Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Magical thinking

Obsidian interviews Dr. Helen, nominally about Men on Strike:
Going back to Kimmel, he asserts that a chief failing of the Men’s Rights Movement, is their, to be frank, racism, classicism and homophobia; he argues that the MRM is largely a middle-to-upper middle class, straight White Male thing, which actively eschews the inclusion or involvement of Men of Color, Gay Men, or Men from the Working Classes. Given that I am known by some as “the Blackest Man of the Manosphere”, I must say that Kimmel has a quite valid point. In your book, while you do mention Men of Color, it seemed rather clear to me that you spoke more to White Men who were more in line with what Kimmel has said in his book “Angry White Men”; this, despite the fact that you interviewed Men across the country. I am curious as to why you didn’t seek out, to be frank, Men like me? I ask because, it has always been my view that Men of Color in particular have a unique contribution to make in the MRM saga; as we go, so go our White brothers. In your view, do you see this as a major problem for the MRM to resolve, or no, and why?

DR. HELEN: I did talk to some Men of Color in my book, for example, Carnell Smith, who I mentioned earlier is African American and so were several interviewees such as a man named “Jerry” in the end of the book who I used as an example of a man who understood how to use the legal system to make sure that he was not charged with unfair child support or false domestic violence charges.

I think that what Kimmel is attempting to do and what many anti -men’s rights types want to do is make the MRM look like a bunch of nasty racists who do not include others and some of them might even be (gasp) Republicans! It is a way of marginalizing the MRM even further. This is a mind-hit being used to make the MRM seem out of the mainstream and weird. It is anything but. Millions of men and some women across the US believe that men are entitled to reproductive rights, due process and liberty just as women are.

I think that the MRM can cut across all demographic groups because as you mention, Men of Color have much to add and many of them have encountered severe sexism in the form of domestic abuse charges and jail time for lack of child support payments for kids that are not even their own. Many Men of Color in the NFL and sports world are keenly aware that women can falsely accuse them of rape and paternity fraud is so rampant that Kanye West has a whole song written about it. I have come across many Men of Color in my work who have been treated unfairly by the legal system in domestic disputes, so much so that they have a sense of learned helplessness about such issues. I would hope that all men would be welcome in the MRM.

Following up on my question above, I note that you cite two very well known bloggers in the Manosphere, who would be considered to fit Kimmel’s characterization like the proverbial hand in glove: Chateau Heartiste, formerly known as Roissy, and Vox Day, of the blog Alpha Game. Both have been cited for their racist views of people of color, and neither seem particularly interested in being inclusive of Men of Color under their tents (in fact, I would go so far as to say that they are both actively hostile to such inclusiveness – I say this based on direct observation and experience of both). As noted above, their astute observations and the like, many of which I do agree with, are utterly undermined by their racism, and gives folks like Kimmel, et al a smoking gun with which to discredit the entirety of the MRM cause. I am curious to know if you had known this prior to the completion of your book, and if so, why you found it necessary to cite them as sources in any event?

DR. HELEN: I don’t have any reason to believe that Roissy or Vox Day are “racist.” I do think that they are astute observers of male and female behavior in today’s society and that is why I chose to include them in my book.
I do not actively eschew anyone's involvement in Game-related intellectual endeavors, I simply don’t give a damn about the problems of other cultures, societies, and civilizations. Western civilization is my sole societal concern. Obsidian is focused like a laser on a community I care nothing about; when he is waxing on about “Bruthas” and “Sistahs” and threatening to start “chin-checkin foos”, it has no more relevance to me than the pressing problems of women in Heian Japan.

I don’t live in America. I don’t speak Jive. I don’t care any more about what is or is not taking place in Obsidian’s community than he does about what is taking place in mine. That doesn’t mean I don’t wish him well, or recognize that there are some issues that affect his community in the same way that it affects mine. But Obsidian might as reasonably declare himself to be racist because of his actively eschewing the concerns of South Korean men. Furthermore, it is amusing to hear him claim that I have anything against Men of Color considering that I am a bona fide Man of Color myself.

This strikes me as little more than the usual magical thinking and a Black man complaining because the Magic White Man isn’t solving his problems for him. Kimmel’s criticisms are irrelevant; almost all social change springs from the educated classes for the obvious reason that they are the only ones intelligent enough to ever accomplish anything. Moreover, it is excess inclusion that has destroyed American society, more inclusion will only hasten the ongoing collapse and the eventual triumph of barbarism.

The raciss card was played out years ago. The complete failure of desgregation is more than apparent to everyone. No amount of labels and attempted disqualifying will change the readily observable fact that the Civil Rights Movement in America was not only a failure, it was a societally destructive catastrophe.

Either my observations and Roissy's observations are true or they are not true. That is the sole relevant metric. They cannot be undermined by racial preferences anymore than they are undermined by sports team or ice cream preferences.

80 comments:

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Well said, Vox. That interview was more about Obsidian than anything else.

Vox said...

That interview was more about Obsidian than anything else.

Everything Obsidian writes is about Obsidian. He's more solipsistic than the average woman.

njtech said...

Vox just a brief formatting observation; where Obsidian continues "Following up on my question above," it will look to some people reading quickly that Dr. Helen is calling you racist when she distinctly is saying the opposite further below. You might want to break it out as Obsidian again, or italicize. Thanks for all your work across the blogs and publishing endeavors.

Eincrou said...

njtech: "Vox just a brief formatting observation; where Obsidian continues "Following up on my question above," it will look to some people reading quickly that Dr. Helen is calling you racist when she distinctly is saying the opposite further below."

Yeah, that confused me at first, too. It didn't seem like something Dr. Helen would say.

Doorstop said...

"But Obsidian might as reasonably declare himself to be racist because of his actively eschewing the concerns of South Korean men.

"He's more solipsistic than the average woman."


Amen and amen!

Trust said...

The left has to maintain its detractors are bad people, ie racist sexist, etc.. it is the only way they can act morally superior while dismissing any standards on behavior.

That is how a former klansman can drop the n word on TV and survive is he is a democrat, yet one republican makes a comment on legitimate rape (which isn't off base considering what nonsense gets described as rape nowadays) and all conservatives are suspect.

Vox said...

Fixed, thanks.

RambleAround said...

Wtf, that interview was a witch hunt in disguise. Of all the mrm blogs, he clearly targeted this and the chateau, two of which, though amongst the most popular in the manosphere, are arguably amongst the least mrm-specific blogs. What a turd

sfcton said...

Given how rare marriage is in the black community, and most MRA's seem to be divorced men, it's seems rational MRM is basically a White man's club, but defining something as predominantly White is simply how the left goes about discrediting an idea.

I'll eat my Steston if any significant number of negros step away from the DNC and other feminist operations

Anti said...

Obsidian does note an eerie similarity between what happened (still on gong...) to the black community in American and what is now happening to the white community (and speeding up) in America. Even if he does focus too much on himself it doesn't detract the correlation is there. It is worth studying for no other reason than the effect it will have on European descended Americans.

One large takeaway point for me is that black men didn't push back against their black women as things got worse. I wonder if it was an incapacity in means or more to do so. Blacks are more matriarchal than white societies. When there are men that push back against the negative trend in black America, like Bill Cosby, we see him shouted down. Bill Cosby is clearly an intelligent man and at the right end of the bell curve distribution for blacks. Which means he is alone.... really alone... in his desire for positive social change because there aren't many other intelligent black Americans with his views. The other intelligent ones have been co-opted by academia. They are spewing leftist bullshit... Cornel West and Michael Dyson being prime examples.

The good news for White American Men is that we have way more options because are societies were, and can still be, patriarchal and male positive. Our intelligence curve gives a distinct advantage in the number of professors, businessmen, and scientists who will be on our side. The more intelligent men we have to proliferate our views the easier it will be to counter the Feminization/Africanization of America.

Obsidian isn't without his merits. He should continue to dive into black culture and history, for no other reason than it helps us know what will continue to happen and what steps to take to avoid it.

CarpeOro said...

There are some blacks who have woke up to the fact they have traded one plantation for another. A friend of mine who has has had me and some of his friends from his youth around. They have some education, but are totally mired in the DNC's soft socialism and entitlement mentality. This despite living in Detroit and seeing what has come to pass in the last four decades. They cling to the idea that someone else is to blame and they need to be given more money and preferences to balance it all out. It saddens my friend. I am still in the process of getting him to take that final step and leave the Republicans behind, but it is a slow process.

cailcorishev said...

I ask because, it has always been my view that Men of Color in particular have a unique contribution to make in the MRM saga; as we go, so go our White brothers.

Does he realize what he's saying here? She's writing about how/why men (mostly white men) are checking out of the system, losing interest in marriage, and cutting back their ambition to subsistence levels. Is he really bragging about how many black men beat them to it?

Weouro said...

That's true, he does seem to be proud of blacks' status as the first to fuck things up harder than any other race. He must be saying blacks are the best example of what not to do.

Blaximus said...

I always find many of the Game/MRM blogs very interesting and insightful. Read many of them daily.

But what is truly annoying is the constant out-of-nowhere rasist bullsh*t that is becoming standard fare. It is absolutely impossible to convince anyone that their IQ crap and " welfare " pronouncments, and " crime statistics " are mostly incorrect garbadge that applies to a minority within a minority, so it goes on and on and on, building steam and having multiple commenters co-signing the ridiculous notions.

So if you go to read about Men's Rights and you have to wade through "... most blacks have low IQ, commit more crime, etc. etc. etc. " what is it that's hard to understand that it is racist? ( I know this is a mute question that will dissappear into the ether because the racist will care not, especially win he can hide behind a keyboard..)

If anyone cares.... You guys are speaking about things in minority communities that you clearly know nothing about. For the THINKING among you, let me put it this way : Imagine that the entire white population in the United States were judged completely by the actions of poor whites living in trailer parks. Let that soak in for a minute.

Anyway, just my two cents. I like reading about men's issues because I am a man. It applies to all of us. We are all pretty much in the same boat.

permanentguest said...

You and Obsidian are the writers I enjoy the most. Sadly, the two of you are so clouded in your own judgments that you will never see eye to eye. This is the predicament with America today: blacks who want to victimize themselves and blame the "white man" for keeping them down, and whites who think that blacks are just lazy whiners who make up racism.

The fundamental misunderstanding will continue as long as surface statements are made without substantiation (such as Obsidian labeling you a racist or you claiming that desegragation is a failure).

The point is valid: minorities will feel left out of MRM discussions for reasons that Blaximus has stated above. That's it. To infer anyone is racist in this manner goes too far.

Weouro said...

It's average IQ and average crime. The statistics for whites include the trailer trash element just as the statistics for balcks include the black equivalent to trailer trash.

I don't think it's really about "men's rights" as that includes an implicit recognition of "women's rights" and an acceptance of the feminist frame.

paul a'barge said...

