It's the same image we see over and over again in magazines, in TV adverts and in so many different situations, the mixed race couple which is always, always, always a black male and a white female (BM/WF), but almost never the other way round. I wonder why.Frequently they will go out of their way to pick the blackest man they can find, and pair him with the blondest woman, so they are clearly making a statement, but it is the same one they have been making for almost two generations.
Incredibly they still attempt to portray it as somehow, fashionable, trendy and new. NEW? Give me a break! The BM/WF combo is becoming almost the oldest racial stereotype in the book, it has been around for decades, and is probably older than a lot of the people reading this blog (it is older than the one writing it). Lets not forget that it was Sidney Pottier who was taken home for dinner in 1967, not Dorothy Dandridge, and that was deliberate.
Yet still the young and impressionable fall for it. Young girls are not genetically more stupid and easily led than young boys, but it is they who tend to end up as women living in poverty as single mothers raising a disproportionately high number of mixed race children, if they have not suffered an even worse fate.
I am sure anyone living in Britain has seen the series of adverts encouraging people to become teachers, including the one with the white girl holding hands with a black boy, with the commentary which says something to the effect that children are free thinking beings who don't think the way they are supposed to think. What a joke, what a lie! by snogging a black man the poor deluded little twit is doing exactly what her teachers, the TV and the magazines she reads have been telling her what to do and what to think.
The wannabe opinion formers have been trying to sell this hoary old combo as modern and cutting edge for over 40 years now. When they first started Enoch Powell was still thought of as a potential future Prime minister, TV came in two channels, both black and white, Ronnie and Reggie ran the East End and Vesta beef curry was considered exotic and sophisticated, surely there comes a point when something ceases to be innovative and becomes a failed and discredited dogma.
However, this dogma only preaches a single orthodoxy, and in all those years, the number of instances where the unending bombardment of images of interracial sex appearing in the media have included a white man and a black woman have been negligible. In fact I suspect that most of us would be hard pressed to think of a handful, other than those involving poor old Boris Becker
So why is this? Why does it only go one way?, if interracial sex is a good thing, why is it so seldom promoted between black women and white men, and why is that on those rare occasions where an ad agency generated mixed race couples is made up of a white man and a black woman they are invariably selling organic tomatoes or lounge furniture, never anything romantic, or, perish the thought, erotic.
Why is that, and what is the difference?
After some consideration I have come to the conclusion that there are at least two main reasons why the cheerleaders for interracial coupling are so much fonder of the black man/white woman combo than they are of the virtual taboo of depicting interaction between black women and white men.
Firstly, the PC brigade view BM/WF images as “provocative”, they know that pictures of white women with black men, piss off quite a number of white men, which, from the perspective of the PC marketeers is just fine, in fact they probably view pissing off white men to be a bonus. However, by the same token, pictures of black women with white men really piss off black men, (I mean REALLY) and no guardian of the multicoloured flame would ever intentionally piss off a black person.
More importantly, any public acknowledgement that blacks or Asian men might object to “their” women mixing with other races, would not support the cause of diversity, so why risk it?.
Objections from white men can be easily dismissed as “more evil white racism”, and even sighted as a reason why race mixing should be encouraged. Objections from blacks or Asians, however, could not be dismissed in the same manner, without admitting that, what they call racism, exists in all communities, not just amongst those nasty whites.
The cowardice of our enemies is exposed by the fact that they seek to provoke only safe white discomfort, but not the more dangerous kind. The Single Muslim dating site Singlemuslim.com used to be promoted by an advert featuring a grinning Asian man and a smug looking white woman in a hijab. I imagine the ad agency trendsetter who came up with that idea considered it to be brave and provocative, however, it was not that brave.
Imagine the howls of fury they would have provoked from amongst the ranks of the bearded and perpetually offended had the advert featured an Asian woman and a white male convert to Islam?. Now that would be brave and provocative, it would also be educational.
