Monday, January 18, 2010

Not owning up?

Are leftists willing to own their own politics? I ask this having had yet another frustrating exchange with a leftist, who seems unwilling to own up to the real content and the real consequences of leftist politics.

The debate was supposed to be about Maxine Beneba Clarke's poem on the Haiti earthquake. If you remember, Clarke imagines in the poem that God and Jesus must be white men to have visited such disaster on brown people. She imagines the "pale trinity" feeling good about crushing the Haitians with an earthquake, and other brown peoples with tsunamis, lava and hurricanes.

To me the poem is clearly hostile to whites. It conjures up images of white powers maliciously visiting acts of evil upon others. But my leftist commenter, "anon contrarian" (AC), just couldn't see this at all:

AC: I think the poem in question is an entirely reasonable and 'human' response to a disaster

Me: No, it's a poem that clearly vilifies whites. Just like many other poems by Maxine Clarke, on many different themes.

AC: No, in reality I challenge you to find a word in there that 'vilifies' anybody, without relying on the tortured logic of somebody with a persecution complex.

Challenged to find a word? Surely, the whole poem vilifies whites by suggesting that they would enjoy inflicting terrible disasters on other people? In what way is this a "tortured logic"?

AC also argued that Maxine Clarke's poem wasn't significant as it would only be read by a few thousand people. I replied that it was significant because the underlying ideas were held widely on the left, "including the idea that whites are uniquely guilty of racist oppression of others".

This is a key concept in "whiteness studies" courses being taught on many campuses. The idea is that whites invented race as a social construct in order to gain an unearned privilege over others. Racism therefore becomes tied to the idea of white oppressors and non-white victims. Whites are assumed to be dominant and the goal for progressives is to deconstruct whiteness. Whites who object are assumed to be motivated by a desire to uphold "white supremacy".

This is standard fare on the left. But AC is in full denial mode:

Me: AC, you really think that there are no leftists who believe that white guys are bad and cause the suffering of others? Really?

AC: You're straw-manning the argument again. No leftist on earth pushes the line that only 'whites' are capable of evil, whilst everybody else is innocent.

I'm not sure that AC really understands what's going on here. Whites are held to be uniquely evil and everybody else innocent in the particular way I described above. It was whites who supposedly invented race and racism to gain privilege at the expense of the non-white other. It is therefore whiteness which needs to be deconstructed and disallowed in order to create justice and equality. It is therefore whites who are jumped on as defenders of "supremacy" if they happen to defend their own ethnicity.

What happens if you take this left-wing politics especially seriously? You become anti-white to a radical degree. Consider, for instance, the views of Professor Robert Jensen:

White people can be human sometimes, but only if we turn our backs on being white: We can be human, or we can be white.

Are you likely to hear such a thing said by a professor about non-white races? If Professor Jensen had said it, for instance, about Asians, would he still be a professor at the University of Texas?

Here's another choice comment from Professor Jensen:

White Americans are mean and uncaring, morally bankrupt and ethically flawed, because white supremacy has taken a huge toll on white people's capacity to be fully human.

In the professor's mind whites exist in a condition of white supremacy. That's our identity and collective purpose. It makes us less than human.

Again, how often do you hear such things said about other groups?

I'm not suggesting that most leftists would take the underlying ideas as far as the radical formulations uttered by Professor Jensen. But they do mostly share the underlying ideas.

Which brings me to the final point. AC reacted in the following way when I described leftists as categorising whites as dominant and non-whites as victimised:

Me: whites are the ones to be categorised as privileged, dominant; non-whites as historically victimised

AC: In what way are whites 'victimised'? I mean, seriously. Is it like jews in the holocaust, kulaks under Stalin, Catholics in Belfast, Aboriginals in the early years of white settlement? ... It's like a kind of victim-envy here.

My complaint was that leftists always make whites out to be the oppressors. AC interprets this as me preferring the role of victim; he queries how whites could be victims.

It's another odd question to ask. Of course whites have been victims at times throughout history. There were Australian soldiers and nurses who were victims of Japanese atrocities during WWII. There were Russians who were victims during the Tatar yoke. There were south-eastern Europeans who were victims during the rule of the Ottomans. There were many thousands of whites who were the victims of the Barbary corsairs.

But, most of all, whites are the victims of leftist (and liberal) politics. Not in the sense of suffering violent persecution, but in having our group existence delegitimised. If whiteness is a false and oppressive category, harmful to others and productive of injustice and inequality, then it must be cut down so that it no longer casts an influence on society.

And so Jennifer Clarke, who teaches at the Australian National University, can write an article titled 'White' Privilege in which she describes Australia as a "regionally anomalous white enclave run largely by white people to our own advantage", in which anti-discrimination laws should be applied more effectively so that "a majority of Australians would no longer be of northern European ethnic heritage".

It's a program of "getting rid of" the group thought to be responsible for social ills, not via violent pogroms, but by demographic change.

Even at a personal level, it's a kind of low-level persecution to go through life being held responsible for the ills of the world and being portrayed negatively as a privileged oppressor. It's particularly problematic for young people who have little choice but to accept what is put before them at school and at university.

We can do better, but this means making a clean break with the underlying assumptions of leftism.

83 comments:

  1. As always, Mr Richardson, well said and well argued.

    To the necessity of "making a clean break with the underlying assumptions of leftism", I would simply add the perhaps even greater necessity of rejecting the notion (to be found not only among leftists but among certain right-liberals) that mass murder is the only way of destroying a civilisation.

    It not only isn't the only way, it isn't even the most effective way. Dare I say it, it isn't even the most cruel way. There was a reason Christ told us to fear those who kill the soul more than those who kill the body. When it comes to the battle for hearts and minds, Hollywood (which today is really just one gigantic "Whiteness Studies" faculty) now makes Mao, Stalin and Bin Laden look like bungling amateurs. Perhaps it always did: Lenin said, "Give me the film industry and you give me the nation."

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the professor's mind whites exist in a condition of white supremacy.

    To which I sigh, "If only..."

    ReplyDelete
  3. "In the professor's mind whites exist in a condition of white supremacy."

    Yes its kind of awkward to be told that when you don't feel it. I'm reminded of the movie "Born on the Fourth of July" where the black nurse is explaining to the crippled war vet how the war is a conspiracy to keep the whites rich. As Tom Cruise keeps at his physio with little help from the nurse he says "Oh really where's my millions?".

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Are leftists willing to own their own politics? I ask this having had yet another frustrating exchange with a leftist, who seems unwilling to own up to the real content and the real consequences of leftist politics."

    Owning to the implications and consequences of one's politics, of oen's world-view, would require some degree of honesty, would it not?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Remember he's just punching the clock for Cass. Quality of mind is job 2.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the 'not owning up' here is entirely on the side of the conservatives.

    First, you pretend that this poem is not a poem, and rather, is mounting a philosophical or theological position. This is basically the same as claiming the sci-fi writers are doing astronomy. Then, you purport that this poem is 'dangerous', because it's representative of most people on the left, and it 'vilifies' whites. When asked how exactly the poem vilifies whites, no answer is given.

    Poetry, like all art, does not have one, fixed, static meaning. In that regard, it's a little like a Rorschach test. To that end, if you see hatred, vilification, etc., this has more to do with you than it does Maxine, the more so since you can't actually pin this 'vilification' down to anything concrete. Your reaction is yours, and you should take responsibility for it, rather than blame it on scapegoats.

    You say that whites have been victims. Of course, this is true. What you fail to remind readers is that your examples are all pre-modern, or involve whites who were persecuted for reasons other than being white. The Japanese certainly committed vast atrocities, but they did far more against the Chinese than any white folk. You can hardly claim that Japanese actions were in this sense equivalent to pogroms, Jim Crow laws, etc.

    But, most of all, whites are the victims of leftist (and liberal) politics. Not in the sense of suffering violent persecution, but in having our group existence delegitimised.

    So there's no actual persecution of any sort happening, but if a poet or academic says something that you disagree with, you and the rest of the white race are being 'delegitimised'. Right. This is not only a complete failure of conservatives taking responsibility for themselves, it's also an abject moral and intellectual failure.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AC-

    Who says persecution must incorporate violence? Is that your definition of persecution? Sticks and stones and all of that? This is only sophistry.

    Your inability to comprehend another's argument, let alone emphasize with it for the sake of honest discussion, I think indicates a completely hardened ideology. You sound too young for this bleak condition.

    Whatever your purpose in commenting here it seems to exclude learning. This may be titillating for you but it is wearying and vapid for this reader.

    -- leadpb

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon contrarian,

    When I try to argue with you it feels as if I'm being asked to give my assent to propositions that are clearly false.

    Maxine Clarke wrote a political poem. It's not a poem with an ambiguous meaning, one that we can project whatever meaning we like onto.

    It vilifies whites by suggesting that whites would revel in visiting disaster on brown people. It makes us sound malicious and as having evil intent.

    There have been plenty of times and places when whites have been in a subordinate position. In Morocco whites were the slave class, blacks the overseer class and Arabs the ruling class for several hundred years, ending only in 1816.

    Somewhat more fortunate were those European boys enslaved by the Ottoman emperors as part of the devshirme system.

    This was a levy which took place every 4 or 5 years in which boys from south-eastern Europe were taken forcibly from their families, converted forcibly to Islam and made to serve the Ottoman emperor. The system lasted into the 1700s.

    Finally, it is evasive for you to state:

    So there's no actual persecution of any sort happening, but if a poet or academic says something that you disagree with, you and the rest of the white race are being 'delegitimised'.

    The "something" being said that I disagree with is not an opinion about the weather or the footy. It's the idea that whiteness itself was invented for one class of people to gain an unearned privilege over those categorised as the non-white other.

    If you hold this idea, then of course whiteness is delegitimised. First, because it's considered an unreal, artificial, invented category. Second, because it's considered the blocking point to the achievement of equality and social justice. Third, because those whites who do identify positively with their own tradition will be assumed to be motivated by a desire to uphold "supremacy".

    Anon contrarian, I get the feeling again that you want to hold to a leftist politics in which whites are categorised negatively as an oppressor class, but you don't want to admit or accept that your politics has negative or harmful consequences for whites or for the future of traditionally white societies.

    I do not believe that you are owning up to your politics.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cultural Leftists couldn't really be expected to own up to their ideology, could they? After all they depend on the acquiesence of Whites to their own demise.

    AC doesn't sound young to ME. He sounds like a 35-45 YO professor of political science. Perhaps a foreign one as his sentence structure occasionally doesn't sound like someone who has English as his first language.

    ReplyDelete
  10. One of the things which must always be kept in mind when trying to argue (*) with "liberals," and leftists in general, is that their "arguments" are based on the assumptions of post-modernism, rather than on the assumption that reasoning must adhere to logic to be validly rational and rationally compelling. And post-modernism is simply about power, how to get it and how to hold it (how to exercise it is pretty much irrelevant to post-modernists).



    (*) Once one understands what is going on, one realizes the utter futility of arguing -- where arguing is properly understood as an attempt to find the truth-of-the-matter -- with "liberals." They don't *care* about reason and rationality, they don't *care* about truth, they care about getting power.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ilion wrote,

    "[Liberals] don't *care* about reason and rationality, they don't *care* about truth, they care about getting power."

    Sadly, I think you are right, Ilion. Another symptom of this moral sickness is the leftist's habitual abuse of the passive voice. Look over some of A.C.'s posts, and witness at what crucial junctures of his assertions he refuses to identify the agent in his sentences.

    But how this is so, I don't yet understand. How does a man allow Evil to so degrade his heart that he does not care about the Truth?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think from now on, in light of what Ilion has pointed out, I will no longer take A.C.'s "arguments" at face value but assume he is advancing some unstated cause. To thwart that cause, I will simply point out the inconsistencies within his statements and his worldview.

    A.C. wrote,

    "Poetry, like all art, does not have one, fixed, static meaning. In that regard, it's a little like a Rorschach test. To that end, if you see hatred, vilification, etc., this has more to do with you than it does Maxine, the more so since you can't actually pin this 'vilification' down to anything concrete."

    How then do you understand the hysterical reaction of leftist Jews to Gibson's movie The Passion? Or how about blacks' reaction to the minstrel show? etc.

    You can hardly claim that Japanese actions were in this sense equivalent to pogroms, Jim Crow laws, etc.

    This is becoming tedious. As I doubt you are really ignorant of the Japanese internment of all non-Axis Europeans in the territories which she conquered, I suppose you are simply lying here. And if you intend to argue that the Japanese internment of Europeans was benign, you had better explain why your fellow leftists believe the American internment of Japanese to have been so evil. Indeed, what was the mortality rate in the American camps? And what was the mortality rate in the Japanese camps? I find the comparison to be very illuminating.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I think from now on, in light of what Ilion has pointed out, I will no longer take A.C.'s "arguments" at face value but assume he is advancing some unstated cause. To thwart that cause, I will simply point out the inconsistencies within his statements and his worldview."

    I think you'll find it far less frustrating.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AC

    "First, you pretend that this poem is not a poem, and rather, is mounting a philosophical or theological position."

    This is tiresome. To quote the Simpsons, "Cartoons don't have any meaning they're just a bunch of stupid cartoons that make us laugh". Right. If there's no political meaning in this poem or other works of art why do we have whole academies in the humanities set up to interprete the racism in Conrad or Haggard, the sexism in Pope or Tosltoy or the social inequality in, um, everything!

    Finished talking crap now?

    By the way if there was no political meaning in the poem, or one that you couldn't see, the poet would no doubt be very disappointed. She is a poet to educate/make the world a better place, read push left wing politics. Entertainment, beautiful craft with the language comes second.

    "So there's no actual persecution of any sort happening"

    If you watch American Dad there's a scene where the white teenager Steve is stuck in the desert. "Don't worry I can make it, after all I'm a strong, proud, black woman! Oh no wait... I'm a white teenage boy. I'm doomed!!" Its a silly joke but one that resonates because *wait for it* white guys are craped on while others are boosted. You say "Oh but there's no persecution" and there's no persecution in calling a woman "broad" or black guy "boy" either.

    But,oh, that's different!!! Of course because white guys are the powerful group, so go nuts on them. As indeed historically they are and in many respects largely still are. Look out the window old son, everything you see, western civilisation, was built by white guys. Are you mad Jesse its the Chinese who make everything now!! Well yes other civilisations are catching up by using the techniques that largely we created or inspired. And what are we doing in the meantime? Castigating ourselves.

    Now you’re a Marxist so you don't mind white/western civilisation beating up on itself. That's how communism came into being. Rouse discontent, overthrow the order. Then when you have power all the great calamities that you decry, such as racism (The Russians and Chinese are/were surely racist), inequality (The inequality of those who are in the party and those who aren't), war (viva la revolution), unrestrained state power (*coughs*), destruction of the environment and indigenous peoples (communism, again pick your country) and not to mention actual persecution, see the killing fields of so many communist countries, suddenly aren't so bad and are necessary.

    I had a friend in Bouganville who was working in an aid station and a woman brought in a very sick child. The moment she saw there were white people manning the station she relaxed and had faith they would be able to fix her child. That’s not because of brainwashing, force or exploitation but because "white" was associated in her mind with competence and technological skill, (also money I hear you about to say?). This state of affairs didn't come about by accident but rather because "white" guys have been pushing and advancing the "frontier" in every way for a long time. Oh yes and conquering everything too! *Yawns* Like I said this is only an issue when we conquer, your buddies on the other hand are allowed open slather.

    The actual consequences of undermining “white civilisation“, white guys are nothing but exploitive pricks etc, whether openly said or more subtly, is to undermine the very factors that made our civilisation great. If you doubt this look around and you'll see a lot of "oh its all too hard, lets not do it", attitudes everywhere. The cutting edge isn't quite there often is it? Hmm, western people seem to lose their self confidence so easily these days. I wonder why that could be?

    ReplyDelete
  15. We now have a President in the US whose resume is pathetic. A state senator for a few years and then Federal senator for two years before running for President. He does, however, have one thing in his favour, he's black. Oh and left wing, that's two. And high brow that's three. That doesn't seem a hell of a lot to be President. "Appearance" issues aren't important? Of course to get the job he stepped over a guy, who, regardless of whether you agreed with his politics or not, clearly dedicated his life to his nations welfare.

