ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, December 30, 2013

Mailvox: the Flat Gene Society

Physphilmusic inadvertently reveals the inner fascist that lurks within most cultural liberals:
I guess that is the root of our disagreement. It's not that I don't think genetics plays a significant role (although concerning exactly how much I probably disagree with you), it's that if I adopted your strategy, I see no reason to stop at merely discriminating against blacks. Why not eugenics altogether? Your concern about genetics logically leads to this. You advocate measures which are effectively indirect, long-term forms of eugenics. But if you have no qualms about hurting a few people's feelings, why stop there? Why not support the sterilization of people below certain IQ levels?
A focus on feelings is a reliable hallmark of those with no moral core at their center. The idea that opposing forced desegregation is necessarily indicative of hatred, much less a secret desire for genocide, is not only irrational, but exposes the ravenous, immoral beast at the heart of modern left-liberalism.

Observe the twisted left-liberal logic. First, there is the determination to deny reality. The genetic differences between the various human population groups either exist or not. The intellectual and behavioral limits imposed by those genetic differences either exist or not. And while for the last 50 years it has been de rigueur to claim that there are no genetic differences between various population groups, or that any differences are meaningless, advances in human genetics mean that is now the genetic equivalent of belonging to the Flat Earth Society.

Second, there is the illogical claim that recognizing those genetically imposed limits between various groups must necessarily lead to eugenics. This can only be true if one is operating from an immoral assumption of the right of some central authority to impose minimum capability requirements on the population. Needless to say, I completely reject this notion. The fact that some people are observably incapable of living in an advanced civilization does not justify harming them or treating them as sub-human. There is no reason they should not be able to live in the sort of society in which their predecessors have successfully lived for thousands of years.

Why stop with mere feelbad? Because human beings do not have the right to not experience hurt feelings. It is not possible to construct a legal system, much less maintain a society, on the basis of the avoidance of hurt feelings. However, humans of every genetic melange and intellectual capacity have the right to life, the right to self-defense, and the right to procreate. Segregation may advantage some and disadvantage others, it may cause many to feel hurt and rejected, but it does not intrinsically cause material harm to anyone; billions of people of every creed and color would not have historically self-segregated if it did. Sterilization and eugenics, on the other hand, obviously do inflict a considerable amount of direct and material harm on the individual.

Moreover, segregation is a natural and organic process. To fight it is to literally fight nature. Consider that despite its overall population being swollen by an alien invasion and relentless propaganda cheering the manifold blessings of diversity, London has seen its white-British population fall by 620,000 in only ten years, much faster than any of the experts expected. After fifty years of "civil rights" America is still unofficially segregated by neighborhood, by city, by suburb, and even by state.

Leo Tolstoy wrote about the great tides of human events that are totally beyond any human capacity to control. He used the example of Napoleon at Waterloo and showed conclusively how Napoleon didn't know what was happening during the battle or even what units were involved in its most critical phases. In like manner, the precise way in which the inevitable reaction to the imposition of mass immigration and cultural invasion is impossible to predict, but no one with any sense of history can reasonably deny it is going to take place.

My opinion is that it would be much better for the governments of the West to align their actions with that inevitable reaction than to oppose it, but I have little hope that will be the case. Many will argue that because the reaction has not taken place yet, it will never happen, but one could have accurately said that prior to every large-scale event in human history.

Cry raciss all you like. It will change nothing. Deny the existence and the significance of human genetics until you turn blue. It will change nothing. Profess your undying allegiance to the religion of human equality with all the fervor of an early Christian martyr. It will change nothing. For as the white liberal aid worker raped in Haiti came to discover, there is no magical incantation that will save you from being out-group when the in-group turns against the outsiders.

The Flat Gene Society is even more ridiculous than the Flat Earth Society. At least those who belonged to the latter had the excuse of correctly observing what they saw with their own eyes. The Flat Gene Society requires ignoring science and history as well as the evidence of one's own eyes.

Labels: , ,

167 Comments:

Blogger Doom December 30, 2013 6:40 AM  

Vox,

Aye, there is that. The thing is, being whom you are dealing, if you win the argument you will have a lot of genocidal maniacs. And these are the people that flock to government. The thing is, that argument will win with them, eventually, if it hasn't secretly and at many levels already. The truth trumps all, it's what to do about it. They are absolutists, unlike me... I am a "hater" for seeing the truth and just wanting separation. As, I think, are you. Heck, I'm not even for abortion access (actually a stealth genocidal war on minorities and the poor as is). They? They are different.

All they may be waiting for is the last stone step of power, so they don't have to worry about re-elections. And the shouts from their circles is already laced with a demand for a king. And, should they get their king, they will fall in line. They won't mind the slaughter of this or that group of lessors. What will baffle many of their herd is when, for their own lack of reasoning and want of the emotional fairyland, when their own king bumps into the impossibilities of their demands, will be their own demise. Why us! We gave you the throne! Into the fires they will go, at least the ones who aren't very pretty AND can learn to shut up and enjoy rape.

Blogger Beefy Levinson December 30, 2013 6:45 AM  

Liberals are terrified of the possibility of HBD becoming widely and explicitly accepted. If that happens, then the American people will elect the cryogenically frozen brain of Hitler as president. Or something.

But that's not their real fear. They are less worried about what rednecks in flyover country will think of HBD but of what they themselves would do if the only thing standing between reality and the SWPL utopia is some "inferior" blacks. Everyone implicitly understands that the myth of equality is the only thing separating the liberal from the Nazi. It's not HBD that is the problem, because HBD is simply the way reality is. The problem is ateleological reductionism. But having rejected the laws of nature and nature's God, the myth of Zero Group Differences is the only thing they have to fall back on.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 30, 2013 7:08 AM  

"In like manner, the precise way in which the inevitable reaction to the imposition of mass immigration and cultural invasion is impossible to predict, but no one with any sense of history can reasonably deny it is going to take place."

Nothing in the world matters but whether the reaction is in time, intense enough, lasting enough and in the right direction to save the white race from genocide by mass immigration and forced assimilation. Anything else can be put right, but not our end.

Blogger Jamie-R December 30, 2013 7:16 AM  

I had a discussion today with an Aussie about how the Muslims we know are fine and seem to fit in well, but I had to warn him that it was due to them being a very small minority in a city they clearly see as overwhelming them in culture they're not used to. So they adapt. I told him that in enough numbers, they would start to assert their ways and culture. Obviously they can't at the moment. But it's this thinking that bothered me, the frog in the pot that's boiling, it's a legit thing that goes over the head of British Isles created nations. There is nothing to worry about when the Anglos are the dominant peoples, in Oz we'd already know that by their stories! There are none. Apart from the Indian and Pakis that pick up drunk bogans early Saturday and Sunday mornings, and they should just get out of the business of picking up drunk bogans. The slow lull of empire's decline is forming for the British Empire, America is a part of that, and what comes after, who knows, but they'll be recriminations within whenever that history meets its final crossroads.

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 7:23 AM  

Well, Jamie, who's going to colonize Oz first, the Indonesian muslims or the Chinese?

Anonymous MrGreenMan December 30, 2013 7:42 AM  

@Jamie-R

Spot on. If he needs an example of this, compare how the Dearborn, MI muslim population differs from the Flint, MI muslim population to see the tipping point in co-opting a dead culture.

In Flint, there is a mosque out in a field, there is the Genesee Academy separate school, and that's about it. They don't have county commissioners or prosecutors, and there are no restrictions on the playing of church bells. The coroner is a Muslim, but he goes around to schools and tries to convince the black youths not to commit crime and finish high school. No Christian has been arrested in Flint or Genesee County for preaching the Gospel on the public street during the Islamic festival, as there is no Islamic festival. If you meet an Arab, you have a 50/50 shot he's Lebanese or Chaldean and Christian

In Dearborn, where they run the local government, and they have the prosecutor's office in their hand, church bells are banned, but the muezzin is protected. The permitting system is used to suppress Christian speech. Christians are stoned at the Islamic festival by angry shouting Muslim hordes, then abused by the police, before they are jailed and prosecuted for causing a public disturbance by handing out Bibles on the street corner. The black populace of adjacent Detroit will be stirred up periodically by the Dearborn Islamic missionaries, who exist to sow strife, saying that Christianity is the slave-master's religion. If you meet an Arab, he'll be a Muslim.

Anonymous MendoScot December 30, 2013 7:59 AM  

Related.

Ahh. The sweet, sweet sound of butthurt...

Swarms of Christ-loving people have defended their Duck hero’s freedom of speech, the same ones who thought that whole Chick-fil-A horror in 2012 was a triumph of human rights. But “free speech” doesn’t mean you can say anything and still keep a job! If your free speech threatens someone’s chances to live a free life, it hardly means that putting someone on hiatus from a TV show would violate the Constitution.

Blogger The Deuce December 30, 2013 7:59 AM  

Beefy Levinson:

They are less worried about what rednecks in flyover country will think of HBD but of what they themselves would do if the only thing standing between reality and the SWPL utopia is some "inferior" blacks. Everyone implicitly understands that the myth of equality is the only thing separating the liberal from the Nazi. It's not HBD that is the problem, because HBD is simply the way reality is. The problem is ateleological reductionism. But having rejected the laws of nature and nature's God, the myth of Zero Group Differences is the only thing they have to fall back on.

You nailed it exactly here. The abortion industry is a perfect example of what utopian "liberals" are capable of when they decide that a particular group of humans isn't of sufficient intelligence to "count" as equally human. It's their own worldview and its implications that they are terrified of.

Anonymous CS December 30, 2013 8:09 AM  

Vox,

I have no doubt what you say here is correct and that without some kind of action the reaction will be ugly. I am curious, however, when you say, "align their actions with that inevitable reaction than to oppose it," in what ways you think this could be done. The infinitesimal possibility of it notwithstanding.

Anonymous hardscrabble farmer December 30, 2013 8:11 AM  

The fact of the matter is that the reaction has indeed occurred already and it even has a name, White Flight.

Secondly and more importantly because human beings are prone to polarize especially on emotional issues like eugenics, the improvement of a gene pool, we are now the benefactors of more than 50 years of its polar opposite, dysgenics. When you actively supress the idea of improving a genetic stock while simultaneously support both economically and socially the procreation of genetically inferior stock you lower the quality of the gene pool. The result? People who don't or won't work or contribute to society but rather live off of its productive members. Burgeoning prison populations, increased levels of drug use and addictions, eroding family structures, implosion of literacy and arts- we could go on for hours with this and it's hard to deny even using the Government's own heavily slanted metrics.

So if someone on the Krupp side could explain to the rest of us why the proper response to improving genetic stock by deliberatley restarding it makes any kind of sense on a real world level, I am all ears. It seems the only response is that genes and heredity don't matter- in which case there never was eugenics, right?-

It is impossible for me to accept any of the current leftist/progressive paradigm because it never makes logical sense and when they attempt it- whcich is rare- they almost always fall back on an emotional escape clause when you point out the logical flaw.

What strikes me, and the reason I enjoy VD as much as I do, is that there is a primary problem with current social order as it exists and that is the intractable, unresolvable and inalterable conflict between the two world views. Those in power today, the MSM, the multinational corporations, the world governments, academia and the science community cannot tolerate and are hell bent on the elimination and eradication of any point of view that contradicts their own. They clearly want no open discussion, no bipartisan agreements, no resolutions or compromises with any of their dogma. They want aquiesence, approval, agreement or collaboration from 100% of the population. They view themselves as enlightened but behave every bit as intolerant as their worst enemies are portrayed. They clearly do not care for "diversity" when it comes to thought or opinion, eshew "tolerance" when it means someone who does not think like them, demostrate "hate" when they identify an ideological opponent.

In short, as VD has clearly laid out, there is no quarter with these folks. Their version of healing and resolution is the elimination of their opponents.

Once you understand that the only non-violent, logical, rational and yes, emotional response is segregation, which anyone with two eyeballs and a heartbeat can observe taking place daily.

Anonymous jayb December 30, 2013 8:13 AM  

@Stilicho

The Chinese. They already joke about Aust being 'New China'. They're playing a long game on this one. There are many many Chinese nationals who come with dirty money to buy Aust real estate and small business. Indonesian Muslims generate a good deal of suspicion and animosity from the common white man, but the Chinese are generally respected (even if disliked). Aust will be overwhelmed by the Chinese unless a revolution occurs somewhere else (e.g. USA, UK) to wake the general populace up to their eventual fate.

Blogger Jamie-R December 30, 2013 8:17 AM  

Well, Jamie, who's going to colonize Oz first, the Indonesian muslims or the Chinese?

As much as fellow Aussies hate to hear it, I tell them we should have had a referendum on mass immigration and fully leveraged our relationship with the USA post-WWII to secure our defence. We can't secure our defence, it's obvious with land mass and population, no matter how much immigration. There are too many that don't understand exactly how lucky we were to have an Anglo Pioneer nation, like ourselves, that large and active in the Pacific region. It was a godsend!

About 8% of referendums, requiring two thirds or 67% of the vote have passed since Federation in 1901, curiously after the first influx of Greeks and Italians in the late 1940s the government never bothered to give the largely British Isles people, and the small minority of Dutch and Germans too, a vote to determine that policy. Since there was no vote, they get bogans today hating every bit of immigration, and on Australia Day after loading up on drink, wanting to antagonise and abuse everyone that don't look or act like them. To me, that's what happens when you don't give the people a democratic say in a place you tell them is a democracy.

Personally, I think Australia at 23 million people and more diverse, is not better than Australia with 10 million people and homogeneously Western European with a small east Asian population, we still need a bigger brother to shore up our defences, it's just reality.

Anonymous Anonymous December 30, 2013 8:17 AM  

I like the structure of your argument.

Blogger Jamie-R December 30, 2013 8:41 AM  

The Chinese and Indians in Australia are skilled and educated, they are not like Hispanics and Blacks in the US, where the issue is simple law and order they can't seem to respect, while blaming it on white colonialism. Australia's problem is when the Chinese and Indians are sufficiently established at the upper middle-class level within a British heritage nation, aside from national times of war which may affect their loyalties, I don't think there is an overwhelming view here that they'd demand a change to our way of doing things. The Chinese maybe. But they're learning about their own previous flaws and changing. They can learn even with a hive-like mind on the mainland. It has to be top-down there, I guess.

Blogger Jamie-R December 30, 2013 8:45 AM  

America's major issue is its loyalty to its blacks. They demand big changes, because they have been convinced, mostly by white liberals, that their poverty is a result of white actions. It's bullshit. They have nowhere to turn and demonstrate otherwise. African-Americans are the most successful blacks in the world and in a major leadership position for the rest of Africans around the world. Africans here in Australia look to Michael Jordan not Nelson Mandela.

Blogger Glen Filthie December 30, 2013 8:51 AM  

All I have to say to these sanctimonious leftards is this: Daring us to put our money where our mouth is with Eugenics is fine and dandy. How about they do the same? How about they sell their house in the upscale neighbourhoods and gated communities - and move in with the blacks in the projects of Detroit and Baltimore and New Orleans?

But they never do - they preach their shite from their perches and never give a thought as to what would happen to them if they fell off it.

Blogger Nate December 30, 2013 8:55 AM  

"Second, there is the illogical claim that recognizing those genetically imposed limits between various groups must necessarily lead to eugenics."

The key here is that to the leftist the world must be marching forward at all times. Things must be made better. The leftist believes in his heart that men are getting better and if they aren't then its the government's job to make them get better.

That's why it has to lead to genocide in the leftist's mind. because genocide would "make it better."

Blogger Tommy Hass December 30, 2013 9:09 AM  

"Sterilization and eugenics, on the other hand, obviously do inflict direct harm on the individual."

How does teaching people that intelligence is hereditary and therefore, intelligent people should work hard to procreate more frequently than the dumb, harm people?

Eugenics does not mean forced eugenics.

They already do apply eugenics when they refuse to procreate with their cousins. They do it in the rest of the world. They don't in the west, because it supposedly leads to retardation.

If HBD and real science were actually taught in school as factual as they are, women would feel far better about making babies ASAP instead of wasting their brains on worthless degrees.

Anonymous Dexter December 30, 2013 9:16 AM  

It is amusing that these types usually claim that there is no slippery slope, until you present to them an opposing idea, at which point it all rolls down hill very quickly. Everyone knows that recognizing racial differences will lead to eugenics and trains and ovens and nicely designed uniforms for all!

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 9:43 AM  

There is no reason they should not be able to live in the sort of society in which their predecessors have successfully lived for thousands of years.

Of course there is. It's called human nature. Thousands of years of human history refutes you on this claim.

Segregation is a fine ideal, of you want to call it that. But it is not in man's nature to not covet the posessions of the African and the Arab. It is not in man's nature to leave the Hottentot and the Aborigine to their ways. When civilized men need land, they take it from the Red Man because...well, the Red Man is a savage and incapable of maintaining "civilization". Better to leave the land in the posession of the "civilized" who can best make use of it. The seeds of empire and conquest were sown into our very nature at the fall. The only thing thus accomplished by segregation is... to facilitate the next conquest.

You accuse others of denying what is right in front of them, but aren't you ignoring thousands of years of historical human nature?

Anonymous Slow December 30, 2013 9:44 AM  

What is HBD?

Anonymous cheddarman December 30, 2013 9:45 AM  

I think it is important to ask who benefits, who profits from, and who are the driving forces behind the destruction of the west?

Anonymous Stephen J. December 30, 2013 9:46 AM  

The genetic differences between the various human population groups either exist or not. The intellectual and behavioral limits imposed by those genetic differences either exist or not.

I think the primary problem I have with these points (in themselves logical) is that they make it easy to obfuscate the connective assumption: namely, that if the genetic differences are stipulated to exist then intellectual and behavioural limits must necessarily exist as well. One can stipulate the former and still require proof that observed behavioural tendencies within cultural groups are (a) necessarily based in those genetic differences and (b) strongly enough therein based that cultural and environmental factors are incapable of overcoming them within a shorter period than the proposed thousand years of required evolution. I am not sure that such a proof can be provided; at best, there is a correlation not much stronger than that used to support AGW arguments.

Second, there is the illogical claim that recognizing those genetically imposed limits between various groups must necessarily lead to eugenics. This can only be true if one is operating from an immoral assumption of the right of some central authority to impose minimum capability requirements on the population.

Not necessarily. The urge towards eugenics can arise from what is seen not as the authority of the most advanced group to impose a minimum capability on the rest of the population, but as the obligation of the furthest advanced group to provide a maximum capability to the rest of the population.

Assuming such a provision could be delivered without culling, coercion, or an unacceptable fatal-mutation error rate, it might in principle even be moral; in practice, no attempt to do so has ever managed the feat, and all attempts to do so suffer from the unfortunate blindness of all transhuman philosophy: viz., the inability to predict what will actually be a superior adaptation.

Anonymous Mr. Stubby December 30, 2013 9:49 AM  

Mankind is always trying to undo what God has done. There is a reason why God confused their speech and scattered them abroad. Babel didn't work the first time, and it will not work again.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 9:49 AM  

The key here is that to the leftist the world must be marching forward at all times. Things must be made better.

Nate is correct. Thus, all of this crying about "Civilization! Civilization! Further civilization!" strikes me as surprisingly parallel thinking with the leftists.

As if "civilization" represents some kind of improvement to the condition of mankind. Bullshit.

Anonymous Stephen J. December 30, 2013 9:56 AM  

As if "civilization" represents some kind of improvement to the condition of mankind.

To our spiritual condition, no; we are a fallen species and will always be fallen so long as we live in a fallen temporal universe. But to our material condition, most certainly; and I confess I prefer comfort to suffering wherever possible.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 10:07 AM  

To our spiritual condition, no; we are a fallen species and will always be fallen so long as we live in a fallen temporal universe. But to our material condition, most certainly; and I confess I prefer comfort to suffering wherever possible.

Bullshit. I can live in a grass hut with my wife and 12 kids and suffer about the same as a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon and his trophy wife and their one kid. I may even be happier and more comfortable.







Blogger The Deuce December 30, 2013 10:08 AM  

For the record, neither physphilmusic nor myself (also involved in that conversation, and basically agreeing with him) denied that there are biological differences between races, including ones that affect behavior, including behaviors that affect civilization. The whole point of contention was centered around what sort of treatment of black people who *are* civilized is or is not morally justified in light of that fact.

Blogger njartist December 30, 2013 10:14 AM  

Let's try this as a modern, progressive exercise: It's not that I don't think evolution [or survival of the fittest] plays a significant role (although concerning exactly how much I probably disagree with you), it's that if I adopted your strategy, I see no reason to stop at merely discriminating against blacks....
Would Physphilmusic then be disavowing early twentieth century progressivism? Margaret Sanger >> abortion?
Isn't genetics evolution written small?

Blogger The Deuce December 30, 2013 10:18 AM  

Stephen J.:

But to our material condition, most certainly; and I confess I prefer comfort to suffering wherever possible.

At the same time, the deterioration of a civilization's spiritual condition seems pretty reliably to precede a deterioration in its material condition, and (even worse) the turning of its inherited material advantages to the purposes of tormenting its people (think Romans using Coliseums to murder Christians, Communists engineering mass starvations and using recording and photographic technology to lie to their people and round up dissidents and their families for reeducation in gulags, etc).

Anonymous toothy December 30, 2013 10:20 AM  

"What is HBD?"

Human Bio-diversity.

Anonymous slow December 30, 2013 10:21 AM  

Got it. Thanks.

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 10:24 AM  

Better to leave the land in the posession of the "civilized" who can best make use of it.

You weren't using it, Porky. Especially after you discovered firewater. Even before that, when my ancestors purchased the land from you, you'd blow your profit then come back trying to reclaim the land.

I can live in a grass hut with my wife and 12 kids and suffer

No one is stopping you.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 30, 2013 10:29 AM  

My first encounter with the Liberal feel-good routine was during the early days of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. (I had worked for state public health in Tennessee and Arkansas between teaching gigs from 1975 to 99.) The health department has a long history of dealing with communicable diseases, including fatal diseases.....but when the AIDS epidemic hit, they were completely unwilling to implement the standard protocols. Remember, this was a 100 percent fatal infection that was highly contaigious, with no known treatment or cure, no known cause, and no idea how many different ways the infection was spread. What did public health do? AIDS awareness, free condoms, and hospice. In fact, we did too good a job of making people aware of the AIDS problem without inconveniencing those carrying the HIV virus, so the response of the infected population was very similar to that of Africa......they shifted their attention to an underage uninfected population. Unlike the Africans, they did not think sex with young virgins would cure them, but they DID believe they were avoiding the virus by preying on the young. What did public health do? Nothing. (I had this argument twice with Joycelyn Elders in 1992 before she became US Surgeon General. What was her solution? Teach masturbation classes in public schools!)
.
So yes, the Liberal feel-good mentality was running public health throughout the entire AIDS epidemic. No one was to be outed or segregated or identified or quarantined to limit the reach of the disease because it might hurt the feelings of infected persons.... first the white homosexuals and later the disease shifted to black populations. The civil authorities did pass laws making it a crime to attempt to knowingly spread HIV to an uninfected person. Some even made it a crime to not inform sex partners of likely infection in advance of having sex. There were few arrests. Some of the HIV infected persons tried to weaponize the disease by spitting on police, and some of them were charged with attempted murder or assaulting a police officer. Police started wearing protective gear. Dentists were infecting their patients either because they were acquiring the virus through their practice or by passing the virus along to their uninfected patients. It was a major problem. Heterosexual HIV is by no means a myth. What did public health do? Advise dentists to take extra precautions. Some of the victims got attorneys and sued for big bucks. But HIV infected dentists continued to practice dentistry and the state board of health would not stop them. After all, it might be embarassing and hurt their livelihood.

