Was New Sincerity the precursor to the alt-right? Think about it. Ironism is the best liberal, multicultural position...

Sorry friendo, this post doesn't violate any global or board rules. It is a call for discussion relating to the political and/or philosophical impact of a genre of LITERATURE on the current zeitgeist.

read the sticky, an elaboration on Veeky Forums 1

>multiculturism isnt new

Existed in the ancient world, America was importing slaves since the 1500s, then there was the ellis island melting pot stuff for hundreds of years, so by being against multiculturalism, you mean that "I dont mind different ethnicities living in America as long as they celebrate baseball and apple pie" or you mean "I wish the whites can have their own ethno-state somewhere" and than that latter can mean "somewhere" or referring to the former quote "the entirety of America should be an all white ethno-state because whites took it from the indians and mexicans and french or whatever dutch and british first"

Autism thread?

You aren't technically wrong, I guess. But your being extremely disingenuous in comparing the levels of ancient immigration to the current levels.

It most certainly is. You seem to be appropriating multi-ethnic cultures for your personal ideology.

America's black population used to be double and before they blanda upped there were entire neighborhoods of jersey and new york that only spoke italian. immigration is nowhere as strong as it used to be, you're drinking the kool aid

>Ancient
>America
???

JOSEPH SMITH WAS CALLED A PROPHET

>current

>Was New Sincerity the precursor to the alt-right
No.

Also the alt-right is dead, they self describe as the "nu-right" now.

when I was 15 I learned about tolerance and coexistence among differing cultures from the Redwall series

>Britain receives more immigrants per year in 2016 than it did in the entirety of 1851 to 1931 or 900-1851
>immigration is nowhere as strong as it used to be

This

Demographics are constantly in flux and people have migrated to different areas since humanity began. If you cannot accept that there will be people different from you in the world you have the mentality of an autistic child. Without nonwhites, white society would have become culturally and genetically inbred.

Yes, but the ethos of the older empires was different from the modern liberal multiculturalism, in that the latter is ironic. By using ironic a political sense here, I mean it in the way Richard Rorty uses it:

"I shall define an "ironist" as someone who fulfills three conditions: (I) She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered; (2) she realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts; (3) insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself"

To me, it does seem analogous to the ironic postmodern literary movements reaching their peak and then fading out, with the wider culture experiencing the same shift about a decade later.

The non-Hispanic contingent of the current immigration wave is what makes it unique. This group of immigrants is different because:

1. They are highly educated members of the upper-middle class.
2. They do not come from culturally Western societies.

Past waves of immigration consisted primarily of the European working class, which was comparably easy to integrate and possessed little influence over existing cultural institutions.

The new wave of immigration is potentially dangerous because the upper-middle class has traditionally been the "trend-setter" for political and cultural attitudes. As the upper-middle class becomes less Western, it provokes resentment and fear (not misguided) that profound unwanted social change might occur.

>britain is the world

The term "alt-right" may have been besmirched, but the ideas and attitudes behind it are still gaining popularity.

Not Americentric enough for you?

>It most certainly is. You seem to be appropriating multi-ethnic cultures for your personal ideology.

You can use it to your advantage by saying it led to the downfall of rome, but you cant say multiple of cultures and ethnicities living in the same area is brand new to the world: and I dont have a personal ideology, unless you count Truthism

>I dont have a personal ideology, unless you count Truthism
W E W

>comparing a time of net emigration to net immigration
don't be a retard

I have no clue what that definition means, can you give a or some examples? A person not trusting their vocabulary, so you are saying, the leaders of the empire, dont trust their vocabulary?

I think either, the leaders thought, a direction towards kumbyah hand holding + them profiting do to this + world military expedition would be most profitable or noone thought too much about it and things just developed semi naturally and now there are more people than ever with more desires than ever and more technology that allows them to be loud than ever so the effects of any discontent is magnified, or there really are problems but not practical actual coherent gung ho solutions, or conspiracies or there was no practical alternative (insofar as your slant is or at least OPs that they want an all white ethnostate which preserves western european values or they would be fine with a white european dictator ship that makes all ethnicities living in its boundaries celebrate baseball and apple pie... which is it? If you think about some media from the 50s 60s and 70s there was a lot of futurism space age sleek and clean and modern and automated and robots a lot of optimism for the coherent under control we finally made it to the future, what happened?

So solution/s?

>"New Sincerity" Thread
>Leftists tripping up over facts
Every time.

When I was fifteen I was desperately trying to figure out just what the hell this "anarchism" business was. All I knew was that I was left-wing but liberals disgusted me.

When I was sixteen I had welcomed Stirner to my heart.

Give me numbers, I find it very hard to believe that America is being overrun with large numbers of upper middle class non-westerners threatening to make big changes to American culture.

I've always seen the problem as very real economic issue ( I do sympathise with the forgotten flyover working class) coupled with runaway media sensationalism, bombarding the proles with inaccurate, bloated information.

but they had those books about how varmints could NOT be trusted, even from birth...

I like having little views of the process tho. A few weeks ago DFW was the evil postmodern liberal who was probably a globalist democrat or something. Without any intention OP has gained an interest in literature and may even read Infinite Jest over Christmas.

>than it did in the entirety of 1851 to 1931 or 900-1851
That definitely won't be true, but at the same time there are a lot more people in the world.

Yes, I would agree with that position. Irony is revolutionary and Sincerity is reactionary.

>That definitely won't be true
Why didn't you google and find out that it is indeed true?

I'm sorry, what book is this thread about? This is the literature board, for discussion about books.

If you're looking for a book on "liberal ironism", I suggest Richard Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity.

I think stop posturing bro.

If we consider that net immigration last year was just north of 300K, and gross immigration a little less than double that, then consider a handful of historical migration events (e.g. the size of the army brought over by William the Conquerer, the influx of the slave trade, movement of Irish workers from the potato famine, people coming from the Napoleonic wars), we find numbers that in any given year are not miles off either measure. For example, just the army of William the Conqueror was around 100k in all likelihood, some estimates going as high as 150k.

If you know even a very tiny amount of history it's clearly bollocks. So stop popping pills and read a book negro.

You should post this on Veeky Forums, they would find it hilarious people think after an entire army conquerors a place they just settle down and don't return home.

You would have to equally apply that to immigration numbers of both set. So who is entering but planning to leave, who is returning, who is leaving but planning to return etc. for the recent year.

I'm not really sure what you think happened post 1066 with the Norman troops, but they didn't just go home.

1....2....1....2....

>most historians believe that the Norman Conquest of 1066 resulted in little migration to Britain, marriages were uncommon between Norman men and English women.

A high estimate of 8000 Normans seems to be a safe bet. Your example is fucking retarded.

>A high estimate of 8000 Normans seems to be a safe bet.
That would be like 10 people to a ship (the over 700 ships is about the most certain part of any estimates), and if you take into account that most personnel in all wars serve a logistical role, a few hundred actual fighters.

I have never heard such a low estimate so would like a source.

reading is for fags