Saturday, August 19, 2023

Slavery...the eternal issue in America Part 2/2

 Lincoln stated that the emancipation of slaves was not his focus or goal. Why? Because his priority was the preservation of the Union; addressing Southern secession, therefore, was his principal objective.

It was only when Lincoln feared losing the Civil War (1861-1865) that he freed slaves in the South. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it," wrote Lincoln in 1862. "What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." (President Abraham Lincoln).

While the 13th amendment seems to have freed African Americans, for whatsoever reason that was.
It is crucial to note that; the passing from a state of bondage, enslavement, subjugation, confinement to a progressive state of relative progressive freedom, which transited from the right to vote, the lack of personhood or citizenship, all forms of segregation, until the tyranny of BLM, and civil right abuses going on; does not necessary mean that they were made the Equal of Whites, below is a theoretical overview on the contradiction on the state of the equality of African American to Whites, between a liberal and a conservative points of view, and how they intersect at the so-called "unprincipled exceptions"

Theoretical retrospective

LINCOLN'S UNPRINCIPLED EXCEPTION TO RACIAL EQUALITY
In a liberal society, where the only legitimate principles are liberal principles, no principled opposition to the onward march of liberal freedom and equality is possible. The only way opposition to liberalism can manifest itself is as a series of holding actions, in which the holdouts, who generally accept the prevailing liberalism, will nevertheless resist it on some particular issue without opposing liberalism as such. These unprincipled exceptions to liberalism take the form of appeals to established habits and traditions, or to majority opinion, or to common sense, or to social utility, or to inertia, or to some undefined feeling that we shouldn't go "too far," or even to some supposed beneficent fate that will keep the unwanted liberal victory from occurring without our having to do anything about it. A liberal who adheres to one or more such exceptions to liberalism is called a conservative. [Correction: There are both “liberal” and “conservative” unprincipled exceptions to liberalism. For conservatives, unprincipled exceptions to liberalism are the only permissible way in liberal society to oppose liberalism; for liberals, they are the only way to go on living and functioning despite being liberals.] The conservative's appeal is to what exists. At any given moment in time, there is present in a society an inchoate body of sentiments, habits, traditions, and understandings that liberalism has not yet challenged and which seem, as far as anyone can tell, unquestionable and authoritative. But the apparent authority of these values and beliefs is only based on the fact that they have not yet been questioned. Because no anti-liberal principle has been articulated to back up these values, as soon as they are seriously challenged, they begin to be abandoned, if not immediately, then through a prolonged process of foot-dragging. To liberals, of course, the failure of conservatives to come up with principled arguments against liberalism only proves that there is no principled position other than liberalism.

Unprincipled exception: Negros are not Equal to Whites
Perhaps the most interesting example of the unprincipled exception in American history is Abraham Lincoln's stand against Negro social equality prior to the Civil war, as set forth in his 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas. Let me make it clear that in discussing the issue of racial equality I am not taking a stand for or against Lincoln's earlier endorsement of social inequality between the races, or his later, progressively more liberal views on race; I am trying, rather, to understand the dynamics by which a highly intelligent and articulate politician, who initially supported racial inequality, was moved—by the seemingly irresistible force of events and by his own evolving views of the matter—to renounce the racial inequality he had once ringingly affirmed.
Lincoln's unprincipled exception consisted in this, that he subscribed to the liberal belief in a universal equality of human rights, while making an exception with regard to political, social, and physical equality. He did this by interpreting the principle of equality in the Declaration of Independence as both universal and narrow.
 As he saw it, the phrase, "all men are created equal ... with certain unalienable rights," meant that men were equal, but only in respect of those unalienable rights, not in any other respects. In the first Lincoln-Douglas debate, in Ottawa, Illinois, Lincoln, fending off Douglas's charge that he was a race leveller, stated outright that he did not believe in the social equality of the races. I'll quote this famous passage in full:

[A]nything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. ... I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects----certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man ."

