Re: White Male Discrimination and WWW Syndrome

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Sat Aug 11 2001 - 20:28:07 MDT

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) >Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 11:09:31 -0400
> Mike Lorrey <> Re: White Male Discrimination and WWW SyndromeReply-To:
>Joe Dees wrote:
>> >Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:50:44 -0400
>> > Mike Lorrey <> Re: White Male Discrimination and WWW SyndromeReply-To:
>> >
>> >Joe Dees wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:59:52 -0400
>> >> > Mike Lorrey <> :
>> >> >Party of Citizens wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And what is the "point" of this? I am just saying that
>> >> >> "multiculturalism" is more than a cheap slogan. Different races and
>> >> >> peoples have developed different cultures. Why not leave them in peace to
>> >> >> enjoy those cultures as they wish?
>> >> >
>> >> >Because 'multiculturalism' is not about enjoying your native culture. I
>> >> >enjoy my scottish and italian cultural origins very much, thanks, but I
>> >> >am not a citizen of Scotland OR Italy, and I will not put the interests
>> >> >of either country, or its citizens, or its culture, ahead of America.
>> >> >America is my native and primary culture. 'Hyphenated Americans', who
>> >> >place their ethnic orgins first, ahead of their status as Americans,
>> >> >damage our republic. They encourage sectarianism, tribalism, and
>> >> >inter-ethnic strife, of the sort we see in the Balkan states so much
>> >> >these days. I would think that anyone with intelligence would see that
>> >> >Yugoslavia is an excellent example of what NOT to do with a country, yet
>> >> >allegedly intelligent liberals want to do the exact same thing to
>> >> >America.
>> >> >
>> >> Just like one can be conservative without being a Turner Diaries ethnic cleanser, one can be liberal without being a card-carrying Balkanizer.
>> >
>> >Yes, but that doesn't answer my point. The road to hell is paved with
>> >good intentions, Joe, and what occured in Germany in the 1930's is a
>> >direct result of those 'democratizing', liberal, policies enacted from
>> >good intentions in the 1920's.
>> >
>> >We have some rather significant checks in our system to protect against
>> >this occuring here for good reason. While one could argue that
>> >eliminating them may not cause any harm so long as everybody acts in
>> >good faith, the system is designed to function even when a large number
>> >of people are acting in bad faith, as so many actors in the current day
>> >political process are doing.
>> >
>> >The system is designed to function even with some incompetent leaders,
>> >and with some degree of citizens who do not take the responsibilities of
>> >citizenship seriously. Multiculturalism is, simply put, a movement to
>> >strip away these protections, to eliminate the last vestiges of the
>> >system of cultural assimilation that is necessary to maintain some
>> >relatively high level of trust that is needed to keep a free republic
>> >operating.
>> >
>> >Those who advocate doing so may be acting from good intentions, but this
>> >is irrelevant. It is the unintended consequences that always cause
>> >civilizations to fall.
>> >
>> This is exactly the kind of demonization I have come to expect from you, Mike; all those who do not agree with you are either clueless dupes or their malevolent manipulators. "Allegedly intelligent liberals" just want to maximize individuals' *libertar
>ian* freedoms to celebrate their own cultural roots and traditions without fearing lynching and rousting by the "love it or leave it" crowd who confuse celebration with idolatry or divided loyalty. The same thing goes for religious freedoms. As I remebe
>r, the Nazi state was itself rather xenophobic; the last thing it could be accused of was multiculturalism. Likewise, Soviet (and following that, Tito's) hegemony suppressed the very tensions we are now seeing break out on the Balkans. Until the Serbs w
>ished to ethnically cleanse Sarajevo into monochromatism, it was a successful, happily ethnically diverse city.
>I fail to see anywhere that I demonized anything. Anytime you don't like
>how people are showing you that your opinions are authoritarian in
>nature, you go off on your 'demonization' rants.
>The fact that you seem to feel that living under bootheel repression is
>a fine and dandy thing illustrates to me, and others, where you are
>coming from. You demonize yourself far more than I ever can.
I was referring to the period, short as it was, BETWEEN the fall of Yugoslavian communism and the rise of Serbian fascism. That was the only period that Sarajevo WASN'T under one bootheel or another, and it was when its inhabitants were most free to peacefully simultaneously celebrate their ethnic diversity and their citizen-of-Sarajevo solidarity. It's called E Pluribus Unum, and wherever it happens, it's a GOOD thing.
One way to tell social liberals and social conservatives apart, even when one or both claim to be libertarian, is that the social liberals don't hate/fear the word 'different' and worship the word 'similar'. In fact, the so-called 'rugged individualists' of the Reagan era were among the mosy monochromatic clones I can recall; the real individuals are the ones they despised because of their diversity and multi(ple)culure(alism).

Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL! compares book price at 41 online stores.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:07 MDT