ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, September 06, 2013

The decivilization of America

Fred Reed reminds us of the civilized society we have lost and explains why we lost it:
This is why as cultures break down, or mix with less civilized cultures, more and more police become necessary. So do locks, bars, alarms, cameras and, for the remaining virile, carry permits. Hello.

Here is one reason why multiculturalism seldom works. Suppose that one culture has a strong work ethic, fairly strict sexual morality, low illegitimacy, low crime, respect for study and proper use of the national language. Suppose that another culture is precisely opposite, or approximately opposite, as for example the Moslems in France. If the first group is truly dominant, and imposes its standards—you will do your homework, kid—the second group may successfully assimilate.

But suppose that the dominant group isn´t really that dominant and can´t, or won´t, impose its values. How—in a school, say—do you mix the toilet-mouthed with the well-spoken, girls who expect to marry before giving birth with fifteen year old single mothers pushing strollers into class? Or if the courts have decided that “motherfucker· is an entire language to itself, and that eradication of the word would constitute imperial culture-abuse? The effect will always be to lower the civilized group to the uncivilized.
This multi-generational societal devastation is the cost of giving in to the multiculturalist dogma of half-savages like Jemisin and fatherless, clueless hypocrites like Scalzi. McRacist and McRapey don't understand that what they call racism and bigotry was the basic foundation of advanced civilization.  Civilization depends, it has always depended, upon keeping down the half-civilized, keeping out the barbarians, and preventing both the half-savages and full savages from infesting, infecting, and ultimately destroying the civilized aspects of a society.

Instead of gradually welcoming into society those exceptional Africans who followed the lead of blue-bottomed Brits and naked Germans in graduating from cannibalistic savagery and expecting from them the same rights and responsibilities of a civilized citizen, the Civil Rights movement insanely declared all humanity to be the same, thereby eliminating the all-important distinction between civilized human population groups and savage ones. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before the enwiggification of America took place.

The Civil Rights movement didn't merely destroy Constitutional rights, but literally gave naked, albino-eating, baby-raping cannibals the same intrinsic legal rights as highly civilized, highly moral Christian Europeans and told the romantic equalitarian fools to expect even better results than before. The Greeks knew better than that. The Romans knew better than that. The Imperial British knew better than that. And America's Founding Fathers knew better than that.

Was it an accident? Of course not. There have always been those with the will to power, those who wish to rule unopposed by the will of the people. The Ciceronian cycle predicts the rise of aristocracy across the democratic world, and that is precisely what we are seeing in the elevation of the international corporate executive class and their relative immunity to the laws to which the rest of the population are subject.

Seen from this perspective, multiculturalism and the subsequent decline into vibrant semi-barbarism is merely a demographic application of the ancient strategic principle: divide and conquer.

Labels: ,

269 Comments:

1 – 200 of 269 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous DonReynolds September 06, 2013 1:06 PM  

Excellent comment, Vox. Nothing more can be added.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 1:16 PM  

All men are created equal.

Anonymous Lulabelle September 06, 2013 1:17 PM  

Might be my all-time favorite post. Excellent.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 1:19 PM  

they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 1:20 PM  

What about cheap chalupas and churros?

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 1:21 PM  

Porky:

Troll gonna troll

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 1:23 PM  

@Josh

If dissent frightens you, just crawl back into your little rabbit hole.

Blogger RobertT September 06, 2013 1:29 PM  

this is a great melody ... arcane, ephemeral, wafting, nostalgic

Anonymous DrTorch September 06, 2013 1:31 PM  

Porky- Is there a point to your posts? Because you haven't established any sort of logic to your "dissent".


Several years ago my HS was in a controversy about whether to teach English Lit from a book that had a great deal of swearing in it. The leftist teachers insisted it would be good for the students to be exposed to this "real world" phenomenon. Several problems with this:

1. Students at that age swear often. It's nothing foreign to them, and teachers usually have to put a stop to it.

2. When I was a student a few years prior, there were plenty of books to teach from that didn't include so much swearing. There was no need for this new book (except perhaps for a change of pace for the teachers).

3. Most importantly, education is supposed to be a tool to rise up from the base, from the common. Not celebrate and wallow in them.

It is no coincidence that the multi-culturalists spent so much time attacking and destroying the education system, because it is diametrically opposed to their agenda. That's part of why McRapey's and McRacists credentials (well, she believes she has some) ultimately represent nothing. They're pointless.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 1:32 PM  

yes Porky... we're all terrified. None of us had any idea the Declaration of Independence said such a thing.

We will all rethink out opinions now based on that stunning revelation. Thank you so much.

Anonymous anon. September 06, 2013 1:32 PM  

***the Civil Rights movement insanely declared all humanity to be the same***
 
Why do you think this is a true statement?
 

Anonymous J September 06, 2013 1:33 PM  

There have always been those with the will to power, those who wish to rule unopposed by the will of the people.

No. The elite does want to rule by the will of the people.

Just not the same people who were the dominant population of America before 1965.

That's why the elite are bringing in a new people, who will vote them into power forever in exchange for gimmedats.

It is, indeed, the "will of the people" that the former civilized majority should be tyrannized and robbed by the elites in the name of "the people" (i.e., the barbarians).

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 1:34 PM  

If dissent frightens you, just crawl back into your little rabbit hole.

Oh yes, that's it...I'm terrified...

Now, you are the one who has asserted that all men are created equal. In what sense are they equal, and what is your proof of this equality?

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 1:35 PM  

Here's a hint. "All men are created equal" wasn't written to communicate what you THINK it is communicating.

It was a direct attack on the crown and the divine right of governing.

That's all it was.

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 1:39 PM  

So is the solution simply ending forced integration and allowing communities to self segregate, or is it imposing segregation by law?

I'm much more sympathetic to the former than the latter.

Anonymous Orlo September 06, 2013 1:41 PM  

Instead of gradually welcoming into society those exceptional Africans who followed the lead of blue-bottomed Brits and naked Germans in graduating from cannibalistic savagery and expecting from them the same rights and responsibilities of a civilized citizen the Civil Rights movement insanely declared all humanity to be the same

The Civil Rights movement was inevitable, because the gradual welcoming that you propose was not an option, and was actively discouraged. The concept, for example, of having a strict voting test to support literacy and civics is not inherently racist, bigoted, or a bad idea. It is almost certainly a good idea for society. However, they were almost all uniformly constructed and applied in a way to simply exclude blacks en masse. There were not equally applied, and never used to let through the exceptional, but rather, to keep out everyone except the whites. That is unjust by even your standard. For example Wikipedia claims:

"By 1910, only 730 blacks were registered, less than 0.5 percent of eligible black men. "In 27 of the state's 60 parishes, not a single black voter was registered any longer; in 9 more parishes, only one black voter was."

What I think happened is that legitimate efforts to preserve European and white cultural advancements and strength was seen in a negative light because of the obvious and severe racial animus that many whites felt towards blacks. In the face of laws that obviously had the goal of perpetrating massive injustice on blacks by excluding them despite objective evidence of exceptionalism the Civil Rights movement gained a massive dose of credibility. Once it became "common knowledge" that it was plain racial animosity the case for preserving civilization became untenable. In short, the standard for what is civilized behavior must be race-neutral. You are not civilized because your parents were. You are civilized because of your demonstrations of the characteristics of civilized people.

thereby eliminating the all-important distinction between civilized human population groups and savage ones. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before the enwiggification of America took place.

Separating the civilized from the uncivilized is the primary job of society. And we have failed. Great post.

Blogger Ephrem Antony Gray September 06, 2013 1:41 PM  

As before noted, 'will to power' is sexist, we will be substituting it for 'chelsea to power'.

Thanks

- The menágement (a trois)

Blogger budbrewer September 06, 2013 1:45 PM  

Wow.... Spot on, mate.

Anonymous Stilicho September 06, 2013 1:52 PM  

The Ciceronian cycle predicts the rise of aristocracy across the democratic world, and that is precisely what we are seeing in the elevation of the international corporate executive class and their relative immunity to the laws to which the rest of the population are subject.

You're off a bit here. We have already seen the rise of the corporate aristocracy. Currently, we're just having our noses rubbed in it. It is a particularly nihilistic, short-sighted aristocracy that gives little thought to preserving the civilizational foundations that make their aristocracy possible in the first place. The next turn of the Ciceronian cycle cannot be far off. Indeed, we may even be witnessing the early stages of that turn.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 1:54 PM  

It was a direct attack on the crown and the divine right of governing.

Yep. But if you read on it says that the consent of the governed is the justification for government. So as soon as you decide to govern the uncivilized you submit your governance to their consent. You also submit your governance to the upholding the individual liberty of the uncivilized.

It's all spelled out very clearly, and has been from the beginning - by that great libertarian Jefferson.

Anonymous civilServant September 06, 2013 1:55 PM  

Civilization depends, it has always depended, upon keeping down the half-civilized, keeping out the barbarians, and preventing both the half-savages and full savages from infesting, infecting, and ultimately destroying the civilized aspects of a society.

Bravo.

So now the real question. Who is in and who is out? World history provides us with many answers from which to choose ....

Anonymous Bohm September 06, 2013 1:56 PM  

What a load of rancid hogwash!

Anonymous civilServant September 06, 2013 1:58 PM  

It was a direct attack on the crown and the divine right of governing.

Correct. So. Who has the right of governance?

Anonymous map September 06, 2013 1:59 PM  

Porky,

It does not matter what the Declaration of Independence reads because the D of I is not the law of the land. It is no more a governing document than declaring "no man is an island" or a recipe for French onion soup.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 2:00 PM  

"Correct. So. Who has the right of governance?"

There is no such thing.

There is only the power of force.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 2:03 PM  

"Yep. But if you read on it says that the consent of the governed is the justification for government. So as soon as you decide to govern the uncivilized you submit your governance to their consent. You also submit your governance to the upholding the individual liberty of the uncivilized. "

You've just contradicted yourself. One cannot uphold individual liberty by giving a vote to those who are hell bent on destroying individual liberty.

The fact is... the consent of the savage is irrelevant.

Blogger Unknown September 06, 2013 2:03 PM  

Vox,


I think you may enjoy this piece by Nick Land on Discrimination

"Differentiation between what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ requires discrimination. This is a capability no younger than life itself, which it serves as an indispensable function. As soon as there is behavior, there is discrimination between alternatives. One way leads to survival, the other way leads to death. There is nourishment, or not; reproduction, or not; safety or predatory menace. Good and bad, or the discrimination between them (which is the same thing), are etched primordially into any world that life inhabits. Discrimination is needed to survive."

Anonymous Catan September 06, 2013 2:07 PM  

Yep. But if you read on it says that the consent of the governed is the justification for government. So as soon as you decide to govern the uncivilized you submit your governance to their consent. You also submit your governance to the upholding the individual liberty of the uncivilized.

That's a very lovely sounding collection of words, but it's nothing but idealism. What if the uncivilized are tricked by a corrupt political party to vote for them, which tips the election? Are we just supposed to have Godly faith in Democracy, as if the consent of the savage is, by its very nature, a good thing?

Does Democracy magically make an idiot voter smart? Does it make an uncivilized man civil? Let's deal with real results, and stop pretending that the Declaration was some sort of political bible written by Jefferson, the American Messiah.

Blogger Unknown September 06, 2013 2:12 PM  

Does Democracy magically make an idiot voter smart? Does it make an uncivilized man civil? Let's deal with real results, and stop pretending that the Declaration was some sort of political bible written by Jefferson, the American Messiah.

The mass mind is made of cognitive misers. In groups, people always act insane.

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 2:13 PM  

And this consent of the governed, does this man unanimous consent?

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 2:14 PM  

Who has the right of governance?

Governance is not a right.

There is only the power of force.

That would be the unjust powers of government that we rebelled against. The just powers of government come from the consent of the governed. At least that's how "civilized" men do it.
Does it matter to you whether you come by your powers justly or unjustly?

It does not matter what the Declaration of Independence reads

I suppose. But still - one would do well to understand the libertarian mind amid a rising tide of libertarianism.

Anonymous Stilicho September 06, 2013 2:17 PM  

So as soon as you decide to govern the uncivilized you submit your governance to their consent.

You do not allow uncivilized a voice in governance. No civilized man in his right mind wants to try to govern a bunch of barbarians anyway if there are other options available. Leave them to their own devices. If they insist on troubling you, crush them, drive them out, and enjoy the lamentations of their women.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 2:20 PM  

One cannot uphold individual liberty by giving a vote to those who are hell bent on destroying individual liberty.

Then you should not seek to govern them.

Anonymous RINO September 06, 2013 2:24 PM  

The answer to everything is anarchy, guys.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 2:24 PM  

"That would be the unjust powers of government that we rebelled against. The just powers of government come from the consent of the governed. At least that's how "civilized" men do it.
Does it matter to you whether you come by your powers justly or unjustly?"

Do you keep a set of wheels for your goal posts? It seems it would be handy given your rate of relocation.

Anonymous kh123 September 06, 2013 2:25 PM  

Enwiggification on display, in animated gif format. Sums up the article quite nicely.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 2:26 PM  

"Then you should not seek to govern them."

self determination mate. i fully support the united States busting up into about 30 different sovereign countries.

The dominant culture governs itself.

If savages want to live within the borders of that dominant culture they will consent to be governed by it... or they will leave.

Consent and participation are not the same thing.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 2:27 PM  

Vox for example consents to the government of Italy... but he does not get to participate in that government.

Anonymous Anonymous September 06, 2013 2:28 PM  

The justification for any government is in its ability to protect the taxpayer. No taxpayer, no tax revenue, no pay to the legions, therefore no government. It does make sense to have the taxpayers have some say in the government.

R7 Rocket

Anonymous Anonagain September 06, 2013 2:29 PM  

How many different ways can one state that water is wet? For those who deny it, there is no argument that will convince them. For those who get it, the arguments become an irritating reminder of the absurd reality to which they are being subjected, not to mention the inevitable devolution of such discussions into the ridiculous and irrelevant minutiae.



Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 2:29 PM  

Porky,

I've asked a couple of questions relating to your claims about equality. Be a good little piggy and answer them.

Anonymous Anonymous September 06, 2013 2:30 PM  

And that power of force is reliant on tax revenues.

R7Rocket

Anonymous Christian in Hollyweird September 06, 2013 2:34 PM  

The irony being that during segregation the African American community had intact families and were far better off on most metrics.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 2:34 PM  

Do you keep a set of wheels for your goal posts?

I've moved no goalposts. You simply assumed, (as you often do), that I was arguing something that I was not.

If the only just government is one that the governed have consented to, then how does one govern the uncivilized? The partially civilized? The semi-civilized?

I ask as a person who is only partially civilized. I'd like to know how y'all intent to govern me when y'all get into power.



Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 2:35 PM  

"How many different ways can one state that water is wet? "

but but but...

Declaration of Independence!!

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 2:35 PM  

And this consent of the governed, does this man unanimous consent?

In my mind, yes.

Blogger James Dixon September 06, 2013 2:37 PM  

> ...one would do well to understand the libertarian mind amid a rising tide of libertarianism.

Where is this rising tide of which you speak? I'd love to see it, but I haven't seen any signs of it. I've seen a growing number of "conservatives" who realize they've actually been libertarian all along, but that's not the same thing.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 2:40 PM  

"If the only just government is one that the governed have consented to, then how does one govern the uncivilized? The partially civilized? The semi-civilized? "

The savages either consent or leave... or get shot.

Anonymous J September 06, 2013 2:40 PM  

The Ciceronian cycle predicts the rise of aristocracy across the democratic world, and that is precisely what we are seeing in the elevation of the international corporate executive class and their relative immunity to the laws to which the rest of the population are subject.

Aristocracy comes before democracy in the cycle. What comes after democracy -- the degenerate form of democracy -- is ochlocracy, or mob rule. The ruling elite is not a hereditary aristocracy a la 18th century Europe -- and we'd be a damn sight better off under such actual aristocrats. They are the American version of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_class#.C4.90ilas.27_New_Class

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 2:40 PM  

In my mind, yes.

So...your list of most legitimate governments consists of Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and likeminded folk? After all, they received near unanimous consent.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 2:44 PM  

The savages either consent or leave... or get shot.

Do we get to vote on the matter?

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 2:46 PM  

"Do we get to vote on the matter?"

No.

Consent and Participation are different things.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 2:48 PM  

There are plenty of nations of savages and half-savages for you to go and enjoy. You can consent to whatever government you choose.. but if you will choose to consent to this government... then be gone. Or be dead. I don't care which.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 2:50 PM  

Vlad Putin on The Consent of the Governed:

"In Russia live Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia , to work and eat in Russia , should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law. Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia , and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell 'discrimination'. We better learn from the suicides of America , England , Holland and France , if we are to survive as a nation. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of most minorities. When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the national interest first, observing that the minorities are not Russians."

Anonymous Razoraid September 06, 2013 2:57 PM  

Nice post VD.

Anonymous Anonagain September 06, 2013 2:57 PM  

I doubt that the author of "All men are created equal" included half-naked, spear-chucking savages in his definition of men, considering he used them as work animals. Given this, it becomes obvious that TJ was not referring to every biped on the planet. Neither is a woman a man, nor a child, nor a horse. This is an idiotic argument in a defense of multi-culti, diversity BS.

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 3:02 PM  

Vlad Putin on The Consent of the Governed

That actually was never something Putin said. It's a plagiarism of a speech by an Aussie.

But it sounds like something Vlad would have said.

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 3:04 PM  

Porky:

Now, you are the one who has asserted that all men are created equal. In what sense are they equal, and what is your proof of this equality?

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 3:10 PM  

"That actually was never something Putin said. It's a plagiarism of a speech by an Aussie.

But it sounds like something Vlad would have said."

meh.

Putin thinks it. See Pussy Riot for details.

Blogger mina smith September 06, 2013 3:10 PM  

seems to me your right to pursue happiness stops when it starts to entail someone reaching their hands into my pockets to take my income from productive endeavors and give it to you for contributing absolutely nothing.

at that point I think it's fair to say stop and find a different happiness. like working for a living and producing something of value.

it is no coincidence that the population has increased dramatically along with parasitism since the survival of fittest turned into some surviving on their own wherewithal and the rest surviving on the fruits of the wherewithal's labors.

Anonymous Anonymous September 06, 2013 3:23 PM  

I wish I could express my opinions so well in writing. I just get pissed off at it all and lose my temper.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 06, 2013 3:24 PM  

All men are created equal. They were all born of a woman. Thus, they were created. Beyond being created equally....they are by no means clones...they are different and being different means they are unique.... which is equal to none.

Blogger RCR_Chris September 06, 2013 3:26 PM  

For years, I've been pointing out that the foolish celebrations of "Diversity" are nothing more than foolishly cheerleading for the application of "divide and conquer" to the "United" States.

Anonymous Krul September 06, 2013 3:27 PM  

Nate - See Pussy Riot for details.

Ah, Pussy Riot, that fine examplar of post-civilizational politics.

The most viscerally striking aspect of Western civilization's decline is the sheer UGLINESS of it all.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 3:28 PM  

"Do we get to vote on the matter?"

No.

Consent and Participation are different things.


Another glimpse into the so-called libertarian ideal - a land where a law-abiding, productive man can consent to be governed but still be denied participation.

Funny, I always thought that was one of the major complaints that the revolutionaries went to war over.

Further testament to my hypothesis that libertarians are truly authoritarian at heart.


Anonymous DonReynolds September 06, 2013 3:29 PM  

The savages either consent or leave... or get shot.

Porky...."Do we get to vote on the matter?"

Yes! You get to vote with your feet...in pursuit of your own happiness, wherever that might take you.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 3:30 PM  

Now, you are the one who has asserted that all men are created equal. In what sense are they equal, and what is your proof of this equality?

I mean it in precisely the same sense that Jefferson did when he wrote it.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 3:34 PM  

Yes! You get to vote with your feet...in pursuit of your own happiness, wherever that might take you.

I'm only partially savage, Don. What percentage of non savage do you require in order for me to gain representation in your government?

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 3:35 PM  

"Another glimpse into the so-called libertarian ideal - a land where a law-abiding, productive man can consent to be governed but still be denied participation."

Hey retard.. "law abiding" means you consent.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 3:37 PM  

So...your list of most legitimate governments consists of Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and likeminded folk? After all, they received near unanimous consent.

If it is indeed true that every single citizen freely consented to the rule of Saddam Hussein then yes. It was a just government.

Anonymous Krul September 06, 2013 3:38 PM  

Re: Porky,

What are you, anyway? Republican, Democrat, Monarchist, Anarchist, Socialist, Oligarchist, Theocrat?

Just curious.

Blogger James Dixon September 06, 2013 3:39 PM  

> I always thought that was one of the major complaints that the revolutionaries went to war over.

Taxation without representation, Porky, not lack of representation as such.

Anonymous Krul September 06, 2013 3:40 PM  

Porky - If it is indeed true that every single citizen freely consented to the rule of Saddam Hussein then yes. It was a just government.

Wait, are you saying that if one single person in a country, like a criminal or a rebel for instance, witholds his consent then the government of that country is unjust?

Anonymous DonReynolds September 06, 2013 3:50 PM  

Now, you are the one who has asserted that all men are created equal. In what sense are they equal, and what is your proof of this equality?

Porky....."I mean it in precisely the same sense that Jefferson did when he wrote it."

Then you and Jefferson agree? because Jefferson did not believe that anyone should vote who does not own enough land to be self-sufficient. Those "landless masses" who live in cities....naaah, Jefferson was not at all in favor of them voting at all. Women? Children? Convicts? Slaves? No....Jefferson was not in favor of them voting at all.

Yes! You get to vote with your feet...in pursuit of your own happiness, wherever that might take you.

Porky....:I'm only partially savage, Don. What percentage of non savage do you require in order for me to gain representation in your government?"

MY government, if I had one, would not notice you or I in the least....being a Republic and not a democracy, it would be more interested in what is best for the nation and not what is best for you or I.

WE THE PEOPLE has been changed lately....ever so slightly, by inverting the first letter. And so I echo another American who said..."Ask not, what your country can do for you....ask what you can do for your country." That is how much MY COUNTRY has changed in my lifetime.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 3:52 PM  

Hey retard.. "law abiding" means you consent.

That's what I said, Drunky. You can consent but still be denied participation.

Echoes of taxation without representation, quartering of soldiers, etc.. What's that? You don't think you should pay that tax or let that soldier sleep in you daughter's bedroom? Go find yourself another country you savage.

You see, Drunky, all the government needs is to set up a law that they know you will break and - BINGO! You are a lawless savage. London, after all, was the seat of civilization. The highest expression of the civilized man. Not at all like you mongrel breeds in the Americas. As Good King George whispered:

"I wish nothing but good; therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor and a scoundrel."

Get it now, Drunky? Probly not.

Blogger Eric Wilson September 06, 2013 3:58 PM  

The most viscerally striking aspect of Western civilization's decline is the sheer UGLINESS of it all.

That reminds me of a great Nietzsche quote:

Feminism: the uglification of Europe.

Blogger Unknown September 06, 2013 4:03 PM  

I'm not paying $11 dollars to further view the study below. It appears culture trumps genetics and one could argue when heavily surrounded by a high-SES culture the "uncivilized" will adapt and form such norms. Taking Fred Reed, multiculturalism is okay so long at the dominating culture holds their standards in an uncompromising fashion. This would, for the most part, correlate with parenting, as white parents would hold strong social norm expectations for their adopted children. Link and description below,

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1977-07996-001

By Scarr, Sandra; Weinberg, Richard A.
American Psychologist, Vol 31(10), Oct 1976, 726-739.
Abstract
The poor performance of Black children on IQ tests and in school has been hypothesized to arise from (a) genetic racial differences or (b) cultural/environmental disadvantages. To separate genetic factors from rearing conditions, 130 Black and interracial children adopted by advantaged White families were studied. The socially classified Black adoptees, whose natural parents were educationally average, scored above the IQ and the school achievement mean of the White population. Biological children of the adoptive parents scored even higher. Genetic and environmental determinants of differences among the Black and interracial adoptees were largely confounded. The high IQ scores of the socially classified Black adoptees indicate malleability for IQ under rearing conditions that are relevant to the tests and the schools. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 4:03 PM  

Jefferson did not believe that anyone should vote who does not own enough land to be self-sufficient. Those "landless masses" who live in cities....naaah, Jefferson was not at all in favor of them voting at all. Women? Children? Convicts? Slaves? No....Jefferson was not in favor of them voting at all.

Right. Sounds suspiciously like .... aristocracy! - Which is precisely what libertarianism is.

In Vox's post, it is the "corporate executive class and their relative immunity to the laws to which the rest of the population are subject."

This is where libertarianism leads, folks. Liberty for the ruling class, but not for partial-savages like the rest of us.

Meet the new Feudal Boss. Same as the old Feudal Boss.

Anonymous Red September 06, 2013 4:08 PM  

"Putin thinks it. See Pussy Riot for details."

Any proper culture would have lynched Pussy Riot for the desecration of a house of religion. Not given them 3 years.

Anonymous FP September 06, 2013 4:11 PM  

Porky, this is what happens when you let women vote:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/4/colorado-democrat-legislature-not-guns-will-keep-y/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFJUOC0fElw

You get Dickey Lee Hollinghorst. Don't worry folks, the legislature will keep you safe. Nobody does it like Dickey Lee!

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 4:12 PM  

You know I've asked this forum before for a metric for "civilized" to no avail.

Anyone care to try?

Anonymous Caedryn September 06, 2013 4:17 PM  

You know, I've often wondered if we were to tie taxation to representation in a different order what the result would be.

Let's say you let the populace opt into or out of taxes, but only those who paid taxes could vote. There would be incentives to be in both categories and both would consent, but those with short time preferences would inevitably chose not to be taxed because they do not see the benefit of participation.

Anonymous Anonagain September 06, 2013 4:23 PM  

You know I've asked this forum before for a metric for "civilized" to no avail.

It's the opposite of uncivilized. Certainly, you have a metric for uncivilized, don't you? Otherwise, one has to accept everything, and we're right back where we started.

The savage half of your brain thinks it's very clever. Perhaps you should give the civilized half a chance, if that's possible.



Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 4:29 PM  

@anonagain

I asked for a metric. You gave me a weak definition, a pointed, bony finger, and a lame insult.

Is this what passes for discourse in the land of the civilized?

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 4:35 PM  

"That's what I said, Drunky. You can consent but still be denied participation."

More goal post moving.

Or are you suggest that a government that denies you participation is just?

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 4:37 PM  

Also... Taxation Without Representation is not why the Government was unjust.

Taxation Without Representation is why they withdrew their consent to be governed.

Up until that point the government was just.

After that point... it stopped being just.

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 4:39 PM  

I mean it in precisely the same sense that Jefferson did when he wrote it.

Do you agree with his definition of equality?

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 4:40 PM  

"You know I've asked this forum before for a metric for "civilized" to no avail.

Anyone care to try?"

One who behaves in a manner consistent with the behavioral norms of the dominant civilization in which he lives.

The metric is behavior.

If you behave in a civilized manner...then you are civilized.

Anonymous Anonagain September 06, 2013 4:40 PM  

The question I posed is the answer to your question.

That fact that you failed to notice this, or that you are not satisfied with it, is your problem. Subtlety and an indirect, but pertinent response, do indeed pass for discourse in the land of the civilized. We don't require the beating over the head with an answer in order to infer it.

Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 4:44 PM  

His Lordship will be interested in this "kneel or GTFO" approach to government when he gets home.

Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 4:47 PM  

If you behave in a civilized manner...then you are civilized.

It's the opposite of uncivilized.


Those aren't answers, they're circular.

"A thing is blue if it has a color you would call blue."

"A thing is blue if it's not any other color but blue."

Both true, but neither tells us what blue IS. I think Porky is looking for something more detailed, and I'd agree that his question isn't answered yet.

Anonymous Stilicho September 06, 2013 4:51 PM  

Apparently, chapped cracklin's prevent answers to questions. He must have watched another paean to Lincoln last night.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 4:53 PM  

More goal post moving.
Or are you suggest that a government that denies you participation is just?


Never said that.

Also... Taxation Without Representation is not why the Government was unjust.

Ugh. Never said that either.

Look, we can cut through the bs and get to the point.

You want to disenfranchise the savages. By what measure is someone a savage?

Anonymous DonReynolds September 06, 2013 4:53 PM  

Caedryn...."You know, I've often wondered if we were to tie taxation to representation in a different order what the result would be.
Let's say you let the populace opt into or out of taxes, but only those who paid taxes could vote. There would be incentives to be in both categories and both would consent, but those with short time preferences would inevitably chose not to be taxed because they do not see the benefit of participation."

Take it just one more step, Caedryn, and it would be the same proposal I have made here several times.....you get to vote according to HOW MUCH you paid in tax.....pay $1,000 then you get to cast 1,000 votes. Pay zero tax, cast zero votes. You get the idea.

You mean plutocracy? (Isn't that what we have now?) We have had plenty of time to get used to the idea.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 4:55 PM  

"Never said that."

Yes. I know you never said that. Which means... you moved the goal posts.

Anonymous Anonymous September 06, 2013 4:56 PM  

Porky you idiot. Jefferson's original draft was "All men are created equal IN THE EYES OF THE LAW", which makes a lot more sense considering the grievances listed. It has nothing to with your "one people one race" horseshit.

Anonymous Stilicho September 06, 2013 4:56 PM  

You want to disenfranchise the savages

Why do you want to enfranchise the savages?

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 4:58 PM  

Because porky is an admitted half savage

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 5:00 PM  

The question I posed is the answer to your question.

That fact that you failed to notice this, or that you are not satisfied with it, is your problem.


Well, I am a partial savage so perhaps you could dumb it down a bit?

The metric is behavior.

If you behave in a civilized manner...then you are civilized.


Seriously? So if I haven't broken any of your laws I should be able to vote then right?

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 5:00 PM  

"Those aren't answers, they're circular."

Of course its an answer.

The fact is "civilized behavior" changes from civilization to civilization. In some civilizations cannibalism is perfectly civilized behavior. In others... it is not.

As I said... you judge how civilized a person is by matching up his behavior with the dominant culture of a giving civilization.

For example... What was considered civilized in say Dodge City... (He said I was cheating a poker so I shot him. He was carrying a gun so it was legal!) would never pass for civilized in say Richmond VA at the same time.

Because it varies from place to place there is no set objective standard beyond individual behavior.

Think bag to McRacist. It was her lying and stabbing that caused Vox to refer to her as a half-savage.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 5:02 PM  

Yes. I know you never said that. Which means... you moved the goal posts.

??? What was the original goalpost and where did it move to?

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 5:04 PM  

"Seriously? So if I haven't broken any of your laws I should be able to vote then right?"

No.

Merely being civilized is not enough to grant you the privilege of participating in government. It is merely enough to get you the privilege of living within the boundaries of the civilization.

In order to gain the privilege to participate you must also demonstrate that you are worthy of such by meeting additional qualifications.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 5:06 PM  

The fact is "civilized behavior" changes from civilization to civilization. In some civilizations cannibalism is perfectly civilized behavior. In others... it is not.

Oh good Lord.

Civilizational relativism.

This should teach me to never argue with someone who thinks Strunk And White's is a brand of cheap whiskey.

Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 5:07 PM  

v\As I said... you judge how civilized a person is by matching up his behavior with the dominant culture of a giving civilization.

For example... What was considered civilized in say Dodge City... (He said I was cheating a poker so I shot him. He was carrying a gun so it was legal!) would never pass for civilized in say Richmond VA at the same time.

Because it varies from place to place there is no set objective standard beyond individual behavior.


All right, your answer is "being civilized is conforming to whatever rules the people in power set". Is that more or less accurate?

Anonymous civilServant September 06, 2013 5:08 PM  

There is only the power of force.

Very well. Who has the force to govern?

The savages either consent or leave... or get shot.

Dear sweet Nate. The king of England would have considered you a savage. Northerners such as General Stewart thought that slave-supporting Southerners were not worthy of participation in the Union and that they ought to have been decimated. He spoke of executing 100,000 young southern men outright if I recall correctly. Many agreed with him. So. Nate. Who is the savage who is to be driven away and who is the citizen who decides? Is this decided merely by power? And if so then what is the meaning of the words "savage" and "civilization"?

Vox for example consents to the government of Italy... but he does not get to participate in that government.

Perhaps he and those like him are building their own. They already live in a world that differs considerably from ours.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 5:08 PM  

In order to gain the privilege to participate you must also demonstrate that you are worthy of such by meeting additional qualifications.

Well.... me and my 7 wives and 28 children are waiting....

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 5:10 PM  

"??? What was the original goalpost and where did it move to?"

You originally claimed that all men were equal and that therefore all men had to consent for a government to be just.

Then when you decided that consenting wasn't enough.. that participation is actually required for a government to be just.