This is the nut 'graph as they say:
their astute observations and the like, many of which I do agree with, are utterly undermined by their racism

Note the bolded part: Utterly Undermined. Do you see what this guy is trying to achieve? He wants to undermine an argument without making a counter argument. In other words, if he can use the utterly undermined cudgel, he has no reason to offer a counter argument.

Discussion over. Enemy under the bus. Walk away. Nothing to see here.

This is the enemy, folks. These are the people who can't beat you in a fair logic-fight. This is the enemy hard at work, trying to marginalize you out of participation in the culture.

Kudos to Dr Helen for not letting this monster lead her logic astray and for not buying any of his baloney.

Finally, a note to Mr Obsidian: you seem to want to get away with behaving as though you are awfully upset at racism. Frankly, I think you're just a cheap shot walking about in cheap shoes. But notice that when people tire of your race-card playing and your bully games and no longer engage you, it's not because these people are racists. It's because you are worn out, and we grow weary of having anything to do with you.

So, bugger off.

cailcorishev said...

The problem with the idea that we could just wall off the MRA stuff from the other stuff, and Men of All Colors could join together in one big drum circle and complain about women, is that these issues don't exist in vacuums. Feminism (the attempt to destroy masculinity, femininity, family, and marriage) and anti-racism (the attempt to destroy white European culture) are two branches from the same poisonous tree. They're pushed by the same web of governmental, media, and corporate entities, and they cooperate pretty seamlessly. If we try to fight one branch while trying to avoid touching the others, we can never discuss the big picture, and we're tying one hand behind our backs. I'm not saying every discussion needs to cover every issue, but if you're trying to defend your culture from some kinds of attacks, you're naturally going to drift into talking about other kinds of attacks that are coming from the same quarters for the same reasons.

Imagine that the entire white population in the United States were judged completely by the actions of poor whites living in trailer parks.

Are you kidding? We're constantly told that all white/male/Christian/American people are evil because of slavery/rape/Inquisition/global warming/whatever. Do you ever watch TV, or even read the covers of magazines while you're standing in the grocery aisle?

cailcorishev said...

So if you go to read about Men's Rights and you have to wade through "... most blacks have low IQ, commit more crime, etc. etc. etc. " what is it that's hard to understand that it is racist?

It's probably racist of me even to ask this, but what do you think the word "most" means?

I can understand that hearing such facts is unpleasant, and it has to really suck to hear such things about a group to which you belong, but that doesn't make citing such facts racist. I'm Irish Catholic, and I've heard an awful lot of "drunk" jokes about that group over the years, but it's never occurred to me to think that people were calling ME a drunk. Is it that hard to separate your personal identity from the group?

Marissa said...

Is it that hard to separate your personal identity from the group?

This reminds me of something said earlier on VD today about how the Roman Catholic Church outlawed cousin marriage for most of its history in Europe. Western Europeans are literally not as closely related as other ethnic groups. So it could be that part of that identity that other groups have is so much closer and stronger in a genetic sense, so yes, maybe it's harder to separate their personal identity from the group.

And it's not racism to observe what Africa is and was even before European and Middle Eastern meddling.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

The reason Game blogs often include open discussions on race is because part of Red Pill thinking involves recognising and accepting racial realities (HBD, race realism, identitarianism).

We've all been lied to, not just about women, dating, and sex, but also about race, culture, politics, economics, etc.

The US is one giant shit factory.

cailcorishev said...

LBF, right. Red pill thinking, more broadly, means recognizing reality, period. (That's literally what it does in the movie, after all.) There are many aspects of reality that we're being lied to about: HBD, sex, economics, nutrition, education, etc. A person tends to enter Red Pill Land via one of those aspects, because he learns about it -- maybe it's his area of expertise, or just a strong interest -- and he discovers that the conventional wisdom on that issue is crap. That doesn't mean he's ready to swallow the red pill on everything, though; that can just seem like too much all at once. So you get things like homeschooling feminist moms, who got the red pill on education but not marital roles. They can't avoid the other aspects forever, though, because they're intertwined, as are the lies told to obfuscate them. You pretty much have to keep going down the rabbit hole or back out and pretend it never happened.

Az said...

I've noticed it much less here (I wouldn't class noting of racial differences in statistics/IQ etc as racism although some conclusion you draw from them might be), but on Chateau Heartiste (a site I browse daily) some of the commentators are pretty extreme in their views on sexual preferences or race. Whether or not its the opinion of the blogger or not (some of Roissy's stuff plays pretty close to the line), it would be extremely easy to frame the site as being racist using some of the commentator. While I in no way think that the posts should be removed, they are rarely challenged (as for example, someone posting something incorrect about gender behaviours might be).

At the end of the day, we all have similar problems. It seems unnecessary to pick fights based on racial differences when we have far greater common ground we share on society and gender. Indeed, my perception of African-American neighbourhoods is that the problems with a female dominant society are more advanced in these areas.

Tom said...

I love "nominally about Men on Strike". Once you read that line, there really isn't anything surprising to follow.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Cail, right. There's no going back. Thing is, it's liberating. I figured out most of this stuff in my mid-20s, but it took me a while. You younger chaps have it so much easier with the Manosphere.

mmaier2112 said...

Tribalism is probably the most annoying aspects of knowing blacks. Dating a black woman for a few years, I couldn't help but see it all the damn time. I don't care the reason, it's damn tiresome.

Vox said...

It seems unnecessary to pick fights based on racial differences when we have far greater common ground we share on society and gender.

