Like I said: We need to normalise interracial porn that isnât all⌠weird about it.
the only reason âinterracial pornâ works is by being weird about it. the conceit is there are two people of different races fucking and this is worth taking note of
I will say theyâve been drawing more attention to the guy fucking the asian girl being white these days
I mean maybe the â90s boom of Asian girl stuff was implicitly for-white-use interracial but now they have to be more explicit plus make it appeal to Asian men who are into the same kinda racial cucking thing as white guys into Blacked?
Like I said: We need to normalise interracial porn that isnât all⌠weird about it.
the only reason âinterracial pornâ works is by being weird about it. the conceit is there are two people of different races fucking and this is worth taking note of
I will say theyâve been drawing more attention to the guy fucking the asian girl being white these days
Wesley Yang made a good point on the context of the NYT’s 1619 thing and Coates bringing up reparations again and a renewed focus on slavery and “the awokening” in general.
That as new streams of immigration make America less white, they simultaneously make it less black, or at least less Negro – the nation formed in slavery in America.
And I could see that, a felt sense of danger that if slavery and blackness aren’t deeper written into the national narrative, then to the degree these new arrivals are assimilated to America, it’ll be again be to a specifically white America, with blacks left on the outside, like with the “white ethnics“ before.
But it hangs up on that nation thing. Like, if you don’t want the American narrative to just be the White nation’s story, okay, but the rightists that bluecheck shitsnots say are “telling on themselves” are right, the Black nation’s story as proposed is one featuring the White nation as an enemy, or at least Pharoah’s people, where it is featured at all.
Though I mean what were the White nation’s alternatives on offer? Well, the traditional one up to 1970 was “it was a damn shame that the White nation split and turned against itself in the waste of the Civil War and Reconstruction, and a great glory it was able to reunite”.
The upgraded one was “it was a damn shame that the White nation enslaved the blacks, but a great glory it freed them and invited them to join the White nation, thus resolving that plotline”
Which I suppose was still the promise when I grew up, the narrative as I learned it was
The Civil Rights Movement Was A Great And Glorious Thing (by which they mean the ‘50s part) but
The ‘60s Went Too Far Sometimes (by which they include the Civil Rights Movement) then in
The ‘70s [INAUDIBLE] so in
The ‘80s we remembered we were Americans, dammit, which means by
The ‘90s we couldn’t wait for blacks to escape the violent, inner-city ruin in which they had always lived
so. I mean, I put it like that to render the rejection sympathetic and understandable, but I grew up with that whole 90s colorblind “black people can be Whites too!” thing, I liked it, it seemed like it was working for a while, at least in the spheres I noticed, and when complaints became audible it felt like they could be classified and addressed as failures to live up to the ideal.
I dunno, the 90s dreams of “women can be guys too!” and “goyim can be secular Jews too!” aren’t doing too great either. Maybe there was just a strong enough monoculture with high barriers that things had to be made to work back then. Maybe the 90s utopian “the internet will lower barriers and give everyone a voice!“ thing was true but in a monkey’s paw way and the thing we thought we were celebrating as that was an early stage where it built a culture more tailored to the already-set. I dunno. I have no solutions.
You look at the people saying interesting things about race these days, they’re pushing other possibilities, each with their three-letter acronyms. The left-racebloggers pushing “PoC”, “Persons of Color”, the idea that there’ll be white on one side and on the other this black-hispanic-asian-amerindian coalitional nation. The right-racebloggers “NAM”, “Non-Asian Minorities”, suggesting a white/asian against black/brown split.
Yesterday in replying to my post about new conservative energy in Portland poipoipoi mentioned clean-up-the-streets Asians as something to look for in Oregon’s continuing Californialization. And yeah, that anti-homeless “Montavilla Initiative” (w/ a bit more “we want what’s best for them, the outreach-resistant bums” figleaf than Orange County) is based along a stretch of 82nd that’s a big center for Asian immigrant small businesses
(It’s also where the county Republican committee meets in an Asian banquet hall, and where that civic parade was cancelled last year when leftists threatened it over the inclusion of Republicans)
And more than anyone, the journalist who got “Portland just lets antifa control the streets” into the national media last week was Andy Ngo, a local son of Vietnamese immigrants who came up through the confrontational conservative scene at Portland State University.
And on the other coast you have the current lawsuit against Harvard aiming to strike down affirmative action as anti-Asian discrimination, and the Asian community putting up fierce resistance to De Blasio’s plans to take NYC’s elite high schools away from pure test-score admissions as a way to get more blacks and hispanics in.
In a lot of ways it seems that the post-’65 Asian immigrant communities (you don’t really see this in previously established Japanese-Americans, for example) are taking on the role previously held by the “white ethnics” who i.e. backed Frank Rizzo and Rudy Giuliani – urban but outer-borough, tight-knit communities organized around small businessowners, in rough enough neighborhoods and on narrow enough margins that they don’t feel they can afford to yield anything in the name of uplifting the downtrodden (& who feel that if the downtrodden really wanted any better they’d pull up their bootstraps and do some treading themselves)
Anonymous asked: Do you ever watch cable tv and see an old movie or show like “Lethal Weapon”, and realize with sad, wistful nostalgia that the next generation will not know such apolitical, feel-good interracial action-buddy entertainment or the strange truce between black and white masculinity that football was the foundation of? That that era where action and comedy cinema especially were defined by such simple masculine *fun* is gone forever?
Richard Linklater has literally made it his life’s purpose to make sure the memory of that early-80s interracial truce on the basis of earnest, earthy, fun-loving American clear-sky summer day masculinity is not forgotten
I think one of my biggest realizations out of our country’s latter-day tensions is there’s a black nation in the United States, amalgamated from separate origins like the American/white one was assembled from Scottish, French, English, later Italian etc.
Which is a change from my 90s End of History model of like, an ill-treated subculture within the same people as me, or even my later one as the latest wave of immigrants from rural feudalism, dating to the Great Migration
That makes some things make sense - MLK as the consensus like, president of the black nation, and that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson’s occasionally farcical insertion of themselves into every “black issue”, everywhere, was a competition to succeed him
Segregation, the whole water fountains thing, goes from a blatant insult to a surreal China Mieville attempt to maintain two states for the nations - a white bourgeois metropole and a South American extractive colony - in the same place, which is destabilizing because I was never trained into a moral sense that Havana should by right have as nice facilities as Boston or anything
It explains a lot of what’s happened since Obama got elected. I see a lot of black writers now gawping that white people (like me) expected the Obama election to be a final resolution of racial tensions and not like, the opening of some sort of settlement process. Because they saw it as the black nation getting its deserved seat at the table of US government, AT LAST
But yeah, speaking for myself and the other whites, yeah, we saw it on the model of (Catholic) JFK being elected as a sign of a new golden age where the “white ethnics” became white together, and black people would be White now - maybe we’d make something up like “Judeo-Christian” or “Abrahamic”, maybe we’d just leave it there for comics to get easy dunks on.
That’s what all those well-meaning years were for, right? Of giving to the United Negro College Fund ads on football, and euphemizing inner-city crime as multicultural graffiti gangs on the shows you train your kids on, or ESPN commercials where multicultural office friends come together around The Game, or the reconciliation ministries at megachurches that are ESPN At Prayer
(huh, broadcast sports. that’s why the NFL stung and Huffy Young Man Journalism swapping MLB for NBA matters)
So w/r/t Eric Greitens, the governor getting scandaled pretty hard in Missouri rn – a thing is going into the ’16 cycle Republicans weren’t expected to have a chance at that office, especially after their leading prospect committed the major gaffe of shooting himself in the goddamn head.
But Greitens won, running like all his Republican primary opponents on a promise of “No More Fergusons”. By which was not meant reforms to police practices that led to the shooting death of Michael Brown, or the revenue-oriented policing that added fuel to the ensuing protests. What was meant was that he would have firmly suppressed them with force, in contrast to his indulgent Democratic predecessor Jay Nixon, whose forbearance allowed them to drag on.
This resonated with residual concerns about the racialized protests at the flagship University of Missouri in 2015-6, at that time overseen by a Nixon-appointed Board of Curators, which resulted in the resignation of the President and Chancellor. In following years, attendance numbers declined. A line of attack came together – Democrats’ indulgence was allowing black protesters free reign to degrade the state and its institutions.
Missouri isn’t a “Deep South” state but a borderland between Mississippi Dixie and the Great Lakes Midwest. At 11.49% of total population, it’s the 20th-blackest state, behind Delaware and New Jersey. Missouri’s congressional delegation, state legislature, and electoral votes went firmly red in the early 2000s, but Democrats were still considered competitive, alternating in statewide offices and holding a US Senate seat. I looked at the website of Chris Koster, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, and remember one banner – of a white female teacher bending over to help a black student at their desk – that for all its stock photo look summarized the state Democratic coalition pretty well – women, blacks, public employees, union members, providers and recipients of social services.
This was a pretty standard coalition for the Democratic “solid south” in the wake of the Voting Rights Act (plus farmers and holdover local power brokers) – this was Bill Clinton’s base in Arkansas, it was the base George Wallace was serving later in life when he renounced Jim Crow. And in the interest of maintaining this coalition, Nixon and the Missouri Democrats acted under the need to satisfy their black base (not only are engaged black voters key to statewide races, but as white voters turned Missouri red at the legislative level in the early 2000s, the party’s internal power structure became blacker through evaporation – both Missouri Democrats in the US House are part of the Congressional Black Caucus), while hopefully not alienating their white base.
And it seems they didn’t quite pull it off – Greitens won by 6%, coming in 5% behind Trump but a significant improvement on the previous Republican gubernatorial margins of -12% and -19%.
With Trump sucking up all the air there’s a tendency to attribute political shifts to his agency – “the party realignment of the midwest on the Dixie model, with the white working class to the Republicans” – is regarded as the thing Trump did, but seeing it play out in Missouri independent of his influence, it might be better to think of it as the thing that did Trump.
This is Ron Unz reposting a thorough 1999 article of his about the development of racial politics in 1990s California, framed around 3 high-profile, racially relevant ballot initiative campaigns.
It’s fascinating because it very clearly foreshadows and leads into where we are now, right down to its terminal predictions (the attempt to put racial issues in politics to rest and realign around a cross-racial citizenship faces difficulties and cannot be assumed, there is a real risk the system will continue on current logic with whites developing a conscious political identity in response), and yet as Unz depicts them - and he was in the weeds here - the actual motivations of the players involved are near-completely incomprehensible from a modern standpoint, a measure of how fast things change.
That is one critique I have, on how fast things change, Unz puts the 1992 “Rodney King” riots as the moment that put Californian whites on notice that their comfortable paradise was threatened by racial unrest.
Now, I really do want to emphasize the scale of this shift - as I’ve mentioned before, California during most of the 20th century was a white middle class bastion of conservative Republicanism. For all its Summer of Love, hippie, surfer girl, Black Panther mystique, it was a reliable Republican presidential vote from the end of the FDR-Truman New Deal Dynasty all the way up through Bush the Elder in ‘88 (excepting the Goldwater/Johnson landslide).
Like, if you’ve got a modern sense of what “California” and “Los Angeles” mean, that’s a bit jarring, and the shift was jarring as hell to live through. This explains Steve Sailer. If you’ve ever wondered what explains Steve Sailer, this explains Steve Sailer.
But, for all that I find Unz’s depiction of the ’92 riots as an end to innocence a bit wishful. For one, the Watts Riots of 1965, Hunter’s Point ’66. But closer at hand than that, I can off the top of my head think of several prominent artistic depictions of a racially tense California that were produced just prior to this, indicating that the tensions were on thinking people’s minds.
There’s White Men Can’t Jump, which basically shared Unz’s “no illusions, but this might just work out” tack, released almost exactly a month before the riots. Falling Down, an elegy for white middle class LA, was released almost a year afterwards on an accelerated production schedule but still written prior.
Closest to my heart, Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash is a fantastic projection of period SoCal, gated communities and franchised everything, and its looming specter of the “The Raft” threatening to arrive and swamp the locals is drawn partly from the Mexican immigrant wave that usually gets dated contemporary to the ’84 Summer Olympics, and partly from the Asian “boat people” refugee wave all the way back in the 1970s.
So, maybe up to that point it registered as “nothing LAPD nightsticks can’t solve”, but the idea that racial tensions weren’t noticed as a threat strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
This is the best mainstreamish article I’ve seen on what I’ve been talking about for a while, the internet-based development of a white male consciousness.
I will say it’s a little myopic in its American focus. I put it as
the construction of a modern, international,
English-speaking
Australian-American-Polish-British-Scandanavian-Serbian-etc. white volk
around a core of internet-native right-masculo-populism on the chans’
“waifus, warhammer, and white nationalism” model
and the internationalism counts for something. Like I’ve said, because my sleep cycles leave me up on the internet late[/early] enough for the Strayans to show up, I now know the correct derogatory stereotypes about Aboriginal Australians, though I doubt one has ever even crossed into my physical field of vision.
And I guarantee you there are a lot of guys out there, around the world, who on hearing that Russia (or even a Danish/Finnish coalition) had invaded Sweden, would at least give a good “attaboy”, with hopes towards shifting Swedish domestic policy and culture, despite not being able to name two Swedish cities or politicians.
But really, an international bunch of alienated young male yahoos doing identitarian chest-thumping on social media, what could they really do anyway?
