The Problem as
Culture not Race

an is a conceptual entity not a perceptual one. An animal is a perceptual entity. Therein lies the distinction.

An animal may be cognizant of another animal as another animal. It is not cognizant of the other animals' view of existence, i.e. it's philosophy (a conceptual construct). The other animal has no philosophy. Because it is an animal it does not recognize the efficacy of thought. Hence it does not "contemplate" abstract principles. It is confined to thoughts (of a visual nature, i.e. no words) about it's immediate needs and immediate condition.

Man on the other hand (a true man not a human which is an intermediate state = half man + half animal) understands that thought and contemplation may lead to a "plan of action" which may or may not be useful in obtaining desired goals.

This is the price of forced induction (see naman.htm). It is often wrong. However, when something is got right it can be passed on to the next generation and a wrong plan can be corrected whereas no plan (read here animal) almost always goes nowhere.

It is the conceptual faculty of man that allows him to construct a civilization or culture. Civilization being constructs which serve the physical needs of man and culture being those constructs which serve his mental needs.

Here we find the true problem "culturalism" not "racism". The distinction is an all important one since confusion between the two bars any true understanding.

Race is however (in general) an overall indicator of one's culture at least for the present. Because races and the cultures they developed in isolation are now being rapidly diffused throughout the world, the time is approaching when the Earth will have but one culture by way of mutual social interaction as well as physical cross breeding. However, this will not occur in our lifetimes and may not be fully the case for another millenium (or more).

Thus, when a white American looks at a black American he expects to deal with the "general African culture". Conversely, a black American expects to deal with the "general European culture" when approaching a white American. (Similar expectations for all other races)

Lastly, though the foregoing is generally valid and is the most important principle currently operating, an actual "racism" of the animal type may exist in some of the most retrograde humans. But it should also be noted that such beings, because they are more animal than man, have no general effect on the development culture/civilization. They affect only those individuals they actually contact/harm. Their numbers are small by comparison to the general population (though the "press" they recieve is large due to violent behavior which is the grist of the media mill).

Social Equilibrium

Two differing cultures are at social equilibrium when the major mathematical (applicable statistical/probabilistic) curves approximately coincide, i.e. if 55% of whites do something and 55% of blacks do the same thing and 55% of latinos do the same thing then, with regard to that particular thing, they are all in "social equilibrium". It doesn't matter what the "thing" is.

A cultures' state is analogous to temperature. The more advanced culture can be assigned a "colder" temperature and the less advanced a "higher" temperature. (This idea has been advanced by many other people.)

When two cultures of differing temperature interact the colder one gets hotter and the hotter one gets colder until social equilibrium is reached. It is important to note that the sole factor in reaching equilibrium is the rate of interaction. No interaction (insulation) means no change means also no problems. Maximum interaction means rapid obtainment of equilibrium at the expense of many problems (this is what we are experiencing in USA).

The "problems" consist mainly in the loss of one's cultural identity and concomittantly one's autonomy which is considered the most precious possession of any sentient entity (the right to do as one pleases in all private and most public matters).

Hence, the more advanced culture considers itself demeaned and the less advanced stripped of its identity since it is expected to adopt the more advanced culture as its own at a rate faster than would be otherwise acceptable. (Where a more advanced culture is, is where the less advanced will be at some future date on its own. So it is a matter of rate rather than state.)

Now observe:
When negroes were brought as slaves 2-300 years ago, they were considered animals. And this is important, "animals" was the normal, consensus opinion arrived at by observation of differences. It was not a malevolent opinion.
After a century ... "These people are human ... they must be freed..." - Civil War.
Circa 1920 ... "Hey, boy ... bring my bags."
Again, this is not a malevolent opinion but rather the norm ... the everyday relationship.
Today ... 1997. What are the most prominent Negro interests? ... Sex, sports, violence, whining ... what? Yes, they're teenagers now. And like teenagers, they blunder badly, e.g. letting OJ off thereby costing Colin Powel the presidency (emotion over intellect ... very teen).

man    |                               x
teen   |                         x
boy    |                   x
human  |              x
animal |______x______________________________
        1700    1800    1900    2000  2075?

Animal to Man in 300 Years?

This transition takes generally far, far longer as evidenced by Western European development (maybe 3000 years?). And it appears to be linear development, hence, the 2075 estimate. I would add here that "man" means by Western cultural standards. If white Americans had to compare themselves to "aliens" we should be at a loss by their standards as well.
Incidentally, this is one reason they (aliens - if they exist) won't do anything ... interaction between non-equilibrium cultures causes more problems than it solves ... though within the context of "humans only" it's absolutely necessary since we are confined to the same limited planet.

The Negro Race as Scapegoat

Western civilization is decaying gradually. I concur with those who campare it with Rome circa ~200 A.D. It is philosophically and morally weak due to the collapse of its intellectual community.

That community has been on the "introspective defensive" for most of the twentieth century. By defensive I mean that it cannot formulate answers to social questions and therefore 'hems and haws' its way through the issues of the day all the while thinking "What have I done wrong?". In this state it can be taken advantage of and lead around like a pet goat.

Who leads it? And why?

Anyone, everyone... those who have a hidden agenda. Principle herdsmen are "the press - the new savior of the people - leading the blind because ... they need us". But the most troubling goal of these 'herdsmen' is the subconscious one.

They are preparing the society to accept the negro as the cause of the collapse of western civilization.

All collapsing civilizations need scapegoats to blame. That is why they collapse. There is no one with a 'mind' at the helm, hence, no one to steer around the inevitable obstacles and ... no one to blame ... find some one... Only a small percentage of people in such a civilization will actually see the true causes of its collapse and they will not be heard above the din of the crowd.

Without going into too great detail, the scheme runs similar to th Battle of Cannae ( 216 b.c. 2nd Punic War). The center gives way. The attacking army confidently strides into the trap. Ends close up. Surrounded ... butchered.

I have yet to see a Negro leader (good or bad) who understands consciouly or unconsciously what is going on. They seem to be completely naive in the realm of white politics. [Most white people only understand what is going on subconsciously.]

White intellectuals have left the field (defensive introspection). They're place is taken, predictably, by "media apologists". While,

The negro has taken the moral high ground
from which ... he spits.

The endless stream of expletives issuing forth now gives evidence of teenagers gone wild in the streets. They are sucked blindly into the trap. If and when civilization collapses in the USA, they will be unaware that they have been duped into a position which is militarily untenable.

Briefly, black cannot contend with white because of logistic considerations. Their position is militarily untenable because :

  • They are too few in number relative to white
  • They are concentrated in cities.
  • They have no source of food.
  • One might also add to this impossible mix a lack a fire power.
Of course, no remotely intelligent black person is unaware of the foregoing. Their public disdain for white people is based on the knowledge that white is not predominantly "racist". Rather, they simply do not care about the 'plight of the Negro'. Any black man can find evidence of this in any mirror, i.e. if white is racist then ..." Why am I still here?". But then, not caring is the same as racism (to a teenager).

Who is Black or White Anyway?

With the rise of black/white interbreeding it is often difficult to determine who is whom in regard to race. Apparently, if your mother is white and your father is black, you are still black. For, if otherwise, one would have to scream at oneself ... "I owe me!" as opposed to "You owe me!".

It is fashionable to identify with the oppressed minority because teenagers always feel that they are being discriminated against. Hence, if one is feeling oppressed, one is, by definition, black. The ranks of the dissatisfied swell.

Some blacks are white. Those who embrace European culture rather than African culture, i.e. those Negroes capable of doing technical work (read here, rational/logical). They are the Uncle Toms upon whom rests the fate of black America. These are the people who will recognize and stop the predicted slaughter before it begins (by thinking rationally, weighing the situation logically and formulating a workable plan of action).

Why Do They Do Those Things?

Why do black men prefer white women but white men don't prefer black women?

In some cases, the white woman is a trophy representing the triumph of the black man over the white culture which has oppressed him.
More often, the reason is much more obvious and philosophically distasteful.
White women are statistically better looking than black women. They have been bred for looks for perhaps 2000 years (Vikings used to steal the blond women from all over Europe resulting in the "Nordic Type") whereas, black women have been bartered for livestock till the present era resulting in no appearance changes.

The chief elements of looks are geometry of features, magnification of male/female differences, uniformity of skin color and smoothness of texture. Curiously, skin color itself is not a factor in a determination of good looks.
In the area of geometry, the eyes have been enlarged relative to the other features by making the nose and lips smaller/thinner (remember here that all races originally came from Africa). The reason that large eyes are considered beautiful is that babies have large eyes and innocence is always seen as beautiful in a conceptual being. Perceptual beings on the other hand don't give a hoot about looks. They "just wanna' do it".
The breasts are fuller and don't droop as much. (This can get really embarassing so I'll discontinue - you can fill in the other details.)

White women are also more feminine, i.e. they 'submit' in a more respectful and meaningful way. This too has been 'cultivated/cultured'. No man, black or white, wants a woman who swears like a sailor. Heterosexual men do not seek out another man in a woman's body. They look for a feminine psychology in a female body.
The proof of all of this is that the winners of black beauty contests (as judged by black men) will be women with Caucasian features, large breasts and dark, smooth, evenly colored skin.
This is not to say that I have not seen attractive black women. I have seen many but the percentage is not there.

Why do they use such foul language?

There is no black model of "not swearing". Nearly all Afro-American males swear to the point of reducing language to mere grunts. The blacks who adopt the European culture are the ones who don't swear. Black Afro-American leaders who don't swear in public do so in private.
The meaning of the profuse swearing is "in your face whitey. You can't do anything about it. You're a weakling."
There is a noticeable difference in the spoken language of Africans and American blacks. The Americans's speech is slurred, in some cases rendering it unrecognizable. For those familiar with Solzhenitzen's work, this pattern of speech is a universal response to slavery. "Yezza... massa ... I'z stupid ..." This "tongue" is a simple holdover from slavery (cut off your nose to spite your face) actually perpetuated by some with pride!?
An Africans' speech is, in contrast, much crisper and clearer because they have no recent history of slavery and hence, no crying psychological need to degrade themselves by means foul language.

Why do young black men participate in so much crime?

The cause, I believe, is ... the almost total collapse of the black family. Today, many babies are abandoned (along with the mother). Often they are abandoned by the mother as well, leaving grandma to bring up the child.
I do not believe that the collapse is a reaction to physical, financial, moral, or philosophical adversity. I know of no group of beings in the earth's history which has collapsed so utterly.

Rather, it is due to national drug policy. More specifically, the propping up of the drug trade by the government and it's curious and insidious ancillary effects.

To cause such a collapse it is necessary to do one thing. One must take the "father" out of the picture. Then you get "Lord of the Flies" - young people running amuck without any guidance at all (not just good guidance - any guidance) . That is what we are witnessing today.

How was/is this accomplished?

The drug trade performs no useful service to civilization yet it is horrifically lucrative. Young people who participate in it make of their fathers, comic figures (suckers for working at an honest job). An honest father is now a financial/philosophical joke in the eyes of the young. The profession has gone out of fashion. Now out of business. This is happening in the Latino community as well and is even spreading to the white community.

A similar thing was happening with prohibition (1920-1933) but it ended before total destruction occurred. There was a social recovery based on the men who did remain honest.

But ... the proscription of illicit drugs never ends. The gangs never end. The profitability of drugs never ends. The joke view of an honest working man never ends. The last 'real' man is going down for the count. This is the true problem. Until an honest father figure is restored as someone more than 'impotent', no resolution of this particular tragedy can ensue.

The money must be taken out of the drug trade. People must realize that the prohibition of drugs causes far more damage than the use of those drugs. The answer is not to legalize but rather, more importantly, to ignore. Just forget about the entire subject. Let it seek it's own level. When crack is 10 cents for an entire days supply, it will be the "joke".

Next Page