The dark nature of humanity

[mlw]

The recent Charlestown church massacre of black people, perpetrated by a white male, brings up the race question again. What is the nature of this obnoxious evil? First, let's look at the data. This is FBI:s homicide statistics for 2013 (FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 6 ).

Number of homicides with white victim and black offender: 409.
Number of homicides with black victim and white offender: 189.

The black percentage of the population is approximately 13%.
The white percentage of the population is approximately 78%.

Thus, Blacks are accountable for 68.4% of black-white interracial homicides despite being only 13% of the population. With this data we don't need the exact population number in the U.S. to calculate the likelihood to commit interracial homicide, because we can simplify and say that there are 13 black persons and 78 white persons living in the "mini-USA" where the homicide relation remains the same. Thus, 13 black people commit 409 interracial homicides and 78 white people commit 189 interracial homicides. So in the mini-USA Blacks commit 31.5 interracial homicides per person whereas Whites commit 2.4 interracial homicides per person. Thus we get the relation, which is valid for USA today: a black person is 13 times(!) more likely to commit interracial homicide than a white person.

The over-representation of Blacks in interracial homicide is truly daunting. Today's intellectuals have a solution to this, however. Typically, we must neutralize hatred by elevating forgiveness as ideal and stop seeing people as "other". An obvious conclusion is that black people, especially, should stop thinking in terms of out-group and in-group. As long as Blacks remain defensive about their group affiliation they will continue killing white people.

It is the formulation of an intellectual sitting in an ivory tower, safely removed from reality. The truth in the matter is that homicide is largely an effect of innate aggression which the criminal personality is unable to control. It has its roots in the archaic psyche of man. Central to archaic man is the theme of emancipation of the ego from the serfdom under the unconscious. In Fiona Lloyd-Davies documentary, Congolese soldiers say: "When we rape, we feel free". Killing and raping remain the most prominent rituals whereby temporary ego emancipation is achieved. That's why, in historical pagan societies, the murderous ritual was institutionalized as the blood sacrifice. But it remains equally thematic today, in the way Boko Haram and IS are attacking civilian villagers in a rampage of rape and murder.

When analysing the interracial murder statistics in the U.S., we must primarily understand it as expressions of archaic man, and not as airy-fairy sociological effects of group segregation. In fact, if Blacks and Whites had lived more isolated from each other, then the interracial crime statistics would abate drastically. The notion that a person prone to murder shall become a decent and loving person just by adopting the notion of racial inclusivity is ludicrous. In fact, disidentification from white man is wholesome for black people, and vice versa, because individuation requires that one remains true to one's own nature. Otherwise disidentification risks taking a concrete expression in the form of hatred and murder. This is evident from the fact that different ethnicities and cultures are wholly capable of respecting each other as long as they live remote from one another. But when they mix, social trust is drastically reduced.

In Sweden the phenomenon of "white flight" is very pronounced. When non-European immigrants exceed 4% in a housing area, the Swedes start to move out, according to a dissertation (2015) by Emma Neuman at the Linné university, Sweden (Skillnader mellan olika grupper p arbets- och bostadsmarknaden - ny avhandling - Linn universitetet - Lnu.se ). Had people been allowed to acknowledge differences, however, the problem would be less pronounced. Due to the effects of political correct propaganda racial awareness is today unconscious. Thus, it becomes infected with archaic fear and mistrust.

In my view, it would have been better if we reverted to the olden ways of racial disidentification and segregation. Although this seems oppressive and lacking in sympathy, there is no other alternative than to accept that human beings partake of "dark nature", and that there is no way out of this predicament. We have to accept that life on this earth includes aggression and murder. The idea that we can remove dark nature by adopting a forgiving sentiment in an ethnically mixed environment is ludicrous. It's like saying that we should be able to stop the greenhouse effect by composting kitchen refuse. Let's get real and admit that evil is here to stay.

M. Winther

 

[there4eyeM]

Those responsible for the greatest crimes in history have been of Asiatic and European origins.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“In my view, it would have been better if we reverted to the olden ways of racial disidentification and segregation.”

Fortunately your view is ignorant, wrong, and un-Constitutional.

 

[midcan5]

Racism is alive and well in America.

"The recalcitrant pledges to “take our country back” that began after the [Obama] Inauguration were simply more genteel expressions of the sentiments that [Dyann] Roof articulated." link below.

"Nearly all of South Carolina was in mourning Thursday. Flags were at half-mast. Except the Confederate flag, of course, which flew high outside the building where Tillman still stands and the laws of the state are written." link below.


