American English Teacher Attacks Koreans on Bus in Korea

 

 

Interesting video. This Black English teacher in Korea got into it with an older couple on a bus. The Korean man said something in Korean that sounds like "nigga" but really it just means something totally different. The older man had no idea that "nigga" in Korean means something bad in English because he doesn't speak English. 

The English teacher goes totally nuts, starting screaming and yelling at the Koreans, and then starts manhandling both the man and the woman. The Korean man wants to fight back but is afraid to. This American guy totally blew it on the bus. That's all I can say. This video is getting a lot of play on the Net and making the rounds.

James Flynn on America

James Flynn is an Emeritus Professor of Political Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand. He has also done a lot of work on the Flynn Effect, which shows IQ's rising all over the world in the past 80 years for unknown reasons. We've written about at a lot on this blog. Click the Flynn Effect category at the end to read up.

For reasons that remain unknown to me, White nationalists (almost all of whom are just White racists really) are driven into a frenzy by the mention of Flynn's name. I find this very mystifying.

First of all, White racists insist that Blacks are defective, and present a lot of evidence indicating that Blacks as a group do have a lot of problems and that this group does do a disproportionate amount of damage to society. All of this is noncontroversial to anyone whose brain has not been turned to mush by political correctness.

Low IQ is frequently cited by White racists as one of the reasons for Black dysfunction and the resulting serious problems inflicted on society.

Other reasons are given too, but all of these are chalked up to genetics for some odd reason. It's an odd White racist who thinks culture or environment is behind Black pathologies. Fair enough.

But when someone like Flynn comes forward and notes that Blacks have gotten dramatically more intelligent in the past 80 years, White racists for the most part just go ballistic and see red. Why?

If Black dysfunction really is caused by low IQ, and these problems cause massive damage to society, would it not be better for Blacks, White racists and everyone else for the Black IQ to go up, and problems resulting from the low IQ to diminish? Sure, right?

Think again. White racists are furious at the notion that the Black IQ is rising. Almost nothing sends them battier.

This is very strange. It implies, despite all of their rhetoric, that White nationalists really do not have the best interests of Blacks at heart. They don't want Blacks to get smarter, better, or less dysfunctional. The more fucked up, stupid, violent and criminal Black people are, the more joyous White nationalists are.

Wow.

Excuse me, but what a bunch of cruel, perverse assholes White nationalists are! You bitch that Blacks are incompetent, violent idiots, but that's just the way you want them to be. If that's the case, then maybe you just deserve to live with them and their messes after all?

There must be some other motivation here. The only thing that makes sense is a hoary cliche that I usually don't consider.

White nationalists want Blacks to be stupid, dumb and fucked up because that way White racists can feel superior to Blacks.

White nationalists are the insecure punks from high school rejoicing in the failures of their rivals. White racists have an emotional investment in feeling superior to other races, and anything that suggests that the folks they dislike are gaining some ground in the footrace sends them into conniptions.

Sheesh. How petty and childish can you get? As long as this is what really motivates White nationalists, I'd say they have no right to diss Blacks for being pathological. Looks like White nationalists are plenty pathological themselves. We need to feel better than others because we're a bunch of insecure weenies! Waaa waaa!

Grow up.

Anyway, Flynn has a very good article on the stupidity and uselessness of US liberalism from a sane First World point of view. He points out quite well what a bunch of political morons we are. But if the Democrats took up Flynn's philosophy, they would get massacred. America is a center-right to conservative society at best, and liberal pikers like Obama are the best we can do.

Flynn also talks about US Blacks. He points out that between the ages of 25-45, there are only 57 Black men likely to be permanent (or even semi-permanent) partners for every 100 Black women. Sure, Black women could marry out, but few non-Black men want them. If you're a Black female, you either have a kid out of wedlock with some Black loser, or you forego now and forever your chance to have a kid.

I think that most people have a right to have kids. As such, it's reasonable that Black women are going to figure out a way to become mothers one way or another. That's reasonable. I've made this argument to some White "liberal" Americans and they frowned. "Having kids isn't all it's cracked up to be," a mother of four (!) grimaced. Hmm.

Flynn points out that for every 100 Hispanic women, there are 96 promising males, hence their single parenthood rate is 50% lower than Blacks. It all makes sense. Black illegitimacy isn't sky-high due to Black genes (Why were 80% of Black parents married in 1960?) but due to unpleasant circumstances, namely the catastrophic state of Black men in America.

The Deadly Cure For US War Hubris and Jingoism

James Schipper, in the comments threads, notes that before the planned invasion of Japan, the island nation was surrounded by US mines and submarines and could not import anything. I note that civilians were down to rations of 800 calories or so a day, and the military on little more. The nation as a fighting force was through.

Schipper also feels that the US war with the Japan was ridiculous. Problem is that here in the US, those are practically fighting words. Almost all Americans think we had to fight Japan, if only because of Pearl Harbor. This even includes most White nationalists, almost zero of whom supported fighting Hitler.

Foreigners underestimate the ferocious patriotism or even jingoism of the American people. Europeans seem to be far less patriotic or jingoistic than Americans. This is one of the defining features of the American, or I should say, of the White American. Black Americans are much less into this wild blind patriotism stuff. I'm not sure about Hispanics. I would suspect that they are less jingoistic than US Whites.

Schipper also notes that it was preposterous of the US to demand unconditional surrender. But this is part of the US game. We always demand unconditional surrender. The only times we don't is when we are stuck in some quagmire, and the war is unwinnable.

In addition, after a war, we often don't pay to fix up the country. For instance, we have not given one red cent to Vietnam for all the horrible environmental damage we have caused that poor nation. It's due to sour grapes because we were not able to defeat them in that war. Nor to Laos, Cambodia or North Korea.

True, we rebuilt Germany and Japan, but that's because they were soundly defeated. In addition, that was a much more reasonable era to be an American. Americans in 1948 were a much more decent lot than these nasty, creepy beasts we have morphed into in 2008.

I don't think Americans in their current nastiness would rebuild any country they wrecked with a war.

We spent tens of millions of dollars "rebuilding" Iraq, and it was a complete failure. It was a cynical Third World style corruption gravy train that sucked money from US taxpayers to pour into the pockets of US corporate criminals on no-bid joke contracts.

The crooks either stole the money outright and did no work at all, or did shitty work, walked away from their collapsing buildings and laughed all the way to the bank. That Americans are so lame that they are going to elect someone who was in on this scam from the start, John McCain, is outrageous.

Do you think we will spend one nickel cleaning up all this horrible depleted uranium pollution we have spewed all over Iraq? We haven't even cleaned up our DU mess in Serbia.

American hubris is so horrible that we go completely nuts whenever we "lose" or at least do not completely win a war. That is why it is so hard to pull out of Iraq. Americans simply can't hack the idea. Americans will literally stay in that stupid country for 5-10+ more years, our young men getting hacked up every single day, just so we don't "lose", or "not win", or however they see it.

Some friends of mine just got back from a patriotic concert put on by the US Armed Forces in Fresno. Even though I'm supposed to be an America-hater, I love going to these things. The local army unit in Iraq is there and you get to talk to them. They have all the vets in the audience stand up for each service and my Dad wobbles to his feet.

At this one, I am told that they had a screen presentation of all of the local soldiers (not sure of the area covered) who got killed - not just wounded, but killed - in Iraq. My friend said it was heartbreaking. It seemed to go on and on forever, and as she said, "It seemed like there were hundreds of them, and they were all so young." So much for "the surge is working, let's stay in Iraq for 100 years, God is calling us to Iraq" triumphalist crap.

The reason we are still in Iraq is because not enough Americans have been killed and wounded there. Americans are so self-centered that they only care about wars when lots of soldiers start getting killed or coming back wounded.

When questioned about war crimes in World War 2, my older friends and relatives get very defensive. They say that during WW2, there were these star designs you hung in your window if you had someone in the services overseas or if you lost someone in the war.

Blue star for someone in the service; gold star for someone dead in the war. You would drive around Chicago and see these blue stars everywhere. And on nearly every single street, one or more gold stars.

Get that? On every street, someone had lost a male family member in the war.

Every single day in the paper, they would list the casualties. Every day there were 70-80 new ones. The whole nation was in mourning all the time. It never seemed to end. People were sick and tired of all the dying and were getting very angry. They wanted it over and right now.

So you saw firebombing in Germany and Japan and atom bombs on Japan. I'm not trying to defend this stuff - just showing you the tremendous pain that drove these crimes. I don't think we did because we were a bunch of sadists.

Korea was a similar deal. There were ~32,00 Americans dead in only three years. That's worse than Vietnam on a per year basis.

In Vietnam too, the pain was obvious. There were 30 or so guys dying every single day at the peak. There were wounded coming back all the time, limping around or in wheelchairs. You could not avoid them - they were shoved into your face on the streets you walked.

I remember at the height of the war, Time Magazine ran a whole issue with about 200-250 guys who got killed that week, and it freaked out the whole damn country. There were two or three guys on every page with a little something about them. It put faces and lives on the names and numbers.

Unless Americans sustain heavy duty casualties, their pride will keep them in the most idiotic and insane wars almost forever. This Iraq War won't end until Americans really start feeling some real pain over it, as in the pain of death and injuries.

It's sad but true.

Oakhurst, California

Commenter huy (his blog is here) responds to the World O' Crap, Meet World O' Lies post with this very astute comment, that sums up completely a town where I spent 16 years of my life - Oakhurst, California. He's captured the Zeitgeist of this town, and really all of White small town rural California perfectly. My comments follow:

huy: It's annoying to see Republicans call liberals elitist.

Its playing to the stereotypical backward small town white Americans. "Us Republicans are like you guys only richer and with more class. We hate blacks and Homos. We love guns and bashing immigrants. We hate feminists. We are real men just like you, and the liberals are all mocaccino-drinking art fag homos unable to accept reality and the competition and ruthlessness of capitalism."

The Republicans try to give the image that they share more personality traits with the white small town American (despite the fact that their policies shoot them in the foot) while the liberals are made to seem as out-of-touch elitist faggots who look down on the small town working class White Americans (despite the fact that the liberals' policies do more to help the working class small town White Americans than any other party).

The Republicans want presidential campaigns based on personality traits and 'values', while the liberals want a campaign more centered around policies and how they affect the citizens and individual demographic groups within the US population and the economy.

A Republican can wear a cowboy hat and a lumberjack shirt, drink a beer, hold a rifle and say "homos can fuck off" and he'll be sure to get a significant percentage of the less-educated more socially deprived small town American White vote.

Social Deprivation breeds ignorance and rightwing attitudes and the rich Republicans are abusing this social deprivation in small town America to maintain their presidential power and electorate. Religion also helps make people vote Republican, and religion is strongest amongst the poor and socially deprived.

Its a disgusting, feudal, immoral, sick game the Republicans are playing. By keeping the poor poor, they can preach the backward views fostered by poverty in order to stay in power and continue to exploit the very poor people who vote for them whilst the Republicans and tycoons own multi-million dollar estates and control the media to further control the minds of the poor and socially deprived and earn in billions.

The Republicans need poor small town White Americans to stay in power and stay rich, thus they do everything they can to prevent the social progression and economic development of small town America, because that would mean they would lose power, and also they want to spend as little money as possible on helping citizens anyway so they can spend more money on themselves and their businesses.

The Republicans are keeping the poor just wealthy enough not to complain, but preventing them from escaping enough social deprivation gaining enough and education and possibly economic development too so they don't turn liberal.

Huy hits it spot-on, but there's no point talking sense these Whites. Most of them are not rich at all, and those that are doing ok are usually making a lot less money than Whites in liberal bastions like Los Angeles and the Bay Area, so there's no way to explain this stuff on a money basis. I guess you could try to explain it on a "we hate minorities" basis, but in these types of places, there are no minorities.

This is what I don't get. If any Whites should vote "we hate niggers* and Mexicans", it should be those in the cities that have the most contact with them. Surely at least some of those contacts are going to be quite unpleasant.

But if you ever find a 90%+ White area in California, rich or poor, it's solidly Republican. Since there are no minorities around to hate, and those that are are well-behaved, how could they be voting "we hate niggers"? Apparently a lot of them are. Question is, how does voting Republican protect your pretty White towns and cities from the nigger and beaner hordes? It doesn't. Not one bit.

Whites have been voting in an openly racist way for Republicans for years (as commenters at American Renaissance say, the Republican Party is the party of the Whites) and what have they got to show for it? Not a hill of beans.

The Republicans have been in a contest with the liberal Dems to see how many million illegal Mesoamericans they can flood into our country to wreck every White city and job in their path. Are Republicans passing laws legalizing housing discrimination against Blacks and Browns? Are they bringing back segregation? Are they bringing back Jim Crow? Are they sending all the niggers back to Africa? Course not.

So how does voting Republican benefit these Whites in their White towns in any racial way whatsoever? It doesn't, and it can't possibly.

Huy only briefly touched on the all-important Christian fundamentalist aspect. It's everywhere in White rural America, and the fanaticism and insanity of these folks is something to see.

I'll take the Hispanic Catholic Church any day over these loons. Catholicism, despite all its faults, is at least sane, and your average Catholic is a sane human being. I wish I could say that about a White fundamentalist. A White fundamentalist, no matter how intelligent, is seriously out of their fucking mind. I mean it.

In White small town America, just about every White is some kind of fundamentalist nutjob. Even those that aren't are usually anti-abortion. Why? Who knows? Don't they know that abortion kills way more Black and Brown babies than White babies? Guess not.

Living in Oakhurst, I generally avoided politics or religion. Just about every White you met was a Republican or a fundamentalist, or usually both, so you just kept away from those subjects and made friends anyway.

These are funny places. You have the Republicans who spent years in state prison and ride motorcycles and hate niggers and beaners. You have lots of speed freak Whites on meth, missing teeth and parts of their minds, and they all vote Republican, if they vote. The Republican Party has the White rural tweaker vote down pat. Why do the tweakers vote Republican, the party of the drug war? Family values? Don't ask.

One really needs to ask what all these idiot fundamentalist Whites have gotten for voting Republican for all these years.

Someone tell me what the Republican Party has ever done for fundamentalists. Is abortion illegal yet? Are the fags in jail? Is porn illegal? What's the point? The Republicans talk the fundamentalist talk, but they never deliver a thing. Yet every year, the White fundamentalists march off and vote Republican again and don't get a damn thing in return.

If one could make a case that Republicans were good for low and average-income small town Whites, while Democrats were harmful to them, one could say that small town Whites are at least voting their economic interests. That's not the case. The Republicans have never helped these small town Whites in any whatsoever, and in fact, their politics have been hostile to them.

Let's look at statistics - since 1980, non-supervisory wages (80% of US workers) have risen by a mere 1%, despite very high cumulative economic growth and rising productivity all through that period. Other studies show that the bottom 90% of US income bracket has lost 7% of its income over 30 years, while the top 1% doubled their income.

Clearly, the Republicans don't do jack for small town Whites making less than $80,000/yr or so. In fact, objectively, they fuck them over, year in and year out.

So why vote for em? As huy suggests, it's all psychological. Living in these White towns, I can tell you, voting Democrat is virtually a sin. If you are young White male and vote Democrat, your peers will say, "But you're White!" The Democratic Party is "the party of the niggers and Mexicans" as one young White Republican (one of most wild drug abusers I've ever met) told me.

And it's more than that. If you are young, White, male and redneck-macho the way you are supposed to be in White rural America, voting Republican is frankly an assertion of masculinity. The Democratic Party is the party of the fags, and it seems that many young White males in the rural West vote Republican as an assertion of masculinity and a way to show that they are not even 1% queer, dammit.

Seriously, if you tell other White males in these towns you vote Democrat, they look at you like you're not much of a man, or maybe even you are a little bit queer, or maybe more than a little bit?

In these towns, Whites buy groceries with food stamps and the doctors' offices are filled with Whites in Medicaid. And probably 90% of them vote Republican. Guaranteed.

I don't hate Oakhurst at all; I've made my peace with it. It's a very peaceful, albeit somewhat boring, town, and there is almost no crime. You're away from the diversity, the excitement, the petty crime, the gangs and dark-skinned Underclass and it's ok in a sleepy and pretty kind of way.

*"Nigger" is used here in a sarcastic, sardonic way. Sorry if it bothers you.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Great Video on the Israeli Lobby

It's about 50 minutes long, but you might want to at least take a peek.

Of course it's out of Holland. This documentary could never have been made in the US.

The most astute observations are made by Tony Judt, but there's a lot of other gems in their too. Look for the former chief of staff for Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, and Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy, for some great insights too.

Richard Perle is lying as we might expect, but even he says a lot of truths about the incredible power of this Lobby and it's hold on US government and society. He's also not near as nasty as we might expect - no ferocious denunciations of "anti-Semites". In fact, screaming anti-Semite is pretty much absent in this video, a welcome change for the usual tired fare.

It's terrible what these shits did to Walt and Mearshimer, but it's to be expected. First they called them anti-Semites, of course, then they challenged the scholastic integrity of their work. This is Lobby par for the course. It is simply not possible to write anything critical of Israel that will not be torn apart for "poor scholarship". This is one of their classic lines of attack.

It's a common logical fallacy that's used by lots of sleazy people during argumentation (I try not to use logical fallacies against my ideological enemies). The fact that it's impossible to write anything against Israel that won't be torn apart on this basis ought to tell you that these guys are lying. Like rugs they do, and they do it damn well. Surely not every anti-Israel tract ever written is "poor scholarship"! GMAB.

Pretty nasty what they did to poor Earl Hilliard too. Tying him in with Saddam, 9-11 and bin Laden.

The only reason that this bullshit works is because Americans are so damned stupid, but the Lobby is part of these reason why Americans are so dumb on these subjects.

It's pretty amazing, considering the scurrilous behavior of so many US Jews associated with this Lobby (1/3 of all US Jews) that Americans are so philosemitic.

Give me one reason why Juan Cole, Walt and Mearshimer, Hilliard and the endless parade of others ruined by this slimeball Lobby should not turn anti-Semitic? The fact that they have not is testimony to their moral integrity and fortitude, something this nasty Lobby definitely lacks.

One after the other, US candidates for President genuflect before these AIPAC snakes. Such an embarrassing and shameful spectacle.

But it's really our own fault in a way. No one is forcing Americans to believe all this Zionist bullshit. We believe it because we are too stupid to figure out when we are being conned and lied too.

We deserve this Lobby.

We've allowed this parasitical entity to colonize our minds and body politic, and we didn't have to do that. There's plenty of anti-parasite meds out there. For instance, none of this Zionist crap gets anywhere near my brain. If you've got a bug in your brain cuz you're too lazy to excise it, what's your excuse?

Sure our politics is corrupted, but you don't have to let burglars into your house. Blame the Lobby all you want, but the American public itself is more responsible for this mess than most of us want to believe.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.