Anonymous Anonagain September 06, 2013 5:11 PM  

Those aren't answers, they're circular.

While one may not directly define blue, if I point out that blue is not yellow or green or red, that is certainly more information about blue than I had before. And in order to be able to point out that something is NOT blue, one has know what IS blue.

If you can tell me what is not civilized, you will also have more information about what is civilized, which was the question.

Anyway, I doubt Porky's question arises out of simple curiosity. He imagines he's being very clever here, and that no one will be able to answer that question to his satisfaction because the concept of civilized doesn't exist or some other ridiculous "you can't prove water is wet" position.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 5:14 PM  

"All right, your answer is "being civilized is conforming to whatever rules the people in power set". Is that more or less accurate?"

No.

Go back and read Fred's column again. The rules the people in power make have nothing to do with it.

Its the morality imposed by the dominant culture that defines the civilization. Its the things you just do not do... because "they are not done". Not because they are illegal. But because they literally do not occur to you as an option because the civilization you were brought up in.

Fred didn't refrain from stealing bicycles because stealing bicycles is illegal. He didn't steal them because people just don't do that.

So in order to determine if someone was civilized or not you would have to establish what the norms for that place at that time are... then compare them to that person's individual behavior.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 5:15 PM  

"Very well. Who has the force to govern?"

that matter is not answerable until the fighting starts... or more importantly... when it ends.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 5:16 PM  

"Dear sweet Nate. The king of England would have considered you a savage. Northerners such as General Stewart thought that slave-supporting Southerners were not worthy of participation in the Union and that they ought to have been decimated. He spoke of executing 100,000 young southern men outright if I recall correctly. Many agreed with him. So. Nate. Who is the savage who is to be driven away and who is the citizen who decides? Is this decided merely by power? And if so then what is the meaning of the words "savage" and "civilization"?"

The amusing thing is that you think you're passing on information here. Read my responses to Porky. The fluid nature of what is and isn't civilized in time and space is precisely what I have been ranting about.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 5:22 PM  

Sigyn... the best example I can give is divorce. Divorce used to be legal but it had an epic social stigma.

That social stigma is the dominant culture enforcing its will.

Anonymous WaterBoy September 06, 2013 5:26 PM  

Porky: "Oh good Lord.

Civilizational relativism.
"


Western Civilization.
Eastern Civilization.
Empirical Roman Civilization.
Ancient Incan Civilization.

Do you think all of these had the same rules of behavior? If not, which one is the Real And True™ civilized society? (Hint: if they aren't all the same, then they are relative.)

Otherwise, Nate is absolutely correct, in that one is judged civilized within its own boundaries.

Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 5:26 PM  

If you can tell me what is not civilized, you will also have more information about what is civilized, which was the question.

In order to tell you what is not civilized, he'd have to know what was civilized. Anything else is guessing.

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 5:28 PM  

Social norms people. This really isn't hard. Steve sailer often uses the example of diamond merchants in Antwerp and tel Aviv. Because it's a close knit community of intermarriage, people don't cheat it other, lest their children have zero marriage options. Or look at the freaking Amish.

And what are social norms? Essentially shaming on a society wide scale.

It's the concept that "we just don't do that" or "that's white trash" or "only niggers do that"

this...really...isn't...that...hard...

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 5:30 PM  

In order to tell you what is not civilized, he'd have to know what was civilized. Anything else is guessing.

Sometimes I think the only reason you act like this is because you're secretly wanting a spanking.

Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 5:34 PM  

Its the things you just do not do... because "they are not done". Not because they are illegal. But because they literally do not occur to you as an option because the civilization you were brought up in.

"Done" and "Not Done" as values remind me of the ants in The Once and Future King. Side observation.

He didn't steal them because people just don't do that.

Well, no. Obviously, something is prohibited by law because people WILL do that unless they have motivation not to. If "people just don't do that", there's no reason to make it illegal.

But that point aside, let's do a hypothetical. Let's say all your (you, Nate) neighbors came together and said, "No, people just don't drink whiskey. It's simply not done." Would that make you a savage, Nate? (Because we all know you'd tell 'em to go fly a kite 'cuz yer gonna drink whiskey whether they likes it er not.)

Anonymous civilServant September 06, 2013 5:36 PM  

or more importantly... when it ends.

Well done.

The fluid nature of what is and isn't civilized in time and space is precisely what I have been ranting about.

Force is indeed fluid and ever-changing. But the issue was savages and civilization and not merely who wins and who loses.

One thing is a constant though. One thing is an everlasting rock in such discussions. Those who speak of civilization always include themselves and those who speak of savages always mean others.

If force is the only issue of concern then libertarians are doomed.

Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 5:36 PM  

Sometimes I think the only reason you act like this is because you're secretly wanting a spanking.

Is it my fault you're a perv?

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 5:38 PM  

Then when you decided that consenting wasn't enough.. that participation is actually required for a government to be just.

No. One can be disenfranchised and consenting at the same time. And this arrangement would be ideal if there was no such thing as human nature.

My point, Drunky, in the most basic terms - is that the ideal that you, Fred, Vox, and the rest of the libertarians around here are espousing is a reflection of the colonies in 1776. A ruling elite (Parliamentary Monarchy) who imagines themselves to be good, and a disenfranchised minority (colonists) who's consent is strained every time they try to advance.

And once the rebels had won what did they do? They set up a ruling elite to lord over a disenfranchised populace.

And what is current society edging toward? A ruling elite lording over a disenfranchised populace.

And what is it that libertarians are hoping for in the OP and elsewhere? A ruling elite lording over a disenfranchised populace.

Do you notice a pattern here, Drunky?

Would you like to learn from history or repeat it?








Anonymous WaterBoy September 06, 2013 5:39 PM  

Sigyn, in the book (and movie) Shogun, the main character (an Englishman, IIRC) is judged barbaric by the Japanese warlord because he does not bathe regularly.

Who is the civilized one, and who is the savage?

Anonymous Dan (Jefferson Clinton) in Tx September 06, 2013 5:40 PM  

After this we can move on to what the definition of "is" is

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 5:41 PM  

"Well, no. Obviously, something is prohibited by law because people WILL do that unless they have motivation not to. If "people just don't do that", there's no reason to make it illegal."

Divorce child.

I point you back to the divorce illustration.

You will grasp the concept or you will not.

Being female I expect not... but then again that's precisely why we shouldn't have let you people vote.

Anonymous Anonagain September 06, 2013 5:44 PM  

In order to tell you what is not civilized, he'd have to know what was civilized. Anything else is guessing.

You really don't think Porky has the slightest idea what is civilized? Really? That was my point. If he can't even describe something that is uncivilized, then he obviously has no intention of distinguishing between civilized and uncivilized, and no definition of civilized will suit him. He's being disingenuous.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 5:45 PM  

"Do you notice a pattern here, Drunky?

Would you like to learn from history or repeat it?"

You're a blithering moron.

No libertarian is suggesting that a libertarian government is a perfect utopia that will somehow last forever. Jefferson didn't think it and neither do we.

We favor limited government and a massively armed population with no standing military for precisely the reasons outlined.

The government WILL grow because it is human nature for it grow.

When it does... the people... having nukes... will be able to win.

When the shooting stops.

Because when the shooting stops is all that matters.

Anonymous WaterBoy September 06, 2013 5:45 PM  

civilServant: "Those who speak of civilization always include themselves and those who speak of savages always mean others."

We are all savages, to those who will come after us.

"Can you imagine that women used to have to deliver their babies through live birth? They couldn't teleport them out, like we do now. What savages, making the women endure such pain."

Anonymous civilServant September 06, 2013 5:47 PM  

Social norms people.

Even within "homogenous" societies social norms vary widely. And ironically the more "homogenous" a society the more prominent and intrusive the lesser variations become. For example consider the hundreds of years of warfare between Catholics and Protestants.

this...really...isn't...that...hard...

No. It is not. So long as one makes no attempt to define one's terms ....

There is no homogenous society except that of the lone individual.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 5:47 PM  

@Josh: "Social norms people. This really isn't hard."

So... abortion is civilized if a society adopts it.



Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 5:51 PM  

I point you back to the divorce illustration.

I see. So...the laws permit you to do something, but if you do it, you're still a savage and GTFO? Because "we said you could, but we didn't actually WANT you to do it"?

Being female I expect not... but then again that's precisely why we shouldn't have let you people vote.

Well, dayum, I'm convinced I'm not only wrong, but stupid, because FEMALE. You should have started there and we could have avoided all this logic crap.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 5:52 PM  

Nate, by your own testimony the social normalization of divorce makes it civilized.


Anonymous civilServant September 06, 2013 5:52 PM  

is that the ideal that you, Fred, Vox, and the rest of the libertarians around here are espousing is a reflection of the colonies in 1776.

Actually most of them seem to wish to return to Tennessee where if you could see the smoke from your neighbor's campfire he was too close.

And what is it that libertarians are hoping for in the OP and elsewhere? A ruling elite lording over a disenfranchised populace.

My conclusion as well.

When the shooting stops.

When you run out of targets. Yes?

Anonymous Carlotta September 06, 2013 5:53 PM  

@ Porky
This goes back to you calling yourself vibrant. I consider that alinging myself with criminal minded minorities. While our family has minority blood, we are not criminally minded.

You dont seem to understand an underlying premise. If you see a beautiful gated community and want to move in but refuse to pay the dues and do the maintenence required, that is your right. We all have the equal right to decide that. The problem comes when you want in but wont pay the dues or refuse to do the maintenance or complain about the gate. Then, those not willing to abide by the rules of the gated community sue or force their way in....dont do the maintenance and complain when the original members flee and it all goes to pot.

Pick a community you like and move in and maintain it. Or move on.

Keep your lawn cut and no one cares what color you are.
Why is that such a problem?

Anonymous Anonagain September 06, 2013 5:56 PM  

Eating your own crap is NOT civilized behavior, therefore
Not eating your own crap IS civilized behavior.

It doesn't end there. There's more.

But at least now the civilized-challenged like Porky knows that he shouldn't eat his own crap if he is to behave in a civilized manner.



Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 6:00 PM  

"Nate, by your own testimony the social normalization of divorce makes it civilized. "

Yes.

It is perfectly civilized to get a divorce today. It was not civilized to get a divorce in 1940.

These are two different civilizations.


Cannibalism is considered civilized to some people in new guinea.

Civilization is, by definition, a relative term.

Anonymous Carlotta September 06, 2013 6:05 PM  

This got erased
I also think civilized is being used in two different ways.
1. Would be conforming to the civilization you are living in.
2. A set of standards for behaviors considered civilized. Whether in a ballroom in France or the jungles of Haiti my behavior will be civilized because of my moral code.

They are different. 2 will not change based on location. 1.can be adjusted as needed to allow you to function among the peoples there.

Blogger Revelation Means Hope September 06, 2013 6:05 PM  

The international corporate executives arising as an aristocracy today are not the same as the founding fathers.

The founding fathers pledged their lives, honor, and fortunes to the cause. And most of them paid a steep price. Examine the rolls of who was franchised to vote in the new republic.

It wasn't even CLOSE to a 0.1% aristocracy.

"Although the typical voter in 1796 had to be a property-owning white male, changes were in the making. In the state constitutions adopted after independence, the old freehold, or property, qualifications for voting were generally retained. Some states, however, had dropped the freehold restriction in favor of granting the franchise to tax-paying individuals. By 1789, about 50 to 75 percent of adult white men were thus enfranchised. But in 1790, Vermont granted the vote to all free men. Kentucky, the first new western state, which entered the Union in 1792, did the same. Tennessee followed in 1796 with a property qualification only for newcomers who had lived in their communities less than six months. And women who owned property could vote in New Jersey, but this loophole was abolished in 1807. In the 1790s, African American males who owned property could vote in New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Maryland."

Stop accepting the lie that only the top 0.1% had the vote in early America. Moreover, there was a very clear path to getting a vote. It is lovely that it wasn't handed out like candy to any ol' moron who turned 18 and had a pulse.

Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 6:07 PM  

Civilization is, by definition, a relative term.

Then it means nothing more than "we have rules here."

Anonymous VD September 06, 2013 6:08 PM  

Further testament to my hypothesis that libertarians are truly authoritarian at heart.

No, it's not. And it's a remarkably stupid hypothesis.

You want to disenfranchise the savages. By what measure is someone a savage?

Time preferences and inability/unwillingness to adhere to Christian morality and traditional Western European culture.

Anonymous WaterBoy September 06, 2013 6:09 PM  

Nate: "These are two different civilizations."

I think it could be more accurately considered two different periods in the same civilization, though the distinction is purely semantical and your point stands nevertheless.

Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 6:11 PM  

Time preferences and inability/unwillingness to adhere to Christian morality and traditional Western European culture.

THANK YOU! This is what I was looking for!

Golly.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 6:13 PM  

"THANK YOU! This is what I was looking for!"

Really?

Because this:

"Time preferences and inability/unwillingness to adhere to Christian morality and traditional Western European culture."

and this:

"Then it means nothing more than "we have rules here."

Are pretty much the same thing.

Anonymous Carlotta September 06, 2013 6:16 PM  

Are pretty much the same thing

Agreed. Everyone has their own rules to get in their tower. Some just have better towers and some want the tower but no rules.

Blogger Revelation Means Hope September 06, 2013 6:17 PM  

Porky said: @Josh: "Social norms people. This really isn't hard."

So... abortion is civilized if a society adopts it."

Yes. I see you are getting it. The Germans of the 1930's were probably one of the most civilized people on the planet earth at that time.

Civilized does not mean moral by a biblical standard. It just means you conform to the rules of the society.

Calling someone civilized is not the same as calling them good or moral, or both.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 6:17 PM  

"And what is it that libertarians are hoping for in the OP and elsewhere? A ruling elite lording over a disenfranchised populace."

You say this like its a bad thing. Do take a moment to educate yourself on the benefit of letting the yammering idiot population vote Porky.

They are morons. They will vote themselves into chains and bankrupt the nation in a matter of mere few decades... if not considerably sooner.

Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 6:18 PM  

Because this:

"Time preferences and inability/unwillingness to adhere to Christian morality and traditional Western European culture."

and this:

"Then it means nothing more than "we have rules here."

Are pretty much the same thing.


"Time preferences" are not the same thing as "rules"; they're factors in decision-making processes.

Furthermore, "we have rules here" is NOT "Christian morality and traditional Western European culture". The former is generic. The latter actually means something.

Anonymous Anonagain September 06, 2013 6:21 PM  

civ·i·lized
[siv-uh-lahyzd]
adjective
1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; well-bred; refined.
3. of or pertaining to civilized people: The civilized world must fight ignorance.
4. easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered: The car is quiet and civilized, even in sharp turns.

civ·i·lize
[siv-uh-lahyz]
verb (used with object), civ·i·lized, civ·i·liz·ing.
to bring out of a savage, uneducated, or rude state; make civil; elevate in social and private life; enlighten; refine: Rome civilized the barbarians.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 6:21 PM  

'Furthermore, "we have rules here" is NOT "Christian morality and traditional Western European culture". The former is generic. The latter actually means something."

its generic dear girl because believe it or not there are plenty of other civilizations besides the West.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 6:23 PM  

Perhaps dear Sigyn you would prefer to argue that there was no civilization in china?

After all it wasn't a christian society. it certainly did not maintain any adherence to western European traditions nor christian morality.

Blogger Revelation Means Hope September 06, 2013 6:25 PM  

I will also point out that the Nazis in power took pains to ensure that they always provided plausible deniability to the German populace about the existence of the death camps.

Most camps were located outside the country. Most soldiers were not stationed there. Almost all the activities in the camps were kept secret.

This is not a defense of the Germans of 1930-1945, yet why did the rulers take such pains to disguise what they were really doing from their own people? Because the German people were not savages.

Now look at the Rwandan massacres. No disguises, at all, of their wholesale slaughter of their undesirables.

Which society was a bunch of savages, and which one was still civilized (but had very immoral leadership that hid their immoral acts)?

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 6:27 PM  

@Nate: "Civilization is, by definition, a relative term."

Then there's nothing to worry about. Divorce, gay marriage, abortion - it's all just the continued advancement of western civilization.

Onward and upward!

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 6:27 PM  

I obviously prefer Oxfords...

Civilize

verb
[with object] (usually as adjective civilized)
bring (a place or people) to a stage of social development considered to be more advanced:
a civilized society

(as adjective civilized) polite and good-mannered:
such an affront to civilized behaviour will no longer be tolerated

Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 6:28 PM  

its generic dear girl because believe it or not there are plenty of other civilizations besides the West.

Not in the context OF Western civilization, darlin'--which is what Porky was asking about to begin with.

But thank you for clarifying that "civilized" means "behaves in conformity with your neighbors' expectations, however ridiculous". You can't be a libertarian and be civilized, because in the end, rights will come into conflict with social conventions.

Well, I'm off to make some supper.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 6:28 PM  

"Then there's nothing to worry about. Divorce, gay marriage, abortion - it's all just the continued advancement of western civilization.

Onward and upward!"

No moron. Its not an advancement. Its a decent into savagery.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 6:30 PM  

"You can't be a libertarian and be civilized, because in the end, rights will come into conflict with social conventions."

Social Conventions are not laws girl.

But the fact that you cannot got more than a few minutes without linking the two once again evidences that women shouldn't be voting.

Anonymous WaterBoy September 06, 2013 6:39 PM  

Sigyn: "Not in the context OF Western civilization, darlin'--which is what Porky was asking about to begin with."

Really? Because I (and obviously, others) read it in a generic sense.

Here's the quote:

"You know I've asked this forum before for a metric for "civilized" to no avail.

Anyone care to try?
"

Where does that specifically mention modern Western civilization?

Now, it may be that's what he had in mind given the OP. But even there, Vox included the generic concept:

"Civilization depends, it has always depended, upon keeping down the half-civilized, keeping out the barbarians, and preventing both the half-savages and full savages from infesting, infecting, and ultimately destroying the civilized aspects of a society."

How about that? A generic statement applicable to all civilizations....

Anonymous Anonymous September 06, 2013 6:40 PM  

Is the taxpayer protected or not?

R7 Rocket

Anonymous Anonymous September 06, 2013 6:45 PM  

@porky
"Tone of discourse" is irrelevant. "Is the taxpayer protected or not?", is relevant to the discussion of civilization.

R7 Rocket

Anonymous Anonymous September 06, 2013 6:48 PM  

@porky
Also, you still haven't provide proof for Josh that humans are equal.

R7 Rocket

Anonymous WaterBoy September 06, 2013 6:52 PM  

@ R7 Rocket:

There is an option on the comment form for "Name/URL" right above the one for Anonymous. When you select that option, a popup form will let you enter your name while leaving the URL line blank.

This will keep your comments from appearing as "Anonymous", which makes the discourse easier to follow than having to locate your name in the body of the comment.

Thanks.

Anonymous Anonagain September 06, 2013 6:53 PM  

You see, Sigyn, Porky does have some definite ideas about what is and what isn't civilized. If he really didn't, he would not be arguing at all. I may have missed it somewhere, but I don't see where Porky has provided his metric for "civilized", so he's not so much interested in debate, as proving everyone wrong.

Anonymous VD September 06, 2013 6:59 PM  

"You know I've asked this forum before for a metric for "civilized" to no avail.

Also, you're contorting the truth here. This is not the first time I have pointed out that civilization is primarily a product of societal time preferences and voluntary self-restraint. To pretend the information has not been previously provided is simply false.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 6:59 PM  

" I may have missed it somewhere, but I don't see where Porky has provided his metric for "civilized", so he's not so much interested in debate, as proving everyone wrong."

This is pretty much the theme of all of Porky's comments. His primary goal is to disagree with anyone that he thinks may be a libertarian because he thinks libertarians are bad. Never mind the fact that it can be easily seen that he has no freaking clue what libertarians actually believe or want.

Blogger James Dixon September 06, 2013 6:59 PM  

> One thing is a constant though. One thing is an everlasting rock in such discussions. Those who speak of civilization always include themselves and those who speak of savages always mean others.

Afraid not. I'm a barbarian. I merely happen to be an intelligent barbarian who understands the benefits of civilization. I'm in this civilization but not of it.

> If force is the only issue of concern then libertarians are doomed.

Force has always been the only issue of concern. And we may very well be. What we can guarantee is that the price will be high.

> Furthermore, "we have rules here" is NOT "Christian morality and traditional Western European culture". The former is generic. The latter actually means something.

Sigyn, Christianity is a mere 2000 years or so old. We've had civilizations longer than that. Vox is stating the current standard that he accepts, not a universal definition.


Anonymous Porky's II September 06, 2013 7:02 PM  

“You do not allow uncivilized a voice in governance.”**

There is that word again...uncivilized. 
Are individuals of a particular group or is the entire group deemed “uncivilized”? What measures are put in place to ensure that the “uncivilized” are not part of the body politic? What methods are put in place when those deemed “uncivilized” revolt or rebel?

Are not those individuals who determine the criteria who is “uncivilized” imposing their own will, i.e. force, i.e. coercion, as to what THEY THINK constitutes “uncivilized”? Is not isolating or removing permanently the “uncivilized” from inclusion and/or participation in the institutions of a society contradictory of libertarian thought?

That is why this statement**, as well as the entire post, is rife with solipsism.

Let us assume I say that civilized is defined as “a person or group who shows evidence of moral and intellectual advancement through ethical, humane, or reasonable means”.

Nate says that civilized is “one who behaves in a manner consistent with the behavioral norms of the dominant civilization in which he lives.”

So, who has the “right” definition? It would appear some posters here are advocating that THEIR criteria for what constitutes “civilized” should be imposed. Let citizens of our country take a vote and decide. Unless, the Christian Libertarian Intelligentsia believes in other options. Remember, libertarians supposedly believe no individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.


“Its the morality imposed by the dominant culture that defines the civilization.”

“In order to gain the privilege to participate you must also demonstrate that you are worthy of such by meeting additional qualifications.”

And through majority rules, the citizens of our country have already made that determination. It really is THAT elementary.

Again, from the libertarian platform--Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right." We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.  Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual's human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation.

Anonymous Porky's II September 06, 2013 7:03 PM  

“meh. Putin thinks it. See Pussy Riot for details.”

Fascist fag!


“Civilization depends, it has always depended, upon keeping down the half-civilized, keeping out the barbarians, and preventing both the half-savages and full savages from infesting, infecting, and ultimately destroying the civilized aspects of a society.”

“The savages either consent or leave... or get shot.”

“Leave them to their own devices. If they insist on troubling you, crush them, drive them out, and enjoy the lamentations of their women.”

Please note that Christian values are noticeably absent from these statements. Then again, giving the history of religion, it is not surprising that “Bible-thumpers” are in essence seeking to dispense with those they deemed expendable. Obviously, the members of the Christian Libertarian Intelligentsia forgot to consult their Bible.

Romans 2:11 For God shows no partiality.

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.


“If savages want to live within the borders of that dominant culture they will consent to be governed by it... or they will leave.”



So, when are you packing? Make sure, though, to leave your still. I have to admit that is one of the few talents you possess.

Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 7:03 PM  

Social Conventions are not laws girl.

But the fact that you cannot got more than a few minutes without linking the two once again evidences that women shouldn't be voting.


I can't imagine where I got the obviously mistaken idea that abiding by social conventions is part of being civilized. Silly me.

Anonymous Porky September 06, 2013 7:06 PM  

Ilk,

Son in car accident. Please pray.

Thanks

Anonymous Sigyn September 06, 2013 7:08 PM  

On it, Porky.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 7:08 PM  

"So, when are you packing? Make sure, though, to leave your still. I have to admit that is one of the few talents you possess."

You'll note Vox has already left. I am well on my way to doing the same thing.

To answer your question: yes.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 7:09 PM  

"Ilk,

Son in car accident. Please pray.

Thanks"



Sorry mate.

prayers.

Anonymous Anonymous September 06, 2013 7:11 PM  

If it doesn't protect the taxpayer, it's uncivilized.

R7 Rocket

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 7:11 PM  

'I can't imagine where I got the obviously mistaken idea that abiding by social conventions is part of being civilized. Silly me."

abiding by social conventions is. abiding by laws? not necessarily.

See divorce.

See modern attitudes towards using the word "nigger" or smoking. These things are not illegal but they are definately considered uncivilized.

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 7:15 PM  

Ok fine...

Nate's Objective Test for Cilization... and you should listen by the way because you're all savages compared to me. My people were formulating western civilization while you people were still painting your bottoms blue and eating other... so listen up.

Can you strap a loaded sidearm to your hip... then get shitfaced drunk and have a heated political argument with someone... without shooting them?

If you can... you're civilized.

Anonymous Anonymous September 06, 2013 7:17 PM  

"There is an option on the comment form for "Name/URL" right above the one for Anonymous. When you select that option, a popup form will let you enter your name while leaving the URL line blank."

Doesn't work on my iPhone.

R7Rocket

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 7:17 PM  

actually... not shooting them is not good enough. You have to never threaten them with the gun... or even acknowledge that the gun is there.

If you can do that.. you're civilized.

if not...

You're no better than the grub eaters.

Blogger James Dixon September 06, 2013 7:26 PM  

> Son in car accident. Please pray.

Done, Porky.

Blogger James Dixon September 06, 2013 7:28 PM  

> You have to never threaten them with the gun... or even acknowledge that the gun is there.

Of course you never have to. Because, being civilized, he knows it's there too.

Anonymous duckman September 06, 2013 7:35 PM  

Th-th-th-that's all folks!! Fried bacon, anyone?

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 7:36 PM  

Son in car accident. Please pray.

Praying for him, dude.

Anonymous VD September 06, 2013 7:41 PM  

Son in car accident.

Hope he's all right.

Anonymous Carlotta September 06, 2013 7:46 PM  

Praying Porky!

Blogger Nate September 06, 2013 7:48 PM  

I ask ya friends...

Who else but the Ilk go from stomping your teeth in, to praying for you in earnest in mere seconds?

Anonymous Josh September 06, 2013 7:49 PM  

The Ilk rock.

Anonymous The Next to Last Samurai September 06, 2013 8:04 PM  

It works on mine. Type your remark first, then do the Select Profile part.

Anonymous Harsh September 06, 2013 9:14 PM  

enwiggification

Not to be confused with "enbiggens." FYI.

Anonymous ericcs September 06, 2013 9:32 PM  

"Time preferences and inability/unwillingness to adhere to Christian morality and traditional Western European culture."

As a trad conservative, I'm pleased that at least some libertarians on this site are finally starting to get it.

Traditions of the majority culture are the backbone of any society. If that culture is founded on objective Christian morality, and its institutions support an historically classic Western liberalism, then laws to cover every last detail are unnecessary. Those individuals that freely conform within the basic guildelines are civilized and free to stay. Those that cannot conform are free to leave, and should be heartily invited to do so.

Note that I used the word "basic". I believe that culture is hierarchical as to its precepts and consequences. I'll be simplistic here: it is like building a house... there is a foundation and there are primary struts. Filling in the walls between are secondary concerns. The choice of which fixtures go into the bathroom is tertiary. In general, if a savage minority by their actions and/or subculture starts to erode the struts and undercut the foundation, then laws must be put in place to state explictily that those behaviours are not law-abiding and are punishable. For secondary matters, the majority must shame the minority, and shun them from participation. For tertiary matters, that is where allowance and some degree of forbearance by the majority can make for an interesting society that is not drab and boring beyond one's ability to bear.

Getting all this right is fluid, but the essential model I have proposed is static and just not that difficult to grasp or to maintain. Hierarchy, primary, secondary, tertiary, laws to buttress the primary (i.e., limited government), traditions to fulfill the rest, shaming, non-representation, and forced emigration as the sticks to be employed for savages who either can't or won't conform. Traditionalism and decentralism is true conservatism, "no true Scotsman" be damned.

Anonymous JC Denton September 06, 2013 9:37 PM  

What we are witnessing here is the final culmination of the Enlightenment. The beginnings of the Enlightenment had value in questioning and challenging the Divine Right of Kings. That was a necessary exercise. However, after ~363 years, we have morphed into a Divine right of Man, to the point of Man (the individual) becoming divine.

That experiment is over. I don't know where else we can go, except a self-destruction of man, that is too akin to events in Genesis 6. Man is in the process of morphing into something beyond -- man. The end result of Social Darwinism is a superman that outdoes and eventually will eliminate -- man. And, this superman will be more machine than man.

Games such as Deus Ex suggests that man will be able to control this technology. Man forgets, that "those" [1] that gave man this technology, gave it in the hopes to not aid him, but to destroy him...



---------
[1] See the Book of Enoch.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 06, 2013 9:57 PM  

Porky....I am sure we all hope that the news is good regarding your son. Cars are cheap. We hope for the best.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 06, 2013 10:01 PM  

Nate...."Can you strap a loaded sidearm to your hip... then get shitfaced drunk and have a heated political argument with someone... without shooting them?

If you can... you're civilized."

Yes....an armed society is a polite society.

Anonymous Different T September 06, 2013 10:34 PM  

Vox,

Do you think the formation of large "nation states" was reactionary?

Anonymous Anonagain September 06, 2013 11:21 PM  

Terrible news there, Porky. I pray your son will be fine.

Anonymous toothy September 06, 2013 11:48 PM  

Hope your kid is ok, Porky.
Prayers en route.

Anonymous Porky's II September 06, 2013 11:51 PM  

"Traditions of the majority culture are the backbone of any society. If that culture is founded on objective Christian morality, and its institutions support an historically classic Western liberalism, then laws to cover every last detail are unnecessary."

Except that culture and society has been and will always be in flux. Again, note how "objective Christian morality" is being perversely used to carry out an objective--the forced separation or removal of individuals or groups of people deemed "uncivilized"/"savage" under the guise of objective criteria. Those statues you deem "unnecessary" have substance and meaning to the citizens who collectively decided to put them in place. When libertarians are suggesting that brute force may be the means to remove people who do not conform to a set of standards, they are opposing the very freedom they proclaim to uphold and protect.

Christians are instructed by Scripture take the non-aggression principle one step further. We are to "endure hardness" (2 Timothy 2:3), "endure afflictions" (2 Timothy 4:5), and "endure grief" (1 Peter 2:19). For Christians, revenge and retaliation are NOT options.

Anonymous Anonymous September 07, 2013 12:26 AM  

Porky - prayers for your son. The Lord bless and keep you and your family.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 07, 2013 2:03 AM  

Prayers for your son, Porky.

And for you and your family for strength and hope.

Anonymous Anonymous September 07, 2013 3:25 AM  

Vox: You're conflating a couple different things as regards 'uncivilized' behavior. You are equating not having a 'strict sexual morality' and nudity, which are things you do with your own body, with actual crimes such as murder, which are things you do to non-consenting others.

Unless you can identify an actual plaintiff who is harmed by people having sex or being naked, you can't claim that those things are 'wrong' in any greater sense than it happening to be personally offensive to you. If you want to ban things that are simply offensive, that's pretty much a blank check to ban anything you please, including banning blacks and homosexuals from going into stores, OR (depending on what is considered to be politically correct at the moment) banning the freedom of store owners to prevent blacks and homosexuals from entering their stores, if that is what they choose to do.

Anonymous Anonymous September 07, 2013 3:36 AM  

**Separating the civilized from the uncivilized is the primary job of society. And we have failed.**

Few or no societies have ever actually tried to seperate the 'civilized' from the 'uncivilized'. What they do, is seperate the popular from the unpopular, or the powerful from the non-powerful. The mistake they make is to assume that the same sorts of people are always going to be popular or powerful.

Anonymous Anonymous September 07, 2013 3:45 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous Anonymous September 07, 2013 3:51 AM  

**Time preferences and inability/unwillingness to adhere to Christian morality and traditional Western European culture.**

So, torturing people who are charged with nonsense which can neither be proven nor disproven, and executing them in a very painful fashion for failing to obtain unobtainable proof proving them innocent from the nonsense is 'civilized'? As would be killing children and infants due to the crimes or nationality of their parents?

Or are you just cherry picking which aspects of Christianity and Western European culture you want to include under your definition of 'civilized'? By that standard, you could include your albino eating Africans under the definition of 'civilized' people, so long as you cherry picked their behavior and disregarded their cannibalism and other undesirable activities.

Anonymous Anonymous September 07, 2013 3:53 AM  

**Time preferences and inability/unwillingness to adhere to Christian morality and traditional Western European culture.**

So, torturing people who are charged with nonsense which can neither be proven nor disproven, and executing them in a very painful fashion for failing to obtain unobtainable proof proving them innocent from the nonsense is 'civilized'? As would be killing children and infants due to the crimes or nationality of their parents?

Or are you just cherry picking which aspects of Christianity and Western European culture you want to include under your definition of 'civilized'? By that standard, you could include your albino eating Africans under the definition of 'civilized' people, so long as you cherry picked their behavior and disregarded their cannibalism and other undesirable activities.

1 – 200 of 269 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts