Racism for Beginners

Taken on average:

Caucasians should be ashamed of their sanctimonious moral hysteria;
(Ashkenazi) Jews should be ashamed of their susceptibility to insane ideologies;
East Asians should be ashamed of their thoughtless timid conformism;
South Asians should be ashamed of their Tamas;
Hispanics should be ashamed of their mindless populism;
Arabs should be ashamed of their inbreeding and Islam;
and Africans should be ashamed of their incompetent barbarism.

As for casual racism, there’s far too much shame about that already.

(I hope that’s sanctimonious enough for everyone)

ADDED: “Whole books could be filled with the unequal behavior or performances of people, or the unequal geographic settings in which whole races, nations, and civilizations have developed. Yet the preconceptions of the political Left march on undaunted, loudly proclaiming sinister reasons why outcomes are not equal within nations or between nations.”

July 4, 2013admin 48 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH :

48 Responses to this entry

  • Manjusri Says:

    Amen…

    … there’s nothing wrong with a little casual critical racism- provided that same critical frame of mind applies to your own race’s biases as well.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Even the most crustily bigoted white nationalist would probably admit — if gently water-boarded — that white people take being annoying to a level no others can reach. I guess you have to edge into Hebrew to make it truly decisive. (Here‘s the best outside candidate I could come up with.)

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Conformism, indifference, and following the crowd can’t be annoying, on average, by definition.

    Naturally, I find all three annoying.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    How can you possibly claim that “white people take being annoying to a level no others can reach,” while Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Benjamin Zephaniah still walk the earth?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You’re telling me the last bastion of white supremacy has fallen?

    Posted on July 5th, 2013 at 5:08 am Reply | Quote
  • Manjusri Says:

    What really, really sticks in my craw?

    Progressive “casual racism” against east Asians. I’ve noticed it’s not uncommon to see a sanctimonious attitude out of short-term, disillusioned expats that runs something like this: “Asians are hopeless, backwards-looking people who are at a civilizational dead end, unlike us progressive westerners who are boldly solving our problems and moving forward into tomorrow!”

    Yeah. Gag me. Talk about the worst of both worlds.

    (And wrong, I might add. While Chinese history goes in cycles, they’re cycles on an upward spiral, as Joseph Needham’s work noted. And to quote Neal Stephenson, you don’t become the world’s most successful ethnic group of all time by embracing every meme that shows up on your doorstep. The Han have a way of surviving. They’ll survive modernity as well.)

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Get with the program! East Asians need stomping because they’re Kulaks.

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    I once came across a philosophy paper saying that Confucianism isn’t compatible with democracy and therefore China will have to discard it.

    That’s the moment I decided I’d better get out of the establishment.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Any recollection of the title? It sounds as if it could be a useful resource (in a defense of Confucianism, of course).

    nydwracu Reply:

    No idea, but I found it searching Confucianism in the Philosophers’ Index, so if anyone has access to that… Hell, there might’ve been more than one along those lines.

    (My college account probably still works but I cannot figure out at all how to get into the thing, so.)

    Posted on July 5th, 2013 at 5:14 am Reply | Quote
  • Mike Says:

    Excellent list. Did you have any other “insane ideologies” in mind apart from communism?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Communism in the Moldbuggian sense more or less covers it, i.e. including Cathedralist progressivism in all its dimensions (blank slate anthropology, suicidal deontological libertarianism, ‘critical theory’, deconstruction …). You could heap in 57 varieties of wacky psychoanalysis too, I guess.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Rule by CEO and cryptographic weapons locks are statistically pegged as Moldbug’s insanities. I remind you that I can go on listing until I hit something that works for you particularly.

    Yudkowsky can be seen as a case study of treating rationality like a religious good rather than a tool.

    Thinking about it, I wonder if Rationalism per se can be described as a jew thing. Checking…Spinoza was a jew. Leibniz’s mother was Ms. Schmuck. Kant’s first name was Emmanuel and he knew Hebrew.

    Well, that fit surprisingly well.

    Basically, jewish intellectuals are extremely prone to the rationalist mistake. Constructing intricate and beautiful theories through the process of insulating them from ugly realities.

    Of probable interest to no one, I can describe how Descartes’ rationalist mistakes are different in character.

    [Reply]

    Manjusri Reply:

    Yudkowsky is an interesting and somewhat sad (though far from hopeless case)… he’s gone from a very promising young mind to something of a silly cult leader, a progression often seen among intellectuals outside of academia (see, for two very different instances, Ayn Rand and Ken Wilber). I remember back when he was younger (we became acquainted in 2000, when I was 18 and he was 20), everyone expected he’d be doing groundbreaking work in AI research and programming by now. Alas, he seems stuck in a self-referential cul-de-sac of rationality cultism with himself established as a high priest.

    Yet I don’t think we should give up on him yet… he’s still quite young, very smart, and seems to have enough of a sense of humor and critical judgement to yet see the error of his ways (as did one of his mentors, Max More, when he realized he was headed down the cult leader road and decided that maintaining his integrity as both a philosopher and a businessman was more important).

    Contaminated NEET Reply:

    I’d like to humbly put forth Objectivism.

    [Reply]

    Manjusri Reply:

    Objectivism, Neoconservatism, Deconstruction, Psychoanalysis… all originated with Jewish thinkers. Arguably even Fascism can find some intellectual roots among the Ashkenazim via Otto Weininger (a thinker who also had a pronounced influence on Ludwig Wittgenstein).

    The Ashkenazim are ideators par excellence… which is a tremendous double-edged sword, though I’m hardly going to take the (imho, stupid) out of crass antisemitism, as it’s as much a blessing as a curse- just like being God’s chosen people. Sometimes I have to wonder if there isn’t a grain of truth to that idea, too, especially given that God can be conceived as the supreme Idea.

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    They’re in the West and they’re still around. They may not be God’s chosen people, but it’s either them, the Han, or the Germans. As for their thinking: they combine English rationalism with mitteleuropäisch consistency, and the results of that are Objectivism and the Samson Option. Not that my race is any better; consistent mysticism gave the world Lanz, List, and Satan himself. (My own grandmother was allegedly in the Bund, and most of the old-country side of my family, er, died in the war.)

    Also, a minor point, but Deleuze was Sephardic.

    Moldbuggite Reply:

    You forgot NeoReaction on the list of Jewish ideologies. Where would you be without Moldbug?

    Posted on July 5th, 2013 at 9:08 am Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    Ashkenazim, being atypically smart, are especially prone to the danger of becoming trapped in the byzantine constructions of their own intelligence. There’s no reason (is there?) to think that this is anything other than a peril of intelligence in general. It’s particularly upsetting for dimmer folk, though, when they get sucked into the same traps, without having devised them, and with even less chance of thinking their way out of them.

    [Reply]

    JJ Reply:

    Pareene isn’t a Jew.

    What the analysis of Ashkenazim and their love of crazy ideas leaves out is the white-hot rage and hatred they feel towards their host (any host, any time) population. Communism is a stupid ideology but Trotskyism (what really plagued East Europe) is/was a thinly veiled attempt to genocide the host from earth. Tim Wise isn’t driven by ideology. He is driven by genocidal rage and hate. He can’t help himself.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Even with regards to the odious Tim Wise (or Trotsky), I think your diagnosis is exaggerated. When generalized further, it becomes seriously unhinged. Unless you’ve led a very weird life, I’m quite certain it’s not drawn from actual experience. Getting trapped inside byzantine intellectual constructs is something to watch out for …

    [Reply]

    JJ Reply:

    No, I don’t believe so. The last 100 years of have been defined by extreme Ashkenazim aggression and hostility. Tim Wise is not a lone wolf. He’s paid handsomely to represent his people. He is entirely mainstream and not in any way/shape/form opposed by his people. That weird atheist shouting at a peaceful Christian in Berkeley serves as a perfect metaphor of the last 70 years of American intellectual history.

    Trotskyism was insane for us. For them, it was consolation of power. It worked. We can not use the universalistic frame to describe their particularistic goals. Communism was never about the workers or inequality. It was destroying society to make it safer for them. It worked. It wasn’t insane for them. If you disregard our right to exist, it was perfectly rational.

