ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

The art of the reframe

Heartist discusses the political reframe:
"A commenter at Larry Auster’s accurately imagines what a typical anti-white leftoid (in this case, John Podhoretz) would say to a realist schooled in the facts of intransigent human nature and the evolved preference for tribalism: 

“But humanity does not consist of universal individuals. It consists of various cultures, ethnicities, and races all of which have particular identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas which are different from those of the host society. As a result, the mass presence of those different groups in the host society, far from advancing right-liberal equal freedom, empowers their unassimilable identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas, and thus changes the host country from a right-liberal society into a multicultural, left-liberal, racial-socialist society whose ruling principle is equality of outcome for all groups.”
 

To which Podhoretz pere et fils would surely reply, “Why do you hate freedom?”

How does a weak-willed, supplicating, betaboy “”"conservative”"” like, oh, say, Jim Geraghty, respond to this all-too-realistic, imagined Podhoretz coercive frame? Probably something like this: “I don’t hate freedom! Really, I don’t! Look, some of my best friends are freedom lovers. And I promise never again to use the word slut, no matter how applicable it is. Be kind to me?”

Lame. Podhoretz owns the frame, and Geraghty is just playing within its bounds."

While I agree with the need for a reframe in this sort of situation, the problem with Heartiste's recommended riposte is that while it avoids acquiescence to the  theoretical frame, it fails to destroy it and permits the hypothetical Podhoretz to claim the high ground.  Yes, it is true that the question concerning Podoretz's overt intimacy with Capra aegagrus hircus is as intellectually fair as Podhoretz's question concerning his interlocutor's imaginary hatred for freedom.  But it sounds less reasonable and will cause said interlocutor to come off looking weak and reactionary by comparison.

A better tactic is a refined version of agree and amplify.  In this case, Podhoretz's interlocutor would do well to simply respond to him: "For the same reason you do."  This immediately turns the frame around and forces him onto the defensive, and has the benefit of being absolutely true.  While Podhoretz and his fellow neoconservatives may favor freedom in the form of permitting mass invasion from the Third World, they oppose it in a vast panoply of more important forms.  The right-liberal is far more opposed to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of exchange, and seeks to control the population in a much more coercive manner than the traditionalist right that seeks to protect Constitutional America and the only group with any significant collective regard for it, the descendants of its Christian European colonists.

In the same way that tax revenues are not maximized by maximizing tax rates, as per the Laffer curve, freedom of action and opportunity is not maximized by maximizing legal freedom for everyone on the planet.  Podhoretz, for example, would not be more free if Hamas were legally permitted to set up Jew-baking ovens in New York City, just as Americans would not be more free if 50 million Mexicans were legally permitted to enter the country and begin voting for the sort of policies they are accustomed to voting for when choosing between the Partido Revolucionario Institucional and the Party of the Democratic Revolution, both of which are members of the Socialist International.

Since freedom is not easily mathematically quantified, it is not as simple to construct a Liberty curve as a Laffer curve, but the logic is the same.

This is just an example; the point is that reframe is best done in the direct context of the attempted frame.  Due to psychological projection, in most cases, those who attempt to frame an attack in an unfair and intellectually dubious manner will reliably choose to attack you on their own point of vulnerability.  By way of example, note how yesterday the Neo-Keynesian SK repeatedly insisted that I was a) ignorant, b) didn't understand anything, and c) needed to read a certain book while simultaneously a) getting most of his basic facts wrong, b) failing to grasp the difference between debt/GDP and federal debt/GDP and trying to discredit the data I'd provided by citing the very source I'd quoted, and, c) believing that I was some sort of monetarist inflationista because he knew nothing about RGD.

Labels: ,

60 Comments:

Anonymous TheExpat November 22, 2012 4:23 AM  

Applying Laffer curve logic to legal freedom (a Liberty curve) is brilliant.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 22, 2012 4:42 AM  

I read that blog entry the other day and I did find something lacking about Heartiste's recommended retort.

I just can't find out what it is until today. Thanks!

Blogger SarahsDaughter November 22, 2012 6:00 AM  

Have you found this as consistent with women as with men? They give you their goat in their attack?

Anonymous VD November 22, 2012 6:17 AM  

Have you found this as consistent with women as with men? They give you their goat in their attack?

I think so. Perhaps even more blatantly, in some regards, as it is common for women to attack you for something they are doing themselves. Women tend to have a higher standard for others than they do for themselves, so they'll blithely attack someone despite being equally and obviously guilty of the same things. Hence some of the bizarre rationalizations that are subsequently produced when this is pointed out.

As an example, look at today's post at AG in which a woman engaged in rhetorical exaggeration in the very comment in which she attacked my rhetorical exaggeration.

Blogger tz November 22, 2012 6:32 AM  

I could only think "they hate our freedoms somwe must have the PATRIOT act, TSA, torture, etc."

It is also why I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist. Nor believe Liberty is genetic - those who stayed in England were brothers of those who came here, Canada was less diverse but more socialist, and we had the war of Northern Aggression, again brother v.s.brother. The UK now, and especially pre-Thatcher.

Aquinas is a good source - he says civil law is to keep the peace, not to make people righteous.

But ultimately the natural law is written on each heart. The Constitution (and earlier Magna Charta) are natural law documents.

The culture - the individuals - are always trying to discover and refine and apply the way engineers and (actual) scientists apply the study of nature. Or they make it up on their whims, preferring corruption - redistributing wealth earned by another, oppressing those you dislike, being hedonistic.

Anonymous The Great Martini November 22, 2012 6:59 AM  

Hmmm. Various in-group ethnicity, races, identities, with different values and agendas, BUT they want equal outcomes for all groups.

I want what he's smoking. More like, they want what they can get, for themselves, possibly for their families, and very marginally for their own in-group. Pretty much like everyone else on the planet, even white 'murkans.


Anonymous MendoScot November 22, 2012 7:09 AM  

However, SK likely does fuck goats.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza November 22, 2012 8:22 AM  

Great post, very clarifying and directive as to what the real issue(s) are.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 22, 2012 8:28 AM  

"Pretty much like everyone else on the planet, even white 'murkans."

Yes, except that white 'murkans want that stuff for themselves in... white 'Murka. You know, the country they founded and built for themselves and their posterity. They don't go to live in Abkhazia and summarily demand the rights of Abkhazians, a place to which they have no claim.

Why the fuck would I want Somalis here in white 'murka demanding things that are only the birthright of white 'murkans? Let them stay in Somalia and 'get what they can get' for whatever their ingroup is, over yonder in Bewilderstan. Therein lies a distinction. Ya see it yet?


Blogger SarahsDaughter November 22, 2012 8:31 AM  

"I think so. Perhaps even more blatantly, in some regards, as it is common for women to attack you for something they are doing themselves." - Vox

Thank you.

Off topic:
I'm putting this to the test as it seems I've drawn the ire of women who so desperately want Ephesians 5:22 and 1Peter 3:1 removed from the Bible.

Anonymous Dr. Feelgood November 22, 2012 8:33 AM  

To define freedom is very simple for me. In the summer of 2002, I flew from Austin to Chicago. I went through a metal detector. Didn't have to take off my belt or my shoes. They didn't confiscate my fingernail clippers, nor my shampoo. I flew back from Chicago (O'Hare) to Austin. No different security procedure.

I have not flown since. I will not fly until those cancer machines are removed (and/or replace with something else proven safe), and the blue-gloved sexual deviants are replaced with genuine security personnel, who will frisk you nor more than a street cop will at a concert. When those measures are reenacted, then freedom just might have a chance, once again.

Oh, also when they remove that DHS logo next to the FBI one, every time I watch a DVD, or Netflix, because the DHS has been abolished, then we are headed back in the right direction (at least better than is at present). To at least get back to the "sense of freedom" that the nation once had as an minarchy, we have a long ways to go. Maybe I will see that in my lifetime.

Oh, and one more thing. Maximum of $1.00 per gallon at the pump. (cue up car chase in Dragnet '87) I will then know, that my economic freedom is "righting ship." (less theft by the oligarchs)

Anonymous Roundtine November 22, 2012 8:35 AM  

A great reframe right now is to accept the changing America. Why does the liberal believe the Democrat party will stay liberal, when they are now a minority of party members? Blacks and Hispanics are not favorable towards gay marriage, for example. Foreign immigrants aren't pro-Israel, in fact many would be/are classified by the ADL as anti-semitic. Why do white liberals think they're going to have a say in things when they're not needed anymore?

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 22, 2012 8:36 AM  

btw, re the post, "Roissy" was a brilliant nom de blog, perfect for that dude, and "Heartist(e)" is a TERRIBLE nom de blog, just awful taste, awful everything, ick. He went from alpha to delta (is 'delta' one of your wacky Game terms?) in sixty.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 22, 2012 8:46 AM  

"I will not fly until those cancer machines are removed (and/or replaced with something else proven safe), and the blue-gloved sexual deviants are replaced with genuine security personnel"

Do what I do habitually: ask the TSA point blank if they are an equal opportunity employer. When they say Yes, as they must, then ask them if that means they will employ Muslims. When they say Yes, as they must, then ask them, So what difference does it make if you search and scan people with this bogus security theater, when your own Muslim employees who hold the backstage keys can easily conspire to sneak anything past security that they want, if they have a mind to do it? Who are we guarding ourselves against, Christian Scientists? Seventh Day Adventists? The Provisional IRA? Ask them point blank who are we guarding ourselves against, and why are they allowed to work for our government? Did we employ Nazis at the Pentagon during WWII, out of "fairness"? What the hell are Muslims doing in our very much non-Muslim country, when they have no right and no claim and no purpose to be here? Watch the looks on their faces, well the ones who aren't Third World retards, if you can find any.

Anonymous Porky? November 22, 2012 8:53 AM  

What the hell are Muslims doing in our very much non-Muslim country, when they have no right and no claim and no purpose to be here? Watch the looks on their faces, well the ones who aren't Third World retards, if you can find any.

Wow. Vox sure was right about that whole projection thingy.



Anonymous The Great Martini November 22, 2012 8:53 AM  


Yes, except that white 'murkans want that stuff for themselves in... white 'Murka. You know, the country they founded and built for themselves and their posterity. They don't go to live in Abkhazia and summarily demand the rights of Abkhazians, a place to which they have no claim.


In all probability, your family came to American long after it was founded. It's quite possible they were persecuted by "natives" (i.e. anyone who had been here longer than they had). Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you?

And of course, the country was also built by a lot of non-white labor. As purely a matter of power-politics, it is a white country, but you can't exactly claim any moral high ground while doing it. (And you are doing it.)

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 22, 2012 8:55 AM  

"And of course, the country was also built by a lot of non-white labor."

No it wasn't. Try again.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 22, 2012 8:58 AM  

"Vox sure was right about that whole projection thingy."

Explain to me please how I'm "projecting" anything. I was under the curious delusion that I was speaking bluntly.



Anonymous The Great Martini November 22, 2012 9:03 AM  


No it wasn't. Try again.


Really. News to me. Anyone else agree?

Anonymous Dr. Feelgood November 22, 2012 9:03 AM  

@scoobius dubious November 22, 2012 8:46 AM

I don't have time for 20 Questions. "Pearls to Swine." If I ever have a dire need to fly, until such measure are reenacted, I will learn to fly myself, and/or move to a country, where the TSA (and other Nazi agencies [1]) does not exist. Better yet, just put me in a "deep freeze," and wake me up in say 30 years. By then, society has either, at the very least begun to right ship, or will be entrenched in total dystopia. It will not remain at constant...



---------
[1] At least just not yet.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments November 22, 2012 9:06 AM  

"And of course, the country was also built by a lot of non-white labor. "

Yeah the way a big hole is dug by a lot of shovels... idiot

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 22, 2012 9:07 AM  

"In all probability, your family came to American long after it was founded. It's quite possible they were persecuted by "natives" (i.e. anyone who had been here longer than they had)."

You're rather naive about how a great many things work, ain't ye, lad. It's a good thing for me you're not my auto mechanic, I'd be dead in a week.

'Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you?'

So when Africa becomes 90% Chinese/Indian owned and operated, as it will, and actual genetic historical Africans become an endangered species, as they will, you'll be cool with that, right?



Blogger Bob Wallace November 22, 2012 9:13 AM  

Poddy is worse than a wimp. He's a coward, which he covers up with bluff. As Sam Spade (Bogart) said in "The Maltese Falcon," "The cheaper the hood the gaudier the patter."

Anonymous The Great Martini November 22, 2012 9:26 AM  


So when Africa becomes 90% Chinese/Indian owned and operated, as it will, and actual genetic historical Africans become an endangered species, as they will, you'll be cool with that, right?


Kind of depends on exactly how that would happen. If overnight, then it would obviously mean some type of genocide was happening, and I would definitely not be cool with it. If it happened by gradual demographic change, miscegenation, and drift, I would be cool with it. I don't give racial purity a lot of shrift.
I doubt even those who do actually know why at any profound level. Maybe they like white skin and blond curls, or black skin and afros. Some Jews I have known have said things along the lines of "you're destroying our people" to other Jews who intermarry. I guess I can relate to "preserving my people" at some level, perhaps akin to preserving a species or a piece of art. There's no guarantee that the generations to come are going to share your value, or not actually hold you in contempt for it.

If it's any consolation, the genetic engineering of tomorrow will probably be able to reconstitute any race that one might prefer.

Anonymous zen0 November 22, 2012 9:29 AM  

Here is an interesting re-frame by a group of French youth who occupied a mosque in France to mark the victory of Charles Martel over Muslim hordes.

Declaration of War - From the youth of France

Anonymous harry12 November 22, 2012 9:47 AM  

The Great Martini November 22, 2012 9:03AM
No it wasn't. Try again.
Really. News to me. Anyone else agree?


Always glad to help out.
Try reading a few non-fiction, history books: "IT'S OBVIOUS!"

Anonymous physphilmusic November 22, 2012 9:50 AM  

You're rather naive about how a great many things work, ain't ye, lad. It's a good thing for me you're not my auto mechanic, I'd be dead in a week.


Just curious, scoobius doobius, by this do you imply that your ancestors, like Vox's, were purely English all the way back to the 17th/18th century?

Incidentally, Scooby Doo is a Great Dane.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 22, 2012 10:02 AM  

"by this do you imply that your ancestors, like Vox's, were purely English all the way back to the 17th/18th century?"

Nope, not implying that at all, and in fact it isn't the case, not even remotely. Don't see what it has to do with anything, neither. Something I'm fond of saying is: Scale matters.

btw, wow, the 17th/18th century. Golly. You know what they say: Englishmen think 100 miles is a long way, and Americans think 100 years is a long time.

"Incidentally, Scooby Doo is a Great Dane."

Heh heh, I'll take your word for it; in my view, the fact that Scooby Doo is a talking dog tends to trump all his other less remarkable details. But for the record, I've got a bit of Danish blood, via the Viking raids on the British Isles. A few of my ancestors are dead ringers for Max von Sydow, which is kind of funny, considering that I'm not. Well maybe a little.

Anonymous Porky? November 22, 2012 10:06 AM  

Scoobius: Explain to me please how I'm "projecting" anything. I was under the curious delusion that I was speaking bluntly.

Blunt and wrong on at least 4 counts in a single sentence, yet you call the targets of your rant "retards". Lol.



Anonymous scoobius dubious November 22, 2012 10:20 AM  

"Blunt and wrong on at least 4 counts in a single sentence,"

Sounds to me like you've incurred a bit of an obligation to explain yourself there, mon frere. Elaborate, maitre, s'il vous plait.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) November 22, 2012 10:31 AM  

Porky, why don't you explain why he is wrong?

Anonymous Porky? November 22, 2012 10:36 AM  

Sounds to me like you've incurred a bit of an obligation to explain yourself there, mon frere.

To the contrary - it would be your obligation to explain how muslims have no "right, claim or purpose" to be here.

You know - 'extraordinary claims...' and all that.

Anonymous Dr. Feelgood November 22, 2012 10:47 AM  

when they have no right and no claim and no purpose to be here?

Besides non-whites, does the Englishman have said claim against the German. Against the Russian? Against the Italian? You need to clarify yourself here. Is it just the Muslim, or any Arab? Many Arabs and Asians are Christians. Africa stands to become the most Christian nation on the planet. What then will America say?

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 22, 2012 10:48 AM  

[Porky backs away]

Well I don't blame 'im.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone -- even the fraidy-cats!

Anonymous Dr. Feelgood November 22, 2012 10:55 AM  

When one restricts freedom and opportunity to one class/ethnicity, then where does it end? Does the Tejano make a claim against the Germanic Texan? Does the conservative Austinite jail all the homosexuals because........................ for what? Fascism has many colors it appears. What a slippery crevice we dig for ourselves...

Anonymous Porky? November 22, 2012 10:55 AM  

Actually I'm right here. I'm furiously googling "constitution+muslims+no+rights +claim+purpose" but I'm not getting any hits. Imagine that!

Happy thanksgiving to you to - even the hapless retarded xenophobes!

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 22, 2012 11:11 AM  

Why on earth are you appealing to Google for authority? You spoke with authority yourself. I asked you to defend your speech, and you declined.

Once more: "Blunt and wrong on at least 4 counts in a single sentence"

Still waiting for votre explication de texte, monsieur.

"even the hapless retarded xenophobes"

What precisely is retarded about being phobic of a xeno? How many xenos live in your home? How many complete random strangers will be at your Thanksgiving table today? How many xenos can live in your town, your city, your state, your country, before it is no longer your town, your city, your state, your country?

Do you know what the meaning of the word "heap" is? Do you know why I'm asking?

Anonymous Porky? November 22, 2012 11:51 AM  

You spoke with authority yourself. I asked you to defend your speech, and you declined.

Well, the claim which you are so reluctant to defend is that muslims have "no right and no claim and no purpose to be here?"

Your claim is readily refuted by the existence of gainfully employed legal citizens who happen to be muslims living in a country who's laws defend their rights and claims to citizenship.

If you have some extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinarily stupid claim, now would be the time to share.


Anonymous physphilmusic November 22, 2012 2:46 PM  

Nope, not implying that at all, and in fact it isn't the case, not even remotely. Don't see what it has to do with anything, neither. Something I'm fond of saying is: Scale matters.

So, you're somewhat of an invader too, I guess? Yeah, scale matters and all that, so it's definitely true that you're much less of an invader than the recently arrived Muslim Arab next door. But it's only a difference of degree. If some of your ancestors were non-English, then they probably played a part in contributing to America's increasing collectivist tendencies - especially if they're Scandinavian, German or the like. I can accept "birthright" arguments if you are a direct descendant of patriots who actually fought in the American Revolution, but if you have some Danish blood, then no matter how you "got" it, you have less of a "birthright" than a "genuine" or "original" American.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 22, 2012 10:36 PM  

FYI, the "commentator" that Heartiste refers to is one of the Dreaded Ilk, or the most ilkiest of the Ilk---me.

The findings of bias amongst babies by the Yale Baby Lab shall be the biggest discoveries of the 21st century. Yet, Johann Herder knew about this 150 years ago. The scientific proof came much later. Thanks Yale Baby Lab.

Anonymous Sheila November 23, 2012 12:07 AM  

physphilmusic, given that you identified yourself (in other threads) as an ethnic Chinese living in the U.S., on what grounds are you qualified to either "accept" or deny "birthright" arguments? Even granting Vox's well-proved point about the damage all other ethnicities have done to the original, ethnic-English nature of the U.S., there is an order of magnitude of difference between someone descended from Scandinavian or German immigrants in the 1870s and a Chinese immigrant of 2000. If Vox were to object to scubious dubious' animus to third-world immigration on the grounds that scubious' forebears were not pure English, he would have the grounds to do so. You - not so much.

Blogger Robert S. Oculus III November 23, 2012 1:15 AM  

If [it happened] overnight... I would definitely not be cool with [genocide]. If it happened by gradual demographic change, miscegenation, and drift, I would be cool with it.

