Brimelow: States Must Secede to Protect ‘White Rights’

White nationalist Peter Brimelow spoke at the American Renaissance conference last month and said that states must begin to secede from the union in order to protect “white rights” — the “right” not to be around black people, of course. Now where have I heard that before?

Speaking at the white nationalist American Renaissance conference last month in Tennessee, conservative author and onetime CPAC speaker Peter Brimelow argued that instead of promoting unity, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day “has just turned into anti-white indoctrination.” Unless “cultural Marxists” who are behind “political correctness” and “the war on Christmas” are resisted, Brimelow contends, the U.S. will collapse.

“Whites have rights,” demanded Brimelow as he advocated for the secession of Texas from a failing U.S.

I love the fact that the “war on Christmas” makes an appearance there. That’s just hilarious.

"I preferred the B-side and after a couple of months hard listening I could sing ..."

Wiles: Christians in America Just Like ..."
"Perhaps, a year from now, she can work for it."

Davis May Face Gay Man She ..."
""The people of Rowan County elected me to do a job. I intend to do ..."

Davis May Face Gay Man She ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://tailotherat.blogspot.com namowal

    Phil Spector and Donald Trump would make fun of his hair…

  • caseloweraz

    Unless “cultural Marxists” who are behind “political correctness” and “the war on Christmas” are resisted, Brimelow contends, the U.S. will collapse.

    Inasmuch as Karl Marx was explicitly political, Brimelow must be referring to someone else. Who could it be but the Marx Brothers, especially Groucho Marx, former host of You Bet Your Life and the best known of the brothers.

    Outside of Peter Brimelow, no one thinks Marxism is a significant force today. Inside of Peter Brimelow, it’s too dark to think.

  • dingojack

    caseloweraz – you mean Brimelow has a black centre? Perhaps his limbs should begin to secede.

    Dingo

  • caseloweraz

    It’s a reference to one of Groucho’s jokes. You probably haven’t heard it Down Under. It goes like this: “Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read.”

  • John Pieret

    “We should talk about session …”

    Because that worked out so well the last time …

    ‘the Indiana disaster … we should hammer on the freedom of association …”

    Too late! George Wallace, Bull Connor and Lester Maddox were way ahead of you!

  • raven

    “Whites have rights,” demanded Brimelow as he advocated for the secession of Texas from a failing U.S.

    Brimelow isn’t too bright.

    Texas is already a majority nonwhite state!!!

    Just how are the christofascist whites going to keep all the political power forever?

    Oh wait, I know the answer. It’s an old story repeated many times. It involves such things as bullets, cattle cars, Zyklon B gas, refugee camps, and occasional mass murders.

    It’s all very…xian.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    He’s got a point. It’s awful being white in America. Just awful! Why, white folks can’t even go a day in this country without somebody stepping on their privilege. Really, you should’ve seen them, back in the day…head held high, the best of everything, strutting from place to place…now that was America!

  • jonathangray

    caseloweraz:

    Inasmuch as Karl Marx was explicitly political, Brimelow must be referring to someone else. …

    Outside of Peter Brimelow, no one thinks Marxism is a significant force today.

    “Cultural Marxism” is a reference to an idea, first formulated (I believe) by Gramsci and later promoted by the Frankfurt School. Rather than seeking political power through direct revolutionary action to seize the levers of power, Marxists should instead infiltrate and reshape the organs of culture by embarking on what came to be termed a “long march through the institutions” and so revolutionise society from within.

    Orthodox philosophical or economic Marxists may be relatively rare nowadays and political Marxist-Leninism seems moribund, but it could be argued that in cultural terms Marxism has, in a sense, won. Certain vulgarised Marxist ideas continue to form the unacknowledged basis of many widely-held presuppositions in cultural discourse which are uncritically accepted by many impressionable youngsters passing through the education system and dominate particularly in the realms of academia, the arts and the media. For example, the idea that economic inequality is the result of exploitation; that patriotism and religion are control-mechanisms employed by economically exploitative elites; that revolutionary movements are a legitimate and effective means of overthrowing these elites and establishing a just society. (Similarly with Freudianism – few today would describe themselves as orthodox Freudians but widespread popular assumptions about sexuality and the unconscious show the lingering cultural power of that ideology.)

  • jonathangray

    Modusoperandi:

    Isn’t “white privilege” just a snarl meaning “white achievement”?

  • Al Dente

    he advocated for the secession of Texas from a failing U.S.

    Fortunately Jade Helm 15 will keep that from happening.

  • Al Dente

    jonathangray @8

    Je suis Marxiste, tendence Groucho.

  • raven

    On the Records: Texas 1 of 5 “Minority-Majority” States | The …

    www .texastribune. org/…/on-the-records-majority-texas-minority-races/

    May 17, 2012 – On the Records: Texas 1 of 5 “Minority-Majority” States. More than half of the 2011 Texas population, 55.2 percent, was of a race other than non-Hispanic white, according to demographic data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

    Texas as of 2012 was 55.2% anything but non-Hispanic white.

    This is likely to increase. Especially since the christofascists keep restricting birth control and abortion.

    The White Kristian Fascist Republic of Texas is going to have to try a Rhodesia or Apartheid South Africa strategy to remain on top. And look at how well that worked in the past.

  • Al Dente

    jonathangray @9

    Isn’t “white privilege” just a snarl meaning “white achievement”?

    No it isn’t. Privilege is a well-defined sociological concept. Privilege refers to any advantage that is unearned, exclusive, and socially conferred. For example, white people are generally assumed to be law-abiding until they show some sign that they are not, while people of color are routinely assumed to be criminals or potential criminals until they show they’re not.

  • jonathangray

    raven:

    The White Kristian Fascist Republic of Texas

    *giggle*

    is going to have to try a Rhodesia or Apartheid South Africa strategy to remain on top. And look at how well that worked in the past.

    Doing well now, aren’t they?

  • jonathangray

    Al Dente:

    Je suis Marxiste, tendence Groucho.

    If you can’t beat ’em

    Privilege is a well-defined sociological concept.

    *giggle*

    Privilege refers to any advantage that is unearned, exclusive, and socially conferred.

    And how is that advantage accrued in the first place (so as them to be conferred) if not through successful achievement?

    In any case, what’s wrong with unearned and exclusive advantage? (Seriously.)

    For example, white people are generally assumed to be law-abiding until they show some sign that they are not, while people of color are routinely assumed to be criminals or potential criminals until they show they’re not.

    Perhaps that’s just pattern recognition.

  • jonathangray

    [ “… (so as then to be conferred) …” ]

  • zenlike

    jonathangray,

    fuck of you bigoted piece of shit.

  • magistramarla

    Texas is chock full of white xtian privilege.

    I absolutely hate being constantly told “have a blessed day” by everyone from parking attendants to cashiers. Also, since I’m disabled, people are constantly telling me that they will pray for me.

    These people who are working with the public every day need some training about being sensitive to the fact that some of the people they are saying such things to practice other religions or no religion at all.

    They get much, much worse as the holidays approach.

    I was not accosted by religious fanaticism nearly as much when I lived in California. This is just one more thing on my long, long list of reasons to hate living in Texas.

  • Anri

    jonathangray:

    And how is that advantage accrued in the first place (so as them to be conferred) if not through successful achievement?

    So long as one is willing to define (as an example) institutionalized slavery a “successful achievement”, that’s exactly how it works.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1159674804 robertbaden

    Jonathangray,

    I’m old enough to remember when “If we give a job to a black man it won’t be available to give to some deserving white man” was considered a viable argument.

  • kantalope

    When someone tries to bless me I always ask how they have that power…every single person so far has denied they really have that power and claim it is just a phrase.

  • dhall

    jonathangray:

    ” . . . that patriotism and religion are control-mechanisms employed by economically exploitative elites . . .”

    That’s hardly a myth which has been “uncritically accepted” by “impressionable youngsters.” Both the present day and history are full of examples of this. Yeesh.

  • dhall

    “Conservative” and “Renaissance” seem an odd pairing, since the first involves a mind closed to change while the second, at least in reference to the Renaissance of Europe in the 1300s and 1400s, meant to cast off many of the medieval restrictions that prevented change, to open the mind to new ideas and ways of doing things . . .

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1159674804 robertbaden

    Johnathangray,

    I’ve worked a good bit of time as an electrical engineering contractor. Oftentimes when the job is out of town, we only do a phone interview, no face to face. I’ve talked to one or two contract engineers who are black; they really prefer that sort of situation. They’ve noticed they have more success getting jobs if the hiring managers doesn’t know they are black until they arrive for the first day on the job.

  • dan4

    What does “white rights” have to do with Texas seceding from America have to do with each other, anyway? They are completely separate concepts.

  • busterggi

    Ah Texas – seceded from Mexico so they could own slaves, seceded from the US so they could own slaves, now want to secede over brown people again – do I see a pattern?

  • John Pieret

    Isn’t mention of ‘white rights’ just a just a snarl meaning “N*****r”?

  • John Pieret

    And how is that advantage accrued in the first place (so as them to be conferred) if not through successful achievement?

    Oh, you mean like in Guns, Germs, and Steel? We get the right to dominate other people simply because we are the fortunate to have pack and other domesticated animals, a diverse set of food crops and we got to a knowledge of how to make steel first? So you will quickly concede to, oh, say, China, if it beats us in computer, space, environmental and other technology we can’t even imagine yet? Bigot!

  • jonathangray

    John Pieret:

    Oh, you mean like in Guns, Germs, and Steel? We get the right to dominate other people simply because we are the fortunate to have pack and other domesticated animals, a diverse set of food crops and we got to a knowledge of how to make steel first? So you will quickly concede to, oh, say, China, if it beats us in computer, space, environmental and other technology we can’t even imagine yet?

    It’s quite conceivable that the Chinese will develop such superior technologies (they’re fiendishly clever, don’t you know) and if these technologies give them a decisive advantage over us then they will dominate us. That’s how it works — there’s no “right” involved. “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” (Thucydides). Welcome to the human race.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    John Pieret “Isn’t mention of ‘white rights’ just a just a snarl meaning “N*****r”?”

    They’re just celebrating Southern Culture.

     

    “Oh, you mean like in Guns, Germs, and Steel?”

    Hey, did the “natives” work hard, pull themselves up by their bootstraps to get a mild immunity to smallpox? No! Meanwhile, White People worked hard to inherit it from their parents!

     

    “So you will quickly concede to, oh, say, China, if it beats us in computer, space, environmental and other technology we can’t even imagine yet?”

    Pah! China cheats! They steal, they don’t invent! Unlike us! We, um, invented this country!

  • jonathangray

    John Pieret:

    Isn’t mention of ‘white rights’ just a just a snarl meaning “N*****r”?

    My sense of it is that white nationalism is motivated more by fear than hatred — fear that the loss of white hegemony will lead to the subjugation of whites.

    This well-known meme manages to both state the truth and miss the point entirely. Of course minorities will be treated as second-class citizens — because they will almost inevitably not wield hegemony.

  • John Pieret

    white nationalism is motivated more by fear than hatred

    Since when were those different emotions?

    minorities will be treated as second-class citizens — because they will almost inevitably not wield hegemony

    So your theory of humanity is that someone always has to be on top and anyone else has to be a loser? Hitler would’ve approved!

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    John Pieret “Since when were those different emotions?”

    “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” ~ Doctor Spock

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Or was that Commander Spock? I can never keep my Space 1999 references straight.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    No, wait, it was that Matrix guy, Nathan Fillion!

  • jonathangray

    JP:

    Since when were those different emotions?

    They’re intimately related certainly. Naturally people tend to hate what they fear. People here hate white nationalism, for instance. The question is, is one’s fear justified? Not always, but it might be reckless to dismiss it a priori as groundless paranoia.

    ” …They promised perpetual peace.

    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.

    But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,

    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: ‘Stick to the Devil you know.'”

    So your theory of humanity is that someone always has to be on top and anyone else has to be a loser? Hitler would’ve approved!

    The grim irony is that Hitler appears to have been proved right — in this if in nothing else — by the very circumstances of his defeat. The Allies didn’t prevail over the Axis by appeals to sweet reason or empathy or the golden rule, but by blood and iron and fire. The Allies came out on top; their enemies lost. Liberal democracy is a lie because it depends for its continued existence on the power and will to employ decidedly illiberal methods to defeat those who would destroy it.

    That doesn’t mean might makes right, simply that might — enables. Peace on your terms requires victory, peace on their terms means surrender.

  • John Pieret

    People here hate white nationalism

    Really? Who here has advocated the expulsion of whites or their killing? We certainly disapprove but is disapproval the same as hate?

    Peace on your terms requires victory, peace on their terms means surrender.

    Thank dog … or goodness … or whatever … that I don’t live in the small dark place between you ears!

  • Anri

    jonathangray @ 29:

    It’s quite conceivable that the Chinese will develop such superior technologies (they’re fiendishly clever, don’t you know)

    (emphasis added)

    *sigh*

    Seriously, this is what you consider honest, intelligent argument?

    Moving on…

    and if these technologies give them a decisive advantage over us then they will dominate us. That’s how it works — there’s no “right” involved. “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” (Thucydides). Welcome to the human race.

    So, any imbalance in power automatically negates any rights on the part of the weaker party?

    A man raping a weaker woman is fully within his rights to do so, as they are not equals in power?

    You’re answering “yes” to my question @ 19?

  • jonathangray

    Really? Who here has advocated the expulsion of whites or their killing? We certainly disapprove but is disapproval the same as hate?

    If you don’t hate them perhaps it’s only because you don’t really fear them. If you thought (maybe with good reason) that WNs were a real imminent threat to the liberal order, you would accept their expulsion or killing or suffer that order to go under.

    Thank dog … or goodness … or whatever … that I don’t live in the small dark place between you ears!

    Moralising outrage isn’t an argument. How did you win the war? By slaughtering young men on the battlefield, by bombing towns and cities into ruins, by subjugating a whole people by raping their women. Could it have been done any other way? And at the end of the day you can only justify it because, in the words of one intelligent anguished liberal, “our barbarism was right because theirs was wrong”.

    The fundamental conservative insight is the realisation that life is not merely harsh but tragic. Perfect justice is impossible in this world because to do justice to one group of people all too often involves denying it to another. How does one react to that appalling realisation? The leftist or liberal tries to abolish the vale of tears, bring heaven down to earth, immanentise the eschaton — flee from the Cross. It won’t work, no matter how much blood you shed to water the tree of liberty. A certain type of pagan — a certain type of Nazi, say — bows down before the bloodstained wood of the Cross and worships it as good because it is strong. That usually ends up with an endless stream of victims being hung on it in a futile attempt to appease it. The Christian says the only way to find peace is to shoulder the Cross and worship the precious blood that stains it. There is no way out, but there is a way through. If that’s delusion … well, at least it staves off despair!

  • jonathangray

    Anri:

    Seriously, this is what you consider honest, intelligent argument?

    No, it was a joke.

    So, any imbalance in power automatically negates any rights on the part of the weaker party?

    Of course it doesn’t — if you believe in rights and reject the belief that might makes right, as I do. The point is simply that rights without power are just that — powerless. If you want them to prevail, you must have power. Without the power to prevail, they might as well not exist (except, of course, sub specie aeternitatis). In answer to your question @19, of course institutionalised slavery was a successful institution (while it was hegemonic). Whether it was good or bad is another question altogether.

  • dingojack

    Jon-Jon – was it successful? In what sense?

    And if it was such a rip-roaring success, why didn’t it prevail? ‘Might makes right’, remember?

    Dingo

  • jonathangray

    (What I would say is that if you reject the sub specie aeternitatis it’s hard to see anything on which you can ground these “rights”. Where do they come from? From nature? I see no evidence of rights in nature. As Huxley famously said, “brought before the tribunal of ethics, the cosmos might well seem to stand condemned.” Are they granted to men by men? Then they are not inalienable. What the state giveth, the state taketh away.)

  • jonathangray

    dingojack:

    was it successful? In what sense?

    And if it was such a rip-roaring success, why didn’t it prevail?

    I said it was a success “while it was hegemonic”. It didn’t prevail because the forces ranged against it proved more powerful. Or maybe you really believe that the arc of history bends towards justice, in which case you’re a religious man, of a sort.

    ‘Might makes right’, remember?

    No. I explicitly disavowed that.

  • John Pieret

    How did you win the war? By slaughtering young men on the battlefield, by bombing towns and cities into ruins, by subjugating a whole people by raping their women. Could it have been done any other way? And at the end of the day you can only justify it because, in the words of one intelligent anguished liberal, “our barbarism was right because theirs was wrong”.

    We certainly bombed them and “slaughtered” their soldiers, the way they “slaughtered” ours but where did anyone “subjugate” the people we fought by a deliberate policy of raping their women? We shot soldiers for that and many other barbarisms. You apparently want to celebrate barbarism!!! Well, FU and the stupid horse you rode in on!!!!

  • dingojack

    Oh – so it succeed while it was succeeding, but it ceased to succeed it didn’t.

    What a truly convincing argument!

    @@

    Dingo

  • John Pieret

    To just add …

    If your contention is that the worst evil that people do is excusable because the best good that people can do will never be perfect, then you are a moral moron. We always fall short … but especially when we have apologists for evil like you!

  • Anri

    I suppose what I was asking is if you thought that, per your argument in #15, slavery was the sort of “successful achievement” that could be used to help explain privilege?

    The follow-up question being, then, if privilege based on “successful achievements” like slavery was a good thing or not?

    To ask a slightly different but related question, do you believe that institutionalized slavery, when racially based, was imposing an unfair rule of one people over another, or that it was just supporting some pre-existing order?

  • Anri

    My @47 was in response to jonathangray @ 40, sorry for not noting that.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    jonathangray has a point. Friends are just enemies you haven’t raped yet. And Jesus, somehow.

  • John Pieret

    Modus gets to the point, as always.

  • Quantum Mechanic

    As they say in the South:

    “If at first you don’t secede, try, try again.”

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    John Pieret “Modus gets to the point, as always.”

    My secret is Attention Defici…hey, I’ve got leftover mac and cheese!

  • smrnda

    “The fundamental conservative insight is the realisation that life is not merely harsh but tragic. Perfect justice is impossible in this world because to do justice to one group of people all too often involves denying it to another. How does one react to that appalling realisation? The leftist or liberal tries to abolish the vale of tears, bring heaven down to earth, immanentise the eschaton — flee from the Cross. It won’t work, no matter how much blood you shed to water the tree of liberty. A certain type of pagan — a certain type of Nazi, say — bows down before the bloodstained wood of the Cross and worships it as good because it is strong. That usually ends up with an endless stream of victims being hung on it in a futile attempt to appease it. The Christian says the only way to find peace is to shoulder the Cross and worship the precious blood that stains it. There is no way out, but there is a way through. If that’s delusion … well, at least it staves off despair!”

    This assumes that we always get more of *these types of pagans* as you call them – but this doesn’t seem to be the case. I mean, take Germany. The experiences of the Nazi era have made the sort of mentality you find tragic but unavoidable largely extinct there. It’s extinct in a few other countries as well. Germany has become pretty much a model liberal welfare state, and because of that it’s unlikely that the type of violent, dominating mentality from the past will ever emerge again. Another reason why that didn’t happen was when the allies won, rather than punishing the losers in the Axis they rebuilt them. This didn’t bring about world-wide peace, but it did at least make a war between say, France and Germany (quite a normal thing for a long time) almost inconceivable.

    In WWII, the victors chose to make the losers future allies rather than subjugating them. They allies did win through power, but they did not rule as victors over defeated nations. Not all victories are the same because there is winning the war, and then there is winning the peace.

    Perhaps a difference is entering into a war believing that your enemies should be destroyed or dominated, and entering into a war with the idea of getting the enemies to ditch a bad ideology and have everyone get along. As you can tell from the example of Europe, the latter isn’t such a pipe dream. It can happen.

    There are people in the world who find Dark Age style violence and domination appealing , but this seems like something you can eradicate from a culture.

  • smrnda

    To add – on staving off despair. If you get a decent welfare state with a reasonably high standard of living, it’s no longer an issue. This is possibly why people with Dark Age mentalities tend to be concentrated in rather dismal places.

  • cptdoom

    The ultimate irony is that all Caucasians, Asians, Australasians, & Native Americans are descended from a tiny (300 – 1000 people) group of Africans who left the continent some 70,000 years ago. We are all cousins, and there is only one race – human.

  • jonathangray

    John Pieret:

    We certainly bombed them and “slaughtered” their soldiers, the way they “slaughtered” ours but where did anyone “subjugate” the people we fought by a deliberate policy of raping their women?

    It was a policy of the Red Army.

    You apparently want to celebrate barbarism!!!

    I’m not celebrating it at all, I’m lamenting it. I merely acknowledge its inevitability and occasional necessity for survival.

    If your contention is that the worst evil that people do is excusable because the best good that people can do will never be perfect, then you are a moral moron.

    That isn’t my contention at all.

    dingojack:

    Oh – so it succeed while it was succeeding, but it ceased to succeed it didn’t.

    What a truly convincing argument!

    Isn’t that what natural selection is all about?

  • jonathangray

    Anri:

    I suppose what I was asking is if you thought that, per your argument in #15, slavery was the sort of “successful achievement” that could be used to help explain privilege?

    I’m sceptical that white privilege is a direct result of black slavery; I accept that slavery’s existence was an indicator of white material power which enabled that privilege.

    The follow-up question being, then, if privilege based on “successful achievements” like slavery was a good thing or not?

    As I said, I don’t think privilege is “based on” the legacy of slavery per se, but on the material power that made slavery possible. For the record I don’t think white Europeans’ enslavement of black Africans was a good thing.

    To ask a slightly different but related question, do you believe that institutionalized slavery, when racially based, was imposing an unfair rule of one people over another, or that it was just supporting some pre-existing order?

    Both. Slavery reflects the natural order insofar as it is natural that strong groups will dominate weaker groups. It is unfair precisely because it is natural. The question is how far and by what means any civilisation can meliorate this situation.

  • jonathangray

    smrnda:

    In WWII, the victors chose to make the losers future allies rather than subjugating them. They allies did win through power, but they did not rule as victors over defeated nations. Not all victories are the same because there is winning the war, and then there is winning the peace.

    Perhaps a difference is entering into a war believing that your enemies should be destroyed or dominated, and entering into a war with the idea of getting the enemies to ditch a bad ideology and have everyone get along. As you can tell from the example of Europe, the latter isn’t such a pipe dream. It can happen.

    I wouldn’t quarrel with any of that in principle. It’s the basis of successful imperialism — bestow the benefits of Roman civilisation/Christianity on the barbarian/heathen and make them part of your civilisation. I’m just saying you have to win the war before you can begin winning the peace. And whether the postwar European order has the staying power of the Pax Romana or Christendom remains to be seen …

    This assumes that we always get more of *these types of pagans* as you call them – but this doesn’t seem to be the case. I mean, take Germany. The experiences of the Nazi era have made the sort of mentality you find tragic but unavoidable largely extinct there. It’s extinct in a few other countries as well. Germany has become pretty much a model liberal welfare state, and because of that it’s unlikely that the type of violent, dominating mentality from the past will ever emerge again. … There are people in the world who find Dark Age style violence and domination appealing , but this seems like something you can eradicate from a culture. … To add – on staving off despair. If you get a decent welfare state with a reasonably high standard of living, it’s no longer an issue

    I’d say the jury’s still out on that. Many distinguished students of human nature have believed that, for good or ill, a welfare state and comfortable standard of living is insufficient to satisfy certain elemental human needs. (“Plutôt la barbarie que l’ennui!”)

    But let’s say you’re right and that this new programming takes. You’ve successfully created nations of pacific Eloi. But aren’t they now left vulnerable to those unreconstructed Morlocks that you admit still live in many parts of the world? What if you’ve created nations of prey? What will the flock of peaceful sheep do when they look up from the lush grass they’re munching on … and see the wolves on the surrounding hilltops? Better hope they rediscover their inner wolf (or wolfhound) pretty damn quick.

  • Al Dente

    jonathangray,

    I hadn’t realized that conservative Catholics were such nihilists. I do understand that the only reason you don’t commit suicide is your church frowns on it, but it must be a real strain getting out of bed in the morning. Which antidepressant do you use to get you through the day?

  • smrnda

    “I’d say the jury’s still out on that. Many distinguished students of human nature have believed that, for good or ill, a welfare state and comfortable standard of living is insufficient to satisfy certain elemental human needs. ”

    I question the credentials of these ‘distinguished students of human nature.’ There are many philosophers, theologians or authors who make the point you do, but I don’t consider their fields valid since they’re armchair speculation rather than empirical inquiry. Plenty of *writers of fiction* contend that people have an elemental lust for power and violence, but being a writer of fiction just means you can write something that gets people turning pages; it doesn’t imply any real knowledge. The question should be answered by people in social and behavioral sciences. Overall, welfare states reduce the tendency to a negligible amount. You do get an occasional Brevik, but they’re kind of an aberration. I pretty much throw the insights of all authors, philosophers and clergy and theologians in the toilet when it comes to ‘human nature’ since they weren’t investigating the matter properly. The distinguished students of human nature you cite were simply making arguments by assertion, usually appealing to the prejudices of their audience. This is why the Church teaches that humans are inherently sinful, and the Enlightenment preaches the Noble Savage. The church viewed itself as fixing the savage, the Enlightenment viewed the church as corrupting the savage. Neither viewpoint is really supported by empirical data.

    I see no evidence for the ‘elemental human needs’ you propose – there are probably some people who have them, but I suspect it’s a matter of social programming. I mean, take US masculinity and compare it to masculinity in say, Germany, or maybe Taiwan (the nation where I grew up.) The tie between masculinity and the willingness to do violence is definitely culturally conditioned, to the point where it’s largely absent in some cultures.

    “But let’s say you’re right and that this new programming takes. You’ve successfully created nations of pacific Eloi. But aren’t they now left vulnerable to those unreconstructed Morlocks that you admit still live in many parts of the world?”

    There will be a significant technological gap between such populations since you can’t sustain a high level of technology without having created an adequate welfare state. Yes, there are barbarians (as you may call them) OUT THERE but at best, as I said before, they’ll be an occasional problem and will restrict their attention to places with lower standards of living where they can find more willing recruits. ISIS does gain some recruits from first world nations, but most first world people are attached enough to their high standard of living that they don’t have a stomach for barbarism. I mean, China is going to become a serious contender, but it’s unlikely they’ll pursue any tool other than economic ones.

    In the end, people will side with a system which delivers them a high standard of living once it’s feasible enough for them to see the benefits. There may be some discontents, but they’ll remain marginalized within their cultures as they gradually become extinct. outside groups more prone to violence will remain at a low level of technological development and will be unable to make a meaningful threat to better developed nations. I suspect the welfare state will beat things like ISIS by attrition. Muslims do move to Europe, and though the media attention is on alienated minorities who make for recruits, plenty of Muslims have integrated and taken advantage of the great Western welfare state. This is life in Germany (where I live most of the time).

  • dingojack

    Lil’ Dookiedawg (#15) – no, no it isn’t. (You’re ignorance is in full display).

    Dingo

    ——–

    To get you up to a minimum level of knowledge on the growth and decay of political states, I’d recommend Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson.

  • jonathangray

    Al Dente:

    I hadn’t realized that conservative Catholics were such nihilists. I do understand that the only reason you don’t commit suicide is your church frowns on it, but it must be a real strain getting out of bed in the morning. Which antidepressant do you use to get you through the day?

    I try to look on the bright side of life.

  • jonathangray

    smrnda:

    I question the credentials of these ‘distinguished students of human nature.’ There are many philosophers, theologians or authors who make the point you do, but I don’t consider their fields valid since they’re armchair speculation rather than empirical inquiry. … The question should be answered by people in social and behavioral sciences. … I pretty much throw the insights of all authors, philosophers and clergy and theologians in the toilet when it comes to ‘human nature’ since they weren’t investigating the matter properly.

    https://youtu.be/LFFWkHlHjbo

  • jonathangray

    (Joking apart …)

    Overall, welfare states reduce the tendency to a negligible amount. … In the end, people will side with a system which delivers them a high standard of living once it’s feasible enough for them to see the benefits.

    Then you’d better hope your “system” continues to deliver the prosperity needed to sustain a welfare state. I mean, should the panem et circenses ever dry up …

    I take it you don’t regard the recent upsurge in the ‘far right’ (both populist and intellectual) as any kind of significant portent? It seems to have given the elites the jitters.

    There will be a significant technological gap between such populations since you can’t sustain a high level of technology without having created an adequate welfare state. … they’ll be an occasional problem … outside groups more prone to violence will remain at a low level of technological development and will be unable to make a meaningful threat to better developed nations.

    (“Whatever happens, we have got / The Maxim gun, and they have not.”)

    In your view, did the Victorians have “an adequate welfare state”? After all, they saw a very rapid development of technology that in no small part enabled them to dominate large portions of the globe.

    That apart, assuming a technological edge can be sustained, that in itself is no guarantee of continued hegemony or even invulnerability. You also need the will to prevail, the stomach to fight. Witness the American experience in Vietnam or the Soviet in Afghanistan. What makes you think your pacific Eloi will fare any better?

    Muslims do move to Europe, and though the media attention is on alienated minorities who make for recruits, plenty of Muslims have integrated and taken advantage of the great Western welfare state. This is life in Germany (where I live most of the time).

    So you think PEGIDA is just a lot of fuss about nothing?

  • jonathangray

    The limits of cultural conditioning.

  • jonathangray

    “… real people in a real world …”:

    https://youtu.be/hlN_Yq2qcK0

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Then you’d better hope your “system” continues to deliver the prosperity needed to sustain a welfare state.

    America’s economy was doing a pretty good job of that, before the Republicans started taking it apart in the name of “fiscal responsibility.” We weren’t being crippled by transfer programs to help the poorest Americans, but the people who said we were, ended up REALLY crippling us with a manufactured “financial crisis” and unprecedented national debt, for the sole and obvious purpose of bringing more comfort to the comfortable.

  • dingojack

    Lil’ DookieDawg – again, you wanna know why the US is not doing as well as other nations?

    Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson.

    Dingo

  • jonathangray

    There may be some discontents, but they’ll remain marginalized within their cultures as they gradually become extinct.

    Time will tell, I guess.

    https://youtu.be/kqybsUqkOWs

  • dingojack

    And what of this?!?

    [Oh, I’m sorry. I saw lil’DookieDawg‘s latest scat and thought this was the post-irrelevant-crap-from-non-creditable-sources-instead-of-an-actual-argument thread. Apologies.]

    @@ Dingo

  • jonathangray

    dingojack:

    Lil’ DookieDawg

    You talking to me?

    you wanna know why the US is not doing as well as other nations?

    What other nations is the US not doing as well as? In what sense are they doing better than the US?

    Why Nations Fail

    EVROPA INVICTA:

    https://youtu.be/STk_oP7BIsg

  • dingojack

    In almost all measurable ways – at least 20 other nations.

    ohh let’s have another irrelevant film clip – that’ll replace an actual argument (hope nobody notices).

    @@

    Dingo

  • jonathangray

    ohh let’s have another irrelevant film clip – that’ll replace an actual argument (hope nobody notices).

    Good idea.

  • dingojack
  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray

    (Oops, wrong link. Here we go!)

  • jonathangray

    Why Nations Fail

    Good question.

  • jblackfyre

    long time lurker, first time writing.

    Jonathangray #64

    So you think PEGIDA is just a lot of fuss about nothing?

    Yes, yes it is. It’s the same racist assholes – read: neo-nazis – wrapping themselves in the flag of their “judeo-christian*” heritage to rage against the evil immigrant.

    * the judeo part is destroyed my last irony meter. It wasn’t even on…

    @Ed: I understand that you want to live up to your free speech (almost) absolutism with respect to the ignorant, racist and generally goalpost mover cited above, but since when is it allowed to post racist youtube clips straight into the comments? I still feel dirty for having seen them. I really hope youtube doesn’t update my recommendations because of it…

  • jonathangray

    Hey, jblackfyre.

    Just a couple of points, if I may.

    You appear to have had an immediate, visceral, emotional response to the Identitarian video (“I still feel dirty for having seen them”). That’s understandable — people find it hard to remain dispassionate about certain subjects — but it seems to me that it’s incumbent on anyone who believes in the value of human reason to make an effort to understand and, yes, empathise with those who take a radically opposed position to yourself. After all, isn’t one of the standard charges against the ‘far right’ that it exalts emotionalism over reason? Shouldn’t you be better than that? Your attempt to understand your enemy might well lead you to reaffirm your initial emotional response; but if nothing else, a more nuanced comprehension puts you in a much stronger position to defeat that enemy.

    My referencing of European ‘far right’ movements was in response to smrnda’s claim that a comfortable welfare-state existence will see the darker side of human nature wither and die in the light of liberal meliorism. The rise of such movements as PEGIDA and the Identitarians suggests that may not be the case — particularly when the liberal welfare state finds itself having to cope with the intense social pressures and dislocations resulting from mass immigration. Nothing you’ve said suggests I’m wrong about this. Even if your cartoonish characterisation of these movements as “neo-nazis” were accurate, how does that make them any less significant? Were the original Nazis a storm in a teacup?

    To understand where I’m coming from, consider the Christian notion of heresy (bear with me, it is relevant). A heresy is not so much a simple a falsehood or untruth but rather a truth which has been torn from context, one that ignores other equally important truths that serve to balance it. Seen in this light, it becomes easier to grasp why heresy has always been seen as so dangerous. Because it is rooted in truth, it naturally attracts people — in the Christian view people want truth and were made to recognise it. But because the heretical truth is divorced from the necessary counterbalancing truths, it tends to assume distorted forms and so become monstrous and inhumane. Not only that, when that toxic distortion becomes impossible to ignore, the natural tendency is to react violently against it by rushing to the other extreme and embracing the truths neglected by the original heresy at the expense of all others, thus spawning a new heresy, equally unbalanced and destructive.

    Social liberalism emphasises the inviolable dignity of individual human freedom; the value of reason; the value of peaceableness; and the unity of the human family (“brotherhood of man”). All these strike me as true, good and beautiful as far as they go. But the liberal takes them too far — freedom becomes atomised hedonic individualism divorced from all wider communitarian considerations; the cult of sweet reason forgets that the passions cannot simply be ignored as if they did not exist but instead must be integrated; the exaltation of peace becomes a contempt for the martial virtues that are always needed to defend the peaceful (“Making mock of uniforms that guard you in your sleep”); and the apostles of universal brotherhood ride roughshod over legitimate local attachments that give orientation to people’s daily lives.

    Enter the fascist reaction, the counter-heresy: a totalitarian concept of the state in which individual freedom counts for nothing; a cult of the irrational impulses that stir in the blood; a glorification of aggressive militarism; and an ethnic chauvinism that makes an idol of race and nation. So I’m not banging a drum for fascism. I dislike fascism. I just believe fascism follows liberalism as night follows day.

    https://youtu.be/ohUfNGkg4eU

  • jblackfyre

    I just believe fascism follows liberalism as night follows day.

    So, what you are saying is that fascism is a consequence of liberalism?

    That they are so opposed that one is the antithesis of the other thence, one creating the other in opposition?

    That if there was no liberalism, there would be no need for fascism?

    Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit

    Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit.*

    Never mind that people will always have a wide range of life philosophies, that even if there was no liberalism (however that could happen), there would still fascist assholes;

    Never mind that what you are equating liberalism with something that is only real in your head;

    Never mind that you are giving a *very* wide pass to conservatism – not even mentioning it even – while ignoring that things don’t happen in a vacuum. There never was somewhere perfectly liberal and then puff, a fascist is born in reaction to the tree-hugging, gun-pooing, everybodygetacar liberal utopia;

    Hint: most fascists today didn’t started as liberals.

    Never mind that you started the analogy with “in the Christian view people want truth and were made to recognise it.” that is patently bullshit.

    The fact is that “liberal” democracies in Europe have worked well for more than 60 years, through good and bad periods (from the point of view of its citizens) – it’s a long fraking day. That alone should give you pause. Whatever your point is. With so many changes in goalposts i feel confused.

    * i wish those lines were mine.

  • jonathangray

    jblackfyre:

    So, what you are saying is that fascism is a consequence of liberalism?

    That they are so opposed that one is the antithesis of the other thence, one creating the other in opposition?

    That if there was no liberalism, there would be no need for fascism?

    I’m saying is that liberalism is based on a partial view of human wishes and needs, and thus tends to provoke an equally partial reaction.

    Never mind that people will always have a wide range of life philosophies, that even if there was no liberalism (however that could happen), there would still fascist assholes

    Of course. Fascism is more than merely a reaction to liberalism; that definition doesn’t exhaust its content. Nevertheless, I think it’s a pretty thick slice of fascism, to the extent that liberalism’s errors are often a trigger for the fascist impulse.

    Never mind that what you are equating liberalism with something that is only real in your head

    If my description of liberalism contains an element of simplification and caricature, so does your description of “racist assholes – read: neo-nazis – wrapping themselves in the flag of their “judeo-christian*” heritage to rage against the evil immigrant”.

    Never mind that you are giving a *very* wide pass to conservatism – not even mentioning it even – while ignoring that things don’t happen in a vacuum. There never was somewhere perfectly liberal and then puff, a fascist is born in reaction to the tree-hugging, gun-pooing, everybodygetacar liberal utopia;

    Hint: most fascists today didn’t started as liberals.

    So? You don’t have to start off as a liberal to react against it. It’s true that conservatives are often driven to overcome their natural distaste for fascism by desperation at the apparently unstoppable march of liberal extremism and the degeneration it leaves in its wake. It’s ironic because left-liberalism and fascism actually have quite a lot in common.

    Never mind that you started the analogy with “in the Christian view people want truth and were made to recognise it.” that is patently bullshit.

    Is it? Why?

    The fact is that “liberal” democracies in Europe have worked well for more than 60 years, through good and bad periods (from the point of view of its citizens) – it’s a long fraking day. That alone should give you pause.

    Sixty years is a blink of an eye in historical terms.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    I’m saying is that liberalism is based on a partial view of human wishes and needs…

    This is utter bullshit — the kind of thing fascist liars say when they want to roll back liberal achievements and shout down anyone who tries to be better than them. Liberalism recognizes both the good and the evil parts of human nature: that’s why liberals advocate democratic forms of government, so the people can express their better nature by passing laws to regulate their evil nature. The only people who dispute this are the people who want to keep us divided against ourselves.

    …liberalism’s errors are often a trigger for the fascist impulse.

    Again, that’s utter bullshit: it’s the SUCCESS of liberalism that provokes hatred from those who oppose it. They only use its errors to rationalize their opposition to progressive change.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    You appear to have had an immediate, visceral, emotional response to the Identitarian video (“I still feel dirty for having seen them”). That’s understandable — people find it hard to remain dispassionate about certain subjects — but it seems to me that it’s incumbent on anyone who believes in the value of human reason to make an effort to understand and, yes, empathise with those who take a radically opposed position to yourself.

    This is a classic sign of an authoritarian bigot: he can’t actually defend his position, so he simply turns up his nose and pretends he’s the only grownup in the room and everyone else is just being childish emotional ninnies. I notice you don’t actually specify where jblackfyre was actually wrong — which means your claim of “emotionalism” and “unreason” on his part is simply unfounded.

    Social liberalism emphasises the inviolable dignity of individual human freedom; the value of reason; the value of peaceableness; and the unity of the human family (“brotherhood of man”). All these strike me as true, good and beautiful as far as they go. But the liberal takes them too far — freedom becomes atomised hedonic individualism divorced from all wider communitarian considerations; the cult of sweet reason forgets that the passions cannot simply be ignored as if they did not exist but instead must be integrated; the exaltation of peace becomes a contempt for the martial virtues that are always needed to defend the peaceful (“Making mock of uniforms that guard you in your sleep”); and the apostles of universal brotherhood ride roughshod over legitimate local attachments that give orientation to people’s daily lives

    Thank you, jon-jon, you’ve neatly summed up practically all of the hateful cowardly lies that authoritarians tell about liberalism when they find their power over others threatened by progressive and/or democratic change — “OMG the libruls are gonna destroy civilization as we know it and cause us all to run riot in hedonistic orgies and turn our boys into peacepussies!!!” I should also note that the bit about “atomised hedonic individualism divorced from all wider communitarian considerations” contradicts another standard lie about liberalism, which says that liberalism is totalitarian political correctness that crushes all individual liberty in order to force us all into an Orwellian utopia where no one gets to profit from individual inventiveness.

    Thank you, jon-jon, for finally and clearly showing us your true fascist colors.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    BTW, I should point out that I took a political theory class in high school, and the reading for that class included some early-twentieth-century fascist writings, mostly by Italians, with one famous German to top it all off. And jonathangray’s anti-liberal bullshit is nothing less than a straight lift from those early fascist writings. I knew jon-jon was a fascist authoritarian bigot, but I never thought he’d show it this clearly.

  • dingojack

    here you go Jon-Jon. Watch this and sing along. It might help calm you down…

    :) Dingo

  • jonathangray

    I’ll sing along to this

  • jonathangray

    Raging Bee:

    Liberalism recognizes both the good and the evil parts of human nature: that’s why liberals advocate democratic forms of government, so the people can express their better nature by passing laws to regulate their evil nature.

    What’s to stop the people — the democratically sovereign people — expressing their evil nature by passing laws to suppress their better nature?

    you’ve neatly summed up practically all of the hateful cowardly lies that authoritarians tell about liberalism when they find their power over others threatened by progressive and/or democratic change — “OMG the libruls are gonna destroy civilization as we know it and cause us all to run riot in hedonistic orgies and turn our boys into peacepussies!!!”

    Meet Brendan. XD

    the bit about “atomised hedonic individualism divorced from all wider communitarian considerations” contradicts another standard lie about liberalism, which says that liberalism is totalitarian political correctness that crushes all individual liberty in order to force us all into an Orwellian utopia

    It doesn’t contradict it at all. One is the natural consequence of the other. As revolutionary liberalism dissolves traditional communal ties, the state is forced to resort to ever more intrusive, legalistic attempts at micromanaging thoughtcrime to stop things falling apart. Fascism just runs with this, no longer bothering to pay lip service to freedom.

    Thank you, jon-jon, for finally and clearly showing us your true fascist colors.

    Believe me, if I was a fascist I wouldn’t hide it. Why would I?

    I should point out that I took a political theory class in high school, and the reading for that class included some early-twentieth-century fascist writings, mostly by Italians, with one famous German to top it all off. And jonathangray’s anti-liberal bullshit is nothing less than a straight lift from those early fascist writings.

    Anti-liberal thought predates the early twentieth century, you know. Reactionary thought arose in response to the French Revolution — Joseph de Maistre, Louis Gabriel Ambroise de Bonald, Juan Donoso Cortes etc.

    (I’m curious BTW — who’s the “famous German”? I’m guessing Spengler or Schmitt.)

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    What’s to stop the people — the democratically sovereign people — expressing their evil nature by passing laws to suppress their better nature?

    Not much, really — something the liberals who drafted our Constitution understood. See, liberals are more honest and understanding than you can bear to admit.

    It doesn’t contradict it at all.

    Yes, it does.

    As revolutionary liberalism dissolves traditional communal ties…

    Not all liberalism is “revolutionary,” and not all revolutions dissolve all pre-existing community ties. Your argument fails because it’s based on false premises. And probably deliberate misuse of the word “liberal” as well.

    Anti-liberal thought predates the early twentieth century, you know.

    And that validates any part of your authoritarian bullshit…how?

    (I’m curious BTW — who’s the “famous German”? I’m guessing Spengler or Schmitt.)

    Hitler, dumbass.

  • jonathangray

    Raging Bee:

    Not much, really — something the liberals who drafted our Constitution understood. See, liberals are more honest and understanding than you can bear to admit.

    In other words, the early liberals were honest enough to admit that democratic liberalism was wholly unable to “regulate [people’s] evil nature”. Great.

    Not all liberalism is “revolutionary,”

    Insofar as liberalism has its roots in opposition to the Ancien Régime’s alliance of Throne and Altar, it is revolutionary.

    and not all revolutions dissolve all pre-existing community ties.

    Liberal ones do.

    And that validates any part of your authoritarian bullshit…how?

    It invalidates your assertion that anti-liberal thought is essentially fascist.

    Mussolini and Gentile’s “Doctrine of Fascism” clearly indicates how the fascist mutation diverges from traditional reactionary philosophy, espousing a revolutionary statism (“The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. … No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State.”) and declaring:

    “The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century. History does not travel backwards. The Fascist doctrine has not taken De Maistre as its prophet. Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry.”

    Hitler, dumbass.

    Snore.

  • jonathangray

    The French Revolution is interesting because it shows the symbiotic relationship between the “liberal” and “fascist” worldviews. On the one hand liberté, égalité, fraternité; on the other … (What’s that I see in the background?)

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    In other words, the early liberals were honest enough to admit that democratic liberalism was wholly unable to “regulate [people’s] evil nature”. Great.

    That is, to put it charitably, a simpleminded misunderstanding of the early liberals’ thinking. They didn’t think government was “wholly unable” to regulate bad behavior — they just knew it was difficult, complex, and took lots of long-term work and commitment.

    Insofar as liberalism has its roots in opposition to the Ancien Régime’s alliance of Throne and Altar, it is revolutionary.

    Those are not the only roots of liberalism. Once again, your argument fails because it is based on false and ignorant premises.

    It invalidates your assertion that anti-liberal thought is essentially fascist

    I never made that assertion; I merely asserted that YOUR anti-liberal thought is fascist. (And yes, fascist thought has deeper roots than you admit.)

    Liberal ones do.

    Ours didn’t.

    The French Revolution is interesting because it shows the symbiotic relationship between the “liberal” and “fascist” worldviews.

    A relationship of which you can only offer one example. Your “understanding” of the French revolution is as simpleminded and as ignorant as the rest of your authoritarian mindset.

  • jonathangray

    That is, to put it charitably, a simpleminded misunderstanding of the early liberals’ thinking. They didn’t think government was “wholly unable” to regulate bad behavior — they just knew it was difficult, complex, and took lots of long-term work and commitment.

    How’s it working out?

    Those are not the only roots of liberalism.

    What others did you have in mind?

    I merely asserted that YOUR anti-liberal thought is fascist.

    My “authoritarian mindset” rejects totalitarian statism, revolutionary populism, anti-clericalism, irrationalism, aggressive militarism and chauvinistic ethnocentrism. So how am I a fascist?

    Ours didn’t.

    Revolution is more than an event, it’s an ongoing process.

    A relationship of which you can only offer one example.

    Here’s another — right up Leni Riefenstahl’s street.