Quote notes (#52)

… why does the American MSM almost never mention tribes, except occasionally as an afterthought, and never speak about how countries like Libya are organized socially, and how that affects their politics? There are so many examples of this that it cannot simply be a coincidence. This is not the place to go into detail, but it comes down, I think, to a form of political correctness that tacitly prohibits any mention of what might be taken even to imply that Libyans (or Yemenis or Syrians or Egyptians, or Pashtuns, or…) might in some way be pre-modern, as we understand the term. (Actually, they’re less aptly described as pre-modern than simply as different, but lowest-common-denominator Enlightenment universalism is very bad at acknowledging the dignity of difference.) That kind of appellation is considered just this side of racist in the higher etiquette of American Enlightenment liberalism, deeply dented, as it has been, by the nonsense of anti-“Orientalism” regnant now for more than a generation in academe. Yes, it was at university where our elite press reporters and their august editors learned this stuff.

December 31, 2013admin 20 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations , World

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

20 Responses to this entry

  • Orthodox Says:

    Start talking about genetics and the left will quickly jump to subhuman and genocide. Tribalism is the cultural version. It’s straight to Yanomami.

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    It’s interesting how that works, isn’t it. Lefties *almost always* propose genocide as a way to deal with genetic differences.

    It’s almost as if they reason thus:

    * If there were genetic differences, we’d have to eradicate the jews and niggers.

    * Eradicating people is evil.

    * Therefore, genetic differences must not exist.

    Which is pretty fucked up reasoning, but you have to wonder what will happen when HBD goes mainstream.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That’s exactly how it works. HBD won’t go mainstream until the progs feel confident they have the technological capability for mandatory gene therapy (which they’ll direct to Cathedral compliance before cognitive enhancement).

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    If that’s true, I wonder what their proposed intervention would be.

    I’d be fine with mandatory race-preserving eugenics a-la Cochran’s modal human, but I have this dreadful feeling like the real proposal would be more shortsighted and destructive.

    spandrell Reply:

    When all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    When all you got is a totalitarian state, one death is a tragedy, but a million is a statistic. And bureaucrats like statistics.

    Stalin was fond of loading whole tribes in trains and moving them around. Imagine what Stalin would have done with HBD and an already densely populated country.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Doesn’t the ardent Lysenkoism of the main commie mega-killers tilt speculation somewhat the other way?

    spandrell Reply:

    Maybe it was a preventive defense to avoid triggering a genocidal instinct that they couldn’t afford.

    Posted on December 31st, 2013 at 3:13 am Reply | Quote
  • fotrkd Says:

    Can tribal societies be popularly democratic? If the West can’t export Western liberty can it be seen to intervene in the eyes of its own people?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Just to make sure I’m getting your point, is that: If the West can’t pretend to export Western liberty …?

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    I’d got used to that going without saying, but yes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 31st, 2013 at 3:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Henry Dampier Says:

    If they could acknowledge tribal differences, they might see themselves, too, as a tribe, instead of semi-corporeal wave-particles in the flow of history. To see themselves as they are would require that they wake up from the dream.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 31st, 2013 at 3:40 am Reply | Quote
  • Steve Johnson Says:

    why does the American MSM almost never mention tribes, except occasionally as an afterthought, and never speak about how countries like Libya are organized socially, and how that affects their politics?

    Which ethnic group is known as “the Tribe”?

    Noticing that members of tribes look out for one another and don’t see outsiders as fully human has unfortunate implications – in America – not just in third world countries that no one gives a damn about.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 31st, 2013 at 4:30 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “t is standard trope to support the democratic process but stay away from partisan leanings, because that is the right thing to do and also the tactically most shrewd thing to do in situations where you never know who’ll be on top two weeks from now.”

    Oh Dear. No wonder democracy is in bad odour.

    My Tribe – Amiriki – are actually quite democratic. It simply must be acknowledged they insist [for at least 400+ years] on some measure of self governance. The roots are Anglo-Saxon and European and same again …increase to 1000+ years.

    But that’s my Tribe and it doesn’t travel well…

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 31st, 2013 at 10:49 am Reply | Quote
  • bob sykes Says:

    hbd chick has a long series of posts on the topic of tribes and how tribalism affects social functioning. A great deal of tribalism has to do with marriage patterns. The patterns we assume are normal are in fact unique to northwest Europe and the people who originated there.

    http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Yes. And hence Tribal Characteristics are bedrock Truth. Mr. Garfinkle goes into the most torturous gymnastics to still justify our policies. I took that quote above from his section on Tunisia, he comes up with no less than nine explanations.

    I’ve corresponded with him before online and followed some of his writings. He exhauastively lists the crimes and corruptions, then prescribes truly Talmudic solutions…all of which ignore the core problem: Our elites have done harm instead of good the last 50 years because they mean harm.

    Core problem: Our elites are doing harm because they mean harm.

    The New Deal succeeded despite all it’s flaws because they meant Good.

    The Great Society was doomed even if Human Nature were infinitely malleable and responded positively to bad incentives…because the executors of the Great Society meant Harm.

    And their Heirs are positively nihilistic. Also cowards, and twits.

    There is no system of checks that can balance people who mean harm.

    No government that is staffed by legions that mean Harm can contain their Harm, never mind channel it for Good.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 31st, 2013 at 12:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    We’ve gone from flat-earth-society to flat-humanity-society. Except it’s the official position; so they prosecute Columbus.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Columbus had serious problems too, but he also had exit options. (When shopping around for monarchs, monarchists tend to downplay the shopping around part, but Columbus didn’t.)

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Zheng He wasn’t that lucky.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Right, so the Chinese got a highly-talented flunky rather than an entrepreneurial genius.

    Posted on December 31st, 2013 at 10:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Except until Thomas Friedman no one actually ever believed the world was flat.

    You have to be a ProgTard to believe such things.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 1st, 2014 at 1:46 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment