|
Joe Feagin Hates White People (Part I)
A review of Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future
Reparations by Joe R. Feagin. [Joe R. Feagin, "Jorf," as he's known by his colleagues,
is Professor of Sociology at the University of Florida in Gainesville and is currently
President of the American Sociological Association. (
feagin@ufl.edu)]
by Matt Nuenke and Alex Linder
Reality is for people who can't handle sociology...
Executive Summary: The commie chieftain of the ASA has come out with a race book
squeezed from the cheeks of idiocy and ideology. Marxist Joe Feagin serves up a Special
Olympics drag race between Big Daddy Burning Factual Ignorance and Red-Hot Hatred of Whitey
Jr. that even the old mystagogue himself would have a hard time topping. Both parachutes
fail and his funnycars rebut themselves on the retaining wall of reality, but at least we
get a clear picture of where the "abolish Whiteness" movement is headed -- and a chance to
reinforce a few documented racial truths for readers preferring racial fact to religious
fiction.
It's all calculated. Don't ever believe that the Left acts spontaneously. Even when it
is intuitive, it is an intuitive drive for power. These people want to be in control, and
the only way they can do this is by exerting moral blackmail on everybody else.
(Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky)
Unlike most behaviorists, Hans Eysenck accepted both the 'reality' of intelligence
differences and their mainly biological origins; and he had already upset social scientists
in Britain by claiming that Nationalists and Communists might have underlying psychological
traits of illiberalism, insensitivity and spitefulness genetically in common.
(Brand, 1996)
Sociology has always been a discipline long on ideology and short on facts, and Marxist Joe
Feagin, head of the American Sociological Association, carries on that noxious tradition in
his long and lie-filled opus, Racist America. It's about what you'd expect: a
rotten succotash of facts-that-aren't mixed with asinine, hate-filled ideology stewing in a
Marxist pot until it ferments into the same old Revolution -- he hopes. Idle theorizing
about issues already resolved by hard study by honest men might seem useless or destructive
to you or me, but then we belong to the class that accepts reality as its starting point.
Sociologists, as a rule, don't. Certainly, King Feagin doesn't. (The discipline itself
reflects an inbuilt bias few Socs rise above: that people are more influenced by other
people than by their own genes or ideas.) It's one thing to be disposed to view the world
in a certain way, but if factual honesty and reality and coherence and integrity have any
meaning -- and the Feaginoids probably would dismiss them too as social constructs -- it's
that the honest man must deal with evidence contradicting his thesis. But maybe that
explains the success of the "social construct" brigade. No need to submit to any discipline,
just tennis with the net down; hacking away in the lab until you come up with some new
permutation of angrified injustice and scream it on the world as the tantrum this time.
All very tiresome for those who believe reality is real. Reality is for people who can't
handle drugs, said Janis Joplin. In a similar vein we might say: Reality is for
people who can't handle sociology. We can only hope that one day his puker will back up
just like Janis', because Lord knows we're drowning in crap after reading this book.
And the hate: Boy oh boy does this guy hate White people. Not even the timidest most
milquetoast Semitically Correct individualist conservative dogmatist could escape questioning
the motive at work here when it jumps out at him from virtually every paragraph. We would
like to say we found it necessary to "deconstruct" the motive or purpose of this diatribe
against Whites, but it's more like we had to scrape it out of our face like jungle foliage.
One couldn't ignore it, even out of misplaced politeness -- it's the it and the all of this
screed. The ressentiment is everywhere and unavoidable. Feagin hates Whites, White
males, WASPs, Martha Stewart and probably snow and rice and white mice -- for no reason and
every reason. Feagin is a Marxist and uses his dialectics to tell a story about how White
Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) are the vilest oppressors ever to inhabit the earth:
vicious murderers/enslavers of Africans, Native Americans, Indians, non-cigarette Camels,
non-acronym Wombats, Three-Toed Sloths, Gnus, Left-Handed Mosquitoes, and extinct trilobytes.
And he is intent on proving that this horrible legacy of oppression continues today. Yes,
just head on down to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and pick up your very own
smallpox-infested blanket while supplies last...
Ugh. We've heard it all before: American history is nothing but the history of White
racism, and all White accomplishments and wealth would have been impossible without it.
Nary a forest would have been cleared, save for colored oppression. Nary a cotton would
have picked, saved for Leroy. Nary an oscillometer, nary a suspension bridge emerged from
the drafting board save Uncle Remus' patient calculations. But as we say, he doesn't stop
there. Nothing as evil as the White man could ever change or reverse course -- just
reappear in new and more sinisterly insinuating guises, like Madonna. White racism is so
evil and ubiquitous and slithery it can manifest itself both in slavery, where the darkie
worked for Whitey, and in affirmative action, where Whitey works for darkie. Slavery is
where man exploits man: Affirmative action is the opposite. It's a sort of half-wit's
unified field theory: White racism explains everything. White racism not only explains
everything, it is everything. It is A and anti-A. It is a fall leaf and a spring leaf.
It is leprosy and its cure. You know how if you look hard enough at a newspaper photo you
see it's made up of tiny dots? Well, those dots are "white racism" to King Joe, and the
world a big wirephoto.
Feagin claims there is a conspiracy among these WASPs todayrightnowthisminute to
oppress and exploit Blacks. This is the much-bruited 'systemic racism' that half-wit Negro
activists and their Jewish handlers yawp about when they aren't burning books or bawling
for speech codes. Feagin spins some campfire tales about unfriendly Caspars to bare the
internal workings of this invisible empire of oppression. The short of it's that a
Mysterious Substance resides in the breasts of White WASPs like Martha Stewart (even though
she's Polish) -- you know, kind of like the way a mysterious and highly wonderful substance
resides in the breasts of coloreds -- diversity -- except this White WASP substance is a
Bad Thing, a poison, if you will; an intent-to-dominate present in every single person of
paleness (except maybe Feagin's bogtrotting forbears, one suspects). So subtle is this
poison it is never spoken about, mentioned or used, yet wherever anti-White affirmative
action laws are in place, you see its trail. White people are so intent on prosecuting
racism against Negroes they set up special laws discriminating against Whites. Who but
the White racist could possibly be so devilishly devious?
Most people who put forth stupid conspiracy theories are laughed offstage as paranoid
morons. At ASA they're elected president. In academia and in the sociology 'discipline'
theories without facts -- theories in contradiction to facts -- get you publishing deals
and air time and op-ed space. Yes, the Marxist anti-White theoreticians pie-eyedly accept
the explanations about the way the world works that would raise questions in the mind of an
alert six-year-old. Yes, despite all those anti-White laws, despite all the Orwellian
clamor over 'diversity,' despite the near-total lack of resistance to Mexican and Turd-World
invasion (despites its celebration in the media), the learned Soc profs are just sure Whites
are so many automatons, antly carrying out their orders from Caucasian Central (never quite
identified is the drum major leading this charade).
Feagin's hatred of Whites in this book is just a tad less ludicrous than Malcolm X's The
End of White Racism, in which Whites are portrayed as beasts with tails and all, no
better than dogs. But is this hatred just another form of bigotry? Perhaps not. It has
more to do with an ongoing power struggle between the old Marxists and the general White
population, which is, contrary to Feagin's thesis, relatively aracial (or at least beaten
by the media into hushing its true views) yet unwilling to yield to a new totalitarian
egalitarian state (communism). The very fact that Whites today seem so accepting of any
and all races today, unlike in the past, poses a threat to these Marxists.
Why would the current President of the American Sociological Association make such a bold
indictment of a single race of people? Partly because it's safe, and partly because it
pays, and partly because these Marxists feel betrayed by the very aliens they flooded the
country with after greasing passage of the 1965 Immigration Act. These new "people of
color" had their own ideas, weren't content to be pliable tools for Jew operators. They
wanted to push air out of their own mouths rather than recite scripted lines. They were
capable of causing destruction in the all-encompassing manner of the flood, the metaphor
usually used to describe their influx. But the Marxists wanted a hammer they could use to
smash White hegemony, and have been disappointed so far that the aliens haven't proven as
solid and unified and willing to take direction as hoped.
To turn Lenin, altho the learned profs aren't interested in reality, reality is interested
in them: the spice groups didn't all get along; in many cases their native stupidities and
struggles were imported wholesale, just as Thomas Jefferson predicted. Even in the absence
of open hostilities, the newcomers have pursued their own interests and have as much
hostility for Blacks as Whites do, and very often much more (see Kevin MacDonald's paper
An Integrative
Evolutionary Perspective on Ethnicity). Feagin's anticipated emancipation of the
oppressed leading to a unified force against Whitey hasn't materialized yet. So naturally
he blames White people. Asians and Mexicans and Arabs and animists and Eskimos and
Salvadorans can't all get together as one because of White racism. It's that simple and
boring and stupid and wrong. How confusing the world must be to malicious idiots like
Feagin. We say malicious because the immigrants, wherever they dominate, have destroyed
civilized White America. We can truly lay that destruction at the feet of Feagin and the
Jew-led left, and blame them for incipient genocide against the White race and culture. No
doubt he's more than willing to take the credit, even if his brow is presently furrowed
because the dissention hasn't yet resulted in the Revolution he prays for, just boring,
non-climactic dissolution. He might be surprised to find at the end of the day that
colored invaders really aren't as hot on dimwit soc profs as he thinks they should
be.
Throughout the book it is apparent that Feagin is playing divide-and-conquer, logic be
damned. He includes in his "people of color" category Asians, Asian Indians, North African
Caucasians, Amerindians, Semites, and even Latinos. So even if you are White, if you have
a Spanish surname you become a "person of color." In addition, he even seems to exclude
White women from his grand conspiracy theory. Throughout the book, it is always "White
men" who are the oppressors, as if the White women were some other species or race. And to
complicate his xenophobia, he starts out by attacking primarily those Whites who were slave
owners, and then as time goes by lumps in the same broad category those Whites who not only
immigrated long after slavery ended, but also took up residence in parts of America where
there were hardly any Blacks around at all. But he manages to weave his web of conspiracy
through a series of "just so" stories, never providing any real empirical facts or complete
explanations.
Nothing testable, nothing falsifiable, nothing hard: Feagin's book -- remember this is
written by the president of the disclipline's professional association -- is more a
religious screed than the science it pretends to. It is the perfect example for
demonstrating just how far social science has strayed from genuine empirical science in
the last few decades. Sociology, one might conclude from this book, is little more than
synagogue for Marxists.
Small facts destroy grand theories. When it comes to explaining the Black-White disparity
in earnings, wealth, health, and social pathologies, social scientists never include in
their studies Blacks' extremely low average intelligence. If this fact were included, then
the disparities make sense, and the "racism" explanation reveals itself as the excuse of a
politically interested class of agitators and burrocrats. Professional Negroes and Jews
squeeze money and tears out of productive Whites by claiming White racism causes black
failure. Since the Jews and nigs are never taken out and horsewhipped for their
oh-so-Jewish effrontery (chutzpah), the game continues. They've taken several trillion
from us so far, with no signs of surcease. And that was before they hit on
"Reparations."
Scientists are supposed to rely on accepted methodologies and design reproducible tests
when they try to make a case. Systemic racism is about half as credible as flat-earth
theory, which at least is plausible to the eye. There is no evidence backing it up. It is
eyewash put out by politicians donning lab coats and goggles the way Jesse Jackson drapes
his bastard-siring nigrescence in kinte cloth -- to steal respect it can't earn on its own
merit. Systemic racism can't be measured, and if you can't measure something, then it
ain't science. How do we know when it exists? Why, just pick up the witchfinder guide
from the 1600s. If a man burns a cross then he's a racist. If he passes laws to
discriminate against Whites, then he's a systemic racist. To take criers of 'systemic
racism' seriously is the first step to insanity. It's a political scam run by hate-filled
anti-White crusaders who will stop at nothing in pushing us down the path to White genocide
they set us on many decades ago. That may sound like hyperbole, but objective analysis and
a blast of hot hate from "academic" books like this make it clear it isn't.
Conceptual junk like 'systemic racism' is Dark Age crap. Cries of SR obscure the real
issues, produce trillions of dollars for White-haters, and lead us all back to the mists of
barbarism that only the White man crawled out of. Back to the time when people believed
that spirits haunted the woods and angry gods hurled bolts of lightening at their enemies.
There's little point in refuting religious gobbledygook masquerading as science -- only in
opposing it, only in fighting it. These Marxists are no more scientists than an
eight-year-old holding a magnifying glass over an ant to "study" it -- they are snakeoil
salesmen pushing rat-poison elixirs as vitamin tonics. Their dominance in the ivies is
sign of a sick, sick age.
Jensenism denied...
Fact is, last thirty years, radical environmentalists and cultural determinists have taken
a hard beating, as fact after discovered fact has gainsaid their PC dogma. By the truth
standard, they are getting their ass kicked, even if the political battle continues
successful. Like Wile E. Coyote just starting to realize he's run off a cliff, the left's
fear of impending splat is clear in its vicious personal and intellectual attacks on any
idea or personage that doesn't toe the line. Whole fields such as sociobiology or
evolutionary psychology become curse-words in their mouths. Anti-shibboleths that bar the
door to respectful examination. Watch their bitter-lined lying faces, and you can almost
hear Nicholson in the background: You can't handle the truth! Profs must be mocked
and scorned, books pulped, lies lied, laws passed -- all to protect the dogma. No
criticism of Jews, no criticism of Jewish myths. That's how things work these days, year
of our Lord 2001.
But the reality is that today those who once attacked sociobiology no longer have any
scientific standing; the debate is over (see Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for
Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond, 2000 ). For example, it is commonly
accepted that intelligence is 60 to 80% heritable. That fact was attested by a task force
put together by the American Psychological Association in response to the publication of
The Bell Curve in 1994. (See
Intelligence: Knowns and
Unknowns, 1995.) Similar concessions with regard to racial IQ differences appear to be
in the offing. (We are referring, of course, to political concessions: the intellectual
battle is over. Race intelligence differences are both real and significant.) (See here a
review of The g
Factor: The Science of Mental Ability, 1998, by Arthur Jensen, and
this discussion
of Jensenism in the journal Intelligence.)
Neo-Darwinism denied...
A book based on the evils of White supremacy may well appeal to the mass public. After all,
it's been fed this fear of the vast right wing conspiracy for over fifty years now, and on
the flip side led to believe that all that's necessary for racial harmony is for humans to
be "tolerant" and "non-judgmental" and supportive of multiculturalism and diversity.
Religious, political and media leaders work as one in broadcasting to the public the Big
Lie that personal attitude adjustments (refusal to notice the 'nigger' in the black man)
can overcome race-based behaviors and biological differences. It's the old game of:
reality is whatever we pretend it is. Reality as group-fantasy.
Along these lines, Feagin makes two mistakes. First, he holds slave owners of old to the
lib moral standards of 2000. Tedious ex post facto moralizing from a leftist you
can bet your boots is a relativist on any other issue. Any scholar today with Feagin's
credentials knows that morality changes, as it is nothing more than the prevailing ethos or
value system of people at any particular time. Indeed, as we say, these same Marxist
sociologists embrace moral relativism everywhere except when applied to Whites. We
can't judge Aztecs ripping out hearts of sacrificial humans; we can't judge Chinese
foot-binders; we can't judge puttee Indians; we can't judge clitoris-excising Hottentots --
but we can judge White slaveholders. It is obvious that professional sociologists have
adopted as their first commandment: Consistency is a paste jewel.
Morality is neither constant nor absolute, so no indictment can be made against the WASP
slaveholders in the United States. Let alone the fact that there were slaveholders of
different races, including Blacks and Indians, over most of the world at one time or
another. The moral argument simply falls flat from the historical perspective. One could
more easily argue, as the conservatives do, that all races enslaved, but only the White
race initiated abolition. But Feagin ignores this, and spends most of his book laying
guilt for all the world's slavery at Whitey's feet. WASP Whitey, that is. Feagin wants
to abolish the people who abolished slavery. I smell Morrissette.
Second, Feagin ignores group evolutionary strategies. There is no evidence that any racial
or ethnic group is going to capitulate to some utopian dream of equality and voluntarily
give up any acquired resources or privileges easily. Yes, humans do show some universal
altruism, but only when times are flush. When push comes to shove, every group wants more
wealth, status and power -- for itself. And I suspect that this desire for power and
status is what really drives Feagin's hatred of White people. He wants a multicultural
society because it entails the destruction of Whites, who he sees as too powerful and too
successful and too in the way of world domination by crackpot Soc profs. This desire for
complete control and dominance has always underlain Marxism: the masses are just a tool
and excuse for destroying one's (ethnic) enemies. (See here a review of
MacDonald's trilogy on
evolutionary group strategies.)
Deconstructing the mind of a Marxist...
Feagin pg. 2: Police harassment and brutality directed at black men, women, and children
are as old as American society, dating back to the days of slavery and Jim Crow segregation.
Such police actions across the nation today reveal important aspects of the racism dealt
with in this book --- the commonplace discriminatory practices of individual whites, the
images of dangerous blacks dancing in white heads, the ideology legitimating antiblack
images, and the white-dominated institutions that allow or encourage such practices. In the
United States racism is structured into the rhythms of everyday life. It is lived, concrete,
advantageous for whites, and painful for those who are not white. Each major part of a
black or white person's life is shaped by racism. Even a person's birth and parents are
shaped by racism, since mate selection is limited by racist pressures against interracial
marriage. Where one lives is often determined by the racist practices of landlords, bankers,
and others in the real estate profession. The clothes one wears and what one has to eat are
affected by access to resources that varies by position in the racist hierarchy. When one
goes off to school, her or his education is shaped by contemporary racism --- from the
composition of the student body to the character of the curriculum. Where one goes to
church is often shaped by racism, and it is likely that racism affects who one's political
representatives are. Even getting sick, dying, and being buried may be influenced by racism.
Every part of the life cycle, and most aspects of one's life, are shaped by the racism that
is integral to the foundation of the United States.
Do you see the problem here? Socs are contractually bound by Semitical Correctness to
swear allegiance to the Boasian Oath that race doesn't exist. That makes it very difficult
to write books about race. So they end up like king of the dipshits here, tacitly conceding
the existence of race in their obsessive focus on racial differences, but renaming these
differences "racism." Get it? Simple racial differences -- obvious to anyone with open
eyes -- become taboo, but they reappear all lint-free and long-faced in the brand new suit
of "racism." Ah, epiphany! In the hands of the Feagin ilk, "racism" is simply demonized
biology. It's all very much like nutjob C.S. Lewis turning every attempt to approach
Christian claims rationally as the work of the devil (Screwtape Letters). Very, very
similar. It wouldn't make either the professional Christian apologists or the Beanie Baby
race-liars happy to hear, but, by God we have mouths and we'll speak and laugh! Here's the
jig: we are allowed to talk about racial differences, but only if we don't call them by
their true name: only if we accede to the Jewish Big Lies that they are iniquitous "racism"
that is the product of magical "culture" that can be radically changed by following the
advice of wise Marxists. "Racism" is a made-up term; a useful nothing that covers everything.
Whites like to live around, marry their own kind? "Racism" -- a religious anathema
masquerading as scientific explanation. "Racism" is a moral judgment, not an explanation.
Christ how dumb we've become; whenever some sci-pseud yawps, we all jump to salute. Global
warming, "racism," "Holocaust" -- it's all spinach, and I say to hell with it.
