The difference: liberal uncouthness exists at the very top levels of organized leftism, not merely evident in the rantings of a crazy online commenter. And liberals don't condemn the nutcases in their midst, they sometimes even deify them. With that said, I'll engage in a little partisanship here by bringing back on an old story made anew via Rick Santorum's surprising second place finish in Iowa.
Back in 2003, Rick Santorum made some "anti-gay" statements which the histrionic gay mafia interpreted as him comparing homosexuality to beastility and incest:
Santorum then brought up the then-pending U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which challenged a Texas sodomy law, and went on to declare that:I vehemently disagree with Santorum here, as I believe we must have a right to privacy in our own homes, even if we engage in societally maladaptive acts. But Santorum makes a valid point in arguing that there are limits to American law in regards to what we do in our own homes, analogous to freedom of speech not applying to yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. I think here we must make a distinction between bestiality and homo-sex by the obvious notion that the latter relates to two consenting adults. Nonetheless, he does correctly argue, with appeal to analogy, that not all private acts are necessarily protected. (Polygamy should be in the same category as homosexuality though, if using the "consenting adults" justification.)
* he did not have a problem with homosexuals, but "a problem with homosexual acts"
* the right to privacy "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution"
* and that sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts which "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family"
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
"Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, whether it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."
Yet the gay mafia got really annoyed, with the ignominious gay pundit Dan Savage leading the charge. He decided to punish Santorum for giving his opinion. Now contrary to what the hatas may think, I do genuinely try to look at all sides of an issue. So in this case I ask - does Santorum deserve the despicable campaign (described below) successfully promoted by the aptly named Savage? Perhaps his comparison may have been overboard, but he did relate his opposition primarily to the health of society. And whether they like it or not, gays can not form biological, nuclear families which Santorum regards as the bedrock of modern society, an exclusive but not intolerant opinion. In brief, I'll say that Savage and his gay acolytes did something far worse than what would have been justified.
So what did Savage do? It's called a Google Bomb and up until yesterday I believe, it was the number one result when searching "Rick Santorum." Savage started a website giving a new definition for the term "Santorum" (Trigger Warning - disgusting):
The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.I know the political arena gets quite testy, especially when political ideas encroach on that which we personally consider sacred, e.g. the freedom to sodomize. But why do liberals always engage in such indecency. They go straight for the jugular and express their opposition in the most bawdy terms imaginable. Here's another example from Ann Coulter-lite S.E. Cupp's hate mail:
why is it obama fault. david lettermen comments on palin. u white slut. u need some n****r d*ck in ur mouth. Always blaming blacks for yall folks problem. U dizzle little white whore. U need to be f*ck by a n****r, thats what u reall want. SHUT YOUR MOUTH SLUT.Again, I don't believe that conservatism has none of these sorts of individuals in its ranks. But liberalism really seems to thrive on this sort of disgusting invective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I searched awhile to find examples of right-wing hate mail directed at well-known pundits or sites like Feministing, but almost all the hate mail shown on the Internet is from liberals. Here's some relatively tame hate mail sent to Alan Colmes and admittedly a few bad ones sent to Amanda Marcotte. But nothing compares to the hate mail directed at Michelle Malkin:
You are such a mean bitter old bitch, it’s a shame the Japs didn’t murder your parents before they came to the U.S.In sum, liberals use either one of two strategies: making a sexual comment or calling the conservative "stupid." The ubiquitousness of the latter, especially on forum debates, approaches that of Godwin's Law.
fuck off and die you worthless lying cunt
You aren’t even an American so get the fuck out of my country you ugly fuckin cunt. Go back to bumfuck chink town and masturbate cuz no man would want you. Fucking whore.
173 comments:
"Polygamy should be in the same category as homosexuality though, if using the "consenting adults" justification.)"
Well, a big polygamy case just went through the courts in Canada. They used all the same arguments gays use but their arguments were rejected.
Who? Whom?
Polygamists are usually patriarchal religionists. Therefore they don't deserve equal protection or privacy or whatever gay hedonists deserve.
Courts are not using legal principles to decide things a la blind justice. No, no, no. It matters who you are as to whether you get legal preference.
The irony is that Savage himself has been slammed for "racism":
http://gayblackcanadianman.com/2008/11/07/dan-savage-is-a-racist-typical-white-gay-male/
Liberals are fascinating. While they claim to hold homosexuals (please, everyone, stop with the euphemism "gay" and identify them accurately) in highest regard, they immediately lash out in anger with "insults" that refer to homosexuals.
Wait, did I say fascinating? I meant ridiculous
-Sweep the leg
Joe Wislon shouting "you lie" at President Obama"
conservatives refusing to apologize for slavery
white right wingers taking pride in being white
all these are hateful
conservatives refusing to apologize for slavery
They've apologized plenty, and paid plenty, but it doesn't matter.
Someone actually did the numbers on this and it turned out that liberals use fourteen times as much profanity online.
"Joe Wislon shouting "you lie" at President Obama" "
Calling someone out when they are lying is not the same as casting aspersion.
"conservatives refusing to apologize for slavery"
Because of course, we're all responsible for acts committed many, many years before we were even born, right?
"white right wingers taking pride in being white
all these are hateful"
By extension, others doing the same should be just as hateful. So, does that make the federally sanctioned events going on every February hate speech?
On Twitter, Andrew Breitbart retweets all of the nasty tweets he receives. Most are death threats or accusations of homosexuality. I'm sometimes annoyed by it because he gets so many hate tweets, but it is a good example of the point you're making here.
Polygamy should be in the same category as homosexuality though, if using the "consenting adults" justification.
It's a good thing I don't believe in this idiotic "consenting adults" justification then.
The only "consenting adults" who count are the voters. They can consent or not to whatever they like. They can ban polygamy, homosexuality, or picking your nose if they want to.
conservatives refusing to apologize for slavery
Why should conservatives apologize for slavery? If anybody should apologize for slavery, it's Democrats. But I'm sure that a fine product of the American educational system such as yourself has no idea what I'm talking about.
With Santorum's Google problem, Google could solve it in 30 seconds with one line of code. They would certainly do that for Barack Obama.
That they don't, even though he has asked them to, is proof that they *want* that to be their first result.
In fact, they have a policy that the first search result on a topic should be the official site if there is one, which would in this case clearly be www.ricksantorum.com. That Google is ignoring their own rule just to help spread this vitriol shows their extreme intolerance toward differing viewpoints.
I disagree. The whole "consensual acts" stuff is a flawed concept.
But why do liberals always engage in such indecency.
Self-righteousness is a powerful justification for one's atrocities.
Anon at 1/05/2012 9:19 AM wrote
"conservatives refusing to apologize for slavery"
Abraham Lincoln and his Republican abolitionists freed the slaves. Abraham Lincoln himself was a Baptist fundamentalist. John Brown, Mr. Abolitionist himself, was an evangelical.
More Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act.
Spreading untrue defamatory things in writing is Libel, and you are guilty of it. Funny to see actual Libel from a liberal on one of the first comments on this topic.
"he did not have a problem with homosexuals, but "a problem with homosexual acts""
They are mad because this is the equivalent of saying, "I don't have a problem with negroes, but a problem with being a negro." Translation, negro sucks.
Santorum would have been better just coming out and saying he doesn't like homosexuals and they shouldn't exist.
von clausewitz --
dude, gay and black are not same concept bro.
in the 1970s and earlier, homosexuality was considered a lifestyle choice including by gays themselves. then suddenly 'born gay' was this concept that emerged to better wear the cloak of victimhood. no gay genes have ever been found (and not for lack of trying) but no matter.
plenty of people, including celebrities, switch teams all the time but no matter. born gay, born gay, born gay.
the rate of young men identifying as gay declined significantly after the AIDs scare but the rate of young women identifying as such increased, because women had no such worries (Freakonomics). ignore it. born gay, born gay, born gay.
von clausewitz --
of course the gold standard of biology research is twin studies. Among identical twins, same genes, same uterus, and upbringing environment, in only half of cases where one twin was gay the other was gay. all conditions the same including genes and environment and half the time the gay twin has a straight brother.
did you know that in 50% of cases where one identical twin is black, the other one white?
what am I talking about? don't i know that political correctness trumps science every time?
I can't think of a bigger waste of time than arguing about gay people. It just means competition for me. Most righties don't even care, it's just a dumb way to divide the electorate. I'd guess most virulent anti-gay types are extremely low-IQ.
99 % of liberal responses are some kind of knee-jerk emotional outbursts. Liberalism is not grounded in any sort of reason or logic, so they have nothing to work with.
Conservatives aren't much better though.
"Well, a big polygamy case just went through the courts in Canada. They used all the same arguments gays use but their arguments were rejected.
Who? Whom?"
Polyandry > Polygyny
If beta orbiters could have been happily married..
I've noticed that when a lot of liberals get profane, they will accuse someone of being a closeted homosexual (I'm also sick of the euphemism 'gay'), especially if the person is religious. And if this religious person/people has/have children, they will 'hope' that some of their children will turn out homosexuals, as if to curse the person. When I used to frequent HuffPo and read articles about the Duggars (the Christian family with 19 kids), commenters did exactly this. It is incredibly ironic considering the liberal stance on homosexuality. I've never seen a conservative commenter do this.
One asks a very good question about why this disposition exists.
I suspect that it has a lot to do with Christianity: the rejection of and hatred for, as well as desire to form a reactionary, distinct culture. With the latter, I'm drawing upon the work of Judith Rich Harris and her study of peer groups viewing others as "the other". Since the largest dividing line between the Left and Right is Christianity, the Left becomes anti-Christian in a way that a Sikh in India, or any other outsider to these two groups just isn't.
The two most obscene things that come to mind that went above and beyond old-time torture and execution:
1. The French Left during the French Revolution.
2. "Attendees of a national conference for abortion providers watched and listened with rapt attention as the inventor of the partial-birth abortion procedure narrated a video of the grisly procedure – and then burst into applause when the act was over and the unborn child destroyed."
http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21311/
Leftoids are in it to win it. They have no delusions about fair play.
In that sense, I'm a leftoid too. Pass the flamethrower and the NBCs, I says.
Not that I think emulating those quotes is a good idea. Better to bait leftoids into making them, then use them as exhibit A.
Liberals are fascinating. While they claim to hold homosexuals (please, everyone, stop with the euphemism "gay" and identify them accurately) in highest regard, they immediately lash out in anger with "insults" that refer to homosexuals.
Wait, did I say fascinating? I meant ridiculous
Yep. That is fascinating, how quickly and often they accuse people of buggery. I suppose it's a grey area where they think it's okay, but the people they're attacking don't. Or that would be their defense, anyway.
Liberalism is based on hate.
Liberal don't prepare for battle, rarely have reputablely sourced facts to back up their claims and are thus generally on the defense in wars of words, hence the vicious atrtacks.
IGNORE THE TROLL!
Someone actually did the numbers on this and it turned out that liberals use fourteen times as much profanity online.
I don't find that surprising at all. Can you find a link? (Not exactly the best metric for indecency, but a good one nonetheless.)
With Santorum's Google problem, Google could solve it in 30 seconds with one line of code. They would certainly do that for Barack Obama.
This actually isn't entirely true. Awhile back, when you searched for images of Michelle Obama, the first result was a picture of her as a monkey. I believe Google left it there, but they added some official apology for it.
The image is still there on Google's search results, but it's a few pages down now and there's no disclaimer from Google.
I can't think of a bigger waste of time than arguing about gay people.
I don't really care either, the problem is when gays start agitating. Live and let live is my motto, but identity politics start impinging on that.
Leftism is essentially a desire for personal status and power by means of bypassing established means of advancement.
This is why leftists tend toward nihilism and a certain recognizeable to all viciousness.
The tragedy of the modern times is that Leftism has coopted the language of Christianity by framing itself as a champion of the underclass, using them as siege equipment in attacking the traditional order.
The liberals in my family care about being polite and classy. They can be snide, which is irritating, but not obscene. I once said something to my mom about how Ann Coulter says that when she goes to a good college she is treated better and gets asked well thought out questions. When she goes to a mediocre college, that's when she gets threats and obscenities. My mom said, "I would never act that way, even if I don't agree with her." If liberals can be shown to be the low class scum that many of them are, it might not be so popular with the SWPLs.
I can't think of a bigger waste of time than arguing about gay people
How about sending hate tweets accusing political opponents of being gay?
To my knowledge no liberal has acted out when when a lliberal pundit uses infammatoery rhetotric as happens when conservative do (arizona, mcveigh, etc..)
Liberals / Leftist need to rely on demagoguery far more than Conservatives / Rights due to who they are. The left is far more heterogeneous than the right so their only possible hope of gaining political power is by stringing together a coalition now matter how disparate it may be. Any sort of internal debate, criticism or power struggle is verboten because it will upset the apple cart so they always fall back on attacking the other side.
What holds the left together or their commonality is not what they are for but what they are against!
They do this by not only relying on ad hominem attacks and incessant race and sex baiting but by making sure their opponents never organize along the same lines they are organized; race, sexual orientation, religion.
Anonymous -- "coservatives refusing to apologize for slavery"
Because... WE DIDN'T DO IT!!!!!
Quite the reverse, our ideological forefathers (and in my case, actual genetic ancestors) are the ones who ENDED slavery.
Read a history book sometime, you'll find out in a hurry that the Republican Party was founded originally to STOP slavery, that the Republicans passed Amendments 13-14-15 to protect Blacks over howling Democrat objections, that Republicans spent much of the next 100 years in a a vain battle to try to get Democrats to stop blocking black votes and sign onboard with Republican anti-lynching laws.
OH, and, it was the Republicans who tried originally to pay reparations - FROM ACTUAL SLAVEOWERS (not random innocent white people), TO ACTUAL EX-SLAVES (not distant descendants of slaves). 40 acres and a mule, remember? That was a REPUBLICAN idea. The Democrats stopped it.
Most Blacks were Republicans from the Civil War right until the 1960s when the Democrats bought their votes with welfare. What a shame they rolled over so easily for an easy buck.
Even then... Affirmative action, the original fair version of it, was a Republican idea, introduced by Nixon to undo decades of Democratic-enginneered antiblack discrimination in government jobs.
Somebody needs to apologize for slavery. But it's certainly not us. Go learn some history....
http://www.suwanneegop.com/NBRA%20Civil%20Rights%20Newsletter-2.pdf
Just did a quick test and searched for "Jew c**t" (didn't put in the asterisks).
First result is an offensive, but actually positive for Jews, result in Urban dictionary. First page has the standard "we find this outrageous and offensive but our hands are tied due to our impartiality" disclaimer.
Looking up "Santorum Christian" or "Santorum Catholic" only returns those results, no anal lube reference, and nor "we're offended you'd want to know their religion" disclaimer.
Yes, we have demonstrated that Google does not have a racial, religious or cultural bias, for sure. It is strictly impartial and does not interfere with search results.
"Quite the reverse, our ideological forefathers (and in my case, actual genetic ancestors) are the ones who ENDED slavery. "
Uhh, you do realize that the Republicans and New England abolitionists of the mid 19th century were the (indirect) ideological forefathers to modern liberals and NOT modern conservatives, right? Many Democrats used to be conservatives, but they switched parties after the Civil Rights Acts passed in the 50s and 60s.
You should not attack the troll based on which vaguely related ideological group did what 150 years ago, but rather on the stupid supposition that they are owed an apology at all. Nobody is owed an apology for something that happened to their ancestors. Blacks have already received numerous reparations for slavery in the form of government aid anyway.
Wouldn't it be fascinating to get a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Cupp? I mean, this guy believes that if a woman would only taste black meat, she'd stop noticing black crime and dysfunction. How does that work, Mr. Cupp? Mr. Cupp just can't process that the opposite vector would be more effective for him. If blacks could just let go their insistence on anti-social dysfunction, they could actually get good-looking white woman without having to rape them. Won't someone cure the black authenticity virus?
Wouldn't it be fascinating to get a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Cupp? I mean, this guy believes that if a woman would only taste black meat, she'd stop noticing black crime and dysfunction. How does that work, Mr. Cupp?
S.E. Cupp is the name of the female conservative pundit (Sarah Elizabeth Cupp). The funny thing - she's one of those "colorblind" yuppie conservatives. I doubt she's ever said anything even remotely controversial about race.
really conservatives should own up to their past appeal to Wallace Democrats instead of this goofy Glenn Beckian "Democrats are the real racists" ideological revisionism. not because said Democrats were necessarily right but the idea that because people have certain prejudices their vote is illegitimate is goofy.
it makes me think that in the year 2050 people're gonna be blabbing about how conservative the push for homosexual marriage was and i'm gonna be rolling my eyes
Re Michelle Malkin: The hate mail she gets really exposes how phony most liberals are. Their immediate response to anything she says or does is to go for the most racist and sexually violent threats and imagery, calling her a "gook whore" and threatening to anally rape her, etc. Charming.
Re the despicable Dan Savage: On the Colbert Show right after California's Proposition 8 passed, Savage desperately tried to avoid putting any blame for it on the increased black turnout by blaming "old people" instead and wishing aloud that the elderly would hurry up and die.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/210299/november-11-2008/proposition-8-protests---dan-savage
Charming fellow.
also the guy above who talked about homosexual ideology in the '70s vs. now -- i think part of the reason they may've used to say "it's a choice" wasn't cuz that was strictly true but because of fears that it'd continue to be classified as a disease/something to be biologically cured.
i know people talk about women who move back and forth, but does that phenomenon really exist in men? obviously the BLT crowd takes grievous offense at the idea that bisexual men don't exist or are extremely rare but it seems the general consensus is that male sexuality is more fixed.
What this country really needs is an amicable divorce.
Oh, I see my 1st comment has been deleted. If you let me know what boundary I've transgressed OneSTDV I'll amend it and repost.
Conservatives, and men on the Right generally, lack the brutality and killer instinct of their ancestors. They want to play fair. They want to be loved. They want to be Gentlemen.
That's why I'm not a Conservative.
We are in a fight to the finish and had better start acting like it.
If you are not willing to wield the knife and pull the trigger, when the moment comes, then get the fuck out of the way and let those of us who are lead the assault.
Very interesting comments from Lara (though I'd point out that her advice runs into the brick wall of the leftoid media) and Prof. Woland.
^this...you never (rarely) see prominent liberals engaging in philosophical handwringing about whether such-and-such Democratic policy is "really liberal" or talking about how to appeal to more people except in the most condescending way possible. you do see a lot of this with "respectable" conservative columnists who seem to spend more time attacking elements of the Republican Party that don't fit their enlightened conservative vision than the other side.
Wow, this blog is pathetic.
Liberals paint all of their opponents as caricatures. The insane white supremacist who wants to exterminate all other races and reinstate slavery, the small dicked woman hater who can't get any, and of course the ulta-religious gay-hating closet fag. If they don't do this, they might actually have to think about what you're saying.
The insults are just them treating you as one of their absurd sterotypes.
Wow, this blog is pathetic.
Care to elaborate?
In sum, liberals use either one of two strategies: making a sexual comment or calling the conservative "stupid."
How could you miss that wholly bogus charges of racism are the latest weapon of choice?
How could you miss that wholly bogus charges of racism are the latest weapon of choice?
Yea, that's just about the biggest and most ironic omission ever.
Ahh, liberals will never cease to amaze me. How a group of people could be so totally disjointed from reality is truly baffling to the rational mind. Just think of the pretzel logic and the mental gymnastics, that they conjure every waking moment of their pathetic and pitiful lives.
What self aggrandizement they must employ, just to convince themselves of their moral superiority over all others. They are definitely a strange species of humanoid (questionable?).
How is Savage not dead of AIDS yet?
i think it's a mistake to label the Left as irrational and solely concerned with whatever new trendy cause that'll let them claim moral superiority over others. they have a very consistent ideology of generalized egalitarianism that they apply to basically everything both cultural and economic.
the times where they've failed to apply this ideology to a certain area were only because of them being products of their times on a select issue/the issue not being politically feasible. that's why with something like homosexual marriage, you have even older Democrats who probably would've looked at you like you were nuts if you'd suggested it in the '60s, '70s whatever, for much the same "intolerant" reasons a good amount of people still don't accept it today, but now if you asked those same politicians they'll tell you that equality demands we must do this.
of course mainstream conservatives have been assimilated into the equality borg so they're incapable of arguing for anything from non-egalitarian premises.
, you do realize that the Republicans and New England abolitionists of the mid 19th century were the (indirect) ideological forefathers to modern liberals and NOT modern conservatives, right?
My Dad's family has been Republican since before the Civil War. They attended abolitionist churches and volunteered for the Union almost as soon as the war broke out. And they were never anything other than conservative constitutionalists.
Their religous beliefs would have completely ruled out any sort of alliance with the people today known as "liberals". So I'll trust my family history over Democrat revisionism any day.
Many Democrats used to be conservatives, but they switched parties after the Civil Rights Acts passed in the 50s and 60s.
Now... WHY on EARTH would those "racists" do that, when the Civil Rights acts got higher percentages of Republican Congressmen voting for them, than Democrats? There's all the proof you need, that the movement to the Republicans, CAN NOT have been racially driven.
If anything, there was a segment of the religious white South that keenly felt the moral challenge of the Civil Rights movement, found it unanswerable in Christian terms, and accordingly changed their minds. ("I had to chayange mah views", as one old Southern man told me.) Abandoning the segregationist party was a reasonable act of repentance in that context.
Also... remember, the Democrats went insane in the 60s, choosing the wrong side of the sexual revolution and the culture war. That turned off a lot of people for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with race. THIS was a major factor in the reshuffling of party affiliations.
^the Deep South voted for George Wallace in '68 and a lot of those people went to Nixon in '72 when there was no Dixiecrat alternative and the Democratic option was extremely liberal.
it's reductionist to attribute the post-1964 GOP's rise solely to race but acting like that wasn't a substantial part of it is silly. it doesn't discredit anything cuz there were plenty of do-gooder liberals at the time who took part in "white flight" given the rising crime rates along with the much-maligned Southerners.
JDP wrote 1/05/2012 5:43 PM
"i know people talk about women who move back and forth, but does that phenomenon really exist in men?"
I happen to personally know two such guys and I'm sure there are others who don't talk about their pasts. There's a whole community out there (Exodus International) but they are bashed as not being honest to their 'true selves', whatever that means.
One famous guy who comes to mind is David Bowie who was really flaming back in the 1970s.
http://beatwolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/david-bowie-ziggy-stardust-.jpg
But now he is pretty much straight these days and he doesn't like to talk about the Ziggy days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duncan_Jones_and_David_Bowie_at_the_premiere_of_Moon.jpg
in the year 2050 people're gonna be blabbing about how conservative the push for homosexual marriage was
No. Totally impossible. That's really an existential issue, much like abortion. Conservatives will fight that battle *FOREVER*, even if they have zero hope of winning. Guaranteed.
Conservatives can't let go of that fight without giving up their entire cultural identity... Plus they think they'll go to hell. I repeat: they CANNOT surrender on this. Not ever.
Besides... your revisionism is showing. The people who ended slavery ideologically and religiously resembled today's conservatives. If anything, by 2050 abortion will be seen as a crime against humanity, homosexuality will (again) be seen as a civilization destroyer, and the LIBERALS of 2050 will falsely claim that THEY were on the forefront of the effort to get rid of them! They always howl about yesterday's evil, and support today's. That's how liberals work.
Wow, this blog is pathetic.
Lol. Let's just call that SWPL irony...
Wow, this blog is pathetic.
Lol. Let's just call that SWPL irony...
He's a pissy MRA type who gets mad about discussions of race. This is very common amongst MRAs, many of whom seem to be East Indian and black:
Pissy MRA
the Deep South voted for George Wallace in '68 and a lot of those people went to Nixon in '72 when there was no Dixiecrat alternative and the Democratic option was extremely liberal.
Oh, balls. Nixon carried every state in the union in 1972 with the exception of Massachusetts. Those darned George Wallace voters must have multiplied like plankton between 1968 and 1972 for that to happen.
The Deep South continued to send Democrat Senators and Representatives to DC for many decades after this, right up into the 1990's, and the Democratic Party never turned up their noses at these "racist" members of Congress who were elected by "racist" people.
I guess I should point out that pretty much all Blacks and Jews are leftoids. Not people known for their civility, and their mores have far more effect on leftoidism than on conservatism.
i think it's a mistake to label the Left as irrational and solely concerned with whatever new trendy cause that'll let them claim moral superiority over others. they have a very consistent ideology of generalized egalitarianism that they apply to basically everything both cultural and economic.
What utter nonsense.
E.g., egalitarianism: the leftoid failure to hold anyone but Whites accountable for their racism, their support for AA (tangible, black letter law discrimination against Whites is fine, weighed against imagined, phantom White systemic racism), their utter hatred of the concept of reciprocity (e.g., close the border with Mexico until Mexico opens hers; the same ethnic rights for Whites as for Jews), etc., all smash the leftoid egalitarian conceit to pieces.
There is nothing consistent at all about any part of leftoidism I've ever had brought to my attention.
Except "who-whom?" of course.
Many Democrats used to be conservatives, but they switched parties after the Civil Rights Acts passed in the 50s and 60s.
But they didn't. They remained Democrats until the day they died, decades after the 50's and 60's. And they kept on sending Democrats to Congress that whole time - people like Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings in the Senate, and scores of House members as well.
It's strange that Jim Bob Confederate could be racist when he voted for a Republican for President, but NOT racist when he voted for Democratic Senators and Congressmen and governors in the exact same frickin' election! It's downright peculiar!
Dan: i wasn't thinking of the ex-gay types who feel religiously obligated not to engage in homosexual behavior, i was thinking more of stories about women who used to be actively lesbian for an extended period of time and then went back to men unprompted by any moral reason. i haven't heard of a similar phenomenon with guys. of course the "everyone is sexually fluid" dreamers would probably chalk this up to higher levels of insidious "male homophobia" but it could be that guys are just hardwired one way or the other.
The amount of noise they make if you characterize Blacks as monkeys, when characterizing Whites as monkeys is okey-dokey (e.g., Bush vs. Obama).
Leftoids pass everything through their narrative; their just-so version of history. This gets them a pass on consistency (as in, it's their only consistency, such as it is). When the narrative changes, they change with it, a la Orwell.
I should've added that there's nothing consistent about the parts of leftoidism that are germane to my politics; their positions on race and ethnicity are what concern me.
i wasn't saying Nixon's election was the result of ex-Wallace supporters. i said they played a role in it. that was the whole point of his Southern Strategy, to bring in working-class Democrats who'd been alienated by how far left their party was going.
as for leftist egalitarianism vs. affirmative action favoritism, that's when you get into the whole "equality of results" gibberish that they generally favor.
Of course to some extent it's true that Southerners turn away from the Democratic party.
For instance, in 1970 Democrat Senator Al Gore Sr (father of the later Al Gore) lost his seat in Tennessee to a Republican. Shock! Horror! Racism!
But unfortunately for the the whole "Wacist voters voted for wacist Webublicans" fairy-tale, Al Gore Sr filbustered the Civil Rights Act, and he was replaced by a much less racist Republican, William Brock. Darn those Southern voters.
i wasn't saying Nixon's election was the result of ex-Wallace supporters. i said they played a role in it.
A million and one things played a role in it.
If you want to look for reasons why Nixon won, the top ten reasons have to involve the treasonous stupidity of the national Democratic Party at the time. George McGovern? Rarely has an American political party taken such collective leave of its senses.
"Racist voters" were not a factor.
i think the irony of this is that i think it's OK that the GOP got some ex-segregationist votes since like Nixon correctly said they were never going to outbid the Democrats for the black vote, whereas the people arguing against this here seem to implicitly agree with the Left's narrative that any such votes the GOP may've received would make its victories since 1968 illegitimate
I think the irony is that you are mimicking the lefts entirely fraudulent version of history while thinking that you are a conservative.
It's a fact of history that white conservative Democrats DID NOT leave their party after the CRA. You seem to be trying to spin things a certain way, I'm just trying to keep the record honest and intact.
What the moronic liberals think is "illegitimate" is really none of my concern. In this as in so much else, they combine stupidity and dishonesty in exceptional degrees.
Both liberals and conservatives engage in vicious invective towards their enemies.
For Conservatives, it is enemies like Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
For Liberals, it is enemies like...pretty much everyone to the right politically.
The abuse is because Liberal politics is not about ideology but identity.
Liberalism as Steve Sailer correctly points out constantly, is about being a "better sort of White person" than those in the middle or (horrors) working class.
Hence the vituperation, for Santorum, for Palin, for anyone who violates cultural/social norms for "the better sort of White people."
Fred Thompson has had a long career in politics and Hollywood, but because he's tall, has gravitas, and authority, no one pulls that with him. Same with Rudy Giuliani, or to an extent Mitt Romney. Money, authority, power, "Upper Class-ness" insulate one from that social attack.
The same stuff against Santorum (for taking home his stillborn baby) came out of Colmes, and Eugene Robinson's mouth, because to them it was a cultural affront to "the way we do things."
In the US, as most of the European nations/cultures, there has been a constant KulturKampf over "the right way to do things" and behave.
That's what Liberalism is all about.
Whiskey is correct.
Liberalism isn't an ideology -- it's far too incoherent and riddled with contradictions. Liberalism is simply an emotional posture, and the largest driving force behind that posture is status.
The vast majority of Liberals vote the way they vote and espouse the opinions they espouse to gain validation from those around them. It is not a coincidence that they congregate in such numbers into the same urban areas where they can lose themselves in the "herd of independent minds."
Whether apocryphal or not the old story about Pauline Kael saying she didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon so how could he win? is the stuff of myth -- that is, it expresses a deep human truth in the form of a story.
"But they didn't. They remained Democrats until the day they died, decades after the 50's and 60's. And they kept on sending Democrats to Congress that whole time - people like Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings in the Senate, and scores of House members as well"
Former democrats are certainly not all dead, my grandparents are among them, and they vote Republican today just like most other white southerners. It's really nothing to be ashamed of either, as you foolishly suggest. As the democratic party turned into a party that catered to minority interests and thus became more liberal in many respects, a lot of white conservatives or moderates who had formerly been democrats became disillusioned with the party and switched over.
Why are you so adamant on making conservatives into this historically anti-racist bunch? As someone else has already stated, it sounds like Glenn Beck style revisionism and it doesn't make conservatism any more appealing to people who don't already embrace it.
"It's a fact of history that white conservative Democrats DID NOT leave their party after the CRA. You seem to be trying to spin things a certain way, I'm just trying to keep the record honest and intact."
You are the one who is spinning things in a certain direction, by desperately trying to disconnect conservatism with implicitly white interests. Conservatism doesn't have to be anti-racist to be legitimate, you've swallowed the kool-aid.
I'll add that it is interesting to see who works up Liberals into a lather of hate hate hate just by EXISTING, ala Palin, Santorum now, Pat Robertson, and others, and who does not. Almost always it is class/status "how we do things" related.
What has always puzzled me, is why Huckabee does not get this abuse. By all accounts, as a preacher, a Born Again Christian, an unctuous TV presence, he should turn the hate dial up to 11 for Liberals. Yet he constantly gets a pass. Sarah Palin gets hung in effigy, and Huck ... is ignored.
I wish I could explain that one. I figure the difference, in who liberals just HATE HATE HATE for existing, for being, and who gets a pass explains a lot about them.
Whiskey said,
"Liberalism as Steve Sailer correctly points out constantly, is about being a 'better sort of White person' than those in the middle or (horrors) working class.
Hence the vituperation, for Santorum, for Palin, for anyone who violates cultural/social norms for 'the better sort of White people.'"
But why does trying to be "better" exist with "obscene"?
There could be dozens of reactions to conservatives where they could try to demonstrate their superiority, but there is this constant one, obscenity, and it is illogical and irrational given some universal beliefs about decency and how it improves as one goes *up* the social ladder.
I, too, read Ann Coulter about the civility of liberals at smarter colleges. However, I think this divide exists if you hold intelligence constant. HS's suggestion is a good one, though.
"I'll add that it is interesting to see who works up Liberals into a lather of hate hate hate just by EXISTING, ala Palin, Santorum now, Pat Robertson, and others, and who does not. Almost always it is class/status "how we do things" related."
Danish cartoonists and Pastor Jones.
The Hotair crowd and others just loved those cartoonists for speaking truth to power and inflaming the Muslims... Pastor Jones, however, not so much. The Right balked when the plebe went to do the same thing with the same result expected and left him for the Left to devour.
Germany's Merkel even gave an award to one of the cartoonists in the midst of the protests against Pastor Jones!
Whiskey, Margaret Mitchell said in "Gone with the Wind" that people tend to hate most those just underneath them. She certainly held more disdain for her poor white characters than the blacks.
"Why are you so adamant on making conservatives into this historically anti-racist bunch? As someone else has already stated, it sounds like Glenn Beck style revisionism..."
Completely agree. Everyone but the people who sincerely want to believe this can see right through it. Look at the actual people, them and their ancestors, and not the parties which can change drastically as political coalitions always do.
This is as naive as the "Nazis are really Leftists" trope. See, National Socialism means Big Government and we known liberals love that... hey, they're really liberals!
Lawrence Auster has done a good job explaining the Nazi one, however.
JDP: You said, "i haven't heard of a similar phenomenon with guys."
Okay, fine, you discount every man who changes teams who is religious, because religious people don't count in your book because you are a liberal. I get that.
But I pointed out David Bowie. Are you unable to read? Once again, since you are a tad slow on the uptake:
Then:
http://beatwolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/david-bowie-ziggy-stardust-.jpg
Now, with his son:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duncan_Jones_and_David_Bowie_at_the_premiere_of_Moon.jpg
Just another religious nut job I guess.
The last part of that url seems cut off:
/wiki/File:Duncan_Jones_and_David_Bowie_at_the_premiere_of_Moon.jpg
drat,
_at_the_premiere_of_Moon.jpg
i don't have a problem with religious people at all. my point was that homosexuals who think indulging their attractions is going to send them to Hell will obviously have a huge incentive not to engage in that behavior, but that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about their orientation, any more than straight women who engage in opportunistic lesbianism are lesbians.
i'm not denying that real bisexuality may exist in a small minority of guys or that some people can't function the opposite of their orientation and be OK, just that from what i can tell the ambiguity seems less common than with women.
JDP --
Haha, your logic is very flexible and bends in all kinds of ways.
The Occam's Razor answer is that human sexuality is just very plastic and able to fixate on anything.
A casual journey on the Internets reveals that some people are just as fixated on feet, whips and chains, fecal matter, schoolgirl outfits and nurse's uniforms, just for starters.
Born with all that too? Amazing!
Not to be rude, but I think the whole "born that way" slogan, which largely pushed from the outside from SWPLs trying retardedly to be helpful, is actually pigeonholing people in who in the past were much freer.
Witness efforts to haul people out of the closet (Apple CEO Tim Cook being a recent example) and bestow an identity upon them.
For people who prize hedonistic freedom, this must suck.
"I vehemently disagree with Santorum here, as I believe we must have a right to privacy in our own homes, even if we engage in societally maladaptive acts. But Santorum makes a valid point in arguing that there are limits to American law in regards to what we do in our own homes, analogous to freedom of speech not applying to yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. I think here we must make a distinction between bestiality and homo-sex by the obvious notion that the latter relates to two consenting adults. Nonetheless, he does correctly argue, with appeal to analogy, that not all private acts are necessarily protected. (Polygamy should be in the same category as homosexuality though, if using the "consenting adults" justification.)"
I wrote on Santorum's view of privacy, so I won't rehash it here. however, it is worth reiterating that the constitution serves primarily as a limit to federal powers and behaviors. There is no right to free speech in the constitution--the first amendment says "congress shall make no law..." This, coupled with the tenth amendment, would imply that non-federal governments could regulate speech if they so desired, assuming they had consent of the governed. There needs to be a balance between freedom and responsibility, and there is no one-size-fits-all way of determining how to find that balance. As such, the states were permitted to experiment with finding that balance while the federal government was precluded from doing so. The wisdom of this approach is self-evident.
What has always puzzled me, is why Huckabee does not get this abuse. By all accounts, as a preacher, a Born Again Christian, an unctuous TV presence, he should turn the hate dial up to 11 for Liberals. Yet he constantly gets a pass. Sarah Palin gets hung in effigy, and Huck ... is ignored.
Personality. Huckabee is just a likeable guy. Even Jon Stewart really likes him. Palin, on the other hand, comes off as shrill and pushy. Only people who already agree with her like her (and not even some of them).
"There could be dozens of reactions to conservatives where they could try to demonstrate their superiority, but there is this constant one, obscenity, and it is illogical and irrational given some universal beliefs about decency and how it improves as one goes *up* the social ladder."
That's the best part. It doesn't have to be logical or rational, because it's YOUR fantasy.
@ Dave:
That's the best part. It doesn't have to be logical or rational, because it's YOUR fantasy.
You make these driveby, extremely general comments all the time. But you have never made any specific claim about what you find so objectionable about our paradigm.
-Do you think conservatives really are all angry, racist, bigoted losers?
-Do you think liberals, especially organized liberalism liberals, are strictly out for social justice and never, ever engage in "who? whom?" politics?
-Do you think that our culture treats whites fairly?
-Do you think our liberally-based historical narrative is fair to whites, as in our history does not impugn them and glorify blacks and women?
-Do you think there are race differences in behavior and intelligence?
-Do you think that feminism has sold a lie to this generation's women?
And so on...
What do you actually think besides these snarky comments that are more Jon Stewart-esque condescension than actual substantial argument or even a lucid presentation of your positions?
"But you have never made any specific claim about what you find so objectionable about our paradigm."
Bullshit. Any time I try to debate you, you chicken out.
Anyway, I understand that you came up with those questions quickly, so, even though most of them don't make any sense, I'll do my best to answer. Then you can bail.
"-Do you think conservatives really are all angry, racist, bigoted losers?"
No. Liberals are only like that in your fantasy.
"-Do you think liberals, especially organized liberalism liberals, are strictly out for social justice and never, ever engage in "who? whom?" politics?"
No, because I'm a person, not a "liberal" from your fantasy.
"-Do you think that our culture treats whites fairly?"
The stars (as well as the producers, writers, and directors) of most movies and TV shows are usually white. I find all of your complaints about things like how the husband is always the bumbling one to be niggling molehills beside this point.
"-Do you think our liberally-based historical narrative is fair to whites, as in our history does not impugn them and glorify blacks and women?"
The term "liberally-based historical narrative" doesn't refer to an actual thing. Remember, you're writing for a non-member of the tribe. You have to use words that a non-member can understand.
"-Do you think there are race differences in behavior and intelligence?"
I think if you gathered everyone together, defined some of them as being in one race, and some of them as being in another, gave everyone some kind of IQ test, and calculated the average result for each "race," that the numbers are extremely likely to be different. Does that mean yes?
"-Do you think that feminism has sold a lie to this generation's women?"
Um, no. Weird question.
"What do you actually think"
You know what I think. I think "hbd" is just therapeutic venting for white people. I think it's intellectually bankrupt, because it doesn't exist for any other reason than to provide emotional satisfaction to unhappy white people who get a positive jolt out of hearing their race praised over other races.
Other than that, I think the most important thing to understand about politics is that people are mostly selfish and lazy, that rich people have a lot more power than everyone else, and that most of them would prefer to use that power in lazy and selfish ways.
Daybreaker: "Someone actually did the numbers on this and it turned out that liberals use fourteen times as much profanity online."
OneSTDV: "I don't find that surprising at all. Can you find a link? (Not exactly the best metric for indecency, but a good one nonetheless.)"
I don't remember who did what to adjust the numbers down to 14x.
The original link is dead.
La Shawn Barber's Corner: roundup.
PoliBlog: doubting it.
PoliBlog: further doubt.
Blue Crab Boulevard: quoting the now-vanished post:
And this is what I found, using what I deemed — through a mix of TTLB and 2006's Weblog Award lists — to be the 18 biggest Lefty blogs, and 22 biggest Righty blogs. I couldn't account for the 6-month time period, and I even gave the Lefty blogs a 4 blog advantage. But it didn't make much of a difference.
So how much more does the Left use Carlin's "seven words" versus the Right? According to my calculations, try somewhere in the range of 18-to-1.
Yowsers.
How did I get this result? I searched Google using the following format and recorded the page results that were returned:
site:xyz.com "search term 1" OR "search term 2" OR "search term 3"…
Nine search terms total — the seven profanities as single words, and two of those as their own two-word variations. I then added the individual site results together and compared them.
HAHA
Dave just onwed onesdtv
and of course one acts chickenshit and wuns away puusy coward that he is.
i wish one would create a post where he debates Dave and wtah dave cut him to pieces
hbd is a way for loser white people who cant get by without their special ill gotten provileges to feel good about themselves
and ywes i am white
Dave couldn't own a coma patient.
Bullshit. Any time I try to debate you, you chicken out.
Dave neatly illustrates the characteristics of the modern "liberal" - ignorance and arrogance in exceptional quantities.
I think if you gathered everyone together, defined some of them as being in one race, and some of them as being in another, gave everyone some kind of IQ test, and calculated the average result for each "race," that the numbers are extremely likely to be different.
I think "hbd" is just therapeutic venting for white people. I think it's intellectually bankrupt, because it doesn't exist for any other reason than to provide emotional satisfaction to unhappy white people who get a positive jolt out of hearing their race praised over other races.
There's the core element of liberalism in a nutshell. A statement or proposition has no value in and of itself, it all depends on who is saying it. If one of the wrong people says x, he's wrong to say it, while if one of the right people says x, he is right to say it. Regardless of the validity if x.
If Dave says that some races have a lower average IQ than others, that's all right, because he's a good person. If some reich-winger says that some races have a lower IQ than others, that's not all right, because they are bad people.
Take away the liberals swollen conceit with respect to his own moral worth and you take away his liberalism.
"There's the core element of liberalism in a nutshell. A statement or proposition has no value in and of itself, it all depends on who is saying it."
That's quite a non sequitur. How does what I said in any way lead to this interpretation?
Anyway, this is bullshit. I care about bad arguments. I enjoy unraveling them. I have no idea if any of you are good or bad people and I don't care.
"Take away the liberals swollen conceit with respect to his own moral worth and you take away his liberalism".
Excellent quote!
Wildfire
That's quite a non sequitur. How does what I said in any way lead to this interpretation?
I quoted your own words. Maybe you should go back and read them.
I have no idea if any of you are good or bad people and I don't care.
Except that you care immensely.
I think "hbd" is just therapeutic venting for white people. I think it's intellectually bankrupt, because it doesn't exist for any other reason than to provide emotional satisfaction to unhappy white people who get a positive jolt out of hearing their race praised over other races.
That's not an argument on your part. It's half-assed amateur psychoanalyzing. You don't engage with the substance of "hbd" at all - you just tell us what you suppose to be the feelings of HBD'ers.
I care about bad arguments.
Your own arguments do not even rise to the level of "bad". You'd have been right at home in the USSR diagnosing dissents with mental illness. Stop telling us what you imagine gives us "emotional satisfaction" or a "positive jolt" and try using facts and logic.
I care about bad arguments.
Your own arguments do not even rise to the level of "bad". You'd have been right at home in the USSR diagnosing dissents with mental illness. Stop telling us what you imagine gives us "emotional satisfaction" or a "positive jolt" and try using facts and logic.
Dave is a freakin' genius.
When I showed him links illustrating that blacks commit violent crimes at 7 times the rate of any other races in the US, he said that I was "cherry picking" statistics and claimed a moral victory for himself since HBD holds that white people never commit any violent crimes.
"I quoted your own words. Maybe you should go back and read them."
The quoting part is easy. I asked you to explain how my words can reasonably be interpreted as meaning the stupid thing you think they mean. It's the EXPLAINING, anonymous, that takes work. But your quoting skills, I admit, are solid.
"Except that you care immensely."
In the fantasy, I can be anything you want.
"That's not an argument on your part."
Correct! It's a conclusion. I was asked what I think, and I gave of my thoughts. I'm a giver.
"try using facts and logic."
Oh, I try. Oh how I try.
@Cam
"he said that I was "cherry picking" statistics and claimed a moral victory for himself since HBD holds that white people never commit any violent crimes."
Many people on that thread were arguing exactly that: that whites NEVER commit a very narrow type of violent crime. In fact, HBD-ers -- though not all of them -- do sometimes make those kinds of absolutist arguments.
If you'd like to reopen that old battle, that's fine with me. However, your summary of the argument is basically just a lie. But it's a lie that makes you feel good! So keep it if you want.
"...conservatives refusing to apologize for slavery"
They've apologized plenty, and paid plenty, but it doesn't matter.
Lunacy. Conservatives haven't engaged in slavery. How in the hell can they apologize for it?
George McGovern? Rarely has an American political party taken such collective leave of its senses.
George McGovern was more conservative than George W. Bush.
tillman, obviously white privilege is so powerful that it lets whites transcend time and space.
George McGovern was more conservative than George W. Bush.
Then so was Karl Marx.
I asked you to explain how my words can reasonably be interpreted as meaning the stupid thing you think they mean.
And I did explain it, in a fashion which everybody except you understood. (And in truth you probably understood it as well - you're just pretending to be dumb)
In the fantasy, I can be anything you want.
So sayeth the turd who postulates that other peoples beliefs are based on providing them "emotional satisfaction". If you possessed one molecule of self-awareness you would not be the ignorant and arrogant asshole you are.
It's a conclusion. I was asked what I think, and I gave of my thoughts.
And your "thoughts" just happened to be long on moralistic preening and posturing and devoid of all facts and logic. It's odd how often your "thoughts" partake of those qualities, considering how your absurd belief in your own moral worth is only surpassed by your even more over-blown regard for your own intellect.
"And I did explain it, in a fashion which everybody except you understood."
The fact that you won't explain what thoughts took you to your conclusion makes it seem pretty clear that you can't explain -- there are no thoughts. But I won't push it any further. You can consider yourself successful at weaseling out of an answer.
Sigh.
The fact that you won't explain what thoughts took you to your conclusion..
I already explained that in some detail, and you already understand what I said perfectly well. This whole "Shucks, I just don't get where you're coming from here" schtick does not sit well on you.
Now, I await with bated breath your attempt to explain the "thoughts" which took you to YOUR conclusion, to wit:
You know what I think. I think "hbd" is just therapeutic venting for white people. I think it's intellectually bankrupt, because it doesn't exist for any other reason than to provide emotional satisfaction to unhappy white people who get a positive jolt out of hearing their race praised over other races.
You can consider yourself successful at weaseling out of an answer.
You can consider yourself "successful" at getting your ass kicked and running away crying "I won! I won!"
But I suppose you have had a great deal of practice in this regard.
"I already explained that in some detail"
Ok, so copy-paste.
"Now, I await with bated breath your attempt to explain the "thoughts" which took you to YOUR conclusion"
Sure. I think "HBD" is a movement that attracts adherents primarily by making an emotional appeal. Basically, the deal is, you join this group, and you will be flattered. You will be told you're specially able to look at reality and figure out how it works. You'll be told there are these other people, your enemies, liberals, who are stupider and meaner than you. You'll be told that white people deserve more than non-whites, that men deserve more than women, that straights deserve more than gays -- so, if you're white, straight, and male -- which most of you are -- there's that extra bit of flattery.
How did I come to this conclusion? What "thoughts" led me here?
Basically, it was process of elimination.
-HBD is a movement that does not pursue any political goals. One wrote about this a few days ago -- he believes that no one in the movement will say what should be done next. The purpose of this blog certainly isn't to effect any specific policy change.
-HBD is not a movement based on moral principle. Again, look at One. He feels it's wrong that white people don't get more respect. He is personally hurt when a white person is humiliated in a car commercial. Yet, how does he treat black people? He goes out of his way to humiliate them. So there's not much "do unto others" at play here. It's people who want more for their side.
-This is NOT a movement that relies on "facts and logic." Again, based on One's writing. When the logic defeats him, he says logic is too cold. He calls me a "reductionist" because I'm too rational. He wants a leader who will flatter his emotions, who believes, as he does, that America is inextricably linked to white people, and who will say so, loudly. Emotional appeal is very important to One, and he has said so.
He also regularly makes egregious factual errors that he refuses to correct or apologize for.
No one who was looking for the answers that logic and empirical analysis would come to this blog. If they did they would run screaming.
-So what DOES this blog provide, if not morality, logic, or practical policy gains?
Well, all that I see that it provides regularly is a very comforting fantasy. In the fantasy, whites and conservatives are the good guys and eternal victims, nasty liberals and minorities are the bad guys who want to take everything from everybody. No amount of facts, logic, or appeals to human decency will puncture the dream bubble of this site's readers.
I could point to a number of One's articles that are nothing more than soothing fantasy, but just look at this one. "Liberals are meaner than conservatives." That's it. It's not based on any factual analysis, just some cherry-picked anecdotes and One's "impression" that this is correct. And, of course, One's readers all agree with him. Liberals ARE meaner! And stupider, and hypocrites, and on and on.
And, look at you yourself -- you're persisting in a very strange persecution fantasy. In the fantasy. I tell you that I'm not making a moral judgment on you -- you tell me, no. I am. Based on what? Based on nothing, other than, that's how liberals behave in the fantasy. They're mean and unfair and vain. I'm a liberal, so I must be all of those things and nothing else. I tell you that I need you to explain yourself further, you tell me I'm lying, I understand you perfectly, I'm just pretending.
The amount of weird motivations that you guys have projected onto me, just because I'm a liberal, is through the roof.
Anyway, that's more or less how I came to my opinion that HBD is a place to come if you want to feel better, not a place to devote oneself to any other principle other than that. I'm sure you don't like that I feel this way, and I'd guess you're going to come to the conclusion that only someone with debilitating personal defects would come to this conclusion. But it's my honest reaction.
HBD is important not for its value as just one of many sciences but because its arguments defy the prevailing blood-libel of white perfidy being the cause of unequal group performances.
Without an HBD argument, preventable evils like black on white murders along with other forms black antipathy, non-terminal affirmative action, No Child Left Behind, and sinking the national treasure in endless black-upliftment projects are acceptable.
To stress the point: without HBD, Carter Strange deserved it.
Whiskey is correct.
Liberalism isn't an ideology -- it's far too incoherent and riddled with contradictions. Liberalism is simply an emotional posture, and the largest driving force behind that posture is status.
It's a Narrative. Call a leftoid on any of the contradictions he holds and he'll refer to his Narrative. Basically, their version of history.
And in honor of Google deleting my blog, word verification: lobjew.
Without an HBD argument, preventable evils like black on white murders along with other forms black antipathy, non-terminal affirmative action, No Child Left Behind, and sinking the national treasure in endless black-upliftment projects are acceptable.
Not to men. Men reject the bridle on principle.
Sigh.
You homo.
HBD is important not for its value as just one of many sciences but because its arguments defy the prevailing blood-libel of white perfidy being the cause of unequal group performances.
Right. Davie's totally full of shit so he'll never acknowledge the fact that HBD and pro-White advocacy are moral duties - especially for Whites.
If the Davie's of the world don't like these moral duties, they shouldn't have created them by blaming Black "dysfunction"* on Whites.
Too late now though, they woke the dog up and it's barking.
*:(Or whatever leftoid White Supremacist term you prefer to use for the fact that Blacks don't act like Whites)
Sigh.
You homo.
LOL.
Pissy, ironic-loving liberals/SWPLs really seem to use "Sigh" a lot.
Right. Davie's totally full of shit so he'll never acknowledge the fact that HBD and pro-White advocacy are moral duties - especially for Whites.
Not sure if we're totally on the same page, but yes, I think white self-determination is a moral issue.
Any group, Jews, American whites, French, Mexicans, and Japanese, has the moral autonomy to choose their own collective fate. Sort of libertarian individualism, writ large. Simple as that.
"that men deserve more than women, that straights deserve more than gays"
this is how the critique's always put, as if anything innate automatically means we have to implement a radical egalitarian program. liberals won the civil rights movement so now they're unable to see any other issue on different terms -- therefore because people are born men and women, gender roles are entirely culturally constructed and should be abolished (along with promotion of abortion as a part of the egalitarian program;) similarly because homosexuality is innate in most cases, this means we cannot draw any even slight distinction between homosexual couples and traditional marriage, and anyone who thinks it's problematic to teach the concept to kids at young ages or that a mother and father provide something unique to a child is not only wrong, but irrational.
i'll take a right-wing blogosphere that attracts select "characters" over a left-wing blogosphere that's essentially a contest to see who can pat themselves on the back for being more enlightened, if only cuz it actually critiques such premises that a lot of the political world, mainstream conservative blogs included, seem to take for granted
also while obviously there's no real "scientific" way of measuring it i would agree that leftist vulgarity as far as "respectable" writers go is more common because they are more convinced that they are on the Side of the Angels and therefore the ends justify the means, whereas conservatives typically acknowledge that what they are defending way seem imperfect but is ultimately just the way the world works. a lot of conservatives are quicker to concede "good intentions" before critiquing a liberal position, whereas liberals tend to claim the entirety of conservative ideology is purposely malicious
"-HBD is a movement that does not pursue any political goals. One wrote about this a few days ago -- he believes that no one in the movement will say what should be done next. The purpose of this blog certainly isn't to effect any specific policy change."
This is completely false. See the quote below.
"I've fully admitted that my disseminating knowledge of HBD is for political purposes. HBD is probably a misnomer, but it's caught on. What most people mean when they say HBD is really bioconservatism.
But we can't really go back and change the name. It's already entrenched. The fact that you believe anyone has even implied that "HBD" is an unbiased examination of scientific evidence shows you either don't read any of the blogs or you enjoy attributing statements to people that have never made them."
If you're curious who this is from it's from Onestdv.
"You homo."
Well, now I've been called a homo and a turd on the thread where everyone is whining about how liberals are the party that uses meanie bad words.
Of course, it's a small sample size. But it's lonely being the only one here who can appreciate the irony.
"Pissy, ironic-loving liberals/SWPLs really seem to use "Sigh" a lot."
Because we're not mad at you, we're just disappointed.
"Davie's totally full of shit so he'll never acknowledge the fact that HBD and pro-White advocacy are moral duties"
"Acknowledge" is such a typical choice of words for this crowd.
Making an argument on moral grounds takes fucking WORK. First you identify the set of moral principles that all your actions will and do derive from. Then you show how pro-white advocacy necessarily derives from those principles.
But, Svidge can't be bothered. So he just stampos his foot and demands that the moral argument simply be "acknowledged." And if you don't "acknowledge" him, and how moral his actions are, it's not because he never explained himself, it's because you're a liar.
If anyone wants to make the moral argument for HBD, I'll listen.
"I've fully admitted that my disseminating knowledge of HBD is for political purposes." (One)
See above. It's not enough to just say "this is for political purposes." You have to do WORK in explaining yourself. What are the concrete goals? How will you reach them? Is writing this blog the best option you have? Maybe it is. But if this blog has practical goals, what are they?
And once you've defined your goals, every blog post can and should be measured against whether or not they help those goals come to pass.
But that would be more work. And, like Svidge, One does not want to do work.
This is a lazy movement. There's so little drive to do the work of establishing HBD as a moral cause, a movement with political goals, or an unbiased analysis of reality.
What there is energy for is complaining about how unfair the world is, and insulting the liberals and minorities who are solely responsible for the world's being that way. That's what makes HBD seem like nothing more than therapy. An opportunity to feel pleasurable feelings. Or at least to escape bad ones.
OK Dave, you responded to crude ad homsn but not to my axiom "without HBD, Carter Stranded deserved it."
There is yet a new such incident. See Auster's blog. A pack of black girls swarm-stomp a white girl into convulsions and unconsciousness.
Carter Strange, not "stranded." Autocorrect.
Not sure if we're totally on the same page, but yes, I think white self-determination is a moral issue.
Yeah, I go beyond the moral autonomy you describe (though I definitely espouse it constantly).
It's unjust to sit by and watch Whites being blamed for Black "failure" and say and do nothing.
If there was a man with a preexisting condition suing his employer for causing that condition, it would be immoral to let the former get away with it, if you knew the whole story. It's worse if you're in the presence of people who believe the former but you say nothing to correct them. It's doubly worse if you're profiting from the situation, when the latter is your employer too and has treated you fairly.
You can substitute in proper nouns and circumstances for yourself.
So basically, yes, "HBD-awareness" is a moral duty.
Well, now I've been called a homo and a turd on the thread where everyone is whining about how liberals are the party that uses meanie bad words.
Of course, it's a small sample size. But it's lonely being the only one here who can appreciate the irony.
There's no irony, you sighing homo. I'm just as mean and nasty as any leftoid (well, almost). I've never made any bones about it. And I'm not a conservative. Ideologically, I share quite a bit with leftoids. Or rather, methodologically, since leftoids have no ideology to speak of.
Besides, how's it "mean" to call you a homo? Isn't it a compliment where you come from?
But, Svidge can't be bothered. So he just stampos his foot and demands that the moral argument simply be "acknowledged." And if you don't "acknowledge" him, and how moral his actions are, it's not because he never explained himself, it's because you're a liar.
Right, I can't be bothered to argue with you. Takes two to tango. You don't have a shred of honesty in your whole body. Your whole game is petty semantics and dodging. You're not worth my time. I don't mind so much, arguing with leftoids who don't make evasion and word play their whole raison d'etre. But you're a complete bore.
If anyone wants to make the moral argument for HBD, I'll listen.
I already did, you moral cretin. You were just too busy fellating yourself to notice. You also seem to busy with self-abuse to notice no one considers you the gate-keeper for anything.
also while obviously there's no real "scientific" way of measuring it i would agree that leftist vulgarity as far as "respectable" writers go is more common because they are more convinced that they are on the Side of the Angels and therefore the ends justify the means, whereas conservatives typically acknowledge that what they are defending way seem imperfect but is ultimately just the way the world works. a lot of conservatives are quicker to concede "good intentions" before critiquing a liberal position, whereas liberals tend to claim the entirety of conservative ideology is purposely malicious
There's also a strong element of "live and let live" throughout. As in, leftoids despise the idea, and conservatives seem to value it.
Maybe the religious element? Conservatives tend to use religion for their religious fix, while leftoids tend to use their leftoidism?
In any event, leftoids seem unsatisfied with anything less than total hegemony over the West.
@PA
"OK Dave, you responded to crude ad homsn but not to my axiom "without HBD, Carter Strange deserved it."
Sorry about that, but here goes.
I don't really understand your axiom. No one on the left believes that Carter Strange "deserved it." At some point, you guys are going to have to accept that your ideological opposites are actual human beings, not C.O.B.R.A. Commander.
"Without an HBD argument, preventable evils like black on white murders along with other forms black antipathy, non-terminal affirmative action, No Child Left Behind, and sinking the national treasure in endless black-upliftment projects are acceptable."
I don't agree with the way you put that, either. There are a lot of arguments other than "HBD" ones against all of those things. Stronger arguments, in most cases.
But okay. Let's say you all took a vote, and that "ending affirmative action" became the immediate political goal of this movement. (Or it could be anything else you all basically agree on.)
What would you do next? Just angry, self-pitying blogs and angry, self-pitying comments on blogs? That's all I see going on. And it seems like you see a lot of it, too, cause I think you're the one credited with coining "despair porn."
Do you disagree with me that whatever HBD is, it isn't shaped to achieve any political goal whatsoever?
"No one on the left believes that Carter Strange "deserved it." "
Not true. The Left endorses human neurouniformity. And with such a premise, any disparities in outcome by race must, by default, be attributed to white perfidy, which is normally called "racism."
Now, whenever massive disparities in outcomes such as the black-white ones exist, and the higher-performing group is keeping the other group down... they deserve what comes their way.
Thus, if you believe in justice like I do, Carter Strange deserved it. As did that 13yo white girl in Ocala, who was stomped into convulsions.
Unless you accept the tenets of HBD.
PS: Cobra Commander was Serpentor's fall guy.
@svidge
"If there was a man with a preexisting condition suing his employer for causing that condition, it would be immoral to let the former get away with it, if you knew the whole story."
For that metaphor to work, the employer would at least have had to run the employee over with a steamroller for a few hundred years. There would have to be a great deal of ambiguity as to where the alleged "pre-existing condition" ended and the steamroller-inflicted injuries began. And instead of just calmly explaining the truth about the employee's pre-existing condition, you call him a monkey a few times.
I appreciate your effort in trying to make a moral argument for HBD. But this isn't the definitive way to do it. It's good to analogize to another situation that everyone agrees is a moral act. (Even though I don't think your analogy is fair.) But it will never be definitive, because there will always be those small differences.
To make a definitive moral argument, you have to announce the moral principle your actions derive from, and then show how your actions necessarily derive from those principles. I'm sure I sound pedantic repeating myself, but that's how it is. That's just how ethics work.
So, what principle do the actions of HBD derive from? "I will always tell the truth"? That's a tough principle to live up to, but an honorable one. I have nothing but respect for anyone whom I perceive as committed to reporting the truth as they see it -- even if I think the truth they see is a distortion.
But for that commitment to exist, you have to be open to information from all places. A commitment to honesty is meaningless if you're only going to expose yourself to information that supports a preferred reality.
So, your desire to shout me down and flee the sound of my voice, for no other honest reason other than my reporting to you of unpleasant facts, while understandable, undermines the notion that you're committed to both learning the truth and reporting it to others. To that principle.
And it's why I'm skeptical that you feel the weight of any ethical obligation when you comment on this blog.
"Right, I can't be bothered to argue with you."
Then I guess this is good bye.
@PA
That's ridiculous. Just because someone believes we're all born the same or whatnot, doesn't mean that a disparate result implies a malevolent intention. And it certainly doesn't imply that an innocent kid needs to pay the price just cause he's the same race as the alleged malefactors. And it certainly, certainly doesn't necessitate that a vicious beating is the correct solution to the problem.
Sorry, but you're being bogus. No one on the left is arguing that Carter Strange deserved to be hurt.
AND support for this kind of violence does not inevitably derive from leftist principles. That's a shoddy distortion.
PS: Cobra Commander was Serpentor's fall guy.
And yet Cobra Commander gave birth to Serpentor. From the blood of Sergeant Slaughter!
It's HBD, or Carter Strange's perfidy. There is no third way.
Serpentor had the right blood and genes, except for Sun Tzu's genes for patience. This led to his undoing. Cobra Commander was a tragic figure, on a Homeric level. If I recall correctly, he found redemption in the end.
Dave, forget Carter Strange or that 13yo girl in Ocala. Here is some more white perfidy. The woman deserved it. The racist had it coming.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021398.html
Unless you accept the tenets if HBD.
"Cobra Commander was a tragic figure, on a Homeric level. If I recall correctly, he found redemption in the end."
I guess that means there's hope for us all.
For that metaphor to work, the employer would at least have had to run the employee over with a steamroller for a few hundred years. There would have to be a great deal of ambiguity as to where the alleged "pre-existing condition" ended and the steamroller-inflicted injuries began. And instead of just calmly explaining the truth about the employee's pre-existing condition, you call him a monkey a few times.
Sub-Saharan Africans are the baseline for comparison. Since SSAs are far less wealthy, healthy, and educated than the descendants of Black slaves, we know that, far from being a steamroller, the long-term effects of contact with Whites has been their greatest boon.
The "injuries" were done by Gaia, the leftoid god, not the White man. (What sort of "injuries" leave people healthier, more educated, better governed, safer, and 20x wealthier than the people "lucky" enough to avoid them?)
I appreciate your effort in trying to make a moral argument for HBD. But this isn't the definitive way to do it. It's good to analogize to another situation that everyone agrees is a moral act. (Even though I don't think your analogy is fair.) But it will never be definitive, because there will always be those small differences.
The analogy is for illustrative purposes only. Obviously I'm not actually arguing from analogy. A grade-schooler could understand the argument I'm making. I even spelled it out for you above.
To make a definitive moral argument, you have to announce the moral principle your actions derive from, and then show how your actions necessarily derive from those principles. I'm sure I sound pedantic repeating myself, but that's how it is. That's just how ethics work.
I'm not interested in passing your tests. No one is. I'm interested in open minds, which excludes yours.
So, your desire to shout me down and flee the sound of my voice, for no other honest reason other than my reporting to you of unpleasant facts, while understandable, undermines the notion that you're committed to both learning the truth and reporting it to others. To that principle.
Stop trying to read my mind. Why do leftoids think they can read minds? I don't care what you do here. It isn't my blog to police. I certainly won't be fleeing your comments. I just don't give a rat's ass about convincing you of anything, or jumping through any of your hoops.
Then I guess this is good bye.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, then.
"Sub-Saharan Africans are the baseline for comparison."
It's a bad baseline, for many reasons. The most obvious is that Western civilization completely disrupted the development of every Sub-Saharan society. The West steamrolled Africa, then brought some Africans along with them to this hemisphere, and steamrolled them here for several centuries. There can be no "baseline for comparison" on this planet, because the influence of Western Civilization was too pervasive.
That's not to say that the West is evil or that it can't be appreciated for all the sonnets, hospitals, football leagues, and anxiety attacks it created. Western Civilization has been astoundingly creative, duh.
But it has also utterly destroyed several other civilizations. We don't know what would have happened if those cultures had been allowed to develop on their own for a few millenia. Maybe a football league where the Giants won EVERY YEAR.
But to say that they all would have sucked, and we know this for a fact because of the unpleasantness in the Africa that exists today -- an Africa that would not exist without our incredibly hostile influence -- is silly.
"The analogy is for illustrative purposes only. "
Well, when you wrote So basically, yes, "HBD-awareness" is a moral duty, it sure seemed like you were summing up a proof.
But I agree. The analogy you made (which I give you a lot of credit for) is not a definitive moral argument for HBD. It's just an example. This brings us back to the beginning: you haven't yet made a moral argument for HBD.
We're in the position where you get angry at me for pointing out that you haven't yet made your case, but then refuse to make your case because that's me making you jump through a hoop. I don't know how to break from that.
"A grade-schooler could understand the argument I'm making."
I do understand the argument you made. I understand that it wasn't impervious to better arguments.
"I'm not interested in passing your tests."
It's not MY test. It's just how ethics works. It's the only avenue available for establishing that something is moral: what moral principle does it derive from?
If you're going to reject ethics just because a liberal showed you how it functions, you're going to remain a soft target. What else are you going to reject to spite liberals? Vowels? Oxygen?
"I certainly won't be fleeing your comments."
You have a habit of it. When you proclaim "I will no longer participate in this debate on the grounds that my opponent persists in arguing with me," I define that as retreating from a conflict.
Myself, I don't retreat. I'm in it to the bitter end.
It's a bad baseline, for many reasons. The most obvious is that Western civilization completely disrupted the development of every Sub-Saharan society. The West steamrolled Africa, then brought some Africans along with them to this hemisphere, and steamrolled them here for several centuries. There can be no "baseline for comparison" on this planet, because the influence of Western Civilization was too pervasive.
The way you write that it kind of sounds like you feel like the slavery era and the era of western countries rapidly setting up colonies over the expanse of SSA had some overlap. Is that how you feel?
Do you think most slaves were brought out of white-ruled or locally-ruled (or, perhaps, Arab-ruled areas)?
Do you think that Africa was healthily on its way to development before the Scramble for Africa?
If most slaves were bought from locally-ruled (black-ruled) areas, what would this imply about the rulers of the region and their attitudes toward labor force development? Would we expect a ruler whose impulse toward his workforce was to sell it would spend a lot of resources on education, roadbuilding, sanitation, etc.?
@Olave
Sorry, but you're totally beside the point. To simplify:
The argument Svigor is making:
Africa now is in shambles. An African living in America has a higher average standard of living. Therefore, NONE of the conditions facing the descendants of the Africans we kidnapped can be attributed to the legacy of the American slave trade.
The argument I made:
The state of Africa today can't be used as a control to measure against the state of African-Americans because Western civilization wreaked too much havoc on all African societies. We can no longer know what would have developed there without our frequently hostile influence.
(Notice especially, how I used the word MILLENNIA. I chose an amount of time so vast that even the genetic arguments you guys rely on are irrelevant.)
So, Olave, it doesn't matter if some Africans were jerks, if some whites were helpful, or if some African somewhere was right on the brink of inventing the rules for Scrabble.
All that's relevant to this argument is that the West fucked them up. There's no unfucked-by-the-West African control group for us to study. There is no baseline.
Now, a question for you. Do you believe there are absolute limits as to what civilizations might have developed in Africa, or in the Americas, if the people living there had NEVER faced rivalry with the West?
"Absolute" here means ZERO-PERCENT chance. Ruled out in all possible universes.
The state of Africa today can't be used as a control to measure against the state of African-Americans because Western civilization wreaked too much havoc on all African societies. We can no longer know what would have developed there without our frequently hostile influence.
...
All that's relevant to this argument is that the West fucked them up. There's no unfucked-by-the-West African control group for us to study. There is no baseline.
Then any argument you make on this score is unfalsifiable.
Might I suggest that you define what you mean by "the West fucked them up"?
Say, compare pre-European African or Indigenous societies and demonstrate how they were "fucked up" by Europeans.
Well, when you wrote So basically, yes, "HBD-awareness" is a moral duty, it sure seemed like you were summing up a proof.
Well it's sort of axiomatic. But who can argue with the freedom to associate, the freedom to decide one's own life trajectory, and the freedom of independent groups to decide their own fate?
If all those are rights we should have, both as individuals and as collectives, then HBD, immigration restriction, and race or ethnic-based traditionalism, is justified.
(In international law, the principles above are called "right to self-determination" and it's always cited in debates when one wants to defend the right for Israel to exist. Granted, liberals appear to reject the "right to self-determination", but there's really no sound basis to do so. We should have freedom to associate with whomever we want and the citizenry of a nation should have the freedom to put that right into practice.)
white people gave up their right to self determination when thy raped the world
Dave is right. We have to pay the piper. we white people cannot take the smooth without the rough
white people gave up their right to self determination when thy raped the world
But white people aren't the only ones who raped the world. Arabs and Mongols, for example, also wrecked entire civilizations and slaughtered hundreds of millions. So, let's move in and take over from those world-rapists. Also, black people have really raped Africa, what with their overpopulation and overhunting and overgrazing and overfarming, so maybe some other people can move in and take over...oh, wait, the Chinese are doing just that--problem solved! Start learning Mandarin, Mandingo, because your new masters aren't going to bother to learn your language.
The state of Africa today can't be used as a control to measure against the state of African-Americans because Western civilization wreaked too much havoc on all African societies. We can no longer know what would have developed there without our frequently hostile influence.
I hear you. The way we know that Western influence was, on balance, harmful to SSA is...? I don't know how we know, on the balance. I've seen awful things the King of Belgium did to the Congolese, and I've seen the British struggling to build railroads and abolish slavery. Is free labor and a British-built railroad a subtle kind of cultural poison?
(Notice especially, how I used the word MILLENNIA. I chose an amount of time so vast that even the genetic arguments you guys rely on are irrelevant.)
No problem with using a long time scale, but I can't figure out how a long time scale could possibly make genetic arguments irrelevant. Some folks moved out of East Africa / SW Asia and started adapting to life in Eurasia. Some didn't. Both have had the same amount of time to evolve, but not in the same places. So we still freeze to death if we try to spend the night in light clothing in a Scandinavian winter. Not so in Mother Africa.
So, Olave, it doesn't matter if some Africans were jerks, if some whites were helpful, or if some African somewhere was right on the brink of inventing the rules for Scrabble.
Okay, it doesn't matter, but I can't tell if this is because we are all being cool edgy nihilists and saying "Nothing matters" and smoking clove cigarettes. Missionaries struggled and died and got awful diseases trying to save Africa from death and disease. All we remember about them is that their fave sex position isn't very racey. Setting aside whether or not it matters, how do we know the missionaries did more harm than good?
All that's relevant to this argument is that the West fucked them up. There's no unfucked-by-the-West African control group for us to study. There is no baseline.
Well, of course. You can't count the Ghana Empire because...? I guess I don't know why not. You don't think Charlemagne was "fucking them up", do you? Byzantium? Whose "fucking" was it that was preventing them from developing a written language, or building a capital that can be located today?
Now, a question for you. Do you believe there are absolute limits as to what civilizations might have developed in Africa, or in the Americas, if the people living there had NEVER faced rivalry with the West?
"Absolute" here means ZERO-PERCENT chance. Ruled out in all possible universes.
The absolute limits for civilizations are extremely high. I don't believe they could have broken the light barrier, but I believe they could have broken the sound barrier. People can certainly developing the same basic technology in different places, without anyone copying anyone. Look, for example, at an SSA technological innovation ca. 1800--the basic armament that the Zulus used to dominate southern Africa is strongly reminiscent of the combination of large shield, short sword, and light javelin that Romans used to arm the two first ranks of their legionaries. And the Zulus could hardly have gotten those technologies from the Romans since those weapons had been considered obsolete outside of southern Africa for centuries.
So, estimating an approximately 2000 year delay in technological development, we could expect SSA to develop germ theory on it own in about CE 3900. (I didn't answer your question re. the Americas. I'm no big expert. The Mayans collapsed on their own. The Incas and the Aztecs...? I don't know.)
Right now, I am wondering do we really know if it is white inferiority that has caused Europe to be so backward?
Europe has yet to cure cancer, or even the common cold.
There are no cost-effective flying saucers, nor interplanetary tourism.
Vicious wars sweep Europe all the time, such as the horrors in Yugoslavia, which happened almost less than a decade ago.
Europeans must still put on their trousers one leg at a time.
I could go on and on, but the point is ... is all this really evidence of white inferiority?
Maybe not. The thing is, there is no not-messed-up baseline with which to compare Europe to another place. Slavers from North Africa began visiting Europe in the early 16th Century to take slaves. By 1780 they may have nabbed a million people who could have been vibrant youths or scholars in their homelands.
But centuries of post-medieval slavery are only one episode in the subjugation of Europe. Previous to that, you have to consider attacks on Europe by Persians, North African, Huns, and what have you; they spanned millennia.
I don't believe Mongolia has ever even considered paying reparation for what Genghis Khan did, despite the fact that it may have been his intervention in Europe that caused the aftereffects that have prevented Europeans from inventing flying saucers or learning to put on their trousers two legs at a time.
Keep this in mind when you race schmealists are putting down the white man. (And please quit calling Europe "the pasty continent". It hurts our feelings.)
It's a bad baseline, for many reasons. The most obvious is that Western civilization completely disrupted the development of every Sub-Saharan society. The West steamrolled Africa, then brought some Africans along with them to this hemisphere, and steamrolled them here for several centuries. There can be no "baseline for comparison" on this planet, because the influence of Western Civilization was too pervasive.
Your position that it's a bad baseline is a bad one, for many reasons. Most importantly, because it's not ABSOLUTE that European contact "steamrolled" Africa. In fact, there's every chance that European contact IMPROVED Africa.
I know that's not actually "many reasons," but since you say things like "many reasons," then follow up with just one, I figure I'm speaking your language.
But, I'm kinda confused. Could you please define "Western Civilization," "disrupted," "completely disrupted," "development," "steamrolled," and "pervasive"? I mean, we simply must settle on those terms first. There can be no ethics without settling the basics first. A world of pedantic, obstructionist fuckwads = heaven.
But it has also utterly destroyed several other civilizations. We don't know what would have happened if those cultures had been allowed to develop on their own for a few millenia. Maybe a football league where the Giants won EVERY YEAR.
Your position that western civilization is bad, for many reasons. Most importantly, because you haven't defined what you mean by "utterly destroyed," "civilization," "cultures," "develop," and "on their own," for starters. Examples would be nice, too.
I'd also like to see 100% certain proof that western civilization destroyed several other civilizations. How does an abstract destroy an abstract, after all? Yes, it definitely sounds like you're going to have to define western civilization for us, then explain how you can attribute the destruction of other civilizations to it.
But to say that they all would have sucked, and we know this for a fact because of the unpleasantness in the Africa that exists today -- an Africa that would not exist without our incredibly hostile influence -- is silly.
Your position that my position is as you've stated it is a bad position, for many reasons. Most importantly, because I didn't say that. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Please define "sucked," "fact," "unpleasantness," "africa," "Africa that exists today," "our," "our incredibly hostile influence," and "silly."
But I agree. The analogy you made (which I give you a lot of credit for) is not a definitive moral argument for HBD. It's just an example. This brings us back to the beginning: you haven't yet made a moral argument for HBD.
We're in the position where you get angry at me for pointing out that you haven't yet made your case, but then refuse to make your case because that's me making you jump through a hoop. I don't know how to break from that.
Your position that I have not made your case is a bad one, for many reasons. Most importantly, because it came from you, and you and bad reasons correlate like air and breathing. But also, because you haven't defined your terms. Please define "analogy," "definitive," "moral argument," "HBD," "angry," "hoop," and "break." Also, you really haven't shown with ABSOLUTE 100% CERTAINTY that I have not made a "definitive moral argument." You're going to have to fix that. Oh yeah, it's also bad because it illustrates that you won't read the thread, even when instructed. Please define "read," "thread," and "instructed"; it's just how the game is played.
I do understand the argument you made. I understand that it wasn't impervious to better arguments.
Your position that it isn't impervious to better arguments is a bad one, for many reasons. Please define "obfuscation," "intellectual cowardice," "argumentativism," "onanism," and "douchebag."
It's not MY test. It's just how ethics works. It's the only avenue available for establishing that something is moral: what moral principle does it derive from?
I know, ethics is a lot of work! Until leftoids explain their whole package, they're going to have to dismantle their entire edifice. Tough break, but that's just how things work. Until they do, they're evil.
Then any argument you make on this score is unfalsifiable.
Expect crickets on that one...
I've seen awful things the King of Belgium did to the Congolese, and I've seen the British struggling to build railroads and abolish slavery.
But we know nothing from history that passes the "100% certainty" test, so we have to chuck the lot, right?
This guy's the apotheosis of the leftoid tactic of using rigor only against their enemies. Leftoids can socially engineer the entire planet without a shred of proof, or any ethical approval process. But we start a blog and this creep is everywhere (not that I blame him, leftoids are boring, and their hatred of ideas and free expression stifling). His own arguments can't even pass his "rigor" tests, much less the rest of the leftoid regime.
Nitpicking, lawyer tactics, argumentativism, evasion, obfuscation, deliberate obtuseness...this is what leftoids are reduced to when they leave their kiddie pools.
Note the use of "us," as if there's any "us" there. Well, I suppose there is, in the sense that he's referring to the people he presumes to fall under the aegis of leftoid hegemony; leftoids freak out when the battered spouse drops any hint of divorce.
It's a bit amusing that he wants more rigor. What, like a court room? Governed by "innocent until proven guilty"? "Reasonable doubt"? Danger Will Robinson! That would tear down the whole leftoid edifice. He's got no problem with the fact that Whites have been declared guilty and sentenced without a trial - he's too busy working for the prosecution to worry about that. Leftoids don't need to prove White guilt. Instead, Whites must prove their innocence with absolute rigor.
I do like how he hasn't bothered to deny the fact that his mind is closed.
"The way we know that Western influence was, on balance, harmful to SSA is...?"
We can't know that. What would "on balance" even mean? What measuring unit would we use?
All I'm arguing is that Western influence made an enormous impact on African development, and that Western influence has often been motivated by greed and corrupted by a lack of empathy.
These would seem to be sufficient conditions to disqualify modern day Africa from being used as a baseline for comparison the way Svigor was using it.
Don't forget Svigor's original argument. Despite centuries of slavery and abuse, African Americans should be grateful for their "contact with Whites" simply because conditions in Africa are worse than they are in America. But conditions in Africa can't be understood outside the context of "contact with Whites."
This seems like a lot of time to spend on such a narrow point, and one that you're not even on the record disagreeing with. But, I realize the concepts of racial guilt are mesmerizing to you in a way they aren't to me.
"The absolute limits for civilizations are extremely high."
There seem to be many among the HBD-sphere who believe that advanced civilization lies forever outside the grasp of Africans, under any possible condition in any possible world. If I'm wrong, and no one believes this, then that's great. I'd be happy to be wrong.
@Pat H
"Then any argument you make on this score is unfalsifiable."
Any argument ANYONE made on this score is unfalsifiable.
@One
"Well it's sort of axiomatic. But who can argue with the freedom to associate, the freedom to decide one's own life trajectory, and the freedom of independent groups to decide their own fate? "
I don't see what any of those things has to do with HBD. All I know is that, in the context of Ron Paul, you sneer at the idea of freedom. And that you want to give the government control of people's lives in order to force them to behave in a certain very narrow way.
"If all those are rights we should have, both as individuals and as collectives, then HBD, immigration restriction, and race or ethnic-based traditionalism, is justified."
Justified how? There's no link between "we should be free" and "we must restrict immigration." Freedom gives us the right to discuss restricting immigration. As a collective, it gives us all the right to decide, as a group, what immigration policy is the best aggregate of all our desires. I don't object to your or anyone's right to have this discussion.
Dave, unless genocide occurs, the less advanced populations profit from contact with more advanced people, at least long-term.
Frankly, I'm surprised by your arguments on this thread. From leftists over a certain intelligence cutoff, snark is expected. But "postcolonial" apologia mixed with human neurouniformity... not so much. At least not if it's sincere and disinterested.
You keep some of us on our toes by throwing out occasionally good challenges to alt-right assumptions.
But Olave d'Estienne bested you here. Big time. Admit it and come back to argue about something else another day.
@Svigor
That's a lot of words! I'm pretty sure in fewer words, you could have just described what moral principle you think HBD derives from.
"A world of pedantic, obstructionist fuckwads = heaven."
What do you think this outburst of obstructionist fuckwaddery is actually obstructing? I think just your own participation in the conversation.
"I do like how he hasn't bothered to deny the fact that his mind is closed."
You know, I've tried, but every time my fingers begin to type the words I have an epileptic seizure.
Anyway, I dunno. I'm trying to have a discussion with you. You'd rather throw mud. I was kind of joking when I said I "What else are you going to reject to spite liberals? Vowels?"
But you're getting so much closer to that than I could have imagined! Maybe you're the one being narrow-minded? Maybe? Just a little maybe?
I wrote: unless genocide occurs, the less advanced populations profit from contact with more advanced people, at least long-term.
Second 'unless' -- there is also little benefit to such contact for the more primitive populations if they are naturally incapable of appropriating advanced civilization in a meaningful and sustained manner.
Dave, you've gone from an absolute position a) "All that's relevant to this argument is that the West fucked them up."to a tentative position b)"All I'm arguing is that Western influence made an enormous impact on African development, and that Western influence has often been motivated by greed and corrupted by a lack of empathy."
a) is argumentative and b) is arguable. Your position at a) would indicate that your position at b) is that the impact of the West has been entirely negative, buttressed by your referral to what motivates Westerners; greed and hate (lack of empathy).
Something for you to consider is whether these motivations, and others, existed in pre-European contact societies themselves.
Any non-biased reading of the historical record would answer categorically, yes.
Perhaps what bothers you then is that Western contact was from a position of such dominance, culturally and technologically, that there was no other possibility for indigenous societies other than to be completely transformed. I'd agree. You see that as entirely negative whereas I would characterise these events as a bit of both positive and negative.
Certainly for any Aboriginal to have lost his land and tribal ways, eventually naturally his life and community, the event is negative. But what else could have been? Should the Aboriginals have been kept in a resin like bubble and preserved forever? Even today there are communities in Brazil who have never made contact with Westerners. What to do with them, treat them as animals in a zoo park?
But, as far as inferiority and superiority go, it is quite clear that indigenous societies are and were inferior to the West. Could they be "fucked up" given that they themselves warred amongst themselves, had tribal possessions, were brutal with each other, indulged infanticide and scarifications (maybe look up subincision and see if that wasn't "fucked up") etc etc?
What all this would attest to actually is the need to keep people separate, to mediate contact between groups of people (races, ethnicities). Diversity + proximity = war, as the formula goes. But instead we have leftists demanding that all people dissolve their nations (an extension of race) and natural distinctions. But they only mean for White people to do this. No non-White nation is asked to dissolve their people, quite the opposite. And all this on the false pretext that White/Western influence is bad, entirely negative, fucked up as you put it.
If you are White Dave, you would be best arguing that your (our) people have their own nations preserved and the same for other non-White nations. Otherwise we're all doomed: Whites to extinction and non-Whites to once again being dominated by superior peoples, say the Han Chinese or Japanese for instance.
We can't know that. What would "on balance" even mean? What measuring unit would we use? - Dave
You could use time. Figure out when SSA would have developed (a) mechanical clocks, (b) x-ray equipment usable for finding bone fractures, (c) an 80%+ literacy rate, (d) the steam engine, both with and without contact with the West. I think the dates are earlier with Western contact. You don't have to agree. It's all hypothetical, because history doesn't have controlled experiments, but if you're describing SSA as being fucked up by the West, instead of aided by the West, it seems that you must be summing effects, on balance.
All I'm arguing is that Western influence made an enormous impact on African development, and that Western influence has often been motivated by greed and corrupted by a lack of empathy.
I agree. It was in the nature of missionaries to sympathize with the weak, not to empathize with the other. It was in the nature of businessmen to make money. Neither of these was predisposed to leaving the indigenous cultures intact.
These would seem to be sufficient conditions to disqualify modern day Africa from being used as a baseline for comparison the way Svigor was using it.
I think Svigor developed that comparison in defense of our people. (Sounds bombastic when I put it that way.) It should never occur to anyone to criticize the West for having less famine and more technology than SSA. But when leftists teach Global Studies or whatever, that is, tacitly, exactly what they do. "There is famine, war, pestilence, and whatever the fourth horseman was in SSA. This is why everyone has to put so much effort in to developing SSA. Now, don't ask if it is just the way things are, that some regions have less, because we know, we just know, that contact between the SSA and the West [but not Arabia?] was awful for the black Africans."
Since neither Svigor nor Pat H. nor PA nor I am in Global Studies class any more, we ask. We also answer, using about as much "proof" as was supplied by the left in the first place.
This seems like a lot of time to spend on such a narrow point, and one that you're not even on the record disagreeing with. But, I realize the concepts of racial guilt are mesmerizing to you in a way they aren't to me.
I'm not answering as definitively as Svigor. I'd estimate that an African worker being able to ride a bus to work has a fair chance of canceling out the negative impact of that worker's great-times-eight uncle having been sold to an American slave trader, plus that worker's great-times-five grandparents having been married in a Christian ceremony rather than an indigenous one, plus the shame that once workers were exploited by white instead of blacks, etc.
I will say that, on balance, contact between the SSA and the West has been very negative for the West. Diseases alone were almost certainly not worth the ivory and cool "Dr. Livingstone, I presume" quotes. I don't believe the diamonds are really that important; Nigerian oil fosters an addiction. Needless to say slavery was not worth it even from an amoral perspective. Still, the West has done better than SSA for a thousand years or so.
... I realize the concepts of racial guilt are mesmerizing to you in a way they aren't to me. - Dave
Let me address this point separately.
Concepts of racial guilt are the entire reason the modern left is the way it is. Affirmative action, mass immigration, and foreign aid are more important to the modern left than traditional leftist programs are. Health care, civil liberties, fiscal "generosity", Keynesianism--the lot of the mean nothing if they can't stick it to whitey, pass him over for college spots and jobs, displace him with various grades of immigrant, etc. They are willing to be anti-labor (more illegals please! kill the minimum wage!) if it means they can be anti-white.
Just as the Republicans have betrayed us by abandoning fiscal continence, the Democrats have betrayed us by abandoning native labor. If Samuel Gompers were alive today he would be campaigning for Tom Tancredo, and leftists would be calling Gompers a "xenophobic racist" for his trouble.
You can't get to the contemporary leftist program without taking white wickedness as an absolute article of faith. No one would uncritically accept that the people who brought railroads, hospitals, and literacy have hurt SSA if the people bringing these things were not white. No one would have voted against the Riggs Amendment if they though they were victimizing blacks or La Raza. (Their chief victims were Asian, not white, but that is collateral damage for you.)
I heard lectures on slavery for many years in school. I never ONCE hurt a word even of implicit criticism levied at Arabs for their role in African slavery.
Tacit racial guilt is mesmerizing to the leftists in charge of the school system. Once I was able to excise it, crystallize it, and name it--that is when I was able to meditate on it. My understanding of modern leftism / PC is part of who I am as an adult. If I lacked that understanding I would still be a depressed teenager.
Affirmative action, mass immigration, and foreign aid are more important to the modern left than traditional leftist programs are. Health care, civil liberties, fiscal "generosity", Keynesianism--the lot of the mean nothing if they can't stick it to whitey, pass him over for college spots and jobs, displace him with various grades of immigrant, etc. They are willing to be anti-labor (more illegals please! kill the minimum wage!) if it means they can be anti-white.
Hear, hear! Well said, Olave. This plus the left's blame-the-West reaction to 9/11 are what caused me to turn my back on the left for good.
All I'm arguing is that Western influence made an enormous impact on African development, and that Western influence has often been motivated by greed and corrupted by a lack of empathy.
But you have to prove that, son. Don't you know how these things are done?
These would seem to be sufficient conditions to disqualify modern day Africa from being used as a baseline for comparison the way Svigor was using it.
And Pat's already cut your knees off on the "we broke blacks" thing; you've already made it unfalsifiable.
Don't forget Svigor's original argument. Despite centuries of slavery and abuse, African Americans should be grateful for their "contact with Whites" simply because conditions in Africa are worse than they are in America. But conditions in Africa can't be understood outside the context of "contact with Whites."
There you go again. Centuries of abuse is your argument, leftoid guy. Now you have to prove it.
There seem to be many among the HBD-sphere who believe that advanced civilization lies forever outside the grasp of Africans, under any possible condition in any possible world. If I'm wrong, and no one believes this, then that's great. I'd be happy to be wrong.
There seem to be many among the Leftoid-sphere who believe the Apollo Moon landings were faked. If I'm wrong, and no one believes this, then that's great. I'd be happy to be wrong.
Any argument ANYONE made on this score is unfalsifiable.
Thanks. Now that we've established that anything based on the idea that Whites "broke" Blacks is unfalsifiable, it follows that all the measures taken to make up for Whites "breaking" Blacks are unjustly founded. So let's talk about the real issue, now; how do we (I'm looking at YOU, Dave) put a stop to all this injustice?
Or would you rather quibble over HBD?
That's a lot of words! I'm pretty sure in fewer words, you could have just described what moral principle you think HBD derives from.
You're right. Have a cookie. You've earned it.
Still, the West has done better than SSA for a thousand years or so.
It's probably a lot longer than that. I would call 1ky an extremely conservative estimate. SBPDL had a post up the other day that makes the case that Europe 1ky ago was more prosperous than SSA is today.
Re. the Pro-White-vs.-Dave debate:
Perhaps this is a basic point that all know but is getting lost in the back-and-forth: not all initiatives to uplift "NAMs" are imbued with a sense of debt; not all are directly or indirectly the result of 'blood libel' as someone put it.
Granted, very much of it IS; granted, the secondary, settled-in sense of entitlement among aggrieved parties certainly sullies any sense of altruistic outreach, rather than begrudged debt ------ but many, black and white, operate ---- vaguely or explicitly ----- out of a sense of initiative toward betterment and sacrifice; the racial component is a strong but secondary corollary.
Trite? Perhaps. But that fact does negate some of the hard, established verities re. 'whom owes what.'
I mean, I'm jes saying ......!
Perhaps this is a basic point that all know but is getting lost in the back-and-forth: not all initiatives to uplift "NAMs" are imbued with a sense of debt; not all are directly or indirectly the result of 'blood libel' as someone put it.
Granted, very much of it IS; granted, the secondary, settled-in sense of entitlement among aggrieved parties certainly sullies any sense of altruistic outreach, rather than begrudged debt ------ but many, black and white, operate ---- vaguely or explicitly ----- out of a sense of initiative toward betterment and sacrifice; the racial component is a strong but secondary corollary.
Trite? Perhaps. But that fact does negate some of the hard, established verities re. 'whom owes what.'
I mean, I'm jes saying ......!
Maybe, but the question must remain theoretical because nobody gets to say what I've said. So all the goodies are tainted, "sullied," as you put it. It's like blackmailing someone who might've just loaned you the money if you asked.
@Pat
"Dave, you've gone from an absolute position ... to a tentative position b)"
My position has remained consistent, though I apologize if I haven't always done a perfect job of communicating it. Throughout, I've gone no further than to argue that Western influence on the development of Africa was so powerful that we can't use the current state of the continent as a baseline to write off any hypothetical negative effects resulting from the centuries that America permitted the use of African slave labor.
"buttressed by your referral to what motivates Westerners; greed and hate (lack of empathy)."
Lack of empathy is not hate. And I never said that this is what "motivates westerners." That, again, is your fantasy liberal. I said that greed and lack of empathy OFTEN corrupted the motivations of the individuals who left such a mark in what was, to them, an alien place.
"Something for you to consider is whether these motivations, and others, existed in pre-European contact societies themselves."
Of course they did.
"Perhaps what bothers you then is that Western contact was from a position of such dominance, culturally and technologically, that there was no other possibility for indigenous societies other than to be completely transformed."
This is very well put. Of course it doesn't "bother" me -- it's just the situation I've been trying to describe.
"You see that as entirely negative."
I don't.
"Should the Aboriginals have been kept in a resin like bubble and preserved forever? "
I mean, if humans were all saints, then yeah, something like that. Prime Directive! It didn't happen -- a worse thing happened, instead. So we know for a fact that humans are not saints.
"What all this would attest to actually is the need to keep people separate"
You mean, in resin-like bubbles?
"But instead we have leftists demanding that all people dissolve their nations (an extension of race) and natural distinctions."
Which leftists are those?
@Olave
"You could use time."
I think that would be inadequate. Maybe the Berber or the Sioux or the Maori, left to develop on their own, would not have invented x-ray machines for several millenia -- but after that they would have enjoyed several thousand millenia of peace, during which they colonized the Andromeda galaxy. Anything can happen in these hypothetical alternate realities.
"It's all hypothetical, because history doesn't have controlled experiments"
This is what I've been saying.
"but if you're describing SSA as being fucked up by the West, instead of aided by the West"
I'm explicitly not doing that. The technological advances of the West may have aided Sub-Saharan Africa a great deal. (I'm sure there aren't many Africans who would like to give them up.) I'm only arguing that there was a level of both "harm" and "aid" done that corrupts the experiment, and that the current state of Africa can't be used as a baseline to compare to the current state of African Americans as a way of determing what would have happened if the descendants of slaves had never been blessed by "contact with Whites."
I'm not saying Africans are saints. I'm not saying white people are the devil.
"Concepts of racial guilt are the entire reason the modern left is the way it is."
I dunno. How relevant was racial guilt to the writing of Karl Marx?
"Affirmative action, mass immigration, and foreign aid are more important to the modern left than traditional leftist programs are."
Where are you getting that from? That was a pretty underwhelming link.
"My understanding of modern leftism / PC is part of who I am as an adult. If I lacked that understanding I would still be a depressed teenager."
Well, that's exactly what I was arguing before the conversation shifted to Africa. HBD serves a largely therapeutic function.
Think about it. You were depressed until you discovered this new set of values. Does the new set of values' positive effect on your psyche actually correlate with the likelihood that it is logically coherent? I'd prefer you not be depressed, but some people feel better after a few doses of a sugar pill.
@Svigor
"But you have to prove that, son."
No, I actually don't. I can rely on that assumption. And then you're free to point out what assumptions my arguments rely on, and to attack those assumptions.
"And Pat's already cut your knees off on the "we broke blacks" thing; you've already made it unfalsifiable."
I never argued that "we broke blacks."
"Now that we've established that anything based on the idea that Whites "broke" Blacks is unfalsifiable,"
It's great that you're conceding that it's unfalsifiable. In your earlier analogy you were implying that it had been definitively falsified.
"it follows that all the measures taken to make up for Whites "breaking" Blacks are unjustly founded."
What measures are you referring to?
The Thread That Would Not Die.
Sviggy and Dave need to get married...to each other!
I'm explicitly not doing that.
Okay. I had thought "fucked up" meant something necessarily negative.
I'm only arguing that there was a level of both "harm" and "aid" done that corrupts the experiment, and that the current state of Africa can't be used as a baseline to compare to the current state of African Americans as a way of determing what would have happened if the descendants of slaves had never been blessed by "contact with Whites."
Right, you're arguing against a speculative point Svigor had made in defense of whites, as a riposte to the speculative points that my, and I'll wager his, teachers used to defame whites. Maybe the whole time my teachers were talking exclusively about the negative effects of colonization, exclusively about the ways Reconstruction failed blacks, exclusively about the ways segregation was unfair to blacks, and exclusively about speculations that racism caused the problems that blacks suffer today ...
... maybe they were not trying to create white guilt, not trying to get people to accept government-enforced discrimination,
not trying to get people to accept mass immigration,
not trying kill English as an official language, and
not even trying to get votes for the Democrats who have a consistent history of cooperation with public-sector unions.
Maybe they were just trying to suggest that there was a level of both harm and aid that corrupts the experiment, and that we're not really sure whether blacks would be better off in some country other than the US, or some environment other broadly-construed capitalism.
Do you see why I doubt that?
How relevant was racial guilt to the writing of Karl Marx?
Not relevant at all, as far as I can remember that. The modern left is a peculiar mixture of Marxian terminology and teleology and class war, combined with racial, ethnic, national, and sexual guilt. An old-fashioned left, combining Marxian class views with Fabian views on democracy and governance, would likely adopt immigration restriction as a way of protecting native labor. Old-fashioned leftists would never puts whites (and CERTAINLY not "rednecks") into a Marxian dialectic in place of the bourgeoisie. It takes a lot of credit-hours in English, Peace Studies, what have you to decide that rednecks are the modern equivalent of factory owners.
Where are you getting that from?
Experience. Conversations. Analyses of how the Congressional Black Caucus votes on immigration. Do you think AA and immigration are of low importance to most leftists? Would they use them as bargaining chips? I would use the death penalty, abortion, gay marriage, new weapon systems, health care, and broad approaches to fiscal policy as bargaining chips if I could use them to get rid of AA, immigration (for, say 10 years; low immigration after that), the PATRIOT Act, and the Afghan campaign.
That was a pretty underwhelming link.
It was a link. Does it contrast with most leftists you know? I suspect that AA and mass immigration are something most leftists would not give up, despite the fact that the first is outright racial discrimination and a violation of the 10th and 14th Amendments, and that the latter is utterly irrational in times of high unemployment. Hurting white people is top of the agenda.
HBD serves a largely therapeutic function.
Therapeutic? Hadn't thought of it that way. Rather, ethnic libel serves a largely depressing, humiliating function and the truth alleviates that. PC is intended mainly to humiliate. It did its job. My teachers literally hissed when they said "white". They taught the history of the 1860s and left out the 13th Amendment, just as they left the explosion of black-on-white crime out of their "history" of the 1960s.
I'm not sure HBD is quite germane here. My rejection of leftism and my emergence from depression happened in 2003-2004. I first noted HBD in about 2008.
You were depressed until you discovered this new set of values.
Hmmm. I knew about right-wing values growing up. They didn't seem to have much to do with me. My life changed when I learned facts that had been suppressed. Black men really do rape white women by the thousands. Blacks really are disproportionately represented on welfare roles. Missionaries really did some good in Africa. Colleges really do reduce standards to let in more blacks and Hispanics. At that point the right-wing values started to make sense. Actually, a lot of other things made sense too. Like why my "friends" always got uncomfortable when I talked about politics. I was "obsessed" and I knew too much and asked too many questions.
Does the new set of values' positive effect on your psyche actually correlate with the likelihood that it is logically coherent?
I don't know much about the correlations. When I read Leftism Revisited, The Discovery of Freedom, The True and Only Heaven, A Return to Modesty, and the others, I found sets of values that were logically coherent. Those were value sets that were based on the facts that leftists ignore and ignored. Previous to reading them I had thought leftists just needed a couple of lessons but after I read them I realized that leftism does harm by its very nature.
Almost anyone can get beyond leftism if they want to, but if they don't get beyond leftism, inconvenient facts will be water off a duck's back. They base their worldview partly on the notion that blacks were killed disproportionately fast in Vietnam. Disprove that, and they'll move onto another "fact", like Lincoln being "worshipped" even though he "never freed the slaves". Show them the joint resolution he signed sending the 13th Amendment to the states, and they'll question the relevance, since the real reason they're mad at whites is that whites did so much damage in Africa. Show them that isn't certain, and they'll assure you that the real problem is that banks avoid black areas even though blacks are such excellent credit risks that banks could make a profit there if they weren't so racist. Disprove that and the problem is that whites voted against Obama in such massive numbers - only the fact that whites are a minority, with the black/Hispanic coalition outvoting them allowed Obama to win. Show them census data proving non-Hispanic whites are majority, combined with surveys indicating that whites only went to McCain by a small margin, and the problem is ... whatever. How many leftists know that there is more genetic information distinguishing Britons from Nigerians than there is distinguishing dogs from red wolves?
After those and other books, and a few years' soul-searching, I quit trying to reconcile the facts that I had read about (and my own direct observations) with an acceptable worldview that forbade them from being recognized. I dropped the worldview, and that particular stress went away. Now I have the stress of belonging to a school of thought anathema to most of my contemporaries. It's not depressing but I don't talk about politics much any more.
Hurting white people is top of the agenda.
It really is. Many years ago, in college, a professor offered "extra credit" (with a strong hint that you wouldn't get an A otherwise) for doing a few hours of volunteer work for some "immigrant rights" group. I did it, and while I was there, the people running the organization forgot I was in the room and started sniggering about how white Americans had had it too good for too long and that it was time they all experienced discrimination, overcrowding, unemployment, lower standards of living, etc. I had never seen such a naked display of racial resentment and Schadenfreude in my life. It was one of the defining experiences that made the scales fall from my eyes and exposed most of the left for what it truly is.
(Interestingly, the people making those disgusting remarks were college-educated half-Jew, half-Hindu/Filipina.)
I see, this is what you wrote back then. I'll respond to it now.
I think "HBD" is a movement that attracts adherents primarily by making an emotional appeal. Basically, the deal is, you join this group, and you will be flattered. You will be told you're specially able to look at reality and figure out how it works.
One early thing I read about HBD, before I believed it or disbelieved it, was something to the effect of "This is the sort of thing non-whites already know about. They talk about it in foreign languages or argots so the press doesn't pick it up. Whites have a special disability in looking at reality, that you can overcome if you try."
You'll be told there are these other people, your enemies, liberals, who are stupider and meaner than you.
Most of the alt-right wrestles with the proven literacy of leftists pretty frequently. Alt-rightists (and conservatives of old) draw a sharp distinction between brainpower and wisdom. Leftists are generally wicked or deluded, not stupid (though some of their shock troops are pretty stupid). As to "meaner", I didn't have to be told leftists were meaner. I knew that by talking to them. (My favorite were the argument pro-choice people go into about abortion, with other pro-choice people. Often ended in shouting, always in profanity.)
You'll be told that white people deserve more than non-whites, that men deserve more than women, that straights deserve more than gays -- so, if you're white, straight, and male -- which most of you are -- there's that extra bit of flattery.
Property rights and capitalism state that people who produce more than others deserve to keep more of it. I don't know what is this about "non-whites". Surely you're not so new to HBD or so laboring under leftist propaganda that you think HBD states that "Chinese/Japanese/Korean people are peculiarly stupid and lazy"?
-HBD is a movement that does not pursue any political goals. One wrote about this a few days ago -- he believes that no one in the movement will say what should be done next. The purpose of this blog certainly isn't to effect any specific policy change.
I think HBD is a collection of facts. People who believe in HBD have a variety of political goals. Pat H. is a fascist who, if forced to choose, would pick communism over capitalism. I'm basically an Austro-liberal with a distributist streak. Mencius Moldbug is wholly against republicanism and elections. I favor both with some reforms (which I don't have time to delve into).
-HBD is not a movement based on moral principle.
Right, just a set of facts. HBD is noöne's whole philosophy, AFAIK.
Again, look at One. He feels it's wrong that white people don't get more respect. He is personally hurt when a white person is humiliated in a car commercial. Yet, how does he treat black people? He goes out of his way to humiliate them. So there's not much "do unto others" at play here. It's people who want more for their side.
One plays by the rules as they were shown to him. He doesn't play by the universalist rule that leftists have imposed on whites alone. My guess is that One is politer to blacks than half the black hip-hoppers are to whites in their lyrics. Compare Malcolm X to Jared Taylor. Which one suggested violence? Which one is accepted by the mainstream?
-This is NOT a movement that relies on "facts and logic." Again, based on One's writing. When the logic defeats him, he says logic is too cold.... Emotional appeal is very important to One, and he has said so.
Maybe he feels that HBD isn't enough. Alt-rightists don't feel like they need to choose between HBD (a collection of facts) and ethnopatriotism (a set of goals). Perhaps One feels he should show some warmth and loyalty to his people. Just like Svigor did when he countered a speculative anti-white lie with a speculative pro-white lie. How do you feel about someone like Malcolm X helping his people out "by any means necessary"?
""Why are you so adamant on making conservatives into this historically anti-racist bunch?"
Because, at least in my family line, we WERE. And it is historicaly irrefutable that the bulk of the abolitist movement was driven by people whose ideology can only be described, in today's terms, as "Religious Right".
Liberals who claim that the anti-slavery movement was a liberal cause, have it exactly backwards. The moral relativists of the time were the ones arguing for slavery, with reasoning eerily similar to today's proabortion liberals.
Look at the actual people, them and their ancestors,
You mean, my Republican conservative anti-slavery ancestors, who volunteered for the North?
This is as naive as the "Nazis are really Leftists" trope.
If you'd bother to take the time to examine Nazi policy and philosophy, you'd discover that, except for its ethnonationalism (which most lefties disallow, at least for successful ethnic groups), Nazism was QUITE LEFTIST. That's an irrefutable historical reality; I suggest you go learn it
If we define leftism more or less the same as socialism then it's clear that the Nazis were leftists. They sought to control every aspect of social life with bureaucracy. (Lots of people let them off the hook on this one because their state controlled industry rather than owned it, in which case Scandinavian social democracies aren't leftist either. Lots of people try to let Nazis off the hook because they were anti-labor and anti-liberal, but in that case the Bolsheviks weren't leftist either.) Nazis also have a leftist feel in that they believed they could make scientific what had previously been in the realm of tradition.
If we define leftism as inversion of values, National Socialism is more difficult to pin down. There is no "failure is success" (subsidize the non-working poor and shaft the working poor) in NS. There is a little "slavery is freedom" though. To be most accurate I would call National Socialism semi-leftist particularist pseudo-scientific socialism.
to JDP...
"i know people talk about women who move back and forth, but does that phenomenon really exist in men? obviously the BLT crowd takes grievous offense at the idea that bisexual men don't exist or are extremely rare but it seems the general consensus is that male sexuality is more fixed."
Andrew Dice Clay said it best in his stand up routine regarding so called male bisexuals..
"There is no such thing as a male bisexual. You either suck dick, or you do not suck dick. Case closed!"
Post a Comment