Kenn Gividen: Why antisemitism is wrong

DAILYKENN.com -- At the age of 15, Adolf Hitler failed his exams and dropped out of school. The teen found himself playing with younger children due his unpopularity among his own peers.

As an army recruit, Hitler served in World War I and earned praise as a dispatch-runner and was cited for his bravery. His coveted awards included the Iron Cross First Class. In spite of his patriotic zeal, the young soldier never advanced above the rank of corporal. The reason? His superiors agreed that the future Führer lacked leadership skills.

"[H]is posture was sloppy and when he was asked a question his answer would be anything but short in a soldier-like fashion. He didn't hold his head straight - it was usually sloping towards his left shoulder," noted Fritz Wiedemann, Hitler's regimental adjutant.

The young Adolf Hitler was neither bright nor charismatic.

Fast forward to 1934. 700,000 Nazi Party sympathizers were mesmerized as Adolf Hitler, the corporal who lacked leadership ability, crossed his arms in steadfast defiance, then gestured with authority as he roundly condemned "der Juden" to thunderous applause amidst unprecedented pageantry.

So what happened? What transformed Hitler from boring dullard to, arguably, history's most charismatic speaker?

• The answer can be found in the name Erik Jan Hanussen. Hanussen was a noted performer known for his uncanny ability to entrance audiences with his stage presence. He literally billed himself as a hypnotist.

Hitler recruited Hanussen to become his personal speech coach. It was Hanussen who reputedly taught Hitler the power of performance. When we watch and listen to the dynamic speeches of Hitler at the Nuremberg rallies, we are watching the handiwork of Hanussen.

Though Hanussen (born Hermann Steinschneider) pretended to be a Dutch aristocrat he was, in fact, a Moravian Jew.

Hanussen was assassinated in 1933, ostensibly by order of Hermann Göring or Joseph Goebbels who objected to the competition for Hitler's attention.

The point: Adolf Hitler had no qualms with a Jew playing a pivotal role in his inner circle of advisers.

• Upon the formation of the notorious SS (Sturmstaffel), Adolf Hitler became member no. 1. Member no. 2 was the lesser known Emil Maurice. Maurice remained a close confident of Hitler from the time the two met in 1919 to end of Hitler's life. When Hitler was sentenced to Landsberg Prison after the famed Beer Hall Putsch, Maurice was incarcerated along with him. It was there that Maurice dictated portions of Hitler's Mein Kampf and, upon their release, it was Maurice who smuggled the manuscript out of the prison.

The loyalty of Maurice to Hitler earned the former the trusted role of the Führer's personal driver. He was one of two men to hold that position. When Hitler allegedly committed suicide in his bunker at the end of World War II, Maurice was there. Maurice was assigned the task of retrieving gasoline to pour over the bodies of Hitler and his newly wed spouse Eva Braun moments after their suicides.

Like Hanussen, Maurice was a Jew.

The point, again, is that Hitler trusted Jews within his inner circle.

• What's more there were at least thirty high-ranking officers with Jewish heritage who served in the Third Reich's Wehrmacht, or 'armed forces'.

• Hitler's National Socialist Party advocated the formation of the Israeli state.

On August 25, 1933 the Haavara Agreement was signed between Germany's National Socialist government and the Jewish Agency. The agreement allowed Jews to emigrate from Germany to Palestine. That is, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were instrumental in the creation of the modern state of Israel.

• Haim Arlosoroff, who negotiated the Haavara Agreement on behalf of the Jews, once dated Johanna Maria Magdalena Ritschel who later married Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and was colloquially known as "Magda" Goebbels.

Arlosoroff was, of course, a Jew.

• Between 1929 and 1938 250,000 Jews emigrated to Palestine. Most were from Europe including a massive number of professionals, doctors, lawyers and professors from Germany who migrated with the blessings and support of Hitler's government. The migration resulted in Palestine having the highest per-capita percentage of doctors in the world. Those highly educated, highly skilled professionals added significantly to the cultural and economic foundation of what would become the nation of Israel.

• As the war neared its end, Goebbels lamented in his diary that Hitler had allowed too many Jews to live in Berlin.

