Is conservatism the political middle ground?

[nosos]

The ideological stifling of the human spirit also has a similar reputation.

Yes, that's why people are opposed to subsuming difference under the enforced homogeneity of the pre-given “identity of a people” you’re advocating.

 

[nosos]

ntenable positions and a road to extremism since they would seek to subordinate surviving human nature to that ideology.

You're saying that a people has an "innate character" which ought to be allowed to expres itself. What, pray tell, does your political perscriptions entail for people who fail to conform to the "innate character" of their people?

 

[nosos]

Likewise, if you want anyone to take you seriously, please explain what this "innate character" consists in. Is it biological, cultural, metaphysical?

 

[monoglot]

Yes, that's why people are opposed to subsuming difference under the enforced homogeneity of the pre-given “identity of a people” you’re advocating.

For any identity to survive it is necessary to express a discriminatory preference in its favour, a society which prohibits such expression prohibits the survival of that identity, the problem is that the materialist view does not recognise that it is survival which constitutes neutrality and not the apathy and decline implicit in equality.

 

[nosos]

For any identity to survive it is necessary to express a discriminatory preference in its favour

In a trivial sense, yes: for me to perpetuate an identity I have to choose it over other identities. It doesn’t follow that it has to be an interpersonal discrimination i.e. that the perpetuation of my identity necessitates the suppression of other identities as they occur elsewhere.

a society which prohibits such expression prohibits the survival of that identity

Explain why.

the problem is that the materialist view

How are you using the term “materialist”?

it is survival which constitutes neutrality

How so?

 

[Blagsta]

We've already established that monoglot is confused over the term "materialist". Nearest I can tell, he seems to think its a synonym for consumerist.

 

[gorski]

Pichhh, what a twat:

For any identity to survive it is necessary to express a discriminatory preference in its favour...

So, dearTroll, we [Damn Marxists] do express our preference[!!!!] to "survival" by banning your lot from gaining power, so we can survive happily and with ALL OUR TALENTS [black, white, yellow, red, green, male, female, Christian, Muslim etc. etc.] being at least given a theoretical chance to develop and be utilised to a common good [not to mention their own, personal or group one...]... Howzzat for a czech-m8!!??!

 

[articul8]

For any identity to survive it is necessary to express a discriminatory preference in its favour, a society which prohibits such expression prohibits the survival of that identity, the problem is that the materialist view does not recognise that it is survival which constitutes neutrality and not the apathy and decline implicit in equality.

1) Not every "identity" ought to survive, or be the beneficiary of a "discriminatory preference" - slave-master, wife-beaters, peadophiles etc. etc. all are 'identities' but this does not confer any positive value upon them.

2) surely a living identity is one which is open to multiple challenges, interfaces, and recodings. Just keeping battling on in reaction against modernity to keep some fixed abstraction surviving tends to suggest that the identity in question is pretty much dead already.

Identities are historically mutable, open to resignification and reconstruction. What makes you so sure that this healthy process must necessarily be replaced by the same old hierarchies, prejudices and distinctions that have characterised class society to date?

 

[gorski]

If he had his way, Articul8, you'd be "cleansed" by now... Or should we say "the greater body" would be cleansed of such doubters like you... as it would be protecting itself... Hmmm... just like we are protecting ourselves from the likes of him...

So, WTF is he moaning in this thread about, then, if "cultural Marxism" is doing the same thing to "them Nazis"?!?

Whining bitch!

 

[articul8]

yeh, but it's rare you get one trying to argue things out. Kind of guy who thinks that the BBC and the police are all involved in some great liberal conspiracy to undermine the identity of the white race

 

[Fruitloop]

It's plurality.


What I am saying is that all characteristics of man by the very fact of their existence and survival have a greater claim to legitimacy than the often untested and unproven philosophies which seek to improve upon that working model by their eradication.

But moulding society based on what your idea of a desirable end-state is has been one of those charateristics at least since the enlightenment.

 

[nosos]

But moulding society based on what your idea of a desirable end-state is has been one of those charateristics at least since the enlightenment.

Which leads us back to the circle Butcher's politely asked him to square earlier

 

[gorski]

Can Mods rename this user ["monoglot"] to "monoidea", please...

 

[monoglot]

Which leads us back to the circle Butcher's politely asked him to square earlier

See post #86.

 

[monoglot]

Quote:
a society which prohibits such expression prohibits the survival of that identity

Explain why.

Because if no expression of effective preference is allowed then any preference will have no utility in defending the interests of a distinct identity and then those associated with the identity will have no legitimate way of defending their essential interests including their prevalence and survival.

Quote:
the problem is that the materialist view

How are you using the term “materialist”?

In the sense of how materialist ideology is practised in the real world, the discounting of factors out with those determined by economic considerations as illegitimate such as identity.

Quote:
it is survival which constitutes neutrality

How so?

Because it is survival which maintains the status quo and which requires a will to survive and the expression of discriminatory preference, survival does not come from the indifference and apathy required by cultural equality which brings homogenisation and the loss of any distinct identity.

 

[monoglot]

1) Not every "identity" ought to survive, or be the beneficiary of a "discriminatory preference" - slave-master, wife-beaters, peadophiles etc. etc. all are 'identities' but this does not confer any positive value upon them.

2) surely a living identity is one which is open to multiple challenges, interfaces, and recodings. Just keeping battling on in reaction against modernity to keep some fixed abstraction surviving tends to suggest that the identity in question is pretty much dead already.

Identities are historically mutable, open to resignification and reconstruction. What makes you so sure that this healthy process must necessarily be replaced by the same old hierarchies, prejudices and distinctions that have characterised class society to date?

Europeans are an adaptive and distinct racial group to which discrimination is innate assuming a common African origin for all humans, so to to deprive Europeans of the right to discriminate is not only inimical to the preservation of the European identity but also intrinsically prejudiced against the surviving character of the European racial group or racist.

 

[gorski]

It's racist to prevent racism?

 

[yield]

Europeans are an adaptive and distinct racial group to which discrimination is innate assuming a common African origin for all humans, so to to deprive Europeans of the right to discriminate is not only inimical to the preservation of the European identity but also intrinsically prejudiced against the surviving character of the European racial group or racist.

Equality and Liberty in "Prejudiced against Oppressors" shocker!

monoglot you seem to be an essentialist which is common amongst romantic conservatives. It's a bit bland though.

 

[articul8]

Europeans are an adaptive and distinct racial group

no they're not - who is this race "the Europeans"? - that category is a heterogeneous amalgam of all kinds of different races - the Celts, Angles, Saxons, Moors (in Spain) etc.

discrimination is innate

In which case how do you account for what you call the "cultural Marxist" consensus? It appears that, even assuming the existence of 'innate' characteristics (which I dispute), they can be completely overridden anyway.

you're not doing too well here, are you?

 

[monoglot]

It's racist to prevent racism?

The conventional definition of racism implies an aspiration to equality rather than survival as the norm so its effect is to promote a progressive homogenisation of all racial groups and so is prejudiced against distinct adaptive racial groups. The aspiration to equality is achieved at the cost of potential (specialisation) and vice versa.

 

[Fruitloop]

This specialization that you're keen on is not actually a terribly good idea. Just look at the Hapsburg monarchy or the Pitcairn Islanders.

 

[gorski]

The conventional definition of racism implies an aspiration to equality rather than survival as the norm so its effect is to promote a progressive homogenisation of all racial groups and so is prejudiced against distinct adaptive racial groups. The aspiration to equality is achieved at the cost of potential (specialisation) and vice versa.

Come again?

On second thoughts...

 

[monoglot]

no they're not - who is this race "the Europeans"? - that category is a heterogeneous amalgam of all kinds of different races - the Celts, Angles, Saxons, Moors (in Spain) etc.

The common assumption that people's preference should conform to rational definitions actually is a reversal of how humans actually behave in terms of identity, those rational definitions are in fact a product of the expression of preference.

All racial groups can be subdivided, this does not mean that they do not exist as a group.

The denial of the existence of any distinct racial group might be seen as an attempt at "divide and rule" and could be seen as a manifestation of the inherent preference for homogenisation and prejudice against the interests and survival of distinct groups which cultural Marxism represents because it represents a means to prevent such groups from defending their interests and survival which is an implicit characteristic of cultural Marxism and those who conform to that philosophy.

In which case how do you account for what you call the "cultural Marxist" consensus? It appears that, even assuming the existence of 'innate' characteristics (which I dispute), they can be completely overridden anyway.

you're not doing too well here, are you?

I have already explained my thinking on the origins of cultural Marxism (a response to modernity), innate characteristics can be overridden but only at the cost of the interests and survival of the distinct adaptive racial groups, which then makes cultural Marxism, which makes a virtue of such things, as inimical to the interests and survival of distinct adaptive racial groups such as Europeans.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Since when has anybody identified themselves with the 'adaptive racial group' called Europeans? Does this group include both Swedes and Greeks, Poles and Portuguese? Lapps? Certainly, very few British people considered themselves European fifty years ago. What racial group does a person born and brought up in the UK by parents who were born in, say, Nigeria, belong to?

Or have you substituted the word 'European' for 'Aryan'? I suspect that if you really expressed what you think on this forum, you'd be banned within about three posts.

 

[articul8]

Your understanding of what constitutes a 'race' seems idiosyncratic to say the least! "European" has never functioned historically as a racial characteristic.

Incidentaly, are the Jews of Europe part of your European race?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Incidentaly, are the Jews of Europe part of your European race?

I think we should offer a prize to whoever provokes monoglot into revealing his fascist tendencies and getting himself banned.

 

[monoglot]

Your understanding of what constitutes a 'race' seems idiosyncratic to say the least! "European" has never functioned historically as a racial characteristic.

Incidentaly, are the Jews of Europe part of your European race?

Definitions are a diversion, it is the expression of preference which is the issue here and such preference is based on instinct imbued by natural selection. Any definitions of race are therefore based on the product of the expression of preference it being necessary for the survival of that race, so definitions are not therefore immutable.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Definitions are a diversion, it is the expression of preference which is the issue here and such preference is based on instinct and any definitions are a product of that expression necessary for their survival, so definitions are not immutable.

That makes no sense whatsoever.
But it is best to ignore you, I think.

*leaves thread*

 

[gorski]

Indeed. Or you can prefer to berate him, as he rightfully deserves. Which is why he is not objecting. For he knows he'd do a lot worse if he was "in power"...

I mean, he already is advocating "racial preferences"...

But at the same time he has the cheek to cry his little brains out against the "ideological preference" that "we" exercise over his little ideology...

 

[monoglot]

I've re-edited #117, I hope its clearer.

Race is ultimately determined by the expression of instinctive preference so rational definitions are not therefore an adequate means to properly define them.