by Jenab6 » Wed 09 Jul 2008, 10:47:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', 'w')cur, you seem to be advocating a lot of gripping of reality lately. There are a number of kinds of reality--the reality that the sun will eventually die, the reality that resources have limits, the reality that gw is beginning to pass crucial tipping points... Compared to these hard realities, any statement about human behavior as "reality" is comparatively soft.
Humans can and have changed very basic aspects of their behavior fairly consistently. In the fifties, the US was know throughout the world as a deeply racist society. Today, while deep institutional and individual racism continues of course, the leading candidate for president is what most would consider Black. Now fifty, even twenty, years ago, most people said that wanting a Black president was just not accepting political reality. Yet this type of "reality" did change, but it took a whole lot of people willing to imagine themselves past it.
But reality has many different meanings, and its meaning is shakiest when discussing human behavior.
The reality thing is something which core to who I am but yes I have made it more of a point to talk about it recently. On the question of race I have two observations that lead me to believe that we have not really changed in any meaningful sense. First, yes a black man will quite possibly be the next president of the United States, an idea that would amaze those living just 30 years ago. I would ask is this because Americans have become fundamentally less tribal or have the definitions and boundaries of the tribes changed?
30 years ago someone spewing racist speech would probably be allowed in common company, now they and not the black man are shunned. We can say that tribalism based on ideas and character is better than a tribalism based solely on race is an improvement (and I would concur) but it does not change the fact that there remains second class citizens. What about "white trash" or individuals who speak with a "hick" accent (white or black)? The white middle class tribe has allied itself with the educated black middle and upper class tribe against other tribes. The alliances have changed since 1968 but we are still tribal.
Secondly, our tribal nature has been... tamed by abundance. The tribe is most obvious when times are lean and when individuals fall back on "people like me." I have a (morbid) interest in watching how scapegoating and tribalism strengthen over the next few years. People are going to look for someone to blame, who will it be? The oil company tribe? The peak oil tribe? The arab tribe? The illegal immigrant tribe? I don't know but trust me on this... there will be a scapegoat and we will all soon be reminded of which tribe to which we belong. I don't like it, but it is the way things are.
I read ancient Roman, Jewish and Greek texts and it is a story about people. I recognize the emotions and the pain. I see the same crowd demanding circuses and bread. I hear the same mothers weep and father scream for the letting of vengeance's blood. I hear the same fundamentalists and the same calls for compromise. No, the story does not change, just the scenery and some minor details of dialogue.
Seldom do I read on this forum a post on race, written by anyone other than myself, that contains so much good sense as this by the cur. He's right: the story does not change. And the reason it does not change is because man has had a habit of trying to impose his values on Nature for thousands of years, instead of learning to live with the values that Nature always, in the end, imposes on men.
We shall go back to tribalism (and to racism) whether or not we want it, and the problem is not this, but rather that we do not want it and that, because we do not want it, we waste our energy in a futile resistance to natural laws and bend the knee only when our means of resistance has been exhausted--at which moment our capacity for doing much of
anything has also been exhausted.
The repetition of history's mistakes occurs because man repeatedly confuses sentimental humanitarianism with morality, which happens in turn because man is not, quite, intelligent enough to distinguish between what
is virtue and what makes him
feel virtuous.
For example, consider the humanitarian drive to "feed the hungry," particularly, as prevailing politics demand, in some region where the hungry are not White. What is the intent? To end hunger. What is the result? To increase the numbers of hungry people. Has the result been well-documented? Certainly. Why do some men insist on the continuance of a policy that contains obvious flaws and has obviously always failed? Because it makes them
feel virtuous. Real virtue would do as experience shows to be wise. But acting thus requires just a bit more intelligence than most men have.
Now, which form of government most effectively drowns the signal of wisdom in the noise of mediocrity? Mass democracy does. Which form of government do we, more or less, have? In official form, we have a representative republic, but in apparent political action, we have a mass democracy. However, things are even worse than they appear. Our mass democratic system is controlled by information management on the exchange of ideas - at least insofar as the large bandwidth media are concerned. A few men, most of them Jews, tell the rest of us what they believe we ought to know about the world, about the concerns of the day, and about the candidates who run for our public offices. "All the news that's fit to print" really means "All the news the Jews choose to print." And that's a big part of the problem with American and European politics.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'I') have a (morbid) interest in watching how scapegoating and tribalism strengthen over the next few years.
Scapegoats, ah yes. So much of the talk in which the words scapegoat or scapegoating appear seems to imply that the blame for causing a bad situation is merely an illusion, that in reality there is no blame, and that any attempt to assign blame is a misguided, if not an evil, thing to do. Nonsense. Hitler was not wrong when, in
Mein Kampf, he blamed the Jews for what they actually were doing. Nor was he wrong when he surmised the harm arising from Jewish activities to the German people. No, rather he was right. And the reason for the incessant anti-Nazi propaganda, continuing now for its 63rd consecutive year past the end of World War Two, is precisely to keep the lid on the fact that Hitler was right. It is why instances of the mention of Hitler's name do not fade from common discourse with the passage of time in exponential decline as do mentions of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Napoleon. The harmful presence that Adolf Hitler tried to remove is still here, and it is still harmful.
Which group created the financial system that required unending exponential economic growth in order to meet the demands of bankers for loan interest payments?
Which group has controlled every mass media in the West, except the Internet, for the past hundred years?
Which group is most responsible for creating child pornography in various parts of the world, for uploading it to the internet for sale, and for using it thereafter as a pretext to impose a censorship over the internet, in which, it might be expected, text such as I'm writing now will be "by the way" eliminated?
You know what the truth is. If you refrain from mentioning it, it is not because you don't know that it is true. It is for fear of reprisal by those who serve the "powers that be who should not be powerful." Such is why I consider most references to "scapegoats" to be hypocrisy.
Jerry Abbott