Back Blogging

[Oxajil]

Just FYI Candace Owens appears to be an opportunist rather than a genuine conservative.Here's a couple of videos on the topic.[/MEDIA]

Hm, I didn't watch that video (it's a bit long!) but I did a search around, and if I understand correctly: Apparently this is about a website of hers 'Social Autopsy' that doxxes people, i.e. if anyone bullies you, tell us who they are. This website was made when she was a lefty. The website has been shut down now. Now, they're saying she's getting money from conservatives for her website (not sure which one? or one that is in the making?) so that she can still go through with this (in a sneaky way). But it's not clear to me which website that is, and her Kickstarter page is down. I'm not sure if this is old news or not, but then I haven't checked all the info and the video. If she's still on this, then yes, it is quite disturbing. The things she has said however about the whole Black Lives Matter movement are still good!

 

[Hindsight Man]

Hm, I didn't watch that video (it's a bit long!) but I did a search around, and if I understand correctly: Apparently this is about a website of hers 'Social Autopsy' that doxxes people, i.e. if anyone bullies you, tell us who they are. This website was made when she was a lefty. The website has been shut down now. Now, they're saying she's getting money from conservatives for her website (not sure which one? or one that is in the making?) so that she can still go through with this (in a sneaky way). But it's not clear to me which website that is, and her Kickstarter page is down. I'm not sure if this is old news or not, but then I haven't checked all the info and the video. If she's still on this, then yes, it is quite disturbing. The things she has said however about the whole Black Lives Matter movement are still good!

The channel from which the video that I posted comes is called Tree of Logic.It's run by a black conservative woman who used to be a cop.She originally outed Candace for having a doxxing site and instead of owning up to it Candace doubled down and said that Richard Spencer and the the rest of the white supremacists are after her and when confronted she simply started berating people and calling Tree a crackhead.
If you want conservative opinions there's better places to get them from than someone who (at least from my POV) is a hack and is only in it for money and fame.Have a look at Tree of Logic's channel and you'll find 3-4 vids detailing the misadventures of Candace more thoroughly and completely than I can here.

 

[Ursus Minor]

While looking for discussions on race and racism the search engine directed me to his thread.

The associate justice to the US Supreme Court Clarence Thomas answers questions on racism.

“I have never understood the notion that we could continue to focus on race to get over race. I’ve never understood that we have to continue to identify as race conscious in order to not be race conscious,” he said.
He then began to talk about his experiences as the only black kid in a seminary in Savannah, Georgia.

thepoliticalinsider.com

While we're at it we might as well be listening to Judge Thomas speaking about Victimhood Culture...

 

[DianaRose]

While looking for discussions on race and racism the search engine directed me to his thread.

The associate justice to the US Supreme Court Clarence Thomas answers questions on racism.



thepoliticalinsider.com

While we're at it we might as well be listening to Judge Thomas speaking about Victimhood Culture...

What were you looking to find out about race and racism? Victimhood culture has been one of the most discussed aspect of race and racism on the forum and SOTT in the last year or so. But if you're so interested by Clarence Thomas, you might as well read his book My Grandfather's Son. He talks in more details about his life, his views on race and racism and the Anita Hills scandal.

 

[Ursus Minor]

What were you looking to find out about race and racism? Victimhood culture has been one of the most discussed aspect of race and racism on the forum and SOTT in the last year or so.

I'm sorry that I seem to have barged in on your thread. As I mentioned, I was looking for a spot to share these videos but should have thought twice before choosing the Bloggers blog section.

Clarence Thomas has only been mentioned for his judicial and political role on this forum, so I thought that sharing his opinions on race and racism (which is indeed an often discussed subject here) might be interesting to some people.

 

[DianaRose]

I'm sorry that I seem to have barged in on your thread. As I mentioned, I was looking for a spot to share these videos but should have thought twice before choosing the Bloggers blog section.

Clarence Thomas has only been mentioned for his judicial and political role on this forum, so I thought that sharing his opinions on race and racism (which is indeed an often discussed subject here) might be interesting to some people.

Ah no worry, it's not a problem that you posted this there. I asked you this question because I thought that the videos you posted were meant to be a comment about the ongoing discussion on the thread. But don't hesitate to participate on the thread!

 

[DianaRose]

I just read an article about Clarence Thomas who made me think of this thread. It was a fairly interesting read with some points I agreed and others that I felt may need to be better developed. I think to really get Clarence and where he comes from, it's best to read his book. In any case, here is the article:

Clarence Thomas’s Radical Vision of Race

Thomas has moved from black nationalism to the right. But his beliefs about racism, and our ability to solve it, remain the same.

www.newyorker.com

For those who don't know, in his youth Clarence was on the Left. He went to protest etc. However, at some point he realised that the Left and liberals would never be able to help black people. As a result, he became (rightly) convinced that if black people wanted to improve their lot, they had to be radically self-sufficient. In his book, Clarence's vision was rather optimistic. If my memory serves right, he did believe that change might be possible that way, but it would be very slow and really painful which I guess is why people generally flock to the Left and prefer to change society rather than themselves. But I understand why they do it.

In the article above, Clarence's vision is slightly bleaker than I remember it be in the book. See below for some key quotes:

"By consensus, Thomas is the most conservative member of the Court. So it’s surprising that the central theme of his jurisprudence is race. When he was nearly forty years old, just four years shy of his appointment to the Court, Thomas set out the foundations of his vision in a profile in The Atlantic. “There is nothing you can do to get past black skin,” he said. “I don’t care how educated you are, how good you are at what you do—you’ll never have the same contacts or opportunities, you’ll never be seen as equal to whites.” This was no momentary indiscretion; it was the distillation of a lifetime of learning, which began in the segregated precincts of Savannah, during the nineteen-fifties, and continued through his college years, in the sixties. On the Court, Thomas continues to believe—and to argue, in opinion after opinion—that race matters; that racism is a constant, ineradicable feature of American life; and that the only hope for black people lies within themselves, not as individuals but as a separate community with separate institutions, apart from white people."

"At Yale, Thomas developed an understanding of racism that he would never shake. Whites—Southern and Northern, liberal and conservative, rural and urban—are racists. Racism, Thomas would tell students at Mercer University, in 1993, “has complex and, to a certain degree, undiscoverable roots.”

The undiscovered root in my opinion is biology. Unfortunately, many of those that have written about race and racism over the years have based their ideas and theory on the wrong assumption that humans aren't wired to distrust anybody that look different from themselves. I believe that while they are some writers who had no idea about it, there are others who preferred to ignore this angle in order to have some sort of hope and to be able to sell their theory. Not knowing its beginnings, we can’t know its end. The most that can be hoped for is that whites be honest about it. Honesty is demonstrated through crude statements of personal animus or intellectual suggestions of racial inequality. Dishonesty is demonstrated through denial of one’s racism and sympathetic extensions of help. Dishonesty lulls black people into a false sense of security, assuring them that they are safe when they are not. "

Thomas’s rightward drift, which began in the seventies, was inflected by the very ethos that once put him on the left: namely, disaffection with black liberalism and the mainstream civil-rights movement. In his memoir, Thomas notes that part of the appeal of black nationalism was tied to his sense, in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy, that “no one was going to take care of me or any other black person in America.” Eventually, this notion extended to the left. “I marched. I protested. I asked the government to help black people,” Thomas told the Washington Post, in 1980. “I did all those things. But it hasn’t worked.” The whole repertoire of black politics—from mainstream activism to Black Power radicalism and beyond—now seemed pointless. By the eighties, Thomas, a member of the Reagan Administration, believed that state action could do nothing for African-Americans. Problems of racial inequality “cannot be solved by the law—even civil-rights laws,” he told an audience at Clark College, a historically black school in Atlanta, in the nineteen-eighties.

And yet it was on the bench that Thomas began to pursue his own particular vision of racial justice. In his first decade on the Court, Thomas often met with high-achieving black students from Washington’s poorer neighborhoods. One meeting—with a high-school student named Cedric Jennings—was immortalized in a 1998 Esquire piece. After several hours of warm conversation, Thomas asked Jennings what his plans were for college. “I’m off to Brown,” Jennings replied. Thomas frowned. Finally, he said, “Well, that’s fine, but I’m not sure I would have selected an Ivy League school. You’re going to be up there with lots of very smart white kids, and if you’re not sure about who you are, you could get eaten alive. . . . It can happen at any of the good colleges where a young black man who hasn’t spent much time with whites suddenly finds himself among almost all whites.”
This concern runs throughout Thomas’s jurisprudence. “Some people think that the solution to all the problems of black people is integration,” he said, in 1997. By his own admission, he is not one of them. In a lengthy 1982 research article (published with an acknowledgment to “the invaluable assistance of Anita F. Hill”), Thomas notes pointedly that “it must be decided . . . whether integration per se should be a primary goal.”

In the 1995 case Missouri v. Jenkins, the Court’s conservative majority held that federal courts could not force Missouri to adopt policies designed to entice suburban white students to predominantly black urban schools. Thomas joined the majority. In the Court’s private deliberations about the case, he argued, in the paraphrase of a profile of Thomas in The New Yorker, “I am the only one at this table who attended a segregated school. And the problem with segregation was not that we didn’t have white people in our class. The problem was that we didn’t have equal facilities. We didn’t have heating, we didn’t have books, and we had rickety chairs. . . . All my classmates and I wanted was the choice to attend a mostly black or a mostly white school, and to have the same resources in whatever school we chose.”

Clarence suffered A LOT when he first attended a school with white student. So, it isn't surprising that he holds this opinion. To be honest, we often talk about integration as a policy, but we often forget to mention the children who actually lived integration. While it was ultimately a success, I read the stories of the early black students integrating majority white school. It was a painful experience for all of them. Frankly, if I was a parent back then, I would have thought long and hard before putting my child in such a school. Actually, even to this day black parents, especially if they want their kids to attend a private school or one of the best schools in their area which are naturally whiter, often ponder the pros and cons of their child attending a school where they will be a true minority.

Perhaps the most insidious of those experiments, for Thomas, is affirmative action, which he has long opposed. His critics call him a hypocrite. “He had all the advantages of affirmative action and went against it,” Rosa Parks said of Thomas, in 1996. His defenders believe that Thomas is advancing a common conservative line—that affirmative action is a form of reverse racism, which imposes illegitimate burdens on whites. In fact, Thomas’s arguments are considerably more unorthodox than that. According to Thomas, affirmative action is the most recent attempt by white people to brand and belittle black people as inferior. Affirmative action does not formally mirror the tools of white supremacy; for Thomas, it is the literal continuation of white supremacy.
His argument is rooted in two beliefs, each informed by his time spent on the left. The first is that affirmative action reinforces the stigma that shadows African-Americans. Among many whites, blackness signals a deficit of intellect, talent, and skill. Even Supreme Court Justices, Thomas wrote in one opinion, “assume that anything that is predominantly black must be inferior.” When the state and social institutions identify African-Americans as beings in need of help, they reinforce that stigma. It doesn’t matter if some African-Americans succeed without affirmative action. In the same way that enslavement marked all black people, free or slave, as inferior, affirmative action—here Thomas borrows directly from the language of Plessy v. Ferguson—stamps all African-Americans with “a badge of inferiority.”
The second way affirmative action continues white supremacy is by elevating whites to the status of benefactors, doling out scarce privileges to those black people they deem worthy. The most remarkable element of Thomas’s affirmative-action jurisprudence, and what makes it unlike that of any other Justice on the Supreme Court, is how much attention he devotes to whites, not as victims but as perpetrators, the lead actors in a racial drama of their own imagination. Put simply, Thomas believes that affirmative action is a white program for white people.

The thing with affirmative action and most diversity program is that it can make people believe that black people don't deserve what they have. And hence, they're considered thief and white (and Asians) becomes the victims. That's why I think they should be removed, especially affirmative action for schools as I think these days, if you have the grades, you'll get in or if you don't have you first choice, another good university will accept you. The reality for jobs is far more complex since the stakes are far higher than education. For example, recently I read many article talking about how black people were hired to fill up quota, essentially stealing jobs from more deserving whites. What people don't realise is that most of those hired under diversity policy usually quit 6-12 months later because they are simply not given the tools to evolve and even if they don't quit, most are aware of what is said behind their back. Even if they prove themselves, their authority isn't respected, their ideas are shot down, and the general work environment is a battlefield where they aren't likely to win. By the way, I've seen and heard of many cases like that in real life. Besides, it's not fun knowing that you were hired just so the company wouldn't be fined or to make the office more colourful. I know one person who was told right at the interview that they were looking for someone like her (a black woman) because of the organisation diversity policy. Afterwards, she told me that she was lucky she actually know the job she was hired for, but she felt lots of pressure. Besides, she could tell that her team was uncomfortable with her, but overcompensated by organising drink nights to be "inclusive". What complicated everything, from what I've seen so far is that most of those diversity hires would probably not have been hired without this new diversity policy even if they had the right experience and qualification because their face wouldn't fit the company (again biology and the theory Haidt developed about tribes are the best way to explain and describe what usually happens).

 

[Ina]

Can anyone point to a book where I can read about race and ethnicity and other nonsense admin classifications? It’s an honest question. I first bought and read the Bible when I was 25, I was told that I was a damn foreigner at 30, I was told that I was privileged at 40, and that I was white at 55. I was born and educated in the communist Romania and emigrated to South Africa where I currently reside. Confused and constantly wondering, I must be the closest to what a celestial ( from another planetary system) without ‘special wired alien skills’ would be. What on Earth is going on?

 

[Gaby]

Can anyone point to a book where I can read about race and ethnicity and other nonsense admin classifications?

I would recommend reading "Who We Are and How We Got Here" by David Reich for the ethnicity perspective. Then, I would take the opportunity to learn about our origins and why we are here. For instance, "The Origin of the World's Mythologies" by Wetzel and Settegasts books.

More information here:

The New History of Mankind: Who Are we? What are we? How did we get here?

In the past few weeks, I've read three books that are amazing supports for the C's worldview/cosmology and stand alongside our reading in Intelligent Design as another major thread of the mysteries of life, existence, etc. Interestingly, they could be read in a certain order as the "New History...

cassiopaea.org

The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution

For some time now I've been reading a lot about evolution. I went from biblical studies to theories about the origins of consciousness (based on evolutionary psychology) to brain sciences (out of which came Raine, Samenow, Fallon, neurofeedback etc) to evolutionary biology, to genetics, to...

cassiopaea.org

The Origins of the World’s Mythologies by Michael Witzel

I just got done reading an article by Michael Witzel entitled 'Slaying the Dragon Across Eurasia', where he examines mythology across five continents which shares a common structure and archetypal lexicon that involves dragon-slaying, amongst other things. I was impressed with the relevance to...

cassiopaea.org