|
|
Post by Melnorme on Oct 12, 2005 13:06:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Pepe friend of obelix on Oct 12, 2005 14:13:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 12, 2005 14:26:19 GMT -5
Jared Taylor,Kemp,Black ect..dont like their breed,their deceivers,hypocrites,Fabricators and around degenerates...more mixed than last weeks sewage.
|
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Oct 12, 2005 16:55:28 GMT -5
It all comes down to this: in a multiracial society, does a dwindling dominant majority join ethnic identity politics, or does it cling to good old fashioned politics, i.e.: do you pander to social classes or to ethnic groups? Auster favours traditional politics; Taylor (white) identity politics; Sailer just gives up on politics and the whole affair, because he´s got to make a living as a respectable journalist!  As to my opinion: I believe that whatever you do, democracy is doomed in a multi-racial society. Some more links, from the rowdy boys at Majorityrights: majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1570/majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1571/ |
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 12, 2005 17:33:27 GMT -5
"As the mordant scientist Gregory Cochran has pointed out, if the French were out to get us, they would have told us to occupy Iraq."
|
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Oct 13, 2005 1:51:43 GMT -5
The truth is that Sailer and Auster can't see to eye, because to Sailer, 'race-consciousness' is purely an expression of the sociological effects of extended families, tightly knit kinship networks, etc. ( with Arab tribes as the extreme archetype ).
For Auster it's something spiritual and 'transcendent' that can be learned, through cultural transmission.
|
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Oct 13, 2005 11:23:24 GMT -5
It all comes down to this: in a multiracial society, does a dwindling dominant majority join ethnic identity politics, or does it cling to good old fashioned politics, i.e.: do you pander to social classes or to ethnic groups? Auster favours traditional politics; Taylor (white) identity politics; Sailer just gives up on politics and the whole affair, because he´s got to make a living as a respectable journalist! As to my opinion: I believe that whatever you do, democracy is doomed in a multi-racial society. Some more links, from the rowdy boys at Majorityrights: majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1570/majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1571/...Well said. That's the crux of the debate. How viable is Political Correctness/Adamantly Ignoring race in a society that is multi-racial. The purveyors of PC are mainly Whites who live in areas where they are the overwhelming majority. I'm a little more optomistic than you on how well a multi-racial culture can survive. (As long as it has a common language.) I'll admit that racism is subtle and pernicious. It erodes trust. But I wouldn't discount society's ability to deal with it. In fact, I would cautiously say that the societies who most successfully curb racism, and race-centric politics are the societies that benefit from a a culture where people are judged by their merits. ...This attracts a very desirable type of immigrant, and furthers a culture based on achievement, rather than ethnic identity. It's a perplexing problem for Whites though, as we have been raised to believe it is best to just ignore race, when that is simply not always a luxury one can afford. |
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Oct 15, 2005 7:32:11 GMT -5
...Well said. That's the crux of the debate. How viable is Political Correctness/Adamantly Ignoring race in a society that is multi-racial. The purveyors of PC are mainly Whites who live in areas where they are the overwhelming majority. Yes, PC and affirmative action are low cost strategies for these wealthy whites who can afford to live far from minority groups. Throwing other whites to the dogs, so to speak, by their very actions. I don´t share your optimism! Yes, societes can deal with being multiracial and multicultural: my point is that democracy is not part of the response to the problem. Such societies end up like Brazil or Mexico, that is, heavily stratified in classes. I disagree: if you resort to citizenism and denial of group interests (the Sailer strategy), you surrender to the more pushy, ethnocentric inmigrants you´re waving in. Having been raised in a mono-racial society, I´m not sure what the best attitude is. In any case, a mild ethnocentrism is healthy. |
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Oct 17, 2005 22:12:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Oct 18, 2005 8:10:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Oct 18, 2005 9:12:05 GMT -5
Try again later(?)
|
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Oct 18, 2005 9:42:53 GMT -5
The problem is the conflict between two myths: the myth of race (not meaning race do not exist, but meaning the false belief that one has some ties with members of his race, such that what is good for them is also good for him) and the myth of Nation (same as above, just substitute race with citizenship). Those two myths in classic nation states (eg: 1900 France) used to reinforce each other, in multicultural states they clash. White americans are almost above both myths (hypercivilised; not as much as us Europeans though, who are disturbed by their habit of displaying flags all around) but more pending to the citizenship one (obviously the more advanced, or better the more progressive of the two). Thus they get screwed by the fellow citizens who are more on the primitive race myth. Sailer's appeal to citizenism, being entirely based on rational considerations, is doomed, as myths requires images, music, rites and evocative words that help the believers feel good, not sharp reasoning and irony. The rightful concern of the so called paleocons is that the State will force the "nation myth" on the citizens to crush the centripete forces of "race myth". The perpetual war against terrorism looks scarily as something that goes in this direction. Bottom line, the USA look screwed in the long run, Europe can still save itself it shuts the door to immigrants; a safe bet is having your children study Japanese |
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Oct 18, 2005 9:53:13 GMT -5
The rightful concern of the so called paleocons is that the State will force the "nation myth" on the citizens to crush the centripete forces of "race myth". My own ( more positive ) view of nationhood notwithstanding, that's quite a profound observation. You should make an essay out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Oct 18, 2005 10:54:58 GMT -5
Gee, thanks Melnorme. However I think I borrowed the concept from the writings of the late Sam Francis, arguably the #1 ideologue of paleocons with Buchanam. Btw the conflict among the two myths always existed in the USA, here's a WWII American propaganda poster:  I remember also there was a poster with Black, White and Jew fighting togheter, (of course Jew was written under the image, otherways you wouldn't have been able to detect him as such), but couldn't find it on the net. |
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Oct 18, 2005 16:28:26 GMT -5
What about social classes? Where did that myth go, Nock? Do you believe that the individual is the only reality?  |
|