In the fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, he said:
While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

In sum, Lincoln's position (and I'm assuming for the sake of this discussion that he was being sincere in what he was saying and not merely positioning himself for political purposes) was that blacks could have complete equality as to their natural rights, i.e., to the rights pertaining to their life, liberty and property, while they would continue to have no political rights and would be kept in a markedly subordinate social sphere. The first question that arises is, how did Lincoln imagine that such a scheme could ever be sustainable in practice? Once the Negroes ceased to be slaves and became free, free to work where they wanted, free to travel where they wanted, and so on, did Lincoln actually envision that they would not be citizens as well? And once they were citizens, would they not have political rights--the right to vote and the right to hold office? And once they had those political rights, how could social equality and social intermingling not follow? In Chicago that same year Lincoln said: "Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man—this race and that race and the other race being inferior. [Instead let us] unite as one people through this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal." But how could Lincoln, whose logical faculty was the equal of anyone's in American history, think that ending slavery in the name of such a ringing ideal would leave blacks forever deprived of citizenship and political rights?

At bottom, Lincoln seemed to assume that mere social prejudice, the desire of whites that blacks not be their political and social equals, could stop any further application to the black man (beyond the ending of slavery itself) of the universal, shining principle that "all men are created equal." His belief in continued political and social distinctions between the races was thus an unprincipled exception to his principled belief in equality.
It could not stand, neither in practice, nor in logic. And, as we know from 140 years of experience since Lincoln's time, once the liberal principle of equality was adopted, all the other, ever more progressive forms of equality followed—first equality of citizenship, then political equality, then social equality, then moral equality, and then, as we have today, guaranteed group equality of results, not only for the descendants of black slaves, but for newly arrived non-white immigrants. We have thus traveled, step by step, by the abandonment of one unprincipled exception after another, from Lincoln's narrowly tailored interpretation of the Declaration of Independence to an outright system of racial socialism.
My point here is not to argue that the slaves should not have been freed or that blacks should not have citizenship rights. My point is that in the absence of any non-liberal principle of social order, people who apparently oppose the next, more progressive plank of the liberal agenda will inevitably end up yielding to it.
Posted by Lawrence Auster

The Dred Scott Case 
Dred Scott Case, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1856–57. It involved the then bitterly contested issue of the status of slavery in the federal territories. In 1834, Dred Scott, a black slave, personal servant to Dr. John Emerson, a U.S. army surgeon, was taken by his master from Missouri, a slave state, to Illinois, a free state, and thence to Fort Snelling (now in Minnesota) in Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise.

There he married before returning with Dr. Emerson to Missouri in 1838. After Emerson's death, Scott sued (1846) Emerson's widow for freedom for himself and his family (he had two children) on the ground that residence in a free state and then in a free territory had ended his bondage. He won his suit before a lower court in St. Louis, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision (thus reversing its own precedents). Scott's lawyers then maneuvered the case into the federal courts. Since J. F. A. Sanford, Mrs. Emerson's brother, was the legal administrator of her property and a resident of New York, the federal court accepted jurisdiction for the case on the basis of diversity of state citizenship. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the Supreme Court. In Feb., 1857, the court decided in conference to avoid completely the question of the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise and to rule against Scott on the ground that under Missouri law as now interpreted by the supreme court of that state he remained a slave despite his previous residence in free territory. However, when it became known that two antislavery justices, John McLean and Benjamin R. Curtis, planned to write dissenting opinions vigorously upholding the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise (which had, in fact, been voided by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854), the court's Southern members, constituting the majority, decided to consider the whole question of federal power over slavery in the territories. They decided in the case of Scott v. Sandford (the name was misspelled in the formal reports) that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories, and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the court's opinion that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Three of the justices also held that a black “whose ancestors were … sold as slaves” was not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. The court's verdict further inflamed the sectional controversy between North and South and was roundly denounced by the growing antislavery group in the North.

13th Amendment, U.S. Constitution: A History
Setting the Stage
 "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." 

Text of the original 13th Amendment, also known as the Corwin Amendment, to the U.S. Constitution as passed by the United States Congress on March 2, 1861, passed by the U.S. Senate on March 3, 1861, and signed by President Buchanan on March 3, 1861. (The Three-Fifths Compromise, aka Three-fifths Clause.)