Back down on race and you will back down on sex. Either you stand by the truth or you run from it. It's that simple.

Blaximus said...

... and there you have it. My point is made.

You don't need to " back down on race ". Jeeeezuuusss, if only your brain were capable of understanding just how absolutely wrong you were, and how hilarious it is to read your words.. " Back down on race and you will back down on sex ".... Ignorance of the highest order, I will give you that. Stand by what you believe no matter how wrong you are.

Perfect example of what I was talking about earlier.

People like you keep harping on " The Truth ". It's insanely laughable. Like someone declaring the Easter Bunny and Easter Eggs as the " Truth " because he can point to dozens of examples of other mutton-heads that agree fully with his idiocy.

Whiskey said...

The Black community from the ghetto to Obama cannot survive without anti White guy preferences. Structurally Blacks are the enemy of White guys but not White women. Blacks can only advance by taking more from White guys. And somewhat OT or maybe not, WSJ notes Obama not at Bush levels of unpopularity bc of White women.

So there you have it. Men of color are no more my ally than Muslims.

cailcorishev said...

Blaximus, you're spending an awful lot of words on how wrong, wrong, wrong we are while managing to avoid giving a single example.

Blaximus said...

Cailcorishev, examples are never, ever taken into consideration. These kind of " discussions " almost always devolve into one-way conversations. ( see the above trollish statement made to encite reaction ). there seems to be ( lol..." seems " ) a deep, irrational hatred held by some commentors on many Game/MRM blogs. Hell, on many blogs period. But if someone raises the possibility of comments being " racist ", it's seen as playing the race card.

Look at Whiskey's bullshit statement above. Is that an intelligent, rational statement? Or is it just plain old fashioned racist jibberish? What could I ever possibly say to a comment like that, that Whiskey would ever talke on it's merits?

Not that I give half a shit about what Whiskey thinks, but I'm just saying.

Sean Carnegie said...

When J4G puts a disclaimer on the posts written by Obsidian in the title, then I'll click on their posts. I'm not giving the raciss clicks.

Az said...

I agree with Blaximus, Whiskey's statement is exactly the sort I was referencing. Indeed, I've seen large numbers of posts significantly worse.

cailcorishev said...

Nice cop-out, Blaximus. I was hoping for an example of your claim that our 'IQ crap and " welfare " pronouncments, and " crime statistics " are mostly incorrect garbadge.'

So you don't have anything to back that up, so now you're going to paint the whole manosphere with Whiskey's behavior? Gee, that seems familiar....oh yeah, it's exactly what you accuse of of doing.

Vox said...

The point is valid: minorities will feel left out of MRM discussions for reasons that Blaximus has stated above.

Correction: Minorities feel left out of discussions when they are not the central subject.

Vox said...

It is absolutely impossible to convince anyone that their IQ crap and " welfare " pronouncments, and " crime statistics " are mostly incorrect garbadge that applies to a minority within a minority, so it goes on and on and on, building steam and having multiple commenters co-signing the ridiculous notions.

That is because it is not nonsense, but readily verifiable facts. This is quite possibly the worst place for you to try to spin your equalitarian propaganda.

What's next: "It's just a few knucklehaids who ruin it for everybody?" And averages, by definition, don't apply to "a minority within a minority".

Blaximus said...

Not a cop-out. I don't do " cop-out ".

If you believe the stuff you believe, nothing I can say to you will ever change your way of seeing things. And actually, it would be a waste of time to try because it's not of earth shattering importance in the long run.

I never painted the whole manosphere with anything. I like the manosphere...because I'm part of it and no one else's opine changes that. All men, of all backgrounds need to hear what's being said in the sphere. We just gotta ignore when some knucklehead tries to paint us all with a huge, ignorant brush backed by " science " ( like blood-letting used to be considered science.. ).

I only comment as I do because I know some will at least think. They may never comment, but they will THINK. Especially men of character.

Character, fellows, is still important in success. In the long run, that is.

Okay, Calicorishev, I will break my rule and tell you this.

I have travelled the world enough to have learned a few things. I am old enough to have gained some wisdom. I have been successfull in practically every endevour I've undertaken, and I have made many attempts to help young men ( regardless of race, mind you ) to build confidence in themselves and make life bow to their wills. So to speak.

As far as an example as you say, It's not my job to bore everyone reading this with scholarship. No one cares. I'm smart enough to already know that much.

I am a black man, and I do know myself and my " community " better than you. I know it firsthand, from birth. I don't know it from news broadcasts, odd and questionable " studies "., or hearsay. I don't know these " people " that get so much attention ( negative ), but I know... what I know, and that is firsthand.

I know quite a bit of Chinese history, but I would not assume that I knew more about being chinese than a " chinese ". That, my friend, is basic intelligence .

hey, when all is said and done it doesn't matter. It will not change for close to another hundred years or so, and I won't be here for that. But check it out, in America, change goes pretty much in 100 year cycles. That's an intelligent observation. None of the negative commentors will even be alive in another 60-80 years. Many of the negative dudes won't even reproduce, which may be a great thing. I'm old enough to have watched some of the meanest, most racist hang-you-at-dawn motherf*ckers just dwindle away before my eyes.

Bottom line is either we will change for the better, or we will go the way of the Roman Empire.

And that is a fact.

Blaximus said...

And Vox, I don't expect anything more from you than what you posted. That's all you'll ever be. You waste so much time concentrating on downing the other, that you neglected your own development as a man.

Desert Cat said...

Vox said...
That interview was more about Obsidian than anything else.
Everything Obsidian writes is about Obsidian. He's more solipsistic than the average woman.


Literally LOL'ed. Read the first comment, said to myself "Everything Obsidian writes is about Obsidian!"

Sure enuf!

Joel said...

"I am a black man..."

Shocker.

permanentguest said...

Correction: Minorities feel left out of discussions when they are not the central subject.

When they are the central subjects of posts that claim minorities are destroying America, then naturally they would feel alienated.

Back down on race and you will back down on sex. Either you stand by the truth or you run from it. It's that simple.

Comparing race to gender is nonsensical. There's nothing that makes a black man and a white man fundamentally different from the color of their skin. The same cannot be said for actual hormonal differences between the brain of a man and a woman.

Doorstop said...

But what is truly annoying is the constant out-of-nowhere rasist bullsh*t that is becoming standard fare. It is absolutely impossible to convince anyone that their IQ crap and " welfare " pronouncments, and " crime statistics " are mostly incorrect garbadge..."

Was almost certain after reading this that Blaximus was a white guy pretending to be black to troll us. Looks like I was wrong, which just makes it all the more amusing.

thenthejudgment said...

As a black man who grew up blackly in the most blackity black community in all of blackhood, you racist whiteys are just going to have to accept it when I tell you that statistics on average group IQ, rates of welfare use, rates of violent crime, as well as demonstrable physiological differences and disparities in civilizational advancement prior to European colonization are all just a bunch of racist propaganda cooked up by you racist whiteys in order to keep us noble black folk down.

Duke of Earl said...

Some years back Nike ran an advertisement for their shoes where a group of black athletes talked about the superiority of black athletes over white. It was quickly pulled, at least in New Zealand, but was it incorrect?

If black people do produce a disproportionate number of elite athletes then that suggests there can be differences between ethnic groups, and if one group can be better at athletics another can be better at academic disciplines. Being better at something (on average) does not make a group better in an absolute sense, but there may be practises one group encourages that are better for a productive civilization.

If it turns out that the practises that one group has promoted is detrimental to civilized society, then encouraging them to embrace the contrary practises from another cultural group is best for civilization as a whole.

Doorstop said...

"There's nothing that makes a black man and a white man fundamentally different from the color of their skin."

Let's concede for the sake of argument that you're right, and there are no genetic or hormonal differences between the races (which science obviously does not back- compare genetics and the average testosterone levels of Asians, Whites, and Blacks). There being no fundamental difference between the Hutu and Tutsi men in Rwanda, Japanese and Korean men during WWII, or New Guinea headhunter men and white missionary men, doesn't make any of those parties any less dead. Only a fool ignores differences in culture and identity that can have a real effect on his well being, and even Jesse Jackson talked about breathing a sigh of relief when he heard footsteps behind him and realized he was being followed by a white guy instead of a black guy. There are no egalitarians in dark alleys.

It's one thing to argue "Nature over Nurture," but something else entirely to argue Nurture means nothing and can't be talked about...or that only people with particular skin tones should be allowed to talk about it.

Vox said...

There's nothing that makes a black man and a white man fundamentally different from the color of their skin.

Aside from DNA?

Vox said...

And Vox, I don't expect anything more from you than what you posted. That's all you'll ever be. You waste so much time concentrating on downing the other, that you neglected your own development as a man.

I don't expect anything at all from you. Though I do find your faith in the god of linear and inevitable progress to be downright amusing. Just remember, when you see that pendulum swinging back hard and fast, that I warned you.

JP said...

I am African and I approve of Dr Helen's message.

Marissa said...

If there are no fundamental differences between black and white men then why were their cultures so different even back before Europeans invaded africa?

cailcorishev said...

There's nothing that makes a black man and a white man fundamentally different from the color of their skin.

You've never heard of sickle-cell disease? Lactose intolerance? I've always been mystified by the belief that humans were separated geographically for enough eons for natural selection to cause drastic changes in appearance, yet nothing else could have changed biologically. Nothing, dammit! Of course we're different on the inside too. Not better or worse, but certainly different. To think that the skin and things like eye shape would respond very differently to different environments, but the brain and muscles would not, is just silly. (And if you believe that God created the different races of man as they are today, it's just as silly to assume the only variations He would have included were in appearance.)

I think I prefer the 70s, when blacks said, "Yeah, we're different -- we're cooler than you and better dancers!" and then went about doing their own thing, over today's Obamafication, where we insist that blacks are exactly like whites -- except in the ways that whites suck, like being racist, of course. For all that we claim to love diversity today, tell me how we're more diverse now that 1970s Soul Train and 1960s American Bandstand would both be considered unacceptable for reinforcing racial stereotypes.

Blaximus, for someone who says it's not his job to convince us our facts are wrong, you sure spend a lot of words trying to do so, when just one example from the copious number you claim are readily available would be much more effective. You could have saved a lot of typing by just doing what your fellow commenter did in claiming that all negative stats about blacks are cooked-up racist propaganda. I mean, that's really what you're dancing up to, right?

josephofjackson said...

@Blaximus

"And Vox, I don't expect anything more from you than what you posted. That's all you'll ever be. You waste so much time concentrating on downing the other, that you neglected your own development as a man."

I love how you accuse him of the something only to do it yourself inside the same paragraph. It's time for you and Obsidian to get off your race soap box and start looking at your community from the outside as well. It has a terrible reputation for a reason and it's not going to be legislated away. Vox speaks about things empirically. He isn't interested in opinions or being pc. He is interested in numbers. Back up what you say with statistics or go home.

tennesseepartisan said...

Also to go back to a previous point: Yes, race and gender as concepts have everything to do with each other, especially in current socio-political discourse. I don't know about the rest of human history, but it's was definitely an accomplishment of the progressive equalitarians of the 20th century to treat them both (along with, for instance, sexuality) as key factors in investigating "oppression" and "social inequalities." Think about it:

The feminist analysis says that a) gender is a social construct and that b) differences in outcomes (both historical and present) between the two sexes occur because of sexism and male hegemony rather than the fact that there are meaningful differences between the two categories of people to begin with.

The racial egalitarian analysis says that a) race is a social construct and that b) differences in outcomes (both historical and present) between the races occur because of racism and white hegemony rather than the fact that there are meaningful differences between those categories of people to begin with.

Are you so sure that your fight for racial equality is so different from the feminist fight for sexual equality? I don't know. They seem to be discussed in eerily similar terms.

This is what Vox means when he says that if you back down on race, you'll back down on gender. You can state it even more strongly and say that if you back down on race, you've already backed down on gender. You just don't know it yet. But in fact you've already conceded that conspiracies of oppression and institutional "-isms" make good explanatory models for the world. Then it really just comes down to quibbling about who's being oppressed by them and how badly.

josephofjackson said...

Love Fred, thought I would share his thoughts on the matter of racial differences.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Bowser.shtml

ajw308 said...

I am a bona fide Man of Color myself.
Make that International Man of Color.

Brad Andrews said...

Those who believe the Scriptures have to also believe that we are all descended from the same pair of humans. I am not sure that the difference is as radical as some claim (I need to look into the DNA stuff more), but I do think that a definite cultural difference exists.

@Blax, so your skin color means you can judge all facts just because you are the right color? Which facts are you disputing? Likely none since you refuse to name any specific ones. Kind of like a wife arguing about all the bad thing a husband did when she can't name a single one.

permanentguest said...

Aside from DNA?
Source? Proof that it is a fundamental difference?

You've never heard of sickle-cell disease? Lactose intolerance?

http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/sickle_01.html - Explanation of sickle-cell disease

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16373956 - Study showing the myth of increased lactose-intolerance in African-Americans.

But I'll submit to you: even if these are true, do these warrant a fundamental difference akin to gender? If women were only different in their predisposition for certain diseases, would this blog or any others have any merit in expounding on those differences?

Again, there is more in common with a white man and a black man than with any man and a woman. Pointing out minute differences which have nothing to do with genetic disposition towards certain thoughts or actions does not change that fact. Unfortunately, you guys are too clouded in the realm of junk science, as evidenced by statements like "back down on race and you back down on gender" or ignorant statements concerning one's predisposition to disease based on color.

As they say, ignorance is bliss, so I'll leave you to it. The truth will always be with us.


Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Race exists. It's in our DNA:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/europeans-are-getting-whiter-ancient-dna-proves-1440115

josephofjackson said...

@permanentguest

Before you embarrass yourself any farther, I'll throw you a bone.

http://penetrate.blogspot.com/2009/09/biological-differences-between-races.html

It's all put together for you in a nice neat little package. We are not saying this because we believe people should be treated as inferiors, but we have to accept the physical reality of what is in front of us. You don't have to like it, but we aren't just pulling this out of thin air.

tennesseepartisan said...

Did you actually read that paper you linked, permanentguest, even just the abstract? No you just read the title and called it a day. The very first sentence of the abstract posits the same genetic difference that you're quoting the article to disprove:

"In the United States, approximately three fourths of African-Americans have the potential for symptoms of lactose intolerance because lactose digestion depends on the presence of the enzyme lactase-phlorizin hydrolase which is reduced by up to 90-95% in individuals with lactase nonpersistence."

The "myth" that the paper is setting out to prove is that African malidigesters are somehow more intolerant of lactose than malidigesters of other races, which no one here has argued. The prevalence of lactose intolerance, however, is genetic and heritable and highly overrepresented in people of African descent, which the paper agrees with and states quite clearly.

Spare us your "science agrees with me!" bullshit when all you did was Google up a paper that you mistakenly thought confirmed your factually incorrect opinion and then post it without so much as reading over what the paper said. That's an insult to any literate adult. That's childish argumentative behavior. And it's how you attempt to take the intellectual high ground, which is obnoxious.

Your link to the sickle cell page is the exact same story. That page agrees that it is a genetic adaptation to environmental conditions in Africa and thus it is highly overrepresented in people of African origin. The fact that the adaption occurs elsewhere as well does not make it any less a feature of African ancestry. The fact that a trait exists in multiple breeding populations doesn't make it any less heritable or any less a typical characteristic of breeding populations where it's exceptionally common.


cailcorishev said...

Does that affected, superior, "you guys can't/won't appreciate my crushing argument so I won't waste it on you" shtick work elsewhere? Can't imagine it's going to get you far here.

Blaximus said...

@Brad Andrews -

I'm not saying that my skin color makes it possible for me to ( more correctly ) judge facts. I am saying that in the instance of American blacks being judged by scientificly biased studies ( biased because as a black person in America, I know the conclusions reached are suspect at best ), that I have a bit more perspective being a part of the " studied " group for my entire life, and having looked at certain situations without any racial qualifiers involved.

cailcorishev said...

Sometimes I think many of our problems today are due to most people having a complete lack of understanding of statistics and probabilities. Not an inability to calculate them; that does take some study. But the inability to grasp what they mean at all; to understand that "group X tends to show feature Y more than group Z" doesn't mean X=Y or Z!=Y or X>Z or anything else except what it actually says.

Marissa said...

Again, there is more in common with a white man and a black man than with any man and a woman.

Even simple history shows that man fights the foreigner, not the woman. In fact, man fights the foreigner for both his woman and the foreigner's women. So there are differences between races, ethnicities and nationalities which are far more divisive than differences between sexes of the same kind.

tennesseepartisan said...

This is your argument, Blaximus:

"I know that all the various studies that put black Americans in an unfavorable light are biased. How do I know this? I myself am a black American, and I know that my people are not like that."

Do you understand what bias is? Do you understand that being part of the group that you're attempting to defend does not free you from bias but rather implicates you in it? Do you understand that methods of scientific experimentation and observation, as well as statistical analysis, were invented as a means getting around that exact sort of inherent bias? So what you're doing is asking us to take your word on this because you're bringing to the table the type of anecdotal, highly personalized, notoriously unreliable testimony that intelligent researchers invented systematic inquiry to transcend in the first place.

cailcorishev said...

By Blaximus's logic, I could say, "I'm white and have spent my entire life around white people, so I know from my perspective of what white people are like that there's no way that every white person doing studies on race is a racist who is unable to keep bias out of his results."

Where does that leave us, besides both looking stupid?

Blaximus said...

@tennesseepartisan_

I for one, do not believe that race is a social construct.

This is why it's hard to put forth more factual arguments in a forum such as this. Too many pre concieved notions that are deeply held.

There are most certainly differences in the " races ". To argue otherwise is to fly in the face of evidence that is apparent to the naked eye. It's the interpretation of the differences that becomes tainted.

I am in no way an " equalitarian ". That's better left up to the feminists.

My arguments in no way relate to feminism. Quite the opposite. Much of the ills in black communities can be directly correlated to the rise of feminism ( in and outside of said community ) and the intervention of state and federal government.

A small part of my take as a person of color:

When the gov't inserts itself into families and subverts the male role. This was more of a " nail in the coffin " scenario than racism ever was .

The outcome is families headed by single moms, which goes against nature itself and is certain disaster for the generations raised under this type of system.

One of the results of women trying to raise men, is that the men are more like women than men. I know teachers in the public schools who remark about the high numbers of boys who come to pre school and kindergarten who sit down to pee. So what you get is highlt emotional, irrational men/boys who have testosterone surging through their blood. Much like women who raise them ( or halfway raise them ), logic escapes them. They are driven by drama and emotion.

This makes them impulsive as hell.

Would you want to get into a serious argument with a woman who was crying and hysterical and armed? Many ( but not all )of these men/boys are deadly for that very reason. It's not racial per se, but the circumstances are more pronounced because the gov't intervention has impacted some communities more than others.

But that is starting to change. I read the sphere because I notice that feminism and it's ideals are spreading like a nasty fungus to all aspects of society. I hear ( most ) men complaining about it. I hear the horror stories about Hamsters and divorce. i hear about Big Daddy Uncle Sam inserting himself more and more into families of every community with wild abandon. I hear and see all the masculine chicks and feminine men, the gay marriage debates and the absurd rationalizations that can't seem to be quelled with logical thought or reason.

And all I can think is that " I have witnessed this before ". I already know how this will end if allowed to run rampant and unchecked.

Basically, it is the age old argument between " Nature and Nurture ". I posit that many ills of all communities today are more Nurture related. I think to concentrate on Nature is a red herring. It doesn't adress the problems.

As for myself, I was raised in a generation where every home of my friends had 2 parents. 1 of my friends did not because his father died. Every man had employment and took care of his children. Every father played active roles in the raising of sons. This was more the norm than an outlier.

But drastic changes took place in just a couple of generations. These changes were driven by women/feminists and the help of gov't.

I've always agreed that when the white community has a cold, the black community gets pneumonia. In reading posts and blogs in the sphere I can see that in action.

The powers that are ruining this country aren't relegated to any skin color, for the most part. It's tyranny at it's finest, bought to you by your local neighborhood feminist organization and their public/gov't benefactors.

... but that's just a part of the real problem.

Blaximus said...

And Tennessee, I'm not " defending ". Explaining and defenending are different things. My thoughts are seen as " defending " and that is why it's difficult to expand. Readers " read " with a bias. * sometimes *.

Blaximus said...

.. I meant " defending " ( I don't want what's his face to highlight my misspellings for...whatever reason he does it..I'm multitasking my ass off right now. Lol )

Unknown said...

I feel that this has moved too far off topic.

Feminism is the creation of bored, middle to upper class, middle aged white women. It only makes sense that the beginnings of the MRM would come from a similar demographic of men. Feminism still is battling with this stereotype if you remember the "solidarityisforwhitewomen" hashtag that was going around last year. I would suspect that the loss of the traditional family is something that white men, as a group, feel more strongly about that other races since from what I have read the origins of monogamy seems to come from Europe.

Blaximus said...

Lol.... and he probably believes that. Or trolling.

Unknown said...

"... the MRM is largely a middle-to-upper middle class, straight White Male thing, which actively eschews the inclusion or involvement of Men of Color, Gay Men, or Men from the Working Classes."

He has a valid point: white, middle- to upper class straight males represent perhaps the most K-selected group existing on the planet. In contrast, blacks and homos are perhaps THE two most r-selected groups of humans existing. The whole manosphere as I understand it - and the MRM is a part thereof - is all about returning to K-selected mores. In such an environment, blacks and homos as groups would have few chances of success.

cailcorishev said...

