• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

MUFON, Ventre, and Racism


Out of curiosity, what exactly do you think is factually incorrect about his statement in this pic you've posted?

Interpretation of a text involves more than just facts. It involves determinations as to what is fact or not, the relevance and significance of claimed facts, and how propositions fit into a larger framework of knowledge and ethical understanding.

1. Dear White People is “anti-white” and promotes “white genocide.”

It’s a commonplace anti-intellectual response to confuse criticism or satire with hatred or racism. Nothing I’ve read about the show would suggest it’s promoting racism. It appears to satirize people on all sides. If the show were promoting the idea that all whites were genetically or otherwise inferior to other groups of people and doing so in a straight faced way, this would be problematic. But this isn’t taking place, at all, from what I’ve read.

Second, ‘white genocide’ is simply a confusion, a myth, a conceptually incoherent attempt at appropriating the word genocide by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, anti-Semites and related right-wingers, to describe their opposition to diversity. Genocide has historical and contemporary meanings that have nothing to do with how white genocide is used in right-wing discourse. Put simply, there is no ongoing attempt to physically eradicate white people nor destroy anything imagined to be the “culture” of white people. Further, it’s not even clear what “white culture” is supposed to be.

2. “The last thing blacks want is for white males to organize and that’s not too far away!”

First, note the racial bias in ascribing a universal motive to all black people. Next is the delusion that all whites somehow agree with Ventre’s delusions. I’m a white male, and think that Ventre is fundamentally wrongheaded about many things.

3. Affirmative action.

a. Whether affirmative action violates the 14th amendment is, perhaps, open to debate. It’s an easily discoverable fiction that affirmative action is illegal since it currently is legal.

b. That affirmative action’s primary motive is to “target” white males is also fiction. It’s intent is to correct systemic racial bias. The claim that there’s an “absolute” intent to “target” while males lacks any evidence in the law or in the legal/legislative discourse surrounding affirmative action. That Ventre believes to the contrary only shows that he’s capable of inventing facts that suit his white supremacist views.

4. “The media also attacks us constantly with interracial couples in every show and commercial and portraying white males as incompetent.”

The only way it seems that displays of interracial relationships could be construed as an attack on white males is if one is already a racist. Interracial relationships aren’t in the least bit wrong or inappropriate. (Alas, a 2011 Gallup poll found that nearly 25% of conservatives still opposed interracial marriage.) What else then could explain Ventre’s opposition? How could the display of human pair bonding across race ever be construed as an “attack”?

Then there’s the fiction that interracial couples are in “every show and commercial.” Critical thinking 101 mandates that you guard against false generalizations like this. While failing utterly as accurate description, it damns itself again with psychological projection of racist ideation. The idea that white males are “constantly” portrayed in the media as incompetent lacks evidence. That one or two instances of satirical portrayals of white males is amplified into a concerted invidious media portrayal is indicative not of a judgment based on evidence, but one based on misplaced and even paranoid confabulation.

5. “Everything this world is was created by Europeans and Americans. F’ing blacks didn’t even have a calendar, a wheel or a numbering system until the Brits showed up.”

It’s difficult to even know where to begin to unpack the confusions in this statement. First off there’s the false generalization of “everything.”

Next is the implication, based on the context of his entire comment and with an ear pressed to the rails of historical and contemporary racist rhetoric, that Europeans and Americans are racially pure or homogenous. This was never true.

Then there’s the implication that only white people could have made various inventions, discoveries and cultural products. This is, of course, classical racism—the idea that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. This is pseudoscientific nonsense, but I’m not surprised that Ventre would buy it anyway.

Ventre misstates the reality of calendars in African history.

What about the wheel? 99.9999% of whites (or blacks or asians or anyone else) would have no idea about wheels as a possible technology unless one person invented them. Here Ventre seems to presuppose that there’s some kind of superior racial intelligence at work that predictably allowed “whites” to discover the wheel. Again we see his pseudoscientific racism rearing up.

Numbering systems? A quick google search reveals Ventre is wrong on this too. This in turn suggests that Ventre isn’t interested in an objective examination of this or possibly any other question having to do with race, but instead is looking for ways to prop up his presuppositional racism.

