Socialism and nationalism

Posted by JW Holliday on June 06, 2005, 11:29 AM | #

I wonder when John is going to realize that for some of us genetic continuity and racial homogeneity are more important that the type of political system that exists in a nation?

Speaking only for myself, there is no contest: I’d pick a socialist and white state over a “diverse” capitalist state any time.

It seems, however, that a number of Asian nations have been doing quote well for themselves in capitalist economics, while maintaining their homogeneity.  Only we poor benighted whites need the benefit of Asians to cure us of our non-existant tendencies toward collectivism.  Meanwhile, the imported Asians will practice ethnic nepotism in our homelands…

Posted by jonjayray on June 06, 2005, 12:06 PM | #

“genetic continuity”

you can have that in any society.  You just have to breed.

Posted by JW Holliday on June 06, 2005, 01:00 PM | #

John: “genetic continuity”

you can have that in any society.  You just have to breed.”

In a mixed society, there is no guarantee that one’s descendants will not be racially admixed, disrupting the genetic information that is part of genetic interests.  If homogeneity is maintained, and if your ethny becomes a minority, they well may be discriminated against, or “progromed” in such a manner to eliminate genetic continuity.  Of course there are no absolute guarantees, but homogeneity maximizes the probability of continuity.

I could of course restated the objection simply as “concern for genetic interests”, which encompasses all biological objections to diversity.

Posted by stari_momak on June 06, 2005, 07:23 PM | #

There’s been plenty of work done on Chinese economic networks in Southeast Asia. While the Chinese probably are smarter than surrounding groups, they also gain advantage by practicing in group socialism (or at least restraint of trade) lending money to each other to start businesses, only dealing with fellow Chinese (or sometimes only with those who descend from the same region in Chinese). I have no doubt some here can think of other groups that behave similarly.

My point: what you get in ethnically mixed ‘capitalism’ is not some perfectly open and fair market, you get a lot of competing ethnic groups.

Another thing Dr. Ray should consider: what has been the biggest expansion of government into the private affairs of people in the last 30 years (at least in America). By a good way I would say the expansion of ‘antidiscrimination’ laws. The state can now tell you that you have to hire some many of X, you cannot deny a hotel reservation to couple Y whose ‘lifestyle’ you disapprove of, and so on. And it does no good to say , ‘well, in a perfect libertarian society, that wouldn’t happen’ ---no such society exists, and if it did, it would start to fold the minute it went multicultural.

Posted by jonjayray on June 06, 2005, 08:08 PM | #

“the expansion of ‘antidiscrimination’ laws”

I of course violently disagree with such attacks on individual liberty but they are not an inevitable outcome of immigration.

Australia was very mixed long before we had such laws

Posted by jonjayray on June 06, 2005, 08:09 PM | #

“In a mixed society, there is no guarantee that one’s descendants will not be racially admixed”

There is no guarantee of any kind about one’s descendants—EVER

Posted by stari_momak on June 06, 2005, 08:39 PM | #

Australia was very mixed long before we had such laws

That statement almost proves my point.

Plus, how long can it have been? I thought ‘White Australia’ was only phased out about 35 years ago.

Posted by jonjayray on June 07, 2005, 03:20 AM | #

Australia has had a continuous flow of immigrants from all over the world from the start.  The white Oz policy only kept out the Chinese, mainly.  We had immigration from all parts of Europe—including a big Italian contingent.  Anti-discrimination laws are just a modern fashion.  Our heterogeneity never led to them for around the first 200 years.

Posted by Charles Copeland on June 07, 2005, 09:45 AM | #

Some interesting support for your hypothesis here, John ("How Germans Fell for the ‘Feel-Good’ Fuehrer"):

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,347726,00.html

Posted by Charles Copeland on June 07, 2005, 09:49 AM | #

Oh dear, I’ve re-invented one of your wheels—I see you drew attention to the review in your ‘Dissecting Leftism’ website way back last March…

Oops ... should have google-checked first

Posted by jonjayray on June 07, 2005, 10:49 AM | #

Fear not Charles.  It happens all the time.

Posted by JW Holliday on June 07, 2005, 02:41 PM | #

John’s reply that there are no guarantees about one’s descendants “EVER”, completely ignores this comment that I made:

“Of course there are no absolute guarantees, but homogeneity maximizes the probability of continuity.”

That seems to be an important qualifier, no?

John, John...if you are going to misrepresent comments and ignore crucial sections of arguments, you are ready to be adopted as a blogger at GNXP.

Otherwise, quote the entire argument from the opposition, not a selected snippet that allows you to obfuscate the points being made.

Or, do you argue against the following:-

A white person living in an all-white nation has a much greater probability of having unmixed white descendants than such a person living in an admixed, diverse nation.  The word “probability” should not be excised.  When dealing with population genetics, one must deal with probabilities.

I ask for no “guarantees” of an absolute degree.

Posted by jonjayray on June 10, 2005, 10:54 AM | #

JW
Mixed marriages are rare between really different populations.  How many black/white marriages are there in the USA?  Not many.  So the probability of endogamy is high even in a mixed society.

Posted by jonjayray on June 10, 2005, 10:56 AM | #

Just by the by:

About 30 years ago I remember waiting in a long line in Hollywood to see a recently released film.  Most of those waiting were couples.  White-white and black-black.  No anti-miscegnation laws were needed.

Posted by JW Holliday on June 10, 2005, 02:38 PM | #

John should try to project 30 years in the future, rather than talking about an anecdotal experience 30 years ago.  Inter-racial marriage, while still relatively rare, is increasing, and with expanding minority populations and ceaseless propganda, more must be expected.  It is interesting also that some pro-Asian immigration folks take the opposite argument - that the high rates of Eurasian intermarriage proves “assimilation.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 03, 2007, 02:53 PM | #

Highly interesting vignette by Isabella von Vacani (Isabel von Fechtmann) which has been posted over at The Civic Platform as a log entry — a fascinating read from a number of points of view.