It's Time to Reconsider Malcolm X

[Lisa]

Racism is a white people's problem though.
What do you think black people can do to solve it? Stop sagging their pants, and not wear dreadlocks so they won't be targeted by the police? Please...

How is it a white people’s problem?

 

[Kung Fu]

You're talking about me?

Racism is a white people's problem though.
What do you think black people can do to solve it? Stop sagging their pants, and not wear dreadlocks so they won't be targeted by the police? Please...

I was speaking generally. You're not special enough for me to talk about you directly.

I don't even know what you're saying. What exactly is your point?

 

[Kung Fu]

How is it a white people’s problem?

Because you're the racists.

 

[pescatarian09]

You're talking about me?

Racism is a white people's problem though.
What do you think black people can do to solve it? Stop sagging their pants, and not wear dreadlocks so they won't be targeted by the police? Please...

Do you really think the majority of white people are racist? That simply isn't true. White people, black people, and every other kind of people are neighbours, classmates, colleagues, husbands, wives, children. A situation like this causes outrage because it is clearly unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans. And it is more than likely it was not an organic circumstance, but a manufactured one, used to further drive racial division. Whites and blacks are not enemies; it is the people against those who would seek to take our humanity away: the occult elite.

 

[Lisa]

Since I brought up the American Indians...

 

[pescatarian09]

My point was really clear, there is nothing that black (or other racial minorities) can do to prevent white people from being racist...



I still think that each community should be building themselves. We can build our communities without totally opting out of the system anyway but my imo separation would be ideal.
Communities practice separation based on religions, for exemple. So why not separation based on race?

What would you hope to achieve in society by separating whites and blacks; what outcomes would you want? What would be the measure of success? How would you achieve segregation of whites and blacks within the US?

 

[morita]

What would you hope to achieve in society by separating whites and blacks; what outcomes would you want? How would you achieve segregation of whites and blacks within the US?

The "how" is the problem. Another poster said it better than me, the ruling class might not be willing to give up their land. But if it starts becoming a national conversation that would be a first step. Or at least that's my opinion.

 

[Lisa]

Maybe it really is all in the way you look at things?

 

[pescatarian09]

The "how" is the problem. Another poster said it better than me, the ruling class might not be willing to give up their land. But if it starts becoming a national conversation that would be a first step. Or at least that's my opinion.

Racism stems from ignorance. Ignorance is eradicated when whites and blacks live alongside one another, as friends and colleagues. Segregation would exacerbate ignorance, and in turn increase racism, especially through multiple generations of individuals. Children born today are less aware of historical precedents, and don't see the black-white dichotomy that their grandparents or great-grandparents may have seen. Things are changing for the better. Segregation is not the answer.

 

[Artful Revealer]

interesting thought, not a great idea, more segregation would fuel more hate if u ask me.

For clarity's sake. Separation and segregation are two different things.

 

[Artful Revealer]

People on here should be talking less about black people creating their own state and more about how to stop cops from indiscriminately killing black people simply for being black.

Please let this slide, Kung Fu. What you're saying is a race baiting narrative and not true to boot, but I don't want this topic turned into another debate about race and crime.

Good to see you've brought your usual dosis of testosteron again though.

 

[Kung Fu]

Please let this slide, Kung Fu. What you're saying is a race baiting narrative and not true to boot, but I don't want this topic turned into another debate about race and crime.

Good to see you've brought your usual dosis of testosteron again though.

I agree, I don't want to derail the thread. I'm interested in what people say so let's just leave it at that.

Hope you're doing well.

 

[Artful Revealer]

The problem, at least for me, is how those in positions of power negotiate such a deal and proceed with making such a deal work.

I mean the treaties between the colonizers and the indigenous people of North America were designed to be just this, to give native people their own sovereign land to govern, police and control. But a simple review of history shows that was just a ploy to eventually strip them completely of their lineage, identity and economic self sufficiency. Or even looking back to the 40 acres and a mule order given for freed blacks in post civil war America... Those lands went back to white owners in exchange for a wage based system that further exploited blacks.

Can we truly expect the ruling class, which is predominately white, to give up "their" land? I don't think such a negotiation would ever occur in good faith.

I have no answer to these questions, Hermes. I'm only suggesting that people start the conversation and perhaps ideas will come forward. Like I said - and this thread, however small its representation, seems to show that I might be right - such an agreement would appeal more to the black community than the white (granted that morita is black?). One big difference however, is that now, unlike 100 or 200 years ago, the eyes of the world would be watching and any breach of the agreement, if such a thing would ever come to pass, wouldn't go unnoticed.

 

[Kung Fu]

I have no answer to these questions, Hermes. I'm only suggesting that people start the conversation and perhaps ideas will come forward. Like I said - and this thread, however small its representation, seems to show that I might be right - such an agreement would appeal more to the black community than the white (granted that morita is black?). One big difference however, is that now, unlike 100 or 200 years ago, the eyes of the world would be watching and any breach of the agreement, if such a thing would ever come to pass, wouldn't go unnoticed.

How can you be so sure? I ask because take Palestine/Israel. The world is watching but yet Israel breaches, kills, and steals more and more from the Palestinians and yet nothing happens. In a nutshell Israel does what it wants without any repercussions. How would your scenario be by different?

 

[pescatarian09]

How can you be so sure? I ask because take Palestine/Israel. The world is watching but yet Israel breaches, kills, and steals more and more from the Palestinians and yet nothing happens. In nutshell Israel does what it wants without any repercussions. How would your scenario be by different?

I never thought of segregation in terms of Palestine/Israel. Interesting.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Racism stems from ignorance. Ignorance is eradicated when whites and blacks live alongside one another, as friends and colleagues. Segregation would exacerbate ignorance, and in turn increase racism, especially through multiple generations of individuals. Children born today are less aware of historical precedents, and don't see the black-white dichotomy that their grandparents or great-grandparents may have seen. Things are changing for the better. Segregation is not the answer.

US race relations have not improved. Look at what's happening in the US now. Looks like a throwback to the 60s, even worse.

I'm going to oppose the premise that racism stems from ignorance. At least in these modern times where almost everyone is confronted with diversity on a daily basis.

I think there's a race realism that we've been taught to suppress or outright reject as fake over the decades. When you interact on individual and personal levels, most people will or will not get along based on the other person's character, rarely based on the colour of that person's skin. But when we're talking of a society, individual, personal relations no longer matter. What matters is: how do groups of people get along? How do you maintain social order when there's nations within a nation? In-group preference exists among all races and ethnicities. It's so prevalent that one simply can't maintain the argument that it's solely an artificial construct when almost all people from all parts of the world possess it to some extent.

The growing discontent towards diversity seems to become more clear as time passes, and I think it's wrong to blame ignorance rather than racial and social awareness, and here it is: lack of ethno-religious self-determination. Borders establish peace. Nations only survive when they're ethnic, because only ethnic states can have a dominant sense of national community which minimises any chance for political discrimination. It's my thoughts and feelings on this type of sovereignty being stripped away from us with this incessant open-border agenda and diversity cult that made me realise what, in my opinion, American blacks really need: they need to be in charge of their own destiny, just like I want my people to be in charge of their destiny, and it will never happen as long as non-black liberals, globalists or civic nationalists keep telling them: "Stay with us and remain a 1/8th minority in a country that isn't yours and which you'll never control. We'll take care of you."

It's that globalist, multicultural mindset that stimulates hostilities between races and ethnicities because it robs them of their sovereignty, it robs them of the future that they envision for themselves, and it subjects us all to the future envisioned by the cosmopolitan oligarchs.

 

[Artful Revealer]

How can you be so sure? I ask because take Palestine/Israel. The world is watching but yet Israel breaches, kills, and steals more and more from the Palestinians and yet nothing happens. In a nutshell Israel does what it wants without any repercussions. How would your scenario be by different?

People, especially white liberals, are more sensitive, almost obsessed with black victimhood, much more than with Palestinian victimhood. Just look at the (mostly Western) international insurgence in solidarity with blacks in the wake of the George Floyd incident. You hardly see that when it concerns the Palestinian plight. Also the identity of the powers that be makes a substantial difference. Jewish-Zionist oligarchs in control of the American Deep State don't care about how well the United States fare. They're in fact, doing their utter best to see the US of A go down the shitter. They do not want that destiny for Israel.

 

[Hermes]

I have no answer to these questions, Hermes. I'm only suggesting that people start the conversation and perhaps ideas will come forward. Like I said - and this thread, however small its representation, seems to show that I might be right - such an agreement would appeal more to the black community than the white (granted that morita is black?). One big difference however, is that now, unlike 100 or 200 years ago, the eyes of the world would be watching and any breach of the agreement, if such a thing would ever come to pass, wouldn't go unnoticed.

I agree that in the current climate pushing for political and social change at a policy level may get the attention it deserves. But truthfully I've given up on the electorate, political participation is more of a lip service now as people just follow whatever makes them feel good and not what is justifiably and rationally good for the whole and a greater cause.

I think the ruling class understand this well and could employ many tactics of psychological warfare to carry out an agenda that fits their needs. The protestors and rioters are a prime example of this as this whole outburst is reactionary fuelled by emotions propagated by mainstream media. We are also seeing more draconian measures adopted as a reaction to this and its become too much of political theatre for me to really see any genuineness to this anymore.

I guess to some degree I can feel the frustration of the protestors/rioters and there need to rally behind this cause but again I think many are just following along as political correctness is the new trend. In my opinion, this movement also lacks a strong foundation and leadership (think civil rights groups and black liberation groups like black panthers that had strong leadership). The lack of cohesion in the movement clearly shows and I wouldn't trust any of these people to truly negotiate on land deals in good faith for an entire community (I mean these people are looting as well I doubt they have a desire to fulfill the greater good).

I mean anyone viewing this rationally can see the media is playing with emotions to trigger this response... I think without the media you don't get this globalized attention towards this issue. It's to the point now where people are protesting everywhere. I guess it's this that makes my bullshit radars signal more than anything.

Remember the media was totally hush on a sovereign Africa when Ghaddafi actually laid out a plan to get the continent there, instead they played the tune to assist in his killing. Where were these protestors when they murdered him in cold blood. They didn't exist because the media didn't hand hold them in explaining what had happened and how the electorate should think.

It's for this reason I feel that segregated lands would never work. The ruling class has too much vested in themselves staying in power that they will never meet any realistic demands of determining the destiny of coloured people in America.

 

[pescatarian09]

US race relations have not improved. Look at what's happening in the US now. Looks like a throwback to the 60s, even worse.

I'm going to oppose the premise that racism stems from ignorance. At least in these modern times where almost everyone is confronted with diversity on a daily basis.

I think there's a race realism that we've been taught to suppress or outright reject as fake over the decades. When you interact on individual and personal levels, most people will or will not get along based on the other person's character, rarely based on the colour of that person's skin. But when we're talking of a society, individual, personal relations no longer matter. What matters is: how do groups of people get along? How do you maintain social order when there's nations within a nation? In-group preference exists among all races and ethnicities. It's so prevalent that one simply can't maintain the argument that it's solely an artificial construct when almost all people from all parts of the world possess it to some extent.

The growing discontent towards diversity seems to become more clear as time passes, and I think it's wrong to blame ignorance rather than racial and social awareness, and here it is: lack of ethno-religious self-determination. Borders establish peace. Nations only survive when they're ethnic, because only ethnic states can have a dominant sense of national community which minimises any chance for political discrimination. It's my thoughts and feelings on this type of sovereignty being stripped away from us with this incessant open-border agenda and diversity cult that made me realise what, in my opinion, American blacks really need: they need to be in charge of their own destiny, just like I want my people to be in charge of their destiny, and it will never happen as long as non-black liberals, globalists or civic nationalists keep telling them: "Stay with us and remain a 1/8th minority in a country that isn't yours and which you'll never control. We'll take care of you."

It's that globalist, multicultural mindset that stimulates hostilities between races and ethnicities because it robs them of their sovereignty, it robs them of the future that they envision for themselves, and it subjects us all to the future envisioned by the cosmopolitan oligarchs.

I agree with several points. Ethnic groups are not arbitrary distinctions: they share cultural practices and traditions, history, ancestry, language, homeland, religion, etc. (though not always; there are distinctions within ethnicities also). I agree aggressive globalism isn't a force for good: it strips individuals of a local, tangible source of identity and community, and in turn, may cause them to lose their sense of purpose. I agree globalism is an agenda of the cosmopolitan elite, used to erase the distinctions between people, and in turn, make it easier to implement a one-world government. However, I disagree with some other points:

1. American Blacks are not a homogeneous group with cultural and political aspirations especially different to those promised to them in a democratic society, i.e. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In America and other democratic nations, the right to self-determination is a basic legal and moral right encoded in the constitution of that country, or in its common law, and presents to minorities the opportunity for self-determination. When they are targeted based on race, that is the failure of a hierarchy to prevent its degeneration into tyranny and corruption. There are not enough checks and balances present to keep the corruption at bay.

2. Not every group has the means to establish ethno-religious self-determination. Not every ethnic group gets, or indeed wants, their own state (e.g. Catalans, Scots, Kurds, and indeed, African Americans). There are more than 5000 ethnic groups in the world today, but only 193 member states at the United Nations. If it were a prevailing trend throughout world history that every ethnic group was unhappy in a pluralist/mixed state and demanded the right to establish their own state in the name self-determination and ethnic sovereignty, the current world map would be exponentially more fragmented. Once you make the case that African Americans ought to be able to establish a separate state, what is to say other ethnic and religious groups would not also demand the same right. It would give rise to an ever-proliferating number of identity groups, each demanding recognition, and perhaps, statehood, in the name of self-determination.

3. This is to say nothing of the root of the problem. Would the establishment of an exclusively white state, and an exclusively black state fulfil the need for self-determination for every individual within that state? Would it not be like any other hierarchy of individuals: with some at the top who have the majority of the power, and the masses at the bottom who have little power? It is impossible to eliminate both large and small political discrimination, whether in a pluralist state, or an ethnic state.

4. Is it true that nations only survive when they are ethnic? Ethnicity is not the supreme characteristic that binds together the fabric of society. I would argue that what is more important than a homogeneous ethnic background in a country is unity of aspiration, unity of purpose, and the feeling that you are able to participate in the democratic process despite your identity, whether that be sex, religion or ethnicity. What also makes a society successful is equality of opportunity for all individuals: they must feel that they are able to compete with someone with the same ability, despite their own identity. In predominantly ethnic states, tyrannic leaders of the same ethnicity as their people have perpetrated evil crimes against them, just as a leader of a pluralist state might against their people. The problem is power itself: it corrupts.

5. The more fundamental question is this: what is more sovereign, the individual, or the group? I would say that the individual ought to have greater sovereignty than the group to which they belong. This is the essence of identity politics: that you aren't an individual; you are essentially a member of a group (ethnicity, race, sex, sexual orientation), and you should be essentially characterised along with those who are like you in that group. Identity politics argues that the proper way to view the world is as a battleground of power between identity groups. But while it is true that no hierarchy is without tyranny (and results in killing with impunity as we saw last week), it is true that there are mechanisms in democratic societies that stop hierarchies from becoming intolerably tyrannic, that work quite well (checks and balances) and are preferable to balkanisation and fragmentation of societies based on the group identities of individuals. What unites people is greater than that which divides people.

“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” (Ayn Rand)

I suppose the question now is: how do we reconcile the individual need for sovereignty and self-determination with present globalist geopolitics?

 

[KoncreteMind]

There's still this suffocating aura of taboo surrounding the topic, but let's not kid ourselves: race, ethnicity and religion are fundamental components to social order. Time to quit fantasy land and return to reality. People virtue signaling about peace and love and unity to earn social currency from like-minded hippies. Sounds good in theory, but the reality has more ugly faces. Even Jesus polarised people. Those who at all costs refuse to consider the idea of separation are those that, consciously or not, contribute to the perpetuation of communitarian conflict and civil disorder. Therefore it's high time that serious people take it off the dusty shelves of political incorrectness and back into public discourse.

Negotiate a deal to constitute black land on American soil. Give them full autonomy over their lands, their institutions, their law-making, let them tend to their own justice system, police forces, crime-fighting, prison system, education system, science. Let them dominate the businesses in their neighbourhoods, let them build their own houses, farms, hospitals, schools, courts. Let them decide what's best to move their community and society forward. This obsession with diversity and multiculturalism has already long spiraled out of control and messed up too many people and too many livelihoods and it continues to this day, as it has for too many decades, as the perfect context for the horizontalization of tensions to distract from political and financial exploitation.

So, put down the arms and bricks, shake hands, separate in peace and go take care of your own.

I think a cultural separation is needed moreso than a racial one. Because not every "black" person agrees with rioting or protesting in general so to just lump them in with every other black person with beliefs all over the place will get that community nowhere. Thats one. Two, no, a couple of states wouldnt even be right. Because to be honest, to actually right the wrong that was did, everyone would have to leave and then allow them to institute those resolutions you suggested which I agree with. Of course no one will agree to that so we just have to see when/if the current power structure runs itself into the ground leaving the doorway for someone else to take rulership. And thats whats going on now btw. We're seeing the last legs of this empire. So one cant come at the end after taking $100, and offer .50 cents. Well they can but anyone smart will pass...

But in a hypothetical, black people have tried having their own fruitful communities in the US that werent reliant on the gov't and or white people and they were often destroyed if they got too successful (i.e. Tulsa "Black Wallstreet" and "Rosewood" in Florida) over false accusations. What would change now? What would stop a "false accusation" from coming up like weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq and the destabilizing of everything built? I think its too late to go with a Malcolm proposal. We're reaching the times where it will be all or nothing...