The Fall of the American Empire

[OldScratch]

How seriously are we to take that remark by Klassen? Thanks for pointing out who this guy is, vihris-gari. What is of course always more important is to see if the remark itself has an element of truth in it, irregardless of who utters it. Since the quote is not given in context, it is difficult to see what Klassen is getting at with these remarks and on what they are based. This sort of rhetoric of degeneration and disaster is one that one hears pretty often (especially on this board) and it is usually difficult to make out what is supposed to justify it. Often people resort to grand claims about the state of cultures and how this can be improved, themselves very difficult to pin down. On the other hand, the justifications for multiculturalism are also not very well thought out by those who are most vocal about it. The grand claims that are used to support the idea of cultural degeneration in the west are simply suspect. Yet, so is the idea that blending elements of several cultures together will almost inevitably result in something worth keeping. The fact that there are conflicts between people on the basis of culture and the question whether or not these will all be resolvable keeps grand multiculturalist visions in check. This should not blind us to the following fact: Many of us find it in no way a problem to live and become friends with people coming from different backgrounds, and it is not because of a prior belief in the benefits of mixing cultures that we can act this way. I don't need to justify my interaction with people from different backgrounds using such an ideal. There are many conspiracy theories that try to explain away the fact that we can get on just fine with others in everyday life (eg. by claiming that we are only being duped into thinking so by the media in the hands of the rich conglomerates). How much credibility do such conspiracy theories have? Not much. I sure won't put my money on the truth of any such claim.
Also note that the rhetoric of degeration goes along with the idea that somehow it would be preferable to have racially "pure" cultures with little to no element of other cultures of other races in it. Now, there aren't a whole lot of extant pure cultures, except maybe for the cultures of some isolated tribes out there. What would a pure Aryan, pure Turkish, pure Arab culture even look like? Are we supposed to imagine what Aryans would have come up on their own? Would writing, for instance, be an important part of that culture even if they were to invent it by themselves? If what is intended by "pure" is something like this, is it worth having at this point? Probably not. But then what is instead meant by the use of the metaphors of purity, degeneration, sickness and so on? It looks here that some people are looking for an "origin" that's simply not there. If you take all elements of other cultures throughout history from the Aryan culture, you will not be able to recognize it. That definitely is not the "original" and "pure" Aryan culture that some seem to have in mind. What it is that they actually are looking for and what could be so good about it remains a mystery to me.

There are certainly fair and valid points made here. What I keep coming back to though is whether we are really talking about culture as a thing in itself or a people(s)or what separates the two. I would never claim that non-Aryan or non-Caucasian peoples haven't created things of tremendous cultural/historical value(particularly, one would assume, for themselves). But I wonder if we are technically arguing cultural compatibility or human compatibility - or an unintentionally confused mix of the two.

Perhaps it doesn't matter either way, especially when considering that cultures can and do devolop over centuries and may indeed borrow liberally from one another without a need to have its respective originators living in close proximity or mixing on a permanent basis.(rather more 'mingling' through travel and trade versus integrated residence, etc.)

Clearly there are many things people the world over value and have entirely in common, but critical differences - whether behavioral, cultural, political or even spiritual, still exist/persist, and cannot be ignored or sponged away by virtue of some aforementioned commonality. What is easily worked out, compromised on or the like one-on-one, or in small groups is complicated exponentially on the larger-scale and eventually the differences become too large, too painful to reconcile. Or so it has gone...

 

[derbeder]

I doubt that vihris-gari was attempting to justify cultural diversity independently of our present historical setting. What we are immediately concerned about is what we should be doing about cultural diversity as a fact of society right now. Should we try to get rid of it, limit it various ways, or not take it something that calls for public action? The question about whether or not it would have be en better if races and cultures never mixed is not directly relevant to what we are to do now. We do not have the luxury of starting from scratch. Something that might have been right to do at an earlier time might not be the right thing to do later on. Even if it would have somehow been good for races and cultures to remain separate, given the way things are now, it may be wrong to try to segregate people who have different racial and cultural backgrounds. Furthermore there are problems with trying to properly think through the idea of pure races and its desirability, some of which I alluded to in my earlier post.

 

[OldScratch]

I doubt that vihris-gari was attempting to justify cultural diversity independently of our present historical setting. What we are immediately concerned about is what we should be doing about cultural diversity as a fact of society right now. Should we try to get rid of it, limit it various ways, or not take it something that calls for public action? The question about whether or not it would have be en better if races and cultures never mixed is not directly relevant to what we are to do now. We do not have the luxury of starting from scratch. Something that might have been right to do at an earlier time might not be the right thing to do later on. Even if it would have somehow been good for races and cultures to remain separate, given the way things are now, it may be wrong to try to segregate people who have different racial and cultural backgrounds. Furthermore there are problems with trying to properly think through the idea of pure races and its desirability, some of which I alluded to in my earlier post.

Yes, the starting from scratch reference was purely a theoretical offering simply to show that there is a difference between arguing for Diversity in and of itself and insisting that this a "strength" or desirable after the fact(rarely is any distinction made today). This is important insofar as this multiculturalism/diversity experiment is really new to the modern, western world. As late as the early 1960's America, for instance, was easily 90% White. Today that percentage roughly 65% per census figures. Thus, this whole phenomenon as we are debating here is really quite recent - indeed, much of the major demographic change has occurred within my lifetime. So it is still relevant, at least to the degree that these demographic numbers continue to change dramatically.
We may not be able to turn back time or place the proverbial genie back in the bottle; and some may even say we shouldn't attempt to...but is it also necessary to allow these dramatic changes to continue apace, with neither challenge nor question applied thereto, lest one be fingered as a radical "xenophobe" etc?
Would it not be prudent to at least stem the tide for some period to soberly assess the situation, ask the tough questions and demand to know where all the alleged advantages of three or so decades of unchecked immigration from all over the planet, much of it purely illegal, really are, if in fact there are any at all?

 

[infoterror]

Yes, the starting from scratch reference was purely a theoretical offering simply to show that there is a difference between arguing for Diversity in and of itself and insisting that this a "strength" or desirable after the fact(rarely is any distinction made today).

Very well said. Many people argue for diversity on the grounds that it is morally right.

Of course, us pragmatists have to ask... "where are the shining successes of diversity in history?" and all they can do is point us to failed, third-world nobodies.

 

[speed]

Has anyone read about Ashcroft and Mueller refusing Bush and his desire for domestic spying? Bush essentially went over the Justice department (who thought the measure was illegal--John goddamn Ashcroft too) and made his own fiat or law thats totally contrary to the constitution? Can we all just admit he;s a dictator?

 

[Justin S.]

Can we all just admit he;s a dictator?

No speed, he's The Decider.

 

[OldScratch]

No speed, he's The Decider.

...and the "Uniter - not a divider."

 

[infoterror]

Can we all just admit he;s a dictator?

Don't you mean an oligarch, or rather a tool of the timarchy?

 

[speed]

Don't you mean an oligarch, or rather a tool of the timarchy?

Yes, I suppose it is clear W's not the brains and power behind the whole operation.

A Timarchy is defined as the rule of society by a military aristocracy, wherein the elite members have rights and privileges, and the great mass of the people have none, or none of any consequence. The fundamental structure of a Timarchy can arise in any of a number of ways, and in this once-free republican union of States, it has been introduced by degrees, by stealth and by the multiple and repeated economic frauds of the Federal Reserve.

 

[infoterror]

A Timarchy is defined as the rule of society by a military aristocracy, wherein the elite members have rights and privileges, and the great mass of the people have none, or none of any consequence. The fundamental structure of a Timarchy can arise in any of a number of ways, and in this once-free republican union of States, it has been introduced by degrees, by stealth and by the multiple and repeated economic frauds of the Federal Reserve.

Historically, a Timarchy is a response to the collapse of civil gov't into oligarchy, and our military is already ruled by a military-industrial complex that qualifies as oligarchy to me. Plato's point was that after consensus come the elite, secret, invisible ruling classes doing things behind the scenes.

 

[Violens]

I enter the thread to ask a question: Are you all who live in anglophone countries of protestant belief? Or of catholic? Both of them? Whose majority is in this case? I don't want to create a discussion, it's simple "thirst for knowledge". Ah, before I forget..how many atheists/agnostic?

 

[speed]

I enter the thread to ask a question: Are you all who live in anglophone countries of protestant belief? Or of catholic? Both of them? Whose majority is in this case? I don't want to create a discussion, it's simple "thirst for knowledge". Ah, before I forget..how many atheists/agnostic?

On the east coast of America, the majority of Christians are Catholic apart from the South. Many Midwestern cities--especially the river cities--are Catholic. The south is overwhelmingly protestant, as is much of the midwest, and west (although, one runs into alot of Mormons in the west).

Less than 10% of Americans consider themselves Atheist (mostly on the coasts). Almost 90% believe in God. About 40-44% of Americans regularly attend religious services--however to call these non-attenders agnostic, might be incorrect.

 

[Violens]

On the east coast of America, the majority of Christians are Catholic apart from the South. Many Midwestern cities--especially the river cities--are Catholic. The south is overwhelmingly protestant, as is much of the midwest, and west (although, one runs into alot of Mormons in the west).

Less than 10% of Americans consider themselves Atheist (mostly on the coasts). Almost 90% believe in God. About 40-44% of Americans regularly attend religious services--however to call these non-attenders agnostic, might be incorrect.

Thanks; I'm glad to see that a native american answered me

About the numbers: I'd have guessed that it would be the opposite situation on the coasts for what concerns the belief. In Italy as all the southwest european nations (+ Poland) most of people is christened as catholic but a good part of them doesn't attend religious services or is even a non believer (NB: I'm not judging), east is mostly orthodox and middle and northwest is protesant/anglican (except Ireland); north and northeast and Russia are a total apart reality 'cos I think they are the less
believing populations on the earth..last thing; I agree with you for the most part of your ideas (the first post) and I think the key of this is in the numbers you showed; as some said (I speak like someone who's seeing everything from the outside) probably the "american way" is (however apparently) too influenced by supposed religion stuff while (I think) US are supposed to be a laic (is it right?) nation. The old world with all its flaws is a bit better (excluding the south obviously, and I'm italian)..it makes tha laic principles work. Do you agree with what I say?

 

[speed]

Thanks; I'm glad to see that a native american answered me

About the numbers: I'd have guessed that it would be the opposite situation on the coasts for what concerns the belief. In Italy as all the southwest european nations (+ Poland) most of people is christened as catholic but a good part of them doesn't attend religious services or is even a non believer (NB: I'm not judging), east is mostly orthodox and middle and northwest is protesant/anglican (except Ireland); north and northeast and Russia are a total apart reality 'cos I think they are the less
believing populations on the earth..last thing; I agree with you for the most part of your ideas (the first post) and I think the key of this is in the numbers you showed; as some said (I speak like someone who's seeing everything from the outside) probably the "american way" is (however apparently) too influenced by supposed religion stuff while (I think) US are supposed to be a laic (is it right?) nation. The old world with all its flaws is a bit better (excluding the south obviously, and I'm italian)..it makes tha laic principles work. Do you agree with what I say?

Well, it all has to do with immigration patterns. The Catholics immigrated to the U.S. after the 1880's (although the Irish were coming before the civil war) when the U.S. was becoming an industrial power. As all industries were in the North and East (where all the money and economic power was), and the SOuth was war ravaged and dealing with the after-effects of abolition, these later Catholic immigrants stayed where these good industrial jobs were. They went to New York and Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo and Milwaukee etc--all heavy manufacturing places with jobs and somewhat open attitudes towards immigrants. And in the case of the German Catholics, they sought out the industrial river cities or the plains of the midwest. The South, like Italy, remained backward (as it does today), and overly religious and almost totally protestant. Out in the Country in the South, one finds literally dozens of small churches for even little communities. And they all seem to have tied their wagons to nationalism, racism, and Herr Bush.

 

[Violens]

Well, it all has to do with immigration patterns. The Catholics immigrated to the U.S. after the 1880's (although the Irish were coming before the civil war) when the U.S. was becoming an industrial power. As all industries were in the North and East (where all the money and economic power was), and the SOuth was war ravaged and dealing with the after-effects of abolition, these later Catholic immigrants stayed where these good industrial jobs were. They went to New York and Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo and Milwaukee etc--all heavy manufacturing places with jobs and somewhat open attitudes towards immigrants. And in the case of the German Catholics, they sought out the industrial river cities or the plains of the midwest. The South, like Italy, remained backward (as it does today), and overly religious and almost totally protestant. Out in the Country in the South, one finds literally dozens of small churches for even little communities. And they all seem to have tied their wagons to nationalism, racism, and Herr Bush.

I just can't understand the last part of the post (probably I lost what remained of my brain ). Up to "...plains of the midwest." you speak about US..then? Sorry for that incomprehension

Btw if I understood right you say that the south, in the "religious sense" is backwards if comapared to the rest of the US (you say like Italy); in this case you're right at 100%..I live 30 KMs far from Torino in a small town of 5000 people in Valle di Susa (one of the places of Olympic Winter Games 2006 ) and all around here the territory is made up of small towns every one with its little church and its little "church's circle of power", if you undestand what I want to say.

In fact one of my dreams is to live in north Europe or in US..not that I'm unhappy of life quality (I live in the north with good inustralization and all that stuff)..its a sort of unknown but ever present moral that sometimes makes me sick..

At this point I have to ask..in which state do you live?

 

[speed]

I just can't understand the last part of the post (probably I lost what remained of my brain ). Up to "...plains of the midwest." you speak about US..then? Sorry for that incomprehension

Btw if I understood right you say that the south, in the "religious sense" is backwards if comapared to the rest of the US (you say like Italy); in this case you're right at 100%..I live 30 KMs far from Torino in a small town of 5000 people in Valle di Susa (one of the places of Olympic Winter Games 2006 ) and all around here the territory is made up of small towns every one with its little church and its little "church's circle of power", if you undestand what I want to say.

In fact one of my dreams is to live in north Europe or in US..not that I'm unhappy of life quality (I live in the north with good inustralization and all that stuff)..its a sort of unknown but ever present moral that sometimes makes me sick..

At this point I have to ask..in which state do you live?

After living in Italy for a number of summers, I think you're nuts to want to leave! Could there be a place with a better quality of life? The US is really not that great of a place to live--trust me.

I sort of live between Ohio and Kentucky. I work in Lexington, but am from Cincinnati.

The difference though between you're church situation and the southern US, is that you're in a almost entirely catholic country, whereas the southern US is made up of countless protestant denominations.

 

[StocktontoMalone]

I agree with Speed, the US is definitely not a great place to live....

We have a thinly veiled definiton of freedom here. Imagine a multiple choice question, where you have A though E for choices. But you HAVE to choose one the presented choices....That is what it is like here. What if you wanted to pick F? Well, you can't.

Imagine having to work until you are 67 to be able to collect Social Security. And in some instances, the average life expectancy is less than that! So you work your whole life, then die before you are allowed to enjoy it. And if you draw from it early, you are penalized, HEAVILY. And also taxed to DEATH.

OUR rights are being stripped away from us on a DAILY basis.

We have such an incompetent government, it is almost funny. We have the technology to read the face of a dime from a satellite thousands of miles away, but we can't find Bin Laden?

Our healthcare system is a joke. Illegal Aliens have better coverage than I do.

I had to work my fingers to the bone to attend college, but some kid from Sri Lanka comes here, and because the school wants to appear diverse, the kid goes to school for the bubble(free).

I own an '02 Honda Accord. Still paying for it. The guy next door(Cambodian) owns an '07 Lexus SUV, and DOESN'T WORK.

Yep, Bush and co. want to open the borders. For two VERY obvious reasons: Larger tax base(and cheap labor), and larger voting base.

Yeah, this country ain't that great anymore. Having this country as the World Police is like the fox guarding the hen house......

 

[speed]

I agree with Speed, the US is definitely not a great place to live....

We have a thinly veiled definiton of freedom here. Imagine a multiple choice question, where you have A though E for choices. But you HAVE to choose one the presented choices....That is what it is like here. What if you wanted to pick F? Well, you can't.

Imagine having to work until you are 67 to be able to collect Social Security. And in some instances, the average life expectancy is less than that! So you work your whole life, then die before you are allowed to enjoy it. And if you draw from it early, you are penalized, HEAVILY. And also taxed to DEATH.

OUR rights are being stripped away from us on a DAILY basis.

We have such an incompetent government, it is almost funny. We have the technology to read the face of a dime from a satellite thousands of miles away, but we can't find Bin Laden?

Our healthcare system is a joke. Illegal Aliens have better coverage than I do.

I had to work my fingers to the bone to attend college, but some kid from Sri Lanka comes here, and because the school wants to appear diverse, the kid goes to school for the bubble(free).

I own an '02 Honda Accord. Still paying for it. The guy next door(Cambodian) owns an '07 Lexus SUV, and DOESN'T WORK.

Yep, Bush and co. want to open the borders. For two VERY obvious reasons: Larger tax base(and cheap labor), and larger voting base.

Yeah, this country ain't that great anymore. Having this country as the World Police is like the fox guarding the hen house......

hehe, I pretty much agree with you.

Although I do say, there are alot of wonderful things with living in America. You can buy pretty much anything, and its not too expensive. It used to be the case almost anyone could own a house (less so now). And, with the right educational background or skill-set, one can make alot of money, or move up in the world in a unheard of way. I just turned 28, and I'm already director of Development/ Planning/Preservation/Engineering amongst other things, for a City/County of 35,000. I get jokes about being Boy-director, but no one really bats an eye about it. I had really no connections, and grew up in a very middle class home. Hell, I figure if I do a decent job, I can get the same job, but in a much bigger place for alot more money.

 

[StocktontoMalone]

Hey, Speed, good for you.....it is nice to hear of a success story.

My thing, however, was that MY example is the norm. I look at success as a country overall.

I'm sure you do, too. What I mean is that success isn't whether *I* am doing well - which is only what the average person is concerned about. As long as he/she is doing well - then everything else isn't 'reality'. Evidenced by how many people gave GWB another term(debatable).

The rich don't care about the poor. They give money to offset their income tax, while 'appearing' like they care.

No, I guage success by greater criterium than myself.

Look no further than this gem of a thought:

People don't look twice at spending upwards of $500-$1000 for a concert ticket....but bitch, moan, and complain when the price of coffee goes up 5 cents a pound, or their precious cancer sticks go up to $6 a pack.

I don't have alot of 'faith' in the human condition. I believe people are INHERENTLY selfish. And I believe this is a learned characteristic. Selfishness is passed down.

I'm agnostic, a cynic, and a realist - can you tell?

 

[speed]

Hey, Speed, good for you.....it is nice to hear of a success story.

My thing, however, was that MY example is the norm. I look at success as a country overall.

I'm sure you do, too. What I mean is that success isn't whether *I* am doing well - which is only what the average person is concerned about. As long as he/she is doing well - then everything else isn't 'reality'. Evidenced by how many people gave GWB another term(debatable).

The rich don't care about the poor. They give money to offset their income tax, while 'appearing' like they care.

No, I guage success by greater criterium than myself.

Look no further than this gem of a thought:

People don't look twice at spending upwards of $500-$1000 for a concert ticket....but bitch, moan, and complain when the price of coffee goes up 5 cents a pound, or their precious cancer sticks go up to $6 a pack.

I don't have alot of 'faith' in the human condition. I believe people are INHERENTLY selfish. And I believe this is a learned characteristic. Selfishness is passed down.

I'm agnostic, a cynic, and a realist - can you tell?

I agree with you.

And my success story has its drawbacks (one, Im not terribly well paid considering my responsibilities and power, and two, Im director in Central Kentucky--horse country sure, but its still goddamn Kentucky!).