Magical thinking watch: Eternal, unchanging racism chapter

10 Responses to Magical thinking watch: Eternal, unchanging racism chapter

1. Aaron says:

   January 15, 2010 at 9:14 pm

   I’d never heard of Clyde Haberman, but based just on this post I had a guess about his age. Yep, Wikipedia confirms it: born 1945. For people of a certain age, racial politics are always about the Freedom Riders and “We Shall Overcome”. Blacks, for them, are the minority group in America. Soon these people will retire or die, even if the New York Times doesn’t retire or die before then. Then we’ll have a discourse that’s more contemporary, at least, if not more realistic.
2. Lorenzo says:

   January 16, 2010 at 3:13 am

   Ostentatious anti-racism is often as obsessed about racial categories as actual racism. It is the ideological equivalent of the opposite of love being not hate but indifference.
3. Lesacre says:

   January 16, 2010 at 10:18 am

   I generally find that the editors of the Secular ‘Right’ to be Fuzzy in their position with regards to ‘race,’ ethnic identity, and the meaning of ‘right’ and ‘conservative.’ Given this, I will ask again, what does ‘right’ mean for you? If all that is meant, is being non-liberal or non-left or non-socialist or non-progressive — terms which are oddly, given the scientific orientation of some of the writers, not operantly define –why not call yourself the Secular non-left?

   My suggestion would be that the greater ‘right’ either needs to be defined in relation to the West’s (or another civilizations) particular history OR in relation to generic cross-societal trends. With regards the former that means some variation of: being cautious about change, being group-centered, being pro-hierarchy, focusing on the good of society. With regards to the former, that mean some variation of: opposing or being cautious about changing from a Christian European social identity with a constitutionally based representative democratic political structure and a relatively unregulated market economy.

   That is, there is a sense in which the Christian right, Nativists, Capitalists, Mono-culturalists, Constitutionalists, Tea partyers, Libertarians, white ethnointerests, ect argue on the same page — even though they are fractured (ie all of these things once fit together). And there is a sense in which the Christian left, globalists, Managerialists, Multi-culturalists, somethingists, redistributionists, big government welfare-statists, and non-white ethnointerests have been flipping that page.

   Either way, you need to confront the question of group-interest and your stance on it.
   Since the good of the new society no longer matches with the identity of the old society. And a decision must be made. Conservatism is dead or undead.

   Now, while there are many people who don’t like being honest either because 1) they are part or have been heavily influenced by the Jewish “conservative/right” — which has, both due to warranted ethnic concerns and unwarranted group competition, been bent on dislocating the perceived threatening aspects of the right or 2) because they themselves have “progressed” beyond group-identity and find such such identifying people distasteful, there is a common association across the ‘right.’

   My suggestion would be, that until you are willing to see this and to speak of a greater right philosophy or create a general political philosophy consonant with your views — all of this talk is useless, and worse, silly. While it is obvious that the greater left has no greater goal ofter than ‘change’ — this, at least, is consistent with being leftist. That is, you can be leftist and not have a common identity — since left, liberal, progressive, diversity, multiculturalify all mean change and is predicated on the belief that liberal qua non-particularist society contra illiberal qua particularist society is natural, healthy, and inevitable. They can have their cake and eat it too — in the same way that Marx could see communism as both a process of breaking down and the end result, given a certain vision of human Nature.

   To the extent that one is on the right, and not just the non-left, we see that as foolish. Accordingly, it is in human nature whether as seen in the scientific sense of natural qua empirical, the religious sense of Natural qua spiritual, or some metaphysical sense of natural qua physis for homo sapiens, humans, or πρόσωπο to exists, not just as social beings, but as group beings — at least in the sense of principium individuationis, or homogenization then differentiation, differentiation then differential homogenization. (I believe that would be the proper ‘rightist’ counterposition to unity through diversity (as ethno-decomposition) and unity in diversity (as mult-ism)

   Given this, you need to decide whether you wish to push for a post-racial right as USism or
   redefine the whole conception in such a way that it allow for a ‘racial industry’ in the sense of a plural-cultural, many in one, confederation as stitched together by a theory of expanding circles of identity.

   That said, I can understand why John and Razib, at least, are fuzzy about this. They are like gay conservative Christians. They have mixed impulses which do not fit well into the system. Their stance on group-identity is like their stance on religion. They are attracted to both being a part of a ‘sense’ or ‘way’ or at least see the principle of it and yet feel apart from it. And no doubt this is reasonable — it is not difficult for me, at least, to appreciate this. I would, however, suggest that being clear on this issue is important, even if that mean being in disagreement or not being in association — or, otherwise, having to redefine the boundaries of the right, or the rules by which such boundaries are defined, within, of course, the limits of what is considered natural.

   For the sake of clarity: the right implies either holding onto an identity or identifying in some way. The right is exclusive. The ideological left knows people are more predisposed to right-mindedness which is why they are trying to create an inverted right. Those involved are promoting this via the greater left (ie anti-white/western + antipathetic to white/western interests) and the democratic party. To some extent, that is what liberal democracy and cultural Marxism are. One creates a situation in which the borders are redefined as non-borders, where one’s identity is redefined as non-identity, ie diversity, openness, multiculturalism. Naturally this anti-identity is unstable and requires a contrast. A juxtaposition. While blacks and others stood outside of the old identity (the system was surely not defined in contrast to them, as if there was no Christian European identity independent of them as the social constructionist would have), European-ness has been defined as part of the system, as an anti-identity. What else possibly does different is good mean if not different from something which is bad? I would translate “insanely dug in the racial industry” into institutional anti-racism. (Where anti-racism is defined as passive aggressive racism — ie undermining and deconstructing a group as opposed to oppressing and it). And I would contrast the inclusionary (read: positive) nature of this institutional antiracism with the exclusionary nature (read: negative) of so defined racism.

   Regardless, a functional right needs an identity. Right is fundamentally illiberal, just as human psychology is. To the extent anyone is interested in an identity they either have to establish an identity — which is rather difficult now, or they have to create a contraposition of left-liberal-progressive-multicultural-managerial-statism — that is, figure out what the rightist version of left-liberal multiculturalism is.

   Do not assume that antiracism is going anywhere. It is the foundational block of Multicultural US. And it is just getting more and more established.
4. anon says:

   January 17, 2010 at 5:24 am

   @Lesacre,

   WTF? TL;DR
5. Adal says:

   January 17, 2010 at 10:24 am

   I dont know if racism is getting more established, although the Dems sure try hard to make it seem that way.

   I have same sort of thoughts as Aaron, meaning I blame all these old timers lol.. the baby boomers. Racism and Sexism was a huge problem in them days. Grudges and guilt dont just go away.

   I believe Feminism and the rise of the Left, in large part, due to the guilt of white-male baby boomers. Once they retire or just go away, then it will be gen X. Should be a much different country when that happens.
6. Lesacre says:

   January 17, 2010 at 4:02 pm

   @Adal

   “I dont know if racism is getting more established”

   Is affirmative action also not becoming more established? I discussed that here:
   http://lesacred.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/affirmative-action-4-1-and-the-end-of-affirmative-action/

   “Once they retire or just go away, then it will be gen X. Should be a much different country when that happens.”

   It’s not about guilt. That guilt was installed. And yes, it was installed to make a much different country. Which, since I am rightist, I consider non-functional. I will either lead to a Balkans or a Brazil. And only after a rather nasty period.

   “Racism and Sexism was a huge problem in those days. Grudges and guilt dont just go away.”

   Racism and Sexism mean two things. First they mean actual Racism and Sexism and second they mean being illiberalism.

   With regards to the first, the above sentiment is Whiggish. Whiggism is a form of moral economics that doesn’t factor in inflation. Given the context of the time, so called racism and sexism were relatively accepted norms. Which is why people tolerated then, when they did. Social expectation develops with societal development. I imagine eating meat in the future will generate as much disgust and the Left 100 years down the line will be trotting out all sorts or horrid pictures of blood and butcher shops — to aid in their change agenda. The point is, the people in the US have generally altered the system when it was perceived as disproportionately wrong.

   It makes no sense to feel guilty about trans-historical events, given that the norms and moralities by which guilt have changed. It’s like feeling ashamed because you sucked your moms nipple when you were a baby. I am sure many grown men could be manipulated to do so, but it still would make no sense.

   With regards to the second, Racism and Sexism means not being PC. It means not supporting a Diverse, non-European, West. I means not supporting mass immigration, a Managerial state, and so forth.

   You can make a good argument that other races in the country were wronged in a way unequal in other part of the word — given the level of society, and therefore compensation was due. And you came make a good argument that conservatives are getting what they deserve. But how this relates to Managerial Multicultural America and Multicultural Europe, Canada, and Australia and the Racism of not being pro-amnesty and pro-Affirmative Action for the dude that just hopped of the plane with his second citizenship still in his pocket is beyond me. Except when I see what I see not as a function of guilt, but when I see it and the guilt as a function of political manipulation.
7. Adal says:

   January 17, 2010 at 9:04 pm

   I understand completly, sorry if I went off topic. I also agree with everything your saying. I dont want to be like Europe, I kinda like things how they were. Like when Christmas was special, now its not allowed in some work places, its sad. Its funny not so long ago sodomy was considered to be disgusting, now they tote it around as not only something natural, but its a right to throw it in our faces.

   It may be very racist of me, but I wish the blacks had never come here, and I wish we could stop all the mexicans from flooding our country and sucking up all our resources. Look at France and Italy, they are having some serious issues with their immigrants.

   Ok, Im probly going off topic again…
8. Clark says:

   January 17, 2010 at 9:44 pm

   Yeah – that’s pretty racist (IMO)
9. Mike H says:

   January 18, 2010 at 3:51 am

   What if he said “I wish slavery had never happened”? Essentially seems to amount to the same thing yet it seems like a pretty benign statement given the human tragedies of slavery.
10. Lesacre says:

    January 18, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    @Clark

    “It may be very racist of me, but I wish the blacks had never come here”

    Maybe Clark could explain what racism (IHO) means and why it’s racist to say the above?

    Racism, Antisemitism, Homophobia, Xenophobia, Sexism, Anti-Islamism — all of these words have been twisted to mean what the Liberal-Left wants them to mean, and your a fool if you buy into their language. This is what you will get: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/151921.pdf

    I wish Blacks were never bought and brought here too, in the sense that I wish the Left had one less tool to use. But as Europe shows, they will find other ways to transform society.

    Regardless of what Adal and I wish, the point is that the US was a society with a Christian European social identity with a constitutionally based representative democratic political structure and a relatively unregulated market economy. And it was argued that it needed to become other, because ‘what about the blacks?’ which sounds just like ‘what about the jews?’

    And while with Jews you can point out their ethnoactivism and reply ‘What about the Jews?’ http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/white-ethnic-politics-irish-and-italian-catholics-and-jews-oh-my/ There is the whole issue about blacks being brought here.

    Asians, Jews, Mexicans chose to come here. Just like I choose when I go to China. They knew that the US was a hierarchical society — since almost every society is. It was Anglo-European-Christian nation, just like I know China is a Han-East Asian nation. The further people are away from the archetype, the less they are preferenced.

    When I go, I go with no expectation that the Han will adjust round me. Maybe they will, maybe the won’t. I recognize that and I prefer that, because I like world diversity — I like when some places are Particular and particular means particular.

    Saying you wish blacks were never here is just saying, you wish the society wasn’t put in this awkward position. Irish and Italians could assimilate. Jews choose not to. Others knew the rules of the game. But Black did not come here, but were brought here. And just as the pro-lifer argues that choices entail consequences, Leftists argue that that act implies an obligation to adjust around it.

    This is really what it comes down to — insofar as this is an issue. It comes down to a sense of group-guilt or group- obligation to make things right, which the Left uses to make that group a non-group. It’s the old “geneocide is evil because it isn’t just killing individuals but particular individuals, therefore thinking in terms of groups is evil, so you shouldn’t be concerned about particular individuals” game.

    That said, African Americans are an ethnos. They are Culturally and Genetically Mulattoes. They are Culturally Mostly Western and Genetically mostly African. The relation between your average Nigerian, African American, European American, and European is equivalent to the relation between your average Mesoamerindian, Mestizo, Hispanic European, and Spaniard.

    Given this, my suggestion would be that the US did not have to ‘change’ and celebrate ‘diversity’ as much as people think. Now, what’s done is done. The Left has seen to it that wave after wave of immigrants come with a feeling of dessert. If 30 million new Mexican show up on monday, they better have proportionate representation by Friday or ‘By god, “racism” is afoot.’ And you are obliged to show otherwise, since after all ‘European Americans were racist for historically being European American.’

    Regardless of how things became, there is no reason to tolerate Liberal moralism, with its eschatological reading of the transformation of Christian European America to Liberal Multicultural America. And if you allow that reading, you are going to get the implied results.

    If you start off negotiating from “Liberal Multicultural America was a just, good, deserved thing — if you concede that everything given should have been given up, that it’s racist that this was a Christian European Nation, that you have been done a favor by being liberated, what possibly do you expect to get other than what we are getting.

    There was nothing wrong with this having been a Christian-European America (in the sense of identity). There was something tragic about the relation between that and Black America. And like a Sophoclean or Aeschylusian tragedy there is something profoundly tragic about how things unfolded. On top of that, there is something petty about the Liberal readings. And there is something immensely stupid about muting yourself because you are afraid of being offensive.

Comments are closed.