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.