After the AIDS awareness campaign had pretty much saturated the country, the biggest source of new infections was IV illegal drug users. What did public health do? They enabled people to continue the risky practices by providing fresh new hypodermics and bottles of bleach. Drug addicts are not to be inconvenienced by a fatal disease in their quest for more narcotics. Must not hurt their feelings or make them self-conscious or ashamed or singled out for being a HIV carrier. That would be cruel and discriminatory too.

Yes, the Liberal preoccupation with the sensibilities of the people causing the problem is mindboggling.

Blogger IM2L844 December 30, 2013 10:33 AM  

What is HBD?

I know it's hard, so LMGTFY (let me google that for you)

Anonymous GG December 30, 2013 10:41 AM  

"...ignoring science and history as well as the evidence of one's own eyes."

The evidence of one's own eyes is obviously one of the least effective tools we have. Nothing shakier then eye witness testimony. Perception is not always reality. Science has been thoroughly corrupted and history is written by the victors.

So, with some self depreciating humor, the only argument I can offer is faith, perfect love casts out fear, and through Christ all things are possible. Get the government and the do-gooders out of the minority business, and all the bad things just fall away. Everybody serves a purpose in God's kingdom and genetics don't determine our value in His eyes.


Anonymous The Anti-Gnostic December 30, 2013 10:44 AM  

When civilized men need land, they take it from the Red Man because...well, the Red Man is a savage and incapable of maintaining "civilization".

Indigenous Americans lived in ranges or territories, same as a wolf pack. When a bigger, stronger pack wants the territory, they get to take it.

If you want to discourage that sort of thing, then set up a civilization with property rights and the rule of law. You'll still have to defend your property, by force at times, but you'll at least be on the same playing field.

Anonymous Anonymous December 30, 2013 10:44 AM  

Assuming such a provision could be delivered without culling, coercion, or an unacceptable fatal-mutation error rate, it might in principle even be moral; in practice, no attempt to do so has ever managed the feat, and all attempts to do so suffer from the unfortunate blindness of all transhuman philosophy: viz., the inability to predict what will actually be a superior adaptation.

Lewis' lecture, The Abolition of Man develops your line of thought a bit further. Under certain preconditions, I think he would agree with you. If you are so inclined, you may find it a worthwhile read

Anonymous Anonymous December 30, 2013 10:50 AM  

I can live in a grass hut with my wife and 12 kids and suffer

No one is stopping you.

To the contrary http://www.offthegridnews.com/2013/12/16/florida-city-evicting-woman-for-living-off-the-grid/

Anonymous The other skeptic December 30, 2013 10:50 AM  

Remember, this was a 100 percent fatal infection that was highly contaigious

Actually, that second part is not true.

No doubt the majority of people who interacted with the susceptible did not contract AIDS because they did not engage in the risky behaviors that lead to AIDS, like anal sex and sharing needles.

More over, those engaging in vaginal sex are less likely to contract it from a partner than those engaging in anal sex.

It is fully a disease of the degenerate.

Anonymous VD December 30, 2013 10:53 AM  

You accuse others of denying what is right in front of them, but aren't you ignoring thousands of years of historical human nature?

No. Not in the least. Read it again. Most technologically deprived barbarian cultures have not troubled the more advanced cultures in the slightest. If they want to run around slaughtering each other over minor disses and stolen footwear, that's fine, so long as they don't do it here.

I'm sure you quake in your bed with fear of the Amazonian tribes and the headhunters of Papua New Guinea.

Anonymous GG December 30, 2013 10:54 AM  

"I can live in a grass hut with my wife and 12 kids and suffer about the same as a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon and his trophy wife and their one kid. I may even be happier and more comfortable."

There is wisdom in these words. I'm still trying to understand what is so beneficial and superior about "civilization?" Everywhere I look I see a fallen world, collateral damage, and miserable people.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 30, 2013 10:55 AM  

Early signs of the changing of the hegemon.

Blogger Brad Andrews December 30, 2013 11:01 AM  

Does the existence of genetic differences prove causation of the ability or inability to civilize? That has not been proven.

I suppose I should also dig into exactly what the genetic differences are. I have read that skin color is a very minor difference, even though it is a huge appearance difference. What are the other genetic differences?

Does anyone have any recommendation for a good overview on the subject, ideally on a web site.

Blogger Nate December 30, 2013 11:02 AM  

"It is fully a disease of the degenerate."

unless you happened to get a bad blood transfusion...

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 30, 2013 11:03 AM  

Mankind is always trying to undo what God has done. There is a reason why God confused their speech and scattered them abroad. Babel didn't work the first time, and it will not work again.

"The internationalist and the imperialist are not only similar men, but even the same men. There is no country which the Imperialist may not claim to conquer in order to convert. There is no country which the Internationalist may not claim to convert in order to conquer. Whether it is called international law or imperial law, it is the very soul and essence of all lawlessness. Against all such amorphous anarchy stands that great and positive creation of Christendom, the nation, with its standards of liberty and loyalty, with its limits of reason and proportion." - GK Chesterton

56 After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part. The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the "nations", in other words, towards men grouped "in their lands, each with [its] own language, by their families, in their nations".

57 This state of division into many nations is at once cosmic, social and religious. It is intended to limit the pride of fallen humanity united only in its perverse ambition to forge its own unity as at Babel. But, because of sin, both polytheism and the idolatry of the nation and of its rulers constantly threaten this provisional economy with the perversion of paganism. -- Catholic Catechism

Acts 17:26 - And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

Anonymous JI December 30, 2013 11:03 AM  

GG wrote:
>>>>
"I can live in a grass hut with my wife and 12 kids and suffer about the same as a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon and his trophy wife and their one kid. I may even be happier and more comfortable."

There is wisdom in these words. I'm still trying to understand what is so beneficial and superior about "civilization?" Everywhere I look I see a fallen world, collateral damage, and miserable people.
>>>>

So my wife grew up in a grass hut on a remote island, and we've had this discussion. She likes the benefits of civilization but misses the simple feelings of companionship and neighborliness from the grass hut days. But, when I was a kid in the USA, people were much more neighborly and friendly, the kids were always outside playing, the adults would visit and chat with each other. I think that was the best of both worlds.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 30, 2013 11:15 AM  

Does the existence of genetic differences prove causation of the ability or inability to civilize? That has not been proven.

I don't think that's the relevant question. Different ethnicities demonstrate different levels of time preference and organizational complexity. African Americans find Anglo Americans social conventions stultifying and ridiculous. Anglo's in their turn find Germans uptight and boring.

No country on the planet has ever successfully kept peoples with widely divergent time and social preferences together peacefully. Either the country devolves into its constituent nations, or an all-powerful central government imposes 'civil rights' legislation at gunpoint. When the central government falls due to fiscal and imperial overreach, all that beloved 'diversity' and 'civil rights' dries up and blows away like a tumbleweed.

The constituent American nations should get about the complicated business of negotiating their separate ways while it can still be done peacefully. Of course, we won't.

Anonymous Anonymous December 30, 2013 11:16 AM  

But, when I was a kid in the USA, people were much more neighborly and friendly, the kids were always outside playing, the adults would visit and chat with each other. I think that was the best of both worlds.

+1

In my part of the rural South, we are still that way. Total strangers greet each other with a friendly, 'Doin Alright?' , friendly waves to and from passing cars, time to just stop and talk for a bit....it is civilized. The cities? not so much.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 30, 2013 11:16 AM  

Does the existence of genetic differences prove causation of the ability or inability to civilize? That has not been proven.

See La Griffe du Lion on The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

There is evidence that the additive portion of IQ variance is 50-80 percent. The remaining portion is attributed to "environment" but "environment" does not mean what you think it means, because it includes gene-gene interaction and other unknowns.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 30, 2013 11:18 AM  

unless you happened to get a bad blood transfusion...

Well, sure. However, those numbers are very small compared to those getting it directly from degenerate behavior, and are ultimately the fault of the degenerates who donated blood.

Blogger Jamie-R December 30, 2013 11:27 AM  

Also, on bigotry, a conversation about the rich:

If you want to enter eternal life, keep the commandments.

Which ones?

Don’t commit murder. Don’t commit adultery. Don’t steal. Don’t give false testimony. Honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

I’ve kept all these. What am I still missing?

If you want to be complete, go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor.


Jesus then said...

It will be very hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Then Peter said...

Look, we’ve left everything and followed you. What will we have?

All who have left houses, brothers, sisters, father, mother, children, or farms because of my name will receive one hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last. And many who are last will be first.


Once again, rational Jesus comes to the forefront. If you seek rationality in morality, you'll find Christ, he's probably sick of people betraying his words.

Anonymous LES December 30, 2013 12:21 PM  

Is a global authoritarian dystopia in our future?

Anonymous jasmer December 30, 2013 12:32 PM  

Stephen J. said,
"I think the primary problem I have with these points (in themselves logical) is that they make it easy to obfuscate the connective assumption: namely, that if the genetic differences are stipulated to exist then intellectual and behavioural limits must necessarily exist as well. One can stipulate the former and still require proof that observed behavioural tendencies within cultural groups are (a) necessarily based in those genetic differences and (b) strongly enough therein based that cultural and environmental factors are incapable of overcoming them within a shorter period than the proposed thousand years of required evolution. I am not sure that such a proof can be provided; at best, there is a correlation not much stronger than that used to support AGW arguments."

Very nicely put, and though I'm not bothering to imagine what Vox is thinking, all I was asking for in the previous thread.

AGW, militant queers' demands, Darwinism as holy writ, &c. &c. - why commit to the same sort of junk-science-laden thinking that others do, when the un-embroidered truth about a situation (multi-culti) is already fully damning?

Anonymous GG December 30, 2013 12:49 PM  

...."A focus on feelings is a reliable hallmark of those with no moral core at their center..."

This is kind of fascinating because I perceive the left in the reverse, it is their complete refusal to feel feelings that makes them so vicious. They claim to care so deeply about so many issues, but what they care the most about is not ever having to feel any shame, guilt, or discomfort. They'll mandate tolerance for every form of debauchery under the sun, just to avoid confronting their own consciences.

None of this, not multiculturalism, not current US politics, has anything to do with the feelings of minorities or immigrants. It's all about the avoidance of feelings by some entitled and powerful, and very racist, progressives.

Blogger Nate December 30, 2013 12:51 PM  

"Well, sure. However, those numbers are very small compared to those getting it directly from degenerate behavior, and are ultimately the fault of the degenerates who donated blood."

fully means fully.


Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 12:55 PM  

I'm sure you quake in your bed with fear of the Amazonian tribes and the headhunters of Papua New Guinea.

Umm... I point out that human history is one of empire, conquest and enslavement... and you respond by informing us that...there are still a few tribes left in the jungle?

Yep. The earth certainly does look flat, doesn't it?

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 1:01 PM  

Most technologically deprived barbarian cultures have not troubled the more advanced cultures in the slightest.

Then what the hell are you complaining about?? Lol.

I would tell you that perhaps the civilized folks should not have tried to enslave the barbarians and make off with their natural resources.... but that would be like telling a dog not to eat his own puke.

Anonymous Anonymous December 30, 2013 1:05 PM  

@ Brad Andrews

"I suppose I should also dig into exactly what the genetic differences are. I have read that skin color is a very minor difference, even though it is a huge appearance difference. What are the other genetic differences?

Since the academy fears the answers to that question, they aren't in a hurry to study it. I wouldn't get my hopes up that the body of literature is well-developed.

Anonymous Anonymous December 30, 2013 1:16 PM  

...."A focus on feelings is a reliable hallmark of those with no moral core at their center..."

I doubt a person can be moral without either sympathy or compassion. Both of those are feelings. So maybe morality requires feelings, but that is not a sufficient condition.

One must not only feel correctly, one must also do correct things.

A person that feels correctly but does bad things should feel badly about what they've done.
A person that does good things without feeling anything...is what?

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 30, 2013 2:10 PM  

I can live in a grass hut with my wife and 12 kids and suffer about the same as a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon and his trophy wife and their one kid. I may even be happier and more comfortable

You probably could. Until there's a really bad winter and the game die back or migrate into another tribe's territory. Then you and your wife have to decide which of the 12 kids gets sufficient protein. Or maybe the 12 kids leave mom and dad out in the snow.

Or maybe the neighboring tribe thinks your territory is better and they've got lots of young men with time on their hands. There was a reason Pueblos built their houses hundreds of feet in the air, and it wasn't to enjoy the view.

Hunter-gatherer tribes were starving, torturing, killing and cannibalizing each other long before civilization. That was the only check on their growth. Now that we've brought them civilization, they will breed to the very end of its carrying capacity as well. Then it's back to the grass huts.

I don't think that's what is going to happen though, and the way it won't happen will be awful.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 2:34 PM  

Hunter-gatherer tribes were starving, torturing, killing and cannibalizing each other long before civilization.

Wow... are you completely clueless about the starving, torturing, killing, and cannibalizing that has occurred in "civilized" countries over the last century or so?

"Civilization" is a whitewashed sepulcher. Inside are dead men's bones and all corruption.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 30, 2013 2:40 PM  

Anti-Gnostic....."The constituent American nations should get about the complicated business of negotiating their separate ways while it can still be done peacefully. Of course, we won't."

Not sure what negotiations are necessary. It seems clear that the Federal government will fail and very likely, regional alliances of state governments will take on national characters. Will one group of states take it on themselves to conquer all the other states to re-unite the 50 states? I seriously doubt it. Once the regions create their own governments, military conquest will probably be low on their priority lists.
.
I would agree that the states in the regions need to be talking to each other about what type of government would fill the gap left by the failure of the Federal government. It is much better to have a plan than to figure it all out as you stumble along or leave it to the mob in the streets.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 30, 2013 2:56 PM  

"Civilization" is a whitewashed sepulcher. Inside are dead men's bones and all corruption.

That's a bit extreme. "Nature" is blood and disease and life-or-death choices and plenty of its own naked-ape depravity.

Having said that, I agree with a point I think Nate made once: there is such a thing as too much civilization. It's frustrating, because there are just a few things we simply don't have to do to restore some balance.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 3:00 PM  

I agree with a point I think Nate made once: there is such a thing as too much civilization.

What is civilization?

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 3:06 PM  

I would tell you that perhaps the civilized folks should not have tried to enslave the barbarians and make off with their natural resources

You poor little victim. Those $24 worth of beads all gone and NOW you think you made a bad deal? Hmm, maybe there's something to this civilization thing after all. Let me guess how this will end: you'll get butthurt again then declare that you're effectively so focused on the next world that you cannot be bothered with this one.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 30, 2013 3:07 PM  

City building, written language, numeracy, complex division of labor.

I think we've been around this bush before.

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 3:09 PM  

Take up the White man's burden --
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard --
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light: --
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
"Our loved Egyptian night?


Anonymous jasmer December 30, 2013 3:14 PM  

mattse001 said, "Since the academy fears the answers to that question, they aren't in a hurry to study it. I wouldn't get my hopes up that the body of literature is well-developed."

If Vox is claiming that (genetics) are the primary cause of the delay to civilization, as I'm of the impression from a couple of threads that he , then there damn well ought to be something out there to back it up. Making the assertion and then saying that nobody in power wants the question answered is something out of Glenn Beck's repertoire.

Anonymous Earl December 30, 2013 3:25 PM  

Porky your argument is the same highlighted by the original post: If we allow people to openly "protect civilization" from "others" we're right back to imperialist slave trading and resource wars of aggression.

Civilization is my wife and daughters not getting raped to death by the neighbors as soon as I turn my back. I think Vox and others who want to "protect civilization" also imply the Christian version of it. So a more responsible deconstructionist rhetoric from you would sound more like "define Christian civilization!" Adding Christianity to the mix, civilization is fellowship and communion in a land ruled by Christian ethics where people can leave a peaceful and quiet life pursuing Godliness/Evangelism/Dominion, etc.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 3:27 PM  

Stilicho: You poor little victim.

Lol! You are the ones whining about losing to your invaders. You sound like whiny old Aron Nimszowitch throwing his king across the room yelling "Why must I lose to this idiot!!"

Shut up already. The barbarians are not the reason you poor "civilized" bastards stopped breeding. You've got no one to blame but your greedy selves for that.

Anonymous Earl December 30, 2013 3:29 PM  

Perhaps the people here wondering what good civilization is, are immature people without children of their own for which they feel very accountable for?

Anonymous Earl December 30, 2013 3:33 PM  

"The barbarians are not the reason you poor "civilized" bastards stopped breeding. You've got no one to blame but your greedy selves for that."

Porky, why do you whine that a return to violent cultural imperialism is so bad-- when you clearly enjoy it so much?

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 3:37 PM  

City building, written language, numeracy, complex division of labor.

Overcrowded shitholes, 50 Shades, The Fed, and Neo-Feudalism.

Wow. Sounds like an absolute paradise. Do civilized people also eat moonbeams and shit rainbows?

Anonymous GG December 30, 2013 3:39 PM  

"Perhaps the people here wondering what good civilization is, are immature people without children of their own for which they feel very accountable for?"

No. In all sincerity, the most difficult thing has been attempting to protect the children from all this so called civilization.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 30, 2013 3:39 PM  

then there damn well ought to be something out there to back it up.

Your two eyes and a few decent geography and history texts?

Seriously, what else do you need in order to conclude that some ancestrally-related groups don't develop civilizations?

I'm actually more pessimistic than Vox. I don't think a number of southern hemisphere groups will ever get there. When we stop having anything to do with them, they'll head back to the trees.

Anonymous Earl December 30, 2013 3:41 PM  

"...protect the children from all this so called civilization."

I have found that the best way to protect the children is to protect the civilization. Make it an explicitly Christian one.

Blogger Duke of Earl December 30, 2013 3:41 PM  

The American Indians were shrewd traders.

The true hardship for the Indians came when the US military were brought in to dispossess them, and that's an example of how government stuffs everything up. The same story exists in New Zealand, although to a lesser extent.

What appears to be described as short time focus, being concerned with today and letting tomorrow take care of itself, does seem to be a part of modern Maori and Pacific Island culture. When I sat down to a shared meal with PI and Maori people at work, a Maori lady observed that it was typical PI fare, a lot of food for a small group of people that probably cost too much for what we got. Large, hospitable people, but focused more on the moment than on the future.

However I'm not sure it's entirely racial, as I tend to be a bit that way myself. Perhaps long term focus requires regular shortages, so that you have to plan ahead in order not to starve when winter comes. Living in the Pacific Islands, apparently life can be pretty easy. You want food just go hack it off a tree or pull it out of the lagoon.

From the way people describe the American South, there seems to be a similar culture of hospitality along with a better/longer time focus. That's probably the best balance.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 30, 2013 3:41 PM  

Overcrowded shitholes, 50 Shades, The Fed, and Neo-Feudalism.

Wow. Sounds like an absolute paradise. Do civilized people also eat moonbeams and shit rainbows?


No. But they also compose great art and reveal the Triune God to mankind.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 3:43 PM  

Porky, why do you whine that a return to violent cultural imperialism is so bad

First, I am not whining.

Second, violent imperialism is the natural condition of fallen mankind. It doesn't matter one bit what I think of it.

Anonymous Earl December 30, 2013 3:45 PM  

Explicitly Christian civilizations allow for free association/self-segregation and government judgment of others by use of accurate naturalistic analysis- all within the framework of ethical treatment of others/foreigners/aliens/poor/sick/deranged. (I'm a libertarian theonomist.)

Anonymous Earl December 30, 2013 3:48 PM  

Porky, if you think your arguments don't matter... well, I guess it is always good to have one of those locust eating dirty smelly types roaming the wilderness and crying out in the streets to repent and be saved. Thanks for playing your part in the body of Christ! I won't stone you to death or anything. I promise. But I don't know about the others.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 3:51 PM  

What appears to be described as short time focus, being concerned with today and letting tomorrow take care of itself, does seem to be a part of modern Maori and Pacific Island culture.

I can think of no more devastatingly short term focused behavior than deliberately not breeding. That's exactly what you "civilized" peoples are doing.

Blogger Duke of Earl December 30, 2013 4:02 PM  

Well I can't say that that was due to any lack of willingness on my part. In my teens and twenties I'd have been perfectly happy to breed with any willing woman.

It was finding a "willing" woman that was the problem. :-(

Anonymous GG December 30, 2013 4:14 PM  

"I can think of no more devastatingly short term focused behavior than deliberately not breeding."

Interesting point. It is fascinating that so many things seem to plague the so called "civilized" upper classes. Sexual harassment, unwilling women, reluctance to breed, multiculturalism, attacks at the Mall of America.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 4:21 PM  

@Earl,

You have hit the nail. The only thing ever known to counteract the fallen human condition is Christianity. No amount of city building, or beautiful art, or infrastructure, or literacy, or numeracy, - the so-called trappings of "civilization" - has the power to change the sinful heart.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 4:31 PM  

GG: It is fascinating that so many things seem to plague the so called "civilized" upper classes.

Someone brought up cannibalism earlier as an example barbaric behavior practiced by barbarians in the jungles of Papua New Guinea. But the most recent examples I can find of habitual cannibalism happens to be among elite, wealthy Chinese aristocrats. This is what 3000 years of civilization has gotten them. Big cities, number systems, written language, art, culture... and human fetuses wrapped in gold foil for dessert.

Anonymous Sheila December 30, 2013 4:33 PM  

I am going to presume I'm not the only reader (occasional commenter) who recalls that physphilmusic self-identified, in the past, as Asian and Christian. Given his/her position as a (rapidly growing) minority in the U.S., I do feel this is relevant to his views on segregation and racial differences.

Anonymous TWS December 30, 2013 4:37 PM  

Just when I think China can't get more strange. I have been trying to find the name of the culture that used to pick a pretty girl to eat and display her head at dinner. I thought they were absorbed by the Chinese but can find no referrences.

It's like the Chinese have a cultural or genetic thing for eating people.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 30, 2013 4:53 PM  

@Sheila:

There are a number of countries out there--quite successful ones--run by and for Asians. Where, in fact, phyphimu would be a member of the ethnic super-majority.

Either he or his parents came here voluntarily, and the only people whose views on race relations in the US I consider relevant are the Indigenous and the descendants of African slaves. That doesn't mean I'd agree with their policy prescriptions, however.

Anonymous GG December 30, 2013 5:09 PM  

"...the only people whose views on race relations in the US I consider relevant are the Indigenous and the descendants of African slaves.."

I understand what you are saying, but isn't this a big part of the problem? Why would we hand such a tiny fraction of the population so much influence?

Worse yet, the majority of these people have been systematically brainwashed for years by those in government who seek to exploit them.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 30, 2013 6:31 PM  

Porky: "What is civilization?"

Cities, and the arts of living in them, and the arts that can be practiced better with them than without them.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 6:44 PM  

Cities, and the arts of living in them, and the arts that can be practiced better with them than without them.

Huh??

You mean like those Robert Mapplethorpe exhibits? Or Broadway musicals like Rent and Spring Awakening?

Anonymous robert December 30, 2013 6:49 PM  

This post sets a new standad for "OH DAMN, YOU GOT TOLD!!". VD ftw.

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 6:53 PM  

Shut up already.

How sharper than a ... frog's tooth...

The barbarians are not the reason you poor "civilized" bastards stopped breeding. You've got no one to blame but your greedy selves for that.

Because living in a grass hut on the Rez with 12 children is to be desired or the only other option? Regardless, do explain how the white birth rate is responsible for 1) the vibrant hordes in this country; 2) the mean IQ of those vibrant hordes; and 3) the deleterious activities of those vibrant hordes.

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 7:02 PM  

Shut up already.

How sharper than a ... frog's tooth...

The barbarians are not the reason you poor "civilized" bastards stopped breeding. You've got no one to blame but your greedy selves for that.

Because living in a grass hut on the Rez with 12 children is to be desired or the only other option? Regardless, do explain how the white birth rate is responsible for 1) the vibrant hordes in this country; 2) the mean IQ of those vibrant hordes; and 3) the deleterious activities of those vibrant hordes.

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 7:07 PM  

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Attendee: Brought peace?

Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!

Anonymous VD December 30, 2013 7:21 PM  

If Vox is claiming that (genetics) are the primary cause of the delay to civilization, as I'm of the impression from a couple of threads that he , then there damn well ought to be something out there to back it up.

That's obviously not true. We just learned that modern humanity is not all the same sub-species about two years ago. And there isn't likely to be anything out there because, as far as I know, I'm the first to suggest that it requires hundreds of years for a human population to become entirely civilized.

You can't expect to find a lot of scientific studies for an original hypothesis from a non-scientist who doesn't apply for research grants.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 30, 2013 7:36 PM  

Titus Didius Tacitus: [Civilization is...] "Cities, and the arts of living in them, and the arts that can be practiced better with them than without them."

Porky: "Huh??"

Pretending to be pig-ignorant? I could not have given you a much simpler definition.

Titus Didius Tacitus: "You mean like those Robert Mapplethorpe exhibits? Or Broadway musicals like Rent and Spring Awakening?"

War is an art too, and the promotion of homosexuality and racial assimilation in conditions of mass non-white immigration into all white countries and only white countries is part of an anti-white culture war, where the construction of perverted and malign culture is part of the destruction of the targeted population as a group.

Of course the process of destroying a civilization by the abuse of its tools is not a fair face to put on civilization itself.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 7:43 PM  

Brought peace?

Sorry for massacring your people and spreading their entrails on the ruins of your city. Please accept "peace and public order" as your consolation prize (for the bargain basement price of 10,000 lbs of silver per year tribute.)

[Oh, and sorry about the smallpox too. We caught it from those damned Turks when we were spreading their entrails on the ruins of their city.]

Blogger James Dixon December 30, 2013 7:44 PM  

> Cities, and the arts of living in them, and the arts that can be practiced better with them than without them.

You have a very narrow view of civilization.

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 8:00 PM  

Sorry for massacring your people and spreading their entrails on the ruins of your city. Please accept "peace and public order" as your consolation prize (for the bargain basement price of 10,000 lbs of silver per year tribute.)

[Oh, and sorry about the smallpox too. We caught it from those damned Turks when we were spreading their entrails on the ruins of their city.]


Oink.

Now answer the questions. Or you can just admit that you don't have a point, just hurt feelings.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 30, 2013 8:01 PM  

James Dixon: "You have a very narrow view of civilization.'

Will you offer another definition that goes more directly to the root of the matter?

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 8:04 PM  

War is an art too

The definitive measure of a civilization has always been it's ability to efficiently kill and subjugate people.

Is this what you were referring to as "art"?

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 30, 2013 8:04 PM  

>You have a very narrow view of civilization.

Strictly speaking, that's all civilization is: city-building.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 8:09 PM  

Stilicho: "Regardless, do explain how the white birth rate is responsible for 1) the vibrant hordes in this country; 2) the mean IQ of those vibrant hordes; and 3) the deleterious activities of those vibrant hordes."

Sorry. Didn't make any of those claims. What I actually did claim was that whites are responsible for white birth rates.

You're not very good at this are you?


Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 8:22 PM  

Sorry. Didn't make any of those claims. What I actually did claim was that whites are responsible for white birth rates.

Well, I'll try to dumb it down to your level: why do you think white birth rates are relevant to this blog post and the ensuing discussion?

Should we wait while you find your tap dancing shoes?

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 8:27 PM  

Well, I'll try to dumb it down to your level: why do you think white birth rates are relevant to this blog post and the ensuing discussion?

Time preferences. Putting off procreation to pursue SWPL is the ultimate short-time preference.

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 8:38 PM  

Time preferences. Putting off procreation to pursue SWPL is the ultimate short-time preference.

Are you claiming that whites have shorter time preferences than the vibrant hordes?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 30, 2013 8:44 PM  

Porky: "The definitive measure of a civilization has always been it's ability to efficiently kill and subjugate people."

Wrong.

Porky: "Is this what you were referring to as "art"?"

You're trolling by playing dumb. So you're not worth engaging further with.

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 8:49 PM  

You're trolling by playing dumb

It's not all play: the noble red man sit in modern country decrying civilization on internet blog...

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 8:53 PM  

Are you claiming that whites have shorter time preferences than the vibrant hordes?

When it comes fertility rates, yes.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 8:59 PM  

@Titus

You were the one who said war is an art, doofus.

Wrong.

Then please inform me of all those great world empires that achieved their greatness without killing or subjugating.

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 9:06 PM  

When it comes fertility rates, yes.

So, all of those children that they cannot support are an indication of really long time preferences then? They're just counting on the white man's generosity/foolishness to raise those children and those children's children, and so on until they have produced enough to take over the country, then it will be mud huts for everyone and a chicken in every fire pit? Are we to believe that this too is part of a masterful, evil genius plan to take over the world?

Ah well, this has been amusing.

Blogger tz December 30, 2013 9:15 PM  

If the soul has no effect on the intellect or behavior, what did Jesus come to save? Do we repent of our genetics or of our decisions for evil? Calvin at least had predestination form God, not genetics.

What is the point of the gospel, repentance, and salvation if sin is not a matter of the will and intellect (of which the brain is an interface but not the cause or source), but of biology?

I see no difference in the frame of the argument than what the New Atheists have - everything is materialistic, determined by physics and chemistry and nothing else.

The New Atheists won't go down this path (shame on them - it is absolutely implied by their ideas).

Are we fighting against our concupiscence and the Devil or our genetic predisposition? Is "civilization" neither good nor evil, but merely a phenotype?

Could I be without sin if I merely had Jesus' genes? Is that why/how he behaved as he did? Was the immaculate conception merely "gene therapy"?

What is good science, and even good dialectic can be bad theology.

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 9:27 PM  

What is the point of the gospel, repentance, and salvation if sin is not a matter of the will and intellect (of which the brain is an interface but not the cause or source), but of biology?

I did not see anyone claiming that genetic inheritance included a predisposition to sin. Perhaps a case could be made that genetic inheritance predisposes one to a particular type of sin over others, but that would simply be a matter of different people having a tougher time facing particular temptations over others. All are still fallen. All still face temptations to sin. All find certain temptations more enticing than others.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 9:29 PM  

So, all of those children that they cannot support are an indication of really long time preferences then?

As long as it takes a village, yep.

Conversely, foregoing children so you can "pursue a career" or "travel the world" or "have a fun life" is an indication of a really short time preference.

The numbers are what they are, Stilicho. You're smart so I'm sure you can figure out what happens to a civilization when people don't want to have babies anymore.

Blogger Nate December 30, 2013 9:41 PM  

"Time preferences. Putting off procreation to pursue SWPL is the ultimate short-time preference. "

Actually its not. its a bad decision that is the result of long time preferences and bad information.

These people are told they can have kids "later" with no problem. So they put it off to prepare for the career.

Anonymous Stilicho December 30, 2013 10:00 PM  

So, all of those children that they cannot support are an indication of really long time preferences then?

As long as it takes a village, yep.

Detroit will be taking over the world any minute now. Any. Minute. Now. Unless starving Somalis beat them to it, natch.

Conversely, foregoing children so you can "pursue a career" or "travel the world" or "have a fun life" is an indication of a really short time preference.

Time preferences are not defined by the effect they may or may not have on a civilization. Time preferences are a matter of choosing instant gratification over waiting for something better. You cannot fornicate your way into civilization. Having sex because you want the instant gratification without being able (or even inclined) to support the children you produce is an indication of a short time preference. Borrowing money to buy a shiny new car when your old will serve rather than saving for it is an indication of a short time preference. Waiting until you can support a family before acquiring one is an indication of long time preferences. Your lack of comprehension of time preferences is on par with your lack of understanding of economics.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate (and his pal, too) December 30, 2013 10:02 PM  

"I'm actually more pessimistic than Vox. I don't think a number of southern hemisphere groups will ever get there. When we stop having anything to do with them, they'll head back to the trees."

You do realize that these groups have permanent settlements, agriculture, civic and ceremonial architecture, and/or complex societal hierarchies and trading networks, right?

Or you simply nothing more than an intellectual corpse here for the purpose of being dissected?


"These people are told they can have kids "later" with no problem. So they put it off to prepare for the career."

Well within a person's liberty to make that informed choice. Or do you recommend Putin's remedies for low white birth rates? Idiot.

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 10:04 PM  

These people are told they can have kids "later" with no problem. So they put it off to prepare for the career.

The reverse is just as true - you could put off a career until "later" and have babies now - if you wanted to. It's a choice.

Whites, by all appearances, have foregone the long term choice (furthering the human race) for the short term choice (the college experience).

It's almost...shall I say it?....barbaric.

Blogger Nate December 30, 2013 10:08 PM  

"The reverse is just as true - you could put off a career until "later" and have babies now - if you wanted to. It's a choice."

Yes.. But you're confusing time preferences with "the right choice". Time preferences don't matter when you're making bad decisions based on bad information. They certainly can put off their career. But they don't know that. They don't have that information. Thus they cannot use it to make that choice.

You're blaming a bad result on time preferences when it is actually the result of bad information.

Anonymous The CronoLink December 30, 2013 10:12 PM  

Darwin Wars: The Mendel Strikes Back

Blogger Nate December 30, 2013 10:12 PM  

I mean look... I could make the argument that Finn's have shitty time preferences because they choose to stay in a frozen hell where they have to slave 12 months a year just to scrape by... when they could choose to move. Moving would be difficult... but once you get the move done... you find yourself in a place like costa rica where the food grows all around you and don't have to work much at all to survive.

I mean who's the dummy here? The guys lounging in paradise? Yes.. in grass huts.. but hey dumbass... its 80 degrees every day. Grass huts are all they need. Maybe the dumbass is the Finn up there with frozen pubes shoveling a sidewalk 5 hours a day... and slaving away in a cubicle the rest of it.


Anonymous Shut Up, Nate (and his pal, too) December 30, 2013 10:27 PM  

"Yes.. But you're confusing time preferences with "the right choice". Time preferences don't matter when you're making bad decisions based on bad information."

Because MPAI.


"But they don't know that. They don't have that information. Thus they cannot use it to make that choice."

Right, because Roissy, for example, lacks the data to make informed decisions that his skirt-chasing antics is ultimately "the wrong choice".

I say fuck liberty. I'm dedicating my entire life to doing what Nate says is "correct" or "moral" or "just". After all, he has the "information".

Anonymous Scintan December 30, 2013 10:34 PM  

There is wisdom in these words. I'm still trying to understand what is so beneficial and superior about "civilization?" Everywhere I look I see a fallen world, collateral damage, and miserable people.


You take your grass huts, your heat and humidity, your large sized predators and your diseases. I'll take air conditioning, sanitation and improved access to goods and services.

Blogger Duke of Earl December 30, 2013 10:39 PM  

What is good about civilization?

We can be miserable in greater comfort. :-)

Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 11:02 PM  

They certainly can put off their career. But they don't know that.

I doubt that.

But we may be assuming too much about the reasons women put off having children. Career might be part of it. I suspect 40 years of abortion on demand has probably cheapened the importance of babies in people's eyes.

The urge to procreate does not go away lightly. It takes considerable force of will to exchange the long-term primal maternal urge with a short-term intellectual fix.



Anonymous Porky December 30, 2013 11:10 PM  

Waiting until you can support a family before acquiring one is an indication of long time preferences.

Only in progressive-speak could closing the womb be considered a long time preference.

It's like saying that putting off that breast exam until there is a cure = a long time preference.




Blogger Tommy Hass December 30, 2013 11:18 PM  

"These people are told they can have kids "later" with no problem. So they put it off to prepare for the career.

The reverse is just as true - you could put off a career until "later" and have babies now - if you wanted to. It's a choice.

Whites, by all appearances, have foregone the long term choice (furthering the human race) for the short term choice (the college experience).

It's almost...shall I say it?....barbaric."

Are you Jewish by any chance? This is Alinsky 101.

Anonymous Robert in Arabia December 30, 2013 11:50 PM  

i was once described as a fascist with nazi sympathies. Au contraire.

Blogger Nate December 31, 2013 12:07 AM  

"Right, because Roissy, for example, lacks the data to make informed decisions that his skirt-chasing antics is ultimately "the wrong choice".

I say fuck liberty. I'm dedicating my entire life to doing what Nate says is "correct" or "moral" or "just". After all, he has the "information"."

What the hell are you talking about?

Why don't you try to learn to read before you comment moron. None of what you said is even remotely applicable to my comments.

Blogger Nate December 31, 2013 12:10 AM  

"Only in progressive-speak could closing the womb be considered a long time preference."

Porky.. the part you're missing is... the chicks have no idea they are choosing to close the womb. Seriously are you new here? Read the blog. There are literally hundreds of posts dealing with the fact that women think they can "have it all". That means they are NOT choosing to not have kids. They think they still can.

That is why I say they are making bad choices based on bad information.

They've been lied to. They believe the lies.

Anonymous Anonymous December 31, 2013 12:29 AM  

Vox, you said: "The fact that some people are observably incapable of living in an advanced civilization does not justify harming them or treating them as sub-human. There is no reason they should not be able to live in the sort of society in which their predecessors have successfully lived for thousands of years."

I think, Vox, you are missing the hazard of what you are doing here. It seems like you are not combining this realization of differences between races with your often stated truth of MPAI.

If you take a world full of idiots and expose them to the truth of differences between races, they will all then tend to run off and make incorrect (and arrogant) inferences about inferiority and superiority. Why? Because as you noted, they are stupid.

Maybe, in a world full of idiots, it's better that we don't find out that there are differences? Maybe it would be a virtuous lie to keep this from them? So that in their traumatized state of mental pubescence the world's idiots don't adopt false superiority complexes?

Anonymous Porky December 31, 2013 1:17 AM  

That means they are NOT choosing to not have kids. They think they still can.

Erm... I think the reason that the marshmallow experiment worked is because A) every kid likes marshmallows, and B) every kid likes two marshmallows more than one.

It's senseless to try to portray the fertility rate in the same vein because there are multiple rewards being offered. If you tell a kid he can have a marshmallow, but if he waits he can have qumquat - it says less about time prefs and more about whether the kid likes qumquats.

There's some women who simply don't want kids.

Blogger rycamor December 31, 2013 1:44 AM  

The thing about civilization is that it is *very* nice to be the guy at the top, or even anywhere near the top. You get the power to mold your environment just the way you want. You can buy a piece of land that looks just the way you want, build a house that looks the way you want, eat what you want, even if it happens to be fresh salmon flown in from Alaska every afternoon. You get to choose not to have your eyes assaulted by the drab sameness and ugliness produced by the other 99.5% of humanity, except as an abstraction that you see on the news from time to time.

It is an intoxicating kind of power, once you taste a little bit of it. Everyone within a civilization perceives that this power exists, even if his perception is a ridiculous Hollywood-fueled caricature. Everyone wants some of this, a little more of this, and as long as they perceive that civilization has a "deal" with them whereby it is possible to at least get a little more if they work harder, they will do so.

In one sense civilization is the ultimate Ponzi scheme. The guy at the bottom who has to work his ass off to support it would have it much easier as a grass-hut dweller in Bongo Bongo Land. But, he at least hopes his children can enjoy some of the fruits of his labor. And each person up the chain from that has it a little bit easier in one way or another.

Also part of the great unspoken "deal" is that humanity gets to create things. Even though I prefer the country to the city, there are some very cool things to see in some cities (mostly not American cities, unfortunately, infected as they were by the totalitarian ugliness of modern utility). It is gratifying to the human heart to see one's society construct a Hoover Dam, or a Transatlantic cable. Civilized men from the bottom to the top of the social chain love the idea of being even a small part of the creation of something. Building a road, raising a roof, sculpting a garden, coding a piece of software...

As long as this unspoken, amorphous "deal" is in effect, or at least perceived to be in effect, the men at various stages down to the base of civilization's pyramid will continue to work hard to play by its rules, in the hopes of partaking in it. However, when deal stops being honored, when what is created stops gratifying the heart, when more energy is spent on ugliness than beauty, civilization gets distorted, and the shape of the pyramid begins to change. Those at the bottom find ways to cheat and steal, AS DO those at the top. Those in the middle soon become the only force holding civilization together.

Woe betide the society whose middle finally gives up on the deal.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 31, 2013 2:27 AM  

Maybe, in a world full of idiots, it's better that we don't find out that there are differences? Maybe it would be a virtuous lie to keep this from them? So that in their traumatized state of mental pubescence the world's idiots don't adopt false superiority complexes?

Well, it's the integrationists who insist on making the differences non-ignorable. It may be counter-intuitive, but a segregated society will actually accentuate individuality. Obviously within a segregated racial group, people will be judged on their individual traits rather than their racial ones, since there is by definition no racial differences between members of a segregated society.

But even for exceptional people who escape their racial boundaries and try to forge a life in the "wrong" community, though they will face a high initial hurdle, they do have the opportunity to eventually transcend the racial prejudices in a way they never could in an integrated society where large numbers of "people who look like them" continually reinforce racial stereotypes.

In other words, Clarence Thomas has better chance of being judged on his intellect and character if there isn't a pack of Trayvon Martin's running around reminding people where the stereotypes came from.

Anonymous Stilicho December 31, 2013 5:23 AM  

This is Alinsky 101.

Porky thought this was an instruction manual when Vox posted it:

"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

"Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.

"I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.

"Gradually I began to hate them."

Anonymous jasmer December 31, 2013 8:05 AM  

Vox said, "That's obviously not true. We just learned that modern humanity is not all the same sub-species about two years ago. And there isn't likely to be anything out there because, as far as I know, I'm the first to suggest that it requires hundreds of years for a human population to become entirely civilized.

You can't expect to find a lot of scientific studies for an original hypothesis from a non-scientist who doesn't apply for research grants."

Actual hypothesis are supposed to be based on something - logic, true science, or statistics.- aren't they? Am I just supposed to take being called a moron because I ask for your grounds as a somehow reasonable answer? Plus, it's certainly a moronic way to treat your customers, whether Redmond gets away with it or not.

The certainty of belief that we're all not the same sub-species is certainly not new; we just have another iteration of it with far more scientific legitimacy than craniometry and the like. Italians, Poles, and Irish all have experienced similar speculation, with good reason at the time... (A Renegade History of the United States is worth a read in this vein).

To be clear, I have no difficulty with genetic differences, nor time-to-civilization - as I'd wondered about them as a child growing up in international schools. How many children don't look at someone from Africa (or Italy) and wonder why they resemble a gorilla?

What I question is your apparent demand that everyone recognize a causative relationship, and attitude when asked to support it. Culture as the dominant factor is not only far more probable and easier to explain, but thoroughly documented in history.

Anonymous jasmer December 31, 2013 8:08 AM  

Jay Thomas said, "If you take a world full of idiots and expose them to the truth of differences between races, they will all then tend to run off and make incorrect (and arrogant) inferences about inferiority and superiority. Why? Because as you noted, they are stupid."

What, you don't believe that's already the case? American Progressives have been acting on that belief since before Margie Sanger.

Anonymous physphilmusic December 31, 2013 8:45 AM  

It's pretty interesting, and funny to me, that Vox has put my opinion forward as an example of left-liberal thinking. In fact, the very argumentative move Vox has executed here - catching the fact that many leftists would go full eugenics and genocide if they realized the reality of genetic differences - is one which I have tried in the past against actual leftists. I wouldn't consider myself a leftist nor a statist at all - it is only that I feel Vox is selectively choosing which injustices should not permitted, and which injustices are merely "hurt feelings."

Firstly, is this:
First, there is the determination to deny reality. The genetic differences between the various human population groups either exist or not. The intellectual and behavioral limits imposed by those genetic differences either exist or not."

My objection to this statement is that I am not convinced that we really know how much of a deficiency in genetically determined IQ can be offset by a good environment and societal structure (including culture), even on the macro level. HBD theorists tend to give the impression that they think everything is determined by genetics - something for which I haven't conclusively seen proven yet.

One doesn't need to go far to see some counterevidence to the thesis: for example, Northeast Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have a higher average IQ than Caucasians, yet we would not readily say that Asians and Jews are clearly more civilized than whites. Modern science did not arise in Asia, and so it seems that other factors besides IQ can influence what a group of people are capable of doing.

However, if indeed such a thesis is proven, the implications are vast - because it goes against the common belief that one can significantly mitigate bad genetics by striving to improve oneself - i.e., hard work and determination. Not everyone can become Albert Einstein, but most people, with a sufficient amount of guidance, education and support, should be able to reach some basic level of decency which allows them to at least not cause chaos in society. Everything about the American Dream, the conservative ethos, the Protestant work ethic, etc., in my understanding, topples down, or is significantly curtailed, if this is false. Thus, while I may be wrong, my not being convinced that everything is determined by genetics is not because I am a leftist who is committed to the blind equalitarian myth - instead, I am one of those conservatives who believe in personal responsibility and hard work.

Anonymous physphilmusic December 31, 2013 8:47 AM  

Second is this:
Segregation may advantage some and disadvantage others, it may cause many to feel hurt and rejected, but it does not intrinsically cause material harm to anyone; billions of people of every creed and color would not have historically self-segregated if it did.

Firstly, I disagree that segregation merely causes one to "feel hurt and rejected". For example, if you were barred from getting a decent job anywhere because some enemy of yours who is the mayor is spreading false gossip about you around town, technically no direct material harm is caused to you, yet I think it obvious that the impact on you is more than merely "hurt feelings". You are being deprived of opportunities which you normally deserve due to your skills. You have to work harder and live worse off through no fault of your own. While that isn't a violation of some basic right like living, it is an injustice which is morally wrong. One component which makes it especially wrong is because it is easily preventable. We can't guarantee everyone who works hard to be successful, but the mayor can certainly stop spreading malicious gossip about you.

This leads to my second point: that discriminating against decent, hardworking blacks in America is morally wrong, no matter what the consequences. This is a bit different from discriminating against foreigners, each of whom have their own country to live in. Blacks were brought here many years ago and their ancestors more than paid their share of hard work, so why don't they deserve the same opportunities as other Americans? There is a moral duty to give them that. There is a moral injustice in telling a J. Ernest Wilkins that studying mathematics won't change much about his situation, because he is black - an injustice more than merely hurting someone's feelings. If harboring hatred for a person is a sin, then discriminating against people for the sake of long terms societal benefits is certainly a sin as well.

I would even dare say that equality of opportunity and rewarding people fairly based on heir behavior and skills is a basic cornerstone of what constitutes a superior, more civilized moral code. (Remember, equality of opportunity, not equality of results - contrary to how Vox may have portrayed me, I am staunchly against the latter and all forms of affirmative action). In less civilized places, people obtain riches and power due to their family connections and backroom deals, instead of rewarding people who work hard. In the civilized West, while connections still play a huge role, merit is given far greater importance. Discarding this principle because it is not beneficial means that we are willing to sacrifice ideals for the sake of consequences. Such utilitarian reasoning is not something I can agree with, because it can be taken to much greater lengths.

Hence so far I have attempted to argue that discrimination is indeed a moral injustice. Thus to me, Vox is advocating for a certain injustice for the sake of societal benefits. Thus he is a using utilitarian reasoning. My pointing out that the logical consequence of this is eugenics and genocide is not reflective of the secret inner fascist inside of me - instead, it is the logical consequences of Vox's own views. Once again, I am no blind equalitarian. I do not believe in biological equality between the races. I do not even believe in the equal perfectibility of all races. And note that I am not against all forms of segregation - I am aware that a decent amount of segregation is both necessary, unavoidable, and even preferable to all races involved. But I believe there is a need to solve the dilemma that on the one hand the US (and some other Western countries) has a sizable number of blacks to whom we owe a certain moral duty to treat fairly, and on the other hand we have the fact that blind equalitarianism and fairness will only lead to failure and chaos. And for me Vox's solution to this is not one which resolves this dilemma in a sufficiently just and moral manner.

Blogger Nate December 31, 2013 8:59 AM  

"Erm... I think the reason that the marshmallow experiment worked is because A) every kid likes marshmallows, and B) every kid likes two marshmallows more than one."

/facepalm

Dammit porky...I'm not saying time preferences don't exist. I'm sayin in this one instance you're applying time preferences where they aren't applicable.

Anonymous physphilmusic December 31, 2013 9:17 AM  

Combing the previous thread again, I found that The Deuce produced an argument similar to mine, and Vox responded with this:
That's idiotic posturing. No one is talking about genocide. No one is talking about removing one cent of wealth from anyone. We're talking about the very thing that has made Switzerland one of the wealthiest, most peaceful places on Earth.

After decades of war, the various cantons were declared to be either Protestant or Catholic and all the Protestants in the Catholic cantons were kicked out and all the Catholics in the Protestant cantons were kicked out. Peace and prosperity followed. Were the Swiss barbaric?


Note that most of Vox says here is true. Yet, his response is essentially: "That's an overreaction, this isn't that bad of an injustice like genocide, this has been successful in other places!" He is clearly taking the utilitarian road here. This is what I find unacceptable.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate (and his pal, too) December 31, 2013 9:57 AM  

“Obviously within a segregated racial group, people will be judged on their individual traits rather than their racial ones, since there is by definition no racial differences between members of a segregated society.”

There are ETHNIC differences between members of a segregated society. Hence, people continue to make judgements regardless of individual worth. Are Hispanics “white”? Are they “included” with “whites” in your utopia?


“In other words, Clarence Thomas has better chance of being judged on his intellect and character if there isn't a pack of Trayvon Martin's running around reminding people where the stereotypes came from.”


OR, we can simply remind ourselves that those stereotypes only represent the traits of a certain segment of that overall population and treat people on a case-by-case basis.


“Why don't you try to learn to read before you comment moron. None of what you said is even remotely applicable to my comments.”

Your inner totalitarian is rearing its ugly head again. It is clear that women utterly lack the capacity to disseminate “good” from “bad” information. Men (or society), ultimately, have to make the choice for them. Go ahead, Nate, impose what you think is that “good” information for the benefit of humanity!

Anonymous Porky December 31, 2013 10:19 AM  

Dammit porky...I'm not saying time preferences don't exist. I'm sayin in this one instance you're applying time preferences where they aren't applicable.

That's kinda what I just said, Nate.

When my argument hits a dead end I admit it. I'm not one of those pajama boys that has to win every argument.

Anonymous Anonymous December 31, 2013 11:19 AM  

Jasmer said: "What, you don't believe that's already the case? American Progressives have been acting on that belief since before Margie Sanger."

I cannot deny that. Good point.

Anonymous Anonymous December 31, 2013 11:29 AM  

This black man sums up perfectly the cultural problems facing blacks. But he also thereby proves, with the right cultural exposure, that blacks can escape their own degenerating culture (as can anyone in any race).

Anonymous Luke December 31, 2013 12:04 PM  

Anonymous physphilmusic December 31, 2013 8:47 AM

"discriminating against decent, hardworking blacks in America is morally wrong, no matter what the consequences."

You ARE aware of what even the better blacks are disproportionately likely to have for progeny, aren't you?
Most of them are rarely that far from reversion to the mean (socialistically/criminal behaviorally ala O.J. Simpson). Too, a disproportionate fraction of them only have their "middle class" existence due to various types of welfare such as affirmative action and gov't jobs.

Blacks were brought here many years ago"

Yes, and whatever their (arguable) national utility pre-1960, they've unquestionably been an immense net negative for the U.S. since then. With modern transport such as commercial airlines, this is correctable and 100% reversible in a single day for any black advocate of "SLAVERY REPARATIONS NOW".

Lastly, why can't there be some minimal restrictions on who can bear children (especially subsequently hanging onto to rear post-birth, imparting personal culture to)? I can't see how anyone can defend the sub-70s (g) having progeny any more than known positives for Huntingdon's Chorea, Sickle Cell Anemia, or Tay-Sachs should reproduce (at least without going through a fertility clinic to screen out those alleles). This goes triply until such time as the welfare state gets its overdue stake through the heart; let those who WANT to bear gibbering paralytics either pay for it themselves, or at least only get the dough to fund it via (inevitably sparse) contributions.

I will note here that I have long believed bastard births not adopted out/parents not married quickly should go into some kind of Janissaries (sent overseas forever) that rarely or never get permission to come back to the U.S., have children here, or (above all) vote or receive welfare. A fair case could be made that divorce in fecund marriages resulting in mother-custody should be considered a retroactive bastardization, too...

Blogger James Dixon December 31, 2013 12:35 PM  

> Will you offer another definition that goes more directly to the root of the matter?

Well, first let me acknowledge that your definition: Cities, and the arts of living in them, and the arts that can be practiced better with them than without them, has a valid point. Historically, that's what the civilizations we trace back to were. That's why Athens, Sparta, and Rome are so important to our history. However, even historically, that wasn't entirely true. The Egyptians, Chinese, and other civilizations spanned large areas, not just cities.

So, let's start with the dictionary:

1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2. those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3.any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group.
4.the act or process of civilizing or being civilized.
5.cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation:

1, 2, 3, and 5 are applicable and have all been referenced in on way or another in this discussion. But all are amorphous and subjective. None have anything specific to do with cities, however. And none get to the "root", as you request.

So, being a provincial American, allow me to propose one: The understanding, recognition, and practice of natural law in human affairs.

> Strictly speaking, that's all civilization is: city-building.

See above.

> 
OR, we can simply remind ourselves that those stereotypes only represent the traits of a certain segment of that overall population and treat people on a case-by-case basis.

Good luck with that. Though it is a very Christian viewpoint.

Anonymous VD December 31, 2013 12:41 PM  

He is clearly taking the utilitarian road here. This is what I find unacceptable.

And this is why I will show you zero sympathy when your daughters are raped, your sons are murdered, and your civilization collapses into savagery and chaos. You are knowingly choosing the Hell in which you are going to dwell, simply because you want to feel good about yourself.

That is remarkably stupid. I find it contemptible.

You were warned. And you chose to ignore the warning.

Anonymous Stanley December 31, 2013 4:55 PM  

Its important to acknowledge the truth about racial differences regardless of who's feeling are hurt or how someone may react to the implosion of the equality fairy tale.

Its important because not accepting the reality of real racial differences between groups, allows the anti-white LEFT to insert their own explanation for inequality (racist white people), that they then use to justify the discrimination, hostility, dispossession and eventual genocide of whites...which is occurring in EVERY white country on Earth through non-white immigration and pressure to "assimilate".

The LEFT knows that their quest for equality requires the elimination of white people. They state that openly and with great satisfaction.

Diversity will be achieved when there are no longer any white people.

Diversity is a code-word for white genocide.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic December 31, 2013 6:13 PM  

The understanding, recognition, and practice of natural law in human affairs.

Do you know what 'civis' means? That definition is out of whole cloth. 'Natural law' for a hunter-gatherer tribe is kill or be killed.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2013 8:03 PM  

Shut Up, Nate (and his pal, too): "There are ETHNIC differences between members of a segregated society. Hence, people continue to make judgements regardless of individual worth. Are Hispanics “white”? Are they “included” with “whites” in your utopia?"

Solution!

What we need for perfect bliss is segregated nations where everyone is the same race and ethnicity, so for example you could have a country called "Sweden" which was for the Swedes, who were all white, and everybody would be judging each other on their individual character.

Paradise!

They paved paradise...

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2013 8:32 PM  

James Dixon: "Well, first let me acknowledge that your definition: Cities, and the arts of living in them, and the arts that can be practiced better with them than without them, has a valid point. Historically, that's what the civilizations we trace back to were. That's why Athens, Sparta, and Rome are so important to our history."

Thanks for the acknowledgement. And this is indeed the history that led me to my definition.

James Dixon: "However, even historically, that wasn't entirely true. The Egyptians, Chinese, and other civilizations spanned large areas, not just cities."

I would argue that the nomes of Egypt were informed by arts that are better practiced with cities than without them. And "informed" in a friendly way, not in a hostile and predatory way like the Mongols. They didn't have the kind of culture that a nomad has, who has nothing but what is in his head, in his hand or on the back of his beast of burden. Art, literature, knowledge of engineering and medicine, politics and law were all cumulative even for peasants who lived far from cities, as they were part of the same national community with educated priests. (And they didn't live that far from cities. The banks of the Nile were almost pervasively built up, and the fertile soil of the Nile didn't extend that far from the banks of the river.) A peasant whose land is bounded by a settled body of written ethical teachings and written records as much as by pegs in the earth, whose medical treatments when he is injured reflects generations of cumulative study, and who trusts for his hopes after death in Osiris, with a doctrine of "becoming Osiris" elaborated by sophisticated sedentary temple priests, is civilized; he is not at all like a barbarian in his character.