    What we have on one side is your lot pushing guilt and blame and the liberals on the other pushing selfishness and self indulgence. It seems a perilous state of affairs to be in.

    ReplyDelete
  16. One of the things which must always be kept in mind when trying to argue (*) with "liberals," and leftists in general, is that their "arguments" are based on the assumptions of post-modernism, rather than on the assumption that reasoning must adhere to logic to be validly rational and rationally compelling.

    Way to miss the point. The entire premise of this (and a previous) post was Mr Richardson's claim that this poem 'vilifies' whites. He is yet to advance a shred of evidence in support of this reading, and claims it to be self-evident instead. I point this out, and suggest that his reaction to the poem may have something to do with him, and I am then accused of 'post modernism'. Nice.

    How then do you understand the hysterical reaction of leftist Jews to Gibson's movie The Passion? Or how about blacks' reaction to the minstrel show? etc.

    Firstly, it's debatable to what extent reaction to the above was 'hysterical'. Secondly, we see a couple of familiar conservative traits rear their ugly head here. First is the victim-envy that I've had occasion to point out. Even if we accept Mr Richardson's contention that Maxine's poem is racist, it's still a bridge too far to compare it to the West's long history of anti-semitism, for instance. In fact, 'hysterical' would be an understatement. Secondly, we see the typical conservative practice of abolishing context from claims. So take the 'blackfacing', for instance. In Australia, there was very little 'hysteria'. In the US, there was some discontent, mainly because the US has a long (and relatively recent) history of black slavery and institutionalised racism (Jim Crows laws, for instance). Again, if you think that your 'race' being 'delegitimised' by contrary opinion is an equivalent historical context, then it is you who is hysterical.

    As I doubt you are really ignorant of the Japanese internment of all non-Axis Europeans in the territories which she conquered, I suppose you are simply lying here.

    You complain about grammar, Bart, yet you suffer attacks of serial illiteracy. I never denied Japanese atrocities against whites (inter alia). My point was that the attacks did not occur against whites qua whites. Attacking a man for his wallet is not the same as attacking him on the basis of his skin colour, even if the mechanics of the attack are themselves the same.

    If there's no political meaning in this poem or other works of art why do we have whole academies in the humanities set up to interprete the racism in Conrad or Haggard, the sexism in Pope or Tosltoy or the social inequality in, um, everything!

    You're getting over-excited again, Jesse. Last time yo were accusing me of being anti-nuclear. Now you're pushing this nonsese. My point is that there is no single meaning, political or otherwise, to be attributed to a poem or piece of art. A good example is the film Avatar. I haven't seen it, but I'm aware of the wide range of reactions, political and otherwise, to the film.


    Hmm, western people seem to lose their self confidence so easily these days.

    Perhaps because that 'self-confidence' is predicated on crank 19th century theories of 'race', combined with David Irving-style denailism on all matters colonial. Then again, if I'd reacted as histrionically to a poem as some here, I might be losing 'self-confidence' also.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jessee: "This is tiresome. To quote the Simpsons, "Cartoons don't have any meaning they're just a bunch of stupid cartoons that make us laugh". Right. If there's no political meaning in this poem or other works of art why do we have whole academies in the humanities set up to interprete the racism in Conrad or Haggard, the sexism in Pope or Tosltoy or the social inequality in, um, everything!"

    Jessee,
    If you're asking the question of the post-modernist, then you're wasting your time if you seriously expect a serious and rational response. If you're asking the question rhetorically in order that others can see the absurdity of the post-modernists's "argument," then you're not wasting your time. But, you need to decide and be aware of what you're doing ... else, you leave yourself open to being overcome by frustration and anger and hatred when the post-moderninst behaves as a post-modernist, which is to say, as an intellectually dishonest person, as a liar-about-the-nature-of-truth.

    Post-modernists don't *care* about reason and logic and truth; they care about power. Specifically, they care about getting power and holding it. The accusations they make are aimed toward that end. The accusations are tactic; the strategy is to gain the power for which they lust with a minimum of exertion and (and this is the important part) danger to themselves, by convincing others to willingly subjugate themselves. After all, what’s the point of competing for power if one might get killed in the competition?

    Thus, it doesn’t matter to a post-modernist that his assertions are bullshit; and it matters to him that others see and point out the bullshittery only because that means that this particular batch didn’t stick to the wall when he threw it.


    Jessee: "Finished talking crap now?"

    Post-modernists are *never* finished talking crap, for that's all they have.

    ReplyDelete
  18. ... ooops, sorry about misspelling 'Jesse.'

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Way to miss the point."

    AC,
    You're a fool (*). And I don't allow fools to waste my time, and I mever take them seriously.


    (*) I'm not calling you "stupid," I'm calling you intellectually dishonest; I'm saying that you're a hypocrite with respect to reason (similarly to how a regular hypocrite is with respect to morality). I'm saying that you're worse than a mere liar.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Again, if you think that your 'race' being 'delegitimised' by contrary opinion is an equivalent historical context, then it is you who is hysterical."

    Where did anyone assert this? "If you think ..." implies your projection of fantasy, not someone else's belief.

    It's the little scraps that are the most telling.

    -- leadpb

    ReplyDelete
  21. The thing I noticed is that many WN are newbees. Therefore they don't know how to formulate their ideas. They have strong passion but often present wrong cases or examples. Basically they haven't connected the dots properly. This all is part of the lack of experience and the lack of dialogue between them.

    Many ideas that are not debated in public and are not part of mainstream dialogue suffers from this. Liberals generally are better able to present their case since its very much part of the mainstream dialogue. Liberals know the talking points very well since they hear it daily. But liberals will not beat the WN movement. They will simply help the WN present better points and become more intellectual in their arguments.

    Already we are seeing evidence of this in many WN websites and forums. They are becoming more professional in their arguments and more focussed. But many newbees are too individualistic and try to formulate ideas they pick up inside their minds. Ideas that are not fully studied and often is emotion based. Liberals see this and attack. But whether liberals like it or not, this time around the WN will keep growing stronger and stronger. More resources and experiences will enter the movement and they will finally be able to convince mainstream America. But as it stands now the are still in the maturing phase.

    One thing good about this is the neo-WN movements is actually about something now. Unlike the past. But it will take time for them to go mainstream. In the mainstream emotions don't work. Elitism does.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Post-modernists don't *care* about reason and logic and truth; they care about power.

    If this is the case, then conservatism and its games of pettu identity politics and particularist 'truth' are far more 'postmodern' than anything I've argued.



    Leadpb asked: Where did anyone assert this?


    It was asserted earlier in present post:


    But, most of all, whites are the victims of leftist (and liberal) politics. Not in the sense of suffering violent persecution, but in having our group existence delegitimised.

    It's clear from the context that being 'delegitimised' here is equivalent to being persecuted, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A.C.:

    First of all, quit talking to everyone here so disrespectfully or beat it. Really.

    You wrote,

    "Firstly, it's debatable to what extent reaction to the above was 'hysterical'."
    Stop, now. You contend that only "philistines" see politics in art. The Jews saw The Passion not as just another movie but as a work of art with a political/religious message which they interpreted as anti-Semitism. Are the Jews philistines for doing so?

    Then, you wrote,

    "You complain about grammar, Bart, yet you suffer attacks of serial illiteracy. I never denied Japanese atrocities against whites (inter alia). My point was that the attacks did not occur against whites qua whites."

    Again, stop it. My point was clear: the Japanese did round up whites as whites unless they were German or Italian whites. That was their expressed policy. This is a matter of historical record. Google it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ilion wrote,

    "...and it matters to [the post-modernist] that others see and point out the bullshittery only because that means that this particular batch didn’t stick to the wall when he threw it."

    Haha, very funny because it's very true.

    Also, when I wrote "the Jews" up there, I of course did not mean all Jews. I meant the Leftists who happen to be Jewish and who therefore never miss an opportunity to rend Christianity limb from limb.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Ac Said":

    "My point is that there is no single meaning, political or otherwise, to be attributed to a poem or piece of art."

    That's hardly any point at all. They're not completely devoid of meaning, are they? There may well be more than one thing in a work of art, that's why its art because its compressed meaning or expression. This doesn't mean that what is there isn't.

    "Again, if you think that your 'race' being 'delegitimised' by contrary opinion is an equivalent historical context, then it is you who is hysterical."

    Nobodies saying we're in chains here, oh and neither are the blacks by the way. But what of the future? Its a bit more than a "contrary" opinion to endlessly undermine white civilisation as a history of exploitation.

    "Attacking a man for his wallet is not the same as attacking him on the basis of his skin colour, even if the mechanics of the attack are themselves the same."

    This is total nonsense. Jim Crowe was bad because it singled out blacks, however, the Japanese aren't bad because they were brutal to everyone? Generally more brutal to non-westerners by the way, although its all relative. The Japanese were attacking Europeans because they were rich? They were psuedo communists? That's crap.

    Now what of the communists crimes AC? Do they get a pass? I mean its a bit hypothetical because we beat them, um no thanks to you. Not so hypothetical if they were in power over us. So again what of the communists crimes? We're all even minded here right and apportion blame where its due.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bartholomew: "Also, when I wrote "the Jews" up there, I of course did not mean all Jews. I meant the Leftists who happen to be Jewish and who therefore never miss an opportunity to rend Christianity limb from limb."

    I understood that. I refer to such persons a "bagel Jews" -- they tend to be 'atheists' (and they tend to hate Judaism as much as they hate Christianity, for it's God they hate) and they're less Jewish than I am even if their biological connection to the Jewish people is fewer generations ago than mine.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The ideology of equality of outcomes for all killed 100,000,000 people in the 20th century.

    Surely its time to see this crap for the lie it is?

    By the way Mark you really need to get a better site, your content is far too good to be wasted on a free blog like this. More people need to read what you have to write.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm still struggling with AC's claim that I haven't attempted to show how the poem vilifies whites:

    The entire premise of this (and a previous) post was Mr Richardson's claim that this poem 'vilifies' whites. He is yet to advance a shred of evidence in support of this reading, and claims it to be self-evident instead. I point this out, and suggest that his reaction to the poem may have something to do with him, and I am then accused of 'post modernism'. Nice.

    This is the weird thing about trying to debate AC. Things are not as they are but as they exist in AC's mind. In AC's mind I have not explained several times why the poem vilifies whites, I have merely suggested it to be self-evident.

    AC is proving Ilion's point over and over.

    Here is one of my attempts to explain how the poem vilifies whites:

    It vilifies whites by suggesting that whites would revel in visiting disaster on brown people. It makes us sound malicious and as having evil intent.

    Here's another attempt:

    To me the poem is clearly hostile to whites. It conjures up images of white powers maliciously visiting acts of evil upon others.

    I described how the poem portrayed whites in such a negative way as follows:

    The gist of the poem? God and Jesus must be white men. That would explain their visiting of death and destruction on brown people. She asks the "pale trinity" if crushing Haiti felt as good as similar acts visited on coloured peoples, such as the tsunami.

    I also spent time, in this post and the previous one, connecting such a view of whites as oppressors to more widely held political positions, such as those taught within whiteness studies courses.

    And here's the issue. AC will not ever, under any circumstances, admit that the poem defames whites.

    He seems to want the freedom for the left to produce such work but without anyone recognising it for what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "And here's the issue. AC will not ever, under any circumstances, admit that the poem defames whites."

    It's a tactic that post-modernists, of whatever stripe, employ. I call it "deny-and-demand;" no matter what evidence is presented, simply deny that it *is* evidence, and demand more evidence.

    The tactic works because far too many persons falsely imagine that civility is a higher moral obligation than honesty, and thus are afraid to call a liar a liar.

    No, of course, once one has called another a liar (and unless either one realizes that one was wrong or the other admits it and promises to be honest), there's not much point in further discussion.

    But, at the same time, what sort of discussion is possible with someone who *is* a liar? Does one's reluctance to call a spade a spade make it a matock?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I call it "deny-and-demand;" no matter what evidence is presented, simply deny that it *is* evidence, and demand more evidence.

    Ilion, thanks. That's a helpful way of understanding the tactic at work here.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ilion wrote,

    "It's a tactic that post-modernists, of whatever stripe, employ. I call it "deny-and-demand;" no matter what evidence is presented, simply deny that it *is* evidence, and demand more evidence."

    This is profound. As I read this, my mind began showing a montage of bewildering conversations with Leftists over the years, only now accompanied by the post-modernist song and dance Ilion refers to, and yep, it works.

    "The tactic works because far too many persons falsely imagine that civility is a higher moral obligation than honesty, and thus are afraid to call a liar a liar."

    You're right, Ilion: when A.C. engages in moral degeneracy, we ought to hold him responsible for it. And I hope we manage to do so with civility and confidence.

    I've been impressed by the way Mr. Richardson, oldhat, leadpb, Jesse (and I'm sure I'm missing some; apologies) deal civilly with the most tiresome leftists, and I've noticed that I've become more civil and patient in my commenting too (hey, really!).

    ReplyDelete
  32. By the way, Ilion, I thought this comment of yours was exactly the right way to handle A.C. until he mends his errant ways. It was neither unmeasured nor cowardly; it was right on target.

    ""Way to miss the point."

    AC,
    You're a fool (*). And I don't allow fools to waste my time, and I mever take them seriously.

    (*) I'm not calling you "stupid," I'm calling you intellectually dishonest; I'm saying that you're a hypocrite with respect to reason (similarly to how a regular hypocrite is with respect to morality). I'm saying that you're worse than a mere liar."

    ReplyDelete
  33. Bartholomew: "By the way, Ilion, I thought this comment of yours was exactly the right way to handle A.C. until he mends his errant ways. …"

    Thank you. I've been thinking about the matter for years, ever since I first noticed the "deny-and-demand" tactic as a tactic.

    After I realized that the root problem is one of (lack of) intellectual honesty, I realized that *that* is what must be addressed if any progress is to be possible in discussing anything with those employing it - it’s logically impossible to have a rational discussion/argument when either party is willing to be dishonest.

    Unfortunately, most people will not see the matter as it is; most people are willing to allow their "politeness" to used as a weapon against them -- and these "polite" people are frequently very willing to viciously attack anyone who steps off the "niceness" plantation. Such "nice" persons (until they're vicious) tend to imagine that their "niceness" is grounded in Christianity (you know: Christ called us to loveniceness, rather than to love truth) ... so I call their religion "Nice-anity."

    Anyway, the point here is that if one decides to step out of the herd and call a spade a spade, one ought to be perpared for the herd to trample on one.

    At the some time, one must always keep in mind that disagreement and/or error on the other's part does not is not enough to establish that he is being intellectually dishonest -- one mustn't "jump the gun," one must give those with whom disagrees every benefit of the doubt.


    AND, we must be on guard to not ourselves employ the "deny-and-demand" tactic. When I discussed the tactic, I switched from using the terms 'leftist' and 'liberal' to 'post-modernist' because leftists aren't the only ones who employ the tactic. Everyone in Western societies has been compromised some degree by the modernism-and-post-modernism complex: we're all, to some degree, the fruit of that ill-grown tree call the "Enlightenment."

    ReplyDelete
  34. "It’s logically impossible to have a rational discussion/argument when either party is willing to be dishonest."

    It is unfortunate. I find it very difficult to have political discussions with leftists these days. Mohamed said earlier that leftists are superior arguers. I'm not sure that's true, but they certainly throw plenty of tantrums and don't like to give ground. "Nice-ity" is interesting, its like being a prick with a benign smile. Its obviously an elitist tactic.

    Well I tell you what guys, go to a leftist site and you won't see a massive back and forth with conservatives, because lefties really can't cope with disagreement. They'd chuck it out.

    *Sighs* Ok Mark explain how the poem was ... What did he want you to do again? I forget.

    It is bizarre AC why can't you admit the left is anti white guy? Its not an issue of saying Whites are subject to the holocaust or anything but why would you want to deny the obvious? (Ok Llion don't jump in and say why he would want to *winks*). Its just weird.

    Victim status. If you feel "hard done by", (whether its justified or not and lets just say for the moment that it is) isn't it legitimate to be pissed off? I mean really, you're not allowed to feel hard done by or else you're trying to cloak yourself in the status of victim?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Another problem is the acceptance here of the notion that Jews and blacks were "persecuted". In other words the assertion, "it is who we are, not what we did", stands unchallenged, when it is fundamentally untrue. For instance the legal segregation of whites and blacks in the US, Jim Crow, is well justified when black-on-white criminality is examined.

    http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-color-of-crime-826

    ReplyDelete
  36. It is bizarre AC why can't you admit the left is anti white guy? Its not an issue of saying Whites are subject to the holocaust or anything but why would you want to deny the obvious?

    Exactly. As if to illustrate the point, the most recent Overland post is an argument against white male writers (described in none too friendly terms by one commenter as "pale, male, stale").

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymouse: "Another problem is the acceptance here of the notion that Jews and blacks were "persecuted". In other words the assertion, "it is who we are, not what we did", stands unchallenged, when it is fundamentally untrue. For instance the legal segregation of whites and blacks in the US, Jim Crow, is well justified when black-on-white criminality is examined."

    How like a "liberal" you reason, Anonymouse.

    How can present-day black-on-white crime (and black-on-black crime) justify the Democrats' former laws compelling some US citizens to treat other US citizens as though they were sub-human? For that matter, how can present-day black-on-white crime (or black-on-black crime) justify a new set of laws compelling some US citizens to treat other US citizens as though they were sub-human, regardles of whether any of the individual US citizens have ever harmed another?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Please, guys, stop insulting our Liberal and Leftist commenters. We need them here if we are to understand their thinking.

    Perhaps they are not always intellectually honest, but they see themselves as being so. This gives us the opportunity to peck around the edges of their thought to see why they don't see themselves as fudging on the truth.

    We may just learn something about ourselves, too.

    ReplyDelete
  39. What people like Kevin Macdonald and Ted Pike don't realize is liberalism is an almost exclusive Western concept. They tak about them like they are aliens. Liberalsim is a function of the enlightenment and the French revolution. I am talking about the modern concept of liberalsim.

    Macdonald is right that Jewish intellectuals and activist supported liberal cause and also Marxist cause because of their own ethnic interest. Most minorities would prefare liberalism to a certain degree. Many Arabs and Muslim in the West also support many liberal causes even though they would not support these same causes in a Muslim dominated nation. But to talk about it like its something alien or even treacherous is wrong. Liberals generally focus on abuse of power whether be against minorities, workers, unions, women or environment. Any functioning democracy needs a strong liberal presence. Thats what seperates the West from lets say the Middle East where liberals are very weak and are unable to find mass support.

    However I think many of the attacks against liberals here are unfair. Conservatives were supposed to be the establishment that supported America's European and Christian heritage. However these same old Jewish activist took them over even easier than the liberals. Compare George Bush with Obama.

    Just stop mass immigration and all the problems would end. No need to go on and on about all this. WN keep thinking to justify WN they must somehow find a reason to attack others or glorify "Whiteness". I don't see Japanese nationalist or Malay nationalist or pan Africans or Arab nationalist, or Hindu nationalist do that. Most people in the world are ethno-centric and clannish and sectarian and these emotions come naturally for them.

    So whats the big deal. In that I support Macdonald. He is right that Euro-Americans have every right to identify themelves with their Euro-ethnicity and demand to explicitly state so. They have every right to have their own ethnic interest accepted and acknowledged. Something which is not happening as of yet. However it will happen soon.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Any functioning democracy needs a strong liberal presence. That’s what separates the West from lets say the Middle East where liberals are very weak and are unable to find mass support."

    I agree with you up to a point Mohamed but I also have to say that that's your problem. If democracy supporters in Arab countries are considered Pro western and sell out traitors, so you have to live under the strictest interpretation of the Burkha in order to maintain your culture, well then that's your problem to deal with and your culture will gloriously fail. And if you encroach on us militarily we will bomb you and have no compunction about doing so.

    You mentioned, ok you've mentioned mass immigration, the point has been made now leave it alone. No this is an issue in progress, the point has not been made it is very much in flux. You as an Arab have a strong sense of cultural identity and see no reason why we in the West (whites) should not have that same benefit. However, Arab countries as a rule don't support mass immigration because they know that by doing so they'll undermine their traditional culture. To seriously support traditional culture you can't have a population in total flux or have whiteness as a distant memory. You wouldn’t accept that in your own countries.

    You mentioned the Jewish influence in America. All I can say to that is you've been a little bit taken in haven't you.

    As for foreign nationalists, what you said is inaccurate. They are very precious. In Malaysia recently a Christian church was burned because there was ‘concern’ that the word "Allah" would be able to be used legally (by non-muslims) and that this could help Christians in proselytising. Bit of an overreaction don‘t you think? As you know there are strict rules about the preservation of Islam in all muslim countries.

    You've mentioned WN a couple of times for the sake of clarity can you define what you mean there?

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. How like an empty vessel you sound, iliar. Is this your little deny and demand game? Let's play. Why must they justify freedom of association? Why must they justify freedom from personal threats? Why must they justify freedom from attack upon their people simply because they are white? If the ADL can justify a defence against crimes of hate, why can't whites?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jesse_7: "You've mentioned WN a couple of times for the sake of clarity can you define what you mean there?"

    I was scratching my head for the longest time, too. Then I realized he means "White Nationalism."

    *yawn*

    Goodness! Whereever would my family fit in?

    ReplyDelete
  43. If only Jim Crow were alive and well in South Africa. However, pusillanimous pablum puking pinkos like iliar, will find no such justification for it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtLmJSQBiwA

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think there isn't much further to take the debate. Some commenters are getting sidetracked by a range of irrelevant issues ('postmodernism', communism, etc).

    At bottom, the disagreement is this - you presume that this poem is self-evidently racist and vilifies whites. This alleged vilification is apparently indicative of a range of entities (the left, 'liberals', etc), who are oppressive toward whites. In my view, all of these assumptions are based on false reasoning, and the claims of racism in the poem are tenuous in the extreme, especially as I've already alerted you to the broader context (i.e. Robertson's remarks implying that the Haitians deserved disaster for seeing independence from the Europeans).

    I'd be curious to know where you draw the line on this racial fetish - you've got a couple of commenters here who seem to be supportive of segregation and holocaust denial. Isn't this merely the logical conclusion of your ethnic particularism? I'm not suggesting that the majority of commenters here support such positions, but if you truly believe that whites are assailed by ethnic forces, then why wouldn't you support segregation or apartheid, for instance?

    Mohamed makes in interesting point in raising the Arabs. The Arabs, in my view, represent the failure of precisely this ethnic approach that is championed here. A few decades ago, pan Arab nationalism was all the rage in the ME, as it exemplified a common identity with which Arabs could rally.

    As we've seen, identification by ethny failed, politically and socially, to achieve anything much at all. This is in large part because the ethny itself was always a construction that papered over the very real differences and antagonisms between Arabs. These differences were religious (for all the 'fundamentalism' in the ME, there were plenty of secularists back in the day), linguistic (a Moroccan could not communicate with an Iraqi, despite their both supposedly sharing a lingua franca) and class-based (the oil tycoons of Saudi have no solidarity for their own exploited and impoverished citizens, much less fellow Arabs like the Palestinians, for instance).

    The Arabs are a good example of the failure of an 'ethny' being the basis for politics, which does not mean, for all that, the the grievances behind such politics are themselves false.

    ReplyDelete
  45. AC,

    If pan-Arab nationalism failed because of differences in religion, language and so on, it means that it failed because it wasn't based on a sufficiently close sense of ethnic unity.

    It's a bit like the failure to create a close sense of national identity in Belgium: the differences between the Flemish and Walloons in language and history have been too great to surmount.

    In the case of Belgium there's a relatively easy solution (apart from Brussels) as there is a geographical division between each ethny: it would be possible to create separate states for the Walloons and the Flemings, or to offer the Walloons a place within France and the Flemings a place within Holland.

    It's more difficult when ethnies share the same geographical area. Official forms of segregation (as in South Africa or the American south) aren't viable solutions.

    Both were meant to be based on "equal but separate" principles but the formal segregation of public spaces isn't likely to be felt as acceptable over time and neither group is likely to feel comfortable when one group effectively occupies a subordinate position.