• In fact, the Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland (Reich Association of Jews in Germany) was formed in 1939 and survived until June, 1943. Membership was compulsory for ethnic Jews.

What we know about Adolf Hitler is:

• His speech coach, Erik Jan Hanussen, was a Jew.
• His close friend, confidant, and inner-circle member, Emil Maurice, was a Jew.
• He openly negotiated with international Zionist leaders.
• He actively advocated the formation of a Jewish state.
• He actively assisted Jewish emigration to Palestine.
• His close inner circle socialized with Jews.
• He tolerated Jewish communities in Germany.
• A significant number of his top military officials were at least part Jewish.

The conclusion?

By "adding two-and-two" we could conclude that Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich were instruments of Zionism; a part of a vast international Jewish conspiracy to solicit empathy for the plight of Jews and create a Jewish state.

Sound silly? Of course it does. Why? Because it's absurd. Hitler was certainly no puppet of an international Zionist conspiracy.

Nonetheless, some actually believe that he was. By stitching together a patchwork of data points, conspiracy theorists concoct believable scenarios. If the case can be made that Hitler and the National Socialists were a Zionist conspiracy, most anything can be woven into a convincing but woefully incorrect theory.

While all the above history is true, it leaves proverbial untied strings that demand explanations. Therefore, as in all conspiracy theories, one must retrofit one's world view to conform to dogmatically held theories.

• For example, were Hitler and the Third Reich a Zionist conspiracy, how does one explain the Jewish Holocaust? Why would Jewish conspirators allow six-million Jews to be murdered?

Some, of course, simply deny the Jewish Holocaust occurred. Others contend the Jewish Holocaust was part of the Zionist plot in which millions of Jews were unwittingly sacrificed by greedy Jewish bankers to affect their plan for world empathy.

They would note that, during the Peel Commission (1937-1938), Jewish leader Chaim Weizmann testified that "There are in Europe 6,000,000 people ... for whom the world is divided into places where they cannot live and places where they cannot enter."

They would argue that the Jewish holocaust would have decimated the entire European Jewish population and, therefore, could not have occurred. There would have been none to emigrate to Palestine and no survivors to testify against Hitler and his National Socialist government.

The notion that large, round estimates are almost always incorrect never occurs to them.

• To accept the Zionist conspiracy theory view, one would necessarily have to explain why non-Jews -- such as Barack Obama -- maintain high profile and influential positions. Also requiring explanation are the vociferous anti-globalist and conservative Jews such as Pamela Geller, Paul Gottfried, and Ben Stein. To retrofit those 'loose strings,' arguments could be made that the likes of Obama are Zionist puppets and conservative Jews are controlled opposition.

If Jews held an ironclad grip on Hollywood (and they nearly do), one would have to explain how producers such as Mel Gibson and other conservatives managed to thrive for decades. Given enough thought, any scenario can be forced to fit the conspiracy theory. Incontrovertible and empirical evidence is seldom forthcoming.

If Zionism controlled Washington as some contend via a Zionist Occupational Government (ZOG), why would Israel have commissioned Jonathan Pollard to spy on us? Wouldn't Israel have been effectively spying on itself?

• That's not to deny the leftward trend of most Jews; nor does it excuse or dismiss the anti-Western rants of the likes of Barbara Lerner Spectre, Tim Wise preying on the obtuse, or the misleading of Morris Dees. Nor is it to deny the existence of any Zionist conspiracies: Virtually every government and political social movement are constantly conspiring; they are perpetually up to something.

It is to affirm that the human mind is perennially gullible and prone to accept bizarre belief systems, the international Jewish conspiracy theory being among them.

• So what's wrong with believing the Zionist conspiracy theory?

The problem is: We act out what we believe.

If we believe Zionism is the culprit behind every evil from hiccoughs to illegal immigration, our short-sighted conclusions will compel us to ignore genuine causes. We will blame every social ill on der Juden and ignore the broader conspiracy of consensus of Marxism and other flawed social and political philosophies. In fact, I have encountered individuals so enraptured with antisemitism that every Jew is deemed evil by virtue of their Jewishness.

Again, we act out what we believe. If our belief system is flawed, our actions will reflect that flaw.

Attributed to the Apostle Paul is this affirming observation: "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners."

Were I a Jewish conspirator hell-bent on world Zionist domination, I would intentionally propagate the Zionist conspiracy theory for the express purpose of making the opposition look dumb.

Voltaire observed, Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. 

To paraphrase the Apostle Paul and Voltaire, The person who convinces you to believe dumb things has the power to make you do dumb things. 

Please report typos...

......

Click on image to share on Facebook






More racist hate crime reports at AbateTheHate.com [click here]





Please do not submit comments containing obscene, racist, or otherwise offensive language. Although comments are not routinely monitored, offending comments will be summarily zapped if discovered to be unduly gauche.

Comment ▼▼▼





DailyKenn.com is a family-friendly web site.
If you see advertisements that are inappropriate, please notify us via Facebook messaging here ►
Permission is granted to use the material in this article providing (1) the byline is included in an obvious manner crediting DailyKenn.com as the author, (2) a link to this page is included and (3) no changes are made either by deletion, addition or annotation. Original compositions at DailyKenn.com are sometimes seeded with decoy data, such as hidden acronyms, to detect unauthorized use and plagiarism.
Comments at DailyKenn.com are unmoderated. Comments containing obscenities, pejoratives, slurs, etc., do not constitute an endorsement of this site, its contributors or its advertisors. Offensive comments may be deleted without notice.
Comment ▼

Kenn Gividen: What's wrong with white nationalism

I'm a nationalist.

By nationalist, however, I don't refer to goose-stepping goons parading with red flags emblazoned with swastikas held aloft . Rather, I am a nationalist as opposed to a globalist.

With few exceptions those are the only two choices: If you're not a globalist, you're a nationalist and vice versa.

There are, however, some who believe that white people should carve out an exclusive eco-bubble society in which non-whites are forbidden to enter; let alone participate.

Granted, freedom of association is, in my opinion, the foundation of true civil rights. If white folks wish to hang out with other whites, the government has no moral right or obligation to prevent that association. What is true of white people is true of all people. If black lawyers, for example, wish to form a professional affinity group, that is their right. If black people wish to form their own exclusive nation, they have a moral right to do so as well.

If people named Bob who are left-handed wish to form a professional affinity group or nation, there is no moral ground to prevent them. Likewise if Robert's Bakery wishes to serve only customers name Robert and Roberta without fear of government intrusion, that is their moral right.

The problem arises when nationalists -- white or otherwise -- create an 'us-vs-them' culture that presumes their members hold a innate superiority above all others.

Oddly, if not hypocritically, it is the predatory left that presumes to segregate us into two distinct groups: Whites and people of color. Cultural Marxism presents white people as a privileged class of bourgeois oppressors and people of color as the under-privileged proletariat class of the oppressed. Even as the so-called 'progressives' create the racist construct of privileged oppressive whites versus underprivileged oppressed people of color, they pretend to staunchly oppose racism. (It's as hypocritical as ostensibly opposing homophobia while opening our nation's borders to millions of gay-hating Muslims.)

Enter the cry-baby movement.

That is my term for the current wave of student protests spreading across our nation's colleges and universities. The protesters imagine racial discrimination where none exists. They concoct absurd notions of white privilege, trans-generational trauma caused by slavery, critical race theory, micro-aggressions, and other nonsensical astroturf offenses to justify segmenting society between 'us and them'. They imagine that white people possess some pathological, innate advantage over others which whites exploit to their advantage.

To escape the oppressive white bourgeois, the cry-baby movement creates "safe spaces" where people-of-color may segregate themselves in true Jim Crow fashion. In other words, the prevailing college-campus cry-baby movement is effectively validating white supremacy and white nationalism as legitimate.

If students-of-color wish to isolate themselves in campus eco-bubbles where white people are rejected, they have a right to do so. However, they should be mindful that they are necessarily creating another eco-bubble that is exclusively white. That is, their withdrawal marches in tandem with white nationalists who are quite happy to see themselves excluded.

Again, it's their right. But having right doesn't make it right.

Similarly, if white people wish to open a bakery that serves only white people, they have the inalienable moral right to do so. And I have the right to shop elsewhere. And I will.

Kenn Gividen agrees with Henry Louis Gate about...

Kenn Gividen
DAILYKENN.com -- Historian Henry Louis Gates said the "dirty little secret" in America's history is that thousands of free black Americans owned slave labor.

Black history they don't want you to know►

In the full version you will hear Dr. Gates reveal that 12.5 million African slaves were transported to the New World (1514 to 1867) of whom only 450,000 were brought to what is now the United States.
(Forward to 37:18).


 

Watch full version here (1:29:17) ►
Advance to 1:27:00 (near the end) 
to hear Dr. Gates lay the blame of American slavery 
on African slave traders.

Kenn Gividen: Why racism is wrong

Kenn Gividen 

 Racism, by my definition, is disliking someone because of their biological ethnic heritage. Racism is both idiotic and immoral. Disliking others due to unchangeable biological characteristics is nonsensical, defies reason, and is void of any moral value.

Sadly, there are those who subscribe to such nonsense. Personally, I could care less who lives in my neighborhood, providing they keep their kittens out of my fish pond and their teenagers from attacking people after dark, organizing themselves in violent flash mobs, or murdering 12-year-old girls so they can steal their bikes.

Sadder, still, is the fact that others attempt to erase racism by pretending the biological reality of races is nonexistent.

While it is immoral and idiotic to dislike others due to their biological ethnic heritage, it is also immoral and idiotic to bury one's head in the sands of political correctness and deny races exist.


• The concept of racism

The concept of racism first emerged as a Marxist agitation ploy to create friction between classes of people. It is that cultural disruption that allows the political and economic left to gain and retain control as the victims (proletariat) of racism are dependent upon government to fend off the privileged villainous racists (bourgeois).

Magnus Hirschfeld first coined the
terms racist and racism in the 1930s
The noun racist was first introduced by Magnus Hirschfeld in his bookRacism, a 1938 English translation of an earlier work in Hirschfield's native German. The original German transcript was written in 1933 and 1934.

In 1933 Hirschfeld fled to France, not because of his Jewish heritage, but because the National Socialists closed his Institute of Sexual Science. Hirschfeld's primary area of research was sexology, a topic over which he obsessed challenging even the passion of Alfred Kinsey.

Hirschfeld was sometimes correct, as cultural Marxism typically exploits bits of truth then falsely extrapolates it into nonsensical, ideological kudzu. Hirschfeld noted, for example, that interbreeding was possible between races, then concluded that races are mental abstracts or social constructs, all the while ignoring the myriad of biological markers that Hirschfeld, being a medical professional, surely knew existed.

Hirschfeld extended his ideology to the condemnation of Zionism as ethnocentric, in spite of the fact that he was a Jew. He also extolled individualism as the criteria by which one's merit should be acknowledged -- something similar to Martin Luther King's content of character concept. Who could argue with that? In the end he identified seventy individuals he considered outstanding world figures, explained Sam Francis. All but eight or nine of those on the list, it turns out, were white Europeans. None were black.

Who was he fooling?

Thus the individual who gave us the terms racist and racism was an intellectually dishonest, albeit brilliant, leftist with an agenda. Take note that prior to Hirschfeld the social concept of racism didn't exist. Humans simply took note of what they observed and believed their eyes.

We still do, of course. Show anyone a photograph and ask them to describe the hat worn by the black man in the crowd and they will innately do so. None will say, "There is no black guy. Race is a social construct."

Cultural Marxism is burdened, therefore, with the task of convincing white people that their acknowledgement of race realism is racist and, all the while, denying that race exists.


• Exploiting race to advance an agenda

Cultural Marxism perennially pretends to fight racism even as it proliferates it.

Two things of which to take note:

Note, first, that Jesse Jackson is a perennial opponent of white racism. Then ponder what Rev. Jackson would do for a living if there were no racism? If the exterminator exterminated all the vermin, he'd be out of a job. Jackson needs racism like the Orkin man needs rats.

Note, second, that there are cultures that are practically void of racism. These homogeneous cultures include Iceland, The Falklands, The Isle of Man, and Cameroon. Were cultural Marxism truly determined to wipe out racism, it would struggle to create racially segregated, homogeneous cultures. But that's not what we see. Rather, we observe cultural Marxism successfully creating heterogeneous cultures in which racial conflict is bound to happen. It weaves ethnicity into the cultural fabric through integration to assure the friction can be neither avoided nor resolved. Like Jesse Jackson and other exterminators, it is guaranteed a "job."

Here's a question to ponder: What's more dishonest than an exterminator who breeds rats?
HUD wants to make the Rural Purge reality.

Recently The Department of Housing and Urban Development announced plans to force integration upon every outpost of white homogeneous communities. Ostensibly its agents want to fight the evils of segregation which, through their filtered thinking, translates into racism and the consequential economic and social injustices it causes. In reality it wants to exacerbate racial and ethnic tensions, assuring that agitation will be be well-woven into our culture from Manhatten, New York to Mayberry, RFD.

Again, the struggle against racism is perennial because cultural Marxism requires it to survive. While white people allow themselves to be guilt ridden for even entertainingthe thought that the crowd of obnoxious young black thugs may pose physical danger, non-whites are encouraged to embrace the ethnocentric perspective that even Hirschfeld deplored.

Here's a meme to remember: Government-forced integration breeds racism.

Neither integration nor segregation constitutes or causes racism. Rather, racism is the outcome of government force. Government's role is to protect our freedom of association; not to remove it.


• Four pillars of culture

So we make concessions to purge our culture of the evils of racism even as non-whites are encouraged to do the opposite. This process of cultural mitigation deprives the white bourgeois (Marxist perspective) of control while empowering the non-white proletariat. Neither diversity nor multiculturalism is a strength. That is precisely why cultural Marxism flames it's fire.

There are at least four pillars of a cultural structure that must be compromised for Marxism to thrive.


• The first is a unified language.

When my French ancestors first set foot in the British colonies they were challenged with adopting English so they could adapt to the culture. 100 years later, when the colonists sought independence from British oppression, they began making linguistic distinctions between themselves and the enemy. The letter u took a noticeable hit as labourbecame labor, colour became color, and our neighbours became our neighbors. Coincidentally, the British spellings were remnants of the Norman invasion hundreds of years earlier.

Nous les Gens
Today American culture is being fractured as we are annoyed by the requirement to dial "1" for English, listen to Spanish announcements over the public address systems, and surf past Spanish cable channels.

The United States Constitution was written in English. There was no anticipation of a fractured culture.

The natural divide between us and them is, again, by design. The left causes racial divisions for exploitation purposes as it encourages a sense of victimization among the non-white proletariat and guilt among the privileged white bourgeois.

Cultural Marxism, therefore, is innately racist even as it accuses those of us who resist such efforts of being the same. It is akin to a schoolyard bully accusing his victims of being bullies.


• The second pillar is a sense of history.

Again, from an ounce of truth grows disinformation and misinformation in kudzu proportions.

Good or evil?
Here's one example.

The Trail of Tears is an historical reality, although the Indians whose trek to the West was made aboard boats shed few tears. We all know that Indians perished along the trail. We do not consider that Indians perished who did not make the trek. The dirty little secret is that every single Indian alive in 1830 is now dead and would have died with or without the transfer to homogeneous homelands. Who knows that many Indians acclimated themselves to Western culture and were exempted from the move? Does anyone stop to consider that some of the Indians who made the trek were quite wealthy? Are we informed that the government provided healthcare to the Indians as they made their way westward? Does cultural Marxism ever take note that millenia of inter-tribal warfare was ended by white people? Or do we take note that white innovation, particularly in the healthcare field, has saved millions of lives of Indians and other non-whites? Why is cultural Marxism so eager to portray white people as instigators of genocide when, in reality, our innovation has enhanced living standards of the billions of humans who co-occupy the planet and will continue to do so for generations to come?

Cultural Marxism seeks to cast a disparaging shadow across American history, forever portraying white people as slavers while ignoring the reality that we ended millenia of legal chattel slavery worldwide. They question the moral content of the minds of our founders, but only when convenient. Sordid tales of Christians on deadly witch hunts are well known to every school child even as they are simultaneously taught that America was founded as a secular nation. Does no one else see they hypocrisy? How do revisionists convince us that slavery was an institution embraced by our Christian founders, and then contend that our founders were deists and not Christians?

Christopher Columbus opened a door to the new world that culminated in remarkable innovative changes that will continue to enhance the lives of the descendants of natives for generations. Cultural Marxism rewrites history to focus on viral epidemics that killed Indians. Of course, they never mention that the critters that introduced the Black Death to Europe were imported from China, nor do they bother to mention the body of evidence pointing to syphilis as being as native to the Americas as maze and tobacco.

In the cultural Marxism narrative, white people have a history of oppressing non-whites.


• The third pillar is comprised of icons and symbols.

Icons are powerful. They instill a sense of community and identity. People literally give their lives in honor of icons in the form of symbols and flags.

The Roman Emperor Constantine understood this principle when he went to battle Maxentius. According to the historian Lactantius, Constantine ordered each shield held by every soldier to include the image of the cross. Constantine knew, no doubt, that the enemy's army included a large contingency of Christians who would be reluctant to pierce the cross with an arrow, spear, or sword.

Traditional American icons are demonized, removed, and replaced. Most notorious is the Confederate flag. In my lifetime I have watched that flag change from a benign symbol of Southern culture to be demonized as the embodiment of racial hatred. Statues of Confederate statesman are removed. Today's monuments are erected en masse to honor Rosa Parks and Martin Lutheran King, Jr.

How peculiar that multiculturalism excludes Southern culture.

The demonization of Paula Deen had nothing to do with her use of the n word. Deen was an icon. Her cooking show placed a positive spin on Southern white culture. And that, to cultural Marxism, in anathema.
Where have all the icons gone?

So it was that from 1969 to 1972 Americans were denied television programming that portrayed their culture in a positive light. Called the rural purge, white-friendly programming such as The Andy Griffith Show, The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, Mister Ed, Petticoat Junction, Hee Haw, and Lassie were stripped from the weekly lineup. Many of those programs were immensely popular and profitable. They were also anathema to cultural Marxism that requires white America to be demonized. During that same time frame America was introduced to a slew of commercials feature black actors. Next up was Norman Lear and his onslaught of politically correct humor.

Television programming is iconic and such icons from Ellie Mae Clampett to Paula Deen's kitchen are untenable.

The image of Christopher Columbus is no longer honored. Streets and public places named after America's founders have long gone out of vogue.


• The fourth pillar is common identity. 

We are even deprived of such friendly icons such as manger scenes.

The American colonies were founded along religious lines. As long as the colonists feuded over Calvinism and other such Christian notions, a unified Republic would never occur. Fortunately the foot of Roger Williams set upon on the shores of Massachusetts. The audacious but brilliant Williams found himself at odds with the Puritan leaders and, consequently, given the proverbial boot. It was in Rhode Island, a colony largely of Williams' making, that the concept of religious liberty was not only conceived, but birthed. Christians of various stripes and colors were allowed seats at the round table. The colonists warmed to the notion and, in time, Baptist churches were built blocks away from Presbyterians and few cared, as long as there was whiskey in the cupboard.

Americans were not communal, but they had much in common: A common religion, a common language, and a common rule of law. Combined those elements comprised to create a common people whose cohesion could withstand an onslaught from the British Empire. Add a common work ethic to a lust for liberty and America with her European cousins transformed humanity with previously unfathomable innovation.

What made America work was a common identity.


• Summary conclusion

Today our identity is being fractured by design. Beginning in 1965 our government displaced the European criteria for immigration and opened our borders to huddled masses who yearned, not to be free, to exploit our heritage. Some assimilated, most did not.

The same is true in Europe and Australia.

In time our common culture will be gone and, along with it the innovative infrastructure that feeds, finances, and provides healthcare to all humanity. An impending dark ages looms on the horizon from which humanity will never recover and we're witnessing the storm front in our life time. We the people who enhance the lives of all others are being destroyed. And that, my friend, is racism: The destruction of one race of people to the detriment of all others.

Summarily, when cultural Marxism says it hates racism, it is saying it hates me. When I say I hate racism, I'm saying I hate cultural Marxism and the irreversible damage it is doing to all people of all races.

Kenn Gividen: Why white supremacy is wrong

Kenn Gividen

DAILYKENN.com -- Every human owes every other human a debt of dignity by virtue of their humanity. Disliking others, let alone hating them, due to race or other biological traits is both immoral and irrational.

Consequently the notion of supremacy is a misnomer.

I know of no one who self identifies as a white supremacist.

The 'white supremacist' label is (a) derogatory, (b) intended to stigmatize and stereotype the person to whom it is attached and, (c) should be considered defamation or slander.

When a person labels another person as a 'white supremacist,' the pejorative is intended to signal permission to hate the person defamed by the term.

The 'white supremacist' label is, consequently, hate speech.


• Some believe the term 'supremacist' implies superiority.

There is a shade of difference.

A supremacist would believe he or she is superior to all others in every way. Conversely, one can be superior to others, but not supremely superior to all others.

Virtually all persons are superior and inferior to others in some form. One may be more athletic than another or intellectually superior to others.

Click to view video
• No one person is or can be supreme.

Albert Einstein is widely considered the most intelligent person known to history. If true, he would be intellectually superior to all others.

Louis Cyr is considered to be the strongest person known to history.

Intellectually, Einstein would be superior to Cyr. Physically, as measure by brute strength, Cyr would be superior to Einstein.

Neither would be supreme as each is inferior to the other in some aspect.

• Because no one can be supreme, the concept of supremacy is always a misnomer.

Marxism applies the supremacist pejorative to fortify its philosophy that economic disparity is unjustified among humans. Those who fail to comply with the Marxism dogma are stigmatized as supremacists. It is a tool of intimidation to force us to reject the reality that disparities exist in aptitude that result in economic disparities.

For example, while Marxism must admit that Albert Einstein was intellectually superior, it rejects the reality that some people groups must necessarily be intellectually superior to other people groups.

It has been empirically demonstrated that East Asians have an aggregate intellect that is superior to sub-Saharan Africans. Furthermore it has been demonstrated that Ashkenazim Jews are intellectually superior to East Asians. Were an East Asian to acknowledge that reality, he or she may risk being stigmatized by Marxism as a supremacist. As noted earlier that label would be a misnomer. While East Asians may possess an aggregate intellect superior to sub-Saharan Africans, the Africans demonstrate physiological superiority to East Asians, particularly in their aptitude for athletics.

[Click here to view nations ranked by IQ.]

• The argument for supremacy will always fall short.

I, for example, could argue that I am supremely superior to a person who is, oh, say, dead.

A counter argument could be posited, however, that a dead person is superior in that he doesn't have to worry about bills, doesn't concern himself with an oppressive boss, and doesn't concern himself with his future being ruined by Democrats, even though he may occasionally vote for them.

• The principle applies to all people groups.

While the predatory left obsesses over race (view HuffingtonPost.com and count the articles that are race related, for example), the concept of believing one's group is superior to others is pathological among humans.

Boilermaker
supremacists?
Imagine the dullness of a basketball tournament in which Purdue fans were not Boilermaker "supremacists." Still, the term remains a misnomer. Even though some would contend that the Boilermakers are superior on the basketball court to Indiana University's Hurryin Hoosiers (I wouldn't), others could produce academic records to make a case for the superiority of the Boilermakers in the classroom.

I doubt anyone would describe sports fans of being a 'hate group' because they exclude fans of competing teams from their after game parties. Then, again, were one to Google the search term Nika riots they may be surprised.

Stan's knitting club may be superior in crafting dog sweaters than Bob's bowling team, but Bob's crew would be superior in knocking down pins than Stan's friends.

Anyone who has attended a Barbershop Quartet convention will appreciate the competition as groups of four strive to prove their superiority.

In New York City a group of black prisoners banded together to form the United Blood Nation to effectively compete with the Hispanic Ñetas and Latin Kings gangs.

Each year thousands strive to prove their superiority at American Idol auditions. If you've bothered to view the select auditions you will agree that some people are superior to others.

Even atheists and theists delve into long-winded debates to verify the supremacy of one group's views over those of the other.

Psychologists have attached a term to describe the irrational bias that is innate among humans: confirmation bias.

Again, the belief in the superiority in one's group is pathologically universal among humans.