President James Buchanan publicly endorsed and applauded the Corwin Amendment. President Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, furthermore, did not oppose the Corwin Amendment: "[H]olding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, moreover, Lincoln penned a letter to each governor asking for them to support the Corwin Amendment. (President Abraham Lincoln and Southern Secession: Why did the South Secede and what Caused the Civil War?.)


(Above) President Lincoln on slavery and the Union: Lincoln stated that the emancipation of slaves was not his focus or goal. Why? Because his priority was the preservation of the Union; addressing Southern secession, therefore, was his principal objective. (Civil War and Slavery: The South, Slave Trade, Slaves and SlaveryCivil War and Slavery: The South, Slave Trade, Slaves and Slavery , 13th Amendment, Constitution, Slavery: What Caused the Civil War13th Amendment, Constitution, Slavery: What Caused the Civil War , and Civil War Causes: States Rights & SecessionCivil War Causes: States Rights & Secession .)
Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, specifically referred to this amendment:
    "I understand a proposed amendment [Corwin Amendment] to the Constitution...has passed Congress [March 2, 1861], to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Lincoln, Slavery, and Civil War
It was only when Lincoln feared losing the Civil War (1861-1865) that he freed slaves in the South. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it," wrote Lincoln in 1862. "What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." (President Abraham Lincoln on RacePresident Abraham Lincoln on Race  and President Lincoln, Slaves, Abolition, Emancipation, Black Colonization and the Black ColonyPresident Lincoln, Slaves, Abolition, Emancipation, Black Colonization and the Black Colony .)
President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863Emancipation Proclamation of 1863  did not free a single slave, and, issued only after the Confederacy seemed to be winning the war, Lincoln hoped to transform a disagreement over SecessionSecession  into a crusade against slaveryslavery .
The Emancipation Proclamation, which also permitted and kept slavery intact in the border states, was a political decision to block the South from gaining recognition from England and France (The Trent AffairThe Trent Affair , Preventing Diplomatic Recognition of the ConfederacyPreventing Diplomatic Recognition of the Confederacy , and American Civil War and International DiplomacyAmerican Civil War and International Diplomacy ). Whether slavery was intact or abolished, he stated that either was completely acceptable in order to preserve the Union. (Civil War Causes: States Rights & SecessionCivil War Causes: States Rights & Secession .)
Lincoln, who had previously obstructed the U.S. Supreme Court from conducting a hearing or ruling on secession, merely invoked "freeing the slaves" as justification to preserve the Union. As president, he was completely and unequivocally pro-Union. So, was the war about freeing the slaves or denying Southern Secession? (Southern States Secede: Secession of the South HistorySouthern States Secede: Secession of the South History  and Civil War Causes: States Rights & SecessionCivil War Causes: States Rights & Secession .)
Almost thirty years before the Civil War, South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union. Why? Because of High Tariffs and not because of slavery (Nullification CrisisNullification Crisis ). Later, when the South desired to secede, this was President Lincoln's response to secession, not slavery, in his First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861: "No State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union." Lincoln was adamantly concerned about secession and not about slavery.
Lincoln had never sought a U.S. Supreme Court decision stating whether or not Southern SecessionSouthern Secession  was constitutional; the nation’s highest court was its only judicial and lawful arbiter. Lincoln also suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and when approached by the Chief Justice, Lincoln threatened to imprison him. (Ex Parte MilliganEx Parte Milligan , President Abraham Lincoln and the Supreme Court, President Abraham Lincoln and the Chief Justice, and President Abraham Lincoln and Ex Parte Merryman.)

13th Amendment controversy

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States  prohibits slavery :
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States." Formally abolishing slavery in the United States, the 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Proposal and Ratification
The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several states by the Thirty-eighth United States Congress, on January 31, 1865. The amendment was ratified by the legislatures of twenty-seven of the thirty-six states on December 6, 1865. (It was ratified by the necessary three-quarters of the states within one year of its proposal.) Mississippi, however, which was the last of the thirty-six states in existence in 1865, ratified it in 1995. The dates of ratification were:
Analysis
Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States.

