Why is racialism wrong and immoral

Status
Closed

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,289
Lower Styria, Slovenia
What does 'Celtic culture' even mean? Or 'Anglo- Saxon culture' ?
These are time periods, not modern day 'cultures' .
What am I to do to get in touch with my 'culture'? Wear animal skins and jump about like an iron age ape ? Throw old people and widows on fires? If I am a man, do I lazily drink coffee all day and order women and children about to fetch water? Not so long ago, it used to be part of my 'culture' to throw rabid pit bulls in a pen, in a fight to the death, and bet money on the outcome
What is so great about culture and why do people insist on going on about it so much?
If that's all you people have to offer as "culture", then I pitty you. No wonder you don't feel a connection to it and are almost ashamed of who you are, or just indifferent. But don't go about generalysing and assuming it's like this everywhere or that everyone should think the same as you. I for one am proud of my heritage, of my culture and our traditions. But I guess that is the difference between the perceived West and the rest of Europe (Central and Eastern Europe). The West has lost a lot of its culture and has been globalised (americanised) more than the eastern half of the continent, which due to the commy regimes, the iron curtain and a much smaller influx of foreigners and being a bit behind has retained more of its older cultural traits, which makes it looks culturally richer today and the people more appreciative of it. I think that also causes a bigger and bigger difference in how people evaluate these aspects of their identity, which can nicely be seen in the ways you and me feel about this matter.
 
Likes: Linschoten
Aug 2010
14,983
Welsh Marches
A combination of the development of mass consumer culture and of high immigration of people from different cultures has served to alienate many people in western Europe from their past; and there is the further factor of self-denigration and cultural unease resulting from various of guilt that are instilled in the educational system and through much of the media, post-colonial guilt, post-Nazi and post-fascist guilt, and so forth. The result is a widespread malaise in which national pride can itself take on unhealthy forms. Whatever their outlook, people are not at ease with their history or distinctive national culture. I think I can observe the failure of nerve that undermined Greco-Roman culture from the 2nd-3rd Centuries onward. A lot of people even feel uneasy about the idea of trying to integrate immigrants into their culture, ansd that in turn causes others to feel hostility against all immigrants, neither the one nor the other would happen if Europeans (especially western Europeans) were at ease with their history and culture. That doesn't mean of course that we should fail to recognize the bad points of that history and culture, but the answer that we should try to build on its many good points and to remedy the bad ones.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Shtajerc

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,289
Lower Styria, Slovenia
A combination of the development of mass consumer culture and of high immigration of people from different cultures has served to alienate many people in western Europe from their past; and there is the further factor of self-denigration and cultural unease resulting from various of guilt that are instilled in the educational system and through much of the media, post-colonial guilt, post-Nazi and post-fascist guilt, and so forth. The result is a widespread malaise in which national pride can itself take on unhealthy forms. Whatever their outlook, people are not at ease with their history or distinctive national culture. I think I can observe the failure of nerve that undermined Greco-Roman culture from the 2nd-3rd Centuries onward. A lot of people even feel uneasy about the idea of trying to integrate immigrants into their culture, ansd that in turn causes others to feel hostility against all immigrants, neither the one nor the other would happen if Europeans (especially western Europeans) were at ease with their history and culture. That doesn't mean of course that we should fail to recognize the bad points of that history and culture, but the answer that we should try to build on its many good points and to remedy the bad ones.
It is indeed astonishing to ke how many people throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to heritage.
 
Oct 2018
654
Adelaide south Australia
Also specifically to cite Universities and Cathedrals. Part 2 of my previous post.

Terrrific post, thanks.

You are spot on about European culture I think. When speaking of large groups of people, say 100,000 or more , or a small population spread over large distances, or separated by difficult terrain, homogeneous cultures are rare.

Not just Europe, but the whole of Britain until the industrial revolution. At that time, agrarian societies dominated. It was usual that a person would not travel more than 20 miles from his birthplace in a lifetime.

I especially like the phrase 'The fetishization of the Roman Empire', because I think it's true. The Roman empire has always horrified me. I'm aware of their roads, Lex roman, Pax romana, aqueducts, and other technology they used, ,especially anything to do with war.. As an Empire and a dominant culture, the Roman empire was vile. It was based on conquest and enslavement. The dominating value was brutality .

At the height of power, Rome controlled an Empire of about 60 million. Only a small percentage were Roman citizens. In the city of Rome, there were more slaves than Romans.Perhaps that is one reason the Servile wars caused so much damage.

Another myth is that Christianity, of any given sect is homogenous. It ain't. I'll stick to Catholicism because I'm most familiar. Irish Catholicism is different from French Catholicism, is different from Mexican Catholicism. Emphasis vary ,as do such things such as local saints and the Marian cult. This is largely due to Catholicism absorbing local Gods and making them saints or the Virgin. This is especially obvious in Ireland and throughout South America,

I understand Evangelical Christianity is perhaps the fastest growing sect in third world countries.. I'm not surprised. It's form is simple and it doesn't confuse people too much with complex ideas, such as transubstansiation or dwell on the virgin Mary.

I'm confident that a serious comparative study would reveal significant local and national differences in the beliefs the practice of Christianity. . I'm confident because it is my belief that all religions reflect the society which invents them,. If a religion is imported, it is modified until it fits local world view and needs .

All human behaviour has a purpose. The purpose of religion is to meet needs which are not met in other way. To the believer, religion can provide a sense of purpose, and address the fear of death, especially. Very attractive to the poor, the exploited and the marginalised. It is no coincidence that the that the early church attracted a disproportionate number of women and slaves.
 
Jun 2017
2,501
Connecticut
Thanks!

Think you put your words in a bubble with my name by accident?

Ironic thing about the Romans of course is it that most of the people fetishizing them were seen by the actual Romans somewhat similarity to how outsiders might be viewed now. Europe has been dominated by waves of demographic change and actual hostile invasion. Saxons were invaders in the UK, Franks were invaders in France and Germany, Visigoths were invaders in Spain, the Vikings were invaders basically everywhere they went, Magyars were invaders, Lombards were invaders. Rattled off most of Europe right there besides the far east. It's extremely ironic the fear of demographic change when the ancestors of so many European countries were invaders who came far less peacefully and far less willing to co opt culture(save the religion and desire to rule everything and have all the fancy titles) and identity.

Right on about Catholicism and it being able to spread because of it being similar to other religions. People try to act as if Paganism is the worship of many gods equally, but most pagan religions had a Yahweh and had great trios that were very similar, Christianity's main unique trait was swearing off the rest of this cast of characters that lived in the main deity's world(and even then the Devil, mary and the angels could be used as non godly replacements for these roles), but these cultures went likely forward believing they'd believed in Jesus all along rather than having been converted, likely were convinced by being told believing in multiple gods was believing in their main deity wrong. Christianity and Abrahamic religions associated god with being the one and the only, for Pagans god simply meant immortal being, didn't mean inherently that god A was important at all, just that they were an immortal being who lived in fairy tale land same way a person is a person regardless of their importance, "god" just is of different importance as a label. This is mainly a European and Middle Eastern thing outside of that though, religious conversion wasn't so easy and the conversions of the Natives in the New World were far less smooth probably because the pantheon's were more different. You also see resistance to the Holy Trinity for a few generations as opposed to the concept of their being a separate father and a son which was a common trope. Franks were the ones who accepted Catholicism so willingly, the Visigoths and Saxons took quite a while(and the Ostrogoth were defeated before they got a say in the matter) and the Franks/Frank offshoots became the lionshare of stereotypical Middle Age Europe.

Philosophy based religions are different and if some Christians/Muslims would believe in Christian principles regardless of whether or not their religion was an explanation for the universe and whether or not they believed their eternal future's were based on religion then clearly it would be different. Eastern religions have largely succeeded at this(can not imagine a Buddhist abandoning Buddhist teachings for example if they knew beyond a shadow of a thought the supernatural aspect of the religion was false, that is not the religions main appeals). However the secularization of Europe and the West in my opinion(and decline in church membership) has far less to do with dislike of(most of) Christian teachings and far more to do with not believing that the carrot on the stick is real.
 
Last edited:
Likes: bboomer
Jun 2018
64
New Hampshire
No one said the few years part. Culture is inherently going to change, and it's going to happen voluntarily by your descendants regardless of what ethnicity they are, same way you and your parents are drastically different culturally from your ancestors, it's not something we really have control over, people are people and their culture will be whatever they decide best meets their human needs. If people believe otherwise they are just being naive.
But that doesn't mean it is inevitable that a culture adopts the suicidal policy of ethnic replacement.

Look at what is happening in nearly every European nation today? Has there ever been such an appalling and destructive trend of non-self altruism in the history of man? I think not.

Cultural Marxism is a cancer that should be opposed by all people who love their nations, cultures, and heritage. It is a destructive ideology every bit as deadly as Islamic terrorism. And arguably even more so.
 
Jun 2017
2,501
Connecticut
But that doesn't mean it is inevitable that a culture adopts the suicidal policy of ethnic replacement.

Look at what is happening in nearly every European nation today? Has there ever been such an appalling and destructive trend of non-self altruism in the history of man? I think not.

