Monday, March 03, 2008

Seeing Things: Godwin’s Law and Smith’s Syndrome

Mr Smith, who blogs at Mr Smith’s Refusal, offers this excellent essay about a malady that has afflicted virtually all of us in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy at one time or another.

This is the latest in his occasional Seeing Things series.


Seeing Things: Godwin’s Law and Smith’s Syndrome
by Mr Smith


Reading Baron Bodissey’s piece on the “ubiquity of white racism” back in November of ’07, I was struck by the persistence of Godwin’s Law. As can be seen by the Baron’s piece and all related issues and articles, even we who see more clearly the threat posed to ‘Western Civilisation’ are affected by Godwin’s Law to some degree. Despite the known enmity that Political Correctness poses to clarity of thought and free speech, many among our number who pursue and desire clear thought and free speech have a phobia of labels, to the extent that Godwin’s Law still applies even in this little vaguely right-wing, counter-jihad corner of the internet.

Before going further, I should clarify that this is properly a phobia, as it is an irrational fear, in excess proportion to the cause of the fear. The fear might be justified if accusations of ‘Nazi!’ or ‘Racist!’ or ‘Fascist!’ carried any meaning today, but it is increasingly the case that they do not. For example, I have yet to hear a working definition of fascism from a leftist which is not essentially what most people in the West thought on the subjects of Race and Nation prior to the end of WW2, while I am sure that many readers who have criticised Islam or mass, unchecked immigration will be familiar with the knee-jerk nature of the ‘racist!’ and ‘Nazi!’ accusations.

The main defence of leftist thought, of this massive paradigm shift in thought on the questions of race, nation, and culture, tends to be that it is due to ‘progress’ and ‘liberation’ of thought. But progress, as Chesterton noted, “is simply a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative”. That is to say, we are told (frequently, and earnestly) that ‘progress’ is a great thing and to be desired, but we are never told what the destination is nor why we should desire it. ‘Progress’ is movement for movement’s sake, and brings us no closer to an aim any sane person would desire. As for ‘liberation’ of thought, I can only wonder how free the Welshman arrested and convicted of ‘racist abuse’ on the basis of no evidence and no victim would say this brave new world is.

This is no progress, then. No-one has been liberated by this mental apartheid of all peoples into designated victim groups and de jure ‘racist’ groups (as all whites are merely by merit of being white, so we’re repeatedly told), rather we are imprisoned in an asylum of the mind, both inmates and wardens, regressing (or ‘Progressively travelling’?) at a rate of knots to a thought control Stalin could only have imagined in his wildest dreams. And all for fear of a label. For fear of a vapid accusation thrown in to shut us up rather than contribute anything of value to anyone at all.
- - - - - - - - -
Which brings us in a roundabout way back to Godwin, whose law states that as a conversation goes on, the probability of one party calling the other a Nazi approaches 1. The corollary which is perhaps better known is that once this shot has been fired, the conversation ends. The identification of this law has allowed many to overcome the Nazi accusation and continue conversations like mature adults, which is quite right and proper as far as it goes. But does this go far enough? Recent events suggest not, and even excellent writers such as Fjordman the Great can be and have been accused of Nazi-ist sympathies (an accusation about as sensible as accusing turkeys of voting for Christmas) by people who were formerly thought to be on the same side as the rest of us. Some reaction against this inability for Western Whites to ever do right in the eyes of our detractors can be seen in the excellent Brussels Journal piece “Are we all Nazis now?”.

Those who have read Orwell’s excellent Nineteen Eighty-Four (and some who have not) will be well aware of the term “Thought Police” and all it implies, but a more relevant concept to our current circumstances would, I think, be the terms “goodthinkful” and “crimestop”. The former being the state of only thinking in State-approved ways, and the latter being the sudden shutdown of logical and rational faculties when a train of thought or syllogism approaches a conclusion which is in itself a thoughtcrime. In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, we see quite clearly that the State actively and explicitly enforces and perpetuates this. As a result we can see the monstrosity of the State and its machinations against the humanity of its populace. But how can one explain the existence of goodthinkfullness and crimestop here, in the most free part of what remains of the Free West, the anti-jihadi spectrum of the conservative blogosphere?

In considering this, the only explanation I can think of which even begins to make sense is somewhat… odd. The explanation is that this behaviour is the result of a mental illness, but one which is not spread by conventional means. This is no organic brain disorder brought on by eating aluminium-tainted meals or drinking bad water, nor a neurosis learnt from aberrant environments in the home or the behaviour of loved ones. Nor is it a psychosis brought about by substance abuse or abusive environments. This disorder, which I will term “Smith’s Syndrome” for the sake of convenience (and because calling it “Godwin’s Disorder” might annoy Mr Godwin), is all and none of the above. Smith’s Syndrome is contracted by the ingestion not of biological substances, but of ideological toxins. It is learnt not from aberrant home environments, but from obscene and unnatural societal environments (which, of course, are much harder to escape), and brought about not by substance abuse but by the abuse of the processes involved in learning. Smith’s Syndrome is, in fact, a memetic infection in the sense that the beliefs involved are spread by various forms of viral marketing and ideological infection.

So what are the symptoms of Smith’s Syndrome? Let’s have a look at a few, and remember that without Godwin’s Law it would be much harder to identify these:

1. A firm belief that to believe in the superiority and/or right of existence of one’s own culture is a pleasing and ‘enriching’ experience in the case of all cultures save for those created by white nations. This surface belief typically covers a belief that all whites who believe in the superiority and/or right to exist of cultures created by white nations are de facto National Socialists/ Fascists/ Racists or all of the above.
2. A fanatical belief that to believe in the superiority and/or right of existence of one’s own race is a ludicrous and mildly amusing eccentricity of non-whites, but that in whites it is proof positive of that ultimate evil, ‘racism’. Those experiencing Smith’s Syndrome will usually vehemently accuse whites who do not wish for the extinction of the white race of ‘xenophobia’, ‘nazism’, or if they have an expanded vocabulary ‘white separatism/nationalism /supremacy’.
3. A belief that the questions of culture and race are completely independent and that culture X can and will exist entirely without the presence of the race which formed and created it. The object lessons of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and all formerly white, now ghettoised ‘minority’ areas in the West will not occur to them independently and will always be attributed to ‘oppression’, ‘white privilege/ racism’, or ‘socially injust cultural discourse’ should a non-sufferer make the point to them.
4. A belief that, although ‘race does not exist’ and ‘there is only one race, the human race’, all whites should now and for evermore feel disproportionately guilty for the alleged crimes of their forebears. If possible, this guilt should manifest in a financial reward for the injured parties in the form of a jizya reparations payout or other financial incentive.
5. An entirely contradictory opinion that whilst one in everyday life should be permitted (as an entitlement) to enjoy all the benefits and luxuries of ‘Western Civilisation’, that Western Civilisation and the people who created it are vastly inferior (not least morally) to the ‘enriching’ masses outside of the West. This usually goes hand-in-hand with the belief that borders should be opened further still to invite yet more of those outside to come into the West to change the nature of its culture. [Note the contradiction with belief 3.]
6. That Western Civilisation and all of its (grudgingly admitted) benefits has nothing to do with the toil and triumphs of the white race (which does not exist) and simply fell from the sky one sunny day in 1945. Its history and origin thus neutralised, Western Civilisation is considered the property and claim of all people from any location, background, and current belief, regardless of compatibility.

At base, Smith’s Syndrome is a pathology which removes the birthright of all white westerners in a systematic and thorough mental, psychological, and emotional approach. The success of the infection can be seen in many places, from the reaction of talking heads (noted by the Fulham Reactionary) to a Church of England bishop’s warning that Islamic extremists are creating no-go areas in the UK, to the approaching arrest of a British blogger on suspicion of ‘stirring up racial hatred’. And let’s not even start on the reaction of the British police (otherwise known as the Citizen Control unit of the Labour government) to those who wished to protest against Islamic paedophilia, as noted by Dangerously Subversive Dad back in ’05, when the police spent resources and taxpayers’ money enforcing a ban on the protest march rather than imprisoning the paedophiles.

Given the strength of the influence of Smith’s Syndrome and the length of exposure we westerners (of all colours) have all had to it, it is hard to know if anyone in the West would be able to come up with an antidote to it. Without actually becoming a white nationalist, that is. And would anybody outside the West care enough to think something up? And if so, could they think up something that worked? I honestly don’t know.

I think, in the end, the only hope we (white westerners) have of breaking free is to simply give up on worrying about how others see the thought processes and questions we pose, and just follow the logic and reason of the issues. Rather than focusing on ignoring the distractions and impediments, focusing on the questions themselves could work.

So let’s stop caring about accusations of ‘Nazi’, or ‘Fascist’, or even ‘Racist’, and just take each question on its own merits, without regard for the controversy or social stigma involved in the subject area. Clarity of thought alone will save us, and we must settle for nothing less.

87 comments:

Kirk Parker said...

The overall point here may be fine, and I'm quite in agreement that we ought to mostly ignore the "Fascist/racist" taunts and treat everyone's ideas on their merits.

But... I'm absolutely not going to buy the author's dismissal of the race vs culture question. One would have thought that such things as the centuries-long American experiment with immigration and assimilation, the more recent occurrence of huge-scale migrations (do the names Viet Dinh or Ayaan Hirsi Ali ring any bells?), and the huge number of foreign-adopted children in the US would have put rest to this sad concept. Sorry, it is the culture, and I (indeed, all of us here) have far more in common with people like V.S. Naipaul and Hirsi Ali than we do with some Richard Butler or skinhead type who opposes people simply because of their physical ancestry.

Homophobic Horse said...

I object to being classified as "White." It is purely physical and as such does not even begin to convey the complexity and richness of Western Civilisation. It is also erroneous, for Caucasians have created many civilisations and the West is only one of them.

Ypp said...

The question of race vs culture is really an important one, and not clear yet. Is assimilation the solution, or assimilation is another utopia, which only harms our case? Is CAIR the result of poor or pseudo-assimilation, or wise versa, it is the product of Muslim assimilation and adaptation to American political system? When is assimilation good enough?

As for the fobia of being called racist, I think there is some reason for it. Because we already had in history problems with racism. So we have a kind of immunity - fear of concepts which have proven to be problematic. We can criticize multiculturalism and look for a weighted centrist position, but it is good that we do not jump into another extrema, which has already proven to be not constructive.

Alexis said...

Political correctness is nothing new.

There was once a time when Naboth was put to death for blasphemy against God, while the perjury against him was orchestrated by the real enemy of Israel. And this by the regime that called Elijah a troublemaker.

There is little doubt that the cultural heirs of a certain Phoenician princess continue her tradition.

Brian said...

I agree with most of the above comments, especially Homophobic Horse.

Linking the West to "white" is not only dangerous but ultimately a self-destruction of sorts. Many of us pride ourselves on the fact that The West is an inherently universal concept, marginalizing non-white Westerners is just well.. stupid and a severe case cognitive dissonance.

One Culture, Many Races.

Diamed said...

Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Lincoln, and even Wilson were all racists. (Not to mention Churchill) The greatest era of American history was extremely racist, oppressive, nazi, etc. The same people who passed eugenics laws in the 1930's were our 'greatest generation' who defeated the nazis.

Ever since we abandoned our racist beliefs, America (and europe) has sunk into a swamp of self-destruction and self-hatred. Crime and illegitimacy skyrocketed, immigration became indiscriminate, freedom of speech eroded, birth rates plummeted, science and art foundered (fewer and fewer great works even with a larger and larger population and funds to support them), you name it. If this is progress, any more of it and we shall be undone.

Yes, racism created Nazi Germany. It also created the USA, the British Empire, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Anyone who is alive today on the European diaspora had better thank his lucky stars his ancestors were racists willing to conquer new lands and give their children a new future. Anyone who has ever benefited from America's technology and freedom must also thank racists, since a bunch of Indians with tomahawks, (not tomahawk missiles) wouldn't have helped them defeat communism very well.

Oh for the days of racism where Detroit, Washington DC, and LA were not crime filled gang filled slums of degenerates but thriving clean safe cities, the envy of the world.

Death by Nazi racism: 50 million?
Death by Communism: 100 million+
Death by Jihad: 200 million+

Obviously Nazism is the worst evil to ever afflict the earth, oh wait no it wasn't.

Nobel prize winners Watson and Shockeley were racists. The race they are racist against still has yet to produce a single nobel prize in science. There are more racist nobel prize winners than nobel prize winners of entire races.

The choice is clear. Support your race or unilaterally disarm and let foreign races exterminate you. No one else is playing this feel-good game. If we alone play nice and fair and altruistically, we alone will be demolished and devoured by the hispanics, Indians, muslims, africans, and chinese who don't give a damn about us. If you have such an endless wellspring of love and pity and mercy for others, give it to the European people, currently only 8% of the world population, slated to become only 2% by 2100, the most endangered race on earth.

Alexis said...

The United States is still a racist place; our census still categorizes people by race and our government still discriminates on the basis of race. The difference now is that Americans are told that modern racism is therapeutic.

It is altogether unfortunate that the civil rights dream of ending racism has metamorphosed into a welter of anti-white hatred. If there is any disagreement I have with the Left, it is that it has become altogether too similar to the old white racism it demonizes even now.

Wasn't Pushkin not a great Russian writer? Wasn't George Washington Carver a great scientist? For that matter, should one reject the friendship of Richard Fernandez merely because he is of Filipino origin? Western civilization does itself no favors when it deprives itself of the talents of people who are not white yet very western.

Guessedworker said...

Diamed has it. The rest of you are total innocents, just babies in the real world. There are millions like you, of course. Complacent, soft-bellied centrists too "nice" to understand that in a battle of life and death there is no centre, and sides must be taken. The complacent are with the enemy. The good are with their kin.

Why? Well, the ultimate interest in life is genetic continuity, not playing safe, not collecting brownie points for being nice to Jews and negroes, not exuding love or tolerance or fairness everywhere you go, not being an "individual", not going to a fairyland in the clouds when you die.

I'll say it again: the first, the highest interest in life is genetic continuity. It accords with Nature's purpose of transmitting information through time. It expresses in Man at the collective level as Ethnic Genetic Interest, and he expresses that in his politics as Nationalism.

You know ... Nationalism. The thing that those blind, damaged slaves of old Karl mean when they squeak "Nazi bastard" or "racist scum".

The strange thing is, every people has a nationalism except Europeans. Jews have four! Zionism, Talmudism and the two Marxisms. Africans in their homelands have their tribalisms, and "hating whitey" everywhere else. The Japanese and Chinese, Mexicans and Indians ... all of them are irredeemably ethnocentric, and all of them instinctively understand the politics of genetic interest.

Only you are ignorant.

Now, I know you don't understand this today. You have no education. All you ever heard is the demonisation of people like Diamed who speak of this. Not wanting to be a Diamed, not wanting to be disliked in any way, you are universalists, altruists, patriots, conservatives, libertarians, et al. It doesn't matter which. All of it is infected with the postmodern, all of it is antipathetic to the survival of Europe's children.

That's the zeitgeist. But how so? I mean, it is incredible that a people of such intelligence, creativity, energy, beauty and power should be reduced to the contemplation of real extinction. How the hell did it come to pass?

That's the point. That's what you don't yet understand. It helps, of course, to be old enough, like me, to remember the moment in the early 1980s when the zeitgeist was culturally marxised. Like the moment ten years earlier when the Nazi extermination programme of 1941-45 was turned into the modern Holocaust, you have to be a certain age to know it happened at all. But it did, and like everything that has happened to us before and since, it was no accident.

So this is a challenge to you to get off your ample rears and LEARN. Stop thinking that you understand anything. You don't. Your convictions and your values are not yours. You absorbed them from the liberalism of the world about you. You are a creature of the times. You have never thought for yourself.

I guess that's why you are reading a nice, safe blog like GoV, rather than the intellectually difficult and politically dangerous place where I lend a hand. Here you can obediently rail at those bad, bad Muslims. You can reject the meaning of kinship for a blank slate full of "culture". And if that means your people still go extinct in 100 years, well what of it. Everyone else around you thinks just like you do.

Go lemming, and learn where your anger at the Muslim came from, and why you think racism is evil. But be warned. It takes anything from two to ten years to wake up.

Good luck.

Wat Tyler said...

Moving on...

The following link was in an article from the Brussels journal.

http://www.steadfasttrust.org.uk/

I think everyone should take a moment just to read the site as it is quite uplifting to know moves are being made to lay the foundations of any future resistance to Smiths syndrome.

Ypp said...

Guessedworker, a really tough guy he is. No jokes. And the source of all evil are Jews, who have 4 nationalisms, among them 2 communisms. I believe, four is not all. Isn't Islam another Jewish nationalism? More 10 years, you will get it, Guessedworker, if they don't put you on drugs earlier.

Guessedworker said...

ypp,

You are putting words in my outh that I did not utter. I've never been a Judeophobe, nor convinced that they are the greatest of our problems. So perhaps you will retract your little smear.

btw, if by some magical means you had the power to free Europeans everywhere to pursue their own ethnic interests, and not those of Jewry, would you do so?

Lombard1985 said...

diamed & guessedworker,

Here, here!

It really hits home that one cannot really advocated the protection of the West without ensuring the continued survival and prosperity of the people who created the West. In other words, white people.

Ypp said...

Europeans seem to have failed to produce any kind of religious nationalism, at least in modern times. And all secular nationalisms failed. American settlers seem to have kind of religious nationalism. Russians have kind of religious nationalism, and Jews have ONE. All those religious nationalisms are concerned about nation/culture, but not color. Race matters, but probably only as a source for cultural divide, not by itself. I believe if Europe survives, its only through rise of some new religious nationalism. Talking about genes, evolution etc. only push you into depression and suicide.

SEOULDIER13 said...

Hey daimed,
I am half White and Korean.
Do you think for a second, even though my blood runs the race of Germans that are "pure blood" and Irish that I can proclaim to be white and join the KKK? I don't think so. I am proud to be white no doubt. I am also proud to be multi cultured so as to reap the benefits of cultural awareness and tolerance for races. As long as they don't oppress and try to ruin another race, I am fine with them. I do believe in people uniting against a common evil. I do believe in the idea of white people doing stuff to advance their selves. I do want whites to have a WET (white entertainment television) to have an all white college, and to have a white history month. Also to have groups that promote whites and to have scholarships exclusively to whites. Understand one thing, if you give whites a white college though, neo-nazis would have found a way to creep in and ruin that idea from pure intentions to evil intentions. I am not racist, all I am saying is if blacks, hispanics, and asians have their own channels and such, then the white man should too. Fair is fair. Also, I don't understand the fact that NAACP is National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Isn't white a color? How about brown, red, yellow? They only concentrate on one color. That is bull crap if you ask me. Also, we give the hispanics the english shows that are translated into spanish. How about having the reverse for the Telemundo channel?
Some things are fair and others are not.

livfreerdie said...

Anyone who measures a person by the color of their skin is a fool.

Tom

The Gunslinger said...

Wow. Smith's Syndrome is alive and well, and very much on display right here.

Culture is a reflection of the character of the people who build it. And they develop the cultures they do based on their group characteristics.

Africans aren't tribal & backward because they "happen" to live in Africa. Africa is tribal & backward because African people are.

The Chinese aren't traditional because they "happen" to live in China. China is traditional because the Chinese people are.

White people aren't prosperous and powerful because they "happen" to live in the West. The West is prosperous and powerful because White people are.

The very fact that Western Europeans could "oppress" everybody else, is, in itself, a testimony to their cultural (Darwinian) superiority.

We all started in caves, naked and ignorant. It was a totally "even playing field". We won the game. And now the losers want to complain about how unfair it all was.

And the Whites have been poisoned to believe that their hard-earned success is shameful and an unearned accident of fate or geography.

Such crap.

VinceP1974 said...

This thread is getting silly fast.

Brian said...

The Fascists almost gave the West to the Communists due to their arrogance and greed. Now they're going to do something far worse.

Or at least try to.

whiskey_199 said...

The antidote to PC and Smith syndrome is South Park mocking.

See that episode where Kyle's Dad uses the N-Word, literally kisses Jessie Jackson's butt, and still has to join Mark Furhman, Michael Richards, etc. to pass a law.

Outlawing the phrase "N--- guy."

MrSmith said...

Good to see this is generating some discussion.

Henrik said...

I usually counter any hints, implications or statements about fascism or related evils with a few countes:

- Conservatism is the opposite of fascism. That'll stifle quite a few historyless left-wing nutheads!
- Islam is not a race. There's freedom to leave (right?).
- By implication, insulting islam is not racism.
- Racism is stupid, plain and simple.
- Nazis were evil Jew-haters.
- Nazism was worse than communism.

Finally, I say 'Libel' to these false and demeaning accusations, and that libel is punishable under the law.

That usually leaves space to move on to more relevant issues :)

Afonso Henriques said...

"The very fact that Western Europeans could "oppress" everybody else, is, in itself, a testimony to their cultural (Darwinian) superiority."

You have a fair point here, Gunslinger.
let me correct your sentence:

The very fact that Portugal, the weakest European Nation, which was doomed to have no future, started to "opress" everybody out of Europe before any other European Nation started to think about Colonisation, is, in itself, THE PROOF of "European Superiority". As Fjordman can attest (Will I have to link it?).

Now I am getting pretty racist:

Do you want to know about "phisical/genetical" superiority?
Get one man from every Nation, than collect photographs of the beautiest woman of every Nation, than ask the men who will he choose to live with?
One European girl will be choosen more than 98% of the time.

Than ask the Chinese/Japonese (you know, someone who is proud of who they are) who is the more beautiful? The non European (Northeast Asian) girl who he has chosen or the 10th most beautifull European girl. The answer will not be surprising.

Racism apart, and returning to the first paragraph:

Also, the Roman superioriity over the World for 1000 years also shows the fiber of the Germanic conquerers. Wich in turn, by their anxiety to "be a Roman" shows the superiority of the West in general (Rome).

Returning to Portugal and englobing the even more powerfull Spain. We will have to remember that both this two "superior" Nations (enough superior to "opress" everybody else out of Europe) were conquered and at a war with the muslims for 500 years (Portugal) to 750 years (Southern Spain). This reveals something about what animal Islam is.
And, if an eventual "Persian Renescence" really joins islam, we will be in danger.

I will not comment anylonger because Americans are to naive and Europeans to Socialist (though not in this blog) to not to start screaming "racist" and "nazi".

Just one more thing:
White is a colour, it is stupid and means nothing to me.
Europe is everything, it is what some call the West and much, much else. Europeans are the ones who created it and the only ones who are able too mantained it. Europe is everything, European too.

Guessedworker said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

Guessedworker --

Please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.

Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.

--------------------------

Guessedworker said...

Oh Henryk, thou simple mind.

1. Conservatism is the politics of stability. It can be any form of non-dynamic politic, including communism and Islamism in its worldy skin.

The politics of stability manifested in Western garb thus:-

link

It no longer does so, of course. We have neoliberalism and Christian Democratism, both of them responsive to the radical-leftward migration of the dominant politic of the age: liberalism.

If you really want to understand Conservatism you must return to pre-Reform England, where it was still prosecuted in its pure form. America has NEVER known Conservatism in this true sense.

2. Since faith is an evolutionarily selected function of the human mind, Islam is just another modus for fitness gain, ie a gain bought at the expense of out-competed peoples. Islam, therefore, is dangerous not for its ideology, but for the advance of genetic interests (ie large families, conquest of living space) it affords alien peoples in the West.

3. Islam, as an aggressive evolutionary stategy for invading peoples, IS racist. Try to understand racism as something which belongs first to the aggressor who calls the shots, not the defender forced to respond. The liberal dictum of the moral superiority of the victim holds true in this instance - Europeans are victims.

The accusation of racism itself is a Jewish invention to prevent Europeans from mobilising against the aggression of invading peoples - who, therefore, are essentially extended Jewish phenotypes).

4. Racism is ethnic aggressivity. It is even perfectly natural. However, you have to try to comprehend that European peoples are not racist for resisting aggression. When next you meet a liberal who uses the "racist" slur, or its Teutonic and Italian concomitants, remind him that Europeans alone are denied self-defence in this way, ie, the slur itself is racism:-

link

5. Nazis were no more evil than Jewish Marxists, just more effective for a while. If you doubt this, ask yourself why every Western European people is under threat of race-replacement, whether or not their countries previously fought for the Axis powers.

6. Nazism was a variant of nationalism. Nationalism is the politics of genetic interest, which is the first and highest politic in life, since the transmission of genetic information through time is life's very purpose.

Communism (Marxism-Leninism) is a theoretic Marxist methodology for delivering the state of the free and unfettered will to the masses. It is part of liberalism, like neoconservatism and the Blair-Schoeder-Clinton Third Way.

You should also understand with regard to Nazism that murdering Jews, and engendering their death from typhoid - the mortalities from each are unknown - was not done on the same scale, nor was it as offensive to the European soul, as the genocide in the gulags or the Jewish-led Holodomir.

Perspective, little fellow.

SEOULDIER13 said...

to AFONSO HENRIQUES,

READ THIS
http://www.globalbeauties.com/universe/2007/u07_backstage.htm


I will not comment anylonger because Americans are to naive and Europeans to Socialist (though not in this blog) to not to start screaming "racist" and "nazi".

Just one more thing:
White is a colour, it is stupid and means nothing to me.
Europe is everything, it is what some call the West and much, much else. Europeans are the ones who created it and the only ones who are able too mantained it. Europe is everything, European too.

Do not group all Americans together. YOU ARE NAIVE for doing this. Europe did not maintain jack didily squat. Correction, you have acting like you were the ones that whipped the Nazi's in the second world war, and the Axis powers in the first. If I remember correctly......THE BIG SLEEPING GIANT AWOKE AND SAVED YOUR A$$. Also, we were the ones supplying your butts for the war risking our lives for that purpose. Also, we have whipped your butts for our freedom...remember 1776...and 1812. Also, we whipped Spain in the Spanish Civil war. We whipped your cousins the Mexicans with one state just about. We rebuilt Germany. We saved you from ill fated lives with our military. Remember that. The link also explains people's sentiment on who were the beautiful women. Not too many Europeans I see. I hope your moronic self responds to this comment. Make my day.

IoshkaFutz said...

Guessedworker

I'm afraid that you are the total innocent. If you base your life choices on this flimsy premise: "the highest interest in life is genetic continuity," you might be describing the mold that turns stale bread green or the microbes that can make a sneaker stink, but you are not describing man, builder of civilizations, teller of stories, inventor, discoverer, changer, mover... and... despite a million and one miseries, certainly different than any of the beasts big or small.

Love and pride are not the same thing. And pride of race is rather meaningless. Either you did it personally or you don't really deserve to be proud. I love Italy. I'm glad she contains a disproportionate amount of the world's artwork, but since I didn't paint the Sistine Chapel - well I'll be proud of the good whitewash I gave my garage and leave all the pride for the fancy ceiling work to white man Michelangelo who is not kin except in the broadest sense, a sense that would also make black man Duke Ellington kin.

The highest interest in life is a quandry worthy of religion, or if not so inclined, the deepest philosophers. It's a mystery of a mystery and certainly not the same UNAWARE competition of bread molds and sneaker fungi vying for promenance... unless - that is - idiotic and murderous, might-makes-right simplicity has turned you into a racial or religious jihadist... really variations of the same ENDLESS-DARK-NIGHT anti-civilizational theme.

Zenster said...

Whiskey_199: The antidote to PC and Smith syndrome is South Park mocking.

With respect to the current and rather dire state of things, mere mockery is a day late and a dollar short. Earlier in this game, untethering the seriousness of this suicidal PoMo Meme might have been all that was needed for reducing it to the absurd sham it was and is.

That is no longer the case. The patient (i.e., Western Civilization) has been bled so severely by this poisonous meme that transfusions and concentrated nourishment are required.

To be sure, ridiculing what is one of the most humourless and dour sets of antagonists (i.e., Muslims and Liberals) serves many healthy functions, not least of which is infuriating them into self-destructive displays of hostility. However, much more agressive measures must be taken against these vile scum. Currently, they enjoy far too many shelters erected by free society, even as they strive to gnaw away that same society's foundations.

It is this immense ingratitude that must be identified, condemned and punished without mercy. To mantle oneself in the protections conferred by hard-won liberty while simultaneously seeking to debase the most funamental and unalienable of human rights is TREASON. Not just treachery or betrayal but outright TREASON.

Crippling a robust democratic republic with narrow-minded Politically Correct dogma is TREASON. Using Consitutionally protected Civil Rights towards the end of installing shari'a law is TREASON.

These cannot be laughed under the table or ridiculed away. They must be crushed under the boot heel of free men and women who will not countenance such traitorous moral hypocrisy. Tarring such unrepentantly free people with smears of "Nazism" and "Fascism" will only provide them with justification using such tools to prevent all further encroachment by vicious thugs who knowingly hurl such false accusations.

An old Arabic saying goes:

To call a man a thief gives him the right to be one.

Liberals and Muslims had best take care just how much longer they casually continue to toss about labels of Nazism and Genocide. They may suddenly find their opponents quite willing to temporarily adopt such ideas for whatever duration is required to be rid of such foul parasites.

Darrin Hodges said...

While we're on the topic - Hitler was a socialist. :D

Afonso Henriques said...

Seouldier13,

What is your point making me read such an extensive material?

"Do not group all Americans together. YOU ARE NAIVE for doing this."
I am not being naive, I am generalising, its different.

"Correction, you have acting like you were the ones that whipped the Nazi's in the second world war, and the Axis powers in the first. If I remember correctly......THE BIG SLEEPING GIANT AWOKE AND SAVED YOUR A$$."
Wrong. Ever since, all we have been doing is behaving like socialist dihmis. By the way, do not believe in every mythology.

"The link also explains people's sentiment on who were the beautiful women. Not too many Europeans I see. I hope your moronic self responds to this comment."

I've already said, don't believe in everything you hear. I am not all that gratefull to America. Your Party Tea is to me a despizeble act of rebellion against Britain, against your own people. You do not really have an ideia ehat is it to fight for OUR freedom like the Britts did.
Concearning the European girls. Come on! That is PC multiculturalism! Our women are Goddesses.

Darrin Hodges said...

But... I'm absolutely not going to buy the author's dismissal of the race vs culture question. One would have thought that such things as the centuries-long American experiment with immigration and assimilation

Culture and race are inter-related. There is nothing wrong or evil in this. If a spider's web can be considered an expression of it's phenotype, then the different human cultures can be considered expressions of racial phenotypes.

There is no racial hierarchy and you cannot say that one culture is superior to another, its like comparing apples and oranges - they are different fruit, each with it's own characteristics.

The slow demographic changes in ethnicity of European countries will eventually lead to fundamental changes to the institutions that were once the product of Europeans.

Darrin Hodges said...

Concearning the European girls. Come on! That is PC multiculturalism! Our women are Goddesses.

Amen to that.

SEOULDIER13 said...

Let me tell you something afonso,

I don't know what backwater, disillusioned country your from, but my sentiments toward your naive thoughts are of pity. I hope that you can climb out of the hole that your burrowed your head deep into. It's the Boston Tea Party, and despisable. We rebelled for freedom, and to get away from unfair taxes to honest colonists. FREEDOM is what we fought for. Same thing that is being challenged by the Arabic world. Judging by the last statement in your response, you must be British, or at least sentimental to them. The last time Britain fought for freedom, it was a religious freedom. Well, you can say they fought for freedom as in to stop Germany, or even Napoleon from taking over that country. I do have a general idea to fight for freedom. I am in the military right now. I am fighting for the rights and freedom of the people of the United States of America everyday by upholding the Constitution. The same document that we formulated when we broke away from England. Hell, I am fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi and Afghans everyday. Please refrain from opening your trap and spouting ill conceived notions.

nikolai said...

For me it's about tribe rather than race. Outsiders can join the tribe if they're prepared to assimilate into it and not in numbers large enough to swamp us even if unintentionally.

America is a bit different--the makeup of the tribe is less based on common blood and is defined differently. But the principle is the same imo.

nikolai said...

oops, forgot to comment on original post.

PC anti-racism contains two under-reported definitions.

1. Only white people can be racist.
2. All white people are racist even if it's unconscious.

With those two definitions PC anti-racism is actually anti-white racism in disguise. It can only end in complete extermination.

I accuse PC types of racism all the time when i catch them in a double standard. Given how long they've spent brain-washing people into believing it is the ultimate sin I feel it's a shame not to take advantage of that :)

In any other non-PC situation I am sick to death of the word and avoid using it.

Avery Bullard said...

Freedom, freedom, freedom...what does it mean? You want to fight for the "freedom" of Iraqis and Afghans? How about the freedom to live among our own ethny, race, nationality, or religious denomination, here in the West without interference from outside forces? The freedom to be ourselves among ourselves is one the US, EU, and, evidently, many "anti-jihadists", do not believe in. We must witness the West being taken over by others yet some of our own think pieces of paper like the US Constitution and fighting for democracy in the Middle East will save us.

Freedom as it is meant in the US is an Anglo-Saxon idea. There is little to suggest that the black voters who re-elected Ray Nagin in New Orleans or Marion Barry in D.C. or Mexicans, or Muslims, or even many European ethnys give a hoot about freedom. The Constitution and other ideals are fine in a fairly homogeneous society - the Founding Fathers certainly had no intentions of giving blacks equality with their own people. In a Balkanised society they are just tools to be used then discarded once sectarian communal objectives have been achieved.

Ideals are only worth fighting for if they strengthen one's own community. Ideals that were fine when there were no major ethnic competitors within your borders may be suicidal these days.

laine said...

I would like to ask ioshkafutz what his solution is to the problem that as we contemplate sublime art or our higher purpose in life we are encrusted by primitive mold parasitising us to death, growing out of control, focussed only on spreading and passing its genetic material forward with no concern for philosophic niceties? Mold brings down even great palaces whose owners couldn't be bothered to concern themselves with the mundane.

Zenster said...

Darrin Hodges: There is no racial hierarchy and you cannot say that one culture is superior to another, its like comparing apples and oranges - they are different fruit, each with it's own characteristics.

So, according to your own lights, American culture with its invention of the telephone, nuclear reactor, laser, silicon circuit and Internet is of no more worth than that of Islam whose sole achievement over the last several centuries is improving on how to chop off heads, hands and genitalia.

Do you ever get an odd sensation in your skull of neurons misfiring like an engine with fouled spark plugs? Do your teeth ever spontaneously clamp down upon your lips in mid-speech just because they can? Have you ever heard of moral or cultural relativism? Do you sincerely think that everyone who migrates to America does so in the earnest belief that it is an inferior place to live but must be endured for no particular reason?

Do me one single favor. Please identify whatever redeeming features there are that Islam supposedly possesses. I ask you to do it now or please withdraw what is a supremely offensive insult to all who have fought and died in the name of America's tradition of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Go on. I'm sure others are waiting as well.

If you cannot, I hope you will have the decency to refrain from any further spewing of such intellectual vomit at a website entirely dedicated to refuting such microencephalic assertions as the one of yours that I cited above.

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

I see much denial here.

A culture is the manifestation of a people's interaction with nature; it's its way of making sense of the world. Different peoples see the same problem differently - indeed for some it may not be a problem - hence their solutions (ie their cultures) differ.

Why do so many have a problem with this?

Guessedworker said...

IoshkaFutz hits back! Sort of.

Do you have children, IoshkaFutz? No, well, wait until you do before you offer an opinion about love and kinship.

Genetic interest is a technical term - possibly too technical for you. Strictly speaking, it means the number of copies of your genes. These copies are concentrated rather more in your children than in bread mold. In fact, they are concentrated in your children more than anywhere else ... thence in your clan, tribe or ethny, thence your race, thence your species.

In other words, you have a greater kinship with your own (Italian-American?) people than you do with Duke Ellington look-alikes, although they may share your American culture and live in your town.

Put another way, if you only identify your "political kind" by values (civically or culturally or in faith) you cannot complain if your daughter produces the offspring of a negro. Cultural identification leads away from the preservation of genetic integrity. There is a reason why the West is in such abominable decline, and the failure to make politics around our kinship is the reason

I have no idea what you mean politically by pride in race, btw. I have not mentioned pride at all. I am talking about the real bond of kinship, and about nationalism which is the only politics that issues from it.

Darrin Hodges said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrin Hodges said...

Zenster, I said there is no racial hierarchy, Islam is not a race nor is it a culture as such, it is a political-religious system that dictates how a believer (or victim?) should live, right down to which direction they must urinate in.

If Muslims, living in their own state under their own rules wish to hack of their own body parts, that is their loss, not mine. I simply do not want them poluting my country with their presence.

As I said, apples and oranges Zenster, apples and oranges.

Darrin Hodges said...

"one culture is not superior to the other". If culture is a product of race, then one cannot compare cultures as such as each race produces the culture and society that they are capable of.

Cultures cannot be compared like a mathematical equation. How do you hold a candle up to the sun?

Darrin Hodges said...

If you cannot, I hope you will have the decency to refrain from any further spewing of such intellectual vomit at a website entirely dedicated to refuting such microencephalic assertions as the one of yours that I cited above.

And perhaps you'll have the decency not to conflate culture with Islam.

islam o' phobe said...

SEOULDIER13,

"Also, we whipped Spain in the Spanish Civil war."

This baffled me for about 20 minutes until I realised you meant the Spanish-American war.

islam o' phobe said...

kirk parker,

Of the 43 presidents of the USA, 39 of them had British or Irish surnames. Only four -- Van Buren (Dutch in origin) the two Roosevelts (Dutch also) and Eisenhower (German) -- didn't.

America was built by (mainly Anglo-Saxon/Celtic) European settlers and European-Americans still comprise 70% of the population.

Hirsi Ali likened Catholicism to Islam and said both were morally equivalent to Nazism and Communism. She against immigration restrictionists and called for the banning Vlaams Belang because they're supposedly racist and oppress women.

She's an asset because she tells the truth about Islam which people will are not as quick to dismiss coming a black African woman but she is as as non-Western and non-conservative as they come.

SEOULDIER13 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SEOULDIER13 said...

Thanks Islam O' Phobe,

I was in a rush and it was late at night for me so I wasn't thinking as much. I do agree on one thing though, each race has it's own good characteristics. I do not want my nation polluted like darrin said.

AVERY BULLARD,

I never said I personally wanted to fight for the 2 nations mentioned and their freedom. I just do what I am told to because I am a soldier in the U.S. Army. I believe in this country so I do what I have to do. As for the idea of believing a piece of paper. I fight for the Constitution that gives me right that you are thinking about when YOU WROTE

"How about the freedom to live among our own ethny, race, nationality, or religious denomination, here in the West without interference from outside forces?

SO, ONCE AGAIN, LIKE MY MOTHER TOLD ME BEFORE WHEN I WAS A WEE LAD.

"THINK 3 TIMES ABOUT WHAT YOUR GOING TO SAY BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND SAY IT !"

IoshkaFutz said...

Ciao Guessedworker,

.........."IoshkaFutz hits back! Sort of.

Do you have children, IoshkaFutz? No, well, wait until you do before you offer an opinion about love and kin-ship."...............

I have two children, two girls and they are not copies of my genes but unique human beings with souls of their own. I do have a natural "tribalistic" attachment to them, they are my kin, my family, whereas my next door neighbor is not even "clan" but gets slightly special and altogether natural extra-consideration inasmuch as he is a neighbor. A Charles Manson - or just to keep in touch with the article's Godwin factor, an Adolph Hitler, is/was of my same white race but - thank you very much - will not score any points because of that. Nor more impor-tantly, given the times, will points be detracted.

IMHO there are of course many ways to judge, but the bedrock, the foundation of it all is moral: old-fashioned good and bad and not speculation on genes, evolution, ability to solve complicated math equations or produce refrigerators. This goes for all people. The trouble with the Muslims is not that they are mostly from the sub-continent or from the lands of Araby, but that the teach-ings of Islam are evil.

Roughly speaking, Morality trumps metaphysics. What-ever "white" means in terms of superior/ inferior "this or that" means little or naught compared to a person's mo-rality / immorality. If it is ascertained that whites have higher IQs, this is fine news, but that only means that their capacity for good and evil is greater, that their mo-rality or lack thereof is more "empowered," just as the good and evil I can do - if so inclined or talented - with a Pentium 56 is greater than if I only had an old XT.

..........."In other words, you have a greater kinship with your own (Italian-American?) people than you do with Duke Ellington look-alikes, although they may share your American culture and live in your town. Put another way, if you only identify your "political kind" by values (civically or culturally or in faith) you cannot complain if your daughter produces the offspring of a negro."............

This kinship is your idea of kinship, but not mine nor my religion's. It is false kinship, meaningless precisely be-cause it is morally inert, beyond control or change, like bread mold and sneaker fungi.

Whether I complain or not about whom my daughter mar-ries is fairly moot: the choice is hers. However my judg-ment will not be based on genes but mostly on the good-ness or evil of the man in question, his personal qualities. I hope she marries a "good, honest, patient and loving" man... then if he's brighter than Einstein or not the sharp-est knife in the drawer comes second. Speaking face-tiously I could say that I hope he is not Swedish consider-ing those people's troubles with drinking, suicide, high di-vorce rates and their penchant for awarding peace prizes to terrorists and financing suicide bombers. But of course it would be none of the above: When she introduces me to Lars, I will be interested in Lars and not the Nordic race or the tribal agonies and ecstasies of Sweden.

Tribal agonies and ecstasies DO exist. But so too do ide-als - as proven by civilization. An ideology devoid of them or governed by heretical ideals is not fully human. Just as one that takes no account of culture and the need for sta-bility. It's easy for anyone to say: "bring everybody in, we're all brothers in Christ!" but only Saints are capable of it. I am well aware of the contradiction. Civilization is complex and full of contradictions which makes hypo-crites of us all. And the temptation is always there to simplify matters. Instead of the terribly "spiritual" mix of punishment, forgiveness and fairness, there will always be the temptation to exaggerate. Really want to solve the problem? Set up sniper teams and gun down those you don't like. Nothing could be more rational and effective.

........."Cultural identification leads away from the preser-vation of genetic integrity."............

Integrity is ultimately a moral / religious concept, not a racial one.

"............There is a reason why the West is in such abominable decline, and the failure to make politics around our kinship is the reason......."

The reasons for our troubles are entirely in the moral sphere. Our fabulously wealthy western countries are on immigration welfare. We've been fed impossible to re-deem guilt. It is racism, backwards. Our families have broken down. We murder the unborn. We have become homo economicus. We have been deconstructed. BTW don't blame the Jewish Marxists. The really successful one, the inventor of "cultural hegemony" was Gramsci, a Sardinian. He's still going strong.

Afonso Henriques said...

SEOULDIER13,

Are you serious? You say you fell pitty for me, I say I feel pity for both of us. For you, because you have no clue what reallity is/was and for me for looking around and see the gross majority acting/thinking like you.

I will not loose my time trying to explain to you so much basic things. You will learn at your own coast or you will still be happy forever.

About the country I am from, it is Portugal. And I'm proud of living in this asswhole. Much more than I could ever be if i was born in your side of the Atlantic.

Afonso Henriques said...

"The reasons for our troubles are entirely in the moral sphere.
Our families have broken down."

"Whether I complain or not about whom my daughter mar-ries is fairly moot: the choice is hers. However my judg-ment will not be based on genes but mostly on the good-ness or evil of the man in question, his personal qualities. I hope she marries a "good, honest, patient and loving" man... then if he's brighter than Einstein or not the sharp-est knife in the drawer comes second."

The most nasty thing in OUR current EUROPEAN CIVILISATION is this:

A "white/European" man will offer his own daughter to anyone. This is suicide, plan and simple. You live eternelly throughout your genes, your children, specially daughters, is the most precious thing you can have in this life, though, you will offer her to anybody "who is of good charachter".

No retarded tribal man in the most deficient society would offer his own daughter to the best man of the planet if he was not his kind, or if did not trusted him. Think about it. That man knows that he will live troughout his daughter and as so, he wants just the best and "their own" for his daughter.

We are the stupid ones.
Miscegenation goes two ways, as one can see in Latin America:

European male, non European female: When European males have not European females available, or when the European females are far below the average compared to non European female well below the average.

Non European male, European female:
Idioticy of the European female's family, who have brain washed her or "mejoramento de la raza" (racial improovement) as the Mexicans say.

Of course, exceptions do happen, and love maybe present in some sincere interracial relations, but I am talking about general, massified trends.

Guessedworker said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
IoshkaFutz said...

Ciao Afonso,

Not being a Muslim or Hindu, I don't "offer" my daughter. We don't arrange marriages here in Rome.

Some of us try to "prepare" our daughters for marriage, which mostly means protecting them from the filth that has become mainstream.

SEOULDIER13 said...

Yeah.............about that Afonso,
I was actually born overseas. I am happy though of claiming America as my country. I suggest you learn to spell properly for English is the world's language. I'm sure that Portugal is not as backwards as one of it's citizens are that chooses to blab about incoherent matters. I do have an idea of what reality is. It is that we must rise up and stand for our freedom. Not let people with sluggish thoughts such as you to ruin our chance to defend and nip the parasitic morons in the bud.

Zenster said...

Darrin Hodges: If Muslims, living in their own state under their own rules wish to hack of their own body parts, that is their loss, not mine. I simply do not want them poluting my country with their presence.

As I said, apples and oranges Zenster, apples and oranges.

[Emphasis Added]

The insular attitude and moral void that you exhibit goes beyond repugnant. You have no moral problem with knuckle-dragging Neanderthals hacking innocent people up just so long as you don't have to bear witness to it? This is NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), on an egregious scale.

For your information, they don't "hack of [sic] their own body parts". There are tyrannical despots and their vile minions who perform this gruesome task quite against the individual's will. It is not altogether elective.

Personally, I do not care where on earth it happens. Islamic scumbags torturing and mutilating people for misdemeanor and civil offenses represents a profound abuse of human rights and something I'm not willing to tolerate regardless of geographical location.

You, on the other hand, are evidently incapable of understanding that and seem quite content to smarimily contest the point.

These are not "apples and oranges". They are two human civilizations that have elected to pursue opposing paths resulting in a descent into barbarism for one and the other become this world's undisputed superpower. Your willingness to ignore such an obvious and astronomical disparity speaks volumes about what you attempt to pass off as knowledge.

Cultures cannot be compared like a mathematical equation. How do you hold a candle up to the sun?

Rather easily. You elevate it onto the same plane but at a different azimuth than the solar body and use a narrow-field photometer to respectively measure each of their individual luminosities. The candle's output is easily compared to that of the sun and usually found wanting.

Similarly, the vast majority of Islamic cultures are not just astoundingly unproductive but so barbaric and backward that it takes a stunning degree of moral blindness to not find most Muslim cultures utterly wanting in terms of humanity and productivity.

VinceP1974 said...

"A "white/European" man will offer his own daughter to anyone."

My God.. is Portugal really this backwards? I had my suspicions based on his other writings but this one takes the cake.

Baron Bodissey said...

Guessedworker --

I repeat: please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.

Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.

This is the second time I've had to do this. Next time I won't go to the trouble of copying your comment and making the links; I'll simply delete it.

--------------------------

Guessedworker said...

IoshkaFutz,

Much better. Thank you. I will gladly treat you as an equal.

I am a bit of a political philosopher with a layman's interest in science. The only reason I have commented here is because hardly anyone appears to know what nationalism is.

In such a poverty-stricken environment, formulations of it that do not immediately fall foul of the Jewish invented Adolf Hitler, child-eater, are at a premium. Consequently, I have provided a definition for what one might term the universal nationalism of political science, not in the expectation that anyone will really understand it but just as a means of getting at life's purpose and its expression as an entirely Godwin-free political phenotype.

In this same process I am explaining that life's purpose, Nature's purpose, is not religious or moral. I will just repeat myself one more time ...

Nature is interested solely in continuity through time. She implants in us an interest in adaptive behaviour, by selecting genes for it. Of course, if I were to fully set out all the adaptive connectivities to the phenotype of nationalism I would need not a post, but an entire political science manual - and I really have no wish to burden you. So I must ask you to take on trust from me what you may not be sufficiently familiar to immediately assess.

Since nationalism is the politics of ethnic preference, and there is no other, the question becomes one of whether you love that to which you are closest in Nature's own terms. You say you don't, and I already know you don't, of course. You are like the rest of my people.

So we have arrived at at the end of the Ring cycle, so to speak, with the script calling for the tearing down of the old world order of greed and power, and the building of a new one on the foundations of love. We agree that this is what's needed. But we cannot proceed with the immolation. You claim to love through the agencies of shared morality and faith, neither of which possess any matches. Still in science mode, I point out that morality and faith are not handed down to Man by an angry fairy in the sky. They are codification systems for adaptive behaviour. Morality and faith accord in the most satisfyingly incendiary way with nationalism, not with the dysgenic Western liberal universe in which we are living, and from which you abstract your non-faith values.

In that respect, btw, I must inform you that part of the dysgenesis flows from the monotheistic, semitic religion of the Christ-cult. Christian universalism has within it all the seeds of the death of the West:-

link

Unless we limit our altruism to our own people, we shall never free ourselves from liberalism. And liberalism will kill us racially. That's the threat. Culture ... morality ... these are trifles by comparison.

I am not a young man. I have had ample time to reflect on traditionalism and conservatism, and have long-held the belief that there was some reprieve to be got from them. I no longer do (and this is very recent). I see their advocates as hopelessly outgunned, and incapable of engineering a counter-revolution. Certainly, traditionalism and conservatism describe a healthy established polity for European Man. But they cannot generate revolutionary change. If you like, we need a revolution to bring us, eventually, to a settled and stable life in our own natural traditions (in evolutionary terms, adaptive behaviours).

link

Much of what you say in your closing paragraph is true enough. Of course, you need not remind me of Gramscism. I have the feeling that you are too squeamish and uncertain of the company about you to look with clear eyes at Jewish ethno-agression. I commend you to do so, regardless of the Pavlovian reaction it incurrs. There are greater dangers:-

link

... but we should not deny ourselves the fullest possible understanding of our extremis.

islam o' phobe said...

Zenster,

If Darrin Hodges is guilty of the charge of ignoring violations of human rights then so is everyone in human history except for G.W. Bush and the supporters of his plan to spread democracy throughout the globe and create peace on earth.

G.W.Bush sold out Western civillisation's self-interest and survival for a handful of magic beans: universal human rights, respect for the religion of peace, democracy for all the world's six billion inhabitants etc. etc.

Being the world's sole undisputed superpower is not the same thing as being God.

IoshkaFutz said...

Ciao again Guessedworker,

Thanks for the link (the one that has fainted over the page). I especially enjoyed reading the rollicking debates with voices from the wildest angles. To my ears: mostly the crashing cymbals of intellectual desperados. In one of the posts you declare yourself a Darwinist. So if evolution is the thing, why not sit back and enjoy the ride and wonder with a smile why you care about what HAS BEEN WRITTEN? Just like the supposed shenanigans of the Jews, your own conclusions and "gene continuity worries" are the result of evolution. The minute you start tampering due to "awareness" you enter the moral realm, if not with a faithhead like me, who can be handily dismissed, then with someone likeminded today, but inevitably schismatic tomorrow! This is the circle you are trapped in. And in a nutshell most of the lucubrations become: "what furthers the cause is good, what hampers the cause is bad." One of the fellows in that rollicking debate even said as much in those very same words. Sometimes I wonder if there is an Intellectuals for a Rapid Return to Barbarity Union.

Anyhow, you speak of nature's purpose and there you are in some country that spells "honor" honour... so let's say Australia, zapping thoughts full of evolutionary revolutionary zeal and links to a sleepless wog here in Rome. Yes, living organisms tend towards life and replication, but it seems to me that there's more going on with human beings. And you're not gonna figure out how we work, nor what's good, better, right, by simply mumbling the magic words "nature's purpose." We are lousy animals, GW, that much I am absolutely sure of .

As far as I'm concerned there's a pre-political and a pre-intellectual realm. And I thank the Jews and Jesus Christ for mine. The ideal and the tribal.

Darrin Hodges said...

Personally, I do not care where on earth it happens. Islamic scumbags torturing and mutilating people for misdemeanor and civil offenses represents a profound abuse of human rights and something I'm not willing to tolerate regardless of geographical location.

so Zenster, you see it as your moral duty and obligation to impose your culture, society and way of thinking on others?

This is how Islamists see it, so who are you to complain if they want "save" America from Jahiliya?

VinceP1974 said...

so Zenster, you see it as your moral duty and obligation to impose your culture, society and way of thinking on others?

This is how Islamists see it, so who are you to complain if they want "save" America from Jahiliya?


*Puke*... Well I'm an American , and i say that gives me more than enough legitimacy to say that our culture, our society and our way of thinking is objectively superior to Islamic culture.

And due to the inhumane and barbaric nature of islam, i do believe it is a moral obligation to fight against that system in any effective and practical way we can, just as we do against any injustice.

MrSmith said...

For the benefit of anyone and everyone, when you need to use a URL in a combox but it's ridiculously long, you can shrink the URL to avoid having to take the time to make it into an HTML hyperlink. www.tinyurl.com will do this for you

VinceP1974 said...

IMHO I hate tinyurl. I'm very hestitant to go to websites that I dont know the real URL of.. for security reasons.

For those who want to use a real link , type the following:

<a href="[Your URL Here]">[Text of hyperlink here]</a>

Example (link is to a cool French song) :

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKCRHhmHvjg">Dégénération</a>

Dégénération

Darrin Hodges said...

And due to the inhumane and barbaric nature of islam, i do believe it is a moral obligation to fight against that system in any effective and practical way we can, just as we do against any injustice.

So Captain America, you clearly believe it is your moral obligation to impose your values onto somebody else?, what happens if they don't want it? Bomb them into submission?

Afonso Henriques said...

"Not being a Muslim or Hindu, I don't "offer" my daughter. We don't arrange marriages here in Rome."

Come on, you're Italian! All the Italians I know are very protective of their own families! I think that Southern Europe, or at least Southwest (Portugal, Spain, Italy, even Southern France) are much better in this topic than the "barbarians from the North".

Of course you don't arrange marrieges in Rome, do you?

When one thinks about it, one will realise that some of us do it. To arrange a marriege does not mean to force our daughter to marry the boy we would want to wellcome in our familie.
Now pay atention:
One arranges a marriage when one EDUCATES the daughter and when one passes the vallues down to the daughter so that she will have what we think is better. One PROTECTS the daughter against the "bad boys" that may come; one wakes up the daughter to the boys tricks to get la...d. And so we go.

The problem is when one gives the daughter all the power so that she can make the choice based on what Her friends dictate, what's fashion.

Will she be much happy that way? A father's job is to protect his daughter, the rest is just a mean to it. Call me a family guy, if you want.

Ciao, Italian

Afonso Henriques said...

"I was actually born overseas. I am happy though of claiming America as my country."

So I can not understand you, my country is much worse than America in almost everything, though, I don't like my country because it is the best. Have you ever felt in love with a woman? Was it because she was somehow better than anybody else? Do you ever loved your mamma? Was it because she was better than anybody else? Well, let's say I wouldn´t change my mamma for your's, even though she seems to be perfect. I love my imperfect mamma as I love my imperfect country that, by the way have both many "perfections".

"I suggest you learn to spell properly for English is the world's language."
Me too.
I have a degree from Cambridge but the thing is I don't practice it regular from two years now. Sorry by that.

"I'm sure that Portugal is not as backwards"
It is, when compared to the U.S.A., it is not when compared to Mexico. But, as I think that we should be more like America than Mexico, I think this cute and adorable asswhole is too backwards.
F*** it! It is even worse than Spain!!! How can you say it is not backwards! It is a civilised country you know, everything is relative...

"It is that we must rise up and stand for our freedom."
Now you can see how ridiculous you are. What freedom? What do you Americans know about freedom? You have never had, as a Nation (in your lifetime), to fight for freedom, and don't start screaming about Hitler and the Commies... You, America, I'm talking about it. You don't know what freedom is because you have been free since ever.

I wish you to keel living in that world of yours, it is much happier than my own. Now, becarefull, because some commies were even happier than you are now with their system. Do you, by chance, know what is happening now in Colombia? So please, don't talk to me about freedom.

Afonso Henriques said...

"The insular attitude and moral void that you exhibit goes beyond repugnant."

Zenster, that commment is typically jewish by our political standards by now, and as so, it doesn't mean nothing to me.

You think that way - And I don't know where you are from - because Israel needs esperateley help form Europe/America. And i'm with the Jews, i'll help you as much as you can, as long as you Jews do not interfere politically in my bedroom, because I am not going to ditacte rules in Jerusalem.

The thing is, the insular attittude is right.
One has the libery to do what he wants as long as he does not bothers no body. So, if you want to have a culture like Islam, you can have it, but on your own lands.

We, nobody, has the right to tell that this or that is not correct. Everybody has the right to their culture, even muslims. We don't have the higher moral ground.
Colonisation prooved it.

SEOULDIER13 said...

Hahaha, you make me laugh afonso.

I know about freedom. Hell, why do you think America was formed?. They fought for their freedom. Remember mentioning The Boston Tea Party?. Yeah, Obviously the degree from Cambridge was for naught. So sorry that money and time was wasted to educate a moron like you when there were others in worse, impoverished nations that deserve that spot more than you.

BTW, I keep up on the Columbian issue well enough. Those terrorist rebels can all go to hell if they are going to run across to border to hide. Thats why they deserve to be killed. Fight like a man, and also the leader of t he rebels killed had some interesting ties to the Europeans and a key leader.

Afonso Henriques said...

"is Portugal really this backwards? I had my suspicions based on his other writings but this one takes the cake."

Vince, you are free to think what you want but i shall warn you that you should not comdemn a country based on just one person.

I coulud say: Is America all that backwards!? But I won´t because I know that you Vince, do not represent America at all. Think twice next time.

Afonso Henriques said...

"In one of the posts you declare yourself a Darwinist. So if evolution is the thing, why not sit back and enjoy the ride and wonder with a smile..."

Tipical. So, it's evolution what we're talking about. It is the men who act in order to evolve, or is the evolution that helps some actions?
Eitherway this one suggest the other (because is European) to "sit and enjoy the ride" which I translate as: "sit down and be quiet". He can not be quiet! He is a piece of the game! All I am angry with is this. Everybody can act in this ecolutionary game but European males. Those must sit down and watch what happens, offer his own girls to the whole world, and see what happen.

Doesn't the future look great to you all?

Afonso Henriques said...

"I know about freedom. Hell, why do you think America was formed?. They fought for their freedom."

That's why I am insisting that you do not have a clue abot freedom. Go ask the negro close to you what was like when his grandfather was a slave. Then you will have a hint of what freedom is. Go ask a Serb in Kosovo, etc. For you, freedom is the same as decolonisation. George Washington and Mugabe are freedom fighters, the Serbs are bad because they "were opressing" the muslims, yeah, you know it all...

"Obviously the degree from Cambridge was for naught."
Actually, I did express myself wrong. I do not have a degree from Cambridge. What I have is a certificate in English credited from the Cambridge University. Sorry for that, I hope I made myself clear.

"I keep up on the Columbian issue well enough. Those terrorist rebels can all go to hell if they are going to run across to border to hide. Thats why they deserve to be killed. Fight like a man, and also the leader of t he rebels killed had some interesting ties to the Europeans and a key leader."

Yes, they do. Actually FARC terrorists were actually invited to come to my local comunist party and they did. As they did across all of Europe.

But, do you want to talk about interesting ties? Venezuela, Equador, Bolivia, Peru and others susch as Castro, El Coma Andante want Colombia to be part of that "Bolivarian" axis. The Colombian government are counting on their only friend, the U.S. of A. which will abandon them when they will need America the most. What do you have to say about freedom?
It only takes a dirty job (like Madrid) to turn the elections messed up ant to make the hard left win in Colombia. What is your all mighty State-Nation going to do about it? What do you have to say about freedom now? What? What?
Tea... Boston... I can't hear you well by now! Regards. And try to think twice next time. You say I make you laugh but you almost make me cry...

Baron Bodissey said...

SEOULDIER13 --

You're relatively new here, so I've let you slide so far, but you must stop with the name calling. Afonso has been commenting here for a while, and pretty much follows the rules. You can do the same thing.

Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comments have violated the first of these rules.

Rule #1 -- Civil: No name calling, gratuitous insults, personal slurs, denigration of someone’s intelligence, etc.

So lay off the "moron" stuff. From now on, I will be deleting comments that contain such insults.

IoshkaFutz said...

Ciao Afonso,

In your first post "you're Italian ergo... etc." though you are reasoning in stereotypes, you are basically agreeing with me. Being Italian has nothing to do with it, unless being Italian automatically means being Christian (which is woefully untrue).

You could say something similar to a Spaniard, but will find yourself talking to a citizen of a land governed by Zapaterian values. As far as past and present anti-clerical sentiment is concerned, Italy ranks second to Spain and as far as cynicism, Rome is second to none.

But never mind. What you say is true. We don't "give" our daughters, we guide them hopefully into making better choices. Though life is full of surprises and open to Romeo and Juliet stories, one hopes that a girl brought up in a certain way is automatically UNattracted to the "bad" boys.

As for the evolutionary business, it was a logical consideration. I see a contradiction in "active" Darwinism. If you believe in evolution also in the realm of morals and go out of your way to indicate how another's faith and morality are "merely" the products of this or that factor... then why just me? Why not also explain away your own beliefs in similar fashion if that is how it works? Usually the reason is pride... a type of pride which my interlocutor gives ample proof of. "I consider you my equal therefore I will answer!" - he starts off. Though against the rules of this forum the answer in any Italian bar to such an attitude would be "ma va cagare!" Better to talk to everyone, all the more so if you want to change things. Actually, we've reached a point where good sense is more likely to be found in a farmer's tavern than in an aula magna full of intellectuals. I came to this conclusion after witnessing the organism that awards geniuses giving a peace prize to the likes of Arafat. But it really sank in the car, on a long trip, just before the tunnels of Liguria, while listening to a State radio talk show right after Beslan. There were anthropologists, sociologists, and a whole crew of great minds and then a housewife called in and put them all to shame.

Anyhow, explaining away morality in evolutionary terms is a logical self-consuming vortex. It is part of that mentality that likes to explain away matters and then by doing so considers the matter under scrutiny as somehow "owned". I'm of the school of thought that says that snow might have come down green instead of white and that today those who claim or feel by dint of their knowledge that they "own" white snow would then be telling me why it comes down green.

But that's just a mind game. What's more disturbing is all this whining about the political sphere. "We are white and so we are unpermitted." I don't play that game precisely because I think in moral terms and am untouched by political correctness. What I believe automatically gets me into trouble and exposed to ridicule in today's world. It's called persecution and has a long tradition. And the cleanest dog has the mange... and after the spat with LGF, not only the cleanest, but also the coolest. Fortunately today there are means, even in places like Cuba to get around it. Better to carry on the fight than to go whining on and on about unfairness. I'm no longer surprised by oppression, but fortified.

Salute al Portogallo. It's my secret desire to win a lottery, lay off work and walk there from Rome, stopping at every church and monastery along the way to pray for this Europe that cannot see the truth, beauty and simplicity of the Blessed Virgin and child. The religious basis for God, Family and country.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Salute al Portogallo. It's my secret desire to win a lottery, lay off work and walk there from Rome, stopping at every church and monastery along the way to pray for this Europe that cannot see the truth, beauty and simplicity of the Blessed Virgin and child. The religious basis for God, Family and country."

You will be wellcomed.
And I liked your post, by the way, I think it does not contradicts me at all. But maybe my English is really that bad.

Darrin Hodges said...

The thing is, the insular attittude is right.
One has the libery to do what he wants as long as he does not bothers no body. So, if you want to have a culture like Islam, you can have it, but on your own lands.

We, nobody, has the right to tell that this or that is not correct. Everybody has the right to their culture, even muslims. We don't have the higher moral ground.


Well said Afonso.

Sodra Djavul said...

Somewhat Related Comment on Godwin's Law and Smith's Syndrome

I saw this and just couldn't resist. An LGF poster submits a sarcastic headline to Digg pointing out how it's considered "racist" to find inconsistencies in Obama's background:

Digg: Racism is alive at LGF

What happens next? The hordes turn on their own pleading, nay, begging him not to use that infamous "R" word in relation to LGF.

And this is who we're counting on to join a fight? People terrified of meaningless labels? Kinda scary if you ask me...

- Sodra

SEOULDIER13 said...

Yes Baron,

Will comply. I was just dissapointed at Afonso for failure to realize what it is that America did to gain independence. I am just replying to his negative comments about our country and how we fail to realize what reality is. Well, whatever. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Zenster said...

Well, that's four hours of my life I'll never get back.

islam o' phobe: If Darrin Hodges is guilty of the charge of ignoring violations of human rights then so is everyone in human history except for G.W. Bush and the supporters of his plan to spread democracy throughout the globe and create peace on earth.

A cute but overly tidy encapsulation of world history. Only in the last several decades has there been a degree of large-scale consensus regarding any universality of human rights. Modern communications—and the Internet particularly—have finally moved this issue onto the front burner in a majority of locations. Prior to the advent of global communications, it was difficult—if not impossible—to be accurately informed about human rights abuses. That has changed and your attempt to tar all human history for an understandable lack of knowledge concerning this issue is a bit much.

G.W.Bush sold out Western civillisation's self-interest and survival for a handful of magic beans: universal human rights, respect for the religion of peace, democracy for all the world's six billion inhabitants etc. etc.

While I am no big fan of Bush, I am obliged to give him credit for at least trying. I believe he was hobbled—not only by democratic party opposition—but by his own fundamentalist substrate that may well prevent him from condemning other fundamentalists, regardless of origin. Moreover, as a Texan and member of a family whose wealth derives from the oil industry, there exists an immense conflict of interest in his dealings with Saudi Arabia.

These significant issues obscure whatever vision of his to such a degree whereby it is easily mistaken for plain stupidity. Although I thought that at first, it is no longer quite so clearly the case. To give credit where it is due, I can also imagine that Bush is just plain fed up with tilting at the democratic windmills erected in every field of battle he chooses.

Being the world's sole undisputed superpower is not the same thing as being God.

Here, you open a significant can of worms. As a devout agnostic, I am unwilling to take the easy route and cite America’s foundation upon the Judeo-Christian principles of its forefathers. Likewise, I will not explore whether Mosaic Law represents a decent approximation of the Social Contract.

What I will say is that if there is a God in Heaven, His will would most certainly be more closely realized by American values of individual liberty and freedom than that of any other country on this entire planet. Towards that end, your above statement does not stand. America—on the average—does indeed tend to bring about a fair simulacrum of God’s will on earth. It strives to assist those in need, even including its own dire enemies. It continues to stand as a beacon of liberty beckoning those who yearn for freedom to its welcoming shores.

As the World’s Policeman™, we do indeed play God and for a host of damnably good reasons. Feel free to name what other country on earth you would rather have playing such a role. I will ask that you please refrain from answering “none”. In America’s absence, some other nation would undoubtedly slip into the driver’s seat. So, which other wannabe superpower should it be? Russia? China? Britain? France? How about Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? What about Zimbabwe or North Korea? Do you see where this is leading?

Like it or not, America is this world’s preeminent superpower and the rest of our planet’s population should be bloody well grateful that this is the case. For how much the vast majority of people in other countries want to immigrate here, there seems ample justification for believing this is so. There is also the undeniable fact that the USA has attained this position by dint of merit and not through means of force. If force were the sole means of access, the Soviet Union or communist China would long ago have wrested the steering wheel from our grip.

Darrin Hodges: so Zenster, you see it as your moral duty and obligation to impose your culture, society and way of thinking on others?

No, I see it as a moral duty to prevent such knuckle-dragging Muslim Neanderthals from imposing their barbaric shari’a law upon some ONE BILLION of this world’s human beings. You are conflating the direction in which the equation works. It is not so much that America has any obligation to impose its culture “on others”.

Of far greater significance is the fact that TYRANNIES HAVE NO SOVEREIGN RIGHTS. If you dispute this elementary fact, please make a distinct point of doing so in any reply of yours.

Given that tyrannies have no sovereign rights, it is the privilege of any free society to intervene in the daily operations of tyrannies and wrest the reins of power from those who continue to prey upon their own populations. Do you have any problem with such a notion? If so, please be sure to spell it out. As Fjordman concisely notes, for anyone to immigrate to another culture is a frank admission to the fact that the adopted culture is superior. Otherwise, why immigrate at all? Given the fact that America continues to be the primary focus of immigration for all other countries in the world—and holds that position by a stunningly large margin—this would seem to be explicit recognition of how superior life in the USA happens to be. Again, please feel free to refute such a notion.

If America’s culture is, indeed, superior to that of a large majority of other nations, then the projection of our culture—even by force—upon countries that violate the human rights of their respective populations certainly seems like doing them a favor. Again, please correct me if you think I’m wrong, as it’s difficult to escape the idea that liberating Iraqis from rape rooms, mass graves, trench warfare and vicious dictatorship seems to be a really, really good thing. Even if it is most DEFINITELY NOT for our own economy.

This is how Islamists see it, so who are you to complain if they want "save" America from Jahiliya?

Your question has all the merit of communists seeking to “liberate” American “wage slaves” from their capitalist chains. They struggled to do so even as their “scientifically planned society” could not manage to land even one man on the moon while America returned to the lunar surface half a dozen times. An endless succession of grandiose “Five Year Plans” saw the Soviet Union evermore dependent upon wheat shipments from the “decadent” West. Grain that we sold to the communists solely because it would have rotted in our silos due to over-production. Oh, yes, we so desperately needed to be liberated from our capitalist chains by the Soviet utopists.

You evoke a similar picture of Islamic “liberation” by citing “Jahiliya”. For the unfamiliar here is a cite for the definition of Jahiliya:

The pre-Islamic Arabian age of ignorance, marked by barbarism and unbelief. Islam came to end this evil age, according to its view. The period is subdivided in some Islamic traditions—the period of Abraham, the period of Jesus.

While—in its earliest times—Islam’s arrival may have presaged some sort of end to “barbarism and unbelief”, to assert that it might do so today is the height of moral relativism.

Your concept of Islamic “liberation” is nothing more than a rebranding of Rousseau’s “Noble Savage”. Oh, for a return to “pure” nature in an unblemished state of Edenic concord with the wilds. Never mind how life in that state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Perish the thought that Islam might have less-than-good intentions for us benighted Infidels. How could that be? Why would this benificent Religion of Peace [spit] desire anything less than our very best wellbeing?

Feel free to compare the Islamic state of Jahiliya with anything remotely approching Western civilization’s condition in the last ONE THOUSAND years. Should you manage to make the least sort of salient point, I’ll happily respond. Until then, would you please refrain from spewing such complete and total balderdash at this site?

VinceP1974: *Puke*... Well I'm an American , and i say that gives me more than enough legitimacy to say that our culture, our society and our way of thinking is objectively superior to Islamic culture.

And due to the inhumane and barbaric nature of islam, i do believe it is a moral obligation to fight against that system in any effective and practical way we can, just as we do against any injustice.


VinceP1974, much as we might disagree on other topics, I’ll certainly welcome your plainspoken opinion in this matter.

Darrin Hodges: So Captain America, you clearly believe it is your moral obligation to impose your values onto somebody else?, what happens if they don't want it? Bomb them into submission?

How curious that you are magically able to read the will of these people but I am not. You posit how they would prefer to live under a tyrannous government solely because it is what they are used to. Let’s all ignore how a huge number of Iraqis—put through this same experience—are rather glad to be out from under Saddam’s thumb. So, how is it possible to tell if people living in a backwards and cruelly barbarous culture yearn for freedom?

Let’s reframe the question. Would you, Darrin Hodges, enjoy risking having your hand amputated if circumstances led you to steal a lof of bread to feed your starving children? Would you like your daughter to be given lashes if she is caught out of doors unescorted by yourself, her grandfather, uncle, brother or husband? Would you enjoy it if your wife was raped and nonetheless required to produce four different unrelated male citizens as witnesses in her favor so as to overturn what would likely become grounds for her to be charged with adultery—and given lashes? Please answer these exact questions as I have done you the favor of answering yours.

It does not require any magic to read the will of people who would rather not be dictated to by an elite clergy whose sole intent is maintaining their position of power regardless of whatever human suffering is needed to sustain it. Neither does it need any magic to know that women who are not taught to read or drive may well dislike those who enforce such discrimination upon them. If you can prove otherwise, I invite you to do so here. Otherwise, I will ask that you consider how others than myself regard your objections as being supportive of the very worst that mankind has to offer.

Afonso Henriques: Zenster, that commment is typically jewish by our political standards by now, and as so, it doesn't mean nothing to me.

While your double negative may be unintentional, it certainly is revealing. Although my mother’s Danish father was part Jewish, I am ALL American. If finding moral relativism to be particularly repugnant is “typically Jewish”, then go ahead and call me Jewish. I’d rather be aligned with those who fight Islamic terrorism while allowing mosques to built in their nation than those who prosecute the possesion of a Bible.

You think that way - And I don't know where you are from - because Israel needs esperateley help form Europe/America. And i'm with the Jews, i'll help you as much as you can, as long as you Jews do not interfere politically in my bedroom, because I am not going to ditacte rules in Jerusalem.

Afonso, I know that English is not your native language but your grammatical and spelling errors can interfere with your intended meaning rather badly. I suggest that you run your comments though some sort of spellcheck if you want a pertinent answer. As it is, what you have responded with above is little more than schoolyard ragging and does not merit any reply.

The thing is, the insular attittude is right.
One has the libery to do what he wants as long as he does not bothers no body. So, if you want to have a culture like Islam, you can have it, but on your own lands.


Here, you make the same dreadful mistake as Darrin Hodges. Geographical displacement in no way entitles you or anyone to violate human rights. While historical lack of communication may well have shielded those who perpetrated such indecencies upon their fellow man in previous times, such is no longer the case. Pretending it is so only serves to relegate you to history’s dustbin.

Just because Islam’s political and clerical elite continue to desire a power structure that lavishly rewards them at the cost of hideous human rights abuses in no way justifies such dispicable tyranny. Couch it in any sort of obsfucative terms you like but it does not remove the stain of suffering, predation and deprivation incipient to the vast majority of Islamic regimes.

We, nobody, has the right to tell that this or that is not correct. Everybody has the right to their culture, even muslims. We don't have the higher moral ground.
Colonisation prooved it.


Pure, unadulterated horse hocky. Should Robert Mugabe be allowed to continue his parasitic role in Zimbabwe’s economic demise? Should Kim Jong-Il be permitted to plunge North Korea ever deeper into human cannibalism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to terrorist regimes? Should Myanmar be allowed to slaughter peaceful Buddhist monks who demonstrate against the totalitarian repression of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi? Should Iran’s Ahmadinejad be permitted to threaten Israel with nuclear annihilation without experiencing any censure by the global community? Should African and Islamic cultures be allowed to continue mutilating the genitals of their young women solely because it serves the ends of their established patriarchal power structure?

I politely suggest that you re-examine your priorities. The next time you try foisting off such a patently offensive load of indefensible drivel, please expect a less than courteous response. What you suggest leaves few restraints upon the most savage and cruel despots on earth. If that is your intent, please state so now in order that no further electrons be wasted upon responding to your sort of tripe volcano.

Sodra Djavul said...

Wow, Zenster. Four hours to write that really does seem about right...

While I am no big fan of Bush, I am obliged to give him credit for at least trying. I believe he was hobbled—not only by democratic party opposition—but by his own fundamentalist substrate that may well prevent him from condemning other fundamentalists, regardless of origin.

There seems to be a serious fear within the atheist and agnostic communities about the fictional "Christian" fundamentalists in America and somehow morally equivocating them with Islamic extremists. It is recorded fact by his biographers that Timothy McVeigh adhered to your own views of agnosticism. The only acts of terrorism that comes to mind that can be loosely based on "Christian" values are abortion clinic bombings, which most "Christian fundamentalist leaders" have always made a point of openly condemning.

I'm not terribly religious, but members of my family are, and would probably be considered fundamentalists by the prevailing view within the atheist and agnostic communities. I think the fear is that some people genuinely believe them seeking to establish a theocracy, when in fact they do not. The principle of separation of church and state is present for most as well, with the concept of "Render unto Caesar..."

Sorry for the long soapbox. It is just frustrating to see the dishonest moral equivocation offerred by those with a phobia to all religion between "Christian fundamentalists" and Islamic fundamentalists when the actions and beliefs of both groups couldn't be more different.

- Sodra

Zenster said...

Sodra: There seems to be a serious fear within the atheist and agnostic communities about the fictional "Christian" fundamentalists in America and somehow morally equivocating them with Islamic extremists.

I think you are misreading my words. I DO NOT directly equate Christian fundamentalism and fundamentalist Islamic extremists.

My point is that Bush, as a fundamentalist, may be purblind to the fact that other non-Christian fundamentalists may have less than pure intentions. Please remember how immediately after the 9-11 atrocity, Bush administration envoys were nevertheless sending out feelers to Iran and other extremist Muslim nations in order to generate support for language that removed services involving reproductive choice from UN world health legislation. This alone shows some sort of mutual agenda even if there are not common behavioral modes.

There is also a shared background of women in a subservient role and condemnation of homosexuality that is common to both Islam and fundamentalist Christians.

While this IN NO WAY makes them comparable, it may just as easily create a screening effect that would obscure Islam's underlying hostility to someone so notably incurious as Bush is reputed to be. This notion is given exceptional weight by Bush's adamant insistence that Islam is the Religion of Peace. [spit]

I hope this clarifies things for you. As the conflict heats up between Islam and Christianity, I have spent many long hours recalibrating my own attitudes towards each entity. Needless to say (Then why say it?), my respective estimation of them has experienced a rather inversely proportional relationship with Islam rapidly plummeting towards the depths of Hell as an indicator of how I feel about Christianity.

Afonso Henriques said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Afonso Henriques said...

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion."

You should be more open-minded. Though, you are half right.

Yes, everybody has the right to their opinion but we (the general society) should not have the duty to listen to "not so good" opinions. That's one of the problems we have now we didn't in the XIX century.

What a hell! I did not "offended" your country by any mean! I just analised your History in an imparcial way. You can also say that my country is artificial, born out a man's dream. But it ain't, and so you can read this.

It can be said that your "States" are born of a freedom, liberty and all the high vallues you want, and that you had the legitimate right to do it because the Britts are bad folks. But it wasn't that way, and it won't become truth just because the majority believes in it. Or does it?

Afonso Henriques said...

Zenster,

"Although my mother’s Danish father was part Jewish, I am ALL American."

I am terrible sorry for that. There was a commenter here on GoV who was Jewish, his nixk was/is Zionist, I can now recall. I am really sorry to have thought you were Zionist. Mea Culpa. I just think that your comment, demanding "we" to impose order around the World, is paralel to the Israel need for the West to help. And that Z in your nick... i repeat, I am sorry.

"If finding moral relativism to be particularly repugnant is “typically Jewish”, then go ahead and call me Jewish."

It's not "typically jewish" but nowadays, Israel needs the help of the West, especially the U.S.A. and as so, demanding "we" to atack "them" because they are different, is what Israel (and the West) did against Hamas, for exemple. Also, I thought you were Jwish...

"what you have responded with above is little more than schoolyard ragging and does not merit any reply."

Reading it now, you are definitely right. Sorry for that. It clearly does not satisfy the "standard level" of this blog. Sorry Baron!
By the way, there was nothing to be replied here.

"While your double negative may be unintentional, it certainly is revealing."

I honestely do not know what you mean with "revealing" but the double negative seems to be unintentional. Again, sorry for that.

"I know that English is not your native language but your grammatical and spelling errors can interfere with your intended meaning rather badly. I suggest that you run your comments though some sort of spellcheck if you want a pertinent answer."

Yes, English is not my native language. And I want to say that I am deeply sorry for all my mistakes - and sometimes I get even ashamed of it - and I also want to express gratitude for all the toleration here on Gov.
I will not put your advice into practice because I am not writing essays here. My comments are to be fast-written. And sometimes (most times) I do not have pacience to correct mistakes. Sometimes, I am even sleepy, and my writinh gets (even) more dirty. I am sorry, but try to understand.

Now, I am going to see The Daily Show and comeback soon.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Geographical displacement in no way entitles you or anyone to violate human rights."

Yes, you are definitely right. But don't forget that no reason entitles me or you or whoever to tell the muslims that their culture is inferior and shall be erradicated; no reason entitles me, you, whoever to atack a country just because they are govern by ditactors. Europe made her way through centuries of blood, it went well. Nobody died in vain. Why would Europeans (here or in the U.S.A) and others die for another people's fight? If one wants some, one has to fight to gain it. I think "the West" should intrevein in Sudan for exemple but not in Irak; In North Korea, but not in Iran. We have not the right to be Gods.

Actually, if you wanted Europe to have all that power, why did you supported decolonisation moviments around the globe?
Actually, if you are se brave atacking muslims because they do not respect the Human Rights, why are you so coward when North Korea or China are put in the equation.

Iraq was War for Oil, simple. The result: The Iraquis are with saudades* of Sadam and Iran is now a regional great power.

*Saudades is a unique Portuguese word that has no equivalent in any other language, even among the Latin languages, only Galician (Portuguese that is spoken in Northern Spain, in the land where the Portuguese language and ethnicity were formed) the word exists, and it is the same. It means (more or less) mo miss someone or something, to feel a big pain in the heart for the past times. You will understand it if you hear some Fados (fortunes). Go google it if you want it.

"While historical lack of communication may well have shielded those who perpetrated such indecencies upon their fellow man in previous times, such is no longer the case."

And why should any of my brothers and friends risk his lifes, or better, risk to be hurted, fighting somebody else's fight? Why? Would they do the same? Didn't they decolonised themselves in order to be free of external influences? What do I won in all this? For what would I fight for? The Human Race? Well, there are too many people in this planet, don't you think?

"Pretending it is so only serves to relegate you to history’s dustbin."
Who cares??? And it is not pretending, is recognising that it is not my business.

"Just because Islam’s political and clerical elite..."

You seem not to know what we are delaing with. The muslims are muslims, weather they are the elite or the peasentry. You are one of those who believe in a "moderate Islam" don't you?

"it does not remove the stain of suffering, predation and deprivation incipient to the vast majority of Islamic regimes."

So, that poor people should stand up and make some type of revolution. They have all eternity to do it. I do not care because there is poverty, predation and suffeiring in my country too you know? That's where my priorities lie on.

"Pure, unadulterated horse hocky"

Well, I don't know what "horse hocky" means, but I can have an idea, and I imagine it is not "horse hocky".

"Should Robert Mugabe be allowed to continue his parasitic role in Zimbabwe’s economic demise?"

No. It is shamefull that the West does notthing to depose him. Especially the United Kingdom when English women with Zimbabwen nationality are being killed and raped there. I hope you Britts to be proud of what you've become. Was it to happen in the XIX century? Isn't decolonisation wonderfull? Why are the U.S.A. so quiet about it, is it because there is no oil there? Well, there are people there, you know?

"Should Kim Jong-Il be permitted to plunge North Korea ever deeper into human cannibalism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to terrorist regimes?"

Well this is a delicate case. One has THE moral duty to atack any Nation that does what North Korea has done to/with nuclear weapons in those particular specificities. I think the West should, teorically, unite and use all his stenght against it, even nuclear power. But, reality is a bit different.
You do not want:
1) To upset China, it is too powerfull;
2) To put at risk the life of 45 million South Koreans and some millions of other Koreans;
3) To upset and put Japan at risk.

With all that in mind, "we" should act tougher but I don't know what we could do. One cenario would be to block all the Northern Korean costs, to obligate China to close its border and to cease all its relations with NK. But it would need a big cooperation of the European Civilisation. After that, one could eventually invade it with millions of soldiers (mainly from South Korea and the U.S.) and conquest as much land as possible and giving it to South Korea.
Now, would millions of Americans be wanting to die for it? I don´t think so. And the South Koreans?
One can have two options about it:
1st) Who cares?
2nd) No they don´t.
Imagine my crazy plan is followed and it is a sucssess.
Now, wouldn't the united new Korea create WMD? Wouldn't they? Between China and Japan? Well, what would we do next? "Bomb them untill submission"? It's tricky.

"Should Myanmar be allowed to slaughter peaceful Buddhist monks who demonstrate against the totalitarian repression of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi?"

Yes, of course. Well, no, of course. But, is there a legitimate way for "us" to interveine? No. The Myanmar inhabitants have to stand up for themselves because I won't. I will not risk my life for the sake of some Monks.

"Should Iran’s Ahmadinejad be permitted to threaten Israel with nuclear annihilation without experiencing any censure by the global community?"

No, he shouldn't.

" Should African and Islamic cultures be allowed to continue mutilating the genitals of their young women solely because it serves the ends of their established patriarchal power structure?"

Yes, they do. Actually, you supported those peoples decolonisation movements, because they were being opressed, wasn't it? And now, how ironic, you want to impose your European cultur on them. The culture is theirs, they like it, if they don't they can always reform it. If they do not, it is because they are not all that annoyed by it. Why should we be so? Especially after decolonisation? You are a few years late to the debate about the "Superiority of European Culture Overseas", especially when "European Cultural Superiority" is denied, even in Europe or in Canada, the U.S.A and I think, even in Southern South America. Do you want Europe to rule the world? Well, make Europe rule itself and wherever there are European (white) majorities. When it is acomplished, maybe we can export our culture as superior abroad (as we did, it was called colonisation, it created the "Big Satan" and it was the devil's plan to the world).

"I politely suggest that you re-examine your priorities."
I have already did it and neo-colonisation is not one of them. It is ridicule to debate such type of colonialism when Europe itself is being colonised and when EUROPEANS ARE AS ENDANGERED AS AUSTRALIAN ARBORIGENALS. Well, i know it is shocking but I will put it this way. Some people on my father's side of the family were immigrants. They went to France and they returned. Some on my mother's family were colonisers, they went to Africa and they returned only because a war broke out, and after the result of the war, if they stayed there, the most probable was to be killed as many did.
Immigrants return to their homes, Colonisers don't, they conquer new territory for themselves.
Those people entering in the U.S.A that you call immigrants are in fact colonisers, especially the Mexifornians, they are conquering territory for their own, they are not the "land's son" like the "First Nations" were. But you can get it, do you? Will you ever? I respect all honest immigrants that go work and return home, but there are many honest colonisers (especially 2nd generatio "youths") that really annoy me, because they think the land is their's, and are brain wahsed in that way. But you, as a coloniser, can not get it, do you? You are even against colonisation despite the fact that you are a coloniser and that you advocate a neo colonialist way of cultural superiority! Is laughable!

" The next time you try foisting off such a patently offensive load of indefensible drivel, please expect a less than courteous response."

Well, I don't agree. Offensive?? Maybe the you are a Jew thing. Sorry for that. And it is by no means indefensible. Maybe I can not deffend it (and I don´t think it is the case) but someone will, because it is "the right thing".

"What you suggest leaves few restraints upon the most savage and cruel despots on earth. If that is your intent, please state so now in order that no further electrons be wasted upon responding to your sort of tripe volcano."
Well, now you are the one being offensive. I will not reply. I will only quote John O'Sullivan:
"All we have to do, in a conservative sense, is to defend the Democracy at Home and the Nation State abroad."
There are many things worse than a dictator, my friend.

SEOULDIER13 said...

It can be said that your "States" are born of a freedom, liberty and all the high vallues you want, and that you had the legitimate right to do it because the Britts are bad folks. But it wasn't that way, and it won't become truth just because the majority believes in it. Or does it?


Afonso,

Please elaborate. I don't understand how you said it can be said, and then you say it wasn't that way, and it wont become truth just because the majority believes in it.

Just think of us as when Portuguese had the balls finally to vanquish the Moors.

Zenster said...

Afonso, you started out by apologizing for your unwelcome and snide racial remarks and nonetheless saw fit to close your comment with such garbage anyway.

You are a hopeless moral relativist and demonstrate a profound insensitivity to the conscientious obligation all of us have as compassionate human beings to aid those who suffer at the hands of tyrants and despots. Your inability to discern that Islam is wholly inferior to Western culture represents a profound and voluntary blindness to some of the most glaring evil that exists on this earth. While I wanted to express appreciation for you having the courage to answer much of my reply point-by-point, you are unable to distinguish between criticism of a person's content versus insulting a person's own self. I have neither patience nor time to joust with such immaturity.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Just think of us as when Portuguese had the balls finally to vanquish the Moors."

It is a stupid comparison and I don't feel like disscussing it now on this thread. Opportunity will come again in Gates of Vienna.

I owe you an explanation right, Seoudier 13?

I will suggest you to read something written by the British people about the American Revolution.