‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›
 
   
 

The necessary evil of racial identity politics for whites

 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  335
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
12 January 2019 17:15
 
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 06:32 PM

White nationalists are not white supremacists, but white nationalism has another set of problems. For white nationalists in every white nation, an uncomfortable reality is that the ship has sailed. Even if America were to completely seal its borders, the United States of America will become Latin America in almost the same amount of time. And, if they were to launch a civil war to toss out all non-whites, they would almost certainly lose. It is merely pie in the sky.

It appears then, that white nationlists would support a white-only immigration policy for the United States, if it was possible. To at least stem the tide of the colorization of America. And I suppose you would not see anything wrong with that?

 

 

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15886
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 January 2019 17:16
 
proximacentauri - 12 January 2019 12:58 PM

“Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. ‘Patriotism’ is its cult. - Erich Fromm, in The Sane Society (1955)

“Nationalism is the measles of mankind. It is an infantile disease.” - attributed to Einstein

Then perhaps “White Nationalism” is the small pox of mankind? In America “Trumpism” is its enabler. Unfortunately, we can’t inoculate our children against it.

Russia is one of the whitest nations around, no wonder Trump likes them so much.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6389
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
12 January 2019 19:51
 

I’m wondering if this has been addressed yet. I’m wondering whether affording yourself autonomy in a world rife with discrimination is a requisite to intelligence? Regardless of any other biological characteristics, I would think that genetically highly intelligent people would impliedly avoid being subject to discrimination.

 
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
13 January 2019 06:47
 
Jb8989 - 12 January 2019 07:51 PM

I’m wondering if this has been addressed yet. I’m wondering whether affording yourself autonomy in a world rife with discrimination is a requisite to intelligence? Regardless of any other biological characteristics, I would think that genetically highly intelligent people would impliedly avoid being subject to discrimination.

Not sure I understand.  A person, intelligent or not, can be subject to discrimination because it comes from others.  The person can feel that he/she is equal to others, but still face disadvantages.  It takes a lot of courage and fortitude to challenge systematic bigotry.  It can’t just be “avoided.”  Or maybe I’m misinterpreting your comment?

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
13 January 2019 07:03
 
hannahtoo - 11 January 2019 06:29 AM

May I ask again—why does David Duke want to live in an all-white country?

White nationalists tend to idealize white social homogeneity specifically and racial homogeneity generally. When they need to give reasons to justify this value, then they may talk about crime in diverse neighborhoods. But, I don’t expect they would be happy with accepting non-criminal non-whites (such as northeast Asians) in their neighborhoods, either. Racial homogeneity just seems to be an a priori value for them.

This is what David Duke wrote in his 1988 book, My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding:

“Some members of our heritage—those who dwell in communities and neighborhoods that are still almost all-White—think the rest of America is as unaffected as their own neighborhoods. But the change is not only in the streets of Miami, Los Angeles or Detroit. It even finds its expressions in the rising crime rates and school problems of recently all-White communities such as the remote Fargo, North Dakota, or Des Moines, Iowa. In reality, this demographic change will be catastrophic to both our genotype and the Western society that our European heritage created.”

Notice “our genotype,” which I think is key to the true motive. Is non-white crime really such a threat to the white genotype? Not really. But, miscegenation seems to be a threat to the white genotype, and all it takes for miscegenation to happen is non-whites and whites in the same neighborhoods. The racial theorist JP Rushton proposed a pretty good general explanation for the existence of racism: that racism may be biologically orchestrated by the “selfish gene” mechanism per the theory of Richard Dawkins. The theory of Dawkins claims that we are all fundamentally temporary puppets of our genotypes, and our genotypes are designed by natural selection to try to live on indefinitely. Therefore, the thinking goes, white people organize to preserve the genetic variants common among whites, even at the cost of their own lives and other core values, and so on among other races also. That argument may be true, though in my opinion it would not follow that our moral value system should stand solely on that theory, as though we must yield to the interests of our genes at the expense of everything else (naturalistic fallacy). Right or wrong, David Duke frequently wrote about preserving the white/European/our genotype in his book, and this is common among the rhetoric of white nationalists, both internal rhetoric and external rhetoric.

Jan_CAN - 11 January 2019 06:49 AM
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 06:32 PM

White nationalists are not white supremacists, but white nationalism has another set of problems. For white nationalists in every white nation, an uncomfortable reality is that the ship has sailed. Even if America were to completely seal its borders, the United States of America will become Latin America in almost the same amount of time. And, if they were to launch a civil war to toss out all non-whites, they would almost certainly lose. It is merely pie in the sky.

Yes, they are.  It’s just a name change in an attempt to sanitize their public image.  It’s not working.

When I got into the inner social circles of white nationalists, I could not even detect white supremacism (whites are fundamentally better than all other races) in their internal rhetoric privately among themselves. So, what is this title based on? Why do journalists and activists and academics almost everywhere else take it to be an established fact about what white racists believe? It seems to be merely myth. The myth has resilience because any attempt to correct it may seem like a defense of white supremacists.

[ Edited: 13 January 2019 07:17 by Abel Dean]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
13 January 2019 07:16
 
hannahtoo - 11 January 2019 06:40 AM

Abel Dean:
I expect that the couples who have the best case for experimental genetic editing are parents of a child with cystic fibrosis. In those cases, absolutely every child of the couple will have the disease, and it is a disease in which the children are forever infertile and likely to die as young adults after spending their childhood persistently ill and in pain. It would be a moral hazard to NOT allow them the chance to have healthy children, and they may open the door for the rest of us.

Unfortunately, scientific research must accept many failures in order to reach success.  I feel it would be immoral to experiment on unborn children because the failures would be so horribly tragic.  As Burt described, genes and proteins coded by them have multiple functions.  And learning to edit genes also is a trial and error process.  Here is an article which describes some of the research on cystic fibrosis.  Currently the work is attempting to change the DNA in the lungs of patients, rather than embryos:

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2018/gene-editing-cystic-fibrosis-qa-peter-glazer-phd-md

All this is beyond the topic of the OP, except that the idea was mentioned to try to improve intelligence through genetic engineering.  Obviously this is an idea much, much, much more complex than trying to make a specific change in one gene.

To edit germline cells or embryos remains taboo, but that would otherwise seem to be the easiest, safest, and most effective way to prevent, not just treat, cystic fibrosis. The disease negatively manifests not just in the lungs but all over the body. As adults their kidneys fail, their fingers are clubbed, their intestines are blocked, and they are infertile.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
13 January 2019 07:37
 
proximacentauri - 12 January 2019 05:15 PM
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 06:32 PM

White nationalists are not white supremacists, but white nationalism has another set of problems. For white nationalists in every white nation, an uncomfortable reality is that the ship has sailed. Even if America were to completely seal its borders, the United States of America will become Latin America in almost the same amount of time. And, if they were to launch a civil war to toss out all non-whites, they would almost certainly lose. It is merely pie in the sky.

It appears then, that white nationlists would support a white-only immigration policy for the United States, if it was possible. To at least stem the tide of the colorization of America. And I suppose you would not see anything wrong with that?

Like I wrote in what you quoted, that ship has sailed. To seal the borders against non-whites I expect would have costs that exceed the benefits. Non-whites already exist by the millions in America, most them are born in America, and any serious attempt to deport them all would be much more catastrophic. I may think a white-only policy would be respectable at the beginning of colonization—no non-white immigrants, no refugees, no slave ships. I think white nationalists need political plans that presume remaining a popularly hated minority among whites at large for a long time, though the options are slim. Maybe they can lay claim to a few otherwise-uninhabited islands off Alaska or Canada, with white racial homogeneity in the constitution of their new nation. Global warming may make those islands more habitable within a few generations.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
13 January 2019 07:44
 
Jb8989 - 12 January 2019 07:51 PM

I’m wondering if this has been addressed yet. I’m wondering whether affording yourself autonomy in a world rife with discrimination is a requisite to intelligence? Regardless of any other biological characteristics, I would think that genetically highly intelligent people would impliedly avoid being subject to discrimination.

Ashkenazi Jews have the highest intelligence of any race, but popular hatred against them has been among the worst. Lower-intelligence races tend to be merely looked down upon, ridiculed and dismissed, but higher-intelligence races tend to be feared and hated with a conspiratorial zealous rage. The higher-IQ races have the greatest risk when they are in the minority.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6389
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
13 January 2019 08:29
 
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 07:44 AM
Jb8989 - 12 January 2019 07:51 PM

I’m wondering if this has been addressed yet. I’m wondering whether affording yourself autonomy in a world rife with discrimination is a requisite to intelligence? Regardless of any other biological characteristics, I would think that genetically highly intelligent people would impliedly avoid being subject to discrimination.

Ashkenazi Jews have the highest intelligence of any race, but popular hatred against them has been among the worst. Lower-intelligence races tend to be merely looked down upon, ridiculed and dismissed, but higher-intelligence races tend to be feared and hated with a conspiratorial zealous rage. The higher-IQ races have the greatest risk when they are in the minority.

First of all, that’s interesting from a sociological perspective and I wonder what the research is on it? But secondly, you said that your viewpoint on this is very bottom up, and I agree that it seems that way. However, from a bottom up perspective wouldn’t it be true that intelligent people should have more influence over the collective conscience that guides politics and populism? Especially since naturally they understand its impact better than others? Theoretically intelligence should outweigh minority status from a variety of cultural perspectives, I would imagine. Otherwise we’re talking about intelligence very narrowly.

[ Edited: 13 January 2019 08:33 by Jb8989]
 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
13 January 2019 08:39
 
Jb8989 - 13 January 2019 08:29 AM
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 07:44 AM
Jb8989 - 12 January 2019 07:51 PM

I’m wondering if this has been addressed yet. I’m wondering whether affording yourself autonomy in a world rife with discrimination is a requisite to intelligence? Regardless of any other biological characteristics, I would think that genetically highly intelligent people would impliedly avoid being subject to discrimination.

Ashkenazi Jews have the highest intelligence of any race, but popular hatred against them has been among the worst. Lower-intelligence races tend to be merely looked down upon, ridiculed and dismissed, but higher-intelligence races tend to be feared and hated with a conspiratorial zealous rage. The higher-IQ races have the greatest risk when they are in the minority.

First of all, that’s interesting from a sociological perspective and I wonder what the research is on it? But secondly, you said that your viewpoint on this is very bottom up, and I agree that it seems that way. However, from a bottom up perspective wouldn’t it be true that intelligent people should have more influence over the collective conscience that guides politics and populism? Especially since naturally they understand its impact better than others? Theoretically intelligence should outweigh minority status from a variety of cultural perspectives, I would imagine. Otherwise we’re talking about intelligence very narrowly.

If there is a collective racial conscience, then they can work together to defend their race. I think Ashkenazi Jews have done that to great effect since the end of World War 2. Otherwise, their ideas would be influential but scattered in all directions and divided against themselves, and they would fall victim to the hateful external mobs unified against them.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
13 January 2019 08:58
 

Abel Dean:
The racial theorist JP Rushton proposed a pretty good general explanation for the existence of racism: that racism may be biologically orchestrated by the “selfish gene” mechanism per the theory of Richard Dawkins. The theory of Dawkins claims that we are all fundamentally temporary puppets of our genotypes, and our genotypes are designed by natural selection to try to live on indefinitely. Therefore, the thinking goes, white people organize to preserve the genetic variants common among whites, even at the cost of their own lives and other core values, and so on among other races also. That argument may be true, though in my opinion it would not follow that our moral value system should stand solely on that theory, as though we must yield to the interests of our genes at the expense of everything else (naturalistic fallacy). Right or wrong, David Duke frequently wrote about preserving the white/European/our genotype in his book, and this is common among the rhetoric of white nationalists, both internal rhetoric and external rhetoric.

I agree with you that our moral value system should not stand solely on our genotype.  Couple of important reasons.  First, the strength of our species is that we are not bound by our genotype.  We have big brains and long childhoods so that we can learn.  This knowledge is critical to our survival beyond what is coded in our DNA.  We must adapt through behavior to new challenges and changing conditions.  While humans were able to live in relatively isolated groups for most of our history, this is no longer feasible.  Billions of people, so many modes of communication, such easy travel.  And importantly, mixing of ideas, while it creates tensions on one hand, also triggers exchanges of technologies and useful ideas.  Thus, under current population and technological conditions, it has become maladaptive to fixate on homogeneity.  Those who will thrive in our difficult age are people who can work well with others.  As you noted in another post, there is no unpopulated frontier remaining for isolationists.

Second, the desire to maintain a group identity has always been flexible.  You are probably aware that all modern humans of Eurasian ancestry carry Neanderthal DNA.  As our ancestors left Africa through the Middle East eons ago, they encountered Neanderthals, who are scientifically classified within the same species as the migrants.  In the intervening ages, there has obviously been intermarriage of people from different cultures wherever they have met.  If we want to get into the genetic perspective on this, every species benefits from hybrid vigor.  That is, recombination of genotypes, rather than inbreeding. 

Like many other human propensities, with group identification there is a push and pull.  A spectrum of variation.  Some people view others as dangerous.  Some people view others as intriguing, exotic.  Some people view them just as people, somewhat different, but much the same as themselves.  David Duke represents one extreme pole of the spectrum.  He either fears or is repelled by people who look different than himself.  He chooses to condemn groups, not looking at individuals.  Is he saying he wants to live in a land of people, of any race or creed, who are honest and treat their neighbors well?  No, he wants to live only with whites.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
13 January 2019 09:07
 
Abel Dean - 13 January 2019 07:16 AM
hannahtoo - 11 January 2019 06:40 AM

Abel Dean:
I expect that the couples who have the best case for experimental genetic editing are parents of a child with cystic fibrosis. In those cases, absolutely every child of the couple will have the disease, and it is a disease in which the children are forever infertile and likely to die as young adults after spending their childhood persistently ill and in pain. It would be a moral hazard to NOT allow them the chance to have healthy children, and they may open the door for the rest of us.

Unfortunately, scientific research must accept many failures in order to reach success.  I feel it would be immoral to experiment on unborn children because the failures would be so horribly tragic.  As Burt described, genes and proteins coded by them have multiple functions.  And learning to edit genes also is a trial and error process.  Here is an article which describes some of the research on cystic fibrosis.  Currently the work is attempting to change the DNA in the lungs of patients, rather than embryos:

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2018/gene-editing-cystic-fibrosis-qa-peter-glazer-phd-md

All this is beyond the topic of the OP, except that the idea was mentioned to try to improve intelligence through genetic engineering.  Obviously this is an idea much, much, much more complex than trying to make a specific change in one gene.

To edit germline cells or embryos remains taboo, but that would otherwise seem to be the easiest, safest, and most effective way to prevent, not just treat, cystic fibrosis. The disease negatively manifests not just in the lungs but all over the body. As adults their kidneys fail, their fingers are clubbed, their intestines are blocked, and they are infertile.

There is no way to test the true efficacy of editing germline cells without producing babies.  And it is unethical to produce edited babies, knowing that unpredictable glitches always occur in science.  It is the glitches that help direct scientists to new discoveries.  But with human subjects, the cost is too great.  That is why research on CF focuses on patients, currently.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15886
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
13 January 2019 09:16
 
hannahtoo - 13 January 2019 08:58 AM

Abel Dean:
The racial theorist JP Rushton proposed a pretty good general explanation for the existence of racism: that racism may be biologically orchestrated by the “selfish gene” mechanism per the theory of Richard Dawkins. The theory of Dawkins claims that we are all fundamentally temporary puppets of our genotypes, and our genotypes are designed by natural selection to try to live on indefinitely. Therefore, the thinking goes, white people organize to preserve the genetic variants common among whites, even at the cost of their own lives and other core values, and so on among other races also. That argument may be true, though in my opinion it would not follow that our moral value system should stand solely on that theory, as though we must yield to the interests of our genes at the expense of everything else (naturalistic fallacy). Right or wrong, David Duke frequently wrote about preserving the white/European/our genotype in his book, and this is common among the rhetoric of white nationalists, both internal rhetoric and external rhetoric.

I agree with you that our moral value system should not stand solely on our genotype.  Couple of important reasons.  First, the strength of our species is that we are not bound by our genotype.  We have big brains and long childhoods so that we can learn.  This knowledge is critical to our survival beyond what is coded in our DNA.  We must adapt through behavior to new challenges and changing conditions.  While humans were able to live in relatively isolated groups for most of our history, this is no longer feasible.  Billions of people, so many modes of communication, such easy travel.  And importantly, mixing of ideas, while it creates tensions on one hand, also triggers exchanges of technologies and useful ideas.  Thus, under current population and technological conditions, it has become maladaptive to fixate on homogeneity.  Those who will thrive in our difficult age are people who can work well with others.  As you noted in another post, there is no unpopulated frontier remaining for isolationists.

Second, the desire to maintain a group identity has always been flexible.  You are probably aware that all modern humans of Eurasian ancestry carry Neanderthal DNA.  As our ancestors left Africa through the Middle East eons ago, they encountered Neanderthals, who are scientifically classified within the same species as the migrants.  In the intervening ages, there has obviously been intermarriage of people from different cultures wherever they have met.  If we want to get into the genetic perspective on this, every species benefits from hybrid vigor.  That is, recombination of genotypes, rather than inbreeding. 

Like many other human propensities, with group identification there is a push and pull.  A spectrum of variation.  Some people view others as dangerous.  Some people view others as intriguing, exotic.  Some people view them just as people, somewhat different, but much the same as themselves.  David Duke represents one extreme pole of the spectrum.  He either fears or is repelled by people who look different than himself.  He chooses to condemn groups, not looking at individuals.  Is he saying he wants to live in a land of people, of any race or creed, who are honest and treat their neighbors well?  No, he wants to live only with whites.

The horrible truth is that whitey is gonna get absorbed. He will be assimilated, resistance is futile, it’s happened before: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2177634-prehistoric-girl-had-parents-belonging-to-different-human-species/?fbclid=IwAR2oG5_Tku8eJwYIjK5uy57YF12GUSEYyOZrHGfcbIG9l6IIFYNPAzP9Pfw#.W33r9UtpeHU.facebook

 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  483
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
14 January 2019 11:24
 

The term “identity politics” assumes various identities.

So if we’re we’re having problems with “identity politics,” my first question is, WHO ARE THE BIGGEST PROPONENTS OF ADDING MORE IDENTITIES TO THE MIX?


That would be the left and Democrats.  Thus it is their duty to keep identity politics under control OR abandon their policy of fragmenting our national identity.


The conservative approach to identity politics is to simply preserve our current national identity, not continually fragment it and then remain constantly vigilant (which is what liberals want) that it’s not destroyed.  Only a tiny % of fringe idiots are advocating ethnic cleansing or deportations, or anything which involves violence/force.  These people (like Richard Spencer) are given mainstream platforms and bullhorns for political strategy by the left, but they are actually an irrelevant social/political force.

So seeing as how I am not on the side which advocates we change our national identity via external, non-organic means (like mass immigration), why is identity politics any of my concern?  I will simply navigate this situation as best I can, treat people of various backgrounds the best I can, and continue to point out that the liberals support policies which create these problems and then complain loudly about those problems.

It’s a waste of time for people who don’t support mass immigration to argue about identity politics - it’s not your battle to fight.  If the left doesn’t want to prevent these problems from getting worse, so be it.  Just don’t complain to me about identity politics, and especially don’t complain to me about only white identity politics.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15886
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
14 January 2019 22:37
 

Maybe we ought to give all the white nationalists their own country (maybe Arkansas - was going to say Texas but EN would be offended) then let them sink into obscurity and degeneration. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/

 
‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›