James Dixon: "So, let's start with the dictionary:

1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2. those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3.any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group.
4.the act or process of civilizing or being civilized.
5.cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation:

1, 2, 3, and 5 are applicable and have all been referenced in on way or another in this discussion. But all are amorphous and subjective. None have anything specific to do with cities, however. And none get to the "root", as you request.

So, being a provincial American, allow me to propose one: The understanding, recognition, and practice of natural law in human affairs."

My problem with that is - instantly - I can imagine politically correct liars saying that Australian Aboriginals had a higher civilization than the British colonists, or that native American "Indians" had a higher civilization than the Pilgrim Fathers, because they lived more in keeping with "natural law" and their native religions recognized "nature" or "natural law" more than Christianity.

In other words, I think this is way too vague and subjective. There is too much "wriggle room". A better definition would be more concrete and explicit. And I think I've already give it.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2013 8:45 PM  

A back-woods colonist whose thoughts are full of Shakespeare, Virgil and the King James Bible, and whose fondest hopes involve a church wedding is not what I think of as "uncivilized".

A hood who lives in Detroit but has nothing to do with the qualities that built it, maintained it and covered it with glory, but only with the qualities that are destroying it, is not what I think of as "civilized". Being dilatory and inefficient, he may squat longer in one place than a Mongol army destroying a city efficiently in days, but he is on the same side as far as the story of "civilization" is concerned.

Blogger James Dixon December 31, 2013 8:46 PM  

> Do you know what 'civis' means?

Yes. And how is that applicable to the modern meaning, which I quoted?

> My problem with that is - instantly - I can imagine politically correct liars saying that Australian Aboriginals had a higher civilization than the British colonists, or that native American "Indians" had a higher civilization than the Pilgrim Fathers, because they lived more in keeping with "natural law" and their native religions recognized "nature" or "natural law" more than Christianity.

I'm sure they would. People who want to pretend that natural law doesn't exist are always trying to redefine the term. Liars will always try to lie. But that doesn't change the actual meaning of natural law.

> A better definition would be more concrete and explicit. And I think I've already give it.

You asked, I complied. You're free to disagree of course. I expect most people who think civilization was ever fully dependent on cities will. As I said, they have a very narrow view of civilization.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2013 9:02 PM  

James Dixon: "You asked, I complied. You're free to disagree of course. I expect most people who think civilization was ever fully dependent on cities will. As I said, they have a very narrow view of civilization."

Fair enough. As you say: I asked, you answered.

At least I understand you better now. At first I thought your answer was strange. "Cities, and the arts of living in them, and the arts that can be practiced better with them than without them..." does not lead to only a short, highly restricted list of arts that might be called "civilized", so I was thinking: "very narrow - 'any art that can be practiced better with some urban input' is 'very narrow'?"

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2013 9:40 PM  

I think the questions "is this civilized" and "is this good?" have little to do with each other. A person or a thing may be good and civilized, good and uncivilized, evil and civilized, or evil and uncivilized. So questions regarding civilization and the lack of it can be discussed neutrally, without implicit moral claims.

Do you think the same? Or for you, is harmony with natural law good and lack of harmony with natural law evil?

Anonymous p-dawg January 01, 2014 12:09 AM  

@Nate: ""It is fully a disease of the degenerate."

unless you happened to get a bad blood transfusion..."

Just to point out, if you follow the Scriptural health laws, you will not ever have this happen to you. It's not possible. The only way to get a bad blood transfusion of any type, AIDS-infected or otherwise, is to break the law of the Creator. Similarly, the only way to contract AIDS at all is to break the law of the Creator. Odd, that.

Blogger TangoMan January 01, 2014 5:19 AM  

physphilmusic

However, if indeed such a thesis is proven, the implications are vast - because it goes against the common belief that one can significantly mitigate bad genetics by striving to improve oneself - i.e., hard work and determination. Not everyone can become Albert Einstein, but most people, with a sufficient amount of guidance, education and support, should be able to reach some basic level of decency which allows them to at least not cause chaos in society. Everything about the American Dream, the conservative ethos, the Protestant work ethic, etc., in my understanding, topples down, or is significantly curtailed, if this is false.

A complete strawman you've erected and here's why:

#1.) There are two sides to this coin, and:
#2.) The underlying reality doesn't change whether we recognize it or not.

First #1. IF culture is everything, then a kid raised in a "bad" culture is doomed by his early exposure to that culture. There presently exist no cultural "accelerators" which can supercharge his cultural progress so that he eventually reaches parity with his peers who didn't suffer from his cultural handicap.

Moreover, it is the exact reverse situation, an acknowledgement of genetic influences, which actually allows a child with above average potential born into a dysfunctional cultural environment to rise above his peers despite the negative cultural baggage he's carrying. In such a case the child doesn't need to appeal to a mythical cultural "accelerator" to aid his journey from cultural dysfunction, rather he can rise based on his inherent talent, personality, proclivities, and climb the social and education and economic mobility ladders. The repeated failures of Head Start type initiatives to impart enhanced intellect and personality changes which "stick" with the kids as the mature into adulthood should be a warning sign to you.

Now on to point #2. The world you describe exists divorced from the rationales you cite. People do work hard, people do improve themselves, the American Dream is realized and none of this is dependent on cultural teachings. We see some kids do better than their siblings, we see some families do better than their identical cultural peers. If culture was everything, then this wouldn't be possible. Children raised in the same family have remarkably similar environmental influences washing over them, same with people from the same cultures, and so we should expect that the outcomes produced by these "black boxes" would be nearly identical. Clearly this isn't happening.

The point is that what you attribute to culture is more likely attributable to individual genetic differences. How do you teach a child to be determined and studious? If a child's personality leans towards being determined and studious then when that personality is expressed the child will reap the benefits and consequences which follow from that behavior.

Finally, nothing changes in terms of individual outcomes whether we acknowledge the process or not. The sun rises every morning whether you believe it to or not, or whether you believe in geocentrism or heliocentrism. Whatever positive aspects you believe flow from "improving oneself" these exist apart from an exclusive causal relationship between cultural practices and personal outcomes.

Blogger TangoMan January 01, 2014 6:05 AM  

that discriminating against decent, hardworking blacks in America is morally wrong, no matter what the consequences.

Discrimination is simply a synonym for freedom of association. Do you discriminate in your choice of spouse, in your choice of friends or do you accept the first person who comes along?

A slim woman is different from a fat woman so if you prefer to marry a slim woman is it morally wrong of you to not want to romantically associate with a fat woman? Why do associations which intersect with race get walled off by you and why are they subjected to special rules? An ugly woman is born that way, a woman with a caustic personality is born that way just like a person is born with a racial heritage. We all discriminate on all sorts of metrics and many of those metrics are focused on features which can't be changed, so what makes race so different from appearance, personality, stature, health, etc?

Realize that in order to exercise your human right to free association you must reject some associations, in other words, you must discriminate against some people who want to associate with you and not return the favor. To eliminate the process of discrimination entails gutting your freedom to exercise discretion in shaping your associations in life. In such a world, a woman who prefers to be examined by a female physician should be forced to be examined by a male physician for when we allow her to discriminate on the basis of sex she is doing something morally wrong in your eyes and so your totalitarian correction will remedy her moral wrongdoing, for her own good I imagine.

so why don't they deserve the same opportunities as other Americans? There is a moral duty to give them that.

Having access to "same opportunities" does not have to be linked to gutting people's rights to exercise free associations. Every woman has the same opportunity to marry Tom Cruise but that doesn't imply that Tom Cruise has to submit to marrying every woman who wants to be his wife. Or to put it into more familiar terms . . your right to swing your fist is unrestricted so long as your fist doesn't intersect with my face. There are no societal restriction on opportunities which are based on race in America and this would continue to be the case even if individuals could again freely exercise their rights to free association in the field of employment practices.

Blogger TangoMan January 01, 2014 6:08 AM  

I would even dare say that equality of opportunity and rewarding people fairly based on heir behavior and skills is a basic cornerstone of what constitutes a superior, more civilized moral code.

Fine. Keep in mind though that without active intervention by "scorekeepers" what will result from such a meritocracy is a racial caste-like society, with fuzzy boundaries of course.

(Remember, equality of opportunity, not equality of results - contrary to how Vox may have portrayed me, I am staunchly against the latter and all forms of affirmative action).

Look at what happened to UCLA undergraduate admissions immediately after California passed Proposition 209, a ban on affirmative action, - black admissions fell to just 96 freshman the following year. This still pisses off many black people today. A world of perfect equal opportunity married to a world of meritocracy is going to produce significant racial stratification. This is not a stable situation in a democracy where every vote counts equally. If people can use their power at the ballot box to produce equal outcomes when they're failing to achieve such outcomes via equal opportunity, then they'll quite likely exercise that power. You can push back, of course, but be aware of the outcome which results from your position. Also keep in mind that changing demographics are going to increase the effect size of this process going forward into the future.

My point is that there is no middle ground resolution here and the problem is likely unsolvable - some group is going to have a sacrifice a key issue here - either whites have to reconcile themselves and their children to living in a quota society or blacks have to see many avenues of advancement closed off to them because, as individuals, most of them can't compete in a fair sorting system.

My pointing out that the logical consequence of this is eugenics and genocide is not reflective of the secret inner fascist inside of me - instead, it is the logical consequences of Vox's own views.

Simply because you write "logical consequence" doesn't mean that your argument has made the case. This is just handwaving. on your part.

Here are two immediately recognizable problems with your statement. First off, eugenics is a morally neutral term in its classic definition. It simply means to improve the human species. The moral problems arise with procedures. When you select a spouse based on her health, appearance, personality, especially if you do so with an eye to how your children will turn out, you are engaged in personal level eugenic screening. Same too with Jews who submit to Tay-Sachs screenings before getting married. Where is the moral evil in these practices? The evil associated with eugenics arises from state coercion involving death, sterilization and forcible medical procedures to affect the eugenic goals. There are many roads which one can follow to implement eugenic goals without having to rape a person's liberty.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 01, 2014 7:46 PM  

In no way need equality of opportunity lead to racial stratification.

Non-white mass immigration into all white countries and only white countries means that equality of opportunity will lead to racial stratification in all formerly white countries.

But that would not have been the case in historically white countries, where there was no "racial" issue because everyone was white and the move was not on to define the white race as a problem and solve the problem by blending whites out.

Nor would equality of opportunity lead to racial stratification in non-white mono-racial nations today and in the future.

Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, white countries for everybody. There's your problem. Equality of opportunity is not the problem.

Anonymous JJ January 02, 2014 7:24 PM  

My god Porky is insufferable. Also passive aggressiveness is so damn petty. Just be forthright in your antiwhite hostility. Its also beyond stupidity to claim whites having just enough kids that they can afford is somehow barbaric, especially in comparison to those who have so many kids that they starve to death without charity. I mean, do you not know where "surplus" kids go? At least abortion is more humane.

Blogger Baloo January 03, 2014 4:43 PM  

I've reblogged this an quibcagged it. Many thanks for another good one.
Something for White liberals to think about, if they ever get around to thinking.

Anonymous Anonymous January 08, 2014 12:02 PM  

Plus when you argue with 'feelings' you can't ever be wrong. Unlike when facts are used.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts