Race versus culture

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by DPMartin » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:19 pm

Viveka wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:57 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:28 pm
Belinda wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:04 am
The following quote from Cicero applicable to a populist politician and those important persons who rob the poor to pay the rich:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."

(My underline)
sorry to jump in here, but this is an excellent posting.

been giving some thought to this, and this may not be an accurate articulation but it seems today in western culture maybe more like the US that there is this underlining sinister way of thinking where nothing is, namely, nobody is to be excluded from anything for any reason. hence a social demand to corrupt everything in the name of "fairness for all" insisting on "inclusion for all".

hence no distinction between race, religion, gender so on and so forth. and what I mean by corrupting is; if you insist that neo-Nazis are entitled to not only join the NAACP but to be promoted and administer, would corrupt the purpose of the organization hence a traitor within. one who is not for but against what the organization is for.
What 'Western Culture like the US"? We have a culture of Consumerism, Money is God, Jesus is healthcare with the gambling of insurance and a pop icon with little to no understanding of what he originally meant by his parables or his ministry or how Christianity's 'Word' developed through the Roman Catholic Church, and the Apostles are electronics and short-lived thrills like video-games.

There's a reason why the Alchemists used the same symbol for Gold as the same symbol for 'Goodness'. Supposedly Gold is the manifestation of Goodness, and this ultimately lead to Capitalism and Nation-building as it was a prime source for currency and exchange. If we are to revolt against money being God, we also cannot lapse into Communism nor Capitalism but rather an in-between. Without Capitalism there is no profit made, and thus no true progress in advancing society. Communism is a failed societal experiment, as has been tried over and over again without any true utopia, and Capitalism as we know it can only work when we can print money out of thin air with no chance of deflation at the behest of big banks that rule the civilized world. Jesus in the scourging of the temple was specifically doing it because of the profit that money changers made by exchanging money at a price; one of the world's first banking activities. Unearned labor such as usury was what Jesus was against, and that would be the beginning of a true utopia.
you haven't got a clue do you?


money usury or debit has been around since one person had the need for what the other had and didn't have the kind of conscious it take to take it, or didn't have the power to take it. so he was stuck with indebtedness. and biblically the Lord God of Israel instructed the Israelites (via Moses) on usury and who should and shouldn't borrow or owe and how it should be restored if payment wasn't met. so you are way incorrect on those points.

but everything has its place and time of which Jesus knew, they knew they were incorrect. and made a point to show how corrupt they were.

and no system of gov or economy is good or evil, its the souls that have charge of such systems, and or governments.

just like guns, guns don't kill, people do, and many use guns to do it. gov's don't oppress the people that have the power to use gov to oppress, oppress.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Viveka » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:42 pm

DPMartin wrote:you haven't got a clue do you?
Plenty.
DPMartin wrote:money usury or debit has been around since one person had the need for what the other had and didn't have the kind of conscious it take to take it, or didn't have the power to take it. so he was stuck with indebtedness. and biblically the Lord God of Israel instructed the Israelites (via Moses) on usury and who should and shouldn't borrow or owe and how it should be restored if payment wasn't met. so you are way incorrect on those points.
Doesn't matter what Moses said, I am using Jesus' example. And that's a good summary of usury. Usury is legal stealing.

‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’;
but you are making it a den of robbers.”
DPMartin wrote:but everything has its place and time of which Jesus knew, they knew they were incorrect. and made a point to show how corrupt they were.
What do you mean by this? That usury was corrupt back then but isn't now?
DPMartin wrote:and no system of gov or economy is good or evil, its the souls that have charge of such systems, and or governments.
A system of government can indeed have problems in principle. Ever read the book Animal Farm? It shows how the principles of communism work against the people even though it is all about equality and freedom.
DPMartin wrote:just like guns, guns don't kill, people do, and many use guns to do it. gov's don't oppress the people that have the power to use gov to oppress, oppress.
Guns make it far easier to kill people than without guns. :? Also, that final sentence is word-salad.

User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus » Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:58 am

DPMartin wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:28 pm
it seems today in western culture
What makes you think Western culture today is any different from one-hundred, one-thousand, or even ten-thousand years ago? My hypothesis throughout this discussion has been that the core values of cultures are extraordinarily stable. The elements reinforce one another cybernetically making changes nearly impossible. This I understand was the view of Spengler, that a culture is essentially immutable, and for that matter also non-recreatable. Surface details may change, but the Assyrians for instance lost statehood five-thousand years ago, yet the people live on in pockets in Iraq and Syria much as they always have.

Belinda
Posts: 2696
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Belinda » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:31 pm

Seleucus wrote:
My hypothesis throughout this discussion has been that the core values of cultures are extraordinarily stable.
So that is your basic hypothesis!

I reject it

1. because for some people core values sometimes define cultures e.g. the shift of conscience/ consciousness that was caused by the 1914-18 war of attrition(The Great War) and which changed the whole of the ensuing century in Western Europe at least from the general and popular confidence in the goodness of human nature that had preceded it.
and

2. because your hypotheses are founded upon self- seeking extreme-right individuals, and buttressed by Romantic fictions such as the British race. And moreover those Romantic fictions are not even used by modern investigative novelists who write stories about early inhabitants of these Isles.

True, I'm fascinated by cultural/genetic correlations especially the linguistic correlations. I suggest that core values are determined by facts of physical survival that attach to climate, terrain, natural resources, and whatever technology there may be; more than that there is no substance to 'core values' .

3. I reject your hypothesis on pragmatic grounds as it is destabilising and divisive, despite that it feeds some grosser aspects of human nature such as fear of foreigners , violence towards perceived out-groups, and band -wagon greed.

User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus » Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:00 am

Belinda wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:31 pm
Seleucus wrote:
My hypothesis throughout this discussion has been that the core values of cultures are extraordinarily stable.
So that is your basic hypothesis!
Yes. It is well supported by social sciences, anthropology and history.

Living things are integrated and holistic. Just as elements cannot easily be added or subtracted from a peoples culture, similarly, adding or subtracting from other living bodies is very difficult too: tree grafting and organ transplant are only possible under certain very narrow and specific conditions otherwise the living thing rejects it, or dies.
I reject it

1. because for some people core values sometimes define cultures e.g. the shift of conscience/ consciousness that was caused by the 1914-18 war of attrition(The Great War) and which changed the whole of the ensuing century in Western Europe at least from the general and popular confidence in the goodness of human nature that had preceded it.
and
Can you give some kind of an example? Who said or did what to whom before and after this line differently and what does that apparently mean? Surface level changes may occur yet the deeper eidetic structures go unchanged, iterating identically across tens of thousands of years: https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoon ... 20_low.jpg
2. because your hypotheses are founded upon self- seeking extreme-right individuals, and buttressed by Romantic fictions such as the British race. And moreover those Romantic fictions are not even used by modern investigative novelists who write stories about early inhabitants of these Isles.
When "British race" appeared in something I wrote the other day, here, that phrase was an example sentence from Cambridge Dictionary, a very standard and authoratative source of English usage. It's normative and there's nothing wrong with it. Race, while in many ways based on genetics, is also a social construct and most people will have a large number of different levels and nested groupings they can call their race.

To the issue of so-called White supremacy, or for that matter Islamic supremacy, Sinocentrism and so on: every people believes they are the best, that is a prerequisite for their existence, otherwise, if I, a White Westerner thought Islam were a superior way of being, I would become a Muslim, if I genuinely believed the Korean script Hanguel was a superior writing system as some Koreans believe, I would start to use it. We all, excepting perhaps self-loathing masochistic suicidals believe our race and culture are the best otherwise we would have abandoned them. A Muslim, a Chinaman or an Englishman who doesn't think his way of being is superior will have given it up and converted or is a loathsome depressed thing.
True, I'm fascinated by cultural/genetic correlations especially the linguistic correlations. I suggest that core values are determined by facts of physical survival that attach to climate, terrain, natural resources, and whatever technology there may be; more than that there is no substance to 'core values' .
That's probably true to some extent. Meanwhile there is something even stronger going on: Australians are still Westerners despite the change of climate, the Chinese in the Philippines also continue being Chinese despite relocating to the tropics, the Arabs in Iberia continued on being Muslims...
3. I reject your hypothesis on pragmatic grounds as it is destabilising and divisive, despite that it feeds some grosser aspects of human nature such as fear of foreigners , violence towards perceived out-groups, and band -wagon greed.
It is exactly the opposite as we know clearly that balkanization is derisive, something that of course was always common knowledge before the mania of multiculturalism briefly infected many minds.

The reason why multiculturalism is impossible is because a society is an organism. Every peoples look towards its ethnic nucleus (elites). True, there are a few symbiotic social organisms such as the racial castes of India or the lichen. They exist under only very special circumstances. A highly multi-cultural state like Singapore is essentially a foreign quarter that has seceded from its host country, Malaysia: 1965. Since ethnogenesis is a special happening, like birth, that can only occur under certain deeply painful and magical circumstances, just declaring the existence of new states and then even expecting them to be symbiotes is doubly doomed to fail just like Frankenstein.

Belinda
Posts: 2696
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Belinda » Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:05 pm

Belinda:
for some people core values sometimes define cultures e.g. the shift of conscience/ consciousness that was caused by the 1914-18 war of attrition(The Great War) and which changed the whole of the ensuing century in Western Europe at least from the general and popular confidence in the goodness of human nature that had preceded it
.

(Belinda)You requested an example. You can do your own research , and I refer you to my preference which is the biographies and the poems of the War Poets especially Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon.


(Belinda):
your hypotheses are founded upon self- seeking extreme-right individuals, and buttressed by Romantic fictions such as the British race. And moreover those Romantic fictions are not even used by modern investigative novelists who write stories about early inhabitants of these Isles
(Seleucus):
When "British race" appeared in something I wrote the other day, here, that phrase was an example sentence from Cambridge Dictionary, a very standard and authoratative source of English usage. It's normative and there's nothing wrong with it. Race, while in many ways based on genetics, is also a social construct and most people will have a large number of different levels and nested groupings they can call their race.
(Belinda): 'Race' is described in dictionaries according to its usage as you say. Some usages are archaic . Some people lag behind general feelings and those people who still use 'the British Race' with a straight face are either old and not too well educated, or politically far-right whether they know it or not.

(Seleucus):
A Muslim, a Chinaman or an Englishman who doesn't think his way of being is superior will have given it up and converted or is a loathsome depressed thing.
(Belinda) I wonder if I should reveal to you that 'Chinaman' is incorrect in that it is archaic and usually derogatory. You didn't actually know this fact ,you use 'Englishman ' and 'Muslim' ,which are correct, in the same phrase. Again I suspect that your reading matter is substandard, although you do have a flair for words and phrases. Any person who said 'Chinaman' in this country would be old and uneducated, or referring tongue in cheek to the wording of some antique novel or news report.

(Belinda):
True, I'm fascinated by cultural/genetic correlations especially the linguistic correlations. I suggest that core values are determined by facts of physical survival that attach to climate, terrain, natural resources, and whatever technology there may be; more than that there is no substance to 'core values' .
(Selucus):
That's probably true to some extent. Meanwhile there is something even stronger going on: Australians are still Westerners despite the change of climate, the Chinese in the Philippines also continue being Chinese despite relocating to the tropics, the Arabs in Iberia continued on being Muslims...
Belinda: I'm under the impression that the people in those countries are western educated . Ethnic customs do survive which is attractive, and here too in the UK old customs, dialects, and languages, survive as felt realities ,and we aim to conserve those; which is pretty successful especially where the local people have real feeling for their place on the Island. However unlike in some other countries we don't insist by law and policing upon observation of ethnicities, religions, and other customs. Those states are where democracy is not practised.

(Belinda):
I reject your hypothesis on pragmatic grounds as it is destabilising and divisive, despite that it feeds some grosser aspects of human nature such as fear of foreigners , violence towards perceived out-groups, and band -wagon greed.

