Neo-Fascist Review of MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON by Bob Rafaelson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Black Problems the Product of White Conditioning?

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

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

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

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

Then consider the area of funky music. White slave masters forbade Negroes from owning or beating on drums. Negro drum music was seen as crazy and savage; worse, they could be used as means of communication by slaves readying to flee or rebel. Also, whites wanted black to be orderly and obedient, so blacks were not encouraged to be funky and wild-ass. In other words, blacks were ‘bred’ to be gentle, kind, obedient, and even noble in an innocent way–like the Negro singing "Old Man River". Even in the famous anti-slave novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Negro is a suffering saint who takes his beating as a kind old soul.
IF blacks are supposed to act the way they were ‘bred’, how come they are so wildly into funky music, aggressiveness, uppityness, and etc? How is it that blacks have easily over-ridden all these conditioning
and effects of ‘breeding’ but cannot overcome the supposed aspects of conditioning that keep blacks down. Whites never ‘bred’ blacks to rape white women, but black men seem to specialize in that field. How come? White people never conditioned blacks–at least not until the late 60s–to be uppity, wild, or aggressive. Yet, a lot of blacks are uppity, wild, and aggressive. How come?

There’s a great contradiction in the black charge against white people. On the one hand, blacks claim that whites robbed them of their culture, and therefore, American blacks have forever been torn from their rich roots, and this is why they are spiritually, morally, and soulfully lost. (Funny that Africans with their roots intact are worse off, poorer, still practicing witchcraft, tribal warfare, and even cannibalism.) Yet, at the same time, blacks take pride in music such as blues, jazz, soul, and rap(and even rock) as a proud and inextinguishable continuation of their African roots and soul. Which is it? Did white people cut them off from their roots or are those roots still alive in funky music? Can blacks break out of white man’s conditioning or not? Supposedly, they can’t break out but they can break dance. Did white masters who wanted their slaves to remain docile encourage them to dance like wild crazy lunatics?
Of course, one could argue that white masters did enjoy blacks dancing and ho-de-do shuffling as a form of entertainment–and also to keep blacks childlike and innocent. But, I suspect this was tolerated because blacks naturally seemed so pent-up and restless with rhythm and oogie-boogie beat regardless of their social situation. Masters probably thought it was better to let wild black slaves release their excess jungle energy through shuffling ho-de-do dancing because it might explode in dangerous ways if completely repressed. The fact that Spanish masters in Latin America didn’t have the equivalent of oogie-boogie shuffling/dancing slaves of indigenous origin tells us that blacks were naturally than socially conditioned to be restlessly funky in one way or another–shuffling ho-do-doing docile manner or rapping fist-pumping aggressive manner. Though Mexican mestizos and Indians like to fiesta, they don’t git down and funky!!!! The natives of the Americas were originally Asiatic and tend to be inhibited and ‘lame’ than like their racial cousins across the Pacific.

Now, let’s look at how white people really ‘bred’ the blacks. It’s true that white people conditioned blacks to be ignorant and illiterate. So, let us say that is the reason why blacks are intellectually lagging in America. But, whites also conditioned blacks to be hardworking and thrifty. Surely no white slave owner in the South or a white factory owner in the North wanted a lazy black. Also, whites wanted blacks to be thrifty because a wild Negro who drank too much and got wild was no good for work on Monday morning. White people also ‘bred’ the Negro to be respectful of law and order. White folks also ‘bred’ Negro men to stay away from white women. White folks also ‘bred’ blacks to not act uppity, aggressive, hostile, or angry. Some of these conditioning could be said to be bad, some of them good. At any rate, most white people wanted blacks to emulate Booker T. Washington than Jack Johnson.
Now, if the main problem blacks face is the difficulty of breaking out of their ‘breeding’ or conditioning, why is that blacks found it SO EASY to break out of so many areas of conditioning while they seem incapable of breaking out of others? For centuries, white people didn’t ‘breed’ or condition blacks to be aggressive, criminal, loud, brash, uppity, jive-ass, howling-all-the-time, threatening, sexually promiscuous(though some black families were sadly separated by their members being sold off to other masters, most black families remained intact because white slave-owners wanted it that way. It was generally thought that a slave with a family made a happier and better worker).

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

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

To find the truth, we need to look at biology as well as history. Blacks today are largely the way they are mainly due to biology. In the past when they were not free, they had to suppress their own biological nature–or face the wrath or hostility of whites. Today, they are free, and thus every generation of blacks has been able to express its TRUE NATURE to a greater degree–thus reverting to their ‘jungle’ origin. (If reactionaries hark back to monarchy, reversionaries hark back to savagery. How ironic that the most technologically advanced nation on Earth has as its dominant mainstream culture a form of music that is utterly reversionary.) What is black biological nature? They are stronger, more aggressive, more colorful, wilder, and etc. Those factors, rather than history, account for the way blacks are today.
Same is true of Jews. It may well be that Jews, driven to professions such as usury by Christians, did develop finer financial skills than most other people. But, the level of Jewish success and power in America cannot be explained by that alone. We must take into account Jewish genius. Of course, most Jews are not geniuses. If the average Jewish IQ is 115, it means your average Jew is only bright. It also means that there is a fair number of dumb Jews. But, the smart ones are VERY SMART, and in a free meritocratic nation like the US, the sky is the limit. These Jews make billions, create networks, and help others in the Jewish community. Trickle Down Effect tends to be ethno-centric or racial among all peoples. Rich Jews help less rich Jews out. Rich blacks help less rich blacks out. Rich Irish help less rich Irish out. Rich Poles help less rich Poles out. Of course, it is politically incorrect or ‘racist’ for rich Anglos to help less rich Anglos out. Because supersmart Jews are so smart and become superrich and super powerful, the less smart Jews are likely to benefit much more than less smart gentiles whose top members aren’t as talented. This is especially true in the black community where many of its elite achieved success through politics than through business. Black elite gained power through the art of leeching off others than through the art of creating and producing.

This is a topic that needs more consideration however.

Another Way of Looking at the Henry Louis Gates and White Policeman Incident.

The recent incident involving the arrest of Harvard African-American Studies professor by Sgt. Crowley(who happens to be white) ignited a discussion across the nation about race, history, crime, and etc. This is both unfortunate and welcome. Unfortunate because it obfuscates what really happened that night–a pompous snot-nosed downity(prone to looking down on social inferiors) black professor gave a good cop unnecessary trouble, eventually pushing the liberal, politically correct, Obama-supporting white officer to arrest Gates. But, it is welcome to the extent that we do need more honest discussions on race, and if this incident has us talking, all the better. Of course, what passes for ‘honest’ discussion on race often happens to be more of the same politically correct cliches about white police brutality/harassment and the history of black(and Latino)grievances. (Never mind the far greater animosity that exists between the black and Hispanic communities. Hispanics generally haven’t had the kind of sour problem that exists between blacks and white cops. The biggest tensions between Hispanics and policemen flared up in Washington D.C. where majority of the cops happened to be black).

I offer another way to look at the tensions between blacks(generally males) and policemen(generally white, though black and Hispanic police officers also have had more trouble with blacks than with any other group). Let’s get some of the obvious things out of the way. There has been a history of white domination of the police department, and the attitude among many white officers toward the black community has sometimes been hostile. Sometimes, it’s been downright contemptuous. In both the South and the North, a good number of innocent blacks have been falsely arrested and even coerced to make confessions. Though people tend to see this as a conflict between mainly poor blacks and blue-collar white policemen, it’s really not that simple.
Though affluent whites could feign or posture with a civil and liberal conscientiousness, they’ve always depended on BRUTE police force to maintain the ‘thin blue line’ between their genteel refined world and that of the criminal classes(white, black, or otherwise). We only need to look at the Cambridge or Berkeley. Both are liberal academic communities in which an elite class of mostly white progressives put on airs and admonish society for ‘racism’, white prejudice, and police brutality BUT these white professors and students rely on the mostly white police to keep them safe from the criminal class. Indeed, if you were remove the cops altogether from college campuses and communities, white liberal elitists would be helpless before the criminal elements, especially from the black community–which seems to grow up near college towns perhaps due to menial jobs in college housing, food services, and etc. So, even as white liberals tend to look down on cops, they rely on the generally white police officers to keep them safe from the criminal elements so that they can peacefully settle into their offices and write essays, lectures, and books on the injustice of our society.

There has been the added element of blue collar white resentment toward successful or middle class blacks. In the past–and perhaps even today in some cases–a blue collar white policeman might give a tough time to an apparently well-off, decent, and law-abiding black man as if to suggest that no matter how high a black man might rise in society, he’s still under the control of the white man. Gates has studied and lectured on matters like this for SO LONG that he too has his own prejudices–though ostensibly in the name of anti-prejudice. (If an Armenian sees EVERY Turk as prejudiced denier of the Armenian genocide, he himself becomes prejudiced). Just as Christians, wrapped tightly in their own victimization–persecution and execution of Jesus, Roman persecution of Christians, Muslim/Ottoman threat, communist mass murders of Christians, etc–, were blind to those victimized by Christians, blacks who are obsessed with their own victimization cannot see how this obsession has turned into a prejudice against non-blacks. When a white officer appeared at his house that night, Gates could ONLY see the incident in one way: EVIL WHITEY CAME TO HARASS A SUCCESSFUL BLACK GUY BECAUSE BLUE COLLAR ‘RACIST’ HONKEY DON’T LIKE BLACKS, ESPECIALLY SUCCESSFUL BLACKS.

From where do prejudices arise? There is no single reason, origin, and source, but extreme self-righteous and moral certitude is one of them. Some forms of prejudice are crude and elemental: a simple case of distrusting or hating other peoples out of primal urge. But, another kind of prejudice can be ‘high-minded’, sophisticated, complex, elaborate, and even seemingly rational(or rationalized to the nth degree). The Jewish prejudice against ‘filthy goyim’ was highly complex and elaborate. Some forms of antisemitism were also complex and intellectual, based on grand theories, extensive reading of history, and a considerable(sometimes convoluted)process of rationalization. Sometimes, the prejudice can be both primal AND elaborate; the Nazi hatred of Jews was both animalistic/elemental/visceral/vicious AND intellectual/philosophical/scientific(or scientistic)/moralistic. Recall Dr. Zaius, the orangutan scholar in the movie "Planet of the Apes"? His hatred, distrust, or prejudice against humans were elaborately historical, ‘scientific’, spiritual, and moralistic. Henry Louis Gates not only resembles the orangutan scholar but thinks like him. According to the orangutan scholar, humans had once ruled the world and mistreated apes and other animals. Eventually, humans brought upon their own demise because of their obsession with domination, materialism, and exploitation. So, the apes must be careful never to trust the humans. So, even as the orangutan Dr. Zaius feels a great deal of prejudice and hostility toward the human Taylor, he sees it as justified, moral, and necessary. Zaius is blind to his own prejudice because he feels so absolutely right on historical and moral grounds. His hatred of humans is such that he will even cover up scientific evidence indicating anything good about humans. Similarly, Gates grew up with the idea of the world dominated by evil white folks. As he sees it, black Africans and blacks in America are still mired in poverty all because of white slavery, white imperialism, white capitalism, etc. He’s so convinced of this that he will bury or oppose any scientific data–no matter how valid–pointing to the fact that real problems of blacks are genetic–lower IQ and more aggressive temperament–than historical, social, or economic. Anyway, extreme moralism in the combat of prejudice produces yet another kind of prejudice, as shared by Dr. Zaius and Dr. Gates.

Whatever the social complications of the racial relations in this country, we generally and understandably focus on stories and incidents where blacks and whites(or other racial or ethnic groups)CLASH OPENLY. There are two areas where whites and blacks clash most in the most violent or hostile ways: black criminal acts against whites and white police action against blacks: black savagery vs ‘police brutality.’ Though black-on-white crime is far more prevalent than instances of white police abuse against blacks, the former gets relatively minor media coverage whereas the latter fits into the liberal grand narrative. The liberal grand narrative favors ‘speaking to power’ against institutions, and policemen are easy targets since they do wield power over us. Cops are given the license to search people, arrest people, even to hit or kill people in some cases. So, whenever there’s a clash between cops and blacks, the liberal narrative is likely to see it as one of oppressive imperialist white pigs harassing or oppressing innocent blacks; or, even if black ‘victims’ of police brutality are indeed criminal, they are seen partly as ‘victims’ of social inequality and/or historical legacy.

Liberals are also hard on cops because they feel a degree of social ‘guilt.’ They tend to be affluent and live in nice quiet neighborhoods or in gated communities. Their taxes hire police to protect their lives and property. Cops are essentially their pitbulls to keep the riffraff away. So, liberals are acutely aware of their privileged place in society and somewhat queasy about using pitbull cops to keep poor folks away–or down. So, when cops get ‘out of hand’, liberals are often the first to step in and condemn them. Liberals want their properties protected by all means but don’t want to be closely associated with the pitbulls who are doing the dirty work
Remember the movie "Paths of Glory" where a top general manipulates lower ranking officers to do all the dirty work but steps away from the ensuing fisaco and indeed blames his underlings–whom he manipulated/ordered to take on the risks–for the catastrophe? Well, liberals are much the same way. On the one hand, they rely on extensive police protection to maintain their world of privilege and power. On the other, they act like they are perfect angels while it’s the stupid brutish cops who are causing all the trouble. The fact is cops exist only because the powerful and rich in our society hire and rely on them to maintain order so that their can hold onto their lives and property. Especially since liberals are generally opposed to gun ownership, they rely on the state for protection.

Of course, there are bad cops, but good cop or bad cop, cops exist because of the macro-structural socio-economic needs of our society. So, we mustn’t just blame cops; the very people who hire and depend on them must also bear some of the blame–if indeed we are to play the blame game. After all, the cop who went to Gates’s house didn’t do so for the hell of it. He went there because a liberal white woman called 911 to report a possible burglary in a good part of the town in the wee hours of the night. And, there was no racial profiling. Racial profiling applies to cases where you stop and check someone simply because he happens to be of a particular race. But, the woman called 911 not because she simply saw some black people but because she thought she saw two men trying to jimmy open a door. She reported on a particular suspicious ACT late at night, and the cops answered this call. What racial profiling?
If anything, Henry Louis Gates has been racially profiled–that is selected, chosen, and favored–for success. Indeed, for every black guy who may be wrongfully picked off the street by negative racial profiling, there are people like Gates and the Obamas who have been positively racially profiled for affection, support, preference, and promotion. Clearly, Michelle Obama wouldn’t have amounted to much had she been white instead of black. She was able to attend Princeton and Harvard–and graduate with honors–only because she was racially profiled for success by the powerful institutions controlled by white(largely Jewish)liberals. So, these people are indeed beneficiaries of racial profiling.

Even so, people like Gates and Obama are aware of the basic racial tensions that exist in society. Yes, white America has opened its doors and arms to them. Yes, they’ve become rich, successful, influential, popular, and honored by white America. But in some ways, they feel manipulated by whites as symbols of ‘clean-cut’ Negroes employed to show that ‘much progress has been made’ and to send a possibly perniciously conservative message that America has put its racial problems behind.

Even if blacks have still have legitimate grievances with (white) America, the overwhelming fact remains that many blacks are neither ‘decent’ nor ‘responsible.’ Gates and Obama think it’s condescending and unrealistic for white people to expect ALL or MOST blacks to be clean-cut Negroes since too many blacks are still too deeply traumatized and scarred by history and social inequity to think sanely or responsibly. One could argue that though a good number of blacks broke free from the traumatic mode or mold, many blacks simply cannot break out of the mental/cultural/social trap UNLESS white America profoundly and deeply(and collectively) confesses its guilt and make reparative means to help blacks who’ve been kept down and left behind. In other words, if you break a man’s legs, you can’t expect him to walk like other people. If you blind a man, you can’t expect him to see. You must offer eye surgery and rehabilitative therapy; if he’s blinded for life, you must help him for life. To some extent, it is true that the legacy of white oppression of blacks may account for some of black backwardness. But, the rapid decline of black communities, societies, and nations upon independence from white rule–even if oppressive–indicates that the larger problem is genetic. Just look at post-white-rule Zimbabwe and where South Africa is headed. Also, was there any kind of black paradise BEFORE the arrival of the white man in Africa? Only in the wild fantasies of Afro-centrists and willfully naive/gullible white liberals. Also, entire peoples cannot be compared with individuals. An individual lives with his own limbs and memories for his entire life whereas a new generation has every chance and opportunity to think new thoughts, feel new things, and try new things–and forget the past. Cultural and historical memory is artificially passed down, not biologically inherited. So, one of the problems of black society is its ‘leaders’ emphasize and pass down only those memories and feelings of hatred/resentment which are most useless to blacks. These cultural and historical problems are not passed down genetically. For instance, the Irish suffered a lot under the Anglos, but in America that didn’t hold the Irish back from accomplishing great things, in many cases rising even above Wasps who’d settled and gained power in America before them.
If anything is passed down genetically, it is racial characteristics which are indeed the real problem of blackness. It is the biology than the culture or sociology of blackness that is most troubling to this nation. There are too many examples of people who had been oppressed for 100s, indeed 1000s, of years who’ve made great strides against great odds. Indeed, if the black spirit had been so terribly broken, why are they so good at sports? Why are they so successful in funky popular music? Shouldn’t all blacks be filled with too much despair to be dribbling basketballs or playing the sax? Blacks excel in sports and funky music for genetic reasons. They often fail in social and economic matters also largely because of genetic factors–lower intelligence and less emotional self-restraint due to biochemistry.

Anyway, we now arrive at the main point. Why is there a SPECIAL problem that lingers between white cops and black males? There are many social reasons worthy of consideration, but I will connect them to the genetic. I would argue that the relation between black males and white cops is problematic because it violates, overturns, or reverses the Natural racial relationship between white males and black males.
Following the Civil Rights Movement, white males lost the Special Privilege or Advantage they had enjoyed over black males. Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, white males in America–North and South, East and West–were favored over blacks(even better qualified blacks) and enjoyed social, political, and legal advantages over blacks. Cops–mostly white–were more prone to side with whites than with blacks, even when whites were in the wrong; this was especially true in the segregated South. There was an understanding among many blacks that one shouldn’t be too ‘uppity’ in American society. Blacks were supposed to know their place and be a ‘credit to their race’. Blacks knew that if they acted up, got too rowdy, or caused trouble–or even stood their ground for all the right reasons–, the bulk of the white community–rich and poor–would unite against them. Even during WWII, blacks served in segregated units in the military.

But, a great deal changed in the 50s and especially in the 60s. Whites lost their special privileges in politics, laws, and rights. Political and legal equality between whites and blacks were not only achieved but strenuously enforced by the system. Though there were rogue politicians and policemen who resisted this change and didn’t heed the commands of the federal or local government, the changes were immense and vast and unstoppable.
The whole thing would have led to a happy ending if indeed whites and blacks gained equality in social and political matters. But, that didn’t happen and why?

Liberals argued that the academic and economic distances between whites and blacks weren’t closed due to the lingering legacy of white discrimination and oppression of blacks in the past. Blacks argued that ‘invisible racism’ still existed all around society and that there were subtle means by which white folks tried to keep blacks down. The liberal argument has merit to the extent that we are all shaped by our past. To say that the centuries of second-class status in America could have had NO impact on blacks would be like saying centuries of autocratic rule and culture in Russia had NO impact on the collective psyche of Russians.
It’s also true that some forms of subtle discrimination or antagonism against blacks still do exist to some degree, at least among small businesses and non-black individuals which are less likely to be sued by big time lawyers. Many small businessmen prefer to hire anyone but blacks. Many non-blacks look for opportunities move to neighborhoods that have few blacks. We need only to check messages on Facebook or anywhere on the internet to see that there are still plenty of people who prefer not to hire, fraternize, or cohabit with blacks if they can help it.
This is a form a prejudice, but what liberals and blacks often ignore is it has little or nothing to do with skin color. We all know that blacks are not simply white people with black skin. There are differences among races that go beyond skin color, and there are legitimate reasons why non-blacks–whites, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, and yes, even(or especially)the Jews–prefer not to deal with or live next to large numbers of black people. It’s not blind prejudice but a knowing prejudice–one based on experience and social/biological reality.

In the 50s/60s, when whites(especially white gentiles)lost their special privilege, new inequalities developed. With Asians, whites found little problem and things were more or less equal. Though Asians tend to study harder, they make up a small minority and have no natural advantages–in intellect or strength–compared to whites. Also, Asians tend to conform to the status quo and don’t indulge much in the ‘culture of critique’–as Kevin Macdonald calls the Jewish mode of cultural engagement–or radical politics. Even in cases where Asians do turn ‘radical’, they follow in the footsteps of their Jewish teachers and black role-models than as leading forces of the movement. So, even without special laws or privileges favoring whites over Asian-Americans(or Arab-Americans), white Americans have had no big problem with them. But, things have been different with Jews and blacks. Once white gentiles lost special privileges over Jews and blacks, the end-result was not equality but lingering inequality and/or new inequalities due to considerable biological imbalances.

There had been a time when white gentiles rigged the system to limit the number of Jews at elite universities and top levels of powerful professions. The reason why the city colleges of NY had once been excellent schools was because many smart Jews–kept out of Harvard, Yale, and other prestigious schools in favor of less smart but better connected WASPs–attended them. Indeed, many Jewish students of the city colleges outperformed complacent WASP students at Ivy League schools who felt entitled to their privilege and favoritism. But, even Jews who attended the Ivy League schools faced subtle roadblocks EVEN IF they graduated with top honors. In "Chutzpah", Alan Dershowitz recounts how Jewish law students who graduated with top honors were often passed over by the great law firms and financial institutions in favor of WASP students with middling grades. Because Jews, being smart, found themselves competing with the gentile white elite, Jews were likely to feel more bitter about elite white power than about lower-class black thuggery. Many Jewish small businessmen in the ghetto did indeed face problems with black criminals and customers, but Jews soon left those professions(and besides Jews did business in those communities before they really turned into the horrible hell they became since the 60s). Their children aspired to be doctors, lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc. So, within a generation or two, Jews butted heads with the WASP elite than with black thugs. If Jews had been less intelligent–like ‘dumb polacks’ or ‘greaseball dagos’–and had to worry day and night about black crime poor neighborhoods, Jews might have a different perspective. But, Jews made their money and soon left the black zones and found themselves subtly or not-so-subtly discriminated against by the white wasp elite whose power and privilege the Jews challenged.
Jews also felt angry because they were relatively ‘funny looking’ and thus made to feel unworthy of marrying the daughters of WASPs. Jewish men grew neurotic and turned into a bunch of Woody Allens deep inside, lusting after wasp women and fantasizing about undermining the entire white male system which prevented Jews from getting all the quality ‘shikse pussy’ they wanted. Jewish women, many of whom were less-than-attractive, also became neurotic in a worse way. They were angry at the White Shikse for making them feel ugly and inadequate, AND they were angry at the male order–mostly white gentile but also Jewish male–for keeping the smart Jewish women down. Jewish women felt smart or smarter than most people, so why did the shikse bimbo get all the attention and love? Why did men–gentile or Jewish–have most of the power? Since Jewish women couldn’t win in the battle of looks or romantic attention, they turned to radical intellectualism and brought on the feminist movement.

Anyway, the point is things changed a great deal in the 60s, and the new reality was firmly established by the 1970s. White gentile males no longer enjoyed special privileges or favors over Jews, blacks, women, or other groups. In an ideal world, that should have been that, a happy ending with equality for all. But, it didn’t turn out that way. Since Jews are a more intelligent people, they began to take over the top institutions all across the nation. Whether in law, finance, media, arts, entertainment, medicine, science, academia, etc, etc, Jews gained dominance. Since intellectual and ideological trends generally flow top to bottom, whatever new ideas hatched by Jewish radical academes or whatever news stories covered by the biggest media outlets influenced and shaped everyone from big city to small town.

Since Jews are only 2% of the population, their influence in America should ideally have been only 2%. But, around 75% of the most influential and powerful people in America today are Jewish. This is something to admire and hold in awe to some degree. The greatness of the Jewish people cannot be denied. Only petty and churlish people will rationalize that Jewish power has been the product of conspiracy or cabal-ish behavior. Of course, Jews do help one another through a close-knit network, but the degree of Jewish accomplishment could not have been possible without Jewish genius. And recall that Jews had outperformed their European gentile peers in the 19th century when there were still tremendous barriers to Jewish opportunity–even after liberalization of society–and when gentiles stuck together(and when antisemitism was quite fashionable and nothing to be ashamed of). Kevin MacDonald argues that Jewish businesses drove out non-Jewish businesses through hostile means, but hostile maneuvers are meaningless unless they are effective, well-organized, and efficiently planned and managed. John D. Rockefeller was a ‘hostile’ oilman who drove his competitors out of business, but he was also a master strategist who knew what he was doing. Bill Gates has been a hostile computer giant, but could he have succeeded by hostility alone? Of course not. He knew how to come up with products people wanted, market them efficiently, and set up business relations that made others depend on Microsoft. Whether he’s a good man or bad man, he’s been more than hostile. He’s been smart, efficient, and strategic–like the ‘hostile’ Jews.
Because of their nebbishness, Jews never posed a physical threat to whites. Jewish threat to whites was intellectual, cultural, and legal. If a bunch of ‘dumb polacks’ beat up a Jew, a Jew would get back at them with lawsuits or by media control which screamed ‘bloody murder by evil neo-Nazis’. Jews didn’t have to fight with fists. They fought back and gained mastery through gaining control of legal professions, the courts, the legislature(made up of lawyers), and publicity(media which swayed popular opinion). So, if a skinhead thug sprayed a swastika on a Rabbi’s house, the Jewish media-legal juggernaut could fight back and go after not only the culprit but shame the ENTIRE white community. Since no white community wanted to be tagged as Neo-Nazi or Hateful, all white communities carefully monitored and clamped down on possible antisemites among them. The taint of antisemitism could bring shame to an entire town or even have dire economic consequences. A tourist spot, for example, could be boycotted. Or, many rich Jewish businesses may not invest there or spend money there. For example, Jewish Hollywood threatened Louisiana with economic boycott if David Duke were elected as governor. And, the Hollywood Jews, closely allied with gays, threatened Colorado ski resorts with boycott if the state passed laws that might be construed as hostile to homos.
Also, politicians, so reliant on Jewish money and Jewish-controlled media, have had to stress over and over that the greatest virtue in the world is to hug and obey the Jews.

With their superior smarts, tribal networks, and moral narcissism rooted in their spiritual heritage and the sacralization of the Holocaust, the aggressive liberal Jews gained prominence in this country. They beat white gentile society. But, white society didn’t become subservient to Jews only because of Jewish victory in culture and law. White society became subservient or dependent on Jews since much of what we rely on in various intellectually challenging fields came from and are mostly managed–and further advanced–by Jewish genius.
Though a good number of Jews were behind the recent financial fiasco, the world of finance is so complex that only Jews are able to ‘fix’ it. So, whether Jews do good or bad, we must rely on their skills. Suppose there’s an auto mechanic who messes up your car. Since you know nothing about cars, you will have to rely on him to repair the thing he messed up. There are many things in our society which are like that. Because so much technology and new systems were created through Jewish genius, we rely on Jews to keep them working. Though US isn’t the only advanced nation in the world, most of the macro-innovations have come from Jewish scientists and thinkers in America(and Israel and Europe). Some of these ideas have been truly astounding and revolutionary. Other have been labyrinthine and complex but are really shyster tricks to rig the system so that only the smart and clever can play. This has been the case with finance in recent years. The instruments involved have been staggeringly complex, multi-layered, and densely interconnected. Only very smart people could come up with these systems and manage them, but they turned out to systems of deceit and manipulation, not true systems of useful innovation and efficiency.

If the loss of white privilege didn’t lead to equality between white gentile and the Jew but to the supremacy of the Jew in the intellectual, economic, and cultural spheres of American life, the loss of white privilege didn’t lead to equality between whites and blacks either but to the supremacy of blacks in sports, funky music, and control the streets(and public spaces).
In the grand historical narrative told by liberals, big powerful white males had oppressed, intimidated, and bullied noble and innocent blacks–especially black males–all through American history. To an extent, it’s a narrative accepted even by the White Right to some extent because it presents an image of white male power and black male subservience. (Though the image of white males may be negative, it still presents white men as Tough and black males as scared.) We’ve all been exposed to countless PBS documentaries where redneck whites in the South(and white ethnic toughies in the North)push helpless, frightened, or childlike blacks around. We’ve seen images of clean-cut black kids harassed and pushed around by mean whites in segregated diners. Or, we’ve seen images of tough clashing with blacks in the north when Michael King(aka Dr. Martin Luther King Jr) came to town to lead a march with the Negroes. In all these cases, we’ve been shown blacks as victims and whites as hysterical, delirious haters. (If the balance of power in the South was indeed white-on-black, it was more complex in the officially unsegregated North. Even by the 40s and 50s, most whites in the North chose to move away from black or blackening areas due to fearsome black criminality and aggressiveness. Though the explosion of black crime really took off in the mid 60s to 70s, many decent white people had always known of–learned the hard way quite often–the dangers of black criminality and aggressiveness in places in Chicago, NY, Philadelphia, Boston, etc.).

There is something wrong with the image put forth by the liberal-historical grand narrative. While it was indeed true that white people put blacks down and kept them segregated–officially in the South, defacto in the North–, the reasons for white hostility toward blacks were partly grounded in legitimate fears. Though white society was loathe to admit it, it feared the physically stronger Negroes. White males feared to admit this as they’d become accustomed to racial pride as the dominant race in the world. White men like to see themselves as John Wayne, the white conqueror of savage lands and defender of white civilization. And, white women wanted to believe that their men were the toughest, noblest, and most heroic. To admit racial fear of blacks would have meant white males were less masculine than black males. For white women to admit this racial fact might imply ‘jungle fever’ for the manlier Negro.

For this reason(the difficulty of facing and dealing with biological facts), whites found various means–legal, economic, social, political, etc–to keep blacks down, away, or apart. But, these means weren’t wholly successful because of the rise of men like Joe Louis, Floyd Patterson, and Jackie Robinson in sports. (Also, a nation that prided itself a fair-minded democracy couldn’t embark on a total strategy of racial domination as the Nazis tried to do.) But, these cross-over athletes had to watch themselves and ‘behave’(and not do the Jack Johnson thing which might spook white folks and lead to a backlash). More than in sports, black magnetism made itself felt through music, especially jazz music. Though Jazz wasn’t necessarily or solely black–white and Jewish musicians made great contributions– the majority of the towering innovators in Jazz were indeed black. Also, black Jazz had a flair and power beyond white Jazz which tended to be mellower. So, even though most white women went to Jazz clubs with white male partners, they were being seduced by a very sexual black-styled music. The subconscious cultural implication was that even though the rational, mechanical, and cold intellect of white man had created such instruments as the trumpet and saxophone, it was the funky, wild, and groovy soul of the Negro who squeezed REAL music out of those instruments. White boys understood the mechanics, Black boys understood music... or so it was subliminally felt by many white aficionados of Jazz.

The equality that white liberals had hoped for didn’t come once special privileges were removed for whites. In the 50s and 60s, blacks made such social gains that whites no longer enjoyed legal or political advantages over blacks in most communities. Those communities that didn’t comply with the new way would get bad press and be shamed nationally(and internationally)through the media, would be boycotted by businesses(which were themselves threatened with boycotts or lawsuits if they did business with bigots), and/or would sued by a gang of lawyers.

So, what happened? Why weren’t there justice and equality between whites and blacks after the 60s? Biology made itself felt. Since whites no longer enjoyed protection as a racial group, they had to deal with blacks on a one-on-one basis. It could only lead to the wussification or the pussification of the white males. White males became to blacks what women are to men: the weaker group. In schools, buses, movie theaters, parks, playgrounds, work place, and so on, blacks could push whites around. Blacks could threaten whites, blacks could taunt whites, blacks could bully whites, blacks could insult whites, and so on, but whites had to just take it. Of course, not all blacks were rude and repulsive, but a good many were. In the old order, if a white bully attacked a black guy, other whites would side with him with the full force of police, government, and law behind white power. So, even if the black guy could beat up the whitey on a one-on-one basis, he had to watch out since he was up against a united white system. In the new system, if a white guy attacked a black guy, he was all alone. The black guy would fight back and ‘kick his ass.’ Worse, if a black guy attacked a white guy, the white guy was still all alone and could no longer rely on white unity which was deemed ‘racist’ in the new order. On a purely one-on-one basis, a white guy would be foolish to attack a black guy since the black guy could ‘kick his ass’, but a black guy could attack a white guy with impunity since he could ‘kick the white boy’s ass.’
Even blacks who were not particularly bullying toward whites could act obnoxious or rowdy in many ways; because of white fear of blacks, whites dared not complain of rowdy black behavior. A rowdy black can still be a friendly black; but if you complained of his rowdiness, he might be both a rowdy and an angry black. So, whenever blacks acted wild and crazy, whites pretended or fooled themselves as if it was all very cool, funny, and entertaining(and even tried to join in the fun in a half-hearted way); the only racial options seemed to be rowdy, obnoxious, and happy blacks OR rowdy, obnoxious, and angry blacks. Since it’s a given that blacks are ‘colorful, musical, and fun-loving,’ the thing is to just keep those big strong wild boys smiling instead of growling. What do you do if a big bear comes upon your camp and messes things up? Do you shout at it or attack it? No, you accept the loss and hope that the bear will stay happy rummaging for food than turn angry and attack you.

Also, even if some white guy mustered up the courage to complain about black rowdiness, the black and white liberal perspective on such complaint was that ‘racist’ whites still expected blacks to be docile and subservient instead of ‘uppity’. For blacks and white liberals, everything was a zero sum game. Either a black man was UPPITY AND PROUD or shuffling and uncle-tom-ish. There was NOTHING in between. Since blacks had been made to swallow their pride and shuffle before whitey for so long, the idea was that blacks had every right–and need–to act wild and crazy to show off their proud blackness and dignity. (Never mind there was no dignity to all this black craziness.)
Blacks were rowdy and obnoxious for three reasons. They are genetically predisposed to be wilder and less inhibited. They knew white boys were scared and could do nothing about it. Black culture and white liberalism that developed in the late 60s–lionizing the likes of Muhammad Ali–defined blackness in a way that promoted the wild jive-ass mofo. So, with each passing year, it became a part of black cultural and social psyche that they were the toughest, baddest, hippest, coolest, punkass mofos on the block, in the city, in the state, in the nation, in the whole wide world. In schools, black boys knew they could whup white boys. So, many white folks moved out to non-black neighborhoods because white parents didn’t want their kids to be beaten up nor emasculated up by Negro kids. But, not all white kids could move to safer areas. Some were rather dumb and poor and were stuck in the integrated neighborhoods. The girls among them would eventually come to bed down with Negroes and have mulatto kids since they preferred tough black boyfriends who could defend them than wimpy white boyfriends who cowered before black bullies(and dared not stand up for their women in the presence of tough muscular Negroes). The white boys either turned into white toms(white uncle toms)acting like ‘niggaz’ in the hope of badass black magic rubbing off on their white skins OR they turned bitter and adopted stuff like skinhead-ism or Neo-Nazism.

But, the problems didn’t just occur in the schools. It was in the streets. Blacks ‘own’ much of the public spaces in big cities and integrated towns. They run around as they please, holler and scream as they please, make a nuisance of themselves as they please, rob and steal as they please, and etc. And, almost no one complains because the black thug would say, ‘what you say about me, mothaf__a?’ and taunt, threaten, or even attack the complainer. So, if you complain to black thugs who are causing the trouble, you get beaten up. If you complain to the leaders of the black community, you get labeled a ‘racist’ for stereotyping black men as dangerous thugs. If you complain to the white liberal community, they look at you as a hopeless white bigot without sympathy for those ‘disenfranchised’ blacks. The white conservative community might lend their ears, but even they are too busy proving that they are NOT ‘racist’ and will likely throw you under the bus.
In movie theaters blacks often scream and holler, but you can’t complain because if you did, they’ll turn on you and holler, ‘you talkin to me, white boy???!!!’ And, the Negroes will then kick your ass there and then or after the movie.

Of course, assault and battery–and even threats–are against the law, but it doesn’t much matter because if you call the cops to report some crazy blacks, the cops will arrive long after the Negroes ‘whupped your ass’. And, even if the Negroes are arrested by some luck, they won’t stay in detention for long and will soon be back out in the streets, especially if they are juveniles.

Also, it’s a matter of male pride. Suppose Negroes harass a white guy and his white girlfriend. Suppose the white guy, afraid of Negroes, calls the cops. By doing that, he’s ‘acting like a pussy.’ He’s showing that he’s afraid of the Negro, can’t stand up to the Negroes on his own. The Negroes would laugh at his ass, and his girlfriend will be humiliated that she’s with a ‘pussyass wimp’. I know, all of this sounds pretty ridiculous and miserable, but it has been the SOCIAL REALITY of America for quite some time.
It’s a no-win situation for the white man. If he decides to stand up to the Negro, he’ll likely ‘get his ass whupped.’. If he calls the cops, not only will the cops arrive to late to ‘save his ass’ but he will have lost his ‘manhood’ since he called for help than standing his ground. This is why white men had kept the black man down for so long. In their subconscious mind, white males sensed that legal and political equality with Negroes would not lead to social equality. It would lead to the sexual, physical, and public(street-level)superiority of the Negro.
This relational fact is also true in the military and in many workplaces. Sure, whites and blacks famously get along fine in many work settings, BUT there have also been many cases of black causing trouble on the job, getting all violent, pushing whites around, acting all intimidating and the like. Even when blacks are clearly in the wrong, our legal and social system is such that blacks can cry ‘RACISM’ and sue their white co-workers and the company. Just look at the Gates-Crowley case. Crowley did nothing wrong and simply did his job–accompanied by black police officers–, but that stupid jive-ass Gates screamed bloody ‘racism’ and won the support of our punkass Negro president who showed his true colors: Black. Obama is a reverse Oreo. White-ish on the outside, coal black on the inside.

Because blacks tend to be less inhibited and more shameless, black workers are more likely to steal on the job and violate rules. They also often do as they please because they know that their fellow blacks(even honest ones)won’t rat on them in the name of STICKING TOGETHER and because non-black workers will remain mum because they are scared of being confronted by an angry ‘falsely accused’ black guy. Besides, even when the black guy is accused for a thievery he really did commit, he can cry ‘racism’ and say he’s been stereotyped or ‘racially profiled’ as a black-guy-who-steals. Though blacks commit much of the shoplifting in this country, they throw a fit if they’re caught doing it. If white man can do no right in our PC society, black man can do no wrong. The Gates-Crowley incident highlighted this fact. Though Crowley did nothing wrong, the president himself called him ‘stupid.’ Though Gates did nothing right, he was assumed by blacks and the liberal media to have been wronged by white society. Even white liberals who soon learned that Gates had been in the wrong rationalized that he was right in the larger social and historical sense. Since he belongs to a people who’d been historically wronged, everything he does or happens to him must be seen through the prism of ‘white racism’. William Styron might even start writing a novel called the ‘Confessions of Henry Louis Gates Jr."

Anyway, it’s become the norm for blacks–both men and women but especially the men–to look upon themselves as the TRUE MASTERS OF SOCIETY. Though blacks bitch and whine about how white folks fear blacks, they also take special pride in that very fact.
There used to be a time when the black man feared the white man, and this fear made the white man feel good and proud. Of course, the black man didn’t fear the white man’s physicality but white man’s united political, legal, and social power base. There was a time when if a black guy got out of hand, a whole bunch of whites would come after him–and even the Law(controlled by whites) would do little to stop the white mob looking to ‘get the uppity or crazy nigger’. White men took pride in the fact that they were feared by non-whites. To be feared means that you are tough, powerful, and intimidating. Men love sports, and athletes often trash talk to psych the opponent out. So today, blacks enjoy being feared by non-blacks. The whole rap culture is, to an extent, all about scaring people and gaining ‘respect’ through fear.
But, white fear of blacks also has led to white flight, lack of investment in the black community, and even hostility towards ‘dangerous’ thug-like blacks. In a way, blacks want to have the cake and eat it too. They wanted to be badass and to be feared by all those ‘lame faggoty-ass’ whites out there, but they also want to be loved and admired. Blacks want to act the thug AND receive a hug. Muhammad Ali went furthest with this con-game than anyone else and was the most successful. He acted like a thug punk, but white society eventually lionized him as a ‘great hero for the entire nation.’
Similarly, black guys take pride in their con-man hijinks YET also demand to be trusted. Blacks love to boast of how they are so slick, slippery, jazzy, and done fooled/tricked/conned the ‘faggotyass lame bland square white boy’ real good, but these same con-men are then complain that white society doesn’t trust blacks because of white ‘racism.’ . Blacks want to steal AND be offered a deal. In a way, the whole business of acting the thug but demanding a hug OR going for the steal but expecting a deal is a jive-ass con-man race hustle act. It too is a way of putting one over on the ‘lame’ white boy. You know how Jazz works, with a more or less conventional melodic line upended, twisted, harassed, and lampooned by syncopation, rhythm, and all sorts of musical trickery? Well, blacks work the same way on white psychology. Obama is a political jazz artist though he plays it mellower than most in order to fool whitey. So, on the one hand, blacks seem to be making an earnest and sincere complaint about problems in society. But, watch or listen carefully, and it is merely the pretext for all their jazzy con-man trickery they pull up and down, left and right. So, both Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates act like they are respectable and dignified Ivy League scholars, but it’s really just a race-hustling act of self-promotion, psychological manipulation of gulliberal privileged whites who only know black reality and problems through books, tv shows, and movies made by fellow liberals and leftists.

Anyway, the current social reality is one where black men see themselves as the top dogs of society, as the alpha males, as the badass mofos. Black kids learn this from an early age. In schools, they learn they can easily beat up, push around, or steal the school lunch money of non-blacks. In public places, they realize they can do just about anything and get away with it. Since black males raised by single mothers have no sense of social hierarchy, they don’t respect their elders either. All that matter are physical strength and thug attitude. So, if black kids get on a bus and act wild and crazy, they know that people will not complain. Indeed, most people will not even look at the blacks lest the black punks stare back and yell threateningly, ‘what you looking at, bitch????!!!’ (The main reason why much of the violence in America is between black male and black male is because only a black male may have the balls to stand up to another black male. Just as most violence among lions, bears, and elephants is among top males of the species trying to gain supremacy, much of our social violence involves black males fighting black males because only black males will challenge other black males. There’s likely to be more peace between black male and white male or between black male and Hispanic male since the white or Hispanic male is likely to back down and take on the role of the beta male when confronted by alpha black males. But, where Hispanic males outnumber black males by a sizable margin, the dynamic changes. If three Hispanics gang up on one Negro, there can be like the wolf pack beating a bear.)
Even blacks who don’t have personally negative or hostile relationships with whites or other non-blacks feel a sense of racial superiority because it’s readily obvious from sports and popular music that blacks are faster, stronger, tougher, and so on. So, even in cases where blacks and whites get along just fine, black guys feel as entitled to being the commanding figures while the white guys should play a subservient role.
Increasingly, black men also feel a sense of superiority in the fact that more and more white women are rejecting or leaving their white boyfriends and going with blacks. And, black men also realize that white men, who used to be offended by such sexual behavior in the past, seem more resigned to this new reality. There are two main reasons for this. One is the ‘pussification’ of the white male. Having been emasculated by the tougher, ‘sexier’ and, funkier Negro, the white man has become not only a ‘white boy’ but more even something like a white girl himself. Just look at all those dweeby white boys cheering on black athletes at NBA or NFL games. You can hardly tell them apart from white girls or white cheerleaders. It’s almost as if white boys are swooning and wetting their panties at the sight of tough macho black athletes as much as the real white girls are. (Just consider Christopher Matthews whose leg vibrates whenever he listens to Barack Obama.) Having no male pride, white men are less likely to be offended by black men taking white women. Indeed, they probably wish they were white girls themselves to be ravished by big tough black men. Notice that the whole METROSEXUAL phenomenon is largely a white male phenomenon. How many black metrosexuals are there? Black men are too busy being simply sexual while white men(who’ve been reduced to being white boys) are now hononary homos.
The other reason why white males remain sulking and silent about the loss of white females to black males is the manner in which they’ve either been brainwashed or clobbered by political correctness. White males have been told that it is ‘racist’ to feel sexual resentment. They’ve been told that any kind of racial possessiveness is a form of evil patriarchal oppression where women are seen as property. In a truly free society, each woman should be allowed to choose her sexual partner, and if she chooses a black guy, so be it. That is the essence of LIBERTARIANISM as well as Liberalism, which goes to show how useless libertarianism is to white folks. White males, from a young age, are exposed to the liberal narrative of American history which says EVIL WHITE MALES KEPT THE BLACK MAN DOWN BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO KEEP WHITE WOMEN AS ‘PURE’ PERSONAL PROPERTY OF EVIL WHITE MALENESS. This liberal narrative says that white women and black males must now be free and liberated to do as they please... and they are supposedly the Natural Pair since black males are the mostly manly and white women are the prettiest(generally speaking) and in need of sexual liberation by the Noble Negro. Of course, this isn’t stated blatantly, but if you read the symbols, listen to the music, read between the lines, and study the images of interracism or interracial propaganda, that is the unavoidable impression.
A movie like "Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner" was very old-fashioned and argued that a white woman should marry a Negro if she was decent enough to look into his heart than judge him by his color. The message was moral than sensual. But, interracism today is very much aware of race. Even as it ostensibly professes the ideology of racial equality and color-blindness, the messages we get from movies, music, and etc is that white girls should go with blacks because black men are more manly, more musical, more charismatic, and ‘bigger’.

It’s gotten to the point that even black geeks–or bleeks–are accustomed to seeing themselves as tough, badass, or deserving of respect. This is rather ironic since many bleeks or bookish blacks are mistreated and bullied by the tough blacks for ‘trying to act white.’ In fact, bleeks are much more likely to find friendly people among whites than among tough blacks. There’s a reason for this. White people, with the burden of ‘racism’ hanging over them–are eager to show that they have black friends or get along with black people. Bleeks are far less threatening to whites than tough blacks are. So, both liberal and conservative whites prefer bleeks to black thugs–blugs. Also, for white men at least, a bleek is less sexual threatening than a blug is. But, there’s a further irony to this. Though many whites may have trepidations about integrating with blugs, they prefer to see blugs in sports, movies, and popular music. Blugs are just more entertaining as wild entertainers or athletes. Whites want bleeks in their neighborhoods but want blugs on their TV.

Since white society opens its arms to bleeks, you’d think bleeks would be grateful–especially as much of black community looks down on black people ‘who try to act white.’ But, this isn’t necessarily so. Even bleeks identify with blugs and want to enjoy some of that badass macho aura. Since black culture–consumed by blacks of all classes–is centered around athleticism and musicality, all blacks–even bleeks–feel entitled to being a badass mofo looked up, feared, and admired by white folks.
So, even bleeks like Spike Lee and Henry Louis Gates want to be looked upon as Muhammad Ali or Michael Jordan. Clarence Page, the Chicago Tribune journalist, is a serious bleek but he takes every extreme black position to show that he’s just as much an angry badass mofo just like the rest of his blug brothas. No wonder he sided with OJ Simpson during the trial. In some ways, bleeks are EVEN MORE aggressive in some ways to prove their credentials as bona-fide black men and badass dudes no honkey should mess with. Bleeks look around and see that white men and women look up to, fear, admire, worship, and are intimidated by studly blacks. Bleeks want to share in the aura of the black tower of power. BUT, the fact is white folk see bleeks as ‘clean cut Negroes’ who are easier to get along with. Though bleeks do play on this ‘clean cut’ image to get ahead in society(by manipulating the psychology of white folks), they feel compromised and sold-out. They feel like (often light-skinned) House Negroes allowed into the White Mansion only because they chose to play the white man’s game. To prove to themselves and to the black community(and even to the sympathetic liberal white community) that they are not sell-outs or House Negroes, these bleeks sometimes blow up and make quite a scene.
Gates surely realized through all these years that white men don’t fear him, don’t cower before him like a beta-male should before an alpha male. On the one hand, he wants to belong to the elite ‘white-dominated’ society, but his comfortable position in it fills him with anxiety and doubts as to his blackness. He may enjoy his role as an Ivy League scholar but he also wants to be looked upon as a kind of Muhammad Ali or Wilt Chamberlain. But, all said and done, he’s just a bleek. He’s so geeky that I’ll bet even a short Mexican or Asian guy could kick his ass.

