We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day – America’s race war has no place in UK

The vast differences between US and UK policing practices are not just a matter of public perception, either. During the fiscal year 2020 in the US, federal law-enforcement agencies reported 65 arrest-related deaths – 47 per cent of which were homicides. And there were a total of 614 deaths in custody. During the same time period in England and Wales, there was just one fatal police shooting – of a 57-year-old white man who was part of a street fight in Wiltshire. In the same year, 19 people died in or following police custody – of those 19, 17 were white and two were black. If anything should concern us about these incidents, it’s not alleged racism – it’s the fact that so many involved people with addiction and mental-health issues. Indeed, 12 of the 19 people were identified as having mental-health concerns, and 14 had a known link to alcohol and / or drug abuse. […] Culture warriors need to recognise that the US and the UK are very different – in their histories, in their cultures and in their laws. America’s race war has no place here.

Rakib Ehsan

54 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – America’s race war has no place in UK

  • bobby b

    “Sharpton has done a great deal for the cause of civil rights and social justice in the US.”

    More like, he has done a great deal TO the cause of civil rights and social justice in the US. He’s poison, and arguably the status of black Americans has suffered from his attentions.

  • Kirk

    Nice try, UK. The problem is that the “race war” isn’t being ginned up out of legitimate grievances, but because self-destructive parts of society want to tear everything down around their ears. As such, they’re using the template for what they’re doing here internationally. And, it’s working.

    The unfortunate fact is that there is no more perishable thing than human gratitude. The British Empire ended traffic in African slaves to just about everywhere besides Arabia. They did so against their own economic interest, and purely on moral grounds. Similarly, the Northern states in the US forced the issue, fought a Civil War, and are now held to be the people to blame for slavery by one and all.

    Of course, it is kind of funny to see the same preening moral assholes who long criticized the US for these things having it show up on their own shores. I can’t recall every seeing a single nuanced thing about race in America come out of the UK in my lifetime; there was never one voice that I saw which gave credit to any of the various and quite numerous abolitionists and civil rights agitators, along with the Republican Party. We all got tarred with the same racist brush, regardless of whether or not we actually oppressed any blacks or upheld slavery, Jim Crow, or lynching. So, I’m genuinely amused to see the same sort of “justice” being meted out to much of the UK, you racist bastards, you…

    Whole thing is weaponized fraud, perpetrated by scum. There are no living victims of North Atlantic slave trade, and in the larger sense, if you were an African enslaved by your fellow Africans, you did rather better than your peers over the long haul if you were sold into North America versus any of the other options. Look at the mortality rates for slaves in the Spanish, French, or Portuguese regions if you doubt me, especially when you consider the sinkhole that was Brazil. Yet, it’s rather odd that most of the world’s oppobrium for the slave-buying and slave-holding is for the UK and the US…

    10.7 million Africans were trafficked to the Americas. 388,000 of those wound up in the North American regions controlled by the UK and US. It is educational to recognize that there were some 6 million blacks, slave and free, by the time of the Civil War. That’s a much better survival rate than that for the other destinations. It’s also another example of the lies told about these issues, because most accountings of slavery tend to ignore the ten million or so who weren’t taken to North America, saying things like “13 million Africans were brought to the Americas as slaves…”, which makes it look like all of those 13 million arrived in North America vice their actual destinations in Central America or South America, where their mortality rate was abysmal.

    The other thing that gets forgotten? The Irish. The early days of slavery saw the Caribbean sugar plantations coming under great criticism by figures in the Anglican Church due to the massive numbers of dead Irish indentured “servants”. The thinking was that if the plantation owners had to actually purchase their own labor, i.e. slaves from Africa, then they’d treat them rather better than they did the “indentured Irish labor” that they signed for from the Crown. This actually turned out to be true, sadly enough…

    Y’all really do not want to go digging into the rather disturbing numbers of Irish “indentured laborers” that died in the Caribbean. The documentation is scanty, but the idea that a lot of Irish have that their missing ancestors made their way to the continental US as escapees or freed indentured servants is as naively confident as many kids have about their puppies going off to the farm… I knew a guy that wound up in the Catholic Church as a priest because of his time as a graduate student doing his doctoral thesis on the “Irish Diaspora” in the Americas. What he found by doing that didn’t do a lot of good for his mental state, I can tell you that much…

    I’m sure that there are a lot of things you can lay at the collective doors of the various ethnicities of the British Isles, but the sad reality is that they often treated their own neighbors and close kin far worse than they did any Africans that fell into their hands. And, they did end the trade across the Atlantic…

  • Paul Marks

    Not a good article – as bobby b, and Kirk have pointed out.

    Al Sharpton is a grifter – he specialised in making up false charges (of rape, murder whatever) so he could stir up race hatred for money – yes for MONEY, he milked the campaigns for all the money he could get out of them. He was a regular visitor to the Obama Whitehouse – but Marxism is not what motivates, Al Sharpton – money is what motivates him.

    As for throwing the United States under the bus – pretending that American police are “racist” but Britain can stay out of this conflict – bovine excrement.

    British society is under the same Frankfurt School of “Woke” Marxism attack that American society is under attack by – if America falls then the United Kingdom will also fall.

    All the “our history, culture and laws are different” stuff is drivel – apart from America lacking direct attacks on Freedom of Speech in its laws (it gets indirect attacks instead).

  • Paul Marks

    People who will not defend the United States against this “Woke” Marxist attack will not defend the United Kingdom either – not when things get tough.

    The article is no good.

  • Martin

    I’m not advocating throwing the US under the bus (although a lot of Americans are doing just fine at that without any external assistance), however, one thing that stands out about wokery is that three of the most important vectors at spreading it right now are US popular culture, American corporations, and the US government. This makes it hard for me to see how non-Americans can do a significant amount to ‘save’ the US.

  • Zerren Yeoville

    To Kirk’s point about the relative treatment of black slaves and white ‘indentured servants’, I would add three dates that would tend to reinforce that view.

    The British Empire outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833. But it wasn’t until 1875 that an effective law was finally passed against the use of children (mostly white British children from the ‘lower orders’ recruited from orphanages or workhouses) as chimney sweeps, whose unpaid ‘apprenticeships’ would usually entail them being kept starved to skin-and-bone so they could fit up flues often only a few inches wide and in the course of which they would often either slip and fall to their deaths or suffocate in clouds of soot. And this situation persisted for over forty years after black slaves were freed.

  • Kirk


    I’d be cautious about that particular detail, as I’ve seen learned academic research papers saying that there weren’t really all that many chimney sweeps, most of them having been replaced by mechanical contrivances early on. It was a thing for a couple of decades, but past that? Not so much. Actual details are eluding me, including an actual citation for any of it, but I do remember a pretty emphatic refutation of the “conventional wisdom” regarding the issue…

    Whether that itself represents false historical revisionism, I’ve no idea. I just remember the paper I read…

  • Steven R

    Let’s not forget that until the British finally drove the French out of Canada in 1763, there was a thriving slave trade of white captives taken and sold by the local Indians who were then transported to the Caribbean plantations as chattel slaves. Indians allied with the French would take English on the frontier as captives, sell them in Canada to the French and those English were then send to a tropical isle to work away the rest of their lives as property. The English did the same thing to the French on the frontier.

    And, of course, when William and a bunch of Frenchified Vikings showed up one autumn day in 1066, 10% of the English were chattel slaves. And a whole bunch of English were taken to Scandinavia as actual slaves or sold by the Normans to slave traders in the Mediterranean.

  • Fred Z

    “the British finally drove the French out of Canada”???

    No, they did not, this place is still infested with the snail swilling, cheese chomping, commie, government tit sucking fuckers.

  • Mark

    I can think of no more graphic example of the US race war coming here than a certain Z-list “actor” marrying a certain ginger fuckwit and then – with a clinical cynicism that makes the Wannsee conference look like a team building retreat – decide that she is “black” and has been “racially slurred”.

    Despite being given access to wealth, privilege and above all, status beyond her wildest imagining (well, maybe not her wildest imaginings), she now becomes a victim.

    Go figure, because I can’t!!

    I truly do hope she’ll have a tilt at US politics. Sorry guys, it would be poetic justice.

  • Paul Marks

    The attack upon the United States by the “Woke” Marxists is a LIE – “racist cops” are not going around murdering black people because they do not like the colour of their skin.

    The whole Frankfurt School “Woke” “structural racism, sexism, transphobia….” attack is a LIE – people who go along with this lie in relation to the United States will not really defend the United Kingdom against the same lies.

    “We are not like the racist Americans” is a “defence” of sickening cowardice and dishonestly.

  • Paul Marks

    We all know that American society is in terrible decline – falling life expectancy, many people (such as Mr George Floyd – but it is people of all races) dying of drug abuse, or just killing themselves in despair, the collapse of many of the Churches into the evil insanity of “Social Justice” (which has led to most Americans no longer being members of Churches, being alone and isolated, for the first time in American history), a higher and higher proportion of men not in work (the “low unemployment” figures are as honest as the corrupt election returns), a population being forced into poverty and humiliation – whilst the government, and the Cantillon Effect Corporations, laugh and call the people names (“racist”, “sexist”, “Transphobe”, “Islamophobe” and-so-on0) – but the idea that the United Kingdom can stand if the left complete their work of destroying American society, is false.

    The reverse might (might) be true – if the United Kingdom, whose society is also in terrible decline, fell (Heaven Forbid! and-so-on) the United States might be able to carry on – as it has vast natural resources, and farmland and-so-on (it is the government and the Cantillon Effect Corporations, who are joined at the hip with government – via the Federal Reserve, that prevent Americans prospering as they used to), but the idea that the United Kingdom could just carry on if America falls, is quite wrong.

  • Paul Marks

    There is a big move in the American financial media to try and “talk up” Disney – it seems that Disney is as important to them as Devil Worship is important to Pfizer (“Sponsored By Pfizer”) and pushing various sexual practices on to five year old boys is important to schools in both the United States and the United Kingdom (the teachers “do not feel safe” if a mother protests about this – Classic Frankfurt School Herbert Marcuse attack “her Freedom of Speech HARMS us”). It will be interesting to see if endless “talking up”, and endless subsidies, save Disney.

    Disney is not going to stop pushing far left indoctrination of the young – Bob Igor (a Duke of Orleans type – “rob and kill the evil rich straight white men – apart from me”) has made that very clear, so the question is will society reject Disney (will it go bust – in spite of Congress giving it endless copyright extensions on the stuff a man Disney Corporation hates-and-despises, Walt Disney, created) or will Disney, and the other vast Cantillon Effect corporations and government institutions, succeed in destroying what is left of American society?

    Make no mistake – the same forces that are trying to destroy what is left of American society are also trying to destroy what is left of British society, and if America falls Britain will also fall.

  • John

    Similarly, the Northern states in the US forced the issue, fought a Civil War, and are now held to be the people to blame for slavery by one and all.

    I have only just read this thread and was interested in Kirk’s comment from yesterday. I was unaware that any blame has been directed at the Northern states although in typical self-flagellating style they and their west coast counterparts are to the fore about paying reparations (which will turn out to be with other peoples money via federal bailouts thinly disguised in future laughably named spending bills).

    I am convinced that there is still plenty of historic venom blaming the southern states as evidenced by the Sherman-like determination to remove statues and rename streets/parks/schools/monuments etc.

  • Paul Marks

    “America’s race war has no place in the U.K.” – even the title of the piece is despicable.

  • Sigivald

    The US is also five and a half times as large as the UK, so maybe adjust for that.

    (Also why are Scotland and N. Ireland left out of “the UK”?)

    He’s not ENTIRELY wrong – the US simply has pockets of people who are far more violent than Britons (or Swedes etc.). (Pretending that the national rate means the violence is evenly spread is an easy mistake to fall into, but it IS false, just as pretending it’s specifically racial; the “borderer vs. cavalier” explanation makes a lot more sense, culturally, than anything more trivially expressible.)

  • JJM

    Here in Canada our America-envy (“If the US can have slavery issues, so can we!“) has led us to concoct much nonsense lately.

    Never mind that – as Zerren Yeoville noted above – slavery was over across the British Empire in 1833 or that Canada has never had a black population on the scale of the US.

    By 1901, there were 17,500 blacks in Canada. That was 0.3 percent of our population back then. Today they account for just over four percent of the population and of that four percent, roughly half are of Caribbean ancestry. In other words, they came to Canada as immigrants from the late 1970s on. The rest are descendants of either Loyalists (i.e., blacks who fought for the Crown in the American Revolution) or slaves who found freedom in British North America, largely by way of the Underground Railroad.

    There is just no significant history of slavery nor the black demographics in Canada to match the US.

    But hey, why let the facts get in the way?

  • Thomas Fairfax

    “America’s race war has no place in the U.K.” – even the title of the piece is despicable.

    No, I’d say that is quite correct.

  • Kirk

    Sigivald said:

    He’s not ENTIRELY wrong – the US simply has pockets of people who are far more violent than Britons (or Swedes etc.). (Pretending that the national rate means the violence is evenly spread is an easy mistake to fall into, but it IS false, just as pretending it’s specifically racial; the “borderer vs. cavalier” explanation makes a lot more sense, culturally, than anything more trivially expressible.)

    It ain’t the culture. Or, at least, it ain’t just the culture.

    Racism as expressed by skin color and other easily distinguished external characteristics is only mostly wrong. Like, some unknown amount, probably in the ninety-percent range. You can’t go by external appearances when predicting behavior. Well, not entirely…

    There’s a however, comma lurking there: Heritable behavioral traits and actual behaviors. If you think those don’t exist, from whatever causative factor, then you just haven’t observed your fellow man enough. I can reel you out anecdotal evidence from things I’ve seen over the course of my life that convince me that there is some component of human behavior that is both heritable and due to genes and/or epigenetic factors, along with another unknown component that’s likely due to environment. I rather suspect that there’s enough there to make one question one’s actual free will, were we to ever tease it out.

    You see the same behaviors turning up across generations. Good God above, I see the same tics, mannerisms, and gestures in one of my nephews that my long-dead stepfather displayed. Said nephew being born over a decade after his death, so not a damn chance of him copying things he saw his grandfather do. There are cases I’ve witnessed where generation-spanning criminalities occurred that simply can’t be explained otherwise than there being something actually heritable in the blood and bone versus the simplistic explanation of “environment”, because the environment simply wasn’t the same.

    One of those had a really unfortunate situation arise out of it, namely incestuous pedophilia. Young boy, still in diapers, taken away from a family where his older sisters were being molested on the regular by his dad and grandfather. He was removed, adopted out, never had any contact past infancy with his birth family whatsoever. He became an abuser of his own daughter, got caught, committed suicide. In the aftermath, his wife and adoptive family decided they had to know, and got a court order to break the secrecy on the adoption, to find what they discovered to be a multi-generational problem in his birth family. It was a weird one, because you’d think that they’d have a bunch of other cases elsewhere in that family tree, but they didn’t. Apparently, whatever causative factor was in that lineage only expressed itself in that one line of the family. Who, coincidentally, both did and did not look anything like the rest of their relatives in a large, prosperous Midwestern extended farm family.

    So, there’s something going on there. Of that, I’m certain. How much? That’s what is questionable. I don’t think it is predestination, it’s more a predisposition affair for most people.

    Given that, I don’t think it’s too far a stretch to say that you have cultural effects working outwards from these traits in a population. The stereotypes are there, and if you stop and think about it, there are probably environmental influences feeding back into it all; the continuities you find around the world between widely distanced cultures that happen to share the same sort of environment and social niche? Yeah; that’s got to have an effect.

    From here, you can easily get to why we so easily conflate things to become racist. Even though you’re dealing with two entirely different cultural/behavioral patterns engrained into the genes, if one population looks like another on the surface, then you’re probably going to immediately jump to “One of these things looks just like the other…”, and Hey! Presto!! you think you’ve got grounds for being a racist asshole based on their appearance.

    The real deal is, however, that there are subtle behavioral things that you should be looking for, instead of keying in on the surface things like skin color.

    Although… If you really don’t want to start sounding like one of those bad old bigots that based it all on how people looked? Don’t start looking at what happens to domesticated animals, because there are a lot of easy “tells” with regards to things like floppy ears, colors that don’t occur in nature, and a whole host of other external signs that can tell you a lot about a specific animal’s state of domestication. What’s worse is that they’re consistent enough across species that you can kinda begin to guess where the hell the “domestication” behavioral genes are, in relation to things like coloration and other body expressions.

    Which all adds up to the unfortunate realization that there probably is something to the idea of “Racism”, but it ain’t really based on the things we’ve lazily defaulted to because they’re obvious as all hell.

  • Paul Marks

    Thomas Fairfax “No, I’d say that it is quite correct”.

    In which case you support the bare faced lies in the article – such as the absurd supportive claims about that grifter Al Sharpton.

    If you support the lies about the United States, you have no standing (none) for resisting the BLM and general “Woke” lies about the United Kingdom.

    A pox on all those who support such a line of conduct.

    This disgusting effort to throw America under the bus in order to save ourselves (“please do not hit me – I am not a racist, not like those nasty Americans – you are quite right to hit them, just do not hit me here in Britain”) will fail, and deserves to fail.

    The one virtue of the article is that it shows who, in our ranks, are not to be trusted – for they are the people who support the article.

    It is the same for “sexism”, “homophobia”, “Transphobia”, “Islamophobia” and-so-on – those who support the lies about American society, in a vile effort to save themselves here in Britain, do not deserve to survive.

    Even if they could survive (and they could not – because if America is destroyed, Britain will also also be destroyed), they do not deserve to survive.

  • Paul Marks

    By the way – anyone who claims that there is some sort of racist campaign by police officers against black people in the United States is a liar.

  • Mark

    @Paul Marks

    Historically, the US has a race problem. That seems to have become an obsession recently. We do not want to import US race rhetoric and all the rest of it here.

    I don’t know exactly how we can “support” the US with a problem so fundamental to it’s very makeup (that is not a facetious question), but I’m sure importing all the BLM hatred and hypocrisy isn’t it.

    The US killed 600000 of it’s own citizens to end slavery, but a hundred years later the shining house on the hill still had room verboten to a black man.

    However unpleasant that might be, it was true.

  • Paul Marks

    Mark – the “Woke” Marxist attack on the United States and the “Woke” Marxist attack on the United Kingdom is the same.

    The country that “has a race problem” elected a black man as President in 2008 and 2012 (indeed, if anything, people voted for this person because he was black), and the main threat to black men – is other black men (just like in the United Kingdom).

    Your accepting of the BLM lies about the United States is very unfortunate Sir.

    As for your implied claim that the attack is being “imported from” America – that is not true either, there were plenty of Marxist “intellectuals” at work in Germany (as I often say “it was Frankfurt Germany – not Frankfurt Kentucky”) France (including the supposedly “non Marxists” deconstructionists and post modernists – who were riddled with Marxist assumptions) and other Western nations.

    Including the United Kingdom – yes Mark the United Kingdom. It might interest you to know that the Home Office was under the influence of Marxist academics (including Lisa Nandy’s father) pushing this racial stuff (and the sexual stuff) at least as far back as the 1970s.

    So Sir you are bit in error on this subject – the attack has nothing (nothing whatever) to do with some special sins of the United States, and is everything to do with a general “Critical Theory” attack on the “Capitalist” West.

  • Paul Marks

    As for the pre Marxist origins of this – they go back to Rousseau, at the very least. Edmund Burke was the first “counter punch” “culture warrior” defending society against the Rousseau inspired leftist attack.

    None of this is anything to do with race-as-such (“social construct” or not) – indeed what used to be called “sexual perversions” are at least as important to the BLM founders as skin colour is. The left would always choose a fellow leftist who had “white” skin, over a conservative with black skin. Indeed the left celebrate the deaths of black conservatives – and, from their point of view, it is logical for them to do so.

    As for anyone who claims that any of this is really about the United States in particular, rather than an effort to destroy traditional society (civilisation) in general, such people are, at best, radically mistaken.

    It is not, and has never been, about the United States-as-such – other than that the left (correctly) understand that if they destroy the United States the rest of the West (including the United Kingdom) will fall.

    The sexual stuff (and-so-on) is not really about sexual-stuff-as-such (or whatever) either – it is all just a means-to-an-end, a weapon to use to destroy society.

    The destruction of society is, and has always been, the objective – the goal.

    Is the origin of it all Satanic? Well some people believe in the supernatural – and some people most certainly do not believe in it.

    I would point out that there is plenty of ordinary human evil in all of us – the left (in the sense of the above – BLM, Antifa, Frankfurt School, Robespierre and the Jacobins, Rousseau…) may simply be people who choose to embrace (rather than resist) that ordinary human evil that all of us face (including in ourselves) every day of our lives.

    Even if Satan does exist – we still all have Free Will (moral agency), for example that rather farcical event at the “Grammys” (a rather cut price version of Satanism – “Sponsored by Pfizer”) – no one had to go that event, they could have made a choice not to, and no one had to clap – they could have walked out, or laughed at the absurdity of it all.

    All it takes is courage.

    Courage, moral courage, is what takes – to say NO and stick to NO.

  • NickM

    One of the great oddities about the election of Obama was quite how gushing the BBC was about the US voting for a black man. It was farcical. Oddly enough I don’t recall anyone remarking on Obama’s other first. First Hawaiian Prez. That is quite how bent out of shape this whole thing is.

    I have dual UK/Eire citizenship. I live in England (I think I’ve spent about a week in the Irish Republic total) and so I’m kinda morally expected to be on the hook for “reperations” for the evils of the British Empire? How the fuck does that work? My ancestors were “exploited” and whatevered by the “evil Brits” for way longer than any African or Asian. Can we please just let it all lie? Folks from my grand-parents generation were killed by Germans. Do I require cash from some random guy in Mainz? Am I owed that? There are black folks in the USA who are billionaires. Are they gonna get cash because their ancestor was shipped as a slave to pick cotton 250 years ago? The UK has a PM of Indian origin who is rich as Croesus. Is he gonna get a few bob because of the years of the Raj? Can I get cash from Denmark because some horny-hatted guy once raped my whatever ancestor in what is now County Donegal like a thousand years ago? I have certain genetic features which strongly hint at being a bit Viking so there is a very good chance that happened. Am I off to Copenhagen to demand my reverse Danegeld?

    Unless some sort of idea of something like a statute of limitations is applied this could go back to Ugg hitting Ogg with a mammoth femur.

  • NickM

    I have travelled quite a bit in the USA – mainly the SE. One thing Brits struggle with is the idea that Abe Lincoln was a Republican. But he freed the slaves so that is unpossible! It doesn’t fit with the narrative. That it is true and the Democrats were largely the party of segregation for many years also doesn’t fit the narrative. What Obama was about as far as the UK media were concerned was that the first black prez had to be a democrat. Just had to because that’s how it goes, right? I suspect, if he’d stood there is a damn good chance Colin Powell could have been prez. There was a fair chance for Condi Rice as well. As far as the left are concerned this is unthinkable. A black Republican president! A black female Republican president!!! These things just don’t fit with how the left think the Universe is ordered so even though the first came to pass and the second two very nearly did (especially Powell). I do recall some ludicrous “Uncle Tom” stuff about Powell. Gimme strength! The guy rose to the very top of the US military and then Sec. State.

  • Mark

    @Paul Marks

    Hmm, lot of word you’re putting in my mouth there, but if its all the same I’ll use my own

    “Race” in America I suppose is like “class” here. The US probably doesn’t actually do it more than anybody else, but fuck me do they like to talk about it!

    That said, there is an insidious root to race in America and whatever the reality today, the stick is still there. BLM have weighted that stick and covered it in shit dripping barbed wire, but they didn’t make it (and they’re not the only ones who’ve ever used it of course and I doubt thy will be the last).

    If you think this view means I support BLM, well you are free to your opinions.

    As for “throwing under the bus”, after the Markle creatures charming little pearl harbour (which was clearly and squarely intended for US audiences) we are part of this racial war whether we like it or not, and it will have a distinct US tint (pun intended).

    Can’t say I was impressed to see our basic constitutional arrangements being rubbished so this person could whore round the US and the world for money. Depressingly I don’t believe it was just the usual race shills joining in either. Well there is more of this shite to come and I will be watching the coronation with interest to see how this particular bad smell is going to turn up to try and exploit it.

    Not expecting a great deal of support from the US media to be honest (hope I’m wrong) and if they do tire of her, I doubt it will be out of any sympathy for this country or its institutions, or anything we can do here.

  • bobby b

    We have one real race war ongoing in the US. It black versus brown. (And it’s a nasty one, BTW.)

    What the rest is, is a culture war, with one side constantly attempting to convince blacks that it really IS a race war, because that’s how they can boost their own personal political power. But it’s mostly not a race war. Heck, the vast majority of people who are actively, militantly “on the black side” in this culture war are white.

  • JJM

    “Oddly enough I don’t recall anyone remarking on Obama’s other first. First Hawaiian Prez.”

    Or First Kenyan-American Prez, for that matter.

  • Snorri Godhi

    In his last comment, bobby gets closest to the kernel (in my arrogant opinion).

    The way i see it, talk of “race war” is misdirection.

    All blather about “white privilege” is, at its core, nothing more than an attempt at legitimizing the oppression of the White middle+working classes by the WHITE American ruling class.

    Non-Whites are incidental in this game: they are nothing more than mascots (to use Thomas Sowell’s term). Whether they benefit or not, is of no interest to the White American ruling class.

    Of course, people like Sharpton and Obama did benefit, but still, that is only incidental in the grand scheme of things.

  • Steven R

    It’s kind of ironic that race relations were going pretty good at the end of W’s second term, America elects a black man to the White House, and suddenly race relations hit the lowest point since the end of Jim Crow. But when you bring up blacks in the WH, Congress, SCOTUS, CEOs, doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, media darlings, etc., those don’t count as much as some dirtbag getting chalked off courtesy of a Neighborhood Watch member who was being attacked by said dirtbag.

  • Kirk

    bobby b has it absolutely right, and the end state is likely going to be the same place it wound up across Central America: No blacks. The animosity is that bad, and that deep; the actual hispanic component isn’t the problem, either: It’s the Indio part of the equation, and they don’t forget that the Spanish brought in the Africans to be overseers and all that in the mines and fincas.

    I did not know about this, and only learned it from a Mexican guy who was familiar with the folklore and the documented history. I did what I could to verify it, and I can’t really refute squat. It’s also observationally true, in that there’s a deep, deep well of animosity from Mexicans for blacks, and the closer that their originating population was to the mines and fincas, the deeper it is.

    It’s actually kinda odd, too: The actual “bad guys” were the Spanish conquistadores and their successors, yet the black overseers they brought in were the ones who got the historical animus and blame for it all. Most of the Indio Mexicans I’ve run into have little to no animosity against the majority of the Spanish-descent types, or any of the other foreigners that came in afterwards. Blacks? Loathed and hated, even though most of them can’t tell you why.

  • Kirk

    JJM said:

    “Oddly enough I don’t recall anyone remarking on Obama’s other first. First Hawaiian Prez.”

    Or First Kenyan-American Prez, for that matter.

    They also studiously ignore his white mother, and the white family of bankers that actually raised him after his father abandoned his ass.

    Any American black saying that Obama is “one of his kind” is a naive and simplistic fool. Obama’s actual ancestry traces back to Afro-Arab slave traders, more than anything else. And, like his ancestors, he did a really good job of selling American blacks down the river…

  • bobby b

    “The actual “bad guys” were the Spanish conquistadores and their successors, yet the black overseers they brought in were the ones who got the historical animus and blame for it all.”

    Actually, the conquistadores get some pretty good press in Mexican culture. They rescued the Mexicans from the killer Aztec barbarians – with their millions of sacrifices to the gods and whatnot. So modern day Mexicans don’t consider them to be conquerors – they’re rescuers. The conquistadores won mostly because they had hundreds of thousands of indigenous allies.

    (It’s much like how some Ukrainians appreciate Nazi culture: not because the Nazi’s were so nice, but because the Nazis rescued them from Russian genocide.)

    I spent my first eight or so years living in Compton, a part of south Los Angeles. When I was there – dang, almost 60 years ago – it was mostly Mexican. In the 60’s, the blacks moved in and very forcibly changed it to a black town. (Remember NWA’s “Straight Outa Compton”?) Recently, in the 90’s, the Mexicans – reinforced with boosted migration, and enforced by the arriving Mexican gangs – just as forcibly took Compton back. You walk carefully in Compton today if you’re black.

    It’s been this type of war all over the states for a decade. The Mexicans really don’t like black people.

  • Mark

    @Kirk, Bobby B

    Fascinating, not something I was much aware of.

    Here all we get is black, black, black. The rewriting of British history is the shoehorning of blacks into pretty well everything. No other minority – Indian, Chinese whatever, seems to get a look in.

    This seems to be a mirror of the 1619 project, although the cover fantasy seems to be “decolonialism” (and believe me, there seems to be nothing that can’t be “decolonised”). If you want to be totally bewildered (and if you haven’t already), just search in “100 great black britons”

    If you don’t mind me asking gentlemen, from the US perspective, as the template clearly is being applied here, why from that perspective it always seems to be blacks uber alles. There is the obvious slavery slant of course, but there has to be more to it than that.

    And referring to that certain Z lister (who does seem to parallel the sainted, Barry O’bama – although I don’t think she’s claimed any Irish yet – and if she does that will be a potent indicator of political ambition – in some ways) it is the black claim and its ability to trump any amount of privilege, and cover any amount of gruesome hypocrisy with the uberbalm of victimhood.

    I’m not sure who, in a British context can play the role of Hispanics in all this, but many years ago I did know a muslim guy quite well (I’m not sure how devout he actually was). And one day a business trip took us by car up the A23 into London (spit) which traversed an area with a significant black population. I must say, his disdain (putting it mildly) was quite an eye opener.

    Muslims are the other favoured minority here, and in the great “all who aren’t white are just one big group hug” narrative, this aspect is not very likely to be aired.

    I don’t know where exactly this all will end, but it won’t be where those who are doing the manipulating (sorry, who think they are manipulating. All they are doing – all they’ve ever done – is to destroy and despoil) seem to think. It never does

  • Kirk


    As a group, I fear that blacks ain’t all that smart. They never seem to recognize when they’re being played by their “benefactors”. Look at the very well-publicized statements of one Margaret Sanger RE: abortion, and then try to explain why so many blacks are on-board with Planned Parenthood.

    Also, note that the actual percentage of blacks in the US population would be a hell of a lot closer to 20% today than the actual 12% or so that it is, absent the inimical and racially imbalanced efforts of Planned Parenthood, which enjoys a hell of a lot of support across black America. It’s like they are willing participants in their own ethnic cleansing, or something…

    The number of things that blacks do against their own self-interest are mind-boggling. They insist, simultaneously, that there be no law enforcement, and demand that ‘something be done” about the excesses of their own behaviors. They want no drugs in their communities, and no incarceration of actual black criminals dealing drugs, or performing the various transgressions of drug users against their own.

    As a group, their behavior is schizophrenic and delusional; “Fight drug sales and use/Don’t put anyone in jail…” How the hell is that supposed to work? “Fight crime/Don’t snitch”?

    End of the day, black America is going to be the author of its own destruction, much as Africans elsewhere consistently act against their own self-interest. Look at what’s going on in South Africa, and what happened in the former Rhodesia; how many in Zimbabwe ruefully acknowledge that things were better for them under the bad old white supremacists? At least, say many, they ate.

    As a group, many Africans, particularly sub-Saharan groups, are entirely unused to civilization and entirely ill-adapted to it. I’d speculate that because of that, they haven’t gone through the “domestication” that the other populations which are more used to the civilized lifestyle have. You can see the difference when you look at the levels of cooperation and so forth you find in the longest-civilized ethnogroups in Asia; nothing of the kind exists in Africa, outside of regions surrounding Nigeria, where they had civilization for a long damn time. Even the Africans from Nigeria regard their less-sophisticated cousins with considerable suspicion, describing them in ways you’d expect to hear from the worst and most virulent white racists. Swear to God, the closest I ever came to being in a race-riot in the US Army was when a couple of Nigerians expressed their actual, honest opinions about American blacks in a “racial sensing session” meant to lower tensions. Didn’t work, in the least: One of those Nigerians had to go into what amounted to protective custody until his previously-scheduled end-of-service outprocessing was complete. I think a lot of what he had to say was triggered because he’d simply had enough of the BS, and knew he was getting out. So, when asked? He unloaded a lot of unpleasant truths that many didn’t want to hear. I wish I could describe the expression on the face of the black “Equal Opportunity NCO” that triggered the whole thing, asking that Nigerian for his opinion on the whole issue of “black oppression” in the Army was. Dear God, the image belongs in the dictionary as part of the entry on “cognitive dissonance”. Poor bastard was speechless.

  • Thomas Fairfax

    @Paul Marks

    Hmm, lot of word you’re putting in my mouth there, but if its all the same I’ll use my own

    He does that a lot 😀

  • Mark


    Much obliged and yes, it’s quite difficult not to come to that conclusion.

    Cultural Marxism is all very well and I do like to believe that a properly homogeneous society would be able to recover from its ravages. But if the Balkanization these degenerates seem determined to bring about actually occurs, then it’s difficult to see how any recovery could come about.

    Cultural Marxism is not the only agenda, and those thinking that the various minorities are their pets to be used, need to understand that those minorities will have their own agendas and very likely view these white liberals in pretty much the same way.

    @Thomas Fairfax

    I had noticed! 👀

  • Paul Marks

    There is no “war” on black people in the United States – there is no campaign by police officers to kill black people because of the colour of their skin, there is no “institutional” or “structural” racism-sexism-transphbobia-Ialamophobia.

    The title of the article is based upon a lie.

  • Mark

    @Paul Marks

    Indeed, but how do you convince them?

  • Kirk

    @Mark, et al.,

    I think the whole thing boils down to an exercise in adaptation, when you get down to it. The Europeans went through this “adaptation to civilization” crisis back around the time of the Romans. For some, anyway… Others, it took longer.

    I remain convinced that there is some not-so-slight contribution to human behavior made by biology. How it works, what the extent actually is? No earthly idea, but there is objectively something going on, there.

    And, it’s not a particular virtue, either, being adapted to civilization. It amounts to domestication of feral humanity, and I’ll leave it as an exercise for the moralizing whether or not domestication is a good thing. Rosseau was surely full of it; there are no “noble savages”. Everywhere you see primitive humanity, you see man in a state of nature, and it ain’t pretty.

    The problem is that the Sahara served as a barrier long enough to keep the majority of sub-Saharan African populations isolated and living in mostly primitive states. This meant that they were entirely unprepared to deal with large masses of organized people who were more advanced than they were, and here we are.

    Saying that the primitive human is feral isn’t necessarily a value judgment or an insult; it’s merely an observation, one that we’d be wise to take simply at face value. Who is to say that the state of primitive man is inferior or superior? It’s the environment that does that, for us: If you’re successful, then you’re providing a better answer to that environment. That’s all that is going on, and if you’re not successful, well… Do the math.

    The problem is that the African populations did not go through the long winnowing and culling process that the European ones did, similar to the difference between the Plains Indians here in the US compared to the settled peoples of the fringes and Central America. The low level of social organization and so forth required in that environment resulted in less cooperative and adaptable societies when the exponentially better organized and more technically advanced Euros showed up as competitors. There’s no virtue, either way: One just makes better use of the resources than the other, outcompeting the population the same way that the Barred Owl is better at owling than the Spotted Owl is, here in the Northwest US. There’s no particular virtue to either species; it’s just that one is supplanting the other due to a better ability to adapt.

    This is why racism is so damn stupid; sure, you can be proud of your ability to provide superior life-choices in the environment that your ancestors provided you, but how well would you do should we decide to drop your ass off in the primitive savanna? How well-adapted are you to that specific environment, and how likely are you to survive? And, does your likely death mean you’re an intrinsically inferior creature?

    I don’t see American blacks as being at all inferior; I just see them as ill-adapted to the environment they find themselves in, and because of that, they’re not doing as well as other, better-adapted demographics are doing.

    I think we can posit the existence of a set of likely genetic characteristic clusters that could be termed “High C” components, “C” standing for “cooperation”. We culled everyone without those characteristics from a lot of European demographics a long time ago, and the sad fact is, those components are still comparatively rare among the black population.

    I suspect that there are also entirely epigenetic factors involved, as well. How else do you explain the long darkness along the Border regions of England and Scotland, which were mostly pretty placid and peaceful up until the famines of the 14th and 16th Centuries, and in a state of utter lawlessness and depravity from then until the 18th and 19th. Today, the people in that region are genetically mostly indistinguishable from their feral ancestors, but they’re some of the most peaceful and law-abiding types in the UK. One might infer that there is some set of behavioral controls that become affected by hard times, resulting in an ongoing issue as those experiences resonate down the generations.

    At least, that’s how it looks if you read enough history and evolutionary biology. Something genetic/epigenetic is going on, and ignoring that fact is just plain stupid. It’s also pretty damn stupid to assign any particular virtue to a complex of behavioral patterns; about all you can do is look at what’s successful in a particular environment and accept it for what it is: Successful.

    It’s like in the Balkans, where the internecine back-and-forth of tit-and-tat feuding has been going on since before the fall of the Roman Empire. I grew up around those cultures, and the thing that struck me about it was the fact that while the feuding seemed insane to me, the sad fact is, anyone who didn’t take that sort of thing into account, living their daily lives? They’d likely wind up the way a lot of folks did during the dissolution of Yugoslavia: Dead at the hands of people who did. The feuding and grudge-holding is a damn survival mechanism, unfortunately. People of “good will” who don’t partake? There’s a word for them: Victims.

  • Snorri Godhi

    I, too, found of great interest what Kirk and Bobby wrote about the history of conflict between Blacks and Central American natives.

    I hope that i won’t be suspected of accusing them of bullshitting if i raise some doubts.

    WRT Kirk’s remark that Blacks were employed as slave-drivers: my understanding was that Blacks were being imported because the natives were dropping like flies from imported diseases. But, coming to think of it, there are way more people of native descent than of Black descent in Central America, so there must have been very few imports over there.

    WRT Bobby’s remark about gratitude of the natives to the Spaniards: I can well believe that the natives were treated better by the Spaniards than by the Aztecs — but don’t they resent the introduction of European diseases?

  • bobby b

    “WRT Bobby’s remark about gratitude of the natives to the Spaniards: I can well believe that the natives were treated better by the Spaniards than by the Aztecs — but don’t they resent the introduction of European diseases?”

    I think that, in academia and in other places where grievance is treasured, sure, that’s a point to be made and is being made.

    But I think you give too much credit for a national social awareness (or concern) with such things to most of the people. There’s a greater gulf between Mexican Universities and the bulk of the Mexican people than there is between the same groups in our countries.

    ” . . . Central American natives.”

    Just to be clear, I’m speaking almost exclusively of Mexicans, not the isthmus-types or further out. I really don’t know where the non-Mexicans come down in all of this.

  • Kirk

    @Snorri Godhi, who said:

    WRT Kirk’s remark that Blacks were employed as slave-drivers: my understanding was that Blacks were being imported because the natives were dropping like flies from imported diseases. But, coming to think of it, there are way more people of native descent than of Black descent in Central America, so there must have been very few imports over there.

    The dropping like flies thing was more on the Irish in the Caribbean. The Americas proper? Not so much.

    They’ve documented roughly 200,000 African slaves imported officially into Mexico. I don’t doubt but that that number was probably actually somewhat higher, as there was a trade in slaves from the Caribbean to Mexico proper. In the 2020 census, there were some 2,576,213 Afro-Mexicans, about 2.04% of the total population. Some 896,829 of that number also identify as natives, per the 2015 census.

    The mystifying thing is, why so few Afro-Mexicans? You look at the numbers, and it’s pretty clear something happened to change the outcome for them. North America got 388,000; Mexico 200,000. By 2020, there are something like 12.5% of the population in North America identifying as Afro-American; a little over 2% in Mexico.

    The answer I got was that the majority of Mexicans really dislike blacks, and that they’re deliberately erased from public life. This supposedly (some historical documentation is available, but most of it is word-of-mouth from Mexicans I know) is due to their heritage as slave overseers in the mines and so forth. As well, where escaped slaves were often able to find refuge with North American Indian tribes, the opposite was true; the natives in Mexico often just killed them out of hand, or returned them.

    It’s amazing what you can find out when you just ask questions. The folklore is ugly, in this area. I don’t think there’s going to be any peace or common cause made between the groups; if anything, the Mexicans regard the blacks as lazy parasites, and I literally heard one of the Mexican guys I had working for me tell some of the blacks that they’d better get their sh*t together, because when the Mexicans were in charge, the gravy train was going to derail: No more welfare, no more guilt, ‘cos the Mexicans remember the blacks as the trusties in the mines and fincas… “I don’t owe you a damn thing…” was the way he phrased it.

    There’s going to be one hell of a show if there ever is a race-war here in the US. You go asking Latino America to pay reparations to the blacks? LOL… Dude, that is not going to play well in the barrio. On that count alone, I think the black community would be wise to just forget the entire idea, because about the time they try that crap out for size, there are going to be a whole lot fewer blacks to be eligible for those reparations.

    Of course, I don’t know how that will work out; how will Latinos react to the possibility that they could sign up for reparations, because brown? Who knows?

    Whole thing has serious potential for just blowing up, as in a Yugoslavia-style devolution only uglier. On the other hand, I’ve yet to see a situation historically where a 12.5% tail managed to wag an 87.5% dog, either.

  • Steven R

    It’s not a 87.5% dog though. It’s closer to about 60% white right now and will be under 50% around 2050. By the end of the century there will be about 500 million people in the US with about 40% white, 35% Hispanic, 15% black, and the remaining 10% Asian, Indian (feather, not dot), Islander, and other. That’s at the current projection rate, of course, and doesn’t include importing even more people from south of the border if/when amnesty is announced and the flood gates are opened.

    Despite the untold trillions we’ve pumped into welfare programs, grants to the inner cities, college programs, workfare programs, and God only knows what else I figure the next time the Dems have both houses of Congress and the WH, we’re getting reparation at the federal level, and we’re already having states like CA doing studies for it, especially since adding to national and state debt has no real downside (aside from inflation, higher taxes for the middle class to shoulder, job loss, and minor quibbles like those). They have to do it before enough Hispanics and Asians realize they do have enough numbers to have real political clout.

  • Paul Marks

    Mark – I think the “Woke” Marxists (whatever their skin colour) already know the truth, they are not arguing in good faith, they are lying.

    As for the past – in New York and other Northern cities used to have advertisements for coachmen and so on “Coloured Man preferred” – but if you were Irish “no Irish need apply”.

    It is true that some hotels and so on kept out blacks – but the same hotels kept out Jews. This was made illegal in New York State in the late 1940s.

    As late as the 1950s “black society” in such cities as Philadelphia was conservative – one of the leading black newspapers even employed Isobel Patterson.

    But then in the 1960s (indeed the decline may have started a little bit before) everything just fell apart – sometimes quite suddenly. The brother of Thomas Sowell went out into the streets begging people not to loot and burn business enterprises – they just laughed at him (he was lucky they did not kill him) and the area (like so many areas of American inner cities) never really recovered.

    Detroit had the highest income black community on planet Earth before the riot of 1967 – and the Hollywood film about this riot is (like so many Hollywood films) a tissue of lies.

    What America is seeing now is the collapse of white families, church going and so on, the social and cultural collapse of black people in the past is now happening to white communities. Thus showing that it was NOT about genetics.

    Civilisation is not dying a natural death – it is being murdered. A lot of people have worked very hard indeed to produce the nightmare that is now unfolding.

    The education system and the media (including the entertainment media) is supposed to help transmit culture from one generation to the next – it is now (and has been for a long time now) being used to undermine and destroy culture, to undermine and destroy society.

    And government programs have deliberately created perverse incentives – I say “deliberately” because such Marxist activists as the husband and wife team Cloward and Piven (who helped design the “Great Society” programs in the 1960s) made no secret of the fact that they wanted to use government benefits and services to undermine and destroy traditional families and traditional communities. This continues to this day – as we can see by reading the writings of the founders of BLM and so on – indeed also of the academic elite in general.

    Again – the United States and other Western societies are not dying a natural death, they are being murdered.

  • Paul Marks

    The totally understandable and natural error of F.A Hayek (the Austrian School economist) and Milton Friedman (the Chicago School economist) was to assume that the terrible results of government policies are unintended – so, they believed, their task was to the officials and academic experts who design these policies, what the terrible consequences will be. Then, so Hayek and Friedman believed, the officials and academic experts would stop pushing these terrible policies.

    However, in many cases the designers of the policies knew very well well what the terrible consequences would be – this was the intended (not unintended) result.


    The official response would be that out of the ashes of “capitalist” society a wonderful new society would emerge – but, I suspect, the real reason was somewhat different in some cases.

    I suspect that ordinary human evil (which is always with us) was, sometimes, the motivating factor for the terrible policies that have undermined (and are continuing to destroy) Western societies.

    I think it was in 1912 that Harold Prichard (Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford) wrote the article (in Mind) “Is Moral Philosophy based upon a mistake?”

    The argument being that sometimes (not all the time – sometimes) evil is not a “knowledge problem” – but that people, sometimes, know very well the terrible results of what they choose to do – and choose to do these things because (yes because) of the terrible results.

    For example, when Herbert Marcuse arrived in California he was (like Sauron arriving in Numenor) astounded – the civilisation he found was greatly in advance of what he had imagined, but his spirit was turned more (yes more) to hatred and the desire to defile and destroy.

    Sadly such people are not as uncommon as we might hope – indeed we all have something of this in us, which we must try and resist.

  • Snorri Godhi


    There’s a greater gulf between Mexican Universities and the bulk of the Mexican people than there is between the same groups in our countries.


  • Snorri Godhi

    I think the “Woke” Marxists (whatever their skin colour) already know the truth, they are not arguing in good faith, they are lying.

    Paul, you just fail to appreciate the extent of brain damage that the food they peddle in university cafeterias can do!

  • Kirk

    @Steven R,

    What are you talking about? With the way they keep moving the goalposts on just what qualifies as “white”, we’ll be talking probably 10% identifying as black (foolishly…) and another 3% saying “mixed race, other”, and the rest will be “white” by default. ‘Cos that’s how the racial spoils system works. Seventy years ago, there would have been an excess of laughter were you to ever suggest that anyone from from anywhere in Asia was white, but that’s the default now: White. Same-same with all the varieties of Hispanic; the whole thing is going to come down to skin tone: If you’re beige or beige-ish, you’ll be counted as part of the white hegemony. Mostly because you’ll be working, paying taxes, and successful.

    In other words, the truly racist have conflated “successful” with “white”.

    The point where it all starts to come to pieces is going to be when they drop the bills for reparations on the majority of those folks who don’t see themselves as responsible for any of it. The Latinos are going to be pissed

    I also seriously doubt we’re ever going to get much above a max of 400 million here in the US. For that to happen, you’d have to turn around all the demographic trends, and that ain’t happening.

  • Paul Marks

    Many of the Frankfurt School “Critical Theory” leftists were highly intelligent – people such as Herbert Marcuse knew that doctrines such as “Repressive Tolerance” (basically that freedom is slavery and slavery is freedom) were nonsense – but they pushed these doctrines anyway.

    And these doctrines, for example that Freedom of Speech “harms historically disadvantaged groups” now dominate almost all institutions – public and private.

    The average activist may not know the doctrines are nonsense – but the people who invented the doctrines certainly did know.

  • Snorri Godhi

    Many of the Frankfurt School “Critical Theory” leftists were highly intelligent

    That doesn’t mean squat: there are lots of highly intelligent people who are insane; Bobby Fischer being perhaps the most blatant example.

    Trust me, Paul: I have eaten at university cafeterias. I know the damage their food can do.

  • Kirk

    I’ll lay this out for all y’all to consider: Intelligence, as conceived of by today’s academics, ain’t at all what they think it is.

    Most of the identifiers we’ve been using for “intelligent” are actually more symptoms of a variety of autism. These people who do well on the tests? They test really, really well, but they actually are not at all that smart in the sense the rest of the world means that word.

    Someone coined a telling phrase, a few years ago: “Educated, yet idiot…”

    That person was on to something; most of what we’ve been identifying as “intelligent” goes back to Benet, and even he had doubts about what he was testing for, not least in terms of that which he could easily test.

    I’m going to propose something unpleasant here, which many will not want to accept at all. Mostly because they’re really invested in their own “intelligence”, which they know they are ‘cos they did really well on those tests themselves. They’re “bought into” the system, which is a sad thing, because it’s an entirely false construct: That which you can test, really isn’t much of an indicator of actual intelligence.

    It’s probably even a mistake to discuss it in terms of “intelligence”, because that word has become freighted with far too much meaning. I think it’s actually a null term, utterly meaningless. The value we assign to someone who does well on an IQ test is falsely arrived at, because it doesn’t really measure a lot of things that should go into the concept we mean to use when we say “intelligent”. The average person says “That guy over there is pretty smart…”, and they mean to imply that that individual functions well, demonstrates wisdom, and has the adaptive intellectual capacity to work in the real world. The academic world says “Intelligent”, and they mean someone does well on the abstract tests, not real life. There is an absolute difference between the two. One that we’ve failed to recognize.

    You can test for a bunch of things in a classroom. You can’t test for common sense; you can’t test for wisdom; you can’t test for the ability to function in a dynamic, shifting set of circumstances rooted in the real world. The products of all this academic testing and academization of things cannot function in the real world; they’re abstractionists trying to function in a world of concrete realities that they often don’t even notice because they’ve learned to substitute belief systems for pragmatic observation and reaction to actual conditions that they don’t even observe because they don’t recognize them as even being a potential possibility. If that sentence seems circular to you, well… You’ve noticed what I just did there.

    Most modern intellectuals are rarefied creatures of exquisite learning and scholarship, nearly all of which is self-referential in the extreme. You don’t make something real to these people until and unless you present it to them in actual academically-approved terms. You can describe objective reality, predict the inevitable consequences of their inadequately reasoned thought, and they’ll still do it. Present it in the proper terms, with the proper conditions? Then, it’s all suddenly real to them.

    The inability that most of these academically-trained and conditioned freaks demonstrate when it comes to being able to pragmatically evaluate information input? That’s a sign of just how badly we’ve skewed the system; if you’re rejecting contrary information delivered to you by means outside your life-experience, then you’ve got a problem. Reality expresses itself not in academic terms, but however it bloody well feels like it wants to. That bucolic bumpkin that’s telling you that your most cherished theories from school aren’t actually correct? Odds are, he might know whereof he speaks; he’s been doing this job for most of his life, and has been observing the whole time. The fact that most academically-trained and indoctrinated assholes out there automatically dismiss what might be termed “tacit knowledge” or “tribal knowledge”? That’s a sign that their valued academic credentials aren’t really worth all that much. A life-long practitioner is likely to have far more actual useful knowledge than any dipshit that went through a course…

    Which is something our vaunted system refuses to recognize, likely because that would call into question the entire shaky edifice we’ve built on top of some super-insecure foundations.

    I do not think that we’ve actually been measuring that which represents “true intelligence”. Intelligence should imply a congruency with the real world; an ability to observe and react pragmatically and with discerning wisdom. Since that can’t be easily tested and quantified in a classroom, guess what? We’ve institutionalized a sort of weaponized autism, elevating people who insist that their belief systems trump reality; who think that their mere words shift the nature of reality, rather than recognizing that words are essentially meaningless in the face of raw fact.

  • Snorri Godhi

    WRT the Frankfurt School specifically:
    I very much doubt that they would have pushed their ideas, if they had known that they would be used to justify antisemitism (afaik they were all Jews) and the oppression of the working class.

    I also find of interest that Theodor Adorno returned to Germany, became one of the earliest victims of cancel culture*, and had the decency of dying of a heart attack, iirc not long after calling the police on the students canceling him.

    Marcuse remained in the US and became the idol of students protesting the Vietnam war.

    Based on this contrast, it seems to me that part of the problem is the Americanization of the Frankfurt School.

    * From wikipedia:

    three women students approached the lectern, bared their breasts and scattered flower petals over [Adorno’s] head.

    Why don’t they do that to me??