Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Uccisore » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:04 am

Mimisbrunnr wrote:I don't consider myself a "White Nationalist"­® but I have studied it extensively over a number of years as part of my own search.

How do you know that there are people trying to exterminate Whites, but not understand where White Nationalism comes from?


Well, I started this thread and in my first post I explain why I think this present culture is causing the rise of White Nationalism, so actually think I have a pretty good handle on it. White Nationalism has been emboldened by the fact that the left has destroyed the negative association of the term 'racist' for an entire generation of conservatives, and because, as you said, there's a lot of hatred against white people to react to.

From what I understand about white nationalism, the "White" part doesn't denote political system as much as "nationalism", "republic", "communism" does. And of course, what we are talking about is ethno-nationalism. "White" is emphasized because in those circles it is universally understood that whites and white culture and civilization (see: western civilization) are being targeted for extinction/genocide/oppression etc.


If white nationalism just means resisting efforts to bring about the end of Western Civilization, than every good person should be a white nationalist, even non-white people. However, in a case like that, I would think that Christian Nationalism would be even more accurate and better, since many of the things undermining western civilization right now (sexual degeneracy, radical feminism, political correctness) are not anti-white, but they are all anti Christian. I can imagine a Western Civilization that preserves our cultural traditions and history without white people a lot easier than I can imagine such a place without Christianity.

It is simultaneously understood that without whites, that white culture(s)/western civilization cannot continue as it is universally understood that culture comes from race..


The last time I checked, this most certainly is not universally understood. It seems like what's happening here is that the interest is in preserving western civilization, and that is taken to mean 'obviously white people need to run everything or it all goes to shit'. It's that second premise that is the racist one, and certainly not obvious, and needs some sort of really good evidence or argument.

The reason why race is emphasized is because previously white nations (whether implicit or explicitly defined) are being forced to go along with their own extinction.


Well, no. The reason why race is emphasized is because you believe only white people can 'do western civilization' correctly.

White is emphasized because they believe it is the most important part, RIGHT NOW (and overall, because today's reality is the threat of extinction, so it is the most important part). RIGHT NOW whites are targeted for extinction, RIGHT NOW the agenda is in play, RIGHT NOW white birth rates are horrifically low, RIGHT NOW the Marxists are manipulating the world.


Sure, but Marxism is an almost purely white phenomenon. China dabbled in it for a while, but other than that you're looking at Slavs, Germans, Swedes, and Americans. Oh, and Cuba I suppose. I agree with you that white people are being targetted, but that doesn't mean the reasons why are racial. If you're right that race gives rise to culture, and Hispanics were running everything, this would be a conservative, religious, stable, traditional, capitalist society. Ditto with Orthodox Jews. Blacks, I don't know- they were sort of drug kicking and screaming out of the stone age, so it's hard to say what 'black culture' looks like on its own.

It's not to say atheism or catholicism or "whatever-else-you-are" is not important, it's instead to say "wake the fuck up your very existence is threatened and it should be the most important thing to focus on".


No, I don't agree. I would feel more like 'my very existence' was threatened if Christianity was being wiped out, as opposed to race. To be clear, I don't want either of those things to happen and I would fight to prevent them, but just because I am white doesn't mean I am obligated to take threats to whiteness as my #1 concern: for I am many other things as well. I am more concerned about threats to masculinity these days than I am whiteness.

I wonder though, your oversimplification of the issue quoted above and your remarks about some other subjects make me wonder if this is one of those things I spoke to you about in another thread.


Could be. You people change your fucking names every week, I've honestly lost track of who the hell most of you are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Mimisbrunnr » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:40 am

Uccisore wrote:Well, I started this thread and in my first post I explain why I think this present culture is causing the rise of White Nationalism, so actually think I have a pretty good handle on it. White Nationalism has been emboldened by the fact that the left has destroyed the negative association of the term 'racist' for an entire generation of conservatives, and because, as you said, there's a lot of hatred against white people to react to.


I don't think it has as much to do with the left destroying the term 'racist' as you do. That is a much more recent development. It plays a part for sure but it is not the most important part. People are being taught to think or are breaking the brainwashing themselves. I think the left destroying the credibility of crying racist only affects those who were otherwise part of the herd, not the aforementioned. It affected those affected by the "pop-culture" if you will.

If white nationalism just means resisting efforts to bring about the end of Western Civilization, than every good person should be a white nationalist, even non-white people.


Sure, why not? White nationalism does not have to mean you ONLY believe whites are blah blah blah. I don't think you have a good a grasp on it as you think you do, because you are only speaking of stereotyped caricatures. Many white nationalists are perfectly supportive of brown people living in brown nations raising up their own brown "western civilizations", and asians the same and blacks the same and so on and so forth. There is also no reason why some cultures cannot agree on certain things, exchange ideas and culture and technology etc. You are absolutely conflating white nationalism and white supremacy and xenophobia. There doesn't HAVE to be any hate about it. Hate is a symptom.

However, in a case like that, I would think that Christian Nationalism would be even more accurate and better, since many of the things undermining western civilization right now (sexual degeneracy, radical feminism, political correctness) are not anti-white, but they are all anti Christian. I can imagine a Western Civilization that preserves our cultural traditions and history without white people a lot easier than I can imagine such a place without Christianity.

Fine, maybe you are right, perhaps you should start up a Christian Nationalism effort. You could be just like Israel...

However, you are then completely ignoring the efforts to exterminate whites. That is the key item of importance to white nationalists, probably not christian nationalists because they would be universalists so.... non-sequitur.

The last time I checked, this most certainly is not universally understood. It seems like what's happening here is that the interest is in preserving western civilization, and that is taken to mean 'obviously white people need to run everything or it all goes to shit'. It's that second premise that is the racist one, and certainly not obvious, and needs some sort of really good evidence or argument.


This is nothing but either really poor research on your behalf or you're being willfully obtuse or disingenuous. You are also making assertions yourself about racism now. Sorry man, no dice.

Well, no. The reason why race is emphasized is because you believe only white people can 'do western civilization' correctly.


Why are you saying "you believe"?

Do you deny that western civilization is "white" in origin or evolution? Refer to the above. Let all the other races have their own western civilizations if they want and are capable of it. But where were most of them when western civilization came around? And does it matter? From what I can tell by and large white nationalists don't give a flying fuck what another race has or doesn't have. That's the point. Let them fly in rocket cars and eat food pills and work at the sprocket factory.

We could all interact and trade and share with each other without the problems that forced integration has caused. The overarching belief is that we must remain distinct. Haven't you heard their mantra? 'Asia for asians...' blah blah

That is the belief. You are again conflating nationalism with supremacy. You may have had a good grasp on it at one point, but clearly you do not now. Come on, I know better, what's your excuse?

Sure, but Marxism is an almost purely white phenomenon.


If you mean those affected by, murdered by, and all that, yeah you're right. That's only half of the equation. And what difference does that make if you're faced with extinction? You just deflected the whole argument for something that wasn't a reply to what I said by saying "sure, but".

No, I don't agree. I would feel more like 'my very existence' was threatened if Christianity was being wiped out, as opposed to race. To be clear, I don't want either of those things to happen and I would fight to prevent them, but just because I am white doesn't mean I am obligated to take threats to whiteness as my #1 concern: for I am many other things as well. I am more concerned about threats to masculinity these days than I am whiteness.

Nobody is obligating you to do so. You are not a white nationalist, where's the argument? You said "if" as though it wasn't happening, so how can I argue? You say you would fight to prevent them, but obviously it isn't your #1 concern. It is for others. Seeing as you don't really understand it to begin with, it doesn't surprise me that it's not your #1 concern.

Could be. You people change your fucking names every week, I've honestly lost track of who the hell most of you are.


Erm, ok...? :-k
Mimisbrunnr
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:18 am

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Uccisore » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:18 am

Mimisbrunnr wrote:I don't think it has as much to do with the left destroying the term 'racist' as you do. That is a much more recent development. It plays a part for sure but it is not the most important part. People are being taught to think or are breaking the brainwashing themselves. I think the left destroying the credibility of crying racist only affects those who were otherwise part of the herd, not the aforementioned. It affected those affected by the "pop-culture" if you will.


It's not just the pop culture though, it's the education system. The left is even more influential there.

Sure, why not? White nationalism does not have to mean you only believe whites are blah blah blah. I don't think you have a good a grasp on it as you think you do, because you are only speaking of stereotyped caricatures.


Well, considering you just declared that culture rises from race and if black people are in charge western civilization will collapse, I think I do have a handle on it. That's the part I disagree with- the racist part- and it's not like I made you say it. You can't tell me non-white people are incapable of preserving western civiliization in post one, then tell me white nationalism isn't about white supremacy in post 2, and not expect me to see a conflict there.

Fine, maybe you are right, perhaps you should start up a Christian Nationalism effort. You could be just like Israel...


Well, I don't think there's any need to start anything like that; I think that's the soul of American conservatism and most people on the right already live according to something like that, even if they wouldn't use such self-incriminating terms to describe it.

However, you are then completely ignoring the efforts to exterminate whites. That is the key item of importance to white nationalists, probably not christian nationalists because they would be universalists so.... non-sequitur.


I understand that white nationalists are interested in preserving whiteness. My point is that you can't say 'what it's really about is preserving western civilization' because that's not what whiteness is, and whiteness doesn't ensure it. If we end up in some future situation in which we're all a bunch of degenerate heathens estranged from our traditions, our God, and our morals- but hey, at least we're all white- that's not 'preserving western civilization', that's preserving the white race. If you think it's impossible for our culture to backslide into dengeracy if only most of us stay white, then you are a white supremacist.

This is nothing but either really poor research on your behalf or you're being willfully obtuse or disingenuous. You are also making assertions yourself about racism now. Sorry man, no dice.


So are you backing off the claim that non-white people can't maintain western civilization, or are you keeping the claim but expressing your lack of interest in defending it?

Do you deny that western civilization is "white" in origin or evolution?


I guess that would depend on if you're calling Jews white. But yes, since commercial air travel has existed for less than a century, virtually any phenomenon associated with a location will also be associated with a race.

Refer to the above. Let all the other races have their own western civilizations if they want and are capable of it.


White nationalists having the grace to accept what they cannot change has little to do with what they advocate.

But where were most of them when western civilization came around?


Depends on when exactly you mean. If you mean the birth of Christianity, Chinese, Indian, Arabic and some African cultures were just as advanced as we were. If you mean the birth of Greek philosophy, the same thing was true, though the list would change a bit.

That is the belief. You are again conflating nationalism with supremacy.


You keep dropping hints that it should be obvious to me that non-white races are inferior, 'where were they then', 'let them do it if they are able', and then you tell me I'm the one doing the conflating. I'm listening to you, and reacting to what you say, and what you say is that non-white people can't maintain western civilization.


If you mean those affected by, murdered by, and all that, yeah you're right.


I mean it's origins too. It was cooked up by white people, promoted by white people, and experimented with by white people. Unless slavs don't count as white; I am unclear on this.

Nobody is obligating you to do so. You are not a white nationalist, where's the argument? You said "if" as though it wasn't happening, so how can I argue? You say you would fight to prevent them, but obviously it isn't your #1 concern. It is for others. Seeing as you don't really understand it to begin with, it doesn't surprise me that it's not your #1 concern.


Well, sure; if white nationalism is only about preserving a degree of pigmentation, than your right: I don't care about it so much, and people who do are free to and I don't really get it. But you made it sounds like Western Civilization was at stake or something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Mimisbrunnr » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:46 am

Uccisore wrote:It's not just the pop culture though, it's the education system. The left is even more influential there.


Yes I agree, but that's not what I meant. I mean the only people that would be successfully persuaded by the left either positively or negatively solely by the overuse and false accusations and changing definition of the word racist or language manipulation are the weak minded.

Well, considering you just declared that culture rises from race and if black people are in charge western civilization will collapse, I think I do have a handle on it.

No sorry, you misunderstood, or I mis-explained. You would not have the SAME western civilization that we developed. And we haven't even addressed that the integration was forced to begin with. Any adaptation to our western civilization is a result of exposure to that civilization. You said it yourself with (paraphrasing) "blacks being drug out of the stone age". I am not really making the assertion that requires evidence, you want to speak of ideas from the left becoming part of people without them knowing it, you seem to have swallowed the racism thing without realizing just how embedded it is. See the left has this thing, where they invert a default position or common sense and then call the position the assertion and demand evidence for it.

There is no reason other races cannot have their own versions of western civilization but that is would not be the same western civilization. There is no evidence for your argument that it is racist, it is obvious on it's face. You need to provide evidence that culture does not stem from race.

That's the part I disagree with- the racist part- and it's not like I made you say it. You can't tell me non-white people are incapable of preserving western civiliization in post one, then tell me white nationalism isn't about white supremacy in post 2, and not expect me to see a conflict there.


It is NOT their culture, how can you even propose such nonsense? How can you assert that western culture would remain the same? YOU need to provide the evidence. Nothing racist about it.

I understand that white nationalists are interested in preserving whiteness. My point is that you can't say 'what it's really about is preserving western civilization' because that's not what whiteness is, and whiteness doesn't ensure it. If we end up in some future situation in which we're all a bunch of degenerate heathens estranged from our traditions, our God, and our morals- but hey, at least we're all white- that's not 'preserving western civilization', that's preserving the white race. If you think it's impossible for our culture to backslide into dengeracy if only most of us stay white, then you are a white supremacist.


Prove your assertions. You are making religious level statements here lol, and I don't mean about your God statement, I mean your leftist race theory.

And nobody said anything about a culture backsliding one way or another, you are just making shit up now. Being white doesn't ensure anything but our own creations and merit. You again show that you do NOT understand the beliefs behind ancestry.

You clearly don't understand the difference between white nationalism and white supremacy, you've all but said so yourself. Stop trying to claim you do. What sustained effort have you ever put into understanding it?

So are you backing off the claim that non-white people can't maintain western civilization, or are you keeping the claim but expressing your lack of interest in defending it?

You don't get it. Thats what I'm saying. You don't fucking get it. That goes for most of this post.

You keep dropping hints that it should be obvious to me that non-white races are inferior, 'where were they then', 'let them do it if they are able', and then you tell me I'm the one doing the conflating. I'm listening to you, and reacting to what you say, and what you say is that non-white people can't maintain western civilization.

Again, here you are just parroting leftist race theory bullshit. Nobody said inferior, they can do it if they want to do it and they are capable of doing it. If I just said they could do it if they wanted to, that would leave our their ability, their fucking merit Ucci. Why does pointing out anything to do with actual ability mean RACIST? You are guilty of the same thing you are trying to point out to others. You automatically conflated things with supremacy and inferiority in your head because that is what you believe. You have been conditioned for it.

This IS one of those things, where you have hit an emotional, intellectual or religious barrier that you cannot allow yourself to transcend certain paradigms. But you appear to be a christian universalist which partly explains why you don't care about race in the same way and also why you'd be susceptible to leftist race theory.


I mean it's origins too. It was cooked up by white people, promoted by white people, and experimented with by white people. Unless slavs don't count as white; I am unclear on this.


Oh I know the name of this game Ucci. It's the one where in one statement you extol a people for the good things they've done, and then in another statement call them white when they've done something bad.

Well, sure; if white nationalism is only about preserving a degree of pigmentation, than your right: I don't care about it so much, and people who do are free to and I don't really get it. But you made it sounds like Western Civilization was at stake or something.


.... #-o
Mimisbrunnr
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:18 am

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby AutSider » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:19 pm

Uccisore

In this thread, you're reacting to the fact that they call everything they don't like 'racist' by embracing all these things as if they are as equivalent as they'd like you to believe. In that other thread, you're reacting to the fact that they call everything they like "a fundamental human right" by insisting talk of rights are just a word game people play to maintain order


False, I just don't let leftists of any time or place to dictate my morality. I do not deny the existence of racism, racism if understood as 1) the belief in existence of races and relevant differences between races going beyond skin color and 2) the belief that different races should be treated differently based on those differences and preference for my own race. Then yes, I am a racist by all accounts, just like I am a speciesist and I believe there are relevant differences between humans and slugs and that humans and slugs should be treated differently and I prefer humans to slugs.