The 13th amendment, which formally abolished slavery in the United States, passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, and the House on January 31, 1865. On February 1, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln approved the Joint Resolution of Congress submitting the proposed amendment to the state legislatures. The necessary number of states ratified it by December 6, 1865. The 13th amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
In 1863 President Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation declaring “all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” Nonetheless, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation. Lincoln recognized that the Emancipation Proclamation would have to be followed by a constitutional amendment in order to guarantee the abolishment of slavery.
The 13th amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War before the Southern states had been restored to the Union and should have easily passed the Congress. Although the Senate passed it in April 1864, the House did not. At that point, Lincoln took an active role to ensure passage through congress. He insisted that passage of the 13th amendment be added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming Presidential elections. His efforts met with success when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119–56.
With the adoption of the 13th amendment, the United States found a final constitutional solution to the issue of slavery. The 13th amendment, along with the 14th and 15th, is one of the trio of Civil War amendments that greatly expanded the civil rights of Americans.

The Illusion of freedom in the US

Are Blacks really free>?
Almost 90% are living on welfare......Is this freedom? ...it's like the whole race is dependent of the system ... It's slavery reparation, but nobody talk about it ...Mestizos getting welfare too... Their ancestors were victim of the largest genocide in the history of the world...Americans are trying to apologize for their ancestor actions.....Now white race looks pretty missed up, the middle class collapsing to poverty, and Blacks hitting on every white wife and her daughter in sight ...Latino making tons of cash illegally and sending it south of the border, if things get messed up, they got an insurance in  their native country ...and white will be stuck here with poverty and damaged white vagina ....hahhahahah 

Honestly, Are Blacks really free?
Can they be independents? can they survive without all kinds of government assistance, that is the way of whites to say "sorry folks about our common history, slavery and sheeet..."

Can they do other kind of work other than those especially made to integrate them? especially made to the Blacks lazy nature and low IQ. i.e.  Security guards...they are all black...That was a good idea....Blacks hung out in corners and in entrance of buildings anyway, So, the brilliant idea was to put them in uniforms, letting them hung around in corners and buildings entrance, same way as they do anyways, except now they will get paid for it....How brave, original slavery reparation way. 

Yawl so pathetic. 

Note de conclusion
Freedom is closely related to independence you can’t be free if you are not independent, dependence means an ensemble of constraints and exigencies controlling and shaping the daily life necessities and an imposed way of action regarding different vital aspects of life and it interfere with the pure essence of freedom...

The illusion of freedom best presentation is in the American society, built on slavery and fresh from an era of extreme segregation where there was areas for colored and areas for whites, the false interpretation of freedom is the main issue in America, smoothened to an presentable image of an American society, homogenous where life is better, while the whole stupid mass live in an virtual slavery, and are technically enslaved by the Zionist government for its world domination agenda, the NWO theory is already practiced in America, and American are the cobailles for the more global idea of an universal government, think about how Americans are stupid and brainwashed in a way to present America.    
Add kadia altered in video   


"The Emancipation can be defined as a transition from a state of Bondage to a state of dependence, forced by divers political, and socio-economic constraints  ...Freedom is always in the Horizons"

 Franco TaMere































Sunday, August 14, 2022

Impact of Negroes and partially evolved populations on Civilizations.

Quelque part dans les environs de Temara, dans la Grande region de Rabat, un monument historique dont je connais pas le nom. I care more about the present and the future more than the past, I'm not a historian or a tourist.

The overall idea is that, observing the overwhelming majority of Moroccan populations' characteristics is a little like this pic included, going worst in form of the shape of the skull.
The monument posted is not a representation of the great Moroccan dynasties that succeeded through time to rule le Maroc, there are a lot greater monuments that stood through the ravages of time, this is just a representation of historical monuments in the Kingdom.

The issue is that, there is no way people like the populations in the picture above or resembling it from an anthropological perspective can build anything that will stand the wrath of time and usurpation all those centries. 

Indian populations
without British adds up
Here we arrive at the remark about the decline of civilizations and its causes mostly the mixing with lower forms of life, the person presented in the picture along with the major part of the Moroccan population presents the characteristics of the Homo Erectus (African race) mixed most likely with the locals' genes, who are presumably modern humans, known as Berbere populations before the Mediterranean or Iberian races adds up, along with Muslims and Europeans setlers the result is hybrid populations, which in major part present the characteristics of Africans mixed with Berbere populations, they are forming a special class roaming all around as the subordinate class that is no more recently since we observe the ongoing population replacement worldwide, they are hosting the seeds of a lower form of life that is the Homo Erectus, and the partially evolved population that bonded with Africans as they do worldwide to confront the ruling class, or more evolved Human beings, same as you find light skinned Negros in America resulting from mixing with Puerto Ricans, and the rising of colored populations.

The Homo Erectus doesn't evolve much post a primitive stage, the invention of the wheel is just a criterion to present the mental abilities or inabilities of that hominin which will be incarnated in the African race, and transferred to the world population through the global miscegenation going on.

They will be introduced [African race] to modern humans through slavery, Arabic first then the transatlantic slave trade, they will gain the trust of the locals, gain their empathy, use their resources despite their lower mental abilities and unproductive nature if they are put in a context "out of slavery or bondage"... Most importantly, they will corrupt the locals into cross-breeding with them, which is the greatest sin humanity ever committed since the forbidden fruit and probably will lead us to our own doom.

In Morocco for example
, at a certain period of time, there was what was called the castration of slaves, people somehow knew the evil nature of the African race, the Moroccan Empire was flourishing and prosperity was the norm, progressively the primates corrupted the soul of the locals including Sultans and the ruling class, the results are cross-breeding first with females, then later on the black male start corrupting human females, this is how hybrid populations brought into existence (same as in the pic), they are roaming all around, hosting the Evil seeds of the Homo Erectus and a lot less productive than the populations that were at the roots of building the Moroccan Empire.

The long-term result is imminent decline, the picture of the monument posted represents the achievement of the initial Moroccan population that was at the origin of building the Empire, and judging by the overall unbalanced development of Urban areas, without being extremely judgemental on defavorized populations, understanding that Human beings may pass through rough times for different reasons, we notice how the demographic change caused by mixing with Negros and other partially evolved populations means decline and backwardness. It's happening all around the world, there are ghetto areas in Western countries which are caused by the influx of immigrants of a partially evolved background, in poor countries there is persistence and spread of poor living conditions, and in Morocco instead of historical monuments we notice the development of Bidonvilles, put in the context of the gap between social classes, we note the efforts made to eradicate these living conditions which encounter some obstacles, notably the issue of educating the populations and push them to be productive and self-sufficient, and mostly the equality in the employment market, which unfortunately knows the spread of corruption and favoritism.

The Morality of the story is that, wherever the Homo Erectus (African populations) genes are, it causes decline and the long-term destruction of the locals' civilization, those people are a passive form of life, live like a parasite just to consume, produce nothing or next to nothing due to genetic limitations, just look at America, and Europe in progress, sure the extravagance exhibited through the media is appalling, the gap between the rich and poor is ocean wide.

Thursday, November 25, 2021

The Hair issue in America: From an Historical retrospective (Part 2)

The part 1 of the Hair issue in America was about the evolutionary retrospective, this part will go a little back in history to shed the light on the hair texture and skin tone impact on African American  mentality, and how it reflect on their daily behavior and attitude, the post is mostly an accumulation of extracts from PDF texts treating the subject, the title of the paragraphs represent the PDF source of the text. 

At the end a Video that I made years ago, but never published until this post, Part 1 being deleted from YouTube...


All cultures make the distinction between "us" and "other." Persecution of "others" has long been a human behavior pattern. However the unique form of racism seen in the western world developed as part of a struggle between classes (nobles versus serfs; royalty versus commoners; Northern Europeans versus other Europeans; all Europeans versus non-Europeans). In nineteenth century United States, Europeans were seen as superior to Black slaves, and a relation developed that was different from servility. The slaves were converted into a pariah group, outsiders who were banned from society and the major institutions of social structure.

The Relationship of Skin Tone and Hair ~~Stefanie R. Snider
The impact of skin color in the African American community has been heavily documented. Light-skinned persons are viewed in a more positive manner—as more attractive, more competent and successful, and having greater social status. Perceptions related to African Americans' hair texture have not been studied as systematically, but evidence suggests hair is perceived in a similarly biased manner.

For hundreds of years, skin color or skin tone has played a significant role in the lives and social status of African Americans. “Black history provides considerable evidence that the skin color of African Americans has exerted powerful and persistent influences on societal attitudes toward and treatment of Black persons—within both White and Black cultures”(Bond & Cash, 1992, 879). The treatment of African Americans created for some a skin color bias or made them color conscious. Skin color determined how African Americans were treated and what jobs they were given.

Slaves who were considered lighter-skinned were given jobs and chores that were more respectable inside the house, such as cooking, cleaning, and attending to the children. On the other hand, the darker-complexioned slaves were given more menial jobs, such as working the fields, picking cotton, and laboring manually. After the abolition of slavery, the impact of skin color influenced the lives of African Americans in reference to status and achievement. Social clubs were segregated during this time, which led some prosperous African Americans to organize “blue vein” societies in the early 1900s. They were called this because, to join, the individuals had to be light enough for their blue veins to show through their skin. The requirements to become a member of the club were, thus, certain Caucasoid features. There were other tests that potential members had to pass in order to be accepted into this elite group. An African American had to be lighter than a “paper bag” and be able to pass the “comb test” for what was called “good hair.” To pass this test, the person had to have hair texture straight enough for a comb to pass through it easily (Bond & Cash, 1992).

The privileged treatment given to African Americans who had light skin and other Caucasoid features suggested to many Blacks that “the more they physically conformed to the White, majority standard of beauty, the more rewarding their lives would be” (Gatewood, 1988, 15).

While the majority of the girls do not seem overly concerned with their body image, particularly their weight, they do seem to display a moderate degree of appearance dissatisfaction regarding their hairstyle and skin color.

Perceptions and Preferences for Skin Color ~~PATRICIRAA SKIN
While African American women have been able to successfully ignore the weight ideals advocated by the larger culture, this does not mean that they are immune from eating disorders. In fact the opposite is true. Wilson and Russell (1996, p. 101) found that the rate of obesity among Black women was twice that of White women, especially among poor, working class single black mothers. They suggest that some Black women may use binge eating as a way to cope with poverty. Diabetes and hypertension also become prominent medical risks associated with obesity. Job loss is another related risk factor as well (Wilson & Russell, 1996, p. 101; Thompson, 1996).

As more and more African American communities are becoming exposed to White culture and White norms of beauty, eating disorders are going to grow more and more rapidly.

Skin Color and Body Image Dissatisfaction ~~Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber
Another body image issue that affected the girls in our study was that of skin color. Among African American women, skin color is connected to feelings of self-worth, self-esteem, and attractiveness (Thompson & Keith, 2001). Research has found that most African Americans are partial to skin color that lies somewhere in the middle of the light-dark color spectrum (Clark & Clark, 1980; Robinson & Ward, 1995). This becomes particularly relevant for Black women in that often those who have darker skin feel devalued for not living up to the American standard of light skinned beauty, while those who have a lighter skin tone feel ostracized for being too light, which is synonymous for too White.

Hair and Body Image Dissatisfaction ~~Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber
Perhaps hair, more than any other physical attribute serves to exemplify the beauty struggles faced by African American women. On one hand, hair represents one's assimilation into the popular culture, while on the other hand, it can serve to reject all cultural norms surrounding beauty.
What makes someone ‘Whitewashed?’
Priscilla: The hair
Alright so if you see her wearing her hair too White…
Priscilla: I'll tell her.
What will you say to her?
Priscilla: I'd say, 'Jackie, you're getting a little confused.
Right so when you say they're confused what does that mean? What do they do?
Jackie: Our hair is different than your hair. You need to do different things to it. And some [African American girls] just don't understand that. They think that their hair is White hair and so they can do whatever they want to it.
Like what do they do?
Jackie: Say for instance my hair is like the kind of texture that it is, washing it twice a day would kill it. But some people wash their hair everyday with Pantene.
What makes you have a high self-esteem and what makes it bad?
Teresa: I don't know what makes me have high self-esteem but I know what makes me have low self-esteem.
What's that?
Teresa: People make fun of you.
What do they make fun of?
Teresa: My hair
As the data indicates, hair becomes the symbol for the paradoxical worlds in which African Americans exist. It becomes a venue for displaying their place in both cultures. In this regard, hair that is straightened often becomes the compromise for African American women (Gregory, 1992; Leeds, 1994). African American women when styling their hair must attempt to do so as a means of verifying their roles in both Black and White cultures. Scholar Veronica Chambers (1999, 2001) illustrates this phenomenon by asserting that she has “two relationships with the outside world: One is with my hair, and the other is with the rest of me… Because I am a black woman, I have always had a complicated relationship with my hair (2001, p. 212).” The personal experience Chambers generalizes to the larger African-American female community also came through in our sample.
      