    Continuing with the description of whites as annoying, the complete reluctance to properly characterize their behavior is exceptionally annoying. We do not need to obsess about them *provided* we frame their activity properly. When one says “diversity is our strength” just re-frame it to “your homogeneity restricts our behavior” and move on.

    nydwracu Reply:

    I could see Tim Wise manning a gas chamber, but I’ve met plenty of goy Brahmins who come across the exact same way, and plenty of Jewish Frontines who don’t. It’s a caste thing.

    Doug Reply:

    Intellectual reductionism, which lies at the root of intricate ideas disconnected from reality, seems to be correlated with the gap between verbal and spatial intelligence. Mathematicians, scientists and engineers usually tend to be quite level-headed even outside of their field. The craziest ideas tend to emanate from the English department and its closest cousins (modern literary crit theory, anyone). Even the more verbally loaded continental philosophy schools are full of a lot more BS than the analytical schools.

    The ability to choose just the right word and phrasing can make even the dumbest ideas seem palatable. The human mind seems particularly vulnerable to esoteric verbal reasoning. Which is why almost all of science is done using very base level, concrete formal systems. Jews probably have the biggest average verbal-spatial gap of any of the “intelligent races” so that would seem to explain their tendency towards insane ideas. East Asians have the biggest gap the other way, which would seem to contribute to their conformity.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Sounds plausible to me.

    Of course it plays right into my biases: philosopher by inclination, physicist by training.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I have my doubts about engineers. I notice a tendency to reductionism and to embrace crank ideologies rather than admit that human affairs are a mess that no one has a good handle on. Engineers are a special case of Americans, or vice versa–they hold as an article of fath that problems have solutions.

    [Reply]

    Captain Insano Reply:

    “Ashkenazim, being atypically smart, are especially prone to the danger of becoming trapped in the byzantine constructions of their own intelligence.”

    So, East Asians are pretty smart. Are they especially prone to getting trapped in byzantine constructions of their own intelligence? More so than whites?

    I don’t know the answer to this.

    [Reply]

    Manjusri Reply:

    It seems plausible. East Asians have a tendency to get caught in rigid forms of thought that are passed down unthinkingly from generation to generation… think about all the systematic nonsense of Traditional Chinese Medicine (not that there isn’t some pharmacological reality behind the herbal components), I Ching, Chinese Astrology, the fondness for rote formulas for anything (the famous Asian affinity for self-help literature).

    Not that these don’t all contain some grains of truth, but it’s all buried in rigid, formal systems that have little bearing on reality. The smartest practitioners realize this, find the core of truth, and can innovate… only to be slavishly copied and degenerated by the next generation and the next, continuing the cycle…

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 5th, 2013 at 2:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    @ JJ
    You’re obviously firmly settled in your opinion, so it’s probably pointless to ask whether you’ve thought it through. I have no problem seeing how any list of the most horrible intellectuals in modern history has disproportionate Jewish representation, but I find it hard to imagine drawing up a list of intellectual heroes that is not equally skewed. Just restricting the fly by to technocommercialist types rakes in Cantor; Bohr; Einstein; Pauli; Born; Wiener; Von Neumann; Oppenheimer; Szilard; Teller; Feynman; Prigogine; Solomonoff; Rand; Rothbard; Paul Cohen; Nozick; Arrow; Becker; The Friedman dynasty; Yudkowski; Smolin … and on, and on … Does that really count for nothing in your book? Perhaps you will at least understand how that could seem perversely one-sided.

    [Reply]

    JJ Reply:

    Interests, not values. White people seem almost incapable of thinking in terms of interests and we’re taken advantage of as a result. Libertarianism (Nozick, Friedman, Rand et al) is pushed by people taking advantage of our weakness for universalism.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Whose interests though, given that some very large chunk of white people are the fanatic foot-soldiers of leftist degeneration? Why should racial solidarity over-ride animosity against people who want to destroy your freedoms, steal your assets, annihilate your children’s opportunities, and fund your enemies? Do you and Nancy Pelosi share a ‘we’? There’s at least 40% of white folks I’d side with the squid abominations of Kraagalzokh against.

    I think you are also seriously under-emphasizing the amount of Jewish internecine hatred — libertarian rightists and communists might weirdly find some way to get along (I really don’t know), but between secular progressives and religious there’s an animosity that matches anything in the intra-Caucasian death-match.

    [Reply]

    JJ Reply:

    The interests of white people. Yes, you’re 100pc correct, many if not a majority have been infected with a disgusting ethno-masochism. I am fine with them breeding out of the group (or not breeding at all). Which is what they’ll do. I suppose we’ll end up like Jews, with a hard-core core of ethnically pure zealots created from generations of the most loyal breeding with the most loyal and the disloyal breeding with the hosts.

    I see no evidence that Jewish secularists have anything near the contempt for religious Jews that they do for average whites. Maybe you can point me to some Jew on Jew massacres from the past few hundred years for my reference.

    Doug Reply:

    52% of Jews out-marry. Fewer than 11% regularly attend any Judaic services. 60% of Jews under 40 do not self-identify as Jewish. 54% of Jewish children are raised as non-Jews. Jewish fertility is far below replacement at 1.4.
    http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/intermarriage-statistics/

    If Jews are pursuing some sort of ethno-centric strategy, they’re pretty much doing the worst job imaginable. Traditional Jewish culture is completely disintegrating into blandly post-protestant globalized culture. For that matter Jewish genetic ethnicity is only barely lagging behind in the disintegration. Besides for a tiny minority of Orthodox that’s completely ostracized and looked down on by the mainstream reform Jewish community (fewer than 5% of young reform Jews have close friends who are Orthodox).

    If Jewish ethno-centric power was so far-reaching as to control nearly everything in Western civilization, you’d think the first thing they’d do would be to stop the vaporization of the Jewish culture and ethnicity.

    nydwracu Reply:

    Uh? Whites can’t act in their own self-interest if history started in 1980 and the neocons are right about everything past that. If my grandmother wasn’t acting out of tribal self-interest when she joined the Bund and campaigned for George Wallace, what interest was it? And then there’s the Southern strategy.

    Whites today don’t act out of tribal self-interest because they’re not a tribe. I’d rather live where I live than in Ithaca. Brahmins act in their self-interest and Vaisyas try to act in theirs but get co-opted. Frontines don’t, but I’d like to see that change, especially if they pick up the caste-traitor Brahmins and noblesse-oblige the Vaisyas. But right-accelerationism and all that other cyberpunk stuff is basically that, in embryonic form.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 5th, 2013 at 4:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • JJ Says:

    I don’t believe I stated “(Jews) control nearly everything in Western civilization”, though they certainly do control the means of propaganda. There is no such thing as “Western Civilization” anymore, anyway.

    Jews do, however, push ideologies and policies (and wars) that have an extremely negative impact on those of us who live both physically and emotionally in the USA. There is no reason to pretend otherwise. Sometimes they succeed (immigration and the invasion of Iraq) and sometimes they fail (war with Iran). We can describe the impact without exaggerating it.

    [Reply]

    Doug Reply:

    Jews caused the Iraqi War? This just doesn’t make sense. Iraq was pushed heavily by gentiles Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Iraq was a Republican war, look up opinion polls from 2003, Republicans favored invasion by much higher margins than Democrats. Jews strongly vote Democrat and hold liberal opinions. There’s simply no evidence that American jews supported the invasion of Iraq at higher rates than typical Americans, and the liberal Democrat skew would highly suggest the opposite.

    Of course you’re probably going to retort that the neocons tricked the right, and then list jewish neocons. You’ll gloss over the fact that by far the most ardent opposition on the right were the libertarians, and as you yourself acknowledged libertarianism is heavily jewish influenced.

    None of this really matters to Jew-paranoia though. Any set of facts can be interpreted to any conclusion as long as you’re willing to suspend Occam’s razor:

    -“Everybody knows Jews wanted and caused the Iraq war.”
    -“Well, how can you say that when polling suggests that Jews were less favorable to the war then the average American”
    -“Yes, but look at the group that was the intellectual core behind the war, it’s filled with Jews.”
    -“Okay, but look at all these other Jewish-filled groups that strongly opposed the war. Maybe just lots of intellectual groups everywhere are filled with Jews.”
    -“Those are completely different. Everybody knows the pro-war groups were being led by their Jews, and the anti-war groups had to drag their Jews along.”
    -“What do you base that on?”
    -“It’s obviously that way because everybody knows Jews wanted and caused the Iraq war”
    [and on and on…]

    I’ve had these debates a million times and they always go the same way. Anything bad that’s remotely associated with a jewish person instantly and totally becomes the fault of all jews. In contrast anything good that’s associated with a jewish person is always actually the result of gentiles or would have happened anyway without the jewish person.

    Like I said any theory can be made consistent with any set of facts if you’re willing to stretch likelihood and contort common sense.

    [Reply]

    JJ Reply:

    Yes, Jews caused the Iraq war. Are you familiar with the Office of Special Plans that fed Bush etc fake evidence of WMD’s? From top to bottom, less Cheney, everybody pushing it was a Jew. It was for Israel. Iran is the same. Though after an Iran catastrophe I’m sure I’ll hear “OH OBAMA IS A JEW NOW”, because we’re all supposed to forget the enormous propaganda campaign to get this thing going.

    Note that nobody accuses Armenians or the Malay of being nation-wrecking, usurious war mongers.

    “Anything bad that’s remotely associated with a jewish person instantly and totally becomes the fault of all Jews.”

    Which is why you made a bunch of assumptions and waved your hands and argued with a wall. Calm down.

    Jews are the most tightly organized and well represented group of people on earth. The Organized Jewish Community routinely writes checks for the whole group. They wrote one with Iraq and are trying their hardest to write another for Iran. It is only Obama’s authentic leftism that keeps the Iranian state from destruction.

    I too have had these discussions many times. You may feel free to yell at your wall now. I’ve said mine.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 5th, 2013 at 6:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • 3.1 No Reason | Radish Says:

    […] ‘Racism for Beginners’ […]

    Posted on July 7th, 2013 at 4:37 am Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    Arabs should be ashamed of … Islam

    Doesn’t Islam have some impressive civilisational achievements to its credit? I mean this isn’t my cup of tea but it’s a serious piece of work by any standard.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Opinions about Islam tend to be swayed by the degree of attachment to free inquiry. Al Ghazali is the greatest enemy the philosophers have ever known, and his spirit seems to have conquered the world of Islam quite comprehensively.

    [Reply]

    Contemplationist Reply:

    I was of a similar opinion, but then I encountered Nassim Taleb who is a huge fan of Algazel and imputes skeptical empirical motives to him.
    Here’s an example:
    http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2011/09/algazel-a-k-a-al-ghazali-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%84%DB%8C-the-arab-arabic-language-philosopher-wh/

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    The scientific and cultural accomplishments of the Islamic Golden Age (and its somewhat golden aftermath) belong in great part to Persians, not Arabs.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 7th, 2013 at 7:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    Here’s an impeccably civilised Muslim Scot who perhaps bears watching:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQoiGpqD4_E
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnO2J8n6f6I

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 7th, 2013 at 8:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Manjusri Says:

    Engineers tend to be in the INTP/INTJ/ENTP/ENTJ cluster… which tends to produce a disproportionate number of libertarians (and also accounts for the “too many chiefs, not enough indians” tendency among libertarians- by nature they tend to be intellectuals of a sort, and not followers). As libertarianism is one of those solutions that is “simple, obvious and wrong”, it’s natural that engineers would latch on to it (just as many scientists and engineers in an earlier age were hardcore communists). Engineering deals in clear-cut, logical issues, not muddled medians… thus applying the same thinking to human affairs seems appropriate.

    Being an INTP myself, one reason that I got run out of academia on a rail was because, as a friend who is an engineer put it, I think like an engineer, not an academic. Social sciences academics don’t like it when you actually propose solutions… especially un-PC ones…

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 9th, 2013 at 2:23 am Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin's Severed Penis Says:

    Ok, since the current Chaos Patch is given over to music discussion I thought this might be the most recent / relevant place to put this UK paper front page headline (WTF??!!):

    http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/10/cafe-owners-warning-to-customers-if-youre-allergic-to-black-people-dont-come-in-3876686/

    What was even better was the discussion that the story generated between friends of friends on Facebook. Please indulge me a little here:

    Person A: I’m unsure whether it’s okay to write off all responses in a small northern village as racism. Having often been the person-who-stood-out in places where I’ve lived, I suspect some people are reacting with a more general xenophobia that’s not racist so much as “they’re not from round here”, and some people just curiously notice anything around them that’s not familiar, without there being any hate behind it.
    I’m not dismissing her experience in Yorkshire, just saying it’s probably a more complex mix of reactions she was facing, one of which was racism from some of the people.
    And it’s not fun being constantly the person-who-stands-out. It’s exhausting.

