This is excellent, and really gets to the heart - or essence - of the matter, in my view. It reminds me, to begin with, of Thomas Sowell's excellent Conflict of Visions, in which he speaks about how the Unconstrained Vision of the Left is rooted in the concept of humans, and human cultures, being endlessly malleable. Yet more deeply, it reminds of something I heard Mary Harrington talk about: the concept of essence as promoted by Thomas Aquinas. This is something that has been largely forgotten about, or ignored, by modernity, but I rather think we need to relearn it in a hurry if our Western cultures are to survive. We cannot just go on pretending that our bloodlines, and the cultures they created over centuries of struggle, are of no value. On the contrary, I believe that they are (literally) essential to our continued collective wellbeing.
Concomitant to the idea of conditions moulding people (notwithstanding what happens when the moulding stops as in Yugoslavia) is Rousseau's pernicious idea of the noble savage. The doctrine of multiculturalism, in tension with civic nationalism, is OK because all people and cultures are inherently equally worthy. Tell that to the thousands of victims of grooming gangs.
In the UK, and no doubt elsewhere, the moulding hadn't worked which is why the UK's Ministry of Justice is trying to stop publication of se and other crimes by nationality. It is partly a reflex of the narrative control state (applicable to many things) but also to avoid exposing the Lysenko lie. The problem is the cat is out of the bag in Denmark and Holland. Do they really think we'll fall for the idea our Afghans and Somali's are different to their Afghans and Somalis who are disproportionately commit sex crimes?
Imagine two large jars of sweets. In one, the native sweets, 1% are poisonous but in the other, with added foreign sweets, 10% are poisonous. You must choose from one of the jars. Which do you choose? Western governments (except Poland) have taken away the first jar and left us with second. Time to tip it over and get back the first jar.
I really appreciated this article, but I am curious where these lines can be drawn. I mean this out of legitimate curiosity.
My family is not OG American nor Protestant. We were Slavic Catholics who came here just over 100 years ago. I believe we have become a truly American peoples. Where is the line of those who cannot assimilate? Again, I mean this as a legitimate question, not an argument. I agree that there are some that really cannot assimilate to other culture like how I could probably never fully assimilate to Vietnamese culture.
I’m not aware of conservatives buying this idea. Conservatives I know place a premium on culture with compatible cultures being able to assimilate into each other’s societies without major difficulty. Assimilation of incompatible cultures are rare and require a serious conversion in the process which is rarely accomplished at more than an individual or family level.
You can see why it has done so well in America. Especially given our civil war, slavery, etc. the puritan worldview that birthed the north and their “mind over matter” perspective has led to outright denial in biological reality. Also a bit of the ability to create heaven on earth if we just try hard enough. The south for all their faults accepted reality the way it was because of their different take on Christianity. That man is fallen, it is what it is here on earth, and only death takes one to equality among men before God. So the southern worldview allowed for difference to exist within their spiritual framework while the north could not. So today, thanks to the yanks, America is just an idea and anyone can just become one overnight (they can’t). American liberalism is a stone’s throw away from communism. Go figure why FDR and his cronies were so sympathetic to the USSR.
This is a very good analysis of the problem with civnats. They are essentially in tune with the diversity message of the Liberal-democratic system, in fact truly controlled Opposition.
It also illustrates the weak ideological position of "conservatives", they always cave in to the prevailing Leftist narrative.
Any true Nationalist position would promote a" radical " core belief in a racial component in the idea of a Nation. We can see with One Nation here or Reform in the UK, that they are acceptable to the regime and really are meant to contain any "nationalist" sentiment from the voting population. The fake Right is our enemy as they close the gate and maintain the system's status quo, in which no radical party is allowed to compete within the electoral landscape.
Look at the recent change in One Nation, pushing the civnat reality denying idea of "Monoculture" in essence anybody regardless of racial origin can become an Aussie. Illustrates this delusion well by adopting Lysenkoism in political ideology.
Culture is downstream from race, One Nation has many Asian and other nonwhite members, there's a type of Boomer who marry Philippinas but see Muslims as the main enemy, I have seen them at One nation meetings..
Much of the indigenous hatred of Mayor Khan flows from his insistence that everybody who lives in London is a LONDONER. On the other hand he is a half-wit...although a cunning one...a snake in the grass to be sure.
Franz Boas—the father of racial denialism and the rejection of genetic heredity—writing to the USSR’s official news propaganda organization, the TASS Agency, in 1941: "Our sympathies [regarding World War II] lie entirely with the Soviets. Their conception of equality among men, regardless of race, is a step forward in human history that we might well emulate." Boas wrote to the USSR in 1936 to praise Lysenko, who denied natural selection and attacked genetics as "bourgeois pseudoscience." Lysenko's influence contributed to the Great Famine in Communist mainland China. Franz Boas was heavily influenced by his uncle Abraham Jacobi, a communist revolutionary and personal friend of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Boasian anthropology—which hammers home the essential anti-racist mantra that "race is a social construct" and dominates academia and the entire "Cathedral" (in the Yarvinian sense) across the West today—is literally a Marxist derivation that denies the science and nature of this issue and reality.
"He thought conventional genetics was a bourgeois superstition: reactionary, racist and capitalist."
I've always found this communist take baffling, they make the assertion that nationalism/racism is "capitalist" & yet, don't demonstrate sound logic to back it up & common sense would suggest the exact opposite.
The capitalist would be the very type to deny race so that he can have an ever-accumulating rootless mass of labourers & consumers who expand his profits & can be moved around as he sees fit. E.g., deny the importance of the genetic continuity & cultural heritage of the Russian nation & you can bring in Chinese scab labourers to depress wages & expand operations without resistance.
International free-flow of capital, industry, goods, labour, & consumers (aka globalism) = profit maximisation = pure capitalism.
In other words, globalism & denial of human types is the purest or even 'end stage' expression of anything that could be considered genuinely capitalist or profit seeking above all else.
Just because capitalist imperialists play on national instincts to do their dirty work doesn't mean that nationalism is capitalist, it simply indicates that there's national instinct to direct or manipulate in the first place. It's the precise reason why they aren't simply honest & state, "we want you to risk your life, we'll even pay you, to take this territory/resource so a few private industrialists can grow rich", because that honesty is not powerful & inspiring like national instinct is, it just makes you feel used for someone else's gain rather than the genetic collective itself gaining.
It's always made me wonder about the true roots of communism, whether it was intentionally created to break down nations to pave the way for global financial capitalism, or whether that was merely a psychological defect of the very bourgeois types who created it (Marx - bourgeois background & Engels - industrialist), they couldn't think outside of their detached, materially comfortable class assumptions.
This is excellent, and really gets to the heart - or essence - of the matter, in my view. It reminds me, to begin with, of Thomas Sowell's excellent Conflict of Visions, in which he speaks about how the Unconstrained Vision of the Left is rooted in the concept of humans, and human cultures, being endlessly malleable. Yet more deeply, it reminds of something I heard Mary Harrington talk about: the concept of essence as promoted by Thomas Aquinas. This is something that has been largely forgotten about, or ignored, by modernity, but I rather think we need to relearn it in a hurry if our Western cultures are to survive. We cannot just go on pretending that our bloodlines, and the cultures they created over centuries of struggle, are of no value. On the contrary, I believe that they are (literally) essential to our continued collective wellbeing.
Thank you :)
Ha, I just read this and was going to send you a section as an addendum to our earlier chat.
Great minds and all that!
Oh, indubitably
Concomitant to the idea of conditions moulding people (notwithstanding what happens when the moulding stops as in Yugoslavia) is Rousseau's pernicious idea of the noble savage. The doctrine of multiculturalism, in tension with civic nationalism, is OK because all people and cultures are inherently equally worthy. Tell that to the thousands of victims of grooming gangs.
In the UK, and no doubt elsewhere, the moulding hadn't worked which is why the UK's Ministry of Justice is trying to stop publication of se and other crimes by nationality. It is partly a reflex of the narrative control state (applicable to many things) but also to avoid exposing the Lysenko lie. The problem is the cat is out of the bag in Denmark and Holland. Do they really think we'll fall for the idea our Afghans and Somali's are different to their Afghans and Somalis who are disproportionately commit sex crimes?
Imagine two large jars of sweets. In one, the native sweets, 1% are poisonous but in the other, with added foreign sweets, 10% are poisonous. You must choose from one of the jars. Which do you choose? Western governments (except Poland) have taken away the first jar and left us with second. Time to tip it over and get back the first jar.
.
"Lysenkoism became official state biology and scientists who defended genetics were denounced, sacked, and imprisoned; some died in the camps."
This situation seems oddly familiar - ah, yes, the current global enforced narrative of Covidism.
I really appreciated this article, but I am curious where these lines can be drawn. I mean this out of legitimate curiosity.
My family is not OG American nor Protestant. We were Slavic Catholics who came here just over 100 years ago. I believe we have become a truly American peoples. Where is the line of those who cannot assimilate? Again, I mean this as a legitimate question, not an argument. I agree that there are some that really cannot assimilate to other culture like how I could probably never fully assimilate to Vietnamese culture.
I’m not aware of conservatives buying this idea. Conservatives I know place a premium on culture with compatible cultures being able to assimilate into each other’s societies without major difficulty. Assimilation of incompatible cultures are rare and require a serious conversion in the process which is rarely accomplished at more than an individual or family level.
You can see why it has done so well in America. Especially given our civil war, slavery, etc. the puritan worldview that birthed the north and their “mind over matter” perspective has led to outright denial in biological reality. Also a bit of the ability to create heaven on earth if we just try hard enough. The south for all their faults accepted reality the way it was because of their different take on Christianity. That man is fallen, it is what it is here on earth, and only death takes one to equality among men before God. So the southern worldview allowed for difference to exist within their spiritual framework while the north could not. So today, thanks to the yanks, America is just an idea and anyone can just become one overnight (they can’t). American liberalism is a stone’s throw away from communism. Go figure why FDR and his cronies were so sympathetic to the USSR.
This is a very good analysis of the problem with civnats. They are essentially in tune with the diversity message of the Liberal-democratic system, in fact truly controlled Opposition.
It also illustrates the weak ideological position of "conservatives", they always cave in to the prevailing Leftist narrative.
Any true Nationalist position would promote a" radical " core belief in a racial component in the idea of a Nation. We can see with One Nation here or Reform in the UK, that they are acceptable to the regime and really are meant to contain any "nationalist" sentiment from the voting population. The fake Right is our enemy as they close the gate and maintain the system's status quo, in which no radical party is allowed to compete within the electoral landscape.
Look at the recent change in One Nation, pushing the civnat reality denying idea of "Monoculture" in essence anybody regardless of racial origin can become an Aussie. Illustrates this delusion well by adopting Lysenkoism in political ideology.
Culture is downstream from race, One Nation has many Asian and other nonwhite members, there's a type of Boomer who marry Philippinas but see Muslims as the main enemy, I have seen them at One nation meetings..
Much of the indigenous hatred of Mayor Khan flows from his insistence that everybody who lives in London is a LONDONER. On the other hand he is a half-wit...although a cunning one...a snake in the grass to be sure.
fantastic exposure. thank you.
Franz Boas—the father of racial denialism and the rejection of genetic heredity—writing to the USSR’s official news propaganda organization, the TASS Agency, in 1941: "Our sympathies [regarding World War II] lie entirely with the Soviets. Their conception of equality among men, regardless of race, is a step forward in human history that we might well emulate." Boas wrote to the USSR in 1936 to praise Lysenko, who denied natural selection and attacked genetics as "bourgeois pseudoscience." Lysenko's influence contributed to the Great Famine in Communist mainland China. Franz Boas was heavily influenced by his uncle Abraham Jacobi, a communist revolutionary and personal friend of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Boasian anthropology—which hammers home the essential anti-racist mantra that "race is a social construct" and dominates academia and the entire "Cathedral" (in the Yarvinian sense) across the West today—is literally a Marxist derivation that denies the science and nature of this issue and reality.
You might call it Blank-Slate-ism for human types.
"He thought conventional genetics was a bourgeois superstition: reactionary, racist and capitalist."
I've always found this communist take baffling, they make the assertion that nationalism/racism is "capitalist" & yet, don't demonstrate sound logic to back it up & common sense would suggest the exact opposite.
The capitalist would be the very type to deny race so that he can have an ever-accumulating rootless mass of labourers & consumers who expand his profits & can be moved around as he sees fit. E.g., deny the importance of the genetic continuity & cultural heritage of the Russian nation & you can bring in Chinese scab labourers to depress wages & expand operations without resistance.
International free-flow of capital, industry, goods, labour, & consumers (aka globalism) = profit maximisation = pure capitalism.
In other words, globalism & denial of human types is the purest or even 'end stage' expression of anything that could be considered genuinely capitalist or profit seeking above all else.
Just because capitalist imperialists play on national instincts to do their dirty work doesn't mean that nationalism is capitalist, it simply indicates that there's national instinct to direct or manipulate in the first place. It's the precise reason why they aren't simply honest & state, "we want you to risk your life, we'll even pay you, to take this territory/resource so a few private industrialists can grow rich", because that honesty is not powerful & inspiring like national instinct is, it just makes you feel used for someone else's gain rather than the genetic collective itself gaining.
It's always made me wonder about the true roots of communism, whether it was intentionally created to break down nations to pave the way for global financial capitalism, or whether that was merely a psychological defect of the very bourgeois types who created it (Marx - bourgeois background & Engels - industrialist), they couldn't think outside of their detached, materially comfortable class assumptions.
Nothing conservative about this "belief" whatsoever.
People might have a limited number of opportunities to reform.
Lysenko's science was more right than wrong. ‘Civic nationalism' isn't based on Lysenko. It's based on the credal character of ‘christianity’.
Good analogy.
Seems as though Mao thought it might be used as a good method to thin the herd.