Saturday, May 08, 2010

ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM -- A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people

Dennis Mangan posted an article where he claims that "Jews were greatly over-represented among the early revolutionaries and later among the leaders of the Soviet Union, including the various incarnations of the secret police." I have heard this claim over and over by Eastern European commenters over at Gates of Vienna, not only about the Jewish dominance in the Soviet Union but in Bolshevism all across Eastern Europe. But is it really so? If it is, Dennis Mangan is making several points that are right on target in his article.

Dennis' brother Dave entered the discussion bringing up the Holodomor, that is the forced starvation of some 7 million Ukranians in 1932-33. Which Dave Mangan claims was enacted by Jewish commissars. But was it really so? Well, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency it was. They write about how in July 2008 the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of the high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine, and most of the names on the list were Jewish. (The Ukrainian Jewish Committee, however, called on the secret service to revise the list, which "incited interethnic hatred", in order to clear up the “inaccuracy”.)

But back to Dennis Mangan's article. It is interesting to find that his claims are backed up by someone I consider probably the most sound political thinker of the 20th century: Winston Churchill. Churchill published in 1920 an article named "ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM -- A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people", where he detailed the Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik revolution. Churchill discusses in this article the split between Jews: some are Communists, he wrote, while others are Jewish nationalists. Churchill favored the Jewish nationalists and he appealed to what he called "loyal Jews" to ensure that the Communist Jews did not succeed. Churchill went even further and blamed the Jews for "every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century". He also pointedly accused Leon Trotsky of wanting to establish a "world wide Communistic state under Jewish domination" in this article.

Under the subtitle of "Terrorist Jews" Churchill writes:
- - - - - - - - -

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
This backs the claims made by Dennis Mangan (and Slezkine, who he is quoting) by someone considered credible by most people (who counts). That should cue anyone in doubt about the Jewish character of Bolshevism to look more closely into the matter. Furthermore, this whole story, as suggested by Mangan, "puts a crimp in the Jewish notion that they have been unique victims, and in the notion that Germans have been uniquely evil."

Today the Jews that Churchill refers to as International and Terrorist Jews have shifted from Bolshevism onto multiculturalism, neoconservatism and other destructive internationalist causes (George Soros anyone?). So the same thing still applies, albeit in new shapes. Likewise, in my view, Churchill's endorsement of "national Jews" and Zionism is the remedy and the way forward. Churchill ends his article by writing:
But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.
So yes, Zionism is the answer. However, in these sick times even that isn't without issues and problems, especially for America . (More about the role of America and Israel in our current mythology here: four subsequent comments). Churchill, however, was all through his life a firm pro-Zionist (see Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship) which he was absolutely right to be.

In parallel to this discussion I'm having another discussion with Chechar (and to some extent Rollory). One of the problems I have with Chechar is the way he takes Hitler and Nazism as the starting point for the reconstruction of a revitalized and healthy Europe. I cannot understand why he wouldn't take Churchill (whose outlook largely harmonizes with Dennis Mangan's) as the starting point instead. For starters Churchill denounced and warned about Islam while Hitler and the Nazis admired it. Go figure....

222 comments:

1 – 200 of 222   Newer›   Newest»
rebelliousvanilla said...

I wonder why these people are surprised when they consider other people foreigners and yet hold Jews to a different standard. Jews are just doing what any ethnic group living within another one does - undermine it to gain power and sway. It's quite simple, it's not that they're programmed to do it or anything. The only difference is that they have an average IQ of 120 for Ashkenazis compared to 70 for Africans. I suppose you'd expect their undermining to take different forms. So, another point, we should support Israel as long as Jews move there? lol

Armance said...

I admire Churchill in many respects, but still I cannot erase from my mind that picture from Yalta with him, Stalin and FDR making the deal about the enslavement of Eastern Europe for half of century. And they all look like they have a good time, the great time of the winners.

For my country, it meant the beheading of our elite in Communist extermination prisons (intellectuals, businessmen, political leaders, rich farmers, students, officers of the Romanian Army) and two generations of sacrifice on the altar of the WWII winners.

They won the war, and it's the biggest Pyrrhic victory in world history. The victory that almost destroyed us, both in the East and the West.

Well, let's suppose that Churchill considered Romanians, Poles, Hungarians, etc. a bunch of untermensch not necessarily worth saving (the funny thing is that looking retrospectively the Yalta trio treated Eastern Europeans as untermensch much more than Hitler).

But why wasn't he, pragmatically speaking, able to foresee that any alliance with the Bolshevik Empire and the Multicultural Empire will mean the end of the British Empire as we used to know it?

geza1 said...

"So, another point, we should support Israel as long as Jews move there? lol"

Supporting Israel is not the issue. If you are not Jewish or don't plan to move there then there really is no point in you supporting Israel. It's just another foreign country. The point that CS was trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's better to encourage Jews to become Zionists instead of universalists because that way, as Zionists they are concerned with their own fate, not ours, but as universalists their fate and our fate become intertwined and will undoubtably lead to friction down the road. Of course, it's not as simple as that because it is possible to believe in two contradictory ideologies such as Zionism and multiculturalism. But if you convince Jews that Zionism is evil and racist, then that will make them even more vociferous in opposing any European ethnostate. You can reason with some Jewish Zionists on the legitimacy of a European ethnostate but you cannot do the same with any Jewish anti-Zionist.

Conservative Swede said...

Armance,

First regarding Yalta:

Churchill alone pushed for free elections in Poland. He pointed out that the British people originally went to war when the sovereignty of Poland was at risk. Churchill said that Britain "could never be content with ant solution that did not leave Poland a free and independent state".

But in 1945 Churchill was voted out of power, and then there was not much he could do.

However, before that he had advanced plans of attacking the Soviet Union. Read about it here:

In May 1945, immediately after the end of the war in Europe, Churchill instructed his staff to prepare top secret plans for a surprise Anglo-American attack on the Soviet Union:

“The war between the Russians and the democracies is approaching and indeed has already begun, and Germany will of course be invited to participate. An International Air Brigade is to be formed for use in the war against Japan. Volunteers are invited and will be trained in England. Several offers have been received.”


Churchill directed Lord Montgomery "to be careful in collecting the German arms, to stack them so they could easily be issued again to the German soldiers whom we should have to work with if the Soviet advance continued."

When this plan became publicly known it lead to many attacks on Churchill for having wanted to “use Nazi soldiers against our war allies.”

Armance, your ranting about Churchill treating Eastern Europeans as untermensch is thus demonstrably way off the wall. And when you add "much more than Hitler" it's just bizarre. Stalin and Roosevelt I don't care for, however (and neither Truman nor Attlee). Churchill, however, was sound and clear-sighted all the way. And yes, he had no other choice than declaring war on Hitler (and why don't you try to put some blame on Hitler for a change?)

As the text I quote above makes clear, Churchill could make the distinction between Nazis and Germans. He was prepared to use German soldiers immediately in 1945 to attack the Soviet Union. But people in general are simply not able to properly make this distinction (and this is yet another illustration of why people in general should just stay away from politics). Regardless of whether people side with the Nazis or not, they generally lump Nazis and Germans together, and their thinking end up in a blur.

rebelliousvanilla said...

ConservativeSwede, as Jean Francois Revel points out, Roosevelt was the nutjob who was quite fond of the Soviets - I wonder if his taste for big government and socialism had much to do with it, but it's public that his entourage had Soviet plants in it. WW2 was the biggest disgrace in history for my country and I will hate Russia as a country forever due to it - and I say forever because they'll never apologize for their rapes, pillages or forcing the soldiers of my country to fight with the German machine guns in their front and the Soviet ones behind them while being kicked out of the liberation parades. Or sending so many people to the Gulag.

Oh, as a side note, I wonder why the Russians don't have to pay reparations to Romanian Germans. I mean, Germany had to do it to the Jews and the Germans in my country were sent to the Gulag and dehumanized based on their ethnic origin. The king wasn't too fond of it and I'm pissed off we didn't bring him back.

Armance said...

Churchill, however, was sound and clear-sighted all the way.

Uhm, no. Obviously he was the most humane among the Yalta trio (since Stalin was a cynical butcher and FDR an useful idiot), but not clear-sighted, not at all.

Operation Unthinkable that you describe above was just a hypothetical plan, and only in the case American troops withdrew from Europe and the Brits would have been compelled to challenge the Soviets face to face.

Otherwise, Churchill was equally delusional about Stalin like Chamberlain about Hitler. In this state of mind he went to negociate at Yalta. Or, to put it in his own words, "Poor Neville Chamberlain believed he could trust Hitler. He was wrong. But I don't think I'm wrong about Stalin."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference

So, he truly believed that the Soviets would allow free elections and sovereignty in occupied Eastern Europe. That's why he accepted Stalin's conditions at Yalta - which meant Soviet control over the fate of Eastern Europe.
Well, later on he might have realized that he was wrong - but what, later on poor Chamberlain might have realized he was wrong, too.

The article above about the fight over the Jewish soul is one more example of Churchill's delusions. He starts in a reasonable and humane way, the premises are true (Jewish over-involvment in the Bolshevik movement), but after that he thinks that Zionism could be a cure for Jewish leftism and internationalism. Well, it might be as long as Jews live in Israel; but regarding Jews living in our midst, common observation proves that they can be zealous internationalists (regarding their host nations) and enthousiastic Zionists about Israel. Because in spite of the official version in the counter-jihad movement, ADL, HIAS and AIPAC are ardent Zionists, they just get over-critical about Arizona anti-immigration law.

So, this is another version of the saying "But I don't think I'm wrong about Stalin".

Afonso Henriques said...

Churchill is "nice", yes. But the man also had various flaws. No one is perfect.

I wonder if and why Conservative Swede have read Buchannan's book: "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War".

It talks about the beggining of the war in a way that, without making excuses for the Nazis, clearly states that the war started when Britain and France DECLARED war on Germany, and not due to German imperialism to rule the world and hunt Jews.

I mean, was it really worth to partially (?) destroy Europe and possibily(?) changing it forever just in order to prevent Germany to reunite with it's own ancient land? Was a WWII worth for maintaining a Polish Danzig, which was hardly Polish to begin with?

Was WWII really necessary just because France "needs" to have power over Germany. By the way, why is France considered a winner of the war?

Yes, Churchil is great, but he created the war as much as Hitler, I think.

Félicie said...

Hey, ConSwede, have you seen this news item?

Riksdagen ändrar grundlagen på flera punkter:

http://politisktinkorrekt.info/2010/05/26/riksdagen-andrar-grundlagen-pa-flera-punkter/

I wonder what your take is on this. Especially this item:

"Militären får sättas in mot svenskar."

The way I read it is that the government is preparing for the possibility of a civil war. What do you think?

Kill Whitey! said...

Glad you're back!

Inspired by you, I have written my own post based on Mangan's. I classify Jews as fundamentally Socialist, Traditional, and Zionist:

http://thewanderingwhite.blogspot.com/2010/05/jews-socialist-traditional-and-zionist.html

Of the three, I like traditional Jews the most. Zionist Jews can be all right, but that have to be loyal. (I include multiculturalism as a form of socialism, since Fjordman has pointed out it is the successor to Communism.) Some of them labour under the delusion that Israel is part of the West, so they have no trouble being loyal to "other" Western countries. This stands in contradistinction to socialist Jews, who often consider themselves European and want nothing to do with Israel -- yet reject traditional Western culture.

Kill Whitey! said...

I had the privilege of knowing an elderly lady, now deceased, of Polish-Lithuanian Jewish origin, whom I absolutely despised. She explained that the Jews couldn't afford to stay in Israel, and she once asked me of all people what the Jews were doing in Israel.

Surprise, surprise: Although uneducated beyond high school, she was an arrogant atheistic Jewess who had been involved in the creation of early trade unions, and she was a great admirer of Ted Kennedy. Despite her atheism and her social democratism -- which were militant -- she continued to be nominally observant of Jewish holidays because of her race pride.

I am close friends with her former caretaker; she told me the elderly Jewess -- when over 90 years old and suffering from osteoporosis -- refused to use the back entrance of her own building on a windy, icy day in winter because "That entrance is for the servants."

She was a good Menshevik, you see.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Afonso, France and Britain HAD to declare war on Germany considering they guaranteed the borders created by the peace treaty from WW1.

Conservative Swede said...

Felicie & Kill Whitey,

Hi and thanks for your comments! Good to see you here.

Kepha said...

There is an international conspiracy to put the world under the rule of a Jewish king--it's called Christianity.

Kepha said...

Long ago, an American Communist author of Russian-Jewish heritage named Michael Gold wrote a novel entitled _Jews Without Money_, set in the slums of the Lower East Side of New York (back then, it was not the tony neighborhood it is today). It ends with the protagonist declaring that socialism is the Messiah.

Perhaps the Leftism of early 20th century Jews and the neo-Conservatism of their chastened grandchildren represents a hunger for M'shiach. Hence, in accordance with the Westminster Larger Catechism (1644), I pray for the Jews to be called to the true Messiah--Yeshua HaMsh'iach--as well as the fulness of the gentiles being brought in when I pray "Thy Kingdom Come".

And, while we're at it,maybe the attraction Communism held for the Jews of the former Romanov, Ottoman, and Habsburg lands of eastern and Central Europe a century ago and the American partiotism their descendants picked up in the USA is a parable about what happens when a minority group is marginalized and persecuted, versus what happens when it is allowed full, no-questions-asked citizenship.

王名人,芳容,等人,你们在哪里?这里有别的懂中文的人吧!Kepha敬上

rebelliousvanilla said...

Kepha, what the heck? Jews in America are supporting things that harm her. And the thing with Jews acting the way they do because they're persecuted doesn't follow.

CS, delete the spam. :P

Mark said...

Sure, Churchill was especially sharp about differentiating ordinary Germans from Nazi soldiers. That's why he ordered the incineration of medieval German cities packed with refugees at the end of the war when Germany was on its knees. What a humanitarian! He should have got the Nobel Peace Price posthumously last year instead if that other deserving fellow, President Obama.

Dolomitengeist said...

Islam-Italy: church was in "a mosque converted" during Sunday Mass from the Muslims
http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdolomitengeisteu-dolomitengeist.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F01%2Fislam-italienkirche-wurde-wahrend-der.html&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

rebelliousvanilla said...

Mark, that's what happens in total war. Nothing stopped Hitler from surrendering way earlier than that when it was obvious where things are leading to.

The differences come once the war ends.

Dolomitengeist, that just makes me even more disgusted by our current culture. But hey, Americanism with its religious freedom and its supporters should knock themselves out.

Polymath said...

What does the story Dolomitengeist posted have to do with American religious freedom? You've been more anti-American than usual recently....

One reason these kinds of protests, interrupting religious services, don't happen here is that all churches are private property and the state can't allow everyone free access to them. Those Muslims would be found guilty of trespass here. Obnoxious outsiders like Fred Phelps (who btw I am not sure isn't a left-wing performance artist) are kept at a distance.

You still get cases where people who are allowed to be there disrupt things, like when some gay activists sneaked into St. Patrick's cathedral in NYC pretending to be Catholics and trampled on the hosts (that is, on the Eucharistic bread), but even that is very rare here and the gays were roundly criticized even by liberals like the NY Times.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Without religious freedom, Islam would hardly be a problem, would it? Europeans expelled people for having different interpretations of the same book, let alone different books.

This made me recall the stupid thing that libertarians bring up - that all conflicts are a result of ill defined property rights.

Polymath said...

I just tried twice to post the following at GoV on this thread but for some reason it didn't go through. Does Baron B hold up anything with the word "Jews" in it?
***
Since I have only been frequenting this site since last summer, I had not realized that part of your original mission was to "rally people to Israel's defense". I have not seen so much of that recently.

Your "canary in the coal mine" analogy is apt, but efforts to save the canary do not necessarily make the mine any safer. Israel is important because it is an ally in the fight against the spread of Islam and can do some of the fighting for us, and because, despite the insanity our ruling elites exhibit when talking about Israel, it provides the clearest illustration for ordinary people of how dangerous, irrational, backward, stupid, and wicked the Muslim world is.

But we should not let our support for Israel in its struggle with Muslims prevent us from understanding when Israel's interests do not coincide with those of other Western countries, or prevent us from understanding the role of Jews in creating and maintaining some of the social problems we have.

David Horowitz's vicious and dishonest hit piece against Ron Paul yesterday,
Ron Paul Is A Vicious Anti-Semite and Anti-American and Conservatives Need To Wash Their Hands of Him,
illustrates the need for clarity and honesty here.
***

rebelliousvanilla said...

If you ask me, Horowitz is a fruitcake(considering this guy a conservative shows what a joke conservatism is). Anyway, yes, GoV has a funny attitude towards Jews considering their attitude towards Muslims. If comments with the word Jews in it go into moderation, this farcical philo-Semitism reached a new level.

Not to mention the idiotic Judeo-Christian concept(which is like 70 years old anyway). This is one of the greatest examples of the left becoming the new right.

thewanderingwhite said...

Given that Gorovich publishes the neo-Chetnik Srdja "Serge" Trifkovic, I think we can safely conclude Gorovich is not a normal neocon. Can you see Max Boot or Bill Kristol collaborating with an advisor to Alexander II of Serbia? It wasn't exactly mainstream for American Jews to oppose the NATO atrocities against Serbia as Gorovich did (see his article in FP from 1999, "Stop This War"), since Ruder Finn, Inc. had them all convinced the Serbs -- not the Ustasha and their Albanian friends in the UCK -- were the real Nazis.

That said, Gorovich banned his fellow Zionist Larry Auster from FP for writing about the black-on-white rape epidemic in America; something other than Zionism is clearly at work here.

Gorovich's editor-in-chief, the self-hating ethnic-Russian liberal Yakov "Jamie" Glazov, has rhapsodised about the what he calles the "freedom" in America -- also much in evidence in Britain -- to commit miscegenation, as well as about what he perceives as the beauty of mulattoes.

When Glazov was -- or so he claimed -- asked by some readers whether he was Jewish following his perverted comments, he played dumb, acting as though he had never heard of the Jewish involvement in the promotion of black-on-white miscegenation.

In reality, Gorovich has fused his neo-Marxist roots with his newfound Zionism and "Judaeo-Christianity". He need go no further than praising the disgusting little Left-liberal toad Bill Buckley -- who largely destroyed true conservatism in the Jewnited States of AmeriKwa -- to show his true colours.

Polymath said...

ww,

Your comment started off reasonably, except for your strange changing of Horowitz's name to "Gorovich" (I don't oppose the exposure of Jews changing their names to something less Jewish, as you did with Glazov, but "David Horowitz" is a perfectly Jewish name already and the fact that the original can also be transliterated from Slavic languages as "Gorovich" signifies nothing).

But I don't understand your last sentence. Buckley was not good for anyone to his right, but calling him a "Left-liberal" is ridiculous, and references to "Jewnited States of AmeriKwa" suggest that you are one of the unfortunately numerous people who can't think straight when the subject is Jews. I always expect this kind of weirdness when I say anything on this subject, from both Jewish sympathizers and those who blame Jews for everything.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Polymath, as an European, all American conservatives, including the founding fathers are liberals. Democrats being socialists doesn't change anything.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/a-genealogy-of-the-right/
That's a fairly good post. And both liberalism and socialism as ideologies are into the unite all people bullshit. At least socialism didn't care about implementing it as much. So Buckley was pretty much a liberal. I do agree with what you said about ww's comment though.

Anyway, to sum it up, considering Horowitz as anything than a liberal is pretty farcical. He's the typical fruitcake who minds immigrants just because they aren't PC enough.

Polymath said...

We don't disagree, but you may not have appreciated the care I took with my words. I have no problem with calling Buckley a liberal, it's calling him a "Left-liberal" that I criticized. Someone who sees no significant difference between Buckley and Obama is not going to be much use to discuss practical politics with.

thewanderingwhite said...

To Polymath and Rebellious Vanilla:

"Left-liberal" is used in opposition to -- to use Murray Rothbard's terminology -- "right-wing liberal" or "paleolibertarian".

However, since all the Americans who wrote on the issues that matter to me were banished from National Review by Bill Buckley (one paleoconservative who was thus purged wrote that Buckley acted out of senility), I cannot agree with Rothbard's classification of Buckley as a "conservative". Despite this, I certainly see Buckley as distinct from Obama, whom I view as a typical American Marxist of the Alinsky-Frankfurt hybrid variety.

(Murray Rothbard was so blind to the need for resistance to International Communism that he openly advocated Black Power [e.g., the Marxist terrorist organisation The Black Panthers] and American surrender in the Cold War [which has never really ended for the Russians, although they are no longer Marxist-Leninist]. He was also woefully ignorant of Leninist malice towards the capitalist and -- later -- the social democratic West.)

As for my use of "Gorovich": I was poking fun at Horowitz's name, which is typical of Ostjuden; I'm sorry you two weren't amused. I also considered spelling his first name "Daveed", but dropped the idea since it does not reflect the Cyrillic spelling. In any case, I agree with Rebellious Vanilla that Horowitz's main problem with Third World flotsam in the West is not that they aren't nationalists like us, but that they aren't PC enough.

With respect to my use of "Jewnited States of AmeriKwa", would either of you deny that the United States have been radically altered for the worse by Jews or by negroes? Would either of you deny that Americans cannot criticise Jews -- or other ethnic and racial groups not indigenous to Europe -- without suffering loss of professional and/or social status, much as Brits, Canadians, and Europeans cannot engage in actions thought by the government censors to "incite racial hatred" (as defined by the Race Relations Acts 1965, 1968, 1976, and 2000 in my case) without suffering criminal penalties?

thewanderingwhite said...

Sorry; so-called "incitement to racial hatred" wasn't in the Race Relations Acts 1965 and 1968. It first appeared in the Race Relations Act 1976.

rebelliousvanilla said...

WW, I agree that both had a bad influence and I'm not a fan of either group. But say jokes that are funny. Like why did Jews wonder for 40 years in the desert? Because one of them lost a quarter. How was copper wire invented? Two Jews were fighting over the same coin.

And Murray Rothbard isn't really that much of a conservative anyway. The way I construct the left to right axis is have on the right a hierarchical view of society(by class, religion, gender, ethnicity or whatnot) and on the left an egalitarian one. I hardly consider libertarians to be on the right side of the political spectrum - probably just slightly more than communists. This if you must have a political axis to begin with - I find it silly, but that's just me. I suppose it reflects the binary, absolutist way in which the vast majority of Americans think and thought.

Polymath, Buckley was pretty much a neoconish, considering that he thought the problem with neocons is that they are idealistic, not that they have the wrong ideals.

thewanderingwhite said...

Rebellious Vanilla:

Murray Rothbard was certainly not a conservative, let alone a nationalist.

Since Polymath said Buckley was a "liberal" -- but not a "Left-liberal" -- I can only conclude he is grouping him with Rothbard and the other paleolibertarians, which is fatuous.

The only maybe-conservative paleolibertarian I can name is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who is a monarchist on the grounds that monarchy leads to expansion of private property (i.e., in the hands of nobles). He also opposes "strategic regionalisation", "global governance", etc. on the grounds that they are forms of forced integration, which he considers to violate free-market principles in all its forms. Food for thought...

Polymath said...

WW, you explained yourself more clearly, but I don't know why you are criticizing me. You called Buckley a "Left-liberal", I said I had problems with the "Left" part of that characterization but did not object to the "liberal" part, so you jump to the conclusion that I am lumping him with Rothbard. Not everyone shares your detailed structure of categories.

That said, Hoppe and Rothbard are interesting thinkers well worth reading, despite their errors. Rothbard was impractical in the way libertarians often are, but to an absurd extreme; his faith in logic worked out well descriptively but terribly proscriptively because people are illogical. Hoppe was great socially and politically and succeeds at being libertarian without being egalitarian, but like Rothbard goes impractically far in the direction of anarchism.

Here is a great Hoppe quote:

A second motive for the open border enthusiasm among contemporary left-libertarians is their egalitarianism. They were initially drawn to libertarianism as juveniles because of its "antiauthoritarianism" (trust no authority) and seeming "tolerance," in particular toward "alternative" — non-bourgeois — lifestyles. As adults, they have been arrested in this phase of mental development. They express special "sensitivity" in every manner of discrimination and are not inhibited in using the power of the central state to impose non-discrimination or "civil rights" statutes on society. Consequently, by prohibiting other property owners from discrimination as they see fit, they are allowed to live at others' expense. They can indulge in their "alternative" lifestyle without having to pay the "normal" price for such conduct, i.e., discrimination and exclusion. To legitimize this course of action, they insist that one lifestyle is as good and acceptable as another. This leads first to multiculturalism, then to cultural relativism, and finally to "open borders."

Buckley ran out of intellectual energy in the 80's and became irrelevant; before then his "purge" of the American conservative movement rejected the good along with the bad (since he rejected everyone to his right). RV is right that he is more of a neocon than a libertarian. Despite his huge output, he never gave a coherent vision for American society, though he can be forgiven for concentrating on trying to stop its leftward movement. The damage done by his rejection of the far right (which persists at NR even after his passing, though they let Derbyshire stick around and allude to its existence) is only now becoming relevant, because the discrediting of the left-liberals has finally succeded (helped by their recent overreaching) to the point where large numbers of people are becoming receptive to an alternative rightist vision.

rebelliousvanilla said...

WW, the problem with libertarians is that they start from a flawed point of view. While there is no collective brain, we are social beings and we are pretty much the product of our environment. The whole atomized society view is flawed. Sure, this doesn't mean that quite a lot of the 'for the good of the people' demagogues aren't full of crap because they are.

So I don't really consider HHH a conservative. Sure, he makes a really good utilitarian point of monarchy, but what matters to people is morality and mythology(which Polymath pointed out).

Polymath, the problem with libertarians is that they are impervious to externalities and other transactional costs. Or choice costs, for that matter. And I have a big problem considering anybody in the US conservative. The fact that we don't understand the same thing from conserving shows how foreign America is from Europe. Truth be told, I always found concepts like Western civilization to be farcically inclusive.

thewanderingwhite said...

Polymath and Rebellious Vanilla:

Agreed that Buckley was a quasi-neocon, but doesn't that make him a Left-liberal -- at least a sympathiser of Cultural Bolshevism -- from where we sit? After all, as Paul Gottfried has observed in his article "The Myth of 'Judeo-Christian' Values", neocons and liberals -- by which he presumably means Left-liberals -- are "two only minimally different groups".

As for Hans-Hermann Hoppe, it is true that he views monarchy from a utilitarian viewpoint -- but at least he does not defend classic liberalism like the vast majority of those who, like Hoppe, choose to live in America.

By many standards, being a monarchist for any reason whatsoever -- including that tax rates under monarchy tended to be very low by modern standards, and that public property was limited --makes one at least politically incorrect, and maybe even a reactionary.

Certainly, even in the post-Enlightenment West, morality and mythology matter to the populace, but horrid living conditions usually do, too, unless the populace have been convinced there is no other way. Just witness the spread of socialised -- even single-payer -- health care through democratic channels in White nations, surely one of the horrors of our age.

Rebellious Vanilla, here is my favourite Jew joke:

Q: "What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza?"

A: "A pizza doesn't scream when you put it in the oven."

Polymath said...

RV, we agree about libertarians, their understanding of economics is deficient. And I didn't call anyone conservative, and I agree that in the American context there is not much left to "conserve" and what is needed is a restoration. But it is therefore correct to call Buckley a "conservative" as long as you recognize that this is not intended to be a term of praise, it means he didn't care about moving the country back to the right, just halting its leftward drift (and this is no news to anybody who took seriously his original motto from the 50's, "standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!' ", which already indicates a preference for whatever the status quo happens to be at any given time). What we need more of at this point is rightists, or reactionaries, not conservatives, though conservatives are much preferable to liberals and may lead a necessary interregnum. (And Europe is not so much better than America about this, there is practically nothing to "conserve" there anymore either. Stop thinking of "conservative" as a good thing and you will see that it is OK to call people like Buckley "conservative". The one way Europe has it better than America is that there is a pre-Enlightenment tradition to restore so their reactionaries can get further to the right, but both Europe and America need to move a long way to the right before that difference becomes critical.)

WW, liberals and leftists are different, what has happened is that the neocons are like the old liberals, but that puts them significantly far away from the leftists who have gradually appropriated the term "liberal" so that like "progressive" it primarily indicates leftism. As I wrote on GoV earlier this month, "liberals always get controlled by leftists in the end because they fall for the temptation of thinking that having the correct opinions makes them morally superior to conservatives; once that fatal step is taken, they can no longer look at their own views critically and Leftists can push their emotional buttons".

I found your "favorite" joke about Jews, unlike RV's, unfunny and offensive. It reinforces my suspicion that your thinking about the subject is overly emotional.

My favorite Jewish joke is about JAPs (Jewish American Princesses, who were all over Long Island where I grew up; in my college, which was in Massachusetts, it was more commonly told about "Cliffies" [Harvard/Radcliffe girls] but they were largely JAPs anyway). It supposedly has many answers but I only know two. What's the difference between a JAP and a toilet seat?
(1. You can't get VD from a toilet seat 2. A toilet seat warms up when you touch it)

thewanderingwhite said...

Polymath:

Sorry you didn't like the joke! Yours were a little off-colour for my taste, but "De gustibus non est disputandum"...

Yes, contemporary American so-called "progressives" are culturally and economically rather different from the early American Labour Movement socialists who organised in the wake of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, and I agree with you that the people most similar to them today in America are in some respects the neocons. That said, the American socialists of that era tended to espouse isolationism, in distinct contrast with radical neo-Trotskyist neocon interventionism.

However, as I understand the term "Left-liberal", it signifies only the difference between "classic liberal" and "fellow traveler of the Left", which certainly signifies the neocons as well with respect to racial and cultural survival. I cannot imagine a neocon who would not be outraged by the very mention of the BNP, the FPO, Kevin MacDonald, One Nation, Revilo P. Oliver, or the SVP, unless it was made in a disparaging fashion -- if then.

I like Paul Craig Roberts discussing economic matters. Like him, I am suspicious of what is often presented as "mutually beneficial free trade", although I recognise that sometimes it really does pay to move jobs overseas when production costs become too high.

We certainly agree that we should be "reactionary", which is the term I used to describe monarchists, rather than "conservative". We should also bear in mind patriotic British libertarian monarchists (such as Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance), who correctly associate the decline of monarchy with the rise of socialist tyranny. Like those of the BNP (to which he is sympathetic), Sean Gabb's views are heavily influenced by rooted patriotism.

Of course, it is possible for a monarchist nation to experience something like the nightmare of General Ludendorff's War Socialism, but this has, fortunately, proven to be the exception rather than the rule.

Polymath said...

Some distinctions: left-liberals are liberals who are really leftist when it counts, when they always take sides for socialism or against white people. Although neocons do not care about racial and cultural survival (which is one place Buckley differed from them, he always cared about cultural survival and cared about racial survival for decades though he eventually lost interest in that), they can't fairly be called "socialist".

De gustibus non est disputandum, yes, though that joke was more for RV, who shares my off-color sense of humor (or, adopting your spelling, my off-colour sense of humour :p ).

rebelliousvanilla said...

WW, the reason why people accept higher taxes now is that because we vote and we think that we somehow can change anything. Voting NEVER changed anything. Political change of any relevance is always done with the superior means of violence(used or implied). Why do you think the 'left' is maximizing their power inside the government while trying to disarm the people? There is a fundamental reason for this.

And socialized medicine doesn't really mean poverty. ConSwede being in Sweden, he will probably tell you that while healthcare in Sweden is probably worse than in America, it is still probably among the best systems in the world. Sure, this is a function of Sweden being largely filled with Swedes and not with Ethiopians(decided to change the group from Somalis, so that I won't be discriminatory lol).

I'd like to point out that the BNP isn't really a conservative party. Sure, they are better on a lot of things like immigration and who actually is British, but their views are often badly explained and so on. I suppose I like them insofar as they are a threat to the current order, sort of like I like Wilders.

Polymath is right, by the way, in regards to my sense of humor.

Polymath, I consider a conservative, a person who wants to conserve the European peoples, their traditions and so on. And our traditions are far more against liberal values(classical ones) and go more towards different things. But yes, this isn't really conserving what is here now. It's conserving the soul of Europe, which for anybody who knows history, it isn't the Enlightenment.

And what you said about liberals is actually true about conservatives in the US too. They are sort of a neurotic mirror of the left on some things, while accepting the underlying premises of the left. It's comical, I suppose.

I'd also like to point out that leftists don't necessarily mind white people. Heck, I'd paint all the leaders of my country since we stopped being a monarchy as leftists, yet none proposed our ethnic cleansing. lol

Polymath said...

As Gottfried pointed out at the Mencken conference, there are two kinds of leftists, the old-fashioned ones are socialists and bad news economically and politically, but they have been supplanted in the West by cultural leftists who also hate white people and any sort of moral traditionalism. In Romania you are lucky to have an ex-Communist left rather than the even more destructive cultural leftists who are responsible for the population replacement in Western European countries.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Well, don't worry, we're creating those too under the close council of the US and EU. The cultural ones are closer to the truth anyway - basically, a social class like the aristocracy was similar in concept to a nation. It was a partially inbred family. It's fairly simple to follow through on your ideas. I don't really consider the two as having that much to do with socialism, but socialism and liberalism being two postmodern interpretations of Christianity. Cultural Marxism is basically the two blended together.

thewanderingwhite said...

Polymath,

I disagree with you about the definition of
"Left-liberals". They are simply social liberals instead of classic liberals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-liberal

Rebellious Vanilla:

Socialised healthcare can work (assuming those involved are Swedes, not Somalis), but it is not as good as free market healthcare. What the Americans have is an overregulated, overly subsidised mess that is bankrupting their country along with their stupid pension schemes.

I can tell you that, in London, everyone with the money goes to Harley Street.

Single-payer healthcare, as in Canada, is simply bad.

I'm sorry you're getting Cultural Marxism in Eastern Europe. I'm aware of George Soros's activities in your area, and of Comrade Hillary's involvement in the recent poof parade in Belgrade, so I can't say I'm surprised.

thewanderingwhite said...

Rebellious Vanilla:

With respect to the American Founders, I think you hold them in excessive contempt.

They were extremely reluctant to break away from us, and some of them -- not Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Jacobinphiles in the Democratic Republicans -- wanted an alliance with King George III after the Americans won their independence.

Many Americans, of course, labelled "Tories" -- as opposed to the opposing "Patriots" -- were intent on remaining a British colony during the American Revolution; you should recall that the Patriots conceived of themselves as creating a place where traditional English liberties would be perfected. That this has not proven to be the case in our times is not their fault, especially as they have been preserved even less well in England.

In fact, Alexander Hamilton in particular wanted property owners in America to become a functional aristocracy in a highly centralised state with a high permanent debt, which this American pseudo-aristocracy would then be encouraged to purchase. The goal of these diverse manoeuvres was to ensure that American survival would be encouraged by the elite.

Universal suffrage was never contemplated by the Founders, and they rightly held "democracy" in contempt as mere mob rule.
Senators were not popularly elected until the 17th Amendment was ratified, but rather represented their respective states: The US Senate was originally a provision designed to help strengthen federalism and the representative nature of the American government. The Founders had studied Switzerland, and they admired the cantonal model deeply.

I hope you can see from this that the American system has turned bad since the Radical Republicans placed America on the path to disaster, but -- as envisioned by Alexander Hamilton at least -- I dare say the system was rather innocuous.

Polymath:

An American liberal I met told me that Buckley was a segregationist in his youth; I never believed her, but perhaps you are right that he cared about racial and cultural survival for a while.

Conservative Swede said...

WW, RV & Polymath,

Nice discussion! I have suddenly started following my own blog :-)

Thank god for intelligent discussions. They are so very rare.

Polymath said...

CS, you can thank RV for reviving things again, she flitted through here a few weeks ago planting some comments, then dropped a hint on GoV and I took the bait. My blog is also on hiatus but I suspect she'll be stirring the pot there too....I also like to go through old blog posts and comment, sometimes the passage of time gives a better perspective.

rebelliousvanilla said...

I suppose I should put on a nurse uniform right about now if I am the blog reviver. This or found my own country. Thinking of it, I'd like being the first woman that founds a country.

Anyway, leaving things aside, WW, the problem I have with America are a few things like:
1)freedom of religion(you should look up Islam in America and read some pretty fruity opinions about freedom of religion of the founders)
2)how meaningless being an American citizen has always been
I don't mind the liberties part. But liberty can't really hold a society together and they should have focused on that, instead of creating an universal behemoth. There are other things too, but I'm too tired right now to get into them. I do understand why Americans created an universal place though. Since the British had an empire, they promoted universalism abroad and America had that promoted in the colonies.

CS, I don't read my blog and I post on yours. Which is sort of funny.

Polymath, that's how I got to post on CS' blog again - I was looking to reread something.

rebelliousvanilla said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rebelliousvanilla said...

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/02/berlin-in-coma.html
Hesperado must have cabbage instead of brains, if he is missing such an obvious case I'm making. And the way he uses Westerner is laughable at best. I think nobody really traveled to Africa out of those people. I have a friend who worked in SA for a while and his company hired private security forces for their employees while there so that the Negroes won't attack them. And I don't know about other Muslim countries, but I've been to the Emirates and I have friends who have been to Lebanon and other Muslim countries and they are far better in any respect.

And the association of female circumcision with Islam is weaker than with Africans. In pretty much all African countries there is a higher prevalence of it than in a country like Yemen. Also, I'm amused that mutilating men is ok, but not girls.

I'm giving up on people at GoV. They're just being good liberals for the most part.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110224/ap_on_an/us_gay_marriage_analysis
Still thinking that somehow America is moving to the right now? What I find amusing is that these people somehow think that if the opinions of people change on something, the constitutionality of that thing changes. While I do agree that the law banning gay marriage is by all intents and purposes unconstitutional, the Constitution isn’t some fluid document. What matters is how people understood things when the laws were passed, not after changes in legal thought.

And from what I see, the millenials are even more deranged than the older counterparts. Actually, America is the only place in which I see young people moving leftwards.

Polymath said...

I replied on GoV to set Hesperado straight on some statistics. He also said there that we Westerners can't comprehend the typical Muslim mind, which is a stupid thing to say, it just requires more careful investigation. We ought to be using the things we know about Muslims' screwed-up thinking against them.

As for the Emirates, tell me if this article is consistent with the Dubai you saw.

You are right about FGM being an African more than an Arab thing, and it is also an Arab more than a Muslim thing, but it should not be discussed as like the male version in any way, for reasons I should not go into here.

The "opinion" data in that yahoo article is not well supported. Young people in America are further to the left on that one issue than they (or rather, previous cohorts of young people) used to be due to brainwashing but on the whole considering all issues they are not further to the left than those age groups were 10-20 years ago. They are definitely further right on abortion and economics and drug use, and they are mixed on race issues (more multicultural than before but less approving of affirmative action and other pro-minority preferences).

Your statement "While I do agree that the law banning gay marriage is by all intents and purposes unconstitutional, the Constitution isn’t some fluid document. What matters is how people understood things when the laws were passed, not after changes in legal thought." almost contradicts itself. It makes sense if you mean that "unconstitutional" is descriptive of currently dominant judicial philosophy and "what matters is how people understood things when the laws were passed" is normative about what judicial philosophy ought to be adopted instead.

But instead of confusing the descriptive and normative, you should say that since the prior amendments, acts, and interpretations being used to argue that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional would not have been considered to have that consequence by the legislators who passed those amendments and acts and the judges who made those interpretations, it comes down to what your judicial philosophy is about unintended consequences. The "pure textualist" philosophy says accept the unintended consequences, the "original meaning" theory says don't accept the unintended consequences if they are the result of changes in the meaning of the words used in the text. Which philosophy is currently dominant is not actually settled until we see what the Supreme Court says, although one can normatively state that the original meaning philosophy is to be preferred.

Even the "original meaning" philosophy must yield to the "pure textualist" philosophy if the interpretation of the text cannot be made to turn on differences in the meanings of words -- unintended consequences are still part of the law and must be dealt with by legislatures revising the law rather than judges speculating, however plausibly, on whether the consequences were really intended. But in the case of same-sex marriage laws, one really can make the case that the meaning of a key textual term ("marriage") is being essentially changed by one side in the debate -- the new interpretation of the word "marriage" was made explicit by later judges, not by any legislators, and is therefore within the power of the Supreme Court to reverse.

Polymath said...

Phooey, my really long comment vanished somehow. Here is an abbreviated version, sorry it won't be as good.

I answered Hesperado on GoV. He also said there that we Westerners can't comprehend how Muslims think, but that's wrong, not only can we, but we should use what we know about how their thinking is screwed-up against them.


Yes, FGM is more African than Arab, and more Arab than Islamic, but it should not be called "circumcision", there is no comparison with the male version, for reasons I should not go into here.

American youth are not more left overall than previous cohorts of the same age groups 10-20 years earlier -- they may be on the issue of gay marriage due to brainwashing, but they are further to the right on abortion, economics, and drugs, and are mixed on race (more multicultural, but less supportive of affirmative action and other pro-minority preferences).

You almost contradict yourself when saying the law on gay marriage is unconstitutional but what matters is the original meaning -- if the first statement is descriptive and the second is normative you are still consistent, but it is better just to say that there are two judicial philosophies, pure textualism and original meaning, which have different attitudes toward unintended consequences of prior laws, which gay marriage undoubtedly is.

Since the finding of gay marriage bans as unconstitutional can be seen to depend on a change in the meaning of a legal term (the word "marriage") that was made explicit by judges rather than legislators, the Supreme Court has the power to reverse that change in defense of "original meaning" . They cannot do this for just any law with unintended consequences, if the text cannot be interpreted with a different meaning of the terms then only legislators can revise things to get rid of the unintended consequences because judges would just be speculating, however plausibly, that they actually were unintended. But in this case they can, because they are just reversing the action of a previous judge and not second-guessing legislators.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Polymath, the point is, both should be banned. :P It's not like the male one gives that much of a benefit in today's world or in Europe.

And American youths are the most likely to support interracial marriage. Heck, abortion and prostitution were legal in interwar Romania - were Romanians liberal on social issues? lol.

Related to law, I don't contradict myself. By original meaning, I refer to the original meaning of words. For example, if a law was written that people should get a day behind bars for criticizing Kaiserin RV die Große and we somehow came to the conclusion that days are only 21 hours long and we're doing it wrong, the meaning of day would stay 24 hours. So this is what I understand by original meaning - the meaning of the words used in writing the law. Obviously, you can argue intent in the moment when the law is vague, but the equal protection clause applying to gay marriage is fairly obvious.

This debate is besides the point though, considering that I'm against gay marriage, but it's still fairly amusing considering we had it before. The way I see it, the equal protection clause makes it quite obvious that the government can't discriminate. Obviously, the real solution, even with my view on marriage is to get the state out of it, which would make churches decide who to marry and who to not marry. The equal protection clause doesn't force private parties from discriminating and if I was a Justice, I'd vote against the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the government has no authority to do what that act says.

To give you an example on marriage. If gay marriage was made legal and the constitution said that married people should get a free house, as a judge, I'd use the old meaning of marriage and reject lawsuits from faggots asking for houses because a law can't amend a constitution by reference(if marriage was defined legally outside of the constitution, then the new gay marriage law could amend the original meaning of the word marriage). But again, this is why I see the equal protection clause farcical - by its logic, social security is unconstitutional because it discriminates based on age(which also gets along with the Brown vs Board of Education which made segregated schools illegal because they create different classes of people - same is with social security).

This is why I'll never be a judge... I'd piss off everyone. :) And you have to admit that I am being consistent after this explanation. But again, I'm the type of person that would say that due to affirmative action, blacks and whites aren't equal under the law so blacks can't be jurors when a white person is on trial(and women if a man was on trial).

Polymath said...

You're evading the issue of who gets to redefine the words. "If gay marriage were made legal" -- my point is just that if a legislature redefines marriage as a legal term to be applicable to two men or two women and not just a man and a woman, there is no constitutional issue, but a judge can't unilaterally assert that due to societal progress the legal meaning of the word has changed. I'm not saying "new gay marriage laws" permitting it would be unconstitutional, the issue is the exact opposite. Here we have a judge saying that the process of making laws may NOT be used to clarify the meaning of "marriage", only he, the judge, gets to say that the meaning has changed and to hell with legislation and referenda that try to change it back.

There is no possible way to make the judicial decisions overturning the bans on gay marriage consistent with any "original meaning" philosophy. That's fine if you reject "original meaning"" as a legal philosophy, but the law itself does not demand of judges that they reject that philosophy. If you want to claim to have the "original meaning" judicial philosophy, you must say that (1) even though the original lawmakers on marriage only imagined opposite-sex marriages, marriage could also have been same-sex, and if any gay couple at the time had wanted to get married I as a judge then would have let them, AND (2) it doesn't matter even if the laws HAD specified opposite sexes, there is a transcendental meaning to the word "marriage" that includes the possibility of same-sex marriages.

You see the problem? Either the legislature gets to say what the meaning of marriage is in a way the judge has to respect, or the word has a prior meaning independent of any laws. The judges who overturned the same-sex marriage bans are thereby rejecting the first alternative, but they must also reject the second alternative because they would be laughed out of office if they tried to bring in transcendental and philosophical and historical arguments because in that case all the evidence goes on the other direction.

It is OK to reject both these alternatives, but you must then admit that "original meaning" is not your judicial philosophy and that instead judges are free to declare that meanings of laws have changed in a way that mere legislatures and popular referenda are powerless to change back. After all, the "original meaning" of the referenda in the 31 states out of 31 that banned gay marriage could not be clearer, since everybody involved is still around to say that yes, they really intended to be defining the legal scope of the word "marriage". The only way to ignore this intention is to say that it is overruled by the constitution which is a more fundamental level of law, but alas that word is not itself defined in the constitution since everyone at the time thought it was obvious, so you still have to say where the meaning you want to give came from. It didn't come from the legislature or the people, so it either came from eternal timeless truths or from a judge.

So I'm not saying you're inconsistent in overturning the gay marriage bans, I'm just saying you're inconsistent in doing that and ALSO calling yourself an originalist.

Of course you are correct in your criticisms of the way the equal protection laws have been applied and interpreted inconsistently -- if they were applied and interpreted consistently you get the "unintended consequences" phenomenon of which gay marriage is merely the most obvious example. But how to deal with unintended consequences is what your judicial philosophy determines, and your agreement with the judges who have overturned bans on same-sex marriages shows that your judicial philosophy may not be described as respecting the "original meaning" of legal language.

Polymath said...

I don't get your point about how liberal American youth are. I already said that they were more liberal than previous generations on race in some ways, and on gay marriage, but they are less liberal on race in other ways, and less liberal on other issues.

On what grounds would you ban male circumcision, unless you also wanted to ban other irreversible bodily modifications such as ear-piercing (which is also done by parents to young children)? You'd need to show it was bad for them, which is obvious and easy to show for FGM but not for male circumcision.

By the way, you mentioned the Emirates, have you read this?

rebelliousvanilla said...

I do know about the no bankruptcy thing. In a way, I do support it for individuals. Only companies should be able to go bust. The Romanian law is similar in this regard - if you go bankrupt, they take everything you have of value and then garnish your wage until you pay down the debt.

I actually like that Karen entitled fruitcake. Yes, if you actually are forced to pay down your debt, it's a medieval dictatorship - not the Western free for all.

Related to slaves, I have no problem to what they are doing. Europe should have done the same thing - ban migratory workers from EVER becoming citizens. Them and their children. And when we didn't need them anymore, we should have sent them home. I told you before that I actually admired this about Dubai. Europe should have done the same after WW2 and then we should have sent the migratory workers packing. Or kept them to pick our trash. Either way, it would have been better.

If Romania actually offered me what Dubai offers Emiratis, which are their people, I might actually care about sacrificing anything for it. The only difference is that their nanny state offers something to young people too. The problem is how clueless their king is related to turning his people into apathetic simpletons.

And I like how the moron who wrote that article makes it about political freedom. I felt freer in Dubai as a foreigner than I did as an European in any European country. And it's not like we have much freedom around here to speak our mind to begin with if we really get to important issues. Do I have to point out that there's no difference in between Watson and that guy who had his law license removed?

And the debt part is farcically amusing. I mean, we borrowed money and blew it on consumption - they at least built stuff, not remodeled their kitchens. And the part about the ethnic enclaves is even better - I suppose he hasn't been to any European cities that has been ethnically cleansed? I suppose he loves the political freedom that the immigrants have when they turn Malmö in a big carbeque.

Also, I'd like to point out that being paid better for being European in a foreign country is laughable, considering I'd be paid less for the same ability in between my own people! I actually find this odd about Arabs - they generally like European people. They dislike non-Arabs and non-Europeans though. Sure, as a non-European you become a crappy person who gets their passport stolen, but that's about it.

The only really problem I had there was passing through customs when I went alone because well, I was a 19 years old single Eastern European girl. But when they saw that I've been to a lot of other countries, they let me through since it was obvious I'm a tourist, not a hooker(it was pretty offensive, but whatever).

And it's easy to show that circumcision has no benefits and that it does have downsides(it's actually as easy as with female circumcision if you don't use the one in pretty much everything is being removed). Also, it's a foreign custom. :) It would be an easy way to piss Muslims off, for example. And to sum it up, ear piercing is reversible. If you remove your ear rings, the little holes close off. This is why for example, I pretty much wear my navel piercing all the time, except when I clean or change it.

And if we go to the scenario in which I'm Kaiserin RV, then I could ban circumcision just because I prefer uncircumcised men and I want to maximize the pool of men from which I can pick. :P

My point about the youth is that they're more 'liberal' on things that actually matter and less on things that don't.

rebelliousvanilla said...

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/02/western-quran-schools-are-terrorist.html
That's the last thread I participate in on GoV. That place fell so much since when I started reading it in 2009. :(

It's sort of amusing how twisted and nonsensical Zenster's thoughts are.

Polymath said...

I expected you to say that. But you know it's sometimes difficult to keep resolutions like that.

The one thing in that Dubai article that really struck me was that the foreigners who couldn't escape got no help from their own embassies. The ones whose passports were stolen were true slaves (I agree with you about it being OK for them to treat the foreigners badly, but slavery does go too far), and the debt prisoners should have gotten bailed out by some bank in their own country in return for agreeing to pay the loan back at a reasonable interest rate, secured by their family's house or something.

I'm afraid CS may find your previous comment a case of TMI.

rebelliousvanilla said...

No, it isn't. I'm going to pull a ConSwede now and phase out my Internet personality gradually(already you don't have my nickname suggested when you do a google search :P).

And it isn't as hard to be denied access to embassies. Anybody in Eastern Europe knows this. But I really doubt that happens to any large extent.

Also, as a CEO, I'd have a fiduciary duty to my shareholders, not a responsibility to the citizens of the country where my bank is. Especially now since everybody that can breathe can get a passport.

Polymath said...

Google still gives me "anilla" when I type in "rebelliousv".

The banks should still bail out the debt slaves if they get a high enough interest rate relative to the collateral provided, loyalty to countrymen doesn't have to have anything to do with it. I still find it weird that these people can't get any help from friends or relatives or coworkers in their home countries. And even if they can be kept away from the embassy building, there ought to be people back home checking up on them and embassy officials willing to look for them if they aren't heard from. That's part of the job of embassies after all, to look after the interests of their countrymen.

rebelliousvanilla said...

That's because I believe most of these stories are bullshit. Except the debtors going to jail and them treating immigrants like crap, if they aren't white, which I know of. But the stealing of passports and all that isn't really on a big scale.

Polymath said...

CS, check out this GoV thread for some good discussion on the role of Jews in our civilization's current problems.

RV, I completely agree about not commenting there anymore, it was exhausting to have to clarify my points in such tedious detail on those last two threads we were on -- I think I did succeed, because people like Egghead and Hesperado and Zenster and Sagunto are not fools, they just aren't aware of their assumptions and don't read carefully, but I can see why you don't have the patience for it. I wouldn't have had the patience for it myself if you hadn't been involved :) .

Conservative Swede said...

Polymath,

Well I have read (enough) of that thread now. And well, the pathologies exposed there are exactly the reason I have been inactive since almost a year.

E.g. Hesperado exposes himself as a PC zombie to the bone. Outside of the narrow field of Islam he shows himself fiercely and blindly clinging to the core PC MC tenets. He's just another Bernard-Henri Lévy, and just as useless.

Hesperado is proudly featuring the whole palette of PC behaviour, crowned with the argumentum ad hitlerum. He has joined George Bush, Sarkozy, Larry Auster and all the others who superficially (to different degrees) appear to oppose the PC MC hegemony, while in fact fiercely clinging to it -- always ready to pull the Nazi-card against anyone who does no share their irrational faith.

And as you mentioned, there were more people there, just as (programmatically) confused. We are squeezed in-between them and the Tanstaafls and Chechars who (from the perspective of the reverse sort of derangement) are equally unable to discuss the issue of the Jews. Hesperado etc. apparently were not able to discuss the issue of the blacks either.

In this post I started describing the whole reason and background for this prevailing PC MC disease:
America as the birthplace of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness

It's when I found that Dennis Mangan is struck by the very same disease that I entirely gave up upon the USA. Even Dennis Mangan cling the the core dogmas that uphold this PC MC world order. This is an extremely strong form of mantel derangement, and only a very tiny runnel of Westerners have a proper defence against it. And among Americans it is virtually non-existent.

Conservative Swede said...

The reason why Hesperado is so utterly confused is (apart from what you say about how he's not aware of his unrealistic and irrational assumptions) that he's only looking at superficial details and entirely miss the man behind the curtain.

He's all talking about how Muslims/Jews/Blacks are behaving, how they are organized etc. And any difference here is irrelevant and beside the point. Since the problem does not lie with any of these groups but with the white people, and our severe and fatal moral derangement (deeply rooted in the current incarnation of our civilization).

None of above mentioned groups would be a problem at all, if the whites hadn't caught this mental disease. Hesperado has got the disease himself. That's why he cannot see the man behind the curtain. Even though he's actually standing behind the curtain himself. Instead his mind is hopelessly caught in a maze and unable to get out. And in case he would actually find an exit, there will stand a Nazi troll there which will scare him back into his endless maze of confusion.

Polymath said...

OK, but did you at least agree with what I said on that thread? (I was being quite careful with my words, so that although I hold stronger views than I stated I would not needlessly upset them and cause their brains to lose the ability to follow the nuances I was trying to convey, which were "moderate" enough that they might be receptive to them.)

Conservative Swede said...

It is the mythological role that we assign to Muslims, Jews and Blacks respectively, in the (Americanized) Western mythological narrative that is the problem, not the groups themselves. Dealing with each of these groups themselves properly is a piece of cake. The problem is wholly the collective "We".

And it's the PC liberals -- including the Hesperados, Austers, Zensters and Bernard-Henri Lévys who are only able to focus on ½, 1, 1½ or at best two of Muslims/Jews/Blacks while completely missing the man behind the curtain -- that will ensure that the destiny for these group will be harder and more brutal (by pushing their deranged ideology to the very bottom) than it would have been if people as us (i.e. without the American PC MC virus) would have ruled our civilization.

Polymath said...

By the way, you have expressed interest in my immunity to the mental disease you diagnose in other Americans. Part of it is being unable to tolerate illogicality in my own views, but this only made me able to recognize the correct viewpoint. It was also necessary to find the correct viewpoint in the first place (since I did not have the perspective to have come to it on my own, though I would have eventually), and I credit RV for this. Her telegraphic style and impatience for slowing down to allow other people to catch up with her reduce her effectiveness at persuading the less insightful, but since her brilliance was immediately obvious to me I knew that her views required serious investigation and could not be dismissed on the basis of their extremity or her youth or any of the other silly reasons people were failing to engage her arguments properly. Fortunately I was able to charm her into spending a lot of time educating me, and she learned a bit too.... :)

Conservative Swede said...

Polymath,

That's wonderful! Impressive effort by RV. I just got the feeling of how we're growing exponantially, 1-2-4... ha ha. You are hereby our token American. You could have been our token Jew too, but we already have Geza :-)

And you are doing really well yourself, interacting with people with the sort of patience that I no longer have.

Conservative Swede said...

Here's an interlude with Philemon Arthur and the Dung with their main hit In kommer Gösta. Recorded in 1971 on a reel-to-reel tape recorder using acoustic guitar and whatever was found in the kitchen.

In kommer Gösta, ...
Han hälsar, ...
Goddag, ...
Har ni kaffe? ...
Nej det har vi inte, vi har inget kaffe, ...
Då går jag, ...
Adjö, ...
Ut går Gösta, ...

In comes Gösta, ...
He greets, ...
Hello, ...
Do you have coffee? ...
No, we do not, we have no coffee, ...
Then I go, ...
Goodbye, ...
Out goes Gösta, ...

Polymath said...

That song is funny, but I don't see the relevance to this thread unless it is a metaphor for Swedish hospitality to immigrants; does "Gösta" have anything to do with the English word "guest"? It would be nice if denying coffee was enough to get them to leave. Since you are a computer guy you will like this.

Conservative Swede said...

There's no relation whatsoever. It was just an sporadic interlude. But I love your attempt at trying to create a context and meaning for it. And thanks for the link but I couldn't download the game.

If you liked Philemon Arthur, then maybe you will like this too. As a nod of recognition to funky, extrovert American liberalism I here give you, from San Fransisco 1976, The Residents and their Third Reich 'n Roll.

In this clip you have the '60s hits The Land of Thousand Dances in its KKK version as well as Hanky Panky in its Swastikas on Parade version.

Naaaazzzisssssss!!!!! Anti-Chriiiisssssssst-t-t-t!

Polymath said...

OK, that's not unfunny, but I prefer my Nazi parodies to be genuinely musical.

I'll bet RV likes this one. She has been strangely quiet....

thewanderingwhite said...

Polymath:

You were right about "Left-liberal". If I understand correctly -- and I want to --"social liberal" in America simply means "liberal concerning social issues" instead of "economic liberal", which is socially more conservative but economically socialist.

It makes no sense to me that Americans call socialists "liberals", because Jeremy Bentham -- who invented modern liberalism -- was pro-capitalist (although he was a friend of the early socialist Robert Owen).

Thus, Buckley was definitely not a Left-liberal, but some kind of pseudo-con or quasi-con. In effect, he his main significance was that he abetted the demise of paleoconservatism.

Rebellious Vanilla:

I know very well that Jefferson wrote the First Amendment to the US Constitution because he wanted to allow all religions -- including Mohammedans -- to practise in the States.

However, he also went to war with Barbary States because he refused to pay the jizya to North African Muslim pirates; you should read about the Barbary Wars.

tasty_glamgirl said...

ConSwede, the big problem is that for people that are usually older it is hard to give up their core beliefs because it is who they are. It was difficult for me and I was 17-18 when I started questioning my beliefs. And I felt bad for doing so because when your core values are who you are, then if you find out that they are evil, it means that you are evil. This is why actually after 1990 here people said that we should focus at brainwashing our young because the old aren't brainwashable anymore.

The big problem for Americans is that considering the founders were fairly progressive to begin with, then the people who are turned off by modern progressivism fall back on the same progressive values, but not developed to the same extent. In Europe, we have the advantage of having a traditional culture to fall back upon in quite a lot of ways.

And Polymath isn't the only American I convinced. It's just that he's the only one that comments on blogs, the other one being in touch with Polymath though. It's sort of funny, actually. What's also interesting is that both Polymath and the other American are devout Christians. I suppose you were right that the plague are the atheist Christians(secular humanists, whatever you want to call them). What is ironic is that the other person actually said that I'm racist at first. I don't know, it took too much time to convince people to actually do it.

Zenster and Hesperado are really funny in regards to the Jews, actually. I'm not exactly if the philo or anti Semites are more irrational on this manner. Zenster blaming the prejudiced Europeans on Jews being cheerleaders of MC/PC reminded me of that thing Auster said about Germans that somehow a developed people like them became so evil and made you say that yes, Auster sees Germans as intelligent - intelligent monsters. Zenster exhibited the same silly trait. I thought about asking him if the Jews are to blame for the Holocaust because a lot of the hatred towards them was fueled by them buying all kinds of things after the hyperinflation and showing off(at least according to some letters from that time I read). But meh, since it wouldn't have done anything, I didn't bother making a case in which I seemed to excuse the Nazis.

Polymath, those download links expire. :) By the way, the videos you people share make me glad I'm young and didn't get to see those on TV. But again, I would have got this(my mother was near me when I looked for this and just that stupid jingle communist TV had made her uncomfortable).

And I have been asleep(yes, I do sometimes sleep) and then went to the doctor.

WW, so what? While the British were rambling about how slaves become free once they breathe the air of Britain, they were conquering people. This insanity can exist for a while without manifestation. Actually, it is quite like HIV. There's a gap from the moment you get it and the moment it comes up on tests. In the same way, there's a time from the moment when you get this civilization HIV and until your immune system breaks down.

Also, what you just said makes Jefferson sound like a neocon. Islam is the religion of peace and is welcome here, but we mind those fundamentalists who do terrorism.

tasty_glamgirl said...

"In his autobiography, published in 1791, Benjamin Franklin stated that he "did not disapprove" of a meeting place in Pennsylvania that was designed to accommodate preachers of all religions. Franklin wrote that "even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."[25]

Thomas Jefferson defended religious freedom in America including those of Muslims. Jefferson explicitly mentioned Muslims when writing about the movement for religious freedom in Virginia. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote "[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.' The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."

"In 1776, John Adams published "Thoughts on Government," in which he praises the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a "sober inquirer after truth" alongside Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, and other "pagan and Christian" thinkers.
In 1785, George Washington stated a willingness to hire "Mahometans," as well as people of any nation or religion, to work on his private estate at Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen."[22]"

Hard to blame the Frankfurt school or Jews for those and it is the same poisonous mentality. And Franklin also made it clear by saying that this revolution is for the whole world.

Conservative Swede said...

Hi!

A comment by RV and two by Polymath (24th and 25th) had been caught in Bloggers new spam filter. I have hereby released them, so you can now find them above in the thread.

Next time, send me an email to remind me, would it happen again.

tasty_glamgirl said...

Ha, just saw it. Polymath, I propose a law that public public education should be defined as education for white people paid for by taxing black people. This is the definition of education. It is the same reasoning and if yours sticks, mine should too. Might as well wipe your ass with any constitution at this point.

And I said that I have no problem with a constitutional amendment defining what marriage is. And I explained what I meant by the original meaning.

On another note, considering that Jefferson did something unconstitutional - buying Louisiana, then the constitution is meaningless under original meaning because Jefferson must have followed the original meaning of the constitution since he was alive then and he did something that isn't in it. This means that the things that say what the government can do don't mean that the government can't do the things not mentioned. This means that the government can do anything. God, right now I wish I was a lawyer.

ConSwede, blogger sucks. They deleted my rebelliousvanilla account and they expect me to get on the phone with them to get it back. Apparently, I broke some rule or something. They probably need to tell me personally that I should be put on trial for hate speech or something. :P

Polymath said...

CS, the first comment that got deleted I reconstructed and I said in that reconstructed one that it had gotten eaten, but I guess you missed that. WordPress has a MUCH better spam filter -- for my blog, it had a 1% false negative rate (letting spam through) and an 0.2% false positive rate (stopping non-spam). Its filter is called "Akismet", I don't know if it will work with Blogger.

The good thing about Blogger, though, is that you can edit your comment before posting it, and delete it after posting it if you need to.

glamgirl (or should I use "tasty", or would you prefer your real first name?), the reason I could restore my blogger account is I used a Google ID which they recognize and respect.

You have the talent to be a great lawyer, but you read too fast and missed a bunch of nuances. First of all, I was criticizing the reasoning used in striking down the gay marriage bans by arguing in the alternative. I was not saying that the legislature could just redefine words arbitrarily, I was making two more careful points: (1) IF the legislature CAN'T redefine the word "marriage" because it has a prior essential meaning, then all the evidence is that that meaning doesn't include same-sex unions, and alternatively (2) if someone CAN redefine legal words, it is the legislature, not judges, and that doesn't mean they get to redefine words that appear in the text of the Constitution without a constitutional amendment (though neither "marriage" nor "education" is in the Constitution).

You can't escape this reasoning of mine by saying that the key words are "equal protection" which are Constitutional so the legislature doesn't get to redefine them, because it was already judges who extended the meaning of "equal protection" beyond the original legislative intent which allowed this, and so judges can reverse what earlier judges did.

The American Constitution has some clever things in it. They give Congress some explicit leeway to redefine things to take power away from the courts without an Amendment. You are right about the Louisiana Purchase being unconstitutional, but you draw the wrong conclusions from that. This was a case where Jefferson KNEW he was violating the Constitution and admitted it, he basically said "We don't have time to pass an Amendment to allow this because Napoleon needs the money now, and it is a really great deal, so go ahead and impeach me if you disagree". He took that risk and would have accepted impeachment and pleaded guilty to it and stepped down, but he counted on Congress and the people to recognize the exceptional circumstances, which they obviously did since he was re-elected instead of impeached.

This is like the issue with torture being illegal but when the terrorist knows where the ticking bomb is the officer tortures him, willing to accept the consequences of violating the law just as he would be willing to accept the consequences of being killed in the course of a dangerous mission, and hoping to receive clemency later because the exceptional circumstances will be recognized. Not everything can be covered by the law no matter how twisty and complicated you make it.

Polymath said...

To make my last point a little more explicit: the Constitution is quite clear about the direction in which responsibilities are to be interpreted -- the FEDERAL government can do only what is explicitly permitted, the STATE governments can do anything EXCEPT what the Constitution explicitly reserves to the Federal government OR explicitly prohibits the states from doing or reserves to the People. The Louisiana Purchase was never used as a precedent so you can't claim that the failure to punish Jefferson means what he did was Constitutional.

On the other hand, if he had been impeached by the House, and the Senate, acting as a judicial body, had ACQUITTED him, that could be construed as setting a precedent, since the Constitution is careful to define separate roles for the House and Senate in the impeachment process. The House is the POLITICAL body empowered to charge charge the President with high crimes and misdemeanors OR use their political discretion and not charge him; the Senate is the JUDICIAL body which is literally sworn to "do impartial justice" and find the President either Guilty or Not Guilty of the charges the House brought based on facts and not politics.

This was the greatest disgrace of the Clinton era -- not that he committed perjury and obstructed justice, nor that he was impeached for this, nor even that he illegally bombed Yugoslavia and was NOT impeached for that, but that 50 Senators defied the oath they had just sworn (which was explicitly required by the Framers of the Constitution in order to prevent politics from intruding in the Senate-judicial phase of the impeachment process, because they could not imagine that so many Senators could be so dishonorable as to violate sworn oaths) and acquitted Clinton based on politics instead of following the facts.

The Senate may have DISAGREED with the House's decision to bring impeachment charges, but that is a political decision which was entirely the House's responsibility, their responsibility was to say whether Clinton did or did not do what the indictment said that he did, or else to find, judicially, that the charges did not amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors"; since ALL precedent said that felony perjury suffices as such a crime, they either explicitly justified their vote on political grounds, or used arguments that were legally ridiculous but that the press pretended made sense.

By the way, it was the UNANIMITY of the Democrats in this monstrous dereliction of duty that made me not only swear never to vote for a Democrat again, but recognize that the political battle in the USA was not between mere opponents, but between enemies, because the Democrats unanimously put retaining power above the Constitution when it counted, so that it could no longer be assumed that there was any shared framework within which to cooperate. If a single Democrat had voted to convict and not been ousted from the party, I would not have come to this conclusion, because there would still have been a model Democrat to point to as a principled opponent rather than an unprincipled enemy.

Polymath said...

TG, good point about the Muslims. From the American and European point of view Muslims were not so obviously backward and uncivilized in the late 1700's as they are now: there were pirates and slavers, but Americans had slaves too, and the absence of global communications and Saudi billion$ meant that the Muslims actually in Europe and America were moderate and civilized and influenced far more by the nations they were visiting or joining and far less by Middle Eastern religious maniacs.

That does NOT excuse the American Founders, since the Bey of Algiers told Jefferson and Adams that they kidnapped and enslaved Christians because their religion demanded it; they probably dismissed this as a rationalization by a greedy Prince, but it was actually true and they ought to have known this, even if they knew no Arabic it is all in Gibbon (a book which you MUST read not only for its historical value but also for its incomparable English prose).

tasty_glamgirl said...

RV would be fine. Considering that I won't be commenting anywhere else from now on besides places where I already commented, people won't be confused.

And as an empress, my interpretation of anything is the final and correct interpretation. :P We can argue about that until the end of time and nothing will change so I will drop it. And the equal protection clause was passed by morons in an unconstitutional fashion to begin with, so who cares about it? Not that it matters, my country's constitution was passed in its entirety in an unconstitutional fashion so meh.

In the end, constitutions are just pieces of paper, just like laws. Military might is the only real law and any person who doesn't think that should send his nude daughter to Africa to wonder around and explain to people there how it is her natural right to not be touched. And believe me, honor died when dueling was banned. I hardly get why people who ridiculed Europe for its aristocracy thought that they will preserve values of that class - like virtue, honor, chivalry. All these were features of the former warrior class.

And the founding fathers didn't change their minds about Islam because they were as ideologically blinded by it just like the modern multiculturalists are. If one religion is bad, then the freedom of religion becomes a farcical concept. In the same way, if a single law is the law of the land, sharia courts are foolish, but if they are foolish, so are the Jewish courts.

And since we're at it, my country apparently just passed legislation to allow Gypsies to try themselves by their own courts - thanks Europe and America for this source of inspiration. What a shocking disgrace. Because of this, I will no longer vote for any political party. Voting means that I see this form of government and the rule of the government as legitimate, which I don't. As that link that I shared with you both said - we are dissidents. What's pathetic is that even the other dissidents are actually part of the current way of doing things. Sort of like socialists dissenting from communism for some minute misunderstanding.

So yes, just like CS, I will phase out my online identity and will eventually stop giving a damn about politics until the proper time to care will come, which will probably be either in this decade or the next. Might as well the world while it is still good and worry about problems when they will come.

To sum it up with a question though, can't Louisiana sue the federal government for the unconstitutionality and secede? lol

Polymath said...

(Still working my way backwards through your comments....)

About giving up core beliefs: as a mathematician whose original research area was Logic, I always felt a duty to be consistent in my beliefs and to be able to adjust my fundamental axioms if the conclusions I drew from them did not match reality. But very few people are like this, even mathematicians and scientists prefer to limit the application of logic to spheres of their lives in which it does not make them uncomfortable.

The problem is not simply one of "logic versus emotion". When logic and emotion conflict, logic is not always right -- sometimes an emotional reaction indicates that there is something fundamentally wrong with your logic, whether it is an error in reasoning, mistaken factual premises, or bad philosophical premises. Unfortunately most people have never tried to examine their structure of beliefs all the way down, because of the emotional discomfort this causes.

I regard this as an unfortunate legacy of Protestantism and political liberalism.

Do you see why?

The key characteristic of Protestant Christianity, which has been retained by liberals even after they have lost their faith in Christ and in God, is that your moral value is determined by what you believe rather than what you do or who you are. This explains a great deal of politics and also explains the decline of Protestant Christianity (because mouthing propositions is cheap and easy compared with making real sacrifices). It is why people in the left half of the political world naturally see their opponents as evil (and therefore as enemies rather than merely opponents).

So the plague is not just atheists, Christians are part of the problem (Protestants for the reasons I said, Catholics more recently because of their beginning, in the 20th century, to allow their religious universalism to turn into political universalism, a mistake they did not make before because mass immigration was not economically realistic and churches had more of a distinct national character).

You are right about the GoV commenters, and I think I have given them enough to chew on, I won't comment there again until they start saying something new or people with a better view pointcome back there. But it is true that right now there is a lot of common cause in the fights against PC/MC, socialism, and Islam; it's just very annoying that their buttons get pushed by irrelevant stuff.

I hadn't tried to download those games since I was on my iPhone when I found them, sorry to mislead you.

When I was a kid the TV had "test patterns" too, there wasn't enough content to fill 24 hours even though there were only a few channels, which I thought was stupid at the time, since talking heads are cheap, they could have just had someone lecturing on some topic. I'm disappointed you didn't find the Hitler song funny (that was a great movie, BTW, though the remake a few years ago sucked), but I sort of agree with you about the Swedish videos CS linked (I saw the humor in them, it was the sound I didn't like much).

I like your HIV analogy. It is very apt, I have been saying for a long time that our civilization has AIDS and has lost the ability to reject invaders. Unfortunately there are further parallels, like HIV these antigens are retroviruses that rewrite or civilizational DNA so that even when they are not present the damage has been internalized, and sexual transmission is a significant factor, Islam is an "opportunistic infection", and so on.

I have new comments on my blog relating to your question there (plus recent personal updates there and on FB).

Polymath said...

I just saw your last comment; agree about bad religions, but you can let people do what they want inside their homes and mosques and so on as long as they don't get exceptions made to the ordinary laws (so they still have to follow the marriage laws, can't genitally mutilate their daughters, etc.). The gypsy courts thing is awful. Ethnically separate courts is NOT an American precedent though, that's a European thing. Though if the Hawaiian native law now in Congress passes it will be.

Louisiana could have sued in 1803 but pretty soon Congress, which had the authority Jefferson did not, ratified the purchase and it was all legal and Constitutional again.

Polymath said...

My last comment came through but the long one before that is stuck in moderation. CS, I sent you an email about that. (By the way, you probably can see now what I meant when I wrote to you earlier about being tempted to spend more time than I can afford; if I disappear for a while it is because I have work to catch up on.)

tasty_glamgirl said...

No, people shouldn't be allowed to be citizens and practice a different religion. It is common sense that citizens should have allegiance to the same foundational mythology. If you don't have an enforced religion, you get the same decline that Protestantism had - choosing another religion is easy when there are no consequences and people will choose the easier one. As an atheist, I hardly care what the religion is(well, I suppose I'd like being a living goddess and be worshiped as such, but beyond this, I'm indifferent).

"Unfortunately there are further parallels, like HIV these antigens are retroviruses that rewrite or civilizational DNA so that even when they are not present the damage has been internalized"
How the heck can you write this and then ask me why we didn't tell Americans to get out of Europe is beyond me, really. Your analogy answers you. :)

Now, in regards to Catholicism, the Queen of Romania was excommunicated by the Catholic Church for marrying an Orthodox and now they say that Muslims go to the same heaven. Quite a fall in 60 years only.

And they won't chew on your comments because they are unable to think rationally. Every information they have is filtered through their distorted way in which they see the world. Considering that you are old enough, you probably made those cookies at home where you put the dough in a machine and then you swing this thing and it comes out from the other side in biscuit shapes. That's how they see the world - the dough is what you tell them and the biscuits is the result of their cognitive process.

And I have a question related to Hispanics. Do they close the income disparity gap after a generation? I had someone claim so and he gave me a bunch of research material saying so but I have better things to do than snoop through academic journals in which fruitcakes write.

Polymath said...

You moved the goalposts on me, I never said anything about citizenship, I just said people should be allowed to practice their religion privately. If you don't allow Muslim workers to become citizens, they can still go to their mosques and so on. And if someone is willing to give up their citizenship to convert that's OK too. I would draw the line at actually kicking them out of the country, and you have to allow atheists not to go to services and so on even if they pay taxes to support the state church.

I get your point about asking Americans to get out of Europe, but you overlook that even though Europeans have internalized lots of American ideas, they still don't like the USA and there could easily be political support for asking the USA's troops to leave in some countries at some point in time, anti-American parties have sometimes been elected. (This won't happen in Britain even though Obama has tried extremely hard to insult them, but it could happen in any other European country with American troops, since Russia is not a plausible threat anymore.)

Catholics don't say Muslims go to heaven, they just don't rule it out for individual Muslims but there is absolutely no guarantee, while if you are Catholic and take the sacraments there is something close to a guarantee. The attitude is "if Jesus wants to save someone he can", that's why they don't declare anti-saints. And excommunication doesn't mean you go to hell, it just means you're not a Catholic anymore, but the Catholic Church has always said that Orthodox can go to heaven.

I did make some progress with the GoV folks, they stopped criticizing me and admitted several of my points -- their remaining criticisms were of things I didn't actually say but they thought I might have meant, and they basically admitted I was right by continuing to criticize the things I said I had not meant but ceasing to attack the points I actually defended.

New Hispanics from Mexico don't close the income disparity gap, but the ones who have been in Texas all along aren't particularly poor. You have to look at the demographics of who came to Texas recently. Texas is so Republican right now that they are considering and have a good chance of passing laws to help keep it that way (Arizona-type laws on immigration, English-only, etc.,) and unlike all the other states they have the Constitutional option of splitting themselves up so they could have a truly red-white state which excludes the liberal enclave around Austin and the heavily Mexican areas.

Funny you should mention that, we got the DVD for "The Mask of Zorro" and were watching it last night, it's a lot of fun.

Polymath said...

To clarify on Catholic and Orthodox -- Orthodox sacraments are as far as the Catholic Church is concerned valid for Orthodox Christians, though illicit for Catholics -- illicit is not the same as invalid. Illicit means Catholics are not supposed to take Orthodox sacraments, but that doesn't make them invalid (invalid would mean no sacramental action takes place but the Orthodox sacraments really do involve the Holy Spirit and are still valid).

This NOT true for Protestants, except for marriage and baptism. That's why when Protestants convert to Catholicism they have to make a confession, while Orthodox don't, but Protestants don't have to get re-baptized or re-wedded. If a Muslim converted to Catholicism he would get baptized and his Islamic marriages would be annulled, however he could then re-marry ONE of his wives in the Catholic church.

thewanderingwhite said...

Rebellious Vanilla,

Where did you get that information on the American Founders? It certainly sounds like Freemasonry and liberalism had an undue influence on them!

Polymath,

It's obviously not just the neocons who say it's the "violent extremists", etc. who are the problem. Many liberals will not go so far as to justify violence, but simply believe that violence is a perversion of the authentic, peaceful Islam.

In fact, the Jewish neocon Daniel Pipes says the non-violent jihadists are more dangerous and effective in their pursuit of the global caliphate, because they can win over the masses more easily by using the electoral process.

In particular, he gives the example of Dr. Fadl, the former leading Al-Qaeda ideologist, who came to advocate a gradual non-violent infiltration of society more along the lines of what the Ikhwan recommend. This is what Robert Spencer calls "stealth jihad".

By the way, I'm not sure if I agree with you completely about Islam being an opportunistic infection. It is, of course, our traditional enemy, and Hillaire Belloc commented roughly a century ago on Islamic support for what he called "neo-paganism" (by which he did not mean Asatru) in the West, and on Islamic hatred of the Catholic Church. There may be more to this than you realise.

As for the British Empire, well... It was good while it lasted! :) I've heard from people who were there at the time that the Americans helped us in WWII on condition that we give up the Raj. However, that wouldn't explain why the Empire began to disintegrate only in 1948; I suspect -- without knowing -- that it may have had more to do with Churchill's failure to win re-election.

The general attitude towards the Empire at the time was that it was a global charity concern that provided peace, order, and good government (as the Canadians call it) to those who were too racially and culturally inferior to provide it to themselves. There was, thus, no conflict between liberalism -- as it existed at that time -- and imperialism for Britain.

However, with the rise of self-hatred, the Empire has come to be viewed as a blight on our history. Even Nick Griffin compared himself to Gandhi, since both supposedly advocated distributism (i.e., swadeshi in Gandhi's case).

It's really ironic coming from Griffin, since he claims to be such an anti-communist, yet lets Gandhi off the hook for waging revolution against our nation and for cozying up to the Soviet Union throughout his career.

tasty_glamgirl said...

WW, your special friends, the Americans, back stabbed you every time they could after WW2. The Suez canal debacle is quite famous, I'm surprised you don't know of it. With friends like the Americans, you hardly need enemies, you see. It's the same with the Russians, to a certain degree, but with less rapes than the latter.

And no offense if you are a BNP supporter, but Griffin is a fool. I'm not a British person and I'd speak more eloquently in the defense of the British people, which is a disgrace.

Also, Daniel Pipes is certainly right about the peaceful jihadis. You see, a group that commits terrorism lacks legitimacy for their grievances. But the peaceful ones are just using the political process - what a great sign of their integration!

It is all a big joke for simpletons who actually care about assimilation.

In regards to the founding fathers, I copy pasted those from wikipedia(with citations from things they wrote themselves), but you can find even fruitier things they said if you actually bother.

Polymath, I was a Christian, I know that. Protestants are heretics in Orthodox Christianity too.

thewanderingwhite said...

Rebellious Vanilla,

I know about the Suez Crisis. It's probably the only time we, the French, and the Israelis could agree on anything.

The Americans sided with the USSR. The American President at that time, Dwight Eisenhower, was thought by American anti-Communists like the members of the John Birch Society to be a member of the Communist conspiracy.

Polymath said...

I figured you knew that but that means your analogy of Orthodox and Muslims fails, the way you worded it sounded like excommunication implies damnation. I agree the Catholic Church has declined since the 1950's, but it is turning in the right direction -- like a supertanker, turning takes a long time but is hard to stop once well started. The bishops selected by JP2 and B16 guarantee at least another 30 years of rightward movement. This is already apparent at the parish level, the "modern" liberal parishes are shrinking and the traditional ones like mine are growing and becoming more orthodox.

WW, good point about Islam, but it is still an opportunistic infection even though a very old one, just like AIDS victims die from diseases which had been thought to have been conquered long ago.

The view that Islam is inhernetly peaceful is unstable because it is so ahistorical, and eventually opinion will flip and no one will admit to having believed it.

The most important thing you said is "The general attitude towards the Empire at the time was that it was a global charity concern that provided peace, order, and good government (as the Canadians call it) to those who were too racially and culturally inferior to provide it to themselves. There was, thus, no conflict between liberalism -- as it existed at that time -- and imperialism for Britain."

Recovering that attitude is not an unrealistic goal, as it becomes clearer and clearer that some groups just can't manage their own affairs peacefully and prosperously, and that if "liberalism" is to survive at all it must be divorced from universalism and egalitarianism and seen simply as a stage of European civilization involving "liberty" but inapplicable elsewhere.

Suez was an awful screwup with lots of blame to go around, entangled with the Hungarian situation. The Birchers never forgave Eisenhower but it was ridiculous to think of him as a Communist. I need to look for a good book on this, it's too complicated for me to summarize here.

tasty_glamgirl said...

WW, actually, Israel's false flag operation in regards to Egypt was pathetic.

Polymath, I didn't make an analogy. I simply states two events. And I'm glad that in my religion Muslims have a direct path to hell.

And please, let me know when your parish will not have a tie with Africa. Then I might consider Catholicism as a proper defender of Europe and not a third world lobby.

Polymath said...

WW, the stories that just came out of Pakistan and Germany show how hard it is to maintain the fiction that Islam is inherently peaceful. (Well, it's not hard for people who have made themselves insane by swallowing PC/MC attitudes, but I'm talking about ordinary average people who silently tolerate the insanity but have retained the ordinary use of their eyes, ears, and brains).

The four American airmen were shot (two died) in Frankfurt by a Kosovan ingrate named Arif Uka.

The Pakistani Shahbaz Bhatti, a Roman Catholic cabinet minister whose portfolio was religious minorities and who had met with the Pope last year, was killed for opposing the anti-blasphemy law according to pamphlets left at the scene by the gunmen.

Pretty soon the "Islam is peaceful" professional soothers will just be laughed at by ordinary people.

RV, there is a difference between Catholics helping other Catholics around the world and importing them to their own countries. B16 has spoken about restoring Christianity in Europe as his top priority, and it's why he took that name, but he's strongly criticized Pakistan for the anti-blasphemy law and strongly criticized Egypt for its treatment of Coptic Christians because he wants the Pakistani Christians in Pakistan and the Coptic Christians in Egypt. He doesn't want to make Europe more Christian by importing Christians from other continents. (He's also gotten a lot of criticism from Western liberals for criticizing Muslims, and Egypt withdrew its ambassador to the Vatican, but Benedict really does not care about what they think of him.)

I was having a discussion with a neighbor the other day, comparing liberal parish that includes our town with the traditional parish in the next town that I attend -- she has started sending her kids to religious education in the traditional parish even though for convenience they usually attend the liberal parish (whose original founding pastor BTW went to jail for sexually abusing boys). The reason is that the traditional parishes are offering serious Catholicism; although the influence of the 60's on liturgical practice and some ministries continues, the movement is all in the other direction. The liberal parish does not do badly, but we know of many families who have switched to the traditional one and of practically none who have switched the other way.

I'd rather we had a tie with a European parish than an African one, but the African sister parish is doing great things right where it is in Uganda, they're not immigrating here.

Hmm, I've mentioned Muslims and Catholics but the thread is about Jews. Well, there are Jews-in-the-news too: Charlie Sheen and Julian Assange have added to their troubles, and John Galliano has gotten himself fired, by criticizing them. All of these stories have features that make them especially amusing. From the Charlie Sheen case we will learn whether it is anti-Semitic to call a Jew by his original name before he Gentilized it; and Galliano, despite being fired and apologizing, is going on trial and may face 6 months in jail so his lawyers will have to fight back and that will be a nice circus; while in Assange's case it appears to be just another of the smears that have been thrown at him because they can't find him guilty of actual crimes for his Wikileaks work. Fun times.

Polymath said...

About Suez -- the British, French, Israelis, and Americans all made stupid mistakes. Eisenhower said later it was the worst mistake of his Presidency, but Eden was crazy not to work things out with the US first (if he had, Ike would have just said "wait a bit, I've got an election coming up"). The Israelis came out of it OK, but the loss of prestige for Britain and France was irreversible, and the big winner was Russia which got to build the Aswan Dam and influence Egypt and make mischief for the West, and also got to crack down on Hungary because they could paint the Western powers as hypocrites for objecting after intervening in Egypt. And RV is right about the stupid false flag operation, though the Egyptians were such pushovers militarily that didn't really matter. The US and Britain and France should have simply united behind one single proposition to Nasser: "free access to the canal we built for you is non-negotiable because of global interests, and you had no right to nationalize it, your breaking the treaty is a casus belli so if you want to stay in power don't mess with the canal." All the other issues with Nasser (the Dam, the Sudan, Israel, etc.) would have eventually been resolved more favorably because he would have had to swallow the humiliation over the canal, since as long as they kept it only about the canal international law and world opinion was on their side.

Eisenhower was a great general, but he wasn't paying attention until it was too late. The problem was not that he was a Communist like the Birchers said but that in this case he was too anti-Communist (he let Dulles allow anti-communism to ruin the Egypt policy by withdrawing from the Aswan deal over the issue of Egypt recognizing Red China).

tasty_glamgirl said...

Polymath, the vast majority of people don't care and won't admit to themselves that all this is a sham until they will be personally harmed. If they admitted it is bad, they'd have to do something about it.

And helping Catholics is just a degree of helping apart from importing them in. For one, funneling resources to the third world is pretty treacherous and secondly, who would the Vatican side with in a scenario in which a nation of European people, but who aren't Christian in any way, declared war on a Catholic country that was filled with non-Europeans?

And if I was Assange, I'd see Sweden as my top target for sh!t digging when I'd get out.

Britain had her arms tied about the Suez, considering that their 'cousins' the Americans threatened to dump their debt on the markets. lol

Polymath said...

You missed the point, most people are not in a position to do anything either way, except vote, so they don't have an incentive to make themselves stupid about Islam. It is the politicians and ruling elite types who would have to do something, so they close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears and sing Kumbaya, but ordinary people are getting wise. For example, I don't personally know a single person to whom it isn't obvious that Major Hasan was motivated by Islam, despite all the official reports that pretended Islam wasn't a factor.

I agree about "funnelling" resources, if it is done sneakily, but in my church all the money is spent in our own parish unless there is a separate labelled collection, so people who want to contribute to the Ugandan sister parish can do exactly that (they have 1 or 2 collections a year for them) and those who don't want to don't have to. Even if my main loyalty is to my own people, I consider the Ugandan Catholics, as Catholics, to be deserving of an amount of my loyalty that is a bit greater than zero (it would be zero if they were Ugandan and not Catholic).

Your scenario is silly. What Catholic non-European country could conceivably be attacked by a non-Christian European country? And if Albania and Kosovo ganged up on, say, Paraguay, would you really want anyone to side with the Europeans?

I am sure Assange is not waiting and already has lots of dirt on Sweden. As I said before, he should start with the stats the Swedish government is covering up on rape and other crimes by religion, etc.

I don't disagree with you about the mechanism by which America pressured Britain in Suez, I'm not saying Britain should have stood up to Eisenhower, just that they should have coordinated things with him in the first place. Britain and France made a lot of trouble for him because of his re-election and the Hungarian crisis, which was unnecessary (and of course the USA's earlier mistakes in Egypt were also unnecessary).

tasty_glamgirl said...

Polymath, you are falling into Rothbard's logic worship trap. Most people aren't logical. Sure, it makes sense to care about Islam, but most people just want to be left alone, especially if they are comfortable. As CS said on another blog post, Sweden is mostly an idyllic place in which people aren't affected by this. So why should they care? All of Europe is like this.

And it was a hypothetical case - sort of like ConSwede's city under siege in which Christianity is banned. And if I was Kaiserin, I wouldn't choose sides unless I was paid by one side to do it or I would wait for Albania and Kosovo to either lose or be exhausted after the victory and invade them. And colonize them with my own people to the point where their ethnic structure was destroyed(sort of like the Germans tried to do with Alsace-Lorraine). So if my subjects were Christian...

In regards to the funneling. I hardly care if it is done in public or not. I suppose if i was ConSwede's wife, I shouldn't mind him spending money in a brothel, as long as he made it public. ;)

Polymath said...

You're reading too quickly again, or else you just like provoking me. The point I am making doesn't have to do with logic or anything complicated. It has to do with whether ordinary people follow their own eyes and ears or swallow stupid PC propaganda. What we agree on is that if people have a reason to swallow the propaganda, they will do it despite logic. Thus, elites who would have to do something about a problem will make themselves stupidso they can ignore the problem, and ordinary people who are coerced in some way like in Communist countries will swallow the propaganda. What I am saying is that in the case of the propaganda coming from professional soothers that Islam is inherently peaceful, ordinary people, who can't do anything about the issue either way, and who aren't facing coercion to repeat the propaganda, will shrug and roll their eyes and ignore the propaganda, because not only don't they have a particular reason to swallow it, it is remarkably and transparently stupid. It doesn't take more than the tiniest smidgen of logic to notice that Islam is the common factor in all these news stories about violence. People are smart enough to know that they might get in trouble SAYING that Islam is not peaceful, but the typical inhabitant of a country like Germany, however PC he is, still knows that the immigrants to his country are not identical to Germans in several easy-to-define ways. Why do you think that these ordinary Germans, unlike their ruling class, don't like the immigrants?

You say "most people are not affected by this" but it precisely the people who are not affected who don't have emotional reasons to make themselves stupid and who can therefore put 2 and 2 together. This is not esoteric logic, this is common sense.

tasty_glamgirl said...

Polymath, internalizing MC doesn't mean only thinking that Islam is bad, but let's keep at it. First of all, people who are around Muslims HAVE to deal with them. If I had one with a knife at my throat who wanted to rape me and screaming that Allah is great near me, lying to myself wouldn't really make myself feel better. But people don't want to believe that Muslims are bad because if they did so, not kicking them out would be being complicit in what they do.

I don't know, ConSwede might tell us about this one since knows the world better first hand.

Polymath said...

We were not talking about internalizing MC in general, but about the particular view that Islam is inherently peaceful. Even people who have been conditioned to accept certain abstract propositions about equality and so on as true don't logically apply those propositions in concrete cases, and the more concrete the issue the less effect the brainwashing has.

If you took a poll and asked people whether Major Hasan was motivated by Islam or not when he killed those people at Fort Hood, people would overwhelmingly give the correct answer, that he was -- the official reports that didn't mention Islam utterly failed to persuade people. But all the people involved in the production of the reports had an emotional or other personal stake in believing that it was not due to Islam because THEY would have had a problem if it was, so they made themselves stupid.

In Europe, the people who would feel complicit for not kicking Muslims out are the ones who actually could, the political class -- most people didn't ask for the Muslims to come over, and know they didn't ask, so they don't have to feel guilty. It may be true that they don't want to admit the problem because they would feel powerless rather than complicit, but that phenomenon is seen in societies like the old Soviet Union where real political activity was unthinkable, in most European countries there is enough of a debate going on about this, and politics in general is healthy enough, that people don't feel like powerless slaves of the state.

Also, I didn't say that everybody is currently laughing at the professional soothers who always jump in right away to say it wasn't terrorism and Islam wasn't involved, just that an increasing number are and eventually the tipping point will come and everyone will.

Polymath said...

CS, I followed some of your old links and got very discouraged at all the old squabbles between different people on the right. It wasn't the angry arguments that bothered me, nor even the bad behavior and unfair treatment people inflicted on each other, it was that people learned so little from each other. Their differences were significant and interesting enough, and the writers intelligent enough, that I would have expected much more intellectual progress than I actually saw.

RV, I said a little more about this and about churches on the "Christianity and Bolshevism" thread on your blog.

tasty_glamgirl said...

Why should the political class feel guilty? It's not like they ever said they will kick immigrants out and they were voted in. 85% of Sweden(which I suppose are real Swedes) could have voted SD. What kept them? And people are complicit for shutting up and not doing anything about it. Unlike people in the Soviet system, Westerners could have changed something - the tanks and planes enforcing the insanity weren't really going to shoot them. And people aren't powerless. It is actually easy to achieve a lot of things if you don't respect the law(if 40000 Swedes would want to, they could go beat up all the immigrants in the country until they left lol).

Pick a better test though, not one that is obvious. Ask white women if they have a higher odd of being raped by a random white or a random black man or equal odds. :)

Polymath said...

I said complicit, not guilty -- they know they are responsible for the immigration policy, that doesn't mean they feel bad about it.

As for Sweden, perhaps CS should give us his opinion on whether not voting for the SDs was due to (a) not thinking Muslims are more violent (b) thinking Muslims are more violent but that this is not an important problem for them compared to other issues or their previous party loyalty (c) believing the SDs are evil because they believe that other people believe the SDs are evil (Timur Kuran's preference falsification problem).

Note that choice (c) is still compatible with reacognizing Muslims are more violent.

I agree that people are complicit for being wimps and not doing anything about it, as you have said Sweden lacks real men (present company excluded, CS :) ). But Sweden is the worst case, Even if CS says the answer is (a) ordinary Germans, or even more Romanians, know perfectly well that Islam is not peaceful.

Your other test is great, and I totally agree with you and will admit I am wrong if the majority result of the survey is "no", but it has to be an anonymous survey obviously since we are talking about people's actual opinions not their socially falsified ones. The wording is going to be important, if you just ask "are you more likely to be raped by a white man or a black man" the answer could be no just because most men are white, even though an individual black man is more likely to be a rapist than an individual white man; your wording is better but that use of "random" is not obvious to many people.

I will look into this and try to find some data.

tasty_glamgirl said...

I'm not exactly sure why we focus on Islam. The importance is the way people think, not their exact opinion on a specific issue. For instance, Zenster and Hesperado find Islam bad, but they have the same foolish tendencies as the people who find it good and enriching.

And my characterization of Sweden is valid for the whole 'West', it is just that we were talking about Sweden when I made that remark. It's just that Germanic people are great at everything - including at making fools out of themselves. Too bad that right now a lot of them have their minds focused on making a fool of themselves though.

In regards to random, I didn't really say the exact way in which things should be worded. Anyway, you can ask young people, since you say they are more on the right than the older people. :P

Anyway, we made a joke out of this blog post. Time to get back on topic?

Polymath said...

We focused on Islam because I had raised the Frankfurt and Pakistan cases and said Pretty soon the "Islam is peaceful" professional soothers will just be laughed at by ordinary people. But yes, it's much more general. Whether people believe falsehoods because of brainwashing is very sensitive to how you ask the question, some ways of wording trigger the brainwashing and others don't.

I'm looking into attitude surveys on race and rape but they're almost all useless because they only measure attitudes in terms of "racist stereotypes" -- they make up statements that are false but are exaggerations of true phenomena to see how racist people are, without admitting the underlying truth. Thus, they ask whether you believe "most rapes are black men raping white women" which is false, but they don't ask whether you believe "almost all interracial rapes are black men raping white women" which is true.

Back on topic, Netanyahu thanked Pope Benedict for saying you can't blame ALL Jews for killing Christ (being reported everywhere as "Pope exonerates Jews" but obviously SOME of them were responsible). Charlie Sheen is fighting back, he had this great line: "So you're telling me, anytime someone calls me Carlos Estevez, I can claim they are anti-Latino?" He and Galliano and Assange are all fighting back legally. The common factor seems to be alcohol like it was with Mel Gibson -- booze causes anti-Semitism lol.

CS, apologies for hijacking your blog, I hope you enjoy our banter. RV, I put 2 more comments on your blog that were too off-topic for here.

tasty_glamgirl said...

Polymath, but that's the thing - if you can trigger their brainwashing somehow, it means that they are brainwashed and that their actions will be according to that, when they're not asked things in a particular way that avoids the brainwashing - and politics isn't one of those cases where politicians don't play people's prejudices. For instance, Zenster and Hesperado don't have the brainwashing about Islam, but they do it about blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women. It's ridiculous.

And yes, you can't blame all Muslims for 9/11 either. What is the Pope's point? Neither all black men are rapists and not all white men are wimps. And I'm not really sure what European cares about Netanyahu's approval considering some of his statements. I suppose I will care what he says when he will refuse to take money from Germany and say that you can't blame all Germans for Hitler - like that's going to happen any time soon.

Since you seem to be fond of Charlie Sheen's incident. How the HECK did he get to marry Denise Richards? And to me, Sheen, unlike Gibson, seems really insane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_urWSSZgwU
I'm sure CS would like that speech in regards to the meaning of violence, but really, what could she see in Sheen? On the other hand, I really fancy the lover she had in this movie. :P

tasty_glamgirl said...

Polymath, but that's the thing - if you can trigger their brainwashing somehow, it means that they are brainwashed and that their actions will be according to that, when they're not asked things in a particular way that avoids the brainwashing - and politics isn't one of those cases where politicians don't play people's prejudices. For instance, Zenster and Hesperado don't have the brainwashing about Islam, but they do it about blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women. It's ridiculous.

And yes, you can't blame all Muslims for 9/11 either. What is the Pope's point? Neither all black men are rapists and not all white men are wimps. And I'm not really sure what European cares about Netanyahu's approval considering some of his statements. I suppose I will care what he says when he will refuse to take money from Germany and say that you can't blame all Germans for Hitler - like that's going to happen any time soon.

Since you seem to be fond of Charlie Sheen's incident. How the HECK did he get to marry Denise Richards? And to me, Sheen, unlike Gibson, seems really insane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_urWSSZgwU
I'm sure CS would like that speech in regards to the meaning of violence, but really, what could she see in Sheen? On the other hand, I really fancy the lover she had in this movie. :P

Polymath said...

1) But if you can also avoid triggering the brainwashing, then you can un-brainwash them by pointing out the contradiction. This is actually what you and I do all the time when converting our friends and acquaintances, we figure out a way to get them to see the absurdity by not triggering the brainwashing too soon.

2) This wasn't the Pope making a point, really -- he wrote a new book and the media picked up on one page where he explained something about Jesus and in passing said the collective blaming of the Jews was wrong, if you are going to do collective blame for the Crucifixion you have to include everyone. He wasn't specially forgiving Jews, this is just why it's in the news and I thought it was funny how Netanyahu took the opportunity to jump in front of the cameras.

By the way, this supports what you and CS have been saying, but I have been watching Benedict pretty closely and I think he has a plan. If he wimps out like JP2 and comes out for open borders, though, I'll consider switching to Orthodoxy. BTW an earlier CS post on this is wrong about Muslims going to heaven, the position is not that they can do it by being good Muslims, just that it's not ruled out that individual Muslims can be saved without explicitly converting. I'm watching B16 carefully on this too; you have to read exactly what he says, not media summaries. I think he is trying to provoke certain reactions both by Muslims and by Western liberals.

3) She married him before he went totally crazy. And yes, she and that guy are so hot together I am going to rent that movie tonight (I love its political incorrectness, Heinlein was great). Here's another movie we enjoyed this week, this review is good but doesn't go far enough in appreciating it.

tasty_glamgirl said...

You can insofar as others don't trigger their brainwashing for me. I can unbrainwash people individually, as long as none interferes to say I'm an evil, angry, racist, neo-Nazi. But in terms of doing it nationally, with the media portraying things in a biased way and intentionally triggering people's prejudices?

About that article - it is funny that I was reading about the Christening of Sweden and how pagan beliefs were around for a few more centuries - similar to how Africa's animism is still around. By the way, besides finding treacherous that people spend money on Africans in the way your church does it, there's also this problem - if the other church thrives more, then those people will have increasing influence. Like the third world will in Christianity.

And I'm glad Orthodoxy isn't fluid. What horrifies me is that a bunch of people want to get united with the Catholic church - what a dreadful idea. And I do like that in Orthodox Christianity we do care about our ancestors. Hence why we have a place to light candles for the living and one for the dead. The article is brilliant though, thank you for linking to it.

By the way, that citizenship talk was a smear on people like me and CS that backfired due to the awesomeness of that speech. Like the I am an Englishman speech. lol

Polymath said...

I agree that undoing the brainwashing wholesale is much harder than one person at a time. The way to accomplish that is indirectly through cultural means (subversive novels, plays, movies, etc., can get past the triggers and implant both ideas and facts fairly strongly).
 
I also don't want the Orthodox to become Catholic, but judging by the Eastern Catholic churches, nothing significant would change for the Orthodox in liturgy or practice, and the next Pope would come from an Orthodox church to seal the deal, so it wouldn't be so bad.
 
As I said, there's nothing treacherous about what my church does because they are careful to only send money donated by individuals in special earmarked envelopes, who know exactly where it is going. There's no pressure, because they don't even have a second collection where everybody can see who donates for whatever that week's cause is, instead you just put in either your regular envelope or the special one or both (most people just put in cash which goes to the regular collection by default). And the parish's books are audited openly every year.
 
Not all parishes are as transparent as ours. The diocese is pretty good too in terms of disclosing everything publicly. In another diocese the bishop might keep everything closed; but I know that the donations in my parish are high because people have confidence they are being managed well.
 
The influence of Africans on Anglicanism is very good; their influence on Catholicism isn't significant but African Catholics are actually quite normal, they resemble (in their religious attitudes and practice) whichever European country colonized them, the differences from being African are minor.
 
Why do you say the talk was a smear? The author, Heinlein, was pretty hard-nosed about citizenship. (And although he was quite PC about race, that didn't stop him from being vilified as a right-wing nutcase by the literary establishment because of his attitudes on guns, taxes, etc.)
 
You really should watch that French movie in that other link.

tasty_glamgirl said...

‎"True to the normal course followed by nations in decline, internal differences are not reconciled in an attempt to save the nation. On the contrary, internal rivalries become more acute, as the nation becomes weaker...

...in an acute emerg...ency, the immigrants will often be less willing to sacrifice their lives and their property than will be the original descendants of the founder race... the immigrants are liable to form communities of their own, protecting primarily their own interests, and only in the second degree that of the nation as a whole. Many of the foreign immigrants will probably belong to races originally conquered by and absorbed into the empire. While the empire is enjoying its High Noon of prosperity, all these people are proud and glad to be imperial citizens. But when decline sets in, it is extraordinary how the memory of ancient wars, perhaps centuries before, is suddenly revived, and local or provincial movements appear demanding secession or independence. Some day this phenomenon will doubtless appear in the now apparently monolithic and authoritarian Soviet empire. It is amazing for how long such provincial sentiments can survive...

As the nation declines in power and wealth, a universal pessimism gradually pervades the people, and itself hastens the decline...Frivolity is the frequent companion of pessimism. Let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die...The heroes of declining nations are always the same—the athlete, the singer or the actor."

A quote I had to post here. It is so brilliant. The worst feeling in the world is having the mentality of someone who would build an empire and be trapped in a collapsing one. I suppose this is why if reforming Europe was beyond possible, I'd prefer Islam - at least I'd be the slave girl of an expanding empire, not part of a rotten civilization with no soul. But Europeans had bigger challenges in the past and we overcame them, so I'm hopeful.

And yes, we need our own propaganda. The problem is that unlike the left, we reveal our positions too soon, instead of just tearing down what they want. For example, if I was a Swedish politician, I'd make it seem that multiculturalists are for the rape of Swedish women, without really proposing anything positive. And if I was called a racist, I'd just say that I'd rather have some braindead zombie call me a racist, than advocate things that lead to the rape of women and due to it being complicit of rape. And I'd do this for a single reason - rape disgusts most women for obvious reasons, but it also enrages most men to have their women raped by outsiders. So I'd make the MC people hated, even if I wouldn't really win an election by enough to actually change something. But yes, we need propaganda badly and all the artsy people are leftists.

And to me, people who help a third worlder as long as there is a single orphan of their own group are committing treason. And this is the problem of Catholicism and most Catholics being third worlders - if you are a Catholic, the third worlders ARE your group, I suppose. But again, then Catholicism becomes my enemy. So you see, it is that simple, in the end. Unless Catholicism becomes pro-European, instead of pro-third world or even egalitarian, then it is worthless in terms of preserving anything besides of the left.

I'd like to ask why do you have a sister church in Uganda to begin with? All European Catholic churches already had sister churches with American Catholic churches? I don't know any churches here who get aid from out of the country, so I suppose not.

And it is a smear if you watched Starship Troopers. The whole thing the bad humans went to colonize a planet and the bugs attacked back mantra combined with a lot of subtle cues throughout the movie show the intention fairly obviously.

thewanderingwhite said...

Polymath,

Now that you have specified that Islam is an opportunistic infection in its current incarnation, but an old disease nonetheless, we have no substantial point of disagreement. In fact, the first modern Muslim immigrants to Europe came in the wake of WWII as construction workers, then stayed as welfare recipients; had it not been for the welfare state, it is likely there would be no Eurabia.

However, I wish to draw attention to the 1929 founding of the Muslim Brotherhood, or "Ikhwan", which is the leading jihadist organisation in the world. Its main strategy is gradual infiltration of Western societies, in the hope that the West will be converted to Islam, then proceed to spread Islam as it once spread Christianity. See these statements by the Brotherhood's spiritual guide:

http://www.memritv.org/report/en/SP44702.htm

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1592.htm

Clearly, the West was doing much better in 1929, and could withstand this assault. The Ikhwan founders were inspired by Marxism and fascism, desiring to create a Muslim renascence that would compete with these similarly despotic, expansionist ideologies.

With the American oil companies' devastating error of selling their wells in the Middle East to the Mohammedans -- especially to the Saudis -- came the influx of petrodollars to the Arab world necessary for the rise of Saudi da'awa, and Saudi suppression -- on a global scale -- of imams prepared not to wage jihad on the kafir.

Perhaps the Ikhwan we know today take their name from the Wahhabi fundamentalist armed forces of the same name formed by Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud, which led the Wahhabi movement in the early 20th century; if so, there is a direct line from the founding of the third Saudi kingdom in 1902 to the founding of the Ikhwan in Egypt in 1929, and ultimately to today's global jihad.

Certainly, Saudi Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood have found much common ground. We can only lament how their attempts to expand the Dar al-Islam have been abetted by Western degeneracy, greed, and weakness.

Polymath said...

I was the one who originally told you about the book that quote was from! CS, you can read the whole thing here: The Fate of Empires

We should write some propaganda. You made the same point I made here and on GoV, that we should destroy the PC/MC leftists and the Islam-is-peaceniks and so on first, this is easier to do than offering an alternative vision, a necessary prerequisite anyway, and people whose ideal visions disagree can still work together on it.

Since European countries can have empires on other continents, where it is in their interests to have friendly nations or colonies or protectorates there to trade with, parts of 3rd world are not always enemies. But of course it is absolutely essential to keep them from coming here.

There are sister churches in Eastern Europe too. They're not all third world.

I'll watch Starship Troopers anyway since Denise Richards is so scorchingly hot. Avatar was a disappointment but still worth watching, is Starship Troopers as bad politically? No wonder they waited until Heinlein was dead.

thewanderingwhite said...

Polymath,

We, as kuffar who have been invited to Islam, are waging war on the Religion of Peace. Just bear that in mind next time you read about some poor, traumatised Kosovar shooting a kafir. It's Milosevic's fault!

Here is what I think of these so-called "people":

http://thewanderingwhite.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/radovan-karadzic-infidel-hero-2/

http://thewanderingwhite.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/the-international-court-of-justice-the-united-nations-and-kosovo/

thewanderingwhite said...

Polymath,

Here is something I wrote in defence of Radovan Karadzic:

http://thewanderingwhite.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/radovan-karadzic-european-martyr/

tasty_glamgirl said...

I suppose I have to watch Avatar. I'm the only person I know that didn't watch it. Heck, even people who are twice my age apparently watched it. :P

Polymath, the problem is that some of those groups listed by Baron are part of the MC/PC tent. I don't really plan to ally myself with the feminists, I plan to use them, while keeping them as enemies. The problem is that in the same time, you must have a group that believes in the same things that is bigger than the ten people who post here.

And in regards to sister churches - do some stats on how many churches in America have sister churches in Europe and how many do in Africa. :)

WW, I'm ashamed my country allowed the anti-European empire to use its airspace to bomb Yugoslavia. And then, Clinton backstabbed us because we were supposed to get into NATO for it. But again, it is typical of America to stab her allies in the back. What I'm glad about is that we didn't recognize Kosovo independence or them as a state and I hope we won't do this about Sudan either.

Polymath said...

What's wrong with recognizing the South Sudan independence? There was a referendum and they are splitting peacefully, North Sudan has accepted the result. This is extraordinary, a Muslim country letting the non-Muslim part leave, why are you against it?

I agree completely about Kosovo, I've written about this on my blog and GoV.

tasty_glamgirl said...

Polymath, because I reject self determination. :)

By the way, there are things I disagree with in that book. For instance, in regards to the age of intellect - the reason for that is that everyone wants to be upper class and people afford to indulge into the insanity that everyone can be. No more hierarchical structures that are obvious in expanding empires. Right now, Harvard would be enough to train the leadership of a country.

How true is that part about argument destroying action? Aren't we doing this just now? I mean, we keep rambling about how Islam is good or bad, about this or that, but I hardly see anything actually being done. And how true is the part about everything being solvable through technological progress and mental games?

"Then, as we have seen, came the
period of pessimism with the accompanying spirit of frivolity and sensual indulgence, byproducts
of despair. It was inevitable at such times that men should look back yearningly to the days of ‘religion’, when the spirit of
self-sacrifice was still strong enough to make men ready to give and to serve, rather than to snatch. But while despair might permeate the greater part of the nation, others achieved a new realization of the fact that only readiness for self-sacrifice could enable a community to survive. Some of the greatest saints in
history lived in times of national decadence, raising the banner of duty and service against the flood of depravity and despair."

What I found interesting about the empires he chose is that all of them were led by the same family or close people to the ruling class of the founding people. It plays on what I said about the aristocracy as the descendants of the European warrior class and how the virtues of that class molded Europe until the Enlightenment. I suppose starting in around 1800, the Age of Conquests was over for Europe. :P

thewanderingwhite said...

Rebellious Vanilla,

Is it that Romania doesn't recognise Sudan, or is it that you don't want your country to recognise the secessionist state of South Sudan?

I'm sympathetic to South Sudan, because there are Christians and pagans there trying to escape jihad. It's secondary to me that they happen to be Negroes, since the government in Khartoum is Arab (i.e., also non-White).

By the way, I'm only several years older than you are, and I haven't seen Avatar either.

tasty_glamgirl said...

WW, I'm not exactly sure about Sudan, but I know for certain that we didn't recognize Kosovo and this is because we're not fond of secession due to Hungarians wanting to do that. On the other hand, I suppose it's different in Sudan if the North agreed. I don't really care either way about them.

Polymath said...

RV, I'm disappointed, I thought you were going to give a strong defense of Sudan unity based on the analogy to the Kosovo situation -- in both cases you had a region dominated by a different ethnic group which wanted to secede and pressure from the West forced the autocratic leader of the country, who had been accused of genocidal crimes against the seceding group, to acquiesce in the partition of his country.

Of course there are several other important differences, for example this time it was the side that wanted unity which behaved much worse (in both situations it was the Muslim side that was murderous and aggressive), and the seceding region did not have any significant number of people who wanted unity (the referendum was over 98% to secede with no calls for boycotting or other reason to doubt the results), and the pressure was only diplomatic and did not involve bombing (Bashir, the head of Sudan, has been under indictment in the Hague for genocide for years and wasn't bombed over that, so obviously he wasn't worried about being bombed for not allowing a referendum; although South Sudan has most of the oil he's already stolen $9 billion according to Wikileaks so he's not so greedy anymore). I was all ready to give you a hard time over your uncharacteristic commitment to abstract legal principle over demographic realities, but it turns out you just didn't care. :P

Polymath said...

I've been thinking more about the problem of persuading people to see things correctly. I complained before that in most of the discussion forums on the right, even though lots of people had good things to say (which I learned from), they did not learn from each other or advance understanding or move towards a better synthesis. To avoid this they eventually ended up insulting and misrepresenting each other.

This morning I had a heated discussion with a local liberal in the coffee shop I am writing from. It was cordial but I needed to speak quite strongly and sharply to cut through all the hidden assumptions he was making and all the facts he was overlooking in a reasonable amount of time. Fortunately, I was in good form and I expressed myself wittily and colorfully, and made it clear that there were certain points he was making that I agreed with. Two people at an adjacent table, and the barista, told me afterwards that they had enjoyed the conversation and that I should get a radio show. The impression I got was that if I could have had several hours in which to clarify things, I would not have changed his core principles, but I would have gotten him to retreat on almost all his specific assertions, and would have persuaded the audience. (The main topic was why the voters had rejected the Democrats last November and he kept trying to claim the Democrats just didn't get their message out clearly enough because of evil corporations and Fox News propagandizing people, and he also kept making assumptions that everyone has a right to health care and a college education which he would retreat on when challenged directly).

I also got a new issue this morning of the Jesuit magazine I subscribe to (called "America" but it's not really about America). There was stuff I wanted to argue with on almost every page, but I noticed there were 3 kinds of writers: Jesuits who were sometimes wrong but logical and could be properly engaged in debate (even when they wrote one-sided propaganda, they were honest enough to give you clear factual statements you could dispute and clear philosophical premises you could challenge), muddleheaded liberals who obviously would have little capacity to grasp the defectiveness of their thought patterns, and ordinary Catholics whose glaring fault was complete ignorance of any arguments against the conclusions they were reaching (these were mostly letter-writers). I got the impression that the first and third groups would be capable of listening to and learning from counter arguments BUT ONLY from someone they already trusted and considered "on their side". The hardest thing is just to get someone to listen to you fairly -- these writers ought to have presumed that any Catholic, at least, shares enough in common with them to deserve a fair hearing, but unfortunately they jump in advance to the conclusion that anyone disagreeing with them is XYZ and therefore need not be listened to (where XYZ = "Republican", "miitarist", "mean", "ultra-orthodox", or whatever).

Polymath said...

(continued)
As we have said, this can be countered through cultural means, but that's just bypassing the problem to get ideas into people's heads indirectly. It would be much more efficient if they simply listened properly, but it seems the more they claim to be "open-minded" the less they actually listen. In America it is hopeless to debate with anybody who considers himself a partisan Democrat because they ruthlessly purge dissenters, but most people are not partisan and will listen to someone they know and like.

This is separate from the issue of whether the average person can grasp complex arguments. The points that really need to be gotten across are usually quite simple, except that you first have to dig out the taboo or hidden assumption that is skewing their thinking and challenge it openly. What does the real work of persuasion is showing how your point of view EXPLAINS something which previously puzzled and bothered them.

So I think we should somehow attack the meta-problem of not being listened to. Most of the noise coming from the MSM and the ruling elites can be seen as attempts to prevent people from listening to certain people or looking at things in a certain way. We've got to ridicule this at every opportunity. At MIT conservatives would wear T-shirts that self-proclaimed "Capitalist Tool"; maybe we should try to "own" the sillier and more ridiculous names we are called. So I am thinking of having T-shirts made that say "Right-wing maniac" or "Traditionalist dinosaur" or "Regressive" or "Benighted reactionary yahoo" or "Male chauvinist" etc.

This is why Wilders's speech was so brilliant, emphasizing free speech above all the other issues. "What they don't want you to think about" would be a good way to label anything we say. The more people "get" how much they are routinely lied to, the more they will actually listen.

When information is suppressed the situation is metastable; for many issues it is as Kuran described, where people with a correct view falsely think that very few people think like them and so feel socially pressured to hide it. For other issues the brainwashing is more widespread, so you have to tackle things in the right order.

tasty_glamgirl said...

No, I really don't care about anything that happens in Africa nor do I care about legal principles - after all, this is why I say I want to be empress and not president. Legal principles talk is part of that book - it's in the category NATO: no action, talk only. A society that is committed to do something, doesn't really care about 'legal principle'. If we wanted to rid ourselves of invaders, it would hardly matter that they are citizens or whatever. But again, most people who talk about it are part of the civilization in decline that is all talk, which is exactly the problem. Not to mention that most are just wanting an excuse to not do anything.

And your debate was simple. Most people are easily swayed on economics, especially if you leave brands like party names out of it. I convinced people all across the political spectrum that the welfare state is an insanity. This isn't a feat.

And any variety of Christianity that isn't ultra orthodox and allows slip ups and all that is worthless as a religion. It is just a refuge of the dregs of society with no good will that allows them to say they are spiritual.

I'd also like to point out that with that kind of branding like in your last post, you will attract only the outcasts of society. That's what the MRA does and it is filled with men who had their wives cheat or divorce them and so on. Bitter, petty people. You won't achieve anything with defeated people.

So really, there's only one way I see out. We get enough jackboots and we seize power. But again, you're the one who thinks you can affect something through voting. I'm waiting for you to give up on that foolish belief. I decided I won't vote from now on because voting means I see the government I vote for as legitimate. I persuaded quite a bunch of people to see the current government as illegitimate too. There's no difference in between a democratic gov and a dictatorship who does the same thing. Same legitimacy.

Polymath said...

You're in an interesting mood today. :P I don't disagree with you about legal principles, I only mentioned them because you had said you're against self-determination which sounded like a principled stand rather than one based on the facts of the Sudan case.

What do you mean "allows slip-ups"? Isn't part of the point of the sacrament of Confession, which is very orthodox, to recover from slip-ups? Or did you mean that the religion allows itself to slip DOWN and dilute its tenets?

The point of the "brands" in the T-shirts was to make fun of the name-calling shaming types. Of course you have to choose carefully where you wear such a shirt, but with the right crowd it will start a discussion and allow you to get past the immediate reaction that your views must be evil and wrong because they fit a certain label -- if the label itself can be made fun of you are immunized against it. Actually I had originally written "right-wing meanie" instead of "right-wing maniac" which maybe gets the joke across better; and "traditionalist dinosaur" is also silly enough that nobody can be deeply offended. ("Male chauvinist", on the other hand, truly will offend some people so you have to be more careful, but it will be good in some situations.) Anyway I would do this not to attract people directly but to start conversations, and also to desensitize people so next time they hear someone called a name like that they won't get all worried they're in danger of being seen with a bad person.

As to voting, you're again reading too much into what I said. It is good to persuade people in general, whether you want them to vote or to join your revolutionary organization. I am talking about the problem of getting the message across so more people will have the right views and attitudes -- at the very least they'll do less to hinder you then. Whether you want to win elections or stage a coup, you will still want to have more people on your side if you can.

And even if you reject democracy in general and regard democratic governments as not thereby gaining any legitimacy or deserving any loyalty, it may still be the case at a particular time that the result of an upcoming election matters significantly for pragmatic reasons, and justifies political action apart from any abstract questions of legitimacy.

tasty_glamgirl said...

Polymath, I'm not in the mood for political bantering anymore. I'm tired of it. It is all pointless talk anyway. When things will be right for doing something, then it will have any relevance. So yes, self-determination is an idiocy and I frankly, don't feel like explaining why I think like that. lol

In regards to Christianity, you get punished for slipping out. That's not really allowing slip ups. I've been a good child, my only sins usually being some petty lies and some minor cursing and rarely not obeying my parents. You have no idea what kind of things I had to do to be forgiven for those.

And not really. If you look at all revolutions throughout history, it wasn't really some dude coming up with an idea and beginning to convince people. When things needed change, people just began stating their grievances, things got violent, the current regime fell and others seized power. If anything, we should be learning how we should be those that seize power, not convince stupid people who won't do squat anyway. The convincing always happens after wards when the new regime takes hold.

So I hardly care about talking to other people, convincing people or anything of this sort. When it will be the case of executing the current elite though, count me in. There are far better things to do in life than try to convince people so that you get to save people you don't even like.

Polymath said...

Yes, I hear the Orthodox impose more serious penances than the Catholics, just like they fast more rigorously. Catholics probably get off too easy, but maybe the Orthodox are too strict, at least for little kids. How old were you when you stopped going? I need to figure out what to give up for Lent. My daughter is coming home tomorrow for spring break, she wants me to give up my iPhone but I need it professionally. So instead I will give up Internet surfing, I will only use it for email or my job [and I will use the email for a loophole, blog discussions I am already subscribed to can be commented on by replying to an email ;) ].

You are too lazy to be a good revolutionary. You have to get people on your side, both active supporters and people who sympathize enough that they will at least leave you alone. You can't avoid persuading people, even though you are right that persuading the masses is ineffective compared with converting a small capable group more thoroughly.

If you don't want to banter about politics there are other things to talk about on other posts, CS may think this one has gone long enough since he is not chiming in. (I had a comment on your blog on your post about dancing the other day).

tasty_glamgirl said...

Here punishments are given according to your ability to make amends. So kids get lighter things. And I quit religion at about 17ish.

And you have to get influential people on your side, not random online people or people in libraries. If you know any generals, let me know and I will persuade them. :) In case you didn't figure it out, getting a lot of sheeple gets you some democratic crappy revolution. In order to do something on my taste, you need the support of the army.

I don't check my blog anymore.

Polymath said...

Hmm, I wonder what penances you got when you were 16?

I agree with the other things you said.

You can set your blog so that you will get emailed with comments, I don't think too many commenters will bother you.

thewanderingwhite said...

Rebelliouc Vanilla,

A Leftist revolution has been achieved in Britain -- and in Latin America and elsewhere -- without the use of internal violence. Two major wars wiped out our aristocracy, leaving the way clear for the rise of socialism.

I don't see any theoretical impediment to achieving a Rightist revolution through democratic means, except that imperialist ideology is no longer popular with the Western masses.

tasty_glamgirl said...

WW, the suffrage never contracts through democratic means. lol. Using a leftist form of government to make a country more leftist is easy.

And the wars didn't really wipe out the aristocracy. America did after WW1 and America is the leftist empire traditionally. And internal or external violence doesn't matter. If I was the Kaiserin of Germany and I annexed Sweden, they wouldn't need internal violence to change. lol

Polymath, lots of praying and fasting. :)

The Wandering White said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Wandering White said...

Rebellious Vanilla,

Frankly, I was wondering if you meant the problem of democracy tending to expand the franchise over time, as parties seek larger constituencies. My main problem with democracy is that it is dysgenic when the franchise is not limited, and reproduction by the unproductive is incentivised.

People will give up anything if you talk them into it, even their lives. You just need to convince them.

With respect to getting the Romanian army involved in your imaginary coup, I must ask if this fantasy is because of chatter you may have heard of the coup against Ceausescu, which was most likely in fact orchestrated from Moscow.

Ion Iliescu was a Moscow insider, and the goal of all the so-called "revolutions" (e.g., the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia) was to privatise state assets in the hands of a well-connected, kleptocratic elite while maintaining the political control of the special services.

I suggest you read "And Reality Be Damned" by Robert Buchar. "The Perestroika Deception" by Anatoly Golitsyn -- who was a Major in the KGB before defecting to the US and Britain -- is good for its analysis of the revolution in Romania.

The Wandering White said...

Rebellious Vanilla,

By the way, the Americans didn't wipe out our aristocracy at all after WWI; we were on the same side.

The Central Powers lost their aristocracies because of the joint efforts of the Entente and the United States, but we never underwent any such process.

tasty_glamgirl said...

WW, any coup is done with the army. If you don't have the army involved and it opens fire, you are royally screwed. I don't really fantasize about doing 1989 all over again because 1989 was a sham.

And democracy is stupid. Heck, the premises on which it is based are idiotic and similar to the ones of our current problems. But again, it would take too much time to explain and as I said, I'm tired and bored of it. I'm not even a man and men should fix this. ;)

The Wandering White said...

Rebellious Vanilla,

Yes, any coup had better be done with the army. Just witness what happened to the Valkyrie plotters (to name the most famous example) when they didn't have the army on their side.

However, all I'm saying is that it's sometimes easier and just as effective to work gradually. Personally, I happen to believe the situation is hopeless, and that not even a coup can save us.

Is your military white, or do you have you begun to experience the joys of diversity?

In Britain, the police force are part of the problem, not part of the solution, and you can be arrested and imprisoned for "inciting racial hatred" -- meaning that "racial hatred" is something bad, not something natural and necessary.

In the States, they have a Muslim black nationalist as their President. Their Supreme Court is one third Jewish...

In Europe, it is a crime to "deny" the Holocaust (i.e., to argue about how many pieces of trash the Germans did or didn't clean up).

I think it's hopeless, but I encourage you to try if that's what you want to do. Maybe I'll move to Romania when you take over!

tasty_glamgirl said...

WW, taking over Romania would be pointless because I'd just end up being bombed by Northern Mexico. I mean, the US.

And you can't do gradual work on rotten institutions. The institutions we have now have as their purpose to destroy us. It's like trying to make toys out of bombs. Good luck with that.

The reason why the communists stayed in power here in 1989 is that the whole thing was a farce. If I was the leader of the army, I would have executed everyone in the nomenclature and surrounding Ceausescu and confiscated the assets of everyone who was part of the communist party and all that. But yes, here the military is like 100% white. My boyfriend is in the military and I've been around the base and I didn't see any non-white. I suppose risking being shipped to Iraq for crap pay doesn't appeal to Gypsies. The cops are jokes here too. But cops are always useless to begin with. Armies change things, not law enforcement people.

And yes, I'm sort of puzzled by the fact that it's a crime in my country too to deny the Holocaust from what I know, but it is ok to defend communism. It's farcical in a way because we're not Jews and not many Romanians were killed in the Holocaust. So it's ok to deny the death of our own, but not the death of others? Nice.

The Wandering White said...

Rebellious Vanilla,

Yes, it's really charming that you can deny your own people's genocide but not the sacred Jews'. (My own nickname for Jesus is "the Jew in the sky".)

I suspect you will have less luck with a coup in Obamanation than in Romania, although I agree you will be bombed by the Anti-European Empire/North Mexico in the event you and your boyfriend should stage a coup in Romania (especially if you should kill the nomenclatura).

There are some articles on the American military that are worth reading for your purposes:

http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/01/index.html#cover

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/02/22/ft_hood_suspect_was_army_dilemma/

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/11/08/general-casey-diversity-shouldnt-be-casualty-of-fort-hood/

Polymath said...

WW, your second link is broken but I found the story reproduced here. The story on black soldiers was very good despite some minor errors. Of course the men we have been fighting in the current wars are much more "diverse" (using the word in its modern incorrect sense) so our soldiers are still much better than their enemies, but God help us if we ever make mistake #1 in Vizzini's list again.

RV, CS wrote back to me, he is traveling but is enjoying our re-animation of his blog.

The discussion on coups and popular revolutions is useful. I have studied the structure of tyrannies. The army is always what matters, and there are two key factors: demographics of the enlisted men, and command structure of the officers. A tyrant will always be toppled by a popular revolution if the troops are loyal to the people rather than him. This is why clever tyrants manipulate the ethnic composition of their armed forces. The tyrant also must strike a balance between having generals powerful enough to effectively fight against rebel armies or invaders, but not powerful enough to stage a coup on their own. This is easier in larger countries like Iraq under Saddam where generals can keep each other in check.

But it is much less easy to topple the kind of government we have in Europe and America. When there is a long tradition of democracy, as long as parties genuinely yield power to each other after apparently free elections, the people will not rise up until it becomes obvious that the parties are basically the same and that real alternative parties are shut out, nor will the Army stage a coup. In Europe the main parties are much closer to each other than in America and there has been more banning of parties that challenge the consensus, and there is also the unaccountable EU-cracy which does not itself have an army, so popular uprisings will happen there before they do in the US, but military coups are still extremely unlikely. There will have to be blood in the streets from ethnic and religious fighting, and major terrorism, before the Army would take over, but if the leftists and Muslims are careful not to provoke such violence I can't see how it would happen. Even if there is an economic catastrophe, the first result will just be a change of the party in power in each country, since that can happen very quickly in Euro-style parliamentary democracies. And countries with American troops in them won't have coups either.

tasty_glamgirl said...

Polymath, armies matter in democracies too. Why do you think I can't get 10,000 people and go and lynch everyone in the Romanian parliament? Unlike Americans, I know how these things are since they happened and if there's any chance of the system being threatened, martial law is declared and the army is pulled out of the barracks. The only difference in between a tyranny and an elected government is the fact that the sheeple believe that the latter has a bigger degree of legitimacy. That's all.

Also, the army isn't as important once you seize power. Then it is all public relations and manipulating the hearts of the people, which is easy if you have control over the government - you can stage assassinations, create propaganda and so on easily. But yes, I agree in regards to the ethnic composition of the armed forces. But again, white people aren't fit to serve in any military besides in anti-white ones. Just look at the fruitcakes in the US armed forces. If they were asked to bomb Nigeria or Somalia, I doubt they would have been as cheerful as they were when they bombed Yugoslavia. But again, the mind of soldiers is easily swayed by propaganda. This is why the Romans always fought defensive wars while expanding their empire.

And generals aren't that hard to please. As long as you keep them happy, they won't really do a coup. The problem is if they are influenced from outside(foreign countries) or not, which was the case in 1989 in my country.

In regards to democracy. The problem isn't really that people believe they can change things in elections, the problem is that people think that as long as the elected people do something, they are legitimate. For instance, if whites were 10% in America, they'd still be good plebs and go vote and never do squat(while rambling about the constitution like pathetic sheep). If there was an economic disaster to the point where the welfare state was dismantled, we'd have war on the streets. Well, Sweden would, my country wouldn't.

And most of Europe wasn't democratic 100 years ago. Not that long of a tradition. But the fools did a great job at internalizing America's idiocy. Anyway, due to the legitimacy issue I'd do my best if I was a politician to have my party outlawed in the case of a crisis - then I'd speak as a dissident to the people and I could ask for a revolution/coup.

Still, I'm not even sure I'd want to govern about such a pathetic people as we are. I'd rather govern over an African country than an European one because really, what Europeans believe disgusts me. This is why a lot of times I wish I was Chinese or whatever else. But I suppose it is normal since we, women, are disgusted by weakness and we are in the stage of a civilization when it is conquered and rendered redundant.

Anyway, this is why Europe was great, actually, unlike China. We were a bunch of little states that imposed themselves on the weaker ones, so being weak wasn't really an option. Look at the balance of power in between Prussia and Austria, for instance. Being a stagnant country would lead to being dispossessed. Now we ramble about harmonization.

tasty_glamgirl said...

"Time to learn politics. As someone who aspires to become Empress, I did learn how the system of power works. Let's suppose that what Alex Jones is correct in what he says, that he is logical and his positions are factually true. If he was a dissident in my empire, I wouldn't squelch him. Squelching works on the low level, not for the people who can talk.

To begin with, saying the truth or being logically consistent is of no consequence. But people want to be liked and approved of, so what you do is associate the beliefs Jones has with being insane, unworthy, evil(think of the tale with the emperor's clothing). For instance, look at people who squelch debate on racial issues. Is it illegal? No. But you are a racist if you don't believe what I believe and being a racist is akin to being a Nazi and supporter of genocide. This is how the mind works.

And in the same way you rule a conquered people(America's treatment of Germany post WW2 is a brilliant example):
1)you exhibit superior ability of aggression
2)after conquering your enemy, you destroy its institutions and build up your own that reinforce your will
3)portray your occupation as liberation and brainwash people into believing it
Then people who will say the truth, that well, we are occupied, will be fought against by the other people who are occupied! Heck, this is basic things in politics. There's a reason why America calls their occupation liberation, you know?

Here's how you amplify your position. Let's suppose I was empress and you were my designated governor of some province and the people there wanted more something that I was against of. What better way than stage your assassination(which would fail) and associate it with the people who want the thing I'm against. They'd become traitors against their empress and the empire and all the people who would associate with them would be seen as such. Not to mention that I would have the excuse to out right execute them, but as a noble and kind ruler, I wouldn't.

This is how politics work.

You might not care what the mainstream says, but the mainstream sets policy. Heck, even if I was a dictator I couldn't just pass laws that would be massively against popular opinion because a happy people are easier to rule over(not to mention lower threat of assassination, better ability to fight outsiders and so on).

And no, sensationalism is always bad because it discredits the person saying things. Weakness might be good at times too, but nobody will follow a weak man, just like they won't listen to the ramblings of someone they consider a lunatic. This is why it matters. It works in the same way as in commanding troops to battle - if you are outnumbered two to one and you show fear as a general, you won't have an army anymore fairly quickly.

Also, sadly people hardly care about the truth. They want comfort and a purpose. That's what the plebs want. So believe me, truth is an academic issue - people always think with their hearts and not with their brains. If people cared about truth, it isn't just the government that would crumble, but everything. This culture is a non-sensical idiocy that only simpletons can believe in and it doesn't even stop here.

Oh, and believe me, if I was part of the powers that be, I'd hire a personal bodyguard for Jones - he'd do me a great favor. The last thing I'd want is someone suspecting him being killed for his views and not to mention that he makes everybody with his views seem loony. This is how things are, like it or not."
This is how a ruler thinks. :P

Polymath said...

Ha, you keep talking as if you are disagreeing with me but you're not. I never said the Army wasn't important in Western democracies, I said it was unlikely to stage a coup, and you say the same thing, they will come out of their barracks to restore order but they won't topple the elected leaders. And I agree that the Army is less important once you have seized power and control information and so on. And I agree that generals can be kept happy unless they are traitors with support from other countries, which also isn't likely in Western democracies. And the democratic tradition in Western Europe goes back long enough that nobody remembers the last coup (well, Greece and Portugal can remember back to 1974 but they are on the periphery, and the other Western European countries only remember peaceful transitions).

In Eastern Europe it will be very different, people will get wise to the uselessness of politics sooner because they don't have a lifelong experience of governments always having real elections and stepping down voluntarily when voted out. But you still haven't painted a believable picture of how the government in any Western European country (except maybe Greece and Portugal) or the Anglosphere could be forced out.

I like your rant in the discussion about Alex Jones and agree with almost all of it, do you have a link to the original thread? Although I agree with you about the plebes, the non-plebe educated class is important enough that you can't ignore the need for truth and rational argument, there will be a significant number of people you will want to reach that way, if only to neutralize them.

tasty_glamgirl said...

Polymath, the educated people will go to school, right? Guess what will they be taught in my imperial universities? Most people, even the educated ones, are impervious to logic, so it doesn't matter. And the few who are are inconsequential because you can wire the plebs's emotional network to reject their logical arguments. Also, educated people who aren't swayed by emotions aren't only an irrelevant minority, but they are also the type of people who don't risk their careers to take the streets. So no, they don't matter, no matter how much we'd like to think otherwise due to belonging in this group. :)

And you won't get me to do grunt work and explain what I say. I said two times already that I'm over it. You either agree with what I say or not, but I won't waste my time to try to persuade anyone.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/017388.html
http://issuesviews.blogspot.com/2008/04/its-about-power.html
I like Elizabeth Wright. It's pathetic that me and her, two women, get how power works far better than a ton of men. Pathetic, really. I do agree with what she told Auster - if we don't pull our heads out of our asses, we deserve to go extinct and lose our lands.


This
is also relevant to our discussion about ethnic composition of armed forces.

Polymath said...

Good point about the educated people. So you will have to use your formidable one-on-one persuasive powers to build your revolutionary organization....

You explained yourself well, I don't understand why you think I'm asking you to do grunt work. On GoV I made fun of you for not slowing down to make things clearer to people like Hesperado and Zenster, but that's really an affectionate way of praising you and insulting them, in case you didn't get it. I know I'm one of the people you consider capable of conversing with you in a way that we'll both learn something. :P But I do want to see the Alex Jones thread so I know what you were responding to.

The Elizabeth Wright links are great and I completely agree, but on the Auster thread you can see what I was saying about how people on the right prefer to insult and misrepresent rather than learn from each other.

It must be horrible to be a smart black conservative like Elizabeth Wright or Thomas Sowell and realize your own people are so stupid and hopeless.

LOL at the Sailer link.

tasty_glamgirl said...

The AJ thing is from a friend's facebook page. So no linky. In regards to educated people, I was referring to what I'd do as an empress. I hardly care about building a revolutionary organization. If as a woman, I have to do that, my men are too pathetic to bother and I should marry someone from another group.

And Auster is a psychopath, if you ask me. He is really good with language, but not that good with logic. I suppose this is why he is so popular in terms of having sycophants.

It's more horrible to be a smart white woman and realize how pathetic white people are. I'd rather be black than white. You know, they are winning. Stupid or not, we're losing and we're doing it badly. To make a comparison, being part of the Red Army was better than the SS, even if the former were a bunch of uneducated brutes with shit for brains. I still get a kick when I remember they seized this palace in my country and burned the books and furniture to keep themselves warm. Also, I prefer stupidity over wimpiness. I'd rather be the wife of a manly retard than of a brilliant wimp.

Polymath said...

OK. You can tell me on FB if you want (I just put updates there and on my blog). If you don't want to build a revolutionary organization, you'd better pick the right guy to charm into making you Empress :P -- obviously neither manly retards nor brilliant wimps would do. Anyway, I'm sure your boyfriend is neither one of those. And white people in general are not going to lose their capability for effective violence, it's bred into European DNA. It's in the nature of things for evil to overreach, EVENTUALLY the time will come when whites will strike back and win (except in Britain, where the PC/MC leftists and Islamists figured out that they should dilute the white gene pool by interracial mating early enough that the whites will cease to exist as a significant group first; this process isn't fast enough in other European countries).

Agree about Auster, but what I said is true of lots of other right-wing bloggers too. Maybe CS can name some whom one can actually make progress in a discussion with.

Relevant links today, common theme is the discrediting of our political/media/academic ruling clas:

Neocon Krauthammer, normally pretty smart, foolishly thinks the ongoing Arab revolutions vindicate Bush, obviously clueless about who will eventually win in those countries.

Harvard Professors say ROTC bad, Gaddafi good.

California will implode first, and they deserve it for electing union-loving Democrats.

Border Patrol agent dies because ATF gave AK-47s to Mexican bandits, while DHS gave him beanbag guns.

tasty_glamgirl said...

Him would do? :P Or maybe this one? I just recalled a joke of CS about a picture of mine in which he said I look like a Hohenzollern. I'm sure they're both flaming liberals, like all European heirs are brainwashed to be though so I'd probably hate Romania becoming a kingdom again anyway. It would actually probably be worse.

Anyway, getting back to reality for a second, our capacity for violence is part of our intelligence and discipline. We will also fight for our homelands, which will add to the motivation. But that's if we will ever fight, which right now looks as highly unlikely. Most people would lose their comfortable crap. And we get to that Fate of Empires book again.

In regards to Britain, it is still salvageable. Obviously, since British girls are little sluts that are enthusiastic about miscegenation, it will be harder, but you can just have an underclass of mixed people ruled over by the others and eventually the two will blend. Where the mixing is too big is America(far more mixed people than in Britain, especially if you count Arabs, Indians and whatever else your government counts as white as nonwhite). Also, since the US never had an ethnic identity, good luck at getting one now.

Krauthammer is pathetic. He is overblowing what Hussein did, but it's typical of ridiculous idiots like him. I'm not exactly sure why anybody takes him seriously. This gassing of people thing is becoming quite a joke, to be honest. The way he wrote it is just a way to try to appeal to Hitler's precedent. First of all, it wasn't whole villages, it was just a few thousand people and a lot of those civilians were fighting on the side of Iran. So good for him. Crimes against humanity is a liberal idiocy that disgusts me. These are the idiots who would throw someone in jail if they were ruthless, even if it ended the war sooner. By the looks of it, the American way killed far more people. I'm sure him, like all his morons took a 180 turn along with Bush when Saddam became the new Hitler, from a trusted ally.

The California read was too long and about a too boring subject for me to read, but the writer is an idiot. It is conquered territory by the Hispanics. Democrats aren't a different people. I suppose ideological battles are tribalism for effeminate men. And it's not like the GOP would have enforced immigration laws anyway, which is why they're in such a bad position. Anyway, what does this have to do with Jews, MC or changing things? :P

The Wandering White said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Wandering White said...

Rebellious Vanilla,

Glad you like Elizabeth Wright. I do, too.

Here is something by her you may enjoy if you have not seen it:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/carnival-of-repentance/

tasty_glamgirl said...

WW, I read that last year. I was reading this WW2 diary and I recalled this day when Americans bombed my city. We have monuments commemorating the death of the American pilots - who by the way, bombed trains filled with refugees too(war crimes anyone?) among other things. What a joke this is. I suppose that next we will build statues for the Russian soldiers who raped us. So it's not just the Holocaust thing(mind you, I do think that the Germans killed the Jews - just the concept pisses me off).

Here's another example Polymath of the institutions thing. Having statues commemorating things like this is part of it.

tasty_glamgirl said...

And since we are at this cute rebranding effort, I just saw this moron on Fox News. I wonder how much affirmative action he got. But leaving this aside, the guy defended Assata Shakur, who apparently is a cop killer and former member of the Black Panthers. And his defense for it is that she's not a cop killer or racist, she was a political activist. And mind you, he appears on a 'conservative' tv station in America.

You see, black people are political activists and all that. ;)

Polymath said...

If Britain is salvageable, then everywhere in Europe must be, since they have suffered the most cultural, social, and genetic damage so far. Glad to see you're so optimistic :P

The CA piece wasn't about demographics, it was about how clueless the governing class is and how discredited they are making themselves, since our discussion was about people giving up on politics as able to accomplish anything -- same theme with Krauthammer (who despite his brilliance is obviously mentally stuck and unable to see the world in a useful way), the Harvard story (our elites are whores), and the the Border Patrol stories (government agencies ATF and DHS are utterly devoid of competence and common sense). All these stories lead me to write off the entire ruling elite as useless (that doesn't mean politics is useless yet, it just means the entire establishment of both parties has to go and new people have to come in, probably with a new party but possibly by taking over the Republican party).

I suppose ideological battles are tribalism for effeminate men.

That is a BRILLIANT quote, this is why I keep hanging out with you. :)

The Elizabeth Wright links are great and I followed up and read more of her stuff. She has been even more unjustly ignored than Sowell has. I would love to find out what she kind of society she thinks this country ought to have and what the place in it of someone like her ought to be.

Just saw your last comment. I don't know why you would expect Fox News to not be full of idiots. They have figured out that by not showing an obvious liberal bias they will get a huge audience at the expense of the cluelessly ideological liberal networks, but that doesn't mean they have any sensible views of their own, the best thing you can say for them is that conservatives who are not TOO far to the right get a fair chance to speak there. Rupert Murdoch could have done a lot of good if he had actually cared about politics and was really right-wing, but he will never do anything to challenge the mainstream because there is too much money for him in being the designated opposition point of view to satisfy people who feel uncomfortable if they can't see "alternatives" offered and imagine that Fox provides the necessary "balance".

The Wandering White said...

Rebellious Vanilla,

Sorry the Americans bombed your city; I can see why you hate them so much! I just don't see how you will take over a military that is dependent on non-white foreigners for manpower.

I know, from the rape of Berlin and other such charming stories, about the Russians' habit of raping those they "liberate". I had to bite my tongue recently when my Jew paedophile professor went on a disgusting rant about how the Ustase should have been "cleaned out" by the Russians like the rest of the SS, but unfortunately Tito "liberated" Yugoslavia too soon...

This mentality is rampant. In reality, only the Chetniks offered a proper alternative in Yugoslavia, but their alliance with Russia devastated Europe. It led to the rise of the Soviet Union, since Lenin was an agent of Imperial Germany whose job was to turn Russia into one of the Central Powers. Of course, all he really did was try to Sovietise Germany.

I wish Sir Oswald Mosley had become Prime Minister of Britain. We might still have a functioning government.

tasty_glamgirl said...

WW, even if bombing historical buildings and refugee trains is stupid, I don't hate the Americans for that. Heck, I should hate the British too then for being sheep about the Porte(you were among the last people to recognize my country's independence, if I recall correctly), the Germans for WW1 and so on. But I don't. I actually think I would have enjoyed living in the Austrian empire, more or less. My gripe with Americans is just that they are the enforcers of this insanity and that they ruined Europe in WW1. I won't have much of a problem with them when they will be an irrelevant country in global politics.

And I dislike fascism. There are many problems with it. The main one is that it focuses on others, instead of your own people. I have no real problem with blacks, Muslims or whatever. I have a problem with whites being dickheads. Not being wimps would solve our problems. Then ethnic purity is stupid. An ethnic group is sort of like a family with a certain genetic frequency. Marrying into one is ok.

And Lenin was funded by both Germany and Wall Street. Also, the German funding was due to the Germans wanting to avoid the two front war of getting more intense, in anticipation of America getting in(hence the telegram and attempt of an alliance with Mexico). Obviously, it would have all been avoided without all the stupid alliances or the French hating the Germans for creaming them in the Prussian-French war. And mind you, my country benefited a lot from WW1 in terms of territory, so it's not like I have some interest in agitating for the other side.

The Wandering White said...

I would have enjoyed living in the Hapsburgs' Austria, too, assuming I spoke German. I agree the Americans helped to ruin Europe in WWI, but they were not alone.

I dislike fascism, too, but I see no immediate alternative that would have avoided war with Hitler. Perhaps the best thing to say is that France should not have been allowed to pervert the Treaty of Versailles so that Germany was forced into an untenable position.
Had Germany not been starved, it is possible the Nazis would never have come to power.

As far as I know, Jacob Schiff funded Trotsky with $20,000,000 US in gold. However, I know of no relationship with Lenin on his part. Schiff probably viewed the Bolsheviks as potential converts to Zionism because there were so many Jews among them. He should have been gassed along with his fellow Marxist German Jews. Thank God Stalin purged the CPSU of the Yid-Bolshevik fanatics.

tasty_glamgirl said...

WW, care to explain your position on Jews? I'm sort of puzzled by you in a way. You seem to understand certain things and be wrong on others, from what I can tell.

And it wasn't just the peace. The problem was ending Europe and the way Europe was. And there were alternatives. Force Poland to give Gdansk for another part of Europe from Germany, for example. Assassinate Hitler? Besides, why would you change your policy because some fool was elected in another country?

For example, who cares that the CPSU was filled with Jews or not? It is important to understand the Bolshevik tendency of Jews, but it's not like the CPSU got better after the purge.

The Wandering White said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Wandering White said...

The CPSU didn't get better after the Jews were purged, but isn't it fun to watch the pesky little social climbing monsters who created the Party get kicked out of their own organisation?

Here is my policy concerning the Jew:

Jews: Socialist, Traditional, and Zionist

Why is it you want to remove America from her position as protector of Europe? Why do you blame her for what happened on the
Continent after WWI, as though no one in Europe had anything to do with it? Just asking...

A Philosopher's Warning

tasty_glamgirl said...

WW, when did Jews fight a war against Europe? And we have the MC-PC malaise from America, combined with progressivism. That's where it was implemented institutionally. in the US and in France - the two leftist empires of Europe.

And America is protecting Europe as much as the Soviets protected Romania.

In regards to the Jews, believe me, they're not a group that is close to my heart. But they'd be irrelevant if we had our head straight. It's not like they can outdo us militarily or anything. Just like in America - when people whine about blacks, you made them citizens you idiots. It's not like they won a war against you. Same with feminism. As a woman, I refuse any responsibility for anything women do because I think we shouldn't vote or be in politics and if this was the case, feminism would be of no consequence. Did we win a war against men or something? It's the same with Jews too. Unless they give up their Jewish identity, intermarry completely and so on, they should be banned from public office, citizenship and have all kinds of restrictions that outsiders get.

And no, as an Eastern European, I don't really get humor out of that, but to each their own. I suppose it should be funny to watch whites disappear in America too - I mean, they'll have their land stolen after they stole it? Or how does this joke work? :P

tasty_glamgirl said...

I was thinking how pathetic the modern world is. The only real freedom we have is the freedom to sleep around - no different than animals. I'm amazed by how we become less and less human from a spiritual point of view and we become the same as animals. Hence the fundamental result of liberalism - nothing else besides unimpeded chasing of base impulses, but nothing more. In this sense, we have the same impulses as all mammals. It's sort of sad when you think of it - everyone can have sex, even animals. And this is what we worship the most.

Compare 19th century to now. In the 19th century in poetry the woman was merely the embodiment of the ideal lover, the love being consummated within a man's imagination. I don't have to relay what women are in rap, do I?

Polymath said...

Yes. I have often said that the great increase in sexual freedom is used to obscure from us that other freedoms are taken away, but it is about more than just freedom, our spiritual selves are denied and degraded and we lose commitment to enduring values, which makes us sheeplike and distractable. I wonder how conscious this program has been. Gramsci let the cat out of the bag in a way but very few people are willing to admit that their own society has been successfully corrupted under their noses. The people who should have defended the culture abdicated -- churches, teachers, intellectuals, and so on, either were afraid of being old-fashioned or looked forward to indulging themselves. This was clear to many people in the 1960's but the cultural residue of a more civilized age obscured how devastating the loss was; it is much more obvious now because pop culture is such filth.

in poetry the woman was merely the embodiment of the ideal lover, the love being consummated within a man's imagination.

I agree with this, except take out "merely", art can function on ideal and worldly levels at the same time, as you ought to know ;)

The Wandering White said...

I understand that American multiculturalism, and that it arose in America. But what makes you so sure the Americans aren't doing anything for Europe militarily?

What makes you so sure the Russians wouldn't like to have us (especially you Easterners) in their clutches, just as the Muslims would? What makes you think our precious welfare states allow us to continue defending ourselves? Do you also want to blame America for the rise of the European welfare state?

WikiLeaks cables reveal secret Nato plans to defend Baltics from Russia

Russia encourages multiculturalism in the States, according to Comrade J. What makes you so sure they aren't behind it elsewhere, especially since -- as Fjordman has pointed out -- so many of the multiculturalists in Europe are "former" Communists, or even current ones who have simply combined their ideology with multiculturalism?

I agree the West should never have made blacks or Jews citizens, or allowed women to vote. But it's likely impossible to undo any of that now, just as it's probably impossible to convince people with universal suffrage to give up their votes. Only the false promise of a utopia can do that.

tasty_glamgirl said...

WW, you don't convince them. If you think things will be solved peacefully and democratically, then yes, you live in an utopia. Most people won't vote eventually because this civilization will die - either by our hands or Muslims killing it. Do you think that non-Muslim women will vote if Muslims take over the UK, for example?

And the Soviets never really ethnically cleansed people, besides in a few places. Hungary is still Hungarian, Romania Romanian, Poland Polish. Americanism is far worse than communism.

Also, Russia is an economic basket case. What the heck makes you think they can conquer anyone? And besides, I'd probably be better off in a Russia controlled Romania. I doubt they'd allow my government to blow about 30% of GDP on public workers and retirees. I will already work 8 months an year for my government, I doubt it will be worse under a foreign occupation to begin with.

And our current welfare states collapsing would be a great thing. It would cause a civil war, which is a crisis and we shouldn't let crises go to waste.

And America promoted minority bullshit since the 19th century. America and France were lobbying my country to remove the Christian only condition of our citizenship system. Then Wilson told my Queen that we should treat minorities better and make them equal. Is Russia to blame for this? Did Russia make Agatha Christie's book be published under a different name?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801396-1,00.html
Russia did that too? Look at the date on that article. Did Russia end the West's colonial empires or did America do it? The USSR would have collapsed far quicker anyway if the US wasn't subsidizing it. What you're doing is basically acting like a slave and wonder which master would be better.

Polymath, the products of the 1960s are to be seen now, not then. The children of the 1960s generation are those that came of age in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The Wandering White said...

Rebellious Vanilla,

Sorry, I'm not aware of any Agatha Christie book that was published under a more politically correct title. Would you mind enlightening me?

Russia's nuclear forces are top-notch, it's their conventional forces that are bad. I don't think Putin cares if the proles starve.

We agree the Soviet economy would have collapsed faster if people like Hammer, Harriman, and Rockefeller hadn't been doing business with them. In addition, there were the loans...

However, the Baltics and Poland certainly don't have much "diversity", yet they fear Russia. What makes you think the Soviet economy was so wonderful? Do you think they Red Army wasn't effective, or that all its funding came from America?

Ethnic cleansing is definitely worse than a bad economy, but my friends in Russia are all wondering how they will eat because the FSB steal everything. Communism was worse!

Polymath said...

Damn, blogger ate my comment, this was the first time in a while I forgot to save the text before submitting, serves me right. RV, your earlier comment disappeared but I got it in my email and WW saw it too, so I will answer it and assume it will come back. You should email CS to have him liberate it from the spam filter.

WW, RV is right that Russia is not a threat to Europe that they can't handle if we pulled out, and we should pull out -- forcing them to spend more on their defense would also hasten the collapse of their welfare states which as RV says would be a good thing. I would be willing to do a little more for the former Soviet satellites than for Western European countries that can pay for their own defense just as well as we could, but we should be out of there as fast as we can. As you point out, it's Russia's conventional forces that are terrible, but they are the ones that used to be a threat to Europe, they're not going to nuke Berlin or Paris or even Warsaw.

You are right about Russia and PC/MC, they have been trying to attack us culturally all along, but they're only encouraging something we were already doing to ourselves. It would have helped a little if we had actually kicked out and jailed all the communists in universities, but Joe McCarthy and other anti-communists were useless at making people see the dangers of cultural subversion, they were too stupid to notice that and acted like if we could catch the spies it would all be OK.

RV, great link (except for it triggering the spam filter), it illustrates how bad the Protestants were (the Catholics were only a problem after 1965 for promoting immigration, the Americanist proselytizing was all Protestants), and Wilson was the worst of all.

WW, the Christie book is "10 Little Indians", formerly called "10 Little N-words".

RV, I completely agree about the products of the 60's, that generation which is in their 30's and early 40's now was even more selfish and useless than the Boomers. But people your age, while still liberal, have a sub-cohort for which there is hope because there is a conservative counterculture now much more than in the 80's and 90's.

tasty_glamgirl said...

Polymath, I don't know what happened to it either. You should either forward it to me or repost it here. I agree with what you said in entirety.

WW, nobody will nuke anyone. So their conventional forces matter. It's not like you nuke people you want to occupy - it defeats the purpose to destroy what you want to get. lol. And stronger neighbors piss people off - that's normal. And when the people starve, the army can't be deployed somewhere because if the Red Army would have went to Poland to occupy it, then the plebs in Russia would have overthrew the government. So at least part of the army would have been busy.

The Wandering White said...

Polymath and Rebellious Vanilla,

Here is something interesting about the American military:

GI Jane

The Wandering White said...

Polymath and Rebellious Vanilla,

Sorry I forgot to mention how much I liked the article on the American Malvern. It shows that globalism has been close to the hearts of the Anglo-American Protestant establishment for a long time.

Here is something similar, although it is not historical:

A Faith-Based Case for Gulags

Polymath,

Here is something else you may like:

Missionaries of the Ax

In defence of Woodrow Wilson, at least he was a segregationist who opposed women’s suffrage until he had no choice in the matter.

I agree with you that the Russians are merely supporting bad ideologies the West has a tendency to propagate anyway; however, that is cold comfort. After all, it was true of socialism. Just look at the early British Marxists (some of whom regarded the Bolsheviks as impostors) and the utopian socialists such as Robert Owen and his son, Robert Dale Owen.

Many of the Radical Republicans were backed by the sorts of proto-communists you would find in the early Smithsonian Institution, trying to replace Christianity with science. This has only brought us closer to Islam.

Polymath and Rebellious Vanilla,

Why are the Americans so eager to trade our nuclear secrets to the Russians if the Russians are not interested in nuking us? It is well-known that Obama hates Britain because his grandfather was a Mau Mau; that is why he returned the bust of Winston Churchill, formerly in the Oval Office, to Britain. He would do anything to hurt us, and little else.

Let's say we still have it in us to fight if needed. Then I say: Let the Americans leave everywhere but the former Soviet satellites, as Polymath suggested. It will help us to reform in the opposite direction from the one in which America is heading.

Rebellious Vanilla,

In fact, the milk and cookies are about to run out, because America will collapse due to her staggering (projected) debt and her immigration levels, which are even worse than ours.

When that happens, the jig will be up for our respective welfare states.

The Wandering White said...

Conservative Swede,

Terribly sorry to bother you, but my penultimate reply to Polymath and Rebellious Vanilla seems to have gotten stuck in your spam! I I hope it wouldn't be too much trouble for you to dislodge it.

Thank you!

Polymath said...

Boy, we're all having problems with Blogger today. WW and I both saw RV's missing comment, and I got WW's missing comment in email and will forward it to RV later if it hasn't been freed.

I had read the GI Jane article. This could change back but it will require serious battle setbacks that can be attributed to the diversity policies. Right now even the diversicrat brass in their innermost hearts know women can't fight and will keep them from screwing up critical missions, but the next generation of top officers 10 years from now will have spent their entire careers under this regime and will make foolish decisions which will result in disastrous losses (as well as lots of gang rapes of captured US female soldiers).

Unfortunately individual screwups are covered up for, which is why incompetent black, Muslim, and female military officers are a big problem (McKinney, Hasan, Karpinski). Only a real defeat will change this.

WW, re your detained post, the NCC was such a grossly leftist organization that even the Catholic left wouldn't have anything to do with it. Rome knew that it was a Communist front run by evil people. The failure of Protestant denominations to police themselves and prevent any support from going to this disgusting group proves that you need a hierarchy; why the Greek Orthodox in America got involved in it I don't know. The article makes some good points but really the NCC wasn't that important.

The article about St. Boniface was good (RV, google "Missionaries of the Ax"). Yes, that is the problem with converting individuals without challenging the entire structure, you have to chop down the idols or people will backslide into their old attitudes.

You answered your own question about trading Britain's nuclear secrets to the Russians, Obama hates Britain. And I want us to leave E. Europe too, but we should shore up their defenses first (Obama's betrayal of the Czechs and Poles on missile defense was horrible, and what added insult to injury to a degree unheard of in American diplomatic history was that he did it on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland). For W. Europe we could leave tomorrow.

Conservative Swede said...

Hi!

Two comments released from Bloggers moronic spam filter, one by RV and the other by WW. And I'm back in Sweden again! And I'm way way behind in reading my own blog.

Funny thing. I always thought a blog was for the blow owner to WRITE things for others to read. However, my blog seems to be a place where others present me to things that they want me to READ. Sort of a novel concept. Nice! :-)

Polymath said...

Good luck keeping up, when RV and I get going we are hard to stop. When I dump this thread into Microsoft Word it is over 100 pages, 90% or more from the last 2 weeks....

Conservative Swede said...

Yes, Microsoft Word is a real dump :-)

I'm a Unix lover of course, as you will all have already guessed. Microsoft Windows represents everything that is wrong, sick and perverted with the current incarnation of our civilization.

Conservative Swede said...

Anyway, I looooove the fact that this thread is so looong. I feel very honoured, as well as intrigued.

... or at least I think so. I haven't read most of it yet ;-)

UltimateAwesomeness said...

Ok, since I can't log in anymore on my old blogger account, this one will do. Just lost my comment due to it.

WW, I find it a bigger problem that all American military equipment is manufactured using imported parts, which in the case of a large scale war would prove fairly negative. On the other hand, I do agree that women have no business in combat or in the army altogether and with that line that the enemies of soldiers is behind them, not in front of them. It is really true for the Romanian army due to us sending troops in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of getting new equipment, which is a double whammy in terms of life loss.

In regards to your blocked comment. Marxism and Americanism are two grandchildren of the Enlightenment, which is the secularization of Christian values. So, especially Protestant, Christians being susceptible to it isn't a surprise. Catholicism is filled with problems too, due to the last 100 years or so, at least. And as Polymath put it, Catholicism is one of those tankers and it is hard to steer. I don't have much belief in anything happening in regards to Christianity and I can say that it is dying in my country too.

About the missionaries argument - institutional reformation is where things are at. What individuals believe doesn't really matter. And that's another point supporting ConSwede's point in regards to how power is created.

Polymath, if you recall that plane that crashed last summer that had our equivalent of Navy SEALs in it... Another plane crashed since then. Still, the American army has been ridiculous since ages ago - having foreigners serve in it isn't that good either. No real difference in between a bunch of mercenaries and that.

And making Britain and other European countries give up the empires is a bigger treason than giving the nuclear info to the Russians.

CS, how is Windows the embodiment of everything that is wrong? That made me curious. lol

UltimateAwesomeness said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Conservative Swede said...

RV, how is Windows the embodiment of everything that is wrong? Have you ever used Windows.....? I do not even know where to start... But if I would start, Polymath would be able to dump it into MS word and it would be 100 pages....

Don't ask me such questions. It's like asking me to summarize all of human history in one blogger comment.

Anyway, you are spot on regarding Christianity, as always. You have learned from the best. :-)

Regarding military: I wouldn't say woman have no place in combat. Woman in certain places (cold north or in Israel) did quite some combat. However, women have no place in the military class (which every sensible society will carry). I think this is what you are getting at.

And yes, women have no place in a combat context under "normal" circumstances. However, war is not a normal circumstance :-)

Especially tall blond Scandinavian women have stood a good chance against little swarthy Mediterranean men during history. This is even the historical embryo for the traditionalist gender egalitarianism of the cold north. That the blond Nordic women could properly serve as warriors. At least against little swarthy men of the south.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

CS, you made me curious about Windows. Besides nothing working properly in windows, what are the things alike our civilization in it? You could just give a few examples, I don't need a theory of everything due to being good at filling in the blanks.

And I do agree that women can do battle. But the military and being in battle are two different things. If someone invaded my city, would I fight? Be sure I would. This doesn't mean that I should join the military. By combat I meant organized military combat in the way the US does things in some small remote countries. Getting women there is pointless, for one, and destroys the army(morale, jealousy etc). We had a few women fight in WW1, for example, one actually becoming a Second Lieutenant and getting the command of a 25 man platoon(she was also taken prisoner by the Germans and she killed her guards and escaped). So yes, I have no real issue with these things.

Also, right now the height differential is far smaller. In 1850, Swedes were 7-8 cm taller than Italians. Right now it's just a couple of cms. Not that it matters - now it's more important to being able to carry your own out of enemy fire than overpowering the enemy. So war also changed. This was solved by the Russians in terms of making snipers out of women.

In regards to learning from the best, Spengler is the one I'm paraphrasing. ;) lol

“All Communist systems in the West are in fact derived from Christian theological thought: More’s Utopia, the Sun-State of the Dominica Campanella, the doctrines of Luther’s disciples Karlstadt and Thomas Münzer, and Fichte’s state-socialism… Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.”

UltimateAwesomeness said...

Oh, and I like how everyone in the West thinks in the same way. It is pretty much a group of powerful X keeps group Y down and we need to empower the latter against the former(and we all know which religion is fond of empowerment).

Here are some Xs and Ys:
Communism: capital owners - workerers
Socialism: big business - workers
NeoNazis: Jews - white people
Anti-racists: whites - nonwhites
Tea Party: government - taxpayers
The list goes on. Nobody really advocates the legitimacy of having power yourself. You mind the power of others.

Conservative Swede said...

RV,

"Nothing working properly" is pretty much enough of an argument against MS Windows. And the explanation being: everything built the wrong way from the bottom and up. Need I say more...

Military is military and combat is combat. And if we apply the right terminology you and are obviously in perfect agreement. I just wanted to point out the difference between the concepts.

Spengler is one of the best of course. And regarding your quote in the last paragraph, it reminds me of what Fjordman is saying. He's so spectacularly correct in naming the evil and hyper-destructive Americanism, that is the current incarnation of Western civilization, as genetic communism.

The Soviet Empire was merely economic communism. The ruling American Empire means genetic communism, i.e. real mass killing, real erradication, real genocide. That is what America stands for.

The Soviet Union was like the measles in comparison.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

CS, no because I thought you have a clever analogy, not a real explanation. I'm not good with computers and how OSs work(better than the average woman, but the topic bores me) so you'd have to write something as long as a doctoral thesis on this for me to get the specifics.

And while I do agree with Fjordman's genetic communism, communism had a dysgenic ideal too(hence the mass killings of educated people for not being equal). But I disagree in terms of mass killing associated to the genetic version of communism - it doesn't really have concentration camps and all that, but due to the destruction of peoplehood, genocide, understood as the stopping of the existence of a people as a distinct entity, is part of it. I suppose mass killing isn't really needed.

What I find interesting is that communists, at least those in power, didn't really mind national symbols and sentiment, the classical education system and culture and all that. Heck, you could debate anything, besides real economics or modern history(and whatnot the state was doing). But you could disagree with your daughter getting shagged by a Negro, your wife doing whatnot and so on. So while the economic misery inflicted by communists on their subjects is horrid, they can find themselves and define their own identity(which was a problem with classical liberalism to begin with, let alone the modern American version).

I'm always baffled by people answering with their profession when they are asked who they are, like some field of work defines you as who you are. If I asked someone who he is and he told me that he is a stamp collector, I could learn more about him, the person, than him telling me that he is a brand manager. So the social aspects of capitalism aren't that swell either, which is a huge problem of the current 'libertarian right'. An economy is simply a tool in the hands of a people, it doesn't define what a people is.

For instance, since I got to know a lot of people on the Internet, a recurrent question is what do I do in the sense of study at uni or in what field do I work. Heck, me taking ballroom for half my life tells more about myself than me going to school. So there are a lot of things to get in touch with, that I admit, I struggled with myself:
1)who are you as a person(understanding yourself)
2)who are you as a person as part of a tribe(understanding your history, culture, mythology etc) - this also gives you a purpose in life
There are more questions like these two, but these two are fundamental. And this is what we lack. Islam isn't a problem, this is the fundamental problem that we struggle with.

Getting back at communism, you could see the same inversion of values in it too. Educated = bad. Stupid = good. Upper culture = bad. So on. This made me remember something I found shocking at a protest here in the 1990s. Some idiots had a placard(it was after these people beat up the protesting students) saying that "We don't think, we work!". This was a virtue - not thinking! Since I didn't understand how people really think until lately, I couldn't really grasp the idiocy of having that on a placard.

I recall that this man that lived in the UK in some sort of exile ran for president and the biggest argument against him is that he wears a bow tie. Like really? Being a gentleman is bad? This man did jail for his thoughts. On the other hand, it's amusing that here we have singers who are advocates of monarchy though(since our current princesses grew up in the West and the heiress married a cretin, I don't want monarchy anymore and the heir apparent with salic law grew up in the UK, so I bet he has shit for brains too).

Conservative Swede said...

RV,

I said mass killing, not mass murder.

Mass suicide implies mass killing.

America represents mass genocide of the white people. Excuse me, but haven't you noticed?

Yes there was a lot of murdering in the Soviet empire, but in terms of killing spree (as in mass suicide/genocide, or by whatever means) and the complete destruction of a society (i.e. an ethnic nation) the Soviet Union was a small insect, while America is a huge mammal.

This is the historical meaning of America(*). The suicidal mass genocide of white people. That's why genetic communism is such a pertinent description of the American spirit.

(*) Such as, in terms of the cultural revolution that it pushed upon Western Europe post-WWII. Which was more evil and far more destructive than anything that Mao could have fantasized. And now the same wicked perversion is spread across Eastern Europe financed by George Soros money.

Polymath said...

CS, I have to agree with RV that your use of English is imprecise. "Genocide" may or may not involve actual murder as opposed to preventing a people from reproducing--though the more common sense involves actually killing individuals en masse, it is defensible to use the term for a dysgenic policy that will result in the extinction or great diminishment of a group over a generation or more (exiling members of the group is ethnic cleansing, not genocide). However, "mass killing" involves the actual shortening of the lives of individual people, and the destruction Americanist attitudes are wreaking upon people of European ethnic background is not "mass killing" even if one may call it genocide (destruction of the "gens").

I'll answer later on Windows and the military etc.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

CS, I agree with you. We just disagree on the use of language, like usual. :P If you try to tell me that Americanism is worse than communism on a long term perspective for white people and the existence of a nation state, then I agree with you(and yes, I do find the term genetic communism quite eloquent). But mass killing implies something else, which was what I tried to explain. Polymath got what I tried to explain. Still, it is just terminology we disagree about.

This is how Europe looks to me. It is a far better analogy than Windows. Great past that is being forgotten and not maintained by the descendants of those who built it.

Conservative Swede said...

OK you fine people, let's establish that it's indeed just a disagreement of terms here, and not of essence.

Nevertheless, terms are interesting and of importance.

First of all regarding 'genocide'. The term is since long used in the sense I'm using it in the English language, such as in "the cultural genocide of the Tibetans by China...". But I guess that can only be applied to brown people..............

Regarding 'killing'. It's not a question of the English language here (we have the same word in many languages). It's a philosophical question. My point is that any active and deliberate causation of someone else's death is equal to killing. There no other meaningful definition of 'killing'. Even a dictionary will say "the act of terminating a life".

And notice here that I have been talking about MASS KILLING. Something which applies at a collective scale. So it is our whole society that is being killed.

Suicide implies killing (it's an act of terminating a life). In Swedish we actually call suicide self-killing (självmord -- well that's actually self-murder!).

The historical meaning of America is about promoting the "self-murder" of white people.

Conservative Swede said...

OK. Just to check with you guys. Do you consider abortion as a form of killing? Or just as a fluffy sort of soft and cuddly human right, quite as gay marriage? :-)

The crucial question is: is a life deliberately terminated or not?

Once again: Please notice, killing does not imply murder.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

We agree about the use of genocide, but mass killing is used differently. Mass killing implies the termination of the life of a lot of people. Effectively killing them. So I suppose you can say that Americanism is killing the Swedish people, but you can't blame it for a mass killing of Swedes. :) And suicide isn't a good analogy because if you talk me into killing myself, I'm the one committing the killing still. I do get what you're hinting at and I do think genocide is a good term for it or killing, if you apply it in the way I described it above. I'm sort of amused by this conversation though - I suppose, we, on the 'right', need something to disagree upon or we can't feel at peace. :D

I have a question. Is any of you being asked by youtube to link their account to google and then asked for a phone number? I'm getting the same thing i got from blogger on youtube now. I'm beginning to hate the corporation Google. There aren't many people online now that have youtube accounts, so sorry for asking something odd.

Polymath said...

RV/TG/UA, yes, Google wanted a phone number from my son to which they could send a text message with a confirmation code so he could activate a YouTube account. The most innocent explanation is they want to prevent people having multiple accounts, in particular they want to make it expensive for someone to create an account in order to untraceably post an obnoxious video (you can get anonymous cell phone numbers but buying a prepaid phone is expensive, and your geographic location at the time you receive the confirmation code is theoretically traceable by law enforcement). But there may be less innocent explanations.

CS, you are still wrong about the logic of English quantifiers. In this case, "mass" is the adjective modifying the noun "killing", not the object of the verb from which that noun was formed. Therefore the entity being killed is logically prior and so the reference is to a killing of (unmentioned but inferred) individuals, which is pluralized or multiplied by the adjective. If you want to talk about the destruction of a collectivity AS a collectivity, which need not involve shortening the life of any individual human being, you must name the collectivity because the verb "to kill" can be applied to individuals. Thus "genocide" is OK because it contains the linguistic root "gen" which refers to a collective. If you want the word mass to function as the part of the object of the verb "to kill", rather than functioning as a quantifiers which changes the number involved, it must follow rather than precede the verb.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

Polymath, I should take credit for your killing explanation! You got my comment that went into the spam filter in your mail and you used the rationale I had there! That's bad. :P

And screw google. For the sake of it, I'm not getting a youtube account just to piss them off. I will take all my stuff off it and have files with links to videos I like. I hate uppity corporations.

CS, 'liberate' my comment from your spam jail. :P

Polymath said...

RV, I had been writing my own comment when I saw yours and added the stuff at the begining about Google, I didn't know it would get jailed so that it would look like I was stealing the credit.

Yes, Windows is a metaphor for what is wrong with our society in many ways. The quality of the software engineering would have been unacceptable in the undergraduate programming courses I took at MIT in the early 80's. Complexity is built upon complexity instead of throwing out the bad code and starting over, because all along it has been more important from a business point of view to get something that sort of works to market fast enough to pre-empt competitors. The only reason it continues to function is Moore's law, but code that takes up gigabytes, that has grown by accretion rather than a sensible design, is impossible for anyone to understand or make secure against intrusions.

I could rant a lot more about this but it is way off topic. I'll just say that Bill Gates will have a lot to answer for, his purgatory should be simulating by hand all the wasted instructions that his software bugs forced billions of computers to execute. That should keep him busy for a few quadrillion years.

Our military has been lucky that they have not faced a truly capable enemy since they pussified themselves. But even before we lose battles, the impact of the women soldiers on our readiness and morale, not to mention the difficulty of getting inhabitants of Muslim lands to cooperate with us, has been very severe. But yes, women can fight when the situation demands it, and in the right jobs can be part of the armed forces. Putting them in the wrong jobs has devastated our capability, not just because they are weak, but because the quality of the male soldiers has declined due to the lowering of standards that was necessary.

Other armies around the world are crippled in different ways. The Chinese are the only ones who would have a chance of beating us in any real battle right now, though we will continue to bleed if we step into more hornets' nests like Afghanistan and Iraq. But over the next 10 years chaos will break out in many places and aggressive countries will stop being afraid the USA will prevent them from invading their neighbors.

Oh, and of course abortion is killing, and to most parents who have seen their children moving around in utero on an ultrasound monitor, it is murder too when done for non-medical reasons (at least at the point where they can be seen moving around).

UltimateAwesomeness said...

You can add google next to Microsoft for the crap corporations that don't do things right(they annoy you and make you pay for texts because they're too lazy to have a proper system of taking out spammers - the spam filter of blogger is another example of outright laziness).

And I wish Linux would bother having an user friendly OS. I installed Ubuntu once and it was too much of a hassle to get things to work, a lot of software wasn't compatible and so on. So I just said screw it.

I had some programming classes too and it wouldn't have been accepted for us to write tons of useless instructions. I hated those with fierce passion.

Polymath said...

Google is still the best for search, Microsoft isn't the best at anything technical.

About programming, when I hired programmers the best ones came from E. Europe and Russia because they grew up programming crappy computers and had to write efficient code. When I analyze a game for my job I will write a program that is 3 pages of BASIC that will do the same thing the other programmers who work for my company will take 20 pages of C++ to do, and it will run faster and take less time to write and debug. Thinking logically and creatively is so much more important than anything specific about hardware or software. (I admit C++ is good for really large projects, but anything small enough to be done by one programmer all by himself should not be using such a horribly complex language. I've done a lot of programing in SQL, FORTRAN, and LISP as well but I can't stand C.)

Polymath said...

Here are two stories from the same website, which show the right and the wrong ways to fight the cultural war:


NPR executives caught on tape bashing conservatives and Tea Party, touting liberals


Conservative group launches effort to draft anti-extremist Islamic leader to face Stabenow

I love all the sting operations James O'Keefe and his associates have been doing. The targets are all (so far) organizations that get lots of government money by lying about their partisanship, so they get hit where it hurts because they can be defunded. And when the Left tries such stings, they backfire, like when Gov. Walker of Wisconsin, talking to a faker he thought was David Koch, showed that there was no difference between his public and private statements. Only when people are confronted with brutally clear evidence of the bad faith of these organizations will they take the painful step of admitting they have been dupes for trusting them all these years. The whining in some comments sections of blogs discussing this about how "we" shouldn't stoop to such dishonest tactics illustrates perfectly why the Left is winning, because conservatives still can't tell the difference between an opponent and an enemy and want to pretend they're not in a war where the prize is the whole country. (This mirrors the way that liberals can't recognize Islam as an enemy rather than opponent, only it is less forgivable, because the liberals don't feel that Islam threatens them, while it should be obvious to the conservatives that they could lose.)

I laughed when I saw the picture of the "moderate Muslim" they want to run against Stabenow in Michigan. Here's the "conservative" trying to make it happen:

Kabbani’s anti-extremist attitude is most appealing to the group and while his other policy ideas are less clear, his devout religious proclivities, videos, and some political donations have fellow “Dogcatcher” and founder of GOPisforme, Duke Machado saying Kabbani is definitely a conservative.

“If you look through his tons of videos you see where his spirit is, where his heart it,” Machado said. “[He] is a total conservative…Definitely conservative on social issues and we would like to think that would translate into conservative on fiscal issues.”


This is all kinds of pathetic. WHY should conservatism on social issues "translate" into conservatism on fiscal issues? Only in the context of a worldview which Machado is too ignorant to understand and Kabbani is an enemy of. And divining where his "spirit" and "heart" are is wishful thinking in the extreme.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

“War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means.” Karl von Clausewitz

The corollary is that politics is nothing but war with restraint on the means being used. So in reality, all opponents are enemies, especially on important things. And voters need to vote for the Democrats when the Republicans have morons running. They need to be hit where it hurts for being idiots.

Polymath said...

I like the way you turned Clausewitz around, though I would say that is only true for opposing parties, not opposing individuals in the same party -- the supporters of different candidates in a Primary who belong to the same party don't always have to see each other as enemies (though if the candidates are different enough they can). After all they might have to be running mates in the General election.

And it would be better to vote for a 3rd-party candidate than to vote for the Democrat, if a good one exists.

Lots of the Republicans are phonies. Gingrich is a loser but the media know this so they talk up his candidacy, and lots of Senators are RINOs who would switch parties if it would flip the Senate. Fortunately the Tea Partiers are targeting RINOs and not just Democrats.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

Genuine 'conservatives' aren't that much better. And I won't hold my breath about the MLK worshiping tea partiers.

Polymath said...

There you go again about the Tea Partiers and MLK. Glenn Beck putting himself in front of the cameras doesn't mean all the Tea Partiers think like him. Most of the tea partiers don't care about MLK at all, they just want the government to stop spending money and start listening to the voters. They really are not about social issues as a movement, but about cutting down the government. Just because the MSM can't figure them out doesn't mean it's complicated.

Of course immigration and race are crucial issues and there is resentment brewing there too, but the tea party movement did not coalesce around that. The Democrats are trying to link up the social and economic issues so they can pretend the tea partiers are racist, their all-purpose label to prevent people from listening to them, but if they succeed they will be sorry.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

I'm over it. You should have got it by now. Economic issues don't matter. America not being reformed on the social issues means she is my enemy, which means I want her destruction. This means that without social reforms, economic mayhem suits me.

So, the tea party is my enemy because they aid my enemy. That's until they will reject equal rights idiocy and all the idiocies that so called conservatives are fans of.

Also, what individuals think don't matter.

Polymath said...

You're still not listening. There is a difference

1) Being good on on economioc issues and bad on social issues

and

2) Being good on economic issues and NOT BEING INVOLVED in social issues.

If you support a bunch of things, and there is an activist willing to work for one of the things you support who doesn't get involved on either side in the other issues, why should you mind?

The REALLY BIG social issue that will break up the current poltical affiliations is immigration. That will happen long before race or abortion or other social issues are resolved. And on THAT issue, the tea partiers will, when they get around to it, be on the side of more jobs for Americans rather than importing endless Mexican helots.

When I said the Democrats will be sorry for painting the tea partiers as racist and insisting on linking up the social and the economic issues, it is because the tea partiers feel so damn strongly about the economic issues that they will NOT let that derail them. They will still prevail because of the economic issues, which because of the linkage the Democrats insisted upon will also be a setback for the Democrats on race and immigration.

Polymath said...

CS, what is your opinion on this? RV seems to be saying

1) Social issues are more important than economic issues (I agree)

2) Someone who will help America economically but hurt it socially is her enemy (I agree)

3) Someone who will help America economically and make no difference to it socially is her enemy

The problem with this last viewpoint is that not everyone can do everything. It is a common trick of leftists to criticize people who work against them in one particular sphere by saying they really should be fighting something else. There are people who are well equipped to fight the battles on race and immigration, who are doing so, and people who are well equipped to fight the battles on economics, which is what the tea partiers are doing.

Whether you think this is a bad thing depends on your attitude about the overall prospects of success.

IF you think that THOSE ACTIVISTS working to fix America on race and immigration will prevail, then you ALSO want America to be strong economically.

On the other hand, if you think that on the social issues it is inevitable that America will get worse rather than better, THEN you make the cyinical calculation that it would be better for America to collapse economically too.


If you are not sure, which direction is it better to err in?

Since RV has already determined in her own mind that Anerica is doomed, she wants it to fail economically and so opposes the tea partiers even though their economic ideas are good.

But if you don't accept that America is doomed, it makes sense that SOME people should fight the economic battles, while OTHER people should fight the social battles. Division of labor and all that.

To an American who is still trying to fix things, it is incredibly frustrating to hear someone say "you shouldn't even try".

Here is the reductio ad absurdum of RV's position. Suppose she knows an American activist who is working very effectively to fight the immigration insanity and the racial insanity. What is she going to say to such a person? It seems the choices are:

1) Your goals are good, keep at it

2) Your goals are good but you are doomed to fail, so give up and do nothing

3) Your goals are good but you are doomed to fail and therefore America is my enemy, so it would be better if you started sabotaging your country economically so it will collapse faster

Honestly, which of these three positions will it be?

RV, you are pretending that the tea partiers in general (not idiots like Glenn Beck) are bad on social issues so you won't have to confront this question. Because once you say that even if the tea partiers are neutral on social issues they are still your enemy for helping America despite the presence of other activists working in the right direction on the social issues, you have made yourself unable to pick the first of my 3 alternatives for the activist who is working on the social issues even if he shares all your social AND economic views.

This is not a defensible position unless you are certain that America is doomed to continue down the PC/MC path (and even then it is still a crappy thing to say to the person).

But what if you are not certain? Is it really inconceivable that the proportion of Americans who wake up and see things properly will be large enough? It doesn't have to be a majority to turn things around, as you are fond of pointing out.

Polymath said...

One final point -- as I said, immigration is going to be the issue which realigns things, and I would bet a lot that the tea partiers IN GENERAL will be on the right side of that one. That is because it is where the social and economic issues intersect the most. It is getting harder and harder to hide the obvious relationship between more Mexicans coming in and fewer jobs for Americans.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

Polymath, not being involved in social issues means supporting the status quo(actually, being good on economic issues to finance the status quo social issues is even worse than being wrong on both). I'm not sure what's so complicated.

And it's simple. If I supported a constitutional amendment to ban nonwhites from voting, citizenship by blood only and school segregation, would the tea party support me if I agreed with them on economics? I doubt they would. So it's not like they don't care about social issues.

In regards to someone working on immigration or something else, you do realize it is something completely different, right? Someone working on race and immigration succeeding wouldn't reinforce and help people who do care about other issues, that person would change the paradigm(not give a better economy to people who continue pursuing the current one).

Let's make this obvious by picking an absurd example. I'm the Economy Minister of Nazi Germany and I'm just an economist without a take on social issues. Would my performance be good or bad for people who are harmed by the status quo social issues like killing Jews?

Polymath said...

Ha. I worded my last comments very carefully to prevent you from avoiding the real points I an making in exactly the way you did avoid them anyway. I have to do other stuff for a couple of hours, but when I get back I will deconstruct what you wrote. Stick around, it will be worth it; or if you are going to bed, try rereading what I wrote attentively first.

Polymath said...

OK. First of all, the points you just made again I had already gotten and restated so I could challenge them, I didn't miss them. I get that helping the status quo survive is bad. That is why I referred specifically to " the presence of other activists working in the right direction on the social issues". You are equivocating, trating issues separately when it suits you and together when it suits you. Fron the point of view of an American, there are lots of problems that need to be fixed. If a patient comes in to the hospital after a car accident with multiple injuries, the surgeon working on the immediately life-threatening injuries don't insist that the nurse administering the IV feeding stop doing that and come help him perform surgery that she isn't trained to do; the IV is doing good for the patient and she can do best helping where she is trained. Similarly, the tea partiers who care about economics and don't know or care much about race and immigration would not be useful on the social issues but that doesn't mean they can't help the country. And you are just doing the stupid liberal trick of driving wedges by saying "what would the tea partiers think of me if I wanted to ban nonwhites from voting?" That is EXACTLY why they are pretending that the tea partiers are racists who are primarily motivated by social rather than economic issues.

As I said, it comes down to whether you think America cannot be fixed. If it CAN be fixed, obviously it is terribly wrong to say one should not try to fix it. If it is CERTAIN that it can't be fixed, then you are supporting euthanasia for the doomed patient. But what if the issue is uncertain? History is nondeterministic. Your Nazi analogy is stupid because the tea partiers are not collaborators, they are opponents of the status quo, just in a different sphere. It so happens that many of the same people who are responsible for the social disaster are responsible for the economic disaster, and bringing them down is needed to fix either one of them. The Tea Party has the right enemies. Their impact on the country as a whole will tend to be to get rid of the idiots currently in the White House and the Senate and many states. This is necessary ANYWAY to solve the social problems, so from the point of view of someone who is fighting to solve the social problems non-catastrophically, they are HELPING both by getting rid of idiots and avoiding an economic collapse.

You avoided my question, so I will pose it again. I want you to take the point of view of American who is NOT a Tea Partier fighting for economic sanity, but an Alternative Rightist who is fighting for sanity on social issues like race an immigration and PC/MC. What do you say to THAT PERSON? Do you tell him to keep fighting, or do you tell him to quit and go home, or do you tell him to fight to bring the system down?

(to be continued)

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 222   Newer› Newest»