Occasionally a 'hata' will attack me as a social conservative or a naive Christian traditionalist. Almost invariably, these hatas come from either the despair porn cohort, those who decry even qualified optimism, or the half-fag MRA sphere, those who think women still have cooties. In this vein, Ferdinand Bardamu has referred to my "psuedo-Christian moralizing" (paraphrased) which he considers inconsistent with my station in life and antagonistic to the Fight Club generation's proposed MO. So apparently, I've embraced an idealistic frame based on secularized social traditionalism.
Of course, I don't really agree with these criticisms. I don't have much loyalty to religion nor do I abide by traditionalism no matter what. I don't call myself a social conservative because I don't have the means by which to support that perspective; I can't appeal to religion or cast myself as an ossified old man railing against degeneracy witnessed directly.
Quite simply - the Pleasantville of yesteryear just "feels" so right. In my gut, I know it's how society and the people within it should look. So I support social movements like the patriarchy, relatively demure sexuality, and race realism because these ideas buttressed healthy society prior to modern liberalism. Now one could dismiss me here because I admittedly gave my ultimate argument as a personal "feeling" or because one feels we're too far gone to ever go back (not necessarily wrong).
But watch the following video of Australia* in the 1960's. I imagine actually seeing it, that you must "feel" the very same affinity for that society, that traditional society that I implicitly allude to when discussing social conservatism (H/T: Mark Richardson):
*Owing to my insulated American-ness, I still think of foreign countries as extreme stereotypes. So my image of Australia is sort of that of kangaroos and beach huts, not the cities you see in the above video.
94 comments:
one could have made a video pretty much just like that in 1960s rhodesia too
I remember Australia in the 1960s. It was nice. Both men and women seemed happier. It is not too bad even now. Austalian women are not completely fucked in the head even now. BTW, our useless female Prime Minister has been a huge flop.
After coming back from America, Australian women are bloody awesome.
Please delete the anonytard above, then delete this comment too.
If anyone ever watched Mad Men, tell me the first guy in the video doesn't look like Don Draper with a mustache.
Half-fag MRA sphere… that was hilarious, and oh so true.
When I define myself as a Christian, I define myself as a man who believes in the Almighty God of the Bible. Nothing added, nothing removed; not relying on other texts or the wisdom of men to explain things to me and attempting to align my thinking, and my way of living to God’s. That Old Time religion as we call it in the South.
When I define myself as a Conservative, I am not saying I want to conserve the traditions and morals of the very liberal 1950’s. I am defining myself as a person that tries to align my thinking and morality to that of our for-fathers; pre 1865 South.
Most of those who claim to be Christian and Conservative seem nether to me.
I understand One’s point about what feels right. That was me as a younger man, the 1950’s-40’s seemed right. Than it was pre WW1… That time line has been pushed back the older I get
I've worked in africa, the middle east and South America. None of those places are fair or just. Why would folks expect them to become more fair, more just etc when they show up in the Western world?
This needed Mike and the bots.
But seriously, there's a lot to admire here, in the modesty and appreciation for family life. I can't say I feel much affinity for "a tide of people washing in from the suburbs," or however they put it, to work in factory jobs for large corporations. The industrial revolution had already taken men away from the home during the day to a large extent, but suburbia separated work from home entirely, and added a longer drive to get there, so Dad would have even less family time when he got home. (Think of Ralphie in A Christmas Story; pretty much an idyllic middle American childhood, but with a dad who was a mystery behind a newspaper most of the time.)
It was all very scientific and efficient, but I think it was hard on families in the long run. With kids going to school at a younger age than ever and appliances leaving wives more free time than before, and kids seeing their fathers as emotionally distant workhorses, I think the stage was set for a lot of the discontent that brought us the later 60s.
So the question is, could we get back the social mores -- the modesty, the proper masculine and feminine roles, the respect for marriage, and so on -- without the deadening factory-designed lifestyle of suburban row houses and wage slavery? And if it's a package deal, would it be worth it? I think so, but you're not going to get me to crowd onto a downtown-bound train every day for an hourly wage. So maybe I'm part of the problem.
"Half-fag MRA" - OeSTDV
I'm not sure what your specific gripes are I've seen you repeat this on several occasions. It's easy to say when you're some young unmarried childless guy. Why don't you actually step up and prove how idiotic these MRAs actually are? When you lose your head to the guillotine I'll see how snarky you are then. The MRM is a necessary push back against female insanity which is now totally ubiquitous in society. If you think it's extreme that's only because of how deranged this country is on gender issues. Nearly everything MRAs believe used to be commonly accepted.
One - Crystal is tied with Destiny for most transparently white low class name.
Hahahaha. I actually know a girl named Destiny. She was attractive in high school and seemed upbeat. Now she's a baby mama and her daughter is black. I'm not sure what she does for a living as she seems somewhat guarded on the topic but I suspect she's a stripper.
Pretty much any girl named Chastity is a fat prole.
So the question is, could we get back the social mores -- the modesty, the proper masculine and feminine roles, the respect for marriage, and so on -- without the deadening factory-designed lifestyle of suburban row houses and wage slavery.....
I'm pretty sure reality will force us back to it.
Stonelifter: pre-1865 South would have been George W Bush and Ted Kennedy's paradise, overseeing their smiling, docile darkies while driving the despised po white trash to the Appalachians and west.
It wasn't until after the Civil War, when the Southern aristocracy was destroyed, that the South became heroic.
Judy FTW.
I love seeing videos and images how wonderful things were in the 50s and 60s. Have you ever seen pictures of Miami and Los Angeles in the 1960s ? It kind of throws a monkey wrench into the whole libtard idea of how backwards and horrifying society was back then.
A friend of mine lives in Queensland. From the way she describes it, it sounds like Florida.
And not in a good way.
Seeing that Asian kid at 6:38 just ruined the video for me
Apparently it can't be said often enough (because the point never seems to sink in), but what conservatives seek to conserve isn't primarily some set of institutions or culture from the past (or even the present).
What they seek to conserve are the timeless ideas of Truth, Beauty and Goodness.
The social arrangements of the past are valued only insofar as they reflect an allegiance to those timeless ideals.
Their opponents, the soi-disant "progressives", refuse to recognize the reality of the Transcendent, and thus their thinking is entirely confined to this temporal world. Their eyes are always on the Future, while the conservatives' eyes are on the Eternal.
On the this account, the neoconservatives, with their project of worldwide Pax Americana, are seen to be no conservatives at all. Rather, they are merely another kind of progressive, seeking to establish an earthly paradise based on utilitarian principles.
"In my gut, I know it's how society and the people within it should look."
You constantly describe liberalism as being a "religion." But, see, when your politics are based on things you just "know" in your "gut" are true, that's what it actually looks like when politics become a substitute religion.
You don't find me declaring that my support for, say, a nationalized health care system, is based on my belief, deep down in my heart-bone, that it will be really super. I tend to rely on logical argument, as do most liberals.
Unsurprisingly, the political movement that has aligned itself with religious fundamentalists is the one whose adherents are more likely to eschew reason and make straightforwardly faith- and magic-based arguments.
Dave
Objective measures like statistics and empirical evidence back up what One's vision of what society should look like. It's not just a gut feeling. People are actually better off living in "Pleasantville" and you don't have to move heaven and earth to achieve it. Unlike modern liberalism which goes against nature and thus requires a lot of social engineering, restructuring, and conditioning to assemble.
Sheesh... That little video proves just one thing, no matter the time, or place, people are people are people... Boring beyond belief...
The script is:
I. Rightist makes a simple, easily-understood statement like "Pleasantville just feels so right". It obviously means something like Given the fact that people were more productive, more at ease, and generally happier, it's pretty clear that, whatever the exact ingredients for good government and healthy communities were, people in 60s Australia (or pre-30s America, or whenever) had them.
II. Leftist notices that the rightist didn't make the italicized point above, verbatim, but instead said something simple and easily-understood.
III. Leftist notes that the overall gist of the rightist's point is a Burkean sort of utilitarianism: in the old days, people were happier, and that's what matters, so let's rediscover those old ingredients.
IV. Leftist notes that rightist has never railed against Burkeanism or utilitarianism, but desires to make the rightist "look like a hypocrite" anyway. Leftist decides to pretend that Burkeanism and utilitarianism constitute a "secular religion" of the kind that the rightist has criticized.
What happens now:
V. Rightists will come in and engage leftist on what seems like the relevant point: Burkean and utilitarian thinking is neither religious nor quasi-religious nor all that bad an idea. Leftist will ignore this and maintain the point that:
It doesn't matter if OneSTDV MEANT that he had read the facts and found that 60s Australians were happier, all he SAID was that it felt right, and that sounds like a religion to me. See, ol' Wunzy's a big hypocrite.
What is MRA?
do you see one fat ass in pajamas? The daughter was not a looker, but was very attractive because she was thin and well dressed.
That's what my suburb in the US of the 70's was like too. That's gone now. It shows what a mess the West has become. It wasn't perfect, but that is what the 3rd world people came to the West to live in and then by their presence changed the whole society.
Now people don't even get married and use game to score some loose women,which is most women now. Sure, there was always some of that but it wasn't mainstream.
Quite simply - the Pleasantville of yesteryear just "feels" so right. In my gut, I know it's how society and the people within it should look.
OneSTDV, I'm surprised that you don't see this as evidence for a transcendent "religious truth".
@ Dave
I tend to rely on logical argument, as do most liberals.
Are you even familiar with the intellectual pedigree of philosophical liberalism? It was a blowback from the predicted scientisation of everything, including human behavior. The reasoning goes something like this:
A) OMG! Science is demonstrating a causal, mechanistic world (okay, trying to be a little bit funny
B) Hmmm, obviously people need morality to function
C) But in a world where everything is caused no one can be said to be responsible for their actions
D) Therefore, humans must have free will, even though this is not provable
E) Therefore, what is moral, what is human can only be that which is freely chosen.
F) Therefore, man is born free
G) But, but, but he is everywhere in chains
And that is all liberalism is. Rousseau's "man is born free but is everywhere in chains". That is clearly not based in reason, it is beyond reason. That does not mean it is bad, either.
You may not be aware that this is the basic premise of philosophical liberalism:
That which is not chosen is offensive to human dignity.
Liberalism is not based in any humble adherence to empirical evidence and verifiable theory. Ask a left-liberal economist about the long-term societal effects of governmental policy mainly being to manage aggregate demand. He'll shrug his shoulders. And what sort of "reason" is behind the hand-wringing plaint that "a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable"?
Judged by whom? From whence comes the standard by which to judge? These are not a sober, rational bases for social policy. This does not make them bad, but they are clearly not rational
@ Dave
I'd also point out that there may be a little more religion on the right, but there is also much more superstition on the left. And superstition is far worse than religion.
Example of religion:
God exists
Examples of superstition:
Astrology
Government created AIDS to wipe out black people
Religion is unprovable. Superstition is laughably false. There are far more things that are laughably false that are held by leftists than by rightists.
Everyone,
Watch this Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Campaign television advertisement from 1956.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX8Q-KZyWW0
There is no way in he11 a politician could put out an ad like this today. But it reminds us of what America once was and what we have lost.
Australia is not a bad place to live for a reactionary like myself. Its proven far more resilient against modern leftism than America or England have (at least, according to my understanding of those countries, gleaned from blogposts books and news stories)
Its proven far more resilient against modern leftism than America or England have (at least, according to my understanding of those countries, gleaned from blogposts books and news stories)
Note there's a stark contrast between the intellectual elite and the people. And between how people act and what ideas these same people espouse.
The 1980's in SoCal were still the way the video in Australia looked. This was before the Reagan wave of IRCA came in, and "tipped" the state around 1987 or so.
THAT is what Social Conservatism means, a desire to reform vs. the desire to blow things up.
What you want: reform vs. blowing things up, depends on your skin in the game. IF you have something invested, of course you don't want to blow things up. If you don't, then obviously blowing things up is better.
Edmund Burke came down on not blowing things up, because he felt all the scum always rose to the top, not the best. Twain and others wanted blowing things up, because they felt the old ways were just too restrictive. In Mark Twain's case, because he was tormented by Superstitions as a child. An emotional reaction.
MRA's who want sex-bots or something, they want something unsustainable. The idea is not cut off your fingers because you lost one, just not lose more fingers. The blow-things-up crowd has nothing invested. Bet you anything they'd change if they had something. Investment = stability.
Nice post and video but wrong State. You want Queensland not New South Wales if you want to portray an idealised existence.
I can tell just by looking at that video's thumbnail that it's fake. It's the 1960s, yet the women are wearing revealing clothing and walking around without male escorts! There are also no marks on their backs from all the daily beatings. You aren't fooling anyone, OneSTDV.
@Olave
"I. Rightist makes a simple, easily-understood statement like "Pleasantville just feels so right". It obviously means something like Given the fact that people were more productive, more at ease, and generally happier, it's pretty clear that, whatever the exact ingredients for good government and healthy communities were, people in 60s Australia (or pre-30s America, or whenever) had them."
It obviously doesn't mean that. One said what he wanted to say. He was very clear. You've had to misquote him in order to whitewash him into the person you want him to be.
In his "gut" it feels "so right." A "personal feeling" is his "ultimate argument." Why do you think he refers to the film Pleasantville?
"II. Leftist notices that the rightist didn't make the italicized point above, verbatim, but instead said something simple and easily-understood."
What you said was also simple and easily-understood, so obviously that wasn't the criteria motivating One to say an entirely different thing.
"III. Leftist notes that the overall gist of the rightist's point is a Burkean sort of utilitarianism: in the old days, people were happier, and that's what matters, so let's rediscover those old ingredients."
Well, if I'm the leftist, then no. I never said that. All I "note[d]" was that One's politics are, in his own words, based on his faith in his feelings, and that he should consider this while arguing that liberalism is a religion. Especially since that accusation isn't based on any liberal's own words.
"Leftist will ignore this and maintain the point that:
It doesn't matter if OneSTDV MEANT that he had read the facts and found that 60s Australians were happier, all he SAID was that it felt right, and that sounds like a religion to me. See, ol' Wunzy's a big hypocrite."
I mean, yeah, obviously if the people I disagree with are hypocrites, as One certainly is, it's of primary importance to establish that fact before trying to engage in a good-faith argument with those people. That's just common sense.
See, I think the "script." goes more like this. Bunch of people have an emotional need to believe in a certain thing. They find each other, and assemble together. Some of them are smart to enough to create a facade of pseudo-intellectualism obscuring the fact that their shared beliefs are based on emotional need. Some of these smart ones even convince themselves that the facade is the truth.
Some of these guys, though, are more honest about what they're doing, and what they want. They have a habit of revealing the emotional need that has been artfully hidden. It then becomes incumbent on these Keepers of the Facade to cough loudly and "correctly interpret" what these more honest guys are trying to say about themselves.
It might also be worth noting that the video that One wants to go live in is a commercial, created to present an appealing dream world. It's as unreal as Pleasantville.
One final thing to note is that part of the nature of world of the 50s and 60s was that it evolved organically into the world we actually live in today. So, even if you could go back to it, it would only slip away again.
One final thing to note is that part of the nature of world of the 50s and 60s was that it evolved organically into the world we actually live in today.
Eh, not quite. Changes in society happen but not all individual changes are organic and inevitable. If the changes that had been made in society were purely organic, the 1960s would not look entirely like present-day society. A lot of the changes in society were imposed from the top-down.
@ Dave
are you kidding? The pre 67 America was ripped from the existing society by elite manipulation and political machination.
Detroit was ethnically cleansed of whites. Was that organic, too? No, political elites in DC made it impossible for whites to defend their communities from aggression and violence, so, they left. That's not organic. That's conquest.
Let me clue you onto something, Dave. Liberalism is not universal, it is a specific value system. It springs from Western Civilization, and if that declines so will liberalism. Let me put i another way: when whites are no longer dominant there will be no liberalism. Non-whites do not create or sustain liberal culture.
"One final thing to note is that part of the nature of world of the 50s and 60s was that it evolved organically into the world we actually live in today. "
That is impossible, Dave. The rapid social changes which occurred during the 60s were only possible through deliberate engineering. It would have taken perhaps hundreds of more years living in close proximity towards minorities to shake the basic inclination towards one's own kind.
Crystal and Amber are the all-time White Trash award-winning female names.
The only Destiny I ever knew was half-Dominican, half-Puerto Rican.
Pretty much any girl named Chastity is a fat prole.
I know a girl named Chastity. She's a fat "prole."
I tend to rely on logical argument, as do most liberals.
Regale us with this logic. I.e., please demolish my positions using your liberal logic.
Maybe you could start by explaining why Whites shouldn't expect their rights to self-determination and freedom of association to be respected and supported by their government.
It's a great vid even though it's obviously showing the best picture of Sydney. Having grown up not long after that vid I can vouch that it is a fairly accurate representation of the then Sydney.
Note at the time the White Australia policy was still in place, though diminished, until finally being exterminated in the 70s by a Liberal (read conservative) government under Malcolm Fraser.
The little asian in the vid was as uncommon at the time as he is in the vid. Now, Sydney is swarming with asians.
It's very interesting to note the large manufacturing base referred to. Now, Sydney has practically none yet it takes almost half of the immigrant population which are mostly unskilled. Oz takes approx 300,000 immigrants per annum, a population the size of the capital city Canberra.
It's not a hell hole, though some areas are, but it is a far cry from that depicted in the video.
What is striking about the video is the serenity of it. What is ominous is the stage show, "How the West was Lost".
One thing to note, that the social upheaval and revolution of the 60's was replicated Anglo-sphere wide. I suppose most people see that as coincidence. Personally I don't. That's probably a form of "conspiracy theory" thinking. In which case the agenda of the Fabian Society must be a figment of my imagination, even though their website proudly proclaims all those Labor politicians who were and are members and radically changed the Oz of that video for a "progressive" and "forward looking" Australia.
That's the thing about "progressives", they are always challenging you to look to the future which translates as ridiculing the past, and ignoring the present. The world is always a tomorrow that never comes, but is always anticipated. They're restless people, always looking for "change", unlike the White Ozzies in the video.
I imagine actually seeing it, that you must "feel" the very same affinity for that society, that traditional society that I implicitly allude to when discussing social conservatism
The thing is OneSTDV, I don't imagine it, I did see it. I lived in it and also lived through the changes. Perhaps that is why I am somewhat "bitter" and "antagonistic". I'm not nostalgic about it, I am angered about.
It pisses me off immensely that that Sydney has been ruined and my children cannot live it. Then I caught the bus, train, bus and then walked to high school. On those very same "red rattlers" in the video. Today I wouldn't dream of letting my kids do such a thing.
Then you'd go to the New Years Fireworks with the whole family, or be out late at night, travel the ferry, and stroll Sydney. Not a chance of that today unless you've got rocks in your head or are one of the idiot classes, mostly childless.
Sure it's not completely ruined, and where I live it's White and brilliant. Sydney is divided into racial enclaves which is rarely admitted or, if it is, it's a matter of celebrating our wonderful diversity.
What we need more than ever is a type of libertarian Ron Paul who would gut the public service and government spending. Immigration policy would be secondary as the ruin of the place is within the academic and government bureaucracy. Gut the system on libertarian principles. Although I'm no libertarian, their policies like that would serve my goals. What they say on immigration is of small consequence knowing that their policies would implement the changes I desire.
The only way at the moment, if we still believe voting our way out of this would work, is to shit in the feeding trough, or drain it completely.
All the conservatives can yammer on about traditionalism this, or liberalism that, they are all to a man ineffectual. Their talk has brought nothing but the continuation of the ruin. So give me Ron Paul any day. He may not talk my talk, but the ramifications of his policies certainly walk my walk.
It is understandable why you would have an emotional connection to a romanticized image of a particular time and place, but you have to understand that media in those days were heavily and overwhelmingly representative of middle class whites.
On NPR today they mentioned the passing of Don Cornelius, creator of the Soul Train and African American callers mentioned how they didn't feel properly represented. The 50s included far more than Leave it to Beaver, they were times where civil rights protestors were hosed down, where blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, racism was more overt, and institutions had an overwhelmingly white middle class lens.
Many blacks were unjustly convicted of crimes because (I don't want to use the term "racism" here because it is a strong word) prejudice, ignorance, and fear of the "other" obscured their objectivity.
"When I define myself as a Christian, I define myself as a man who believes in the Almighty God of the Bible. Nothing added, nothing removed; not relying on other texts or the wisdom of men to explain things to me and attempting to align my thinking, and my way of living to God’s. That Old Time religion as we call it in the South."
And you think you know better than someone who has their Master's Degree from Harvard Divinity or similar schools? In fairness, I will mention that many such people disagree. The Calvinists who believe that God predetermines who goes to Heaven or Hell and that the elect are preserved saints due to their irresistible grace is in stark contrast to those with similar credentials who believe in one's ability to fall from grace and freely accept Jesus. The point still stands, however, that people that specialize in theology know theology far better than laymen.
"Why would folks expect them to become more fair, more just etc when they show up in the Western world?"
A frequent rebuttal to anti-immigration arguments I hear is that they will absorb western values when they get here, or come here because they want to be a part of our culture and way of life. While in many cases this is true, it ignores the norm of people bringing their culture and values with them and hoping to have the benefits of living in a western society while voluntarily resisting assimilation to said values.
"Examples of superstition:
Astrology
Government created AIDS to wipe out black people"
Astrology is just silly, it doesn't tell people that blowing themselves up will get them an eternity with 72 virgins.
the Pleasantville of yesteryear just "feels" so right. In my gut, I know it's how society and the people within it should look.
Indeed. Normally I analyze issues with reason, but your appeal to "feelings" here really struck a chord. I grew up in the last years of that Pleasantville society, and nobody will ever be able to tell me that it wasn't paradise. No society on earth has ever done better.
This statement of yours actually made me think really deeply. I realized, not to my great surprise either, that pretty much every political and social position I hold, ultimately boils down to my desperate desire to restore that paradise for my kids. It's probably a lost cause but trying to "get home" is what really drives all my politics.
Which is a supreme irony since I and my family actually live in the same house I grew up in. In the physical sense, I AM home. But the society around it has gone stark raving insane. The house is still there, the street is still there, a few of the old neighbors are still there, and I'm not the only kid who moved back, either. But, "home" has been destroyed.
And I'd be less than honest if I didn't fess up to harboring a deep inner rage, an unquenchable burning desire to someday, somehow, take horrible revenge on the monsters who destroyed it.
Pat, I grew up in Communist Warsaw and I also recall the landscape of my childhood as superior to the urban ugliness of America.
Tram rides at eight years old, all of that.
...I and my family actually live in the same house I grew up in. In the physical sense, I AM home. But the society around it has gone stark raving insane... "home" has been destroyed.
Fred Reed said it best:
"I'm still fond of the United States. I just can't find it."
Tram rides at eight years old, all of that.
I wrote about this (and what Pat mentions above) in regards to children walking home from school. My basic point was that community, in both a local and national sense, no longer exists:
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2011/09/war-on-childhood-walking-home.html
@ PA (off-topic):
How about that retard AD over at Ferd's? I still can't accept your hypothesis that AD is Ferd's sockpuppet, but it would be great because that means that a retard like that does not actually exist.
The fact that Ferd posts so many of the guy's posts reflects that Ferd has no actual vision. Like the Joker, in the end he just wants the world to burn.
ONE MORE THING....
"I grew up in the last years of that Pleasantville society, and nobody will ever be able to tell me that it wasn't paradise. No society on earth has ever done better."
Also... Nobody will ever be able to tell me, that extending justice towards blacks and other marginalized groups, NECESSARILY involved the destruction of Pleasantville. With just a little bit of cooperation on their part, we could have instead extended Pleasantville to everyone. HBD is not an obstacle, either -- you don't need genius to create Pleasantville, only ethics.
BTW, once upon a time, someone built a "Pleasantville" in Japan.
http://www.crossroad.to/Victory/testimonies/Japan.htm
I'm with you PA. In my area now, as good as it is, there is a local known pedophile nicknamed Santa because he looks like him.
When Santa visits the local junior schools in his car, the schools go into lockdown, to protect the kids.
Sometimes dingoes visit the schools, and they also go into lockdown. (There you go OneSTDV, it's not imaginary your vision of Oz. On the fringes of Sydney we do have kangaroos, wallabies etc)
The rights of pedophiles and animals supercede the rights of the community to live in safety.
I don't believe that's by accident. Anarcho-Tyranny is a policy, even if not formally expressed. It is implicit.
Many blacks were unjustly convicted of crimes because (I don't want to use the term "racism" here because it is a strong word) prejudice, ignorance, and fear of the "other" obscured their objectivity.
Sounds to me like you have an emotional connection to a romanticized image of a particular time and place. Many people, including many black people, have noticed that blacks did better in several respects in the world of "Leave it To Beaver" than they did afterwards. In fact probably no group of people were as adversely affected by the social changes of the sixties as were blacks.
You don't find me declaring that my support for, say, a nationalized health care system, is based on my belief, deep down in my heart-bone, that it will be really super. I tend to rely on logical argument, as do most liberals.
No. When you argue for a nationalized health care system you are arguing that the world should be the sort of world you want it to be, as opposed to the sort of world we want it to be. Both of those visions of how the world should be are equally logical, or equally illogical.
Logic can help you get the sort of world you want. Logic cannot tell you what sort of world you should want - that comes from the gut, the heart, emotions, or whatever you want to call it.
"My basic point was that community, in both a local and national sense, no longer exists:"
It's worse than that. It's about who owns the city, and by extrapolation, the country. As a school kid with my friends, I "owned" Warsaw, moving about it freely.
Today, Americans are internal exiles in their suburban refugee camps.
I somewhat admire SWPLs for acting on their unconscious motivation to reclaim the city.
It's worse than that. It's about who owns the city, and by extrapolation, the country. As a school kid with my friends, I "owned" Warsaw, moving about it freely.
Today, Americans are internal exiles in their suburban refugee camps.
I imagine most readers won't find this shocking, but I'm not really a fan of cities. I prefer quiet, though I do enjoy a small taste of the hustle and bustle of urban areas.
I tend to rely on logical argument, as do most liberals
If liberals are so logical, then pray tell, why do they so consistently end up on the wrong side of every issue? The elites are so smugly confident that they feel they have a right to impose policy on us... and yet, every single thing they do is wrong!
I have an elite education, but not an elite socialization (as I already knew where I stood, and could defend it, before I arrived at college. So at college I drank the beer, but not the Koolaid). I spent much of my school years shredding liberal arguments over and over and over.
They NEVER won on logic or facts. But they never changed their minds either. Their allegiance to liberalism was derived from something else. What, exactly, I don't know.
How about that retard AD over at Ferd's? I still can't accept your hypothesis that AD is Ferd's sockpuppet, but it would be great because that means that a retard like that does not actually exist.
AD is an execrable piece of shit. Having said that, I really have a gut feeling that he is Ferd's devil's advocate (advocatus diaboli) alter-ego. Ferd's confessed to sockpuppeting on feminist blogs, and AD's writing style is eerily similar to those sock puppets.
AD doesn't really sound human. He has that muted, lethargic tone like a hissing ghoul, he never reacts to peoples' personal insults... he came on the scene at Roissy's under an earlier handle at around the same time Ferd did.
Arguments against AD being Ferd: does anyone have the time to run both blogs, IMF and Dissention? Ferd doesn't strike me as an obsessive whoremonger. Also, AD (under his old handle) mis-attributed a Milton quote from "Paradise Lost" I once threw out, as a Biblical passage -- Ferd would not have made that mistake.
The fact that Ferd posts so many of the guy's posts reflects that Ferd has no actual vision. Like the Joker, in the end he just wants the world to burn.
How 'bout Dennis Leary's character in "Demolition Man" instead?
Seriously, something tells me about Ferd that there is more to him than meet the eye. I mean that in a good way. He's worth reading, even when he's wrong.
I like AD and enjoy his frequent provocations. Isn't there a quote or something that says if you aren't hated by anyone you aren't very good at what you do?
For what it's worth I don't believe AD and Ferd are the same person. They do have similar views and hence their camaraderie.
It obviously doesn't mean that. One said what he wanted to say. He was very clear. You've had to misquote him in order to whitewash him into the person you want him to be.
You know perfectly well I didn't misquote him. I surmised, because I've been reading OneSTDV for years and I know he writes about productivity and happiness, that that is what he referred to. I doubt that he's been researching and writing about crime and economics for hundreds of posts if he doesn't care about them. If he's anything like me, caring about outcomes means he has a good feeling when the outcomes turn out well.
Why do you think he refers to the film Pleasantville?
I don't know that he referred to a movie. If I'm wrong, sorry. I gathered "Pleasantville" was a term more or less synonymous with Shangri-La, El Dorado, Arcadia. I see now that it is a movie, but that doesn't mean One was using it that way.
Well, if I'm the leftist, then no. I never said that.
I don't know if you're the leftist I described or not, and I wasn't referring to something the leftist said but something they would have recognized. I was declaring that any bright, educated leftist would note the utilitarian and Burkean elements in One's thinking; I was just giving y'all the benefit of the doubt.
All I "note[d]" was that One's politics are, in his own words, based on his faith in his feelings, and that he should consider this while arguing that liberalism is a religion.
Okay, so for you having faith in feelings is overwhelmingly similar to religion. I acknowledge this. If someone says, "I can't prove it, but I feel deep down in my [body part] that god doesn't exist," can I be sure that person is being insincere?
Especially since that accusation isn't based on any liberal's own words.
Stephen Jay Gould recommended that we all repeat a certain phrase five times before breakfast. Does that sound like a prayer? Gould is heavily criticized around these parts for slipping the imagined cognitive equality of mankind into modern thinking as religious dogma.
PA's:"Lt's worse than that. It's about who owns the city, and by extrapolation, the country. As a school kid with my friends, I "owned" Warsaw, moving about it freely.
Today, Americans are internal exiles in their suburban refugee camps."
I understand this and don't disagree with your perception, but I view that milieu and predicament as one of economic class stratification moreso than that of a existing universal political culture.
"Owning" that culture is merely having the economic mobility to move in or out of it at one's will; many who can don't necessarily run FROM it; they just choose carefully when to indulge in it, and that too is a problem.
See, I think the "script." goes more like this. Bunch of people have an emotional need to believe in a certain thing. They find each other, and assemble together. Some of them are smart to enough to create a facade of pseudo-intellectualism obscuring the fact that their shared beliefs are based on emotional need. Some of these smart ones even convince themselves that the facade is the truth.
You keep on talking about this "emotional need" like it is something I am supposed to get all ashamed and red-faced about. As in, 'Naw, I have no emotional needs, I'm a being of pure reason' or something.
I don't feel like I have a need to be here. I have a desire to chat a little with people who don't believe that I am evil, stupid, or ugly because of the color of my skin. I also have a desire to address a group largely composed of people who don't believe I should be punished for my race or gender. That excludes anyone who support affirmative action right there. If I don't talk to people online who accept my unfortunate combination of race and gender, I'll get a little restless. My wife doesn't want to talk about politics that much, and my son can't talk yet. I can't talk to my coworkers about politics.
Get the picture? You and your "civil rights" have sought to isolate people like me, and the web circumvented that.
Some of these guys, though, are more honest about what they're doing, and what they want. They have a habit of revealing the emotional need that has been artfully hidden. It then becomes incumbent on these Keepers of the Facade to cough loudly and "correctly interpret" what these more honest guys are trying to say about themselves.
When OneSTDV wrote "I support social movements like the patriarchy, relatively demure sexuality, and race realism because these ideas buttressed healthy society prior to modern liberalism", I interpreted that toe mean that he supported social movements like the patriarchy, relatively demure sexuality, and race realism because those ideas buttressed healthy society prior to modern liberalism. Does that constitute "coughing loudly"?
Again, I have no idea who is trying to hide their emotional "need" (which is apparently your word for "desire"). A lot of alt-right types say things like "I want to go rail about mass immigration because it worries me that the so many formerly safe neighborhoods are now crime-ridden." Have you never heard anything like that?
It might also be worth noting that the video that One wants to go live in is a commercial, created to present an appealing dream world. It's as unreal as Pleasantville.
Okay, maybe it's unreal. He's got a different style than me. My style is to point out that according to leftist theories of privation and violence, West Virginia should be a crime-ridden hellhole, but it's not. According to race realism, West Virginia should be plenty safe, and it is. Do you know what homicide rates are like in, say North Dakota or New Hampshire, compared to Sweden or Finland?
One final thing to note is that part of the nature of world of the 50s and 60s was that it evolved organically into the world we actually live in today. So, even if you could go back to it, it would only slip away again.
He anticipated this point and said so. A lot of reactionaries support an informed move to law & order, race realism, freedom of association, etc. At that point we could remember the effects of dysgenics-by-welfare, lax law enforcement, constantly reducing educational standards to save black kids' feelings, etc., and presumably not go there again.
@ Jay M
Astrology is just silly, it doesn't tell people that blowing themselves up will get them an eternity with 72 virgins.
Well, first off, the context that Dave was referring to was US electoral politics. Second, the religion you're referring to, Islam, votes around seventy percent Democratic IIRC
"I don't know that he referred to a movie. If I'm wrong, sorry. I gathered "Pleasantville" was a term more or less synonymous with Shangri-La, El Dorado, Arcadia."
As you probably learned on your own after having it brought up to you, "Pleasantville' has come in recent years, prompted by the movie, to refer to a idyll but 'false', 'rote' or in otehr ways plastic and contrived community, neighborhood or milieu of whatever sort.
This is relevant because that, in fact, is a lot of the reason why a lot of folks living in such situations embrace 'modernization' with all its pitfalls, etc.; since they don't havd experience with anything but said 'Pleasantville' environs, they amp-up the negatives and are oblivious to the positives ---- they throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
Just for the record, here are the murder rates per million residents for a couple of years in selected polities:
All the countries in Southern Africa - 373 (2004), 320 (2010)
All the countries in East Africa - 208 (2004), 230 (2010)
All the countries in West & Central Europe 15 (2004), 12 (2010)
Looks like Europe is a good place, in terms of creating social peace. Take a look at this:
Sweden - 18 (2006)
Way below America's average of 48 (2010). But the USA is a big country. Let's break that down a little bit.
New Hampshire - 10 (2010), 8 (2009)
North Dakota - 15 (2010), 19 (2009)
West Virginia - 33 (2010), 46 (2009)
California - 49 (2010), 53 (2009)
Louisiana - 112 (2010), 118 (2009)
Does it still look like Europe per se is what creates social peace?
Now let's see, what would make someone take a few minutes that he could have spent on something else to go and gather those data? They could have been paid to do so, or it could have been a simple desire. A desire based on feelings.
Sorry, I can't muster any shame on this one. I feel like my feelings are pretty ordinary, only it is my willingness to do a few minutes of legwork that distinguishes me from the next guy. Before the web, I was a little distressed by constant references to "Americans" being dramatically more violent than than Europeans. I poked around a little in libraries but I could never find anything that explain to me what was so wrong about my impression that Americans seem, on the whole, about as awful or angelic as the Europeans I knew.
So anyway, it looks from the above data (as well as victimization reports that Queen Latifah won't acknowledge) that it's perfectly clear why the overwhelmingly white group of Americans that I know resemble the completely white group of Europeans so much, in terms of how quarrelsome, aggressive, and sadistic they are. Race, i.e. our ancestry, i.e. who we are, matters more than what passport we carry, or even whether or not our state has the death penalty.
If Idi Amin had been issued a UK passport, he would still have been violent.
If Amy Biehl had been issued a South African passport, she still would have been nonviolent.
(Note that this post is extremely easy to attack with a strawman. You can say, if you want, that I believe whites, on the whole, are relatively nonviolent based on my exposure to this very small sample size, or on no exposure at all. There were a lot of words in my last couple of posts and if you need to feign an error of understanding, you can. You can deny all the hard data that opened this post, and nobody can stop you. I acknowledge this.)
How do you square your clear desire for a 1950/60's type society, with the fact that those conditions were the ones that led to probably the most hated generation of our modern era, noted for it's frankly unbelievable levels of self-indulgence and clear disregard for anything other than it's own immediate needs.
Oh, the multi-country regional data I cited above came from here.
@ Olave:
Very well said. I appreciate your very insightful commentary.
[Sometimes I just don't have the energy or time to deal with the Dave's of the world.]
Oh, thanks. I did a lot of assuming (and projecting, probably) about the way you felt and I hope I did pretty well.
Unfortunately there are enough real towns named Pleasantville that an Ngram won't establish how frequently it was used to refer to a fictitious place in the past. The one in NJ is about 20,000 people IIRC.
Unfortunately there are enough real towns named Pleasantville
I got the term from the movie, though when I use, and I do so often, I mean an idyllic suburban enclave with traditional gender roles, sexuality, etc. (In the movie, Pleasantville was a 100% un-sullied town that underwent a "progressive" movement.) I could use Leave it to Beaver for the same purpose.
quick off-topic @ OneSTDV: here's a good link to do a post on; this kind of shitee is infuriating, as it justifies the alt-right's most paranoid concerns. check it out:
http://www.wisn.com/news/30363171/detail.html
@Olave
"You know perfectly well I didn't misquote him."
No, you misquoted him. You edited his words to make them fit your interpretation of what he meant.
"I surmised, because I've been reading OneSTDV for years"
So have I, which is how I know it's unlikely you surmised correctly.
"I doubt that he's been researching and writing about crime and economics for hundreds of posts if he doesn't care about them."
He barely does any research, as he will admit. He prefers to instead substitute his assumptions for reality. And what does it mean to "care" about crime and economics? My interpretation of his writing is that he cares about his own emotional well-being, and prefers comforting fictions to upsetting realities. Many of his fictions relate to crime and economics -- so I guess on that account you could say he cares. But that seems pretty vacuous.
"I was declaring that any bright, educated leftist would note the utilitarian and Burkean elements in One's thinking"
Sure, there are minor strands of that. But One's larger point is that he has a Pavlovian, positive response to images of (and here I am the one who surmises) white, heterosexual, conservatively dressed, smiling, prosperous people. I.e., "Pleasantville." He then asserts that his politics is primarily based on his faith in this reflex.
You can go off your gut, or you can go off the facts. It can't be both. One is declaring here: "I've gone with my gut."
"Okay, so for you having faith in feelings is overwhelmingly similar to religion."
I'm pointing out that One levels these charges at liberals all the time, based on less evidence.
"If someone says, "I can't prove it, but I feel deep down in my [body part] that god doesn't exist," can I be sure that person is being insincere? "
Insincere? Huh? All I'm saying is, faith is faith. It's easy to spot.
@olave
"You keep on talking about this "emotional need" like it is something I am supposed to get all ashamed and red-faced about."
I try to point out that HBD appears to me to be a group that has bonded based on a shared emotional need to hear the white race praised above other races. Therapy. I've never said anyone needs to be ashamed.
"I have a desire to chat a little with people who don't believe that I am evil, stupid, or ugly because of the color of my skin."
That's inaccurate. You aren't here simply to escape racial hostility. You could find that kind of haven in any number of places. You're here because you get to hear a certain point of view, and to express a certain point of view, that is a challenge to express in public without drawing censure. Let's try and be more honest.
"If I don't talk to people online who accept my unfortunate combination of race and gender, I'll get a little restless."
Again, bullshit. You can find acceptance in lots of places.
"Get the picture?"
Sure. This is not new information to me.
"You and your "civil rights" have sought to isolate people like me, and the web circumvented that."
People who are like you in what way? We're both white guys.
"A lot of alt-right types say things like "I want to go rail about mass immigration because it worries me that the so many formerly safe neighborhoods are now crime-ridden."
I have no problem with that, except maybe for the railing. Keep things civil.
What I do take issue with is "I want to go rail about mass immigration because I like the way it feels to rail about things, I like feeling like the suffering I endure is much more unfair than the suffering other people endure, and, most importantly, I like feeling that my problems are somebody else's fault."
"He anticipated this point and said so."
No, he didn't.
"A lot of reactionaries support an informed move to law & order, race realism, freedom of association, etc."
That element of authorial control is what makes it "Pleasantville" instead of reality. What you're talking about is almost like a nature preserve. "The rules will say that we can never make the same mistakes we made in 1969." Well, maybe one of the things that made 1959 seem so appealing is that there was no such rule.
Dave:
Can you explain your contention that (all? most of?) the changes in society since that time have been "organic"?
Also, as far as authoritarianism goes - promoters of multicultural ideology have no problem being authoritarian. It's not as bad here in the USA as it is in other Western countries where you be face legal action for criticizing immigration or other aspects of the multicultural project (see Emma West (England) or Elisabeth Sabaditch-Wolf (Austria), just to name a couple of examples), but I wouldn't be surprised if the US starts following the example of European countries in limiting free speech.
I wrote:
Rightist makes a simple, easily-understood statement like "Pleasantville just feels so right". It obviously means something like Given the fact that people were more productive, more at ease, and generally happier, it's pretty clear that, whatever the exact ingredients for good government and healthy communities were, people in 60s Australia (or pre-30s America, or whenever) had them.
Only someone who was not paying attention, or pretending not to, would have parsed out the words "It obviously means something like". Leftists do this all the time--pretending to misunderstand what the rightists have said as a sort of attack. They did to Herrnstein & Murray when the latter coined the phrase "high-tech Indian reservation".
That's inaccurate. You aren't here simply to escape racial hostility. You could find that kind of haven in any number of places.
Your stockbroker is misleading you. You need to move from blue chips to high-yield bonds.
Again, bullshit. You can find acceptance in lots of places.
Sure, if I mute my criticism of affirmative action, Yale professors who openly advocate rape of white women, etc. But here I can be myself.
People who are like you in what way? We're both white guys.
Pretending not to understand again. You're the anti-white leftist, I'm not.
What I do take issue with is "I want to go rail about mass immigration because I like the way it feels to rail about things, I like feeling like the suffering I endure is much more unfair than the suffering other people endure, and, most importantly, I like feeling that my problems are somebody else's fault."
(Note that in the above misquotation, you used quotation marks. In the passage you accused me of misquoting, I did not.)
Do you think I'm Dick Nixon? Quite a few of my problems, and those of other living white males, are someone else's fault. We didn't invent affirmative action.
But now that I am being accused of liking to feel that the "suffering" (a word I never used) I endure is "much more unfair" (ditto), I am getting pretty bored.
"That element of authorial control is what makes it "Pleasantville" instead of reality. What you're talking about is almost like a nature preserve."
That's a interesting analogy; in fact, a lot of 'postmodern' cultural critique, nominally free of race, gender and class components, say that a western-European culture; likening the European expansion into the new world as a ontologoical mission to domesticate the natural wild, etc.
I don't particularly agree with any of that, or see how that addresses the issues at hand ------ but that is a consistent critique over the last 50 years.
@ Dave
One's vision is not "faith" in the sense of a faith in something unseeable. What he is talking about is something called identity. As Quine noted, no identity, no entity, and we cannot properly function without an identity to provide us with the definition of what it is to be an entity.
Our species is tribal. One's blog is about protecting and identifying his tribe. Yeah, that's got a significant emotional component, so what?
Consider the two following claims:
A) The US government created AIDS to wipe out black people
B) If Europeans had not intruded into Africa within the past few centuries Africa would have developed something similar to Western Civilization
The first is widely held by black people, the latter widely by white leftists, what you call liberal.
The HBD community *does* have a strong emotional component because they are defending their identity, their tribe. There is nothing *logical* about defending one's tribe and way of life. The Pleasantville One describes is a circumstance in which people like him flourish and thrive. I get the feeling that you begrudge this emotional attachment he has for thriving with people like him.
So, the emotional component is not for HBD but for the need to have an identity.
Again, Dave, the problem with liberals is when they lie about inborn differences for the sake of powerr.
Liberalism is about power, not about logic and reason.
@Olave
"Only someone who was not paying attention, or pretending not to, would have parsed out the words "It obviously means something like".
"Note that in the above misquotation, you used quotation marks. In the passage you accused me of misquoting, I did not."
You wrote "Pleasantville just feels so right[.]" Those weren't One's words. Yes, you did indeed use quotation marks. How's that different from misquoting him?
"Sure, if I mute my criticism of affirmative action, Yale professors who openly advocate rape of white women, etc. But here I can be myself. "
That's exactly what I said! It really seems that we agree.
(PS> Everybody has to mute their criticism of shit in order to glide along smoothly in the outside world. Everybody.)
"You're the anti-white leftist, I'm not."
Heh heh. Anti-white!
Anyway, I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you, I just want you to go on record. We're both white, so whatever you endure as a white male, I've been through the same. But you've distinguished between us, accusing people like me of conspiring to isolate "people like [you.]"
People who are like you in what way?
"Do you think I'm Dick Nixon?"
I think your paranoia is Nixonian, sure. Didn't you argue that teachers engage in a deliberate campaign to destroy the self-esteem of white schoolchildren in order to swing elections for Democrats so that the teacher's unions can stay strong? I'm pretty sure you said all that like it was the most obviously true thing ever. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"Quite a few of my problems, and those of other living white males, are someone else's fault."
Do you believe that having problems that are other people's fault is a situation unique to white males? Cause that would be an example of the self-soothing fantasy that I argue is HBD's primary draw.
Also, don't you think that dwelling on the problems you have that are other people's fault, instead of your own, is kind of self-indulgent?
"But now that I am being accused of liking to feel that the "suffering" (a word I never used) I endure is "much more unfair" (ditto), I am getting pretty bored."
I never intended to make anyone think that you had used those words verbatim. I'm pretty certain that nothing I wrote would indicate that I was attributing those words to you personally. I used quotation marks because you had used them in the passage I was mirroring.
But you're right, I should have used italics or something else, instead, to avoid confusion.
However, the subtext of your writing does appear to be that condition of being a white male today is that most of your problems are somebody else's fault and your life is more unfair than everybody else's life. I see no reason not to stand by that interpretation, as it sincerely seems to me that that's what you believe.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not trying to misrepresent you.
Do you think it's reasonable to state that the above -- life is more unfair to you and it's somebody else's fault -- is a comforting thing to believe? And that it is tempting to believe this thing even if it isn't true? And that it's plausible that groups of people would coalesce to share some version of this fantasy, to reinforce for each other the belief that this fantasy is real?
@ Lucille
"Dave:
Can you explain your contention that (all? most of?) the changes in society since that time have been "organic"?"
Sure. The gist of it is that a lot of people were unsatisfied with the ordering of society during the 50s and 60s, and the social controls in place were not stronger than their dissatisfaction. The malcontents won.
So, when One, or others argue that they want to go back to Pleasantville, but have it last forever this time, they seem to be arguing one of two things:
1. We'll go back to the way things were, but this time, it will be different because everyone will love it. There will not be the same amount of dissatisfaction.
Or:
2. We'll go back to the way things were, but this time, we'll have much stronger social controls keeping the malcontents in their place.
Option 1 seems like magical thinking. For Option 2, I'd say that part of what makes Pleasantville seem so pleasant is the (relatively) weak social controls. If you change that element of it, you might find that you don't actually like it so much.
It's fun to watch lefties try to psychoanalyze HBDers and their motives. Psychoanalysis is their defense mechanism against confronting the appalling possibility that HBD *might actually be onto something*... something that liberals find unbearably unpalatable.
I sort of sympathize with the liberals actually -- I hope with all my heart that HBD is wrong. But it has terrifyingly accurate explanatory power.
HBDers are not insane, pathological, or hate filled. They are normal people with normal intelligence, feelings, and perceptual capability. They have watched their neighborhoods, their cities, and their countries deteriorate seemingly in direct proportion to the massive influx of nonwhites, and being thinking persons, they seek not just a cure for the social ills, but a hypothesis that explains them.
And this really is the 3 fold dividing line that separates liberals, Christians, and HBDers. How do you answer the fundamental question of our time: WHY IS (was) WHITE/WESTERN CULTURE SUPERIOR?
Liberals stick their fingers in their ears and say nah-nah-nah like small children, refusing to admit obvious Western superiority. Or explaining it away with lame arguments such as superior ferocity (heard of G. Khan? No? Shaka Zulu?), and/or absurd guns/germs/steel type arguments.
Christians explain white cultural superiority thus: they say all mankind and all cultures are fallen and in need of redemption, and that white culture reigned supreme as long as they were mainly Christian... and now their civilization is falling because they have fallen spiritually.
HBDer's see the same cultural superiority but explain it by white genetics.
However, HBD can't explain the West's fall, not totally, since the destruction of Pleasantville began BEFORE the mass nonwhite influx. Only Christianity can explain this.
Ergo: Praise the Lord.
But don't call the HBDers crazy, because they're saner than most. Christianity and HBD are the only 2 theories of life that honestly face the SELF EVIDENT FACT of western superiority and offer a plausible explanation for it.
All other philosophies are lying, and they secretly know it. This is why they get so hysterical when challenged, crying racism and sexism, shouting down campus speakers, allying with terrorists (who also follow a philosophy and a "god" that they secretly know to be false.)
This also explains why Christians, and conservative inheritors of the Christian worldview and political order, are slammed as "RACISS"... because we refuse to join them in their lie, so from their perspective, Christianity and HBD look rather similar: Both acknowledge the superiority of the West.
And so do liberals, implicitly. They seem to enjoy freedom of speech, the right to vote, electric lights, telephones,cars, medicine, etc....
"I'm not anti white!111!11" Tee hee hee!!! Yeah. Minimizing Negroid crime and flying off the handle when posters criticize illegal immigration is pro-white, wouldn't you know. The sad thing is Dave still thinks that his faux-psychological spew still works, in the face of hard data proving that our concerns are legit. If you can't refute you can at least mumble about "groupthink", "bonding", "emotional need", and then declare victory.
"Also, don't you think that dwelling on the problems you have that are other people's fault, instead of your own, is kind of self-indulgent?"
Just found out that the fiancee of a poster on another HBD blog was raped. Oddly enough, by one of Dave's 'groid pets. That woman ought to focus on the problems she has that are her fault. Not other people's fault!
@ Dave
You call yourself a liberal, so, you align yourself, generally, with those who call themselves liberal. This means that by your very support of liberalism you take on the burden of the premises and policies of those who call themselves liberals.
Let's go back to your first premise which is that liberalism is superior to non-liberalism. Your evidence for this was that the non-leftist party in the US tends to attract more religious people. The problem with this is that the leftist party replaces abstract religion with concrete rank superstition.
Example: anyone can do anything with the proper education. That is superstition. It is far more irrational than believing in God. The second is untestable, but the first is laughably false.
Also, your contention that we cannot return to the US of the fifties is only somewhat correct. In fact, large swaths of the country still live a type of life that would be recognizable in the fifties. One's preferred policy agenda would make that more available to more people, to the people who would like to live such an existence, like most who read this blog.
You do the neat little Stalinist trick of turning the fundamental instinct for identity in to a pathology. Of course, you only do this for white non-leftists. Everyone else in the world is allowed a social identity and a community, a tribe. Just not white non-leftists.
Also, are you saying that the ethnic cleansing in Detroit by white people was an organic outgrowth of the society those white people comprised? Really?
HBD is a field of thought related to the refutation of various blatant falsehoods that hinder the ability of people like us to live the types of lives we'd like. That is objective, not subjective. The types of policies advocated by liberals, like yourself, hinder those objectives. The reasons that liberals, like you, give for your policies are based in blatant falsehood; e.g. all human behaviors are solely the result of nurture.
Many don't want this, like One, and so the logical solution is to split the US into at least two different countries so the US
I think your paranoia is Nixonian, sure.
It's futile and pointless to attempt to have a rational discussion with a person who is intent on psychoanalyzing you. Nothing which anyone says to Dave is taken by him as being literally what was said, but as a jumping off point for his half-assed Freud impersonation. In his mind, only he is capable of rational thought. Everyone else is a bundle of emotional impulses. His universe is bounded by those two assumptions.
If you say "Blacks commit violent crime at a rate several times higher than whites", this is not taken by Dave as a factual statement to be either disproved or accepted, but as a sign of your psychological state.
It's no more possible to have a rational discussion with a person like Dave than it is to have a rational discussion with a head of cabbage.
So, when One, or others argue that they want to go back to Pleasantville, but have it last forever this time, they seem to be arguing one of two things:
1. We'll go back to the way things were, but this time, it will be different because everyone will love it. There will not be the same amount of dissatisfaction.
There was not any unusual degree of "dissatisfaction" with Pleasantville in the first place. The social changes which have damaged or destroyed the Pleasantville's of the world were not changes which ever commanded majority support.
@ Dave
Several people have called you on your psychobabble. It's been several hours and you've yet to respond ...
A major racial hoax is being downplayed by the Univ of Wis-Parkside; Kenosha, Wis Sherriff; and local media. I shudder to think what would have happened, had the perpetrator been a white male.
KN Front-page 3 Feb: "Racial Threats made at UW-P"; Notes say: "NIGGERS will DIE in 2 days" (13 names specified); "Run and tell this nigger." NOOSES found in dorms.
Sat 4 Feb KN story -"STUDENT CONFESSES to threat hoax." An (UNNAMED) black UW-Parkside female student perpetrated the hoax and "death threats" because she was not happy that her resident assistant did not agree with her that twisted rubber bands look like nooses.
The perpetrator was caught because she incorrectly spelled almost every name on the “hit list”, except for her own. And she used her student ID to access a printer, to print the hit list.
Sheriff David Beth (262-605-5100) said her NAME is NOT being RELEASED to the media. He also said that she was arrested, but NOT taken into custody.
Tracing the story back to the initial report, AUBRIANA BANKS is the name of the black female who reported the nooses and hit list to campus police. During various interviews, she described her fear, and stated: "I broke down crying because I felt unsafe."
Black Student Union VP, BRONTRALL MARTIN, said he wasn’t going to “jump to conclusions that a white student is responsible... It could have been a black student being foolish." What a strange thing to say...
Chancellor Deborah Ford (chancell@uwp.edu 262-595-2211) noted on 3 Feb that blacks were "a sea of fear." She placed dorms under a lock-down. After discovering that it was a hoax, these were her comments:
"The confession from the student does not mark the end of this story, but rather a continued emphasis to... CELEBRATE DIVERSITY... I...appreciate the courage and candor of our students… We have listened… and learned from them. I ask for your continued support of and respect for one another as we begin the healing process."
http://www.kenoshanews.com/scripts/edoris/edoris.dll?tem=kn_lsearch&search_articletext=racial (Kenosha News) http://www.uwp.edu/news/newstemp.cfm?storyid=5310 (Chancellor)
http://search.jsonline.com/Search.aspx?k=UW+Parkside&s.x=0&s.y=0 (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)
http://search.todaystmj4.com/todaystmj4.aspx?k=parkside (TMJ4 - Milwaukee TV)
The SPLC jumped on the noose story pretty quickly. I wonder if they are going to amend their blog in light of these revelations.
@Asher
"Several people have called you on your psychobabble. It's been several hours and you've yet to respond ..."
Obviously, it's acceptable to try and interpret the motivations for people's behavior. That's what you people do on this thread ALL THE TIME. You guess at the motivations for liberals. I also guess at yours.
I'm just a little better at it than you, that's all. I use carefully constructed argument, you guys use wishful thinking propped up by groupthink.
Unsurprisingly, none of you call it "psychobabble" when its directed at the left. It's only psychobabble when you don't like it.
Respectfully,
The Daves of the world.
"I'm just a little better at it than you, that's all. I use carefully constructed argument"
Yeah. Whimpering about Conservatives' psychological problems, and then lying that he's not accusing anyone of having such problems (see his recent post in "What I Like About Blacks").
"I use carefully constructed argument, you guys use wishful thinking propped up by groupthink."
I am the dissident, 'groid hugging dimwit on this site. Therefore I cannot be accused of group-think. Therefore my arguments are better than your arguments.
"Several people have called you on your psychobabble. It's been several hours and you've yet to respond ..."
When you call him on the whole "Mr. Spock" I-are-rational-guy routine he either shuts down or makes the carefully constructed "my arguments are right because they are my arguments" kind of defense you see here. Occasionally he actually starts keeping score ("Dave-1, OneSTDV-0) as if this is some kind of soccer match. Creepy but entertaining, IMHO.
"Creepy but entertaining, IMHO."
As long we're all having a good time!
@ Dave
Um, no. No to what? To just about everything you said. First off, attributing motivations to vague "psychological needs" is not the same thing as attributing them to tangible things, such as the pursuit of money.
"Some psychological need" is psychobabble. I don't recall any commentator here using those terms. I do see people attributing psychological motivations to evolved attributes. And there is a world of difference between the two.
Consider the following: there is evidence that during periods of ovulation women are more likely to demonstrate "caring" actions. The best available theory we have for this is that women are demonstrating their desirability to prospective sex partners Other behavioral aspects also seem to be related to reproductive fitness.
Therefore, attributing *motivations* to reproductive fitness falls into a greater structural framework of explaining human behavior in a general sense.
This is a world apart from your psychobabble. You're not operating within any attempt to build a general framework to explain human behavior. You're just psychobabbling away anyone who disagrees with you. We disagree with you, therefore, we are under the control of some weird psychological quirk.
Everyone has psychological needs, and everyone commenting here would acknowledge theirs. So, when you say "emotional needs" you're not saying anything substantive You're entire statement is empty, meaningless. We all have emotional needs. So, what? Unless you can specify those "needs" within a greater explanatory framework you are engaging in psychobabble.
A large part of this blog is dedicated to explaining human behavior within a greater explanatory framework. You, however, do not do this. You use the charge of "emotional needs" not to explain but to dismiss.
This is why what you are doing is psychobabble and what we are doing is not.
The entire body of your comments on this post is vapid an intellectually substance-less.
Also, I'd point out that you have failed to respond to a number of challenges directed at you.
"As long we're all having a good time!"
As long as the honorary Knee Grow keeps workin' himself into a tizzy? All the more reason to post.
@ Dave
I'm just a little better at it than you, that's all. I use carefully constructed argument, you guys use wishful thinking propped up by groupthink.
Um, no. Your "arguments" are psychobabble because they are not a part of a greater explanatory framework for human behavior. In a sense, "groupthink" is a hardwired human trait. People tend to group themselves with others who have the same objective, material interests. They, then, create explanatory frameworks to advance those interests.
Dave, you have your own group(s) with which you, and they, exercise groupthink.
Consider the following: My life would be better off if the court-mandated doctrine of disparate impact were eliminated. The same would also hold for pretty much every person who comments on this blog. Now, it is true that we also derive certain emotional satisfaction discussing the topic. However, this is not some weird psychological quirk, ala mental illness writ small.
We don't just derive emotional satisfaction discussing the reasons for ending disparate impact. If it were ended we would benefit, too.
So, there's a strongly object-based component to what's discussed, here, and not just some subjective emotional masturbation.
@Asher
"Your "arguments" are psychobabble because they are not a part of a greater explanatory framework for human behavior."
Sure they are.
"In a sense, "groupthink" is a hardwired human trait."
Yeah.
"Dave, you have your own group(s) with which you, and they, exercise groupthink."
Okie doke.
"My life would be better off if the court-mandated doctrine of disparate impact were eliminated."
Seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Of course, you life might also be better off if you learned how to build robots, or to play the tuba. From among the many paths of life-improvement, you have made a selection.
"Now, it is true that we also derive certain emotional satisfaction discussing the topic. However, this is not some weird psychological quirk, ala mental illness writ small."
I've never claimed it was. Would you like to have an argument with someone who is accusing you of being mentally ill? If only you had learned to build robots!
"We don't just derive emotional satisfaction discussing the reasons for ending disparate impact. If it were ended we would benefit, too."
But are you actually trying to end it? It seems like you're just complaining about it, and using it as an excuse to feel sorry for yourselves.
My premise is, when forced to choose between the "object-based" and "emotional masturbation," as you nicely put it, the HBD movement is currently more likely to gravitate towards emotional satisfaction.
"Of course, you life might also be better off if you learned how to build robots, or to play the tuba."
Davisms FTW! Yay!
There's a reason why he never addresses how "self improvement" benefits you if you're subject to the whims of a feral NAM population. He doesn't have a leg to stand on so he can only rant about tubas and robots.
Good thing Fran Drescher devoted her life to being a great comedienne. Otherwise she might have gotten raped by one of our pet Silverback's brethren.
Honestly, this is worse than the illogic that your typical Race-turbators like Sharpton and Tim Wise come up with. They at least admit placing NAM-interests above public safety, fiscal solvency and so on - they rarely resort to red herrings this dumb.
@ Dave
The entire body of your commenting just oozes with disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty. Consider the following statement:
Unsurprisingly, the political movement that has aligned itself with religious fundamentalists is the one whose adherents are more likely to eschew reason and make straightforwardly faith- and magic-based arguments.
To which I responded that there is a difference between faith-based beliefs, religion, and laughably false beliefs, superstition. Religion is about things unprovable, and not capable of being disproven, either. Superstition is about things that are laughably false. The left regularly indulges in the latter. A big part of HBD is pointing out the laughably false superstitions alive today, superstitions that most in your tribe hold.
First, you say this:
See, I think the "script." goes more like this. Bunch of people have an emotional need to believe in a certain thing. They find each other, and assemble together. Some of them are smart to enough to create a facade of pseudo-intellectualism obscuring the fact that their shared beliefs are based on emotional need. Some of these smart ones even convince themselves that the facade is the truth.
Then, you say this:
I've never claimed it was [mental illess]
Reducing some position someone takes to emtional masturbation is a de facto method of attributing mental illness to them. It's what the Soviets did to dissidents. We are not simply complaining about things to emotionally relieve ourselves. I, personally, use discussions like these to take HBD arguments out into general social circumstances. Most people are wholly ignorant of the actual facts involving HBD, and when they are confronted with it they simply don't know what to do. The goal is getting tens upon tens of millions of people aware of the vast array of HBD.
There are three non-answers to positions: you're stupid, you're evil or you're crazy. Your entire body of commenting distills to the "you're crazy" category. Now we may, in fact, not get HBD into the mainstream of American life. But some society will, and that society will eclipse the United States and, probably, the West. I, for one, will welcome out new Chinese overlords.
Finally, you say this:
Many of his fictions relate to crime and economics ... You can go off your gut, or you can go off the facts.
An intellectually honest person would have given an example of such a fiction. You clearly are not one.
I just want you to go on record. We're both white, so whatever you endure as a white male, I've been through the same.
The same policies hurt different white differently. Some grow up in upper and upper-middle class circumstances. Others do not. Being rich allows one to buy oneself out of dangerous contact with harmful demographics. You're is laughably false, and the fact that you make this claim would imply that you are either dumb or that your sense of identity is too tied into the white elite ruling class to question that assumption.
That assertion is just mind-numbingly dumb. Also, your equating learning to play the tuba with discusing the implications of various public policies is just ... f*cking retarded.
*your positions are laughably false*
Post a Comment