|
Post by CooCooCachoo on May 13, 2005 6:06:36 GMT -5
Ideologies always fall flat, because they fail to be all encompassing. "Ideology" is really a term meant to prop up a set of cheap ideas, and give them street cred.
Here's some easy holes...
Ok. ...Accepted by whom?? ...Some people don't even accept their own racial identity, and thoroughly resent when other people try to foist one on them. (In fact MOST people resent the stereotypes they have to live with due to their race.)
Protecting? How do you protect something like that? ...With words... ...with a gun? Protecting is a euphemism for advocating extremism and violence.
...Take for example, inter-racial dating. Is this saying you should discourage it? What if I want to pork your sister? ...What if she wants me to give her a big salami sandwich? How are you going to "protect" against that? ...Especially since we're already using protection.
Free from racism? This ideology espouses racism. Encourages people to think in racial terms. What the hell are they talking about?
Free from extremism? The assertions made are a recipe for it.
You can't stop people from thinking in racial terms. ...They do it anyways. But to somehow think that this kind of human behavior should be codified, instead of disparaged, is just ridiculous.
...This is just Nazism with some euphemisms thrown in.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on May 13, 2005 6:14:05 GMT -5
I've always thought that the biggest flaw in such ideology is that it asks people to consciously assert that 'race = nation'. This is a revolutionary concept that is unprecedented in history and people will never accept it, just as they could not accept other revolutionary ideologies...
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on May 13, 2005 6:19:19 GMT -5
I've always thought that the biggest flaw in such ideology is that it asks people to consciously assert that 'race = nation'. This is a revolutionary concept that is unprecedented in history and people will never accept it, just as they could not accept other revolutionary ideologies... Never accept race = nation?? ...That's how people started out. ...That's tribalism, and what people revert back to without a decent government to preserve law and order. That's why these extremist groups like to destabilize governments. ...They want people to revert back.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on May 13, 2005 6:20:25 GMT -5
Never accept race = nation?? ...That's how people started out. ... I didn't say that it's not possible for race to equal nation ; but it's extremely rare that people consciously think of it as such, and work to preserve it as such.
|
|
|
Post by Lusitan on May 13, 2005 6:35:22 GMT -5
Ideologies always fall flat, because they fail to be all encompassing. "Ideology" is really a term meant to prop up a set of cheap ideas, and give them street cred. Here's some easy holes... Ok. ...Accepted by whom?? ...Some people don't even accept their own racial identity, and thoroughly resent when other people try to foist one on them. (In fact MOST people resent the stereotypes they have to live with due to their race.) Protecting? How do you protect something like that? ...With words... ...with a gun? Protecting is a euphemism for advocating extremism and violence. ...Take for example, inter-racial dating. Is this saying you should discourage it? What if I want to pork your sister? ...What if she wants me to give her a big salami sandwich? How are you going to "protect" against that? ...Especially since we're already using protection. Free from racism? This ideology espouses racism. Encourages people to think in racial terms. What the hell are they talking about? Free from extremism? The assertions made are a recipe for it. You can't stop people from thinking in racial terms. ...They do it anyways. But to somehow think that this kind of human behavior should be codified, instead of disparaged, is just ridiculous. ...This is just Nazism with some euphemisms thrown in. "Ok. ...Accepted by whom?? " By society, politicians should not presure science, and should accept what science has proven, instead of promoting the egalitarian dogma. "Protecting? How do you protect something like that?" By creating separe homogeneous living spaces. "Take for example, inter-racial dating. Is this saying you should discourage it?" If someone lives among their one race it would be difficult to have an inerracial relationship. "You can't stop people from thinking in racial terms. ...They do it anyways. But to somehow think that this kind of human behavior should be codified, instead of disparaged, is just ridiculous." Human beings have allways been tribal, racial thinking is natural and there is no reason to supress it, recent studies show that everyone "thinks racialy", some only in a subconscious way. "...This is just Nazism with some euphemisms thrown in." Racism is Racial-Nationalism taken to an extreme, the same way that comunism is egualitarism taken to an extreme, all kinds of extremism lead to violence, but RN is not an extremist ideology.
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on May 13, 2005 15:19:16 GMT -5
I've always thought that the biggest flaw in such ideology is that it asks people to consciously assert that 'race = nation'. This is a revolutionary concept that is unprecedented in history and people will never accept it, just as they could not accept other revolutionary ideologies... I didn't say that it's not possible for race to equal nation ; but it's extremely rare that people consciously think of it as such, and work to preserve it as such. Mel, without getting into all the Freudian ego, superego, id stuff, are you saying that the evolution of nations from small, primitive units to the larger, developed variety naturally and inevitably involves shedding a tribal consciousness? Your post reminds me of Jorge Luis Borges' criticism of the Nazis that they wanted civilized, Greco-Romanized people to become like "red Indians." Never accept race = nation?? ...That's how people started out. ...That's tribalism, and what people revert back to without a decent government to preserve law and order. That's why these extremist groups like to destabilize governments. ...They want people to revert back. Are you saying that to do its proper job preserving law and order, there's a need for the state to control people's ideas and emotions? I hope that you're wrong because otherwise man is nothing more than a dog who can be trained to fetch sticks and avoid defecating on the neighbor's lawn. My opinion is that if an extremist or any other animal can't be caged or domesticated, he deserves to either live free or die.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on May 13, 2005 15:33:09 GMT -5
Mel, without getting into all the Freudian ego, superego, id stuff, are you saying that the evolution of nations from small, primitive units to the larger, developed variety naturally and inevitably involves shedding a tribal consciousness? Your post reminds me of Jorge Luis Borges' criticism of the Nazis that they wanted civilized, Greco-Romanized people to become like "red Indians." Loathe though I am to use such a loaded term, there is some kind of 'self-deception' thing here. People don't want to think of themselves as living only for their genes/race, they always look for something more. To the point that they've come to consider anything else to be tainted with vile racism. My guess is that there is some kind of evolutionarily adaptive reason for this.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 13, 2005 16:05:37 GMT -5
*applauds human2*
Preach it, brutha!
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 13, 2005 17:52:43 GMT -5
I have nothing against nationalism and preserving ones own land,ethnicity and culture(but as long as sanity is involved)..I think that a normal human tendancy that goes back to the beginning of mans's primorial past.In fact i think it shoud be encouraged alot more.
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on May 13, 2005 21:05:48 GMT -5
Are you saying that to do its proper job preserving law and order, there's a need for the state to control people's ideas and emotions? I hope that you're wrong because otherwise man is nothing more than a dog who can be trained to fetch sticks and avoid defecating on the neighbor's lawn. My opinion is that if an extremist or any other animal can't be caged or domesticated, he deserves to either live free or die. Governments protect liberty. Is it human emotion? ...Everything is human emotion. If some dude wants to beat me up, because he doesn't want me dating women of his ethinicity, then I suppose you could say, "yeah, the government is supressing his emotions." Is he a caged animal, if he's not allowed to wage such personal warfare? ...I would have to say he has other problems. Would he thrive in a racially homogenous state? ...I doubt it. (Although he may think so.) The government protects the rights of citizens to do what they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people peacefully pursuing theirs.
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on May 13, 2005 21:12:35 GMT -5
Nothing with a little racial nationalism, but people might take it too far.
I don't like seeing a Somali dating A black, white, asian or whatever, I'd prefer she be with a Somali. Thats just me doesn't mean I am racist, but don't really care thats upto the two people. At the end of the day its not up to me if an aboriginal and siberian marry thats up the two people and God.
|
|