The Batlord

Alright, I'm gonna try to read the last two-thirds of that tomorrow, but I'm drunk, and I think the general gist is that globalism is wreaking havoc on the local cultures and economics of just about everywhere. Some people swing to right wing nationalism and some swing to left wing nationalism, so long as those politicians are promising them some kind of security.

While I don't at all agree with the racism behind so much of the sentiments behind these constituents' rhetoric, racism is not the core issue of their concern. It's loss of what they see as their way of life, in far more ways than just all-white neighborhoods.

It would be wrong to bow to their more racist demands, but to ignore their point of view without considering anything else they have to say is short-sided and blind to the views of a very large portion of Western society. The racists might not end up "taking back" society, but they will most certainly divide it until it barely functions (as they already have to a significant extent).

Whatever you think of these people, you can't ignore them and their demands.

__________________

William_the_Bloody

I think your spot on in, some sense, in that I believe that racial politics, and racism in general, is generated by real or perceived economic competition, and the fear of displacement that may result from it.

We've had what one would call mass immigration in the western world since the 1990's, and although it has been a gripe for many for a long time, we didn't actually see backlash against it (the rise of Trump, UKIP, National Front ect) until after the stock market crash of 2008.

As Frum noted, the middle & working class have never fully recovered from the crash of 2008, but the elites that are pushing the same old policies have.

I think it's unfair to broadly paintbrush Trump, UKIP, supporters ect as racists though. They are for the most part white working class people who have seen their wages and quality of life diminish over the decades and have become extremely frustrated that neither the Democrats or Republicans (Labour/Conservatives) are defending their interests.

Here is what I think is happening:

1) In the United States & the Western world, wages have been stagnating while the cost of living has been continuously rising, as a result economic globalization (as you point out). Some are swinging to Sanders others to Trump.

2) The Left Wing: The liberal/social democrat parties in North America and much of western Europe have long since stopped representing the interests of the native born working class.

-This is largely in part because the working class (particularly skilled workers) slowly started to drift towards conservative/republican parties once they started to rise on the income ladder.

- It is also do to with the de-industrialization of the west and shrinking power of trade unions, which has led to these parties being led primarily by white collar professionals (human rights lawyers, University professors, special interest lobbyists ect)

- So the old alliance of the hardened trade unionist representing black & white factory workers in Detroit has been replaced by a new alliance of human rights activists defending the interests of new immigrants & undocumented workers who came through the southern border.

In fact, the Democrat Party I believe now has 5 electoral college seat advantage in California largely due to its swelling in population do to both legal and illegal immigration.

Once the party of economic nationalization and controlled immigration, it is now a party of free trade and mass immigration. There is however one candidate who represents the old socialist model of closed borders & anti free trade; Bernie Sanders, but guess what, he can't attract the Hispanic vote, the specter of racial balkanization.

3) The Right Wing: Up until now Conservative parties have been the net beneficiary of the white working class vote, but that alliance, particularly in the United States is imploding.

-There is a steep ideological divide between wall street republicans and blue collar republicans, and up until Reagan, the working class republicans held the balance of power. Under Eisenhower & Nixon the republican party was still the party of low taxes but they also enacted protectionist policies and had a tight border policy. Economic classical liberalists like Barry Goldwater & Thomas Friedman were left twiddling their thumbs and writing ideological books.

- Under Reagan and particularly under Bush 1 & 2, the economic platform shifted in the favour of wall street (Rockefeller) Republicans. In fact, if my facts are correct, Bush 2, signed the most free trade deals and had the biggest net migration of immigration than any other President in the United States, setting the stage for the Toby Keith implotion of the current Republican primaries.

Conclusion

You have a white working class with declining wages that feel they are getting doubly screwed by free trade & offshoring on one hand, and mass immigration on one hand, with two parties that favour free trade and continued high levels of immigration and then....

along comes Trump, and he says. "Hey you in the Budweiser cap! Remember in the 70's & 80's when you all had good paying jobs & got laid in your Trans Ams listening to KISS. Well I'm going to bring that back by making America great again! And I'm going to do it because I'm going to bring back American jobs and seal off the southern border. I'm hear to protect your interests, and I'm going to do it because I'm a born leader!"

There you go: The Trump phenomenon explained!!!

William_the_Bloody

My Political Philosophy: Introduction

I have decided to something completely different from my first intention.

Politically I have no idea where I stand on the political spectrum anymore, so I am going to begin on a years long journey of researching every moral, social and cultural issue to come to a consensus as to what I would identify myself as.

In other words I am now officially a blank slate with no presuppositions or judgments on any topic. (whether it be abortion, the economy, gun control, immigration, Palestine, ect)

(Hence the paragraphs I wrote above was an observation, not an endorsement, as was Frum's article)

When I am done it is possible I could come out as a revolutionary Marxist, a reactionary neo fascist, or even a theocratic Islamist...though not likely

Since much of one's political outlook is shaped by their view on human nature (indeed if there is such a thing, my first topic shall be...

Human Nature:

I shall research to see if I decide there is such a thing and to discover the most important thing...is man predisposed to be good or evil?

I therefore will be looking at scientific studies on human behavior cover selfishness versus co-operation, altruism, individualism, collectivism ect

If anyone therefore has any scientific articles to share on this topic it would be appreciated. The only rule I have, is they have to come from a legitimate peer reviewed source.

Let the journey begin...

Frownland

That's a tough nut to crack. I think it isn't a definitive thing, as research will likely (based off of general psychology studies I've seen) be all across the board and won't come up with a definitive answer. Also, the nature of those studies as far as objectivity and unfalsifiability make them difficult to present as truth. I think that the research is diverse because the answer isn't concrete. One thing that can be more firmly established is whether people are predisposed to good or evil in certain situations, climates, etc.

Looking forward to seeing your take on it.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Isbjørn

That's an interesting topic. The "Human Nature Argument" is a well-known one in socialist circles, saying that socialism or communism goes against human nature because we are selfish/unable to cooperate etc. I just did a quick Google search, and according to this article, studies show that our first instincts tend to be to cooperate. However, it also states that simple experiments can't really give a definitive answer on whether humans are inherently altruistic or selfish.

I support the theory that human nature isn't fixed or universal, but that the way we act is, to a large degree, shaped by the world around us, and our material conditions.

__________________

Unknown Soldier

You might want to check some of your facts here concerning Western Europe. There has been mass immigration here since the 1950s so its hardly a new concept. Also the backlash against immigrants in the UK was considerably worse in the period of the 1950s, 1960s and especially the 1970s and early 1980s than it was after the crash of 2008. The only difference now is that immigrants come from different places, hence different issues.

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

William_the_Bloody

I'm aware of the UK's history on immigration, from Enoch Powell's rivers of blood speech, to the National Front's peak in popularity in 1976, which also happened around a time of economic uncertainty in the UK.

The influx of Black Caribbean's into the UK in the 1950's or even Pakistani's in the 1970's & early 80's was not mass immigration.

The resistance to it was also largely economic, because they were placed in competition with neighboring white working class communities, which traditionally are low educated, low skilled and not surprisingly highly xenophobic. In other words the Lawyer & broker in Kent weren't concerned about it.

Mass immigration (as the chart below shows) didn't start until New Labour obtained power in 1997 under Tony Blair.

(This was a general trend under left wing governments in the western world in the 90's & 00's as they moved away from economic policies like nationalization & Keynesianism, towards cultural ideologies like multiculturalism and political correctness.



Granted, people in Europe have been complaining about the rate of immigration for a long time, and although populist right wing parties (ie Freedom Party: Austria) had some success before the collapse of 2008, there has been an unprecedented rise in these parties across Europe. In poll after poll it tends to be the number one issue of concern amongst citizens in the UK.

Immigration is the public's biggest concern, poll says - Telegraph

William_the_Bloody

Politics part 1: Human Nature

Question: Is human nature good, evil or somewhere in between?
I shall research the following topics below to come to a conclusion:

1) Studying the zoology of our closest ancestors
2) Looking at scientific studies, in regards to our behavior, in relation to our genetics
3) Looking at some prominent views in psychology, and general events in our history

References will be cited at the bottom

Human Nature part 1: A tale of two chimps.

It has been well over a 150 years since Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking book "The Origin of Species" a book that depicted nature as a brutal environment based on survival of the fittest.

As consequence, the sinister ideology of Social Darwinism would take western civilazation by storm by the late 19th century, culminating in the outbreak of two world wars, in an era where eugenics was all the rage amongst western intellectuals.

But are the Social Darwinists right? Is humankind generally based on survival of the fittest? To come to a conclusion on this issue, I've chosen to research are two closest ancestors, the Bonobo and the Chimpanzee.

The chimpanzee:

Whether you are a an evolutionist, creationist, or somewhere in between, you cannot deny the fact that approximately 98.8% of our DNA is shared with Chimpanzees. So taking this into considering, it is fair to say that analyzing their social structure and behavior can give us some insight into our own, so this is what is they have to offer....

• Chimpanzees are natural born killers, Competing groups of the animals go to war over resources such as territory, food and mates. Targeted males and their infants are slaughtered and the females are usually cohabited into the group for reproductive purposes.

• It's often packs of males who outnumber the other males (think of jocks beating up the emo kid), and it is not necessarily because food resources are low, but rather because the consequences of killing and taking their land is low.

• Chimps are extremely territorial, better territory means better food and a longer lifespan

• Chimps also appear to be naturally xenophobic, as they are altruistic to those who share genetic similarities within their group, but are more inclined to hunt and kill Chimpanzees that show genetic differences from them.

• Alongside wolves and humans chimpanzees are one of the few animals who have been witnessed to carry out full scale genocide.

• Chimpanzee societies are based on hierarchical patriarchies were females are often victims of physical abuse (sometimes beaten with branches or clubs)

• In turn high prized female chimps are normally attracted to the most dominant males that protect them.

(Depressed yet? Well it's not all bad)

Human chimps have been able to show high degrees of altruism. Showing acts of kindness, helping strangers, mourning the dead, and even a sense of fairness in regards to equality.

Thankfully we are just as related to another ape.

The Bonobo:

The recent decoding of the Bonobo genome has revealed that this ape is now on par with Chimpanzees as our closet genetic relatives, which is a good thing, considering there are significant differences in the behaviors of these two species.

An endangered species known as the hippy ape for its kind and gentle qualities. Here is what they have to offer...

• Little violence or warfare occurs amongst the Bonobos

• Bonobos show a high degree of altruism, helping out others even when there is no personal gain to be had.

• They tend to be less xenophobic approaching and sharing their food with strangers who share less in genetic similarity.

• They often locate themselves in area with an abundant food source & tend to be less territorial

• They often form matriarchal or equal societies, and there is no evidence of rape or spousal abuse

• Bonobos have lots and lots of sex, and females may have many partners thereby reducing male aggression within the society

and the sex may be the key to their peaceful co-existance , as scientists theorize that the reason Bonobos could be less violent than Chimpanzees, is that the women are estrus (horny) for 27% of their lifespan where as Chimpanzees females are horny for a mere 5% of their lifespan making the mating competition extremely intensive.

This begs the question? Could a more sexually liberated society result in a more peaceful one? I know I've painted a bit of a Darth Vader & Luke Skywalker picture of the two apes but I'll leave my conclusions until the end. Next up part 2.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/11102823/Chimps-and-humans-both-natural-born-killers.html

DNA: Comparing Humans and Chimps

Chimpanzees and the Battle Over Human Nature | National Geographic (blogs)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0625112010.htm


Chimps learn compassionate behaviour from each other, just like humans | Daily Mail Online

Like Humans, Chimps Show Selfless Behaviors | Chimpanzees Show Altruistic Behaviors | Evolution of Human Altruism

Selfless Chimps Shed Light on Evolution of Altruism

Chimps Value Fairness | Ultimatum Game

Do chimpanzees care about fairness? The jury

Animal social justice: Equality in bonobos, chimps, monkeys, lions, baboons.

Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/sc...obos.html?_r=0

Endangered Bonobos Reveal Evolution of Human Kindness

Does Chimp Warfare Explain Our Sense of Good and Evil? - The Atlantic

The loving bonobos and the genocidal chimpanzees -- how are humans related to these, our closest genetic relatives?

Do Bonobos And Chimpanzees Offer A Path To Understanding Human Behavior? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Bonobo Sexuality

grindy

Please note that 'the fittest' does not mean 'the strongest' (which is often subconsciously extended to 'the most aggressive').
It means the most adapted, who can therefore reproduce. It can be about strength, but it can also be about cooperation. The latter actually seems to be the thing making humans especially successful. (Not that this cooperation can't be ultimately used to slaughter a competing tribe in an especially efficient way.)

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.

William_the_Bloody

Good point, the Social Darwinists lifted the term for their own ends, as they appear to have done with Dawkins "selfish gene"

I will be looking at the financial success of personalities at some point though.