Pride and Guilt VERSUS Arrogance and Self-Pity in Politics and Society

pride and guilt are virtues for a people while arrogance and self-pity are vices.
this isn't to suggest that pride and guilt necessarily lead to the success of a people, but they are more likely to make the people decent, and decency is a crucial step in the progress and advancement of a people. or, at least advancement and progress that are morally sound and constructive. after all, a people or nation can amass great power and strength and remain evil. such nations or peoples, however, are doomed to eventual failure as they lack a sound moral foundation for the future.

pride can easily slide into arrogance. and guilt can lead to self-loathing, which is suicidal and destructive. self-loathing can also lead to self-pity. so, a people have to make sure that pride doesn't inflate into its evil twin or that guilt doesn't turn into self-loathing. guilt is useful for it implies conscience, and without conscience there can be no moral values.

self-pity and arrogance are linked though they seem to be opposites. self-pity is self-centered and selfish. though it demands sympathy for the self-pitier, the self-pitier rarely feels sympathy for others. he feels wronged, he feels owed, he feels like the only victim in the world. there's nothing saintly or noble about self-pity because it feels nothing for others. nobility and saintliness presupposes concern, love, or sacrifice for others, for humanity. a self-pitier wallows in his own misery and wants the world to feel sorry for him and fix his problems.
logically enough, self-pity is linked to arrogance. arrogance is also self-centered. indeed, self-pity is often the product of frustrated arrogance. an arrogant person expects to have everything his way, wants everyone to kiss his ass. but, when the world doesn't do him such favors and he falls on his ass, he feels wronged. he wallows in self-pity. this is true of individuals and of peoples in general. on some level, self-pity is linked with self-loathing, but more often than not self-loathing is an extreme case of guilt-consciousness. a self-loathing person blames himself for his own problems and even the problems of the world. a self-pitying person blames all his problems on everyone else but himself. he considers himself as the rightful center of the universe. since no one seems to agree and many other people are better off than he, he blames all the world for his misery.

pride is necessary because a people need confidence, hope, optimism, and a positive outlook. such are not possible without some degree of pride. there is pride in one's strenghts and achievements. why shouldn't a good student or hard worker not be proud of his accomplishment?
guilt-conscience is necessary because no one is perfect, and we all make mistakes or even commit grave sins. a thief without capacity for guilt will never change his ways. a people or society that cannot admit social injustices cannot make progress.
it's a blend of sensible pride and sober guilt-conscience that makes a society both productive/energetic and progressive/reflective. both require a degree of moderation.
too much pride turns into arrogance and laxity. too much guilt can lead to self-loathing. at the most extreme, some people may take pride in their self-loathing, wearing the 'i am a scum' sign as a badge of honor. consider intellectuals like gunter grass whose career has revolved around proclaiming how scummy germans are. oddly enough, this has been turned into a kind of moral arrogance. gunter grass feels superior to americans cuz germans like himse;f readily admit their ugliness while americans--who are just as guilty in grass's eyes--still have national pride.

arrogance is almost always or ultimately self-destructive because it either makes the person or people lazy or overreaching. take mike tyson. he was a mighty boxer, but he got so arrogant that he stopped training. or take nazi germany. hitler was so full of himself that he attacked USSR and got clobbered real bad. and, look at george w. bush and the iraq war. no, bush is NOT hitler nor an evil man, but he got arrogant. he thought going into iraq would be a cakewalk. he was so sure of himself and his plans without really giving it much thought.
arrogance can be a power-booster in the short run, but not in the long run. the arrogant ideology of communism collapsed. arrogant mccarthur who made quick gains got ambushed by the chinese in the korean war. arrogant people or nations also make alot of enemies. this is true whether the nation is evil like nazi germany, imperialist japan, and soviet union or essentially good nations like US, france, and todays' russia. whenever a nation flexes its muscles and thinks it can act alone regardless of what others think, it makes alot of enemies. arrogance is a huge gamble. if US had triumphed in iraq, it would been great for bush and the US--though in the long run, it might have goaded them to go for higher stakes and fall really hard. maybe, in this sense, US failure is iraq checked US from making even a bigger mistake in yet a grander misguided venture.
anyway, US failed in iraq and the losses are huge. US will not lose just a war but the trust of its allies. US still has alot of allies, but allies are not exactly friends. prior to the war, france and germany were friends of the US. since the war, they've only been allies.
now, one can argue that the iraq war wasn't only about arrogance but pride and guilt-conscience. after all, americans have pride in their democracy and wanted to share it with ragheads. also, americans wanted to right the wrongs of past american involvment in the region; US had supported too many dictators in the middle east, and so it was time to build a democracy. this is all true enough. but, the assumptions and the planning of the war were, it's fair to say at this point, based on arrogance. also, the mass support of the war had something more to do with self-pity than pride and guilt-conscience. most americans supported the war because they linked hussein with osama bin laden--and it was sold that way by the government which pandered to american fears. most americans didn't care about spreading democracy in the region or fixing past wrongs. US had been a great victim in 9/11 as if no nation suffered as much as US on that day; there was genuine rage but also self-pity, which led to arrogance of american power. given the extreme climate of the times, all of this was understandable. but, it made american leaders and americans less wise.

when we look at the world today, nations and people that are most decent(and often the most successful) are those who operate with pride and guilt-conscience while those who are most loathsome and mired in failure are those who are obsessed with arrogance and self-pity.
consider swedish folks. yes, they are prissy social-democrats but there is an healthy balance of pride in swedish history, culture, tradition, and values with a guilt-conscience that has goaded swedish to be progressive, reformist, and activist. to be sure, their guilt-conscience has gotten the better of them. why else would they have allowed all those hideous muslims who have turned certain areas of sweden into hellish slums? again, when guilt turns into self-loathing, self-loathing seeks to alleviate its pain by morphing into a demented form of moral arrogance. it's as though the swedes felt, 'we feel sooooo guilty for our collusion with nazi germany during WWII that we are gonna redeem ourselves by pouring tons of aid into africa and by allowing muslim immigrants into sweden; btw, this makes us morally 100x better than those evil racist, capitalist, and neo-imperialist americans.' all these europeans heard about race relations in the US and thought it was all the fault of bigoted white americans. they thought they could do much better if they had non-white minorities. unlike 'racist' americans, they would treat the non-whites real nice, and non-whites would appreciate this and there would be social harmony and love and so on. well, well. much of europe is breaking apart due to racial problems arising from very liberal and multicultural programs.
still, much of sweden has been governed by moderate pride and sensible guilt-conscience. and, swedes have been much good for themselves.

in the US, anglo-americans have been successful thanks to their balance of pride and guilt-conscience. look at the arc of american history, and there was optimism and hope in the american enterprise. but, there was also guilt-conscience that pushed america toward greater liberty and justice for all. anglo-american whites balanced concepts of positivism and negativism. they felt positive enough to be hopeful and negative enough to reflect and reform society.
in contrast, look at the negroes in the US. yes, part of their problem is the legacy of social discrimination. and part of it has to do with biological factors such as blacks are generally less intelligent, emotionally more aggressive, and physically stronger--which makes them less likely to respect and learn from the most successful races whom blacks look down as 'faggoty ass pussyboys'.
but, another problem of black is their mired-ness in self-pity and arrogance. to be sure, this is linked with black history and black biology. blacks produce more hormones which make them more arrogant, aggressive, self-centered, nasty, and shi*. blacks are not really known for being reflective or introspective. they are a very extroverted and jiveassed folks. they can be soulful but this rarely has much to do with self-examination as was the case with jesus or buddha. it's more often a negro looking into his soul to pull out some rhythm with which to shake his arse. and, of course the history of blacks in the US naturally encourages self-pity since it was a story of slavery, racial discrimination, and being called a 'nigger'.
but, black self-pity and arrogance are ugly and hideous. they are also stupid and lacking in thought. for one thing, blacks see only the negative side of their experience under whites. they fail to see that it was at once a history of oppression and of liberation--from african savagery and ugabuga. indeed, the most advanced blacks in the world are those in the US whose ancestors have been oppressed but also civilized by whites. blacks in africa are hopeless and backward. many of them are totally savage and crazy. also, there is more to black history than its experience in the US. before the white man arrived on the african continent, blacks were murderous, crazy, lunatic savages killing, raping, and enslaving one another. whites may have done alot of bad things but black africans were no different in this regard. so, the idea of wonderful innocent africans being oppressed by evil whites is a fairytale, a myth. blacks had their own slavery, imperial wars, genocides, and such in africa--and no way to build civilization and put an end to their savage ways. blacks weren't enslaved by whites because blacks were noble while whites were evil. it was because whites had more power thru superior technology. thru african history, tribes with better weapons demolished, raped, enslaved, and killed tribes with less effective weapons.
so, there is nothing noble about black history in the US. it was simply a case of a weaker people being oppressed by a stronger people.
now, blacks could have looked upon their own history in the US and grown wiser from it. they could have attained pride in the sense that they did what was needed to survive and gain justice. and they could have learned to feel sympathy for other people since they themselves had suffered much under white racial oppression. and there was a glimmer of this possibility in the 50s and early 60s--there was a sense of community pride led by black middle class, and the message of non-violence implied that the victim too can become evil by acting like the oppressor. but, black movement soon turned into arrogance and self-pity. guys like muhammad ali shouted that he was the greatest and could up all honkeys. his defacto message is 'blacks are the superior race cuz it could whup anyone'. to be sure, ali was too self-centered to effectively speak for the collective. his mantra was more 'I am the greatest' than 'we are the greatest'. anyway, if civil rights movement started with an emphasis on non-violence and mutual understanding, it was soon usurped by a larger social and cultural black awakening that said 'honkeys are afraid of us and we can whup their flabby ass!' in city after city, wild negroes rioted and witnessed whites cowering in fear. in integrated schools, black boys found out that they could easily whup white boys, and black girls found out they could easily outshout and slap white girls. in time, many whites moved out of integrated neighborhoods. blacks understood all too well that whites were a bunch of faggotyass scaredy cat motherfuc*ers. blacks soon become arrogant. as their culture was obsessed with the athletic and the sexual, blacks saw themselves as the best of the best. they could outfuc*, outbox, and outjump, and outrun any honkey. honkeys were not real men. and honkey girls were increasingly turning to black men cuz they began to feel that black men were real men while white men were just a bunch of dweeby voiced white boys.
now, arrogance is self-centered. and in time, it developed into rap culture. the message of this culture is 'i'm the baddest thug of all and i can whup all your asses'. every black kid began to see hisself as a jack johnson, muhammad ali, or mike tyson. there was no need for them understand or respect other people; rather other people had to respect and understand them. whites should all be like ken burns, a faggotyass sappy-eyed liberal pussyboy who gets on his knees and kisses black ass. blacks in time came to despise and/or show no interest in anything that was not badass and wild. indeed, your average black kid in the US is less interested in other cultures and peoples than a kid of any other race is. white kids will listen to black music, but most black kids only listen to black music. non-blacks will try to learn about black history and culture, but most blacks show zero interest in non-black peoples and cultures. we are talking generally here.
arrogance is self-centered but so is self-pity. and there are two roots of black self-pity. one is a selective remembrance of history, and this has been made worse by influence of leftwing jews who've taken over the media/academia and white liberals whose guilt-conscience has unfortunately slid into the morass of self-loathing; worse, alot of white liberals have become morally arrogant thru self-loathing. they feel morally worthless vis-a-vis blacks yet this worthlessness is a point of pride vis-a-vis conservative whites. white liberals feel morally superior to white conservatives cuz the former supposedly have a conscience about past sins. now, having a conscience is not a problem but when it becomes pathological, obsessive, and suicidal, it's worthless and ugly.
anyway, because blacks have a very selective reading of history--supported and encouraged by leftwing jews(who use blacks to undermine wasp power) and self-loathing white liberals--they only see themselves as wonderful, colorful, noble, creative, etc while they see whites as evil, sick, demented, etc. so, from the beginning of time, blacks were supposedly wonderful while whites were evil. all problems of blacks are the fault of whites. whether you're an american black or african black, all your problems are due to whites.
the narrative goes like this: wonderful africans were living in eden, in paradise. but, evil whites came and messed it all up. that's why africa is so poor. that's why many blacks have social problems in the US. it's all white folks' fault. there was a time when whites felt a mixture of pride and guilt in regards to their history. yes, there was the fact of slavery and oppression of blacks. but, there was also the story of bringing the savages of the dark continent to the most progressive and advanced nation on earth. to be sure, blacks got the shorter end of the stick throughout US history but even that shorter end was better than most people got around the world--better than what africans got, chinese peasants got, russian serfs got, arab slaves got, etc. this balanced view of history was lost in the latter part of 20th century because liberal/leftist jews and self-loathing wasps took over all institutions of culture. leftwing/liberal jews saw wasps as their main political/economic/cultural rivals. and the most effective way to challenge and undermine wasp power was to portray wasps as a bunch of slave-masters and bigots. also, US was locked in a global struggle with the USSR, and in order to win US had to show the world how progressive it was. USSR was the creation of leftwing jews, and the black movement in the US was largely funded and guided by leftwing jews. leftwing jews pitted russians against wasps in a struggle which would ultimately empower jewish power while crippling both slavic and anglo power. if russia had not fallen to leftwing jews, it wouldn't have posed a worldwide communist threat to the world. then, americans wouldn't have felt pressured to win the cold war by proving to the world how 'progressive' it was. the white/black reconcialiation could have taken place at a more measured, meaningful pace. whites would have apologized for slavery and racial discrimination while blacks would have appreciated the good things america has done for them. but, the whole thing was rushed in the middle of a Cold War. as long as communism was 'anti-racist' and rousing up non-whites around the world, US felt an urgent need to change the system overnight. and, the social tumult has led to black arrogance and self-pity. among white liberals, it has led to self-loathing and a demented kind of moral arrogance. among white conservatives, alot of bitterness and anger.

both self-pity and arrogance do not foster reform-mindedness and moral seriousness. self-pity demands that others do things for you. and, arrogance suggests that you have some inborn quality that makes you naturally superior. we can see this among many blacks. many blacks think they are simply born morally superior. the historical aspect of black suffering has been transformed into a racial quality. blacks are born noble and wonderful while whites are born evil and wicked. since whites are born with original sin or guilt, in order to cleanse their souls they must choose liberalism and go out of their way to say they are sorry and such.
of course, white domination of the globe took place only in the last few centuries--a domination which effectively ended in the latter part of the 20th century. also, white domination around the world, all in all, did more good than bad, something western nations are not given credit for. also, all of humanity was aggressive, oppressive, and wicked in their own ways. non-whites failed to conquer the world cuz they were too busying oppressing their own kind or those near them. every tribe or people were imperialist on a local level.
what the history of western imperialism, expansion, and colonialism teaches us is not that white folks are particularly evil and that non-whites are inherently noble but that power in anyone's hand can lead to great abuses. and there are plenty of examples of white folks using their power to oppress and exploit other people. but, other peoples weren't any nobler than white folks. they were just weaker, and in many cases, their cultures, civilizations, or values were far more brutal, oppressive, violent, and wicked as that of white folks. in other words, anyone can be like 'white folks', and white folks can be like 'noble people of color'. indeed, greeks under ottoman turks were victims of imperialism. and russians and other slavs were victims of mongol imperialism. spanish were, at one time, under muslim rule as algerians were later under french rule. and, there was a time when northern europeans were bought and sold to non-white civilizations. the word 'slave' comes from 'slav' cuz so many slavic peoples were sold into slavery to places like the middle east. before there was the african slave trade, there was the white european slave trade. the slave traders were muslims, pagan europeans, or white christians who sold pagan whites. in time, white christians deemed the selling of even pagan folks as wrong; pagan folks should be converted, not sold as slaves--it simply wasn't christian to sell a fellow man. and, in time, christianity would play a major role in the end of the african slave trade. even people who were not particularly christian came to object slavery on morals that were rooted in christianity--what does it benefit a man who gain the world and lose his soul?
anyway, the point is there was a time when whites were victims of slavery and imperialism. and if history had been different, whites would have been the 'oppressed race'. there is nothing that says one group had to prevail and dominate while others were fated to suffer and be victimized. indeed, yesterday's victims are today's victors and today's victors are tomorrow's victims. in segregationist america, whites would lynch negroes. today, negroes are whupping white boys. in the past, white men had their ways with black women. today, black men are having their way with white women--who are often all too willing cuz they lost respect for soft, flabby, slow white boys. so, things change. during much of 19th and 20th century, china was the sick man of asia. it was seen as hopeless, sorryass, pathetic. today, it is rising fast. even up until WWII, europe had mighty empires around the world. since then, all those empires have been lost. today, the invasion is not white into non-white territory but non-whites into white territory with very low birth rates. population growth is very high in africa and the middle east, and many millions are going to europe and america every year to look for opportunity, freebies, and a new place to settle. if this trend continues, white europe will be no more. already, there are regions in UK and france where tough negroes go around whupping pathetic white boys. white folks cannot raise their voices on this matter because any white person who complains about such matters is deemed 'racist'. this is where non-whites have become historically self-pitying and morally arrogant. they can do as they please. meanwhile, whites must have become pathologically self-loathing. indeed, 'white pride' is seen as a great evil. never mind arrogance; white people cannot even have pride in their race--though it's okay for arabs, blacks, asians, etc to have racial pride.
this is the reality at a time when the rules of yesterday no longer apply. we are not living in a world of oppressive whites and oppressed non-whites. we are living in a world of non-white nations with either explosive populations--like africa--or explosive economies--like china. we are living in a world where chinese made goods flood the world or where africans and arabs inundate the territories of europe. white guilt, which has become self-loathing, cannot effectively say NO to all those who are seeking refugee status in europe. indeed, demoperialism--demographic imperialism--is far more dangerous than old style imperialism. old style imperialism was about setting up small colonial outposts in non-white nations. there was no chance of the imperialists maintaining dominance for long--unless the land happened to be largely unpopulated like australia or north america. in most cases, the impeiralists or white colonialists had to rule over masses of darkies who, in time, gained national consciousness and demanded independence.
the fact is it's much easier to overthrow and toss out an imperialist regime than deal with masses of people. suppose israel had remained majority palestianian. suppose jews only made up 2 or 3% of the population and ruled over the area like the british ruled over parts of africa or india. in time, they would have been booted out. but, jews arrived in droves and made israel into a jewish majority nation. it made israel viable for the longterm.
it was relatively easy to throw out the british in india. the british arrived as lords and masters. it's easy to spot and get rid of a master. but, suppose british had mainly arrived in droves like jews arrived in palestine. suppose most british arrivals came as lowly workers and came in huge numbers. suppose these brits came to make up 20-30% of the population and had a birthrate 3 or 4 times that of hindus. it would have been harder to deal with this demoperialism. today, we are seeing demoperialism in europe and US. because the arrivals are often poor or desperate, we see them as merely helpless victims in need of help. but, there is an endless supply of such folks, and if you send them a message that they will be accepted, more and more will come. we are talking of some regions where it's not rare for women to have 10-15 children. the african population doubles every 30 yrs. just do the math. and, african reality sucks because africans are naturally less intelligent and have a stupid culture. but, the liberal explanation is africa is a mess purely because of past white evil--slave trade and so on. saying otherwise is deemed 'racist'. anyway, blacks continue to have problems when they come to white nations. it's not because most whites are evil or hostile which they are not. it's because blacks, being less intelligent, do much worse in school and at work. it's also because the liberal/leftist dominated media and academia fill blacks with self-pity and arrogance. though africans and arabs come to the west to look for a better future, their kids attend schools that tell them they are noble victims while whites are evil. so, instead of showing any gratitude for living in a prosperous western nation, they come to hate the west even though the west saved their butts. much of islamic radicalism is rooted not only in islamicist hatred and teachings but in white self-loathing. immigrant muslim kids who attend schools in UK are told by leftist and liberal teachers that white people, british civilization, history, and such all suck real bad. since whites hate themselves so much--to the point of radical suicidal decadence--, why shouldn't muslim kids hate whites as well? and why should muslims try to assimilate into a nation that calls itself 'evil', 'racist', 'worthless', etc. muslims admire power, yet when their kids come to UK, they see whites wallowing in self-loathing and begging non-whites to hate white civilization. so, muslim kids merely oblige. see the films of ken loach and mike leigh. what do they tell us? UK sucks and will continue to suck unless led by marxists and other leftwing jews.

problem of self-pity and arrogance can also been seen in east asia. while china, japan, korea, taiwan, etc. have made significant economic and social progress, they cannot be said to be decent nations. consider china. traditionally, it's been very arrogant. today, its attitude is a mixture of arrogance and self-pity. chinese love to wallow in self-pity just like blacks. they complain about how their nation was exploited by the world in the 19th and 20th century. there is some truth to this, but china's inability to make progress and defend itself in the past was the result of its long history of arrogance. and, why did china become so big in the first place? china practiced local imperialism. they conquered and invaded huge areas inhabited by non-chinese people. so, if chinese are really anti-imperialist, they should let go of tibet and huge parts of northwest china. anyway, chinese arrogance made them blind to the rest of the world and to the need for change. it made them resistant to reform and new ideas. as such, china remained a miserable place for most of its inhabitants who were ruled by insufferably arrogant pompous bureaucrats and nobility. even if the world hadn't intruded on and exploited china, most chinese would have been terribly oppressed under their own system of government and values.
but, chinese wanna play the innocent lamb who were terribly exploited by evil whites and japanese. on the one hand, there is the chinese chauvanism and arrogance. there is still some of that middle kingdom bullshi*. but, there is also the self-pity, the narrative of poor noble china mistreated and trampled on by the great imperialist powers of the world.
this combination of self-pity and arrogance has made chinese totally blind to all moral issues. they are so sure of their superiority--cultural and moral. there is the historical and cultural sense of superiority in being part of a long ancient civilization. but, there is also the moral arrogance rooted in self-pity. since chinese feel as though no one suffered as much as they, no one understands real pain--never mind that much of this pain was self-inflicted as when mao's policies killed tens of millions. since they are sooo great and soooo tragic, they don't need to hear any criticism. instead, they have the right to lecture to the rest of us.
one may say japan has made greater political and social progress than the chinese, but there is also a combination of arrogance and self-pity in japanese social and political consciousness. there is still some of that samurai-mentality that emphasizes violence, brutishness, and aggressive thinking. but, there is also the lopsided remembrance of WWII which argues that japan was only looking out for asian interests against the true imperialism of white nations. to be sure, jappers got beat real bad in WWII, but jappers have used this terrible tragedy to whitewash much of their own crimes and evil.
notice that a self-pitying person or nation has a very selective memory. he remembers how he was the victim of such and such but has total amnesia of when he was the oppressor of so and so. he remembers and bitches about how some guys whupped his ass but has no memory of how he whupped others' asses. or, he does remember the latter but only takes pride from it. when he whups others, it's a time for arrogance. when others whup him, it's time for self-pity. he can't understand that since it's not good to be whupped, he shouldn't whup others. self-pity is self-centered so he cannot mold his grievance to sympathy for rest of humanity. he's upset that HE got whupped but doesn't care if others got whupped. indeed, he loves it when he does the whupping. indeed, self-pity is often more about the one got whupped than did the whupping. he's not upset over the terrible act of man whupping another man; he's upset that the whupped happened to be him. had it been he whupping another man, he would have been all for whupping. self-pity and arrogance are animalistic, crude, and primitive. we can see this among korean athletes in the olympics. when they gain a medal by cheating or unfair call, they love it and wave the victorious flag of arrogance. as long as corruption goes their way in sports, they are all for corruption. but, suppose they lose due to some bad calls or corruption. then, they bitch like they are the purest saints burnt at the stake. asia nations have made much progress economically and socially, but as they are still mired in modes of arrogance and self-pity, most of them cannot be said to be decent nations. also, even their progress was based on copying the achievements of nations--of the west--that embraced pride and guilt-conscience. indeed, the lack of homegrown progress in all fields in asia rather proves the point that real progress comes only thru pride and guilt-conscience.

asia today may be compared with nazi germany. this is not because asian nations are racially supremacist or war-mongering which, for the most part, they are not. but, like nazi germany, there is too much arrogance and self-pity. since WWII, germans have stressed pride and guilt-conscience--though the latter has sometimes slipped into self-loathing as though germans are born wicked(this had led to brainwashing german kids with self-hatred which is just as ugly as when hitler brainwashed them with national arrogance). today, germans take pride in their work and achievements. and they are also capable of criticizing what's wrong with germany. they have a guilt-conscience which makes them cautious and accountable.
but, during the weimar and nazi era, germans were dangerous cuz they were filled with self-pity and arrogance. during the weimar period, many germans blamed all their problems on the victorious nations of WWI. they also blamed the loss of the war on backstabbing politicians. these bitter germans who were filled with both self-pity and arrogance supported hitler who was the epitome of self-pity and arrogance. with hitler, it was always other people's fault while he was always right. why was he not accepted into art school? because they didn't recognize his genius. why should germany attack USSR? because germans can do anything since they were the superior race. so, german self-pity was rooted in an acute sense of superiority or arrogance. germans felt that since they are naturally superior, they should be at the top of world power. instead, they lost WWI and suffered tremendous economic duress. many germans couldn't accept this as the result of their own doing. they wouldn't accept criticism since they were naturally superior. it simply cannot be their fault. cosmic law demands that germans rule the european continent if not the world. and why wasn't that the outcome of WWI? dirty tricks; had things been allowed to develop naturally, germany would have won WWI. so, who were to blame? the politicians. the jews. everyone but the germans. so, german self-pity was not rooted in self-worthlessness but too much self-worth. the pathological self-pity was borne of the fact that germans felt they should be number one. it was not a case of a poor person feeling sorry for himself cuz he's poor, but a poor feeling angry cuz he should rightfully be rich; if he isn't rich, it can't be HIS fault but everyone else's. often--though not always--self-pity and arrogance are associated with laziness. in the case of nazi germany and asian nations, self-pity and arrogance have been associated with industriousness, making them hunger for the day in the sun. but, this could well have something to do with the national character that puts much value to usefulness and respect for authority and respectability. a lazy person in such society may be made to feel tremendous deal of shame.
the problem we see among many negroe is arrogance, self-pity, and laziness. blacks feel arrogant as the master race. though black leaders say all the politically correct things, great many blacks really feel they be racially superior to all others--they be more 'creative', musical, funky, rhythmic, stronger, etc. they be soooo cool and jazzy!! so they ask, why are so many blacks poorer than many non-blacks? why are blacks falling behind when so many are making progress in america? why is africa falling behind when much of the world is making gains? it's arrogance that feeds black self-pity. blacks wonder, 'if i be so badass and cool, why that white, hispanic, or chinese mofo be richer than me?' arrogance makes the negro think that he's naturally entitled to success and privilege--money and privilege are simply owed him. since reality doesn't work that way, the negro feels a great deal of self-pity. arrogance makes him lazy. laziness makes him achieve much less. lack of achievement makes him envious and self-pitying. and, so the negro always needs scapegoats whether it be white, jewish, asian, hispanic, etc.
africans blamed whites for african backwardness so kicked all the whites out. they were still backward so they kicked all the asian-indians in africa out. yet, they become even poorer. so, tribes blame other tribes. it's always blame others, not themselves. to be sure, some clever african leaders go thru the motion of self-criticism in order to attract more foreign aid by well-wishing white nations.

we also see much self-pity and arrogance today in much of the islamic world. on the one hand, there is much muslim arrogance about allah, the great prophet, and the truth/beauty of islam. this arrogance is such that many muslims refuse to examine the weakness of islam or explore other possibilities. but, it's not just islamism that is arrogant but arab nationalism. even guys like mubarak are fat, lazy, and pigheaded though not particularly religious. he's used to arab autocracy and that's that. such arrogance makes arabs feel as they should be major players in the world. but, the fact is many arab nations are weak when compared to europe or US or even israel. this is very embarassing. how can a people with such a true and glorious religion and culture be so backward? this leads to self-pity. again, we see the connection between arrogance and self-pity. unlike christianity, there is little guilt-conscience in islam, at least regarding violence committed against non-muslims or from man to woman. as such, there is much less honest criticism of problems of islam. also, the vile arrogance of islam has created many murderous hotheads. so, even those who are thoughtful enough to criticize the problems of islam are afraid of being killed in the streets.
muslims scream and shout with arrogance and are filled with self-pity.

so, we must find a way to foster pride and guilt-conscience in all people. and, we must tell all people around the world that arrogance and self-pity are great vices that blind the heart and mind whereas pride and guilt-conscience bind the heart and mind. people say we should help africans, and i think the best way to help africans is by goading them to drop their arrogance and self-pity and take on pride and guilt-conscience. africans are filled with moral arrogance. because of white imperialism, they think they are noble victims for all time. such arrogance makes them blind to all their own faults. instead, all the problems are blamed on whites or a few corrupt leaders when, in fact, problem of corruption and idiocy is rampant throughout african culture and society. if african people were so decent and intelligent, could they have elected or supported so many murderous crooks for so long? and what did these crooks use to win support? by promoting arrogance and self-pity. just look at mugabe of zimbabwe. he has ruined his nation but only blames whites. and many african leaders refuse to criticize him because he symbolizes black power and values. when mugabe was using demogoguery to brutalize and kick out all whites, the fact is MOST blacks wildly supported him. today's black victims of mugabe had empowered him all these yrs. they too are to blame.

now, some people may say that it's crazy to foster guilt-conscience among the victims. why, that's like blaming the victim! but, there is no permanent or total victim. in history, no people were ever totally guilty or innocent--also, a political victim can be a personal tyrant; a slave can still beat up his wife and children and abuse those around him. the problems of africa existed before the white man came. even before white oppression, there was genocide, slavery, tribal warfare, corruption, idiocy, and superstition in africa. and after the whites left, all these problems are still with africans. everyone, whether 'victim' or 'oppressor', is capable of wrongdoing. suppose there is a crooked politician who exploited a certain people. suppose the crook is thrown out of office which is then occupied by a member of the exploited group. thus far, the new leader may only have been a victim. does that mean he will not be corrupt himself or abuse power? EVERYONE is capable of evil. africa has been liberated from whites for some time now. the old reliance on moral arrogance and self-pity will not work. if africans want genuine pride, they have to develop a guilt-conscience. the likes of mugabe need to face the music and admit he made terrible mistakes; and all the peole of zimbabwe must take blame for their own mistakes and corruptions. leaders all over africa need to be able to take criticism. and african people in general need to study their own societies and expose what is wrong or rotten about it. with that will come real cleansing. and with such cleansing will come real pride(too often crooked blacks say 'why blame me when it's simply my turn at the trough?' since he was once a victim, it's his turn to rob and steal everything he can get his hands on and that's that. and, such crook is often clever enough to make other black people feel that since a black man is now doing the stealing, they should be glad--even if they are getting nothing under the new order; this is rather like imelda marcos saying that she needed to be rich for the psychological needs of poor filippinos; it's the politics of demagogic identification. since the masses don't expect much from society, it's cathartic and satisfying just to see one of their own in power, wallowing in wealth, and living a fantasy life). there can be no pride without guilt-conscience. evil isn't so much a matter of historical past but a matter of the human heart. every child is born with the capacity for evil. it doesn't matter if the child is born into an oppressor race or class or a victim race or class. if and when he takes power, he has all the best and worst attributes of man. therefore, he needs to have a guilt-conscience and admit wrongs. the problem is guilt-conscience today is apportioned and obligated only by race or nationality. some peoples are obligated to have it while others are not. the so-called victim peoples can just wallow in self-pity and arrogance. the irony of this is that nations that are being punished with guilt-conscience are doing better than those that are feted with self-pity. those with self-pity don't use their energy productively and are blind and arrogant. meanwhile, the nations that are capable of self-examination and introspection make social reform and progress. so, the way to help poor nations is to foster guilt-conscience which will lead to reform and real pride. they may not be guilty of global imperialism but they are certainly guilty of local corruption, social brutality, political oppression, etc. but, as long as the likes of castro, mugabe, and kim jong il clothe their national identity in 'victimhood', there is no need for guilt-conscience on their part. so, there is no progress. their nations remain poor or grow poorer. moral arrogance and self-pity. and not only moral arrogance but the arrogance of the wanna-be major power. but, how can they achieve major power status when there is no room for guilt, criticism, reform, and genuine change?