http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2006/11/30/the-faye-benoist-debate-on-multiculturalism/ The Civic Platform has been launched to discuss and debate issues related to the West viewed as a cultural compound of Greco-Roman, Christian, and Germanic past. We firmly believe that race informs culture and is a necessary precondition for cultural identity and integrity. Hence, this political vehicle is dedicated to the preservation of the ethnic genetic interests (EGI) of people of European ancestry. Furthermore, since the West faces a demographic crisis of unprecedented proportions (for example, in 1950 Whites represented 30 percent of the world's population. This number will plummet to 8 percent by 2050), we hold that the current trends threatening the racial, historical, and cultural identities of people of European ancestry must be stopped and reversed, if the West is to survive and endure as a distinct racial, historical, and cultural entity. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:20:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2006/11/30/the-faye-benoist-debate-on-multiculturalism/#comment-2125 Fred Scrooby Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:09:02 +0000 http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2006/11/30/the-faye-benoist-debate-on-multiculturalism/#comment-2125 Of the two, Faye is of course the sounder, steadier intellect. De Benoist is somewhere off in La-La-Land. Of the two, Faye is of course the sounder, steadier intellect. De Benoist is somewhere off in La-La-Land.

]]> http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2006/11/30/the-faye-benoist-debate-on-multiculturalism/#comment-2124 Fred Scrooby Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:05:13 +0000 http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2006/11/30/the-faye-benoist-debate-on-multiculturalism/#comment-2124 De Benoist first of all can't speak simply and to the point. His stuff is like a mist floating all around the room: you can't get a handhold on it. You spend time reading 40 million paragraphs talking about what he should have said in three sentences then finished and moved on to his next point. This stuff's simple but he makes it complicated. Life's too short to indulge his "playing philosopher." Second, he grants legitimacy to the other side in places where it's absent: see how he writes, "In this I oppose [the feminist philosopher] Elisabeth Badinter, who, [blah-blah-blah]." "<i>The feminist philosopher</i>"? He actually trudged through a whole book written by a "feminist philosopher"? Can someone have anything legitimate or even intelligent to say whose whole premise is women are the same as men? Saying women are the same as men is like saying two plus two equals five. To quote a "feminist philosopher" is like quoting "a philosopher of two-plus-two-equals-five." What's worth quoting out of a whole philosophy devoted to two-plus-two-equals-five? What are we to think of a man who deems it worthwhile to quote from such a philosophy? Why aren't "feminists" simply ignored by him? He could be honing his arguments about saving the white race and instead he's reading "feminist philosophers"? What, is he going to refute that women and men are the same? Is he not going to refute it? What truths grow out of "women and men are the same" that we need to be aware of? What truths grow out of it, <i>period</i>? None. Third, de Benoist seems to think the other side is following a philosophy. They're not. The philosophy part is a rationalization that came after they'd already decided they wanted our destruction. First they decided they wanted our destruction then they dressed up their aim in nice-sounding language. De Benoist is under the illusion that if he develops a counter-philosophy they'll surrender in the face of our stronger, truer philsophy. Hasn't he heard of "sophistry"? Hasn't he heard that if they sense their position being threatened they'll just switch to a different sophistry? Doesn't he know that's all their swill ever amounted to -- and thinly disguised to boot? They want our destruction because they want it. Period. His blah-blah-blah is impotence. De Benoist first of all can’t speak simply and to the point. His stuff is like a mist floating all around the room: you can’t get a handhold on it. You spend time reading 40 million paragraphs talking about what he should have said in three sentences then finished and moved on to his next point. This stuff’s simple but he makes it complicated. Life’s too short to indulge his “playing philosopher.” Second, he grants legitimacy to the other side in places where it’s absent: see how he writes, “In this I oppose [the feminist philosopher] Elisabeth Badinter, who, [blah-blah-blah].” “The feminist philosopher“? He actually trudged through a whole book written by a “feminist philosopher”? Can someone have anything legitimate or even intelligent to say whose whole premise is women are the same as men? Saying women are the same as men is like saying two plus two equals five. To quote a “feminist philosopher” is like quoting “a philosopher of two-plus-two-equals-five.” What’s worth quoting out of a whole philosophy devoted to two-plus-two-equals-five? What are we to think of a man who deems it worthwhile to quote from such a philosophy? Why aren’t “feminists” simply ignored by him? He could be honing his arguments about saving the white race and instead he’s reading “feminist philosophers”? What, is he going to refute that women and men are the same? Is he not going to refute it? What truths grow out of “women and men are the same” that we need to be aware of? What truths grow out of it, period? None. Third, de Benoist seems to think the other side is following a philosophy. They’re not. The philosophy part is a rationalization that came after they’d already decided they wanted our destruction. First they decided they wanted our destruction then they dressed up their aim in nice-sounding language. De Benoist is under the illusion that if he develops a counter-philosophy they’ll surrender in the face of our stronger, truer philsophy. Hasn’t he heard of “sophistry”? Hasn’t he heard that if they sense their position being threatened they’ll just switch to a different sophistry? Doesn’t he know that’s all their swill ever amounted to — and thinly disguised to boot? They want our destruction because they want it. Period. His blah-blah-blah is impotence.

]]>