Translate

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Everybody always ends up agreeing with me


Georgetown political science professor Joshua Mitchell, via Marginal Revolution:
There is another reason why the Republican Party could not contain Trump, a perhaps deeper reason. Michael Oakeshott, an under-read political thinker in the mid-20th century, remarked in his exquisite essay, “Rationalism in Politics,” that one of the more pathological notions of our age is that political life can be understood in terms of “principles” that must be applied to circumstances. Politics-as-engineering, if you will. Republicans themselves succumbed to this notion, and members of the rank and file have noticed. Republicans stood for “the principles of the constitution,” for “the principles of the free market,” etc. The problem with standing for principles is that it allows you to remain unsullied by the political fray, to stand back and wait until yet another presidential election cycle when “our principles” can perhaps be applied. And if we lose, it’s OK, because we still have “our principles.” What Trump has been able to seize upon is growing dissatisfaction with this endless deferral, the sociological arrangement for which looks like comfortable Inside-the-Beltway Republicans defending “principles” and rank-and-file Republicans far from Washington-Babylon watching in horror and disgust.
And, I'd add, that pointing and spluttering in horror and disgust explicitly adopts the terminology and moral framework of the Left. Operationally, "conservatism" is not actually conservative.

Since at least the Great Society Democrats have been telling their constituents, “Here’s what liberalism can do for you.” Republicans seem to endlessly ask their constituents what can they do for conservatism (“Donate to my think tank!” “Buy my magazine!” “Vote for me!” “Sign up for this war!”). Their (overwhelmingly white) base duly votes for the Republican’s limited government-fiscal prudence-meritocracy platform, then watches as government, budget deficits, and political correctness all increase. Nothing the base voted for is actually accomplished, and the perception is these platitudes are being mouthed solely to get comfortable sinecures.

Immigration exposed this cozy scam. Immigration is extremely problematic for proletarian and petit bourgeois communities. But the same people who left the Democratic party to vote for Reagan have to listen as people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham call them bigots for not wanting their voting power and economic clout diluted and their children made strangers in their own country. When the battle lines started getting drawn, the Republican leadership proudly linked arms with the Democrats and did the bidding of their donor class. Donald Trump spotted that disconnect-–an electoral $100 bill lying on the floor–-and like the ruthless Scots-Irish businessman he is, grabbed it in both fists. He made his campaign all about, “Here’s what I’m going to do for you,” and rode it to ultimate victory.

Any of the other Republican candidates could have done that, but they didn’t. This was vindication of the Sailer Strategy: if you want conservative electoral victory, you need to support conservatively-inclined people. Affordable Family Formation: keep the land cheap and the wages high, because that’s what gets families started and married people with children tend to incline conservative. This may require abandonment on occasion of precious, precious principle but like the Democrats realize, this isn’t about principle, it’s about winning. That’s how they captured the institutions.

In a diverse society, it’s not what your candidate supports; it’s whether they support you.

I called it, here, and here.

32 comments:

IA said...

Excellent analysis. In the immortal words of the divine Obama, reward your friends and punish your enemies. We will, Barack!

Could we? say, a one-way ticket to Africa for anyone who publically slanders Europeans as racist. Hello, Michael Moore! On the flight over they will captivated by the film, White Material, starring Isabelle Huppert, about the ethnic cleansing of whites (the material in the title) from Africa, Oh, the bitter fun of diversity.

Anonymous said...

Trump won not because of white identity politics, but because of ideology. He won because of a seismic shift in the blue-collar vote i.e. Reagan Democrats. This same group that voted twice for Obama.

Look at Wisconsin. Here, Trump was just as despised as Hillary Clinton, was far less popular than the president he railed against, and underperformed in that state’s biggest counties and in his own party’s suburban Milwaukee base. Moreover, half of “non-college whites” had an unfavorable opinion of him, according to exit poll data provided by Edison Research. Yet, of those blue-collar voters who did not likeTrump, almost a third (29%) voted for him.

Ideology trumps identity.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Blacks vote Democrat consistently 92-95%. Hispanics and Jews vote Democrat 65-70%. Asians vote Democrat 60%. That is pure ethnic bloc voting, Only among whites do half still hate the other half.

At 60% share of the electorate and falling, whites will eventually choose identity politics; many already have. Actually, it will be chosen for them.

IA said...

The desire to status-mark other whites and virtue signal caring and tolerance or simply superior intelligence is not really an ideology anyway. It's part of the worship of the human rights god. They will blame whites, and for feminists white men, for everything wrong with the world to an insane degree. Literally, to the point of madness.

Anonymous said...

"Blacks vote Democrat consistently 92-95%. Hispanics and Jews vote Democrat 65-70%. Asians vote Democrat 60%. That is pure ethnic bloc voting."

Ethnic bloc voting based on ideology. The Democratic platform has historically focused on their preferences and sensibilities.

"Only among whites do half still hate the other half."

That is a convoluted narrative. While some whites may be racially aware of their own whiteness, many whites focus on principles other than race. They are not beholden to the Alt Right and their demands for utter compliance on "white interests". It doesn't mean they hate their own kind or themselves, it means they are looking out for what is best for them.

"At 60% share of the electorate and falling, whites will eventually choose identity politics; many already have. Actually, it will be chosen for them."

Whites will choose what is best for them individually, as a family, and as a community. That may include race.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Whites will choose what is best for them individually, as a family, and as a community. That may include race.

What has allowed whites (and WASPs in particular, who tend especially toward abstract ideation) the luxury of lofty debate over principle has been their super-majority status in their own homelands. There really is such a thing as "privilege" in that we have higher trust in people who look, act, think, and talk like us, and form patronage networks with them which we introduce to our children in their turn. We choose our breeding partners within this milieu and model our behaviors to get along within it. We structure our affairs to plan for children and grandchildren. In a very real sense, we are formed by our culture, and we form it, before we are born. This social capital is built up over generations and is part of our patrimony. People in traditional nation-states intuitively grasp this.

Let me give you two casual anecdotes that illustrate what I'm talking about. First, I was getting to know a Syrian Christian from Aleppo where his lineage went back centuries. He described living there to me as "like a big family house." Another time, I was speaking with a Georgian and we were laughing about the fact that I too was a Georgian (as in, the U.S. State). I asked him what they called their country in their own language. He looked at me with a puzzled expression and said, "The land."

The literal and essential meaning of most tribes' names for themselves is "the people," and their geographic redoubt is "the people's land." That's how the English thought of themselves. It was only after they got so successful that they conquered half the globe that the notion of "Britishness" began to form, and only owing to their status as either super-majorities or the people who had the absolute run of the place. The Hindu, the Pakistani, the Arabs of course disagreed.

The imperial conceit is quite old. Before there were "British," there were "Romans," "Austro-Hungarians," "Byzantines," and others. Now we have "Americans," and as the definition of "American" becomes ever more abstract and encompassing, I see no reason to believe that America won't follow the same arc.

Now consider the experience of Africans brought as slaves to America. They look different, act different, talk different, think different. They are treated as literal lower caste, not even endowed with the white man's inalienable rights. They are strangers in a strange land, and have proceeded along a parallel course ever since. Assimilation means out-marriage, and this remains a marginal phenomenon between African and Anglo Americans.

In an alien, and many say hostile, milieu, blacks vote in their collective interest because they know individually they will do well by it. There are transfer payments, government jobs, bid preferences to be had. Hispanics act the same way. Jews famously and unabashedly ask, "Is it good for the Jews?"

It really is only the white, from his perch inside the Hajnal lines at the top of history's pyramid, who thinks in terms of the individual and of propositional nationhood. White South Africans and Rhodesians idealistically gave Zulus the vote (hey, we're all equal right?) and were promptly voted out of power. They will start thinking in terms of their collective interest of existing as a people or they will vanish--either killed or chased away.

Ideology is a luxury of homogenous societies with surplus wealth.

Anonymous said...

“What has allowed whites (and WASPs in particular, who tend especially toward abstract ideation) the luxury of lofty debate over principle has been their super-majority status in their own homelands. There really is such a thing as "privilege" in that we have higher trust in people who look, act, think, and talk like us, and form patronage networks with them which we introduce to our children in their turn.”

There is a distinct confirmation bias here. Individuals from a variety of groups tend toward abstract ideation; it is not the tendency or preference of one group over another group. Moreover, trust, or lack thereof, is a personal trait, one viewed at critically on a case by case basis. A white person may distrust another white person for a host of reasons, but built a strong relationship built on mutual respect with a black person.

“They are treated as literal lower caste, not even endowed with the white man's inalienable rights.”

It’s not the white man’s inalienable rights; those liberties were endowed by a creator. Religion, not race, is one’s uniform, should he or she adhere to a faith. God cares not of one’s race or ethnic group identity, but their identity of faith in Him. Moreover, social rank begets social rank. Upper class people as a collective look out for their interests regardless of their race. Wealthy blacks, whites, Asians, and Hispanics tend to uniformly look down upon their non-wealthy brethren as being potential obstacles to their authority and power, and typically work together to ensure the continuation of their status by hook or by crook.

“They are strangers in a strange land, and have proceeded along a parallel course ever since. Assimilation means out-marriage, and this remains a marginal phenomenon between African and Anglo Americans.”

The false narrative by the Alt-Right is that whites have always had a common interest in as a race. Europeans each referred to themselves as a race—the British race, the French race, the German race. There had been prohibitions and taboos placed upon them from intermarrying, sans the upper classes to solidify their political and economic grip on the masses. When the doors opened up to the New World during the Age of Exploration, different groups of people were thrown into the mix. Indeed, European ethnic group discord in America ebbed and flowed, ranging from minor annoyances with one another to all-out intellectual or physical brawls. Gradually, these groups tolerated one another, tied by faith and customs forged by their participation in American society, bound by a universal ideology. It was only until the American experiment of melding immigrants from different parts of the globe into a unique mold, simultaneously bound together and foreign to each other.

“There are transfer payments, government jobs, bid preferences to be had. Hispanics act the same way. Jews famously and unabashedly ask, "Is it good for the Jews?”


“Anglos” are also notoriously influenced by this phenomenon. You act as if these particular groups are the only groups “on the take” by the piggish government trough.


“White South Africans and Rhodesians idealistically gave Zulus the vote (hey, we're all equal right?) and were promptly voted out of power. They will start thinking in terms of their collective interest of existing as a people or they will vanish--either killed or chased away.”

Considering that South Africans and Rhodesians were the invaders of that land, I dare say the transfer of power back to its rightful owners was a long-time coming. The collective interest of black Africans was the direct result of Europeans who sought overseas fame and fortune, given the ideologies of the time period.

“Ideology is a luxury of homogenous societies with surplus wealth.”

That is patently false. Ideology is borne out of the interests of a group of people from disparate backgrounds who collectively agree on the duties and rights of the society they create.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

I'm speaking in historical tense. The US's founders did not think negro slaves had the same rights that they did.

The common thread thru your comment is ethnic groups in conflict.
"Ideology is borne out of the interests of a group of people from disparate backgrounds who collectively agree on the duties and rights of the society they create."

How come the American Proposition was only thought up by Anglo-Americans? For that matter, why is the GOP disproportionately white, and the Dems disproportionately black? Different groups seem to have different ideological preferences. Again, the Enlightenment took place within the Hajnal lines, not a universal phenomenon. Do you really believe there is no genetic component to cultures?

Anonymous said...

“I'm speaking in historical tense. The US's founders did not think negro slaves had the same rights that they did.”

It’s other than surprising that the Founding Fathers viewed matters in this light. They were a product of the times.

“The common thread thru your comment is ethnic groups in conflict.”

Exactly. Ethnic group identity, not racial identity. Historically, American WASPS viewed European newcomers like the Irish and Italians not as their white counterparts, but as their ethnic competitors who were other than white from a cultural aspect.

“How come the American Proposition was only thought up by Anglo-Americans?”

It was thought up by descendants of Great Britain to be determined by future generations as to the meaning of that Proposition. American citizens incorporated their black, red, and yellow counterparts. You act as if the Proposition was meant to be frozen in time, with European whites granted exclusive access to it.

“For that matter, why is the GOP disproportionately white, and the Dems disproportionately black?”

Ideological differences. There are specific party platforms for their constituents. There is also liberal and conservative crossover on issues. As an example, there are southern Democrats hold serve on the 2nd Amendment, but are adamant on social programs for the impoverished.

“Different groups seem to have different ideological preferences. Again, the Enlightenment took place within the Hajnal lines, not a universal phenomenon."

However, the Enlightenment ideals represent human values, those that can be universally understood and implemented. The principles are able to be applied to whites and non-whites. You act as if those other than white lack the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend its substance. Remember, the American culture represents genetics and environment, a culmination of several groups involved in its creation and maintenance. “White people” initially constructed it, with notable additions by non-whites. European whites didn’t build it alone. Just ask African slaves and American tribal groups.

Bob Wallace said...

I read "Rationalism in Politics" 20 years ago. Great book. Thomas Sowell pretty much expanded on it with "The Vision of the Anointed."

IA said...

"However, the Enlightenment ideals represent human values, those that can be universally understood and implemented."

And if not "understood", racist, bigot haters, we will implement them whether you like it or not.

Anonymous said...

"And if not "understood", racist, bigot haters, we will implement them whether you like it or not."

Could you please explain further what you mean?

IA said...

"Could you please explain further what you mean?"

Sure. You're full of it.

IA said...

You can never understand your true religion. God is simply a name to describe a mystery and power. In order to find out who or what is god you need to see what is taboo, what cannot be questioned, what is sacred. And if questioned the god’s devotees view it as a scandal.

Human rights is everywhere like a god. It flows through institutions and individuals, the [western] world is obsessed with human rights. Billions of dollars are spent annually on worshipping it. There are many monuments dedicated to the god.

Imagine what would happen if people stopped believing in human rights? It loses legitimacy. All its monuments become ruins.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Right. The West has become gnostic, worshiping ideas. Indeed, the idea's ultimate test is whether it results in the complete obliteration of its proponents. Otherwise, it has failed the test of universalism.

And there's an internal contradiction lurking in our Proposition Nation: if you abandon the Proposition, we don't revoke your citizenship.

Anonymous said...

"Sure. You're full of it."

Do you even know what you are talking about? Are you covering up for some insecurity? You made a statement and I was genuinely curious as to its meaning and context.

"You can never understand your true religion. God is simply a name to describe a mystery and power. In order to find out who or what is god you need to see what is taboo, what cannot be questioned, what is sacred. And if questioned the god’s devotees view it as a scandal."

That is patently false. The Bible has enabled its adherents to comprehend the word of God. The "scandal" comes from the followers regarding how to implement those messages, not the ideas and concepts themselves the Good Book, which is not surprising since religion is about universal ideas.

"Human rights is everywhere like a god. It flows through institutions and individuals, the [western] world is obsessed with human rights. Billions of dollars are spent annually on worshipping it. There are many monuments dedicated to the god."

Human rights flows from the Word of God. Any honest study of the Bible must acknowledge that man, as God’s special creation, has been blessed with certain “human rights.” Any true student of the Bible will be stimulated toward ideals such as equity and justice and benevolence. The Bible says that man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), with man having a certain dignity and given dominion over the rest of creation (Genesis 1:26).

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Any true student of the Bible will be stimulated toward ideals such as equity and justice and benevolence.

Yes. Especially towards one's slaves.

Twarog said...

"Exactly. Ethnic group identity, not racial identity. Historically, American WASPS viewed European newcomers like the Irish and Italians not as their white counterparts, but as their ethnic competitors who were other than white from a cultural aspect."

For the last time, no, no, no, this is completely wrong. Noel Ignatiev is a dolt.

First of all, the only meaningful difference between "race" and "ethnic group" is scale- they are basically the exact same thing. Both are partially-inbred extended families; one is just much bigger and broader than the other. A clan or tribe is a smaller version of the same thing (e.g. the ancient Roman "gens"). It's like a matryoshka doll, or a bunch of overlapping Venn diagrams of different sizes- Icelanders are part of the Icelandic race, which is part of the Scandinavian race, which is part of the white or European race, which is part of the human race. Which identity matters most at any given moment depends heavily on what question you're asking. Sometimes the Greeks fight each other, sometimes they team up against the Persians, and sometimes an Ephialtes helps the Persians for selfish reasons, but that doesn't mean there's no difference between Greeks and Persians, or that these identities are infinitely malleable. Were Earth invaded by giant bugs from space tomorrow, some humans would certainly find rationalizations to welcome our new insect overlords, but the vast majority of psychologically normal people would feel instinctive racial solidarity with their fellow Earthmen.

Second, there was never a time in America when most WASPs viewed the Irish or Italians as "non-white" in the same sense that they viewed blacks. They viewed them as non-WASP or non-Anglo, which is an order of magnitude different. Anglos never cried out for a "Great White Hope" to reclaim the heavyweight title from despised "non-white" boxer John L. Sullivan, nor did the election to high office of "non-whites" like James G. Blaine, Judah P. Benjamin, and Charles Carroll provoke violent race riots. By your contorted logic, humans consider cats to be "non-pets" because, like houseplants but unlike dogs, we don't take them for walks outside on a leash.

"Religion, not race, is one’s uniform, should he or she adhere to a faith."

Isn't it great how religions are randomly assigned to children at birth by lottery? My siblings are two Jews, a Protestant, and an Animist. I'm Catholic, but they issued me a Hindu for a spouse, and together we're raising three lovely Muslims. How about your family? I'm glad we don't live in a horrible world where people can choose to marry within their own religion and raise their children in it, or else those religions might start gradually turning into de facto races. It's also reassuring to remember that pious Christians of different races have never, ever gone to war with each other.

Anonymous said...

“First of all, the only meaningful difference between "race" and "ethnic group" is scale- they are basically the exact same thing.”

Patently false. Race is linked to biology; ethnicity is linked to culture. Race is a biological and social construct. Ethnicity is a social construct. Ethnicity is the term for the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs. To be a member of an ethnic group is to conform to some or all of those practices.
Certainly, race and ethnicity overlap, but they are distinct. For example, a Japanese-American would probably consider himself a member of the Asian race, but, if he does not engage in any of the practices or customs of his ancestors, he might not necessarily identify with the ethnicity, but rather consider himself to be American. Of course, American is not a “race”, it is a conglomeration of distinct ethnic groups all rolled into one, with a common cultural bond. Scandanavians, which are from the white race, are descendants from several distinct (North) Germanic tribes. Through intermarriage, they developed a unique set of customs that incorporated Old Norse traditions. So, in a nutshell, race refers to a group of people who possess similar and distinct physical characteristics, while ethnicity refers to a a category of people who regard themselves to be different from other groups based on common ancestral, cultural, national, and social experience.

“Were Earth invaded by giant bugs from space tomorrow, some humans would certainly find rationalizations to welcome our new insect overlords, but the vast majority of psychologically normal people would feel instinctive racial solidarity with their fellow Earthmen.

Instinctive solidarity as human beings, since their fellow Earthmen are each members of distinct racial and ethnic groups.

“Second, there was never a time in America when most WASPs viewed the Irish or Italians as "non-white" in the same sense that they viewed blacks. They viewed them as non-WASP or non-Anglo, which is an order of magnitude different.”

Nativists viewed blacks as being on the lowest social rung, with the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Slavs as being higher than blacks. Both were viewed as being inferior, as being other than white. Note that the irish in particular were drawn by political cartoonists in the mid and late 1800’s as having ape like features to denote their racial similarity to “darkies”, even though nativists, when given the choice between aligning with the Irish or blacks, they would select the Irish as being slightly more tolerable from a cultural perspective. Moreover, the "Alpine" and the "Mediterranean" races--with race here being improperly used--were described as the long-skulled, dull witted, peasant stock people of Central Europe and Southern Europe.

“By your contorted logic, humans consider cats to be "non-pets" because, like houseplants but unlike dogs, we don't take them for walks outside on a leash.”

That’s not my logic, that is your strawman.

“It's also reassuring to remember that pious Christians of different races have never, ever gone to war with each other.”

Black and white Christians are suppose to abide by covenant that they are under the jurisdiction of the laws of God. However, the laws of man, and one’s personal failings, get in the way.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

My understanding is that Race refers to the original continent-based population groups and Ethnicity refers to a racial sub-group. Geneticists and anthropologists should be able to supply more precise terminology. But this is the sort of thing about which scientific inquiry is deemed unnecessary (and downright bigoted) now that Universalism has conquered all.

Kind of like how nobody calls themselves a meteorologist who studies weather any more, but a climatologist endlessly questing for "climate change." So meteorological inquiry sits on the back shelf instead of exploring the conditions that have centered a severe drought along the Alabama-Georgia border.

Anonymous said...

"My understanding is that Race refers to the original continent-based population groups and Ethnicity refers to a racial sub-group."

Your understanding, indeed. But who are you referencing specifically as to why you think your formal system is correct?

"Geneticists and anthropologists should be able to supply more precise terminology. But this is the sort of thing about which scientific inquiry is deemed unnecessary (and downright bigoted) now that Universalism has conquered all."

They do offer particular criteria. It would appear you oppose their distinctions. Remember, natural science consists of mental constructs, created with the objective of explaining sensory experience of our world. Human beings affix labels to make sense of our environment. For example, the California spotted owl is an animal, i.e. biological construct. The name of the creature is a human designation—strix occidentalis, i.e. human construct. That is, binomial nomenclature refers to a formal system, developed by people, to name species. The California owl was not a “California owl” until someone actually and specifically labeled it.

What is your formal system based on? By whom?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

On me if that will satisfy you. Are you just haggling over "ethnicity?" How about "racial sub-group?" Except I'm not sure that human biodiversity plays out in so linear a fashion, because people shift between continents and can get genetic inputs from different directions. Capoids are physically distinct from Negroids though they're both located on the African continent, which kind of muddies my definition of Race as well. We have very precise terminology for animal breeds, but apparently the process of biodiversity ends once we get to homo sapiens.

If ethnicity refers to culture as well as ancestry, then it's conflating very distinctive concepts. But like I said, the larger point is that precise terminology and a sense of distinctions is not encouraged in these fields notwithstanding we are observing distinctive phenomena with our own eyes. Science is becoming ideological versus empirical.

Anonymous said...

"On me if that will satisfy you."

So your formal system is somehow inherently more precise than all of the experts combined in their respective fields? Because that is the implication here. Perhaps you ought to form your own "biodiversity" task force and "haggle" your racial wares to the masses since the experts from your perspective lack the gumption to "get with the program".

"We have very precise terminology for animal breeds, but apparently the process of biodiversity ends once we get to homo sapiens."

Breeds are manufactured through artificial selection. A Boston terrier is a explicitly defined animal: the AKC ultimately decides which dog meets the criteria. I am probably stating the obvious here, but geographic isolation, and natural or sexual selection, have resulted in some alleles in human beings being more frequent in some groups compared to human beings, and ancestry determines the distribution of some genes. Consistent with prior studies, the major genetic clusters consisted of Europeans/West Asians (whites), sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%. It is also important to remember that most of the debate over race as a biological construct--I happen to believe that race is both a biological and social construct--originated in the desire to establish the genetic inferiority of some races compared to others.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

the major genetic clusters consisted of Europeans/West Asians (whites), sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%

Right. Race. Within those groups are many "sub-clusters" which I would call "ethnic." Maybe you have a different term.

Also, any creed with sufficient potency will become an ethnicity over time.

Breeds are manufactured through artificial selection.

Makes no difference. The process, the end result are the same: clusters of allelles manifesting in different characteristics. Whether those characteristics are "superior" or "inferior" depends on the particular environment. Melanin-deficient whites get skin cancer in southern latitudes. Somalis don't get enough vitamin D in Canada, where their children are registering high rates of autism. And that's the shoal that people like Jared Diamond have foundered on: if environment is so crucial, wouldn't different environments exert selection pressures resulting in different genetic expression? I've read that Diamond got asked this a little too often in public forums, so he no longer defends his Guns-Germs-Steel hypothesis at them.

It is also important to remember that most of the debate over race as a biological construct--I happen to believe that race is both a biological and social construct--originated in the desire to establish the genetic inferiority of some races compared to others.

Do tell. In any event, race is a biological, empirically measurable phenomenon as anybody with two eyes in their head can tell you. You seem like an appropriate person to ask this of: is human biodiversity a positive good? Where do you think it comes from?

Anonymous said...

"Right. Race. Within those groups are many "sub-clusters" which I would call "ethnic." Maybe you have a different term."

Again, it seems that your formal system is somehow inherently more precise than all of the experts combined in their respective fields. Why should they defer to you?

"Also, any creed with sufficient potency will become an ethnicity over time."

What would be an example?

"Do tell. In any event, race is a biological, empirically measurable phenomenon as anybody with two eyes in their head can tell you. You seem like an appropriate person to ask this of: is human biodiversity a positive good? Where do you think it comes from?"

Again, natural science consists of mental constructs, created with the objective of explaining sensory experience of our world. Human beings affix labels to make sense of our environment. Race, biology, ethnicity--all are concepts created by man as an organizational tool to offer a consistency about the natural world in which they observe.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Again, it seems that your formal system is somehow inherently more precise than all of the experts combined in their respective fields. Why should they defer to you?

Because I want to describe reality, not idealize it.

What would be an example?

Amish, Jews, Tibetans, Middle Eastern Christians.

Race, biology, ethnicity--all are concepts created by man as an organizational tool to offer a consistency about the natural world in which they observe.

This is just babble. "Canis" refers to a real thing which is observably distinct from "felis." You're still clinging to a world of ideation.

Anonymous said...

“Because I want to describe reality, not idealize it.”



What you are doing is idealizing your own prescribed reality.

“What would be an example? Amish, Jews, Tibetans, Middle Eastern Christians.”


The Amish largely share a German or Swiss-German ancestry, and generally use the term "Amish" only for members of their faith community, NOT as an ethnic designation.

And since when are Middle Eastern Christians as a group considered an ethnicity?

“Race, biology, ethnicity--all are concepts created by man as an organizational tool to offer a consistency about the natural world in which they observe. This is just babble. "Canis" refers to a real thing which is observably distinct from "felis." You're still clinging to a world of ideation.”

Of course “canis” refers to a real thing. Except that human beings designated that term—canis, which means "dog" in Latin, and also refers to their prominent teeth used for killing their prey. Dogs (like cats) did not magically appear as those animals automatically to human beings. They described the characteristics in a manner that made sense to them by developing criteria to differentiate the species in their natural habitats.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

The Amish and ME Christians have spent a number of decades not marrying the countrymen outside their sect. You're one of those people who doesn't know where Diversity comes from.

Anonymous said...

The Amish are fascinating. They prefer to live in the manner they choose.

Middle Eastern Christians marry outside of their ethnicity. They are bound by their faith. Similar to those white Christians who marry non-white Christians. Religion in this particular case would be one's uniform.

Regarding diversity, it comes from those people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds who live among one another within prescribed rules for their society. Feel free to live exclusively among your fellow whites, you have that liberty.

Twarog said...

"Feel free to live exclusively among your fellow whites, you have that liberty."

Not in the United States of America, no. See Shelley v. Kraemer. When white Americans used to have that right, they exercised it extensively. Those with plenty of money to spare still do, they just don't admit to it. Here's a hint: anybody who ever uses the phrase "Good Schools" discussing real estate is a closet segregationist.

Anonymous said...

A black family bought a home from a white family. The white family has every liberty to individually decide who to sell their property to. Furthermore, not all white families had signed this restrictive covenant. They had reserved the right to exercise their personal freedom of association.

The Court found that racially-based restrictive covenants are not themselves unconstitutional — private parties may voluntarily adhere to them, but state enforcement of such covenants (including judicial enforcement) would be discriminatory and therefore violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Despite the ruling of the Court, the widespread practice of racial covenants continued, although it was now legally unenforceable.

Regardless, there are a number of exclusively white neighborhoods found in the United States. Feel free to move there. They will welcome your kind with open arms.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Regardless, there are a number of exclusively white neighborhoods found in the United States. Feel free to move there. They will welcome your kind with open arms.

As Twarog pointed out, they're called "good school districts." But I don't know any that are exclusively white, since Han, Korean, Japanese and Hindu bid heavily for them as well.