Friday, March 1, 2013









A CASE for RADICAL 
ANTI-AMERICANISM
Branding an African slave woman

In the responses to this week's post by Mr. Bill Ducky in his usual dismissive fashion sneered at the very idea that our government under the auspices of FEMA could possibly have built upwards of eight-hundred Internment Centers or Concentration Camps disguised as Emergency Relief Centers. 
FJ-Thersites quickly responded with several links clearly demonstrating that not only was our government capable of implementing such a policy it had already done so several times in the past, and proceeded to quote chapter and verse.
I thought it was important to present a synthesis of the information FY-Thersites provided –– not for the petty reason of retaliating against Ducky –– but to show how low the forces of government can stoop, and how evil they can be when permitted to run amok.
The following also lends greater credibility to the notion that President Obama, given the radical anti-American, pro-Communist conditioning he received in childhood and beyond, might well consider it his “Sacred Duty” to do everything in his power to destroy what historical revisionists have told him are the White Man’s Ill-Gotten Gains.

The Mississippi Flood of 1927:

Negroes, because they comprise 75% of the population in the delta lowlands and furnish 95% of the labor power on the plantations and farms, where they operate as tenants, share croppers and small owners, constituted the human factor most affected. It is estimated that out of the 637,000 people forced to flee their homes by the water, 94% lived in three states, Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana; and that 69% of the 325,146 who occupied the concentration camps, depending on the Red Cross for food and shelter, were colored.

Mississippi's "Concentration Camps" 
[154 of them] on the Levees


Great Flood

Expedition Journal
Stephen Ambrose May 1, 2001




Japanese American Internment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Japanese American Internment Camps:


Location
Date
1942 - 1946
Japanese American internment involved the relocation and internment by the United States government in 1942 of about 110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese who lived along the Pacific coast of the United States to camps called "War Relocation Camps," in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the United States. ...

And then there was 

The Capture, Imprisonment and Quasi-Genocidal Treatment by American Soldiers of the Apaches at Fort Pickens and Fort Marion:


On the morning of October 25, 1886 a train pulled into Pensacola, Florida. Onboard were 16 Apache men (in photo), some of their families and U.S. soldiers. Under guard, the Apache men were separated from their wives and children and forced onto a steamer for the short trip across Pensacola Bay to Fort Pickens. 
Their wives and children remained on the train, and were taken to Fort Marion in St. Augustine, where 400 other Chiricahua and Warm Springs Apaches were imprisoned. 
Goyahkla, known as Geronimo, and Naiche, the youngest son of Cochise and hereditary chief of the Chiricahuas, were among the Apaches held at Fort Pickens until 1888. The Apache men were separated from their families far from home, and worried about the fate of their loved ones. ..."



" ... The Apaches lost loved ones, their lands, their traditional ways of life, and for 27 years their freedom. The Apache  population dropped 95% from 1850 to 1914. The few descendants of those who survived are proud to be called Apache today."

FreeThinke Responds


This moving tale of the fate of the Apaches at the hands of us white invaders, and the terrible story of the way Negroes were treated on the Mississippi Delta during the cataclysmic flood of 1927 should be included in a lengthy, illustrated chronicle called
"THE REASON WHY" with the continuing subtitle "White Americans have been feared, hated and despised by Negroes, American Indians, Hispanics, Jews, and other Non-Caucasian, non-Christian Peoples."

It also provides us with an excellent beginning to an understanding of why it is entirely possible -- and very likely -- that Barack Obama has, indeed, had a determination to act as
The Great Avenger by willfully destroying the United States of America designed by white men, in which white people prospered enormously while treating non-whites either as SAVAGE BEASTS to be exterminated at will for "self defense," or in the case of Negroes as so many FARM ANIMALS to be used for the purpose of enhancing the quality of White Lives.

The people who call themselves liberals or progressives today, have been so moved by the more recent overemphasis by activist academics of these sordid stories from our partly-shameful-partly-admirable history that they feel compelled to commit virtual suicide –– and to force the rest of White America to join them –– in order to "atone" for sins they, themselves, never committed.


By electing a mulatto conditioned from birth by a rabid communist-activist family to work zealously for the destruction of all the fruits of White Privilege, a slim majority of American citizens have in fact signed their own economic and social death warrants.


We are not "progressing" under Obama, we are IMPLODING.


It's easy to understand why an increasing number are convinced –– through the work of the historical revisionists who chosen to emphasize these saddest, most shameful chapters in our history as though they were all that mattered –– that this very big TIT is the only fair response to that admittedly heinous TAT.

~ FreeThinke

34 comments:

  1. this very big TIT is the only fair response to that admittedly heinous TAT

    Therefore, we're seeing run rampant the it's-our-turn-now attitude. We must be punished, right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Beware of those in whom the will to punish is strong."

    -Nietzsche

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not to be overlooked are the minority in any tribal-groupthink-collective who fall outside the expected norm and react differently than the larger group. Those are the ones that think rationally and individually, recognizing before there can be any sort of worthwhile collective or tribe there first must be individually functioning humans.


    There are many disgusting aspects to the white conquest of nations, not only in America but the rest of North America and South America, the Middle East and India and Asia. I've observed in your neighboring country to the north where the natives are becoming more restless over the last couple of decades that there are several elements attempting to exploit this, and there are many past grievances which need to be recognized and rectified.

    The normal knee-jerk reaction is the idea that the land belongs to the original owners, except the concept of land ownership and property rights as envisioned by the "original owners" is completely different than the concept of land ownership and property rights as exist today. The majority of those who recognize that a wrong has been committed argue that we should go back to the original status prior to the "conquest".

    A smaller minority recognize that this would not be possible since 'we are all here now' and a better solution must be found than expelling the invaders and returning the land to the previous "owners" which would more likely result in a civil war, chaos and destruction. This is and will be exploited by those that embrace the tyranny of the collective and seek to dissolve the individual into the collective. An ongoing issue in the process of development thanks to the exploiters from the new American nanny state.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh nuts to that, FJ. I'm a firm believer that "When [you're] in Rome, [it is incumbent on you to] do as the Romans do."

    This is the understanding I'd hoped to elicit with the question asked the other day about the differences there might be politeness and hypocrisy, duplicity and diplomacy, discretion and deceit, etc.

    An excess of frankness, boldness, assertiveness, and what-passes-for "HONESTY" among liberals is likely to make one persona non grata in the "real" world, and may even result literally in one getting one's head handed to him, her or it.

    Civilization would never have occurred were it not for the fine artof dissimulation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, AOW, the tit for tat expression meant EXACTLY that. It's "our" turn now to have "our" teats put through the wringer -- so to speak.

    "We" may have advanced beyond the barbarous practices of our ancestors, but our adversaries, who -- let's face it -- were our former subjects, still adhere to the hideous standards set forth by Hammurabi.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you, Waylon, for your astute observations. A usual, you seem to understand the point very well.

    The old eye for eye, tooth for tooth concept of "justice" is not only outmoded, it is as BARBARIC as the Old Testament, which ceaselessly advocates the cruelest, most draconian punishments imaginable even to the point of repeatedly telling the Israelites that "God" has DEMANDED they commit GENOCIDE, though to my knowledge that particular term was never used prior to Nuremberg.

    I've often thought it hideously ironic that the very people who were probably the first to justify, sanctify and glorify genocide in their "holy" scriptures should, themselves, be subjected to a systematic attempt it thousands of years later.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You are missing the point. The "father" no longer beats his children or castigates them when they misbehave ("may even result literally in one getting one's head handed to him, her or it").

    "As you know, the father Karamazov's son Ivan leads the latter into those audacious avenues taken by the thought of the cultivated man, and in particular, he says, if God doesn't exist... - If God doesn't exist, the father says, then everything is permitted. Quite evidently, a naïve notion, for we analysts know full well that if God doesn't exist, then nothing at all is permitted any longer. Neurotics prove that to us every day."

    - Jacques Lacan, "The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis"

    Totalitarianism is inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Zizek:

    What characterizes modernity is no longer the standard figure of the believer who secretly harbors intimate doubts about his belief and engages in transgressive fantasies; today, we have, on the contrary, a subject who presents himself as a tolerant hedonist dedicated to the pursuit of happiness, and whose unconscious is the site of prohibitions: what is repressed are not illicit desires or pleasures, but prohibitions themselves. "If God doesn't exist, then everything is prohibited" means that the more you perceive yourself as an atheist, the more your unconscious is dominated by prohibitions which sabotage your enjoyment. (One should not forget to supplement this thesis with its opposite: if God exists, then everything is permitted - is this not the most succinct definition of the religious fundamentalist's predicament? For him, God fully exists, he perceives himself as His instrument, which is why he can do whatever he wants, his acts are in advance redeemed, since they express the divine will...)

    Instead of bringing freedom, the fall of the oppressive authority thus gives rise to new and more severe prohibitions. How are we to account for this paradox? Think of the situation known to most of us from our youth: the unfortunate child who, on Sunday afternoon, has to visit his grandmother instead of being allowed to play with friends. The old-fashioned authoritarian father's message to the reluctant boy would have been: "I don't care how you feel. Just do your duty, go to grandmother and behave there properly!" In this case, the child's predicament is not bad at all: although forced to do something he clearly doesn't want to, he will retain his inner freedom and the ability to (later) rebel against the paternal authority. Much more tricky would have been the message of a "postmodern" non-authoritarian father: "You know how much your grandmother loves you! But, nonetheless, I do not want to force you to visit her - go there only if you really want to!" Every child who is not stupid (and as a rule they are definitely not stupid) will immediately recognize the trap of this permissive attitude: beneath the appearance of a free choice there is an even more oppressive demand than the one formulated by the traditional authoritarian father, namely an implicit injunction not only to visit the grandmother, but to do it voluntarily, out of the child's own free will. Such a false free choice is the obscene superego injunction: it deprives the child even of his inner freedom, ordering him not only what to do, but what to want to do.


    Got a nanny state yet? Just wait.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is the case even with the growing prohibition of smoking. First, all offices were declared "smoke-free," then flights, then restaurants, then airports, then bars, then private clubs, then, in some campuses, 50 yards around the entrances to the buildings, then - in a unique case of pedagogical censorship, reminding us of the famous Stalinist practice of retouching the photos of nomenklatura - the US Postal Service removed the cigarette from the stamps with the photo-portrait of blues guitarist Robert Johnson and of Jackson Pollock. These prohibitions target the other's excessive and risky enjoyment, embodied in the act of "irresponsibly" lighting a cigarette and inhaling deeply with an unabashed pleasure (in contrast to Clintonite yuppies who do it without inhaling, or who have sex without actual penetration, or food without fat) - indeed, as Lacan put it, after God is dead, nothing is anymore permitted.


    - Zizek, ibid.

    ReplyDelete
  10. From what seemed like a lonely whine in the wilderness several years ago from the whinger, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has evolved a movement whose well-funded backers have been able to purchase activists whose spokes-folk have become the representatives of aboriginals who have legitimate grievances. Those funding the movement today are from, how to phrase this delicately, the most hated family in America today—the Rockefellers. The family whose earlier generations were able finagle privileges from their government to protect their wealth from "competition", in the form of "charitable trusts". These trusts are used today to advance the overarching cause of global tyranny under a world government under the banner of the United Nations.

    Since this does involve the Keystone XL Pipeline built to carry tar sands crude oil from Canada to the Gulf coast, it is definitely within the "interests" of the Rockefeller family to monitor and restrict "competition" in the oil business, always has been, so there's nothing new here, I guess.

    Just the pretense that it involves a manipulated group of aboriginals being used to create chaos and problems and destruction where this should not be. Likely we can see that the idea of creating less dependence on "foreign oil" is nothing but a sham to protect those that own the industry, the status quo, intending to restrict competition to keep oil prices high. As if they don't already know that wind and solar power are not viable sources of energy, they do restrict new competition from arising in the established industries from which the Rockefellers gained their prodigious wealth and influence over America, North America and most of the world.

    Are they also behind the increased emphasis on race and the lunatic fringe,the likes of Louis Farrakhan? Stranger things have happened ...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Civilization would never have occurred were it not for the fine art of dissimulation.

    Mikhail Bakhtin saw in "Bobok" the quintessence of Dostoevsky's art, a microcosm of his entire creative output which renders its central motif: the idea that "everything is permitted" if there is no God and no immortality of the soul. In the carnivalesque underworld of life "between the two deaths," all rules and responsibilities are suspended, the undead can cast aside all shame, act insanely, and laugh at honesty and justice. The ethical horror of this vision is that it displays the limit of the "truth and reconciliation" idea: what if we have a perpetrator for whom the public confession of his crimes not only does not give rise to any ethical catharsis in him, but even generates an additional obscene pleasure?

    - Zizek, "How to Read Lacan"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wow fj. From Dostoevsky to necrophilia? Seems like Zizek was reaching on that one.

    I understand the self-repressive notion of "if God doesn't exist, nothing is allowed". But it doesn't jive with the social tolerance of todays liberals, i.e. gay marriage,abortion rights, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  13. " ... the more you perceive yourself as an atheist, the more your unconscious is dominated by prohibitions which sabotage your enjoyment."

    That makes very good sense to me.

    I have always believed that Existence is a Paradox, therefore the biblical injunction from Our Lord -- "If you would have your life, first you must [be willing to] lose it" -- is perfectly sensible, because it's seeming lack of logic is in accord with the very nature of human existence.

    So, paradoxically we find true freedom only when we submit to the urgent and compelling need to discipline our appetites and instinctive drive toward limitless pleasure with the nurture and admonition of a Higher Power.

    ReplyDelete
  14. btw - best stay away from those homophobic "bullies", Jen. It may serve to discredit your notion of "gay tolerance". ;)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Your last message from Zizek, FJ, reminded me of the "official" decision to have the fur collar she habitually wore in cold weather removed from Mrs. Roosevelt's coat on the sculptural representation of the lady at the no-longer-new FDR Memorial. Likewise the decision to show the man, himself, in his wheelchair, even though such an image was never permitted to be seen by the public during his [seemingly eternal] presidency. Presumably the sponsors of this extensive snow job wanted the public to see Mrs. and Mrs. Roosevelt -- "as they really were" -- and yet her habitual fur collar, and habitual cigarette are nowhere in sight, because ...

    Well, do I really need to finish that sentence?

    This kind of censorship is only a level with Parson Weems' nonsensical portrayal of George Washington as a Super-Prig, and Bowdler's idiotic attempts to "sanitize" Shakespeare and other great classics.

    Feminism's revolting "anti-sexist" impositions on our use of English and the all-too successful attempts by Church Official to alter traditional texts of longstanding so they now use "Inclusive Language" are other cases in point.

    You've brought to light some extraordinarily important points, FJ.

    Thanks for your contributions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nope. You missed my point.I realize that the very notion of "tolerance" nowadays is inherently unaccepting and exclusive. My point was,the "social progressives" who profess atheism, according to Zizek, would denounce the very groups and causes that they support, if no God = nothing is allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The 'social progressives' aren't speaking the discourse of analysts, Jen. They're speaking the discourse of the university.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In other words, "consciously" they believe that everything is permitted. Subconsciously, however, they are "repressing" all prohibitions (nothing is permitted).

    ReplyDelete
  19. ...and so, they believe they can enjoy coffee, provided it has no caffein, and sex, provided there are no pregnancies.... and "tolerate" Muslims, provided they can be sent to Gitmo if they get out of hand.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Use as much energy as you want, provided you buy carbon credits.... etc., etc... etc...

    ReplyDelete
  21. What you are NOT allowed to do is smoke a cigarette, and/or force others to breath second hand smoke. THAT. should make you feel very VERY guilty and ashamed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This blog is called free think but is covered with white bashing non sense and reasserting the BS theories that whites hold their advantage by exploiting other races, while the opposite is true. Everywhere whites formerly dominated, in African colonies for instance but also chicago, detroit or Haiti, these countries and cities have returned to chaos as soon as whites left. Germans have prooved they can rebuilt a down to the ground bombed country anew in 10 years and being a europe firster again another 10 years later. YOu use very ill chosen exemples which give more reasons to Obama on his warpatrh against white society. America owes nothing to slavery, and from what I read in this NatGeo article of the missipi flood for once blacks were used to save their own land, so? Big deal. Nor is sending some apaches or japanese prisoners in times of war to a camp a serious misdeed. Learn about world wide barbarism, cannibalism and slavery in the 19the century and you will find that the continents most exempt where there were whites lived, europe and america. All big slave owners, traders and hunters were of the tribe we dare not mention BTW and who turned into welathy big pharma or food comapnies later on like Mopn santo, not your typical greatgreatgranddad who had any profit from slavery . Start to free think, start with history research.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you for your boilerplate argument attempting to challenge what-you-mistakenly-believe to be my argument, Anonymous.

    If you took the time to read more carefully and react with less vociferation, you would realize how wrong you are in your interpretation of my motives in presenting the data that comprises the bulk of the article in question.

    Human nature in action never fails to astonish, appall and amuse, which is the primary reason I bother to maintain this blog.

    The search for affirmation and comprehension rarely fails to come up empty-handed.

    The all-too-rare occasions when that is not the case are still a source of hope, but Alas! hope these days is beginning to fail for lack of oxygen.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hello, Jen. I am very glad to see you here. I hope you will be a frequent "guest."

    I gather that what FJ means is that when ALL is permitted, everything soon loses its meaning and value. In such an environment we quickly lose our moral compass, degenerate very rapidly, and then fall prey to the first would-be dictator who comes along promising to straighten out the mess.

    Freedom is a terrifying prospect to the majority, I suspect, and that must be why we keep putting ourselves back in chains over and over and over again.

    I hasten to add that "mind-forged manacles" are every bit as inhibiting as those made of iron and steel. The unenlightened human mind might just as well be living in a dungeon.

    At the same time precious freedom is worthless to those who are not prepared to guard, protect and defend it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. On the melting pot w/o the "melting" (aka - liberal multiculturalism)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks,FT. I really enjoy your blog. You have a unique view on life and personal communication, which I appreciate.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thank you, Jen. Compliments are rare in the blogosphere, and therefore, all the more appreciated.


    Thersites, your last Zizek link was so remarkably astute -- and so in line with my own thinking --, I'm going to post it directly here. I hope you don't mind?

    Multi-culturalism - Embracing the Good, Repressing the Bad, about the "Other"

    Lacan shares with Nietzsche and Freud the idea that justice as equality is founded on envy: the envy of the other who has what we do not have, and who enjoys it.

    The demand for justice is ultimately the demand that the excessive enjoyment of the other should be curtailed, so that everyone’s access to enjoyment will be equal.

    The necessary outcome of this demand, of course, is ascetism: since it is not possible to impose equal enjoyment, what one can impose is the equally shared prohibition. However, one should not forget that today, in our allegedly permissive society, this ascetism assumes precisely the form of its opposite, of the generalized injunction “Enjoy!”.

    We are all under the spell of this injunction, with the outcome that our enjoyment is more hindered than ever – recall the yuppie who combines Narcissistic Self-Fulfillment with utter ascetic discipline of jogging and eating health food.

    This, perhaps, is what Nietzsche had in mind with his notion of the Last Man – it is only today that we can really discern the contours of the Last Man, in the guise of the predominant hedonistic ascetism.

    In today’s market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol… and the list goes on. What about virtual sex as sex without sex, the Colin Powell doctrine of warfare with no casualties (on our side, of course) as warfare without warfare, the contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics, up to today’s tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight)?

    Virtual reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance, of the resisting hard kernel of the Real -– in the same way decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like real coffee without being the real one, Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being [real].

    Everything is permitted, you can enjoy everything -– on condition that it is deprived of the substance which makes it dangerous.



    ~ Zizek, "How to Read Lacan"

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm glad you liked it. Don't let the fact that Zizek is a.Marxist throw you. He's more "Lacanian" than Marxist.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Marx's demonically destructive influence on White European Christian Civilization does not mean that Marx was entirely wrong, had nothing worthwhile to say, or that he was "stupid."

    He -- like so many of us who sincerely believe we "mean well" -- may have been just another victim of The Law of Unintended Consequences.

    In "real" life I have known many Marxists who were very kind, decent, well-meaning individuals. That, of course, makes it much harder to deal with them in the manner their beliefs deserve.

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.