    One solution is for the majority to assert itself as the mainstream culture, whilst allowing minorities to retain their own ethnic existence. The problem is that in majority white countries, white liberals don't want this solution to happen, they want to break down the majority population.

    White liberals also find it difficult to accept the other solution, which is for the different ethnic groups to "self-select" into different areas where they predominate.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "One solution is for the majority to assert itself as the mainstream culture, whilst allowing minorities to retain their own ethnic existence. The problem is that in majority white countries, white liberals don't want this solution to happen, they want to break down the majority population."

    The solution isn't in worrying about race, but in insisting upon culture.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ilion,

    That is very nicely put:

    "The solution isn't in worrying about race, but in insisting upon culture."

    On the failure of ostensibly allied Arab cultures, I think it has mainly to do with very old (pre-Islamic) cultural tendencies that refuse to die-out or be reformed. Societies arranged along tribal, clan and family lineages as the first orders of power relations will always be reduced to squabbling and inbreeding and radical economic iniquity among other ills.

    If an individual has a "nature" then so does a culture and the nature of Arab culture would seem to prohibit a thriving existence, whether poor or extremely wealthy. Even development of higher education has had no great effect on the progress of these societies.

    This continuing and ancient failure is not one of any sweeping ethnic cohesion but of individual failed political states and tribal groups (local ethnicities if you will) who could not agree among themselves. Trying to fit in non-Arab Moslems makes the unity concept even more silly while Islam assures uniform oppression and backwardness for all.

    --leadpb

    ReplyDelete
  48. I don't know about the rest of you, but I remain a man of principle: another man's friends aren't my business.

    Leftists exploit our insecurities by making us think that our self-worth is bound up in the degree to which another "accepts" us.

    You can't and no one does accept everyone equally (unless you just accept no one at all), which creates infinite possibilities for hurt feelings, etc. Well, hurt feelings and rejection are a fact of life. More precisely, hurt feelings and rejection are a function of living with one or more people on this earth.

    Conservatives call this "the way it is." Leftists call this "an opportunity." Leave it to the morally challenged to see political opportunity in another's pain (there ought to be a German word for that).

    They go to the rejected guy and mutter "there ought to be a law" to make that mean old whomever "accept" you, etc. Of course, it's impossible to make anyone accept anyone else, and the truly evil leftists know this very well. Indeed, they depend on it as an enduring source of their power. So they promise the guy that if he elects them, they'll make it all better. And the more such hurting people there are, the better: all the more potential constituents.

    So, they get the hurting (aka "victims") to elect them and pass a law that makes the meanies (aka "oppressors") do X, Y, or Z--which one doesn't much matter. X, Y or Z never works (who can fix human suffering?) but the leftists get the power to try it out anyway. And they usually don't give that power back once they fail. Power is something they try to keep. How else are they going to lord it over everyone/act out their divinity complex?*

    And the hurting? What do they get out of the deal? Haha, that's the cruelest part of all. They get the hatred and resentment of those who before merely didn't like themp. I don't see the payoff.

    But then again, I don't vote Democrat (America's left libs), so what do I know?

    *Yes, I'm being a little facetious...a little. It's good practice to give one's interlocutor the benefit of the doubt. But I've seen too much of the way leftists act as a whole to give the lot of them any such thing.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ilion wrote,

    "The solution isn't in worrying about race, but in insisting upon culture."

    Eh, I'm underwhelmed: whence culture?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Response to Ilion cont...

    Maybe I have misunderstood you. Perhaps you might clarify what you meant.

    If you mean to say here that we must fix our culture in order to save our people, then yes, I agree. But if you mean to say that we must forget our people and just focus on our culture, well, I frankly don't see the point.

    Why, after all, would I want to bequeath a functioning culture to my dispossessors (if that's even possible: how do you impart values to another man anyway?)?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Supporting segregation and apartheid is simply pandering to the forces of cheap labor. Holocaust denial is a straw man. The Holodomor and the Armenian genocide are denied without retribution which does not seem bother the high priests of proper discourse. Mass messianic murder is not simply a function of ethnic nationalism. It's sanctimonious mendacity to suggest it is. The disparity alleged of Jim Crow was not a function of the law but a function of the groups under the law.

    Ilion opts for culture over race because he is not white, and thus is happy to deny freedom of association to whites because it might exclude him. He is simply an extended phenotype of the cultural marxism that prevails. His presence and the presence of his people in white homelands is a proxy serving the need to narrow the limits of discourse. And discourse is, of course, war.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ilion wrote,

    "The solution isn't in worrying about race, but in insisting upon culture."

    Bartholomew,
    These are my thoughts on this statement.

    This is different phrasing than I have seen before. For me the message is that while we should be cognizant of race, little good will come of making race part of any platform in the public sphere. Issues of race are for the most part implicit rather than explicit and this is mostly a good thing. Sometimes they do need to be explicit, though.

    "Insisting upon culture" I interpret to mean keeping up (and often restoring) standards of decency and social functioning that we know to be historically valid and in the best interest of the citizenry. In other words, working directly against progressives in most areas. Mr. Richardson's recurring theme of family and community life being essential to Western man's well being is a key aspect here.

    ReplyDelete
  53. If pan-Arab nationalism failed because of differences in religion, language and so on, it means that it failed because it wasn't based on a sufficiently close sense of ethnic unity.

    Another explanation is that whilst nationalism might make the 'patriots' feel proud, submission to the ethny would reproduce every form of domination and injustice that exists without it. I didn't mention women in my pan-Arab example above, but what possible reason could an Arab woman have for supporting her ethny, if such support does not come with some hope of her improving her lot? This is partly why ethnic identity, whilst having some appeal for the lower orders, becomes in every instance a case of 'out with the old boss, in with the new boss' once it obtains power.



    One solution is for the majority to assert itself as the mainstream culture, whilst allowing minorities to retain their own ethnic existence. The problem is that in majority white countries, white liberals don't want this solution to happen, they want to break down the majority population.

    But this 'solution' is precisely the essence of Australian multiculturalism as practiced by Fraser, and his successors. Ironically, it's France, for instance, which rejects multiculturalism in favour of civic universalism that ends up ossifying and entrenching ethnic differences.

    And again, it's really stretching things to claim that 'liberals' are 'breaking down' the Anglo clique who've been running the country for most of its existence. The official language is still English, the Queen is still the head of state, and Christianity is the dominant religion. Aboriginals live in third-world conditions, and popular culture has only relatively recently started depicting Mediterraneans, let alone Indians and Asians.


    The Holodomor and the Armenian genocide are denied without retribution which does not seem bother the high priests of proper discourse.

    Denial of the latter is a crime in France. Denial of the former is fairly rare, as far as I can tell. There aren't too many Stalinists about these days.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Addendum: The "standards of decency and social functioning" I mentioned above do correlate with race to a significant degree of course. I should have made that clear. It is a question then of where to most effectively place the emphasis.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Where is the evidence that a majority of Arab women do not embrace Islam?

    He didn't say clique, he said majority. The multi-cult serves capital and self-interest, in the same fashion apartheid did.

    And a zero incarceration rate. Funny how it works that way. No Nuremberg trial for the Stalinistas. Kaganovich died in his bed an old man. Funny how it worked that way.

    ReplyDelete
  56. What traditionalists want is not just the survival of culture, separate from the people who made it - even if that were possible, which I very much doubt is true.

    We want the "ethny" - the people, culture, history, language, religion, manners, "dreaming". And we extend the same right to existence to other peoples of the world as well. That applies particularly to the Western ethnies, but it includes the non-Western ones too.

    We do not cast about for a cosmic enemy to hold ourselves in opposition to. We make clear our principled support for the existence of other ethnies and for those we are working with to support a common Western civilisation.

    Anon (4:44), if you are going to set yourself against Jews politically you'll have to do it elsewhere, perhaps at a WN site. I'm interested in what can be achieved as part of a larger political shift in society, one which I hope Jews might contribute to.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Where is the evidence that a majority of Arab women do not embrace Islam?

    I never said Arab women don't support Islam. I asserted that they had little to gain from a pan-Arab nationalism that did not offer improved conditions. My point all along has been that nationalism is an attempt to paper over a range of antagonisms, and for this reason, is always going to fail as a political strategy.

    He didn't say clique, he said majority. The multi-cult serves capital and self-interest, in the same fashion apartheid did.

    I'm trying to use MC in a more or less precise sense here, referring to Australia's policy of allowing ethnic groups do basically do as they please (culturally and linguistically), as long as they keep their activities within the law. This is in contrast to some kind of forced assimilation, for instance.

    The old rightist canard that immigration undermines local workers simply doesn't hold up any more. It's several times cheaper to pay a worker in Mumbai or Tianjin a few cents an hour than to pay an immigrant in Australia at the minimum wage. Capital generally doesn't recognise any borders. The immigrants who are coming to Australia now are the tax base of the future, without whom an aging population may have to take a cut in living standards and social services.

    And a zero incarceration rate. Funny how it works that way. No Nuremberg trial for the Stalinistas. Kaganovich died in his bed an old man. Funny how it worked that way.

    You're quite correct, there was no justice for the 'Stalinistas'. However, apart from a small group of ultra-nationalist cranks in Russia, I can't think of anybody in their right mind who is attempting to rehabilitate Stalin. History is written by the victors, and since they lost the Cold War, the old communist regimes are demonised more than ever.

    ReplyDelete
  58. AC wrote:

    This is partly why ethnic identity, whilst having some appeal for the lower orders, becomes in every instance a case of 'out with the old boss, in with the new boss' once it obtains power.

    The majority of the population doesn't support their continued ethnic existence because they think it will deliver them some sort of utopia without bosses.

    They support it because it forms part of their self-identity, because it allows them to feel part of a larger whole, because it helps to give meaning to their efforts to produce and to raise families and so on.

    They get to have both a boss and an ongoing communal identity. When you live in a modern multicult you just get to have a boss.

    And when you have open borders, then it's the low-skilled workers who are most likely to see their living standards fall. Employers don't need to be as concerned to train them, as workers can be had from elsewhere. It's a lot more possible to have social classes who are left behind.

    ReplyDelete
  59. But you can have an ethnic identity (or any identity, really) without making it the primary basis for a political movement. White, Anglo-Australians have their identity already - nobody is going to stop them pledging allegiance to the Queen or the Union Jack, engaging in traditional cultural practices, etc. As for a 'communal' existence - I'd wager that if you put 3 people of the same ethny in a room at the same time, and you'd begin to get factionalisation (possibly along religious, class or gender lines).

    Re: immigration - I don't believe that there's any serious push for open borders. I also think that there's no longer a serious link between deteriorating working conditions and immigration. The ruling powers tend to play the immigration card as part of a divide and rule strategy - get poor locals to turn against poor immigrants.

    Globalisation has drastically reduced capital's need for immigration. It's manufacturing barely exists in Australia. This is combined with years of individualistic social and economic policies (see Workchoices, for example), and the erosion of trade unions. In the US, outsourcing or moving production is something that needn't even involve going overseas - companies abandon the north-east in favour of de-unionised areas in the South and the Mid-West, or else they move into one-industry towns where the locals are so beholden to them for jobs that they're effectively blackmailed.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I've had to delete several comments. Could I remind commenters to avoid ad hominems and coarse language.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Your projecting. How do you know they want anything other than a continuance of their ethny and culture?

    Regarding mass immigration, if you don't believe the study after study (Borjas) showing the impact of said on nationals, then simply examine the proposition you put forth. Why not reduce costs by both exporting jobs and increasing immigration. Gardening, nursing or collecting garbage cannot be done from India.

    Russian ultra-nationalist = Stalinists? Stalin was an atheistic communist and shipped nationalists to their own little beach front.

    Per Uncle Joe: "In answer to your inquiry: National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism."

    ReplyDelete
  62. “Are leftists willing to own their own politics?”

    No; their politics are so despicable, that they can only succeed through deception.

    I would not call what Maxine Clarke expelled a poem; or rather, if that is a poem, so is this comment. She is an illiterate, genocidal, black supremacist. Nice work, if you can get it.

    Robert Jensen is a tenured racist and communist. Again, nice work, if you can get it.

    You can't debate with “anon contrarian,” because he is a compulsive liar who wouldn't give you the correct time of day.

    As for power, I can’t talk about Oz, but here in America, racist blacks engage nationwide in savage daily attacks on whites of all ages. Whites are daily arrested and prosecuted, just for defending themselves against blacks, and when blacks are prosecuted, they are often given minimal punishment, or acquitted, based on racist black jury nullification.

    For anyone who just awoke from a 100-year-long coma or just arrived from Mars, and demands support for my claim, I’ve written enough to fill about five books, but one place to start would be here:

    http://www.vdare.com/stix/index.htm

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anonymous wrote,
    "Ilion opts for culture over race because he is not white, and thus is happy to deny freedom of association to whites because it might exclude him."

    I don't know why Ilion made the argument he did; I do hope that he responds to my request for clarification.

    But if he did think as you say, I'd be puzzled. I don't understand why you say that Jews aren't white. In fact, I had never met anyone who said that until I got on the Internet.

    That doesn't mean that Jews are Germanic but, then again, neither are a lot of whites.

    ReplyDelete
  64. A.C. wrote,

    "nobody is going to stop [whites] pledging allegiance to the Queen or the Union Jack, engaging in traditional cultural practices, etc."

    That's false:

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929729,00.html

    If you read Mr. Benjamin's answer to the question, "What is the danger Whitopias pose to America as a whole?" you'll see that he opposes any, even unconscious, concentration of whites because he's an "integrationist."

    It's hard to see how he could tolerate whites qua whites engaging in "traditional cultural practices."

    ReplyDelete
  65. Jews are white. So then why the non-association?

    "Goodness! Whereever [sic] would my family fit in?"

    ReplyDelete
  66. White, Anglo-Australians have their identity already - nobody is going to stop them pledging allegiance to the Queen or the Union Jack, engaging in traditional cultural practices, etc.

    The longer mass immigration goes on, the more that an Anglo sense of communal identity will be broken up. An Anglo community would then have to be organised in a more formal way in order to survive, but there is hostility to this from the liberal political class.

    Because such forms of communal identity don't matter much to AC, I don't think he's really thought through what it would take to keep them going.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Russian ultra-nationalist = Stalinists? Stalin was an atheistic communist

    Stalin is viewed in nationalist terms by Russians:

    http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/tatiana-shcherbina/stalin-%E2%80%93-hero-for-our-time


    No; their politics are so despicable, that they can only succeed through deception.

    From from some pro-BNP stooge, no less. Nick, (and I address this question to others), you accuse 'the left' of not owning their politics, but when you claim that you are involved in some kind of war against people of other 'races', why then do you pretend that the logical conclusion of this is not segregation and apartheid?

    If you read Mr. Benjamin's answer to the question, "What is the danger Whitopias pose to America as a whole?" you'll see that he opposes any, even unconscious, concentration of whites because he's an "integrationist."

    The fact is, Bart, anglo-Autralians do maintain their 'cultural practices'. See the Big Day Out in a few days - no doubt there'll be a large coterie of drunken morons waving flags around. Australia's institutions are Anglicised, as I argued earlier, and I really don't know what on earth is stopping Anglos in Australia from celebrating the Queen, praying to an Anglican God, and eating steak and kidney pie. Compare and contrast this to the situation in France, for example, where the burqa may be banned, and French police will have to arrest and lock up burqa-clad women for their outfits.

    Because such forms of communal identity don't matter much to AC, I don't think he's really thought through what it would take to keep them going.

    I do think 'communal identity' matters, but not of the racial sort. As it stands, I don't think that Australians have a problem accepting the influence of other cultures. St Patrick's day is widely celebrated for instance. Many of our culinary habits derive from the Continent rather than England. May Australians will have non-Anglo colleagues as neighbours and colleagues, and manage to live in harmony with them.

    ReplyDelete
  68. AC wrote,
    "I do think 'communal identity' matters, but not of the racial sort."

    But then you wrote,

    "The fact is, Bart, anglo-Autralians do maintain their 'cultural practices'. See the Big Day Out in a few days - no doubt there'll be a large coterie of drunken morons waving flags around."

    Your own vitriol betrays your lies. You claim to think communal identity "matters" but then you denigrate precisely those people to whom it matters as "drunken morons."

    To the extent that it does still matter in Australia or elsewhere, it is precisely because honest men pay no attention to people like you.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Your own vitriol betrays your lies.

    There are no lies here, Bartman.

    I don't know if you're in Australia, but the most prominent 'cultural practice' here, in recent years, has been young men and women with Australian flags and Southern Cross tattoos gettingt wasted in the summer heat, and berating passers-by who refuse to kiss the flag, and so forth. In other words, drunken morons. Based on your defensiveness, can we conclude that you're one of them?

    ReplyDelete
  70. AC,

    Your lie consists of pretending at once that you care about the maintenance of white Australian cultural practices while at the same time denigrating precisely those who actually maintain them.

    And it is no use pointing out that the cultural practitioners are in this instance behaving like hooligans. The very fact that you chose a cultural practice that is hooligan-like to symbolize the vitality of Australian cultural practices as a whole betrays your defamation of and animus toward the white Australian culture.

    You have lied. And you are continuing to pile up more lies in defense of it. For the sake of your eternal soul, I'd advise you just to stop talking/writing for a while. Really.

    PS What does my nationality have to do with the truth or falsehood of your words? Nothing. Does your mendacity know no limits?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Your lie consists of pretending at once that you care about the maintenance of white Australian cultural practices while at the same time denigrating precisely those who actually maintain them.

    Actually, I'm largely indifferent to 'cultural practices' for their own sake. I've not pretended to care for them, but I certainly don't think that they ought to be stopped, and I don't think anybody else does either.

    The very fact that you chose a cultural practice that is hooligan-like to symbolize the vitality of Australian cultural practices as a whole betrays your defamation of and animus toward the white Australian culture.

    Now you're lying, and you can add that to your own list of faults, chief among them being paranoid sanctimony. Please demonstrate where I've said that drunken stupidity constitutes 'the whole' of Australian culture. To the extent that there even is something like 'Australian culture', it's far from being exclusively Anglo-Saxon in its practices in any case. You're betraying your histrionic side, yet again. Criticising drunken thuggery is re-baptised as racial suicide anti-Australian according to Bart. LOL.

    BTW, I asked if you're in Australia as you'd recognise my reference to the Big Day Out etc, if you were. Readers of this blog in Melbourne and Sydney may well have seen firsthand the phenomena of which I speak. Readers from elsewhere may choose to look up the reference if they wish.

    ReplyDelete
  72. AC,

    I'll grant you that some young people associate drinking and partying too much with their concept of Australianness.

    But this comment of yours was clearly hostile, not neutral:

    but the most prominent 'cultural practice' here, in recent years, has been young men and women with Australian flags and Southern Cross tattoos getting wasted in the summer heat, and berating passers-by who refuse to kiss the flag, and so forth. In other words, drunken morons.

    The most prominent Anglo "cultural practice" is to get drunk and berate passers-by who refuse to kiss the flag?

    That's a hostile put down.

    ReplyDelete
  73. A. C. You have indicated that you neither care for the continued expression of Australia's national and cultural identity. You almost reflexively cite the the least appealing forms of such expression and in turn describe them in an exaggerated manner that is as insulting as possible and casts aspersions upon the larger whole. You then claim that you lack any particular animus against Australia's cultural and national identity by perfunctorily and legalistically claiming that you would not support any prohibitions on such expressions. This is irrelevant. The fact of the matter remains that it is entirely possible for you to have nothing but contempt for Australian national and cultural expression, but at the same time not be desirous of its prohibition.
    It called paying lip service to upholding the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and, regardless of the truth, there is no way anyone who desires that his opinions be taken seriously would claim to be against upholding it. In other words, you buy nothing by saying it.

    Your attitude is common to nearly everyone on the left. What is interesting is that it illustrates a broader problem that Mark has dealt with on this blog. The modern left is a political movement that at best bristles with contempt for its host culture and nation and is restrained from calling for the curtailment of cultural and nationalist expression only by its wavering respect for certain liberal values such as freedom of speech. It does not take an idiot to note that this intellectual balance is a delicate one at best. The problem really arises when the left encounters things that tip this balance and force the left to "compromise". For example, in Britain, the left as represented by the BBC and the Labor government sees no reason, cultural, racial or economic, to limit the influx of immigrants. This results in a balkanised society with competing politically active minority groups. This has created an environment where everyday, the left is forced to choose between invoking its liberal ideals in the protection the cultural identity they despise and appeasing whatever activist group is angry at given point it time. For instance, When it comes to choosing between Christmas trees and nativity displays, and the religious satisfaction of the growing Muslim immigrant population who are violently offended by this expression of Christianity, many Labor councils have chosen to minimize of eliminate their displays and in turn force churches and businesses to do the same. It is a easy choice for them to make as they lack any particular attachment to these forms of cultural expression and any desire to uphold the freedom of Christian Brits to celebrate their religion quickly melted in the face of the desire to "welcome diversity" and appease those poor muslim immigrants. This is but one example I can quote. The rest are pretty much the same, just change the name of the angry minority group and the thing they are seeking to get rid of. The point is this, when the mainstream left is given any excuse to tear at the cultural identity of the western majority, their liberal should not, in any way be regarded as anything other than a temporary deterrent. Keep up the good work Mark.

    ReplyDelete
  74. That's a hostile put down.

    Perhaps, but it's nowhere near as hostile as these 'patriots' themselves.

    It called paying lip service to upholding the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and, regardless of the truth, there is no way anyone who desires that his opinions be taken seriously would claim to be against upholding it. In other words, you buy nothing by saying it.

    Freedom of speech means little if it does not involve defending, in principle and in practice, the speech of those with whom one disagrees, or for whom one feels contempt.

    And there's a touch of the cart being put before the horse here. Never mind that the currency of 'cultural practice' is being utterly debauched, and by Anglo-Australians themselves, no less, but woe unto any leftist who dares to point out this fact!

    ReplyDelete
  75. To AC,

    "in recent years, has been young men and women with Australian flags and Southern Cross tattoos gettingt wasted in the summer heat, and berating passers-by who refuse to kiss the flag,"

    But this is part of the problem. If Australians felt that their national identity was being supported they wouldn't feel any desire to push it in such an unpleasant way. Australian flags on cars or t-shirts are increasingly been used as code for "no more immigration" or no more attacks/belittling of Australia as well as a symbol of association. That the national flag should be used in this way is dissapointing but it says as much about the whole political environment as it does about those who carry it.

    ReplyDelete
  76. A.C. wrote,

    "Perhaps, but it's nowhere near as hostile as these 'patriots' themselves."

    AC's lie #546. No, buddy, the correct response here is, You're right, I'm wrong, and I'm sorry for what I said. Will you forgive me? Period. No further discussion.

    But instead of manning up and taking responsibility for what you said, you tried to weasel your way out of it and then turn the blame back on Australians.

    Why are we still taking the man who says things like that seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Interesting videos here."

    Pretty hard core Anonymous.

    I have to say this was the first time I paid attention to the Peter Spencer issue and I didn't know it was related to Kyoto.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I saw a lot of Australian flags today, it was bloody marvelous!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Mark Richardson wrote:

    "And so Jennifer Clarke, who teaches at the Australian National University, can write an article titled 'White' Privilege in which she describes Australia as a "regionally anomalous white enclave run largely by white people to our own advantage", in which anti-discrimination laws should be applied more effectively so that "a majority of Australians would no longer be of northern European ethnic heritage".

    So deep is the racial doublethink in which we live today, that I doubt that more than a handful of people would even notice the gross contradiction of using anti-discrimination laws to help non-Europeans advance their racial interests at the expense of European Australians.

    Australia's current immigration policy, which is meant to be race-neutral, is in fact transmogrifying Australia into a non-white, non-Western country, displacing Australia's founding European population and their culture. Yet it is considered "racist" to oppose this policy, and "non-racist" to support it.

    ReplyDelete
  80. My brief experience of 'whiteness studies' has been that it's not simply a matter of lecturers enforcing 'white guilt' upon students but about challenging the assumption (so ingrained it's barely acknowledged) that they are the norm, the default setting, and are therefore 'above' race. Might this actually be a positive in that in some cases it defines and connects Anglos to a rich culture and tradition that might prove itself worth defending? Some people are amazed when this is discussed as they have never considered that 'race' applies to them.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.