From panix!not-for-mail Sun Nov 7 17:46:46 EST 1993
Article: 856 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Nafta & _Chronicles_
Date: 7 Nov 1993 17:46:05 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <2bjtrd$fv2@panix.com>
References: <2bbhi2$ar8@balsam.unca.edu>,<2bbskt$5rs@panix.com> <1993Nov7.205203.6065@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>Editor Tom always writes as if he had a toothache.
>
>Why haven't I noticed this? Maybe I'm something of a sour puss myself. :-)
>>Sam
>>Francis has been getting bad-tempered lately, too.
>
>I wasn't aware that Mr. Francis was anything *but* bad-tempered in style.
>That's what I like about him. Has he been getting more so? I hadn't noticed.
You're hard to please! I say TF is bad tempered and you don't like it
and then I suggest SF hasn't invariably been bad tempered and you don't
like that either. So reverse the names, if it pleases you.
>Seriously, I enjoy the bellicose tone on the part of many Chronicles
>writers. It makes for a pleasant change from the run of the mill
>"respectable" conservative prose.
A matter of taste. When it comes to politics I prefer clear vigorous
prose that leaves out the purple adjectives and rhetorical florishes.
The problem with respectable conservative prose is that it doesn't say
anything. Bellicosity doesn't much anything either.
>> Also, it seems to me that being a political
>>extremist ought to make you happy [ . . . ]
>
>Mmmm.
Doesn't it make you happy? It gives me a wonderful feeling, like
escaping living death (being forced to watch _Barney_ or read _Newsweek_
all day . . .)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Nov 7 21:35:10 EST 1993
Article: 857 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: British eggheads
Date: 7 Nov 1993 18:04:02 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <2bjut2$i5g@panix.com>
References: <1993Nov7.213741.6867@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>Some while ago I made a request for suggestions of recent British
>writers that anyone here might be aware of, as I am considering doing
>my dissertation on the British New Right in the Thatcher era [ . . . ]
>How about Alistair MacIntyre: he's a Brit, isn't he? Anyone?
He's a Brit but has been mostly hanging around in this country for quite
some time. I think he's trying to be a Catholic and a Thomist out at
Notre Dame these days. I'm not sure he has much to do with "the British
New Right in the Thatcher era". I find him an interesting writer, but I
don't think he's part of or comfortable with the political right at all.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Nov 8 09:14:18 EST 1993
Article: 65789 of rec.arts.books
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Unjust Discrimination -- Confucianism and Bill of Rights
Date: 8 Nov 1993 07:27:51 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <2ble07$s85@panix.com>
References: <2baefi$gqh@uniwa.uwa.edu.au# <2bk5sc$s80@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au# <2bke3b$c93@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix rec.arts.books:65789 talk.philosophy.misc:10667 talk.politics.theory:17104
jaskew@maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>My taste in night life is improving.
Which reminds me of my favorite palindrome:
Tulsa nightlife: filth, gin, a slut.
I suppose what you have is:
Adelaide nightlife: filth, gin, Ed Ialeda,
which might be better or worse depending on what Mr. Ialeda is like.
Won't you tell us?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Nov 8 19:30:00 EST 1993
Article: 864 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Nafta & _Chronicles_
Date: 8 Nov 1993 18:04:46 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <2bmjae$g0q@panix.com>
References: <1993Nov7.205203.6065@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <2bjtrd$fv2@panix.com> <1993Nov8.174040.24568@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>>You're hard to please! I say TF is bad tempered and you don't like it
>>and then I suggest SF hasn't invariably been bad tempered and you don't
>>like that either. So reverse the names, if it pleases you.
>
>Did I say that I didn't like it when you said TF was bad tempered? The net
>is such a poor conveyor of meaning. I was poking a little fun at myself.
>Likewise I wasn't saying that I didn't like it when you said SF wasn't
>invariably bad tempered. I find this all rather humorous. And harmless.
I wasn't being serious either. Actually, I was thinking of sticking in
a few "you dimwits" and so on, but now I see it is better I didn't.
>"Extremism" makes me happy if by that you mean the knowledge that one
>is cut off from and elevated above the common dregs of humanity. But
>then, if one has this "extremist" knowledge, why is one forced into a
>"nice" dialogue which is reduced to blandness? Or are you saying that
>one should be extreme in ideas but not extreme in style?
I would say "classic" instead of "not extreme".
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Nov 10 06:27:06 EST 1993
Article: 867 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Nafta & _Chronicles_
Date: 9 Nov 1993 20:23:18 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <2bpfq6$4bb@panix.com>
References: <1993Nov8.174040.24568@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <2bmjae$g0q@panix.com> <1993Nov9.210416.24597@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>I picture classic restraint as somehow associated with Roman patricians
>who did not need to worry about where their daily bread was coming from.
>Insecurity is not conducive to calm.
Roman patricians died violently often enough. People who have always
known perfectly well that life has major problems and assume their
readers know the same aren't likely to bother with bombast or strain
for effect. In the lower Empire, when life had become secure and
rather dull for the aristocrats, my understanding is that they wrote
more like John Lyly in _Euphues_ or Vladimir Nabokov in _Ada_.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Nov 10 10:54:21 EST 1993
Article: 869 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: neo, paleo, & my incessant ramblings
Date: 10 Nov 1993 10:44:41 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <2br299$9n@panix.com>
References: <1993Nov9.211745.25338@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <2bpjl5$904@balsam.unca.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>_Chronicles_ never eases up, never grants
>the other conservatives honor. Matter of fact, I think that they
>would credit a Stalinist with good intentions before they would
>a neo-conservative.
They do seem rather unforgiving, don't they? Still, Norman Podhoretz is
one neo who seems at least equally vengeful. And I seem to recall that
one of the paleo complaints is that some neos have been doing stuff like
telling rich-but-ignorant foundations "you don't want to give stuff to
those antisemitic weirdos, give it to us instead". If things like that
have happened, it would a lot easier for the side that's successfully
positioned itself to get the goodies to suggest that bygones be bygones.
Your comment about Stalinists is a neat one. Still, if _Chronicles_ and
the paleos are willing to praise, publish, and give awards to Marxists
but not to neos maybe it's a sign that something really did go on behind
the scenes.
>This is about the fourth or fifth time a someone has responded to
>something I said, but over my head. It's like watching a volley ball
>game from beneath the net. Call me paranoid, but it feels like I'm
>being eased out of my own thread.
Why not look on it as a kind attempt to give you practice in dealing
with all kinds of rhetorical tactics? We must prepare for the struggle.
What does not destroy us makes us stronger. [fill in other slogans _ad
libidum_]
>But there's one more thing I want to say about before I take my leave :)
Please don't leave, we don't have quite enough people to get the
counterrevolution off the ground yet. Stick around and we'll let you
have 5 states for your Jeffersonian republic. Deal?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Nov 10 18:05:22 EST 1993
Article: 871 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Nafta & _Chronicles_
Date: 10 Nov 1993 18:05:03 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <2brs2v$fea@panix.com>
References: <1993Nov9.210416.24597@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <2bpfq6$4bb@panix.com> <1993Nov10.172741.19520@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>Edmund Burke was bombastic, for instance, but I wouldn't doubt that he
>knew life's major problems and assumed his readers knew them also.
Burke was an orator, so it's natural that strict restraint and
understatement were not always part of his style. I don't think he was
ever bombastic, though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Nov 11 11:59:34 EST 1993
Article: 873 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Limbaugh for a day
Date: 11 Nov 1993 11:58:09 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <2btqv1$mn7@panix.com>
References: <1993Nov11.012412.11830@afit.af.mil>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>I have an opportunity to host a local 1-hr radio talk show "amateur
>hour" (I get to pretend I'm Rush Limbaugh). My focus will be on the
>culture war; in particular, I want to promote the counter-revolution
>in my own small way.
>
>Given such an opportunity, what would _you_ discuss?
One goal would be to get people thinking about what they really want
life to be like, and whether liberalism will get them there. So you
could discuss what the perfect liberal society would be like (no
loyalties that matter except maybe to the state; no standards except
equal and maximum satisfaction of whatever preferences particular
individuals happen to have; no politics because everything that used to
be political has become a matter of rights to be determined by the
experts sitting on the bench) and ask people if they think it would be a
good thing.
If that plan's too grandiose, you could take a piece of the perfect
liberal society and ask about it. For example, what would a truly non-
sexist and non-homophobic society look like? What would families look
like? As a practical matter, how would children be supported and taken
care of? What would children be told as they grow up about their place
in the world? (To explore all the possibilities and do whatever they
feel like doing? To support the state? What else could it be?) How
intensive and how continual would the reprogramming and thought control
have to be?
Maybe (since you only have an hour) the scope of discussion could be cut
down yet further. An important point is that common sense is not a
limitation on the future development of liberalism because liberalism
has already advanced to the stage of principled rejection of common
sense (a.k.a. social prejudices and stereotypes), and the whole point of
talking about rights is that it means you don't have to consider
practicalities, accepted ways of looking at things, the objections of
people who see things differently, and so on.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!cmcl2!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Sat Nov 13 17:33:08 EST 1993
Article: 4843 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <062309Z13111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!cmcl2!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 06:18:51 UTC
Subject: Re: Mein Kampf/Questions for Herman
Lines: 28
hermann@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU writes:
>Marxism
>and Capitalism both serve to achieve the ultimate end: the Jewifica-
>tion of the World; the destruction of all competing non-Jewish philoso-
>phies, first in the Western world, then the rest of the world.
I'm a foaming-at-the-mouth right-winger, and I don't think Jews are the
problem. It's perfectly true that Jews are involved in the early
development of both Marxism and capitalism, but in the end both destroy
the Jews just as they destroy all other peoples. If you think the
present situation in the United States is good for the Jews you should
look at their rates of intermarriage and reproduction. In a hundred
years there won't be any Jews left except for the separatists (the
strictly Orthodox and those who have moved to Israel).
>BLACK AND WHITE UNITE AND FIGHT TO THROW OFF THE SHACKLES PLACED ON
>YOUR PEOPLES BY THE JEW!!!
A better slogan:
BLACK AND WHITE AND JEW UNITE AND FIGHT TO DESTROY LIBERALISM BEFORE IT
COMPLETES THE DESTRUCTION OF EACH OF YOUR PEOPLES!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!cmcl2!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Sat Nov 13 17:33:09 EST 1993
Article: 4861 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <201302Z13111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!cmcl2!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 20:11:16 UTC
Subject: Re: Women
Lines: 51
apendrag@news.delphi.com (APENDRAGON@DELPHI.COM) writes:
>> They are the tender, Emotional nurturing individuals.
>
>Actually, much of this is often culturally determined. They have the
>potential to be just the opposite as well. In fact, they are most
>dangerous when they choose not to be tender and nurturing.
Much, but not all. There aren't any societies in which women do not do
the bulk of the childcare or in which men do not fill the bulk of the
positions of formal leadership. Saying patterns of relationships
between the sexes are culturally determined is much like saying eating
habits are culturally determined. No doubt they are, but that doesn't
mean that there are no universals or that some would not be far better
than others for us today.
> Being a parent ( a particular social role ) is not a 9-5 job. Good child
>rearing is a difficult task requiring far more hours than any 9-5 job but
>in certain ways, it can also be more enjoyable. Children require supervision
>during every one of their awake hours; this is a big task. It is also a
>fact that the greater one-on-one supervision that a child receives, the
>better he becomes. Therefore, assigning one adult to a family is probably
>the best that can be done without lessening work production; many societies
>revolve around this distribution of labor.
One important point is that the kid is going to do better if the one-on-
one supervision comes from someone who wants to do it and thinks doing
it takes priority over everything else and can't imagine not doing it
with that particular kid even if things get bumpy now and then. The
only way I can think of to bring about that kind of situation is for
each family to have one adult who's been raised to think it's her nature
to provide that kind of care for her children and one adult who's been
raised to think it's his nature to support a household in which that
sort of care is provided. The traditional sex roles, or something very
like them, serve that purpose and it's hard to think of anything else
that could.
It's worth noting that if the idea is to eliminate sex roles it's going
to be an awful lot easier to get rid of the idea that men should support
their families than the idea that women should look after their
children. In much of the American black community (with its 2/3
illegitimacy rate) Liberal society has successfully uprooted the former
notion but there's no prospect that equal success will ever be attained
with the latter. Those inclined to envy the way blacks now tend to live
in this respect should support continued efforts to uproot sexism;
others may have second thoughts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Nov 14 06:21:44 EST 1993
Article: 66155 of rec.arts.books
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Re: socialism/anarchism/capitalism/communism.
Date: 13 Nov 1993 20:50:23 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <2c42sv$5sa@panix.com>
References: <1993Nov12.163906.6148@anasazi.com> <2c1roi$pms@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <2c3sjg$leh@scratchy.reed.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.activism.d:9417 alt.activism:48764 talk.politics.misc:141538 soc.culture.usa:23542 rec.arts.books:66155 alt.politics.reform:2305 alt.politics.usa.misc:1623
sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>Nor is "free-market" a system: it is the lack of a system, by
>definition.
I'm not sure what the lack of a system would look like. In any social
state of affairs there would be characteristic relationships and
repetitive situations that could be described and referred to as the
"system". A free-market system strikes me as more systematic than some
(e.g., a Hobbesian state of nature) because it seems to presuppose
clear-cut rights with regard to property and the obligation of
contracts.
It seems that by "system" you mean something stronger than "situation
capable of systematic description" or even "social arrangements
consciously chosen by political authorities for the sake of particular
goals", since the latter description would apply to free markets now
developing in Eastern Europe. Possibly by "system" you mean "system
administered by the government"; if so, what you say is true but it's
not clear to me why you want to say it.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Sun Nov 14 12:42:06 EST 1993
Article: 4867 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <121302Z14111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 12:06:19 UTC
Subject: Re: message to milton and others
Lines: 31
edc139ged24@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>what was America before the intoduction of slaves...
The parts of America with few or no slaves have always done better than
the parts with many slaves, so it looks like slavery was not the secret
of America's success.
>What was Europe before the introduction of imperialism so they could rape and
>murder other cultures...
I don't see much connection between imperialism and the development of
Europe, except that societies that are prosperous, well organized, and
technically advanced find it easy to set up empires. Do you think
Europe has missed owning Africa?
>I have had enough the white culture, raping and destroying other cultures. So
>we gonna get some back by destroy your so called "white culture". The movment
>has started, were in schools, in government, in your neighbourhoods, and
>espically in your race.
If your appetite for white culture is limited, why not support white
separatism? I doubt that you want to get rid of white culture
altogether. If you do, use only non-white medicine next time you get
sick. And if you want revenge, you should consider who will prove to be
stronger if it comes to war.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Nov 14 12:42:12 EST 1993
Article: 66173 of rec.arts.books
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Re: socialism/anarchism/capitalism/communism.
Date: 14 Nov 1993 07:06:01 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <2c56v9$8rv@panix.com>
References: <2c1roi$pms@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <2c3sjg$leh@scratchy.reed.edu> <2c43nn$r2c@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.activism.d:9427 alt.activism:48790 talk.politics.misc:141577 soc.culture.usa:23555 rec.arts.books:66173 alt.politics.reform:2321 alt.politics.usa.misc:1630
newman@garnet.berkeley.edu (Nathan Newman) writes:
>There is always a system; even in the abscence of traditional government
>control, small mafias take control of the economy (pretty much what is
>happening in Russia at the moment). But there is always a system of power
>in deciding who wins and who loses in an economic system.
It seems that you would call rules that protect the right of the winner
of a poker game to go home with his winnings "a system of power in
deciding who wins and who loses in an economic system". Is that right?
If so, I find it a puzzling way of speaking.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Nov 15 10:06:30 EST 1993
Article: 66228 of rec.arts.books
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Re: socialism/anarchism/capitalism/communism.
Date: 15 Nov 1993 07:36:54 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <2c7t56$n71@panix.com>
References: <2c43nn$r2c@agate.berkeley.edu> <2c56v9$8rv@panix.com> <1993Nov15.051942.15520@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.activism.d:9447 alt.activism:48854 talk.politics.misc:141678 soc.culture.usa:23587 rec.arts.books:66228 alt.politics.reform:2349 alt.politics.usa.misc:1653
ksbrooks@ellis.uchicago.edu (kevin sawad brooks) writes:
>|It seems that you would call rules that protect the right of the winner
>|of a poker game to go home with his winnings "a system of power in
>|deciding who wins and who loses in an economic system".
>
>the question is how are such rules to be enforced within specific
>(sub)systems? if your name is john doe and you 'cheat' then police
>force may be brought against you. if your name is the soviet union or
>the united states of america and the one you 'cheat' is eastern europe
>or south america, then we say go ahead.
You seem to be pointing to a problem with any system of enforced rules,
that there has to be someone to do the enforcing and that actor's
compliance will be voluntary. It takes additional argument to show how
that issue relates to comparisons among systems. My argument would be
that the problem of controlling the government can be alleviated to the
extent the discretion the government habitually exercises can be reduced
by having it make few administrative decisions and restricting it mostly
to enforcing a stable set of formal rules.
>>if
>>people like communes or workers' cooperatives they can set them up.
>
>you assume that if a person can name 'x' then they know 'x'. as such,
>you imply that because people know words such as 'communes' then they
>know what they are and can be all about, their history, and whether they
>really want these structures or not. your 'logic' is entirely faulty as
>it doesn't seem to take into account problems such as 'habit' and the
>more abstract notion of 'ideology.'
Your point seems to be that "free choice" is an illusion in politics
because what appears to be free acceptance of a system is really a
consequence of the system itself. If that point is accepted then it's
hard to see how political action can be rational. Those who engage in
such action generally believe they are working toward a better world, at
least for themselves, but your point seems to be that such beliefs have
no rational validity because they are determined by the social setting
of the actors.
You seem to apply the point quite categorically. Only a few people
would be needed to set up a commune or workers' cooperative, so your
explanation of the fact that few people try to set them up, and the ones
that are set up tend to work badly and fall apart, seems to imply that
it's impossible to find even a few people who truly know their own
interests and the appropriate organizational means of satisfying them.
Quite possibly that's true, but what follows?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Nov 15 16:17:56 EST 1993
Article: 3637 of alt.society.conservatism
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism
Subject: Public morality and the cultural battles
Date: 15 Nov 1993 12:07:09 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <2c8cvt$s2h@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
I wrote the following mostly to clarify my own thoughts, but it occurred
to me that some readers of alt.society.conservatism might find it of
interest. Any comments?
"Public morality" is the moral code that a community treats as binding
on its members. The public morality of each community comprises habits
and practices that facilitate cooperation to bring about the goals that
are generally accepted within that community. In the American community
such goals have always prominently included material well-being, which
has depended upon large scale organized production, and free political
institutions. Correspondingly, American public morality once promoted
prosperity by emphasizing honesty, reliability, enterprise and industry,
and promoted free political institutions by emphasizing self-reliance,
self-control, willingness to compromise and public spirit. Since
orderly and stable families are necessary to bring children up in all
these virtues, traditional public morality also emphasized habits and
practices that promote such families, such as sexual restraint.
In recent time the foregoing conception of public morality has been
replaced for many people by a conception that also views material well-
being and freedom as fundamental goods, but takes a radically different
view of what those goods require because it looks at them from the
standpoint of the consumer rather than considering first and foremost
how they are to be produced. From the consumer's standpoint the point
of material prosperity is to have the means to satisfy his desires,
whatever they may be, and the point of freedom is to have as few
restrictions as possible on which desires he can satisfy. Accordingly,
the new conception of public morality calls for arrangements that, to
the extent practical, treat all desires as equally worthy of
satisfaction and guarantee each person equal resources to satisfy
whatever his desires happen to be. Since private or informal economic
and social arrangements typically involve bargaining and ties to
particular people, both of which lead to inequality, the new public
morality tends to reject the ordering of society through such
arrangements in favor of the establishment of a uniform order by
government.
The new conception raises concerns as to whether it is practical to base
public morality on a consumer's viewpoint that takes production for
granted, and whether the concentration of power in the hands of the
government that the conception calls for will lead to tyranny. American
conservatism has always raised just those concerns and lost. An
important reason for its losses has been that in a democracy remote
prudential concerns ("it won't work!") are a poor response to grand
moral principles ("it's what's right!"), and there is considerable moral
logic in the transition from the old to the new conception of public
morality. After all, if the point of production is consumption and the
point of political freedom is the private freedom to do as one wishes,
then the new morality goes deeper than the old because it is based on
purposes that are more fundamental.
It seems to follow that if conservatives hope to win the current
struggle over how we shall live as a nation, they will have to have some
better response to egalitarian permissiveness than quoting _Poor
Richard's Almanac_. They will have to persuade the public that there
are goods that it makes sense for us to pursue collectively that we have
traditionally pursued collectively, that are superior to the acquisition
of material goods and the freedom to use those goods as we wish, and
that have more in common with the old than the new conceptions of public
morality. There undoubtedly are such goods; an example is moral
integrity, which has become problematic under the new conception of
public morality because that conception is unfavorable to the self-
discipline moral integrity requires. A serious difficulty that
conservatives face in making their case is that in America the tendency
has been to interpret moral goods in a utilitarian sense ("honesty is
the best policy") and treat them as subordinate to other ends or to lump
them together under the heading of "religion" ("God wants you to tell
the truth") and treat them as something properly excludable from public
life. Accordingly, it seems that conservatism's first task is to
broaden the way morality is discussed in this country so that people
will be able to understand it as a matter relating to what our common
life is like rather than a matter that can either be reduced to utility
or that relates only to the personal ideals of individuals. Once that
has been done, discussion of the real issues will become possible.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Nov 16 06:58:34 EST 1993
Article: 14462 of alt.discrimination
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Ethnic loyalty
Date: 16 Nov 1993 05:58:25 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <2caboh$3lq@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Ethnic relations seem to be getting worse throughout the world. The
following is an attempt to sort out some of my own thoughts on the
subject. Comments are welcome.
"Ethnic loyalty" is a feeling of kinship with people whose ethnic
heritage is similar to one's own, combined with at least occasional
action on that feeling. It appears that there is nothing essentially
wrong with it. We all feel kinship with people who are like us in some
way and frequently act on such feelings. Family ties are similarities
of blood and upbringing, and if such similarities admittedly have
practical importance when they are close it's not clear why it is wrong
to feel they still matter when the ties are more attenuated, as in the
case of common culture and ethnicity.
The usual objections to ethnic loyalty don't distinguish it from other
feelings that tie people together and sometimes divide them. Many
people speak as if it necessarily involved a kind of hatred that denies
the humanity of those who are different, but it's not clear why that
sort of reproach applies to ethnic loyalty more than loyalty to country
or to a social movement, or any other loyalty that is less broad than
loyalty to all humanity. People also sometimes claim that ethnic
loyalties are bad because they lead to conflict and ethnic conflicts are
more bitter than other conflicts. However, conflicts over economic
advantage, political and religious principle and state power appear to
be no less frequent and bitter than ethnic conflicts. Also, if ethnic
conflicts really are particularly bitter it seems to follow that ethnic
loyalties are stronger and go deeper than other loyalties, a state of
affairs that would make it pointless to assert that they are in
principle a bad thing.
Putting the usual objections aside, the fundamental argument against
ethnic loyalty seems to be that it has no substantial function and
therefore acting on it in serious matters is irrational and bad. (This
argument is usually not made explicitly, but there is a tendency to
avoid explicit discussion of matters relating to ethnicity and one must
piece together the relevant considerations as best he can.) The idea,
which is also the fundamental idea of liberal individualism, seems to be
that the goals we have as individuals can best be served by establishing
a political system that protects and advances them and supporting that
system through an ideology that validates it. Accordingly, our rational
loyalties are our loyalties to political ideology and the state, because
those are the loyalties that are rationally related to our individual
goals, and other loyalties are morally unjustifiable.
As so stated, the argument seems to be based on a view of man as an
animal that is originally non-social but establishes goals for himself
and consequently enters society in order to advance them. Such a view
seems wholly unrealistic to me. Man is an essentially social animal,
and the family and community he is born into, his upbringing and culture
of origin, and his involuntary ties to other people appear to be part of
what make him what he is, and are certainly more important than most of
the particular goals he consciously chooses. So it appears natural and
right for a man to feel ethnic loyalty and sometimes to act to preserve
or advance his group's identity and way of life, simply because that
identity and way of life are an important part of what he is.
Having said that, the question remains what kind of ethnic loyalties are
appropriate and how those loyalties should be manifested in the United
States in 1993. Any answer to such a question must be fragmentary, but
some points seem reasonably clear. It seems plainly legitimate for
members of an ethnic group to try to live together in accordance with
their own way of life if they don't place additional burdens on others.
It follows that private racial discrimination in housing, education and
employment generally is legitimate since to engage in such
discrimination is simply to deal preferentially with people of similar
ethnicity. It also seems legitimate to take ethnicity into
consideration in voting. The conduct in office of a government official
is heavily influenced by what he considers important or trivial, by his
perceptions and assumptions about politics, human nature and the world,
and by his manners and style, all of which are heavily influenced by
ethnic background. For a man to prefer to vote for someone of his own
ethnic group is therefore to prefer to vote for someone he understands
and who will understand him, which is surely justifiable.
Other matters relating to the role of ethnic loyalties in politics are
murkier. Since a government based solely on pure reason is impossible,
every government must reflect evaluations and understandings that vary
from culture to culture. When there are several cultures in a territory
ruled by a single government, some attempt at accommodating minority
viewpoints is likely but what the government does will mostly reflect
the outlook of the dominant culture. How to keep the peace among
competing cultures and what sorts of accommodations make sense are
complicated matters for which there is no general solution. In the
United States today I would propose reducing the occasions for conflict
by (i) limiting immigration, possibly by reestablishing quotas based on
national origin, to avoid multiplying conflicts and allow the groups
already here to learn how to live with each other, (ii) taking advantage
of our federal tradition to allow local variations to be reflected
politically, and (iii) emphasizing our tradition of limited government
and informal or private ordering of affairs to minimize the importance
of the political aspects of cultural differences. When such methods of
avoiding conflict don't work, all I can suggest is to let the dominant
culture have its way with whatever accommodations to minorities it feels
it can make without the sacrifice of integrity. Any other solution
would require giving the final say to some group with a viewpoint
superior to every culture, which is impossible.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Tue Nov 16 06:58:37 EST 1993
Article: 4944 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <110307Z16111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 10:58:09 UTC
Subject: Re: alt.white.power (was Re: This Group.)
Lines: 29
xenith@clam.rutgers.edu (Markus Maximus) writes:
>I propose Alt.White_Power or Alt.Racial_Purity to be created?
>This was previously posted. Where can I get the information about
>setting something like this up?
There's a FAQ in alt.answers on how to set up an alt.* group.
I would suggest "alt.separatism.white", because that's what people seem
to be talking about. "White power" doesn't seem to be a proposal for
white rule of others, but rather a proposal for a separate white
homeland. "Racial purity" has no specific connection to whites, and
Pendragon at least has denied that that is his goal. Also, there could
be a whole hierarchy:
alt.separatism.white
alt.separatism.black
alt.separatism.basque
alt.separatism.lesbian
alt.separatism.deaf
and so on, which would be interesting and I think very much in line with
the discussions. Separatism seems to be the coming thing. Why not
have a place to discuss it on the net?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Nov 17 13:20:02 EST 1993
Article: 14494 of alt.discrimination
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Casual Racism
Date: 17 Nov 1993 09:15:49 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <2cdbml$a2v@panix.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.correct:9795 alt.discrimination:14494
lesikar@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu (arnold v. lesikar) writes:
>The following is taken from the excerpt of "The Rage of a Privileged Class"
>by Ellis Cose [ . . . ]
Who does Mr. Cose mean by "privileged class"? Whites in general? If
so, it's hard to understand why more of them don't want to be surrounded
by as many people as possible over whom they have privileges. After
all, a privilege is a benefit only to the extent you have relations with
people who lack the privilege.
>In 1991, ABC's "Primetime Live" attempted to gauge the effect of race on
>average black and white Americans. Over a period of two and one half weeks,
>the program followed two "testers," one black and one white, both trained
>to present themselves in an identical manner in a variety of situations. At
>times, host Diane Sawyer acknowledged, the two men were treated equally,
>but over and over - "every single day," she said - they were not.
I don't doubt that if you spend 2-1/2 weeks putting yourself in
situations in which you think you're likely to find differences in
treatment you'll find a half-hour's worth that you can make into a TV
program. I don't even doubt that such incidents would be common. No
doubt you would also get footage you could make something out of if you
went through a similar exercise in Harlem.
The accounts of similar tests I've seen (relating to things like
mortgage and job applications and car purchases) seemed to show that
similar treatment is the general rule, but worse treatment of blacks is
common enough to be noticeable. The worse treatment was not by whites
alone. For example, my recollection is that both white and black
salesmen on average quoted higher prices on cars to blacks than to
whites.
>The white tester, John, got instant service at an electronics counter, the
>black one, Glenn, was ignored. Glenn was tailed, not helped, by the
>salesman in a record store, while John was allowed to shop on his own.
>Passersby ignored Glenn when he was locked out of his car; John was
>showered with offers of help. In an automobile showroom, Glenn was quoted a
>price of $9,500 (with a 20 to 25 percent down payment) for the same red
>convertible offered to John for $9,000 (with a 10 to 20 percent down
>payment).
When they have almost no facts people act based on what they think is
likely to be true. To the extent things like this happen it suggests
that people think blacks are on average less likely to have money to
spend than whites, more likely to commit petty crimes, less able to look
out effectively for their own interests and more likely to get into
problems that you'll regret getting involved with.
If people do feel that way their actions are sometimes going to reflect
those feelings, and I don't see much that can be done about it.
Antidiscrimination law proceeds by formalizing procedures so that it's
harder to base decisions on forbidden feelings, and by evaluating
overall results for equality, but none of that can be done in cases like
these. Education generally proceeds by pointing out that stereotypes
don't predict much about individual cases, but in situations like these
there is nothing for people to go on other than their sense of what is
likely to be the case, which in the absence of information (people are
dealing casually with someone they've never seen before) can't be based
on anything but gross and overbroad generalizations. If you try to
convince people that their generalizations and stereotypes lack all
factual basis -- for example, that blacks and whites on average have the
same amount of money, or the same crime rates, or the same ability to
assert their interests effectively -- I doubt that you will succeed.
>In an apartment complex, John was given the keys to look around,
>while Glenn was told the apartment was rented. At an employment agency,
>Glenn was lectured on laziness and told he would be monitored "real close,"
>while John was treated with consideration and kindness. At a dry cleaner,
>Glenn was turned down flat for a job and John was encouraged to apply.