Because black pride has become such as collective mindset, all black men–even bleeks–feel entitled to be looked up to, feared, and admired as badass studs. There was a similar feeling among white males long ago. All white men once felt entitled to feeling of racial superiority; even ‘white trash’ felt insulted by the existence of non-whites(especially blacks) who worked hard and did much better than poor whites. Just as ‘poor white trash’ felt insulted by the existence of affluent and successful blacks, bleeks feel insulted that they aren’t perceived the same way that black studs, athletes, and thugs are. Yes, the irony is pretty alarming. On the one hand, bleeks like Gates bitch and whine that white society looks upon black males as thuggish, dangerous, and criminal. On the other, Gates feel left out in being perceived as a fellow badass Mandingo mothaf__a.
It’s no wonder that he talked Ebonic trash as the white officer walked away. He was trying to establish his credentials as a commanding blug than as a whiny bleek. In a subconscious way, he was begging the policeman to regard him as a badass black dude than as a college professor. On the one hand, he was offended that the white cop might see him as just another black criminal. But, once it was established that he was indeed the owner of the house, he was offended that the cop just him as just an affluent bleek.
Be that as it may, the bigger problem in society at large is indeed the uneasy relationship between black males and white cops. Why? Because it upsets and upends the natural one-on-one relationship between the two groups. On a one-on-one basis, the black male is generally the master over the white male. This is very evident in schools, sports fields, funky music, public spaces, and sexual competition. (White girls go for black males but black girls don’t go for white males–though vice versa is also true. If white girls find black men more manly than white males, black girls find white males less manly than black males. Also, black girls are acutely aware that most white men don’t particularly care for them.) In almost all settings–schools, work place, buses, movie theaters, and etc–, blacks are accustomed to white males deferring to them, backing down when tensions arise, walking away, or averting the eyes. Indeed, one of the most quickest, subtlest, and most effective means of establishing one’s alpha male status over other males is the game of eye contact. Before a fight, two fighters stare into each other’s eyes. In most public setting, when a black guy stares at a white guy, it’s the white guy who averts his gaze first. It is the equivalent of a beta-male wolf lowering his tail between his hind legs before an alpha male wolf. So, black males grow up with this mindset from an early age. In the schoolyard and on TV, they see that black males are numero uno and that white boy is ‘da bitch’ to the ‘nigga’.
In schools, white boys make way for black dudes. In the workplace, if a black guy gets angry, the white peers hunker down and prays the anger of the black dude will blow over.

There are two areas which violate this Natural Condition of male racial dynamics: In the military and between white cops and black suspects. In the military, higher white officers may shout down and order black underlings. But, because of the very nature of the military–order and discipline–, blacks have no choice but to accept the reality of hierarchy. Besides, blacks can rise up the ranks and order white underlings around. Indeed, there are many black sergeants who love to lord over them ‘white boys.’
The real trouble is between white policemen and black suspects. Out of their uniforms, white policemen would simply be beta males in relation to black males. But, their uniform and badge give them the license to pull people over, walk into homes, pull out their guns, use violence, arrest people, and even kill people. So, armed with badge, uniform, and guns, white males unnaturally gain alpha male status over blacks. This is enraging and frustrating to black males because in all other situations, they have control over white males.
The relationship is far less troublesome between policemen and white males, Asian males, Hispanic males, etc White males don’t naturally feel superior to other white males, civilian or in the police. Asian males don’t feel as having alpha male status over white males. Though there is rising sense of collective Hispanic power, on a purely one-on-one basis, a Hispanic male doesn’t feel he’s alpha male over white males. So, if a white male, Hispanic male, or an Asian male were pulled over by a cop, he wouldn’t feel insulted. His pride wouldn’t be hurt by an unnatural situation. But, because black males do generally go around feeling and acting like they are the baddest and toughest mofos in the universe, they get enraged when white cops–who should naturally be beta-males in relation to black males–pull them over and gain power over them. Black males think, "I can whup a white boy in school, at work, in the streets, on the bus, in the movie theater, etc, etc. so why should this white cop be treating me like I’m his bitch?"

It is for this reason that white cops and black males have a troubled relationship. Some say this tension is rooted in historical experience and perception, but that is true only to an extent. After all, white cops have less problem with Hispanics though a lot of Hispanics are also arrested as criminal suspects. And, Chinese- and Japanese-Americans have also been mistreated in the past by white policemen in the past. Besides, if blacks are allergic to the police because police in the past were not fair, why are blacks so enthusiastic about sports and government which had also discriminated against blacks and pulled all sorts to tricks to keep them down? Hispanics and Asians–criminal or otherwise–have less trouble with white cops despite the history of past injustice because Hispanics and Asians don’t feel that their alpha male status is being violated or threatened when they are approached by policemen and told what to do. Black males, on the other hand, resent the fact that some white boy–whose ass they could kick if not for his badge and gun–is telling them what to do and patting them down like ‘a bitch’.

The same kind of tension exists between man and a woman. Man is the stronger and more commanding figure of authority. So, when a male figure of authority–like a police officer–approaches a female, she acknowledges him as a figure of authority–as both a police officer and as a man.
But, if a female police officer approached a male, a male will have to respect her authority as a police officer but might take offense that a bitch is pushing him around because she has a badge and gun. He would feel a degree of resentment. He might respect her official position but not the idea of a woman telling him what to do.
Of course, the resentment also goes the other way around. The woman officer might feel that the male suspect giving her lip doesn’t really respect her and sees her as just a ‘bitch’.
Similarly, white officers sense that many black male suspects don’t respect them as real men; black male suspects often put on an attitude like, "you lucky you have a badge and gun cuz if we were man-to-man in an alley, I would kick your honkey ass in no time." It is indeed true that, 19 times out of 20, "a fight, a fight, a Negro and a white!!!" will end up with black guy on top.
These were the troubled emotions behind the whole Rodney King affair. On the one side, there was big strong black guy Rodney King, taunting the white cops as if to say, "you white boys are a bunch of faggots and I could whup your ass if you took me on without your guns, billy clubs, and tasers." On the other side were the white cops who were fuming that yet another black thug was giving them lip, taunting them, showing them no respect. Indeed, Rodney King had been arrested several times before and treated cordially. So, it got into his thick skull that white boy cops couldn’t and wouldn’t do him any harm because they were scared of his towering black macho manhood. But, that night, the white cops were seething mad. They got tired of a big black guy questioning and taunting their white manhood. They lost control, went overboard, and beat the crap out of Rodney Jiveass Thug King.

The whole white-black relation is built on a strange mix of guilt and fear. Whites are supposed to feel guilt for past discrimination experienced by blacks. But, whites also feel fear because of the aggressiveness of many blacks. Though this fear is really rooted in the black man’s superior strength, white society–both liberals and conservatives–have decided on a gentler explanation: whites are fearful of righteous or justified black anger built up over the centuries. But, whites had terribly mistreated Chinese-Americans and American Indians too, yet white people don’t fear those people. Why not? It’s because a ‘geeky’ Chinese-American doesn’t terrify a white guy like a big strong Negro does. We only need to look at Europe. Even in European nations without a history of oppression of blacks–therefore little or no reason for ‘white guilt’–, there is growing fear of blacks(immigrants from Africa and their children)simply because these blacks are stronger than whites, commit tons of crimes, and act aggressive. The French Empire mistreated Africans and Vietnamese, and there are both African and Vietnamese immigrants in France, BUT the French fear blacks but not Vietnamese. Wouldn’t Vietnamese be just as angry and resentful for the historical wrongs done to them by the French? However Vietnamese in France may feel toward the white race, the French don’t fear them. They are too scrawny and ‘geeky.’ But, French whites are fearful of blacks in France because blacks are bigger and stronger. Heck, even the Vietnamese in France are fearful of blacks though they have no reason to feel any guilt toward the blacks.

And so, we have the problem of race in America. Though white liberals(and even conservatives) prefer to sweep the truth under the carpet of happy multiculturalism and pretend that racial problems are solely the legacy of slavery and discrimination, all truly honest people know otherwise. We know that the problems plaguing our society are rooted in race. Suppose white Americans had brought Asian-Indians or Vietnamese instead of blacks to work as slaves. Suppose 15% of American population today was Asian-Indian or Vietnamese rather than black. Would the problems we have be the same? NO!!! There would indeed be some problem stemming from history or historical consciousness related to racial injustice. Also, 15% of the population is a large number, and there’s always bound to be tensions between the majority and a large minority. But, it’s likely that Vietnamese-Americans or Asian-Indian-Americans–with higher intelligence and more inhibited temperaments–would have made much greater socio-economic gains than blacks have done. (On the other hand, they would not have excelled much in sports nor funky music.) But most importantly of all, Vietnamese-Americans or Asian-Indian-Americans(whose ancestors had once been slaves) would not pose a physical or sexual threat to white America. White women would not be particularly fascinated by Asian-Indian-American nor by Vietnamese-American men. And, white males would rule in sports and hardly feel much nor any fear in relation to Asian-Indian-Americans or Vietnamese-Americans.
Notice that the problem that white America has with Mexican-Americans or Mexican Illegals is numerical. White people don’t fear Mexican-Americans or Mexican Illegals on a one-on-one basis. They do fear blacks on a one-on-one basis. If an average white guy got into a fight with an average Mexican, the white guy would be favored 6-4. But, if a white guy got into a fight with a black guy, the white guy would be disadvantaged 1-19. So, race has much to do with our social reality, and all this crap about ‘race is a myth’ is the true myth. This is why we need to define RACISM the right way and make it the very central concept in the discussion and understanding of humanity and problems we face in America. Any rightist who uses the term RACISM the way the Left has defined it is a fool. RACISM should simply mean race + ism = belief in races. And, in order to stop the use of the term in a kneejerk negative-connoted way, WE must stop using it that way. The word RACISM has become an effective weapon for the Left because the Right–ever so lacking in terminological inventiveness and intellectual seriousness–allowed the Left to define the term and then followed along like a stupid dog pulled along on a leash.

It is because of the black physical power and prowess that cops are told to go easy on black suspects. If you ‘provoke’ black males, they will act up, cops will have to use greater force, the wild black guy will fight back even harder, and then the cops will really have to take him down. And, then there will be lawsuits, marches led by Sharpton, and maybe even a riot. The liberal media would have us believe that cops should treat black suspects in a nice manner because of historical legacy, sensitivity among blacks on issues of social injustice, and blah blah, but that’s just so much crap. The real issue is the strength of blacks. Since blacks are scary, the idea is that we should treat them nice lest they get angry and throw a fit.
This is indeed THE RULE in most of society. In schools, teachers are told to go easy on angry black students who act up. If a black student gets out of hand, the teacher is often blamed for having ‘provoked’ the kid or for not having understood nor respected him/her properly. Besides, a teacher isn’t allowed to use any force.
Same is true in other settings. Politicians and policemen tell us that if we see thugs(often black) acting criminal or rowdy in public, we should not act the ‘hero.’. No, we should do NOTHING and just call the police... who will arrive an ½ hour later.
At the workplace, if a black guy feels wronged, he goes into a screaming, threatening, and taunting fit, and non-blacks get really scared. So, extra effort is made–through sensitivity training and political correctness–to prevent any situation where blacks might go crazy. Even when it’s the blacks who started the trouble, the general policy is hold the black guy’s hand, try to empathize with him, and forgive and forget. Otherwise, the black guy might really go crazy, really mess things up, police might have to be called, and lawsuits might be on the way.

A lot of blacks are natural troublemakers. The likes of Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright can be found in all walks of life, various professions. Indeed, Gates and Obama are merely slicker versions of them. They are race hustling slicksters, playing on whitey’s guilt and fear, on white hopefulness and white dopeyness.

When blacks burn down a city and attack innocent bystanders, we are not supposed to blame them but try to understand them, ‘start a conversation’, pump more money into the neighborhoods burned down by blacks themselves, and wring our hands. (By the way, how do you have a conversation with gangs of thugs who are out to beat the shit out of you?)
It’s very easy for white liberals to say such things because they happen to be well-off and live in safe neighborhoods and are relatively untouched by black violence. It’s easy for the likes of the Clintons, the Kennedies, or liberal Jews to pontificate in a ‘progressive’, sympathetic, noble-minded, and generous manner. But, I dare them to live in the border areas where blacks are always committing all sorts of crime or attacking innocent people. Let’s see how high-and-mighty they sound then.

We are supposed to UNDERSTAND blacks in order to allay our FEAR of them. We can’t really act on our fears because of our GUILT. If guilt weren’t attached to blacks, we would see blacks for what they are and deal with them accordingly. Suppose German-Americans in this country acted like blacks. Suppose they caused trouble everywhere, beat up people, robbed and raped all over the place, and caused all sorts of trouble day in and day out against all other racial or ethnic groups. We would deal with them harshly. Our fear of their thuggery would justify our draconian measures. Guilt would not paralyze us from taking necessary harsh measures to teach the German-American community how to behave.
But, because white people(despite the fact that most white people never owned slaves in this country and came only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) are supposed to feel GUILT toward blacks(all of them, including recent African immigrants whose ancestors sold black slaves to white slave shippers), we can’t do anything when blacks act crazy and violent and fill our hearts with fear. When militaristic Japanese pulled Pearl Harbor or when radical Muslims pulled 9/11, we went ahead and beat the crap out of them and taught them a lesson they’ll never forget. For the killing of less than 3,000 Americans in Hawaii, we proceeded to kill over 2 million ‘Japs’. For 3,000 dead in 9/11, we proceeded with actions that came to claim 100,000 of ‘ragheads’. But, if blacks were to burn down entire cities and kill a whole lot of white people, the white liberal(and mainstream conservative line) would simply say ‘let’s have a conversation about race.’ (But, how can we have an honest conversation about race when truly honest conversations are denigrated as ‘racist’?
This is why the term ‘racism’ must be salvaged and given legitimacy. Racism is race + ism = belief in the existence of races.) Just look at what’s happening in South Africa. Blacks are rising up and killing and raping whites left and right, but our (liberal Jewish dominated)white media will report very little of it or spin it as if to suggest that (1) white victims deserve what’s coming to them or (2) no matter what hardships faced by whites, our main sympathy and hope should be with black South Africans. (Because Jews pulled this dirty trick on whites, many on the White Right have come to support the Palestinians and Iranians against the Israelis).
Maybe Anglo-Americans and some Irish-Americans do carry some moral burden for the legacy of slavery, but the fact remains that a solid majority of whites in this country are the descendants of whites who arrived after the emancipation of black slaves. There’s no reason why the descendants of Polish, Greek, Italian, Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Finnish, Swedish, etc immigrants should feel ANY guilt regarding blacks. (Besides in Europe, the ancestors of those people often suffered much more than blacks in America who had it RELATIVELY good even as slaves. Life was much tougher for a Russian or Polish serf than for a black slave in America. And, what blacks suffered in 20th century America is nothing compared to what Europeans suffered. Less than 3000 blacks were lynched from 1860 to 1960, but millions of Poles died in a few years in the 1940s. 3-5 million Ukrainians died in the 1930s thanks to Soviet communism managed by left-wing Jews.)

Blacks and liberals will say that ALL whites were favored over blacks through most of American history, reaped the rewards of black sweat and labor, and that even the later white arrivals discriminated against blacks. Some did, some didn’t. But, if we’re going to use that logic, blacks also settled and gained wealth and advantages from the white man’s taking land from Indians, so blacks are also collaborators in the ‘stealing of Native American land.’ If all whites, whether they chose to or not, were defacto oppressors of blacks, than all non-Indian-Americans–including blacks–were defacto oppressors of Indian-Americans since anyone who made a living off this land did so on land that had been taken from Indians. Also, a lot of black porters made a pretty good working on trains, but who laid down much of the railroad tracks? Chinese-Americans, who were treated terribly and with great brutality. Since blacks benefitted from the product of the sweat and blood of Chinese-Americans, don’t blacks owe Chinese-Americans something? And, why were blacks able to drive around in cars and enjoy other advantages of this society in the 20th century? Because of the sweat and labor of the mostly ‘underpaid’ and ‘exploited’ white working class who toiled away in dark, hot, sweaty factories. How come blacks can see dentists and doctors? Because of modern medicine developed by white man. How come blacks have access to books and learning? Because of printing presses invented by white people and all the underpaid white workers who toiled to produce more pressed, more books, more learning, etc. How come blacks can settle in Nevada, California, Texas, and other states? Because of the blood, sweat, and tears of white men who conquered those territories through much struggle and built up those communities through much work. How come blacks can afford cheap food and products? Because of the toil of cheap illegal farm labor and because of Chinese factory workers who work all day for a dollar a day. Looks like blacks owe a ton of shit to other people than vice versa.

And, white people in the North didn’t have to sacrifice their own lives nor kill fellow whites in the South in the Civil War. Whites in the North could have tolerated slavery in the South forever. But, Northern whites decided to fight to keep the Union together and to end slavery. So, black freedom owes a lot to the sacrifice of Northern whites(many of them recently arrived Irishmen) who didn’t own slaves but freely chose to sacrifice their own lives so that black strangers in the South could be free. Yet, our historical culture and remembrance ONLY stresses one message: only blacks suffered, only blacks are victims, blacks never enjoyed an ounce of happiness prior to the 60s, everyone(except Jews)did wrong to blacks, and everyone(even non-white minorities) owes blacks something. And, by blacks, we also mean blacks from West Indies and recently from Africa. The hell with this shit. And, it won’t do any good. Look, Obama was made president by white America, but that lowlife punk still bitches, whines, and complains albeit in a subtler and refined manner that fools so many gulliberal white fools.