Ta-Nehisi Coates and the Left’s Weaponization of American Exceptionalism

On account of my stepfamily forming a book club, I have been reading a wide range of literature. Some of the selections have been entertaining and edifying; others, not so much. Due to the latest selection, Between the World and Me, I had to suffer through Ta-Nehisi Coates’s soporific and criminally repetitive prose. Not wanting my efforts to be in vain, I’m going to turn those three hours of my life that I wasted trekking through this “book” into something productive. More than anything else, I intend to demonstrate that American exceptionalist ideas bear a large amount of responsibility for lending credence to the kinds of views espoused by Coates.

But I would be remiss if I didn’t discuss some of the book’s general context first. Ostensibly a letter to his teenage son, the book is part memoir and part soapbox. Simply reading it from start to finish was an arduous task; if you were to read this book while playing a drinking game with some friends – where one chugs a pint for every time Coates uses the word “bodies” or “body” – you’d be wasted by time you finished a couple of paragraphs. Of course, he’s hardly alone in this regard, as “bodies” has increasingly become a popular term for SJW types. I’m guessing that gratuitous use of the word “bodies” is their way of trying to sound deep and soulful as a means of concealing their utter vapidity. But “bodies” is just the tip of Coates’s rhetorical iceberg.

Similar to leftists who use “diversity” as a euphemism for “less white,” Coates employs several cute euphemisms when bashing white people. In fact, a few exceptions notwithstanding, he seems to have a downright aversion to calling white people white. Instead, whites are “the people who believe themselves to be white.” In so many words, he’s regurgitating the standard critical race theory trope that whiteness is a mere social construct. Funny how it’s only white peoples’ “socially constructed” identities that are deemed illegitimate. But it gets even better. Another term Coates has a penchant for is “Dreamers,” which describes white people who subscribe to patriotic pretty lies and the whole myth of whiteness. What’s ironic is that Coates himself is a major proponent of American exceptionalism (emphasis mine):

“Perhaps there has been, at some point in history, some great power whose elevation was exempt from the violent exploitation of other human bodies. If there has been, I have yet to discover it. But this banality of violence can never excuse America, because America makes no claim to the banal. America believes itself exceptional, the greatest and noblest nation ever to exist, a lone champion standing between the white city of democracy and the terrorists, despots, barbarians, and other enemies of civilization. One cannot, at once, claim to be superhuman and then plead mortal error. I propose to take our countrymen’s claims of American exceptionalism seriously, which is to say I propose subjecting our country to an exceptional moral standard.”

This is exactly what I meant when I previously argued that leftists employ the language of American exceptionalism in order to lend moral legitimacy to their radical ideals. While I am in no way a fan of Coates and strongly disagree with his worldview, I cannot help but concede his point regarding superhuman claims.

For years, I’ve always wondered why white Americans – easily among the most tolerant and accommodating people in the world – are constantly castigated for being wicked racists. After reading Coates’s book, I think I’ve stumbled upon at least one explanation. Whites are criticized because by espousing such high and mighty American exceptionalist ideals, they set themselves up for criticism over peccadilloes; nothing short of perfected egalitarianism will satisfy the likes of Coates.

However, we expect Coates and his ilk to criticize white people. What’s more problematic is that so many white elites and pundits are heaping accolades upon James Baldwin’s heir. While it may be easy to dismiss such adulation as the media simply being comprised of venal prostitutes, I contend that many white elites on some level accept Coates’s scathing vituperation because they too hold white Americans up to ridiculously high moral standards – and like Coates find them wanting. Likewise, a large chunk of regular white people accept certain anti-racist tenets to varying degrees. Sure, very few whites are like Tim Wise, but most nevertheless choose Americanism over white identity and interests.

Some readers may wonder why American exceptionalism has become a recent hobby horse of mine. Put simply, I think that the quixotic ideals spawned by the American experiment account for many – if not most – of white America’s pathologies often bemoaned by alt righters and white nationalists. Whether it’s galvanizing whites into supporting wasteful wars in the Middle East, promoting cannibalistic Libertarian economics, demonizing white identity, or exhorting whites to accept open borders, American exceptionalist beliefs are always employed in order to sabotage the collective interests of whites. Although pusillanimous or treacherous white elites bear much of the blame for America’s current weakness, they would never have been able to inflict so much damage without this ideological ammunition.