If you agree with 1 but disagree with 2 then you're letting leftists dictate your morality more than I am. This isn't about doing what leftists want me to do, or not doing what leftists want me to do. This is about ignoring them altogether. If leftists say "these racist white folk will just continue to breed with whites and disregard poor oppressed negro women" then I'm not gonna impregnate a negro woman just to prove how wrong they are, nor would I refuse to impregnate a white woman because it would make leftists right, whatever I did I would do without giving a single shit whether it proves leftists right or wrong, get it?

As long as you actually give a shit what leftists think, YOU are the one who is letting them define YOU in relation to them.

As for human rights, I just said they don't exist outside of human societies, but that they obviously do exist and apply to people within a society.

Spiritual, or ideological, or social, or moral. Sure, obedience to God would be a non-material end, but so is liberty. So the alternative to the left might be spiritual but need not be. What I'm referring to is one of the key facets of socialism; that a society is measured by who has what. That's what socialism exists; because a few people having a lot of wealth and many people having no wealth is a failure-situation regardless of other circumstances, and they try to rectify it to a 'everybody has about the same amount of stuff' which is a victory condition for them, regardless of other circumstances. In other words, if you are evaluating civilization by the criteria of who has the most shit, then you've already ceded a lot of ground to the socialist...and it's not the only place you do so in your ideas.


Anybody can use liberty to promote virtually any system, because it is always a question of liberty of whom to do what, where and when, and then whose liberties we have to restrict for that to be possible. It's just a nonsensical term in and of itself, used for its emotional appeal more than anything else, because everybody can imagine their personal ideal of what liberty means. Kind of like God.

Your first clause doesn't entail the second. A conservative probably does hold liberty, charity, mercy and other things to be equally valuable, and yet acknowledges that some of them have to be sacrificied for the others from time to time anyway. This is known as the tragic view of life, it's key to conservatism. It's just a recognition that society isn't perfectable. Safety is valuable, Freedom is valuable. You can't get enough of one without sacrificing some of the other. Whichever way you go, the sacrifice is still lamentable. Too bad. Recognition of this destroys the idea of society getting better and better to some ultimate utopian point, put forward first I think by Kant.

A socialist (or a libertarian or facist for that matter) will try to pick one of these values, declare that it is THE value, and argue for why the others should always be sacrificed in the name of the one, until the one is maximized at all costs.


The difference between a value I proposed - the survival of a society, and all the others you listed, is that no other value can exist (not in the long term at least) unless a society survives first and foremost.

The fundamental principles aren't the problem, and don't reveal the success or failure of a system, though. Communism is fucking wonderful according to it's fundamental principles: it fails in the limitations of human implementation, and on the meta-level of how people react to finding themselves in a communist state with communist rules to follow and exploit.

There is a similar argument for why free markets are a good thing: because people deciding what they want and how much they are willing to pay for it will always be a more accurate representation of reality than a few big brains deciding how everything ought to be according to a handful of 'fundamental principles'.


Communism is far from wonderful according to its fundamental principles. And free market is far from free.

That's a handy defense mechanism, isn't it? "Most people consider my ideas odious, therefore anybody who disagrees me with me must be reacting to how odious they think my ideas are." You see the same thing out of pedophiles and such. They look for any opportunity to dismiss what you say as a mere reaction to the revolting nature of what they advocate, no matter how salient your points are.


Am I not right though? I am all about cutting things in their root instead of snipping away at tiny little branches. F.e. if there was some button that you could push which would make all negroes in America disappear, America and the white race would be much better off, even though the idea might make you emotionally uncomfortable.

Reproductive success is certainly very important: there's not much point in a political schema that makes everybody happy, but wipes them all out in a generation. On the other hand, there's no much point in a political schema that results in a huge population of miserable, ignorant degenerates that hate their lives and never create or discover anything. "Yeah but at least that horrible society will last and last" I suppose is a point in it's favor, but it's hardly sufficient to give it a thumbs-up.


I see your point, but I also fail to see how it's relevant to our discussion. Also, if a peoples EARN their reproduction I don't even think misery and degeneracy as general traits in a society are possible - misery, ignorance, degeneracy, lack of creativity all seem to be things plaguing societies which reproduce BELOW replacement rates, and to an extent, societies which reproduce above replacement rates but don't actually deserve their reproduction (African negroes who reproduce due to white man's charity and technology imports).

Why a white nationalist, and not just a nationalist?


I explained why already. Because infighting would be damaging to the white race currently, and if we fight amongst each other we may be too weak to fight off another race. And if we are going to lose to somebody, better to lose to another white race than to the Chinese, or negroes, or whatever

Of all the demographics you belong to, to pick your ancestry as the one that needs to be promoted and preserved at all costs isn't a purely objective or clear-cut decision as far as I can tell


But you yourself said that there is a difference between real things (sex and race) and made up, ephemeral things. It's not objective, just a natural tendency for people to do so. Since we know other races will do it then we will do it too.

Sure, the easy answer is "I'm a white nationalist because I'm white and so white people's interests are my interests", but you could replace the word 'white' in that sentence with any number of things.


Not really the same. The more specific the category the bigger the overlap in interest. Yes, I could replace it with "I'm a mammal nationalist (rofl) because I'm a mammal so mammal interests are my interests", but you can see how it's not exactly the same as white, so it DOES matter which category you put there and not all categories (mammal and white) are the same. And the more specific you get the more you are right with regards to overlap in interest.

Yeah, people are absolutely seeking out the end of the white race, they broadcast their intentions on television and the news for all to see. I actually disagree with them, though. I don't merely think they're wiping out the wrong people, I think that seeking to wipe out a race is immoral regardless.


Perhaps, but unless you find a way to keep the populations of all races frozen so that no race begins to outnumber the other, some races will be wiped out anyway. So the question then becomes - do we just blindly let it happen to OUR race because it would, for some perverse reason, be immoral to do something about it, or do we try to prevent it?

I think I asked you this before already, but are you prepared to accept the costs for your morality? Are you prepared to accept that the white race may become a minority and ultimately go extinct as a result of policies you implicitly supported, by not fighting them?

EDIT: Also, the bottom 2 isn't something I'd argue about, just curious

You keep dropping hints that it should be obvious to me that non-white races are inferior, 'where were they then', 'let them do it if they are able', and then you tell me I'm the one doing the conflating. I'm listening to you, and reacting to what you say, and what you say is that non-white people can't maintain western civilization.


Do you believe that Negroes or aborigins or other races with average IQs of 80-85 and below can maintain western civilization?

I can imagine a Western Civilization that preserves our cultural traditions and history without white people a lot easier than I can imagine such a place without Christianity.


Why? What is it that you think Christianity can do that some non-Christian ideology or some other religion cannot?
Image
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:12 pm

A tradition which stops at preservation and does not move beyond it is slowly breaking apart.
We look into the past not merely for looking into the past, for a feeling of nostalgia, an escape from the now and the looming future.
We must look into the past to understand who we are and to apply this and project forward where we want to go.

A conservative loses to a progressive if he has no vision for the future himself. This puts him into a defensive position.
The reality is that culture and values are not separated from a people.

Sure, you can force a minority to move along with your values if you have the vitality and will to do so but they will never become the source of that culture or values themselves. They would be the source of their own culture and values if it were up to themselves.



Most educated Republican voters are classical liberals.
Equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome and all that jazz.
The thing is that equality of opportunity is not in favour of Whites, it's still their downfall. It's better than equality of outcome, but it's not good enough.
Equality of opportunity proposes a view which reduces the society down to individuals and treats them as universal cog material.
This also applies within a race.

Without this individualism philosophy, the growth of the Western Empire (British/American) would never have succeeded. It would have fallen apart.
It's a way of postponing the breaking apart at the cost of man's qualities.
A let's smoothen the edges and become more feminised to huddle together and keep it all together a little longer.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Uccisore » Sat Jan 28, 2017 6:27 pm

AutSider wrote:False, I just don't let leftists of any time or place to dictate my morality.


How do you know that? The mechanism I'm describe is something the left has done for several generations: they make up a lie, then the next generation believes the lie, and makes up their own lie.

So for example, Baby Boomers make up the lie that McCarthy perscuted actors and artists for being communists. Gen X believes this, and then they make up lies about gay genes and how sexual orientation works. Millennials sincerely believe all of the above, and they start making up lies about how gender and race work. It's of course more complex than that, but as the years roll on you can start to pick out the difference between somebody saying something because they believe it, and somebody saying something because it's the current lie that advances an agenda.

So, for example, if you thought McCarthy persecuted actors and artists for being communists, you're believing a leftist lie, and that may be influencing your morality. So the question I'm raising here is, what methods does a person have at their disposal to dig back and expose lies that were taken as truth before they were born? I'm saying those methods are what's opening up people to the far right, racism, and so on.

I do not deny the existence of racism, racism if understood as 1) the belief in existence of races and relevant differences between races going beyond skin color


Right, and that definition is brand new. Racism USED to mean beliefs that people who aren't your race ought to be persecuted, denied political influence, and violently driven out of polite society because they had a corruptive influence if left to their own devices. Blacks and Jews aren't just distinct and different, they are bound to ruin everything if we don't take measures to stop them, says the racist. What you describe above was not 'being racist' prior to 1980 or so, it was just being a human being. Every single person everywhere believed that races existed and there were differences between them going beyond skin color. The idea that noticing differences is 'racism' is a new thing- Gen X's lie to the millennials about how race works, in exactly the method I describe above. So now, if you have common sense or the presence of mind to notice reality, you're a racist. So it's small wonder that people who have told common sense = racism are primed to accept racism under it's older definitions too.

and 2) the belief that different races should be treated differently based on those differences and preference for my own race. Then yes, I am a racist by all accounts, just like I am a speciesist and I believe there are relevant differences between humans and slugs and that humans and slugs should be treated differently and I prefer humans to slugs.


Right. In order to embrace common sense you have to allow yourself to be called a racist, and thus be an outsider like your namesake. That's the mechanism I'm talking about in this thread; in order for a reasonable person to get at the truth after generations of progressive bullshit, that person has to be willing to say "So be it; I guess I'm a racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot/whatever", then. Progressives are forcing people to embrace those terms if they want to be reasonable people, and so it should be surprise if old school racism of the Nazi variety or the KKK variety sees a resurgence.

Anybody can use liberty to promote virtually any system, because it is always a question of liberty of whom to do what, where and when, and then whose liberties we have to restrict for that to be possible. It's just a nonsensical term in and of itself, used for its emotional appeal more than anything else, because everybody can imagine their personal ideal of what liberty means. Kind of like God.


Again, a reaction to liberal rhetoric. I hate to tell you this, but ALL TERMS are nonsense rhetoric used to create an emotional appeal when the person you're talking to is an SJW. Liberty, God, rights, equality, wealth, poverty, race, gender, it's all bullshit, because of Critical Theory which at it's heart is the idea that the purpose of communication is to make people do what you want, not to express truths.

Your first clause doesn't entail the second. A conservative probably does hold liberty, charity, mercy and other things to be equally valuable, and yet acknowledges that some of them have to be sacrificied for the others from time to time anyway. This is known as the tragic view of life, it's key to conservatism. It's just a recognition that society isn't perfectable. Safety is valuable, Freedom is valuable. You can't get enough of one without sacrificing some of the other. Whichever way you go, the sacrifice is still lamentable. Too bad. Recognition of this destroys the idea of society getting better and better to some ultimate utopian point, put forward first I think by Kant.

A socialist (or a libertarian or facist for that matter) will try to pick one of these values, declare that it is THE value, and argue for why the others should always be sacrificed in the name of the one, until the one is maximized at all costs.


The difference between a value I proposed - the survival of a society, and all the others you listed, is that no other value can exist (not in the long term at least) unless a society survives first and foremost.


No house can exist without a foundation, but that doesn't make the foundation the only or most important thing to consider when buying a house. A mansion on an adequate foundation is not inferior to a tar-paper shack on an amazing foundation. And anyway, it's not as rock solid as that because people aren't going to agree what is meant by 'society'. If in 100 years, there is a place called the United States of America that largely has the same values, flag, geography, holidays, and religion as we have now, but 90% of the population is hispanic, did our society survive, or didn't it? Alternatively, if in 100 years this geographic region is called something different, has different values, holidays, morals, but everybody here is still white, did our society survive, or didn't it? If you took a typical person from the 1920's and transported them to modern day U.S.A., showed them what we believe and how we live, would that person say his society has survived, or wouldn't not, do you think?

Communism is far from wonderful according to its fundamental principles. And free market is far from free.


Not much I can do with bald assertions and catch phrases.

Am I not right though? I am all about cutting things in their root instead of snipping away at tiny little branches. F.e. if there was some button that you could push which would make all negroes in America disappear, America and the white race would be much better off, even though the idea might make you emotionally uncomfortable.


You could make the exact same argument about the homeless, the poor, the mentally disabled, the elderly, the unemployed, the Muslims, the atheists, the conservatives, the liberals, or just about any other group at odds with or drawing resources from some other group. If you could push a button and 'dissappear' everybody in America except for me, my immediate family, a couple dozen young women of my selection and a few farmers/soldiers, we happy few would certainly be much better off. It's not about my emotional reactions to your words; that's not really my bag. It's about your principles being arbitrary statements of self interest, and not actually principles.


I see your point, but I also fail to see how it's relevant to our discussion.


I'm saying it's not 12,000 BC: A society's primary concern need not be whether or not it will go extinct. Basic survival is covered.

Also, if a peoples EARN their reproduction I don't even think misery and degeneracy as general traits in a society are possible - misery, ignorance, degeneracy, lack of creativity all seem to be things plaguing societies which reproduce BELOW replacement rates,


I look at Israel, and I look at Muslim nations, and I have to disagree.



I explained why already. Because infighting would be damaging to the white race currently, and if we fight amongst each other we may be too weak to fight off another race. And if we are going to lose to somebody, better to lose to another white race than to the Chinese, or negroes, or whatever.


That doesn't answer the question; you're still operating from the assumption that race should be a person's primary consideration. What I'm asking is, "Why not be a nationalist who is concerned with the U.S.A. continuing to thrive and maintain it's values regardless of what color it's citizens are"?


Since we know other races will do it then we will do it too.


And you say you aren't driven by the left! What is this by a reaction to 200 years of progressives insisting that a person is obligated to vote a certain way because of their race? The DNC does it now- presumes that all black people must vote for them or they are some kind of traitor, but the same thing has been happening in one form or another for generations, and it always comes out of the same camp of people who are trying to perfect society by identifing and eliminating the demographic that can be blamed for everything.

Unless there's a huge political upset in the Western world, we probably will reach a point where white nationalism is the only tenable position: on the present course, the left is going to push and push and push until being a white person is like being a Jew in 1940's Germany. But in such a situation, it will be a self-defense reaction, not a justified ideology. It's still possible to, instead of that deny the premise that one's color needs to define their politics altogether, and reject the progressive strategy of setting demographics at war with each other for their own profit.

Perhaps, but unless you find a way to keep the populations of all races frozen so that no race begins to outnumber the other, some races will be wiped out anyway. So the question then becomes - do we just blindly let it happen to OUR race because it would, for some perverse reason, be immoral to do something about it, or do we try to prevent it?


I don't think you prevent it by endorsing the underlying principle that it's them or us. I think you prevent it by embracing an ideology where black people can be black people and do black things, white people can be white people and do white things, and the people who try to call everything racist are kicked to the curb. For example, immigration is a much, MUCH bigger threat to whiteness going away in America than inter-breeding is; people tend to prefer their own kind if you just leave them alone and don't put social pressure on them to mix, and a strong border makes sense irrespective of racial concerns.


I think I asked you this before already, but are you prepared to accept the costs for your morality? Are you prepared to accept that the white race may become a minority and ultimately go extinct as a result of policies you implicitly supported, by not fighting them?


Of course, I'm conservative: I'm largely convinced we're all fucked no matter what we do. White people going extinct would be a shitty thing to have happen, but there's a million and one shitty possible futures ahead of us. These days I am more concerned about the extinction of masculinity than I am whiteness.

Do you believe that Negroes or aborigins or other races with average IQs of 80-85 and below can maintain western civilization?


I don't believe their IQ's really are that low; I don't think we've had sufficient IQ testing in native black countries to determine that. African Americans seem to have low IQ's, but that's what you get after three generations of nobody knowing who their daddy is, and therefore not knowing if their wife is their half sister. You put white people in a situation like that where they aren't raised by two parents and don't know if they're inbreeding or not, and we'll get dumb as hell too pretty quick.

Why? What is it that you think Christianity can do that some non-Christian ideology or some other religion cannot?


See above. Our values are what allowed us to conquer the western world and what allows us to sustain our conquest of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:29 pm

Uccisore wrote:I hate to tell you this, but ALL TERMS are nonsense rhetoric used to create an emotional appeal when the person you're talking to is an SJW. Liberty, God, rights, equality, wealth, poverty, race, gender, it's all bullshit, because of Critical Theory which at it's heart is the idea that the purpose of communication is to make people do what you want, not to express truths.


I tend to agree with this. Only I link this frame of mind to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. As this in turn is rooted in the distinction I make between encompassing an objective reality able to be demonstrated as true for all of us and in expressing a reality that exists more "in my head".

So, with respect to race, as this relates to a particular political conflict -- busing, voter rights, miscegenation etc. -- please note a distinction between those who embrace the meaning of "race" only in order to further a political agenda and those who are in fact expressing truths.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21548
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Uccisore » Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:04 am

iambiguous wrote:So, with respect to race, as this relates to a particular political conflict -- busing, voter rights, miscegenation etc. -- please note a distinction between those who embrace the meaning of "race" only in order to further a political agenda and those who are in fact expressing truths.


Sure. In the former case you have people who deny that race exists because they think that denial will further a political end they have. Or people who try to re-write or re-present history to make certain racial groups seem more impactful or more villainous than they really were. In the latter case you have a detective team trying to solve a crime by indentifying the race of human remains and tissue samples. Or people developing nutritional programs or menus with the knowledge that non-whites are almost all lactose intolerant in adulthood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13172
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:55 am

Will modern conservatives ever figure out that a post-racial society they've been cucked into believing in will eventually erode the cultural values they hold dear? Doubtful ....

Will communist leftists ever admit that they have nothing but contempt for genuine diversity? Probably not.....
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby CelineK » Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:27 pm

cosmic law of dualism gobbling up the world alive... keep fighting ???

right and left are both LETHAL perceptions

'Regime of tolerance': Radical left on the rise around world, RT story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIT1ulLCa2w
The Laws Of Light, Emotions And Sexuality. http://www.celinek.net The time has come in the history of man's journey from his material jungle to his spiritual mountain top when it is imperative that he must live more and more in the cosmic Light universe of knowing, and less in the electric wave universe of sensing -- Walter Russell.
=============================================================
A Money-Free Society Is Now Reality! The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth and not to fall under the will or legislative authority of man but only have the law of nature (immutable principles) for his rule. Samuel Adams. -- http://www.earthcustodians.net
User avatar
CelineK
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:37 pm
Location: No Man's Land In A Money-Free Wold

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:26 pm

Uccisore wrote:
iambiguous wrote:So, with respect to race, as this relates to a particular political conflict -- busing, voter rights, miscegenation etc. -- please note a distinction between those who embrace the meaning of "race" only in order to further a political agenda and those who are in fact expressing truths.


Sure. In the former case you have people who deny that race exists because they think that denial will further a political end they have. Or people who try to re-write or re-present history to make certain racial groups seem more impactful or more villainous than they really were. In the latter case you have a detective team trying to solve a crime by indentifying the race of human remains and tissue samples. Or people developing nutritional programs or menus with the knowledge that non-whites are almost all lactose intolerant in adulthood.


What I am trying to discern though is the manner in which you or AutSider construe the meaning of "race" as this relates to an issue that resonates more among us as a political conflict.

Busing, for example.

Given the historical reality of very separate and very unequal educational opportunities among blacks and whites [here in America] how would the factor of race be applicable in making a distinction between a political narrative and a frame of mind that encompasses the objective truth.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21548
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby AutSider » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:15 pm

Uccisore

Right. In order to embrace common sense you have to allow yourself to be called a racist, and thus be an outsider like your namesake. That's the mechanism I'm talking about in this thread; in order for a reasonable person to get at the truth after generations of progressive bullshit, that person has to be willing to say "So be it; I guess I'm a racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot/whatever", then. Progressives are forcing people to embrace those terms if they want to be reasonable people, and so it should be surprise if old school racism of the Nazi variety or the KKK variety sees a resurgence.


You mean it shouldn't be a surprise? The problem you describe seems to be not that progressives are manipualting morality so much, but that they try to do so using language, which ultimately backfires on them.

Kind of reminds me of what feminists are doing. They take terms which signifies something generally regarded as extremely bad from a certain viewpoint (racism/rape and accusations of being racist/rapist) and which evokes strong emotional disapproval in many people. Racism here means, as you said, to literally believe that some/all other races should be completely killed, and rape being a person having sexual intercourse with another person without consent. Then under these terms (racism/rape, racist/rapist accusations) they try to include many other things which can be regarded either as a little bit bad or not bad at all, such as simply recognizing the existence of races or catcalling, and they try to get people to have the same response of automatic emotional disapproval to these things too by using the same accusatory term (racist/rapist) for these minor things as they would for extreme things (actual rape and racism). What they end up achieving is the opposite and instead of being able to push little offenses as being big offenses by using the term used to denote big offenses to also include little offenses, now they've completely corrupted the term for big offenses by including little offenses in it too, effectively reducing the strength of emotional disapproval previously connected to the term for big offenses, which yes, paves the way for the resurgence of real big offenses.

It's what happens when people forget that language is a tool for communicating about reality, and that you cannot use language to manipulate reality because language is based on and dependent on reality.

Besides, one can then be almost thankful to progressives - they've successfully removed the stigma around the word "racist" with their desensitization and now people are more likely to explore the term fully.

Again, a reaction to liberal rhetoric. I hate to tell you this, but ALL TERMS are nonsense rhetoric used to create an emotional appeal when the person you're talking to is an SJW. Liberty, God, rights, equality, wealth, poverty, race, gender, it's all bullshit, because of Critical Theory which at it's heart is the idea that the purpose of communication is to make people do what you want, not to express truths.


My problem with your usage of the word is that you used the word "liberty" and I know you had in your mind a very particular, American kind of liberty, as if it was the liberty, the only type of liberty to exist, which it is not.

No house can exist without a foundation, but that doesn't make the foundation the only or most important thing to consider when buying a house. A mansion on an adequate foundation is not inferior to a tar-paper shack on an amazing foundation. And anyway, it's not as rock solid as that because people aren't going to agree what is meant by 'society'. If in 100 years, there is a place called the United States of America that largely has the same values, flag, geography, holidays, and religion as we have now, but 90% of the population is hispanic, did our society survive, or didn't it? Alternatively, if in 100 years this geographic region is called something different, has different values, holidays, morals, but everybody here is still white, did our society survive, or didn't it? If you took a typical person from the 1920's and transported them to modern day U.S.A., showed them what we believe and how we live, would that person say his society has survived, or wouldn't not, do you think?


Except that analogy fails because survival here doesn't mean the same as a foundation in a house, it means the same as EXISTENCE. So you aren't comparing a mansion on an adequate foundation to X, you're comparing a NON EXISTENT mansion, or a mansion which falls apart (ceases to exist) and kills everybody in it in the process. That is my point - some things get filtered out of existence by natural selection, and unless we want to fall prey to it, we better pay attention to the processes of natural selection to learn how to deal with them, to learn which things to avoid so that we can survive. Hippies, f.e. just cannot exist in the long-term - they can only exist until they run out of other people's money/until other people stop providing for them. Their way of life is non-sustainable in and of itself.

A society is based on genes of a peoples and memes produced by these peoples interacting with a particular environment - blood and soil. Blood (genes) and soil (environment, territory) resulting in particular memes.

Since memes (culture) are produced by particular types of genes (peoples), it is impossible for the same memes to survive if genes are replaced - likewise, it is impossible that genes produce and accept any type of memes.

Your text is based on the (false) assumption that there is no connection between genes and memes so that
1) any memes can survive with any genes
(If in 100 years, there is a place called the United States of America that largely has the same values, flag, geography, holidays, and religion as we have now, but 90% of the population is hispanic, did our society survive, or didn't it?)

and
2) that any genes can produce any memes
(Alternatively, if in 100 years this geographic region is called something different, has different values, holidays, morals, but everybody here is still white, did our society survive, or didn't it?)
,

Black people might become Christian and adopt memes produced by whites, but they do not preserve them as they are, instead they modify them to be more suited to their own genes (biology of their peoples) - look at black church service:

Remind you of anything?



You can take the negro out of Africa...

Not much I can do with bald assertions and catch phrases.


One of the fundamental principles of communism is the lack of social hierarchy, aka, non-existence of social classes. This is impossible because reality and nature are all about hierarchy. The destruction of hierarchies would necessitate the destruction of all life, which is far from wonderful I think.

As for free market, I'm not even gonna start there because that could be an entire separate conversation. The word "free" itself has so much bullshit attached to it, especially when used in such a context.

You could make the exact same argument about the homeless, the poor, the mentally disabled, the elderly, the unemployed, the Muslims, the atheists, the conservatives, the liberals, or just about any other group at odds with or drawing resources from some other group. If you could push a button and 'dissappear' everybody in America except for me, my immediate family, a couple dozen young women of my selection and a few farmers/soldiers, we happy few would certainly be much better off. It's not about my emotional reactions to your words; that's not really my bag. It's about your principles being arbitrary statements of self interest, and not actually principles.


If you push it to the extreme, yes, but I am not advocating for that. It seems to me that to you it is a matter of absolute either/or - either I must advocate for principles which result in destruction of my own kind (liberalism/cuckservatism) or I must advocate for the other end of the extreme, where nobody but me and a select few can live. To me it is a matter of degree and seeking balance after setting certain boundaries. Just recently watched a video giving one (among many) reasons it wouldn't benefit us to "make disappear" everybody but a few people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rk2hPrEnk8


All principles are based on self-interest, and all principles ultimately end up benefitting one side more than the other. Even the self-destructive principles of white liberals are based on self-interest, in that they hate themselves so much that they don't mind to see themselves and everybody who is like them, extinct.

But hey, don't listen to me. Whites used to be 90%+ majority in America. Now they are 60-70% and going down, slowly. Couple of decades more and true equality will be achieved. And then you'll begin melting in the melting pot.



I'm saying it's not 12,000 BC: A society's primary concern need not be whether or not it will go extinct. Basic survival is covered.


NO. Basic survival is never covered. Life is perpetual war and struggle. One must ALWAYS remain vigilant. In your country our race is reducing in number as we speak, and you tell me basic survival is covered?

That doesn't answer the question; you're still operating from the assumption that race should be a person's primary consideration. What I'm asking is, "Why not be a nationalist who is concerned with the U.S.A. continuing to thrive and maintain it's values regardless of what color it's citizens are"?


Because race is not only about skin color and because it is impossible for any country to thrive if it consists mainly of negroes, aborigines, and races of similar average IQ. Because race is a RELEVANT category which cannot be dismissed and ignored.

And you say you aren't driven by the left!


If one wants to survive one must adapt to the tactics of their enemy to an extent, pretending the enemy doesn't exist and is no threat is useless.

But in such a situation, it will be a self-defense reaction, not a justified ideology.


Lol. So only after whites are, what, less than 10% of population (AKA, WHEN IT IS TOO LATE) they can begin to think about self-defense, and even then it is not a "justified ideology", whatever the fuck that means?

I think you prevent it by embracing an ideology where black people can be black people and do black things, white people can be white people and do white things, and the people who try to call everything racist are kicked to the curb.


And one of the things both black and white people do is wage war based on tribal identifications - this war was waged even between groups with very minute differences such as Serbs and Croatians, and the hostilities exist to this day (as a Croatian I can testify to this myself). Of course there will be conflict between groups such as whites and blacks where group differences are MUCH more pronounced, especially when one group (whites) doesn't in any relevant way benefit from existing in the same society as the other group (blacks), and the blacks would benefit existing as parasites in a white society, so there is great risk they will be subversive and adopt a gibs-me-dat mindset, which is precisely what they do.

Of course, I'm conservative: I'm largely convinced we're all fucked no matter what we do. White people going extinct would be a shitty thing to have happen, but there's a million and one shitty possible futures ahead of us. These days I am more concerned about the extinction of masculinity than I am whiteness.


But you're also a Christian, so don't you think we all end up in paradise anyway so it doesn't really matter if we are fucked in this life here of 50-100 years when we'll enjoy paradise for an eternity? Well not we, obviously I as a filthy atheist will be sent to hell to burn for an eternity, I mean you and other proper Christians.

Masculinity cannot go extinct. If a society becomes too emasculated, it is usually just conquered by another, more masculine society, all other factors equal. So masculinity in general cannot go extinct, although particular types of masculinity of certain groups of course die with those groups.

I don't believe their IQ's really are that low; I don't think we've had sufficient IQ testing in native black countries to determine that. African Americans seem to have low IQ's, but that's what you get after three generations of nobody knowing who their daddy is, and therefore not knowing if their wife is their half sister. You put white people in a situation like that where they aren't raised by two parents and don't know if they're inbreeding or not, and we'll get dumb as hell too pretty quick.


In a situation like what? What caused that situation? What came first, biological organisms or human cultures? Did biological organisms precede human cultures, or was it the other way around? Are human cultures based on the biology of organisms constructing that culture, or does the culture exist first, somehow?

Note, I am not saying that culture doesn't influence organisms at all, I think they both affect each other, but I also think that organisms construct cultures and so they determine culture more than culture determines them.

I don't think it's a coincidence at all that areas generally populated by blacks are shitty places to live, and I can't lie to myself and pretend it is all about "culture", which seems almost like a superstitious excuse.

See above. Our values are what allowed us to conquer the western world and what allows us to sustain our conquest of it.


Values such as what?

EDIT: added a video in tab and the paragraph about foundations.
Last edited by AutSider on Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:45 pm

First they came for the best.
They agitated those below the best and turned them against their betters.
I was too slavish, so I cheered, too complacent to care as well.

Then they came for the good.
And I was again too slavish and secretly also a coward.

Then they came for the mediocre and their video games and monkey sportsball.
And here we are now.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:51 pm

"Why doesn't the left believe in the fake, disarming morality that I bought from them! It's not fair! They're so unequal & intolerant!"

Hmm..
This sentiment is a transition phase and this time there is only forward because the sheltered space is dwindling in size.

It's confusing when you can't let go of the false god of equality.

These notions of equality are a kind of self-imposed oppression.
It's like with friendship, friendship only works well for both parties if they are on somewhat equal footing to begin with.
Otherwise their relationship is better being something else, better for both, something other than friendship.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Xunzian » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:30 am

Please tell me you aren't a gamergater Ucci. I have way too much respect for you and you are much too good for that.
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10437
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:21 pm

Is_Yde_opN wrote:"Why doesn't the left believe in the fake, disarming morality that I bought from them! It's not fair! They're so unequal & intolerant!"

Hmm..
This sentiment is a transition phase and this time there is only forward because the sheltered space is dwindling in size.

It's confusing when you can't let go of the false god of equality.

These notions of equality are a kind of self-imposed oppression.
It's like with friendship, friendship only works well for both parties if they are on somewhat equal footing to begin with.
Otherwise their relationship is better being something else, better for both, something other than friendship.


Thanks for this. Some nights I have guilt trips about the fella's in my 'park who want to be my friend, I feel guilty for not giving them enough attention, but maybe this is just for the best. We wouldn't have much to talk about anyway.
the seer
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 8023
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:24 pm

I doubt whites IQ lowers for not knowing who their father is. Luke Skywalker seemed pretty bright to me.
the seer
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 8023
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Xunzian » Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:03 am

Having taken the time to re-read your OP, I have to ask: What is a real hate crime?

Hanging a black man in effigy?

Well, that's just Halloween.

A fraternity song using a racial slur?

Well, they probably got that from rap music.

It becomes a game of "Schroedinger's racist" which anti-life racists love to advocate.

On the other hand, if you call out every single aspect of racism, every microaggression, well, that is just too much.

And it is. Or at least can be and often ends up being when it's an angry 18 year old saying it.

But it's all about the better angels of our nature and what kind of person you want to be.

You don't find that in the alt-right. You find stunted man-children.

When I was a dumb as fuck punkrock kid we'd all go and punch each other. Some of us were punks and some of us were Nazis. But we were all very angry.

This is, I'm told, not normal. And I grew out of it. But not everybody does and the people who don't are damaged goods. But the rightwingers tended to make it more of a lifestyle thing, still do from what I can see. That isn't a good look.

How can we help you clean your house? I'd kill for a Republican Party as wrong and as disagreeable but also a smart as you.
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10437
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:16 pm

Image

This is something which Ms. Piggy is probably thinking about when she mentions taking responsibility.

But this is only half the picture.
Let's suppose you are not high on equality, in other words, not a coward who is afraid of becoming the fifth wheel in a society or group.
Because that is why you cry for it.
Then you will eventually see that not everybody can nor should be made part of a society.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby AutSider » Thu Mar 02, 2017 3:45 pm

I really got to start reading Evola. The magic and mysticism in his thought turns me off, but that text was spot on.
Image
User avatar
AutSider
Truth seeker
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby omar » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:46 am

Ciao Ucci,

I think it is too late to get back to the other tread, so I figured I would join you in this one.

I've spent a lot of time observing GamerGate over the past couple years, and whatever you may think of them, one thing that can be said for certain is that many of them are people in transition- the classic GamerGate story is of a person who used to be one way, but then their eyes were opened, and now they are another way. From my perspective, what you're seeing is liberals becoming conservative, as tends to happen at a certain age.


You don't think that this has more to do with the impact of globalism and automation on the opportunities these gamers and others used to have? I don't believe that in general age brings about a political view. I think that people can be given and led through certain narratives, given a language that create new ways of viewing the world they inhabit. This goes both ways, from the creation of terms like "microaggression" by an academia dominated by psychology-babble to the "alternative facts" being created as we speak.

I've also noticed an interesting dichotomy of thought. Your new, anti-politically correct young conservative will react with scoffing and mockery if they hear the terms "Islamophobe" or "Transphobe" more often than not. But in my experience, the majority of them take the term "homophobia" deadly serious- they see it as a real thing that is a real concern that people are afflicted with, and not as a way to merely shut down conversation like the previous two terms. I'm 40, so to me the connection is obvious- all three terms arose in the exact same way for the exact same purpose. But then again, I wasn't 10 years old when homophobia became a term, either. Telling an adult something is fundamentally different from telling a child something- I think these new conservatives are at an age where the term 'homophobia' and the ideological assumptions became simply a part of their being; when they first started thinking critically, they had already been hearing these terms and internalizing them for years and years. So what seems like an obvious contradiction to me is the most natural thing in the world to somebody 15 years younger than me. And of course the same will be true in the next generation if something doesn't radically change: In 15 years or so, the conservatives/libertarians being forged right now by Trump movements and GamerGate and such will be faced with the next generation taking it for granted that there are 31 genders, while at the same time calling themselves 'alt-right' because they oppose pedophilia or Sharia Law. If you try to explain to them the parallels between transphobia (which they believe in) and pedophobia (which they scoff at), they will simply look at you like you're insane, downvote you, and move on.


So let me see if I understand your meaning here-- "homophobia" is held as a serious offense because it was received and internalized in a way the other terms could not? If so, very interesting. I think that, as you argued previously, this may also have to do with the arbitrarity of these terms. "Homophobia" had a moment when it was the accepted and academic way of describing something that was recognized over time. "Transphobe" is just not a thing for me when you have the perfectly understandable "homophobia". It used to be the "LGBT" community, now it is the "LGBTQ" without so much as a discussion about the "Q"--but you can lose your job over it, that's for damn sure.

And all these people, myself included, think they are thinking for themselves. And they are, to a point. Now that they are adults, when some new SJW idea comes out, they have the ability to consider it, discuss it with each other like adults, and reject it. But they didn't have that ability when they were 10 years old, and increasingly it seems to me that the things we learned when we were that age go unchallenged throughout our lives. So we can reject the advance of the SJW agenda, but rolling it back is another thing entirely.


I think you give to much credit to human reason here. I think that these terms often come as accusations and so they point a finger either at you or from you and so one is prone to defend the terms on much more than just the facts, especially since the facts are often hypotheses about other minds. If it was a mere consideration, discussion, then the result should not always be a rejection of the SJW idea. But the discussion is ties to a self-identity and so, sure, rejection (and rationalization of that rejection) is the normal course.

But of course, the natural thing to think about next is what about my own upbringing? Are there ideas that are simply a part of my intellectual constitution, planted there by progressive teachers shaping me to their agenda, that I don't have any easy way to challenge? The SJW hegemony of academia has been going on since at least the 70's, after all. Well, if I see this effect in others (and I certainly do) I would be a fool to think I am exempt. But how do I challenge assumptions that were ingrained before I knew what an 'assumption' was, or that there was any value to be had in 'challenging' them- especially when these assumptions were a part of a systematic attempt to engineer my entire generation?


That does sound quite liberal. I believed it was Freudians that believed in having a psychologist for themselves. There is a similar ingredient in your quest for self-examination which is the assumption that the mind can be laid bare, its contents identified and categorized as X, Y, and Z, and rightfully, in my opinion, you place this as a question, as a problem.

First of all, I don't even know what to look for until some oldster tells me. Secondly, whatever it is, I'm sure is considered now to be the worst sort of bigotry, and I would feel bad for even saying out loud what it is I'm thinking about. Any website I go to will be roundly rejected by the civilized world as being 'hatespace' or whatever. So I'll be peddling up a steep hill to challenge myself, when if I decide to adopt the current accepted progressive wisdom, all I have to do is coast. In this way, the left is not only anti-intellectual, it attempts to destroy the ability of other people to think.


But wait a second Ucci-- Is there really that much distance between you and a SJW? You should be able to defend a site wrongly described as "hatespace" to most people, even if not to the SJW. But just as the SJW stands at one end of the equation, surely you recognize that there really might be some sites rightfully described as "hatespace", fringe movements of people without any self-awareness, or desire for self-examination (as problematic as that itself might be). Bill Maher is a liberal-- doesn't mean that he could not agree with you about P.C. bullshit.

The only answer I have is that I have to dig back before myself- I have to consult sources older than me. Talking to individuals helps, but as I said, I'm 40 now, and people an entire generation younger than me are already starting to die off. So obviously I need to look at books from the past; what were people saying about society not only before the mainstream has shifted, but before the current concerns of the mainstream were even concerns? What did intellectual society look like when it was full of people that didn't even know the definition of marriage or the existence of race was worth thinking about? This ability to 'look back' is one of the main benefits of tradition. Without a good millennia or two of intellectual tradition to sift through, you are completely beholden to whatever agenda this generation of progressive tinkerers wanted you to think when you were 9. And of course this is why everywhere the progressive is in control, tradition is condemned: The Constitution means whatever today's needs tell you it means. We need to break away from 'old dead white guys' in politics and philosophy, and spend more (all?) of our time studying thinkers that don't go back any further than the middle of the 20th century. Literature is re-written or condemned as racist, everywhere man is estranged from their intellectual inheritance.


Reinterpreted maybe. But what is man made of? Literature? Maybe you and I are different on this sort. I wasn't an avid reader in school. I read to get a grade, not because I enjoyed it. I believe that YouTube would be a better tool to find the origins of our current national controversies. The Mighty Roman Catholic Church was mighty because it controlled information. The creation of television and the internet, and cable tv, increased exponentially the levels of information one would be exposed to. In pushing the envelope, niches where created where once there had been a meta-narrative. Once, romances described as "fairy tale romance", meaning that printed narratives informed, or suggested ways to interpret one's life events (the romance). Today others interpret their particular life as gay adopting again available narratives (Ellen, Modern Family, etc).
I served in the military during the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, and it was controversial because it changed nothing, leaving the alternative life-style in the shadows. Today LGBTQ defenders equal their struggle with civil rights-- this in the short span of 25 years. There was no discussion, deliberation, controversy-- one day it simply became a norm in some circles creating automatic enemies in others. I believe that the Supreme Court has avoided being a final authority on many issues and thus the Nation cannot move on to a new universal status quo. We are left "divided".

We are told these days that white nationalism and misogyny are making a come back. I don't know if that's true- it could always be more propaganda, but taking it at face value for a moment, I think there's an explanation to be had in the above. White Nationalism is a road back. Whatever else proponents of such are, they are an example of a consistent voice that has been saying the same thing for a very long time, and they obviously don't change what they say to align with the generational demands of the progressives. So when one is looking for true intellectualism, it makes sense that some people would look there. The other major road back is religion. Religion is certainly better than white nationalism when done right, but the problem with religion is that it's far more demanding on the receiver. It makes sense that some white males might take a road back that tells them they are superior to other people while at the same time not asking them to better themselves like a religion might.


I agree and that is what is worrisome. Civil rights, as envisioned by MLKJr were about meritocratic values, consistent with the Constitution's value that "all men are created equal". White Nationalism, to be clear, is not always about racism but also about racialism. But that narrative that tells young white males that they are better by virtue of accident rather than merit is dangerous because it could lead to a decline in in self-improvement, instead promoting a sense of entitlement that without merit, would only be satisfied by other means.

Now, for an old thinker like me, the situation looks like this: Nazi-ism was a horrible, vile thing. Because it was a horrible, vile thing, progressives naturally began to associate everything they didn't like with it as part of a political ploy. But it is almost impossible for a young thinker to see that. To a young thinker, Nazis, Christians, men, white people, Christopher Columbus are all just things condemned in the same way by the same people. As a conservative, it's frustrating to try to explain to a younger conservative or libertarian what's so bad about things like Nazi's: you find yourself saying the exact same things in the exact same ways as a leftist professor talking about, say, immigration reform or voter ID cards. In other words, if they've already rejected the "Yeah yeah, everything you don't want me to hear is sexist and racist" trick of the left, you'll sound like 'just another one of them' to the new conservative. This is how progressives destroy language when they destroy tradition.


I don't fully agree. One can say Nazism is horrible-- doesn't mean that you are a defender of human rights (Arendt), or that you don't support, in turn, something as horrible and vile like Communism (Sartre), even while serving as part of the progressives genealogy. I believe that too many times people are consuming information rather than learning proper critical thinking. What is historical fact is replaced by an idea of it that bears little resemblance in order to maintain the name without any reference to what it used to mean. Achilles' ship, except that the refurbished ship is now a little boat. Ben Carson has compared slavery with Obama care and recently to immigration. What will be next? I take it from all of this that for him slavery is the worst thing he can think of, and I get that, but he has made many mistakes because slavery DOES have a meaning that is contrary to some of his political points imbedded in the comparisons. Very often there is no tradition. We are more worried about kids being taught about evolution than about slavery. But again this goes back to the SJW situation and how certain things cannot be viewed objectively because they cause psychological discomfort because an invisible finger is pointed at you just as it is pointed at others. When (if) the time comes that the sons of former slaves sit together with the sons of former slavers at the table of brotherhood it will be because they have found a greater narrative that defines and unites them (like "american") rather than because they forgot their history

This is typically the part where a writer would propose a solution, but I honestly don't think there is one. Once a society is estranged from history, tradition, and the useful impact of language, they are intellectual newborns with nothing to fall back on. By creating a generation who is used to hearing "nazi" casually used to refer to any Republican or Tory, and for whom "hate crime" means 'dressing up as a mariachi band for Halloween', the left has made it inevitable that real racism, real hate, real evil will be experimented with again so society can re-learn the difference between the reality and the talking points.


I disagree in that you are placing a phenomenon that you have traced all the way back to the 1970's squarely under the responsibility (and authority?) of one side of the political spectrum. Really? I don't think that a phenomenon as old can be reduced to the activity of progressives or the media, especially since the GOP today is more different today than the Democrats in the 1970's. Just because some are being called "nazis" does not mean that they are victims. What else is going on? I wish, seriously, that people would study Hitler, and WW2, more so that they could better discuss what constitutes or why something is not, nazi. Just to use that example.
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:21 pm

Ucciscore wrote:So, for example, if you thought McCarthy persecuted actors and artists for being communists, you're believing a leftist lie, and that may be influencing your morality. So the question I'm raising here is, what methods does a person have at their disposal to dig back and expose lies that were taken as truth before they were born? I'm saying those methods are what's opening up people to the far right, racism, and so on.


Someone, some man, might have grown up believing that women are usually the ones who are mistreated by men. And he also thinks that he is special, a good guy, compared to other men. The thing is, he is not special, he is just one dope among many who bought into this idea that women are generally mistreated by men, that that's the issue, the worthwhile concern for society at large. Most other men think the same way he does because they all have been taught to think that way. That man is also taught that many men don't think the way he does, that he is indeed special for being one of the good guys.

Same thing with racism, I am one of the good white boys who is not a racist, I'm sensitive to their issues and all that.
You gotta give people something to redeem themselves.
First you tell them they or their kind have this original sin and then you give them a way how to redeem themselves. That's the behaviour which is then deemed virtuous.

So why does the muh racism s(h)tick not work anymore, except among those liars who are gaining from it in some way or form?
1)Because there are no ways to redeem yourself anymore for most white boys. So no carrot anymore.
2)The hypocrisy has become increasingly obvious - You can't sell yourself as the poor victim very well if you commit too many hate crimes yourself, even if the media tries to hide it and play it down. (see rise of social media and fake news hysteria)
3)Spreading of diversity to formerly homogeneous white communities who actually believed the lies about racial equality because they had not enough real personal experience with it themselves.

People don't buy into the muh racism shtick anymore because it doesn't work for them anymore.
Same with something like feminism. Even women are increasingly turning their back on it because it doesn't work for them anymore.
It's like with a pyramid scheme, there comes a time where there are more losers than winners in it and then it loses its appeal for newcomers.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Alf » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:58 pm

I can mostly agree with that. This all works via media. There is still a huge interest in feminism (comparable with all kinds of socialism). If feminism get's lost, a certain power get's lost too, albeit this power is not and has never been a female power. 8)
Alf
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Generation, Tradition, and the rise of the Far Right

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:56 pm

Truth is, purporters of equality don't bring about a world of equality.
Not that that would be a worthwhile ideal anyway but the world is not even moving towards it.

It's just that they try to hamper and destroy those who they have been taught to hate, which is their betters. And frankly a lot of those betters are found among the Europeans. That, and it's the better Europeans who they are exposed to. They are those who remind them daily of their feelings of inferiority.

We could say that all this equality screaming is going to bring about a world with more acid attacks (I'll spare you the pictures), more child molestations and so on....
But, we should also not forget that it's Europeans who brought about the abomination of the shitlib. And if you put that on the scales... Well, I guess we still have to go with promoting Europeans and their proliferation. Hey, it's not perfect and we need a different eugenics program, counter to what brought forth the shitlib but it's still better than the other options. The word is, superior.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blurry