So: the morality of genocide is a function of the speed at which it takes place.

It must be sad to be you.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 23, 2012 7:02 AM  

"Well, the claim which you are so reluctant to defend is that muslims have "no right and no claim and no purpose to be here?"

First of all, it's cheap to try and turn it around on me like that. You said I was wrong four ways to Sunday and I asked you to explain, then you dodged and accused me of being the one doing the dodging. Doubleplus uncool.

Then you come off with this crap about "extraordinary claims" when there is nothing extraordinary about the position at all. It was common sense and consensus wisdom for most of the entire history of this country up til 1965. It was understood that America was founded and developed by white European Christians, FOR white Christian Europeans, that it is in its essence a white European Christian society and that it basically exists on a historical continuum with Europe -- not with Asia, not with India, certainly not with Islam. It is you who are the conceptual upstart and denier of history.

"Your claim is readily refuted by the existence of gainfully employed legal citizens who happen to be muslims living in a country who's laws defend their rights and claims to citizenship."

It refutes nothing; it's a bit of legalism. Citizenship is not the same as being a countryman. So some people filled out the forms correctly, and they have jobs. They want our stuff, and we give it to them. If you believe that that is a sound moral basis for your ostensible Muslim "fellow Americans" to construct a national identity upon in common with your own, then I will leave you to your fate.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 23, 2012 7:03 AM  

If we speak of these things in moral, not legal terms (a moral claim, a moral right, a moral purpose -- these are lasting; a legal claim? Laws are changed.) we see that I am right, both conceptually and historically: Islam is not part of the religious, cultural, historical, ethnic, racial or linguistic continuum of the Western Christian Europe from which America is derived. (The presence of a minority of blacks and Jews is a historical peculiarity from the general trend, and in any event Jews share a European heritage and blacks share a Christian one, so it's far less egregious.)

The historical fact is that Islam is not only not part of the Western cultural consensus, it is indeed the consciously-styled rival and deadly enemy of the West. The theology and jurisprudence of Islam explicitly put it at war with the West. Islam is a supremacist religion, which considers itself to have a universal temporal writ. It is absolutely incompatible with say the First Amendment, the cornerstone of American cultural, religious and political freedoms, and will seek to destroy it and replace it, if and when it can. Believing Muslims are commanded to attack and conquer non-Muslims. You cannot be a good believing Muslim and a good American, in essentials, at the same time. Unless you seek to re-define what an American identity is, effectively destroying it in the process. Which is what we observe via mass immigration, and through the ministrations of clowns like you.

You're opposing a moral determination with a legal one: a different example would be the claim "it is not right for children to be adopted and raised by openly homosexual couples" with "aha! but in several states they do just that! So you're wrong!"

My quarrel is with the world, not with the law: I'm not calling for legally present Muslims to be deported or deprived of their rights. You are correct in the sense that certain conditions at present are, legally speaking, a done deal. This does not impress me.

My quarrel with the moral state of affairs could be illustrated by something like this: back in 2001 a bunch of sketchy Muslim immigrants fly a few planes into buildings, and it is discovered that there is an international network of sketchy Muslims infiltrating the West via immigration, with the intention to terrorize and destroy it. Our response? Ten years later at the Dallas Fort Worth airport you've got a Somali Muslim TSA agent frisking an elderly white Christian lady. That is a world which is morally upside down, law or no law.

Anonymous physphilmusic November 23, 2012 9:00 AM  

physphilmusic, given that you identified yourself (in other threads) as an ethnic Chinese living in the U.S.,

You have a good memory. I'm not a green-card carrying immigrant here though. Just a student.

on what grounds are you qualified to either "accept" or deny "birthright" arguments?

On logical grounds. As in any debate, I evaluate all sorts of claims and arguments, including claims that a certain group has a "birthright" to a certain territory or nationality, based on rational grounds. This "birthright" claim is the subject of debate. You cannot say that I am "not qualified" to accept or reject it because I am not an American, or worse, because I definitely don't have that "birthright", because this is the very topic we're arguing about. It's simply irrelevant.
Even your own subsequent attempt at a rebuttal operates on this assumption.

You're starting to sound like those feminists who say "How are you, as a man, qualified to say what women should do to their bodies?" I do not accept that maneuver, neither do I accept yours.


Even granting Vox's well-proved point about the damage all other ethnicities have done to the original, ethnic-English nature of the U.S., there is an order of magnitude of difference between someone descended from Scandinavian or German immigrants in the 1870s and a Chinese immigrant of 2000.

There is indeed a "difference" based on certain metrics, but which one are you using here? Effects of immigration? These won't be relevant. I thought we're using the birthright argument. Birthright is birthright. It's more or less black and white. The good or bad effects of immigration are irrelevant if you're using a birthright argument. If you left a piece of treasure for your son to inherit, but his uncle forcefully takes it instead, he's no less of a thief than if a random stranger were to steal it. There's little comfort in saying that the uncle is "an order of magnitude less of a thief than a random stranger would be". And I already addressed this in the "scale matters" part.

If Vox were to object to scubious dubious' animus to third-world immigration on the grounds that scubious' forebears were not pure English, he would have the grounds to do so. You - not so much.

See above. The birthright argument is a rational argument. It's not based on whose mouth is uttering it. And I'm not claiming any "right" to authoritatively "decide" who has a right to what. This is a rational argument.

Anonymous physphilmusic November 23, 2012 9:07 AM  

It was understood that America was founded and developed by white European Christians, FOR white Christian Europeans, that it is in its essence a white European Christian society and that it basically exists on a historical continuum with Europe

I'm interested to know whether there are any quotations from the Founding Fathers about this. It would strengthen "birthright" sort of arguments. Other than that, this would just be a widely-held assumption. One might as well argue that up to the waves of European immigration in the 19th century, America was founded FOR just for the offspring of libertarian WASPs.

Anonymous physphilmusic November 23, 2012 9:09 AM  

Just another point, Sheila, after reading your post again, it seems that most of your fuss seem to stem that I use the phrase "accept arguments". By this I mean "rationally accept", or "determine as rational". Again, I didn't mean to say that I, myself, have any sort of special power or authority with regards to birthright claims.

Anonymous Porky? November 23, 2012 9:10 AM  

It refutes nothing; it's a bit of legalism. Citizenship is not the same as being a countryman.


countryman: an inhabitant or native of a specified country.

Websters Dictionary

It was common sense and consensus wisdom for most of the entire history of this country up til 1965. It was understood that America was founded and developed by white European Christians, FOR white Christian Europeans, that it is in its essence a white European Christian society and that it basically exists on a historical continuum with Europe -- not with Asia, not with India, certainly not with Islam. It is you who are the conceptual upstart and denier of history.

You want to appeal to history, yet you want to deny that freedom of religion is a fundamental part of America's history.

This is why I wanted you to defend your outrageous claim. It's more fun to watch someone fall off a ladder than it is to push them off. And it makes Vox's point when you call them "retards" even as you pursue the most reterded of arguments.

My quarrel is with the world, not with the law: I'm not calling for legally present Muslims to be deported or deprived of their rights. You are correct in the sense that certain conditions at present are, legally speaking, a done deal. This does not impress me.

Then say that. Don't make stupid, outrageous claims. Your argument she be formulated along the lines of "I don't like things the way they are" rather than "Things are not the way they are." The former is reasonable. The latter is retarded.







Anonymous scoobius dubious November 23, 2012 9:56 AM  

"Don't make stupid, outrageous claims."

Insult comedy instead of an intelligent reply. And not even funny insult comedy. Oh, and dictionary definitions too. There's brilliance. Remind me to tell you some time what William Safire said about dictionaries.

Oh well. Nuff z. nuff.

physphilmusic: "I'm interested to know whether there are any quotations from the Founding Fathers about this."

Yeah, they talked about it a fair bit. John Adams has some good stuff on it, but I don't have it at my fingertips.

The thing is, they were sort of matter-of-fact about it, they took it for granted, it wasn't something they really theorized about (that I know of), it was just the plain reality of their situation, and I doubt they could have imagined what it would metastasize into.

Not to wade any further into this, but while I appreciate your stab at rationality, I have to remind you that lots of things in human affairs are not rational, they are based on other considerations. A mother's devotion to her child is not rational. Why her child and not just any child? Aren't we all human and so forth?

I'm not Korean, for instance, and I know perfectly well without having to reason it out, that I don't have a prior moral claim to a Korean birthright. It doesn't have to be explained to me, I just get it. How do I "know"? Well it's a poser for epistemology, maybe English should have a few more words making further distinctions. Now it's possible I might legally have the opportunity to move to Korea and live there for some reason, (through marriage or something) and it's possible if I immerse myself in the language and culture that the Koreans will come to accept me over time, at least partially.

But if I brought along 7 or 8 million of my closest friends from Kentucky, and we started taking over whole towns and whole industries (or even if we all just went on welfare) and complaining about how nobody speaks English around here, well I think the Koreans just might begin to resent it a bit. It wouldn't be a rational thing (look at all the vibrant Southern cooking we brought to enrich your cuisine! Doesn't that count for something?!?), they'd just start to feel that way.

Scale matters. The heap matters. Blood ties matter. A culture is a culture only if it is one thing and not everything.

Anonymous physphilmusic November 23, 2012 10:17 AM  

But if I brought along 7 or 8 million of my closest friends from Kentucky, and we started taking over whole towns and whole industries (or even if we all just went on welfare) and complaining about how nobody speaks English around here, well I think the Koreans just might begin to resent it a bit. It wouldn't be a rational thing (look at all the vibrant Southern cooking we brought to enrich your cuisine! Doesn't that count for something?!?), they'd just start to feel that way.

I do understand that such a reaction is natural. Which is why I myself, though not an American, and not an immigrant, accept the view that immigration in large numbers is more or less equivalent invasion. However, what I find difficulty to accept is if a person who finds himself born into an immigrant family, speaks English perfectly well, has a legitimate job, pays taxes, contributes to the community, and doesn't have any allegiance to the country of his original ancestors, but is still regarded as "having no business being here". Of course, I'm not saying that the majority of American immigrants are like that. But there certainly are some immigrants like that. In fact, some assimilated non-English Europeans would probably qualify, as they came here from a different culture than Englishmen, but over time came to be identified more with "American" rather than "German", "Italian", "Danish", "Irish", etc.

If you still think of these people as no different from the illegal immigrant who speaks Spanish and lives on welfare, then you are giving them no choice but to go against you instead of support you. People can't choose the race or ethnicity they were born in, but they are able to make choices on what to do with it.

Anonymous Porky. November 23, 2012 1:20 PM  

Remind me to tell you some time what William Safire said about dictionaries.

Oh please do. And by all means say it in French. You sound so perspicaciously clever when you speak French to me.

Blogger RobertT November 23, 2012 2:48 PM  

I read that post last night. The concept is solid, but I too thought that response was lame. The response you suggested is logical, rational and appropriate, but that is often not the winning combination. A better approach was suggested by Roissy in another post i read last night - mockery. Don't try it if you are being privately interviewed, but it works amazingly well in public forums. It will reduce a pompous ass to a blithering idiot in an instant.

Never-the-less, "framing" can help win the argument, but will not likely win the election. I am becoming convinced that a combination of two key things will do more than anything else to get you elected. Number one, "incumbency" (access to the media and money). Number two, a more "scientific" (pardon me while i puke) approach to elections performed by marketing professionals (researching what the electorate wants to hear and then running on that).

Blogger Justthisguy November 23, 2012 3:05 PM  

Hey, Martini? With one exception, a great-grandmother who came over in a (spit!) _steamship_ from England in the 19th Century, I am entirely descended from British Protestants who were here before the Revolution. Founding Stock, ya know. Who let all you other guys in?

Blogger Robert S. Oculus III November 23, 2012 6:02 PM  

@physphilmusic November 23, 2012 10:17 AM:

I do understand that such a reaction is natural. Which is why I myself, though not an American, and not an immigrant, accept the view that immigration in large numbers is more or less equivalent invasion.


What you're saying is that there's some arbitrary number of immigrants beyond which mere "immigration" becomes invasion. Okay. Then who gets to pick that arbitrary number?

I vote for me. I pick 0.

However, what I find difficulty [sic] to accept is if a person who finds himself born into an immigrant family, speaks English perfectly well, has a legitimate job, pays taxes, contributes to the community, and doesn't have any allegiance to the country of his original ancestors, but is still regarded as "having no business being here"

Because such persons are rare to the point of irrelevance in political terms. I have yet to meet a single person of Asian ancestry in America, including members of my own family, who "do not have any allegiance to the country of his/her original ancestors".

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 23, 2012 6:37 PM  

PORKY (IN MORTARBOARD AND CORBU GLASSES): Webster's defines "perspicaciously" as...

Oh, I can't be bothered. Now back to your high school debate team. Don't you have like your valedictorian commencement speech to be working on or something?

Anonymous physphilmusic November 23, 2012 8:03 PM  

Then who gets to pick that arbitrary number?

I don't know. That's a big practical problem. But it's no different than setting exact figures for any sort of policy. I think immigration should just be limited - and the small number remaining should be only those with useful skills to contribute (e.g. people with scientific/technical degrees).

On the other hand, I don't think "0" is a good number though. Historically speaking, letting in a small number of some classes of people as immigrants has been beneficial for America - probably more beneficial than the accompanying harm which comes along with them. Example: Albert Einstein and his fellow German Jewish scientists, who helped America establish its current position at the pinnacle of scientific research. But of course if you let in too many Germans, they will significantly influence the country to tilt towards collectivism. So it's not a purely linear dependence.

I have yet to meet a single person of Asian ancestry in America, including members of my own family, who "do not have any allegiance to the country of his/her original ancestors".

I would believe you if you're talking about only first-generation immigrants who have only been around for a decade or two. But my own personal experience has been different. Many immigrant families I know don't have their children speaking their former country's language anymore - those children have no acquaintance with their ancestors' country other than as some bedtime story. They only visit their distant relatives in their home country only once every five years or so, with tourist visas. I fail to see the credibility of believing that someone like Yo Yo Ma, for example, would side with China in the case of a US-China war.

Of course, I'm not saying that such people are the norm. There are many examples of, say, Chinese immigrants behaving in ways which clearly indicate their allegiance is to China. But I would hardly think that they are so few as to be politically irrelevant.

Blogger Robert S. Oculus III November 24, 2012 12:53 AM  

@physphilmusic November 23, 2012 8:03 PM:

RSO3: "Then who gets to pick that arbitrary number?"

physphilmusic: I don't know. That's a big practical problem.


No it isn't. I should pick the arbitrary number. There. Problem solved.

On the other hand, I don't think "0" is a good number though. Historically speaking, letting in a small number of some classes of people as immigrants has been beneficial for America - probably more beneficial than the accompanying harm which comes along with them.

There is no "America" any more. "America" was the nation of white, English-speaking Christian traditionalists that controlled the United States from 1789 until 1865, when it was overthrown by a clique of white, English-speaking universalist liberals. Using as a pretext their desire to act on behalf of the country's Negro population, the new ruling clique united the states by force, transforming the United States from a voluntary union of sovereign states to a continental empire ruled by a centralized government. This was the genesis of the current federal entity. The new ruling clique began to expand and consolidate its power base, first by forcibly indoctrinating the white, English-speaking Christian population with universalist liberalism, then by flooding the country with wave after wave of nonwhites, non-English-speakers, and non-Christians. By the middle of the 20th Century, federal power was nearly absolute. Then, once again using the country's Negroes as a pretext, the federal entity began its final consolidation of power: the so-called civil rights movement. Using welfare money, the power clique "bought" themselves a permanently loyal voting block: Negroes and others were transformed into a permanent dependent class, guaranteed to vote for the universalist, liberal, and now openly non-Christian power group. The gates opened to hordes of new, non-white, non-English-speaking, and non-Christian immigrants. Freedom of association was destroyed by statutory and case law.

By the year 2012, the conquest was over. The remaining population of white, English-speaking Christian traditionalists was now too few in number, too best by guilt and self-negation, and too politically fragmented to overcome the new American nation of non-White, post-Christian, and multilingual "Americans". White, English-speaking, Christian traditionalist America--the only America that mattered -- was and is dead.

RSO3: I have yet to meet a single person of Asian ancestry in America, including members of my own family, who "do not have any allegiance to the country of his/her original ancestors".

physphilmusic: I would believe you if you're talking about only first-generation immigrants who have only been around for a decade or two. But my own personal experience has been different.


Most Asian-Americans are great people. But they aren't white, they aren't (for the most part) Christians, and their interests and the interests of White Christians do not coincide.

I fail to see the credibility of believing that someone like Yo Yo Ma, for example, would side with China in the case of a US-China war.

You'd probably be surprised. I'm a big fan of Ma, and I'm sure he knows which side of the Earth his bread is buttered on, but let Uncle Sam kill 80 million Chinese in a nuclear strike and we'll see how vigorous he waves the old Red, White and Blue.

There are many examples of, say, Chinese immigrants behaving in ways which clearly indicate their allegiance is to China. But I would hardly think that they are so few as to be politically irrelevant.

Believe what you want, friend. Reality is what it is.

Anonymous physphilmusic November 24, 2012 1:22 AM  

There is no "America" any more. "America" was the nation of white, English-speaking Christian traditionalists...

...Freedom of association was destroyed by statutory and case law.


Got it, Mr. Oculus. But your speech, while having some interesting points, misses the target and confuses the issue at hand. The fact is that despite your misgivings (and mine) about what it has become, there is still an America of some sort, no matter how incoherent and possibly self-destructive it is or can be. And my original point still stands.

But they aren't white, they aren't (for the most part) Christians, and their interests and the interests of White Christians do not coincide.

And so? The interests of a white, Christian single male from Texas also does not coincide with the interests of a white, Christian single mother from New York, so what are you going to do with that fact? You speak of large groups of people as if they have single, collective interest. But why do we have to cling on to identity politics like this? I thought I had had enough of the race-mongering of the Left. Not that race doesn't matter. But not everyone thinks that they have to advance the interest of their own race alone.

but let Uncle Sam kill 80 million Chinese in a nuclear strike and we'll see how vigorous he waves the old Red, White and Blue.

I doubt anyone should be waving any kind of flag vigorously were we to come to the point of killing tens of millions of people in a nuclear strike, no matter which country they are from.

And so I am still unconvinced that someone like Mr Ma will jump at the slightest opportunity to support China in such a war. This is not a case of wishful thinking - this is based on what I've seen of his actions and beliefs so far.

Believe what you want, friend. Reality is what it is.

And just like you, I base my beliefs on what I've seen as reality. But the problem with your vision of reality isn't that it's necessarily wrong - but that it's pernicious. Insisting that an immigrant will forever remain unwelcome even if he does everything in his capacity to become more "American" - what message does that send? If no matter how much a person tries to assimilate, he is still regarded as no better than the Spanish-speaking illegal Mexican wetback who lives on welfare - do you think that will make that person try to assimilate more, or less? You're making the problem worse than it already is.

Blogger Justthisguy November 24, 2012 5:46 AM  

Phys, I really don't care what you think. As a White guy who sees my people diminishing in numbers, relative to the number of people in the world, I seem to be gettin' all cold-blooded and racist.

As I believe I've pointed out on another thread, I'm too autistic to get along well even with my own family, the people who are most genetically similar to me.

Thus, I base my nasty racism on aesthetic and intellectual arguments.

That is, White wimmin are better-lookin' than all other wimminz, and White Guys built Western Civilization, which is way cool.

To quote something I read in one of the Aubrey-Maturin novels, this should be obvious to anyone of the meanest understanding.

Anonymous physphilmusic November 24, 2012 8:51 AM  

Phys, I really don't care what you think. As a White guy who sees my people diminishing in numbers, relative to the number of people in the world, I seem to be gettin' all cold-blooded and racist.

OK, whatever. Who cares what you think either? Such utterances are a sign the debate has degenerated into uselessness.

I suppose we shall just meet in the field of battle.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts