No doubt all of you heard our racist Attorney-General Eric Holder say that Americans are cowards. One must understand first and foremost that when blacks say that Americans need to be more open about race talk, they mean that black people don’t harass whites enough.
Any black person who doesn’t abuse whites is a “house nigger” and an “Uncle Tom”. Consider for example this poem by Prof. Nikki Giovanni of VA Tech who was chosen by the school eulogized the victims of the massacre by Cho Seung-hui in April 2007. You really should read it. It tells you all you need to know about the “open and frank conversations” that blacks are looking for. If you don’t kill whites, you are a nigger. Pride means murder.
All the “dialogues on race” are nothing more than black people getting the license to harass. Blacks scream and yell at whites during these “dialogues” and whites are supposed to just tolerate it.
When Shaneequa complains that she has herpes and AIDS, are we allowed to tell her to stop having unprotected sex with random men?
When Laquisha complains that she has diabetes are we allowed to tell her that racism doesn’t cause the disease, but stuffing her mouth with hamburgers and sitting on her fat “ghetto” ass instead of working does?
When Roshandra complains that she needs more welfare so that she will never have to work because she has 5 kids, can we tell her that we aren’t responsible for supporting her out-of-wedlock children?
Can we tell Mohammad al-Shareeq, formerly known as Mike Johnson, that the legacy of white slavery is that white people decided to abolish it? That blacks should be grateful to the white man for ending slavery, something nobody else had done before? That Arabs, who originally enslaved blacks, would never have freed them and in fact black slavery remains active in several Arab countries?
When Tyrone complains that he and 32% of all black men spent over a year in prisons are we allowed to point out that the difference in testosterone levels – proven to cause violent behavior – is the same between whites and blacks as between teenagers and middle-aged men?
Are we allowed to say that poverty does not cause crime, but rather it is dysfunctional behavior that causes both crime and poverty?
Are we allowed to ask whether the ghetto is crime-ridden because of the people who live there or because buildings in the projects are tall?
When we talk about the causes of the present economic recession, can we discuss the shakedown in the amount of several trillion dollars that banks were forced to pay to minorities?
Are we allowed to ask why the quality of American universities is being destroyed to accommodate black students who got admitted through affirmative action and are incapable of doing the work (here and here)?
Are we allowed to ask why is it that black kids cannot do as well as white kids no matter how much we spend on schools, even if it is $350 million for a single school?
Can we talk about how small genetic differences can cause massive differences in outcome?
Most importantly, are we allowed to talk about IQ differences? Shouldn’t we know the reason why blacks fail?
Is it a conspiracy that blacks score less well than whites on all tests? Which side is lying about IQ results?
Or is it the environment? Or genetics (here, here and here)?
Is IQ research science or pseudo-science? Who’s trying to suppress real research?
Mr. Holder, can we ask those questions?
Because unless we know whether or not white and black IQ is the same, and what caused the differences, we cannot answer why is it that blacks trail behind whites in school and among corporate management.
Unless we know whether or not blacks commit the same amount of crime, and what caused the differences, we cannot answer why more blacks are arrested.
Unless we know whether or not blacks are more likely to have reckless sexual habits, we cannot answer why blacks are so much more likely to have sexually transmitted diseases.
There is great reason to have an open and honest dialogue about race. But Mr. Holder. Sir. Please understand something. A dialogue must be two-sided. That’s the meaning the word ‘dialogue’. Otherwise, it is just a monologue.
When one side gets to make speeches and the other side needs to agree, clap and repent, it is not dialogue. What you are calling for, Mr. Holder, is to allow black people to engage in uncontrolled screaming against whites for which under different circumstances they would get arrested for harassment, intimidation and disorderly conduct. That is not dialogue. That is not openness. That is abuse.
Mr. Holder, you don’t want more openness. You don’t want us to discuss the very causes of the race problems in this country. You want to tell us what assumptions and presumptions we must start with: whites are always to blame.
Mr. Holder, an open and honest dialogue does not mean giving black people a license to harass whites. It means letting people talk about racial differences in IQ, testosterone and sexual behavior, and the genetic and cultural causes, so that we could find the answers based on facts, logic and science, instead of building a wall that blocks information from reaching the masses.
Mr. Holder, if you truly want open and honest dialogue, tear down this wall. Come out in favor of letting us talk about IQ, testosterone and sexual habits!
In this, and the comment below, I need to remind myself that it isn’t blacks who need to hear this, of course. It is whites. Blacks need only to be told “Go to hell!” And then they will know that it’s over.
Whites need to be convinced to tell blacks to go to hell.
In a similar way, the day Europe tells the Moslems to get out their only response is going to be “What took you so long?”
“In this, and the comment below, I need to remind myself that it isn’t blacks who need to hear this, of course. It is whites.”
Good point. What is amazing is how the points that WG made used to be made by quite a large sector of Whites, but now have been consigned largely to the extreme with Pat Buchanan.
Of course, we can ask what the attorney general is trying to do by initiating a dialog on race — his job description has something to do with enforcing the law, doesn’t it? But underneath it all, I have a hunch that Holder is simply keeping people distracted while Obama continues the same old policies which have dragged down this country for the last several decades.
That poem linked to at the top of the post is really something. I liked the cadence (at the start of it at least) and the raw passion (though for all I know poems like this were a dime a dozen and were more pop-poems than passionate ones). It’s inspiring in a way. Of course if you or I were to write such a poem about our grievances, real or imagined, we’d be in deep shit, but hate-poetry from blacks is considered rather acceptable.
Anyhow, cool.
As for the rest of it… Look, it’s evolution man. You smarter folk want to utilize a system that you’re better at than they are (capitalism and western laws) and they want to utilize a system that they’re better at, gang thuggery, no moral burdens and rape. It’s Darwinian evolution at play and there is no more “wrong” or “right” in this matter than in competition between horsefish.
I personally don’t happen to see myself benefiting from either your system nor theirs so I can be pretty chilled about it (they’re more dangerous, but they’re also far less powerful – capitalism and western law does after all rule the world within which I live). I can crack open a beer, lean back and watch the show.
Again, there is no objective morality on this planet but whatever one we create. And what a successful patent lawyer views as moral is apt to be different from what a ghetto thug views as moral.
We’re just purposeless horsefish bro. Horsefish.
“they’re more dangerous, but they’re also far less powerful”
Say that again after you have had a large unknown black man with a gun in his hand at your back door feverishly trying to get in. In this case, power isn’t some idea or person high up in politics. Here, power is immediately doled out and much to the innocent’s demise. In this instance, capitalism and law will never come into play. Armed thugs have been given power by a system that protects them.
I will say it now as I have said elsewhere, whites want to talk and have. Blacks just don’t like what we have to say.
Whenever I see a White and a black engaged in “dialogue”, I just tune it out. It’s a waste of time. It seems to always end up with the stoney-faced negro interrupting the White person and drowning them out with some irrational babble.
The IQ of the blacks who participate in these “dialogues” appear to be situated on the south-side of their tribal median.
Perhaps if the “dialogue” were to be carried out between participants of intellectual parity …… . But it is likely that both would agree on the disgraceful behavior of the majority of negroes, and most of the discussion would be moot!
The other day, I was thumbing through an old National Geographic, and it occurred to me that …………
Guy, this is unrelated, but did you know about this? The liberals are burning the books, I kid you not:
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0212wo.html
Mnuez:
You write, “It’s inspiring in a way” and then, “there is no objective morality on this planet but whatever one we create.”
Don’t you see that the principles that you use to make those two statements contradict each other?
If not, ask yourself: Why is this poem “inspiring”? I’m not trying to browbeat you–really ask yourself, why?
If there is no objective morality on this planet, then that means there are no objective standards either. And if there are no objective standards on this earth, then by which did you measure the poem above and find it “inspiring”? Even if only “in a way” (whatever that means), which “way”? By what standard do you say that that poem is inspiring and say, Roses are red/Violets are blue, isn’t? Are there poems you find uninspiring? Why?
See the problem?
[...] Eric Holder’s License to Harass [...]
“Whenever I see a White and a black engaged in “dialogue”, I just tune it out. It’s a waste of time. It seems to always end up with the stoney-faced negro interrupting the White person and drowning them out with some irrational babble…”
……………………………………………………………………………………
I recently viewed a video on Ilana Mercer’s “Barely a Blog” , where Pat Buchanan and some Black gentleman “debate” Holder’s statement concernig the issue of racial cowardice. The video is about 9 minutes long, and perfectly illustrates what “open and honest debate” about race really amounts to: the expectation that Whites will keep silent while being lectured to that everything done in the last 50 years to bring Blacks into the mainstream counts for nothing; that Whites still need to make accomodations and extend entitlements; that slavery still has to be atoned for; that Whites must still face their inherent racism; that bringing up the prevalence of Black crime (including Black-on-White crime), illegitimacy and Black cultural meltdown, and holding Blacks and their leadership responsible for all this is beyond the bounds of open and honest discussion. The Black gentleman is intelligent and a fast talker, won’t shut up for more than 5-8 seconds, and literally dominates at least 7 of those 9 minutes, demanding to speak without interruption while continually interrupting Buchanan. Buchanan, being the gentleman he is even in debate, graciously allowed the man to speak until the final minute or so, when both men attempted to speak over the other.
It was, typically, a diatribe, not a dialogue. The discussion will never be two-way.
I see that the video is on this blog as well…I didn’t scroll down enough. The comments are very much on the mark.
eric holder,a man of the people,his people!the people of the united sovereignty of african-america!not the united states of slavery!say what you will,this is no longer the united states of america.it is now called the u.s.a.a.we as white people dont belong here.go back to africa,imean egypt,i mean iraqi,well you get the idea.
[...] the last century and the next. It is what is turning out country from the land of the free into a country of cowards, from a meritocracy where college admissions and hiring depends on intelligence and experience to [...]
[...] the last 50 years and the next. It is what is turning out country from the land of the free into a country of cowards, from a meritocracy where college admissions and hiring depends on intelligence and experience to [...]