Every imaginable people group is, in some way, superior to other people groups.

To assume that races are an exception is just plain stupid.

Marxism is just plain stupid.

For Marxism's professed objective of economic parity to work, the world would necessarily be populated by 7-billion identical twins. We would all be the same age, same gender, possess identical DNA, etc. Marxism's rant against economic disparity would, then, be possibly justified.

Economic disparities in a free-market system are the natural result of intellectual and other disparities. Genetics will determine who runs faster, jumps higher, and earns more money. Those genetic predispositions may be enhanced or hindered by environment, but environment cannot alter one's DNA. Yet.

• The devil is in the details of dogmatism.

When one takes a dogmatic position, he must alter his entire world view to be consistent with his dogmatism.

Example: If one believes that Jews, and only Jews, are the source of all evil, that one must explain evil non-Jews (Barack Obama) and good Jews (Pamela Geller). That requires one to retrofit his worldview to fit his dogmatic view regarding Jews. He may, for example, decide Obama is a puppet of Zionism while Geller is controlled opposition.

What about Marxism?

Marxism's dogmatic view that economic disparity is the ultimate evil requires the Marxist to alter his worldview and contend that all humans are equal.

That is why Marxism wants to desegregate restrooms. To be consistent Marxism must contend that there is no signficant difference between males and females.

That is why Marxism rails against the settled science of IQ disparities among people groups: IQ disparities don't fit the Marxism narrative that we are all equal. Those who disagree are stigmatized with the 'white supremacist' pejorative.

• Marxism retrofits reality to conform to its dogma.

Marxism demonstrates its cult-like belief system by displacing reality -- people groups necessarily possess aggregate superiority and inferiority relative to other people groups  -- with nonsensical dogma that all people groups are manifestly equal.

Marxism then bullies us to deny reality and accept its absurd dogma through intimidation. That is, when we acknowledge reality rather than Marxist dogma, we risk being defamed with the supremacist label.

Marxism reminds us that Adolf Hitler's concept of a German super race ran afoul. Marxism then projects itself as the super philosophy.

Shall we create the neologism, "Marxist supremacist"?

If you believe your view that no human can be superior to another is superior to my view that every human and group of humans are, in some way, superior to others, you're self delusional.

Kenn Gividen: Facebook blocks Carol Swain's account because....

Kenn Gividen

DAILYKENN.com -- The Facebook account of conservative Christian intellectual Carol Swain was blocked.

An automated message informed the black college professor her account was suspended due to abusive content.

A left-wing hate group at Vanderbilt University where Swain is a professor is actively attempting to have her suspended for “discriminatory practices in the classroom.”

Swain's account was restored with an apology from Facebook. Apparently the Facebook thought police were unaware of Swain's national stature and influence.

Read more here ►

Prof. Swain's response ►
Click on image to share on Facebook


“What troubles about me about all of this is that Facebook is such a huge forum. Some of my posts were reaching over 400,000 people. I was reaching people and hopefully being able to connect with people around the world,” Swain says.

She has been blocked by Facebook since late Wednesday morning, Swain says. “When I tried to post on my Facebook page I got the box on the page saying I was unable to post to do abusive content.”

“It’s the automatic message that pops up. It seems to be related to complaints that someone has filed that I’m putting content on my page that violates community norms. I think it’s already to the students that have been circulating that petition against me,” she adds.

As of the publication of this story, Professor Swain’s account remains blocked by Facebook

“I’m being suspended by Facebook because a bunch of Vanderbilt students have complained I posted information they don’t like,” Swain notes.

A group of Vanderbilt students have circulated a petition that calls on Vanderbilt University to suspend Swain for “unprofessional intimidation on social media.” The petition also alleges Swain engages in “discriminatory practices in the classroom.”

“Facebook has joined in with the people that are uncomfortable with ideas that are contrary to their own. These posts are not hate speech. I’ve posted other people’s articles that were supportive of traditional Judeo-Christian views,” Swain tells Breitbart News.

“There is nothing that would justify Facebook blocking my page. Before they blocked me, they started preventing my followers from sharing articles,” she adds.







Source ►
Image credit: breitbart.com
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)