Jen: …these days if you don't have your hair done people are going to laugh at you…because it’s a part of life. You got to maintain your hair, your body, your clothing. You can't be going around looking like a bum.
Why is that? Is your hair more important than your weight?
Jen: For me it is yes. Because your weight is your weight. You were born with it, it's your metabolism. But your hair….God gave it to you but God gave it to you for it to be done. You shouldn't walk around with your hair all over the place because it doesn't look right.
How much time do you spend on your hair?
Jen: As long as it takes… to get my hair braided it takes six, seven hours.
Can you tell me what that's like?
Jen: Like they say you have to go through pain to have beauty, to get your hair braided you have to go through pain…She (HAIRDRESSER) takes some hair and she starts braiding it into your own and she has to make it thick to the edge so it won't come out. She has to braid it tight. It feels like someone hitting your head with a mallet…
Where do you think the idea for braiding comes from?
Jen: I don't know. They say it comes Africa but I really don't know.

Tuesday, November 9, 2021

Blacks -- unbelievably sickening

This post is from Craigslist at around 2011 when I was active on the board, It will be posted as is, but I will illustrate and post recent videos that happened in NYC to present the incidents the OP mentioned at the time of this post, they are surprisingly similar, which is simply the nature of the African race. The OP seems not to care about caps...etc. it is a rants and raves board, nobody cares, except thick stupid people who were whining because I didn't go to their schools lol

All credit to OP.

most blacks have AIDS.

the inherent racial shortcomings of blacks should be apparent now -- a year after the haiti earthquake, the associated press is reporting that most of the rubble and debris hasn't even been picked up yet.

meanwhile, within the same week as the haiti earthquake, there were more severe quakes in china and italy -- both china and italy have since completely rebuilt: clearing the debris, burying the dead, and rebuilding their infrastructure.

china had a worse quake, they recovered their dead, buried them, rebuilt their city.

italy had a worse quake, they dug up their dead, buried them and moved on.

 Haiti had a lesser earthquake -- but their dead are still rotting in the rubble a year later; and now a diahrhea disease called cholera has seeped into the water, and now the haitians are blaming white and indonesian rescuers for spreading the disease (they are also blaming witches and orphans).

the italians have paid back their entire earthquake debt.

the haitians have their hands out for more money.

the haitians are squatting on the rubble over their dead, with their hands out expecting more aid.

they want aid, they spread AIDS.

over a billion dollars in US aid is missing -- that means every idiot who texted 'help haiti' and paid a toll on their phone bill basically got nothing except a higher bill.

meanwhile, here in NYC, there is the black girl who violently robbed an elderly white woman at the subway turnstile (video at NY post), and there is the black man who robbed three elderly white women in queens (video on youtube), along with the the black who attacked the elderly WWII veteran for his car, the black girls who attacked the pregnant white girl on the boston bus, the black kids who killed matthew chew for fun, the blacks who killed the chinese delivery man and threw his body into a lake, etc.

everywhere you go, there is a black with its hand out, expecting and demanding a handout -- in union square, in penn station, at the times square bus terminal.

