Friday, February 10, 2012

Racial Repost

Some racial things were exchanged re: Obama.  This one said:

[your discussion of] Obama's mixed heritage reminded this one of Halle Berry, the whitest of the black (TM) actresses, sniffling dramatically as she carved up Sidney Poitier's soul at the Oscars several years back. Because, like, mixing genes with something from Africa entitles your wealthy American offspring to inherit everything African and leave the mother continent with nothing.

One Mr. Josephsson responded:

The issue of Halle Berry's, Denzel Washington's and Forrest Whittaker's Oscars helped pave the way for Barak Obama Jr by suggesting how asleep the Blacks were and that they would celebrate empty symbolism over substance. Denzel does a film where as a veteran street narc detective he is outsmarted by a white rookie who actually beats him up then shoots him in the ass. For that great piece of work he gets the Oscar. Halle, the so-called successor to Dorothy Dandridge and Lena Horne gets screwed by a white prison-guard. I remember stories of death threats to Sammy Davis Jr concerning his affair with Kim Novak who was about to be marketed as Paramount's Marilyn Monroe. The socalled 1st inter-racial kiss between a Black man and White woman had an out in that Raquel Welch is a Latina who like Rita Hayworth and Lynda Carter was presented as a White Woman. So the acclaimed Black Sex Symbol has to have sex with a White prison guard for her great Oscar? Forrest Whittaker's willingness to do a film which suggested Idi Amin may have had some homosexual urgings for a young White doctor who becomes his 'Number 1 advisor.' Here's an Oscar. That leaves Jaime Fox with his performance and evocation of Ray Charles as the only one untainted. Look for Jennifer Hudson to get an Oscar for what will be a hatchet job on Winnie Mandela. The point is that Blacks were so proud of these Oscars despite the plots of the movies can you imagine how proud they would be if there was a Black POTUS? But to always attempt at fairness, these Gamesters had already led the White working-class to sellout over Ronald Reagan. All it means was that the Mind Control had worked to separate significant numbers of Americans from reality to where symbols and image become the goals over substance. All the better to set them up for a bigger con.

In a word, yes.  "Racism" could only be created by establishing notions of "races," which then had to "hate" (first) one another, followed by "living alongside one another without mixing too much" (second), followed by "respecting" (now) one another.  Like "nations" or "religions" or any of the other illusions (or, on a meta level, castes/classes), these are just ways to keep you distracted while somebody screws the pooch, steals the pie and burns down the old barn.

Elite society has moved its useful dualities in tandem on race:

1) British Colonial Era. 

Moderate, pragmatic liberals want to travel across the world to uplift and help a bunch of stupid darkies, while taking their stuff, imposing culture and religion, stealing their children into slavery and servitude, and setting up fake "nations" to administer those left behind.

Stodgy conservatives don't want society to waste resources traveling across the world to get involved with a bunch of stupid darkies.

Result: Imperials travel across the world to "uplift and help" people of other cultures, while taking their stuff, imposing culture and religion, stealing their children into slavery and servitude, and setting up fake "nations" to administer those left behind.


2) Pre-American Revolution Slave Trade. 


Moderate, pragmatic liberals feel darkies should be released from bondage and treated equivalently to starving pre-industrial masses in Dickensian London and the colonies.


Stodgy conservatives feel darkies should still be treated like cattle, because it would be indecent to allow them to work fourteen hours a day for barely enough to feed their kids until dying of TB at 40.

Result: "non-whites" are released from bondage and treated, in some aspects, equivalently to starving pre-industrial masses in Dickensian London and the colonies.



3) American Manifest Destiny. 


Moderate, pragmatic liberals want to negotiate settlements allowing American Indians to give up their land to empire and toil in brotherhood with white serfs.


Stodgy conservatives want to kill all the American Indians for being backward, then allow a few of the survivors to toil in domestic servitude with white serfs.

Result: After some slaughter, Empire negotiates settlements allowing American Indians to give up their land and toil in second-class brotherhood with white serfs.

(we'll just go into "the" Civil War another time, mmkay?  and no, "liberal" does not always mean "member of the American Democratic Party."  In fact, sometimes rather the opposite.)


4) American Modern Era. 


Moderate, pragmatic liberals want blacks to have the same rights as whites to toil in servitude and buy consumer products.


Stodgy conservatives want blacks to remain formally second-class citizens.

Result: Blacks get the same rights as whites to toil in servitude and buy consumer products.


5) American Postmodern Era.  (gad, what an arrogant turn of pseudo-temporal phrase)


Moderate, pragmatic liberals want all minority groups to have the same rights as white males to be rich Imperial overlords, committing geocide and genocide and continuing to impoverish the great masses of humanity.


Stodgy conservatives want none of that annoying pandering to minority groups.

Result: All minority groups gain the same rights as white males to be rich Imperial overlords, committing geocide and genocide and continuing to impoverish the great masses of humanity.

Ergo now.  Wow, what a grand struggle.

So yeah, the current two party "duality" is pretty bald and easy, but that's a naive conclusion; it's always been like that.  Right now, it's "Democrat" and "Republican," but that's just an economic simplification of terms to keep the wheels turning on the same project.  Others have realized it by different names; some of realized it all.  How cute it will be--like watching a baby learn to crawl, but in a terrible way--to watch a new generation of people gasp and realize that all the various delegates of the Mixed Blovorstian Compact of Planet 2796 of Galaxy Q-42 are, in fact, saying essentially the same thing.


8 comments:

  1. Actually during the time of slavery, republicans were the ones against slavery(Lincoln was on the Republican side), just so you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, note this parenthetical quoted from above:

      (we'll just go into "the" Civil War another time, mmkay? and no, "liberal" does not always mean "member of the American Democratic Party." In fact, sometimes rather the opposite.)

      Delete
  2. And if I may:
    "Forrest Whittaker's willingness to do a film which suggested Idi Amin may have had some homosexual urgings for a young White doctor who becomes his 'Number 1 advisor."
    I detect a tad bit of homophobia here along with revisionist history

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Duwayne may or may not be homophobic; this one hasn't noticed it, but if he has a history, then perhaps you could read such into that remark of his you cited.

      Where does the revisionist history come in?

      Delete
  3. He's acting like Idi Amin was a socialist savior when he was just a dictator. I'm sorry to sound simplistic, but there's been a rash of western commentators apologizing for overseas oppression and yes, before you say anything, the U.S. was wrong to bomb the fuck out of Libya(who for a few years, had been quite supportive of the U.S. and even helped deport immigrants to Italy and yes, he helped Idi Amin too) and it would be just as terrible to bomb Syria.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This one didn't see him doing that; only suggesting that whites homo-cized a black media figure. Did he do the socialist savior thing elsewhere?

      Delete
  4. No, it's my fault. I interpreted it that way. And why are you speaking in third person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can use "I" if it makes you feel more comfortable, just like I can say "This is MY ferrari" or "This is MY dog." Useful stuff. But restrictive when it permeates the entire mind. Check:

      http://higharka.blogspot.com/2012/01/little-divisibles.html

      On a side note, saying "High Arka feels that..." would indeed be "third person," and referring in a less direct way to the relation between this ghost and frame could be likened to third person, but those very literary concepts are as binding as the rest of the language.

      One could say it's "liberating" to separate from the self, but then, that would be incorrect--we'd again be trapped by language. For to be "liberated" implies to have returned to the "freedom" of the "self." Instead, it's more of a return (yeah, a liberating one, depending on how you view the word) to the connection that was harmed by the creation of the illusionary one in the first place.

      It would be interesting to see more from Duwayne on Idi Amin, but he doesn't seem to pop up very often, and when he does, he's often off on a different subject. This one would prompt him if he had a connection locus.

      Delete