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

I really don't see what part of society you're talking about where non-whites are favored so radically. I think the policies that favor non-whites you are referencing are far too minimal to be anything more than what they were originally meant to be, symbolic. As in, we need to do something but we have no fucking clue what to do.
Well I actually think it is extremely hard to mix races without causing trouble - when you say, "we have no fucking clue" you are really saying the same thing! I mean if you introduce a small percentage of people with another race, there is no problem, they generally adopt the rules and attitudes set by the majority. However, as you move to larger percentages, trouble makers in both communities see an opportunity to cause unrest, and things go down hill. So the first step is to limit immigration, and maybe put more effort into helping Third World countries to provide decent opportunities for their citizens.

The problem with policies favouring non-whites, is that even if they are symbolic, the symbolism is awful. Maybe you supply some catch-up classes to help disadvantaged kids, and aim them at non-whites without actually excluding white kids from going.
I think the real issue for everyone here is economics. No one would be complaining if there was enough bread to go round.
The problem is maybe more about relative income. If you see a man who can drive round in a BMW, and all you have is a push bike, you feel impoverished, but if most people have to get about on foot, you feel pretty good. However, that doesn't alter the fact that it is about economics - yes!

I think one thing that would help would be to bring jobs back to the West, and by seriously reducing immigration to end the undercutting of wages by exploiting newly arrived immigrants. Has free trade helped most people - I tend to doubt it.
But if you're going to make a SA analogy, I really do think it's worth widening your perspective. It's real easy to vilify and forget about the complexity of being a human and the day to day. Perhaps your distance from being around 'lefty types' keeps you from seeing that there's really not a majority of people who believe this kind of thing?? I really do think you're making mountain out of a molehill
Well I raised SA because Mandela specifically resisted attempts to continue the black vs white thing after white rule ended - he wanted peace. I wanted to contrast his approach with the modern 'Left' (as distinct from the traditional Left). I think the modern Left tries to exploit all kinds of minority issues for political capital. Then when their traditional voters threaten to elect Donald Trump, they are called 'deplorables', when they succeed, the modern Left think it is their right to be able to subvert the democratic vote by any means they like.

David
 
I wanted to contrast his approach with the modern 'Left' (as distinct from the traditional Left).
Genocidal mass murderer Leon Trotsky was the first person to popularize the term "Racism".

The "Traditional Left" has used Race as a highly effective wedge weapon for destroying Western Civilization for almost 100 years. It's nothing new.
 
as David said I'd prefer to avoid giving my street address.
I didn't ask for your street address.

I live in Houston, Texas, speak Spanglish with the half my friends who are Dominican/Mexican/Hispanic and have adopted Black grandchildren from Nigeria, so I think I have a pretty good handle on the costs and benefits of Cultural Diversity.

What city do you live near?
 
I live in Houston, Texas, speak Spanglish with the half my friends who are Dominican/Mexican/Hispanic and have adopted Black grandchildren from Nigeria, so I think I have a pretty good handle on the costs and benefits of Cultural Diversity
So you have a local, perhaps even regional perspective? I'll grant you that.

I don't see 'whites' being made to feel guilty for taking pride in their achievements in the Midwest. Could be a Texas thing I guess. I certainly wouldn't profess to know.
 
Are 'whites' made to feel guilty? I don't see this myself, so curious where this is manifesting.
I've myself been a 'victim' of this programming. B/c of my liberal arts education and teaching for a couple decades I've been experiencing this first hand, before I left uni environment, b/c I think it's gotten very toxic and about to get much worse. Still, coming 'full circle' in this has been really educational and I don't regret it. I had some really good professors and I know there are still many out there. But they are heading upstream and if they haven't realized that yet, I'm surprised how effective are their rose-colored glasses. Need get me a pair! :)

For me the way it manifested was to see the 'Whites' as the sole Colonizers of the world. I studied French literature and had loads of courses in European history and world literature and I wrote my master's thesis on the literature of women in francophone Africa. Great works, fascinating time in my life, but, the message came through very clearly: We (Europeans and by extension the entire Anglo-American establishment) are the worst racists, the worst sexists and bigots and we've conquered and destroyed countless countries. Ok, on one level I understand this is completely true, whites have been very successful at colonization and empire building. But this is only part of the picture, yet the only part you get unless you get away from the establishment programming. Many others of all different races/cultures/religions have also been excellent nation-builders and destroyers, slave-holders and share in all levels of deviousness, this is not racially unique. I've spent half a lifetime now feeling bad for the brutality of my Euro-born conquering ancestors, yet I know I have had ancestors on both sides of the colonization process--victims and perpetrators. Which is probably more common than not in this country.

So it's really the lack of getting the entire picture, having the history framed so that 'we' come out as the bad guys. I do see this, I do know there is an agenda behind it, I'm just questioning constantly what that agenda really is and who really knows?
 
Again, as a layman, I do not see whites as owning exclusive territory in the lands of conqueror, colonizer, and oppressor. I see it as simply what has been the human condition across most (all?) cultures. Now, I didn't grow up through the liberal arts/teaching lens either.

As for the agenda behind it, I don't know either. I do see a fair volume of 'white guilt' and liberalism when I come across folks on the more liberal end of the spectrum. I hate to generalize but I have a passing sense that folks in universities/colleges tend to over index there. Kind of similar to the SJW thing? I don't know.

I'm sure people will see conspiracies in all this. Impossible to prove or disprove it seems to me.
 
I'm just questioning constantly what that agenda really is and who really knows?
The long-term goal is a Totalitarian One-World Government run by a tiny Oligarch class ruling over a deracinated, featureless mass of uniform consumer/worker bots with no Free Will or ability to resist.

In the movie The Matrix what was the one thing humans had that the Architect could never overcome?

If they can eliminate that, game over, The Enemy wins.
 
Well, I was reading this... eh... exchange for a long time, and I think I shoud get involved at last.
__________________________

The initial note (in italics), specifically for Charlie Primero: you insistence that the USA was created for white people somehow misses three facts.

1) The land where it was created was forcibly taken away by these very white people from the Native Americans, who were slaughtered by the whites in large numbers, so, historically speaking, they are its first owners who were robbed of it. Do they, nowadays, have a right to claim an exclusive ownership and forcibly banish everyone but themselves - white, black, brown and yellow alike - from it? I doubt it.

2) A lot of black people was brought to this territory later, against their will, to be used as slaves and treated as subhumans. Later they were freed, and then achieved an equal dignity, with an efforts of both rebelliously-minded blacks and liberatory-minded whites. Does their former plight give blacks a right to demand countless reparations from the whites? I don't think so.

3) Things have changed a great lot with the centuries that passed, and the USA became much more diverse and open than it once was. No reverse is possible here. And appealing to the racial policies of the days long gone is hardly relevant. We do have some principles from those days to defend and maintain indefinitely - such as an unrestrained free speech, for example - but racial separatism is one of the conditions that was good to go away.

Well, all for Charlie.

________________________

Now for everyone.

Racism, especially biological one, is an instrumental creation of colonial empires of the 19th century, when elites had to reconcile two irreconcilable parts of their existence: their delcared dedication for liberty, equality and fraternity of all human beings, on one hand, and their political and economic need for colonial conquest and exploitation of the colonised people, on other hand. So, the ideology that claimed that some cathegories of people are not fully people, or least an innately lower and subordinate species of people, was invented - an ideology of racism. Due to 19th century being a golden age of science, it has to adopt sciency-looking appearances, creatively using technically-sounding language to portray a situational, man-made and thus man-challengeable oppressive hierarchy as a manifestation of the Universal Laws of (Human) Nature that Cannot Be Changed. The very cathegories of "whites", "blacks", "yellows", as well as the very "races" as supposedly tangible, persistent and mutually excluding groups (which they never were) were invented by this ideology-masquerading-as-science.

Later, however, it was overthrown, both intellectually and socially, by the Libertarian Left and banished to the margins of culture and society, where it should better remain indefinitely.

Yet, today we have three groups of people who are still desperately clinging to racist assumptions and racist thought. I oppose all these three groups.

The first group is, sadly and paradoxially, are some (but not all) of the successors of the very Left-siding people who once fought, rightfully and successfully, against racism and racists - "social justice warriors" (SJWs), the Authoritarian Left. These are people who has succumbed to the time-old temptations of the victorious revolutionaries: the lust for revenge, which makes such revolutionaries unable to leave the barricades even when the revolutionary battle is won and thus finished. Still perceiving the former oppressors - whites - as the enemies, SJWs managed to invent and install inverse sociocultural racism and reverse discrmination in the some (but not all) areas of society where their presense was strong, such as academia, high-tech corporations and mainstream media. This reverse discrimination was combined with an increasingly dogmatic and uncritical thinking, which is pretending to be scientific while being nothing but, and a burning desire for censorship and supression of critical and contrarian viewpoints.

The censorious and discriminative attitudes was a true gift for some (but not all) persons among the whites who was badly scared by the loss of their dominance. Now the Authoritarian Rightists, or Alt-Rightists, could successfully exploit the repressive and dogmatic attitudes and activities of some (but not all) members the deservedly victorious Left to justify the reclamation of their supposed superiority. Their ideology was based on the lust for power, which they were afraid to lose, and lead them to an increasingly dogmatic and uncritical thinking, which is pretending to be scientific while being nothing but, and a desire to segregate (at best) or subjugate (at worst) everyone they considered to be lower than themselves.

Thus, by acting censoriously and discrimininatively, some (but not all) Leftists, unwillingly and unwittingly, helped the ugly tendesies they once were defeated by them to reclaim the lost ground and reappear in the public sphere. Yet their unreflective dogmatism, combined with their vindictive passions, prevented them from realising their own misguided failures - as well as unreflective dogmatism, combined with power-hungry passions, prevents Alt-Right from realising its own opportunistic and subjugative nature. These two groups are in fact in need for each other, since they require each other to justify themselves in the eyes of the general public - and, to some extent, even in their own eyes.

Yet, there is the third group in this game, and it is much, much, much more dangerous than SJWs and Alt-Rightists taken together. This group is the ruling state-corporate elite, the Authoritarian Center, drunk with the lust for control and usage. Their main interest is to divide and conquer their subjects, never allowing them to unite and struggle together against their elite oppressors. So, both SJWs and Alt-Right are a true gift to them, since they misdirect the fury of the oppressed to each other, inspiring them to fight each other while the ruling elite may keep pillaging the world as it has always done. And this fight between the oppressed is also a good pretext for an increase of the elites' control and surveilannce, under the deceptive banner of "fighting extremism" (as if the worldwide pillage by elites is not "extreme").

So, my coclusion is: black and white, brown and yellow, unite in solidarity against the state-corporate rulers, since your conflicts are artificial remnants of the previous ideologies, manipulated by the elites to maintain their rule. There is no intrinsic biological divisions and hierarchies which you must adhere to. The cultures cannot remain isolated - their interconnection is both inevitable and proiductive. And social segregation leads to nothing but breeding of mutual suspicion and hostility.

And spirit and spirituality is universal, since no one can claimed to be more or less deserving the grace of the Divine Source, which is unconditional and inexhaustible. We can perceive it through different religious and philosophical lens, yet ultimately we are being illuminated by the same Clear Light of Ethernity. Even the elite rulers are - we may have to fight against them to claim our freedom, but even in a revolutionary combat we must not dehumanise our adversaries, who are not monsters but the people like us, with weaknesses and passions like ours, who were unlucky to be granted excessive power and fell to its temptation.

I said what I thought. Now it is up to you to respond.
 
Last edited:
The first group is, sadly and paradoxially, are some (but not all) of the successors of the very Left-siding people who once fought, rightfully and successfully, against racism and racists - "social justice warriors" (SJWs), the Authoritarian Left. These are people who has succumbed to the time-old temptations of the victorious revolutionaries: the lust for revenge, which makes such revolutionaries unable to leave the barricades even when the revolutionary battle is won and thus finished. Still perceiving the former oppressors - whites - as the enemies, SJWs managed to invent and install inverse sociocultural racism and reverse discrmination in the some (but not all) areas of society where their presense was strong, such as academia, high-tech corporations and mainstream media. This reverse discrimination was combined with an increasingly dogmatic and uncritical thinking, which is pretending to be scientific while being nothing but, and a burning desire for censorship and supression of critical and contrarian viewpoints.
I see an anarchic, destructive, quality in much of the modern Left:

