From the NYT:
Many Chinese Intellectuals Are Silent Amid a Wave of Tibetan Self-Immolations
By ANDREW JACOBS
BEIJING — In a gruesome act of resistance that has played out dozens of times in recent months, six young Tibetans set fire to themselves this week, shouting demands for freedom as they were consumed by flames. On Friday, for the second day in a row, thousands of Tibetan students took to the streets in the northwestern Chinese province of Qinghai denouncing “cultural genocide” and demanding an end to heavy-handed police tactics, exile groups said.
Here in the nation’s capital, where Communist Party power brokers are presenting a new generation of leaders, the outgoing president, Hu Jintao, made no mention on Thursday of the anger consuming China’s discontented borderlands during his sprawling address to the nation.
Asked by foreign reporters about the escalating crisis, delegates to the 18th Party Congress blamed the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader, or inelegantly dodged the question altogether. “Can I not answer that?” one asked nervously.
But while Tibetan rights advocates have long been inured to impassive officials, they are increasingly troubled by the deafening silence among Chinese intellectuals and the liberal online commentariat, a group usually eager to call out injustice despite the perils of bucking China’s authoritarian strictures.
On Twitter, where China’s most voluble critics find refuge from government censors, the topic is often buried by posts about persecuted dissidents, corrupt officials, illegal land grabs or other scandals of the day. Since the self-immolations began in earnest last year, few Chinese scholars have attempted to grapple with the subject.
“The apathy is appalling,” said Zhang Boshu, a political philosopher who lost his job at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences three years ago for criticizing the government’s human rights record.
With a mounting toll of 69 self-immolations, at least 56 of them fatal, many Tibetans are asking themselves why their Han Chinese brethren seem unmoved by the suffering — or are at least uninterested in exploring why so many people have embraced such a horrifying means of protest.
Perhaps because the Han Chinese don't see themselves as the "brethren" of the Tibetans? The vast majority of Han think of Tibetans the way increasing majorities of Israelis think of West Bank Palestinians as Israel's German cultural heritage slowly dwindles.
This is a useful reminder that the vast majority of the non-European world is Rightist in the sense current in the Anglosphere and Europe of being ethnocentric and majoritarian: the Chinese, the Muslims, and so forth.
Is there any part of the non-Euro world that is anti-ethnocentric and pro-minoritarian? Kerala in India, maybe? Probably not, but I don't see a lot of better candidates.
Rather than the mean Rightist Euro-white majority keeping down the Leftist minorities of the world, the real picture on a global scale is of a nice Leftist anti-ethnocentric white minority in a world increasingly dominated by not nice ethnocentric and majoritarian Rightist nonwhites.
I've sometimes wondered if the white leaders of American prestige colleges sort of grasp this deep in the unarticulated parts of their minds and they hope that they can somehow inculcate niceness in the Chinese (and the rest) before the Chinese totally push us aside.
Unfortunately, it's such a triple-bankshot approach: let's have Chinese applicants write admissions essays about how they have been discriminated against by the White Male Power Structure ever since their family moved from China to San Marino, and then we'll make sure that we have lots of classes that emphasize how horrible was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and, hesto-presto, they'll grasp the secret unspoken message that the Chinese should be nice to Tibetans ... and to us white people when the Chinese eventually have the global whip hand.
It's a foolproof plan!
It's a foolproof plan!
Posts
167 comments:
Leaving aside immigrants to Western nations, neither Leftists nor Classical-Liberal Rightists seem to have much of an idea how the rest of the world thinks, IME. They can understand heavily Westernised non-Westerners, Indian Marxist academics and such; the Left especially tends to treat non-elite non-Westerners as children.
They have zero understanding of the general mass of the non-Western leadership classes, the upper middle class+, who actually run their countries. Obama seems to be an unusual exception there, perhaps the exception that proves the rule.
Steve, your point is absolutely spot on. I agree. But by using israel as an example you give red meat to the exterminationist anti semites. Please consider not using israel and israelis as examples this way.
Steve, you are never going to win over the anti white jews. But "the undiscovered jew" is at the vanguard of an emerging group of jews in the usa that is pro hbd, pro sailer strategy, and also pro israel. Why should you deliberately antagonize people just cause they want to restrict immigration to israel as well as to the usa
What did I just read on another blog..."Stupid people are always surprised just before they are killed."?
It's simpler. The whole universalist bit is assumed to be the natural state of evolved humanity, which a developed country will eventually evolve toward. It fits liberalism being a Christian heresy, since this makes sense in a Christian context--as we accept the message of Jesus, we become more Christlike.
Thus, it's actually a form of ethnocentrism, believe it or not.
Too late Steve-o.
WE WON!!!
Right, and a whole lot of Jewish intellectuals and Obama, their kid, were so VOCAL about Israel's gruesome bombing of Lebanon and Gaza.
Btw, them Tibetans are really protesting against the Muslim video.
Yeah, NY Times is so vocal about gruesome rates of black on white violence.
But who is consuming the products of China and using the services of other BRICS? Overwhelming majority must be the developed world.
When people speak of the inevitability of the rise of these new global powers, is it inevitable or is it only likely (give or take domestic crashes and the decline in demand due to recession or the collapse of the Euro) if we keep going within the current economic framework?
once in a while on the web i talk to people about 100 years from now, when europeans are long gone, and the chinese are battling the muslims for control of the earth.
of course it is true that all societies except those run by europeans, are "far to the right" as the political spectrum is understood in the US. default human politics are rigid identity politics, but in exclusive favor of one group, their group, and against all other groups. there is very little if any liberal political thought in their nations.
once in a while a small idea or two will show up, making the transition from the white liberal or jewish mind and to the non-europeans, but that does not cause large societal change. the main theme remains. every consideration is for us, and against you.
The NYT doesn't talk about Tibet because it's nice. The NYT is evil. It sees China rising, so it's looking for ways to hurt it. Inculcating Han guilt in regards to Tibet is one way to do it. The NYT doesn't care about blacks in themselves either. They only use blacks as tools to inculcate guilt in whites - same strategy.
I'll bet everyone's surprised just before they are killed:
"Pray for Guiterriez, avid of speed and power,
For Boudin, blown to pieces,
For this one who made a great fortune,
And that one who went his own way.
Pray for Floret, by the boarhound slain between the yew trees,
Pray for us now and at the hour of our birth."
There may be more hope for China then you think, Steve. Just anecdotally, but I've noticed more soul searching and "what kind of people are we" commentary on Chinese blogs for quite some time.
Doris Lessing's under-appreciated sci-fi novel Shikasta draws out implications for Euros of Chinese domination. Been decades since I read it but if I remember right they put the white race on trial for legacy of oppression. Whites are caught off-guard by the combination of competence and coldness displayed by their Chinese overlords. Probably worth re-reading today.
The Tibetans are cousins of the Chinese, just as, say, Southern whites are cousins of the white intellectual establishment in the US.
If Southern whites started protesting, demanding secession and independence, immolating themselves, etc., do you think the white intellectual establishment would be writing up sob stories in the NY Times about how right and just their cause is? Of course not. They'd be howling about how racist and bad these people are and how the Feds should be sent in to crush the rebels and how they need to be properly "integrated".
Those peoples dreaming of their descendants building their homes on top of the bones of the white race just loves them their liberalism.
I can not think of a single problem to which the solution is to set ones self on fire. If that's the best that Tibetans have, then perhaps their culture isn't worth saving.
Although I think while domestically many of those qualities are to the fore, largely through placating non-native groups and ritually breast-beating, on the international stage the leading players in the developed world are not being so nice and cuddly, for instance in training and arming the global jihadis in Incirlik and elsewhere in Turkey.
If "angry white males" started burning themselves alive before the Whitehouse lawn demanding a reservation for for white people, Jon Stewart would have a field day with "Darwin Award" jokes while Steven Colbert would change his intro animation to include himself in flames as he landed with the American flag.
Steve: You have such a misplaced logic. Not a single Han Chinese asks those Tibetan to burn themselves. They committed suicides out of the implicit encouragement from Tibetan exiled in India. They were promised to Heaven and a reincarnation. Sadly, they were religiously brain washed and just tools of propaganda. The reporter in the article is an utter idiot, and has an agenda to sell.
Now, the discrimination against the Asian has been real and tangible since they set foot in this country. Even now, they are still systematically discriminated (and yes, mostly by whites). Do you think if the Chinese burns themselves up, it will gain them a big favor in admitting into elite colleges?
Quite the contrast, Chinese affirmative action favors minority in college admission. Their score cutoff lines are much lower. Tibeban's line is among the lowest. Many officials in Tibet were promoted largely because of their ethnicity. I wish that the whites in the US treated me (who happens to be Chinese descent but have quite a few relatives in China) the same way as Chinese treated the Tibetan.
This is a useful reminder that the vast majority of the non-European world is Rightist in the sense current in the Anglosphere and Europe of being ethnocentric and majoritarian: the Chinese, the Muslims, and so forth.
Trying to get liberal Republican to wrap their heads around the fact that blacks, Hispanics, Asians etc vote Democratic not because white people are racist but because black, Hispanic and Asian people are racist is an exercise in frustration.
Lindsey Graham went before "The Race" to announce that "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up!". And by the bigots he meant white people, not The Race.
The idea that whites are inherently evil and non-whites are inherently good has been absorbed by a lot of whites, including a lot of Republican whites. Culture matters more than politics.
Is there any part of the non-Euro world that is anti-ethnocentric and pro-minoritarian? Kerala in India, maybe? Probably not, but I don't see a lot of better candidates.
What do you mean by this exactly?
Do you mean extensive affirmative action for assorted groups in the government, colleges, and public sector jobs?
Do you mean that it's very sensitive to publicly criticize certain groups?
Do you mean that prominent government positions (cabinet positions) must be given to certain minorities?
Because on that basis, Kerala and all of India counts as anti-ethnocentric and anti-majoritarian.
nice Leftist anti-ethnocentric white minority
I don't know if white elites are actually "nice" and "anti-ethnocentric". They throw white middle and lower classes under the bus, but I don't think they want to give up their positions in the "commanding heights" to non-whites. They are hypocritical as has been noted frequently.
The comparison with Israel-Palestine is not really apt.
The Chinese do view themselves as brethren to the Tibetans. As brethren and as paternalistic big brothers.
It's more akin to the USSR where the Russians viewed themselves as the leading nationality helping the various national minorities "develop" and "progress".
Josh Yellowfever:
Quite the contrast, Chinese affirmative action favors minority in college admission. Their score cutoff lines are much lower. Tibeban's line is among the lowest. Many officials in Tibet were promoted largely because of their ethnicity.
The Soviets (in other words, Russians and Jews) who ruled Ukraine in the 1930s also had affirmative action programs to ensure plenty of Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Armenians, and other minorities could go to college in Moscow. The cities in Ukraine had signs in Ukrainian, and plenty of food. But millions of Ukrainian peasants starved to death.