Again, as in so much else, what is presented as “diversity” is no such thing, it is a new set of rules, and those rules only go one way. A mixed race society is supposed to be the panacea for the alleged evils of racism, but whenever a torch is shone too brightly on the xenophobia and racism within the non-white community, it is invariably far more violent, bigoted and visceral than that exhibited by the whites. As the multicultural marketeers have not yet resolved that dilemma, they choose not shine their torches on it or provoke unwanted displays of real life diversity.
A second reason behind the favoured race and gender stereotypes is, I believe, a darker one, with its roots in a sexism and racism, the full implications of which those promoting it may not even fully understand, or at least they would deny it if confronted with it. However, at its heart it symbolises invasion.
Over the centuries, invading armies have habitually sought to possess, ravage and despoil the enemy's womenfolk, as a means of humiliating and breaking an adversary or celebrating a victory over him. This may sound far fetched, but just look around at the various conflicts which are happening at the moment, such as in Sudan, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, in all of these horrors the invading armies invariably target the indigenous tribe's womenfolk. Rape has become a weapon of war, however, it is not just the act of rape which makes it such and effective and popular weapon, it is the psychology behind it which is so devastating.
I am not suggesting that all depictions of interracial sex is meant to symbolise rape, as such, the symbolism is more subtle than that. However, it amounts to something very similar to the manner in which armies use the subjugation of their enemies' woman as a means of achieving their war aims, and its motives are not dissimilar.
Although the balance of power may be more ambivalent in the Albion household, in general the act of sex between a man and a woman involves the submission of the female to the dominant male, which is why some feminists claim that, when it occurs in isolation from the affection and tenderness, which makes it an act of love, it becomes an expression of power, in which, in the symbolism at least, the man is the most powerful.
Incredibly they still attempt to portray it as somehow, fashionable, trendy and new. NEW? Give me a break! The BM/WF combo is becoming almost the oldest racial stereotype in the book, it has been around for decades, and is probably older than a lot of the people reading this blog (it is older than the one writing it). Lets not forget that it was Sidney Pottier who was taken home for dinner in 1967, not Dorothy Dandridge, and that was deliberate.
Yet still the young and impressionable fall for it. Young girls are not genetically more stupid and easily led than young boys, but it is they who tend to end up as women living in poverty as single mothers raising a disproportionately high number of mixed race children, if they have not suffered an even worse fate.
I am sure anyone living in Britain has seen the series of adverts encouraging people to become teachers, including the one with the white girl holding hands with a black boy, with the commentary which says something to the effect that children are free thinking beings who don't think the way they are supposed to think. What a joke, what a lie! by snogging a black man the poor deluded little twit is doing exactly what her teachers, the TV and the magazines she reads have been telling her what to do and what to think.
The wannabe opinion formers have been trying to sell this hoary old combo as modern and cutting edge for over 40 years now. When they first started Enoch Powell was still thought of as a potential future Prime minister, TV came in two channels, both black and white, Ronnie and Reggie ran the East End and Vesta beef curry was considered exotic and sophisticated, surely there comes a point when something ceases to be innovative and becomes a failed and discredited dogma.
However, this dogma only preaches a single orthodoxy, and in all those years, the number of instances where the unending bombardment of images of interracial sex appearing in the media have included a white man and a black woman have been negligible. In fact I suspect that most of us would be hard pressed to think of a handful, other than those involving poor old Boris Becker
So why is this? Why does it only go one way?, if interracial sex is a good thing, why is it so seldom promoted between black women and white men, and why is that on those rare occasions where an ad agency generated mixed race couples is made up of a white man and a black woman they are invariably selling organic tomatoes or lounge furniture, never anything romantic, or, perish the thought, erotic.
Why is that, and what is the difference?
After some consideration I have come to the conclusion that there are at least two main reasons why the cheerleaders for interracial coupling are so much fonder of the black man/white woman combo than they are of the virtual taboo of depicting interaction between black women and white men.
Firstly, the PC brigade view BM/WF images as “provocative”, they know that pictures of white women with black men, piss off quite a number of white men, which, from the perspective of the PC marketeers is just fine, in fact they probably view pissing off white men to be a bonus. However, by the same token, pictures of black women with white men really piss off black men, (I mean REALLY) and no guardian of the multicoloured flame would ever intentionally piss off a black person.
More importantly, any public acknowledgement that blacks or Asian men might object to “their” women mixing with other races, would not support the cause of diversity, so why risk it?.
Objections from white men can be easily dismissed as “more evil white racism”, and even sighted as a reason why race mixing should be encouraged. Objections from blacks or Asians, however, could not be dismissed in the same manner, without admitting that, what they call racism, exists in all communities, not just amongst those nasty whites.
The cowardice of our enemies is exposed by the fact that they seek to provoke only safe white discomfort, but not the more dangerous kind. The Single Muslim dating site Singlemuslim.com used to be promoted by an advert featuring a grinning Asian man and a smug looking white woman in a hijab. I imagine the ad agency trendsetter who came up with that idea considered it to be brave and provocative, however, it was not that brave.
Imagine the howls of fury they would have provoked from amongst the ranks of the bearded and perpetually offended had the advert featured an Asian woman and a white male convert to Islam?. Now that would be brave and provocative, it would also be educational.
Again, as in so much else, what is presented as “diversity” is no such thing, it is a new set of rules, and those rules only go one way. A mixed race society is supposed to be the panacea for the alleged evils of racism, but whenever a torch is shone too brightly on the xenophobia and racism within the non-white community, it is invariably far more violent, bigoted and visceral than that exhibited by the whites. As the multicultural marketeers have not yet resolved that dilemma, they choose not shine their torches on it or provoke unwanted displays of real life diversity.
A second reason behind the favoured race and gender stereotypes is, I believe, a darker one, with its roots in a sexism and racism, the full implications of which those promoting it may not even fully understand, or at least they would deny it if confronted with it. However, at its heart it symbolises invasion.
Over the centuries, invading armies have habitually sought to possess, ravage and despoil the enemy's womenfolk, as a means of humiliating and breaking an adversary or celebrating a victory over him. This may sound far fetched, but just look around at the various conflicts which are happening at the moment, such as in Sudan, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, in all of these horrors the invading armies invariably target the indigenous tribe's womenfolk. Rape has become a weapon of war, however, it is not just the act of rape which makes it such and effective and popular weapon, it is the psychology behind it which is so devastating.
I am not suggesting that all depictions of interracial sex is meant to symbolise rape, as such, the symbolism is more subtle than that. However, it amounts to something very similar to the manner in which armies use the subjugation of their enemies' woman as a means of achieving their war aims, and its motives are not dissimilar.
Although the balance of power may be more ambivalent in the Albion household, in general the act of sex between a man and a woman involves the submission of the female to the dominant male, which is why some feminists claim that, when it occurs in isolation from the affection and tenderness, which makes it an act of love, it becomes an expression of power, in which, in the symbolism at least, the man is the most powerful.
This, I think, is why the advocates of racial mixing are far less comfortable with the image a white male and a black woman, than they are with the reverse. What they are presenting is dominant blackness and submissive whiteness, and exploiting not only racial stereotypes but also gender in a manner which, as a woman, I actually find quite offensive.
However, the subliminal message is an offensive one, and it is meant to be. Why else are they so reluctant to present mixed race couples as anything other than a black male and a white female if they do not view it in terms of invasion and possession, which, as we know, they only approve of when it is blacks doing it to whites.
Make no mistake the promotion of interacial sex is an act of aggression, and is used as such by our media in the ongoing propaganda war against the integrity of our nation and our future as a race.
However, the subliminal message is an offensive one, and it is meant to be. Why else are they so reluctant to present mixed race couples as anything other than a black male and a white female if they do not view it in terms of invasion and possession, which, as we know, they only approve of when it is blacks doing it to whites.
Make no mistake the promotion of interacial sex is an act of aggression, and is used as such by our media in the ongoing propaganda war against the integrity of our nation and our future as a race.
No comments:
Post a Comment