Who Is the Real Victim of Black Sexual Conquest? The White Female or the White Male?

Many on the White Right paint a social portrait where black males are committing wave after wave of sexual crimes against white women. According to this narrative most sexual encounters between blacks and whites are violent, with black males brutally raping, beating, and even killing white women. White women are presented as the primary victims of black sexual aggression, and for that reason, white males are reminded of their duty to unite and save their mothers, sisters, and daughters from black ‘savages’.
There is some degree of truth to this, insofar most interracial or interracist sexual violence in this country is black male-on-white female. Government statistics are pretty grim, with black-on-white rape outnumbering white-on-black rape by a zillion to one.
　
But, there is a fundamental flaw and a repressed denial in the White Right interpretation. The fact is most sexual encounters between black and white are consensual, with white women as enthusiastic partners. White women seek out black men no less than black men seek out white women. Of course, this doesn’t apply to all white women nor even to the majority of them, but their numbers are growing, and among younger white girls, it’s very possible that their IDEAL beau is someone like Will Smith, Obama, or some other black celebrity.
　
Given this reality, one could argue that the REAL victims of black-white sex are white males, not white females. The real problem is not black males raping white women but increasing numbers of white women abandoning white men and going off with black men. And the taboo against such union is all but gone. Indeed, the new taboo is criticizing miscegenation–especially involving blacks–as detrimental to white civilization. A white celebrity going with a black guy can proudly declare her love for the Negro, but no famous white person would dare say white people should sexually stick together. He or she would be castigated, stigmatized, and tarred-and-feathered by the leftist Jewish and liberal Wasp-controlled media.
There had once been laws against miscegenation. Even after such laws were repealed, there had still been an unspoken taboo against white women going with black men; respectable, popular, cool, or good white girls just didn’t do that.
But, this taboo grew weaker and weaker as sports became more dominated by blacks. Given that sports is America’s National Pastime, those commanding the field became the new archetype of masculinity.
In the beginning of the movie PATTON, the eponymous general says "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." He says Americans admire the toughest boxer, fastest runner, etc. Well, in the battlefield of sports–which Americas are obsessed with–, blacks were the winners and whites were the losers. Over time, white women couldn’t fail to notice that blacks were the hometown heroes to cheer for while white boys were the benchwarmers. Of course, whites owned many of the sports franchises, but many of these whites actually happened to be liberal Jews pushing a miscegenist agenda.
And in the realm of popular culture, black males seem to sing and dance better and have more commanding voices.
Even so, one could argue that white women were overwhelmingly sticking with their men until the late 80s and early 90s when two crucial things happened: the rise of hip-hop and the movie "Jungle Fever". Prior to the rise of hip-hop, black musical acts, though soulful and talented, had less appeal to young white people. Pre-rap black music wasn’t necessarily for young people but for all black people who wanted to boogie and dance. Therefore, most white kids stuck to white rock whose appeal was more brazenly youth-oriented and rebellious. But, hip-hop and rap changed all that. This was the music of black youth rebellion. It was nasty, vicious, badass, cool, hip, raunchy, and sexual. It had the assaultive rage of punk, the raunchy excess of heavy metal, and thuggish sneer of gangster movies. Hip hop caught on like a wild fire among young white people in the late 80s and 90s, becoming THE mainstream music among the majority of white kids.
　
Just as important was the movie JUNGLE FEVER by Spike Lee. Though we like to accuse Jewish Hollywood of promoting miscegenation, this wasn’t really the case prior to Lee’s movie. Sure, there had been interracist films such as GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, but Hollywood in general maintained racial divisions.
Indeed, one of the biggest cultural phenomenon of the 70s and 80s was the Rocky movies where the Italian Stallion beat up black guys and won the devotion of the lovely Adriane. Hollywood, either out of fear of white backlash or market conformism, preferred not to touch the theme of interracism. And when it had, it was in cheap blaxploitation B-films that existed under the radar or in overly stuffy respectable movies like GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, which was not a jungle fever movie at all but one that argued that white-black marriage is wonderful because a black guy is just a white guy with black skin. Sidney Poitier is unbelievably poised and dignified in that movie. GUESS totally ignored the darker and primal emotions at the base of black(male)/white(female) relationships.
　
Spike Lee didn’t ignore that reality but spilled the beans with jiveass boldness–though it must be said even Lee played it somewhat safe, presenting a scenario of a black male/Italian-American female sexual relationship than the more taboo-busting black male/blonde white female sexual relationship. There is a sense among both white and blacks that blue-eyed blonde women are the epitome of white beauty and purity, and therefore the greatest violation of whiteness is for a non-white male–especially black–to ravage the sacred hole of the blonde goddess that should be reserved only for the noble and proud ‘Aryan’ sexual spear. A dark-haired Spanish woman going with a Negro is less troubling to most white males than a blonde blue-eyed woman going with a Negro. Anyway, Spike Lee’s movie shattered taboos when it came to the issue of the true nature of black/white sexual relationships. His movie demonstrated that black/white lust was not color-blind but all about color or race. Black men are attracted to white women because white women are generally more feminine than black women, and white women are attracted to black men because black men are generally more masculine than white men.
　
Except for free thinkers like Steve Sailer, most white males have been afraid to address this issue in an honest way. It is too hurtful to their pride. So, they spin the narrative where all black males are brutes out to rape white women. It presents white women as helpless, duped, or naive victims of black sexual criminality or doomed consensual relationships because black men will almost always turn out to be abusive and sadistic.
So, David Duke has given us many stories about how an innocent white girl went with a black guy, only to be beaten and murdered in the most savage way imaginable. The suggestion is that the ONLY reason why white women would ever go with black men is because of Political Correctness or Jewish control of popular culture. Supposedly, PC fills white girls with racial guilt and self-doubt; therefore, they seek out non-white men to give birth to non-white babies, thus committing racial suicide in order to wash away the sin of white guilt. Or, Jewish controlled Hollywood and music industry brainwashes white women to go gaga over black dudes.
　
