Could it be that instead of slaying the dragon of Social Darwinism, the Trump phenomenon has refocused its fire on a different target?
Where previously the wrath of the Social Darwinists was directed at the poor in this country, it is now being directed at poor countries and foreign entities - Mexicans. Muslims, etc. There is still the same call for "rolling up the drawbridge against the peasants," as per a comment that appeared in The Weekly Standard some two decades ago.
It is no longer about the wealth and poverty of persons. It is now about the wealth and poverty of nations.
I'm not advocating this, but isn't this social Darwinism among nations supposed to bring unity throughout the 4T? Donald Trump's populist vibe seems to take care of that by unifying those who support him in the crusade against Mexicans and Muslims. However, it seems to not be working, and it's only dividing us.
(07-27-2016, 10:39 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not advocating this, but isn't this social Darwinism among nations supposed to bring unity throughout the 4T? Donald Trump's populist vibe seems to take care of that by unifying those who support him in the crusade against Mexicans and Muslims. However, it seems to not be working, and it's only dividing us.
It's dividing us on on the view point of whether we view ourselves as Americans, or global citizens subject the authority of so-called world or global powers and interests that be so to speak. In my opinion, Trump is just scratching the surface of the anger at this point and the more global minded progressive better become more aware of the internal discontentment that Trump now represents in a much smaller form than what it will become eventually. Right now, we have liberals playing their petty games with peoples minds like they do consistently. On the other side, you have a much more serious constituency who has had enough of the liberal games and their more global minded policies and minority driven policies. Right now, the Rhinos are the ones experiencing the heat of that more serious constituency. It is very clear the bulk of of the Republican base is ready to move on without the support of the Rhinos who were defeated. The jig is up at this point. I know the working class better than any liberal who posts here, The bulk of the liberals who post here live in a bubble with no connection working or relationship to the class who once placed them in power. So, in reality you're f-d, whether you f-d today or tomorrow doesn't matter much to me at this point.
An alternate theory is that "Trumpism" represents a redefinition of what constitutes "cultural conservatism": Gone are homosexuality and abortion, replaced by foreigners altering our culture (the Mexicans) and threatening our security (the Muslims).
By this new definition, "Trumpism" fits into the "national liberal" quadrant, as it eschews Ayn Rand in favor of Samuel Gompers on economic matters.
In fairness to Classic-Xer, he appears to be "sliming" the left-liberals like those who dominate this forum (!), and not the national liberals who would like to try and help the less affluent classes in a different way - or even in a way that has been tried before, as in the 1920s when we cut off immigration, then slapped tariffs on foreign goods to protect American jobs.
To recycle a quote I made on the original 4T forum, for I know the blasphemy of those who say they are liberals, and are not.
(07-28-2016, 06:53 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote: [ -> ]An alternate theory is that "Trumpism" represents a redefinition of what constitutes "cultural conservatism": Gone are homosexuality and abortion, replaced by foreigners altering our culture (the Mexicans) and threatening our security (the Muslims).
By this new definition, "Trumpism" fits into the "national liberal" quadrant, as it eschews Ayn Rand in favor of Samuel Gompers on economic matters.
If Trump wins union rights will continue to suffer. He will say to workers, "you're fired!"
(07-27-2016, 11:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (07-27-2016, 10:39 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not advocating this, but isn't this social Darwinism among nations supposed to bring unity throughout the 4T? Donald Trump's populist vibe seems to take care of that by unifying those who support him in the crusade against Mexicans and Muslims. However, it seems to not be working, and it's only dividing us.
It's dividing us on on the view point of whether we view ourselves as Americans, or global citizens subject the authority of so-called world or global powers and interests that be so to speak. In my opinion, Trump is just scratching the surface of the anger at this point and the more global minded progressive better become more aware of the internal discontentment that Trump now represents in a much smaller form than what it will become eventually. Right now, we have liberals playing their petty games with peoples minds like they do consistently. On the other side, you have a much more serious constituency who has had enough of the liberal games and their more global minded policies and minority driven policies. Right now, the Rhinos are the ones experiencing the heat of that more serious constituency. It is very clear the bulk of of the Republican base is ready to move on without the support of the Rhinos who were defeated. The jig is up at this point. I know the working class better than any liberal who posts here, The bulk of the liberals who post here live in a bubble with no connection working or relationship to the class who once placed them in power. So, in reality you're f-d, whether you f-d today or tomorrow doesn't matter much to me at this point.
The Bernie Sanders wing is just as large as the Trump wing, going by primary vote totals. Workers won't need to follow Trump, who represents the oligarchy and fires workers, when they have a champion like Bernie available who will make sure that globalism is fair and does not hurt workers, the economy or the environment.
As for "minority-driven policies," you make phrases like that, and then deny that you are racist. What if that dog-whistle, which you make into a siren, loses its appeal in an increasingly-diverse nation with younger generations that respect that diversity? What if the minorities become the majority?
(07-27-2016, 03:26 PM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]Could it be that instead of slaying the dragon of Social Darwinism, the Trump phenomenon has refocused its fire on a different target?
Where previously the wrath of the Social Darwinists was directed at the poor in this country, it is now being directed at poor countries and foreign entities - Mexicans. Muslims, etc. There is still the same call for "rolling up the drawbridge against the peasants," as per a comment that appeared in The Weekly Standard some two decades ago.
It is no longer about the wealth and poverty of persons. It is now about the wealth and poverty of nations.
This might not be the only relevant perspective on where we are, but it's a perspective worth remembering. I'm not sure I'd use the word 'nations' here, at least when talking about internal cultural resistance to new immigrant groups. It's about cultures and a perceived threat that the new people are taking something better held in reserve for established people.
It's also emphatically nothing new. Any culture immigrating into America in large numbers is apt to draw resentment and prejudice. There are always those who seek political gain by throwing gasoline on the fires of hate. For a while, it's vicious and ugly. Eventually, everybody is drinking green beer on St Patty's day, and visiting a Chinese restaurant the next day.
Nothing new. We are just too close to it to associate the history with what we see in the mirror.
In the old days, Boss Tweed's Democratic machine was waiting on the docks when an immigrant ship came in, telling the new folk where to find a place to stay, where to find a job, and who to vote for if they wanted to keep a good thing going. The Republicans, as ever, were with the Robber Barons, were supporting the owners of the long hours low pay mills rather than the People. Today, things are not nearly so ritualized, but there are towns where various cultures have enough numbers to make people from far away feel at home, and the art of assimilation continues.
Some things do change. I think we've cut down on the level of corruption and the abuse of the common man considerably. However, things don't change enough. You still see classic racism.
(07-30-2016, 02:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (07-27-2016, 11:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (07-27-2016, 10:39 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not advocating this, but isn't this social Darwinism among nations supposed to bring unity throughout the 4T? Donald Trump's populist vibe seems to take care of that by unifying those who support him in the crusade against Mexicans and Muslims. However, it seems to not be working, and it's only dividing us.
It's dividing us on on the view point of whether we view ourselves as Americans, or global citizens subject the authority of so-called world or global powers and interests that be so to speak. In my opinion, Trump is just scratching the surface of the anger at this point and the more global minded progressive better become more aware of the internal discontentment that Trump now represents in a much smaller form than what it will become eventually. Right now, we have liberals playing their petty games with peoples minds like they do consistently. On the other side, you have a much more serious constituency who has had enough of the liberal games and their more global minded policies and minority driven policies. Right now, the Rhinos are the ones experiencing the heat of that more serious constituency. It is very clear the bulk of of the Republican base is ready to move on without the support of the Rhinos who were defeated. The jig is up at this point. I know the working class better than any liberal who posts here, The bulk of the liberals who post here live in a bubble with no connection working or relationship to the class who once placed them in power. So, in reality you're f-d, whether you f-d today or tomorrow doesn't matter much to me at this point.
The Bernie Sanders wing is just as large as the Trump wing, going by primary vote totals. Workers won't need to follow Trump, who represents the oligarchy and fires workers, when they have a champion like Bernie available who will make sure that globalism is fair and does not hurt workers, the economy or the environment.
As for "minority-driven policies," you make phrases like that, and then deny that you are racist. What if that dog-whistle, which you make into a siren, loses its appeal in an increasingly-diverse nation with younger generations that respect that diversity? What if the minorities become the majority?
Minorities will become the majority in the next few decades! More children are being born to non-white parents than any other time before us, and the birth rate has become lower among white parents. Because of this, the population of minorities has accelerated, and will soon become greater than the majority. As more children are racial minorities, today's children will become more accepting of racial diversity than any other generation, and will hopefully grow up under a time of unity and pluralism (which we should have during the 4T and ironically we are more divisive than before), not only among races and ethniticies, but also in investing in a common future. I suggest that the new generation of Adaptives should be called the "Pluralist Generation," or "Plurals" for short. I didn't make that name up, but I really like it.
(07-31-2016, 01:21 AM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2016, 02:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (07-27-2016, 11:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (07-27-2016, 10:39 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not advocating this, but isn't this social Darwinism among nations supposed to bring unity throughout the 4T? Donald Trump's populist vibe seems to take care of that by unifying those who support him in the crusade against Mexicans and Muslims. However, it seems to not be working, and it's only dividing us.
It's dividing us on on the view point of whether we view ourselves as Americans, or global citizens subject the authority of so-called world or global powers and interests that be so to speak. In my opinion, Trump is just scratching the surface of the anger at this point and the more global minded progressive better become more aware of the internal discontentment that Trump now represents in a much smaller form than what it will become eventually. Right now, we have liberals playing their petty games with peoples minds like they do consistently. On the other side, you have a much more serious constituency who has had enough of the liberal games and their more global minded policies and minority driven policies. Right now, the Rhinos are the ones experiencing the heat of that more serious constituency. It is very clear the bulk of of the Republican base is ready to move on without the support of the Rhinos who were defeated. The jig is up at this point. I know the working class better than any liberal who posts here, The bulk of the liberals who post here live in a bubble with no connection working or relationship to the class who once placed them in power. So, in reality you're f-d, whether you f-d today or tomorrow doesn't matter much to me at this point.
The Bernie Sanders wing is just as large as the Trump wing, going by primary vote totals. Workers won't need to follow Trump, who represents the oligarchy and fires workers, when they have a champion like Bernie available who will make sure that globalism is fair and does not hurt workers, the economy or the environment.
As for "minority-driven policies," you make phrases like that, and then deny that you are racist. What if that dog-whistle, which you make into a siren, loses its appeal in an increasingly-diverse nation with younger generations that respect that diversity? What if the minorities become the majority?
Minorities will become the majority in the next few decades! More children are being born to non-white parents than any other time before us, and the birth rate has become lower among white parents. Because of this, the population of minorities has accelerated, and will soon become greater than the majority. As more children are racial minorities, today's children will become more accepting of racial diversity than any other generation, and will hopefully grow up under a time of unity and pluralism (which we should have during the 4T and ironically we are more divisive than before), not only among races and ethniticies, but also in investing in a common future. I suggest that the new generation of Adaptives should be called the "Pluralist Generation," or "Plurals" for short. I didn't make that name up, but I really like it.
This is one of the reasons that the Right is so obsessed with banning abortion, there is a lot of White Supremacist "whites are committing race-suicide" sentiments on the Right.
Even worse to the white racists is that many white people are having non-white babies.
(07-31-2016, 11:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Even worse to the white racists is that many white people are having non-white babies.
Wow, racial purity, because the only thing worse to them than being non-white is being
partially non-white!
(08-01-2016, 11:11 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2016, 11:30 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2016, 11:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Even worse to the white racists is that many white people are having non-white babies.
Wow, racial purity, because the only thing worse to them than being non-white is being partially non-white!
I resemble that remark!
In my opinion I think racial purity is stupid, because we all descended from the same ancestors from Africa thousands of years ago. If you look back far enough, we all have common ancestors. Because of this, you can't really be "pure" anything. White supremacists would hate to think they were descendents of Africans (although far removed from them). I'm not against anyone identifying themselves as a certain race, but to think one race is better than another is ridiculous. We all have different cultures, and I'd like to respect that diversity.
(08-01-2016, 02:25 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ]In my opinion I think racial purity is stupid, because we all descended from the same ancestors from Africa thousands of years ago. If you look back far enough, we all have common ancestors. Because of this, you can't really be "pure" anything. White supremacists would hate to think they were descendents of Africans (although far removed from them). I'm not against anyone identifying themselves as a certain race, but to think one race is better than another is ridiculous. We all have different cultures, and I'd like to respect that diversity.
On the surface level I can give a big thumbs up to the bulk of the above.
Still, cultures evolve. The process is vaguely Darwinian. The cultures best adapted to their terrain, resources and available technology will have a better go of it than others still stuck in the Agricultural Age. Some cultures have never known anything but autocratic tyrants, and have values that have historically allowed autocratic tyranny to work. Saddam Hussain kept the peace in Iraq by terrorizing his people, by making them too fearful to fight the tyrant. It was an ugly peace, but a peace none the less. Stalin, Hitler, Genghis Kahn and ever so many more through history made tyranny work. I wouldn't want to live in their cultures, let alone in a neighboring culture that isn't armed to the teeth, still a strong tyrant could be an effective tyrant. In Syria, Assad and ISIS are still trying to make tyranny work.
Tyranny in the old school just can't compete with modern industrial democracies, though. Even if Assad or ISIS could manage a victory, they would end up ruling an impoverished ruined backwater.
This doesn't justify a cultural hatred of Syrians, Muslims or Arabs though. As a group, they are struggling hard in places trying to make an old culture work in the modern age. They have seen the worst of exploitive capitalism and communist attempts to create puppet states. They have good reason to reject the two most dominant sets of secular modern memes. They seem to be stuck trying to make obsolete Agricultural Age religious and tyrannic cultures work. They have a tough row to hoe, and our attempts to maintain a supply of cheap fossil fuels aren't helping.
They've got problems. It would be nice to try to help their home cultures on their home ground. Still, how well have Eric the Green and Classic Xer done in teaching each other to embrace another culture's ideas and values? I'd expect similar problems with any attempt to go to a foreign place well indoctrinated in a different approach and try to tell them how they are doing it all wrong. Humans are not apt to listen in such situations. The Capitalists and Communists exploiting their resources have taught them all too well to expect white men speaking with forked tongues. Lots of patience and watching them make their own mistakes and grow their own paths seem required.
But what if a member of such a culture leaves a dysfunctional homeland and makes a solid attempt to assimilate into a modern culture? That's different than us sending in an army to nation build at gun point. Aye, under such circumstances welcoming others from different religions and cultures is appropriate. Not always easy, but appropriate. In such a case, what you say is just right.
(08-01-2016, 02:25 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2016, 11:11 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2016, 11:30 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2016, 11:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Even worse to the white racists is that many white people are having non-white babies.
Wow, racial purity, because the only thing worse to them than being non-white is being partially non-white!
I resemble that remark!
In my opinion I think racial purity is stupid, because we all descended from the same ancestors from Africa thousands of years ago. If you look back far enough, we all have common ancestors. Because of this, you can't really be "pure" anything. White supremacists would hate to think they were descendents of Africans (although far removed from them). I'm not against anyone identifying themselves as a certain race, but to think one race is better than another is ridiculous. We all have different cultures, and I'd like to respect that diversity.
It's tribalism, very much an Agrarian Age phenomenon.
If racism had any validity it would find a defense in genetics. Skin color obviously does nothing to establish intelligence or character, and even skin color is explicable in genetics -- but with much complexity. The cause of light skin color in Koreans (arguably the palest of East Asians) is not the same as the cause of pale skin color in Europeans. Dark skin color can often be found in peoples most genetically different from West Africans.
Over time, the significant population most out of place between skin color and environment (white Australians, and East Asians are much the same in that respect) will get genetic mutations tat turn them practically black in skin and hair color, even without ethnic admixture. That will take about the same time as it took for people of northern India (who are Caucasoid) to get as dark as they are now -- like peoples of the Horn of Africa.
![[Image: 300px-Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.svg.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.svg/300px-Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.svg.png)
If racist claptrap really were true it would find a defense in genetics. 'Race' is so muddled as a concept that the experts on heritable patterns in humanity, the geneticists, find it unworthy of discussion. Scientists are a talkative lot, and they are horribly incompetent at keeping secrets. (That probably explains why the Soviets found it easy to get atom bomb secrets, a different story in itself). People who talk the most about racial differences in character and intelligence generally know the least about genetics and are most prone to mystical thought. Environment has selected for 'racial' characteristics in the past and will likely do so again. If you should take a time machine to Australia some 4000 years from now, then do not expect to find white people in large numbers even if the people still have a core culture derived almost exclusively from Great Britain and Ireland. Those people will look like white people except for teak-like skin shades and frizzy black hair.
(08-01-2016, 02:25 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2016, 11:11 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2016, 11:30 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2016, 11:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Even worse to the white racists is that many white people are having non-white babies.
Wow, racial purity, because the only thing worse to them than being non-white is being partially non-white!
I resemble that remark!
In my opinion I think racial purity is stupid, because we all descended from the same ancestors from Africa thousands of years ago. If you look back far enough, we all have common ancestors. Because of this, you can't really be "pure" anything. White supremacists would hate to think they were descendents of Africans (although far removed from them). I'm not against anyone identifying themselves as a certain race, but to think one race is better than another is ridiculous. We all have different cultures, and I'd like to respect that diversity.
You are absolutely correct.
Africans look like Africans because they didn't move from there until recently, if at all. So, they didn't need to physically change from the environment they were adapted to. That is not reflection on them other than that they didn't need to change physically. Other "races" are just people who moved away from our ancestral home and physically adapted to the environments they moved to (primarily sunny vs. not so sunny)
Quote:This is one of the reasons that the Right is so obsessed with banning abortion, there is a lot of White Supremacist "whites are committing race-suicide" sentiments on the Right.
As a Malthusian, I have always maintained that the Right is against abortion - and birth control - because they want a high birth rate since that increases competition for both jobs and housing, causing downward pressure on wages, especially low-end wages, and upward pressure on housing costs, especially low-end rents.
And absent evidence that whites have a statistically inordinate number of abortions, I will stick by this.