Tibet is a delicate issue for a number of reasons, including the fact that Buddhism remains very important in Chinese culture. The PRC leadership is afraid of the influence Tibetan Buddhists could have on the people, so the persecution is in many ways more religious than ethnic/racial. Chinese leaders have always been very paranoid about religious movements, and Tibetan Buddhism is the most intransigent of all these in China at the moment, although Islam is beginning to become more of an issue in Xinjiang.
Actually, Chinese think of these Tibetans more in the way Americans thought of the Branch Davidians, which is why the PRC would bring up Waco in the human rights context all the time.
And Josh Yellowfever is right: Tibetans and other minorities do get affirmative action, and do not have to follow the one-child policy. Not saying things are great for the Tibetans (a lot of Chinese crooks end up in the frontier regions), but it isn't a deliberate extermination/displacement.
Maybe most American professors are naive about Chinese nationalism, but I don't know. I remember a political scientist professor I had talking about Sept. 11th and how Chinese students he knew actually cheered when the centers fell, something that obviously had disgusted him (He's a good old-fashioned liberal by the way, although not in the foolish contemporary sense
). It would seem to me that there are a lot of professors like that, although maybe I'm just being naive.
Okay, so the Chinese government has college affirmative action programs for non-Hans for reasons of state and as, perhaps, an inheritance from Stalinism, but this article makes it sound like China's dissident intellectuals are even more ethnocentric than the Chinese government.
Liberal dominance is predicated on western military and economic superiority to other civilizations. It will perish when the west is no longer top dog.
I blame Gene Roddenberry.
Back in the sixties it seemed progressive to have the bridge of the Enterprise filled with a conglomerate of sexes, races, and nationalities. Maybe so but was it a good prediction?
If there are any people in any starships in the twenty third century surely they will all be of one race and one nationality. The same people who think it's likely that there will be one world government somehow expect Chekhov (a Russian) to be unassimilated and still displaying an accent. This makes no sense.
If there is to be a single world government surely all citizens will speak the same language the same way.
We are very far from that now. The best measure of how much the UN has failed is that some countries drive on the right and others on the left.
Languages die out every year. Obviously in a couple centuries we will all speak one language. Possibly English. Possible Mandarin. Certainly not French or Greek.
Similarly we will have fewer races. The Tasmanians are already gone. The Ituri and Andaman pygmies will probably all be gone by the end of the century. Of the major races Africans seem likely to be the next to go. Certainly if the Han Chinese re-invade Africa as seems likely that process may begin sooner than we imagine.
Within a century or so there should only be Asians and Caucasians. There may be an end game thereafter but by then we should have such control over our genomes that the issue may be moot. Skin and hair may be like shirts and pants and people will adopt whatever style they they favor.
The cliché is that the world is growing smaller. If that's so then we should be moving toward more homogeneity. The Chinese are just showing the way in Tibet.
Albertosaurus
The depletion of whites in North America bears a striking similarity to the destruction of cod fisheries in Atlantic Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery
The three causes are similar:
Technology has make immigration easier, Uncertainty about the future of the US under immigration has made opposition harder, and the Dependence of industry on immigrants has made stopping the flow impossible.
Surely there were people long before the catastrophe who predicted the collapse of the cod, but predicting the inevitable is no way to attract an audience, as Steve points out.
Albertsaurus is correct. There will be just one race in the future. Very very rapid acceleration in the numberbof chinese men making babies with african women fornobvious reasons
Tibet has always been viewed as "part of" China in some sense, with its autonomy varying at different times, from the era of dynasties to the modern Chinese era starting in 1911 where "Five Races Under One Union" was one of the founding principles of the Republic of China:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Races_Under_One_Union
The world situation today is sort of an inversion of the situation a hundred years ago. Around 1900, a lot of the educated elite in non-Western, underdeveloped countries -- say Turkey, China, or Brazil -- were patriotic, but only toward their country as it could be, not as it actually was. They were keen on destroying backward traditional institutions and forcing the masses to Westernize and modernize, even if the masses couldn't see the point of giving up fezzes or footbinding. In Brazil elites were even willing to use immigration to whiten the country massively.
Nowadays, it's Western educated elites that are keen on de-Westernizing, and tearing up traditional national cultures, and even demographic reengineering through immigration, never mind what most of the population thinks of this.
The whole thing is an interesting lesson in long cycles in the rise and fall of civilizations.
The cause of Tibet and the valorization of the Dalai Lama by Western elites is mainly about curbing China and being a battering ram against China.
The Dalai Lama himself is against abortion, homosexuality and has made statements to that effect. He's espoused reactionary views and the general Buddhist culture that dominates Tibet is quite traditionalist and reactionary. If China had nothing to do with Tibet, Western elites would be sending NGOs into Tibet to replace the traditional culture there with modern Western liberalism.
same thing is happening in europe with spain and catalan and basque regions; france and brittany and catalan; germany and bavaria,
I remember a political scientist professor I had talking about Sept. 11th and how Chinese students he knew actually cheered when the centers fell,
Yet we have delusional HBDers like Derbyshire who dream of an "Arctic Alliance" between Europeans and East Asians.
I think it is possible that Chinese callousness could be overcome by Buddhism which has a long history in China and which teaches compassion and universalism as fundamental principles. Currently the Han remain paranoid about religion probably because of their experiences with the West historically using religion for subversive purposes, both during the colonial era and during the Cold War.
Well, without bothering to check, hasn't Tibet generally been part of the Chinese Empire for hundreds of years, maybe since around the time of the Mayflower? That's several times longer than the Eskimos in Alaska have been ruled by the U.S., and if they wanted to secede (and all become oil-millionaires), the American government probably wouldn't let them. From what I've read, the Tibetans lived an extremely backward existence and were brutally oppressed by their local feudal rulers during the brief period they were independent when China was in collapse.
The rest of the analysis also seems very much based on naively taking American media-propaganda at absolute face-value. For example, back a couple of years ago, there was a spat of brutal racial conflict between Han Chinese and one of the major national minorities, and my impression is that the overwhelming majority of the victims were innocent Han civilians, butchered by hostile mobs, with hundreds of fatalities. The Chinese government did their best to suppress knowledge of what was going on so as to minimize ethnic retaliation and further unrest. If hundreds of whites in America were massacred by black mobs and the government covered things up, I don't think WN-types would denounce the government for being too ethnocentrically "pro-white." Another analogy might be if Palestinian mobs massacred Jewish Israelis and the Israeli government suppressed the facts to avoid provoking conflict with the Palestinians.
Or take an even better example. For the last forty years, Han Chinese have mostly been restricted to one child, while all the national minorities have been allowed to have as many children as they want, thus causing a significant rise in the Chinese minority population. If the American government restricted whites to one child, while allowing unlimited children to non-whites wouldn't that make some of the "pro-white" commenters here a little irritated? Chinese universities also practice "affirmative action" for admissions of lower-scoring non-Han, which makes all the Han applicants grumble quite a bit.
China's population is well over 90% Han and the government elites are almost 100% Han. All the evidence is that the Han rulers generally want to benefit their own Han people as well as China overall. But they're certainly willing to sometimes sacrifice Han ethnic interests in pursuit of their larger national policies, just as might be expected of sensible and pragmatic leaders. Therefore, it's just silly to regard them fanatically ethnocentric or that sort of thing.
"My understanding is that the white native population of poland has very strong ethno nationalist feelings. No desire for immigration whatsoever."
Shhhhhhhh ...
I don't know if white vs. non-white racial politics is analogous to the Sino-Tibetan relationship. It's probably more akin to historical intra-white relations, such as in the UK between the English and Celts, or in the US between WASPs and white ethnics before assimilation.
Is Unz part Chinese? I notice he writes a lot of pro-Chinese stuff. Of course, so does Thomas Friedman ..
Another big piece of the puzzle that the elites always miss is the enduring importance of different subsistence modes between different groups. The Han Chinese vs. the Tibetans is a textbook case of agrarian farmers vs. livestock herders.
The Rwandan genocide was another recent case, between the Tutsi herders and the Hutu gardeners / farmers. Darfur was another nomadic vs. sedentary conflict.
Anthropologists haven't really been welcomed into the elite or mainstream culture since the infatuation and later embarrassment surrounding Margaret Mead.
But then Freud and Marx didn't keep elites from still being interested in psychology or economics. So I think there's just a basic lack of curiosity about the full spectrum of human biodiversity. Elite taste keeps getting more and more boring over time.
It's too bad, because there are basic truths and patterns that they could popularize to help us modern developed people understand that bizarre diversity of the rest of the world.
In India, there are special quotas and privileges for untouchables. There are also quite a few exceptions made for Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, south Indians, etc.... and these are supported by most major political parties.
Uri Avnery is a famous (or infamous) liberal Israeli, pro-Palestinian activist. Here's an article he wrote on the Tibet issue:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/04/07/tibet-and-palestine/
"I support the Tibetans in spite of it being obvious that the Americans are exploiting the struggle for their own purposes. Clearly, the CIA has planned and organized the riots, and the American media are leading the world-wide campaign. It is a part of the hidden struggle between the US, the reigning super-power, and China, the rising super-power – a new version of the "Great Game" that was played in central Asia in the 19th century by the British Empire and Russia. Tibet is a token in this game.
I am even ready to ignore the fact that the gentle Tibetans have carried out a murderous pogrom against innocent Chinese, killing women and men and burning homes and shops. Such detestable excesses do happen during a liberation struggle.
No, what is really bugging me is the hypocrisy of the world media. They storm and thunder about Tibet. In thousands of editorials and talk-shows they heap curses and invective on the evil China. It seems as if the Tibetans are the only people on earth whose right to independence is being denied by brutal force, that if only Beijing would take its dirty hands off the saffron-robed monks, everything would be alright in this, the best of all possible worlds.
THERE IS no doubt that the Tibetan people are entitled to rule their own country, to nurture their unique culture, to promote their religious institutions and to prevent foreign settlers from submerging them.
But are not the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria entitled to the same? The inhabitants of Western Sahara, whose territory is occupied by Morocco? The Basques in Spain? The Corsicans off the coast of France? And the list is long.
Why do the world’s media adopt one independence struggle, but often cynically ignore another independence struggle? What makes the blood of one Tibetan redder than the blood of a thousand Africans in East Congo?
Again and again I try to find a satisfactory answer to this enigma. In vain."
"My understanding is that the white native population of poland has very strong ethno nationalist feelings."
Poland is to Russia what Tibet is to China. The powers that be have always supported Polish nationalism as a tool against Russian nationalism. If there were no Russia on the map, the NYT & Co. would be against Polish nationalism, against Polish veneration of John Paul II, against Polish Catholicism, against the very idea of Poland existing (i.e., they would be demanding massive third-world immigration into Poland). And if there were no China, the NYT & Co. would be against Tibetan nationalism, against Tibetan veneration of the Dalai Lama, against Tibetan Buddhism*. It's really very simple. Basic divide and rule.
*Remember, Tibetans have lived with Buddhism for so many centuries that it now feels native to them, like Catholicism to Poles. To the powers that be the appeal of Buddhism-for-whites is that it's alien to whites.
re: Poland
Someone google the very sad and shameful "simon mol"case.
Kerala is like that because its population structure is 25% Muslim, 25% Christian and 50% Hindu. And the Hindu population is mired in caste divisions. There is no majority to be ethnocentric about, and therefore a strong "keralite" consciousness has developed. Plus, the Muslim and Christian presence there is >1000 years old.
"The vast majority of Han think of Tibetans the way increasing majorities of Israelis think of West Bank Palestinians as Israel's German cultural heritage slowly dwindles."
Tibetans are murdering Han Chinese constantly?
Or is this just some more anti-Semitic garbage from you?
pat said...
I blame Gene Roddenberry.
Back in the sixties it seemed progressive to have the bridge of the Enterprise filled with a conglomerate of sexes, races, and nationalities. Maybe so but was it a good prediction?
You may be on to something. Roddenberry was a liberal, but not a typical one, and he had many personal issues which he aired on his TV program. Such as women. Read David Gerrold's critique of Star Trek for more information about Roddy's ideas about women.
If there are any people in any starships in the twenty third century surely they will all be of one race and one nationality. The same people who think it's likely that there will be one world government somehow expect Chekhov (a Russian) to be unassimilated and still displaying an accent. This makes no sense.
Good point. If future humanity does launch ships to the stars, they will be crewed by either the First World nations of today, or a totally homogenized unilingual human race.
Languages die out every year. Obviously in a couple centuries we will all speak one language. Possibly English. Possible Mandarin. Certainly not French or Greek.
Similarly we will have fewer races. The Tasmanians are already gone. The Ituri and Andaman pygmies will probably all be gone by the end of the century.
The human races, nations, and languages that are now in the process of dying out were the same ones that were moribund in 1900. Technology, ease of travel and communication, are all speeding this up. It's the same with endangered animal and plant species. Tigers are going extinct. Rats are not. There is a natural reason for this, beyond the rantings of the enviro-freaks.
Many American Intellectuals Are Silent Amid a Wave of workplace shootings.
"Therefore, it's just silly to regard them fanatically ethnocentric or that sort of thing."
In all fairness to Steve, some liberals in this country are so fanatically open borders/mculticulturalist that even sane people can appear to be fanatically ethnocentric by comparison. (Although it is amusing hearing a white nationalist complain about ethnocentrism. It's like hearing a morbidly obese person telling you to cut down on the soda because it's all sugary inside...)
Well, I am Ashkenazi and I am in favor of Poland remaining Polish. That means that if the average people of Poland want a country that is 100% ethnically Polish and 100% Catholic, I support that 100%.
I know that the majority of Ashkenazi don't agree with me, but that is the way I feel. I would bet that "The Undiscovered Jew" and a few others jews in the HBD blog-o-sphere agree with me.
Each ethnic group should have their own homeland, and that homeland should be 100% theirs.
French Canadians should have their own homeland (probably shouldn't include Montreal thought because Montreal is already so mixed)
Same with the Basques and the Catalans.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? If the French Canadians don't get their own homeland pretty soon French will die out as their grandchildren speak English
If the Catalans don't get their homeland, people will stop speaking the language, and what makes their group unique will die out.
The ceaseless mixing of different groups leads to extinction. It is not rocket science to understand this
RKU, your analogies would make more sense if you replaced "white" with "English" and "non-white" with "Scottish," "Irish," or "Welsh."
But of course, that would spoil your point.
Han Chinese attitudes towards Tibetans is analogous to an American neoconservative's view of the rest of the world.
Originally, it was to bring socialism to the Tibetans and make them all communists. Now it is to modernize them.
In terms of cultural destruction during the Maoist years, that was not inspired by ethnonationalism, but from the communist desire to eradicate what they considered feudal practices, and Han Chinese suffered no less than the Tibetans.
There are wide-ranging preferential treatment for minorities in China, that make US affirmative action for blacks and Hispanics seem paltry in comparison.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970826&slug=2556773
Most notably minorities are allowed to have as many children as they want. Han are restricted to one child.
So the analogy to Israel and white ethno-nationalism seems rather off-base.
Is there any part of the non-Euro world that is anti-ethnocentric and pro-minoritarian?
Much of Latin America and South East Asia.
The Han is dealing with the Tibetans in a far more humane way than the way the Americans dealt with the Native Americans.
anon:
"The NYT is evil."
I would agree that it's important to remember this. Calling the cultural Marxist-inculcated Western intelligentsia 'nice' is about as accurate as calling Steve an exterminationist anti-Semite, per comment #2 above.
Talking of anti-Semites of the Neo-Nazi kind, they post videos on Youtube where they lament Israel's terrible inhumanity to the poor Palestinian Muslims, and call for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Europe, *in the same video*. Does anyone else find this kinda funny?
Poles have plenty of desire to emigrate however - especially to the U.K. where we now stand knee deep in them, along with Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians etc. It almost makes one wish the Communist East had never collapsed. At least it held them back. Reagan was an idiot. The eastern immigrants also quickly learn how to play the PC game - Polish Catholics complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about a night clubs' flyers featuring a picture of the Pope (enjoying himself on the dance floor) and had these offensive articles banned. Not wanting foreigners overrunning your own country doesn't mean one refuses to swamp someone else's.
Okay, so the Chinese government has college affirmative action programs for non-Hans for reasons of state and as, perhaps, an inheritance from Stalinism, but this article makes it sound like China's dissident intellectuals are even more ethnocentric than the Chinese government.
Well, it's like anonymous said: Tibetan Buddhists are reactionary traditionalists. The liberal dissidents are more like Western liberals, except they don't see Tibetan culture through rose-colored glasses like Richard Gere and the like.
If a Western government undertook some measure to persecute particularly radical Catholic traditionalists, for example, how many American liberals would complain about it? Not many, I don't think.
If the minority making noise and protesting were some cute and fuzzy one, like the Hani for example, I'm sure the Chinese liberals would be defending them. But that just isn't how the Tibetans come off. I've been to a lamasery. It's pretty impressive, so while the whole fighting monk, sky burial and bone horn thing may command respect, the Tibetans aren't exactly a bunch of adorable ewoks:
This is what a Tibetan warrior rode out with when fighting alongside his Mongol allies. And it should be pointed out that as recently as the 1950s Tibetans were engaging in combat with the Red Army, being supplied all the while by the CIA.
"But "the undiscovered jew" is at the vanguard of an emerging group of jews in the usa that is pro hbd, pro sailer strategy, and also pro israel."
ok, but we're still waiting for the undiscovered hispanic.
btw, liberal Jews are secretly very hbd. their nationalism in Jewish-majority Israel and liberalism in nations where they are minorities both serve their tribal interests.
be hard when your side has the power but soften the majority with liberal appeals when your side is the minority. chinese are same way. nationalist in china but liberal over here. liberalism protects them from majority power.
"Doris Lessing's under-appreciated sci-fi novel Shikasta draws out implications for Euros of Chinese domination."
How about John Hersey's WHITE LOTUS?
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1495461.White_Lotus
http://www.amazon.com/White-Lotus-John-Hersey/dp/0394451716
It's a rather silly book. But THE CALL is a masterpiece.
I agree with Unz that a lot of what the Chinese leadership do is for the nation and their own power, not for the Han ethny per se.
I get to meet a fair number of Chinese students doing my course, including an Uighur intellectual who was very anti-Chinese and rather ungrateful to the Chinese govt that had paid for her to come do my course!
My impression of educated Chinese views from what they've told me is that they tend to admire the West and its legacy, but see it very much as a declining civilisation, with theirs on the rise. I've heard elsewhere of Chinese still having an inferiority complex re the West, and I'm sure they have a healthy wariness of the USA, but I haven't really seen much sign of such myself. Whereas the Indians are very much aware of and ashamed of India's continuing inferiority and are keen on 'legacy of colonial oppression' type explanations. I've never seen anything like that from the Chinese; I can't see them wanting to put us on trial - or intervening to help us, either.
"The Tibetans are cousins of the Chinese, just as, say, Southern whites are cousins of the white intellectual establishment in the US."
No, Tibetans are more different from Chinese than Vietnamese or Japanese are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetic_languages
"I wish that the whites in the US treated me (who happens to be Chinese descent but have quite a few relatives in China) the same way as Chinese treated the Tibetan."
You miss the point. Even if you treat them nice--which I doubt--, they want independence. Brits treated HK and Singapore nice but they still wanted yellow rule.
Israel had a substantial Peace Camp, which existed until the Second Intifada blew it to smithereens. And ushered in an era of rightist governments. When Palestinians were blowing up buses and pizza parlors, it was hard to figure they were anyone you could negotiate a deal with. Moreover, Sharon's move out of Lebanon and Gaza, got ... only more intense rocketing of Israel. Further depleting Israelis ability and willingness to make any deals with the Palestinians.
Israel is tiny, democratic, and fairly female-dominated. So they'd naturally want any kind of deal, given they are not built for war or conflict. [Large population, male dominated, payoffs for conquering.]
Israel now has come, even with the above factors, to the conclusion that most Palestinians are unwilling to agree to any deal that does not include: A. all Israelis dead. B. Israel no longer existing.
What that means is that even people inclined to fairly pacifistic leanings and deals (small, female dominated population) can if pressed act upon survival. When your grandfathers and great-grandfathers were exterminated, and there's a bunch of people who'd like to repeat that, well even SWPL-ism can be limited. Particularly given the huge divisions among Palestinians (HAMAS vs. PLA, i.e. Iran vs. Saudi backers). And the inability of Arafat to take a 98% deal or make even a counter-offer.
The Chinese are paranoid about religion because of the Taiping Rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
"but this article makes it sound like China's dissident intellectuals are even more ethnocentric than the Chinese government."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/expect-be-lied-japan/?pagination=false
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/07/22/buruma-compares-hitchens-to-supporters-of-wwii-japan/
No, Tibetans are more different from Chinese than Vietnamese or Japanese are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetic_languages
That's not true, and I'm not sure why you're using language to try to make your point, since the Japanese and Vietnamese languages are less related than Chinese and Tibetan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Tibetan_languages
Ah yes, those poor slumdwellers in Chan Marino. At least it's been shown that 20something Azns are just as credulous as their white contemporaries--the Most Oppressed President Ever really cares about people like them. Marx/Engels may have had it backward about "nothing to lose but your chains. Now back to my multimillion dollar college counseling biz
"Within a century or so there should only be Asians and Caucasians. There may be an end game thereafter but by then we should have such control over our genomes that the issue may be moot. Skin and hair may be like shirts and pants and people will adopt whatever style they they favor."
rotfl. writing a sci-fi novel?
"The Undiscovered Jew"
great new trope.
"Back in the sixties it seemed progressive to have the bridge of the Enterprise filled with a conglomerate of sexes, races, and nationalities."
The funny thing about Star Trek is that as soon as you get off the bridge of the Enterprise, race (species) is everything. The creators of the show have been patting themselves on the back for almost half a century now for having a black woman as an officer/receptionist. But look at all the non-human races. Klingons are all violent and warlike. Vulcans are all logical and intelligent. Cardassians are all militaristic. Bajorans are all religious and pastoral. Every planet, unless it has two types of people to make a point about racism today, has one type of person who all have the same traits and beliefs.
On top of that, the different races are in conflict far more than they're able to work together. Sometimes they form alliances and make treaties, but as soon as a treaty fails, they go right back to the old suspicions and hatreds.
It's kinda funny that a show built around so much implicit race realism is considered an early beacon of multiculturalism just because it says so.
I remember a political scientist professor I had talking about Sept. 11th and how Chinese students he knew actually cheered when the centers fell, something that obviously had disgusted him (He's a good old-fashioned liberal by the way, although not in the foolish contemporary sense).
Many, many non-Americans felt the same way on some level. In Canada and Europe they kept those feelings very secret, and publicly mourned the loss of thousands of innocent lives. The 1990s were the American decade of the American century, and not too rosy for the rest of the world. (Though Eastern Europe was freed from the commie yoke.) But it was the height of American powermonging arrogance. Some resentment was expectable.
'The Han is dealing with the Tibetans in a far more humane way than the way the Americans dealt with the Native Americans.'
But Indians got the casinos.
"Talking of anti-Semites of the Neo-Nazi kind, they post videos on Youtube where they lament Israel's terrible inhumanity to the poor Palestinian Muslims, and call for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Europe, *in the same video*. Does anyone else find this kinda funny?"
But the view is consistent: both euros and pallies are indegenes being invaded by outsiders.
"Whereas the Indians are very much aware of and ashamed of India's continuing inferiority and are keen on 'legacy of colonial oppression' type explanations."
Indians, like Arabs and Jews, compete by claiming to be the bigger victims during conflicts. They do it to each other as well as to outsiders, in conflicts between individuals (including family members) as well as in group conflicts. This trait is probably related to clannishness. It's so stable that it might as well be genetic, a part of the bigger clannishness package.
Look, most people that post here want there to be countries that are nearly all white, so that whites have an opportunity to live in a nearly all white country if they want.
That is a noble point of view to have.
What I am curious about is, does that extend to countries that want only a certain type of white person. For example, If Poland wants to ban all non polish whites from moving to Poland, are people happy with that? I know I am.
The point is, in Europe the nationalist groups are starting to cooperate across borders. UKIP says the UK is for people who were born there, not for immigrants. LePen say that France is for those born there not immigrants. My understanding is that UKIP and Le Pen can work together quite nicely.
This is not a zero sum game, each little etho group , each little language group in Europe can have its own country.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/12/magazine/a-new-japanese-nationalism.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
From long ago...
"Japanese ski manufacturers tried to make the Government declare European-made skis - one of the few European successes in Japan - unsuitable for the Japanese market, because of the uniqueness of Japanese snow."
Rotfl.
Talking of anti-Semites of the Neo-Nazi kind, they post videos on Youtube where they lament Israel's terrible inhumanity to the poor Palestinian Muslims, and call for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Europe, *in the same video*. Does anyone else find this kinda funny?
Yes, I find it funny in a "hey, how about some divide and conquer for you, too?" kinda way.
But no, I don't really find much funny about WNs being the most likely to use Jewish tactics against Jews. More "totally expected" than funny.
The Undiscovered Jew is my favourite blogger. He is one of the least politically correct Jewish bloggers in America ( I don't count Auster because Auster while born Jewish converted to Christianity)
Funny that a not politically correct blogger like him would choose to live in the most politically correct city in the anglosphere - portland oregon.
Marlowe said...
"Not wanting foreigners overrunning your own country doesn't mean one refuses to swamp someone else's."
--------------
Cut to Charlie Sheenski:
"Winning!"
The funny thing about Star Trek is that as soon as you get off the bridge of the Enterprise, race (species) is everything. The creators of the show have been patting themselves on the back for almost half a century now for having a black woman as an officer/receptionist. But look at all the non-human races. Klingons are all violent and warlike. Vulcans are all logical and intelligent. Cardassians are all militaristic. Bajorans are all religious and pastoral. Every planet, unless it has two types of people to make a point about racism today, has one type of person who all have the same traits and beliefs.
I also find it amusing which species are visibly diverse, and which are not. E.g., the plucky, squishy leftist Bajorans' diversity mirrors Hollywood's contemporaneous before-the-lens take on American diversity. In fact, ALL species with diversity show the same pattern. There are no black Bajoran neighborhoods, yellow Bajoran neighborhoods, etc. Only American ones. While the evil fascist Cardassians are 99% white.
There are no black alien species. No yellow alien species. Aliens are either all-white (and evil), or diverse-American (and good).
Chinese leaders have always been very paranoid about religious movements, and Tibetan Buddhism is the most intransigent of all these in China at the moment, although Islam is beginning to become more of an issue in Xinjiang.
The Dalai Lama himself is against abortion, homosexuality and has made statements to that effect. He's espoused reactionary views and the general Buddhist culture that dominates Tibet is quite traditionalist and reactionary. If China had nothing to do with Tibet, Western elites would be sending NGOs into Tibet to replace the traditional culture there with modern Western liberalism.
Currently the Han remain paranoid about religion probably because of their experiences with the West historically using religion for subversive purposes, both during the colonial era and during the Cold War.
Yep, the missionary-based China Lobby whose machinations lost China to the commies, and indirectly also lost Vietnam to the commies. Ironically, China is doing the very same thing to Tibet, trying to convert them from being "spear-chucking" Buddhists into being their idea of ideologically modern.
This issue aside, I wonder also if at least some Western Christian conservatives hate Buddhism on principle? They shouldn't, and if they were rational, could have used religious Buddhism as a weapon against atheistic communism. After all, they used Catholicism and Islam the same way during the Cold War. And why shouldn't they trust Buddhism more than Islam? When was the last time anyone heard of Buddhist suicide bombers? (The Kamikazes were more Shinto then Buddhist, BTW.)
Whiskey 11/10/12 4:37 PM
Whiskey's an inveterate liar and Jewish Supremacist, of course. Israel rejects immigration from all of humanity, not just Arabs. They're obviously pursuing Jewish Supremacy, not "democracy" as the term is understood in the rest of the world. Jews team up with Muslims and Arabs everywhere in the western world.
If we could reproduce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict anywhere in the world, changing only "Jew" and "Arab" for other labels, we all know which side American Jewry would champion.
Israelis have no "security" excuse for preventing people from China, India, and South America (none of whom shoved Jews into ovens or blew up any pizza parlors) immigrating to Israel, but prevent them they do.
Uh oh, I think China may be perilously close to losing membership in that hallowed group American academia calls "The Other". Among privileges that said membership brings: avoiding critique from the media/academic class.
Spain's politicians pledge to stop evictions after suicide
Elsewhere, the Western media is posting an ominously toned story about China using Skynet to spy on these poor souls to stop them from lighting themselves, though His Holiness “has yet to instruct his followers not to self-immolate.” I do not have enough mental energy to determine which narrative makes China more oppressive. Maybe the media should claim the burnings are staged, as per Falun Gong, circa 2001.
A lot of "white people do it too" responses in this thread. That's what you get when you talk about East Asian issues. East Asians deflect by saying "white people do it too." It's to shame white people so East Asians can get on doing what they've been doing. The trends in Tibet will continue.
China years ago set up an organization for Chinese to comment on Chinese issues particularly Tibet on Western websites. The Chinese want to influence Westerners to their side. Maybe one or more of these comments is from them. Regardless, several of these comments are from the Chinese perspective.
"Affirminative action" in China for non-Han Chinese is just window dressing. Non-Han Chinese get very little if anything from affirminative action. China is very pro-Han Chinese still. The one child policy was only enforced to any degree for about 12 years in the 80s and early 90s. Since then it's not enforced much. You really can't stop the Chinese breeding machine. Chinese rather go headlong into famines and overcrowding then not.
Singapore is an example of non-Euro minoritarianism. Malays are treated justly.
Singapore is an example of non-Euro minoritarianism. Malays are treated justly.
But its understood by all concerned that the Chinese are in charge and are staying in charge. Apart from few deluded whites - needless to say.
Agnostic's comments are always good.
'Singapore is an example of non-Euro minoritarianism. Malays are treated justly.'
that's not minoritarianism, which is faving mins and bashing majos.
I had an online argument with a Chinese immigrant about the Chinese exclusion act. He went on and on about how "racist" it was. All it did was deny Chinese the privilege of immigration to an overseas country. When i pointed out that China had no rightful claim to Xinjiang (where the indigenous muslim Uighurs live) and to Tibet, both of which they have flooded with Han newcomers, he did an immediate 180 degree turn in his 'logic' and said those people had no rights at all.
Steve, as your only counter-revolutionary Chinese reader, let me provide you some background information as to the Tibet situation and a reactionary’s perspective of contemporary Chinese politics.
As most of the rest of your readers are well aware, the NYT is a font of lies and subversion and this case is no different. The first and greatest lie is in the very headline itself when it inaccurately refers to Chinese “intellectuals”. For the NYT and the Liberal West at large, a Chinese intellectual, is functionally a parrot, one that repeats and regurgitates the platitudes of the prevailing post-modern Gramscian order and applies the tortuous illogic crafted in the West to China. Any heterodox individual who does not subscribe to this is accused of either a) being an apparatchik of the existing Communist Government b) ignored altogether as though they do not exist. However thankfully, much like a parrot, the tiny number of “intellectuals” as styled by the NYT are regarded by most right thinking Chinese as little more than exotic curiosities and safely ignored.
To understand China’s relationship with Tibet, one has to understand two periods of Chinese history, alternatively the beginning of the Qing dynasty and its end. Unfortunately there are no similar parallels in Western history that I can communicate readily to your readers so I will have to go into detail. Tibet’s modern relationship with China began with the demise of the previous Ming dynasty which collapsed in a pyre of rebellion and civil strife. Centralized rule had been gradually weakening for decades and the frontiers to the north had become porous. The Ming dynasty collapsed when a rebel army seized Beijing and the last emperor hung himself. The last significant loyalist force in the field was an army guarding the northern frontier, an army commanded by a general whose name is now synonymous with race treason decided to throw his lot in with the Jurchen/Manchu rather with any other would be successors who proceeded to fight amongst themselves while the Manchu/traitor coalition grew larger and destroyed them piecemeal.
The Manchu were themselves Sinicized barbarians (half-cooked, rather than raw using the food metaphors we Chinese are so fond of) which made them all the more dangerous. True nomads are primitive and harmless, capable of little more than sheep raiding. It is when they are armed with the weapons and tools crafted and traded to them by their sedentary neighbors that they become an existential threat. Like the Indian tribes that plagued the American western frontier, they could have been swept aside with casual ease had not some “enterprising” individuals sold them guns and cannons and trained them in their use.
