Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Ethnocentrism

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Whiskers
    replied
    Locked Thread

    This thread is now locked due to Moody's hate mongering.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moody
    replied
    Originally posted by Jagged
    I don't think I need to promote a rigid view of human nature of my own here
    No, but we all tend to have one by default, whether it is articulated or not.
    I suppose the most basic outlooks are those which say either that mankind is at root bad [Hobbesian] or is at root good[Rousseauesque]
    Your view implies the latter.

    When I say that I think that a power-base of the mob works better, I base this view on history's evidence, not on theories of human nature.
    I tend to disagree there too; Carlyle wrote that history was the biography of great men [and he was no slouch as an historian].
    Nietzsche said that mankind's only justification resided in its possibility of throwing up one or two great men.
    High Culture has only arisen under the conditions of;
    Slavery,
    Oppression,
    Intolerance,
    Aristocracy.

    Mob rule has given us nothing but the lowest common denominator.

    Plato's ideal [of philosopher-kings] ... hasn't really been realized any more than anarchy, has it?
    The tendency to work towards enlightened leadership runs right throughout history; it has certainly been realised [Marcus Aurelius and the Emperor Julian were certainly philosopher kings], and many capable rulers have sought advice from philosophers [Alexander the Great from Aristotle, Plato himself with Dionysius of Syracuse].
    So the Platonic ideal has contributed much to world politics.
    I know of no similar cases in relation to anarchism [not surprising as it negates 'rule' by its very definition].

    history shows us that power based on raw power or hereditary rights tends to produce a lot of privilege, suppression, poverty, ignorance, social tension, and revolting mobs.
    I think that such things are endemic to the human condition and can be found under all kinds of rule.
    There are many examples from history where countries which overthrew their kings ended up far worse under mob-rule; France and Russia spring to mind.
    And how is it that a country so rich and 'democratic' as the USA, has such poverty on its streets amid unprecedented plenty?
    A society like that, which has more than enough for everyone to be content, and yet has a high murder rate and a serious gang problem.
    Suppression here comes both from the top [government by elites, such as the Skull and Bones] and from below [disaffected multicultural mobs, organised crime]; this is the worse of both worlds.

    the social and political circumstances under which the this mob cultivated its rage, were that of the French monarchy.
    I disagree; the Revolution was the result of putting into practice the political philosophy of Rousseau.
    Kings had ruled the Franks for centuries before that without such revolts, so the circumstances did not suddenly change; it was the new philosophy which changed things and brought about the madness of the Terror.
    For me, the Terror, and the Bolshevik Revoltion are both arguments FOR monarchy.

    It sounds like you're saying that the religious are more important than the non-religious, and that to secure their freedom they have to have the right to take the freedom of others.
    No, I am saying that you are introducing yet another conflict, that of religious vs. secular; this goes against your ideal of peace.
    You also speak of 'freedom', a rather loose term which has become fairly meaningless, especially as GW Bush uses it continually to justify his use of military terror against weaker sovereign nations and their civilians.

    How do you measure weakness? ...
    And how do you measure culture?
    Is there any formal way to tell that todays writers, composers, and artists are all vapid, and that the Rennaisance produced so much more that was worthy?
    Aristotle's criterion of 'flourishing', combined with Nietzsche's 'ascending' give the starting point. In terms of aesthetics, Aristotle's Poetics and Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy supply the 'measure'.

    One looks for affirmation and mastery; one looks for the synthesis of the Dionysian and the Apollonian. One looks for the creation of Order out of Chaos, of Being imposed on Becoming.

    Artist Tyrants.

    Compare Michelangelo with Andy Warhol; in that comparison you should have the formal essence of the distinction; the former creates for Eternity, the latter for "15 minutes".

    You are either hammer or anvil.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jagged
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill
    "Whatever feels best for the individual, that individual should pursue, so long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others. "

    Or interfere's with the agenda. What kills me is the number of people who will spout these types of platitudes and who often a) ignore the fact that their pursuit DOES interfere with the freedom of others (see smokers for example, or the religious zealot), or b) over-inflate the degree to which there is interference to further their agenda (those that cry "multiculturalism is the devil" or try to tell me that accidentially seeing Janet Jacksons not-unpleasant tit is going to scar me and my kid). For once I would like to see people put up or shut up on this issue.
    Whoopi... I actually think that platitude came from me. I don't really recognize myself in the further development of it. Moody was asking me about a principle, so I tried to state as simply as I could what I thought -- I didn't pretend either that it was original, or that it's practical implementation is without grey-areas to be discussed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    "Contradiction; if power is REJECTED, then something else is sought as nature abhors a vacuum. Those that reject power desire something other than power, therefore power [by your own admission] cannot be the sole driver of mankind. What else is there? Try right and wrong; might is not always right."

    That is a platitude. The rejection of power does NOT mean that power cannot be the sole driver of mankind. The rejection is an action taken - presumeably of free will - in response to an assertion of power. It is the power that causes the effect.

    "Are you saying that White Europeans cannot suffer racism?"

    Of course not. It is a little disingenuous to use the word "suffer", but it isn't an impossibility.

    "Why is it right to promote non-European culture and reject/attack European culture?"

    It's not; I am rejecting the idea that these are related. They can be, and often are, mutually exclusive. I don't believe that Peter Gabriel (in establishing Real World Music and using underappreciated African musicians and stylings) is rejecting or attacking European culture. This is why I attack your arguments as being overtly text book. They don't accomodate the fact that a) these things aren't mutually exclusive and b) these aren't life-changing, world-altering issues, necessarily. Of course, no academic promoting an agenda would admit that.

    "Is it right to take young European's culture away from them, to imbue them with guilt and self-loathing?"

    "No, Multiculturalism has defined itself in this thread [with the agreement of its supporters] as anti-European."

    YOU have defined it as such; I (and while I will let him answer, I would include Jagged and L'Entranger here too) have done no such thing.

    "Multiculturalism is negative, prejudiced and genocidal; if it were merely about "promotion" it would not SCAPE-GOAT "Eurocentrism". "
    [AND]
    "You sound like you are positively looking forward to it! So why pretend it is nothing other than hate and revenge - your relish of that future speaks volumes."

    I don't get it? I am not "positively looking forward to it"; I just don't share your agenda. Speaks volumes? The fact that I won't board your hate train speaks volumes? Bully for me then.

    "According to Bill, life is all about power; if that is so, peace will NEVER reign."

    In the sense of people acquiescing power to society, no will never reign. There might be times where there is no armed conflict, yes, but a complete abdication of the power structure? Nope. Even the so-called communist regimes weren't that; they were socialist, with a ruling (and privileged) class at the top. The USSR wasn't a failed experiment in Marxist theory as much as it was a successful experiment in the cult of power. At the end, the "revolutionists" primary hurdle was the entrenched who didn't want to reliquish their power. And what happened immediately after? In the vacuum created by the collapse of the Soviet government, those with power sought it out legally (Putkin) or illegally (the too-numerous to count ex-KGB and ex-military that comprised the often criminal underground that is cripling the various member nations to this day).

    "Whatever feels best for the individual, that individual should pursue, so long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others. "

    Or interfere's with the agenda. What kills me is the number of people who will spout these types of platitudes and who often a) ignore the fact that their pursuit DOES interfere with the freedom of others (see smokers for example, or the religious zealot), or b) over-inflate the degree to which there is interference to further their agenda (those that cry "multiculturalism is the devil" or try to tell me that accidentially seeing Janet Jacksons not-unpleasant tit is going to scar me and my kid). For once I would like to see people put up or shut up on this issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Etive
    replied
    I don't like this "Anti-white rascism" phrase. Rascism can be Anti-Black or Anti White it is one and the same. You can't just be against one side of rascism, that would be rascist.

    As for the runes, oh how their usage has changed. Sowelu (wholeness) is now associated with the SS, a pre-runic form of Eihwaz (defence) the famous swastika. An encircled Algiz (protection) becomes the ban the bomb symbol and Teiwaz (warrior) is known as the symbol of law in Moorcock books.

