On black culture, Islam and "moral thinking"
For some time I had a side job in the entertainment business, and with reference to this I wrote "and while I'm at it I'd like to affirm my recognition to black culture for their wonderful and essential contributions to music and dancing".
Apparently Lawrence Auster took this recognition of a positive contribution by black culture as being offensive and wrote at his blog about me: "Entertainment? Recognition of black culture and dancing? Isn't this the guy who just the other day was expressing his total disillusionment with American conservative Christians because they lack the steel to send the nonwhite hordes packing? Intellectual vagabond indeed."
Apparently Auster sees a contradiction in stressing the value of and need of self-affirmation of white culture, and at the same time applauding black culture for their positive achievements. I see no contradiction at all. It's just how things are. Black people, as a group, can e.g. be failures in creating a good civilized society, while at the same time excelling in rhythmical music and dancing. This is what a very consistent historical record tells us. Is it really so hard to see both sides at the same time? Human life is a wonder. There's no example of it leading to plain junk.
And regarding the "send[ing] the nonwhite hordes packing". Well, that's the usual Auster misrepresentation. I have never suggested that all "nonwhite hordes" should be sent packing. Is he suggesting so himself?
And later on Auster appears even more warped by my fair description of black culture, and describe me as "getting into black culture". Well, I was not into black culture. It's just that a lot of music have roots in black culture. How is that offensive?
I think the mistake of Auster here, regarding black culture, is what I refer to as the fallacy of "moral thinking". What I mean by that is the use of the concepts of good and bad as prime categories of thinking. If things are immediately seen in terms of good/bad, pure thinking gets inhibited. Instead in the first phase of our thinking we should look at the nature of things: the nature of black culture, the nature of Christianity, the nature of Islam. And only in the second phase sort out what is good or bad.
People who are inclined towards moral thinking tend to see contradictions where there are none. E.g. statement A about X which is considered as bad, and then statement B about X which is considered as good. A moral thinker might end up seeing them as contradictory, while in fact they are not. A moral thinker might see it as jumping between extremes, while it is nothing but a lining up of facts.
Another example of how moral thinking leads wrong is Auster's and Kalb's reaction vis-a-vis Islam. Auster and Kalb simply cannot take in all aspects of Islam, such as e.g. anal rape of young boys. Auster objected strongly to my description in the article Islam—perverted parasitical psychopathy. To Auster this made Islam become reduced to just a cult, while he himself takes a Abrahamic position of how "Islam is indeed a religion devoted to a transcendent God".
A main argument by Auster and Kalb is that Islam wouldn't have been able to sustain that long if it had been so inherently bad. Here I think these two fellows are in urgent need of reading some Machiavelli. Things do not work well based on whether they, from a standpoint of Christian ethics, are judged as good or bad. Things work well if they take social and other realities well in account, "the mechanics of life" if you wish. Once again it's the fallacy of moral thinking in operation here.
Another aspect of how moral thinking inhibits Auster's ability to see a clear view, is in how he shuns the idea of seeing Islam as a cult. This since he thinks it must lead to a position urging the physical destruction of Islam. So he looks first at what he sees as the moral consequences, instead of just looking disinterestedly at the evidence at hand. He see his perceived moral consequence as forbidden area, and therefore he backs away from the conclusion about the nature of Islam. Thereby it hampers his thinking.
[End of post]
11 comments:
I shouldn’t be sending this, but as you know I’m prone to make an ass of myself.
So here we go.
I agree with you on black culture.
I don’t mind Auster having a low opinion of it. I think Peter Brimelow has one, too.
I hold them both in high regard, Brimelow more than Auster; their contributions to issues related to race and immigration make them both intellectual giants.
They will be remembered in history books if the west/ the West survives this nation busting onslaught by the international elites. The CFR, The Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg crowd.
Now I know that Auster doesn’t agree with that description. For instance he’s not a bit worried about the US becoming The North American Union together with Mexico and Canada, unlike myself, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.
He furthermore supported the invasion of Iraq, which I didn’t.
However, he’s been very patriotic towards the US, and complained about Jewish/jewish organizations undermining it with support for open borders.
And I deeply appreciate his UK Watch, so to speak, his relaying endless reports from Albion. Very helpful to me as a European/european nation state conservative.
Then I totally disagree with his low opinion of Scorsese, too, but agree with his liking of Bob Dylan. (As if there weren’t Gospel influences in his music!)And his high regard of the Coen Bros. (I worship them!)
I don’t see eye to eye with you either, as you well know. I for instance compare Sweden (at least Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmoe) to Watts, while you find it a peaceful place. Not more than the UK.
I totally disagree with forming alliances with China to fight jihadism, etc.
I’m not really a part of the anti-Jihadist movement but of a broader immigration critical one. (Though I do believe, like Nick Griffin of the BNP, that Islam poses a terrible threat, thru immigration, and that the elites conspire to make Euarbia happen.)
I however nourish this suspicion that the Gates of Vienna variety of anti-Jihadism, through its uncritical support of Israel and the invasion of Iraq (and I guess war with Iran), is to the neocons what the peace movement was to the Soviet Union. (Please don’t get angry!): in the case of the anti-Jihadist movement, useful to create support for interventionism in the Mideast. But I can be wrong. I realize that.
Still I think you are quite an impressive guy intellectually, and some of your criticism, of Christianity for instance, really carries a lot of weight.
Unforgetable is also your theory that the US troops in Europe (100 000, why the heck for?) are here to protect the EU establishment and the
status quo against nationalist movements.
It was the first thing by you I read on Auster’s blog.
Jean,
May I say, that was indeed an odyssey in a mix of opinions. And just recently we discussed your suggestion for amnesty for all cute non-European children in exchange for a stop on asylum for aliens without documents.
Your comment here is like a summary of all discussions we previously had. I'm glad to being able to inspire you to talk about things that are close to your heart. And how some things I have written has struck a chord within you.
Regarding Gates of Vienna, you obviously haven't read it very carefully. And I think you are blinded by their strong support of Israel and read things into it that is not there.
As a first exercise, consider the following. The positions of Baron Bodissey on Israel, Iraq and Iran are essentially the same as Lawrence Auster's. How come then that you don't conclude that Auster is a useful idiot of the neocons?
Have you missed that the whole raison d'être of Gates of Vienna is that the main front of the counterjihad is not at all in Iraq but in Europe? Have you missed the essays of El Ingles, Paul Weston, etc.? Have you missed how it's probably the best news source for events in Europe, since this is the dominating focus of GoV. Have you missed their support for parties such as e.g. Vlaams Belang?
Vlaams Belang is however pro-Israel and pro-American, so they might be considered useful idiots of the necons too in your book. Maybe a success for Vlaams Belang in Belgium will just lead to more interventionism in the Middle East. Maybe, maybe...
I for instance compare Sweden (at least Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmoe) to Watts, while you find it a peaceful place.
You haven't understood my point here, and you haven't even tried.
My point is that this is still how Sweden is perceived in the eyes of most Swedes (due to the extreme level of segregation in combination with the media blackout).
Your answer to this goes like "No *I* don't see it so". Completely missing the point. So you have work experience that has made you see things most Swedes don't. Good for you. But if we are discussing how the reality is perceived by most Swedes, then arguments from you about "but *I* have seen this or that" simply does not apply. If you want to discuss the issue, you'll have to address the issue. You cannot disagree with my proposition if you haven't even internalized it and taken it in account.
But maybe you think it's more important to discuss how you see Sweden, than how the average Swede sees it. We could have that discussion too, and I'm sure I would agree with everything you say.
So are Swedish cities like Watts? Entirely like Watts? Well, possibly they could be like Los Angeles, having neighbourhoods like Watts.
So are Swedish cities like Los Angeles? Yes, more and more. But we still haven't had any large-scale race riots like the Watts riots. But sure, within a decade we will have that.
Watts is such a great example of what's up with black people. Everyone in the world thinks of Watts as this horrible ghetto whose residents once nearly burned it down. I thought this way, too, until I lived briefly in L.A.
Being an overly adventurous, compulsive walker, one day I found myself walking through Watts. It was beautiful, peaceful, much nicer than many neighborhoods I've lived in.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with Watts, aside from the fact that many of the people who lived there were crazy.
CS,
I think there's one inconsistency in your argument here:
1.
"in the first phase of our thinking we should look at the nature of things: the nature of black culture, the nature of Christianity, the nature of Islam. And only in the second phase sort out what is good or bad."
2.
"To Auster this made Islam become reduced to just a cult, while he himself takes a Abrahamic position of how "Islam is indeed a religion devoted to a transcendent God"."
In fact, Auster's description of Islam as you report it is factual. Auster, from your report of his description, is not saying that he believes in the Islamic God or believes that it is indeed God, he is just presenting the facts that
a) Islam is a religion
and
b) Islam's religion involves devotion to [what they consider to be] a transcendent God.
These would be part of the nature of Islam we look at first, per your suggestion of how to think morally -- followed by sorting out the good from the bad.
I think it is rather silly, and unhelpful, to insist on redefining Islam as a non-religious "cult", for this presumes that a religion cannot be bad, and that is a curious assumption for which no evidence exists.
Furthermore, redefining Islam as a non-religion tends to bracket out a good deal of the ideological appeal of Islam that explains motivation & inspiration. At best, one could redefine Islam as a unique Super-Cult -- the largest and longest-lasting cult in history, functioning also as a religion.
"Being an overly adventurous, compulsive walker, one day I found myself walking through Watts. It was beautiful, peaceful, much nicer than many neighborhoods I've lived in."
Anecdotal evidence comprising one afternoon's walk is hardly convincing. Try walking through Watts on a couple of Saturday nights around midnight, and compare that with a midnight Saturday walk through 90% of white suburbs.
Erich, that's exactly my point. When I was growing up as a brainwashed, guilt-ridden liberal, I always assumed that the Watts riots were justified, because those poor, oppressed people had to tolerate substandard housing. When I walked through Watts as an adult, I saw a neighborhood of adorable little bungalows I wished I lived in. Where did the anger come from? Why can't people walk there at night? It's not because of the cute bungalows, it's because of the people.
To return to the subject of black culture, you find some samples on my hedonistic blog Fritänkaren.
Cordially,
Jean
As someone who did ballroom and won some competitions in it in the decade I had fun with it before I got hit by a car which made me need three months to learn to walk again, I don't consider blacks to have much contributions to dancing. First of all, I discount anything that stands to do as dancing because just shaking your ass isn't dancing. Dance is an art. For example, I do give credit where credit is due. Enrique Jorrin who invented cha cha or for the creation of rumba, salsa, blues, jazz and jive. But the vast majority of it is created by Europeans as in waltz(German), bolero(Spanish), paso doble(Spanish), quickstep(English), schottische(Czech), foxtrot, vienesse, ballet with all its stuff. Tango is a blend of European Polka, Milonga which has European roots too and habanera music which is created by blacks. So as you see, Europeans contributed a lot more to dance in general, even if I don't include the ton of folk dances that each European country has and refer only to the international styles. I agree with you though, blacks had contributions to dance and music, but the actual things they did is usually overhyped.
In terms of music, rock has some African and European roots , but it was pioneered by people of European descent, classical music is exclusively European, pop music is a mostly European creation, country music is an European creation, reggae is African(even though most of the current production is utter trash, the older things are pleasant), electronic music is mostly an European creation and most of the composers are European. Hip hop and rapping are mostly African, but I hardly consider most of it music in the art sense of it. Also, the best dancers in the world are European.
Now, I agree with you, black people actually contributed to the development of music and dance and they have artistic capabilities in this department, but these contributions are a lot of times overhyped. And I agree with you about Islam too - it's just some cult and theocratic political imperial project of a middle ages warlord, slave trader who raped and committed paedophilia part time. I wonder how can a Christian like Auster actually not see Islam as different, considering that it's a joke to compare the NT to the Qu'ran. I guess he fell in the trap that Muhammed set forth. It's funny that you say that it's pathological about sex because I was trying to imagine the psychological portrait of Muhammed and he must have not got much sex to come up with this crap(lol). The whole book is arranged around how to get more pussy - this is the promise that was made to men if they joined on Earth and in heaven.
<>
This is from a Hadith. I wonder what kind of tiny dicked person has to make myths about his sexuality in this way.
Reb.van,
I might have expressed myself quite like you, before I studied the history of music and dancing more in depth.
Surely black people sucks at ballet. And they had nothing to do with the invention of e.g. waltz. But for every kind of rhythmical music and dancing, you'll find the hands and the feet of black people behind it, if you trace it back. Still, it's often when black culture meet white culture that the most interesting cultural expressions emerge, i.e. the many well known dances of today. Whatever they are doing traditionally in Africa, we do not even have names for.
So, here we go:
Foxtrot comes from America and ragtime music. What's the colour of Scott Joplin? Quickstep is, as you know a foxtrot derivative.
Tango surely appears European, and comes from Milonga, quite as you pointed out. But trace it back one step more! Milonga comes from Candombe. You have to follow the whole development Candombe -> Milonga -> Tango to see how tango has roots in black culture. Already Milonga is more rhythmical than tango, and more hips. But Candombe is a whole different thing, with drums and brass. You'll need to listen to it.
And you are forgetting many dances such as e.g. bachata, merengue. samba and mambo. And music styles such as funk and soul.
Then you continue to talk about rock and pop as if it had nothing to do with blues. C'mon, get real!
The only thing overhyped about black culture is the nigger music they do today. I love negro music, but I utterly hate nigger music, i.e. rap etc. (some say that Manele is worse, but I'm not sure). I see nigger music vs. negro music as reflections of our society now and then, and the position of black people in them.
So when it comes to international dances, except for ballet and waltz, mostly they have roots in black culture if you trace it back.
Have said that, jive is not a black dance. It's definitely white (quite as tango). But it comes from the lindy hop - very black (and named after a Swede btw). Jive is lindy hop danced in a white (Alex Moore made the monkey rise). Quite as rock started as rhythm'n'blues played in a white way.
And salsa is not from Cuba but from New York. But the roots are from Cuba... and so on...
So let's count just the ballroom dances:
Black roots: cha-cha, rumba, samba, jive, quickstep, slowfox, tango.
All white: modern waltz, vienesse waltz, paso doble
So 7-3 for black roots only in this comparison. Surely in the cases of slowfox and tango the black ingredients have been thoroughly removed in the distillation process. But nevertheless, none of the dances would have existed without ragtime and candombe respectively.
We could talk about gypsies and music too. Quite as blacks make gangsta rap today, gypsies make manele. But these are reflections of the perverted society we live in, not their musical abilities. Gypsies have excelled in music both in Spain and Romania; taking the national music to higher heights than the nationals themselves (such as e.g. flamenco).
However, neither blacks nor gypsies are able to create civilized societies. And even for music: they need an orderly white society surrounding them to being able to excel in music too.
Well, you have the two groups as in international standards and international latin.
The IS has:
Waltz - Euro
Tango - blend of Euro and Afro
Viennese - Euro
Foxtrot - Euro
Quickstep - Euro
The IL has:
Samba - Afro
ChaCha - Afro
Rumba - Afro
PasoDoble - Euro
Jive - Afro
By the way, maybe it's because of the way I consider things. Regardless of the roots, the creator is who invented it. This is like saying that the air conditoner(who was invented by a black man if I recall correctly) isn't a black invention because it has white technology as it's foundation. Also, the dance and musical explosion with pioneers going both ways comes from the new things that Europeans met which inspired them to develop new dances. This is why I don't trace things back completely to the roots. It's the ACU example - tracing back to who invented all the valves and whatever is in an air conditioning unit is irrelevant. As I said, I agree that Africans actually made significant contributions to dance and music(I really love jazz), I just think that both positions that people have on this are wrong - you overestimate their contribution, while the opposite belittle it. Maybe I didn't make myself clear in the former post and I understood why we disagree - I consider the dance of either Europeans or Africans based on who invented and pioneered them, regardless of who planted the seed. I disagree with you simply because I don't think it makes sense to attribute the things to the certain group of people in the way you do(see the ACU example or saying that our culture is the one of the Roman empire because that one more or less laid the groundwork).
Oh, and manele are a lot worse. I'd rather listen to gangsta crap... I mean rap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOz4TP34ob8
And that one isn't the worst. By the way, as you don't understand the lyrics, you fail to see what an epic failure this music genre is. But luckily overtime this type of music began to not be as listened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHCnaqbtJoU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30on8PsDuTA
The last song is really going to the heart. The gypsies are really good at playing some instruments though and when they actually did music and not just the stupidity they do now, it was something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQaZJVJZ62M
Also, some of the gypsy dances are nice. They resemble Arabic dancing.
Post a Comment