National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

Double wank and shit chips
CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#421

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:20 am

It was more of a general post rather than a specific dig. Also, pretty hilarious.


Keating
.
.
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#423

Post by Keating » Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:19 pm

No one gives a shit about China literally genociding Muslims within their borders.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#424

Post by Brive1987 » Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:27 pm

I missed the chortling here yesterday.

The horseshoe theory misses fundamental differences by focusing on superficial correlation.

Using guns to kill your enemy is a pretty basic point of equivalence. While it defines each instance as terroristic, it then provides little more in clarity.

It says nothing qualitative of the underlying ideologies and makes no quantative comment. The difference between religious movements entering non traditional territory and then waging jihad on the inhabitants is fundamentally different to broken individuals spat out of meme culture. In the same way the outlying middle class rapist does little to inform a conversation on popular masculinity.

I’ll be more concerned when mass killers become a required subset of the hitherti lawful nationalist conversation.

Watch the first 1:14 min (ie the intro) - this is how you come across.


free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10269
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#425

Post by free thoughtpolice » Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:47 pm

The Great Replacement. White genocide. After all, if these savages are invading your country and taking it over including culture why wouldn't stop just snivelling about it and act on your beliefs? The blond Aussie angel dindu nuffin.
He was forced into doing it because of lefties and supporters of immigration.
Senotor Brive assaults a youngster: I thought you were better than that :(
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/aus ... index.html
You have to agree. The muslims had it coming.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#426

Post by Brive1987 » Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:56 pm

Is this another FTP nuclear joke?

You appear to “skating in the thin ice of modern life”.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#428

Post by Brive1987 » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:07 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:26 am
Down the rabbit hole.
The man who was attacked was driven to the hospital but was not treated for his injuries as he was combative with staff.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#429

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:14 pm

Brive1987 wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:26 am
Down the rabbit hole.
The man who was attacked was driven to the hospital but was not treated for his injuries as he was combative with staff.
Which does not diminish the attack.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#430

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:20 pm

Keating wrote: No one gives a shit about China literally genociding Muslims within their borders.
It's been mentioned several times here, but isn't getting the press it deserves because of the outsized influence of Chinese money. It's not that no one gives a shit. For the record,it's very wrong.

Quick point-Chinese people aren't the repressive government of China. Surprisingly, they're individuals with individual views as to life. People, contrary to identitarian views, are remarkably diverse in their viewpoints.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#431

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:22 pm

Brive1987 wrote: I missed the chortling here yesterday.

The horseshoe theory misses fundamental differences by focusing on superficial correlation.

Using guns to kill your enemy is a pretty basic point of equivalence. While it defines each instance as terroristic, it then provides little more in clarity.

It says nothing qualitative of the underlying ideologies and makes no quantative comment. The difference between religious movements entering non traditional territory and then waging jihad on the inhabitants is fundamentally different to broken individuals spat out of meme culture. In the same way the outlying middle class rapist does little to inform a conversation on popular masculinity.

I’ll be more concerned when mass killers become a required subset of the hitherti lawful nationalist conversation.

Watch the first 1:14 min (ie the intro) - this is how you come across.

Sigh. I still can't tell if it's deliberate.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10563
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#432

Post by Kirbmarc » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:37 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: It's been mentioned several times here, but isn't getting the press it deserves because of the outsized influence of Chinese money. It's not that no one gives a shit. For the record, it's very wrong.
Yes. Compare and contrast with the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, which actually got quite a lot of press (largely because of the political role of Bangladesh in the area). Also China has a lot of influence on the so-called "Organization of Islamic Cooperation", thanks to the deals that the Chinese made with the Saudis and Pakistan.

Add to that the Uyghur aren't Arabs or Persian or Desi (from the Indian subcontinent), they're a Turkic ethnicity which is culturally and even slightly religiously detached from the Big Muslim Powers, and so nobody in the "muslim world" gives a crap. The idea that "there's no racism/there are no racial divisions in islam" is dumb as hell, no matter how many gullible "westerners" (even right-wing people like Sargon) have come to believe it.

Actually more than a few people in Turkey do give a crap, if only because of the commonality of the Turkic origin of the Uyghur, but Erdogan, the self-appointed Mighty Lion of Islam, isn't in the mood to upset the Chinese Dragon and so becomes a meek lamb, because like all self-declared "defenders of culture and tradition" he's actually just an opportunist who is using ethno-nationalist and religious conservative ideas to stay in power and rewards himself and his cronies.

"Islamic cooperation" is a joke anyway, it's a largely Saudi catchphrase for their geopolitical plans (like supporting Pakistan in exchange for political access to a nuclear power) and to whine to get their approved imams in positions of power, no less hypocritical than the idea that invading Iraq was done to "expand democracy".

Secular human rights organizations and a few "western" political leaders have made more noises about the Uyghur persecutions (the former because of their principles, the latter to criticize the Chinese government) than the Qatari propaganda rag Al-Jazeera or the various "muslim charities" which get so upset if anyone "insults islam". Also the SocJus largely ignores the issue because there are no white people to blame.

But the fact that the Chinese regime is setting up camps to force the Uyghurs to give up their culture, and in general persecuting them, is no excuse to gloss over the problems with the ideas of ethno-nationalism.

If we stop criticizing bad ideas and the influences of those ideas on bad behavior because there are authoritarian regimes doing worse things we end up excusing everything. On this board we've spent countless hours pointing out the flaws of the SocJus and the consequences of their bad ideas, and the SocJus haven't even caused anyone to go on a rampage and kill dozens of people yet.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10563
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#433

Post by Kirbmarc » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:48 pm

Brive1987 wrote: I missed the chortling here yesterday.

The horseshoe theory misses fundamental differences by focusing on superficial correlation.

Using guns to kill your enemy is a pretty basic point of equivalence. While it defines each instance as terroristic, it then provides little more in clarity.

It says nothing qualitative of the underlying ideologies and makes no quantitative comment. The difference between religious movements entering non traditional territory and then waging jihad on the inhabitants is fundamentally different to broken individuals spat out of meme culture. In the same way the outlying middle class rapist does little to inform a conversation on popular masculinity.

I’ll be more concerned when mass killers become a required subset of the hitherto lawful nationalist conversation.
It's true that islamic terrorism has far more international political support, networks of radicalization, systems of indoctrination, and religious justifications than the rampaging alt-right terrorists.

But it's also true that the issue of bad ideas leading people to bad behavior is something we can't gloss over or simply deflect to whataboutery, especially since we have rightly pointed out when bad SocJus ideas lead to bad behavior (the Bike Lock teacher, the "punch a Nazi" crowd).

And the issue here is whether it's productive or healthy to drum up narratives of an impending apocalyptic doom due to "replacement", as people from Lauren Southern to Black Pigeon, from Faith Goldy to Martin Sellner, from Brittany Pettibone to Owen Benjamin, have repeatedly done. The title of the manifesto of the alt-right terrorist in Christchurch was "The Great Replacement", that should at the very least give those involved in peddling the "replacement" ideas some pause.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10563
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#434

Post by Kirbmarc » Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:03 am

Being charitable and assuming that the "replacement" people are honest actors concerned by issues that come with immigration who are only using hyperbolic language to move the Overton window, they should at the very least realize that their narrative of doom due to "replacement" is making some people insane and willing to act to strike against the "invaders", and possibly dial it down, and explore alternatives.

If they are grifters and only care about attention and money, they probably won't care that much, and will only superficially distance themselves from the Christchurch terrorists while carrying on the same shtick, and claim persecution if there's institutional blowback.

And if they're true believers in the more extreme forms of what they say, they'll likely double down, while doing the bare minimum to try to avoid what might get them in trouble.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#435

Post by Brive1987 » Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:23 am

Kirbmarc wrote: Being charitable and assuming that the "replacement" people are honest actors concerned by issues that come with immigration who are only using hyperbolic language to move the Overton window, they should at the very least realize that their narrative of doom due to "replacement" is making some people insane and willing to act to strike against the "invaders", and possibly dial it down, and explore alternatives.

If they are grifters and only care about attention and money, they probably won't care that much, and will only superficially distance themselves from the Christchurch terrorists while carrying on the same shtick, and claim persecution if there's institutional blowback.

And if they're true believers in the more extreme forms of what they say, they'll likely double down, while doing the bare minimum to try to avoid what might get them in trouble.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.
You could always inform yourself on their current POV.



Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#436

Post by Brive1987 » Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:32 am

I’m personally finding it hard placing this joker on the ideological spectrum.

It’s like he gathered all the tropes and 101s from the USA and European alt-right. He then veered from Valhalla references to Crusading language, mixing his stew into a Chan meme-pot while demonstrating his self professed lack of education.

And then spat it out.

Kind of like the process Jackson applied to Lord of the Rings.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10563
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#437

Post by Kirbmarc » Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:58 am

Brive1987 wrote: I’m personally finding it hard placing this joker on the ideological spectrum.

It’s like he gathered all the tropes and 101s from the USA and European alt-right. He then veered from Valhalla references to Crusading language, mixing his stew into a Chan meme-pot while demonstrating his self professed lack of education.

And then spat it out.

Kind of like the process Jackson applied to Lord of the Rings.
Because there's a confused continuum of ideas in the alt-right spectrum. The central theme of the alt-right is that there's an invasion of immigrants going on, which causes the "fall of the west"/the "death of tradition"/"a great replacement"/a generic theme of doom and destruction and so, according to the terrorist, it justifies retaliation on the "invaders". Everything else (the "old" neo-nazi tropes, the "crusader" motifs, the memes, the "race realism" stuff, etc.) is simply window-dressing, a bunch of justifications to bolster the main theme.

Immigration DOES have issues, and the naive attitude of the SocJus, which dismisses all concerns about different sets of values, secularism, vetting, rapid and unequal growth, and logistical issues as simply "racism", is NOT a good way to navigate things. But instead of focusing on practical issues and how to fix them, the alt-right has become fixated with the idea of simply "ending immigration" or even reversing it, to save some "identity" which is at stake.

That's simply not productive, and like all non-productive, identitarian sets of ideas, it leads some people to think that they should take action in their own ends.

But by now the online alt-right has grown so much that it's poisoning any rational debate on the problems of immigration. Just like the SocJus is poisoning any rational attempt to look at social issues of lack of access to services, to protect civil rights, to efficiently tackle social degradation and the negative effects of spirals of crime and poverty, and to fight harmful stereotypes.

So instead of moving forward and finding solutions, we're wasting a lot of time bickering over "muh identity" and "muh culture wars". We have idiots who think that Chelsea Clinton and Bill Maher are to blame for the alt-right terrorist because every criticism of islam or a muslim leads to this, and other idiots who think that the alt-right terrorist had a point because there's an "invasion" going on.

It'd be much better for everyone to express their problems about specific issues, to come to an agreement about them, to try to find solutions even by discussing things with people with different priorities and scales of values, instead of lamenting an incoming doom or getting outraged at all potential offences. But that's boring stuff, and it requires us to see shades of grey and to actually acknowledge when our critics have a point.

It's much more emotionally rewarding to cast yourself as the pure hero fighting evildoers and saving your world.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 6746
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#438

Post by MarcusAu » Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:15 am

Kirbmarc wrote: The central theme of the alt-right is that there's an invasion of immigrants going on....
There is also a fairly dominant strain of thought as to a particular cultural / ethic group influencing things in a negative way - which gets stronger the further right they go - and which (((You))) for whatever reason clearly fail to address.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10563
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#439

Post by Kirbmarc » Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:25 am

MarcusAu wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: The central theme of the alt-right is that there's an invasion of immigrants going on....
There is also a fairly dominant strain of thought as to a particular cultural / ethic group influencing things in a negative way - which gets stronger the further right they go - and which (((You))) for whatever reason clearly fail to address.
The Christchurch terrorist didn't seem to be on the side of those who believe in vast Jewish conspiracies (perhaps I'm wrong: I haven't read all of his manifesto). I think that at this point the bickering over who gets the blame, whether it's "economic globalism" or "the Jews" is biggest schism within those who believe in narratives of "replacement". I guess that you could call those who believe in the "replacement" narratives, but not in the Jewish conspiracies, "alt-lite", although that's quite a confused mess of a definition as well.


free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10269
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#441

Post by free thoughtpolice » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:14 am

Brive1987 wrote: I’m personally finding it hard placing this joker on the ideological spectrum.

It’s like he gathered all the tropes and 101s from the USA and European alt-right. He then veered from Valhalla references to Crusading language, mixing his stew into a Chan meme-pot while demonstrating his self professed lack of education.

And then spat it out.

Kind of like the process Jackson applied to Lord of the Rings.
Well he seems to take at least some of his ideas from the alt-lite crowd like Lauren Southern, although she doesn't seem to be terribly consistent either. After all, if she was serious about this great replacement thing she should be providing an example by getting married to a good hard working white man and produce lots of healthy, beautiful white babies instead of mudsharking and flitting around youtube like an F- minus Leni Riefenstahl.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#443

Post by Brive1987 » Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:29 pm

There is nothing less real than reality.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#444

Post by Brive1987 » Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:33 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:
MarcusAu wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: The central theme of the alt-right is that there's an invasion of immigrants going on....
There is also a fairly dominant strain of thought as to a particular cultural / ethic group influencing things in a negative way - which gets stronger the further right they go - and which (((You))) for whatever reason clearly fail to address.
The Christchurch terrorist didn't seem to be on the side of those who believe in vast Jewish conspiracies (perhaps I'm wrong: I haven't read all of his manifesto). I think that at this point the bickering over who gets the blame, whether it's "economic globalism" or "the Jews" is biggest schism within those who believe in narratives of "replacement". I guess that you could call those who believe in the "replacement" narratives, but not in the Jewish conspiracies, "alt-lite", although that's quite a confused mess of a definition as well.
Would you like to make the argument that replacement <> demographic displacement and that said displacement is a myth of no consequence.

By all means feel free to use case studies.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#445

Post by Brive1987 » Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:41 pm

I agree that the alt-right apply simplistic models of cause and effect. They essentially craft a high-level fantasy scaffold. That is hey I have always expressed distain for their narrative.

The soft alt-lite are more interested in historically based group identity, demographics and the intersection of progressive ideology and unsustainable economic drivers.

Your continual clumping of the latter group with the former does the debate no service at all.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#446

Post by Brive1987 » Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:50 pm

Brive1987 wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
MarcusAu wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote: The central theme of the alt-right is that there's an invasion of immigrants going on....
There is also a fairly dominant strain of thought as to a particular cultural / ethic group influencing things in a negative way - which gets stronger the further right they go - and which (((You))) for whatever reason clearly fail to address.
The Christchurch terrorist didn't seem to be on the side of those who believe in vast Jewish conspiracies (perhaps I'm wrong: I haven't read all of his manifesto). I think that at this point the bickering over who gets the blame, whether it's "economic globalism" or "the Jews" is biggest schism within those who believe in narratives of "replacement". I guess that you could call those who believe in the "replacement" narratives, but not in the Jewish conspiracies, "alt-lite", although that's quite a confused mess of a definition as well.
Would you like to make the argument that replacement <> demographic displacement and that said displacement is a myth of no consequence.

By all means feel free to use case studies.
Btw, displacement can happen over time and in stages. Suburb by suburb. And my belief is that host society/ community come under pressure or changes at a point well less than 50%.

The issue of whether that change is good, bad or meh is another story.


CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#448

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:40 pm

Brive1987 wrote:
It's almost as though she feels England enriched herself through the exploitation of her colonies. Weird.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#449

Post by Brive1987 » Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:45 pm

It’s almost as if she should fuck off to a homeland to which she can owe allegiance.

No flag on her porch.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#450

Post by Keating » Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:14 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: Quick point-Chinese people aren't the repressive government of China. Surprisingly, they're individuals with individual views as to life. People, contrary to identitarian views, are remarkably diverse in their viewpoints.
Which is why I said "China" and not "Chinese". The point I was making was about state actions, versus the actions of individuals without state support.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#451

Post by Keating » Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:50 pm

I'm not even sure what's being argued anymore.

I don't think the problem is immigration, or Islam specifically. Islam certainly has its problems, but it isn't the problem.

There's a cultural malaise throughout the West, and that is the real problem. It's a crisis of meaning and identity. What is a good life in the 21st century? Where can one find meaning? What is the purpose of life? What does it mean to be a citizen?

We don't have good answers to these questions anymore, and they are largely theological, not scientific. There's a philosopher Douglas Murray quotes that I think is apt: We are like Icarus if he survived the fall. Broken and bruised and with no idea what to do next. We are still dealing with the after effects of WWII and the Cold War. Two all encompassing ideologies failed, and badly. Some are now so badly damaged they actively hate themselves and think they should be destroyed. This is most readily apparent in Germany, where there are calls, by Germans, to self destruct, that the stain of Nazism can never be washed away. The 2015 migrant crisis is an example of that playing out. That kind of self hatred is present all through the West, though. That's the white privilege argument, largely thought up and enforced by (rich) whites. Once, the British Empire stood up and said if you try to burn a widow alive you would be killed because that is simply unacceptable. Now we have been so reduced by self hatred and doubt, and so mired in cultural relativism, that we allow people to mutilate their daughters or turn a blind eye to organised rape gangs.

The progressive answer is an all encompassing ideology too. That will always fail; it's utopian. It's also worse than many previous ideologies in that it doesn't extend grace.

It isn't that immigration itself is a problem, just that it exacerbates these existing issues. A strong culture that is sure of itself doesn't need to worry about outside issues. My thinking is that immigration needs to be shut down so that we can address these cultural problems. (That especially includes addressing the corruption in the academy.) The problems we are seeing are a result of the decline in culture. To put it another way, Rome didn't collapse because of the barbarians. The problems were internal. The barbarians simply capitalised on them.

I think where it really went all wrong was the Danish cartoons. That event laid bare that the West no longer had a spine, and the ideals we professed were only skin deep. Very few came to the cartoonists defence, and Western governments actively undermined the concept of free speech to avoid trouble. Instead we choose censorship, and we're choosing it still, if the reaction of the New Zealand government is any indication. Censorship breeds radicalisation, especially in the West.

We need a narrative. We need to be able to tell a good story about ourselves. The story we have in the West today, isn't good, it's all about how evil we are. We are slavers, we are colonisers, we are nazis. There's nothing here but oppression. It is no wonder that some Westerners rebel against that, violently.

I don't know how we solve these problems, but I'd much rather discuss them then take pot shots at Brive, be lectured to by Kirb as he misses the point, or have the viciousness of FTP.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#452

Post by Keating » Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:52 pm

I should also say that my point of view is from a very Western perspective. If I was Chinese or Islamic, I'd have a very different perspective and be working to actively encourage these problems.


Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10563
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#454

Post by Kirbmarc » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:27 am

Keating wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:50 pm
I'm not even sure what's being argued anymore.

I don't think the problem is immigration, or Islam specifically. Islam certainly has its problems, but it isn't the problem.

There's a cultural malaise throughout the West, and that is the real problem. It's a crisis of meaning and identity. What is a good life in the 21st century? Where can one find meaning? What is the purpose of life? What does it mean to be a citizen?

We don't have good answers to these questions anymore, and they are largely theological, not scientific. There's a philosopher Douglas Murray quotes that I think is apt: We are like Icarus if he survived the fall. Broken and bruised and with no idea what to do next. We are still dealing with the after effects of WWII and the Cold War. Two all encompassing ideologies failed, and badly. Some are now so badly damaged they actively hate themselves and think they should be destroyed. This is most readily apparent in Germany, where there are calls, by Germans, to self destruct, that the stain of Nazism can never be washed away. The 2015 migrant crisis is an example of that playing out. That kind of self hatred is present all through the West, though. That's the white privilege argument, largely thought up and enforced by (rich) whites. Once, the British Empire stood up and said if you try to burn a widow alive you would be killed because that is simply unacceptable. Now we have been so reduced by self hatred and doubt, and so mired in cultural relativism, that we allow people to mutilate their daughters or turn a blind eye to organised rape gangs.

The progressive answer is an all encompassing ideology too. That will always fail; it's utopian. It's also worse than many previous ideologies in that it doesn't extend grace.

It isn't that immigration itself is a problem, just that it exacerbates these existing issues. A strong culture that is sure of itself doesn't need to worry about outside issues. My thinking is that immigration needs to be shut down so that we can address these cultural problems. (That especially includes addressing the corruption in the academy.) The problems we are seeing are a result of the decline in culture. To put it another way, Rome didn't collapse because of the barbarians. The problems were internal. The barbarians simply capitalised on them.

I think where it really went all wrong was the Danish cartoons. That event laid bare that the West no longer had a spine, and the ideals we professed were only skin deep. Very few came to the cartoonists defence, and Western governments actively undermined the concept of free speech to avoid trouble. Instead we choose censorship, and we're choosing it still, if the reaction of the New Zealand government is any indication. Censorship breeds radicalisation, especially in the West.

We need a narrative. We need to be able to tell a good story about ourselves. The story we have in the West today, isn't good, it's all about how evil we are. We are slavers, we are colonisers, we are nazis. There's nothing here but oppression. It is no wonder that some Westerners rebel against that, violently.

I don't know how we solve these problems, but I'd much rather discuss them then take pot shots at Brive, be lectured to by Kirb as he misses the point, or have the viciousness of FTP.
I agree that cultural relativism in terms of value, and the SocJus ideas of The Evil Whites, are dumb, and actually counterproductive to their stated goal of providing a base for racial harmony, especially in its comprehensive form of damning entire civilizations (or worse, races) instead of pointing out the flaws but also acknowledging the successes.

All civilizations had flaws. Tribalism and in-group preference, on a large scale, led to massacres, enslavement, exploitation, no matter which group had the upper hand over another.

The Ottoman Empire practiced slavery and racial oppression no less than the United States. Turkey engaged in genocide before Germany.

Japan during World Wat Two wasn't much better than Nazi Germany, and they haven't even apologized. Imperial China was full of wars and massacres on large scales.

Local populations under Aztec domination preferred to side with the Spanish at first, to shake off the Aztec systemic oppression. Slavery and sexual slavery were common among North American cultures.

The Bantu expansion erased the previous civilizations in Africa, and not in a peaceful way. Even on a small scale, when the Maori acquired weapons and ships, they brutalized and enslaved the Moriori.

History is by and large the story of people with better military power defeating people with worse militaries, killing quite a few of them, enslaving the others (especially the women) and taking their stuff.

The SocJus idiocy of blaming only the "evil whites" for this is sickening. There's a reason why I am commenting here, and not on Pharyngula, where this kind of arguments wouldn't be understood.

And yes, while colonialism and imperialism were brutal and devastating, they also brought an end to local wars, if only because peace in the colonies was more profitable, and at times they reduced practices that had developed in more isolated cultures.

The Chinese Empire also brought some relative peace and stability to the warring kingdoms of China. Genghis Khan did the same. They used atrocities to keep people in line, and shouldn't be acritically celebrated for that, but their rule also had some good consequences on a practical level.

I think that the European colonialism followed the same path of allother empires: atrocities to terrorize the local population and keep it in line, massive exploitation,and also relative stability and some improvements for pragmatic reasons.

The idea that the "whites" were more barbaric, instead of being just more successful at domination (at least for a while) is one of the origins of the relativism that doesn't allow people to take principled stands.

On the other hand, history has also shown that a narrative built on cultural or worse, racial supremacy is devastating, leads to massive atrocities, and is simply not viable in a globalized world.

We live in a world based on global trade, global networks for sharing information, global issues (warming, antibiotic-resistant diseases, water shortages, plasric pollution, threats of famines) and global scientific research.

It's not all doom and gloom. We have done, as humans, some great things. We eradicated smallpox. We reduced infant mortality by impressive levels. We are feeding billions thanks to the Green Revolution.

With scientific research and globalized networks we can accomplish so much more.

And yes, we live under the guidance of what is basically an informal Global American Empire, and for all the many, many flaws of the United States, past and recent, it's better them than the Chinese regime or the now thankfully defunct Soviets. The States have the potential to at least fix some of their flaws. No such luck in authoritarian regimes.

We need principles that are non-negotiable, and I agree that the spineless approach of "avoiding offense" is retarded and useless, or evrn dangerous at worst.

The principles we need, the values that are necessary to carry on,are those of liberal democracy, of modernity, of the process which started with the Enlightenment.

Inclusive values which REALLY transcend thr limited racial or cultural perspectives, instead of simply being a lamentation about how everything is horrible and it's the White's fault.

It's supremely stupid for progressives to badmouth liberal democratic values, to whine how the foundations of modern society (the scientific method, secularism, human rights, civil rights) are "white supremacy", instead of promoting reforms to address specific issues and social problems USING those principles and foundations.

When atudents protest AGAINST free speech, or to boycott and remove a lawyer who is simply providing defense because they're tainted with the guilt of their client, you know that something went deeply wrong,

But the reaction to the self-destructive "deconstruction" of modernity cannot be to ditch modernity and go back to the idea of cultural or even worse racial supremacy, to feed tribalism in a global world.

Because the world IS global, and like it or not we have to deal with different cultures coming in contact. It's good to defend and promote the principles of modernity against value relativism (idiocy like "FGM is just their culture" or "we shouldn't criticize them or mock them, because it might offend them") .

Not so good to acritically assume that values are the exclusive to a culture or worse, a race.

We don't talk about "Jewish science" when we discuss general relativity, or "English science" when the subject is the theory of evolution by natural selection. It's just science. It's valid beyond identities.

We need to bring the focus back on values (liberal democracy, human rights, skepticism, incremental reforms, etc) and ditch sectarian identitarianism, on the left and on the right, to promote a common narrative of humanity slowly, gradually and painfully improving itself, rejecting violations of human rights, correcting wrong ideas, creating new answers to new problems,without identitarian blinders.

The identity wars will benefit no one. The pointless deconstruction of modernity into a new identitarian narrative,and the return to pre-modern narratives ofare identity, are both counterproductive to the goal of defending and improving on what we have.

We have a good thing going with the world of today. It can be improved, but it doesn't need to be torn down.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10563
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#455

Post by Kirbmarc » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:45 am

Steven Pinker, Aayan Hirsi Ali, Jonathan Haidt, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris, and all the others who promote modernity over identity are doing a much greater service to the world, for all their flaws, limits and mistakes, than all the tumblrinas or student activists and the shitlords and the Pepes combined.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#456

Post by Brive1987 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:48 am

Thank you for that cross between a globalist rant and plea.

Kirb, we didn’t need your homogenised “values” rule book. We gave women the vote before anyone else. We had our own human rights philosophy based on an egalitarian “fair go”. We demonstrated incremental change via a tradition of telling politicians to bugger off with their referendums. We had a stable and efficient democracy that took the British model and improved the mouse trap. We played together, celebrated together and shared a common story.

Then we fucked it up. We thought we could have it all. Governments made strategic decisions without thinking past their three year terms. We got caught in the RSL playing the pokies with economic driven “growth”. A decade or so ago China didn’t even figure in economic thought. Now we live or die at their whim. How the hell did that happen?

Old values are now a splinter segment in a sea of Chinese, sub continent and moslem thought patterns. Meanwhile the social left exudes a wankery unimagined, subjecting anything of conventional value to continual assault.

Fuck your globalism. Society is the sum of community. Community builds off families. Families operate in a mileu of shared experience and supportive values. “We’re Aussie mate”. That should the building block of success.


Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10563
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#458

Post by Kirbmarc » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:15 am

Brive1987 wrote: Thank you for that cross between a globalist rant and plea.

Kirb, we didn’t need your homogenised “values” rule book. We gave women the vote before anyone else. We had our own human rights philosophy based on an egalitarian “fair go”. We demonstrated incremental change via a tradition of telling politicians to bugger off with their referendums. We had a stable and efficient democracy that took the British model and improved the mouse trap. We played together, celebrated together and shared a common story.
Societies, like everything, need maintenance and improvements. Australia is a very functional society, but that doesn't mean that it can stay exactly the same for eternity. You gave full voting rights to the Aboriginals in the 1960s. You started to repeal anti-sodomy laws in the 1970s. You got gay marriage very recently (to your great displeasure, I know, but with a large popular support). There's no way to freeze time and keep things as they were when you were young.
Then we fucked it up. We thought we could have it all. Governments made strategic decisions without thinking past their three year terms. We got caught in the RSL playing the pokies with economic driven “growth”. A decade or so ago China didn’t even figure in economic thought. Now we live or die at their whim. How the hell did that happen?
China grew to be an economic superpower, that's what happened. Nobody cared about China until they started to become rich. Now even Hollywood has to cater to the Chinese market. I'm wary of their political regime and not happy with their growing influence as much as anyone else, but this is something that is largely beyond your control.
Old values are now a splinter segment in a sea of Chinese, sub continent and moslem thought patterns. Meanwhile the social left exudes a wankery unimagined, subjecting anything of conventional value to continual assault.
And yet you're still a stable, prosperous liberal democracy with very low levels of crime or violence. Which means that the sky isn't falling, and the doom isn't coming. Again, the SocJus factions are annoying and counterproductive, but you have to build some sort of rational response to them instead of going for the identirarian dreams. You need to build some new civic consensus with the people you have, you can't just hope to go back to an allegedly idyllic past.
Fuck your globalism. Society is the sum of community. Community builds off families. Families operate in a mileu of shared experience and supportive values. “We’re Aussie mate”. That should the building block of success.
The world is global. You can't pretend you live in your isolated safe space.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10269
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#459

Post by free thoughtpolice » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:59 am

the viciousness of FTP.
Oh dear. Was it the nuke Australia thing or are you offended by the hikers wearing polyester schtick. :cry:

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 6746
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#460

Post by MarcusAu » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:34 pm

I do wonder what the government response will be to the invasion...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqlozoXVxYM

Complexion fair, hair colour looks about right (though more braids couldn't hurt) - so nothing much to worry about.

If I recall the sequel put more effort into meeting diversity quotas...

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#461

Post by Brive1987 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:44 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: Thank you for that cross between a globalist rant and plea.

Kirb, we didn’t need your homogenised “values” rule book. We gave women the vote before anyone else. We had our own human rights philosophy based on an egalitarian “fair go”. We demonstrated incremental change via a tradition of telling politicians to bugger off with their referendums. We had a stable and efficient democracy that took the British model and improved the mouse trap. We played together, celebrated together and shared a common story.
Societies, like everything, need maintenance and improvements. Australia is a very functional society, but that doesn't mean that it can stay exactly the same for eternity. You gave full voting rights to the Aboriginals in the 1960s. You started to repeal anti-sodomy laws in the 1970s. You got gay marriage very recently (to your great displeasure, I know, but with a large popular support). There's no way to freeze time and keep things as they were when you were young.
Then we fucked it up. We thought we could have it all. Governments made strategic decisions without thinking past their three year terms. We got caught in the RSL playing the pokies with economic driven “growth”. A decade or so ago China didn’t even figure in economic thought. Now we live or die at their whim. How the hell did that happen?
China grew to be an economic superpower, that's what happened. Nobody cared about China until they started to become rich. Now even Hollywood has to cater to the Chinese market. I'm wary of their political regime and not happy with their growing influence as much as anyone else, but this is something that is largely beyond your control.
Old values are now a splinter segment in a sea of Chinese, sub continent and moslem thought patterns. Meanwhile the social left exudes a wankery unimagined, subjecting anything of conventional value to continual assault.
And yet you're still a stable, prosperous liberal democracy with very low levels of crime or violence. Which means that the sky isn't falling, and the doom isn't coming. Again, the SocJus factions are annoying and counterproductive, but you have to build some sort of rational response to them instead of going for the identirarian dreams. You need to build some new civic consensus with the people you have, you can't just hope to go back to an allegedly idyllic past.
Fuck your globalism. Society is the sum of community. Community builds off families. Families operate in a mileu of shared experience and supportive values. “We’re Aussie mate”. That should the building block of success.
The world is global. You can't pretend you live in your isolated safe space.
The issue is not your straw man of “no change” - it’s the rate of change, it’s about obtaining social consensus before you muddy the water, it’s about managing the change for the good of the existing population. None of this has happened.

No one demanded we enter an uncontrolled economic death lock with China. Great power that it may be. Again there has been zero risk management or forethought.

The number of global cultures vs national cultures is a small proportion. Weirdly enough global progressiveness is generally harrnessed to countries also wanting to exploit unfettered economic expansion. Albeit with minor return to the individual. What a wonderful world.

The video below is hilarious. 1979.

They are arguing the toss over 10,000 Vietnamese boat people in the context of the end of the war in 1975. There is no consensus. Not even with a Bolshevik ABC reporter pestering naysayers.

Note:
These people can actually speak English. Wow. Quite the change to today.
Martin Place on a weekday. It’s almost deserted! Today it’s a cattlepen.
The building on the corner at 2:09 is now the Lindt Cafe. Of the Benson latte-lawyer fame. Ironic.
Refugee in this context are people fleeing communism and travelling directly from war zone to Australia original “boat people”

Imagine going back, doubling the number in question to 20K and then add a zero. Plus another 40-50K for the road. :lol: :lol:

Oh. The Vietnamese promptly created a silo in Cabramatta (Vietnamatta) and resisted assimilation. http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.a ... t_aust.doc

But the food is wonderful.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#462

Post by Brive1987 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:50 pm

I wonder how long they had to stake out Martin Place to find a black American to provide pocolour?

I can the crew whooping and hollering like a scene from Lord of the Flies.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#463

Post by Brive1987 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:06 pm

Apparently Australia is a raging inferno of “far right” groups.

https://d3cdtxx03omvla.cloudfront.net/2 ... 370273.jpg

I reckon you could hold a combined AGM of engaged members in an outside dunny.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#464

Post by Keating » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:20 pm

Kirbmarc wrote: And yes, we live under the guidance of what is basically an informal Global American Empire, and for all the many, many flaws of the United States, past and recent, it's better them than the Chinese regime or the now thankfully defunct Soviets. The States have the potential to at least fix some of their flaws. No such luck in authoritarian regimes.
I would agree that the best way to perceive the current epoch is as an informal global American Empire, yes.
Because the world IS global, and like it or not we have to deal with different cultures coming in contact.
I'm not sure I agree here, and this may be a big axiomatic difference. Global trade, movement and communications are all technologies. We can choose not to use them or not. We do this with several things already; nuclear power, gun control, gene editing of human DNA.

This is also a place where I strongly disagree with Sam Harris. The idea of a globalism repulses me. I think something would be lost if every country on earth were subsumed into the one culture, even if that were the Western culture. (Even though I agree Australia, and Europe, fall under the American Empire, I like that our local culture is different and distinct.) The idea of a unified world government is terrifying too. That's just asking for authoritarianism.
We don't talk about "Jewish science" when we discuss general relativity, or "English science" when the subject is the theory of evolution by natural selection. It's just science. It's valid beyond identities.
No, but the answers to questions like "what is the purpose to life" do have cultural responses. Indeed, it could be argued that is the purpose of culture. That isn't a scientific question.
We have a good thing going with the world of today. It can be improved, but it doesn't need to be torn down.
That's always been my position. I just think the path we're on is guaranteed to tear it down.

Kirbmarc
.
.
Posts: 10563
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:29 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#465

Post by Kirbmarc » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:59 pm

Keating wrote: I'm not sure I agree here, and this may be a big axiomatic difference. Global trade, movement and communications are all technologies. We can choose not to use them or not. We do this with several things already; nuclear power, gun control, gene editing of human DNA.
The big difference is that global trade and communications are the backbone of today's global economy and countries which opt out (like North Korea) don't fare very well in terms in development.

Sure, you can not use them, but at what cost? There's always a matter of trade-offs: if you don't use nuclear power you're more energy-dependent from other nations unless you find another way to produce energy, strict gun control means stronger and more extensive (and expensive) policing, and if gene-editing of human DNA becomes widespread opting out will have its costs, too.

We can look at some countries which have opted out of global movement of people and see how they fare. Japan is a classic example. They have incredibly strict immigration laws, and a rapidly aging population, with today's Japanese working class having to deal with increasingly demanding jobs, economic stagnation, and an uncertain future in terms of pensions and elderly care.

With that said, unlimited immigration isn't necessarily beneficial, either. Australia already severely restricts immigration. However, since the point of this thread isn't necessarily about immigration per se but about ethno-nationalism, you already have many minorities of people which aren't ethnically Anglo, or ethnically European. You can't go back to the previous status quo, as Brive seems to want, without massive "population transfers", to borrow a Steersman-ism.

Even further limiting immigration has its economic and social costs in terms of losses of economic growth. In order to convince your population to be in favor of more limits to immigration you have to present a convincing case which attract support, not simply argue online about the "loss of identity".

In purely pragmatic terms, a majority of Australians already wants more limits to immigration, but they're also supporting multiculturalism, so the appeal to "loss of identity" is limited:
The latest fortnightly survey of 1,026 voters finds that 54% of the sample believe Australia’s rate of population growth is too fast – which is up from 45% recorded five years ago.

A higher percentage, 64%, think the level of immigration in Australia over the past decade has been too high – up from 50% recorded in October 2016.

But while the trend underscores increasing community concern about immigration and population growth, 55% of the sample agree with the proposition that “multiculturalism and cultural diversity has enriched the social and economic lives of all Australians”.

The statement “multiculturalism has failed and caused social division and dangerous extremism in Australia” was endorsed by 32%, while 13% did not have a view.
The insistence on identitarian themes like "the great replacement", which often veer into racial themes, is likely counterproductive to the case for more restrictions, especially now that those identitarian-racial themes are causing violence. People don't wish to be associated with extremism. Lauren Southern or Faith Goldy and their flirting with far-right memes and philosophy (to be "edgy" and "provocative", i.e. attract attention and clicks) are probably harming a more rational case for discussing the pros and the cons of immigration.

You can spend countless hours online bitching about "loss of identity", but if that makes your position unappealing, because it shades into extremism (which it does) you'll get nothing done. You'd better come up with a more economic or logistics-based approach, which is less likely to be associated with lunatic terrorists who kill those they deem to be "invaders", and more likely to get a more widespread support.


I get that it's probably emotionally rewarding for some people to rant against the evils of globalism, just like the SJWs rant against "patriarchy". But emotionally rw
This is also a place where I strongly disagree with Sam Harris. The idea of a globalism repulses me. I think something would be lost if every country on earth were subsumed into the one culture, even if that were the Western culture. (Even though I agree Australia, and Europe, fall under the American Empire, I like that our local culture is different and distinct.) The idea of a unified world government is terrifying too. That's just asking for authoritarianism.
Well, I don't think that all countries need to be subsumed into one culture (I don't even think it's possible, linguistically or psychologically speaking) but certain principles, like human rights, are by their nature universal. Differences in languages, cuisines, clothing, music, literature, etc. are one thing, although I don't see why mixing things is necessarily a bad thing: that's how we got rock and roll or blues, after all (and the SJ argument against "cultural appropriation" is very authoritarian) but differences in laws and principles produce lots of at theoretically preventable, and deeply unfair, suffering and harm.

I can't defend habeas corpus or presumption of innocence or proportionality of punishment or sexual freedom in the west and not be appalled by the stoning of the adulterers in Saudi Arabia, or excuse it because it's "their culture". I can't support liberal democracy at home, but gloss over the Chinese concentration camps because it's "Chinese policy". I may not be able to DO much about those things, but I can't see them as fair and valid models just because of "cultural differencies". Human rights are either universal or meaningless.

Until not too long ago, historically speaking, draconian laws, religious and political persecution and lack of rights were also "western cultures" (the Bloody code, the Inquisition, etc.). In the 1930s Nazism was part of "German culture", should it have been tolerated too?

I agree that a single "world government" would be asking for trouble, but that's not a model which I think will work, or ever exist. The UN, for example, are a forum to discuss issues and don't even remotely have any powers resembling those of a "world government" (indeed, if anything, they can't even uphold their own principles consistently).

Also evidence seems to show that some problems, like international tensions, are better handled by liberal democracies, or at least by international liberal democratic organizations to set up solutions. Global warming seems to be one of those problems, and it's a big deal. Natural phenomena aren't stopped by borders.
No, but the answers to questions like "what is the purpose to life" do have cultural responses. Indeed, it could be argued that is the purpose of culture. That isn't a scientific question.
I agree that the philosophical matter of "the purpose of life" falls beyond science. Indeed, the entire matter of human rights isn't scientific. However human rights, which aren't scientific but are by their definition universal, aren't about providing purpose in life as much as they are about protecting people from unjustified harm.

I don't think that states should be in the business of deciding what's the purpose of life. You're supposed to figure that out on your own, whether by adhering to a pre-set path, or finding a new one. States, however, are in the business of preventing harm to their citizens, and in this sense, a liberal democracy protects people's rights far better and more fairly than an authoritarian theocracy, no matter the flaws of such liberal democracy.

Pragmatically speaking, people have repeatedly voted for the best form of government with their feet. People escape North Korea to get to South Korea, and the reverse is incredibly rare, at least on a voluntary base. People left East Germany for West Germany, while movement in the other direction was very limited. People flee from Venezuela, not into Venezuela. Lots of Iranians left Iran after the 1979 revolution, while only a handful of westerners decided to settle in Iran.

Even when a few people were fed up with the west and moved to the Soviet Union, they often regretted it and came back. The opposite thing was virtually unheard of.

Lots of people prefer to live in the "west", and it's not just about economic development: there are plenty of refugees from unstable and violent or tyrannical countries who find themselves much better at home in liberal democracies.
That's always been my position. I just think the path we're on is guaranteed to tear it down.
I don't think this prophecy of doom is necessarily true. I see many potential challenged and problems that need to be addressed, but I see the potential to address them, too. The identitarian projects, on the other hand, seem to rest on assumptions that are incredibly hard to implement without violating and eroding the same liberal democratic principles that brought us here.

The identitarian extremists are rife with illiberal ideas and even actions (like the Christchurch shooter). You can't seriously claim to want to save liberal democracy when you're talking in terms of neo-nazi memes like the "14 words", or targeting people according to far-right propaganda about "invaders" and "white genocide".

Indeed the identitarian right is poisoning the discourse and having a chilling effect on more rational discussion that are sorely needed. People are already associating necessary criticism of islam in terms of its lack of respect for human rights and promotion of illiberal ideas with the identitarian memes about ancestry.

Islam NEEDS to be secularized, especially in the west, in order for society to function, and there are plenty of battles to prevent the institution of reactionary faith schools and faith-based tribunals, to promote women's liberation against islamic misogyny, to promote LGBT rights against muslim homophobia, to discourage cousin marriage and arranged marriage, to combat dangerous messages about sectarian hatred or hatred of Jews or apostates. All of this will become and has already become harder, because criticism of islam has been tainted by association with the alt-right identity-based ideas.

Indeed it's not like the alt-right is defending human rights and modernity consistently against conservative and reactionary islam. When conservative muslim parents protest against education that informs children that LGBT people exist, many alt-righters are on their side against "degeneracy". People like Mike Cernovich have even expressed support for "moderate (read: conservative) islam".

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10485
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#466

Post by Lsuoma » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:13 am

I hate so say this, because he's Strine, but Keating is basically the only sane, reasoned voice I'm seeing in these threads. Everyone else is trolling, stupid, ungenerous, disingenuous, obtuse, or any mixture of the above.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 6746
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#467

Post by MarcusAu » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:23 am

Lsuoma wrote: I hate so say this, because he's Strine, but Keating is basically the only sane, reasoned voice I'm seeing in these threads. Everyone else is trolling, stupid, ungenerous, disingenuous, obtuse, or any mixture of the above.
I've always appreciated your comments.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#468

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:26 am

Keating wrote: I'm not even sure what's being argued anymore.

I don't think the problem is immigration, or Islam specifically. Islam certainly has its problems, but it isn't the problem.

There's a cultural malaise throughout the West, and that is the real problem. It's a crisis of meaning and identity. What is a good life in the 21st century? Where can one find meaning? What is the purpose of life? What does it mean to be a citizen?

We don't have good answers to these questions anymore, and they are largely theological, not scientific. There's a philosopher Douglas Murray quotes that I think is apt: We are like Icarus if he survived the fall. Broken and bruised and with no idea what to do next. We are still dealing with the after effects of WWII and the Cold War. Two all encompassing ideologies failed, and badly. Some are now so badly damaged they actively hate themselves and think they should be destroyed. This is most readily apparent in Germany, where there are calls, by Germans, to self destruct, that the stain of Nazism can never be washed away. The 2015 migrant crisis is an example of that playing out. That kind of self hatred is present all through the West, though. That's the white privilege argument, largely thought up and enforced by (rich) whites. Once, the British Empire stood up and said if you try to burn a widow alive you would be killed because that is simply unacceptable. Now we have been so reduced by self hatred and doubt, and so mired in cultural relativism, that we allow people to mutilate their daughters or turn a blind eye to organised rape gangs.

The progressive answer is an all encompassing ideology too. That will always fail; it's utopian. It's also worse than many previous ideologies in that it doesn't extend grace.

It isn't that immigration itself is a problem, just that it exacerbates these existing issues. A strong culture that is sure of itself doesn't need to worry about outside issues. My thinking is that immigration needs to be shut down so that we can address these cultural problems. (That especially includes addressing the corruption in the academy.) The problems we are seeing are a result of the decline in culture. To put it another way, Rome didn't collapse because of the barbarians. The problems were internal. The barbarians simply capitalised on them.

I think where it really went all wrong was the Danish cartoons. That event laid bare that the West no longer had a spine, and the ideals we professed were only skin deep. Very few came to the cartoonists defence, and Western governments actively undermined the concept of free speech to avoid trouble. Instead we choose censorship, and we're choosing it still, if the reaction of the New Zealand government is any indication. Censorship breeds radicalisation, especially in the West.

We need a narrative. We need to be able to tell a good story about ourselves. The story we have in the West today, isn't good, it's all about how evil we are. We are slavers, we are colonisers, we are nazis. There's nothing here but oppression. It is no wonder that some Westerners rebel against that, violently.

I don't know how we solve these problems, but I'd much rather discuss them then take pot shots at Brive, be lectured to by Kirb as he misses the point, or have the viciousness of FTP.
The problems with resorting to nationalism is that the genie is out of that bottle already; you can try an artificial sort and end up going totalitarian like Hungary, but that's not going to last. Secondly, without broad international ties, including that of people, we actually risk annihilation. It's only a matter of time before Iran and Saudi Arabia get atomic weapons. My eldest younger brother, a biophysicist specializing in DNA informs me that it's quite possible to make a super virus or germ that may attack specific races.

We may lose something if we melt into a global pot, we risk a lot if we don't. It's going to happen anyway, the internet and cheap travel, the globalization of trade and the proliferation of consumer culture. Even in the remote areas of Oregon were I grew up, places quite unaffected by any hint of immigration or racial divisions, things are quite different than when I grew up.

We do need a better narrative, but retreating into enclaves of homogeneous cultures isn't going to make a better narrative. The racial divisiveness of identitarian politics on both sides are stirring up animosity and hate. That won't end well.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#469

Post by Keating » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:07 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:59 pm
<snip>
A massive wall of text that never actually engages my points, but dances around them. Who could have predicted this?
Keating wrote:be lectured to by Kirb as he misses the point
Even further limiting immigration has its economic and social costs in terms of losses of economic growth. In order to convince your population to be in favor of more limits to immigration you have to present a convincing case which attract support, not simply argue online about the "loss of identity".
Economic growth in and of itself is clearly a problem. Mathematically, it is an exponential and we live on a finite planet. Immigration as a means of keeping economic growth up is clearly setting up a Ponzi-Scheme. We are eventually going to have to move to sustainable economies anyway.

Sneaky to slip in "social costs" in there. The "social costs" of immigration are exactly what I'm saying we can no longer afford to bare until we sort out the cultural problems.
The insistence on identitarian themes like "the great replacement", which often veer into racial themes, is likely counterproductive to the case for more restrictions, especially now that those identitarian-racial themes are causing violence.
This is indeed one of the cultural problems I'm talking about. If every peaceful venue for debating the problems with multiculturalism are shut down as racist, then only the extreme elements, who don't care about the blow back, are going to talk about it. Breivik explicitly said this himself. In the early 2000s, he thought about going into politics, but saw that even then talking about Islam in anyway was a sure fire path to being publicly destroyed. The recent Christchurch shooter came to the same conclusion, but, terrifyingly, thinks that the best thing to do is to accelerate the process of shutting down debate to further breed radicalisation and trigger a war. I certainly don't want to see more of that, and I don't see how throwing fuel on the fire of multiculturalism by growing the ethnic ghettos while further clamping down on "hate" speech prevents, rather than encourages, that.
People don't wish to be associated with extremism.
People want something to live for and to have a cultural tradition to hand down to their descendants as well. The path we're on is rapidly closing the doors to everything but extremism.
You can spend countless hours online bitching about "loss of identity", but if that makes your position unappealing, because it shades into extremism (which it does) you'll get nothing done.
I don't think I've talked about "loss of identity", but correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think the problem is an identity loss. It's that we don't have a positive cultural narrative about who we are and where we're going. Without that, people will fall back on the identity their ancestors used to have. Worse if the only narrative is negative.
Well, I don't think that all countries need to be subsumed into one culture (I don't even think it's possible, linguistically or psychologically speaking) but certain principles, like human rights, are by their nature universal.
I'm not sure that's true. How do you decide, other than cultural traditions, whether English Common Law or the Napoleonic Code is superior? Laws and human rights are as much part of the culture as are anything else. Human rights, as generally conceived, is profoundly Christian.
I don't think that states should be in the business of deciding what's the purpose of life.
God no. Are you confused? I said there was a good argument that the purpose of culture was to answer questions like this. That is not, and should not, be the same thing as the state. (Indeed, when they do become the same thing, that's pretty much the definition of totalitarianism).
States, however, are in the business of preventing harm to their citizens, and in this sense, a liberal democracy protects people's rights far better and more fairly than an authoritarian theocracy, no matter the flaws of such liberal democracy.
No, I think this is wrong. The ability of a liberal democracy to protect people's rights depends on the culture of the people being positive and a congruent with human flourishing. If they aren't, then a liberal democracy will collapse into mob rule and tyranny. I think what has happened is that we had immense cultural capital after WWII, and we've been spending it without investing in the culture that the next generation should be able to maintain it. Now, we're reaching a point where almost all of that capital is gone, and that is where trust, and civilisation, breaks down. In some ways this is understandable. It is far easier to know why communism is a bad idea if you've actually lived in the USSR. It's much harder to transmit that experience to someone who has never had any hardship.
I don't think this prophecy of doom is necessarily true. I see many potential challenged and problems that need to be addressed, but I see the potential to address them, too.
Of course I see potential to address them too. That's exactly why I'm proposing shutting down immigration and then taking a serious look at how the academy functions. As you say, I don't have any control (nor real interest) over what happens in China or Hungary, so I don't see much point in worrying about that. I do have a concern about Australia degenerating into a self inflicted ethnic tension because I live here. I also worry about the US losing its dominance this century because it is clearly better to be a member of the US empire then it would be the coming Chinese one.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#470

Post by Keating » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:14 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: We do need a better narrative, but retreating into enclaves of homogeneous cultures isn't going to make a better narrative. The racial divisiveness of identitarian politics on both sides are stirring up animosity and hate. That won't end well.
The point isn't to retreat, but an acknowledgement that the racial divisiveness cannot be solved while we simultaneously increase the size of ethnic-conclaves and also produce students who actively hate the existing citizens who have to deal with the results of the growing conclaves.

The anywheres versus somewheres framing is very useful here. Even in Canberra, most people die within 100 km of where they were born. However, almost all of the power in the conversation is held by those who probably won't. It's the speed of the change, and the feeling that you have no say at all that breeds radicalisation.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#471

Post by Keating » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:14 pm

Lsuoma wrote: I hate so say this, because he's Strine, but Keating is basically the only sane, reasoned voice I'm seeing in these threads. Everyone else is trolling, stupid, ungenerous, disingenuous, obtuse, or any mixture of the above.
I hate posting in this thread.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#472

Post by Brive1987 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:54 pm

Lsuoma wrote: I hate so say this, because he's Strine, but Keating is basically the only sane, reasoned voice I'm seeing in these threads. Everyone else is trolling, stupid, ungenerous, disingenuous, obtuse, or any mixture of the above.
The important thing in a forum is to actually express an opinion - which can be tested and challenged. I find the strong silent types to be useless in that process.

YMMV.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#473

Post by Brive1987 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:16 pm

Keating has centred his POV on:

The legitimacy of “culture” as a social framework.
The need for an inclusive identifiable narrative owned by geo-groups (nations) distinctive across different nations
An argument against ethnic enclaves.
Concern over observed rapid and unplanned demographic change in Sydney
Institutions based on “cultural traditions”
The illegitimacy of the existing immigration process and procedure
A moratorium on more immigration until we get this shit under control

I am happy to concur with this sane and reasoned approach. Motion seconded. And I (obviously) couldn’t have said it better myself. :mrgreen:

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#474

Post by Brive1987 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:25 pm

:think:

Hopefully UN endorsed “replacement migration” is startlingly distinct from a (or “the”) Replacement Theory.

If so, the UN needs a new phrase.



Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16627
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#476

Post by Brive1987 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:54 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote: I hope this doesn't poison the discourse here.

https...://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrxUbbyjN-w
Fuck off troll.

:)


Starts at 1 min. Hear the succubus demolish Christchurch conspiracy theories, enjoin white males to productive advocacy and promise to run as PM. :dance:

One day. :(


CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#477

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:08 am

Keating wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: We do need a better narrative, but retreating into enclaves of homogeneous cultures isn't going to make a better narrative. The racial divisiveness of identitarian politics on both sides are stirring up animosity and hate. That won't end well.
The point isn't to retreat, but an acknowledgement that the racial divisiveness cannot be solved while we simultaneously increase the size of ethnic-conclaves and also produce students who actively hate the existing citizens who have to deal with the results of the growing conclaves.

The anywheres versus somewheres framing is very useful here. Even in Canberra, most people die within 100 km of where they were born. However, almost all of the power in the conversation is held by those who probably won't. It's the speed of the change, and the feeling that you have no say at all that breeds radicalisation.
I'd like some proof that racial diviseness can't be solved before I'd remotely consider that to be a valid position. What we're in now is a tiny blip in history, maybe even just growing pains.

People throughout history have had little to no say in events. We're actually at a time when the common person has the most say in events at any time in recorded history. The idea that we don't is a pernicious illusion usually wrought by those selling something.


Keating
.
.
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)

#479

Post by Keating » Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:20 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: I'd like some proof that racial diviseness can't be solved before I'd remotely consider that to be a valid position. What we're in now is a tiny blip in history, maybe even just growing pains.
I didn't mean to imply that racial divisiveness couldn't ever be solved; I don't believe that. However, where I think there is a problem is if the new arrivals don't have to integrate because there are so many of them that they can continue their previous culture without any need to mix with the existing population. The larger those conclaves grow, the bigger the problem precisely because there is no exchange of culture. I think there is reasonable evidence for this, the most prominent being Putnam's work. (Of course, this is not strictly an immigration problem, as I have maintained, we also have a problem that the existing population doesn't mix with each other either. This has been a problem since the invention of television, and it's only gotten worse.)
People throughout history have had little to no say in events. We're actually at a time when the common person has the most say in events at any time in recorded history. The idea that we don't is a pernicious illusion usually wrought by those selling something.
We also haven't had population transfers on this scale, or where we have, they have completely destroyed the existing population (Americas and Australia). People in the UK still discuss the cultural implications in 50,000 Huguenots coming to the UK three hundred years ago. That's not even a year's worth of immigration today.


Post Reply