Lastly, “F’ing blacks”? Are you serious? This alone would reveal Ventre’s racist hand.


6. “google serotonin by race….”

This sentence is nothing more than a racist rant, ill-informed, and biased beyond salvage. If Ventre can so easily waltz into the above mistakes, there’s no telling how many more he’s embraced in this sentence.

Putting aside the defunct debates about race and IQ, I’d like to focus on violent crime for a moment.

When I’ve had online debates with white supremacists they’re very reluctant to own the totality of “white history.” They’ll embrace Newton or Einstein (inevitably they haven’t heard of numerous other names in science, the arts and humanities), but they’ll conveniently forget about the Holocaust, WWI, WWII, or the endless pre-20th century wars in Europe, or the genocide against Native Americans, the horrific mass crimes committed by the Belgians in Africa, etc., etc.

If you’re going to play the abject game of awarding gold stars to your racial team, you have to be honest about it. And if you are, you’ll be forced to the conclusion that the amount of violence and destruction committed by the white West probably has no equal in world history. This history of imperial, religious and colonial conquest, theft, violence, torture and genocide makes any street crime in America pale by comparison.

All Ventre is doing by bringing up black violent crime is to perpetuate the myth of blacks’ inherent propensity to violence. Any sociological, political and historical understanding of violent crime—the only kinds that have scientific validity—would reveal that violent crime does not stem from race, but a multiplicity of non-racial factors.

How can there possibly be any doubt that Ventre’s rant is anything other than evidence of systemic racial bias and animus? The man appears obsessed with race. He seems steeped (drowned, more like) in the kind of ignorant and malicious neo-Nazi/white supremacist bullshit that I've been debating against for years in online forums.

Ventre is another reminder that UFOlogy’s problems are at least to some extent self-created.
 
Interpretation of a text involves more than just facts. It involves determinations as to what is fact or not, the relevance and significance of claimed facts, and how propositions fit into a larger framework of knowledge and ethical understanding.

1. Dear White People is “anti-white” and promotes “white genocide.”

It’s a commonplace anti-intellectual response to confuse criticism or satire with hatred or racism. Nothing I’ve read about the show would suggest it’s promoting racism. It appears to satirize people on all sides. If the show were promoting the idea that all whites were genetically or otherwise inferior to other groups of people and doing so in a straight faced way, this would be problematic. But this isn’t taking place, at all, from what I’ve read.

Second, ‘white genocide’ is simply a confusion, a myth, a conceptually incoherent attempt at appropriating the word genocide by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, anti-Semites and related right-wingers, to describe their opposition to diversity. Genocide has historical and contemporary meanings that have nothing to do with how white genocide is used in right-wing discourse. Put simply, there is no ongoing attempt to physically eradicate white people nor destroy anything imagined to be the “culture” of white people. Further, it’s not even clear what “white culture” is supposed to be.

2. “The last thing blacks want is for white males to organize and that’s not too far away!”

First, note the racial bias in ascribing a universal motive to all black people. Next is the delusion that all whites somehow agree with Ventre’s delusions. I’m a white male, and think that Ventre is fundamentally wrongheaded about many things.

3. Affirmative action.

a. Whether affirmative action violates the 14th amendment is, perhaps, open to debate. It’s an easily discoverable fiction that affirmative action is illegal since it currently is legal.

b. That affirmative action’s primary motive is to “target” white males is also fiction. It’s intent is to correct systemic racial bias. The claim that there’s an “absolute” intent to “target” while males lacks any evidence in the law or in the legal/legislative discourse surrounding affirmative action. That Ventre believes to the contrary only shows that he’s capable of inventing facts that suit his white supremacist views.

4. “The media also attacks us constantly with interracial couples in every show and commercial and portraying white males as incompetent.”

The only way it seems that displays of interracial relationships could be construed as an attack on white males is if one is already a racist. Interracial relationships aren’t in the least bit wrong or inappropriate. (Alas, a 2011 Gallup poll found that nearly 25% of conservatives still opposed interracial marriage.) What else then could explain Ventre’s opposition? How could the display of human pair bonding across race ever be construed as an “attack”?

Then there’s the fiction that interracial couples are in “every show and commercial.” Critical thinking 101 mandates that you guard against false generalizations like this. While failing utterly as accurate description, it damns itself again with psychological projection of racist ideation. The idea that white males are “constantly” portrayed in the media as incompetent lacks evidence. That one or two instances of satirical portrayals of white males is amplified into a concerted invidious media portrayal is indicative not of a judgment based on evidence, but one based on misplaced and even paranoid confabulation.

5. “Everything this world is was created by Europeans and Americans. F’ing blacks didn’t even have a calendar, a wheel or a numbering system until the Brits showed up.”

It’s difficult to even know where to begin to unpack the confusions in this statement. First off there’s the false generalization of “everything.”

Next is the implication, based on the context of his entire comment and with an ear pressed to the rails of historical and contemporary racist rhetoric, that Europeans and Americans are racially pure or homogenous. This was never true.

Then there’s the implication that only white people could have made various inventions, discoveries and cultural products. This is, of course, classical racism—the idea that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. This is pseudoscientific nonsense, but I’m not surprised that Ventre would buy it anyway.

Ventre misstates the reality of calendars in African history.

What about the wheel? 99.9999% of whites (or blacks or asians or anyone else) would have no idea about wheels as a possible technology unless one person invented them. Here Ventre seems to presuppose that there’s some kind of superior racial intelligence at work that predictably allowed “whites” to discover the wheel. Again we see his pseudoscientific racism rearing up.

Numbering systems? A quick google search reveals Ventre is wrong on this too. This in turn suggests that Ventre isn’t interested in an objective examination of this or possibly any other question having to do with race, but instead is looking for ways to prop up his presuppositional racism.

Lastly, “F’ing blacks”? Are you serious? This alone would reveal Ventre’s racist hand.


6. “google serotonin by race….”

This sentence is nothing more than a racist rant, ill-informed, and biased beyond salvage. If Ventre can so easily waltz into the above mistakes, there’s no telling how many more he’s embraced in this sentence.

Putting aside the defunct debates about race and IQ, I’d like to focus on violent crime for a moment.

When I’ve had online debates with white supremacists they’re very reluctant to own the totality of “white history.” They’ll embrace Newton or Einstein (inevitably they haven’t heard of numerous other names in science, the arts and humanities), but they’ll conveniently forget about the Holocaust, WWI, WWII, or the endless pre-20th century wars in Europe, or the genocide against Native Americans, the horrific mass crimes committed by the Belgians in Africa, etc., etc.

If you’re going to play the abject game of awarding gold stars to your racial team, you have to be honest about it. And if you are, you’ll be forced to the conclusion that the amount of violence and destruction committed by the white West probably has no equal in world history. This history of imperial, religious and colonial conquest, theft, violence, torture and genocide makes any street crime in America pale by comparison.

All Ventre is doing by bringing up black violent crime is to perpetuate the myth of blacks’ inherent propensity to violence. Any sociological, political and historical understanding of violent crime—the only kinds that have scientific validity—would reveal that violent crime does not stem from race, but a multiplicity of non-racial factors.

How can there possibly be any doubt that Ventre’s rant is anything other than evidence of systemic racial bias and animus? The man appears obsessed with race. He seems steeped (drowned, more like) in the kind of ignorant and malicious neo-Nazi/white supremacist bullshit that I've been debating against for years in online forums.

Ventre is another reminder that UFOlogy’s problems are at least to some extent self-created.

Comprehensive. Eloquent. Undeniable.
Thank you for putting in the time to craft this most excellent post. You just won the forums.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
... Ventre is another reminder that UFOlogy’s problems are at least to some extent self-created.
No argument there. But at the same time if we desensationalize the issues it becomes apparent that there are points to consider about clashes between race and culture that although distasteful to one side or the other remain true. Like with respect to inventions ( the wheel, numbering systems, or silent flying disks ), that racism happens when the technologically superior culture assumes that a less technologically advanced culture is inherently less intelligent, aware, or worthy of respect simply because they're less technologically advanced.

But that still doesn't mean differences in the level of technology or values between cultures hasn't had an impact that is double edged. Usually the focus is on the negative aspects as part of some sort of claim for monetary compensation. Historical innacuracies about the wheel aside, we rarely see it recognized that the European migration did accelerate the educational and technological state of affairs for the people already here. That doesn't excuse the injustices, but it's been more advantageous for them than continuing to drag stuff around on travois while chasing buffalos over cliffs for food.


I'm also personally a bit tired of being pointed at as the perpetrator of past injustices simply because I'm Caucasian. I've got news for the blame whitie camp. I wasn't there. Neither do I support any of the injustices done by other people simply because they were white, and to constantly try to lay that blame at my feet because I'm white too seems equally unjust. There's double standards, hypocrisy, and racism in every race and culture; and titling a show Dear White People just throws sparks on that tinderbox. So it's no surprise a few flames came out of it. That's probably what was intended.

serveimage

A travois and horse, and even the horse was an import from overseas.
 
Last edited:
Yeah right. Agree must be other life forms in our universe and don't think it's all friendly so called ET rather sinister , covert and terrifying. Professor Stephen Hawking's spot on be careful for what you wish for.
 
UFOlogy's biggest problem is that they watch the ants (UFOs) while the elephants (ETs) march by.
Yeah right. Agree must be other life forms in our universe and don't think it's all friendly so called ET rather sinister , covert and terrifying. Professor Stephen Hawking's spot on be careful for what you wish for.

I think we need to be careful about these sorts of assumptions. There's a limited number of effectual things in general conceptual terms that can be made with what's available in the known universe, and there's only so much that can be done with them given the layout. So although we may not have the technological capability to make all the stuff, I think we're now well positioned to see what is hypothetically possible and get a rough idea about what it would take to make it happen. For example we have the Kardashev scale. This outlines possibilities for vastly powerful civilizations. However the basic concepts are just lots of power and bigger machines.

So the question then becomes whether or not a civilization that has such power would find it necessary to bother us? It seems reasonable to me to propose something more Sagan-ish. Like such advanced civilizations probably matured past their technological adolescence to the point where petty paranoia and territorial rutting no longer have any relevance. So a Death Star mentality is very unlikely because it would be wasting such huge resources on a concept that to them would be infantile.
 
Yeah right. Agree must be other life forms in our universe and don't think it's all friendly so called ET rather sinister , covert and terrifying. Professor Stephen Hawking's spot on be careful for what you wish for.
We exist in a multiverse of polarities. Two-sided coins. There are benevolent and aggressive ETs. There is a coalition of sorts of the benevolent ETs that remind the militaristic ones that it is hands-off on Earth, this planet and our experiences here, which all ETs can view and learn from, is much too important in the cosmological and spiritual sense to be too extremely tampered with.

Some, not all, of the benevolent ETs are of such a high vibration that it is impossible for them to be anything except lovingly benevolent. They could not have reached that level of lack of density any other way. It would follow that they are more powerful than the negative energy ETs hence the ability to run the Earth show.:)
 
So the question then becomes whether or not a civilization that has such power would find it necessary to bother us? It seems reasonable to me to propose something more Sagan-ish. Like such advanced civilizations probably matured past their technological adolescence to the point where petty paranoia and territorial rutting no longer have any relevance. So a Death Star mentality is very unlikely because it would be wasting such huge resources on a concept that to them would be infantile.
MUFON, Ventre, and Racism
 
We exist in a multiverse of polarities. Two-sided coins.
Nobody knows for sure if we actually live in a multiverse. It's a possibility that I resonate with, but unless I've missed something, there's insufficient evidence for to be sure at this time.
There are benevolent and aggressive ETs. There is a coalition of sorts of the benevolent ETs that remind the militaristic ones that it is hands-off on Earth, this planet and our experiences here, which all ETs can view and learn from, is much too important in the cosmological and spiritual sense to be too extremely tampered with.
Again, unless I've missed something, there's insufficient evidence to substantiate those claims. The ETH appears to me to be the best explanation for UFOs, but that's about as far as anyone I've run across can go before their claims become unsubstantiated.
Some, not all, of the benevolent ETs are of such a high vibration that it is impossible for them to be anything except lovingly benevolent. They could not have reached that level of lack of density any other way. It would follow that they are more powerful than the negative energy ETs hence the ability to run the Earth show.:)
In my experience, buzz phrases like "high vibrations" "negative energy" and "low density" are indicative of ideas that cannot be objectively substantiated via a combination of evidence and critical thinking and therefore tend to lack very little weight ( for me ). But maybe I'm misinterpreting your particular usage and meaning. Maybe you could explain what you mean by them in some greater detail? How about starting with "high vibrations"?
 
Last edited:
In my experience, buzz phrases like "high vibrations" "negative energy" and "low density" are indicative of ideas that cannot be objectively substantiated via a combination of evidence and critical thinking and therefore tend to lack very little weight ( for me ). But maybe I'm misinterpreting your particular usage and meaning. Maybe you could explain what you mean by them in some greater detail? How about starting with "high vibrations"?
Everything is energy and energetic. Everything has a unique, signature vibratory frequency.

A "high" vibration as you ask can be defined within the kHz range for instance, if an object or individual reaches a frequency of 333kHz, that object or individual or entity will become non-physical. Typically, the human vibration is well within the range of physicality ~80 - 200kHz understanding that the frequency is dynamic, ever-changing. So what we are discussing is simple physics.

Density is directly related to vibratory frequency, less dense = higher F as would be expected since you are moving closer and closer to non-physicality (often called the spirit state). "Negative" energy is defined as being derogatory, separative; "positive" is unifying, loving, joyful, etc.

Does that help?
 
Everything is energy and energetic. Everything has a unique, signature vibratory frequency.

A "high" vibration as you ask can be defined within the kHz range for instance, if an object or individual reaches a frequency of 333kHz, that object or individual or entity will become non-physical. Typically, the human vibration is well within the range of physicality ~80 - 200kHz understanding that the frequency is dynamic, ever-changing. So what we are discussing is simple physics.

Density is directly related to vibratory frequency, less dense = higher F as would be expected since you are moving closer and closer to non-physicality (often called the spirit state). "Negative" energy is defined as being derogatory, separative; "positive" is unifying, loving, joyful, etc.

Does that help?
Yes that helps. It's easy to make assumptions that seem like they're probably what a person means, but it's better to know for sure. I certainly relate the common notions of positive and negative as you've described them. Mind you, they're also rather subjective. What might be deemed as negative by one person might be seen as positive by another, and it's those sort of disputes that have led to all manner of conflict in the world, particularly when religion gets into the mix.

The vibrational thing is a bit different in that you've defined it in terms of frequency as a physics concept related to the physical ( as opposed to non-physical ) and made the claim that a living being is somehow transformed into a non-physical existence after attaining the designated frequency. Before I can analyze that in a meaningful way I need to know what you mean by "non-physical" versus "physical". In physics for example the word "physical" generally refers to information about the physics ( physical information ), and therefore from a physics perspective everything is physical in some way shape or form.

In less technical terms physical versus non-physical refers to the difference between the material and non-material ( e.g. solids, liquids, gasses, versus radiation and EM phenomena ). This is less precise but gets the basic idea across that there's a difference between stuff composed of atoms and stuff composed of subatomic particles.

Then there's the context where non-physical refers to things that aren't composed of anything that we've been able to specifically identify in physical terms including ideas in general, and more specific ideas like spirits, astral planes and such. Lastly there's a sort of new-agey loose interpretation that tends to be a mishmash of all the above to some extent depending on who's doing the talking, but it's never really clear what the person is actually talking about. That seems to be the case here. So let's try to clear that up if we can. What do you mean by physical versus non-physical in some specific terms?


If that seems a bit too complex, maybe we could just start by determining if you think things like rocks, brains, microchips, machines and such are "physical", while stuff like gravitational waves aren't?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top