Exactly, which means it isn't an autobiography. It's a book written about Malcolm X by Alex Haley, with Malcolm's permission.Originally Posted by Kinser79
- Join Date
- Mar 2013
- Posts
- 3,587
Exactly, which means it isn't an autobiography. It's a book written about Malcolm X by Alex Haley, with Malcolm's permission.
And I dunno, Kinser, if you wanna claim Egyptian civilization on behalf of the descendants of West Africans I'm gonna go ahead and claim the Persian Empire on behalf of my (woad painted and moon howling) ancestors. It's at least as close, and the physical and linguistic similarities are better.
Don't you have a beer hall that you should be diatribing in? I thought you needed some followers for your philosophy.
Idealistic and pessimistic a late Boomer. The '70s were good to me.
Everything I say is true (well, except when I make a mistake).
I have a very thorough knowledge about American politics and the electoral college.
Your abilities to understand other people are remarkably limited.But you do care if I agree with you. Otherwise you wouldn't bother responding to me, you would keep me on ignore at all times. But since you do care, you feel the need to respond. For someone who is supposedly being ignored through the ignore feature you respond to me incredibly frequently. I must conclude therefore that either you do care, or you're doing the ignore thing wrong. There is the off chance that you're doing both too.
You can think what you want on this, I do feel like ignoring you about it. Your racist and violent approach to politics and movements does not serve you well, it has failed and will fail again and again. I was impressed with Malcolm X's articulate abilities; that's all there is to it. He was a great man, whether I agree with him entirely or not, and no matter what color he was. And I felt his personality and thought shined through in that book.You don't get it. MLK was successful because Malcolm and the Panthers were willing to use violence. The white man saw he had a choice, he could go with the house nigger saying "please massah let us vote and sit where we want on the bus" or they could deal with the nigger saying "Plow Plow Plow" with an assault rifle taking his freedom. Naturally they went with the house nigger and not the field nigger. King is only an icon because he is the "safe nigger". All the nigger children should be taught to be meek and mild like him so that they don't in their righteous anger overthrow the devils.
And I know your racist cracker ass didn't just call Malcolm "Articulate" as if it were a goddamned complement. After all how dare a Black Man speak as if he were an intelligent creature right? Never-mind that Black Men created mathematics and built the pyramids when your white forebears were painting themselves blue and howling at the moon.
And don't you have a Confederate Flag Rally you should be attending? You're 'writings' are an interesting study in contradictions.
Idealistic and pessimistic a late Boomer. The '70s were good to me.
Black Communists for the Confederate Flag? I'd like to attend THAT rally! How's being stupid working out for you?
Not bad actually, certainly better than being a black communist for the Confederate Flag. Like you, I'd also like to attend that rally, I enjoy watching living contradictions.
Idealistic and pessimistic a late Boomer. The '70s were good to me.
Is this Confederate flag thing you're beating the result of an actual statement of his, or just the result of a NRA = Poor White Person = Confederate flag waver thing? 'Cause if it's the latter, you're falling prey to a fallacy of composition here, which is pretty dumb.
I was thinking for along the lines of the ethnic cleaning thing he was advocating earlier. Gun rights is something I don't care about, one way or another.
Gun rights + ethnic cleansing + intolerance in general equals Southern White yearning for a return to the good old days before the war. Hence the Confederate Flag beating.
Idealistic and pessimistic a late Boomer. The '70s were good to me.
Yes, this is a fallacious argument. You might as well just shout "COLD AND PRICKLY!!" over and over again.
I have no love for the Confederate Flag. Well unless I'm using it to light my barbeque. They are rather good for that.
And where have I supported "ethnic cleansing" exactly? That would conflict with my Marxism-Leninism. Or are you merely being a retard? OOPS, seems Jordan beat me to it. He has already diagnosed you.
Which explains why you are wrong about as often as a broken clock. You think you know things but when you open your mouth you prove you do not. Claiming that being a Californian allows you to vote for minor parties and still not elect republicans as a result is evidence of such.
Apparently I hit a nerve then. Tell me Eric, which is it...do you care what I think of you, or are you doing the ignore thing wrong? It's okay, you can confess your failings to me. I already know you can't help yourself. You are after all intellectually primitive.Your abilities to understand other people are remarkably limited.
An oppressed people cannot be racist in response to racism. Racism itself is a system of oppression, which cannot therefore be controlled by an oppressed group.You can think what you want on this, I do feel like ignoring you about it. Your racist and violent approach to politics and movements does not serve you well, it has failed and will fail again and again. I was impressed with Malcolm X's articulate abilities; that's all there is to it. He was a great man, whether I agree with him entirely or not, and no matter what color he was. And I felt his personality and thought shined through in that book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ0QfLkjujY
Also while Malcom is/was articulate such is not a complement, you will never understand this because unlike me your language was never stolen. Your history was never stolen, you have never felt the history of slavery press upon you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9fmJ5xQ_mc
I never actually claimed that the book bearing that title was in fact an autobiography. The book claims that itself with its title. I merely pointed out that the book calling itself Malcolm's autobiography is a collated collection of interviews that Malcolm did with Haley. A great deal of it is true however. Malcolm never hid his past from anyone. He didn't feel the need to.
Egyptians of today are not quite the same as Ancient Egyptians (Arab invasions and such). I would say that that I find it fascinating that the noses on Egyptian statues frequently are missing their noses. I will say this, they certainly were not blond haired, blue eyed ubermensch.And I dunno, Kinser, if you wanna claim Egyptian civilization on behalf of the descendants of West Africans I'm gonna go ahead and claim the Persian Empire on behalf of my (woad painted and moon howling) ancestors. It's at least as close, and the physical and linguistic similarities are better.
Ultimately everyone's ancestors are black, and came from Africa. The DNA don't lie.
Yeah, man, I'm not imputing that argument to you. Like I said, it's a pet peeve, of a piece with rolling my eyes at the claims that most politicians are the authors of the books that bear their names.
And, I wouldn't overestimate the extent of population replacement in Egypt. It's hard to replace dense agricultural populations, even the Spanish couldn't really do it in most of Latin America. And there are plenty of surviving murals and statues with noses (though even the Greco-Roman ones had problems keeping theirs). There was at least one Nubian dynasty that was clearly represented as such, as were the Greek, Roman, Circassian, and Albanian dynasties. Of the native Egyptian ones, the preponderance of representations suggests the same red-brown, noses pointy or broad, features you can find there today.
Yes, but the same DNA evidence suggests our common ancestors looked more like the Khoisan (An Asiatic looking black man if ever there was one) than they did, say, the modern Chinese, European or Bantu peoples. Even today, Ethiopians don't look like Nigerians who don't look like Dravidians who don't look like Melanesians, even when their skin is the same color. Anachronism is not your friend.
First of all what does Hitler have to do with what I'm saying? Secondly I consider Myself to channeling FDR the most of all of the WW2 leaders. Finally in what way have you disproven my assertion that Calvinism was a made-up religion created by white supremacists, there is mountains of historical facts that back up what I'm saying.
I think you're assuming I believe the old teaching of the NOI more than I actually do. I think that Elijah Muhammad, stumbled on the truth that the first people were in fact black.
Not really, I just think it's funny to say. That, and it's much easier to see how you could get from people like them to what we have now than you could if you started with someone who looked like Grace Jones.
That said, many primates have white skin beneath the fur, so I suppose it depends on where you draw the line.
Furry primates can have white skin, the fur protects it from the sun. Humans lacking fur for the most part need the skin to protect itself. My dog's skin is white as well, but he also has a large amount of fur in comparison to me.
The generic "European" phenotype did not come into existence until around 10,000 BC of so according to the latest global genetic studies.
Yes, I was just pointing out the absurdity of taking these sorts of arguments to their logical conclusion. Not to say that it isn't entertaining, though.
Yeah, but there's been outbreeding since then.
http://www.rmg.co.uk/sites/default/f...ing_routes.pdf
Modern genomics comes up with the darnest things. I found out I'm a descent of some Viking that did that. It also said I have 3.2% Neanderthal genes. That's in the 99% percentile of 23andme's samples. FWIW, I think outbreeding benefits humans just as much as any other animal. A population with a wide assortment of genes is more fit from an evolutionary standpoint.
You mean there's people who don't know that? Oh wait, I don't think Donald Trump is clued in.
Last edited by Ragnarök_62; 07-19-2015 at 02:04 AM.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
Hmmm, I'm gonna channel Glick and take a look at some stuff you posted quite recently in another thread:
That stuff sounds closer to Hitlerian than pretty much anything anyone else has written here, at least since that Apollonian whatever poster got kicked to the curb. Not the "exterminating the Jews" part, but using the labor of conquered peoples, the will to conquer and loot the conquered, etc. That was pretty much his MO to a "T".That's how nations have advanced themselves for thousands of years, only in the early to mid 20th century did ideologues convince themselves against all historical evidence that it could be done otherwise.
Of course, exterminating large numbers of people doesn't seem to bother you all that much either:
I strongly suspect most other people in the other generations wouldn't have approved of doing that either. I'm a core Xer and I think you're a fruitcake.
Well what did FDR have to do with "will to conquer" and solving debt problems with the barrel of a gun? FDR represented the side that intervened against other nations (Germany and Japan) who had the "will to conquer" and were walking all over their neighbors. He did not embark the US on such a mission himself, but reacted against such (even before Pearl Harbor, he aided the side (Lend-Lease, etc.) that was being victimized by such powers intent to conquer).
And besides, I thought it was Stalin you approved of more above all other WWII leaders:
....Although all the other stuff quoted above in that same thread, really makes me suspect you liked Hitler and Tojo at least as much, but are too cowardly to acknowledge that. I suppose even you would know better to not admit stuff like that, wouldn't you. (I mean, if you're going to someday write that Restorationist Kampf book or whatever that's going to enthrall America with your Restorationist dream (rather that do something more productive like perhaps get into an art school), then openly identifying with our old foe Hitler, rather than simply duplicating many of his methods while calling it something else, wouldn't be that smart a move I guess.)
Last edited by Alioth68; 07-19-2015 at 03:31 AM.
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." --Kosh Naranek
"...Your side, my side, and the truth." --John Sheridan
"No more half-measures." --Mike Ehrmantraut
"rationalizing...is never clear thinking." --SM Kovalinsky
This must be a record, up above on this page, for the number of posts in a row I see that say "This message is hidden because (name) is on your ignore list."
Whether this reflects the faults of Marxism-Leninism or the pathologies of leaders who create or use Marxism-Leninism is almost moot. The record is clear: every Marxist revolution or coup that establishes a Socialist state leads to massacres and persecutions, often of people who did nothing wrong. Marxism-Leninism also promises to jump-start economic growth by ensuring that those who invest cannot divert much of the economic gain to their own sybaritic indulgence so that the gain goes into industrial investment. The problem is that the ML regime is capable of imposing hardships that capitalism in the form of a consumer society need not impose -- because the ML elite becomes unaccountable.
Unaccountable power invariably imposes great horror, whether the unaccountable power be that of a colonial overlord like Leopold II or a brute like Hitler or Stalin.
We have our own class war, but it is not between the tycoons and the proletariat; it is instead a struggle of others against middle-income groups. The ruling elite has typically seen an independent middle class as unnecessary and disobedient; the white lower-working class wants to be rid of people that it considers an exploitative elite. Both want most of the middle class to become poor and helpless. After all, the ruling elite needs only so many retainers to do their bidding. Everyone else can be a peon.There is an alternative. In advanced economies the division of labor becomes very fine-grained. An enormous number of individuals are required to manage the society. Too many to fit under the definition for a single kind of elite, nor are members of a single category of elite sufficiently homogenous to guarantee optimal defense of class interests. Their exist different factions of elites and near-elites, people who although they are not themselves elite, are necessary for the current elites to maintain their status. Such near-elites always have the potential, if they are not shown their due, to serve as leaders in a revolutionary movement, or simply to withhold their services in the maintenance of elite power. And then their are people who are near-near-elites, who can serves as lieutenants in a revolution, should it come to that, but they too are necessary to the near-elites for them to be able to function and so can be in a position to get a cut.
The economic meltdown of 1929-1932 did that -- not deliberate policy of politically-savvy people. The economic elites which had believed much the same trickle-down economics as the elites at the start of the Gilded Age believed in also lost their means of flooding the electoral process with campaign contributions. The economic meltdown of 2007-2009 had an obvious parallel, but it did not go far enough to destroy the means of buying the political process. Barack Obama rescued them, and those elites turned on him quickly by funding a revival of Movement Conservatism. So far as anyone can tell, those elites want 95% of the people suffering for the sybaritic excess of a small sliver of the American population. Those elites want the middle class reduced to a small class of dependent retainers who have no other market for their skills or creativity except to pamper and glorify the elite.At times a new arrangement is formed in which some of these near-elites are brought into the elite fold. The elites simply make room, because the alternative is too risky. This happened in the 1930's and 1940's. The old capitalist elite had to make room for a new elite who implemented policy that reduced the wealth of the capitalist elites and transferred to to non-capitalists, which included the new elites. You can think of it as a "half revolution". After a generation or two, the two different kinds of elites merged together to form a single elite and you we are back to where we were, and its time for an another half revolution.
Guess where that puts us? Where but a high-tech version of Imperial Russia!
Make no mistake: if they ever see themselves in danger of being overthrown, the elites will turn to the most vicious causes to get their way. Such were the Fascisti in Italy, the Nazis in Germany, the Arrow Cross in Hungary, the Iron Guard in Romania, and (at least in the 1920s) the Klan in America. Likewise the murderous, repressive military regimes of Argentina and Chile in the 1970s (which may be more relevant to the US). Those elites often get a vicarious delight in seeing that creative and political opponents are instantly annihilated or are ruined through 'corrective labor'. (Exile might be a practical alternative -- and mercifully for Americans there would be plenty of places to leave for. Should America become a more blatant expression of plutocratic oligarchy than it is now, even more countries will be attractive). That's the other side of Revolution against a selfish, rapacious, despotic elite. The victory of such an elite, the brutal counter-revolution, makes things far, far worse.Would-be revolutionaries will find this approach (rescuing America as a whole) more useful because it can achieve significant gains for their cause without getting killed (dead revolutionaries achieve nothing). Any revolutionaries who cannot prevail electorally in a de jure democratic republic are too incompetent to prevail in a revolution.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
