Malcom X and White Supremacy

One thing Malcom X got esactly right is that the house negro is essencial for white supremacy.

The house negro today is a college professor.

Since master was wise enough to provide him with the term, the house negro today calls all negros people of color.

At once giving them a place in master’s household and maintaaining the essencial mark of the slave: genealogy.

There are people of color, master, and the discontents. The discontents threaten the slave economy, so they are evil. House negro must find them and chastise them for master. Master will help.

Meanwhile black people still can’t wrap their minds around such a barbaric state of affairs.

Malcom tried, but he was seduced by white supremacist’s old religions.

Islam is also white supremacism, even though the house negros have taken control of it.

As all terrible things, the founder of white supremacism was actually one of the coolest people ever to put foot to soil.

Alexander The Great

Alexander the Great was hot.

He was some kind of dude.

Is white supremacy an attitude towards women?
Women are of course more created by science than men are.

You mean white women? White supremacy doesn’t mean anything other than what the name says.

I don’t believe in racialism.
Believe in the game.

I this white supremacy, because a white guy masters some technology?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTjVMT27F8c[/youtube]

Lol no.

Supremacy is proven through conflict, not claimed. You don’t get to automatically be “supreme” by default. Not sure how many white supremacists and other kinds of supremacists are aware of this fact, but probably a higher percentage than in the general population.

But what you can do, is assess the probability of one group winning over another, aka which group is more likely to demonstrate their supremacy by winning conflicts. Even in its current degenerated state caused by cuckservatism, leftism/liberalism and generally weakness and degeneracy, the white race is still probably the most powerful, all other factors equal. Some, like Japanese and Chinese, are worthy competitors. Most others, inferior.

In a sense everybody is supremacist, as everybody seeks to expand their domain of power (will to power). So those who call themselves “supremacists” are merely more honest about that. And more sane, too, because they take into account two important things: 1) Group identity, it is impossible for any individual to secure his supremacy alone, cooperation is necessary 2) That group identity and cooperation are more effective when limited to biologically similar individuals

Boring people, that is people without much creativity, certainly may find domination of others the most interesting thing they can come up with. Or accumulating money. Or demonstrating that they do not need to care what you think by treating people like shit.

So, yes, supremicists are honest, but pathetic. Now in some way that may be better than pathetic people who are dishonest.

Shakespeare could have hung out in the pubs trying to fuck people over. Thank God he decided to write. And to continuously seek to expand his domain of power over words, characters and knowledge of the human.

“Knowledge of the human” sounds a little vague and lazy.

Also

“Or demonstrating that they do not need to care what you think by treating people like shit.”

Does not sound like a goal. Certainly they then do care about something?

For example. Would you have me take seriously the claim that will to power is domain of power? Or is such a person, if we care, say, about wisdom, to be treated with disdain?

On the other hand, take a thinker like iambiguous, who fits your description pretty well. Will we simply ignore the genious of the question “can you bring this down to Earth” because we are offended by his supremacism?

A reverse supremacism, an ongoing punishment of phenomenology for hiding its true nature from itself, but supremacism nonetheless?

I don’t think iambiguous knows the true nature of phenomenology, first of all because he doesn’t care. But are his motives really that important?

How do you bring this down to Earth? To the world of conflicting Goods? If this is not philosophy, then Shakespeare was not a poet.

So you chose to focus on parts of my post which was offering an example of the complexity possible within the will to power, and as intended by N, rather than focusing on the vagueness and laziness in that’s conception of the will to power.

Like supremacy, a vaguely presented goal in the other post.

Ask the previous poster.

Which description does Iamb fit well?

I am not sure why Iamb is the focus of your response to me. Iamb’s general question is peachy if no longer interesting to me. I don’t believe in objective answers and consider his quest either quixotic or not really what he is presenting. He seems fine with quixotic quests. Good luck.

Did you agree with the point I was making?

Perhaps you were less clear about your point than you realize.

You made some guesses about what I chose to do (if choice really exists is a philosophical question), which may be wrong or may be right. But what did they get you closer to?

The subject of Malcom X and white supremacy somehow? Something else?

Perhaps. In any case, it had nothing to do with Iamb. I guess i could have said that. Quoting the other guy was clearly not enough to rule this out. Noted.

I wonder what year he would have been considered white stepping off a boat in NY as an immigrant.

Aye. This has been my argument against racial supremacism forever. What could be more bland and depressing than having only ones general ethnotype as the prime ground for self-valuing? It means one has so little to run with in life that one cant even attain the experience of stand-alone entity.

How would someone like that be able to accumulate money? Racists are invariably poor unless they form a government bureaucracy like in Turkey or the DMC.

Shakespeare must have spent some time in the tavern, listening to people talk about their lots.

Alexander the Great was the opposite of a White Supremacist. He showed Aristotle’s inferiority to the East.
But I suppose all dominating white males will be marked white supremacist by someone at some time. It certainly has happened to me, on no other account than me being white and powerful.

The problem with this is that “white supremacy” gradually becomes synonymous with “supremacy”.
And the problem also is that the more non-whites act up in racist resentment, the more I actually feel happy to be white, the more I am coaxed to relate my genius to my ethnicity.
thankfully I consider black Americans to be the kernel to Nietzsche’s higher man, and hold many of them as examples, otherwise I may fear that racists of other races would turn me into a racist.

I do think certain nationalities are almost guarantee for human failure. But nation is not race.

I’m less interested in you ruling things out than ruling things in.

Anybody can dissociate themselves and let their interlocutor assume the lowest common demoninator is then the point made. I find this a little disgusting, carry your own self.

But it takes… something special to actually then associate with something clearly stated. This is what interests me.