1) They don't seem to care about democracy - the wrong man got elected, so how do we force him out - people were given a referendum about leaving the EU, and they voted to leave, so how do we reverse the decision. I guess they subscribe to the myth that if you can just destroy the status quo, people will come together in peaceful harmony. By encouraging the judges to thwart the aims of President Trump, they pretend they are upholding the rule of law - they aren't, they are exposing the fact that justice shouldn't be just about technicalities - can I bend the rules to do X - judges also have to show self restraint and respect for the democratic system. After all, if people come to feel that their votes count for nothing - that they are in effect in a one party state - they would be justified in mass revolt.

2) I feel that most of the concern of Leftist politicians for minorities, is bogus - they simply think they can use minorities as a way to endlessly attack the structures that maintain our civilisation, and remain popular as champions of the underdogs.

3) Somehow, most of the media have sided with the modern Left. This was illustrated by the fact that CNN passed questions to Hillary Clinton ahead of debates leading up to the election.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...estions-with-clinton-campaign/article/2617742

Donna Brazile seems to be exceptional on the Left of politics in the US, in that she seems to have a glimmer of recognition of the dishonesty of the campaign she helped to run!

I always used to prefer the left of politics, but perhaps that began to change after Tony Blair started a war on false pretences, and the modern Left doesn't feel Left at all to me, just ruthless and cynical. It doesn't matter how tasty a cake may be, if you don't look after it, it may become vile and inedible.

David
 
specifically for Charlie Primero: you insistence that the USA was created for white people somehow misses three facts.
My insistence in no way misses those facts.

Your characterization of the Alt-Right is fallacious.

The Alt-Right wants an Ethno-State for White People just like Israel has for Jewish People, Japan for Japanese People, and Mexico has for Mexican People.

I think the most peaceful way to achieve that 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.
 
Wow! So many emotions and passions being stirred up here. I think this is a good thing because 'race' has been such a sensitive issue for so long we have no real capacity to talk about it openly and frankly. And it is so multi-layered as well. We struggle to distinguish between genetic/physical and cultural attributes, especially when the two seem to be interlinked - and we are disposed to see interdependence. But it does seem that the evidence of migration and displacement renders physical attributes as a basis for qualitative distinction moot, at least.

It does seem that some humans have become adept in altering their environment to suit their needs, and are just as adept at adapting to the changes they have wrought. Other humans have been less extreme and have adapted the natural environment somewhat to their needs. Other still have adapted to their natural environments. Each of the 3 responses has its own merits and limitations. Neither is necessarily better than the other. And movement between the cultures is not necessarily easy. In Australia, for example an indigenous person living a traditional life would respond as poorly to urban life as I would to their life. I would be stupid in their world and they would be stupid in mine - until we adapted.

I don't think we really have any basis for comparisons between 'races' until we are able to isolate cultural and adaptive attributes. I don't know that this has been done - but I'd welcome information to the contrary. The Australian television series, Bush Mechanics (available on YouTube I have just discovered) demonstrates what has been reported widely - that people whose culture is essentially animistic take to machines with what seems to be surprising facility. This evidence contradicts the long held presumption that the 'savage' is bamboozled by technology.

What started this stuff about race was Michael Tsarion's comments. Whether his linking of race and history/culture is valid or not is open to speculative discussion. We need to throw into the mix the idea of root races introduced by HP Blavatsky. But I'd like to also throw into consideration Jared Diamond's perfectly sensible observations on the way that some cultures expand - agricultural cultures constantly transform the landscape by converting wilderness to farmland and expel or eradicate cultures that oppose them. That generates a race/culture conflict until the dominant culture is large enough to engage in internal culture wars.

I am interested in Michael's work because he goes through a lot of writers who get little coverage these days - eg Massey and AB Kuhn - and organises their ideas into a coherent format. But it doesn't mean that his arguments are right. In fact I don't see any solid validity to Michael's position on race. I see a closer connection to culture - at a time when there was a close correlation between race and culture - but the adaptive always has to be culture first - leading to epigenetic consequences regardless of the racial mix. So what is an attribute of race and what is an attribute of culture? John Broomfield's fine little book, Other Ways of Knowing teases this theme out in useful ways. Alan Ereira's The Elder Brothers' Warning is also a sobering counterpoint to our cultural conceit.

We have to finally make a personal stand in relation to whether being human is about spiritual beings having a physical experience or physical beings have a spiritual experience. If the former then everything to do with race and genetics is irrelevant save in how it impacts the physical body. If the latter then we need entirely new theories that link spirit/soul to physical determinants.
 
I see an anarchic, destructive, quality in much of the modern Left:

1) They don't seem to care about democracy - the wrong man got elected, so how do we force him out - people were given a referendum about leaving the EU, and they voted to leave, so how do we reverse the decision. I guess they subscribe to the myth that if you can just destroy the status quo, people will come together in peaceful harmony. By encouraging the judges to thwart the aims of President Trump, they pretend they are upholding the rule of law - they aren't, they are exposing the fact that justice shouldn't be just about technicalities - can I bend the rules to do X - judges also have to show self restraint and respect for the democratic system. After all, if people come to feel that their votes count for nothing - that they are in effect in a one party state - they would be justified in mass revolt.

2) I feel that most of the concern of Leftist politicians for minorities, is bogus - they simply think they can use minorities as a way to endlessly attack the structures that maintain our civilisation, and remain popular as champions of the underdogs.

3) Somehow, most of the media have sided with the modern Left. This was illustrated by the fact that CNN passed questions to Hillary Clinton ahead of debates leading up to the election.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...estions-with-clinton-campaign/article/2617742

Donna Brazile seems to be exceptional on the Left of politics in the US, in that she seems to have a glimmer of recognition of the dishonesty of the campaign she helped to run!

I always used to prefer the left of politics, but perhaps that began to change after Tony Blair started a war on false pretences, and the modern Left doesn't feel Left at all to me, just ruthless and cynical. It doesn't matter how tasty a cake may be, if you don't look after it, it may become vile and inedible.

David
Here's the really strange thing. A very substantial portion of leftist politic is (neo) Marxist and atheistic. It is fundamentally materialistic. The whole notion of social justice is materialistic. It may point out real issues of injustice but the analysis and the solutions are materialistic. The popular perception of religious folk is that they are on the right.

But there is a religious/spiritual 'left' that is more 'middle'. Can we imagine a spiritual/moral middle? I don't mean the 'third way' kind of politics Blair ultimately disgraced. I mean those genuinely shared values that have nothing to do with dogmas and beliefs that actually constitute the core of any coherent culture. It is interesting that this 'middle' is persistently disunited by appeals to irrelevant distinctions. Do you really care if somebody who shares your core values is a fundamentalist religious person? If we focused on what unites us, rather than on what divides us we would be way better off - and a lot more powerful in bringing about political change.

I have spent the last 17 odd years in the disability sector and we have made massive changes only because the people with shared values put aside their differences to focus on a common human concern.
 
Can I suggest we take a step back and consider a different viewpoint?

NDE reports consistently regard the body as temporary and material, less important than that which survives death (consciousness/soul/spirit). The issue of race gets little mention and seems to pertain to the body, left behind at death. This view seems to agree with the major world religions also.

Our materialistic culture focuses only on the physical body accentuating the relatively minor physical differences being unaware of more important aspects of life.

Perhaps if instead we focus on our common spiritual nature we will be able to transcend our differences and move towards understanding and harmony.
 
Can I suggest we take a step back and consider a different viewpoint?

NDE reports consistently regard the body as temporary and material, less important than that which survives death (consciousness/soul/spirit). The issue of race gets little mention and seems to pertain to the body, left behind at death. This view seems to agree with the major world religions also.

Our materialistic culture focuses only on the physical body accentuating the relatively minor physical differences being unaware of more important aspects of life.

Perhaps if instead we focus on our common spiritual nature we will be able to transcend our differences and move towards understanding and harmony.
Totally agree.
 
Top