Not surprisingly, the concept/idea of ‘anger’ was very much on my mind as I read your comments on these Muslim riots over the Koran business.
You’re quite right to see the centrality of Muslim “anger” in these recent events. But there’s one important point you leave out. It’s not just that whites take black “rage” seriously, and that blacks “fly off the handle” quicker and easier, but that (according to me) blacks “instinctively” realize that if whites take their rage seriously, i.e., as legitimate, then they automatically have them over a barrel, psychologically. This is, after all, largely a matter of psychological warfare, and therefore, as I claim, black “anger” is largely a scam and a sham, and in some sense deliberate, even if instinctive.
One reason for my belief that black “anger” is a con, is that throughout black Africa, this “anger” is virtually nonexistent, the principle reason for which, I believe, is simply the absence of liberal, egalitarian ideology which teaches Westernized blacks that all groups are the same, that it’s bad to say otherwise, and hence that the only reason for black failure is white malice, etc. Where such Western ideological influence is absent—as is the case in black Africa—none of this “anger” and all that goes with it—is to be found. It is only amongst blacks living in countries with a large white presence (such as South Africa or the US), and the Western ideological influence that goes along with this presence, that blacks are able to pick up on these ideas and then “run with them”.
One must look at the logic of “anger”. If I am angry at you it is presumed, based on the very nature (logic) of anger, that you must have somehow wronged me, which automatically means that I have a grievance against you, which in turn means that you “owe” me. In short, as I emphasize in my book, once whites grant the legitimacy of black’s “anger”—or, in the case in point, Muslims’ “anger”—i.e., that it is based on some legitimate grievance, the (psychological) battle is over: blacks (and Muslims) have the upper hand—which of course leads to groveling apologies, and which in turn only leads to more “anger” since, among other things, it emphasizes to blacks and Muslims, how incredibly weak and frightened whites are. And, how stupid they are for continually blaming themselves for things which (I know) blacks know are not whites’ fault and which I suspect Muslims and Arabs know just was well—deep though it may be buried below multiple layers of self-deceit.
In this battle of wills or psychological warfare, blacks and Muslims feel, correctly, that they have whites on the run; and when you have the ‘enemy’ on the run, that makes you run after them all the harder and faster. It is, in many ways, quite similar to an army that has the enemy in a rout. It also involves the bully-mentality: once the bully senses fear and weakness, that simply makes him go for the jugular.
The fact that whites so readily grant this legitimacy seems, in turn, to rest on white guilt, because the logic of guilt is that you’ve done something wrong and/or that you are, in some way, a bad and wicked person, which of course is why you feel guilty in the first place. This is, in fact, in the matters we are talking about, a nearly completely false guilt. But that matters not. What matters is that blacks and Muslims have, instinctively in the case of blacks and maybe somewhat more consciously in Muslims and Arabs (about whom I know much less than blacks), long since cottoned onto both the reality of this guilt and the opportunity it offers them to blackmail, browbeat, bamboozle, and threaten whites, in short, to give them great (psychological) advantage.
Hence, white guilt and black/Muslim ‘rage’ go together like a hand and glove. It also, in both cases, reflects a kind of psychological cunning which whites, at least nowadays, seem largely to lack.
Yours,
Gedaliah Braun