"The Charleston police were quick to label what happened in the sanctuary of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church last Wednesday night a “hate crime.” Many crimes are motivated by hatred, yet we reserve the term “hate crime” for an act motivated by an animus that has been extrapolated beyond any single individual and applied to an entire segment of the populace. The murder of nine black churchgoers during Bible study is an act so heinous as to be immediately recognizable as a hate crime. But it was not simply this. We should, for all the worst reasons, be adept by now at recognizing terrorism when we see it, and what happened in Charleston was nothing less than an act of terror."


"Nine counties in South Carolina were so deeply suffused with Klan influence that they were placed under martial law. The Klan emerged not solely as an expression of concern for women but also in response to the growing political power of blacks in the postbellum South—people who, from the Klan’s vantage point, were taking over the country. In “The Prostrate State: South Carolina Under Negro Government,” published in 1873, the journalist James Shepherd Pike described a set of circumstances in which the white population was imperilled by the presence of black elected officials in the state legislature. The practice of lynching—there were more than a hundred and fifty lynchings in South Carolina between 1877 and 1950—facilitated the disenfranchisement of blacks and the retention of political power in white hands."

Terrorism in Charleston - The New Yorker

"Between 1882 and 1968, the year Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated, three thousand four hundred and forty-six black men, women, and children were lynched in this country—a practice so vicious and frequent that Mark Twain was moved, in 1901, to write an essay called “The United States of Lyncherdom.” (Twain shelved the essay and plans for a full-length book on lynching because, he told his publisher, if he went forward, “I shouldn’t have even half a friend left down [South].”) These thousands of murders, as studied by the Tuskegee Institute and others, were a means of enforcing white supremacy in the political and economic marketplaces; they served to terrorize black men who might dare to sleep, or even talk, with white women, and to silence black children, like Emmett Till, who were deemed "insolent."" Charleston and the Age of Obama - The New Yorker

 

[Moonglow]

The recent Charlestown church massacre of black people, perpetrated by a white male, brings up the race question again. What is the nature of this obnoxious evil?

Well first off, murder is murder, no matter the skin color or the income bracket...

 

[mlw]

I should mention that the above statistics for interracial homicide is relevant to single victim/single offender. Not counted is single victim/multiple offender.

It is easy to say that racism is "alive and well in America". But the loudest scolders of racialism in society are the first to move out when the "nigga's" move into their white housing area. That's my point. /Mlw

 

[Shotgun_Sammy]

Yes.

In today's America it is all but impossible for reasonable discussion on this topic. Even if it was a topic for honest debate, it won't happen. Blacks are not going to give up the victimization, just is not gonna happen. White Americans will get to the point when it becomes apparent the country is all but lost. Or rather they finally accept it.

This nation is done for. It's just a matter of time.

 

[Asclepias]

The recent Charlestown church massacre of black people, perpetrated by a white male, brings up the race question again. What is the nature of this obnoxious evil? First, let's look at the data. This is FBI:s homicide statistics for 2013 (FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 6 ).

Number of homicides with white victim and black offender: 409.
Number of homicides with black victim and white offender: 189.

The black percentage of the population is approximately 13%.
The white percentage of the population is approximately 78%.

Thus, Blacks are accountable for 68.4% of black-white interracial homicides despite being only 13% of the population. With this data we don't need the exact population number in the U.S. to calculate the likelihood to commit interracial homicide, because we can simplify and say that there are 13 black persons and 78 white persons living in the "mini-USA" where the homicide relation remains the same. Thus, 13 black people commit 409 interracial homicides and 78 white people commit 189 interracial homicides. So in the mini-USA Blacks commit 31.5 interracial homicides per person whereas Whites commit 2.4 interracial homicides per person. Thus we get the relation, which is valid for USA today: a black person is 13 times(!) more likely to commit interracial homicide than a white person.

The over-representation of Blacks in interracial homicide is truly daunting. Today's intellectuals have a solution to this, however. Typically, we must neutralize hatred by elevating forgiveness as ideal and stop seeing people as "other". An obvious conclusion is that black people, especially, should stop thinking in terms of out-group and in-group. As long as Blacks remain defensive about their group affiliation they will continue killing white people.

It is the formulation of an intellectual sitting in an ivory tower, safely removed from reality. The truth in the matter is that homicide is largely an effect of innate aggression which the criminal personality is unable to control. It has its roots in the archaic psyche of man. Central to archaic man is the theme of emancipation of the ego from the serfdom under the unconscious. In Fiona Lloyd-Davies documentary, Congolese soldiers say: "When we rape, we feel free". Killing and raping remain the most prominent rituals whereby temporary ego emancipation is achieved. That's why, in historical pagan societies, the murderous ritual was institutionalized as the blood sacrifice. But it remains equally thematic today, in the way Boko Haram and IS are attacking civilian villagers in a rampage of rape and murder.


When analysing the interracial murder statistics in the U.S., we must primarily understand it as expressions of archaic man, and not as airy-fairy sociological effects of group segregation. In fact, if Blacks and Whites had lived more isolated from each other, then the interracial crime statistics would abate drastically. The notion that a person prone to murder shall become a decent and loving person just by adopting the notion of racial inclusivity is ludicrous. In fact, disidentification from white man is wholesome for black people, and vice versa, because individuation requires that one remains true to one's own nature. Otherwise disidentification risks taking a concrete expression in the form of hatred and murder. This is evident from the fact that different ethnicities and cultures are wholly capable of respecting each other as long as they live remote from one another. But when they mix, social trust is drastically reduced.

In Sweden the phenomenon of "white flight" is very pronounced. When non-European immigrants exceed 4% in a housing area, the Swedes start to move out, according to a dissertation (2015) by Emma Neuman at the Linné university, Sweden (Skillnader mellan olika grupper p arbets- och bostadsmarknaden - ny avhandling - Linn universitetet - Lnu.se ). Had people been allowed to acknowledge differences, however, the problem would be less pronounced. Due to the effects of political correct propaganda racial awareness is today unconscious. Thus, it becomes infected with archaic fear and mistrust.

In my view, it would have been better if we reverted to the olden ways of racial disidentification and segregation. Although this seems oppressive and lacking in sympathy, there is no other alternative than to accept that human beings partake of "dark nature", and that there is no way out of this predicament. We have to accept that life on this earth includes aggression and murder. The idea that we can remove dark nature by adopting a forgiving sentiment in an ethnically mixed environment is ludicrous. It's like saying that we should be able to stop the greenhouse effect by composting kitchen refuse. Let's get real and admit that evil is here to stay.

M. Winther

Your only problem is that his issue was with Black men banging white women and taking over the country. Monkeys like you always seem to deflect from the real issue. Dylan the coward was upset about stuff like this......






and this......

 

[mlw]

Research on children performed by cognitive scientist Lawrence A. Hirschfeld ("Race in the Making - Cognition, Culture, and the Child's Construction of Human Kinds") contradicts the notion that race and "rankism" are conscious constructs to "set people up for exploitation". Hirschfeld says:

"First, as already noted, if naturalization is contingent, why does naturalized thinking change so little in the face of substantial changes in either cultural formation or specific relations of power? Moreover, the view that naturalization is contingent on either culture or power implies that any cultural dimension can be naturalized in the service of power. There is little reason to believe that this is case. There are remarkably few naturalized relations of power--if we exclude gender and race, we can probably count those that recur with any frequency on one hand. It is clear that race recurs with striking regularity. Why? Surely not because race took on the mantle of naturalness simply because it serves power. Human beings did not construct racial categories simply because they provide a discursive reconciliation of relations of power and authority. Instead, I suggest, race was taken up as a category of power in part because of its unique characteristics as a category of the mind [...]
Human kinds are natural categories of the mind, in the sense that the mind is prepared to find them with little or no external encouragement. Moreover, I have proposed that human kinds predicated on intrinsicality are a category of the mind which human beings are prepared to hold. The notion of race is the outcome, the consequence, of this preparedness as it makes contact with contexts in which complex relations of power and authority are played out on the group level. An appreciation of this complex and contingent relationship between mind architecture and power politics follows from appreciation of the singular and recurrent way racial cognitions develop across time and across cultural contexts." (pp.188-9)

It is important to remember that race as "social construct" is not at all the prevailing model. There is a radical lack of agreement among academics on the nature of race. I hold that "racial awareness" has its roots in the unconscious and it is coupled with an innate tendency to differentiate people according to social status and kinship. According to recent studies, people are acutely aware of race and ethnicity. Thus, it seems that the anti-essentialist propaganda hasn't had the slightest effect, except in the tabloid press. Research at the universities of Copenhagen and Aarhus has verified that "interethnic exposure underlies the negative relationship between ethnic diversity in residential contexts and social trust" (Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust ).

Hirschfeld explains that "race" is fundamentally part of the human cognitive endowment as a domain-specific competence for creating knowledge of and reasoning about human kinds. He regards these findings as in many respects disquieting, because race is not simply a bad idea--it is a deeply rooted bad idea, firmly grounded in our minds (cf. Hirschfeld, p.xi). Thus, our naive and unconscious beliefs about hidden racial qualities are bound to perpetuate discrimination. The race problem belongs to our "dark nature". It will never go away, and we must stop pretending that it is merely a wrongful conception that can be rectified, and that it is neither present in myself nor my children, but only in others. It is a painful ever-present reality, which is not really a problem that I can pursue outside myself and rectify, since it is part and parcel of human nature.

There is no proof that the massacre at the Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston is predicated on race as conscious construct. I contend that it is merely the offender's conscious rationalization of the archaic impetus of the unconscious. In fact, Dylann Roof had been speaking about attacking the Charleston college. So this means that victimization was the underlying motif, regardless of his conscious notions of race (Charleston church shooting Suspect Dylann Roof said he wanted to attack college Christian News on Christian Today ). We must think of race in relation to the unconscious and instinct, but stop racializing the discourse in terms of conscious attitudes, arguing that white people have an unduly "racialized consciousness". This is popular in the postmodernist discourse right now. Yet, conscious notions of racial differences is not enough to explain murder, although it explains the target choice. The notion of race as "social construct" is easy to refute by pointing at the crime statistics. In that case, black man would have a much more "racialized consciousness" than white man. After all, according to the U.S. Department of Justice report, "Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005", there were 37,461 reported rapes of white women by black men, but less than 10 rapes of black women by white men. (The reported rape figures are believed to represent less than half, probably only ca. 37-38% of the real number.)

Following the postmodern discourse, as applied in neo-Marxism and post-structuralism, the black rapists must have applied "rankism" in order to set these white women up for exploitation. It is a highly implausible notion. Rather, the phenomenon has its roots in the archaic psyche of man. When people are forced to live in an ethnic cultural environment where they cannot really be themselves, and where they cannot give expression to their own innate ethnic nature, it means that they cannot individuate. Instead, they have to live with a feeling of resentment about the racist attitudes of the surrounding. If they cannot individuate, aggression and criminality is the alternative way of strengthening the ego. It is natural man, dark nature, making a statement about the untenable situation. If we won't accept social status and ethnicity as decisive factors in human relations, then dark Mother Nature will strike back with a vengeance. That's why the integration of culturally disparate ethnic groups has very damaging consequences. People know this instinctively, and that's why they prefer to settle in ethnic monocultures.

It is not the question of reinstituting segregation in the way of racial laws. Rather, I am suggesting that society should promote cultural and residential segregation (but not personal segregation, such as separate buses for blacks). This is an argument forwarded by immigrant intellectuals in Sweden, because cultural and residential segregation occurs anyway. But segregation today leads to ghettoization. For instance, religious congregations are housed in awkward basement premises. It would have been better if the government subsidized the growth of culture among ethnic minorities, because it reduces the harmful effects of ghettoization. Evidently, for the majority of immigrants, assimilation doesn't work.

Whereas Whites subject Blacks to discrimination, Blacks subject Whites to criminal victimization at an astounding disproportion. Such facts must be placed on the table. Otherwise the evil circle cannot be broken. It is not my placing the facts on the table that drives racism. Race as social construct has been thoroughly refuted by cognitive science. To expose the racial problem has the reverse effect, because it activates the racial complex, allowing for an integration with consciousness. We now know what drives these phenomena: the racialized unconscious, which is equally pertinent to the black population as the white. This explains why white people often dream about the Negro as signifying the primitive aspect of personality. Carl Jung notes that this was a common dream symbol of his American patients. But we cannot educate our unconscious and say: "No, you mustn't think of black people in that way." Instead, we must face the facts about racial differences (e.g. the statistical facts that I referenced), because sweeping them under the carpet is to no avail. To the contrary, we must analyze them in light of our innate function of autonomous categorization. As Hirschfeld explains, more than being a function of discernment of perceptual factors, it is what gives rise to the essentialist view of race. This, in turn, will reinforce discrimination and victimization on both sides.

Our innate faculty of reasoning about race exaggerates the conception of racial innateness and ontology, invariably coupled with certain racial behaviours. When people become aware of the differences that actually exist, the naive ontology pertaining to 'the Negro' is "verified". So we must lift into consciousness our human cognitive endowment of thinking in terms of "human kinds", which underlies racial ontology. We must also realize the true facts about ethnoracial differences, which serve to underpin our exaggerated notion of racial character. Otherwise the evil circle cannot be broken, since our innate preparedness of racial conceptual differentiation plays an important part in perpetuating discrimination and victimization. Hirschfeld says:

"Multicultural interventions aside, there is no reason to believe that we can similarly vaccinate our young against racism. In part this is because cognitive vaccinations have the unfortunate property of looking more like propaganda than anything else. They are attempts to convince people that something they know perfectly well is not the case. We don't get people to diet by telling them that they are not hungry. We won't get people to stop deeply cognizing race by telling them that they do not. It matters little whether we are talking to adult followers of Jean-Marie Le Pen or David Duke or to 5-year-olds. We are simply not likely to rid ourselves of racialist thinking by denying that racialism is deeply grounded in our conceptual endowment. The susceptibility to think in racial terms is genuinely within us, clearly in virtue of our cognitive endowment." (p.xiii)

M. Winther

 

[Unkotare]

It is important to remember that race as "social construct" is not at all the prevailing model.

As pertains to matters of culture and socialization, yes it is.