Yes, but you have to understand the context…
Well, that was embarrassing. The following epic comment on divisiveness was stuck on the tarmac for a few days, and then I compounded the indignity by quoting a lesser pundit on the same topic in the previous post. If it’s any consolation, Jonah Goldberg gets more web traffic than I do, too. There is no justice.
Here is Chris Marschner’s excellent Comment of the Day on “Sunday Ethics Reflections, 8/12/2018: Division And Divisiveness:
“Keep being intentionally divisive, and eventually you’ll get division.”
No truer words were ever spoken.
On the anniversary weekend of the incident in Charlottesville the media hammered home the point that I am not worthy to live in their civil ideal society. Why do I interpret their coverage this way you may ask? Perhaps it is because I reject the notion that any person’s opinion should be silenced and I stand with those that reject the proposition that select populations should have the ropes of past injustice be perpetually hung around the necks of those that have neither the personal history, desire nor ability to economically discriminate or oppress anyone. I have no problem with refutations of opinions – I would encourage them – but my tolerance for those that suggest that only they have the right to determine what is good and proper is waning; especially in light that those people often cast wide nets in their sanctimony; which is no different than the behaviors of others they claim results in their oppression.
Why would many marginalize me for my belief that I simply do not believe that because one gender or race is in greater or fewer numbers relative to their overall population than another in a given population it is prima facie evidence of discrimination and bias. For if I did, I would have to believe that males are discriminated against in teaching positions within the primary and secondary grades, in most health occupations today, and within the administrative support positions in many public and private institutions. I would also have to believe that white sports team owners discriminate against whites because they are under-represented on most teams with the exception of perhaps hockey and soccer. Numbers in any occupation are a function of human choices and capabilities. Even if one feels fully capable of running a fortune 500 firm as the CEO, one’s choice is the primary gatekeeper because if one never applies to reach that goal then only those that do stand a chance.
Bias is only ever seen in others and not in themselves.
No group sees bias when deriving benefits of bias as a group. For example, women see no bias when they are treated as superior care-givers and thus courts favor them more frequently in child custody cases. No one sees the abject bias in the violence against women act. Why is that? What makes an assault on a woman worse than an assault on anyone for that matter? I might be able to see different charges based on differential physical stature but not on gender. Why not a violence against the frail and weaker act? I see no outcry from women and minorities when most of the SBA programs favor women and minorities even though the data show that they are creating more new businesses than their white male counterparts for almost the last twenty years. There are no special programs to increase male enrollment in post secondary education even when their numbers are being outpaced by female enrollment and graduations. No one is running to change the selective service rules that create lifetime bars to federal employment, education grants and other federal benefits for failure to register for the draft by age 26 even though women fought for the right to be in forward combat so that promotional opportunities can be afforded to them. Commerce department data show that women control 60 percent of the wealth in the U.S. and 80% of all Consumer spending. One can see the evidence of this in the thematic content in most mass media advertisements. Each of us sees bias through our own lens. Therefore, if a group of white men protest what they think is bias against them that is their right. We can reject or accept their arguments based on the facts presented. When we begin to go down the path of silencing critics we find objectionable we will lose the right to petition for redress of grievances.
Is there any wonder why a growing number of white males may feel less sympathetic to advancing the current notions of progressive policies when the noose of a legacy perpetrated by others is believed to be unfairly tightened around their necks today; which brings me back to Charlottesville.
When facts are denied real truths evaporate over time. The riot in Charlottesville last year was absolutely avoidable. The entire incident was precipitated by a demand to remove a statue of the historically important Confederate General Lee. We have forgotten that this was one of the last statues sought to be toppled by progressive forces. For those that wished it gone the statue represented the glorification of slavery. For others that wanted it to remain it was a symbol of Virginia’s proud history. Both sides have every right to feel as they do.
As a prelude to my point you need to know I grew up in Baltimore and when the riots of 68 took place whites were fearful and had every right to be. As a twelve year old child living well outside the primary area of the riots I was still chased and attacked several times by gangs of older blacks who lived in the neighborhood simply because I was white. At the time my progressive democrat parents taught in a nearly 100% black high school so we never thought of discriminating but we knew of others that did. We never uttered derogatory epithets at anyone. Up until the assassination of Dr. King we blacks and whites went to school together pretty much incident free.
My point is that Eldridge Cleaver and the Panthers who picked up the mantle of Malcom X after Malcom’s death in 66 was in the forefront of the black separatist movement of the day and became a revolutionary figure among local black males. He empowered them to commit violence and rape (see “Soul on Ice”) in the name of liberation against whites. Only later did both men repudiate their racist beliefs. Nonetheless, we have schools and streets in urban America that bear the names of these men. Should those of us who were actual victims of the violence that these men extolled at one point in their lives demand that these men’s names be stricken from the schools for which they are named? I don’t think so. More importantly, I have moved well beyond the beatings I took as a child.
I am reminded of a quote by Sheldon Stern, a professor of African American history and historian at the John F Kennedy Library and Museum from 1977-1999.
“Failure to educate young Americans about the whole story of Atlantic slave trade threatens to divide our nation and undermine our civic unity and belief in the historical legitimacy of our democratic institutions. Education in a democracy cannot promote half-truths about history without undermining the ideal of e pluribus unum—one from many—and substituting a divisive emphasis on many from one. The history of the slave trade proves that virtually everyone participated and profited—whites and blacks; Christians, Muslims, and Jews; Europeans, Africans, Americans, and Latin Americans. Once we recognize the shared historical responsibility for the Atlantic slave trade, we can turn our attention to “transforming the future” by eradicating its corrosive legacy.”
Why do I include the above passage in this essay? I did so because every person alive today is deriving benefits accruing to the enslavement of someone. Great civilizations be they Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Germanic would never have advanced within the limitations of their own workforces. That is not to rationalize slavery as something good for it is an abomination to the notion of free men. But we cannot continue to hold the descendants of ancient cultures liable for the acts of their forebears. Long before the Atlantic Slave trade ever took hold eastern Europeans were enslaved. The etymology of the word slave derives from the Ethnic group Slav.
Does anyone really believe that the words of a small band of disenfranchised white guys whose economic prospects are diminished by their own radical ideas are a threat to greater tolerance of other ideas, beliefs and cultures? Besides, whose voices are enjoined from speaking by virtue of crowd behavior? Or, is this preoccupation with “white nationalists” or, “supremacists”, part of a larger more insidious plan to undermine the real values of American culture; a culture that allows diversity of thought, one that has has a formalized process to welcome and integrate more new people into its way of life than anywhere on this planet, and has been a driving force for upward mobility for anyone that chooses to apply themselves toward those goals. What we should be worried about is that the continuation of identity politics which pits one group against another is more of a threat to democratic republicanism and social tolerance than any outside force. I choose the conservative ideal of e pluribus unum and reject identity tribalism as a cultural imperative.
Unlike the media and the 21 century carpetbaggers who exploit divisiveness, I will choose to forego the ability to profit from creating disunity and division but I will not stop challenging those who sow the seeds of distrust and Nihlism.
Ethics Alarms 
Wow! Bravo, Chris!
Whew. That’s eloquent, CM. Nice work.
By the way, world class soccer (football) is rapidly and very noticeably increasingly populated by, and to a certain extent, dominated by, black players, primarily from Africa. I’d say it’s where American professional sports were in the middle to late ‘sixties, but moving very quickly. I think it’s only a matter of another decade before soccer (I much prefer football) is demographically near either the NBA or NFL. It may be where MLB is now already, come to think of it. Merely because owners and managers of elite football clubs simply make more money if their teams have the best players and “just win, baby.”
Exactly my point. The only discrimination taking place are owners discriminating between the best and the average. They choose the best.
Right.
Nicely done, and worth the time it took to read. This was my favorite part:
Worth remembering.
Glenn
Thank you for reading it. In Jack’s original EA post within the running commentary it was said that the underlying rationale for human trafficking was the idea that those not us, that is to say different than us, are inferior thus we can do as we wish with them.
Not very different than identity politics.
Jack
Thank you.
I will say once again the value of your blog should never be measured on number of unique visitors or page views. The real value is in the ideas presented, viewpoints tempered by reason, and lessons learned. EA provides me with the ability to vent or expound. How do you place a value on that? You cannot.
I have no idea if my thinking on various subjects changes anyone’s mind or if others have similar ideas. The one thing I do know is that without this forum my ability to assimilate other’s ideas into my thinking would be severely hampered.
Chris M. writes:
Does anyone really believe that the words of a small band of disenfranchised white guys whose economic prospects are diminished by their own radical ideas are a threat to greater tolerance of other ideas, beliefs and cultures? Besides, whose voices are enjoined from speaking by virtue of crowd behavior?
Though there is definitely no unity of ideology within that ‘small band of disenfranchized white guys’, there is I think one core idea: that the post-65 immigration policy, and of course the promotion of multiculturalism as an ideal (and an ideology), has resulted in circumstances that, if not checked, and if not reversed, will lead to destruction of the original demographic.
Let us suppose for a moment that these disenfranchized had access to a media system, and lots and lots of money, and could openly communicate their ideas without fear of economic deprivation, exposure, and legal troubles. What if there were a really free and open field for their platform? Would they gain ground? And if they gained ground, and if they began to effect policies, do you really not think that these policies would result in significant changes? Upset in the markets? And many other different sorts of change?
It is obvious that you do not share their ideas and I suppose you haven’t devoted much time to reading them or listening to them. But what if you did and what if you became influenced by it, or if you came to see its soundness and reasonableness? What if you were won over to one degree or other?
It seems to me that you deny this as a possibility, and simultaneously attempt to dismiss *them* as if they pose no threat, as if they are irrelevant. And then — though it is an interesting and considerable point — you shift the focus from them to the danger posed by those who desire to suppress them…
Or, is this preoccupation with “white nationalists” or, “supremacists”, part of a larger more insidious plan to undermine the real values of American culture; a culture that allows diversity of thought, one that has has a formalized process to welcome and integrate more new people into its way of life than anywhere on this planet, and has been a driving force for upward mobility for anyone that chooses to apply themselves toward those goals.
This is the core of your argument and your presentation, it seems to me. You assert that the present state of America, the post-60s construct, and the conventions of the present, really does represent ‘the real values of American culture’, and this is, I suggest, a questionable assertion. You make this assertion, I gather, as a Conservative, and thus you make very specific statements about what American values are, and of course should be.
But allow me to use the third-person plural and say: We differ from you. Our historical research leads us to different conclusions, different assertions. We then say: You are not really a Conservative, you are really and truly a Progressive! You have more in common with a Progressive than with a principled, or perhaps *strict*, Conservative. And I could quote ‘real conservatives’ from the recent American past to bolster what I am saying. (Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant are just for example two). And we say that to recover conservative values requires far more trenchant thinking; more difficult assessments and discriminations; and will eventuate in different policy being enacted.
You — as Progressive — will take issue with these counter-definitions to your arbitrary notions of American values. You will (I have noticed it happen in these pages) attack my ideas, ridicule them, isolate me as some sort of nut (et cetera et cetera) which is non-different from what a more driven Progressive would do (does). For example Chris (the departed Californian).
Yet you do declare a possibility: “…a larger more insidious plan to undermine the real values of American culture”. With this you at least, if paranoiacally, recognize as a possibility an ‘insidious plan’ or the prospect of it. Well, I have news for you: so do those who articulated a conservative position in America’s recent past (both Madison Grant and Stoddard prophesied a great amount of what we see today *on the ground*).
What we should be worried about is that the continuation of identity politics which pits one group against another is more of a threat to democratic republicanism and social tolerance than any outside force. I choose the conservative ideal of e pluribus unum and reject identity tribalism as a cultural imperative.
This is more or less the Mantra of the so-called conservative right at this point in time. It is formulaic. A *talking point*. We say something quite different. We say that destructive processes were begun, and for *insidious* purposes, and that the primary and original demographic was deliberately assaulted through cynical policies. And the result of this, or one of the results, is the present circumstances of tremendous social, and ethnic, confusion we now witness.
What this means is that Radical Progressivism went to work, as it were, with its radical projects, and it restructured the very notion of ‘American values’. So, when you refer to American values you refer, largely to that: to a radical shift in valuation. A transvaluation more properly stated.
The ‘threat to democratic republicanism’ depended, and depends, on the solidarity of its original demographic. The new demographic, bless them one and all, cannot and will not be able to uphold or continue the ‘America’ of values. Just as we see now their intentions and their visions, while not bad, are simply not commensurate.
Therefor, a different set of ideas, and different policy choices, and a social movement and a movement of ideas is needed to bring forward those who will act creatively in their present to reverse the damage done.
These brief ideas are (I suppose?) intolerable to you. Saying this, you will make the effort to associate me with them (Antifa, the radical socialists, the anarchists, the Marxists). That is your tactic. It will not work because it is not based in truth.
Aliza:
You said
“Let us suppose for a moment that these disenfranchised had access to a media system, and lots and lots of money, and could openly communicate their ideas without fear of economic deprivation, exposure, and legal troubles. What if there were a really free and open field for their platform? Would they gain ground? And if they gained ground, and if they began to effect policies, do you really not think that these policies would result in significant changes? Upset in the markets? And many other different sorts of change?”
If they had what you suggest they would not feel disenfranchised and their ideas would alter some events but not markedly because they don’t feel powerless their ideas would be simply tempered or tempering. Like an animal with its back to a wall with no means to escape it will lash out when cornered and feels threatened. We are no different.
Now if you are talking about Aryan supremacy that is a different matter. Aryan Supremacy theology is not based on real perceived disenfranchisement. For them blaming others for their own situation and life choices is the modus operandi of that belief. It is a lie they tell themselves. I am of German ancestry and Aryan supremacy ideology is an anathema to me and it is objectively unsupportable on its merits. The DNA of Homo Sapiens is about 99% identical. The genome that affects individual characteristics is minute in comparison. Therefore, because DNA is virtually identical across our species and thus unable to exhibit any substantial differential in human capacity it is predominantly behavior that drives choices and choices drives achievement.
Yes I have studied them. I have studied all types of people. That is what I do. I spent 6 years working with them in a correctional setting as the director of a college program. I taught economics as well there so our discussions focused heavily on free choice and externalities affecting free choice. Many of those discussions exposed a very dark view of the world these offenders held within them. The common thread is that they felt powerless to change anything ergo it was someone else holding them back. The job before me was not to get them to think my way but to feel that they had within them the power to make the changes in their lives that they wanted. I provided tools that is all. The most important tool was how to think critically.
I was their registrar, counselor, confidant and teacher. Nonetheless, I could not please everyone. I was targeted by both the Aryan Brotherhood and the Muslim Brotherhood population because I would not be intimidated by them. I made them both face the false narrative of laying blame at the feet of others. The dean received letters saying my white ass would be beaten to a bloody pulp and carried out in a body bag. I outlasted them. I was also sued by a white student who demanded that he had a right to brand new text books when we were struggling to simply cover their total costs. He learned that such demands led to me to give his seat to another inmate with more promise. He knew he was in a privilege program and he abused that privilege
Before that job I worked in West Baltimore in which I interacted with low income whites in Pigtown, but predominantly I engaged the poorest of the poor blacks who lived in the slums. I spoke to them daily, I organized them into groups that worked to help them change their communities; both business owners and residents. Yeah a white Republican conservative worked for what became ACORN on Carrollton Ave. I can tell you, the lure of government money and power corrupts whites and blacks equally.
No, I don’t spend a lot of time reading propaganda literature that seeks to lay all the ills of the world at the feet of others, but I have read many a treatise by economic writers whose ideologies span from hard right to hard left. Part of my education in Economics as a course of study required that I read and critique hundreds of authors. In gaining an understanding of people, nothing however beats actual discussions with those that harbor hugely different ideologies.
Before I attend to your other comments let me define my brand of conservatism. I believe that that which is beneficial for social cohesion and human advancement is good and should be conserved. New ideas can be postulated and tried but if they generate a wide range of negative externalities which offset the good they create they should be scrapped. Every policy change must be measured against objective criteria. To me Progressivism is merely a means to obtain power and control by exploiting the human condition that favors immediate gratification of needs or wants. Progressivism to me, fails to eject policies that are, ineffectual at best or socially harmful at worst, for the purpose of ensuring that it can exert maximum power over the masses to the margins. So before you label me a progressive get your facts about me straight. Unlike others I have never ridiculed anyone on this site. I have challenged you and your thesis but not you as a person. In fact, I included you in a post where I stated certain commenters have altered my thinking on issues.
How I see American values is not arbitrary. I have thought long and hard about what we are as a people, what we would like to be as a people, and how can I help move us toward a better future not simply for the white race or the black race or any other identity group. To be honest, I have no clue what you think are American values and if you have any they are as arbitrary as mine. The question is which values will emerge as a common ones among the people of the nation.
You said ” We say that destructive processes were begun, and for *insidious* purposes, and that the primary and original demographic was deliberately assaulted through cynical policies. And the result of this, or one of the results, is the present circumstances of tremendous social, and ethnic, confusion we now witness.”
Who is we?
You went on. “The ‘threat to democratic republicanism’ depended, and depends, on the solidarity of its original demographic”.
Demography, original or otherwise, have no bearing on ideals or values. Values are that which drive behavior. Yes, behaviors can be altered at the individual level through promises of provision by government but every man and woman regardless of race or ethnicity has the desire to be valued and receive value for it. The problem that lies before us is do we use artificial means to create an immediate sense of empowerment and value or do we work to develop a slower but more sustainable sense of personal value among the affected populace that does not require intergenerational economic medication? This desire to be valued can me measured in pecuniary terms, affection, or respect. It is when they feel they have no value because they are taught that others are undeservedly taking their deserved value does the social compact begin to unravel. The carpetbaggers to which I spoke seek to unravel the fabric of society for personal gain.
You said:
“Therefor, a different set of ideas, and different policy choices, and a social movement and a movement of ideas is needed to bring forward those who will act creatively in their present to reverse the damage done.”
Specifically, what is the damage you claim has been done and what creative policies are you suggesting that we try and why? What is the desired result? How do we objectively measure the economic good or economic bad that might result? What is the time frame necessary to achieve the desired result? Those that criticize you do so because you often pontificate without offering any substantive policy shifts that can be debated.
How about a social movement that demands a moratorium on all legislation that is designed for any targeted populations to avoid the problem of not being able to sunset it out of existence after a number of years?
Or,
How about we demand a list of national priorities and a budget passed that address such priorities before we pass any legislation unrelated to such goals? I can argue both sides.
You said:
“These brief ideas are (I suppose?) intolerable to you. Saying this, you will make the effort to associate me with them (Antifa, the radical socialists, the anarchists, the Marxists). That is your tactic. It will not work because it is not based in truth.”
No Aliza your ideas when they are expressed are not intolerable to me. I stated I encourage refutations of opinion. If I only listened to those that agreed with me all my ideas would never need changing. Besides the echo in my ears would be hard to live with. You may take issue with others but rest assured they are engaging with you. It is when no one responds to you will you know that you are unworthy of a response.
I do not appreciate the tactic of telling me how I will associate you. I believe that you are trying to gain some type of absolute truth when none will be in the offing when the human factor enters the equation. You research the research never coming to a definitive answer but your sympathies lie somewhere and I know not where except that you seem to feel that you and people that think as you do are or will soon be marginalized and therefore must mount a defensive campaign to ensure that you are not further diminished and hopefully recapture some former stature. My only tactic is to express myself. Furthermore, you cannot claim something is not based in truth unless you believe you are the sole arbiter of some truth.
The only ideas you suggested in this piece are:
“What this means is that Radical Progressivism went to work, as it were, with its radical projects, and it restructured the very notion of ‘American values’. So, when you refer to American values you refer, largely to that: to a radical shift in valuation. A transvaluation more properly stated.”
I do not disagree that radical progressivism is trying to shape beliefs and understanding of the world to gain power. So too are all other ideologies. American values are grounded in individual liberty, individual thought, and individual responsibility. They are not discrete policy prescriptions. From those values the power to control one’s destiny lies not in the hands of others but within ourselves. Nothing more.
If “transvaluation” alters the common beliefs above, such that they become devalued across the general populace without any evaluation of intrinsic value of liberty and the like, we will indenture ourselves to the masters and will require no overseers to keep us in our place for we will like the ideal of plantation dwelling.
Each and every one of us holds common beliefs but on a continuum. Therefore, we derive the premise out of many one. Consensus on values depends on what we are talking about at any given moment and only when considered in a vacuum. Failure to acknowledge the commonalities across the value plane and giving preference to focusing on differences, the potential to marginalize others who are different is simply a game of numbers. That strategy is called intersectionality. The long term problem of intersectionality is that there must always be a bogeyman that is oppressive and a new bogeyman will be chosen. Read Shirley Jacksons The Lottery.
You went on:
“The ‘threat to democratic republicanism’ depended, and depends, on the solidarity of its original demographic. The new demographic, bless them one and all, cannot and will not be able to uphold or continue the ‘America’ of values. Just as we see now their intentions and their visions, while not bad, are simply not commensurate”.
Rather condescending comment in my opinion at best – bless your heart. What do you mean by the ‘America’ of values? Commensurate with what exactly?
Democratic republicanism means each state is relatively sovereign and designs laws promulgated by the electorate in that state and not some all powerful central power having master control. Each sovereign state develops its laws and spending priorities based on the consensus of the electorate in that state. We can derive their values on what they place a high priority on. Because each state is independent American values must be defined as those that represent a broad commonality of values among the respective states. But as a consequence, we will not have a well defined list of values but more of a set of generalized ideals to which we work toward.
The solidarity of the original demographic is irrelevant when it comes to what I consider American values: Personal responsibility, empathy, individual expression, and liberty. How we live those ideals are the truest expression to which we agree or disagree with them.
PART ONE
Isaac writes: “Aryan Supremacy theology is not based on real perceived disenfranchisement. For them blaming others for their own situation and life choices is the modus operandi of that belief. It is a lie they tell themselves. I am of German ancestry and Aryan supremacy ideology is an anathema to me and it is objectively unsupportable on its merits. The DNA of Homo Sapiens is about 99% identical. The genome that affects individual characteristics is minute in comparison. Therefore, because DNA is virtually identical across our species and thus unable to exhibit any substantial differential in human capacity it is predominantly behavior that drives choices and choices drives achievement.
I find paragraphs such as this one interesting for a few reasons. One is that it is ‘declarative’. That is, it is filled with declarative statements based on sets of premises that inform it. It expresses I think a general, established view which is taken as *fact* and is not so much unquestioned as that no more thought need be invested in considering, say, the ‘finer points’.
What I can say as an ‘independent researcher’, and one who comes from a background that would naturally indispose me to such research! is simply that to understand the Interwar Period (1920-1939 more or less) where much of what you refer to came to life, one must do one’s own research. Simplistic, reductionist histories are written by the victors, but the real truth is always — always! — more complex, more nuanced, harder to adjudicate, and demanding in an ethical and moral sense.
I had never heard that Aryan Supremacy was a ‘theology’ and, I suppose, you might be talking about Christian Identity as you evidently encountered in your work among the prison population? But what I wish to say, and be brief about it, is only that the political or spiritual philosophy of ‘Aryanism’ is elaborate and non-simple. I would suggest that Houston Stewart Chamberlain lays out the case, as it were, for a strong ethnocentrism that is centered around, shall I say, appreciation what are the foundations of European culture. Now, I have read The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century and numerous other titles that come out of that genre and that time-period and I find there many many sound ideas. You must understand that I grew up within a culturally indoctrinated setting, that of strongly identified, pro-Zionist diaspora Judaism. So, when I first encountered the website to which my username links, I felt I had stumbled across a contaminated pool (reeking, perhaps subtly, of sulphur!) It took me about 2 years to be able to process some of what I read there. (I was researching Savitri Devi because, at that time, I was also studying Hindu metaphysics).
