Monday, March 27, 2006

Time, Truth, and Falsehood


Recent posts here are centred on our public and social epistemologies, on how we understand our lives and places in the world. We've looked at multiculturalism, cultural relativism, false consciousness, triumphalism, and religious revivalism, for examples, to see how we express ourselves socially and how we might. If we see the world in one way or another, then we will act in one way or another, even to the point of living or dying as whole peoples. If we follow a bad idea that leads to the grave, so we die. To follow ideas is not to suggest that we understand them or even realise they are ideas. Few people read Franz Fanon, for example, in deciding whether to have children in America; and yet, Fanons's work plays a role in that decision for many couples-- or singles-- today. So, if we must walk into this greyness that is our future, let us at least know where we came from if not where and why we are on this particular path. Let's look at our public opinion of Truth, at least very briefly and superficially. Time is short. It is important that we decide soon our positions.
****

Subjective versus objective

Metaphysical subjectivism holds that the truth or falsity of all propositions depends, at least partly, on what we believe.

In contrast, objective truths are supposed in some way to be independent of our subjective beliefs and sensations. Such truths would subsist not in the mind but in the external universe. Except for propositions that are actually about our beliefs or sensations, what is true or false is independent of what we think is true or false. Some scientists claim that science provides objective truths by means of measurement and independent confirmation of results. Kant made the same claim for mathematics.


Relative versus absolute

Relative truths are statements or propositions that are true only relative to some standard or convention or point-of-view. Usually the standard cited is the tenets of one's own culture. Everyone agrees that the truth or falsity of some statements is relative: That the fork is to the left of the spoon depends on where one stands. But Relativism is the doctrine that all truths within a particular domain (say, morality or aesthetics) are of this form, and Relativism entails that what is true varies across cultures and eras. For example, Moral relativism is the view that moral truths are socially determined. Some logical issues about Relativism are taken up in the article on the relativist fallacy.

Relative truths can be contrasted with absolute truths. The latter are statements or propositions that are taken to be true for all cultures and all eras. For example, for most Muslims "God is great" expresses an absolute truth; for the microeconomist, that the laws of supply and demand determine the value of any consumable in a market economy is true in all situations; for the Kantian, "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" forms an absolute moral truth. They are statements that are often claimed to emanate from the very nature of the universe, God, human nature, or some other ultimate essence or transcendental signifier.

Absolutism in a particular domain of thought is the view that all statements in that domain are either absolutely true or absolutely false: none is true for some cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras. For example, Moral absolutism is the view that moral claims such as "Abortion is wrong" or "Charity is good" are either true for all people in all times or false for all people in all times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

****

We often play the futile game of finding this man or that to blame for the nature of our fallenness. Some point to Descartes, others to Kant, some many to Nietzsche, and some at the devil himself. My personal favorites, for what it's worth, are Plato and Rousseau. If it's of any interest, my position comes from Socrates and Kant: Universal and absolute moral truth, of which I have no real idea. However, the concepts above and below will give us at least an inkling of what this discussion is about, and it will give us some idea of why we think the things we think we think, often so naively that we are blinded entirely by our ignorance of our very lives.
****

Moral relativism

moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that it is meaningless for the moral or ethical judgments or acts of one person or group to be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

Some moral relativists — for example, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies or ought to lie at the foundation of individuals' moral acts. In this view public morality is a reflection of social convention, and only personal, subjective morality is truly authentic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
****

One might well blame Descartes for his near solipsistic cogito, and one might prefer Berkley's God-driven reality. It's useful to have an informed opinion but it's also a bit late. The question now is how do we know what is true. To claim there is no universal truth is to claim that is universally true. We have to confront our own lives and decide for ourselves whether we are living in a life-world that, though we cannot know it directly beyond our senses, is or is not, and is or is not universally morality-capable.

If we lie to ourselves out of supposed convenience or prudence, we are still living in bad faith, inauthentically, and we are incapable of morality. To know the authority of the moral, if there is such, is to know universally and absolutely the possibity of the moral. We must decide our position.

In response to the latter we have recently posted on triumphalism and revivalism in contrast to the posts on cultural relativism and multiculturalism. From this, one of our more organincally incapable commentators has suggested that I am akin to Hitler. Regardless, and giving that all the deep consideration it warrants, we must decide our position clearly and quickly. The above pieces might draw to our attention the possiblities we have to choose from.

We have to choose, and we must then act, even if in our actions we steam-roll some of our own.

****

"Truth Saving Time From Falsehood,"
François Lemoine (b. 1688, Paris, d. 1737, Paris)

Posted by at No comments:

Sebastian In Paris Writes:



Sebastian writes from Paris on more street fighting and rioting by Muslim "yoots." I continue to predict that by mid-April the Eurofada will erupt in France and that by August France will be under martial law. The rioting, I suggest, will spread across northern Europe from France, and that by August it will engender sympathy riots across the Muslim world.

Sebastian writes:


I cannot find independent confirmation of this but it appears that the centre of Saint Denis was trashed by around 100 to 150 'djeunes' [yoots] after which only 3 people were arrested.

The story appeared in the Parisien, and the article has subsequently been pulled from the online edition.

My source is second hand from the Salon Beige Blog. http://lesalonbeige.blogs.com/

Saint Denis under Seige

"While some smashed windows with rocks and stole jewelry, other grabbed the cash register while threatening us. It was worst than a hold-up"

From 9 am to midday, between 100 and 150 youth sowed terror in a beseiged town centre, closed off to traffic by the police....The first events occured outside the Lycée Eluard..but the main trouble occured in the pedestrianised shopping areas. Two other jewelry shops and a phone shop were trashed and pillaged on the Rue de la Republique, 10 or so shops on the rue Gabriel-Peri, and as many automobiles damaged. "Even during the November (Ramadan) Riots we had never seen such violence"

Sebastian continues:

There are photos somewhere about this attack but I cannot find them. It's also rather strange that the Parisien, which is the only paper which covered this has removed the story from its web site.

When a mob attacked passengers on a train on the 1st of January the same cover up occured for several days before it turned out some passengers refused not to press charges.

[See Train Attack: 40 Yoots attack 600 French on Nice Lyon Train, Jan. 1, 2006.]

You may or may not be aware that the Islamo-African youths are piggy backing on the French students who are also rioting for the right to continue ignoring the economics of the labour market. These same socialist students are getting the crap kicked out of them by the Arabs and blacks. Even French students wearing keffiyehs are getting mugged by dozens of immigrant youths.

The word schadenfreude is not used in France, but this might be a time for the Academie to debate this word's inclusion into the gallic lexicon.

[Academie Francaise decides by committee which words to include in the official version of the French language.]

Videos of the recent violence can be found from this link http://voxgalliae.blogspot.com/


Best Regards

Sebastien
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Worship My Boobies!


Princess Kimberley has some hard-core copy with some top-nitch graphics and photos to go with it, photos such as a dog eating a Qur'an. Here are a few samples of her work in advance of more on the concept of "politically correct" behavior.

princesskimberley.blogspot.com
.
Posted by at 2 comments:

On Multiculturalism

We have looked recently at cultural relativism and triumphalism. This post we'll look at multiculturalism, following soon with a historical look at the concept of racism - as - pseudoscience as based on Darwin's speculations on evolution as applied to people. The point of these investigations into our intellectual history is to show how we came to believe our common assumptions of the West. If we look at Herder and Fichte, as we have done here, and trace the history of the ideas they developed, then we can see a clear line of glowing fascism that doesn't end with Hitler but that carries on to this day in mutated form. Those who refuse to follow the arguments and the texts fall back on any number of idiocies but they do not and cannot refute the texts on which this thesis is built. Here below is a short entry on multiculturalism culled from wikipedia. For those who care for more information on this topic we suggest looking in the archives for: The Melian Dialogue; William Walker; Let's Invade Sweden; Franz Boaz; History of Rational Agriculture; History of Ecology; Bacon, Feynman, and Dawkins; Bissoondath; and random samplings of Plato. The wikipedia piece is something of a joke, it being revised by someone determined to make it politically correct. We've included the deleted parts, shown the included bits, and leave the reader to decide.

To my personal delight I see that over the course of these past nine months of patchwork posts the thesis here is becoming coherent and supportable. In coming posts we'll continue this critique of Modernity by posting on racism, social progress, identity, authenticity, pacifism, manifest destiny, gnosticism, eschatology, with more on Herder, Fitche, Julien Benda, Georges Sorel, V.I. Lenin, C.G. Jung, Heidegger, and finally on Rousseau and Eric Hoffer. This blog does have an end, and we are reaching it. If you have comments or suggestions, please contact me here. We, my mates and I here, are usually happy to receive them.

Below we'll see the remnants of the entry from wikipedia and the revisions now standing. I've include that which was deleted, and noted much of what is now included that was not in the original. I tried to cut out the boring bits to keep this easy to read. I make some brief remarks at the end of the wikipedia copy.
****

Multiculturalism:

[....]

Official multiculturalism:

Multiculturalism can also be a prescriptive term which describes government policy.

In dealing with immigrants groups and their cultures, there are essentially three approaches-
Monoculturalism: In most Old World nations, notably with the exception of the UK, culture is very closely linked to nationalism, thus government policy is to assimilate immigrants These countries have policies aiming at the social integration of immigrant groups to the national culture. This is typical of nations that define themselves as one and indivisible and do not recognize the existence of other nations within their midst.

Melting Pot: In the United States the traditional view has been one of a melting pot where all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention. However, many states have different language policies within the union. Immigrants maintain their own culture and family background while also becoming Americans.

Multiculturalism: In comparison to the above two approaches, multiculturalism is a view, or policy, that immigrants, and others, should preserve their cultures with the different cultures interacting peacefully within one nation. Today, this is the official policy of Canada, Australia and the UK. However, contrasting views on the Australian model articulate a fundamental shift that identifies a singular homogenised culture derived from a heterogeneous society. Multiculturalism has been described as preserving a "cultural mosaic" of separate ethnic groups, and is contrasted to a "melting pot" that mixes them. This has also been described as the "salad bowl" model.

[....]

Origins:

Multiculturalism became incorporated into official policies in several nations in the 1970s for reasons that varied from country to country.

In Canada, it was adopted in 1971 following the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, a government body set up in response to the grievances of Canada's French-speaking minority (concentrated in the Province of Quebec). The report of the Commission advocated that the Canadian government recognize Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society and adopt policies to preserve this character. Biculturalism was attacked from many directions.

Progressive Conservative leader John Diefenbaker saw multiculturalism as an attack on his vision of unhyphenated Canadianism. It did not satisfy the growing number of young francophones who gravitated towards Quebec nationalism. While many Canadians of British descent disliked the new policies of biculturalism and official bilingualism, the strongest opposition to biculturalism came from Canadians of neither English nor French descent, the so-called "Third Force" Canadians. Biculturalism did not accord with local realities in the western provinces, where the French population was tiny compared to other groups such as the Ukrainian Canadians, the group that was arguably most important in modifying the policy of biculturalism. To accommodate these groups, the formula was changed from "bilingualism and biculturalism" to "bilingualism and multiculturalism."

The Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau promulgated the "Announcement of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within Bilingual Framework" in the House of Commons on 8 October 1971, the precursor of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act which received Royal Assent on 21 July, 1988. Symbolically, this legislation affirmed that Canada was a multicultural nation. On a more practical level, federal funds began to be distributed to ethnic groups to help them preserve their cultures. Projects typically funded included folk dancing competitions and the construction of community centres. This led to criticisms that the policy was actually motivated by electoral considerations. After its election in 1984, the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney did not reverse these policies, although they had earlier been criticized by Tories as inconsistent with "unhyphenated Canadianism." This policy has been supported by every subsequent government and was added to Canada's 1982 constitution, in section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Implementation:

While multiculturalist policies oppose cultural assimilation, countries such as Canada do support structural assimilation. Immigrant groups are still encouraged to participate in the larger society, learn the majority languages, and enter the labour force.

Official multiculturalism around the Table:

In the United States multiculturalism is not an official policy at the federal level. At the state level, it is sometimes associated with English-Spanish bilingualism. However, the government, in recent years, moved to support many multiculturalist policies. In some ways, the United States has gone even further than Canada and Australia with such policies. For instance, California drivers can take their exams in a number of languages and voting districts are shaped

[edited version deletes "gerrymandered districts"] to facilitate proportional minority representation in government.

In the United Kingdom multiculturalism has been the subject of extensive debate in recent years. Under the Conservatives (1979-1997), multiculturalist rhetoric and policies were confined to left-leaning councils....

Multiculturalism, along with other identity politics, has, partly, been successful because it is a useful tool for politicians to win the votes of minority groups. Government money for cultural celebrations or ethnic-specific newspapers can encourage new immigrants to support the governing party.

Criticisms:

There have been many criticisms of official multiculturalism from both the left and right. Criticisms come from a variety of perspectives, including the democratic, feminist, capitalist, nationalist, chauvinist, separatist, racialist and xenophobic.

[Edited from: "criticism of such policies can be difficult, because it can quickly lead to accusations of racism and xenophobia."]

Criticisms of multiculturalism in general:

Critics charge that one of the dangers of pursuing multicultural social policies is that social integration and cultural assimilation can be held back. This can potentially encourage economic disparities and an exclusion of minority groups from mainstream politics.

[Edited out is: Maththew Parris has questioned whether the pursuit of particularist multiculturalism is not apartheid by another name."]

[The following is included:] However, policies that facilitate racially proportional representation, district as opposed to at-large local elections, and the accommodation of bilingualism in the voting both do precisely the opposite: they encourage political participation and increase minority representation in local and national political life.

One of the most forceful critics of multiculturalism was Ayn Rand, who [deleted: "condemned"] feared the world-wide ethnic revival of the late 1960s [deleted: "as a manifestation of tribalism that"] would lead to an ethnic Balkanization destructive to modern industrial societies. Her philosophy considered multiculturalism [added:] and monoculturalism to be culturally determinist collectivism (i.e., that individual human beings have no free choice in how they act and are conditioned irreversibly by society). Philosophically, Rand rejected this form of collectivism on the grounds that: 1) it undermines the concept of free will, and 2) the human mind (according to her philosophy) is a tabula rasa at birth. But it is also true that the human mind is born without any culture, and that in nearly all societies attempt to condition their citizens culturally. What is distinct about multiculturalism is the assertion of an identity, aside from the nationally imposed identity, allowing for individuals within minority cultures to exercise more free choice than they otherwise would in a universalist society.

[Deleted: Since her thinking was also the basis for rejecting racism... [she considers] multiculturalism to be akin to racism.]

In her 1999 essay, later expanded into an anthology, "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?" the feminist and political theorist Susan M. Okin argues that a concern for the preservation of cultural diversity should not overshadow the discriminatory nature of gender roles in many traditional minority cultures, that, at the very least, "culture" should not be used as an excuse for rolling back the women's rights movement.

[Added:] Literature by prominent minority women authors such as Toni Morrison and Maxine Hong Kingston can be both critiques of the traditional majority and minority cultures, as well as articulate exponents of a multicultural vision.

[....]

Another more recent and conservative criticism, based largely upon the Nordic and Canadian experience, is presented by the administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson, who views multiculturalism as a utopian ideology with a simplistic and overly optimistic view of human nature, the same weakness he attributes to Communism, Anarchism, and many strains of Liberalism. He

[deleted: "points out that the current climate in many Western nations with official multiculturalist policies and programmes is such that even lucid and well-argued criticism of the ideology will tend to be met by emotional, sensationalist, and even violent opposition."]

[Added:] raises a concern some variants of the multiculturalism may equip non-egalitarian cultural groups with political clout and influence as to alter the values system of the larger society.

{Deleted:] It is this aspect combined with a tendency to require all citizens to think and act in accordance with multiculturalism which, according to Njalsson, would tend to define multiculturalism as a potentially extreme and totalitarian ideology. He also voices concerns that some variant of the muticulturalist ideology may in fact equip non-egalitarian cultural groups with political clout and influence in such a way as to eventually allow them to dominate the values system of a particular society.]

This realist criticism of multiculturalism maintains that in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the US, multiculturalism may [actually further] aggravate a situation where old-stock families [deleted: "are not permitted by their old world countries to consider themselves as..."]

do not consider themselves as English, French, Scandinavian, etc. while newer arrivals who can claim two or more national identities.

[Added:] These fears are not borne out by the historical record. Fears that minorities in the US or Canada will have divided loyalties have been a canard, for example, to intern Japanese-Americans during World War II. In fact native-born ethnic and religious minorities in North America have high rates of out-marriage, participate fully in their country of birth, and identify culturally and not politically with the home of their forbears. The potential struggle to alter societal values is a concern mainly in European countries with monocultural policies, where religious and ethnic minorities are politically and socially marginalized, a condition that can reinforce fundamentalist strains in any culture.

Multiculturalism as co-optation into structures of white power:

Anti-racists of the Marxist tilt view white supremacy as one system that stems from an internalized form of imperialism, that is, exploitation of other races for the accumulation of capital in the homeland. When racism is in this way analyzed a problem of political economy, the response is to tear down its structural foundations, that is, imperialism.

Multiculturalism stands in the way of such agenda, because it implies that the grounds for racism in society are not economic, but cultural or ideological. Ironically, a contradictory view asserts that the pursuit of particularist multiculturalism is somehow apartheid by another name.

[....]

United States

Some opponents argue that the celebration of multicultural diversity in America is used to mask hostility toward the mainstream.

In his 1991 work, Illiberal Education, Dinesh D'Souza argues that the entrenchment of multiculturalism in American universities has undermined the universalistic values that liberal educations once attempted to foster. In particular, he was disturbed by the growth of ethnic studies programs, (e.g., Black Studies).

[....]


Many critics fear that multiculturalism has been a massive failure while others celebrate it. Many attribute the introduction of multiculturalism to the civil rights movement and the 1965 Immigration Act or the (Hart-Celler Act).

Maryland governor Robert Ehrlich was especially critical of the concept, calling it "crap" and saying that the idea of multiculturalism is flawed and that young immigrants should learn English and assimilate into American culture.

"The question we Americans need to address, before it is answered for us, is: Does this First World nation wish to become a Third World country?

[Added:] Because that is our destiny if we do not build a sea wall against the waves of immigration rolling over our shores....Who speaks for the Euro-Americans, who founded the USA?...Is it not time to take America back?" -Pat Buchanan

[Added:] Many interpret multiculturalism to be a massive flooding of non white people into ones country which therefore puts the original culture in jeopardy.

[Added:] "There is nothing wrong with us sitting down and arguing that issue that we are a European country." -Pat Buchanan

[Added:] In a September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage."

Many opponents feel that multiculturalism is destroying national sovereignty and preparing the world for a one world government. Although many Conservatives are afraid to criticize multiculturalism due to overwhelming culture and racial sensitivity in the United States.

In 1998, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a former advisor to the Kennedy and other US administrations and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner in history, published a book with the title The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. Schlesinger states that a new attitude - one that celebrates difference and abandons assimilation - may replace the classic image of the melting pot in which differences are submerged in democracy. He argues that ethnic awareness has had many positive consequences to unite a nation with a "history of prejudice". However, the "cult of ethnicity", if pushed too far, may endanger the unity of society.

[....]

Canada

In Canada, the most noted critics of multiculturalism are Kenneth McRoberts, Neil Bissoondath, Daniel Stoffman, and Reginald Bibby.

[....]

In his Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada, the Trinidad and Tobago born Bissoondath argues that official multiculturalism limits the freedom of minority members by confining them to cultural and geographic ghettos. He also argues that cultures are very complex and must be transmitted through close family and kin relations. To him, the government view of cultures as being about festivals and cuisine is a crude oversimplification that leads to easy stereotyping.

Bibby, in his Mosaic Madness: Pluralism Without a Cause, argues that official multiculturalism is a divisive force that is reducing national solidarity and unity.

Daniel Stoffman's book "Who Gets In" raises serious questions about the policy of Canadian multiculturalism. Stoffman points out that many cultural practices, such as allowing dog meat to be served in restaurants and street cockfighting, are simply incompatible with Canadian and western culture. He also raises concern about the number of recent immigrants who are not being linguistically integrated into Canada (i.e., not learning either English or French). He stresses that multiculturalism works better in theory than in practice.

Approximately 20% of today's Canadian citizens were born outside Canada due to the highest immigration rate of any G8 country. Recent immigrants are largely concentrated in the cities of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto....

United Kingdom

In the UK, supporters of the current Labour government's approach have described it as having defended the rights of minorities to preserve their culture, while also seeking to ensure they become fully participatory citizens — that is, integrating without assimilating. Critics say the policy fails on all accounts: If social conditions and racism become barriers to the integration of minorities, then multiculturalism does not properly function. There is now a lively debate in the UK over multiculturalism versus "social cohesion and inclusion." The current Labour government appears to favour the latter. In the wake of the July 7 Bombings 2005 (which left over 50 people dead) the opposition Conservative shadow home secretary called on the government to scrap its "outdated" policy of multiculturalism. One of the foremost critics of multiculturalism is Trevor Phillips the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality and a one-time black activist. Criticisms of the multiculturalism policy have also been made by Uganda-born author Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, in her book After Multiculturalism. While it is claimed that the United Kingdom receives the largest number of immigrants every year, ahead of France and the United States, the UNHCR reports on its website that this is in fact exaggerated. Most of the immigrants come from the Indian sub-continent or the Caribbean. This is the main reason why London is the world's most cosmopolitan city. In the May 2004 edition of Prospect Magazine, David Goodhart, the Editor, temporarily couched the debate on Multiculturalism in terms of whether a modern welfare state and a "good society" is sustainable as its citizens are becoming increasingly diverse.[1] Open criticism of multiculturalism, given Prospect's pedigree and reputation, was thereafter firmly part of the mainstream. Since then - such as the London bombings - have shifted the debate away from sustainability and cohesion towards a focus on the uneasy bedfellows of free speech and security. In November 2005 John Sentamu, the first member of an ethnic minority to be appointed as Archbishop of York stated, "Multiculturalism has seemed to imply, wrongly for me, let other cultures be allowed to express themselves but do not let the majority culture at all tell us its glories, its struggles, its joys, its pains."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism
****

To summarise, multiculturalsim was originated in Switzerlan and in Canada as a way of vote-buying: Canadian politicians felt that since one riding, Danforth Ave. in Toronto, was nearly entirely Greek, that an appeal to Greeks on the grounds of ethnicity would win the Livberal government that key riding. It took little time to realise that the Chinese and Portugese enclaves would have similar results if pitched in ethnic terms. And to cement the deal, the Froncophone seperatists in Quebec, being the largest minority in Canada, were diluted as a political force by devaluing them while empowering others as equally deserving of "cultural privilege" within the confederation. Whereas Quebec was oriianlly French it suddenly became multicultural instead. Todaay, according to Bissoondth's Selling Illusions, (archived) there is, according to the Canadian government, no Canadian culture. The results of this government programme of social and racist engineering are obvious in France with the concept of "youths" as opposed to Muslims; in Australia with "neo-Nazis" as opposed to local residents battling against "men of Middle Eastern appearance" rather than Lebanese gang rapists; in Scandanavia with the locals swarmed and raped and terrified by "no one in particular;" and so on.

Because the intelligentsia have a total lack of understanding of the history of the concept of racism they have de facto become racists in practice.

To return to Nyalsson: "He also voices concerns that some variant of the muticulturalist ideology may in fact equip non-egalitarian cultural groups with political clout and influence in such a way as to eventually allow them to dominate the values system of a particular society."

We can see the clear evidence of the truth of his observation in Islamic triumphalism. Fascist Muslims are daily attempting to impose sharia on Europe. They murder with near impunity across the world, and the multiculturalists cry Islamophobia and racism at at any protest against this. Were it not so serious we might just laugh at the idiocies of our multiculturalist elitists. They are in fact a serious menace to our very lives, not to mention our societies.

The entry above shows us fairly clearly the division in our world between thsoe who write and those who rewrite. In restoring earlier passages and delited concepts we show the nature of the progress under discussion here. If one had only the rervised version of wikipedia's piece there'd be much not know to us. In the same way, by rreturning to Herder and Fichte and others we can trace the history of our concepts of multiculturalism and see that what we now stand on is a hotch-potch of revision and deletions and outright lies. We'll continue this adventure in our next post.
Posted by at 3 comments:

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Under Meat-eating Birds.



I would live for a thousand years, leaping naked from moon-cast shadows into the flame-lights of sacrifice to sway and stomp and howl and laugh in victory-dancing.

Triumphalism? We are such for because of because. No one else but us, and us alone. Going shameless into that good night, we fighting men, carrying on till forever is over. I would live for a thousand years and fight again.

"Lost? And what is there to lose? Is not the wheel of eternity mine?" G.E. Lessing, The Education of Humankind.
****

[T]his entry didn't have a negative POV; it's an entry about a negative THING. No one takes prides in her or her own 'triumphalism.' You can't link to any websites with advice about how to encourage more triumphalism in your own group. Those who truly believe in their own superiority call themselves 'superior,' not 'triumphalist.' Those who truly are or will be victorious call themselves 'triumphant,' not 'triumphalist.' When people want to talk about an attitude worthy of praise, they use terms like 'school spirit', 'pride', or 'confidence.' The term 'triumphalism' is used when you want connotations of over-confidence, hubris, or delusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Triumphalism
****

I see: So warm. Eyes golden diamonds, skin cherry peaches: floating across the blue an arc of life's rubbies, a bridge uncrossed; to lay down hollow-eyed forever in search of the endless empty skies; to lay at rest under a quilt of meat-eating birds.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)