Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Multiculturalism - a racism in disguise

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Odin
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • Last Conformist
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sirotnikov
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sandman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Sirotnikov
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spiffor
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Sirotnikov
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Sirotnikov
    replied
    Ok, so Timothy Garton Ash basically has almost no interesting points in his answers.

    He mainly says "I never said exactly this or that" which is technically a good retort. But he never seriously confronts the ideas presented by Bruckner except in the end:

    Having commented in my New York Review essay that "I regard it as a profound shame for Holland and Europe that we could not keep among us someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali" I went on to suggest that her approach "is not showing the way forward for most Muslims in Europe, at least not for many years to come. A policy based on the expectation that millions of Muslims will so suddenly abandon the faith of their fathers and mothers is simply not realistic. If the message they hear from us is that the necessary condition for being European is to abandon their religion, then they will choose not to be European." I continue to insist that this is an obvious truth, and an important criticism of the position adopted by both Ali and Bruckner.

    And then he abdicates without explaining key points:

    - Why should Europe adjust its culture for its newer citizens, and not the contrary? It isn't the Europeans that came to Morocco

    - What if the religion or culture or any other value of the newcomers is extremely contradictive with core European values? (freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc)

    - How does that this describe the European demands on Turkey to change its basic laws and values?
    .

    Leave a comment:


  • Spiffor
    replied
    Originally posted by Sirotnikov
    Don't expect me to fall for silly socialist post-modernist logic though
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • Sirotnikov
    replied
    Originally posted by Spiffor
    Sirotnikov and others.

    The responses to Bruckner, by the two people he incriminates, are fairly interesting.

    http://www.signandsight.com/features/1161.html
    http://www.signandsight.com/features/1166.html
    I bookmarked them and will read it over the weekend.

    Don't expect me to fall for silly socialist post-modernist logic though

    Leave a comment:


  • Sirotnikov
    replied
    Originally posted by Oncle Boris


    Get a clue, VJ. Bruckner is a well-known troll in the French media. Each and every of his intervention is a .
    Odd.

    Replacing Bruckner with yourself, and French media with Apolyton....

    Leave a comment:


  • Last Conformist
    replied
    Originally posted by VJ

    Too bad I've known you for long enough to recognise your nitpicking out of things both you and the guy you're laughing at agree on and know as irrelevant to know that you're trolling again
    Just out of curiosity, with whom am I agreeing on what here? I'm not agreeing with you that Spiff's a racist, if that's what you mean.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X