|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2022 10:09:38 GMT
A while ago, and as a complement to a ‘Know Your Enemy’ discussion on one of this forum’s predecessors, I formulated a hypothesis to explain the ‘progressive’ mindset as manifested by those who embrace the liberal idiom especially in respect to matters such as race and immigration. It proposes a three-part taxonomy for progressives, as follows: a) Ethnics who are present in Western society, or who would like to be.
It is obviously in their own self-interest to take a progressive stance in such matters since that, by definition, stands in opposition to any movement or ideology that might pose a threat to them personally, in particular to their right of domicile in the West. They are, in effect, taking a completely rational position, and are following the dictates of their own ethnic genetic interest. A curious and self-conflicted subset of this taxon are those ethnics who take up a 'racialist' position on immigration matters (e.g. recent Conservative Home Secretaries), although here too the motivation is usually one of self-serving self-interest (i.e. getting re-elected) rather than any innate concern for the interest of the host population. Another related and quite sizeable sub-taxon are those ethnics who propose to raise the drawbridge now they are safely inside. A very visible instance of this are the Brexit-voting ethnics. b) Non-ethnic members of victim or 'oppressed' groups,
…including homosexuals, most females and other waifs and strays who consider themselves to have been marginalised by the hegemonic heterosexual white male patriarchy. Like 1970s-era trades unionists they have essentially come out 'in sympathy' with ethnics in the sororal-fraternal 'struggle against oppression'. Jews tend to oscillate opportunistically between victimhood and ethnicism according to the tactical dictates of the situation at hand. c) Unawakened white males.
The Unawakened tend to be either immature spotty student types of any age who thrill to vibrancy and diversity (usually whilst being well-insulated themselves from their more baleful consequences). Other white males who have been unable to shake off the effects of their social conditioning, either because of limited intellect, laziness, or an inability to synthesise a fully-formed worldview form another distinctive subset. The concluding hypothesis
Ethnics and the self-styled 'oppressed' will never change their spots, no matter how good an argument is presented. It is only the Unawakened who are worth engaging with, since they are the only proggie faction for which any prospect of persuasion can be realistically contemplated.
But even this has to be tempered with the knowledge that those white males who have formed romantic liaisons with ethnics or who have entered into other ‘non-traditional’ forms of relationship will have, through their own agency, almost certainly placed themselves permanently beyond the pale. That is, in fact, the first question that needs to be addressed when engaging with the inflexibly somnambulant: What skin do you personally have in the game? |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 15, 2022 11:52:05 GMT
A while ago, and as a complement to a ‘Know Your Enemy’ discussion on one of this forum’s predecessors, I formulated a hypothesis to explain the ‘progressive’ mindset as manifested by those who embrace the liberal idiom especially in respect to matters such as race and immigration. It proposes a three-part taxonomy for progressives, as follows: a) Ethnics who are present in Western society, or who would like to be.
It is obviously in their own self-interest to take a progressive stance in such matters since that, by definition, stands in opposition to any movement or ideology that might pose a threat to them personally, in particular to their right of domicile in the West. They are, in effect, taking a completely rational position, and are following the dictates of their own ethnic genetic interest. A curious and self-conflicted subset of this taxon are those ethnics who take up a 'racialist' position on immigration matters (e.g. recent Conservative Home Secretaries), although here too the motivation is usually one of self-serving self-interest (i.e. getting re-elected) rather than any innate concern for the interest of the host population. Another related and quite sizeable sub-taxon are those ethnics who propose to raise the drawbridge now they are safely inside. A very visible instance of this are the Brexit-voting ethnics. b) Non-ethnic members of victim or 'oppressed' groups,
…including homosexuals, most females and other waifs and strays who consider themselves to have been marginalised by the hegemonic heterosexual white male patriarchy. Like 1970s-era trades unionists they have essentially come out 'in sympathy' with ethnics in the sororal-fraternal 'struggle against oppression'. Jews tend to oscillate opportunistically between victimhood and ethnicism according to the tactical dictates of the situation at hand. c) Unawakened white males.
The Unawakened tend to be either immature spotty student types of any age who thrill to vibrancy and diversity (usually whilst being well-insulated themselves from their more baleful consequences). Other white males who have been unable to shake off the effects of their social conditioning, either because of limited intellect, laziness, or an inability to synthesise a fully-formed worldview form another distinctive subset. The concluding hypothesis
Ethnics and the self-styled 'oppressed' will never change their spots, no matter how good an argument is presented. It is only the Unawakened who are worth engaging with, since they are the only proggie faction for which any prospect of persuasion can be realistically contemplated.
But even this has to be tempered with the knowledge that those white males who have formed romantic liaisons with ethnics or who have entered into other ‘non-traditional’ forms of relationship will have, through their own agency, almost certainly placed themselves permanently beyond the pale. That is, in fact, the first question that needs to be addressed when engaging with the inflexibly somnambulant: What skin do you personally have in the game?
It’s interesting to see you embracing Critical Theory so enthusiastically. My problem with the idea is the same now as when it was first became fashionable in jurisprudence: it may well be possible to argue that a particular law or cultural norm benefits a particular class of individuals, but that’s not the same as demonstrating that law or norm is wrong. From a personal perspective then, I may lose some advantage as a white, heterosexual male in embracing a liberal ideology, but I believe it’s the right thing to do. I believe it is wrong to judge people on the basis of their sex, sexuality or race. Again, though, that is not the same as believing it is wrong to judge people on the basis of the culture they choose to adopt. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2022 12:02:04 GMT
I don't recognise any linkage between what I wrote and Critical Theory. I'm assuming you refer to the theory as originally defined by the 'Frankfurt School', what came to be known as 'the marriage of Marx and Freud'.
Can you elaborate?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 15, 2022 12:04:04 GMT
You did say Dan that when this new more moderated sub-forum was mooted, you promised not to spam it with endless threads about race. How is that going?
As far as I can tell, all this thread is saying is that only those who agree with your race driven agenda are honourable people with the best interests of the country at heart and hence worth listening too. Have I summarised your argument accurately. If not could you clarify please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2022 12:06:50 GMT
I don't recall promising any such thing.
But did you place yourself within the taxonomy as presented?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 15, 2022 12:08:12 GMT
You did but the forum has gone now so I cant prove that.
I am trying to understand your point. Could you tell me simply what it was?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2022 12:18:10 GMT
The point is to set out a taxonomy of progressives and to see who agreed or otherwise.
You may recall a thread in the old place which stimulated quite a lot of discussion, the one entitled 'A Taxonomy of the Alt-Right'.
If a taxonomy can be constructed for that part of the political spectrum, why not for others too. I understand your natural instinct is to suppress such ideas but, so far at least, it doesn't appear you will be getting your way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2022 12:24:26 GMT
You did but the forum has gone now so I cant prove that. Perhaps you ought to confine any remarks about other members to things that you can actually prove.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 15, 2022 12:49:51 GMT
The point is to set out a taxonomy of progressives and to see who agreed or otherwise. You may recall a thread in the old place which stimulated quite a lot of discussion, the one entitled 'A Taxonomy of the Alt-Right'. If a taxonomy can be constructed for that part of the political spectrum, why not for others too. I understand your natural instinct is to suppress such ideas but, so far at least, it doesn't appear you will be getting your way. You seem very reluctant to clarify precisely that your point is. My interpretation is that you are seeking to argue that all those who disagree with your race-based agenda are al driven by bias, stupidity or self interest. The corollary seems to be that those who agree with you are driven by honour with the best interests of the country and those with white skin (which terms for you seems to be synonymous). If that isn't right, perhaps you could clarify the point you are making. The reality of course is that people of all political persuasions are individuals in their own right with a whole range of drivers informing those political opinions. Some on each side are self centered, some altruistic some bright, some thick, some ignorant some well informed. It doesn't seem to me they can be easily categorised. I am not sure why you would wish to try. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2022 12:58:28 GMT
"My interpretation is that you are seeking to argue that all those who disagree with your race-based agenda are al driven by bias, stupidity or self interest."
All that plus peer approval as well, including the very ubiquitous practice amongst proggies of competitive altruism. The only cavil is that my 'agenda', as you term it, is not race-based. That is a category error that you insist on repeating even though you have been told many times it is false.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 15, 2022 13:08:02 GMT
Well sorry Dan, I just disagree.
As I said, my opinion would be that people of all political persuasions are individuals in their own right with a whole range of drivers informing those political opinions. Some on each side are self centered, some altruistic some bright, some thick, some ignorant some well informed. It doesn't seem to me they can be easily categorised. I am not sure why you would wish to try.
Not sure there is anything more to say really.
Oh by the way my perception is that you are obsessed by race and ethnicity. I cant remember you ever posting about anything else. You are entitled to your views of course but honestly it does get a little one dimensional and dull for the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 15, 2022 13:08:29 GMT
I don't recognise any linkage between what I wrote and Critical Theory. I'm assuming you refer to the theory as originally defined by the 'Frankfurt School', what came to be known as 'the marriage of Marx and Freud'. Can you elaborate? Certainly a Marxist approach to analysing why particular laws or social norms came to be entrenched. Simplistically, if something was good for the bourgeoise it held sway.
You appear to be arguing that supporters of a 'liberal' approach generally and in matters of race and nationality are members of groups that have most to gain from that support - unless they happen to be terminally stupid. It seems to me analogous to saying individuals who support the abolition of capital punishment do so because they don't want to be hanged.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 15, 2022 13:15:16 GMT
From a personal perspective then, I may lose some advantage as a white, heterosexual male in embracing a liberal ideology, but I believe it’s the right thing to do. I believe it is wrong to judge people on the basis of their sex, sexuality or race. You would be strongly against (say) the use of quota / target systems in the armed forces, to prioritise the hiring of ethnic minorities and women? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2022 13:20:19 GMT
"You appear to be arguing that supporters of a 'liberal' approach generally and in matters of race and nationality are members of groups that have most to gain from that support - unless they happen to be terminally stupid."
I don't discount that many such supporters have motives other than simple self-interest, as noted to dappy earlier.
Competitive altruism is a very powerful force amongst higher-echelon proggies most of whom could not be termed terminally stupid. The warm and lovely feelings of gushiness associated with claiming the high moral ground is another, especially when a position taken or a stance adopted runs totally counter to one's own ethnic genetic interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 15, 2022 13:22:15 GMT
From a personal perspective then, I may lose some advantage as a white, heterosexual male in embracing a liberal ideology, but I believe it’s the right thing to do. I believe it is wrong to judge people on the basis of their sex, sexuality or race. You would be strongly against (say) the use of quota / target systems in the armed forces, to prioritise the hiring of ethnic minorities and women? That's right. You may recall I posted my objection several times on the old forum. |
|