Cultural Marxism is a cancer that should be opposed by all people who love their nations, cultures, and heritage. It is a destructive ideology every bit as deadly as Islamic terrorism. And arguably even more so.
First off in regards to cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxism is not real.It has no definition it is just a way for people on the right to link social positions they don't like to something else they don't like Marxism and wrap it up in a nice tidy bow. "Cultural Marxism" has absolutely nothing to do with Karl Marx nor his faulty theory that history will inevitably end with workers controlling the means of production as a final stage of human societal evolution following Feudalism and Capitalism which is purely historical,economic and political. Unlike every other single ideology from left to right there are no "cultural Marxists", it's not an actual identity, political ideology,organization(and if you can find some crazy club or some organization that identifies as such it's a response to the label being created, similar to how Flat Earth groups were founded in response to people making fun of Flat Earthers who were actually a myth and some people thinking those mythical middle age Flat Earthers actually made sense), it is a myth and a contradiction as Marxism has absolutely nothing to do with culture either real or imagined. You can't go join a cultural Marxist club, nor go work for a cultural Marxist think tank, nor vote for a culturally Marxist political party because there is no such thing. It is a catchphrase and a label, it's not just an inaccurate one as people all over the political spectrum have a habit of tossing around, it's just not real, it's not a thing except by the people using the label to define others.

How is "ethnic replacement", "suicidal". If you have kids and those kids have kids what's to say they won't live nice and happy lives regardless of their ancestry? How is anyone's life in "danger" here? How is "ethnic replacement" a problem, what is the negative outcome, what is the tangible consequence of the demographics of a country naturally changing over time(and immigration is a natural part of change look at Europe all of that culture were once brutal invaders swarming from the east, they changed the demographics quite drastically from the classical days)? What is the bad thing, why is it legitimate for people to fear it? All I can see is some people are uncomfortable other people look and maybe act differently(in terms of acting different it's inevitable even if a state is 100% ethnically homogeneous, your culture will die, when your successors choose to live their life in the best way to fit their needs in a different world your culture wasn't designed for,it's going to happen it's as inevitable as our death, all the people wanting to preserve their ancestors cultures would be seen as an entirely foreign species by their ancestors, not least because they'd see themselves as "European" ) but at the end of this nightmare scenario everyone advocating for the preservation of "European" culture has constructed what are you afraid of? What does this world look like and why is it so inherently bad, never mind "suicidal"?

"Every bit as destructive as Islamic terrorism". While Islamic terrorism has been overblown as a threat(it's a threat in the way anyone else murdering you is a threat, there is no proof for it being an existential threat to just about anything except poor individuals unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time ), still Islamic terrorism has killed people, large amounts of people. The mythical ideology of Cultural Marxism hasn't been defined or proven to exist(normally you can prove ideologies exist) never mind murdered someone.
 
Last edited:
Likes: bboomer
Jun 2018
64
New Hampshire
First off in regards to cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxism is not real.It has no definition it is just a way for people on the right to link social positions they don't like to something else they don't like Marxism and wrap it up in a nice tidy bow. "Cultural Marxism" has absolutely nothing to do with Karl Marx nor his faulty theory that history will inevitably end with workers controlling the means of production as a final stage of human societal evolution following Feudalism and Capitalism which is purely historical,economic and political. Unlike every other single ideology from left to right there are no "cultural Marxists", it's not an actual identity, political ideology,organization(and if you can find some crazy club or something who identifies as such it's a response to the label being created, similar to how Flat Earth groups were founded in response to people making fun of Flat Earthers when they previously had not existed, they took a lie unironically), it is a myth and a contradiction as Marxism has absolutely nothing to do with culture either real or imagined. You can't go join a cultural Marxist club, nor go work for a cultural Marxist think tank, nor vote for a culturally Marxist political party because there is no such thing. It is a catchphrase and a label, it's not just an inaccurate one as people all over the political spectrum have a habit of tossing around, it's just not real, it's not a thing except by the people using the label to define others.

How is "ethnic replacement", "suicidal". If you have kids and those kids have kids what's to say they won't live nice and happy lives regardless of their ancestry? How is anyone's life in "danger" here? How is "ethnic replacement" a problem, what is the negative outcome, what is the tangible consequence of the demographics of a country naturally changing over time(and immigration is a natural part of change look at Europe all of that culture were once brutal invaders swarming from the east, they changed the demographics quite drastically from the classical days)? What is the bad thing, why is it legitimate for people to fear it? All I can see is some people are uncomfortable other people look and maybe act differently(in terms of acting different it's inevitable even if a state is 100% ethnically homogeneous, your culture will die, when your successors choose to live their life in the best way to fit their needs in a different world your culture wasn't designed for,it's going to happen it's as inevitable as our death, all the people wanting to preserve their ancestors cultures would be seen as an entirely foreign species by their ancestors, not least because they'd see themselves as "European" ) but at the end of this nightmare scenario everyone advocating for the preservation of "European" culture has constructed what are you afraid of? What does this world look like and why is it so inherently bad, never mind "suicidal"?
LOL! So Emperor Charlemagne would have been just thrilled at the prospects of his court being filled with west Africans. Keep telling yourself that.

Ethno-nationalism is as natural as breathing air or drinking water. No pre-modern society would have tolerated ethnic replacement. Whether or not the west Africans were Christians, it would have made no difference to the Franco-Germanic majority of the Carolginian Empire.

As a modern example lets take a look at France in order to address your concerns. If the population of the country became majority west African, that would be the very definition of ethnic genocide. It would result in the complete loss of centuries of French culture and civilization, the people who developed the nation would be a minority in the land developed by their ancestors.
 
Jun 2017
2,501
Connecticut
LOL! So Emperor Charlemagne would have been just thrilled at the prospects of his court being filled with west Africans. Keep telling yourself that.

Ethno-nationalism is as natural as breathing air or drinking water. No pre-modern society would have tolerated ethnic replacement. Whether or not the west Africans were Christians, it would have made no difference to the Franco-Germanic majority of the Carolginian Empire.

As a modern example lets take a look at France in order to address your concerns. If the population of the country became majority west African, that would be the very definition of ethnic genocide. It would result in the complete loss of centuries of French culture and civilization, the people who developed the nation would be a minority in the land developed by their ancestors.
1-It wasn't a really relevant discussion topic because it was the 9th century and West Africans were either in West Africa or Spain. It's likely Charlemagne never thought of this discussion. The Germans on the other hand were not willing members of Charlemagne's empire and he actually committed a brutal war against them that would be far more appropriate to label a genocide and did not view them(Saxons and Bavarians anyway) as the same as the Franks.

2-Except they all did. Every European country did, most European countries were founded by people committing "ethnic genocide", they came from the Steppes, Scandanavia or North Africa(not Europe) conquered the land and altered the demographics over time. Sure those people LOOK similar to one another to YOU but at the time those were important distinctions to those people and until about about a little over a hundred years ago most of the people of "European" descent in the US wouldn't be considered "white" despite to the modern eye looking the same. In an example of people who look differently having their demographics mixed, Latinos exist solely as a product of ethnic mixing and it's been several hundred years and everything's fine.

3- A genocide requires people attempting to end the life of other people or inherently and knowingly ending the life of other people through one's actions . Your descendants having a different skin tone isn't a genocide it is not a violent act, it is your children's decision who they should date and marry and so on and so on. In biblical times modern day Algeria was a core province of the Roman Empire that was seen civilized by the West while France or Gaul was seen as a land full of barbarians whose leader Caesar paraded through the streets in a cage like an animal. The Romans would probably love the idea of Algerians changing the demographics of France. The most wealthy cities in the West outside of Constantinople and occasionally Italy were West African cities like Marrakesh and Fez and Spain was the most wealthy region of Europe when ruled by West Africans(perhaps the demographics of Spain are a bit West African?).

Anyhow you do realize the French fought a massive war with Algeria under the premise that "Algeria is part of France" right? Anyhow how is modern French people being a minority in their country different than changing the demographics of Gaul or Saxons changing the demographics of the UK, followed by the Normans? Those people are French real nationalism is based on real things like national identity and real culture, not myths and skin tones. WHO CARES. You have not mentioned any actual harm that will befall any French person or their descendants who will just be living life.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
654
Adelaide south Australia
"Cultural Marxism is a cancer that should be opposed by all people who love their nations, cultures, and heritage"

I just love statements which in which a person has the arrogance to tell me what I should do. Especially when they also contain sweeping generalisations and a basic logical fallacy. In this case it's "the no true Scotsman"

I love my country, but do not hate others. I can't claim to 'love my culture" as I have no idea what you mean, and suspect you don't either. A definable culture is a slippery thing to grasp, especially if living in say a city, or vastly spread population.

Ethno Nationalism is more correctly called xenophobia and racism. However, I think human beings do have a hard wired tendency towards those things. That doe snot mean they are right or moral.

In my country, we tend to overcome such atavistic urges. I have struggled for over 40 years to overcome the casual and institutionalised racism of my country whicH I was taught as a child.

Eg Australia had "The White Australia Policy" until 19783. That was the logical conclusion to ethno-nationalism.

White Australia policy - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed