rigorousintuition.ca

Sounder » Sun May 15, 2016 7:48 am wrote:I like this much more than AD's hate breeding efforts. Courtesy of semper back on page six.

http://107cowgate.com/2015/11/23/why-th ... -the-cold/
By Gary O’Shea

In 1962 Joe Valachi a soldier in the Cosa Nostra was arrested and turned informer. He explained how the organisation was structured, fingered the top men and generally blew the gaff. It was the beginning of the end for the Italian Mafia’s stranglehold on organised crime in America. One man was capable of wreaking such devastation not because he was high-ranking or particularly bright, but because he was an insider. And he broke the code. And he was the first to do so.

David Goodhart is of a different hue, but an insider nonetheless. A liberal academic of impeccable lineage: he founded Prospect magazine, and chaired the think tank Demos. Then he stumbled across an article by Tory Minister David Willetts which argued that mass immigration must eventually undermine the contributory principle of the welfare state. And it got him thinking. Eventually he went public with a 6000 word essay entitled: ‘Too diverse?’ A book, ‘The British Dream: Successes and Failures of post war immigration’, followed. Although widely reviewed, as far as his erstwhile liberal colleagues were concerned, he had breached the code, and in the vernacular ‘ratted them out’. And as with Joe Valachi they hated him for it. He has since been compared to Enoch Powell, accused of being a neo-fascist, and banned from the Hay literary festival. Now, liberals generally support the right causes, just not always for the right reasons. So their sense of dismay is not just because of Goodhart’s apostate views on uncontrolled immigration and its consequences for social democracy, but also, and as importantly, what he might reveal about them and their motivations; mainly their fear of being found out.

I also doubt the author of the article shares your world view much at all, Sounder.

What was your point in citing that piece?

Also, on what grounds do you equate critique of Nativism and White Supremacy with "hate breeding"?

‘Too diverse?’ A book, ‘The British Dream: Successes and Failures of post war immigration’, followed. Although widely reviewed, as far as his erstwhile liberal colleagues were concerned, he had breached the code, and in the vernacular ‘ratted them out’. And as with Joe Valachi they hated him for it. He has since been compared to Enoch Powell, accused of being a neo-fascist, and banned from the Hay literary festival. Now, liberals generally support the right causes, just not always for the right reasons. So their sense of dismay is not just because of Goodhart’s apostate views on uncontrolled immigration and its consequences for social democracy, but also, and as importantly, what he might reveal about them and their motivations; mainly their fear of being found out.

Hmm, cherrypicking ideas from a bit farther to the left in order to "prove" specious ideas about migrants- and/or other oppressed groups- is a very weak form of argument.

It is extremely well known that neoliberals need not uphold the same freedom of travel for people (especially refugees and ordinary workers) that they demand for goods.

An even weaker argument is that it is the anti-racists/anti-fascists who are the ones breeding hate.

That generally just doesn't fly, except in the very most boneheaded locales. Rigorous Intuition should not be considered one of those places.

82_28 » Mon May 16, 2016 9:31 am wrote:All are equal. All and that includes plants and animals.

I really can't see having a productive conversation with you, Sounder.

This is where I stop.

Kendrick Smithyman's rebuke to Trump





Donald Trump's presidential campaign has helped make the term 'white nationalism' fashionable, if not quite respectable. Political commentators of both the left and the right have noted Trump's popularity with white, working class Americans angry at their country's deindustrialised economy and darkening demographics.

Trump has repeatedly retweeted messages and slogans from white supremacists, and in the lengthy and combustible comments threads at sites like Breitbart and Pajamas Media many of his supporters have defined themselves as white nationalists, and decried liberals and leftists as 'traitors' to the white race.

What very few white nationalists seem to sense is the fragility and historical shallowness of the racial category they use to define themselves. The Northumbrian scholar Alistair Bonnett has spent a good part of his career studying the labels 'white' and 'whiteness'. Bonnett has shown that, before the nineteenth century, few Europeans defined themselves in racial terms. If any pan-European identity existed, then it was premised on religion, rather than race. When the Crusaders marched east, they saw themselves as warriors for Christendom, not fighters for a white race.

Even after pseudo-scientific ideas about race became popular in the middle of the nineteenth century, many members of Europe's elites tended to see the continent's working classes and peasantry as non-white. In his essay 'How the British Working Class Became White', Bonnett describes the reaction of newspapers to a working class riot in Southampton in 1866. The rioters were characterised as 'negroes', and contrasted with the white 'gentlemen' whose businesses they attacked. A century ago some of Britain's upper classes still saw the working class of their country as a different and inferior race, closer genetically to the Indians and the Africans than to the Windsors.

Commentators have criticised Trump's tendency to make unjust generalisations about diverse minority groups, like America's black and Muslim communities. But few have noted that Trump is guilty of homogenising and stereotyping America's 'white' population, as well as its minorities. 'White' Americans come from a plethora of cultures, and it is not long since some of these cultures were viewed as both backward and dangerous by the country's Anglo-Saxon establishment. In his marvellous film Jungle Fever Spike Lee reminds his audience of the Italians who were lynched along with blacks in Louisiana. As a brilliant high school student recently proved, Irish as well as blacks and Mexicans were often excluded from jobs in nineteenth century and fin de siecle America.

Because of the diverse origins and affiliations of its European population, the United States was for a long time seen as an inferior, 'mongrel' nation by Anglo-Saxon racists.

kool maudit » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:37 pm wrote:I am familiar with critical race theory and the work of Ignatiev, as well as other, similarly inclined people like Tim Wise.

I have considered the idea that whiteness is not in fact any sort of racial descriptor but is rather a word created to describe a system of institutionalised privilege, and the linked idea that abolishing the white race by any means necessary is in fact -- although it sounds like, and retains the precise syntax of, calls for racial genocide -- a sort of call for human liberation with regard to this system.

You know what? It's horseshit. It's all horseshit. It's horseshit created to sneak out of the back door of the statement "abolish the white race by any means necessary". It's horseshit because it allows, and is designed to allow, its speaker to mouth a severe call to violence and instantly retreat to an airy position of dispersed, theoretical justice-seeking.

However imprecise or problematic or biologically ungrounded its origin, the term "white race" is widely understood to refer to Europeans and European-descended peoples. Imagine a Kampala corner bar where one person of, say, Danish descent is drinking amidst a crowd of mainly Ugandans with perhaps some other people from other sub-Saharan African countries. You go from drinker to drinker with a clipboard and ask people which person is the "white"guy.

What do you think happens? Do you get elaborate dissections of insitutional power, or half-annoyed, colloquially brusque replies indicating the man with the pale skin, blue eyes, straight brown hair -- the man who looks most generally like the peoples of Europe?

And you know this! You know it. Ignatiev knows it. Wise knows it. But you have to go through this every time because maybe you're just not informed, maybe you just haven't done your reading, maybe you need a link or two... How can one live in the world -- the actual world, where people have common if flawed understandings across vast areas with billions of inhabitants -- and act as if this is a normal sort of thing to say without opposition?

It's infuriating. It's meant to be. But that's its nature, it's designed to work that way.

This is a bad thread and reflects badly on this board because its title is a call for genocide.