Some of us, who study history, often wonder how the ancients might have been just like us and how they might have been quite different. For decades, this question lurked in the dark recesses of my mind. However, only once or twice did the question ever bubble up to the surface and become spoken.
Then, not very long ago, I was surfing the internet reading about something or other when I saw my question in print. It turned out that another man had not only asked the question but he had even written a book about it. In all fairness, the "consciousness" he was talking about is not exactly the same thing that most of us think of when we hear the word. None the less, a fleshing out of my hunch was only a few clicks away!
I ordered the book "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. It cost me 98 cents (plus shipping) on Amazon and was well worth the money. Jaynes, it turned out, was a modern day Renaissance man. Proficient in several languages, the history of religion, archeology, psychology and more, his book builds a fairly strong case that "consciousness" came into being only around 3,000 years ago, probably first amongst the Assyrians. Most compelling are his comparisons of ancient texts from before the transformation to those following it. He delves very deeply into the Iliad and the Odyssey, explaining that some parts were added later. He does the same for various books of the Bible. Even as brain scans were in their infancy at the time (the book was written in the 1970's), he boldly predicts that, as technology advances, certain results would be seen within the field of hallucination and schizophrenia research. Sure enough, his predictions came true and tend to support his theory.
Many, who hear this theory, wonder out loud, "how is it possible that humans who lacked consciousness could build the pyramids, sustain complex civilizations and even invent writing?" The first few chapters give adequate answers to these questions. Later chapters explain how the invention of writing helped seal the fate of the predecessor to the conscious mind: the "bicameral mind". In the bicameral mind, the left hemisphere of the brain would "speak" to the right hemisphere. The ancients understood this as the voice of "God":
"During the eras of the bicameral mind, we may suppose that the stress threshold for hallucinations was much, much lower than in either normal people or schizophrenics today. The only stress necessary was that which occurs when a change in behavior is necessary because of some novelty in a situation. Anything that could not be dealt with on the basis of habit, any conflict between work and fatigue, between attack and flight, any choice between whom to obey or what to do, anything that required any decision at all was sufficient to cause an auditory hallucination (pg. 93)."
Does Jaynes' claim that ancient humans were all schizophrenics? Not really; just that schizophrenia is a diseased version, a mutated throwback if you will, of what used to be normal. His theory does unravel some mysteries such as why some ancient civilizations suddenly collapsed for no apparent reason (they reached a critical level of complexity no longer supported by the bicameral mind), how the Assyrians were able to so easily conquer their rivals (it was conscious versus bicameral - no contest) and the historical role of prophesy, idols and the Oracles (a yearning for the "Voice of God" that was lost).
As mentioned, it turns out not all humans became conscious at the same time. Even back in the 70's, when the book was written, political correctness was already very strong. This is probably why Jaynes does not explicitly explain the conquest of the New World, by Europe, within the context of his theory. But he does hint at it and his theory certainly helps explain how several hundred Spanish troops could have toppled mighty empires.
There is a website for Jaynes' theory, and a related forum and there have been followup books such as "Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness". Unfortunately, Jaynes died in 1997 but his spirit lives on in his monumental ideas.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
"Color Bind"
It seems only "people of color" can be victims of genocide in America:
"When Planned Parenthood opens its new center this Sunday on Northeast Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, it will face a diverse group of protesters.
Many of the 100 or so expected demonstrators will be African-Americans alleging that plopping new abortion clinics in neighborhoods with large African-American populations is tantamount to black genocide...
But Liz Delapoer, Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette's local marketing director, counters allegations the health-care provider targets African-American neighborhoods for abortion services.
Planned Parenthood has 16 centers throughout predominantly white Oregon, including one in Southeast Portland. The new 40,000-square-foot clinic on MLK replaces one that is 11 blocks west. And Delapoer notes that only 5 percent of Planned Parenthood's services are abortion related..." (WillametteWeek Feb. 10, 2010).
I think it's peculiar that blacks are concerned about genocide. After all, their portion of the American population has been creeping up over the decades. The following table is from Wikipedia:
"When Planned Parenthood opens its new center this Sunday on Northeast Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, it will face a diverse group of protesters.
Many of the 100 or so expected demonstrators will be African-Americans alleging that plopping new abortion clinics in neighborhoods with large African-American populations is tantamount to black genocide...
But Liz Delapoer, Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette's local marketing director, counters allegations the health-care provider targets African-American neighborhoods for abortion services.
Planned Parenthood has 16 centers throughout predominantly white Oregon, including one in Southeast Portland. The new 40,000-square-foot clinic on MLK replaces one that is 11 blocks west. And Delapoer notes that only 5 percent of Planned Parenthood's services are abortion related..." (WillametteWeek Feb. 10, 2010).
I think it's peculiar that blacks are concerned about genocide. After all, their portion of the American population has been creeping up over the decades. The following table is from Wikipedia:
If anybody should be concerned about genocide, it's whites.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Zionist crimes against Jews
Much has been made of the terrible things Zionists have done to the Palestinians, but less widely known are their crimes against fellow Jews. I have, in my possession, a booklet entitled "The Children of Tehran Accuse". It was published in Jerusalem, 1943 even as the crimes were coming to light.
Secular Zionists sent people throughout Eastern Europe to spread the word that Jewish orphans should make their way to Tehran, Iran where they would be taken care of amongst their own until such time it would be safe to bring them to the Promised Land. In this way, several hundred holocaust orphans found themselves under the auspices of secular Zionists in a strange land. The Zionists proceeded to abuse, neglect and persecute the children. They also forcibly estranged them from their religious roots. Following is an excerpt, translated from Hebrew by yours truly:
One by one or in small groups the Polish refugee children were gathered to Iran. In the Spring of their days was revealed to them the dreadful aspects of life. Three years of wandering, hunger, sickness and want was their lot. Some of them escaped alone from the oppressive sword of the Nazi, without parents or acquaintances, like wild animals pursued (their enemies) at their necks. Others crossed the border to Russia accompanied by their parents and with their own hands buried their fathers and mothers in the Siberian snow...and, behold, was sprung upon them the rage of the “instructors”, who took control over them.
The Polish government had established, in Tehran, a large camp for all refugee children, citizens of Poland and saw to all their needs. They understood that, for religious educational reasons, it’s important to separate the Jewish children from the Christian children. Therefore they looked with favor upon the request by the “Jewish Agency” in Tehran, to establish a camp for Jewish children and they ceded control to them, to be responsible for those Jewish children. At the same time they (the Polish government) continued to provide for those children from its own pocket. Mr. Shaefer, representative of the Jewish Agency in Tehran (Mr. Rosenblum came out against him in “haboker” Feb. 5th, 1947 with serious accusations involving his care of Jewish issues, issues that are not relevant here), handing over the management of the camp to the attorney Rodzinsky, a refugee from Vilnius who was half assimilated. The latter then handed over educational responsibility to a member of “Shomer hatza’ir” (a far left group), David Levinburg who was also a refugee and the only one who knew Hebrew from among all the original adults who arrived in Tehran. His knowledge of the language served him well, it seems, for he received the responsibility over the education of the children. David Levinburg chose instructors from among his friends and acquaintances as he saw fit. Most of these were unfit both from a teaching credential standpoint and from a Jewish standpoint. A great proportion of them couldn’t even speak Yiddish. Dr. Hirshberg, who migrated from Tehran to Israel, confirmed this fact from a meeting of the instructors which took place in Itlit, when he said:
Among the great assembly of instructors were isolated individuals who turned to me and said, “We want to learn Hebrew” but most didn’t even say that. This is painful to me, for an instructor must first learn Hebrew and only then can he teach it. Without Hebrew and without a personal, and deep, relationship with Hebrew culture and without the Hebrew spirit, no instructor has the right to teach these children who are destined to be the Hebrew youth of Israel.
Favoritism was what determined who would be an instructor, this is also the reason why up to 733 children who dwelt in the camp had 65 instructors. This means one instructor for every 11 children – in no other institution for children do we find such a high ratio of instructors. (These numbers were reported by Madam Szold during her speech before the instructors in Haifa, two days before the arrival of the children).
During the month of Elul, 1942 the special Jewish camp was set up. With the arrival of the days of awe, Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, the yearnings of these children, wise in the ways of the life of Torah, were especially strong. After three years these were the first Jewish holidays that they would be able to observe properly more or less. The instructors, who had decided to “prepare” the children for their future “experience in secular Israel” utilized every means at their disposal to stifle and uproot, in a calculating manner, any longings the children had for their religion and heritage. The details of the lifestyle in Tehran were given to us via testimony by these children of Tehran: Nathan Alboym, 16, Avraham Frankle, 16:
Rosh Hashana. On the night of Rosh Hashana all the children gathered together for evening prayers. The prayers were fervent, emotional and full of tears. The children prayed in the manner of their forefathers during the high holy days. They prayed for the rescue of their families and for their own rescue. The childrens' prayers were viewed, by the instructors, as “hysterical nervousness” (so writes Bracha Habas in the name of Rodnitsky in her article in “Davar” from 18th Adar). In the middle of the prayers, David Rosenberg entered and demanded to cease the prayers and to hurry up for a festive feast in honor of the holiday. During the feast, none of the instructors or any members of the Agency refrained from smoking cigarettes – Rosh Hashana was on Sabbath that year (and smoking is strictly forbidden on Sabbath). The following day the children sought to pray in the synagogue of Tehran. Even though the prayers began at six o’clock, they were allowed to leave only at nine o’clock in the morning. They reached the synagogue during the reading of the Torah. The instructors forbade the children to enter inside the synagogue and so the children remained outside in the garden, even to hear the blowing of the shofar – no permission was given them. After half an hour had passed, they took them from there and brought them to a coffee house. A few of the children were able to sneak into the synagogue. Those children were taken by force, via taxi, back to the camp. The day after that they requested a shofar but their request was denied.
Yom Kippur. After the kol nidre prayers, David Levinberg announced, in a loud voice, “children, time to eat”. All the instructors sat down in the office, opened the windows completely and set up a feast in full sight of the children. The witness, Nathan Alboym remained in the lobby until a late hour and recited psalms. The instructor commanded him to cease and then turned off the lights. The next day on Yom Kippur they transported the children to the city in buses, even though the camp was no more than twenty minutes by foot from the synagogue. (This fact was certified by Mrs. Sertok, who visited Tehran on Agency business for a meeting with the council of Polish Jewry – attested to by Mr. Eliezer Sirkis) (travel, by motor vehicle, is prohibited on Sabbath and the holidays, including Yom Kippur). They spent a short hour at the synagogue for the intent was to arouse the wealthy of Tehran to the plight of the children. In fact wealthy donors pledged a sum of 60,000 Tomnis to benefit the camp. One child sought to remain for the yizkor service to remember the souls of his parents. The instructor Glicher struck him and removed him from the synagogue by force.
During the holiday of Sukkoth the children were not allowed to visit the city for prayers at all. The children requested an ethrog for the benediction and were told: “for three years you were able to make do without an ethrog so you can do without one this year as well”. During Simhath Torah they set up a party and distributed bread, butter and pig meat to honor the holiday. They performed a play whose theme was the burning of the Holy Temple – not with prayer and mourning, rather with (joy that) the bricks would be used to build houses in Israel.
The issue of kosher. The kitchen was not kosher (Mrs. Sirtok certified this fact during the above mentioned conference). With minor effort it would have been possible to attain authorization and assistance from the Polish government to make the kitchen kosher, but the instructors refused to even raise a finger to this end. At first many of the children refused to eat the non-kosher food. They approached David Levinberg and asked him to increase their portions of bread or to give them other foods instead of meat and cooked foods that they don’t eat. The above person refused using the excuse that there wasn’t enough money. At that same time they were spending hundreds of Tomnis for theater and entertainment. For David Levinberg’s birthday they purchased wine for the sum of 500 Tomnis, arranged a party for all the instructors, got drunk and carried on until the police got involved and arrested a few of them. Those who ate only kosher subsisted only on their regular portion of bread which was the same as was given to those who ate non-kosher. There were instances of fainting and heart attacks from weakness and hunger. David Levinberg told the doctor who treated one of the children who was fainting, who is the witness – Frankle: “who cares if one or two of them die from hunger. Then they’ll give up on kosher”. Over time, those who insisted on kosher diminished. Not many were able to withstand this test after having been hungry for three years. The child Binyamin Gezundheit related to Mrs. Wein, an instructor in a camp in Hadera (Israel) that when he demanded kosher food in Tehran they punished him and wouldn’t let him eat even permitted foods, until his will was broken and he ate non-kosher. Frankel put together a list of children who requested kosher and it included about 250 names not counting the small children. Only 14 children withstood the test and did not give in and it would be appropriate to recognize their names as a remembrance."
The story of the Children of Tehran is only one example of the cruelty secular Zionists perpetrated upon their fellow Jews. If there is interest, I'll publish more of the pamphlet.
Secular Zionists sent people throughout Eastern Europe to spread the word that Jewish orphans should make their way to Tehran, Iran where they would be taken care of amongst their own until such time it would be safe to bring them to the Promised Land. In this way, several hundred holocaust orphans found themselves under the auspices of secular Zionists in a strange land. The Zionists proceeded to abuse, neglect and persecute the children. They also forcibly estranged them from their religious roots. Following is an excerpt, translated from Hebrew by yours truly:
The children are gathered
One by one or in small groups the Polish refugee children were gathered to Iran. In the Spring of their days was revealed to them the dreadful aspects of life. Three years of wandering, hunger, sickness and want was their lot. Some of them escaped alone from the oppressive sword of the Nazi, without parents or acquaintances, like wild animals pursued (their enemies) at their necks. Others crossed the border to Russia accompanied by their parents and with their own hands buried their fathers and mothers in the Siberian snow...and, behold, was sprung upon them the rage of the “instructors”, who took control over them.
The Polish government had established, in Tehran, a large camp for all refugee children, citizens of Poland and saw to all their needs. They understood that, for religious educational reasons, it’s important to separate the Jewish children from the Christian children. Therefore they looked with favor upon the request by the “Jewish Agency” in Tehran, to establish a camp for Jewish children and they ceded control to them, to be responsible for those Jewish children. At the same time they (the Polish government) continued to provide for those children from its own pocket. Mr. Shaefer, representative of the Jewish Agency in Tehran (Mr. Rosenblum came out against him in “haboker” Feb. 5th, 1947 with serious accusations involving his care of Jewish issues, issues that are not relevant here), handing over the management of the camp to the attorney Rodzinsky, a refugee from Vilnius who was half assimilated. The latter then handed over educational responsibility to a member of “Shomer hatza’ir” (a far left group), David Levinburg who was also a refugee and the only one who knew Hebrew from among all the original adults who arrived in Tehran. His knowledge of the language served him well, it seems, for he received the responsibility over the education of the children. David Levinburg chose instructors from among his friends and acquaintances as he saw fit. Most of these were unfit both from a teaching credential standpoint and from a Jewish standpoint. A great proportion of them couldn’t even speak Yiddish. Dr. Hirshberg, who migrated from Tehran to Israel, confirmed this fact from a meeting of the instructors which took place in Itlit, when he said:
Among the great assembly of instructors were isolated individuals who turned to me and said, “We want to learn Hebrew” but most didn’t even say that. This is painful to me, for an instructor must first learn Hebrew and only then can he teach it. Without Hebrew and without a personal, and deep, relationship with Hebrew culture and without the Hebrew spirit, no instructor has the right to teach these children who are destined to be the Hebrew youth of Israel.
Favoritism was what determined who would be an instructor, this is also the reason why up to 733 children who dwelt in the camp had 65 instructors. This means one instructor for every 11 children – in no other institution for children do we find such a high ratio of instructors. (These numbers were reported by Madam Szold during her speech before the instructors in Haifa, two days before the arrival of the children).
Religious Persecution
During the month of Elul, 1942 the special Jewish camp was set up. With the arrival of the days of awe, Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, the yearnings of these children, wise in the ways of the life of Torah, were especially strong. After three years these were the first Jewish holidays that they would be able to observe properly more or less. The instructors, who had decided to “prepare” the children for their future “experience in secular Israel” utilized every means at their disposal to stifle and uproot, in a calculating manner, any longings the children had for their religion and heritage. The details of the lifestyle in Tehran were given to us via testimony by these children of Tehran: Nathan Alboym, 16, Avraham Frankle, 16:
Rosh Hashana. On the night of Rosh Hashana all the children gathered together for evening prayers. The prayers were fervent, emotional and full of tears. The children prayed in the manner of their forefathers during the high holy days. They prayed for the rescue of their families and for their own rescue. The childrens' prayers were viewed, by the instructors, as “hysterical nervousness” (so writes Bracha Habas in the name of Rodnitsky in her article in “Davar” from 18th Adar). In the middle of the prayers, David Rosenberg entered and demanded to cease the prayers and to hurry up for a festive feast in honor of the holiday. During the feast, none of the instructors or any members of the Agency refrained from smoking cigarettes – Rosh Hashana was on Sabbath that year (and smoking is strictly forbidden on Sabbath). The following day the children sought to pray in the synagogue of Tehran. Even though the prayers began at six o’clock, they were allowed to leave only at nine o’clock in the morning. They reached the synagogue during the reading of the Torah. The instructors forbade the children to enter inside the synagogue and so the children remained outside in the garden, even to hear the blowing of the shofar – no permission was given them. After half an hour had passed, they took them from there and brought them to a coffee house. A few of the children were able to sneak into the synagogue. Those children were taken by force, via taxi, back to the camp. The day after that they requested a shofar but their request was denied.
Yom Kippur. After the kol nidre prayers, David Levinberg announced, in a loud voice, “children, time to eat”. All the instructors sat down in the office, opened the windows completely and set up a feast in full sight of the children. The witness, Nathan Alboym remained in the lobby until a late hour and recited psalms. The instructor commanded him to cease and then turned off the lights. The next day on Yom Kippur they transported the children to the city in buses, even though the camp was no more than twenty minutes by foot from the synagogue. (This fact was certified by Mrs. Sertok, who visited Tehran on Agency business for a meeting with the council of Polish Jewry – attested to by Mr. Eliezer Sirkis) (travel, by motor vehicle, is prohibited on Sabbath and the holidays, including Yom Kippur). They spent a short hour at the synagogue for the intent was to arouse the wealthy of Tehran to the plight of the children. In fact wealthy donors pledged a sum of 60,000 Tomnis to benefit the camp. One child sought to remain for the yizkor service to remember the souls of his parents. The instructor Glicher struck him and removed him from the synagogue by force.
During the holiday of Sukkoth the children were not allowed to visit the city for prayers at all. The children requested an ethrog for the benediction and were told: “for three years you were able to make do without an ethrog so you can do without one this year as well”. During Simhath Torah they set up a party and distributed bread, butter and pig meat to honor the holiday. They performed a play whose theme was the burning of the Holy Temple – not with prayer and mourning, rather with (joy that) the bricks would be used to build houses in Israel.
The issue of kosher. The kitchen was not kosher (Mrs. Sirtok certified this fact during the above mentioned conference). With minor effort it would have been possible to attain authorization and assistance from the Polish government to make the kitchen kosher, but the instructors refused to even raise a finger to this end. At first many of the children refused to eat the non-kosher food. They approached David Levinberg and asked him to increase their portions of bread or to give them other foods instead of meat and cooked foods that they don’t eat. The above person refused using the excuse that there wasn’t enough money. At that same time they were spending hundreds of Tomnis for theater and entertainment. For David Levinberg’s birthday they purchased wine for the sum of 500 Tomnis, arranged a party for all the instructors, got drunk and carried on until the police got involved and arrested a few of them. Those who ate only kosher subsisted only on their regular portion of bread which was the same as was given to those who ate non-kosher. There were instances of fainting and heart attacks from weakness and hunger. David Levinberg told the doctor who treated one of the children who was fainting, who is the witness – Frankle: “who cares if one or two of them die from hunger. Then they’ll give up on kosher”. Over time, those who insisted on kosher diminished. Not many were able to withstand this test after having been hungry for three years. The child Binyamin Gezundheit related to Mrs. Wein, an instructor in a camp in Hadera (Israel) that when he demanded kosher food in Tehran they punished him and wouldn’t let him eat even permitted foods, until his will was broken and he ate non-kosher. Frankel put together a list of children who requested kosher and it included about 250 names not counting the small children. Only 14 children withstood the test and did not give in and it would be appropriate to recognize their names as a remembrance."
The story of the Children of Tehran is only one example of the cruelty secular Zionists perpetrated upon their fellow Jews. If there is interest, I'll publish more of the pamphlet.
From the mouth of leftists
At one point, I participated in a career retraining program paid for by the employment department and implemented by the local community college. Some of the program, such as the refresher course on mathematics and grammar, was useful. Other parts not so much. We spent a few days on "diversity training" and the instructor spent quite some time stressing how important it is to avoid stereotyping or making generalizations about certain ethnic groups. Then, toward the end of this module, we were given a document titled "Normative Communication Styles & Values For Cross-Cultural Collaboration". In plain English, this translates into: "what you can expect from different ethnic groups when it comes to communication if you're working in a mixed group". The source, for this document, is "Candia Elliot Diversity Training Associates", "R. Jerry Adams, Ph. D, Evaluation and Development Institute" and "Suganya... Dept. of Human Resources, Oregon".
The document deals with Anglo, Native, Hispanic, Asian and African groups. It lists traits such as "Perceived right to set rules and agenda for meeting", "Formal dress", "Self-Identity...related to skin color or ethnicity", "Ignoring 'turns'", "Self promotion", "Gestures", "Touching" etc. Each group is rated as "Very little", "Little", "Medium", "Much" or "Very Much".
Here are the "Very Much" traits for Africans:
Animation/Emotional Expression
Gestures
Range of Pitch between words
Volume of speech
Directness of answers
Directness of rhetorical style, "getting to the point"
Ignoring "turns"
Self-promotion
Speed of Response
Collaborators must have community respect and support
Some participants, looking puzzled, asked the instructor how we could take this document seriously and, at the same time, reject "stereotypes". Indeed, we could easily rephrase the first seven traits as "crude, loud, undiplomatic and offensive". "Ignoring turns" could also be called "being rude by talking out of turn". "Self-promotion" could be "self-centered" or "selfish".
Let's look at how "Anglos" fair in the "Very Much" category:
Task-Based Purpose vs. Relationship
Written vs. verbal
Perceived right to set rules and agenda for meeting
Perceived right to speak freely at meeting
Formal dress
Perceived right to represent or speak for the group
Collaboration based on authority
Use first names vs. titles
Speed of Response
Directness of questions
Directness of answers
Directness of rhetorical style, "getting to the point"
Directness of eye contact
Firm, long handshaking
Concern with clock time
Individualism more than collateral group identity
The first thing that struck me is that any category starting with "perceived" is inhabited only by "Anglos". The implication is that "Anglos" feel entitled to more rights than they deserve.
In the "Very little" category, "Anglos" are the only ones listed for "Awareness of unearned 'white' privilege". We can only hope that this is accurate and that most whites do not believe in this imaginary bogeyman. Not surprisingly, "Anglos" are also the only inhabitants of the category "Very little" when it comes to "Self-Identity... related to skin color or ethnicity". A somewhat positive way of looking at this would be that whites are the least "racist" of the groups. However, I suspect that the leftists see this as a bad thing - since they expect whites to be intensely aware of their white skin and consider it a badge of shame.
Hispanics were rated as "Very little" within the trait of "Concern with clock time". Perhaps this explains why every single Hispanic, at my workplace, disregards the rules when it comes to break times. I suppose the leftists would forgive them for that and allow them longer breaks than "Anglos" in order to accommodate their "rich cultural heritage".
The document deals with Anglo, Native, Hispanic, Asian and African groups. It lists traits such as "Perceived right to set rules and agenda for meeting", "Formal dress", "Self-Identity...related to skin color or ethnicity", "Ignoring 'turns'", "Self promotion", "Gestures", "Touching" etc. Each group is rated as "Very little", "Little", "Medium", "Much" or "Very Much".
Here are the "Very Much" traits for Africans:
Animation/Emotional Expression
Gestures
Range of Pitch between words
Volume of speech
Directness of answers
Directness of rhetorical style, "getting to the point"
Ignoring "turns"
Self-promotion
Speed of Response
Collaborators must have community respect and support
Some participants, looking puzzled, asked the instructor how we could take this document seriously and, at the same time, reject "stereotypes". Indeed, we could easily rephrase the first seven traits as "crude, loud, undiplomatic and offensive". "Ignoring turns" could also be called "being rude by talking out of turn". "Self-promotion" could be "self-centered" or "selfish".
Let's look at how "Anglos" fair in the "Very Much" category:
Task-Based Purpose vs. Relationship
Written vs. verbal
Perceived right to set rules and agenda for meeting
Perceived right to speak freely at meeting
Formal dress
Perceived right to represent or speak for the group
Collaboration based on authority
Use first names vs. titles
Speed of Response
Directness of questions
Directness of answers
Directness of rhetorical style, "getting to the point"
Directness of eye contact
Firm, long handshaking
Concern with clock time
Individualism more than collateral group identity
The first thing that struck me is that any category starting with "perceived" is inhabited only by "Anglos". The implication is that "Anglos" feel entitled to more rights than they deserve.
In the "Very little" category, "Anglos" are the only ones listed for "Awareness of unearned 'white' privilege". We can only hope that this is accurate and that most whites do not believe in this imaginary bogeyman. Not surprisingly, "Anglos" are also the only inhabitants of the category "Very little" when it comes to "Self-Identity... related to skin color or ethnicity". A somewhat positive way of looking at this would be that whites are the least "racist" of the groups. However, I suspect that the leftists see this as a bad thing - since they expect whites to be intensely aware of their white skin and consider it a badge of shame.
Hispanics were rated as "Very little" within the trait of "Concern with clock time". Perhaps this explains why every single Hispanic, at my workplace, disregards the rules when it comes to break times. I suppose the leftists would forgive them for that and allow them longer breaks than "Anglos" in order to accommodate their "rich cultural heritage".
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The cost of forced integration
According to La Griffe du Lion, black students improve (academically) slightly when they are placed among mostly white students. White students, of course, suffer when blacks are introduced into their midst. This minor benefit, to blacks, is limited to those individuals who are transferred to a more white environment. What about black society as a whole? Does it benefit from integration? It seems to me that, as long as there are black neighborhoods, they will suffer because of integration programs.
Black neighborhoods will suffer because the brightest blacks siphon themselves off the top and remove themselves to white and Asian neighborhoods. As a result, over time, black neighborhoods will get less and less intelligent overall. As they become less intelligent, the incentive for the gifted will be even greater to leave. This diabolical scenario is a result of leftist policies. Leftist policies, having been translated into law, have created a huge demand for well-spoken and intelligent blacks. Such blacks (often of mixed blood) can easily find high paying jobs in corporate America - which is forced to hire them to meet their "diversity" goals and avoid lawsuits. Meanwhile, their brethren wallow in ignorance, crime, substance abuse and fatherless families. The upwardly mobile blacks, having acquired all their more noble traits from whites, are usually not those who define "black culture". Instead, it those who are left behind who define "black culture".
Leftist ideology demands that blacks identify with their own culture and, indeed, every effort is made to exalt black heritage and culture. This is the goal of "black history month", "MLK day", so many postage stamps, school assemblies, ethnic studies etc.
So we see that "black culture", as practiced in America and most of the Western world, is defined by the lowest segments of black society. We see that blacks are encouraged to identify with said "culture". Lastly, we see that this lowest segment of black society, "ghetto black society", is deteriorating steadily because of brain drain. This is the horrifying situation that leftists policies have wrought - but it doesn't end there because it turns out that this "black culture" is being emulated by non-blacks as well. Leftists have created a (pardon the pun) black hole situation and Western civilization is falling into it.
What is the solution? Segregation - not by force of law but by force of social convention. All that needs to take place is to let nature take its course and stop imposing forced integration upon us.
Black neighborhoods will suffer because the brightest blacks siphon themselves off the top and remove themselves to white and Asian neighborhoods. As a result, over time, black neighborhoods will get less and less intelligent overall. As they become less intelligent, the incentive for the gifted will be even greater to leave. This diabolical scenario is a result of leftist policies. Leftist policies, having been translated into law, have created a huge demand for well-spoken and intelligent blacks. Such blacks (often of mixed blood) can easily find high paying jobs in corporate America - which is forced to hire them to meet their "diversity" goals and avoid lawsuits. Meanwhile, their brethren wallow in ignorance, crime, substance abuse and fatherless families. The upwardly mobile blacks, having acquired all their more noble traits from whites, are usually not those who define "black culture". Instead, it those who are left behind who define "black culture".
Leftist ideology demands that blacks identify with their own culture and, indeed, every effort is made to exalt black heritage and culture. This is the goal of "black history month", "MLK day", so many postage stamps, school assemblies, ethnic studies etc.
So we see that "black culture", as practiced in America and most of the Western world, is defined by the lowest segments of black society. We see that blacks are encouraged to identify with said "culture". Lastly, we see that this lowest segment of black society, "ghetto black society", is deteriorating steadily because of brain drain. This is the horrifying situation that leftists policies have wrought - but it doesn't end there because it turns out that this "black culture" is being emulated by non-blacks as well. Leftists have created a (pardon the pun) black hole situation and Western civilization is falling into it.
What is the solution? Segregation - not by force of law but by force of social convention. All that needs to take place is to let nature take its course and stop imposing forced integration upon us.
The crypto-hater
I've known some fine people, in my time, who happened to be black. I enjoyed their company and genuinely valued them as friends. What would they think if they saw some of the comments I've made online about blacks in general? Most likely, they would feel betrayed. Perhaps even violated - because they would assume that I had been deceiving them, pretending to like them while I actually hated them in my heart. Confronted with two personae (one flesh and blood and the other an online entity), they'll choose the online persona as the "real" one. It's easy to see why; the anonymity of the internet allows people to express their true feelings while doing so in public, or at work, comes with serious risks. A more mature approach would be to ask me what I meant by my online comments and why I posted them. Then, if they listened, they would realize that there is no contradiction. Racial differences express themselves on the group/societal level. An individual can be what he chooses to be; there is always some level of free choice when it comes to being forgiving versus vindictive, charming versus offensive, hard-working versus lazy.
I don't think it should be our business to determine what secret emotions might lie deep within the psyches of our acquaintances. Some of my best friends might be secret anti-Semites or anti-libertarians or anti-American. As long as they treat me right and express no such animosity toward me, it makes no difference to me that, deep inside, there's an ember of hate. I suspect we all have private feelings we'd rather not reveal to our friends, family and co-workers. One could only imagine the chaos that would ensue if all of our innermost thoughts became public. Society would probably collapse.
We have free will regarding what comes out of our mouths. I'm not sure we have free will regarding what comes into our minds. Such things should certainly not be held against us. I opine that internet posts are, in some cases, closer to thought than to speech. If speech is a private matter that should not be limited by government, how much more so free thought. But now I've strayed from the topic of this post.
I don't think it should be our business to determine what secret emotions might lie deep within the psyches of our acquaintances. Some of my best friends might be secret anti-Semites or anti-libertarians or anti-American. As long as they treat me right and express no such animosity toward me, it makes no difference to me that, deep inside, there's an ember of hate. I suspect we all have private feelings we'd rather not reveal to our friends, family and co-workers. One could only imagine the chaos that would ensue if all of our innermost thoughts became public. Society would probably collapse.
We have free will regarding what comes out of our mouths. I'm not sure we have free will regarding what comes into our minds. Such things should certainly not be held against us. I opine that internet posts are, in some cases, closer to thought than to speech. If speech is a private matter that should not be limited by government, how much more so free thought. But now I've strayed from the topic of this post.
Monday, March 1, 2010
The "Jewish problem" and white nationalists
In case you haven't already noticed, I'm Jewish. But this does not blind me to the fact that there seem to be Jews lurking behind very many leftist movements and anti-white organizations. How does a decent, law-abiding black feel when a high profile criminal turns out to be black? It probably makes him sick to his stomach because, at some level, it makes him feel guilty by association. Well I'm the same way when I discover Jewish names, symbols and organizations associated with causes that I hate.
Is there a vast Jewish conspiracy to exterminate white people or to take over the world? If there is, somehow I did not get the memo. Neither did Professor Michael Levin or Rabbi Mayer Schiller. Books have been written on why Jews are particularly susceptible to leftist brainwashing and it is not the aim of this post to explore this.
I have had email exchanges with individuals, associated with the white nationalist movement, who refuse to believe that my motives are pure. They'll scrutinize every word of my comments on Amren in order to find "evidence" that I'm part of some "Jewish supremacist" movement. They'd have just as much luck finding such "evidence" among random posts by gentiles because I do not believe in Jewish supremacy. Just as a white person should care about his own people, put them first, advocate for them and identify with them so too should a Jew relate to his own people. Just as such a white person need not be a "white supremacist" so too the Jew need not be a "Jewish supremacist". Of course, in my opinion, many Jews are also white so the same person can identify as Jewish and as white.
That there are Jews who sympathize with white nationalists should be a source of comfort. Yet we find many white nationalists rejecting such sympathy. I cannot delve into their minds but one of two things might be going on here. Either they are so paranoid and suspicious that they truly believe people like me are spies or they find us upsetting because we spoil the well-ordered world they've constructed in their heads where all Jews must be evil.
Sometimes I visit white nationalist forums and I'll find accusations leveled at "The Jews". A Jew of thinner skin might take personal offense at such words but it seems to me that, if it's alright to speak of "white people" or "black people" or "Hispanics" in general terms (fully understanding that not all members of those groups adhere to the generality), then the same should be alright regarding Jews. So I'll give such people the benefit of a doubt and assume they know not all Jews are out to get them.
Many, if not most, white nationalists consider Jews to be non-white. By what magic a religious conversion can change a person's race I do not know. It is a fact that many Jews are descended from white converts and so they are clearly white. But it shouldn't matter; Jews should consider themselves Jews and only marry other Jews anyway. As for me, it makes no difference to me whether white nationalists consider me white or not. Thankfully, I have my own identity that I'm perfectly content with. One way or the other, this should not affect my sympathy toward white people. Advocating for whites is a worthy cause no matter what race or ethnicity you happen to be.
Is there a vast Jewish conspiracy to exterminate white people or to take over the world? If there is, somehow I did not get the memo. Neither did Professor Michael Levin or Rabbi Mayer Schiller. Books have been written on why Jews are particularly susceptible to leftist brainwashing and it is not the aim of this post to explore this.
I have had email exchanges with individuals, associated with the white nationalist movement, who refuse to believe that my motives are pure. They'll scrutinize every word of my comments on Amren in order to find "evidence" that I'm part of some "Jewish supremacist" movement. They'd have just as much luck finding such "evidence" among random posts by gentiles because I do not believe in Jewish supremacy. Just as a white person should care about his own people, put them first, advocate for them and identify with them so too should a Jew relate to his own people. Just as such a white person need not be a "white supremacist" so too the Jew need not be a "Jewish supremacist". Of course, in my opinion, many Jews are also white so the same person can identify as Jewish and as white.
That there are Jews who sympathize with white nationalists should be a source of comfort. Yet we find many white nationalists rejecting such sympathy. I cannot delve into their minds but one of two things might be going on here. Either they are so paranoid and suspicious that they truly believe people like me are spies or they find us upsetting because we spoil the well-ordered world they've constructed in their heads where all Jews must be evil.
Sometimes I visit white nationalist forums and I'll find accusations leveled at "The Jews". A Jew of thinner skin might take personal offense at such words but it seems to me that, if it's alright to speak of "white people" or "black people" or "Hispanics" in general terms (fully understanding that not all members of those groups adhere to the generality), then the same should be alright regarding Jews. So I'll give such people the benefit of a doubt and assume they know not all Jews are out to get them.
Many, if not most, white nationalists consider Jews to be non-white. By what magic a religious conversion can change a person's race I do not know. It is a fact that many Jews are descended from white converts and so they are clearly white. But it shouldn't matter; Jews should consider themselves Jews and only marry other Jews anyway. As for me, it makes no difference to me whether white nationalists consider me white or not. Thankfully, I have my own identity that I'm perfectly content with. One way or the other, this should not affect my sympathy toward white people. Advocating for whites is a worthy cause no matter what race or ethnicity you happen to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)