A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

[jakell]

Purely anecdotal observations. The ones I saw were smarter, better looking and harder working than the English wasters I saw complaining about them, and their benefit scrounging.

So basically phenotypes then. Your claims about genetics were misplaced and your average racial supremacist would have taken you apart there (once they'd finished laughing that is).

What's your own background?

[Rory]

Purely anecdotal observations. The ones I saw were smarter, better looking and harder working than the English wasters I saw complaining about them, and their benefit scrounging.

So basically phenotypes then. Your claims about genetics were misplaced and your average racial supremacist would have taken you apart there (once they'd finished laughing that is).

What's your own background?

My background? Depends on what direction I'm facing - often painted/wallpapered drywall.

I'm sorry, did I strike a nerve? You seem ruffled

[slimmouse]

I for one actually no longer consider myself English.

However the hypocrisy of the English complaining about immigration would not be lost on me so much, were it not for the fact that almost every British incursion into foreign lands was almost solely at the essential behest of some rich powerful people,whos dynasties still remain intact and who decided they wanted to steal from the rest of the world.

I dont think the average man on the ground whether English or anywhere else for that matter would ever be really interested in the kind of savagry that such deeds have entailed and continue to so do.

My relearning in my later years of some real history has of course aided my own personal decision.

I say that because my history degree was obtained largely based upon the opinions of people who I now clearly understand were either idiots or liars.

So much for "education" huh?

[Searcher08]

The migration of east European nationals to the UK was a resounding sucess for everyone. They brought hard work ethic and, lets not mince our words, good genetic stock to the national gene pool. They are (generally) attractive, intelligent and motivated people whereas that isn't something I would accuse English people of being (with a few exceptions).

Rory, Bloody hell, that is a bit racist! Seriously, WTF????????
"bringing good genetic stock to the national gene pool"???!!!!

[jakell]

Purely anecdotal observations. The ones I saw were smarter, better looking and harder working than the English wasters I saw complaining about them, and their benefit scrounging.

So basically phenotypes then. Your claims about genetics were misplaced and your average racial supremacist would have taken you apart there (once they'd finished laughing that is).

What's your own background?

My background? Depends on what direction I'm facing - often painted/wallpapered drywall.

I'm sorry, did I strike a nerve? You seem ruffled

Your comments on East Europeans, the English. Genotypes and phenotypes etc seemed to indicate an interest in background. You know mine, I just wondered if you wanted to share yours.

You see a lot of these things are down to perspective. Being English, I am more aware of our negatives than an average outsider, and I wondered where your own views originated.

[jakell]

The migration of east European nationals to the UK was a resounding sucess for everyone. They brought hard work ethic and, lets not mince our words, good genetic stock to the national gene pool. They are (generally) attractive, intelligent and motivated people whereas that isn't something I would accuse English people of being (with a few exceptions).

Rory, Bloody hell, that is a bit racist! Seriously, WTF????????
"bringing good genetic stock to the national gene pool"???!!!!

It's ok, he's now retracted the genetic comments.

It seems he was using the word incorrectly

[jakell]

I for one actually no longer consider myself English.

However the hypocrisy of the English complaining about immigration would not be lost on me so much, were it not for the fact that almost every British incursion into foreign lands was almost solely at the essential behest of some rich powerful people,whos dynasties still remain intact and who decided they wanted to steal from the rest of the world.

I dont think the average man on the ground whether English or anywhere else for that matter would ever be really interested in the kind of savagry that such deeds have entailed and continue to so do.

My relearning in my later years of some real history has of course aided my own personal decision.

I say that because my history degree was obtained largely based upon the opinions of people who I now clearly understand were either idiots or liars.

So much for "education" huh?

I just see it as a sort of co-ordinate, and not necessarily conferring any particular qualities. We have so many people of different ancestry in the UK that it's a good conversation point (makes a change from the weather). I do believe though that understanding where you are now involves an understanding of where you are from, it's not essential, but that's my approach.

[Rory]

Rory, Bloody hell, that is a bit racist! Seriously, WTF????????
"bringing good genetic stock to the national gene pool"???!!!!

Of course I'm not racist - some of my friends are english

[jakell]

I'm wondering that, if personal and ancestral history is not regarded as a sort of 'fingerprint', then what could be used in it's place?

It's seems to me that a lot of things we use throughout our lives to convey individuality are subject to change**, and there are no end of people trying to sell us, or push on us the latest style of this or that (and this includes memes).

**External change that is, not under our control

[American Dream]

http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/ar ... the-church


Was knowledge of priestly sins ever used to muscle the church?

Posted by Michael Miner on 02.25.14

I have a question. I don't know the answer and I'm not sure anyone does. But certainly this post will be read by some people with a lot more knowledge of the subject than I have.

The other day, in the New Republic, I read a long review by Saul Friedlander of The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe, by David Kertzer. The pope and Il Duce both came to power in Rome in 1922 and, to a degree, were like-minded. Friedlander quotes Kertzer writing, "Neither had any sympathy for parliamentary democracy. Neither believed in freedom of speech or freedom of association. Both saw communism as a grave threat . . ."

Eventually they fell out over Hitler's extreme racial and anti-Semitic ideology, which Mussolini went along with. The book describes Pius XI's decision to issue an encyclical denouncing the policy, a document that his senior counselors (one of whom would succeed him as pope) bitterly opposed and quashed unpromulgated when the pope died in 1938.

"When the major crisis of the pontificate arose in 1938 and Pius decided to take a stand, he did not find support among his closest advisers," Friedlander writes. And then he adds a fascinating parenthetical:

(Some of them, incidentally, had also a personal interest in not angering Mussolini, lest Italian newspapers be induced to spread information about the pederasty that was rife among senior figures of the Vatican, which Kertzer discovered in Italian police files.)

This startled me. Most of us, I believe, think of sexual misconduct by some priests as a secret the Catholic church kept far too long and well. But no, on second thought, how could that be? If you'll forgive the flagrant oversimplification, every priest has a brother who's a cop; every cop has an uncle who's a priest. How could the secret be kept at all? Why would a J. Edgar Hoover, who in his day assiduously strove to know everyone's secrets, have no idea of the church's?

My question is this: where else—if anywhere—did church leaders go along with local powers that be because they feared disclosure? Are there dioceses in the U.S. or abroad that were a little too eager to please local authorities by providing them with votes, volunteers, and a blessing for every initiative—but in return were tacitly assured their secrets would be kept?

Where—if anywhere—did pederasty go uninvestigated because the church was being blackmailed?

I wonder. Can anyone tell me more?

[Searcher08]

Rory, Bloody hell, that is a bit racist! Seriously, WTF????????
"bringing good genetic stock to the national gene pool"???!!!!

Of course I'm not racist - some of my friends are english

LOL Are you a Scot? 'Some of my (best) friends are English'?
You are Ahab's Other Other Leg - admit it

[brainpanhandler]

One aspect in which these tribal/familial traits can be regarded as genetic is in the fairly well recognised phenomenon of 'kin selection' which is observable in animals and can therefore be said to have a non-memetic root. It doesn't take much of a leap to project an element of this into human activity

that was my position....'it doesn't take much of a leap to project an element of this into human activity'

I'll assume it's still your position. The qualifier "an element" leaves room for a more complicated explanation of tribal/familial traits and behavior than just kin selection. I am loosely familiar with sociobiology (just spent some time brushing up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sociobiology/). It's a very complex field and I'm not equipped to have a very in depth discussion of it. When I was younger I remember being turned off the theory that our social structures and behavior could be explained in any substantial way in terms of genetically determined instincts. I think I arrived at this conclusion for a number of reasons. First and foremost I was too lazy to do the work of carefully examining the theory. But later it was easier on my conscience to look at the ways in which the field of sociobiology was co-opted and used to underpin the work of eugenicists and other unsavory right wing ideologies. Konrad Lorenz comes to mind, although he is a somewhat unique case. Charles Murray and his ilk come to mind. But that too was just being lazy (although I did actually read The Bell Curve). Ultimately, not being a scientist, I decided it was just better to view humanity as being largely if not completely determined by nurture. If I couldn't be sure, then it seemed best to err on the side of the argument that held people accountable for their actions. I want a level playing field for everyone. It seemed to me and still does that that was more likely to be supported by believing that who we are is fundamentally a product of nurture. There is ample evidence to support this.

I also simply like to give primacy to our free will and agency. We are animals, but we are unique animals in that we have these big brains.

As example let's stick with kin selection, I would suggest that the overwhelming motivation for reducing one's own biological advantages and supporting close genetic relatives is simply love. That may not be scientific, but contrary to what some people here believe of me I'm more of a humanist than a scientist. If love is not the motivation then second I would nominate social appearances. I have close genetic relatives that if they were not I would want nothing to do with and certainly would not deliberately disadvantage myself for. But in order to maintain at least the appearance of familial solidarity which is a lauded social value I treat them as though they are people for whom I have a greater affinity than I actually do. You could argue that I get a real world pay off for this and in some sense I do, but really it's more about maintaining a social equilibrium and keeping appearances up for appearances' sake. In any event these are complicated behaviors that are motivated by learned and shared values and have everything to do with our big brains and making conscious choices and not so much to do with some unconscious process of ensuring the propagation of our genes.

I would argue that kin selection if it has any demonstrable real world presence/effect on human behavior then it is dwarfed by other conscious forces, to the point of being little more than a theoretical construct that might have some descriptive but not explanatory power.

I'd like to come back to this:

TBH, I don't think much more questioning of cultural and racial nationalism can be done,

Why is that? Because it's a foregone conclusion that we are genetically predisposed to tribaliism?

and all that seems to have emerged as an alternative is some sort of globalist mish-mash

, and this scenario is supported mainly by historically cheap oil and it's related infrastructure (soon to disappear).
In other words, globalism/multiculturalism is fragile and very expensive to maintain even the appearence of,

Compared to what? The current state of affairs? How expensive is cultural and racial nationalism to maintain?

From what I can see, at this stage of our civilisation, is that people are still pretty tribal to a degree, and will not give this up after a certain point, no matter how much they are forced and/or cajoled.

Who do you imagine does the forcing and cajoling?

an alternative is to come to terms with these human tendencies

Make a feature of it?

to try to prevent the most egregious aspects

War, social stratification, poverty, genocide, eugenics, oppression of out groups?

I say these are the products of decisions based on learned behaviors. I say we are not naturally war like, acquisitive, greedy bastards but choose to be so (even if I will entertain the notion that there is some basis for believing there is such a thing as human nature and that it is genetically determined). Our societies are currently organized in ways which encourage it. Not only is cultural and racial nationalism/tribalism not an immovable feature of our species, it's an eminently moveable one. And we should move it. Give me a long enough lever and I can move the world.

and avoid the desire to micro-manage and control the interpersonal stuff.

I'm still interested in hearing from you what an example of this would be.

To my mind, anarchism provides a good set of approaches to this.

I assume you are advocating a live and let live sort of social pact. Accept that human nature is what it is and that we are hardwired to compete and not cooperate and simply let people choose with whom to associate (cooperate with) and play nice with the others (compete within acceptable and governable bounds).

or no.

Can you elaborate?

[jakell]

One aspect in which these tribal/familial traits can be regarded as genetic is in the fairly well recognised phenomenon of 'kin selection' which is observable in animals and can therefore be said to have a non-memetic root. It doesn't take much of a leap to project an element of this into human activity

that was my position....'it doesn't take much of a leap to project an element of this into human activity'

I'll assume it's still your position. The qualifier "an element" leaves room for a more complicated explanation of tribal/familial traits and behavior than just kin selection. I am loosely familiar with sociobiology (just spent some time brushing up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sociobiology/). It's a very complex field and I'm not equipped to have a very in depth discussion of it. When I was younger I remember being turned off the theory that our social structures and behavior could be explained in any substantial way in terms of genetically determined instincts. I think I arrived at this conclusion for a number of reasons. First and foremost I was too lazy to do the work of carefully examining the theory. But later it was easier on my conscience to look at the ways in which the field of sociobiology was co-opted and used to underpin the work of eugenicists and other unsavory right wing ideologies. Konrad Lorenz comes to mind, although he is a somewhat unique case. Charles Murray and his ilk come to mind. But that too was just being lazy (although I did actually read The Bell Curve). Ultimately, not being a scientist, I decided it was just better to view humanity as being largely if not completely determined by nurture. If I couldn't be sure, then it seemed best to err on the side of the argument that held people accountable for their actions. I want a level playing field for everyone. It seemed to me and still does that that was more likely to be supported by believing that who we are is fundamentally a product of nurture. There is ample evidence to support this.

I also simply like to give primacy to our free will and agency. We are animals, but we are unique animals in that we have these big brains.

As example let's stick with kin selection, I would suggest that the overwhelming motivation for reducing one's own biological advantages and supporting close genetic relatives is simply love. That may not be scientific, but contrary to what some people here believe of me I'm more of a humanist than a scientist. If love is not the motivation then second I would nominate social appearances. I have close genetic relatives that if they were not I would want nothing to do with and certainly would not deliberately disadvantage myself for. But in order to maintain at least the appearance of familial solidarity which is a lauded social value I treat them as though they are people for whom I have a greater affinity than I actually do. You could argue that I get a real world pay off for this and in some sense I do, but really it's more about maintaining a social equilibrium and keeping appearances up for appearances' sake. In any event these are complicated behaviors that are motivated by learned and shared values and have everything to do with our big brains and making conscious choices and not so much to do with some unconscious process of ensuring the propagation of our genes.

I would argue that kin selection if it has any demonstrable real world presence/effect on human behavior then it is dwarfed by other conscious forces, to the point of being little more than a theoretical construct that might have some descriptive but not explanatory power.

I'd like to come back to this:

TBH, I don't think much more questioning of cultural and racial nationalism can be done,

Why is that? Because it's a foregone conclusion that we are genetically predisposed to tribaliism?

and all that seems to have emerged as an alternative is some sort of globalist mish-mash

, and this scenario is supported mainly by historically cheap oil and it's related infrastructure (soon to disappear).
In other words, globalism/multiculturalism is fragile and very expensive to maintain even the appearence of,

Compared to what? The current state of affairs? How expensive is cultural and racial nationalism to maintain?

From what I can see, at this stage of our civilisation, is that people are still pretty tribal to a degree, and will not give this up after a certain point, no matter how much they are forced and/or cajoled.

Who do you imagine does the forcing and cajoling?

an alternative is to come to terms with these human tendencies

Make a feature of it?

to try to prevent the most egregious aspects

War, social stratification, poverty, genocide, eugenics, oppression of out groups?

I say these are the products of decisions based on learned behaviors. I say we are not naturally war like, acquisitive, greedy bastards but choose to be so (even if I will entertain the notion that there is some basis for believing there is such a thing as human nature and that it is genetically determined). Our societies are currently organized in ways which encourage it. Not only is cultural and racial nationalism/tribalism not an immovable feature of our species, it's an eminently moveable one. And we should move it. Give me a long enough lever and I can move the world.

and avoid the desire to micro-manage and control the interpersonal stuff.

I'm still interested in hearing from you what an example of this would be.

To my mind, anarchism provides a good set of approaches to this.

I assume you are advocating a live and let live sort of social pact. Accept that human nature is what it is and that we are hardwired to compete and not cooperate and simply let people choose with whom to associate (cooperate with) and play nice with the others (compete within acceptable and governable bounds).

or no.

Can you elaborate?

The above is far too complex an edit for me to insert replies into (I've tried and it gave me a headache), it's also old and the context is hard to retrieve, your various assumptions and elaborations also complexify it beyond converstional standard. I'm going to try to answer some point in the order I come to them, but I'd rather you broke this down into separate posts:


I wouldn't say kin selection is 'dwarfed' or express any sort of ratio, pure kin selection is demonstrable only in animals, it just that, as we arose from there, I don't find it hard to believe that there is still an element. Humans often switch off and act from instinct, so maybe it can be can observed there.
The big foil to genetic determination is memetics, and these are an arguably human trait, the interplay between this and genetics stops either one dominating.

It would be more accurate for me to say "I don't think much more practical/useful questioning of cultural and racial nationalism can be done" and this is because I believe the human tendencies to push in the opposite direction at this point are becoming roughly equal. ie the questioning becomes just words and nothing else.
From observations in my own country, it takes authority and laws ( and therefore expense) to push this beyond a certain point, and the economy will not support this for much longer. Tribalism and feudalism etc are much further down the entropy ladder and hardly do not really need any expense.

Your last sentence asks me to elaborate on an complex assumption you made, I'm certainly not going to do that and the subject needs a post all of it's own.

[brainpanhandler]

The above is far too complex an edit for me to insert replies into (I've tried and it gave me a headache), it's also old and the context is hard to retrieve, your various assumptions and elaborations also complexify it beyond converstional standard. I'm going to try to answer some point in the order I come to them, but I'd rather you broke this down into separate posts:

That's fine. Answer as you please or not, whenever or never. But I take exception to the description "old". It's a few days and pages "old". I have a real life too, ya know?

I wouldn't say kin selection is 'dwarfed' or express any sort of ratio

I didn't in an absolutist sense or if I did I didn't mean to. I prefer to believe that because it places the emphasis where I think it should be, our ability to choose.

It would be more accurate for me to say "I don't think much more practical/useful questioning of cultural and racial nationalism can be done" and this is because I believe the human tendencies to push in the opposite direction at this point are becoming roughly equal. ie the questioning becomes just words and nothing else.

I don't think I understand that but perhaps i understand it well enough to say that it's useful to consider that our hope for a world with more justice, peace, prosperity and freedom and even our hope as a species lies with our children and grandchildren.

From observations in my own country, it takes authority and laws ( and therefore expense) to push this beyond a certain point, and the economy will not support this for much longer. Tribalism and feudalism etc are much further down the entropy ladder and hardly do not really need any expense.

I'm surprised you would write this. Really. It's so wrong. Even without my objecting to what you apparently fail to categorize as "expense". Maybe I am not understanding what in the world as it is today you consider to be manifestations of tribalism.

Your last sentence asks me to elaborate on an complex assumption you made, I'm certainly not going to do that and the subject needs a post all of it's own.

Actually I attempted a very brief synopsis based on my limited interaction with you and invited you to tell me where I was wrong. And then offered a more general invitation for you to elaborate on what you've said so far to me since I am sure I am not getting enough background to understand where you are coming from. This is no one's fault. It just takes time.

[jakell]

The above is far too complex an edit for me to insert replies into (I've tried and it gave me a headache), it's also old and the context is hard to retrieve, your various assumptions and elaborations also complexify it beyond converstional standard. I'm going to try to answer some point in the order I come to them, but I'd rather you broke this down into separate posts:

That's fine. Answer as you please or not, whenever or never. But I take exception to the description "old". It's a few days and pages "old". I have a real life too, ya know?

The original post of mine here is over 4 weeks old

It would be more accurate for me to say "I don't think much more practical/useful questioning of cultural and racial nationalism can be done" and this is because I believe the human tendencies to push in the opposite direction at this point are becoming roughly equal. ie the questioning becomes just words and nothing else.

I don't think I understand that but perhaps i understand it well enough to say that it's useful to consider that our hope for a world with more justice, peace, prosperity and freedom and even our hope as a species lies with our children and grandchildren.

I am far too cynical to trust in hope at this stage

From observations in my own country, it takes authority and laws ( and therefore expense) to push this beyond a certain point, and the economy will not support this for much longer. Tribalism and feudalism etc are much further down the entropy ladder and hardly do not really need any expense.

I'm surprised you would write this. Really. It's so wrong. Even without my objecting to what you apparently fail to categorize as "expense". Maybe I am not understanding what in the world as it is today you consider to be manifestations of tribalism.

This is why I just referenced my own country. We have reduced the more egregious aspects of hate and discrimination, but the 'battle' goes on. Returns on this have diminished exponentially, every temporary small gain is now achieved via the apparatus of law and state and bureaucracy, this cannot last as hard economic decisions will have to be made in the near future.

Your last sentence asks me to elaborate on an complex assumption you made, I'm certainly not going to do that and the subject needs a post all of it's own.

Actually I attempted a very brief synopsis based on my limited interaction with you and invited you to tell me where I was wrong. And then offered a more general invitation for you to elaborate on what you've said so far to me since I am sure I am not getting enough background to understand where you are coming from. This is no one's fault. It just takes time.

These areas, once expanded upon are becoming quite separate topics, I find it difficult to deal with them in one post.