And if you think I’m wrong, allow me to propose a hypothesis. Imagine that native elites in Asia have been replaced by white American elites, and that these white outsiders have so far managed to fit in. Let’s also imagine that these white elites suddenly promulgate radical beliefs such as multiculturalism, open borders, and the idea of a “proposition nation.” Do you think for a second that the Asian masses would countenance such bizarre platforms? Of course not, because their cultures are more nationalistic, tribal, and collectivist. Such lofty rhetoric would not have the same impact on them.

Ultimately, until the whites who believe themselves to be American begin to embrace a healthy nationalism and collectivism, they will continue to be weakened in the name of ideals – sensible during a time when whites were the vast majority of the country – pioneered by their ancestors. If current trends continue unabated, then the future America will be anything but exceptional.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Blacks, Cultural Marxism, Race, Racism, Subversion, White nationalism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Ta-Nehisi Coates and the Left’s Weaponization of American Exceptionalism

  1. Acartia says:

    I really don’t know what to make of this. I am a “white” Canadian who has seen my “majority” decline over the last 30 years. And I welcome it.

    Yes, it brings challenges, but what would life be without challenges? It has introduced me to numerous cultures that I would not otherwise have known.

    Any “white” who fears multiculturalism is a “white” who feels guilt over their historic, and unearned, exceptionalism. We may be arrogant and egotistical (and I am as guilty of this as anyone), but we are not exceptional.

    • brierrabbit says:

      Now that’s wishing for your own extinction, via platitudes. Your signaling harder than a peacock in a city park how virtues you are. That attitude will only turn you into a minority in the country your ancestors built. Sad and stupid.

      • Acartia says:

        That attitude will only turn you into a minority in the country your ancestors built. Sad and stupid.”

        Yes. My ancestors built Canada. As did the Chinese, Ukranian, Italian, African, Indian, Pakistani, native, etc. ancestors of many other Canadians. What’s your point? Do you consider them to be less Canadian because they didn’t come from England or France, or whatever other country you feel has ownership over my country.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Yes, it brings challenges, but what would life be without challenges?

      There’s a huge difference between challenges that build character and existential challenges that irrevocably alter a nation’s character.

      All of the “challenges” that you overcome won’t mean jack shit once non-whites seize political power.

      It has introduced me to numerous cultures that I would not otherwise have known.

      This is a rather fatuous statement. What makes you think that multiculturalism within your nation is a prerequisite for learning about other cultures? My cousin, who lives in a lily white Midwestern town – where a Mexican is as rare as an attractive feminist – is fluent in Spanish and even reads Spanish language literature.

      One can easily learn about other cultures and ethnic groups without importing entire populations; all it takes is some intellectual curiosity and, to a smaller extent, the means to travel.

      More often than not, multiculturalism inspires shallow cultural understanding. Your average white liberal in the Bay Area will eat out at Chinese restaurants, and perhaps learn a few words of the language here and there – but they won’t acquire a genuine understanding of Chinese history and culture.

      Any “white” who fears multiculturalism is a “white” who feels guilt over their historic, and unearned, exceptionalism.

      I guess that makes the Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Middle Easterners, and most other non-Westerners “whites” who feel guilt. People fear multiculturalism because it’s an absurd ideology, and has never been successfully practiced.

      (keep in mind, multiculturalism is different from diversity itself)

      • Acartia says:

        There’s a huge difference between challenges that build character and existential challenges that irrevocably alter a nation’s character.”

        Our nation’s character is irrevocably altered every year due to the changing makeup of its citizens. Why does that scare you?

        all it takes is some intellectual curiosity and, to a smaller extent, the means to travel.”

        And I have had the luck to travel to over twenty countries in the last ten years. What it has taught me is how similar we all are, not how different.

        People fear multiculturalism because it’s an absurd ideology, and has never been successfully practiced.”

        Maybe you should travel north of the border. We have practiced multiculturalism for many decades. Yes, it takes some effort, but it works remarkably well. People coming to Canada are encouraged to keep their culture, with certain basic limitations.

        You can call me naive all you want, but the evidence speaks for itself.

      • Dota says:

        Acartia

        Just because multiculturalism in Canada is not as disruptive as it is in Europe is no evidence that it is a “success” either. MC is a cost and has an upkeep. It undermines the cohesion of society by assaulting the ethnic character of a nation. Race is the dominant pillar that has defined most successful societies and empires throughout history and this is a paradigm that works. MC has no historical precedent. MC requires that taxpayers cough out resources for various social programs that exclusively aid immigrants. And what benefit do these immigrants bring in? Do they start up businesses that hire thousands of Canadians? Nope. They compete with native Canadians for jobs which makes the job market a buyers market for corporations. Most leftists claim that diversity is good for its own sake. We call bullshit. I’m an immigrant of East Indian descent myself and I consider myself immensely fortunate to be a Canadian citizen. But even I realize that too many of me is not good for Canada.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        Just because multiculturalism in Canada is not as disruptive as it is in Europe is no evidence that it is a “success” either. MC is a cost and has an upkeep.

