I have this weird theory that white supremacy hasn't ever been a proper governing ideology. More like a folk theory of implications of other ideologies like mercantilism or fascism which have actually governed. As in, "if the strong should rule the weak, whites should be on top"
Conversation
Replying to
what I’m trying to say is from a respectful, liberal relativist point of view, we can’t have hierarchy in ideologies because what group gets to determine hierarchy? where is the higher truth to appeal to if we admit cultural relativist hypothesis?
1
Replying to
Beware, you're starting to get lost in a kind of boring hyper-meta performance art like South Park sarcastaball. I'm basically assuming a Hegelian dialectical framework of ideological creative destruction to speculate here
1
Replying to
responding to “plurality of absolutes” (which I think is damaging) and not being sarcastic so much as Socratic
1
Replying to
Newer plurality can replace an older, smaller one. Mass extinctions = dinosaur plurality getting replaced by mammal plurality for eg. Punctuated equilibrium theory of ideological evolution.
1
Replying to
stratification / heirarchy of ideology implies a universal metric to guage competing ideologies. plurality of absolutes means "we can and must live within disagreements over what is true". can we believe in both the latter and the former? is plurality it's own universalism?
1
Replying to
No you're confusing evolutionary success with hierarchical ranking. Ascent-of-man fallacy. Mammals just out survived dinos
2
Replying to
OP said: "If an economic conflict lasts longer than 30 yrs, ideological superiority determines outcome." testing this implies by historical comparison implies defining ideological superiority
1
Replying to
Yes and that's not easy to do. Attribution problem. Is Europe overtaking China a) Greek heritage b) Protestant ethic c) rule of law d) linguistic diff?? e) Whiteness f) decentralized polity? Each could be basis for an ideological reading
2
Replying to
I am hedging towards a universalism in my thinking, but I don't know what it would look like. I think PoA cannot sustain; not so much the dominant emerges as the plurality blows up. This theme is all over Dostoevsky's writing.
1
Replying to
I don't think a single universalism has ever been powerful and closed enough to test that way. People always overstate totalitarian power.
1
Show replies

