That makes sense. Diversity requires the preservation of differences. However, we need to preserve tolerance for these differences as we enter a period of more negative social mood.Originally Posted by desiresjab
That makes sense. Diversity requires the preservation of differences. However, we need to preserve tolerance for these differences as we enter a period of more negative social mood.
Good grief! Having mixed race children constitutes "racial genocide"? Silly me, I thought that "genocide" constituted killing people, not having mixed race babies.
Perhaps we should ban miscegenation, once again, according to Vota and DJ. Trump, trump trump the boys are marching / Cheer up comrades here they come!
Conservative icon Ronald Reagan said, "Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev!" Now Vota and DJ want to build walls to preserve racial and cultural purity, and avoid the horror of "homogenization". Of course it is true that if cultures CHANGE they cannot be PRESERVED. So what? Why should some cultures (especially those that promote the belief systems promulgated by DJ and Vota) be preserved? Is change necessarily a bad thing, or is it only bad if one happens to be a citizen of a wealthy country, a member of an elite social class, and a white man who thinks his culture and "race" is threatened by interbreeding?
By the way, you CAN "have diversity (without) these various cultures and lineages (being) preserved." Why couldn't you? Cultures and lineages can CHANGE, and remain diverse, as anyone with the ability to reason can clearly see, but Vota and DJ cannot.
I shouldn't bother responding to these posts; what good can it possibly accomplish? However, perhaps a lack of response will persuade some readers that Vota's and DJ's opinions are widely accepted here at LItnet, which (I hope) they are not.
Last edited by Ecurb; 12-12-2016 at 11:37 PM.
I do not mind the existence of some enclaves in the world dedicated to preserving pure African, northern European, Chinese or native American bloodlines. Some people mind very much even the mention of it. To them it just has too much flavor of Nazi eugenics. The Chinese are a billion strong and almost pure--pure asian at least. This has not hindered them. The cause can be wrong or right, the action itself is neither, but yet another expression of humanity. The action has a serious hangover from 20th century abuses, yet in itself is neither evil or good. I would say its morality is unknown though it is sharply criticized at first mention as something abhorrent by today's breed of brain police.
No, these separate cultures do not have to exist to study them, just as elephants will be studied and remembered when they are gone. Not I am against cultural change, unless it is imposed rather than evolutionary. The multicultualism movement is someone's political idea of evolution (namely Carrol Quigley), not evolution that occurred by itself. This may be known as directed evolution, not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on who is doing the directing and how much they are doing. Everyone will never agree on how much or exactly what should be done.
Last edited by desiresjab; 12-13-2016 at 02:21 AM.
I wasn't aware there was a "pure" white race in the US. I thought it was a melting pot.
Will one of President Trump;s first acts be to have the inscription on the Stature of Liberty corrected to read "Get lost you tired and hungry masses".
Previously JonathanB
The more I read, the more I shall covet to read. Robert Burton The Anatomy of Melancholy Partion3, Section 1, Member 1, Subsection 1
From my experience it is a melting pot. My mother is German and my father is Czech. Apparently the Germans and Czechs don't get along, or so I heard, but they are both European. Since my wife is Chinese this makes our children half Chinese, a quarter German and a quarter Czech.
Some say the pot is full. Some say turn the heat down. These are not even the interesting questions to me. Those get discussed right now over in Cosmology. Who should be allowed in and who should be allowed to use which bathroom do not interest me much at all, it is the passing parade, merely half an hour spent with the human soap opera before I return to contemplate matters I believe are more universal. I do not get foamy mouthed over politics, nor have much time to spend with those who do. But I like to write, so I am apt to show up anywhere with opinions that will be controversial to some. Mere opinions are not worth much defense--mine or anyone else's. May all beings be happy.
Let's say a world central banker's cabal, who look out for "me, myself, and I".
Why do they control interest rates instead of letting the market decide where rates should be. Why are they constantly paying piddly fines for rigging everything. Why is there boilerplate in their literature that you, putting money in a bank account, are turning over the ownership of the money to them. And if necessary, they can do a bail-in and grab some of that money lest they become insolvent or get their salaries reduced. Why do they want to do away with cash and go all digital?
Read Zerohedge dot com for a month and you'll get a good education about banking and a lot of other subjects, and have some humor too.
I'm not American but we can but hope.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
People are not forced to marry people from any particular race/culture.It is evil if it is done to prove the superiority of one particular group or race... To diminish the power and rights of certain groups.That philosophy is not evil, and those who hold that view do not need to be stamped out or suppressed. Many today want to immediately mark it evil, however, to associate it with Ku Klux Klan and other vile racists. If they can associate such ideas with the vile, they have their excuse to stamp out those who hold counter views which are not politically correct. I do not care if it is some folk in Nigeria who want to do this or some folk in Estonia. The thing is, it is all right, it is not evil.Diveristy does not require keeping the status quo. It requires recognising and respecting the groups that make up a given society. These groups have always and will continue to change in our societies because they are organic and we cannot keep assigning pre-constructed meanings and characteristics to them.You cannot have diversity unless these various cultures and lineages are preserved. Everything homogenized together is not my idea of diversity, it is my idea of homogenization.
For example, if you want a really diverse society or diversity in your society, you need to recognise the existence of LGBTQ groups and their rights rather than stifling them. And it is indeed evil to try to oppress anyone who happens to be different - hence deserves "less"- based on your own idea of worthiness.
It is one of the most puzzling issues to me that the US, which is a nation of immigrants is demonstrating one of the most overt forms of racism and lack of acceptance. And I am a little taken aback that there are not more voices of outrage heard even on this Forum, which I consider to be my home page on the net.
Hear, hear!
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
The definition of genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
Now I didn't specifically state who I was talking about, and I'm not going to, other than to make obvious allusions to a large culture that practices a religion that has been the scourge of the world since the early 7th century; that condones the lawful killing and raping of kafirs; that practices cultural genocide, which btw, can be found within the doctrines of the Koran, Sira, and Hadith.
It should be pretty obvious what I'm referring to. I have no particular dislike or prejudice against any race, but there are ideology's that I strongly dislike, and anyone that has actually studied History, and can see the patterns, knows what I'm talking about. I'm called a bigot when I criticize the most intolerant ideology in existence. Ironic really.
It's one thing to say that civilizations rise and fall. It's one thing say that cultures come and go. It's another to be woefully ignorant of the doctrines and methods of an ideology that is actively trying to subjugate the rest of the world, and is responsible for the deaths of over 250+ million people over the past 1400+ years, and has roughly 1.5 billion adherents.
All I'm doing is putting two and two together. I'm all for diversity. But there's a difference between diversity and cultural genocide. There's a difference between being tolerant and being tolerant due to sheer stupidity and ignorance. You probably think I'm paranoid, but if you don't understand the political - cultural ideology I'm talking about, and most people don't except on the most surface of levels, then you really don't have any business making statements that amount to little more than arbitrary and prejudicial conjecture.
60,000,000 immigrants have been allowed into this country over the last 52 years. How many of you have bothered to look up the racial statistics of those let in? You'll find a surprising lack of western and eastern Europeans - and it's not as if people from those countries, of predominantly caucasian descent, haven't been trying. You see there's a whole mess of weird and bad things going on in the U.S. that is never, and will never be talked about in the mainstream media, and to even bring it to light brings down the wrath of political correctness, which is no better than Thought Police. Sad really.
Lastly, there are moral absolutes. To even argue with another person's viewpoints already suggests the latent belief that there is right and wrong, good and bad. Some art is better than other art. Some books are better than other books. And some religions and ideologies are just plain evil. Look to the primary figure of any religion and you will know that religion/belief system and what it stands for.
I'm done with these forums.
Last edited by Vota; 01-08-2017 at 07:29 AM.
I hope you stick around. It is good to hear different positions. Arguments help clarify positions if people take advantage of those differences and don't freak out.
From my perspective death is the great melting pot. We all go to the Light, all of us, from the Hitlers to the Mother Theresas. If we don't, then there isn't any Light to go to. And in that case, death is still a great melting pot.
Before we go there, diversity makes things interesting, but that is going to make determining right and wrong or good and bad difficult. We cannot completely objectify these subjectively experienced positions or we mechanize them.
As I see it we are at the beginning of a deep depression. Social mood is just beginning to get negative. Negative means there will be more fighting among groups and splintering into smaller groups. Money "velocity" will show down. Economic optimism will turn to economic pessimism. To bring this back to the topic of the thread and re-ask the question if there is a world banking conspiracy, most of us will ultimately say there is and hatred will turn against these banks as they fail when global debt collapses.
Why is it good to know this? So we respond with humanity as the economic contraction plays out.
As I see it social mood has already been very negative in the last times specially in the new millenium. And this negativity is bound to increase.
It is less clear to me how much this has to do with economics. It certainly has to do with education and collective values as some groups act without any restraint.
And I guess it would be good if we all started reading carefully the most important world news and the news of our countries to avoid beeing taken by surprise by them.
"I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row
If I recall the chart correctly, Elliott Wave International plotted the US Dow Industrial Average against the price of gold and claimed that the negative turn began around the year 2000 which agrees with your experience.
I am still trying to understand what Robert Prechter means by "social mood". It is "unconscious" and a kind of "herd" thinking. It drives the markets and social events. He is not mechanistic nor deterministic in his social thinking which I was glad to find out since I think he is in general right. On the positive side, social mood generally keeps us moving forward. There are just negative corrections that we have to get through.
I like the expression "social mood" because it is generally descriptive and doesn´t relate specifically to religion, race and/or nationality which I take to be are the more sensitive aspects when you discuss human behavior.
"I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row
The problem with social mood is that it isn't clear how it starts because it is not something one is aware of and yet as individuals we must be responsible for it. For example, why do we like a certain kind of humor today rather than a decade ago? Replace humor with anything else that groups of us tend to like or dislike. This makes me think that we are not really individuals. There is more to us than the sum total of us as individuals.
It is also not rational. If one thinks of being rational as making a choice that optimizes some utility in response to some stimulus, this is more like providing a stimulus rather than a response. That's good in a way. Being rational is what a computer does. I type in a character and the computer rationally responds to my stimulus by printing the character on the screen. If the computer just started typing stuff, I would think it were broke.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
