If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-1-in-5-women-have-not-been-raped-on-college-campuses/article/2551980

 

[Einherjar86]

Cause they all look the same amirite?

I meant that they are all of African descent.

But you were talking about myths before and now it's culture. How could I disagree now? Cowboys did fight the Indians, Indians used stone/flint tools, etc.

Culture is comprised of myths.

Cowboys quarreled with Native Americans, sure; but these quarrels were warped, augmented, and given ideological gravity in popular representations: Hollywood films, gift-shop tomahawks, Indian curios... these things serve to promote myths about Native Americans despite being derived from actual details.

So <10 years of mistreatment and a people is considered subjugated for the rest of time? Let's talk about the Versailles treaty then, or the Roman wars, etc. The Germans were subjugated. I'm of an oppressed people!

It's been longer than ten years. The Romani are a consistently targeted people - even the word "gypsy" has taken on racial connotations. They suffered after World War Two as well.

I can keep challenging your relentless efforts to make the Romani out to be a bunch of whiners, but I'd rather not. You should just do your own research.

I never denied the racial scares, never denied concentration camp treatment in WWII, etc. My point is that trying to compare it to the plight of African American slaves in the US is absurd, in both intensity and length of time. Plus, part of the scare was because they were coming over from empires (depending on the scaremonger), not because they were "dumb brutes". But, let's say it is the same thing. Guess blacks must have put themselves in their poor position, since the other minorities seem to have recovered just fine - Asians and Jews especially.

Okay, let me be perfectly clear, since your tactic rests upon changing the topic.

The original reason for this discussion had to do with subjugated (or marginalized, or oppressed, etc.) peoples capitalizing on the myths surrounding their image in a particular culture. CIS suggested that women do this whereas other groups do not, which I wanted to put pressure on; because black culture, Asian culture, gypsy culture, all such cultures that are considered subaltern in America absolutely capitalize on the myths surrounding their image!

Did you know that restaurants in China don't serve fortune cookies?

The last thing I'll say is that you seem to have a problem with my use of "subjugated." I can understand that; but there's no denying that these other groups are considered "subaltern" in this country - they do not qualify as "white Americans," and this gives them a distinct image.

I know that many of us like to think that we can view different ethnic groups without prejudice, but this prejudice is built into the very images we have of these peoples. Our cultural presentation of them is comprised of myths.

 

[CiG]

As is their presentation of us, ever watched much Hong Kong action cinema? One of the most racist depictions of a black westerner that I've ever seen was in Sammo Hung's Burger Cop film.

Thought I'd just throw that out there.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'll absolutely agree that racism exists between subaltern groups, as well as in other countries. Didn't mean to suggest that white Westerners' is the only racist culture.

 

[SentinelSlain]

The thing you have to understand is that cultural marxism creates a vocabulary with which a degenerate and atavistic class of people can be born who act as commissars and apparatchiks of the overall ideology. With the new language comes an inverted value system. The reason they think there is always some racism to be found is because the cultural marxism dictates that any kind of European cultural influence is essentially sinful.

 

[rms]

Has anyone seen the latest South Park?



For free;

http://southpark.cc.com/full-episod...92d-b95b-9433e3f62f8d&position=1&sort=airdate

Interested in what people thought of the ending

 

[SentinelSlain]

fuck you

The thing you have to understand is that cultural marxism creates a vocabulary with which a degenerate and atavistic class of people can be born who act as commissars and apparatchiks of the overall ideology. With the new language comes an inverted value system. The reason they think there is always some racism to be found is because the cultural marxism dictates that any kind of European cultural influence is essentially sinful.

 

[rms]

I think you try to use random words to make you seem smart and thus I don't take you seriously very often.

 

[Mort Divine]

If you actually use the term "cultural Marxism" you're immediately not worth listening to.

 

[Dak]

Culture is comprised of myths. Cowboys quarreled with Native Americans, sure; but these quarrels were warped, augmented, and given ideological gravity in popular representations: Hollywood films, gift-shop tomahawks, Indian curios... these things serve to promote myths about Native Americans despite being derived from actual details.

Okay, let me be perfectly clear, since your tactic rests upon changing the topic.

The original reason for this discussion had to do with subjugated (or marginalized, or oppressed, etc.) peoples capitalizing on the myths surrounding their image in a particular culture. CIS suggested that women do this whereas other groups do not, which I wanted to put pressure on; because black culture, Asian culture, gypsy culture, all such cultures that are considered subaltern in America absolutely capitalize on the myths surrounding their image!

Ok. I agree that people will attempt to capitalize where they have an unique niche. Sometimes not even a unique niche but where there is something called "comparative advantage". In any case, my contention is not that this doesn't occur, but that it isn't some form of additional "subjugation". You have an extremely loose usage of subjugation, oppression, etc.

It's been longer than ten years. The Romani are a consistently targeted people - even the word "gypsy" has taken on racial connotations. They suffered after World War Two as well.

I can keep challenging your relentless efforts to make the Romani out to be a bunch of whiners, but I'd rather not. You should just do your own research.

Where did I say they are whiners? You are reading things in that aren't there. They have been second class citizens or worse for a long time, and it's their own doing. They won't get along, and they won't get out. They have a very backwards culture, particularly by prog standards. It's funny how "victim status" causes a blind eye to numerous other issues. As far as the racial thing goes, they are a separate ethnic group, and don't hail from the same stock as most of Europe, so what's the big deal? That it is being used in a negative fashion?

The last thing I'll say is that you seem to have a problem with my use of "subjugated." I can understand that; but there's no denying that these other groups are considered "subaltern" in this country - they do not qualify as "white Americans," and this gives them a distinct image.

I know that many of us like to think that we can view different ethnic groups without prejudice, but this prejudice is built into the very images we have of these peoples. Our cultural presentation of them is comprised of myths.

Our representation of our own cultures is also comprised of myths. I fail to see the inequity. More pointedly, I fail to see where this is subjugating.

Your use of subjugation isn't nuanced or particular, although it appears to have a certain consistency. It appears to be a blanket term for the experience of any people at any point in time in history (but particularly in the post WWII world) which lack a country or ancestral relation to a people in a country which exists in the post war northern, western, or southern Europe.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ok. I agree that people will attempt to capitalize where they have an unique niche. Sometimes not even a unique niche but where there is something called "comparative advantage". In any case, my contention is not that this doesn't occur, but that it isn't some form of additional "subjugation". You have an extremely loose usage of subjugation, oppression, etc.

I think it's quite clear - but it seems to be a part of your adamant denial of historical facts.

Where did I say they are whiners? You are reading things in that aren't there. They have been second class citizens or worse for a long time, and it's their own doing. They won't get along, and they won't get out. They have a very backwards culture, particularly by prog standards. It's funny how "victim status" causes a blind eye to numerous other issues. As far as the racial thing goes, they are a separate ethnic group, and don't hail from the same stock as most of Europe, so what's the big deal? That it is being used in a negative fashion?

I really have no clue what the fuck you're so up in arms about. You do know that the Romani have actively tried to assimilate and have been marginalized for it? Do you know that it isn't "their own doing"?

You seem misinformed on this subject. I'd just go to the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiziganism

Our representation of our own cultures is also comprised of myths. I fail to see the inequity. More pointedly, I fail to see where this is subjugating.

I know! This was never my point. All I ever said was that subaltern groups do capitalize on the myths surrounding their culture. I never said the Western doesn't do this.

Pay attention to what's actually going on.

Your use of subjugation isn't nuanced or particular, although it appears to have a certain consistency. It appears to be a blanket term for the experience of any people at any point in time in history (but particularly in the post WWII world) which lack a country or ancestral relation to a people in a country which exists in the post war northern, western, or southern Europe.

You despise any word that suggests victimization. It's part of your ridiculous effort to deny any and all evidence of victimhood.

 

[Dak]

You seem misinformed on this subject. I'd just go to the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiziganism

Looks like I have been correct. Lack of assimilation, and overall not even that much persecution over the last 1000 years of presence in Europe, most of it being sporadic bursts in the last 200 years. probably something to do with not assimilating in the previous 800 years.

I know! This was never my point. All I ever said was that subaltern groups do capitalize on the myths surrounding their culture. I never said the Western doesn't do this.

Very well. I was mainly taking issues with the examples you cited, plus with the earlier assertion that these myths are basically given to them by the whatever is offered as a "primary" culture.

You despise any word that suggests victimization. It's part of your ridiculous effort to deny any and all evidence of victimhood.

I don't deny victimization where it exists. I do deny this sort of "totalization" of even the most minor infractions, as well as the very one sided views of who gets to be a victim and what constitutes infractions. It cheapens the real sorts of victimization that exist, denies agency to those that need it most, and offers completely insubstantial critique and remedy to real problems.

 

[Einherjar86]

Looks like I have been correct. Lack of assimilation, and overall not even that much persecution over the last 1000 years of presence in Europe, most of it being sporadic bursts in the last 200 years. probably something to do with not assimilating in the previous 800 years.

Or it's something to do with the idiotic attitude you're adopting being a dominant attitude throughout Europe. It's almost ubiquitous.

It's comments like this that makes me wonder whether you're actually intelligent or just get lucky sometimes.

 

[Dak]

Or it's something to do with the idiotic attitude you're adopting being a dominant attitude throughout Europe. It's almost ubiquitous.

~200 years after migration:

n the early 13th-century Byzantine records, the Atsínganoi are mentioned as "wizards ... who are inspired satanically and pretend to predict the unknown."

The satanic label is a catchall, but obviously the fortune telling is not being "put on them".

By the 16th century, many Romani in Eastern and Central Europe worked as musicians, metal craftsmen, and soldiers.

Nomads, smiths, mercenaries. Not terrible but not really assimilation. The most inclusive regimes and stable regimes (Ottoman Empire) between the Fall of Rome and WWI didn't like them, and for what reason?

seen as having "no visible permanent professional affiliation"

England concurred:

directed that they abandon their "naughty, idle and ungodly life and company" and adopt a settled lifestyle.

19th century:

almost exclusively characterized "Gypsy crime" as trespassing and the theft of food.

Standard nomad behavior when there's no space to be nomad-ing.

Modern times:

In 2009 a documentary by the BBC called Gypsy Child Thieves showed Romani children being kidnapped and abused by Romani gangs from Romania. The children were often held locked in sheds during the nights and sent to steal during the days.[29] However, Chachipe, a charity which works for the human rights of Romani people, has claimed that this programme promoted "popular stereotypes against Roma which contribute to their marginalisation and provide legitimacy to racist attacks against them," and that in suggesting that begging and child exploitation was "intrinsic to the Romany culture," this programme was "highly damaging" for the Romani people. However, the charity did accept that some of the incidences that were detailed in the programme did in fact take place.[30]

In Milan, Italy, it is estimated that a single Romani child was able to steal as much as &#8364;12,000 in a month; there were as many as 50 of such abused Romani children operating in the city. Meanwhile, the Romani bosses of these gangs were building glossy villas back in Romania. The film went on to describe the link between poverty, discrimination, crime and exploitation.

A subculture built on consuming and not building - refusal to assimilate for several hundred years finally hardening into set lines by the later centuries.

The doublethink by "Chachipe" is completely typical and what I feel like you are engaging in. "Don't pay attention to the methodology", "Yeah that stuff happens, but noticing hurts perceptions of them(so don't notice)", etc.

It's comments like this that makes me wonder whether you're actually intelligent or just get lucky sometimes.

I'm just a dumb Murkan from poor parents living on the bad side of a small town.

 

[Einherjar86]

The thing you have to understand is that cultural marxism creates a vocabulary with which a degenerate and atavistic class of people can be born who act as commissars and apparatchiks of the overall ideology. With the new language comes an inverted value system. The reason they think there is always some racism to be found is because the cultural marxism dictates that any kind of European cultural influence is essentially sinful.

"Cultural Marxism" refers most directly to the Frankfurt School, or the progenitors of "critical theory." While several of its main practitioners, such as Theodor Adorno, were Marxists, they weren't really that concerned with the proletariat (which I assume you're referring to by "degenerate and atavistic class"). In many ways, Lukács was the last true Marxist, and he was pre-Frankfurt.

In some sense, it's a misnomer to call the Frankfurt School "cultural Marxism" for the exact same reason it's misleading to call Baudrillard and Lyotard "post-Marxists." It retains the Marxism, making people think that communism is more prevalent in their arguments than it really is. Ever since Adorno and Horkheimer wrote Dialectic of Enlightenment the historical/revolutionary capacity of communism has been on the wane. Even if some of these theorists have socialist or communist leanings, much of their critical work is concerned less with the emergence of a classless society (pretty much a hopeless dream by the time WWII rolls around) and more with the evolution of capitalism itself.

A subculture built on consuming and not building - refusal to assimilate for several hundred years finally hardening into set lines by the later centuries.

So, they preferred to steal and consume rather than produce, and thus were refused the right to assimilate; or, were they forced to continue stealing and consuming because they were refused the right to assimilate, thus perpetuating the stereotypes surrounding their culture?

You see, you have a very definitive sense of why the Romani people are viewed the way they are, but history doesn't always tell a definitive story.

 

[Dak]

So, they preferred to steal and consume rather than produce, and thus were refused the right to assimilate; or, were they forced to continue stealing and consuming because they were refused the right to assimilate, thus perpetuating the stereotypes surrounding their culture?

You see, you have a very definitive sense of why the Romani people are viewed the way they are, but history doesn't always tell a definitive story.

At this point, I'm sure the latter has some truth, hence those hardened lines I spoke of. Merely refusing to assimilate usually brings with it some hardships, but some groups keep to themselves in ways that mitigate persecution. The Amish farm and make quilts and whatnot. Orthodox Jews are sort of "Amish Jews", and the Jews in general have been treated incredibly poorly most of the places they have been, yet they just keep on building businesses and trying to maintain strong families. Then you have the Roma and the Bedouins, who were treated fairly similarly by the Ottomans for similar reasons. As the Bedouins are desert (lack of urban areas, low-value land) nomads, they have had less clashes and persecution. However, most recently, the Bedouins are slowly beginning to assimilate due to water pressures and desire for settled comfort. Overall, the Bedouins were considered a problem for their lack of settledness, not for criminal predilections. Maybe the influence of Islam vs pseudo-Indo mysticism?

 

[Dak]

http://takimag.com/article/occams_rubber_room_steve_sailer/print#axzz3luZFvEev

Sailer vs Coates

About a decade ago, I coined the term Occam&#8217;s Butterknife to characterize the contemporary liberal insistence upon implausibly convoluted explanations.

But now that race man Ta-Nehisi Coates is back with a giant article in The Atlantic about &#8220;The Enduring Myth of Black Criminality,&#8221; I need a more all-encompassing term to describe this increasingly fashionable rejection of reality. Let&#8217;s try: Occam&#8217;s Rubber Room.
.......
Occam&#8217;s Razor exists for very good reasons. But this is not to say that Coates is disingenuous. Like Malcolm Gladwell, he&#8217;s simply ill-equipped to perform reality checks on his own conspiracy theory.

 

[Einherjar86]

Eh, I don't mind close critiques of arguments, but this one lost me - especially when the author said:

African-Americans brought many of their tendencies with them from Africa. The huge expansion in welfare in the 1960s and 1970s merely allowed them to revert back to the social order under which they had been evolving since their invention of agriculture a few thousand years before.

I can't find any redeeming sentiment in that quote or evidentiary support for it.

There's also plenty of criticism on Coates from the black left, most recently from Cornell West.

But my main interest in the issue addressed by the author at Taki is the notion of guilt and/or responsibility - white responsibility. James Baldwin addressed this same point fifty years ago, 1965. In it, he delineates the exact same response we hear from threatened whites today: "It's not my fault, I didn't enslave you!" It's fascinating that the response hasn't changed in fifty years; it's still the same white reaction, the same white people terrified of black revenge.

 

[CiG]

I can't stomach South Park anymore, I used to be a big fan though.

Eh, I don't mind close critiques of arguments, but this one lost me
I can't find any redeeming sentiment in that quote or evidentiary support for it.

I don't know about the flimsy reverting back part but there is evidence that shows that the welfare state ruined black progress in America, ironically.

If you actually use the term "cultural Marxism" you're immediately not worth listening to.

Why do you say that? I've never said it myself, but your reaction seems extreme.

 

[Cythraul]

I can't find any redeeming sentiment in that quote or evidentiary support for it.

What is a redeeming sentiment? Does that have something to do with the truth-value of the quote? If not, then who cares?

And you can't find any evidentiary support for it? Where did you look? Your sentiments?

There's also plenty of criticism on Coates from the black left, most recently from Cornell West.

Cornell West is basically a pseudointellectual.

James Baldwin addressed this same point fifty years ago, 1965. In it, he delineates the exact same response we hear from threatened whites today: "It's not my fault, I didn't enslave you!" It's fascinating that the response hasn't changed in fifty years; it's still the same white reaction, the same white people terrified of black revenge.

So what?