Unknown, that's the thing: it makes perfect sense that the MRM is largely a white thing. Let's face it, the MRM exists and is growing because a lot of men followed the script they were given: he went and got a good education and a good middle-class job and the mortgage and then waited for a nice girl to come along and fall in love with him for who he was. She never did, or she seemed to and then got unhaaaappy and frivorced him, so he got frustrated and started looking for answers.

For a variety of reasons, the men who followed that script in the years since feminism took over were almost exclusively white (some Asian). I'm sure a few blacks have too, and there's no particular reason for them to be shut out of the manosphere. But if they look around and see a room full of white guys with white guys' concerns about other issues, that's not exactly a surprise.

I mean, if I were a white guy who just loved genuine Japanese anime, I'd learn to get along with Japanese people and not worry too much about looking like an outsider. And if I occasionally overheard a joke about "round-eyes" from my fellow fans, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that all Japanese anime fans are racist and trying to shut whites out of their community, or that they somehow "need" to get more non-Japanese involved to make their community worthwhile.

Rick said...

Excess Inclusion = Multiculturalism

tennesseepartisan said...

Feminism did hit the black community hard. Feminism disrupts every community that it touches. But to put all of the blame for America dysfunction, tyranny, decline on this feminist/government benefactors nexus is myopic.

The culture wars of the 60s on were devastating to mainstream American culture, i.e. white culture. Feminism was an arm of these wars, as was the broader sexual revolution, as was anti-racism and the Civil Rights Movement, as was a trend to immigration and multiculturalism.

The Civil Rights movement (consisting of "anti-racist" policies and forced integration, as well as the nullification of freedom of association) has been devastating to white communities (it's been devastating to black communities as well, but I can't shed too many tears over that). It's turned our cities into war zones. It's forced white people into suburbs where they pay money both direct and indirect to stay out of those cities. In other words, it's displaced us. It's also created a generation of entitled, resentful blacks who are now taking to knocking whites out in the street. It's ruined countless school systems which the taxpayer has to bail out. The school systems it hasn't ruined its infected with demoralizing anti-white propaganda that our kids have to suffer through. This is turn has helped deracinate the white community. Think of how important it is to your identity to view your ancestors in a favorable light. Well thanks to anti-racism white children have a hard time doing that. Their ancestors were those bad old, racists you see. The one's responsible for everything that's unjust about the world today. It's the same story at our universities. Progressive propaganda, white guilt browbeating, and free-falling standards that exist because school administrators and politicians are trying to solve a basic, biological gap (the black/white achievement gap) through political means. Not to mention schools preferentially recruit blacks, from the local community college to medical school. So bright white students from poor backgrounds can't get scholarship money. It's being funneled to less qualified black students.That's what they get, though, for having racist grandparents. And this is ignoring the pop-culture psyops aspect of post Civil Rights anti-racism, in which the media and Hollywood toe the white-oppressor/black-victim party line constantly, even going so far as to ignore reporting on rampant black-on-white racial violence. Legally it's been a real bitch, too. Because now established anti-discrimination precedents are being dragooned into the service of the lavender mafia to make people bake cakes for lesbian weddings. Businesses don't even have control over who they serve any more. Or who they can hire. Or who they can fire. The list could go on.

I agree with you that feminism hurts communities by focusing on the interests of women (the supposed victims) at the cost of men (the supposed evildoers). What you don't see is that anti-racism does the exact same thing to white communities. It focuses on the interests of blacks (the supposed victims) at the cost of us (the supposed evildoers). Not all of this is the fault of the blacks. They didn't come up with it all. But you're a very useful political stick (what with your ethnic bloc voting and all) with which elites beat white middle America into the ground. They've been doing so for decades.

That's why I, for one, feel about as sorry that the red pill community isn't responsive to the needs of "men of color" as you do that the red pill community isn't responsive to the needs of women.

Acksiom said...

>I agree with you that feminism hurts communities by focusing on the interests of women (the supposed victims) at the cost of men (the supposed evildoers). What you don't see is that anti-racism does the exact same thing to white communities.

And what none of you see is how feminism hurts children by prioritizing women's interests over those of children in exactly the same way, via male proxies -- much of the attention, energy, resources, etc. that men should be giving directly to children is being sucked up by feminists instead.

But that's nevertheless one of the best ways you have to start splitting the white knights off, because it works *with* their internal mythology rather than against it, and is obviously true as soon as you look at it seriously. Ask them who matters more to them; women, or children? And if women are taking up resources that should go to children, who are they going to side with?

chris said...

"That is how a former klansman can drop the n word on TV and survive is he is a democrat"

Who was that?

Marissa said...

Robert Byrd.

Arthur Isaac said...

Any shocks that the MRM is going the same treatment as pro-Constitution Americans who attempt to thwart the agenda? Anyone that stands in the way of the cultural Marxists is going to get the racist, sexist, classist and elitist label thrown at them. Why change what has been working for over a hundred years?

Arthur Isaac said...

Another way of stating this Cail is that the culture that white men embody is the last major resistance to this ideology. The battle for the black mans culture was fought and lost during LBJ's "Great Society" and it's aftermath 50 years ago. Their families were annihilated as was their culture and we're about to see a replay. The best thing for families would be for the collapse of Western Civilization, now they are going after the architects so it seems fitting. Who is John Galt?

Anton Chigurh said...

tennesseepartisan:
You're on fire, man!

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.