Savage Goes Full on White Supremacist Again

Michael Savage continues to repeat white supremacist, KKK rhetoric on an almost daily basis in his ignorant, xenophobic rants against immigration. It’s all about protecting those poor white people from having to be around those evil darkies, or so he keeps saying.

Savage continued, saying that Obama is attempting to destroy America by “injecting, like a virus, Muslims from Syria into all-white communities in America” and taking “infected children from Honduras and put[ing] them in every school district that he could.”

The radio host continued that Obama wants to bring about “Section 8 housing on a national level,” hoping to “inject low-income troublemakers” into “an all-white suburban community” and “then you let the games begin.”

Won’t someone think of the purity of the white people who will be exposed to the “virus” of dark-skinned people? There’s something quite perverse about a Jewish guy parroting white supremacist rhetoric.

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/208824703″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

"As someone who thoroughly rejects moral relativism I'm calling foul on the evangelicals here."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"There's a right-wing comment. Blocked."

Trump Upset that He Can’t Control ..."
"So what? Welcome to the era of honesty. People are people and we don't all ..."

Lively: Gay Judges Can’t Be Impartial

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Alverant

    How soon before the right wing apologist comes in and whines about something a Democrat did 50 years ago? The desperation and arrogance of conservatives are really showing.

  • John Pieret

    There’s something quite perverse about a Jewish guy parroting white supremacist rhetoric

    Not in free enterprise America where he can make money doing it.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Racial supremacism is abhorrent.

    That’s why I abhor population control, which has a long ugly history of racial supremacism. The classic texts of population control “science” are often explicitly racist, and it’s noteworthy that the populations to be ‘controlled’ are always–always–non-Caucasian.

    The subtext of population control is the same as Savage’s, only on a much larger and more lethal scale. ‘You mustn’t have so many of those dark or yellow people–the earth cannot bear it.’

    If you’re honest about condemning Savage, you need to condemn population control and the overpopulation myth.

  • grendelsfather

    The radio host continued that Obama wants to bring about “Section 8 housing on a national level,”

    How is it possible that this numbnutz doesn’t realize that Section 8 has been a federal program since its inception under a Republican president over 40 years ago?

    Does he really not know, or is he counting on his audience not knowing?

  • theDukedog7 .
  • Anna Elizabeth

    I’m 1/8 Cheyenne, so any of you white-eyed assholes that weren’t invited can head back to whatever Old World shithole spawned you!

    More seriously, we’re almost *all* immigrants, and the rhetoric is getting really, really tiresome.

  • Nick Gotts

    If you’re honest about condemning Savage, you need to condemn population control and the overpopulation myth.

    Answer this one question: is there, in your opinion, any limit to the number of people the planet can support?

  • zenlike

    Sigh, isn’t it time Egnorance gets banned here like he just did at Pharyngula? There is really nothing he can contribute. He is ignorant about anything he chooses to barf his ignorant opinion about.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @7:

    [Answer this one question: is there, in your opinion, any limit to the number of people the planet can support?]

    Perhaps. These are the facts: Malthusians (e.g. you) have been spectacularly wrong for 200 years. You have been wrong about population every time everywhere. Again and again and again. There is no scientific perspective active in the world today that has been proven as wrong as Malthusian ‘over’-population ‘science’.

    And there has been no scientific ‘theory’ that has caused as much suffering as Malthusianism. It was the basis for the British refusal to feed the Irish in the 1840’s during the famine–the famine was viewed by scientists as a natural phenomenon and an appropriate way for nature to correct population imbalance. It was the basis for the British refusal to feed the people of India in the 1876 famine–the famine was also viewed by scientists as a natural phenomenon and an appropriate way for nature to correct population imbalance, particularly a way to correct overpopulation of brown people, who have always been the real target of population control.

    Mandatory sterilization programs were carried out in India and China and Peru in the 1970’s, sterilizing tens of millions of people against their will. This crime against humanity was demanded (in India) by American government officials, in return for food aid. “Sterilize your people, or we will let them starve” was our policy.

    Mandatory sterilization policies in China and India and the One Child Policy in India have killed hundreds of millions of babies in the womb and after birth, and violated the basic human rights of billions of people.

    It is without question the most pervasive violation of basic human rights–the right to found a family– in history.

    So your question– “in your opinion, any limit to the number of people the planet can support?” is of much less interest to me than the holocaust your junk science has inflicted on mankind.

    “In my opinion”, the only kind of people we have too many of is Malthusians.

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    “Savage goes full on white supremacist again”

    What, did he draw another breath?

  • theDukedog7 .

    “… One Child Policy in China”, although India has had policies almost as draconian.

  • zenlike

    Case in piont: Egnor’s incoherent ramblings at #9.

    Shut up Egnor, you are a delusional conspiracy theory infected fool.

  • John Pieret

    Dukedog:

    Having adroitly avoided stepping in your several deposits on the sidewalk, I would agree that forced limitations on family size is a violation of human rights. But then, there is the other side: forced limitations on the right of individuals to limit family size through contraception and abortions (at least at some term) is also a violation of human rights. You can’t rationally condemn one without the other.

    But expecting rationality from you is a fool’s errand.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance@ #9

    More to the point, do you believe it is possible to raise the overall standard of living in China, India, Africa, and South America to western levels such as exist in the US, Canada, and Western Europe?

  • Nick Gotts
    [Answer this one question: is there, in your opinion, any limit to the number of people the planet can support?] – Me

    Perhaps. – Michael Egnor

    Your moral and intellectual cowardice laid bare in a single word. You then take off into a distractive rant, hoping no-one will notice. You know as well as I do that the only rational answer is “Yes, of course there is.” We don’t know what it is, but there must be one, if only because the planet itself contains a limited amount of the physical stuff people are made of.

    Malthusians (e.g. you)

    You’re a slanderous liar, Michael Egnor. I am not a “Malthusian”, unless by that you mean “one who believes that there must be some limit to the number of people the planet can support.” If you had taken the trouble to find out my views, you would know that I have repeatedly and consistently, here and elsewhere, argued against those who say things such as “Population is our number one problem”, or “Global population is growing exponentially” (it isn’t, as the proportional rate of growth has approximately halved since its 1960s peak, and is still falling), let alone those who advocate compulsory limitations on the number of children people can have, or hint that poor andor dark-skinned people are reporducing too fast, should be allowed to die if they over-populate their countries, etc..

    What I do support is programmes to allow people, and especially women, to choose if and when they will have children – and without having to give up the sexual activities that can produce children. This, we know, you bitterly oppose: you and your church hate the idea of people – especially women – having bodily autonomy and sexual freedom. It is because of this hatred that you refuse to admit that there must be a limit to the number of people the planet can support – because admitting that would mean admitting that at some stage, either the birth rate must fall – and in practice, that means allowing artificial contraception – or the death rate must rise.

  • StevoR

    Best way to reduce the population is make women more powerful and educated. Equal marriage for gays also helps. Plus abortion, euthanaisia & capital punishment too.

    You in favour of those steps DukeDogshit?

  • StevoR

    Oh and access to contraception and family planning and, again, empowering women to control their own fertility and having social security networks everywhere that are strong enough to mean people don’t have to rely on children for support in old age – also and see words before a seemingly paradoxical reduction in infant mortality and increase in average lifespan.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @15:

    There may well be a limit on the number of people the earth can sustain. Perhaps a trillion billion quadrillion, tops.

    We can’t actually know the limit, because your science is crap.

  • footface

    So how about that Michael Savage and the things he said, huh?

    How Dukedog can pivot so gracefully from “thing he finds irrelevant” to “whatever he wants to talk about”… It’s breathtaking.

    (Hint: Go start your own blog and hang out there instead.)

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Nick the Malthusian trying to tap dance around his own viewpoints:

    I oppose contraception on moral grounds, but I do not support outlawing it.

    The problem with contraception is that it separates procreation from sex, and is no more health for humanity than bulimia, which separates nourishment from eating. Contraception frustrates God’s purpose for sex.

    Moral opposition is not the same thing as opposing the legality of something. This is a concept you should learn, given your fanatic attempts to force morality through legal punishment (“bake me a cake, Christian, or I’ll call the police”)

  • sundiver

    I just ignore pukedog and read the more interesting posts. All pukedog has is shit so thoroughly debunked it isn’t worth the few seconds it takes to read it. I wonder, in what grade was he educated beyond his intelligence.

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

    footface “So how about that Michael Savage and the things he said, huh?”

    I think that he is wrong and awful and the things he says are wrong and awful. Aside from that, though, he’s a saint.*

     

    * Saint Awful.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @ #18

    We can’t actually know the limit, because your science is crap.

    Just like climate change and evolution, right Egnorance?

    By the way, I see that the authorities in Minnesota have finally gotten off the dime and indited the local diocese of the Raping Children Church for raping children.

    http://goo.gl/WbFWEp

  • laurentweppe

    He is ignorant about anything he chooses to barf his ignorant opinion about.

    Frankly, I don’t think his brand of mental masturbation qualifies as “opinion

  • theDukedog7 .

    @StevoR:

    [Best way to reduce the population is… Plus abortion, euthanaisia & capital punishment too.]

    … Translated from the original German.

  • StevoR

    @18. Duke Dogshit : “We can’t actually know the limit, because your science is crap.”

    Yet here you are using the internet among so many other things science has made work for us all ..

  • StevoR

    @ 25. Duke Dogshit : You hate the Germans now too do you, ja?

  • zenlike

    Weird, Nazi Germany didn’t have the right for euthanasia or abortion. You got your methophors mixed up again Dukie the idiot.

  • StevoR

    ^ Also Dogshit, you may not have noticed that’s NOT actually an argument or point against any of what I noted but I’m sure others here have. Coz truth. Also your failure (again) to answer the question(s) put to you (eg. in #16) is noted Dogshit.

  • theDukedog7 .

    StevoR:

    You advocate abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment for the purpose of population control?

    Are you serious?

  • StevoR

    You ever get round to answering the ones asked of you on another thread a week or three ago btw? Never too late dogshit.

  • StevoR

    @30. theDukedog7 : Actually I advocated empowering and educating women and reducing infant mortality and increasing average lifespans and having proper social security networks as well and indeed above those steps but yeah as part of the solutions those things sure don’t hurt and do help somewhat. You disagree?

  • StevoR

    Also access to contraception and family panning for all women globally – big point and factor in population control.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @StevoR:

    I’m still trying to figure this out:

    Do you advocate “abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment” for the purpose of population control?

    It’s not often one comes across such views–at least such views openly expressed, nowadays. Perhaps that’s why you post anonymously.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @StevoR:

    I like empowering and educating women. I teach at the post graduate level and I and have daughters.

    You advocate “abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment” for the purpose of population control (!) … “as part of the solutions those things sure don’t hurt and do help somewhat.”

    Killing defenseless people in the womb, in the hospital and in prisons is a “solution” for overpopulation?

    Final “solutions” is more apt.

    Sometimes the mask slips. Be careful of that.

  • carpenterman

    Hey, at least he’s not some Johnny-come-lately bigot who’s all bent out of shape about gays because they’re what’s hot right now. He holds on to his traditional, time honored prejudices: dark skinned people. The kind of discriminatory thinking that made America what it is today.

  • Nick Gotts

    Michael Egnor the slanderous liar@18,

    A trillion billion quadrillion is 10 to the power 36. Let’s say these people average 10 kg (absurdly low of course); that’s 100 people to the metric tonne, so that number of people would have a total mass of at least 10 to the power 34 metric tons. The sun’s mass is around 10 to the power 27 tonnes. So you think the earth might support a mass of people at least 10 million times that of the sun. So,you’re a complete fuckwit as well as a slanderous liar, as if we didn’t already know that.

    @20

    Nick the Malthusian trying to tap dance around his own viewpoints

    Repeating a lie does not make it true, Michael Egnor the slanderous liar. I believe there’s something in the religion you follow – or perhaps that should be, pretend to follow – that forbids bearing false witness, which is what you are doing.

    Whether you support outlawing contraception is beside the point, and I did not intend to imply that you did, although I see that my use of “allowing contraception” could be interpreted that way. I apologise for that unintended misrepresentation. The point is, that at some point the population will stop rising, either because the death rate rises, or the birth rate falls; and in practice, the latter is only at all plausible by separating sex from procreation – except when people want to procreate. This could happen by means other than artificial contraception – potentially fertile couples might limit themselves to oral, anal or non-penetrative sex – but of course you’re against that too. So the only two options you leave us with for the rise in population halting – which as you know as well as I do, must happen at some point – are for people to stop having sex almost entirely, or for the death rate to rise. If you were an honest person, you would acknowledge that this is the logical outcome of your position, as would your church. But you are not an honest perosn, as we’ve seen here; you are a slanderous liar.

  • dingojack

    Alverant (#1) – 22 minutes.

    Still worshipping your ‘anti-Semitic’ god and his earthly mouthpiece*, Lil’ Dookiedawg?

    Dingo

    ———

    * ‘The work of justice will be peace’, eh?

  • Nick Gotts

    I oppose contraception on moral grounds – Michael Egnor the slanderous liar@20

    What a coincidence: so did Malthus.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Nick the Malthusian:

    [So you think the earth might support a mass of people at least 10 million times that of the sun.]

    That’s ridiculous. No more than a mass 9 million times that of the sun, and it’d be pretty packed. Maybe England really would cease to exist, or sink maybe.

    Paul Ehrlich could write a sequel: “The Population Mother-Of-All-Bombs–We’re Not Just Junk-Science Cranks This Time!”.

    I love population ‘science’.

  • Anna Elizabeth

    I understand, and support, the principle of pushing back against liars and haters, but:

    is allowing this worthless trolling Catholic asshole to derail *every* thread really worth it?

  • John Pieret

    Dukedog:

    Killing defenseless people in the womb

    Out of curiosity, do you think a single-cell zygote can be classed as “people” under the law (remembering your own distinction between what you believe is morally wrong and what should be legally wrong)? Where, then, Doctor, do you draw the line between zygote and birthed baby where the law, rather than your own moral sense, can draw the line?

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance

    Abortion today, abortion tomorrow, abortion to the far horizon, abortion forever.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Anna:

    [is allowing this worthless trolling Catholic asshole to derail *every* thread really worth it?]

    Wasn’t the name of this blog “Dispatches from the Culture Wars”? I present to you: The Culture War.

    You seem to have problems in a real debate. Perhaps you’d prefer a blog named “Dispatches from the Echo Chamber”

    It’d be a safe space, with fewer microagressions.

  • colnago80

    Re Anna Elizabeth @ #41

    For the most part, I am reluctant to advising a blog’s administrator to give someone the heave ho, going so far as to oppose giving John Kwok the heave ho at several blogs. However, IMHO Egnorance merits the heave ho at least as much as Larry Fafarman, Colin Brendemuehl, and Don Williams did.

  • dingojack

    Assuming you could use the whole surface of the earth:

    510 billion would give approximately 0.1h each person. That’s 33.159e12 kg (assuming an average mass of 65kg) or about 5.5525e-12 of an Earth mass.

    Dingo

  • Nick Gotts

    Michael Egnor the slanderous liar @40,

    Feeble attempts at levity do not hide the facts that you are a slanderous liar, a moral and intellectual coward, a complete fuckwit, and in agreement with Malthus over contraception.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @@ #44

    Brayton gave Don Williams the heave ho for a lot less serious assholery then you have displayed. At least ole Donaldo provided some light comic relief with his conspiracy theories.

  • zenlike

    Strange, in a debate, normally you should engage with your opponents arguments. I made some. No answer. Could it be Egnor is not really interested in debate?

  • Anna Elizabeth

    @dukedog – I don’t engage in debate with worthless lying, haters.

    This world that idiots like dukedog, and seemingly every other right-winger, religious cult member, and anyone that lives with privilege lives in, is just about over. Only assholes and losers will miss it.

    It’s one thing to look at all valid points of view, and contrarian opinions are valuable, but for a racist, homophobic sack of monkey-semen to derail every discussion with stupidity and lies is just too much.

  • colnago80

    Re Nick Gotts @ #47

    Come on now, tell us how you really feel about Egnorance.

  • colnago80

    Re dingojack @ #46

    The earth’s surface is about 75%, which is not available for us at least until we redevelop gills.

  • colnago80

    Ah shit,#52 should read 75% water. Editing function needed.

  • whheydt

    TheDukeDog7 probably opposes state supported retirement at age 65….because that was a *German* “invention”. It was instituted by Otto von Bismark, aka “The Iron Chancellor”.

    As for the actual subject of this thread, I am given to understand that the common pattern in parts of San Diego County is for middle- and upper-class Mexicans to rent or buy houses in the area and move their families into them as a means to avoid some of the risks (e.g. drug gang violence) of living in Mexican border areas. Note that this is NOT Section 8 housing, but market rate.

  • StevoR

    @34. Duke Dogshit : ” Perhaps that’s why you post anonymously.”

    Says someone hiding behind a much more anonymous nymn even though most of us have l already guessed pretty well who you are Dr Egnorance! If you want to know who I am it really ain’t that hard to find out. I’ve made that even easier – by quite a bit – than you have in my life and choice of nymn Dogshit.

    (Although there are at least a few people who share my RL name so please do focus on me if you must and not them.)

  • dingojack

    SLC – precisely.

    BTW – a trillion billion quadrillion (or 1e36) persons would have (again assuming a total use of the Earth’s surface) 5.1014e-4 square nanometers per person. The Earth would have approx. 21,745,676 Solar Masses of extra mass (assuming each person is 65Kg). That can’t be good in terms of planetary dynamics…

    Dingo

  • StevoR

    .. Or ecology.

    Talk about a monoculture and lack of biodiversity!

  • StevoR

    @dingojack #56.

  • dingojack

    When LilDookieDawg hears the word ‘monoculture’ he reaches for his gun*.

    Dingo

    ———

    * although, mainly as a penis substitute…

  • theguy

    I see DerpDog is shitting all over the comments again.

    The world isn’t currently overpopulated – hypothetically there is a limit to how many people our technology can sustain. That technological capacity might increase – but then I expect right-wingers like DerpDog to complain about “redistribution” and “moochers” if he’s at all consistent.

  • colnago80

    Re dingojack @ #56

    If the earth had as little as 100 solar masses, it would have turned into a supernova a long time ago.

  • dingojack

    SLC – precisely.

    :) Dingo

  • theguy

    And another thing – I’m totally opposed to any coercive methods of preventing pregnancy – forced sterilization, forced abortion, etc. but access to free or subsidized contraception can actually help women. They can delay child-bearing, attend college and earn more money, putting them in a better place, financially, to raise children. This would benefit people of all races and help more minorities reach middle-class status.

    Of course, I expect DerpDog to twist my words into something bad.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @guy:

    [And another thing – I’m totally opposed to any coercive methods of preventing pregnancy – forced sterilization, forced abortion, etc. but access to free or subsidized contraception can actually help women]

    That’s nice. Being opposed to coerced birth control is part of the entry requirement into “morally non-repugnant human being”. It’s noteworthy that Lefties have to assure us of this–“Hey I’m a Leftist but I don’t really support forced abortion and infanticide.” If you spoke up spontaneously against atrocities like China’s One Child Policy people might take your moral scruples a bit more seriously.

    There is no such thing, by the way, as “free contraception”. Someone always has to pay for it. I say: if you want it, pay for it yourself. Why should I pay for your risk-free orgasms?

    A note on all the nascent censors on this thread: I find it hilarious that on a blog called “DIspatches from the Culture Wars” that so many Lefties would be so reluctant to engage… the Culture War.

    Maybe it has something to do with the fact that when your smug tropes are challenged, you don’t really have much intelligent to say. On this thread, for example, I merely pointed out that Michael Savage is a piker compared to population controllers when it comes to racial supremacy and advocacy of crimes against humanity.

    But you little Malthusians would rather pat yourselves on the back about your ‘science’ than examine the real history and rationale of your ideology.

    Michael Savage at his worst is Mother Theresa compared to you guys.

  • John Pieret

    Dukedog @ 44:

    Wasn’t the name of this blog “Dispatches from the Culture Wars”? I present to you: The Culture War.

    Fair enough. But then you have to defend your assertions … not just assert them!

    Back @42, I asked you a perfectly reasonable question with (for me) surprisingly no snark whatsoever. You haven’t deigned to answer.

    Your right to post here is dependent on Ed’s magnanimity. But the rest of us are free to point out you are a poseur pretending to intellectual acumen you don’t possess and, therefore, we can reasonably ask the proprietor to relieve us of your pretense.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @65:

    [Out of curiosity, do you think a single-cell zygote can be classed as “people” under the law (remembering your own distinction between what you believe is morally wrong and what should be legally wrong)? Where, then, Doctor, do you draw the line between zygote and birthed baby where the law, rather than your own moral sense, can draw the line?]

    A human being begins at fertilization and ends at natural death. That’s a biological fact.

    This is my opinion: all human beings are persons. All persons have the right to have their lives protected by law. That includes fertilized zygotes.

    Your opinion: not all human beings are persons. Human beings have to pass entrance requirements (age, intelligence, whatever) to be considered persons under the law.

    Many doctors have shared your definition of persons, in which human beings had to fit into specific categories in order to have legal protection of their lives. Several of those doctors were hanged at Nuremberg.

  • The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge

    The turd of shit @ 64:

    Michael Savage at his worst is Mother Theresa compared to you guys.

    Well, since “Mother” Teresa was an evil, crazy bitch who flew all over the world promoting herself with the money contributed to help the poor, whom she instead allowed to die in agony–their pain being “a gift from God”–I accept your compliment.

  • zenlike

    Yes, and now pro-choice people are compared to the Nazis.

    Egnor, just shut the fuck up. You are an idiot.

  • dingojack

    And where & when*, pray tell Lil’ DookieDawg, did you speak up against this horror-show? Or against the physical, psychological & sexual abuse of children by the Catholic Church?

    Oh that’s right getting kids born is paramount, but letting them die of neglect and deliberate harm well that’s just “god’s way”, right?

    @@ Dingo

    —————-

    * specifically (links are required)

  • The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge

    And another “Brain Surgeon” (snerk!) who can’t spell “blockquote”. Hey, numbnuts! When you’re quoting somebody:

    <blockquote>Quoted Material Here</blockquote> yields:

    Quoted Material Here

  • dmcclean

    There may well be a limit on the number of people the earth can sustain. Perhaps a trillion billion quadrillion, tops.

    We can’t actually know the limit, because your science is crap.

    If the entire mass of earth were converted into a trillion billion quadrillion people, each such person would weigh on average 60 nanograms. A human zygote weighs (according to wikipedia) about a microgram, so even Egnor’s theories on what constitutes a “person” can’t begin to rescue this claim.

    And yet, it’s our science that’s “crap”. What then is his?

  • dingojack

    So Lil’ DookieDawg – you’re as ignorant on the law as on every other subject that has been discussed – good to know.

    Your opinions are being weighed, in terms of their veracity and creditability, based on the level of knowledge you display, you do know that, don’t you?

    Dingo

  • theDukedog7 .

    @zen-unlike:

    [now pro-choice people are compared to the Nazis.]

    The American eugenics movement, which was the precursor of the pro-abortion movement in the US (Margaret Sanger was a pioneer in eugenics before she founded Planned Parenthood), was the model used by the Nazis to begin their T4 euthanasia program, which ultimately exterminated 250,000 handicapped people (mostly children) in Germany. The Nazis openly acknowledged their debt to American eugenicists, who were the precursors to Planned Parenthood.

    http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php

    “Every Child a Wanted Child”–a modern Planned Parenthood slogan–was a eugenics slogan coined by Frederick Osborn, a founder of the American Eugenics Society.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/it_did_happen_h078231.html

    Are you enjoying this Culture War? At least you get an education.

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

    I have to apologize. I was unaware earlier that my milkshake would bring all the boys to the yard.

  • dmcclean

    Colnago80:

    For the most part, I am reluctant to advising a blog’s administrator to give someone the heave ho, going so far as to oppose giving John Kwok the heave ho at several blogs.

    LOL, why ever could that be? Ignorant one-track thread-derailing trolls unite!

  • Anri

    theDukedog7 @ 73:

    The Nazis openly acknowledged their debt to American eugenicists, who were the precursors to Planned Parenthood.

    They were also pretty chummy with the Catholic Church, ergo, by the same logic, all Catholics must be Nazis.

    Careful paining with a broad brush, you might get messier than you planned.

  • dingojack

    The American eugenics movement, … was the model used by the Nazis to begin their T4 euthanasia program…”

    Citations required.

    Dingo

  • theguy

    As I expected, ShitDog reaches further down into filth.

    “Being opposed to coerced birth control is part of the entry requirement into morally non-repugnant human being’”.

    Something you’ve failed so far, you degenerate filth. I am certainly a better person than you’ll ever be.

    “It’s noteworthy that Lefties have to assure us of this–’Hey I’m a Leftist but I don’t really support forced abortion and infanticide.’”

    I shouldn’t have to assure you – as I said above, you are going to lie about what I say, no matter what I say. I try to put the record straight in a vain attempt to head you off from your lies.

    “There is no such thing, by the way, as ‘free contraception’. Someone always has to pay for it”

    Yeah – the employees who pay into their insurance fund.

    “A note on all the nascent censors on this thread”

    Nobody’s censoring you – you haven’t said anything worthwhile anyway.

    “Maybe it has something to do with the fact that when your smug tropes are challenged”

    Smug? Me? Look in the mirror, if you have any self-awareness greater than that of a pineapple.

    “you don’t really have much intelligent to say. ”

    I gave an intelligent response, and your initial reaction, typical of all delusional right-wingers was to insist that, because I had to counter your lies, that I’m as evil as you want to believe I am.

    “Michael Savage at his worst best is Mother Theresa a drooling sadist, like DerpDog compared to you guys.”

    Also, I’m not a Malthusian.

    “This is my opinion: all human beings are persons.”

    Oh really? Even if they need food stamps? Don’t pretend that you actually give a damn about the poor.

    “Margaret Sanger was a pioneer in eugenics before she founded Planned Parenthood”

    And you know who accepted an award from Planned Parenthood? Martin Luther King Jr.

    “Are you enjoying this Culture War? At least you get an education.”

    And you think we’re smug. You couldn’t educate yourself if you got locked in the Library of Congress.

    The only thing you have to offer are lies, sneering contempt for people who are better than you could ever hope to be, and your absurd, faith-based insistence that a wanna-be genocidal, viciously homophobic and Islamophobic fascist radio host could somehow be morally better than us.

    Go somewhere else and pretend to give a damn about human rights.

  • Anna Elizabeth

    I know the theory is that we’re supposed to ignore trolls, but I am sick of endless racist, Homophobic insults from brain-dead, sheep-fucking, Bible-humping assholes that *knowingly* aid, abet, and support a cult designed to separate fools from their money while they rape children, call me vile names, and insult my intelligence, my rights to choose what I do with my own body, and my right to exist as a Bisexual.

    I think it’s time for site owners and Blog authors to decide just how many lies and insults were supposed to take from these filthy religious nuts. Straight White males might be able to laugh off trolls and insults, but the world looks different when you’re a minority.

    Fuck you “dukedog”, fuck those Pimps in the Vatican, fuck your child-raping cult, and indeed fuck *every* cult.

  • theguy

    I’d also like to add to my own @ 78. Just because shameless, self-unaware liars like DerpDog strawman my positions, lie about what I believe, doesn’t make his accusations right because I have to respond to them.

    I support equal rights for all people. For right-wingers, the belief that all fetuses are human is theoretical. Theoretical in the sense that once those fetuses are born, right-wingers label them “moochers” and “the 47%.” Need foodstamps? You’re what’s wrong with America! Universal healthcare? Let ’em die! Especially women. Need birth control to avoid having children you can’t take care of? Fuhgeddaboudit! Rape victim? Your pregnancy is a gift from the same God who wouldn’t intervene to protect you!

  • llewelly

    theDukedog:

    Why should I pay for your risk-free orgasms?

    Meanwhile, almost everyone in the thread pays with their valuable time for theDukedog’s risk-free orgasms, by cooperating with his endless derails.

  • Hoosier X

    Dukedog will be back shortly. He had to make another trip to the Sophistry Warehouse to pick up some more straw liberals and Nazi comparisons. They had a Godwin’s Law special. He’s stuck in line behind Jonah Goldberg and every Republican who is pretending he wants to be president.

  • zenlike

    Anna Elizabeth,

    Although being a straight white male, I don’t laugh of religious nuts like Egnor here. I am abhorred by their lies (which they are not supposed to engage in according to their holy book), and appalled by their smug know it all I am holier than thou attitude, while throwing all non straight white male christian a-holes who think just like themselves under the bus.

  • felidae

    Years ago, after hearing the Pope reaffirm the church’s stand on birth control, I remember musing that he would rely on traditional population control methods: war ,famine, genocide, and disease

  • colnago80

    Re felidea @ #84

    Seems to be working in Syria these days.

  • jonathangray

    John Pieret @2:

    There’s something quite perverse about a Jewish guy parroting white supremacist rhetoric

    Not in free enterprise America where he can make money doing it.

    Was that intended as an anti-semitic comment?

  • jonathangray

    Anyway, what is ‘white supremacism’? Why is it bad?

  • dingojack

    Jon-Jon (#85) – @@ (How do you manage to type?)

    (#87) – oops your privilege is showing.

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    Speaking of an inability to type, I meant Jon-Jon (#86).

    Blame the lateness (or earliness, if you’d prefer) of the hour

    Dingo

  • whheydt

    Re: the DukeDog7 @ #66,,,

    A human being begins at fertilization and ends at natural death.

    So… I take it from that that you are unalterably opposed to artificial life extension through technological means? You oppose life support devices, life saving surgery, drugs to cure diseases, drugs to control control chronic conditions, and so forth? How about brain surgery that prolongs life? Is that out of the question as well? Given your profession, you are paid to do something that you tell us you are opposed to. So much for the moral high ground. Your horse is lame.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @ #66

    If life begins at fertilization, then god is the worlds leading abortionist as 1/2 of all fertilized eggs fail to implant.

  • Michael Heath

    Anna Elizabeth writes:

    I understand, and support, the principle of pushing back against liars and haters, but: is allowing this worthless trolling Catholic asshole to derail *every* thread really worth it?

    I don’t think so; so I avoid reading his posts. I also typically avoid reading those posts responding to him. Part of this problem here is that he’s not the only troll in these threads. Of course that increases the idiocy of these threads exponentially.

  • colnago80

    re Anna Elizabeth

    You can hide comments from unwanted commentors like Egnorance using an add-on called killfile, which is available on Firefox and Chrome.

  • Anna Elizabeth

    See, the problem I have with all of this, the “trolling”, the “tone policing”, and “hiding” commenters, is that it is a system that rewards scum like dukedog, and punishes those of us that the scum attack.

    I’m of the opinion that many site owners are either stupid, or using trolls to create controversy and draw hits to their site. I’d like to be charitable and assume that most site owners simply haven’t considered the de facto situation, but it gets more difficult, when *every* site rewards trolling.

  • llewelly

    The “ignore the trolls” theology was disproven on usenet, over 20 years ago, when blogs were in there infancy. Furthermore, the tools available for automagically filtering out unwanted posts for usenet newsreaders were much more widely used, easier to use, more flexible, and you didn’t need to find a new tool for every different kind of blog.

  • dingojack

    llewelly — even the nostalgia was soooo much better, way back then! 😉

    Dingo

  • smrnda

    “There is no such thing, by the way, as “free contraception”. Someone always has to pay for it. I say: if you want it, pay for it yourself. Why should I pay for your risk-free orgasms?”

    You are making this bizarre assumption that people who will be using government funded contraception are somehow not taxpayers, as if the ONLY people who pay taxes are people who do not use contraception or those who oppose it. Why should people who plan on using contraception, who also pay taxes, not get something for their money? Do we all get equal veto power over what kind of health care others get? Can I refuse that any of my $$$ pay for people who get injured doing activities that I disapprove of?

    My take on abortion is that I am opposed to slavery, and forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will is slavery. Science also does not really say ‘a zygote is a human being’ – the idea of personhood is a social construct which, in the future, we may need to modify to include sentient beings that aren’t biologically similar to us. Having taken a few courses that dealt with embryology, I can’t really feel like a zygote is a human being.

  • dingojack

    What about women who take the pill for reason other than contraception (in order to control the growth and spread of ovarian cancers, for example), still feel justified in denying funding for them?

    Dingo

  • theDukedog7 .

    @97:

    Contraception isn’t health care, because pregnancy isn’t a disease.

    I thought you wanted the government to get out of your bedroom. It seems that you don’t mind the government forcing other people to pay for what goes on in your bedroom.

    If you want contraception, pay for it yourself. If you have a government-mandated health plan, you can pay the extra to have the plan cover contraception if you want. Nobody wants to pay for your sex life.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @79 Anna-who-nobody -asked-about-her-sex-life

    [… call me vile names, and insult my intelligence, my rights to choose what I do with my own body, and my right to exist as a Bisexual.]

    At least as a Bisexual, half the time you won’t force other people to pay for your contraception.

  • Anri

    jonathangray @ 87:

    Anyway, what is ‘white supremacism’? Why is it bad?

    See, here’s the problem with this kind of question.

    Either we assume it’s honest, and that you’re truthfully ignorant of the concept of white supremacy, and that you’re curious about it, and that you’re too stupid to google it for some basic working definitions.

    Is this the case?

    Alternately, we can assume you’re trying to disingenuously set up a ‘gotcha’ situation by playing word games with whatever answer is given you, in which case no-one who’s serious about the issue should answer you, as you’re not going to be arguing in good faith.

    Is this the case?

    (If you wanted to ask “What’s your definition of white supremacy, and who do you consider it bad?” – well, you could have just asked that. If you wanted to make an argument for or against the concept, you could have, y’know, done that. That would require arguing honestly, which I noted would be difficult for you a number of threads ago. Not much has changed, has it?)

  • Anri

    theDukedog7 @99:

    Contraception isn’t health care, because pregnancy isn’t a disease.

    Pregnancy doesn’t benefit from health care?

    Hunh, ok. Sure you wanna stick with that statement?

    Aging isn’t a disease, either, I guess we shouldn’t devote any health care resources to it either.

    Right?

    I thought you wanted the government to get out of your bedroom. It seems that you don’t mind the government forcing other people to pay for what goes on in your bedroom.

    Oh, so we get to pot out of things we don’t like paying taxes for?

    What if we’re opposed to nuclear weapons? How would someone opt out of that?

    What if we’re opposed to tax breaks for religious institutions? Should someone just calculate the amount of tax that the federal government could be collecting on the income of churches, and reduce their 401K appropriately?

    In a pluralistic society, some aspects of government that use your tax money will be going to things you don’t wholly agree with.

    Adults get this. It’s time you did too.

    If you want contraception, pay for it yourself. If you have a government-mandated health plan, you can pay the extra to have the plan cover contraception if you want. Nobody wants to pay for your sex life.

    Speak for yourself.

    I’m perfectly happy to have my tax money going for health care including contraception.

    It will sound a lot less mature to say “But I don’t wanna pay for your contraception!”, but it will be a lot more accurate.

  • dingojack

    RE: contraception as contraception: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure“.

    [See also mine #98]

    Dingo

  • whheydt

    Re: theDukeDog7 @ #99…

    I have a Titanium plate and a bunch of bolts in my leg, put there to hold everything in place while a break healed. That’s not a disease, either, but the operation and placement of the plate and bolts certainly meets *my* definition of “health care”. You seem to be using an incredibly narrow definition of “health care”.

  • Anri

    Anna Elizabeth @ 94:

    See, the problem I have with all of this, the “trolling”, the “tone policing”, and “hiding” commenters, is that it is a system that rewards scum like dukedog, and punishes those of us that the scum attack.

    I’m of the opinion that many site owners are either stupid, or using trolls to create controversy and draw hits to their site. I’d like to be charitable and assume that most site owners simply haven’t considered the de facto situation, but it gets more difficult, when *every* site rewards trolling.

    Let me try to change your mind, then.

    I argue with people like jonathangray and theDukedog7 not so much in hope of changing their minds (that does happen, occasionally, I’ve seen it – but it’s vanishingly rare) but because other people read the site beyond myself and the people I’m arguing with.

    I am 100% willing to give someone who is arguing a bad position for teh lulz the argument they are seeking to show, or remind, spectators of why their position is bad. For the record, I don’t know if folks like the ones in this thread are arguing because they believe in what they are saying or not. And I don’t care. If they feel all superior to me because I am willing to passionately engage on a topic I consider important, I say unto them Shine On You Crazy Diamond. I don’t consider getting passionate about important issues a sign of weakness.

    That’s one of the reasons I try (I do not always succeed) to argue against what is being said, rather than against my assumptions about what their motivations are behind what is being said. I’m really bad at guessing other people’s motivations, so doing so usually brings me into serious error.

    The simple fact is, that if a site visitor sees something like what I am arguing against, and then sees me, and others with better ability, arguing against it, they have reason to think about what is being argued. If they see a thread in which the arguments put forth by a troll are answered, with the troll abandoning the thread unwilling or unable to answer the arguments, they might consider the troll’s position negatively. And if they see thread after thread like this, they might consider the troll (if troll he be) a fool.

  • dmcclean

    At least as a Bisexual, half the time you won’t force other people to pay for your contraception.

    The revenge of Limbaughism. Whence this need to insist that the cost of contraception is proportional to the frequency of sex, when in fact for most forms of contraception it is not?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @106:

    [Whence this need to insist that the cost of contraception is proportional to the frequency of sex, when in fact for most forms of contraception it is not?]

    Good point. Bi-Anna could economize by alternating partners in epochs (males in odd numbered months, females…) and thereby save us 50% of her pill costs. It’s the least she could do, given that we’re paying for it.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @106:

    Contraceptive epochs for bisexuals could save the public quite a bit of money. As I recall Sandra Fluke was demanding the contraceptive resources of a small village.

  • dmcclean

    In other words, in #107, you are admitting that there was no point to your slut shaming and homophobia in #100.

    Do you see why comments like this one and #40 could lead readers to conclude that your just making shit up to provoke a reaction, and that in fact you aren’t interested in serious debate as you claim? Do you see why your repeated evasiveness when asked simple questions, preferring instead to respond with some new provocation, might contribute to the same impression?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @dmcclean:

    Aw I forgot the trigger warning.

    The views I respond to in this manner deserve nothing better than ridicule.

    You can add ‘sense of humor’ to the skills you lack.

  • dmcclean

    As I recall Sandra Fluke was demanding the contraceptive resources of a small village.

    And again. I think you know that in fact she was asking (not demanding) the “contraceptive resources” of a single person for herself, and of another single person for a friend with polycystic ovarian syndrome who required hormonal contraceptives to treat what is, inarguably, a disease. Dingojack asked you about such uses at #98 and you ignored him in favor of trotting out the “pregnancy isn’t a disease” trope and slut shaming Anna.

  • dmcclean

    What else is on this list of skills I lack? You’re the one whose carrying capacity estimate was based on converting the entire mass of the earth into 60 nanogram humans.

  • whheydt

    Re: theDuke Dog7 @ #107….

    As a doctor, would you prescribe a medication that was developed to work on an ongoing cyclical basis on an “on a month, off a month” basis? What would your state medical licensing board have to say to you if you did?

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

    Michael Heath “Part of this problem here is that he’s not the only troll in these threads. Of course that increases the idiocy of these threads exponentially.”

    And that’s my job! *Harrumph!*

     

    dmcclean “And again. I think you know that in fact she was asking (not demanding) the “contraceptive resources” of a single person for herself, and of another single person for a friend with polycystic ovarian syndrome who required hormonal contraceptives to treat what is, inarguably, a disease.”

    Exactly. She demanded free Pills for her trampy friend.

     

    “You’re the one whose carrying capacity estimate was based on converting the entire mass of the earth into 60 nanogram humans.”

    I got a nanogram once. A really tiny guy came to my door and sang “Happy Birthday” to me. Apparently I look like a monkey. In addition, I smell like one as well.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @109:

    [… there was no point to your slut shaming and homophobia}

    Slut-shaming bisexuals is only half-homophobic– ‘hemihomophobic’, to be distinguished from mild homophobia which is ‘semihomophobic’.

    Mild slut-shaming of bisexuals is semihemihomophobia.

    If the bisexual is trans it’s semihemiphomohobia.

    Respect the lexicon.

  • Anri

    See, Anna Elizabeth?

    This is exactly what I’m talking about.

    theDukedog7 is not engaging with any serious arguments, he’s simply slinging mud and trying to pass it off as edgy humor rather than good old-fashioned narrow-minded bigoted language. He’s trying to convince everyone he’s too dumb to know what he’s saying is repulsive. Really, he puts on a pretty good stupid act, but we’ve got some folk not giving him a pass on it.

    This is why we engage: to remind people that not everyone acts as rotten as theDukedog7.

  • Hoosier X

    I see dukedog got a discount on the Gish Gallop as well.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Not directed at me, but:

    More to the point, do you believe it is possible to raise the overall standard of living in China, India, Africa, and South America to western levels such as exist in the US, Canada, and Western Europe?

    I hope so. Malthus was ridiculously wrong, and the best way to stop overpopulation is to raise people out of poverty and to empower women with education, independence, and availability of birth control. Rich independent women who have access to birth control tend to have less kids than poor dependent women without access to birth control.

    @theDukedog7

    I know this has been explained to you, but Hitler firmly and unequivocably rejected Darwinian evolution, and the Nazi movement was expressly Christian and anti-Darwin. (At least, it was some weird version of Christian, but which version of Christianity isn’t weird?)

    Gott mit uns.

    You might be getting some of your information on Hitler from a known forgery. Our very own Richard Carrier identified flagrant forgery in the English version of Hitler’s table talk which is widely used in English speaking circles. Don’t trust a word of it. You have to go to the original German, which Carrier did.

    Do you advocate “abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment” for the purpose of population control?

    I believe that those policies can lead to a smaller population. I am in full support of voluntary unrestricted access to early-term abortions. I am full support of properly monitored access to voluntary euthanasia. However, I am against capital punishment because I believe the economic and technical facts of our time no longer necessitate it and the more moral and humane thing to do is incarceration for as long as is needed, which generally involves far shorter prison sentences and less things being criminal compared to the modern US. Our prison populations are ridiculously large.

    Honestly, you’re not being honest if you think it likely that anyone here actually advocates the position of your question. This is not a neo-nazi website. This is an atheistic secular humanist pro-science liberal website. Please learn the difference.

    You seem to have problems in a real debate. Perhaps you’d prefer a blog named “Dispatches from the Echo Chamber”

    That’s because you’re not honest. Already in this post I have identified several errors of yours. I know this has been explained to you before. I know you understand, yet you continue to do the same falsehoods i.e. equating Hitler with our brand of atheistic humanistic scientifically-literate liberalism. You are a liar. Conversations with habitual liars is generally not productive. I think nothing of value would be lost if I never had to engage with you again.

    Being opposed to coerced birth control is part of the entry requirement into “morally non-repugnant human being”.

    Your god does not exist. Even if your god existed, the moral thing to do would be to try to blow it up because your god as described is morally abhorrent. Nuke god!

    There is no such thing, by the way, as “free contraception”. Someone always has to pay for it. I say: if you want it, pay for it yourself. Why should I pay for your risk-free orgasms

    Because you’re a decent human being and not a libertarian? Oh wait. You see, in my world, I believe that we should help out our neighbors and try to make the world into a better place where everyone is happy, safe, materially wealthy, has the right of self determination, and so forth. I think that some degree of requiring people to work for the common good, e.g. taxes, is a required component of any plan to accomplish this goal of making the world into a better place.

    I thought you wanted the government to get out of your bedroom. It seems that you don’t mind the government forcing other people to pay for what goes on in your bedroom.

    Yea. That’s basically right. I also don’t mind forcing the government to force other people to pay for homeless shelters, food for the poor ala food stamps, free public education, and other odds and ends that will make the world into a better place.

  • jonathangray

    Anri @101:

    If you wanted to ask “What’s your definition of white supremacy, and who do you consider it bad?” – well, you could have just asked that

    That’s pretty much what I meant — I thought it was sufficiently implied by my original formulation. Obviously I was wrong!

    You see, my problem is that “white supremacism” (much like “racism”) strikes me a nebulous term which all too often serves to obfuscate rather than clarify. More often than not, it’s merely a form of moral status-signalling — “So-and-so is a white supremacist” doesn’t mean “So-and-so believes x, y and z” — understood as the prelude to dispassionate discussion and analysis — but “So-and-so is a bad person whose views can safely be ignored”.

    I have seen the term “white supremacism” applied to quite a wide range of sentiments, opinions & beliefs, some of which strike me as innocuous, some positively virtuous, others wrong-headed, others downright vicious.

    I have seen each of the following defined as a white supremacist at one time or another:

    1.) Someone who believes there is a ‘white race’, ie that races exist.

    2.) Someone who believes white people are differentiated from non-white peoples by cognitive ability, understood as a heritable genetic factor.

    3.) Someone who believes white people have an intrinsically superior moral or spiritual character to non-whites, are a master race of Hyperborean supermen descended from the Sun God etc

    4.) Someone who believes that some, most or all of the civilisations created by white people are culturally superior to some, most or all non-white civilisations.

    5.) Someone who believes that a largely homogenous white society — with all the ‘white privilege’ that necessarily entails — is fine in principle and that indigenous whites have a right to defend such a culture from those who would destroy it. The frequent corollary of this is that ethnically homogenous societies in general actually tend to be less dysfunctional than ethnically diverse societies.

  • jonathangray

    EnlightenmentLiberal @118:

    the Nazi movement was expressly Christian and anti-Darwin. (At least, it was some weird version of Christian, but which version of Christianity isn’t weird?)

    “Some weird version of Christianity” that was clearly opposed to one particular “version of Christianity” …

  • zenlike

    So we now have one liar for jeebus on this thread, and one white supremacist.

    Fantastic.

    Egnor,

    You know damn well that contraceptives can have other medical uses than birth control. Fluke was even asking for that, for here friend who has a medical condition requiring contraceptives. At this point, you are just straight up lying. Something which is supposed to be a big no-no in your religion.

    jonathangray,

    From your past posts it has become pretty clear you are a white supremacist. Your own words and JAQing of have made that perfectly clear.

  • jonathangray

    zenlike:

    So we now have one liar for jeebus on this thread, and one white supremacist.

    … From your past posts it has become pretty clear you are a white supremacist. Your own words and JAQing of have made that perfectly clear.

    … he argued.

    (You should reflect on Anri’s words above: “I try (I do not always succeed) to argue against what is being said, rather than against my assumptions about what their motivations are behind what is being said. I’m really bad at guessing other people’s motivations, so doing so usually brings me into serious error.”)

  • zenlike

    jonathangray,

    I don’t have to guess anymore. Your past words have shown time and time again a person who is both racist, anti-gay, and a general bigot.

    I don’t have to guess to your motivations. Your own words have shown what kind of hateful person you are.

  • Anri

    EnlightenmentLiberal @118:

    At least, it was some weird version of Christian, but which version of Christianity isn’t weird?

    So long as we take “some weird version of Christianity” to mean Catholicism.

    . . .

    jonathangray @ 122:

    Yep, I’m unwilling to say that you’re a white supremacist.

    Just that many or your arguments make you indistinguishable from one. And that you’re apparently fine with that. I don’t feel the need to draw further conclusions.

  • jonathangray

    In other words, you have nothing.

    Mouthing cliched slogans coupled with blustering moralistic denunciation ≠ refutation.

  • Anna Elizabeth

    I guess that idiotic Monkey-spunk for brains Catholic spent all night thinking about my sex life, huh?

    Hey assholes, you don’t like “paying for my birth control”? *I* don’t like subsidizing your child-raping houses of hate, otherwise known as churches. So fuck you, and the Pimp of Rome you rode in on.

    I gotta get some coffee, and wash out some things.

  • jonathangray

    @125 was addressed to zenlike @123, but I fear applies equally well to Anri @124.

    — Unless, Anri, you’re willing to engage seriously and explain which (if any) of the five positions I listed above qualify as ‘white supremacism’; and whether (and why) they’re morally repugnant in your opinion. For my part, I regard one of them as both false and morally repugnant; another as a purely scientific claim the truth or falsity of which is independent of ethical considerations.

    + + +

    Anri:

    At least, [National Socialism] was some weird version of Christian, but which version of Christianity isn’t weird?

    So long as we take “some weird version of Christianity” to mean Catholicism.

    What does this mean? That NS was essentially Catholic? That Catholicism is the only “version of Christianity” that is weird? That Catholicism is the weirdest “version of Christianity”?

  • Anri

    jonathangray @ 127:

    White supremacy is a variable term, and even self-declared white supremacists will give you differing version of what it means.

    A decent working definition is the belief that people with less melanin in their skin deserve to be in charge, and people with more deserve not to be.

    My comment about Catholicism in regards to Nazism was just to make the point that in the eyes of many Nazis (including the founders) and in the eyes of many Catholics (including, apparently, the Pope), one could easily be a good Catholic and a good Nazi simultaneously. And that the people doing that didn’t consider it “weird”.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Anna-who-announces-her-sexual-preferences-for-some-bizarre-reason

    [I guess that idiotic Monkey-spunk for brains Catholic spent all night thinking about my sex life, huh?]

    Don’t flatter yourself.

    [Hey assholes… So fuck you, and the Pimp of Rome you rode in on. I gotta get some coffee, and wash out some things.]

    Your mouth?

  • jonathangray

    Anri:

    A decent working definition is the belief that people with less melanin in their skin deserve to be in charge, and people with more deserve not to be.

    OK, but that raises two obvious questions to put to our hypothetical white supremacist: In charge of what? and: Why do you deserve it?

    If the answer is: “Of everything basically, because we’re the master race” — then you and I would agree our white supremacist is a fool and possibly a wicked one.

    But if the answer is: “White people deserve to wield cultural hegemony in historically white nations as a matter of natural justice” — then I don’t see how you can condemn that without also condemning the belief that African or Asian countries have a right to preserve their African/Asian ethnicity. Do you deplore Africa’s black privilege and demand to know why there aren’t more white faces in positions of power and influence? Do you call for China or Japan to remove all border controls immediately?

    Bottom line: is an ethinic homogeneity intrinsically unjust or undesirable?

  • Anna Elizabeth

    I hope that someday, the cult leaders and those that knowingly abet them face real justice for their crimes. I want to see the fairest of trials, good honest lawyers and judges, so when these cultists are found guilty, they may be punished cleanly.

    I recommend a very old punishment, appropriate to the religious history of Xtians – burning at the stake.

  • zenlike

    jonathangray says

    In other words, you have nothing.

    Mouthing cliched slogans coupled with blustering moralistic denunciation ≠ refutation.

    I have your own past comments. You do realise they are still available right?

  • jonathangray

    Anna Elizabeth:

    I hope that someday, the cult leaders and those that knowingly abet them face real justice for their crimes. I want to see the fairest of trials, good honest lawyers and judges, so when these cultists are found guilty, they may be punished cleanly.

    I recommend a very old punishment, appropriate to the religious history of Xtians – burning at the stake.

    If you’re referring to those Catholic prelates who committed and/or enabled pederastic crimes, many ultra-conservative Catholics would agree with you.

  • Anna Elizabeth

    Ultra-conservative Catholics that continue to patronize and support the Church should face the same trial, you racist fool.

    Along with the Protestant and LDS members that fill collection plates and tithe in support of those hateful cults. I’m not playing favorites.

    I’m talking justice.

  • jonathangray

    zenlike:

    I have your own past comments. You do realise they are still available right?

    Which of my comments shows me to be a “hateful person”?

    + + +

    Anna Elizabeth:

    Ultra-conservative Catholics that continue to patronize and support the Church should face the same trial, you racist fool.

    Do you understand that Catholics believe the Catholic Church to be more than the sum of its members? And that the truth or falsity of Catholic teaching is in no way dependent on the moral probity of individual Catholics, clerical or lay?

    Along with the Protestant and LDS members that fill collection plates and tithe in support of those hateful cults. I’m not playing favorites.

    What about the US public school system or the UK social services and political elites?

    I’m talking justice.

    You’re ranting incoherently. That serves zero purpose, except as an emotional release for you.

    Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/06/06/savage-goes-full-on-white-supremacist-again/#ixzz3cOMFm9td

  • StevoR

    @36. carpenterman :

    Hey, at least he’s not some Johnny-come-lately bigot who’s all bent out of shape about gays because they’re what’s hot right now. He holds on to his traditional, time honored prejudices: dark skinned people. The kind of discriminatory thinking that made America what it is today.

    Who are you referring to as ‘he’ there?

    I am certainly NOT racist at all rather quite the opposite and I support the rights of African-Americans, Indigenous Australians such as the Kaurna and Peramangk peoples who first inhabited the land where I live and other ethnic groups to be treated as equals and with respect.

    Scientifically, I understand that the notion of race is humbug, in cultural terms racism and the notions that people be treated differently and badly on the basis of their skin colour and other physical variations is very real and very harmful.

  • StevoR

    PS. Note carpenterman that I’m an Aussie not an American although the dispossession and genocides against Indigenous people such as the Native Americans, First Australians, Canadians , Incans , Aztecs and others is a common feature of many nations historically colonised by the Europeans. This shouldn’t go unrecognised and we should attempt to improve and educate things in all such cases.

  • Anri

    jonathangray @130:

    OK, but that raises two obvious questions to put to our hypothetical white supremacist: In charge of what? and: Why do you deserve it?

    And, as I said, the answers would vary from one to another.

    I don’t assume all white supremacists think alike, and many tend to wrap their distaste for “lesser” people’s in highly academic language.

    I really don’t need any sort of overall definition to operate against ideas like that when I see them, personally.

    If you’re looking for a definition, why not pop by self-proclaimed white supremacist websites and see what they say about themselves?

    If the answer is: “Of everything basically, because we’re the master race” — then you and I would agree our white supremacist is a fool and possibly a wicked one.

    But if they manage to get to this identical conclusion by a more roundabout method, they’re just fine, right?

    But if the answer is: “White people deserve to wield cultural hegemony in historically white nations as a matter of natural justice” — then I don’t see how you can condemn that without also condemning the belief that African or Asian countries have a right to preserve their African/Asian ethnicity. Do you deplore Africa’s black privilege and demand to know why there aren’t more white faces in positions of power and influence? Do you call for China or Japan to remove all border controls immediately?

    What aspects of “white culture” do you see as being threatened?

    What area of the world are “historically white”? The Americas?

    I also seem to recall white people not noticeably lacking in positions of power in Africa and Asia prior to the reduction in colonialism. Is India a “historically white” nation because it has been ruled by white English for a substantial period of time? If a place’s culture of color is determined by the majority of population rather than it’s ruling class, is Texas a “white” place? Was it a “white” place prior to being colonized by Europeans?

    Bottom line: is an ethinic homogeneity intrinsically unjust or undesirable?

    The answers are: In the real world, it is almost always enforced unjustly, and therefore undesirable.

    What is “white culture” anyway? German? Russian? British? Italian? Are Jews “white”? Are they “white” if they act one way, but not if they act another way? Is Jazz “white”? Folk? Rock-n-Roll? Is Vanilla Ice “white”?

    If it all comes down to “culture”, can you change “cultural race” by acting in a different way? Can a black person become white by certain forms of behavior? Or is cultural race inherent?

    I know this is a lot of questions, and I apologize. You certainly don’t have to engage them all if you don’t want to / don’t have time to.

  • StevoR

    @119. jonathangray :

    I have seen the term “white supremacism” applied to quite a wide range of sentiments, opinions & beliefs, some of which strike me as innocuous, some positively virtuous, others wrong-headed, others downright vicious.

    1.) Someone who believes there is a ‘white race’, ie that races exist.

    2.) Someone who believes white people are differentiated from non-white peoples by cognitive ability, understood as a heritable genetic factor.

    3.) Someone who believes white people have an intrinsically superior moral or spiritual character to non-whites, are a master race of Hyperborean supermen descended from the Sun God etc

    4.) Someone who believes that some, most or all of the civilisations created by white people are culturally superior to some, most or all non-white civilisations.

    5.) Someone who believes that a largely homogenous white society — with all the ‘white privilege’ that necessarily entails — is fine in principle and that indigenous whites have a right to defend such a culture from those who would destroy it. The frequent corollary of this is that ethnically homogenous societies in general actually tend to be less dysfunctional than ethnically diverse societies.

    Empahasis added.

    Which of those definitions of ‘white supremacist’ do you :

    I) Believe is correct or most correct

    II) Is “positively virtuous”

    III) Would you consider the same definition positively virtuous and true if it was asserted about another generalised ethnic meta-group eg. dark skinned Africans, Indians (Indian Indians), Jewish people et cetera? If not why not?

  • StevoR

    FWIW My own definition of white supremacist would be people who think that “white people” are generally intrinsically better than other non-white humans – making them by definition racist and wrong. So I guess an amalgam of your 2, 3 & 4. Your 1 seems a necessary precursor condition for believing in White Supremacism -or indeed any other kind of racism – but not a defining trait. Your 5 strikes me as a rationalisation for the other definitions and as requiring enemies who are out to destroy the “white race” which is simply incorrect.

    BTW. Thinking there is a definition of White Supremacist that’s “positively virtuous” is probably one thing (likely among a great many things) that makes people consider you are one or think better of them than most folks do.

  • smrnda

    “Contraception isn’t health care, because pregnancy isn’t a disease.”

    Pregnancy IS a disease. It’s recognized as a disability. The symptoms experience during pregnancy make it a disease.

    The argument that it is an imposition for tax money to pay for contraception because some people object to it, if taken to its logical conclusion, would end in total anarchy since *someone* will object to pretty much all things funded by tax money. If a city decides to plant some trees in a park, there will be people who do not support the action. Why should people get veto power over contraception and not over anything else?

    Sex should be considered an activity that people are expected to engage in, and medical treatments to minimize the risks should be covered, the same way health care would cover an injury if someone gets hurt falling off a bicycle.

  • Rick Pikul

    @llewelly

    The “ignore the trolls” theology was disproven on usenet, over 20 years ago, when blogs were in there infancy.

    Yes and no: The ‘standard advice’ works on trolls when you are using the narrow definition of troll[1], (someone who is posting purely to get a reaction). The problem with the advice comes from lumping in things like mission posters, abusers who are trying to silence people, idiots who are throwing a decade long[2] hissy-fit, etc. under the label of ‘troll’.

    The key thing is that it only works when it is the reaction that the person wants, if they want something else it isn’t going to work.

    [1] Although you do often have to maintain the non-reaction as the troll escalates.

    [2] And still counting.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @jonathangray

    Do you understand that Catholics believe the Catholic Church to be more than the sum of its members? And that the truth or falsity of Catholic teaching is in no way dependent on the moral probity of individual Catholics, clerical or lay?

    Do you understand that I don’t care what bullshit excuses that they use when supporting an organization that rapes children and systematically protects the rapists and enables the rapists to do it again? Or systemically spreads lies in Africa and elsewhere about condoms and AIDS which probably has resulted in hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths of innocent people? That’s comparable to genocide.

    Their fantasies about gods is not a sufficient moral excuse for this behavior.

    Bottom line: is an ethinic homogeneity intrinsically unjust or undesirable?

    I don’t know what that means. I’d rather evaluate the laws and policies that would get us to that state rather than the state itself. An accidental state of ethnic purity is not in and of itself bad. Rather, laws and policies that lead to that state and preserve that state are almost invariably bad.

    2.) Someone who believes white people are differentiated from non-white peoples by cognitive ability, understood as a heritable genetic factor.

    Reliable citations please.

  • Nick Gotts

    Interesting that we have two Catholic bigots in the same thread, and yet the one who was expressing his outrage at racsim (Michael Egnor the slanderous liar) has nothing whatever to say about the white supremacist (Jonathan Gray). Anyhow, for both of them, here’s an extract from the statement the German Catholic hierarchy ordered all priests to read from their pulpits in 1937:

    “the fateful hour has come for our nation and for the Christian culture of the western world. The Fuhrer saw the march of Bolshevism from afar and turned his mind and energies towards averting this enormous danger from the German people and the whole western world. The German bishops consider it their duty to do their utmost to support the leader of the Reich with every available means in this defense.”

    Of course this came in the wake of the concordat between the Planned Parenthood Federation Roman Catholic Church and the Nazis, and the vote by the Catholic Centre Party for the Enabling Act that made Hitler dictator.

    Michael Egnor the slanderous liar and egregious hypocrite claims that because early pioneers of access to artificial contraception were racist, and some advocates of such access still are, any sincere anti-racist should oppose artificial contraception – although there is of course no logic at all to this. Nazi Germany was a pioneer in opposition to smoking: must sincere anti-Nazis oppose any and all measures to reduce it? Michael Egnor the slanderous liar and egregious hypocrite is, unsurprisingly, particularly fond of using examples drawn from Nazi Germany in his attempts to smear liberals and progressives. Yet he is happy to belong to a church which aided and abetted Hitler – after having done the same for Mussolini – and which never excommunicated Catholic leaders of fascism and Nazism for their crimes, nor called for Catholics to refuse the orders of fascist and Nazi regimes. But by his own 2logic”, no sincereranti-Nazi could possibly be a Catholic.

  • colnago80

    Re Nick Gotts @ #144

    In addition, Egnorance’s church promulgates the big lie that condoms are ineffective in preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa. Au Contraire, they are 98% effective in preventing transmission of HIV-1.

  • jonathangray

    Anri @138:

    I don’t assume all white supremacists think alike, and many tend to wrap their distaste for “lesser” people’s in highly academic language.

    I really don’t need any sort of overall definition to operate against ideas like that when I see them, personally.

    Do you believe each of the five positions I listed above can fairly be called a white supremacist position?

    Do you believe each of these positions is morally deplorable?

    If the answer is: “Of everything basically, because we’re the master race” — then you and I would agree our white supremacist is a fool and possibly a wicked one.

    But if they manage to get to this identical conclusion by a more roundabout method, they’re just fine, right?

    Wrong.

    What aspects of “white culture” do you see as being threatened?

    Pretty much all of them.

    “The waves break on the shores of England. The white cliffs stand against the void. We gaze seaward, contemplating the night journey … In the north a howling chaos into which a bleak rain falls without ceasing. Now is the time of departure. The last streamer that ties us to what is known parts. We drift into a sea of storms.”

    What area of the world are “historically white”? The Americas?

    Primarily Europe. The Americas since colonisation.

    I also seem to recall white people not noticeably lacking in positions of power in Africa and Asia prior to the reduction in colonialism. Is India a “historically white” nation because it has been ruled by white English for a substantial period of time?

    No. It’s a non-white nation that was ruled by a white nation for a substantial period of time.

    If a place’s culture of color is determined by the majority of population rather than it’s ruling class, is Texas a “white” place?

    Not sure what you mean by “culture of color”, but I would say Texas is white, yes.

    Was it a “white” place prior to being colonized by Europeans?

    No.

    Bottom line: is an ethinic homogeneity intrinsically unjust or undesirable?

    The answers are: In the real world, it is almost always enforced unjustly, and therefore undesirable.

    Citations?

    What is “white culture” anyway?

    One produced by white people.

    German? Russian? British? Italian?

    Sure.

    Are Jews “white”? Are they “white” if they act one way, but not if they act another way?

    Jews are sui generis whether one considers them white or not.

    Is Jazz “white”?

    As far as I know, it’s a fusion of black and white influences.

    Folk?

    European folk music, sure.

    Rock-n-Roll?

    As jazz above.

    Is Vanilla Ice “white”?

    Who?

    If it all comes down to “culture”, can you change “cultural race” by acting in a different way? Can a black person become white by certain forms of behavior? Or is cultural race inherent?

    I don’t think “it” all comes down to culture, neither do I think “it” is solely a matter of race. Different physical attributes (skin colour etc) are not the whole of what constitutes ethic identities, or even the most important element, but they are a part nonetheless.

  • jonathangray

    StevoR @139:

    Which of those definitions of ‘white supremacist’ do you :

    I) Believe is correct or most correct

    II) Is “positively virtuous”

    III) Would you consider the same definition positively virtuous and true if it was asserted about another generalised ethnic meta-group eg. dark skinned Africans, Indians (Indian Indians), Jewish people et cetera? If not why not?

    1.) Someone who believes there is a ‘white race’, ie that races exist.

    I believe that to be true and of no intrinsic moral significance. [Ditto for other ethnic groups.]

    2.) Someone who believes white people are differentiated from non-white peoples by cognitive ability, understood as a heritable genetic factor.

    I haven’t read sufficiently to be able to form a definite opinion as to whether that’s true or not. I will say that, given the facts of natural selection, it would be tantamount to a miracle if it were not true. If true, I would say it has no intrinsic moral significance. [Ditto etc]

    3.) Someone who believes white people have an intrinsically superior moral or spiritual character to non-whites, are a master race of Hyperborean supermen descended from the Sun God etc

    I don’t believe that and regard it as a pernicious belief. [Ditto etc]

    4.) Someone who believes that some, most or all of the civilisations created by white people are culturally superior to some, most or all non-white civilisations.

    I believe that some of the civilisations created by white people are culturally superior to all non-white civilisations. But I also believe that some of the civilisations created by white people are culturally inferior to most non-white civilisations. So I’m not sure if I qualify as a No 4 white supremacist or not.

    (The exquisite irony is, if I am a No 4 white supremacist, so are a good many folk here. The values FTBers typically exalt as among the pinnacles of civilisation — liberty, equality, human rights, feminism, anti-racism, affirmation of homosexuality et al — are all the products of a white Western cultural milieu which has exported them to unenlightened corners of the globe with an evangelistic fervour surpassing any Victorian missionary.)

    5.) Someone who believes that a largely homogenous white society — with all the ‘white privilege’ that necessarily entails — is fine in principle and that indigenous whites have a right to defend such a culture from those who would destroy it. …

    I believe this to be true and would regard defending such a society (within the bounds of reason and charity) to be virtuous. [Ditto etc]

    … The frequent corollary of this is that ethnically homogenous societies in general actually tend to be less dysfunctional than ethnically diverse societies.

    I can give citations if required!

  • jonathangray

    StevoR @140:

    My own definition of white supremacist would be people who think that “white people” are generally intrinsically better than other non-white humans – making them by definition racist and wrong. So I guess an amalgam of your 2, 3 & 4.

    I’m not sure about that. Many of those who believe 2 are quick to claim that Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese have superior cognitive abilities to white Caucasians.

    Your 1 seems a necessary precursor condition for believing in White Supremacism -or indeed any other kind of racism – but not a defining trait.

    Agreed. Of course that doesn’t mean it necessarily leads to a belief in white supremacism (according to your definition). Or that it’s false.

    Your 5 strikes me as a rationalisation for the other definitions and as requiring enemies who are out to destroy the “white race” which is simply incorrect.

    Whether or not there are self-defined enemies of the white race “out to destroy” it, would you not accept it is at least conceivable that social currents, often underpinned by ideology, might tend towards that end?

    Thinking there is a definition of White Supremacist that’s “positively virtuous” is probably one thing (likely among a great many things) that makes people consider you are one or think better of them than most folks do.

    Quite possibly. I’m not terribly interested in what people think of me. I am interested in drawing closer to the truth by clarifying ideas through intelligent discussion.

  • jonathangray

    EnlightenmentLiberal:

    An accidental state of ethnic purity is not in and of itself bad.

    Would you say it’s any better or worse than ethnic diversity?

    Rather, laws and policies that lead to that state and preserve that state are almost invariably bad.

    Citations please.

    2.) Someone who believes white people are differentiated from non-white peoples by cognitive ability, understood as a heritable genetic factor.

    Reliable citations please.

    If you mean reliable citations that white people are differentiated from non-white peoples by cognitive ability etc, I don’t have to provide any because I’m not making that claim. (I assume you’re not asking for reliable citations that certain people not uncommonly called white supremacists do make that claim …?)

  • jonathangray

    Nick Gotts @144:

    Interesting that we have two Catholic bigots in the same thread, and yet the one who was expressing his outrage at racsim (Michael Egnor the slanderous liar) has nothing whatever to say about the white supremacist (Jonathan Gray).

    You old shit-stirrer, you. : D

    here’s an extract from the statement the German Catholic hierarchy ordered all priests to read from their pulpits in 1937:

    A statement that needs to be seen in the context of the Spanish Civil War then raging.

  • throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble

    White purism is as ridiculous as a mallard eschewing a mate because the tint of their beak is all wrong and it came from a different pond.

  • throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble

    Pardon me, bill.

  • throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble

    Though, I stand corrected.

    And, yes naturalistic fallacy intended, If whites are no longer breeding with whites, perhaps the problem is that mate choice is allowed to gravitate toward the more physiologically adept among the entirety of the species, unhindered by geographic locale and strict social structures.

    I see people like jonboy here as relics attempting to maintain their genetic dominance and the control of viable mates by fiat. Treasuring a characteristic that served its purpose back when it first evolved, but is now absurdly antiquated and only propped up weakly by the insistence that freedom of association isn’t quite that bad after all.

    Oh well. Time marches on.

  • Anri

    jonathangray @ 119:

    My quick take:

    1) and 2) are probably minimum requirements for white supremacists, but aren’t white supremacist positions themselves, as all they state is that whites are significantly enough different from non-whites. They actually could be read either way, as positive or negative. 3) is a straightforward, is rather extreme white supremacist position, and also more-or-less what the Mormons preached until it started sounding silly even to them. 4) and 5) are the sort of thing I was talking about in 138 when I said “get to this identical conclusion by a more roundabout method”.

    But, yes, in all cases, I find it morally repugnant to grant or deny people power based on their skin tone.

    Now, on to 146 (I will try to condense):

    What aspects of “white culture” do you see as being threatened?

    Pretty much all of them.

    Such as…?

    Not sure what you mean by “culture of color”, but I would say Texas is white, yes.

    You’re the one tagging some cultures as white and – I assume – others, by exclusion, as non-white. I’m trying to get you to spell out a bit more specifically what things differentiate these skin-color-based cultures, and so far, you don’t seem to want to, as seen below:

    German? Russian? British? Italian?

    Sure.

    Ok, what do all of those cultures have in common, that they do not share with non-white cultures, that make them all ‘white’ cultures?

    Are Jews “white”? Are they “white” if they act one way, but not if they act another way?

    Jews are sui generis whether one considers them white or not.

    But if white culture is what white people do, how can we know if what Jews do is white culture is we don’t know if you consider them white or not? If Jews are white, then what they do must be white culture, if not, it must not be.

    (regarding Jazz and Rock-n-roll)As far as I know, it’s a fusion of black and white influences.

    That didn’t answer the question. If aspects of a culture can come from a variety of influences, how can you say they are specifically one thing or another?

    As for Vanilla Ice, you’re not too stupid to use Google. If you don’t wanna answer, just say so.

    I don’t think “it” all comes down to culture, neither do I think “it” is solely a matter of race. Different physical attributes (skin colour etc) are not the whole of what constitutes ethic identities, or even the most important element, but they are a part nonetheless.

    Yet you insist on calling it ‘white’ culture. Odd, that.

  • Anna Elizabeth

    I find most “White Supremacists” are most worried when Caucasian women enjoy sex with African-American partners.

    I guess we’ll all see whom puts on those shoes now.

  • zenlike

    I see my previous comments is stuck in moderation, so I will repost it here in bits because jonathangray keeps on posting.

    jonathangray says

    Which of my comments shows me to be a “hateful person”?

    I’m not posting this for your benefit because you are clueless, I’m posting this for people who are fairly new here and maybe are not aware of what a bigot you truly are. From a small selection of past posts found by 2 seconds googling:

    Jonathan calling same-sex attraction a ‘vice’, and arguing against public accommodation laws.

    Jonathan quoting from a white power website, then when caught out, starts waffling. Also arguing that the media is racist… against whites.

  • zenlike
  • zenlike
  • zenlike
  • zenlike

    General repeating of white supremacust and/or racist tropes/talking points: 1, 2.

  • zenlike

    And 3, 4.

  • zenlike

    And to end, Jonathan’s description of what he thinks constitutes liberalism. Yes, he really did say “satanic rebellion against true religion”.

    Just like any racist jonathan abhors the label, but he can’t help himself spouting racist rhetoric, as he continues doing here.

  • dingojack

    Concerning ‘whiteness’: What is ‘white’ anyway? Are Balkans more (or less) ‘white’ than Swedes*? Are they more or less ‘white’ than ‘Celts’, Armenians, Ossetians or Slavs**?

    Are Turks, Indo-Iranians, Bashkirs, Dravidians and Chadic peoples** ‘white’?

    Dingo

    ———-

    * I Y-Haplotype

    ** R Y-Haplotype

  • Nick Gotts
    here’s an extract from the statement the German Catholic hierarchy ordered all priests to read from their pulpits in 1937: – me (followed by statement of German bishops’ arselicking Hitler, see #144).

    A statement that needs to be seen in the context of the Spanish Civil War then raging. – jonathangray@150

    In which the Catholic Church joined the army and the Spanish fascists in overthrowing the democratically elected government and murdering hundreds of thousands of people. But it’s telling that you can see this kind of spineless grovelling to Hitler as anything but both evil and revolting in any context.

    “White people deserve to wield cultural hegemony in historically white nations as a matter of natural justice” — then I don’t see how you can condemn that without also condemning the belief that African or Asian countries have a right to preserve their African/Asian ethnicity. Do you deplore Africa’s black privilege and demand to know why there aren’t more white faces in positions of power and influence? – jonathangray@130

    I’ll bet you’d find white people over-represented in such positions, relative to their numbers, in every black African (and Caribbean) country with a significant white population. And yes, I certainly condemn Japanese and Han Chinese racism against immigrants and minorities.

    What area of the world are “historically white”? The Americas? – anri@138

    Primarily Europe. The Americas since colonisation. – jonathangray@146

    So displacing previous inhabitants and taking their lands by force is just a neutral historical event if it was done by white people to others long enough ago, while peaceful immigration to “historically white” lands – includng those so seized – by non-white people now is a threat to an ethnic homogeneity that “indigenous whites have a right to defend… from those who would destroy it” – by means left carefully unspecific (no, “within the bounds of reason and charity” is not sufficient, given what we’ve seen here of what you consider to be reason and charity, and your willingness to take your talking points from white power websites). How long does it take for people to become “indigenous” I wonder? There have been black communities in England longer than there have been whites in Australia or New Zealand, so if there are “indigenous” whites in the latter, there must be “indigenous” blacks in England.

  • dingojack

    And of course there’s the other problem, how does one define ‘white culture’, precisely?!?

    Dingo

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @jonathangray

    Would you say it’s any better or worse than ethnic diversity?

    I care about the happiness, safety, material wealth, right to self determination, freedom, fairness, and the other aspects of general well-being, of people. I think that Rawls’s veil of ignorance is a good starting point for utilitarian evaluation.

    I fail to see how being ethnically pure or mixed has any direct obvious relation on any of those metrics.

    However, I do immediately see how any policy to enforce racial purity will almost certainly run afoul of those metrics.

  • Anri

    dingojack @ 165:

    And of course there’s the other problem, how does one define ‘white culture’, precisely?!?

    Oh, he defined it precisely, as “what white people do”. Thus, both Imperial Russia and hippie art colonies are “white culture” – the similarities are self-evident! The KKK and the Cirque du Soleil: “white culture” – indistinguishable, really. Football hooligans and the Apollo Program: “white culture”, alike as two peas in a pod.

  • StevoR

    @jonathangray : I’m glad you answered my other questions but I’d like to see you answer this one as well :

    III) Would you consider the same definition positively virtuous and true if it was asserted about another generalised ethnic meta-group eg. dark skinned Africans, Indians (Indian Indians), Jewish people et cetera? If not why not?

    Many of those who believe 2 (Whites are better thinkers than others, blecch – crap btw) are quick to claim that Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese have superior cognitive abilities to white Caucasians.

    Only Ashkenazi jews not Sephardim or Falasha then? Chinese but not Japanese or Korean? Really? How about the idea that people are all individuals that that no race or group is inherently better thinkers?

    Or that it’s (the existence of ‘race’) false.

    I think the scientific verdict is pretty clear on the whole idea of “races” actually existing being wrong. See for example :

    http://www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/why_race_pseudoscience-92948

  • jblackfyre

    dingojack #163

    Concerning ‘whiteness’: What is ‘white’ anyway? Are Balkans more (or less) ‘white’ than Swedes*? Are they more or less ‘white’ than ‘Celts’, Armenians, Ossetians or Slavs**?

    I always thought I was white (my country has “white supremacy groups”) until I moved to another country a few hundred kilometers north. Then I discovered I’m not that white any more.

    Funny that, there is always someone whiter than you.

  • dingojack

    Folk are always whiter on the other side [of the border]…

    😉 Dingo

    ———–

    ‘Nawt as queer as folk’

  • jonathangray

    Oy vey, so many questions! Watch this space.

  • jonathangray

    (To keep you all entertained in the meantime …)

    Anna Elizabeth @155:

    I find most “White Supremacists” are most worried when Caucasian women enjoy sex with African-American partners.

    I guess we’ll all see whom puts on those shoes now.

    https://youtu.be/HqiWFLsgVi4

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

    The frequent corollary of this is that ethnically homogenous societies in general actually tend to be less dysfunctional than ethnically diverse societies.

    Yes, we do require citations, thanks you for offering.

    You advocate “abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment” for the purpose of population control…

    Where, specifically, does StevoR advocate anything like that? Doesn’t your religion have a commandment against bearing false witness?

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

    One produced by white people.

    Is it still a “white culture” if significant parts of it were based on, or stolen from, non-white sources? How “white” is rock-n-roll? How “white” is Gothic architecture? Modern math? Medicine?

  • scienceavenger

    There is no such thing, by the way, as “free contraception”. Someone always has to pay for it.

    Really Captain Obvious? You going to lecture us on the fact that we are a republic and not a democracy too? Love that rightwing pseudoknowledge.

    I say: if you want it, pay for it yourself. Why should I pay for your risk-free orgasms?

    Because its in the public interest to have fewer unwanted babies, and we live in a representative democracy. You want a personal veto on public spending programs, you’ll need to draft another constitution.

  • Anri

    jonathangray @ 171:

    Oy vey, so many questions! Watch this space.

    Given past performance when the going gets tough, hopes aren’t high (for example, I assume thoughts are still being gathered for the SSM thread lo these many weeks ago). But hey, I could be wrong.

  • Anna Elizabeth

    You racist idiot, I didn’t ask what Muhammad Ali thought, I asked what *you* thought!

    Why don’t you spare us what you seem to think are your “oh so clever” responses? It won’t be anything I didn’t hear from my dumbass abusive Dad.

  • Anri

    Five days on.

    It appears Brave Sir Robin has once more courageously fled from their well-deserved ass-chewing.

    Don’t worry – they’ll be back, not understanding why no-one at all takes them seriously.

  • jonathangray

    Five days on.

    Liberal atheists are notorious for their high time preference. Perhaps that’s why they’re so good at wrecking the civilisation built up over centuries by religious folk.

  • Anri

    jonathangray @ 179:

    Liberal atheists are notorious for their high time preference. Perhaps that’s why they’re so good at wrecking the civilisation built up over centuries by religious folk.

    Sorry, I didn’t get that. Are you saying you’re done here, or are you saying you’re still trying to come up with an answer?

    I’m watching this space because of someone who said:

    Oy vey, so many questions! Watch this space.

    up at #171. If you’re unhappy that people are expecting you to actually answer anything, you’re beef is with the poster of #171, not me.

  • jonathangray

    are you saying you’re still trying to come up with an answer?

    I don’t get a great many opportunities to comment online (snatched moments between more immediate concerns) so it sometimes takes a little time to collate replies — particularly when the issues under discussion are so thorny.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ jonathangray : Fair enough I ‘spose but five days – six now is rather along time for that to still be your excuse.I’m sure you can see why people think you’re doing the “Run away!” thing and pushing our charity here can’t you? There’s no obligation to respond but people can and will draw conclusions from your lack of doing so. Maybe you can tell us approximately when you’re likely to do so earlier eg. “I’ll be away for a week but will come back and say more after that?”

    Anyhow, please do remember to answer the question I posed for a second time to you in my comment #168.

  • Anri

    jonathangray @ 181:

    I don’t get a great many opportunities to comment online (snatched moments between more immediate concerns) so it sometimes takes a little time to collate replies — particularly when the issues under discussion are so thorny.

    “Thorny”?

    Wait wait wait – this isn’t stuff you’ve already considered and come up with answers for? Many of the objections I and others have put forward in this thread seem to me both obvious and vital. I would certainly assume that anyone who’s bothered to actually think about a white supremacist position with any rigor would have already have had to have answered these questions for themselves.

    Hmm, now that I think about it, I’m not going to change that assumption – it still seems valid.

  • jonathangray

    StevoR:

    Fair enough I ‘spose but five days – six now is rather along time for that to still be your excuse.I’m sure you can see why people think you’re doing the “Run away!” thing and pushing our charity here can’t you? There’s no obligation to respond but people can and will draw conclusions from your lack of doing so. Maybe you can tell us approximately when you’re likely to do so earlier eg. “I’ll be away for a week but will come back and say more after that?”

    Taken on board. I said earlier that I didn’t care what people thought of me — not out of arrogance but because I was only interested in intellectual engagement. But clearly if I give an impression of cowardice or obnoxiousness, people are going to be less willing to engage, which would be counterproductive. So I apologise if my tardiness in replying came across as rude. By my clock, it’s just turned Wednesday; I hope to post my replies this evening, Thursday evening at the latest.

  • jonathangray

    Anri:

    Wait wait wait – this isn’t stuff you’ve already considered and come up with answers for? Many of the objections I and others have put forward in this thread seem to me both obvious and vital. I would certainly assume that anyone who’s bothered to actually think about a white supremacist position with any rigor would have already have had to have answered these questions for themselves.

    Well there’s two things. I’ve always hitherto defined myself as a Catholic integrist (roughly equivalent to dominionist) and rejected ‘white supremacism’/’racism’ as an unhealthy pagan obsession. That hasn’t changed in its essentials but in recent years I’ve gradually become more convinced of the importance of ethnic issues, something I see as supplementing rather than contradicting my religious beliefs. (I reject the labels ‘white supremacist’ and ‘racist’ because, as I’ve tried to make clear, I regard them as ambiguous and unhelpful, often used to refer to positions I continue to reject.) In other words, it’s an ongoing intellectual evolution and I don’t pretend to have fully thought through all the ramifications. One reason why I value exchanges such as this is precisely because they help clarify just what it is I do think.

    The other thing is that even when I am clear about what I believe, I find it takes a fair amount of time and effort to express those beliefs in clear language. I don’t have much time or energy and am incorrigibly slothful.

  • jonathangray

    throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble @151/153:

    White purism is as ridiculous as a mallard eschewing a mate because the tint of their beak is all wrong and it came from a different pond… Though, I stand corrected

    I’m sure you can see how your carefully orchestrated snark undermines itself.

    If whites are no longer breeding with whites, perhaps the problem is that mate choice is allowed to gravitate toward the more physiologically adept among the entirety of the species, unhindered by geographic locale and strict social structures.

    That’s an intriguing theory. Could you clarify what you mean by ”the more physiologically adept among the entirety of the species”?

  • jonathangray

    zenlike @156-162:

    I asked: Which of my comments shows me to be a “hateful person”?

    calling same-sex attraction a ‘vice’

    Hate the vice, love the vicious.

    arguing against public accommodation laws.

    Not out of hate.

    quoting from a white power website

    Three things wrong with that. First, I didn’t “quote” anything, I provided a link to a flyer produced by a website (not a link to the website itself). Second, it wasn’t a “white power” website (unlike “white supremacist”, the term “white power” has fairly specific connotations). Third, even if it had been a white power website, that would have had no bearing on the contents of the flyer, which were primarily statistics provided by official US sources.

    arguing that the media is racist… against whites.

    And gave examples to make my point. What’s this got to do with hate?

    Repeating racist right wing lies making a narrative that anly blacks are violent.

    False. I’ve never suggested or implied that “only blacks are violent”. I’ve suggested there is prima facie evidence that certain crimes are disproportionately committed by black people in America. If that’s false, it’s false; if it’s true, it’s true (and you can then look for an explanation). Ultimately it is what it is. Hate has nothing to do with it.

    Comparing same-sex attraction to drug use

    False. I used the example of drug use to show that conflicted anguish about one’s condition resulting from the censure of others does not in itself constitute a good reason for rejecting that censure.

    repeating right wing lies about ‘dangerous homosexual lifestyle’.

    I wrote: ”There are many physical and psychological risks associated with an active homosexual lifestyle.” I believe this to be true but if I’m wrong, I’m willing to be proved wrong. Not motivated by hate at all.

    Anti-SMM

    A matter of semantics, not hatred.

    comparing SMM with bestiality

    False. I merely wondered on what grounds a liberal might condemn bestiality.

    arguing that inequality is actually a good thing.

    Call it affirmative action.

    Arguing that because ISIS is so barbaric, we should just be as barbaric as them and start beheading people.

    It isn’t “just as barbaric as them” for the very simple reason that I suggested beheading jihadis — not innocent Mohammedans.

    Sticking up for the Bundy ranch nutters.

    Still not seeing any hate.

    Thinks an emotional picture of two gay parents holding their new baby is ‘seriously wrong’.

    NOH8

    General repeating of white supremacust and/or racist tropes/talking points: 1, 2.

    And 3, 4.

    Although my contributions in those threads are occasionally somewhat provocative, the vast majority of what I wrote strikes me as calm in tone and reasoned in argument. I honestly don’t see anything hateful or hurtful.

    Jonathan’s description of what he thinks constitutes liberalism. Yes, he really did say “satanic rebellion against true religion”.

    Well, yes. Doesn’t mean I seethe with hatred for liberals, any more than Gene Hackman’s character in The Poseidon Adventure hated the poor fools who stubbornly insisted on heading down to their doom aboard the capsized ship.

    I think it’s clear that you don’t understand “hateful” to mean “filled with hatred” — you understand it to mean “deserving of hatred”.

    Just like any racist jonathan abhors the label

    I don’t abhor the label, I merely question its value in serious discourse when it is applied indiscriminately and without qualification.

  • jonathangray

    Nick Gotts @164:

    In which the Catholic Church joined the army and the Spanish fascists in overthrowing the democratically elected government and murdering hundreds of thousands of people.

    That’s one particular narrative.

    But it’s telling that you can see this kind of spineless grovelling to Hitler as anything but both evil and revolting in any context.

    Many people were seriously alarmed by communism — with good reason. It’s hardly surprising some (by no means all) Catholics saw fascism as a potential bulwark against the godless red menace.

    I’ll bet you’d find white people over-represented in such positions, relative to their numbers, in every black African (and Caribbean) country with a significant white population.

    And would that be the result of positive discrimination pushed by black anti-racist activists?

    And yes, I certainly condemn Japanese and Han Chinese racism against immigrants and minorities.

    Do you think those (or any) countries should abolish all border controls?

    So displacing previous inhabitants and taking their lands by force is just a neutral historical event if it was done by white people to others long enough ago, while peaceful immigration to “historically white” lands – includng those so seized – by non-white people now is a threat to an ethnic homogeneity that “indigenous whites have a right to defend… from those who would destroy it”

    I don’t recall saying the peoples subjugated by European imperialism had no right to defend themselves …

    – by means left carefully unspecific (no, “within the bounds of reason and charity” is not sufficient, given what we’ve seen here of what you consider to be reason and charity, and your willingness to take your talking points from white power websites).

    Given your characteristic evasiveness when it comes to the justification of violence, I suggest you get down off your high horse.

    There have been black communities in England longer than there have been whites in Australia or New Zealand, so if there are “indigenous” whites in the latter, there must be “indigenous” blacks in England.

    Did the presence of these “black communities” in England involve this sort of horrifying population replacement? Why not?

  • jonathangray

    EnlightenmentLiberal @166:

    I care about the happiness, safety, material wealth, right to self determination, freedom, fairness, and the other aspects of general well-being, of people. … I fail to see how being ethnically pure or mixed has any direct obvious relation on any of those metrics.

    &

    Raging Bee @173:

    Yes, we do require citations, thanks you for offering.

    Here …

  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray

    StevoR @168:

    I’m glad you answered my other questions but I’d like to see you answer this one as well :

    III) Would you consider the same definition positively virtuous and true if it was asserted about another generalised ethnic meta-group eg. dark skinned Africans, Indians (Indian Indians), Jewish people et cetera? If not why not?

    I answered that question @147 in the square brackets, or at least I thought I did. Basically the answer is yes, with the obvious exception of No. 4.

    Only Ashkenazi jews not Sephardim or Falasha then? Chinese but not Japanese or Korean? Really? How about the idea that people are all individuals that that no race or group is inherently better thinkers?

    I believe the advocates of ‘human biodiversity’ are referring to average IQs.

    I think the scientific verdict is pretty clear on the whole idea of “races” actually existing being wrong. See for example :

    Sed contra:

    “Nowadays it is popular to say that races do not exist but are purely social constructions. Though that is certainly true of bureaucratic pigeonholes such as ‘colored,’ ‘Hispanic,’ ‘Asian/Pacific Islander,’ and the one-drop rule for being ‘black,’ it is an overstatement when it comes to human differences in general. The biological anthropologist Vincent Sarich points out that a race is just a very large and partly inbred family. Some racial distinctions thus may have a degree of biological reality, even though they are not exact boundaries between fixed categories. Humans, having recently evolved from a single founder population, are all related, but Europeans, having mostly bred with other Europeans for millennia, are on average more closely related to other Europeans than they are to Africans or Asians, and vice versa. Because oceans, deserts, and mountain ranges have prevented people from choosing mates at random in the past, the large inbred families we call races are still discernible, each with a somewhat different distribution of gene frequencies. In theory, some of the varying genes could affect personality or intelligence (though any such differences would at most apply to averages, with vast overlap between the group members).” — Pinker, The Blank Slate.

  • jonathangray

    [Reply to Anri pending.]

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @jonathangray

    Ok. So, let’s suppose for the sake of argument that your Putnam study is correct in its purported conclusions. (I haven’t been able to find a copy of it yet to read it to see what it really claims.)

    What do you suppose we do about it? Go back to “separate but equal” ?

  • dingojack

    EL – and again. What is “White”, what is “White Culture”, and why is so-called “white culture” in need of defending?

    Your hypothesis is that a ‘mixed culture’* is worse, but is it, in what way(s), what evidence is there that shows this to be the case per se?

    Dingo

    ———

    * ‘mixed’ by what definition (specifically), in what way, and to what extent?

  • Anri

    *sigh*

    4 more days along…

    Time to stop taking even minor things jonathangray says seriously.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @dingojack in 195

    That seems like it was directed at me, but I think you just meant to chime in, and I think your questions were directed at the (other) jackass in the thread. Correct me if I’m wrong. Thanks!

  • jonathangray

    Anri @154:

    4) and 5) are the sort of thing I was talking about in 138 when I said “get to this identical conclusion by a more roundabout method”.

    So let me get this straight. Believing that a particular ethnic culture is superior to others and/or believing that societies tend to function better when largely ethnically homogenous — these beliefs lead to the conclusion that the ethnicity in question has a godlike ontological superiority over the untermenschen?

    I find it morally repugnant to grant or deny people power based on their skin tone.

    You way you phrase it suggests I’m advocating a weird arbitrary ideology which involves dispatching detachments of police into towns and cities to check people’s skin tone before granting or denying them power.

    @154 & 167:

    … what do all of those [German, Russian, British, Italian] cultures have in common, that they do not share with non-white cultures, that make them all ‘white’ cultures? … If aspects of a culture can come from a variety of influences, how can you say they are specifically one thing or another? … Oh, he defined [white culture] precisely, as “what white people do”. Thus, both Imperial Russia and hippie art colonies are “white culture” – the similarities are self-evident! The KKK and the Cirque du Soleil: “white culture” – indistinguishable, really. Football hooligans and the Apollo Program: “white culture”, alike as two peas in a pod.

    Of course it’s very easy to problematise concepts of white culture, whiteness etc. Indeed it’s virtually mandatory among the bien pensants …who nevertheless see no problem in lecturing people about ‘white privilege’, ‘white oppression’, ‘white racism’. We are told there are no races, the only real race is the human race, to assert racial identity is to be a nazi — yet we are also told that a greater diversity of races is desirable to counter the unhealthy hegemony of the white race.

    I’m not a big fan of the term ‘race’, which carries so much (pseudo-?)scientific baggage. Let’s just use the word ‘people’. I submit that different peoples exist. Who are a people? Those who identify themselves as such. What are the basic components of this self-identification? Whatever is held in common — those shared things that enable a people to perceive themselves as a “we”. Shared land, shared language, shared history, shared customs, shared religion and, yes, shared appearance. Communal self-identification in this way demands a degree of cultural continuity through history, manifested in a myriad concrete customs and artefacts (abstract theories & ideologies are second-order). Ethnicity is just another name for this feeling of continuous commonality.

    So what do German, Russian, British & Italian cultures have in common? Primarily, I would say emergence within a supra-national civilisational matrix with roots in Latin Christendom and classical antiquity. Now you ask @154:

    I don’t think “it” all comes down to culture, neither do I think “it” is solely a matter of race. Different physical attributes (skin colour etc) are not the whole of what constitutes ethic identities, or even the most important element, but they are a part nonetheless.

    Yet you insist on calling it ‘white’ culture. Odd, that.

    Simply because it’s a lowest common denominator. The nations of the West have pretty much formally apostatised from Christianity and show little interest in their classical Greco-Roman heritage, so the superficial quality of whiteness is pretty much all they’ve got left. I’m the first to admit it’s hardly ideal.

  • jonathangray

    A while ago I engaged in a combox conversation with an erstwhile FTB commentator, who quoted me the following passage on the subject of race which seems relevant to the current discussion:

    “We know that the obvious physical differences among populations of different continents and climates are not distinct but gradual.

    If you were to walk north from Cape Town, South Africa, through Namibia, Angola, Congo, Cameroon, Nigeria, Niger, Algeria, Morocco, take the ferry across the Strait of Gibraltar and press on through Spain, France, Germany, Denmark, all the way to Stockholm, Sweden, the pigmentation of the indigenous population at your destination would be very different than at your starting point. But at no point along your journey would you or could you ever have said, “Aha! I have crossed the boundary between the black race and the white race”—because there is no boundary and there is no race.

    Eighty-five percent of all human variation can be found in any local population, whether Egyptian, Norwegian, Peruvian, or Mongolian. Any two Koreans are likely to be as genetically different as a Korean and a Spaniard.”

    It seems to me the author is here exhibiting a perennial liberal characteristic – the tendency to see everything in abstract or theoretical terms, divorced from the particularities of actual persons’ lived experience. People don’t typically lead a nomadic existence trekking from Cape Town to Sweden, nor are they normally capable of peering into individuals’ genetic structures. So while the author’s assertions may well be true, they are completely irrelevant to how any ethnic group actually perceives itself and others, which is precisely as ethnic groups. How high this perception ought to rank in any hierarchy of values is a legitimate topic for debate, and I for one would certainly say it does not justify aggressive chauvinism. But it is futile to argue that it has no basis because it disappears from a global perspective or at the level of DNA.

    The author continues: ”[I]magine a white couple who “invites all their family and friends to the wedding, and it turns out that everyone on the guest list is white, except possibly a few Asian Americans from college and maybe a lone African American couple. Their wedding may not be color conscious in the sense that they sat down and jotted down a list that included whites and excluded blacks, but it is color conscious in the sense that the acquaintances they made during childhood and under their parents’ upbringing, throughout school and on into the workplace and their adult social life, are all white, or almost all white and Asian American. Without their having made a single intentional decision to practice racial segregation, but not by accident either, the story of their lives bears out the breadth and depth of the racial abyss.”

    Perhaps my privilege is showing but I honestly don’t see what’s supposed to be so sinister about this. Is the author saying that the happy couple are racist for not having more black friends? Or that they’ve unthinkingly (perhaps guiltlessly) conformed to racist societal structures by not seeking out more black friends? Or that society is structurally racist for not providing them with the opportunity to make more black friends? It’s all bollocks. I would bet good money that the guests at an African-American wedding would be mostly African-American; mostly Asian-American at an Asian-American wedding; mostly Jewish-American at a Jewish-American wedding; mostly Hispanic-American at a Hispanic-American wedding; mostly Italian-American at an Italian-American wedding; and so on and on. Why should that be considered a problem? Of course people will form friendships among those of their fellows who seem most familiar, most alike. That’s why you have “communities”. Don’t Anglo-Saxon Americans deserve a “community” too? Apparently not. The day the quoted author presumes to lecture an ethnic minority bride and groom about the deplorable dearth of white Anglo-Saxon faces among their guests is the day Hell freezes over and Satan skates to work.

    Sure, you can point out that Anglo-Saxon Americans still form a natural overall majority in the United States and that their “community” is consequently more potent in socio-economic-politico-cultural terms and that this gives them a certain unearned advantage, or privilege (“Every month is white history month” etc). Well, in the first place, it’s worth pointing out that members of an overall majority can be minorities at a local level. The sole white boy sitting amid a sea of black faces in his classroom at an inner-city school is not in any sort of privileged position. But even if we accept that the white majority have a degree of unearned privilege, so what? Maybe it’s a moral blind spot of mine, but I have never been able to understand why “unearned” should be considered synonymous with “unjust”, even if it might sometimes seem unfair to some.

    You may be aware that Don Ness, the mayor of Duluth, Minnesota, recently had billboards erected as part of a campaign designed to enlighten the white residents of Duluth about their privilege. “Duluth”, the campaign website grimly informs us, “has had an overwhelmingly dominant white culture for a very long time. This fact has contributed to the development of a monoculture in which white norms are dominant and considered ‘normal’.” Yes? And? So? In a town in sub-Saharan Africa, black Africans have the privilege that comes with settled majority status. Would Mayor Ness consider lecturing those townsfolk that their privileged position in black society is an intolerable affront to whites? We both know what would happen if he tried to pull a stunt like that – his lily-white backside would be kicked out of town and back to Duluth, Minnesota, in short order. And quite right too.

    There’s no escaping the logic. If white privilege is a bad thing and if white privilege is the inevitable result of “an overwhelmingly dominant white culture”, it follows that an overwhelmingly dominant white culture is a bad thing. But if privilege per se (and not just white privilege) is bad, it follows that overwhelmingly dominant black, Asian, etc cultures are bad too. Do you think any ethnically homogenous society – “a monoculture in which [black/Asian/etc] norms are dominant and considered ‘normal'” – is something intrinsically undesirable? Or is it a case of “Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, Europe and North America for everyone”?

  • jonathangray

    [contd]

    Because it is a collection of things that are shared, ethnicity forms the natural basis for the community of the nation. “Multicultural” diversity is problematic because it necessarily dilutes the sense of commonality and social cohesiveness is consequently weakened. There is no longer a national community, only a number of different “communities” all jostling for position. The sense of ethnic identity hasn’t been abolished, merely granulated. The liberal Rawlsian state might claim to provide a neutral administrative framework within which different groups can theoretically coexist peacefully, but mutual respect and understanding are hard to sustain as long as groups define themselves as “us” and others as “them”. And they always will. Babel cannot be undone by legislative fiat. Why should the peace that has proved so elusive between peoples inhabiting different territories be any easier to achieve when several peoples are artificially made to inhabit the same territory? Minus a communal culture, all you’re left with are nebulous concepts like “shared values” which may not in fact be shared (what values does fundamentalist Islam share with liberal democracy?) and in any case are so abstract and bloodless they’re unlikely to command the commitment necessary to overcome the various centrifugal forces in any society.

    This is not to suggest that community is limited to ethnicity. Communities can cut across ethnic boundaries, eg communities of friendship and shared interest. They can exist within wider ethnic boundaries as regional ‘microethnicities’ (I’ve known people who would define themselves as Yorkshire first, English second and British a distant third). And communities can sometimes properly command greater loyalty than ethnic identity, as in the communities of family and of religion. A whole new field of intersectionality!

    So I’m not saying ethnic identity is some kind of transcendental meta-category that overrides all others. All I’m saying is that ethnicity is real, natural, very important to a great many people and doesn’t take kindly to being trampled on.

  • jonathangray

    But if white culture is what white people do, how can we know if what Jews do is white culture is we don’t know if you consider them white or not? If Jews are white, then what they do must be white culture, if not, it must not be.

    Jews are Jews whether they have white, brown, black or yellow skins. It’s a transcendental meta-category that overrides all others.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    I’m seeing a lot of wanking and self-masturbation. I don’t see specific policy proposals that are being advocated. I asked for that, and I’ll ask for that again. For the sake of argument, I grant that many of your factual premises are true. Do you propose we change any public policy in light of these facts? How so? What public policy changes do you want to see happen?

  • jonathangray

    I don’t see specific policy proposals that are being advocated.

    Every man for himself.

  • Anri

    jonathangray @ 198:

    So let me get this straight. Believing that a particular ethnic culture is superior to others and/or believing that societies tend to function better when largely ethnically homogenous — these beliefs lead to the conclusion that the ethnicity in question has a godlike ontological superiority over the untermenschen?

    In the real world, I typically find it’s the other way around – these beliefs stem from that conclusion, not lead to it.

    I do find, however, that once that conclusion has been reached, any amount of weaseling around, redefining of terms, and flat refusal to acknowledge tends to follow.

    You way you phrase it suggests I’m advocating a weird arbitrary ideology which involves dispatching detachments of police into towns and cities to check people’s skin tone before granting or denying them power.

    What does “white hegemony” mean if not denying people power based on their skin tone?

    You of course, can send police into towns to deny people rights, biased against a specific skin color (i.e. the War on Drugs), but you don’t have to. Something as simple as job applications being rejected due to the applicant’s name being perceived as belonging to a racial minority is a perfect example of white privilege.

    Of course it’s very easy to problematise concepts of white culture, whiteness etc. Indeed it’s virtually mandatory among the bien pensants …who nevertheless see no problem in lecturing people about ‘white privilege’, ‘white oppression’, ‘white racism’. We are told there are no races, the only real race is the human race, to assert racial identity is to be a nazi — yet we are also told that a greater diversity of races is desirable to counter the unhealthy hegemony of the white race.

    Oddly enough, I don’t see anyone telling you that.

    I do see people telling you that race is a primarily social construct, and as such is quite powerful, despite having little or no scientific basis. I also don’t see anyone saying that merely asserting racial identity is equivalent to Nazism (if so, anyone who self-identified as black would be accused of being a Nazi. Any examples of that here…?). I do see people saying that judging any given individual based the perceived actions of other people who share – to whatever extent – that skin color is wrong.

    Remember when I said that intellectual honesty might be difficult for you? This is what I was talking about.

    I’m not a big fan of the term ‘race’, which carries so much (pseudo-?)scientific baggage. Let’s just use the word ‘people’. I submit that different peoples exist. Who are a people? Those who identify themselves as such. What are the basic components of this self-identification? Whatever is held in common — those shared things that enable a people to perceive themselves as a “we”. Shared land, shared language, shared history, shared customs, shared religion and, yes, shared appearance. Communal self-identification in this way demands a degree of cultural continuity through history, manifested in a myriad concrete customs and artefacts (abstract theories & ideologies are second-order). Ethnicity is just another name for this feeling of continuous commonality.

    Ok, so you list land, language, history, customs, religion and appearance as the things that define a race.

    Land: presumably England would be excluded from the group including Europe, the Middle East, India and Asia, yes? And the Americas might or might not be included with each other, but certainly couldn’t be counted with Europe.

    Language: Romance-based languages in one box, Slavic languages in another, yes? Would the Basque be Europeans? Would the Celts be in the same group as the Poles? Both ‘white’?

    History: I’m not really sure how one could separate Russian from a history of Asia, while England, the Americas, and Japan did a pretty decent job of cutting themselves off from anything other than internal history for long stretches.

    Customs: This is also a bit broad, so I’ll ask for some examples: what are some ‘white’ customs?

    Religion: South and Central America and Africa are heavily Christian, while a number of European countries are now minority religious of any functional sort.

    Appearance: Ok, here we go. This appears to be the only real defining characteristic of ‘white’ culture – looking white. Could you clarify for me how that makes white culture superior?

    So what do German, Russian, British & Italian cultures have in common? Primarily, I would say emergence within a supra-national civilisational matrix with roots in Latin Christendom and classical antiquity.

    But not Spain, presumably. Or are Spaniards white?

    Let me put it another way: Other than appearance, what makes Condoleezza Rice, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or (what the hell) Martin Luther King, Jr. black? What aspects of ‘white culture’ were they lacking? (Please don’t try to avoid the question by saying something along the lines of “just ask them”. Either you consider these people white or you don’t. If white is more than skin deep, you should be able to tell me why.)

    — Imma snip this now, move on to the second part —

  • Anri

    Real quick:

    So I’m not saying ethnic identity is some kind of transcendental meta-category that overrides all others. All I’m saying is that ethnicity is real, natural, very important to a great many people and doesn’t take kindly to being trampled on.

    Jews are Jews whether they have white, brown, black or yellow skins. It’s a transcendental meta-category that overrides all others.

    Hah you make joke!

    Is very funny joke!

    Is good example of white culture!

    I am having laugh Ha Ha!

    In a probably futile attempt to get you to take the subject seriously, if a Jew and a white person had kids, would they be white? Or Jewish? Or could they pick? Or would it depend on how they were raised?

  • Anri

    @ 199:

    It seems to me the author is here exhibiting a perennial liberal characteristic – the tendency to see everything in abstract or theoretical terms, divorced from the particularities of actual persons’ lived experience. People don’t typically lead a nomadic existence trekking from Cape Town to Sweden, nor are they normally capable of peering into individuals’ genetic structures. So while the author’s assertions may well be true, they are completely irrelevant to how any ethnic group actually perceives itself and others, which is precisely as ethnic groups. How high this perception ought to rank in any hierarchy of values is a legitimate topic for debate, and I for one would certainly say it does not justify aggressive chauvinism. But it is futile to argue that it has no basis because it disappears from a global perspective or at the level of DNA.

    (emphasis added)

    You’re of the opinion that a notion of genetic purity is not a major point among white supremacist and white power groups? And that they are willing to judge this genetic purity into specific categories based on appearance?

    Sorry, I don’t believe that you’re that ignorant.

    There’s no escaping the logic.

    Just call me Houdini.

    If white privilege is a bad thing

    It is.

    and if white privilege is the inevitable result of “an overwhelmingly dominant white culture”,

    This only follows if one assumes that accepting white privilege is an inescapable aspect of white people being in power. This will continue, of course, so long as some people claim that whites have exclusive access to a superior culture.

    it follows that an overwhelmingly dominant white culture is a bad thing.

    Again, only if it is assumed that white culture must, by definition, contain an assumption of superiority. And if that culture is linked to an inborn aspect of a person, such as skin color. If one is willing to decouple culture from race, to assume that culture can be learned, for example, than the ‘inescapable’ conclusion falls apart like a house of cards.

    But if privilege per se (and not just white privilege) is bad, it follows that overwhelmingly dominant black, Asian, etc cultures are bad too.

    Only, as noted above, to the extent that they are willing to assert, and enforce, their own belief in their superiority.

    Do you think any ethnically homogenous society – “a monoculture in which [black/Asian/etc] norms are dominant and considered ‘normal’” – is something intrinsically undesirable? Or is it a case of “Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, Europe and North America for everyone”?

    If you’re asking me if I believe (for example) that the Japanese atrocities committed against the Chinese, fueled in large part because of traditional Japanese belief in Japanese superiority were wrong, the answer is yes.

    Any culture declaring other people to be sub-human due to their appearance is a bad thing, yes. That’s not really a hard question. For me, anyway.

    There’s nothing wrong with a homogeneous society.

    There’s everything wrong with enforcing that homogeneity by denying rights to different-looking people. That’s also not really a hard question.