        Exactly. Going by Acartia’s logic, then MC in Singapore is also a great success worthy of celebration. Never mind that Singapore is a rich country with a powerful state; never mind that people of different races/ethnicities don’t genuinely like or trust one another.

        To partially paraphrase leftist hero MLK, the mere absence of open conflict does not signify true harmony. For MC to “work,” a certain level of affluence and a lot of policing are prerequisites.

        Remove those from the equation and you get what prevails in most diverse countries around the globe – open conflict and eternal polarization.

    • Dutchman says:

      Why are you putting whites in scare quotes and who exactly is we?

  2. Acartia says:

    So, you are saying that too many East Indians would be a bad thing. I agree. As would too many of any one ethnicity. It sounds like you support multiculturalism. MC doesn’t mean the domination of one culture, it means the peaceful coexistence of many.

    Is it hard? Absolutely. Is it worth it? Again, absolutely. Multicultulturalism doesn’t mean the total and blind acceptance of every culture’s way of living; it is every culture adapting to establish a way of living that everyone can accept. Not always agree with, but at least grudgingly tolerate.

    You claim that ever successful nation has been so because they maintained a single and clear culture. But this simply is not the case. Every empire has a shelf life. The British empire did not decline because of multiculturalism. Nor did the Roman, Egyption or Ottoman.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Is it hard? Absolutely. Is it worth it? Again, absolutely.

      How so? Aside from the usual platitudes about how it “introduces us to other cultures,” how exactly is MC beneficial? What concrete benefits does it provide?

      The way I see it, proponents of MC should bear the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that MC will irrevocably alter a country’s demographics and culture – which inevitably engenders tension and resentment – then MC advocates should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that its benefits outweigh the costs.

      MC doesn’t mean the domination of one culture, it means the peaceful coexistence of many.

      And that’s precisely why it’s such a ludicrous ideology. The idea that myriad groups can peacefully live together without some dominant culture and common norms is pure lunacy. A society where people “grudgingly tolerate” the behaviors of other groups is not a recipe for long-term harmony.

      For a society to endure, there needs to be a clear, non-negotiable set of values – values which jibe with the majority group. If those values happen to conflict with the cultural practices of immigrants or minorities, then too bad.

      It’s also worth noting that none of the aforementioned empires were “multicultural.” Yes, they were diverse, but they were not multicultural. They only tolerated differences on their terms, and there was a dominant mainstream culture. Minorities either had to assimilate, convert, or mind their place.

      Again, people often mix up diversity and multiculturalism. Diversity can be stressful enough as it is, so why compound matters by throwing multiculturalism into the mix?

  3. Dutchman says:

    Multiculturalism works beautifully for the elites which is why they push it. Driving wages down, destroying communities, playing off different groups against each other, and then being able to assume a moral high ground by calling anyone who opposes you a bigot or racist has certainly worked well for the oligarchs but doesn’t do much for the rest of us who have to live with the consequences-socializing the cost while privatizing the benefits as they say.

  4. Acartia says:

    BAG, you seem adamant that MC will change core values and fundamental laws of the country. Using Canada, can you provide me with some clear examples. Not just speculation, but something concrete. Unless you can provide concrete examples then your argument is without foundation.

    • Dutchman says:

      Is replacing our people with another people or peoples a fundamental value in Canada? Do we exist for the purpose of promoting abstract values or do values exist to serve our interests? How is it in our interest to become a minority in our own country?

      • Acartia says:

        Is replacing our people with another people or peoples a fundamental value in Canada?”

        Silly me. I always thought that when people became citizens of Canada, they became my people.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.

      I don’t know as much about Canada, but based on my knowledge of the US, I think it’s safe to say that MC is disruptive, costly, and at times even fatal. Just for starters, it’s one of the main reasons why the US is so economically backward compared to other 1st world countries.

      But that’s beside the point, as it’s on you to prove that MC is a benefit. Don’t misplace the burden of proof.

      • Acartia says:

        Where do you come to the conclusion that the burden of proof is on me to prove the benefits of MC. Canada has had the official policy of being a multicultural country for as long as I have been alive (and I am we’ll past middle age). If you are suggesting that it is a failed policy, I would think that the burden is on you to provide evidence.