    [What an impeccably liberal response!]

    Person B: You’re wrong. And not black so really, why is your opinion important?

    [Wow! Shot down in flames!!]

    Person A: If that’s directed to me, please explain why I’m wrong (that will help make your response more useful to me).

    [A bit pissed off but sensing danger… and still impeccably progressive: Please, please, educate me!]

    Person B: Being an ethnic minority myself, I can tell the difference between racism and ignorance so when I say something racist is happening, rather than downplay it or deny it, you should believe me.

    [Ah, I see. Being black (she really isn’t *very* black, from what I can tell from her picture) qualifies you to know whether something is racist or not from hundreds of miles away in a place you have never been. I mean by current standards it anything pretty much is racist so you can’t really go too far wrong…]

    Person A: Exactly. That’s why I made a point of starting what I wrote with “I am unsure whether…” and I’m always willing to believe someones experience, though I see nothing wrong with sometimes asking why it is that particular experience, in any particular instance, rather than something that looks like it from a distance.
    But I understand your frustration, having experienced it myself as several different kinds of minority (at least I haven’t experienced racism myself since I left school and stopped being bullied for being Jewish, but I think you’re jumping to conclusions about my lack of “ethnic minority” status… but we’re not competing, and it’s an easy assumption to make about someone from a tiny photo, isn’t it?)
    I wasn’t intending to downplay or deny her experience, I was saying that sometimes what looks like phobia is just ignorance without the hatred that I think defines phobia. So sometimes you can assume you’re being hated when you’re not. That doesn’t of course, change how the person on the receiving end of it experiences it, so I can see why what I wrote wound you up. I’m sorry.

    [Danger sensors firing on all cylinders now! Last two words? ‘I’m sorry’. Moneyshot!]

    Person B: Apology accepted.

    [Victory! But wait… there’s more!]

    Person A: …and I apologise further, since reading back my response to you, it’s clear to me I was being defensive. I have a different mixture of privilege and oppression from some, but I haven’t had to deal with overt racism for decades, so I don’t know what it’s like to live with that one all your life. It’s probably a consequence of being on the receiving end of oppression all your life that would make someone see it where it wasn’t there – that’s certainly true of the oppressions I experience, they’ve made me hyperalert to trouble, and it’s the oppression that’s largely at fault for that.

    Jesus! I just want to reiterate that I don’t know either of these people personally, but I still feel dirty…

    In all fairness it probably is for ‘racist’ reasons that people don’t want to eat there. But it could also be because she is the kind of person who would put a sign up saying ‘I don’t bite’ on the door?! I mean, Black, White or Blue, would you really want to spend an hour or so in the company of someone who who do that? I’m going with no.

    Even better than this was Wakfield council’s response to the story:

    “A spokes person for Wakesfield council said they were ‘obviously concerned’ by the issue, which they had not been made aware of before. ‘I would urge the business involved to get in touch with us as soon as possible’ he added.”

    What for? Are they going to add the cost of a meal there on to your council tax and give you coupons?! Probably.

    [Reply]

    Contemplationist Reply:

    Ah the groveling.
    I cringed while reading that.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 11th, 2013 at 9:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Whites say the African is indolent and over-excitable. But imagine what it’s like from the other side.

    The African would say the White works too hard and doesn’t care about anything. Whites say Africans are greedy. Africans would say Whites sell themselves for a pittance. Whites say Africans are too brutal to their women, but Africans say the women like it that way, and what do fertility figures say about who is right?

    White Man enslaves the African because He says the African won’t work otherwise. The African says the White will work as a slave without even being whipped!

    Of course the African is bad at White civilization. Even the White isn’t too hot at it, and they grew up with the stuff. Every race has much to be ashamed of, the only question is which bits are high status to shame at the moment.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 2nd, 2014 at 10:56 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment