|
Post by nockwasright on Oct 19, 2005 9:48:39 GMT -5
Alright. Let´s say 5000 years, does that make more sense, human2? I´m sure Nock would be delighted to share an ancestor with you. You´re terribly progressive, after all! LOL! I already feel much more connected to Dodonites than to Italians, so that wouldn't change my personal myths of affiliation
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 19, 2005 11:42:16 GMT -5
Alright. Let's say 5000 years, does that make more sense, human2? I'm sure Nock would be delighted to share an ancestor with you. You're terribly progressive, after all! LOL! Time really doesn't matter, does it? If 500 men and women left Africa 50,000 years ago and then split up, it's not gonna neatly divide up. All Eurasians are descended from M and N from the maternal side. One Chinaman might be descended from M. Another one might be descended from N, just like a "negritid", just like an Italian. My point is that ... what makes you Europeans any different than anyone else? And when did I say I was "terribly progressive"? Would it make you less sarcastic if I said I was just a stereotypical Chinaman?
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Oct 19, 2005 12:41:21 GMT -5
We're prettier and most of the population is stupid enough for that to be defined as a valid parameter to stablish a race (?) supremacy. So you loose
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 19, 2005 12:45:52 GMT -5
We're prettier and most of the population is stupid enough for that to be defined as a valid parameter to stablish a race (?) supremacy. So you loose But there is no "we"... It's not gonna help me if the girl's cousin is pretty but not her. It goes back to the point about how people identify with the group to feel better about themselves. It's also the psychology of many nationalist-racialist types, in my humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Oct 19, 2005 12:48:58 GMT -5
It's only a joke. No need to analyze it.
I was actually mocking ratial nationalism.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 19, 2005 12:52:53 GMT -5
It's only a joke. No need to analyze it. I was actually mocking ratial nationalism. Do I sound like I've unleashed the dog on you?
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Oct 19, 2005 12:55:08 GMT -5
Sounded a little defensive. Maybe it was just me. Never mind then.
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Oct 20, 2005 1:51:36 GMT -5
I find this fear of Mexicans in the american right absolutely hilarious. This guys are basically racists, they really think, we shouldnt let mexicans in, because these short brown guys from the south are inherently inferior (they have underwent less selection than ourselves, have lower iqs, will turn our country into a third world shithole and all the bell curve stuff) + they dont even speak english nor look up to protestant anglo saxon culture. Obviously they cant say this openly without looking like racists, I find this debate to be quite dishonest. Anyway, I think they are fighting a lost fight. ...Couldn't be further from the truth. I think it has more to do with the refusal to integrate, and the unchecked competition for certain kinds of jobs. While some immigrants help create jobs, (Like Scientiest, and I.T. professionals who keep industries centered here) Mezo-Americans are more of the variety that fill jobs, and then send their earnings elsewhere and don't even spend them locally. Illegal immigration is far from being a racial issue. In fact one complaint is that it creates a too homogenous underclass, which in turn squeezes other minorities out of "Hispanic Dominated" industries. "Bi-Lingual required/prefered" is a euphemism for "we only hire Hispanics for this job". And Hispanic managers frequently use bi-lingualism as a lame excuse to have preferential hiring of Hispanics. ...So there's racism on their part.
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Oct 20, 2005 4:32:25 GMT -5
I already feel much more connected to Dodonites than to Italians, so that wouldn't change my personal myths of affiliation Imagine a nation of Dodonites... Imagine all the classifications... I wonder if you ca-a-n...
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Oct 20, 2005 5:59:17 GMT -5
But there is no "we"... It's not gonna help me if the girl's cousin is pretty but not her. That's exactly the point I wanted to make.
|
|
|
Post by Pepe friend of obelix on Oct 26, 2005 11:22:01 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/Democracy is not Doomed.America need to invest in ITS own country and its own people. Rich Getting Richer, Paying Less Taxes An Internal Revenue Service report simply verified what we already know: it's good to be rich. And it's even better to be very rich. We learn from the IRS that the portion of income headed to the upper one-tenth of 1 percent of those who pay taxes jumped two years ago as the percentage reaching 99 percent of the country dropped. Those at the elite level are also paying less in taxes, as their effective income tax rates dropped considerably. The top 10th of 1 percent contributed about 23.6 percent of income in taxes, down from about 27 percent in 2002. By comparison, tax rates dropped by three-tenths of a percent or less for the bottom 80 percent. Incomes increased 2.7 percent overall in 2003 compared with 2002, according to the IRS. But one-fourth of the boost found its way to the upper 10th of 1 percent. This group is made up of 129,000 taxpayers with at least $1.3 million in income. Incomes were up by less than 2 percent, a level below the inflation rate of 2.3 percent, for the bottom 99 percent. Perhaps the most interesting statistic coming from the IRS is the fact that the upper 10th-of-a-percent generated greater income two years ago than the lowest one-third of taxpayers. By Glenn J. Kalinoski, Executive Editor, Customer Inter@ction Solutions
|
|
|
Post by Pepe friend of obelix on Oct 26, 2005 11:24:39 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 America is not doomed.Not because of immigrants.Nock are you not Italian?
|
|
|
Post by Pepe friend of obelix on Oct 26, 2005 11:31:17 GMT -5
The future of legal immigration is the real issue here though... Exactly. You can stop illegal inmigration just by applying the law. To prevent any inmigration at all, you need a counter-policy. No you cant stop illegal immigration by law.We have laws now but they do not work.. Why is it that America seems to have no concern with South America which impacts America but has a concern with places across the sea (isreal/europe) no im not an anti semite no im not anti european but wouldnt it be commen sense to take a much greater interest on the Americas?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Oct 26, 2005 11:34:44 GMT -5
America is not doomed.Not because of immigrants.Nock are you not Italian? Because of immigrants, and of the increasing force of the racial identification myth and the counter myth of state identification, hence loosing the values that made it the USA. However there was some theatre about my saying saying doomed, as nobody really can predict the future. I'm Italian. Not that this means anything.
|
|
|
Post by Pepe friend of obelix on Oct 26, 2005 11:39:01 GMT -5
But the feeling is there, buried in our nature. We identify more with our countrymen because we are ultimately more related to them, through ties of blood, than to any random Chinese. We speak the smae language, eat the same food, share similar values and have recent common ancestors. (If you go back 10000 years, Nock, you probably share at least one ancestor with any random Italian, which is not the case with a Chinaman). In a sense, it´s like marriage: you don´t need the Church to tell you you want to bed Margueritta, but you need a extra push to make it to the altar. I do not deny I'm more "similar" to a random Italian than a random Chinese. I deny there is a rational reason to feel also something for someone because of his being more related to me by common ancestry and common usages. As for marriage, its quite a more ancient and more natural concept than Nation or Race, that involve such a number of person and facts past and present that only a very structured society can keep record of them and recognize their existence. I agree (marriage) it's part nature part culture, though. @educate Me: I don't see the difference, under this point of view, in being inherently worse or just worse here and now. Mexico is Mexico because of the Mexicans (here and now, not inherently) and USA because of the Americans. Those Mexicans who go to the States implicitly recognise they prefer USA to Mexico. As Mexico is made what it is by them, importing them is like changing a little bit USA into Mexico. Then it's bad even for the immigrants scheme of values. They are inferior (lower IQ, lower level of civilisation) now and they are coming now. Opposition to immigration on the grounds that immigrants are on the whole worse than the residing population does not imply racism. Mexicans inferior? Lower iq? Parts of Italy are just as worse as Mexico and what about the Italian goverment today? past 50 years how many goverments has italy had?what about the italian immigrants who came to America? who brought over the Mafia? I hope that stings what i said about Italy, obvouisly i dont mean it but using your own words on your "own" people should make you know what you say in my opinion is down right crazy.
|
|