Though there is some truth to both assertions, it ignores a fundamental fact. The main reason for black male/white female sexual attraction is NATURAL and EVOLUTIONARY. Darwinism can be used to justify both racial unity AND miscegenation. Even if liberal Jews didn’t control the media and even if PC didn’t rule the land, there would be much natural attraction between black men and white women. Why? Because males naturally desire the prettier females–and white women are generally prettier than black women–and females naturally desire the more masculine males. Look at the natural world of animals, and males of any species are always fighting over three things: food, territory, and females. It’s all about ‘land and pussy’. And females ALWAYS go with the stronger males who triumph over other males. In the modern world, the competition among males take place in the sporting field and in popular culture. Black rappers have proven themselves tougher, meaner, and more badass than white rockers. Black movie stars have proven themselves more charismatic and commanding than guys like Tom Cruise or Bruce Willis. In politics, Obama defeated John McCain–and would have defeated others as well. In the Democratic Primaries, Obama defeated Hillary Clinton because he was, in the terms of the natural consciousness, the male buck while she was the female who should be humped by the top male. Obama first easily destroyed the white liberal pussyboy John Edwards. When it came down to Hillary and Obama, most liberals chose the charismatic male over the duck-like female. Though liberals take pride in their rationalism, enlighten values, and intellectualism, the real reason for their attraction to Obama was animalistic and instinctual. The herd submitted to the guy who seemed to have more leadership charisma as the alpha male. Of course, Obama came across as intelligent too. The animal side of us worships the strong guy, the modern side of us admires the smart guy. People look up to superstar football players and superstar computer geeks–like the boys at Google or Jewgle. If the problem of most black politicians was they were all tough noise and not enough brains, Obama carefully mixed black charisma with the geek chic he picked up from places like Harvard. He mixed black charismatics and Jew-esque intellectics. Jews, we all know by now, have destroyed the white gentile males in the arena of brainpower. Blacks have destroyed the white gentile males in the arena of muscle and musical power. So, it was clever on the part of Obama and his Jewish supporters to create the image of the new messiah based on the merging of badass black and radical Jewish characteristics.
　
To be sure, evolutionary impulses can be contradictory. There are plenty of white women loyal to white men, and this devotion could be explained in terms of evolutionary instinct too: a kind of herd or tribal mentality to the survive as a group. But, another kind of evolutionary instinct seeks to pass down the genes of the toughest and most virile males.
Suppose there is a deer herd dominated by a certain male. The females in the herd are bound to the toughest male and sexually give themselves to him. But, suppose another male appears, fights the leader of the herd, and defeats him. The female deer will NOT remain loyal to the defeated male who had once been their sexual master. They will give themselves to the new master. So, to a certain extent, the rising tide of black male/white female unions is a part of process rooted in evolution. When blacks were non-existent, invisible, or marginalized in white society, white women admired and were attached to the apparent superiority of white men. But, when blacks gained greater freedom in a modern democracy committed to EQUALITY FOR ALL REGARLESS OF RACE, CREED, OR COLOR, they began to demonstrate that they can defeat the white men in spheres that most arouse the sexual passions of women–sports, music, performance, and etc. Thus, the sexual migration of white females to black males is not only something engineered and approved by Organized Jewry but the product of evolutionary impulses. If whites were a sizable minority in Japan, much the same would happen. Many Japanese women would likely and NATURALLY prefer the taller and beefier white males to the short and scrawny Japanese males. Indeed, though there is no Jewish control of the media in Japan, a lot of Japanese women fantasize about white males and black males. Why? Women prefer the more masculine male.
Of course, humans are more than animals. Most women will not simply prefer a mindless brute over a weaker guy. Women also look for qualities such as decency, sensitivity, intelligence, knowledge, judiciousness, integrity, etc. After all, even most white women who sow their wild oatesses by jumping into bed with black men will eventually marry a more stable white guy as marriage is NOT ONLY about sex. Madonna may have f***ed the entire NBA, but she settled down with a white guy. Even so, at least 1/3 of sexuality is still animal, brutish, and elemental.
　
So, we need to ask again, who is the real victim in this sexual equation? White males or white females? If white females are indeed the primary victims of black male sexuality, how come far many more white males are opposed to interracism than white females are? Though there is legitimate and sincere white male anger at black criminal acts against white females, the GREATER anxiety and anguish is over that many white women have WILLINGLY thrown themselves at black males. Just look at all the white girls who will stand in long lines just to bed down with a rap star, basketball player, or Tiger Woods. Just look at all the white women who wet their pants over Barack Obama. Indeed, black women are less impressed with Barack as the black men they know in their lives are many times more ‘charismatic’ and badass. White girls, in contrast, perceive and measure Barack in comparison to the white males in their lives, and Barack somehow comes across as more masculine, cool, self-assured, and etc.
Indeed, white male anger over black/white sexual unions is seen by white females not as a sign of toughness or manhood but of insecurity, frustration, fear, and resentment.
　
Though the white right talks endlessly about the danger posed to white women by black thugs, the greater fear is that many white women might be perfectly happy or happier with black males than with white males. Stories of black male assault on white women are, perversely enough, kind of reassuring to the white right as confirmations of black-as-brutal-beast. Also, white rightists may take some pleasure in the idea of a white woman getting her comeuppance by betraying the males of her own kind–since the skanky white whore willingly chose a black guy, good for her if she got beaten to a pulp by the ‘black ape’.
　
But, when white women find happiness, pleasure, and stability in relationships with black men, it is truly threatening to the racial position of the white right. They have less of a rationale to argue against miscegenation. This is the REAL danger and threat of interracism.
It is, indeed, the PSYCHO-SEXUAL RAPE of the white MALE. When a black male struts his stuff and the white female willingly chooses him over the white guy, the white male has been pussified and left high and dry. He has been betrayed and abandoned. They can either sulk in impotent white right rage or celebrate the black male/white female union as the way it should be for both natural and historical reasons. Natural, because the sexier and tougher black males should get the top females by the rules of the jungle. Historical, because the ideology of liberal white guilt says that since white males had conquered and exploited the peoples-of-color, it is now time for the reverse to happen. Thus, pussyboy Ken Burns has become the posterboy of a good darling liberal white boy who defers to black superiority in athleticism, sexuality, and creativity–JAZZ and UNFORGIVABLE BLACKNESS.

Moneychangers & Matchmakers. Liberal Jewish Control of Purses and Pu**ies.

Jews have long been associated with finance–banking, investment, speculation, etc. The profession that had once made Jews servile and dependent on the gentile elites of Europe and America eventually made them the lords of the world economy. The finance sector no longer serves the productive sector but has come to command the entire economy. The world of finance and economics, like that of computers and medicine, has become so complex and labyrinthine that most of us–especially less intelligent goyim–have essentially left it to the smarter Jews to develop, innovate, and fix. Generally, we should be distrustful of those with great power and in control of our economic destiny–especially as economic power translates into other forms of power–, but we tend to be trustful of those controlling finance and high-tech because they happen to be Jews. If not always trustful, we are afraid to speak out and demand a full auditing of masters of finance. This is because the masters of finance are largely Jewish, and we’ve all been taught that to even hint of the possibility of Jewish corruption is ‘rabidly and virulently antisemitic’. When the Bernie Madoff scandal broke, the liberal Jewish media spun it as a great tragedy for the Jewish community since many of the prominent victims were Jews. There was almost no story of the non-Jewish victims of Madoff. Even though the villain was Jewish, the media’s sermon was that Jews were the PRIMARY victims, and thus all of us should sympathize with Jews. Never mind that when the going was good, many Jews did very well by Madoff who then swindled far many more non-Jews. Anyway, it’s no mystery to anyone that Jews are essentially the moneychangers of society. Through control of finance, they get to decide the value of products and services around the world. They get decide which sectors receive investment capital or bailout money and which sectors are left high and dry.
　
As if playing moneychanger isn’t enough, Jews have now become the matchmakers of society. Through control of the brain centers–the academia–, eyes/ears/ mouth–news and information media–, and the fist–law and politics–of society, Jews(mostly liberal or leftist)have gained the power to mold our minds and shape our hearts. Since Jews control much of the entertainment industry, they also control our hips and lips. They decide what kind of movies we see, what kind of music we dance, what kind of stars and celebrities we look up to.
Thus, they’ve also come to control the genitalia–the dicks and poons–of the goy population. Jews get to decide what kinds of sexual attitudes are okay or not okay, what kinds of passions are or aren’t cool and hip. In essence, Jews have become the puppet-masters of our sexual mores and desires. And, it is within this context that the Obama ascendancy is so dangerous and powerful. The real danger of Barack Hussein Obama is not what his economic or political policies may do for America. Though Obama’s policies are pretty shitty, even the worst political or economic policies can be reversed. Germans survived the Nazi lunacy, and the Chinese overcame the Maoist madness. But, certain changes are irreversible–those pertaining to race and biology. The real danger of Obama is he is the posterboy of miscegenation marketed and promoted by the liberal Jewish matchmakers who seek to mongrelize the white race. Liberal and some Neocon Jews intend to do this in the most humiliating way possible.
Both Jewish men and women find great pleasure from the sight of black men taking white men. Jewish men have long felt intimidated by the bigger and stronger–yet less intelligent–white goy males. Jews often associate white manhood with Nazi Aryan power that humiliated, beat up, and killed Jews. But, even if white males hadn’t done anything bad to the Jews, Jews would still hate a certain aspect of white maledom because, on average, white males are better looking than Jewish males. Jews have been resentful that the less intelligent white men are more handsome–just as many white males are resentful that the less intelligent Negro has bigger muscles and a more masculine voice. Though Jews have been brutalized by blacks in urban settings, their great success moved them out of black areas and made them compete with whites.
Through this experience, many Jewish men became angry over real and perceived slights by white males. Thus, there is a desire on the part of Jewish men to destroy white malehood. The favored tactic has been to seduce white women–especially blonde upper-crust ones–with Jewish money and wit and sexually conquer them. But, this hasn’t been enough to satisfy the vengeful, subversive, and destructive obsessions of Jewish males. They can only find full satisfaction by the sight of black men whupping white men–in sports and in the streets–and sexually ravaging white women.
　
Liberal Jews know full well that there has been a long and deep history of worshipful white male appreciation of the white female beauty and grace–women seen as goddesses than as mere possessions. This goes back to the age of chivalry where noble and brave knights fought for the hand and honor of the pure maiden. The white knight fought to defend his realm and win the love of the white goddess. There has long been a racial and spiritual–or racial-spiritual–element in this romantic culture. Men were supposed to be noble and courageous, women were supposed to be pure and devoted. Love wasn’t just about ass-shaking and ugabuga–as among African savages–but something sacred. Love was also something that went beyond social custom. It was appreciated as a longing between two individual souls charged with poetry.
Among ancient Jews and non-Westerners, relationship between man and woman was determined by arrangements made by parents and matchmakers. Though marriages were arranged for most of Western history, there had still been the concept or the ideal of the sacred love between two individuals. A love worth fighting and dying for. It’s all there in Sleeping Beauty the movie. This Western concept of love wasn’t ONLY about individual freedom but about higher vision and imagination of what love should be. So, there developed the image in the West of the noble knight and the beautiful damsel. In order for the knight to win the hand of the damsel, he had to prove himself worth in body and soul. And the damsel had to be a woman of quality and purity. This tradition passed down even though modern times. In the American South, there was the chivalric tradition where white men served as the protective warrior caste while the women devoted themselves to men worthy of their love. You can see this is the film Birth of a Nation where proud Southern men do what is necessary to maintain their manhood and protect their women from the black horde.
　
For liberal Jews to destroy the white race, they had to destroy this sacred concept of traditional Western or white love. They had to convince people that it was ‘racist’, ‘reactionary’, ‘patriarchal’, ‘male chauvinist’, and etc. And, it must be admitted that the Nazis made the job rather too easy for the Jews. National Socialism claimed to defend high Western principles. It viewed the ‘Aryan’ race as noble, beautiful, and sacred. It sanctified the role of the German Mother as producer of beautiful life. It emphasized the sacred bond between ‘Aryan’ man and ‘Aryan’ woman. But, Nazis were so filled with contempt and/or hatred for non-Aryans that they failed to acknowledge the beauty and customs of other peoples and cultures. Hitler, for all his pretensions, was a vulgar and shabby cretin blind to all beauty except that which he defined narrowly. The crimes of Nazism was such that they made it easy to equate anything white, Western, racial, nationalist, or rightist with evil.
It was only a matter of time before Jews found parallels between the Nazi idea of ‘Aryan’ love and American(especially Southern)idea of white love. For Jews, white love was the source of white hate. White love was to come under the scalpel of ‘science’ and demystified. White men and women were to be ‘cured’ of their sexual repressions and oppressiveness. Love was to be understood as a sexual drive–capitalist commodity or Marxist liberation.
The implication was that white love had all been bullshit to maintain the evil power of the white male. Supposedly, white men used the excuse of white love to keep white women subservient and chained to white male power. Also, white love was also seen as the driving force behind white oppression of non-whites since white male fear of miscegenation was a major factor behind white racism. After all, white males–especially in the American South–feared the prospect of non-white males putting their swarthy hands on the pure skin of white women who ideally should be preserved for white men.
　
White love came under assault from Marxism, Freudianism, Feminism, Capitalism, and Libertarianism. Marxism saw it as reactionary and atavistic. Freudianism saw it as irrational and repressed. Feminism saw it as white males controlling white women and forbidding them to seek sexual liberation–through lesbianism or sex with smarter Jews or more muscular blacks. Capitalism saw white love as undemocratic and anti-universalist, and libertarianism saw it as anti-individualist. In time, the sacred bond between white men and white women was broken. If a man held a door open for a woman in the new order, the woman was likely to throw a feminist fit and see the gesture as condescending patriarchal attitude.

Now, we mustn’t fall into the trap of overly idealizing traditional white love. There was indeed something stifling and overly precious in the chivalric tradition and in the Western conception of woman as an overly idealized creature. In the modern world, our desire is to be free, have our own thoughts, and make our own decisions. We don’t want to feel the burden of tradition or history. We want to chart our own destinies. So, to that extent, the weakening of old values and assumptions was not necessarily a bad thing.
But, are we really free individuals thinking our own thoughts and making our own decisions? Or, have the old system of cultural mind-control been replaced by another? Consider that most of us don’t form our own values, ideas, and thoughts but RELY on powerful institutions–school and government–and powerful industries–sports, music, movies, tv, books, magazines, etc–to tell us what is right and wrong, good and bad, desirable and undesirable. So, despite all the stuff we hear about individual freedom, most individuals are the ideological and psycho-social products of those who control the institutions and industries.
So, we need to ask who controls them and what is their agenda. We know for a fact that liberal Jews are the most powerful group in this country, and we also know they exert their power for a specific goal. We know they’ve done everything to undermine the power of white love and have been eager to replace it with another kind of love. Moneychangers are also the matchmakers.
　
And what kind of matchmaking do they want for us?

Jews want to babel-ize the white population. In the story of the Tower of Babel in the Old Testament, Yahweh grows fearful of the people who might unite against and challenge his power. So, what does God do? He smashes the Babel Tower and creates diversity among the people so that they will be divided amongst themselves and unable to challenge His power. Today, Jews are the god-like overlords of America. The people that the Jewish overlords fear most is the white American population for if it becomes angry enough, it may unite and work against Jewish power and bring it down. So, it is in the interest of Jews to create as many divisions and diversity among the white population as possible. Jews want to set white women against white men, white children against their parents, white liberals against white conservatives, white Northerners against white Southerners, and etc. Jews also want to dilute and mongrelize whiteness so that a sense of WHITE IDENTITY based on pride and power will slowly dissipate.
One way of doing this is cultural, and so there is the ideology of multi-culturalism where white kids are taught to celebrate non-white cultures while hearing only harsh critiques of everything Western, white, European(or Euro-centric), or Christian. But, a more profound and totally irreversible way is inter-racialism. In America, the most damaging form of interracist mixing is between black males and white females. This isn’t only physically but also psychologically damaging to the white race for white males are turned into pussified faggotyass white boys who are helpless to stop white women infected with jungle fever from running off to stronger and more masterful black men. Though the mixing of whites and Asians or whites and Mexicans on a large scale can also be detrimental to a sense of white identity and unity, it isn’t as damaging as black male-white female mixing. For one thing, white-Asian or white-Mexican mixing is often white male and Asian or Mexican female. In any sexual union, the dominant element is the male–no matter what PC and feminism has taught us about the sexes. In wars, the winning side takes the women of the losing side. When a white guy takes an Asian girl, it is the Asian guy who feels like the wussy pussyboy who has lost his women to the dominant male of another race. Similarly, when a white woman goes with a black man, it’s the white guy who has been pussified. After all, a white woman, out of her own free will, chose to surrender herself to a black stud than to a white dud.
It is for this reason that the black race has troubled white males more than any other race. A white guy may feel upset when he sees a white girl with an Asian or Mexican guy, but he doesn’t feel emasculated as he knows that the white girl didn’t choose the Asian or Mexican for his superior studliness or manliness. But, when a white guy sees a white girl with a black guy, he suspects–correctly most of the time–that the woman consciously chose the black guy as the SUPERIOR ALPHA MALE. Thus, the white man is reduced to a pussified white boy. When a white guy sees a white girl with a black guy, he can tell by the body movements that the white girl is saying, "I found a stud and now look down on white boys" and the black guy is saying, "I got me some prime white meat, and you white boys dare not even look straight in my face because I’ll kick your white ass." Despite all the goo goo talk about how wonderful it is for all the races to mix, the fact is black-white sexual unions are essentially a black male sexual war on white maledom.
And, we see it all around. Most of the music is rap or hiphop, which means that white girls all across the nation are shaking their butts to fantasies of jungle fever. Most of the top sporting events show us black male athletes and white female cheerleaders.
The truly sad thing is so many sorryass white boys are blind to the insult to their manhood. The Jewish social scientist doctors have cut off their balls in schools and lobotomized their brains through PC popular culture. Affluent liberal white boys even find a kind of wimpy satisfaction in their approval of black male/white female matings. They pride themselves in having been cured of white male pride, power, and racism. In other words, liberalism says white males can only feel (moral)pride by having no racial or masculine pride. As for working class and underclass white morons, many act like ‘whiggers’, as if aping blacks will make them cool, badass, and sexy. Just consider the Eminem phenomenon pushed on white America by the Jewish music and movie industry. But, we know black males don’t respect no ‘faggotyass’ white boy trying to act black, and white girls will continue to go with black males. Besides, acting trashy is self-destructive, period.
As for white rightist males, many of them live in denial or the sulk in their stew of stupid neo-Nazism or skinheadism, as if nasty white trash antics are going to save the day. The idea of skinheadism or Neo-Nazism as the spearhead of white pride is laughable. How can one feel pride as a trashy thug or an ideological psychopath? As for genteel and respectable white conservatives, they are too Victorian and repressed to deal with difficult and controversial issues such as this, and they just prefer to invoke Martin Luther King, Jr. and Christian morals over and over and over.
　
But, truth will always be what it is and can’t be wished away. We must face facts about Jews, blacks, and ourselves.

Some Thoughts on New York Times(aka Jew York Times) Article on the Ambivalent South Korean Feelings toward the West.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/world/asia/02race.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

I suppose South Korea is facing the the kind of social issues that Western nations faced decades ago. Difference is Western nations confronted them from a position of strength and guilt. They were the richest/most powerful countries in the world--and confident and conscientious enough to come to terms with their 'historical crimes'. South Korea is now a developed country but has always been politically weak--subservient to Imperial China, invaded by Mongols and Manchus, occupied by Japan, and then wedded to great powers like USSR, Red China, or the USA. So, Koreans may still feel that they are a colonized people in some sense despite their recent successes. (Japanese also feel this way to some degree: their country had been under Western imperialist intimidation and/or domination since Matthew Perry's ships arrived.) Also, Koreans are less likely to feel guilt as they've never conquered and/or enslaved other peoples, nor had a sizable enough minority in their midst--like blacks in the US or Jews in Poland. Even when they are nasty and vicious, Koreans may see everything through prism of victimhood and powerlessness. In this sense, they share something with blacks and Jews who' vea lways insisted on their victimhood and suffering--even when blacks burn down cities or even when Jews raze Palestinian homes. But, the difference between Koreans and Jews/blacks is that Korean problems are limited to Korea whereas black and Jewish politics and agenda have global import and repercussions.

On the other hand, it could well be that Korea might follow in the footsteps of the West. The article suggests a generational conflict between older people who knew and grew up in a homogeneous Korea and a younger generation hooked to globalism via internet and pop music. Of course, there could be conflicts among young people too: the prosperous globe-trotting liberal/intellectual/yuppie types and those who've fallen through the cracks and feel resentful about having to compete with 'dirty' foreigners.

Koreans, like the Chinese and Indians, send many of their students to the West. This means that the educated elite in South Korea will come under greater influence of 'multi-culturalism' and 'progressive' ideas. They may be more eager to please and win respect from foreigners than be sensitive to the passions and prejudices of their own people. Since East Asians are followers than innovators, their social policies may well follow the Western model for both good and ill. A more tolerant and open-minded society is certainly better, but when the DIVERSITY CULT takes over, big trouble ahead.

The article suggests that Koreans aren't necessarily against race-mixing but have mixed feelings about it. They feel superior to some races, inferior to others. They feel resentful toward the 'superior', contemptuous toward the 'inferior'.

Or, maybe the main issue isn't racial superiority/inferiority but racial comfort. Perhaps, for many insecure or anxious Korean people, their Korean identity is all they have--their country isn't just a nation-state but more like a big family living in one big house in which foreigners can only be bothersome guests if they stick around too long. Since Korean society/culture is all they know, many Koreans could be annoyed and threatened by having to deal with funny, strange, and/or weird foreigners(who don't know the rules inculcated in all Koreans from childhood). In the non-individualist East, one can(or must) lose oneself in the larger culture/crowd. When a unified and common culture--as in Korea or Japan--dissipates, one is surrounded by cultural strangers and forced to assert oneself individually--like people in NY or LA. Problem is East Asians were not raised to think or act that way. Some cultures are more comfortable with individuality; others are not. For a people accustomed to a stricter sense of social place, decorum, and hierarchy, the prospect of a society where people must be judged as individuals for his/her wit, personality, and talent may be distressing. Sheep don't want to forced to behave like wolves. In MERRY X-MAS MR LAWRENCE, Tom Conti says Japanese went crazy because they are an 'anxious people'. Maybe, Koreans too.

-------------------------------------

Problems of Korean Birthrates:

South Korea, CIA, 2000: 1.72 per woman.

South Korea, CIA, 2008: 1.20 per woman.

This is alarmingly low even by Western standards. Could this be the paradoxical product of Korea CHANGING TOO FAST but NOT FAST ENOUGH?
Consider that in a very short historical time period, young Koreans entered the modern world with all the promise of freedom, pleasure, fun, and so forth and so on. They are hooked to American movies, global youth culture, internet, videogames, comic book culture, rock n roll, the ideals of individuualism/freedom/liberty, and etc. They are taught all the correctly progressive things in schools, and things they see on TV and internet indicate they should fully be in the modern world. In this sense, Korea has changed TOO FAST.

But, maybe the wider/deeper Korean social reality isn't what Koreans--especially young people--have been promised by popular culture and progressive education. It hasn't changed fast enough to accommodate the new attitudes and expectations of young Koreans. Maybe, much of Korean society is still rigid, regressive, judgmental, conformist, and intolerant. And, maybe this aspect of Koreanness is most potent and powerful in the culture of marriage: maybe, a young person(especially a girl)has to give up her freedoms and liberty and play second-fiddle to her husband and kiss ass with the in-laws. Suppose some marriages are still de facto arranged. Then, no wonder that many young Koreans don't marry. (Could be the same too in Japan). Well, what about single-mothers? Could be that in a society where a great stigma is attached to having children out-of-wedlock, single-motherhood simply isn't an option for most women. South Korea could be a nation where societal pressure strongly discourages any woman from having kids on her own--unlike in Sweden or in the US. If single-motherhood were more permissible in Japan or Korea, maybe birthrates would be higher.

Also, it could be that Korean men are still louts--even the young ones. In the past, it could be that many women married and had kids because of social tradition and pressure. But, Korea CHANGED TOO FAST, and maybe young men and women now have the freedom to do as they wish. This freedom remains AS LONG AS one doesn't enter into institutional arrangements. In the US or Europe, one is a free individual even after marriage; one has more responsibilties but retains all the legal and social rights and privileges. It could be that one loses a lot of those rights and privileges formally or informally in Asia.

Since there is much less social pressure for girls to get married and raise a family today, many Korean women may prefer to remain free individuals than unfree wives. Better to be lonely and free than married and enslaved.

Besides, with all the electronic gadgets and entertainment, even unwed people can have lots of fun. (Could it be that one of the obstacles to higher birthrates in Asia is that the reality on the ground is so far removed from what Asians have come to desire in their eyes, hearts, and minds? The discrepancy between fantasy ideal and bio-social reality is surely more painfully obvious in Asia--and could also account for the low East Asian birthrates in America. In the West, if a guy can't marry a Cindy Crawford-type, he may still be able to find a decent looking woman on the level of Jennifer Aniston. Or, a woman who can't marry a Daniel Craig-type can still find a good enough looking guy--tall and manly enough if not exactly dropdead gorgeous. But, in Asia, few men or women measure up to the tall and glamorous caucasian types so prevalent in Hollywood movies and American pop culture that dominate global culture. Asian men tend to be short, and Asian women tend to be lumpy. This may not matter if Asians didn't have a culture of excellence and ambition--rising higher always means being more discriminatory; Harvard, for all its professed egalitarian ideals, discriminates in favor of smart/industrious over dumb/lazy people. After all, short stubby Mexicans are happy to marry other short stubby Mexicans and have lots of kids. But, Asian society is very hierarchical and status-conscious, and Asian youths are encouraged to rise up socially and improve themselves through better jobs, higher positions, respectable friends and colleagues, and quality mates--in other words, being more discriminatory. When Asia had been less affected by Western culture, even an Asian guy could look studly to an Asian girl, and even an Asian girl could look sexy to an Asian guy. But today, both Asian men and women are gaga over the Western ideal--consider the rates of plastic surgery in South Korea(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFfz3YFxi9s & Hong Kong women getting impregnated with Nordic sperm as they prefer the Eurasian look over the short Cantonese geeky look. Since more Asians than ever have risen socio-economically, expect and desire higher standards, and can afford to hook themselves to the daily stream of global entertainment imagery and fantasies, what was good enough for their grandparents and parents may not be good enough for themselves. Jews are no less ambitious and always seeking to improve their lot through higher success and quality friends and mates, but Jews are clever enough to act as though--at least in public--that they are all for eglitarianianism and progressive virtues. In practice, most Jews are no different than 'racist' or racialist Asians, but in rhetoric--as the NY Times pieces proves--, Jews are more likely to put on a good show about the brotherhood/sisterhood of men and women; I doubt if NY Times is as judgmental about Zionist chauvinism in US/Israel nor about Jewish groups caling for Jews-marrying-Jews.
The main difference between South Koreans and Jews could be the former are blunt about their prejudices whereas the latter conceal their biases under the veneer of 'social justice' and equality. But, look around and the MOST UNEQUAL people in the world are the Jews! Another thing... maybe marriage/birth rates have gone down in Asia because the rise of individual freedom & modern atomization has weakened traditional matchmaking networks via relatives, friends, work place, etc. The problem could be that even as Asians are freer than ever to choose on their own, they are still relatively shy and timid and don't have the gall or balls to seek mates openly and assertively as people in the West do. Asians could be caught in a no-man's land of individual freedom but lack of individual initiative. They are now free to choose their own mates but don't have the confidence to go-for-it.) 

For more Korean to choose marriage, Korean society-at-large will have to catch up with Korean society-in-the-lead. Koreans rapidly gained freedom but can't use it functionally in much of their country. It's like making a lot of money too fast but not having the shops that sell what you want. More money for less spending. More freedom to do nothing.

-----------------------------------------

NYT article is like so many I've read before.This is less reporting or uncovering something new than regurgitating the same old--mostly liberal Judeo-centric--warnings, pieties, and judgements. A similar article on Poland will invariably be about anti-semitism and how Poles have yet to be good boys and girls. If it's about East Asia or the Middle East, we get the same sermons about 'xenophobia', 'racism', and 'sexism'. These articles tell us little about another culture beyond what OUR main political and sociological hang-ups--shaped by liberal Jewish media--tend to be at the moment. We are supposed to feel glibly superior to those backward people or be warned that we must not slip back to the BAD OLD DAYS when we were like nasty Asians,Eastern Europeans, or Muslims today. I'm not one to disagree that there's a lot of unpleasant things in the non-Western world, but I can't help feeling that international reporting often amounts to little more than EDITORIALIZING BY OTHER MEANS.

After all, why don't these liberal newspapers report equally on problems of homogenophobia, asexism, and interracism? Homogenophobia would be the opposite of xenophobia: irrational fear or dread of wanting to maintain a largely homogenecous/cohesive society. The result? Look at the social ills of Paris, London, and LA. Homogenophobia can destroy entire cities. Asexism would be the opposite of sexism: the belief that there are no meaningful differences between sexes other than socially or culturally constructed ones--'gender' variables. Some good asexism has done to the birthrates in the advanced world! Some good it has done to the relationship between men and women! Interracism is the idea that races are improved by extensive race-mixing. So, is Peru or Brazil a more pleasant or stable place than Japan or Sweden?

NY Times and liberal media report on the evils, dangers, or unpleasantries of racism, sexism, and xenophobia but little on the worse dangers of interracism, asexism, and homogenophobia. Why? Because it is in the interest of liberal Jews to support interracism, asexism, and homogenophobia for the purpose of increasing and securing Jewish power. Jews, as a powerful and wealthy minority elite, don't want to be confronted by a unified people of race or culture. Homogenophobia means more immigration from third world countries, interracism means more race mixing to the point where white race will no longer distinctly exist(no distinct race, then no racial identity nor pride), and asexism means that white men and white women will not play their proper roles for the purpose of raising more children in strong patriotic families. Asexism will drive a wedge between men and women, with both groups comprising selfish atomized individuals.

I'm sick of these international news coverages that do little more than give us pat summaries and contain the same old same old smug assumptions about the 'less advanced and progressive' folks around the world. A Polish friend of mine has long complained about the coverage of Polish society and affairs. From reading American Newspapers, you'd think there is no Polish history, people, society, and culture except one associated with antisemitism, the Holocaust, and Jewish anguish and interests. It's Judeocentrism gone wild. And, all the blame is always on Poles, never on Jews. There's no mention of many Polish Jews having collaborated with Soviet invaders in the eastern part of Poland in 1939. Little mention of high representation of Jews in the Polish communist party after WWII. Worse, there's very little mention of how Poles fought bravely and suffered terribly in WWII.

A sign of good reporting would be a sincere effort to understand another culture and see where it's coming from. Understanding is not the same as agreeing or condoning. When an article contains more self-righteous judgment than understanding, it is lazy editorializing than quality journalism. Besides, I thought multiculturalism is supposed to be anti-Eurocentric! Yet, the NYT piece passes moral judgment on another culture based on the latest Western values.

-----------------------------------------------

I have a sneaking suspicion that NYT is just sharpening their ideological knife on S. Korea as a preparation for a bigger assault on China. Many liberal Jews may see China as South Korea on steroids. China is also largely homogeneous, an economic giant growing bigger by the day, nationalistic, 'xenophogic', chauvinistic, male-dominated(despite decades of communist orthodoxy), and a challenge to the liberal Jewish global order. Not only is China much bigger than South Korea, it is politically independent.
However South Koreans may feel about Americans, they must know that without US presence in the region as an impartial and generally fair-minded peace-keeper, South Korea will be sandwiched by a non-democratic China with no respect for human rights and a potentially re-militarized Japan which still hasn't face up to its imperialist and war-time deeds. One could argue that the 20th century was an anomaly in Korea's history. Traditionally, for 1000s of yrs, it had been a tributary state of China--albeit more harmonious in this role than Vietnam, which was often at war with China. This changed in the 20th century, with Japan becoming the major foreign power and presence for Koreans in the first half of the century. In the second half of the century, the northern part of Korea became close to USSR while the southern part became close to the US.
One could argue that Koreans--at least those in the South--never achieved so much economically, socially, and politically(even a working democracy)as under the protection and guidance of the USA in this period. If Chinese power grows and grows and if US withdraws from its 'empire', Korea will return to its traditional role as a tributary state of China.

And, if Chinese economy keeps developing, Korean companies--auto, cell phones, electronics, computer parts, etc--won't be able to stay ahead of the game. Korean economy will be subsumed into the Chinese, and Koreans will have to play ball with the Chinese to survive. If Japan will have decisive technological and scientific edge over the Chinese for the forseeable future, it's possible that China will overtake Korean technological edge in 10-20 yrs.

So, critiquing the problems of Korea could really be a roundabout way of bringing attention to the social ills of and ideological problems posed by China. If South Korea, a nation of 45 million is such an unpleasant place despite the wealth it has accumulated, think of the nasty horrors of BIG CHINA whose main ambition is not only to become a giant economic version of Korea, Taiwan, or Singapore but even to become a superpower.
 
-----------------------------------------
 
"Today, the mix of envy and loathing of the West, especially of white Americans, is apparent in daily life."
 
-- New York Times.

Isn't this a case of pot calling the kettle black? Indeed, the description just about sums about how liberal Jews--best exemplified by NY Times--feel about the White West or White America. Jewish ambivalence--admiration and malevolance--can also be gleaned in shows like MAD MEN. On the one hand, Jews have admired and desired the blonde Aryan or All-American types to have as friends, mates, role models, trophy partners and hirelings. But, Jews have also resented white gentiles for the history of anti-Jewishness, better looks and physicality, and golden boy aura & firm manly handshakes. Jews have also held whites in contempt for their lower intelligence. Just consider the average Jewish feelings about Sarah Palin; Jews have openly ridiculed her as a 'bimbot'. Plain-faced but smart Jewish women have especially been resentful of prettier but less intelligent 'shikses' being preferred by (especially Jewish)men of power/wealth.

So, it's rather funny that the liberal Jewish NY TIMES should be wagging its fingers at Asians for harboring mixed and frustrated feelings about white Westerners. With Jews, this sort of feeling has gone on for centuries and still hasn't abated; indeed it has only gotten worse. Jewish support of Barack Obama has less to do with 'social justice' and more to do with sticking it to the White Gentile for the sake of Jewish revenge and power.
Of course, if anyone wrote an article about Jews akin to the NY Times article on Asians, Jews would scream BLOODY ANTISEMTISM and do everything in their power to get the writer fired and blacklisted.

The Phenomenon of the DOWNITY BLACK as Opposed to the Uppity Black.

There used to the notion of the 'uppity nigger'. An uppy was a black guy who 'didn't know his place'. At worst, he acted like he wanted to push everyone around. Many whites disliked the uppy. They felt threatened and/or offended that a black person would strive to be the equal of white folks. But, some white people embraced the uppy ideal. Some white folks felt that the oppressed blacks had a right to stand up and challenge white authority or status quo. After all, what was wrong with demanding equality? Why should blacks have to sit in the back of the bus? (This attitude was telling when Hillary, as the trailing candidate during the Democratic Primaries, suggested that Obama be her running mate. It was like telling Obama,'get to the back of the bus'.) Some whites supported uppitiness out of guilt. This got problematic when uppitiness went from demand-for-equality to expression-of-superiority. Muhammad ali was not saying, 'I'm the equal of you'; he meant, 'I'm better than you slow white boys'. Of course, being a megalomanicac, Ali's black consciousness soon lost its meaning as he trashed his black opponents just as mercilessly(it soon turned into I am better than all you 'niggers'). More important than black glory was 'my glory' for Ali. In a way, this is why black community is so messed up. For all the talk of black unity and brotherhood/sisterhood, most blacks only think in terms of self-centered uppitiness. The putrid show 'Flavor of Love' perfectly embodies this retarded mentality. And, every street thug in the inner-city is killing other street thugs--mostly black--in the name of 'I'm the greatest'. This isn't individualism that acknowledges and respects other individuals but tribal- individualism which sees other individuals as enemies to conquer or destroy.

Anyway, if some whites tolerated or even accept black uppitiness either out of sense of justice or guilt, some embraced--and hoped to emulate--it out of admiration and worship. With the rise of Muhammad Ali, other black athletes, and rising black dominance in pop music, many whites began to loathe themselves as slow, dull, lame, bland, white-bread, and boring turds. To be REAL and TRUE, they felt a need to become 'white negroes'. Some hoped that by hanging around and imitating blacks, they could/would be just as badass by social osmosis. But, whites soon realized that, no matter how much they imitated blacks, they can never equal blacks in the arena of physical and sexual prowess, charisma, and badassness(similarly, a woman imitating a man cannot whup a man in a boxing ring); so, the only thing whites could hope for was to bow down before the black man or woman. Blacks were seen as the alpha race, whites as the beta race. As for (non-black)Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, etc, they were seen as lower forms of humanity when it came to being badass, hip, and cool. Though the liberal dominated media/academia officially upholds the idea of equality/diversity, some groups are prized more than others. Racial favoritism and the Imperialism of Guilt(pushing white guilt to all of humanity) are big agendas of the Left; in other words, we expect Hindus and Chinese to feel guilty of what happened to blacks and Jews, but we don't demand that blacks and jews feel guilty for the Hindu or Chinese historical suffering; since white people--at least Germans and Anglo-Americans-- feel guilt toward jews or blacks, the ENTIRE world must share in this guilt.

During a time when blacks were seen as inferior, whites were faced with uppity blacks who wanted equality. Once blacks got equality, uppitiness turned into expression of superiority. Once blacks gained the alpha race status and were seen as the superior race, uppitiness no longer became an issue. In the areas that matter most to americans--sports, sex, entertainment, charisma, etc--blacks totally whupped the whites. Also, uppitiness was upheld by the new liberal media/academia as a model to follow than as a problem to confront. So, we should all try to be uppity in the black manner-- especially against heterosexual gentile white males(hegewhales). So, women should be uppity against hegewhales. And, illegal Mexicans ought to be uppity against hegewhales--like during the illegal immigrant pride marches last year. Imagine that, people who shouldn't even be in this country acting uppity and thumbing their noses at legal citizens of America. Uppitiness against hegewhales has become such a cool, hip attitude that legal citizens in the US hid in their homes--afraid of being called 'racist'--while illegals flagrantly violated american laws. Blacks weren't exactly happy, as they resented the flood of illegal Hispanic immigration; on the other hand, black political culture is defined so much by mass marches and giving White Society the middle finger that many blacks didn't oppose the illegal march either. After all, it was stamped with the black uppity style of politics.

Anyway, there is one problem with uppitiness. Blacks have become so established in the national psyche as the superior alpha race that uppitiness is no longer an issue. Never mind Ali, who looks downright gentle today. In the 80s and 90s, we've had mean Mike Tyson mauling everyone and threatening murder. We've had Rap Music which delivered a KO to what had once been a white-dominated rock industry. Since the late 80s to now, hip hop has been the Mainstream. And, look at all the most popular sports. They are dominated by blacks. Baseball is seeing more Hispanics but they are mostly Hispanic blacks than Hispanic whites and certainly not Hispanic of Indian origin.

So, uppityness is passe. If anything, the uncle toms of today are white. We have white toms everywhere. Whites are no longer trying to keep the black man down. Whites are not even trying to maintain the idea of equality--except in some conservative quarters. (But, even conservatives have accepted some notion of black superiority. So, if Thomas Sowell or Shelby Steele says something, it's received as the wisdom of the ages. Or, Clarence Thomas is discussed in sanctimonious terms that defy rational analysis. And, even cons, who used to rationally dissect the myth of Martin Luther King, are falling all over themselves honoring the Great Man. In truth, King was for Affirmative Action, generally leaned toward socialism, rubbed shoulders with communists all his life, and chose pacifism ONLY as a tactic than as the Golden Rule. Were he alive today, he'd surely be with the Jesse jackson, Al Sharpton, and the like.)

For the most part, white people have accepted that blacks are superior because the latter are stronger, sexier, funkier, funnier, and more charismatic. So, whites are now willing to follow and look up to blacks. But, there's a problem. Most blacks are idiots and difficult to take seriously. Of course, not all whites agree. There are plenty of white kids who would vote for Kanye West or Snoop Dogg for president. But, many other whites, while acknowledging black superiority, want some dignity associated with black superiority. In other words, their unspoken message to blacks is, "look, I accept that you are superior. I will kiss your ass, suckle your toes, and even suck your d___. Just dont whup or humiliate me and act with a little class." When Jack Johnson whupped Jim Jeffries, he took his time to hurt and humiliate the white boy. This is what many whites fear. They are willing to accept defeat and inferiority; they just hope that the triumphant black man will not mock and humiliate them so much. In other words,"you can knock me out but please don't taunt me"--like Johnson did with Jeffries. Or, "you can take my wife but just don't beat me up to take her from me". Or "you can marry my daughter but just don't beat her up'. Indeed, white girls have this problem too--call it the OJ syndrome. On the one hand, many white women are attracted to black men but soon find out that black men are not loyal nor trustworthy. Black men take pride in hopping from one bed to another, more enamoured of their sexual mastery and prowess than with well-being of their partners--just like Ali ultimately loved himself more than his family or black people. Black men piss off black women by going with white women; but, they soon piss off white women by going with other white women. White women think, "this black guy will stick with me because he's grateful that he's getting white p___y." That may have been the case several decades ago. But, today, countless white women are putting out to black men, so there's no guarantee that black men will stay true to any single white woman.

So, many white people want some kind of guarantee. They are willing to say, "Mr. Black Man, you are superior to us. But as we honor and bow down before you, please go easy on us. Don't laugh at our 'faggoty-ass' bland whitness. If we suck your d___, please don't d___slap us. Don't be like Al Sharpton. Be nice." And, so we have Obama. No one sees Obama as an 'uppity nigger' because blacks have long proven not only their equality but supeirority. So, now the main issue is how blacks, as the superior race, treats us. It's about HOW they look DOWN on us. We are confronted with downity 'crazy niggers' like Farrakhan, Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright. Or, we have downity buppies like Obama who act with ersatz grace, style, and even refinement.

In the Old South, blacks were afeared of mean, trashy rednecks who had power over them with the whip. Blacks much preferred the refined southern gentleman who, though in the superior social position, treated blacks with some patronizing civility and kindness. Remember the TV series ROOTS? Father Brady(of The Brady Bunch)played a relatively enlightened southern gentleman, and blacks generally liked him much more than they liked thuggish redneck goons.

Today, the whole relationship has been turned upside down. Obama now plays the role of the genteel southern aristocrat who won't whip the white slaves too much. Jeremiah Wright WHIPS the white boys with guilt- lashings. But, obama handles the whip in a much more elegant and forgiving manner. He twacks us gently and then rubs some ointment on us. And, there is Oprah who has mastered this art and made a mega-fortune from off it as the billionaire-mammy-who-inherited-the-master's-mansion. Her message is "as long as you fatten my purse and kiss my ass, I will not take revenge on you honkeys but smile at you with soulful forgiving eyes. Just keep the dough coming." And whites have fallen for this swindle.

Of course, the racial dynamic is screwy because even as blacks have attained alpha race status, there is the massive problem of poor blacks. In the popular arena--sports, entertainment, politics, etc-- blacks are very prominent. But, in many professions and institutions, many blacks still lag behind. Also, the liberal-dominated media and academia never let us forget slavery(and the Holocaust, even though they've done everything to make us forget the mass crimes of communism which killed 100 million in the 20th century).