Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
"The Death of the West"

By Baldrson in Op-Ed
Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:10:12 PM EST
Tags: You Know... (all tags)
You Know...

A colleague writing under the pseudonym of "Concerned Citizen" writes:

Once again, former Nixon speech writer, columnist and Reform Party Presidential Candidate, Patrick J. Buchanan has pushed the envelope with his new book "The Death of the West". His writing is excellent, and he's coming up with figures that his contemporaries are scared to touch (for example, his figures that men's real wages declined 30% from 1970 to 1996). Still, there are some fundamental limitations to Mr. Buchanan's analysis.


Pat Buchanan views the counter culture of the 60's/70's almost as a simple propaganda coup. He acts as though his constituents were simply being good people and their children got brainwashed by philosophers like Gramsci/Marcuse et al. Buchanan can't look at things like how the divorce rate started rising in the 30's/40's and how the economic policies of the 60's affected how many children women had, who sired those children and who ultimately raised them. Mr. Buchanan does begrudgingly admit "The four that made a Revolution" were not indispensable -- but he doesn't look at the real nature of the policies that gave these foreign ideologies fertile soil in which to take root (i.e. Tim Taylor at the University of Minnesota has analyzed that the GI generation were recipients of far more government benefits than they paid in taxes, while the Boomer Generation and Gen X were both subject to far more taxes than they received back in benefits).

Mr. Buchanan looks at how birth control and legalized abortion have played a role in reducing birth rates in the West and Japan. One thing that he fails to note is that the age at which women are having their first child in these countries has increased rather markedly. What this means, is that many older women need legal abortion to have children safely (because of the high risk of detectable birth defects for women having their first child late in life). Aside from the issue of whether abortion is a moral practice, choosing to ban abortion when there is a large population that is just now getting in an economic position to have children-may not necessarily be consistent with the other concerns Mr. Buchanan voices. Also important is that the phenomena of people working and scrimping for years to afford a family flies in the face of Buchanan's suggestions the Boomer generation had few children because they "didn't want children" -- and forces the question of what were the set of economic policies that kept the boomer generation from having more children.

Patrick Buchanan's prescriptions for solutions are just way too ineffectual. Even if Mr. Buchanan got everything he's asking for, these wouldn't solve the problems he's observing. He's not talking anything that could change differential fertility rates. Andrew Hacker, in "Two Nations : Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal" noted that the ratio of black women's fertility rate to white women's fertility rate has been close to constant at 1.3 /1 under conditions as varied as the civil rights era and slavery. Also, Mr. Buchanan views the problems people of European descent face in a vacuum -- failing to recognize that other peoples face virtually the same problems. He could have made a much better argument by looking at the same problems among Rainforest Indians, Tibetans, Kalahari Bushmen and some Native Americans. He also slavishly lumps US "whites" into one group and ignores the gradients in that population -- and thus underestimates, by far, how bad things are for the descendents of the American founding populations (those declaring themselves of specifically British Isles origin declined from around 60% of the US population in 1900 to less than 20% today).

Mr. Buchanan also fails to adequately analyze the structure of the reactions that are, in fact, already upon us: the white community in the US is becoming more fundamentalist, more Mormon, more neo-Nazi, more Amish, more Hutterite, more likely to have a Hell's Angel in the family. Citizen Buchanan seems a bit frantic because there is no mainstream religion that seems exempt from the problems he's seeing -- but fails to look closely at religious and cultural movements that are outside the mainstream for ideas. Likewise, Buchanan fails to look at the Western conversion to Islam. The differential fertility rates of religions outside the mainstream vary quite a bit-even though the general public is unaware of these differences. As the general public become aware of how much their prospects for having grandchildren are reduced when they set foot in a liberal Protestant Church -- or increased when they set foot in a Mosque, we may see religious changes even larger than we have seen with the growth of Evangelical Christianity.

Mr. Buchanan can imagine an invasion of the West by foreign countries -- what he fails to adequately address is how catastrophic demographic shifts may unleash chaotic attitudinal shifts within the populations of the West. The current Judeo-Christian regime is less than a thousand years old among the bulk of the White population in the United States. Europeans had a long history of building the Western tradition before their ancestors even heard of Christianity. It can be argued that Christianity was adopted so that European populations could adapt to exposure to the civilizations from the Levant, Egypt, Persia. Certainly, contact with other cultures was clearly traumatic for northern tribes such as the early Germans with some parallels to the experiences of Native Americans. If Christian morals are now too weak to facilitate Western fertility in light of modern conditions, Western populations may consider other options ranging from a Pagan revival (There exist Pagan sects that think of Pat Buchanan as far too liberal. He only seems to notice the more Liberal, "media acceptable" varieties of Paganism -- even though at least some prominent Reform Party Buchanan For President campaign workers were conservative Pagans that supported many of his policies and spoke little of their religious inclinations so they could work effectively in the the Buchanan For President campaign organization.) to mass conversion of Islam (the only mass religion at this point that has made no real accommodations to feminism) to amplification of the frontiersmen culture of Alaska within which the nations highest European fertility rates have been maintained perhaps because of the relatively harsh conditions in the north. Buchanan simply doesn't consider the range of options and the dangers these options have.

Buchanan has shown a degree of courage in denouncing what corporate elites are doing via mass immigration. Before joining The Reform Party he was a rare Republican in denouncing how GOP leaders have been ignoring the voice and interests of their constituents. In light of the recent Enron scandals and the continued expansion of the H1-B program despite it's overwhelming unpopularity, it is likely that Mr. Buchanan's voice will ring true with more Americans over time. Most glaring is his failure to even mention the dominant role of Jewish involvement in immigration reform during the 20th century, despite the prior visibility given the subject in that controversial paper by Prof. Kevin MacDonald. In short, with "The Death of the West" Patrick J. Buchanan is not right in all respects, but he may be more right than any other major figure in the public eye and he is improving.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
When will the population of European descent grow again?
o 10-15 years from now 1%
o 16-30 years from now 11%
o 31-50 years from nows 9%
o 50-100 years from now 7%
o More than 100 years from now 3%
o Never, European populations are doomed to extinction 64%

Votes: 54
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o former Nixon speech writer, columnist and Reform Party Presidential Candidate, Patrick J. Buchanan
o The Death of the West
o Tim Taylor at the University of Minnesota has analyzed that the GI generation were recipients of far more government benefits than they paid in taxes, while the Boomer Generation and Gen X were both subject to far more taxes than they received back in benefits
o Andrew Hacker, in "Two Nations : Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal"
o The Reform Party
o continued expansion of the H1-B program
o it's overwhelming unpopularity
o Jewish involvement in immigration reform
o Also by Baldrson


Display: Sort:
"The Death of the West" | 330 comments (292 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden)
This is creepy (4.63 / 22) (#9)
by rusty on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 11:30:32 PM EST

It seems so thoughtful, until you realize the creepy white-power undercurrent here.

The basic read I get on this article is that it is bemoaning the fact that white anglo-saxons are no longer fully in control of the US, and that whites are a declining percentage of the US population. And it seems we're supposed to think this is bad, too. Maybe feel threatened by it, or something. Like...

and thus underestimates, by far, how bad things are for the descendents of the American founding populations (those declaring themselves of specifically British Isles origin declined from around 60% of the US population in 1900 to less than 20% today).

"How bad things are?" My poeple came over here on the Mayflower, and things are great for me. Oh, you mean the fact that when I travel around the country everyone doesn't look like me anymore? I hadn't noticed that that was a bad thing.

I guess it would seem bad if you are assuming a white superiority to other races. But Pat wouldn't do that, would he? Well, not overtly. He's shrewd, at least. He's lived this long.

And then there's this:

Most glaring is his failure to even mention the dominant role of Jewish involvement in immigration reform during the 20th century...

Are we supposed to feel like the evil Jews are trying to overturn our glorious White hegemony, or what's the deal here? Maybe I'm misreading it. If they are, I have a few ideas about why they might want to, based on historical Jewish experiences living in ethnically homogenous societies. Perhaps more of us could learn from their history, too.

So. Please explain to me why I shouldn't be completely nauseated by an article criticising Pat Buchanan for being too liberal. Anyone?

____
Not the real rusty

Holy Cow... (2.50 / 6) (#10)
by yicky yacky on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 11:33:55 PM EST

...Pat Buchanan???

We know who he is - thank you...


Yicky Yacky
***********
"You f*cking newbie. Shut up and sit in the corner!" - JCB
[ Parent ]
Persuming Too Much? (2.55 / 9) (#26)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:05:54 AM EST

and thus underestimates, by far, how bad things are for the descendents of the American founding populations (those declaring themselves of specifically British Isles origin declined from around 60% of the US population in 1900 to less than 20% today).

"How bad things are?" My poeple came over here on the Mayflower, and things are great for me.

I think he's referring to the breeders, Rusty, and that is normally the majority of any population. It may not matter to most guys like yourself, nor even most readers of K5, but it does matter to most people no matter of what their identity other than gays or celibates -- and even gays and celibates can be compassionate toward those unlike themselves.

I guess it would seem bad if you are assuming a white superiority to other races.

What passage provides presumes superiority of "whites" or "WASPs"? A reduction in population from 60% to 20% is a big deal -- it doesn't mean you have to believe in the "superiority" of the population in question to be concerned about it. These are big numbers we're talking about here and the very real human consequences in day to day lives are not necessarily going to be blared by the mass media -- particularly if there is a conflict of interest at work. Nor are those consequences going to be felt by all parties -- particularly not those in techno-elites.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Presuming, rather. [nt] (none / 0) (#29)
by jch on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:19:49 AM EST



[ Parent ]
The Breeders, with Kim Deal (4.75 / 4) (#38)
by rusty on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:04:45 AM EST

I think he's referring to the breeders, Rusty, and that is normally the majority of any population.

What do you mean by "breeders"? I'm planning to have kids. Does that make me a breeder? Or is that a different cultural strata? Dare I say "class"?

A reduction in population from 60% to 20% is a big deal -- it doesn't mean you have to believe in the "superiority" of the population in question to be concerned about it.

Is the reduction in population due to declining birth rates? Increasing population with static white birth rates? Genocide against white people by another race? Increasing immigration by non-British people? It could be that people don't identify themselves as "of British origin" anymore. What does that even mean? I have British ancestors, but I wouldn't consider myself "of British Isles origin."

Without more information, we can't possibly judge whether it's sugnificant. But the claim being made is that a 66% decline in people thinking of themselves as being from a particular small group of islands, over the course of 100 years of immigration and intermarriage, is significant, even "bad". I don't see how it could be.

Well, that's not entirely true. The only way I can see that it could be inherently "bad" is if you believe that having a large British-white population is inherently "good". Hence my read on it.

...the very real human consequences in day to day lives are not necessarily going to be blared by the mass media -- particularly if there is a conflict of interest at work. Nor are those consequences going to be felt by all parties -- particularly not those in techno-elites.

What are the real human consequences?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Why Not Start Now? (4.00 / 8) (#56)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:51:42 AM EST

What do you mean by "breeders"? I'm planning to have kids.

Why don't you start now? According to linca fertility rate has always been a feature of poor, unstable classes.

...thus according to this view you don't need to wait until you have money or stability. If you are delaying until you aren't as poor and are more stable so you can be a good parent then the question becomes how are you going to do so in a world where an increasing percentage of the population is being raised by bad parents?

the claim being made is that a 66% decline in people thinking of themselves as being from a particular small group of islands, over the course of 100 years of immigration and intermarriage, is significant, even "bad". I don't see how it could be.

Since we don't know what happened except the observation, the question is, "Is this any grounds for concern?" You claim that if the descendants are from a particular small group of islands, and the reduction of that reported identity occured without any obvious cass of mass genocide or forced sterilization, then you don't see how it could be "bad".

Do you really think that way?

In the case of the clearances of the lowland Scots starting around the time of King James, a slow process of disposessing of their lands families that had been farming for millenia began taking place and was slow enough that each family thought it their own private failure. In fact, it was a new taxation policy that valued sheep over people. Entire clans were shoved into Glasgow to die early deaths, being sent to war in Northern Ireland as Crown Cops and being sent to the New World to clear Native Americans off the lands as a consequence. No one thought to value people over sheep because it was just a bunch of loser farmers with bitterness in their souls and a failure to have faith in progress. I grew up in Iowa -- 10% of my high school class was dead by the age of 35 during one of the most rapid urbanizations of rural population in history. A doctor who helped bring many of those people into the world was keeping track of these deaths and was at a loss for the cause -- it seemed to be everything and nothing. But like prisoner suicides, you can be sure that when it is death you are talking about, there is a lot more beneath the surface people aren't seeing.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Be careful what you say. (none / 0) (#86)
by fn0rd on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 08:49:53 AM EST

You never know who's listening.

--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]
Presumption (4.50 / 2) (#156)
by virg on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:49:26 PM EST

> > What do you mean by "breeders"? I'm planning to have kids.

> Why don't you start now? According to linca fertility rate has always been a feature of poor, unstable classes.

...thus according to this view you don't need to wait until you have money or stability. If you are delaying until you aren't as poor and are more stable so you can be a good parent then the question becomes how are you going to do so in a world where an increasing percentage of the population is being raised by bad parents?


Here's where the presumption falls in. First, I waited to have children until I found someone I wanted to marry. My reasoning was not economic, it was entirely convenience-based, and entirely personal. Second, I have children, thus making me a "breeder" by your definition, and still I disagree with your analyses of the "badness" of the decline in "the descendants of the American founding populations" mentioned in the article. To quote you:
A reduction in population from 60% to 20% is a big deal -- it doesn't mean you have to believe in the "superiority" of the population in question to be concerned about it. These are big numbers we're talking about here and the very real human consequences in day to day lives are not necessarily going to be blared by the mass media -- particularly if there is a conflict of interest at work. Nor are those consequences going to be felt by all parties -- particularly not those in techno-elites.
I believe he offered a credible explanation for this that you thoroughly discounted, for no more obvious reason than that you don't have a good counter for it. I have about 20 percent British ancestry, and most of the rest is German. When someone asks, I say I'm German. However, my grandfather (who has more German and less British) used to say he "had British ancestors" when asked. When I asked him why, he said to me, "nobody ever stopped eating lunch with me for being English." My wife is a small part British, and much more Irish. In 1900, when Irish folk were often ignored in job searches and such, how do you think she'd have answered the question, "where are your ancestors from?" I see nothing that disproves that the decline in people saying they're of British descent is anything more than a softening of social stigmas attached to being of non-British descent. That is, there's a real possibility that there isn't as much a decline in people of British ancestry as a decline in claims of British ancestry.

So, in short, I don't see anything particularly bad about this decrease, because nobody (including you) has presented a compelling argument that the decrease represents anything in particular.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Thanks (4.53 / 13) (#33)
by tjb on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:43:30 AM EST

Rusty:

Thanks for saying what would've taken me a while to type out.

Now, you and I may not agree on much: I consider myself a neoconservative with a libertarian bent, and, from reading your posts on topics such as these, I imagine you are not. You seem more of a center-left type (excuse me if I'm assuming wrongly here, we all know what happens when we assume).

However, I think we can agree that Pat Buchanan is racist-fascist scum. I identify closely with most moderate republicans (most closely with John McCain of all politicians I've seen much of), and think that political discourse, in general, is good. And, In fact, Pat Buchanan's book is a shining example of why: Rather than running away from what would otherwise be censored as absolutley repulsive, Buchanan got his chance to expose himself (multiple times) as the bastard he is.

Immigration is the lifeblood of the US, We have not become the superpower of the world in spite of imigration, we have become the superpower because of it. I live in Northern NJ and work for an engineering firm; I work with maybe 7 people who were born in the US, as for the 100 or so others: lots from china, several from Europe, many from various SE Asia countries, a few from Pakistan, one from Bangaladesh. and a bunch from random other countries. This is what the US is.

There is a reason the Soviets built the Berlin wall: to keep their people in. It was despicable. IMHO, the best speech by an American president, ever, was Reagan's call to Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". It was the true spirit of the West, the openess to the rest of the world.

What Buchanan wants is nearly as despicable as the Berlin Wall: He wants to build walls to keep the rest of the world out (metaphoricly and literally) He wishes to deny the benefits of the West to the rest of the world. That shouldn't be our goal, that's just sick.

To be the shining city on the hill, the West should welcome all imigrants with open arms to the best of their ability. Of course, unrestricted immigration can become overwhelming, but we must try to spread Western enlghtenment values across the world in the least imposing nature possible. It is no accident that the West is dominant and prosperous, but that is no reason to deny it to others - all people can become as prosperous as the west and liberal immigration is a good first step towards that endl immigration works both ways: the people immigrate here and the best of our ideas immigrate back through their families and friends, benefitting both sides.

Mobility of population is possibly the most stabilizing and enlightening force on the planet and any attempts to stop it are both racist and ignorant.

Tim

[ Parent ]
Centrist lefty (4.42 / 7) (#36)
by rusty on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:55:14 AM EST

You seem more of a center-left type (excuse me if I'm assuming wrongly here, we all know what happens when we assume).

No, these days that's pretty accurate. It's funny, I used to be very hard-core anarcho-libertarian, but I guess I grew up.

Nevertheless, the political differences you and I have are probably mostly about the best ways to achieve what are ultimately similar goals. I can live with that.

It's the goals of Buchananites that I find repugnant. And for the same reasons you do, though I'm not as keen on the "exporting enlightenment western ideals" as you are. I think the benefit of immigration is not only that the things "we Americans" believe are exported, but that other cultures are imported. I think the US is much more about recycling than just exporting ideals -- we take stuff in, blend it, and ship it back out again. We're the world's cultural compost heap at the moment.

And good compost makes healthy gardens.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

The West (3.66 / 3) (#46)
by tjb on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:32:14 AM EST

Don't get me wrong here rusty, I definitely think that we have the same end-game in mind.

And also I think that the West does learn quite a bit from other cultures, and that is part of what makes the West economically and militarily dominant over the rest of the world.

But, as I said, it is no accident. I don't think at this point that there is any point in denying that the political ideas that came from the west are miles ahead of those that came from or are practiced anywhere else. Even Soviet-style Communism, depsite its shortcomings and gross, despicable. inhmumanity, is probably the second best ideological system to ever come about, and it too was a product of the west (Marx was German after all). Thankfully, we've seen the end of totalitarian communism and now the West seems more united than ever, despite niggling issues that make talking points (like Israel) rather than major policy.

The more we can do to export those values that, after all, all the dominant countries hold, the more we can help the rest of the world. Like I mentioned before, it is not an accident that essentially the same system of laws exists and is enforced in the 7 richest countries in the world. We must be doing something right.

On the other hand, I do agree that we (as in the West, collectively), can't be pushy about it. We should, however, point out that those western values that made us rich, well, made us rich. Be completely honets about the matter and help other countries achieve those goals if they choose to. If a country wishes to seriously enforce property rights, the US should offer financial aid and FBI agents and federal loan security. If they want to impose progressive taxes, the US should offer up the help of the IRS.

But, I don't know that these ideas can be passed from government to government. To me, the best way to do it is through the people - that is where the action is. Governments, especially govs that have little interest in war can't impose anything on each other. But, exposing their people to a liberal democracy can only bring good to the world.

Tim

[ Parent ]
Only looking at part of the picture (5.00 / 10) (#59)
by rusty on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:02:51 AM EST

We should, however, point out that those western values that made us rich, well, made us rich. Be completely honets about the matter and help other countries achieve those goals if they choose to.

You're only looking at half of the picture. Western countries have political/economic systems that are relatively efficient. Even the worst excesses of western monarchies weren't at the levels you see in many tin-pot dictatorships today, which basically funnel off wealth as fast as their country can produce it.

But political and economic systems do not create wealth. They just shuffle it around. We got our wealth by systematically and energetically raping the planet. We cut down the forests, strip-mined the coal and spewed it back out into the air, factory-fished the seas, overgrazed grasslands, killed off numerous entire species of animals, overbred other species well beyond any kind of sensible natural limit, exhausted our farmland. And we didn't even just do it to our own countries. No, we went all around the world and raped everyone's country, bringing all that wealth back home for our own enjoyment.

And we're still doing it. That's where the wealth that our efficient political systems move around actually comes from.

But now that we're plenty rich, we feel really bad about it, and make sure that we don't let anyone else do it. We may have blown out all of our own resources, but now we really need all that oxygen from the rainforest (to counteract our centuries of greenhouse-gas spewing), so we make sure that all the military and economic might we can now leverage comes down fully on the very same countries we screwed out of all their resources in the first place.

So, ideals about human rights are nice, and representative government is peachy, but ultimately, there are a lot of western values I'd really rather see dumped in the vaults at Yucca Mountain. Maybe if we stop lying to ourselves about how we got so rich, we could learn something from some of the cultures that have existed all this time in spite of us.

That sounds harsh, and I don't mean it to be an attack on you or anything. Just perhaps a fully picture of what our values really are, as opposed to what we say they are.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Well said (none / 0) (#65)
by kjb on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:27:41 AM EST

Well said, rusty, you expressed my thoughts better than I would have.

--
Now watch this drive.
[ Parent ]

Western Values? (4.75 / 4) (#82)
by onyxruby on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:47:41 AM EST

Western Values have had numerous consequences that have shaped the world. Manifest Destiny displaced Native Americans en masse and was even the excuse used to seperate Panama from Columbia by Teddy Roosevelt so that he could build the Panama Canal. I don't think anyone disputes that there have been many bad things that have happened as a result of "Western Values". I would however like to point out that many of the negative values, colonialism, manifest destiny, slavery and the like have now long been buried in a cultural Yucca Mountain.

Many positive things have followed Western values throughout the world. As Western society has grown and matured it has become an ideal for other governments and people to look up to. In Tianamen Square, it was a statue of liberty that was the centerpiece of the student-led Democracy demonstrations. Western values as they now exist are fairly healthy and enlightened, even compared to what they were 50 years ago. Western society has long ago gotten over most of it's bad influences and actions.

Nowhere more than politics is more influenced by Western Values. For example, the first shot of the US revolution was called the "shot heard around the world" because of the impact of the very idea of a government for the people, and by the people. At the time of the US revolution, almost every government in the world was a monarchy or empire. In the 200 some years since the "shot heard around the world" the monarchy has been widely replaced by people oriented governments. Of all of the "Western Values", none has been more important or had a bigger impact on the shaping of world than this one.

Democracy, or to be more accurate, the Republic (representative democracy) is now a fairly widespread governing ideal. The UN espouses Democracy and self determination as the ideal for all peoples. One by one Communist governments have fallen, not by force, but by the influence of "Western Ideals" (Poland is a wonderful example). It was quite by design that censorship was extremely strong in the former Communist countries, as it is still strong in today's dictatorships and other repressive governments.