    People I have met who use the runes usually have a love of the viking sagas and use them as a tool for inner thought/ self improvement. I don't know what Moody's use of the runes is, but I would say that rune craft was no more wacky than praying to Gods for guidance and can be used and abused in the same ways or combined.

    I think there are many great writers, artists e.t.c across Europe (and the rest of the world) come on Moody express yourself through an artistic medium!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jagged
    replied
    Originally posted by Moody
    Remember, you are demanding that we place our destiny in the hands of ALL the people: before we do that, we must know if "the people" can be trusted.

    I tend to think not; I would prefer Plato's Philosopher Kings to King Mob.
    I don't think I need to promote a rigid view of human nature of my own here; by goodies and badies I would mean everybody, whether you or I like them or not. This is an acknowledgement that the people (or the mob, since the people is a misnomer, I suppose) is not infallible, but at least with an educated and informed mob you stand a better chance of a corrective when things go bad, than if all power rests with a hereditary king who just happens to be insane. When I say that I think that a power-base of the mob works better, I base this view on history's evidence, not on theories of human nature.

    Plato's ideal might be nice, but it hasn't really been realized any more than anarchy, has it? Of course I do think it's legitimate to think that things might actually be possible even if they haven't been tried out. If we're talking reality and not ideals, I still think that history shows us that power based on raw power or hereditary rights tends to produce a lot of privilege, suppression, poverty, ignorance, social tension, and revolting mobs.

    Somebody has suggested that the best ruler would be the one who least wants to be it. That might be worth trying if it were practically realizable.

    Originally posted by Moody
    "Grew out" seems a misnomer here; the [French Revolution] mob REJECTED monarchy, killed their monarchy and replaced it with a rule of terror and genocide.
    This mob rejected the monarchy, and had some good reasons to. Which is to say that the mob grew out of that monarchy. If I can't use the term grew out, maybe I can fairly say that the social and political circumstances under which the this mob cultivated its rage, were that of the monarchy. To me, it looks like you'd place all responsibility for that with the mob, and relieve the French monarchy of all responsibility for the consequences of its rule. I can't buy that, so I have to think this case works as an argument against monarchies.

    Originally posted by Moody
    I would defend the atheist who has some religion forced upon him or her by the religious.
    A sure-fire recipe for religious/secular conflict - not the "peace" you claim to desire. Multiculturalism makes such religio-ethnic conflict INEVITABLE.
    That's your view, of course. It sounds like you're saying that the religious are more important than the non-religious, and that to secure their freedom they have to have the right to take the freedom of others as they see fit. That's not a view that's appealing to me, but I don't expect we'll easily reach agreement about it.

    Nature is in a constant state of Becoming.
    So in Nature, therefore, things can and do decline; they can become poisoned/poisonous; they can become degenerate and decadent.

    That down-going is part of certain processes, particularly those attendant on illness, perversion, self-rejection, self-disgust and anorexia [in the literal sense of the word].

    Nature can either will upwards in strength, or else will downwards in weakness.

    So think of the unnatural in terms of it being "ANTI-NATURE" [just as we say that a coward has been "unmanned"].

    So this is where these nihilisms [such as Multiculturalism] "come from".

    But calling them "evil" is your word; I'll just call such things "bad".
    So, when things go weak or degenerate in your view, that's when you say they're not nature? That is, you're using "Nature" as a polemical persuasive for "me like"? That is quite consistent, of course, with your assertation that "once you start to describe a piece of nature as un-natural you are in effect shifting its classification from positive to negative". That's ok with me, so long as I know that I shouldn't waste my time looking deeper for any consistent semantic or logical content in your terminology.

    The next question is, then, do you have any definition of when things are decadent/poison/bad/not Nature? I supect by now that it would have something to do with growing weak and cultureless?

    How do you measure weakness? By birth-rates or military power? And how do you measure culture? Is there any formal way to tell that todays writers, composers, and artists are all vapid, and that the Rennaisance produced so much more that was worthy?

    (Edited to correct some lay-out and grammar)

    Leave a comment:


  • DeeCrowSeer
    replied
    Originally posted by Moody
    Perhaps cultures die to prepare the way for something new?
    Are you saying that my culture should DIE?
    Of course not, that would be a terrible thing for me to say... but you seemed to be suggesting that your culture was dying, and I was trying to soften the blow... strange as that may seem. I honestly do not believe that your culture should die, and I'm sorry if you read it that way.

    D...

    (Edited to remove reference to my parents dying, because that was a stupid analogy)

    Originally posted by Michael Moorcock
    We don't need to create dichotomies to discuss our problems or our sense that things can be improved. Too many arguments run 'Once the world was golden and now it is like lead...' You can pick any elements out of the whole to prove any viewpoint. You can prove that Ireland was once part of the Martian highlands populated by the last of the old Martian race, the fairy people...&c &c.

    I used to do jobs for what they these days call supermarket newspapers. Not only can you prove anything, you can get someone to agree to anything. Never short of witnesses, on Tit-Bits, for flying saucer sightings, alien meetings and so forth. One of the bottom lines for modern society is - demographics. There are a lot more of us. That's more audience for certain things. Longer runs for successful theatrical presentations. Larger audience for 'marginal' work. As a result we become more fragmented and require a particular kind of mind - a way of looking at the world - to keep some sense of the whole.

    I like to think that's one of the problems I'm looking at in things like the Jerry Cornelius stories. We need a holistic view of society, as it were, but it has to be a view which accepts complexity and rapid change. We need to know how to survive in a media maelstrom for a start. We can do it, because we're bloody clever, but it might be a bit painful. Meanwhile there's always the big hammer in the sky which can come down at any unexpected moment and finish us all off. That's why I have my characters who live in the conscious multiverse as mostly chancers and gamblers.
    http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/..._moorcock.html

    Leave a comment:


  • L'Etranger
    replied
    WHO's mounting a campaign, hombrecito?
    Oh, I'll just risk offending you, but you'll get over it at the next rune fire:
    You are beginning to bore me with your mumbo-jumbo.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moody
    replied
    Originally posted by LEtranger
    Moody, did some darkie take away your girl friend? ...
    No, and where would you be without argumentum ad hominem?

    We are in no way perfect, but we know it, which exactly makes us even stronger.
    So who IS perfect?
    Shall we mount a campaign against all those cultures which are not perfect according to 'us'?
    Are the Semites perfect?

    Europe ... has never been fresher than today.
    You are joking surely; how can you compare the culture of today's Europe with that of the Renaissance, for example?
    You can't; you have nothing substantial to put
    up against the likes of Michelangelo or Shakespeare.

    [America] isn't so different [from Europe].
    And that's the problem! Multiculturalism creates cultural uniformity - MacDonaldisation.

    Originally posted by Dee Crow Seer
    isn't it often the case that a small dose of "poison" can result in a healthier body?
    Certainly - but here HEALTH is the goal, not ill-health.
    Negative doctrines are forms of self-poisoning to the point of a Death Wish.
    No body that desires health would want to ingest Multiculturalism's bromide of the soul.

    Perhaps cultures die to prepare the way for something new?
    Are you saying that my culture should DIE?[/i]

    Leave a comment:


  • DeeCrowSeer
    replied
    In a weird way I'm actually starting to warm to Moody. It's not often I meet anyone whose view of the world is so totally at odds with my own, and it helps me to challenge and reasses a lot of the things I've taken for granted... I can "test" my beliefs against what he is saying... Of course, in my heart and soul multiculturalism is still winning, but at least it's being made to work for its place there.

    Originally posted by Moody
    Nature is in a constant state of Becoming.
    So in Nature, therefore, things can and do decline; they can become poisoned/poisonous; they can become degenerate and decadent.
    Without wishing to over-stretch the analogy, but isn't it often the case that a small dose of "poison" can actually result in a healthier body? Isn't that the principle that inoculation works on? Of course then you get into a rather pointless discussion about how much "decadence" could be considered a healthy dose, but not all illness or decay is a guaranteed ticket to the grave. Just as all living things die and return to the soil, to fertilize that which comes after, so perhaps cultures die to prepare the way for something new?

    And if that new thing looks anything like Rosario Dawson, then my "virility" is all for it. :D

    D...

    [Edit: I should probably explain that Dawson is an actress of Puerto Rican, Cuban, African, Irish and Native American descent. Quite a combo!]

    Leave a comment:


  • Moody
    replied
    Originally posted by Jagged
    All the people, including both the goodies and the badies, and even the grey-zones.
    You lack a philosophy of human nature [at least Bill has one in his 'all is power' concept]; to talk of "goodies and baddies" lacks sufficient rigour here.

    Remember, you are demanding that we place our destiny in the hands of ALL the people: before we do that, we must know if "the people" can be trusted.

    I tend to think not; I would prefer Plato's Philosopher Kings to King Mob.

    The rampant mob of the French revolution grew out of a monarchy
    "Grew out" seems a misnomer here; the mob REJECTED monarchy, killed their monarchy and replaced it with a rule of terror and genocide.

    I would defend the atheist who has some religion forced upon him or her by the religious.
    A sure-fire recipe for religious/secular conflict - not the "peace" you claim to desire. Multiculturalism makes such religio-ethnic conflict INEVITABLE.

    If [unnatural things] didn't somehow grow out of Nature, then where do all these Evils that are not Nature come from?
    Nature is in a constant state of Becoming.
    So in Nature, therefore, things can and do decline; they can become poisoned/poisonous; they can become degenerate and decadent.

    That down-going is part of certain processes, particularly those attendant on illness, perversion, self-rejection, self-disgust and anorexia [in the literal sense of the word].

    Nature can either will upwards in strength, or else will downwards in weakness.

    So think of the unnatural in terms of it being "ANTI-NATURE" [just as we say that a coward has been "unmanned"].

    So this is where these nihilisms [such as Multiculturalism] "come from".

    But calling them "evil" is your word; I'll just call such things "bad".

    Leave a comment:


  • L'Etranger
    replied
    Oh,Moody, I think you're just full of angst. Did some darkie take away your girl friend (or boy friend?) or what's worrying you some much? Europe is still producing lots of geniuses in all fields and is a pretty stable place with lot's of reason to be confident (also because we have gradually learnt from the past, the bloody past namely the "camps", the French Revolution eating her children, the "Ethnic Cleansing" and all) . We are in no way perfect, but we know it, which exactly makes us even stronger. The likes of those yearning for racial and cultural purity are a sad anachronism. They are out there in the woods making fires, observing weird moon rites and carving runes on stones and maybe even on their penises (virile culture, hihi), but they are just a lost bunch that will finally reach old age full of bitterness, because they missed the richness of life as it is now. Wake up, find yourself a new boy friend and enjoy life again - in our old Europe that has never been fresher than today. And if you need a break take "Trans-Love-Airways" across the Atlantic and enjoy life there where it isn't so different, except for a nauseating bombardment of advertising.

    Buenas noches, gute Nacht,mein liebling, bon nuit, cali nikta
    y un gran besito pa' ti, kwaheri, Bwana!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jagged
    replied
    Originally posted by Moody
    According to Bill, life is all about power; if that is so, peace will NEVER reign.
    Maybe, but I'm not Bill. Anyway, why don't we let him speak for himself?

    Originally posted by Moody
    What people? The baying mob who want the head of everyone who dares to stand out from the crowd?
    "The People"?
    Look at the 'people' rampant in the Terror days of the French Revolution - beware of the mass mentality and what they are capable of.
    All the people, including both the goodies and the badies, and even the grey-zones. I admit that it's not a fool-proof system, but it seems to me to work better than tyranny. The rampant mob of the French revolution grew out of a monarchy, not out of democracy, by the way.

    Originally posted by Moody
    Humans are ungrateful beats are they not?
    I wouldn't say so. I think humans are a bit more complicated than that, and that most of us have the potential of both generosity and selfishness.

    Originally posted by Moody
    As for " 'democracy' "; this is a misnomer - it is better to call it 'plutocracy', or 'oligarchy'.
    Call it what you want. I'm more interested in the concept itself than wheter to name it with a superlative or an injective.

    Originally posted by Moody
    Would you force secularism on the religious?
    Certainly not. But I would defend the atheist who has some religion forced upon him or her by the religious.

    Originally posted by Moody
    But once you start to describe a piece of nature as un-natural you are in effect shifting its classification from positive to negative.
    If they didn't somehow grow out of Nature, then where do all these Evils that are not Nature come from?

    (Edited to turn "grew" into "grow")

    Leave a comment:


  • Moody
    replied
    Originally posted by Jagged
    I would hope that my "scenario" (peaceful co-excistence and synthesis of the best of different cultures) might be possible ...
    According to Bill, life is all about power; if that is so, peace will NEVER reign.

    I personally would prefer the power-base to be with the people...
    What people? The baying mob who want the head of everyone who dares to stand out from the crowd?
    "The People"?
    Look at the 'people' rampant in the Terror days of the French Revolution - beware of the mass mentality and what they are capable of.

    Would it be too Unnatural to want everybody's needs and wants taken into concern so far as possible?
    Yes, and too Utopian too; for even if it were possible, some of the 'everybodies' would be disatisfied and want more than his fellows. Others would feel that they are hard-done-by, even if, relatively speaking, they had all their needs catered for.
    Humans are ungrateful beats are they not?

    ... A notorious hedonist, I would go for the decadent solution of a secular forum of decisions and a 'democracy', working slowly towards an ideal state of anarchy ...
    Whatever feels best for the individual, that individual should pursue, so long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others.
    And that latter is the limitation on hedonism and anarchism which is never heeded. This is why hedonists decline quickly without trace, and why anachism has never worked practice.
    As for " 'democracy' "; this is a misnomer - it is better to call it 'plutocracy', or 'oligarchy'.
    Would you force secularism on the religious?

    Is there such a thing as Unnatural Nature?
    That is a contradiction in terms, of course.
    This is not to deny that life is full of paradoxes, of course. But once you start to describe a piece of nature as un-natural you are in effect shifting its classification from positive to negative.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moody
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill
    The driver of all mankind is power...
    Be it the search for power ... the rejection of power ...
    Contradiction; if power is REJECTED, then something else is sought as nature abhors a vacuum.
    Those that reject power desire something other than power, therefore power [by your own admission] cannot be the sole driver of mankind.
    What else is there?
    Try right and wrong; might is not always right.

    Multiculturalism is, at worst, a rejection of the power that has historically come from a European base ...
    I think it is a calculated stretch to say that the promotion of all existing cultures and races relative to the dominant is a form of "racism".
    Are you saying that White Europeans cannot suffer racism?
    You claim that life is all about power; so in 'rejecting' one power, the rejector is therefore trying to assert his own power over that rejected.

    Is Black Power preferable to White Power?

    Is it WRONG to "promote" European culture?
    Why so?

    Why is it right to promote non-European culture and reject/attack European culture?

    Is it right to take young European's culture away from them, to imbue them with guilt and self-loathing?

    Is it right to preach negatively against any person's native/ethnic culture?

    No, Multiculturalism has defined itself in this thread [with the agreement of its supporters] as anti-European.

    Anti-European;
    Anti-Negro;
    Anti-Semitic;

    What's the difference?

    Multiculturalism is negative, prejudiced and genocidal; if it were merely about "promotion" it would not SCAPE-GOAT "Eurocentrism".

    And by the way, if you think the "attack" on Eurocentrism is strong now, please wait patiently for not more than 10 years.
    You sound like you are positively looking forward to it!
    So why pretend it is nothing other than hate and revenge - your relish of that future speaks volumes.

    I am 100% Eurocentric and I will apologise to NO ONE for the genius of the European

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X