(Dwight) Garner is a normal white guy from West Virginia, so I guess he feels he has to say these kind of things to avoid being canceled from his nice job at The New York Times by ambitious underlings.
On the other hand, if Garner is from W. Virginia, then caste-over-race theme may be advantageous to his kinfolk. After all, prioritizing race lumps ALL whites together as ‘privileged’ and ALL blacks as ‘under-privileged’. But if we focus on caste, poor whites in W. Virginia become objects of sympathy while rich blacks get lumped with rich whites as members of the upper caste. Because of the fixation on race, poor West Virginia hillbillies get lumped together with billionaire Jews and white goy oligarchs like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos.
By the way, how do Jews feel about the caste issue? They are the ultra-brahmins of the West, both ‘spiritually’ and financially. They are deemed the Holy Holocaust race/caste, i.e. a historical event sanctifies Jews just for being Jewish. No matter what they do, their crimes are automatically washed clean by Shoah Soap or 'shoap'. They invoke Nazi evil to perpetuate Nazi-like evil against Palestinians and countless other goyim. And because of their great wealth, goy politicians and others flock to them like dogs to their master. Because Jews count as white, they can veil their power and wealth as 'white'; therefore, whites get blamed for Jews having too much. But if American discussion focuses on caste as well as on race, people may become more conscious of the fact that Jews are the uppermost caste among whites, that is if they should be counted as white at all.
Hence, many of her memories involve less-than-electrifying encounters with fellow passengers in first class who give her a funny look when she asks for help lifting her carry-on luggage or the like.
Isn’t she being caste-conscious? Why should she take offense at being mistaken for a flight attendant or airline worker? Why the touchy pride of an elite member of the scholastic class who only handles 'clean' work with ideas? If she is truly against caste-consciousness, she should be PROUD of being mistaken as a member of the Proles or regular working folk. But, she wants others to recognize that she belongs to the master class, the better kind of people. Oh, she’s not the type to handle baggage. That is for the LOWER CASTE losers of society, not for her esteemed self.
Isabel Wilkerson:“Race is a social concept, not a scientific one,” said J. Craig Venter, the geneticist who ran Celera Genomics when the mapping was completed in 2000.
One can argue that race is a social construct in that it has often been misapplied. But, the discipline of genetics, especially with the latest technology, is not a social construct. Geo-genetics or 'geonetics' is real. It’s like, even if alchemy isn’t real, chemistry is real. ‘Race’ can be deemed a social construct insofar as people with insufficient knowledge about genetics in the 19th and early 20th century leapt to broad conclusions, some of which were baseless and even harmful.
But then, the notion of ‘racial equality’ is an even bigger social construct, and it too has done much harm. Indeed, the pretense that Europe should take in tons of black Africans because 'race is merely a social construct' will lead to the tragic Africanization of the continent: Europe will look more and more like Africa. Of course, white 'liberal' ideas about race went from believing that blacks are merely white people with black skin(or same with whites in every way except in skin color and hair texture) to believing blacks are the superior race for being better at sports, funkier in music, and wilder in sex. So, the current welcoming of black Africa into Europe is less about racial equality than about white bedazzlement with blackness.
By the way, if the notion of race is to be rejected, is imperialism now acceptable? If race A invades race B, no one should complain because there’s no such thing as Race A and Race B? The ONLY issue is that some are more privileged than others regardless of the invasion? 'Nation' is a social construct, and so, does that mean any nation can invade any other nation on the basis that "nations are not real"? So, your nation wasn't really invaded by another nation since your nation and the invading nation are both 'social constructs' or falsehoods? So, Palestinians shouldn't complain about Zionist invasion and the great replacement. Jews and Palestinians, what's the difference? It was just one bunch of humans replaced by another bunch of humans. Nothing changed. The only issue is Israel and Occupied Territories have rich and poor. And Jews shouldn't make so much fuss about the Shoah because it wasn't really about Germans killing Jews but humans killing humans. People who think they are German killed people who think they're Jewish. So, Jews shouldn't think in terms of 'they killed us' but 'we killed us' or 'they killed themselves' because Germans and Jews are the same thing.
Nation and Culture are far more social constructs than race is, but people believe in them and, furthermore, people are nothing without memory and myths. This is why nations are important even among the same race, such as Europeans. Or between Chinese and Mongols. Social constructs matter. They shouldn't be confused with scientific categories but people don't live on cold reptilian data alone.
Race has both scientific basis and meaning as social construct. It's an indefinite term with multiple meanings, like the term 'nature'. But there is a definite scientific meaning to it, and to emphasize this, a new term is necessary for the scientific discussion of differences caused by evolution. As race is essentially the product of genetic differences that developed via evolutionary divergences due to geographic separation, maybe 'geonetics'(geo-genetics) or 'geonet' should be considered.
Isabel Wilkerson: Were height the measure for determining race, as arbitrary a measure as any and less arbitrary than some, the Dutch people of the Netherlands would be the same “race” as the Nilote people of South Sudan or the Tutsis of Rwanda. Steve Sailer: No, they would not, because race is about who your ancestors were.
Furthermore, people naturally identify others as ‘my people’ or ‘not my people’ based on combination of facial features, hair texture, and skin tones than height or body size. It’s just the way of human psychology. People don’t categorize human groups by height because it simply isn't natural for human psychology to do so. Same goes for sexual differences. A small woman and big woman both feel as women first and foremost. A big woman doesn’t primarily identify as ‘big person’ alongside a big man. Height is an adjective whereas race and sex are nouns. Race comes first as existence, size follows as characteristic. It’s like there must be canines before there can be sizes of canines. Race and sex are facts, height and size are features. Some dogs may be more comparable in size with wolves but they are still dogs first and foremost. Before we notice the sizes of apples, a feature, they must exist in the first place as a type of fruit, a fact. There are big apples and small apples, but both are apples first and foremost. Same with peaches. People categorize fruits by kind, not size. Consideration of size follows categorization of kind. Apples and peaches are not placed in the same basket based on size.
In reality, there is of course a country where the racial groups are distinguished not by color but by height: Rwanda.
Height is merely one of the differences between Tutsis and Hutus. More significant are facial features. Tutsis have more angular features, Hutus have more round features(and look more typically black-African). Tutsis are Abbots, Hutus are Costellos. While Tutsis are taller than Hutus generally, there are surely Hutus who are taller than Tutsis, just like there are Japanese who are taller than Dutch. But a Tutsi surely sees a short Tutsi with Tutsi facial features as one of his own than feels natural kinship with a tall Hutu.
While Wilkerson is wrong about race, she may be onto something about the future of America.
Much of American History was about race and caste. In the South and even in the North, being white had advantages over being black(or any other race). Race mattered.
But as race becomes less of a factor, caste may come to dominate the debate. New groups are being formed on the basis of intelligence, ability, and connections than on the basis of race. Consider the high rates of intermarriage among Jews and Asians and increasingly among whites. And with 'Affirmative Action' opening many slots for blacks in elite institutions — Harvard is 12% black — and with most white elites being enthusiastic about race-mixing, they may form new elites who are products of high IQ mating with high IQ. Lots of elite white women seem especially hellbent on marrying outside the race or adopting black kids who, even if not the brightest bulbs, will benefit from connections and racial preference. Purely on meritocratic basis, there shouldn't be so many blacks in elite institutions, but Affirmative Action is real and, furthermore, whites and others are so willing to believe that the 'affirmatives' are just as intelligent. There is also the jungle fever factor.
If Hinduism and Jimduism(Jim Crow) developed by trying to prevent race-mixing as much as possible, the new caste in America(and EU) will be created by enthusiasm for race-mixing. Race-mix or not, there will always be the upper-crust, middle crust, and lower-crust. If smart whites, Asians, Jews, Arabs/Muslims, 'Latinos', and blacks mix, they will form a new kind of caste. The only kind of race-mixing that might lead to broader equality is a random one based on lottery, e.g. match high IQ white man with low IQ black woman, match high IQ Latino with low IQ white woman, match high IQ Jewish woman with low IQ Arab, and etc. But race-mixing among the elites is not happening randomly. It's the Ivies mating with Ivies.
Now, Wilkerson seems to be either confused or disingenuous. Her book is ostensibly against caste but ultimately argues for it. Without racial or national identity, there is only one's social position. If you don't matter as a person of race, a patriot of a nation, or member of a culture, the only thing that matters is money and status. It's the only thing that provides meaning and comfort, that is as long as you're high up the ladder. If Wilkerson rejects race as a 'social construct', then she likely rejects other social constructs such as 'nation' and 'culture'. Then, what else is left but success, status, and money? That being the case, how can she make a case against caste when, devoid of things that give people meaning and sense of belonging(such as race, nation, and culture), there is only money and one's socio-economic position? And in a status-conscious world, people will be even more eager to marry smart people and have smart kids. This may lead to more race-mixing among the smart and smarter(among blacks), but the end-result will be more racial stratification. Latin America, unlike India, allowed far more race-mixing, but there is still lots of stratification based on race and caste.
Also, as a person of upper caste favored by the powers-that-be, why would someone like Wilkerson really want to be equal with everyone else? She is feted, favored, and promoted. She is a 'made' person. Better 'made' than maid. Maybe the upper caste should be called the 'mades' as the US is turning into a gangster state. I'm sure she's an admirer of Barack Obama, and what does he represent? High IQ black and High IQ white producing a child favored by ultra-rich Jews who even made him president, one that fixated mostly on globo-homo issues, the pet cause of the super-rich who prefer Gay Day to Mayday. So, Wilkerson's book is really a manifesto in favor of caste. Her only gripe is that not enough blacks are allowed into the upper crust. Her message to Jews and rich whites seem to be, wink wink, "If you don't want people like me to badmouth your wealth and privilege, give us some more." So, paradoxically, Jews and whites should be 'colorblind' and let in more blacks into the upper-crust. "We don't see color, and that's why we are welcoming MORE BLACKS into the club." The layers of deception are truly astounding.
The Truer Narrative of the America Civil War must be…
The South fought both for and against slavery. How could that have been the case? It’s because there are more than one kind of slavery.
In the most obvious sense, the South fought to maintain the system of Social Slavery that kept the black race in bondage(though some blacks gained legal freedom). The agenda of the South was clearly unjust, especially given the founding principles of the American Republic. Many in the South invoked various rationales to justify slavery. Some invoked the Old Testament where even the laws of God allowed for owning people as chattel. Some argued slavery, though hardly ideal, was nevertheless an improvement for blacks who’d only known savagery(and crueler forms of slavery) in the Dark Continent. Others argued that slavery was just a phase that would gradually fade as the Southern economy grew and as blacks became more attuned to the demands of complex civilization. Whatever the merits of such arguments, the fact was slavery as an institution had been introduced to the New World out of greed. And given that the moral basis for America’s independence from the British Empire was liberty and freedom, the argument for slavery soured the spirit of American experiment.
One might argue that the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians was a graver 'sin', but in some ways, black slavery was less excusable. Regardless of whether the ‘genocide’ of Indians was worse or not, the fact was it was ‘necessary’(or a necessary evil). The American Enterprise simply couldn’t have happened without the removal of the native Indians from the ‘fruited plains’. In contrast, blacks were not necessary to create America. True, black labor was, for a time, hugely profitable for the white slave-owners whose economy was intricately linked with the North and Europe. But even without black slave labor, an expanding and developing America would have been possible with white immigration and reproduction. Canada and Australia developed without black labor. Though America would have been slower to develop in the early stages without slavery, its long-term prospects would have been much better. There would have been no horribly destructive Civil War.
Also, if blacks were a net economic gain in the first half of the American experience, they became a net loss thereafter. Also, fear of blacks distorted so much of white culture as well as black culture. If US had no blacks, such fears would never have materialized. Also, white manhood would have been secure and healthier as whites would have dominated all sports and wouldn’t have had to worry about black crime and jungle fever(and the attendant cuckery among white men reduced to 'white boys'). So, in the larger scale of things, the short-term greed of relying on black slave labor proved to be America’s biggest mistake and undoing... just like Europe now faces the greatest threat to its existence not from Muslims but from black Africans. (But people prefer to blame Islam and Muslims that aren’t deemed as sacred as blacks[and homos] in Western PC that is controlled by Jews.)
Also, it was bound to linger as a moral stain, paradoxically because most modern people are amnesiac. Now, if people's memories are so poor, wouldn’t they know less about the past and be less burdened with historical ‘guilt’? Yes, IF people know NOTHING about the past. Surely, if people today knew nothing of slavery, they couldn’t be made to feel ‘guilty’ about it. But, even as most people know little about the past, they know just enough from public education, TV, and movies to have a vague idea of what happened long ago. But because their knowledge is so thin, there is hardly an understanding of the past and its different sets of values and assumptions. Instead, the complex past has been reduced to a few sacred icons, pat slogans, and simple Manichean narratives. Therefore, people today find it inconceivable that those living in the past were just as sure of their ethos as current progs are of theirs. PC makes people of the Current Year feel that they are the ‘most evolved’ and their way is the only way. So, discovering that the past was a world racked with a host of ‘evils’ is shocking and triggering to them. It is no wonder that so many Current Year zealots are eager to tear down any monument that reeks of past 'evils'. Lacking empathy and imagination, Current Year progs believe that people in the past just should have known better and intuitively arrived at all the tenets of today's PC. Having morally failed to do so, the past must simply be expunged and eradicated from memory except as evil spirits summoned in annual rituals of scapegoating(or scapewhiting). In this sense, the sorry fact of American Progressivism is that people who claim to be most empathetic have no real empathy at all.
Indeed, they confuse empathy with selective favoritism of certain specially designated groups. True Empathy isn’t about feeling special affection or concern for groups favored by PC. Real empathy is about trying to understand different individuals, peoples, cultures, places, and times on their own terms(even if you disagree with or are appalled by those terms). PC is too judgmental to be empathetic. It is too busy screaming ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘transphobic’, ‘xenophobic’, and etc. to understand why different peoples in different times and places thought and acted differently. So, even as so-called Liberals claim to own empathy, they really have none. Their idea of ‘empathy’ simply means they have blind faith and special affection for three special groups sanctified by PC: Jews, blacks, and homos. Also, this special sympathy is based not on knowledge or understanding of actual Jews, blacks, and homos but on trite symbolisms of black sainthood, Jewish nobility of eternal suffering, and homo angelic fruitcakery.
The fact that Ta-Nehisi Coates(aka The Nasty Coates) has gotten so much mileage with white libby-diberals is because he gives them what they crave: Lots of Purple Prose about suppressed or denied black sanctity that deserves and needs the love of goody-good white people. He is Little Orphan Nehisi. Real empathy, in contrast, is the ability to probe and understand why another people(or people in the past) felt justified and validated in their ways and means so different from ours in the present. But today’s PC dolts are so full of themselves(and so addicted to the cult of ‘progress’ as measured by adherence to every new screeching fad) that they find it too difficult to even ponder the possibility as to why some people don’t believe in nonsense like ‘gay marriage’. And don’t try discussing logic and facts with such idiots.
PC is less about ideas and values than about ‘sacralized’ identities, or the Cult of Identity. So, if a certain group or identity has been deemed ‘noble’ or ‘sacred’, its demands must either be met or championed. The right-or-wrong is decided not by morality, facts, or reason but by the simple fact that some groups are ‘more equal than others’. So, even if blacks misbehave at Starbucks or act like stupid monkeys at a college graduation, the fault is not with their behavior but with those people(especially white) who treated blacks as they would have treated anyone else. By facts and logic, Starbucks’ policy is that people who occupy a table must order something. You can’t just loiter as non-buying customers. This rule applies equally to all individuals. So, if whites or non-blacks had acted like those idiot blacks, they would have been asked to leave. But apparently, such rules don’t apply to blacks because PC deems the Negroes to be sacred. So, it makes no sense discussing right-or-wrong since PC says blacks are right-no-matter-what and anyone who displeases blacks must be wrong. And the same goes for the Florida college graduation. The rules of the graduation require all students of all races to show respect and act with dignity appropriate for the ceremony. (They can party and celebrate afterwards.) The rules apply to all students equally. But such rules don’t apply to blacks because PC says blacks are right-no-matter-what. So, never mind principles and rules. If blacks feel like doing something, they have some special right or license to do so. If anyone is ‘wrong’, it is he or she who deigns to apply the same rules to blacks as to other groups. How dare he treat blacks like he would any other people? Doesn’t he know that blacks are always ‘right’ and that anyone who displeases them is automatically ‘wrong’?
And the same rule applies to Jews and Palestinians/Iranians. Whatever Jews do, it’s ‘right’. Jews can steal uranium from the US. Jews can shoot up USS Liberty. Jews can cook up lies to invade Iraq. Jews can kill bushels of Palestinians. All those actions are ‘right’ because Jews are right always. And Iran is always wrong no matter what it does. Even if Iran complies with the nuclear deal, the Jew-run US will find yet more excuses to declare it ‘wrong’. And of course, homos have always been right, even when they acted irresponsibly in spreading HIV all over in endless bath-house orgies. That is how PC really works. Its bogus ‘empathy’ is really about Emphasis of certain Favored Groups over all others. It should be called ‘emphasy’ than ‘empathy’.
Anyway, there was another side to the Civil War. While it’s true that the South was fighting to maintain slavery as a legal institution, in a profound way they were fighting against the prospect of biological slavery under blacks. White Southerners feared the specter of biological slavery that might result from black emancipation. Once blacks were freed and granted the same rights as whites, there was no guarantee that the two races would become equal and live side-by-side in harmony. Now, if blacks happened to be merely white people with black skin, co-existence might have been possible. Caste or no caste, the reason why India was able to exist as a civilization for so long was because darker-skinned Indians are not all that much different from light-skinned Indians in strength or temperament. Despite genetic separation by caste, your average lower-caste ‘dotkin’ isn’t likely to be all that different from a higher-caste ‘dotkin’. Indeed, to an outsider, most ‘dotkins’ of whatever caste look like other ‘dotkins’. But this was simply not the case between whites and blacks in the South(or in the North following the Great Migration). Blacks were not simply white people with darker skin. They were noticeably more muscular, rowdier, self-centered, egotistical, and more aggressive. Because of the fear and obedience instilled into them over several generations through means ranging from blatant to subtle, there was a chance that blacks might not immediately go jungle upon emancipation. But over time, as blacks would grow to realize that they are stronger, meaner, and more aggressive and that whites are anxious, fearful, and nervous, their attitude and behavior were bound to change drastically, and then the full reversion to Jungle would happen. The first great sign of this was Jack Johnson, the tough Negro who beat up all the white males and humped tons of white women. In one way, Johnson was a tough and resilient challenger against racial discrimination and white supremacy. But in another way, he was the template of the looming biological slavery of whites under black supremacy. Johnson-ism meant black guys would whup and humiliate white males who would be robbed of their manhood and therefore their womenfolk as well(just like bigger and taller white and black American soldiers robbed little Japanese guys of their manhood and womenfolk after their defeat in WWII. To this day, Japanese men have not recovered from their humiliation. They are a race of dogs.) As Black Pigeon Speaks argues, women have weak sense of tribal loyalty. They just go with the Power or the Winner:
And as white manhood would be humiliated by black manhood that dominates sports and street violence, there would come a time when white men would become the biological slave-cucks of blacks, and white women would lose respect for white men and surrender to jungle fever and accept ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. (Consider the blonde girl in the movie SPECTACULAR NOW who dumps her white boyfriend and goes with a big athletic Negro who later even physically threatens the 'pussy-ass white boy' who is reduced to giving him tips on how to make the white girl love him better. Total cuckery, but this is what the Jew-run Hollywood promotes to white kids as a moral-racial ideal.) Of course, do-goody naive white Liberals and cunning Jews(who sought the mental enslavement of the white race that was to be turned into cattle in service to Jewish supremacism) understood how these fears were a pediment to social change. If whites, especially the males, understood the full implications of black emancipation and racial integration, they would have realized the end-result would be biological slavery under tougher, stronger, and rowdier blacks. So, 'anti-racist' radicals sought to assuage white fears by presenting blacks as sexless noble Uncle Toms who were always falsely accused of raping white women. Or consider how the early interracial propaganda focused on white man and black woman when, in fact, the main threat was that white men would lose white women to black men.
Cunning Jews played it both ways, presenting blacks as both sexless angels who would never rape anyone AND sexy dancers whose performances would liberate white folks from puritanical repression. Even today, Jews play both tropes at once, and so many white people still fall for the nonsense. White kids are bombarded with both the (To Kill a)MOCKINGBIRD and the MANDINGO tropes about blacks. There is no rhyme or reason to any of this, but then, PC is less about right-and-wrong of ideas and facts than about the righteous sanctity of certain favored groups. Since PC deems that blacks are always right, the trope that makes blacks out to be sexless spiritual saints(as in GREEN MILE) is 'right' but so is the trope that says blacks are SO awesome as masterful big-donged muscled super-studs(or big-booty-shaking hot-mama skank-ass ho’s) that other races must sensually surrender to blackness and join in the jungle jive of vibrant liberation. PC warps moral logic. For this reason, PC is best understood as a neo-religion. After all, it is in religion that God is always right, even when He seems to do wrong. The idea is that God is so above us insignificant earthly creatures that He lives by a truth and logic far beyond us. It would be wrong for us to demand consistent logic from Him, as Job realized. Likewise, PC says it is futile for us to invoke reason, logic, and facts in relation to blacks, Jews, and homos. Doing so would be ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, or ‘homophobic’. We must honor, worship, and serve them on the basis of faith.
Anyway, there was no guarantee that the long-term result of ending socio-legal slavery in the South would result in racial equality and harmony. It could very well lead to white people becoming biologically enslaved to stronger, tougher, more aggressive, more muscular, and more dangerous blacks. This danger was bound to increase as America became more individualistic, hedonistic, and vulgar, not least due to black influences in music, comedy, and attitudes. If the US were a theocracy or strict ‘ideocracy’(one that metes out harsh punishment to those who act out of line, as in Cuba where blacks better behave or else), perhaps black aggression could have been held in check even upon emancipation. But as the US was a fast-changing democracy with increasing freedom and liberties in the pursuit of happiness, it was only a matter of time before blacks lost all their inhibitions and made ‘muh dick’ and 'muh fist' the central themes of their culture. And today, in the 21st century, we are living in a thoroughly pornfied culture when even kids watching Disney are really partaking of a form of kiddie porn.
Everything that D.W. Griffith prophesied in THE BIRTH OF A NATION came true. If that movie made many people uncomfortable in the past because it seemed like paranoid fantasy, it is bound to make people uncomfortable today because it now seems so factual. The movie said freedom is bound to turn too many blacks into uninhibited thugs and pimps, and guess what the main cultural expression of blacks is today? Rap music, the main message of which is ‘muh dick’ and ‘muh fist(or gun)’. And look at the state of black-run communities in Gary, Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, parts of Chicago, Newark, and etc. And the movie warned about naive white cuck-politicians and cunning light-skinned Negroes who shamelessly hustle suckers into buying into fantasy of racial harmony. D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION was a great prophetic work. What he warned eventually came to be. Blacks have reverted to jungle savagery. Their music is rap, their dance is ‘twerking’, and their culture is thuggery. And Pop Culture is now mostly about Jungle Fever. And not only in the US but in Canada and EU.
Anyway, the loss of manhood and cuckery is a form of slavery. The dark fact is white manhood cannot survive integration with harder-muscled, meaner-tempered, and bigger-donged Negroes. Eventually, white men will turn into ‘white boy’ cucks, and white women will go with Negroes and their wombs will be colonized to produce the likes of Colin Kaepernick whose anti-white virulence is less about Racial Injustice than sheer contempt for wussy-ass whitey. After all, his mother rejected the men of her own race and chose to have a child with a tough Negro. Even though his black father abandoned him and even though a nice white family went to the trouble of raising him, Kaepernick associated whiteness with wussy weakness and associated blackness with power and manhood. Blackness = studly power that conquers white vaginas and wombs. Whiteness = cucky weakness that raises a child of a black guy who humped a white woman and took off. Due to their wilder nature, blacks don’t much appreciate weakness, no matter how kindly and caring it is. They instinctively see it as ‘faggoty-ass’ and ‘lame’. So, all the love Kaepernick got from his adoptive white family hardly left a positive impression on him. He just wanted to get away from such wussy weakness and be accepted by the badass brothas.
When white people brought over a stronger and meaner race to be slaves in the US, they got caught in a Moral Trap. Socio-legal Slavery controlled blacks and kept their savagery in check, but it was unjust and sometimes cruel. But freeing the slaves meant eventual disaster for the white race because too many blacks happen to be built like Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, and Jim Brown. And too many black women are crazy and loud 'biatches' whose antics in music and dance encourage the most savage and trashy behavior among women of all races. Abraham Lincoln sensed all this, which is why he said, “We have to free the ‘groids’ and then ship them back to Africa, because, if we don’t, they will kick our butts and hump our daughters.”
It is time to face the truth. The South was in a bind. True, they did fight to preserve ugly social slavery. But they were trying to prevent horrid biological slavery of white race being physically and sexually dominated by tougher and nastier Negroes. Furthermore, it is about time we understood the importance of manhood. It's time to assess the harms of Toxic Cuckery. A society can’t be healthy unless its men feel manly pride and are respected by their womenfolk. Indeed, it’s often been said that one of the humiliating things about slavery was that black manhood was trampled upon. As black men had to shuck-and-jive before the massuh, who also might enjoy some fun with a chocolate-titted mama, they could not be full men. This was especially humiliating because black slaves knew they could kick the white boy’s ass if they were to face each other one-on-one. But whites had all the guns, and the laws were on their side. Blacks had to suffer the humiliation of being ordered around by white men who were weaker than them. So, in order for black men to gain the pride of manhood, they needed to be freed. So far so good. But the problem with black freedom was that black manhood now posed a serious threat to white manhood. Due to the BAMMAMA — blacks are more muscular and more aggressive — factor, legal equality between blacks and whites was bound to lead to biological supremacy of blacks over whitse. This meant blacks kicking white butts in sports, and this was a big deal in the modern world where so much of social, communal, national, and racial pride & prestige are invested in and expressed through sports. White male defeat to blacks in sports meant whites losing their iconic status as Real Men. Is it any wonder that so many white wombs get colonized by black men while so many white guys are turning into cucks and wussies?
Indeed, Antifa is like radical cuckery. These white boys are so invested in their own inferiority and submission at the feet of blacks that they get triggered by any white guy who says NO to such humiliation. To Antifa, the rightful place for whites in the West is as biological slaves to blacks who are deemed superior both morally(due to Slavery and Jim Crow narrative) and physically(as they easily kick white butt in sports and conquer white wombs). And yet, by beating up 'nazis' to protect blacks and other minorities, Antifa guys also feel as alphas, without whom blacks would presumably not be safe. So, Antifa guys both worship blacks as their superiors(in holy victimhood and badass style) and patronize blacks as their inferiors(or a powerless people in need of white knights to defend them).
Well, if black male psychology suffered so terribly during the slavery era because black men were denied full manhood and the respect of their women, the same logic applies to whites today. White society cannot be psychologically healthy unless white men have their manhood back. But this is impossible with racial integration because biological slavery will reduce white guys into cucky ‘white boys’ at the feet of tougher and meaner blacks as their eternal biological massuhs. And the fall of white manhood will mean the fall of the white race. White women will not respect ‘loser men’, which is what white men become when integrated with black males. There are many reasons for the decline of the white male in America, especially among the working class, and one reason has to do with loss of manhood vis-a-vis blacks. Both Abraham Lincoln and D.W. Griffith were right. They both acknowledged the problems of slavery but also understood that freedom would lead to a new kind of slavery. It is too bad that whites in the South failed to come to terms with Honest Abe and settle on some grand plan to free the blacks and send them back to Africa where the Negroes could harass hippos but not white folks.