Instead of singing along with Cantor Feagin and throwing a ten spot in the collection plate,
let's look at some racial facts free of dogmatic doctrinal demonization. Let's examine
some of the facts Feagin fears. For instance, there is sound evolutionary evidence that
people like to associate with and marry others who are like themselves. Blacks are more
comfortable with Blacks, Jews with Jews, Asians with Asians. In fact, studies have shown
that, the relatively few times races cross, they mingle and marry with other racial groups
most like their own. Sameness attracts. Difference repulses. For example, genetic
studies put East Asians and Whites closer together genetically than even Eastern Asians and
South Asians. There is a degree of mixing between these groups. On the other hand, few
White men would marry a Black woman. Men prefer lighter-skinned women, according to
evolutionary studies, and they also want mates of similar intelligence. But White women
are willing to marry Black men in cases where the men have resources (O. J. Simpson) or
where the women thinks she can cut a better deal with a Black man than with a White (she's
uglier/stupider than her White sisters in the competition for White males). But Blacks and
Whites do not marry often because genetically they are just too dissimilar. These are
facts, demonized as "racism" or not. Groups are real. Race is real. Feagin's make-believe
must be taken into account politically, but not intellectually. Even among the Jewish
liars who demonize discussion of White-Black differences racial barriers not only are
acknowledged but are sanctified. The same Alan Dershowitz speaking out of one side of his
mouth about Whites needing to accept diversity goes home and, among his own, speaks out of
other side of his mouth denouncing Jewish exogamy. I strongly suspect this chronically
Jewish double standard biologically inheres in the Jewish race.
Feagin, p. 3: No other racially oppressed group has been so central to the internal
economic, political, and cultural structure and evolution of American society -- or to the
often obsessively racist ideology developed by white Americans over many generations. Thus,
it is time to put white-on-black oppression fully at the center of a comprehensive study of
the development, meaning, and reality of this nation. In this book I develop an antiracist
theory and analysis of the white-on-black oppression that is now nearly four centuries old.
Theory is a set of ideas designed to make sense of the empirical and existential reality in
and around us. Concepts delineating and probing racism need to be clear and honed by
everyday experience, not framed from an ivory tower. Here I attempt to develop concepts, in
language understandable to the nonspecialist, that can be used for an in-depth analysis of
this racist society. These concepts are designed to help readers probe beneath the many
defenses and myths about "race" to the often painful racist realities. They are useful in
countering inaccurate assessments of the society's history and institutions. They can be
used to reshape the socialization that hampers insight into the operation of this society.
A critical theory of racism can help us better understand the racialized dimensions of
lives.
Interpretation? Feagin is going to tell us one sob story after another, and in our weeping
we will come to see that this theory of racism is correct. But of course, everyone has a
sob story, and it proves little or nothing. Feagin's theory is a sieve, but he does do a
good job as a soc Johnny Appleseed, spreading bigotry and hatred against all White people
wherever his argument takes him. Feagin, in short, is a crank moralist whose anti-White
animadversions are protected by tenure. Impotent and seething in his sinecure, he shrinks
from epirical data like a vampire from sunlight. Vainly spying through his telescope, he
searches the heavens and highways for portends of the New Bolsheviks to make Order out of
his orthodoxy.
Feagin pg. 4: Currently, we have theoretical traditions that are well developed in
regard to the systems of class and gender oppression. There is a well-developed Marxist
tradition with its many important conceptual contributions. The Marxist tradition provides
a powerful theory of oppression centered on such key concepts as class struggle, worker
exploitation, and alienation. Marxism identifies the basic social forces undergirding class
oppression, shows how human beings are alienated in class relations, and points toward
activist remedies for oppression. Similarly, in feminist analysis there is a diverse and
well-developed conceptual framework targeting key aspects of gendered oppression. Major
approaches accent the social construction of sexuality, the world gender order, and the
strategy of consciousness-raising. Feminist theorists have argued that at the heart of
sexism is the material reality of reproduction and sexuality, the latter including how a
woman is treated and viewed sexually and how she views herself In both the Marxist and
feminist traditions there are also well-developed theories of resistance and
change.
The real Marxist theoretical tools are jackboots on balls, and reeducation up the ying-yang.
What, maybe 100 million dead who failed to see the light last century? Feagin wants more.
Of course he doesn't put it that way, but that's where his train leads.
[p. 5]: As I will show in this book, however, the central problem is that, from the
beginning, European American institutions were racially hierarchical, white supremacist,
and undemocratic. For the most part, they remain so today.
Imagine you boated somewhere, disembarked, and were confronted by half-dressed, filthy
creatures living in mud huts, eating crayfish, and neither writing nor reading. And then
hundreds of years after the fact some numbnut prof came along and denounced you for not
according these savages equal rights. How stupid is that? What utopian country would
Feagin like us to emulate that is nonhierarchical and democratic? What is democracy?
Does he mean real democracy or representative democracy? Has there ever been a country
with direct democracy? Are not humans naturally hierarchical? And aren't all ethnic
groups supremacist in preferring their own? Again, Feagin is doing nothing more than
advertising his hatred of Western culture. He hates Whites and he will throughout this
book try to slander us with terms like racist, supremacist, oppressive, etc. Yet he offers
no evidence that any other nation or ethnic group acted differently, or could have.
So what do we stand accused of? As Michael Levin states in his superb book Why Race
Matters, "Calling claims of genetic race differences 'racist,' in particular, begs not
one but four questions: (1) Are race differences in themselves bad? (2) Is believing in
race differences bad? (3) Is saying there are race differences bad? (4) Is studying race
differences bad? Once it is realized that an affirmative answer to each of these questions
must be established before the charge of racism can be made to stick, the charge itself
collapses." There's some real sick 'n' twisted psychology going on here, even apart from
the obvious political motives. "Race doesn't exist" -- the shibboleth of the academic left
since the arrival of anthropology's Jew Boas early in the 20th century -- well, they all
say it, but then they turn around and write huge tomes on the subject. So we've got a
little cognitive dissonance, to use one of those clever Jew-terms: i.e., not-much Gussied
Up. A sociologist writing about race is like a fireman not believing in fire. When you
get down to the rat-killing, sociology fails as a concept. Libertarianism blinds itself to
the group; sociology blinds itself to the individual. But it also blinds itself to the
biologically generalizable. Sociology is more of the social construction it is committed
to finding everything else in the world to be than any sort of objective discipline. The
possibility of objectivity is not forsworn at the outset by the conducting of investigations
in its name, but the very limited set of tools socs have to employ must make it very
difficult not to fall into the sort of gibberish and mystagoguery and dogmatic jargonized
drivel the Feagins exhibit. Maybe there should be a discipline simply called man, with
sociological tools kept in a more capacious chest. Sociology has the same problem that
psychology does: ignoring biology. Psych and soc are nothing but observations and
guesses; the real work starts with understanding the biology of the brain and body, and
there psychology has little to offer. The boys with the scanners have to do their work
before we even know if there's anything left for the Jewish necromancers to fiddle with.
And, just like Karen Carpenter, they've only just begun to eat their way through the gray
matter.
Let's make one more attempt to explain Feagin: He's a religious nut. A leftist Marxist
extremist seeking to impose his morality on us (as the leftists like to say). His morality
is that we must all pretend not to notice that races and racial differences exist, even as
we feverishly study same to "prove" why evil people who won't make believe like we do are
the source of these nonexistent problems. Trillion-dollar industry is founded on this
childish crap. In the spirit of the noble coiner of "Shit happens," I'd like to steal this
bumper-sticker truth from my good friend Jack Halliday and commend it to Fagin: Black
people are real. Just admit it, feckless Feagin. Hughes Mearns, children's poet, knew
the truth about race and racial differences that escapes evil Fagin. He captured perfectly
the fear and "projection" of the demonizers:
As I was walking up the stair
I met a man who wasn't there;
He wasn't there again today.
I wish, I wish he'd stay away!
But race won't stay away, no matter how fervently we wish it.
END PART ONE
|