Racism, Cultural Degradation, and Misplaced Paranoia Article Thread

Discussion in 'Culture' started by Richard Stanley, May 21, 2016.

  1. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Welcome to the article comment thread for the Postflaviana front page post Racism, Cultural Degradation, and Misplaced Paranoia. We are treating this article post differently than previous posts because of: 1) the wide number of content categories discussed therein; and 2) that some of that content is uniquely topical for us, namely about the presidential campaigns of Trump and Hillary Clinton.
  2. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    The process of thinking about the need for this article, and our writing of it, has ultimately led me to the realization of what was the most massively complete feat of cultural engineering ever, and especially important because it is the essential bedrock of the Judaic narrative upon which Christianity was placed atop for all of Western goyim to 'enjoy'. This was the imposition of the Mosaic Laws upon an otherwise normative society for the day. This act inverted the cultural norms for one specific people in approximately 600 minute ways, thus making them 'cultural' pariahs from their previously similar regional neighbors.

    Equally interesting was that the later imposition of Christianity effectively uninverted the 600 Mosaic Laws (for Christians only) in the manner in which the Roman norm chose the Second Covenant to supercede the First Covenant and thus Moses's laws. That is, all excepting the Ten Commandments, which had their precedent roots in Egypt and Mesopotamia - not Mt. Sinai. After all, how many societies can thrive, much less survive, by allowing murder, theft, and such. Also, including the Ten Commandments in the package gives the 600 a gloss of legitimacy and worth, as many of the 600 are just examples of erstwhile arbitrarness serving only to amplify YHWH's unquestionable and unfathomable dominance.

    As such, can anyone still claim that perceived (real and/or imagined) problematic Jewish behaviors that cross political and ideological divides inside Jewish polity (e.g. support for Zion) are really driven by genes? And not from the Culture Shock that was cuckholded into them from birth? Multi-generational PTSD and mass Stockholm Syndrome. For them there is no place that is not Stockholm. Ich bin ein Stockholmer.

    Having firsthand witnessed the transformation in personal relationships caused by my take on such as 9/11, imagine what a typical Jewish person undergoes from childhood within an ever 'foreign' society. This even in a Reformed or atheist/agnostic milieu, where the legacy is constantly being confronted. Same for any other marginalized subculture, including victims of priest pedophilia, especially before the problem was acknowledged. But this also includes so-called normative Christians, especially Catholics via the induced guilt.

    All this also makes me realize that perhaps this notion of "cucking" is not the best metaphor, but perhaps rather that of "sodomy".

    As with the Ghostbusters, Postflavians must now become cultural Sodbusters!! This way we can save the Sod-servative likes of Ann Coulter from the massively long thingy of Trump's. Well, ... if she wants to be saved from it, that is.
  3. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    The below from page 9 of Shlomo Sand's How I Stopped Being a Jew.

    No wonder David Duke has taken to attacking Sand, after Sand was initially seen as a hero. Sand's rejection of Jewish Identity is an existential threat to Duke's equally dubious and codependent White Identity. Its all a synthetic cultural construct, a shibboleth.

    I wonder which white culture Duke assigns himself to, the noble 'white' klan or the not related (s)odbuster klan (as opposed to the newly minted (S)odbusters)? Everyone knows about the noble 'nose' issue, right?

  4. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Umm, I understand about massively long thingys, but what does that have to do with 'noble' noses? Anyhow, no, I don't know anything about 'noble' noses, though I have heard of Pinocchioan noses.

    I'm not sure this post fully complies with the site rules, but if Trump thinks such thingys are suitable topics for the national conversation, who am I to disagree.
  5. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Trump has indeed made a big deal about the size of his organ during the campaign. In case you forgot we mentioned it in the article regarding Miss Coulter's affection for him.

    As for noses, the following is rather humorous regarding the "aquiline" eagle nose, aka "hooked nose". This is common to many groups including individuals like George Washington, many pharaohs, Romans, and some types of Aryans and Jews. But then there is the refined, long straight, Euro-nobility nose contrasted to the course and blunt peasant nose. Offhand I can't recall the name for this type of nose.

    Aquiline Aryan Jew noses:

    Although the aquiline nose is found among people from nearly every area of the world, it is generally associated with and thought to be more frequent in certain ethnic groups originating from Southern Europe, South Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa. Some writers in the field of racial typology have attributed aquiline noses as a characteristic of different peoples or races; e.g.: according to anthropologist Jan Czekanowski, it is most frequently found amongst members of the Oriental race and Armenoid race. However, it is also often seen in the Mediterranean race and Dinarid race, where it is known as the "Roman nose" when found amongst Italians, the Southern French, Portuguese and Spanish.[5] And others, such as racial theorist and economist William Z. Ripley, have argued that it is characteristic of people of Teutonic descent.[6]

    In racialist discourse
    In racialist discourse, especially that of post-Enlightenment Western scientists and writers, a Roman nose (in an individual or a people) has been characterized as a marker of beauty and nobility,[7] but the notion itself is found early on in Plutarch, in his description of Mark Antony.[8] Among Nazi racialists the "hooked", Jewish nose was a characteristic of Jews. However, Maurice Fishberg in Jews, Race and Environment (1911) cites widely different statistics to deny that the aquiline nose (or "hook nose")[9] is characteristic of Jews, but rather to show that this type of nose occurs in all peoples of the world.[10] The supposed science of physiognomy, popular during the Victorian era, made the "prominent" nose a marker of Aryanness: "the shape of the nose and the cheeks indicated, like the forehead's angle, the subject's social status and level of intelligence. A Roman nose was superior to a snub nose in its suggestion of firmness and power, and heavy jaws revealed a latent sensuality and coarseness".[11]

    The aquiline nose was deemed a distinctive feature of some Native American tribes, members of which often took their names after their own characteristic physical attributes (i.e. The Hook Nose, or Chief Henry Roman Nose).[5] In the depiction of Native Americans, for instance, an aquiline nose is one of the standard traits of the "noble warrior" type.[12] It is so important as a cultural marker, Renee Ann Cramer argued in Cash, Color, and Colonialism (2005), that tribes without such characteristics have found it difficult to receive "federal recognition"/"acknowledgement" (which are specific/significant terms) from the US government, resulting in failure to win benefits including tax-exempt status, reclamation rights, and (perhaps most significantly) the right to administer and profit from casinos.[13]
  6. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    I can see a wide-open scientific field of inquiry here, the genetics of nose shape. The Wiki article doesn't site any genetic studies at all. Surely the budding geneticist could get a grant from the Nosicrucian Society.
  7. Vin

    Vin New Member

  8. Vin

    Vin New Member

    A great feat of cultural engineering indeed.

    Once brought to light it may be destroyed, but can we function without it or will the “emptiness” just give birth to a new one?

    It just may be that the nose knows.

    The amazing events in our history are evident effects of the cultural changes in human thought. The seed of acceptance however, must be in the mind before the change “spontaneously” occurs.

    Our actions are the outcome of the unconscious, we might say, hereditary influences. These are common cultural characteristics implanted by our ancestors, generations ago. This springboard of future automatic reactions, “constitute the genius of a race” as Mr. Le Bon would say. In 1390, genius was interpreted as ”the guardian deity or spirit, which watches over each person from birth”. Could be a nice definition for a government spy program.

    Regardless of intelligence, all men have similar instincts (which are certainly older then the logical and rational thought) and passions and needs. It is these general qualities that are the target of hypnosis. In the group mind these become the property of the master manipulator, but only after the process of critical thinking has ben disabled.

    These facts, and others, even more subtle and Machiavellian, must have always been known by the select few. They must have known that Myth is the most powerful propaganda tool and that a new one, always follows the destruction of one.

    In the group mind the individual is able to shut down responsibility for correct thinking. As an individual he may be civilized; in the group he is possessed, spontaneous, acting on instinct and able to act on all ideas suggested. His actions have become automatic.

    This is the aim: we all feel and live as one.
    A new day likes this.
  9. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Great comments Vin. Just to reiterate my point, I would say that the "hereditary influences" are really transmitted more by culture (nurture) than by genes (nature).

    Cats do have an instinct to hunt, but many house cats wont do so if they didn't have mommy cat demonstrate hunting to them. They may even befriend an animal that is normally their prey, in fact a web video recently had a tiger befriending a live goat that had been given to it for a meal. I wonder if such as Romulus and Remus being suckled by a wolf is an allusion to such a nurture over nature concept.

    In light of the 'genius' it seems similar in concept to the Native American concept of an individual's spirit animal that guides them.

    It seems that this is what the Space Jesus project is all about, and maybe this bizarre new capital city in Kazakstan. If the pope is going to pay homage to it soon, as claimed, then it seems to be tied into Space Jesus.
    Brain imaging studies have demonstrated that sufficient immediate fear will indeed shut down rational thought processing centers of the brain. Have you ever been involved with an otherwise rational but yet highly devout religious person, say at work, and then a conversation about religion crops up? Then this 'rational' person can change, like Jekyll and Hyde, to a noticably irrational state. This is because of the fear of potential loss of their eternal salvation and similar notions.

    One from the Many, Novus Ordum Seclorum
  10. I know people hate these comments but they need to be stated. I'm already a few paragraphs into the piece and I'm seeing errors in definitions. White Men, does not mean of the white race, or in the sense that I think it is being portray here, of Caucasian descent exclusively. If I am wrong here with the context you mean vs. the context as i'm reading it, fair enough, please correct me. Once that is straightened out, the next order of business would be to define what a white man means in a legal sense, because it has a legal definition. This is one of the big gripes I have with some of the work on this site now, there are normalized dog Latin definitions being used and interpreted in a legal sense, which is completely wrong. White men has a definition in law, and if we are discussing the references to white men in article of constitution or declaration, or even statutory law, we need to use those definitions from the legal dictionaries and not definitions from non legal sources. What definition are we using for "White Men"?

    This a great area of confusion everywhere I'm finding, not just here. I tried to broach this subject a while back with Jerry when he used the definitions for democracy that I understood to be lacking in proper meaning in regard to how it was being use, and i referenced the work of Clint Richardson. Also as an aside, sorry I didn't respond when you queried me on the correct definition I was eluding too, I was thrown for a loop when you said you were using Wiktionary as a source. Wiktionary? Really? OK, I've got nothing in that regard if that's where we are getting our definitions from I guess.

    Again I will do this here. Clint has gone to great lengths in his blog, in hos documentary films and on his radio show and numerous interviews to try and help people understand that we are actually operation in a society where there are two different but very similar languages being used. This seems to be something that is generally being ignored everywhere and at most times when I bring it up.

    Well to bring this off kilter critique to a close, my understanding of the definition of White men has to do with genealogy, and not a general sense related to race, or racial types. I'm somewhere where I have no access to the notes I have on this or the pdf's of legal dictionaries so I do not have a source to post here. I hope i'm not out on left base here, and judging by the response i get, I'll have to make a determination if it's even worth responding. I was a little put off by the last exchange over the word democracy, so much so that I've started to question what exactly is being discussed here and if it's it's even reasonable toi continue with this level of mutual confusion between posters, readers and others. I'm not trying to be insulting, but the definitions of words are kind of paramount to getting a grip on what is being talked about. Otherwise we are having a dispute and not an informed argument. I also apooloigize for not finishing the read, I have limited time and wanted to slam this question and or observation out there.
  11. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Hi Craig,

    I wrote a rather extensive meditation on the relationship between race and genealogy as part of my article Genetics of the oligarchs on the Wordpress site. Basically, constructs like 'White' are fuzzy categories. Some people are going to be more 'White' than others, but on the other hand some people are obviously not. In general, I think 'Caucasian descent' is used as a synonym for 'White', but there could easily be shades of meaning, and opinions could differ. To my eyes, 'Ashkenazi Jews' look pretty indistinguishable from 'White', while 'Sephardic' are verging on 'Hispanic', but that's just me.

    Why do you say we are using the term 'White' in a legal sense? The thought really didn't enter our minds. We didn't consult a legal dictionary, and I don't know much about legal dictionaries. When I've gone to read statutory law (which I don't do often) I usually find that important terms are defined right in the statute. What legal standing do legal dictionaries have? They aren't statutes and they aren't appellate court decisions that are regarded as precedents, so what are they? Is there one accepted legal dictionary, or are there several?

    In the earlier discussion, I mentioned Wiktionary as a source, but I also mentioned that the definition there seemed consistent with other commonly-used dictionaries. I feel that the clearest communication results when words are used in their common, ordinary meanings. On the other hand, I have no problem with neologisms or special definitions, as long as they're used clearly also. Such as, for example, 'Richardsonian Democracy', or 'Legally White'. (Does the legal dictionary have an entry for 'Legally Blonde'? Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

    You're indicating that you feel 'thrown for a loop', that you're 'slamming down a question' and trying to decide if it's 'even worth responding'. And in all honesty, I don't understand the emotional animus behind this. I don't understand why you're so upset when we use words according to their common dictionary meaning.

    I spent an hour or so at Richardson's website when this first came up. I couldn't find anything about the 'two languages' concept, but maybe I just didn't look hard enough. My impression was that he is basically a Libertarian. To some extent I would apply some of the same criticisms we make in the article regarding Koch-funded Libertarianism in general, but certainly he has his own unique viewpoint as well.

    It would help me understand where you're coming from, if you could explain some of the basics of this idea that two different languages are being used.
  12. lorenhough

    lorenhough Well-Known Member

    In Fiji I am called a European.
  13. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Craig, I'm guessing that your problem here is that you're having a (cultural?) problem with our discussion's use of 'white' being framed in the well understood de facto context. And for some, yet unexplained reason you believe that this invalidates any further thing we might say.

    For the sake of discussion and taking matters out of the Constitutional context, do you believe that the Spaniards, Portuguese, Belgians, etc. enslaved (whether de facto or de jure) the native peoples of Central and South America, and other places? Were any of those people 'white' in your legal or any other whiteness framework of opinion?

    As Jerry mentioned above, and apparently outside of your legalisms, that the concept of 'whiteness' is rather fuzzy, if you had read on any further in the article you would see that we also mention the sad irony of former European serfs being unleashed upon the New World hyped up with the Biblical meme of Old Testament Providential Conquest over the barbarians. Might this imply that there might be some different orders of 'whiteness' that perhaps elude your definitions of 'whiteness'?

    Of course, in traditional Proper White society, as late as the early 20th century, such as the Irish and others were not considered 'White', so maybe this is what you are complaining of? The Irish and Sicilians, etc. were considered a hopelessly criminal category, but at some point were considered redeemable (as opposed to Blacks) by (L)iberal scholarly papers spewing scientifically baseless, Romantic Gut Feelings and thus provided government programs to help facilitate behavioral (Cultural) integration of the Irish (and such - excluding Blacks) into Proper White society. Though some are still dubious about this proposition.

    (o)usia has already established that Jerry and I are 'wolves', so I am a little offended that you claim that we are merely using domesticated 'dog' Latin.
  14. lorenhough

    lorenhough Well-Known Member

    Does duke have nothing to say that is right, is every thing he says wrong ? He has nothing to add. I find some of his ideas useful. [snip -ed.] When he talked to Alex jones he said many thing that were true about Jews being in many high places, Joe has showed us much about the Jews being in key spots...I learn from people who say Jesuits rule, Kings bankers, popes, the all have parts of the puzzles..
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2016
  15. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    I guess we can say this is the pot calling the kettle white? I'm sure that even Hitler said one or two things that were correct. Duke's association with the KKK pretty much tells me all I need to know about him, and apparently about your Catholic nun's logic book as well. Or maybe you need to re-visit it?

    The ironic thing here is that if it were not for your being so hung up on being such a worshipful sycophant you'd realize that Jerry and I are making the case for what the bulk of your data (that you post here) otherwise points to. But you want to go along with the traditional Judeo-Christian cultural shibboleth. Jerry and I just don't want to be dragged into the tent of slaughter with you and the others.