The ideals of modern Western values are more feared by governments of those nations than any military force. This is why many of the Muslim governments spew anti-American rhetoric and propaganda and have strong censorship (Saudi Arabia is firewalled from more of the Internet than China). The leaders know that "Western Ideals" will mean the end of their way of life and path of power (especially poignant detail insofar as Women are concerned). Oppresive governments can only keep Western Ideals out for so long, for inevitably they will get through to the masses and reach critical mass. In 20 years I imagine that most of the oppresive governments out there shall collapse and be replaced by some form of Democracy.

The US alone has millions of applicants for immigration every year, without question the population could double within a single year if the US removed it's immigration restrictions (this would probably be good). These people would not all want to come to the United States if they did not truly feel that "Western Values" were oppresive. This also holds true in Europe where they have faced massive immigration influxes (Le Pen got on the ballot over this issue). Even where European governments have withdrawn from their former colonies, a good many of the peoples of those formerly oppressed colonies will still leap at the chance to immigrate to their former oppressors countries, and millions have. Millions have voted with their hearts and feet, choosing to live in Western Society over any other choice.

Are modern Western values really so bad when they give peoples across the world something to look at and aspire to? Please note I am not at all agreeing with Pat Buchanans stance, I am just talking about "Western Values".

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.
[ Parent ]

well said (none / 0) (#322)
by mycal on Sun Apr 28, 2002 at 01:52:24 PM EST

Very nicely done. mycal

[ Parent ]
"the West" vs the Rural Pagan West (none / 0) (#323)
by Baldrson on Sun Apr 28, 2002 at 09:53:30 PM EST

Nowhere more than politics is more influenced by Western Values. For example, the first shot of the US revolution was called the "shot heard around the world" because of the impact of the very idea of a government for the people, and by the people. At the time of the US revolution, almost every government in the world was a monarchy or empire. In the 200 some years since the "shot heard around the world" the monarchy has been widely replaced by people oriented governments. Of all of the "Western Values", none has been more important or had a bigger impact on the shaping of world than this one.

Be very careful here:

The kind of governance of which you speak is less "Western" in the sense of which most people speak than it is rural Western -- precisely the culture that Buchanan inadvertently attacks by misuse of the name "pagan" most often. There are periodic wars against older empires closer to human origins but the fronts of those wars moves steadily to less populated, less "civilized" portions of "the West". This has been going on out of North Africa via the Levant and then steadily westward probably since the climactic warming at end of the last iceage and the start of the neolithic. The wars of independence are only a temporary measure because the very success of the independent "republics" leads to their downfall as empires which are defeated by another cycle of "pagan" revolution.

This failure to recognize the rural values of paganism and its importance to the positive values people have, during the last century, come to associate with "the West" is the downfall not only of Buchanan, but of neopaganism and of "the West" itself.

The reason it will be the downfall of "the West" itself is because now that the frontier of cosmopolitan empire has pushed back pagan culture to the Pacific ocean -- we have come full circle and face two very real challenges:

  1. Transitioning to oceanic culture for rural populations (bringing the ocean deserts to life)
  2. Relating to east Asian cultures so as to allow both the continuity of "western" pagan/rural culture and the application of human potential to bring life to lifeless frontiers.
Timothy Leary hoped this would lead to a kind of "take off" into the new frontier of space as an outlet for the vital pagan culture -- but that we during the late 1970s. The behavior of "the West" during the subsequent years has demonstrated a very sad lack of respect for the rural heritage continually infusing its aging empires with outlets for the masculine spirit of freedom and independence and is now bringing to the potential for war to the pacific rim rather than the sort of positive-sum culture that does not tolerate trading security for independence.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

A view of the world through rose coloured glasses (none / 0) (#324)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Apr 28, 2002 at 11:07:04 PM EST

Nowhere more than politics is more influenced by Western Values. For example, the first shot of the US revolution was called the "shot heard around the world" because of the impact of the very idea of a government for the people, and by the people. At the time of the US revolution, almost every government in the world was a monarchy or empire. In the 200 some years since the "shot heard around the world" the monarchy has been widely replaced by people oriented governments. Of all of the "Western Values", none has been more important or had a bigger impact on the shaping of world than this one.

Do you really think that western forms of government have been more influential than western forms of technology? My read of history is that changes of governments followed the technology-and the change of governments in many cases have been rather superficial.

The ideals of modern Western values are more feared by governments of those nations than any military force. This is why many of the Muslim governments spew anti-American rhetoric and propaganda and have strong censorship (Saudi Arabia is firewalled from more of the Internet than China).

IMHO there is much more to the Islamic suspicion of the West than fear of "ideals of modern Western Values". Look at how many assassinations have been conducted by the CIA. Look at the range of military toys from nukes to smartbombs. The US military is capable of actions of which no other country is capable.

The leaders know that "Western Ideals" will mean the end of their way of life and path of power (especially poignant detail insofar as Women are concerned).

One basic fear here: will these leaders have grandchildren that look like them if mass-media influence gets promoted in those countries? That is a real bottom line in those countries weather you like it or not.

Oppresive governments can only keep Western Ideals out for so long, for inevitably they will get through to the masses and reach critical mass. In 20 years I imagine that most of the oppresive governments out there shall collapse and be replaced by some form of Democracy.

Now, the Islamic answer here:
They are winning the war of the babies. Mass media culture is essentially a sterilizing influence that decimates those cultures in which it comes into contact.

The US alone has millions of applicants for immigration every year,

Each year Islam gets millions of converts in Africa and South Asia--and now Latin America. I dare say conversions to Islam outnumber immigration to all western countries rather substantially.

without question the population could double within a single year if the US removed it's immigration restrictions (this would probably be good). What portion of the US public do you think favors such a policy? I personally don't think more than 10% of the US public would support such a policy-and your statement shows you are really out of touch here.

These people would not all want to come to the United States if they did not truly feel that "Western Values" were oppresive.

The WTC terrorists lived in the west for years and still felt they should conduct their attacks. I know I personally find American urban areas to be an oppressive culture-I go there only for the money when I go there.

Millions have voted with their hearts and feet, choosing to live in Western Society over any other choice.

Choosing to work in the Emperor's palace does not necessarily indicate love of the Emperor-possibly just an acknowledgement that being in the Emperor's palace gives more access to resources than elsewhere. Yes, you will find true believers in the Emperor's palace-but you will also find there those that most truly hate him because they know him and seek his downfall.

[ Parent ]

Culture and Economy (5.00 / 2) (#142)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:04:45 PM EST

The relationship of culture and economy is an interesting subject, but I think it is too often subject to an overly simplistic and overtly ideological analysis. The role that culture played in the economic ascendence of the West is up for debate, but to dismiss it as a factor is overly reductionist and demonstrably incorrect. I think I should say that I am also highly suspicious of those who would present the economic power of the West as direct evidence of the moral superiority of Enlightenment ideals. Both approaches are wrongheaded.

For an example of a rigorous and compelling analysis of the interdependence of culture and economy see this paper by Timur Kuran. Below is the abstract for his paper:

A striking aspect of the Middle East's commercial relations with Western Europe is that in the Middle Ages these came to be dominated by Europeans. Seeking to identify the underlying institutional causes, this paper offers two key observations. First, the Islamic succession system, by raising the costs of dissolution in the event of a partner's death, kept contractual partnerships formed under Islamic law both small and ephemeral. Second, some of the numerous succession systems in Europe facilitated the growth of partnerships by reducing the likelihood of premature dissolution. Through the joint effect of these processes, European enterprises grew larger than those of the Islamic world, allowing them to accumulate more capital and achieve economies of scale. Moreover, while persistently small enterprises inhibited economic modernization in the Middle East, the growth of European enterprises propelled further organizational and institutional transformations. The Middle East's adoption of Western commercial forms in the nineteenth century reflected a recognition that Western commercial institutions offered capabilities that Islam's traditional institutions did not.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
I very much disagree (4.00 / 1) (#199)
by SIGFPE on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:31:57 PM EST

We cut down the forests, strip-mined the coal...
Western countries did all these things, that's true, but that's only a tiny part of the ascendancy of the West. Many cultures could extract oil, say, from the earth and burn it. Inventors in the West figured out how to make one of the most versatile construction materials ever made from it - plastic. Many cultures know how to over farm - but few cultures have managed to extract the kJ/m^2 that we have out of our land. Hell, we take one of the most abundant minerals on the surface of the earth, Si, and make machines that almost think for themselves out of it.

How can you say we don't create wealth? We may have raped and pillaged the world over (not me personally I might add) but we also know how to create stuff out of what other cultures toss aside. We haven't simply amassed wealth by taking it from other people.
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]

No... (4.50 / 2) (#246)
by rusty on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:12:34 AM EST

Obviously, my description is still a massive oversimplification. I was just trying to point out a rather large hole in the "let's export Western ideals" theory.

I would argue that a lot of our scientific and technical cleverness went into, essentially, raping the earth more thoroughly and in less time...

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Anarcho-libertarian (4.00 / 3) (#47)
by medham on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:33:03 AM EST

Does that mean you used to wear dollar signs on your tees and worship George Gilder? Because George Gervin was much better at the finger-roll.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

Nah (4.83 / 6) (#53)
by rusty on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:43:35 AM EST

I was just of the "everyone should look out for number one!" stripe typical of overprivileged suburban white boys who've had everything handed to them on a silver platter. In our teens, we all like to feel as if we've gotten our nice life all on our own.

It took me a while to realize how deeply bullshit that attitude was.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

so.. (4.00 / 1) (#60)
by infinitera on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:04:41 AM EST

Purely out of personal curiosity, why aren't you an anarchist (libertarian socialist, if you prefer)? ;) It's very much concerned about other people..

[ Parent ]
sorry,... (none / 0) (#188)
by mami on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:45:01 PM EST

I can't resist, but I have to commend your wife, I think she might have played a role in that ? :-)

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0) (#244)
by rusty on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:09:03 AM EST

Actually, you're very right. She used to be pretty much socialist. I argued my side, she argued hers, and I think it helped both of us see where we were making unreasonable assumptions and blue-sky generalizations.

You are wiser than your short comment let on as usual, mami. ;-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Huh. (5.00 / 1) (#224)
by Robert Hutchinson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:09:07 PM EST

I was just of the "everyone should look out for number one!" stripe typical of overprivileged suburban white boys who've had everything handed to them on a silver platter. In our teens, we all like to feel as if we've gotten our nice life all on our own.

It took me a while to realize how deeply bullshit that attitude was.

Yeah, and I was a Christian until I realized that communion is silly. Sheesh. Tell me if you stumble across a principle.

(I like to get my wealth by trading for mutual gain with others. Wacky, I know.)

Robert Hutchinson
No bomb-throwing required.

[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0) (#245)
by rusty on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:09:46 AM EST

Yeah, and I was a Christian until I realized that communion is silly. Sheesh. Tell me if you stumble across a principle.

Come again?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Hn. (none / 0) (#297)
by Robert Hutchinson on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 12:34:54 AM EST

I was trying to figure out what those details of your life had to do with the merits of various ethical systems. Being an anarcho-libertarian because you're a spoiled teenager is like being a Christian because you like snacking on crackers and grape juice.

Robert Hutchinson
No bomb-throwing required.

[ Parent ]

hee! (none / 0) (#111)
by Stickerboy on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:41:44 PM EST

"It's funny, I used to be very hard-core anarcho-libertarian, but I guess I grew up."

.sigalicious!

[ Parent ]
Funny. (none / 0) (#124)
by Count Zero on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:09:18 PM EST

No, these days that's pretty accurate. It's funny, I used to be very hard-core anarcho-libertarian, but I guess I grew up.

That's the exact same political transition I underwent. (Anarcho-libertarian to center-left) I always thought I was unusual in that respect.



[ Parent ]
Common (none / 0) (#172)
by rusty on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:16:32 PM EST

I suspect it's a pretty common path, as privileged geeks grow up and meet people who are not like them, and haven't had the same cushy life. Well, some of us probably go further right, unwilling to accept that a larger society is mainly responsible for our Divinely Ordained personal success...

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
*grin* (4.50 / 2) (#174)
by aphrael on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:22:29 PM EST

I also went through a similar path; green->anarcho-socialist->libertarian->center-left. The big thing for me was the realization that much of where I am today is a result of luck.

[ Parent ]
i'm getting confused.. (4.50 / 2) (#196)
by infinitera on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:17:04 PM EST

Are you all telling me you just grew out of not trusting government? .. I can't ever see myself trying to convince people to vote for a democrat/green. What I do see is intentional communities, community-supported agriculture, credit-unions etc.. on a local level, and the fight to dismantle unjust orgs/practices on a global level. Yay anarchism. Yay anarcho-syndicalist communes. :P

[ Parent ]
I concur. (5.00 / 1) (#203)
by Count Zero on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:53:23 PM EST

The big thing for me was the realization that much of where I am today is a result of luck.

Couldn't agree more. Right now, I've got the high-paying tech job, and all the good materalist trappings of "the good life" but just 3 years ago I was making $6.50/hr and working 50-60 hours/wk to afford to pay rent and food.

Certainly hard work helped me get out of that, but a great deal of luck as well. Luck in finding better jobs at the right time, luck in being able to move to a better job market because I had a friend there I could share costs with, and hell, luck at being born into a family where my parents encouraged education in the first place.



[ Parent ]
Or... (5.00 / 2) (#214)
by John Milton on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 08:06:46 PM EST

They meet people so like their current beliefs that they want to retch at the mirror being held up to them.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
Ha! (none / 0) (#243)
by rusty on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:06:02 AM EST

That too. :-)

Perhaps we should form a club or something.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#295)
by John Milton on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 08:49:05 PM EST

Our motto could be "Never get comfortable with feeling right."


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
It's creepy, but it's also the right course. (3.66 / 3) (#264)
by duffbeer703 on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 11:54:20 AM EST

Mixing of dissimilar cultures is not always a good thing.

Consider the barriers between 'whites', South Asians, Blacks and East Asians. Are these cultures mixing in the US? Not for the most part.

Any policies that bring Islam or other aggressive non-western influences into the US or Europe are bad things that will eventual lead to domestic strife.

[ Parent ]
What is this "right course", exactly? (5.00 / 1) (#271)
by MrMikey on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 12:57:47 PM EST

What policy is it that you are advocating? You said that
Consider the barriers between 'whites', South Asians, Blacks and East Asians. Are these cultures mixing in the US? Not for the most part.
How does the "right course" apply to this situation?

As for "Islam or other aggressive non-western influences",

  1. What makes you think that Islam is any more aggressive than, say, Christianity? Think about world history before you answer.
  2. Would aggressive western influences be OK?
  3. How do you go about not bringing an 'influence' into a culture?


[ Parent ]
Who cares? (4.65 / 23) (#14)
by ucblockhead on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 11:43:49 PM EST

Why care? I see absolutely no reason to care what the numbers of "people of European descent" are in fifty, a hundred, a thousand years are. There's no rational reason to care.

And frankly, to think that the "race" will (or even can) remain "pure" is to remain ignorant of history. When populations are close together, genes mix. It always has been that way, and it always will be. And the modern world is a small world. All populations are now close. The world of the future is going to be a world of mutts. Get used to it now, because short of global catastrophe, that's the way it is going to be.

Because that is the way it has always gone. There are few pureblood Germans, pureblood Italians, pureblood English in the US. And all of those "races" are the mutts of yesterday.

You know what, Balderson? You are going to have black descendents. You will have asian descendents. You will have hispanic descendents. And short of not having children yourself, there's not a damn thing about it, because all it takes is one of your descendents getting horny, and bing-bang-boom, you're the patriarch of a "mixed" race.

Take that to sleep tonight.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup

Race vs. Culture (5.00 / 11) (#17)
by rusty on Tue Apr 23, 2002 at 11:53:31 PM EST

Buchanan and his ilk see culture as a zero-sum game. It's not so much race that Buchanan is concerned with -- he wouldn't still be able to take in as many people as he does if he was just openly talking about racial superiority. But he sees culture as a zero-sum game. Some cultures win, some lose. He's concerned with his culture "winning" because he believes it is the best culture, and the strongest.

Of course, this zero-sum worldview is what gives us situations like the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When a culture "wins", that means people in the other culture die, and historically, they die brutal deaths in great numbers. I can't help but see this kind of thinking as destructive, and unworthy of us as human beings.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Some Cultures Dominate (2.33 / 6) (#40)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:11:00 AM EST

The belief that mixing things together will evolve to something superior is a very shallow view of evolution and is causing untold hardship to species worldwide.

Likewise in memetic evolution there are some cultures that have aspects to them that allow them to dominate others. If you don't pay attention you will quickly find yourself not only extinct, but replaced by something you would really regret having allowed to come to dominate the society of which you thought yourself a part.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

"Memetic evolution" = "bullshit&quo (4.00 / 4) (#43)
by medham on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:29:40 AM EST

I probably don't need to say more, but here goes: the surest way to detect a crank on the internet is through indiscriminate use of adjectivial forms of "meme." Let's take "memetic evolution": does this mean anything? Is it some kind of silly synonym for "Baldwinian evolution?" What could "evolution" possibly mean in a "memetic" context?

Dawkins or even, God provide, Blackmore, wouldn't engage in this sort of loose talk about "evolution." I myself look forward to the "light brown" future where our Jewish overlords at the "UN" will rule us benevolently. Want to know why? Because I'm smart enough (and hence my progeny will be smart enough--check out Rushton's statistical proofs if you don't believe) that I'll have a high-ranking administrative job in the NWO--what about you? How will you fare after the Red Dawn?

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

how does (none / 0) (#114)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:51:59 PM EST

the OWO differ from the NWO?

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
Meet the new boss (none / 0) (#138)
by ethereal on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:50:44 PM EST

...same as the old boss.

--

Every time you read this, God wishes k5 had a "hide sigs" option. Please, think of the
[
Parent ]

What's the problem with 'memetic'? (none / 0) (#190)
by SIGFPE on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:00:48 PM EST

What possible purpose does it serve you to pretend that you can't figure out what "memetic evolution" means? It's trivially easy to interpret and a nice use of biological metaphor though admittedly it's become a little trite through overuse.
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]
Whereof one cannot speak, (3.00 / 2) (#206)
by medham on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 06:28:04 PM EST

One must pass over in silence.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

And there it is... (5.00 / 4) (#50)
by rusty on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:39:01 AM EST

...the Social Darwinism argument.

Now that you've finally come out with it, I think this argument is pretty much finished.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

"Social Darwinism" (3.50 / 6) (#64)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:21:42 AM EST

I don't believe you actually read what I wrote.

"Social Darwinism" usually posits that the winner in a contest of cultures is good and I posited that not only is this not always the case, it is no more likely than it is in the biological case when ecosystems are mixed -- and I gave an academic reference for the results of that sort of eco-mixing.

These sorts of experiments in mixing aren't necessarily bad as long as there are preserves in places both as backup and as controls for the experimental groups. But when you start going globalist with your experiments, you had best have a lot more to offer than reasonable sounding arguments and invectives hurled at your opponents.

You can adopt the view that the world is a positive sum game, and it may in fact have positive sum regimes within it -- but an unfortunate reality is that people do take advantage of other people and prosper at their expense. They will of course want you to continue to see the world as positive sum even when interacting with them -- but you make yourself their fool to do so. Why prosper such?

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Awww. Man (4.66 / 3) (#89)
by bob6 on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 09:18:53 AM EST

You're taking Dawkin's speculations for hypothesis which he urges his readers not to do. Furthermore you use them to justify an ideological opinion, and you already got feedback for this... What has culture to do with evolution ?

Now, two cultures in contact mix, wether it's good or not is a matter of opinion. Cultures mix, that's a fact.
By looking backwards we interpret which culture was most influenced by the other, then the word "dominated" is used. Since human beings are at sake, analyzing a culture is very complicated : there is spoken language, written language, body language, cuisine or whatever...
When it is said that culture A dominated/dominates culture B, one is assuming that A and B are distinct (which has to be argumented) and focusing on features of A adopted by B (or ignoring features of B adopted by A).
When one states that black Americans are dominating whites, one is ignoring that blacks are politically underrepresented. When one states that whites are dominating blacks, one is ignoring body and speaken language. Americans are black and white and everything between. From my European point of view, there's a single American culture. I guess that from an American point of view, there is a diversity of cultures inside US.

You cannot say anything on cultures dominating others because cultures are not as easy to isolate than to isolate species and individuals.

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
If some cultures don't dominate then... (3.20 / 5) (#90)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 09:38:11 AM EST

What happened to native American culture in the Americas?

What happened to polytheistic culture in Europe?

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Water and wine. (4.50 / 4) (#93)
by Ranieri on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 09:58:57 AM EST

Take one litre of wine. Take ten litres of water. Throw in the wine.
The casual observer would state the wine has dissapeared. This is however not the case. The two have simply mixed in unequal proportions, but are still present. If one were to drink the result, one could discern a definite taste of wine, not to mention the alterated color. This is more or less what happened to the cultures you mentioned.

Many aspects of saint adoration inherent to the catholic faith can be retraced directly to the Roman politheistic religions, the Chistmas tree and the Easter bunny are clearly remains of pagan rituals present from before eastern times.

The native American culture in the Americas is also still present. I have never been the US, but if you take a trip to say, Cancun in Mexico's Yucatan peninsula you will notice that the Mayas still retain quite a bit of their cultural identity: they speak Mayan, they eat mayan food etc. And they don't do this to please tourists.

All considered, i think this cultural assimilation paranoia is just a bogeyman used to justify irrational feelings of uneasiness (or, in some cases, downright hatred) towards those that are different.
--
"Look, Hoagie, it's a hamster! Just what I need for dissection lab tomorrow!"
[ Parent ]

You make my point (4.00 / 3) (#137)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:48:55 PM EST

People retain their cultures to the degree they are allowed separation by the dominant culture. In the US there is even a formal system of reservations that -- however bad they are in allowing Native sovereignty -- are superior to the treatment of separatist movements by Europeans.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Treatment of seperatist movements by Europeans (4.00 / 1) (#193)
by aphrael on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:05:24 PM EST

That's an astoundingly interesting assertion. Spain and Britain, for example, have both devolved significant amounts of political power to their seperatist movements; Catalonia, Scotland, and even Pais Vasco are for most purposes self-governing --- and are economically powerful and modern, unlike the US indian reservations.

[ Parent ]
Those Aren't Separatist Movements (4.00 / 1) (#197)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:24:12 PM EST

And you know it.

US and Canadian Native American Reservations allow the tribes far greater latitude in excluding or including up to and including the blood quantum -- a "racist" (by your definition) definition of social identity -- which would be immediately bombed into submission the minute it was attempted in any of your cited European exemplars.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Devolution and independance movements (4.00 / 1) (#200)
by aphrael on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:36:14 PM EST

Odd, as the Basques in particular have been blowing things up to try and get their own country, and the largest party in the Scottish parliament supports independance. So i'd have to ask you: what do *you* mean when you talk about European seperatist movements?

including up to and including the blood quantum

That's basically what Germany uses for citizenship rules. Jus sanguinis is not extinct --- a problem which the turkish immigrants to Germany have faced for a long time.

[ Parent ]

That's not what i said. (5.00 / 1) (#251)
by Ranieri on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:31:54 AM EST

And if you are going to go all strawman on me, well, i think i have nothing more to tell you.
--
"Look, Hoagie, it's a hamster! Just what I need for dissection lab tomorrow!"
[ Parent ]
How would ancestors regard Western Culture? (none / 0) (#293)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 07:22:47 PM EST

How would those that alive before Christianity came to the west view Western culture today? What parts might they admire? What parts might sicken them?

[ Parent ]
The Forgotten Argument (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by virg on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:14:19 PM EST

Well, there is always the consideration that you can't claim strong culture mixing in the two cases you cited, because in both cases the "dominating culture" pushed out the "dominated culture" not by being a stronger (that is, more popular or desirable) culture per se, but instead by killing off large portions of the "dominated" people. To reduce it to an extreme, if I have a culture and you have a different culture, and you put a bullet in my head, did your culture dominate mine? Not in any real sense of the word, because it wasn't culture vs. culture, it was you against me.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
mixing things together (4.50 / 2) (#107)
by ucblockhead on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:23:01 PM EST

The belief that mixing things together will evolve to something superior is a very shallow view of evolution...
Actually, it is fairly critical to evolution. It is called "sexual reproduction". That's where the genes mix.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
"Mutations Are Good" (5.00 / 1) (#112)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:46:40 PM EST

The belief that mixing things together will evolve to something superior is a very shallow view of evolution...

Actually, it is fairly critical to evolution. It is called "sexual reproduction". That's where the genes mix.

Mutations, too, are critical to evolution, but the idea that simply mutating things will evolve to something superior is also a very shallow view of evolution.

The range of mutation rates that will result in evolution is actually quite narrow -- and someone intent on destroying life could "justify" destroying life with rhetorical shallowness equivalent to the rhetoric typically used for "diversity" which is a code word for "mix everything up and see what the fuck happens".

If you want to be rational about it, you need to come up with better arguments in favor of global mixing of ecosystems via technological civilization than some naturally system like sexuality.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

sexual reproduction (4.00 / 3) (#116)
by ucblockhead on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:55:13 PM EST

Sexual reproduction isn't about "mutation". It is about shuffling the genes, getting different combinations that may work better than the original combinations.

And it should be pretty obvious that sexual reproduction is fairly important, since we have evolved to the state where all reproduction uses it.

And "mix everything together and see what the fuck happens" is exactly what sexual reproduction is for.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

What About HIV? (3.50 / 2) (#117)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:58:46 PM EST

And "mix everything together and see what the fuck happens" is exactly what sexual reproduction is for.

So let's mix HIV in there too and see what happens!

Like I said, you really must try to be rational.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

"Let's try" (5.00 / 2) (#121)
by ucblockhead on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:02:13 PM EST

There's no "let's try". Cultures mix. We have no choice. That's the way nature works.

And you want to know why? Because cultures that don't mix, die. The cultures that survive are the ones that adapt, incorporate, encompass.

It isn't rational to try to hold back the tide because you are afraid of people who aren't like you.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Ah, So We're Not Responsible (5.00 / 1) (#127)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:11:17 PM EST

For the effects of technology.

We can create technical modifications to the environment but then there is no point resisting consequences of our creation that might impose undesirably high degrees of risk...

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

cultural mixing is not "technology" (5.00 / 1) (#132)
by ucblockhead on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:25:26 PM EST

This is not new. The birth of your vaunted "Western Culture" occurred when the Roman Empire brought many different, older cultures together.

And the only "risk" is to xenophobes.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Risk: Real, New and Proven (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:40:28 PM EST

And the only "risk" is to xenophobes.

On the contrary, the risk is proven real and new by virtue of the vastly greater rates of transportation arising from technological civilization:

Winners and losers in a changing world: global changes may promote invasions and alter the fate of invasive species.

Author/s: Yvonne Baskin
Issue: Oct, 1998

Rainbow smelts, white perch, zebra mussels, and a handful of other invaders in the Great Lakes have not halted their advance at the southern shores of Lake Michigan. Instead they have pressed on, taking advantage of a series of canals to infest the Mississippi River drainage. By contrast, other established invaders in Lake Michigan, such as the sea lamprey, round goby, and spiny water flea, have not succeeded in reaching the river. The still-open question for biologists is, why? More important, what sorts of human-driven changes in these aquatic systems might alter the fortunes of these laggard species and send a new wave of invaders from the lake through the canals and into the Mississippi?

Although biologists have worked for several decades to figure out what makes some plants and animals good "weeds," and what makes some habitats more vulnerable to weedy invasions than others, there are no consistent answers. But the need for answers is becoming more urgent as scientists are being called on to project how native species and ecosystems will respond to a bevy of predicted human-driven disruptions now lumped together under the phrase "global change." These disruptions include continuing changes in the composition of the atmosphere; shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns that are expected to result from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; changes in land use that replace, fragment, or degrade natural ecosystems; changes in the frequency or intensity of natural disturbances, such as fire; rapid growth in world trade and travel; and the accelerating loss of native biodiversity.

In addition, the increasing pace of species invasions is itself considered a key aspect of global change - one more visible in most regions than the extinction crisis. "Exotic invasions are the number-two threat to native biodiversity [behind habitat destruction], but that just doesn't say it all," Stanford University ecologist Harold Mooney told his colleagues at a meeting near Stanford, California, last spring. "Invasions are the number-one component of biotic change in the world today. The number of extinctions pales beside the number and impact of biological additions, at least for the present."

Spurred by the Convention on Biological Diversity and growing international concern, a number of agencies and groups around the world are developing strategies to curb new invasions and prevent further damage by established invaders in wild as well as managed landscapes (BioScience 46: 732-736). That task is complicated, however, by continuing shifts in climate, land use, avenues for invasion, and other factors that affect the fate of potential invaders. Furthermore, invasions that alter the biological landscape feed back to drive new changes in the atmosphere, climate, and natural disturbance patterns.

At the Stanford meeting, two dozen scientists led by Mooney gathered to take a preliminary look at the direction in which various global changes are likely to drive the fate of would-be invaders, including exotic species, such as the sea lamprey and spiny water flea, that already lurk like time bombs at the edges of many systems. The workshop was sponsored by the Global Invasive Species Program (GISP), part of an international program on the science of biodiversity known as DIVERSITAS. GISP is coordinated by the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment.



-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

analogies (5.00 / 4) (#140)
by ucblockhead on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:58:36 PM EST

You see, the nice thing about cultural is that when a culture changes, no one dies. Sure, cultures die, but who gives a fuck? It is people that are important, not cultures.

The only people who have anything to worry about are those afraid of change; those afraid that they'll have to enter a different culture. Those not afraid of change have nothing to fear.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

So Let's Say Liberal Culture Dies (3.00 / 2) (#166)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:05:11 PM EST

What happens if the culture of tolerance dies?

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

biology...culture (4.00 / 2) (#170)
by ucblockhead on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:12:21 PM EST

What happens if the human race goes extinct?

I'm not talking about what I think should be. I am talking about what is.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

What is. (2.00 / 6) (#176)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:35:36 PM EST

What is, is this:

Reproductive rates dictate that Islam is poised to overtake the West.

What happens to all your liberal fantasies then?

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

culture is not biology (5.00 / 5) (#187)
by ucblockhead on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:43:14 PM EST

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that culture spreads biologically. It doesn't.

Western culture is seeping into the arab world as we speak. That is the very reason that people like Osama bin Laden exist. They are fighting a losing rearguard action against Western culture. People of Arab descent may well outnumber people of European descent, but that has nothing to do with what culture rules.

After all, our "Western" culture in the US is descended from mediteranean peoples yet isbiologically germanic. I suppose some Roman xenophobes worried that things were going to go to hell because they were being outbred by the Germans, and therefore Roman culture was doomed. Actually, Augustus said exactly that and tried to force his people to breed with laws. But he was wrong, of course. The Germans, Huns, whatever, took over and promptly because culturally Roman. Or at least, as Roman as they could be, as the culture of a tiny little mediterranian province took over the entire empire, despite a fraction of its numbers.

Which is why "Western" culture is a mixture of the culture of Rome and the culture of Judea, yet purebred Romans do not exist and purebred judeans are a very small minority.

Biology is not culture. Culture is not biology.

(Oh, and I'm not a "liberal".)
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Child Rearing Is Biology and Culture (none / 0) (#234)
by Baldrson on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 12:25:06 AM EST

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that culture spreads biologically.

I'm under the impression that cultures that know when to turn off external cultural inputs and take control of their own education are in a good position to cause a pretty high degree of correlation between culture and biology -- especially if their culture happens to enhance their fertility.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

use your eyes (5.00 / 2) (#309)
by ucblockhead on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 02:23:26 PM EST

Yes, that's why all ethnically Chinese third-generation Americans act just like people in Beijing...

Your mythical culture that turns of external inputs does not exist.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

What makes you think Western Culture is dominant? (4.00 / 1) (#291)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 07:13:49 PM EST

Western culture is seeping into the arab world as we speak. That is the very reason that people like Osama bin Laden exist. They are fighting a losing rearguard action against Western culture. People of Arab descent may well outnumber people of European descent, but that has nothing to do with what culture rules.

Yes, this is the party line, the idea that McDonalds and TV in the Muslim world means Western culture is spreading. Still, Islam is growing in the US-via immigration,conversion and differential birth rates of those that convert to Islam.

What does the fact that US popular culture gets adopted in various places in the world mean in terms of what people world wide are willing to fight and die for? I personally don't see anyone really patriotic in the US anymore(compare what happened after Pearl Harbor to what happened after WTC). Is "Western Culture" anything really other than a formula for elites grabbing the resources of another population?

I recently heard on NPR that most of the world's largest 150 corporations are based in the US. Is this really something to be proud of? Do there exist means by which we can accurately evaluate the consequences of these sweeping changes towards corporate rule and globalism?



[ Parent ]

That's an interesting issue ... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
by daviddennis on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:12:39 PM EST

but humans are all members of the same species. I could make a baby through a willing woman who was white, black, hispanic, chinese or whatever.

We change them and they change us. That's very different from what an invasive plant species does.

Unless your contention is that the races don't intermix ... but that's simply not true. Heck, I'm white and there's a cute black chick here who's been eyeing me for the last couple of days. Human attraction crosses these boundaries with amazing ease.

D

amazing.com has amazing things.
[ Parent ]
Individuals Don't Reproduce -- Genes Do (2.50 / 2) (#258)
by Baldrson on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 09:59:21 AM EST

Intraspecific mixing experiments have been conducted for their social consequences and the results are exactly as I would predict in contrast to your presumption of "fair" mixing of genes via intraspecific combination.

I would predict that when you take the genes from different subspecies and mix them together, some will mix "fairly" in the resulting body politic some will tend to dominate the absorbtion of resources by eliciting altruism from the "fair" genes in the body politic leading to a next generation that is less like the mix and more like the subspecies originating said dominant genes.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Please could you expand on that? (none / 0) (#259)
by Ranieri on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 10:04:59 AM EST

And this time, phrasing it in a manner that does not set off everybody's pseudoscience detectors?
A few links might be helpful.
--
"Look, Hoagie, it's a hamster! Just what I need for dissection lab tomorrow!"
[ Parent ]
"Pseudoscience Detectors" == Heresy Dete (1.00 / 1) (#262)
by Baldrson on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 11:51:08 AM EST


-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

I take it, then... (none / 0) (#267)
by MrMikey on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 12:44:07 PM EST

that you don't have anything substantive to say? Too bad. I would have liked to have seen your sources of information. I'm sure they would be quite enlightening.

[ Parent ]
Hi Fungus! (1.00 / 1) (#281)
by Baldrson on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:37:01 PM EST

Of course, you know that I already responded to your request here "Mikey". The disingenuous condition against "triggering pseudoscience detectors" is all I was responding to in the other person's response.

This is what I mean by arguing with a fungus.

Your responses have to do with intellectual integrity only to the extent that they provide a skaffolding for social cohesion of a particular religious organism based on belief in homogenization of diversity and calling that "diversity".

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Are you related to Eliza? (5.00 / 1) (#284)
by Stealth Tuna on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 04:06:42 PM EST

Some of your sentences really look as if they were not the product of reasoning and rethoric, but have been put together by some heuristic algorithm.

Now, i'm sure I'm not the only one here that would like an answer: can you actually cite this "research" or did you pull it all out of your ass together with the rest of the shit you have been spewing here?

[ Parent ]

Incorrect... (none / 0) (#299)
by MrMikey on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 03:05:49 AM EST

though I can see how you could have misunderstood what I was asking for. Ranieri was asking you to expand on your "Individuals Don't Reproduce -- Genes Do" post, and inferring that the content of that post "set off pseudoscience detectors." You responded with one line: "Pseudoscience Detectors == Heresy Det" (one presumes you were trying to say Heresy Detectors). I was simply disappointed that you didn't give a more substantive response to Ranieri's request. I am well aware that you have said you would be addressing your general fears in a later thread, and am looking forward to reading it.

I trust this clears up our little misunderstanding.

Your specious references to "fungus" and your imaginings concerning my intellectual integrity and thoughts concerning diversity were duly noted.

[ Parent ]

HERV (5.00 / 2) (#242)
by rusty on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:03:31 AM EST

Or Human Endogenous Retrovirus. Basically, old virus DNA that has become part of our human DNA, some of them long before there was even such a thing as "human DNA". In fact, I just read a fascinating book based on HERV research called Darwin's Radio. Good stuff.

So, how much money did you put on it? Because you won. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Perfect... (none / 0) (#283)
by Baldrson on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 04:00:58 PM EST

Although I knew that retroviruses reproduce by incorporating themselves into DNA and that not only viruses but other organisms have incorporated themselves into other organisms over evolutionary time, this phenomenon of Rusty arguing on behalf of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus is just too perfect.

I couldn't have made this up even though I did participate in Gary Hart's AIDS policy committee back in 1987 and did observe leaders of the gay community acting as though they were promotional agents for that particular pathogen.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#286)
by rusty on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 05:06:26 PM EST

Actually, I'm not argung in favor of HIV. I was merely pointing out that the idea that virus DNA does incorporate into our "normal" DNA is well known, and his speculation was right on that point.

I very much doubt that HIV would ever prove to be a boon for humanity though. Sorry if my comment seemed to imply that.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

there are some legitimate concerns (4.20 / 5) (#41)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:22:37 AM EST

I don't think all opposition to culture change is based in racism. The United States has of course always been a "melting pot" of sorts. But to maintain this melting pot requires that immigrants are assimilated into mainstream American culture -- the American culture changes by incorporating elements of culture the various immigrants bring with them. If there is massive immigration from a single culture, then it's more likely this will lead to cultural fragmentation -- for example what's happening in Texas and California currently. There have always been people of Mexican origin in Texas (it used to be part of Mexico, after all), but the immigration was relatively slow, and the various cultures mixed and formed the various mixed cultures you find in Texas ("Tejano" music and "Tex-Mex" food are two of the most visible). But in the past few decades the influx of large numbers of Mexican immigrants has broken this melting pot system -- instead we have "Americans" with "American" culture, and "Mexicans" with "Mexican" culture. There's no assimilation or mixing -- the Mexicans have kept their culture mostly unchanged, and the Americans avoid it and keep their culture mostly unchanged. I could see how an American would be opposed to something like this happening -- given enough immigration it would essentially be the replacement of American culture with Mexican culture, rather than an evolution of American culture to incorporate elements of Mexican culture.

(The examples here are Texas-specific, but you can find parallels in other areas).

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily (4.42 / 7) (#48)
by rusty on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:37:02 AM EST

I don't think that all opposition to culture change is based in racism, either. Or even that Pitty-Pat Buchanan's necessarily is (though he walks that razor line). I hoped I was making that clear at the beginning of the comment.

Whenever two dissimilar cultures crash into each other in large numbers, there's friction and problems. See, for example, when we get a front page link from Slashdot. But over time and distance, the immediate clash gives way to diffusion. In New England, we have no experience of any strong Mexican culture. But it's a lot easier to get good Mexican food than it was 10 years ago.

"Assimilation" is mostly a myth, IMO, and there is definitely mixing. Sometimes it just takes a longer perspective to see it. In any case, what's the alternative? Protectionism? Walls? Quotas? All things we have already. Do we need more?

Beyond any practical policy concerns, the problem with the Buchanans of the world is that they don't want any mixing. They want this imaginary "White Culture" to remain, pristine and untouched. And never mind that what they're bemoaning the loss of never existed in the first place.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

hrm (4.33 / 3) (#57)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:55:25 AM EST

I'm personally undecided on the cultural change matter; I see good aspects of both retaining a cultural tradition and changing to mix in other cultures. I disagree that assimilation is impossible though -- it's what happens when you have relatively slow immigration. And I think this is what a lot of the more moderate protectionist people really want, rather than a steadfast retainment of unchanged "white culture". For example, "American culture" has many elements somewhat derived from European cultures -- we eat Frankfurters, croissants, pizza, etc. But they're all distinctly "Americanized." Somehow there's a difference between borrowing elements of another culture and "Americanizing" it and actually replacing American culture with the foreign culture. Despite the prevalence of spaghetti in the U.S., for example, nobody would claim that noodles have replaced American cuisine with Italian cuisine -- it's still American food, it just has some Italian influences. Or to take another example, Greeks eat hummus, drink Turkish coffee (though they claim it's really Greek coffee and the Turks borrowed it rather than vice-versa, but either way), watch "soap operas", etc. But it's still Greek culture despite some foreign origins, because all the foreign elements have been assimilated into the mainstream Greek culture. If on the other hand Greeks saw a prevalence of shops with signs written in Turkish or Albanian, they might be a bit upset, because that's replacement rather than assimilation

So to get back to the American example, I can see why people would be upset. In at least 10% or so of Texas (the part near the Mexican border), you'll have difficulty getting around if you don't speak Spanish (one of the mayors in the region even conducts city council meetings in Spanish). If you look "white" and speak only English, it's essentially like you're in a foreign country, which means essentially southern Texas's culture has been displaced by 99% Mexican culture. And I can see why some Texans might not approve of that.

[ Parent ]

english (4.50 / 2) (#106)
by ucblockhead on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:21:26 PM EST

In at least 10% or so of Texas (the part near the Mexican border), you'll have difficulty getting around if you don't speak Spanish...
The irony being that it is very easy to get around in Tijuana without a word of Spanish.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
That's my concern (none / 0) (#141)
by Cro Magnon on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:03:48 PM EST

I live in a neighborhood that has had a recent influx of Hispanics. I recently got some snail-mail spam that was written in Spanish. In a way it was amusing, but it made me wonder if I will really need to learn Spanish just to get by!
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
A longer term perspective changes the view (5.00 / 3) (#215)
by garbanzo on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 08:21:33 PM EST

What I mean is that assimilation looks different the longer time goes by. For example, I notice that you don't mention burritos or tacos when you talk about Americanized cuisine, but those are both foods that are heavily Americanized--as they are served in the US anyway. So what a lot of Americans think of as Mexican food is already pretty Americanized. In Mexico, tacos are not fried, hard, bent tortillas, they are soft. And the tortillas are corn, not flour like "soft tacos." Given enough time, we begin to notice the error--more people discover the difference by actually visiting Mexico or eating real Mexican food--in the same way that more people know that it would be a mistake to characterize American pizza as Italian food--it is an American food based on an Italian idea. So Taco Bell really straddles that same border--it is as Mexican as apple pie.

100 years ago, St. Patricks Day was not an excuse for EVERYONE to go out and drink. It was an Irish thing. And either they contributed it to American culture or Americans co-opted it. And now we drink bad, green beer one day every spring. 100 years ago, the name "Patrick Buchanan" would have been a liability on your resume. People would put "No Irish" on their hiring notices.

At the same time, it is a grave foreshortening of perspective to regard the Latino culture in the Rio Grande as an influx or a displacement. It is the American culture that is the invader when you examine it historically. There are cases in court right now where Mexican families wrongfully displaced from their lands in South Texas are getting redress of their grievances. They lived there before Austin made the scene and they live there now. On a pure numbers basis, they've got more years on this turf than the anglos do.

I guess I just find it a delicious irony that the same country that devised the idea of Manifest Destiny to justify displacing the Native Americans can get its dander up over "invasion" by foreigners. Particularly when, at the very same time, there are so many overseas that complain about the cultural pollution of America (the anti-Disney/McDonalds thing).

A fair question for the borderland people might be to ask them if they resent having to learn two languages. Do Latinos resent having to learn Ingles? Do Anglos resent having to learn Spanish? I'm many hours north of there, so I won't attempt to answer for them. My hunch is that it is not as painful to them as it might be to Pat Buchanan.



sure, it's all fun and games--until someone puts an eye out

[ Parent ]
the bad point is (4.66 / 3) (#63)
by KiTaSuMbA on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:15:23 AM EST

in the minds of Buchanan-like ppl to think that mix is bad. Look back in history and tell me: what cultures enjoyed high incremental rates of quality of life, artwork, science? Clearly the ones with more influence from outside! That is in sense of important trade centers, rapid shifts in populations etc. From the summerians and the fenices to the greeks to modern era academic institutions: what makes things work out is mixing up, sharing, remixing and a brand new thing is born. However this has never been without friction. There have always been Buchanans that when summing up create a "critical dump" situation: they either fall to oblivion and nature goes her way or a catastrophe occurs, usually involving numerous deaths of innocent people.



There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
[ Parent ]
The Buchanans of this world (5.00 / 1) (#186)
by mami on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:39:19 PM EST

Beyond any practical policy concerns, the problem with the Buchanans of the world is that they don't want any mixing.

Don't worry, in case Buchanan has a cute daughter and a bit of intervention from the Almighty, she might make her father grow up with a cute mixed-race granddaughter one day. That always works. Trust me.

[ Parent ]

Mexican mixing (4.60 / 5) (#105)
by ucblockhead on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:18:59 PM EST

Honestly, I don't find that to be true. There's a lot of immigration, so you will find lots of first and second generation Mexicans around who have strong ties to "the old country". But that's little different from the European immigrants of the 19th century. What you find is that as the generations advance, their descendents become part of the mainstream culture. I know people like that.

At least, that's what I saw in San Diego. It was easy to see Hispanics with one foot in Mexico but it was also as common to know Hispanics who were as part of mainstream culture. I have hispanic friends who know no spanish, talk with a California accent and are otherwise indistinguishable except by skin color from most white Americans whose parents are still part of spanish culture. It is all a factor of how long their family had been here. And yes, little cultural islands form where people put up walls to retain their old culture. But those cultural islands shrink with time and spin people off into the mainstream.

People act as if the Hispanic immigration is unusually large. It isn't, really. It is about the same size as the Southern European immigrations of the late 19th century. The experience is about the same, as well. It took a couple generations for many to enter the mainstream, and at the end of the 19th century, people were talking about those groups and their culture in almost exactly the way they talk about Hispanics today. People expressed great fear that these immigrants were going to change American culture.

And, of course, they did. Those immigrants shaped what modern American culture is like.

And I'm sure you'll find, if you manage to hang on until the year 2100, that American culture becomes more "latin". What the social darwinists don't seem to understand is that their stupid analogy is that it is wrong at a fundamental level. For "natural selection" to work, you've got to combine the old and throw out the new. That's exactly what happens naturally when cultures combine. Think of it as cultural sex.

As a side note, my wife and I were much amused when we saw that idiot Buchannan babbling about how "Hispanic" culture was threatening "European" culture in the US. Apparently his schooling did not include enough history to realize that Hispanic culture is European Culture. The culture of Mexico is a descendent of the culture of Spain, which is, in turn, a descendent of the culture of Rome.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0) (#109)
by theboz on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:33:42 PM EST

I wrote a lengthy post along these lines and gave examples of the integration, plus chastized him for talking about "Mexican" culture when it's really a latin culture made up of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, D.R.'s, etc. Unfortunately, IE decided that pressing the backspace key meant I wanted to go back a page, and in typical K5 fashion the content of the post was completely erased. God damn Internet Explorer and Scoop.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Mozilla (5.00 / 1) (#118)
by ucblockhead on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:59:50 PM EST

Mozilla's been doing that to me as well, but only on my XP box. Go figure.

What really cracks me up is how fucking obvious the cultural descent from Rome is. Compare a Roman Villa to a Hacienda. Think about where "bullfights" came from. Look at all those churchs, owing allegience to the Church of Rome. Hell, just look at the damn language, for God's sake.

(And you are right about the confusion of thinking that "Hispanic" is like "German", a single, cohesive group. Ignorance is what it is.)
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

bullfights (none / 0) (#130)
by wiredog on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:22:52 PM EST

Come from Bronze Age Minoan bull worshipping religious rituals.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
[ Parent ]
"Mexican culture" (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:03:07 PM EST

Since I was mostly referring to Texas, I think "Mexican culture" is accurate, even if it's a specific instance of a larger "latin" culture. Of the hispanics in Texas, nearly all are of Mexican origin; very few proportionally have any ties to Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, or other Latin American, South American, or Carribean countries.

[ Parent ]
Still not just Mexicans (none / 0) (#221)
by theboz on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 10:04:54 PM EST

I've known a lot of people from Guatemala that went through Mexico to the U.S. I'm sure other countries like Belize do the same. The funny thing is that Mexico has the same situation we do on their southern border. People from poorer countries try to sneak in to find a better place, and often end up going to the U.S. too.

I also wanted to make a comment about the diversity of the Mexican culture. I wrote a paragraph about it in my dissapeared comment. Basically, they're a lot like the U.S. in that they are very diverse. To put it simply, compare a person from the Bronx and someone from a small backwater town in Arkansas. Even though both are Americans, it's most likely that they are as different in culture as they are from people from other countries. American culture is yet another myth, just like Mexican culture is.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

There's a difference (none / 0) (#225)
by Fortezza on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:11:50 PM EST

The main difference is that the Federales will gun you down if you try to cross over the Southern border. I doubt they will respect your person as the Border Patrol does here in the States.

I think that Buchanan and I both agree that the US needs to erect a "Great Wall of China" of sorts across the Southern US border. I have no problem with legitimate immigrants, but the numerous illegal border crossings here have to go.

[ Parent ]
That's naive (none / 0) (#226)
by theboz on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:30:30 PM EST

The problem is with the INS and policy. It's actually quite expensive and dangerous to cross over the border, so if there was a decent immigration process then the people that want to immigrate wouldn't be risking their lives to come here. Obviously, there are plenty of lower-level jobs that these people are willing to take, unlike egotistical Americans that would rather get unemployment than work at McDonalds or bailing hay.

You also have to consider that immigrants create jobs. These people become consumers just like anyone else, so they create jobs simply by living here.

As far as Pat Buchanan, he's a moron and can go fuck himself. He seems to want a white America for white Americans only, so I have no respect for him. Race and nationality are a mass hallucination. Human beings are not.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

American need low-level jobs too (none / 0) (#260)
by Cro Magnon on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 10:43:46 AM EST

What about the high-school student who needs a job to afford college, or support her new baby? Does she get crowded out because they hire an immigrant at half the pay, or an illegal at much less than that? Not every American is "too good" for entry-level work.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
There's no shortage there (5.00 / 2) (#261)
by theboz on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 11:27:14 AM EST

Does she get crowded out because they hire an immigrant at half the pay, or an illegal at much less than that?

There's no shortage of low-level, low paying jobs. There is a minimum wage enforced by the government, which most of these types of jobs pay their employees. Also, we have scholarships to help with college, and welfare to help pay for kids. Of course, welfare needs a huge overhaul as well but that's another rant.

Illegal aliens are another issue completely. You can't blame them for wanting to work, but blame their employers for hiring them. That's the thing that I find ironic about this whole debate. The problem of illegal immigration is mostly the fault of old rich white men. You have the wealthy farmers and business owners that want to hire illegals to pay them less and not have to pay for health insurance, then you have their buddies the politicians that make immigration difficult and keep a status quo of poor people that want to immigrate and work. The illegals just come here looking to work. They're not trying to screw anyone over, but the wealthy businessmen and politicians are the ones screwing us and the immigrants over.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

OT: Backspace no longer works (5.00 / 1) (#192)
by SIGFPE on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:04:31 PM EST

I'm sure that a year or two ago it did work but. I've lost long posts this way too. Anyone know if there's some 'advanced' option I can set to stop this happening?
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]
Often Overlooked Fact (4.50 / 2) (#110)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:40:51 PM EST

Apparently his schooling did not include enough history to realize that Hispanic culture is European Culture. The culture of Mexico is a descendent of the culture of Spain, which is, in turn, a descendent of the culture of Rome.

It's surprising how often this is overlooked and/or under-emphasized on all sides of the political spectrum in the US. The anti-immigration forces try to portray latinos as somehow foreign and culturally incongruous, whereas the proponents of "multi-culturalism" are often all too willing to de-emphasize the european roots of latino culture in order to set them apart.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
culture fear (none / 0) (#331)
by jafac on Mon Apr 29, 2002 at 08:51:09 PM EST

I'm certainly quite terrified of my culture being subsumed by another one, at least one as alien as that of the Middle East. But frankly, I don't see anything at all unamerican about the culture latinos have brought to the US. I type this as I prepare my home for a Cinco de Mayo celebration this upcoming weekend. But hey, that's the norm here in California. So are pinatas at birtdays. Now if we'd only adopt ciestas. :)

[ Parent ]
Rome vs Northern Europeans (4.00 / 4) (#149)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:15:15 PM EST

As a side note, my wife and I were much amused when we saw that idiot Buchannan babbling about how "Hispanic" culture was threatening "European" culture in the US. Apparently his schooling did not include enough history to realize that Hispanic culture is European Culture. The culture of Mexico is a descendent of the culture of Spain, which is, in turn, a descendent of the culture of Rome.

You have to remember that the conflict between Mediterranean culture and Northern European culture has never been adequately resolved within Europe's history. The conversion of Roman Empire to Roman Church almost overcame the military barriers of the north with indoctrination and succeeded in the primary objective which was elimination of non-verbal fair contest as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing throughout Europe and its colonies. Nevertheless, the Protestant Reformation revealed schizms still existed that to this day take form in conflicts between US and Latino culture.

Buchanan, being a Roman Catholic, is particularly paniced about this because he sees on the one hand a potential reversion to northern "paganism" (ie: If I decide to risk my life to take out some asshole CEO or smarmy politico no matter how high their "position" I can do it honorably via the nonverbal fair contest) and on the other a corrupt culture arising from south of the border that makes the duplicity of Roman elites look like the little white lies of Sunday school children. He and his ilk really are in a lose-lose situation.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

JH Christ (none / 0) (#330)
by jafac on Mon Apr 29, 2002 at 08:47:40 PM EST

duplicity and lies? um - coming out of the Nixon administration, that's a lot of cookware name-calling.

[ Parent ]
Didn't you ever hear the phrase... (none / 0) (#182)
by Estanislao Martínez on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:07:07 PM EST

As a side note, my wife and I were much amused when we saw that idiot Buchannan babbling about how "Hispanic" culture was threatening "European" culture in the US. Apparently his schooling did not include enough history to realize that Hispanic culture is European Culture. The culture of Mexico is a descendent of the culture of Spain, which is, in turn, a descendent of the culture of Rome.

"Africa starts at the Pyrenees."

--em
[ Parent ]

Read this guy again (none / 0) (#280)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:14:26 PM EST

Buchanan and his ilk see culture as a zero-sum game.
The same could be argued of Marxists with their class warfare.

But he sees culture as a zero-sum game. Some cultures win, some lose. He's concerned with his culture "winning" because he believes it is the best culture, and the strongest.
When someone says "my culture is dying"--that is hardly an assertion of strengh. It is an assertion of angst, dispair. These folks see their culture as dying and something valuable being lost in the process.

[ Parent ]

dying (none / 0) (#329)
by jafac on Mon Apr 29, 2002 at 08:42:54 PM EST

I dunno about comparing Palestinians to a "dying culture".  The Israelis certainly aren't going to get away with slaughter on any significant level.  The number of Palestinians killed in the recent conflict really does pale in comparison to say, the number of Jews erased during WWII - and look at how many Jews are around today.

Pick a REAL erased culture.  Like the Wendish - blonde haired, blue-eyed Greek-Orthodox people living in Hungary/Czhekoslovakia.  All pretty much wiped out by the Nazis, then the Soviets in WWII.  Except for a handful now living in the US.

[ Parent ]

Actually, its extreamly importent to know.. (4.00 / 5) (#39)
by Weezul on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:10:06 AM EST

..what this psycho is saying. His view point is intertwined with all anti-immigration movements. Gues what! There are real problems with HB-1 Visas. This guy will try to leverage those problems to hurt immigrents. We should be leveraging those problems to try and help immigrents.

Example 1: We should restrict HB-1 Visas and increase true immigration quotas, i.e. the majority of immigrents working in any field should have a real future here.

Example 2: This guy would have us tack on additional restrictions for HB-1 visa holders, making true immigration by people who actually want to be American citizens more difficult. Germany took this path (apease bisness and piss on the foreigners to keep the unions happy) and they currently have thousands of non-citizen turks living in Germany.

There is a big stupid mass of "union people" who need to be lead to example 1 instead of example 2.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
[ Parent ]
This is like the "200% Straight" guy... (3.68 / 57) (#24)
by elenchos on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:02:34 AM EST

...I read about, who was getting a massage. And before he knew it, the masseur's thumb was up Mr. 200% Strait's ass, inexplicably paralyzing him. He was thus helpless when the crafty masseur began his blowjob. So it was too late for our poor straight friend to do anything before he suddenly had to realize that he liked sex with another man. Skeptics, of course, will not buy his agency avoidance.

Your scheme with your crypto-Nazi articles seems to be the same. You draw in your white males with persecution complexes, and before they know it, you have paralyzed them with your racist thumb up their virgin asses. By the time you're finished you expect them to be forced to admit that they, too, are Nazis like yourself.

The problem is, there is just no peaceful way for a masseur go get his thumb up your butt without you wanting it there, and no way for him to keep it there if you don't like it. It isn't rape, it's seduction. Given that, the masseur might as well say, "Hey, let's get it on, okay?" That's where it's going anyway, so why pretend?

And you might as well just put "Nazi" right in the title of your articles, because that's where you're going anyway, and the only ones who will really follow you the whole way are other Nazis.

You aren't going to recruit anybody but the converted with this sneaky shit.

Adequacy.org

Worst zero abuse ever (2.83 / 12) (#44)
by medham on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:31:30 AM EST

The parent is among the ten best comments ever posted here. The zero-rater should have his moderation privileges revoked.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

Fortunately (1.77 / 9) (#52)
by gibichung on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:42:08 AM EST

The aforementioned user is not under any obligation to explain his ratings to you, and you are not in any position to enforce your opinion about his moderation privileges. Have a nice day.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
Just wait and see (2.33 / 9) (#55)
by medham on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:47:47 AM EST

I wouldn't go around making idle boasts, if I were still waiting on my deferrment notice from Auburn.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

look, how many times does it have to be said? (3.07 / 13) (#61)
by infinitera on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:12:24 AM EST

Fuck off and go back to either your caves, or adequacy, whichever is crappier. Nobody wants to watch three (or more) trolls participing in a circle jerk. If they did, I would be gone from this site, because the intelligence would have dropped. And don't give me the Adequacy is satire crap. Segfault was satire.. Adequacy is just.. crap.

[ Parent ]
somebody shoot me(participing = participating)[nt] (2.25 / 4) (#62)
by infinitera on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:13:58 AM EST



[ Parent ]
hahahahaha (3.16 / 6) (#66)
by streetlawyer on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:57:50 AM EST

Segfault was satire.. Adequacy is just.. crap

I knew Segfault had a target market, and I am so glad to know that you're in it. If you don't like adequacy, btw, check out the offer in my signature.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

sorry, i don't have a static ip [nt] (2.25 / 4) (#68)
by infinitera on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:05:38 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I have one! (3.00 / 2) (#71)
by KiTaSuMbA on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:26:57 AM EST

It's 192.168.1.3... BTW, adequacy is not lame, it's just so BORING! It's a bunch of burnt out techies lacking humor...
There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
[ Parent ]
Oh you surprise me (2.60 / 5) (#81)
by streetlawyer on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:46:58 AM EST

Without wanting to be offensive, I guessed that as soon as you said you liked Segfault.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
signature (2.00 / 1) (#119)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:00:19 PM EST

is a hollow threat -- if someone doesn't like adequacy, what do they care if you ban them? why waste the time asking you to manually prevent them from viewing a site they would never visit?

ps - plz ban me, my ip is 127.0.0.1. :)

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
it is a joke, my son (3.25 / 4) (#135)
by streetlawyer on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:33:09 PM EST

One might as well ask "Why visit a site if it annoys you?" or "Why spend your time talking about a site you don't visit?". I'm simply providing a service to the people who are terribly annoyed by adequacy but who don't seem to be able to resist visiting over and over again.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
thanks, pa. (none / 0) (#230)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:44:35 PM EST

gosh durn it, ya always got a kind word fer me an' da missus. :)

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
according to the FAQ (none / 0) (#257)
by CodeWright on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 09:58:47 AM EST

...you will be able to rate other comments below 1 to 0 (note: this rating to be used on spam only!)

To the zero rater: How does my comment qualify as spam? Is it just that you happen to be one of the aforementioned sufferers of encephalotrophy?

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
Huh (4.50 / 4) (#70)
by rusty on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:25:27 AM EST

I thought it was actually a pretty good comment. He certainly has a point.

"And then I discovered I was a white supremacist. How'd That Happen!?"

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

having a point is different from being sincere (3.80 / 5) (#73)
by infinitera on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:41:36 AM EST

I dunno, I like a certain amount of assumed trust in a system. Rather than being jerked around..

[ Parent ]
You're insincere. I can tell by the way you type. (2.14 / 7) (#150)
by elenchos on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:26:15 PM EST

(nt)

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

from the depts of time.. (3.00 / 2) (#167)
by infinitera on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:10:08 PM EST

Enjoy.

[ Parent ]
*cries* d e p t h s [nt] (2.33 / 3) (#168)
by infinitera on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:10:31 PM EST



[ Parent ]
(OT)Look to Mr. Baldrson's precedent story... (3.00 / 3) (#80)
by linca on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:33:22 AM EST

Closely themed story by same poster, same comment by same commenter (unwarranted in the first case...), immediate reply by same replier... Doesn't this looks like a pattern here?

[ Parent ]
I think you're (3.00 / 2) (#249)
by medham on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:24:29 AM EST

An awfully perceptive young person, but have you ever turned that high-powered perception in on yourself? Did you like what you saw?

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

elenchos (3.12 / 8) (#161)
by tkatchev on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:57:18 PM EST

Fuck you, k?

Thanks, I appreciate it.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Were you the guy (3.00 / 4) (#180)
by spacejack on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:55:37 PM EST

that got the massage??

[ Parent ]
you are cute. (2.57 / 7) (#235)
by tkatchev on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 01:18:15 AM EST

Go kill yourself.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

I guess that's a (3.00 / 4) (#250)
by rusty on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:29:26 AM EST

"yes" then, huh?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
rusty (3.40 / 5) (#277)
by tkatchev on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 02:56:43 PM EST

go fuck yourself.

you know, you are one of the people i respect least.

please die. thank you, i appreciate it.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Hostile much? (4.66 / 3) (#282)
by rusty on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:55:37 PM EST

Gee. I so wanted your respect, too. I am sad now.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
yeah (3.00 / 6) (#298)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 01:32:03 AM EST

which is why you should go fuck yourself.

bye-bye.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Sorry. (3.50 / 6) (#31)
by BooBoo on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:38:13 AM EST

Pat Buchanan is, like, number 2 on my ignore list after his "Hellfire and Brimstone" speech at the Republican National Convention a few years ago.

I can't, in good conscience, approve an article praising him.
*************

On tattoos: FUCK YEAH, IT HURTS!!!

BooBoo

Praise? (3.71 / 7) (#34)
by jch on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:49:43 AM EST

"I can't, in good conscience, approve an article praising him."

Did you really even read the entire article?

[ Parent ]
I thought I did... (none / 0) (#332)
by BooBoo on Thu May 23, 2002 at 05:07:41 AM EST

Maybe I didn't get the gist... it seemed at the time I read it that it was pro-Buchanan...

I've been known to be wrong...
*************

On tattoos: FUCK YEAH, IT HURTS!!!

BooBoo
[ Parent ]

You seem to ignore... (5.00 / 7) (#42)
by _Quinn on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:24:58 AM EST

what I consider the most distressing figure of all: "that men's real wages declined 30% from 1970 to 1996"... not that it's important that they're wages paid to men, but that the tide is rising (so to speak) because some (most of the?) boats are _sinking_.

-_Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
Question? (4.00 / 1) (#194)
by acronos on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:07:42 PM EST

It seems to me that the reason that men's wages are decreasing is because more women are working. I'm not sure I am on the same page with you, but this observation changes the implications of the statistic to me. Families are not becoming poorer. I recently did research at American IRS websites to determine the change in the wealth of the poor over the last 50 years, and their wealth is rising faster than inflation. The rest of the income brackets are rising faster still which is what is causing the increasing divide between the rich and poor.

If there is interest, I will write a story on what I found.


[ Parent ]
Real men, unreal wages (4.00 / 1) (#285)
by wytcld on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 04:49:39 PM EST

Since 1970 per capita wealth in America has doubled. Meanwhile, the typical family hasn't gained at all. The woman of the family has had to take a full time job just to stay even. Naturally, this increase in servitude was marketed as "liberation." And, in a lottery society, everyone hopes that if they don't win the lottery directly, their child will become one of the 1% of the population to whom the entire 100% gain in per capita wealth has gone: high corporate executives, sports and other entertainment stars, top lawyers.

Now, the top 1% sincerely believe that if the other 99% actually increased their wealth certain undesirable things would happen. More women, currently the best value in ratio of education to labor capability, would quit work. More men would follow vocations they like rather than what they are compelled to do for the bucks. More parents would have the time to pass on their own values and culture to children rather than having the children be maximally receptive to marketing. And the increased consumer power would lead to increased environmental devastation, not to mention bid up the price of lands which the rich would prefer to maintain in vast estates (which a cottage industry of "environmental consultants" advises them is the best thing for the Earth).

Fortunately, the only people complaining about this are kooks of the far right and left. Remember: at the same time the Egyptians were building pyramids Northern European societies of approximately equal wealth conducted themselves by democratic concensus and left no such momuments to the power of their chiefs. Who do we remember now?

[ Parent ]

Population growth (3.50 / 4) (#45)
by Lynoure on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:31:36 AM EST

World population being as large and as quickly growing as it is, it's just good if the population of European descent doesn't grow. Whether it will grow to be a larger fraction of the total is a whole other thing.
And anyway, 100 years from now those of remote European descent will be of way more remote European descent.
It has always amused me how Americans so strongly feel they are of this or that descent... After so many generations, why not just embrace being American instead?



That `population growth` thing again. (4.00 / 2) (#84)
by FredBloggs on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 07:26:20 AM EST

The EU is currently very concerned about the number of people being born. There could be a crisis in the next 50 odd years with insufficient people to pay for a rapidly aging population.

[ Parent ]
Contradiction (4.00 / 2) (#115)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:55:02 PM EST

The EU is currently very concerned about the number of people being born. There could be a crisis in the next 50 odd years with insufficient people to pay for a rapidly aging population.

The absurdity of the pro-immigrationist argument is now exposed by recalling that the supposed reason for the drastically falling birth rate is economic abundance!

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Local vs. global (none / 0) (#237)
by Lynoure on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 01:41:18 AM EST

I guess it depends a lot on whether one takes a local-economical or global-ecological view point. According to current population growth estimates the population on the world will nearly double in the next 50 or 60 years. Tell me it's not going to be a crisis.

The fact that the population of western world will be a small fraction of the total does not mean that we should breed like bunnies.
There is lots of lonely little kids there. Adoption is an alternative that can help to solve both of the problems. (Even though a kid in the western world uses natural resources way more than a kid in a developing country.)

[ Parent ]

Obvious solution (none / 0) (#239)
by dark on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 02:38:57 AM EST

We can solve both problems at once: allow any amount of immigration, as long as each immigrant adopts an old person to take care of.

[ Parent ]
Quick question (2.85 / 7) (#49)
by medham on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:37:08 AM EST

Does Pat actually mention Gramsci or Marcuse in his book? I could see him having heard of the latter while combing through FBI files, but I don't know what's left of the Italian fascists who jailed the former.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

there are... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by KiTaSuMbA on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:58:51 AM EST

<quick_answer>
and they are called AN (alleanza Nazionale - national alliance), they are part of the government coalition and one of their senates is actually grandoughter of Mussolini.
</quick_answer>
There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
[ Parent ]
The split infinitve is the key (1.81 / 11) (#51)
by medham on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:39:53 AM EST

"fails to adequately analyze..."

It was a hell of a ride while it lasted.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

I (1.14 / 34) (#54)
by medham on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:44:53 AM EST

And everyone I know think that the H1B program hung the fuckin' moon, as it were. I'm a manager, and a Saxon (I hate Angles); but my H1B programmers just love knocking up chicks here. There aren't any real consequences, and they get to spread their foreign genes AND take jobs away from Angle-America.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

what (none / 0) (#123)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:05:33 PM EST

the hell are you talking about?

take jobs away? jobs are jobs. we should do everything we can to *keep* those H1Bs as permanent residents and citizens, so that they put their dollars back into *our* economy rather than whatever place they get shipped back to...

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
That describes me (5.00 / 1) (#163)
by DodgyGeezer on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:02:44 PM EST

As a former H1, I can say that I learnt a lot, made a lot, and am now using it all to my advantage north of the border in Canada.

I got my Canadian permanent residency (equivalent of US green card) within 8 mos. of applying, and will have citizenship in 3 years from that date. My best guess for becoming a US citizen when I was an H1 was approximately 9 years (3 years to get green card + 6 years residence to become citizen). If I'd changed jobs during the green card application process, it could have taken even longer. No thanks.

I feel like I have more freedom here in Canada. In just 18 mos I will be a citizen. Then my Canadian wife and myself will move to Europe. She'll get citizenship there in 3 years. We will then decide where we want to settle and have children.

So, I got a great start to my career as on an H1 - thanks. Fix your system: that means don't trap people in jobs, or with single entry visas, and make it easier for their spouses to work (I will not move back to the US as my wife will have a tough time getting an employement visa).

[ Parent ]
if it was up to me (none / 0) (#229)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:42:58 PM EST

there wouldn't be *any* limit to immigration.

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
He's trying to be satirical. (none / 0) (#169)
by aphrael on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:11:14 PM EST

Although it's not very well executed. The key is in his reference to being a saxon who hates angles; these are two groups which invaded england at roughly the same time, around 1500 years ago. In that context, it's *mildly* amusing.

[ Parent ]
you don't have to (none / 0) (#228)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:42:28 PM EST

explain saxons, jutes, or angles to me. i'm fully aware of the history of the fey isles. my family first received lands in Albion by grant of William the Conqueror.

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
Left academia???? (none / 0) (#287)
by Woundweavr on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 05:16:01 PM EST

But medham I thought you were a Professor! When did you leave academia?

[ Parent ]
"scared to touch" (4.25 / 4) (#67)
by streetlawyer on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:00:57 AM EST

he's coming up with figures that his contemporaries are scared to touch (for example, his figures that men's real wages declined 30% from 1970 to 1996).

I'm not surprised that people are scared to touch this figure; it's very clearly wrong. Did anyone really believe that people were 150% as well off thirty years ago as they are now?

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever

statistics (4.00 / 1) (#98)
by felixrayman on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 10:43:01 AM EST

I couldn't find a source for real wage that included only men, but average weekly earnings for men and women in private industry have fallen since the 1970's, although not 30%. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics charts say average weekly earnings ( in constant 1982 dollars ) were $296.22 in Jan. 1970 and $249.54 in Jan. 1996. (296.22 - 249.54) / 296.22 = 15.7%. 1970 was not the peak year either, if you do the statistics for 1973-1996 it is more like 19%. I would imagine data for men only would show a greater decline.

Do you have any data to back up your assertion that this is not the case?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
What is a real wage? (none / 0) (#99)
by Gupi on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:02:03 AM EST

1. Your data should be viewed together with pricing information. This would show how the value of that money changed. In my country, prices went down dramatically since 1970, because we relaxed import regulations.

2. Also, since women on the average earn less than men, and more women work today than in 1970, calculating data for men seperately would should *less* decline.


[ Parent ]
Defintion: Real Wage (none / 0) (#103)
by opendna on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:05:55 PM EST

Wages adjusted for inflation. Changes in price levels - inflationary and deflationary - are reflected in real wage statistics.

[ Parent ]
Actually, no (none / 0) (#104)
by linca on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:06:52 PM EST

womens, as they work more, tend to : 1. hold better jobs (men on the contrary see a decline, since they can't hold the jobs those women have now). 2. reach more equal working conditions, which in turn makes salaries for men go down faster than the average.

Of course this means taking the crypto-racist point of view this article wants us to takt, ie that of white male virility being assaulted by lower fertility. This is either racist propaganda, and the discussion isn't worth the propaganda being put on kuro5hin.org, or this is a troll trying to see how far he can get away with being racist. Remember the comment that was voted down yesterday, because a black person apparently was being slightly racist, and the one we are publishing, despite being white supremacist drivel? doesn't that worry you?

[ Parent ]
yes, and so do you (4.00 / 1) (#101)
by streetlawyer on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:47:25 AM EST

To put it plainly, you seem to be glossing over the difference between 16% and 30% as if it were some sort of technicality.

Furthermore, it's an utter cheat to end the series in 1996; this was a trough year and real wages have grown substantially since then.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

more (none / 0) (#232)
by felixrayman on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 12:21:08 AM EST

I posted the statistics because in your comment ( Did anyone really believe that people were 150% as well off thirty years ago as they are now? ) you seemed to imply that it is completely unbelievable that real wages were higher 30 years ago than they are now which is an undeniable fact, and one that is glossed over by advocates of increased immigration and foreign trade.

Admittedly the figure of 30% doesn't seem to be the case, I believe the poster was misreading a quote regarding real wages for workers with only a high school degree. As for your other math quibbles, first of all, if you ran the comparison from 1973-1999 instead of 1970-1996 you would get within a percent of the same answer. And second, if we are going to quibble about the math, where the hell did the figure 150% come from?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Fringe benefits explain the difference (5.00 / 1) (#195)
by snacky on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:12:26 PM EST

"Wages" normally refers only to take-home pay. It doesn't include pension plan contributions, insurance, or any other fringe benefits. I don't have any recent figures, but the source that's most convenient to me right now is Time Magazine Jan. 29 1996, which states that fringe benefits as a % of payroll rose from 29.3% in 1970 to 40.2% in 1992. Mostly these fringe benefits take the form of insurance and pension plans. According to an economics professor I used to have, the increases in fringe benefits are so large that total weekly compensation has gone up since the 70's even though real wages have gone down. The impression he gave was that in the economics profession, these facts were well known and it was regarded as something of a politician's trick to consider only part of an employee's compensation.

--
I like snacks
[ Parent ]
benefits (none / 0) (#231)
by felixrayman on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:45:13 PM EST

You say that benefits AS A PERCENTAGE of payrolls are going up...if wages are going down in real terms, which they are, and benefits merely stay the same, then benefits as a percentage of wages will go up. Add on to that the fact that a much smaller percentage of workers is covered by pensions now than in the 1970s and your argument is completely bogus. I would bet that the percentage of workers covered by insurance is lower now than in 1970s as well but I don't have statistics on that. I know that the percentage of the premiums that workers pay themselves is going up for those workers that do have insurance.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Stats bear me out (none / 0) (#254)
by snacky on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 05:53:19 AM EST

You say that benefits AS A PERCENTAGE of payrolls are going up...if wages are going down in real terms, which they are, and benefits merely stay the same, then benefits as a percentage of wages will go up.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation based on the numbers I sketched above will show that this is not the case, but if you still need convincing check out the first three following tables (which, unfortunately, deal with information that's not exactly what I was talking about in my original post): a series of different measures of hourly total compensation. The figures in the first three tables include all fringe benefits. The fifth table does not include fringe benefits - and notice this is the table which shows declining wages since 1970. Also see this table showing fringe benefits rising as a % of national income.

There is another problem with all of these wage and compensation figures, which the same economics professor pointed out to me. There had long been growing doubts about the accuracy of the CPI, and many economists produced evidence that it overestimated inflation due to several serious built-in biases. One of the implications of this is that real wage growth during the 70's through 90's was seriously underestimated. We have since phased in a revised CPI which, nearly everyone agrees, is a more accurate reflection of price changes.

--
I like snacks
[ Parent ]

What DOES that information say? (none / 0) (#218)
by RofGilead on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 08:37:23 PM EST

Those figures still show NOTHING. Did the age brackets of the average worker change? How does the wage for X job then reflect to X job now?

My point is this: if since the 1970's the service industry blossomed (which it did), and more teenage to college workers were working in low paying service jobs, wouldn't this cause the average job salary to decline?

And the job salary for joe accountant could be the same or better than it was then.

I'm not implying that this is the case, but the statistics given really do not show THAT much information, and one should not let it lead you to false assumptions.

-= RofGilead =-

---
Remember, you're unique, just like everyone else. -BlueOregon
[ Parent ]
Thirty two years ago (4.00 / 1) (#164)
by leifb on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:03:24 PM EST

it was possible for a person to live in a downtown apartment or rental house in Austin, Texas, supporting himself by waiting tables part time. From this location, he wouldn't need a car. A bicycle would do just fine, as almost everything worth going to was in easy biking distance.

And then he could spend his off hours sitting in on lectures at any of the half-dozen colleges in town, shooting the shit with grad students, listening to music on sixth street, and working on the dissertation/novel/album/paintings/...

Now, the same house runs 15k-20k per year. Most landlords won't rent to you unless you're pulling down three times that much. You do not make that waiting tables, nor managing a small office.

And I understand that bike accessibility has gone down the toilet, too. Personally, I think that's an indication that there are more interesting things more spread out, but the routes aren't terribly friendly.

[ Parent ]

What does that prove? (none / 0) (#279)
by treetops on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:00:33 PM EST

Austin is/was a boom town for the tech economy. When your town is suddenly filled with highly-paid tech people, of course housing is going to increase in price. By the same token, if you owned a house, it would have been worth much, much more in, say, 1999 then it would have if Austin wasn't what it is.

I understand that real estate prices are dropping heavily now, though.
--tt
[ Parent ]

Anyone here have any... (3.33 / 3) (#72)
by ti dave on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:33:49 AM EST

cold hard facts concerning the following assertion?

What this means, is that many older women need legal abortion to have children safely (because of the high risk of detectable birth defects for women having their first child late in life).

What percentage of all abortions are performed due to the detection of birth defects/fetal deformity?


"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

Between 1 and 2% (4.25 / 4) (#76)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:22:36 AM EST

On this point nearly everyone agrees -- approximately 98% of abortions are voluntary abortions. An Australian paper has more exact statistics in an article about abortion laws there. Apparently you have to state a reason to get an abortion in Australia; in 2000, 97.6% of the mothers who had abortions claimed "mental well-being of the mother" as the reason. 2.1% claimed fetal abnormalities, 0.3% claimed a medical condition themselves, and <0.1% (a single case) claimed assault. <p> I don't have any links to statistics on the U.S. handy at the moment, but I've seen them quoted before and they're in close agreement -- almost all abortions are voluntary.

[ Parent ]
correction on source (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Delirium on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:24:42 AM EST

Apparently that's not an Australian paper. The article is about Australia though, and I see no reason to doubt its statistics, as they're in line with all the other statistics I've seen.

[ Parent ]
Aren't those technically... (none / 0) (#83)
by ti dave on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:54:58 AM EST

2.1% claimed fetal abnormalities

Aren't those technically, discounting lethal abnormalities, still "voluntary"?
That might push the voluntary number closer to 100%


"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
"voluntary" (4.50 / 2) (#108)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:32:57 PM EST

2.1% claimed fetal abnormalities

Aren't those technically, discounting lethal abnormalities, still "voluntary"? That might push the voluntary number closer to 100%

The question is how many women are having children later in life who would not attempt to do so were it not for the assurance that they wouldn't have to raise a disabled child when they have secure resources for 1 or maybe 2 children at the outside?

Note there was no category for "can't afford this child" in the various motives for abortion. Here we see the uselessness of "voluntary" as a category in abortion because for the vast majority of the baby boom generation, which Buchanan targets, economic policy and circumstances conspired to attack them at exactly the point that its females were first entering marriage thus it is irrational to blame delayed childbirth entirely on "voluntary" actions. Furthermore, if the women are caught early enough in socialization with de facto sterilizing indoctrination, they are morally imprinted and it can hardly be called "voluntary" when they end up having abortions as a consequence of that brainwashing.

Finally, it takes facing menopause straight on, with the attendant loss of sexual power and loss of corporate concubinage for many of the best women to break free of their socialization and realize they have been duped into selling their birth right for some sterilizing religion hiding 'neath the guise of avante garde social reform.

It is no accident that "corporate downsizing" got rid of "middle management" right at the point in time when boomer women were hitting menopause. They're not fuckable anymore so the corporate harems got rid of them. It's quite as simple as that.

In this situation a woman may actually become a woman for a change right at the point in time when she:

  • Has the fewest monetary resources in her life.
  • Has the least time within which to have a child.
  • Has vanishing odds of finding a supportive mate.
  • Has an exponentiating likelihood of giving birth to a disabled child.

These circumstances all conspire to not only deprive the world of highly valued children but also sadistically torture women who were mislead earlier in life. This torture might provide some degree of pyrrhic victory for bitter anti-feminists but it is sadism nevertheless. For men like Buchanan and the religious leaders who would relegate such women to these particular pits of hell for the crime of having been raised to be corporate concubines, I have contempt.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Downsizing (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by aphrael on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:52:38 PM EST

It is no accident that "corporate downsizing" got rid of "middle management" right at the point in time when boomer women were hitting menopause. They're not fuckable anymore so the corporate harems got rid of them. It's quite as simple as that.

This is one of the most amusing, and sad, things i've read on Kuro5hin in a long time.

First off, what's your statistical evidence that the downsizing of middle management disproportionately impacted female managers?

Second, why do you assume that women can't have a career and a family?

Third, when you say that women who have reached menopause are "not fuckable anymore", you are betraying your own prejudices --- most women continue to enjoy sex, and have a happy sex life, well after menopause. They can't get pregnant, but they can still have sex --- so if, as you allege, the only reason women are in the business world is because businessmen want to have sex with them, hitting menopause would mean nothing except in the eyes of people, like yourself, who associate sex exclusively with pregnancy.

In short, your allegations say more about you than they do about the business world.

[ Parent ]

The Reality of Betrayal (4.00 / 1) (#191)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:02:25 PM EST

First off, what's your statistical evidence that the downsizing of middle management disproportionately impacted female managers?

A quick Google search on "middle management" "glass ceiling" comes up with lots of stuff like this:

Eliminating the Glass Ceiling What is most surprising is that if you examine the ranks of middle management, the numbers of women and minorities are at an all time high. In most consumer product companies, women represent the predominant group in their marketing department and virtually every company has some form of aggressive minority recruiting program. These individuals are well educated and recruited from some of the country's best MBA programs. They work hard and aspire for the same success everyone does. Everyday they play a significant role in the process of their organization. Yet their absence from meaningful senior level decision-making positions - the glass ceiling as it has come to be known - is nothing new. Everyone agrees this invisible barrier exists, but the question remains how to best eliminate this barrier.

Second, why do you assume that women can't have a career and a family?

I assume no such thing -- I merely assume they frequently fail at one, the other or both when they attempt to do so because that is reported so often.

Third, when you say that women who have reached menopause are "not fuckable anymore", you are betraying your own prejudices...

My statement about "they aren't fuckable anymore" is from the standpoint of their role as corporate concubines. The glass ceiling exists to keep the corporate concubines in their place as part of the harem while the men above the glass ceiling (and the sneaky males below it) sate their preferences for young nubile fuck-dolls and or status ornaments to have around. Once they're at menopause, they're frequently discarded for precisely that reason.

When I was younger I actually had a "thing" for older women (and older women, BTW, frequently have a "thing" for younger men if you haven't noticed).

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

"Reality" ? (3.50 / 2) (#201)
by MrMikey on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:36:51 PM EST

My statement about "they aren't fuckable anymore" is from the standpoint of their role as corporate concubines. The glass ceiling exists to keep the corporate concubines in their place as part of the harem while the men above the glass ceiling (and the sneaky males below it) sate their preferences for young nubile fuck-dolls and or status ornaments to have around. Once they're at menopause, they're frequently discarded for precisely that reason.
I think someone's fantasy life is getting just a bit out of hand...

You would have us believe that

  1. Women in the modern business world take the "role of corporate concubines."
  2. These women do so willingly, or at least, silently.
  3. Upper-level males view women as "fuck dolls".
  4. Upper-level males run successfull corporations by hiring people for their ornamental value rather than, you know, being able to do their jobs.
  5. Upper-level males are able to detect the onset of menopause, and proceed to fire women on this basis.
I'm not sure who should be more insulted by this... the men or the women. Now, I certainly believe, and have encountered, that species of knuckle-dragging male who still looks at the world as having fallen from some sort of 1950's "Golden Age", wherein straight white males ruled the Universe, and everyone who wasn't abased themselves before their obvious Straight White Male Superiority. I also don't doubt the existence of a "Glass Ceiliing" for women and minorities. What I find absurd is this talk of "concubines", or the dismissal of female middle managers as "ornaments" or "fuck-dolls.". I know many a woman who would hand you your balls if you tried... and I salute them.

[ Parent ]
Now that you mention it... (4.00 / 1) (#240)
by Baldrson on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 02:43:24 AM EST

I know many a woman who would hand you your balls

Oh, yeah -- that reminds me of the other job of the middle management concs: Make eunuchs of the lower status straight males on behalf of the straight males above the glass ceiling (and, let's not forget the sneaky straights that are hanging around with the concs).

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Colleagues? (3.60 / 10) (#74)
by Lode Runner on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:45:57 AM EST

I'm curious. Who are these colleagues we keep hearing about?

Is "Concerned Citizen" here really syndicated columnist Charley Reese? He seems to share your interests (e.g. racial and cultural purification) and obsessions (e.g. Scots-Irish "heritage" and Jewish hegemony). Are you as into guns as Charley?

Who's the "colleague" in this case?

Okay, I'm aware that aware that you probably won't reveal their identities, but you could perhaps tell us what profession you three share, couldn't you? I already know that two of you aren't qualified biologists or geneticists, so that's out. Is Jew-baiting still a profession these days? Are you all paid to spread the gospel of nativist eugenics? No, that's too 1920s. I give up... what do you three do?



Who's Street Lawyer? (1.66 / 6) (#91)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 09:43:40 AM EST

"Lode Runner" states: Sorry to spoil the game, folks, but frankly I'm hurt and I just want it to stop. Baldrson's made a mockery of the tremendous effort I've put into name-brand personas like "medham" and "streetlawyer". "Lode Runner" also claims to be an academic biologist who fights "racism" in his classroom -- just as our "Streetlawyer" does here.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

just (2.00 / 3) (#125)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:09:58 PM EST

a yabo.

over-educated dilettante who has many interesting references and a broad exposure to literature, but suffers from a typical simple-minded New England elite socialist worldview.

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
Simple minded ... (none / 0) (#209)
by StrontiumDog on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 06:45:58 PM EST

over-educated dilettante who has many interesting references and a broad exposure to literature, but suffers from a typical simple-minded New England elite socialist worldview.

While streetlawyer has put his foot in his mouth on matters technical time and again, he has thoroughly thrashed each and every opponent on political issues in any k5 conflict of importance the last two years -- and that includes trhurler.

Whether he believes his own spiel completely is another matter, but he plays it well. "Simple minded"?

[ Parent ]

if you think that (none / 0) (#227)
by CodeWright on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:39:37 PM EST

read some of my crossings with two of his personae -- medham and streetlawyer. :)

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
Identity of mysterious colleague (none / 0) (#210)
by edwin on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 06:46:51 PM EST

This same piece (or one remarkably similar - I haven't looked word-for-word) has been posted as a review of Buchanan's book on Amazon. It's listed as by "Concerned Citizen" from Portland, OR and was posted March 7th. It's on the "reviews 51-60" page, if anyone's interested.

[ Parent ]
"European Culture" (4.79 / 29) (#75)
by Spork on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:21:36 AM EST

With the vote for Le Pen in France and a bunch of other racist movements in Europe, this is a global issue. In fact, many of Buchanan's arguments seem cribbed from far-right propaganda that circulates in Europe. Of course, these guys tend to be a bit more tactful than Buchanan. Their (official) fear is not that the skin color of Europe will turn dark, but rather that the "national culture" of some European states is being diluted by immigrants who refuse to "assimilate".

Much of the talk about national culture is racistic nationalism enshrouded in a certain code language, and does not deserve to be taken seriously. However, the fact that even traditional European moderates find something in these parties that earns their vote means that they do tap into a real and common fear.

It is my sense that many Europeans who fear the loss of their culture are basically afraid of Americanization, which is to say, McDonaldization. In the US, where immigration is a key feature of our history, we don't really have a culture. Well, I should take that back... We do have certain cultural habits and practices which are original to the USA. All of the ones I can think of fit into the category of consumerism. This is a level on which natives and foreigners can most easily communicate and find common ground--the lowest common denominator of sorts. It forms the basis of all US self-projecting aspirations, estimates of personal worth, social intereactions, etc.

As immigration to European states increases, old-school natives find that this consumerist culture is growing stronger in their country, at the expense of what was there before. And you don't have to be some sort of a Nazi to think that this is a bad development.

Europeans, like all people, have a right to be proud of their culture, and to want to see it survive. The fact is, circumstances are making its survival quite difficult. Sure, American role models do a lot of damage, but so do foreign immigrants who don't see what the big deal is with Goethe and Schiller (for example). Then when you see that cross-cultural communication is mediated by MTV, you start realizing that even reasonable people have a right to worry.

Anyway, I think there are many good side-effects of immigration (for example, "ethnic" grocery stores keep me alive, and my foreign friends help me see global issues from different perspectives). In the USA, immigrants don't really have anything to damage, since most of our culture already operates on the MTV/Nike/Big Screen/SUV wavelength, which foreigners get just as easily as natives. However, this is not yet the case in Europe. Again, I don't want to support Buchanan's analysis, but I do think we have to face the fact that immigration significantly accelerates the descent to the lowest common cultural denominator. Anyway, my European anti-globalization buddies never seem to talk about this, even if what they protest for is in effect the same thing their enemies (the reactionary right-wingers) want: to preserve a sort of culture that is not based solely on capitalism.

Of course, when Pat Buchanan says "culture" that's code for "Christinaity". He's worried that the flow of the immigrant mob outpaces our capacity to Christianize them, and that the Church will grow weak and irrilevant, and lose its strangle-hold on US politics. This may indeed happen, and if it does, I won't mourn it. Of course, we all know that this is why Buchanan, who thinks the Church makes the best politics, is so scared of immigrants (well, in addition to his straight-up racism, I mean).

His personal stupidities aside, however, I think there is an important issue raised by his arguments. Mass immigration is really just one feature of globalization. Globalization, from a cynic's point of view, is basically the idea of making an America out of the world, of having a global melting pot where our ancestral cultures are seen as currious customs of primitive predecessors rather than living traditions. How many generations of living in the US does it take before a family's native traditions (language, customs, values, perspectives, etc.) are smoothed out into non-descript Americanism? More than one, less than four. It seems that what awaits us is a non-descript cultural Globalism, which will probably not be too different from present-day Americanism. As I said, I think Buchanan fears the globalized, culturally smoothed-out world because he doesn't like the thought that it will be run by brown people, and he's also worried that Christianity will not keep the clout that it presently has in the US. I and my anti-globalization friends don't fear either of these things; in fact, we welcome them. But that's not to say that there is nothing to fear in this global transformation.

Holy shit, that's brilliant (3.00 / 4) (#96)
by Kingmaker on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 10:25:22 AM EST

Genius! Give me 1s, I don't care.

[ Parent ]
US Culture (3.75 / 8) (#102)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 11:51:07 AM EST

In the US, where immigration is a key feature of our history, we don't really have a culture.

While we don't have a deep culture in the sense that older countries do, we do (or did) have some deeply shared beliefs - about building the future, equality, class mobility, all that happy patriotic stuff.

I'm less disturbed by the changing color of America than I am by the corrosion of these beliefs - corrosion driven as much by ultra-liberal Americans as by any immigrants. (Although there is truth to the idea that self-segregation of people into ethnic enclaves encourages this behavior.)

If we denigrate the idea that America means something, we shouldn't complain that immigrants don't assimilate with it.


--
Uhhh.... Where did I drop that clue?
I know I had one just a minute ago!


[ Parent ]
Consumerism? (4.44 / 9) (#129)
by Lagged2Death on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:22:15 PM EST

While we don't have a deep culture in the sense that older countries do, we do (or did) have some deeply shared beliefs - about building the future, equality, class mobility, all that happy patriotic stuff.

An American cynic might interpret these core American values this way:

Equality: I too, can lease a Lincoln Navigator, just like the Joneses up the street.

Class mobility: Even though I grew up in a rusty trailer1, with a lot of hard work and a little luck, I have a really nice home, just like Elvis.

Building the future: If I get the 60-year mortgage, I can afford to move out of this dump to a nicer neighborhood for the kids to grow up in.

The point being that these "core values" can be (and, I think, usually are) interpreted in way that easily falls under the broad description of "consumerism." In fact, the over-broadness of that label would be my primary bone of contention with Spork's post (I wouldn't argue with the main thrust of it). What doesn't count as consumerism?

[1] The rather obvious mobile home/class mobility jokes have been cunningly edited, for everyone's sake.2

[2] For extra credit, come up with a good mobile home joke.

Starfish automatically creates colorful abstract art for your PC desktop!
[ Parent ]

Nice (5.00 / 2) (#253)
by Spork on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:37:00 AM EST

I guess I am just the sort of American cynic you envision. This is the way I too picture American culture.

As for what doesn't count as consumerism, that is an interesting question. I don't know enough about anthropology to come up with too many examples. One example: if it's a part of your culture to seek religious enlightenment (through meditation, self-discipline, etc) then that is not a consumerist-centered goal.

In general, if you define your self-esteem, the respect-worthiness of others, and your own goals in terms that are not money centered or commodity centered, then you have a non-consumerist culture.

I don't want to imply that Europe is all like this, and that none of the US is. Still, there is a difference of degree, and one explanation for it might be the incredible homogeneity of the US population. It is a country of people who left their roots to benefit themselves personally. The thing is, most immigrants (who are not fleeing a catastrophe) tend to have this attitude. Turks who focus their lives on their families, old friends and God don't typically go off to work in Germany. The ones that go do it for the money. I'm not saying they're bad people for doing so, but that their influx, if it's large and fast enough, will inevitably push a society towards an "all that's important are your toys" mentality. I actually think this is the direction the whole world is headed in. The USA is ahead of the curve. Next in line are other immigrant states like Canada and Australia, maybe also Singapore. Then I think it's Europe's turn. The easier movement and migration becomes, the less weight local traditions will carry. When those are lost, people have a tendency to start defining their goals through consumerist terms.

[ Parent ]

In Praise of Vulgarity (4.50 / 4) (#157)
by kimbly on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:51:21 PM EST

This article provides an interesting rebuttal to the anti-consumerist meme.

In short, the author argues that consumerism is a technique that people use to create and reinforce their own cultural groups, rather than something that is imposed upon them by marketers and corporate executives. I personally find consumerism distasteful, but the article is interesting and well-written, nonetheless.

[ Parent ]

George Wallace (4.25 / 8) (#162)
by czolgosz on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:01:39 PM EST

I view Buchanan as the successor to George Wallace. There is a huge population of inept white males in this country who think they'd be better off if the playing field were slanted to discourage all them damned foreigners (who are smarter and more qualified) who "keep taking all the good jobs." Assholes like Buchanan sell excuses to the losers and offer ready-made lists of scapegoats.

"Unfair Competition" = "I can't win unless you handicap the other guy."

I'm a white male myself, and the only way competition from my H1-B colleagues has changed my life is by keeping me from getting complacent. It's raised my game. That's a good thing. It means my firm is able to compete in the world markets.

I have no respect for the losers who blame immigrants for failures resulting from their own lack of intelligence and ambition. If I were inclined to expel anyone from the country, it would be the freeloaders who think we owe them something because they're white and their ancestors were here for a few generations. And they talk about "traditional values." What about self-help and hard work?

The traditional values I respect come from Tom Paine and John Brown, not from also-rans and demagogues spouting retro-Nazi "Blood and Soil" bullshit and fundamentalist dogma. I have a hell of a lot more in common with a computer scientist from Bombay or Beirut than a laid-off racist from the rust belt.

Buchanan needs to crawl back under his rock.
Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
[ Parent ]
H1B is the axis of evil (4.66 / 6) (#185)
by valency on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:38:34 PM EST

A lot of people object to H1Bs because it levels the playing field for some types of workers (software engineers) but not others (software engineering managers). This leads to a greater stratification of the workplace -- more competition for engineering jobs drives down the engineers' salaries and limits their negotiating power with their bosses (who don't have to worry about foriegn competition for their jobs). What you wind up with is software factories.

I vehemently oppose the H1B program. If you want to ease immigration (a good idea), do it across the board in a non-discriminatory manner.

---
If you disagree, and somebody has already posted the exact rebuttal that you would use: moderate, don't post.
[ Parent ]

Not entirely correct (4.25 / 4) (#204)
by edwin on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:54:33 PM EST

I'm a software engineering manager (well, I write some code too, but my job description claims I'm primarily a manager). I'm also an immigrant (from the UK) in the USA on an L-1A visa. (L rather than H means it's an internal transfer within a multinational rather than a new job; A rather than B is managerial rather than technical). So there is some managerial migration.

Also (in theory) wages paid to H-1 workers have to be comparable to those paid to "home-grown" workers in the same industry performing the same tasks. How true this is in practice I don't know.

[ Parent ]

H1B Program Expansion (3.66 / 3) (#222)
by SporranBoy on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 10:23:55 PM EST

Is the program really being expanded?

Given all of the recent lay offs I wouldn't have thought that there would be any need to trawl overseas for tech workers.

I know there is still a major nursing shortage here.

I am an engineer who came here on an H1B so I find it hard to agree with you. Mind you, we are hardly disinterested parties in this matter.

I don't think things would necessarily be better for you with a more equitative immigration policy. If there is money in tech jobs, immigrants will move into that sector. They are more motivated and hard working than the locals ( maybe not you but certainly most others ) and often benefit from having been educated in a more rigorous environment.

[ Parent ]
who hires the lobbyists: engineers or managers? (3.00 / 1) (#252)
by valency on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:35:52 AM EST

If there is money in tech jobs, immigrants will move into that sector.

There's at least as much money in tech management as there is in tech engineering.

The difference is that tech industry lobbyists are hired by tech industry managers, not tech industry engineers.

I welcome immigrants as long as nobody's artificially warping the immigration laws to suit their own agenda.

---
If you disagree, and somebody has already posted the exact rebuttal that you would use: moderate, don't post.
[ Parent ]

You're Shooting in the wrong direction, Soldier (4.25 / 4) (#208)
by StrontiumDog on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 06:35:37 PM EST

It is my sense that many Europeans who fear the loss of their culture are basically afraid of Americanization, which is to say, McDonaldization

Rubbish. What conservative Europeans fear, what Pat Buchanan dreads, are people who don't like Americanization, who don't go to McDonalds.

Muslims. Arabs. Radical Blacks. Damn Mexicans who won't learn Ingles. Bong-hitters. Commies.

You don't seriously think Haider, Le Pen or Flip DeWinter is worried about American-style consumerism, do you? They're worried about Turkish and Algerian immigrants who won't learn the local language. Who worship a strange God. Whose womenfolk walk around with black headscarves. Who install satellite dishes so that they can watch the crap their motherland broadcasts instead of American crap via the cable like every other good native.

Buchanan wants a bland, global, uniform, Americanized world. Because that's a lot safer than a world filled with Osama bin Laden types. Because that's the only way he (and his ilk) will ever have any real power.

Glad to see you're buying his line.

[ Parent ]

Europeans vs Le Pen (4.00 / 1) (#219)
by SporranBoy on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 09:47:32 PM EST

By "Europeans" I think he was meaning those of us who don't fall into the categories of "poor working class" or "racist loons".

There are indeed many Europeans who don't want to be swamped by consumerism. My Mum for example, who isn't interested in buying things she doesn't need because they are "on sale" or doesn't think long distance rates qualify as a topic for after dinner conversation.

We don't talk about the NASDAQ, don't care whether Larry Ellison has more money than Bill Gates, won't go to see a crap movie "cuz the special effects are cool" and once out of our 20s don't feel that we need 270 bhp under the hood to be real men ( with a few exceptions ). We are different, although increasingly less so.

[ Parent ]
Just a note... (none / 0) (#314)
by FuriousXGeorge on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 06:17:55 PM EST

<<Rubbish. What conservative Europeans fear, what Pat Buchanan dreads, are people who don't like Americanization, who don't go to McDonalds. Muslims. Arabs. Radical Blacks. Damn Mexicans who won't learn Ingles. Bong-hitters. Commies.>> I am a bong hitter and know many others. Trust me, we go to McDonalds ALOT!
-- FIELDISM NOW!
[ Parent ]
strange conclusion (3.66 / 6) (#97)
by calimehtar on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 10:42:51 AM EST

"Patrick J. Buchanan is not right in all respects, but he may be more right than any other major figure in the public eye and he is improving." By "right" I guess you mean correct? or conservative? or both? I nominate Rush Limbaugh as B's replacement if you mean conservative, and if you mean "correct" then why not Judith Martin, "Miss Manners"?

+++

The whole point of the Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret.


Accuracy of Buchanan's predictions (2.00 / 2) (#269)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 12:47:28 PM EST

One question here
what are the accuracy of the predictions of folks in question?

Personally, I am not enamored with Buchanan. I honestly think he's quite intelligent and a good writer, but he comes off as enough of a bully that he scares the hell out of the lot of folks. I honestly think that in today's climate, Ralph Nader would be a stronger leader-a lot of folks that disagree strongly with his political stands at least respect Naders integrity.

Still, on the question of accuracy, who is looking at the big issues that are going to effect what happens in the future? I personally have to begrudgingly give that to Buchanan. Buchanan IMHO has a more realistic view of what is happening Israel with the Arab/Israeli conflict, the US and Europe with the massive immigration than any mainstream figure. I'm not saying he's perfect, but at least he's seriously trying to address serious issues that relate to what we can expect in the future.

There is a simply question here:
What will be the effects of specific policy?
The current US immigration policy has not had any of the effects promised back in 1965. Things just haven't worked out as was promised. Who was in fact most accurate in their view of what was going to happen here?

[ Parent ]

Hi nomoreh1b (5.00 / 1) (#296)
by medham on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 11:12:16 PM EST

I agree with you about Baldrson being intelligent and a bit scary. I've certainly wavered under the assault of your logic.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

What's really nasty (none / 0) (#300)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 04:08:00 AM EST

I agree with you about Baldrson being intelligent and a bit scary. I've certainly wavered under the assault of your logic.

I didn't say anything about Baldrson being scary. For that matter, I didn't say I think of Buchanan as scary. Buchanan does come off as a bully-IMHO that is a bit different than being scary. The danger of someone is essential a product of their chance of getting power times their chance of abusing power once they get it. Buchanan's folks aren't going to get close to nukes, biologicals or anything like that--and folks that are much nastier already have such toys.

Remember, Buchanan was a protege of Richard Nixon(the father of affirmative action). If the Nixon crowd had what it took to do anything serious, they would have done it back in the early 70's. Someone I know was a White House staffer under Nixon. By the time Nixon was thinking of anything drastic, his control of nukes had already been severed(quite some time before the resignation).

One of the things that I personally liked about Buchanan's book "Death of the West" is Buchanan is starting to come to grips with the fact that he's not part of the real power structure in the US, but part of a rather unpopular and powerless minority in the US. I personally think that as Buchanan's assessment of his own situation and that of his followers becomes more realistic, he'll become a more effective leader(I think he made a big step when he got out of electoral politics and went back to being a journalist-likewise I think his mentor Richard Nixon would have done far better to have not made the compromises necessary to be President).

One thing I also want to say here. I don't find Baldrson scary. I'm personally greatful to him for helping me to understand the perspective of fundamentalists and paleoconservatives well enough that I can actually have a genial conversation with some of these folks. (some of these folks might be a little surprised if they knew certain things about who they were talking to:)).



[ Parent ]

Diaspora Unite! (4.47 / 21) (#113)
by opendna on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 12:47:44 PM EST

I love white power messages. They remind me of all the things I find abhorrent in the nation-state system.

I'd like to see "inter-racial" dating encouraged, immigration controls lifted and the European/white-centered American origin myth completely discredited.

Most Americans cannot trace their family trees back to the founding fathers or original revolutionaries. They are diaspora and decedents of diaspora. Yes, they may have forgotten their individual histories and adopted a state-sponsored common identity springing from a mythical white-Anglo-protestant-revolutionary origin. Truth is what you believe, I suppose.

*My* roots are draft-dodgers from dictatorships, escaped American slaves, entrepreneurs, religious refugees, explorers and immigrants. You know what? I have a lot more in common with *them* than traitorous aristocrats (Founding Fathers), religious fundamentalists (Pilgrims) or slave-owning landed gentry celebrated in American textbooks.

The "nation" is a lie used to turn free individuals into common slaves to be ruled by the "state" which perpetuates the lie. Nationalism is inherently racist, sexist, nativist, socialist and imperialist.

Celebrate culture, love your country, reject the nation, define your diaspora.



So what does Diaspora mean? (none / 0) (#255)
by craigtubby on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 08:26:18 AM EST

I didn't know, so I looked it up ....

The dispersion of Jews outside of Israel from the sixth century B.C., when they were exiled to Babylonia, until the present time.

often diaspora The body of Jews or Jewish communities outside Palestine or modern Israel.

oh and finally

A dispersion of a people from their original homeland.


try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die.

* Webpage *
[ Parent ]

Definitions: Diaspora v diaspora (none / 0) (#272)
by opendna on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 01:11:55 PM EST

Etymology: Greek, dispersion, from diaspeirein to scatter, from dia- + speirein to sow

Diaspora: the settling of scattered colonies of Jews outside Palestine after the Babylonian exile; the area outside Palestine settled by Jews; the Jews living outside Palestine or modern Israel.

diaspora: the breaking up and scattering of a people; migration; people settled far from their ancestral homelands; the place where these people live.

I was using the word in the later sense, not as a proper noun.


[ Parent ]

'Real wages' (2.77 / 9) (#120)
by SIGFPE on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:00:28 PM EST

for example, his figures that men's real wages declined 30% from 1970 to 1996
Oh please! To live the lifestyle I have now in the 1970s would probably require a salary over 1000 times what I earn now. Maybe much more. In fact, I'm not sure that any amount of money would have bought me the equivalent of a 200 MHz Pentium in the 1970s, not to mention a modern 2GHz system.
SIGFPE
Value of Human Life (3.66 / 3) (#128)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:21:45 PM EST

So how many 2GHz pentium systems would a woman raised on feminism and sexual liberation who now faces menopause, childlessness and joblessness from being "downsized" out of her middle management corporate concubinage be willing to exchange for a stable marriage and the ability to bear even one child?

For many such "women" who are really jacked on Quake III Arena while they live alone in a ghetto dive on welfare, I can imagine they don't care -- they're quite happy. Especially if they can afford the smack.

For others...

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Quick question (4.50 / 2) (#134)
by Kingmaker on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:30:52 PM EST

How do you feel about people of European origin not having any children at all?

Being 'childfree' is becoming wildly popular among the European-original people. Pretty soon none of them will be having children.

[ Parent ]
Wow. (4.00 / 5) (#213)
by spcmanspiff on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 07:47:16 PM EST

Let's translate:

a woman raised on feminism and sexual liberation

= any woman who believes that double standards based on gender are wrong and that she is free to do in life as she pleases.

who now faces menopause, childlessness

= old hag

and joblessness from being "downsized" out of her middle management

Quotes around "downsized" = was really fired and deserved it, presumably for being such an old hag.

Middle management = completely unimportant and redundant.

corporate concubinage

= Whore.

a stable marriage and the ability to bear even one child?

= The One And Only True Path to Happiness for Women.

For many such "women" who are really jacked on Quake III Arena while they live alone in a ghetto dive

Quotes around "women" = A woman without a stable stay-at-home-and-have-babies marriage isn't even really a human being.

The rest = Women will always fail in the most public and humuliating way so long as they remain independent.

on welfare

= the gubmint takes my money and gives it to these worthless hags.

--------------------------------------

Fuckhead. I imagine that the only thing worse than being your wife would be being your daughter.



[ Parent ]

Uh huh... (4.25 / 4) (#131)
by maunleon on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:23:37 PM EST

Some people don't judge quality of life based on frames per second.

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 3) (#145)
by theR on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:10:41 PM EST

And some people don't judge quality of life based on how racially pure your geneology and that of your neighbors is, whether or not women are in a stable marriage, and whether those women are being productive child bearers.



[ Parent ]
Exactly my point - doh! (4.00 / 3) (#153)
by SIGFPE on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:40:34 PM EST

Any measure of change of 'real wage' change is a function of the values of the person doing the measuring, not an objective measure of the economy.
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]
Yes and no. (4.33 / 3) (#158)
by aphrael on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:51:54 PM EST

If you use some commonly agreed upon basket of goods, and measure its cost in year [x] versus its cost in year [y], and calculate that cost as a percentage of salary, you can get an approximation. That's in essence what the inflation rate calculations use. It's not perfect, and it misses (a) increases in quality of goods and (b) changes in what the default basket really is, but it can be useful for comparing medium-term data.

[ Parent ]
But Then... (4.75 / 4) (#160)
by thelizman on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:56:03 PM EST

...look at how more expensive other goods are. My father worked all summer long, and he bought a popular American muscle car, while still having enough money to take his "gal" to the movies and buy popcorn. Today, if I wanted a good car, I would have to save every dime I earned for 18 months. A computer, for all bluster, is still a luxury and not a necessity. Actual necessities have increased in cost, while decreasing in worth, and now have to compete for our funds with a giant market of luxuries that did'nt exist in the 70's?
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Strange (5.00 / 2) (#223)
by spacejack on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 10:24:51 PM EST

Having a computer empowers me a lot more than having a car (I don't have one). For me, having a computer is a hell of a lot more necessary than having a car. Plus I don't run over pedestrians and cyclists, nor do I add much smog when using it.

[ Parent ]
Exceptions to the Rule Are Strange (5.00 / 1) (#273)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 02:01:09 PM EST

Having a computer empowers me a lot more than having a car (I don't have one). For me, having a computer is a hell of a lot more necessary than having a car.

And for the other 75% of Americans, having a car is an absolute necessity. It gets you from point A (typically your domocile) to point B (either work or school). Now, in many cases A and B are close enough that a bike will suffice (except in snow, rain, high wind, dust storms, fog, yadda yadda yadda). If you don't have "reliable transportation", you don't get much of a job. It also seriously cramps your social life. "Hey babe, wanna go for a ride on my skate board?".

Plus I don't run over pedestrians and cyclists

Neither do most other people, so I don't see where you have much of a point here.

nor do I add much smog when using it.

Yeah, maybe not directly, but when you add the cost of keeping your computer and monitor powered, and of course keeping all those servers feeding your computer powered, you add more smog than my 15 minute commute in my slev four cylinder powered shitbox does. You don't honestly think the electricity coming out of the majic hole in the wall comes from hamsters on treadmills in your attic do you?
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Yet more people own cars... (none / 0) (#312)
by thesync on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 05:28:09 PM EST

Car ownership is up from 1970 to 2000. Moreover, today's car is much safer than old cars, and immensely better for the environment.

Gasoline prices in the United States are about what they were (in inflation-adjusted terms) since the 1970's.

Moreover, today we have a leasing option that was not as readily available in the past.

[ Parent ]

Bzzt (none / 0) (#325)
by thelizman on Mon Apr 29, 2002 at 12:47:35 PM EST

Car ownership is up from 1970 to 2000. Moreover, today's car is much safer than old cars, and immensely better for the environment.


This is absolutely not true. Cars are no more safe and no more better for the environment as a whole. As you correctly stated, cars are more widespread. A number of heavily polluting cars is no less environmentally friendly than alot more less polluting cars.

Additionally, the assertion that todays cars are safer is also patently false. The lightening of cars have led to a less protective structure. While certain aspects of automotive design are safer (crumple zones, air bags, better seat belts, collapsing steering columns, shatterproof glass, et al), the overall reduction of the automotive bodys strength is ultimately making your average car less safe, especailly in side impact collisions.

Gasoline prices in the United States are about what they were (in inflation-adjusted terms) since the 1970's.


Adjusting for inflation fails to reveal the true cost of an item. That true cost is best exemplified when compared to a number of common items such as milk, bread, gas, electricity, water, aspirin, etc. The fact of the matter is taxation and regulation have made gasoline more expensive by comparison than other "needs". Additionally, more people commute and to a farther extent today than in the 70's.

Moreover, today we have a leasing option that was not as readily available in the past.
Leasing, my friend, is more expensive in the long run for a number of people. Leasing only makes sense for those people who treat cars like disposable tissues - using them for a few years then getting new ones. For the average person who buys a car, the cheapest overall method is to make a large downpayment and finance the rest.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
You express your position with confidence (none / 0) (#326)
by MrMikey on Mon Apr 29, 2002 at 01:36:40 PM EST

but I'd prefer that you do so with confidence and evidence. In other words, could we see come cites? I'd very much like to see your sources - not because I don't believe you, but because I'm interested in learning from those cources directly.

Looking forward to your next post...

[ Parent ]

Fair Enough (none / 0) (#328)
by thelizman on Mon Apr 29, 2002 at 07:05:23 PM EST

Unfortunately evidence is scant on the DisInformation Superhighway. I did find this article which talks about how in side impact crash tests, side impact airbags were necessary to prevent fatal head injuries in an S-80 (an already well built car IMO). The T-Bone vehicle was a Ford pickup truck (a large beefy vehicle).

I also speak from experience with respect to the lack of protection offered for both side impact and rollover situations: My sister was killed this time last year when her Hyundai Sonata rolled in Mexico. The a and b pillars collapsed and caused severe impact head injuries (remarkably she had very few cuts, mostly bruises, but the a pillar folded back and pinned her seat to the headrest).

Ultimately, another factor is the more widespread useage of SUV's and minivans, mainly by drivers who aren't affording them the proper respect. SUV's are designed as off road vehicles, and neither are well suited to erratic high speed driving. As they are more prone to rollover, but lack the rollover protection of true offroad vehicles, people die when they roll.

It is true to say that cars are more crash survivable for occupants nowadays because, as the article above points out they are designed with crumple zones. But vehicle sides lack the depth for crumple zones, so they must be reinforced to otherwise absorb or channel energy for side impacts and rollovers. I compare modern cars with straws: They have tremendous longitudinal strength, but pinch their sides and they collapse all to willingly. What is needed is a reinforced "ring" about the b pillar, through the roof, and the floor of the car. In the event of a side impact, the pillar would reinforce door beams, and could work to channel impact energy into the longitudinal axis of the car. In a rollover, the ring would support the roof.

Ultimately, the safest thing about a car is the driver. T-Bone accidents are the one situation, however, where the drivers sense of safety cannot protect them, but instead we have put all of our efforts into front and rear end collisions. That same effort should have been at least partially channelled into driver safety education. As pointed out in the companion article, the driver is the first failure in a safe driving situation.

Unfortunately, I can't provide you the necessary cites and references you need. However, I'll make it a priority to write such an article and put it up at my web site. Unfortunately, I still have to write an article on the relative merits of the Electoral College, another article on the danger of Condorcet voting, two movie reviews, and an album review first.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Ownership !=equity (none / 0) (#327)
by nomoreh1b on Mon Apr 29, 2002 at 07:02:38 PM EST

I would agree there has been significant technical advances in automobiles over the years.

Still, I think it is wrong to consider automobiles strictly a consumer good. A large part of driving involves going to and from work.



[ Parent ]

Consumer Electronics (4.00 / 2) (#165)
by guinsu on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:04:01 PM EST

Other than advances in consumer electronics, and a few changes in automobiles, what's really gotten better for the average person sinc ethe 70s?

[ Parent ]
Dead cubed (4.66 / 3) (#179)
by thebrix on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:50:02 PM EST

As someone who would've been dead three times over by now if medicine had remained at the level of 30 years ago that question barely needs answering in my case :)

The big problem here is 'define "average"'. One definite improvement, at least in the United Kingdom, is that far more people go on to higher education now than then. I would certainly not have gone to university if I had been 18 in 1972, and that I did opened up huge vistas.

[ Parent ]

The pants (5.00 / 3) (#241)
by avocadia on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 02:55:13 AM EST



[ Parent ]
what am I reading? (2.50 / 2) (#177)
by interrupt on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:42:20 PM EST

Honestly, comments like this make me wonder what is happening to K5. I feel like I'm reading Slashdot. Do you really believe that you are happier with your 2Ghz machine than you would be with a nicer home, more time with your family, etc?

[ Parent ]
I can't believe the... (2.00 / 1) (#183)
by SIGFPE on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:28:48 PM EST

...people on K5 who can't take an example and generalise it to the underlying principle. You're American right?
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]
Wages Down, Compensation Up (4.00 / 1) (#311)
by thesync on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 05:24:49 PM EST

While it is true that real wages either stayed the same or decreased from 1970-2000, actual compensation increased by 50%. This is because there has been a shift from wage to non-wage compensation (health insurance, tuition grants, stock options, child care, etc.) Moreover, from 1970-2000, a larger percentage of the population is graduating from high school, college, and graduate school. Food costs have decreased as a total percentage of consumption, and house prices per square foot has declined (although most new houses are much larger now). Home ownership has increased, and the number of cars per thousand people has almost doubled. In truth, I find that technology has greatly increased my enjoyment of my personal life. Cellphones and email are a major help in organizing events with friends. Web sites keep me more highly informed about topics I care about. MP3's have helped me to expand my musical taste.

[ Parent ]
Enronitis Culture (3.00 / 1) (#316)
by Baldrson on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 12:54:20 AM EST

from 1970-2000, actual compensation increased by 50%

Who says Enronitis isn't endemic?

there has been a shift from wage to non-wage compensation

Which means people have less choice about their personal lives at the same time they have less job security.

Bringing child care into it is particularly off-base since the quality of life for both mother and child has been harmed by forcing women into the workplace - so much so that fertility rates have plummeted.

As for stock options... need I remind you of the alternative minimum tax and what happened to the dot-comers?

"Home ownership" when counted as security of one's equity is dropped dramatically since the bulk of the baby boom entered the housing market.

Your enjoyment of your personal life based on gagets could extend to wire implants in your brain... why not?

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Wireheads (none / 0) (#321)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 11:54:38 PM EST

Your enjoyment of your personal life based on gagets could extend to wire implants in your brain... why not?

Hey, heroin and cocaine are major consumer goods in the US. I suspect wirehead drugs will be even better-though it may take a while to get the bugs worked out. All that matters is GNP, right? If it sells it must be valuable? right?

A journalist friend of mine was interviewing a prositute in Bangkok. While he was talking to here, an irate customer came up and said,
"I was here last week, and you gave me a venerial disease"
The prostitute replied:
"I gave you nothing-you bought it.".

Caveat emptor



[ Parent ]

Protectionism (4.16 / 6) (#126)
by clion999 on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:10:09 PM EST

I suppose immigration causes some problems, but overall I think it's better to have the smartest and hardest working people living in your country. It may make work a bit more competitive, but it does give you smart neighbors.

Protectionism is self-destructive (5.00 / 2) (#189)
by boy programmer on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:50:24 PM EST

more importantly, free immigration (sopposing your country is attractive to smart people) gives you smart doctors, smart programmers and skilled mechanics.

I think the best way to attract the smartest/hardest working people to this country is to eleminate handouts, lower taxes, and open our borders to anyone.

[ Parent ]

Why not just auction off citizenship? (none / 0) (#320)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 11:18:04 PM EST

Folks now pay thousands of dollars to arrange sham marriages. You could just auction off citizenship to the highest bidder.

Now, I think the chance of getting folks that would respect your property rights are slim. I also doubt you'll get folks inclined towards military service that way.

Don't you wonder though why this isn't tried anywhere? Real sovereignity isn't for sale.



[ Parent ]

Interesting writing... (3.37 / 8) (#133)
by maunleon on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 01:27:30 PM EST

"What this means, is that many older women need legal abortion to have children safely (because of the high risk of detectable birth defects for women having their first child late in life). "

Hmm... not to take either side in the abortion argument, but does anyone see something strange with this argument? Is it true that if you are past a certain age, the first baby can be considered a throw-away in order to get the second and third right? This is news to me.

Besides, this is not "having children safely" for the baby thatis being aborted.

Salon had an article recently (4.00 / 2) (#143)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:07:57 PM EST

Apparently the number of miscarriages, spontaneous abortions and birth defects climbs dramatically when the mother is >35 years old.


--
Uhhh.... Where did I drop that clue?
I know I had one just a minute ago!


[ Parent ]
Depends on definitions (4.33 / 3) (#144)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:09:24 PM EST

Besides, this is not "having children safely" for the baby thatis being aborted.

Well, that depends on how you define the words "child" and "baby." But that is an argument I don't want to get into, and you seem to agree.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

I don't have a problem with an abortion... (3.00 / 1) (#216)
by maunleon on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 08:25:04 PM EST

but planning an abortion even before fertilization is just wrong. Disposable fetuses/babies/whatever.

[ Parent ]
Chance of Downs syndrome rises with age of Mom (4.50 / 2) (#263)
by Randall Burns on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 11:52:57 AM EST

As do a variety of other birth defects that can be detected fairly early in a pregnancy. Having a child at age 40 with current medical technology and the willingness to have an abortion for medical reasons carries a very very different level of risk than having a child at age 40 if one doesn't have access to current medical technology or does not have the willingness to use abortion for medical reasons.

My wife is an obstetric nurse, which is where I'm getting most of this info. A big part of the reason why more women are having children later in life it it is now far less risky for them to do so.

[ Parent ]

the high risk of (5.00 / 1) (#318)
by KiTaSuMbA on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 08:13:41 AM EST

Down syndrome for mothers over 40yrs remains high for all births... It ain't gonna go away!
I wouldn't care on such "details" though, since the entire article is flawed from principle...



There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
[ Parent ]
Cultural purity (4.00 / 10) (#146)
by quartz on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:11:40 PM EST

You know, I think it would actually be pretty cool if somehow all this "cultural purity" stuff actually got implemented.

Just imagine what would happen if the Buchanans and Le Pens of the world had their way. No more H1Bs, no more immigration, all foreigners sent home. No more illegal immigrants, no more cheap labor. Employers only allowed to hire red-blooded, card-carrying American union members for everything. No more sweatshops and call centers and manufacturing plants abroad, since everything must be done using local labor. No more foreign influence on the precious local culture.

I'd really, really like to see this happen. Wanna speculate on what would happen next? My guess is that things would start going downhill pretty fast. Without cheap labor, any western economy would soon go down the drain, as for the culture, well, IMO a pure culture is a dead culture, for obvious reasons.

Yeah, the end of the global western hegemony would be fun to watch.



--
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke, and fuck 'em even if they can.
It Would Be An American Tragedy (4.66 / 3) (#154)
by thelizman on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:43:54 PM EST

You know, I think it would actually be pretty cool if somehow all this "cultural purity" stuff actually got implemented.

Just imagine what would happen if the Buchanans and Le Pens of the world had their way. No more H1Bs, no more immigration, all foreigners sent home


If this came to pass, it would be the end of what America's melting pot truly is. The strength of American society is in it's diversity - and though I hate repeating that tired line it is true.

Some leftists have attempted to redefine America as the "salad bowl", instead of the melting pot. This is becoming true to an extent, and it is what people like Buchanan refer to as "Balkanization". A salad bowel society is a dangerously fractured society built of isolated pockets of cultural polarity. The melting pot concept, however, embodies the spirit of America's foundation - that a variety of cultures risked incredible losses and overcame great adversity just to get to this country, then worked hard to assimilate themselves into our socioeconomic structure. However, as with any melting of differences, the individual properties of the added elements are not lost, but rather add to the overall character of the mixture.

I oppose illegal immigration, and there is a great degree of validity to the views of people like Buchanan and LePen. The US/Mexico border is a seive of illegal clandestine activity. Any country that wishes to preserve itself should seek to seal it's borders, but at least in our case we have a duty to honor the 400 year old tradition of having borders open to those who wish to enter America and partake in its bounty. Our failure to have an iron clad border has led to the wide spread prototyping of immigrants in an unfair manner - Muslims as terrorists, Hispanics as drug smugglers, Russians as mobsters, and so on. It would be unfair not only to us, but to those people who seek to legitimately enter our society, if we did not put a greater degree of protection against the minimal criminal element which seeks to hide itself in and among legitimate immigrants.

It is the constant influx of new cultural influence that keeps America fresh, alive and welll. Todays immigrant laborer will give birth to tomorrows American scientist, soldier, and statesman. This is what renews the wellspring of American liberty.

--
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Yeah. (4.00 / 2) (#173)
by derek3000 on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:17:34 PM EST

If this came to pass, it would be the end of what America's melting pot truly is.

Like you go on to mention later on, it really isn't the melting pot we'd like to think it is.

On a personal level, I sometimes get jealous that people from other countries have a culture to call their own. I'm only speaking for myself here, but my American family doesn't really celebrate its roots.

The question I have come to ponder, then, is whether or not cultural pride is a Good Thing or just a provincialistic thing, or a nationalistic thing. Not to be cheesey, but we are all humans here--honestly, how is black heritage not my heritage too? Or Jewish heritage, for that matter?

-----------
Not too political, nothing too clever!--Liars
[ Parent ]

You're Not Alone (4.66 / 3) (#211)
by thelizman on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 06:54:19 PM EST

On a personal level, I sometimes get jealous that people from other countries have a culture to call their own. I'm only speaking for myself here, but my American family doesn't really celebrate its roots.

Hammer, Nail, Head, Whack. IMHO, the failure of many previous generations is either in forsaking their heritage or adopting skewed concepts of their heritage. Although it would take a lot more research for me to justify this assertion than I care to get into right now, it has always been my belief that this lack of a defined heritage is the biggest cause of problems among the blacks in America. Their heritage was stolen from them, so while they can claim an American heritage, it is traced back to a shameful past as human chattle. Luckily, DNA profiling is allowing many concerned blacks to precisely trace their African heritage to small tribes, but that's another story. Family history and culture can be a great sense or pride, since so much of our self image is reinforced by our upbringing. Instead, many youth today are forced to turn to other sources for their identity. The most obvious for some is the neighborhood gang. Even people who aren't in tough socioeconomic circuimstances will latch on to an external organization in order to get a sense of identity. Some people go to work for a company and throw themselves into their job full bore. Others will join causes, politicial movements, the military/police/fire department, religeons or cults. For the most disaffected of people, the media (in the plural sense) is only too happy to help manufacture an identity, especially when it sells records and t-shirts. I'm not saying you can teach someone about their ancestry and and they'll immediatly bull the bolt out of their nose, wash the green out of their hair, and start eating red meat again, nor am I saying that people who join those organizations are as a whole less self aware than people who don't. However, overall a more self aware society is less given to abherrent behavior or associative flirtations. On a much larger scale, the more cohesive a society is, the more stable and therefore economically powerful that country will become. We see this most plainly in religeon, where the spiritual belief in a diety is a powerful tool in uniting a people under a doctrine.


--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
And a third 'cultural purity' candidate (none / 0) (#155)
by thebrix on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:47:02 PM EST

Add bin Laden to the list; 'a pure culture is a dead culture' indeed!

[ Parent ]
Forget *cheap* labour! (5.00 / 1) (#159)
by SIGFPE on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:54:15 PM EST

I'd like to see Silicon Valley survive without Persians, Irishmen, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Indians and many others from cultures that value education (even immigrants from Britain where education is probably valued even lower than in the US). In many of the companies I've experienced, immigrants soar over their American colleagues in technical ability and willingness to work. The main thing Americans have to offer is the ability to actually run a company and work the system.
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]
Why did the computer business arise in America? (2.00 / 1) (#290)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 06:47:28 PM EST

Instead of India or China? Are you saying it is because of the superior managerial and legal abilities of elites in the US?

[ Parent ]
Cheap labor and the economy (none / 0) (#175)
by broken77 on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:32:15 PM EST

Without cheap labor, any western economy would soon go down the drain
Actually, it's my assumption that the economy would _not_ go down the drain, it would just become more flat and equalized, and we would consume less because we wouldn't have as much luxury spending ability. Either that, or a large part of our population would end up living in destitution, much like the undeveloped countries we take advantage of. But what's for certain is that it would not be exactly as it is now.

I'm starting to doubt all this happy propaganda about Islam being a religion of peace. Heck, it's just as bad as Christianity. -- Dphitz
[ Parent ]

Did this really happen from 1922-1965 (2.00 / 1) (#266)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 12:37:45 PM EST

US greatly tightened up immigration in the early 20's under Coolidge. The authors of the 1922 bill credited the success of the US to the institutions inherited from the British and sought to maintain the ethnic mix of the US.

The dramatic change in US immigration policy happened under Johnson. Ted Kennedy specifically promised that the new immigration policies wouldn't change the ethnic mix of the US.

Do you really think the US was a stronger economy from 1965-2002 than from 1922-1965?

[ Parent ]

Thank God (or the fathers) for free speech/press (3.40 / 10) (#151)
by Jman1 on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 02:35:59 PM EST

People like Buchannan have the freedom to shout in a loud voice from the mountaintop exactly how idiotic and hateful they are.

Hasn't the world proved over and over again that being hateful and selfish hurts even yourself in the long run?

Selfishness (5.00 / 1) (#301)
by Thwk on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 07:44:57 AM EST

Hasn't the world proved over and over again that being hateful and selfish hurts even yourself in the long run?

Sadly, I don't think it has.

The whole world's economic system is based on people / corporations aiming to increase their own profit. That's the biggest problem with today's world.



[ Parent ]
Premise of the invisible hand (none / 0) (#303)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 11:46:46 AM EST

The basic premise of using the "invisible hand" is that corporations are being governed instead of governing. It is one thing for corporations to pursue their interests within a framework set by others. At this point, there are few real limits on what trans-national corporations can effectively do(particularly in those countries far less economically powerful than the corporations themselves).

[ Parent ]
Genetic engineering worries (4.25 / 4) (#171)
by RaveWar on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:16:19 PM EST

I think its likely that the whole issue may be rendered obsolete by the advance of genetic engineering or, more distant future, nanotech. Arguments about the colour of skin, racial differences in birth rate etc will be small fry compared to a genetic "Underclass". As for the main issue, I expect there is a degree of balancing out occuring between peoples. If people think there is a "glass ceiling" put in place above their future kids that education cannot overconme, they will put resources into raising more kids instead. Same if their children will probably die of disease at a young age. Birth rates drop when those children that are born will survive long enough (as happened with Western improvements in healthcare)and be able to gain from investments made in education and other things that improve the child's chances in society. In a discrimatory society the gain from education is less to the opressed so they will put more of their resources into children. A further problem is that its always the birth rate that lags the death rate, resulting in the population explosions that finished ages ago in the West but is ongoing in Africa, India and other places, which may be happening here to a degree.
We don't need freedom. We don't need love.
We want Superpower, Ultraviolence.
An august source (5.00 / 2) (#178)
by thebrix on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 03:44:28 PM EST

Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World by Lee Silver is a great book on this very issue; he argues that, 300 years from now, racial differences will be as nothing compared to those who are genetically enhanced against those who aren't.

[ Parent ]
Now Till 300 Years... (4.66 / 3) (#181)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:00:06 PM EST

There are a few concerns facing humanity such as what good are humans? How certain are we that we're not wiping out exactly the cultures and resources needed for transition? If we don't make the transition, what are the consequences to the planet and to our descendants? How hard is it to allow conservation preserves that a mitigate these risks?

I know the crack babies, goatsexers, weekend anarchists and other assorted digerati don't really care about anything that doesn't get them through their next jones, but there is a planet at stake.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Buchanan is a common bumkin. (4.18 / 11) (#184)
by bobzibub on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:31:32 PM EST

It is common of the weasles of the world to blame foreigners for their own country's problems. This perpetuates the problematic statis quo by removing the incentive to correct it. The lazy politician can attack the perceived problem (immigrants) instead of tackling important and difficult policy issues necessary to improve the quality of life for everyone.

Make no mistake: immigrants are used by those like Buchanan because they often arrive into the lowest socio-economic classes, have little political power, and often cannot defend themselves elequently in their new home's language. If immigrants were rich and powerful, they would simply switch to some other identifiable group. Hackers, drug users or communists, could be substitutes.

As long as voters allow lazy politicians to use tactical political blame-games like this, other more pressing economic policy issues will continue to go unaddressed.

-b

Fair Contest Time (3.00 / 3) (#198)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:31:27 PM EST

You talk the talk but you won't walk the walk.

All you and your ideological cousins have to do to prove your point is allow ONE separatist state OF ANY SIZE of European origin ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD to prove to the world and yourselves that your theory about heterogeny is true.

You and your ilk won't allow it precisely because you aren't nearly as sure of your beliefs as your bluster indicates and you have committed yourselves AND THE WORLD to a potentially devistating experiment the downside risk of which you as a body politic are utterly unable to underwrite.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Is that the shrill note of hysteria I hear? (3.66 / 3) (#202)
by MrMikey on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 05:53:18 PM EST

Last time I checked, none of us was in the position of "allow[ing] ONE separatist state OF ANY SIZE of European origin ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD to prove to the world and yourselves that your theory about heterogeny is true." If some group wishes to form a separatist state, and those who currently live there are OK with it, then more power to them. BTW, did Apartheid South Africa qualify as a "separatist state"? Just curious...

I've often wished that a prototype pure Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian state got established on some island somewhere, just so I could sit back and watch what happened. I"m sure it would be quite educational. And hey, if I'm wrong, and their ideas actually work, I'll be the first to salute their success.

The tone of your above post seems to carry with it an odd note of hysteria, but I'm still not sure what it is, exactly, that you're afraid of. Care to enlighten us?

[ Parent ]

Theocrats and Their Diagnoses (1.66 / 3) (#212)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 07:00:43 PM EST

You PC'ers believe yourselves to be "enlightened" but when it comes to the very essence of the Enlightenment, ie: observing nature under experimental controls, your behavior is indistinguishable from Theocrats. Do we need a hundred years war to reinstitute the ground won during the Enlightenment? Does asking that question expose me as Demon Possessed, er, I mean, "hysterical" or merely Associating with Familiars, erm, auh, I don't know -- you guys have all the Diagnoses written up in you Books that you update at your convenience. Do what you're good at -- make up some horseshit.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Well, that was quite the hissy fit... (5.00 / 3) (#217)
by MrMikey on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 08:28:33 PM EST

but you seem to have forgotten to answer the question. To wit... "What are you afraid of?" Vague references to "the Enlightenment" won't cut it, especially since you don't explain what this term means to you, nor do you explain just what mechanism will gain us this ground you believe we have lost (or, for that matter, what this "ground" consists of). Your specious references to "PC'ers, and claims of Theocratic behavior do not convey an image of rational contemplation... you should work on that.

Finally, you might consider alternative sources of I Ching interpretation:

Hexagram 13: Tong Ren, Fellowship with others
First line Yang: Do not be partial as to who you associate with
Second line Yin: Cliques and exclusivity will lead to narrow-mindedness

Food for thought, don't you think?

[ Parent ]

Try Harder (1.00 / 2) (#220)
by Baldrson on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 09:48:49 PM EST

"hissy fit"? Come now. You could at least have come up with something like "racist panic" or something.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

:) You are unworthy of "Harder"... (4.00 / 2) (#233)
by MrMikey on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 12:22:37 AM EST

and, as amusing (however mildly) as these exchanges are, I really do wish to know what has you so concerned. Seriously. I still don't understand your position, and I want to, whether or not I agree with it.

So, how about it? You've told us what you think Buchanan thinks... now tell us what you think. Present your position.

[ Parent ]

A Fungus Among Us (1.00 / 1) (#256)
by Baldrson on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 09:32:58 AM EST

My realization that arguing with much of the K5 crowd is similar to arguing with a fungus (not that I was caught entirely off-guard by this eventuality mind you) has inspired me.

Your response to my definition of the essence of The Enlightenment was to dismiss it as "vague references to 'the Enlightenment'". Very well.

I'll fulfill your request to discuss my personal position -- and it will be in terms of my prior definition of the essence of The Enlightenment: "observing nature under experimental controls" which is the only fair contest to which reasonable men may subject their theories of social order.

However, it will be a separate K5 article submitted for moderation. We'll see if the fungus among us allows it through to publication.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#247)
by rusty on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:16:56 AM EST

The tone of your above post seems to carry with it an odd note of hysteria, but I'm still not sure what it is, exactly, that you're afraid of.

He may have suddenly noticed that most of the +1 votes were apparently "+1, Let's Eviscerate the Racist".

Or perhaps it's just losing so many arguments in one day. It can get to you after a while...

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Arguing With Fungus? (2.00 / 5) (#248)
by Baldrson on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 03:24:09 AM EST

I'll admit, it is rather difficult to win an argument with a fungus.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Ummm... not sure what you mean but if it helps: (4.33 / 3) (#205)
by bobzibub on Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 06:05:25 PM EST

"...allow ONE separatist state OF ANY SIZE of European origin ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD..."

I submit:
Czechoslovakia, now The Czech Republic and Slovakia. Though I don't see how that proves anything.


-b


[ Parent ]
US Elites use immigration like Robber Barons did (2.66 / 3) (#265)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 12:32:11 PM EST

Most immigrants are poor folks taking what opportunities are open to them. In the US however, there are specific groups that have lobbied heavily for the current immigration policy for various economic and social reasons. For example: the Western Growers Association has lobbied against enforcement of the current immigration laws and effectively made those laws hard to enforce.

The old Robber Barons(Stanford, Carnegie, Warburg, Rockefellar) purposefully wanted a diverse workforce because they found it was easier to control such a work force. I see little difference between these folks mentality and that of modern day corporate elites(ok typical modern day corporate elite type has better suits and a better drug connection).

The H1-B program was expanded specifically during a tech boom-and at a time when was widely speculated that after 2000 there would be a drop in demand for IT specialists. Personally, I think that all congressmen that voted for H1-B expansion and the lobbyists that promoted H1-B and the corporate CEO's that hired these lobbyists should be investigated on charges of treason and corruption-not that is is going to happen. I personally don't think capital punishment should be out of the question in these cases--these folks deserve it far more than some poor dumb kid that does something stupid as a result of a substance problem.



[ Parent ]

Oh please. (3.50 / 2) (#274)
by quasipalm on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 02:02:22 PM EST

H1Bs were a solution to a problem. Problem: Not enough workers. Solution: Bring in more workers. Just because you're unemployed doesn't mean immigration is to blame... And simply because businesses need employees to run their companies doesn't mean that there is some overarching conspiracy deserving CEOs the death penalty.

Listen, everyone knows that there are some problems with immigration rules and regulations (especially with H1Bs). But we should improve on the system, not ban immigrants. I thought isolationism and protectionism went out in the 60's; I'm shocked to see intelligible people backing these ridiculous proposals. Lets just hope a Le Pen doesn't rally the troops state-side.

(hi)
[ Parent ]
Immigration is like a drug (1.50 / 2) (#315)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 08:29:07 PM EST

I thought isolationism and protectionism went out in the 60's;

Look at the economy of the Americans that were here in the early 60's. Sure, there are nicer toys available now than then-but the price of housing and raising a family has increased significantly compared to what folks in the US make.

Since the early 60's, we've seen the Nixon inflation, Reagan's rape of the middle class and the Republicatization of the Democratic party. Vast public assets in the US have been liquidated to maintain the living standards of corporate elites.

Immigration is like a drug, it feels real good at first, but all effects aren't noticed for a long time.

[ Parent ]

True, but I don't see the link (none / 0) (#317)
by quasipalm on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 03:26:50 AM EST

Since the early 60's, we've seen the Nixon inflation, Reagan's rape of the middle class and the Republicatization of the Democratic party. Vast public assets in the US have been liquidated to maintain the living standards of corporate elites.

Any information linking this to immigration would be nice.

(hi)
[ Parent ]
Corporatism and immigration (none / 0) (#319)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Apr 27, 2002 at 11:04:08 PM EST

Since the early 60's, we've seen the Nixon inflation, Reagan's rape of the middle class and the Republicatization of the Democratic party. Vast public assets in the US have been liquidated to maintain the living standards of corporate elites. Any information linking this to immigration would be nice.

First there was the timing issue here. Sweeping changes to immigration laws, "the Great Society" and the inflation of the 60's/70's were architected by much the same political figures.

Secondly, citizenship has aspects of property rights. A country is similar to a big condominium(think in terms of some of the condo communities in California where people buy a share of Open Space along with their personal housing plot). The changes in Immigration laws(and policy of non-enforcement) were lobbied for by specific corporate interests(including the Western Growers Association and the electronics lobby).

A green card would have real market value if such things were bought and sold. Corporate interests can make money off immigration because policies like H1-B that effectively let corporate interests dole out visas are essentially letting corporate interests use a shot at a green card as a corporate perk.

The transfer of the airwaves, H1-B, the 60's/70's inflation are all examples of use assets that were previously widely dispersed for the benefit of small, elite groups.

[ Parent ]

Name Calling==technique of Intellectually bankrupt (1.00 / 1) (#275)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 02:41:32 PM EST

Seriously, Buchanan is a professional journalist and speech writer. Calling such a man a "bumpkin" just shows how bigoted you really are.

[ Parent ]
Yes, Name Calling is no substitute... (5.00 / 1) (#276)
by MrMikey on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 02:53:26 PM EST

for reasoned argument. Yes, Buchanan is a professional journalist and speech writer. It is also true that his utterances indicate (IMO) a man gripped by xenophobia and prejudice, a man who sees everyone who is not white, male, and Christian as someone who is beneath him. I've seen him during interviews, and nothing he said contradicted this impression... instead, my impressions were further reinforced. Could I be wrong about him? Certainly... indeed, I wish I was.

[ Parent ]
Is Buchanan Liberal by 1920 Standards? (none / 0) (#278)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 02:59:38 PM EST

If you go back to 1922 when some major immigration laws were passed how does Buchanan compare to those lawmakers? Were these folks hysterical xenophobes? Well, who was more accurate in their vision of what way America was going, those who like Ted Kennedy said that no more than 4,000 or 5,000 people would immigrate from Asia to America or those like the presidents of Harvard and Stanford that said immigration could reach crisis proportions if not regulated carefully?

IMHO Prof. Jordon of Stanford was more accurate in his about our future statements made in 1922 than was Sen. Kennedy in 1963.

[ Parent ]

You know why my salary has really dropped... (4.12 / 8) (#268)
by SIGFPE on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 12:46:22 PM EST

...I blame it on when they abolished slavery. I mean how are honest white folk like me supposed to get a job when any economist can see that market's been flooded by cheap negro labor. And then there was all that feminism back in the 60s. It was bad enough when I had to line up with blacks to get work...now I have to compete with women...even black women! And that's not all. They give jobs to Jews as well. I know someone who got turned down for a job 'cos they gave the work to a Jew. A fuckin' Jew! Tell me! Where were the blacks and Jews and women when the Constitution was ratified? What rights have they got to push a guy like me out of a job eh? My ancestors fought the British. We earned our liberty by shedding blood. And now we have Jews, blacks women and now these goddamn H1B's stealing our money. It ain't right I tell ya, it ain't right. Aw...gotta go...shit...my septic tanks's messin' up again...
SIGFPE
Who were the real racists? (none / 0) (#288)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 06:39:00 PM EST

Those that thought the slave trade was a bad idea in the first place and opposed importatation of African slaves in the first place?

Those that liked the idea of importation of African slaves (so long as they were kept in a position of servitude)?

Keep in mind: there were Quakers that really did vote with their feet-and refused to live in areas in which slavery was practices because they found slavery so morally offensive.

[ Parent ]

Are you trying to compare... (none / 0) (#292)
by SIGFPE on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 07:21:03 PM EST

...slaves forcibly dragged from their homes to the US with workers choosing to leave their homes to work in the US?
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]
Varieties of Racism (none / 0) (#294)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 07:25:34 PM EST

No, I was trying to compare those that drag people from their homes to people that want nothing to do with such practices.

[ Parent ]
Buchanan, Le Pen, and Anti-immigration (3.60 / 5) (#270)
by quasipalm on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 12:49:38 PM EST

On the topic of immigration - one of many topics Pat Buchanan knows next to nothing about - I'm looking forward to a sort of WTO for people. That is to say, the way trade is seen less a political tool and more as a "fact of life" today, immigration will be seen in a similar light tomorrow. As globalization continues, I look towards a system similar to the U.S., where countries, as states are today, cannot impose unfair tariffs on trade and cannot restrict the movement of their citizens.

Those who say that immigrants would flock, en masse, to the U.S. and other rich countries: I disagree. Look at the states as an example: Yes, richer states like NY and CA have more citizens, but ask most ID and KS residents if they are planning to flock to NY or CA anytime soon and they'll tell you to get out of town. People have roots that make it hard to move: there has to be a real reason to move.

Furthermore, the free movement of people would instigate more competition between governments. Taxes too high? Move to Mexico for a year. If health care is too expensive, it's time to Canada or France. Although checks and balances would have to be made in such a system (like employment: no country benefits for your first 2 years), such a system would encourage better government.

Lastly, to return to the topic of Buchanan: Anti-immigration tactics are no longer feasible for an international player like the U.S. We need immigrants and we cannot build a moat with alligators around this massive country. The surprising popularity of idiots like Buchanan and Le Pen is a bad sign for the future.

(hi)
Keep in mind who this article was intended for (3.00 / 1) (#289)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Apr 25, 2002 at 06:44:00 PM EST

This article was quite obviously written for folks that had a degree of interest in and identification with the writings of Pat Buchanan-which differs quite a bit from the average K5 reader.

Do you think it is possible that supporters of Pat Buchanan can in fact have any meaningful dialog or communication with the K5 constituency? Or would it just be more productive to duke it ought via warfar or peacefully agree that these too groups really shouldn't be citizens of the same country and divide the US up in some way?

You speak for the K5 community? (none / 0) (#302)
by mycal on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 11:42:05 AM EST

You don't speak for me. I'm not a giant Pat Buchanan supporter, but I like some of his ideas and they are definatly worth discussion. Those who close there eyes and ears to discussion because "what they think they know about someone" instead of on their merits are doomed to be thought of in the same light.

Pat, while conservitive, is not nearly as right wing as you would think by reading all the phony book review on amazon (that never read the book but just don't like him) or from posts like yours.

I think you should look beyond your "reality set", you might find out your co-workers are not exactly what you think, even though your closest friends may.

France is finding out their preceived "reality set" is a bit different then the actual with Le Pen, after a much public socialist/communist front there seems to be a large, silent till now, conservitive movment. How it pans out I don't know, but the media is treating it as a super bad thing and "the other side" refuses to even listen to any of Le Pen's ideas, this is really bad for France, and will promote extream views on both sides.

So don't be quick to poopoo ideas that seem forign to you, or judge them by what your friends say (who probably judge them on what other people say, not any substatial knowledge).

mycal

[ Parent ]

Questions (none / 0) (#306)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 01:10:33 PM EST

You don't speak for me. I'm not a giant Pat Buchanan supporter, but I like some of his ideas and they are definitely worth discussion. Those who close there eyes and ears to discussion because "what they think they know about someone" instead of on their merits are doomed to be thought of in the same light.

Well, I personally think the review article was a fairly accurate portrayal of Pat Buchanan's book (which I did in fact read). What is you own take here? (Have you read Death of the West yet?

Pat, while conservitive, is not nearly as right wing as you would think by reading all the phony book review on amazon (that never read the book but just don't like him) or from posts like yours. Question:
What do you think is causing the disconnect between the fact that the review of Death of the West got posted and the highly critical nature of most of the input here?

Part of what I was trying to get out in my post:
There is rhetoric on this site that makes any kind of meaningful dialog very difficult.

I think you should look beyond your "reality set", you might find out your co-workers are not exactly what you think, even though your closest friends may.

I dare say I don't reveal much of myself in the work environment. I typically come off as a really narrow person that thinks of nothing much about computers-because that is what I've found is the best way to survive in corporate environments for me. Truth of the matter, I have grave moral reservations about the nature of corporate elites-and I've seen more stuff than a lot of folks have.

France is finding out their preceived "reality set" is a bit different then the actual with Le Pen, after a much public socialist/communist front there seems to be a large, silent till now, conservitive movment. How it pans out I don't know, but the media is treating it as a super bad thing and "the other side" refuses to even listen to any of Le Pen's ideas, this is really bad for France, and will promote extream views on both sides.

Actually, I think that is a fair assessment. It wasn't that long ago also that the left wing was the leading opponent of immigration in France and the left wing was also prominent in the Dreyfuss Affair.

So don't be quick to poopoo ideas that seem forign to you, or judge them by what your friends say (who probably judge them on what other people say, not any substatial knowledge).

I actually think that is a fair protrayal of much of what is being said here, I don't think that is particularly fair directed at me. What makes you say that about what I've written?



[ Parent ]

pop news (4.66 / 3) (#304)
by stpna5 on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 12:32:43 PM EST

The sad thing is that Buchanan and Nader are nearly the only two people who ever get on a major mass media outlet as token outsiders. They are both actually inside the beltway guys posing as anti-establishment types. Their ideas are amazingly sincere, but considered harmlessly loopy and quaint by the controlling interests who allow no actual political thought, new ideas, dissent or original speech to brook the largescale broadcast trough. This is not coincidence, and thus the lies inherent in the USA's military-scale corporate information control maintain as well the myth of some public ideological pluralism. This hegemony of two possible opinion modes (right/left)operating as one thought-police paradigm will guarantee a year after 9/11 there will not have been a single public Congressional hearing over the massive topdown system failures that enabled its fearsome success. The hired punditry find immigration and economics thereby become safe as milk topics in a sort of moronic vortex once called the free press. Oh well, let's drink more beer, watch more tv.

What is happening behind Pop News (5.00 / 1) (#307)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 01:26:43 PM EST

The sad thing is that Buchanan and Nader are nearly the only two people who ever get on a major mass media outlet as token outsiders. They are both actually inside the beltway guys posing as anti-establishment types.

I'd tend to agree with that portrayal of both of these fellows. It is really hard to get on TV these days at all without being a sell out.

Their ideas are amazingly sincere, but considered harmlessly loopy and quaint by the controlling interests who allow no actual political thought, new ideas, dissent or original speech to brook the largescale broadcast trough. This is not coincidence, and thus the lies inherent in the USA's military-scale corporate information control maintain as well the myth of some public ideological pluralism.

The best way to con someone else is sometimes to con yourself. In Buchanan's case I think he is sincere. Remember, this guy was Nixon's protege-and got to watch first hand his boss crash and burn. I think that left enough of an impression Buchanan has been far less inclined to lie to get into positions of authority than was Nixon.

This hegemony of two possible opinion modes (right/left)operating as one thought-police paradigm will guarantee a year after 9/11 there will not have been a single public Congressional hearing over the massive topdown system failures that enabled its fearsome success.

I find that to be an interesting point. The hired punditry find immigration and economics thereby become safe as milk topics in a sort of moronic vortex once called the free press. Oh well, let's drink more beer, watch more tv.

I agree. I personally find immigration policy problems to reflect far greater problem with US elites than with the immigrants themselves. I personally am in favor of strict enforcement of immigration laws, but I consider the activities of major lobbyists, corporate CEO's and congressional representatives in this arena to be treason-they deserve far harsher treatment than do poor immigrants just trying to get ahead a bit.

[ Parent ]

no content (4.00 / 1) (#305)
by christfokkar on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 12:38:14 PM EST

I thought it would have been interesting if you had actually summarized the book or listed any of its major points. The only statistic you discuss is birth rate, and so the only issue you raise is ethnic competition.

Where's the content?


Fair Criticism (3.50 / 2) (#308)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 01:42:06 PM EST

I think you have a point that this review didn't necessary outline the nature of this book. Now, a major part of the book is is about demographics though.

My read on this:
Buchanan sees the West as maintaining the illusion of strength by liquidating assets(kind of like someone living it up by blowing their inheritance).

Buchanan expects sweeping changes to the global scene as a result of demographic trends including:
ousting of Russians from much of Siberia.
fundamental changes in the global perception of where power lies and the terms of trade
Changes in the US that make it seem like a much different country than the one he grew up in

I don't remember Buchanan saying much about the possibility the US might break up or the US might suffer a major military defeat-but these are both logical implications of his trend of thought. I think Buchanan is also wondering is the whole Judeo-Christian nature of the West is going to collapse.

I think Buchanan is fairly level headed when it comes to thinking about what is actually happening and where the current trends lead. I thought he got a bit hysterical when it comes to asking what might be good or bad in what is happening and in trying to evaluate the causes of the trends he's seeing. I personally can excuse that given that this man's world view has been rather badly shaken.



[ Parent ]

judeo-christian, since when :) (5.00 / 2) (#310)
by christfokkar on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 04:17:23 PM EST

I think Buchanan is also wondering is the whole Judeo-Christian nature of the West is going to collapse.

I thought it collapsed when the US was founded as a secular nation by non-Christian philosophers ;) Seriously, "In God We Trust" and "One nation, under God" were legislated in the McCarthy era (I learned this today). Maybe the "Collapse of the West" would only roll the clock back 50 years...

I personally can excuse that given that this man's world view has been rather badly shaken.

Yeah, watching these guys on FOX News used to be great sport before september 11. They were always so visibly out of touch. O'Reilly would be like, "Come on, you're a hooker." His guest would say, "Yup," and he'd sort of throw his hands up in the air like, jeez, what can I do?

I don't remember Buchanan saying much about the possibility the US might break up or the US might suffer a major military defeat-but these are both logical implications of his trend of thought.

I've wondered about this myself. Federalism was the greatest competitive force unleashed upon mankind, but it also brought with it global warming and massive infrastructure problems. Maybe smaller is better. Norway and Switzerland are getting along just fine, then again, they are remarkably exclusionist. These examples fuel Buchanan's argument. But on the flip side, too much exclusion and you become fat, soft, and inbred. I wonder how much Buchanan touches on this.

[ Parent ]
History and the future (none / 0) (#313)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Apr 26, 2002 at 06:15:06 PM EST

>>I think Buchanan is also wondering is the
>>whole Judeo-Christian nature of the West is
>>going to collapse.

>I thought it collapsed when the US was founded
>as a secular nation by non-Christian
>philosophers ;) Seriously, "In God We Trust"
>and "One nation, under God" were legislated in
>the McCarthy era (I learned this today). Maybe
>the "Collapse of the West" would only roll the
>clock back 50 years...

It is true IMHO that many of the founding fathers were Deists and deeply suspicious of the Christian theocracy that had ruled Northern Europe for 700 years prior to the founding the United States. Still, it must be kept in mind that the authors of the Declaration and the Constitution had access to relatively little historical information that hadn't come through the old Christian theocracy.

I also think it is important to remember that most of the American population, including those that supported the American revolution, didn't have real sympathies with Deism, Unitarianism or Freemasonry. Jefferson, Franklin et al were part of a tiny minority-and knew that quite well.

Something you need to remember about Buchanan, he's a Catholic(a religion adopted from his mother's family) and someone that identifies with the Confederacy. That's a rather unusual combination.

One can also argue that the US was also largely an outgrowth of Protestantism. Now, the "old line" Protestant denominations important during the founding of the US(Quakers, Unitarians, Presbyterians, Episcopalians) have had a exceptional problems in terms of low birth rates and high rate of their youth joining other religions(both Fundamentalists Christian groups and New Age or Pagan groups).

>>I don't remember Buchanan saying much about
>>the possibility the US might break up or the
>>US might suffer a major military defeat-
>>but these are both logical implications of
>>his trend of thought.
>I've wondered about this myself. Federalism
was the greatest competitive force unleashed
upon mankind, but it also brought with it
global warming and massive infrastructure
problems. Maybe smaller is better. Norway
and Switzerland are getting along just fine,
then again, they are remarkably exclusionist.
These examples fuel Buchanan's argument.
I appreciate your integrity in bringing up this points. I would also add to this list Japan-a remarkable country more honogenous in many respects than Western countries. I wouldn't call any of these "horribly" exclusionists though. There are quite a few foreigners in Norway and Switzerland-more than quite a few folks there would like I think.


But on the flip side, too much exclusion and
you become fat, soft, and inbred. I wonder how
much Buchanan touches on this.

I personally can't agree with this until we've seen the experiment done even handedly. As you pointed out, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Japan are doing okay. These aren't imperialist countries either(unless you want to count the Norwegian and Japanese genocide of cetaceans). I'd personally like to visit some of these places sometime to see first hand how they work. Personally, I expect these countries will be around long after the USA is dead and gone--only time will tell.



[ Parent ]

"The Death of the West" | 330 comments (292 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!