Sunday, October 01, 2017

Book Review: The Sovereign Psyche

What I have to say below will be ferociously reviled by Leftists but that will not alter the truth of it.  The book author and the reviewer below are concerned about discrimination against blacks but make no attempt to understand it.  I wish to fill the gap.

For a start, it is true that the outcome of Lincoln's war on the South usually did not leave blacks much better off. As we read below, whites used various methods to keep blacks terrified and submissive.  But why did they do that?  Was it because they were evil men? Hardly. They were ordinary men much like any other population of European Protestant heritage.  So why?

Because they knew blacks well from their long and close association with them as slaves.  They knew that blacks were pretty dumb and had poor impulse control.  And they rightly saw danger to themselves in that.  A large population of blacks among them freed from the restraints of slavery were dangerous.  So they fastened other restraints on blacks.

And it worked for quite a long time.  Right into the middle of the 20th century, black on white crime was rare.  The Civil Rights Act (supported by more Republicans than Democrats) and other measures undid many of the meaures that had kept whites safe and we eventually arrived at where we are now -- where black on white crime is lamentably common.

There is no doubt that blacks are aware of past discrimination against them. The Left never lets them forget it.  But resenting it is like resenting the moon rising.  It had its causes and those causes are still there. 

And lifting past restrictions has been a far from unalloyed blessing to blacks.  Frequent as black on white attacks have become, black on black attacks are astronomically more common -- to the point of the leading cause of death among young black males being attacks by other young black males.

In its perverse way, a modern, Left-led value system countenances discrimination against whites only -- but we all live much less safe lives because of that.

So what should we do now?

I think there is a non-racist policy that would achieve the desired objective of safety for us all.  It stems from the fact that most crime is committed by recidivists -- people who have already been convicted of criminal offences more than once.  I think that all recidivists -- black or white -- should be promptly hanged, maybe from a tree

A friend recommended this book as a reflection on the state of racism in America. My first thoughts this book was going to be just another long list of injustices committed on African Americans by European Americans. The book goes deeper than that, fleshing out a systemic racism that many European and African Americans may not realize.

The author, Ezrah Aharone, brings up interesting points of American and world history to show the imbalance of power. He compared the 1873 Treaty of Paris, the document that formally recognized the 13 colonies as separate from Great Britain to the 1865 13th amendment to the American constitution, the document that ended slavery. The former document was 2000 words long and was negotiated and signed by the leaders of Great Britain, the new United States, and France. The latter document was 50 words long, and no African Americans were significant players in the creation of this document. It was not a negotiation between two sovereign people, but a gift bestowed by Euro-Americans to Africa Americans, almost as if slavery had been a rightful act.

Not only that, a significant part of 13th amendment allowed governments to put people into slavery for criminal offences. The American South took advantage of that clause to round up African Americans on minor criminal charges and put them on the chain gangs, a practice which continued for almost 100 years. The goal of such actions was not, according to the author, punishment for crime, but rather to keep an African American community fearful of white authorities and militia. Thus these communities were both overtly and subtly traumatized. 
When a community is so traumatized, it is not sovereign in its own right. It gains a feeling of worthlessness and powerlessness, and it cannot make effective decisions for itself. In this psyche, it cannot rise to its potential. Without coming to its potential, the cycle repeats itself—and African American communities are still feeling the effects of slavery even though they have nominally been free for five generations.

The author states the end of racism did not stop with African Americans being allowed in the front of the bus or be elected to the president of the United States. Like any traumatized person, most African Americans are not sovereign in their own minds.

This book proffers many more perspectives of American history. The reader will discover historical facts that seldom get much attention in the mass media and education system, which leads to a better understanding of racism today in America. This book is full of contradictions between the stated liberty of historical American documents and the domination/subjugation relationship of the two races.  I, as a white person, now have a better understanding of Black Lives Matter and the silent protest at American national anthems.

While Aharone is critical of institutions that subtly keep a certain degree of white privilege, he calls on African American to take charge of their own affairs. He calls for better understanding their history, then building their own institutions that will truly advance their cause, such as better schools in African American communities.

The true battleground, he says, is not in the streets or in politics, but in the minds of African Americans. There are societal forces to keep African Americans in their current mindset. But it will be up to African Americans to drive these subtle forces out. Then Africans Americans will be truly sovereign in their own country.


Norwegian minister gets it

OSLO - Norway’s minister of immigration drew comparisons Wednesday between the plight of Europeans suffering from increasingly common terror attacks with the experiences endured by Israel for decades.

“We are experiencing now the fear that you have experienced for decades,” said Sylvi Listhaug in an exclusive interview with Ynet in Oslo. “Many people now understand the situation you live in. We see what is happening in Sweden, in Britain and in France.”

European nations, she added, “and their citizens need to understand the situation in Israel better because of the terror attacks in Israel.”

Since taking office, Listhaug has cracked down on illegal immigration into the Scandinavian country by adopting stringent policies that have resulted in just 1,000 illegal migrants entering the country in 2017 from 30,000 in 2015.

According to Listhaug, her Progress Party, which governs in a coalition with the Conservative Party, is a staunch supporter of Israel.

“The Progress Party has always been a supporter of Israel’s need to protect themselves (sic) in a region where you are the only democracy,” she claimed.
“That does not mean that we support everything you do but you have a right to defend your people and your borders because you live in a region that has a lot of problems,” she acknowledged.

The interview took place a day after Denmark’s Immigration Minister Inger Stojberg posted a screenshot of her iPad showing a drawing of the Prophet Mohammad on Facebook, one of the satirical cartoons that caused outrage among Muslims around the world more than a decade ago.

While saying that she did not necessarily agree with the caricature, Listhaug insisted her Danish counterpart had every right to publish it in the interest of free speech.
“People have been murdered because they have expressed their opinion like (what happened with) Charlie Hebdo,” she highlighted in reference to the French satirical magazine that was firebombed in 2011 for publishing a cartoon of Mohammad and was then the target of an brutal attack by two radical Muslim brothers in 2015 in which 12 people were massacred.

“It’s the new norm,” Listhaug concluded, “for Europeans to impose limits on freedom of speech in order to avoid offending minorities.”


More Muslim supremacism

Another plane booting video is gaining traction online months after the violent United incident. A woman was forcibly removed from a Southwest flight Tuesday, but this time around the passenger is getting very little sympathy online.

The woman, identified as 46-year-old Anila Daulatzai from Baltimore, had complained about two dogs on her flight from Baltimore-Washington International Airport to Los Angeles.

She said she was deathly allergic, but when crew informed her they couldn't remove the dogs, one of which was a service dog, she was told to leave the plane.

That's when things went south. After the woman couldn't show medical papers about her allergies and refused to leave the plane, law enforcement arrived to remove her, Southwest said in a statement.

She's since been charged with disorderly conduct, failure to obey a reasonable and lawful order, disturbing the peace, obstructing and hindering a police officer and resisting arrest, but released by authorities, according to KTLA.

So who is Anila Daulatzai?

Why, she just happens to be a Harvard Professor of Women's Studies and Islamic Studies.

In other words, she's a double winner.

Note that in the video, she's not wearing a Hijab, but in regular life she does.

IMO, this was a setup. This lady is perhaps mildly allergic to dogs. However, she doesn't like dogs because she's a Muslim and Muslims have a problem with dogs.

This is an Islamic incursion ... IMO.

At a certain point in the video, she says, "I need to close my pants."

Let's see if her incursion is trumped up into a kind of sexual abuse of a Muslima. Look at the way they disrespected her culture by manhandling her. Vicious Islamophobic Cops.

Also, at another point in the video she dramatically cantillates, "My Dad has a surgery tomorrow."

So yes, they disrespect her Islamic presence with dogs - which she is also deathly allergic to -, they undo her pants and manhandle her violating her Sanctified presence before her pedophillic god Allah, and they violate her Islamic family, the circle from which all violence emanates.

I wonder what other forms of trouble this woman might have caused in the past.

Or maybe I should have more sympathy.  I'm open.


Australia: Priest SPAT at in the street in the latest violence linked to gay marriage supporters

A priest claims he was spat at and called a ‘f**king no voter’ while walking in the street just because he was wearing his collar. Father Morgan Batt said he was walking along Queen Street Mall in Brisbane on Wednesday when he was stopped.

He took to Facebook to express his disappointment at the treatment he received. ‘I was stopped – spat at – and called a ‘f***king no voter,’ he wrote.

‘Smile and move on was all I could do. Let’s pray for healing. Australia this really not us.’

The priest’s claims come as a mass weekend text telling millions of people to vote ‘yes’ reportedly turned people off, and increasingly confrontational appears to drive some non-aligned voters towards either a no vote or even apathy.

Polls still indicate a majority of Australians will vote 'yes' on the gay marriage postal survey. 

While there have been disappointing incidents on both sides, some have called the behaviour of 'yes' activists violent, elitist, snobbish and off-putting.

'I had always intended to vote yes but the more liberals use these tactics the more inclined I am to vote no,' said one online commenter.

'I am not engaged in this debate, I have had other priorities in my life - we all have something we are fighting for - but after seeing the low tactics of the 'yes' campaigners I'm considering voting, and it will be no,' said another.

Their sentiments were echoed across social media, with people declaring they have had enough of the violence, the threats and the abuse, calling the behaviour 'feral'.

'Yes voters aren’t helping their cause are they? It's really sad that a few disgusting individuals might end up ruining this opportunity for the LGBT community' wrote a Facebook user.

The most recent Newspoll shows 57 per cent of Australians support redefining the Marriage Act, down from 63 per cent in August.

Following the headbutt assault on Mr Abbott by a 'Yes' badge-wearing anarchist DJ in Hobart, activists held up banners saying 'Headbutt homophobes'.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: