Sunday, March 16, 2014
The Limits of Values & Outlooks and the Realities of Personalities & Character in the Politics of Diversity & Tolerance
According to Liberalism and even much of Conservatism, what we need are better ideas, better attitudes(especially toward outside groups), and better social values for us to get along with one another. It’s as if all the problems are in our minds, and if we our minds are fitted with better ways of seeing, feeling, and thinking, then things will improve inexorably.
And yet, social and racial problems still exist all over America. Part of the reason, according to Liberals, is that ‘progressive’ ideas haven’t yet seeped into every corner of America. But what about communities that are overwhelmingly Liberal and/or Democratic, so much so that to be conservative or Republican is regarded almost as a disease of the mind and soul? If almost all NY-ers hate the GOP and white conservatives, why is New York still so divided and filled with tension and misunderstanding? Or Washington D.C. where virtually everyone voted for Obama and where Republicans are harder to find than elephants in Antarctica? Why are racial divisions and distrust so high there as well?
It’s because ideas and attitudes, important as they are, only go so far. The problem isn’t just due to hostilities but to ‘habitualities’. Even if the problem of hostilities could be engineered away or at least suppressed through education, propaganda, ‘sensitivity training’, intimidation, and punishment, the problems rooted in different habitualities remain.
Suppose there are equal numbers of several groups in a work setting: Germans, Sicilians, Mexicans, Jews, Negroes, Scotch-Irish. And suppose they all feel hostile feelings toward one another and often get into arguments along racial and ethnic lines. Suppose the hostilities make working together very difficult among the various groups.
Now, suppose a new manager takes over and insists on ending the hostilities. He forces everyone to submit to a steady regimen of training and propaganda about the wrongs of prejudice, distrust, and hatred of other peoples. Suppose he institutes a new policy that harshly punishes anyone who says or does anything of hostile ethnic/racial nature. Suppose the new company policy shames anyone who says anything untoward about other groups. In time, suppose everyone has been converted to the ideology of anti-hostility. And yet, suppose problems still linger in the workplace. Suppose that the problems have gotten worse in certain respects. Why?
Some peoples are known for being punctual, reliable, conscientious, thoroughgoing, and good-willed. Others are known for being lazy, dishonest, full-of-complaint, and touchy. Some people tend to be earnest and honorable, taking pride in fulfilling promises. Others are known to be slippery and jazzy, taking pride in conning and hoodwinking others.
All such peoples can mindfully agree that racial/ethnic hostilities are wrong but habitually think, feel, and operate in different ways. So, if a jazzy Negro lies and cheats at work, he doesn’t see it as hateful since he does it to everyone. Thus, it’s not ‘racist’ but just a ‘cool’ and ‘badass’ way of cruising through life like it’s a Jazz concert. Slip-and-slide, flip and dip, hide and ride, swagger and swigger. Even if his behavior is devoid of racial hatred, anyone working with him is going to find him untrustworthy, vapid, and full of shit. Or, a Jew might work in the weasel mode. While chanting the mantra of the anti-hostility ideology, he may take pride in using his wits to manipulate others to do his bidding. As far as he’s concerned, his way of working isn’t hostile but only smart, clever, ingenious, and creative. But, some may find him to be cunning, sneaky, and two-faced. Or the Mexican may work in the "senor, show me the way" mode. As most Mexicans(of mestizo or Indian background)tend to lack initiative, the Mexican guy may be overly reliant on others to lead so that he can follow and do as told. While hardworking, he may be a drag on others who expect their peers to figure things out on their own and come up with better ideas. As for the Sicilian, suppose he’s prone to cheating and lying. He acts that way not to be hostile toward other groups but because he’s used to behaving like a clannish two-bit hood.
As for the Scotch-Irish guy, he’s prone to acting like a good ole boy at work and gets overly touchy when others tell him to get off his ass once in awhile.
So, even though the mental hostilities have been eradicated, problems linger due to existing differences in habitualities that aren’t only culturally grounded but possibly even genetically rooted. So, everyone begins to notice the differences in work habits and the contrasts in character. More problematically, they can’t help but notice that these differences exist not merely on the individual level but generally on the group level. So, blacks as a group are more likely to act slippery and jiveass. Jews as a group are more likely to act weasel-like and cunning. Germans as a group are more likely act thoroughgoing and exacting. Mexicans as a group are more likely to act second-rate and sloppy-unless-shown-the-correct-way-by-senor-por-favor, and etc.
However, because of the prevailing and enforced ideology of anti-hostility, the people at work at not allowed to notice these group differences. They’ve been told that all groups are the same and that it’s wrong and even evil to believe that different groups could be different in areas of trust, work ethic, honor, goodwill, and seriousness. If there are problems of character, they must be perceived and addressed only on the individual level. And if there are merits of achievement, they must be rewarded at the individual level.
And yet, even when the problems and merits are addressed purely on the individual level, it leads people to become aware of group differences. For example, if people are to be promoted only on the basis of individual merit, the chances are more Germans and Jews will rise higher than Negroes or Mexicans given that hard work and smarts beat out slipperiness and por-favor-senor-show-me-the-way. Though the outcome is based on individualities, the fact is many more German and Jewish individuals rise higher than Negro and Mexican individuals. And that means Negroes and Mexicans will cry ‘racism’ and ‘discrimination’.
Now, some Germans and Jews may be tempted to say that the problem isn’t racial hostility against blacks and Mexicans(on the part of the company)but lack of comparable work ethic and/or character on the part of Negroes(who tend to slip-n-slide, hide-n-ride too much) and Mexicans(who tend to be in ‘senor, show me the way’ mode). Even if such argument is made without ethnic ill will, it implies that there are indeed differences of habitualities among the various races and ethnic groups. And that, in and of itself, might be regarded as ‘racist’. (Individualism may emphasize individuals over groups, but it doesn’t mean all groups have the equal number of certain kinds of individuals. Individuals like Einstein and Freud are more common among Jews than among Mexicans or Hawaiians. And individuals like Mike Tyson and Michael Jordan are more common among blacks than among Vietnamese and Palestinians. Thus, individualism cannot overcome group differences.)
How could it be that white are mentally most friendly and sympathetic towards blacks but physically more wary of blacks than of all other races combined? Recently, Spike Lee stirred up some controversy with his ‘rant’ against SWPL hipsters who have gentrified parts of his childhood neighborhood in Brooklyn. Politically and ideologically, the Negroes and SWPL Liberals have much in common. Surely, nearly all of them voted for Obama and are filled with nothing but hatred and loathing for white conservatives and the GOP. And yet, on the habitual level, the two communities have different ideas of what constitutes normality. For whites, it’s respecting the laws, being mindful of others in the community, not making excessive noise and trouble. For Negroes, it’s about beating bongo drums in the morning, playing music so loud that the entire block can hear, talking loud and acting jive-ass like Radio Raheem and Buggin’ Out(of DO THE RIGHT THING). According to Spike Lee, someone like Radio Raheem doesn’t have to respect anyone, but others(especially if non-black) better respect his not respecting them.
And these problems cannot be legislated away with laws or stamped out through sensitivity training. If anything, such policies can exacerbate the problem for the truth cannot be openly discussed and addressed. If a white Liberal were to honestly say that the problem is that too many blacks tend to be loud, lazy, crazy, rude, confrontational, touchy, and apelike, that would be deemed ‘racist’. Since political correctness says black behavior or habituality cannot be noticed and/or discussed in any critical manner, blacks just go on acting jigger-jiver-ish, and if bad things happen as a result, it’s never their fault but the fault of others.
To be sure, with the rise of figures such as Cass the Ass Sunstein, there are sly methods of subconsciously ‘nudging’ blacks to act more civil. One way is to push the homo agenda, thereby turning uppity ‘field niggers’ into bendity ‘house Negroes’. There used to be a time when the loud and aggressive black males — like Jack Johnson, Muhammad Ali, Apollo Creed, Roy Jones Jr., etc — were seen as the standard-bearers of black pride. Jews loved observing the rise of such Negroes, especially as the Negroes were whupping ‘racist-white-supremacist’ white males and pussifying them by conquering jungle-fever-ized white women. But the Negro macho pride got out of hand and began to destroy Liberal cities like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Boston, Milwaukee, and etc. thereby turning to many white gentiles into conservatives or Republicans.
So, the black problem had to be handled in some manner. Since the GOP was tainted with ‘racism’, Jews supported Clinton the ‘first black president’ to lock up many blacks in prison. Jews also cherry-picked new black figures(often haute mulatto) to serve the new voice of the black community. Whatever one thinks of Spike Lee, he is the product of black culture and society. In contrast, light-skinned and boyish-looking John McWhorter, who writes for the Jewish-homo The New Republic and recently rebuked Spike Lee for his outburst, is a toyboy intellectual puppet of Jews. And of course, Obama is not the product of the black community at all. Even during his stint in the Chicago South Side, he stayed close to his Jewish-homo handlers than formed any meaningful alliance with the black community. And he spent his childhood and youth among whites and Asians. He had to discover his blackness later in life, but even then, he ultimately chose to shill out for the Jews than chill out with the Negroes. He figured if Jews in Hollywood can turn some second-rate actor into a big star, why not him? Have Jews write the script and fund the campaign. He just needed to act the part, and sucker whites would buy it.
The most insidious(and hilarious) form of nudging to control the blacks is by turning them into ‘bendity Negroes’ via ‘homophobia shaming’. While blacks hold a morally advantageous position vis-a-vis whites who are said to be guilty of the ‘original sin of slavery’ — thereby preventing whites from calling foul on bad black behavior — , the black community has been tainted for its ultra-macho cult of ‘homophobia’. So, while blacks were the victims of ‘Jim Crow’, too many blacks are said to be like Bull Connors and rednecks when it comes to the treatment of homos and trannies. Through such shaming, the Liberal community tries to ‘nudge’ black men into being less macho, aggressive, and thuggish. Since the most popular black stars are in sports, rap music, and comedy, blacks working in those areas have been targeted for special shaming. Think of Tyler Perry.
What with Obama, the top Negro(though more like a haute mulatto), being so slavish to Jews and homos, it’s difficult for anti-homo Negroes to stand up and call for unity against the shaming of black manhood by the Jew-homo or Jomo Cabal. Also, most black politicians depend on donations from the Jomo Cabal. Since blacks can’t seem to unite against homo power and since the sports/entertainment industries are controlled by Jews/homos, most prominent blacks are bending over to the homo ‘nudging’ of blacks into ‘bendity Negroes’. Also, as the white population has been turned into homo-worshipers and since black athletes and singers/comedians rely on white audiences to earn big bucks, popular blacks have, for the most part, decided to bend over to the homos. Will such bending over on the part of famous blacks ‘nudge’ all the other blacks to be more ‘sensitive’ and less aggressive? Or, will black aggression find more politically acceptable outlets? We don’t have Eddie Murphy making homo jokes anymore, but we have knockout game attacks by black thugs across the country... and the media are still afraid to call out on the racial nature of the crimes. Fruitkin newsmen report the news but leave out the racial angle.