In the apartment and job situations the conduct was of course more
conscious but I think similar considerations apply to some extent. When
people lease an apartment to someone or hire someone for a low-paying
job they don't have much information, so they try to cut the likelihood
of problems using the simplest and easiest methods they can think of.
That means they draw on whatever generalizations they happen to accept
("an academic degree is a sign of intelligence and hard work"; "military
service promotes leadership and responsibility"). The law doesn't permit
people to use race that way, of course, but saying something is against
the law doesn't mean some people won't do it when they have an immediate
problem to solve and it's not likely they will get caught.
>America is
>filled with attitudes, assumptions, stereotypes, and behaviors that make it
>virtually impossible for blacks to believe that the nation is serious about
>its promise of equality - even (perhaps especially) for those who have been
>blessed with material success.
What concretely would be required for seriousness?
>American citizens, whatever their
>race, should have the right to expect equal, fair, and respectful treatment
>in businesses.
Since you say the testers themselves found the experience an eye-opener,
it seems the overall problem is less one of treatment that is unfair or
disrespectful in itself than treatment that is subtly unequal. It's
easier to assert a right not to have to deal with that kind of problem
than to see how the right could be vindicated.
Also, why do you say "American citizens"? Do you think it's OK to treat
foreigners worse?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Wed Nov 17 16:24:42 EST 1993
Article: 14508 of alt.discrimination
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Casual Racism
Date: 17 Nov 1993 13:57:28 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <2cds6o$hm4@panix.com>
References: <2cdbml$a2v@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix alt.politics.correct:9810 alt.discrimination:14508
hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:
>>That means they draw on whatever generalizations they happen to accept
>>("an academic degree is a sign of intelligence and hard work"; "military
>>service promotes leadership and responsibility").
>That an academic degree is a sign of anything is almost believable
>however. So I here point out that it a baseless assessment. I did not
>work hard, I know many who have degrees but are not that intelligent
So if you were hiring someone what would you base your decision on?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!news.funet.fi!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Wed Nov 17 19:43:13 EST 1993
Article: 5037 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <224327Z17111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!news.funet.fi!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 22:42:18 UTC
Subject: Re: I am disgusted with this group!
Lines: 36
walshb@unix1.tcd.ie (Ben Walsh) writes:
>The history of true working-class struggle is the history of Unity
>between people regardless of their race, colour, creed or sexuality.
Would you outline the history of the opposition of the working class to
homophobia? I'm entirely unfamiliar with it.
>The shackles placed on black and white workers have also been placed on
>Jewish workers, Kleim. They have been placed on all workers by the
>system of international capital which is strengthened by your paranoiac
>and absolutely groundless anti-semetic rantings. Unity is strength.
The workers in the old Soviet Union seemed to have shackles too. Was it
international capital that put them there? Were the shackles worse in
East or West Germany? In North or South Korea? In Taiwan and Hong Kong
or on the mainland? Why have refugees always fled to capitalist
shackles but never to communist freedom?
>- I remember Russia as where the Great October Revolution took place as
>an example to workers everywhere of how power can be seized if they
>unite against the bourgeois state which oppresses them
If the murder of tens of millions of entirely innocent people by the
Soviet regime doesn't give you a problem you have no right to complain
about Mr. Kleim's admiration for Hitler.
>- I remember Rhodesia as the place where the despotic racist government
>of Ian Smith was overthrown in favour of pluralism and democracy.
Is that what they have there now?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!not-for-mail Thu Nov 18 10:50:56 EST 1993
Article: 14538 of alt.discrimination
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.discrimination
Subject: Ethnic conflict in our future?
Date: 18 Nov 1993 10:50:37 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <2cg5kd$1fv@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:17304 alt.discrimination:14538
There's been a lot of discussion about economics and politics.
Economics is not the only thing that makes the world go round, though,
so here are some thoughts on other things that are likely in influence
the politics of the future:
The international growth in ethnic tensions that has led to the breakup
of multi-ethnic states in Eastern Europe suggests questions about the
future of the United States.
Until recently the United States was dominated by people of Northern
European Protestant descent whose ancestors had been here long enough to
coalesce into that ethnic group that called itself simply "American".
As recently as 1960 racial segregation was still in nearly full force
and there was real doubt that a Roman Catholic could be elected
President. Since then we have moved much closer to becoming a fully
multiethnic society, and that change has been marked by a revolution in
law, social standards and public ideology. The change has also been
related to substantial demographic shifts. In 1960 non-whites were 11%
of the American population; in 1991 they were 16%. Over the same period
the percentage of the foreign-born grew from 5.4% to 8.7% of the
population, and of Hispanics to 9% (as recently as 1980 they had been
only 6.4%), while the percentage of Protestants in the American
population fell from 66% to 56%. _Statistical Abstract of the United
States 1992_. If present trends continue, demographers say, at some
point in the next century the United States will cease to be a majority-
white society.
These changes relating to ethnicity have been one aspect, but an
essential one, of a broader revolution in American life. That
revolution has consisted in the implementation of social and cultural
liberalism, an outlook that demands that each person be treated equally
and that treats individual desires and impulses, rather than social
values and standards that vary from culture to culture, as ultimately
authoritative. Liberalism requires multiculturalism, since
multiculturalism is simply the recognition that no culture's values and
standards are to be treated as authoritative. Until now the changes
liberalism has demanded, including those relating to ethnicity, have
been remarkably peaceful. The peace has not been inevitable; we have
held together in large part because of the threat of communism, a hope
that the changes would mean a better life for those who had been
previously subordinated or marginalized without substantially injuring
those who had been dominant, and the interpretation of our national
traditions uniformly proclaimed by our leadership.
The foreign threat has now disappeared and it has become clear that the
transformation of American life over the past 30 years has meant a worse
life for many and a substantially better life for few even of those
intended to be benefited. However, respectable opinion continues to
insist on an interpretation of American traditions that requires a
continuation of the trend toward a multicultural society. It seems to
me likely that before long voices calling for a reversal of that trend
will gain power if not respectability, and the long peace will come to
an end.
While the threat from the Soviet Union and international communism
lasted it provided support for both national unity and an internal
policy consistent with the American claim to be the leading proponent of
universal human rights. That internal policy was social and cultural
liberalism. Since universal human rights abstract from all particular
cultures, they tend (in the absence of a strong doctrine of intrinsic
value) to make individual desire and impulse the ultimate moral standard
and thus to become indistinguishable from liberalism. Human rights have
sometimes been thought to include the right to national self-
determination, and so might have been interpreted to include a right to
live in a society whose political institutions reflect one's ethnicity.
Instead, they have been interpreted to include a right to live in a
society whose political institutions are not adverse to one's ethnicity,
and thus to require multiracialism and multiculturalism.
Attempts are currently being made to preserve national unity by
replacing the threat of communism with the threat of foreign economic
competition or the need to prevent international chaos through the
establishment of a new world order. Such replacements don't support a
multiethnic society nearly as well as the threat of international
communism did. The threat of economic competition supports efficiency,
and multiculturalism is adverse to efficiency, in spite of valiant
attempts to argue the contrary, because the less people have in common
culturally the more difficult it is for them to cooperate productively.
A stronger argument can be made that the new world order visualized by
our leaders would require multiculturalism but it is doubtful that the
dream of a new world order can be made nearly as compelling as the old
threat from the Soviet Union, China and Cuba.
The benefits of the domestic order established since 1960 have been
remarkably elusive except for the people at the top, whose wealth and
share of the national income have increased. Between 1970 and 1990,
for example, median household income remained almost unchanged at about
$29,500 in constant 1990 dollars, while the percentage of households
with an income greater than $75,000 in constant dollars rose from 5.6%
to 9.7%. _Statistical Abstract_. The new order has been successful in
reducing the comparative earning power and status of white men in
general. Thus, from 1976 to 1984 the median white male's inflation-
adjusted income declined 22 percent. Lester Thurow in _Society_, Feb
1992. However, there has been no corresponding relative or absolute
improvement in life for rank-and-file minority group members. The
median incomes of white, black and Hispanic households remained almost
unchanged from 1970 to 1990. Moreover, the outstanding economic
problem for minorities has been poverty, and the long decline in
poverty in the 1950s and early 60s, that reduced the proportion of the
American population living in poverty from 33% in 1949 to 18% in 1964
(for blacks, from 55% in 1959 to 32.2% in 1969) ended about 1968 for
both whites and blacks. Indeed, the increase between 1970 and 1990 in
the number of black households with a constant-dollar income greater
than $75,000 (from 1.5% to 3.8% of the total), a change partly
attributable to liberalism, was exceeded by the increase in black
households with an income less than $10,000 (from 28.0% to 30,8%).
Sources: Charles Murray, "The Two Wars against Poverty", _The Public
Interest_ (Fall, 1982); _Statistical Abstract_.
Those concerned about the future should note that the condition of
children has become substantially worse. From 1970 to 1990 the
proportion of all children living in poverty has grown from 15% to 20%
(for blacks, from 41.5% to 44.2%). This deterioration in the economic
status of children is related to deteriorating family life, the burden
of which falls disproportionately on women and children and is most
pronounced in the case of blacks. From 1970 to 1990 the proportion of
children not living with both parents rose from 15% to 28% (in the case
of blacks from 41% to 64%), and in 1990 45% of of all children 6 years
or younger (83% of black children) living with single mothers were in
poverty. _Statistical Abstract_. Nor has the deterioration been merely
economic; between 1960 and 1980 the delinquency rate of 10 to 17-year
olds went up 131% and the death rates for whites aged 15 to 19 went up
140% for suicide and 232% for homicide, while academic achievement as
measured by SAT scores went down substantially. Uhlenberg and Eggebeen,
"The Declining Well-Being of American Adolescents", _The Public
Interest_ (Winter, 1986).
Our leaders have responded to these developments by strengthening their
insistence that social and cultural liberalism is the only conceivable
basis of our national life. Their insistence is motivated in part by a
belief that liberalism is a good thing, in part by a desire to
strengthen principles that increase their own power by increasing the
direct reliance of each individual on the government, and in part by a
consciousness that the elimination from public life of particular
cultural traditions and ties has left American society with no ordering
principles except liberalism and the love of individual material well-
being.
No matter how much our leaders insist on social and cultural liberalism
they are unlikely to be able to make it stick firmly enough to prevent
uncontrollable conflict. When things to which people have been loyal
work badly they eventually notice the problems, give up the loyalty, and
find other loyalties. It seems clear that the implementation of
liberalism has not only coincided with a period of stagnating or
declining well-being, but also contributed to it, most notably in
connection with family structure but also by the effects of regulation.
In addition, liberal ideals seem too abstract to provide the emotional
satisfaction they would need to survive their failure to deliver
practical benefits.
The question is then what will come after liberalism. Liberalism has
made it likely that when other loyalties gain strength it will be
ethnic loyalties that gain most. One result of affirmative action and
other policies designed to promote a multiethnic society has been to
increase ethnic consciousness because they put government in the
business of granting benefits specifically on the basis of ethnicity.
As the system develops, eligible groups organize to get benefits and
become more and more dependent on them. As the number and variety of
those who get benefits grows and those who bear the burden become fewer
in number and more homogeneous, the latter become more conscious of
themselves as a group with particular interests and eventually begin to
act as one. When they do so they will find that they can overthrow the
system of ethnic-based benefits that are an essential part of the
implementation of liberalism and will do so, but by doing so will
eliminate the sole remaining generally-accepted principle for ordering
society other than the pursuit of individual advantage. Since
self-interest is not enough to make a political society (for that
reason I do not discuss the libertarian possibility), the result will
be lawless struggle among factions, which because of the accentuation
of ethnic consciousness are likely to be ethnic factions. The ultimate
results are hard to predict, but in the absence of any strong principle
of cohesion could certainly include the dissolution of the United
States.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!news.intercon.com!pipeline.com!malgudi.oar.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Fri Nov 19 16:51:20 EST 1993
Article: 5128 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <210305Z19111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!pipeline.com!malgudi.oar.net!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 20:58:09 UTC
Subject: Re: White News Network (WNN)
Lines: 194
apendrag@news.delphi.com (APENDRAGON@DELPHI.COM) writes:
>The act of making the government represent people other than ourselves
>has led to our loss of representative government. Freed of the burden
>of representing White interests, the government has now become a power-
>hungry multi-ethnic state which represents no one's interests but its
>own.
This I think is the key. The Liberal new order is not hostile to white
culture as such any more than it is to any other culture. The point is
that all cultures must go because each culture is an authority separate
from the state. More effort is put into destroying white culture
because the state views it as its strongest enemy, but if you want to
see a culture and human lives that the new order has *really* destroyed
go to the South Bronx and look around you.
The following is an essay on a related topic that was posted in another
newsgroup:
The international growth in ethnic tensions that has led to the breakup
of multi-ethnic states in Eastern Europe suggests questions about the
future of the United States.
Until recently the United States was dominated by people of Northern
European Protestant descent whose ancestors had been here long enough to
coalesce into that ethnic group that called itself simply "American".
As recently as 1960 racial segregation was still in nearly full force
and there was real doubt that a Roman Catholic could be elected
President. Since then we have moved much closer to becoming a fully
multiethnic society, and that change has been marked by a revolution in
law, social standards and public ideology. The change has also been
related to substantial demographic shifts. In 1960 non-whites were 11%
of the American population; in 1991 they were 16%. Over the same period
the percentage of the foreign-born grew from 5.4% to 8.7% of the
population, and of Hispanics to 9% (as recently as 1980 they had been
only 6.4%), while the percentage of Protestants in the American
population fell from 66% to 56%. _Statistical Abstract of the United
States 1992_. If present trends continue, demographers say, at some
point in the next century the United States will cease to be a majority-
white society.
These changes relating to ethnicity have been one aspect, but an
essential one, of a broader revolution in American life. That
revolution has consisted in the implementation of social and cultural
liberalism, an outlook that demands that each person be treated equally
and that treats individual desires and impulses, rather than social
values and standards that vary from culture to culture, as ultimately
authoritative. Liberalism requires multiculturalism, since
multiculturalism is simply the recognition that no culture's values and
standards are to be treated as authoritative. Until now the changes
liberalism has demanded, including those relating to ethnicity, have
been remarkably peaceful. The peace has not been inevitable; we have
held together in large part because of the threat of communism, a hope
that the changes would mean a better life for those who had been
previously subordinated or marginalized without substantially injuring
those who had been dominant, and the interpretation of our national
traditions uniformly proclaimed by our leadership.
The foreign threat has now disappeared and it has become clear that the
transformation of American life over the past 30 years has meant a worse
life for many and a substantially better life for few even of those
intended to be benefited. However, respectable opinion continues to
insist on an interpretation of American traditions that requires a
continuation of the trend toward a multicultural society. It seems to
me likely that before long voices calling for a reversal of that trend
will gain power if not respectability, and the long peace will come to
an end.
While the threat from the Soviet Union and international communism
lasted it provided support for both national unity and an internal
policy consistent with the American claim to be the leading proponent of
universal human rights. That internal policy was social and cultural
liberalism. Since universal human rights abstract from all particular
cultures, they tend (in the absence of a strong doctrine of intrinsic
value) to make individual desire and impulse the ultimate moral standard
and thus to become indistinguishable from liberalism. Human rights have
sometimes been thought to include the right to national self-
determination, and so might have been interpreted to include a right to
live in a society whose political institutions reflect one's ethnicity.
Instead, they have been interpreted to include a right to live in a
society whose political institutions are not adverse to one's ethnicity,
and thus to require multiracialism and multiculturalism.
Attempts are currently being made to preserve national unity by
replacing the threat of communism with the threat of foreign economic
competition or the need to prevent international chaos through the
establishment of a new world order. Such replacements don't support a
multiethnic society nearly as well as the threat of international
communism did. The threat of economic competition supports efficiency,
and multiculturalism is adverse to efficiency, in spite of valiant
attempts to argue the contrary, because the less people have in common
culturally the more difficult it is for them to cooperate productively.
A stronger argument can be made that the new world order visualized by
our leaders would require multiculturalism but it is doubtful that the
dream of a new world order can be made nearly as compelling as the old
threat from the Soviet Union, China and Cuba.
The benefits of the domestic order established since 1960 have been
remarkably elusive except for the people at the top, whose wealth and
share of the national income have increased. Between 1970 and 1990,
for example, median household income remained almost unchanged at about
$29,500 in constant 1990 dollars, while the percentage of households
with an income greater than $75,000 in constant dollars rose from 5.6%
to 9.7%. _Statistical Abstract_. The new order has been successful in
reducing the comparative earning power and status of white men in
general. Thus, from 1976 to 1984 the median white male's inflation-
adjusted income declined 22 percent. Lester Thurow in _Society_, Feb
1992. However, there has been no corresponding relative or absolute
improvement in life for rank-and-file minority group members. The
median incomes of white, black and Hispanic households remained almost
unchanged from 1970 to 1990. Moreover, the outstanding economic
problem for minorities has been poverty, and the long decline in
poverty in the 1950s and early 60s, that reduced the proportion of the
American population living in poverty from 33% in 1949 to 18% in 1964
(for blacks, from 55% in 1959 to 32.2% in 1969) ended about 1968 for
both whites and blacks. Indeed, the increase between 1970 and 1990 in
the number of black households with a constant-dollar income greater
than $75,000 (from 1.5% to 3.8% of the total), a change partly
attributable to liberalism, was exceeded by the increase in black
households with an income less than $10,000 (from 28.0% to 30,8%).
Sources: Charles Murray, "The Two Wars against Poverty", _The Public
Interest_ (Fall, 1982); _Statistical Abstract_.
Those concerned about the future should note that the condition of
children has become substantially worse. From 1970 to 1990 the
proportion of all children living in poverty has grown from 15% to 20%
(for blacks, from 41.5% to 44.2%). This deterioration in the economic
status of children is related to deteriorating family life, the burden
of which falls disproportionately on women and children and is most
pronounced in the case of blacks. From 1970 to 1990 the proportion of
children not living with both parents rose from 15% to 28% (in the case
of blacks from 41% to 64%), and in 1990 45% of of all children 6 years
or younger (83% of black children) living with single mothers were in
poverty. _Statistical Abstract_. Nor has the deterioration been merely
economic; between 1960 and 1980 the delinquency rate of 10 to 17-year
olds went up 131% and the death rates for whites aged 15 to 19 went up
140% for suicide and 232% for homicide, while academic achievement as
measured by SAT scores went down substantially. Uhlenberg and Eggebeen,
"The Declining Well-Being of American Adolescents", _The Public
Interest_ (Winter, 1986).
Our leaders have responded to these developments by strengthening their
insistence that social and cultural liberalism is the only conceivable
basis of our national life. Their insistence is motivated in part by a
belief that liberalism is a good thing, in part by a desire to
strengthen principles that increase their own power by increasing the
direct reliance of each individual on the government, and in part by a
consciousness that the elimination from public life of particular
cultural traditions and ties has left American society with no ordering
principles except liberalism and the love of individual material well-
being.
No matter how much our leaders insist on social and cultural liberalism
they are unlikely to be able to make it stick firmly enough to prevent
uncontrollable conflict. When things to which people have been loyal
work badly they eventually notice the problems, give up the loyalty, and
find other loyalties. It seems clear that the implementation of
liberalism has not only coincided with a period of stagnating or
declining well-being, but also contributed to it, most notably in
connection with family structure but also by the effects of regulation.
In addition, liberal ideals seem too abstract to provide the emotional
satisfaction they would need to survive their failure to deliver
practical benefits.
The question is then what will come after liberalism. Liberalism has
made it likely that when other loyalties gain strength it will be
ethnic loyalties that gain most. One result of affirmative action and
other policies designed to promote a multiethnic society has been to
increase ethnic consciousness because they put government in the
business of granting benefits specifically on the basis of ethnicity.
As the system develops, eligible groups organize to get benefits and
become more and more dependent on them. As the number and variety of
those who get benefits grows and those who bear the burden become fewer
in number and more homogeneous, the latter become more conscious of
themselves as a group with particular interests and eventually begin to
act as one. When they do so they will find that they can overthrow the
system of ethnic-based benefits that are an essential part of the
implementation of liberalism and will do so, but by doing so will
eliminate the sole remaining generally-accepted principle for ordering
society other than the pursuit of individual advantage. Since
self-interest is not enough to make a political society, the result
will be lawless struggle among factions, which because of the
accentuation of ethnic consciousness are likely to be ethnic factions.
The ultimate results are hard to predict, but in the absence of any
strong principle of cohesion could certainly include the dissolution of
the United States.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Nov 20 05:31:22 EST 1993
Article: 940 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: net nitwits, also FAQ
Date: 19 Nov 1993 19:52:28 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 406
Message-ID: <2cjpoc$rbn@panix.com>
References: <1993Nov19.193357.15470@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>Amusing, isn't it? All this silliness spilling over from alt.flame and other
>bastions of enlightened discourse. I wonder if anyone here noticed anything
>about the "discussion" over drugs? I observe a complete lack of any notion of
>the state beyond a potential threat to one's personal freedom.
It's not just alt.flame, of course. In any of the *.politics.* or
*.philosophy.* newsgroups you'll find all but universal agreement that
the moral and political universe consists of the actual desires people
have, the resources and techniques available for satisfying them, and
mechanisms for coordinating people's efforts to satisfy their desires
and maybe ensure that no desires are treated unequally.
Incidentally, here's a new edition of my right-wing reference and
resource list. It includes periodicals, books, articles and other
stuff that seem relevant to the matters discussed in a.r.c. My general
procedure has been to include anything that is out of the mainstream
and on the right. Additions and improvements are eagerly solicited:
GENERAL
Periodicals
_Chronicles_
Subscription department:
P.O. Box 800
Mount Morris, IL 61054
1-800-877-5459
Subtitled "a magazine of American culture", _Chronicles_ puts out
"theme" issues with an interesting mix of stuff mostly tending toward an
anti-internationalist and neotraditional outlook that bases conservative
views on modern modes of analysis. They also have an interesting group
of regular contributors.
Published monthly for $24 a year, $30 for foreign subscribers. U.S.
funds only.
_Modern Age_.
Books
[I've just listed a few books that came to mind as relevant to the
issues, so the list includes non-CRs as well as CRs. Here as elswhere
suggestions are welcome.]
Aquinas, Thomas _Works_
Aristotle _Ethics_ and _Politics_
Burke, Edmund _Reflections on the Revolution in France_
Confucius _Analects _
Locke, John _Second Treatise of Government_
Maistre, Joseph de _Works_
MacIntyre, Alasdair _After Virtue_
Marx, Karl _Works_
Plato _Republic_ and _Laws_
Rousseau, J.-J. _Social Contract_ and other writings
Sade, Marquis de _Works_
Stephen, James FitzJames _Liberty, Equality and Fraternity_
Tocqueville, Alexis de _Democracy in America_
Articles
Berlin, Isaiah "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of
Fascism", in _The Crooked Timber of Humanity_
CHRISTIAN COUNTERREVOLUTION [copies a posting by Nils Monaghan]
Books
General
Plinio Correa de Oliveira: Revolution and Counter Revolution
Plinio Correa de Oliveira: Indian Tribalism, the Communist-Missionary
Ideal for Brazil in the Twent-First Century > Crusade for a Christian
Civilization Vol. 10 No. 4 / Vol. 11 No. 1 (joint publication)
Plinio Correa de Oliveira: What does Self-Managing Socialism mean for
Communism - A barrier? Or a Bridgehead? > Crusade for a Christian
Civilization Vol 12 No 3 Apr-Jun 1982
Plinio Correa de Oliveira: Unperceived Idelological Transshipment and
Dialogue > Crusade for a Christian Civilization Vol 12 No. 2, Oct-Dec
1982 (originally Port. Baldeaco Ideologica Inadvertida e Dialogo)
Denis Fahey: The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World (3rd ed.
1939, rpd Omni Publications, Hawthorne California, 1987)
C.S. Lewis: The Abolition of Man
E.F. Schumacher: Small is Beautiful
E.F. Schumacher: A Guide for the Perplexed
Tradition, Family & Property: Half a Century of Epic Anti-Communism (New
York, 1981)
Marion Michael Walsh: The New Christendom. How We will Build It
Marion Michael Walsh: A Manual of Christian Social-Political Action
The Christian Law Institute Position Papers, Releases and Reports
Contemporary Politics
Carlos Patricio del Campo: Is Brazil Sliding Toward the Extreme Left?
History
Carlos de Arce: Los Generales de Franco (Barcelona, 1984)
Luis Bolin: Spain - The Vital Years (J.B. Lippincott Company, 1967)
W. Foss & C. Gerahty: The Spanish Arena (Catholic Book Club, London)
John Grigg: Nobility & War > Encounter March 1990 Vol. 74 No. 2
Solange Hertz: Dicovering Cristabal Colon (Supplement to Apropos No 12)
Hon. Mrs Maxwell-Scott: Garcia Moren~o, the Regenerator of Ecuador
E. Waugh: Robbery under Law - the Mexican Object-lesson (Catholic
Book Club, London, 1940)
Nesta H. Webster: The French Revolution
Nesta H. Webster: The Socialist Network (London, 1926)
Nesta H. Webster: Secret Societies and Subversive Movements (1924, rpd
Christian Book Club of America, 197?)
Nesta H. Webster: World Revolution. The Plot against Civilization
(London, 1921)
Nesta H. Webster: Surrender of an Empire (3rd edition, 1931)
The Catholic Church
Hilaire Belloc: Survivals and New Arrivals (London, 1929, rpd 1939)
Michael Davies: Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Part I 1905-1976 (The Angelus Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1979)
Part II 1977-1979 (The Angelus Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1983)
Michael Davies: An Open Letter to a Bishop on the
Deveopment of the Roman Rite (Chulmleigh,Devon, 1980)
Michael Davies: A Privilege of the Ordained (The Angelus
Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1982)
Michael Davies: The Goldfish Bowl: The Church Since
Vatican II (The Angelus Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1985)
Michael Davies: St Athanasius. Defender of the Faith
(The Angelus Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1985)
Michael Davies: The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass
(The Angelus Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1982)
Michael Davies: The Catechetical Revolution. Blessing or
Disaster (The Antony Roper Memorial Lecture, 1984)
Michael Davies: Archbishop Lefebvre and Religious
Liberty (Augustine Publishing Co, Chulmleigh, Devon, 1980)
Marcel Lefebvre: A Bishop Speaks
Marcel Lefebvre: An Open Letter to Confused Catholics
(tr The Society of St Pius X - Great Britain, Angelus
Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1987)
Marcel Lefebvre: They Have Uncrowned Him. From
Liberalism to Apostasy. The Conciliar Tragedy (tr
Reverend Father Gregory Post, Angelus Press, Dickinson, Texas, 1988)
Biographies
Aidan MacKay: Hilaire Belloc and his Critics [available from the GK
Chesterton Study Centre - vide list of journals & organisations]
Jay P. Corrin: GK Chesterton & Hilaire Belloc. The Battle Against Modernity
Maisie Ward: Gilbert Keith Chesterton (London, 1944)
Literature
Hillair Belloc: Hills and the Sea (1906)
GK Chesterton: The Return of Don Quixote
C.S. Lewis: The Chronicles of Narnia
C.S. Lewis: The Perelandra Trilogy
J.R.R. Tolkien: The Hobbit
J.R.R. Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Miscellaneous
H. Belloc: Advice (Harvill Press, London, 1960)
H. Belloc: A Moral Alphabet in Words of from One to Seven Syllables
(1899, rpd Duckworth, 1974)
Journals
Please note with regard to subscription information, that this may
well be out of date (particularly with the recent currency
fluctuations). Where possible I have tried to indicate the frequency
of publication, although in practice this will often fluctuate.
Action Familiale et Scolaire
Action Familiale et Scolaire, 31 Rue Rennequin, 75017 Paris, France
[ Articles from this publication are often published in an
English translation in Apropos ]
All These Things
5835 Bramble Ave, Cincinnatti OH 45227 USA
Apropos (previously Approaches)
Editor: Tony Fraser
Burnbrae, Staffin Road, Portree, Isle of Sky, Scotland
Quarterly.
Candour
Editor: Rosine de Bounevialle
Forest Hose, Liss Forest, Hampshire, GU33 7DD, United Kingdom
Monthly.
Gaudete
PO Box 338, Winsted CT 06098 USA
Verbum
[ address being checked ]
Organisations
American Catholic Lawyers Association
KTF, 810 Belmont Avenue, P.O. Box 8261, Haledon, N.J. 07538-0261, USA
American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property
P.O. Box 121, Pleasantville, NY 10570, U.S.A.
Tel: 914-241-7015
[ Publishes various books, and magazines/newsletters ]
Christian Affirmation Campaign
Flint House, 30 Clifton Road, Worthing, Sussex BN11 4DP
[ Publishes an occasional newsletter Open Eye.]
Christian Law Institute
Box 37070, Omaha, Nebraska 68137, U.S.A.
G.K. Chesterton Study Centre
15 Shaftesbury Avenue, Bedford, U.K.
[ A booklet 'Hilaire Belloc and His Critics' by Aidan MacKay,
the owner of the study centre is available for
1.50 UK pounds plus postage ]
EUROPEAN NEW RIGHT
Periodicals
_Perspectives_
Write to:
Transeuropa, BM-6682
London WC1N 3XX
England
_Perspectives_ , like _Scorpion_, is influenced by GRECE and the ENR,
but takes a more strongly regionalist, neo-pagan, and semi-anarchist
position than others in this tendency. Strong interest in regional
folklore & folk music, *as well as* modernism, futurism and the avant
garde.
Airmail to the Americas: 13 Pounds sterling
Surface mail outside Europe: 10 Pounds sterling.
Checks/postal orders made out to Transeuropa.
_The Revolutionary Conservative_
This is an odd magazine, sort of radical Tory with a sophomoric sense of
humor. A bit flippant at times, but interesting.
[Mr. Deane may be able to discover how to find it.]
_The Scorpion_
Write to:
The Editor (Michael Walker)
The Scorpion
Lutzowstrasse 39
5000-Koln-1
Germany
Right now, _The Scorpion_ is coming out at the rate of a year or more
per issue (the subscription rates are for 4 issues). Back issues are
worth getting. _The Scorpion_ is the only source for English
translations of GRECE writers such as Alain de Benoist and Guillaume
Faye (or will be until Tomislav Sunic publishes his translations of some
of M. Benoist's essays). The writing in _The Scorpion_ is of a very high
quality and though it comes out infrequently, it's been getting longer -
52 pages in last issue.
North America air mail: 25 pounds sterling ($40.00 U.S.)
Surface mail: 17 pounds sterling
All curencies accepted. Cheques made payable to _The Scorpion_ except
for francs and marks (made payable to Michael Walker). For cheques in
currencies other than Pounds sterling, French francs, and Germans marks,
add 10%. Mr. Deane sends cash in U.S. dollars, as this avoids the
problem, but of course there is the usual risk of sending cash through
the mail. If you can send money orders in foreign currency, that can
work too.
_Third Way_
Write to:
Third Way
P.O. Box 1243
London SW7 3PB
England
Strictly speaking, Third Way is not part of the ENR, but the influence
is there, Mr. Deane thinks. This group emphasizes "common sense"
approaches to political problems, opposition to Maastricht, green
politics, cooperation between conservatives/nationalists of all
ethnic/racial/relgious groups, etc.
Outside UK, surface mail: 19 pounds sterling.
Outside Europe, airmail: 24 pounds sterling.
All payment must be in pounds sterling (Mr. Deane has gotten away with
cash, U.S. dollars, but he sends a little more than what the exchange
rate is, just in case). All cheques/postal orders/International money
orders payable to Third Way Publications, Ltd.
Books
Alain de Benoist:
_Vu de Droite, Copernic 1977
_Les Idees a L'Endroit_, Libres-Hallier 1979
_Comment peut-on etre Paien?_, Albin Michel 1971
_Les Traditions d'Europe, Labyrinthe 1982
_L'Eclipse du Sacre, Table Ronde 1986
_Eroope, Tiers Monde: Meme Combat, Robert Laffont 1986
Tomislav Sunic, [?]
For a list of all the works by members of G.R.E.C.E and current prices,
wrote to 13, rue Charles Lecocq, 75015 Paris, enclosing two
International Reply Coupons
WHITE SEPARATIST
[This stuff is all new to this edition and I haven't checked any of it
out]
Periodicals:
_Instauration_
Howard Allen Enterprises, Inc.
Box 76
Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920
$20/year for students and $30/year for others
Considered one of the best magazines of the movement.
_Stormfront Magazine_
203 Lakeland Drive
W. Palm Beach, Florida 33405
$22/year
A new publication.
_The Truth at Last_
P.O. Box 1211
Marietta, Georgia 30061
$15/year
A newspaper covering a variety of topics of interest to separatists.
_The Jubilee_
P.O. Box 310
Midpines, California 95345
(209) 742-6397
$15 donation/Year
A Christian Identity newspaper.
Bookstores:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, West Virginia 24946
Broad assortment of books on history, philosophy, culture and other
subjects.
The Noontide Press
1822 1/2 Newport Blvd. Suite 183
Costa Mesa, California 92627
$1.00 for the catalog
A wide assortment of books, cassettes and pamphlets.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Nov 20 14:53:57 EST 1993
Article: 17359 of talk.politics.theory
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Ethnic conflict in our future?
Date: 20 Nov 1993 14:53:45 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <2clsk9$9aq@panix.com>
References: <2cg5kd$1fv@panix.com> <2cju2p$7ou@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:17359 alt.discrimination:14605
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>I believe we should examine the
>way ethnic conflict has been handled in the past in our
>country, a peculiar way which has generally avoided overt,
>sustained ethnic war from the point of view of most of the
>population.
>
>This has been through the creation of two super-ethnicities,
>generally called races: "White" and "Black."
That doesn't appear to be the origin of the distinction or the reason
for its strength and durability. The race line has always been most
important in the South, which is also the region in which there is least
ethnic variation among whites. Within the South it has been most
important in rural areas, which are economically and socially less
diverse than the cities. After the Second World War blacks migrated
from the rural South to the urban and ethnically diverse North because
they thought they would get a better deal there. All these things are
hard to understand on the assumption that "blackness" is a construction
to mitigate the effect of ethnic divisions among whites.
>While there is
>no such thing as a physiologically identifiable race, they
>are socially real, created by construing all individuals
>as being in one category or the other. Although the terms
>started out as hyperboles of skin color, color is not a
>requirement; in the recent troubles in Los Angeles,
>Hispanics were construed as "Black" and Koreans as "White"
>even though their skin colors are practically the same.
I don't think people call Hispanics "black" or Koreans "white", although
group alliances often tend that way. Actually, my observation has been
that someone who would otherwise be called "white" or "black" is called
"Hispanic" if he has the appropriate origin.
You seem to tend to view ethnicity as a matter of social function, as
determined by whoever is dominant. No doubt social function plays a
role in ethnicity, but I don't think it's fundamental. Otherwise ethnic
distinctions would typically arise out of social class, which doesn't
seem to be the usual course of events. Also, the existence and
importance of ethnic distinctions within a country (Iceland, Cyprus,
Japan, the United States) would be determined by facts about that
country that have nothing to do with ethnicity, would not be materially
affected by immigration, and would change radically with other changes
in society and the economy, all of which seem contrary to observation.
An ethnic group is a group of people linked by common culture and by
belief in a common origin and future. That culture and belief are
affected but not, I think, constructed by what's going on in the larger
society in which the group finds itself.
>As W.E.B. DuBois and James Baldwin, among others, have
>pointed out, the existence of a special, easily identifiable
>"Black" Other supports the cohesion of the "White" majority.
>The latter originally consisted of many disparate groups of
>people, having different languages and religions; but
>through "Whiteness" they found a common ground, and were
>able to displace their fears and hatreds of each other on
>the "Black" minority.
This sounds like there ought to be something to it, but it doesn't
explain why regions with many white immigrants and few blacks (New
England manufacturing areas and midwestern farming areas) prospered and
tended more to favor abolition and civil rights for blacks, while the
reverse was true of the region with the most blacks and the least white
ethnic diversity (the South).
>The consequence is that Americans no longer
>possess the kind of ethnicity experienced by Bosnians,
>Cypriots, Lebanese, and so on, and cannot be expected to
>go to war for it in the same way.
It's hard to look into the future. I can remember, though, when Lebanon
was considered a model of intergroup relations. I don't know what
Lebanese Christians and Muslims, or Ulster Catholics and Protestants,
felt about each other in 1950 and how those feelings compare with the
feelings of American whites and blacks toward each other today. No
doubt more knowledge of the relevant history would be helpful. It's
worth noting that a nation can fall apart on ethnic lines without war.
The breakup of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, or for that matter
the breakoff of Norway from Sweden in 1905(?), come to mind.
I suppose my method of analysis would be to look at what holds a society
together, what the irritations and fault lines are that might produce a
split-up, and what the principles of cohesion are that might provide a
replacement for the lost unity. There's been a lot of discussion in
talk.politics.theory about the trend toward weakening of social cohesion
in the United States and the likelihood the trend will continue, and I
hope I can just incorporate that discussion here by reference. As to
irritations and fault lines, it seems to me that the distinction between
black and white in this country remains crystal clear. Intermarriage
remains quite rare, for example (during the 1980's black-white couples
rose from 0.3% to 0.4% of all married couples). Blacks remain far worse
off economically and otherwise, and the differences seem rather stable
(from 1970 to 1990 the poverty rates for whites and blacks went from
9.9% and 33.5% to 10.7% and 31.9%, and from 1978 to 1990 the proportion
of all prison inmates who are blacks went from 41% to 43%). Attempts to
narrow the differences haven't had much overall effect. Where the
attempts have been successful (as in the case of university admissions)
they have involved explicit requirements that blacks be treated more
favorably than otherwise similarly-situated whites, a feature that I
think among other things leads both blacks and whites to think worse of
each other and guarantees the importance of ethnic conflict in public
life.
I suppose my view is that we have ethnic problems that aren't going to
go away, and when people realize that the problems aren't going to go
away ethnic conflicts are going to get worse. It also seems to me that
people need to feel they belong to something, and if the substance of
"American society" seems to be dissipating in an era of instant global
communications, large-scale immigration and official multiculturalism,
people will find something else to belong to, like an ethnic group. In
the end, what we feel we have in common may not be enough to keep us
together as a single political society. If it comes to that, I would
hope the divorce could be as civilized as possible, but divorces tend to
be messy, especially when the parties accuse each other of gross
misconduct.
>I believe the next stage beyond the present one will lie in
>the practice of ethnicity as a hobby (a number of "White"
>ethnicities have already begun to do this) and the creation
>of completely artificial ethnicities.
That's fine as long as each ethnic group thinks it could get by just
fine on its own and doesn't think any of the others are treating it
unjustly. That's not a situation we are ever likely to see.
>we can expect a
>situation which will become more complex and at the same
>time more anarchic, in which liberalism and its
>practitioners will form a kind of subset. In such a
>situation, conflict will be only one of the modes of
>relation; there will be opportunities for cooperation and
>frictionless sliding-by as well. Certainly, the dissolution
>of the United States is possible, but not in civil war; very
>few people would be interested in such a war. It seems more
>likely that territorial and corporate boundaries will become
>increasingly useless and increasingly ignored, and will
>eventually be forgotten.
It's not clear to me that you are disagreeing with anything I said. It
seems that you agree that the relations among individuals and groups
will become looser, less governed by law, and more _ad hoc_, and you
don't seem to dispute that for many people ethnic ties will come to seem
more important than common citizenship. A difference between us may be
that you are more optimistic than I am about the level of violence
between individuals and among groups that such a state of semi-anarchy
would lead to.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Sat Nov 20 14:55:16 EST 1993
Article: 14605 of alt.discrimination
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Ethnic conflict in our future?
Date: 20 Nov 1993 14:53:45 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <2clsk9$9aq@panix.com>
References: <2cg5kd$1fv@panix.com> <2cju2p$7ou@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
Xref: panix talk.politics.theory:17359 alt.discrimination:14605
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>I believe we should examine the
>way ethnic conflict has been handled in the past in our
>country, a peculiar way which has generally avoided overt,
>sustained ethnic war from the point of view of most of the
>population.
>
>This has been through the creation of two super-ethnicities,
>generally called races: "White" and "Black."
That doesn't appear to be the origin of the distinction or the reason
for its strength and durability. The race line has always been most
important in the South, which is also the region in which there is least
ethnic variation among whites. Within the South it has been most
important in rural areas, which are economically and socially less
diverse than the cities. After the Second World War blacks migrated
from the rural South to the urban and ethnically diverse North because
they thought they would get a better deal there. All these things are
hard to understand on the assumption that "blackness" is a construction
to mitigate the effect of ethnic divisions among whites.
>While there is
>no such thing as a physiologically identifiable race, they
>are socially real, created by construing all individuals
>as being in one category or the other. Although the terms
>started out as hyperboles of skin color, color is not a
>requirement; in the recent troubles in Los Angeles,
>Hispanics were construed as "Black" and Koreans as "White"
>even though their skin colors are practically the same.
I don't think people call Hispanics "black" or Koreans "white", although
group alliances often tend that way. Actually, my observation has been
that someone who would otherwise be called "white" or "black" is called
"Hispanic" if he has the appropriate origin.
You seem to tend to view ethnicity as a matter of social function, as
determined by whoever is dominant. No doubt social function plays a
role in ethnicity, but I don't think it's fundamental. Otherwise ethnic
distinctions would typically arise out of social class, which doesn't
seem to be the usual course of events. Also, the existence and
importance of ethnic distinctions within a country (Iceland, Cyprus,
Japan, the United States) would be determined by facts about that
country that have nothing to do with ethnicity, would not be materially
affected by immigration, and would change radically with other changes
in society and the economy, all of which seem contrary to observation.
An ethnic group is a group of people linked by common culture and by
belief in a common origin and future. That culture and belief are
affected but not, I think, constructed by what's going on in the larger
society in which the group finds itself.
>As W.E.B. DuBois and James Baldwin, among others, have
>pointed out, the existence of a special, easily identifiable
>"Black" Other supports the cohesion of the "White" majority.
>The latter originally consisted of many disparate groups of
>people, having different languages and religions; but
>through "Whiteness" they found a common ground, and were
>able to displace their fears and hatreds of each other on
>the "Black" minority.
This sounds like there ought to be something to it, but it doesn't
explain why regions with many white immigrants and few blacks (New
England manufacturing areas and midwestern farming areas) prospered and
tended more to favor abolition and civil rights for blacks, while the
reverse was true of the region with the most blacks and the least white
ethnic diversity (the South).
>The consequence is that Americans no longer
>possess the kind of ethnicity experienced by Bosnians,
>Cypriots, Lebanese, and so on, and cannot be expected to
>go to war for it in the same way.
It's hard to look into the future. I can remember, though, when Lebanon
was considered a model of intergroup relations. I don't know what
Lebanese Christians and Muslims, or Ulster Catholics and Protestants,
felt about each other in 1950 and how those feelings compare with the
feelings of American whites and blacks toward each other today. No
doubt more knowledge of the relevant history would be helpful. It's
worth noting that a nation can fall apart on ethnic lines without war.
The breakup of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, or for that matter
the breakoff of Norway from Sweden in 1905(?), come to mind.
I suppose my method of analysis would be to look at what holds a society
together, what the irritations and fault lines are that might produce a
split-up, and what the principles of cohesion are that might provide a
replacement for the lost unity. There's been a lot of discussion in
talk.politics.theory about the trend toward weakening of social cohesion
in the United States and the likelihood the trend will continue, and I
hope I can just incorporate that discussion here by reference. As to
irritations and fault lines, it seems to me that the distinction between
black and white in this country remains crystal clear. Intermarriage
remains quite rare, for example (during the 1980's black-white couples
rose from 0.3% to 0.4% of all married couples). Blacks remain far worse
off economically and otherwise, and the differences seem rather stable
(from 1970 to 1990 the poverty rates for whites and blacks went from
9.9% and 33.5% to 10.7% and 31.9%, and from 1978 to 1990 the proportion
of all prison inmates who are blacks went from 41% to 43%). Attempts to
narrow the differences haven't had much overall effect. Where the
attempts have been successful (as in the case of university admissions)
they have involved explicit requirements that blacks be treated more
favorably than otherwise similarly-situated whites, a feature that I
think among other things leads both blacks and whites to think worse of
each other and guarantees the importance of ethnic conflict in public
life.
I suppose my view is that we have ethnic problems that aren't going to
go away, and when people realize that the problems aren't going to go
away ethnic conflicts are going to get worse. It also seems to me that
people need to feel they belong to something, and if the substance of
"American society" seems to be dissipating in an era of instant global
communications, large-scale immigration and official multiculturalism,
people will find something else to belong to, like an ethnic group. In
the end, what we feel we have in common may not be enough to keep us
together as a single political society. If it comes to that, I would
hope the divorce could be as civilized as possible, but divorces tend to
be messy, especially when the parties accuse each other of gross
misconduct.
>I believe the next stage beyond the present one will lie in
>the practice of ethnicity as a hobby (a number of "White"
>ethnicities have already begun to do this) and the creation
>of completely artificial ethnicities.
That's fine as long as each ethnic group thinks it could get by just
fine on its own and doesn't think any of the others are treating it
unjustly. That's not a situation we are ever likely to see.
>we can expect a
>situation which will become more complex and at the same
>time more anarchic, in which liberalism and its
>practitioners will form a kind of subset. In such a
>situation, conflict will be only one of the modes of
>relation; there will be opportunities for cooperation and
>frictionless sliding-by as well. Certainly, the dissolution
>of the United States is possible, but not in civil war; very
>few people would be interested in such a war. It seems more
>likely that territorial and corporate boundaries will become
>increasingly useless and increasingly ignored, and will
>eventually be forgotten.
It's not clear to me that you are disagreeing with anything I said. It
seems that you agree that the relations among individuals and groups
will become looser, less governed by law, and more _ad hoc_, and you
don't seem to dispute that for many people ethnic ties will come to seem
more important than common citizenship. A difference between us may be
that you are more optimistic than I am about the level of violence
between individuals and among groups that such a state of semi-anarchy
would lead to.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Nov 21 07:01:20 EST 1993
Article: 950 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: net nitwits, also FAQ
Date: 20 Nov 1993 21:49:25 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <2cmkvl$i2d@panix.com>
References: <1993Nov19.193357.15470@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <2cjpoc$rbn@panix.com> <1993Nov20.210231.9786@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>Mr. Kalb, you naughty devil! Where did you get this info? The thought police
>will be coming after us now, for sure. I don't consider much of this safe for
>discussion on the net,
Some white power advocates, including a couple of national socialists,
have surfaced in alt.skinheads. People who want to discuss things over
there, but are worried about safety, seem to go go through
anon.penet.fi.
Thanks for the additions and corrections to the list; I'll include them
in the next version.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Sun Nov 21 22:41:20 EST 1993
Article: 958 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: net nitwits
Date: 21 Nov 1993 22:40:52 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <2cpcc4$cl8@panix.com>
References: <1993Nov19.193357.15470@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) writes:
>Libertarians don't deny tradition any more than we deny society, despite
>what paranoid communalists may assert. We are social animals, certainly;
>that is why as a libertarian I deny that the state needs to _make_ us
>social. Society is woven of tradition, which is to say innovation
>tested, retained and accumulated; but where tradition is decreed
>by the state, I suspect it of being a substitute for authentic,
>organic tradition, intended to stifle invention.
Libertarians vary. Many of those who feel most strongly about
libertarianism seem to make freedom an absolute because they believe
that choice precedes value, that something is valuable only to the
extent particular individuals choose to value that thing. On that
view, we don't learn a correct understanding of value from tradition
because there is no such thing as a correct understanding of value. At
most, we learn pragmatic rules of thumb, or tastes that might just as
well have been different. In contrast, people who like tradition tend
to be people who think that what's valuable is valuable whether people
see that it's valuable or not, that we get most of our understanding of
what is valuable from our cultural tradition, and that cultural
traditions normally embody an understanding of what is valuable that is
superior to anything an individual could come up with himself. The two
views don't go together easily.
Of course, people could take a libertarian approach to government for
all sorts of reasons, including traditionalist reasons. To the extent
you like tradition you're likely to think there are limits to the
benefits that can be expected from the conscious decisions of formal
authorities, so you're certainly likely to favor limited government if
not necessarily libertarianism.
> "You say: 'Here are persons who are lacking in morality or
>religion,' and you turn to the law. But law is force. And need I
>point out what a violent and futile effort it is to use force in the
>matters of morality and religion?
I'm not sure why this is so. The fact that something has legal
consequences can be part of what makes people take it seriously as
something wrong. Also, morality is a pattern of habits and attitudes
that promote cooperation for ends viewed as good, and the pattern can be
protected and strengthened by punishing gross violations. That's what
criminal law is all about. As to religion, the spread of both
Christianity and Islam had a lot to do with force, as did the
preservation and spread of Judaism until the Roman conquest. (On
Judaism, read the Old Testament and look at the expansion of Judaism in
Galilee and elsewhere during the Hasmonaean period.)
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!not-for-mail Mon Nov 22 06:25:48 EST 1993
Article: 959 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: net nitwits, also FAQ
Date: 21 Nov 1993 22:42:32 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <2cpcf8$cvj@panix.com>
References: <1993Nov20.210231.9786@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <2cmkvl$i2d@panix.com> <1993Nov21.233136.4229@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>I must say I don't like most of the skinhead types posting on
>alt.skinheads, left or right, though there do seem to be a few
>exceptions. But I get awfully tired of neo-nazi types going on and on
>about "jew" this and "jew" that. Disgusting. And the left-wing
>"response" is just as immature. Not much discussion, really.
If you're going to follow the group at all, you need to have a
newsreader that lets you pick and choose articles. Most of them you
don't want to read. The past few days have been particularly bad.
Maybe everyone who had anything to say has already said it.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Mon Nov 22 12:02:25 EST 1993
Article: 5164 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <132303Z22111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 13:19:01 UTC
Subject: Re: Roots of Fascism in Italy 1920-1930.
Lines: 37
quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Tony Q.) writes:
> Fascism, IMHO, is *not* related to a capitalist/Marxist system, but is
>a manifestation of the politics of power given a set of existing conditions.
>A perceived external enemy or scapegoat, pre-existing nationalist bias
>and discrimination, a readiness to seek violent solutions, and economic
>problems leading to discontent in the poorer sections of society.
> Given these conditions, groups advocating fascist doctrines, whether or
>not they are backed up by the ideology of Marxism or National Socialism,
>can derive power from a violent political alliance between the ordinary
>member of the poorer classes, and whatever group is responsible for the
>economy of the country (big business in the case of Germany, the
>communist bureaucracy in the case of Russia).
There are always external threats, possible scapegoats, biases,
discrimination and economic problems. The key seems to be the
readiness to seek violent solutions. It seems to me that people seek
violent solutions to problems within society when the people belonging
to the society don't feel they have enough in common to justify feeling
that they are a single people sharing a common past and future. In
Germany and Russia after WWI that feeling was lost when the old
Imperial order collapsed that had held together what in Germany until
recently had been separate states and in Russia were separate
nationalities. Something similar seems to be happening in Yugoslavia
now and threatens to happen in other parts of Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union. It seems to me that the more resolute the
attempts are to implement the principle of diversity here in the United
States the more likely it becomes that we'll see something similar
here. So there may be lots of skinheads in your future, and when they
arrive they may not be of the warm, fuzzy and caring variety. (Maybe
not *your* future -- I know nothing about New Zealand.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Mon Nov 22 12:02:26 EST 1993
Article: 5165 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <133302Z22111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 13:31:23 UTC
Subject: Re: I am disgusted with this group!
Lines: 71
marin@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Mike Marin) writes:
>ALL prejudices that people have can be broken down. Throughout the history
>of working class struggles workers have shown that such prejudices (created
>by the system they live under - capitalism) can be broken down. This usually
>hapens during a confrontation with their exploiters - their employers.
>
>Workers striking against their bosses' attacks on wages, employment conditions,
>etc. etc. learn quickly that what is required if they wish to win is UNITY.
>UNITY regardless of race, cultural background, sex, or sexuality etc. To
>what degree such system-created prejudices get broken down, depends on how
>intense the struggles are.
I certainly agree that groups that are struggling downplay differences
within the group. That was one of the striking features of fascism and
national socialism -- maximum struggle outside and maximum unity inside,
organized on military lines to increase capacity for the external
struggle.
>Workers put asside their apparent "differences" as it becomes their interest
>to unite for better wages, conditions, etc. Thus, in Australia, it was the
>industrial struggles of both white and black that sparked the Aboriginal Land
>Rights struggles in the 1960 - 1970s. The collective actions of working-class
>people, regardless of their race, sex, sexuality, against those who threaten
>their material livelyhood (their employers), has shown them that they actually
>have more in common as workers rather than simply identifying as white or black,
>or men or women etc. Historically, workers have shown this by organising in
>unions to defend and improve their working conditions.
The basis of your views seems to be that there is an easily definable
working class over and against an exploiting class, that the thing that
is most important to people's identity is their membership in one of
those two classes, and that if the working class has adequate self-
consciousness and unity it will inevitably be the more powerful of the
two classes. I can't see any reason to believe any of those three
propositions. The history of wars in the 20th century demonstrates that
nationality is more important than class membership. Current events in
Eastern Europe and Northern Ireland and events such as the partition of
India show that ethnicity and religion are also more important than
class membership. I should add that one striking aspect of economic
developments over the past 50 years is the decline in the importance of
production line and similar forms of labor, on which your theory of
class seems to be based.
>Now, in no way do I wish to proclaim that such breaking of prejudices are
>necessarily permanent. If a struggle diminishes, or a strike is lost etc.
>workers may fall back, embittered, into their old ways and prejudices. If
>a strike was won however, it is quite likely that the solidarity given to
>workers in struggle will be remembered and reciprocated in turn. There are
>plenty of examples in labour history to show this to be true.
Sure. If you want to maintain the comradeship you have to maintain the
struggle. That's an insight that fascists and communists share.
>Stalin's Soviet Union had nothing to do with socialism.
>It had more to do with State Capitalism.
Has anything anywhere in modern times that's lasted long enough for us
to determine its characteristics had anything to do with socialism?
>I suppose my parents
>would have made the similarly simple and erroneaus mistake as you have,
>in equating capitalism with democracy.
No, I equated socialism with the absence of freedom. Saying socialism
is bad is not the same as saying capitalism is always good.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Mon Nov 22 17:27:27 EST 1993
Article: 5183 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <213334Z22111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 21:27:31 UTC
Subject: Re: The True history of SKINHEADS
Lines: 72
goose@montego.umcc.umich.edu (Christopher L. Goosman) writes:
>Look pal, when are you homophobes going to realize that AIDS is now
>infecting more heterosexual men than homosexual men? For the time being
>there are more deaths of homosexuals because of the long incubating period
>of the disease. Get back to me in five years when the hets are dropping like
flies.
What's the basis for your assertion? It seems very surprising in view
of the following:
CDC HIV/AIDS SURVEILLANCE REPORT
Third Quarter 1993
U.S. AIDS Cases Reported Through September 1993
Online Edition: Issued Monday, November 1, 1993
Report Description
The U.S. AIDS case data presented below are extracted from the
"HIV/AIDS/ Survillance Report", published each quarter by the
Division of HIV/AIDS, Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333 [ . . . ]
Table 3. AIDS cases by age group, exposure category, and sex,
reported October 1991 through September 1992, October 1992 through
September 1993;(1) and cumulative totals, by age group and exposure
category, through September 1993, United States
Males
Oct. 1991- Oct. 1992-
Sept. 1992 Sept. 1993
Adult/adolescent
exposure category No. (%) No. (%)
Men who have sex with men 24,334 (61) 46,025 (56)
Injecting drug use 8,621 (22) 19,142 (23)
Men who have sex with men and inject drugs 2,638 ( 7) 5,353 ( 7)
Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 317 ( 1) 990 ( 1)
Heterosexual contact: 1,613 ( 4) 3,328 ( 4)
Sex with injecting drug user 703 1,102
Sex with bisexual male - -
Sex with person with hemophilia 3 10
Born in Pattern-II(3) country 271 607
Sex with person born
in Pattern-II country 14 43
Sex with transfusion recipient
with HIV infection 18 59
Sex with HIV-infected person,
risk not specified 604 1,507
Receipt of blood transfusion,
blood components, or tissue(4) 385 ( 1) 695 ( 1)
Other/risk not identified(5) 1,925 ( 5) 6,174 ( 8)
Adult/adolescent subtotal 39,833 (100) 81,707 (100)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Mon Nov 22 17:27:28 EST 1993
Article: 5184 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <213410Z22111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 21:31:15 UTC
Subject: Re: ANA News Update
Lines: 14
hermann@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU writes:
>Eugene Terre'Blanche, leader of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (Afri-
>kaner Resistance Movement) [ . . . ]
Out of curiosity, is that the man's real name? It looks like it means
something like "Wellborn White Land". ("Eugene" has the same derivation
as "eugenics", and I'll leave the translation of his last name up to the
Frenchmen in the group.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!not-for-mail Tue Nov 23 05:16:06 EST 1993
Article: 968 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: net nitwits, also FAQ
Date: 22 Nov 1993 20:42:58 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <2crpr2$paa@panix.com>
References: <2cjpoc$rbn@panix.com> <1993Nov20.210231.9786@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <1993Nov22.210553.17302@sarah.albany.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
mm1710@albnyvms.bitnet writes:
>HEY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. This stuff should be in alt.skinheads.
Why? There's nothing in it about skinheads. The list is intended to
include things that might be of interest to people with doubts about the
ideals of the French Revolution, so I decided to include almost anything
that's out of the mainstream and on the right and especially things that
might otherwise be hard to find. You should realize that thinking
something might be of interest doesn't imply agreement.
>has anyone out there noticed how the far right and the far left are beginning
>to merge! Y r there no black or communist seprtist. newsletters here ( for
>balance and contrast)
Do you have anything specific to suggest? It's hard to know where to
draw the line.
Communist publications would probably be off-topic because the
communists stand in the tradition of the French Revolution but want to
take it further, while the general purpose of this group is to explore
arguments and movements opposed to that tradition. On the other hand,
it's important to know the enemy in all his forms. Also, some
right-wingers find a great deal of interest in the writings of some
Marxists (the Frankfort School and Gramsci come to mind).
Analytically, a black separatist publication might be indistinguishable
from a white separatist one. Can you suggest any good ones? There
might be some sense in replacing the white separatism section with an
ethnic separatism section.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"If we only wanted to be happy it would be easy; but we want to be
happier than other people, which is almost always difficult, since we
think them happier than they are." (Montesquieu)
From panix!news.intercon.com!pipeline.com!malgudi.oar.net!news.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Tue Nov 23 05:16:10 EST 1993
Article: 5190 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <020329Z23111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!pipeline.com!malgudi.oar.net!news.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 02:02:21 UTC
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Lines: 25
apendrag@news.delphi.com (APENDRAGON@DELPHI.COM) writes:
>> Your schema is so small all it comprehends is White versus bad.
>> Everything fits in their. You are so small hermy.
>
>Good schema serve to organize one's knowledge in ways that facilitate
>perception of symbols vital to the attainment of ends. That they stand
>the test of time is proof of their utility. That our final end is the
>benefit of our people requires our schema to reflect that.
Some people distinguish between particular schemata and goals (like
national socialism and benefiting white people) on the one hand and
ultimate truth and goodness on the other. Such people think it's a
fault to be so wrapped up in your own schema that you forget it does not
exhaust truth. Do you disagree? If you do, and you think there is no
such thing as ultimate goodness and truth that differ from any
particular schema but that all schemata try to capture (with more or
less success), in what sense is your schema better than a marxist's?
After all, each of you uses his schema in the manner you mention for the
benefit of those whom he views as his people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!pipex!uknet!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Tue Nov 23 05:16:11 EST 1993
Article: 5191 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <021338Z23111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!pipex!uknet!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 02:08:17 UTC
Subject: Re: The True history of SKINHEADS
Lines: 61
coomer@electron.Nuc.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Coomer) writes:
>Ahh, now you have shown the true depths of your ignorance. AIDS is not
>a gay thing your moron...
>
>oh, nevermind. Keep thinking like this hansEn, don't bother wearing a
>condom if you ever get the chance to get laid by something besides the
>cattle and bears up in alaska.
The following statistics show that in the U.S. a man is unlikely to get
AIDS from heterosexual contact, even with other human beings. If you're
a white man who stays away from druggies it's just not much of an issue
in comparison with other risks.
CDC HIV/AIDS SURVEILLANCE REPORT
Third Quarter 1993
U.S. AIDS Cases Reported Through September 1993
Online Edition: Issued Monday, November 1, 1993
[ . . . ]
Table 4. Male adult/adolescent AIDS cases by exposure category and
race/ethnicity, reported October 1992 through September 1993,(1)
and cumulative totals, through September 1993, United States
White, not
Hispanic
Oct. 1992- Cumulative
Sept. 1993 total
Exposure category No. (%) No. (%)
Men who have sex with men 30,094 (73) 125,392 (78)
Injecting drug use 4,285 (10) 12,670 ( 8)
Men who have sex with men
and inject drugs 3,001 ( 7) 11,959 ( 7)
Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 794 ( 2) 2,349 ( 1)
Heterosexual contact: 607 ( 1) 1,654 ( 1)
Sex with injecting drug user 227 804
Sex with person with hemophilia 6 13
Born in Pattern-II(2) country 1 8
Sex with person born
in Pattern-II country 10 52
Sex with transfusion recipient
with HIV infection 25 72
Sex with HIV-infected person,
risk not specified 338 705
Receipt of blood transfusion,
blood components, or tissue 431 ( 1) 2,519 ( 2)
Risk not identified(3) 2,032 ( 5) 4,380 ( 3)
Total 41,244 (100) 160,923 (100)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!news.udel.edu!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Tue Nov 23 09:24:36 EST 1993
Article: 5212 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <125330Z23111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!news.udel.edu!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 12:51:51 UTC
Subject: Re: Roots of Fascism in Italy 1920-1930.
Lines: 62
quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Tony Q.) writes:
>> It seems to me that people seek
>> violent solutions to problems within society when the people belonging
>> to the society don't feel they have enough in common to justify feeling
>> that they are a single people sharing a common past and future.
>
>I disagree with your
>last sentence. Instead, I assert that people seek violent solutions to
>problems within society when groups both feel thwarted in access to
>influence on government, and don't have any real commitment to democratic
>or non-violent ideals.
>
> It's a subtle difference, but a real one. Multicultural societies *can*
>work (see Switzerland), but multi-culturalism does tend to led to claims
>of lack of access to power.
The difference is real and important to the extent it's possible, in a
society with several groups that view themselves as separate peoples
not necessarily sharing a common past and future, for each group either
to feel it has adequate access to power or, if it feels it has been
short-changed, to overcome that feeling through its commitment to
democracy or non-violence. Somehow, that situation doesn't sound
durable to me.
Switzerland is multi-linguistic, but it's a small country surrounded by
larger and more powerful countries and populated by people who have
shared a generally similar way of life in a compact setting ever since
the end of the Great Migrations. They've managed their linguistic
differences through a common commitment to national independence, local
autonomy, self-discipline and public spirit. I'm not sure how many
other multicultural countries are similarly situated.
Incidentally, how have the Swiss done with their guest workers and
immigrants? Has Swiss multiculturalism meant that they've been smoothly
integrated into Swiss society? (If so, I'll have to rework my theory.)
> Of course, the first condition can be real or imaginary.
Lack of access to power is real for anyone who doesn't belong to a
society's ruling class or at least feel solidarity with those who belong
to that class. In a multicultural society the ruling class will either
represent a particular group, in which case the members of all the other
groups will feel excluded from power, or it will represent no one in
particular and will rule in the name of some ideology claimed to have
equal validity for all.
In the latter case popular rule will have to be restricted because a
government that justifies its rule on the basis of ideology has to be
able to argue that the measures it adopts are ideologically correct and
popular rule can't be relied on to lead to ideologically correct
results. Also, in the latter case thought control is likely to be
necessary to ensure continued public acceptance of the official
ideology. How much thought control will be necessary depends on how
believable the claim is that the ideology captures a common good shared
by all the members of the society. The more diverse the society the
less believable that claim will be.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Wed Nov 24 13:51:01 EST 1993
Article: 5242 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <023312Z24111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 02:29:30 UTC
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Lines: 34
walshb@unix1.tcd.ie (Ben Walsh) writes:
>This is your basic problem. You talk about one "race" to the
>abandonment of the other. To secure the future of EVERYONE, we must
>unite and fight.
If EVERYONE united, who would they fight? Martians? Or maybe mad dogs
and poisonous vermin who deserve only to be crushed underfoot in the
triumphant march of the victorious masses of the people. After all, if
it's the future of EVERTONE that is being secured the enemy can't
really be human.
>We refuse to accept a syllable of your "cognitive thought" because we
>know what the end result is and we are determined to stand against it,
>to fight against it and to crush the nazis.
Attempts to apply Marxist cognitive thought have led to unfortunate end
results more than once. Is the appropriate response to crush the
commies?
>The problem is capitalism, not Jewish people.
I thought Marxists believed that "capitalism" concretely means rule by a
particular group of people, the capitalist class. So is your claim
really that the problem is the capitalist class, not the Jewish people?
If so, it's not clear to me why mass murder of Jews corresponds to the
true essence of (for example) Mr. Kleim's views, while the mass murder
of members of the exploiting classes and their lackeys corresponds to
an unfortunate corruption of views like your own.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!wupost!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Fri Nov 26 07:39:38 EST 1993
Article: 5269 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <121302Z26111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!wupost!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 12:12:54 UTC
Subject: Re: The Choice
Lines: 42
ccamfiel@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Galadan the WolfLord (Chris writes:
>"National Socialism" has as much to do with
>socialism as table has to do with cat. They have nothing to do with
>each other. For starters, in a socialist (Marxist) society, THERE
>ARE NO CLASSES, and there is no capitalistic market system. Even people
>who don't like socialism have no difficulty telling the difference between
>socialism and fascism.
In _Mein Kampf_ Hitler talked about the importance of people identifying
themselves primarily as members of a homogeneous racial group, and in
_Sieg des Willens_ (Leni Riefenstahl's movie about the 1934 (?) party
rally in Nuernburg) there was tremendous emphasis on the unity of the
German people and the dignity of manual labor. Also, if the will of the
Fuehrer is the supreme law it's hard to see how there could be any
property rights. So it's not clear to me why national socialism is not
correctly named. An ideology that doesn't like class or other divisions
among citizens, that insists on the dignity of labor and that doesn't
think much of property rights or limitations of any sort on government
sounds socialistic to me.
>>When an interracist says "culture," he refers to the most debased mani-
>>festation concocted by a terribly sick soul. When a National Socialist
>>says "culture," he refers to a manifestation of functional and/or
>>idealistic-educational artwork produced by a healthy soul that is in
>>harmony with the natural Order.
>
>This is pretty hideous. Supposing I refer to ancient Greek culture. Are
>you going to argue that it was debassed and concocted by a terribly sick
>soul - and only one? Ridiculous.
When a modern American liberal speaks approvingly of "culture", does he
mean the ancient Greeks? The Greeks were racist sexist slaveholders
and mostly homophobic to boot, and their foremost thinkers thought
there were major problems with democracy. Not the sort of people you'd
give NEA grants to or add to the reading list after you get done
opening up the canon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!wupost!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Fri Nov 26 14:54:25 EST 1993
Article: 5281 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <171308Z26111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!wupost!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 17:04:42 UTC
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Lines: 33
walshb@unix1.tcd.ie (Ben Walsh) writes:
>Bouthillier's own police record [ . . . ]
????
>any attempt to categorise the repressive regimes of the Soviet Union,
>Eastern Europe, North Korea, China, Cuba etc. as "Marxist" shows an
>absolutely stupefying ignorance of what Marxism is.
Absolutely stupefying ignorance of Marxism is very common then. Who
have the individuals and parties been who have avoided such ignorance
over the past 60 years? Why have they been so unsuccessful,
pragmatically speaking, compared with all the absolutely stupefyingly
ignorant or cynical people who have claimed to be Marxists? I thought
Marxism incorporated a correct and usable analysis of historical
process. If so, I would have expected the true Marxists to have a
little more practical success.
>To confuse this legitimate desire for national self-determination (for
>example, socialists oppose Israeli occupation of Palestine) with the
>petty bigotry of "tribalism" is ridiculous.
How are the two distinguishable? Are the breakup of the Soviet Union,
Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia OK or not OK? Mr. Bouthillier and Mr.
Terre'Blanche both want separate white homelands. Is that OK or not OK,
and why? The people Mr. Terre'Blanche wants to have a separate homeland
are certainly at least as much a distinct people as the Ukrainians.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!EU.net!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Fri Nov 26 16:26:18 EST 1993
Article: 5285 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <202306Z26111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!EU.net!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 20:16:57 UTC
Subject: Re: Arguing with you people is useless
Lines: 39
Xref: panix alt.skinheads:5285 alt.revisionism:5651
walshb@unix1.tcd.ie (Ben Walsh) writes:
>a pipefitter is a worker and part of the society of the working class.
>He or she can be black, white, gay, straight, jewish, gentile or any
>combination, but s/he has a very real reason for uniting with other
>workers to overthrow the system. Imagined and foundless reasons of
>"culture" do not have that attraction. There is no reason why different
>cultures and traditions can co-exist in a workers' society, with mutual
>respect being paramount.
>
>You and your ilk do not have this interest. You seek to divide the
>workers and thus destroy the workers' struggle.
No doubt Mr. Bouthillier would say that a white person can be a
pipefitter, a lawyer or a retired postal worker and still have a real
reason to unite with other whites to overthrow the system and replace it
by a white society in which all classes can co-exist with mutual
respect. Maybe he would accuse you of trying to divide whites and
mislead them as to their true interests.
It seems that you think people's real identity is their class identity
and their real interests are their class interests. If that's so, why
haven't people acted more often as if they agreed with you? Economic
systems and social classes come and go, but the Jews are still with us
after all these years. Wars of religion and between ethnic groups and
nation states seem a lot more common and call out a lot more self-
sacrifice than wars between social classes. For example, in Ireland
the struggle between Catholics and Protestants in the North seems to
get a lot more support than the struggle between the pipefitters and
the capitalists in the South.
If throughout history people have almost uniformly mistaken their own
interests, why wouldn't they continue to do so and carry forward ethnic
and other conflicts even if a worker's state were ever established?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Fri Nov 26 18:47:42 EST 1993
Article: 5288 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <214302Z26111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 21:34:44 UTC
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Lines: 89
apendrag@news.delphi.com (APENDRAGON@DELPHI.COM) writes:
>> Some people distinguish between particular schemata and goals (like
>> national socialism and benefiting white people) on the one hand and
>> ultimate truth and goodness on the other.
>
>Are you one of those people? If you would only ennumerate those ultimate
>truths then I could know whether or not I am conforming to them. Perhaps
>I *am* promoting ultimate truth and goodness (as much as I believe in
>these things, I believe that's what I am doing).
Things can be defined and enumerated only within a particular schema.
It follows that the conception of an ultimate truth or good that
transcends all our schemata is the conception of something that exceeds
our ability to define and enumerate.
That doesn't mean the conception is empty or useless. We need it to
make sense of things we do and it would be crazy for us not to do.
Specifically, we reflect on things that happen to us, the results of our
actions, what we see and hear, and so on, and as a result our beliefs
and our way of understanding things change. We believe such changes are
generally improvements. (Otherwise, there would be no point in ever
thinking about anything.) We also believe that such changes will
continue in the future, but expect that the changes will happen in a way
that is not erratic but preserves most of the substance of our present
beliefs and brings us closer to something that won't keep on changing to
the same degree. Our most fundamental understanding of the world has to
be an understanding that makes sense of those experiences. The
conception of an ultimate truth and goodness that we can approach but
never fully grasp does that.
Another beneficial consequence of the conception of an ultimate truth
and goodness is that it makes it at least conceivable that people who
accept different schemata or paradigms could talk to each other
productively.
>[T]he ultimate truth from which I speak is that tribalism is a
>permanent feature of human existence. Moreover, it is my position that
>White tribalism is good.
Does tribalism refer simply to solidarity with people with who you share
common ethnicity, or does it refer to the belief that such solidarity
should override all other kinds of solidarity (family, class, religious
or whatever)?
Granting the truth of what you say here, it seems to me that given the
division of labor there is also going to be some degree of solidarity
among those who share the same position in the process of material
production. If you think that the division of labor is not something
that is going to go away, then you should also think of class
consciousness as a permanent feature of human existence. If it's
permanent, then no doubt it should be viewed as good because an outlook
that rejects it is opposed to human nature.
A basic difference between you and Mr. Walsh appears to be that he
thinks that under modern conditions it is class that in the long run
determines what people's lives are like, while you think it's ethnicity.
You mention events in Eastern Europe as support for your view. Possibly
a Marxist would point to the Europeanization and Americanization of the
world as evidence for the view that the stage of development of the
productive forces (technology) determines the way in which production is
organized, which in turn determines how people live, depending on their
particular relationship to the productive process.
If what life is like is determined by a number of things, including
ethnicity, class, religion, personal predilection and so on, then maybe
what would be best would be a society that (in opposition to the current
antiracist ideal) recognizes that ethnicity has a valid and important
place in the world but doesn't treat it as necessarily overriding.
>I also posit that a tribal society is the best kind of society for a
>given people (specifically Whites). We Whites have our own tribal
>society which I recognize as fundamentally good; it is only after many
>years of abuse from various competing interests that it is becoming
>frayed at the edges. Still, I believe that White tribalism (Teutonism)
>will prevail.
Suppose in the United States we greatly reduced immigration, repealed
all laws against racial discrimination, reduced the role of government
(so that people would take care of the needs they can't take care of
themselves through association with people who feel like associating
with them based on ties people actually feel) and emphasized federalism.
How would that fall short of what's needed for the white race and way of
life to thrive?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Sat Nov 27 05:05:16 EST 1993
Article: 5292 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <004302Z27111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1993 00:33:06 UTC
Subject: Re: The Choice
Lines: 38
walshb@unix1.tcd.ie (Ben Walsh) writes:
>Big business did very well out of the
>nazis, which is why they brought them to power.
What reason is there to think that either part of this is true?
>Nazis thrived on class divisions. Was Hitler equal to a Jewish woman in
>nazi society?
Not class differences. "Jewish woman" is not a functional category in
the process of capitalist production.
Hitler was no more equal to a Jewish woman than Lenin or Trotsky were to
a countess or a priest's daughter. Hitler wanted a society in which
there were no Jewish women and Lenin and Trotsky wanted a society in
which there were no countesses or priest's daughters. All three said
they wanted a unified society but thrived on the divisions in existing
society because they enabled each to be the leader of a life-and-death
struggle that wasn't going to end anytime soon.
>Socialists see no dignity in labour, but dignity in the
>labourers.
I thought the Marxist view was that man is essentially a producer. If
that's right, I can't make sense of your view that someone has dignity
when the thing that makes him what he is lacks dignity.
>As for property rights, to say that these did not exist in Nazi Germany
>is absolutely wrong.
If the will of the Fuehrer is the supreme law, how can there be rights
of any kind?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Sat Nov 27 12:08:29 EST 1993
Article: 5296 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <150303Z27111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1993 15:00:48 UTC
Subject: Re: The True history of SKINHEADS
Lines: 15
tres@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Did you realize that the AIDS virus is spreading through the hetro world faster
>then anywhere else? Maybe your girlfriend has it!?
Wishful thinking on your part. Within the past week I posted CDC
statistics showing that from the beginning of the epidemic to September
1993 they've been able to find only 705 American men who have gotten
AIDS from heterosexual contact with women not in one of the risk groups
(druggies and the like).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Sat Nov 27 12:08:30 EST 1993
Article: 5297 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <150313Z27111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1993 14:58:08 UTC
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Lines: 119
apendrag@news.delphi.com (APENDRAGON@DELPHI.COM) writes:
>You are implying (as I infer it) that I am not considering ultimate
>truths in my enquiry; I assure you, I have considered such things.
At one point you seemed to me to say otherwise. You tell me that was a
misinterpretation, and I have no grounds to contradict you.
>I am truthful in my request that you make some attempt to express these
>underlying truths.
Since you ask I'll try to say something on the subject, even though I'm
not sure there is anything in dispute so it's most likely a detour:
It seems that ultimate truth should be independent of the particular
qualities of the knower and therefore should be the same for all
rational beings. In the case of ethics and politics, it follows that a
full justification of an ethical and political position would justify
the position by reference to principles that could and should be
acceptable to everyone because only then would it be shown that the
position is consistent with ultimate truth. (No doubt "full
justification" is an unattainable ideal, but it's useful for guiding
inquiry and discussion and I'm not sure we could get by without it.)
Therefore, "it's the goal I have chosen" doesn't look like a
satisfactory justification for making the well-being of Whites the
ultimate goal of your political activity. "Man is a social animal and
societies evolve over time and are held together by myths, of which the
myth of common ancestry is one of the most powerful" might be the
beginning of a better justification.
>> The conception of an ultimate truth and goodness that we can approach
>> but never fully grasp does that.
>
>An understanding of one's ultimate ends can be grasped and expressed. It
>requires careful thought and truthfulness.
>
>> Another beneficial consequence of the conception of an ultimate truth and
>> goodness is that it makes it at least conceivable that people who accept
>> different schemata or paradigms could talk to each other productively.
>
>I would state what you just said by saying that it is important to realize
>that all human activity (barring irregularities) works toward some end.
What I would add to what you say is that (1) our understanding and
statement of things, including our own ultimate ends, is typically
fragmentary and one-sided and unlikely ever to be perfect, (2) apart
from our idiosyncratic ends we do in fact have common ends because of
our common human nature, and (3) an important function of political
discussion is to determine the extent to which conflicts reflect
differing perspectives on shared ultimate ends, in which case they can
in principle be resolved, rather than inconsistent ultimate ends, in
which case we are stuck in a state of war.
What bothers me about saying that the ultimate goal is the "well-being
of Whites" or "victory of the Revolution" is that such statements appear
to cut off the process of finding common ground with non-Whites or
opponents of the Revolution, and similar slogans have led governments to
act as if they were in an irreducible state of war with large groups of
people subject to their control. The results have been bad for
everyone.
>Tribalism refers to a basic human tendancy toward group identification
>and ethical thought as a member of that group. Ethnicity is one expression
>of that as is family, class. However, one ultimately works toward a certain
>kind of society; that is the tribe. It is underneath of that that all things
>are justified and explained.
>
>Look at the roots of the words ethnicity and ethic. They are: ethnos, and
>ethos. I speak of a White ethos and a drive towards a White ethnos.
What do you do with ethical commitments (Christianity or commitment to
the scientific enterprise, for example) that cut across ethnic
divisions?
>> If what life is like is determined by a number of things, including
>> ethnicity, class, religion, personal predilection and so on, then maybe
>> what would be best would be a society that (in opposition to the current
>> antiracist ideal) recognizes that ethnicity has a valid and important
>> place in the world but doesn't treat it as necessarily overriding.
>
>The way that I interpret your statement is that you are suggesting that
>I choose a society which lets me do what I want.
Here I intended to ask why you view tribalism as the ultimate ethical
principle when (as suggested above) there are important ethical
commitments that cut across tribalism.
>But I want a society which *is* what I want. Do you understand the
>difference? This is important to what I am saying.
I don't think a society that *is* anything it makes sense to want can be
created by political means. The laws can make it possible for a good
society to arise and protect it to some degree when it already exists,
but the laws can't create the right balance among all the things that go
into making a good society. The people have to create that balance by
the way they choose to live. My objection to your tribalist notion, at
least as you sometimes express it, is that I don't view tribalism as a
principle that trumps all other principles even though I recognize it as
a principle that deserves to be given some weight.
[description of proposed changes]
it sounds like your proposal is to make the United States into a loose
structure with common defense and maybe a couple of other things as the
sole functions of the federal government. At least one of the states
would define citizenship by reference to white ethnicity and people
could move to whatever state they liked that would accept them. It
doesn't sound like it need be all that different from the pre-Civil War
constitution. It seems to me you could even accept one of the Civil War
amendments (the thirteenth, against slavery). Quite possibly you would
want to add some limitation on the taxing power of the federal
government and maybe other provisions to prevent usurpation of power by
the feds. Have you looked at the writings of any of the antifederalists
or of John C. Calhoun?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Sun Nov 28 06:51:38 EST 1993
Article: 5302 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <022326Z28111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1993 02:19:16 UTC
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Lines: 134
apendrag@news.delphi.com (APENDRAGON@DELPHI.COM) writes:
>Following the "burden of proof" dictate, it would not be unjustified to
>ask for proof of ultimate truth.
Particular assertions about ultimate truth must be argued for, of
course. However, the belief that there is such a thing is implicit in
the way we investigate, discuss and think about the world. I don't see
how to escape it. What we can't escape we must accept.
>If ultimate truths existed, there should be some means to derive an
>understanding of them.
The notion of ultimate truth is the notion of truth that does not depend
on us or our point of view. Since we necessarily look at things from a
point of view ultimate truth is not something we can fully possess. One
practical consequence of the notion is to make discussion between two
people with different points of view possible because they can
understand themselves as discussing the same thing even though their
perspectives differ.
>An "ultimate truth" which I recognize is that all ethical systems are
>based on certain axioms; it is only with reference to those axioms that
>an ethic can be understood or determined to be consistent.
Do you think it possible for two people who adhere to different ethical
systems to have a meaningful discussion about whether something is good
or bad? If their axioms are different, do they mean at all the same
thing when they use words like "good" and "bad"?
>I would be very careful about adopting your position of "ultimate truths"
>because using that as an axiom, one embarks on a never-ending quest
>for a thing which does not exist and which may not improve the lives of
>those around him.
It's true that the search for truth doesn't come to an end and that it
won't necessarily pay off. I don't see a better alternative, though.
>I and most White nationalists, do not feel compelled to desire any kind of
>social system other than a White society. It is both compelling and
>sufficient for our existence.
That seems odd to me. I don't see whiteness or even Whiteness as
determining a social system. White people have created a great many
social systems and forms of government. Among other things, we invented
the multicultural democratic consumer society. Plato knew all about
that form of society in the 4th century B.C.
>Additionally, philosophy has shown that virtually any moral system can
>be broken down and that the epistemological basis of any system of thought
>can be broken.
At times what you say seems to hint that every morality is irrational
and therefore the thing to do is to choose one arbitrarily and impose it
by force. That bothers me.
>Well, what is YOUR ultimate goal. If it doesn't serve White interests,
>how can you justify to me that it *IS* some kind of ultimate truth?
>Any ultimate truth must also serve to represent our interests and needs.
My ultimate goal is the good for me and the various communities I belong
to, including humanity generally. The good for humanity generally
serves White interests because Whites are men. One community I belong
to is the white American community, and others (my family, for example)
are contained within that community. Still others (my neighborhood) are
not, but I don't see any obvious clashes of interest.
The content of the good for man is the subject of ethical and political
philosophy and can be discussed. For an example of intelligent
discussion of the issues look at Aristotle, whom you quoted. Specific
components of the good for man include membership in a people and
participation in their traditions. I have a hard time seeing how those
things can be realized for people in general if ethnicity is not
recognized as a serious matter.
>I think that other ethical commitments (with the exception of religion)
>will be superceded and justified by that of which I speak. The commitment
>to scientific enterprise is not inconsistent with the promotion of an
>ethnic community. In fact, we Whites have often expressed an understanding
>of the importance of science. However, a pursuit towards an understanding
>of nature does not necessitate the abolition of social contracts.
>I think that you are being insincere of your positioning of ethnic identity
>against those things. There are numerous examples of ethnic societies
>which produce great scientific advancements (the U.S. used to be one of
>them, Germany, Japan, Korea and a host of others are also examples).
I no doubt have many faults, but insincerity on this issue is not one of
them.
It seems odd to speak of commitment to the scientific enterprise as
subordinate to tribalism. Scientists constitute an international
community with its own traditions and standards that develop without
special reference to the ethnic traditions of particular scientists.
There is no specifically German or Korean science, and that's why
Germans and Koreans read and rely on each other's publications. The
Japanese are indeed an ethnic society, but when they do science they are
doing it as scientists rather than as Japanese to the extent what they
are doing is valid as science. It is said that at one time some Germans
distinguished Aryan science and Jewish science. If that's right, I
don't think it was good for science in Germany?
>Even though I am not Christian, I promote Christianity and endorse it,
>in certain ways.
How?
>I reject your statement that ethnicity is any less important than
>anything else. For me, this is as close to any religious belief or any
>other such thing. Nation is an extension of family for me.
My statement was that ethnicity is not more important than everything
else. Cases arise in which something else takes precedence over my
ethnicity. I think that is true for you, too. You say "my camp has
made overtures toward mutual recognition of existence toward non-
Whites". I don't know what that mutual recognition would amount to if
no situation could ever arise in which your camp would give up some
benefit for Whites for the sake of treating non-Whites justly.
>> Have you looked at the writings of any of the antifederalists or of John
>> C. Calhoun?
>
>No. I will.
You can get what is probably a good edition of Calhoun's major writings
for $9.50 (paperback) from Liberty Fund at (800)955-8335. The book is
called _Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C.
Calhoun_, edited by Ross M. Lence. One of the collections of
antifederalist writings should be easier to come by (very likely Liberty
Fund has one of those as well).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sunic!news.funet.fi!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Sun Nov 28 10:44:25 EST 1993
Article: 5317 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <143303Z28111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sunic!news.funet.fi!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1993 14:32:44 UTC
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Lines: 152
apendrag@news.delphi.com (APENDRAGON@DELPHI.COM) writes:
>There is a distinction between developing better generalizations based
>on empirical enquiry and some "ultimate truth."
Sure. The notion that there is an ultimate truth that our
generalizations successively approximate is what motivates our belief
that inquiry will give us better generalizations, and for that matter
that it makes sense to call one generalization "better" than another.
>Ultimate truth as I understand what you are saying relates to a set of
>moral propositions, not merely objective observations.
It relates to moral, physical and mathematical propositions, and to
whatever other propositions there may be that deal with possible objects
of knowledge. The claim is simply that there is a truth about such
things that does not depend on particular features or choices of the
knower.
>There is a diference between positive and normative propositions. There
>is also, essentially, no link between the two.
How so? If you are rational you believe positive propositions based on
your evaluation of the evidence and of the infinitely-many theories that
are consistent with the evidence. Evaluation is a normative matter.
For that matter, "rational" is a normative term.
>As for "ultimate truth" I posit that there *is* a Reality but that
>we may never be able to explain it either due to the limitations of
>sampling or resources or other pragmatic limitations.
I have no problem with what you say here. All I would add is that our
belief that there is a reality plays an indispensable role in our lives
even though we may never fully know just what that reality is.
>However, you are using "ultimate truth" to mean more than a factual
>representation of what exists. As I perceive your use of ultimate truth,
>you are implying that there are certain moral axioms which are universal
>to all individuals and in all circumstances. I don't believe such things.
>This viewpoint is very Platonic, but there are a number of weaknesses in
>it.
People develop their factual representations of what exists through
experience and whatever their standards of rationality are. Do you
believe there are certain standards of rationality that are universal to
all individuals and in all circumstances? If you do, then why can't
universal evaluative principles other than standards of rationality also
exist? If you don't, then why are people's factual representations of
what exists any more objective than their moral positions?
>I do think that it is possible for two people who adhere to different
>ethical systems to have meaningful discussion. This is possible because
>we are able to define new symbols and relations between those symbols
>and to assume hypotheticals. In doing this, we can judge these systems
>against our own paradigm/goal system so as to see whether or not a
>particular ethical viewpoint contradicts one's own.
You seem to be saying that for any two ethical systems you could set up
a scheme of translation and by logical analysis discover the points on
which they differ. What then? Is that simply the end of the
discussion?
It seems to me that people's ethical systems sometimes change, and when
a person's system changes he believes it has changed for the better in
some way that goes beyond the obvious fact that he now rejects his
former views. On your view it appears that such beliefs are illusions.
If I abandon system A in favor of system B, you seem to be saying, it is
possible through objective analysis to determine what has changed but
not to say that the change was an improvement. From the standpoint of
system B the change was progress, but from the standpoint of system A it
was degeneration, and nothing further can be said.
>Good is that which satisfies a moral goal. Bad is that which is contrary
>to one's moral goals.
Is it possible meaningfully to ask yourself whether you have chosen the
right moral goals?
>There is nothing irrational about morality; it is based on rationality.
Is there more than one rational system of morality? If so, then how is
the decision to adopt one system rather than another a rational
decision?
>You were saying that ethnicity was a wholly separate entity from
>science, religion, or family (as I interpreted what you said). However,
>I would point out that each of those (except religion) can be seen as a
>functional part in a moral hierarchy at which ethnicity is at the top;
>in some societies, even religion is subservient to the tribe (look at
>Judaism). In other words, ethnicity "justifies" or explains those
>things as a functional piece of a goal system. Do you understand what I
>am saying?
You seem to be saying that science, family and other human practices and
institutions can exist only as part of an ethical universe, and an
ethical universe can't exist in general but only as embodied in the
outlook and way of life of a particular people. It follows that no
moral authority higher than the tribe is possible and therefore for each
of us the tribe is the absolute.
If I have it right, I think that's quite a compelling line of argument
for anyone who rejects the view that man in some fashion has access to
normative principles that transcend the world of the senses. (Since
liberals and most other moderns do in fact reject that view it's no
surprise they've decided that Nazi=devil. They don't want to think
about the real implications of their own position.)
>In other words, ethnicity is an end to which family, community and
>science can serve, however, from your viewpoint, to what does
>ethnicity, family, community, and science serve as the means? What end
>do you seek of which these endeavors are part?
The good life. Since man has a body that exists in a particular time
and place and is a social animal, the good life takes place within a
particular society and therefore ethnicity is important. Since man is
also a rational animal, participation in a particular society does not
exhaust the good life. A rational animal is one that has access to
normative principles that transcend sense experience and other
particularities. Accordingly, man fulfills his nature and attains his
good only if he orders his life in accordance with such principles in
addition to participating in a particular society.
>> Scientists constitute an international community with its own
>> traditions and standards that develop without special reference
>> to the ethnic traditions of particular scientists
>
>The same could be said of any endeavor, even such things as the
>community of skinheads, the international community of electrical
>workers, whatever...
Exactly so. We can see from this that the things we do have a component
that transcends ethnicity, so tribalism is not a universally supreme
principle.
>I suppose I might be able to say the same thing about your own camp; in
>other words, I don't know what YOUR mutual recognition
>would amount to if no situation could ever arise in which your camp
>would give up some benefit for humanity for the sake of treating Whites
>justly.
I agree it would be wrong always to sacrifice the particular to the
general, if only because the general good largely consists in the
harmonious realization of particular goods. If people live best if they
have strong family ties then they can't be morally obligated always to
think first of the interests of the human race rather than the well-
being of those near and dear to them. Most of the time the best thing
we can do is act properly toward the people we have immediate ties to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Sun Nov 28 12:48:28 EST 1993
Article: 5323 of alt.skinheads
Message-ID: <155317Z28111993@anon.penet.fi>
Path: panix!news.intercon.com!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
From: an48213@anon.penet.fi (The Scarlet Pumpernickel)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.skinheads
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an48213@anon.penet.fi
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1993 15:52:13 UTC
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Lines: 20
walshb@unix1.tcd.ie (Ben Walsh) writes:
>Where Marxism / socialism HAS been applied, the results have been
>excellent. Russia from 1917 to 1924 before the Stalinist
>counter-revolution. Spain 1933-1936. Even the Paris Commune...
We can join in urging people to study what happened during those
periods.
>we do not advocate, and never have advocated, mass murder of the
>exploiting classes and their lackeys.
On the other hand, you seem to relish the idea of physically smashing
your opponents. I would expect people who have seized power and aren't
curbed by laws to follow their tastes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
Back to my archive of posts.