Professor MacDonald posits the notion (perhaps true) that Whites often act against White interests because we were selected (natural selection) in colder climates where a surfeit of individual responsibility and a lack of group cohesion worked better for our survival.
In other words, Whites, according to MacDonald, evolved to not feel very "White," but to have a universalist outlook and to accept individuals in other groups as the same as individual Whites rather than to realize that Whites helping other Whites--and seeing themselves and other Whites as part of an in-group--a particularist outlook--would tend to also help individual Whites as well.
And, MacDonald contrasts this idea of hyper-individualism of Whites to the group consciousness of other groups of humans such as Jews, as evidenced in the question, supposedly asked of everything by Jews with a strong in-group sense: "Is it good for the Jews?"
We found it laughable that so many White "conservatives" were surprised that Blacks voted overwhelmingly for one of their own-Barack Obama for president. These out of touch White conservatives with their hyperindividualistic mind set apparently thought (and still do) that all individual humans think as they do and have no in-group loyalties based on race/ethnicity.
And, even today, we see some local White GOP "conservative" suits who still believe that Hispanics, Blacks and Asians will vote for a White, over a Black or Hispanic or Asian who is of the same race/ethnicity as them, if the White just panders to them or if the White just has the right ideas.
To go further, and perhaps beyond what MacDonald explicitly states, it seems that White hyperindividualism is now working against the survival of Whites as mass transportation has now brought millions of non-Whites (with their non-White in-group ways and beliefs) to formerly all White lands where under modern conditions the in-group survival mechanism works better than hyperindividualism.
It is certainly not unknown that a survival strategy that worked at one time under certain conditions may not work under new conditions.
For example, it is well known that opossums (let's just call them by their common name: possums) have a built in survival mechanism that causes them to appear to be dead when they are frightened.
This survival mechanism worked fine prior to modern times when the main enemies of possums were animals that wanted to eat them, but whose own survival mechanism evolved to have them avoid already dead animals (since already dead animals, if eaten, might poison the eater).
But today, it seems that the major enemies of possums are automobiles. A possum that plays dead in front of a car will just be run over. And, there is now anecdotal information that seems to indicate that urban possums may be evolving away from the playing dead strategy (a strategy, by the way, which is involuntary) and that there may be a new breed of possums that has evolved that doesn't play dead when frightened, but just runs away and out of the path of oncoming cars.
How has this evolution worked, if the anecdotal information is correct? The usual way--natural selection. Once genes arise (via mutation) with the run-away strategy, they are naturally selected over the play-dead genes. It's very simple. The possums that got run over didn't live to breed more of their kind with their play-dead genes, and those possums that had the run-away genes simply ran out of the way of cars and lived to breed more possums with their run-away genes. In time, the run-away genes, may completely replace the play-dead genes.
One aside, and to put here a question that comes to mind unbidden: Will Whites be able to adapt to modern conditions--like possums--and evolve a new strategy that works for our survival, or will we just continue to be run over with our hyperindividualistic play-dead strategy? To put a point on this: Will Whites be able to switch to an in-group strategy, get rid of universalistic views, and adopt particularist ones? Will we hear Whites saying: "Is it good for Whites?" And, will we see Whites working for White interests?
We're reminded, in writing the above about the hyper-individualism of Whites, of the column we wrote about the various ethnic legislative caucuses in Sacramento and the complete absence of a White Legislative Caucus. This certainly, seems to fit in with MacDonald's notion.
Here's one version of that just mentioned column about a lack of a White Legislative Caucus. In this version, we even dropped the word "White" in the title in an attempt to get a newspaper to publish the column, but they were on to us and didn't want to have anything to do with a column that trumpeted White interests--as White interests. Of course, they have no problem in praising the various other ethnic caucuses.
EUROPEAN-AMERICANS NEED A CAUCUS IN THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
by H. Millard
It was recently announced that State Senator Marty Block, (D-San Diego), started the Legislative Jewish Caucus and that this caucus will also form a political action committee to raise money for Israel-friendly candidates. Block told the press that the Legislative Jewish Caucus "isn't a religious based organization. We see this as an ethnic organization." This statement was presumably made to both forestall Muslims from starting a Muslim Legislative Caucus and also to head off complaints that the Legislative Jewish Caucus is breaching the wall between religion and state.
At any rate, the Legislative Jewish Caucus, as an ethnic/racial organization, now joins the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus, the Legislative Black Caucus and the Latino Legislative Caucus.
These caucuses work, sometimes behind the scenes and out of public view, to represent the interests of their ethnic/racial groups. They write legislation and take other actions on behalf of their particular ethnic/racial groups even though the people they are acting on behalf of may not live in their districts. In other words, unlike the traditional American political notion that people elected to public office represent a specific geographic area, these ethnic caucus members represent "their people," no matter where they live in the state.
An example of what the members of these ethnic/racial caucuses do was presented in the Daily Pilot recently in a story about State Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, a member of the Latino Legislative Caucus, who has authored a bill that would force cities such as Costa Mesa to end city wide voting and replace it with district voting. District voting is a scheme that will lead to gerrymandered districts in Costa Mesa, in an attempt to include Latino voters in certain districts and exclude White voters from the districts.
On the welcome page of the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus we read this: "[T]he Caucus was founded in 2001 and serves to represent and advocate for the interests of the APIA community...."
On the Website of the Latino Legislative Caucus we read: "The Mission of the California Latino Legislative Caucus is to identify, promote and advocate on behalf of the professional, educational, social, political and cultural interests of the Latino Community."
And, on the Website of the Legislative Black Caucus we read: "The continuing mission of the CLBC is to provide our unwavering commitment and support to our goal of achieving full inclusion of our state’s Africans American residents in every aspect of California life – from education and employment to housing and health to commerce and government services."
So, there you have it. Four ethnic/racial organizations all advocating for the interests of their people. Who advocates for White people? No one.
Now, some who haven't kept up with the news may say that a White Legislative Caucus isn't needed because Whites are in the majority in the state. Actually, we're not. Latinos have ether reached numbers parity or have exceeded the size of the White population. Some others may argue that Whites are not an ethnicity, but a race, and that we shouldn't lump the various White ethnicities (or people who originated in many different European nations) together under one rubric such as White. Well, the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus lumps various Asian and Pacific Islander populations together, and the Legislative Black Caucus is based on race.
I'll ask and answer this question once again: Who represents Whites and White interests? No one.
It's time to change that. Will we now see some White legislators start a White Legislative Caucus? Probably not. Why? Because Whites have been so brow beaten about race that it seems many are even afraid to order a gallon of white paint at the hardware store lest they be called racist. The result of this racial intimidation that Whites have undergone for years is that Whites are left without any real representation for their particular interests (and we have many) in the state legislature.
Those timid souls who are so brow beaten that they run from the word "white," can simply use the term European-American if it makes them feel more comfortable.
# # #
Story may be behind OC Register's paywall. It's about developer Mike Harrah who has been trying to improve downtown Santa Ana for twenty or so years by putting his own money into renovating buildings.
Costa Mesa should give awards to some of the developers who are risking their money to help improve the Westside.
Developers make things happen and the three good councilmembers in Costa Mesa understand this. By implementing the Westside Plans these good councilmembers have given incentives to developers to make the leap of faith and invest their money, their time, their energy heavily in the Westside.
Meanwhile the know-nothing scumbag haters continue to whine. These losers, most of whom have never done anything meaningful in their entire lives, continue to whine like neurotic little girls about everything the good councilmembers do. Spit when you hear the names of any of these scumbags. They are worthless pieces of crap.
# # #
RAMZPAUL ON NAZIS EVERYWHEREVideo (3:37 min.).
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment