384 words
This will be a relatively short article, but it raises some important philosophical questions for those who believe in the false dogma of either race blindness or race as a social construct. Both deny the physical nature of race as a reality. A few days ago, the clothing retail chain H&M released an advert featuring a black child wearing one of their hoodies that bore the inscription ‘Coolest monkey in the jungle’. This has now resulted in Blacks in South Africa organising and mobilising against H&M stores, which have been trashed and looted. The Blacks, as ever, claim their actions are justified because H&M are ‘racist’ because of the word monkey being in close proximity to the black child. The question as to quite why a company that wants their custom would wish to insult them has not occurred to them, nor has the fact that their reaction resembles the behaviour of lower primates, but these points rather disguise the main issue regarding the whole notion of ‘racist’ insults of this nature.
The question that we ought to be posing here is why is the word monkey so offensive to Negroes? It has, of course, been a traditional insult by Whites in Europe who have understandably felt threatened by the increasing colonisation of their lands by Negroes, it often having been shouted at black football players from the terraces during the 1970s and ’80s. However, the Left inform us that Negroes do not physically resemble monkeys, so the epithet ought to be meaningless, yet at the same time, they inform us that it is ‘racist’. The question then also arises, why is it not racist to call the white football manager Peter Reid (below) a monkey? After all, he also often received the chant, ‘Peter Reid has got a monkey’s heed!’ from opposing fans. This was quite obviously because Peter Reid does indeed have a certain resemblance to a monkey. I therefore invite any passing Leftists to ‘enlighten’ me in the comments section. Is it racist to say that an individual Negro resembles a monkey and, if so, is it then because the logic follows that Negroes in general resemble monkeys? Conversely, is it not racist to call a White European a monkey because White Europeans do not as a rule resemble monkeys?
Source: https://mjolnirmagazine.blogspot.hu/2018/01/what-h-debacle-says-about-race.html
8 comments
Really!!! Who the “f” cares if it’s compliant with a contrived jew synthetic projected social value (i.e. redefined post modern racism) that’s imposed to establish the ‘equality myth’ that under-girds zio-Marxism? Why do people even care, let alone fear the battery of kosher-communist imposed anti-White anti-natural boggy words? It’s about time for the European diaspora (and the other diaspora’s) to tell the kike diaspora to stick their parasitic social-engineering boggy words up their eternal predator collective kosher ‘shitholes’.
South Africa is turning into a low budget approximation of hell. The devils aren’t red though.
It would be a good thing if Stefan Persson became one of us after this. I think he, as many, unconsciously already are.
In my day schoolteachers would affectionately refer to pupils in their care as little monkeys when they misbehaved. For blacks in this day and age to burn down a store because of that would suggest to me that we can’t live together.
I recall the left frothing at the mouth during W’s terms, giddily describing him as a ‘chimp’ for his physical features and mannerisms, but that is somehow not racist or worthy of deep instrospection.
Its is offensive because
1. IT rings true.
2. It attacks the sacred belief in equality and the agenda that flows from it.
3. It leads to racial awareness and an understanding of the importance of race
‘Monkey’ as it pertains to blacks carries some deeply uncomfortable weight to it. It’s not merely a racial slur made by well…’racist whites’.
It is an observation, and one that can be verified by scientific measurements like cranial traits, prognathism, dentition, various skeletal data and of course their psychological attributes and behavior.
Yes blacks are in closer proximity to other apes than whites. Strictly speaking, they are closer to a prior form of hominid that retained traits from a common ancestor of humans, gorillas, chimpanzees. They are ‘less derived’.
It’s not just the left, even on the right this is something of a difficult subject. Perhaps this topic does sound extreme and counterproductive to some of us here, but I’d rather believe in empirical data and what I see.
Needless to say, it’s an extremely difficult line of thought to pursue. It’s a can of worms. If blacks are indeed –broadly speaking– more like other apes or some prior hominid than say whites, it ought to throw our entire forced coexistence into crisis.
It’s also a very difficult path for those of us with religious belief.
In fact, and I say this with sadness, blacks are probably the best evidence there is that humans were not divinely created. Honestly, it’s been deebly troubling to me.
So I believe whites to some extent, tolerate a degree of positive propaganda about blacks in the media as it numbs and obscures these hard questions.
Altruistic whites perceive both an ‘injustice’ and embarrassment that blacks are more like apes, and they feel so uncomfortable about this they would rather see blacks artificially lifted out of this condition (which they can’t be), and given gibs and privileges. They hope it will make the monkey simply go away. Of course it won’t.
All that happens is we pretend blacks aren’t monkeys out of pity or shame, precisely because they are.
Please, let’s not be crude.
It is terribly offensive to equate Negroes with monkies.
The monkies are extremely offended by it!
Boom, boom! 😉
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.