Reeducation for the insufficiently vibrant
Roissy notes that the government's multicultural reeducation camps for insufficiently vibrant Americans are well underway:
He writes: "Like Communist reeducation camps, the captive (yes, captive, or they lose their jobs) listeners in the audience are being humiliated by this piece of shit into participating in de facto forced confessionals of their imaginary sins, and indoctrination of their “privilege” and “oppression”. You can hear their humiliating subjugation in the way they nervously laugh at slander directed against them. This is the laughter of the bullied beta male trying to go along to get along, so as to avoid any beatings on the playground later."
He writes: "Like Communist reeducation camps, the captive (yes, captive, or they lose their jobs) listeners in the audience are being humiliated by this piece of shit into participating in de facto forced confessionals of their imaginary sins, and indoctrination of their “privilege” and “oppression”. You can hear their humiliating subjugation in the way they nervously laugh at slander directed against them. This is the laughter of the bullied beta male trying to go along to get along, so as to avoid any beatings on the playground later."
Labels: Vibrancy is our strength
157 Comments:
Sickening shit.
I've said before... the workplace becomes ever more hostile to men and ever more comfortable for women.
So... is being forced to listen to slander against your culture, race, heritage, and person under thread of losing your livelihood part of playing the game of life on the easiest setting?
OT, but freaking hilarious-- Yahoo headline: "Police search for black Range Rover that fled the scene after firing on another car."
the good: Raciss bastards! That should be African-American Range Rover.
Double plus good: did the Range Rover use and "assault rifle"?
Triple plus good: Did the Range rover purchase the weapon without a background check?
Clearly more legislation and executive orders are required. After all, if Obama had a Range Rover...
USDA prime horsemeat, coming soon to a supermarket near you...it's only a matter of time.
"captive, or they lose their jobs"
Awww... poor government workers ....
Gee, I feeeeel soooo baddd for the Department of Agriculture works who get 6-figure pensions for life...
BTW. The Reeducation Camps were for political dissents. The films shown to Gestapo, KGB, and other government workers is called TRAINING.
Hahaha. Hilarious.
Anyone who knew history didn't need to be told that Europeans demolished native cultures in the Americas. Seems like the people who work at USDA wasted a lot of time.
BTW, I've always wondered how to reconcile what Rothbard says in The Ethics of Liberty, about people owning the ground they work, with the apparent acceptance of Europeans stealing native land.
What does he keep repeating? "Give me a ???"
Boy, stand in front of a group of people and yell at them all for hours on end for something they haven't done? For something like $350/hr? Nice work if you can get it.
And I've always wondered why we don't sue the Indians for hurtcrime every time they moan about Columbus. Bunch of ignorant racists, trying to keep their continent diversity-free.
I also don't know how it was there's, when I'm told that the Indians lived in harmony with nature and goodness and nobody 'owned' anything.
Sucks that the Europeans didn't share that value system (but that doesn't make the European system worse, only different!), but why then would the Indians have any right to 'force' Europeans to play by their rules?
It says "USDA" in the title but I could swear he said "Avis Management is on board."
So... is being forced to listen to slander against your culture, race, heritage, and person under thread of losing your livelihood part of playing the game of life on the easiest setting?
Yes, precisely as they are outlined in the quidditchian rule-book.
Bismillah!
The player who plays on the “Gay Minority Female” setting? Hardcore.
So saith McRapey.
When I worked for USDA in 2010 I went to one of these in ashington State, and sat in front of an evenvworse presentation. The asian lady speaking on the transformation was hitting every insane communist liberal hippie bullet in the book. Reordering of society according to tribes, like Native Americans, "crazy logic" replacing linearbthinking, a more feminine and less masculine approach to work, even robots replacing wild fire fighters. On and on it went, until she got to the part in her speech about "Zeet... Zite... Giest. Zeetgeist? I don't know... anyone know... Zeitgeist movement? Anyone?"
From the back of the auditorium from behind 400 captives, my voice rang out, "They're communists!" A bunch of people turned around, and the girl next to me (from my unit) slapped me in the back of the head. It was glorious.
Right after that I escaped into the head where another man thanked me for speaking up, and agreed that we were deep inenemy territory, so to speak.
E
Nothing much to add here as some of us have seen it coming for years now. So I'll leave the quote from about a decade ago from Theodore Dalrymple, who is from the totalitarian UK okrug of the EUSSR:
Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
"I also don't know how it was there's, when I'm told that the Indians lived in harmony with nature and goodness and nobody 'owned' anything."
Exactly. But, even that characterization is false. When territorial disputes arose, violence ensued. The injuns set their own barbaric precedent on how to handle land use. At least the civilized Europeans bartered for a deal.
-Archiver
Nonsense. The poor Indians just ran around popping each other with little sticks, while the mean white man was blowing their heads off with large chunks of lead.
Yeah, I saw "Little Big Man".
What a surprise - the speaker, Samuel Betances, is a Harvard educated Chicagoan.
Re: Indian land ownership
Any society, having in the year 1 of its calendar discovered the cultivation of crops, will either have been completely destroyed by blood feud/starvation or discovered the concept of land ownership by calendar year 2.
Now, there's a good deal of detail that goes into it that varies from location to location, succession rights, the role of the local "gubmint", the role of religion, etc, but the human drive for security (in this case security of food supply) is far too strong a force to suppress the invention/discovery of the concept of land ownership. Or conversely, the immediate and utter destruction of "propertyless" societies by their more astute neighbors.
@Vox Day
My! THIS is the object of concern for those who hate the idea of minorities, hate non-whites living in the U.S. and those who hate the fact that we aren't persecuting minorities?
If this kind of things is really a concern and believed to be a problem for the pro-OnlyWhites contingent of Americans, then it's worth noting that the Pro-WHITE ONLY contingent is not the threat to morals and ethics that some claim they are. If the pro-WhiteOnly contingent is really focused on "exposing" this, then we can say with some assurance that they haven't the sense or rationality to be of a threat to anything.
At least the indians put up a fight.
Exactly. But, even that characterization is false. When territorial disputes arose, violence ensued. The injuns set their own barbaric precedent on how to handle land use. At least the civilized Europeans bartered for a deal.
Oh my!
Read "Empire of the Summer Moon" and be forever disabused of the peaceful nature of the "native Americans"! Sorry about the Indians.... during that period in history we were just better at that sort of thing than they were. We're not any longer....at least here. This is why, while I'm not thrilled about how things are going domestically, I won't whine about the Mexican infiltration. We have no right to permanent possession of the territorial area known as the United States it only remain ours as long as we are willing to defend the claim.
If McRaperson and The Warrens Collective had their way, they would skip right over this step and directly apply The Ludovico Technique, quam celerrime, to any and all who displayed the slightest sort of Ilkish inclinations.
@ Azimus
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem is for those tribes that did have a concept of land ownership, what to make of the current situation where they were forced off their land by settlers? My thought is to give the land back.
those who hate the fact that we aren't persecuting minorities?
No need for persecution, they simply need to pay their fair share. After all, they didn't build that.
Tad, you used to at least weasel some morsels of truth into your posts, which made you somewhat inviting of actual response. Now, you're just harmlessly spewing pure 100% falsehoods.
A lie is only effective if it abuses bits and pieces of the truth. Now look at you; you're clearly such a pathological liar that you don't even try to conceal your disingenuousness these days. This is why you have the 5-comment limit.
At least dh makes an effort at real, honest, genuine discussion.
Men like this tend to diddle little children when given the chance. He actually looks like a child molester. Just my opinion.
I'm sure he is a great guy!
Imatiger,
I'm sure we'll get right on that as soon as we have promises that the Turks will vacate Asia Minor and Constantinople, Hispanics will return to Iberia, and Islam denounces itself in all lands outside the Arabian peninsula.
What, so the Mexicans can take it from them, Imatiger? There's nothing stopping "them" from taking back what's theirs. "Giving back" land to Indians who clearly do not want it enough to fight for it is, in fact, Indian giving. Making them the middle man for a land transfer to some other group is neither just nor sane.
Sounded like some sermons.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem is for those tribes that did have a concept of land ownership, what to make of the current situation where they were forced off their land by settlers? My thought is to give the land back.
Nah. We conquered them fair and square. Its ours now. Until the Mexicans take it from us.
Now that's a sermon.
Calling all the Liberal sinners to repent.
"If it worked for the Pilgrims, it can work for other people"
Freaking hilarious, given the context. So now he wants whitey put on a reservation while the rest of them take over.
Libertarianism is built upon a bedrock of property rights. Murray Rothbard did a good job explaining that. I am just saying, if we are going to be libertarians, then we should apply the principles consistently. We cannot control what the heathens do, but we can make our land the libertarian utopia (or as close to it as possible) we deserve.
We cannot control what the heathens do, but we can control that they don't do it *here*.
Simple enough.
Also, i call concern troll.
Who Speaks for the White, European, Original REAL Native Americans like Kennewick Man ...the Solutrean Clovis & Folsom Cultures ... Slaughtered by Red Invaders from Asia???
I really don't know. I just want my reparations, dammit.
Porky February 21, 2013 1:18 PM
What does he keep repeating? "Give me a ???"
i believe it's, "Give me a 'bam'".
more to the point, the purpose is to psychologically force group dynamics. to force each individual to conform to the group and to force the group to conform to ludicrous concepts.
Anonagain February 21, 2013 1:50 PM
At least the indians put up a fight.
true. otoh, the war parties of the indians weren't defending the invaders.
Dot connector February 21, 2013 2:04 PM
Sounded like some sermons.
you don't think that's an accident, do you?
in a sermon, you'll have utterances of, "Amen" to express voluntary AGREEMENT with a point the preacher made. now, go back and read my first answer again.
"Libertarianism is built upon a bedrock of property rights. Murray Rothbard did a good job explaining that."
No, Rothbard did a horrible job at it.
Henry George spotted this fatal flaw of Rothbardianism more than a century ago. Of course, Rothbard tried to lie and sneer it away like he did all his foes...
The ghost of Albert J. Nock is crying somewhere.
in a sermon, you'll have utterances of, "Amen" to express voluntary AGREEMENT with a point the preacher made.
Indeed. You can bet that all the attendees were good, orthodox liberals who completely agreed with the speaker before the entered the so-called *training* session.
This event wasn't about training, it was more akin to revival meeting.
Nate February 21, 2013 1:02 PM
I've said before... the workplace becomes ever more hostile to men and ever more comfortable for women.
So glad to be out of the corporate workplace these days. I now spend half my time working on remote database projects (with the occasional corporate visit to remind me to be thankful), and the other half outdoors tending crops and livestock. I find myself losing interest in corporate America by the day. Let's just start to ignore them.
@ Alexander
Concern troll is such a bullshit concept. Either believe I am playing straight or not. It seems like a big waste of energy to not believe. Of course I am concerned, otherwise I wouldn't bother posting.
Let's just start to ignore them.
What if they threw a crony capitalist, corporatist, mercantilist, fascist party and no one came?
"If it worked for the Pilgrims, it can work for other people"
Freaking hilarious, given the context. So now he wants whitey put on a reservation while the rest of them take over.
The Pilgrims, like other good Puritans, we known for buying the land from Indians.
WERE known
serves me right for mocking Nate
Imatiger,
it seems strange to believe that you would profess libertarian values and then offer as not only a solution, but a necessary value, that we allow into our midst large populations of people that are not only decidedly authoritarian in practice, but hostile to the very existence of western culture.
You are a concern troll because you plead your case on a virtue you assume most of us hold in high regard, even though the net result of following your 'advice' would be the complete destruction of that very thing.
Give me a Bam.
You need an active listener for affective brainwashing.
I now spend half my time working on remote database projects (with the occasional corporate visit to remind me to be thankful), and the other half outdoors tending crops and livestock. - rycamor
Jealous here.
There is no possibility of re-education for the Far Left any more than you could "correct" the thinking and beliefs of the Far Right. There will be constant conflict until at some point someone decides the only remaining solution is complete removal of the opponents. We have seldom had this sharp of a contrast in this country, but it seems clear that we are all headed in that direction. It won't be enough for the "victor" to keep the enemy off the television, radio, and other media. It won't be enough to keep them out of public office and banned from the bureaucracy at all levels of government. It won't be enough to keep them from writing books and articles, or prohibit them from speaking in public, or harass them with petty charges, fines, and permits.
At some point, it will become painfully clear that these people are incompatible and cannot live in the same civil society. Either that society will have to split into two or more separate societies, or the weaker of the two will have to "voluntarily" leave the society for their health, or these two groups will lose patience and begin to eliminate each other through selective assasination, abduction, blackmail or intimidation. If the society cannot split and the weaker have no place else to go, then we are stuck with the final solution.
What a bunch of stupid automatons at the USDA.
I would have planted a fart noise machine in the AC duct.
Hit the button every time he says "Give me a Bam!" [Pffftttttttt!!!]
Yet another government agency we can get rid of.
Noah B. February 21, 2013 2:46 PM
Yet another government agency we can get rid of.
Totally. The USDA has been part and party to "giving away the farm" for the past century. It's time to take farming back.
Cuboid February 21, 2013 2:43 PM
I now spend half my time working on remote database projects (with the occasional corporate visit to remind me to be thankful), and the other half outdoors tending crops and livestock. - rycamor
Jealous here.
That reminds me, I've got to get outside and reposition my sprinklers.
DonReynolds February 21, 2013 2:44 PM
We have seldom had this sharp of a contrast in this country, but it seems clear that we are all headed in that direction.
By "seldom", do you mean "on a regular basis since colonists occupied this land"? We've had these social shifts/contrasts every 40-50 years or so.
@ Alexander
Who are these large populations that you are referring to? I was talking about Native Americans. There aren't that many left. The tribes I am aware of are neither authoritarian or hostile to the existence of western culture. They comprise less than 1% of the US population. I don't see how they could possibly destroy US culture. Except maybe through building more casinos.
Imatiger February 21, 2013 1:57 PM @ Azimus
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem is for those tribes that did have a concept of land ownership, what to make of the current situation where they were forced off their land by settlers? My thought is to give the land back.
Well you have to give a thought to right of conquest, which I think someone else alluded to above me. In taking up arms against the United States, they invoked right of conquest, and nullified their treaties and legal standings with the US Government. Once they admitted defeat and signed a new treaty, they are either bound to the language of that treaty, or have the right to invoke right of conquest again, to try for better. It's not so unusual, it's been done in recent history in at least New York State and Alcatraz, for two examples off the top of my head. Zapatistas in Mexico as well, but I don't think FRM recognizes tribes as independent nations as we do.
I'm baffled. What laws does he think the Pilgrims broke?
The crap the left believes is beyond me.
In know a Vietnam Naval Aviator. His first float they went out with 12 pilots and came back with 9. Two were lost to night landings and one to a day landing. They were trained exceptionally well and were taught to believe that if they were perfect, they'd live.
Now he knows that you can do everything perfectly and still die and that if had known that then, he'll tell you, there was no way he'd have ever gotten into that cockpit.
Part of it's a defense mechanism to do what you have to do.
Kind of like Lars, the cop. He comes across as a decent guy with values and morals and aspirations to a noble sounding goal, except his position sounded like the Marxists and Communists I'd argue with the U of M in the late 80's: Just because we've failed in the past doesn't mean the concept is flawed, just let us try again, we'll get it right the next time.
You can just see the defense mechanism discounting the (evil) failures and excusing them because the goal is believed to be achievable and good. How else could he go to work every day without them.
But true believers like this. The twisted history, My God!!
"...is being forced to listen to slander against your culture, race, heritage, and person under thread of losing your livelihood part of playing the game of life on the easiest setting?"
Is the Grand Hutchinson back from his charity drive hiatus to cover that one.
Imatiger, it has been stated by others:
If every WASP right now shed a single lonely tear down his right cheek and then handed his property rights over to the nearest Indian, it would be taken from him about ten seconds later by a non-Wasp, most likely one whose surname ended in -ez.
The net result of your 'plan' is the handover of territory to Aztlan, using the Indian as a go-between.
Furthermore, you treat the WASP as a having committed a unique-to-history crime of nationtheft. This is fundamentally false.
If you will, please answer me the following:
Do you believe that other groups that have provably displaced native populations have an obligation to return the land to its previous owners? In a specific case, do you believe Turkey should surrender it's entire territory to the Greeks? If not, why not?
Obviously, that question is for Imatiger. And also, its*
Indians played both sides of the fence too long and got what deserved for being so fair weather. They were always siding with the losing team. Pick a winner and stick with them, then your legacy isn't some 2nd rate casino with shittier odds than vegas.
ajw308 February 21, 2013 3:01 PM
I'm baffled. What laws does he think the Pilgrims broke?
the law of the Nauset and the Wampanoag, who often forced the Nauset to their will. is that supposed to be a trick question?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauset
in the larger view, though, the Indians had the same right to the land that the Pilgrims did: the Right of Conquest. they often exercised it on one another.
the Pilgrims came in greater numbers than the Indians could handle.
the current invasion is not coming in greater numbers than we can handle, it's just that all of the CandC orgs in the States have been subsumed to support the invading forces.
At least the indians put up a fight.
They were fighting each other long before the White man came across the seas and brought them pain and misery.
Who do you think the Iriquois were eating? Volunteers?
"They were fighting each other long before the White man came across the seas and brought them pain and misery."
Maiden reference.
Excellent!
And he looks JUST like Mr. Lynch from Birth Of A Nation!
The first comment at Heartiste:
http://youtu.be/faNge-o0V-k
Excellent as well.
(I think I linked to the original video in a comment here or AG last week - it was on drudge).
Of course it only works in a warren. At some point he says "If I have your permission". I would have jumped up and say "I do not give you my permission", then either get ejected or take over and torment everyone. I've done so in the past (nearly bringing two facilitators to tears).
Oh yes, let's right all the wrongs of the past. The beneficiaries of Cro-Magnon privilege should be ashamed.
Of course, down south the vibrancy was more active. Cortez attempted to shut down the Atzec's pyramid schemes, and Pizzaro those of the Incas.
Oh, as to the pilgrims and indians, check the video I liked to above, repeating:
http://youtu.be/faNge-o0V-k
Oh hell, it's started over there too has it?
They were fighting each other long before the White man came across the seas and brought them pain and misery.
Yeah. So? Whites have been fighting each other as well. Everybody fights, or dies. What exactly is your point?
@ Azimus
I'm not familiar with right of conquest. Would that still apply if the natives were taking up arms to defend against the Americans that were breaking a treaty? Otherwise, if they instigated the fight, by all means, take the land.
@ Alexander
You are strawmanning my argument. I am not arguing for what you are arguing. I am not saying that every WASP give up their land. I'm saying take a look at where Americans instigated forcible removal of the natives who had been working the land, where it was documented this happened, and give back the land or at least pay them. Or they can "buy" back the land by paying back any monetary reparations they may have received in the past.
I don't know enough about Greece or Turkey to comment on that. But as a general principle, yes, if invaders took land that was being used forcibly, they should pay.
Is "BAM" short for a Blaxican Amen?
Is "BAM" short for a Blaxican Amen?
Not when it comes from my .45.
"I am not saying that every WASP give up their land. I'm saying take a look at where Americans instigated forcible removal of the natives who had been working the land, where it was documented this happened, and give back the land or at least pay them"
And thus Rothbardian theory starts to crumble...
Kennewick Man demands your land, and reparations too sucka!
But what about the guy whose land Kenny-Man stole??!
You can sneer away the ghost of Henry George (and Nock) all you want...
@ Unemployed White Guy
Well, if Kennewick Man doesn't have it documented, yeah then I guess he is shit out of luck. We would have to send this stuff through some sort of court system, and standards of evidence would have to be agreed upon.
Regarding horsemeat passed as beef scandal
In my country there was a hilarous happening: three men stole some donkeys when they were grazing on the field, slaughtered them and sold the meat as beef. Mwahaha! Of course the owners announced the police and the thieves were caught and, as usually here, recognized their deeds (what Hercule Poirot investigation; just ask "have you done X?" and the purported criminal will answer "yes"" and even provide details; maybe it's the law saying the punisment is to be reduced substantially if the accused cooperates with the prosecution).
There are those that dominate and those that submit. The submissives get confused and think they are dominant, until the really dominant are fed up and have had enough.
We are close. They will lose big time. If they would only open their eyes and see what they already have, they would know this man spreads lies. They are going to lose everything if they are not careful.
The submissives are pretty good about abusing women an children though. And they seem to like to have sex with underage children. Why is that?
But as a general principle, yes, if invaders took land that was being used forcibly, they should pay.
You damned Yankees better get out your checkbook
Bah, they've (gov't entities) been doing crap like this for years. When I was a platoon SGT at the Defense Language Institute, for some reason the EO rep would get a local guest speaker to tell the entire company at 6:00 am all men were rapists...and of course we couldn't tell the EO rep that the little ugly dyke was entirely full of crap either (have an EO compliance bullet on the front page of the NCOER and OER).
Or they can "buy" back the land by paying back any monetary reparations they may have received in the past.
Typical leftardism. Great^nth Grandpa made a bad deal. Here's a mess of pottage, please allow me to renege on Gramp's agreement. So much for your pretensions of libertarianism.
@ Stilicho
Is that your rejoinder to anything you don't agree with? It's Leftist? For the record, both major parties can go fuck themselves.
No. But forced confiscation and redistribution of private property is definitely leftist. Which is what you are advocating.
Imatiger February 21, 2013 3:56 PM @ Azimus
I'm not familiar with right of conquest. Would that still apply if the natives were taking up arms to defend against the Americans that were breaking a treaty? Otherwise, if they instigated the fight, by all means, take the land.
The "right of conquest" is what it is called, but it has other names "might makes right", "posession is 9/10 of the law," "law of club and fang", "What're you going to do about it?" etc. It is not a law of itself. The correct place to correct treaty violations would be in a legal environment, either in the courts of the nation with whom the treaty was signed, or by a 3rd party arbitrator like a Teddy Roosevelt, or something like that. Once you've laid down your pen and taken up your sword however, all bets are off.
@ Alexander
Yes I agree. Forced confiscation of native lands that they considered private property, to be redistributed to settlers, was leftist. Of course, what I am advocating is nothing of the sort. I am advocating correcting that mistake. The opposite. Rightist.
@ Azimus
I did some wikipediaing, and read your response. Thank you for the information.
Is that your rejoinder to anything you don't agree with?
That's my rejoinder to a statement indicative of a sub-normal IQ and which reflects a non-substantive leftist talking point.
Or, to put it terms you might be capable of comprehending: the teachers made you wear that bright orange helmet so that they would remember to put you on the short bus, not because they thought you were Speed Racer.
I wish these comments were numbered so I could speedily go to where I'd left off reading previously.
Is that possible with this system?
@ Stilicho
You must feel like you are superior to a lot of people, huh?
And thanks for the retard joke by the way! That's classy.
I worked for the USDA for 24 years and left January 2013 due to illness. This all started in the Early 90's after Clinton became president. We were forced to go to an AIDS awareness program that taught about how to use codomns to protect yourself and not to discriminate or be afraid of people with AIDS. We were threatened with loss of job if we did not attend, and since I was RCC and condomns are against my religous belief I refused. It was all a bluff because I was not fired and had threatened a law suit. It stabalized during the Bush administration then accellerated exponetionaly during Obama and everyone just goes along to get along.
I thought Amen meant "I Believe" not "I agree".
Imatiger: "The problem is for those tribes that did have a concept of land ownership, what to make of the current situation where they were forced off their land by settlers? My thought is to give the land back.""
Good idea, let's also give back all the privately owned land that heretofore has been taken under 'Eminent Domain' to those who were forced to sell it against their will. We don't need all those public roads and things, right?
Better idea -- let's instead consider all those tribal lands also to have been taken under 'Eminent Domain', and if the former property owners think they didn't receive enough compensation, let them sue the government in court like everybody else has to do.
@ WaterBoy
I'm testing the idea against smart people here. I've always had a hard time reconciling Rothbard's concept of who owns land against real life. That, and the concept that no regulation is ever good.
It's funny. The application of libertarian principles in this discussion is so random.
Supposedly libertarians believe that any person fundamentally owns all land that they work.*
*Except in cases of conquest, because as the famous libertarians always say, "Might makes right".
*Also, except in cases where the government forces them to give it up, because, again as famous libertarians say "Trust the government, they said it was for the common good."
The Indian tribes were anti-immigrant.
I thought Amen literally meant "So be it".
I have to endure annual training on NOT engaging in sex-trafficking commerce overseas or domestically.
As I say loudly every year "I was going to pay to rape a 12 year old boy in Thailand, but NOW I know that's wrong!"
People...
The Native Americans were freaking prehistoric cavemen. They hadn't yet developed the freaking wheel.
This is modern man creating civilization where previously only savages lived.
You can't steal from animals.
@ Imatiger:
Not really inconsistent. You seem unable to differentiate between the nature of war and the nature of government. Unless you believe that the two are essentially the same? In which case then, you've made the case for anarchy (or rather, constant warfare between people and the gov't).
But we're not anarchists. We tend toward a variant of libertarianism in which the big picture is liberty and how to structure a government which respects liberty within reasonable moral boundaries, which do have a very tangible effect on the longevity and prosperity of a civilization.
After all, it was Christian Europe which boomed and produced the great civilizations on which the sun never set.
Outlaw X February 21, 2013 5:28 PM
I thought Amen meant "I Believe" not "I agree".
literally, amen means "it is so" ( notice the *is* ) or "let it be so".
socially / colloquially, it's used with the implicit meaning of "preach it, brother".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amen?s=t
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen
Lulabelle February 21, 2013 5:05 PM
I wish these comments were numbered so I could speedily go to where I'd left off reading previously.
Is that possible with this system?
*ahem*
look at the time stamp on the right hand side at the top of each post.
Anonagain February 21, 2013 3:42 PM
Yeah. So? Whites have been fighting each other as well. Everybody fights, or dies.
false dichotomy.
sometimes, to fight IS to die ( see; the 300 at Thermopylae ) . sometimes, death actually is the proper choice ( see; Torpedo Squadron 8 at Midway ). sometimes you need to choose death without fighting at all ( see; the men of the Titanic ).
the KEY is to be able to identify HOW, WHERE and WHEN to fight ... and to be able to identify when it may be necessary to die. properly choosing HWW may alleviate the necessity of sacrificing yourself and enable you to enact the Patton strategy.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgespa125179.html
that having been said, it is EXTREMELY childish and churlish of you to make such demands upon others that they sacrifice *themselves* for causes *YOU* feel appropriate.
Anonagain February 21, 2013 3:42 PM
What exactly is your point?
here's some free advice ( being free, i expect you'll ignore it ):
your female shaming and demands for masculine sacrifice will not accomplish any more of your goals here than they do in real life.
do you ever hope to have a man in your life? do you think he's going to put up with you constantly demanding that he commit societal or actual suicide ... just so that you might hopefully think well of him?
that's kind of a one trick pony.
and a man that you can so easily manipulate to such a great sacrifice is not really much of a man at all.
Imatiger: "It's funny. The application of libertarian principles in this discussion is so random."
That's because you're trying to squeeze everybody into the same monolithic definition of 'libertarian', but not everyone fits there. Take our host, for example, who is on the record as being against free trade and open borders -- both of which are against nominally libertarian positions. And both of which I also agree with.
It's probably best if you consider people to be 'quasi-libertarian', and let each person address specific principles as they may.
As for the land deal, like I said -- if the tribes can present an argument in court for getting it back, or for more compensation, I'm all for it, depending on the specifics of each case (I don't pretend to know all of the legal ins and outs of all the various treaties made over the years). I generally agree with the principle of Eminent Domain, but don't agree that it is always properly applied (cf, Kelo v. City of New London), and if the FedGov made a mistake along the way, fix it.
@ Soga
No, I can differentiate between war and government. Are you claiming that all land seized from native Americans was seized in war, following rules of war of the time? In addition, are you claiming that when a government declares war, they are justified in seizing property as they see fit?
false dichotomy.
No, just not well written. Yeah, one can fight and die. That's obvious. Thanks for pointing it out.
do you think he's going to put up with you constantly demanding that he commit societal or actual suicide ... just so that you might hopefully think well of him?
Get over yourself. I couldn't give a crap what men do. I'm speaking as a culture and society.
@ WaterBoy
Point taken, and considered. I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic originally about going through the courts as well, so thanks for the clarification.
here's some free advice ( being free, i expect you'll ignore it ):
Not ignoring it, just unnecessary and hilariously unwarranted. Your presumptions are both inaccurate and uncalled for.
If it's beta to act like you're going along with this to keep your job, what is the alpha response? And don't give me any BS about flipping the guy off and leaving the room or jumping up and beating his ass. I don't see getting fired as a very alpha trait, but I have been wrong before. I just don't think alpha equals stupid.
I think if I were sitting there I'd scream his answers back to him as loudly as I could. I mean bellow it back like a baboon on speed, maybe even stand up, thrust out my right arm and click my heels together.
Nate February 21, 2013 6:09 PM People...
The Native Americans were freaking prehistoric cavemen. They hadn't yet developed the freaking wheel.
This is modern man creating civilization where previously only savages lived.
You can't steal from animals.
True. There is no doubt they were the weaker powers and stewards of the land by far. But we signed treaties with them, just the same. Like I tell my kids about honesty: you're not to be honest because you're accountable to them, you're to be honest because you're accountable to yourself.
That said, in the end they shredded the treaties and gambled on the sword. They have to live with the consequences of that choice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
that having been said, it is EXTREMELY childish and churlish of you to make such demands upon others that they sacrifice *themselves* for causes *YOU* feel appropriate.
An observation is not a demand. You got some problem with me, that's fine. Knock yourself out. I'll just sit here and laugh.
"No, I can differentiate between war and government. Are you claiming that all land seized from native Americans was seized in war, following rules of war of the time?"
A state of hostility could be said to have existed then. In fact, territorial seizure could reasonably be described as an act of war. If France had attempted the same with British territory in Europe at the time, that would have been considered an act of war. And if France successfully defeated Britain in such a war, then the only way Britain could get that land back is by asking France nicely if they felt like giving it back to them. Otherwise, they're going to have to start a war in the future to take it back.
I don't see the Native Americans massing to make war on the US to take back their land. And if they've asked the US Gov nicely... well, the Gov obviously said no.
It is what it is.
"In addition, are you claiming that when a government declares war, they are justified in seizing property as they see fit?"
Under libertarian principles, it would seem that if you mean this in a domestic capacity (e.g. quartering soldiers in citizens' homes), then no. If, however, you mean this as the government seizing an enemy nation's property as they see fit, then I really don't see the problem here. In fact, I believe we already do things like that in the Middle East.
bob k. mando
"look at the time stamp on the right hand side at the top of each post."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've tried that.....for some reason, I just can't remember the time stamp. I think maybe I could remember a "plain" number better. I dunno.
Thanks for trying to help me out, though.
Bah, they've (gov't entities) been doing crap like this for years. When I was a platoon SGT at the Defense Language Institute, for some reason the EO rep would get a local guest speaker to tell the entire company at 6:00 am all men were rapists...and of course we couldn't tell the EO rep that the little ugly dyke was entirely full of crap either (have an EO compliance bullet on the front page of the NCOER and OER).
So your're admitting they've won and that they rule us. Welcome to the club.
Imatiger February 21, 2013 5:59 PM
It's funny. The application of libertarian principles in this discussion is so random.
Don't imagine everyone here is a libertarian.
I myself come to hang with the hotties.
Anonagain February 21, 2013 6:22 PM
I couldn't give a crap what men do. I'm speaking as a culture and society.
oh. well then.
please do go right ahead and start fighting somebody. you needn't wait for us.
i mean, say what you want about Ann Barnhardt, she actually is putting her life and livelihood on the line by refusing to pay taxes and doing so quite publicly.
as for me, i don't see much in this society worth fighting for. and i can't say as i'm aware of any extant .gov type societies that i would judge to be so.
( pssst: the fact that you feel the 'need' to keep coming on this blog and insulting the men that comment here kind of puts the lie to your assertion about not caring what men do. )
@ Imatiger
Also keep in mind (though you probably do already know) that what comprises the current contiguous states was not all acquired through conquest of native tribes. It's hard to imagine that land purchased from other countries (e.g., Louisiana Purchase) would be subject to such claims, for instance.
GF Dad February 21, 2013 6:27 PM If it's beta to act like you're going along with this to keep your job, what is the alpha response?
Speaking as a probable delta, I imagine the alpha would sit quietly in the room and ignore the man. Alphas are afterall confident and competent and don't need to start a war over everything they disapprove of. Maybe the alpha will do some work on his smart phone. If called on, he would respond politely. If called out, he would destroy the angry, salivating busy-body.
But it's sort of a hypothetical question - there are so few alphas in the world... and this "training" is really more for delta folk. The alpha is up on the 88th floor landing the $15 million deal.
The gammas apparently must make everything personal. You take one simple observation and distort it into something ridiculous. Delusional and pathetic.
I very much doubt all the other males on this blog had the same reaction to the simple comment. Some of you have problems, and you are not worth the trouble to continue responding to.
GF Dad February 21, 2013 6:27 PM
If it's beta to act like you're going along with this to keep your job, what is the alpha response?
seriously?
why do you think an Alpha would have a .gov bureaucrat cube dweller job?
Vox's alpha's would either be the upper level management types who were forcing ( establishing social dominance on ) the middle and lower white collar types to attend these classes OR they'd be complete outlaws and wouldn't be employed by the .gov in the first place.
cube dwellers, by definition, are beta or lower.
( pssst: the fact that you feel the 'need' to keep coming on this blog and insulting the men that comment here kind of puts the lie to your assertion about not caring what men do. )
BTW, the ONLY reason I come here because it has a wide readership. Fighting against Leftists is my only goal. Nobody here means anything to me. Again, get over yourselves.
WaterBoy February 21, 2013 6:44 PM
It's hard to imagine that land purchased from other countries (e.g., Louisiana Purchase) would be subject to such claims, for instance.
eh?
you think we didn't fight all kinds of Indians in the Louisiana territory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_Indians#Warfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LouisianaPurchase.png
Ding ding, Round 3... or whatever the hell number it was at last time she was around.
bob k. mando: "you think we didn't fight all kinds of Indians in the Louisiana territory?"
That's not what I said. I said ownership of said territory did not come from conquest of the tribes therein -- it came via purchase from France. What happened subsequently in settling it is irrelevant to the question of how it was obtained.
Spain and France both originally claimed the land, before Spain transferred their claims to France and thence to the US.
Important OT for anti-vibrancy cadres:
22 tips for avoiding drones
There is a link below the picture of the drone and before the story's text. It will lead to a pdf download originally published by "The Base".
It doesn't matter if the land was stolen or the Indians were savage or not.
We're here now and the country is going to absolute Hell.
And stating that the European settlers were illegal immigrants only supports the anti-immigration argument. They imagine it doesn't because they're children, resorting to a kind of name-calling, too stupid to understand the implications.
Don't throw out those old microwave ovens, dudes
All this talk of right and wrong and which man deserved what was done to him and which did not.
Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak.
Anonagain said:
Get over yourself. I couldn't give a crap what men do. I'm speaking as a culture and society.
Wow, Anonagain dude. Maybe someone else needs to get over someone else's self.
I speak as a Culture and Society myself, so I am allowed.
How can any native Indian tribe claim any a priori land ownership? They never had surveyors, they never had property deeds, they never even had effing writing. For God's sake, they were barbaric savages constantly waging internecine war on each other. And the rest of their culture... have you ever been to a museum with native Indian artifacts? Their so-called cultures were boring as hell, because they were primitive as hell. When a culture came in that was superior to theirs in every way (leftist noble savage memes notwithstanding), that superior culture almost had no choice but to prevail.
It's long past time to get over the whole issue, because it is not an issue.
Reality keeps laughing at my feeble attempts to write a dystopian sci-fi novel.
Do you repent?
Yes.
All of you sins and those of your white kind?
Yes.
Do you repent for the development of the heinous steam engine and the first Industrial Revolution?
Yes.
Do you repent for the second Industrial Revolution with sparks of violent electricity?
Yes.
Do you repent for the printing press in Europe and the ushering in of the Renaissance?
Yes.
Do you repent for Newton's discovery of the Law of Gravitation?
YES! YES! OH GOD YES!
Be healed.
One more white man has been healed! Come foward and testify!
Testify!
ericcs: "How can any native Indian tribe claim any a priori land ownership?"
Because the US Government recognized said ownership via treaty. It is the basis for many of the reservations of today, whether on originally-owned land or through a land swap.
I can totally see that guy in video deciding to rip his shirt and tie off in the middle of talking and mount the summit of a giant Aztec pyramid. He begins removing white-man hearts and burning them, while looking up at the sky for solar eclipses of a job well done. "This precious blood gives life..." he chortles as he slices the head off the heartless body, then kicks it down the stairs to the bottom, blood spurting out of the neck cavity after smacking each stone step, where it is be collected in a large pile of others at the nadir.
Now THAT sounds like a party.
*CAW.*
My nakedness was the source of my protection from bullets in battles.
During the First Liberian Civil War I would eat the hearts and drink the blood of the small child to give me magical powers.
Thankfully those demonic powers are now at rest.
Waterboy: "Because the US Government recognized said ownership via treaty."
Ah, a wonderful lesson here for you leftists... what the State giveth, the State can taketh away.
"True. There is no doubt they were the weaker powers and stewards of the land by far. But we signed treaties with them, just the same."
I'm confused...
who is this "we" you're referring to here?
The "we" I refer to is the United States.
I get into pronoun trouble.
"The "we" I refer to is the United States.
I get into pronoun trouble."
And you conclude that a contract signed by some men in power 200 years ago has relevance today.
Do I really need to go over all the changes that have taken place?
For example when those contracts were sign many of the states that are currently considered part of the United States were actually illegally occupied with no legitimate self determination at all.
Are those states liable for the contracts signed by their conqueror?
Cultures that are superior shall always prevail over inferior cultures. Should not all progressives rejoice at the relentless march of history?
Its not whitey's fault that Inuit (eskimo) kids like sniffing gas.
They dig the sno-cats also. They have teevee reception so they know their culture sucks, but they still have to live in ice and snow.
It sucks to be them. Luck of the draw, eh?
Simply, yes. It seems like the civilized thing to do. This of course precludes violatiins that would nullify the treaty.
I'm rather a fan of binding agreements signed by men long-dead myself.
"Simply, yes. "
Just so we're clear... you suggesting that parties that were forced to be a part of a contract without their convent.. are liable for that contract?
Azumus says:
I'm rather a fan of binding agreements signed by men long-dead myself.
I like the penumbra option that absolves me of all responsibility. I can actually honor the agreement by violating the agreement.
Its like Catch-22 only more positive.
If you have a trap Nate, then by all means spring it. I speak as plainly as I can. Yes I think civilized men who enter into agreements should honor the agreement. It seems to me otherwise isa Mohammedans Contract, that is, a ruse for the purpose of more completely destroying the infidel. I have no wish to engage you on the field of whether a Federal treaty binds a state, a state treaty binds a town, a town treaty binds a man and all the entangling mess of what is an individual's responibility to uphold the agreements of his representative government. I agree it is a mess. But fundamentally speaking yes, if we sign a document that says we mutually agree not to poop in each other's pools, we should by all means do that.
Pity the poor Mr. Betances. Every morning he awakes and looks into the mirror. He doesn't see the European or the Slav, the Nordic or the Jew, the Negro or the Oriental, the Indian, the Arab, or the native American. First hand he sees the results of the bastardization of the inferior Spanish culture with the even more inferior conquered Aztec. Unremarkable in the sciences, the arts, or warfare, Spain's only and sole purpose for existence was as a conveyance for Columbus. Hell, they can't even sing, dance, or run fast like the Negroes.
Entire families, even villages have been destroyed for lesser insults. As a matter of fact my local USDA office should immediately disavow those comments. This could lead to war.
Spanish people can't sing or dance?
..Whaaaaa?
zen0 February 21, 2013 7:50 PM
Wow, Anonagain dude.
not a dude. think on it for a while, zen0. you've seen this play before, you'll figure it out.
WaterBoy February 21, 2013 7:08 PM
Spain and France both originally claimed the land, before Spain transferred their claims to France and thence to the US.
*facepalm*
irrelevant. how did Spain and France establish THEIR claims against the Indians?
also, if purchasing the land from France gave us ownership, WHY DID WE SIGN TREATIES WITH PLAINS INDIAN TRIBES?
to quote you back at yourself:
"Because the US Government recognized said ownership via treaty."
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/sioux-treaty/
'But fundamentally speaking yes, if we sign a document that says we mutually agree not to poop in each other's pools, we should by all means do that."
mate.
WHO signed the contract?
That is my point.
The government that signed those contracts (there was more than one after all) does not exist.
We did not sign any contracts. Those who signed them on our behalf did so without our consent.
Additionally... if a government can sign a contract on behave of a conquered people... then it certainly cannot be judged for changing the details of a contract it signed with a people it conquered.
Nate -
I understand your point anout consent. It seemed like too much of a mess, too far afield of the original topic to get into. By that standard, you personally could decide you were still at war with the empire of Japan. Or, if you chose, never were at war. There is something to said for the limits of implied consent, representative government, etc., certainly. But if the pendulum swings to all explicit consent, all the time, for everyone, you have chaos. At every level of civilization.
Off-topic but perhaps tangentially related to the original post.
Scalzi-Lite (aka Jim C. Hines) makes a post about how great it is that white guys are no longer eligible for the Nebula awards except as token nominees. That's all well and good, but check out the comments, in which he's taken to task for having used the word "penis" in the title in reference to men--AND CHANGES THE TITLE!
http://www.jimchines.com/2013/02/nebula-voters-hate-white-penises/
I always wondered what John Scalzi looked like. Please don't post anymore videos of him. He is not very attractive.
Eduardo, it's not off-topic. It is part and parcel of the exact same mind set. If one of those nominees, The Killing Moon by N.K. Jemisin had a TV-like intro jingle, it'd go:
"I'm black, and I'm gay, and I'm a woman, la-la-la. My characters are black, and gay, and women are adequately represented. La-la-la."
Then we come to Saladin Ahmed's Throne of the Crescent Moon, which is predictably lauded because it isn't Western Euro-centric. Who cares? Give me a good read. And it's no coincidence Ahmed's Wikipedia describes him as "Arab-American," though he is only half so. Liberals think that is like a PhD on Arab studies and a brave new world of diversity. Is Jack McDevitt or Peter Hamiltion described like that? Nope. Half-Muslim is better than none plus Ahmed has a neat name.
The rest of the nominee's list are similar expressions of emptiness, where who you are and what you sit on apparently trumps writing. Robinson can certainly do better than give me regurgitated Varley and Brunner while having rolling cities on Mercury straight out of Amazing Stories, circa 1929.
Screw the Nebulas: it's an insulated community of politically correct morons dedicated to gutting SF&F into a trite gender and race-based amalgam of zombies, vampires and Jane Austen at Hogworts.
"I'm straight, I'm white, and all my characters are straight and white. La-la-la."
Frowns all around. Send me to a gulag.
bob k. mando: "how did Spain and France establish THEIR claims against the Indians?"
Same as by the US -- through a combination of conquest and purchase via treaty.
It is just as incorrect to assert that all land acquired from the natives by Spain and France was done so by force rather than by other means, as I was pointing out with land acquired by the US.
bob k. mando: "also, if purchasing the land from France gave us ownership, WHY DID WE SIGN TREATIES WITH PLAINS INDIAN TRIBES? to quote you back at yourself:
"Because the US Government recognized said ownership via treaty.""
1. My quote was primarily directed at land within the Louisiana Purchase -- in what was called Indian Territory (Oklahoma) -- that was traded to the Five Civilized Tribes of the southeast, in exchange for their ancestral lands. It was also used to relocate other tribes, though as I earlier stated, I am not familiar with all of them. How could the US use that land for trade if they didn't think they legitimately owned it?
2. All treaties with the plains tribes did not involve land ownership. And when it did, it was not necessarily to grant ownership to the Indians. For example, the TREATY WITH THE SIOUX, 1816 reconfirmed the earlier transfer of land ownership within the area of the purchase to the Spanish, French, and British, and that ownership carried through to the US:
ARTICLE 3.
The undersigned chiefs and warriors, for themselves and their tribes respectively, do, by these presents, confirm to the United States all and every cession, or cessions, of land heretofore made by their tribes to the British, French, or Spanish government, within the limits of the United States or their territories; and the parties here contracting do, moreover, in the sincerity of mutual friendship, recognize, re-establish, and confirm, all and every treaty, contract, and agreement, heretofore concluded between the United States and the said tribes or nations.
3. Appeasement through land-grant treaty also became a diplomatic tool to buy off some tribes, in the same way that corporations will settle illegitimate lawsuits just to get rid of them. That doesn't mean the US thought those tribal claims were legitimate.
The USDA diversity flak (da longer you verk here, da verse it gets) would go over better in a clown suit with calliope music in the background.
Zoop-doop-doodle-loop, doodle-loop...
Another homo demi-sapiens.
WHO signed the contract?
Naturally.
" But if the pendulum swings to all explicit consent, all the time, for everyone, you have chaos. At every level of civilization."
This is the equivalent of expecting the children of jews who lived in Germany to honor a contract signed by hitler.
Lincoln was murdering tyrant. He had no respect for the constitutional limits of his authority at all. The congress of the time had literally watched as he threw political opponents from his OWN PARTY... loyal to the Union... in jail.
I am really sorry the beat-on-your-tom-tom indians got screwed. My people got screwed to by the same people.
The Indians got to keep their own governments.
The South didn't.
You must feel like you are superior to a lot of people, huh?
And thanks for the retard joke by the way! That's classy.
Moo
The obvious solution is to declare war, invade the reservations, and get a new treaty that renounces all claims to all lands anywhere. The lefties can be happy because we did it 'legitimately' and there's a piece of paper with government approval of the status quo, and the rest of us can just get on with our lives.
Or, as Nate points out, Uncle Sam can kindly step back north of the Ohio and Potomac, and the CSA can discuss with the Cherokee what steps exactly are necessary.
- Alexander
" If this kind of things is really a concern and believed to be a problem for the pro-Only Whites..."
And I thought Pro-Only Whites was a new Crest toothpaste!
Tad, if you can't see this is pure mental torture, the kind you seem to rail against, then you are purely an argument lover.
I suspect you enjoy throwing out these posts of yours, whether you embrace them or not, just to unsettle some folk. Well,my time on this blog is for enlightenment and entertainment and I am little tired of your Minstrel Show.
Bye Tad, it is a shame you will not embrace the intelligence and opportunities in this forum to elevate your thinking beyond liberal talking points.
Perhaps, someday you will accept the mercy of the Lord, put your awful lifestyle behind you and find wonderful happiness.
Wow. For fricks sake, this is absurd!
What a load of wretch-inducing, weakness-advocating, mind-shrinking crap...and all so a bunch of worthless emos can FEEEEEEL good!
Yuck.
the Diversity Counselors and Equality Adjustors and Minority Officers and etc have been shaming and stomping white guys for thirty years now with these mandatory beatdowns
twenty, twenty-five years ago, they were selling the same snake-oil, especially in government offices . . . tho usually, a female gives the Beatdown Lecture
after the first three or four times one is subjected to these Whuppings, you realize it's either flight (submit like the other guys, go back to work, keep your job and comfy life) or fight (resist the evil)
nupe i just cant understand why guys are running around shooting up schools and offices, truly, it is an absolute Mystery
the Left still imagines those guys didnt attend the bi-annual Minority Maulings at their local place of employ, but in fact, those guys DID attend. . . and listened to every word
sow, reap
For more, from the originial which I forgot I bookmarked wondering if it would end up here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/jw-releases-confidential-usda-videos-revealing-cultural-sensitivity-training-program/
Which apparently has the whole thing.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home