ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, December 08, 2014

Fertilizer is not prevention

I very much enjoy reading VDH's historical works, but I've never seen a better historian so completely unable to correctly apply the lessons of history to current events:
The ancient ingredients of war are all on the horizon. An old postwar order crumbles amid American indifference. Hopes for true democracy in post-Soviet Russia, newly capitalist China or ascendant Turkey long ago were dashed. Tribalism, fundamentalism and terrorism are the norms in the Middle East as the nation-state disappears.

Under such conditions, history’s wars usually start when some opportunistic — but often relatively weaker — power does something unwise on the gamble that the perceived benefits outweigh the risks. That belligerence is only prevented when more powerful countries collectively make it clear to the aggressor that it would be suicidal to start a war that would end in the aggressor’s sure defeat.

What is scary in these unstable times is that a powerful United States either thinks that it is weak or believes that its past oversight of the postwar order was either wrong or too costly — or that after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, America is no longer a force for positive change.

A large war is looming, one that will be far more costly than the preventative vigilance that might have stopped it.
He's correct that a large war is looming. Where exactly it will start, or which sides the various parties will take, is presently unknown. But VDH appears to have completely ignored the lessons of the Athenian adventure at Syracuse about which he wrote so informatively, and to have ignored that the collapse of the "nation-state" in the Levant was always inevitable due to the artificial and externally imposed nature of their creations; they were never nations in the first place.

That is why we can safely assume that the "nation-states" in Africa will continue to collapse as well. And, of course, that is why the "powerful" United States has been rendered increasingly impotent; it is no longer a homogenous white Christian nation committed to Anglo-Saxon ideals. Indeed, one cannot truly consider it a nation at all, it is best described as an imperial multi-national, multi-ethnic state akin to the Byzantine, Roman, and Austro-Hungarian empires.

Labels: ,

67 Comments:

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 08, 2014 9:35 AM  

He has a script and is sticking to it, and since he is a true intellectual he is as incurious as the marching morons of Ferguson.

Blogger Josh December 08, 2014 9:51 AM  

or that after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, America is no longer a force for positive change.

When was the last time we had a successful intervention that didn't result in devastating blowback? Grenada?

Blogger pyrrhus December 08, 2014 9:54 AM  

Most of the world is clannish/tribal, it is the default system of humanity, and works, especially since most of the world is low IQ. VDH's delusions wouldn't be so lethal if he knew anything about genetics or anthropology. As you point out, his knowledge of history outside ancient Greece seems pretty weak too.

Blogger Mindstorm December 08, 2014 9:55 AM  

Hmm, somehow it reminds me of the former wildfire suppression scheme in the Yellowstone Park....

Anonymous Porky December 08, 2014 9:59 AM  

This is a dream from Obama's father - to tear down the artificial partitions of his former British overlords.

Blogger Owen December 08, 2014 10:10 AM  

Josh,
Panama.

Anonymous cheddarman December 08, 2014 10:18 AM  

The statement "America is no longer a force for positive change" is very revealing about Hansen and his fellow liberals. Hansen seems to be a true believer in the ability of "America" to change human nature, and overpower forces like genetics, culture, tribal and family loyalty, and religion that have traditionally shaped human behavior.

On the other hand, if we import enough people from the 3rd world who have not been corrupted by a western material world view, we may harness their collective belief in magic and make America the force for global good that the liberals have always wanted us to be.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 08, 2014 10:18 AM  

American conservatives will not for the most part leave the year 1945. The Left is busy auto-delegitimizing the state and conservatives fuss about building air craft carriers so they can carry on the legacy of liberating the jews from the Nazis and making Japanese dudes wear western clothing for the never ending surrender ceremony. The last part is hyperbole on my part, I can't remember seeing any Pearl Harbor stories this year outside of FreeRepublic.

Blogger Bob Wallace December 08, 2014 10:22 AM  

He believes in leftwing evil like democracy? He is truly deluded.

Blogger njartist December 08, 2014 10:29 AM  

Where to even begin. I am simply too astounded by this fellow's arrogance.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 08, 2014 10:31 AM  

The President is trying to hold it together with words

Anonymous Anonymous December 08, 2014 10:38 AM  

" Indeed, one cannot truly consider it a nation at all, it is best described as an imperial multi-national, multi-ethnic state akin to the Byzantine, Roman, and Austro-Hungarian empires."

And, again, as Pat Buchanan observed recently, "Today, in 2014, after an influx of perhaps 50 million in 50 years, legal and illegal, no longer from Northwest Europe, or Europe at all, but Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, of every race, color, creed, culture and language, we seem less a nation than some mammoth Mall of America. An economy, but not a country."

The continuing cognitive dissonance of much our elite and our population over this matter is one of our biggest problems. On the one hand, we want a free and stable nation that allows us our version of the "pursuit of happiness". On the other, we are devoted to our Christian and British-rooted (whether we recognize the origins or not) legal and governing traditions, and take it for granted that massive numbers of Third Worlders will simply acquiesce to this, as if it's some sort of fait accompli.

As you continue to expound, VD, there will come a point when folks will grow weary of the cosmopolitan, multi-culti fantasy that only seems to rob them, their homes and communities of everything that made them homes and communities in the first place. It will no longer matter that they're being called racists and castigated for their "white privilege"; a visceral, fundamental desire to defend US against THEM - some of this legitimate, some of it not - will result in the bloodletting that you have predicted time and again. And all of it because we/they refuse to deal with reality.

Regards,
David Smith

Anonymous ZhukovG December 08, 2014 10:39 AM  

I have argued that the United States has been a multi cultural empire since at least 1850. Setting aside our global presence, most of the area comprising the 50 states was won through imperial conquest at some time or other.

The only way the US has gotten away with being a multi ethnic, multi cultural empire is that for much of our history the vast majority of the population was pacified by increasing material prosperity. With the elite now brazenly looting the nation, that support is removed.

As time passes, each group will feel more and more aggrieved, more and more entitled. Small tears in the social fabric will widen and group on group violence will increase.

Austria Hungary was fortunate in that, for the most part, each group occupied a specific geographic space. So splitting the empire was much cleaner than it might have been. The United States has some specific cultural areas, but even within those significant number of other groups exist.

The sorting out, will be ugly.

Blogger jimmy-jimbo December 08, 2014 10:40 AM  

"a powerful United States either thinks that it is weak or believes that its past oversight of the postwar order was either wrong or too costly"

He isn't wrong to say this. I'm not sure why he is criticized for stating the obvious. The US is still powerful, but it is sure weak because it has poor leadership resulting from a demographics deterioration. And its adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the US even weaker. Thus, if we can't kick around Africa, what hope is there that we can deal with China and Russia?

Blogger Rabbi B December 08, 2014 10:41 AM  

"America is no longer a force for positive change." - VDH

" . . . the ability of "America" to change human nature, and overpower forces like genetics, culture, tribal and family loyalty, and religion that have traditionally shaped human behavior." - Cheddarman

Ours is a nation of busybodies that needs to learn how to leave others well-enough alone. We ought to make it our ambition to lead quieter lives and mind our own business. Perhaps then outsiders will begin to perceive us as a force for positive change rather than a despised meddler, continually rushing into quarrels that are not its own.

Anonymous BillB December 08, 2014 10:44 AM  

Point of fact: The United States are not a nation. No nation known as the United States was ever created. The Framers removed all references to nation and national from the Constitution because they were NOT founding a nation.

Those who are neither stupid nor ignorant can read the Constitution and comprehend that the Constitution always refers to the United States in the plural, as in "them" and their". Only ignorant and stupid people continue to be brain-washed by the socialist Pledge of Allegiance, a pledge that has the Found Fathers spinning in their graves whenever it is recited.

The US is a UNION of 50 nations. These nations may fall away as the Union collapses. They may form new associations or they may stand alone until overrun.

Failure to understand the form of government and the limitations have brought us to this point and destroyed what was created.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 08, 2014 10:47 AM  

Vox is completely right. America's Founding Fathers were Masonic. Masonry teaches the "Brotherhood of Man" so all humans are equal and the same. Those FFofA that weren't actually Masonic brothers, others like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were fellow travelers. The intellectual basis of America is Freemasonry. America is a multi-ethnic country that is collapsing. It will break apart somehow.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 08, 2014 10:57 AM  

The FBI and DOJ knew that they could not let Wilson be charged with Browns shooting.

Why, because they would have to provide the transcript of the interview with one of the lying vibrants (Dorian Johnson) and then people would be more informed about how the Government Multicultural Conspiracy works.

Anonymous Roundtine December 08, 2014 11:07 AM  

America's conservatives refuse to acknowledge the Cold War is over.

Blogger Lina Rose December 08, 2014 11:09 AM  

http://codygreviews.blogspot.com/

Blogger Josh December 08, 2014 11:09 AM  


Vox is completely right. America's Founding Fathers were Masonic. Masonry teaches the "Brotherhood of Man" so all humans are equal and the same. Those FFofA that weren't actually Masonic brothers, others like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were fellow travelers. The intellectual basis of America is Freemasonry. America is a multi-ethnic country that is collapsing. It will break apart somehow.


Funny how those "all men are the same" folks had slaves and severely restricted the voting franchise to white men with property...

I'm afraid you've confused the American revolution with the French.

Blogger CarpeOro December 08, 2014 11:17 AM  

"What is scary in these unstable times is that a powerful United States either thinks that it is weak or believes that its past oversight of the postwar order was either wrong or too costly — or that after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, America is no longer a force for positive change."

Good grief, that whole paragraph is so off the mark it is excruciating. However, this isn't a "liberal" paragraph so much as a Neo-con one. Absolutely no recognition of the limitations of military solutions. Or the failure of imposing "democracy" from the top or from outside in a culture with no tradition of it in the society. I suppose Korea could be pointed out as a success, but I am stumped to find others that didn't go through centuries to get to a relative level of stability. Latin America for example. Nearly two centuries to achieve the "stability" they have today.

Anonymous Will Best December 08, 2014 11:19 AM  

Point of fact: The United States are not a nation. No nation known as the United States was ever created.

You sir are mistaken. It was created in 1865.

Blogger Jordan179 December 08, 2014 11:29 AM  

Indeed, one cannot truly consider it a nation at all, it is best described as an imperial multi-national, multi-ethnic state akin to the Byzantine, Roman, and Austro-Hungarian empires.

This is exactly what the Axis thought in 1941. Four years later, its leaders cowered in bunkers as death rained down on their cities from the air and powerfu Allied armies drove on their capitals.

Blogger Tank December 08, 2014 11:35 AM  

He's correct that a large war is looming. Where exactly it will start, or which sides the various parties will take, is presently unknown. But VDH appears to have completely ignored the lessons of the Athenian adventure at Syracuse ..

As a result of this Blog, I actually know what this means LOL. While visiting Siracusa two years ago, we had an amazing discussion with the guide I hired about the Athens "situation" with her pointing out various places the ships were, where they were on land, etc. I've rarely gotten such a kick out of history. The guide was amazed to be able to talk to an American about it.

As far as our Nation becoming a non-Nation, not only don't the elite recognize it, it's practically a criminal act to "notice" it.

Blogger Josh December 08, 2014 11:35 AM  

American conservatives will not for the most part leave the year 1945.

...

This is exactly what the Axis thought in 1941. Four years later, its leaders cowered in bunkers as death rained down on their cities from the air and powerfu Allied armies drove on their capitals.


Well done, everyone!

Anonymous PA December 08, 2014 11:41 AM  

A pre-1965 America was nation-enough, especially allowing for regional differences. Any of us could still run into a White American oversees and instantly identify each other as compatriots, regardless of your state of residence.

White America is a nation. Pre-politucal correctness, Black Americans were also seen as fellow nationals, albeit a funkier, jive talking subset.

Flooding America with Coloreds put an end to nationhood. With brown faces in our government and at gas stations in bumfuck Arkansas, the population of the US as a whole is not a nation in any meaningful sense.

It's

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 08, 2014 11:46 AM  

Here, I fixed for you: You sir are mistaken. It was re-created in 1865.

Blogger Josh December 08, 2014 11:47 AM  

White America is a nation.

Wrong.

Anonymous Anonymous December 08, 2014 11:53 AM  

@Will Best: "It [i.e. The United States as a consolidated nation] was created in 1865."

Yep, at least according to Lincoln, the Republicans, along with their cultural and intellectual heirs today! Of course calling this a "nation" doesn't make it so! But they don't want facts getting in the way of the maintenance of their power and profits!

Regards,
David Smith

Anonymous Quartermaster December 08, 2014 11:55 AM  

Too many historians have a problem getting past the peace of Westphalia and misapply the outcome. VDH is one of many in that boat.

The problem with nation-states is there are really few of them. Even the US is not one, and was never meant to be one. Even if you disagree with that, it certainly is not one now. Multi-cult countries can not be a nation state because of intruders. Eventually such countries will split. Whether they do so peacefully, or violently, they will do so.

There are serious cracks in the US edifice, and I do not see it lasting much longer.

Anonymous Porky December 08, 2014 12:26 PM  

The "Peace" of Westphalia is such a misnomer.

Go to 3 minutes in.

Anonymous Curtis December 08, 2014 12:48 PM  

Nicias tried to tell them. And despite this, the Athenians made him their general. In the end, the Syracusians threw his body outside their gate as a spectacle.

And another angel followed, saying, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”

Anonymous old coyote December 08, 2014 1:07 PM  

"white america is a nation- wrong." true. it WAS a nation (tribe) originally, created by white europeans (brits) and helped along with other europeans. but british (roman) to the core, imperialist to the core, and conquering all the world until the illuminati conspiracy (read albert pike) initiated before/after the french revolution, and then the first two world wars, has come to fruition. now the goyim white race must throw their children into molochs furnace (WWIII) so that "the chosen" might inherit their jerusalem.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus December 08, 2014 1:15 PM  

"This is exactly what the Axis thought in 1941. Four years later, its leaders cowered in bunkers as death rained down on their cities from the air and powerfu Allied armies drove on their capitals."

That's because in 1941, the Axis leaders were wrong to think so.

In 2014, they would not be wrong to think so.

BTW, I'd like to pitch to the Ilk this great new idea I had for a series of sci-fi stories! The protagonist is a female crime-fighter named Andi Gravity who goes around the galaxy solving cases of gang rape and hate crimes against gays on interstellar college campuses! Does this sound great or what??

Anonymous Mike December 08, 2014 1:20 PM  

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear left libertarians cheer open borders. I ask them for ONE measly example of a libertarian, multicultural empire, and they give me that ideologue-in-the-headlights stare.

Anonymous Corvinus December 08, 2014 1:31 PM  

American conservatives will not for the most part leave the year 1945.

...

This is exactly what the Axis thought in 1941. Four years later, its leaders cowered in bunkers as death rained down on their cities from the air and powerfu Allied armies drove on their capitals.

Well done, everyone!


Or, rather: Q.E.D.

And SJWs won't leave the year 1968.

Anonymous Dumb founded December 08, 2014 1:43 PM  

"This is exactly what the Axis thought in 1941. Four years later, its leaders cowered in bunkers as death rained down on their cities from the air and powerfu Allied armies drove on their capitals."

When the Jews in those countries united to destroy that which they feared, what do you expect?

Blogger Josh December 08, 2014 1:46 PM  

When the Jews in those countries united to destroy that which they feared, what do you expect?

So the Jews were powerful enough to get the entire world to fight against Hitler, but not powerful enough to do so before he killed six million of their fellow Jews?

Anonymous Eric Ashley December 08, 2014 1:47 PM  

Rabbi, the US will be despised. On this very blog we have a variety of foreigners begging us to help them out, or to stop helping their enemies out. Help them, we're meddlers. Don't help, and we 're cold blooded hypocrites who are too weak to fight.

Its like dealing with a stereotypical teenager...."I hate you, can i have twenty dollars?'

There is a reason VDH is arrogant. He's American.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera December 08, 2014 1:56 PM  

>And SJWs won't leave the year 1968.

I'm starting to wonder if there is a theory of arrested development hiding in these sorts of statements. Has anyone really asked why baby boomers, en masse, never stopped thinking of themselves as college sophomores?

Anonymous Dumb founded December 08, 2014 2:04 PM  

"So the Jews were powerful enough to get the entire world to fight against Hitler, but not powerful enough to do so before he killed six million of their fellow Jews?"

You know, I take it, that sometimes the fire departments gets to a file too late.

Besides, they seem to have made good use of those 6M, but then again, they keep using that number.

Anonymous BillB December 08, 2014 2:22 PM  

Will,

Nothing was created in 1865 other than a concept and that concept is nothing but air. There exists no document forming a nation known as the United States of America. There never has been. ID-10-Ts may believe in the lie of Lincoln and the War of Northern Aggression but that war decided nothing. If one accepts the concepts brought out in the WNA, then one cannot argue that is being robbed when a perp holds a gun to one's head and demands everything one has. We have many of the problems we have today because sheeple roll over and spread their legs waiting to be fucked.

Anonymous BillB December 08, 2014 2:30 PM  

Please note that the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 and that amendment refers to the United States in the plural, "any of them". Too many people hear something and believe it. The adage is believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.

Blogger Rabbi B December 08, 2014 2:39 PM  

"Help them, we're meddlers. Don't help, and we 're cold blooded hypocrites who are too weak to fight."

When Israel was commanded to begin conquering the land, G-d was clear on where we could wage war and where we were not permitted to do so. And G-d was also clear that he was using Israel to displace the Canaanite nations due to their (the Canannites') sin and rebellion which was ripe for judgment.

After that, we would only be permitted to wage war when attacked. If we were attacked, the Torah also permitted us to take the fight to the enemy. The enemy was first given an opportunity to surrender and become subject to Israel, or they could refuse and suffer the consequences. Moab and Ammon only became our territories after we were attacked and had earlier been refused permission to walk peaceably on the king's highway through their territories.

Now, I am under no illusions that Israel or anyone else is applying Biblical principles when waging warfare. I just think that that it is noteworthy that the only wars Israel was permitted to fight were defensive wars after they had been attacked in their own sovereign country and that they were permitted to take the fight to the enemy if necessary.

I don't see a Biblically sanctioned model where we are called to insert ourselves into every little skirmish (real or manufactured) while always claiming that our interests (real or imagined) are at stake. I am simply arguing that there may be some principles here worth considering which could help swing the pendulum back towards the center.

Ultimately our hope and consolation lies in the promise that, though the nations continue to rage and plot in vain, the One enthroned on High laughs at them and will see to it that all the kingdoms of this earth will one day come under the rule of King Messiah and be judged in righteousness. Until then, it looks like we're in for quite a ride.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 08, 2014 3:08 PM  

So the Jews were powerful enough to get the entire world to fight against Hitler, but not powerful enough to do so before he killed six million of their fellow Jews?

You are quick with the glib talking points. Are you a Hasbara troll?

Blogger Josh December 08, 2014 3:12 PM  

You are quick with the glib talking points. Are you a Hasbara troll?

No

Anonymous Will Best December 08, 2014 3:16 PM  

Nothing was created in 1865 other than a concept and that concept is nothing but air. There exists no document forming a nation known as the United States of America. There never has been. ID-10-Ts may believe in the lie of Lincoln and the War of Northern Aggression but that war decided nothing. If one accepts the concepts brought out in the WNA, then one cannot argue that is being robbed when a perp holds a gun to one's head and demands everything one has. We have many of the problems we have today because sheeple roll over and spread their legs waiting to be fucked.

Wishful thinking on your part. Just because something isn't written down, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just like putting something on a sheet of paper doesn't automatically make it legitimate.

I don't care that you call it WNA, but to deny its impact is laughable. It put to rest the idea that states are sovereigns. They are not. That lip service is occasionally paid to the sovereignty of states is inconsequential. The Supreme Court doesn't protect state sovereignty. It prevents the FedGov from excessive micromanagement.

Anonymous Shibes Meadow December 08, 2014 3:53 PM  

Some of you are confusing the terms "nation" and "state". A nation is a biological and social enity; a State is a constitutional and legal entity. The two sometimes coincide (e.g., France, pre-1789), but since Westphalia the State has replaced the Nation as the fundamental unit of social order.

What is a Nation? It is, above all else, a biological entity. It is, fundamentally, a social entity defined by commonality of ancestry -- that is, of birth. (Latin natio = "birth"). One is born into a nation; one is born an Irishman, a Chinese, a Maori, a Lett. Put another way, a Nation is first and foremost a society defined by shared ancestry -- that is, ethnicity. Poles are Poles because their forefathers were Poles. Bantu are Bantu because their ancestors were Bantu. Lombards are Lombards because their ancestors were Lombards. A Nation ceases to exist only when its bloodlines become so muddled with that of other nations that most members have ancestors from several ethnic groups. This has happened many times in the past (e.g., many Native American tribes) and is happening today (e.g., Jews).

The second defining characteristic of the Nation is shared language. The origin of Nations is the origin of languages. We see this factor as definitive as far back as Biblical times: in the Book of Genesis, humanity is a single nation, defined by a single ancestry and with a single language

And they [the human race] said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.[Genesis 11:4–9]

Combined with the textually precedent but chronologically antecedent words of Genesis 10:5 ["From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with his own language"], and we see that the concept of nationality was inextricably bound up with the ineas of common birth and common language. The Greeks, too, defined Us and Them in terms of language, with "Us" being Greek-speaking peoples, and everyone else as "Them", the "Babblers" of "barbarians" (to the Greeks, foreign languages sounded like bar bar bar in the same way that we English-speakers sometime characterizes Chinese-speakers as "Ching-Chong Chinamen" or Arabic-speakers as those who say "Durka Durka Durka Jihad".). [Continued]

Anonymous Shibes Meadow December 08, 2014 3:53 PM  

The third criterion for nationhood is shared culture -- that is, the common religion (Latin cultus) of the group and the beliefs, social mores, holidays, art, traditions, customs, manners, and other folkways which proceed from it. To paraphrase Kirk, "No cultus, no culture"; all members of a nation must publicly share a common faith, even if they do not actually believe it to be true.

Shared ancestry, shared language, shared culture: this makes a Nation. It is important to remember that the Nation is an entirely organic and integral entity; while the State is always artificial and extrinsic. States comes and go; the Nation (bar genocide) remains. The Polish State, for example, has been controlled by the Prussians, Russians, Germans, and others over its long history, but through it all the Polish Nation continued to exist. The Latvian Nation, which came into being from its tribal forebears sometime prior to 1815 did not cease to exist when the Swedish Empire or the USSR or the Third Reich were running the show; no matter which flag was flapping, the Latvian Nation remained. It will continue to exist until its ethnic, linguistic, and cultural unity is diluted or fragmented to the point of meaninglessness, God forbid.


Based upon all this, it should be obvious to each and all that there is not American Nation -- only an American State (the former United States of America, which I now refer to as the Federal Entity). It could be argued that an American Nation did at one time exist; i.e. when the vast majority of the people of the United States were united by common ancestry (European), common language (American English) and common culture (broadly Christian). This situation, to say the least, no longer exists. What we have now is something like a North American Empire, a kind of mega-Yugoslavia composed of many different nations forcibly united by a central tyranny. Yugoslavia only existed so long as Tito had his boot on the necks of the Croats, Slovenes, Bosniaks, Serbs, Macedonians, Albanians, and others who made up the phony "Yugoslav" nation. Once that boot was removed, it was war -- to the knife.

The implications of this fact of history are, when considered in terms of modern American society, disturbing.

Anonymous Carolina Ben December 08, 2014 4:18 PM  

"it is no longer a homogenous white Christian nation committed to Anglo-Saxon ideals. Indeed, one cannot truly consider it a nation at all, it is best described as an imperial multi-national, multi-ethnic state akin to the Byzantine, Roman, and Austro-Hungarian empires."

You are wrong to argue that the U.S. is "akin to Byzantine, Roman, and Austro-Hungarian empires". The U.S. is in fact something new...entirely.

The U.S. is the first powerful nation state not committed to the protection of a single ethnicity. Interestingly, were it anything else it would be illegitimate as well as a state violating its own founding (and righteous) principles.

The question for the United States is this: Can those who believe the United States ought to be committed to the betterment of a single ethnicity be convinced otherwise?

For centuries we've watched the U.S. slowly morph into a genuine multi-ethnic state in which the founding principles have been successfully communicated to and adopted by a wide variety of ethnic groups that did not play any significant role in its founding. It was predicted by many that this could not happen. And yet, Americans of Irish, Indian, Jewish, East Asian, African and other regions have in fact embraced the notion of a state based on individualism, protected natural rights, and a representative government.

It seems entirely probably that the question the U.S. must answer will be done so in the affirmative. There is no support for the argument that the U.S. would be better off as a nation that advances the interests of a single ethnic group, nor is that even a viable path to promoting such a state here in the U.S.

Anonymous Shibes Meadow December 08, 2014 4:39 PM  

A "state based on individualism, protected natural rights, and a representative government" cannot long exist; ethnic politics and mobocracy always result. (No such thing as a "natural right" exists.)

"There is no support for the argument that the U.S. would be better off as a nation that advances the interests of a single ethnic group." Incorrect. There is plenty of support for it, and that support is growing day by day.

I respect your opinions, but your assertions of fact do not track with observed reality. It is important not to confuse what we would wish to be with what actually exists.

Blogger Rabbi B December 08, 2014 5:04 PM  

"The second defining characteristic of the Nation is shared language. The origin of Nations is the origin of languages. We see this factor as definitive as far back as Biblical times: in the Book of Genesis, humanity is a single nation, defined by a single ancestry and with a single language . . ."

“Babel” is often translated ‘confusion’. However, the sens of the Hebrew is that it is more a divergence of languages than a confusion of languages. To speak of confusion assumes that there already existed diverse languages, which now were all mixed up, resulting in a confusion among them. Also, 'babel' never means ‘to bring about a confusion’ but rather to ‘introduce a foreign element into a substance and then mix them thoroughly, until they become one, so that in every particle of the old there is some of the new'.

A new element will now affect the formation of language, a foreign element which hitherto had no such influence. Because of this element people no longer understood each other. Even if language were phonetically and organically the same, the difference in attitudes would result in people not understanding each other. A divergence of languages can result from changes in the minds that create the language.

What was that foreign element? According to our Sages understanding, the consciousness of the individual was awakened and began to express opposition, pitting subjective caprice against the objective view embodied in the language. The community had sought to make a name for itself and had attempted to nullify the worth of the individual.

This attempt to nullify the individual failed when consciousness of the individual’s inherent worth awakened. The individual reacted with obstinacy, subjectivity, and egoism; therefore, he would no longer accept or submit to any point of view other than his own, not even to a Divine mandate.

So, it came about that people no longer understood each other. They called things by different name in order to spite one another. This is the way of the individual seeking freedom and independence: he sees things and names them however he chooses. History, too, reveals that the centralization of power divests the language of its diversity. We see, then, that discord was not precipitated by a proliferation of languages, but on the contrary: discord brought about a divergence of languages.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 08, 2014 5:46 PM  

I agree with Shribes' definition of nation. America was only marginally a nation but it is now just a "state".

To the Rabbi, at Genesis 10:32, it says "These are the tribes of the sons of Noe, according to their generations, according to their nations: of them were the islands of the Gentiles scattered over the eart after the flood". This sentence precedes the Tower of Babel story. Men were divided into nations BEFORE the Tower of Babel. Every one spoke one language and at the Tower did God make languages.

Remember Rabbi, God called people coming together evil. God created nations.

America is becoming the two things God hated and personally intervened in history to destroy, Sodom and Gomarrah and the Tower of Babel. The Sabbatean Jews and the Kabbalists and others are heavily engaged in re-creating both of these. Jewish Messianism is sorely off track when it wants to rebuild the Tower of Babel.

Anonymous Corvinus December 08, 2014 6:06 PM  

@Rabbi B

Languages diverge continuously -- that's why Europeans don't speak Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Uralic anymore. But the Babel fable explains how the descendants of Noah and his family (who would presumably all speak the same language) wound up speaking completely unrelated language groups.

Anonymous Corvinus December 08, 2014 6:15 PM  

@Carolina Ben

You are wrong to argue that the U.S. is "akin to Byzantine, Roman, and Austro-Hungarian empires". The U.S. is in fact something new...entirely.

The U.S. is the first powerful nation state not committed to the protection of a single ethnicity. Interestingly, were it anything else it would be illegitimate as well as a state violating its own founding (and righteous) principles.


The U.S. is, in other words, an attempt at creating a universalist state.

The question for the United States is this: Can those who believe the United States ought to be committed to the betterment of a single ethnicity be convinced otherwise?

For centuries we've watched the U.S. slowly morph into a genuine multi-ethnic state in which the founding principles have been successfully communicated to and adopted by a wide variety of ethnic groups that did not play any significant role in its founding. It was predicted by many that this could not happen. And yet, Americans of Irish, Indian, Jewish, East Asian, African and other regions have in fact embraced the notion of a state based on individualism, protected natural rights, and a representative government.


Not... really. If you'll notice, most of those groups are solidly gibsmedat / bleeding-heart Democrat, with the exception of the Irish, who are for the most part already pretty much mixed with the British founding stock by now anyway.

It seems entirely probably that the question the U.S. must answer will be done so in the affirmative. There is no support for the argument that the U.S. would be better off as a nation that advances the interests of a single ethnic group, nor is that even a viable path to promoting such a state here in the U.S.

Nevertheless, there are serious strains building up. The polarization of the U.S. population into big-government Democrats and big-capitalism Republicans gets worse and worse by the year, with no end in sight. Ironically, both factions are fundamentally based on the principles laid down in the U.S. Constitution, but they've taken on full opposing lives of their own, and threaten to bring the whole edifice crashing down.

Back in the 1950s, most U.S. states were "swing states" in presidential elections. Now we have, what, four?

Anonymous Carolina Ben December 08, 2014 6:49 PM  

"The U.S. is, in other words, an attempt at creating a universalist state."

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a "Universalist State" nor if that is good or bad. If by this you man a state not based on the propagation of a single ethnic group, then that has been what the U.S. has been happily moving toward for decades....reaching back well into the 19th century. But still, I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

"f you'll notice, most of those groups are solidly gibsmedat..."

"Gibsmedat" is the wrong way to identify those who have supported various social welfare programs. It has not primarily been under threat of chaos that support for these programs have come from various groups. For example, both liberals and conservatives are heavily supportive of social security as well as unemployment benefits. It's just the details of the programs that get argued over. Most believe that such programs are socially and morally responsible.

Blogger Rabbi B December 08, 2014 6:49 PM  

@Corvinus

"Languages diverge continuously -- that's why Europeans don't speak Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Uralic anymore."

To explore further . . . consider:

There are two main elements in the formation of language: objective and subjective. Language serves to communicate the essence of things, while highlighting the nature of their relationships. Language can be formed objectively to express the objective essence of things and how they relate to the world, and language can be formed subjectively, in concert with the specific attitudes that a nation currently expresses about things and their relationships.

So long as there was only one language, the language was objective and functioned to express the essence of things and their purpose. Today there are many languages, but a paucity of words among them that reflect identical attitudes.

For example, every European language speaks of ‘religion.’ In Hebrew, however, there is no term for ‘religion’. So, if religion is just one aspect of life,we can assign it a name; its name will define, delimit, and isolate it from other things. In other words, all of the other aspects of life will not be included in religion, since it has its own separate realm.

If, on the other hand, religion encapsulates all of life, then no one can fathom the character of religion or assign it a name, since it informs everything, and everything is included in it. “Religion,” as derived from the verb “religare” (to bind), as one example, runs contrary to the Jewish perspective; for the Jewish understanding is that relating to G-d grants us freedom.

Another example: in German the term for people is “volk.” This implies that the people’s existence depends on the leader, and that all are obligated to obey him (folgen). In the Romance languages the term for people is “populus”, the all-devouring masses. In Hebrew the term for people is “am”, or a union of equals; and finally, vis a vis the rest of the world, the term is “goy”, which indicates a closed unit.

Anonymous Carolina Ben December 08, 2014 6:52 PM  

"Back in the 1950s, most U.S. states were "swing states" in presidential elections. Now we have, what, four?"

I think there are upwards of 15 states that can be considered "swing states" depending on the political climate. The problem you really want to complain about is gerrymandering by both parties.

Anonymous Corvinus December 08, 2014 9:07 PM  

@Rabbi B
That's an interesting take on underlying semantic differences. For another example, I think one reason the soul-slicing concept of "hate" (as applied by SJWs to the politically incorrect) hasn't caught on in Slavic countries is because the Slavic words for "to hate" literally mean "to not look at", and naturally, a Slav will ask, "what's the problem with not wanting to look at someone?"

The problem you really want to complain about is gerrymandering by both parties.

Gerrymandering wouldn't apply at the state level, and that's what determines the outcome of Senate and presidential elections.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 09, 2014 3:25 AM  

Carolina Ben: "The U.S. is the first powerful nation state not committed to the protection of a single ethnicity. Interestingly, were it anything else it would be illegitimate as well as a state violating its own founding (and righteous) principles."

America is committed to the protection of a single ethnicity: Jews. The most important public figures say so constantly, the deference that Jewish interests receive confirms it, and America's Middle Eastern war-making also confirms it.

Carolina Ben: "The question for the United States is this: Can those who believe the United States ought to be committed to the betterment of a single ethnicity be convinced otherwise?"

No.

Anonymous Quartermaster December 09, 2014 1:13 PM  

Porky, I understand where you are coming from, but the term has a certain meaning that is understood in the manner I used it. Whether I agree or disagree doesn't mean much.

Blogger Dewave December 09, 2014 1:57 PM  

"For centuries we've watched the U.S. slowly morph into a genuine multi-ethnic state in which the founding principles have been successfully communicated to and adopted by a wide variety of ethnic groups that did not play any significant role in its founding."

Evidence points to the founding principles not being successfully communicated to any immigrant group, including Italians, Irish, Jews, etc.

These principles are basically extinct.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 09, 2014 2:40 PM  

Dewave: "Evidence points to the founding principles not being successfully communicated to any immigrant group, including Italians, Irish, Jews, etc."

Right.

Dewave: "These principles are basically extinct."

Not necessarily.

It's as simple as reconstructing that founding gene pool, and not letting it fall under the domination of any other genotype. When the right physical matrix exists, and is allowed to express itself, then principles suitable to it can flourish.

Blogger Whiskey December 09, 2014 6:47 PM  

Hitler was a lunatic who threw away the most powerful hand any leader had. Germany 1934 had a real enemy. The New Czar Stalin who was much more ambitious and filled with ideology than the old one, Nicholas. At the same time France and England, former enemies, were horrified by the New Czar Stalin and wanted Germany to fight said new Czar.

The smart play would be not to conquer borderlands but fill them up with German advisers and aircraft and such, as people will fight on their own much harder than a conquered slave state. But then Hitler was pretty stupid -- and missed the last part of the War in the hospital, not seeing the total German collapse from June 1918 to October. When the Kaiser's army ran out of food, ammunition, clothing, medical supplies, and the lack of manpower compared to the British/Commonwealth and American forces took its toll, as did far better and radically improved British tactics and strategy with a totally rebuilt British Army. Germany had a fantastic squad level army with no real ability to supply it (logistics being shockingly neglected). The British the reverse, but with squad level stuff being bloodily relearned.

All those Jews including many Iron Cross bearers sent to gas chambers were not German's enemy. The new Czar Stalin was -- and Hitler lost to him.

Blogger Whiskey December 09, 2014 6:56 PM  

Hanson is correct that military force in one way or another is primal. No nation ever existed for very long without either a military protector OR enough military force to deter attacks by hungry neighbors (see Switzerland and Nazi Germany -- Hitler wanted to invade but balked at the cost in men and equipment).

No, the US cannot remake Muslims into denizens of Lausanne or Geneva. But American military force HAS secured American Advantage in the ME since FDR's bargain with the Saudis and the explicit spelling out of said bargain with the CARTER DOCTRINE.

Hansen HAS spelled out repeatedly the demographic decline of California as it turns into Northern Mexico -- as a Central Valley farmer he's ground zero for the demographic transformation and among his other observations is that farming in the Central Valley and the food it brings: vegetables, lettuce, almonds, grapes, ordinary table wine, etc. is going to go away in the Immavasion from Mexico and Central America.

Yeah, he holds to Christian Universalism and Brotherhood of Man. That's bog standard among Christians -- see the Pope for that. Not just this one either -- John Paul II and Benedict were big on Universalism and Brotherhood too. Kahdr is not my brother (I have an actual REAL brother and no need of pretending some random Black or Muslim or whatever guy is my equal much less my brother).

I give Hansen some slack because he's pretty much caught in his Christian Universalist religious beliefs, and his love of the old White Majority America where his namesake died defending it on Okinawa.

In Culture and Carnage he did see the advantage Europeans have over non-Westerners; but he can only see so far before fervent religious beliefs that he took in from birth by society and his family no doubt takes over. As someone who used to believe that universal brotherhood garbage I can relate to the enormous effort to leave your religion behind entails.

Anonymous Discard December 11, 2014 3:39 AM  

Carolina Ben: Southern California Discard says you're wrong. Dead wrong. Have you been reading National Review or something? Where in the world did you get these notions? These foreigners are not adopting American ways. They enjoy the material and social benefits of living in a White First World society, while remaining loyal to their own tribes. They benefit from Western law-abidingness, knowing that they can cheat with near impunity. Etc, etc, etc. You have got to be drunk on GOPism to imagine that Jews, Orientals, Hindus and Africans have adopted anything except racial self interest at the expense of White Americans. Spend a year in Los Angeles and drive around and look at how things really are.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts