What’s the common theme?

Don’t have much time, so will update this post later with more discussion, but these 3 items together have a common theme. Comments encouraged.




Added 2010/10/25 2:30pm:

Nobody got the theme or even said much about the articles directly. The point I was trying to make is that all 3 articles are about the irrational impulse to deal with the unpleasantness of the dangers presented by Muslims by suppressing discussion of the dangers. NPR fired Juan Williams because he threatened to burst the bubble its listeners live in (even though he was speaking on the Fox network when he said what he was fired for). Wilders could not be tolerated and had to be illegally judicially persecuted because again a judgment was made that his society could not handle the truth he spoke (or else that it could and this was undesirable because the destructive Islamization of Dutch society was actually intended). And the wars in Pakistan and Afghanistan indicate that Muslims continue to want to kill us and we have not found effective ways to deal with that other than killing them (killing them is fine with me, by the way, but is unthinkable to the media-Democrat axis because it would mean admitting several things that contradict their most cherished tenets).


About Polymath

Discoverable with effort
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to What’s the common theme?

  1. chicnoir says:

    *chic noir is first to come into polymath’s new space*
    *chic noir gives poly a kiss on the cheek, a cigar & a stack of vintage playboy mags for the coffee table*

    The Mexican war is vicious. Just killing people left and right. Americans are helping to fund that war because of their drug use.

  2. Thanks for the blogwarming present, and congratulations on being first.

    Sent from my iPhone

  3. Fortitudine Vincimus says:

    National media styming patriotism, nothing new there.

    Denmark is politically ahead in the West in terms of taking the immigration issue seriously. Political correctness in the West is so pervasive that inspite of electing political parties hostile to non-Western immigration, discrimination between non-Western and Western immigrants is not possible, so to achieve their goals, all immigrants have found themselves legislated against. I hope Wilders, fearless as he is, avoids that kind of irritating political correctness.

    The real problem with political correctness is its purpoted anti-discrimination stance. We’ve GOT to get the word out that discrimination, and its negatively loaded allies, prejudice, generalization and steroetyping do more good than harm when applied by Christian Westerners. In general.

  4. Polymath says:

    FV, “national media stymieing patriotism” is part of the problem, but not really the theme common to all three articles.

    Discrimination against non-citizens ought not ever to be a problem, and there is no obligation to treat non-citizens equally so this discrimination can be on politically incorrect grounds such as ethnicity and religion. Nor is there any obligation to be non-discriminatory in awarding citizenship. However, once you make people citizens, that equality of status should trump ethnicity, though I would still support discrimination between citizens on the bases of gender (since men and women are much more fundamentally different than people of the same gender from different ethnic groups) and religion (which is a choice and not immutable). RV would support stripping citizenship from certain ethnic groups but whatever the merits of that position it is politically unrealistic in Western countries. On the other hand, we are currently discriminating even against citizens on the basis of ethnicity, giving ethnicity-based preferences to citizens from immigrant groups over citizens from the majority ethnic group, which is insane. If we can’t reestablish the priority of citizenship over ethnicity (which seems to me much more politically realistic than stripping citizenship from ethnic groups, and which would at least result in the sane situation of dysfunctional groups failing on their own lack of merits), then eventually the majority group will wake up to the fact that they are being attacked in a social war between ethnic groups, and will assert themselves — if they do this soon enough it will merely result in discrimination against rather than favoring minority citizens, but if they wait too long there will be blood.

    Even more insane is discriminating against citizens in favor of non-citizens based on group membership. A country which does this is committing suicide. And yet this happens; this is so outrageous that it is a guaranteed winning issue for any politican, but somehow even most politicians prefer the esteem of the ruling leftist-media axis to fulfilling the desires of the voters, and they let themselves be shamed into not objecting.

    You raised good points about discrimination, but didn’t hit on the real common theme of the three items I posted links to.

  5. rebelliousvanilla says:

    This is exactly why I don’t support a return to color-blindness insanity. Color-blindness is the problem and moving towards discriminating against others and doing away with their citizenship is the solution. Considering that this IS a social war, I hardly see why I should fight it with a hand behind my back by being color blind. In the same time, even in a color blind society in terms of laws, the social war is still very much on. People must come to grips with the idea that sharing political power with outsiders is deranged – as deranged as making people citizens that you wouldn’t want your daughter to marry. This is why if I was an American, I would have voted for Obama in 2008 and I would vote for any Democrat in 2012(and why I wouldn’t mind amnesty for illegals – maybe this will show Americans how farcical their citizenship system is). The sooner white people snap out of the color blindness insanity, the better. I’d like to point out, that the only reason why whites are discriminated against is because we have no group loyalty, while other groups have. So as a business or government, discriminating against white people is ok because that won’t lose you their support and gain the support of nonwhites.

    Also, the record of history agrees with me. I can’t recall of any society that gave citizenship to outsiders and survived(a country that does this is committing suicide, not that discriminates against her citizens because if outsiders are already citizens, you have the same effect). Hegel, also agrees with me. Hegel stated that any extreme belief is followed by its extreme opposite, which then is followed by a moderate belief. We had genocidal exclusion, followed by deranged inclusion after WW2. Now, we will probably return to the early 19th century sanity(for most of the world, but France). Nietzsche said the same thing – an extreme is followed by its extreme opposite.

    Also, I disagree. Men and women from the same ethnic group are more similar than men or women from different ethnic groups – both in terms of values, culture and genetics. You can see this in the US election polls too – white women vote more conservative than black and Mexican men. In a sane system, men and women are complementing each other and the competition is other ethnic groups.

    And to sum it up, even if you have a legally color blind system, dysfunctional groups still benefit at the expense of the majority group, since they will be able to go to schools that they wouldn’t be able to sustain as a group, but that the majority does or benefit from law enforcement paid out by the majority, despite them committing most of the crime and so on.

    So I welcome the times when the majority will wake up and ruthlessly discriminate against outsiders.

  6. RV, you make a good point that color-blindness is inferior to the right kind of discrimination. I have said that color-blindness is politically achievable (as is cutting immigration both legal and illegal to almost any desired degree), while (in the USA at least, which is my biggest concern) officially discriminating against ethnic and racial minorities WHO ARE CITIZENS is not achievable, nor is stripping them of citizenship. So your non-support of color-blindness, in the American context at least, can only lead to a better society by leading to a quicker societal collapse. I have not given up on ordinary politics in my country yet (though I probably will if Democrats control Congress and the White House after the 2012 elections). That is why we disagree about the desirability of political action towards color-blindness and reducing immigration — you are rooting for a collapse because you think it is necessary (not only for America’s societal benefit but to eliminate America’s pernicious influence on European countries you care about), while you think measures that would improve America and prolong its hegemony are bad for the rest of the world and doomed eventually to fail in America.

    One political point in your favor is the incompatibility, as political stances, of color-blindness and discrimination against minorities. If Tea Party-backed Republicans take over next month and in 2012, they may well institute color-blindness and immigration reductions and ban affirmative action, as well as steer the economy away from the cliff, and this may be effective and popular enough compared to the last few years that they will stay in power for a while, while the social impetus necessary for a movement for whites to act in their own interests will be reduced. But I believe that regardless of this whites will wake up and begin to act in their own interests more, in other words that your statement

    In the same time, even in a color blind society in terms of laws, the social war is still very much on. People must come to grips with the idea that sharing political power with outsiders is deranged

    will become accepted by lots of white people in America. This belief is subject to correction by the evidence of the next few years; I don’t think you have enough evidence to conclude that whites will not wake up even in a legally color-blind America with restricted immigration, let alone that they will not wake up in an America where discrimination against minorities and uncontrolled immigration continue. (For one thing, they are beginning to wake up in Europe already and this does not go unnoticed here.)

    You are right about the record of history about countries that offer citizenship freely to outsiders, but America can stop offering citizenship to outsiders or children of non-citizens, this is a growing political movement here.

    Regarding gender vs ethnicity: I’m not disagreeing with you that from the political point of view the differences between races and ethnic groups are more important than the differences between genders. This is more a semantic than a substantive issue. I was referring to the restriction of rights in the context of equal citizenship — once you have granted a black man, a white man, a black woman, and a white woman citizenship, it makes sense because of the fundamental differences between men and women to have a law barring women from, say, military combat or from being firefighters in a particular city etc., but it does not make sense to treat differently two citizens of the same gender but different race. It may be fine to do this, but I am making a semantic point — if you do that, you have two classes of citizenship and one race is second-class citizens, it is not equal citizenship, while treating two citizens differently because of their gender is compatible with the concept of having only one class of citizen. It’s the same with age –that my 14-year-old son can’t vote does not mean he possesses something less than citizenship, it’s just that age discrimination is compatible with the equality of status citizenship implies, as is gender discrimination, but as a semantic point race discrimination is not, instead race discrimination means that people of different races do not have equal citizenship status.

    This is also a good point:

    And to sum it up, even if you have a legally color blind system, dysfunctional groups still benefit at the expense of the majority group, since they will be able to go to schools that they wouldn’t be able to sustain as a group, but that the majority does or benefit from law enforcement paid out by the majority, despite them committing most of the crime and so on.

    These issues are addressable by sensible education and justice reforms. For example, if the government got out of the education business and all schools were private, a deserving person from a dysfunctional group might persuade a school to give him a scholarship because of his anticipated performance, but there would be no drain of resources from a functional to a more dysfunctional group. Similarly, law enforcement costs can be allocated more fairly by enslaving prisoners so that society pays less of the costs of incarceration, rather than letting them watch TV and work out all day, and by paying for local law enforcement based on property taxes (which combines in a brilliant way with having all schools become private because the property taxes are currently earmarked mostly for schools). The externalities that remain can be partially addressed by measures such as confiscation of assets of criminals (and of families of juvenile criminals).

    By the way, I like your new gravatar pic.

  7. chicnoir says:

    congratulations on being my first. *

    Your welcome polymath 🙂

  8. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Polymath, I would have agreed with you if we would have had this debate 30-40 years ago. But sadly, we aren’t in that good of a shape anymore. You have to realize that nonwhites are the majority of newborns, which gives you a timespan of about 30 to 40 years until they will be the overall majority of the United States. So regardless of what you would do now, by the time I will be your age, we will be back at square one. Unless you foolishly believe that you will be able to brainwash the nonwhites to promote the interests of other people. I’d also like to point out that, for example, German Americans might wake up and want to move back to Germany if the US economy collapses – there are already queue lines of Americans wanting to renounce their citizenship all over Europe(and Germany would grant them citizenship on ethnic grounds in under an year). Now, let’s suppose that you would be able to move the Oberton window and be able to implement a part of what I want without a collapse now. You think that the almost majority nonwhites wouldn’t make your society collapse? I mean, you’d do what politicians do – postpone the inevitable. So, to have proper reform there, you need a collapse. Without one, being American will stay meaningless. What’s ironic is that being American can’t mean any of the following:
    1)being of a certain ethnic or racial group – percieved ancestry of the founding fathers
    2)supporting the US constitution – since it can be amended, it’s not really an identity; also, most Americans are against a proper interpretation of the constitution – they’re not American?
    And #1 invalidates the claim for a common culture too, since different people are prone to liking different things and without a majority forcing minorities to adhere to her culture, you won’t have this either. So I’d like to know – what’s an American? It’s so common sensical for people with a real identity to define who they are. For example, for my country it’s simple – descendants of the Romans + Christianity, for the sake of brevity. This issue won’t go away no matter how color blind you make the laws. And your children will reach your age and have to deal with it. What will they do? Acquiesce and postpone it even more? This is why I won’t have children unless things will be fixed. I refuse to postpone fixing issues and force my children to do it.

    And while I think the political method failed due to the cancer having progressed too far, it’s not that hard to do what I say politically either. Have me on the Supreme Court of the US and I will consider all the post Civil War amendments void because they were voted in the Constitution through an unconstitutional measure. There, you’d have open season to discriminate against citizens based on their ancestry. And I wouldn’t even have to lie about it since I’m right. But you won’t get to even debating this without a collapse – not now, nor in 30 years.

    I do have evidence that shows that in a color-blind America, whites will be less likely to be ethnocentric than otherwise. This is because the value of color-blindness is based on equality in between individuals regardless of their ancestry. This would be one of the core values of Americans. So, they won’t even consider proper measures based on an exclusive identity. I will explain this the best through an analogy to feminism. Most men that are against it that I know don’t want a return to a proper society, what they do mind is that feminism isn’t really for equality. They just want to have women drafted too and that they should get paternity leave. Funding for cancer X that men get should be equal to cancer Y that women get. Only a minority of them want a return to sanity, like I do – men are soldiers, leaders, producers, decision makers, while women help and shut up(aka no female suffrage). It’s the same situation related to color-blindness. Obviously, maybe you’d have most people be hypocritical like America was until the 1960s, but we all know how that one ends.

    Also, I hardly see how what will happen in Europe be relevant. What will whites say? I mean, the party line here will be that being Dutch means being ethnic Dutch, German being ethnic German etc and that Germany isn’t an immigration country and so on. What will being American mean? Same question that I asked above.

    You are right about the record of history about countries that offer citizenship freely to outsiders, but America can stop offering citizenship to outsiders or children of non-citizens, this is a growing political movement here.
    Which is absolutely irrelevant since we aren’t in 1864 now. You are just about a century and a half late, sadly. Last time I checked, the vast majority are already citizen.

    it makes sense because of the fundamental differences between men and women to have a law barring women from, say, military combat or from being firefighters in a particular city etc., but it does not make sense to treat differently two citizens of the same gender but different race.
    False. Women should be barred from military combat, not because we’re women, but because we ruin army morale, we have the men get protective and arouse sexual jealousy and through this decrease the military’s combat effectiveness. Same with firemen(God, stop using the firefighters word). I can make the same case that blacks should be excluded from voting before white women though based on non-racial criteria. So even with just gender discrimination, you make women second class citizens(so you don’t really have equal citizenship. Which is fine and dandy, it’s something I would support, but as I told Gorbachev, in a system like the one he wants or like the one you describe, I will be forced to be a feminist and promote the same insane gender equality that liberals promote.

    And the Equal Protection Clause, the one that would render any race based laws unconstitutional, interpreted literally, which is the normal way to interpret a law, would render ANY gender discrimination by a governmental body unconstitutional too(or gay marriage bans, provided no amendment is passed). And the Civil Rights Act would render any private discrimination unconstitutional. I would like to point out though that your state could make your child a voter, if it wanted. States can lower the age of voting, but they can’t raise it over 18. As long as you respect the amendments to who should vote, you can be more inclusive.

    Getting to the final part of your post, I’d like to point out that it’s still partial freeriding. Not only would he get a scholarship from the tuition fees paid by white students, he’d also benefit from the existence of the school, which is there by the virtue of white people. So he’d have a benefit from white people, for which he wouldn’t remunerate white people. Just like there are externalities in terms of costs, there are in terms of benefits. Pigouvian taxes also have Pigouvian subsidies, in terms of markets. So basically, he would have to pay a far higher tuition to remunerate for the fact that without white people, the school itself wouldn’t exist.

    Then, related to law enforcement. Why the heck should I pay higher property taxes to hire more cops in order to keep the ghetto people from the closeby town away? They should pay higher taxes to put their people behind bars, unless I can ban them from entering my town to begin with. This is cost externalization.

    Now, I’d like to add a couple more points. Having members from outside your ethnic group vote in your elections and hence exercise political power over your ethnic group renders national sovereignty pointless, since the whole point behind it is to not have your ethnic group be ruled by others. This is something I find amusing about Americans – they’re really anal about national sovereignty, yet others can just come and vote in your elections by becoming citizens. It’s paradoxical. Anyway, how do you see Americans realizing this without a collapse? I mean, it’s a huge stretch from we have the awesomest form of government to having outsiders vote in our elections makes our governance system illegitimate. This was hidden for a lot of time due to whites being the overwhelming majority and ignoring the minority, so them existing was inconsequential.

    And an even bigger issue. No group of people returns to a sane system of morality – in which sex outside marriage and sluttery is frowned upon or in which being a parasite is frowned upon, by consent. Point to a single group of people who did it throughout history. History shows that morality is born in suffering and that nobody is willing to do it because they had a dream last night. The truth of the matter, at least from the knowledge that I acquired so far, is that slight moral shifts are made over time and usually they self correct. But huge moral shifts are born in wars, revolutions, civil wars and suffering in general(especially if you’re under occupation and you have the occupiers export their cultures with a friendly face, which was Europe’s case). For example, the feminism of the 1960s was created by the WW2 propaganda on all sides that being a ‘strong’ woman and working in a factory is cool and make men want you, combined with the utter slaughter of men that took place which shattered the marriage dreams of quite a bit of the female population. At least if they wanted a man that can still build a shelf and isn’t maimed. Or you can look at the civil rights movement through a similar prysm, besides the communist involvement in it. It’s fairly obvious that the social attitudes of blacks changed after the war due to them being able to shag white women in Europe and so on. It’s relatively amusing how screwed the British were in this war – go to war to get killed to have American Negroes shag your women! Anyway, this is another question – how will moral changes happen without a collapse?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s