PitBull said:
Jervey, Please make some kind of distinction between black culture and anti-white culture. They are synonymous. Name one mainstream black figure that has anything good to say about white people, especially about white men. Any black historical figures? Anything? Anybody? Ergo, the promotion of black culture is the promotion of anti-white culture. Prove
me wrong.
Consider:
Promotion of Black Popular culture as
affect.
affect
Anti-White cultural phenomena as
effect.
effect
Mainstream Black figures never say anything good about White people because they're disingenuous chauvenists who deal in racial chicanery for a living. At least the loud ones. They're the ones you hear because their message resonates with similarly conditioned big-mouthed members within their minority target audience...this is hardly a Black phenomenon. Anyhow, it's bullsh*t, and I call bullsh*t on intellectually dishonest Whites who fail to call them on
their bullsh*t. Still not evidence to anything other than what I've drawn out previously.
About a month ago, I got into an argument about the Michael Richards incident with a couple of (White) people, whereupon a (Black) acquaintance came upon us; the other two guys immediately got into the act of codifying their points and practicing what I'd call intellectual dishonesty as a result. It was all well-meaning, but ultimately disingenuous, and the conversation became meaningless. I've seen this same thing happen when the topic is the Chinese Head Tax and Asians are present (even when they're Filipino.) Incidious cultural Marxism or misapplied altruism and intellectual dishonesty? You're saying you
know it's the former; my point is that your evidence is to
EFFECT.
PitBull said:
The culture of youth? What's that, some
sort of marxist creation? Or maybe a Madison Ave. creation? More than likely the former, adopted by the latter to make money. What is it that distiguishes "youth culture" from adult "culture"? Rebellion against adult "culture"--work, responsibility, the building of family and community? The use of drugs and the engaging in promiscuity? Exactly. Yet, the so-
called "youth culture" is a very recent creation, historically speaking. In the past, before the artificially extended period of schooling, there was no
youth culture--simply a transtion from childhood to young adulthood. People matured faster, started working younger, and married and had kids younger too. The so-called youth culture was an attempt by those who were able to extend the level of schooling and who had the means to delay taking on the role of adulthood while engaging in all the carnal pleasures of being an adult. In other words, youth culture is an invention which is by definition decadent. It is no coincidence that youth culture has been coopted by the marxists in the media and in academia to promote their socialist agenda. Who doubts that that academia and the media are populated by cultural marxists? Youth culture = rebellion. Marxism = rebellion. The only aspect of youth culture that doesn't mirror cultural marxism is the recent rise of materialism in youth culture (enter Madison Ave.). But the social policies are exactly equivalent. Replace the
ruling culture with the rebellious one. Replace the ruling people with the rebellious ones. See, its really quite simple.
Youth culture is a sort of positive feed-back loop of cause-and-effect, and need not any magical genesis of the sort you're getting at.
Commercial interests have long known that targeting youth demographics, urban demographics and lower-income demographics is most lucrative in the case of corporal commodities. Kids are bad with money, urbanites are loose with money, and low-income groups are wont to wasting money on crap like 40oz malt liquor and basketball shoes.
In the '80s, Urban culture became a perfect memetic vector in moving commodities through demographics best suited to them. These groups respond to LOUD, BOMBASTIC marketing techniqes, so by all means, it should APPEAR that their culture is dominant.
In the '90s, for example, it's commonly presumed that rap and hip-hop were the most dominant categories of popular music, when in fact country and classic rock was far more lucrative. The thing is country music doesn't move $200 nikes and what-have-you because PEOPLE OVER 30 ARE NOT LOOSE WITH THEIR MONEY!!! So there is no positive-feedback loop of media volume in this demographic. Similarly, "grunge" is not attached to commerce aside from that incidental to the music (concert tickets, CDs and 2nd-hand flannel shirts.) This brand of music sort of plateau'd accordingly.
Poor people are alot like kids. They're into
conspicuous displays of status and they're not into
delayed gratification. What the f**k target demographic would
you cater to if you intend to generate huge streams of free-moving commerce?
Based on similar logical fallacies, anti-semitic Afrocentrist revisionists like Farakhan presume that crack and Colt45 are targeted as part of some plot to destroy Blacks. You've similarly conflated cause with effect.
PitBull said:
In this regard, it is natural that black culture is promoted. People have been lusting after chinese food and eating that up for the past four decades too, but I don't see chinese culture being promoted by Madison Ave. Chinese culture is not one of rebellion. Black culture has the unique distinction of being completely dysfunctional and entirely rejecting of white values and culture. Therefore, it has been adopted by the cultural marxists who rule Madison Ave. and the academic world as the preferred form of rebellion of oppressed proletariat for them to push their marxist dreck. Children's view of the world and their preferences are greatly shaped by others. I would hardly call 13 year olds (or 17 year olds for that matter) artistically savvy. We've all been there. We know how it works. We were all largely driven by what we saw on TV and what our peers did, who also watched TV. That's one of the reasons I don't watch TV. Pure propaganda. Of course the kids are propagandized. By everybody, in fact. And that entails deliberate intent on the part of the propagandizers. Your bogus theory of unintentional change in social patterns and mores is really quite ridiculous. I believe in bandwagons, but someone got the wagon moving in the first place. Why you choose to ignore that is beyond me. I would think anyone could see through the veil of fog quite easily. Maybe if you work a little harder at it, you can too.
The food metaphor is beyond spurious...people attach huge amounts of personal and cultural significance to their music in a way uncommon to
any other form of cultural expression. Black Urban music continues to prove itself commodifiable to youth because it's easily denominated. It's simple and easily conjures up powerful corporal emotions like sexuality and status-posturing.
Juvenile minds bereft of the benefit of parental provisioning love sex and posturing. This is true in any culture or race at any point in history. If you want to run a sucessful record label, you sell country twang with melodramatic tales to the oldies, and you sell promiscuity and bling to the kiddies. Nowhere in this do I see necessity for Z()G to push things along.
PitBull said:
Also, you really need to brush up on the definition of culture. The only thing that marks culture is that it is handed down from one generation to the next. How you can define it as such when all the particulars of youth culture change from generation to generation, I have no idea. The only things that remain constant, rebellion, hedonism/materialism, etc. dovetail nicely with what I outlined above. Fifty years of trying to overturn middle class white culture and values. Cultural marxism.
Culture is a bunch of game-theory matrices of self-interest and reciprocal altruism of the genetic (Darwinian) and the memetic (Dawkinsian) sort. It's a bugger of a lot more complicated than that. If it were this static, we'd expect all children of immigrants to speak with accents, drive poorly and squirrel away their pennies.
PitBull said:
Thanks for agreeing with Shogun and the rest of us on point #2. It makes it all the more likely we are right about everything else as well. Disguising the fact that you agree with your opponents by making it look as if their point is really your point is weak. Please work on your debating skills.
I don't know which point you're getting at here. Please use the html embedding aids and post to points specifically. I can only guess that I agreed to the evidence of promotion of Black Urban pop culture? I have no idea. Anyhow, I'm agreeing to point of effect, not cause.
PitBull said:
Your last point is not only irrelevant, but also idiotic. You need to lose your arguments more gracefully, without looking like a nutjob. Its time
to put the books down and walk away slowly.
More
ad hominems. Great.
Look here:
conscious social engineering:unconscious social engineering::dr josef megele:mother theresa
or
deception:self-deception::evil:altruism::human experimentation:denial of reproductive rights to the disenfranchised poor
Catch my drift?
