[Andropov]

Postmodernism has been largely seen as the domain of the far-left. I don't see how this is the case, especially in regards to multiculturalism.

One of the premises of postmodernism is cultural relativism. The idea is basically that cultural norms are socially conditioned; none of them are "superior" to another. It also asserts the difficulty if not impossibility of true objective analysis of different cultures, since an individual's own cultural norms will cloud their perception of what is going on, inevitably.

What does this imply? Individuals of different cultures seem to be unable to understand each other on a basic level, as their basic frameworks and paradigms through which they view the world are radically different. To increase mutual understanding in society, it must be kept as culturally homogenous as possible, as diversity leads to violence (as violence is the only form of social interaction that does not require "interpretive labor", i.e. attempts to "understand" the mindset of the other person or group. It doesn't matter what someone's moral systems might be; if you hit them over the head enough, they're going to get knocked out.) and alienation.

I think that, ultimately, postmodern analysis is the right way to go about things. If the far-right wants to be taken seriously in the intellectual sense, it must accept critical theory and use it for its own goals.

[CounterChaos]

You are absolutely correct in my opinion. It is not the domain of the far left, it is the domain of an oligarchic few - that due to paranoia have manipulated the far left and the religious right to satisfy an evolutionary and psychological need. It goes deeper than that though I feel - and also involves the loss of our 'assimilation innocence' - not just restricted to modern industrial society. Quite frankly; without the loss of our assimilation innocence, this paranoia would probably not exist.

[Andropov]

I'm not sure what you mean.

What evolutionary and psychological need?

And what do you mean by "assimilation innocence"?

[CounterChaos]

what do you mean by "assimilation innocence"?

Before we were indoctrinated by the Judeo-Christian religion, we respectfully assimilated with ease. A good example of this is in the Philippines. Before the Spanish arrived bringing with them their "fear our God religion", the Filipino's traded with China and India for centuries - never under duress. The Chinese and Indians settled in great numbers adding to the cultural diversity. When the Spanish arrived - this all changed. The Filipino's found themselves immediately under duress - placed into servitude, their land and way of life changed forever. The same thing happened in South and North America.

The Judeo-Christian religion taught us what it was to be God-like and basically how to hate if those we judged did not meet that criteria. We lost our innocence in assimilation to the concept of our God. Before this concept - we greeted each other with the innocence of philosophers - of children, only curious of each other.

"The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers."
~Diderot~

What evolutionary and psychological need?

There are some professionals in their field that theorize that keeping a multicultural society racially intolerant, is an evolutionary survive tactic of Judaism. Mass immigration, instead of slow natural assimilation - assists in this. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/ In my opinion, we have lost our innocence in assimilation - to a number of factors. Religious indoctrination being number one.

[Rei Murasame]

I think that, ultimately, postmodern analysis is the right way to go about things. If the far-right wants to be taken seriously in the intellectual sense, it must accept critical theory and use it for its own goals.

Very much so. I didn't see this thread before, but now I've seen it, I can only register agreement.

The opponents of the far-right have been critiquing for a long time, and if we don't compete with them on that level, then the rudder of this civilisation's ship will be left totally in their hands.

[Baff]

I don't feel that christianity has been a bar to assimilation. Far from it.
I think it is an example of extremely successful assimilation being able to encorporate all the local customs and religions into itself. Making saints and such, matching holy days etc.

I think all the major religions are the masters of assimilation and that has been their stength and the mainstay of their spread across the globe.

[CounterChaos]

The opponents of the far-right have been critiquing for a long time, and if we don't compete with them on that level, then the rudder of this civilisation's ship will be left totally in their hands.

Rei, I have really been thinking about this "right" and "left" thing a lot lately - It seems to me that there are those that play both sides. It makes it hard for one to hang his hat.......

Far-right. Yeah, many things I agree with - many things I don't. Far-left Yeah, many things I agree with - many things I don't.

Extreme-right - extreme-left. Many things I see they have in common.

Which tells me that the extreme right and extreme left are the only ones that value truth. Truth is very important to me.

You are a fascist feminist - so, apparently there is liberalism in fascism? Have you ever written about this? This subject seems to be very in tune with my Jeffersonian Liberalism.

Thanks

[Rei Murasame]

so, apparently there is liberalism

The major error in the assumption of your post is that feminism is liberal, but in fact that is not the case at all, feminism is anti-liberal. Feminism has to be socialist if it is to accomplish anything at all.

Looking at the situation around us and coming to the conclusion that women have been almost universally oppressed by a system that creates male supremacy, we had to look for the ancient biological causes of that system and tear away the illusions about 'courtship' and 'instincts', and reveal that male supremacy is a holdover from the past, which is really based only on their ability to effectively use force.

However, socialist feminism does not say that is the end of the matter. The shift from an agrarian society to an industrial society under liberalism, was a reformulation of the patriarchy, albeit a shakier and more fragile version which uses more subtle and complex ways of subjugating women. So to understand what's happening to us now, liberal-capitalism has to come under our criticism. Since an industrial society makes patriarchy harder to maintain, this is really an ideal era to be mounting a challenge against it.

There's basically no way to deal with gender struggle without it being looked at alongside the development of capitalism.

There is also the fact that women are the guardians and transmitters of the sub-culture in a given class, and in aggregate the culture of a whole ethnicity, and liberal-capitalism thus has a vested interest in seeking out women and attempting to co-opt and condition them into re-transmitting that ideology, and that is something that any mass movement should see a need to compete furiously against.

There is also a direct connection between women's struggles and the struggle of a given class and ethnicity, as bringing women together can raise class and ethnic conciousness.

This subject seems to be very in tune with my Jeffersonian Liberalism.

On this issue, I would argue that what you call "Jeffersonian Liberalism" might not be a liberalism at all, and may never have been. After all, Jeffersonian Democracy was a revolt by agrarians against the loss of reciprocal obligations and duties between employers and workers in agriculture and small shops. Obligations and duties that were destroyed by industrial employers groups as they promulgated liberalism to the masses to legitimise their managerial plan for mass production.

Industrialists would provide jobs and style themselves as the creators of jobs, and the supposed 'liberated and free' workers would show up and be paid, and the employers would no longer have any social responsibility for the workers. That was all legitimised by the self-help morality that is packaged in with liberalism and is inseparable from it.

In the present day, since industrialisation did indeed happen and is irreversible, Jeffersonian Democracy can't possibly manifest in the form that it did before, so you would have to tell me what it is that you are wanting to do before I can really comment further. But I can say that what you are going to be calling for is very unlikely to be anything that could be described as liberalism.

[CounterChaos]

The major error in the assumption of your post is that feminism is liberal, but in fact that is not the case at all, feminism is anti-liberal. Feminism has to be socialist if it is to accomplish anything at all.

You're right - I did assume that. Now I need to figure out why I assumed that...

In the present day, since industrialisation did indeed happen and is irreversible, Jeffersonian Democracy can't possibly manifest in the form that it did before, so you would have to tell me what it is that you are wanting to do before I can really comment further. But I can say that what you are going to be calling for is very unlikely to be anything that could be described as liberalism.

Yeah, I seem to be having some difficulty Rei figuring out exactly where I am politically. I have my head in the clouds so much thinking Utopian and change the world stuff - that I am getting confused. What I am ending up with is bits and pieces of everything tossed together in what we used to call a 'cluster fuck'.......

Anyway, thanks Rei, I'll write my ideas down sometime and you guys can critique it and tell me if I'm crazy or not................

[Baff]

I don't think we'll have to read any more to make up our minds on that one.
That moustache alone pretty much gives it away.

[CounterChaos]

The major error in the assumption of your post is that feminism is liberal, but in fact that is not the case at all, feminism is anti-liberal. Feminism has to be socialist if it is to accomplish anything at all.

Wait a minute - I think we are getting European Liberal and American Liberal confused here. From what I understand there is a big difference. American Liberals are socialist in their ideology Rei.

[Lightman]

American Liberals are socialist in their ideology Rei.

Are you serious?

[CounterChaos]

Are you serious?

Yeah...I suppose you are going to attach socialism to communism? I'm a Liberal and a Socialist also. Most liberal minded women I know have socialist values also......... Rei is European - I think she just is confused on what liberal is in America. There are many different kinds of socialism as well..........

[Lightman]

Even if we accept that a social democratic program is socialist, very few Americans actually support a social democratic program.

Rei knows exactly what she's referring to and it surprises me that you've been around here so long and don't understand what she means.

[CounterChaos]

Even if we accept that a social democratic program is socialist, very few Americans actually support a social democratic program.

Rei knows exactly what she's referring to and it surprises me that you've been around here so long and don't understand what she means.

Definition of FEMINISM
1
: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

I think you are a bit confused......... Feminism in America has many supporters from the liberal left as well as the socialist arena. It is the religious right and far right that oppose it the most in America. This is what makes Rei a bit confusing to me - to be a feminist as well as a fascist. I can see how the fascist ideology could embolden feminism though. I think the reason is, that fascism among women in America is relatively new in their mindset - or never considered. Europeans have a better understanding of its inner-workings. All the feminists that I have ever known in America were liberal left leaning with socialist overtones - very outspoken and active as well.

Hillary Clinton is a good example of a Liberal Feminist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_feminism

This is why I say stuff like:

Extreme-right - extreme-left. Many things I see they have in common.

Even if we accept that a social democratic program is socialist, very few Americans actually support a social democratic program.

Every tax payer supports social democratic programs - SS, welfare, food-stamps, medicaid. Unless you mean ideologically support? Even then though I would disagree.

[Baff]

I don't think many Europeans get much past fascism = nazi.

We have a fascist political movement in the UK domestically, but it's roughly the same size as the one we had in Hitlers day.
It's a social pariah movement.
No one even bothers to find out about it since showing any intrest in it at all will get you instant social ostracism.
The media won't cover it. There is no public information services that will inform anyone on it.
Steroid taking bouncers/football hooligans would be the stereotypical image of a UK fascist.

Feminism here is much the same as feminism in America.
The same stereotypes apply. Women from more famously mysogonisitic cultures go mad for our men. They all know what a good thing is. They know what it is to be treated right when it happens to them.

Fascism and feminism are essentially two forms of social antagonism in the UK only.

Fascism in particular is not widely understood, there is a widespread unspoken code of silence in which people refuse to give it the oxygen of publicity. I doubt may people have any idea of what it means in political terms.
I certainly don't.
Just about all we know is that Hitler was one. And then we leave it at that.



Hilary Clinton isn't a good example of anything. Terrorist supporter. Enemy of our nation. Stop sending her here please. Send her to Guantanamo and water board her until she learns to speak the truth.