Blacks’ response to a self-assured white man

(Note: Here is a YouTube of the event which I’m told is better and shows more of the event.)

Robert B. writes:

Jared Taylor spoke at a meeting of the White Student Union at Towson University October 2. Taylor is excellent. The Q and A session is truncated, but one can see blacks’ hatred of whites in their comments and assertions. One can also see the same black demeanor exhibited toward Taylor as Obama exhibited toward Romney. I have seen this same demeanor whenever a black man is confronted with a self-assured white man who is obviously smarter than than the black man. What you are seeing is them repressing their desire to beat the white man. You can also see here, how actually fearful minorities in general, but blacks in particular are of whites—especially of whites who may band together to protect their interests. What this tells us is that “black power” and the so called power of the black man is a front—a scam, to cover up their fear of the white man. As I have said before, whites—organized whites—are the most formidable entity on the planet. When organized, it is nothing for us to defeat and subdue the “Other,” no matter how great the odds are in the “Other’s” favor. This is why liberalism must constantly browbeat whites into believing themselves to be guilty and inferior.

- end of initial entry -

Aditya B. writes:

Your commenter Robert B. has described, succinctly, something I’ve understood ever since I began researching the British Raj.

The British ruled undivided (British) India with about 1,000 officers of the elite (and when I say elite, I mean elite—it was the toughest entrance exam in the world). With the exception of World War II, they never had more than 100,000 white troops on Indian soil.

Did they do this by mere force? No! It is because the population was in awe of these people. It is my theory that most people in the world are awed by whites and, in fact, want to be white. However, the closer one gets to whites, the more one realizes that, in spite of one’s best attempts, one can never be white. And the frustration and angst, which is a consequence of the inability to alter one’s genetic make-up, is most violent in people who are in closest proximity to whites.

The white, Western man is the world’s most formidable opponent. If only he would get his act together, he would assume his natural position as the master of the world. His renunciation of that role has not lead to a kinder, gentler world: it has led to a more turbulent and violent world, where the white man is neither feared nor respected.

Whites will never be “liked” of “loved” by non-whites. There is simply too much psychological “baggage.” One can never be comfortable around a race which one conceded, in his heart of heart, is “better” than his race.

Liberalism, which is sort of like a Hollywood-esque flesh-eating virus, consumes the soul of the white man and leaves him bereft of that natural confidence and ease with which he formerly gained supremacy of the world. The non-white world, like hyenas smelling weakness, have encircled him and are preparing for the kill. Each and every minority group that currently lords it over the white man is doing so because the white man lets them do it. If whites were restored to their pre-Great War level of confidence, then not a single minority group would be in the position to wrangle any concessions, much less actively push for the dispossession and ever-greater humiliation of whites.

The problem is a spiritual one. The awakening must come from within. No legislation, no “education” or “revolution” can accomplish that. Of course, if the awakening happens, there will be a revolution, the likes of which will make 1776 pale in comparison.

I am longing for that day, Lawrence. I thought I had moved to a white country. I want to live in a white society where white men administer government efficiently and fairly. A place where white men administer justice without fear or favor and in accordance with a thousand-year old tradition that hasn’t been mutilated and dishonored. A place where my nation’s borders are well-guarded as are the streets and neighborhoods. In short, a world that would have been a natural evolution of the West before it committed suicide in Flanders.

Do you think the Wheel of Time (or History—or both) will turn? Do you think a time will come when the white population has had enough and is able to unite and re-take their nation and heritage?

White solidarity, outside of a few colonial places, and placed with high concentrations of non-whites (e.g. the American South) is a myth. It has never existed. India obtained her “freedom” because whites were disunited, and well-fed, well-clothed, self-righteous whites decided whites must begin a seemingly endless expiation of sins, real and imagined, which continues to this day. However, the past is not always a good indicator for the future, and I am open to the possibility of a spiritual awakening. I just don’t have much faith in such an event.

Robert B. writes:

Aditya B. beautifully expresses my own feelings about my “peoples.” We have given the world so much—and usually it was given gratis. All of the technology the Europeans have invented over the last 3,000 years was given to the world. All of the beauty created by our artists and composers was given to the world. We brought trade, science, and medicine. We opened our great universities to the world so they could use our accumulated knowledge to lift themselves and their societies.

Those officers Aditya B. refers to were employees of what I think was the greatest corporation in the history of the world—the British East India Trading Company. Imagine, six men sat down in an English pub and decided to form a company whose purpose was to build a fleet, raise a private army and conquer a sub-continent which was a disjointed and warring mess. Can anyone imagine the Chinese, for instance, doing such a thing? Or the Polynesians? Only the English could have conceived and executed such a plan. They brought wealth to both parties and, more importantly, they created a nation and gave to that nation a sense of self as well as modern education and government administration.

October 6

Cyril Y. writes:

Your commenter wrote:

“Those officers Aditya sB. refers to were employees of what I think was the greatest corporation in the history of the world—the British East India Trading Company. Imagine, six men sat down in an English pub and decided to form a company whose purpose was to build a fleet, raise a private army and conquer a sub-continent which was a disjointed and warring mess.”

The oft-maligned British liberated India from a myriad of brutish Islamic potentates—the Mysore sultans, the Mughal alamgirs, the Hyderabad nizams, the Carnatic nawabs, the Durrani emirs, the Bengal sultans—and for that alone they should be commended and celebrated (of course, not to minimize the successes of Marathas, Jats, Gurkhas, and Sikhs againsts Muslim imperialists—but the British undid so much of the horrors inflicted by Islamic hegemony in the subcontinent that native efforts cannot compare.) To state the above unapologetically is not popular, to be sure, given mainstream anti-colonial animus, but the fruits of the British Raj can readily be observed by any impartial observer—whereas one can imagine the backwardness and stultification had Hindu India remained captive to Muslim conquerors. Even as the British retained Muslim dynasties in some of the Princely States, British colonial influence rescued these regions, with the exceptions of Pakistan—West and now-independent East—plus Kashmir.

Chris K. writes:

While I was happy that the empty black suit finally had been exposed by the debate earlier in the week, I was disturbed by the celebratory revels of mainstream conservatives. I had an inchoate sense that there was something deeply amiss about the end zone dance of celebration taking place. As usual VFR had a crystallizing effect on my thought and I understood what had been bothering me after viewing Jared Taylor’s presentation at Towson University. (Note: a better version of the video can be found here.)

I know you have had your differences with Mr. Taylor over the years, but I believe that you would grant the Taylor is a polished speaker and effective debater. The minor epiphany I had while viewing the Towson presentation was that Mitt Romney wants to argue like Taylor but be president of the audience. Mitt Romney is a successful, impressive man, and Obama is not. Why is there all this celebration of what should have been a foregone conclusion? You or any other regular VFR commentator could have similarly out debated Obama. His rhetorical skills really aren’t all that impressive sans teleprompter, and he has shown an actual allergy to dialectical reasoning, before and during his white house tenure. His economic policy, foreign policy, domestic policy, his appointments, everything the man has done has been a provable disaster, marked by incompetence where there wasn’t actual malice. Obama is a thin skinned, affirmative action enabled, incompetent, juvenile black man. Where is the great victory in a major corporate executive, Olympic chairman, and Governor beating an empty black suit?

The Towson audience could not be polite, could not understand Mr. Taylor’s speech, few of the interlocutors could make an actual point, and at no point in the entire 90 minute presentation did a single legitimate objection to Taylor’s argument get made. I do not expect students at a second tier university to best a Yale educated professional debater like Taylor. However, university students should be able to raise articulate reasonable objections, in a polite fashion. University students should also recognize when a superior point has been made and cede the field graciously. The questioners and the audience hooted and jeered Taylor all the while cheering stupid and irrelevant arguments made by students. A browner, less traditionalist America is one where sportsmanlike debate and legitimate argument are discarded in favor of overheated rhetoric and emotional appeals.

Mitt Romney and Jared Taylor and you are all handsome, Ivy league educated, serious, accomplished men. The difference between a traditional conservative and a mainstream conservative is that the traditionalist realizes that being serious and accomplished won’t matter if America continues to change into a nonwhite country.

Paul K. writes:

While I agree with the thrust of Chris K.’s comment, I think he makes too much of the rudeness of the students at Towson. The message that Taylor was delivering was so contrary to anything they’ve ever heard, so devastating to their worldview, that their emotional, uncomprehending reaction was to be expected, though not condoned. At the same time, Taylor was able to say what he had to say, which is not always the case when conservative speakers attempt to address college audiences. A couple of years ago Ann Coulter had to cancel a speech at the University of Ottawa due to the clamor of the audience and threats of physical violence forced her to leave. I recall similar instances of conservative speakers being shouted down at elite universities, such as when Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist was forced off the stage at Columbia University. William Shockley was shouted down by Yale students in 1974. I think Towson did a better-than-average job of controlling the crowd.

LA replies:

Yes. You can see at the beginning of the event, a university official speaks at some length reading university rules and telling the audience in no uncertain terms that they must not misbehave, interrupt the speaker, and so on.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 05, 2012 12:55 PM | Send