I came to some general conclusions when finally I got my bearings — and also made the choice to relinquish Judaism and Jewish Identity and also Zionism — and got clear within myself that it was necessary to undertake a close reading of the ‘oppositional texts’. I mean of course the *forbidden texts* of those notorious figures who are seen by the Brave New World as literally reeking of sulphur. My purpose is not to defend or even to explain them, but only to say that when one encounters their ideas *without prejudice* shall we say, one quickly learns that they are vilified, slandered and lied about. This leads (it led me in any case) to a revisionist mind-frame. The truth, shall I say, set me free — at least in an intellectual sense.
I have just done here what our friend Zoltar despises. Instead of confronting some specific point, I have chosen to take a meta-political and meta-ideological position over the questions. I didn’t settle the question, I did not counter what are your implicit statements about Aryan theology and Aryanism, and I merely opened the issue up to the possibility of greater understanding. I am not a follower of Houston Chamberlain (Lothrop Stoddard called him out for his Teutonic fanaticism or something to that effect) and I see him within a context particular to a given time.
Therefor, what I am compelled to say really as a defence of open intellectual inquiry and to avoid the chilling effect of imposed, politically-correct (and coerced) thought control, is that Aryanism is very different from what you say it is; that is, what you reduce it to. But like Lothrop Stoddard, and others of course, I am not an exponent of Aryanism. And no one that I know within the loose and general movement of which I am, in my way, a part speaks in terms of Aryanism or Aryan Theology.
You suggest: “The DNA of Homo Sapiens is about 99% identical.”
The reason this is, largely, a meaningless statement and a non sequitur is because it is a false-predicate on which you base your misunderstanding of the present Identitarian Movement in Europe and, limitedly, in America (and I should mention in the Southern Cone of South America, in South Africa, in Australia/New Zealand). To understand this movement, and the people who form ideas in it, you would have to research them. There is no other way. Or, to be more poignant, no other way to be honest about it. When having done this you then have something to say about *them*, you will have a genuine platform from which to speak.
The larger issue, as far as Eurocentrism and Identitarianism has very little to do with DNA science and such physicalist designations. European Identity and Identitarianism is based in a wide group of different and interrelated factors, all of which have to be carefully set out and described. Now please hear the following: this cannot be done in an environment that a priori establishes a) false intellectual perimeters determined by ideological intrusion and ‘politically correct thinking’, and b) the vilification of those who undertake this identitarian work. And this attitude describes ‘our present’ through-and-through.
And with this:
Therefore, because DNA is virtually identical across our species and thus unable to exhibit any substantial differential in human capacity it is predominantly behavior that drives choices and choices drives achievement.
You have I think nicely explained that, obviously, many other factors are involved. So, if the physical material, the biological material, is largely the same (though some argue that small differences are tremendously relevant, but this is not my area nor my point), it is obviously the other factors that have high relevance.
And what would those be, Dear Isaac? And how might you think about them? I clearly allude to *perimeters* established, essentially with the Academy, or enforced there, but also enforced by other interests and power-concentrations (a social-management elite) who police the conversation (in the large, cultural sense) and brings it to a halt, as much as they are able. My interest is in breaking free of ideological bindings and achieveing, as best as I can, intellectual freedom.
I think I have responded to — and countered — most of what I thought important in that paragraph. I will respond to the rest when Glen Logan has indicated that he got through this small essay with no damage to his sensitive grey matter!
Glen, my child? are you okay? Did anything pop?
Aliza
Your first response told me you failed to understand my original post. Let me spell it out
Stop blaming current people for past injustice only your ancestors experienced.
People get tired of being blamed for things they did not do and eventually they will no longer be willing to work toward common goals only their parochial ones.
Every race profited from human trafficking so stop thinking that you are without sin
One cannot advance if mired in the past.
I spent considerable time responding to you the first time.
In your rebuttal to me you were condescending to others (Glen Logan and Isiach) for the sole purpose of diminishing their ideas
When you put forth an original idea that synthesizes a wide school of thought instead of parroting your favorite authors I may consider reengaging in commentary with you.
I am so sorry! I wrote Isaac when I should have written Chris M.
I would really appreciate it, Jack, if you would change that. In my 2 posts above I mistakenly used Isaac’s name when I meant Chris M.
You must not misunderstand, Chris. I am only teasing Glen Logan. My condescension is really a sort of sham. It’s a shtick, if you will.
When you put forth an original idea that synthesizes a wide school of thought instead of parroting your favorite authors I may consider reengaging in commentary with you.
In my case a ‘synthesis’ will not come, cannot come, until I am far more clear about *what is really going on*. In the meantime I try to provide insight into what *our movement* is on about.
For what it’s worth, I am not offended. This is not tiddlywinks, after all. 🙂
My parsed comment:
No, I don’t spend a lot of time reading propaganda literature that seeks to lay all the ills of the world at the feet of others, but I have read many a treatise by economic writers whose ideologies span from hard right to hard left. Part of my education in Economics as a course of study required that I read and critique hundreds of authors. In gaining an understanding of people, nothing however beats actual discussions with those that harbor hugely different ideologies.
I said I don’t spend a lot of time reading propaganda literature. Hence I spend some time reading all forms of propaganda. Thus, I do not shut off all opinions contrary to my own. I am bombarded with propaganda daily from all sectors. I have learned to evaluate the prose and messages contained within and deal with them according to the merits. Propaganda types many forms; marketing and advertising materials are those that we encounter incessantly. Political propaganda is another matter and I believe that is what you say I am prejudiced against. Propaganda can be true or not true but the common thread is that it exploits the lazy thinker and relies heavily on emotional responses. Thanks to our autonomic neural system human beings react more quickly to that which elevates our blood pressure, causes fear, and moves us to act. Conversely, the intellectual evaluates the stimuli before reacting properly or improperly.
I do not shut down information that makes me feel uncomfortable at all. I live in a chronic state of discomfiture.
You do not understand my use of Aryan Supremacist theology. Ayranism is a theology proffered by Arias as opposed to Trinitarians in 4th century. Aryanism simply rejects that Jesus and God are basically co-equals. When Aryanism began to embrace the idea that it encompassed groups of peoples, specifically Indo-Iranian and Indo-European that led to the idea that one group the Aryans were more alike in terms of race than in terms of theological belief. The supremacist form of Aryanism was co-opted to reflect that belief and embraced elements of Odinism and mysticism. Nonetheless, Aryan Supremacist theology has theological underpinnings to support its propaganda. From that we get to propagandists using it to persuade that because it is the purest of race it is the noblest of races and therefore had a duty to reign over the world. To me that is an absolute bastardization of the theology. Yeah, I know this is reductionist but I am trying to address the indictments you made about my unwillingness to evaluate alternative thought. This stuff is not new. I rejected these ideas years ago.
You claim to be an independent researcher but you often use terminology such as “we believe” . Above you said “I am not an exponent of Aryanism. And no one that I know within the loose and general movement of which I am, in my way, a part speaks in terms of Aryanism or Aryan Theology.” So which is it? Are you part of the movement or not.
Once you are part of the movement you cannot wear the mantle of independent researcher. You can write about it all you wish. You can work to convince others to follow you. That is your prerogative. My prerogative is to reject the label of “independent researcher”. I fully understand you have embraced the idea of a spiritual journey to Aria, that’s fine, have at it.
You said:
“The larger issue, as far as Eurocentrism and Identitarianism has very little to do with DNA science and such physicalist designations. European Identity and Identitarianism is based in a wide group of different and interrelated factors, all of which have to be carefully set out and described. Now please hear the following: this cannot be done in an environment that a priori establishes a) false intellectual perimeters determined by ideological intrusion and ‘politically correct thinking’, and b) the vilification of those who undertake this identitarian work. And this attitude describes ‘our present’ through-and-through”
Gee, how damn convenient. You have all the information but you cannot or will not lay them out in an environment that might challenge the validity of those different and interrelated factors. What a eff’n cop out. That statement alone disqualifies you as an intellectual.
I will waste no more time until you lay out what is the foundational beliefs behind your “identitarian work”. I say “your” because you said “And this attitude describes ‘our present’ through-and-through”.
I just wish I could put bold emphasis on your word “our”.
A very quick comment: Arianism is spelled with an ‘i’. Aryanism, a different thing, is spelled with a ‘y’.
You spoke of Aryanism in the context of prison work (ministry?) among what I tool to be hard-core Aryan Brotherhood types, but now with Arianism I will need to go back and make an effort to study what you mean.
Don’t give up on me! I have — not many but at least a few — redeeming characteristics!
I will look over your post later.
We are having great fun, aren’t we?
Arianism is what I described as a theological construct. It has evolved over time to be a form of humanism in which we are all divine in search of some greater truth because the Earth and all that is, is all that is and we are on a journey to enlightenment. It is a form of Gestalt thinking in which we come to our own set of truths based on the way our thoughts are self organized. I included it because it appears you conflate the two Aryanism and Ariansim.
There is nothing wrong with challenging one’s deepest seated convictions but when one is predisposed to be antagonistic to the existing order, as was Chamberlain, then it cannot be said that that which replaces that order is any less compromised by propaganda than the propaganda that created the original order. What is interesting is you present yourself as a participant in Arianism but your references are in keeping with Aryan supremacy beliefs.
We all try to make sense out of chaos.
Theological Arianism was later co-opted to by Chamberlain to create the idea that Jesus was an Aryan because he was so perfect a human he was thought divine and thus could not be Jewish. Much of his work is anti-Catholic because he hated the Papacy’s theological judeo-christian constructs. Aryanism is the term used by Chamberlain to describe what he called the superior race of Teutonic origin from which all scientific progress, art and culture developed.
All of your writing adopt the style and thesis of his writing so I am not sure if you come to this way of thinking by your own intellectual pursuits or are they simply mirroring Chamberlain’s inner turmoil with respect to his lack of feelings of belonging.
The nineteenth century ideas expressed by Marx and Chamberlain, or should I say prophesied are rooted in the belief that the essence of man is immutable and will eventually cause its social order to collapse under the weight of self serving interests. Rational self interest will always be with us but we have always evolved to create mechanisms to render unbridled self interest impotent.
What I reject outright is the idea that any race has any more capacity for achievement than another. I will never scapegoat another because my idealized society has changed. If I want to change it for the better it is up to me to do so.
That was an interesting piece, Chris. But you make a couple of mistakes of perception, first of myself and second, at least as I understand him (and I do not care about him so much but he is a mighty historian) of Chamberlain.
I thought at the time I read Chamberlain that he needed a non-Jewish Jesus because Christianity is such a radical departure from Judaism. Therefor, it would make sense if the Jesus of the Gospels was rejected by Jews because he was Galilean (and nothing good comes from Galilee, as was said then, and what they meant is that Galilee was *contaminated*) But two things surprised me: one that Chamberlain was so attached and so reverent of the figure of Jesus as a manifestation of God; and two that he sought to sever Jesus, biologically, from the Jewish stock. It fits, oddly enough, with the Johannine anti-Semitism and in any case, as I assume you are aware, Christianity began in the context of an insoluble dispute.
You have brought up Aryanism and Arianism in a strange confusion of spellings, not me. I am aware of these *arguments*, both of people like Chamberlain and those more pragmatic folks like Grant and Stoddard. I want you to know that if you were to locate me as a ‘racialist’ that I would not object. I say ‘Race is real and race matters’. But there are limits to such ideas. And anyway every human group is, to some degree or other, a ‘fuzzy set’.
Arianism is what I described as a theological construct. It has evolved over time to be a form of humanism in which we are all divine in search of some greater truth because the Earth and all that is, is all that is and we are on a journey to enlightenment.
I am interested in this and I will make an effort to look into it. But you are speaking from the religious perspective of a Trinitarian and a *genuine* Christian? Because if you weren’t these many references to ideology and specific dogma would be vain exercises, no?
You seem to want to peg me in a specific way so that the logic in your condemnation will fit what you think of my position? I do not blame you for making an attempt to nail me … but I would rather choose the tree you nail me to!
Much of his work is anti-Catholic because he hated the Papacy’s theological Judeo-Christian constructs. Aryanism is the term used by Chamberlain to describe what he called the superior race of Teutonic origin from which all scientific progress, art and culture developed.
But wait, are you a Catholic? It is true, from my own perspective, that Chamberlain’s overall position could be said to be rabid Protestantism, and thus anti-Catholic, but anti-Catholicism is one of the foundations of American Ideology. Certainly of the early states and then the Republic. What I mean is only that a rabid anti–Catholicism was common. But Protestantism, and surely Calvinism and Puritanism, can do nothing but take an anti-Catholic position (to say nothing of Judaism!)
It is harder, but not impossible, for a traditional Catholic to define a position that, shall we say, respects race in the sense that Chamberlain highlighted, or Grant or Stoddard. But Grant and Stoddard were not Christian as far as I know. I’ll look into it but from memory I think they were American Pragmatists and certainly scientists with ultra-modern perspectives.
All of your writing adopt the style and thesis of his writing so I am not sure if you come to this way of thinking by your own intellectual pursuits or are they simply mirroring Chamberlain’s inner turmoil with respect to his lack of feelings of belonging.
My Dear and Respected Sir, I have clearly explained my genesis, as it were, and my processes were nourished, perhaps a good deal, by what I have read. But I would also submit that my positions and my ideas are also products or by-products of my inner, spiritual work.
You have no ideological choice available to you but to frame me as a distortion, and you must denigrate the ideas that to me are lofty and also *pure*. This I accept. Because I believe that, even if in shadowy form, I understand the ideological constructs that have informed you. I do not know you, but I know something of them.
You have really made my day though. I am very happy to have been given the chance to express myself on these topics! I do very much link my concepts of morality and ethics through my general ideas. If it cannot be defended morally and ethically, it must be reworked.
FYI: I use *we* (believe, think, discern) as a communication device. The reason I do this is because there is a ‘rightwing critique of American conservatism’ and, in some sense, that is where I locate myself. And *we* critique *you*.
Because I seem to be the only one on this Blog who shares some part of these ideas, and of course other ideas related to Eurocentrism, Identitarianism, etc., I employ the term *we* to help you better locate *us*.
But myself, that is me>, I am ultimately you might say separated from a ‘them’ and resolve to have my own path through all of these questions and issues.
Chris M writes:
“You do not understand my use of Aryan Supremacist theology. Ayranism is a theology proffered by Arias as opposed to Trinitarians in 4th century. Aryanism simply rejects that Jesus and God are basically co-equals. When Aryanism began to embrace the idea that it encompassed groups of peoples, specifically Indo-Iranian and Indo-European that led to the idea that one group the Aryans were more alike in terms of race than in terms of theological belief. The supremacist form of Aryanism was co-opted to reflect that belief and embraced elements of Odinism and mysticism. Nonetheless, Aryan Supremacist theology has theological underpinnings to support its propaganda. From that we get to propagandists using it to persuade that because it is the purest of race it is the noblest of races and therefore had a duty to reign over the world. To me that is an absolute bastardization of the theology. Yeah, I know this is reductionist but I am trying to address the indictments you made about my unwillingness to evaluate alternative thought. This stuff is not new. I rejected these ideas years ago.”
I have never heard that Aryanism arose in Arianism. These are two totally different things. I do not think they can be connected. I am not closed to hearing more but I have never heard of this connection.
Here is some info, by Madison Grant, on the Aryans (but please note that Aryanism is no part of my assertions, and I never mentioned it or *them*,and that you brought this up!):
[ http://www.colchestercollection.com/titles/chunk/P/passing-of-the-great-race/chapter21.html ]
What Grant writes at the end of that selection contains ideas that are now resurfacing, both in America, in the Southern Cone, in South Africa and Australia, as well as in Europe. But Grant wrote for his American audience:
“Bearing in mind the extreme antiquity of physical and spiritual characters and the persistency with which they outlive those elements of environment termed language, nationality, and forms of government, we must consider the relation of these facts to the development of the race in America. We may be certain that the progress of evolution is in full operation to-day under those laws of nature which control it, and that the only sure guide to the future lies in the study of the operation of these laws in the past.
“We Americans must realize that the altruistic ideals which have controlled our social development during the past century, and the maudlin sentimentalism that has made America “an asylum for the oppressed,” are sweeping the nation toward a racial abyss. If the Melting Pot is allowed to boil without control, and we continue to follow our national motto and deliberately blind ourselves to all “distinctions of race, creed, or color,” the type of native American of Colonial descent will become as extinct as the Athenian of the age of Pericles, and the Viking of the days of Rollo.”
You are also, I wish to politely suggest, off the mark in respect to even Germanic Aryanism. First, Houston Chamberlain was a very adamant Christian. His ‘identitarianism’, his Eurocentrism, his Aryanism, was grounded through his Christianity. He had a very special consideration for the figure of Jesus Christ and he wrote of the advent as something unique in the world, something vitally important.
He may have been heretical (certainly he was a radical Protestant) but he was not an Arian (with an ‘i’). He wishes to *locate* a Jesus who was not Judean though — a strange manoeuvre in my opinion, and he does so by stressing his Galilean origins (infused with Greek thought and Greek biology).
How Aryanism (of the National Socialist strain) incorporated Odinic myths or ‘mysticism’, as you say, is really another question altogether. I have read interesting essay by CG Jung on that topic.
I wrote: “The larger issue, as far as Eurocentrism and Identitarianism has very little to do with DNA science and such physicalist designations. European Identity and Identitarianism is based in a wide group of different and interrelated factors, all of which have to be carefully set out and described. Now please hear the following: this cannot be done in an environment that a priori establishes a) false intellectual perimeters determined by ideological intrusion and ‘politically correct thinking’, and b) the vilification of those who undertake this identitarian work. And this attitude describes ‘our present’ through-and-through”
Chris: “Gee, how damn convenient. You have all the information but you cannot or will not lay them out in an environment that might challenge the validity of those different and interrelated factors. What a eff’n cop out. That statement alone disqualifies you as an intellectual.
“I will waste no more time until you lay out what is the foundational beliefs behind your “identitarian work”. I say “your” because you said “And this attitude describes ‘our present’ through-and-through”.
“I just wish I could put bold emphasis on your word “our”.
I am not here to provide or to sell you or anyone else a platform. I am here as part of my own research project. That is, people who write here inspire me to undertake my own (adjacent) studies. All that I wish to do, or the larger part of what I wish to do, is to help people orient themselves more honestly in respect to what is called the Alt-Right or Dissident Conservatism (of Traditionalism …)
In order for you to encounter in full form you will need to research them. I can definitely direct you to sources. I can encapsulate, up to a point, aspects of *this thought*, but neither you nor I can *refute* each other on the basis of a few paragraphs.
But you also desire that I be more conclusive, that I offer a 10-Point Plan or something. But I have said, and I still say, that I do not have complete certainty about anything. I wish I did. I wish that everything were more clear. So, rather than to act, I prefer to stay within my confusion. I work with it. But that too tells something about the *Movement* I describe. We are young and uncertain.
I do not think ‘this environment’ is much interested in asserting or refuting much of anything, really. It is a topical blog that rapidly moves through time, from scene to scene, and writing here is like writing on a leaf blowing by in the wind!
There is an article in today’s Counter-Currents that speaks about the more scientific-pragmatic orientation of some notable American Conservative figures, Madison Grant among them.
[ https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/08/profiles-of-early-conservationists/ ]
Americans of the present, it would seem, have access to a sort of magical empowered imagination and can erase history and then recreate it according to their sentimental needs-of-the-day. It is an interesting issue and problem and worthy of exploration. I have come to understand it as just one more instance of how profoundly intellectual and rational processes have become starkly emotionalized. Truth and accurate descriptions (and understanding) of things is trumped by the intrusion of feelings that would rather see it differently.
Just below Vitaeus gives an example of this, and of course it runs through everything that you have written so far (in my excessively humble opinion!) You define an America and ‘American Values’ according to your sentiments about how it should be or perhaps should have been. Then, mentally perhaps, you ‘rewrite history’ to conform to your sentimental assertion. And those assertions are glowingly patriotic and *idealistic* and are infused with all the content of America’s civil religious tenets. Thusly, you develop a sort of unreal ‘picture’ that easily aligns itself with progressivism and, as progressivism augments, to open socialistic and Marxian intrusions. Once the Masses have been infected with these wretched methods of inquiry, and revved up in hysterics, they and these emotionalisms rampage through the civic body. And that describes our present!
Correcting this is not easy. I say this as one who has become dedicated to the extensive project of confronting America’s lying habits. One receives tremendous resistance, indeed *they* come at you with knives. But the work must be done. Telling the truth about America’s foreign policy, about its neo-imperialistic adventures and the collusion of its moneyed classes in the undermining of Republican principles; about the entire project of ‘social engineering’ that arose along with the propaganda and public relations industries in the early 20th century; and all this together in the distortion and sometimes the fabrication of false-narratives through which many experience the world. Media, Hollywood, Propaganda, Lies, Power, Destruction. These are diseases in the social body. A sick body as this has also gone forth and killed hundreds of thousands, affected millions, destroyed communites of people: this is a truth that must be told! This has to be seen and the TeeVee must be shut off.
Dismantling all of this, seeing things as they really are, giving up the addiction of lying to oneself and to others and to God if you will and stating the truth: this is the object. I define conservatism through these predicates.
Madison Grant gives an indication of how it is done, in one specific arena:
“We Americans must realize that the altruistic ideals which have controlled our social development during the past century, and the maudlin sentimentalism that has made America “an asylum for the oppressed,” are sweeping the nation toward a racial abyss. If the Melting Pot is allowed to boil without control, and we continue to follow our national motto and deliberately blind ourselves to all “distinctions of race, creed, or color,” the type of native American of Colonial descent will become as extinct as the Athenian of the age of Pericles, and the Viking of the days of Rollo.”
This rational and intellectual statement causes the emotionalized intellect to experience apoplectic spasms! (I am not picking on you alone Zoltar). A whole army of inner social justice warriors leaves its masturbatory pastimes, arms itself, and charges onto the field to confront The Enemy! This is a shared project, a performed ritual, carried out not by genuine conservatives but by activist progressives. This postwar American progressivism needs to be seen, and then countered.
The only way to do it is with a clarifying intellect and intellectual will.
An interesting background to the phrase: ‘race, creed’ or color’:
[ http://www.firstmention.com/racecreedcolor/ ]
So many things link back to the American Civil War. The transformation of the Republic — the beginning of the destruction of it — originate in actions, in ideas, in subterfuges and in neo-imperial policies that have roots there and in what followed.
My view is that *all of this* needs to be looked at again, reviewed and revised. Truer histories can be told and they require telling.
One of the main battle-fields of today there, in that. Who tells the story? Who controls the narratives? Who controls the minds of the young?
I’m well, thanks for asking. I really have nothing to add to what Chris has said. Also, if you want to hear from me, baiting me in the comments is more likely to draw a snark than a meaningful response.
But I will offer this – I think you responded to something Chris did not say. In fact, it looks to me like you raised a strawman, and spent a lot of words knocking it down. Boring.
Glen, my friend, I hope that you will recognize that you brought snark out against me with exaggerated, but funny, comments about ‘opacity’ and ‘prose too difficult for my tiny brain to process’ et cetera. Obviously Platonic irony, and I could hardly be offended, but such comments shut down conversational possibility.
I clearly go overboard and go to some extremes when I write, I admit this. But as you say this is not tiddlywinks (which I had to look up!)
_________________
mid 19th century: of unknown origin; perhaps related to tiddly1. The word originally denoted an unlicensed public house, also a game of dominoes.
Tiddly: slightly drunk.
_________________
I do not ‘want’ anything from you nor do I ‘want to hear from you’. If you want to write snark, write snark! If you want to contribute ideas though .. Just Do It©.
Owe it to yourself (and to the Blog) to intelligently communicate your thought, don’t link it co-dependently with how I treat you, child!
But I will offer this – I think you responded to something Chris did not say. In fact, it looks to me like you raised a strawman, and spent a lot of words knocking it down. Boring.
Don’t fall asleep, gramps. I think that on a forum like this we tend to respond to others by what we imagine they represent. We generalize. But I can see through that when others do that tp me, and you — even with your limited, agèd brain, can see what I am doing in my argumentation.
GL wrote: “…I’m well, thanks for asking. I really have nothing to add to what Chris has said.”
Doesn’t surprise me, given that Chris has said very little!
PART TWO
Isaac writes: “No, I don’t spend a lot of time reading propaganda literature that seeks to lay all the ills of the world at the feet of others, but I have read many a treatise by economic writers whose ideologies span from hard right to hard left. Part of my education in Economics as a course of study required that I read and critique hundreds of authors. In gaining an understanding of people, nothing however beats actual discussions with those that harbor hugely different ideologies.
Notice, please, the immediate intrusion of (what I will suggest is) a prejudiced pre-opinion. “Propaganda literature that seeks to lay all the ills of the world at the feet of others.” You have indicated with this the manoeuvre, as I call it, that you employ to keep yourself from encountering ideas. That’s just it: a self-enacted manoeuvre in which no external controller was needed. This is one of the principal critiques, from *our* side, against *your side*: you self-censor. And you do so with a certain self-righteous slap to those who do read the materials.
Here, a real core (or one of them) is to be found; that is, what differentiates *us* from *you* (if you will allow that I speak in this dichotomy). It is essentially an intellectual barrier. You shut-down the intellectual environment by eliminating from it certain materials that make you uncomfortable (?) or which you have determined, spuriously really, is ‘propaganda’. I suggest to you, here, the intrusion into your intellectual arena of the disease of ‘political correctness’. To understand what I refer to we would have to bring out the ideological shift that occurred, in America in this case, between 1920 and 1960 (more or less). We would have to lay out on the table the Bernaysian influence: psychological manipulation, the intrusion fabricated ideological contructs through PR mechanisms, and a great deal more. Could you do this? To what degree is a critical mind-frame possible for you? What if you had to confront your own ‘brainwashing’ or to put it more subtly the effect of ‘social and cultural engineering’? Could you do it? At what personal cost?
My point is not though to criticize you. It is to indicate how ideas are controlled through mechanisms of self-censorship. One is where the idea, or the thought or the feeling or the perception, is self-annihilated or driven down when there is a ‘moral intervention’ by something like social conscience. But this social conscience, I suggest, can be questioned.
Social control, definitely in America, is achieved through the establishment of invisible perimeters that people are terrified to cross. One can — you could — examine those ‘mechanisms’ and one can — you could — discover the effect of Cultural Marxism as a tool of social coercion. My point is not to focus here though. It is only to indicate that mental control is a real feature of our present, that there is a science of mental control that is part-and-parcel of the social science of Public Relations, and that these mechanisms need to be seen. Or, to put it another way, can be seen if one chooses to.
But you are also, obviously, speaking to a larger issue as well. That is essentially that people — common people often — are forced to make an interpretation of their world, but that their resources on many levels are limited. We live, now perhaps more than ever, in a world that is excruciatingly difficult to interpret, given its complexity and given the competing discourses and the power-complexes that stand behind and which *engineer* the content of that discourse. When you use the word ‘blame’ you refer (obviously) to you-know-who, and to the discourse that attends you-know-who. And this discourse, shall I say, has a low end … but it also has a high end. As do all discourses. When you ask an inmate to ‘paint a picture of his world’ you get a crude picture. But when you ask a more sophisticated intellect the same question, the answer may be far more nuanced and complex, as well as beyond your ken (knowledge, awareness, perception, understanding, grasp, comprehension, realization, apprehension, appreciation, consciousness, recognition, notice).
I know that many here have what I see as mental issues with too complex ideas and their terms, but this really does turn on epistemological and hermeneutic issues and problems. (But I do not discount your obvious reference to paranoid, and thus potentially to false, thinking or interpretation).
Part of my education in Economics as a course of study required that I read and critique hundreds of authors.
That is excellent! But why is it, or how is it, that I notice in the way your frame your arguments and your declarations that ‘perimeters’ seem to define the limits of where you will allow yourself to go?
What if an underlying and perhaps even unconscious *ideology* functions there? Could it be located, named, spoken of? (Just so you know, I obviously answer affirmatively!)
[Glen? You there? Head okay? Lie down for a minute if possible].
PART THREE
Chris M. writes: “I do not appreciate the tactic of telling me how I will associate you. I believe that you are trying to gain some type of absolute truth when none will be in the offing when the human factor enters the equation. You research the research never coming to a definitive answer but your sympathies lie somewhere and I know not where except that you seem to feel that you and people that think as you do are or will soon be marginalized and therefore must mount a defensive campaign to ensure that you are not further diminished and hopefully recapture some former stature. My only tactic is to express myself. Furthermore, you cannot claim something is not based in truth unless you believe you are the sole arbiter of some truth.
Though you seem to be experiencing a sort of melt-down (given your comment, a few posts above) I will continue my commentary on what you wrote as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened. I say that it is interesting even for those who are opposed to what I allow myself to think and encounter, if only because it sheds light on the ‘rightwing critique of American Conservatism’.
Essentially, my concern revolves around the idea of What shall I serve?
You notice that I have ‘sympathies’ which lie ‘somewhere’ but you ‘know not where’. I am glad that you bring this up because, as I am trying to point out, if you genuinely and truthfully interrogate *us*, and if you allow *us* to respond without shutting us down or out (or vilifying us and all the rest), you will indeed get an answer! Yet (I suggest) you will not like the answer. The answer will unsettle you. You will experience a reaction to *our ideas*. What you will do then is in question, but the reason I mention this is because if our ideas gain traction, they may convince and they may influence. And part of what I am trying to communicate is why it is that The Establishment (business, media, government, para-government and para-military) have very very good reasons to be concerned!
What I determine needs to be ‘served’ is, if I may be so bold, *Europe*. I use this term as an emblem. This is my starting point. You asked me and I am telling you! I converted out of Judaism at great personal cost. I allied myself with Greco-Christianity and with ‘service to Europe’ for foundational philosophical and spiritual reasons. For me, this has opened up entire vistas of meaning and possibility.
I am becoming certain that *Europe* as emblem and Europe in fact is ‘under attack’. Its principal enemy, if I can put it in this sense, is internal not external. It is a spirit of destruction that must be countered. I will honestly say it *came to life* (as it were) in the early 20th century and is represented by two incredibly destructive wars through which an unreal and destructive force came to life.
To come back to life, to counter that destructive ‘spirit’, to revivify, to renew, to live, to grow — these are the values that I serve. Despite what you project on me or toward *us*, I do not exclude anyone from these possibilities. No race, no people, no nation, no tribe, no state. But what *we* must do we must do, now , for ourselves.
You see Chris? When you actually encounter someone who articulated *our* position, our spiritual motivations, it challenges your prejudices. Oh Happy Day!
PART FOUR
Chris M. writes: “The solidarity of the original demographic is irrelevant when it comes to what I consider American values: Personal responsibility, empathy, individual expression, and liberty. How we live those ideals are the truest expression to which we agree or disagree with them.
Here, *we* differ from you in I think strident terms. While I would not deny that idea and ideology (and notions of value and such) do not have power, if you research our positions we come, essentially, to the base-conclusion that Race is Real and Race Matter. And we notice that America was created by specific people who articulated their creation as being for those people.
Without the people — the stock if you will — or in a situation of admixture, or shall I say ‘cultural invasion’ (as has happened in other historical epochs) ‘the idea’ is no longer respected. This happens slowly and yet adnances surely.
We say This is what is going on in the present. This is what is happening in America (and to a lesser degree in Europe). The explosion of problems, of social conflicts, or disagreements, of lack of shared vision, has come about because of demographic shifts (among a group of factors that can be located and named).
Demography, according to *us*, Is Destiny.
Your idea is based not in conservative principle — of the sort that the Founders employed in setting forth their rather strict definitions — but is rather a modification that has come about through progressive ideology. A post-Sixties modification underpinned less by idea and more by emotion and sentiment.
Thus and in this sense you have allied yourself with the Progressive, and also Marxian, faction. Their ideology has become your ideology. And you serve less a specific thing and more a ‘general ideal’. I would not diminish the importance of a general ideal, by no means, but that ‘general ideal’ is now failing in its power to unite and to provide a sufficient foundation.
You could — I mean it is possible — look into the writing of Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard to at least have a better understanding of the foundation of the ideas that, more often than not, influence *our* side. I have done this and I have seen the logic in their arguments.
What I have been trying to point out to you, against what I feel to be your adamant opposition, is that the ideas which you denigrate and marginalize are, in different ways, in different setting, among different peoples and for differing reasons, resurfacing. I think that you will find that you really are on the side of the Progressives and that you are not on our side.
And that is one of my main observations when I encounter the ideology of present American Conservatism.
You and others hate these expressions, I know this. But I only seek to be *helpful* in clarifying the issues.
Alright! Time for a cup of coffee! 😉
“Thus and in this sense you have allied yourself with the Progressive, and also Marxian, faction. Their ideology has become your ideology. And you serve less a specific thing and more a ‘general ideal’. I would not diminish the importance of a general ideal, by no means, but that ‘general ideal’ is now failing in its power to unite and to provide a sufficient foundation. ”
The general ideal is failing due to the power grab through the promotion of “identitarianism” which we call identity politics not demographic shifts.
Ideals are not race specific. It is up to people to persuade “others” that our ideals are “good and beneficial”. If we cannot then we should be open to hearing why they are not and not preoccupied with the notion that our Race determines that which should exist. If we remain not persuaded by their ideas we do not have to abandon our ideals we simply have to work harder to show why others might wish to adopt our ideals.
Chris M. writes: “The general ideal is failing due to the power grab through the promotion of “identitarianism” which we call identity politics not demographic shifts.
First, I respect your assertion, but I do not think I agree with it. Yet it is a necessary axiom for all else that you declare and you hang everything on it.
Therefor, you must assert ‘ideal’ and ‘idealism’ over any physical, biological, or perhaps any other factors. I think your assertion would quickly fall apart when pressure is applied to it. But to resolve this question — important though it may be — will likely not be possible here and now, on this Blog. But let us say only that these are part-and-parcel of the larger questions being asked. And if I say that these ideas are ‘resurfacing’ for consideration, you may be able to agree with me if only in that.
“Ideals are not race specific. It is up to people to persuade “others” that our ideals are “good and beneficial”. If we cannot then we should be open to hearing why they are not and not preoccupied with the notion that our Race determines that which should exist. If we remain not persuaded by their ideas we do not have to abandon our ideals we simply have to work harder to show why others might wish to adopt our ideals.”
Ideals are indeed specific to a specific people. And it is out of certain set if ideals that civilizations are constructed. Occidental vivilization has specific roots in specific ideas, ideals, philosophies and other, perhaps less tangible, features. What a given people do with their *materials*, as it were, be they mental, idealistic or physical (the biological self in time), now that is the crux of the issue.
However, I would not say, and *we* do not say that ideals are non-important, nor would I assert that my ideas or ideals cannot influence or inspire other people. But I would definitely say that specific ideals are particular to specific groups and if you destroy or admix that ‘creative group’, you will lose vitality and the idealism will fall away.
I do tend to believe that this is a crucial question: the demography of the US. That you don’t is, of course, a determination that I can respect though I do not think it well founded. And I think it is ‘ideological’ in that sense. But you have said as much really. Idealism is key for you.
Alizia,
I’m concerned about you. Please go outside.
I’m waiting for some (notoriously tardy) workmen to install some glass shelving. But after they come and finish, I’ll take you up.
What was on the lunch menu for today? Anything worth eating?
Conservative, Progressive, Liberal, etc. are Labels. The “conservative” can be a conservator of the ideal’s from the founding documents. All men are created equal is an amazing idea, that it was diluted to allow enough people to agree to it is an example of politics. in action. 230 years later, it means everyone, male, female, white, black, that is a truly amazing accomplishment. It is a goal worth striving for and one which generations of Americans have paid in blood to progress, sometime for the wrong reasons or just because it seemed the right thing to do.
In my brief opinion, I find the idea that anyone’s speech can be constrained or limited by legal or social pressure abhorrent. Conside it free speech or self identifying, either way. Ramblings from three hours of sleep and many miles to go.
Thank you Jack and all the other commentators here for living the ideals that damn near makes this country unique.
Conservative, Progressive, Liberal, etc. are Labels. The “conservative” can be a conservator of the ideal’s from the founding documents. All men are created equal is an amazing idea, that it was diluted to allow enough people to agree to it is an example of politics. in action. 230 years later, it means everyone, male, female, white, black, that is a truly amazing accomplishment. It is a goal worth striving for and one which generations of Americans have paid in blood to progress, sometime for the wrong reasons or just because it seemed the right thing to do.
This is another form of dishonesty — the dreamy, foggy, cover-over — though it is one that is smiled upon, not frowned upon.
To understand — honestly — how the Founders and how many different intellectuals through of race and many other different issues, see: Edited by ST Joshi Documents of American Prejudice: An Anthology of Writings on Race from Thomas Jefferson to David Duke…
[ https://www.amazon.com/Documents-American-Prejudice-Anthology-Jefferson/dp/0465016243 ]
If you want to know the *real truth* you must confront the real truth, and when you have done that, your Americanist Idealism, your assertion, you wishful ideological imposition, will be changed. The Orwellian strategy of rewriting a false history to cover over the true facts is always a seductive opinion …
… but for those compelled to *see reality as it really is*, the truth must be told at every (lying, dishonest) juncture.
This lying tendency, curiously enough, functions in both directions.
I rememeber multiple posts on Facebook claiming that white national;ists are a greater threat than Islamic terrorists.
The question, phrased in that way, contains its own answer.
If you start from Chris M’s assertion, and if his assertion is taken without question as an absolute truth, an incontrovertible fact to which there is no counter-argument or counter-proposition possible, then you must clearly choose the former as the greater danger.
If you then encounter someone who holds forth a counter-proposition, you will then be compelled to label them as suffering from a pathological perspective.
[Chris M’s assertion represents thinkable thought but ideas that oppose it or challenge it unthinkable thought. Where is the inner censor who should have risen up and defeated that (wrong) thought before it could congeal in the mind?!]
Once you have labels the contrary ideas as pathological then, you will face other choices. What to do about people who do not think as you suppose thinking must occur? That is, those who think wrong?
This is what Orwell called thoughtcrime and thoughtcrime must be addressed. It cannot be allowed to *stand*.
This leads to other necessary choices. What to do in a polity where the ideas you regard as truly false gain prominence and begin to convince? What if you know because, I suppose, you have access to special knowledge that their ideas are wrong? Not only wrong but will negatively affect the *positive evolution of the human race*?