Multicultural PC Racism

When thinking about Americanization in Europe, many think of McDonald. I rather think about hidden plutocratization and tax cheating by encroaching American corporations to such an industrial scale that European states have been weakened.

(So the European schools, integration, police, defense have been going down, with the complicity of their dumb, corrupt, or inept leadership; as I explained in How Plutocracy Fosters Islamism; the only question is whether the plot is conscious, or not; in some individuals, assuredly, it is the former).

Beyond this obvious colonization by tax free capital, one should not forget that the USA is racially obsessed. One would expect that, the European colony in North America having established official racial based slavery for 246 years. The culture of the USA is still endowed with a racial ideology.

The masters of the USA has been trying to export their notion of race, worldwide: its profitable aspects extend beyond just using whips and chains. It is good way of binding victims’ minds.

The slavery thought system uses religion to do so. And so-called “Multiculturalism” to foster religious fanaticism. This is why Obama, subconsciously or not, did not show up in Paris for Freedom of Expression.

To this day Americans are asked by the authorities of the USA to declare their “race”.

“Race”, since 1619 CE has been big business in the USA. 1619: the year when the first people “of color” were enslaved in Jamestown, Virginia. Some “races” could be readily enslaved, thus bring big profits.

Buying the present American thought systems wholesale, is adopting American ideas on race.

Some will finagle about my use of the word “buying”; yet, when Europeans accept global corporations of the USA NOT to pay tax, they are actually paying TWICE to have them around. They pay that Smart Phone twice: first by purchasing it, secondly by accepting that those who profited from the sale, will pay no tax… Whereas everybody else does.

Considering the history of the USA, buying its ideology should cause pause.

I decided to enquire on the ground. That’s called experimental philosophy (Socrates already practiced it, by debating various ruffians).

Diversity” is fashionable. So I went to a “diversity meeting” to meet my prey, the object of my little experiment, in its natural environment. Somebody from the Stanford staff was talking, very well, I must admit. I should not say that she was “articulate” because she was a self-declared “black”, and, we were told, by her, to call somebody “of color” (as she put it) “articulate” was a racist offense. Somebody as herself (That was a bit confusing, as her color was, hmm, white… Although she had braided her hair like the late Bob Marley.)

Thus, according to diversity specialists, when using an adjective, we have to carefully consider what they believe is their race. If the person is “of color” as the speaker put it, we have to hold back our adjectives. Which ones? While we think about this, we cannot have a conversation. Therefore we cannot have a conversation with people “of color”. This what diversity specialists recommend.

It gets worse.

The speaker was white, optically speaking. But she had always lived in a “black” community, she informed us, until she got to Stanford, as an undergraduate. I wondered if that was a “black” community where everybody was optically white.

However the Stanford speaker applied the “one drop rule”. In old parlance, that means “one drop of sub-Saharan African blood”.

Now here is the clincher:

DNA analysis has shown that about 30% of self-identified White Americans have recent sub-Saharan African ancestry.

Consequence: one cannot use adjectives with any American, lest they be “of color”, even when they are white. It’s probably why the Titans of Tax Evasion in Silicon Valley only use the adjective “cool”.

I intervened on the question of color: I pointed out that once, when I was a very small child, and we were going to Black Africa, my mom reminded me not to call Africans “Blacks”. In Africa, calling people “Black” is calling attention to the color of skin to define them. Thus, logically enough, it is perceived as racist. Although some tribes tend to be black like charcoal, others can be very light (for example the Peuls of the Sahel). I was found to be very articulate.

The speaker put herself in orbit around the concept of racism. A French member of the audience tried to interject that the concept of “race” was not clear. Then the speaker made the pirouette of saying that the black race was about identifying with the black community.

She now admitted that “race” was a psychological phenomenon, a psychological choice she had made. Then she told us we had to teach children about race, etc. We absolutely had to, we could not ignore race. The audience was in rapt attention about the alleged errors of its ways.

However is not racism bad? And is not racism about race? Is not racism a psychosis? Now she wanted us to teach our children about her psychosis: “Talk to your children about race! Yes, talk about race! It’s something we all have to do! It’s like teaching children that it is not a stork who brought the baby! You have to do it! Race! Talk to children about it!”

Imagine a Nazi telling us to teach our children about “race!” People would walk out. Instead, here was the “black” woman, who was nearly as white as Hillary Clinton, telling us to teach about “race” to children, and people were sitting in awe.

The mentally “black” and optically white speaker had admitted race was a psychological construct (Adolf Hitler, by the way, admitted exactly as much, and I understand very well what’s at work here).

I had enough of this racist ideology, and the capture of the audience with the artifact of the race we are supposed to revere. I rose, philosophical fangs fully deployed.

I told the audience that the USA is a racist country because it asks about “race”, it expects race, it imposes “race” on We The People, by requiring We The People to identify with a race. All those who went along that scheme are actually racist. OK, I did not mention the last point explicitly. I had already made plenty of enemies by pointing out the obvious.

All this was all the more shocking, that it was in a French Bilingual School. One would expect that the values of the French Republic would be defended. But they are not. I suspect that this is mostly from ignorance.

When I go to the science class, I see quotes from Einstein, a German Jew who was generously attributed the work of Henri Poincare’ by Max Planck (Planck paid the heaviest prize for his support of Prussian nationalism: both his sons died from fascism). This is weird, in a French school: Einstein was little, scientifically speaking, relative to Emilie du Chatelet, discoverer of Energy, Infrared, and a first class philosopher.

Why are the French ignoring French culture? Have they been swallowed by the blob?

French law forbid to distinguish race and religion. Both are supposed to be in the private sphere. It turns out that “race” cannot be distinguished biologically.

Early on, the Stanford propagandist had asserted that “race” was a matter of “phenotype”. That sounds scientific, hence plausible. That was before I blasted her, informing her this was incorrect. Phenotype is the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment (in other words: Darwin + Lamarck). Then she retreated, and contradicted herself mightily as she re-defined “race” as “psychological”.

French law was prescient, not just biologically, but militarily.

When the Nazis took control of Western Europe, they tried to kill all the Jews. They used IBM to ferret the Jews. This was highly successful in some countries. In the Netherlands, the state had required Jews to register. IBM had their names. Their addresses.

80% of the Jews in the Netherlands were thus exterminated: the Jewish community went from 140,000 in 1940 down to less than 30,000 in 1946.

By contrast, in France most French Jews disappeared into the general population, and were never found. Although 75,000 Jews were assassinated, most of them were Jewish refugees from Central Europe (that the USA had refused to accept). As many had no papers, and did not speak French well, they could be easily tracked down.

How come the French cannot step forward, and defend their law, let alone their civilization?

Racial prejudice starts with racial discrimination. And racial discrimination is not just an injustice, but a lie (as races don’t really exist: there are Neanderthal genes all the way down to South Africa, it turns out).

It should not be tolerated by the French that the USA teach its racism to a real melting pot such as France. (Most of the French population has part Jewish or Muslim ancestry. Jews started to live in France before Christians and Franks did; willing Muslims were allowed to stay after the failed invasions of the Eight Century.)

And what of the role of Stanford University in this? Stanford is all about money. If slavery was the law, Stanford would teach slavery. In a way, by teaching race, thus racism, that’s exactly what it does.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Multicultural PC Racism”

  1. dominique deux Says:

    Excellent as usual but a bit of an overkill. The deeply racist nature of US society is amply enough proven, case closed, by its routine implementation of the so-called “one drop rule”, a complete obscenity to outside observers.

    The rule is in itself deeply and insultingly racist: what it tells us is that white is pure and clean, and black is dirt, and a single trace of black ancestry is enough to make a person dirty, ie non white, ie black. The reverse does not apply: a “single drop” of white blood does not make a person white, like a dirty shirt is dirty even if it has a “single drop” of cleanness. Thus the rule not only posits a physical existence of the concept of race, long ago disproved, but it also states unequivocally that one race is better (pure) and the other is worse (sullied), which is the absolute definition of racism.

    But it gets worse.

    That “rule” was born of the necessity to keep valuable property – white-skinned slaves – in chains. It is, and was, a tool of enslavement. Slave owners did not hesitate to invoke it even in foreign, civilized nations. The French King’s police told Mr. Madison that, residing in France, he was compelled to set free his slave, Ms Sally Hemmings, under French law. He promised he would do so, and never did. Witness accounts indicate she was, to any observer, white. That gallant serial rapist could thus avail himself the services of a pretty white mistress, by the simple expedient of “owning” her. That “drop” ruined her life.

    Now as before, some of the worst enslavers are the so-called “community leaders” who enforce that “rule”, invented by their forebears’ absconders and torturers. Their rationale? Imbecility, of course, and the wish to enlarge their captive audience.

    I won’t even comment on the terminal dumbness of still speaking of “drops of blood” in the era of DNA sequencing. People who still use the words “creatures” or “blood” (in the sense of ancestry) have no excuse for their willful and harmful idiocy; they should be removed from society.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Sorry about the “overkill”, Dominique, but Stanford University has very long teeth, it’s very nasty, and sitting next to where I am. I was there in person, and when I blasted the “STANFORD DIRECTOR OF DIVERSITY” (that’s her full title, I did not mention it, but now some have suggested I should have) many members of the audience, some influential, were visibly upset, and tried to fire back. I was myself staff at Stanford in the (distant) past. So it’s safer if I overkill. I have had Stanford in my crosshairs for a very long time, and I intent to overkill whatever I don’t like there, and that’s really a lot.

      The wrath of the Islamists is one thing, mine is nothing less, intellectually speaking, I practice carpet bombing.

      I actually turned around 180 degrees some members of the audience, later talk suggested.

      If the adjective “black” had been replaced by “white” in her discourse, she would have been called racist, and the audience would have left.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Future 3rd president of the USA Jefferson brought Sally Hemings to Paris in 1787. She was 14. Enjoined by the Ancient Regime police to pay her and her brother minimum wage, and not keep her in captivity, Jefferson lied, and promised her freedom when back in the USA (and never freed her, although 4 of the 6 children she had from Jefferson were later freed).

      Sally was not the only case. The large American delegation in Paris, long a government in exile, was full of slaves.

      Anyway my main drift was that the diversity model of the USA is racial racism, and there is nothing there that France ought to imitate in anyway.

      Manuel Valls, the French PM, spoke pretty well, several times, in recent day. The defense budget ought to be boosted, I say…

      Also I think Dieudonne’ ought to do quite a bit of hard time (180 degrees from what I said in the past, but Dieudonne’blast on Sunday was incitation to lethal hatred, so, in the hole! ;-)!

  2. Mahomet Hebdo | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Morality Without Intelligence Makes As Much Sense As Will Without Mind. Intelligence Is At The Core Of Humanism. « Multicultural PC Racism […]

  3. Mahomet Hebdo - NewsCream Says:

    […] Vast weasel and lying propaganda in the USA, indeed, against Charlie Hebdo and Freedom of Expression in a sort of crusade against “blasphemy”. Those behind it are often paid propagandists attached to plutocratic universities (as Stanford’s “Director of Diversity” deconstructed yesterday). […]

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: