We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Whatever you believe about race these days in the privacy of your own head is pretty irrelevant. Having the wrong opinions about these issues is professional and social suicide so broadly speaking people with a stake in society don’t.
People higher up the socioeconomic pyramid aren’t less racist than those lower down because of any greater enlightenment on their part. They are because they have far more to lose by refuting the orthodoxy.
The defeat of racism in this manner has given the current cultural establishment the idea hat such authoritarianism is a fundamentally legitimate means by which to stamp their political and moral assumptions upon the populace.
The elite’s ideas about the evils of racism at least had the virtue of being essentially correct. Most of the other opinions they want to violently foist upon us are not.
– Commenter Jay Thomas, of the Thoughtful Ape.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Despite often being the very people to proclaim the benefits of a multicultural society and diversity, those higher up the economic pyramid are usually to be found in affluent, overwhelmingly white suburbs and pleasant country towns. And they make it as certain as they possibly can that their children are not exposed to much diversity and multiculturalism at school.
Is this racism?
It could be garden-variety elitism at work, as well. I know a gal of this order who honestly believes that it’s very, very important that your young children play with the “right” other young children.
Which is another way of saying that you want to use your children as part of your strategy for maintaining contacts within a given affluent community. I often see this going hand in hand with racism, but am not sold that it IS racism.
Anybody who says that US societal elites aren’t racist — and not just in a white-on-minority way, but also high-caste Indian vs. everybody else and….fill-in-blank… well, the plural of anecdote isn’t evidence, but my anecdotes beg to differ. What they are is not publicly racist.
That’s not racism either; it’s simply a reflection of the fact that humans are pragmatic creatures, and will find a way to later rationalize actions taken out of self-interest, such as living in pleasant suburbs or sending their children to the best schools they can find, even when these actions are in conflict with their own avowed principles.
I’ve had a few conversations with the sort of person referenced in the OP that began “I don’t really believe in private school, but … “.
As in: “if I can find a way to pay for my own children to go there, I will”. All the while keeping blind faith in the idea that the next round of increased funding, hiring of teachers, buying a laptop for every child, or whatever else will “fix” the state education.
You are being too kind, pete. Take a walk through the good liberal parts of town, where the elites live behind high gates.
There are lots of people of “color” — Mexican gardeners, Spanish maids, Polish nannies, North
African drivers.
The kids who grow up in those circumstances have a very clear idea of who is the ruling class, and who are the servants. They grow up and expiate their white guilt by cramming hateful ideas down others’ throats. But they don’t get rid of their own “colored” servants.
I am sorry, but I lived in some upper-middle-class communities in the US, and my experience is different. True, blacks are a minority in these communities, but that has to do with their socioeconomic status, not their race, not to mention the fact that relative to the entire US population they are a minority. I also doubt that racism in the US itself has anything to do with a socioeconomic status. I rather tend to think that Americans of all walks of life can be prone to it, but at the same time most Americans (again, from all walks of life) are not racist.
Let’s see if I can fool the bot this time:
I am sorry, but I lived in some upper-middle-class communities in the US, and my experience is different. True, b….s are a minority in these communities, but that has to do with their socioeconomic status, not their r..e, not to mention the fact that relative to the entire US population they are a minority. I also doubt that r….m in the US itself has anything to do with a socioeconomic status. I rather tend to think that Americans of all walks of life can be prone to it, but at the same time most Americans (again, from all walks of life) are not r….t.
I suspect that, in general, the walls go up not so much to prevent people of particular skin pigments from entering certain areas, but to prevent people who want to kill the inhabitants of such areas and take their property from entering.
I could be wrong.
If you lock your door, as I do, ask yourself a simple question: “Am I locking my door because I am concerned that somebody with dark skin might enter, or because I am concerned that somebody who wants to kill me, rape my wife, kidnap my children, or steal my property might enter”.
Please report your results.
Pete, Alisa,
I don’t think you have that right at all. At least not as it applies to England. (And I would be very surprised if many modern industrialised countries were that different.)
The millionaires’ rows and dentists’ suburbs of of provincial British cities don’t segregate much. The patterns are of stochastic drift up out of whatever cultural communities there are around by historical accident, and the rate of drift is driven by class. Superwealthy gated and island communities are very culturally/racially mixed (but non-racist rather than anti-racist).
The promotors of mutiseparatism as ideology are a different elite group from either of those. They are a specific occupational class, but likewise an urban one, and likewise mixed, though much more by self-conscious recruitment than the colourblindness of cash and personal merit. They are not quite rich enough to live apart, and they have in any case to be close to their client groups.
Apart from the anglosphere which does strive to be coloue blind, the rest of the world apart from Africa itself views black people as inferior.
If you look at the way thr Russian nomenklatura treated Obama you can see a perfect example – refusing eye contact was a dead giveaway.
High on the list of those nations which consider blacks inferior is China with Arabs running a close second.
It’s about time American blacks recognized the fact that they are more likely to be treated as equals in the US and UK than anywhere else on the globe and that includes many African states.
Guy, I don’t see how your comment is contrary to mine – one of us is missing something.
Millie, indeed re Arabs (I have no idea about the Chinese).
I am still puzzled why racism is the cardinal sin of contemporary society. It does appear to be an obssession of Britain & USA, in other countris I have worked Tme Middle Eas t & Africa the people there were ‘racist’ about their neighbours & other countries. in Can anyone enlighten me
There is no racism in avoiding invaders on one’s own land. There is self-defence. Self-defence is never illegitimate, be it at the group or individual level.
The racism that does exist in the West today find its expression in those degenerate people who deny to white people the otherwise universal right of group survival.
Lol. I especially like the use of the word ‘degenerate’, for that classic touch.
Back in the real world, I once again notice than in my interviews for a senior manager in my London based firm, most of the candidates are non-white, and all of the good ones are non-white. But then, I find myself having far more in common with a the middle classes of developing countries than of my own. They generally have had good, formal educations that teach odd things like English grammar and history. They generally are used to living in countries where the state is not big or rich enough to provide everything. And the fact that they’ve shown up at my office means they have enough gumption to get off their arses and do something with their lives instead of sitting at home complaining about all the pale skinned immigrants buying up hotels and beach properties.
Racism is vile and discrimination on the basis of it is both imoral and stupid (stupid because if you refuse to trade with people on the basis of their skin colour you cost yourself money, and if you refuse to employ people on the basis of their skin colour you cost yourself talent).
However, if one does not stand up for the right of people to hold opinions (no matter how vile they are) and does not defend the right of people to associate or not associate as they choose (to discriminate, to choose, even on a stupid basis) then one has no ground to stand on when the government comes along to ban one’s own opinions and to control every aspect of one’s own life.
It starts with a Holy War against the racists – but it never stops with them.
J,
I especially like the use of the word ‘degenerate’, for that classic touch
On what basis do you consider your not degenerate if you are content to see the English demographically away by the Third World? Can you tell me what is moral in such a position?
I find myself having far more in common with a the middle classes of developing countries than of my own
First, are you in Britain? If so, are you descended from unmixed native British.
Second, you are deceiving yourself. You have more in common genetically with those closest to you, and you WILL fight for them in a manner you will never do for non-whits in this country. It is called ethnic genetic interest, and the maths were done long ago on it. Kinship trumps culture.
And the fact that they’ve shown up at my office means they have enough gumption to get off their arses and do something with their lives instead of sitting at home complaining about …
You appear to be suffering from self-loathing. Self-loathers often seek to cure themselves by proecting, in a Freudian sense, their own perceived shortcoming onto others. It’s not very civilised behaviour … in fact, degenerate in a social sense.
Paul,
stupid because if you refuse to trade with people on the basis of their skin colour you cost yourself money, and if you refuse to employ people on the basis of their skin colour you cost yourself talent
Do you have any meaning to your life other than economism?
if one does not stand up for the right of people to hold opinions … discriminate, to choose, even on a stupid basis
So are Jews stupid for choosing not to grant Palestinians the right of return? Or is this stupidity just something you reserve for Europeans?
But it’s not fair to treat you too harshly, is it? You don’t understand how to debate anti-white racism. You don’t even understand that that is what you are debating!
Look, why don’t you forget those questions, which are too difficult for you to answer, and just let everyone know why Europeans seeking their own ethnic survival in an age of race-replacement immigration are “racist”.