A question for social conservatives in the West - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14635996
Dagoth Ur wrote:Like as though Republicans weren't just as racist. Who fought against desegregation hardest? Democrats. What did these exact same democrats do during the Southern Strategy? BECOME REPUBLICANS. Really if you hated Southern racist democrats of the past you must really hate the Republicans of today because conservative peasant Democrats seized the party from the wealthy new-England leaders who guided the party to victory in the Civil War.


You apparently didn't read my post about six posts back.

Democrats are responsible for everything we consider contemporary racism.

You claim that southern racist democrats became Republicans. Can you verify that?

Are there racist Republicans? Of course. I'll bet there are racist in any group of people.

However, I don't hear Republicans screaming racist at every drop of a hat.
#14636000
Yeah it's called the Southern Strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
tl;dr: The South was full of Democrats in the 50's. By the 70's they were all Republicans. Did these Democrats just move out of the south exodus style according to you?

Let us consider why there is a term Dixiecrat, but no Dixiecan. A. the latter is a redundancy. The South is Republican as fuck. B. Most Democrats are not conservatives so conservative Democrats have to come up with terms to describe their minority (blue dog, dixiecrat, etc).
#14636022
Democrats are responsible for everything we consider contemporary racism.


What? Please explain this to me.

Y
ou claim that southern racist democrats became Republicans. Can you verify that?


Dragoth Ur is correct.

Are there racist Republicans? Of course. I'll bet there are racist in any group of people.


The Republican Party has consciously decided to concentrate on the white Christian vote and their primary target. This is not a fact in dispute. It is as clear as a bell. So far their strategy is working though it will have to change as the nation's demographics change.

However, I don't hear Republicans screaming racist at every drop of a hat.


Well. Duh....
#14636195
Dagoth Ur wrote:Yeah it's called the Southern Strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
tl;dr: The South was full of Democrats in the 50's. By the 70's they were all Republicans. Did these Democrats just move out of the south exodus style according to you?

Let us consider why there is a term Dixiecrat, but no Dixiecan. A. the latter is a redundancy. The South is Republican as fuck. B. Most Democrats are not conservatives so conservative Democrats have to come up with terms to describe their minority (blue dog, dixiecrat, etc).



Wikipedia? Now there's a good source of information. Where anybody can type anything and it stays there until somebody corrects it.

I believe schools and universities refuse to use Wikipedia as a source without other sources to back it up.

As for the so-called Southern Stategy, here's an NYT article about it being a myth

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magaz ... b.t-4.html

@Dagoth, go back about 10 posts you'll see how I lay it out for you.

I see you agree with her, yet there's still no verification.

Anybody can say anything. I can claim Harry Reid is a Keebler elf and lives in a hollow tree, that doesn't make it true.

Further, anytime anybody tells me "that's not a fact to dispute," it tells me--you guessed it--it's a fact to dispute
#14859848
Bridgeburner wrote:A simple one, really, more or less directed at social conservatives with roots in Christian tradition

Considering that social conservatism is essentially a rearguard action, a constant series of defensive manoeuvres constantly reacting to change, devoid of initiative, which of the lesser evils would you, as a social conservative, from your perspective, want to bequeath the legacy of your nation to?

After all, todays liberals are tomorrows conservatives.

In your eyes, what is the force that you would rather see triumphant in Western society out of these two

a)political Islam

or b)the "special interest group" (for lack of a better word) Left (preoccupied with being the vanguard for the LGBT community and radical feminism amongst other "isms").

Both groups at the moment, are more or less fringe movements, but highly motivated fringe movements gain traction over time and overturn moribund, stagnant political systems. I'm interested in responses and general thoughts on the matter as to what you view as more damaging to a fabric of your nation/society, and which group you would be more amenable to co-operating with.


Your question presupposes that the morality advocated by social conservatives is a general and not specific morality. I would argue that western morality is tied to the metaphysical and religious presuppositions in the west and therefore the surface similarities on certain moral issues between Islam and Christianity are ultimately superficial. In the end, this is a zero-sum game, either the traditions, values, and character of western peoples will survive or they will not and both Islam and the Left stand as an equal threat to this.

From a standpoint of concern, I think Islam is a greater threat and if I were playing the long game I would focus on stopping the influx of those peoples. Islam's social values guarantee its survival into the foreseeable future via fecundity; Whereas, secularism is in decline all over the world as the birth rate among the non-religious is abysmal and the conversion rate from religious to non-religious has stabilized.

However, Christian traditionalism will only defeat Islam long term if it becomes more radical and procreative itself, which is a tough row to hoe.
#14860420
@Victoribus Spolia

The issue is that the West isn't a tangible concept. It simply doesn't exist and the more you examine what "the West" is, the more strange and fallible such a concept becomes. The West, in all it's aspects, is a narrative. It tells the tale of the land of the West, and the several heroes and adventures that occur there. It even has an ending, "an end of history" as many "Westerners" state which is marked by the 1950s following everything afterward being seen as an epilogue to the ending.

And what makes "the West" as a narrative so different from other narratives is that each person has his own idea of what the West is and it's story. In that sense "the West" is not a narrative but a trope, a reoccurring setting of several different narratives where different stories are set. It is comparable to a medieval fairy tale setting where things of wonder and imagination can be found however unlike fairy tales, unlike stories and novels, "the West" has a profound impact on international politics and has convinced everyone in the world of it's reality despite simply being just narrative.

It has such an influence on people that it convinced billions that they may be living in it. Imagine if millions of people believed that they lived in the settings of stories such as "Jack and the Beanstalk" or "Sleeping Beauty"? What a hilarious notion that would be! Not only that, but "the West" is also a religious text, a dogma. It has several collective interpretations made by a variety of movements and ideologies. Each of those interpretations is a dogma and contains a strict set of rules that are equally broad and limiting.

What an interesting social custom of these self-proclaimed "Westerners". I find "Westerners" fascinating the more and more I read of them. They have such a rich amount of rituals and religions that although seem quite primitive may in fact be a symptom of a wider issue in "Western" tribal politics.

[POPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPO]

Headline: If you think Finland's a fake country, wait till you see the largest fake region in the world: the West
#14860692
@Oxymandias,

The only thing intangible about the west is that it is a collection of multiple states, but I would argue that those countries share a common stream that is quite tangible. I would define this as that system which has grown out of Judeo-Christian religion and morality combined with Greco-Roman philosophical and legal conceptions, and actualized through Nordo-Germanic expansionism and aggressiveness. The west has followed a pattern of development and decline that is indicative of other historical civilizations, and it does have a definable, though broad, ethnic group in Europe, it does have a definable religious morality and set of traditions, and it does have a definable approach to philosophy and political theory.

This is not a fantasy or a fiction, but is very real and very definable. The reason the west is pegged as ambiguous is only because it is a multi-national collective (unlike Rome, for instance) and is far more globally-vested with a highly diffused influence in nations that ought not to be defined as "western," as they do not meet the three qualities I mentioned above.
#14860854
@Victoribus Spolia

Several different countries located in what you consider to be "the West" had different conceptions of what "Judeo-Christian" religion and morality is. Regions such as the Middle East have made Greco-Roman thought an integral part of their lives even forming a sect that a majority of it's population followed (Mutazila) based around Greco-Roman thought. If Nordo-Germanic expansionism brought about these things then how do you explain Italy, Southern France, Spain, and the Byzantine Empire? I would especially find it strange that the Byzantine Empire out of all places would not be considered to be a part of Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman tradition.

Europe is far from ethnically homogeneous, that is the understatement of the century. Even the Nords who you would assume to be ethnically homogeneous are not. Finns for example are more closely related genetically to Turks rather than to Germans and Germans themselves are more closely related to Indo-Europeans which were not white, blond-haired peoples but dark-tanned and black-haired. Southern Italians and Andalusians are more closely related to Semites such as Arabs and Jews rather than Caucasians. And even Caucasians do not fit the bill of the "regular white guy" found in the thought of English-speaking countries. Caucasians are more related to East Asians rather than white Europeans. The idea of "white" as a concept doesn't even exist outside of just vague skin color categorization.

Then why is it that many consider Japan and Hawaii to be a part of the West?
#14861014
@Oxymandias,

1. You may not want "The West" to be a tangible concept, for whatever reason I have no idea, but people do have a notion of what that word means and it does have a practical use. Engaging in sophistry about the origination of ethic groups in antiquity that are now understood by themselves and others in an entirely different manner than in said times is not helpful. Ethic groups self-identify over time, such are historically-manifested categories of self-conception and patriarchal descent. Southern Italians believe themselves to be Italian and identify as such and as "European," Whether they may be distantly related to Semites or Japhethic Ionians doesn't matter to that identity or their sense of belonging.

2. The Byzantine Empire was not considered part of the "West" since it split from western Christendom during the "Great Schism" and would later fall under Islamic rule and remain under it for centuries. I would argue for the start of a united western consciousness at the battle of Tours, though the Crusades probably helped to solidify western identity as a concept contra the Byzantines and the Islamic world. Though, this concept has evolved and fluctuated over time.

3. The notion of "Christendom" as used in the west typifies this. That you use "Finland" as a counter-example really doesn't bother me, there are plenty of "toss-up" states and ethnic groups in this equation. Russia is an obvious one, but also much of the eastern Slavs, the Magyars in Hungary, etc (Hungarian and Finnish are both Asiatic and not Indo-European languages). Eastern Orthodoxy has often been viewed as "non-Western" by western religious thinkers as both the papists and the protestant subscribe to the "latin theology" of St. Augustine and the Filioque conception of the Trinity. These are all matters of debate, but do not detract from the main conception as I have defined it.

4. I don't know why you are making a point about race, that there are multiple ethnic groups in the west is quite irrelevant to my point as various ethic traditions contributed to the cornucopia of western thought, but by European, I am referring to those ethnicities that have, in majority, occupied western Europe since the time of their conversion to Christianity in the middle-ages. Whether we debate the "european-ness" of the Germanic tribes that migrated into Europe after separating from the Aryans in the Caucus region of Eurasia is quite irrelevant. Those people that have en masse occupied western Europe since their conversion to Christianity in the middle ages are western peoples and share in that worldview which likewise originated from multiple earlier sources.

5. What it means to be western is common and colloquial, but by no means ambiguous even if it is a historical rather than a scientific concept. Westerners are Europeans of western Christendom who share a common Judaeo-Christian religious morality, a Greco-roman legal and philosophical framework, and Nordo-Germanic sense of expansionism, the latter's influence extending as far south as Italy via Germanic conquests, and as far west as Wales and as far East as Lithuania thanks to the vikings. Through conquest, conversion, and classical education, the three main facets I identify saturated these peoples in Western Europe and in the age of colonialism they attempted to spread such to other regions and such influences, now turning secular and decadent, have through media and neo-colonialism (mainly from the U.S.) continued to influence non-western peoples even to this day.

6. This is what I mean by western, this is generally what other people understand as western even if their conceptions are weak due to a lack of education. This definition is sufficient enough to inspire a sense of nationalism and pride on the part of westerners and is tangible enough to conjure up anti-western rhetoric on the part of middle-easterners and Africans. If it is sufficiently tangible for these ends, then it is in fact a tangible concept. Otherwise, what the fuck are we even talking about?

I really do not have time to debate about nothing. If you have a real point here then lets debate that, but what are we even doing here in this conversation?
#14861033
Pants-of-dog wrote:Is Latin America part of the west?

Also, neither you nor your wife ever supported your claims in the “it’s okay to be white” thread.


They speak Spanish or Portuguese, western languages, so yeah. Also they are Catholic by religion or religious heritage, that's a "western" religion if ever there was one. Political ideas there are pretty common place political ideas anywhere in the west: liberalism, secularism, communism, fascism, democracy, republicanism. What would make them un"western"?
#14861038
@Pants-of-dog, @SolarCross,

Pants-of-dog wrote:Is Latin America part of the west?


Eh, that is a tough one for me.

I would say that it is western for the most part, but I think part of the issue is that Latin-Americans have begun to formulate their own identity in distinction to the "west" as it has been traditionally conceived. Which, like I stated earlier, is common. Such identities are historically manifest, why South America is not so bold about being part of western civilization seems to be a combination of bitterness towards their colonial history (which is not so much the case in Anglo-America) and because the ethnic make-up is less historic-European than in Anglo-America because miscegenation rates and syncreticism were much higher with indigenous populations in Latin America than they were in the U.S. and Canada. This disparity stemming a large part in difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant conceptions of civilizational destiny and class mobility within a society.
#14861047
@Victoribus Spolia

They might appear to be outside the "west" from your anglo-centric and / or protestant perspective but the "west" is generally speaking a bigger tent than just the anglosphere or the protestant-sphere. If you want to exclude Latin America from western culture then you will have to kick out Italian culture (Leonardo Da Vinci, Christopher Columbus) and German culture (Mozart and Karl Benz) too.

It is understandable, if you don't speak spanish or portugeuse then the Latin people of the Americas may as well be Chinese for all you can understand of them. Languages divide people more surely than ideologies or geneologies. For those that can speak the lingo though it is clear they are as much a part of the west as anywhere anglophonic or protestant.
#14861051
SolarCross wrote:They speak Spanish or Portuguese, western languages, so yeah. Also they are Catholic by religion or religious heritage, that's a "western" religion if ever there was one. Political ideas there are pretty common place political ideas anywhere in the west: liberalism, secularism, communism, fascism, democracy, republicanism. What would make them un"western"?


Technically they speak european languages, practice european religions, and have european style governments like communism in sub-saharan africa, but I would not consider them western, nor would they take kindly to that label.

My disagreement on South America has a LOT to do with their identification, if they don't consider themselves western than neither do I, plus they are ethnically a toss-up as they are not Spanish in the way most Americans are European, nor do they exhibit many of the qualities of Euro-American advancement and development.

This is not a merely Anglo-Protestant bias.....I am also differentiating between Latin American and Spain in my disagreement.....Plus someone like PoD is going to use the objection: "well if they are western, than what is the problem with Mexican immigration?"

I do still think there is a civilizational difference, not as profound as with Islam, but still a difference. The nature of the nations and their economies is a symptom of this difference. Latin America shares more in common with the Congo than it does with Spain herself on this strain.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 09 Nov 2017 16:54, edited 1 time in total.
#14861054
Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, neither you nor your wife ever supported your claims in the “it’s okay to be white” thread.


simmer down old chap. patience is a virtue and no one has a time limit on PoFo.

Besides, you dismissed my reasoning for why I think the whole campaign was a controversy and I had provided a link, so if you dismiss my claims I have nothing more to say. I am really not interested in proving that something was controversial if you have convinced yourself that it wasn't and will dismiss assertions to the contrary. If something as innocuous as "Its Okay To Be White" makes front-page news across the country because people found it offensive and hateful, that is the very essence of a controversy in my opinion, you dismiss such a claim as ridiculous, so you thereby ended the conversation.

I cannot imagine my wife saying otherwise, but tonight is our "sipping booze and hangin' on PoFo night" for our weekly schedule and since she has been too busy to post all week, she'll likely be doing all the posting tonight on her poll and probably picking fights and trolling elsewhere, as that is more her style, while I sit nearby talking to her about what she is writing and giving my input.... but I cannot think she will say much different on this particular issue. "It was in the news across the country that something that should not be offensive was offensive = controversy," will likely be her reasoning.
#14861058
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Technically they speak european languages, practice european religions, and have european style governments like communism in sub-saharan africa, but I would not consider them western, nor would they take kindly to that label.

My disagreement on South America has a LOT to do with their identification, if they don't consider themselves western than neither do I, plus they are ethnically a toss-up as they are not Spanish in the way most Americans are European, nor do they exhibit many of the qualities of Euro-American advancement and development.

This is not a merely Anglo-Protestant bias.....I am also differentiating between Latin American and Spain in my disagreement.....Plus someone like PoD is going to use the objection: "well if they are western, than what is the problem with Mexican immigration?"

I do still think there is a civilizational difference, not as profound as with Islam, but still a difference. The nature of the nations and their economies is a symptom of this difference. Latin American shares more in common with the Congo than it does with Spain herself on this strain.


Again, why do you think Latinos do not consider themselves western?

By the way, we do.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well, you dismissed my reasoning for why I think the whole campaign was a controversy and I had provided a link, so if you dismiss my claims I have nothing more to say. I am really not interested in proving that something was controversial if you have convinced yourself that it wasn't and will dismiss assertions to the contrary. If something as innocuous as "Its Okay To Be White" makes front-page news across the country because people found it offensive and hateful, that is the very essence of a controversy in my opinion, you dismiss such a claim as ridiculous, so you thereby ended the conversation.

I cannot imagine my wife saying otherwise, but tonight is our "sipping booze and hangin' on PoFo night" for our weekly schedule and since she has been too busy to post all week, she'll likely be doing all the posting tonight on her poll and probably picking fights and trolling elsewhere, as that is more her style, while I sit nearby talking to her about what she is writing and giving my input.... but I cannot think she will say much different on this particular issue. "It was in the news across the country that something that should not be offensive was offensive = controversy," will likely be her reasoning.


I will reply to this in the appropriate thread.
#14861062
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, why do you think Latinos do not consider themselves western?


Because of their participation in post-colonialist movements against western powers. Which assumes the us v. them distinction between oppressors and the subaltern.

Pants-of-dog wrote:By the way, we do.


We do what?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I will reply to this in the appropriate thread.


If this was your intention, why did you bring it up in the thread to begin with?

Likewise, there is nothing to reply to at this point, unless you correct your mere dismissal of my point from earlier or wait for my wife to post tonight. Fact is, dismissals are not arguments and I really don't see the point of debating that point anyway. Who cares if someone does or does not think something was controversial, it has been pretty controversial in that thread and that is what really matters now. :lol:
#14861063
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Technically they speak european languages, practice european religions, and have european style governments like communism in sub-saharan africa, but I would not consider them western, nor would they take kindly to that label.

As a native brit I could say the same thing about north americans. "Technically they speak... etc" Of course Africa did get a dose of westernisation, but it perhaps was not a sufficiently large enough dose to completely change them. South America had a much heavier dose of westernisation from the sustained Spanish and Portuguese colonisation as much as North American received from other Europeans actually.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:My disagreement on South America has a LOT to do with their identification, if they don't consider themselves western than neither do I, plus they are ethnically a toss-up as they are not Spanish in the way most Americans are European, nor do they exhibit many of the qualities of Euro-American advancement and development.
Ah so it is that they are less successful than their North American cousins that makes you hesitant to admit them into the western club?

Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is not a merely Anglo-Protestant bias.....I am also differentiating between Latin American and Spain in my disagreement.....Plus someone like PoD is going to use the objection: "well if they are western, than what is the problem with Mexican immigration?"

It doesn't matter immigration policy is a national policy not a western one. They can be as western as anyone and still be refused entry for any number of reasons.

I dont know if you recall, but la loca MTG at one[…]

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]