Other forms of unity, or, revolutionary religious socialism

Celtiberian wrote:As I explained in my previous post, exploration isn't the issue I have with the history of imperialism. To repeat, "[w]arfare, genocide, conquest, and slavery" are.

I wasn't advocating repeating it, I was simply pointing out the positives.

Are you suggesting that imperialism was (or is) inevitable? Feudalism and monarchism provided the institutional pressures which led to imperialism, but humanity isn't condemned to labor under feudalism (or capitalism, for that matter).

You said that the people suffering under imperial expansion would disagree that it was good. Life is full of conflicts and disagreements is what I was saying. I pointed to the example of socialists VS those who own capital.

Obviously. But I would argue that socialism is the most logical and ethical way to organize production and distribution conceivable. One need only juxtapose socialism with capitalism or feudalism, analyze the philosophical arguments which have been established in defense of each, and—provided he or she is semi-intelligent and unbiased—the investigator will likely agree. Furthermore, the internal contradictions of capitalism itself, coupled with humanity's innate disdain for bourgeois social relations, conspire to make the emergence of socialism probable—thereby placing socialists on the right side of history, as it were.

Yes, but that is your subjective argument. Right now (although brainwashed by the school and media) most Americans don't even know what socialism is or think it is desirable.

European monarchs could easily be giving me justified reasons for imperialist endeavors such as trying to civilize savage people and save souls. Sure we could say they are lying and all their actions are motivated by economics, but then again so are yours by advocating socialism.

The raison d'etre of imperialism was exploitation (of land, resources, and people). Anything positive which also emerged therefrom was purely incidental.

Purely irrelevant whether it was incidental or not. If a man discovers a new species of animal while on the way to rape his neighbor's wife he still deserves credit for the discovery.

Of course, and I think it's dishonest to suggest that imperialism was, in anyway, excusable simply because you can point to instances wherein something beneficial (e.g., exploration) also occurred.

It isn't a matter of it being excusable or not, it is a matter of being whether we need to harp on how horrible European expansion was. Like I said, Europeans hear enough of that shit throughout their 12 years of schooling.

I would extend that to encompass all of humanity. There's absolutely no reason why all the nations and peoples of the world cannot cooperate and coexist peacefully with one another.

I disagree, I support European autarky. That way they can't blame us, and we can't blame them for problems. There we go all solved, this crap can't happen again unless someone sticks their nose outside where they do not belong.

The nation was undoubtedly instrumental, but it was also an international effort. Recall that much of the research and technology which was utilized in the space program was developed by non-American and non-Soviet scientists. Where one chooses to place emphasis (the individual, nation, or international scientific community) is subjective and largely irrelevant.

Yes, but they were still working under those respective governments. You yourself admitted that the nation was instrumental. There may have been Europeans from all over the world working on putting men into space but to strip it of the national element is to strip the common man of pride in his nation, and socialism is supposed to work for the pride of the common man; not against it.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I wasn't advocating repeating it, I was simply pointing out the positives.

Fine, but any impartial observer would acknowledge that the human costs far exceed whatever benefits emerged from imperialism. Only a sociopath could suggest that the enslavement and death of millions of people was justifiable because those sacrifices also facilitated valuable explorations.

Yes, but that is your subjective argument.

My argument logically follows from the premise I outlined in my previous post, i.e., that capitalism will not be capable of perpetually reproducing itself due to insurmountable contradictions and mankind's innate disdain for the alienation it engenders—such is the scientific socialist position. These deleterious contradictions, I contend, are objectively true.

Right now (although brainwashed by the school and media) most Americans don't even know what socialism is or think it is desirable.

They don't think it's desirable because they don't know what it is. The material conditions conducive to the establishment of widespread class consciousness are not currently present, so the American people's ignorance is understandable.

European monarchs could easily be giving me justified reasons for imperialist endeavors such as trying to civilize savage people and save souls. Sure we could say they are lying and all their actions are motivated by economics, but then again so are yours by advocating socialism.

Only part of my argument for socialism rests on ethical considerations, as what I wrote above indicates.

Purely irrelevant whether it was incidental or not. If a man discovers a new species of animal while on the way to rape his neighbor's wife he still deserves credit for the discovery.

And who, pray tell, is failing to credit Europeans for mapping and industrializing much of the world?

It isn't a matter of it being excusable or not, it is a matter of being whether we need to harp on how horrible European expansion was. Like I said, Europeans hear enough of that shit throughout their 12 years of schooling.

Horrific events warrant being stressed. Moreover, most of the textbooks I've read have been quite balanced with respect to the history of European imperialism.

I disagree, I support European autarky. That way they can't blame us, and we can't blame them for problems. There we go all solved, this crap can't happen again unless someone sticks their nose outside where they do not belong.

Autarky would necessarily lead to a decline in living standards for much of the European continent. It's also completely unnecessary, as trade can easily be reorganized so as to be non-exploitative.

but to strip it of the national element is to strip the common man of pride in his nation, and socialism is supposed to work for the pride of the common man; not against it.

Why would it "strip the common man of pride in his nation"? One could be proud of the fact his or her nation succeeded in establishing a space program whilst not ignoring the fact that it couldn't have occurred without the work countless scientists from around the world also contributed over the years.

Celtiberian wrote:Fine, but any impartial observer would acknowledge that the human costs far exceed whatever benefits emerged from imperialism. Only a sociopath could suggest that the enslavement and death of millions of people was justifiable because those sacrifices also facilitated valuable explorations.

I personally don't think it is justified to concentrate only on the enslavement and death part. It is an ethno-masochist point of view. Sure, we can admit it is wrong and vow not to do it again but this sounds like typical high school teacher crap. "Those damn European males they ran around the globe and oppressed everyone!"

Only part of my argument for socialism rests on ethical considerations, as what I wrote above indicates.

When they're talking about saving souls; so does theirs.

And who, pray tell, is failing to credit Europeans for mapping and industrializing much of the world?

Well, most cosmopolitans do and the establishment seems to like to dwell on the more negative aspects as you are doing now.

Horrific events warrant being stressed. Moreover, most of the textbooks I've read have been quite balanced with respect to the history of European imperialism.

Sure, but most high schools don't even use textbooks in high school anymore. I haven't used one once this year in history and the schools around me are all the same. We, do however, learn from a state curriculum and teachers that go through years of liberal artsy courses to become teachers. Alls I hear is whiny nonsense about how white males ruled over everything.

Autarky would necessarily lead to a decline in living standards for much of the European continent. It's also completely unnecessary, as trade can easily be reorganized so as to be non-exploitative.

I disagree that it would. I could see the need for importing some commodities and slowly phasing out the need for them with developing domestic alternatives (which could be quite a lengthy period of time) but I am absolutely opposed to manufacturing centers being outside of our nations. We have enough imported cheap junk from China. Autarky and national independence go hand in hand.

Why would it "strip the common man of pride in his nation"? One could be proud of the fact his or her nation succeeded in establishing a space program whilst not ignoring the fact that it couldn't have occurred without the work countless scientists from around the world also contributed over the years.

You're right it wouldn't but what we were debating is the importance of the nation specifically in the space program.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I personally don't think it is justified to concentrate only on the enslavement and death part.

I never suggested that we should only focus on the slavery and genocide imperialism was responsible for. It is, however, entirely justifiable to emphasize it. The history of imperialism should serve as a lesson to humanity regarding the horrors which can be unleashed when competition is allowed to eclipse reason; political decisions are made by an unaccountable elite, as opposed to the people themselves; and national self-determination isn't respected.

It is an ethno-masochist point of view.

Absolutely not. I've never suggested that people be ashamed of their ethnicity or culture. However, self-deception isn't advisable either. All nations have engaged in dishonorable behavior at some point in their history. This history should be approached honestly and learned from.

Sure, we can admit it is wrong and vow not to do it again but this sounds like typical high school teacher crap. "Those damn European males they ran around the globe and oppressed everyone!"

It's obviously inaccurate to claim that it was their being European or male which led to imperialism. I realize that's somewhat of a popular claim amongst Afrocentric historians, but I've yet to encounter a high school teacher propounding such a view.

Well, most cosmopolitans do

I've not experienced such a denial, even from cosmopolitans.

and the establishment seems to like to dwell on the more negative aspects as you are doing now.

If by "establishment" you're referring to academia, that's because the process of peer review and interdisciplinary collaboration tends to bring the truth to the fore—though I'd never deny the role the political climate, bias, and incomplete information can have in the writing of history.

Sure, but most high schools don't even use textbooks in high school anymore. I haven't used one once this year in history and the schools around me are all the same.

That's a separate issue.

We, do however, learn from a state curriculum and teachers that go through years of liberal artsy courses to become teachers. Alls I hear is whiny nonsense about how white males ruled over everything.

I've taken many of these "liberal artsy" courses myself and very rarely have I witnessed anti-Caucasian sentiment.

Autarky and national independence go hand in hand.

Modern economies are heavily interdependent, and while this can be scaled back to an extent under socialism, I see no reason why a policy of fair trade cannot be implemented. Many nations simply do not possess the natural resources required to sustain their populations, let alone provide them with a humane existence.

Acknowledging the fact that Caucasian males "ruled over everything" (I figure this is an exaggeration on your part, PR) is not being anti-White...it's being fairly precise.

Altair wrote:Acknowledging the fact that Caucasian males "ruled over everything" (I figure this is an exaggeration on your part, PR) is not being anti-White...it's being fairly precise.

Of course it is being precise. It is the manner in which it is acknowledged, over and over again while ignoring countless moorish invasions and other enslavements of white Europeans with the purpose of instilling white guilt in young white males.

Celtiberian wrote:I never suggested that we should only focus on the slavery and genocide imperialism was responsible for. It is, however, entirely justifiable to emphasize it. The history of imperialism should serve as a lesson to humanity regarding the horrors which can be unleashed when competition is allowed to eclipse reason; political decisions are made by an unaccountable elite, as opposed to the people themselves; and national self-determination isn't respected.

You have suggested that in other words. You brushed off the accomplishments as nothing more than a wrongful product of imperialism while nonetheless you feel it absolutely important to dwell on European imperialism.

Absolutely not. I've never suggested that people be ashamed of their ethnicity or culture. However, self-deception isn't advisable either. All nations have engaged in dishonorable behavior at some point in their history. This history should be approached honestly and learned from.

It is within a multi-racial/multi-cultural setting. There is a difference between honestly reflecting on wrong doings in our history amongst ourselves and some liberal female teacher standing in front of the class harping on "old white men ruled everything; didn't give the natives a say, killed all these people, typical of the British, blah blah blah" and quite frankly embarrassing our race.

It's obviously inaccurate to claim that it was their being European or male which led to imperialism. I realize that's somewhat of a popular claim amongst Afrocentric historians, but I've yet to encounter a high school teacher propounding such a view.

Obviously, but it is what is implied. It is how they teach it that instills white guilt. Do you not acknowledge, especially amongst young kids and college students, that a good portion of white guilt exists?

I've taken many of these "liberal artsy" courses myself and very rarely have I witnessed anti-Caucasian sentiment.

Okay, I know a woman who has to take women empowerment courses at Rutgers and hates it. Alls it is is about evil white males. Imagine trying to make a white male empowerment course, yea right! Colleges are filled with these types of courses. Just ask Noel Ignatiev. A fellow marxist.

Modern economies are heavily interdependent, and while this can be scaled back to an extent under socialism, I see no reason why a policy of fair trade cannot be implemented. Many nations simply do not possess the natural resources required to sustain their populations, let alone provide them with a humane existence.

Honestly, that is not our problem. If a country became dependent on European goods through the rise of international capitalism they should work out their own way to get things after capitalism just like they did before and just like we will do. They survived before and they can survive after and so will we.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Of course it is being precise. It is the manner in which it is acknowledged, over and over again while ignoring countless moorish invasions and other enslavements of white Europeans

The Moors themselves were Caucasian, many having not very distant European ancestry.



Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud being one such example.

The Europeans have a very brutal history of oppressing each other, and we've also been abused and enslaved by the likes of the Huns and Turks. I'm certainly not suggesting that this history be omitted from textbooks, quite the contrary.

with the purpose of instilling white guilt in young white males.

That may be an unfortunate and unnecessary by-product of an honest approach to history, but it's not the intention of any serious academics (a few anti-Caucasian imbeciles, notwithstanding).

I find many of the Catholic Church's teachings (Social Doctrine of the Church) on social justice, the universal destination of goods, the principle of solidarity, principles of the common good, etc. to be extremely interesting. Having recently read Caritas in Veritate, by Benedict XVI, I have a greater respect for the Church itself. Many of the points mentioned in this work and in numerous other religious works resonate with many of the opinions expressed on this forum.

The Church itself takes no definitive side in terms of politics or economics, though it is obvious of one were to read Catholic Social Teaching that if they were to eventually pick a side, it would not even be even remotely near to the side of capitalism.

Catholics in particular, true Catholics (of which there are few today) are called to deny the existence of multiple races and instead acknowledge only once race, the human race. This is why I always find it amusing that there are people of the Catholic religion on Stormfront.

The Church denies the existence of multiple races because if it were to say otherwise, it would render many of its other principles null. In Genesis, when God gave dominion and stewardship to man, he gave it to the entirety of mankind, not just particular races. It is also a fact according to the Church that all of mankind is equal in dignity (due to our possession of a soul and being made in the image and likeness of God), and as such we must all have the same rights.

I think you can gather how these principles can trickle down into religious economic theory, and how these principles also serve to enforce their other core beliefs.

On a less serious note, I must show my respect for an entity that never fails to piss off both the left and the ride side of the political spectrum at the same time.

Celtiberian wrote:The Moors themselves were Caucasian, many having not very distant European ancestry.

Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud being one such example.

Many of them are mixed, due to their geographical location, and Islam and European"ness" are almost direct opposites (though I respect many Arabs and parts of the Islamic religion.)

That may be an unfortunate and unnecessary by-product of an honest approach to history, but it's not the intention of any serious academics (a few anti-Caucasian imbeciles, notwithstanding).

I just think it is rather liberal, and ignoring all the accomplishments (not accusing you of wanting to do that; but it is what they do today) is certainly not honest in itself.

Altair wrote:Catholics in particular, true Catholics (of which there are few today) are called to deny the existence of multiple races and instead acknowledge only once race, the human race. This is why I always find it amusing that there are people of the Catholic religion on Stormfront.

I have always found that funny too, many want a monarchy and feudalism beyond what any Fascist or Radical Traditionalist could propose. The one fella takes his inspiration from Joseph de Maistre, the catholic monarchist.

Pantheon Rising wrote:You have suggested that in other words. You brushed off the accomplishments as nothing more than a wrongful product of imperialism while nonetheless you feel it absolutely important to dwell on European imperialism.

I didn't 'brush them off.' The focus of my attention was on imperialism, not the positive developments which accompanied it. I specifically focused on European imperialism because that's the issue you raised; Middle Eastern, Asian, and Amerindian imperialism were equally objectionable. However, unlike some individuals, I don't excuse imperialism simply because it also led to positive innovations and discoveries.

It is within a multi-racial/multi-cultural setting. There is a difference between honestly reflecting on wrong doings in our history amongst ourselves and some liberal female teacher standing in front of the class harping on "old white men ruled everything; didn't give the natives a say, killed all these people, typical of the British, blah blah blah" and quite frankly embarrassing our race.

The only question you need to ask yourself is if this "liberal female teacher" is stating facts or not. You may disagree with her delivery, but that has nothing to do with the validity of her statements. If a teacher should include their personal value judgement in their lecture, you have every right to challenge them.

Obviously, but it is what is implied. It is how they teach it that instills white guilt.

I disagree.

Do you not acknowledge, especially amongst young kids and college students, that a good portion of white guilt exists?

Not at all amongst kids, in my experience. As for college students, there's a small percentage of those who do.

Okay, I know a woman who has to take women empowerment courses at Rutgers and hates it. Alls it is is about evil white males.

Remember our cultural context. Females were systematically held to an inferior status in this country until relatively recently by Caucasian males. Sexism is still rampant in our society, though it's hardly unique among Caucasian males (if anything, it's far worse among minorities). I cannot comment further, as I don't know precisely what is being taught in such courses.

Colleges are filled with these types of courses. Just ask Noel Ignatiev. A fellow marxist.

Interesting you should bring Marxism into this discussion, as your interpretation of imperialism is far more consistent with orthodox Marxism than is mine. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels staunchly defended European imperialism because they viewed it as necessary to industrialize the Americas, East Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

As for Noel Ignatiev, he may consider himself a Marxist, but his historiographical theories have nothing to do with Marxism. Nor does he enjoy a popular reputation among historians. If you're interested in serious Marxist historical scholarship, consider the work of E. P. Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm.

Honestly, that is not our problem.

It will quickly become our problem when American consumers learn that many of the products they value most (computers, cellular telephones, etc.) require resources from other continents. By drastically reducing the standard of living people have become accustomed to, you put socialism itself in jeopardy.

Many of them are mixed, due to their geographical location

Now they are, but we're discussing the Moroccan people between the 8th and 15th century. If you study the anthropology of Carleton S. Coon, you'll find that many, if not most, of the Moorish populace of that era were Caucasian (some of which directly descended from Suebi and Vandal colonists).

many want a monarchy and feudalism beyond what any Fascist or Radical Traditionalist could propose.

On the contrary, one of the "Radical Traditionalists'" most cherished philosophers, Julius Evola, did, in fact, propose returning to feudalism and monarchism.