Friday, 3 August 2018

Two trolls in mud time


The two Canadian  ethno-nationalists arrived last night to continue trolling everybody in the country -- as they've been doing so well for the last month -- and if I had been give their hundred-dollar ticket price* every time I've been asked if I'm going tonight to their hoe-down, I'd have been able to pay for my own lawyers, with enough left over to hire a hall to put on an alternative show.

The radio this morning reported they are here to argue against multiculturalism. That's not quite correct. They're here simply to attract attention to themselves, in which end their opponents here have been enormously helpful, not just in the endless free publicity given them (these are people who are building a career on the Streisand Effect) but in generating the mistaken notion these people have something important to say (there's nothing that screams "important" like being able to say "these are the ideas they're trying to ban!"). Yet all they really are is simply a caricature of everything every "right-thinking" person says you can't be. ("We say the things 'they' don't want you to say!") And because every right-on thinker says multiculturalism is the duck's nuts, then it's their job be anti-multi-culti.

Shame they misunderstand it.

Because multiculturalism is not simply a celebration of a multitude of cultures -- which is how many folk take it. Which is fine. More exactly, however, it is the idea that all cultures are equal, no matter how barbaric, or how benevolent: it is all simply a matter of subjective choice. In practice, what this means is the specific injunction that all cultures have value -- except, of course, western culture, which is the only culture open to criticism. (Which means the true multiculturalist must blind themselves both to western cultural achievements and to non-western cultural barbarities; one reason an deserving blind eye is turned to turned to cultural practices that should have disappeared with the Dark Ages.)

The correct way to critique the doctrine is not simply to beat your chest on behalf of your tribe, but to recognise, as Thomas Sowell has argued, that all cultures are not equal, that every culture is not life-supporting or life-enhancing; that cultures are not simply museum pieces among whom we can pick and choose, but that culture is "the working machinery of everyday life," and we should therefore judge a culture by how well it supports (or doesn't) the lives of those within the machinery. Because it's those individuals within the machinery who matter.

Cultural judgement, therefore, is an objective process, not simply a subjective whim. And western culture, by this standard, should be seen as objectively superior -- not least because at least it still values the twin virtues of self-criticism and self-improvement.

Note however that, in opposition to the Canadian visitors, that culture says nothing at all about race. As Sowell is always at pains to point out, race and culture are distinct. One is chosen, and important; the other is neither. Indeed, one of the measures by which we can estimate western culture's value is that (as I outlined yesterday) western culture is open to anyone, of any race. Indeed, among the highest of its virtues is the universalisability of the culture -- a culture that is blind to race or origin, and open instead to achievement. As George Reisman explains:
The truth is that just as one does not have to be from France to like French- fried potatoes or from New York to like a New York steak, one does not have to have been born in Western Europe or be of West European descent to admire Western civilisation, or, indeed, even to help build it. Western civilisation is not a product of geography. It is a body of knowledge and values. Any individual, any society, is potentially capable of adopting it and thereby becoming "Westernised."
This is not however however how these two trolls oppose the doctrine. For them, culture is dictated by race. And since their tribe is white and western culture is white (they say, blinding themselves both to history and geography) then it's their job to defend their white tribe against the others' brown invasion; their job to say the white tribe is supreme and to come join them (with pots of your money) on their barricades.

And saying that these days ("when 'they' won't let you say it") guarantees them bums on seats and a guaranteed Patreon income.

But it doesn't make it right.

But since it's just the more offensive flip-side of the left's same tribalism, the protestors aiming to picket tonight's whing-ding have got nothing exceptional to say about it. So all they're left with is force -- blackshirts outside; white sheets inside.

The beginning of a correct response to them is outlined by Robert Tracinski, saying:
If you think people are fundamentally defined by the colour of their skin and by their ethnic and genetic background, then you are a racist, because that’s what 'racism' means. If you think that your most important cultural and political priority is to defend the supposed interests of white people in opposition to the interests of other racial groups, then you are a white supremacist, because that’s what 'supremacy' means. Dress it up however you like, but that’s what you stand for...
Dress it up however you like, but white sheets are not a defence of western civilisation; they represent everything to which civilisation is and should be opposed:
The central theme of the Western intellectual tradition is about rising above tribalism to arrive at universal values... Tribalism, by contrast, is the default state of every culture and can be found among every people in every corner of the world. There is nothing distinctively Western about it, and it runs against the whole grain of the Western intellectual tradition.
    Dressing up economic protectionism, white supremacism, and tribalism isn't a defence of western civilisation.
Of course, these are not easy questions to ask or answer. They do not lend themselves easily either to bumper-sticker slogans or to noisy chants.

Arguing for the value of western civilisation and its freedom and tolerance however is not simply take the opposite side to the argument of those who seem opposed.

You don't do it by confusing culture for race.

________________________________________________________________________

* To anyone still tempted to waste money on a ticket, may I suggest instead simply digesting this post  to give you some background; this post to see what one troll represents; and this twitter thread to see what they both said at their rallies in Australia (the judicious reader can easily remove the opinion from the reportage and, just as easily, see in what way it will undoubtedly be altered for a NZ audience).
Read those three and you've saved yourself a hundred dollars and several hours of your time. And you won't have to disinfect yourself afterwards, either.
.

23 comments:

  1. The Twitter reporting is from an obvious Leftist. That aside I couldn't see any reporting of what Southern said at all, and I can't see any overt racism in what Molyneux is reported to have said (although the comment about being surrounded by Chinese on the train raises suspicions).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scroll towards the bottom of that thread ...

      Delete
    2. Found it. Aside from disagreeing with her about immigration (even then I believe she’s not anti-immigration per se), was there anything else you found objectionable, or even contrary to what you’ve said above?

      Delete
  2. I watched Southern's video of her wandering around Lakemba in Sydney. I have no idea what its like there so asked a mate who comes from Sydney (he doesn't know who Southern is) and he said its Arab, Arabic signage, customs, laws and so on. Its a slice of a Muslim middle eastern country dumped into Sydney. Southern being threatened with arrest by the police for doing nothing more than seeking debate shows that the locals will not allow debate and are not really interested in western civilisation which they see as decadent and irreligious. That makes the culture, specifically the tribal Muslim one, a problem because they have a shitty political system, which has widespread support, ready to replace our Westminster style. I think Southern has a point and I, like her, can make a distinction between those who want to be Australian and leave their shitty Islamic rules behind and those who want to bring them along. That most are brown skinned is not the issue - its their values system and it seems that for the majority that does not change with exposure to enlightenment.

    3:16

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On top of that, I haven’t seen a single Muslim come out and support her right to walk down the street. Nothing but silence.

      Delete
    2. There is one Iman who supports her seeing to debate what Islam stands for. That Iman is looking to enlighten Islam so is under a death warrant from the flock. That attitude is the crux of the problem.

      3:16

      Delete
    3. Yes. I know who you're referring to. He is a Shia muslim, and he is just one. Islam has a history of Muslims seeking to enlighten Muslims, but they have generally been murdered by the more devout Muslims. Islam is not on his side.

      Delete
  3. That’s exactly what Stefan Molyneux said, in his own words, in his excellent speech in Melbourne.

    “The correct way to critique the doctrine is not simply to beat your chest on behalf of your tribe, but to recognise, as Thomas Sowell has argued, that all cultures are not equal, that every culture is not life-supporting or life-enhancing; that cultures are not simply museum pieces among whom we can pick and choose, but that culture is "the working machinery of everyday life," and we should therefore judge a culture by how well it supports (or doesn't) the lives of those within the machinery. Because it's those individuals within the machinery who matter.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is that he speaks with a forked tongue on this matter. The entire context of Molyneux's message -- in which he dabbles in race/IQ theories and proposes blocking immigration on a racial basis alone -- can't be divorced from a few sensible-sounding statements.

      Delete
    2. Where does he propose that?

      Delete
  4. Everyone has the right to peaceful protest providing they don't stop people going about their lawful business. The speaking event has been cancelled and I assume the venue providers were concerned that the peaceful protest would turn violent and they would probably be right .You can't blame them for being afraid of what the these violent thugs might do,However Hillary Clinton is supposed to be speaking in Auckland and if Bus loads of protesters threatened to descend on the venue and disrupt the event, there would be large numbers of police to make sure she was free to speak and those who wanted to hear her would be able to and that is how it should be.
    Double standards. It is a sad for liberty when the police force won't protect certain peoples rights to exercise free expression. I think it called anarchy when the threats by thugs and bullies against body and soul stops those from going about their lawful activities.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This reminds me of recently when Harry Binswanger said he did not consider the hijrah when formulating his stance on immigration. He didn't know what was meant by hijrah. He was omitting context which did not support his pre-determined stance. The racist accusation here, albeit largely of straw, ignores the elephant in the room; the purposeful hijacking of the altruist West.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The idea that Lauren Southern uses the Streisand Effect is unwittingly correct. She draws in some who would otherwise be just as blinkered as most socialists and obleftivists are to the worldwide cold war jihad. And places her life at risk because these are not mere "mosquito bites" being shared by those who are purposeful muslim invaders.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Good ole Molyfool at it again, eh?

    Thought Molyneux was interesting for a while about 5 years ago, but he's nuts and not even original at that.

    I stopped following anything Stephan Molyneux had to say right around the time when he started disseminating unsourced statistics and generally obsessing about women being the root of all evil.

    Violent young men? Bad mothers. Slutty young women? Bad mothers. Everyone on welfare? Bad mothers. Corporate welfare? Bad mothers. Food poisoning from the local restaurant? Bad mothers.

    That was his schtick 4-5 years ago. Then he spent a couple of years trying to convince young people to leave their families (a process called “de-foo’ing” [“foo” standing for “family of origin”]) and give them all his money.

    Now he’s moved on to being a racist. Guess he couldn’t quite figure out the magical formula for raking it in through misogyny and cult leadership.

    Just to keep things light around here, here are a couple of comedy golds:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRs7fIdyw74&feature=youtu.be

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pyLtx87Urs


    ReplyDelete
  8. I think it is pretty clear that PC has not watched or read anything by Lauren Southern and is merely building strawmen for his own entertainment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I have to admit it appears that way to me too. I can’t see any connection between the ideas expressed above (which I agree with), and his hostility to Lauren Southern. I’m more than happy to reconsider if Peter can show me evidence to the contrary. That’s not to say Lauren is perfectly consistent, but I don’t know any 23 year olds who are.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous: Yes, I have. No I'm not. (And props for posting anonymously.)

      Delete
    4. Mark: What would you like? Are either important enough? IMHO, she's a better looking and more lightweight version of him.

      Delete
    5. Peter: I think the smearing of her ideas as “racist” and “fascist” by the Left and mainstream media is important enough for us to be concerned about, because it makes a mockery of the real meaning of these words, and shuts down the possibility of rational discussion. If they’re going for her with these misrepresentions, they could equally go at us when we say Western Civilisation is superior (which was mainly what the Twitter reporter and his fans found must disturbing). I also think her bravery on the street against thise misrepresentations, and willingness to confront places like Lakemba deserves some respect.

      Delete
  9. Funny how all the focus in the comments is on Southern instead of who she's teamed up with. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to think it's because even other trolls realise he's largely indefensible.

      Delete
  10. Thanks for posting the links Peter, (in particular the twitter feed). I had no idea, just incoherent Stephen is, (he cant even get basic facts right)

    B Whitehead

    ReplyDelete

1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.