Why We Are White Refugees
The Voltarian SA Sucks blog has once again been shut down; this time by Rendier (Renaldo) Gouws, and some of his The Rendier Show - I Disagree With What You Say, And I Will Ruin You If You Say It - fanclub. To be fair some of his fans disagreed, and voiced reason; but he did not listen.
Undoubtedly Voltarian SA Sucks is not for the faint-hearted or easily offended. Their blog posts range from the satirically shocking, to in depth scientific politically incorrect journalism, incorporating philosophy, science, psychology, military strategy, history, etc. If you are easily offended, and your commitment to the 'freedom of speech' of those you disagree with does not include fighting for their right to express their opinions - only freedom for my speech and my opinions - then SA Sucks is NOT recommended reading material. Your -- I Disagree With What You Say, And I Will Ruin You If You Say It -- Psychological Insecurity Inner Fascist buttons will be activated.
Who's Who: Rendier Gouws?
Rendier, or Ronaldo Gouws is a 27 year old guy from Port Elizabeth, who allegedly has a Masters Degree in Industrial Psychology (2009, NMMU); although I must say -- in my personal opinion, from observing Mr. Gouws -- NMMU's masters in psychology did not help him to deal with his fragile ego demons.
Rendier Equality Gouws (as his facebook page refers to him) has a Youtube channel, which he calls R3NDI3R: The Rendier Show. He also has a T-shirt company which he calls Toxic Torso. According to his facebook profile, he considers himself a Christian and very liberal. (For the Record, while I am not a statist -- i.e. don't subscribe to the left/right paradigm -- I ain't got a problem with sincere liberals, or sincere conservatives; people who are sincere in their political ideology; but who are willing to debate evidence and facts, and consider alternative perspectives; who practice what they preach, including on the issue of 'free speech'. I don't like hypocrits; whether right, left, green, pink, white, black or rainbow ignorant.)
The Rendier Show: 'Fuck Ignorance'. [For an insightful psychological perspective; see Rendier's video: The Biggest Wanker on Youtube - Scott Hermann]
His choice of how he markets himself, in his desire for popularity and power, reminded me of the manner gangs in the Oakland ghetto used to go about in their -- Verbal Mounting -- gang turf-wars. Before getting obsessed with shutting down SA Sucks, his main -- Verbal Mounting -- turf war battle seemed to be with Khaya Dlanga (Youtube: Khayav); as detailed in among others his video's: The Khayav Syndrome, and in his News Report: The Beginning of the End.
Rendier on Freedom of Speech:
On Youtube, he says he is “Just here to voice my opinion on certain factors. Basically releasing some steam and educating the people.” Fair enough. Got no argument with that; long as you allow others to do so in accordance to their preferences too.
On his Toxic Torso T-shirt website he describes his views as:When we say “optimistic individuals” we really mean money hungry and mentally ill human beings. They should not be allowed to roam the earth freely and need to be jailed for life!
But we digress...
We here at Toxic Torso believe that everyone has a right to say what's on their minds...but why only say it when you can wear it too!
Our T-shirts are specially made for people who don't hide behind political correctness, don't conform to society's crazy expectations and, in essence, just don't give a fuck.
We only use the best quality T-Shirts, the best printing method, and the best designs... no second grade shit for a Toxic Torso. Our T-Shirts are limited and of the highest quality so no mainstream bullshit here. Premium Prices for Premium T-Shirts... accept it or fuck off.
Your Toxic Torso will speak for you when you aren’t able to, whether you are passed out, punched out or just too fucking lazy to put words together and utter them.
So... if you want a T-shirt that is just as bad ass as you, and probably will out live you, then you have just discovered your soul mate...
So if he is sincere and supports freedom of speech, then surely he supports other people to non-violently vent their anger verbally online at their preferred blog or chatroom; even if he disagrees with their politically incorrect opinions? Or does he have his own rules about what politically incorrect opinions are worthy of publishing, and which should be censored? Surely we agree that its much more healthy for angry people to vent their rage or frustration against incompetent goverments verbally and non-violently, rather than diverting their rage into raping, robbing and pillaging their fellow citizens?
Who's Who: SA Sucks“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” -- François Marie Arouet, also known as Voltaire (1694–1778), French philosopher, author.
“I've noticed the stupider the person, the quicker they are to take offence to anything...” -- Colby Malsbury
For those who don't know SA Sucks, it has a wide variety of reading material, some of it really shocking for the politically correct, or the easily offended. It includes plenty of Voltarian satire, that can make your head spin. As Adriana Stuijt writes 'rage and truth dished out in outrageously rude dollops is just too hard for some people to take'. It really has a huge mix of stuff.
It also has profound race realist and South African articles you won't find anywhere else on the internet, except Mike Smith's blog: Mike Smith's Political Commentary. If Mike did not back up his SA Sucks posts, on his Political Commentary blog, they'd all be gone; but they aren't, so consider his Opening Pandora's Apartheid Box series: Intro :: What Diversity Means in SA :: First rationale for Apartheid: Violent nature of Blacks :: Second Rationale: Black culture and customs :: Third Rationale: Black Cognitive Ability :: Other Rationales :: The Role of a Goverment :: The lies about the Homelands :: The lies about the Townships :: District 6: A Case Study in Forced Removals :: Bantu Education under Apartheid :: The Architects of Apartheid :: The Apartheid Laws on Mixed Marriages :: Scapegoating Apartheid to Steal our Country and Wealth :: Smuts and Rhodes "World State" :: The hidden Goverment :: The Banking Conspiracy :: Hypocrisy at the United Nations :: The Role of the Commonwealth :: Dr. Verwoerd, Nationalist Visionary, “The most hated man in South Africa” and the success of Nationalism :: The Assassination of Dr. Verwoerd :: Holy Terror: How the Church Crucified South Africa :: Behind the Paper Curtain, and Beyond :: P.W. Botha - Start of the Final Betrayal.
Other SA Sucks bloggers included Uhuru Guru (on emigration sabbatical) Dark Raven, Knorrig, BoerbyChoice, Citizen Kane, etc. Additional thought-provoking excellent articles by Mike Smith, which are still available to give readers who never visited SA Sucks an idea, can be found on Mike Smith Political Commentary, such as: Racist Australia: Uncle Cracker goes down under :: A Call for White Unity in South Africa :: Kroes Hare wil geblow wees :: The Avocado Tree at Cato Manor :: The Failure that is the ANC :: How Will World War IV be fought :: The Nature of the Beast :: Countering Critical Marxist Theory :: How an Eskimo caused the demise of Western Culture, and many others. One of my favourites, totally relevant to the issue under discussion: The Infinite Monkeys and Godwins Law
The Infinite Monkeys & Godwins Law, by Mike Smith, SA Sucks
Debating on racial issues is largely a one-way debate in modern society. Just about all the academics, politicians and Main Stream Media (MSM) institutions are advocates of Cultural relativism and Racial Egalitarianism. They believe in a fallacy and modern day superstition that all races are equal just like people in the Dark ages believed the earth was flat.
They constantly profess, advocate and defend this absurdity and false dogma with a fanaticism bordering on religious hysteria despite many scientists and anthropologist who did extensive work on differences between races and who published hundreds of volumes on the subject.
Trying to find works such as “The Bell Curve”, “Race and Reason”, “IQ and the wealth of Nations” or De Gobineau’s “Inequality of the races” in a public or University library is a rarity these days. Even academics who try to discuss race in the most moderate of fashions are met with academic intolerance and physical intimidation by racial failure apologists and egalitarians. All research that proves their theories wrong are shunned as “Pseudo-science” without the proof of this research ever been studied or even read.
One sees these phenomena also on the internet on forums where racial issues are being discussed. Anyone who provides a counter argument to Cultural relativism or egalitarianism is immediately attacked with an argumentum ad hominem to his person, called a racist and ignorant bastard.
It never stops to amaze me how hopeful these racial equalitists (a Mike Smith creation) can be. They say that if you just give the Blacks time, give them enough education, enough food, enough money, enough whatever…they will someday catch up with Whites and they will be just like us. They actually admit that there is indeed a difference between the races, but cannot see the fault in their Reductio ad absurdum. At the one moment they say the races are all the same, but the very next moment they say that Blacks could catch up with Whites (admitting that races are not the same or equal) through education, environment, etc.
That brings me to another favourite of the egalitarian Liberal which is to state that environmental conditions in which races evolved caused the differences in races (again admitting to the differences in races). When one points out that Eskimos lived in the Arctic Circle in the same conditions as Icelanders, Swedes and Norwegians, yet never created any civilisation, written language or even fixed building structures, the egalitarians want to point out that these primitives are actually more advanced than the Whites who did all of the above. The same can be pointed out from races living in tropical conditions such as the Cambodians who built Ankor Wat, the majestic temples of Thailand or the sophisticated buildings and societies of the Incas and the Mayas…yet the Blacks from Africa are an abject failure when it comes to creating or even sustaining any civilisation.
If one compares three island nations such as Haiti in the Caribbean, Iceland in the Arctic and Singapore in tropical South East Asia, the Blacks from Haiti should hang their heads in shame, because they inherited a developed French colony after murdering every single White on the island (40,000) and has been independent for the last 200 years. Haiti today is a dump; a slum of human excrement and filth, stinking to high heaven and the luscious tropical forests, sugar plantations, etc totally destroyed. Only 3% of the people ever finish primary education. It is a primitive society, dangerous and superstitious with the dominant religion of Voodoo.
Iceland endures winter conditions that last three quarters of the year. It is located on a volcanic island and mostly desert with no forests. Farming is almost impossible. It has no paper or wood products. There is no oil, no coal or natural gas. They compete vigorously with other nations on the Cod fish banks for their subsistence and uses ingenious geothermal energy to warm their houses and generate electricity.
Despite all of this, Iceland publishes more books and journals per capita than any other nation in the world. They have the highest literacy and the lowest infant mortality rates. They have the lowest crime and drug rates along with the highest standards of living. Iceland also has the best medical care in the world and the longest standing freely elected parliament in the world, The Althing. Iceland’s population is also almost exclusively White.
Singapore is built mainly on a salty marsh, where no crops can be grown. It has no minerals, etc yet Singapore is classed as one of the safest places to live in the world with a standard of living and education that surpasses that of many Western Nations.
Wherever man goes he adapts to and changes his environment into the image of his soul. Man either destroys the environment like in the case of Black run Haiti or he builds majestic civilisations such as in Iceland or Singapore. Man shapes his environment; the environment does not shape man.
Can Multiculturalism work? Yes certainly it can. Immigrant nations such as the USA, Canada and South Africa are testimonies to that. America is essentially a multicultural society made up for the largest part of European immigrants. Canada has French and English Whites. The Whites of South Africa are a mixture of Dutch, French, British, German, Belgium and some other White European nations. The White Afrikaner nation is probably the original and most Multicultural race on earth, so much so that they have developed an entire culture of their own with poetry, songs and higher learning institutions that pump out Doctorate theses of world quality on a regular basis despite Black ANC politicians who wants to undermine them around every corner. The key to their respective successes was not the mixture of White genetic material, but for the most part the exclusion of the Black genes. Any society where Blacks and Whites have indiscriminately mixed soon finds itself on a downward and backward spiral.
When confronted with these facts, the belligerent egalitarians insist that Multiculturalism is superior to racially homogenous societies, despite pointing out the successes of racially homogeneous, Liaises Faire, Capitalist societies such as Iceland, Denmark and Japan as opposed to the disasters of the Multicultural soup of South American countries.
None of these egalitarians can point out a single Black run country with low crime rates, high standards of living or high levels of education, yet they insist that Blacks and their cultures are the same as ours. Actually they don’t…they insist that all cultures are the same, but the White culture is always worse.
The multicultural egalitarians refuses to look at the facts and insists that throwing money at Blacks, giving them more education and changing their environment will eventually create sophisticated Blacks on par or better than Whites or Asians.
The recent experiment during the 1960’s and 1970’s in Australia proved this environmental theory wrong. Aborigine children were removed from their societies and placed in upper middle class societies with no shortages of food, quality education, etc yet still severely underperformed in schools and eventually reverting back to criminality, alcoholism and every other social ill. No amount of money, wasted education or change of environment could change the genetic primeval makeup of these savages.
Cartoon from the Scopes Monkey Trial: 13 June 1925 in the Chief Defender
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. Why not? Infinity is a long time. Eventually the monkey will get it right. What if we take two monkeys and let them fire away on their keyboards? Surely we would half the statistical probability of them eventually writing “Hamlet”. So let us take it further and let an infinite amount of monkeys let rip at an infinite amount of keyboards for an infinite amount of time…what are the probabilities that a Shakespearian work will ever be copied word for word, ignoring punctuation, spacing and capitalization, from the original? Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800 …. But it is not impossible.
Then we have to ask the question, what is the probability of an infinite amount of monkeys, behind an infinite amount of keyboards hitting the keys at random for an infinite amount of time, ever producing the equivalent an ORIGINAL work of a Shakespearian quality?
Egalitarians not convinced will keep on trying to teach monkeys to read and write, count and teach them human behavior, trying to prove that we humans are just intelligent monkeys. They often come short, such as Sandra Herold who kept on trying to change her chimp, Travis, into a human until he eventually lost it and ripped her friend Charla Nash to shreds. LWB friend of another LWB comes short at the hands of the monkey they tried to turn into a human. I suppose some people just insist on learning the hard way.
No amount of proof, no amount of well researched evidence or statistical analysis will ever sway the minds of these cantankerous egalitarians. They are as persistent as shit in a woollen blanket.
After all the evidence has been produced and they have realised that they have lost, the liberal egalitarians revert to what is known as “Godwin’ss law”.
Michael Wayne Godwin is an American attorney who has spent a lot of time arguing on internet forums. According to Godwin’s Law, as any internet forum discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis, Hitler or Racists approaches 1[one].
Godwin’s Law can be seen on every forum. The moment multicultural, racial failure apologists loses an argument, they pull the “Nazi invective” or revert back to name-calling and the “Racist invective”.
Any blog, any website who ever discusses the racial issues, will start off with some intelligent comments, but before long it will degenerate into silly name-calling of “racists” and “Nazis” as soon as the socialistic liberal egalitarians who don’t want to work for anything, but expect free handouts for all, have lost the arguments about race. Some forums or blog posts will also degenerate into, “Jew bashing” or “Afrikaner bashing” giving another dimension to “Godwin’s Law”.
Liberal egalitarianism intolerance prevents any intelligent discussion about race. They want to smother every opposing view, yet claim to be the vanguards of “freedom of speech”. To them, “Freedom of speech” means everyone who agrees with them. They do not tolerate any opposing views. And if you dare to contradict them ..well, then you must be a “Racist”. “The Economist” had declared that “a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a “Nazi” or a “Racist” automatically loses the argument.”
The Plot: Brief Chronology of Events:
Call to Shut Down SA Sucks Blog
Rendier original reasons for shutting down the blog, were his alleged outrage at SA Sucks bloggers who were -- in his opinion -- 'racist white trash'. Racist white trash were damaging his image and reputation as a 'white south african', and the -- educate the ignorant -- work he believes himself to be doing. No effort to win the hearts and minds of SA Sucks bloggers by reason and debate; No! Rendier launches a Pied Piper video, where he calls on his mobjustice fanclub to shut down SA Sucks; and like good little sycophantic fans, who don't argue with the Guru's instructions; the mobjustice inclined do so, without any further enquiry.
When SA Sucks are understandably furious about Rendiers hypocrisy, he does the young Alpha -- I want your turf -- male dance challenging the older Alpha's to a fight; and as older Alpha's they give him a Verbal Mounting keyboard snot klap; since Verbal Mounting is something psychologically insecure Rendier does understand. Rendier chooses to interpret their Verbal Mounting snot-klap responses as evidence of death-threats against him. He now changes his alleged justifications for why SA Sucks needs to be shut down to the alleged 'death threats against him'. Mighty important he feels; the baddy neo-nazi white trash sent him death threats; so he must be important!
He kicks SA Sucks Older Alpha Males between the nuts, SA Sucks bark back, and Rendier runs howling to his fanclub how he's been bitten, by the baddie racist white trash. The majority of his fans don't actually bother to make an informed enquiry, and neither does Rendier encourage them to do so (for if they did, he'd be exposing himself as a liar); instead the fans climb in like a mob, sending complaints to Wordpress to 'Shutdown SA Sucks', from every single email address, they own.
Alpha Males giving a younger Alpha Male a Verbal Mounting Snot Klap
A while back a SA Sucks blogger -- Knorrig -- posted one of Rendiers Youtube video's on SA Sucks and actually praised it. Knorrig became a fan, and started watching more Rendier video's, till he came across the one where Rendier is sycophantic about 'freedom fighter' Nelson Mandela who liberated South Africa to 'democracy'. The SA Sucks bloggers and commentors considered Rendiers adoration of Mandela very hypocritical -- if not an example of Stockholm Syndrome -- considering his endless criticism of the Mandelatopia democracy. Sort of like complaining you live in a drug and crime infested neighbourhood; and in the same breath extolling your sycophantic adoration of the Mafia Druglord, who brought the drug-gang into your neighbourhood.
A fan disagrees with Rendiers Mandela Sycophancy
While Rendier is totally brainwashed by the mainstream media's propaganda story about Mandela, SA Sucks bloggers are not. While Rendier is totally ignorant of Mandela's Frantz Fanon Black Liberation Theology definition of 'reconciliation': 'the colonized mind can only be liberated by violence on the rotting corpse of the settler'; SA Sucks readers are not. While Rendier is totally oblivious of the real reasons for why Mandela and the ANC launched the violent People's War 'liberation struggle' (to terrorise the majority of blacks who did not want black rule to support the ANC), SA Sucks bloggers are not. Simply, Rendier is oblivious that the socio-cultural and political problems he rants about, are direct consequences of Mandela, Tutu and De Klerks Truth and Reconciliation Fraud; the SA Sucks bloggers are not.
One of Rendier's more critical thinking facebook friends, informed him that not everyone had drunken Rendier Mandelatopia coolaid, the wise Voltarian SA Sucks guys were onto his ignorance and were exposing it. Rendier got extremely offended by SA Sucks readers opinions of him as extremely ignorant about Mandela's true history; and his sycophantic adoration of Mandela's Main Stream Edward Bernaysian PR Propaganda story. He says he then read a few SA Sucks blog posts, and decided he was horrified by these 'racists', cause some of them use the word 'kaffir', and they don't believe that all the races are equal.
Massively offended the Voltarian SA Sucks wiseboys weren't Rendier sycophants, but would provide their praise when they thought it due; or constructive criticism when they considered it necessary; he decided they needed to be shut down. But how could he shut them down? He would play the 'victim' and 'racism' card. He would appoint himself Mr. -- I Disagree With What You Say, And I Will Ruin You If You Say It -- Censorship; SA Sucks had to be shut down, by SA's self-appointed Censorship Czar.
So in true Alpha-Chimp style, Rendier charges into SA Sucks Alpha Males Camp with verbal mounting guns blazing - spouting half-truths and exagerations about how SA Sucks allegedly wants to kill blacks, can't wait for Uhuru, etc. Rendiers mobjustice fanclub drink the coolaid and are rivetted to the 'passion' of exaggerated misrepresentations about these 'evil racist nazi's.' Rendier fires his verbal mounting hand-grenades, and SA Sucks bloggers fire back. Rendier lobbies some 'I am tough' hand-grenades and SA Sucks lobby back about how they should meet one on one, on a mat (as in a duel of JuJitsu). Next thing big tough guy, 6ft Rendier, does a 180 degree U-turn into a wimpering little victimized puppy, receiving 'death threats'. He now decides to interpret SA Sucks verbal hand-grenade responses to his own, as 'death threats' and now he has his mobjustice followers slobbering with excitement, in their desire to 'shut down the nazi's who send deaththreats'!
The Hon. James David Manning, PhD gives a call to arms for white people of truth
Anyone who has spent some time reading SA Sucks in depth, would know that the majority of its bloggers and readers ultimate goal -- excluding the venting of frustration -- is not killing blacks, or abusing blacks, but in establishing a volkstaat. Their primary aim is to leave blacks to thier own devices, living in their own ethnic volkstaats, ruled by thier own leaders; because they believe white people -- particularly poverty pimping liberals -- have been a huge factor in many of blacks inferiority complex problems, etc. This is somethign confident black leaders agree with.
If however you arrive on SA Sucks and you are so ignorant, that you start accusing them of being neo-nazi's who want to exterminate blacks; they shall feed your ignorance, by bullshitting you and feeding you the information they believe you want to believe.
But, engage SA Sucks bloggers in a race realist debate based on scientific or historical event politically incorrect evidence; and you will be seriously intellectually challenged to keep up.
Analysis: 'I am; therefore I Think"
The Psychology Warfare of Co-Dependent Parasitism: The Victim Card
Any psychologist worth their salt, who dispenses psychological advice or knowledge; whether to a patient, students, Dr. Phil fans, or otherwise; knows that the essence of mental health and personal growth is to encourage the individual, family, or group to take personal responsibility for their thoughts, decision-making and actions. Someone can only start solving any personal, emotional, psychological or financial problem, once they are willing to take personal responsibility for how they co-create that problem. Think about AA. You cannot solve any addiction problem, whether to alcohol or drugs, ideology or belief; while you refuse to take personal responsibility. It is only when you admit to yourself that 'I am an alcoholic', that you can start to take personal responsibility for the thoughts, decisions and actions you have taken to get yourself into, and to keep yourself, in that addiction. If you play the victim, that you live next to a bottle-store, who sells cheap wine, or you are the victim of a boss who pays your wages in wine; or whatever; you are not able to solve your problem; because you have given away your responsibility for the problem to the bottlestore owner or your boss. Your alcoholism can only end, once they decide to close the store, or pay you in money. At least that is the BS story you tell yourself, cause you don't want to say 'I am an alcoholic, and it is my decisions, choices that made me an alcoholic; until I change my decision-making, choices and actions; I will not heal.'
So, a good psychologist would (a) first determine whether you were serious about wanting to heal your addiction; and (b) if so they would use their psychological knowledge to provide you with constructive criticism feedback, to help you to notice your blindspots. How you avoid taking personal responsibility; how you BS yourself. We all BS ourselves; thats why those of us who surround ourselves with friends who call us on our BS, with constructive criticism feedback, will grow much faster, if we seriously consider their feedback and examine it, and if it is true, fix those little blindspots, so we stop BS ourselves on that issue. Those of us who are easily offended, because we prefer sycophants who tell us what we want to hear; and don't easily accept constructive criticism, will remain stuck in our own BS.
If your psychologist gives you reasons for why you are a victim, say goodbye and never go back. The psychologist's only intention is to keep you a victim, so they can financially leach off your addiction to victimhood (which they encourage and sustain) like a parasite. The longer you stay addicted to being a victim, the more money they make in peddling you the BS of your victimhood story. Politicians also do this, particularly those peddle welfare, or goverment nanny programs; they want you to be a victim, and to be dependent on them, like children; rather than encouraging you to take personal responsibility for your problems, sovling them and being a free and self-sufficient person who does not need a nanny goverment. So they encourage your victimhood by bribing you with welfare grants to breed more poverty stricken babies, cause while you are a poor poverty stricken victim, they can BS you to vote for them; cause they will take care of you. The last thing they want is for you to start taking personal responsibility for your life, and not be a dependent on them; cause then you will vote in some small goverment, and they won't be able to live off you like a parasite leach.
So did Rendier consider SA Sucks feedback as constructive criticism and make an impartial enquiry and investigation into their arguments of Mandela's Truth and Reconciliation Fraud, etc? No. He felt victimized by their criticism, and offended; but he was wise enough to know that if he asked his followers to delete SA Sucks, purely because they were critical of his Mandelatopia ignorance, he might not be very successful. So he had to find another fake reason to BS his fans with, as the alleged 'real' reason he wanted SA Sucks shut down.
Rewarding Pavlov's Mobjustice Dogs, with a Censorship Job Well Done!
The Racism Card: A small racist crawling on a window sill
Nowhere does Rendier ever define what he means by 'racism'. Racism -- for those who don't know -- is an abstract, not a concrete concept. A concrete concept is something like a tree, or a table. We can touch it, feel it. We all agree it is a tree, it may be a pear tree, or a lemon tree, but no disagreement it is a tree. Abstract concepts are things we cannot touch, feel or see.
As described in Abstract, Concrete, General, and Specific Terms, by John Friedlander, Assoc. Prof., English Dept. at Southwest Tennessee, Community CollegeAbstract terms refer to ideas or concepts; they have no physical referents.
[Stop right here and reread that definition. Many readers will find it both vague and boring. Even if you find it interesting, it may be hard to pin down the meaning. To make the meaning of this abstract language clearer, we need some examples.]
Examples of abstract terms include love, success, freedom, good, moral, democracy, and any -ism (chauvinism, Communism, feminism, racism, sexism). These terms are fairly common and familiar, and because we recognize them we may imagine that we understand them—but we really can't, because the meanings won't stay still.
Take love as an example. You've heard and used that word since you were three or four years old. Does it mean to you now what it meant to you when you were five? when you were ten? when you were fourteen (!)? I'm sure you'll share my certainty that the word changes meaning when we marry, when we divorce, when we have children, when we look back at lost parents or spouses or children. The word stays the same, but the meaning keeps changing.
[..] While abstract terms like love change meaning with time and circumstances, concrete terms like spoon stay pretty much the same. Spoon and hot and puppy mean pretty much the same to you now as they did when you were four. [I can't pick up a freedom and show it to you, or point to a small democracy crawling along a window sill. I can measure sand and oxygen by weight and volume, but I can't collect a pound of responsibility or a liter of moral outrage.]
You may think you understand and agree with me when I say, "We all want success." But surely we don't all want the same things. Success means different things to each of us, and you can't be sure of what I mean by that abstract term. On the other hand, if I say "I want a gold Rolex on my wrist and a Mercedes in my driveway," you know exactly what I mean (and you know whether you want the same things or different things). Can you see that concrete terms are clearer and more interesting than abstract terms?
Gedaliah Braun's definition of 'Racism'.
Most people who use the term 'racist'; when asked to define it, simply ignore you, or look at you as if you are mad; do you mean you can't read their mind and know what they mean by racist?
Dr. Brauns book Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit: A Philosophers Hard-Headed Look at the Dark Continent is a result of 16 years of working and living in Africa, and of extremely frank conversations with Africans. It details among others, chapters such as: Blacks and the Concept of Time :: Black Insight into White Racial Guilt :: Racial Sensitivity: 'Difficulties with the Concept of Averages :: How Blacks Perceive Whites :: Black Sexuality :: Black vs. White Rule :: Black Psychological Shrewdness: Manipulating White Guilt :: Black Deficiency in Abstract Thinking, as Supported by the English-Zulu Dictionary :: Black Awareness of White Superiority, How White Guilt and Appeasement Create the Scam of Black 'Anger' :: Why Blacks End Up Hating their Benefactors :: etc. He also includes an Appendix on Racism.
What is Racism? Or, how Philosophy can be ‘Practical’
Very simply put: 'racism' is the insincerity of your racial belief of superiority(irrespective of whether it is based on facts or not). It is not so much important what your belief is, what is important is whether it is sincere, and whether you are willing to listen to opposing argument, or new evidence, which may prove your belief incorrect; which makes you a racist; or not. If you sincerely believe any racial superiority fact (even if the fact is not true), and you are willing to listen to other people providing you alternative facts, and to sincerely consider and impartialy enquire into their facts; your beliefs about racial superiority cannot and are NOT 'racist'.I try to explain both what racism is and what it is not, and devise a test to determine whether something is racist. Racism, it is agreed, is bad; so if something said to be rac-ist is determined not to be bad, then it can’t be racist. Is not wanting your child to at-tend a black school racist? Well, is it bad to not want your child be in a dangerous envi-ronment and where educational standards will be lower? If the answer is ‘No; this is simply a reasonable concern for the well-being of your child’, then avoiding such a school is not racist, because it is not bad; and if it’s not bad it can’t be racist.
A Belief Can Be Racist Only Because Of the Manner In Which It Is Held
So can we say that ‘Blacks are more often thieves’ is racist? In fact, we cannot – at least not just like that. It will depend on how it is believed. But if it is racist, what will be racist will not be the proposition itself but ra-ther the manner in which it is believed. For that is something for which we are responsible, for which we can be criticized, which can be bad, and hence which can be racist.
And when will such a belief be racist? First, it must attribute some ‘negative’ trait – such as dishonesty or lesser intelligence – to some racial group. We might think, however, that such a belief will be racist only if it is not true.
Suppose someone grows up in a place where many blacks are thieves and where whites are constantly bad-mouthing blacks. He is likely to end up thinking blacks are just thieves; and yet suppose (for the sake of argu-ment) that in fact the only reason blacks steal is poverty. He would be believing that blacks are, by nature, thieves and his belief would be false. Would it not therefore be racist?
If a Belief Is Honest It Cannot Be Bad and If It Is Not Bad It Cannot Be Racist
The answer is ‘No’; for although this is a ‘bad’ belief about another race that is false, it is – from his point of view – based on evidence (what he sees and what people say). Given this background, it is perfectly reasonable – and honest – for him to believe what he does. But if his belief is honest, it cannot be morally bad and hence cannot be racist. So being false doesn’t make such a negative belief racist; what matters, again, is the manner in which it is held.
But neither does being true preclude racism. Let us assume (again for the sake of argument) that blacks are by nature more likely to be thieves than whites and that Jones believes this to be so. But suppose he believes this because he was once mugged by a black man and ever since then simply thinks blacks are thieves.
In fact this is not such a simple case. What determines whether a belief is racist is not its truth or falsity but how it is held. One relevant factor is evidence – though note that a person may have good evidence for his belief even though it is false, and conversely, have poor evidence though, by accident, it is true.
Thus: you ask for the time, I look at my watch which says 5 o’clock and I say ‘It’s 5 o’clock’. Unknown to me, however, my watch stopped an hour ago and it really is 6 o’clock. I had good evidence for saying what I did and yet my statement was false.
Conversely, you ask for the time, and (again) my watch, unknown to me, has stopped, so though it says 5 o’clock it really is 6 o’clock; but this time, taking a quick glance, I misread it as saying 6 o’clock and say to you ‘It’s 6 o’clock’. In this case, my evidence is poor and yet my statement happens, by accident, to be true.
Being mugged by a black man is obviously not a good reason for think¬ing that blacks are thieves, and if some-one believes such a thing based on this evidence it would be a negative belief about blacks and based on insuf¬ficient evidence. Surely that makes it racist.
Hold your horses. If, through dim-wittedness, one honestly believes that this one incident is sufficient grounds for his belief, then though we might think him stupid, we could not label his belief racist. Racism is morally bad and deserving of condemnation; if his belief is honest, though foolish, he cannot be morally condemned for it. Such mental sloppiness, though lamentable, is not morally wicked.
So this in fact is not the case we were looking for: a negative belief about another race which was racist in spite of being true – for though true, it is not clearly racist. What then would an example?
Suppose someone believes that blacks are thieves – and let us again assume for the sake of argument that this is true – though in his case he has never had a bad expe¬rience with blacks; rather, he simply has an ingrained ani-mus against them. When confronted with evidence to the contrary he refuses to consider it (‘I’m not interested in that communist propaganda!’). Such a belief would clearly be racist even if it were true, showing that truth no more precludes racism than being false is a requirement. What matters, again, is not what is believed, nor its truth or falsity, but how it is believed.
Are SA Sucks 'Racists'? Can a Fact Be Racist? Do SA Sucks consider opposing evidence?
Undoubtedly many SA Sucks bloggers and readers do believe, that:
- On average -- whites are better at maths and science than blacks.
- On average whites have developed more technologically advanced civilisations, than blacks
- On average whites procreate with more loving and nurturing commitment to their children, waiting until they are married, investing their money for childrens education;
- On Average black men commit more rapes, of both white and black women, than white men.
South Africa: Destroyed by Nelson Mandela
If you meet an honest black person, without any inferiority complex, who knows that his fellow blacks can only be helped to overcome their inferiority complexes, by hearing the truth; not by lying to them, and keeping them mind enslaved to victimhood; he would agree with the SA Sucks bloggers on all of the above ON AVERAGE statements.
Are SA Sucks willing to sincerely listen to opposing evidence and arguments: ABSOLUTELY, it is the ESSENCE OF THEIR EXISTENCE. But not if you think you are the king of the castle, a young arrogant little alpha chimp, wanting to raid their turf, and arrive lobbing verbal hand-grenades how they are 'racists' and 'neo-nazies'; then they are prime alpha's and gonna holler right back.
SA Sucks is a never ending debate; which is NOT CENSORED; so all perspectives, no matter how bizarre can be debated. Most SA Sucks bloggers and commentors are TOTALLY WILLING TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS in regards to their beliefs, IF PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT FACTUAL EVIDENCE proving their beliefs to be IN ERROR. Give em facts to prove their beliefs wrong.
But they are not intellectual midgets -- to the contrary -- SA Sucks bloggers are for the most part, intellectual giants; who are willing to donate their time, to educate anonymously; for the simple reason that their efforts are to educate and provide a venue to vent the rage, anger and frustrations of living in South Africa's crime ridden hellhole.
If we use Dr. Braun's definition of 'racism'; SA Sucks is not guilty of 'racism'; irrespective of how offensive, or outrageous their ideas may be to the ignorant or those addicted to political correctness.
In fact using Dr. Braun's definition of racism; SA Sucks is one of the least racist blogs around; considering the passion and depth with which they are willing to hear opposing arguments and evidence; to contradict their beliefs.Can a Fact Be Racist?
And now let us ask whether a fact can be racist. The answer is clearly ‘No’; indeed, the very idea is absurd. When we say that racism is bad we mean it is morally bad and deserving of condemnation. But a fact cannot be deserving of condemnation since it is inanimate and hence is not the sort of thing which can be blamed. A fact is not responsible for being a fact, nor is it deliberately or knowingly a fact; it just is a fact, and it would be ridiculous, e.g., to say, ‘Shame on you – you are a bad fact!’.
But since to call something racist is to criticize it, it makes no sense to call a fact racist, since it makes no sense to criticize a fact. A fact may be nonmorally bad – i.e., something which it would have been better had it not been the case – but it cannot be wicked.
If a fact cannot be wicked, what about a proposition? Again the answer is clear: if a fact cannot be morally bad, neither can a possible fact (which is essentially what a proposition is), if for no other reason than that it is inanimate and hence not subject to (moral) blame or criticism. And if it can’t be sinful or wicked neither can it be racist.
Hence we may conclude that neither the idea, thought or proposition that there are racial differences can be racist, since no thought or proposition can itself be morally bad – and if it can’t be morally bad it can’t be racist. Thus, neither the possible fact nor the actual fact of such differences can be racist, since facts, actual or possible, are not and cannot by themselves be morally bad, sinful or wicked.
Rendier Gouws's True Motives for Shutting down SA Sucks? A PowerPlay Turfwar?"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Historian and moralist, John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902) known simply as Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887.
“Voltaire! a name that excites the admiration of men, the malignity of priests. Pronounce that name in the presence of a clergyman, and you will find that you have made a declaration of war. Pronounce that name, and from the face of the priest the mask of meekness will fall, and from the mouth of forgiveness will pour a Niagara of vituperation and calumny. And yet Voltaire was the greatest man of his century, and did more to free the human race than any other of the sons of men.” -- Robert G. Ingersoll.
In The Psychology of Power: Absolutely!, The Economist writes “Power corrupts, but it corrupts only those who think they deserve it”:Does power tend to corrupt, as Lord Acton’s dictum has it, or does it merely attract the corruptible. To investigate this question Joris Lammers at Tilburg University, in the Netherlands, and Adam Galinsky at Northwestern University, in Illinois, conducted a series of experiments which attempted to elicit states of powerfulness and powerlessness in the minds of volunteers. Having done so, as they report in Psychological Science, they tested those volunteers’ moral pliability. Lord Acton, they found, was right.
The results of their tests suggest that the powerful do indeed behave hypocritically, condemning the transgressions of others more than they condemn their own. Which comes as no great surprise, although it is always nice to have everyday observation confirmed by systematic analysis. But another everyday observation is that powerful people who have been caught out often show little sign of contrition. It is not just that they abuse the system; they also seem to feel entitled to abuse it. To investigate this point, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky devised a third set of experiments. These were designed to disentangle the concept of power from that of entitlement. To do this, the researchers changed the way they primed people.
[..] They argue, therefore, that people with power that they think is justified break rules not only because they can get away with it, but also because they feel at some intuitive level that they are entitled to take what they want. This sense of entitlement is crucial to understanding why people misbehave in high office. In its absence, abuses will be less likely. The word “privilege” translates as “private law”. If Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky are right, the sense which some powerful people seem to have that different rules apply to them is not just a convenient smoke screen. They genuinely believe it.
What explains hypercrisy is less obvious. It is known, though, from experiments on other species that if those at the bottom of a dominance hierarchy show signs of getting uppity, those at the top react both quickly and aggressively. Hypercrisy might thus be a signal of submissiveness—one that is exaggerated in creatures that feel themselves to be in the wrong place in the hierarchy. By applying reverse privileges to themselves, they hope to escape punishment from the real dominants. Perhaps the lesson, then, is that corruption and hypocrisy are the price that societies pay for being led by alpha males (and, in some cases, alpha females). The alternative, though cleaner, is leadership by wimps.
Power and the Zimbardo Experiment: Inner Fascist Rendier Effect?
Stanford Prison Experiment:
The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted from Aug. 14-20, 1971 by a team of researchers led by Psychology professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four students were selected out of 75 to play the prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Roles were assigned randomly. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond what even Zimbardo himself expected, leading the "Officers" to display authoritarian measures and ultimately to subject some of the prisoners to torture. In turn, many of the prisoners developed passive attitudes and accepted physical abuse, and, at the request of the guards, readily inflicted punishment on other prisoners who attempted to stop it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his capacity as "Prison Superintendent," lost sight of his role as psychologist and permitted the abuse to continue as though it were a real prison. Five of the prisoners were upset enough by the process to quit the experiment early, and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days.
Verbal Mounting; Motivated by a Masculine Insecurity Desire for Power?
In Eve’s Seed: Masculine Insecurity, Metaphor, and the Shaping of History, Robert S. McElvaine, from the Department of History at Millsaps College, explains this phenomena:The problem with the misogynistic rulers of the regimes that most mistreat women is often said to be that they are religious fanatics. This is true, but we need to be careful that we properly identify what their religion is. It is not Islam. Rather, it is what Woody Allen’s character in his 2001 movie, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion identified as his religion: “insecure masculinity.” Insecure masculinity is a malady that has been a—perhaps the—major force in many of the horrors of history—and one that Christians and Jews should realize is also deeply imbedded in their religions.
That insecure masculinity is an important part of our religions should not be surprising, because it is imbedded in almost all aspects of our culture—including, most significantly, our language. It is, I believe, a primary source of what Sigmund Freud referred to as civilization’s discontents.
[..] If the actual physical mounting of one man by another is not a common sight in the wider world outside prison walls, that is because the capacity for language has given humans a much wider range of symbols and metaphors than is available to other animals. Human males do not have to act out symbolic (or, in prison, actual) intercourse in order to pseudosex other men and indicate that they are dominant over them, as they assume themselves to be over females. Humans can use words in place of (or, sometimes, in conjunction with) actions to symbolize precisely the same thing that the ceremonial mounting by a dominant male mountain sheep or macaque of a subordinate male does.
The idea that other animals use metaphorical behavior may be surprising, but it is plain that this is what is going on when a dominant male among several species, including mountain sheep and macaques, mounts a subordinated male and simulates intercourse with him. The former is, in effect, “saying” to the latter: I am so dominant over you that I can treat you like a female. Such male animals apparently have some concept of “male-hood” in terms of being “notafemale.”
Such symbolic mounting is an unexplored but highly significant aspect of human male behavior. It is, obviously, a means of asserting a vertical distinction between individuals; it provides an answer to the question: Who’s on top?
A final Voltarian Incomparable Infidel Message to Rendier and his Mobjustice Fanclub:"Think for yourself, and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too."
» » » » [Mike Smith's Political Commentary] [Eve's Seed] [Eve's Seed (PDF)] [Voltaire Foundation] [Voltaire: The Incomparable Infidel] [Stanford Prison Experiment] [Psychology of Power] [Gedaliah Braun] [Abstract, General, Concrete and Specific Terms] Rendier: [Toxic Torso] [Rendier Equality Gouws] [Youtube: R3NDI3R] SA Sucks: [Little ‘Big Man’ Rendier wants SAS to be BANNED! (Cache) (PDF)] [Rendier and Dlanga; the Future Leaders of South Africa
(Cache) (PDF)] [5 ft 6 Rendier's latest BAN SAS call on Youtube!: (Cache) (PDF)] [Little 'Big Man' Rendier and the Stockholm Syndrome (Cache) (PDF)] [Hey R3nDi3r…here boy! (Cache) (PDF)]