If “whiteness” is the disease, what’s the cure? Blackness?

The expert on “whiteness”

Line up now to get your tickets to the Center for Modern Psychoanalytic Studies flagship course.….On Having Whiteness.

On Having Whiteness course summary: 2 C.E. CREDITS FOR LICENSED PSYCHOANALYSTS AND SOCIAL WORKERS. Donald Moss will discuss whiteness as a condition one first acquires and then one has–a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. He describes the condition as being foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world: Parasitic whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse; these deformed appetites particularly target non-white people; and, once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment requires a combination of psychological and social-historical interventions, which can reasonably aim only to reshape whiteness’ infiltrated appetites – to reduce their intensities, to redistribute their aims, and to occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. There is not yet a permanent cure. The Instructor bio: Donald Moss, PhD, is the author of four books, most recently At War with the Obvious and I and You, and sixty articles, the most recent of which is “Hate Speech/Love Speech and Neutrality in and out of the Clinical Situation” (JAPA, 2019). He is a founding member of The Green Gang, a group of psychoanalysts and scientists addressing the issue of climate-change denial. I would also add, in the interest of full disclosure, that Donald is almost albino himself. I wonder, does his whiteness show up in the mirror, or does he see himself like Bill Clinton purportedly did, as a “black brother”?

Yes, this is an actual course, it is not my attempt at satire….my sense of humor has not gotten that warped…yet. It isn’t a sketch idea that Monty Python’s Flying Circus rejected as too unbelievable. So naturally, I had to ask the question that comprises my post title.

The United States is my proxy country for “whiteness”, but there are many other countries, especially in Europe and the former colonies of Britain—the United States, Canada, Australia—that suffer from a surfeit of “whiteness”. My thesis is, “if whiteness is the disease, there should be a significant net exodus from whiteness countries, and conversely a significant immigration to blackness countries, i. e. African.” Let’s then compare immigration to the “whiteness plagued” countries with immigration to the countries that revel in a surfeit of “blackness”, on the continent of Africa.

Immigration to O.E.C.D. (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries by number of immigrants in 2016:

United States = 1,183,500. Germany = 1,051,000. U.K. = 350,100. Canada = 296,400. Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark) = 284,400 France = 258,900. Australia = 223,500. Spain = 215,000. Italy = 212,100. Major Slavic Eastern Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary) = 165,600. Netherlands = 138,500. Chile = 135,500. Switzerland = 125,000. Austria = 105,600. Belgium = 100,200. Japan = 95,200. S. Korea = 88,500. Greece = 86,100. New Zealand = 55,700. Ireland = 41,900. Mexico = 34,900. Portugal = 34,000. Israel = 31,400.

I am drawing a couple of conclusions here: 1. The overwhelming majority—so much so that we could say “practically all” people who leave their country of origin migrate to and settle in countries that suffer from the “malignant, parasitic-like condition” that Mr. Moss calls “whiteness”. 2. Hardly anyone, comparatively, migrates TO predominantly black countries. Most of the countries receiving immigrants have generous welfare, healthcare and educational systems, and provide significantly greater opportunities for both personal safety and economic advancement than immigrants’ countries of origin. How then is “whiteness” parasitic?

Summarizing the O.E.C.D. data, of these 28 countries with the highest number of immigrants settling in them, Moss would opine that 26 suffer from a surfeit of whiteness, and 2 are oriental. None have any significant black population, other than the USA with 12.3%. What about immigration to African countries? I searched both Google and Bing on the term “immigration to African countries”, and other than for South Africa, there was no information on immigration to any other countries in the African continent. Okay, so where do most immigrants to South Africa, the richest and most developed nation on that continent (with the “whitest” characteristics i.e. “voracious appetite” per Moss), come from? Almost all immigrants to South Africa come from the continent of Africa. Of the 20 top countries of origin by number of migrants to South Africa, 13 of those countries are primarily black, rather than Arab. How do we explain this apparent migration to whiteness in the face of Moss’ condemnation of Parasitic Whiteness (“which renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse; these deformed appetites particularly target non-white people”)?

Starting with Ghanaian independence in 1957, decolonization of Africa was motivated by the white, liberal politicians of Western Europe who came to dominate the political landscape after WWII. They successfully promoted the idea that all whites in Africa were racist oppressors and all blacks were innocent victims. Thus, following this line of thought, Shaka Zulu, a psychotic mass murderer who terrorized an entire region, was universally lionized, while Cecil Rhodes, who never killed anyone, and who built roads, railways, bridges, hospitals, schools, and universities, and supplied the funding for the most prestigious scholarship of the modern era—the Rhodes scholarship—is portrayed as a heartless, avaricious monster. History appears to show that certain white politicians (aided and abetted by a fawning media and tenured college former hippies) gained and maintained their power by fomenting racial tropes–thus racial envy. I don’t know where those Western European politicians live, but here in the USA, they foment envy while safe behind their exclusive zipcodes and gated mansions.

You might be tempted to call me racist, but if you have learned anything about me from reading my blog, it’s that I am not intimidated by meaningless charges. If I’m a racist, what does that make the millions of people emigrating to whiteness countries? That’s truth “voting with it’s feet” in the form of migration to whiteness.

What’s a “Twitter Lynchmob”?

From Digiday.com: Tweets may be limited to 140 characters, but the breadth of hellish backfire one misguided post can cause is incalculable. One false tweet can lead to death threats if you choose to dress up as a Boston bombing victim for Halloween. It can close down your dental practice if you killed a beloved African lion. And it will undoubtedly get you fired, if you’re a PR professional behind a racially insensitive share. Brands are not immune. Just think of AT&T, when in 2013 it chose the anniversary of Sept. 11 as a moment prime for product placement, or Kenneth Cole, which used protests in Egypt as a chance to promote its spring collection.

“It’s incredible when you think about how many ignorant comments are made on a given day,” said David Clinton Wills, a social media and pop culture professor at NYU. “Those that are strung along and hung up to dry — it seems totally random.” It’s been repeated over and over: What you share on Twitter and other forms of social media sticks with you. It can outlive you, even, and, most importantly, once deleted, it’s never fully erased.

“On Facebook, and more enclosed forums, there isn’t really a lynching mob because you’ve chosen your mob,” said Wills. “But the disconnect between private and public space on Twitter, that’s fascinating. It’s much more vulnerable to getting picked up.” These Twitter “lynch mobs” inevitably spin out of control. Regardless of how reprehensible the perpetrator’s initial act was, the ultimate punishment for those lambasted on social media usually doesn’t fit the crime.

According to Will McInnes, CMO at Brandwatch, there are a few distinct ingredients that can yank a tweet out of a person’s inner circle and shoot it into the social stratosphere, to be torn apart by the rest of the world. First, it must center around a topic able to incite passion and interest. Then, there must be a group ready and willing to jump into public outcry, given the chance. Finally, it must be a small and compact enough instance for people to understand. “We, as consumers, have a cognitive bias where we only respond to numbers that are small enough for us to wrap our heads around,” he said. “We get so mad about one lion rather than the entire wildlife. It’s much easier for us to react to a simple narrative than an entrenched issue.”

Tim Young, writing in Washingtontimes.com: “I have been attacked by Twitter mobs before, and the pattern is similar. Suddenly out of the blue, an account with 100 or less followers comments on a tweet of yours they don’t agree with and it immediately has 30 to 50 likes on it. As someone who has more than 200,000 followers, I can tell you that it’s tough to get that many likes in under a few minutes, let alone immediately with an account my size, so when an account with even 1,500 followers gets that many likes immediately, you know that it is just one person operating a large amount of multiple accounts.

“From there, each of those accounts will weigh in and begin driving more attention to the tweet and you, who they are attacking, in order to bring a ‘Twitter mob’. Those accounts are likely similar trolls who behave in a similar way. I say all that to say that the mob that wants to silence edgy comedy or things they don’t agree with, may only be a few people. How do they even pick their targets? One day it’s a shirt that has a #FakeNews logo on it — the next it’s people who say Baltimore is a bad city — the next it’s a new word we never knew to be offensive before they declared it as such (‘Fredo’, for instance). These shifting issues expose the mob for what it really is: A disorganized group of bullies with an ever-evolving list of implausible arguments for things to be offended by.”

Now I weigh in. Does anyone with a “smartphone” not know about multiple cases of Twitter abuse—mobs or “meantweets”, or people who have been vilified due to tweets they sent years in the past? Of course they know, and many still tweet, because airing their opinions is soooo satisfying. The Bible has some advice for you. Proverbs 18:2. A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, only in expressing his own opinion. Proverbs 17:28. Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent. The same goes for the written word. Until you have absolutely considered the consequences, don’t send that email, tweet or letter.

My favorite response to an idiotic or insulting message, be it verbal or written, is this one from Douglas Wilson on his Blog and Mablog blog: “You’re no religious person. Donald Trump PAID FOR & FORCED multiple women to have ABORTIONS. You fake Christians are seriously twisted. The Bible says to beware of false prophets and boy oh boy, uneducated people like you have taken Satan’s bait. You’re truly sick. But why is anyone surprised when you quiverfull fools keep your kids uneducated, girls are only used as broodmares and your “pro life” stance is a joke. Can’t wait for that afterlife because none of us will give you fake Christians a drop of water when you’re sitting in Hell. Signed, Donald

The response: Donald, the best part of this job is being able to read all the thoughtful responses that come in.