Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

stake out my position on the many issues
Well put. I concur almost entirely. The only place I'd differ is that I believe a land should belong to all who live it (minorities and majorities, settlers and indigenous). Also, I can't see cultural/ethnic wagon circling as a step forward for humanity..... because, I suppose, I ultimately don't believe in the nation state (while admitting it's ability to do good).

But again, thanks for being more articulate than I would have managed. :)
 
The only place I'd differ is that I believe a land should belong to all who live it (minorities and majorities, settlers and indigenous).
Clichéd as it may be to say, indigenous people - at least here in Australia - tend to take the view not so much that the land belongs to them as that they belong to the land. In any case, I think they prefer the term "custodianship" to "ownership". Like it or not, they have been here for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years; non-indigenous people for a comparative blink of an eye (two hundred and thirty years). Even by a purely numerical approach based upon historical presence (which I do not anyway endorse), that gives each of us non-indigenous folk a comparative right to the land of at most 230 years divided by, say, 50,000 years. You can do the maths...

Of course, it is totally understandable that a person born in a colonised land, and especially a person ignorant of the historical context in which they came to be in that country (not saying that this is you), would argue for their joint ownership of that land. Look at it from the other side of the fence though: is this fair to a person whose ancestors have lived there for millennia, and into whose midst the strangers have imposed themselves only recently, in the process attempting to commit genocide against that person's people?

In any case, indigenous folk are a forgiving people. I suspect that, when we return their land and its sovereignty to them, they might be willing to teach us how to live with respect for and on their land. But I do not think that we should expect or rely on it.
 
Last edited:
Clichéd as it may be to say, indigenous people - at least here in Australia - tend to take the view not so much that the land belongs to them as that they belong to the land. In any case, I think they prefer the term "custodianship" to "ownership". Like it or not, they have been here for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years; non-indigenous people for a comparative blink of an eye (two hundred and thirty years). Even by a purely numerical approach based upon historical presence (which I do not anyway endorse), that gives each of us non-indigenous folk a comparative right to the land of at most 230 years divided by, say, 50,000 years. You can do the maths...

Of course, it is totally understandable that a person born in a colonised land, and especially a person ignorant of the historical context in which they came to be in that country, would argue for their joint ownership of that land. Look at it from the other side of the fence though: is this fair to a person whose ancestors have lived there for millennia, and into whose midst the strangers have imposed themselves only recently, in the process attempting to commit genocide against that person's people?

In any case, indigenous folk are a forgiving people. I suspect that, when we return their land and its sovereignty to them, they might be willing to teach us how to live with respect for and on their land.
I think the mistake here is to think that there exists a fair answer! There simply isn't one, just as some equations have no solution.

The very best you can do, is to try to help people to live as fulfilled lives as possible.

Suppose your ancestors came from the UK. If they did, those ancestors may have suffered by being forced to become soldiers to fight those colonial wars, or indeed to "keep the natives down" after the war was over. Many must have died, and I'll bet many that did come back were broken by the experience.

The best political approach now, is to try to find politicians that won't make similar mistakes (they won't call it colonisation), it just isn't to try to heap guilt on people who didn't have any part themselves, and whose ancestors probably suffered badly as well.

David
 
I think the mistake here is to think that there exists a fair answer! There simply isn't one, just as some equations have no solution.
I disagree, but perhaps you will at least accept that there is a fairest answer: this is at the very least analytically true. And even if I grant (purely for the sake of argument) that I have outlined only a fairest answer, then you still need to be a lot more specific about why it is not the fairest answer.

The very best you can do, is to try to help people to live as fulfilled lives as possible.
How can indigenous Australians live genuinely fulfilled lives when they are denied effective sovereignty of their own land, which they have occupied for millennia? Can't non-indigenous Australians live maximally fulfilled lives without the (sometimes unknown to or unrecognised by them) avoidable injustice to indigenous Australians of being illegitimately denied effective sovereignty of their own land?

Suppose your ancestors came from the UK. If they did, those ancestors may have suffered by being forced to become soldiers to fight those colonial wars, or indeed to "keep the natives down" after the war was over. Many must have died, and I'll bet many that did come back were broken by the experience.
OK, let's suppose that for the sake of argument. How does it affect the imperative based on natural justice of restoring effective sovereignty to the indigenous custodians of this land, who have never ceded that sovereignty?

The best political approach now, is to try to find politicians that won't make similar mistakes (they won't call it colonisation)
Do you mean that colonisation can be excused so long as we use a different word for it? I'm trying to apply the principle of charity, but it's hard to understand you in any other way. I hope that I'm misinterpreting you and that you'll clarify.

it just isn't to try to heap guilt on people who didn't have any part themselves, and whose ancestors probably suffered badly as well.
Guilt is optional albeit understandable and reasonable, and nobody's denying that some of the colonisers were forced into it and may have suffered, but (1) at the group level, the colonisers benefitted from the exploitation and dispossession of the colonised, who were commensurately harmed by that exploitation and dispossession, (2) both the historical, and current and ongoing suffering and injustice at the group and systemic level is very one-sided, and (3) most importantly, suffering on the part of the invader doesn't excuse the invasion, nor alter what needs to be done to right that wrong.
 
Last edited:
So, Charlie, if you and your Alt-Right friends are going to claim a sizeable territory for whites-only, how are you going to deal with non-whites who live there?
I think the most peaceful way is something similar to the practical strategy of the Free State Project where Libertarians gradually move to an area and take it over politically.

We will eventually have to divorce from the U.S. as we cannot share a Polity with people whose culture and ideals we do not share.

Over a long period of time Non-Whites will leave to avoid discrimination the same way people move every day in the U.S. after job loss, for better opportunities, etc.
 
Can you explain how does it differ (if it does...) from the bad old Anti-Semitism?
An Anti-Semite is someone who dislikes Semites for no reason.

The Alt-Right opposes invasion of Semites from Muslim lands into European countries and America.

The Alt-Right opposes Israeli influence on the governments of Europe and the Americas.

The Alt-Right is basically:
  • Pro-White

  • Anti-Degeneracy

  • Counter-Semitic
 
An Anti-Semite is someone who dislikes Semites for no reason.

The Alt-Right opposes invasion of Semites from Muslim lands into European countries and America.

The Alt-Right opposes Israeli influence on the governments of Europe and the Americas.

The Alt-Right is basically:
  • Pro-White

  • Anti-Degeneracy

  • Counter-Semitic
What do you think about the Alt-Right actually helping to legitimize modern neo-liberalism? Specifically the tactic of parading the worst members of the Alt-Right (which isn't hard to do since they don't believe in self policing to avoid purity spiraling) to then turn around and say 'Well neo-liberalism/capitalism may be pretty shit but at least we aren't literal Nazis! Keep voting for us to keep these guys out of power!'
 
An Anti-Semite is someone who dislikes Semites for no reason.

The Alt-Right opposes invasion of Semites from Muslim lands into European countries and America.

The Alt-Right opposes Israeli influence on the governments of Europe and the Americas.

The Alt-Right is basically:
  • Pro-White

  • Anti-Degeneracy

  • Counter-Semitic
Notice how he can never give a real answer.
So what makes a counter-semite different from an anti-semite?
A 'counter-semite' is an anti-semite that identifies with the alt-right.

But if you're 'anti-degeneracy' but use half-truths and psuedo-science aren't you really defeating your own purpose?
'Muslim lands?' Really?
Reading these kind of statements makes me glad I don't have to use any mind-numbing pretzel logic to express my simple political opinions
 
Guilt is optional albeit understandable and reasonable, and nobody's denying that some of the colonisers were forced into it and may have suffered, but (1) at the group level, the colonisers benefitted from the exploitation and dispossession of the colonised, who were commensurately harmed by that exploitation and dispossession, (2) both the historical, and current and ongoing suffering and injustice at the group and systemic level is very one-sided, and (3) most importantly, suffering on the part of the invader doesn't excuse the invasion, nor alter what needs to be done to right that wrong
1) The law explicitly disallows group punishments, and that is for a reason.

2) It is, I think, hard to know if anyone gained from colonisation other than the very wealthy. Sure people in the West got a few things - sugar for instance - that they wouldn't have had otherwise, but people were worked to the bone here, and sent out against their will to fight for the profits of the colonisers.

3) I'm not trying to excuse the invasion, if it were possible to convict those responsible - fine! What I am objecting to, is a totally spurious concept of white guilt, because it is simply daft. Peoples have been shifting across the planet since history began, the concept that a certain race is entitled to a particular piece of land because of history, is basically stupid - you would never exhaust claim and counter claim!

David
 
What do you think about the Alt-Right actually helping to legitimize modern neo-liberalism? Specifically the tactic of parading the worst members of the Alt-Right
I don't understand. Who are the "worst members of the Alt-Right" you are referring to?

I don't know what "modern neo-liberalism" is. Is that something different than Cultural Marxism?
 
I feel the more we learn about "evidence based spirituality" ie-NDE's, the medium data, OBE accounts, the re-incarnation data, and even the nature of consciousness with regards to Quantum Physics, the less important race becomes. And I do feel that science and spirituality will one day be intimate friends. The day that WE ALL TRULY understand that we are just pure consciousness operating through a variety of other avatars over potentially several life times and that we are all of the same source and are truly brothers and sisters in a spiritual sense (a stronger sense than a material brother or sister) and that what we do to others has an affect on yourself and what you do to yourself has an affect on others, When(if) that day comes maybe we can finally put all this nonsense to rest and get on living as people.
 
I am an American citizen. When it comes to heredity I suggest people look into actual family history. Stories involving parents and grandparents and the actual genealogy. What sort of work they did and talents they had. Lumping us all into white, black, red, yellow, and brown is way too simplistic.

We don't have to participate in the dialectic manufactured by the schools and the media. The schools and mainstream media want to lump everyone with white skin into a single category and then create a white versus people of color dichotomy. Participating in this whatever ones race is would neglect the actual stories of ones ancestors that made them unique as individuals.

I do think that people who are classified as white do have a right to speak against anti-white speech. However I don't think that doing this means one has to participate in far right politics. Regardless ones personal feelings on various ethnic groups(such as Russians, Jews, African Americans, Jamaicans, Levantine people, or Arabs) I don't think it would be wise for a person who is speaking out against anti-white speech to also speak against other racial groups or to advocate for segregation.

The main time I encounter this hard white/non-white understanding of the world is in response to media and school propaganda or internet propaganda, stuff that can generally be classified as either far right or far left. If society is just left alone to develop naturally then these racial issues sort of work themselves out naturally.

I am not saying race is meaningless or that one should totally ignore race when looking at the world but at some point Americans do have to start promoting the concept of an American ethnic identity. The idea that we are Americans.
 
Neo-Liberalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism, it's free market capitalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=P54sP0Nlngg
Christopher Cantwell, Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer.
Oh. Ok. Thanks. Most people in the Alt-Right are former Libertarians/Ron Paul types, so they would probably support your Neo-Liberal economic policies over Marxism. Another smaller, but significant faction are actual National Socialists.

Cantwell and Anglin are the part of the Alt-Right that's specifically designed to appeal to young kids by being vulgar and counter-culture.
 
I think there's a bit of miscommunication happening, David. Some of the things to which you seem to be objecting are not things I'm advocating for anyway. That's fine, you can express objections to whatever you want - presumably you've seen somebody advocate for them. I'll simply clarify those which I'm not advocating for.

1) The law explicitly disallows group punishments, and that is for a reason.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up group punishment. Is it because you think it's what I'm advocating for? If so: I'm not.

2) It is, I think, hard to know if anyone gained from colonisation other than the very wealthy. Sure people in the West got a few things - sugar for instance - that they wouldn't have had otherwise, but people were worked to the bone here, and sent out against their will to fight for the profits of the colonisers.
Almost everything that every non-indigenous person has here in Australia was gained from colonisation. Of course, it took a lot of hard work on top of that, but without the theft of the land and its resources in the first place - including the effective slave labour of many of its indigenous people up until as late as 1970 - the colonisers, immigrants, and their descendants would have had nothing.

What I am objecting to, is a totally spurious concept of white guilt, because it is simply daft.
The reaction against guilt seems to be very defensive (where "I" stands for the generic member of an occupying group): "I have done nothing wrong; the original crimes were committed by dead people; why should I be blamed for them and feel guilt for them?"

It looks different from another perspective: that of the people whose land has been stolen from them and is still occupied by a foreign people. The injustice is ongoing; those of us non-indigenous people living on indigenous land are each complicit in its perpetuation to some extent. Since you (David) are living in your (presumably) native land, the degree to which you (David) are personally complicit in the occupation of colonised lands is of course minimal.

I'm not expecting or advocating for guilt - I think the support of restorative justice is more important than how one feels - but I do think it's an understandable and appropriate emotion to feel under the circumstances (at least, to the extent that guilt is ever an appropriate emotion to feel - some people argue that it is totally unconstructive and never appropriate, but that's a whole other discussion).

One final question (in general, not necessarily based on any position you, David, take): if "pride in the achievements of one's culture" is a legitimate emotion to feel, then why would "shame for the injustices committed by one's culture" not be?

Peoples have been shifting across the planet since history began, the concept that a certain race is entitled to a particular piece of land because of history, is basically stupid - you would never exhaust claim and counter claim!
Some claims might be more tenuous than others, but many are clear-cut, including the case of Australia: there is no known occupying group on this land prior to the indigenous Australians (that's why we refer to them as "indigenous"), who have lived here for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. They continue to live here. The colonisers and immigrants have been here for a mere 230 years - that's roughly three lifetimes back-to-back.
 
Laird,

I think you should consider some other possible examples of guilt by colour/race, and tell me which you would approve of:

Should Spaniards feel deep guilt over what happened in South America, and pay the countries reparations? Should they perhaps
repatriate all the gold they stole?

Should Japan pay reparations to China - or maybe vice versa for what happened in WWII?

Which European countries should be feeling guilt and paying money to the others?

Should France feel guilt for the Normandy invasion of Britain, or Napoleon's invasion of Russia? Maybe the French should pay money to Russia
in recompense - at today's prices, that would be a tidy sum!

Can you offset the injustice created by one war by the injustice created by another if the other side starts it?

How about 'white' Australians who can claim that one of their ancestors was indigenous - should they be part of the largesse? If that person happens to
be much better off than another 'pure white' Australian, how do you explain that you are taking resources from the latter to give to the former?

I am not saying that we should conceal our past, but it is daft to claim that that can be reduced to a requirement that one country pay reparations (a form of punishment) to another because of what a tiny number of corrupt leaders have forced or tricked their own populations into doing in a bygone age.

I also feel that money passed over supposedly "by right", tends not to be used well (we don't have the right to interfere in how this money is used, because it is rightfully 'theirs'). The best thing that any government can do is to help the people alive now, to live as fulfilling lives as possible.

David
 
Top