Tribe And Race
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:21 am
Douglas Mercer
July 13 2022
Notorious toff and sodomite Andrew Sullivan was on a show hawking his book (at 30.00 dollars it costs 30.00 dollars too much) and bewailing the fact that "tribalism" stalks the American landscape. He said what we are undergoing is a "crisis of liberalism," a word he defines roughly as "free speech and free debate leading to a calm and rational deliberative process knowns as democracy."
Defined that way he is of course right, but the level of his agrument is fundamentally dishonest and rises (barely) to the level of a mediocre fifth form boy with mild developmental delays. You see when he says "tribal," in that America has become "tribal" what he really means is "racial" a word which is less vague, much more specific, and draws a more exact picture of what he is talking about. Yes, America has become racial in the sense the each race (other than the White race for which it is not allowed) advocates for its own interests, not the general interest, and all the non-White races gang up on the White race in the ongoing battle.
He says the question we should be asking ourselves is not why America has become tribal but why did we escape being tribal for so long. He correctly notes that in the rest of the world politics is triabalism and has always been so. But he says that in "northern Europe" and in America after the Englightenment we had a sunny (and rare) window where the liberal state reigned, though now it is in eclipse.
It is this reference to "northern Europe" and America which gives the game away, and shows why he is so fundamentally dishonest in addition to being a notorious toff and sodomite. For by both of those he means "White" and just as he won't say racial but he will say tribal he retreats to a vague obscurity where the issues become unclear and blurred.
***
Le us sitpulate that a country that is one hundred percent one race has politics which are neither tribal or racial, the idea that they might be that being a non sequitor. But he is wrong about America: for its long pre 1960 history it had that ten percent of blacks which qualified it for being racial. The reason it seems that for those two hundred years it seemed to be a liberal (as he defines it) oases is that the Whites were so dominant and so preponderat that they were able to subjugate and keep the blacks down; and so American society mimicked a country that was one hundred percent one race. That is America was able to have free speech and free debate (among Whites) and normally functioning deliberative bodies because the Whites were so good at keeping the blacks under their heel.
That is, America was a liberal society because it was a White Surpremacist society.
For the onset of rampant tribalism (that is, racialism) that he bemoans Sullivan blames social media. He says that social media amplifies all the worst voices and vices and exacerbates differences and tensions.
This is bloody nonsene.
The fact that America (at long last) has racial (or tribal as Sullivan puts it) politics has nothing to do with social media: it has to do with diversity. America's politics became racial when Jews came in and fomented race revolution, and when the various non-White races got their numbers up (thanks to Jews) to such an extent that they could compete (and often win) against the Whites.
So it is really diversity that he is tilting at. It is diverstity that destroyed the liberal order he speaks of, it is diversity that brought down the sunny uplands of sweet reason that he says he cherishes, it is diversity that bring the tension and differences he says harms us. You bring in the blacks and the browns and the god knows what else from the world where he says politics is always tribal (racial) and you get tribal (racial) politics. It's that simple.
Diversity killed free speech, free debate; diversity killed the liberal state.
Sullivan is actualy decent on the race realism and the Bell Curve question so perhaps he knows it. If so he gives no indication that he does. And the problem is that the way he frames the problem obscures the issues, and leads people astray. It's as if you were trying to solve a math problem but never used numbers. To talk about "tribalim" as if tribes are but some loose congregation of people who share interests is a watered down way of looking at it. To speak of race on the other hand puts the finest point possible on it and concentrates the mind. But he would never use that word as freely as he uses the word tribal which is why his analysis does more harm than good; is why it's positively mendacious. To speak of race would get one to the heart of the matter, would clarify things, and would lead to a solution. Whether or not they know this the likes of Andrew Sullivan would never dare uttter this becaue in addition to being a toff and scanadalous sodomite he's a notorious coward and liar.
July 13 2022
Notorious toff and sodomite Andrew Sullivan was on a show hawking his book (at 30.00 dollars it costs 30.00 dollars too much) and bewailing the fact that "tribalism" stalks the American landscape. He said what we are undergoing is a "crisis of liberalism," a word he defines roughly as "free speech and free debate leading to a calm and rational deliberative process knowns as democracy."
Defined that way he is of course right, but the level of his agrument is fundamentally dishonest and rises (barely) to the level of a mediocre fifth form boy with mild developmental delays. You see when he says "tribal," in that America has become "tribal" what he really means is "racial" a word which is less vague, much more specific, and draws a more exact picture of what he is talking about. Yes, America has become racial in the sense the each race (other than the White race for which it is not allowed) advocates for its own interests, not the general interest, and all the non-White races gang up on the White race in the ongoing battle.
He says the question we should be asking ourselves is not why America has become tribal but why did we escape being tribal for so long. He correctly notes that in the rest of the world politics is triabalism and has always been so. But he says that in "northern Europe" and in America after the Englightenment we had a sunny (and rare) window where the liberal state reigned, though now it is in eclipse.
It is this reference to "northern Europe" and America which gives the game away, and shows why he is so fundamentally dishonest in addition to being a notorious toff and sodomite. For by both of those he means "White" and just as he won't say racial but he will say tribal he retreats to a vague obscurity where the issues become unclear and blurred.
***
Le us sitpulate that a country that is one hundred percent one race has politics which are neither tribal or racial, the idea that they might be that being a non sequitor. But he is wrong about America: for its long pre 1960 history it had that ten percent of blacks which qualified it for being racial. The reason it seems that for those two hundred years it seemed to be a liberal (as he defines it) oases is that the Whites were so dominant and so preponderat that they were able to subjugate and keep the blacks down; and so American society mimicked a country that was one hundred percent one race. That is America was able to have free speech and free debate (among Whites) and normally functioning deliberative bodies because the Whites were so good at keeping the blacks under their heel.
That is, America was a liberal society because it was a White Surpremacist society.
For the onset of rampant tribalism (that is, racialism) that he bemoans Sullivan blames social media. He says that social media amplifies all the worst voices and vices and exacerbates differences and tensions.
This is bloody nonsene.
The fact that America (at long last) has racial (or tribal as Sullivan puts it) politics has nothing to do with social media: it has to do with diversity. America's politics became racial when Jews came in and fomented race revolution, and when the various non-White races got their numbers up (thanks to Jews) to such an extent that they could compete (and often win) against the Whites.
So it is really diversity that he is tilting at. It is diverstity that destroyed the liberal order he speaks of, it is diversity that brought down the sunny uplands of sweet reason that he says he cherishes, it is diversity that bring the tension and differences he says harms us. You bring in the blacks and the browns and the god knows what else from the world where he says politics is always tribal (racial) and you get tribal (racial) politics. It's that simple.
Diversity killed free speech, free debate; diversity killed the liberal state.
Sullivan is actualy decent on the race realism and the Bell Curve question so perhaps he knows it. If so he gives no indication that he does. And the problem is that the way he frames the problem obscures the issues, and leads people astray. It's as if you were trying to solve a math problem but never used numbers. To talk about "tribalim" as if tribes are but some loose congregation of people who share interests is a watered down way of looking at it. To speak of race on the other hand puts the finest point possible on it and concentrates the mind. But he would never use that word as freely as he uses the word tribal which is why his analysis does more harm than good; is why it's positively mendacious. To speak of race would get one to the heart of the matter, would clarify things, and would lead to a solution. Whether or not they know this the likes of Andrew Sullivan would never dare uttter this becaue in addition to being a toff and scanadalous sodomite he's a notorious coward and liar.