        Blaming the problems in your country on MC is a non starter as the US is not MC. They are a melting pot. All new citizens are expected to accept US values, laws, etc. and to assimilate.

        But, this being said, I would be interested to hear how MC is to blame for your country being economically backward.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        You still have yet to cite any real benefits of MC, and your silence is quite telling.

        The reason why the burden of proof is on you is that MC cannot be so easily remedied once it is implemented. Once you import entire populations – who in turn are afforded special cultural protections – then reversing any ill effects becomes increasingly arduous, especially as minorities start to gain political power.

        On the other hand, if a nation doesn’t embrace MC and opts for more homogeneity (ie. Japan), then they haven’t made any permanent and possibly fatal decision. Japan may be aging, but its economy is still large, it’s still a relatively high-trust culture, and there haven’t been race riots or anything of the sort. It’s still a solid nation. If and when they decide to import immigrants, they can do so at their own pace.

        However, if you just open up the borders and create a balkanized society, then there’s no going back.

        And regarding the US, the US’s racial mixture/polarization is one of the primary reasons why its safety net is so pitiful compared to other 1st world countries. It’s difficult to be generous and make sacrifices when many of the people you’re sacrificing for aren’t on the same team as you; this precludes a common good.

        Just look at Bernie Sanders, who’s been attacked by the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and whose campaign has been hindered by certain SJW types. In a more homogenous or monocultural society, there wouldn’t be so many costly distractions that undermine the pursuit of a more healthy economy.

        And besides, don’t you know that the whole idea of a “melting pot” is out of style? The US is supposedly a “tossed salad” now (ie. MC).

        So there, I’ve provided at least one piece solid evidence to substantiate my assertion that MC is costly; I now await your attempt to actually prove that MC is beneficial.

  5. Dutchman says:

    The melting pot is a myth and a people is not synonymous with citizenship.

  6. Dutchman says:

    The burden of proof is on you to show how it is in my interests, and the interests of Whites in general, to become a minority in our own country.

    • Acartia says:

      I thought that we were talking about culture. You are obviously talking about race. I am pretty sure that there is a word for that

      • Dutchman says:

        In other words you can’t prove that it is in the interests of Whites to become a minority in their own countries. Call me a racist or a Nazi all you want, it’s just an admission on your part that you can’t answer the point.

  7. Acartia says:

    BAG: “So there, I’ve provided at least one piece solid evidence to substantiate my assertion that MC is costly; I now await your attempt to actually prove that MC is beneficial.”

    Canada. By all accounts, it is more culturally diverse than the US. Yet, no race riots, good economy, etc.

    Once you import entire populations – who in turn are afforded special cultural protections – then reversing any ill effects becomes increasingly arduous, especially as minorities start to gain political power.”

    What special cultural protections are you talking about? I am not aware of any other than the law not to discriminate.

    Because of our MC, Canada is well respected throughout the world, and not because of military strength. Their is a huge benefit to that.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Canada. By all accounts, it is more culturally diverse than the US. Yet, no race riots, good economy, etc.

      You’re joking, right?

      Last time I checked, Whites are around 77% of Canada’s population, compared to only 62% in the US. So how, pray tell, is Canada more “culturally diverse?”

      Because of our MC, Canada is well respected throughout the world

      Source, please.

  8. Acartia says:

    Dutchman: “In other words you can’t prove that it is in the interests of Whites to become a minority in their own countries.”

    You mean like blacks in the US? And, yes, I think you are a racist. But I never suggested that you were a Nazi. Are you?

    • Dutchman says:

      So not wanting Whites to be reduced to a minority in their own countries is racism and those who oppose it are Nazis? Thanks for that admission of your real objectives. Obviously if your goal is to reduce Whites to a minority then you will see MC as a successful policy. If, like the vast majority of Whites, you don’t wish to be reduced to a minority you will not, no matter how much or how little violence accompanies its implementation. So, once again, explain how it is in the interest of Whites in general to become a minority in their own countries.

      • acartia says:

        Obviously if your goal is to reduce Whites to a minority then you will see MC as a successful policy.”

        Who said that my goal was to reduce whites to a minority? Certainly not me. I simply state that it would not bother me. I have been in situations where I am the majority, and in situations where I am the minority. Although there are different dynamics involved, I felt perfectly comfortable in both situations.

      • Dutchman says:

        Whether you personally have a problem with Whites becoming a minority in their own countries is irrelevant. You have been arguing for a policy that reduces Whites to a minority. You have employed slurs and implied that opposition to such a policy is immoral and a sign of pathology. You obviously view reducing Whites to a minority as a moral imperative. Once again, how is it in the interests of Whites to become a minority in their own countries?

  9. Acartia says:

    Dutchman, you were the one who first suggested racism and being a Nazi. The way you have been talking certainly fits the definition of racist. But racism and naziism are two different things. One is political and the other is driven by ignorance and/or self loathing.

    You keep trying to win the argument by telling me what I think and believe. All I have done is ask for concrete examples, using Canada, where MC has been bad for our country. It is no shame to admit that you don’t know of any and that your opposition to MC is based more on emotion, maybe a little xenophobia, and not on fact.

    • Dutchman says:

      I am not putting words in your mouth. You said:

      “I am a “white” Canadian who has seen my “majority” decline over the last 30 years. And I welcome it.”

      So you welcome Whites becoming a minority. You also said:

      “Any “white” who fears multiculturalism is a “white” who feels guilt over their historic, and unearned, exceptionalism.”

      and:

      “It is no shame to admit that you don’t know of any and that your opposition to MC is based more on emotion, maybe a little xenophobia, and not on fact.”

      You are trying to psychoanalyze away our reluctance to embrace policies that are not in our interests, implying that our opposition is motivated by guilt and irrational fear. It is not irrational to oppose policies that are against our interests.

      You also said:

      “Where do you come to the conclusion that the burden of proof is on me to prove the benefits of MC.”

      and:

      “If you are suggesting that it is a failed policy, I would think that the burden is on you to provide evidence.”

      Success or failure depend upon objectives. It is not my objective to see Whites reduced to a minority so I do not view MC as a success by definition, regardless of how peacefully it is implemented. It is not the responsibility of Whites to explain their lack of enthusiasm for being reduced to a minority, it is those who are advocating and facilitating these policies that have the explaining to do. So, once again, how is it in the interests of Whites to become a minority in their own country?

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        It is not the responsibility of Whites to explain their lack of enthusiasm for being reduced to a minority, it is those who are advocating and facilitating these policies that have the explaining to do.

        Perfectly said.

        BTW, Acartia, you still have yet to provide any source showing that MC is beneficial. And just to clarify once again, the mere lack of open conflict/disruption does not mean that MC is a “success.”

  10. Acartia says:

    BAG and Dutchman, you both claim that it is not in your best interest to reduce whites to a minority in “your country”. And that MC is detrimental. And that MC leads to race riots. Etc. Yet when I demonstrate that non of your fears come to pass as the result of MC you change the burden of proof to me. I simply won’t buy it.

    Canada has been openly and proudly MC for well over half a century. No race riots. No discrimination against whites. Good economy, low unemoyment, etc.

    You also question whether Canada is well respected in the world. I admit that our recently overthrown right wing government, with views similar to yours, have done some damage to our reputation. But how do you explain the fact that many Americans, when they travel, have Canadian flags on their bags? And why is Canada often used as independent observers on elections in other countries? After all, UN Peacekeeping, is a Canadian idea.

    • Dutchman says:

      Irrelevant and immaterial. You are also mixing up arguments from different commenters to create a straw man. Once again, how is it in the interests of Whites to become a minority in their own countries?

      • Acartia says:

        Irrelevant and immaterial. You are also mixing up arguments from different commenters to create a straw man. Once again, how is it in the interests of Whites to become a minority in their own countries?”

        I apologize for mashing up commenters. My only excuse is an old iPhone and laziness.

        Your question is simply divisive, and I refuse to address it. But I have a question for you. Do you consider citizens of Chinese descent (or African, or Italian, or Indian, or aboriginal, or Mayan, etc.) to be less a citizen of your country than yours? Because your arguments really stink of white supremacy. I hope that I am not reading you properly, but you have not said anything to suggest other.

      • Dutchman says:

        Why is the question divisive? Divisive for who? After a country embarks down the path of MC are we no longer allowed to question whether it serves our interests because it divides “us” now? Maybe we shouldn’t have embarked down this road if we have to stark restricting the questions we can ask “ourselves” to avoid offending “ourselves.”

        Not wanting to be reduced to a minority in one’s own country is not synonymous with wanting to rule over other groups and the label White “supremacist” is a dishonest label. It is those who seek to force us to live in multi-ethnic states that want to rule over us and deny us our right to self determination.

        Citizenship is a legal concept and irrelevant to my point. Becoming a citizen doesn’t make the Chinese, Africans, Indians, or Mayans one people.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Canada has been openly and proudly MC for well over half a century. No race riots. No discrimination against whites. Good economy, low unemoyment, etc.

      Canada had a good economy, low unemployment, and a functioning society long before mass immigration. Canada attracted non-white immigrants because it already was a rich, peaceful country. Yet again, you fail to prove how MC is a benefit.

      But how do you explain the fact that many Americans, when they travel, have Canadian flags on their bags? And why is Canada often used as independent observers on elections in other countries?

      And what makes you think that MC has anything to do with that? Americans are reviled compared to Canadians because America is an imperialistic bully. Canada doesn’t meddle in other countries’ affairs; that’s why they’re more liked. I highly doubt that most nations around the globe admire Canada on account of MC.

      It also needs to be pointed out that Asian nations such as Japan thrive in terms of global trade, and they don’t exactly embrace MC.

      It’s put up or shut up time, Acartia. Give me some solid proof that MC is actually beneficial. And no, simply pointing out that race riots have (so far) been averted is not enough to prove it a “success” either.

      • Acartia says:

        It’s put up or shut up time, Acartia. Give me some solid proof that MC is actually beneficial.”

        I have given you examples. You simply chose to ignore them. OK, I will give another. When I grew up, my school was almost completely white. A few Asians but no people of colour. There was a lot of comments made by students that could be best described as racist; but were probably the result of ignorance and peer pressure.

        My kids went to the same school. In the intervening years, due to immigration and MC, the school is a mix of almost every ethnicity imaginable. I don’t know if whites are a minority, but at best they are a very weak majority. Because of this, the vast majority of these kids have a much better understanding and tolerance of different cultures than we did as kids. Admittedly, there are still some kids who are ignorant racists, but I suspect that this is due to their parents.

        Now, please explain to me why MC did not play a significant role in this change and why this is not a benefit.

      • Acartia says:

        BAG: “It’s put up or shut up time, Acartia. Give me some solid proof that MC is actually beneficial.”

        I posted a response to you this morning and then it mysteriously disappeared. If you are going to use comment deleting as a debate tactic, I simply will not participate.

        Have a nice day.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        For some reason, your comment was moderated because it shows you commenting under a different ID, which I’ve since approved; nice way to impugn my debating tactics though.

        With that out of the way, I’ll now address your comment.

        Now, please explain to me why MC did not play a significant role in this change and why this is not a benefit.

        But again, how is this a benefit to WHITES? Yeah, being tolerant is good for brownie points, but what good does it really do, aside from preventing hate crimes? In fact, the only reason why it’s a good thing that whites are “tolerant” is because so many non-white immigrants moved to Canada and made it a multicultural place.

        Canada was doing just fine when it was a more homogenous, overwhelmingly white society. MC, mass immigration, etc, only became strengths after the fact.

        I think the reason why this debate is going nowhere is because we both have different notions of value. At least for me, rendering your own group a minority is not worth learning about different cultures – which again, a little intellectual curiosity and travel could easily achieve – or getting a pat on the head for being tolerant.

        Whatever meager benefits MC confers do not in any way outweigh the long-term costs.

  11. Bay Area Guy says:

    In conclusion, diversity is something you try to make the best of if you’re stuck with it and don’t have any choice that doesn’t involve immoral actions such as genocide or ethnic cleansing.

    However, why so many white people like you go out of your way to embrace more diversity, more immigration, and MC policies is beyond me.

    • Acartia says:

      BAG, I apologize for jumping to a conclusion about your dabate tactics. Unfortunately, the declaring victory after silently deleting a comment, or banning the commenter, is far too common a practice.

      But again, how is this a benefit to WHITES?”

      Tolerance is always a good thing, but it is not necessarily the benefit I was suggesting. The benefit is knowledge and understanding. Tolerance is just a bi-product.

      In Victorian times and earlier, the Europeans saw themselves as superior to all other races. This wasn’t due to some inherently evil nature of Europeans; it was due to ignorance. And the result was slavery and other atrocities.

      I never stated that making whites a minority in the country they stole from the natives was my goal. I just said that I welcome it. What is to fear? You have yet to provide any real examples of where MC has been a detriment, to society, or even to whites.

      • Dutchman says:

        Since you used a personal anecdote to support your argument I will give my own. Interestingly it is almost the exact opposite of yours. My parents went to all white schools back in the 50’s and were preachy anti-racists. I went to the same schools (my parents could have sent me to better schools but wanted to expose me to diversity) but by that time whites were a bare majority, the rest being mostly black and Latin with some Asian. The experience was eye opening and was made worse by my parent’s preaching and blaming me for my lack of “tolerance” whenever I had problems. It drove a rift between us that lasted for years. The only positive effect of this experience is that it cured me of whatever innate tendency toward moral posturing I might have had. I certainly would never use the phrase “ignorant racist” unironically.

      • Acartia says:

        I certainly would never use the phrase “ignorant racist” unironically.”

        Actually, it is just redundant. All racists are, by definition, ignorant. But by far the worst are the racists who are willfully ignorant.

      • Dutchman says:

        Define your terms.

      • Dota says:

        Tolerance is always a good thing, but it is not necessarily the benefit I was suggesting. The benefit is knowledge and understanding. Tolerance is just a bi-product.

        You can learn tolerance by visiting a library and keeping an open mind. I fail to see why importing the third world is necessary or even wise. It kills the job market, enables corporations to drive down wages, and paves the way for vote bank politics, like the sort that is the staple of India’s “democracy”.

        when I demonstrate that non of your fears come to pass as the result of MC you change the burden of proof to me. I simply won’t buy it.

        The burden of proof is on you because multiculturalism is not the norm, ethnic and cultural homogeneity is. There has never been a single multicultural society in 10k years of settled human life. BAG has already pointed out the difference between diversity and multiculturalism so I won’t bother.

        Here’s an example of MC at work, Pakistani rape gangs terrorizing the UK:

        http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28934963

        And of-course, lets not forget Arabs going on a rape spree in Sweden.

        http://www.d-intl.com/2013/10/15/sweden-a-new-hell-for-women/

        Like we’ve said before, prove that MC benefits the West in terms of culture and economics. Try and do so empirically by avoiding the use of meaningless platitudes like “tolerance”. Prove to me that MC has improved Canada’s per capita income. Prove to me that MC has enriched culture by producing a great many artists, craftspeople, and musicians of high caliber. Prove to me that MC actually provides society with some sort of net benefit other than broadening the tax base which benefits the state, and driving down wages which benefits corporations.

        The floor is all yours.

  12. acartia says:

    Define your terms.”

    This is how I define them. This may not completely correspond to Websters, but I think they are good working definitions.

    Ignorant: Lacking sufficient knowledge. [it is often used as a pejorative but should not be unless the ignorance is intentional and willful].

    Racist: The belief, through ignorance or willful ignorance, that one race is superior or inferior (smarter/dumber, more or less moral, etc.) to another.

    Being racist is an irrational belief who’s foundations are not supported by evidence.

    • Dutchman says:

      Well, I certainly lack sufficient knowledge as to how being reduced to a minority is in our interests. It is not intentional or willful as I have asked you to explain how it is in our interests many times and you have refused. Are we to have any say in this matter or is this something to be imposed upon us without our consent? Are you sure that it is not those who seek to impose policies upon others, whether they consent or not, while refusing to explain how it is in their interests, that don’t have a belief in their own superiority?

      • Acartia says:

        Hmm. Food for thought. Was it in the interest of southern whites to end slavery? Was it imposed on them without their say? Was it the right thing to do?

        You keep talking about the interest of whites in your country. As if no other race is a citizen of your country. You do know that blacks and Chinese have been in your country as long as you have. You do know that Hispanics predated whites in your country. Not to mention native Indians.

        How is it not in my best interest, as a white, to have exposure to diverse cultures? You keep trying to place the burden on me without having to defend why it is in your best interest to live in a homogenized, whitebread, presumably Christian, environment without having to coexist with other cultures.

        Frankly, your idea of an ideal society seems sad and sterile. Give me an MC society over your ideal society any day.

      • Dutchman says:

        You seem to have a congenital need to conflate White interests with the oppression of other groups. Do Whites exist to serve the interests of other groups? Do you deny that Whites have legitimate interests? You also seem unable to refrain from making anti-white insults. The burden is on you to justify your desire to impose MC on us. Why do you seek to impose MC on us?

  13. acartia says:

    You seem to have a congenital need to conflate White interests with the oppression of other groups.”

    You seem to think that whites have special interests that are different than those of other races. I don’t see it that way. Other than skin colour and minor morphological differences, the dividing lines between the races is tenuous at best. You seem to think that white values are different than those of blacks, asians, hispanics, etc. If I remember my history correctly, the crusades, forced conversion and decimation of North American Indians, and the holocaust were caused by whites. Not exactly values to be proud of.

    Maybe I could understand your position better if you could detail some values that are uniquely white.

    • Dutchman says:

      I’m not sure how recognizing that Whites having legitimate interests is synonymous with denying that other groups have legitimate interests, but then your mind works in mysterious ways.

      I don’t see human beings as interchangeable parts, to be blended together by our elites to achieve social engineering objectives or maximize corporate profits, but you obviously don’t agree.

      Your anti-White bias is clearly demonstrated by your simultaneous attempt to deny race while singling out Whites for condemnation. Either we exist as a group, and therefore have interests as a group, or we don’t, and therefore can’t be condemned as a group. I guess you believe that Whites exist as a group when you want to condemn us for past crimes but not when you want to deny that we have legitimate interests.

      • acartia says:

        Sorry, but you are the one who is insistent on distinguishing whites from others. My reference to the crusades and the holocaust was simply to point out that atrocities have been carried out back when populations were largely homogeneous, white dominated. We have had MC in Canada since WWII and we have not seen any of the negatives that you insist are inevitable.

        I have followed this comment thread and I am having a really hard time distinguishing your views from your garden variety white supremacist. You attempt to package it is scientific and sociological wrappings, but it distills to the same thing.

      • Dutchman says:

        I have allowed myself to stray from the topic in a vain attempt to get Acartia to answer the original point. He has consistently refused to do so. At this point I shall summarize my own position and leave it to the other readers to draw their own conclusions.

        In between overt and implied insults and attempts to explain away our opposition to MC with psychoanalysis, the only “arguments” Acartia has offered are the usual “blessings of diversity” arguments that we hear everyday and the relative lack of violence in implementing MC in Canada.

        The deliberate increase of potential fault lines within a country for no reason other than to promote “tolerance” and “understanding” is asking for trouble. Anyone who has ever been married knows that living together in close proximity with others does not guarantee “understanding” or “tolerance” but often has the opposite result over time. I certainly don’t need to have my neighbours living in my house in order to learn about them or appreciate and respect them, it’s more likely to cause me to hate them in the long run, and, unless MC is an end in itself, and your objective is to reduce Whites to a minority, it is irrelevant how peacefully the policy is implemented. A policy cannot be defined as successful unless you share the goal of that policy, and I do not see our reduction to a minority as a desirable goal.

        Acartia has also attempted to push the burden of proof onto us in order to frame the argument on his terms and portray us as immoral for our opposition, but it is not our responsibility to justify our opposition but his to convince us that it is in our interests.

        Ironically, the best argument against MC was made by Acartia himself. He stated that the reason he refused to explain how MC was in our interests was because the question is divisive. If Whites can’t openly discuss in their own country whether a government policy is in their interests for fear of offending other groups then we are no longer a free people and that alone is a sufficient argument against the policy.

        He has consistently implied that recognizing that Whites have legitimate interests entails oppression of other groups. This simply does not follow. The topic of this discussion is the alleged benefits of MC for Whites. It is not my place to argue for the interests of other groups, and, in my experience, they don’t need our help in that regard. It is the idea that Whites have legitimate interests that is viewed as heretical in our society.

        His anti-White bias is further demonstrated by his simultaneous denial of race while singling out Whites for condemnation. Either we exist as a group, and therefore have interests as a group, or we do not, and therefore cannot be condemned as a group.

        In conclusion Acartia has failed to demonstrate the marvelous “benefits” of MC. He has however demonstrated his own anti-White bias, and I do not believe that we should be taking advice from someone who is clearly hostile to our interests.

      • Acartia says:

        I have allowed myself to stray from the topic in a vain attempt to get Acartia to answer the original point. He has consistently refused to do so.”

        Why do you have to lie? I answered your question a couple times. The fact that you disagree with my answer does not equate to me refusing to answer.

        Anyone who has ever been married knows that living together in close proximity with others does not guarantee “understanding” or “tolerance” but often has the opposite result over time.”

        Nice analogy. Why aren’t you railing against marriage?

        …but it is not our responsibility to justify our opposition but his to convince us that it is in our interests.”

        I don’t see your logic. If I am in favour of changing a government policy, it is incumbent on me to demonstrate why the current policy is a failure. MC has been the policy in Canada for over 50 years with very few problems or opposition. The burden of proof is not on those in favour of the policy to demonstrate its benefits; it is on those opposed to it to demonstrate that it is detrimental.

        He has however demonstrated his own anti-White bias, and I do not believe that we should be taking advice from someone who is clearly hostile to our interests.”

        Is it possible for a white to have an anti-white bias? Since I am white, how can I be hostile to my own interests? You act as if you are speaking for all whites. You don’t. In fact, I suspect your xenophobic opinions are only shared by a small fraction of whites. You are frustrated because you can’t convince me that your opinion is correct. But that is your problem not mine. However, take heart, I’m sure you have followers in the Westboro Baptist church.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s