I’ve spent a lot of time in the company of leftoid SWPLs, liking some, disliking others, and I’ve spent nearly the same amount of time in the company of non-SWPLs and “blood n soil n family” types, again liking and disliking some. Here’s what I’ve found to be almost universally true:
Non-leftoids — i.e. conservatives, apolitical drop-outs, right leaners, sincere flyover country independents, anti-urban mainstream hipsters, commonsensical libertarians, earthy ethnics, and generally kind-hearted people who don’t like to argue politics or ideology at every turn — are exceedingly tolerant of leftoid SWPLs in their social group, even of the loony, attention whoring type of leftoid SWPL who can’t stop regaling a group with his or her political or social views. In fact, many non-leftoids go out of their way to befriend and include the few leftoids in social bonding rituals.
Leftoid SWPLs, in stark contrast, are exceedingly intolerant of anyone not a leftoid SWPL. This intolerance grows in proportion to the leftoid SWPL composition of a social group, and to the transparency with which the non-leftoids in the group adhere to their beliefs and world views. I have seen leftoid SWPLs WALK OUT of rooms, mid-conversation, because they experienced an uncomfortable reflex when some wholly unobtrusive non-leftoid let slip a sliver of marginal crimethink.
My conclusion: Leftoid SWPLs are among the most intolerant, self-righteous, egotistical pricks in the world, right up there with the Tutsis. For a sub-race of people that has spent generations propagandizing the sanctity of tolerance, they sure have a blind spot to their own non-incluuuuuuuusive behavior.
The question is… why? Why is this the state of affairs, and not some other state of affairs?
My answer is that I believe leftoid SWPLism is partly genetically inherited, and that this inheritance carries along with it a propensity for supreme, infantile egocentrism. Rank egocentrism is a child-like psychology of solipsistic, feminine essence that expresses from a deeply rooted insecurity about one’s status in her immediate world. The leftoid SWPL is an aggro, in-group curator who religiously polices the boundary of her carefully cultivated social scene, *precisely* because she is unsure of her mental footing and of the viability of her group should it be exposed to thought contamination. I say “she”, because it is typically the female SWPLs who are the most aggrieved and intolerant.
The leftoid SWPL is no different in psychology and temperament than the boogeyman Evangelicals and Jesus Freaks who populate her overactive imagination. Their numbers are large enough in the blue cities that they have reached a tipping point where their exclusivity and intolerance and hatred have become self-reinforcing. Their megachurch is the MSM newspaper op-ed, to which they dutifully attend every Sunday to read, recite and genuflect in solemn prayer and soul-nourishing thanks.
I like the SWPL lifestyle — they have done some things right — but many of them are simply grotesque robo-human caricatures one would be ill-disposed to assist in a moment of crisis. They are good for house parties and pleasant, polysyllabic banter, and that’s about it. And their women are thinner than non-SWPLs. So there’s that, and that’s an important thing.
The old saw that liberals love humanity but hate humans while conservatives hate humanity but love humans is proven accurate over and over, each time I am in the one or the other’s company. The tolerant are those who are more socially aware — more empathic, if you will — of the feelings of those within their sphere of social influence. The intolerant live in a pinched id box where the only awareness is of one’s relative status ranking and of the gratification of one’s self-glorified ego.
I prefer the human-lovers over humanity-lovers. After all, humans are right here, right now, part of my reality and my experience, while humanity is an abstract entity that does not love me or receive my love, smile with me, cooperate with me, or share fun times with me. It may not be the proper attitude of the utopian progressivist (doomed to failure as she is), but it sure makes poolside time a lot more enjoyable.
Given the growing intolerance of leftoid SWPLs and the unconcealed loathing of the ruling class for middle class whites, and the apparent ignorance of the irony inherent in their behavior, I predict that chunks of the USA are destined to part ways along internal fault lines that are presently unknowable. There will be a secession, perhaps not in the traditional way, but a seceding will happen, in one form or another. It is inevitable. Some will argue it will be a continuation of the Civil War, the war that never really ended because the vanquished stuck around in close proximity to the victors, despite efforts to salt their earth. I don’t know about that. I do know strange winds are blowing, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and the center cannot hold. The ego is the most powerful force in the cosmos, and it will not go quietly to lick its wounds before a cataclysm unleashes its dying fury.

r/K selection.
Leftoids have to out-group others. It is a matter of life or death to them.
If they don’t out-group the rational, competitive, and moral, then they themselves will soon be discovered as contributing nothing positive to society and they themselves will be outgrouped, and left to die:
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/warfare-and-group-selection/
LikeLike
Greg Cochran dissed that theory without trying to challenge it. He just branded it as idiotic or whatever.
Too bad, it’s the best anti-leftoid theory out there.
LikeLike
That’s because it is idiotic.
LikeLike
Why?
I ask to read a rebuttal at least as elegant as the theory. Can’t find it yet
LikeLike
Given the growing intolerance of leftoid SWPLs and the unconcealed loathing of the ruling class for middle class whites, and the apparent ignorance of the irony inherent in their behavior, I predict that chunks of the USA are destined to part ways along internal fault lines that are presently unknowable. There will be a secession, perhaps not in the traditional way, but a seceding will happen, in one form or another. It is inevitable. Some will argue it will be a continuation of the Civil War, the war that never really ended because the vanquished stuck around in close proximity to the victors, despite efforts to salt their earth. I don’t know about that. I do know strange winds are blowing, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and the center cannot hold. The ego is the most powerful force in the cosmos, and it will not go quietly to lick its wounds before a cataclysm unleashes its dying fury.
This has been my opinion for about a decade now – since shortly after 9-11, when the Left just didn’t respond to an existential threat the way that they should have.
Back in the 1990s, it seemed like maybe the two sides [traditional Americans and leftist anti-Americans] could find some sort of live-and-let-live arrangement, but something horrible changed around the turn of the millenium.
Anyway, it’s just a matter of time now.
So stock up on your 22LRs and your 308 Wins and your 300 Win Mags and your 338s and your 12-gauges, and be ready for it when it comes.
Whatever it may be.
PS: And get ready to throw all your Darwinism right out the window as regards this phenomenon, because them skinny little SWPL whores just ain’t making any babies.
Darwinistic arguments only apply to species [or subspecies within species] which do not choose voluntary extinction.
Philip Longman was the guy who recognized this – that hyperfeminized society simply was not reproducing, and that we were looking at a “Patriarchal” future:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2006/02/17/the_return_of_patriarchy
Over the years, I’ve also enjoyed reading Ben Wattenburg, Tom Bethell, the Asia Times Spengler, Charles Murray, Steve Sailer, The Derb, and Mark Steyn, among others, when it comes to this topic.
LikeLike
I don’t want to distract from Heartiste’s brilliance with my noise, but I do want to answer this. Full disclosure, that is my theory. The problem leftoids have with that theory is that it undermines the very foundation of Leftism. Leftoids always espouse a clearly wrong answer, which violates every natural human desire and every urge towards nobleness, from competitiveness and manliness, to loyalty and morality. They justify this by saying they are superior intellects, and we need to ignore these urges, because their cold intellect is better than our own nature. But if I am right, and leftism is just an innate adaptation to resource excess, then they stop being intellectual paragons, and become nothing more than a horny urge, a disloyal urge, a cowardly urge, and an irresponsible urge, all claiming to be a manifestation of intellect, but in reality nothing less than the dregs of patheity and cowardice and disloyalty in our society. They are the bunny people, with nothing loyal about them, and they are trying to make us as pathetic as them. It is a con.
So Jayman will say it is idiotic. Cochran will try to claim it is dumb, but say nothing which indicates otherwise. They need to say this, even though they can’t point out where it is wrong, or where ti doesn’t fit. Because if it is right, then Liberals are not intellectually superior. Then, we may begin to ask ourselves, why are we betraying our countrymen for foreigners again? Why am I supposed to surrender my means of protecting my family, to a pathetic coward who is too disloyal to his own loved ones, and too afraid of getting hurt himself, to want to protect them? Why am I working to support some layabout? Why are we not driving these pathetic Liberal cowards from our nation?
I really think this day is coming closer. Between Heartiste taking down the feminists, the economy, the government debt, The Alt-right, and even my small contribution, I think leftism is coming down, and spectacularly.
LikeLike
Come on now, when was there resource excess in the pre-industrial world??
The reason I say your theory is idiotic is because it’s clearly wrong.
LikeLike
“… your theory is idiotic is because it’s clearly wrong….”
Compelling argument
We must admit Liberals do have superior intellect
((((rolling eyes))))
LikeLike
Ancient Egypt for one. China did pretty well too.
LikeLike
“your theory is idiotic”
I love this. This is the intellectual equivalent of the Liberal cry of “That’s Raciss!” (TO which I am supposed to think, “Oh, my God! Are people going to think I’m an idiot? Retreat! Cede the argument to the bunny man!”)
“when was there resource excess in the pre-industrial world??”
Are you kidding me? What happened when our population exploded once we first lost our body hair, and began running prey down in the daylight heat (something which the prey was helpless to prevent, since their body hair caused them to heat stroke very quickly, and become unable to move). Are you telling me that new way of hunting, and the consequent population “explosion” had no relation to resource availability? I have heard it referred to by a specialist in the field as our having been provided essentially “free resources.”
What happened when the first Homonid found you could eat those weird hard rocks that covered the seashore, if you just used a harder rock to break their outer shells open? I mean we never discovered anything new, which fostered increased nourishment courtesy of a new resource stream prior to the industrial revolution?
What happened after the bottleneck, when we spread? Are you really telling me climate change didn’t ever vary resource availability? Look at the Medieval Warming period, which when it came to a close began the famines which would have only got worse if Yersinia pestis didn’t clear out the malnourished layabouts. Those famines had a similar, opposite effect when the Warming period began – It could be called resource availability, due to increased crop yields.
And then of course there was that first society which figured out you could grow food. Are you telling me the agricultural revolution didn’t produce resource variability? And then there were the wealthy societies like the Roman Empire, fat on the spoils of foreign conquests. Again, resource availability, at least for a while.
If your whole argument against this rests on a presumption that there was never any variation in resource availability in human populations, I am not sure why I would even argue with you.
LikeLike
Let’s back off just a little. What we have here with humans is a process.
0) Resources are scarce
1) Invention/ discovery of new ways to feed oneself.
Resources are abundant – for a while.
2) Population increases in response, until resources are scarce
again.
3) The scarcity periods are relatively LONG.
4) Go back to 1) above.
Thor
LikeLike
Remember: the theory is universal, across all species.
LikeLike
“your theory is idiotic”
I love this. This is the intellectual equivalent of the Liberal cry of “That’s Raciss!” (To which I am supposed to think, “Oh, my God! Are people going to think I’m an idiot? Retreat! Cede the argument to the bunny man!”)
“when was there resource excess in the pre-industrial world??”
Are you kidding me? What happened when our population exploded once we first lost our body hair, and began running prey down in the daylight heat (something which the prey was helpless to prevent, since their body hair caused them to heat stroke very quickly, and become unable to move). Are you telling me that new way of hunting, and the consequent population “explosion” had no relation to resource availability? I have heard it referred to by a specialist in the field as our having been provided essentially “free resources.”
What happened when the first Homonid found you could eat those weird hard rocks that covered the seashore, if you just used a harder rock to break their outer shells open? I mean we never discovered anything new, which fostered increased nourishment courtesy of a new resource stream prior to the industrial revolution?
What happened after the bottleneck, when we spread? Are you really telling me climate change didn’t ever vary resource availability? Look at the Medieval Warming period, which when it came to a close began the famines which would have only got worse if Yersinia pestis didn’t clear out the malnourished layabouts. Those famines had a similar, opposite effect when the Warming period began – It could be called resource availability, due to increased crop yields.
And then of course there was that first society which figured out you could grow food. Are you telling me the agricultural revolution didn’t produce resource variability? And then there were the wealthy societies like the Roman Empire, fat on the spoils of foreign conquests and slave labor. Again, resource availability, at least for a while.
If your whole argument against this rests on a presumption that there was never any variation in resource availability in human populations, I am not sure why I would even argue with you.
LikeLike
“leftoid SWPLism is partly genetically inherited, and that this inheritance carries along with it a propensity for supreme, infantile egocentrism. Rank egocentrism is a child-like psychology of solipsistic, feminine essence that expresses from a deeply rooted insecurity about one’s status in her immediate world.”
LOL just get it over with and name the Jew dude.
LikeLike
You don’t know non-jewish people that think/are this way? Let me guess, the non-jews think/are this way BECAUSE of jews, right?
LikeLike
Actually I’ve found that often, the more Aryan the SWPL is, the more strident, dogmatic and hateful their politics are. Why? Ethnic guilt and self-abnegation perhaps, plus the close-minded conformity they inherited from their survive-in-the-cold ancestors.
LikeLike
Agreed; worst SWPL swine I have encountered is a doppelganger of this Aryan bastard:
LikeLike
I love it how hatred of the J finds an excuse to come out every time we speak about liberals. As if not Gentile liberals don’t exist in the entire nation. Talks about white trash ignoramuses or German Neo-pagans whose jealous conspiracy theories they picked up from “My Struggle”
LikeLike
Funny you should mention “the jews”. sounds a bit similar to what a leftoid would say, swapping the word jew with any group a leftie would hate.
i was debating on whether or not to post this, as i don’t want this to become about world politics. however, read this and relate it to this column. wrote this the same day i read the following link. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-non-violent-demonstrations-and-a-6th-broken-camera/
ps. i’m jewish and leftoids suck. so if you’re the type that likes to blame jews, there are plenty of houses now for sale in western europe. you’ll fit right in.
LikeLike
“sounds a bit similar to what a leftoid would say, swapping the word jew with any group a leftie would hate.”
Bingo!
I have argued the dangers of doing this many times here. J haters try to turn the J into the evil face of the left, just like in the days of the Führer in Germany. They are not really interested in destroying the Left. They are looking to destroy J, while overlooking true leftists.
The J haters on this blog often repeat Nuzzi propaganda word for word, but often mask it in 21st century terminology. However, we who know history, can detect the exact rhetoric. I especially like it when they use the term “world Jewry” or “the Zionists,” just like the fucking Führer and his cohorts.
Palestinian and Arab supporters are nothing more than the J-haters of the 21st century. They spread lies about Israel and J, trying to turn them into the devil so that everyone will want to kill them, just like in 1930-40s Germany. Unfortunately, history often repeats itself.
I stand with Israel in her struggle for survival.
LikeLike
no repeat this time, we have nukes now! i mean we don’t have nukes 😉
i found a picture of chad buffington online, pretty sweet.

LikeLike
LOL! Thanks for the laughs. That’s the exact pic I get in my head when I hear neo-Nazis speak about the Elders of Zion controlling the world.
Hahahah…in old Germany, it was every milkman and every fat Gertrude with broken teeth being told he/she were members of the Aryan race and how they are better than the Jewish scientist that was “monopolizing” everything in sight. What a bunch of losers, and I can’t believe these neo-Nazi groups, mostly made up of angry frustrated losers, uniting forces with the Islamists thinking they can destroy the Jews. The Jews are the eternal people. No one who ever went up against them ever won against them, and that makes even the dear Führer. History proved that repeatedly.
“no repeat this time, we have nukes now! “
I know this won’t be repeated. You have an army now, one of the best in the world, and you have nukes if anyone thinks about being “adventurous” like the Führer or Ahmadinejad of Iran. What I meant is that these Jew haters spew the same type of garbage as they did back in the 1930-40s. Europe is sinking into anti-Semitic propaganda not unlike the 1930s and 1940s. That’s what I meant by history repeating itself.
LikeLike
And you people wonder where anti-semitism comes from.
LikeLike
Hitler was hella funny though
LikeLike
And you think that video is actually funny? 😕
LikeLike
You’re a dork.
LikeLike
“The Jews are the eternal people. No one who ever went up against them ever won against them
Titus in 73 AD beat them when he put down the Jewish revolt. That’s what happened to the Temple of Solomon. Although I admire your enthusiasm, Israel/Palestine has spent most of its history controlled by others or partitioned and the Jews dispersed across the nations. That’s hardly a winning scorecard.
LikeLike
Hitler did nothing wrong.
LikeLike
I’m sure that, when there’s a wasp nest in your yard, there will always be a handful of the creatures who won’t sting you.
LikeLike
Tyrone, you’re missing the point. The Jews have been beaten down plenty of times, even more times than you mentioned, and their Temple has been destroyed twice, not once. But the point I’m making is that no matter what, they’re still around 4,000 years later, as well as they recently returned back to their ancient homeland. Please show me other people who have this kind of unlikely history in all of the annals of human existence? Where are those people who won against the Jews? Are they around? Where are the ancient Egyptian empire, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, and all the others which are too numerous to count here? Where are they, pray tell? And the Jews, while living among the nations of the earth, have influenced those nations through their religion and its two offshoots, Christianity and Islam. That’s what I meant by “the eternal people.” They might have suffered a lot and have been persecuted a lot, and they might continue to suffer because a large portion of them don’t follow their own religion, and God told them if they don’t follow his commencements he will punish them severely, but he also said he will keep his promise to Abraham that he will never destroy them. I know, if you don’t believe in scriptures it’s hard to accept this viewpoint, but even if you don’t believe you have to admit it’s kind of odd to have such a people, the smallest of nations, being the center of things throughout history, whether in antiquity or after the modern State of Israel was established. Either way, the Jews cannot be ignored and their prolonged existence defies reason.
LikeLike
Yup. The secret sauce: Take good care of your Rabbi, and for God’s sake don’t get any crazy ideas that he should be childless. Thus, over the long run, you breed for smarts, Rabbis where the ones who used upward mobility to get there. . The European mainstream, OTOH, provided upward mobility mainly through priesthood (similar to the Jews), but the priest was at least nominally ceiibate. Thus you breed OUT smarts. Northern Europe suffered less than Southern Europe because of this, as they acquired Christianity late (up to around 1000 AD), and went Protestant in the 1500s. And thus Britain, Holland and – to a lesser extent due to smaller populations – the Scandinavians had the run of the world for a couple of hundred years.
Thor
LikeLike
Tyrone, an Interesting article that deals with this:
“Are the Jews the Chosen People?”
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2011/05/17/are_the_jews_the_chosen_people
here are some excerpt:
“I assume that the type of person who reads columns such as this one has wondered at one time or another why, for thousands of years, there has been so much attention paid to Jews and why, today, to Israel, the one Jewish state.
But how do most people explain this preoccupation? There is no fully rational explanation for the amount of attention paid to the Jews and the Jewish state. And there is no fully rational explanation for the amount of hatred directed at Jews and the Jewish state.
…there is not a hint of inherent superiority in the claim of Jewish chosen-ness. In fact, the Jewish Bible, the book that states the Jews are chosen, constantly berates the Jews for their flawed moral behavior. No bible of any other religion is so critical of the religious group affiliated with that bible as the Hebrew Scriptures are of the Jews.
And with regard to chosen-ness being an irrational or even bizarre claim, it must be so only to atheists. They don’t believe in a Chooser, so they cannot believe in a Chosen. But for most believing Jews and Christians (most particularly the Founders who saw America as a Second Israel, a second Chosen People), Jewish Chosen-ness has been a given. And even the atheist must look at the evidence and conclude that the Jews play a role in history that defies reason.
Can reason alone explain how a hodgepodge of ex-slaves was able to change history — to introduce the moral God-Creator we know as God; to write the world’s most influential book, the Bible; to devise ethical monotheism; to be the only civilization to deny the cyclical worldview and give humanity belief in a linear (i.e., purposeful) history; to provide morality-driven prophets and so much more — without God playing the decisive role in this people’s history?
Without the Jews, there would be no Christianity (a fact acknowledged by the great majority of Christians) and no Islam (a fact acknowledged by almost no Muslims). Read Thomas Cahill’s “The Gifts of the Jews” or Paul Johnson’s “A History of the Jews” to get an idea about how much this people changed history.
The difference between Jewish chosen-ness and other nations’ similar claims is that no one cares about any other group considering itself Chosen, while vast numbers of non-Jews have either believed the Jews’ claim or have hated the Jews for it.
Perhaps the greatest evidence for the Jews’ chosen-ness has been provided in modern times, during which time evil has consistently targeted the Jews:
— Nazi Germany was more concerned with exterminating the Jews than with winning World War II.
— Throughout its 70-year history, the Soviet Union persecuted its Jews and tried to extinguish Judaism. Hatred of Jews was one thing communists and Nazis shared.
— The United Nations has spent more time discussing and condemning the Jewish state than any other country in the world. Yet, this state is smaller than every Central American country, including El Salvador, Panama and even Belize. Imagine if the amount of attention paid to Israel were paid to Belize — who would not think there was something extraordinary about that country?
— Much of the contemporary Muslim world — and nearly all the Arab world — is obsessed with annihilating the one Jewish state.
In the words of Catholic scholar Father Edward Flannery, the Jews carry the burden of God in history. Most Jews, being secular, do not believe this. And many Jews dislike talk of chosen-ness because they fear it will increase anti-Semitism; they may be right.
But it doesn’t alter the fact that the obsession with one of the smallest countries and smallest peoples on earth, and the unique hatred of the Jews and the Jewish state by the world’s most vicious ideologies, can be best explained only in transcendent terms. Namely that God, for whatever reason, chose the Jews.”
LikeLike
@Chad Buffington Spoken like a true ignoramus. You might eat those words one day.
LikeLike
Sorry Lily, I don’t share your admiration for Jews. I think they’re trouble makers more than anything else and tolerate them and maybe even like some of them, but they are too Marxist for their own good and generally do as much damage to their host nations as good. If God tells me I must love them and turn the other cheek, I will, but not because I feel they deserve it. For every Charles Krauthammer, there are three Gloria Steinems or Lavrenty Berias. They are the principle arbiters of Cultural Marxism and I will never forgive them for the Holodomor or the Bolshevik revolution. There are, unfortunately, good reasons for anti-Semitism.
I got your point the first time, I chose to make note of their being a subject peoples. As far as other races that have survived the test of time I refer you to the Greeks, Chinese, Indians, and Persians for starters.
LikeLike
Tyrone, thankfully we agree on a lot of things. So if we don’t agree on the Jews, so be it. However, you do have some points about them, while you also have some exaggerations.
“For every Charles Krauthammer, there are three Gloria Steinems or Lavrenty Berias.”
That’s the whole point why they are suffering. Because they don’t have many traditional Jews left anymore who follow their religious mission. For all their brain power and contributions to philosophy, the arts, and the sciences, their mission is only spirituality. God told them they are his chosen people so that other nations learn from them about Him, the Creator. Their mission is not Marxism, or any other secular philosophy. Only the Creator. So if you dislike them because of Marxism, all their prophets told them already that the nations of the world would dislike them if they don’t serve an example to others and follow their God – abandon Him and they will be hated and punished, and they have been. Trouble is, not only they don’t follow their God, they also come up with secular philosophies. Just keep in mind that before the mid-1800s they really didn’t involve themselves that much with secularism, because most Jews weren’t secular, they were quite religious and they kept to themselves and their religious teachings.
______________________________________________________
“They are the principle arbiters of Cultural Marxism and I will never forgive them for the Holodomor or the Bolshevik revolution.”
Well, here you are totally wrong, and quite frankly exaggerating the Jews’ involvement. You make it sound like only the Jews promoted the Bolshevik revolution. Don’t be silly. Marx might have been a self-hating Jew who came up with a ridiculous philosophy, which sprung up because of his resentment and hatred of orthodox Judaism, but he never knew it would be adopted by most of the West.
Imagine if I wrote down my own personal philosophy, which others liked and adopted. If my philosophy turned out to be a complete failure, is it my fault others have adopted it and made it their own policy?
All the Western nations that adopted Marx’s philosophy are to blame for their idiocy and stupidity in thinking his philosophy is right. Therefore, any murder committed because of that philosophy like Holodomor, is not his fault, not to mention the Jews’ fault. How is Holodomor the Jews’ fault? Stalin was in power at the time, not the Jews. He was awful to his people, and even worse to the Jews. He used starvation against his own people as a tactic. Kind of like how Saddam of Iraq used chemical weapons against his own people. Therefore, I don’t see the implication of the Jews, unless you go to neo-Nazi website who like to implicate the Jews in every killing, genocide, bad idea, etc, etc. etc…. while they exonerate murderers like Stalin and Hitler. Honestly, Tyrone, you’re too smart to believe their skewed rhetoric about Holodomor, or the Bolshevik revolution.
______________________________________________________
“As far as other races that have survived the test of time I refer you to the Greeks, Chinese, Indians, and Persians for starters.”
And how did the Greeks impact the world? Other than some pagan philosophy and mythology, which no one follows today, unless you study it in academia, is the Greek religion what most people in the world follow? Or is it Judaism, and its two daughter religions? If Greece gave anything viable to the world I would say its Geometry. The rest of their stuff is inept, from their lecherous gods to homosexuality.
Who cares about the Indians? What have they contributed? And if it weren’t for the British they’d still be so backwards, they’d still be throwing widows to the pyre after their dead husbands.
The Persians? What have they contributed? And are they the original Persians of antiquity? The Assyrians and the Babylonians who ruled over that region were notorious in moving a conquered population around, so it’s almost a sure thing the Persians of today are not the Persians of antiquity, just like the Egyptians of today are not the Egyptians of antiquity.
Now the Chines are the only people who survived from antiquity. But is that a miracle? Hardly. There are so many of them, it had to happen. Yet the Jews, the smallest of all nations, survived without a land of their own, persecuted and few in numbers, and that still defies reason. BTW, for all their billion people, what have the Chinese contributed, other than a few inventions? Wouldn’t you think that a vast nation like China with so many human brains should have come up with at least half of all human inventions? Till this day, the Chinese don’t invent anything, just borrow and adopt other’s ideas, some say steal. In addition, why is China a communist nation? There are hardly any Jews there? Is it Marx’s fault too that China adopted a Marxist style of government? Just some food for thought.
You might not be a fan of the Jews, but you can’t deny that such a small nation had such an impact on science, technology, philosophy, religion, and humanity in general, and that defies reason. It had to be God’s handiwork.
LikeLike
Well now, Lily. I don’t hold Jews in general responsible – I don’t believe there is such a thing as collective responsibility, any more than that currently living Whites in the US are responsible for slavery more than 150 years ago.
However, you are wrong about the Soviet Union. Their founding fathers – may they all roast in hell – at least 80% of them were Jewish. Main exceptions being Dzhugashvili and Ulyanoff. There is lots of confusion at least in the West about the founding fathers of the USSR, as they are often known by their noms-de-guerre, but sometimes referred to by their real names, The two above for example are commonly known as Stalin (the steely one, really) and Lenin, respectively.
Thor
LikeLike
Thor,
It’s interesting what you say about the Jews’ smarts. Did you read the book “Jewish Eugenics” by John Glad?
http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Eugenics-John-Glad/dp/0897030052/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
I think the West should learn for this and use it for its own benefit.
From an excerpt of an Amazon review:
“Viewed through the lens of metaphor, Jewish people are akin to the Library of Alexandria–the genes that Jews carry being the equivalent of the ancient scrolls. Just like that ancient library was destroyed in stages, Jews have been persecuted, tortured, and killed through much of their 4,000-year-old history. As John Glad, retired professor of Russian studies at the University of Maryland, argues in his second book Jewish Eugenics, Jews carry in their very blood genes for high intelligence, high creativity, and high culture. Though a mere 1 percent to 3 percent of the population of the typical country–outside Israel–Jews have historically been the bulk of world leaders in a range of fields, Glad contends. These fields include literature, engineering, music, art, business, and statesmanship. Jewish contributors to human knowledge, for example, include Sigmund Freud, Franz Boas, and Karl Marx, writes Glad in Jewish Eugenics. What exactly is it about Jewish genes that has made Jews the “nobility of the human race”? According to Glad, de facto Jewish eugenics, the selective breeding of Jews with Jews for millennia due to their social segregation, ghetto culture, and Judaic prohibition of intermarriage with Gentiles. In Glad’s words, “Eugenics–inadvertent and explicit, historical and current–lies at the very core of Jewish identity” (64).
By the late 1800s and early 1900s, John Glad writes, Jewish scholars, activists, and especially, Zionists became deeply involved with the new science, founded by Francis Galton, of eugenics (the artificial selection of humans). Why did so many Jews–ranging from sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld to anarchist Emma Goldman–join the eugenics movement? According to Glad, because the standard view then was that Jews were physically weak and prone to feeblemindedness (e.g., the madness of genius). Jewish eugenicists like Max Nordau proposed the creation of a Jewish state (not necessarily Palestine). This, Glad types, was to be a land where the ghettoized Jews of the world could immigrate to in order to practice agriculture. The agrarian way, Glad continues, was seen as the antidote to the “effete” Jew. Why? Because as eugenicists like Nordau believed, hard work in the fields would, over time, create “muscle Jews” (illustrated in the cover of Glad’s book). In addition, Glad writes, Zionists wanted a place of refuge for Jews from the Diaspora. In this Jewish state, Jews would no longer face the threat of intermarriage with Gentiles, assimilation into non-Jewish culture, and persecution. As Glad argues, Zionism (the ideology espousing a Jewish state) and Jewish eugenic concerns (the preservation and improvement of the Jewish gene pool) emerged as two faces of the same coin. Put another way, Lamarckism (the belief that changing the environment will alter heritable characteristics in future generations) shaped Zionism. Zionism, in turn, led to the founding of Israel in 1948, Glad contends. To this day, Glad writes, Israel continues to practice compassionate eugenics. For example, Glad continues, genes for Tay-Sachs are screened in Israel because this disease has, till recently, been high among Ashkenazi Jews. Due to abortion, birth control, and even sterilization, Jews with the genes for Tay-Sachs are no longer passing along this mortal disease, Glad writes. Although Israelis use terms other than “eugenics,” Glad contends, eugenics is nonetheless what Israel has been openly endorsing, with amazing results.
All of the above facts, John Glad argues in Jewish Eugenics, contradict the myth–popular among the public and scholars since the late 1960s–that eugenics was “the ideology of the Holocaust.” On the contrary, Glad contends, Hitler’s Final Solution was the very anti-thesis of eugenics, for it was an attempt by the Nazis to exterminate a high class of human beings. The Holocaust, Glad concludes, was not eugenic but dysgenic.
For John Glad, the problem facing humanity in the 21st century is that “Whereas previous human evolution occurred thanks to genetic selection via differential mortality, current selection operates via differential fertility: … [emphases mine]” (12). Simply put, Jews everywhere are either leaving no offspring in order to pursue careers or are having less than the 2.1 children per couple required to keep a population stable. To make matters worse, Glad writes, intermarriage rates of Jews with Gentiles are about 50 percent nowadays. These trends, Glad postulates, are not merely dysgenic (lowering the frequency of good genes in a population); these trends are a “Silent Holocaust” in the making (22). Genocide, after all, means destruction of genes. The Holocaust Memorial Movement, Glad laments, has given a cold shoulder to this reality.
The book Jewish Eugenics could become an earthquake in the Jewish community–both in academia and in the laity. For John Glad not merely touches but plucks the strings of a lute that few people–Jew or Gentile–want to hear these days. To be sure, Glad’s efforts to educate the public and academics about the ongoing demographic crash of Jews vis-à-vis the loss of this genetic treasure is commendable. Someone, after all, needs to scream this to a sleepwalking public!
Unfortunately, John Glad sidesteps the bigger picture. It is not just Jews who are facing extinction as a distinct group of people–regardless of whether one defines Jews in genetic, racial, religious, cultural, or secular terms. In country after country, non-Jewish Caucasians are facing demographic collapse as well over the next few decades, while non-Caucasians and interracial peoples are multiplying. As Glad writes in a section titled, “To Be or Not to Be”: “Modern society is in self-destruct mode, but biology-blind models hold sway over biological explanations [of human diversity]” (19). This gets to the gist of the problem. Since the late 1960s, hereditarian models (arguing for biological differences between the human races) have been downplayed or eliminated altogether in both academia and civil society in favor of cultural determinism (calling for Lamarckian color-blindness). Any talk of race, genetic differences between ethnic groups, variations in IQ between human populations, and, thorniest of all these topics, the possible link between human biology and human intelligence have become no-nos in postmodern society. Any mention of these subjects, and one is quickly labeled “racist.”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1OUCSOFWJ5RNN/ref=cm_pdp_rev_title_1?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R20IIO8M9HA080
LikeLike
“Their founding fathers – may they all roast in hell – at least 80% of them were Jewish.”
Thor, this is grossly exaggerated. The Jews were persecuted in Russia and its provinces. They were subject of terrible pogroms for centuries under the Russian Tsars. Any power they had is greatly exaggerated. But there is no doubt that some secular Jews joined the Bolshevik Revolution when it began. Why shouldn’t they when the Bolsheviks promised a better life from the Tsars? You would try a different government too if you were the subject of pogroms for centuries. The idea that Jews single-handed overthrew a king, his family, and his entire monarchy and government is stuff of conspiracy theories.
Also, if indeed most of the Bolsheviks were Jews why did the Bolsheviks kill so many Jews once they took power? Therefore, of course they were some secular Jews that joined the revolution, but to say it is mostly Jewish-lead is the height of conspiracy theory galore. Sorry, I’m not into conspiracy theory. It’s like blaming Obama’s rise solely on the Jews, while overlooking all the other whites who support him and will practically kill for him if his name is maligned in anyway. Do you know how many white Gentiles support him? Look at MSNBC and CNN, save a couple of Jews, it’s all non-Jews pushing the democrats storyline from Pierce Morgan on CNN to Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Mathews on MSNBC. Yet, on this blog everyone overlooks this and only mentions the secular Jews who are just as lefty as their Gentile counterpart. That’s why we’re doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes from the past. Nobody here is saying anything new that wasn’t said before by others who find an all too convenient scapegoat in the Jews, as opposed to looking for the true culprits of why the West is in decline. Start by looking at secularism. That’s the source of the trouble. Secularism plagues people from all backgrounds and religions. Throughout the West, we have replaces the old-fashioned values of Judeo-Christian origin with secularism. Secularism makes men pussies and makes women whores, and it opens the doors to invaders like Islam. Secularism is the source of all our ills.
LikeLike
There’s a simple explanation for the Jews smarts and their so called persecution. They are a tribe of psychopaths. I’m not joking. Plain to see if you look at the attributes of psychopaths. They don’t want you to know this but they can’t help but tell you how wonderful they are. All their writings proclaim they are different. All others but they are animals. Psychopaths. No surprise the Satanic Bible was written by a Jew. Compare to Torah. Psychopaths. They’re very effective at controlling and overthrowing countries and other tribes because psychopaths have no shame. So sure of themselves. This complete assurance throws people off. They believe they must be correct to have no doubts. What about intelligence? All of you who are empathic have at some time been over whelmed by emotions in empathy for others. Think how strong these emotions are. Enough to cause physical pain. So how much brain area is used? I guess it’s more than is commonly thought. What if you used all this empathetic brain area purely for processing. Hmmm…. could it be 10 I.Q. points worth? Look at how the Jews acted in Russia. No empathy. Total torture and degradation of the population. Psychopaths. Spain. Psychopaths. Think of the financial destruction to multiple societys. Psychopaths. 9/11 in the USA ,(If any of you believe building #7 fell from fires your an idiot). Psychopaths. Think of how Jews often are sexual deviates. Psychopaths. A whole civilization of Casey Anthonys, (baby dies, Wheeee!!! let’s party).
LikeLike
Idiot, blame the Jews for everything, for every atrocity the world has known form Russia, to 9-11, even to Casey Anthony and you are expected to be taken seriously and not looked upon as a frustrated angry freak who’s so jealous you can’t be rational? GO FUCK YOURSELF and play with the rest of the crazies. The Internet is filled with disgruntled fools.
LikeLike
I don’t think most liberals and progressives really like humanity much, either. How many of them have been talking about the need for depopulation, c.f. Ted Turner?
With oxytocin stimulating both loyalty to the in-group and hostility to the out-group (h/t Anonymous Conservative), it seems that no one can meaningfully love all of humanity. We’re just not built that way.
Of course, evolutionary psychology is bunk because it hurts their feeeeeeelings.
LikeLike
You misunderstand their childish self-centered idealism. To the “progressive”, depopulation is good for the earth, what’s good for the earth is good for humanity, ergo, depopulation is good for humanity.
(They always picture themselves as part of the the remaining “humanity”. Funny how they never see how they could become the target for reduction, isn’t it?)
LikeLike
“I don’t think most liberals and progressives really like humanity much, either. How many of them have been talking about the need for depopulation, c.f. Ted Turner?”
Exactly!
But not only that. Pay attention to the trends in their rhetoric. What I mean is that they often raise money for some big huge cause where the funds have to go through many channels, hands, officials, and much bureaucracy to reach the people it is meant to help. Yet, they will never consider giving charity to the needy people directly, or needy individuals in their own community, or even some small local charity. Their charities always have to be on international levels, which is why they want everyone to pay taxes to the UN, the EU (if you live in Europe), UNICEF, IMF, The Peace Corps, etc.
I mean, fuck that shit. First, charity should be a choice – as in a choice between good and bad. Second, we should be able to choose whom to support without being forced. I like charity, and I believe it has an intrinsic quality where the giver becomes blessed. But, I won’t give any money to any world organization or charity, and most definitely to organizations I disapprove of, or organizations that give money to entities I disapprove of.
I rather spend the money on our own citizens anyway. The old adage “charity begins at home” is indeed correct. For the left, charity begins far, far away from home, because it is more concerned with the term “humanity” than with individuals. This is yet another proof liberalism is a religion.
LikeLike
You describe one category of lefty perfectly, but too many lefties can be changed when handled correctly for it to be based primarly on biology.
The left has successfully framed itself as herioc (http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/they-are-not-what-they-are/), and framed the right as the wrong kind of asshole (http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/the-wrong-kind-of-assholes/). We’ve done so poorly at this and the left has done so well that they don’t need any biological predispositions (other than basic female hormones) to make them into exactly the solipsistic bitches you describe.
LikeLike
Having come out of the left myself, I can certainly attest to that mindset. Most of my arguments were with people I agreed with politically, but who were incapable of even considering the underlying arguments of the opposition. Their greatest weakness is an inability to empathize accurately, or take a principled stance on anything that doesn’t come packaged with a chorus of approving nods or keystrokes. Anything or anyone challenging the groupthink is a malcontent, and “civil society” will eventually bury such people in the past where they belong.
LikeLike
Tolerance as a highest value is axiomatically impossible, for to promote it, you have to be intolerant.
LikeLike
“Their greatest weakness is an inability to empathize accurately”
Lefties can’t empathize with conservatives because they were never exposed to the ideas of the opposition.
They were told conservatives are evil and hateful, judgments found in most religions. Hence, to them conservatives are not to be respected. That’s why they use the shaming language.
LikeLike
Correct.
Let’s also remember that empathy is not a factor in whether you are correct. Our country was founded on Self-Evident, Natural Rights. No other country has this as an origin, and so all other countries are simply variations on the theme of totalitarianism (What do you prefer as your master… a monarchy? Mob rule? Religion?).
So there are Rights that we have that are Natural, immutable, and not subject to discussion, and everything else is un-American.
“In any combination of food and poison, it is only death that can win.” – Ayn Rand
LikeLike
And P.S., just for fun, see here:
Apologies for the “Liberal” mention. We all know, these folks ain’t “liberal” about anything.
LikeLike
“Our country was founded on Self-Evident, Natural Rights. No other country has this as an origin, and so all other countries are simply variations on the theme of totalitarianism (What do you prefer as your master… a monarchy? Mob rule? Religion?).
So there are Rights that we have that are Natural, immutable, and not subject to discussion, and everything else is un-American.”
100% correct! I love your comment. Why some readers don’t understand that this is the most special place on earth simply because of its principles of Natural Rights? None of the European models of democracy come close to the American manifestation of democracy. We leave them in the dust.
LikeLike
@lily
“we leave them in the dust”
Who or what are left? Th European countries? Or the naturali rfghts of
Americans? Or both?
Thor
LikeLike
Indeed, Thor. Both are under attack.
LikeLike
LOL! That was funny! The pic of Che as an area in the brain was hilarious. They sure idealize his Marxist self, don’t they? Idiots.
Yeah, calling them liberals is an oxymoron.
LikeLike
Make sure to always point out to anyone wearing a Che shirt that they are wearing an homage to a blood-thirsty assassin of over 100 men, women and children, only counting the people killed by his own hand at point blank range using his beloved 1911 (normally the weapon of the good guys, like me!). If you include the people he killed via his firing squad, who can say how many… thousands?
It is said that Che became so bloodthirsty that it became embarrassing, and when his bloodthirst reached absurd proportions, his own men asked him to not partake in the executions. According to that story, he complied and took a “desk job” for the revolution (or at least quit the firing squad), but he set his office up so it would overlook the firing squad doing its work. Classy.
Che was such a nasty piece of work, his own men (in Bolivia) killed him, cut his hands off, and buried him in an unmarked grave.
“To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary … These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution!” – Ernesto “Che” Guevara
I only wish there was a Hell, so that I would know that Che was in it.
LikeLike
It is a strange world we live in. If you are bloodthirsty enough, and you don’t look likde hippopotamus, young girls will hang a picture of you over their bed and masturbate to it. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Thor
LikeLike
Our entire society is out of control. People have no morsels or a sense of good and bad, right and wrong. The West is in decline if females find el Che sexy or tantalizing. Me, he disgusts me. Evil piece of shit. You see a girl wearing Che, it’s time to pump and dump.
LikeLike
I often wear a T-shirt with large letters asking “Who is John Galt”. Mostly, no reaction in the US or Sweden. In the Caribbean, people ask me who it is. Depending om situation, I usually just say it is a fictitious character. Given just a tad more time, I will add that the phrase is used in a door-stopper novel, and that after 700 pages, guess who pops out of the woodwork?
But during a two-hour walk in Maryland (very near DC) two people stopped and said “I like you shirt” (not at the same time).
More to the “Che” issue, I believe that it is in the DNA of young women.
(Yes, with very narrow exceptions, men and women have the same DNA, but some is gender-specifically activated. I do have the DNA specs for a uterus etc…)
The DNA-enabled strategy is to find the up-and-coming males, young, strong and rebellious, with the expectation of being in good standing with the NEXT generation of leaders. This works plausibly well for chimps, I think, but only in rare cases for people, the existing power structures, good, bad or indifferent, are generally very stable, and thus very few revolutionaries make it to the top. Castro and his gang is one of those rare exceptions, thus the cult of Che.
Thor
LikeLike
Dear Leader hero worshipping is a classic symptom of a Leftist. Normal people don’t need Dear Leaders, which Leftists don’t seem to understand. If I had a nickel for every time I was accused of holding Ronald Reagan as “my hero”, simply because I hold Classic Liberal (meaning real Liberal)/”conservative” views, I could buy something expensive. My response, that Reagan did some good things, but made a lot of mistakes, usually confuses the sh¡t out of said Leftist. Because for them, 0bama can do no wrong, and they just can’t wait for 2016 so they can elect Benghazi Hillary. Two Dear Leaders! They may faint with joy.
LikeLike
“Dear Leader hero worshipping is a classic symptom of a Leftist. Normal people don’t need Dear Leaders, which Leftists don’t seem to understand.”
Excellent observation about the Left. They have a group think mentality, just like any form of collectivist government. They have to be a part of the communal, whether physically or mentally. Independent thinking, independent behavior, independent self-determination is not part of that equation. Why? Because then you have to take responsibility for your actions. You have yourself to answer to. That’s too powerful and too scary, if not too painful for the followers of the left. They like others ruling over them. Freedom is not in their genes, and thus they don’t get America, which is why they are desperately trying to change it into a “Dear Leader” mentality.
We on the right, don’t shy away from facing ourselves, from being sober as we make decisions, from taking risks and even responsibility if we mess up. Bottom line, we’re not cowards, and we don’t need escapes.
“My response, that Reagan did some good things, but made a lot of mistakes, usually confuses the sh¡t out of said Leftist. Because for them, Obama can do no wrong,”
Right again. We don’t have to idolize someone. We take him for the good, but we also mention the not so good (we don’t cover up). A leader doesn’t have to be perfect (and can’t ). It’s understood he is human, and as such he will make mistakes. I feel the same way about Bush. He made mistakes, but he also did things right. In contrast, this Obama worship is scary. It’s borderline idolatry. He is some sort of a messiah for the Left. And his worship is retarded. The man hasn’t done any good in any direction. Not only the right sees through him, but the Left feels he leaves much to be desired too. They feel he hasn’t done anything for them. Yet, they still worship at his altar. It’s scary how mentally enslaved they are.
LikeLike
“. It’s borderline idolatry”
Not borderline. And yes, lots of thesupporters don’t think he is far left enough. His pastor claims that Big O has “literally thrown me under the bus”. But there are no tyre marks! And yes, nevertheless idolatry,.
Es lebe der Führer!
الموت للكفار
Thor
LikeLike
Deutschland über alles, Thor! I don’t speak or read Arabic, tho’ I do know some phrases as I have traveled to the region. I had to Google your Arabic, and my sense of the phrase is what I’ve posted above.
Nice to see you have a John Galt T-Shirt, and from previous posts months ago I know you are living a John Galt life, so good on ya, mate. I wish you the best. May we all find our peace and our piece.
I fear any fervor of any kind, other than the fervor for clean vagina with which to both practice and procreate. 🙂
And Lily, I can explain why 0bama worship is not borderline but full idolatry. Please give me your number, and I’ll call you on my 0bamaphone. Help a brother out.
∞
LikeLike
I ran it back and forth on Google translate. I don’t speak Arabic either.
But it came back as “Death to the infidels” as intended.
Pronounced roughly as “Mut l’al Kafir” (Note that for historical reasons,
the last word has become, in Africa, a very derogatory term for black people, possible worse than the N-word, but I mean it solidly in its original meaning)
All to illustrate what we are dealing with.
Thor
LikeLike
Hey, you two. LOL! I said it’s borderline idolatry cuz I am still giving those bastards the benefit of the doubt. My female side likes to peep out every now and then.
Gee, you should worship him too per your 0bamaphone. Can I have one? I want to be Obama girl.
LikeLike
You give them the benefit of the doubt.
And so you still do not see them for what they are.
And so you will fall to The Combine.
Resist.
∞
LikeLike
No, I despise them and everything they stand for. However, sometimes I don’t use strong enough language so not to become a fanatic like them. But in this war, only the strong and unabashed can survive. It’s becoming painfully obvious. They sure are fanatic, which is why they are winning. We need to become worse than they, and get to a higher level of fanaticism in order to win. You might say, we have to stoop lower. Nothing else to do, but they are driving us to it.
LikeLike
Thor, yes, “kuffar” or “kafir”. It means unbeliever, or sometimes cattle.
And you are correct, the South Africans, particularly the Boers, use (sounds like) “Keffir” to mean n¡gger. They must have gotten the word from Swahili, the trading language used by Africans to trade with the Arabs. But for the muslimin, the meaning has never wavered.
For a muslim, a kafir has no rights, can be bought and sold at market, and is otherwise not human. Which is an excellent place to start, if you wish to commit genocide.
∞
LikeLike
“Make sure to always point out to anyone wearing a Che shirt that they are wearing an homage to a blood-thirsty assassin of over 100 men, women and children, “
Yeah, they overlook this, thinking he was a great revolutionary. The left, they often dabble in moral relativism. This is a perfect example of it.
“It is said that Che became so bloodthirsty that it became embarrassing, and when his bloodthirst reached absurd proportions, his own men asked him to not partake in the executions. According to that story, he complied and took a “desk job” for the revolution (or at least quit the firing squad), but he set his office up so it would overlook the firing squad doing its work. Classy.”
And to think that el Che was a doctor, an author, a diplomat, and all of these good stuff. It just goes to show that some of the smartest people, most educated people, most advanced civilizations could be responsible for horrendous atrocities. That’s why education has nothing to do with goodness, as the human intellect can justify evil in the flesh if it wanted to.
Look at most university professors with PhDs, they are the stupidest anti-American/anti-west bunch, often preaching violence and killing of their own people in favor of some imaginary injustice committed to some 3rd worlder. Most of them preach Marxism, and borderline overthrow of the US government. Think Bill Ayers, Obama’s terrorist Marxist best friend professor. It’s a disgrace he is teaching in an American university after the killings he and his cohorts were responsible for. This Bill Ayers and Che are the same type of evil.
Keep posting; you’re very knowledgeable and I find your posts are full of good information; I’m learning a lot for you, as I’m sure so do others. 🙂
LikeLike
Projection bias explains a lot of how the SWPL mind works and all its bogeymen.
LikeLike
“Leftoid SWPLs are among the most intolerant, self-righteous, egotistical pricks in the world, right up there with the Tutsis. For a sub-race of people that has spent generations propagandizing the sanctity of tolerance, they sure have a blind spot to their own non-incluuuuuuuusive behavior.”
Yes! Yes! Yes!
“I prefer the human-lovers over humanity-lovers. After all, humans are right here, right now, part of my reality and my experience, while humanity is an abstract entity that does not love me or receive my love, smile with me, cooperate with me, or share fun times with me.”
Again. Rah! Rah! Rah!
“I predict that chunks of the USA are destined to part ways along internal fault lines that are presently unknowable. There will be a secession, perhaps not in the traditional way, but a seceding will happen, in one form or another.”
Cue Ryu.
LikeLike
Secession won’t happen as it did last time. A form of political/cultural/social separation is destined to occur, however. Our unprecedented interconnectedness won’t require it to be physical. The fault lines will be ideological more than spacial, as internet balkanization is demonstrating (NRO vs. Taki is a canary in the mineshaft).
Think Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, but along patterns of thought and custom rather than nationality/culture/creed (the nation-state is sooo 20th Century). We will live next door to our enemies.
Luckily our enemies are hardly worthy of the name. They are hissy-sissy word warriors, and one loud bang will have them scurrying under mama’s skirt, suing for peace.
“You Can’t Stop The Signal.” The whole premise of the internet as a military tool was to duplicate and disperse a redundant power of command. That concept has since reached the public and insinuated itself inextricably into our commerce, politics, and social life. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. A dispersed network is guerrilla warriors against a lumbering 19th century army. Savage nigger populations have figured out how to flash mob their local 7/11s. Imagine that technology under the slightest discipline, guidance, and command. See also Brafman, The Starfish and the Spider.
Matt
LikeLike
Pardon me. SWPL FILTER EDIT:
Secession won’t happen as it did last time. A form of political/cultural/social separation is destined to occur, however. Our unprecedented interconnectedness won’t require it to be physical. The fault lines will be ideological more than spacial, as internet balkanization is demonstrating (NRO vs. Taki is a canary in the mineshaft).
Think Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, but along patterns of thought and custom rather than nationality/culture/creed (the nation-state is sooo 20th Century). We will live next door to our enemies.
Luckily our enemies are hardly worthy of the name. They are hissy-sissy word warriors, and one loud bang will have them scurrying under mama’s skirt, suing for peace.
“You Can’t Stop The Signal.” The whole premise of the internet as a military tool was to duplicate and disperse a redundant power of command. That concept has since reached the public and insinuated itself inextricably into our commerce, politics, and social life. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. A dispersed network is guerrilla warriors against a lumbering 19th century army. Savage [BLACK] populations have figured out how to flash mob their local 7/11s. Imagine that technology under the slightest discipline, guidance, and command. See also Brafman, The Starfish and the Spider.
Matt
LikeLike
Theres two kinds of insurgents. White ones, and everybody else.
LikeLike
thwack knows the score.
LikeLike
We will live next door to our enemies.
Sounds great, but where and when has this ever worked? Europeans slaughtered each other in regular cycles until the US parked a huge army on their continent. The entire Middle East is about to explode and that war will last until the last chieftain standing establishes the next empire in the region. Right now we can debate how much everybody pays for health insurance. What happens when it’s things like who gets the water from Lake Tahoe?
The demographics are heavily stacked against peacable folk of whatever race. What happens to the prosperous enclaves when they’re surrounded by feral tribes? White South Africans and the Middle Eastern Rum are already looking that decision-point in the eye. At some point, there won’t be any place left to retreat.
I’m optimistic about who ends up on top when push comes to shove but it won’t be pretty.
LikeLike
I once got unfriended on facebook buy a guy I lived with for a year and bailed out of numerous bad situations and did some free work for. Why?
Because he posted something about the presidential debate on my wall and after the 4th screeching rebuttal of his to one of my reasoned responses, I told him he can be an asshole when he gets too involved (he wasn’t even just a Romney-hater….he was a full-blown Obama worshipper whereas I hated everybody, just Obama most). He messaged me saying I better rethink the way I treat my “friends.” My response? I told him those friends I can do without.
Liberals need to be in the echo-chamber. They can’t survive when exposed to other people’s opinions because it makes them wonder how legitimate their own are. They never hear opposing arguments because they pick and choose what they hear.
LikeLike
I’ve chopped out those acquaintances and “friends” like cancer since November. There’s a time to suffer fools gladly, and there is a time to cave their faces in. No more pussyfooting around their putrefying anti-life deathstyle. “I like the SWPL lifestyle — they have done some things right.” Bummer. Shrug. Because it’s all going into the burn barrel.
How many mosquitoes do you tolerate sucking your blood before you say fuck it, drain the swamp, and scorch the whole infested landscape?
Pyromaniacs, rally to me.
Matt
LikeLike
Not all liberals need to be in the echo chamber. Yours truly, for one — though my liberalism falls mostly in the field of economics.
And I would point out that there is an equal amount of inability to entertain opposing viewpoints from the more rabid right-wingers.
Intolerance seeps across party lines. The fringes are nearly identical.
LikeLike
Normally I’d bother disagreeing, but I just got done berating some Ron Paul fanatic on YouTube for suggesting the New World Order is trying to mind-control us all through the chemicals used in their new Chicken Pot Pie. Last week the buffoon was arguing that doctors don’t know enough about chemical neurology to prescribe treatments that work. So they don’t know what they’re doing and they can mind-control us. Yeesh.
LikeLike
LOL! Do you know we have many crazy Ron Paul supporters here? They are the ones responsible for all the conspiracy theories being spewed here, from the New World Order, to the Jews are controlling everything, to the federal reserve doesn’t really have any gold in Fort Knox, to 9/11 was an inside job, to Bush going to war in the Middle east because of Israel, and other crazy nonsense. And parasites like Alex Jones prey on such people. It’s either retarded leftoids, or paranoid Ron Paul supporters; the conservative party has shrunk.
LikeLike
Inane moral-equivalence arguments, a staple of the dipshit left.
LikeLike
“Liberals need to be in the echo-chamber. They can’t survive when exposed to other people’s opinions because it makes them wonder how legitimate their own are.”
BINGO!!!
Most of their stances are based on nonsense so when conservatives come along and offer real solutions and real truths based on old-fashioned tested values, lefties know right way that the conservative ideas will shake the foundations of their nonsense, and that’s why they need to crush all opposition in order to protect their erroneous claims.
LikeLike
Ran across this today and thought immediately of CH:
http://takimag.com/article/arriving_late_to_the_hbd_party_john_derbyshire#axzz2K8vd6kHh
Looks like there are leftoids in the crimson arts as well.
LikeLike
There is no question that political/ideological views are heritable (as with all things).
Modern SWPL-types are by and large the descendants of colonial Puritans. The behaviors you describe, a utopian view of the world, a certain level of high-minded haughtiness, etc… are features of the old guard Yankees that were disliked by the other British colonial groups in America (naturally, especially by those in the Deep South). The Puritans hale from the Danelaw section of England, and these behaviors are descended from their Scandinavian fore-bearers. These traits can be seen in modern Scandinavia as well (try telling a Swede that the genders aren’t perfectly equal).
As Colin Woodard wrote, the United States was never just one nation. I am writing a much more throughout discussion of the matter that will address this and other aspects of the modern American political landscape in terms of its colonial ancestry.
LikeLike
That’s a fascinating theory, actually.
LikeLike
How does this explain the increasing radical leftism in the country?
Are the Puritan descendants/SWPL’s reproducing quicker?
LikeLike
It’s a misunderstanding on the part of the non-puritans, primarily due to the religious nature of the founding of the United States. A puritan is very dissimilar (originally, ideologically) from a Calvinist (which many Scottish/Irish protestants were) and Protestants are equally dissimilar from Catholics.
The increase in radical leftism comes as the result of higher population density between the puritan northeast and the spread of higher education. You have to dig into it a bit and look at when colleges were founded and where… but higher education has always been the bastion of Marxist/leftist/communist ideology and as liberal professors, educated in liberal colleges proceeded to teach students at new colleges, ideology followed.
By the same process, leftism filtered down into the core education system and, in the name of tolerance, leftist indoctrination is being fed to children throughout the US on a daily basis. If I can finally get the courts to see the negligent behavior of my ex-wife in caring for my daughters, I’m totally pulling them from school and homeschooling them. It’s much healthier for them, long-term.
LikeLike
I was poking fun at the notion that Leftism is wholly genetic, and can easily be explained as some genetic line. Low Leftist replacement numbers since birth control (due to a low rearing investment drive diminishing the desire for children) have accompanied increasing Leftism. Its not the Puritans.
>It’s a misunderstanding on the part of the non-puritans,
I agree with your post, but just want to expand upon this, because it is correct, but I think there is something more. The misunderstanding persists because of a fundamental shift in the human psychology of our population towards the r-strategy. This happens because a harsh reality, which punishes stupidity, never drives the adoption of a K-psychology.
Take away free resources, then see to it that mistakes have real, painful consequences, and everyone will become much more competitive/aggressive/grouchy. The danger will drive them to surround themselves with loyal, known quantities, and when those loyal friends help them, they will be driven to help them back. Parents will be driven closer by the danger, and they will take better care of their kids. The population will trend K.
Once that psychological Rubicon has been crossed, men become men, and anybody spouting Leftoid crap will get smacked down, like the whiny little pansies they are. Leftoids fear Lord of the Flies, because they know how it ends. Piggy’s head, gushing blood onto the rocks, as his body is washed away by the ocean.
Leftism exists, only because we tolerate it. Literally, show today’s Leftoids to our founders, show them how our nation will collapse economically in a few decades, and they would have had no hesitation in sending every Leftoid to the gallows. Look to the post WWII era, and the House un-American Activities Commission, Joe McCarthy, and the stigma of being a Communist (which was just being what a Liberal is today). That came from the environment. Men who had endured a Depression and pulled triggers on enemies, thought a decade or so in jail for espousing Leftism, and a lifetime of blacklisting was a fair punishment. There was a different psychology, and it was K in every regard.
Once resources tighten up, it will shift back, and I agree with Heartiste’s prediction. There will either be a split, a Civil War/bloodletting, or a whole bunch of trembling Libs hiding under their wive’s skirts, hoping to evade the notice of the real men, who will suddenly be more common – and who will be running the show.
In short, there are overt strategies that the left has used to advance itself. But they use these strategies all the time, everywhere. What allowed the strategies to work, is resource availability, and a soft environment, which led to real men being more tolerant. Turn that dial back, as it will be turned back very soon, and those strategies won’t work so easily. The real driver is resource availability producing the r-strategy.
LikeLike
Who says there is an increase in radical leftism?
LikeLike
If it was all about heredity indoctrination would not work.
Nature and nurture co-exist, it is not one or the other.
You can not make a cat bark like a dog, but humans are far – far – more malleable
History has shown indoctrination works well. shockingly well.
It was not heredity that created a generation of nazis who exterminated millions of innocents ( to give an example ) it was indoctrination.
I will say it again, we are not like dogs and cats, we are far —far— more malleable.
Maybe the degree to which one is malleable is hereditary but that would be splitting hairs.
LikeLike
“If it was all about heredity indoctrination would not work.
Nature and nurture co-exist, it is not one or the other.”
Not that I expect you to get this, since if you haven’t already, you probably won’t now, but heritable ≠ not subject to environmental alteration.
“I will say it again, we are not like dogs and cats, we are far —far— more malleable.”
That said, “malleable” is very strong word.
It was not heredity that created a generation of nazis who exterminated millions of innocents ( to give an example ) it was indoctrination.
It was heredity, actually, in concert with other things, including indoctrination.
LikeLike
If it was heredity their children and grand children would be putting Jews in gas chambers as I am typing this
LikeLike
Canadian Friend is right – “Nature and nurture co-exist, it is not one or the other.” Both have an influence on the person. It might not be in equal amounts, but both do influence. Human beings are a learning and evolving creatures, and their evolving is not necessarily done only deep inside the genetic level. We also evolve directly from our experiences.
Therefore, Jayman, what kind of heredity would cause the German people to murder millions of innocents?
LikeLike
“What kind of heredity could exist in this tribe that conquered the Romans and fought bloody, pitched battles with the Vikings, the Celts/Gauls, the Saxons, and every other fresh-faced foreigner on offer, that would cause that tribe to murder millions of foreign invaders?”
FIFY.
You obviously do not understand how the Germans grew to view the Jews, the Gypsies, the Catholics, etc. The NAZIs whipped up this xenophobia expertly, but it was there prior. The Goths and Visigoths (“Germans”) are just like any other tribe – they both fear foreigners, and view them as inferior. When you fear something, you lash out at it. When you feel something or someone is inferior to you, that makes it easier to squash it.
Human nature… methinks you should look into it.
LikeLike
I agree on all counts regarding the Germans. That said, the German’s xenophobia is also something that goes all the way back to Martin Luther, and developed even more fervently in the 1700s with their nationalism. From the 1700 to Hitler, you can see how from one philosophical thinker to another it lead to the killing of the Jews. The German’s might have genetic proclivities for hatred and violence because of the nature of their genes, but they could have also channeled all this energy into science and technology, or became peadful like so many other nations descendants of the Germanic tribes. But they didn’t because they are easily inciable. It all depended on how they are provoked and in what direction.
The fact German’s are incitable makes them somewhat inferior. Kind of like the Muslims, where all it takes is one demagogue to provoke them with hate speech and off they go – killing, burning, and pillaging. That’s why there is much in common between the Germans and the Muslims, and which is why Hitler made a pact with many Muslims leaders to destroy the Jews in their countries, and which is why many escaping Nazis after the war found a haven in Islamic countries. In addition, it’s quite telling that today’s neo-Nazis often unite forces with Muslims against Israel. None of these situation are justified because Jews were not an invading force. They weren’t invading in Islamic countries vis a vis Hitler, and they are not invading now in Israel vis a vis the neo-Nazis. The German’s hate, is hate for pure hate, and I think it has a lot more to do with their learned ideology for the last 400 years than it has to do with their genes. Although probably both are at play here.
Look at us in America, we are hardly incitable. It would take an act of God to get a throng of people to go off and kill others, unless of course we’re not talking about whites. Non-whites in this country, or in any other western country, have been fed so much white-hate they can’t wait to take up arms against whites. However, whites in this country don’t go off like people did/do in Germany or Islamic countries. People here have more measured responses to frustration and resentment. And that’s why it makes us superior. So while what you say is right about German heredity, I still think it also has to do with nurture – their cultural development and their demagogue leaders who provoke them for hatred.
LikeLike
Yup. It is noteworthy that Martin Luther (NOT King) loved the Jews, and thought they would flock to his new improved Christianity. (Note also that ML did not originally intend to split the Church, he wanted to reform it – but since that did not work, the split was the result.)
However, as he realised, soon enough, that the Jews ware not any more interested in ML’s new improved Christiany then they were in old unimproved Roman Catholic Christianity, he flipped and became anti-Jewish. (I dislike the term “anti-semite” despite its history, as the Arabs are also technically Semites.)
Thor
LikeLike
True about the Arabs being Semites too, however antisemitism is a distinct term coined in 19th-century Germany by Wilhelm Marr, a man obsessed with Jew hatred. He published a magazine dedicated to Jew hatred as well as founded the Antisemiten-Liga (Antisemitic League). Since then it has become to mean hatred against Jews, not any other Semitic people.
LikeLike
“Modern SWPL-types are by and large the descendants of colonial Puritans. The behaviors you describe, a utopian view of the world, a certain level of high-minded haughtiness, etc… are features of the old guard Yankees that were disliked by the other British colonial groups in America (naturally, especially by those in the Deep South).”
Wow! You mean it’s not all the fault of the Jews? Who knew?
“These traits can be seen in modern Scandinavia as well (try telling a Swede that the genders aren’t perfectly equal).”
They have leftists in Sweden too? Wow! What an earth shattering idea. Never thought of that. Always thought it was just the Jews responsible for liberalisms.
LikeLike
+1 The worst SWPL Aryan swine I ever had to deal with was of Danish extraction.
LikeLike
So true. Seen abundantly on Facebook threads. SWPL babes, however, love love love a few hours with a daddy who curves to the right. Guns, calloused hands, gas guzzling truck, and unapologetic boldness put them in a lather.
LikeLike
Too true. The conservative: “this is my castle, don’t interfere” doctrine is about as alpha as it gets. The hand-wringing “but SOCIETY!” mating cry of liberals leaves them blue-balled in most cases. Then again almost every liberal guy I know is a puss. Are they beta because they’re liberal or liberal because they’re beta? Chicken or egg. The world might never know.
LikeLike
Cutlet or omelet.
Doesn’t matter, don’t care. It’s all viscera out of the grinder.
I’m in a biblical mood.
LikeLike
“I’m in a biblical mood.”
I know, your love is Biblical.
LikeLike
“Are they beta because they’re liberal or liberal because they’re beta? Chicken or egg.”
It’s a vicious cycle and one causes the other.
LikeLike
I was on a date with a lefty college girl today and she spent a 2 hour lunch trying to validate herself, knowing I was on the right. So they aren’t all arrogant. Many are just on the left because the female doesn’t need to earn money herself to get a man so it is in her interest if wealth transfers happen from older to younger men and themselves.
LikeLike
By validate I mean she tried to comply/lean as far as possible toward my points whenever I mentioned politics or gender roles. She was investing in making a relationship work.
LikeLike
Well, most women lean left because we a) feel compassion for things/people/situations that logically do not deserve compassion, and b) we’re told we should because it’s cool. But could you really trust a woman who’s bending her views in order to get you to like her?
LikeLike
“But could you really trust a woman who’s bending her views in order to get you to like her?”
That’s actually the preferred situation. Her political views will mirror those of a strong man in her life. Anonymous may make an honest woman out of her yet.
LikeLike
Can’t trust? I insist on it.
Psst. They like it too. Bending her “views” = bending at the waist. Adopting a bitch’s flaky “politics” = strap-on pegging.
LikeLike
What if her ides are not flakey and she makes more sense than you, then what do you do with the bitch?
LikeLike
I meant ideas
LikeLike
What if the moon were made out of cheese? Then what would you do?
It doesn’t happen, and even if it did it wouldn’t matter. The content of policy has nothing to do with the power dynamic I’m talking about. I have seen very smart and educated women deliberately dumb themselves down to better placate a lunkhead. This is the way of things.
Your politics only matters personally insofar as it is an expression of my will. If I told you to vote for Lyndon Larouche, I’d expect you to do it. Even now that he’s on death’s door.
The truth of politics is better hashed out in the sturdy republican institutions that were devised for that purpose. Among individuals or “little platoons,” politics is not about perfection or divination of proper ways, it is about tribal identification (Democrats intuit this dynamic better, which is why they are ruthlessly successful in balkanizing the electorate). So know-it-all interlopers like you are traipsing through a minefield, thinking all that matters is rhetorically besting someone in an orderly debate.
The “noble lie” of our civic religion is that individuals have every capacity for opinionating as the elite, and our jealously guarded “right” to an opinion comes from that myth. In truth, a republic requires a system that encourages proper opinions to rise into power while allowing naïve stupidities (like the Obamaphone lady) to sink to places where they can’t endanger us (like comment boards). Our founders provided the best possible architecture to maintain that possibility, but to keep the framework robust is difficult and rarely achieved, especially now that we are in the process of actively dismantling it.
And women? Who want to hear the sound of their own shrill voices? Miles away from helpful for the body politic or the equanimity of men. Which is why one of the keys to attraction is learning to shut your whoremouth when the men are speaking.
Matt
LikeLike
” But could you really trust a woman who’s bending her views in order to get you to like her?”
Or to vote. Thanks for keeping me from having to make the argument.
LikeLike
“logically do not deserve compassion”
Logically, everyone deserves compassion. That doesn’t have anything to do with repopulating your nations with people from Africa or the Middle East. To do that you’d have to lack compassion. I wish the right began to understand that. But then it’s almost as if they’d been trained to be the other side of the same problem.
LikeLike
The funny thing is the leftoids are supremely tolerant of some things and some people. But it is almost always at a distance. They LOVE various minorities – as long as they themselves live in a burbclave-style gated community, with only chemical traces of non-SWPL.
And in particular they LOvE dictators – but of course would not consider living under one (OK, Obama is a special case.)
And they LOVE Muslims. Even the women love Muslims. As long as they themselves are not required to live under Sharia law. Or being a fourth wife.
Etc.
Thor
LikeLike
We, of course, want a young woman to be OK with being our 4th wife if that’s the way it has to go down.
LikeLike
AND Crims, too. You forgot them. Libs loves them some crims! lzoozzolzoozl.
Remember, capital punishment is always a gigantic melodrama, to be portrayed and photographed with much wailing and gnashing of teeth in a giant pretentious movie,
over monsters who tortured and killed, getting punished with a tiny little IV that makes them go sleepy-byes.
LikeLike
Thorodinfrey is right
And here is another typical contradiction with leftists
they love having access to all sorts of “goodies” that are only found in Capitalist nations ( from free wifi to the key’s to daddy’s car ) and they love all the free stuff/services from the government, that again is only possible thanks to capitalists paying taxes
but they hate capitalism with a passion
LikeLike
And yet, “socialism” seems to work just fine, as long as you have the right population.
LikeLike
Socialism is crap and doesn’t work. Look at crumbling Europe. Is that an example of socialism working? I say, let Europe dissolve and taste its own medicine. Its useless anyway. My only one regret would be to see Great Britain going to hell with the rest of Europe. I have a soft spot for England and the British isles. As of Europe, it brought about its own demise.
LikeLike
Keyword: right population.
Europeans need to get their reproduction rates up to at least replacement level and repatriate all the Muslims/other assorted immigrants. A little is tolerable, but come on, London for the English. Then purge the institutions of the tabula-razists and gender studies freaks. Social conservatism and economic safety nets are a match made in heaven if your ruling class understands human nature.
Some of Israel’s policies are like this, and imo they’re right on the money. Birthright Israel and whatnot.
also, (nite)lily, if your left leg were yom kippur and your right leg were chanukkah, I’d visit you between the holidays.
LikeLike
The system in Europe is based on mindless competition for short-term profit irrespective of public need or even desire. That’s called capitalism, whatever they told you at Mises.org. If there’s a trend, it’s been toward privatisation.
LikeLike
A little bit of socialism isn’t the same thing as socialism. If a little bit of socialism fails, this doesn’t mean that socialism has failed. Basic logic. It’s capitalism that keeps failing. That’s because you can’t fix it with a little bit of socialism.
So you got it backwards. It’s capitalism that is crap and doesn’t work. Look at crumbling Europe. This “let’s all have trendy jobs with no inherent value” model of success is very counter-productive in the long run. The fact is Europe could support its whole current population with 5% of current effort if it planned its economy instead of tolerating the chaos. Let its production capacity sink, I say. Nobody will miss all that crap.
Notice how you apologists never say what, if anything, is good about capitalism, focusing merely on what you believe is even worse about other systems? Even you know you it’s a crappy system, so you have to convince everyone that good systems simply can’t exist. I would say it’s a pathology on your part similar to clinical depression rather than any realistic appraisal of mankind’s potential.
Seriously, I pity you supporters of capitalism because it’s so damn hard to think of anything nice to say about a system that was ugly, obsolete, destructive, cruel, unjust, corrupt, depressing, evil, dehumanising and passe already when it was run by Christian philanthropists. Capitalism, what’s not to hate? Even Hitler got it.
LikeLike
Hah! Outright socialism, i.e. communism has been tried and failed. The most obvious case is the 70-year field test known as the erstwhile Soviet Union, but there are so many others. And Europe, at least its Southern part, is failing because they have more socialism than the Northern Part.
Thor
LikeLike
@ Entitled DOS user
You’re missing the point about the Capitalism we have today, which is more like fascism of some sort. It’s not capitalism; it’s crony capitalism. Real capitalism is the government staying out of the market place to a large degree, and only steps in if there is a question of egregious danger to the public, or real chicanery taking place. The problem is the government engages in favoritism for both the under classes and the corporations. It bestows upon the lower classes welfare, affirmative action, and other social “injustice” programs, while it offsets it by bestowing upon the corporations corporate welfare such as “too big to fail” and other crap. Who ends up paying the price for all of this mismanaged policy and legislation, regulation and equalization? The middle class, or wealthy people that are not super mega rich. Not only do they pay all the taxes to keep the government afloat, but they are also used as guinea pigs for fiduciary experimentation and regulations.
Capitalism is not a failed system since its real roots are in complete freedom and the assumption of risk and responsibility. But in today’s culture where no one assumes responsibility for his/her behavior, the government is needed to baby sit you at all times and through every decision, including in religious life as we have seen recently.
Please don’t mix up what we have today with capitalism. In a few short years our system will resemble that of Russia today – favoritism to the super rich with government official’s help and approval and pocket lining. Except, our system is going to be much worse because we are saddled with all these heavy laws and regulations that can sink a ship. We are over regulated and over policed in this country, not to mention politically corrected in everything we say.
At least in Russia, if you don’t speak against the government, specifically against Putin and his cohorts, you’re pretty much left alone. And if you are a billionaire or you can start a million-dollar business, then you are to be worshipped – your every wish is the government’s commend. It’s just the corruption of the government I don’t like; it can easily turn totalitarian at the drop of a hat in a place like this lacking a constitution. That said, Putin is alright in spite of all his shenanigans.
LikeLike
@lights
“also, (nite)lily, if your left leg were yom kippur and your right leg were chanukkah, I’d visit you between the holidays.”
LOL!!!! I’ll take you up on it, but in my case it only works between Christmas and Easter and you can’t spew any Nazi shit while you’re visiting 🙂
“Some of Israel’s policies are like this, and imo they’re right on the money.”
Common sense. Let’s learn from the Jews instead of hating them. Didn’t they say they want to be a “light onto the nations”? Let’s take them up on it.
“Birthright Israel and whatnot”
Birthright started by a private Canadian billionaire.
The problem is we don’t have enough people who care about each other like the Jews do about themselves. And don’t tell me we don’t have billionaires. We do, plenty of them, except they don’t feel an affinity with their own people. Most of them are liberals. We have to teach important principles to our people about the white race’s accomplishments and undue the harmful effects of academia rewriting history.
Let’s learn from the Jews how they kept it together for over 4,000 years.
LikeLike
Of the hundreds of liberals in my circle, I’ve never heard ONE express his or her undying love for Islam.
Stop conflating your enemies.
LikeLike
Haha…muslim apologists are a core tenet of liberalism. Or do liberals not also exist in Europe?
LikeLike
Liberals don’t say it in so many words that they love Islam, but everything they do says it
Who but liberals gave their full support to building a mosque – of all places – on ground zero? ( or a few feet from it… whatever )
There are hundreds of examples of this love of Islam
LikeLike
Academia in the USA is populated by 80 to 90% liberals professors and teachers etc,
and they all approve of teaching Muslim stuff to our kids yet they have zero tolerance for anything related to the Bible
How is that not a love of Islam?
LikeLike
“and they all approve of teaching Muslim stuff to our kids yet they have zero tolerance for anything related to the Bible”
Bingo!!
LikeLike
“Who but liberals gave their full support to building a mosque – of all places – on ground zero? ( or a few feet from it… whatever )”
Bingo!!!
LikeLike
Sorry jason, you’re incorrect. look at those that attend pro palestinian rallies: extremist muslims and hardcore leftie academic, self hating jews included.
LikeLike
Most liberal and lefty Jews are self-hating.
LikeLike
>>>And they LOVE Muslims. Even the women love Muslims.
Look up Reza Aslan. He never met an Iranian creep he didn’t like and a SWPL chick who made a fortunate hawking microfinance to the third world married him. Can’t wait to see the look on her face when he tells her he’s bringing more skanks into his harem.
LikeLike
Thor, is right.
The left is always speaking in theory, and as long as they don’t have to live under such theories they push them. It’s like Gore selling his TV station to people who don’t respect his social stances. For lefties the rules never apply to them. It’s always do what I say, not what I do.
LikeLike
Just another reason I won’t “friend” anyone on Facebook that I meet in the biggest SWPL circle I spend time in.
I don’t think any of them could handle my stance on gun ownership and the climate for that topic right now has never been worse.
LikeLike
Often, though, a young amateur lefty will be shocked into not arguing if you tell them the second amendment is about matching the government in firepower and not about hunting or home invasion protection.
When you tell them that it’s about potentially standing up to a more virulent reprise of Bush/Cheney, a young liberal will get the point.
LikeLike
Not the artsy types who are likely to believe guns are morally wrong.
LikeLike
But more so where there’s a density (critical mass) of like-minded r types.
LikeLike
Eh, just as often you get the standard old “so you’re saying every citizen should be allowed to have a tank or a nuke?” talking point.
LikeLike
To which you answer, “yes” and then ask them, “Aren’t you mature and responsible enough to handle a nuke as a deterrent to the ‘bad guys’?” Forces them to qualify themselves as mature and responsible (or not) and invariably they’ll say “yes” to which I reply, “But then you’re accusing me of being less mature and responsible than you are?”
Questions are the death of liberals.
LikeLike
And questions also do a very nice job killing blinkered conservative “thought”, too.
LikeLike
Too much credit for the leftoids. In my experience, most of them lack clear convictions and mindlessly babble along with whatever seems to be the current consensus.
Put them in an Asch experiment controlled environment for some years, where the group-consensus is far to the right of center. Most SWPL types will emerge from the experience bellowing “Hail Hitler” at the slightest provocation.
Yes, they love to repeat whatever came out of Rachel Maddows mouth the night before. Yes, the get high from the echo chamber effect thus created. Yes, they are willing to enforce the consensus.
But no, their opinions are not their own and lack backbone.
Don’t wait for any leftoids to shout “I am Spartacus”, Instead they’ll look befuddled and claim to be good slaves and to have had no part in this crazy right-wing violent outbreak against lawful authority.
LikeLike
Well, it’s not hard to find those who switch from hard left to hard right and vice versa.
Of course, if you spell it out, switching from nazis (“national socialists”) to communists (fond beta allies of the nazis until dumped) to fascists (led by a former socialist), then maybe it’s not so hard to see why.
Come to think of it, it’s a bit weird that the losers of WW2 afterward got painted as “rightwing”. Or is it?
LikeLike
During the Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact, many lefties actually supported Hitler (Charlie Chaplin being a notable exception). When Hitler attacked, the sense of betrayal was visceral, and they hated Hitler more than anybody. That’s part of the reason WWII was just about the only war we’ve ever fought when the whole country was united. At this point “right” becamse equated with “evil”.
The hard-line forces in just about any country are described as conservative. Even the old-guard commies in the USSR were usually described as “conservative” elements.
LikeLike
National Socialist German Workers party sounds so very right wing.
LikeLike
if you’re saying that the nazis weren’t right wing because of what their name says, then that also means that mohmad morsi’s muslim brotherhood party “the freedom and justice party” means that the islamists promote freedom and justice. and if you believe that, i have a bridge to sell you.
LikeLike
And you’re saying that the National Socialist German Worker’s Party was right wing because it was opposite name day? Why don’t you tell us why you think they were right wing.
LikeLike
Look up the NAZI’s Social Platform. Now take out the stuff about putting a lid on the foreigners. And…. voilà… you have the Democrat Party’s Social Platform. Exactly.
See for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#Social_welfare
The idea that the NAZIs were Right Wing has been promulgated by Leftists here in America. The NAZIs were Leftists (and still are Leftists to this day), as were the competing factions they destroyed in Germany prior to their rise to power, and as were the other European Axis Powers, such as Mussolini. Hitler did not have a ideological issue with Stalin – he had a concern that Stalin would run him over.
The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was that Hitler would supposedly allow the corporations/companies/people to own private property, and Stalin would not. But Hitler required the owners of said property to do anything the Party needed, so there was no real private property in NAZI Germany. So, there really was not actual difference between NAZIism and Communism at all.
As for our lovely Democrats, some of their most successful legislation has been cribbed straight from the works of Karl Marx and the NAZI Party. Here I refer, respectively, to the 16th and 17th Amendments (these align our Constitution more closely with the Communist Manifesto, than with our Founders’ original intent), and to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (with large swaths of this law wholesale lifted from the NAZI Weapons Law of 1938 by Tom Dodd).
LikeLike
“The idea that the NAZIs were Right Wing has been promulgated by Leftists here in America. The NAZIs were Leftists (and still are Leftists to this day)”
Absolutely true. Leftists and Nazis have the same ideology, from their atheism to their environmentalism. Look at all the Neo-Nazi groups currently springing up in Europe, they are all lefties – either pagans, atheists, socialists, and anti-business. The only thing I agree with them is over multiculturalism. Everything else they say is pure evil.
“Hitler did not have a ideological issue with Stalin – he had a concern that Stalin would run him over.”
Precisely. He was afraid the Communists would take over Germany and he identified the Jews with the communists. But other than this concern, all his beliefs were identical to communism.
Your next two paragraphs are spot on, spot on.
LikeLike
Eric Hoffer noticed fifty years ago that in postwar Germany the ones who had been the most vociferous Nazis made the most enthusiastic Communists.
LikeLike
Because both the communists and the Nazis were almost identical in ideology, save a few points. That’s why the Nazis were so fucking illogical – from their Jew hatred to their economic policy to their social policy to their similarity to communism, while at the same time saying how much they hated the communists – it was all illogical irrational nonsense, based on the musings of an evil man becoming policy.
LikeLike
Bingo !!!
LikeLike
Very astute observation, I have been thinking along very similar lines myself lately. The inherent narcissism of the SWPL’s pseudo-moralistic posturing is so readily apparent in their inability to confront any truth that might take them out of their cozy hug box and into a stark reality that would force them to confront the self loathing that is the true motivation for their hatred of western culture. “Privilege” is nothing more than a projection of the SWPL’s inner turmoil, due to their own fortunate status, on to the general population of Americans who have never dreamed of being able to have power and control over another group of people.
Ultimately it is an obvious fem-centric outlook of solipsism that leads them to believe we all share the same privilege and experience, so we must be racists/sexists/bigots/homophobes/etc. if we haven’t drawn the same (un)natural conclusions they have. Never mind most of their conclusions are not gained through observation of life experience, but rather through paying a king’s ransom to be educated to hate themselves by socialist professors in an environment of cultural marxism where no conflicting idea may ever be brought to light for fear that somebody’s feelings might hurt. Because as we all know, that equals being a patriarchal oppressor of the minority masses.
They have become so ego invested in this projection of their person to their group as a means to offset this self hatred, that any attempt to break through the cognitive dissonance blaring in their brains is going to only be met with bare hostility and aggression. Well at least from the females, the males are content to take the hostility from their women in the form of getting strap on butt fucked as a ploy for physical intimacy.
LikeLike
@thorodinfrey
The funny thing is the leftoids are supremely tolerant of some things and some people. But it is almost always at a distance. They LOVE various minorities – as long as they themselves live in a burbclave-style gated community, with only chemical traces of non-SWPL.
This is the point I keep making as well. I am at a loss to understand why lefties don’t give up the lion’s share of their earned income to those that are so oppressed in society they could never hope to achieve anything on their own. Why not sell/give away their belongings and move to low income neighborhoods where they can better celebrate the vivacity of other cultures from a first hand perspective?
Well, we know the answer to that one obviously..
LikeLike
The lefties you describe are “the Anointed”. The are wiser than the rest of us and therefore what’s good for them personally is objectively good:
“They care, they have greater insight, so what’s best for them is axiomatically best for the rest of us. It’s therefore perfectly okay to have a carbon footprint as big as Al Gore’s, because Al is doing what MUST BE DONE! The bigger the carbon footprint for him, the smaller it will end up being for the rest of us.”
http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/they-are-not-what-they-are/
Obviously just an excuse to grab power, but they’re the worst kind of power-hungry, for they want power for our own good.
LikeLike
Without a doubt it is the worst sort of power hungry; most lefties will actually live in a willful delusion of ignorance to their own motivations. If they were actually to peel back the veneer of their insipid “morality” the baseness of their emotional actions would be too apparent. It would cut through their narcissism straight to their inner self loathing, and they would have to live with the depression and anxiety, instead of forcing it on the rest of us.
LikeLike
Apt CS Lewis quote:
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience.”
I would be resigned to our idiot overlords taking half my income annually if they would just piss it away and leave me alone, but they use my wealth to turn around and torment me further. If the statists were content to simply use the poor and hapless as their guinea pigs the whole mess would be more bearable.
LikeLike
Tom Lehrer made a joke about that in the 50s. “If I see a starving person on television, I write a check. If I see a starving person on my front lawn, I call the police.”
LikeLike
Libs hate me.
One Lib I knew posted a billboard on facebook that mentioned you need ID to vote. He ranted about how conservatives were intimidating people to keep them from voting for Obama.
My response?
I posted a video of the black panthers dressed in BDU’s with a night-stick hanging out at the voting center in Philly. All I said was “I’m just going to leave this right here”.
He unfriended and blocked me the next day.
Make no mistake, facts hurt the left like holy water on a vampire.
In another instance I had a friend rave about how the right was fearmongering by citing how Obama’s children were protected by guns. I simply pointed out that Obama began the fear-mongering by surrounding himself with children, whilst simultaenously releasing letters from children asking Obama to protect them,
The result? After continued failed attempts by he and his liberals friendsto change the subject to something else bad about guns, they finally gave up, with one of them so mad that he went back and deleted all of his posts in that thread. Their issue? That I would not engage them on any other discussion until they admittied who used children to administer the fear-mongering first.
Never let a liberal change the subject until they first acknowledge you are right on the point in question. It will drive them insane.
LikeLike
>>> “There will be a secession, perhaps not in the traditional way, but a seceding will happen, in one form or another. It is inevitable. Some will argue it will be a continuation of the Civil War, the war that never really ended because the vanquished stuck around in close proximity to the victors, despite efforts to salt their earth.”
The more I think about it, the more I believe that the way the South ended the war was a mistake. It was driven by an Old World sense of military honor, which was still around even up to the start of WWI (although that war seemed to squelch it once and for all, along with most of what was Western civilization).
The better way to proceed following the South’s official surrender would have been for the South (which had every right to secede, just as the USA had the right to secede from England) would have been to wage a guerrilla war, for as long as it took.
That sort of thing was just not done back then, but it is effective.
LikeLike
Guerrilla war works only against an opponent that’s willing to constrain itself: you can’t hide among the villagers if the army’s willing to massacre the whole village.
After Sherman’s march and the like, if the South waged a guerrilla war, the occupation would have been beyond brutal. Furthermore, the South almost starved as it was. If they never stopped fighting, outright famine.
LikeLike
1) Resistance begins in guerrilla-like fashion. It is not a proper “guerrilla war” so much as an inspiration to widespread, organized, individuated resistance every bit the equal of our enemy.
2) The preliminary, unorganized stage of the fight must begin along guerrilla thinking more so than overt guerrilla tactics. We are dispersed but focused, the enemy is massive altogether but spread-thin.
3) Just as there will never again be large-scale battles with set-pieces, warfare of the future will be warfare of the past: special ops and minutemen mustering. Instantly organizing “flash mobs” that consolidate around ideological agreement more than a sense of territory, community, nationhood.
This is emphatically not a call to organize militias! This is a recognition of the contours of the battlefield where this fight is heading. There is no more important contributor to victory than the ability to choose one’s battleground. Sun Tzu and all that. “Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted.”
We are not at the point where a battle is in the offing. But preparation wins the war before the first shot — and prevents conflict from ever having to take place.
The Art of War. Read the whole thing. It is short and divided into pithy aphorisms. Take the Leaves of Grass off your toilet, Walter, and replace it with Sun Tzu.
Matt
LikeLike
Uhhmmm…the South did establish a guerilla movement that achieved many of their social and potical goals for almost a hundred years after their defeat. It was called the Klu Klux Klan.
LikeLike
I think you meant “the Democratic Party did establish a guerrilla movement that achieved many of its social and political goals for almost a hundred years after its defeat by the Republicans. It was called the Ku Klux Klan.”
LikeLike
A little off-topic but it seems germane enough: I’m a STEM guy, and does it seem to any other such men that you’re an outcast from the whole Brahmin versus prole divide? I’ve got too much education/status/income to be prole, too much future orientation to be prole, don’t like the betaness of prole social conservatives, not religious. Yet I wasn’t socialist indoctrinated in school, hate the smug outlets like NPR and the Times, don’t vote except maybe libertarian. My employers don’t live in the big city nor the country. Brahmins think you just exist to start companies so you can pay lots of taxes, otherwise their media ignore you. Maybe that’s why I’m drawn to the manosphere, this subculture is more my style. If not for this, I’m choosing between one side that wants to muzzle me when I speak my mind and another that would look at me like I’m speaking Martian.
LikeLike
I am in the same boat as you. Gun owning, former USMC, atheist and work in a STEM field. In my experience the proles respect what people like us do even if they don’t really know what it is. To the Brahmins we’re just idiot savants/ cows to be milked for taxes like you say, not really considered part of their group…
LikeLike
I’m also a ‘Georgia boy’ and also a STEM guy, now in Silicon Valley, and also a politically apathetic libertarian. I eschew politics with girls I haven’t yet banged multiple times. After that, if I get into politics, I sell myself as follows: career and self improvement come first (alpha) so I avoid politics at work, renegade b/c I’m a libertarian in a progressive cesspit (alpha), conservatism makes me a Protector of Loves Ones: DHV, alpha, and suggests I can be convinced to marry. Chick crack. Also chicks love the ‘aristocratic southern gentleman with a bad boy streak’ a la Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind. It’s a good recipe. Done right the political differences can elicit ‘gina tingles.
LikeLike
The Way We Were shows the sexual effect of differing political outlooks.
LikeLike
Big bad alpha boy is scared of a little heart-to-heart dialog with a SWPL femcunt?
Sheesh.
LOL’ed.
LikeLike
Late to the party, but… this is the English experience, which tells you how close you are to the end of Empire. When the productive class isn’t celebrated, it’s game over. Move to Germany. They lost their Gentleman class between 1914 and 1945 and have a proper respect for technical competence.
LikeLike
Leftists love me; until I start quoting Hitler or God forbid suggest niqqers stop bitching about “the white man”…
LikeLike
I wanna replace your q’s with g’s so bad.
And capitalize the whole thing.
LikeLike
What does GUOTING mean?
LikeLike
Collateral damage.
LikeLike
“Guoting” v. -intr. “To spew pretentious bullshit all over the internet.”
LikeLike
“quoting Hitler or God forbid suggest niqqers stop bitching about “the white man,” that’ll do it alright.
LikeLike
The liberal’s (that I’ve known) only social interactions with minorities is at work or at school. They rarely live near them and if they do interact, it’s middle-upper-class minorities. They talk about diversity all the time, but you can tell when they are around black folks especially that they’re not totally comfortable and they try too hard to show how “down for the cause” they are. It’s the funniest thing to watch. Yet, conservatives like me who grew up around lower-income minorities, we work blue-collar jobs with them, get in fist fight with them, we try some of that brown sugar, and get to experience them in the raw, each group proud of who they are, and us whites not trying to fake it for diversity brownie points. That’s real. That raw. Even though we have our racial biases, we respect each other because we’ve earned that respect. Liberals want people to respect minorities for an ideal. Totally fake and totally weak.
LikeLike
Pefectly said. I live in a lower income apartment complex totally surrounded by huge suburban houses in a wealthy county in Alabama. I’m like the one white kid here. Meanwhile there’s probably one black kid in all the houses.
The white kids living in the houses just don’t get it, because that one black kid is basically their only experience with blacks.
LikeLike
Interesting.
This seems to be a common theme from leftists – the “other side” has no right to exist at all.
If there was a button that would instantly turn all conservatives/libertarians into dust, what percentage of leftists would instantly hit it? 50%? More?
LikeLike
I’m sooo in love with him but he doesn’t believe me 😥
LikeLike
I’m trying so hard to get some attention from him but no matter what I say, I just can’t convince him about what I feel 😦
LikeLike
Shh. The men are talking.
LikeLike
Why are you posting here? Is he a PUA? If he is, then you will never “have” him in the conventional way that you think having somebody means.
LikeLike
And in the reverse case, what proportion of conservatives would hit the button right away?
LikeLike
Not part of the Conservative way of thinking. What they really want is to be left alone. Leftists are the invasive ones. Can’t ever leave good enough alone. Have to “fix” this injustice or “eradicate” that hate. The problem is they rarely stick around long enough to observe the results of their handiwork. They’re off to go save some other helpless soul.
It’s funny. For a group of people so hell-bent on the concept of relativism, they have a win-at-all-costs attitude like you wouldn’t believe. I wouldn’t put it past a great number of leftoids to selectively nuke conservatives who were “standing in the way” of the greater good.
LikeLike
I’m sure lefties are of the “you have to break a few (million) eggs to make an omelet” sort of mentality when it comes to pushing their agenda of “peace love and tolerance”.
Oh the burden of the SWPL, to show us unwashed unenlightened heathens the properly moral route of extreme anti prejudice. So long as they don’t have to actually, you know, associate with any of the lower class darkies outside of buying drugs.
LikeLike
Paternalism and attempting to assimilate outsiders in the “correct” ways of thinking and acting (when outsiders are tolerated at all, anyway) was part and parcel to Puritan thinking…
Would conservatives really be so well off if they were left to run things as they saw fit?
LikeLike
Get lost, troll. Putting “Bush” and other liberals in red pajamas in the conservative camp is as disingenuous as putting JFK in the same classification as liberals.
Also, look who the Puritans produced in 100 years: The most liberal progressive society we’ve ever seen. Their own excessive social engineering and overregulation was a precursors toward their “liberal” ideology before there was a word for it. Just because they were almost a theocracy it doesn’t make them conservative. And equating the two just shows what a moron you are.
Pennsylvania was a conservative state and has largely stayed one (except for the migration of the liberal masses to the cities). It’s also been a half-decent place to live minus the LCB and other corruption scandals from our liberal out-of-state immigrants.
Conservative leaders do fine, whether it’s Grover Cleveland, Cal Coolidge, JFK, or Reagan. Or would you rather have FDR who set up prison camps on our own soil and created the modern welfare state, Bill Clinton who believed he truly was better than the average citizen and didn’t need to testify truthfully (among causing other disasters before a Republican congress reigned him in) or Obama, who has legalized drone strikes on US citizens on US soil without a warrant? Conservative dystopia my ass. We’re living in a liberal one right now on borrowed time and capital.
LikeLike
“Leftists are the invasive ones. Can’t ever leave good enough alone. Have to “fix” this injustice or “eradicate” that hate. The problem is they rarely stick around long enough to observe the results of their handiwork. They’re off to go save some other helpless soul.”
100% correct. Like I wrote Jason in another comment :
Many of the “good actions” of the left created a slippery slope. Once one threshold is met, the Left needs another. So now since the left has no more “improvements” to make, it’s encroaching into very private matters like what we eat, how many times we flush our toilets, what car we drive, how we worship, how we speak with certain language being politically incorrect, the type of health insurance we get, what constitutes marriage, etc.
Make no mistake, once these matters will be decided satisfactorily for the Left, it will continue in its crusade. It’s only a matter of time before our beliefs and our very private thoughts are policed as well. Indeed, if you believe gay sex or abortion is wrong, or if you reject Darwinism, you’re called a pariah. Think of North Korea when the “Dear Leader” died – people, who didn’t express enough visual sorrow on their face were persecuted.
That’s the nature of the Left. It’s totalitarian and authoritarian, and it has to regulate every aspect of people’s lives to survive and to retain power. It’s like a monster that must be fed continually or perish. That’s why Leftism is the most destructive political force ever known on the face of the planet.
LikeLike
Lily, surely you don’t support wrongthink? Besides, who would even WANT an old dirty brain when you can have it freshly laundered at taxpayers’ expense?
Thor
LikeLike
Haha….indeed!
LikeLike
If you gave conservatives two buttons 1. Wipe out everybody 2. Just prevent them all from voting. I think the vast majority of conservatives would choose option 2.
LikeLike
where’s the third button for “Take me back to 1955?”
LikeLike
You’d be too late, by a year. lloozozozlll
LikeLike
No going back. Don’t want to go back. There is nothing inevitably feminist or leftoid about a world of modern invention, science, and faith — historicist SWPL fairy tales notwithstanding.
The future is mine, the belligerent male orthodox fertile. Their degenerate, self-annihilating “enlightenment” will amount to a footnote in an appendix in the book of history. My great grandchildren will wonder at this era’s quixotic excesses, then go home and slap their pregnant wives on the ass for a tasty supper.
Who and what legions are going to stop us? The ugly sophomoric cunts at Jezebel.com with their pens of diluted venom? They are an irritant to be scratched at and forgotten.
Matt
LikeLike
The comment tree isn’t ramifying? Previous entry was a reply to whorefinder’s nostalgia for 1955.
LikeLike
Insightful remark.
LikeLike
After the crash, when rebuilding, we will have to have a strict “no representation without taxation” policy. While the liberal elite still gets to vote (unless they are government employees and thus tax eaters), their vastly more numerous electoral storm trooper will not vote, so the self-appointed elite will lose their power.
Thor
LikeLike
“no representation without taxation”
fuck your taxes and fuck representation.
LikeLike
That’s an even better plan, I agree. But IF we are going to have some kind of government, a minimum requirement is that those who directly benefit from it – other than the benefit of living in an ordered society – should not be able to vote themselves salaries or any other benefits.
Thor
LikeLike
“…fuck your taxes and fuck representation. …”
people with such opinions/attitudes should not be allowed to vote
LikeLike
Just throwing this ideas here for rebuild, of a decentralized national politics.
Citizen’s of the state’s (of a net tax payer) should just be allowed to only vote for there state’s governors,state reps,state sen and reps of the national house of reps. the governors appoint the two senators for the senate (one six year term only) (reps of the national house of reps term limited to six years)
In alphabetical (I call it national rotation) order one single state via state assembly approval of a governor appointed persons to be president of the united states for a one four year term only and vice president of four years only ( if president is unable complete current term,vice president completes last presidents term and that’s it)
The new national government should only be responsible for national defense,postal service (if there’s still use for it) foreign policy,very basic Epa policy, basic space exploration and flat tax that funds those departments while keeping a positive budget balance (amendment for mandatory balance budget,if budget is in negative balance for two consecutive years president is removed from office,major wars/national emergancy are exempt from this)
What’s you guys think?
oh and RAPE!!!!
LikeLike
Wonderful ideas. And how about adding a clause in there that if you’re on welfare or food stamps, you aren’t allowed to vote at all? Stop people from voting themselves more free stuff?
LikeLike
I have no idea, and it might even be a lot, and I DON’T advocate killing lefties. However, two important differences, though:
1. Conservatives would do it out of self-defense. Other than some rabid social-cons, we don’t give a damn what they do–we just want them to leave us alone to lead our lives how we want.
2. If they wiped us out, they couldn’t last a week without becoming something like North Korea. If we did it to them, not so much. The only folks we’d miss are some of the manual and sevice laborers. If every faculty member of the Harvard humanities department simply vanished tomorrow, nobody would miss them.
LikeLike
I would miss Henry Louis Gates. His “Black in Latin America” television series really was informative.
LikeLike
‘If every faculty member of the Harvard humanities department simply vanished tomorrow, nobody would miss them.’ Right on. It’s amazing how much they and the SWPL crowd overestimates their worth.
LikeLike
Just as a thought experiment, imagine a battle between 100 of Brooklyn’s finest men versus 100 of Buckhead’s finest men. Who’s fitter? Who has more military experience? Who possesses more practical intelligence? Who’s families are stronger? Who’s women are hotter and more feminine?
LikeLike
There are fine men in Buckhead? Atlanta is a fag Northern town in the middle of the South.
LikeLike
You sure about that?
What did New England look like back in the 1960s? What did the Deep South and Greater Appalachia look like at the same time. What do those places look like today?
LikeLike
It would have looked fine if you Yankees hadn’t waged a scorched earth campaign,a blockade, and then a botched reconstruction afterwards. Meanwhile upending the entire social structure. Let’s not conveniently overlook that part, or was that just more of your paternalism? You don’t have to hate us to make a nuisance of yourself or to foist an unacceptable set of rules or principles on us. So, no, I don’t think most of the Harvard liberal arts faculty is useful any longer given that they are one of the major purveyors of this cultural Marxist cancer. There are a few exceptions, like Harvey Mansfield, but the majority have become polemicists not advanced thinkers.
LikeLike
Since liberals are clearly the least tolerant ones, more of them would hit the button.
In the last 60 years, the way almost anything non-liberal has been obliterated in the media, academia and almost everywhere else, is a sort of ” hitting the button” or a softer way of hitting the button if you prefer
Vandalism and violent protest comes almost exclusively from leftists and is directed at conservatives politicians, journalists, bloggers etc
Conservatives are shunned, are made outcasts, are excluded from polite society, are forbidden to do many things, this extreme intolerance too is a softer way of hitting the button
It has been open season on conservatives for decades
LikeLike
spot on!
LikeLike
Not many, most conservatives “love” humans whether foolish and ignorant lefties or people like themselves. Blowing “everyone” up is counter-intuitive.
LikeLike
Very few. We don’t consider you evil. We consider you misguided but not evil, while you consider us evil, and the end justifies the means when you’re fighting evil.
LikeLike
Well I don’t hate you, or very few people I haven’t met. Indeed, if it was up to me, I’d have a very hands off approach and let everyone do their own thing. The only problem is that what the Red sector of the country does affects everybody, so, unfortunately, some level of control needs to be exercised.
There’s a reason for the paternalistic attitude Yankees exhibit.
LikeLike
And what the Blue states command doesn’t impact us? You’d sink like a stone without us. Eventually someone has to make something. While your busy running off all of your industry, BMWs, VWs and Mercedes are all made in the South. Every Mercedes SUV in the world is made in Alabama, I believe. Airbus is building a factory near Mobile to build mid-range jets. We can’t all work passing memos on transgender sensitivity and diversity. From what I can tell, business is shifting to the Red States in general because they are easier to do business in. Too many cooks spoil the soup and that is the unspoken downside to everyone having a college degree. No one wants to really work anymore, but rather supervise those who do, only you know nothing and your policies are counteproductive more often than not, and designed to create more government jobs at every opportunity. This attitude of yours is exactly why we insist on remaining armed, BTW.
LikeLike
Tyrone FTW.
LikeLike
“From what I can tell, business is shifting to the Red States in general because they are easier to do business in.”
LOL! The funny thing is even super liberal Hollywood can’t escape economics, so it’s now making movies only in Red States. Some studios even moved full operations and built studios in the south like in Shreveport Louisiana, and other southern cites. Why? Exactly what you said. It’s easier to do business in these states – cheaper, less taxes, and fewer regulations. Nothing gives me grater pleasure than to see California lose revenue. But do you think its clueless citizens get the point as to why Hollywood is making movies out of state? No, not in a longshot. They will not fix their taxation and regulations, so everyone is flocking to Red States to make movies, TV shows, and the like. GOOD!
“Too many cooks spoil the soup and that is the unspoken downside to everyone having a college degree. No one wants to really work anymore, but rather supervise those who do, only you know nothing and your policies are counteproductive more often than not, and designed to create more government jobs at every opportunity. “
Exactly! But another problem with everyone having a college degree is that it’s not worth as much; its value has been reduced. That’s why in order to get anywhere today you have to have at least a master’s degree. Why? Cuz every Tom, Dick, Harry, and their brother have a bachelor’s degree , so they’re not special anymore. It’s like give everyone a million dollars, as some lefty idiots wanted the government to do right after the 2008 economic collapse, not realizing that once everyone has a million dollars everyone’s million dollars wouldn’t be worth even 10 bucks. This is the effect of sending everyone to college has created. C’mon! Not every person is meant to go to college. People in technical fields can get hired through hands on experience. It’s the universities who promoted the notation that you have to go to college in order to get a job. This caused industry to take the bait and require people to have a 4-year liberal arts degree for positions that don’t require bullshit liberal arts. As a result of everyone getting a bullshit degree there is an inflation in college degrees, so that a bachelor’s isn’t worth as much as it did 20 years ago. Therefore, now you need an advanced degree to get a basic job, or it’s the stockroom for you.
LikeLike
Right on, Lily.
I would add that it matters WHAT you get a college degree in. A degree in most any STEM subject is good, even if there are no immediate jobs. The reason is, to graduate STEM, you just have to have both smarts and tenacity, in addition to the degree itself being useful and indeed often necessary.
For the rest, I like to make a distinction between degrees that are “real” in the sense that they require real study and effort (say, renaissance art), but where the direct job market is awful (how many museum curator jobs are there?), on one hand, there are at least requirements.
On the other hand are Mickey Mouse subjects like anything ending in “studies”, or Underwater Lesbian Macrame. Schlock from one end to the other.
But there is another, more sinister, aspect, namely “credentialism”. Subjective evaluations are inherently dangerous to the prospective employer or equivalent, as somebody is likely to yell “discrimination” even where say ethnicity was never a factor in the choice. But if you REQUIRE an MA, then that is safe – even if the MA has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Thor
LikeLike
Thor, right on with the STEM – science technology engineering mathematics degrees. Those are the only degrees worth going to college (medical degrees, law degrees, and business degrees are also included in the worthy category), even if there are no jobs at a given moment, as you aptly said. But I grantee, with today’s technological advances those fields are always in demand, and if our people don’t get such degrees, industry will bring people who have them from 3rd world countries, so we’ll lose jobs, and the quality of the minds working on issues will be greatly reduced. So we better get with the program, and avoid stupid degrees ending in studies, as you said.
LikeLike
Hell, I means guarantee, not grantee.
LikeLike
I think the “-oid in leftoid” was quite apt, actually. Real leftists who know the ins and outs and whys and wherefores of their ideology tend to be quite tolerant of those who disagree with them, and will argue quietly, and sometimes even effectively.
Blue Team Zombie Voter Army is another creature altogether. And since actually *understanding* ideology is much harder than self-righteously preenng before their fellow rabbit people for the praise and mutual admiration that motivates all SWPL, guess which we get?
LikeLike
And that’s why I would want to have a gun, because the lefties are fucking violent.
LikeLike
Ha. Statists hit that button every chance they get. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al.
LikeLike
Leftists project themselves at a fantastic rate. They are incredibily insecure about their own intellect, sexuality, looks, and honesty, and so constantly call those who oppose them “stupid, gay, ugly, fat, liars.” They call people close minded because they are close minded. Hence the now-refrain that “Fox News lies!” Fox, a ratings juggernaut, is no more or less a reputable news source than left-leaning CNN, NYT, NPR, etc; it has had no more or bigger scandals than those organizations. But because Fox opposes some of the leftist dogma, it must “lie”, otherwise….the hamster might die.
It’s a massive ego saving device these days. In the 1930s or 1880s, leftists could honestly argue that their policies would work or would have some success. Now, in the 21st century, as it becomes more obvious that blue governmental and social policies are disasters, the intellectual defense is no longer their; but the ego must be saved.
Leftist men are effeminate for the most part. This is because modern leftist arguments have fallen into feminine disconnect: in the effort to defend the hamster/ego at all costs, any man who refuses to see the light reverts to a faggy, girly way of behaving.
We’ve all noted how women attack PUAs as “gay” and “ugly” and “fat” and “disgusting.” This is because women themselves feel this way, and, faced with men unwilling to bow down before leftist social dogma, and who deliberately try to manipulate the social scene to get what they want, women panic. Women feel ugly, fat, and disgusting, and feel “gay” in the sense that they might have to go dyke to have a relationship, since “good” men won’t have their fat, ugly, disgusting asses.
One trick I’m trying now against the Cult of Leftism (as I call it) is, everytime I hear a non-lefty insulted by a lefty (e.g. a lefty calling anti-immigration types “racist”, those who oppose Obama “racist”, those who oppose feminism “sexist”, those believe in Austrian economics “stupid”, those who watch Fox News “close minded bigots”) is to immediately turn around at them, laugh, and call them the same thing. The response is interesting.
(n.b.: as a racist, sexist, homo-ist, I take offense at people giving me so many unworthy companions)
I recently was in a conversation with a fag where he said that “it’s amazing how the right only wants to export brown people”.
My response: “Ha. The racist projects.”
Him/Her: “I’m not racist.”
Me: “You hate all those white people living in Arizona and Texas, and want them replaced by brown people. That’s racism.”
HIm/Her: “They’re doing jobs Americans won’t do!”
Me: “White people gladly would do them if the brown people didn’t ruthlessly undercut the minimum wage to make them jobless. Brown people steal all the manual labor jobs for cut-rate prices and don’t complain about bad working conditions so they won’t get deported back to their own countries which their own people have ruined. The white people are left jobless. And the white people’s government doesn’t do anything. And you argue that this is a good situation, because the white people should be replaced by brown people. That’s racism. ”
Him/Her: “I’m white.”
Me: “You’re not in manual labor. You’re a [[SWPL job]]. You won’t be replaced by a brown manual laborer. You’re an aristocrat. But a white guy, a manual laborer, a peasant, a redneck, as you would say—he’s out of a job. Fifty years ago white guys roamed California and Texas and Arizona picking fruit, cleaning pools, cleaning houses, watering lawns, and fixing cars. But you deliberately brought in brown people to take their jobs at illegal rates and put the white guys in the poor house. All because you hate white working class people and their culture and love brown people. That’s racism. You hate poor white people merely because they are white, and want them replaced with a different race. You’d rather have brown people serving you than white people. ”
Him/Her: “I’m done with this conversation.”
Me: “But you’re still a racist.”
Encouraging. He was red-faced and refused to engage me the rest of the evening. I don’t know what the long-term effects will be, but I am eager to see. His hamster was spinning, as his defensive responses suggest. But he was also personally hurt (at least I think so), because I was correctly identifying his projection and wounding him deeply. At least I hope so.
What’s the old expression? We hate people because of the flaws they show in ourselves?
Experiment will continue.
LikeLike
Interesting point about California. I noted an anachronism the other day while watching Terminator 2. Ok, not an anachronism but something was shown that is now extinct. Towards the end of the movie when they’ve blown the lab up, they’re running from the T1000 and requisition a truck, it’s a gardening company’s truck, single proprietor, and the driver/owner/gardener is white.
That’s 22 years ago and that world is gone. Today, mexican gardeners are ubiquitous and even a minor plot point in 2012’s Savages.
And yes, projection is the lefties tool of choice. Even if I don’t agree with The Last Psych’s definition of projection.
LikeLike
Second point, sorry. That SWPL lawyer will be getting very itchy in his rectum about outsourcing of legal labor to India. Which is happening, and those Indians aren’t dumb enough to rack up $250K in student loans to do it. When his job’s affected, then see his racism pop out (because it’s racism to not want to be replaced in your job by cheaper foreign labor). Of course, the left’s mind is not that rational, so they can be happily assfucked by H1B1 preferences driving them back home with mom and dad after college and still love diversity and the left’s drive to repopulate america.
LikeLike
Out freaking standing whorefinder you literally raped his ironic racism.
ps. RAPE!!!!
LikeLike
“One trick I’m trying now against the Cult of Leftism (as I call it) is, everytime I hear a non-lefty insulted by a lefty (e.g. a lefty calling anti-immigration types “racist”, those who oppose Obama “racist”, those who oppose feminism “sexist”, those believe in Austrian economics “stupid”, those who watch Fox News “close minded bigots”) is to immediately turn around at them, laugh, and call them the same thing. The response is interesting.”
Cult of Leftism is very accurate. I call it a religion.
In any case, you have the answer. That’s what I do. I turn it around on them and attack them with their own terminology. When they get attacked, they recoil because no one ever told them they were wrong, misinformed, stupid, closed minded, inexperienced, bigoted, racists, anti-American, traitors, don’t know what they are talking about, don’t know anything about the issues and only repeating liberal talking points, etc. They are used to being surrounded only by people who think like them and who embolden their position. If conservatives fight back by reusing the left’s own language, terms, and euphemisms back on them, we can steal their thunder.
“Experiment will continue.”
Please do. Lefties need a taste of their own medicine. And you’re one guy that can deliver.
LikeLike
I am very pleased to see that others are learning to do as I do.
The frog must learn to recognize the scorpion, and in some ways to adopt the tactics of the scorpion, without becoming a scorpion.
Most of my interactions with Leftists end with that Leftist (or, usually several Leftists all trying to gang up on me) becoming apoplectic, literally red-faced and spitting, with white-hot eyes. I typically approach these conversations with the following:
1. Do the homework. It’s good for your brain. Know history, know the Founders and their intellectual sires (Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke) and progeny (Rand, etc.), know the Austrians (von Mises, Hayek, etc.), know current events. Know von Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu and Miyamoto. Know the tactics of the enemy (Lenin, Stalin, Alinsky).
2. Demonstrate confidence and frame control.
3. Call them out and explain why (as whorefinder did here).
4. PRESS. And PRESS again.
5. Make sure there is an audience for the conversation.
They will cave, quivering with rage. They will learn nothing, really, other than to not engage you again. But if you do it right, you may cause them to hesitate, and to not proselytize their stupid beliefs. Also, you will cow others who saw the exchange, and you may actually reach one or two of them. In a land of darkness everywhere, a single candle can have quite an attraction.
P.S. This stuff usually/generally won’t get you laid, and it sure will get you dis-invited from some parties, but I don’t care. I live life on my terms, and will always seek to have the Leftists scurry back into their caves, because I would like to have some sort of country for me and my child. I have indeed had some women respond strongly to my tactics here, but I think it’s mostly because they watched me best an opponent in the arena, and not because I am “smart” or had good ideas.
LikeLike
Wow! Your 5 points to remember are outstanding, with #1 being a must if one is going to engage the fucking idiotic irrational Left and win – you have to have ammunition to deal with idiots.
“P.S. This stuff usually/generally won’t get you laid, and it sure will get you dis-invited from some parties, but I don’t care. I live life on my terms, and will always seek to have the Leftists scurry back into their caves, because I would like to have some sort of country for me and my child. I have indeed had some women respond strongly to my tactics here, but I think it’s mostly because they watched me best an opponent in the arena, and not because I am “smart” or had good ideas.”
Look, it’s a lonely existence. But we have to fight back, otherwise we have no right to complain when the shit hits the fan. As a girl, I have similar problems. I fought with many liberal friends and distant family members (although, most of my immediate family is conservative). But I won’t let that stop me or hold me back from doing what’s right. I wouldn’t let a stupid liberal hold it over my head and disinvite me to parties. This type of terror doesn’t work on me when the truth is hanging in the balance. The problem is we don’t have many people with strong convictions anymore.
As far as getting laid, if the girls like you, they will concur with you just so you like them. And besides, why do you have to get into politics when you’re just banging a stupid chic for the night? Fuck her and move on. Unless, you like her and want to keep her around, then you really have to cleanse her lefty-style indoctrinated brain.
LikeLike
Nicely said, CH, as usual.
Wanna comment on Fred’s “Marry Abroad” column?
LikeLike
Love you Derbman. (No homo)
LikeLike
Derb commenting at CH. One more reason to love this place.
LikeLike
Imposter. Confirm on personal website or GTFO. Or a word from the host about his legitimacy via email.
The guy is in enough hot water as it is to become associated by name with the unrestrained excesses of pseudonymosphere.
LikeLike
Fred was the Manosphere before there was a Manosphere. Among other things.
LikeLike
Wassup my niggas?
LikeLike
LOL
LikeLike
The worst Leftoids are the [semi-secretly Malibu’s Most Wanted] White People who are racist against White People.
-Like the PCU-style CauseHead girl on one episode of The Man Show who harshed on Jimmy Kimmel for their “Stop Women’s Suffrage”-prank by calling him, “A White Man”
-While having exactly the same skin, herself.
His gold response? “HEY! We’re not white! Who are you, Pocohantas?!!”
-roflroflrofl
+That, and there are basically no true FDR-style, nobility-of-the-working-man, salt-of-the-earth -type liberals left.
The only ones still around are post-60’s narcissist “Learjet Liberals”; -esp around NYC.
LikeLike
Couldn’t find it on YT, but Kontraband has it. Libtard is at about 3:20:
http://www.kontraband.com/videos/12474/Help-End-Womens-Suffrage/
LikeLike
reminds me of the Lifetime viewpoint these bitches have developed where it’s the white QB or CEO (or the famous white singer like in Showgirls) who be raping everyone up in this joint. But the stats don’t support that, do they? And when black on white rape occurs, there’s the apologia of how whitey made them do it (the girl in haiti or whatever’s going on in Scandinavia). Scary fucked minds, eh?
LikeLike
Cutter’s Way was a late-70s/early 80s counterculture film featuring an industrialist who rapes and kills a young girl and leaves her dead in an alley and rules the town with an iron fist. It’s a well-respected cult film. How much influence do such bullshit pulp versions of reality have on people’s thinking? It’s sad.
LikeLike
How much influence do such bullshit pulp versions of reality have on people’s thinking? It’s sad.
Excellent point.
On a side note, I always thought John Heard’s performance in that film was one of the most compelling jobs of acting ever committed to film.
LikeLike
There were similar themes in a recent and critically acclaimed BBC drama trilogy called “Red Riding”, the basic premise of which was that corrupt policemen and businessmen rule the country to such an extent that they routinely get away with the rape and murder of children. One scene depicts a group of evil capitalists toasting “to the North! Where we do what we like!” (All that was missing was the jokey toast from the Simpsons: “Gentlemen! To Evil!”) Interestingly in the first episode we already know that the chief businessman, played by Sean Bean, is a bad ‘un because he wants to reclaim and develop a piece of property that he owns but which has been taken over by gypsies… imagine that.
LikeLike
Hello, John Derbyshire-who’s next, Steve Sailer? (Or Rich Lowry?)
(Feels like all the compass points are converging.)
40’s, veteran of Desert Storm, 4 kids, gun owner, live in the epicenter of SWPL Ville, Ca. Many is the party where the ingroup reassurance preening starts-“white male privilege” Fox News” etc.
Like Whorefinder and Derb, I am of course racist, sexist, homist, but, as it has been said,”a mild and tolerant one.” I find these SWPL behaviors fascinating-my anthropological bent kicks in. (Boas and Gould, they shall lead us to The Promised Land.)
The SWPL army, though, are so many Benedictine monks- the Original Sin of R-S-H must be rooted out in others-lest others find it in them first. The hypocrisy of the flagellates, indeed.
(They love Diversity, but our ridiculously overpriced neighborhood is whiter than Klan laundry day. I grew up in Diversity. I KNOW why I live here. They could never admit it. )
..Sent from my barstool-Heretic Evil Twin Red Ale, followed by a tasty Newcastle…)
LikeLike
You have nailed Scalzi perfectly.
LikeLike
“I say “she”, because it is typically the female SWPLs who are the most aggrieved and intolerant.”
I think that’s because they don’t feel the need to back up their viewpoints with logic or reason.
LikeLike
Spot on: boogeyman Evangelicals and Jesus Freaks.
Every swpl is scared to death of these hypothetical people. It’s like they think being a lib makes them a character in S&TC (or whatever is the replacement status whoring whore show out there) and any indication of testosterone is a sure fire sign that one was born south of the mason dixon line. Which is interesting in DC because hellfiresluts who move here to be professional nags have to contend with few remaining conservative pols who they come across for their jobs here too. And not all cons are walking around dc are shirtless in overalls chewing tobacco.
so yeah, mix testy and inarticulate, and there you go.
LikeLike
The current liberal/SWPL iedology has assumed the proportions of an established ersatz religion- a distant echo of Marxism before it, in the 30s and thenabouts, among the educated elite. It bears all the hallmarks of a kind of religious fanaticism, with apostasies to rage at and heresies to be stamped out. Feminism and environmentalism were/are distinct threads of ersatz religion prone to their distinct forms of fanaticism, but they seem to have merged in the minds of the SWPL borg into today’s Forward! thinking Obama voter.
True as well about the human/humankind aphorism. Re secesssion- you’ll see a de facto secession, not a de jure one. It’s already starting to happen. Red states like Kansas and Texas are implementing radically different govenance models than CA, NY, and IL. However, whether an effective Federal model can flourish will depend on whether the Federal government can ever shrink its imprint on the States and society. In other words: not bloody likely.
LikeLike
“It bears all the hallmarks of a kind of religious fanaticism,”
Spot on; it’s a religion, however secular. Don’t let the secularity of it fool you.
http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=02617b1d-659b-4213-85bd-090651e03f18&url=the_worlds_most_dynamic_religion_is
“For at least the last hundred years, the world’s most dynamic religion has been neither Christianity nor Islam.
It is leftism.
How successful has leftism been?
It dominates the thinking of Europe, much of Latin America, Canada, and Asia, as well as the thinking of the political and intellectual elites of most of the world. Outside of the Muslim world, it is virtually the only way in which news is reported and virtually the only way in which young people are educated from elementary school through university.
Only the United States, of all Western countries, has resisted leftism. But that resistance is fading as increasing numbers of Americans abandon traditional Judeo-Christian religions, lead secular lives, are educated by teachers whose views are almost uniformly left-wing and are exposed on a daily basis virtually exclusively to leftist views in their news and entertainment media……….……”
LikeLike
“Why is this the state of affairs, and not some other state of affairs?”
Those who are weak beg for tolerance. Those who are strong want supremacy.
LikeLike
Here is the question: why aren’t we all libs? Life would certainly be easier, at least psychologicaly. I have the look, the intelligence, the background, the temperament, the vocabulary, the enunciation, the pedigree, the connections, to be an uber SWPL. So do many here. And yet, we reject the offer to join them, if not as members of the rich, ivy-degreed ruling class then at least as complacent SWPLs or arrogant hipsters. We instead join (and in some cases lead) the ranks of the angry, abused, shamed, dissembling dissidents.
Why?
I don’t have a quick answer. Maybe rationally, because I see liberalism as a destructive force. Or because I hate lies. Maybe viscerally, because I love my people and their communities. But lots of people sell out. What keeps us from joining those who would welcome us?
LikeLike
>>>Here is the question: why aren’t we all libs?
Well, I’m not a damn fool, that’s why!
But honestly, I’ve gone through way too many situations where I’ve seen seen people milking the system (including using affirmative discrimination to get ahead) to ever think that Nanny State Government is the answer. And I’ve had to rely on a SIG Sauer to protect myself from a creep trying to break into my place (he fled when I yelled that I had the pistol) to ever think gun control is a good idea.
I don’t see how a person can be a leftist after getting mugged by reality.
LikeLike
I do. Testicles.
LikeLike
“…because I hate lies.”
^This. Because I hate lies and hypocrisy.
Ironically, I have my liberal (in the classic sense) SWPL, iconoclastic art school education to thank for my rejection of ‘liberal’ leftoidism. Above all else, it was a practical, hands-on, hands-dirty environment, with lots of life drawing, the latter being probably the most valuable aspect of the training.
That is, being taught to see.
LikeLike
That is, being taught to see
You hit on something here. Leftism is sustainable as a psychological condition only if you avoid seeing and understanding the truth. For my part I’ve seen enough misery and stupidity, and ugliness connected to American contemporary leftism — nothing super dramatic, just everyday shit — to be uterly unable to create a bubble around me and pretend that leftism is good and true.
LikeLike
LOL so much beta and omega resentment on this thread.
Newsflash: the alpha opposite of beta SWPL mentality is not an equally beta obsession with your right-wing pet projects of gun ownership, climate change denialism, and Obama hating. Political obsessiveness from any point on the spectrum is Betamax.
Alpha = gleeful nihilism and political indifference, although leaning left, because welfare state means free shit and consequence-free female sexuality.
YaReally points the way of the true alpha path, the rest of y’all are basting in King A resentment with all this political obsessiveness.
Besides, you really gonna claim that Mao or Che or your average Teamster is some snivelling SWPL beta? LOL.
LikeLike
The Derb calls T aka “Joe” aka Ricky Raw a twerp in the Taki article “Late ot the HBD Party.” Sounds about right.
LikeLike
Wow, just wow.
I don’t really mean that, but some SWPL liberal is probably going to answer with that cliche, so I thought I’d get it out of the way.
LikeLike
Heh. It’s their ultimate “I’m a tribal insider” signal.
LikeLike
Status, status, status.
Liberal pathology is cool and hip. You will rarely lose status for spewing liberal tripe in the university, on TV, on the web, etc…. It’s always a safe position to take.
No doubt the education bubble has played a huge role in this. It pushed tons of people into University who had zero business being there. They may not have learned shit about their major but they got soaked by the Marxist fire-hydrant that is the modern university campus.
Working the Starbucks drive-through while their poly-sci degree collects dust, they are forced to reconcile their objectively low-status with their lofty SWPL expectations.
Lacking the real financial or social status that they expected would separate them from the proles, they cling to their Liberal indoctrination and the imaginary status they think it gives them.
LikeLike
And the funny thing is they feel they are being rebellious when they spew leftist tripe among crowds of enthusiastically approving like-minded people, with nary a dissident in sight. Bill Maher and his audience are the ultimate example of this.
LikeLike
And that is one of the greatest leftist/marxist tricks. Playing the rebel, victim, underdog, etc… while their belief system dominates the mainstream and is relentlessly shoved down our collective throats.
LikeLike
Exactly the phenomenon I witnessed back in high school – the liberal teachers took a bunch of middle-class white kids and convinced them that, in order to be considered intelligent, they had to start spewing liberal bullshit. It was practically encouraged on the AP tests we all took (ie, if you didn’t recite some liberal talking point in regards to whatever subject on the essay, you weren’t getting your college credit).
But why any of these people can still think it’s counter-culture when they are clearly the majority voice in that environment… the mind boggles. The libs love being victims.
LikeLike
After all, humans are right here, right now, part of my reality and my experience, while humanity is an abstract entity that does not love me or receive my love, smile with me, cooperate with me, or share fun times with me. It may not be the proper attitude of the utopian progressivist (doomed to failure as she is), but it sure makes poolside time a lot more enjoyable.
For an avowed atheist, Heartiste, you’re straying deep into Gnostic territory.
Better watch your back, dude, or else your ass is liable to get struck by a random act of Grace.
LikeLike
There are some beautiful quotes in those links. Nice to see and read them.
LikeLike
[…] SWPLs WALK OUT of rooms, mid-conversation, because they experienced an uncomfortable reflex when …read more Source: Chateau […]
LikeLike
Given the growing intolerance of leftoid SWPLs and the unconcealed loathing of the ruling class for middle class whites, and the apparent ignorance of the irony inherent in their behavior, I predict that chunks of the USA are destined to part ways along internal fault lines that are presently unknowable. There will be a secession, perhaps not in the traditional way, but a seceding will happen, in one form or another. It is inevitable. Some will argue it will be a continuation of the Civil War, the war that never really ended because the vanquished stuck around in close proximity to the victors, despite efforts to salt their earth. I don’t know about that. I do know strange winds are blowing, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and the center cannot hold. The ego is the most powerful force in the cosmos, and it will not go quietly to lick its wounds before a cataclysm unleashes its dying fury.
—————————-
Its funny you say that I saw this video the other day on pbs about these white people who have their kids living at home post college graduation who have no job prospects and cannot afford to move out and start a family of their own, I dont think it is possible to have people like that living close to single mothers who have multiple children before the age of 21 receiving 8k earned income credit checks of different ethnic background for very long – at least politically. I would prefer an internal secession – get rid of the income tax and the laws againsts restrictive covenants.
LikeLike
” I predict that chunks of the USA are destined to part ways along internal fault lines that are presently unknowable. There will be a secession, perhaps not in the traditional way, but a seceding will happen, in one form or another. It is inevitable. Some will argue it will be a continuation of the Civil War, the war that never really ended because the vanquished stuck around in close proximity to the victors”
The Civil War did indeed end. But the departures of thought between the people of the various regions did not because the people of the various American regions didn’t interbreed to become one people. Because they were distinct peoples, with distinct traits and attitudes, the divisions persist.
LikeLike
CH is right. Some historians contend the Civil War never ended because the defeated remained as resentful as ever of being forced to stay in the Union. Indeed, till this day we still have 2 Americas, maybe even 3 or 4. It’s to be expected. After all, this is a vast land, so each region is going to have its own identifiers. We are kept together both by a media and a central government that continuously needs to play parent to all 50 states and a few territories. Other than these two main things keeping us together, we have nothing much. Even Common Law and our language are being challenged. People in different regions of the country are resentful and frustrated at the other regions, as well as at the federal government. In reality, we actually have sectionalism, which was also very much felt during the Civil War in the South, the North and the West (frontiers). Today, we also have the aforementioned North, South, and West, but they are called Red States and Blue States and sectionalism continues. If there will be secession, it’s an ending to a venture that was never completed. However, who knows what direction it will take, as these things tend to be very violent. Think about WWI. It was a war that never ended. WWII just continued where WWI left off. Leaving loose ends is never good. Do we really think we can secede without it destroying the essence of America and the vision of the Founding Fathers? While we probably need to secede to save whatever we have left of the promise of America, it’s going to be very hard for some of us who truly love this land and all it stood for while it lasted. Why we never learn from history? Why do people always have to fuck up good things?
LikeLike
Regarding Jayman’s cooment above about SWPLs being modern day Puritans. I also agree with it. 1) Progressivism began as a church movement, especially among Methodists and Presbyterians. Walter Russell Mead even wrote an article about it a few months back. 2) In Moby Dick, Melville makes numerous comments about this mentality among the “Good people of Nantuckett” who firmly believe that as soon as everyone becomes a Presbyterian like them, evil and sin will be banished from the earth.
LikeLike
Yes. The heart and soul of progressivism in US History have been white, urban, middle-class, Christian women.
They agitated for women’s suffrage, abolition, temperance, universal education, clean prisons, decent treatment for the sick and the poor.
Being fairly liberal myself, I believe in all of the above except one. The cocktail in my hand should answer which one.
LikeLike
“The heart and soul of progressivism in US History have been white, urban, middle-class, Christian women. ”
Yes, but you just also listed populations which had free resource availability. There is a genetic component causing a predisposition. But it is more widely disbursed, and subject to environment. You are not going to see a lot of touchy-feelie pansie-types in any environment where resources grow limited. Once it is fight or die, you get real men as the default. That is why Liberals hate any allusion to that environment.
Make Martini’s necessary for life, and you would either need to be optimally designed to fight for your’s, or you would be culled.
LikeLike
Free resources in a Malthusian world…fascinating concept…
LikeLike
“They agitated for women’s suffrage, abolition, temperance, universal education, clean prisons, decent treatment for the sick and the poor.”
Yes, white urban middle class women are clearly the angels in our midst.
After viewing a century of the fruits of their “agitation”, I suppose you would say job well done.
LikeLike
These women have, among other resources, the most “precious” one – time on their hands. This is a historic anomaly. Typically, only a very small upper class (still, mostly the women) had unclaimed time on their hands.
And idle hands are the devil’s workshop….
… just like those of us bloviating on blogs, of whatever ideological bent???
Thor
LikeLike
FTFY.
LikeLike
nice shot to the twat
LikeLike
My previous comment didn’t post, but all kidding aside, most of the above are good unless they’re taken to extremes. Everything done to extremes is not good, and that’s where liberalism fails.
Women’s suffrage is good, but feminism is not good;
Abolition is good, but affirmative action is not good;
Universal education is good, but lefty stranglehold and propaganda in schools and academia is not good;
Clean prisons is good, but overlooking black crime while mega publicizing white crime is not good;
Decent treatment for the sick and the poor is good, but half the deficit of the federal government spent on social programs for the poor and creating new poor/lower class is not good;
And you forgot stopping child labor. That was excellent, but creating unions that strangle industry, isn’t good at all.
The problem is, many of these good actions created a slippery slope. Once one threshold is met the Left needs another. So now since the left has no more “improvements” to make, it’s encroaching into very private matters like what we eat, how many times we flush our toilets, what car we drive, how we worship, how we speak with certain language being politically incorrect, the type of health insurance we get, what constitutes marriage, etc.
Make no mistake, once these matters will be decided satisfactorily for the Left, it will continue in its crusade. It’s only a matter of time before our beliefs and our very private thoughts are policed as well. Indeed, if you believe gay sex or abortion is wrong, or if you reject Darwinism, you’re called a pariah. Think of north Korea when the “Dear Leader” died – people, who didn’t express enough visual sorrow on their face were persecuted.
That’s the nature of the Left. It’s totalitarian and authoritarian, and it has to regulate every aspect of people’s lives to survive and to retain power. It’s like a monster that must be fed continually or perish. That’s why Leftism is the most destructive political force ever known on the face of the planet.
LikeLike
I think the force that will eventually cause the downfall of the left’s sanctimony is that they are too big of a tent and filled with strange bedfellows.
Today they admire they gays and the gays are strong among their promoters. But gay men are at some level men and in one generation there will be gay scientists that advocate for inherent differences between people.
Today the atheists largely band with the left because of hatred for the right. But tomorrow there will be more atheists that cannot find a reason to invest masses of resources in society’s most downtrodden.
We can lie to ourselves but the truth will always be there. Each year fewer people believe in religion. Why? Because it isn’t real. Someday, each year fewer people will believe in a blank slate, in cultural relativism, in institutionalized racism etc.
LikeLike
You’re probably right, assuming that your premises are correct. I doubt that they are though. For one, you don’t know whether there is something to religions or not. People who were much better thinkers and more experienced individuals than you have believed there may well be something to them. I’m currently reading Philip K. Dick’s “Exegesis” and it confirms for me the existence of synchronicities that should have been impossible.
LikeLike
“People who were much better thinkers and more experienced individuals than you have believed there may well be something to them.”
If Mr Aquinas had wikipedia, he might have been a Richard Dawkins.
Either no religion is right or one religion is right. They are not equal to each other and many are not even similar to each other and most of them insist that others are false. I don’t get this “something to religions” notion. At best, there can only be something to one of them if we are actually judging them on their written tenets.
Even assuming that some religion is correct, I am sure some brilliant people believed in some wrong ones. Doesn’t change the fact that they were just made up stories.
LikeLike
I think Aquinas would happily leave being Richard Dawkins to Richard Dawkins. On the other hand, if Richard Dawkins witnessed supernatural deeds or believed a fraction of the reports by those who have, he might become an Aquinas. Fascinating, isn’t it?
LikeLike
“On the other hand, if Richard Dawkins witnessed supernatural deeds”
If you actually witness a supernatural deed and can manage to convince yourself that it was not a hallucination, you would be an idiot not to believe in the supernatural.
LikeLike
“Any sufficiently advanced technology will be considered magic. ”
And there are lots of prestidigitators of various kinds around.
So I am not sure how I – or anybody else – would manage encountering a “supernatural” event. Additionally, since nature is not fully understood (and presumably never will be), classifying something as “supernatural” is a fool’s errand. Then, all of Nature as a whole is “supernatural” as it cannot be “explained”, except minimally, and within its own terms.
Thor
LikeLike
If you witnessed the supernatural, you would eventually come to disbelieve it in any event. Unless you are the credulous type. In other words, it is a self-fulfilling prophesy depending on your prior position. The credulous sees signs that aren’t there while the skeptical denies the signs that are there, or, as a last resort, denies the reliability of his faculties (“convince yourself that it was … a hallucination”).
There is no substitute for faith — we are built for it. There is no miraculous shortcut past skepticism — we are built for that too.
“No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (John 1:18).
Those who seek proof in lieu of faith — or set the two in tension — are missing the entire point. To witness God fully would be to make doubt impossible. We are permitted doubt to preserve the sovereignty of our will, which is the divine quality in us that distinguishes humanity from the rest of creation, made in “the image and likeness of God.”
Matt
LikeLike
@Matt
Presumably Jesus and certainly many others have performed deeds that, if witnessed by modern atheists, would open some eyes. That’s not the same as unambiguous proof of God, but at least they’d fucking have a clue. You cannot have faith if you’re convinced there can be no God.
The best evidence for the existence of a God-like being I can think of are series of coincidences that would otherwise be impossible save for one far-fetched explanation. Subconscious ESP combined with subconscious psychokinesis would constitute that explanation. You’d have to really want to stretch inoffensive, scientific notions to their limits (parapsychology is a science, after all). Hardly the most straightforward explanation for why some people seem to be mind controlled to fit a larger story, to produce a narrative.
I’ll mention the fate of Titanic as a possible narrative of that sort. People in their hubris proclaimed the ship unsinkable, the first such craft in history. It sank as you know on its virgin voyage. That’s some unlikely irony right there. Not a very convincing case taken in isolation, for those new to this topic, but a candidate for a list of paranormally orchestrated events for the rest of us.
LikeLike
The “evidence for the existence of a God-like being” is existence itself. Or ipsum esse subsistens. You know that sensation you get, contemplating on existence itself? Like, whoa, WTF, I am real … how in the world?
That is what contemplating God’s handiwork is.
The interesting question isn’t whether there is a God but rather what are the characteristics of God. If you aren’t at least a deist, you have rocks in your head. Seriously, you are literally dumber than a caveman.
As soon as you can come up with an answer to the unanswerable, I’ll consider the Atheist Articles of Faith as possible. Why is there something rather than nothing? How can we be conscious of ourselves? What is the nature of the good?
Atheists make blind assertions. They don’t ask the tough questions. An agnostic is a thousand times more dignified than some smug dude going around telling me “like it is” about the nature of the cosmos and existence itself. Like nobody thought about it before Herb in Peoria stumbled upon self-revelation. Mercy, STFU.
Matt
LikeLike
Fatuous. Even after grading on a curve for feminists.
Casuistry proceeding from a never-examined presumption.
I liked it before the self-esteem movement, when not everyone fancied himself a philosopher. There used to be some humility, you know? Now every pinhead rattles off every micro-thought that occurs to him, and stupefied slackjaws bob-and-loll their bubbleheads in agreement for lack of access to another reaction.
Try this idea out for size, every now and then: I Don’t Know. Especially when you’re talking about the intellectual product of a thousand generations. Especially when your “I don’t get this” is a rhetorical way of announcing “this self-evidently cannot be true.” We don’t “get” all kinds of stuff, feministx. It’s called the human condition. It’s okay to not have an opinion.
Matt
LikeLike
” liked it before the self-esteem movement, when not everyone fancied himself a philosopher. There used to be some humility, you know? Now every pinhead rattles off every micro-thought that occurs to him, and stupefied slackjaws bob-and-loll their bubbleheads in agreement for lack of access to another reaction.”
Suit yourself. Who are you anyway? Who annoited you philosopher above me? Sounds like you may be some random pinhead rattling off every micro thought that occurs to him.
“Try this idea out for size, every now and then: I Don’t Know. Especially when you’re talking about the intellectual product of a thousand generations.”
To say “I don’t know” would just be false. I know religion is false. It doesn’t make any sense. It contradicts everything that is known and observed and replicable.
You can’t laud the intellectual product of 1000 generations without slamming someone else’s. To respect christianity as truth is to damn the pagans.
I have yet to hear any argument in favor of religion that isn’t the very definition of a logical fallacy. So far Ive heard “people wiser than you believed it” and “1000 generations of people came up with this”. You should know these cannot be taken as sensible arguments
LikeLike
Whether or not there is a god, religion (ie, belief systems) are the glue that holds societies together. Fewer people believe in it because it’s increasingly inconvenient, and they’re told things shouldn’t ever be inconvenient for them. It’s a societal disease, atheism, not some great step forward in the human understanding of the universe. The liberal attempts to destroy religion in this country is motivated by a hatred of the wider culture, and their success won’t bring anything but more institutionalized ugliness.
LikeLike
“Whether or not there is a god, religion (ie, belief systems) are the glue that holds societies together.”
If we aren’t concerned about the veracity of a belief system and only interested in it’s socially cohesive properties, who are you to say Catholicism is any better or worse than SWPLism? It’s a belief system that bonds people after all.
And where is the evidence for this necessary social glue. 50% of people in hong kong have no religion. The other 50% are split between bhuddism, taoism and abrahamic religions. Are Bhuddism and Taoism even religions? But HK looks functional.
Just google a list of belief in God by country. In Estonia, 16% of people believe in God. In Greece, 81% of people believe in God. Is there any observable difference in the general ‘holded togetherness’ of Greece vs Estonia?
“Fewer people believe in it because it’s increasingly inconvenient, and they’re told things shouldn’t ever be inconvenient for them.”
Yeah, it’s inconvenient to believe in something that no one can verify that anyone has ever seen or heard or touched.
What are you talking about anyway? Believing in a blank slate is very effortful. It is not at all convenient.
“t’s a societal disease, atheism, not some great step forward in the human understanding of the universe.”
Atheism is an absense of a belief in God. That’s all it is. I find it odd that you seem unconcerned about the actual truth of any religion and are more concerned with whether something appears to you as a “social disease”
Look, you and the most precious beautiful child you know is going to die and return to the mental state you were in before you were born. Total nothingness. Permanent and total obliteration as the universe continues to expand. Is that a happy thought? No. It’s just the most likely conclusion you can reach when looking at the entire field of neuroscience which proves 8 million ways that the life of the mind is entirely dependent on the state of the brain. We could call this fact a social disease, but denial is a disease of its own. That’s why SWPls have issues.
“The liberal attempts to destroy religion in this country is motivated by a hatred of the wider culture,
It may be, but religion is still not real.
“Ttheir success won’t bring anything but more institutionalized ugliness.”
Clinging to what is not real has already brought us an enormous amount of ugliness.
LikeLike
““Whether or not there is a god, religion (ie, belief systems) are the glue that holds societies together.””
LIke it or not, this is a true statement, except it is one of several possible glues.
The belief in a final accounting, whether by Odin, Allah or the Christian God acts as a constraint on behaviour. (Except that it doesn’t work with Allah, because the that religion is optimised for desert tribes whose main livelyhood is plundering caravans.) Belief that your ancestors are looking, with variations, can work and often does work in Eastern religions.
.
A similar effect applies to prayer. You can lie to your lawyer/priest/shrink doctor etc. and create a prettified image of yourself, but if you pray to the all-seer, you know it would not work. So you have to be honest with your boss-monkey, and that forces you to be honest with yourself.
In all cases, whether the all-seer on top is actually present or not does not greatly matter. At least in terms of the effect.
Thor
LikeLike
“LIke it or not, this is a true statement, except it is one of several possible glues.”
Where is your proof that it is a true statement? I am indifferent to it being true or not, but where are you showing that it is true?
“In all cases, whether the all-seer on top is actually present or not does not greatly matter. At least in terms of the effect. ”
But explain why the countries where the minority report belief in God do not miss the effect of a conscience. The ‘effect’ is still there even without God or ancestors or any form of supernatural final accounting.
Several eastern european countries were indoctrinated by communism so effectively that the majority of people do not believe in God. Now that it is over 20 years after the fall of the USSR, belief has not risen that much in some of those countries. Yet, most of those countries have done well in terms of avoiding wars, getting the economy back together etc.
This is an indicator that belief in the supernatural is not actually necessary to the human psyche to maintain positive social behavior.
There may be some people who really need to believe in final accounting in order to function in society. But that is probably not the basic state of humankind. Surely all people need some kind of a belief system that lets them feel like they can navigate the world, but this belief system does not need to be one that is patently false.
Personally, I am an agnostic, not an atheist. But religions are all obviously ridiculous to me.
LikeLike
Eastern Europe is a special case. Those countries have had the disease of full-blown socialism forcefully imposed on them, and now, having lived through it, have obtained a fair amount of immunity to socialist schemes. Many of them also have a re-born nationalism to fall back on. Nationalism – of the non-violent kind – can be a very good thing and works as a glue too.
I once, while on a brief visit to Estonia in 1995, when they were newly independent, met with an old friend who had escaped (actually, her parents did the escaping, she must have been a toddler at the time) from Estonia during WWII. She moved back to Estonia after independence.
Anyway, I mentioned that I had called CNN and complained, commenting on their coverage of the Estonian election that had been held a few months earlier. I pointed out that whoever described the event had said that the election was an odd one, because a third of the citizens did not have the right to vote. This normally very calm and collected woman hit the rafters and hissed: “They are not citizens!”
I calmly explained that this was my reason for calling and complaining in the first place. This about Estonian nationalism.
Identifying who the “they” were in her exclamation is left to the reader as an exercise….
Thor
LikeLike
Thor, can’t reply to you, so Ill reply to me.
“Eastern Europe is a special case. ”
It need not be special. Probably most populations are inherently capable of the level of non belief in the supernatural that eastern europeans sometimes have. If not all of them, then at least caucasian/asiatic types (we already see it in eastern europe and first world asian countries).
“Nationalism – of the non-violent kind – can be a very good thing and works as a glue too. ”
Ok. Why isn’t anti-nationalism a valid glue? That is the glue of SWPls and they are fine and upright citizens. They probably have higher birth rates than Estonians too (so what is all the nationalism good for really?)
LikeLike
Anti-nationalism is more diffuse. And very few people believe in it, except in the abstract, for example as long as it doesn’t threaten their own jobs, schools etc.
Thor
LikeLike
“Why isn’t anti-nationalism a valid glue?”
Places where nationalism exists(Israel, Eastern-Europe, Japan, China, etc) are usually against unnecessary immigration, which means that they will not be swamped by unemployable third-world welfare leeches.
LikeLike
Now look countries where there is little to no nationalism like North-Western Europe, Canada and the US. These places OTOH welcome people who cannot integrate into their societies and end up either committing crimes or collecting welfare.
LikeLike
@feministx
“This is an indicator that belief in the supernatural is not actually necessary to the human psyche to maintain positive social behavior.”
WRONG!!!!!
Before monotheism introduced the concepts of the Creator (only one creator creating the entire cosmos) who makes a distinction between good and bad, wrong and right, and who values law and order, humanity was in turmoil. There was no conscience, no Ten Commandments, no individual rights anywhere in antiquity. That’s why we had empires like the Romans feeding people to the lions, incest, and other atrocities committed in antiquity. Things changed after the Old Testament was translated into other languages, and after Christianity (the first daughter religion of Judaism) converted the pagans in Europe. Then Islam (the second daughter religion of Judaism) converted the pagans in Arabia, the near east, and Africa.
Now, if your retort would be to say that India, china, Japan, and other Far East nations have law and order and good humane behavior too, then you haven’t realized how much influence they have from the West. First, consider that the British empire ruled in many of these places bringing Judeo-Christian values to them, that still linger to this day. Second, in the modern era the media comprised of Hollywood movies, satellite TV, and the Internet reach the far corners of the earth teaching its Western values – values sewn millennia ago by the ancient Hebrews. Therefore, the code of morality found in all three monotheistic religions is the only answer to evil. And the evil of today is the left. The left rejects monotheism and replaces it with human reason. Human reason is not innately good or right. Human reason can justify anything it wants, feminism, homosexuality, even the murder of millions of people as we saw in the 1930s-40s when Germany rejected it’s Judeo-Christian beliefs.
If we capitulate to the trends of society as you suggest, we’re not progressing. Actually, we are regressing back in time to paganism and chaos, which permeated antiquity. And you don’t have to believe in God to see how important the Judeo-Christian message and system of government(s)have been for humanity. The strongest Judeo-Christian nation on earth is America, with the UK second, but lagging far behind. And lo and behold, these two have been the biggest most prosperous in history, all because they followed a strict code of Judeo-Christian values. If we allow the West to replace our heritage with its various nonsense, we’ll be destroyed like every other empire that ever existed. Some of us don’t want to see America and the rest of the West destroyed because they’re foolishly regressing backwards thinking they’re progressing.
You obviously misread the road signs because you keep arriving at the wrong place.
LikeLike
The force will be division, but the mechanism will be financial.
LikeLike
As much as DC sucks, I’m grateful that it put the urban leftoids and military contractors right next to each other for me to compare and contrast. It’s hard to find such extremes in any proximity to each other much of anywhere else.
LikeLike
And in the reverse case, what proportion of conservatives would hit the button right away?
I’m looking forward to seeing Ezra Klein twitching on the end of a rope.
LikeLike
Anyone who has ever attempted to construct a leftist Utopia knows this all too well. When you are objectively, factually and completely dead wrong about something, as soon as you open the floor to non-vetted questions, your entire world falls apart. Lenin knew this. As did Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot; as well as any number of less well known aspiring leftopia honcho. Intuitively, despite lacking the facilities required to bring their instincts up for rational scrutiny, so do less accomplished leftoids; those whose ambitions run no further than soaking in the privileges that befall the above “great leaders'” sycophantic court jesters.
And as did Bismarck. Which was his prime motivation for introducing publicly funded, near universal indoctrination as part of his nation building program. Absent that, and control of communications in general, why would anyone fall for the tripe that is necessary to keep so antithetical to ones freedom and well being as a gigantic, centralized and all powerful nation state alive?`
LikeLike
The Puritans did indeed succeed in creating a “leftist utopia”, just as their cousins in Scandinavia have in their countries. New England and Greater Yankeedom were largely utopian societies until massive immigration changed its character. Parts of it that consist largely of the old Yankee stock (e.g., Vermont) remain pretty pleasant today.
LikeLike
The fact that you call the Puritans, a “leftist utopia”, shows how clueless you are. Escaping tyranny and starting from scratch a new life based on taking risk and establishing religious freedom, are not a lefty-inspired ideals. There was a time New England was devoutly religious. Look at all the Biblical names that exist till this day. And look at all the Ivy League universities in New England, they were all religious seminaries at some point. I wouldn’t call the Puritans Utopians. All religious people know that Utopia doesn’t exist, and that only God can create it, which is why Christians await Jesus and the Jews await the Messiah.
On the other hand, Lefties, no matter who they are: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or today’s feminists and gay rights advocates, environmentalists and animal rights activists, socialists and fascists, equalists and moral relativists of all color, creed and religion, by their very actions are actually trying to bring about a utopia. They’re trying to make everything perfect, based on their set of rules, and on guidelines they think constitute perfection. That’s why leftism has a lot in common with organized religion. It’s a secularist religion, but nevertheless, still a religion.
In any case, to say the Puritans are utopians because they escaped England for religious freedom is a misrepresentation of what they really were.
LikeLike
Note: what we call “leftist” and “rightist” today are contextual. They are dependent on the prevailing ideas of the day. In fact the Puritan concepts equality of all (of their) people, a rejection of royal power and aristocracy, stressing education, and embracing democracy itself were heretical in their day, and was the progressiveness of its time.
“There was a time New England was devoutly religious. Look at all the Biblical names that exist till this day.”
Yankees are still “religious.” It’s just that SWPL ethos and “liberal creationist” beliefs have replaced Christian ones, as you correctly note:
“They’re trying to make everything perfect, based on their set of rules, and on guidelines they think constitute perfection. That’s why leftism has a lot in common with organized religion. It’s a secularist religion, but nevertheless, still a religion.”
“In any case, to say the Puritans are utopians because they escaped England for religious freedom is a misrepresentation of what they really were.”
The Puritans were utopians (and they weren’t alone, so were the Quakers who founded the Midwest, and by extension, Ontario and central British Canada). Both the Puritans and the Quakers did indeed succeed in creating the utopias they envisioned.
LikeLike
Succeed? Then where are they? One could say that the Mennonites etc. succeeded in Pennsylvania (at least by their own criteria), but the rest???
.
Thor
LikeLike
It’s called Utah.
LikeLike
Jayman, Utah wasn’t a colony of the Puritans or the Quakers, and anyway I don’t see how any of these groups including the Mennonites that Thor mentioned, or even the Amish, have established utopia or tried to establish it. They’re just other factions of Protestantism that took off after Martin Luther’s Reformation, although they like to call themselves Anabaptists and trace their roots to the Radical Reformation instead. Nevertheless, all of the Protestants broke with Rome because they disagreed with it and its papacy. So just because people disagree and go their separate ways, does it mean they are utopians? I know you’re trying to prove that the liberals of today are the descendants of puritanical thinking. Well, maybe so, to some degree, but the liberals of today are nothing like the Puritans, the abolitionists, or the Founding Fathers (who one could say were also searching for utopia) so your whole argument is pointless.
Like all reformists, they wanted to brake from Rome. That was their main thing. If wanting reforms makes them utopians, so be it. I’m willing to accept that. However, how do you draw a connection between the VIEWS of the Puritans and todays liberals, when the two groups believe in nothing identical? That is the issue. The issue is the different views, not the essence of both movements being reformist in nature.
LikeLike
The Mormons were a New England splinter group that went on to settle (i.e., chased to) Utah. Mormon values are very Puritan-esque (e.g., valuing education, seeking to improve the world through conversion/education). They are essentially a more religious version of today’s SWPLs (having a similarly high average IQ, etc).
“However, how do you draw a connection between the VIEWS of the Puritans and todays liberals, when the two groups believe in nothing identical? That is the issue. The issue is the different views, not the essence of both movements being reformist in nature.”
I’ve pointed out the commonalities of the colonial Puritans and their SWPL descendants. Exactly beliefs may change (changing with the times at the very least). The mindset links them. For more, read Albion’s Seed, The American Nations, or wait until I put up my blog post on the matter.
LikeLike
So your contention is that the SWPL are the descendants Puritans? Do you mean in beliefs or in their reformist nature? Or maybe both? Although, we both agree that the beliefs change.
Please, I look forward to reading your blog post about it. I would like to see what you come up with to prove this argument. Should be interesting.
You might be on to something, but how ironclad it is, I’m not sure, as I think your examples “(e.g., valuing education, seeking to improve the world through conversion/education). They are essentially a more religious version of today’s SWPLs (having a similarly high average IQ, etc)” might only loosely prove your argument, because many other groups in America have the same characteristics, which means that maybe everyone who came to the New World or developed its thinking here is Utopian in nature, including our Founding Fathers. Keep us posted, so to speak.
LikeLike
If you want to read a really profound account of the development of the peculiar split American body politic, study the second part of Mitchell Heisman’s Suicide Note. Brief intro: in 1066, Anglo-Saxon England was conquered and all but enslaved by French culture, in the person of French-speaking Normans. The Normans and their descendants continued to hold the upper hand over the Saxons for most of the next thousand years, and the Saxons and their descendants never allowed themselves to forget who was who. Heisman’s research and references show that the American Southern elite of slavery days were consciously imitating, and were even in large measure descended from, the Norman conquerors; the (Saxonesque) North’s final victory over the South was the final nail driven into the coffin of the Norman Yoke — more than just metaphorically. But the Southerners, as we all know, didn’t simply vanish into thin air.
What triumphed in the USA was not so much actual Saxons as the long-repressed Saxon political ideal of final emancipation from the old society of a political and cultural underclass oppressed by a cultural elite with a monopoly on power and influence; this emancipation, and the political culture and mindset it entailed, is the American political and social ideal as we know it today, which the USA has been trying to spread around the globe ever since, with varying degrees of success. In Heisman, begin with Part II, “A Vendetta Called Revolution,” for the full story of the “World-Historical Ass-Kicking” that was the Norman Conquest and its effects, which are still working themselves out to this day. (Just google for Mitchell Heisman and suicide note).
LikeLike
A friend from South Carolina has observed that Northerners love the race but hate the individual, while Southerners hate the race but love the individual. And JFK said that Washington, D.C. was a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm.
You gotta love antithesis. It never goes out of style.
LikeLike
So God made a Liberal…
LikeLike
Great video!
LikeLike
When thinking on these matters, keep in mind that Liberalism isn’t an ideology. It’s just an emotional posture. So it doesn’t need to be coherent, it sustains contradiction and illogic with ease, it happily ignores historical and scientific evidence no matter how overwhelming while preening itself about its adherence to history and science, it justifies itself simply by being — I emote therefore I win.
Leftism, on the other hand, is brutally ideological, fully thought out, ruthless, and if you’re a non-elite white male pretty much wants you dead or in a slave camp.
And since the Leftists set the agenda and manage the thought process of Liberals, the Liberals become the Useful Idiots of history, happily justifying the elimination of the kulaks. In any case, the game is over, the Left has won, and we few red-pill types are like the last, lonely polar bears clinging to the final few bits of mythically melting ice.
Unlike some, I don’t foresee civil war or some kind of great return to rationality. The powers that be are far too strong and when it all burns down — as it must, it’s just a question of when — they will come out the other side vastly more powerful than they are today.
Meanwhile, have fun, get laid, enjoy, because there’s nothing you can do about it anyway.
LikeLike
I’m a non-elite white male. I guess it’s time to start packing for that slave camp. (eye roll)
Also, liberalism is a philosophy — one of the tenets of Western thought. Read the first sentence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
LikeLike
That ludicrous Wikipedia entry may have some slanting reference to “Classical Liberalism,” but it has less than nothing to do with “Liberalism” the way everyone here is talking about it, so stop dissembling.
LikeLike
Stop splitting hairs with a dull Wiki hatchet and rolling your eyes like a frustrated twat.
LikeLike
Jason
I’m a non-elite white male. I guess it’s time to start packing for that slave camp. (eye roll)
————————————————————
Slave camp is not so bad… you get used to it after a while.
LikeLike
“they will come out the other side vastly more powerful than they are today. ”
While I agree with some of Peterike’s points, the last one is extremely debateable. The crux is the post-crash scenario. The crash is inevitable.
So the important issue is to prepare for the post-crash, individually and collectively. This is hard to do when you don’t know much about what it will look like, or when it will happen. Except I am increasingly convinced that the end is nigh, within say five years. Or tomorrow.
Most importantly, we don’t know how DEEP or BIG the crash will be.
One fellow who shares my basic premise of crash, argued, in the same breath, that money would become worthless and that cash would be king. Go figure.
Bur, assuming personal survival (a major assumption) what kind of governance or lack thereof will be created? We don’t know, but here planning would be helpful. Will the Internet still be going? Or should we plan on building – pre-crash – a commsystem of our own? Expensive and not immediately rewarding, but maybe necessary.
Thor
LikeLike
Rest assured, conservatives. In the event of war, SWPLs will certainly be used as hostages. That’s all they could ever bring to the table.
LikeLike
“Non-leftoids……….are exceedingly tolerant of leftoid SWPLs in their social group, even of the loony, attention whoring type of leftoid SWPL who can’t stop regaling a group with his or her political or social views. In fact, many non-leftoids go out of their way to befriend and include the few leftoids in social bonding rituals.”
Spot on!
We are by far more able to tolerate other’s ideas, and we also have a very strong notion that they have a right to be heard. Why? Because we know that censoring others might eventually be turned against us. We know it creates a slippery slope if free speech is not protected for everyone. The left unabashedly makes a distinction that only lefty speech is worth protecting. That’s why liberals get offended when they hear the other side. They actually say I’m offended and walk away in self-indignation. They don’t even care to discuss the differences in thought, because they think only their thought is correct. Hence, their world view is very narrow.
In addition, I agree, we are capable of having lefty friends when we find them more open-minded and kind-hearted, and we make sure they are treated fairly – with the same amount of respect our more close-circle conservative fiends get, as we don’t like double standards. That’s why we get liberals. We make an effort to understand them. Liberals don’t get conservatives, nor do they make an effort to underhand conservative. They simply think conservatives’ ideas are stupid, and if one believes in them then he is stupid, atavistic, and backwards.
“Leftoid SWPLs are among the most intolerant, self-righteous, egotistical pricks in the world,”
Again, Spot on!
Why? Because liberalism is nothing more than a religion. Leftoids fight for it like they are on a religious crusade. That’s why the shaming language and that’s why the shunning they engage in, just like the excommunication of a religious institution. Leftoids are unable to accept other ideas that are not in-line with their own world view. That’s why their circle of friends is very narrow too – they only associate with people who think exactly like them, just like in a religious order. They’re fanatic about their beliefs, which is why they have no idea how to begin tolerating and respecting different ideas.
There was a study recently which proved that the more education one has, the least amount of exposure to other ideas he/she had in life. That’s why university professors and researchers don’t hawk any world view besides liberalism. They are ignorant about conservative ideas, and they don’t even want to hear them. For them there is only one world view. That should tell us everything we need to know about the validity of your post. I looked for that study on Google but I can’t find it now.
Anyway, liberals believe their world view is moral because it’s compassionate and fair, when it’s nothing of the sort. It’s motivated by emotion, not logic. Emotions don’t constitute morality. What if you’re emotionally incensed and commit murder, is that compassionate? Emotions are not compassion, and showering compassion on people who are wrong or bad is evil, not a good deed. The left has no idea what constitute morality and what constitutes evil behavior. They are often moral relativists, which is why they can’t see how being compassionate to people who don’t deserve it is tantamount to being cruel to the good.
In short, you’re right when you imply they are rigid unkind bunch, and it’s hilarious when they try to project those characteristics on conservatives.
LikeLike
Spot on.
For a perhaps perfect example, look no further than this piece from (where else?) the HuffPo:
“Some Arguments Just Don’t Have Two Sides”
The title says it all, really.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. Unfucking believable!!! Or should I use one of femcunttery favorites: Wow just wow!!!
The idea that this evil closed-minded biased fucker even has the audacity to say only his point of view is useful and correct, unfortunately validates my premise that “The left unabashedly makes a distinction that only lefty speech is worth protecting.”
This piece of shit leftioid says:
“Take for example the debates over LGBT rights. On one side are people who understand the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all and advocate for marriage equality, employment non-discrimination, and equal benefits on that basis. Leading the opposition are religious fundamentalists, who interpret their holy scriptures as condemning homosexuality. While there are certainly two different opinions, only one is a valid expression of political thought, while the other is merely a vocalization of deeply held bias.
Arguments for LGBT discrimination are based not upon considerations for public health or legal precedent but upon religiously enshrined prejudice. It’s embarrassing and unjust that practices like employment or housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity persist in many states. And one of the ways this discrimination continues is through fabricated debate on topics not worthy of deliberation. “
One commenter has it right. He replies to him:
“There’s a problem with your ideas. If someone in power decides that your ideas deserve no discussion nor consideration, you’re going to find yourself silenced. I’d much prefer to hear all sides of an argument, so that I can decide for myself what is right and what is wrong.
It’s not up to anyone else to determine what I need to hear or be exposed to.”
And this guy too, LegoRobot, I wonder if he reads CH.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/LegoRobot?action=comments
LegoRobot linked this bitch hateful squawking http://i.imgur.com/23bld5W.jpg . It’s unbelievable what this bitch says. CH has been saying it for years, yet I wouldn’t have believed it, if I didn’t read it myself.
Now, who is this piece of shit leftoid who wrote this piece?
“Roy Speckhardt is executive director of the American Humanist Association where he actively promotes the humanist perspective on progressive political issues. He’s appeared on CNN Headline News, Fox News, numerous national radio shows, and has spoken to dozens of local humanist groups across the country. He also serves as a board member of the Humanist Institute and the United Coalition of Reason and as an advisory board member of the Secular Student Alliance. He holds an M.B.A. from George Mason University and a B.A. in sociology from Mary Washington College. He lives in Washington DC.”
This piece of shit garbage only validates another one of my premises on human reason, as I replied to feministx above:
“The left rejects monotheism and replaces it with human reason. Human reason is not innately good or right. Human reason can justify anything it wants, feminism, homosexuality, even the murder of millions of people as we saw in the 1930s-40s when Germany rejected it’s Judeo-Christian beliefs. “
This piece of shit thinks that HIS human reason, a religion he calls humanism, should be the only game in town. And, regardless of what he says about having debate, in every one of his garbage pieces in the Huffington Post he talks about quieting the opposition. Just take a look at the list http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-speckhardt/ You can tell from the titles of his piece of shit pieces how much he hates free speech. It’s mind boggling. Too bad FOX gives him a stage to speak, something he doesn’t want anyone else to have if he could help it.
Can you imagine our lives if someone like him became president one day? He makes Barak Obama look so tame. Under a lefty authoritative totalitarian piece of shit like him, we would have to justify the very air we breathe.
LikeLike
again, talking about what i know, but i love the gays that are vehemently anti israel, and insanely pro palestinian, even though israel is one of the most gay friendly countries in the world (tel aviv voted by gays top 3 gay cities to visit) and gays are hanged in the west bank and gaza.
fucking comedy.
ps. read the lyrics, seems applicable.
LikeLike
I like Israel very much and I am a fan, but I am sad they support gay marriage in Tel-Aviv. The liberals there are on the same level of the idiots in NYC and LA. They really have the same lefty mindset.
Gays support the Arabs because they hate the Old Testament of the Jews, which proclaims homosexuality a wrong sinful practice. Like the Nazis, homosexuals are struggling against the morality of the Old Testament. No surprise they support everything anti-Israel. In fact, Neo-Nazis, Lefties, Arab supporters, and gays have the hate of Israel and Judaism as a common dominator. Their whole beef is really a war on the morality found in Judaism. And BTW, lefty Jews can also be part of this alliance of Israel hate. It’s not confined to Gentiles. In fact, lefty Jews are not supporters of Israel at all. Israel has more support with evangelical Christians than lefty Jews. Look at that nebbish (I think it’s a Yiddish word that mean weak minded) Chuck Schumer endorsing Chuck Hagel. What a joke those lefty Jews are. They are traitors to everything moral, whether it’s support of Israel or love of America.
LikeLike
my friend served in an infantry brigade called givati. one day we were having pizza in tel aviv, and some super leftie fucks from the east coast were sitting with another friend at a different table. when we went over to their table to say hi, the leftie bitches immediately started fucking with my friend calling him baby killer and shit like that. go do that in an arab country and they’ll cut your tongue out.
LikeLike
They don’t tolerate any type of lefty speak in Islamic countries, that’s why they have no bitches there.
Those lefty bitches, why are they vising Israel if they think Israel is a bad place? What the hell is that all about? Those are the kinds of women I condone getting fucked and dumped by an alpha with an accompanied disgust on his face as he leaves.
BTW, some of those bitches have no qualms fucking Palestinians while they reject your noble friend because he is doing the right thing, but which their lefty fucked up mind disapproves of. It reminds me of what Whorefinder said recently about those lefty women – they always feel affinity for men from the 3rd world. That’s why they can fuck cope killers and terrorists, no problems, while whites are called racist and misogynists. It makes their lefty hamster feel good about the inequality and injustice vis a vis the 3rd world. Hell, isn’t it why whites voted for Obama, because of white guilt?
LikeLike
Yup. One of the lefty women with a sweet spot for 3rd world men was Ann Dunham…..
LikeLike
Hahaha! It took me a moment to figure out who she is. I guess, there is nothing new under the sun, eh? Same shit different day.
LikeLike
The old saw that liberals love humanity but hate humans while conservatives hate humanity but love humans is proven accurate over and over, each time I am in the one or the other’s company. The tolerant are those who are more socially aware — more empathic, if you will — of the feelings of those within their sphere of social influence. The intolerant live in a pinched id box where the only awareness is of one’s relative status ranking and of the gratification of one’s self-glorified ego.
I prefer the human-lovers over humanity-lovers. After all, humans are right here, right now, part of my reality and my experience, while humanity is an abstract entity that does not love me or receive my love, smile with me, cooperate with me, or share fun times with me. It may not be the proper attitude of the utopian progressivist (doomed to failure as she is), but it sure makes poolside time a lot more enjoyable.
”””””””””’
interesting thoughts
yea human lovers
why i don’t allow animals in house if you want to give love and attention to something it better be human not wasting that shit on an animal
LikeLike
“why i don’t allow animals in house if you want to give love and attention to something it better be human not wasting that shit on an animal”
Interesting prospect. While I respect animals and I think they deserve to be protected against abuse and exploitation, I agree with you completely. I don’t believe in raising animals, specifically inside a house or apartment. If I had a ranch, it might have been different, but in city life I really can’t understand these liberals all having dogs and cats, while they eschew getting married and raising families instead. If you live in a big city and you see a bitch walking a dog or holding a cat, you pretty much know Obama gives her gina tingles.
There isn’t one redeeming quality to be found in those fucking lefties. Everything they do makes it even more apparent how wrong and how mentally ill they are.
LikeLike
Actually Heartiste, one point supporting your notion of the Yankee/New Englander (Puritan-derived, SWPL thinking), note that they are communalistic, but it’s very much a closed system. You can see this at work here in Northern New England. You can come live amongst them, but you will never really be one of them (unless they’re convinced that they’ve trained you on how to be a good Yankee). They even have a name for you outsiders, as my fiancee is proud to tell me: PFA, or “people from away.” You PFAs simply don’t understand… ;P
LikeLike
@Jayman:
The best part, is you don’t even see the irony in your own statements and positions. Finally, you seem to be proud to be getting married in a state/region that is known for being the least fair towards men in divorce and you’re talking to a bunch of MRAs and PUAs as a second class citizen in your own state but expect to be taken seriously. Not only are you a fool, you’re obtuse as well.
LikeLike
Not a million miles off-topic: I recently watched a film called ‘The Chekist’.
Chek (heh) it out.
LikeLike
Shunning is a practice that is older than the Enlightenment, so you can’t really identify it with liberalism (left or classical). Consider excommunication or the origins of ostracism. I think shunning is just one of those universal mechanisms that operate in human societies. I’m not qualified to speculate how much biology plays a part but its pretty clear that there is strong environmental component. While shunning crops up all over history, what drives people to shun changes with the culture, changes with what people consider impious, dishonorable, taboo. It’s pretty clear that culture and by extension the shunning mechanism can be shaped in the service of power. Leftism is sovereign so society will by default shun whatever leftism decides is unfashionable (setting aside the usual exceptions). If they had been born in another time, puritanical SWPL women would have been very much at home in countless historical contexts, defending cultures that are unthinkably right wing by modern standards.
LikeLike
The Leftists just espouse ideas that are irrational, like religion, and cannot tolerate rational discussion.
They do this to feel superior.
For example, in this weeks Baltimore Sun paper they have been having stories and editorials talking up a cap and trade system for a number of Northeast states. Of course, this is being pushed by our governor O’Malley because he wants to run for President. Coal is bad in this scenario, so they want to burn less. This will make leftists feel superior. Guess who will suffer?
Meanwhile, US coal exports are hitting record highs because of increase use in Europe and Asia.
Try explaining this to a leftist. He just won’t get it. They are soo….. stupid.
Let’s face it. If somebody voted for Obama in 2012, there is nothing anybody can do for them.
LikeLike
“Let’s face it. If somebody voted for Obama in 2012, there is nothing anybody can do for them.”
This statement says it all, which means half the country is dumb, useless, and mentally ill, and they are holding us by the balls with their stupidity, and there isn’t anything we can do about it but live according to their stupid whims. Half the country is holding the other half hostage. Is this democracy? Is it democracy if the left wins election after election, and will always hold power? In the absence of session, maybe a parliamentary system might be better for us at this point.
LikeLike
Parliamentary system is not the point. Parliamentary system means, in simple terms, that the party (or coalition of parties) that can gin up a majority in the legislative assembly gets to de facto pick the Prime Minister. This is the norm throughout the democratic world,the major exception being the US, with a partial exception of France where a powerful president is ALSO elected by the people, because deGaulle wanted it that way.
The big continental divide, however, is between those countries that have single-member constituencies (most of the English-speaking world) and those who have some form of proportional representation. The former group will almost always be dominated by two major parties, the latter group often has a number of parties with substantial presence in the legislative assembly. In Sweden, for example, the number of elected representatives from party X is proportional to the number of votes cast for Party X, with the kicker that you need at least 4% of the popular vote or you get zip. And there are as of now I believe seven parties in their parliament.
One can argue the merits of either.
Thor
LikeLike
“Those who seek proof in lieu of faith — or set the two in tension — are missing the entire point. To witness God fully would be to make doubt impossible. We are permitted doubt to preserve the sovereignty of our will, which is the divine quality in us that distinguishes humanity from the rest of creation, made in “the image and likeness of God.”
Matt”
Well said.
LikeLike
Tocqueville allready in the 1830’s foresaw both the civil war and tje splittring up of the USA.
LikeLike
So… Women are the more aggressive, egotistical ones now? I’m sorry CH but are you high? These are classically masculine traits. They in fact define masculinity and alpha traits. I usually agree with you man but this is BS.
LikeLike
Well now. Yes, men are on average more overtly aggressive than women, this is ultra-common knowledge. However, women ARE more egotistical etc, except with regards to their children. Maybe it is the wolfpack-style DNA, the females nurse the puts, the males guard the pack. Men care more about others, in various ways (conservatives tend to care more locally, liberals worry about the whole world). But women will hold whatever set of contradictory opinions, as long as it benefits them (and their kids) personally and directly. Fiat its-all-for-me, ruat caelum – and pereat mundus.
Thor
LikeLike
“Men care more about others, in various ways (conservatives tend to care more locally, liberals worry about the whole world). But women will hold whatever set of contradictory opinions, as long as it benefits them (and their kids) personally and directly.”
Spot on, especially about the contradictory opinions of women so long as it benefits them.
LikeLike
Heartiste, here’s a passage from Colin Woodard’s American Nations that perfectly echoes the sentiments you have expressed about SWPLs (the descendants of Puritan New England Yankees):
(p. 134)
Sound familiar?
The animosity against Yankees you express here is nothing new, and in fact is as old as the country itself. Sometimes, the more things change, the more things say the same.
To quote a friend of mine: “HBD explains it all.”
LikeLike
[…] Leftoid egoism. […]
LikeLike
[…] social media. Ruling class treason. Corn and porn. Hypocritical, status whoring SWPL leftoids robotically sermonizing about a diversity they spend vast energy fencing off from […]
LikeLike