Robert S Griffin of the University of Vermont

Professor Robert S. Griffin, an education professor at the University of Vermont, supports racist “white identity” viewpoints and integrates those viewpoints with his teaching of education, favoring “traditional” education and the inculcation of “pride” in white students.

Some oh so liberal commentators say sagely that they won’t “call” Griffin a “Nazi”; see below: you can tell an American liberal by his closet or theoretic liberalism: as in the case below of Alex Beam of the Boston Globe, who loves Dick Cheney, these “liberals” have taken so many powerful antibodies to their putative liberalism that their Bantustans are taken over by Nazis as they retreat not with a bang but a whimper.

No, I’ll call this clown, this charlatan Griffin a Nazi.

And a jerk, and a racist, and scum. He doesn’t belong to the teaching profession, because racism as a metaphysic and epistemology is as out dated as Creationism. Period.

The very ability to do university work has preconditions, and one of them is free and open discourse, collegial entry to which is controlled EXCLUSIVELY by the conversation of the would-be entrant, and whether it has enough of a sensible relationship to the pre-existing conversation for the discussants to get anywhere at all.

This is my understanding of Habermas’ notion of civil discourse. It’s all very abstract, and it needs to get down to cases.

Exhibit A: if this foul little man believes that whites are superior and or entitled to rule, he is a walking Title IX discrimination case for the Univ of Vermont and a stick of shitfire with a wick on it. How on earth could a Black student succeed in one of his goddamn little classes? What if she needs it to graduate?

It is a bonehead misunderstanding of epistemology to believe that there is some sort of absolute right inside a university community to “question” “conventional thinking”.

Does this right exist inside the hard sciences? It doesn’t. Being able to do “hard” science means staying as close as possible to the existing paradigm: the role of Thomas Kuhn’s Oedipal paradigm smashers has been, I think, exagerrated, and they are statistically unimportant relative to 99% of scientific work. Furthermore, top scientists (like Einstein vis a vis Copenhagen quantum theory) would disagree with Kuhn: Einstein never went gentle into that good night as he’s supposed to in the Kuhnian playbook, but insisted that Copenhagen must be reconciled with what we know. In fact, scientists who strongly agree with Kuhn are usually thug careerists who like Griffin think the university gives them sugar tit to do what they want.

No scientist frivolously, or as here emotionally based on his hatred of black people, exits such broad areas of agreement, broad areas of agreement which make possible the modern university as opposed to Ole Miss (pre-integration) or Bob Jones.

This clown believes in an academic right to “challenge conventional thinking”. This right exists for a reason, not as an end point: academics, more than ordinary employees, have this right because it’s a road to truth and inclusion of more and more conversants in civil conversation. If most people, affiliated in a professional capacity with a university, feel that racism is like Creationism, “questioning ” Shakespeare’s authorship of the First Folio corpus, and the odious ravings of Ayn Rand (and most people so affiliated feel this way) this means that Griffin’s road leads in the wrong direction.

Hard scientists don’t have their time wasted in this way; why should educationists? Hard scientists are in fact able, within their departmental confines, to be very intolerant of flat earthers, circle squarers and other purveyors of bunkum, and it to me indicates the contempt in which humanists, and here educationists, are held in relative to hard scientists that they don’t have the right to boot right wing lunatics out of the university community.

This clown Griffin, like many redneck fools, believes that “left wing” profs make up their positions as frivolously as he has because neither he nor his redneck friends can do the homework. They haven’t read outside their little disciplines, they are uncultured men, and they aren’t familiar with most of the literature which advances our notion of human freedom, since part of that corpus includes men who are regarded by these creep’s mentors as monstra horrenda.

Thus, having not read Hegel, Kant, Freud, Marx or any number of texts, these redneck clowns hear only paradox and frivolity and conclude that they should be allowed to make their mess, in Griffin’s case on the public dime.

The article mentions one Arthur Butz, a professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern, who has long denied the Holocaust, but his case is different. It is unlikely that Butz’s Holocaust denial would create static or interference in his electrical engineering laboratory, and as long as Butz isn’t an anti-Semite who discriminates against Jewish students (and there is no indication that he is), he probably deserves his tenure. Whereas Griffin explicitly allows his racism to be a part of what he teaches.

This professor needs to be fired.

45 Responses to “Robert S Griffin of the University of Vermont”

  1. [...] gets to keep his job, despite complaints from some letter-to-the-editor writers and at least one web site.  (UVM was lucky that the story came out during summer vacation; five will get you ten that had it [...]

  2. Hello,
    I am currently in Robert Griffins 204 class at UVM. Personally, I think your understanding of Griffin’s writings is misinterpreted. Griffin is not arguing for white supremacy. He is observing the fact that currently in the United States, subjects of race are very touchy. He argues that if it is fauxpa for white Americans to be proud of there heritage and if they are they are seen as racist. Its quite funny actually because your response to his writings actually strengthen his argument. I have sat through his lectures and have read his published work and I believe that Griffin is a well intentioned professor who presents all sides of education theory and leaves you to make up your own decision. In our 3 hour class we discuss 5 books over the course of the semester. 2 dedicated to progressive education, 2 from the views of progressive education, and finally a biography by Chester Finn that follows the history of education reform in the United States. By calling Griffin a Nazi, you are profiling him as being racist because he is white. By doing this, arn’t you yourself being…. racist? The overall message that I take away from Griffin’s glass is that the United States needs to stress equality in every aspect of life. Everyone race should be allowed to the same freedoms and rights (yes that includes people of European descent along with African, Asian, Latin American, and North American).
    Sincerely,
    Phil

  3. spinoza1111 Says:

    It is indeed wrong, in my belief, for white Americans to believe (1) there is such a thing as being white and (2) it has any special virtue as Griffin teaches.

    Whereas there is such a thing as being black, because “being black” was defined by a historical exploitation of Africa (far out of scale to any reverse exploitation of Europe by Africans). And while it has no special virtue, “being black” has a claim on us in the form of affirmative action and quite possibly, reparations for slavery.

    “I’m white” means, all too often, “hey look at me, while I might be personally an ignorant sumbitch, nonetheless I inherit, by proxy, a superior civilization, glory that was Greece, grandeur that was Rome, a civilization which had the geological good fortune to be constructed of materials locally available and to survive a drier climate than the kingdoms of Africa, whose grandeur survives only as the European legend of Prester John”. As such it acquires a pornographic meaning.

    Given the racism of the “Sept 12″ and “birthers”, Robert Griffin is suggesting that we bulldoze a boneyard, seed it, water it, and plant grass over it. He is suggesting that on the greensward we erect statues to white people for our children to admire.

  4. spinoza1111 Says:

    Do the math: if I cannot precis an anti-racist argument by “labeling” my opponent, then racists win. It’s like some arguments in favor of the Second Amendment. I happen to support the Second Amendment, and one of the reasons is that if guns are outlawed only criminals have guns.

    By way of analogy, if the white racist is free to label his opponents “monkeys”, etc., as have some white racists labeled the President, and I am not free to call their practice and theory Fascistic, then they win.

    Griffin is responsible for a “theory” in which white people are to be credited *in toto* with the accomplishments of a small number of “white” people, who were in many cases using non-white source materials (from Africa, ancient Egypt and Islam) and who encountered massive resistance from their white contemporaries including the (Catholic) Inquisition in the case of Galileo, and condemnation by a rabbinical court in that of Spinoza…etc.

    This theory enables racism including mock lynching in a society where the last lynching on record happened recently (in 1983).

    Intelligence is a moral category. We have to use the word “black” which forms a mathematical “set” out of very diverse peoples from all over the world in order to recognize their common accomplishment and common suffering, whereas the common accomplishment and common suffering of “white” people is adequately documented in books titled “History of English [not "white"] Literature” or “History of France” [not "History of White French Guys and Gals"].

    Bertrand Russell discovered that not all sets can be permissibly formed on cognitive grounds alone in his “Barber” paradox. Likewise, the construction of a set (the creation of a name) has a moral component in any world, such as this world, in which there are multiple ways of describing the world.

    A math teacher with Tourette’s syndrome (a strange nervous condition which often impels its sufferer to use bad words) would be relieved of his duties if he decided to call all real numbers the shit numbers, and all complex numbers with a non-zero imaginary part the piss numbers. Likewise, Griffin’s use of language is pornographic, an incitement to racial violence, and irresponsible. His use of “white” is in fact a cowardly way of using the infamous N word, since it allows American white students to continue a conversation, more precisely a monologue, in which they are “white” and the other major demographic is a bunch of N-rs.

    I worked at Princeton University and participated in creating a fair speech code in order to protect impressionable students seeing content on networks. Based on my experience with this and knowledge of Princeton’s more general codes, which do not in any way harm free speech, I do not believe Griffin would be employable at Princeton, and I ask why the taxpayers of Vermont should pay the salary of a man who deliberately creates a hostile and threatening environment for non-white students.

    Therefore, the word “white” in Griffin’s teaching shows me that he is guilty of pornographic educational malpractice and should be deprived of his employment and his tenure.

  5. spinoza1111 Says:

    Furthermore, and with all due understanding and respect of and to the fact that you are probably 18 years old, I believe it is a “fauxpa” for white Americans to be proud of “there” heritage understood as including the English language and its orthography and phonology. This heritage is in fact being lost as was seen in a *very large* number of signs carried on Glenn Beck’s Sep 12 “march on Washington” that (1) called for an English-only society but (2) contained egregious errors of spelling and usage.

    Before discussing with any satisfaction the accomplishments of “white” people please see to it that you can carry on this tradition. “There” may be a typo of the sort I make myself on the Internet, but “fauxpa” and other constructions show a desire to write uncoupled with some training, that would be far more useful than Griffin’s classes.

  6. Bret Ludwig Says:

    I am White and I do not think Whites are “superior”, but I know we are different, and I know we have some unique qualities. While there are other groups that can do things we can’t, we have proved we can do things many or most other groups have never demonstrated an ability to do. It’s my belief that we as a people should survive.

    For that reason I have accepted the following premise:

    “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”

    Period.

    Notice what those words do not say. They do not say that we are the best or should dominate or enslave all others. They do not say the man who wrote them was inerrant like the Pope, or even all that admirable. They say what they mean, nothing more, nothing less.

    We are White, and we intend to live White, die White, and stay White. We have no shame in being White. I have White children and i intend to have White grandchildren.

    If you have a problem with that, go to Hell. And I mean that quite literally.

    Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate any other race or group. I detest disrespect to anyone because of their race, religion, or color. I would love to see the other races prosper-but on their own turf, in their own time, with their own abilities.

    I recognize that the Blacks did not ask to be brought here. I don’t deny they are a people with a right to exist just as we do, but I do deny that we and they are the same. We are not. Making us live together fungibly will kill both of us eventually. I admire and respect those Blacks that have tried to go their own way and succeed on their own terms. Those that have not and can not, I do not hate, but neither do I deny reality.

    You hate Dr. Griffin, and you will hate me even more. I really don’t care. Either your kind will win and mine will be no more, or the other way around. The problem is that mine simply do not recognize that truth. But you know, history says that we learn eventually.

  7. spinoza1111 Says:

    “If you would converse with me, define your terms”. What’s “white”? Turns out that skin color is no marker, for many “whites” are swarthy and albinism affects blacks. Obama to the racist is black, but is lighter skinned than some whites. Nor are facial features a marker.

    Country of origin? Many people called “black” in North Carolina were born to US servicemen and German women in the 1950s in Germany and are for this reason German.

    DNA can ground no concept of whiteness since we now know that genetic material is inherited equally from both mothers and fathers, and mathematically, a person has hundreds of ancestors on the patrilineal and matrilineal side only a few generations in the past. These ancestors turn out usually, and especially for Americans, to have a variety of ancestors.

    Mongolian and even Chinese DNA has been found in Eastern European folks. Beethoven may have had African ancestors amongst Ethiopian musicians of the Turkish army laying seige to Vienna in the 17th century. Many African Americans have discovered white roots and many American “whites” have African American ancestors.

    The only acceptable racial categories are based on history and not biology, and unfortunately for your case, that history has to be based on oppression, since the only moral way today to use racial categories is to redress the harm done. It turns out that whites as a class were never oppressed saved by their own dominant members, but “blacks” were singled out in so many ways that there is such a thing as a black person (with affirmative rights of redress) but no such thing as a “white” person.

    This means that there is no scientific or historical basis for Griffin’s educational practice, and he should be fired. People who scream the N word at Congressmen should be arrested.

    If your little cause starts a civil war in my country, you may rest assured I will pick up a gun. The toughest guerrilla in Kansas wasn’t no slave holding son of a bitch who thought he was better because he was “white”. It was a “white” man, however. It was Ossawatamie John Brown who stood up for his fellow Americans of color.

  8. Bret Ludwig Says:

    John Brown was a homicidal maniac. He was, we fondly remember, finally put down, but not before he caused a lot of bloodshed. Kansas was the national insane asylum and it still is. I say that as someone who knows it pretty well, from the leftist loons in Lawrence to the crazed fundies in Wichita to the Johnson County smarmy churchgoers.

    Unfortunately, race is biology. A race is a partially inbred extended family, and different races have different biological characteristics. Ashkenazi Jews and some subcastes in India have the highest average IQs, though they are skewed differently (the Indians are not nearly as verbally adroit), and the Australian aborigines and Capoids have the lowest. Whites have an average actually a little less than Han Chinese, though the spread is greater, i.e., we have more outliers on either end of the curve.

    I don’t believe Whites should survive because we are the smartest, because we aren’t. I believe we should survive because we are a people of which I am a member. If my people survive then part of me survives. I do acknowledge that our smart fraction is probably the most evolved in terms of civilization building, the best at making societies work at an advanced level. But that does not make us best: it is a tautology to claim superiority by the standards one sets for oneself. Others don’t care about these things.

    To Whites, who are honest about such things, the case histories of Haiti, Rhodesia, and South Africa are proof enough. By White standards each of these nations imploded utterly, or in the case of South Africa is in the process of implosion, when Whites were removed from power. By White standards no Black nation can call itself a success, but the state of Haiti and Zimbabwe is especially gruesome. No outside force can be blamed for Haiti, and no outside force can be blamed for Zimbabwe. The current denizens of those countries have proven to any reasonable person total, absolute inability to self-govern.

    What is going to happen in the USA in my opinion is that the country will break up into several smaller parts on racial, religious and ethnic lines. One or more parts will become wholly White. Mestizos will take over parts of the Southwest, but when all the Whites leave and remove the jobs they will be on their own and will stagnate. Several areas will become Black, and Jews will probably get a North American nation state of their own. Mixed race families, mutts, and incorrigible liberals will probably be relegated to buffer zones or explicitly religious or philosophical communities. This will not happen until a general socioeconomic collapse occurs-not cause by gun toting wascally wascists but massive deficits and deindustrialization combined with some unpredictable and-were we told of it by a real life John Titor now-probably ludicrous sounding trigger event.

    It’s going to be really interesting, and what you or I think of it is quite irrelevant. Those who deny the reality ogf human biological differences in terms of group genetics will be handicapping themselves tremendously, and may be weeded out at a higher rate than those who acknowledge reality. Darwin is not mocked.

  9. spinoza1111 Says:

    Congratulations, Mr. Scientist.

    “I have a Master’s Degree. In Science!” – Ask Mr. Science, Duck’s Breath Mystery Theater

    If these statistical differences amounted to a biological distinction then biologically, human beings would not be a single species, or you have developed a new concept which is biologically testable: a subspecies with biological characteristics which determine intelligence.

    If human beings do not constitute a single species, then in general successful interspecies reproduction would not occur, or would produce sports and inferior examples. But, of course, it does (and I’d hazard this bugs you) in that the most successful members of the separate “species” often intermarry especially in wealthy *arondissements* and their children go on to get university admissions (denied to the most inbred “pure whites” from places where they gotta pipe in daylight) and become, mirabile dictu, President.

    On the other hand, if they do, you have invented a new scientific category and should get the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, your category completely fails to account for Eurasians and the President where their genetic material comes equally from different scientifically defined “subspecies” or “races”.

    Either way, welcome to my spam queue.

  10. “The only acceptable racial categories are based on history and not biology…”

    Sure, that’s why DNA tests can pinpoint an individual’s level of European, African, Asian, even Jewish ancestry, right?

    That’s why Whites are more prone to skin cancer, Blacks are more prone to Sickle Cell, and Jews more prone to Tay Sachs.

    Race doesn’t exist. Right.

    You are the perfect example of an idiot that has received “education” for beyond his inborn intelligence.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      DNA tests do anything but “pinpoint” ancestry because we know now that the mother and father both contribute genetic material. The racial fantasy is contradicted by simple math and graph theory, for you need only to go back three generations to find 8 people screwing each other to make your sorry ass. And chances are, especially in the USA, that they are of different ethnicity and even race.

      What race is “underground” cartoonist Bob Crumb? His great great grandmother was a Native American. To believe that over time the DNA is bleached out is in fact precisely wrong given the way in which DNA works (a computational process), since racial characteristics can emerge from a minority vote by means of a computational as opposed to an analog process. Put more simply, genes don’t vote.

      What DNA research has found has been Mongol and Chinese genes in American bloodlines and African American ancestry in a lot of “white” people.

      When a species differentiates, it has diseases unique to that species which are renamed when they jump the species boundary. It is not “more prone”.

      “Race” was a 19th century attempt to make sense of the fact that in the 19th century and before, people of a particular type, especially uneducated, low class and poor people who were unable to travel and didn’t have the balls of the Mongols for conquest, tended to reproduce a vague and literarily-described over all shape thru intermarriage.

      19th century rulers, anxious to establish their authority especially vis a vis religion, used folkloric writers of the 19th century such as Sir Walter Scott and the Grimms to manufacture “race”. Idiots like you watch movies such as Braveheart based on this manufactured myth and you buy the line.

      Today, “race” means nothing except for poor, uneducated and low class types who are afraid of flying and aren’t attractive to women.

  11. John Parker Says:

    White identity politics is substantively no different than Mexica, African, or Muslim/Middle-eastern identity politics. Awareness, appreciation, and identity/culture are hallmarks of racial/cultural awakening. The main difference is the frenzied and scathing knee-jerk response to it by advocates of multi-cultural identity politico’s who label, libel and then misrepresent their views as obviously “extreme, reactionary or the overused to the point of non-sense, NAZI”. Please read the professors writings, essays and comments by peers/students before rushing to judgement, disgree and debate intelligently differences of opinion/philosophy. Awareness and a positive attitude towards one race and culture does not presuppose an “anti” bias towards anyone else.

    As an academic and writer, I have one other comment or rather quote to leave that is apropo to this discussion. In a world in which ONLY politically correct speech is allowed, freedom must give way to equality, which given the profound and subtantive differences inherent in human ability and potential, can only be enforced coercively.

    “Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing once again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don’t seem to see this”.

    Doris Lessing
    British Novelist

    Free speech demands the right to offend, otherwise it is neither true speech nor

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      There’s an African American and Hispanic culture in America, but there is no “white” culture. The oppressor has no culture as oppressor. Sure, he might have a Polish American, German American or other culture but it is nonsense to say he has a “white” culture: unscientific and potentially genocidal.

      “White studies” considered as studying the same sort of thing we study when we study John Coltrane’s A Love Supreme as African American culture makes a meaningless “set” out of phenomena too disparate to have much in common. If you mean “the cultural baggage of the people who came to America from Yourup”, Bubba, then you’re talking about a “set” with nothing in common, a set defined by a list of members, and furthermore, you are talking about something that already has considerable “nonwhite” input.

      Since “white” (cf Franz Fanon) has no meaning apart from its complement since the words white and black (and brown) are simply codes for an oppressive relationship, there IS a “white studies”: critical race theory, in which we figure out why as white people we are suckered into accepting a phony white skin privilege in the first place.

      Universities were effective in past years because they linked factual information with a world view and a personal and social morality. But today, right-wing assholes use the discourse of “freedom” to prevent a new morality, incorporating the decency of the old, from being formed. The old morality of gentility allowed the university to do its job. “Speech codes” merely generalize this.

  12. John Parker Says:

    One other aside, if the speech code at Princeton in no way inhibits free speech and the free exchange of ideas, and on its basis Dr. Griffin would not be employed or would be denied tenure, it most certainly does restrict speech to ONLY what is allowed and approved by PC Multi-culturalists.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      If you want to say it that way (speech is restricted to only what’s allowed by PC multi-culturalists) then I’d say it’s a good thing. Tenure and membership in a university community should indeed be restricted to what you label “politically correct multiculturalists” for the same reason scientific journals and tenure in scientific publications is restricted to scientists who subscribe to the major paradigms and the scientific method.

      A faculty of medicine would not admit a person who believed that there’s no such thing as AIDs. For the same reason, the University of Vermont needs to revoke tenure to anyone who in the face of what we know about genetics, species definition, and the source of the Holocaust in racial ontology, declares that Northern Europeans constitute a “race”.

      In fine, let me be blunt. The university needs to be free of lower middle class little shitheads yapping about “free speech”, because they destroy the preconditions of free speech, including agreement on basics.

      • John Parker Says:

        Within the confines and strictures inherent in “codes of conduct” and “speech codes” and barring any semantic redefining of the word “free”, how is a code that delineates “allowed” versus “restricted” speech free? The legal restrictions placed on types of speech pretty much focus on the yelling fire in a crowded theator, libel and intellectual property protection, otherwise, any person, at any time, is guaranteed the right to wax poetic about whatever is on his mind. Here in Texas, we have a hispanic tenured professor in the UT system who is an outspoken advocate of M.E.Ch.A’s position on the reconquista (and its inevitability) of the American Southwest by mestizo Mexica people and the removal from this region of all peoples not of Mexica or native descent. Protected speech? Absolutely, no matter how much I as a Texan of European descent may oppose it. None of us have a constitutional umbrella that protects from being offended by ideas, and his protected speech guarantees all of us equal protection under the law.

        In your opinion, what are the “preconditions of free speech”?
        How do they differ our historical understanding of what constituted free expression?

        How does being offended by anything, controversial or otherwise, create hostile conditions that restrict others from free expression?

        Have you had an opportunity to review Professor Griffin’s writings or peer comments? Fellow academics (non-white, and one Jewish professor) have all vouchsafed him ahving never in personal discussion or the classroom advocating racial superiority or supremicism. If we can’t trust his most intimate co-workers (white and non-white/Christian) who have worked with him for many years and peer reviewed his wiritings/research, WHO can we trust to have a opinion of his work, attitudes and philosophy?

        What does a person’s socio-economic status (ie lower middle-class) have to do with their leanings on consitutional law and its social-political application?

  13. spinoza1111 Says:

    No, people have no free speech on the job (this is a major unmentioned exception in which a right that is not mentioned in the Constitution supersedes a right that is).

    The preconditions of free speech are committments to shared values and goals. If Griffin wants to rehabilitate a group that is DEFINED by its oppressive nature, he fails to share our values.

    You haven’t understood my analysis of the term “white”. It refers to a racial group that has no scientific definition but is defined exclusively by its criminal behavior between 1492 and today with respect to the rest of the world.

    The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo may bear re-examination as was the Treaty of Nanking; the British agreed that the treaty they forced upon China was not a real contract because the Q’ing emperor had been defeated in war as a technologically inferior power. The situation has disturbing relations to the Mexican war, which many Americans opposed.

    You’re not doing the professor in question any favors. As long as he adheres to academic norms (a speech code since time immemorial) he has a right to speak, not a privilege which you can trade to allow Griffin to talk nonsense.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      As to the lower middle class. Part of the problem is the utter lack of either moral or intellectual seriousness of the srudents in Griffin’s classrooms to whom he panders. None of them are in university to learn, only to reproduce a lower middle class life.

  14. John Parker Says:

    And we get to the heart of the question, whose norms? Yours? mine? who do we choose to be the gatekeeper in a complex world with competing social, economic, political, ethnic/racial, cultural, and religious systems? When Professor Griffin writes, conducts research, or teaches, should there be a committee of PC censors who go over his every utterance to assure no one is offended, put out, or made to feel insecure or threatened?

    I do not know Prof. Griffin, and will not speak for him. His writings (available on his web site) are predominately focused on his area of expertise, educational pyschology, with some personal musings about all and sundry. His writings regarding identity issues seem pretty benign, and in no way reflect the rantings and hatred of a KKK or neo-nazi brownshirt crazy.

    To belabor a point already made, the academic world has tremendous
    peer pressure associated with it. No one is a tougher critic than fellow researchers and academics. The fact that his fellow academics overwhelmingly support him tells me that his views and personal conduct are in no way out of line with the behavior and expectations of a respected professor.

    To share a very personal story regarding the explicit and implicit danger of being politically correct to the point where valid research and studies are suppressed because they contradict our PC Multi-cultural worldview, let me put this out for your consideration.

    A close family member is a government environmental scientist and engineer, involved primarily in hydrology and the regulation of water use/transport and point pollution in fragile desert environments. A colleaque of his did an environmental impact on the US/Mexican border area and the increasing impact illegal immigration and its human and vehicular impact on desert environments. Extensive research on erosion, pollution, human waste watertable contamination, trash, impact on deset wildlife, etc. He was told by several individuals in the national environmental private organizations that due to the “sensitive” nature of this topic, they wouldn’t

  15. John Parker Says:

    consider publishing due to political fall out and loss of support from prominent liberal and left of center political supporters. This is the supreme danger behind the movement to resrict thought and speech, that the truth can be suppressed to accomodate politically correct thought. Professor Griffin may offend you with his musings on white identity, but by any reasonable standard in a free society, how are you injured by this? I am annonyed with our vocal hispanic professor in the UT system and disagree with his strident support for Mexica reconquista, but his words are protected by the same ideas that mine and yours are, and we can agree to disagree.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      The question “whose norms” is frivolous, since the academic-discourse pie is finite and known to be so. This means that it is apportioned NO MATTER WHAT.

      It is claimed by some that it is apportioned “unfairly” with a left-liberal bias. This is nonsense. It ignores the research of David Noble, former director of the Smithsonian who now teaches in Ontario, and which shows that increasingly, universities at the state level and many above that level are apportioning based on corporate and western needs and corporate norms.

      Very few universities, for example, permit the sort of discussion of Israel’s aggression (most recently its illegal boarding of a Turkish vessel in violation of international law) that is the norm elsewhere. The question “did Israel violate international law in this case” is in the academic sense a straightforward “case study” involving a non-controversial maritime law and the facts, like any other legal problem; yet asking the question is, even in the supposedly liberal university, to be marked as “bias” based exclusively on the content of the case study.

      Norms can be debated, but a university cannot function in the absence of norms, or in the presence of norms which contradict its mission.

      The scientific study you mention was clearly biased, because it did not contrast the effect of Anglo infrastructure such as swimming pools, which have had a larger and more damaging effect on Arizona. Phoenix’s natural environment is nearly unlivable in by the poor because of a nearly complete absence of public transit because the rich and middle class have cars.

      Restriction of thought and speech happens all the time. It is the norm in corporations.

      You seem completely unaware that a statement has at least three goals: the locutionary effect of communicating a fact, the illuctionary effect of perfroming an action (such as “I do” in a wedding ceremony) and the perluctionary effect.

      The “perlocutionary” effect occurs when someone says something with a “hidden agenda” as opposed to the “illocutionary” effect where the bride means to say “I do”. Note that the existence of a subconscious means that a person may be unaware of the perlocutionary effects of what he says, as in the case of the abusive husband who’s being “practical”, or the white man who’s being “neutral” and asking “only” for a “level playing field”.

      I’d say that people who pretend to be scientists, but choose to write about the effect of illegal immigrants on the environment, almost certainly intend or are unaware of the “perlocutionary” meaning of what they say: that immigration damages the environment. This flies in the face of what we know: that middle class and wealthy people have larger and less local effects on the environment.

      Part of civic discourse (discourse, that is, meant to arrive at truths and solve problems irrespective of personal or group gain) is taking responsibility for perlocutionary effects. Even if your close family member did not intend the “locution”, “illegal immigration trashes the environment environment”, the perlocution would have an effect on immigrants legal and illegal which wouldn’t solve any real problems, and create more.

      [You'd think that anti-immigrant advocates would zip up in the light of an oil spill which is going to "immigrate", in all probability, to Mexican and Cuban beaches.]

      Let’s be brutally frank. I want it to be possible in the university to do case studies such as the boarding of the Turkish vessel, and at the same time restrict Griffin’s ability to do “white pride studies”, or your close family member to study the bad effects of illegal immigration.

      This is because I’m already convinced that Israel violates international law; it says it will do so for “existential” reasons. I’m already convinced that labor, like capital, needs to immigrate, emigrate and be mobile.

      I am “biased” toward the needs of the vast majority of the peoples of the world who are poor and bullied by entities such as Israel or anti-immigrant thugs.

      But that’s why they call it a liberal education. It has to be organized, structured, in some fashion, and I prefer that its organization be based on the needs of the least well off. I believe this because I am from the Judeao Christian tradition which is a story of progress from the law of the jungle, or tribe, towards “liberalism”.

      Whereas I would identify your goal as “conservatism” interpreted as “don’t take what I have”.

      • spinoza1111 Says:

        It would be quite normal for a business to make a decision similar to the decision made in the case of a “close family member”. In fact, in my direct experience, part of being a good salesman (I was in software sales in addition to development) is being aware of the perlocutionary effect of discourse.

        In selling a car, for example, you don’t want to persuade the customer to buy a car without options by overemphasizing economy if the boss wants you to sell the higher priced model.

        Likewise, “even if” your CFM sincerely meant to study only the effects of illegal immigrants, he’s carved out a chunk of reality, “illegal immigrants”, and he says something negative about them when in fact they do not represent a threat, when they pay taxes, and when they are law-abiding.

        He’s made a methodological decision which seems quite arbitrary, in the same way Griffin folds all sorts of disparate Northern (and Southern) European gene pools into a package called “white”.

        But just as Griffin’s definition of a field of study has the perlocutionary effect of denying that “white as a race is definable by being the oppressor of the nonwhite”, your CFM’s definition of a topic says, assumes, implicitly declares that “pollution that is significant is not caused by rich white people but by illegal immigrants”.

        If “political correctness” is nothing more than being aware of modern “speech act” theory such as is found in Austin, Habermas and Lakoff, and abandoning the false innocence of a “white” science which historically has come up with all sorts of racist bullshit, then “political correctness” is not an option in the modern university, any more than it is in the corporation.

        The Enlightenment in fact originated in “political correctness” of at least three different forms. Aristocratic French women conducted “salon” discussions in which the men, all admirers of the hostess, agreed to discuss politics and philosophy instead of trying to seduce the hostess, which would be their natural inclination, in Paris.

        Upper middle class Prussians including Kant gathered in taverns agreeing on speech rules in order to discuss civic issues. And, the Founding Fathers found, as it were, that political discussion could move forward if religion was excluded, and everyone either acted like, or were, agnostics or Deists.

        Even if as a white person you were unfairly denied tenure or admission, to use pseudo-Enlighenment discourse with a hidden perlocutionary agenda (white pride, “scientifically” proving that immigrants are “dirty”) is a betrayal of Enlightenment.

  16. John Parker Says:

    Sir, that was the most eloquent, cogent and well constructed defense of PC speech norms that I have had the privilege of reading. I commend you on your logic, which I find compelling and extemely thought provoking. You have persuaded me to rethink this issue as a practicing educator and formulate a newly revised position.

    This is a fascinating time to observe politics. I personally adhere to no formal political party and have not been involved or supportive of any political advocacy group. Ditto on voting, have not cast a vote within that time frame either. Prior to my re-incarnation as an educator/writer, I was a military officer for 28 years, and believed fervently in General George C. Marshall’s advocacy of political neutrality. In my new life as an educator and writer, I have begun to explore the opposite motivation, that as a private citizen, I have a responsibility to become involved and seek a position of advocacy based on what I know of history, geographic determinism, the role of the nation-state both internally and internationally, economics and public ethics/philosophy. It is a work in progress, and I remain uncommitted. Currently exploring Third Position politics, and economic systems that are neither capitalist or socialist, at least that is the content of the majority of my summer reading, starting with Julius Evola and his “Revolt Against the Modern World” and moving on to two authors who explore alternative economic structures.

    A great segue to my response to your comment on biased science. My CFM is like me, apolitical, loves what he does and is a committed environmentalist. His colleaque is like my CFM, a committed environmentalist without strong political advocacy positions except where it crosses into environmental advocacy. He has dedicated his research to arid environments, been harshly critical of cattle grazing (rich white ranchers), mining interests (really rich white guys) and off-road enthusiasts (middle class white guys and lots of motorhead rednecks). His dismay, as both a researcher and fanatic lover of deserts, at having his article rejected vis a vis “PC” grounds was based on the fact that as a lover of deserts and unspoiled wilderness, ANY threat to its preservation and ecology should be addressed. His political naivete notwithstanding, national environmental advocacy groups depend on lots of left of center support, and they will not, even if the science is right, offend their political and liberal supporters.

    I have noticed a trend on a few campuses for left of center and far left radical groups to be very vocal about their unwillingness to entertain a hearing on the other sides opinion and point of view. Not a geneticist or biological science guy (my thing is Geographic Determinism and Social Evolution), I am fascinated by lots of very current debates and issues. One of those is the role of genetics and evolutionary psychology. As an interested academic, I very much want to hear both sides of the debate, from researchers and scholars who are experts in their respective fields. However, the threat of disruption and even physical harm to the presenters has made my campus wary of allowing say academic supporters of the late Dr. Richard Herrnstein and his work on genetic determinism verus environmental influence and Dr Jay Gould’s vigorous response in his book.

    Our campuses need to be at the forefront of securing a forum for the open and unfettered exchange of ideas, most especially controversial ones, in order to facilitate the free exchange of ideas in a forum without fear of intimidation or threat. But more and more, campus administrators worry about the possible disruption and threat to good order and safety. I have seen closed minds on both sides of these debates, but the far left has become positively rabid about stifling debate and hearing the other side out in a civil and academic manner. Your thoughts?

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      Thank you very much.

      I did not serve in the military but I have a great deal of respect for the military’s dedication to honor and truth. My uncle, Edward J. Nilges, was killed in combat as a *haole* leader of the Japanese-American unit 442 Regimental Combat Team north of the Arno in March 1945. My father met veterans of the 442nd in 2000 who had nothing but good to say about him.

      Now, as you know, in the military there is time for debate and time for action. In Terence Malick’s film The Thin Red Line, the captain wishes to debate whether to send the company to its death.

      “Debate should continue” is a proposition just like “illegal immigrants destroy desert ecosystems”. “We should debate whether illegal immigrants destroy desert ecosystems” is being argued against by your CFM’s opponents of necessity so it’s not quite true that they refuse to debate.

      But as in the military, as in a university with (increasingly limited) time and resources, and even as in a Leninist state, once the decision is made community members switch attention to implementing the policy…or they leave the community. In The Thin Red Line, the captain put his career on the line in such a way that Nick Nolte had to learn WWII style tactics and take the Japanese position with a small group of chosen men.

      I think it’s clear that private ownership of land can in some cases enhance the environment whereas population movements out of a Mexico which has been impoverished, suffered seventy-odd years of one party government, and today supplies North Americans with illegal drugs can cause environmental damage. But if your CFM is going to mention the word “illegal immigrants” he needs to defend the name, and as an environmental scientist he’s probably not qualified. The use of the name looks at desparate people through a lens.

      The lens is selected based, not on environmental science but on what I consider historical amnesia: the fact that in Manifest Destiny, the United States stole territory to the southwest of the Louisiana Purchase, which they bought fair and square from Napoleon.

      You know, Sam Grant served as an officer in that conflict from Veracruz to Mexico City despite the fact that in his memoirs he calls that war unjust. He had no time or remit to debate it whilst in the fight. Likewise, the faculty of a university need to be spared, somewhat, constant demands on their time, demands which have a political agenda and a political ontology (“illegal” immigrants as opposed to “poor people”).

      Our campuses have never been a “forum for the open and unfettered exchange of ideas”. David T. Noble, who studied the role of labor unions in implementing numerically controlled machine tool technology and was sympathetic towards their cause, was unable to get an academic job in the US.

      Campuses that were, literally, fora for such bull sessions would resemble the Sorbonne in 1968 Paris, a venue where any kind of BS. But rather than productive discussion, discussion constantly tended toward sectarian violence.

      Just like a corporation, a university needs a mission statement, and since it was produced by “liberalism” the university needs a core committment towards liberalism which would exclude certain topics such as Creationism or Holocaust Denial.

      • spinoza1111 Says:

        I mean: if we’re gonna focus, how about the point of view of the Other?

        We must take this point of view in marriage. Any man doesn’t take the little lady’s point of view from time to time is toast.

        Mexico is being conquered from within by throwbacks to the Visigoths of Iberia. These are drug gangs who have a perverted religion with its sources in USA Protestantism, a Christ centered religion which somehow allows them to slaughter children.

        This is because Mexico has not been allowed to have a charismatic leader like Bolivar, Chavez, Castro or even Pancho Villa by the United States. And there are times when you need a charismatic leader to kick ass and take names. We had Douglas MacArthur and many people wanted him to be President.

        After seventy years of the resulting one party rule Mexico is a mess and unlivable.

        I volunteered at the World Refugee Day fund-raiser yesterday in Hong Kong in 40 degree centigrade. Cute kids farting around. Not “illegal immigrants”.

  17. John Parker Says:

    I am fascinated by your distinction between the desirability of open and frank discussion about the ethnostate of Israel and to restrict open and frank discussion about white identity studies. Both are controversial, can arouse powerful and even violent reactions, and are often subject to ridiiculous levels of hyperbole.

    I completely agree about Israel. As a member state of the international community, criticism of its policies and actions should be par for the course. However, any careless perusal of ADLs website highlights that almost ANY criticisim of Israel, its policies and actions is by default, ANTI-SEMITIC. Which, if hysterical enough and coupled with the not so subtle threats from Zionist supporters in the US and their Christian Zionist counterparts, effecively stifles debate. The coupling of religious ethnicity, a powerful nuclear ethno-state and perpetual victimhood derails any serious questions into their international conduct and the level of support vis a vis foreign aid that is ante’d up every year from a beholden US Government and its taxpayers.

    Griffin’s writings about White Identity, his own experiences about becoming aware of his white identity and culture are the multi-culturalists version of the Israel question. That “if it’s white, it’s not alright” point of view. Somehow along the road to a multi-ethnic/multi-cultural social order, one ethnicity/race has been relegated to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” position, in which, like criticism of Israel, to stand back and look at European civilizations accomplishments, be prideful of, or aware of, is tantamount to RACISM and one only has to cup an ear and soon the sound of jackbooted thugs of the SS will come marching down the hall to re-erect the Reich in all its glory and power. And as an aside, the metaphorical use of “Nazi” is becoming as meaningless as “Rascist”.

    Both discussions neatly skirt the real issues involved. Israel’s conduct in the occupied areas, its role and influence in our government’s foreign policy, and the consequences for US foreign policy in our dealings with the world of Islam. White identity and nationalism is not Nazism, in any form or content. Yes, white racists are involved with neo-Nazi groups, and the Klan and sundry other groups of extreme crazies. The discussion of white identity, white survival demographics and the profound contributions European civilization made to political, scientific, and cultural philosophy are not. The anti-thesis of being “pro” ethnicity is not “anti” everyone else. Thoughts?

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      Nobody is saying “if it’s white, it’s not alright”.

      This statement expresses a feeling: one of being unfashionable, rejected. That feeling is often developed in isolation from non-white people who in my direct experience are normally less clannish that cultural subsets of white people.

      You have to cultivate a thick skin. The New York poet Carlos Andres Gomez got mad at me because in response to a rather simple-minded condemnation of Spanish domination of Latin America, I pointed out that today, whether he likes it or not, the Roman Catholic Church is a proud source of identity that created Ibero-American civilisation.

      He said, but you’re a white guy. I replied…so what…the history books show that on balance, Iberian (Spanish and Portuguese) civilisation cannot be forgotten, and you boys cannot go back to bein’ a bunch of indigenous dudes.

      But this was NOT because I majored in white studies. It was because in the old days, even in the 1960s, we had to study history.

      Griffin should NOT be pandering to the resentments of white students. All he needs to do is get the University of Vermont to require a class in western history as opposed to global world history, because white students need to know the good and the bad.

      But in the absence of old-fashioned requirements, he panders to resentment.

      “White studies” is a racist label and itself biased as is “illegal immigrant”. You’re trying to force a form of language upon everyone including the African-American student and student from Mexico which is intended to shame them.

      St Augustine, a central figure in what you call “white studies” was black, and it appears that Beethoven had African ancestry, perhaps by way of Ethiopian musicians in the Turkish army of the 17th century.

      “White” as a racial category as opposed to a name of a victimizing group is absurd. Do you think, if a friend here in Hong Kong and his wife have one of those beautiful interracial children that I’m going to say “wow, your kid looks white?”

      “Obama is not white” means ONLY that “hey, for the first time, a member of the non-victimizer class got himself elected President [and if he'd cowboy up and get tough on BP, he might still be a good one]“.

  18. spinoza1111 Says:

    Sure, in helping to set the agenda (which is nothing more than a bunch of assertions about what is the case as in what is *important*) I will not be able to use a neutral language. I will have an ontology, a way of carving the world into understandable chunks, which includes “Zionism” and excludes “white studies”.

    I include Zionism because having read (conservative) Paul Johnson’s History of the Jews and many other sources, I have learned that early Zionism was a non-religious (and socialist) movement for return to a land that its founders mistakenly believed almost uninhabited, the Turkish *vilaret* of Palestine. The use of the word allows me to make sense of the ways it became a gangsta cause under men less principled than Theodore Herzl in the 1930s.

    Now, in this connection, note that Roosevelt University in Chicago forbade a teacher of World Religion, a popular survey class which students can substitute for the traditional Introduction to [as it happens Western] Philosophy that I took, to even USE the word “Zionism” because the chair of department was pro-Israel.

    I believe she was completely wrong to do so based on the content of her decision and not its form, and since this was my alma mater, I got rowdy, writing the President.

    Nonetheless, she would have the right to discipline a teacher who called female students “bitchez”.

    As a teacher, I encounter every day (six days a week here in Hong Kong) the grave responsibility to help my students make sense of the world. The Roosevelt prof’s students had asked him what was “zionism” and he tried to tell them, since there is a large vocabulary (a set of tools for carving up reality) that marks the “college graduate”. It includes the knowledge that Israel was created by Zionists, that “aesthetics” is the study of what makes art, that poems work through meter and not rhyme: countless little facts that smart people know.

    But if you send a student yapping about “white studies” or Creationism into a modern corporation, he’s going to be at best pushing bits around in a computer. Note in this connection that the wealthy right-wingers tend always to send their kiddies to Ivy League “politically correct” schools, and this is becase “Bible college” and, it appears here, the University of Vermont, are dedicated to producing people that cannot speak a common language with the ruling class, and, for this reason, spend their lives battling shadow daemons on the web of “political correctness”.

    The abstract right to regulate speech exists. But there remains such a thing as stupidity.

    Roosevelt decided, in the face of pressure from Jewish, Moslem and Christian students whose rabbis, imams or priests didn’t like the idea of their being exposed to skepticism, to institute the comparative study of World Religion as an alternative requirement. I would not have made this decision but it’s part of a university’s RIGHT in a civic society to say what it IS. On balance, Roosevelt has made good decisions IMO: from its founding it was committed completely to racial equality in admissions and grades.

    But the Zionism decision was just wrong.

    Everything is related to everything (in language). The question is how much, to what degree, in what way. Likewise, I can make “constellations” of apparently unrelated things: such as might occur in a dream: call something that is a shoe, a ship or a tube of sealing-wax X.

    But constellation-formation is itself thinking. Griffin makes a constellation out of St Augustine, Beethoven, Shakespeare with no core concept SAVE the assertion that “though we inherit a track record of being victimizers or benefitting from victimization, we would be indemnified from responsibility and allowed to dance our white dance”.

    Now, there is something beautiful about tribal dancing and something rather frightening, especially if you’re in the stew pot like Max and Moritz in the old “Katzenjammer Kids” cartoon. Zulu dancing at the world Cup is beautiful but probably disturbs the loser class in South Africa, the Boers. I found Israeli dancing at Princeton vaguely disturbing because I’ve always thought it strange that American Jews would so recreationally celebrate Israel … yet stay in the United States, whilst almost unconsciously celebrating difference in a way that does discriminate against non-Jews.

    To want to study “white” studies is to give up the fight for universal human DIGNITY and ENLIGHTENMENT in preference for a mess of pottage.

  19. John Parker Says:

    You and I both share a common ethnicity, white-European, are products of liberal western higher education, have lived abroad and been exposed to cultures and viewpoints other than our parent culture, share a common profession that mandates higher critical thinking skills and come away from those commonalities with diametrically opposed opinions as to race and culture.

    To characterize the West, Europeans and Capitalism solely as a system organized and energized to perpetuate heinous and criminal oppression against all other cultures misses the point. No system is without its inherent flaws and no culture represents a true flowering of the perfect utopian order. Along side the brilliant and groundbreaking discussions and writings that emerged from the Enlightenment, were brutal examples of the European exploitation of non-white peoples and the destruction of their cultures. As the Zen Buddhist thinkers would say when rejecting the duality of the measurement of a persons moral character, we are the product of both the evil and good that we do, and can neither say that by practicing one righteous act we are righteous nor by one evil act that we are evil. The sum of our race and culture contain examples of both.

    But one thing I know with complete certainty: White Europeans, their unique genotype and cultural legacy deserve to survive. By demanding this, I in no way wish to denigrate or threaten other cultures or races. We deserve to survive for the same reason that other races and cultures deserve to survive, with pride, dignity, respect and honor.

    Creedism and ideology (along with cosmopolitanism and universalism) are proving poor cement in the unifying of mankind. The primitive and halcyon cry of blood, soil and identity are everywhere alive and well and in constant battle with forces of universalism (see events in the EU and recent votes from its member citizens).

    Are these forces evolutionary in nature (genetic) or part of our environmental nurturing? Or maybe both? I find that discussion fascinating within the fields of evolutionary psychology and genetics, and avidly pursue it as an amateur with much interest. I am leaning towards genetic evolutionary theory as primal (not withstanding Jay Gould’s passionate objection and well written book) but am by no means certain. The field and its research is moving too fast to move its conclusions from intelligent assumption to hard and fast

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      I live in an expatriate community, and alas I have bad news.

      Europeans do NOT regard us Americans as “white Europeans”, and they find our self-celebration as “white Europeans”, “Irish-Americans”, “German-Americans”, and so on, at best childish and amusing.

      They regard us as we regard Venezuelans and Brazilians, who have genes from northern Europe just like us; I went with a blonde Venezuelan, a “gringa”, back in the day.

      They regard us as an Afro-Caribbean society, and culturally (starting with the significant example of what sort of music we actually produce) that is what we are.

      A Mestizo culture.

      You see, our naive cultural celebrations of “Euro-American” or “Irish-American” culture neglect the time dimension.

      I pity the poor immigrant, for once he leaves home, he doesn’t realize that the home country and its culture continues to evolve. This makes a joke out of St Patrick’s day celebration in Chicago. To modern Irish, they are offensive.

      And, it makes a joke out of Griffin.

      Only a MittelEuropische living in London would be able to begin to comprehend British and European culture as a coherent unit…probably a Pole, for the Poles have historically preserved what is truly central about European culture, assuming there is such a thing.

      In fact, by calling themselves “really Europeans”, Americans are doing an injustice to real Europeans.

      Real Europeans, notably the Dutch, speak two languages starting in infant school. Americans speak one.

      Real Europeans do not in general use such words as “aesthetic” or “academic” to mean “not important”.

      For me, the genetic case is closed. There is no common element, and Americans need to become less “Americans” (Stuart supporters driven away from England after the restoration, Puritans, slave traders and other such riff raff of the haunted memory) and more like Brazilians. By all means study Western culture, but do not call it “white”. Whether you like it or not “white” is the name of an historically criminal class.

  20. John Parker Says:

    law.

  21. spinoza1111 Says:

    Furthermore, the unrighteousness continues right down to the present day. American and British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan. Why? Because even though on balance the only way that society will evolve is under the Taliban, American and British statesmen claim that this cannot stand…despite the invention, in the West, of the idea of self-determination, which does NOT include the requirement that a society self-determine democratically.

    Just as Hong Kong was supposed to be a “model of Christian society” in the 1840s, and evolved to become anything but that, Iraq was supposed to be a “model of Western free market” society to which the Afghan would look as exemplary.

    But the ordinary Iraqi citizen STILL doesn’t have electricity and what passes for “economic development” is the sleazy and violent “night life” of Baghdad, in which Western adventurers booze it up with tarts while children die…after five years of glorious Western horseshit.

    If the Taliban take over, everyday violence will be replaced by peace, and it’s a simple matter to keep them from flying any more planes into buildings (it’s called air defense and sky marshals). Internally, Afghan women and dissidents will evolve their own resistance, and history’s motor will continue to grind on without our interference, which has produced TRAGIC results over thousands of years, results named “white”.

    You need to read Franz Fanon. “Look, a Negro”. This is what he was called no matter how academically successful he was.

    The word “white” is undefinable save as a pair of words expressing a binary opposition, and the other word is “Negro” as in “look”.

    All concepts do some violence, but these flawed concepts are all we have. The point is minimizing the violence done.

    Americans are too ready to forgive themselves in this “Zen Buddhist” hipster way because they know (unlike some old-fashioned Europeans) that concepts do violence. But it don’t work that way. The Other who you have wronged has to forgive you. And you must stop doing wrong.

    Last time I checked, black folks in America are still living shorter and poorer lives that white folks because they ain’t “white”.

  22. spinoza1111 Says:

    Did you ever see that scene in Tom Laughlin’s movie Billy Jack where the town bully pours flour over the non-resisting brown kid to make him white? You can see it on You Tube.

    It was a shocking scene in 1972, and the movie was on the Catholic Church’s list of “condemned” movies.

    A “white” man (actually what used to be known as a half breed) defends a bunch of kids of different races who live in a home because their families don’t work. This was the reality in 1972 and it’s the reality today.

    Laughlin violated the “structural economy” of the Western. Most Westerns, such as Ford’s The Searchers, make it so the white guy gets to dominate justly and not just protect. Sure, John Wayne is the “lone” cowboy at the end, but he returns the Indian captive to her family…when in fact, in the real story, the girl who’s kidnapped by the Indians in The Searchers wanted to remain with the Indians (cf Susan Faludi, “The Terror Dream”, an analysis of the way Americans have renarrated terroristic events including Sep 11 and Indian raids throughout history in this way).

    Griffin is, unconsciously or with malice, using “white” to mean “better” and is no better than the town bully in Billy Jack.

  23. John Parker Says:

    Ok Spinoza, lots to reply to here. And to take a page and recommendation from George Orwell, I’ll be direct.

    You are correct, there is no universal pan-white consciousness, though it’s beginning to emerge slowly in both Europe and the US, most especially in academic circles interestingly enough (and if you don’t believe me, just check with the SPLC. They vary from hysterical to apoclyptic over any hint of possible conspiracy involving white anything) Most white movements in Europe are nationalistic. My mother is German, my wife and I lived in Europe for several years and we keep in touch with my family and our mutual German friends so are at an advantage in getting the “street” versus academic or journalistic interpretations of Euro events. Europeans have varying attitudes towards American culture, not all of it flattering. My wife and I both went a little native while there (she is German on both sides of her family with both sets of Grandparents coming from there) so we very much felt at home living in a small German village far from the US scene, in fact it was like coming home. I found the German perspective interesting and varying based what generation I spoke to.

    Most of my family/German/Dutch friends DO NOT regard us as Afro-caribbean, but a product of Anglo-British culture with a few non-white immigrants that we either treat as second-class citizens (blacks-the South) or Mexicans versus Texans (my mom didn’t help much here). In traveling the world over, most Euro types resent our popular culture (French especially) and lament their youth being corrupted by our dominance of popular entertainment.

    A few minor but important corrections to a few of your assertions: St. Augustine was a Berber, not sub-saharan black, from a pagan upperclass father and devout Christian mother.

    The West adopted a individual based, dualistic, linear worldview as a result of the merger of Hellenistic culture with middle eastern monotheism. The East (and most if not all Pre-Christian European cultures) were group based, wholistic and cyclical or non-linear. This is not a “hipster” interpretation of worldviews, but Eastern versus Western thought modalities. In light of a non-dualistic interpretation of “Western Society”, I reiterate that we are the sum of all we do, both good and bad. To blanket label white/European/Western culture as the “criminal oppressor class” virtually negates as meaningless the political philosophy, economic theory, science, art and literature that was produced by centuries of western thought and experience, and focuses exclusively on and passes judgement upon a culture that produced both conquistadors and the Franciscan’s that accompanied them. And if I may be so bold, please share what culture and people you would consider to not be criminal, but veritable paragons of social/political virtue in the practice of their cultural imperatives.

    You are absolutely correct in the assessment of our current strategy in Southwest Asia. Western values/practices can ONLY be imposed upon a non-western people coercively. We will fail in the attempt because the same values and creed we follow prevents us from executing the harshness required to impose a set of cultural values upon another people. True imperialism rests uneasily with American’s, and I believe our Neo-con policies will either end or see the end of us.

    I don’t know much about the Univ of Vermont (pretty far from Texas) but I think it presumptive to judge the entire faculty and academic excellance of an institution by one faculty member. Don’t you?

    There is an entire raging academic debate about Race and its consequences going on right now. As an interested, educated amateur, I believe the advocates of racial and genetic differentiation theory are doing the best science and research. Before you continue with absolutist statements about the everybody whose anybody knows that race doesnt exist and genetics plays no role in an individuals psychological/emotional makeup, please read or comment upon the following research

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      St Augustine was a Berber, indeed; and so was Othello.

      It is a myth that we restrain our harshness owing to “Western values” insofar as it implies that other cultures do not do likewise owing to their own values. Confucianism ameliorates the free market where I live. And, “Western values” did not prevent the Somme, or Sir Reggie Dyer’s massacre of Sikh women and children three years later.

      Enlightenment comes in many forms. Asoka was an enlightened ruler of a Buddhist India thousands of years ago.

      It is a myth that peoples north of the Sahara or west of the Urals had a special “gift”. There would be no scientific explanation possible.

      Instead, when material conditions allow people to have enough leisure to reflect, they wise up.

      Furthermore, you fail to account for the reversion to barbarism on the part of white youth in America and Britain.

  24. John Parker Says:

    “Why Race Matters” by Michael Levin
    “Race, Evolution and Behavior: A life History Perspective” by J. Phillippe Rushton
    “Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life” by Richard Herrnstein with Michael Murray
    “Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen” by Frank Miele (as a side note, Professor Jensen is held in the highest regard by his peers and fellow researchers, UC Berkeley is not a bastion of reactionary thought nor a “midwestern Bible school”, would appreciate a thoughtful non-disparaging response to his conclusions)
    “A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century” Edited by George McDaniel with forward by Jared Taylor
    “The Global Bell Curve” by Richard Lynn
    and finally:
    “The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution” by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending

    Non of this research is of the David Duke genre, but thoughtful, scientists and researchers. Their coclusions demand a something other than wishful thinking response.

    • spinoza1111 Says:

      Most of this research is an echo chamber constructed by the fact that citation, especially on the Web, develops cyclical patterns in which “authority” A cites “authority” B, who cites C, who cites D…who cites A. It resembles a financial scam, interestingly enough, for it attracts people who are also targeted by scamsters.

      Right now, I’m reading “Anglo-China: Chinese People and British Rule in Hong Kong, 1841-1880″ (Chris Munn, Hong Kong University Press 2009). It’s local history for me at this time.

      The “Friend of China” and other newspapers of the time had a theory that Chinese people, while being courteous and diligent, would habitually lie. Compounding this problem was the need in British justice for the witness to swear to tell the truth on the Bible.

      Various “learned” authorities recommended that the bailiff have the witness burn a piece of yellow paper on which characters invoked Taoist deities, which the witnesses did, trying to restrain their laughter.

      Of course, no society could exist in which the truth was on balance told given Empedocles’ Liar Paradox, and we should not need a Habermas to tell us so.

      British legal standards, for real, protected against arbitrary arrest, but so did Q’ing codes. The difference (according to Munn) was that while British law did and does so through habeus corpus and other familiar rules, the key mechanism in Q’ing codes was that it was very risky to accuse another of a crime, even if one were some sort of “peace officer”, since in courts of China, the trial did not often end until SOMEONE was punished: the accused, or, if the accused was innocent, the accuser.

      Now, as to your reading list. You fail to note that each author, unlike a genuine scholarly historian like Munn, has an axe to grind and a case to make.

      Were this a “liberal” axe to grind or case to make, it’s dollars to donuts that you’d accuse the author of liberal bias. You’d not read a book called “White People Suck”. For the same reason, you need to start to read books of more or less neutral history.

      Now, merely because books are neutral doesn’t mean that their authors might draw conclusions after reviewing the facts. Munn, in Anglo China, concludes that the British were racists in their treatment of the Chinese. He did so by creating a data base of court and journalistic documents.

      But when an author, to sell books, calls himself a “heretic” or talks about “civilization” up front, he’s got what you’d call an agenda, Tex.

      And…the fact that books such as The Oxford History of the American West reach conclusions including the unfairness of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo doesn’t mean that their authors had an agenda. No, they read the primary sources (the treaty) and they contrast a dynamic and already wealthy society with a Mexico that was being punished for breaking away from Spain.

      The fact that most physicists don’t believe in astrology doesn’t mean they are biased. It means they’re smart and well-educated. If historians in universities are liberal, this should give us pause.

      A number of the authors you mention use IQ as a measure of intelligence, but you’re probably aware that it was developed in WWI to determine who was a dumb bastard who should be cannon fodder, and who’d get to be in the rear with the gear. My IQ is only 120, but I find people who claim to have higher scores to be in many cases fools.

      As someone with some mathematical training. I find “genetics” inappropriately EXACT as a measurement of PEOPLE for the same reason my physics prof told us to discard digits beyond the second digit to the right of the decimal point.

      We cannot measure IQ if it has > 1 dimension even if we factor it into “verbal” and “mathematical” IQ. This is because once you have more than one dimension, even something so crude as verbal and math, you no longer have a vector.

      Now, you can form a new one-dimensional scale based on the ordered pair of verbal and math…but then you have to decide which one is the higher-order digit.

      But in fact, I would include in “intelligence” the ability to take care of a child, the ability to dance, the ability to paint a picture, and the ability to stay married to a woman for fifty years.

      Mathematically, and I am quite serious, this makes “intelligence”, or perhaps “worth” a shape in a space of n dimensions. How strange that it becomes something even more than a picture of a person, and we cannot sort pictures of people into worthy and unworthy except in the pornographic sense.

      The evil and idolatrous rage of the genetics ideologues is to have a long number: the human genome, reduced in a computer. But, of course, this neglects interaction with the environment.

      I conclude that it would be a waste of time for me to consult your sources. My apologies to you, sir.

  25. John Parker Says:

    “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”-Aristotle

    I am surprised at your closed mindedness Spinoza. I eagerly read rebuttals and counter-arguments to the positions put forward by the authors listed above because to truly consider oneself informed and knowledgeable, one has to familiarize oneself with the opposing view, evaluate the evidence and formulate a conclusion based on an enlightened dialectic. If you are unwilling to use the Hegelian model of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, what do you personally replace it with when confronted with issue/idea resolution and formulating an enlightened opinion?

    You have not answered the question I raised in an earlier comment, if White/European/Western culture represents a “criminal class”, then its antithesis, a “virtuous class” must exist in your mind somewhere and be the basis for your judgement of the West. What race/culture do you have in mind as a “virtuous class”?

    In the fields of original research, your comparison of the authors above as biased presupposes facts not in your possession. There are biased scientists, as humans we have opinions, and often their conclusions are flawed because of this bias. However, the beauty of science in this regard is the number of fellow researchers who will take up the theory or hypothesis and then attempt to replicate the experiment or re-verify the data used to support the synthesis or conclusion. The end result being reversion to the truth. UC Berkeley’s Jensen a secret racialist? Biased and unreliable methodology used in his research? Again I refer to his professional peers as the ones most able to assess that, not you or I. Agree or disagree?

    You reject a conclusion of the importance of genetics based on a worldview that is in harmony with your personal philosophy of egalitarianism and concepts of social justice. In rejecting any consideration of the research cited above, it is a case of “don’t confuse me with the facts”. These researchers correlate IQ and race/environment not as a stand-alone measurement of a single factor, but how it correlates and is related to a entire host of pyschological/social phenomena, occupation/wealth, crime, impulsiveness, addictive behavior, out of wedlock childbirth, and independence vs being a ward of the state.

    So Spinoza, we are either products of evolutionary biology or not, with all of the consequences/conclusions inherent in that supposition. I find it amusing to watch colleaques dance around this topic in the most PC acceptable way possible. A good friend of mine who teaches literature has summed it up very well by saying that if we are to assume a genetically inheritable anything, its ok to talk about races/groups inheriting positive traits but absolute taboo to speak of negative characterisitics.

    We have embarked since 1965 on a great experiment in changing a largely mono-ethnic nation-state into a multi-cultural state, with no single dominating ethnic group or culture. A careful reading of Dr. Samuel Huntington in his “Clash of Civilizations” shoots down the assumption that in any place at any time this has resulted in a harmonious, and cooperative social order. We are inherently tribal and racial in our behavior, and I have yet to hear of one reasonable arguement in favor of the desirability of intentionally creating a multi-cultural state out of a monocultural one. Do you have one?

  26. John Parker Says:

    My reflections on the reversion of our youth to barbarism is one I am formulating now but will be another discussion.

  27. spinoza1111 Says:

    The media teaches us, I fear, that to formulate a thought in a verifiable or falsifiable way, with good grammar and no bullshit, is to be “close-minded” and thereby behind the curve.

    This is meant, I fear, to flatter ignorance by telling it is open-minded and skeptical.

    Mr. Taylor, the real closed minds are the elite economists who were Keynesians when it came to the matter of bailing out the banks and the rich in 2008, but who are returning to savage free markets today. Americans are running out of unemployment insurance, and nothing is being done, because minds are closed at the top. Britons are to pay 20% VAT despite all the talk about taxes being evil, because it’s ok if single mothers pay taxes.

    Whereas we, who don’t count, are expected to keep an open mind about everything. Slaves have assholes, not opinions worth any attention.

    I fail to see how any “Hegelian higher synthesis” can result from this pulsing, in the West, between Thatcherism and New Labourism, and I recommend to you Adorno’s rather unreadable (by design) book Negative Dialectics. My father’s generation learned, when a legitimate government of Spain was overthrown by Fascism, that history, whether narrated simple-mindedly or in an Hegelian register, can just get worse, not better.

    New Labour and Clinton thought to synthesize “compassion” with the Thatcher thesis, but they could only do so by creating an artificial boom based on home prices.

    Let’s now turn from this to your claim that my “criminal class” implies a “virtuous class”. Well, Tex, I didn’t say that whites constitute a criminal class. Because I was trained in analytic philosophy and I’ve read Franz Fanon, what I said was that “white” in ordinary use as applied to people to form a set means the people who, starting in Spain in the 1490s, defined themselves as of greater worth than the nonwhite, and used this androdicy (my word, means a theodicy, a justification of God’s ways, where man replaces God) to:

    Expel the Moors from Spain
    Forcibly convert Spanish Jews
    Expel the above *conversos* on suspicion of backsliding
    Rage up and down the coast of Africa kidnapping slaves
    Slaughter the natives of North America
    Kill 1/3 the population of Germany to figure out who was worthy in the 30 Years War
    Seize India
    Colonize Africa, imposing boundaries on tribal divisions, the results of which caused the Rwandian genocide and countless other slaughters
    Tear each other to bloody rags in two destructive wars
    Kill 6-8 million European Jews, along with Roma, homosexuals, mental “defectives”, Social Democrats, Communists, and anti-Fascist Christians
    Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons
    Prolong the general Asian war that started with Japan’s attack on China in 1933 to *1975*, in a world war that included Japan’s aggression on China (to which the West turned a blind eye until Pearl Harbor), the French and Dutch attempts to keep Vietnam and Indonesia, the Korean war, and the “Vietnam war”
    Invade Iraq in 2003
    Create a country club (Israel) next to a concentration camp (Gaza): most recently, blithely commit piracy under international law, deliberately murdering activists with military rounds aimed at the head

    (Etc.) These are merely the most agreed upon white slaughters. This is why “white” studies must be CRITICAL white studies organized around the FACT that “white” is defined by “white” behavior, and “white” behavior has only one core element: aggression based on assumption of superiority.

    Russian literature is utterly unlike English literature: German music doesn’t resemble Italian music: French painting is French. None of these arts have a “white” aspect: Pushkin, Russia’s best poet, was black: Beethoven probably was: Gauguin was partly Peruvian.

    I wouldn’t mind at all if Griffin examined the construction of self-definition as “white” (a classic of which is the book, How the Irish Became White). But this is “critical” white studies, and in such a class, white Vermont kids might hear things that the pandering media doesn’t tell them.

    Let’s go on. I’m afraid your talk about propaganda being “science” is based on a complete misapprehension of the boundary between biology on the one hand, and psychology, sociology and anthropology on the other.

    Since I’ve done my best to learn university physics and mathematics, and was a software developer and published author for many years, I have a great deal of respect for mathematical and logical proof and the scientific method.

    This respect, however, turns into disgust when I see “logical proofs” of racial difference, because in mathematics I learned to define the objects; I worked my way through Willard van Orman Quine’s Set Theory and Its Logic to see how demanding this can be. We DEFINED the numbers.

    But when you use “bell curves” based on false concepts such as IQ and “race” defined by idiots, a concept that can’t even begin to handle the beautiful multiracial children I teach, a concept that is a slap in their face, you’re not using the scientific method. You are abusing it. You are blaspheming Galileo’s memory, and the memory of all people, such as Hypatia of Alexandria or Aristotle himself, who loved the truth.

    And don’t you DARE, sir, to so airily dismiss my egalitarianism and my sense of justice. It was hard earned, damn your eyes. I voted for goddamn Reagan in 1980 and then I was defined as not white enough for promotion to management…because I have a sense of humor and a passion for the truth. “White” people kiss ass.

    Psychology, sociology and anthropology cannot restrict themselves to the scientific method of mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology because “the sciences of man” are ineradicably self-reflexive.

    Intellect evolved as a survival mechanism. Therefore, if some slob uses his intellect to threaten my survival (or flourishing), pretending he’s standing outside the system as a “neutral” observer without his OWN genetic and anthropological legacy, he’s my enemy to that precise extent. He says, as was said to Fanon when Fanon returned to Algeria thinking he would be respected as a university graduate, “look, a Negro!”

    As to your friend the literature teacher, where these countless teachers are secretly “anti-PC” and probably take their hatred out in countless little and nasty ways on students of color. It’s in fact not “PC” to overpraise black folks for being able to dance. Nor is it acceptable to declare that “white” (German/Irish/American) guys like me should not dance lest we offend the dignity of whiteness; this evening, I went to listen to Reorientate in Hong Kong, and, since I’m a trained dancer, I danced to set a good example to the others.

    Not very “white” of me: and owing to “white” propaganda, in the eyes of the dull and stupid, I could be flaming Baryshnikov and they’s still turn away in disgust, because “tough guys don’t dance”: as white men, we’re supposed to support the team by acting in stereotypical ways: hold on to that bottle and try to impress girls with your fucking wallet, for the most part.

    But it is of course far less acceptable to claim that negative characteristics are inherited. South Africa is crime-ridden, not because its majority is black, but because after apartheid, it decided to go free market, and simply cannot provide jobs to many people, especially Boers and blacks. Other African countries, such as Swaziland, have completely different histories.

    As to the viability of multi-cultural states, let’s start with the Roman Empire, shall we? The Republic and the first two hundred years of Rome provided peaceful lives to millions; its tyranny was par for the course in those times. The Bible records Pilate’s Roman willingness to show mercy.

    China, for thousands of years, was multicultural. Two dynasties, the Yuan and the Q’ing, consisted of a foreign invader adopting Chinese ways.

    The British empire was of course multi-cultural.

    Samuel Huntington’s claim, that the United States was based on a New England Puritan model, is counterfactual. A signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Carroll of Carollton, was a Roman Catholic. New England Congregationalists, in the Revolution, formed a big tent coalition with Quakers and Anglicans of the Tidewater.

    Huntington insults the memory of my Irish ancestors, and can kiss my Irish ass for this reason: the Irish built the eastern half of this country with their sweat. Huntington insults the memory of Asian Americans.

    And Huntington insults the memory of the men who served under my uncle in the 442 “Nisei” Regimental Combat Team.

    Everybody reads Huntington, nobody reads the later John “Political Liberalism” Rawls. Rawls shows how a nation doesn’t need a “culture” but can encompass incompatible cultures and religions as long as its member cultures and religions “agree to disagree”.

    This is a politically correct speech code. Baltimore, as a colony, passed one because as a seaport it wanted people of different cultures to get along, so it banned certain words and it banned aggressive proseltysing. This isn’t censorship. It’s civilization, something which Huntington misdefines as culture and religion.

    The Nisei who served under my uncle weren’t Christians; my grandmother received a letter of condolence from their chaplain which spoke of Nirvana. They weren’t defending a “white” civilization which at time of crisis locked yellow men up. But they WERE defending an idea at a much higher level.

    The “idea” of living in a nation where people, in fact, said nothing at all about what it is to be “white”, except in an honest effort to redress what “white” people have done while dreaming their white wet dream.

    Were I still a good Catholic, I would say that from the Roman Catholic point of view, Huntington is an heretic. “Go and teach all nations”, and St Peter and the apostles speaking all tongues on Pentecost, is interpreted by Catholic theology of meaning (as St Paul wrote) that Gentile and Jew, all nations in fact, even men and women, are “one in Christ Jesus”.

    This means that to call upon Americans, such as the grandchildren of my uncle’s men, to support a white-Protestant model sets up a state religion.

  28. John Parker Says:

    Spinoza, I have enjoyed this exchange, but this will be my last response. As a student of history, it is self evident that every multi-racial/ethnic empire was maintained coercively, Rome to Yugoslavia, and freedom was the natural antogonist of an egalitarianism enforced by the gladius to the AK47. As those empires matured and declined, losing their ability to maintain order, mono-ethnic forces rose to compete for and contest with rival ethnics, Rome to Yugoslavia. Are we reading the same books?

    Freedom is the antithesis of egalitarianism, and you and individuals who think like you are willing, indeed, compelled to enforce association and cooperation coercively at the point of a gun through the collective power of the ruling elite. For God’s sake man, look around you! The forces opposing that great anti-nationalist experiment the EU are growing by the day, as people confronted by the dehumanizing and spirit killing force of modernism and capitalism turn to what has always secured identity, blood, soil and creed.

    These forces are not led or inspired by jack booted, beer swilling Nazi’s or ignorant rednecks, in fact what alarms the SPLC is the concurrent rise of academics, intellectuals, writers and other members of the intelligentsia who are providing the idea based, philosophical rationale for racial nationalism. You sir, are or soon will be an anachronism and intellectual curiousity, a self-loathing product of western culture and education. Your open disparagement notwithstanding, I will always stand with my family, and by extension, my extended racial/cultural family against all outsiders. We are natural enemies you and I, and will remain so. You spoke in an earlier message of picking up a gun when the time comes. I am sure we will find ourselves on opposite barricades.

    I do not wish you or yours well in this fight and our numbers (where it counts) are growing trust me, from the US to Europe.

  29. spinoza1111 Says:

    It is a fantasy to suppose that a community can be formed of blood and soil, for Job One is defining the tribe.

    The prelapsarian fantasy is irrecoverable. If your tribe lives in isolation from the others, then you know through whatever system of kinship is yours who’s a member.

    But if you say “we’s white, and thass all right”, especially for fuck’s sake in a university, it would seem that “if you would converse with” the university community, you’d better “define your terms”. This means that Griffin, early in the class, has to DEFINE WHITENESS.

    But this is precisely what the Nazis did with respect to Ayran, isn’t it. The cutting edge of the concept draws blood, except in a critical race theory where you analytically define whiteness as participation in the European and American system of expansion and control between 1492 and today.

    This is a definition that allows you to proceed. It is not a judgement on individual whites. I’ll be happy to do so, especially with respect to old white men who have been subject lo these thirty years to media propaganda and think they’re deep and well read. But critical white studies merely is an organizing tool for the facts.

    As it turns out, the process of defining one’s tribe post-Enlightenment is open-ended, creating divisions without limit as the tribe members turn away from maximizing their “wishy washy bleeding heart liberal tolerance” and towards maximizing its reverse.

    In the 1830s, in the USA, whites didn’t worry about blacks, since most blacks were slaves. So, the divide in the 1830s was defined by the Know-Nothing party as between Catholics and Protestants.

    In the Civil War, of course, Catholics were welcome to join the glorious “Cause” of a proto-fascist Confederacy as were Jews such as Judah P Benjamin. But had the Confederacy won, creating a state based on national identity, “state’s rights”, that state would have split three ways in turn between the Tidewater aristocracy, the Deep South and Texas.

    [You know why Louise, in Thelma and Louise, wouldn't drive through Texas to get from Oklahoma to Mexico, I'm sure.]

    Having expelled the Palestinians, Ashkenaz Israelis are now demonstrating against having their children go to school with Sephardic Israelis. Turns out that “Jew”, despite the role it plays in what passes for a Constitution in the failed state of Israel, is negotiable after all.

    Even within the family (extended or nuclear) there is no final, unbreakable, atomic solidarity as witness the Bible stories of Joseph and his brothers and Cain and Abel, and the “black sheep”.

    Essentially, your dream boils down to some fat suburban male bitch-slapping his wife while reloading as fancied hordes of totalitarians egged on by college professors assault his *laager*, his bunker.

    Who is white enough for Robert Griffin
    Who is a whiter shade of pale
    What oh what is the definition
    Of whiteness: is it white like a sail?

    A sail on which we’ll sail into the sunset
    Into the white wet dream
    With a lotta white girls with whom to sit
    All covered in white wet cream.

    We’ll kill the self hating professors and faggy poets
    For this is what they’ve said to us

    We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
    By sea girls wreathed in white and brown
    Until human voices wake us and we drown, for
    With hearts grown brutal we have fed ourselves with fantasies.

    [Last line credit: TS Eliot WB Yeats)

  30. spinoza1111 Says:

    The authors listed speak as if we know a “white” genome. They obviously have no experience in software development.

    A genome is a program for creating a human being. It consists of digital (in the sense of discrete) but not binary codes.

    Now, two programs in “machine language”, the well-known “bits and bytes”, can have, statistically, “almost the same” bit patterns and yet behave in wildly different ways. Furthermore, Alan Turing discovered in 1936 (before computers were invented by way of reasoning using an abstract model) that it would be impossible for a third program to tell whether two programs, of different bit patterns, do the same thing.

    By extension, it is impossible for a computer program to detect whether two genomes which are non-identical have the same effect, or even belong to a definable set of genomes having the same overall effect (such as “whiteness”). As in a computer, a single “bit” change can have a dramatic effect.

    *A fortiori*, it is irresponsible to reason that just because two people originate from the same extended tribe that they have more in common than with other human beings.

    The only level at which we see similarity of genetic effect is the sufficiently-close level of the family because statistically, once you cluster around a mean, similarities finally emerge. However, these similarities are deliberately exaggerated, for example by doting parents. The dotage must increase, along with the sentimentality and curdled Romanticism of a Hitler, to get to the point of seeing a “national family”.

    Just as it is a mistake for a father such as I to reason that my son has anything like the same genetic endowment and thus no right of self-determination, Hitler was engaging, in his early years, in Griffin’s fantasy when he thought he saw a common “German” element in Munich as opposed to Vienna.

    Hitler despised what he, under the sort of 19th century racial theory which Griffin is so enthusiastically reviving, a difference between the swarming Czechs, Poles, Turks and others in Vienna, and the pure, blonde, blue *Himmels-Augen* (“heaven’s eyes”) in the Germans he preferred.

    Philosophical “nominalism” is the doctrine that concepts are constructed and do not pre-exist. Kant was a nominalist.

    YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY (Jenny Holzer)

    This means that defining a concept is subject to moral responsibility, especially, and uniquely, when the concept is a set of HUMAN BEINGS.

    Nationality is defined by place of permanent residence, holding down a job, paying taxes, and being a decent human being and neighbor in your community.

    A “Turk” can be a German.

    A Muslim can be a Briton.

    These men were Americans:

    Barney F. Hajiro
    Mikio Hasemoto
    Joe Hayashi
    Shizuya Hayashi
    Daniel K. Inouye
    Yeiki Kobashigawa
    Robert T. Kuroda
    Kaoru Moto
    Sadao Munemori
    Kiyoshi K. Muranaga

    where the above is a list of Names randomly selected from a list on wikipedia of Medal of Honor winners serving with the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, United States Army, in North Africa, southern France, and central Italy between 1942 and 1945.

    This man was also an American: Edward Joseph Nilges, Captain, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, United States ARMY. He didn’t need the Medal of Honor, because he said “follow me”, and Fred Tanaka told my Dad that he was shot because they all had to get up, and he was the tallest.

    He died in defense of a Constitution which makes no mention of civilization or ethnicity. Quite the opposite. And he died at the hands of men who, like that asshole Huntington and that filthy bastard Griffin, believed that they represent civilization and racial purity or excellence, or some sort of je ne sans fucking quoi.

    And like me when young, he may have been physically repelled by nonwhite people. And underneath that he may have been attracted by their women in some dark place. We do know from his letters that he despised Italians, but he had the sanctifying grace to despise them because they didn’t go to church and had let their country go to hell.

    We do know from his letters that by 1945 all that was by the way in the refiner’s fire of war and that he’d become like Robert Gould Shaw, Colonel, 54th Massachusetts “All Black” Regiment, United States Army, 1861-1863, in Robert Lowell’s poem For the Union Dead:

    He has an angry wrenlike vigilance,
    a greyhound’s gently tautness;
    he seems to wince at pleasure,
    and suffocate for privacy.

    He is out of bounds now. He rejoices in man’s lovely,
    peculiar power to choose life and die–
    when he leads his black soldiers to death,
    he cannot bend his back.

    He didn’t die for white civilization. He died for Civilization, period.

    Case CLOSED, Tex.

  31. spinoza1111 Says:

    “Oh you have a closed mind, you’re not open to new ideas
    Or new fears, such as creationism, white pride,
    Holocaust denial, Donald Duck cried Shakespeare’s tears
    Or this worthless home I’d unload on your backside”,
    The latest bunkum, the newest craze,
    The madness and the sadness and the badassness
    Of the crowd that’s in a daze.

    Of whom CS Lewis said, wisely,
    As in a dream when a teacher appears,
    “They have been maddened with false promises and fears,
    And soured with true miseries”.

    Well, Tex, in the Army they used to say, back in the day,
    There’s always some bird,
    Some Sad Sack who doesn’t get the word.

    I guess I’m not a skeptic when it is skeptic time
    I’m not a believer when the church bell doth chime.
    I’m not supposed to believe the liberal professors
    Or let them be my father confessors,
    When they talk you’re Voltaire
    Despite the fact that you’re talking hot air
    Down there, and the joint is reeking
    With the false skepticism and real ignorance you’ve been speaking.

    Ah but now the trumpet, that old strumpet, summons us again
    To read Samuel Huntington,
    And get some dat ole time religion
    And define that good ole blut undt boden.
    Voltaire ain’t there, dude done left the buildin’
    I’m thinkin’.

    Blow me. Bite my crank.

    You have fed yourself on fantasies,
    You have lingered in the chambers of the sea,
    You’re heart’s grown brutal, you ain’t Voltaire
    You’re a pitcher of pee,
    Into which Christ is plunged
    Eternally.

    “Give me an ounce of civet, to sweeten my imagination, good apothecary”

    OK, let’s go over this once more, o ye laurels once more
    Let us move in measure like the dancer.
    It might be tedious and it might be a bore
    But I’ll take my chances being a main chancer.

    It seems to me a Mystery, and very strange to boot
    That today Religion allows us to say anything at all
    But once we step outside into the pure clean truth,
    The springtime of Sunday outside the meeting hall,
    The cops of anti-political correctness forbid us to speak.
    “How can you say that what proof do you have
    Fire Dan Rather, he’s talking Sanskrit or Greek”.

    Inside the Kirk we can say what we like
    Whales speak French at the bottom of the sea
    H’it’s a mystery
    Like Steak and Shake is a meal.
    Kevin Costner will dive into the ocean
    And plug the oil leak, as long as he got religion.

    But for the fool on the hill, here’s a stone
    He’s making that stuff all up out of…books
    He’d better turn that stone into bread
    Afore it hits him upside the side of his head.

    And so Enlightenment has gone away
    In the remains of the day.
    A sigh, curtains are drawn, the TV is on
    And we are locked and loaded.

  32. hartford dentist family…

    [...]Robert S Griffin of the University of Vermont « Spinoza1111′s Blog[...]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 539 other followers

%d bloggers like this: