Here's the weird thing though: I agree almost entirely with this analysis. As I've argued before, the greatest division in the Western world today lies not between rich and poor, working class and upper class, or Left and Right, but between on the one hand the rapacious, unaccountable Bankster/Corporatist/Political establishment and on the other everybody else. Why then, aren't I standing with the Occupy St Paul's crowd right now, making this point more vociferously?This is good, as far as it goes, and partially sums up my own position. But, where do the classical liberal values of low taxes, property rights, limited government, and so on derive? All of these come from Europe and America, and have rarely if ever been found outside the areas of European influence. When that influence has faded, for example with decolonization, the values have almost always departed as well.
Simple. Because though my analysis of the problem may be quite similar to the Occupy crowd's, my solution couldn't be more different. This is why – as the above video explains – Tea Party types like me are unlikely ever to find common cause with Occupy. We're classical liberals who believe in low taxes, limited government, property rights and equality of opportunity [emphasis added], whereas they are progressives who believe in greater government control and wealth redistribution in order to create equality of outcome.
Not only have these values come from European, and more specifically mainly Anglo-American culture, but they're not likely to be adhered to in a multiracial society, which is of course what our betters are determined to foist upon us, and so far pretty successfully. People generally only want to be fair to their co-ethnics, and in a multiracial or multiethnic society, governments become the providers of patronage and favoritism, which are very much antagonistic to classical liberalism. The whole system becomes one of do unto others before they do unto you.
I think this points to a huge flaw in the thinking of many or most mainstream conservatives, and especially those who promote American exceptionalism. (Ron Paul might even fall into this category.) That is, you can't have classical liberal values, including limited government, in a multiethnic society, or at the least it must be very difficult. As Lee Kuan Yew noted, in such a society people vote their ethnic interests, and aren't much interested in abstract notions of fairness.
Whites are Just Now Beginning to Realize they've been duped! All this BS about Equal Opportunity was just a cover for Quotas and Anti-White Disenfranchisement!
ReplyDeleteWhen Whites Finally Come Together, There's Going To Be HELL TO PAY by the Perps!
Eye of Horus, dude, that random capitalization IS a nice homage to the Founding Fathers, but come on.
ReplyDeleteWe're classical liberals ..
ReplyDeleteThis formulation is irritating. The actual classical liberals - the liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries - did not have a lot in common with the modern self-styled "classical liberals".
Okay Severn, no problem, I'm with you so far.
ReplyDeleteCould you be more specific?
If W.E. Gladstone were running for Congress in my district, I'd vote for him. Ditto for Acton, Cleveland, etc.
Would you?
This formulation is irritating. The actual classical liberals - the liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries - did not have a lot in common with the modern self-styled "classical liberals".
ReplyDeleteGood point. The modern self-styled "classical liberals" seem to be mostly neoliberals.
Could you be more specific?
ReplyDeleteThe actual liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries were both more socially conservative and less (far, far less) committed to free trade/open borders than are the modern self-styled classical liberals, aka libertarians.
"But, where do the classical liberal values of low taxes, property rights, limited government, and so on derive? All of these come from Europe and America"
ReplyDeleteThis is correct, but all the values expressed by the Occupy movement - egalitarianism, socialist, violence, etc. - also come from Europe and America.
We do ourselves no favors by forgetting that progressivism - in all its forms - is as European and American as the values we like.
People generally only want to be fair to their co-ethnics
ReplyDeleteThis just is not true and is not based on a very extensive experience of the world. It sounds more like a dogmatic prejudice (everyone just knows people are like that! No need to check!) from a stay at home who cannot see past a certain amount of justified cynicism to the complexity of the real world.
The fact is that the lack of social solidarity we see in the US has nothing to do with ethnic differences, but with the fact that each group has been encouraged to maintain a separate social identity rather than melt into one common unit. Now, this tracks according to ethnic lines, yes, thus creating the superficial impression that this phenomenon is caused by ethnic differences - but that is a false attribution error, one of the cognitive biases our minds are so prone to.
All we know today is 1) We have lots of different ethnic groups 2) All of these groups have been told not to melt into one unit but to maintain a different social identity 3) There is no social solidarity in America.
Mangan assumes 3 is solely the result of 1, when it just as easily be the result of 2.
I posit that if all our different ethnic groups were told to drop their separate identities and meld into one common unit with cultural and language ties, very soon a new patriotism would grow up that transcended ethnic ties, like it has in the past, when Poles were considered "polar" opposites from Sicilians, yet both became one unit (and those two groups are really MORE different than a Chinese guy and a German guy, who share lots of personality features).
I travel a ton, and find the majority of people will be scrupulously fair and honest with me, a complete foreigner and stranger, precisely in situations where it would cost them nothing to be un-fair to me.
For example, I was in Thailand recently and had to get my laundry done in a real hurry to catch a flight. I explained this to the (very poor) laundry woman and offered her about 5 times the normal rate to get it done in a few hours. She absolutely refused to take more than twice the normal rate for expedited service. She knew she was never going to see me again and had no incentive not to take my money, except an innate sense of fairness that fully extended to a complete foreigner of a different ethnicity.
Nor is this some kind of isolated incident that I am dishonestly presenting as the "norm"- it really IS the norm when you travel to meet with this kind of thing. I have dozens such examples to choose from. Sure, there are scoundrels and scamsters preying on tourists, but that isn't really an ethnic issue, and amongst most "normal" people in a given population, most are incredibly "fair"to people who are not co-ethnics.
Another good example is when I was in Malaysia having just crossed the border I found myself in a restaurant at a bus stop before I had changed any money, thus unable to pay for food. The owners noticed this on their own, and fed me an entire meal at no charge. Me, a complete non-co-ethnic and stranger to them - why, if people are generally "fair"only to their co-ethnics?
Now, I posit that lack of social fairness can track along racial or ethnic lines, and frequently DOES, but I deny that it is a necessary feature of having several ethnicities living together.
John, if you are forcing assimilation then you aren't allowing people to freely associate. Your tourism doesn't give you the whole picture. People treat tourists great in some places, and not so great in others, but you'll never know anything about Thailand or anywhere else from being a tourist. It's not even a good example given the recent trouble they've had with Thai Muslim separatists, and the historic troubles they have had with their neighbors.
ReplyDeleteWith forced assimilation you'll also find yourself in a similar situation that we have now with Jews and a few other ethnic groups depending on who you are talking to. If assimilation is mandatory, rather than dealing with cases of ethnic nepotism and non-assimilation you'll have social opprobrium for being a 'racist' when pointing out examples of non-assimilation. You'll also have a situation where there will be arguments over who has control over the cultural template that one is to conform to, and whoever is perceived to have that control (whites) will be disregarded when criticizing others (Jews) that fail to 'assimilate'.
If you really want to experiment with the way works I recommend you take a few hundred thousand of your own kind and permanently settle in Thailand and see how friendly and scrupulous everyone is.
I posit that if all our different ethnic groups were told to drop their separate identities and meld into one common unit with cultural and language ties, very soon a new patriotism would grow up that transcended ethnic ties
ReplyDeleteAnd where does this god-like power exist which can command all the people of the world: "Thou shalt drop thy ethnic differences and meld into one common unit"?
The Poles remained Poles even when there was no Poland. The Irish remained Irish even when there was no Ireland. History tells many a tale of an ethnic group which retained its ethic differences in spite of determined attempts by a conqueror to erase them.
all the values expressed by the Occupy movement - egalitarianism, socialist, violence, etc. - also come from Europe and America.
ReplyDeleteViolence is not a value. Nor is it something which came from Europe and America.
There is nothing wrong with egalitarianism or with opposition to the rich. I go along with Delingpole in opposing the "rapacious, unaccountable Bankster/Corporatist/Political establishment".
Neither Delingpole nor the OWS crowd seem to be aware that the status quo is socialism in action. Everywhere socialism has ever been implemented, it has been indistinguishable in practice from oligarchy. That "rapacious, unaccountable Bankster/Corporatist/Political establishment" is the inevitable consequence of socialism, though not of egalitarianism.
John, your comment strikes me as the height of naivete (and I lived abroad in the Caribbean, Europe, and Asia for 8 years and visited an additional dozen countries). Even today, the fabled assimilation of Ellis Island immigrants is little more than skin deep. Ethnicity, like the truth, is a stubborn thing.
ReplyDeleteFor all other readers, let me highly recommend the latest post by Tanstaafl at "Age of Treason." A pretty damning quote by Jewish author Philip Roth about Jewish subversion, and excellent analysis by Tan.
(Sorry Dennis, don't want to hijack the thread, but Tan's latest is truly superlative and needs to be more widely read.)
John - You're confusing "kindness to strangers" with "lack of ethnocentrism". They're not the same thing, and they don't exist in inverse correlation. People most renowned for their courtesy and hospitality to strangers, e.g. Arabs, are not necessarily the least ethnocentric - often quite the contrary.
ReplyDeleteAs for "[i]t sounds more like a dogmatic prejudice...from a stay at home who cannot see past a certain amount of justified cynicism to the complexity of the real world", I can say that it is travel, not staying at home, that opened my eyes to ethnocentrism. Before I hit the road in my youth, I had a very "liberal", very "it's a small world" view of humankind. And I didn't change because I ran into a bunch of nasties (though of course there were some of those), but from observing some of the kindest, most hospitable people you could ever hope to meet. Their real kindness and hospitality did not obscure the fact that they didn't have any time for "correct" Western liberal ideas about race/group blindness, and they were perfectly comfortable and unapologetic in their ethnocentrism and "racism". Kindness, hospitality, generosity - none of these things are incompatible with, say, that balls-to-the-wall nepotism that can bewilder, and sometimes blindside, the inexperienced American (or Aussie or Brit).
And as others have noted, being a tourist is a special case - it's a very different experience from being a migrant or an expat.
There's a long list of multi-ethnic states where the different groups were often neighbors, traded and socialized with each other, grew up together, intermarried, people seemed to respect one another and could be quite nice to each other. There may have been no actual significant genetic difference between the groups, just historical, cultural, religious and geographic differences. Yet, when things went bad the same groups fell upon each other with shocking viciousness. Neighbors turned on each other, attacking and looting each other; childhood friends joined opposing militias which fought each other; one group would put the weaker one to flight; and so on. From the outside it appeared be be all peace and harmony, and brotherhood was declared to be the prevailing sentiment. From the inside it was always a balancing act. As long as the equilibrium could be maintained the situation could continue; upset it and chaos resulted.
ReplyDeleteThis having been true of multi-ethnic states, the existence of multi-racial states only multiplies this fact many times over. A multi-racial state is inherently unstable. Sooner or later something happens to upset the balance and the whole structure tumbles. It's only a matter of when and how. All the diversity and brotherhood rhetoric in the world can't change this reality; it can only paper over the cracks until they become chasms.
So Severn must think that socialism is somehow unrelated to egalitarianism. You must mean socialism is not the political expression of egalitarianism.
ReplyDeleteWell it must be some kind of joke then.
So Severn must think that socialism is somehow unrelated to egalitarianism
ReplyDeleteAll sorts of things are "related" to all sorts of other things. This does not mean that they are all the same things.
The US was founded on egalitarian principles - "all men are created equal" - but not on socialist principles.
Mangan says:
ReplyDeleteBut, where do the classical liberal values of low taxes, property rights, limited government, and so on derive? All of these come from Europe and America, and have rarely if ever been found outside the areas of European influence. When that influence has faded, for example with decolonization, the values have almost always departed as well.
True, but only in part. Actually Europe also has been a quite prominent provider of high taxes, few property rights and authoritarian government. Such a state of affairs was common in Europe in the era of the sovereigns, in the era of European colonialism, in the era of the communist and facist dictatorships, and is increasingly growing as the bureuacratic octopus of the European Union consolidates power.
Not only have these values come from European, and more specifically mainly Anglo-American culture, but they're not likely to be adhered to in a multiracial society..
Contradictory. America is a "multi-racial society" and has, at times, strived to maintain these values. Of course even in the best of American times, large geographic areas have failed to deliver these glowing values to a substantial number of its citizens. The white Jim Crow South for example, where, in various states before WWII blacks made up 20-30% of the population, delivered authoritarian regimes and invasive restrictions on property rights in pursuit of its apartheid system. White businessmen for example who wanted simply do do normal bidniss with blacks were time and time again blocked from doing so by authoritarian segregationist regimes. The Montgomery Bus Boycott for example was spawned by the authoritarian city regime that imposed segregation on once desegregated buses. In fact, the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED this interference with their property interest/rights to run their enterprise as they saw fit, but was overruled (Sowell 2004).
, which is of course what our betters are determined to foist upon us, and so far pretty successfully. People generally only want to be fair to their co-ethnics, and in a multiracial or multiethnic society, governments become the providers of patronage and favoritism, which are very much antagonistic to classical liberalism. The whole system becomes one of do unto others before they do unto you.
But this is not only the case with multi-racial or multi-ethic societies. WHite Italy was and is long notorious for corruption, patronage and favoritism, long before any non-white minorities arrived in any significant numbers. White Russia proper shows the same picture- long-standing patterns of corruption and favoritism. Ditto for numerous European countries. Homogeneity offers no exemption from favoritism and patronage. Class, family background, religion etc etc all cause this state of affairs. Racial/ethnic "minorities" are not needed.
That is, you can't have classical liberal values, including limited government, in a multiethnic society, or at the least it must be very difficult. As Lee Kuan Yew noted, in such a society people vote their ethnic interests, and aren't much interested in abstract notions of fairness.
Inaccurate. You can have liberal values and limited government in a multiethnic society. Germany proved that prior to WwII before the "final solution" operations of the Fuhrer. The United States proves it today, as does Britain, as does numerous of the multiethnic Caribbean islands. Ethnic patronage and favoritism IS ONLY ONE TYPE of favoritism and patronage. There are other things- religion, class, family background etc etc where people "are not interested in fairness." The notion that you need a society of only one ethnic group for all these good things to appear is not only disproven by the record of history but is exceedingly naive. Europe itself, with very few non-white minorities in place, has failed to deliver classical liberal values over most of its history.
John says:
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that the lack of social solidarity we see in the US has nothing to do with ethnic differences, but with the fact that each group has been encouraged to maintain a separate social identity rather than melt into one common unit. Now, this tracks according to ethnic lines, yes, thus creating the superficial impression that this phenomenon is caused by ethnic differences - but that is a false attribution error, one of the cognitive biases our minds are so prone to.
John your theory seems rather naive. Lack of social solidarity in many cases has everything to do with ethnic differences. The American South is a classic example, requiring the upheavals of the Civil Rights Eras merely to ensure a bare mimimum of equal treatment to between 20 to 30% of the population in some of those states. ANd even in areas before the big black migrations of WWII, a number of so-called "Anglo" Americans opposed the immigration of Italians, Jews, Eastern Europeans etc, on the basis of ethnicity. White America has, for most of its history, rejected social solidarity with other groups. An ethnic breakdown of white America, in areas with few blacks, reveals the same pattern. Mangan's notion and yours are questionable.
I posit that if all our different ethnic groups were told to drop their separate identities and meld into one common unit with cultural and language ties, very soon a new patriotism would grow up that transcended ethnic ties, like it has in the past..
John again your theory seems naive. The state of affairs you refer to in the past, never existed. White America has for most of its history insisted on ethnic exclusivity or domination of other groups. Anglos follow the same pattern if whites are broken down separately. It is only after the Civil RIghts Movement that America could truly be said to be living up to its democratic ideals, and a case could certainly be made that multi-ethnic America was on the right track after that, or showed what could be done if there is a great project to rally around- such as WwII. I think your theory has potential for the future, if, forces on all sides of the ethnic divide seek common ground, but that will be difficult. On one side are race mongering liberals manipulating race to advance their agendas. On the other are race mongering heriditarians demonizing blacks 24/7 to advance their agendas.
Now, I posit that lack of social fairness can track along racial or ethnic lines, and frequently DOES, but I deny that it is a necessary feature of having several ethnicities living together.
I would say that lack of social fairness happens in EVERY society, including the homogeneous ones. WHite Italy was and is long notorious for corruption, patronage and favoritism, long before any non-white minorities arrived in any significant numbers. People always divide- whether it be by religion, language, class etc. The key to a stable society is common goals, common aspirations, common ground- and frameworks allowing liberty (with responsibilities) for people to pursue happiness. White heriditarians and HBD types do not want common ground- but "race enemies" to demonize. WHite liberals likewise want numerous "isms" and divisions on the basis of those "isms" to advance their own control agenda, and destroy common ground. The practical activity and wisdom of the masses, respecting constitutional frameworks limiting abuse of power and guaranteeing liberty, offers a way out.
Chicago says:
ReplyDeleteThis having been true of multi-ethnic states, the existence of multi-racial states only multiplies this fact many times over. A multi-racial state is inherently unstable. Sooner or later something happens to upset the balance and the whole structure tumbles. It's only a matter of when and how. All the diversity and brotherhood rhetoric in the world can't change this reality; it can only paper over the cracks until they become chasms.
But the same could be said for NON multi-racial states. The huge number of religion wars in EUrope over history for example where only white people were involved is a case in point. White Europe itself,is hardly a paragon of stability historically. The massive slaughters of WWI and WwII are testimony to that, as does the history of the white Balkans, which has yielded the English word for strife and fragmentation- "balkinization."
John says:
Kindness, hospitality, generosity - none of these things are incompatible with, say, that balls-to-the-wall nepotism that can bewilder, and sometimes blindside, the inexperienced American (or Aussie or Brit).
This is the ideal to shoot for but there are many forces against it. HBD or heriditarianism's apparent esteem for "classical liberal values" is not all that it seems, but very selective. They tout liberal values only in so far as it allows them to claim certain good things for white people. After all, who can be against democracy, fairness, low taxes etc and other good things? But in fact, heriditarians actually don't want classical liberal values. They are talking points basically. Heriditarians key focus is opposition to an alien "Other" - a "race enemy" or "race inferior" to demonize, against which a virtuous white can be posited. That is the key basis of their solidarity. They actually espouse ideas inimical to classical liberal values.
They actually approve NON-LIMITED government as long as it is deployed against the race enemy. Hence they had few objections to heavy-handed Jim Crow regimes in the south, or the heavy-handed South African state apartheid apparatus. They tout "free markets" - as long as the "free markets" do not operate in favor of the designated race or ethnic enemy. "Free markets for me, but not for thee." They speak glowingly of low taxes, but in times past, approved Jim Crow taxes that eliminated business competition from targeted race enemies. Punitive tax barriers against Asians in California prior to WWII, are a typical example of this.
They talk up "property rights" as long as designated ethnic or race enemies are not able to also exercise THEIR property rights. Hence, they lament the disappearance of restrictive covenants forbidding sales of property to blacks, but approve government enforcement of segregation or discrimination when punitive action is directed against targeted minorities. They hail "free speech", but condemn the free speech of race enemies when such speech challenges their claims. In short, they only talk up "classical liberal values" as a one way street, a good thing, until targeted race enemies or inferiors exercise their options in accordance with classical values.
Your theory points the way to an ideal, but it will be a very long time before we get there.
"EightRouteArmy said...
ReplyDeleteContradictory. America is a "multi-racial society" and has, at times, strived to maintain these values."
You are being disingenuous. America - for most of it's history - was not a multi-racial society in any meaningful sense. The people who made those ideals you speak of actual ideals were a relatively monocultural, monoethnic group.
"Of course even in the best of American times, large geographic areas have failed to deliver these glowing values to a substantial number of its citizens."
They certainly failed to deliver those values to people whom subsequent events have shown to be largely incapable of making use of them.
"But this is not only the case with multi-racial or multi-ethic societies. WHite Italy was and is long notorious for corruption, patronage and favoritism, long before any non-white minorities arrived in any significant numbers."
This is a juvenile debating point. Sure, Italy is relatively corrupt - compared to, say, Iceland. But it is far less corrupt than Mexico or Haiti, as indeed is every single european nation.
"Inaccurate. You can have liberal values and limited government in a multiethnic society. Germany proved that prior to WwII before the "final solution" operations of the Fuhrer."
To which universe exactly are you referring? Germany was a highly monoethnic state prior to WWII, and remains so. And what exactly proves their antebellum attachment to liberal values and limited government? The Kingdom of Prussia? The Kingdom of Bavaria? The Weimar Republic. I don't think you know what you are talking about.
"Europe itself, with very few non-white minorities in place, has failed to deliver classical liberal values over most of its history."
That was not Dennis' point. He pointed out that only Europe and it's decendents created these ideals. Limited government, the rule of law, the rights of man: these were not, and likely could not be, created in Meso-America or Africa, or central Asia. East Asia had some of them, and - piecewise at least, was able to adopt the rest.
"EightRouteArmy said...
ReplyDeleteWhite heriditarians and HBD types do not want common ground- but "race enemies" to demonize."
You're conflating HBD adherants with nazis and klansman - a vanishingly small group, who are a complete non-factor in modern politics. And whats wrong with "hereditarianism"? Do you not believe in the hereditability of traits? Do you believe that you have nothing in common genetically with your parents? That God plucked a shiny new soul at random from the firmament and placed it in your embryo at conception?
"On the other are race mongering heriditarians demonizing blacks 24/7 to advance their agendas."
Nonsense. We wish to point out the dangerous and criminal behavior of many blacks, and the asonishing degree of indulgence they are granted by a political and media establishment that labors to keep it hidden, and that tells us - in many ways - to sit down, shut up, and take it. We are pissed off at it, fed up with it, and we aren't going to be silently victimized anymore. And we do it because it is very much in our own vital interests to do so.
So stuff it.
You know, ERA, you have nothing interesting to say, and yet you take up a lot of space to say it. You write like a 19 year old who has just assimilated the writings of Noam Chomsky and Newt Gingrich. You could just as well goose up your screed with a few comic-book references and wanking jokes, and post it at Ace-of-Spades HQ. What you write is trite, naive, and juvenile. I'm not interested in your banal observations, and I imagine many others here aren't either.
And by the way, what's the deal with your screen name? EightRouteArmy? Is it a reference to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Route_Army
Are you a chinese communist? Or perhaps you are Yan Shen under a different name.
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think.
K(yle), Thailand is a pretty good example as it has assimilated a large and powerful Chinese minority very successfully. There are numerous other contemporary and historical examples of successful mutli-ethnic societies, just as there are numerous contemporary and historical examples of same-race countries torn by faction (Ireland?)
ReplyDeleteObvious conclusion - same race is no guarantee of social harmony, mixed race no guarantee of social discord.
Now, there is a correlation between ethnic divisions and social conflict, but as I explained, the relationship is not causal. Ethnic fault lines are just one way people might divide - there are countless others.
It is the mark of a superficial mind to notice a correlation and automatically assume a causal relation. Once you refine your thinking a bit the world becomes a much more fascinating place, as you notice so many things you just assumed were "causes" were merely correlated to some phenomena.
It's like I argued before about the paleo diet - some guys on paleo lost weight (at least initially) and they think paleo was essential to that result, when in reality they just restricted calories. I see that all the time.
Most guys in the alt-right community have a real problem with thinking in a sophisticated way about cause and effect, something exemplified in a very striking way by many of Mangans posts.
Oh, and I am not arguing for enforced cultural assimilation, but it would be quite easy to create social norms that exerted invisible pressure, as we did in the past quite well. (and really, I don't see how a Sicilian and a Swede are more different than a Chinese guy and a German).
ReplyDeleteIn such a scenario, most people would assimilate, although of course there would be SOME holdouts, which is fine.
The problem with America is that at the precise moment we opened the doors to non-white immigration we also moved away from the melting pot model, thus making it far from simple to disentangle cause and effect.
@eightroutearmy
ReplyDeleteWhite America has, for most of its history, rejected social solidarity with other groups. An ethnic breakdown of white America, in areas with few blacks, reveals the same pattern.
No, they fought against it, but eventually accepted it to a very large degree. To a perfect degree? No. But to a very large degree. You can't just point out that in some ways attitudes of ethnic exclusion continued to exist - which is quite true - means that no degree of social cohesion was achieved. Clearly a high degree was. What's more, it was a continuing process, one that got derailed by the dropping of the melting pot idea instigated by leftists, so there is every reason to expect it would have accelerated. Now the problem is that superficial right wing thinkers look at this complicated state of affairs and draw simplistic cause and effect relationships.
Now I despise the anti-white bias that exists in the US today as much as anyone, but I don't jump to superficial conclusions that the only way to avoid this is to have an all white society. That's just dumb. No, the problem with America today is that we are not truly race blind - we have merely replaced racism towards minorities with demonization of whites. The ideal solution is not to conclude that some form of racism is inevitable so we might as well have whites on top, but to grasp that the left has replaced the very worthwhile project of creating a truly race-blind society with a revenge project against whites.
Just at the moment when the idea of truly race blind society was about to be tried in earnest, leftist revenge fantasies were piggy-backed onto anti-racist ideas, thus utterly derailing the entire project. It's a tragedy which we need to recover from, and I suppose it's inevitable that amongst the less intelligent and sophisticated this will lead to a rejection of the entire anti-racist project.
Kindness, hospitality, generosity - none of these things are incompatible with, say, that balls-to-the-wall nepotism that can bewilder, and sometimes blindside, the inexperienced American (or Aussie or Brit).
Of course, I am just saying that the ridiculous statement that people are only fair to their co-ethnics - the absurd silliness asserted by Mangan in his post - has no basis in reality and is just a projection of an emotional mood onto the world. Cynicism is good, but it has to be incorporated into one's world view, not allowed to dominate it. The period in life when cynicism is allowed to dominate one's world view - rather than merely play an important role - is typically adolescence, when we are reeling from the shock of finding out for the first time how much of the world of adults is based on lies. But then you grow up a little more and realize that this too was a stage in your youth - but some people never get stuck in this stage.
Obviously if I lived in Thailand without making any effort to integrate, I would be shut out in all sorts of key ways. But the Chinese - who are by the way an utterly different people from the Thais, in temperament, values, goals, even appearance - managed to do quite well in Thailand, and if whites emigrated en masse and integrated, they would do (although at this late historical stage they would encounter considerable opposition).
But the point is, multi-ethnic societies can be quite harmonious, more so than some same-race societies.
Most of your counter-examples are just that - examples of when it didn't work, which I admit there are plenty of. But that does not answer the point that there are examples where it did/does work, and that the prime piece of evidence used by right wingers - American social discord - is much more complex a thing.
Their real kindness and hospitality did not obscure the fact that they didn't have any time for "correct" Western liberal ideas about race/group blindness, and they were perfectly comfortable and unapologetic in their ethnocentrism and "racism".
ReplyDeleteLots of you guys are not getting it....first of all, Mangan said people will not not be fair to those who are not co-ethnics. I provided counter-examples of that that has been a pattern in my traveling life. That's the first point to note - now the second way you guys are not getting is that I KNOW there are lots of examples of ethnic nepotism, social strife dividing along ethnic lines, etc, etc - I KNOW THIS AND ADMITTED THIS - I am merely pointing out that that this is not a necessary feature of multi-ethnic socieites - even though it is a COMMON feature. Heck, injustice in ANY form is a COMMON thing.
Point is, people often ARE fair to non-co-ethnics, and CAN live with a sense of solidarity and belonging to a common nation with people who are not the same race as them. I know lots of times it doesn't happen that way.
I think John is technically right and that is why multikult is so dangerous. People can be fair and polite and sometimes even warm to ethnic others, if there is a strong state enforcing unambiguous laws. This "if" was taken for granted by the post-1945 politicians. Strong, rich states with vigorous law enforcement were so ubiquitous they became invisible. The rough men who stood ready became seen as unnecessary, or even enemies.
ReplyDeleteSo just as we started handcuffing the cops (Miranda, ant-racial-profiling etc.) we started needing them more, to protect those us from the "less aggressive breeds". Since we weren't willing to accept that we needed cops, and we weren't willing to reverse or even stop forced integration, we decided to just ignore or actively suppress information on anti-white violence.
(And yes, I am using "we" in the most sarcastic sense possible.)
John - Now, there is a correlation between ethnic divisions and social conflict, but as I explained, the relationship is not causal. Ethnic fault lines are just one way people might divide - there are countless others.
ReplyDeleteCountless other correlations, or countless other causes? It's disheartening to see so sophisticated a thinker confuse "multi-causal" with "correlation" like this.
Seriously, if you want to make a meal of Mangan's generalized observation that "people are only fair to their co-ethnics" (and I doubt anybody here took (or believes) that statement in the intensely simple and literal-minded sense you did), and ponce about telling everybody what unsophisticated thinkers they are (in every third sentence), it behooves you to tighten up your own writing and thinking. Ethnic divisions are a very real and important cause of social fracturing throughout human history, not just "social constructs" that can be socially engineered away with the right attitudes and the right policies. (As can be seen from the many multi-whatever societies that are perfectly harmonious - until they're not.) They are facts of history, not mere "correlations", no matter how many other types of social fracture lines exist.
Just at the moment when the idea of truly race blind society was about to be tried in earnest, leftist revenge fantasies were piggy-backed onto anti-racist ideas, thus utterly derailing the entire project.
Don't you think it's a bit, er, unsophisticated to believe that the history of racial/ethnic conflict in the United States has a simple cause-effect relationship with leftist ideology?
John, you sound like a man who is trying very hard, and rather touchingly, to reconcile a utopian liberalism with the clearer-eyed realization that civic relations in America have taken a poisonous term, and in doing so you end up grasping for the same sort of cartoonishly simple explanations (and solutions) that you accuse others here of seeking. "If only we had cleaved to the assimilationist model, then, e.g., the mass recent migrations from Mexico would have produced only minor problems, harmoniously resolved". "If only we had stuck with the race-blind 'content of our character' model after the Civil Rights movement, the U.S. would no longer have a race problem."
I agree that, in the latter case, it would have obviated some of the uglier results of the policies actually pursued, but only to reveal other problems. As for the latter - no. Way to simple-minded and oblivious to history. (The unique and...what's that word again?...oh yes, complex history of the U.S.)
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes YOU think I give a damn what you think?
America - for most of it's history - was not a multi-racial society in any meaningful sense. The people who made those ideals you speak of actual ideals were a relatively monocultural, monoethnic group.
But we are talking Mangan' "liberal society" claim. America has always been a multi-ethnic society. Multi-ethnicity" has been there from day one- from the historic South with its large black population (40 to 50%) in some states, to the historic Southwest with its significant Hispanic `population, stretching back to the 1800s. And “multi-ethnicity” also takes in white ethnics from across the globe- (Jews, Italians, Spaniards, Irish etc) the kind you naively assume to be a “monocultural, nonoethnic” group- They are not..
They certainly failed to deliver those values to people whom subsequent events have shown to be largely incapable of making use of them.
More tripe. In fact the white south has been a notable laggard in implementing and living “classical liberal values.” It not only failed to “deliver” them for blacks, but for whites as well over a long span of southern history.
Sure, Italy is relatively corrupt - compared to, say, Iceland. But it is far less corrupt than Mexico or Haiti, as indeed is every single european nation.
You are missing the point entirely. Mangan’s clain, and yours is multiethnic societies will be divided by patronage and favoritism. Sure. But monoethnic societies are ALSO can be divided by patronage and corruption, like white Italy. The fact that Mexico may be somewhat more corrupt that Italy is a strawman, that does not at all negate the central point, and conveniently avoids addressing it. Both your claim, and Mangan’s is inaccurate.
To which universe exactly are you referring? Germany was a highly monoethnic state prior to WWII
Sure Germany was mostly monoethnic. But amid that monoethnism, it had a substantial minority of Jews and other ethniticies like Slavs. These minorities lived a relatively peaceful life before the seizure of power by racist Nazis. Jews of course were to suffer much more than Poles and others, but the fact remains that they prospered in a Germany of relatively low taxes and RELATIVELY restrained government, before an extreme racist monoethnism took over. Prior to the rise of these racists, Germany was known as a relatively humane, liberal culture in many aspects. See the documentation in Liberalism in Germany by Dieter Langewiesche 2000, a comprehensive scholarly study.
Irnoically the case of Germany actually explodes your claims. You say that classical liberal values will not happen in a multiethnic state. Fine. But your MONOETHNIC Germany did not deliver “classical liberal values” either. In fact it delived a murderous, racist totalitarianism, the very anti-thesis of your touted “classical liberal values.”.
That was not Dennis' point. He pointed out that only Europe and it's decendents created these ideals. Limited government, the rule of law, the rights of man:
You conveniently forget that Mangan claimed these values could not operate in a multiethnic society. The case of America proves him wrong, but the case of some MONOETHNIC white societies also undermines his case. "Europe itself, with very few non-white minorities in place, has ALSO failed to deliver classical liberal values over most of its history."
first of all, Mangan said people will not not be fair to those who are not co-ethnics. I provided counter-examples of that that has been a pattern in my traveling life
ReplyDeleteOn one side of the scale we have your personal anecdotes. On the other side is the accumulated weight of history. Which do you think weighs more heavily?
And whats wrong with "hereditarianism"?
ReplyDeleteOf course some traits are inherited. That is not at issue. What is at issue are other claims- such as the degree some traits are shaped by hereditary or whether shaped by the environment, and whether races in a BIOLOGICAL sense exist. Most scientists say it does not exist in a biological sense. And hereditarianism are in some respects quite like neo-nazis and klansmen. They simply present a more genteel version of racism, clothed in scientific garb, but the bottom line beliefs are the same, Let’s be honest. They too, like more OPEN white racists also need a race enemy to demonize, and they specifically target this enemy in their writings.
Nonsense. We wish to point out the dangerous and criminal behavior of many blacks, and the asonishing degree of indulgence they are granted by a political and media establishment that labors to keep it hidden, and that tells us - in many ways - to sit down, shut up, and take it. We are pissed off at it, fed up with it, and we aren't going to be silently victimized anymore. And we do it because it is very much in our own vital interests to do so.
Actually you wish to paper over and duck the murderous criminal record of many whites, (monoethnic Germans would be one prominent Exhibit), and to demonize blacks. And few credible sources are keeping say crime involving blacks “hidden.” Open any credible textbook. The facts are hardly “hidden.” In sum, those facts contradict the claims both you and Mangan advance as detailed above.
Thailand is a pretty good example as it has assimilated a large and powerful Chinese minority very successfully. There are numerous other contemporary and historical examples of successful mutli-ethnic societies, just as there are numerous contemporary and historical examples of same-race countries torn by faction (Ireland?)
ReplyDeleteI'd be a lot more impressed with your claims to possess deep knowledge of peoples around the world if you did not make such glaring mistakes as this. The Thais and Thai-Chinese are perfectly analogous to the Irish and English.
Actually you wish to paper over and duck the murderous criminal record of many whites, (monoethnic Germans would be one prominent Exhibit), and to demonize blacks
ReplyDeleteYou comment on other blogs as "Too Tall Jones" correct?
And what exactly proves their antebellum attachment to liberal values and limited government
ReplyDeleteAs noted above, scholar Dieter Langewiesche provides much detail but he also notes a strong, concurrent anti-liberalism and authoritarianism embedded in German culture. This again shows that white Europe has often failed to deliver touted “classical values” even when monoethnic, and produced a murderous racist totalitarianism far exceeding anything in world history.
"very worthwhile project of creating a truly race-blind society."
ReplyDeleteDo you actually believe that is what the so-called Civil Rights Movement wanted? If so, that is worse then just not 'sophisticated.' It is pig-ignorant, actually.
It is also always worth mentioning in threads like this that 'racism' is a Marxist word/idea that is less then 100 years old and was first used in print by Leon Trotsky.
Actually Europe also has been a quite prominent provider of high taxes, few property rights and authoritarian government.
ReplyDeleteCompared to what? Asia? Africa? South America? I'd feel infinitely more secure in my property rights and civic freedom even in the worst parts of Europe than I would in, for instance, Zimbabwe. And so, posturing and posing aside, would you. There's a reason why you're living in the European diaspora and not in some other part of the world.
As noted above, scholar Dieter Langewiesche provides much detail but he also notes a strong, concurrent anti-liberalism and authoritarianism embedded in German culture. This again shows that white Europe has often failed to deliver touted “classical values”
ReplyDeleteI suppose that all depends on what you imagine "liberal values" or "classical values" to mean. In the 18th and 19th centuries liberal values were what white haters like yourself would consider "racist" and "oppressive".
Here are the words of the British Colonial Secretary near the end of the 19th century.
"I believe in the British Empire, and I believe in the British race. I believe that the British race is the greatest of governing races that the world has ever seen."
The conflation of "liberal values" with radical anti-white sentiment only took root in the last few decades.
to grasp that the left has replaced the very worthwhile project of creating a truly race-blind society with a revenge project against whites.
ReplyDeleteThe practical distinction between converting a historically white society into a "truly race-blind society" on the one hand and a "revenge project against whites" on the other is in practice a matter of semantics.
If one were to propose that Israel convert itself into a ""truly race-blind society", one which welcomes Jews, Christian, Muslim and Confucian alike and offered them all equal opportunity, Jews would correctly observe that the proposal was anti-Jewish. At a minimum anti-Jewish in practice, and very likely anti-Jewish by design.
You're a Jew, John, correct? Do you support your "race-blind society" project for all the countries of the world? Or is it only America which is to made into the Anti-Nation?
I agree with Mangan's posting about classical liberalism being a product of Anglo-American culture and people. However, there are too many so-called conservatives, even within the MRA/conservative blogger milieu who are not classical liberals at all, and they most certainly part of the problem. Anglo-American culture based on something other than classical liberalism is as worthless as tits on a boar.
ReplyDeleteThe regulars here such as Severn, Rohan Swee, and Martin B have ably answered many of the objections of some of the wordier commentators. There's one point I want to make, however, and that is that the existence of illiberal values in the West in no way invalidates what I wrote, for liberal values have simply failed to show up anywhere else, unless under Western influence.
ReplyDeleteEven in the age of the ancient Greeks, it was recognized that "Oriental" states, such as Persia, were not based on the same values of independent citizens as Western states were. Later came the concept of "Oriental despotism". One can say something similar about the treatment of women in the West, where women have almost always had a much higher status than elsewhere. When feminists complain about the bad deal women allegedly have had in the West, I think the proper answer is, "compared to where?"
However, there are too many so-called conservatives, even within the MRA/conservative blogger milieu who are not classical liberals at all, and they most certainly part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteAnd what is the problem of which these people are a part? The inconsequential problem of white dispossession and eventual extinction? Or the dire issue of insufficient fidelity to an ideological abstraction?
Anglo-American culture based on something other than classical liberalism is as worthless as tits on a boar.
Indeed. As formerly white continents become islands, and these atolls, we should be sure to judge the besieged inhabitants by how classically liberal they are. Failing this, the whole notion of white preservation should be discarded as no more worthwhile than porcine mammaries.
"EightRouteArmy said...
ReplyDeleteWhat makes YOU think I give a damn what you think?"
Suave. Very suave. And allow me to add: neener, neener, neener.
"EightRouteArmy said...
Either way, I don't give a damn what you think.
What makes YOU think I give a damn what you think?
"America has always been a multi-ethnic society."
Horseshit. America was traditionally a white society. Blacks lived here, and had their own parallel society, which had almost no influence on the broader white society, until relatively recently. I'm sure you'll claim pop music as an example of a big influence. It wasn't.
"And “multi-ethnicity” also takes in white ethnics from across the globe- (Jews, Italians, Spaniards, Irish etc)...."
Hey, wait a minute - you said America was a multi-racial society - now your saying multi-ethnic. A bit of a change-up there. Especially given that you don't even believe in the concept of race, as you state late.
"You are missing the point entirely."
No I'm not. There is an enormous difference between Italy and Haiti. Perhaps you are too blinded by racial identity, or just stupidity, to understand that.
"Sure Germany was mostly monoethnic.......“classical liberal values.”."
So here you are saying that Germany was monoethnic and also not monoethnic. That it was a guarantor of liberal values and not a guarantor of liberal values. Do you even realize that you contradicted yourself within the span of two paragraphs?
"You conveniently forget that Mangan claimed these values could not operate in a multiethnic society. The case of America proves him wrong, but the case of some MONOETHNIC white societies also undermines his case."
Nonsense. As America becomes more multiethnic, the classical liberal values of which he spoke are falling away (as for example the routine way the government violates our 4th amendment rights in airports, and increasingly, elsewhere as well).
"EightRouteArmy said...
ReplyDeleteOf course some traits are inherited. That is not at issue. What is at issue are other claims- such as the degree some traits are shaped by hereditary or whether shaped by the environment, and whether races in a BIOLOGICAL sense exist. Most scientists say it does not exist in a biological sense."
Complete crap. Any biologist who is a real scientist believes that races exist in a biological sense. If race does not exist, then neither does the concept of family. You are a liberal creationist.
"Actually you wish to paper over and duck the murderous criminal record of many whites, (monoethnic Germans would be one prominent Exhibit), and to demonize blacks."
No, I don't, and - by the way - are these the monoethnic unliberal Germans whom you originally said were liberal multi-ethnic Germans?
"And few credible sources are keeping say crime involving blacks “hidden.”""
Utter bullshit. Black crime is routinely soft-peddled, while white perpetrated crime is not. You blacks need to be aware of this - We don't give a damn what you think. We are sick and tired of your excuses. We ain't buying them anymore. Are you offended that we notice that you have high crime rates? High illigitimacy rates? Low academic attainment? That you are leaders in every measure of social dysfunction? I don't care if you are offended. F**k you. I will make note of things that are true and act upon the conclusions I draw from them, whether you and yours like it or not.
As I said before, there is nothing in what you state which we have not all heard for the last 40 or 50 years. We have all had it shoved down our throats for the last 40 or 50 years. We don't believe it anymore. We're sick to death of it. Peddle your crap elsewhere.
"kurt9 said...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mangan's posting about classical liberalism being a product of Anglo-American culture and people. However, there are too many so-called conservatives, even within the MRA/conservative blogger milieu who are not classical liberals at all, and they most certainly part of the problem."
Are you aware of what you just wrote? "...there are too many so-called conservatives, .....who are not classical liberals at all,"
So, too many conservatives are insufficiently liberal? Don't presume to define conservatism for the rest of us. It is not your right.
Martin B said:
ReplyDeletecomplete crap. Any biologist who is a real scientist believes that races exist in a biological sense. If race does not exist, then neither does the concept of family. .
In fact most credible scientists do NOT believe in race as a biological category. See for example: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
When you say "real scientist" you mean those who do not follow your racist "biodiversity" approach. And the existence of "families" have nothing to do with "race". In places where only one race lives there ARE families, just as multiethnic places also have "families." Duh..
No, I don't, and - by the way - are these the monoethnic unliberal Germans whom you originally said were liberal multi-ethnic Germans?
I said significant ethnic minorities lived in Germany, (which all know was mostly white northern European) but got along quite well, within a distinct liberal tradition in Germany, until a murderous racism was cultivated and supported enough to enthusiastically unleash the Fuhrer's long desired "final solution". You and Magnan tout so-called "classical liberal values" but in fact white Europe throughout most of its history has failed to deliver such liberal values, as have most monoethnic white societies. The primary reason Germany is a liberal democracy today is because it suffered overwhelming, crushing defeat in WWII.
Utter bullshit. Black crime is routinely soft-peddled, while white perpetrated crime is not. You blacks need to be aware of this Are you offended that we notice that you have high crime rates? High illigitimacy rates? Low academic attainment? That you are leaders in every measure of social dysfunction.
ah haha ahahaha hahahahah.. BS.. Black crime is not routinely "soft pedalled". Open any credible college textbook on sociology and criminology and there is no "soft-pedalling" of black crime. Your real objection is that they do not put your racist spin on every crime stat. But outside your racist cocoon, they list the info candidly, as have government reports for decades. This fantasy "soft pedalling" exists only in your imagination. As for high black crime rates, they are no worse than those logged by people newly urbanizing as the the white Irish in various eras of US history show (Sowell 1981). And white people are the biggest criminal murderers in history as demonstrated by the mass graves and crematoriums of the Shoah.
Black illegitimacy rates prior to the liberal welfare state in the late 1960s were in fact BETTER than those of today's white America, and BETTER that those of lily white "Nordic" nations like Sweden in the post WWII years, and even before in certain areas, and better than that logged by the white Irish when they urbanized.
And whites are leaders themselves on numerous measures of "social dysfunction." On the murder front, whites are way ahead, as the criminal genocide of WWII shows. On abortion, the highest rate of abortion in the world is by white women. Those in Russia kill 2 babies for each live birth (Loveless and Holman 2006). As regards the killing of children, historically Europeans have had much higher rates than Africans - the latest white example is seen by white girl Casey Anthony. Divorce? WHite nations lead there as well. Production and consumption of child pornography? Whites are "role models" there as well as seen in detailed studies by scholars, and US customs seizures. Child Molestation? WHite "role models" rule there as well, with a vast overrepresentation for crimes against children in proportion to those imprisoned for sexual crimes. Homosexuality? White "role models" are pace-setters there too, from the Greeks that embraced and celebrated pederasty and sexual exploitation of children, to homosexual supporters today.
"EightRouteArmy said...
ReplyDeleteIn fact most credible scientists do NOT believe in race as a biological category. See for example: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
When you say "real scientist" you mean those who do not follow your racist "biodiversity"."
When I say "real scientist", I mean "real scientist" - as in biologists. Certainly not anthropologists, who have never really been scientists, and certainly are not now, as they have themselves recently admitted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html
"And the existence of "families" have nothing to do with "race". In places where only one race lives there ARE families, just as multiethnic places also have "families." Duh.."
The existence of families has everything to do with race - a fact you are either ignorant of, or simply too stupid to recognize.
"I said significant ethnic minorities lived in Germany,...."
1/2 - 1% is significant?
"You and Magnan tout so-called "classical liberal values" but in fact white Europe throughout most of its history has failed to deliver such liberal values, as have most monoethnic white societies."
Dennis never said they did - he simply (and correctly) stated that those societies are where liberal ideas arose, and - in his opinion (and mine too) - that is likely the only place where they can prosper. Your not addressing his real argument - you are addessing your fantasy of what his argument was.
"ah haha ahahaha hahahahah.. BS.. Black crime is not routinely "soft pedalled". Open any credible college textbook on sociology and criminology and there is no "soft-pedalling" of black crime."
Who cares what's written in such books? Who reads them? (and by the way, name one, and cite a passage stating that blacks typically commit over half the murders in this country in any given year) I'm talking about the public perception of crime foisted off on the public by the media.
"Divorce? WHite nations lead there as well. Production and consumption of child pornography? Whites are "role models" there as well as seen in detailed studies by scholars, and US customs seizures. Child Molestation? WHite "role models" rule there as well, with a vast overrepresentation for crimes against children in proportion to those imprisoned for sexual crimes. Homosexuality?"
Divorce? How about marriage? Which blacks now seldom even bother with. How about welfare dependency? Black rates of welfare use far exceed those of whites. (And don't bother mention that more whites are on welfare. I know. I also know the difference between a number and a ratio, which you probably don't). And don't bother trying that tired old line about child molestation and rape. The incidence of both among blacks is notoriously high - they're just less inclined to report them as crimes. And prison rape? C'mon. What do you think those brothers do in prison all day?
And a final note to EightRouteArmy (and by the way, you still haven't explained the significance of your screen name):
ReplyDeleteYou really don't come off as very bright. You're certainly not going to convince anyone here, so you might as well just give up. As I've said - we've all seen your line of bullshit numerous times before. Both the apologetic forgive-me-for-being-white kind from self-hating whites as well as the faux-intellectual kind commonly spouted by blacks who brim with unwarranted self-esteem. We see through it.
I'm really not interested in arguing with blacks about YOUR social dysfunctions, which by now are blatantly obvious (Detroit, Birmingham, Memphis, Philadelphia, etc.) or indulging your pathetic attempts to come to grips with your apparent sense of racial inferiority. Those things are your problem, not mine. You deal with them, or not. I don't care. I'm not writing replies to you for your benefit, but for those of other whites who read this blog. And a lot of whites are beginning to realize that the only sensible thing to do is to simply write off your people and their concerns. You're on your own.
Martin B
ReplyDeleteSuave. Very suave. And allow me to add: neener, neener, neener.
Witless buffoon.. you only expose yourself. lmao..
Horseshit. America was traditionally a white society. Blacks lived here, and had their own parallel society, which had almost no influence on the broader white society, until relatively recently. I'm sure you'll claim pop music as an example of a big influence. It wasn't.
Ha ahahahahhaahh BS. The point was not America as a white society but whether a multiracial society in fact fails to deliver classical liberal values. I have shown that monoethnic white societies have for most of their history FAILED to deliver classical liberal values to significant numbers of their citizens. Multiracial ones like America by contrast, have in part actually delivered once racist barriers were removed or reduced. And in fact blacks and whites interacted quite closely in the US south with both influencing the other immensely. This is the consensus of credible historians on the US south. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Hey, wait a minute - you said America was a multi-racial society - now your saying multi-ethnic. A bit of a change-up there. Especially given that you don't even believe in the concept of race, as you state late.
No "change up". You and mangan both earlier used the term interchangeably. But still no matter. The point still holds. When racist barriers were removed or reduced classical liberal values have flourished in many parts of US society.
So here you are saying that Germany was monoethnic and also not monoethnic. That it was a guarantor of liberal values and not a guarantor of liberal values. Do you even realize that you contradicted yourself within the span of two paragraphs?
Actually you are contradicting yoursell. You insisted that monoethnic societies produced these good and great "liberal values." History shows that for the greater part of their existence, they have not. Germany had a small but distinct liberal tradition, but it was swamped by forces opposed to liberal values. Indeed Germany contradicts your claim and that of Magnan. It was primarly a northern EUropean society and failed to produce classical liberal values until very recently, and that only because of curshing military defeat.
As America becomes more multiethnic, the classical liberal values of which he spoke are falling away (as for example the routine way the government violates our 4th amendment rights in airports, and increasingly, elsewhere as well).
America has, with the removal of racist barriers, fulfilled in part the promise of classical liberal values. But HBDers are hypocritical to speak of them falling away. You would have no problem with government violation of rights, if the violations were directed against the race enemies identified by your racist heriditarism theories. And "classical liberal values" are more than limited government and low taxes. They include non-discrimination and equality before the law, and pluralism, something "biodiversity" types claim to want but in fact reject. They approve the Jim Crow laws of the south for example as "good" for blacks. The Pioneer Fund for example, until recent decades, openly supported such laws. They say they embrace "classical" values, but in fact would not implement them if they held power.
"EightRouteArmy said...
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of screen names, Martin B? Very apt indeed- shades of Martin Bormann, vicious confidant and servitor of Adolt Hitler, and one of the racist architects of the Holocaust."
Or - as it happened - I was the second person to post here using the name "Martin", and B is the second letter of the alphabet. But believe what you want - you will anyway - nitwit.
Have a fun time shouting at the wind.
Good God, Severn, no, I am not a Jew. Not that it would make any logical difference if I was. (you do understand that an argument is separate from the person who makes it, right? You get that, right?)
ReplyDeleteNow, as for Israel, sure, the ideal situation is for all societies to be race blind, emphatically including Israel. But the Arabs would have to do it too, not just the Jews (I am talking within Israel).
In order for a truly race-blind society to be created, all sides must do it, not just one side. For only one race to do it is to commit unilateral disarmament. So yes, the situation in America where only whites are encouraged to be race-blind is pretty much the same thing as an anti-white revenge project. That's true.
But if all races were encouraged to drop their racial consciousness, not just whites - what then?
To me, the ONLY objectional thing about the current situation in America in this regard is that only whites are told to be race-blind while not only is everyone else not told that, but rather told the opposite. That's a pretty transparent case of anti-white revenge project.
In THIS scenario, I actually support whites re-developing ethnic consciousness, but it would be stupid to conclude that THIS scenario is either ideal or even necessary. Had the left not wanted revenge against whites, a genuinely race-blind society would be much close now.
"Most scientists say it does not exist in a biological sense."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
"Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. "
" This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. "
Another Lewontin fallacy rehash?
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/714/racesspecies.png/
""Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. ""
yeah, except for the small matter of wars, genocide, slavery, etc.
But if all races were encouraged to drop their racial consciousness, not just whites - what then? - John
ReplyDeleteThis subject is so nuanced, I feel like I am trying to untangle a spider web.
First, all groups are theoretically encouraged to drop their ethnocentrism. But as you've made clear, this "encouragement" only has teeth in the case of mean ol' Whitey.
Which raises the question - do leftists hate whites because whites are too successful, or because the leftists are white? I.e., are white leftists anti-success / pro-failure or are they ethnomasochists? I'll tentatively answer "a little of both". Leftism is inherently based on and in favor of the inversion of civilized values, and as such it is inherently anti-success ("successful" in this case meaning happy, autonomous, healthy, and clear-thinking). So I think leftism provided value inversion, and whites were attracted to it out of ethnomasochism.
If we view ethnicity as an extended family, we can easily see that an obvious middle course between race blindness and ubiquitous ethnocentrism lies in the strict separation of the public and private sectors. Neither ethnic nepotism nor nuclear-family nepotism belongs in the public sphere. Both are perfectly acceptable in the private/civic sphere.
I've suggested a ban on both affirmative action and legacy admissions in taxpayer-supported universities, while simultaneously allowing AA, legacy, and outright bans on such-and-such race ... for any institution that eschews government money. Seems logical enough but I haven't heard anyone take up the cry. Anyway, given that assumptions of objectivity / impartiality whatever are part of countless government processes (judges at criminal trials, civil service examinations, bids for government contracts; I could go on*), I don't see why it is such a stretch to assume that sufficient (not perfect) impartiality is possible. Especially with modern techniques like anonymous law school grading, progressive matrices, and the like, which post-date idea like independent judiciary, civil service meritocracy, etc.
* You know how in America we assume "you can't take the politics out of politics", and thus there is no point in prevent gerrymandering in redistricting? The British assume that you can. Thus, allegations of gerrymandering are pretty rare in the UK. Might want to look into that.
John - But if all races were encouraged to drop their racial consciousness, not just whites - what then?
ReplyDeleteWhy should other races give a crap about whitey's ideals? (Yes, I know that there are multi-ethnic polities here and there that are making a go of de jure colorblindness, but I'm talking about the facts-on-the-ground in the U.S.) I agree that dippy left multi-kult policies have made things worse than they might have been, but there's a strain here of "bwana syndrome" - the belief that what whites think and promote determines every outcome; non-whites are never independent actors.
This is an easy enough illusion to maintain when one group is a solid majority, and other groups have been received in digestible numbers. But at any rate, we're well past the point of "might have been". Our government, educational institutions, and corporations are already corrupted and lousy with group hyper-sensitivity, and it is not within the power of some well-intentioned if slow-on-the-uptake white people to change it by opining that color-blindness is the better path.
In THIS scenario, I actually support whites re-developing ethnic consciousness, but it would be stupid to conclude that THIS scenario is either ideal or even necessary. Had the left not wanted revenge against whites, a genuinely race-blind society would be much close now.
Closer? Maybe. Close? No, because all sorts of other factors are in play - for example, the Mexican government is actively involved in promoting loyalty to Mexico and stirring the racial pot amongst its tens of millions of recent migrants to the U.S. No, because the imprudent immigration policies of recent decades pretty much guaranteed that this and a lot of other factors would come into play. No, because not just the domestic left is harboring "revenge fantasies" against whitey. No, because whitey doesn't get to impose his own ideals of the way it's 'sposed to be on people who may not share them.
As for "stupid", "ideal, "necessary" - well, that's all very nice, but here we are.
I consider classical liberalism to have obsoleted all previous worldviews. I relate to classical liberalism and its derived concepts (libertarianism, transhumanism, etc.). I will not have anything to do with any "illiberal" (Lockean definition) worldviews or their promulgators.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, if you believe in the superiority of white people, then you should want to show that whites are more innovative and more productive than the rest the world. You should therefor want to promote the values of scientific exploration, technological innovation, and productive accomplishment. Yet, I see a sort of reactionary luddite mentality in these MRA/conservative style blogs, which implies the same kind of parasitism and non-productivity that non-whites are accused of.
ReplyDeleteI relate to classical liberalism and its derived concepts (libertarianism, transhumanism, etc.).
ReplyDeleteTo repeat the point which I already made above, "classical liberalism" was close to the polar opposite of libertarianism or transhumanism. By the standards of modern libertarians, the liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries were socially conservative and economically mercantilist.
A notable characteristic of libertarians is that they are ignorant of history. This is why they can make such preposterous claims as e.g that the Founders were proto-libertarians.
as for Israel, sure, the ideal situation is for all societies to be race blind, emphatically including Israel. But the Arabs would have to do it too, not just the Jews
ReplyDeleteI fail to see why that would be the "ideal situation", and you do not elaborate on this rather fundamental point.
The objective of a "race blind" society would be a world where Jew and Muslim and Christian and American and Japanese and Italian and black and white and brown would all be meaningless and unimportant terms. That is a radically leftist objective, in the sense of leveling and wiping out all distinctions.
If you want to try to argue that this New World Order is one we should all embrace, go ahead. But so far you are just asserting it as being good.
no, I am not a Jew.
I mixed you up with a different John then.
yes, the situation in America where only whites are encouraged to be race-blind is pretty much the same thing as an anti-white revenge project.
I'm glad you've seen that. Now if you could only see that "an anti-white revenge project" is all it ever was. It's not a noble project which has been derailed, it's a fundamentally anti-white idea right down to its core. The vast majority of the groups who embrace the idea of America as a "race blind society" are unabashedly racist themselves, and would blow a gasket if you suggested to them that their ancestral homelands needed to be converted into just another random patch of real estate.
The same is true for anti-white white people - they get queasy at the thought of 99% white areas, but they are entirely comfortable with the existence of non-white places.
"kurt9 said...
ReplyDeleteI consider classical liberalism to have obsoleted all previous worldviews."
I dislike any political philosophy which lays claim to historical inevitability, whether it be "scientific socialism" or some kind of messianic classical liberalism.
"I will not have anything to do with any "illiberal" (Lockean definition) worldviews or their promulgators."
I guess you will have to make common cause with "libertarian socialists", or neo-trotskyists, or the Cylons. I am sure they will find you to be very useful. For a while.
Kurt9,
ReplyDeleteWell you’re more humanoid than the Kurt8 model which preceded you, though we’re going to still need to tinker with that Austro-Cyborgian accent in your voice module. Also, when you speak to the white humans about things being “obsoleted,” you don’t want them to realize it’s them to which you refer. Shit, I thought we had this nailed after draping tissue and hair over your exo-skeleton.
Moreover, if you believe in the superiority of white people, then you should want to show that whites are more innovative and more productive than the rest the world
No, no, no you stupid toaster! Cyberdyne Systems didn’t invest billions of dollars for you to get stopped at the gate regurgitating this nonsense. They don’t care about white superiority, they care about white survival. And they haven’t the slightest interest in showing (who, pray tell?) that they are more innovative and productive than the rest of the world. They are interested in a place in this world for their children.
Jesus Christ, you’re talking just like the Kurt5—and that rattling, pulley-driven jalopy got semtexed before it could even get out “Greetings! I come in peace.”
Oh, to Hell with this project. The humans will never let pass one of these robotic rattletraps.
Though that weaselly Silverstein in Section 8 thought that we should instead commandeer their entertainment and news broadcasts in hopes of propagandizing them into voluntary surrender. Right. As if that would ever work either.
Porter: ...though we’re going to still need to tinker with that Austro-Cyborgian accent in your voice module[...etc...]
ReplyDeleteLol. Nicely done, Porter.
The fact is that the lack of social solidarity we see in the US has nothing to do with ethnic differences, but with the fact that each group has been encouraged to maintain a separate social identity rather than melt into one common unit. Now, this tracks according to ethnic lines, yes, thus creating the superficial impression that this phenomenon is caused by ethnic differences - but that is a false attribution error, one of the cognitive biases our minds are so prone to.
ReplyDeleteHeh. What a bunch of semantic bullshit. You want to talk about causation, go ahead. We're talking about the real world.
Diversity correlates inversely with social cohesion. Results schmesults, facts are facts.
I posit that if all our different ethnic groups were told to drop their separate identities and meld into one common unit with cultural and language ties, very soon a new patriotism would grow up that transcended ethnic ties, like it has in the past, when Poles were considered "polar" opposites from Sicilians, yet both became one unit (and those two groups are really MORE different than a Chinese guy and a German guy, who share lots of personality features).
The old multiculturalism (started with Jews, the original minority, then went to White "ethnics") laid the groundwork for the new multiculturalism. So hearkening back to them halcyon days is a loser here. I posit that there is no one to "tell" these groups anything. Please cite some historical examples of the kinds of groups we should model as the kind of group capable of "telling" these groups anything.
I travel a ton, and find the majority of people will be scrupulously fair and honest with me, a complete foreigner and stranger, precisely in situations where it would cost them nothing to be un-fair to me.
Wow. Your anecdotes must equal data!
I was in Thailand recently
That's great, you got decency from a Thai. Was that your whole point?
Nor is this some kind of isolated incident
You're a tourist. You're shocked that people are treating you like a resource? See what happens when you migrate to Thailand with a few million co-ethnics. See what happens when those Thais migrate to Zimbabwe with a few million co-ethnics.
Another good example is when I was in Malaysia
You haven't even presented relevant anecdotes. We're discussing ethnic groups living side by side, and you're discussing your travel log. WTF?
P.S., you either went back to your Malaysian friend's restaurant and spent some money, in which case his investment paid off, or you didn't, in which case he cursed you (and himself for misjudging you) and moved on.
Plus, how do you even have a baseline for cooperativeness? How do you know well-heeled Malay strangers don't get free meals as a matter of course, but only the chosen gwailohs (or whatever the Malay word for "barbarian foreigner" is)? How do you know the Thai lady doesn't consider the rate she charges foreigners a complete ripoff, one she'd never consider charging natives?
ReplyDeleteIn short, your post is ridiculous.
The US was founded on egalitarian principles - "all men are created equal" - but not on socialist principles.
ReplyDeleteRight. I was just pointing this out at Hunter's blog today. Equality before the law and equal outcomes by fiat are mutually exclusive.
K(yle), Thailand is a pretty good example as it has assimilated a large and powerful Chinese minority very successfully.
Translation: the Chinese overlords running Thailand had to change their names to Thai names to avoid a progrom.
Obvious conclusion - same race is no guarantee of social harmony, mixed race no guarantee of social discord.
Obvious conclusion: you're a juvenile, indeed. Let's move past the fact that you're pummeling a straw man - who talks about human behavior in terms of absolutes?
Now, there is a correlation between ethnic divisions and social conflict, but as I explained, the relationship is not causal. Ethnic fault lines are just one way people might divide - there are countless others.
You did no such thing. You offered an alternative, you did not explain that the link isn't causal. And back in the real world, I pointed out that nobody really gives a shit about selectively rigorous leftoid standards vis-a-vis correlation and causation. Not when we're dealing with an obvious sociological truth, and an important, persistent correlation.
It is the mark of a superficial mind to notice a correlation and automatically assume a causal relation.
It is the mark of a leftoid Kool-Aid chugger to selectively inforce rigor only when and where it suits your political agenda.
It's like I argued before about the paleo diet - some guys on paleo lost weight (at least initially) and they think paleo was essential to that result, when in reality they just restricted calories. I see that all the time.
Cause and effect: you're passionately attached to multiculti (probably a wog living in someone else's back yard, or a White nutcase), which causes you to spew nonsense. No diversity, no ethnic tension. Simple, really.
Christ, you, and that 8th Army nut. Can't read any more of this trollery.
Who cares about causation? It's like looking for proof that the fire is going to burn your house down. Put out the fire first, push pencils later.
ReplyDeleteCan we illustrate my logic, John? I'll light you on fire, then we can talk about whether that caused 3rd degree burns over 90% of your body.
low taxes, limited government, property rights and equality of opportunity / greater government control and wealth redistribution in order to create equality of outcome
ReplyDeleteThat is a good description of the left/right rhetoric.
What has changed in the last fifty years is that big government and wealth redistribution are no longer likely to benefit the white lower class. From a white person's left-wing or paleoconservative point of view, the ideal would be to have some redistribution of white wealth to fellow white people, and no redistribution to non-whites.
Also, a strong pro-white government is needed to give whites protection against non-whites. That isn't necessarily the same as an invasive bureaucracy. I think that economic interventionism is also needed to fight against the concentration of people in big cities and the depopulation of large country areas.
@Severn
ReplyDeleteI fail to see why that would be the "ideal situation", and you do not elaborate on this rather fundamental point.
To prefer the company of someone of your own race who is detestable in every way to someone of another race who is wonderful in every way is a sacrifice people were willing to make because in a primitive world it had survival value (and might still today, true) , but to argue that it is an ideal state of affairs is to argue that sacrifice and imperfections are ideal.
So a society based on ethnic solidarity tells me I must associate with and show preference to people who I might very well detest and have little in common with aside from race - now, I might be willing to do this if it has survival value and it's a rough world out there (and in some ways this is still the case today, I recognize).
But obviously, an ideal situation would be one in which I could associate with and show preference only to people who have personal qualities I admire, regardless of what race they belong to.
Now, there is the second point of simple morality, which for all I know might not be so compelling to you, but is to me, and many others - to dis-associate myself from someone who is a fantastic person simply because of his race, and deny him privelages, etc, strikes me as wrong UNLESS we exist in a primitive, rough, world where this kind of thing is NECESSARY for MY survival.
So doing so would be a concession to necessity which often makes a high level of moral behavior impossible.
But to argue that it is morally ideal? That it is practically ideal? That it is ideal from the POV of my own personal selfishness? No.
The objective of a "race blind" society would be a world where Jew and Muslim and Christian and American and Japanese and Italian and black and white and brown would all be meaningless and unimportant terms. That is a radically leftist objective, in the sense of leveling and wiping out all distinctions.
Well, not quite that the terms would be meaningless or unimportant. Not quite that. The terms would still have an obvious meaning and would still be useful in understanding large scale population statistics. The terms would only be meaningless in how you treat people
No, that is what the left claims is their objective. My problem with (this aspect of) the left is that they will take a purpose that many people support and has touches of genuine nobility and use it to justify a revenge project against whites.
What the left is actually seeking to create is PRECISELY NOT an "obliteration of all distinctions between races", but to set up new distinctions with whites at the bottom and everyone pretty much encouraged to think of themselves as distinct and separate.
I'm glad you've seen that. Now if you could only see that "an anti-white revenge project" is all it ever was. It's not a noble project which has been derailed, it's a fundamentally anti-white idea right down to its core.
ReplyDeleteWell, whether or not the project was always anti-white from the start (which I disagree with, although it might have had elements whose primary motivation was that from the beginning, but it had people like myself who were not motivated by that), the idea is certainly not fundamentally anti-white.
The idea is rational and noble - look, I myself might admit it can't be put into practice these days (might), but that would obviously be a concession to a shitty state of affairs, not something to be sanguine about.
The vast majority of the groups who embrace the idea of America as a "race blind society" are unabashedly racist themselves, and would blow a gasket if you suggested to them that their ancestral homelands needed to be converted into just another random patch of real estate.
This is quite true, and is to a very large degree the fault of the left and the elites who never told them they had to become Americans and rather told them they SHOULD cling to "ethnic pride" and solidarity with their own country.
WE never created a situation that pressured them to abandon those ideas, quite the contrary - so naturally they kept the ideas they arrived with. We never pushed them to develop new ones.
The same is true for anti-white white people - they get queasy at the thought of 99% white areas, but they are entirely comfortable with the existence of non-white places.
Right, these whites are hideous, they are true poison. Because of them a truly race-bind society has been pushed back centuries. We had a good shot at it, but hating whites (themselves) was more important to them.
To prefer the company of someone of your own race who is detestable in every way to someone of another race who is wonderful in every way is a sacrifice people were willing to make because in a primitive world it had survival value (and might still today, true) , but to argue that it is an ideal state of affairs is to argue that sacrifice and imperfections are ideal.
ReplyDeleteThat is a false dichotomy. We are not restricted to those two choices, or to the company of only one person. We are not compelled to chose between the company of one person who is of our own ethnic group but is detestable and that of another person is of a different ethnic group but is wonderful.
So a society based on ethnic solidarity tells me I must associate with and show preference to people who I might very well detest
Only if you imagine that 100% of people of your own ethnic group are detestable. Perhaps you do feel that way. But in that case, why don't you simply move abroad and live among the sort of "wonderful" people you like being around?
obviously, an ideal situation would be one in which I could associate with and show preference only to people who have personal qualities I admire, regardless of what race they belong to.
It is not at all obvious to me that the world should be constructed in such a fashion as you would find to be emotionally satisfying. And that, at bottom, is the core of your position. "I want what I want".
If the sort of people you find to be "wonderful" today turn out to be "detestable" on closer inspection, you want the freedom to jettison them and go in search of more "wonderful" people. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum .
No society can be constructed on such a basis.
But to argue that it is morally ideal? That it is practically ideal? That it is ideal from the POV of my own personal selfishness?
I'm gratified that you understand that your entire world view is based on nothing more than your own personal selfishness. Now, if you could only understand that your personal selfishness is a laughably inadequate basis on which to construct any sort of society. Yours is the outlook of a child.
I do not mean that as an ad hom - the biggest part of becoming an adult is learning that very frequently the path to happiness, for us as individuals as well as for the group which we are a part of, lies in setting aside our own selfish whims.
whether or not the project was always anti-white from the start (which I disagree with, although it might have had elements whose primary motivation was that from the beginning, but it had people like myself who were not motivated by that)
ReplyDeleteBut by your own admission your motivation is not based on any principle at all, but on your own passing desires. Your motivation is selfishness. The anti-white crowd at least have some principles, even if they are principles I disagree with. You have none at all. You're just an id, celebrating itself.
there is the second point of simple morality, which for all I know might not be so compelling to you, but is to me, and many others - to dis-associate myself from someone who is a fantastic person simply because of his race, and deny him privelages, etc, strikes me as wrong UNLESS we exist in a primitive, rough, world where this kind of thing is NECESSARY for MY survival.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be suffering from the bizarre misapprehension that this word "morality" means "whatever makes me happy". I have no idea how you came by such a mistaken belief, but I'm here to tell you that you're confused.
Severn: But by your own admission your motivation is not based on any principle at all, but on your own passing desires. Your motivation is selfishness. The anti-white crowd at least have some principles, even if they are principles I disagree with. You have none at all. You're just an id, celebrating itself.
ReplyDeleteand
...you're confused.
I suspect your latter comment hits closer to the truth of the matter. I don't think John is seriously attempting to mount a well-considered defense of deracinated, follow-your-bliss Last Man. Rather, he just isn't making much sense right now, having reached the point of engaging in what I like to call "defensive obtuseness". The give-away is the wielding of the Great Perennial Straw Man implicit in "[t]he terms would only be meaningless in how you treat people". (Why yes dear. This is all about being really shitty and rude to Those Other People. That's what we're here to discuss and debate.)
Something is chipping away at the foundations, which is disturbing, so he's avoiding the point and babbling away about alleged "ideals", and going hammer and tongs at some stupid hypothetical about not being able to have out-group associations. (As if cosmopolites never existed before the rise of "race-neutral" ideologies. As if love of one's own precluded curiosity about, or admiration for, or fruitful exchange and real friendship, with not-one's-own. As if any happy traveler naturally must delight in the prospect of being reduced to a Davosian widget. Whence comes this dim-witted modern notion that only the deracinated and can be "multi-culturally" sophisticated and tolerant? Quite the opposite is true...but I digress...)
Yeah, seen it a hundred times over. Defensive obtuseness manifests in very predictable patterns.
We are not restricted to those two choices, or to the company of only one person. We are not compelled to chose between the company of one person who is of our own ethnic group but is detestable and that of another person is of a different ethnic group but is wonderful.
ReplyDeleteI never said we were so restricted, just that a racist society would make me choose a detestable same-race person over a fantastic different race person, when faced with THAT choice.
Only if you imagine that 100% of people of your own ethnic group are detestable. Perhaps you do feel that way. But in that case, why don't you simply move abroad and live among the sort of "wonderful" people you like being around?
See above. You missed the logical point here. Obviously there are many white people I find fantastic. Point is, in a racist society, in a choice between a great non-white and a horrible white, I will be expected to choose the horrible white. To me, that's hideous.
It is not at all obvious to me that the world should be constructed in such a fashion as you would find to be emotionally satisfying. And that, at bottom, is the core of your position. "I want what I want".
Obviously in one sense everything that everyone wants ever is based on "their desires", if you reduce it far enough, so if that's what you're saying it's trite, but if you're saying that I have given no reasons for wanting what I describe than that's obviously false.
Everyone must give good reasons for why what they want makes sense in terms of human happiness and fulfillment, in ways that apply to the majority of mankind and depend on basic aspects of human nature - I have done so. You might disagree, but so far it seems that it is YOUR positions that is basically "I JUST don't LIKE non-whites".
So basically we are in a situation where I have given reasons based on what I understand to be basic aspects of human nature necessary for happiness to justify my opposition to a race-based society, and you have you have given us nothing but an assertion that you don't wish such a society to come about. Nice. Yet it is *I* who am "merely""saying I want what I want.
I'm gratified that you understand that your entire world view is based on nothing more than your own personal selfishness. Now, if you could only understand that your personal selfishness is a laughably inadequate basis on which to construct any sort of society. Yours is the outlook of a child.
Again, at it's core everyone's world view is based on personal selfishness (what would make you happy). It seems to me that you are trying to conflate this obvious though trite fact with what is more commonly meant when people say that one has a selfish world view - namely that it helps yourself at the EXPENSE of others.
Now, it was quite clearly implicit in the example about myself that this is something all human beings share and will make everyone happy. You seem not to get the idea that one can use a single human being and his reactions as a way to illustrate something basic about human nature as a whole - that's what I was doing, and I thought it was pretty obvious.
Not only that, but I mentioned that I wished to not be unjust to others of another race - yes, quite clearly, a narrow selfishness is at the core of my views. You have an interesting way of twisting things.
the biggest part of becoming an adult is learning that very frequently the path to happiness, for us as individuals as well as for the group which we are a part of, lies in setting aside our own selfish whims.
ReplyDeleteWait, but isn't that just a more refined selfishness??? lol - I suppose now I can twist what you are saying to suit my purposes. But I won't, because it is obvious what you are saying.
But again, I don't understand why you feel the need to mischaracterize my argument like that - I quite clearly explained how my position is based on what I think will make most happy more happy and fulfilled and involve less injustice.
But by your own admission your motivation is not based on any principle at all, but on your own passing desires. Your motivation is selfishness. The anti-white crowd at least have some principles, even if they are principles I disagree with. You have none at all. You're just an id, celebrating itself.
Ummm, no. You just did not understand what I was doing.
You seem to be suffering from the bizarre misapprehension that this word "morality" means "whatever makes me happy". I have no idea how you came by such a mistaken belief, but I'm here to tell you that you're confused.
I have absolutely no idea where you got THAT from, but OK. Whatever makes you happy.
Basically what we are left with is a situation where I have given good reasons based on basic aspects of human nature and happiness, as well as moral considerations, for a non-racist society, and the response I have met with is well, racist societies are good because...well, just because. And to say otherwise is selfish, even if you are trying to increase the sum total of human happiness. And your position is not based on principle, even though I specifically included justice as one principle, and the idea of increasing human happiness as a total is clearly a principle as well. But no matter.
ReplyDeleteCute, gentlemen, but not very impressive. You will have to do better. I suggest you reflect on what I said and see if maybe you can develop a more benevolent and rational world view not based on fear, one that is better for mankind and for your own insignificant selves(heck, we are all insignificant).
The anti-white problems you see are very real and need to be addressed, but not by an atavistic retreat to fear and tribalism and irrationality. Maybe you think such a retreat is the only way out, but that is a false view. There is a larger view out there that takes into account the injustice of what is being done to whites today and the hideousness of much of liberalism/leftism and political correctness yet does not retreat into irrational tribalism as an emotional refuge and an ultimately satisfactory solution
DARE to think outside the box a bit - reject the conclusions of the left and the liberals AND the stupidities of the alt-right. Come up with something GENUINELY new.
"John said...
ReplyDeleteBasically what we are left with is a situation where I have given good reasons based on basic aspects of human nature and happiness, as well as moral considerations, for a non-racist society, and the response I have met with is well, racist societies are good because...well, just because. And to say otherwise is selfish, even if you are trying to increase the sum total of human happiness. And your position is not based on principle, even though I specifically included justice as one principle, and the idea of increasing human happiness as a total is clearly a principle as well. But no matter."
Yeah right. You're a man of reasoned principals, and we're just slavering dogs, howling with fear. How could we not see that?
"Cute, gentlemen, but not very impressive. You will have to do better."
I thought the same thing after your every post, except for the part about being impressive.
"I suggest you reflect on what I said and see if maybe you can develop a more benevolent and rational world view not based on fear, one that is better for mankind and for your own insignificant selves."
I suggest you reflect on some of the things you have read here. Many of us are likely older, smarter, and wiser than you are.
"The anti-white problems you see are very real and need to be addressed, but not by an atavistic retreat to fear and tribalism and irrationality. "
This is a gross mischaracterization of what most of us think. But I suppose it's easier to argue with cardboard cutouts.
Martin, I think most readers here think tribalism is the solution. They just wouldn't call it atavistic (although it objectively is, by definition), fear-based, or irrational.
ReplyDeleteMy parting thought is simply that tribalism does indeed have a certain amount of utility, but it is hardly an ideal for human affairs. Think outside the box a bit and reject tribalism as well as the leftist revenge project against whites. Don't let your position be defined by simplistic opposites. Dare to conceive of complex scenarios that take into account multiple factors.
And don't be afraid to grow intellectually - I have been reading Mangan for about 4 years now, I believe, and he has not once changed his mind or grown intellectually in any way. This is astonishing. Intellectually, I am an utterly different person from 4 years ago. I learned a lot from Mangan and the whole alt-right sphere, but I see now it was merely a stage in my intellectual growth and contains almost as much falsehood as the mainstream bullshit we are all so proud of having escaped from. Game, paleo, tribalism - all of that is in many ways as much bullshit as the mainstream view and contains as much distortion.
They served their purpose for me - they let me see the stupidity of the mainstream. Now I see through the falsehood that they represent and seek answers that reject both positions, while incorporating the insights of each.
@John - STFU. And go gaze at your navel somewhere else.
ReplyDelete"John said...
ReplyDeleteMartin, I think most readers here think tribalism is the solution. They just wouldn't call it atavistic (although it objectively is, by definition), fear-based, or irrational."
This statement suggests that you do not know the definition of the words "objective" and "rational".
"Don't let your position be defined by simplistic opposites. Dare to conceive of complex scenarios that take into account multiple factors."
I have a better grasp of the world as it is than you do. Don't lecture me, youngster.
"Intellectually, I am an utterly different person from 4 years ago."
Then there probably wasn't much of any substance to whatever you believed four years ago, and it would be safe to assume there isn't much of any substance to it now. A man who changes out the entire contents of his mind every four years probably never had much of value in it anyway.
"Now I see through the falsehood that they represent and seek answers that reject both positions, while incorporating the insights of each."
Then go back to your fellow cloud-people and leave us alone. Your insights are of no value.