    In reality, it may not make that much difference as Jerry and I are making a technical argument based upon how the Old Testament characterizes the 'Jews' and their admitted biblical masters, the tribe of Ephraim. This is likely too much of a nuance for you to cope with, because your lens has apparently have ossified and has formed a cultural cataract.

    For you and those who have cuckholded your mind, the Villain needs to be some people that go by the name of 'Jews', and will thus claim that our assertion that even the Jews own negative biblical portrayal of themselves, and being subservient to another tribe (more closely relate to elites) makes us "poisoners of the well". Duke et al. was initially excited about Sand's demolition of the modern Zionist construct, but then he came to vividly understand that he would no longer have the necessary cultural enemy if this is true. So he must condemn it now, just as the Jews and you do. This cultural degradation is bad - for you, the Ashkenazi Jews, and Duke.

    As such, this discussion is further more ironic in such as Craig making some legalistic pharisee issue about 'Whiteness'. Well, it looks to me like all those supposed 'Jews' you've got running England, are one way or the other White. And that you can't figure out that you are playing an Identity shell game, and/or that you are not happy that Jerry and I are calling this BS out.

    Joe insists that such as Winston Churchill is Jewish, while I am guessing that, if anything, (from a biblical perspective) he is likely of the tribe of Ephraim, especially if he was the bastard son of King Edward. You'll say it makes no difference, and I say that it does. And means that one must differentiate the sheepdog from a shepherd.

    So go ahead and feel all wonderful that you've shed the mantle of Jesus and discovered YOUR Truth, but it still looks like the new shepherd will indeed be the same as the old shepherd - with the likes of your thinking prevailing.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2016
  16. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    That's hitting below the belt. Duke's affiliation with the KKK was what they call a 'youthful indiscretion', like when you were a Koch Libertarian and I was working for a CIA subcontractor. These things happen.

    A lot of what Duke says is indeed good stuff. A lot of what Alex Jones says, is good stuff.

    But Duke and Jones are working together this election season on Team Trump. Not so easy to make excuses for that, when it comes to grown-ups that ought to know better by now.
  17. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    I was never anything near to the equivalent of a Grand Wizard in my (L)ibertarian days, and there was no racial animus there either.

    Even worse, even the KKK disavowed him as a malfeasant opportunist, absconding with their funds. Was that below the belt?

    What, that he claims to be a Christian? A broken cuck is correct twice a day.

    He does usually get to the issue about maintaining one's white heritage though. But what version of white heritage is that? Is he a true blue Duke, or a faux sodbuster Duke?

    If we are going to get all concerned about this heritage issue, should we insist on ranking one's status within the White Nation? I say yes indeed. Sodbusters to the bottom of the mudpack.

    Not even the Koch's seem to want him now. At least that's what they are saying (wink, wink).

    Trump wants his wall, but a true (l)ibertarian doesn't even want any borders.
  18. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    I didn't mean to imply that our youthful indiscretions rose to the same lofty heights as David Duke.

    Fascinating. It's one thing to put on funny wizard clothes, but I didn't know he had turned to embezzling. Was there solid factual basis disclosed for the KKK's disavowal?
  19. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    That site that Craig doesn't like contained references to media quotes from Duke's unhappy associates. They also said that Dr. Duke matriculated at an institution in the Ukraine where the government there would not accredit it. But I'm guessing that was before the revolution.

    I sure wish Craig would tell us what being a 'white man' really is. Don't it make my blue eyes green?

    Did you know that today you can get a laser treatment that removes that brown muck off of your irises to permanently reveal the blue below. Does this qualify as cultural degradation, for all us blue eyes that is? I say this is inflatus ocularus, and we must put a stop to it. It's not that I don't like brown eyed peoples, but they must remain in their proper place. If this continues then we'll have to carve out a homeland for them, and build a huuuge wall.
  20. Sgt Pepper

    Sgt Pepper Member

    It could also be looked at from the perspective of organizations with actively published reports on certain 'White' groups such as the Souther Poverty Law Centre.
    Perhaps they have definitions for 'White' or the word white in 'White privilege'.

Share This Page