(Seleucus):
It is exactly the opposite as we know clearly that balkanization is derisive, something that of course was always common knowledge before the mania of multiculturalism briefly infected many minds.
Both Balkanisation , and far-right politics are divisive and for similar reasons. Both feed upon fear of foreigners and strangers, religionised violence, and in many cases band-wagon greed. Both of those political movements feed the wrong wolf.



(Seleucus ):
The reason why multiculturalism is impossible is because a society is an organism. Every peoples look towards its ethnic nucleus (elites). True, there are a few symbiotic social organisms such as the racial castes of India or the lichen. They exist under only very special circumstances. A highly multi-cultural state like Singapore is essentially a foreign quarter that has seceded from its host country, Malaysia: 1965. Since ethnogenesis is a special happening, like birth, that can only occur under certain deeply painful and magical circumstances, just declaring the existence of new states and then even expecting them to be symbiotes is doubly doomed to fail just like Frankenstein.
What is an "ethnic nucleus"? I don't know anybody who looks to the elite class for anything very much. Indeed the feeling is very much that the elite class is in general corrupt and self seeking to the disadvantage of poor people like myself.

The "organism" that is a democratic society is not integrated by its elite but by a people who combine practicality, traditional -enough morality, and common sense.

The "organism" that is a far-right society is integrated by its elite who rule by a combination of lies and fear.

You are mistaken about the reality and success of cultural revolutions. Those can and do happen quickly, but sadly often as a result of holy violence, or suffering among the poor.

BTW Frankenstein's monster failed not because he was constructed, construction which was amazingly effective, but because he was reviled and misunderstood by the ignorant and cruel. Mary Shelley felt that the industrialising world had the potential to develop soul but that soul was stifled by fear, greed, and ignorance among high and low of society. Far-right politicians are either morally nihilistic , cynical, or both.

User avatar
Jacobsladder
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:05 pm

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Jacobsladder » Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:33 pm

Seleucus wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:00 am

My hypothesis throughout this discussion has been that the core values of cultures are extraordinarily stable (...) It is well supported by social sciences, anthropology and history.

Living things are integrated and holistic. Just as elements cannot easily be added or subtracted from a peoples culture, similarly, adding or subtracting from other living bodies is very difficult too: tree grafting and organ transplant are only possible under certain very narrow and specific conditions otherwise the living thing rejects it, or dies.
Hello Seleucus, you posted some good stuff here and there in terms of history and various references, Thank you for that but the above really looks like it went seriously off the rails. Perhaps you left some comfort zone?

The first paragraph just waves the magic wand with a phrase similar to "scientists say". That's really quite a logical error and betrays unfamiliarity with how social sciences work in practice. To have "support" in "social sciences" or anthropology means nothing, diddly-squat! It's simply not organized like that, especially not for the topics you are touching upon.

As for "living things are integrated and holistic", it's trivially true and usually serves as some canvas to draw ones interpretation on. One can feel it coming... and there it is: "elements cannot easily be added or subtracted from a peoples culture". Well, some elements appear that way. Nevertheless the rule certainly is change, merge, infusion, digestion and so on. Culture is not just like an organism, it's more like a regional ecosystem: when enough time passes, nothing remains the same although the landscape outline of the rocks, hills, mountains will last the longest.

Believing differently seems to me not anything organic but surprisingly mechanistic thinking, like there's some irreversible code running at the core in Read Only Memory. Or Platonic fixed shapes of the culture. Or some eternal soul....

User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:01 am

Jacobsladder wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:33 pm
Seleucus wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:00 am

My hypothesis throughout this discussion has been that the core values of cultures are extraordinarily stable (...) It is well supported by social sciences, anthropology and history.

Living things are integrated and holistic. Just as elements cannot easily be added or subtracted from a peoples culture, similarly, adding or subtracting from other living bodies is very difficult too: tree grafting and organ transplant are only possible under certain very narrow and specific conditions otherwise the living thing rejects it, or dies.
Hello Seleucus, you posted some good stuff here and there in terms of history and various references, Thank you for that but the above really looks like it went seriously off the rails. Perhaps you left some comfort zone?

The first paragraph just waves the magic wand with a phrase similar to "scientists say". That's really quite a logical error and betrays unfamiliarity with how social sciences work in practice. To have "support" in "social sciences" or anthropology means nothing, diddly-squat! It's simply not organized like that, especially not for the topics you are touching upon.

As for "living things are integrated and holistic", it's trivially true and usually serves as some canvas to draw ones interpretation on. One can feel it coming... and there it is: "elements cannot easily be added or subtracted from a peoples culture". Well, some elements appear that way. Nevertheless the rule certainly is change, merge, infusion, digestion and so on. Culture is not just like an organism, it's more like a regional ecosystem: when enough time passes, nothing remains the same although the landscape outline of the rocks, hills, mountains will last the longest.

Believing differently seems to me not anything organic but surprisingly mechanistic thinking, like there's some irreversible code running at the core in Read Only Memory. Or Platonic fixed shapes of the culture. Or some eternal soul....
Yes, fatalistic. Are you suggesting somehow freedom and will ought to be retained? Why do that?

Belinda
Posts: 2696
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Belinda » Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:15 am

How tenacious are cultures? Could our lovely British culture change and change quite rapidly? I mean change rapidly like German culture changed rapidly from Goethe and Beethoven to the murdering of Jews and intellectuals? Yes it could. Britons too are capable of atrocities. We should be very careful that people who hold extreme right-wing views don't become the new elite. My liberal family is worth protecting.

Americans too can become fascist, and Americans already have an anti-intellectual fascist as president.

Fascism's influence is to begin with quite insidious. Unlike religious people who tend to explicitly publish their beliefs about Who is in charge, fascists take over the media and do subtler propaganda. Seleucus is not powerful as himself but he is a sign of the times.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by DPMartin » Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:46 pm

Seleucus wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:58 am
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:28 pm
it seems today in western culture
What makes you think Western culture today is any different from one-hundred, one-thousand, or even ten-thousand years ago? My hypothesis throughout this discussion has been that the core values of cultures are extraordinarily stable. The elements reinforce one another cybernetically making changes nearly impossible. This I understand was the view of Spengler, that a culture is essentially immutable, and for that matter also non-recreatable. Surface details may change, but the Assyrians for instance lost statehood five-thousand years ago, yet the people live on in pockets in Iraq and Syria much as they always have.
did I quote your posting or anything like that? I'm pretty sure that was a response to another posting correct?


anyway, whether men charge each other in battle riding camels or tank or F15's, its human nature that never changes. man's judgment results in death and uses and seeks the power, to execute his judgement.

User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:27 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:46 pm
Seleucus wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:58 am
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:28 pm
it seems today in western culture
What makes you think Western culture today is any different from one-hundred, one-thousand, or even ten-thousand years ago? My hypothesis throughout this discussion has been that the core values of cultures are extraordinarily stable. The elements reinforce one another cybernetically making changes nearly impossible. This I understand was the view of Spengler, that a culture is essentially immutable, and for that matter also non-recreatable. Surface details may change, but the Assyrians for instance lost statehood five-thousand years ago, yet the people live on in pockets in Iraq and Syria much as they always have.
did I quote your posting or anything like that? I'm pretty sure that was a response to another posting correct?
So?
anyway, whether men charge each other in battle riding camels or tank or F15's, its human nature that never changes. man's judgment results in death and uses and seeks the power, to execute his judgement.
I agree that human nature never changes. And there's another layer on top of that too, culture, that is highly stable, if it changes at all it is a very painful and slow process.

User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:30 pm

Belinda wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:15 am
Americans too can become fascist, and Americans already have an anti-intellectual fascist as president.
Of course I disagree as I see Donald Trump as a very great man who will save the productive class upon who a free democracy depends, and, which is to say the same thing, defend the culture of the West.

