Saturday, February 01, 2014

The Meaning Of Dieudonné


gilad |  Since the 1968 Student Revolution, the European and American Left, together with a herd of Jewish progressive intellectuals, have invested enormous effort in attempting to break society down into multiple segments of identities. 

The Left adopted this peculiar approach because it could never cope with its own failure to bond with working people. 

The Jewish intellectuals, who led the campaign, realized that fragmented and divided nations are far less dangerous for Jews. As we know, Jews are threatened by cohesive, patriotic nationalism, and for a good reason. After all, they were amongst the prime victims of such an ideology. 

Bizarrely enough, dazzled by the emerging false prophecy of post-68 ‘identity politics,’ the Left was quick to drop its universal ethos. While in the past it aimed to cross the divide and unite the working people, the post-68 Left actually split and ghettoized the Western subjects by means of identification.

Instead of being and celebrating who and what we are, we’ve learned to identify with ready-made soundbites. Rather than simply being Jill, Joseph, Abe or Youssef, we are now identified ‘as a woman’, ‘as a gay’, ‘as a Jew’, ‘as a Muslim’, and so on. In practice, the New Left has been erecting walls around us in an attempt to separate us into infinitesimally small, marginal identity groups. 

Peculiarly, it is the post-68 Left, rather than the capitalists, that drove us into segregation, isolation and political paralysis. 

But then, pretty much out of the blue, Dieudonné, a black French comedian, has managed to re-unite the working people: the migrant communities, the Black, the Muslim, the North African as well as the White proletarian and at the same time, to deliver a universal message.

Dieudonné has reminded us what the Left stood for in the first place, before it was conquered by Marcuse and his Frankfurt Yeshiva’s pals.  It is the French entertainer who brings to light the most instinctive Left insight -- we are actually united and identified in opposition to our oppressors, namely, the establishment.  

16 comments:

CNu said...

Are you familiar with any other psychiatrists theoretically or practically focused on the topic of racism and white supremacy? http://youtu.be/ryB7WjGVFc8

Tom said...

No, though that could be my own ignorance. It's big, and it's psycho, I'm with her that far. Chris Rock says: "Black people didn't 'make progress' since the 1950s, white people just got less crazy."


Like Chomsky she has a main body of clear observations that are unpopular but seem solid. Teh fear of "genetic annihilation" seems like a real thing to me.


But not everything she says falls into that category. Some of it is basically giving teh Euro back a dose of our own bullcrap. Maybe well-deserved but not necessarily very scientific.

BigDonOne said...

BD will see all your wishful whining and raise you this video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf8uUE40WxM

Vic78 said...

Can France be the next in line after Iceland? What's the excuse going to be if that happens?

Tom said...

Interesting anecdote, BD, but our discussion seemed to go quiet when I challenged you to post data.

makheru bradley said...

The Gestapo can't silence everyone. Jasiri X--Checkpoint

http://bit.ly/1bP9hyo

BigDonOne said...

@Tom - You want data? BD will provide data, as we have done previously many times....

Cal Berkeley & UCLA, very competitive to get in. Even with all the "equality-promoting" diversity tricks, here's the admissions data: UCLA - 35% Asian, 28% white, 4% black http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/campusprofile.htm

Cal-Berkeley for 2012-13 - 42% Asian, 28% white, 3% black http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/17/freshman-admission-data-2012-13/



But most telling of all, is the entering SAT scores for Ivy League schools, image below. Recognize these schools fight tooth/nail to recruit the top black students, the absolute cream of the IQ-75 crop, children of black congressfolks, mayors, upscale business types who have had all the upbringing advantages, and they get total free rides, don't pay a dime to go. These top blacks, the best that can be found, are 200 SAT points down on the average, compared to whites. And these aren't even the best whites, since a third or so of them are Ivy legacy admissions that don't meet the same rigorous standards. Notice also, the accepted Asians, so as not to over-run the schools white traditions as they have in California (above), are penalized typically 30 SAT points. Proof of exactly the relative racial cognition described in Jared Taylor video originally posted above. The differences are clearly DNA-gene-based.......

CNu said...

lol@clearly DNA-gene based My daughter got into three of those and declined their offers. If everything goes according to plan, she'll work for a researcher at one of those - access to whose lab and whose work is a crown jewel of sorts. This researcher has the pick of the cream of the crop of students from these schools. But we have the benefit of a close personal relationship and - as in so many other walks of life - it's not who you know..., http://pressroom.usc.edu/racial-inequality-has-become-a-self-reinforcing-cycle-usc-professors-new-book-asserts/

CNu said...

I very sincerely doubt that Vic. Iceland is like the exemplary homogeneous democracy, while France is ground zero for a multi-generational elite battle pitting the archons of Zionism against the archons of Synarchism.

Tom said...

BD, Who're you trying to kid? That's not the data from studies of nature vs nurture referred to in your video. You're back to proving a difference and reverting to theory about the source of the difference.


Good on the schools that don't penalize/quota-ize Asian students, it's nice to see that some don't.

ken said...

I am not in BD's camp, but I must admit I have watched this argument with curiosity. It seems as many scoff at those who don't embrace all the settled science from evolution and all its "overwhelming evidence", and other consensus science like global warming, somehow it's intelligent to not accept clearly what the theory of evolution would have us assume about race. I would like to offer some evolutionary insight data only because I would like to see how the evolutionist will embrace the theory and yet maintain there can be no observable difference.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/race_evolution_behavior.pdf

Tom said...

Ken, The "theory of evolution" doesn't tell us anything about who is smarter than whom. For that we would need data. That is exactly what I've repeatedly asked for: data that can distinguish nature from nurture.

To respond to your remarkable mischaracterisation of my position as "maintain[ing] there can be no observable difference" ... In the comment you responded to, I acknowledge a difference in scholastic performance but ask for data about the source. Are you assuming people won't look up-thread at my actual comment? Are you sure your readers are that gullible?

ken said...

I apologize if you thought I was distorting your view, I have read the thread and assumed others have to. I did supply an evolutionist perspective with data on your nurture and nature considerations, only so I could see the arguments from the evolutionist perspective. Obviously, that means I am reading your responses and wanted to give you what you were requesting of BD so I could see how this discussion plays out.

CNu said...

lol, surely the red/black/green dress in `74 and the afrocentric cash-in in `91 (Isis Papers) wasn't a tip-off to/for that agenda? but then, one could argue that the entire psychiatric agenda going back to Freud up through the modern era's preoccupation with fMRI and evolutionary ethology - is all a lot of just-so storytelling.

My point is that psychiatry has always been and continues to be far more shamanic and shysterish than it is scientific.

That said, there is an overarching question of motivation and political support which makes a comparison between Welsing and the racists she wanted to study and the race-ologists she wanted to bark back at - a false equivalence. There is now and there always has been big money behind the falsely ascribing racists and race-ologists with aims on black Americans running the gamut from theft of labor value and denial of basic human and civil rights all the way to eugenic and genocidal enmity.

The southerners who treated blacks as capital assets so they could steal the labor value needed rationalizing excuses and these were clearly quite bad in their own way, but the ideologues in the modern era who have all the facts and data required to know better are off on a whole other kick. Let's take the high-epopt of modern race-ology for example. http://shameproject.com/profile/charles-murray/ It is critically important for people to understand what Murray is on about, and more importantly, who put him up to his hateful antics and why.

CNu said...

Ken, just because that Rushton crap uses the word "evolution" in its text, doesn't mean that it comes from an evolutionary perspective. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/the-pseudoscience-race-differences-in-penis-size

Instead of responding to a dog-whistle whose origin and use you haven't carefully studied and that you don't fully understand pursuant to your own creationist agenda, why not instead take the time to actually learn something about the subject in question and transcend your bible-buddy bona fides. "... we have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Heisenberg, 1958/1990, p. 26).

Heisenberg, W. (1990). Physics & philosophy: The revolution in modern science. London: Penguin. (Original work published 1958).

Tom said...

Ken, Let's not get all PC here: you severely misrepresented my earlier comment, reversing its meaning, as everyone can see in black and white.
That's not just a misstep, it's your typical debating style, and the non-apology ("I apologize if you thought ... ") is also wearyingly familiar.

I'm asking BD for data to support his contention that measured racial IQ differences stem from genetics. You posted a link to what seems to be a book, without any comment. I'm not willing to read an entire book as a sort of preamble to understanding whatever tangent you're interested in about theory.

Please keep in mind, that this is *not* a lame-brained "creation vs evolution" "debate." The intellectual bar in those debates is almost unbelievably low on all sides, and I'm not willing to communicate with people who debate in that style.