“Not counting the crimes, crime is down.”
Grand Rapids Anonymous
Saturday, May 07, 2016
Black Supremacism at West Point: This is What Happens When You Admit Blacks Who are Morally and Intellectually Unfit to Displace Competent, White Patriots as Cadets and Future Army Officers (Damning Photo)
So much of PC idiocy is the product of a mono-moral narrative where one side was totally good and the other side was totally bad.
That is the template of how US sees race relations.
Whites were totally bad, whereas non-whites, esp blacks, were totally good.
It's a cartoon vision of history, and it mortally wounds white moral pride since NO JUSTIFICATION has been offered for the Segregationists. Thus, they had no reason but PURE EVIL in having opposed Martin L. King and Civil Rights Marches.
So, all the rightness and justification during the Civil Rights Era are placed with blacks & allies and NONE with whites who opposed the movement.
Now, if blacks were just whites with dark skin, the anti-segregationists would have been right, more or less. Why deny full rights to a people solely based on skin color?
But races do exist and racial differences are real and go way beyond skin color. Whites southerners(and northerners too as it turned out) had good reasons to fear social equality with blacks since blacks are the superior race when it comes to physicality, aggression, thuggery, and etc. It's be like integrating retrievers with pit bulls. Same species, but different races.
So, while the laws were legally unfair to blacks, getting rid of those laws would have been biologically unfair to whites. Blacks would act aggressively toward whites, lots of whites would get hurt. White guys would lose male pride and see their women go with stronger negroes. What humiliation, what shame. Interracism is 'racism' insofar as women go with men of another race on the premise that they are superior as men.
And even though northerners mocked southern bigots, the Libs in NY an Chicago and Detroit and etc. all found out the same truth. They too began to be terrorized by black thuggery and moved away from darkening areas. White flight was due to white fright of the stronger meaner more aggressive Negro.
So, a mono-moral narrative is bogus. We need a duo-moral narrative that tries to understand both sides. (We do such for Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East Conflict. We know Jews are oppressing Palestinians, but we also know that if angry Pallies were given full equal rights, they will violently strike out at Jews whom they see as occupiers and imperialists. So, both sides have legit fears and rages. We don't use mono-moral narrative on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.)
Now, the Civil Rights Movement was a compelling one for blacks. They had a right to be angry and demand justice.
BUT, justice for blacks could only lead to all sorts of problems of whites who were likely to be treated like Jerry Quarry at the fists of Ali and Frazier.
THAT side of history should be told as well. From a biological viewpoint, whites did have some compelling moral justifications for opposing racial integration.
And given what happened to NY and other cities due to rising black crime and thuggery, we've seen how White Libs sneakily resorted to massive incarceration, gentrification, and stop and frisk to control blacks or push them out demographically. They talk of 'racial justice' but act in ways that increase segregation for themselves. Notice how rich Lib cities just get whiter and more Jewishier(and maybe more Asian).
Also, if Nixon used the Southern Strategy against Dems in 68 and 72, Lib elites used the Foreign Strategy. They used immigration to use yellows and browns as buffers between themselves and dangerous blacks. In other words, let yellows and browns get beat up by blacks instead.
And by filling the Dem Party with more immigrants, the party became more viable in the long run cuz a Black Party is bound to fall to ruin like Detroit.
But a party where browns and yellows increasingly count more than blacks is viable for the white/Jewish/homo overlords of the Dem party.
So much of PC idiocy is the product of a mono-moral narrative where one side was totally good and the other side was totally bad.
ReplyDeleteThat is the template of how US sees race relations.
Whites were totally bad, whereas non-whites, esp blacks, were totally good.
It's a cartoon vision of history, and it mortally wounds white moral pride since NO JUSTIFICATION has been offered for the Segregationists. Thus, they had no reason but PURE EVIL in having opposed Martin L. King and Civil Rights Marches.
So, all the rightness and justification during the Civil Rights Era are placed with blacks & allies and NONE with whites who opposed the movement.
Now, if blacks were just whites with dark skin, the anti-segregationists would have been right, more or less. Why deny full rights to a people solely based on skin color?
But races do exist and racial differences are real and go way beyond skin color. Whites southerners(and northerners too as it turned out) had good reasons to fear social equality with blacks since blacks are the superior race when it comes to physicality, aggression, thuggery, and etc. It's be like integrating retrievers with pit bulls. Same species, but different races.
So, while the laws were legally unfair to blacks, getting rid of those laws would have been biologically unfair to whites. Blacks would act aggressively toward whites, lots of whites would get hurt. White guys would lose male pride and see their women go with stronger negroes. What humiliation, what shame. Interracism is 'racism' insofar as women go with men of another race on the premise that they are superior as men.
And even though northerners mocked southern bigots, the Libs in NY an Chicago and Detroit and etc. all found out the same truth. They too began to be terrorized by black thuggery and moved away from darkening areas. White flight was due to white fright of the stronger meaner more aggressive Negro.
So, a mono-moral narrative is bogus. We need a duo-moral narrative that tries to understand both sides. (We do such for Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East Conflict. We know Jews are oppressing Palestinians, but we also know that if angry Pallies were given full equal rights, they will violently strike out at Jews whom they see as occupiers and imperialists. So, both sides have legit fears and rages. We don't use mono-moral narrative on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.)
Now, the Civil Rights Movement was a compelling one for blacks. They had a right to be angry and demand justice.
BUT, justice for blacks could only lead to all sorts of problems of whites who were likely to be treated like Jerry Quarry at the fists of Ali and Frazier.
THAT side of history should be told as well. From a biological viewpoint, whites did have some compelling moral justifications for opposing racial integration.
And given what happened to NY and other cities due to rising black crime and thuggery, we've seen how White Libs sneakily resorted to massive incarceration, gentrification, and stop and frisk to control blacks or push them out demographically. They talk of 'racial justice' but act in ways that increase segregation for themselves. Notice how rich Lib cities just get whiter and more Jewishier(and maybe more Asian).
Also, if Nixon used the Southern Strategy against Dems in 68 and 72, Lib elites used the Foreign Strategy. They used immigration to use yellows and browns as buffers between themselves and dangerous blacks. In other words, let yellows and browns get beat up by blacks instead.
And by filling the Dem Party with more immigrants, the party became more viable in the long run cuz a Black Party is bound to fall to ruin like Detroit.
But a party where browns and yellows increasingly count more than blacks is viable for the white/Jewish/homo overlords of the Dem party.
Foreign Strategy vs Southern Strategy.
They are all there on a many-leveled lark: their own and the people that allowed this.
ReplyDelete