User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:00 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:05 pm
(Belinda)You requested an example. You can do your own research , and I refer you to my preference which is the biographies and the poems of the War Poets especially Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon.
The one seems to have been a dreary homosexual and the other also disturbed. What about them do you imagine speaks of an ethnogenesis? Depressive homosexuals have a long history in Western culture I think?
(Belinda): 'Race' is described in dictionaries according to its usage as you say. Some usages are archaic . Some people lag behind general feelings and those people who still use 'the British Race' with a straight face are either old and not too well educated, or politically far-right whether they know it or not.
Well, naturally I see my own position as normative and yours as politically far-left.
(Belinda) I wonder if I should reveal to you that 'Chinaman' is incorrect in that it is archaic and usually derogatory. You didn't actually know this fact ,you use 'Englishman ' and 'Muslim' ,which are correct, in the same phrase. Again I suspect that your reading matter is substandard, although you do have a flair for words and phrases. Any person who said 'Chinaman' in this country would be old and uneducated, or referring tongue in cheek to the wording of some antique novel or news report.
Yeah, I wrote that just to troll you. Of course I know far-leftists like you are 'offended' by "Chinaman". It's a good illustration of political correctness not being an authentic critique, but only a war on the center since obviously Englishman and Chinaman are correlates so if one is offensive the other should be too. Hypocrisy has no meaning for political correctness, it is always attacking only against the core.
What is an "ethnic nucleus"? I don't know anybody who looks to the elite class for anything very much. Indeed the feeling is very much that the elite class is in general corrupt and self seeking to the disadvantage of poor people like myself.
Of course you identity as a poor victim otherwise you wouldn't be a politically correct leftist. That's why I have several times on this board asked leftists how much property they own, about their family, about their gross income. Since you seem like a nice person I have refrained from embarrassing you that way up until now. But are you really disadvantaged? Or just resentful and jealous? Do live under a bridge? Are you illiterate? You have no national ID and no access to any kind of healthcare except witchcraft?
The "organism" that is a far-right society is integrated by its elite who rule by a combination of lies and fear.
The elite ought to be the best and the leaders. Meanwhile, I agree that what sometimes happens is the elite become ostentatious and a top heavy burden on a society.
You are mistaken about the reality and success of cultural revolutions. Those can and do happen quickly, but sadly often as a result of holy violence, or suffering among the poor.
In D&G, revolutions happen not so that anything can change, but so that things can keep on stay the same, this is part of the "plane of consistency" ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_of_immanence

Belinda
Posts: 2696
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Belinda » Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:33 pm

Seleucus supports Mr Trump. People like Seleucus, probably not S himself, will endanger and attack me and those like me if they gain power. Already some Americans are escaping across the border into Canada. Racists are more than unpleasant they are dangerous, and already they own a lot of the media.

Seleucus opined about my affiliation:
Well, naturally I see my own position as normative and yours as politically far-left.
Fascists are not middle of the road. They are fascists. Seleucus is a fascist . It's good that Seleucus is posting here because he at least is an obvious Aunt Sally. The more dangerous fascists are terrorist killers and their masters.

User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Race versus culture

Post by Seleucus » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:48 am

Belinda wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:33 pm
Seleucus supports Mr Trump. People like Seleucus, probably not S himself, will endanger and attack me and those like me if they gain power. Already some Americans are escaping across the border into Canada. Racists are more than unpleasant they are dangerous, and already they own a lot of the media.
I think it isn't commonly known that Australia solved this issue years ago? Anyone who attempts to enter the country illegally is deported to a remote Island in the Pacific. They are declared never to be permitted to enter the country again ever. They are given the option of repatriation to their homeland, settlement in Cambodia, or staying in a detention camp. This would solve the problems of Europe and North America overnight.
Well, naturally I see my own position as normative and yours as politically far-left.
Fascists are not middle of the road. They are fascists. Seleucus is a fascist . It's good that Seleucus is posting here because he at least is an obvious Aunt Sally. The more dangerous fascists are terrorist killers and their masters.
- The tradition is the baseline. Deviation from that is always what is radcal.

- You cried wolf so many times now that no one cares about this Nazi, racist, transphobic, sexist, Islamaphobic name-calling anymore.

- Are you Chinese? I would have expected you were some kind of Briton in light of your obscure knowledge of British place names and etymology you discussed earlier? Or it is some kind of persecution mania you have?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests