 |
Comments |
|
 | Sunday, April 12, 2009 at 1:33:24 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.Harris00 at Gmail DOTlcom
Bought an iPod touch, enjoying The Foutainhead on audioable (sp) I'm enjoying this.
Happy Easter. I guess.
Enjoy some candy.
John. |
|
| Sunday, April 12, 2009 at 7:25:15 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: RT
Here's a good joke:
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6870&am ...
Ed Hudgins twisting himself into pretzels to spin what is obviously his humiliating demotion into a *good* thing, in fact... he got his *wish*! And no mention that the reorganization is obviously a last-ditch attempt to pull TAS out of its death spiral... no, from all you can tell it was just a minor reorganization to take TAS onward and upward to greater heights!
Well, at least with Ed as "Director of Advocacy" we should get a lot more of his insipid Christmas op-eds!
Or maybe he'll try his hand at painting a "word picture" (his words) for an Easter op-ed:
"Easter -- a time of joy, delicious chocolates, cute little bunnies, and celebrating the bloody crucifixion of Christ. But, while slow death by torture is rarely a good thing, what can we really learn from Easter? When we see the gaunt, blood-dripped, pain-wracked body of Jesus nailed to a cross, we might be tempted to look away in disgust. But what's really going on here is a vision of a man pursuing his goals, whatever the cost. He refuses to compromise, and is willing to endure anything, any amount of pain, to achieve what he wants. And because of his fierce perseverance, he does ultimately get rewarded (albeit, in the afterlife, but that's just a difference of opinion). So, this Easter, let's all celebrate by selfishly recommitting ourselves to perseverance in the pursuit of our goals!" |
|
| Sunday, April 12, 2009 at 8:15:24 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: brian0918
E-mail: my handle, through gmail
URL: http://reality.ohio.newintellectuals.org
John: Which narrator are you listening to on audible? |
|
| Sunday, April 12, 2009 at 10:21:09 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.Harris00 ATT Gmail DOTT com
Brian I'm listening to the Christopher Hurt version (I took note of him when this was brought up two weeks ago during their sale; Two free books, picked this up along with Atlas Shrugged, by Scott Brick.)
Any other books worth listening to?
John. |
|
| Sunday, April 12, 2009 at 14:45:31 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: madmax
I would like to raise the subject of a particular type of Conservatism namely Traditionalism. Its chief advocate is Larry Auster.
Traditionalism is a variant of White Christian Nationalism. It advocates a traditional society with an established church, strict morality, racial homogeneity, and exclusion of ethnic others. It combines Christianity with racialism to argue that each race secretes a different society and each race expresses itself in different ways. Therefore the races should not mix in any significant way. Traditionalists argue that America was like this until the 1950s until "liberalism" turned it into a multi-racial, multi-cultural cesspool. There is a great reliance on IQ scores to argue that Hispanic, Black and Muslim immigrants will dilute our national intelligence and destroy our cultural identity. These and all non-white immigrants are impossible to assimilate according to Traditionalism and it is a liberal delusion to try.
According to Traditionalism freedom is not enough to define the Right. Here is Auster on the subject:
"...the key defining thing of traditionalism is the recognition of a natural, social, and spiritual order by which we are formed; we don't entirely create ourselves through our own will and choices, much of what we are, for example our sex, is not chosen by us, but comes from beyond us."
"Pure individual freedom without the guidance of a transcendent, traditional order is a world of sexual freaks and open borders. This shows how the analysis "right = freedom, left = collectivism," breaks down and is not adequate to describe social reality."
Here is Auster describing what was wrong with America's founding from the perspective of Traditionalism:
"...A Jeffersonian republic depends on prior factors apart from freedom per se, such as a ethnoculturally homogeneous population...
...And this is exactly the tragedy of America itself, which I've written about many times: America from the start depended on certain traditional/ethnocultural/religious factors to have its freedoms and institutions, but in the formal ideology of the system, contained in its founding documents, only the freedom and procedural aspect of the society was articulated, NOT the ethno-cultural-religious basis that made the society possible. As a result, over the years, the freedom/procedural aspects got stronger and stronger, while the trad factors got weaker and weaker. So part of my trad project is to say, we need to go back to the American founding and make right what was wrong in it, namely, we need to recognize, along with the universalist proclamations and the procedural guarantees of self-government and liberty, the substantive ethnocultural understructure of the society."
So Traditionalists believe that America must define itself as a white, European, Christian nation and only that will save the America Republic. In essence this is racial collectivism bolstered by socio-biology.
Now my questions with regards to this are how many Objectivists are even aware of it and do they think it has a chance of becoming more popular especially as the multiculturalist Left continues to strengthen. As it is now, the dominant strain of Christianity is the egalitarian version. This makes it compatible with Left-Liberalism. But Auster and the Traditionalist's version of Dark Age Christian Fascism combined with racism is not mainstream Conservative thought. Auster and others similar to him are pretty much marginalized amongst Conservatives. But is it possible that Traditionalism will become popular? Diana West who is a mainstream conservative has linked to Auster approvingly. Many Paleo-Conservatives are Traditionalists of sorts. This stuff is out there in the conservative world. Objectivism has not had to deal with racialism or this version of Conservatism to date but I think we might have to in the future.
So what do people think of this. Its ugly. Very ugly.
[Here is a sample Auster blog post debating what is the essence of "The Right vs The Left.": http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012956.html] |
|
| Sunday, April 12, 2009 at 17:00:38 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: RT
Madmax, that is frightening. However, I would bet that kind of racialist/nationalist thing will be much more likely to happen in Europe than in the U.S. Europe has a long history of racialism/tribalism (and in fact they have little other basis for having countries in the first place) whereas the U.S. still has its remnants of individualism and the 'melting pot' concept. I think it's especially likely to happen in Europe given the quite large and growing Muslim underclass populations, e.g. in coutries like France. The likely reaction will be some sort racialist/nationalist party voted in at some point -- like Jean-Marie Lepen in France. In the U.S. such people are still real dregs at the margin, such as what you quoted above. In Europe, they're already lurking around the fringes of government (albeit in more 'respectable' garb than this Auster guy), and are really only a hop, skip and a jump away from power if the circumstances prove favorable. |
|
| Monday, April 13, 2009 at 0:42:14 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Rory Hodgson
E-mail: cowboybebop(at)ntlworld.com
Looks like Gordon's jumping on Obama's bandwagon:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5143911/Gordon- ...
Actually, Cameron suggested the idea back in 2007, but whatevs:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/09/tory-policy-everyone-can-unite ...
In the word's of Devil's Kitchen: "Because when I want to feel proud of my country, I definitely like to highlight state slavery as one of the best things about it. You fucking moron." |
|
| Monday, April 13, 2009 at 0:43:38 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Rory Hodgson
E-mail: cowboybebop(at)ntlworld.com
What's funny is this follows their plans to force everyone to stay in education till they're 18 -- only they've found that they cannot force the employed to pay for it (they literally can't squeeze enough money out) and so, now, they've got to commit to outright slavery. Awesome! |
|
| Monday, April 13, 2009 at 15:03:34 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: madmax
RT,
I think you're right, especially about Europe.
The Traditionalists despise liberalism which they consider both Classical Liberalism and Leftism. They think that the individualism of Classical liberalism is based on an epistemology of subjectivism and therefore must morph into Leftist tyranny. Therefore, their main claim, stated again and again, is that only religion provides an antidote to moral subjectivism and egalitarianism. But to me it seems that Leftism really is nothing more than a secularization of the egalitarianism inherent in Christianity. So when I look at cultural trends going forward, I think that it is the similarities between Christianity and Leftism that will grow and therefore what we are heading towards is an egalitarian Christian authoritarian state. The Traditionalists want a non-egalitarian racialist authoritarian state but they want it based on Christianity. That's something I don't see as likely. Still, this movement is scary and I really hope it doesn't spread. |
|
| Friday, April 17, 2009 at 10:47:14 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: J
Auster has written about how he thinks the egalitarian impulse in Christianity must be reined in by a non-Christian order like nationalism: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008683.html |
|
| Friday, April 17, 2009 at 12:18:08 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Andy
E-mail: andy(at)nomail.com
J.T.:
"Madmax, that is frightening. However, I would bet that kind of racialist/nationalist thing will be much more likely to happen in Europe than in the U.S. Europe has a long history of racialism/tribalism (and in fact they have little other basis for having countries in the first place)"
I don't see why that should be considered "frightening." The United States has been the exception to the rule, and really only since 1965 when non-whiteness and non-Christianity have been pushed to the forefront. This country was 89% White in 1960.
Madmax:
"So Traditionalists believe that America must define itself as a white, European, Christian nation and only that will save the America Republic. In essence this is racial collectivism bolstered by socio-biology."
It's necessary, but not sufficient, for America's continued existence. To call what someone like me, or like Auster, believes in "racial collectivism" is to say that race means nothing. Furthermore, it is to deny that human beings exist as anything more than detached, autonomous, rights-bearing individuals, interacting with other merely in commercial exchanges or ideological debates. Do you suggest that recognizing sexual differences should be call "sexual collectivism?" |
|
| Friday, April 17, 2009 at 12:45:36 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Andy
"The Traditionalists want a non-egalitarian racialist authoritarian state but they want it based on Christianity."
Your taking great liberties here with that statement. Where do you get the idea that traditionalists want a Christian authoritarian state, presumably enforced by jack booted thugs.
Ideally the racialist aspect would not even have to be addressed, because a nation would spring forth from physically similar people who have a common culture, history, language, etc. These people would feel no need to admit alien people in any meaningful number to live among them and assert their alien identity.
Are manners and morality something you accept? Social convention has always existed without the need for coercive state enforcement. I think what you are saying here goes to the bottom of what a nation is. People who don't see themselves as one people will not behave as one people. And 300 million autonomous, rights-exercising individuals, free to engage in any recreational and economic activity without moral judgment or government interference will never see themselves as a people. There has to be some framework before individual liberty for a nation to exist, let alone prosper. |
|
| Friday, April 17, 2009 at 12:52:29 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Andy: Go away, you racist turd. You're not welcome here. |
|
| Friday, April 17, 2009 at 13:04:18 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Andy
"Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome."
From Diana Hsieh:
"Andy: Go away, you racist turd. You're not welcome here."
It would seem to me that according to the rules, I AM welcome here, and that based on your comment, you ARE NOT.
Although your comment could just be a joke, which I actually would find amusing.
Regardless, I feel no need to remain on your weblog. Good day. |
|
| Friday, April 17, 2009 at 14:25:49 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: feminizedwesternmale
E-mail: mac4ever(at)bellsouth.net
"Andy: Go away, you racist turd. You're not welcome here."
Ms Hsieh unknowingly and impudently displays effete snobbery, the very sine qua non of modern liberalism. Unfortunately, the joke is lost to her, and we will all suffer for her ilk's spectaluarly narrow, "open-mindedness." |
|
| Friday, April 17, 2009 at 16:01:16 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Andrew Dalton
E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com
URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com
"Do you suggest that recognizing sexual differences should be call "sexual collectivism?" "
If it is given deep normative significance, as in the realm of morality (morality for men vs. morality for women), or in politics (rights of men vs. rights of women)--then yes.
At the root of such ideas would be the theory that there is no such thing as human nature (in the cognitive/intellectual sense), but rather a separate "men's nature" and "women's nature" that is irreducible and unbridgeable by reason. This is what the Islamists actually believe, for example.
And the only way that race could have a normative significance is if there were some qualitative, unbridgeable gap between, say, "white thinking" and "black thinking." Note that this is a *much* higher hurdle of evidence than what is typically offered by racialists, which is statistical disparities between groups.
The Objectivist rejection of the normative significance of race is *not* dependent upon any assumption of equal distributions of abilities or outcomes among racial groups. (The leftists do assume this, which is why they are terrified of IQ tests and the like.) Rather, it is based on the recognition that there is a single cognitive nature of all humans (the capacity for thought and volition) that separates us from the other animals. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 0:35:28 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Dean Ericson
E-mail: dmericson(at)mac.com
Diana Hsieh started off this thread by requesting posters to "Please refrain from posting personal attacks[…]" only later to reply to another poster, "Andy: Go away, you racist turd. You're not welcome here." Diana's behavior, as the moderator, is ridiculous and contemptible and marks this as a site not worthy of serious consideration.
-Dean Ericson |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 2:43:38 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Sajid
In response to #17:
I'm sorry, but if someone comes here and starts making racist comments those are personal attacks to people who are not white. I am not white and a citizen of the US. If I feel that I don't belong in the US because of my race then I feel that I am being de-humanized. In order to take Andy's position seriously and argue against it I would first have to start by proving that I am human or good enough to be a worthy member of American society. This is EXTREMELY offensive to me personally.
Note also that other contributors to the original content of this blog are also not white and while I won't presume to speak for them I can only imagine that such comments would also be extremely offensive to them personally.
Also, thanks Diana for sticking up for me and other people who have a genuine interest in being US citizens despite not being white. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 8:12:04 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Andy wrote: "Ideally the racialist aspect would not even have to be addressed, because a nation would spring forth from physically similar people..."
In other words, racism wouldn't be a "problem" because there wouldn't be any of those "physically different" foreign folks around to make it one? And that's your notion of an *ideal*? Sorry, but to Andy and his apologists: that is pure, unadulterated racism. It's despicable, and Diana is more than justified in stating that she does not consider it welcome here. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 16:23:24 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Too Funny
E-mail: noifo(at)aol.com
Race.....where every Randian curls up in the fetal position and abandons rational thought. Grow up. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 17:09:35 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Alba
I notice that on the main blog page there's a lot written in support of the Tea Parties. I hope you know that a significant contingent of the population, namely Democrats and other leftists, consider the Tea Parties "racist". In fact, these days, any criticism of Wonder Boy is often denounced as racist. Just so you folks who so easily throw the epithet "racist" around know in what kind of company you are. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 17:17:15 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Mark Richardson
E-mail: swerting(at)bigpond.com
URL: http://ozconservative.blogspot.com
The starting point for Andrew Dalton appears to be this question: what makes us distinct from the animals? What makes us human? He answers that it is the exercise of individual reason and will. This is what constitutes "human nature" (literally in the sense of making us human). Therefore, this is the relevant criterion for assessing questions of social organisation, identity and morality.
If you make this the starting point of your politics, then a number of other political positions become logical. If we discriminate between people, it can be assumed that we are doing so because we think some other people lack the same human nature (i.e. do not share a capacity for reason and will) or because we wish to deprive people of the rightful exercise of this human nature, therefore treating them as non-human.
This is the conclusion jumped to by Sajid in a comment above. He believes immigration is an issue of whether he is categorised as human enough to live in America.
I can understand that if this your assumed starting point, then the issue takes on a fierce moral tone, with your opponents being labeled as despicable racists and so on. It becomes an issue of accepting or denying someone's very humanity.
However, please understand that traditionalists do not share your starting point. For many traditionalists, our humanity is a given, as we have been invested with a human soul and gifted with free will. We therefore move on to look to the particulars of human existence, whether these are part of the natural, social or spiritual realms, when considering questions of identity and morality.
For instance, we do believe that the nature of men and women is distinct in significant ways - significant enough to be deeply important to identity and social organisation. This doesn't imply for us a judgement that men and women are different qualitatively in their status as humans (as it might do for those who think in terms of a unitary human nature based on a capacity for reason and will - in this case, asserting a significant difference would mean denying the same capacity to act as a human).
You won't understand us if you assume that our moral intent is based on your philosophical understanding of things rather than our own. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 18:39:33 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Andrew Dalton
E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com
URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com
Mark -
No conceptual conclusion, such as a theory of human nature, can be accepted as a given; that is, without any underlying validation. When we want to know the nature of water or steel or wheat or the human body, we examine the outside world for evidence and *then* come to a conclusion based upon that evidence. Why would the nature of the human mind be an exception?
On the issue of "moral intent"--the *intent* of any idea's originators or supporters is a psychological issue, and it is of secondary significance (if at all) to the importance of evaluating the idea itself. Like everything else, ideas have a particular nature. When people accept certain ideas as a guide to their thoughts and actions, certain consequences result. These consequences cannot be erased or mitigated by the supporters' wishes, hopes, fears, and so on. An example of this fact is the remarkably similar (and horrible) consequences of Communism--despite the hordes of intellectuals and agitators who insisted that it would be the "humane" and "rational" social system.
(I should say that Objectivism does not support taking ideas in a vacuum and attempting to deduce their consequences. Rather, the core of evaluating an idea is to look for its validation--to trace the chain of reasoning that led to the idea, and to determine if it has an ultimate root in sensory evidence. But an idea based on the unreal, such as Communism, will be a disaster in practice because it never took account of reality from its inception.) |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 20:02:02 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Mark Richardson
E-mail: swerting(at)bigpond.com
URL: http://ozconservative.blogspot.com
Andrew,
You write as if it is self-evident that your theory of human nature accords with an objective reality. It doesn't appear that way to me - it seems rather that you severely limit what is accepted as human nature, and you do so in order to fit things to an idea. It is the idea which comes first.
A traditionalist can accept reason and free will as important aspects of the human. But why should we limit human nature to that alone? Why not accept as well the loves, the instincts and drives, and the forms of identity and attachment which are also characteristic of human life?
These all exist as real phenomena in the world. Many of them are common to human existence across time and place. Many of them can even be measured and tested physiologically.
You may not value them as traditionalists do. But they are real nonetheless. So it is not a question of a theory based ultimately on an objective reality versus one that is not. It is more a question of what aspects of reality are taken to be legitimate according to an idea of human nature. It seems to me that it is the traditionalist view which encompasses more of this reality. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 20:04:46 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: mike
E-mail: m_courtman(at)hotmail.com
"This is EXTREMELY offensive to me personally."
I would have thought a libertarian who doesn't believe race is an important source of identification, wouldn't be so touchy about the topic.
Contrary to the views of right liberals, race obviously is important or people wouldn't get so worked up about it. It certainly seemed to be pretty important to the 95 per cent of Black Americans who voted for Obama. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 20:19:07 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: Hannon
It seems that the fear response regarding Auster has to do with the fact that he articulates very well what many 'regular folks' feel intuitively to be true. Left or right ranting and use of ad hominem responses is easily dismissed. Carefully constructed argumentation is not and this is I suppose a positive characteristic of Randians. But I think you are lost if all of your stock is in rationality and reason alone.
Madmax, your emphasis on the 'Christian white society' idea is a little overcooked. What is meant by this concept, as I understand it, is that any sovereign entity must have coherence based on something mutually recognized as agreeable (if not natural in some way), historic and culturally dominant. Thus we look at the largely Protestant origins of America and her subsequent development, unity, morality, etc. No one freaked out about or condemned this set of circumstances until very recently. This heritage has been radically altered by the mass immigration of peoples whose beliefs often do not accord with historic American norms and are sometimes hostile to them. Such change would be enough to alarm the *people* of any nation, even if its politicians remain numb and blind. That is where we are today. A completely different situation would arise from the arrival of small numbers of immigrants, of almost any origin, over a long period of time.
A society with traditions overwhelmingly dominated by Christian faith does not translate to accepting or promoting racism, exclusion or similar ideas. Many of our social difficulties today stem largely from the *loss* of that hegemony, not from the philosophy of any right-wing groups or individuals. Because of ongoing excessive and diverse immigration we face much more challenging social and cultural problems than relatively more ethnically homogeneous countries in Latin America or like Korea, Japan, or even some Islamic countries. The most complex nations in this regard, like India, U.K., U.S., suffer tremendous internecine strife that no one has any idea how to remedy. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 20:29:21 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Sajid
Since this topic does not seem to be dying down I would like to state that it is this particular exchange that I took offense too (from comment #11):
"Madmax:
"So Traditionalists believe that America must define itself as a white, European, Christian nation and only that will save the America Republic. In essence this is racial collectivism bolstered by socio-biology."
It's necessary, but not sufficient, for America's continued existence"
Here Andy is clearly saying that it is necessary for America's continued existence that America define itself as a white, European Christian nation. Which also implies that I don't have any place here. My cousins who were born and brought up there and have no "home" country to return to also do not have any place here. The 20% of the American population that is not white and consists of many people who have been here for generations
also have no place here. Why do they have no place here? Not for the content of their character, the choices they have made, their personal achievements but for their genetic code.
But that's not all. Advocating a certain kind of society (100% white) necessarily involves a discussion of how such a society would be achieved. It seems you guys are notably silent on this issue. Well the only ways I can think of is mass displacement, mass deportation or (as has happened once before) mass extermination. It is for this reason that I am taking offense at the above comment.
"Contrary to the views of right liberals, race obviously is important or people wouldn't get so worked up about it. It certainly seemed to be pretty important to the 95 per cent of Black Americans who voted for Obama."
Now here is a truly genius comment. A conservative advocates a society that is 100% white and then wonders why black people don't vote right wing.
Also to Mark Richardson:
Please don't distort the issue by stating that Objectivists do not believe legitimate differences between men and women and between the races do not exist. Objectivists claim that those differences do not change the fact that all people have a right to live and that they must be treated equally under the law. To me, a separate law for one race and a separate law for another will necessarily create all sorts of double standards.
If you guys are really serious about forming a country based on your 100% white ideal then America is not the nation for you. Thankfully, there is no nation extant today that is for you. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 20:42:05 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Alba
So, do the Japanese have no right to their own nation then? It seems like white Americans are the only people in the world that are to be denied a country. *Every* other country in the world radically restricts immigration. It's not written anywhere that America, alone of any nation, must accept others like Sajid who obviously hold the native inhabitants in such contempt. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 20:44:50 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Alba
One other thing Sajid, do you hold that America would be wrong to deport the 30 million or so illegal immigrants who live here? or now that they're here, do you believe that we would be Nazis if we did so? |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 20:55:42 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Too Funny
E-mail: noinfo(at)aol.com
Sajid said: " Thankfully, there is no nation extant today that is for you". There you have it folks......whites are to have no place on earth where they can be allowed to live together. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 20:59:38 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
This discussion of "traditionalism" is closed. I was hoping that it would simply wither away, but alas. Any further posts from the "traditionalists" will be deleted. Given my own choice of a husband, I find these views incredibly and personally offensive. They are unworthy of discussion, and I will not grant them a hearing on my property. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 21:03:17 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: Sajid
To #28 and #29:
"It's not written anywhere that America, alone of any nation, must accept others like Sajid who obviously hold the native inhabitants in such contempt."
I don't hold all native inhabitants in contempt. I hold YOU in contempt though. And yes, once I am here it is written in your own constitution that you must accept me.
"So, do the Japanese have no right to their own nation then?"
The founding principles of Japan were different than the founding principles of the US. This is why one nation remains ethnically homogeneous and the other doesn't. I do not agree on fundamental grounds that the Japanese are in the right when they have their nation organized the way they do now. I am not a socialist or a tribalist. But I have no business in Japan and I see absolutely no reason why American standards (based on rational observation of human nature) should be based on Japanese standards.
"One other thing Sajid, do you hold that America would be wrong to deport the 30 million or so illegal immigrants who live here? or now that they're here, do you believe that we would be Nazis if we did so?"
Can I request you to cut out the "loaded comment" bullshit and speak normally? I think it would be wrong to deport 30 million people who have risked their lives to cross deserts, seas and border patrols all for the purpose of escaping tyranny and/or poverty and to work for an honest living in the US. Perhaps you should re-read the poem on the back of The Statue of Liberty to understand my position.
I don't agree that we should not control our borders at all as that is an important part of being sovereign. But to judge someone who has broken a rule it is important to consider the purpose for breaking the rule and the harm done. In this case, most immigrants break US immigration law to pursue their own happiness and I do NOT think they are harming American society. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 21:33:39 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: Andrew Dalton
E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com
URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com
Mark -
This discussion is getting pretty far afield from its original subject, which is whether race ought to be given significant weight in questions of morality and politics. Even taking the traditionalist premises as you have presented them, I see nothing supporting the affirmative on that question.
The Objectivist view of human nature certainly allows for what we observe (including emotions)--but it has no place for the imaginary, such as a supernatural soul imbued by God. (Objectivists do sometimes use the word "soul" in its secular Aristotelian sense.) And if we are debating whose worldview is in accord with reality, then any philosophy that insists upon the existence of such an apparition--and which seeks *moral instruction* consisting of commands from heaven--has already tossed aside any legitimate claim to be on the side of reality. All else beyond that becomes window dressing.
There can be no compromise or peaceful coexistence between reason and unreason. "Unreason" here includes not only religious faith, but also the varieties of secular mysticism such as racial will, blood-and-soil identity, nebulously defined "instincts" and "drives," and so on. All of these notions are attempts to wall off wide and crucial domains of human existence from the inquiry and direction of the thinking mind. And once unreason is granted license in any domain, it can expand its reach arbitrarily, since it can always appeal to its own "reasons that reason cannot know."
So, there is an inevitable clash between Objectivism and conservatism (traditionalist or not). And this really is an unbridgeable gap--because the former values reason alone, while the latter makes appeals to gods or glands in order to avoid exposing many of its own doctrines to rational scrutiny. |
|
| Saturday, April 18, 2009 at 21:54:36 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
END OF CONVERSATION, FOLKS.
See my comment #31. I've deleted the recent comments from the "traditionalists," as promised. I would very much appreciate if their opponents would permit the thread to die by refraining from further comment. |
|
| Monday, April 20, 2009 at 8:41:49 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: Publius
E-mail: john(at)jjay.edu
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. |
|
| Monday, April 20, 2009 at 18:34:49 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: Malcolm Pollack
E-mail: malcolm(at)malcolmpollack.com
URL: http://malcolmpollack.com
I am commenting here not to take any position on "traditionalism" but simply to remark that I should have thought I would have had to visit a Taliban madrassa, or Burmese party meeting, to see civil and rational discourse stifled so arbitrarily. I must say I was quite startled; this is certainly not how philosophy is done. Ideas, if wrong, should be rebutted, not exiled. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
