Trump stirs up the nativist pot (again)

[EastKekistan]

Why? Your country is not a matter of birth alone, if a nation no longer shares your worldview, your cherished cultural values, why would you stay there? Where not leave to somewhere else that aligns better with your way of thinking and how you want the world to be?

If you have the capacity to make change for the better, why wouldn't you?

Purgatio is likely from PR China. Anyone from PRC (including me) can tell you that it is an utterly sociopathic state that is almost impossible to dislodge.

Even right now I simply don't trust soft methods to get anything political done. I simply mentally pattern match the Western soc left to Chinese pro-democracy activists and pattern match both WNs and Islamists to authoritarian governments. Of course the latter are effective while the former isn't.

Pretty much the entire soc leftist (and Christian, lol, the religious right is as pathetic as the lib left in the West) argument can be reduced to "my enemies are evil." OK. So fucking what? Are you killing them? If they can kill you while you don't kill them I would rather talk to them instead of you because you can't do anything. People obey who they fear, not who they like.

[Purgatio]

If you have the capacity to make change for the better, why wouldn't you?

Purgatio is likely from PR China. Anyone from PRC (including me) can tell you that it is an utterly sociopathic state that is almost impossible to dislodge.

Even right now I don't trust soft methods to get anything political done. I simply mentally pattern match the Western soc left to Chinese pro-democracy activists and pattern match both WNs and Islamists to authoritarian governments. Of course the latter are effective while the former isn't.

I'm actually from Singapore btw, just saying

But I don't disagree with what you just said. Authoritarianism and brute force are generally the only effective means of implementing policies.

[EastKekistan]

Purgatio is likely from PR China. Anyone from PRC (including me) can tell you that it is an utterly sociopathic state that is almost impossible to dislodge.

Even right now I don't trust soft methods to get anything political done. I simply mentally pattern match the Western soc left to Chinese pro-democracy activists and pattern match both WNs and Islamists to authoritarian governments. Of course the latter are effective while the former isn't.

I'm actually from Singapore btw, just saying

But I don't disagree with what you just said. Authoritarianism and brute force are generally the only effective means of implementing policies.

Singapore is a very cool city.

I think multiracialism works but it has to be like Singapore or the Silicon Valley instead of Chicago. The NE Asian race should host and control all multiracial places because it seems that out of all races only we can handle the issue peacefully and pragmatically. It seems that "We only care about competence" is simply completely impossible to understand by either the Western left or the Western right (or Muslim right etc). That's why they can only parse terms such as "white", "non-white", "ethnonationalism" and "multiculturalism". Our terms are completely impossible to understand for them.

[Tobleste]

So all racists are also honest about it?

I'm not going to make any "all X are Y" claims. That's ridiculous. But for the most part, I would say racists are honest. That is one of the wonderful things about having the First Amendment. People can say what they really think without immediate punishment, and therefore most people will tell you what they actually think. A very small minority of people are vocal about their racism. If we estimate that number is about 1%, I think it would be fine to assume maybe 2-3% of the population is actually racist. I don't know the actual numbers, but they are small.

Racism is not natural, and must therefore be learned. People have to be taught to think in a way contrary to their nature, so if the ideology is going to grow, racists must be vocal. And since racism was on the decline until fairly recently. People will blame Trump or Obama for the stop in progress because they were in a position of power, but I think that is a mistake. As it turns out, the far right benefits from persuading people that large sections of the population are communists, here to destroy the country. Likewise, the far left benefits from persuading people that large sections of the population are fascists, here to destroy the country. It's fear-mongering on both sides.

Also, if white supremacists want to make race an issue, should the rest of us just ignore it?

Yes. If you give them attention you are helping them make race an issue, and they have already won that battle.

You're assuming you have to openly admit to racism to promote racist ideas. You could just dismiss non white Americans as ungrateful foreigners (like trump) while insisting the message is race neutral. You could demonise immigrants as rapists and Muslims as dangerous terrorists (like trump). You can promote racist ideas without ever saying an explicitly racist word. Your ideas about racism seem to be completely disconnected from the people who've actually studied it.

Disagree. If racism exists and if the president of the United states is promoting it, we're past the point of 'don't give them air time'.

[Necroghastia]

Purgatio is likely from PR China. Anyone from PRC (including me) can tell you that it is an utterly sociopathic state that is almost impossible to dislodge.

Even right now I don't trust soft methods to get anything political done. I simply mentally pattern match the Western soc left to Chinese pro-democracy activists and pattern match both WNs and Islamists to authoritarian governments. Of course the latter are effective while the former isn't.

I'm actually from Singapore btw, just saying

But I don't disagree with what you just said. Authoritarianism and brute force are generally the only effective means of implementing policies.

Maybe if you're living in a totalitarian hellhole, but the US hasn't quite gotten there just yet.

[EastKekistan]

I'm actually from Singapore btw, just saying

But I don't disagree with what you just said. Authoritarianism and brute force are generally the only effective means of implementing policies.

Maybe if you're living in a totalitarian hellhole, but the US hasn't quite gotten there just yet.

Now maybe you can understand what I'm talking about.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm not going to make any "all X are Y" claims. That's ridiculous. But for the most part, I would say racists are honest. That is one of the wonderful things about having the First Amendment. People can say what they really think without immediate punishment, and therefore most people will tell you what they actually think. A very small minority of people are vocal about their racism. If we estimate that number is about 1%, I think it would be fine to assume maybe 2-3% of the population is actually racist. I don't know the actual numbers, but they are small.

Racism is not natural, and must therefore be learned. People have to be taught to think in a way contrary to their nature, so if the ideology is going to grow, racists must be vocal. And since racism was on the decline until fairly recently. People will blame Trump or Obama for the stop in progress because they were in a position of power, but I think that is a mistake. As it turns out, the far right benefits from persuading people that large sections of the population are communists, here to destroy the country. Likewise, the far left benefits from persuading people that large sections of the population are fascists, here to destroy the country. It's fear-mongering on both sides.


Yes. If you give them attention you are helping them make race an issue, and they have already won that battle.

You're assuming you have to openly admit to racism to promote racist ideas. You could just dismiss non white Americans as ungrateful foreigners (like trump) while insisting the message is race neutral. You could demonise immigrants as rapists and Muslims as dangerous terrorists (like trump). You can promote racist ideas without ever saying an explicitly racist word. Your ideas about racism seem to be completely disconnected from the people who've actually studied it.

Disagree. If racism exists and if the president of the United states is promoting it, we're past the point of 'don't give them air time'.

Or, in other words, you can be racist(1) without being racist(2). There are two different definitions of racism here.

An enormous amount of the problem is that racist(2) involves malicious intentions, while racist(1) just requires that you have a suitable net effect regardless of whether or not you mean well.

[Galiantus III]

I'm not going to make any "all X are Y" claims. That's ridiculous. But for the most part, I would say racists are honest. That is one of the wonderful things about having the First Amendment. People can say what they really think without immediate punishment, and therefore most people will tell you what they actually think. A very small minority of people are vocal about their racism. If we estimate that number is about 1%, I think it would be fine to assume maybe 2-3% of the population is actually racist. I don't know the actual numbers, but they are small.

Racism is not natural, and must therefore be learned. People have to be taught to think in a way contrary to their nature, so if the ideology is going to grow, racists must be vocal. And since racism was on the decline until fairly recently. People will blame Trump or Obama for the stop in progress because they were in a position of power, but I think that is a mistake. As it turns out, the far right benefits from persuading people that large sections of the population are communists, here to destroy the country. Likewise, the far left benefits from persuading people that large sections of the population are fascists, here to destroy the country. It's fear-mongering on both sides.


Yes. If you give them attention you are helping them make race an issue, and they have already won that battle.

You're assuming you have to openly admit to racism to promote racist ideas. You could just dismiss non white Americans as ungrateful foreigners (like trump) while insisting the message is race neutral. You could demonise immigrants as rapists and Muslims as dangerous terrorists (like trump). You can promote racist ideas without ever saying an explicitly racist word. Your ideas about racism seem to be completely disconnected from the people who've actually studied it.

Disagree. If racism exists and if the president of the United states is promoting it, we're past the point of 'don't give them air time'.

Well it is wrong to assume someone has the worst intent when there are plenty of other reasons they might appear to do those things. And then there's the fact that you have a political interest in ensuring people see Trump in the worst possible light. Again, you don't have to like him, but it is wrong to exaggerate and pull things out of context to form the narrative that Hitler 2.0 is in the white house. By the way, I thought that exact thing about Obama. I was wrong. Six years from now you will realize you were wrong too.

[US-SSR]

I did. There's a picture of them next to the dictionary entry for "Uncle Tom."

Hmmmm? Degrading people for not following your ideals? How is this better then white nationalism?

Nope. Degrading people for being disgusting deplorable sellouts.

[Duhon]

"My country, right or wrong: if right to be kept right, and if wrong to be set right."

Why? Your country is not a matter of birth alone, if a nation no longer shares your worldview, your cherished cultural values, why would you stay there? Where not leave to somewhere else that aligns better with your way of thinking and how you want the world to be?

There are those of us who cannot leave our countries, even if they want to. Poverty, illness, family... those are some factors.

There are also those of us who have the means to leave and survive elsewhere, but would rather remain here, including me. Why? Some of us are patriots and would fight authoritarian regimes and help the oppressed to the best of our ability and to the utmost of our resources. Others may see patriotism as passé, but value the common humanity of both oppressed and oppressor, and so is loath to leave both as they are -- one in a position of subjugation, the other in a position where all its wants are gratified... at the expense of everything else.

There are still those of us who are naive, still others who are suicidal, and still others who have romanticized their country.

So long as their intentions are noble and for the benefit of all, I say help who you can.

[Duhon]

Which is it, should people who have a problem with what's going on in their country emigrate, or should they stay and fix their own country? It can't be both.

Like I said, if a person no longer thinks a country reflects his most important cultural and social values, he should leave to one that does. I never said it was both.

We cannot let people suffer from their delusions. They may be happy with their decisions, but is happiness the same as healthiness? Is it the same as being right? If people suffer and you who have the means to help are unwilling to help, who are you?

[Northern Syria]

"My country, right or wrong: if right to be kept right, and if wrong to be set right."

Why? Your country is not a matter of birth alone, if a nation no longer shares your worldview, your cherished cultural values, why would you stay there? Where not leave to somewhere else that aligns better with your way of thinking and how you want the world to be?

Well, as you've acknowledged in your post, nations are dynamic and can be changed. If you have values you want to fight for, you might as well fight for them.

I mean, America's a democracy after all... We have debates and dissent for a reason... It would kind of negate the purpose of a democracy if the losing side always moved to a different country whenever they lost.

[EastKekistan]

Like I said, if a person no longer thinks a country reflects his most important cultural and social values, he should leave to one that does. I never said it was both.

We cannot let people suffer from their delusions. They may be happy with their decisions, but is happiness the same as healthiness? Is it the same as being right? If people suffer and you who have the means to help are unwilling to help, who are you?

How is interest maximization a delusion? Professional activists are not restricted to soc libs.

There are professional SJWs. At the same time there are professional WNs such as Andrew Anglin.

[Duhon]

We cannot let people suffer from their delusions. They may be happy with their decisions, but is happiness the same as healthiness? Is it the same as being right? If people suffer and you who have the means to help are unwilling to help, who are you?

How is interest maximization a delusion?

How was Nazism implemented well near its fullest extent a delusion?

[EastKekistan]

How is interest maximization a delusion?

How was Nazism implemented well near its fullest extent a delusion?

It wasn't? Nazism = "Kill Jews! Kill Slavs! Loot (e.g. stolen Jewish property) will be distributed to ethnic Germans!"

It was definitely attractive to Germans who focused on the third sentence. If you were rich you might be able to steal Jewish businesses. If you were poor you might be able to steal an apartment or clothes. For example the concentration camps for many camp guards were German criminals, including sadists. They were among the worst (and to Nazis, best) guards and mass murderers.

[Duhon]

How was Nazism implemented well near its fullest extent a delusion?

It wasn't? Nazism = "Kill Jews! Kill Slavs! Loot (e.g. stolen Jewish property) will be distributed to ethnic Germans!"

Because neither Jew nor Slav were as near a threat (or even a threat) as they thought. And yet they killed and enslaved. How would you not want to do something to end that? How would you call that healthy? The Nazis were certainly gratified -- ditto for most Germans -- but could such thinking ever be considered healthy?

[EastKekistan]

It wasn't? Nazism = "Kill Jews! Kill Slavs! Loot (e.g. stolen Jewish property) will be distributed to ethnic Germans!"

Because neither Jew nor Slav were as near a threat (or even a threat) as they thought. And yet they killed and enslaved. How would you not want to do something to end that? How would you call that healthy? The Nazis were certainly gratified -- ditto for most Germans -- but could such thinking ever be considered healthy?

It's not about threats lol. If Jews were actually a threat Nazis would not dare to attempt to exterminate them. That's basic realpolitik. If you lead a robber band are you going to loot the White House? Hell no! Why? Because it is well-defended! Instead you want to loot rich and defenseless people. Pre-Israel Jews partly belonged to that category, hence they were targeted by Nazis. As for the Slavs Nazis were drooling over their farmlands. That's what the Generalplan Ost was really about. Kill all Slavs in order to grab land. Land-grabbing was the goal and killing all Slavs was the means to achieve such a goal.

Nazism was essentially codified Mongolism or Assyrism.

[Galiantus III]

Why? Your country is not a matter of birth alone, if a nation no longer shares your worldview, your cherished cultural values, why would you stay there? Where not leave to somewhere else that aligns better with your way of thinking and how you want the world to be?

Well, as you've acknowledged in your post, nations are dynamic and can be changed. If you have values you want to fight for, you might as well fight for them.

I mean, America's a democracy after all... We have debates and dissent for a reason... It would kind of negate the purpose of a democracy if the losing side always moved to a different country whenever they lost.

We're a Democratic Republic, thanks.

Dissent doesn't imply a desire for radical cultural and economic change. Ideally everyone in a nation would agree on some basic cultural and moral principles while disagreeing on smaller issues. It's alright if those core principles change gradually over time, but for the sake of both those inside and outside the country it is generally a bad thing for them to change quickly.

Or let me put it another way: there should be nations with well-defined, unique cultures and values. There should be a country that is very capitalist, and a country that is very socialist, and a country that is very Christian, and a country that is very Muslim, and a country that is very Atheist, and a country that is well-mixed. People should live in a country where they can be proud of the main idea of that country. If you are against the whole purpose of a country, you degrade the culture everyone else is there for.

[EastKekistan]

Well, as you've acknowledged in your post, nations are dynamic and can be changed. If you have values you want to fight for, you might as well fight for them.

I mean, America's a democracy after all... We have debates and dissent for a reason... It would kind of negate the purpose of a democracy if the losing side always moved to a different country whenever they lost.

We're a Democratic Republic, thanks.

Dissent doesn't imply a desire for radical cultural and economic change. Ideally everyone in a nation would agree on some basic cultural and moral principles while disagreeing on smaller issues. It's alright if those core principles change gradually over time, but for the sake of both those inside and outside the country it is generally a bad thing for them to change quickly.

Or let me put it another way: there should be nations with well-defined, unique cultures and values. There should be a country that is very capitalist, and a country that is very socialist, and a country that is very Christian, and a country that is very Muslim, and a country that is very Atheist, and a country that is well-mixed. People should live in a country where they can be proud of the main idea of that country. If you are against the whole purpose of a country, you degrade the culture everyone else is there for.

Then real freethinkers can not fit into any nation by definition.

Well, that's what my proposed Singapores are for: hosting STEM nerds, enterpreneurs and non-conformist misfits.

[Duhon]

Because neither Jew nor Slav were as near a threat (or even a threat) as they thought. And yet they killed and enslaved. How would you not want to do something to end that? How would you call that healthy? The Nazis were certainly gratified -- ditto for most Germans -- but could such thinking ever be considered healthy?

It's not about threats lol. If Jews were actually a threat Nazis would not dare to attempt to exterminate them. That's basic realpolitik. If you lead a robber band are you going to loot the White House? Hell no! Why? Because it is well-defended! Instead you want to loot rich and defenseless people. Pre-Israel Jews partly belonged to that category, hence they were targeted by Nazis. As for the Slavs Nazis were drooling over their farmlands. That's what the Generalplan Ost was really about. Kill all Slavs in order to grab land.

Nazism was essentially codified Mongolism or Assyrism.

It has been well known for decades that almost all Germans of the interwar era subscribed to magical thinking of exterminatory intent. But Nazism is not the point.

My point is that you do not suffer delusions to go on living. You fight them with whatever you have.

[EastKekistan]

It's not about threats lol. If Jews were actually a threat Nazis would not dare to attempt to exterminate them. That's basic realpolitik. If you lead a robber band are you going to loot the White House? Hell no! Why? Because it is well-defended! Instead you want to loot rich and defenseless people. Pre-Israel Jews partly belonged to that category, hence they were targeted by Nazis. As for the Slavs Nazis were drooling over their farmlands. That's what the Generalplan Ost was really about. Kill all Slavs in order to grab land.

Nazism was essentially codified Mongolism or Assyrism.

It has been well known for decades that almost all Germans of the interwar era subscribed to magical thinking of exterminatory intent. But Nazism is not the point.

My point is that you do not suffer delusions to go on living. You fight them with whatever you have.

Nazism is not a delusion. Instead it is ethnicity-level sociopathy. That is, it is not very different from the ideology of organized crime. Group-level sociopathy isn't new. I think it can be found among certain Papuan tribes who eat non-members as food for example. Hence it can not be corrected by knowledge.

[Galiantus III]

We're a Democratic Republic, thanks.

Dissent doesn't imply a desire for radical cultural and economic change. Ideally everyone in a nation would agree on some basic cultural and moral principles while disagreeing on smaller issues. It's alright if those core principles change gradually over time, but for the sake of both those inside and outside the country it is generally a bad thing for them to change quickly.

Or let me put it another way: there should be nations with well-defined, unique cultures and values. There should be a country that is very capitalist, and a country that is very socialist, and a country that is very Christian, and a country that is very Muslim, and a country that is very Atheist, and a country that is well-mixed. People should live in a country where they can be proud of the main idea of that country. If you are against the whole purpose of a country, you degrade the culture everyone else is there for.

Then real freethinkers can not fit into any nation by definition.

Well, that's what my proposed Singapores are for: hosting STEM nerds, enterpreneurs and non-conformist misfits.

lol Real-life NationStates.

[EastKekistan]

Then real freethinkers can not fit into any nation by definition.

Well, that's what my proposed Singapores are for: hosting STEM nerds, enterpreneurs and non-conformist misfits.

lol Real-life NationStates.

Yeah. Let most people go to Japans (i.e. nice ethnostates) while the most cosmopolitan and individualistic folks belong to Singapores (i.e. international finance / STEM / cultural centers).

[Duhon]

It has been well known for decades that almost all Germans of the interwar era subscribed to magical thinking of exterminatory intent. But Nazism is not the point.

My point is that you do not suffer delusions to go on living. You fight them with whatever you have.

Nazism is not a delusion. Instead it is ethnicity-level sociopathy. Hence it can not be corrected by knowledge.

Nazism is only one of many examples, and in any case, the distinction between a delusion and an "ethnicity-level sociopathy" seems to me to be purely academic, with no bearing beyond complicating classifications.

[EastKekistan]

Nazism is not a delusion. Instead it is ethnicity-level sociopathy. Hence it can not be corrected by knowledge.

Nazism is only one of many examples, and in any case, the distinction between a delusion and an "ethnicity-level sociopathy" seems to me to be purely academic, with no bearing beyond complicating classifications.

Not really.

Sociopathy is not a consequence of lack of knowledge, nor can it be fixed by adding knowledge. Sociopathy can only be dealt with through norm enforcement. So I think the distinction is important and real.

Both Communism and Nazism are examples of glorified sociopathy. Their predecessors were cannibal tribes in the Pacific Ocean and steppe mass murderers/robbers such as Genghis Khan. In practice they are essentially glorified forms of organized crime for I really fail to see what the difference between Nazis murdering Jews and robbing Jewish property and pirates murdering people and robbing their property other than in scale. Both Nazis and Communists did engage in conventional organized crime. Nazis counterfeited money and Communists (in China, NK and Colombia) sold drugs.