Fanon: Black men who sleep with white women want to be white.

[Joe McCarthy]

For those unfamiliar with Fanon, he was a black psychologist from Martinique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frantz_Fanon

The following is gleaned from his Black Skin, White Masks.

It will be observed that there is no common link between the Negro of this chapter and the Negro who wants to go to bed with a white woman. In the latter case there is clearly a wish to be white. A lust for revenge, in any case.

Fanon also notes a study which finds that the black penis is no larger than the white one. There is other useful info in this book.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Mixed Up: The Case Against Interracial Marriage (http://www.wildernesschurch.com/articles/mixedup.htm)

By Emanuel McLittle

A BLACK SPEAKS OUT AGAINST INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE

January 26, 1999

There is only one way to honestly begin a discussion about interracial marriage. It is mixed up! It is contrary to all known laws of physiology, physics, and nature. It should be obvious to any thinking person that he mixture of different peoples, substances, chemicals, races, and even atoms, weakens all its altered parts. The examples that nature gives by its unilateral choices should set the tone for how we think about "physically mixing the most complex of all created things, humans." It is interesting to note that prior to the early 1900s, everyone on earth, with very few exceptions, knew that marriage to one's own racial kind, was the most natural and undisputed of all human traditions. The evidence of this powerful genetic wisdom is seen in the reality that 93% of all those who marry or couple, still do so with a member of their own race. This, despite a 50-year campaign to darken the white races and lighten the dark races into a beige that nature did not paint.

All living things express a genetic mandate to remain separate. Be it tree, dog, molecule, atom or apples. This fact does not imply a kind of prejudice in the fingers of nature. Instead it speaks to a creative wisdom working to preserve each element, kind, species and race as it was originally created--forming a universe where an unnumbered variety cooperate in the shaping of a beautiful whole. I argue that a similar mandate exists for humans, but unlike the pine tree, a blade of grass, or the great white shark, we can ignore this mandate.

Humans are the only part of creation with the inborn ability to "decide," to make choices. Not trees, not animals, not molecules, not chemicals, not planets, stars--not fire, wind or water; nothing, besides mankind, makes its own decisions about anything. For all living things, outside mankind, the decisions about life, reproducing, death, and destiny are made by a permanent, tamper-proof programming. It is this programming that sets the example for human relationships. A pine tree does not produce an oak tree. A turtle does not reproduce a squirrel. And even similar kinds, like doves and pigeons, will not mate! In the plant world, a blue Spruce will not pollinate a Douglas fir tree. And a black man should not produce a Latin. So specific is nature in maintaining its universal wall of separation that the seed of red roses finds no welcome in the pedals of a carnation. It is obvious that nature "intermarries nothing." It is a natural law of existence to pair, or reproduce "like kinds only." If one goes to the store for cranapple juice, nature, not nature's God, produced it. The science of creation has demonstrated through all of existence that it is, by nature, "purist."

It has been said that "life is like a pyramid and man is its top-cap. Choice allows us to rebel against the universe's obvious design, but the ability to ignore life's jet-stream doesn't make it the smart thing to do." Clearly, the most powerful reason not to marry outside one's own racial, national and linguistic family lies in the fact that such differences may exist as a system which "color-codes" the qualities and slight character differences found in each kind, or race. For us to embrace the altering of the beautiful array of colors and personality-types seen in the different races, may be likened to the bomb expert who has only a few seconds to disarm the big one. They sent the wrong man if he cuts any wire believing that the red, black, blue, white or green wires all function the same. Said another way, the lost racial identity, already prominent in 30% of the world's population, may be part of the reason for the subtle chaos, epidemic in all the so-called "open societies!" But for those still unsure, there are other prevailing reasons.

Marriage was never designed solely for two people to take pleasure in each other, sexually or otherwise. The first purpose of merging man and woman is to "reproduce." Everything in nature mirrors that intent that all should sustain itself by reproduction. The key world here is "itself;" meaning to replicate the original. The implication here is that the offspring is woven into a growing tapestry that gives the original an unending life. Even the theme behind all the major religions point to a "re-birth," of sorts, as the means of joining a Celestial family that excludes all those unlike itself! Think of it. Nearly 87% of all those living today believe it perfectly appropriate that humans must be re-born into a different species in order to fit into God's family. The prevailing argument would suggest that to be racist! "Why can't we be accepted as we are?" the collectivists argument goes. Clearly, interracial marriage has become a sick and dangerous fashion that threatens to leave us all naked.

I have counseled many mixed couples who falsely believed the races carry no psychological/spiritual differences. I have rarely spoken to such a couple who see marital troubles were not compounded by an undiscovered motive to escape the psychological environment that formed them as children. None could ever explain why they would choose a partner of a different race if indeed there were no "differences." If similarity was what they really searched for, as they often claimed, a better choice would obviously be someone that was like unto their parents. Interracial marriage is often born of a disdain for oneself and an unconscious drive to erase oneself via the next generation. I would venture a guess that many of those who engage in race mixing are running on the legs of buried anger and frustration, from a helpless, painful childhood where their first mates, their parents, failed them. Growing up with a fractured identity of their own, they are often driven by a false notion that they can leave behind one ugly world by merging into another. The hard lesson such a person will have to learn is that no one, not one single person, can ever escape from him or herself or the forces that spawned them; not even by marrying where they see no reminders of an earlier, more painful time. Evidence of the flaws in such thinking is seen in the fact that 79% of all interracial marriages fail within four years, while the national average for mainstream divorce is 50%.

Deeper than the obvious, race mixing serves an obtuse political purpose that tends to undermine the social stability of all races. And when it comes to politics, there is always a hidden reason why someone wants to tinker with race, behind the locked doors of social laboratories, closed to public scrutiny. The Tower of Babel is only one of the many instances where the Creator demonstrates his distaste for the amalgamation of the races. The new and sophisticated modus operandi began four decades ago with the gradual elimination of national boarders, removing racial and cultural differences and a vicious campaign that ripped away the credibility of "white men." All this, in the latest attempt to erect a strange global community. While minorities have enjoyed having their economic and political salivary glands stimulated by transferred gain, it took thinking Blacks and Hispanics 40 years to discover that only certain white men, and later, black conservatives, were being discredited. From the founding fathers to today's so-called "vast right wing," the discredited turned out to have a peculiar commonality, they were all Christians.

Close examination reveals that these are the men whose religious principles guided their views of smaller government, a free economy, and the notion that a nation could become the home for many races, living and working together but maintaining separate blood lines. Until the late 1800s there were even laws forbidding mixed marriages. The new social order, pushed by the intellectual elites, have littered the G-7 nations with powerful subliminal suggestions designed to destroy the old order by the year 2000. In too many ventures to count, it preaches; "There is no God or higher order to be observed; the differences marked by race are unjust; morality is relative, so there should be no limit to the range of experiences one should engage in." Upon close examination this means that not only should "the intelligent" experiment with homosexuality, but one must not "discriminate" when gathering sexual and social experience. While subtle, this is the message elitists transmit to our collective subconscious on a daily basis, through its transgendered-race hybrid voice in Hollywood, higher education and a vampirish media. What thinking people must discover before it's too late is the reasons why.

A bogus struggle, dressed in the garb of "racial justice" has made a mysterious detour. What we were told, during the civil right era, was that no race should dominate another, no matter whose country it was.
Now the mask has come off the race agenda. The target has always been ideology--how to control what people think and believed. Justice, race or otherwise, was never their aim. If people could be made to believe the core ideology of the globalists; that humans crawled out of a mud hole and over the course of millions of years became a society with no inborn order, then the need for big government, a huge, controlling, global government, really is necessary. The problem is that 100 years of Darwinian mumbo-jumbo haven't done the job.

Today's science, much of higher education, and museums full of fake fossils have not changed 87% of the world's belief that humans are descended from a race of Celestial beings. Nearly every person believes that a master plan governs and gives purpose, land and destiny to all the world's races; that while we are of one human family, our separate, cooperative missions are to serve a higher purpose that transcend politics and the childish, "we-are-in-charge goals of human government." Such goals are lined with a hate of independent, self-sufficient, principled, racially pure people. If my premise is valid, the planners knew they could not effectively attack a strong, 6,000 year belief system, backed up by the direct contact with the spiritual world, plus the documents of thousands in every race, chronicling their experiences, and collective wisdom gained. The only way to penetrate such a fortress is to first break down the door with a cry for racial justice.

The probability that there are long-held ulterior motives behind the "brown skin agenda" bids us to look, with deep suspicion, at every attempt to forcibly merge the races as well as the new "sex-based" attraction the hip-hop mentality is encouraging. The long march and trillions spent to bring about "an intelligent, unisex, brown-skinned world citizen" is destined for complete failure. This hidden cabal and their handmaidens in the media, education and the world's governments, lust after the loyalty, worship, and admiration they know belongs to another. They know that anyone with a gun can rule, temporarily. But to rule permanently, your subjects must have a collective regard for you. They must adore you. They must love you. None of this can happen until the world and its varied views, in all its many nations and races, merge into one. There is one way to accomplish such a task. They must merge everyone into one race, and therefore one "mentality." And if you have a few million years and a lot of luck, maybe a majority will let you rule them, provided you hide from them that you are not God. The moral of this story is that not only should one guard against the notion of race mixing, but guard as well against its ultimate aim, the mixing of what is right, good, and wholesome with that which is not.

[ScottishStalinist1]

I have not picked this book up in three plus years. But I'll type out one part for you.

Fanon also notes a study which finds that the black penis is no larger than the white one. There is other useful info in this book.

Here's the part you speak of:


"...[the Negro] is turned into a penis [by the white colonialists -- SS1]. He is a penis. It is easy to imagine what such descriptions [by a Michael Courtnot who said the Negro's penis is "like a sword" and four of their penises could "fill a cathedra"l -- SS1] can stimulate in a young girl in Lyon. Horror? Lust? Not indifference, in any case. Now what is the truth? The average length of the penis among blackmen of Africa, Dr. Pales says, rarely exceed 120 millimeters (4.6244 inches) Testut, in his Taite d'anatomie humaine, offers the same figure for the European. But these are facts that persuade no one. The white man is convinced that the Negro is a beast; if it is not the length of the penis, then it is the sexual potency that impresses him. Face to face with this man who is "different from himself," he needs to defend himself. In other words, to personify The Other. The Other will become the mainstay of his preoccupations and his desires...

Black Skin, White Masks, pg. 170, Fanon, translated by Charles Lam Markmann.

Also, in another chapter, Fanon says that the Jews are the Intellectual Enemy while Blacks the Biological Enemy, in the beliefs and myths of white colonial ideology. It's a good book from what I can remember, but I am not a fan of psychoanalysis (I am sympathetic to the Abolish Psychiatry movement) and that's what Fanon relies on in many parts of his works.

[Geist]

I have much respect for Fanon. Shit if the negro acted like Fanon you'd all be inviting him to the country club.

[Joe McCarthy]

Fanon also notes that black men who mate with white women are taking revenge upon them for the 'sins' of their ancestors. I suppose interracial 'love' takes on a new dimension in this context.

[Joe McCarthy]

I have much respect for Fanon. Shit if the negro acted like Fanon you'd all be inviting him to the country club.

I doubt a Marxist revolutionary like Fanon would accept an invitation to a country club, though I will grant that he was intelligent.

Edit: I'll also note that Fanon was of mixed race, like most 'black' intellectuals and nearly all black agitators.

[Kriger]

Where are the antis with their mantras that supposedly refute the facts? Other than stating obvious untruths and ideological nonsense that has nothing to do with reality, I have yet to see one anti refute any of the facts that are presented here at the Phora or elsewhere.

Good information, Joe and Cheesy.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Where are the antis with their mantras that supposedly refute the facts?

Their argument always revolves around a basic contradiction which is that when it comes to whites, our race doesn't exist. When it comes to whites, our culture doesn't exist. When it comes to Pygmies, Tibetans, Utes and Aboriginals, their racial and cultural groups do exist and they have every right, in fact duty, to propagate their own groups. White children, especially, are herded together in museums and told to behold and respect the cultures of other racial groups, but when it comes to our own, ho hum.

These consistent external messages have bombarded hundreds of millions of whites for decades. Its no wonder when so many white American youth have no identity or respect from where they come from, yet if you visit a barrio you see nothing but Mexican pride everywhere.

Imagine of whites put up murals like this:

Mi Raza es Mi Orgullo (My Race Is My Pride)

http://www.grconnect.com/murals/pictures/r200203/n3022556.jpg

Raza Adelante

http://www.grconnect.com/murals/pictures/r200203/n3022592.jpg

Mecha mural on a high school in California in 1980:

http://content.cdlib.org/dynaxml/data/13030/c9/hb396nb4c9/files/hb396nb4c9-FID4.jpg

How about some Mexican pride T-shirts?

http://site.tshirtsymas.com/popup-images/tmm088.jpg

http://img.printfection.com/1/238/5838625/jqc1H.jpg

http://store.brownpride.com/ProdImages/BrownPride_tanblk_sm.jpg

Etc, etc, etc.... Literally thousands of examples.

As usual, change the word "Mexican" or "brown" to "white," and the shit would hit the fan.

[Larrikin]

Where are the antis with their mantras that supposedly refute the facts? Other than stating obvious untruths and ideological nonsense that has nothing to do with reality, I have yet to see one anti refute any of the facts that are presented here at the Phora or elsewhere.

What facts?
I have no idea about the average penile dimensions of Europeans or Africans and I don't think it is important in any case. So what's there to refute?

As for the underlying psycholocigal reasons for black men mating with white women, I don't buy into this construct of racial consciousness at all. I rather think there are much more mundane reasons and you don't need to study psychlogy to guess them. Basically, most men (be they white or black) like to fuck and don't shy away too much when the opportunity arises.

[Kriger]

What facts?
I have no idea about the average penile dimensions of Europeans or Africans and I don't think it is important in any case. So what's there to refute?

As for the underlying psycholocigal reasons for black men mating with white women, I don't buy into this construct of racial consciousness at all. I rather think there are much more mundane reasons and you don't need to study psychlogy to guess them. Basically, most men (be they white or black) like to fuck and don't shy away too much when the opportunity arises.

Yes, well, I can certainly see where the only thing you got from the information was penis size and fucking White women.

Yes, most men do enjoy sexual intimacy, but only low-lifes don't shy away when opportunity arises. Low lifes don't seem to care where their penis goes, or how many times she has done this with others. Or what's been unloaded in her from the countless others.

Thank you for your revealing input.

[Empress Cheesatine]

As for the underlying psycholocigal reasons for black men mating with white women, I don't buy into this construct of racial consciousness at all. I rather think there are much more mundane reasons and you don't need to study psychlogy to guess them. Basically, most men (be they white or black) like to fuck and don't shy away too much when the opportunity arises.

How would you know if it were a construct or not since you are on the outside looking in?

As far as the fucking goes, that doesn't explain why most white-black relationships involve bloated white women with black males and very few white males with black women. Black males, specifically, have an undying taste for white women, and the majority of white women who respond to their advances are too fat to get dates just about anywhere else.

[Larrikin]

Yes, well, I can certainly see where the only thing you got from the information was penis size and fucking White women.

Well, that's what the Fanon quotes were mainly about, weren't they?

I admit that I haven't adressed much of Cheesy's input.

Yes, most men do enjoy sexual intimacy, but only low-lifes don't shy away when opportunity arises. Low lifes don't seem to care where their penis goes, or how many times she has done this with others. Or what's been unloaded in her from the countless others.

Thank you for your revealing input.
Don't be a bigot.
Most things concerning sexuality are not subject of subtle psychological undertones, but rather straight hard-wired biology. It's hardly only blacks that tend to "fuck around" and I think all honest white men around here now quite some rather promiscuous members of their race, if they are not themselves among them. There's also more than enough white men who fall for something "exotic".

And though I'm no member of the Phora's celibate legion, I'm hardly one of those who brags most about sexuality here.

[Kriger]

Well, that's what the Fanon quotes were mainly about, weren't they?

I admit that I haven't adressed much of Cheesy's input.

Don't be a bigot.
Most things concerning sexuality are not subject of subtle psychological undertones, but rather straight hard-wired biology. It's hardly only blacks that tend to "fuck around" and I think all honest white men around here now quite some rather promiscuous members of their race, if they are not themselves among them. There's also more than enough white men who fall for something "exotic".

And though I'm no member of the Phora's celibate legion, I'm hardly one of those who brags most about sexuality here.

Ah, and here come the false accusations, right on time.

And in case you hadn't noticed, this thread is about what a black psychologist has to say about black men and white women. If you'd like to start a thread about White men and black women, by all means do so.

I never said it was only blacks, I said low lifes. I never said that Whites don't have low lifes among their ranks. Exotic? I guess one could call a sleep around slut "exotic". As for myself, I call them sleep around sluts. And I don't recall saying you brag most about sexuality. You are the one saying these things, not me. I said that low lifes are the ones who don't pass up what you refer to as when "an opportunity arises". Self-respecting men have completely different views concerning "exotic" sleep around sluts.

In the meantime, this still remains your area of concern with the information that has been provided concerning what a black psychologist has to say about race-mixing. Read the articles, you might learn something.

Now, while your comments are undisputably those of a bigot, would you mind pointing out where anything I said was bigotry?

[Larrikin]

And in case you hadn't noticed, this thread is about what a black psychologist has to say about black men and white women. If you'd like to start a thread about White men and black women, by all means do so.

Men and women, regardless of their skin color follow the same biological instincts therefor I see no need to open seperate threads on those issues.

I never said it was only blacks, I said low lifes. I never said that Whites don't have low lifes among their ranks. Exotic? I guess one could call a sleep around slut "exotic". As for myself, I call them sleep around sluts. And I don't recall saying you brag most about sexuality. You are the one saying these things, not me. I said that low lifes are the ones who don't pass up what you refer to as when "an opportunity arises". Self-respecting men have completely different views concerning "exotic" sleep around sluts.

Why are you alleging that interracial or "exotic" mating (what is the subject here, no?) pertians to "sleep around sluts" and low-life?

In the meantime, this still remains your area of concern with the information that has been provided concerning what a black psychologist has to say about race-mixing. Read the articles, you might learn something.

So because a black man proposes this theory, it has higher scientific value? I still think Fanon over-psychologizes sexuality a great deal.

[Kriger]

Men and women, regardless of their skin color follow the same biological instincts therefor I see no need to open seperate threads on those issues.

Why are you alleging that interracial or "exotic" mating (what is the subject here, no?) pertians to "sleep around sluts" and low-life?

So because a black man proposes this theory, it has higher scientific value? I still think Fanon over-psychologizes sexuality a great deal.

Sigh.

And non-Whites wonder why I find it a waste of time to 'debate' with them.

Whether you see any need to have separate threads is your opinion. The fact remains that the topic of the thread is what a black psychologist has to say about black men and White women.

I'm alleging nothing of the sort. This observation is made in reponse to your allegation that White men are no different than black men when it comes to 'opportunities arising'. I was merely stating that low lifes don't care how many have been in their 'exotic' slut before them. Self-respecting men hold different views about 'exotic' sluts.

Well, at last a comment that concerns the topic, instead of false accusations and muddying of the waters. You think Fanon 'over-pscyhologizes sexuality a great deal'.

Congratulations. Thank you for your opinion.

Now, how many more times do I have to repeat myself? And how many more times are you going to try and make something out of nothing with your false accusations?

[Larrikin]

Sigh.

And non-Whites wonder why I find it a waste of time to 'debate' with them.

Whether you see any need to have separate threads is your opinion. The fact remains that the topic of the thread is what a black psychologist has to say about black men and White women.

I'm alleging nothing of the sort. This observation is made in reponse to your allegation that White men are no different than black men when it comes to 'opportunities arising'. I was merely stating that low lifes don't care how many have been in their 'exotic' slut before them. Self-respecting men hold different views about 'exotic' sluts.

Well, at last a comment that concerns the topic, instead of false accusations and muddying of the waters. You think Fanon 'over-pscyhologizes sexuality a great deal'.

Congratulations. Thank you for your opinion.

Now, how many more times do I have to repeat myself? And how many more times are you going to try and make something out of nothing with your false accusations?
How about you just stop whining and complaining about me? It is not as if you'd contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion lately. Apart from, indeed, repeating yourself and others and trying pathetically to patronize anyone who doesn't follow.

[Ahknaton]

Yes, well, I can certainly see where the only thing you got from the information was penis size and fucking White women.
To be fair, those two things were highlighted by Joe McCarthy in the OP, rather than being selected by Larrikin.
How about you just stop whining and complaining about me? It is not as if you'd contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion lately. Apart from, indeed, repeating yourself and others and trying pathetically to patronize anyone who doesn't follow.
This is a bit harsh. Bamse has been prepared to dismiss racist interpretations lately when he doesn't think the facts support them (e.g. Susan blaming the recent Finnish school shooting on multiculturalism). So he's not some stubborn mule who only ever brings one viewpoint to the table.

[Kriger]

"Debating" is essentially a waste of time. It is two sides arguing their opinions in a digressive manner which goes nowhere but in circles.

If such meaningless display of wordship is the determining factor in being considered a "viable" poster, have at it with your clever but meaningless word displays. I'm gone.

In the meantime, y'all can 'debate' the anti drivel to your heart's content.

[Joe McCarthy]

"Debating" is essentially a waste of time. It is two sides arguing their opinions in a digressive manner which goes nowhere but in circles.

If such meaningless display of wordship is the determining factor in being considered a "viable" poster, have at it with your clever but meaningless word displays. I'm gone.

In the meantime, y'all can 'debate' the anti drivel to your heart's content.

Debate, imo, can be valuable in terms of convincing onlookers a/o fence straddlers. I don't expect to convince extremists like Larrikin. They merely dismiss the kind of evidence brought forth by people like Fanon, even when, as in the case of Fanon, it comes from people of their ideological persuasion. In this instance, specifically, we have an expert, Fanon, who is certainly not apt to be accused of providing data for the use of 'racists', while on the other hand, we have Larrikin, who dismisses his expertise lamely and without a solid counter-argument. Fanon vs. Larrikin. Who's Larrikin again?

[Joe McCarthy]

Ah, and here come the false accusations, right on time.

And in case you hadn't noticed, this thread is about what a black psychologist has to say about black men and white women. If you'd like to start a thread about White men and black women, by all means do so.

I never said it was only blacks, I said low lifes. I never said that Whites don't have low lifes among their ranks. Exotic? I guess one could call a sleep around slut "exotic". As for myself, I call them sleep around sluts. And I don't recall saying you brag most about sexuality. You are the one saying these things, not me. I said that low lifes are the ones who don't pass up what you refer to as when "an opportunity arises". Self-respecting men have completely different views concerning "exotic" sleep around sluts.

In the meantime, this still remains your area of concern with the information that has been provided concerning what a black psychologist has to say about race-mixing. Read the articles, you might learn something.

Now, while your comments are undisputably those of a bigot, would you mind pointing out where anything I said was bigotry?

Incidentally, Fanon also talks about white men and black women in this book and isn't favorable to that pairing either. He basically portrays black women who cross as self-hating masochists worshipping white flesh. He clearly found it personally disturbing, as he should.