From: tgpedersen
Message: 58782
Date: 2008-05-23
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/58759
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > You were responding to my comments about a madman, in which
> > > I was referring to cybalist. I'm clarifying the context in
> > > which I was writing myself, not scolding you for anything.
> >
> > You made a statement which was factually wrong. I corrected it.
>
> Well I don't know what you're talking about then. To what
> statement of mine do you refer? Please cut and paste it
> so that we can be sure it was my actual words and not your
> own misunderstanding of some.
> > > > Use that Argument in place to qualify an ideology as BAD, andI think I know what I was talking about.
> > > > based on this to qualify the related people as being BAD.
> > >
> > > I think it's usually adequate to qualify the ideology as
> > > simply stupid,
> >
> > How do you do that without a common frame of reference?
>
> If you're asking how that is to be done in the great big world,
> then that's a difficult question, and one off topic, but we're
> talking only of cybalist,
> > > You were responding to my comments about a madman, in which'
> > > I was referring to cybalist. I'm clarifying the context in
> > > which I was writing myself, not scolding you for anything.
> >
> > You made a statement which was factually wrong. I corrected it.
> > > I think I've kept up with the context at each point in ourIf you have a problem with how I address you, address the moderator
> > > discussion, and responded accordingly each time.
> >
> > Irrelevant, and you know it.
> You are not to use "and you know it" in this manner with me.
> It implies that I know one thing to be true but say another,You have a theological problem here. You respect no authorities to
> which is lying, and I do not lie and will not tolerate being
> called a liar.
> > I've had the misfortune of being involved in a car accident thereMy interest in mercury poisoning started when I found out that most of
> > when it was still Yugoslavia.
>
> I take it there was a head injury of some sort involved? Can
> you remember or not if that was the same day your fascination
> with shaved beavers first began?
> > The mentality of the officials in those public institutions I gotThe bureaucrats of any given given state are recruited from the
> > in contact with pursuant to that was such that I would distrust
> > any type of state those people would make based on whichever
> > ideology.
>
> Ah, so the bureaucrats encountered in any given country are a
> fair indication of the worth of the entire culture, eh? I'm
> afraid you'll never find a single culture of any worth if you
> insist on that as your test.
> - edit -That's all I know. People who commit atrocities as those in Srebrenica
>
> > > So all you've done is to cite a perfect example of the evils of
> > > ethno-nationalism.
> >
> > People are not right in the head in that end of the world is all
> > I can say,
>
> But I wish you could say more. I mean, by virtue of knowing
> something more.
> > which of course I'm not allowed to.I have formerly been sanctioned for a flippant remark about Odin being
>
> In what way are you not so allowed?
> You did say it, yet none has come to haul you away, has he?You stated that that the owner of the the group had a right to haul
> You haven't even as much as been banned from cybalist.Not this time.
> You're not one of those people erroneously believing another'sWe were not talking about my beliefs in other people's right to
> right to criticize your speech itself somehow an obstruction
> to your own freedom speech, are you?
> If you're free to say that Yugoslavs aren't right in the head,No, why indeed? And?
> then why should I be any less free to say you're not right in
> the head yourself for believing so?
> The two rights go hand in hand, though I wonder if yours isn'tI was not crying 'foul'.
> merely a case of one calling "foul"
> when he is losing.No, that would not make much sense.
> (I don't mean losing this particular argument here on cybalist,
> but rather as a hold-out racist in a larger world becoming dailyEnlighten yourself here. Note the table:
> more enlightened.)
> > The basic principle of linguistically based ethno-states is thatNeither did Germany at the time, but the German state was
> > it is nice when everybody in a state speaks the same language,
> > since then there exists (if you don't actively suppress it) a
> > public space in which the business of the state can be discussed
> > by the whole people.
>
> Yes. I understand that to be one of the arguments for a mono-
> lingual state. It even makes a little sense, however, as far
> as I am concerned, the freedom of the individual is the most
> important consideration, about which read on below.
>
> > In a country with several linguistic groups with equal rights,
> > you get several public spaces with limited communication between
> > them, depending on the number of bi-, tri- or more -linguals
> > participating in politics which will always be small compared to
> > ther number of monolinguals. You then get a Millet state on the
> > Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian model,
>
> Didn't the fact that the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires
> weren't constitutional democracies have something to do with
> their problems?
> I don't think comparing a multi-ethnic multi-lingual U.S., forFor every passing year that comparison will convince more people,
> example, and the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian empire is ever
> going to be very convincing.
> > which will always underperform relative to monolingual states,That's a relative term, of course. Seen relative to the sinking
> > because of problems in communication caused by translation, or
> > the lack thereof.
>
> What is meant by the "underperformance" of a state, though?
> I'm an individual, not a state,I don't think I claimed you were a state.
> and potentially capable of performing quite well in the context ofIf you are thinking of emigrating to China or some other successful
> the larger world and its economy regardless of how the majority of
> my co-nationals are performing.
> That is assuming that the local protection racket... err... I meanTony Soprano couldn't have put it better.
> "government" leaves me alone to do so.
> So why should I care how my country, judged as a collective,Because, whether you want it or not, your wealth is dependent on
> is ranked in some list of countries and their success?
> My only criteria for the performance of a state is that itsOf course. Unfortunately, in an ethnically badly mixed state, citizens
> citizens be as free as possible, with the machinery of state
> itself absolutely blind to factors such as the race, religion,
> ethnicity, language, etc. of its citizens.
> > > > > And the whole would probably be better off as one bigDet kan du da ha ret i. Grunden til jeg bruger engelsk her er for at
> > > > > nation, with such things as language, culture, and religion
> > > > > a purely private matter, as is proper for all states.
> > Inasmuch as neither forms an organization with the purpose ofAre you imagining that Islamists would ask your permission to take
> > violently overthrowing the state, ie. that they are all in a
> > weakened, harmless form.
>
> What are we talking about now; is it not your Islamophobia?
>
> I've never said people need allow one of its religious groups
> take over the country, have I?
> Does it make any sense that a person, like myself, who placesWhat makes you think your opinion matters in a country where you are a
> individual freedom above all else, would want to see the imposition
> of Shari'ah?
> > > > > Ethnic groups don't have the inherent right to monopolizeAnd that better thing would be?
> > > > > regions, I don't believe.
> >
> > Without a state with a monopoly on the use of force, a region
> > descends into chaos.
>
> And a state which infringes upon the freedoms of its citizens,
> such as their individual choice of ethnicity or language, is
> better off going up in a blaze of fire, I say, that it clear
> the way for something better.
> > A state must be governed by one of the known methods of whichI think it should be. The problem is that most debates on the nature
> > democracy is preferable. A democracy is based on the rule by the
> > people. A people, namely the group, for which it is its nation.
>
> No, the part about the "group which is its nation", 'nation'
> here being used by you in the sense of 'ethnos', isn't part
> of the any definition of democracy of which I am familiar.
> If a state doesn't serve all of its citizens, indifferent toOK.
> the ethnicity of each, then it has to go.
> > That group, in order to implement democracy, should speak theOne day those guys are going to do a reverse Sam Houston on you.
> > same language.
>
> Hardly. I often watch the Spanish television channels, and
> the Spanish news covers all the same political stories seen
> on the English news.
> I don't know how it is in your country, but if the immigrantMuslims, who make up 30-35% of the population in the age group 15-20
> Muslims are having trouble participating in your democracy
> due to not being able to speak Danish, I'd think that would
> only be to your greater delight, Torsten.
> > There's your ethnic group. You seem to forget that in yourYou want to disown them of collective rights.
> > eagerness to obliterate ethnic groups you just create new ones.
>
> I don't want to obliterate ethnic groups.
> That's the wont, rather, of proponents of ethno-nationalism, whoseMuslims disappear? Where and when did that happen?
> very goal requires them to either pressure the minorities among
> them, which inevitably always appear,
> to assimilate to the majority culture and language, or else leave.True.
> > > Certainly not. You, just as the vast majority of people I comeOne statement is true, so is the other, in that they are similar, and
> > > across, make the enormous error of equating a state with a human
> > > individual. Is it really necessary to explain that a "region"
> > > and a human being are two very different things?
> >
> > And now you are again misrepresenting me, this time by ascribing
> > to me a categorial mistake. I am equating a group with a human
> > being, obviously not a region with a human being.
>
> Yes, and obviously there's no significant difference in regard
> to what I'm saying, since a group of human beings isn't a human
> individual either.
> Did I not mention, more than once, in theYes, I think you did.
> rest of my post the libertarian concept that groups may not have
> rights but only human individuals.
> Group rights is a fictionWhy would you fight a fiction? And on top of that it's a smokescreen?
> and a smokescreen to cover the violation of individual rights.
> The rights and freedom of the individual are the beginning, end,You sound more and more like a 5 year old threatening to move away
> and entire fabric of libertarian philosophy. The group must
> never be allowed to infringe upon the rights of the individual,
> even in pursuit of what is supposed to be its collective good,
> not even to assure its collective survival, if it comes to that.
> Better a state die, as I've said, than be allowed to oppress its
> members.
> > > Of course I do, because my house and my computer belong to me,They usually don't in ethnically mixed countries, in which the cops
> > > and borders put up by me around person and my property are
> > > perfectly proper.
> >
> > Presumably backed up by police, ie those invested with the state
> > monopoly of power.
>
> The police don't do much good around here.
> I'd be better off getting back the money I paid in taxes, supposedlyGood for you you can afford it. And the rest can go to hell?
> to pay for such services, and hire private security.
> I also make sure to be armed myself, a government's knowledge thatThe fact that you don't have to prioritize the threat of foreign
> its citizens are armed being a check on how bold it dare get
> infringing on their freedoms. One of the main founding principles
> of the U.S. is that ones own government, not foreign invaders, is
> the first and foremost threat to his freedom.
> Of course most of you Europeans have dutifully handed over allThe attitude in USA towards personally owned firearms was similar to
> of your sharp and pointy objects to your nannies, for your own
> safety of course.
> It's no wonder you're shaking in your beds thinking about theOK, so if we Europeans are concerned about Muslim immigration and
> Islamic fundamentalists.
> > > However borders put up between you and me by a third partyThat's not where I want them.
> > > when neither of us want them, and maintained by violence and
> > > threat of violence, are certainly not.
> >
> > But I want them.
>
> Then put them around your _own_ house.
> > Otherwise the place I live would soon be swarming with Kishore'sThe internet is a wonderful thing. From that I can learn what Kishore
> > and Arnaud's telling me something is wrong with the ethnic group
> > I belong to,
>
> Isn't it possible that there _is_ something wrong with your
> ethnic group, which you'd be better off knowing than ignoring?
> We've determined, have we not, that there's something wrongOh yes, of course.
> with the Yugoslavs, so then why, in principle, couldn't there
> possibly be something wrong with the Danes as well?
> Part of what has driven forward the progressive enlightenmentThe present migration waves are larger than anything since the
> of the world is just such mingling of various cultures and
> religions, forcing us all to reanalyze ourselves and what our
> cultures have traditionally believed.
> > and, next thing you know they'll be telling me I owe themBut I do. Destitute non-white non-Danes come to my country and claim
> > stuff based on that.
>
> People are likely to do this anyway. Destitute white Danes may
> come to your house and claim you that owe food or shelter to a
> fellow Dane in trouble. The solution is simple: say "No".
> If your answer is that your government imposes taxes on you forI don't have the foggiest.
> the welfare of Arnauds and Kishores, then what do you imagine
> my next response shall be?
> > So you want the state to protect you and to forbid the state fromThe I suggest, since you don't serve the state, that it should not
> > protecting itself?
>
> Yes, of course. I'm real, the state is only an abstract, a tool
> serving me. I do not serve it.
> > The problem with that argument is that this employment entailsIt is difficult to get at correct numbers since they are deliberately
> > the physical presence of the employee in or near the area of
> > employment, and that the employer bears none of the concomitant
> > possible negative consequences in the form of crime
>
> Well you seem to be under the delusion that only foreigners
> commit crimes.
> > and general non-transparency of the resultant society.At 9/11, the CIA out of thousand and thousand employed 8 people who
>
> I don't understand what the "general non-transparency of the
> resultant society" means.
> Are white Danes truly so pale that they're transparent?Do you have problem with our color like Arnaud?
> But seriously, please explain what this means. I truly don'tSee above.
> understand.
> > That tab is picked up by the community of the group that used toThe will to underpay labor is poison to the manufacturing process. You
> > enjoy safety, and the state, ie. that group again. You employ
> > Hispanics in your economy, you get a economy in the style of a
> > Hispanic country, constantly underperforming. It is that simple.
>
> I don't think you really know what goes on here, even with all
> your talk about the one-way window. More and more native-born
> white Americans every day will simply go on welfare before they
> will ever consider doing for minimum wage the jobs that illegal
> Mexican aliens typically do.
> So again, the government and its imposed minimum wage and itsI can't stop you from believing that.
> welfare system are the at the root of the problem, not the
> bugaboo of non-anglophone aliens creeping among us.
> > And when sufficiently interfered with they broke loose and formedWell, I'm Danish. I can't really do anything about that.
> > a state based on their own group, as I'm sure you well know.
>
> I'm not interested in going someplace else, and my personal
> interests aren't represented by any particular linguistic
> or ethnic group. (My god, Torsten, are your merely one head
> on an enormous million-headed organism that is your ethnos?!)
> I would rather remove the government we have now and replaceWho is this 'we' you're suddenly part of?
> it with a libertarian one. After that we'll see what we can
> do about Denmark. I have no moral qualms about "imposing"
> freedom on others. :^)
> > If the moderators decide this is OT, then that's that. PersonallyDefine 'racism'.
> > I think the subject of the interplay of language and group
> > identity is interesting.
>
> Well yes, "The Interplay of Language and Group Identity" does
> sound a lot better than "An Apology for Racism in Terms of
> Ethno-Nationalism".