two-thirds that of whites in Canada. The racism that does this damage, that hems black people in on all sides, is woven into the fabric of our societies. And if we are silent about this we are condoning it. It's time we woke up to what racism really means.
For a start there is no such thing as a ‘race'. The human family. is not split up into different, self-contained racial types - caucasian, mongoloid and negroid. That was a piece of pseudo-scientific racism which helped whites to persuade themselves that black people were fundamentally different.
Racism is discrimination based neither on ethnic type nor geographical origin but on colour. This makes it, along with sex, the most basic form of discrimination because it is so immediately visible. As one college lecturer put it: ‘inside the college I am respected as a teacher, recognised for my individual qualities and responsibilities. But as soon as I walk out to the bus stop I'm just another wog, just another coon.' And throughout this magazine the word ‘black' is used to refer to any non-white group, whether it be Africans in Britain, native Indians in Canada or Vietnamese in Australia - ‘black' has become a political term rather than a description of skin colour.
In the second place, racism is not the same as ‘racial prejudice'. People have always had wild ideas about other humans who looked and talked differently. As long ago as AD70 the Roman writer Pliny the Elder was retailing weird and wonderful tales about Ethiopians with no noses and other Africans with eyes in the middle of their foreheads or mouths in their breasts. Prejudice emerges out of ignorance, and it thrived in a geographically isolated place like seventeenth-century England, which had no real contact with black people. But racial prejudice on its own shouldn't have lasted any longer than other irrational oral traditions and should have been dispelled by more frequent contact with Africans. Racism, on the other hand, which wove those prejudices into a pseudo-science, has been going strong for 200 years and is still a ruling force in a world of mass communications, where geographical isolation is now almost impossible.
Racism came into being in eighteenth-century Britain because it was economically useful. The first merchants who entered the slave trade weren't doing so because they were prejudiced against Africans - they did it to make money. But once that foundation of economic profit had been laid it became very useful to think of black people as inferior, as not altogether human. So all those ignorant rumours about black people's savagery and stupidity coagulated into a set of beliefs, an ideology that justified slavery and, later on, colonial empires. As the historian Peter Fryer has written, in his important book Staying Power: ‘Racism is to race prejudice as dogma is to superstition ... The primary functions of race prejudice are cultural and psychological. The primary functions of racism are economic and political.'
Just as racism was born out of slavery, so it was the cornerstone of colonial expansion. Fundamental to British imperialism was the notion that it was a noble cause, that white supremacy was synonymous with human progress. And once Darwin's ideas about evolution had been published they were seen as proof of the scientific truth of racism - white people had evolved to the highest, even the ideal, state. Black people had to be oppressed or even destroyed for humanity to ~ stride onward into the ever-brighter, ever-whiter future. This was also the idea that ~ American settlers had about native Indians - extermination was nature's way of making room for a higher race. And it was the same idea that justified the genocide of aboriginal people in Tasmania. Charles Kingsley, revered Victorian author of Westward Ho! and The Water Babies, wrote that ‘the welfare of the Teutonic (white) race is the welfare of the world' while ‘degenerate races' were better off dead. ‘Prove that it is human life,' he wrote. ‘It is beast- life.' He was rewarded for his views by being made chaplain to Queen Victoria and professor of modern history at Cambridge.
Nor was he the only racist among the great British philosophers and writers - Locke, Hume and Carlyle all insisted that black people were inferior, while Dickens, Arnold, Tennyson, Ruskin and Trollope banded together to defend Governor Eyre of Jamaica. Eyre had taken revenge after a slave rebellion by killing 439 black people, flogging 600 others and burning 1000 homes. Dickens and the others claimed Eyre as the saviour of the West Indies and campaigned to get him a seat in the House of Lords.
I mention this not so that we can pat ourselves on the back and think how far we've progressed since those grim Victorian days but rather to give some idea of how deeply racism is ingrained in our culture. We still call these men geniuses, acclaim their insights into the human condition. Yet they were thorough-going racists who justified murder.
Like them, we are racist because we benefit economically from being so. Racism has always been at the service of economic exploitation. When Britain needed all the labour it could get to start anew after World War Two, Tory minister Enoch Powell invited thousands of black people over from the Caribbean colonies. Yet as soon as there was no longer any economic need for their labour he became the country's most famous racist, campaigning for ‘repatriation'. And far from being dismissed his ideas have become common currency - immigration restrictions have become so accepted that they have ceased to be a debateable issue. The question is no longer ‘should we keep black people out?' but rather ‘how many black people should we keep out?' And repatriation is no longer just the daydream of the far Right - it is already in action in West Germany and France, in the latter under a government supposedly of the Left.
Racism always becomes more virulent when times are hard - in declining inner city areas when jobs become scarce and money tight, frustration is vented on the most available scapegoats, the black population. My next-door neighbours in London, people of Indian origin from Mauritius, never answer the door unless there is a man in the house. Their fear of attack, their sense of being under siege, is permanent and all-pervasive - and it is a story being repeated in all the West's cities.
Accepting that racism is our responsibility means dispensing with the old idea that ‘the race problem' is black people's refusal to assimilate' or ‘integrate'. According to this notion, black people should do all they can to fit in, accept white values and not cause the status quo any trouble. But integration with a white majority that holds all the economic and institutional power can only be on white terms. And how can a black person be expected to take on the attitudes of a white society which believes that she is inferior?
Too many people still believe in assimilation, but it has at least been discredited in liberal circles. What has succeeded it is ‘multiculturalism', the belief that the way to combat racism is to acknowledge the traditions of the black community, to offer them pride in their cultural heritage. In Australia, for instance, there has been a burgeoning interest in traditional aboriginal rituals, a readiness to accept that these shouldn't be squashed by the juggernaut of European culture.
But this isn't enough. If ‘racial prejudice' still existed in isolation then this kind of approach might work wonders. But stopping the offence to black people's dignity is not going to reduce the material damage done to their lives. Only political and economic change can do that. And anti-racism is an unashamedly political cause which seeks that change.
Later in this issue we offer a few suggestions for anti-racist action. This doesn't just mean challenging ourselves and the other people we meet - it also involves doing all we can to change the places where we work or have some power. And that means putting forward practical proposals for advancing the black cause, not just pious acceptance of the principle of 'equal opportunities'. Simply getting more black people into positions of power, whether in your workplace or in your political party, will make some difference.
To be genuinely anti-racist we have to take action ourselves - but we must also understand that it is necessary for black people to organise themselves independently. White people often find this hard to accept - and the British Labour Party is a classic current example. There has never been a black Labour Member of Parliament, and the Party's record on immigration is appalling.
Frustrated by this impasse, black people are now agitating for their own section within the Party, and for politicians in some areas to stand down in favour of black candidates. It is not such an extraordinary demand - black caucuses are an accepted fact of American political life, for instance. Yet all the usual conservative arguments are wheeled out - the same ones put by those same white men to women. ‘You should work for change from within'. ‘You'll create a ghetto for yourselves'. The reality is that black protest at the moment can be contained, whereas change would threaten people's power. People with power never change unless pressurised into it - divine light will not descend from heaven to change their minds. Separate black organisations provide that pressure. I am only writing this now. I only care enough about it because of the way black people have challenged racism.
In short, we have to make racism matter to us, to put it much farther up our personal agendas, instead of just thinking ‘I'm against it' and doing nothing. The cause of anti-racism is not just the cause of the black minorities in our own countries or of the black majority in South Africa; it is the cause of the millions in Africa, Asia and Latin America still suffering from the legacy of the exploitation that produced our wealth as well as our racism. It's up to us. Not to fly down from the sky in our chariot, making things right, reaching out our hands to the poor, helpless blacks - that's just the other, paternalist side of the same old racist coin. But to listen to what black people have to say, to respond to their initiatives and to work with them for social change.
The great Trinidadian writer C.L.R. James once said ‘The blacks will know as friends only those whites who are fighting in the ranks beside them. And whites will be there'. We have yet to prove him right.
Re: room 101
Reply #23 on:
March 17, 2005, 09:45:49 AM »
I saw this and thought you might like it...
Race Traitor Journal. Their motto: "Treason to whiteness is loyality to humanity"
What We Believe
The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.
The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in US society.
The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse.
RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race. It will encourage dissent from the conformity that maintains it and popularize examples of defection from its ranks, analyze the forces that hold it together and those that promise to tear it apart. Part of its task will be to promote debate among abolitionists. When possible, it will support practical measures, guided by the principle, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.
Forward to a united Africa!
Re: room 101
Reply #24 on:
March 17, 2005, 06:45:02 PM »
peace and hotep,
oshun_auset, thanks for the input. seems like a dream come true. only time will tell. i will certainly follow up on your lead. thanks again.
dr frances cress welsing: symbolism of chris
Reply #25 on:
March 23, 2005, 04:34:35 PM »
peace and hotep,
The basis discussion of white genetic survival (through the possession and control of the black male’s genital apparatus) is carried forth unconsciously in the precepts and practices of the global white supremacy system’s primary religion ----Christianity. These fundamental concepts are manifested in Christianity’s central pattern of symbol. In fact, it is in religious activity that the highest level of symbolic discussion emerges.
Whereas the testicles are those aspects of the male anatomy that contain the dominant genetic material, the penis is the aspect that transports the genetic material, which initiates the production of life and skin color. If one were to make a simple schematic diagram of the genital organs of the male anatomy, ……(imagine a capitalized “ T” with 1 small circle, top left and one small circle, top right)……. the that highly abstracted line drawing of the male genitalia, is a “cross”.
I submit that the cross, as an important and provocative symbol in the white supremacy system/culture, is none other than a brain-computer distillate of the white collective’s fear-induced obsession wit the genitals of al non-white men(of black man in particular), who have the potential to genetically annihilate the white race. Furthermore, the cross represents the black male’s genitals removed from the black male’s body – meaning castrated genitals. Thus, the cross is a critical symbol in the thought processes of the white supremacy system, beginning its evolution almost 2000 years ago during early white aggression against blacks in Africa and Asia. This particular interpretation of the cross never has been given before.
Support for this interpretation may be found in the examination of the sword as a secondary critical symbol in the white supremacy culture. Here I am referring to the so-called ‘western’ sword with its straight blade, in contrast to the ‘oriental’ sword, which has a curved blade. J. E. Cirlot’s A Dictionary of Symbols, relating to the symbolism of the sword, states, “here one must recall the general meaning of weapons, which is the antithesis of the monster.” In the same discussion, he notes, “there can be no doubt that there is a sociological factor in sword-symbolism, since the sword is an instrument proper to the knight, who is the defender of the forces of light against the forces of darkness.” In the white supremacy system/culture, the “monster” is always the black male (e.g., King Kong) and, more specifically, his white-genetic-annihilating genitals. As the white male (the knight) moves to control the monster (black male genitalia), indeed he does become “the defender of the forces of light against the forces of darkness.” The western sword is shaped exactly as “the cross”, the brain-computer distillate the male genitalia.
In an article entitled “Values, Myths and Symbols”, which appeared in the July 1973 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry, Rollo May had the following had the following to say about the cross: “For example, the Christian cross draws together the horizontal and vertical dimensions of life and unites them perpendicularly to each other, embracing their conflict.” However, this is a superficial description of a cross, and it is totally in adequate as an in-depth interpretation of this major symbol in the white supremacy system/culture. The white collective seems unable to decode their own symbolism completely. Their own translations of their major symbols, and their analyses of their unconscious, remain superficial, incoherent and unconvincing. There fore, the white collective remains unaware of itself and unpredictable to itself and to others who lack deep understanding.
If my interpretation of the cross symbol is correct (that in the white male psyche it represents the black male genitalia in the context of the global white supremacy system), then it is possible to understand the portrayal of the white female in the popular book and film, The Exorcist. Here, the female used the cross to masturbate herself when she was possessed by the devil (i.e., the black monster). This symbolic portrayal emerged during a time period in which increasing numbers of white females began sexually aggressing against socially powerless black males to gain possession of the black phallus.
The use of the cross as a symbolic object in white female masturbation, also occurred when large numbers of white females actively were fantasizing about being raped by black males and were establishing organizations and societies to prevent it. This was a reaction formation to their own unconscious desires. The white female’s preoccupation with writing books on being raped also occurred during this time period. In the white supremacy culture, the historic symbol of the rapist of white females is the black male. The white female, until recently, has been held back in her sexual desires of the black male by white male constraint. Since “white-female-liberation” has been granted to white women in small measure, the white female finds herself unable to hold her own desires and aggressions in check. Still she is unable to admit these desires and aggressions consciously. (It is common knowledge that the ideal male for the white female is “tall, dark and handsome.” ) interestingly, following The Exorcist, the movie King Kong became a major focus of attention in 1976. The entire movie suggests an impending sexual attack on the white female by the giant black ape (the symbol of the black male). Finally, the black ape is shot dead by white males. The gun is also a phallic symbol in the white supremacy culture (see chapter 8.)
At yet another level of the white supremacy cultural dynamic, white females (Jane Goodall, Diane Fossey and Birute Galdikas Brindamour) in the role of “scientists” are tracking (chasing) down large black apes in the African and Asian jungles (e.g. Tanzania). Some of these white females actually have attempted to get very, very close to these great black apes so that they can touch the apes and, perhaps unconsciously, so that the great black apes can touch them!
It is of further interest that the above mentioned films, The Exorcist and King Kong, simultaneously emerged in an atmosphere where increasing attention had been given to Christian symbolism and religion, and during the period when the man who was elected to occupy the “White House” referred to himself as a “born again Christian” – making frequent references to Christian symbols and scriptures. Thus, the culture simultaneously focused on the threat (black male genitals) and the need to control the threat via castration of the black genitals (the cross symbol).
This discussion of the cross as a symbol of the black male genitalia, in the context of the white supremacy system/culture, would not be complete without noting that some of the most outspoken and aggressive white male and female members of the white supremacy system refer to themselves as the Ku Klux Klan. Since the termination of formal enslavement of blacks, the Klan openly has espoused white genetic purity and survival via the castration, lynching and killing of black men. The historic symbol for this group in the white supremacy culture is “the cross” and, more specifically, the burning cross. After black men were lynched and castrated, they often were burned, thereby, reinforcing the interpretation that the cross symbolically is tied to the black male’s genitals. When the black male genitalia with the dominant black genes are burned, cut off or otherwise destroyed, white genetic survival is assured.
Constantine I (“The Great”), the Roman emperor who ruled 306-337 A.D., built Constantinople and made Christian worship lawful in the beginnings of the white supremacy system, had the following words placed on the cross, “In Hoc Signo, Vinces” (meaning, “In this sign you will conquer). Indeed, by controlling the black (non-white) male genitals, which the cross symbolizes, whites have conquered blacks and entire non-white world majority. Currently, the majority membership of Christian churches is non-white, and all are held in control under the sign of the cross. The authority is maintained by whites, under white, supremacy, white purity and white survival.
More recently, the fury of the white supremacy dynamic was expressed in the form of Nazism. The dominant symbol used by this group in the white supremacy system was and is the black swastika. The central element of the swastika is the cross. A spinning or whirling cross (the cross in motion) gives the visual illusion of the swastika. (See Diagram IV.) Hitler’s and the Nazi movement’s central theme was white racial genetic purity and the elimination of all persons classified as non-whites (i.e., Semites and gypsies), who were viewed as having black genetic heritage from Africa and who were considered genetically dominant to the Aryans (whites).
The symbol of the swastika, the cross in motion, spurred the whites on to destroy those who were classified as genetically dominant non-whites.
To the extent that it can be accepted that a man named Jesus lived in Africa some 2000 years ago and that he was a member of the indigenous peoples, that man was undoubtedly a black man, a man with skin pigmentation—not a white man lacking in skin pigmentation. Albinism, like leprosy, cause the skin to turn white and was considered a serious disease in ancient Africa. The victims of albinism and leprosy were cast out from the skin-pigmented peoples. Jesus never was discussed as having such a disease state. (Recall that pigmented skin is the norm for the hue-man race, not albinism
In contrast to this black man and the black peoples of Africa, the peoples on the northern side of the Mediterranean Sea, some of whom referred to themselves as Romans, were then aggressing against and establishing conquests in Africa. They were men without skin pigmentation (white men).
The most likely essence of the story of Jesus, who only later was referred to as “Christ”, was that he was a poor black man, a carpenter, a member of the non-white oppressed population, whose ideas as expressed in the Beatitudes threatened the power, control and authority of the conquering Romans. If Jesus and the other blacks got out of control, the Romans (the whites) could be annihilated genetically. Of course, then as now, under white supremacy domination, Jesus (the non-white) was turned over to the white oppressors who then used some of his fellow-victimized (self-hating non-whites who wished to ingratiate themselves to the white oppressors) to kill him. Jesus, this black man was then hung on a cross, a peculiar invention of the Roman (white) psyche. In other words, the white brain-computer that feared annihilation by the black male genitals unconsciously invented an instrument or weapon of black male’s anatomy that whites knew could destroy them. Jesus was not only hung on the cross and stabbed, but undoubtedly, was also castrated.
In Christian religious tradition, it is stated that Jesus died on the cross and suffered so that “we” (whites) can be “saved” (survive). White (Christian) theology goes even further to speak of Jesus “shedding his blood” so that we (whites) can “live” and have “everlasting life”. Only in recent years has genetic material ceased being referred to as “blood”. Always there has been (and in some circles it continues) discussion about individuals having “black blood” or “white blood” when what was really meant was black or white genetic material or genes, respectively.
Thus, Christian (white supremacy) theology can be translated:
Jesus (a black man) shed his black genetic material in a crucifixion, which in reality was a castration and a killing, so that the white genetic recessive population, in fear of its genetic annihilation, could be saved (genetically survive). Thus, Jesus is called “savior” by the whites. Is it little wonder that the holy day celebrated for the death of Jesus is referred to as “Good Friday”? And a television series that represented a socially and politically castrated black male similarly was referred to as “Good Times”? The historically “good nigger” has been the “dead nigger”.
Re: room 101
Reply #26 on:
March 23, 2005, 04:38:00 PM »
In keeping with this symbolic order, there is a song in the Christian religion called “Nothing But The Blood of Jesus”. The chorus is as follows:
Oh precious is the flow,
That makes me white as snow
No other font I know
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
This can be translated as, “As long as the genetic material from the black male is spilling on the ground from castration, whites can remain white as snow.”
The pattern of worshipping a suffering, dying Jesus on the cross, is fully comprehended only when it is understood that Jesus was a black man and that the black wooden cross represents the black male genitalia separated from the man. Only by the removal and destruction of the black male genitals can whites have “everlasting life” in the most fundamental genetic senses. Jesus, of course, had to be rationalized as willing to make this “castration-sacrifice” – giving up his genes so that whites might live.
There is a profound and striking parallel between the above interpretation of the crucifixion and the destruction of black bulls with swords at bullfights. Bullfighting became a prominent sport in Spain after the Moors (black men) finally had been chased out of Europe, back across the Mediterranean, into Africa. The Moors had conquered Spain for seven hundred years. By the time they left, ton once white population had become dark (via the dominant black genetic material): dark skin, dark hair and dark eyes. Cirlot’s A Dictionary of Symbols states that the bull as an historic symbol represents the superiority of the Aryan over the Negro. This could not possibly the logically correct meaning of the symbol. If this analysis were correct, there would be no need for “whites” to kill a black bull wit a sword. Obviously, a more logical and accurate interpretation of the bull symbol is the opposite of Cirlot’s interpretation---the bull represents the superiority or genetic dominance of the blacks over the genetic recessive whites. Again, the sword used to kill the black bull, as Cirlot also noted, comes into play as the weapon of the “forces of light” over the “forces of darkness”. The sword signifies the weapon of the possessor of the white genitals or recessive white genetic material, against the dominant black genitals and their genetic material.
By the fourth century A.D., Jesus had been changed in color from black “Jesus” to white”Christ” (then to be known as “Jesus Christ” or simply, “Christ”.) This was the conscious or unconscious attempt to further repress from the collective white consciousness the true source of white anxiety and fear—the black male and his genitals. INSTEAD OF A LYNCHED BLACK JESUS, A FRAIL, WEAK, EFFEMINATE, SUFFERING AND DYING WHITE CHRIST WAS HUNG AGAINST a black wooden cross AS THE DOMINANT SYMBOL IN THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES OF THE white supremacy system/culture.
Instead of the woolly, kinky head of the “Lamb of God”, there was the straight, almost blond hair of the white Christ hung up against the black wooden cross. However, this symbolic image achieved a more important goal. In a single-picture-paragraph it states, “The weak, genetic recessive, white male, will be destroyed genetically-speaking, when up against the white- annihilating, genetically dominant, black male genital apparatus (THE CROSS)”.
Arnold Toynbee, in Mankind and Mother Earth, states,
Fifteenth century western Christians were obsessed with the horror of death (the antitheses of the Pharonic Egyptian’s pleasurable anticipation of a post-mortem eternity), and they were fascinated by the physical suffering of Christ on the Cross. Contemporary western painter, engravers and sculptors – especially in the transalpine countries – extended their art to portray these themes with gruesome realism.
The 15th century also heralded the Europeans’ (the whites) world travel to conquer and control the entire non-white world, in order to prevent white genetic annihilation and death. This horrendous fear was then translated in European art.
Joel Kovel, in his book White Racism (A Psychohistory) writes:
Christianity spread over the West and created a community out of what had been barbarian splinters. It did this through the powers of a concrete institution, the Catholic Church. It was the church’s immediate influence that held aloft the subliminatory ideal of Christ and, through that ideal, gave Europeans a scaffold of identification with which to bind them selves into a unified civilization.
Men, however, remained men, torn and driven by their obscure passions into striving for greed and domination which culture could scarcely regulate. Intense aggression resisted the Church’s unification, continued to plague European culture, and delayed its growth. Within the original world-view, there was no way to rationalize or include the striving for greed and domination that persisted with civilization. After all, the Christian revolution was superimposed upon a basically dominative way of life, it could only account for the guilt that arose from the dominative style of society by turning away from the given world.
What Kovel fails to understand is that fundamental reason Catholic Christianity, from its early days of European organization and interpretation of the Jesus theology, was able to unite the global white collective (then the warring white tribes of Europe) was because of the CROSS symbolism and the deep meaning it projected. When Christianity projected ”the cross”, especially the cross with the LIMP, pale body of Christ hung on it, everyone in the global white collective unconsciously understood that they must unite against the threat of black (non-white) male genital material, which the BLACK WOODEN CROSS represented. White genetic survival could be achieved only by a united, continuous offensive attack by the global white minority. This organized attack is now at least 2000 years old. The greed and the strivings for domination, which Kovel fails to fully understand, were compensation for a profound sense of genetic inadequacy.
Only in this context of symbol translation can the Christian hymn, “Onward Christian Soldier”, be appreciated. This is not only an important religious song, but also a significant battle song in the white supremacy culture, One stanza of the song is as follows:
Onward Christian Soldier,
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus,
Going on before.
Christ our loyal master,
Leads against the foe,
Forward into battle,
See his banners glow.
Onward Christian Soldier,
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus,
Going on before.
My translation in prose of the above words and symbol-images in this song is, “Onward white male (and white female) soldiers, marching to war to establish and maintain white genetic survival. You have the symbol of the black male genitals before you keeping your true purpose in mind so that you can unite to subdue this common threat. Christ (the white male image) is you loyal master, who is leading you in the attack against the black male genital-monster enemy. The white male leads you into battle behind our glowing flags (phallic symbols)”.
Whit the picture of a dying, weak white man held firmly in mind, white people fully understand what they must prevent from occurring, and why they must fight and, if necessary, die so that whites can survive.
“Onward Christian Soldier” is a marching religious ssong for the white supremacy culture, but “Were You There When They Crucified My Lord?” in stark contrast, is a song of deep pain and sorrow about the castration and destruction of the black male by the marching white supremacy army or its individual storm troopers.
In modern time, the gun has become the contemporary symbolic weapon used against the non-white male and his white and his white annihilating genetic potential. Also, the gun is an abstraction of the male genitalia, functioning exactly like the male genital apparatus. (See Chapter 8.) Thus, it is no accident that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. -- the modern day Jesus- was killed by a gun after being brought into focus on the CROSS of the CROSS HAIRS on the telescopic gun site. Dr. King brought only love to the white collective, but mating love (black withe white) causes white genetic annihilation, so he had to be destroyed.
Re: room 101
Reply #27 on:
March 23, 2005, 04:40:21 PM »
Since the 16th century, protestants have believed that the act of communion is a symbolic reenactment of the crucifixion, with the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Jesus. The Christian worshipper ingests the bread and wine as an act to remove sin (not to internalize divinity.) The Orthodox Christian believed that the communion was a spiritual act that could not be explained. In august 1976, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Christians and the Protestants came together and agreed that the communion, or the Eucharist, conveys Christ’s real presence and represents his sacrifice (the giving up of his body and blood), although it is not to be viewed as an actual reenactment of the crucifixion.
The author’s analysis of this symbolism of the communion, in the context of the white supremacy system/culture in which it evolved, reveals that the white population has had an historic awareness (albeit now largely unconscious) that they suffered bodily or genetic impairment, which made them different and separated them from the “hue-man” majority of black, brown, red and yellow peoples. They were not whole. This same genetic deficiency was the case for the consideration of “original sin” and the shame of body “nakedness” (body whiteness), as discussed in the biblical mythology of Adam and Eve, an important myth in the white supremacy culture. The view that the act of sex was the original sin is an extension of this same logic because the sex act produces the body and its appearance via genetic transfer and/or genetic mutation.
Having rejected the appearance of the white body as the equivalent of “sin” and “shame”, the white psyche attempted to correct the white body’s defect. Thus emerged the symbolic and ritualized acts of ingesting the body and blood (genes) of Jesus (the black male), in the unconscious desire to correct the existing COLOR DEFICIENCY. The symbolic attempt to correct the genetic deficiency state of skin albinism (skin whiteness), as performed in the Eucharist, is the central religious rite in the religion of the white supremacy system/culture. Therefore, it is not surprising that wearing black or dark-colored clothing, generally covering the entire body, it the primary and most acceptable pattern of dress for Christian religious leaders: priests, ministers, nuns, etc.
One finds curious the over-determined, highly intense abhorrence that many in the white collective continue to verbalize over the idea of cannibalism, always relating acts of cannibalism to so-called “primitive” blacks in Africa. This continuing discussion is most interesting behavior on the part of those who symbolically practice cannibalism in the central rite of their own religious practice on a weekly or monthly basis. Even more significant is the fact that the blacks are portrayed as eating missionaries (Christians) when it is the “Christians” who always are concerning themselves with their own ingestion of the body and blood of an African. This is a classic example of projection.
Reinforcement for this interpretation of the communion symbolism comes not only from whites’ obsessive pattern of sun-tanning to make their bodies colored, but also from major eating practices in the white supremacy culture, especially in the U.S. the most favored drinks are all dark brown in color: coffee, tea, coke, beer and whiskey. These are all symbolic of the blood or genes of Jesus. A favorite meat is steak, which comes from the bull or cattle. (See chapter 7.) We need not mentions the hot dogs, half smokes and all the other varieties of sausages. Also, are not bulls castrated to make them taste better when eaten? Are not football players fed steak before they attempt to go out and capture the large brown ball? (See chapter 10.) I further understand that “bull’s balls” are eaten as delicacies in some bars and other eating establishments in the white supremacy culture. The favorite candy is chocolate candy (chocolate comes mainly from Africa), preferably with nut. Recall chocolate kisses and the myriad chocolate candy bars. Nuts are also important in the white supremacy culture. Some have focused on peanuts and become millionaires and the most powerful persons in the world. Finally, given the symbolism behind such eating practices, it follows that oral sexual practices would be a favorite in the white supremacy system/culture.
Likewise, the symbolism in the major holidays of the Christian religion is supportive of my interpretations. At Christmas, the tree is one of the most important symbols. The Christmas is, in its abstracted form, a CROSS-- the symbol of the black male genitals. First, the Christmas tree is ‘chopped down’ in the forest. Then it is taken home. In the U.S., when the Christmas tree is decorated, COLORED “balls” are hung on the tree. When the tree is ‘taken down and burned’, the ‘balls” are first taken off. Then all can dream of a “white Christmas” and a surviving white Christ. Similarly in Europe, small white wax candles were placed on the Christmas tree. In the Catholic religion, the Christmas tree is said to represent “the tree of the cross”, while the candles are thought to represent the “body of Christ”.
Thus, again, we have the symbol of the white, weak (melting) Christ hung on the symbol of black male genitalia. At the Easter holiday in the U.S. , it is traditional to have colored eggs, colored jelly beans and a chocolate rabbit and eggs in an “Easter basket”. These COLORED items are eaten. The white albino bunny rabbit tat sits amongst the colored eggs as though he laid them generally is not eaten. By ingesting the colored items, the sin of being without color is symbolically removed – being “born again whole” has been achieved through symbols.
Other important holidays in the white supremacy culture further reveal the intricate wordings of this symbolism. On both St. Valentine’s Day and Mother’s day, the white male gives gifts of chocolate candy with nuts. In the first instance, he gives it to his sweet-heart, and in the second to his mother. If his sweetheart ingests “chocolate with nuts”, the white male can fantasize that he is genetically equal to the black male. And if his mother had ingested “chocolate with nuts”, he would not have to worry about white genetic annihilation—as he would have been ”colored” and then could be an annihilator of white genes like the feared and envied black male. Both the valentine shape and the chocolate candy have a symbolic meaning not previously recognized, examined nor understood by Western culture investigators. However, once the unified field of the western culture dynamic (behavior dynamic) is set forth, it will be seen that these fragments of symbolism take on a brilliant clarity. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines valentine as,
--a special form of greeting card exchanged in observance of St. Valentine’s Day (February 14), a day set aside as a lover’s festival. The custom has no connection with the two St. Valentines or with known incidents in their lives. It is probably that the valentine was the first of all greeting cards. The paper valentine dates from the 16th century; by 1800 hand-painted copperplates were produced to meet large demands. These were followed by woodcuts and lithographs…St. Valentine’s Day as a lover’s festival and the modern tradition of sending valentine cards have no relation to the saint but, rather, seem to be connected with either the Roman fertility festival of the Lupercalia (February 15) or with the mating season of birds.
The relationship of the valentine to an ancient fertility rite suggests that the so-called “heart” shape of the valentine may be less associated with the anatomical heart of the human body, as is commonly thought, than with the symbolic drawing of the female genital organ, the vaginal opening. As explained in Ajit Mookerjee’s and Madhu Khanna’s The Tantric Way, in tantric worship in India, this organ is frequently drawn in the form of a heart or an upside down triangle, with the base upward. It is clear that the organ of the heart I the human body has much less an association with fertility than the vagina or the vaginal orifice.
Cirlot states, “the importance of love in the mystic doctrine of unity explains how it is that love-symbolism came to be closely linked with heart-symbolism, for to love is only to experience a force which urges the lover towards a given center”. Indeed, in Tantric philosophy and art, the symbol of unity was the union of the male and female genital organs, and this unity was reverently portrayed in sculpture and graphic arts.
An explanation of the symbolism of chocolate in Western culture will expose further the significance of heart-shaped valentines as well as the importance of chocolate. In an article entitled “The Sweet Tastes of Sin” (The Washington Post, February 8, 1979), Marion Burros quotes food critic Gael Greene:
“I have always thought a good chocolate mousse is an aphrodisiac, the more intense the taste of chocolate, the more erotic the spell”. Marion Burros continues, “Some chocolate mousse lovers go even further. “It’s not a food, it’s a concept’, says on indulgent male. “it’s like illicit sex. It’s so good but so fattening. It gives you pimples. It’s a sin’.”
Burros concludes quoting Gael Greene, “….wonderful, wicked deeply chocolate”. One certainly must question why, in a culture produced by a people that refers to itself as the “white race” and that historically has denounced people with natural chocolate complexions, a dark brown food, namely chocolate, causes such orgasm-like ecstacy and is associated with eroticism when orally ingested.
This pattern of logic and thought surrounding chocolate (dark brown) candy and other deserts most certainly cannot be held in isolation from the previously mentioned preoccupations over sun-tanning and the white female preference for males who tall and dark of the preoccupation in sports of placing large brown balls (testicle symbols in white net (vaginal) orifices and between GOAL posts (white upright legs). A unified field theory in the behavorial sciences demands that gross and subtle interconnections, between behavioral phenomena, be perceived before they can be understood.
That there should be myriad behaviors in the white supremacy behavior system that reflect a deep desire to counteract and compensate for the perceived genetic deficiency of white skin should not be at all surprising. Thus, the customary and traditional little packets of chocolate candy (often nuts), placed inside of the heart or vaginal orifice shaped box, are like little sperm packages of black genetic material being placed in the vaginal orifice. When presented by the white male to the white female, in the context of the skin deficient culture, the act is the exact parallel to the white male coaches who coach their black basketball and football players to place dark brown balls in the white net orifices or in the white upright leg. One must conclude that the white male realizes consciously or unconsciously that the most desired mate for the white female is the black male, just as he realizes that his most desired sexual mate is the black female. This illuminates the white male’s fascination with black stocking, black underwear and black negligees as sexual symbols.
The conscious and /or unconscious acceptance and internalization of a symbol system based upon the castrated black male genitalia is essential to the global system of white genetic survival. This symbol system necessitates the oppression of blacks and all other non-whites in the global context of white supremacy. Generally, the victims of a system of oppression have no alternative other than to accept blindly the patterns of symbols, logic, thought, speech, emotional responses and perception that are imposed forcefully upon them by their oppressors. After hundreds of years of oppression, the oppressed, having lost the sense of their own identity, begin to believe that the brain-products of their oppressors are one and the same with their own, failing completely to realize that they do not control their own brain –computers nor their brain-computers’ output. THE SLAVE’S FATE IS NOT TO SEE NOR REASON WHY, BUT ONLY TO DO OR DIE. However, the process of liberation is one wherein the oppressed begin to clearly distinguish their perceptions, logic and thought processes from the oppressors’. The oppressed, then, begin to respect and validate their perceptions and their logic and thought processes, realizing fully that they can never free themselves with the thought processes and perceptions that were a part of the process of their enslavement.
As long as the black (non-white) collective consciously and/or unconsciously accepts a powerful and dynamic symbolism of black male castration, they never will be self/group-respecting and forever will remain mentally ill. MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE, PERSONS WHO DO NOT RESTECT THEMSELVES AND HAVE SELF/GROUP-NEGATING PATTERNS OF LOGIC, THOUGHT, SPEECH, ACTION, EMOTIONAL RESPONSE AND PERCEPTIONS, NEVER CAN LIBERATE THEMSELVES FROM THEIR OPPRESSOR. BLACK PSYCHIATRISTS HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CLARIFYING FOR BLACK PEOPLE ALL ASPECTS OF THE OPPRESSIVE DYNAMIC OF white genetic survival.
THIS INCLULDES EXPOSING AND DECODING ALL OF THA POWER SYSTEM’S MAJOR SYMBOLISM.
Re: room 101
Reply #28 on:
April 20, 2005, 10:09:28 AM »
peace and hotep,
"I asserted at the close of the preceding chapter that an understanding of the phenomenon of racial prejudice was vital to the understanding of the history of racism, and that race prejudice was a phenomenon that takes place in the mind of an individual whom we call a racist. I am asserting, of course, that racist belief is based on fantasy rather than fact, that the essential belief of the racist is indifferent to its truth value. It is irrelevant whether a bigoted statement such as “Negroes are smelly, lazy,” etc., is true: the racist believes it because of “inner” reasons and not as a matter of scientific objectivity. To be sure, we—or his culture—may then see to it that the prejudiced-against person lives up to the stereotype with which he has been labeled. This kind of secondary action is of great historical importance and will be studied at length. Furthermore, once the world is restructured to make racist beliefs come true, the fantasy itself becomes nourished and perpetuated. Without such reciprocity, nothing cultural would endure, and the very structure of personality would be dismantled. At this stage of our inquiry though, we must focus our attention upon
fantasy, which shall be defined as a form of knowing based upon wish and desire—i.e., upon the internal mental state of a person.
In the next chapter I shall dissect the various fantasies and personality traits that coalesce into race prejudice. Let us realize, however, that the kinds of fantasies which appear in racism are not unique to race relations. Rather, racism is a specific historical situation in which some elemental aspects of human experience are turned toward the classification and oppression of people with different ethnic traits. Face fantasies are applied only at second hand to races; they are actually generated in the universal human setting of childhood, and used by culture to handle its historical problems.
The full range of meanings involved in race fantasies cannot be understood unless their infantile root is taken into account. I feel that this task is essential for this study. However, because it is somewhat off the mainstream of our inquiry, I have presented a detailed discussion in an appendix, and confine myself here to some brief introductory remarks.
The presentation is, as noted before, along psychoanalytical lines. Accordingly, fantasies are to be seen as remnants of infantile wishes; they are the products of developing human drives and forms of thought. Our drives are twofold: sexual and aggressive. The drive is what charges a fantasy. Each drive is biologically given; each is exceedingly plastic and undergoes a specific plan of change as the child develops from a helpless infant to a relatively autonomous person living among other people. As the child develops, the drives become associated with certain bodily zones and tasks. Thus the child passes through the well-known phases of oral, anal, phallic and oedipal organization.
The nature of each phase is greatly variable between individuals and across cultures, but some such broad progression appears to be universal. And from each level of development, certain universal fantasies arise, each to be combined in the development of personality and put to use by culture alongside its more rational pursuits.
Our study of racism will bring us into contact with several of these phase-related fantasies, and the more general discussion which follows will widen the scope. Let us note some of the infantile constructions which will appear.
1. ORAL phase. Here arise wishes to incorporate, to take into the self, and corresponding fears of being incorporated.
2. ANAL phase. This stage is of the greatest significance to our study. Certain nuclear ideas, such as those revolving about the concepts of dirt and property, take hold of the personality during this stage of development, and remain throughout life associatively linked to the idea of excrement. Thus, to the child, dirt corresponds to that which is hated in his excremental activities. This becomes symbolically generalized to include anything which can be associated with what comes out of the body, and which hence should not return back into the body. On the other hand, property is considered to be the loved part of his excrement, the part he wishes to take back into himself or to give to those he loves, Excrement becomes the unconscious link in later life between these notions; hence filthy lucre.
The anal phase is so important in discussing racism because anality is the form of drive behavior which predominates during that time when a child is painfully detaching himself from his mother and establishing himself as a separate person. In this light, excrement ---what is expelled from the body—becomes symbolically associated with the ambivalent feelings a child has about his separation from his mother and the establishment of himself as an autonomous person. Dirt becomes, then, the recipient of his anger at separation; while the love of what has been separated from him. Since racism involves the ‘separate’ ness of people, so must it become invested with anal fantasies.
3. PHALLIC-OEDIPAL phase. In this stage the fantasies are about genital sexual activity, in particular with forbidden people and in the setting of competition and envy. The central theme is castration, as the specific form of aggression directed toward sexual rivals and feared from them. The most superficial glance at racial behavior will provide abundant examples of such fantasies. But they are involved in a much wider way too, for the Oedipus complex provides the fantasy substratum for the entire historical progression of patriarchal power.
At another level, the resolution of the Oedipus complex condenses all the previous stages of development---oral, anal, phallic---under one mental organization, the super-ego. The superego is the controlling portion of the ego, which is, roughly speaking, the functional part of the personality. Ego is set against id, a repressed and unconscious body of repudiated infantile strivings. The superego turns back onto the self the aggression that had been directed outward, and so brings about inner control. It also provides a mental structure though which the individual can ground himself in culture and obey its morality and normative regulation. By adjusting his superego to the set of cultural controls, a person adapts and becomes “normal” .
If he is a white American, it is likely that he will then find an outlet for some of his infantile fantasies about dirt, property, power and sexuality, in his culture’s racism. "-----white racism: a psychohistory by joel kovel
the death of the west
Reply #29 on:
June 10, 2005, 06:13:06 AM »
peace and hotep,
This article can be found on the web at
The Base Camp of Christendom
by PHILIP A. KLINKNER
[from the March 11, 2002 issue]
Pat Buchanan surely holds the record for the greatest impact on a presidential election with the fewest votes. With less than 0.43 percent of the tally nationally, he still managed to decide the 2000 election. But for the thousands of votes mistakenly cast for Buchanan in Palm Beach because of the infamously confusing "butterfly" ballot, Al Gore would be President today and George W. Bush would be the Republican Michael Dukakis.
Buchanan's pernicious influence, however, did not end with the 2000 election. He's now picking up where he left off with his infamous "cultural war" speech to the 1992 Republican convention, a speech, as Molly Ivins quipped, that "sounded better in the original German." Well, Buchanan's been translating from Deutsch again, this time with The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, his new book. The Death of the West harks back to the xenophobic jeremiads of the early twentieth century, such as Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race, Lothrop Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color, Houston Stewart Chamberlain's The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century and Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West.
Indeed, enterprising journalists and historians looking to expose the next Stephen Ambrose or Doris Kearns Goodwin should consider comparing Buchanan's book side by side with these others. In addition to revising Spengler's title, Buchanan shares Stoddard's love of watery metaphors--both books gush with rising tides, surging oceans and flooding rivers of nonwhites, all of which push inexorably against the ever more precarious dams and dikes around the white world. The two authors also share a predilection for quoting Rudyard Kipling, the poet laureate of the "white man's burden."
Each of these earlier books shares the same simple theme: It's Us against Them, and with fewer and fewer of Us and more and more of Them, things look grim for Us. Buchanan readily accepts the "demography is destiny" argument: "As a growing population has long been a mark of healthy nations and rising civilizations, falling populations have been a sign of nations and civilizations in decline." Buchanan's data clearly put the West into the latter category. "In 1960, people of European ancestry were one-fourth of the world's population; in 2000, they were one-sixth, in 2050, they will be one-tenth. These are the statistics of a vanishing race."
And who's responsible for this disappearance? For Buchanan, women bear most of the blame. Liberated by technological and cultural changes, he argues, Western women have abandoned their true calling as designated racial breeders. "Only the mass reconversion of Western women to an idea that they seem to have given up--that the good life lies in bearing and raising children and sending them out into the world to continue the family and nation--can prevent the Death of the West."
Faced with declining birthrates, the only alternative available to Western nations if they wish to maintain themselves is massive immigration from the burgeoning populations of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. But for Buchanan, this medicine is worse than the disease, since immigration on this scale entails the introduction of too many nonwhite non-Christians. Regarding Europe, he writes: "And as the millions pour into Europe from North Africa and the Middle East, they will bring their Arab and Islamic culture, traditions, loyalties, and faith, and create replicas of their homelands in the heartland of the West. Will they assimilate, or will they endure as indigestible parts of Africa and Arabia in the base camp of what was once Christendom?" Clearly he thinks the latter. The United States faces a similar danger, he warns: "Uncontrolled immigration threatens to deconstruct the nation we grew up in and convert America into a conglomeration of peoples with almost nothing in common--not history, heroes, language, culture, faith, or ancestors. Balkanization beckons."
Buchanan must know that many have rung this tocsin before him, and each time it has been a false alarm. The West's population has probably declined relative to the rest of the world ever since the Western world defined itself as such. For example, when Stoddard wrote in 1922, he sounded the alarm because Western nations had declined to only one-third of the world's population. By 1960, as Buchanan points out, the Western share of the world's population had fallen to one-fourth. Despite this relative decline in population, he considers 1960 as the height of Western power and influence. Furthermore, most evidence suggests that Western nations are at least as powerful now as in 1960, even with the decline in population.
Buchanan's warnings about the United States ring just as hollow. Of the 30 million foreign-born residents, he claims, "Even the Great Wave of immigration from 1890 to 1920 was nothing like this." He's right--that wave surpassed the current one. Today, foreign-born residents make up about 11 percent of the US population, but from the 1870s to the 1920s, that number fluctuated between 13 percent and 15 percent.
Buchanan, however, also argues that today's immigrants are fundamentally different from earlier generations of newcomers; but again, there's no evidence for this. America was hardly more familiar to a Southern Italian peasant who came to New York City in 1900 than it is to an immigrant today from Nigeria or the Philippines. If anything, the spread of global markets and American popular culture has made recent immigrants more attuned to the ways of their new home than their predecessors of a century ago. Furthermore, the bulk of contemporary immigrants come from Latin America, and thus possess the Christian faith that Buchanan views as central to any definition of America. Indeed, the vast majority of Latin American immigrants share Buchanan's Catholicism. Nonetheless, these immigrants "not only come from another culture, but millions are of another race," making it difficult if not impossible for them to assimilate into US society. While Buchanan might consider Latinos as his brothers in Christ, he draws the line at having them as neighbors or fellow citizens.
September 11, Buchanan argues, painfully exposed the threat from contemporary immigrants: "Suddenly, we awoke to the realization that among our millions of foreign-born, a third are here illegally, tens of thousands are loyal to regimes with which we could be at war, and some are trained terrorists sent here to murder Americans." But the past is full of similar warnings about the enemy within. During World War II, anti-Japanese prejudices combined with national security concerns to result in the internment of thousands of US citizens. During World War I, "unhyphenated" Americans saw German-Americans as the Kaiser's minions, engaging in sedition and sabotage to aid the cause of the Fatherland. Yet as these instances demonstrate, the real threat, then as now, existed largely in fevered nativist minds.
This selective and myopic view of American nativism runs throughout The Death of the West. On the one hand, Buchanan refers to nativist statements by such people as Benjamin Franklin, Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge to support his assertion that concerns over immigration are not un-American. On the other hand, while he is correct that nativism has always been one of America's multiple political traditions, Buchanan has nary a mention of how pervasive, inaccurate and pernicious such sentiments have been. Of the Know-Nothings, he knows nothing. He quotes Al Smith, the first Catholic nominated for the presidency by a major party, but includes no mention that anti-Catholic prejudices made a major contribution to his landslide defeat in the 1928 election, as he was vigorously opposed by Protestant leaders and groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. (After the election, the joke went, Smith sent a one-word telegram to the Pope: "Unpack.") To Buchanan, it seems, anti-Catholic sentiment is a recent development and limited to left-wing intellectuals. Overall, he chooses to ignore the fact that nearly every immigrant to this country confronted nativists who argued that their race, religion, ethnicity or culture made them unfit to become full American citizens. Furthermore, if these previous nativists had had their way, they would have excluded the ancestors of most current American citizens, including Buchanan's.
Buchanan recognizes that he's in a minefield with this subject, and he makes some efforts to tread lightly. To rebut accusations that he's an anti-Semite, he sheds crocodile tears over the danger to Israel from a growing Arab population and occasionally (but not consistently) refers to America's Judeo-Christian values. But like Dr. Strangelove's hand, Buchanan's anti-Semitism refuses to stay under control. As examples of conservative leaders who have failed to fight the culture wars with sufficient zeal, he singles out Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb and Norman Podhoretz. One might well ask why these three when one could level similar charges against Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, John McCain and even George W. Bush.
By the end of the book Buchanan has dropped all pretenses, declaring America to be a Christian nation. His racism is equally apparent. For example, in addition to warning that many current immigrants are of a different--that is, nonwhite--race, he includes a lengthy discussion of black crime rates. Given that most blacks can trace their American ancestry back further than most white Americans, it's clear that Buchanan defines America not by "history, heroes, language, culture, faith, or ancestors" but by race.
If Buchanan's diagnosis of the problem is objectionable, his solution is even worse. For him, democracy, a shared culture and even a common race offer no defense against the West's impending doom. Rather, he argues, "If the West expects a long life, it had best recapture the fighting faith of its youth." And what were these youthful characteristics? "Protestant monarchs and Catholic kings alike did not flinch at burning heretics or drawing and quartering them at the Tyburn tree. The Christianity that conquered the world was not a milquetoast faith, and the custodians of that faith did not believe all religions were equal. One was true; all the rest were false." To believe otherwise invites disaster, "For it is in the nature of things that nations and religions rule or are ruled."
Buchanan's right-wing nativism is nothing new, so it might be tempting to dismiss him and his book as inconsequential. After all, didn't the 2000 election prove that Buchanan had only marginal electoral support and that even the Republican Party considers his views too extreme? But votes don't always measure influence, and The Death of the West has clearly struck a responsive chord. Not only does it stand near the top of the New York Times bestseller list, but its author remains a prominent fixture on the TV talk-show circuit. Indeed, it's interesting to contrast the reception of The Death of the West with that of Buchanan's previous book, A Republic, Not an Empire. The latter set off a firestorm of criticism, especially among Republicans and conservatives, when Buchanan argued that Hitler had not threatened the United States. If anything, The Death of the West is even worse, since Buchanan moves beyond minimizing the danger of Hitler to the open espousal of many of his doctrines. Yet this time around, the conservative commentators have not been nearly as critical. Then, of course, Buchanan was in the middle of bolting the GOP, potentially splitting the conservative vote and throwing the election to the Democrats. None of this came to pass, with Buchanan even helping Bush to win Florida. But the lesson seems clear: Conservatives are more than willing to tolerate Buchanan's racism and xenophobia, so long as he doesn't pose a direct threat to their political interests.
Even more disturbing than Buchanan's kid-gloves treatment by the media and the right is that the book's popularity stems from and seems likely to reinforce the upsurge in nativist sentiments after September 11. For many Americans, those tragic events gave even more reason to see the world in manichean terms and to divide Americans along lines of race, religion and ethnicity. Consequently, relatively open immigration policies came under attack. In Congress, a House caucus devoted to immigration restriction doubled in membership after September 11. Representative James Traficant, Democrat of Ohio, spoke for many of those members when he asked, "How do you defend your home if your front and back doors are unlocked? What do we stand for if we can't secure our borders? How many more Americans will die?... If 300,000 illegal immigrants can gain access to America every year, trying to find a better life, do not doubt for one moment that a larger contingent of people with evil intentions could gain entry into America and continue to kill American citizens."
Thankfully, such sentiments have not gained much headway in the ensuing months. Although the Bush Administration has backed off its proposal for granting amnesty to illegal immigrants from Mexico, it has shown few signs of embracing significant immigration restrictions in response to September 11 and has even agreed to restore food-stamp eligibility to legal immigrants. In Congress, immigration opponents have failed even to gain a formal hearing for their proposals. Yet the popularity of The Death of the West shows that nativist attitudes have not disappeared, and Buchanan's diatribe will undoubtedly help reinforce such views. Furthermore, both opponents and supporters of open immigration recognize that another incident of terrorism is perhaps all that is needed to turn The Death of the West from polemic to policy.
Please select a destination:
=> GENERAL FORUM
=> Young Adults
=> Special Reasonings Archive
WORLD HOT SPOTS
=> Around the World
=> Media Watch
AFRICA AND THE DIASPORA
=> Our Beautiful People
=> Essays and Reasonings
AFRICA AND THE DIASPORA
=> Human Beginnings
ENTERTAINMENT/ ARTS/ LITERATURE
=> Books & Reviews
=> Arts & Music
SCIENCE, SOCIOLOGY, RELIGION
=> Science and Technology
=> Health and Livity
=> Relationships and Gender Issues
=> Mainstream Religion
=> Post Here for Help
AFRICA AND THE DIASPORA
=> General African News
=> South Africa
AFRICA AND THE DIASPORA
INDIA AND THE DIASPORA
=> Indian Perspectives
AFRICA AND THE DIASPORA
WORLD HOT SPOTS
=> Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
AFRICA AND THE DIASPORA
Powered by SMF 1.1.21
SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Copyright © 2001-2005