As the Manchu began their gradual military expansion further West beyond the Han heartlands, they had to find some way to justify what they were creating, an empire whose bedrock was a population of subjugated Chinese. Their justification came in the form not altogether unfamiliar to that of the Democratic Party of contemporary America. Qing rule constituted a “diverse” multi-ethnic coalition of peripheral peoples arrayed against a core population under the rubric of one big happy empire. The Manchus, Mongols, Tibetans, Uighurs, etc. were all just as “Chinese” as the Han themselves, even more “Chinese” than the Chinese since they had special privileges that no Han had and it was the majority who had to accommodate the customs and interests of the minority. The Manchu conquest of Tibet resulted in the ensconcing of a Qing viceroy in Lhasa but more importantly a Tibetan presence in the Chinese capital. The history of Tibetan government is the history of external military power (first Mongol then Manchu) used to support one internal faction against another. The Dalai Lama served as something akin to a Buddhist Court Shaman who in turn received recognition and temporal support from the Qing emperor recognizing him as the titular grand Pooh Ba ahead of all the other would be lamas.
When the last dynasty itself began to disintegrate under the hammer blows of internal rebellion and European invasion in the late 19th century, the seeds of modern Chinese nationalism were sown, a nationalism deeply opposed to the partitioning and extraterritoriality of Chinese homelands. Initially rebellion against the Qing manifested itself as the racial opposition to the Manchu, occasionally manifesting in racial pogroms against them when revolution swept away the old regime in 1911. However China’s new Han elites were driven by the notion of the indivisibility of the Chinese nation and the recovery of territories even those on the Han frontier’s with significant minority populations. The Tibetan Lamas had declared independence after the Xinhai revolution had swept away the Qing dynasty and evicted the last Qing governors and soldiers and sought patronage from the British to guarantee their newfound independence as the rest of China was wracked by civil war and political warlords determined to become top dog. It is an absolute miracle that the Chinese nation remains as one polity (excepting Taiwan) when looking at the absolute chaos that gripped China in the early 20th century.
The subsequent Communist revolution that swept away the Republic of China was no less determined to unify the Chinese nation than their predecessors but unlike them possessed the unity of purpose and zeal that they lacked. Even while Communist forces were wiping out the last vestiges of nationalist resistance in Southern China, a Communist army marched on and seized Tibet and over the ensuing decades proceeded to “Sovietize” the place.
With that history lesson out of the way, the position of Tibet in contemporary Chinese political can be summarized as follows. The dominant “Orthodox” position embraced by both the Chinese liberals and neo-conservatives alike is that China is a multi-ethnic nation with Tibetans as one ethnicity of a “Chinese” nationality. The “Heterodox” position espoused by elements most hostile to the Communist government and racially aware Han reactionaries is that the Tibetans are a unique people with a right to self-determination/stinking nomadic ingrates that don’t belong in a Chinese nation.
That said, dozens of Tibetans setting themselves on fire instigated by the exile pity party is fundamentally irrelevant to the ocean of Chinese who suffer the daily indignities Communist Rule. Not so much to the writers of the NYT though.
Steve, your point is absolutely spot on. I agree. But by using israel as an example you give red meat to the exterminationist anti semites. Please consider not using israel and israelis as examples this way.
"Steve, you are never going to win over the anti white jews. But "the undiscovered jew" is at the vanguard of an emerging group of jews in the usa that is pro hbd, pro sailer strategy, and also pro israel. Why should you deliberately antagonize people just cause they want to restrict immigration to israel as well as to the usa"
So we shouldn't point out Jewish hypocrisy(despite Jews criticizing everything about us mercilessly)? Yeah, that makes sense. If "pro hbd" Jews demand that Jews be the only group that can't be analyzed in hbd terms, how sincere are they?
Sorry, but self-imolation (shudder) just doesn't count as persecution. If I did feel sorry for them, I wouldn't after that. They are freakin' insane. I have more sympathy for the teachers striking in Chicago.
"Anonymous said...
Funny that a not politically correct blogger like him would choose to live in the most politically correct city in the anglosphere - portland oregon."
Maybe he likes it there. It's a nice place. There are other considerations besides the prevailing politics.
I could care less about China's political culture. But as an environmentalist I'm horrified by how a newly flush China is destroying the megafauna of Africa through its population's greed, superstition, and utter lack of empathy for the nonhuman world.
There are the very beginnings of an environmental movement in China with a focus beyond cleaning up the appalling hazards to human health, but it's a race to see if western environmentalists can sell care for the environment as a status good before the Chinese wipe out Africa's wildlife.
But its understood by all concerned that the Chinese are in charge and are staying in charge. Apart from few deluded whites - needless to say.
Leftist white elites operate on the assumption that they (leftist whites) are and will be in charge.
Yet we have delusional HBDers like Derbyshire who dream of an "Arctic Alliance" between Europeans and East Asians.
A clear headed guy deranged by marriage to a Chinese lady.
There are no black alien species.
Wasn't there one in a first season Next Generation episode?
They [Leftists nor Classical-Liberal Rightists] have zero understanding of the general mass of the non-Western leadership classes, the upper middle class, who actually run their countries. Obama seems to be an unusual exception there, perhaps the exception that proves the rule.
But under the current paradigm anyone overtly noticing such things would be denounced as a racist.
http://www.euractiv.com/enlargement/turkish-intellectuals-apologise-news-220911
turker intelli change o heart?
China years ago set up an organization for Chinese to comment on Chinese issues particularly Tibet on Western websites. The Chinese want to influence Westerners to their side. Maybe one or more of these comments is from them. Regardless, several of these comments are from the Chinese perspective.
Yes, and the CIA has been involved in using Tibet against China since the 50s. The Western media complex has long been involved in agitating for Tibet. It's why every college kid has ever even heard of Tibet.
PART I
The last few weeks have been the worst ever for conservatives. They have suffered massive defeats in an amount that is unprecedented. Not only have they lost the presidential election, but two states have legalized marijuana and another state has legalized gay marriage. The difference is not race, but age. Youths are sending the message that they are socially highly tolerant toward differences and strong supporters of individual freedom über alles. After all, these are the voters who only a few years ago were "emos", and found is perfectly ok for boys to kiss other boys, and for people in general do whatever they want with their lives as long as they don't harm others. Youths have send the clear message that they will immediately shoot down any political agenda that tries to disenfranchise people for being different and endorce some social agenda, which they equate with fascism.
As for Sailer's point about the Chinese, Arabs, etc, who cares? Do you know what they have in common? They are alll Third World societies. And yes, even China is clearly a Third World society. So should we emulate the losers of history and revert to barbarism, where the king(state) or the masses(majority) can simply kill those who do not conform to social/religious/ sexual norms?
And how exactly would suppressing individual freedom and forcing social conformism make the West more economically/militarilly powerful than the Chinese and the Arabs? Military power depends on economic might, which depends on scientific and managerial effeciency. Both things reach their absolute maximum level of dynamism when individual freedoms are enabled. You cannot have scientific progress, for instance, in a religiously conservative country that enfornces the Bible. You cannot have economic efficiency where individual freedom to start and manage businesses are enabled. The government is too large a bureaucracy to micro-manage the economy effectively, and where one owns not, one cares not, so where economic freedom is restricted, people are wasteful and indolent at their jobs, sine they know it makes no difference whether they work effectively or not.
PART II
What made the West so different and so more PLEASANT to live in is that the West is the only civilization in the history of the Earth that freed the INBDIVIDUAL from the tyranny of the masses, the "mobs with pitchforks" as well as te tyranny of the state. A long time ago, starting with the Magna Carta in Britain and then with the age of Enlightnemnt centuries latter, the people of the West made a radical decision, a decision that was radically and fundamentally different than any decision ever made elsewhere: that the INDIVIDUAL human being has certain rights that SUPERCEDE even the power of majorities and the government, and that one of these rights is that no one has a politially more exalted status than anyone else. Consider the disegregation of public schools in Mississippi and Alabama by the Supreme Court in the 1950s. The majority wanted to keep segregation, but it was not allowed to. Why? Because the segregation of public shools inflinged upon the ONE thing that is juridically more important than the power of the majority: the principle of equality before the law. The decision of the Supreme Court was based on perfect legal precedent. Even today, some ignorant peple believe the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally by going against popular vote. The reason why these people say this is because they are ignorant of jurisprudence: POPULAR VOTE CANNOT BE USED TO REMOVE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OR GRANT TO CERTAIN GROUPS MORE RIGHTS THAN TO OTHERS, AS THE PRINCIPLE OP EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW IS, JURIDICALLY, HIGHER IN THE HIERACHY THAN THE POWER OF MAJORITIES TO ENFORCE THEIR WILL POLITICALLY. Conbservatives do not agree with this. They are all for individual rights when it comes to their rights to keep an arsenal at home and be the kigs of their castles, but they are not in favor of individual freedoms when it comes to freedoms they consider to be against the "norm", or Christian valçues. If conservatives had their way, the U.S would cease to be a superpower since science would be echewed for religion and since the elite, which creates most of the wealth, would find the scrutiny over their tastes and lifestyles unearable and would leave America. If there is one thing that I have learned from hanging with rich, educated people is that they HATE pretty much everyting about the common people, from their tastes to their lack of manners to their inability to understand simple concepts that are obvious to them, and if forced to conform to that they would simply pack and leave.
What is at stake here is a battle for the West: conservatives like Sailer propose saving the West by making it exactly like the societies that want to destroy it: hateful towards people who are ethnically different, highly intolerant of individual expression, distrustful towards change and innovation, etc. What Sailer fails to comprehend is that, not only will this solution not make the West stronger in terms of economic and military might, but even if it did, it would be a pyrric win as the West would cease to be as it is, and become more like the societies that it is fighting against. What kind of "victory" is that?
Here's an English language news report from CCTV, China's main state TV network, on the celebration of "Tibetan Serf Emancipation Day". It gives a sense of the official paternalistic narrative the Chinese state has regarding Tibet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsWdL2hcqCA
"That said, dozens of Tibetans setting themselves on fire instigated by the exile pity party is fundamentally irrelevant to the ocean of Chinese who suffer the daily indignities Communist Rule. Not so much to the writers of the NYT though."
- Actually, the same could be said here- probably 95%+ of Americans couldn't give a shit less. They've got bills to pay, Big Brother to fear, a job to work hard at from paycheck to paycheck.... Its the academians in ivory towers and the undergrads not yet facing the heavy hand of the real world who are having the hissy fit.
I read a few of the comments, and you'd think that Jews in "HBD" was some kind of new development. But haven't Jews been way over-represented in the HBD elite from the very start? Some of the names that immediately come to mind, but I'm sure there are more: Seligman, Hernstein, Levin, Weissberg, and the godfather of modern HBD, Arthur Jensen. Then there are others like Scarr and Weinberg who are at least open to race-hereditarian conclusions.
I wonder what percentage of Sailer's HBD list is Jewish? Greater or less than two percent?
"But haven't Jews been way over-represented in the HBD elite from the very start?"
Definitely.
Granted, if you go back 75 or 100 or 150 years, you will find that Jews aren't quite as over-represented as theoreticians in the central thread of the life and human sciences (the one with Darwin at its heart) as in the physical sciences (e.g., Einstein).
But that's mostly because the British were out ahead in theorizing about life and human sciences, while Continentals (especially German-speakers) were out ahead in physics and chemistry.
The notion that the Darwinian tradition was a giant anti-Semitic plot wouldn't have made much sense to well-informed Jews as recently as, say, 1965. There just weren't a lot of Jews in Britain to take part in this triumph of British thought. British Jewish intellectuals are represented in the British Darwinian tradition -- Ricardo was something of a forerunner for Darwin and Harold Laski was a protege of Galton -- but there just weren't a lot of British Jews. Plus, the Darwinian tradition was advanced most by British intellectuals with some exposure to farming and country life, which most British Jews were lacking in.
It seems like this current conventional wisdom of the Darwinian tradition (St. Charles of course excepted) as an anti-Semitic plot was mostly made up by Steven Jay Gould and and similar figures around 1970. My guess is that ethnocentric jealousy was a major part of their motivation. This great leap forward in human thought (which includes much of modern statistics) was largely invented by WASPs, so let's demonize the great names of the past for advantage in academic politics in the present (e.g., Gould v. WASP country boy Edward O. Wilson in Harvard biology department meetings).
It was all very petty, and in the very long run, the mischief sown by Gould and Co. should be -- and, I hope, will be -- forgotten.
"ok, but we're still waiting for the undiscovered hispanic."
That's a pointless comparison. There are 13 million Jews worldwide. There are 4 times that number of Hispanics in the USA alone, and growing every year.
Let's say that multicult PC continues its dominance, and USA becomes a decaying country with majority third world residents, favelas and the like. Corruption increases, rule of law dies, GDP per capita drops. Anti-Semitism rises. American military influence declines, support of Israel wanes as American power declines.
Hispanic population increases, North America effectively becoming a similarly crime ridden hell hole similar to Mexico. Hispanics are used to it, and gain a whole new country with a lot more resources and a better standard of living, and many of their costs subsidized. Works out great for them!
What do Jews gain, again, that can't be gained by writing a little clause into the immigration laws granting an exception to Jews to immigrate to the USA while closing the borders to everyone else? The USA already has half of the world's Jewish population anyway. Evangelicals would be in favor of it, even the majority of White Nationalists would be in favor of it if it meant getting their old countries back.
That's right, Jews stand to gain absolutely nothing by increased open slather immigration. And Jews are perhaps better than any other ethnicity at figuring out what is good for them, so I would not bet on the current situation (Pro-PC multicult) lasting. YMMV.
What made the West so different and so more PLEASANT to live in is that the West is the only civilization in the history of the Earth that freed the INBDIVIDUAL from the tyranny of the masses, the "mobs with pitchforks" as well as te tyranny of the state.
Tell that to Socrates, Jesus, Joan of Arc, Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno, Darwin, Reich, Semmelweiss, Turing, Bruce, Leary, Pauling, and many others.
BTW, great post Steve.
@Anonymous 9:51 PM
"Tell that to Socrates, Jesus, Joan of Arc, Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno, Darwin, Reich, Semmelweiss, Turing, Bruce, Leary, Pauling, and many others."
What is your point, exactly? Most of these people were persecuted BEFORE the West institutionalized the principles of individual rights and and freedom of thought.
It was an INCREMENTAL process which started with the Twelve Tablets back in rome in 600 B.C, which dictated that a patriian couldn't simply murdr a pleberian on whims and the founding of the Athenian revolution, that culminated more than two millenia latter with the libertarian revolutions of the Enlightnment in France, which spread across Europe and is reflected in things such as the American Constitution, which is an ode to libertarianism.
As for Alan Turing, it is SHAMEFUL what the British did to them. Brits who were just like you, the people who read this blog: conservatives. SHAMEFUL. He was a war hero who did more to break the German codes than anyone else, and how did the English Society and government thank him? By disgracing him and leading him to committ suicide. SHAMEFUL. Conservatives like you have the blood of millions on your hands.
The West has been the originator and the bedrock of individual freedoms, but this does not mean that since the Enlightnment there has been NO politial opposition to the concept of individual freedom and equality of rights. Of course there has. Fascisms and the social-democratic governemnts of many European countries, which tries to restrict economic freedom to some degree, is testament to that. But for the past 200 to 300 years there has been a LOT more individual freedom and respect for individual rights than anywhere else. You cannot compare, for instance, the severity of French social-democracy with Maoist China. You cannot compare the difficulty that atheistic politician have in getting elected in some parts of America with the difficulty that atheists in Xiite societies have - risk to their very lives. The West over the past 200 years has been a LOT more respectful of the individual human being than any other civiliation at any other time. This is NOT debeatable. And this individual freedom explains the greatness of the West compared to everybody else. Even the Chinese, who have a well-deserved reputation for intelligenc, fell back and decayed for trying to micro-manage the lives of it's citizens starting in the Tang Dynasty.
I have my own theory on conservatives. I believe that conservatives are authoritarian types who do not deal very well with the concept of individual self-determination when it comes to others. Oh sure, they are 100% in favor when it comes to individual freedom for THEMSELVES, like their right to own a collection of AK-47s at home or smoke in public no matter how much it bothers others, but when it comes to OTHERS, they believe that they must be controlled because others are innately inferior and their lifestyles offensive to them - and how others might feel about THEIR lifestyle is irrelevant. Authoritarian types.
I have a solution for you conservatives: I think you should just join your economies, buy a lot of land and found your own country. Then you can have shools only for white children where Biblical teaching will be mandatory, you will have giant public shooting ranges for you to fire your guns and smoking in public spaces will be allowed, and you can name Chuck Norris to be your president.
"Anonymous said...
Tell that to Socrates, Jesus, Joan of Arc, Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno, Darwin, Reich, Semmelweiss, Turing, Bruce, Leary, Pauling, and many others."
Huh? What was so bad that happened to Copernicus? He died in his sleep, and after his death, his ideas were triumphant. Same with Galileo - sure he lived under house arrest, but the Church did not subject him to the same fate as Bruno. A lot of the church leaders were highly educated men who appreciated Galileo.
Darwin? He died (peacefully) rich and vindicated. Turing? Any persecution he suffered was due to his homosexuality, not his ideas. Pauling? Won the Nobel prize and lived to a ripe old age, lionized by millions. Leary? Ended up wealthy, on the lecture culture-hero.
When it comes to respecting the rugged individualist - the guy on the ragged edge of contemporary thought - the record of the west isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than any other civilization.
"of course it is true that all societies except those run by europeans, are "far to the right" as the political spectrum is understood in the US. default human politics are rigid identity politics, but in exclusive favor of one group, their group, and against all other groups. there is very little if any liberal political thought in their nations."
I was talking to an Indian H1B worker and he said the same thing. Everybody in Asia thinks their group is the best and they look down on others. Only white Americans and Euros hate themselves and don't look out for themselves.
"his is not a zero sum game, each little etho group , each little language group in Europe can have its own country."
Sounds good, but how do you kick the Spanish out of England or the English out of Spain?
There has always been some movement in Europe, especially before WWII.
Italians working in Germany or Spanish working in the vineyards of France?
Picasso moved to Paris as well as Van Gogh.
Van Gogh also lived in London.
Joyce moved to Switzerland and Trieste.
I would like to move back to my ancestral home of Italy, but they are too busy letting Chinese or Africans in now.Why would I want to move back to that?
It might be too late for Western Europe, especially since many people in Western Europe like the idea of being made a minority in their country.
"Now, the discrimination against the Asian has been real and tangible since they set foot in this country. Even now, they are still systematically discriminated (and yes, mostly by whites). Do you think if the Chinese burns themselves up, it will gain them a big favor in admitting into elite colleges? "
We never asked you to come here. Please leave and go back to being a member of the majority.
I am all for discrimination against foreigners.
That's a pointless comparison. There are 13 million Jews worldwide.
More like 20-22 million.
Me:
"Talking of anti-Semites of the Neo-Nazi kind, they post videos on Youtube where they lament Israel's terrible inhumanity to the poor Palestinian Muslims, and call for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Europe, *in the same video*. Does anyone else find this kinda funny?"
anon:
>>But the view is consistent: both euros and pallies are indegenes being invaded by outsiders.<<
The Neo-Nazis also say "No More Brothers' Wars" - which is an admirable sentiment per se - but at the same time support Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, the greatest disaster for the white race in history. I'm not sure they care for the wellbeing of actual white people any more than they really care for the wellbeing of Palestinian Muslims.
" If there is one thing that I have learned from hanging with rich, educated people is that they HATE pretty much everyting about the common people, from their tastes to their lack of manners to their inability to understand simple concepts that are obvious to them, and if forced to conform to that they would simply pack and leave."
You insinuate (by wrapping this comment around alot of diatribe about conservatives) that these wealthy educated haters are conservative. Far more often than not they are liberals, which kind of shoots your conclusions about conservatives down.
"You cannot have scientific progress, for instance, in a religiously conservative country that enforces the Bible."
Like Victorian Britain for example ;-)
"Like Victorian Britain for example ;-)"
But the progress came with the weakening of religious power.
All this Jewish/HBD issue misses the point. Some speak of the 'undiscovered Jew', but the fact of the matter is the 'hidden Jew'. Most Jew ARE HBD but secretly and privately so in a hidden way, and THAT is smart for the sake of Jewish power.
If Jews were only as smart as whites, many would likely be conservative. There would be little chance of Jews gaining elite power in the US and EU. No way 2% of Jews could become the elites of America. Most Jews would just strive to fit into white society. But Jews, being smarter, aimed for elite control of the US. Jews know that this can lead to gentile resentment, and so it's advantageous for them to push 'diversity' so as to play 'divide and rule'.
Divide and rule works. It works for imperialists and for anti-imperialists. Brits used it to rule over diverse India for over 200 yrs. Homogeneous Chinese used it against diverse imperialist powers to prevent one imperialist power from gaining total control of China.
If Jewish IQ were 100, the best could they hope for is to be part of the white community. With their IQ being 110-115, they can rule over America. And Jews, using their wits, play fast and loose with the truth, law, and rules. Jews once invoked 'rule of law' and the US Constitution to defend 'free speech for communists and radicals' and to end racial segregation. But Jews now undermine the Constitution to push for political correctness and 'affirmative action'. It's all to undermine white majority power. It's about power, not principles.
I grew up with many liberal Jews. Up to my sophomore yr in college days, I was more leftist ideologically than my Jewish friends. They trusted me and they used to say all sorts of crazy things about blacks, browns, Asians, Muslims, and etc. Stuff that would be considered 'racist'.
These were so-called LIBERAL Jews. A lot of liberal Jews are privately and secretly very HBD. They know all about racial differences. They told the funniest 'racist' jokes, many of them about dumb black guys with big d---s. Not a single one of them had an ounce of sympathy for Palestinians. They often bragged about higher Jewish IQ. In the predominantly liberal Jewish middle school I attended in 1980, they even had a slave-auction day where kids were sold like Southern slaves to raise funds for the school. I KID YOU NOT!
But they do NOT want to be DISCOVERED because gentiles would know about the full nature of Jewish power. This is why the hope of the 'undiscovered Jew' is a pipe dream. Jews intentionally wanted to be undiscovered.
Indeed, I'll bet Gould himself was a secret HBD-er. After all, he was a fully committed Zionist! And he had no problem with Jews disproportionately gaining the share of the economic pie and powerful/privileged positions in higher institutions.
Some of you think that Jews need to be enlightened about HBD. The fact is they KNOW about HBD but just don't want to admit it. Jewish liberalism is just a tactic in places where Jews are the minority, and it's smart!
Look, even the most fervent 'white nationalist' would be a 'liberal' where they are the beleaguered minority. Whites in Rhodesia used to be 'racist' but once blacks took power, whites were making the 'liberal' argument of tolerance.
White South Africans once used the ideology of racial solidarity. But now that majority blacks got the power, whites are making the 'liberal' argument of 'tolerance' against black racial nationalism.
Christian conservatives who once used to argue for censorship against atheist radicals are now on the side of 'civil liberties' to protect their own religious speech from PC police.
Pat Buchanan, a huge champion of Joseph McCarthy, is now arguing for freedom of speech and calling out on how MSBNC 'blacklisted' him.
As for liberals, now that they got the power, they no longer care about Constitutional protections. Why when they got the political muscle?
If the horror suffered by Jews in WWII justifies what Jews did in Palestine...
doesn't the tragedy suffered by Chinese in WWII justify what they've done to Tibetans?
But, You say "BUT TIBETANS DIDN'T INVADE CHINA!! JAPANESE DID!!"
But Palestinians didn't carry out the Holocaust--the Germans did--, but they had to pay the price for it.
If Palestinians who resist Zionist invasion are 'antisemitic', then Tibetans who resist Chinese invasion must be 'antisinitic'.
haven't Jews been way over-represented in the HBD elite from the very start? Some of the names that immediately come to mind, but I'm sure there are more: Seligman, Hernstein, Levin, Weissberg, and the godfather of modern HBD, Arthur Jensen.
Really? Arthur Jensen? The ability of Jews to claim all sorts of notable people as one of their own borders on the farcical. You can't really mock the Afrocenterists for claiming that "Socrates learned all he knew from black Egyptians" while saying nonsense like this.
Intellectuals and dissidents do not always live up to Western expectations. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was hugely admired as a dissident from the Soviet Union, and everyone seemed surprised when he turned out to be Russian nationalist, a Christian and very critical of Western values.
When it comes to respecting the rugged individualist - the guy on the ragged edge of contemporary thought - the record of the west isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than any other civilization.
I loved to hear that. Too many conservatives have this "America is heaven", "The West is heaven", "Christianity is heaven" attitude. To admit that the best societies, nay, all societies, are imperfect is a breath of fresh air.
"You cannot have scientific progress, for instance, in a religiously conservative country that enforces the Bible."
Like Victorian Britain for example ;-)
Most of the fascist Victorianism was confined to the lower middle class. The other classes were surprisingly liberal and libertarian. Darwin, anyone? It wasn't like Cromwell's New Republic.
Victorian Britain also did have a counter culture no less freewheeling than that of the America of Johnson and Nixon. Yeats and Crowley were hardly "Victorian" in morals, yet they were products of that time.
@Anonymous 6:57 AM
"Like Victorian Britain for example ;-)"
It is amazing that I have to even address "points" such as these. Are you serious?
England made all those scientific discoveries DESPITE the scrutiny from clergymen. The West for the past 200 years has had a lot more individual freedoms of liberty, property and thinking than elsewhere, but even TODAY there are conservative movements trying to restrict freedom of thought. Case in point: the banning of the teachings of evolution at schools in many American states. This is "Third World America". If these people were the only Americans, America would be no better than Guatemala.
Charles Darwin, for instance, struggled to conciloiate his belief in God with sciene, but he eventually gave up and became atheistic.
"I've sometimes wondered if the white leaders of American prestige colleges sort of grasp this deep in the unarticulated parts of their minds and they hope that they can somehow inculcate niceness in the Chinese (and the rest) before the Chinese totally push us aside."
Steve, you need to read Mencius Moldbug. He's written a lot of insightful stuff about what drives this liberal thinking and their desire to evangelize the rest of the world. It's much simpler and coherent, no triple bankshots necessary.
He's a bit long-winded, but here's an index that may be helpful navigating. http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com/
Genius posting.
@Train rider
"You insinuate (by wrapping this comment around alot of diatribe about conservatives) that these wealthy educated haters are conservative. Far more often than not they are liberals, which kind of shoots your conclusions about conservatives down."
Your reading comprehension is terrible. Did you even read what I wrote? I said that, if social conservatives took power in America, that the rich and educated would pack and leave. So you read that and interpretated that as meanign that I am implying that the rich and educated are conservatives? LOL.
The higher you go on the economic and educational ladder, the higher the proportion of liberal/libertarian tendencies. Sure, there are a lot of FISCAL and ECONOMIC conservatives among the rich, since it is in their best interests to fight for low taxes and entrepeneurial freedom. But the higher you climb the social ladder, the lower and lower the amount of SOCIAL conservatives. In general, when it comes to social issues, the rich tend to be liberal.
Even Steve Sailer is confused on this issue. He thinks that, because the proportion of divorce and out-of-wedlock births are so much lower among the upper middle-class, that this means that they are socially conservative. Nothing could be further from the truth. They seldom abandom their kids because they are intelligent and educated, and conscientiousness correlates very strongly with intelligence. But that same conscientioisness makes them SOCIALLY LIBERAL. If you poll those upper middle-class people who are married and with kids, you'll see that the proportion of them who are in favor of gay marriage and other socially liberal agendas is MUCH higher than among the lower classes. The rich and educated tend to be liberal/libertarian on social issues. This is simply a fact. Since you guys love to talk about IQ so much, here is a fun fact for you: IQ tests consistently show that there is a very strong INVERSE correlation between IQ and social conservatism. Or to quote John Stuart Mill:
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservative."
I think Mill was being generous towards conservatives, because the number of SOCIAL conservatives who are highly intelligent is very, very small indeed.
"If we could reproduce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict anywhere in the world, changing only "Jew" and "Arab" for other labels, we all know which side American Jewry would champion."
NICE!
More like 20-22 million.
Maybe so, the point still stands.
Re: The future according to Star Trek.
The multi-racial crew of the starship Enterprise NCC-1701-D does not look as if human races have had very much romantic interaction, during the 350 years elapsed since our time. The races seems still distinctly different. And the ship is mostly run by two white guys, who tend to ask the android for help with all tough decisions.
the number of SOCIAL conservatives who are highly intelligent is very, very small indeed.
I notice that social conservatives are intelligent enough to figure out how to use a screen name. You've been posting the same claptrap here for months now and that knowledge still eludes you.
England made all those scientific discoveries DESPITE the scrutiny from clergymen.
Yeah! It must be true, because Anonymous says so!
Case in point: the banning of the teachings of evolution at schools in many American states.
What a bigoted ignoramus you are. No wonder you don't use a name. There is no "banning of the teachings of evolution at schools in many American states".
the Left especially tends to treat non-elite non-Westerners as children.
From my prolongued personal experience with leftists, I can assure you that they patronize everyone that does not follow the word of their prophet (Marx, not the other one).
It might be too late for Western Europe, especially since many people in Western Europe like the idea of being made a minority in their country.
I cannot confirm that. That's just the media.
Israel is tiny, democratic, and fairly female-dominated. So they'd naturally want any kind of deal, given they are not built for war or conflict. [Large population, male dominated, payoffs for conquering.]
OT: Oh jesus, Whiskey. I did not even need to read the author's name.
They are built for war and conflict. They invest heavily in technology and to quote your own text: Muslim forces do best with irregulars, aiming to dominate by numbers. Against forces with superior technology, and a will to use that technology to slaughter them in great numbers, they fail.
- from Germany
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Robert J. Hanlon
"Let's say that multicult PC continues its dominance, and USA becomes a decaying country with majority third world residents, favelas and the like. Corruption increases, rule of law dies, GDP per capita drops."
BY THAT POINT, WHO GIVES A SHIT!?
"As for Alan Turing, it is SHAMEFUL what the British did to them."
Oh my, was he Watsoned?
"Steve, as your only counter-revolutionary Chinese reader..."
What about yanny?
They've come up with that they call "the right to invite". Which means that if Yan Shen wants to invite 1.3 billion Chinese to America, he has the right to do so, and it's a violation of his "rights" if somebody else prevents it.
"have a solution for you conservatives: I think you should just join your economies, buy a lot of land and found your own country. Then you can have shools only for white children where Biblical teaching will be mandatory, you will have giant public shooting ranges for you to fire your guns and smoking in public spaces will be allowed, and you can name Chuck Norris to be your president. "
Sounds pretty sweet. If there was such a place I´d move there. Probably be easy to make a living, and good people to live with. Maybe the Rocky Mountain WEst could be like that... too bad its so damn cold there tho...
@Anonymous 3:11 PM
"It must be true because anonymous says so!"
So having the clergy scutinizing and censoring scientists aids in scientific/technologial progress? Because this is what you are implying by disagreeing with my statement.
It is not my "opinion" that England underwent the scientific revolution despite the interference of religious conservatives; it is a fact that one concludes after a simple logial deduction. Obviously, scientists can do science better when there is complete freedom of thought and when they don't have to catter to religious doctrine. The alternative, that scientists can do science better if they are limited on what they can discover depending on whether what they discover agrees with the Bible or not, is absurd. This is a very simple logical deduction, but it eludes you because you are not very good at logic. So you make spiteful little remarks, such as that it is true because I "say so".
'What a bigoted ignoramus you are. No wonder you don't use a name. There is no "banning of the teachings of evolution at schools in many American states".'
Anonymous was clearly visiting us via time machine from Tennessee, circa 1949.
No wonder people are worried about "creationists" in politics, if they think this kind of thing is going on or is even on anyone's radar.
Robert Barnett, director of the Program for Tibetan Studies at Columbia University, disagrees with the "cultural genocide" accusations:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2008/03/25/seven_questions_what_tibetans_want
"I think we have to get over any suggestion that the Chinese are ill-intentioned or trying to wipe out Tibet. Its obviously horrible that people are being savagely beaten up and killed. But crucially, this is a historic change in the profile of Tibetan politics. Were looking at something much larger than any immediate anxiety about Olympics, or whether somebody planned one of these things, or whether people are upset about economic disadvantage. Historians are going to tell us that we missed the big picture if we didnt notice that this is the big story here. All the party cadres are going to be sent to the countryside areas to listen to the Tibetans complaints and find out what has gone so wrong with the policy machine in China."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/may/29/thunder-from-tibet/?pagination=false
"In the political discussions too there are enigmas, such as why, if Tibetan culture within Tibet is being “fast erased from existence,” so many Tibetans within Tibet still appear to have a more vigorous cultural life, with over a hundred literary magazines in Tibetan, than their exile counterparts."
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservative."
Stupid people NEED to be conservative, or reactionary, or fascist. They have no self-regulation, no inner moral compass. They will only destroy themselves and other dummies like them if given a little personal freedom. They are like domesticated animals, lacking the wisdom of wild animals, and will eat themselves to death if given enough food - not to mention smoke, drink, drug, sex, rock-and-roll, and video-game themselves to death.
Tragedy happens when stupid people, out of a twisted but noble sense of fairness, force smart people to follow the same totalitarian rules.
"Anonymous said...
""Like Victorian Britain for example ;-)""
But the progress came with the weakening of religious power."
No, the progress came about because a religious Britain had no objections to it. In what sense did the theory of evolution represent progress, in a material sense? Not at all - not in the 19th century. Whether Darwin was right or wrong had no effect on the speed that a ship could achieve, the development of the wireless, the invention of the airplane, the curing of disease, or the discovery of a new chemical.
This is something that knee-jerk anti-anti-evolutionists fail to understand. The implications for a technological society of belief - or disbelief - in evolution are just about nil. Isaac Newton probably believed in young Earth creationism - that didn't stop him from creating physics as a modern science.
Imagine that every scientist in the world became a believer in intelligent design overnight. What would be the effect of that on their scientific work? Just about nothing. Whether you believe that the Universe just happened as the result of some inexorable physical law, devoid of any spirit, or that the Universe was created by a wise and loving God - all that has no real implications for your views concerning global warming, the mass of the Higgs Boson, the existence of exo-solar planets. It doesn't even have many ramifications for most life scientists.
FFS already:
Israelis Favour Discrimination Against Arabs—Poll
More than two-thirds of those questioned by Dialog, an opinion pollster, said they would oppose suffrage for the 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank were it to be annexed to Israel.
Nearly three-quarters—74 per cent—say they also support a system of segregated roads for Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank, although the majority say they would view such a policy as “necessary” rather than “good”.
[...]
The survey found that a majority of the Jewish public—59 per cent—say they want a system that gives preference to Jews applying for civil service jobs. Arabs, who constitute 20 per cent of the Israeli population, complain such a policy unofficially exists already.
Just under half of respondents, 49 per cent, said they want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones, while 42 per cent said they did not want to live in the same building as Arabs and did not want their children to go to schools that also admit Arabs.
Tellingly, 58 per cent of those surveyed said Israel already practices a system of apartheid against Palestinians, an opinion normally only voiced by the Jewish state’s staunchest critics.
If acting like Jews is "exterminationist," so be it.
Sure beats suicide bombing by Muslims.
No, it doesn't.
"Some of you think that Jews need to be enlightened about HBD. The fact is they KNOW about HBD but just don't want to admit it. Jewish liberalism is just a tactic in places where Jews are the minority, and it's smart!"
Gummstein,
You might add it's smart but extremely disingenuous.
Your entire post was excellent and echoes my own experience with the Scotch-Irish.
Naive no ...disingenous when it suits them hell yes.
Your post should be reread by everybody who visits this blog so that they can get a clue.
Thanks.
The Han is dealing with the Tibetans in a far more humane way than the way the Americans dealt with the Native Americans.
I love it when moral cretins retcon modern sensibilities onto the past.
Back in reality, the Tibetans aren't Amerinds (not by a long shot) and the Chinese aren't the Pioneers (not by a long shot), and neither are the Israelis (not by a long shot).
They've come up with that they call "the right to invite". Which means that if Yan Shen wants to invite 1.3 billion Chinese to America, he has the right to do so, and it's a violation of his "rights" if somebody else prevents it.
If they have the right to invite, I have the right to evict. Libertardians, pack up your #&!# and leave, now.
If they have the right to invite, I have the right to evict. Libertardians, pack up your #&!# and leave, now.
I thought that Libertarianism includes the right to own property, and the right to use force to defend such property. And no moral guilt for not inviting the world.
If white people think like tibetans, then whites doomed
How, and in what way?
Tibetans have little of the notorious white self-hatred and self-guilt. Tibetans breed above replacement level. Tibetans are pro-family. Tibetans are some of the most religious people on the face of the planet. No way are they deluded materialist atheist bully-boys who goose-step for Generalissimo Jehovah and Drill Sergeant Jesus, and call it religion.
I'm surprised than nobody compared Tibet to Canaan.
Anonymous said . . .
I have my own theory on conservatives. I believe that conservatives are authoritarian types who do not deal very well with the concept of individual self-determination when it comes to others.
Unless you are the ghost of Theodore Adorno, this isn't "your own theory," you sad, ignorant robot of the conventional wisdom.
To anon,
I would not say Yan Shen is a counter-revolutionary. His interest and mine are perpendicular to one another. My primary interest is in the preservation of the biological and cultural distinctiveness of my race. Yan Shen seems more interested in advancing the socio-economic agenda of his race in particular and the nebulous catch-all “Asians” as a whole in an increasingly Byzantine America. Although we both want the continued economic success of our co-ethnics, our paths diverge in that I want my descendants to remain Han.
What I am cognizant of and what Yan Shen ignores is that America is a trap that spells the death of my race, a trap baited with wealth and prosperity but ultimately death nonetheless. The birthrates of my homeland are already among the lowest in the world considering the stage of development and declining further. While we do have a great many people, the trend lines are clear and we cannot afford to lose even more wombs, particularly those in the upper quartile, to outsiders. Unlike some of the more atavistic immigrants, my people lack a distinct racial religion to call our own, neither do we possess the degree of physiological aggression or as Mr. Sailer would describe it, a “Gold Chain” ethnoculture to provide cohesion for our ethnos when inundated by cultural Marxism and prevent external predation. What this all means is that miscegenation and cultural dispersion eliminates roughly a third of our first generation in America, another third in the second, and the remainder by the third. Without a continuous stream of new bodies, everything that makes that Han race distinct is extinct in three generations and even with more immigration it is simply buying time.
While Yan Shen may not care, as strictly speaking the immigrants have improved their fitness by increasing their wealth and those of their progeny, I care because such people are strangers and not Chinese. Which is why I advocate against immigration from China and want the U.S. to slam the door shut.
Bill said...
Anonymous said . . .
I have my own theory on conservatives. I believe that conservatives are authoritarian types who do not deal very well with the concept of individual self-determination when it comes to others.
Unless you are the ghost of Theodore Adorno, this isn't "your own theory," you sad, ignorant robot of the conventional wisdom.
That's what "comedy gold" looks like.
I believe that conservatives are authoritarian types who do not deal very well with the concept of individual self-determination when it comes to others.
Unless you are the ghost of Theodore Adorno, this isn't "your own theory," you sad, ignorant robot of the conventional wisdom.
It's really not so much conservatism as it is Dummy Logic and Dummy Law. Dummies need authority and lots of it. They need leaders, fuhrers even, but ones who understand their needs. Liberals do not. Dummies need to live in a world where everything is illegal, immoral, and fattening - because for them it is. "Use your own judgement" is fine for smarties, i.e. liberals, and libertarians. It does not work for people who HAVE no judgement.
I believe that conservatives are authoritarian types who do not deal very well with the concept of individual self-determination when it comes to others.
Unless you are the ghost of Theodore Adorno, this isn't "your own theory," you sad, ignorant robot of the conventional wisdom.
It's really not so much conservatism as it is Dummy Logic and Dummy Law. Dummies need authority and lots of it. They need leaders, fuhrers even, but ones who understand their needs. Liberals do not. Dummies need to live in a world where everything is illegal, immoral, and fattening - because for them it is. "Use your own judgement" is fine for smarties, i.e. liberals, and libertarians. It does not work for people who HAVE no judgement.
Honestly, it would be nice if dummies, smarties, and averagies could all live in their own worlds with their own laws. And the interaction could be kept to a minimum, i.e. Mr. Joe Dum-Dum cleaning the smarties' chimneys. Ming Dynasty China came close to this.
@conservative jam
"Unless you are the ghost of Theodore Adorno, this isn't "your own theory," you sad, ignorant robot of the conventional wisdom..."
I hadn't seen this post. I have no idea who Theodorne Arno is, and you have obviously not read my post. All you did is insult me and call me a "liberal". I stated in my post many times that I am a libertarian and not a liberal. Just because the two words sound alike does not mean that they are synonyms. And yes, libertarianism and liberalism have a lot of common gound on social matters, but there are differences too. The most obvious is that libertarianism is in favor of INDIVIDUAL freedom and equality of INDIVIDUALS before the law. Conversely, liberalism is in favor of protected GROUPS being given special protection over other groups. Libertarianism and liberalism find common gound in that they find racism wrong, but that's it. Libertarianism does not support grpoup priviledge, or the govrnment using money of individuals to support social programs that use the money of a part of the population to pay the bills of another part. Libertarianism does NOT support any of that. I get frustrated because you guys keep calling me a liberal even though I am a libertarian, and your brains do not seem being capable of understanding the difference no mattr how many times I explain it.
How am I a liberal? I am against Affirmative Action, against socialized medicine, against entire races being blamed for the mistakes of a few individuals - like white people today being blamed by the mistakes of a few white slave owners who did more than 100 years ago. I am a libertarian and not a liberal. Repeat after me: L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N.
As for your quote from Winston Churchill, here is a quote from someone muh smarter than him:
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservative."
I am sorry, but all those IQ tests you guys love so much show that social conservatives are at the BOTTOM of the intelligence pecking order for political preferences. It is simply a fact.
I am sorry, but all those IQ tests you guys love so much show that social conservatives are at the BOTTOM of the intelligence pecking order for political preferences. It is simply a fact.
Blacks and browns all vote liberal. Blacks are at the bottom of the racial IQ ladder, with browns one rung above.
Meanwhile, Jews (one rung below Episcopalians) are faux-liberals, voting "is it good for the Jews?" Which means they're not really liberal or conservative.
"Anonymous said...
I am a libertarian and not a liberal. Repeat after me: L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N."
Yeah, we get it, asshat. You're a petulant nitwit who believes in a fairy-land ideology.
"As for your quote from Winston Churchill, here is a quote from someone muh smarter than him:
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservative.""
It would take a libertarian to think that Mill was some kind of genius.
Academics "just don't get it." And what they're not getting about the way the world works is probably rooted in the way their personalities have been shaped by the academic environment itself - cooperation and sharing. They don't have any instincts about how to respond appropriately to overtures of aggression that are not intellectual in nature. How our cultural needs to respond to encroachment by the Chinese and Asian population is completely lost on them. 98% of them probably don't even recognize that it's happening.
Post a Comment