Multiculturalism - a racism in disguise

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Actually, they aren't nearly as silly socialist post-modern as Bruckner implies. Their responses strike me as interesting because they show that Bruckner based his criticism of them off BS "facts".

I could care less what Bruckner accuses them of.

Bruckner gave examples of what I think are bad ideas in terms of European laws and habbits towards muslims.

Bruckner gave a description that I have long been in agreement with, regarding rabid left wingers secretly under estimating other cultures. Specifically Israeli left wingers that expect the pals to take it in the butt and be happy over any peace agreement we give them.

And by "silly socialist post-modern" I was describing your posts

[Last Conformist]

Freedom of speech is a core European value now? You people really should start sending me MPs re: such things.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Bruckner gave a description that I have long been in agreement with, regarding rabid left wingers secretly under estimating other cultures.

Unfortunately, when he attacks anybody specific (instead of imaginary la-la-landers), he fails miserably. It's easy to build a strawman by using out-of-context quotes, and by twisting the spirit of the works, regardless of any honesty.
His point was about multiculturalist intellectuals being patronizing racists, and haters of those who stand for enlightenment values. And the data he uses to exemplify his reasoning is dramatically flawed. That the west has a fifth column of surrenderers and collaborators, running galore among the educated lefties. If there are so many racist patronizing white lefties out there, I'm sure he can easily find good examples, can't he?

And by "silly socialist post-modern" I was describing your posts

Yeah, but that's only because you're a rabid fascist

[Sirotnikov]

Reducing the argument to the exact views held by person X or person Y instead of debating the core values is not interesting.


I don't fear being called a fascist.

I see important values and positions (as well as bad stuff waiting to be exploited) in a fascist core system. Many of the stuff there, I don't agree with. Many of the same positions are shared in communism too.

I don't regard myself a fascist or a communist.

[Last Conformist]

If Bruckner wants to debate values in the abstract, maybe he shouldn't ascribe views to people that don't hold them?

[Sandman]

All this talk of 'core European values' and 'Enlightenment values' seems hopelessly sclerotic and conservative to me. Dredging up selective lumps of history to justify stuff is just not the way forward. Whether free speech is traditional or 'enlightenment' is quite irrelevant. It is good and that is what matters.

[Sirotnikov]

To explain myself and "fascism":

I see nationalism as a more civilized and a more advanced form of basic "tribalism". Instead of defining yourself using blood ties, you expand it to include common history, ethnicity and values (be those real or just a pathos).

I do not see a future for "internationalism" which tries to define people according to either ideology alone, or merely as "members of the human race". I think that humans are too immature for it, and we'll only be able to become truly internationalist with the rise of a foreign threat (extinction / aliens / time traveling zombies).

I believe in hobbes'es description of the world as people with wolf pack mentality which is why it is important to aggregate in groups. Which is why I care for my family, my minority group, my country and only last - my human race.

I do not believe in a struggle of the classes - even though I acknowledge the existance of elites and their abuse of power. I believe this process to be (sadly) natural, and no real replacement to exist - since it is against human morals and temptations.

I believe the use of force is sometimes a necessary solution, because I respect the other side - and I'm sure that there are issues which sometimes can't be resolved with compromise because it is simply too important for someone. Eventually, this needs to be resolved one way or the other. Stopping the conflict requires someone to win and someone to lose. It isn't ALWAYS a zero sum game - but it sometimes is. No ways around it.

I also believe that most people are stupid, lead by the nose, and have no idea about anything. I sometimes see myself as an exception, but accept that I may be just lead to thinks so

I could go on, but this is not the thread topic.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Sandman
All this talk of 'core European values' and 'Enlightenment values' seems hopelessly sclerotic and conservative to me.

I sorta agree. "The Enlightment" isn't something I expect to hear about in the present tense.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
To explain myself and "fascism":

I see nationalism as a more civilized and a more advanced form of basic "tribalism". Instead of defining yourself using blood ties, you expand it to include common history, ethnicity and values (be those real or just a pathos).

I do not see a future for "internationalism" which tries to define people according to either ideology alone, or merely as "members of the human race". I think that humans are too immature for it, and we'll only be able to become truly internationalist with the rise of a foreign threat (extinction / aliens / time traveling zombies).

I believe in hobbes'es description of the world as people with wolf pack mentality which is why it is important to aggregate in groups. Which is why I care for my family, my minority group, my country and only last - my human race.

I do not believe in a struggle of the classes - even though I acknowledge the existance of elites and their abuse of power. I believe this process to be (sadly) natural, and no real replacement to exist - since it is against human morals and temptations.

I believe the use of force is sometimes a necessary solution, because I respect the other side - and I'm sure that there are issues which sometimes can't be resolved with compromise because it is simply too important for someone. Eventually, this needs to be resolved one way or the other. Stopping the conflict requires someone to win and someone to lose. It isn't ALWAYS a zero sum game - but it sometimes is. No ways around it.

I also believe that most people are stupid, lead by the nose, and have no idea about anything. I sometimes see myself as an exception, but accept that I may be just lead to thinks so

I could go on, but this is not the thread topic.

A poster on another forum I post at suggested a fusion of the best parts of nationalism an internationalism into a synthesis he calls "metanationalism."

[RGBVideo]

Whether free speech is traditional or 'enlightenment' is quite irrelevant. It is good and that is what matters.

Yes.