Bellow is a video compilation of recent, out of huge number, of Negroes crimes happening in NYC and nation wide, it is not the same Negroes crime the OP talking about but the idea of Negroes animals' instinct prevailing is there.
anyone who takes the LIRR can tell you the same thing -- a black comes into the restaurant asking for a handout wherever you wait for a train and try to eat a pretzel or fried chicken.

watch what happens this coming easter sunday -- there will be a black riot in times square (there was a riot every easter that i lived there, for three years in a row).

and in the gay community, blacks are singularly responsible for keeping AIDS alive and well in NYC.

this is a civilized city, with sensible AIDS prevention strategies -- use a condom. that's all there is to starve AIDS out of our lives.

but that is too complicated for black people -- the idea of prolonging pleasure for the three seconds it takes to apply a condom is totally incompatable with the black mindset.

there is always an AIDS-infected black spreading its AIDS to someone else.

and in today's drug-infested, gratuity-now culture there will always be a race-traitor white person who just can't resist that black dick -- and that traitor will suck up some AIDS from the negro and spew it into the normal white civilization.

what we need to do as white people is stay away from the disgusting blacks, and completely ostracize every sickening white person who might have exposed themselves to AIDS thru intercourse with a black.

let them sit in haiti with their hands out, waiting for some aid, blaming white people for their problems, while whites in earthquake-stricken italy bury their dead and rebuild.

kind of pathetic, how these beggars of humanity sit there, all diseased and flooded with diahrhea, spooging AIDS out of their cunts and diseased dicks.

Monday, January 11, 2021

Advance Homo Erectus/Archaic Homo Sapiens: The African Race.

"Racists" are speaking truth to power, and they are the bravest people in our society today."
Source: Anonymous on the web, all credit to the OP,  Edited and Illustrated by Franco TaMere, 

Anthropological Background
According to accepted science, homo sapiens fully evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago. 100,000 years ago, a small group of Africans headed north. This small group inhabited the rest of the world. This group was already unique, in that it alone had the intrepidity and determination to spread out and conquer the world. That group, which became the Caucasoid and Mongoloid races, has been evolving under extremely different, more challenging environments for the last 100,000 years. 100,000 years is quite long in biologic time. For example, domestic dogs branched off from wolves 15,000 to 100,000 years ago.

Repercussion on Africans situation
Blacks are unique in that they never developed a written language, the wheel, architectural works or anything that would indicate they live a human existence. Literature, palaces, cities, they existed everywhere from the Incas to the Indians, Persians, Chinese, Druids, Malays, Romans, but not in black Africa. For the past 100,000 years, non-blacks have been developing technology and advancing knowledge. Blacks, meanwhile stayed nearly naked, technology-less, with no domesticated animals, no written language, no wheel, no stone buildings, no metalworking, nothing. 
Look at religion. Virtually every non-black group came up with an admirable religion or philosophy which was recorded and taught to a priesthood. Indians had the Vedas and Upanishads, Chinese had Confucianism and Daoism. Europeans had Virgil, Horace and Homer to write down their pagan religion, with Plato, Aristotle and countless others to record their philosophy. Babylonians had the epic of Gilgamesh, Egyptians had the Book of the Dead, even the Aztecs had a corpus of literature (which was unfortunately destroyed by the Spanish invaders. Only Blacks hadn't recorded or created any official religion or philosophy. Until non-white intervention, blacks relied on voodoo, witchcraft, black magic, and animism with no pantheon of gods, no priesthood, or anything that could develop them past superstition and barbarism.

Historical Facts
It is questionable what Blacks could achieve on their own. All current black civilization is in fact transplanted non-black civilization. No blacks have won any Nobel prizes in the hard sciences or gotten any spot on a list of Human Accomplishment that would represent some major scientific or technological advancement for the world.
And you can't blame this on geography. Blacks in western Europe and North America are given preferential treatment and access to college educations, and yet they still produce nothing. At the same time, non-blacks have made South Africa, Zimbabwe and Egypt into decent, first-world nations without a problem.

Putting the Blame on others
You can't blame bad luck or isolation, either. Blacks have been connected to the outside world since the 1400s. They have had centuries to improve themselves with full access to modern knowledge and technology. In contrast, it took Japan twenty years to go from a feudal samurai culture to one that defeated Russia in 1900. Germany recovered from WWII in just ten years, becoming a prosperous, powerful, leading-edge modern civilization. Africans, meanwhile cannot recover from "colonization", "slavery", or "discrimination" after centuries. Haiti has been an all-black, independent, free state for 200 years. Even so, its lifestyle and standard of living perfectly matches that of black Africa. They haven't progressed an inch. Their neighbors the Dominican Republic, meanwhile, has a working government that takes care of their people and doesn't need charity. The difference? Their population is non-black.