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

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

SJW England

Notice anything missing from this BBC Radio lineup?
Notice that they are celebrating the fact that there are no white people. None. That is the SJW vision for England and for the West, the complete elimination of the European race in addition to the complete elimination of Christianity. Even ISIS is more moderate.

There can be no compromise with the SJWs. To tolerate them is to tolerate the intentional destruction of you, your children, and your grandchildren. The fact that you don't wish to play a zero-sum game doesn't mean that they aren't. The cultural war is real.

Anti-racism is intrinsically anti-white. It is intrinsically anti-European. And before you claim their objective is impossible, or that I am exaggerating, or even just engaging in rhetorical hyperbole, do recall that I am a Native American, a person of a certain color whose people have been driven to the brink of near extinction.

In 2014, more people began to wake up and choose their side. It's not too late, not at all. Demographics are destiny, but demographic trends are far from immutable and contra the doomsayers, there are more Europeans on the planet than ever before in history. War and ethnic clashes are coming, to be sure, but the situation is considerably less desperate than it was in the days of Tvrđava Klis, Salamis, Tours, and Vienna.

In 2015, choose your side and stand up for it. Because, as this writer has discovered, whether you are Christian or atheist or agnostic, whether you are white or red or brown or yellow or black, you are not going to be permitted to sit safely on the fence, pretending to be above it all, because the totalitarian Left is not going to allow it.
For most of my career as a writer, I have been reluctant to join in the “culture wars,” mostly because I don’t fit into either of the two opposing camps. As an atheist, I’m not longing for a return to traditional religious morality, but as an individualist, I’ve never supported the weird victim-group crusades of the left.

I have mostly dedicated myself to making the case for smaller government, pointing out the failure of the welfare state, and keeping the environmentalists from shutting down industrial civilization—little things like that. Oh, and also war—not the “culture war,” but war war, the kind where people are actually trying to kill us.

So for the most part, my position on an issue like gay marriage could be summed up as: “Can we please talk about something else now?”

Partly, this comes from my small-government outlook, which holds that some things—indeed, most things, and virtually all of the really important things—should be outside the realm of politics. That definitely includes other people’s sex lives, about which I would like to know a good deal less than is fashionable at the moment.

But this year, I discovered that while I might not be interested in the culture war, the culture war is interested in me. It’s interested in all of us. This is the year when we were served noticed that we won’t be allowed to stand on the sidelines, because we will not be allowed to think differently from the left.
Being moderate and tolerant and neutral and uninterested didn't save the Jews in Germany. It didn't save the peasants in China or the farmers in the Soviet Union. And it won't save you in the 21st century West. When the SJWs say there is "no place" for various forms of thought, belief, and expression, they mean there is no place for you.

Labels: , ,

220 Comments:

1 – 200 of 220 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 5:00 AM  

You're a hard man to figure out, Vox.

One thing I don't understand is why you keep insisting on your Native American ancestry as being as significant as you make it out to be. You may be Native American, but you *look* white, and as far as everyday society goes, isn't that enough for most people to treat you like you're white? I do see how it could answer ignorant claims that you are a white supremacist, but aside from that, I don't think it makes a difference.

Your rhetoric does come across as harsh to me and I don't understand it a lot of the time. For example, in this post I don't know exactly what you mean by "elimination," "compromise," "tolerate," "destruction," or "cultural war." SJWs, whatever else you want to say about them, are not likely to form death squads and come into my house and kill me. Further, there is a sense in which as a Christian I personally am obliged to "tolerate" people who live in sin and ignorance, and there is another sense in which legal "tolerance" of sinful and erroneous opinions by the state is actually necessary to protect the common good. So what kind of tolerance, exactly, are you meaning to exclude? The kind that would retreat from personal, rhetorical combat into a sort of false live-and-let-live, "let's all just get along" paradigm which the SJWs will never accept?

You say that even ISIS is more moderate, but come on. That's got to be hyperbole. Maybe if the SJWs were actually logically rigorous and had thought out their premises to their logical conclusions, that would be true, so that it might be true to say that leftism as an ideology is more extreme than even radical Islam, leading as it does to blackest nihilism; but I also think that very few SJWs have actually thought out their theories that far, so that, *de facto*, ISIS is far more extreme.

Besides all this, another question occurs to me. I thought you believed--you'll have to patiently correct me if I am misstating your opinions here--that, in rough terms, the history of civilization inevitably follows certain patterns of growth and decay, and that further, SJWism is a symptom of civilization going through the late, decadent stages which characterize it shortly before its collapse. Given this view, why should I or anyone try to fight a war that already lost? In other words, what good, realistically, can fighting the "culture war" achieve? One of the Catholic principles of a just war is that it must have serious prospects of success. What, exactly, are our prospects of success here? What would the result of success be--a delay of civilizational collapse? Something better? If the prospects of success are low, wouldn't it be better to reroute our efforts toward some other objective?

Anonymous Toby Temple December 31, 2014 5:33 AM  

For example, in this post I don't know exactly what you mean by "elimination," "compromise," "tolerate," "destruction," or "cultural war." SJWs, whatever else you want to say about them, are not likely to form death squads and come into my house and kill me.

The Jews in Germany pre-Nazi also thought of the same thing about those who eventually tried to destroy each and every one of them.

Anonymous Steve December 31, 2014 5:47 AM  

Very well put, Vox.

"Diversity" is only ever at the expense of white people. It is a code word for genocide.

Blogger Jew613 December 31, 2014 5:57 AM  

This may be cold comfort but if the SJW's, Muslims and third worlders do succeed in destroying Western civilization they will immediately turn on each other. As happened in Iran when the Ayatollahs destroyed the Communist Tudeh.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 5:59 AM  

@Toby Temple

That is indeed a very snappy phrase, but it doesn't prove anything about SJWs.

Argue me into your worldview. I'm reasonable. What about SJW ideology necessitates killing ideological opponents of the party? I know communists have always killed people--is SJWism the same as communism in this respect, or analogous, or otherwise comparable? Why?

Most leftists I know are either people leading dissolute lives who need to justify it to themselves, or useful idiots who got some idea somewhere that America is all about protecting "rights" and "freedom", so anything at all that restricts freedom--except big government programs, which elude their analysis in a remarkably complete manner--must be bad, and so the Evil Conservatives who want to Take Away Gay People's Freedom To Marry and Poor People's Right To Free Food must be irrational and filled with hate, and so the leftists flock unthinkingly toward the right-thinking crowd so as not to feel social exclusion.

Is this the way that Stalinism, say, took hold? I am genuinely asking. I know very little history. But I do wonder whether an anti-intellectual movement with no clearly defined goal or even a clear concept of the good can do anything but create mass sloth and dependence.

It seems to me that there will probably not be any death squads in America, at least not in the near enough future to allow us to make informed predictions of such. Our government will remain content with turning us into useful, dependent idiots and saving the killing for those overseas. Bodies make such a mess, you know, and Americans are soft and squeamish.

Prove me wrong? Please?

Anonymous Anon December 31, 2014 6:01 AM  

"One thing I don't understand is why you keep insisting on your Native American ancestry as being as significant as you make it out to be. You may be Native American, but you *look* white, and as far as everyday society goes, isn't that enough for most people to treat you like you're white? I do see how it could answer ignorant claims that you are a white supremacist, but aside from that, I don't think it makes a difference."

Vox didn't look very white with his Mohawk and ripped muscular body. He looked very much like an East coast Indian. If you have ever seen old pictures of East coast tribes they look very white. There is a wide range of color and facial characteristics among the Native Americans in North America. Plus we have already seen some of Vox's relatives and they are not white. Maybe you should go back and take a look.

Anonymous PA December 31, 2014 6:02 AM  

SJWs, whatever else you want to say about them, are not likely to form death squads and come into my house and kill me.

The use blacks/browns for that purpose.

Anonymous Thornham December 31, 2014 6:05 AM  

Genocide is the only correct word for what is happening here. Death squads are not required; mass immigration and "diversity" have the EXACT same results, and are much more efficient, as there is no meaningful opposition, and it's done with a smile.

Anonymous PA December 31, 2014 6:08 AM  

demographic trends are far from immutable

One thing to keep in mind is that the massive populations in various parts of the Third Word are a bubble, sustained by Western aid. And immigration is 100% Western-enabled. If the foreign aid plug is pulled, some of those populations will drop to 10% of their peak numbers. Stop flying and bussing them, and they stay where they are.

Anonymous VD December 31, 2014 6:09 AM  

I do see how it could answer ignorant claims that you are a white supremacist, but aside from that, I don't think it makes a difference.

You don't understand rhetorical discourse. How many accusations of racism were leveled at me before I revealed my Hispanic heritage? And how many after I revealed my Native American ancestry? Do you truly not understand why so many rabbits are desperate to deny the undeniable?

SJWs, whatever else you want to say about them, are not likely to form death squads and come into my house and kill me.

They won't today.... Recall that the National Socialists didn't kill a single Jew in 1933 and didn't even conceive the Final Solution until December 1941. Whereas eliminating you and yours is their open and ultimate objective. They want you out of their organizations and their societies.

You say that even ISIS is more moderate, but come on. That's got to be hyperbole.

It is absolutely not. ISIS accepts the jizya and even offers their protection of other faiths so long as they pay the tax. SJWs don't provide any such outs; your beliefs must be recanted.

Given this view, why should I or anyone try to fight a war that already lost?

Because this war is not already lost. The political entity called the USA is dooomed. The West is not. It is actually in the process of being hardened for a resurgence. The younger generation in Europe is already harder and more merciless towards non-Europeans than you would believe possible.

If the prospects of success are low, wouldn't it be better to reroute our efforts toward some other objective?

The prospects of success are very high. It is merely a question of popular will. Once it starts, this war will end in less than five years.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 6:13 AM  

@VD

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Anonymous VD December 31, 2014 6:16 AM  

What about SJW ideology necessitates killing ideological opponents of the party? I know communists have always killed people--is SJWism the same as communism in this respect, or analogous, or otherwise comparable? Why?

Its nonsensical nature. SJWism is the same as communism in that regard, only communism was merely untenable economically. SJWism is untenable economically, socially, spiritually, and biologically. It cannot survive either criticism or competition without resorting to force.

What do you think they mean when they say "there is no place for X in our society?" What do you think they intend for those who are, or believe, X despite their best "educational" efforts?

Anonymous Gary Donovan December 31, 2014 6:17 AM  

"The use blacks/browns for that purpose."

PA beat me too it, perhaps Edward should pay attention to some violent crime stats.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 31, 2014 6:22 AM  

I would not reference the Jews of pre-war.

Social Democracy, which was led by Jews, preached multiculturalism and deracination. Read Mein Kampf, where Hitler records their slogans that "Nationalism is a capitalist invention".

Edward Isaacs, I'd like to share a book with you The Case of the Barefoot Socrates, Academic Myth-Making and the Jewish Transformation of Western Culture. It is free and online.

Western Culture and Civilization is already dead. It is gone. SJWs are Marxists. They are practicing Cultural Marxism. In the book I prove that Marxism is genocidal. It is genocidal in the physical realm and culturally. Marxist professors and Liberal academics have always engaged in cultural warfare against our classical heritage.

They preach tolerance and diversity but that is for outside consumption for the enemy, traditionalists/Christians. They demand compliance to all their ideas. The Jews are a part of this process. They are not innocent. They started it all.

The Natural Law rules. Either you abide by it, or Nature kills you. Life is War. There is no such thing as tolerance or diversity. We are facing existential genocide, our culture has already been genocided by Liberals and Marxists.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 6:37 AM  

What do you think they mean when they say "there is no place for X in our society?" What do you think they intend for those who are, or believe, X despite their best "educational" efforts?

I had figured they meant, in general, that X was incompatible with the requirements (as they understand them) for a society (of the kind they deem ideal) to exist. Much as I might say "there is no place for Sharia law in our society", they might say (illogically, in this instance, but that's irrelevant) "there is no place for legal discrimination against gays in our society".

@ PA and Gary Donovan

I admit I had not considered the possibility of deliberate race-hustling as a means of exterminating whites. I do tend to follow Hanlon's Razor ("never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity") in thinking about the world, though.

@ W.LindsayWheeler

Thank you for the link. I will read it through as soon as I am able.

About your remarks concerning the Jews I have no comment--see my last name. I agree that the Natural Law rules in this world, but I do not think that it has the final word. Life isn't War, because Christ is Life. Diversity may not be natural, but God is supernatural, and he is the author of harmony.

Blogger J Curtis December 31, 2014 7:05 AM  

Culture War related re: Newsweeks recent hit piece against Christianity/The Bible...

"But Newsweek‘s cover story is nothing of the sort. It is an irresponsible screed of post-Christian invective leveled against the Bible and, even more to the point, against evangelical Christianity. It is one of the most irresponsible articles ever to appear in a journalistic guise." Link

Blogger J Curtis December 31, 2014 7:06 AM  

Sorry, link didn't go through

http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/12/29/newsweek-on-the-bible-so-misrepresented-its-a-sin/

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 31, 2014 7:07 AM  

See the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, that is from what "Anti-racism is a code word for anti-white" and The Mantra are derived.

Whites are blamed for all ills as a group, but then are explicitly not allowed a group defense.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 31, 2014 7:12 AM  

Anti-whitism is the new anti-semetism.

Anonymous VD December 31, 2014 7:21 AM  

I do tend to follow Hanlon's Razor ("never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity") in thinking about the world, though.

That's a ridiculous metric that is guaranteed to mislead and fail, because ALL actions can be adequately explained by stupidity. Very few human actions are perfectly rational, and those few that are can easily be deemed stupid by merely postulating different base assumptions.

Cui bono is a vastly superior guide.

Blogger Robert What? December 31, 2014 7:46 AM  

What I have been saying for years about the homosexual activists applies to SJWs in general: they don't want your tolerance, they don't even want your acceptance. Only enthusiastic celebration will be permitted.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet December 31, 2014 7:47 AM  

never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

There is no qualitative difference. As Vox indicates Cui bono cuts to the quick since both options suck, and people feign malice for stupidity and stupidity for malice when they can.

Anonymous Salt December 31, 2014 7:53 AM  

The whole SJW mantra reminds me of what Limbaugh used to play a lot. "We're fierce, we're feminists, and we're in your face."

Well, no, yes, and soon you won't be as you'll be eliminated. Everyone I know who hates the SJWs want the same thing, for them to get entirely out of our faces, either voluntarily or by force. We all know they won't do it voluntarily.

Anonymous Luke December 31, 2014 7:56 AM  

"...I am a Native American, a person of a certain color whose people have been driven to the brink of near extinction." --Vox

Good graph of American Aborigine numbers from 1492-present, for anyone interested. Post-1955, the trend looks like that of post-1965 Hispanics...

http://accessibledata.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/american_indian_population-png-scaled-1000.jpg

Anonymous Musashi December 31, 2014 7:56 AM  

This can only be settled by blood, nothing else will suffice.

As far as I'm concerned the settling can start today.

Anonymous Double Nickels on the Dime December 31, 2014 8:02 AM  

Britain and Sweden are two examples of the type of world the SJWs are creating in the West. That is the template they want to apply to EVERY white country. A template that mandates the displacement and replacement of native white races with non-whites, laws passed eliminating free speech, persecuting whites who openly oppose their displacement, special rights and privileges for the non-whites that include covering up, excusing and ignoring violent crimes including epidemics of rape and child prostitution (Rotherham for instance), and anti-white curriculum in schools starting from day one that infect white children with guilt and self-loathing so they will not resist the SJW agenda of white genocide, all of which is reinforced 24/7 in the media, movies, and cherry picked news stories. Every white western nation is ruled by an anti-white elite who are dedicated to policies that if not stopped, will result in the destruction of all the white races, white genocide.

As another poster noted, the SJWs have swapped the hard labor of industrial scale mass murder, with a kinder gentler form of genocide via unlimited immigration and forced assimilation in ALL white countries and ONLY white countries, they call diversity. Diversity is a code word for white genocide. Anti-racism is a code word for anti-white.

Anonymous Luke December 31, 2014 8:02 AM  

Re the "impossibility" of SJW-approved death squads, please consider the grotesquely unbalance ratio of black-on-white violent crimes (compared with the converse), right now, in the early stages of all this. It's reminiscent somewhere between "Bleeding Kansas" and prewar Bosnia.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 8:06 AM  

@ Salt and Musashi

Right, I'm now officially in "WTF?" territory.

This "culture war" -- I had assumed it was a metaphor for rhetorical combat and legal wrangling. Are you saying it's a real, violent war? That you are willing to do to the leftists--namely, genocide--what you fear they are willing to do to conservatives? If so, is this the view of the majority of this blog's readership?

I try to be reasonable, but I will have no truck with the bloodthirsty. Someone, answer me: is it the general zeitgeist of this blog that violent war ought to be waged against the leftists in western society?

Anonymous Soga December 31, 2014 8:10 AM  

Re: SJW death squads, look up "Swatting".

Militarization of police, cultural control, and governmental infiltration (via entryism) are a recipe for Swatting to morph into something certifiably more lethally efficient.

Anonymous physphilmusic December 31, 2014 8:11 AM  

Chinese Christian living in the West here. Am I allowed to join the cultural war on the Right side?

Serious question.

OpenID simplytimothy December 31, 2014 8:15 AM  

the situation is considerably less desperate than it was in the days of Tvrđava Klis, Salamis, Tours, and Vienna.

and

The prospects of success are very high. It is merely a question of popular will. Once it starts, this war will end in less than five years.

(:



Anonymous Salt December 31, 2014 8:20 AM  

is it the general zeitgeist of this blog that violent war ought to be waged against the leftists in western society?

Ought to be waged is different from that it shall be waged. It's not that anyone wants it, but it's coming and shall have to be dealt with.

Edward,

OpenID simplytimothy December 31, 2014 8:22 AM  

Someone, answer me: is it the general zeitgeist of this blog that violent war ought to be waged against the leftists in western society?

I cannot speak for the blog--as I am not a blog.

First a definition: Leftist = Communist/Marxist/Statist. A leftist is not an American in the same way Barak Obama is not an American; Obama is a Marxist.

Second: With this definition, look at the non-sequitur in your statement: "..leftists..in western society"







OpenID simplytimothy December 31, 2014 8:27 AM  

Regarding the photograph in the post, the diminution of white males is very common and a marker for who/what to not waste time with.

Anonymous VD December 31, 2014 8:27 AM  

This "culture war" -- I had assumed it was a metaphor for rhetorical combat and legal wrangling. Are you saying it's a real, violent war?

It is presently the former. It will eventually, sooner or later, be the latter.

That you are willing to do to the leftists--namely, genocide--what you fear they are willing to do to conservatives?

I will defend myself, my family, and my people if and when we are attacked. Start nothing, finish everything.

I try to be reasonable, but I will have no truck with the bloodthirsty. Someone, answer me: is it the general zeitgeist of this blog that violent war ought to be waged against the leftists in western society?

We are not bloodthirsty. Far from it. For 13 years, I have warned against the actions and policies that are leading to this civilizational debacle. It is the general zeitgeist of this blog that there will be a number of violent civil wars throughout the West in the 2030s, when the civil and political apparatuses collapse.

Don't confuse warnings with wishes. I wish the West had not embraced multiculturalism and multiethnicity. But having done so, the West will now follow the path of all multicultural, multiethnic societies... until it is once more a monocultural, monoethnic society.

Chinese Christian living in the West here. Am I allowed to join the cultural war on the Right side?

Of course. Cultural war is not necessarily ethnic war. I expect Asians to side with the cultural Right and the ethnic White, before they attempt to carve out their own diverse enclaves.

Anonymous sth_txs December 31, 2014 8:42 AM  

I agree with Vox on the SJW's. I'm to the point over the last few years where I have zero tolerance for those with liberal views. I've gone so far to say that since they insist on looting me of my income and restricting my freedoms that I was glad I never joined the military since none of them have a life or property I would give a damn about defending.

Ditto for the statist on the right as well. Most Americans still choose to willfully support evil and I can only hope they get to face the full consequences of their collective stupidity. Sadly, those of us who are more aware will have to suffer as well.

Anonymous Michael December 31, 2014 8:45 AM  

It's simply astonishing to me how Western civilization has allowed itself to be guilt-tripped into the displacement of its homogenous people and the destruction of their culture by a vehemently anti-Christian minority which openly despises them.

Allowing them to continue to wreck havoc isn't charity, you know.

Anonymous Musashi December 31, 2014 8:58 AM  

@Edward Isaacs:

I'm struggling to determine whether your response is serious or whether you're deliberately being obtuse.

A simple review of 20th century history should clarify what method of ushering in utopia is preferred by those so inclined.

In any event, I have no intention of going easy when the time comes.

You will have a choice to make - it's unavoidable.

Anonymous DrTorch December 31, 2014 8:59 AM  

Why do they never acknowledge their own "cultural appropriation"?

OpenID simplytimothy December 31, 2014 9:04 AM  

It's simply astonishing to me how Western civilization has allowed itself to be guilt-tripped into the displacement of its homogenous people and the destruction of their culture by a vehemently anti-Christian minority which openly despises them.

Not astonishing at all.

We are a Christian and a patient, long suffering people. Our culture assumes goodwill, honesty, forthrightness, bravery, thrift and other virtues.

Evil confuses good people. Good people look for the good and the light in others. When confronted by evil, the good often question themselves or their frame of reference.

Our Christian experience shows us that all is not lost. That the lost can be found, the sinner can repent, the foolish can learn wisdom.

It has taken a very long time for twenty-first century America to start waking up--like the trees of Fangorn Forest

Since we are talking large numbers, the process starts at the margins and works inwards, a coalescing event will happen and we will fight and win or die.


Anonymous Musashi December 31, 2014 9:05 AM  

@DrTorch:

Because it's never been about right or wrong, fairness, truth, or anything else like that.....never, not once.

It's always about acquiring power and satisfying their lust to control/dominate others.....Lucifer comes to mind.

Anonymous Soga December 31, 2014 9:07 AM  

physphilmusic, of course you're welcome. Pro-white doesn't mean anti-other-races. It means refusing to kowtow to anti-white people and ideas dressed up as "anti-racist".

Plus, this fight isn't so much about whites as it is about civilization and Christendom. Our fight will affect the future of Asians and Christians of other tribes too. Do you really want Asians to have to deal with SJWs in the future? Defeat them now so you won't have to later.

Anonymous Feh December 31, 2014 9:15 AM  

In case you think the SJW in the USA are any different, here is their ideal USA - non-white crowd adoring non-white leader:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Obama%20in%20House.jpg

Per Lawrence Auster --

"Note the artificially dim light, like one of those prime time TV dramas where all the scenes, including in courtrooms, hospitals, and the Oval Office, are in half darkness. Notice how virtually every person in the photo looks nonwhite. Notice how the photo centers on Obama, with all heads turned in unison toward him, giving him an image of mysterious power. In fact, it doesn’t even look like a photo of the United States of America. It looks like a photo of some nonwhite dictatorship. Which is what, in their heart of hearts, white liberals desire."

Anonymous Michael December 31, 2014 9:16 AM  

W.LindsayWheeler, while much of the destruction of the West was conceived by Jewish-Marxist elites, one must always be guided by the Light of Christ. Several points to consider:

-A hardness of heart has come upon the Jews, until the time when the final Gentile has been saved. Infidelity to Christ is to be expected - they are to present us with a constant test of faith, essential to the plan of salvation.

-Not every Jew is part and parcel with the Marxist agenda. Remember that all of mankind shares a common foe, the fallen, invisible beings who wants to drag us all down to their level.

-Even the Jews who killed Christ were offered the olive branch of redemption by St. Peter and the other Apostles; in fact, they were among the first Christians.

-One must always discern intent. We're currently at war with Zio-Marxist ideology (PC), an offshoot of Satanism.

Anonymous Bz December 31, 2014 9:17 AM  

Slightly off topic, it seems the Swedes are insufficiently tolerant after all: http://www.technologyreview.com/photoessay/533426/the-troll-hunters/

Some nice pictures of SJWs leading the hunt too, aided by the media. Connecting to a comment above, I don't think these guys would mind forming a death squad and executing their enemies, if they could get away with it. In the larger scheme of things, we know there can be trouble if a lot of europeans (even Swedes, I suppose) start looking that way. It won't be just the SJWs, you see.

Anonymous Harsh December 31, 2014 9:21 AM  

I try to be reasonable, but I will have no truck with the bloodthirsty.

You should go then because you are obviously not thinking rationally.

Blogger Outlaw X December 31, 2014 9:25 AM  

Third guy from left could be a Euro white male or a Joo.

Blogger JartStar December 31, 2014 9:31 AM  

violent civil wars throughout the West in the 2030s, when the civil and political apparatuses collapse

The US won't fight a continental war like Europe will, it will become like Brazil with economic stratification, currency problems, continued debauchery, police gangs vs. ethnic gangs, and a great deal of petty and violent crime. Europe is due for another suicide attempt though.

Anonymous Harsh December 31, 2014 9:34 AM  

One thing I don't understand is why you keep insisting on your Native American ancestry as being as significant as you make it out to be. You may be Native American, but you *look* white, and as far as everyday society goes, isn't that enough for most people to treat you like you're white?

What does this even mean? It sounds incredibly racist.

Anonymous DrTorch December 31, 2014 9:39 AM  

Evil confuses good people. Good people look for the good and the light in others.

Despite the fact that the Bible's teaching doesn't support that approach in any way whatsoever.

Clearly the soft, timid Christianity that abounds today is heresy or idolatry. And the consequences of that are severe.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 9:39 AM  

@ VD

Once again, thank you for the detailed response. I know you have better things to do than respond to random commenters on your blog, so I appreciate it.

@ Musashi

I try not to be deliberately obtuse when I can help it. But what am I supposed to think about a statement like

This can only be settled by blood, nothing else will suffice. As far as I'm concerned the settling can start today.

if not that it reflects a desire for bloodshed? You must be able to see how that would sound to someone who is relatively new to all these ideas that most of you in this corner of the blogosphere already take for granted.

@ Harsh

K.

OpenID cailcorishev December 31, 2014 9:51 AM  

SJWs, whatever else you want to say about them, are not likely to form death squads and come into my house and kill me.

How would you describe what happened at Ruby Ridge?

Anonymous Curly December 31, 2014 9:52 AM  

That isn't the SJW fantasy of England. That is the new England that Jewish groups and Jewish activists are working to create. The picture above contains no potential "Nazis" or "white supremacists"(jewish terms for European Caucasian people), so its a win for the jews.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 10:01 AM  

@ cailcorishev

Forgive me, I was one year old when Ruby Ridge happened. I had never heard of it before today. However, I've bookmarked your blog, as it looks interesting.

OpenID cailcorishev December 31, 2014 10:07 AM  

The use blacks/browns for that purpose.

There aren't enough blacks/browns where I live, so they'd use the cops, but it's the same concept.

It's true that they don't (yet) have the laws in place to criminalize non-SJW opinion, as they do in some countries. But they're working on that. In the meantime, let's say they decide they need to take me out, so they start checking me out to see if they can catch me violating any of the thousands of laws on the books. Eventually they discover that I didn't file the necessary zoning paperwork for when I remodeled my garage. They fine me.

Now, if I submit and pay the fine, it's over (until they find something else). But let's say I refuse because I recognize that they're persecuting me. The fine turns into a charge of contempt, which turns into a warrant, which turns into armed men at my door, who will shoot me if I resist them.

Now, maybe that doesn't fit your definition of "death squad," but I'm not sure why.

Anonymous Musashi December 31, 2014 10:09 AM  

@Edward Isaacs:

What it reflects is the acceptance of the outcome of our current vector. For my part, I would rather skip right to the important part and get it over with. Once our precious utopia-builders gather up enough courage and expendable soldiers to act on their desire to control the world via mass slaughter, the truth of this matter will be obvious - even to the most obtuse among us.

What you call "bloodthirsty", I call a recognition of human nature and history.

Nations are born in violence and must be sustained by violence. Otherwise, your nation is conquered by those not afraid to take what they want and kill as many as necessary to get it. It's just the way it is.

Sic semper.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother December 31, 2014 10:16 AM  

Modern Christianity is fooled by evil, because it says there is a spark if good in everyone. Historical Christianity was not fooled, because evil was present everywhere, and Scripture is quite clear what lies in the hearts of men. Heck even The Shadow knows that.

Edward Isaacs, none of us want war, violence or bloodshed, but we know it's inevitable. When it comes to your door, will you be ready? We will.

Anonymous Harsh December 31, 2014 10:16 AM  

@ Harsh

K.


Always happy to help a newbie.

Anonymous Porky December 31, 2014 10:20 AM  

SJWs, whatever else you want to say about them, are not likely to form death squads and come into my house and kill me.

Dude...have you ever heard of this thing called the 20th century?

OpenID cailcorishev December 31, 2014 10:22 AM  

Much as I might say "there is no place for Sharia law in our society", they might say (illogically, in this instance, but that's irrelevant) "there is no place for legal discrimination against gays in our society".

Complete the thought. What would you DO about keeping Sharia out of society? What penalties would you impose on those who try to bring it in? What would you do if an organized group of citizens tried to impose Sharia against all your efforts?

Well, that is what the SJWs want to do to anyone who holds an opinion that bothers them. That and more, because while you may be opposed to Sharia, you probably don't have the same contempt and hatred for its practitioners that SJWs have for badthinkers.

Anonymous Harsh December 31, 2014 10:29 AM  

Being moderate and tolerant and neutral and uninterested didn't save the Jews in Germany. It didn't save the peasants in China or the farmers in the Soviet Union. And it won't save you in the 21st century West. When the SJWs say there is "no place" for various forms of thought, belief, and expression, they mean there is no place for you.

When the thugs of the SJWs finally commit their version of Kristallnacht a lot of these "neutrals" are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Anonymous Porky December 31, 2014 10:31 AM  

When the thugs of the SJWs finally commit their version of Kristallnacht...

Are you suggesting that the thugs who perpetrated Kristallnacht weren't SJW's?

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother December 31, 2014 10:33 AM  

The SA were homosexual SJW thugs. Read The Pink Swastika.

Anonymous Gunnutmegger December 31, 2014 10:34 AM  

"If you have ever seen old pictures of East coast tribes they look very white. There is a wide range of color and facial characteristics among the Native Americans in North America. Plus we have already seen some of Vox's relatives and they are not white. Maybe you should go back and take a look."

The Pequots are not "redskins". Anyone who has experienced a New England winter will understand why they are not as dark as their cousins in the Southwest.

But they are unquestionably Native Americans.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 10:38 AM  

The real issue is w-word g-word that-which-shall-not-be-mentioned.

But 2014 was also the year Brendan Eich was forced out as CEO of Mozilla Corporation. Practically speaking, it's now a firing offense to have supported in the past beliefs that the social justice warriors are making taboo today.

Social justice warriors believe there's no room in the workplace for homophobes, racists, or people stuck with any other hate-label they invent.

The model of conduct Brendan Eich followed, where you try to show by your submissiveness that you're not one of those really evil people to the right of you, and then you go quietly when you are told to, leads to no good result.

The model of Matt ("shirtstorm") Taylor, the model of teary apologies, submission and self-condemnation does no good either.

The only approach that might work is struggle. Otherwise we lose everything.

Blogger YIH December 31, 2014 10:38 AM  

VD:
Of course. Cultural war is not necessarily ethnic war. I expect Asians to side with the cultural Right and the ethnic White, before they attempt to carve out their own diverse enclaves.
Not necessarily Vox. First, they already have claimed their turf and are expanding it, driving out non-Asians as they do. ''I expect Asians to side with the cultural Right'' that's a bad bet. They side with themselves - to the exclusion of others. They ''love thy race-kin'' NOT ''love thy neighbor''.
Mind you, I don't automatically see Asians (or jews) as enemies (like Africans and moslims are) but I don't see them as any kind of ally either.
When push comes to shove, they'll shove (and maybe even shiv) you.

Anonymous Stilicho December 31, 2014 10:40 AM  

What does this even mean? It sounds incredibly racist.

Wait, is Vox an "Uncle Tom-tom"?

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 10:41 AM  

@ cailcorishev

Now, maybe that doesn't fit your definition of "death squad," but I'm not sure why.

Seems like the difference between "cheesecake" and pornography. In other words, basically a matter of degree, but the quantity has a quality all its own.

Complete the thought. What would you DO about keeping Sharia out of society? What penalties would you impose on those who try to bring it in? What would you do if an organized group of citizens tried to impose Sharia against all your efforts?

I have never thought about it, because I have never seen the need to. I would fight against the passage of unjust laws, but unjust laws do not necessarily delegitimize a government, and violent revolution is a very difficult undertaking to justify in Catholic thought. Honestly, my own inclination would be to obey the unjust laws while working for their repeal, unless I thought there was a more effective, yet still morally upright, means of fighting against them. Frankly that is why I am not out bombing an abortion clinic right now.

If the way of the world is that the ruthless naturally come to power, then Christians must fight against that, but only through morally acceptable means. And if the morally acceptable means are not enough to win the fight, then we must accept the persecution that follows as God's will.

@ Stg58 / Animal Mother

Modern Christianity is fooled by evil, because it says there is a spark if good in everyone. Historical Christianity was not fooled, because evil was present everywhere, and Scripture is quite clear what lies in the hearts of men.

The Catholic Church tells me that human nature is basically good, and that the Fall, though it corrupted our nature, did not render it entirely evil. I know that Luther and Calvin disagreed with this, and I do not particularly want to drag a religious debate into this, but that is my point of view.

Blogger Nate December 31, 2014 10:42 AM  

"SJWs, whatever else you want to say about them, are not likely to form death squads and come into my house and kill me."

Partner... they are the ONLY people who are likely to form (actually hire) death squads to come into your house and kill you.

Blogger Nate December 31, 2014 10:48 AM  

"is it the general zeitgeist of this blog that violent war ought to be waged against the leftists in western society?"

There are individuals on the blog that openly want it... trolls like Thordaddy. There is another subset that doesn't want it to happen and would love see it defused.. but thinks its inevitable and would rather go ahead and get it over with and rebuild. Most of the blog know its coming... but pray really hard that it doesn't.

This isn't storm front.

That said... we DO very much believe the right should be playing by the same rules as the left. If lefties can fire us for our beliefs... then we should be firing them for theirs.

Anonymous Harsh December 31, 2014 10:53 AM  

Are you suggesting that the thugs who perpetrated Kristallnacht weren't SJW's?

Good point. I hadn't thought about that.

Blogger Iowahine December 31, 2014 10:54 AM  

EI: The Catholic Church tells me that human nature is basically good, and that the Fall, though it corrupted our nature, did not render it entirely evil. I know that Luther and Calvin disagreed with this, and I do not particularly want to drag a religious debate into this, but that is my point of view.

Does The Catholic Church offer scripture that overrides Genesis 6:5?

Blogger Nate December 31, 2014 10:54 AM  

"Anti-racism is intrinsically anti-white. It is intrinsically anti-European. "

People like Thordaddy are going to read this and masturbate furiously over it.

Nevertheless it is undeniably correct. The SJWs have no problem with racism. In fact they embrace it. They just embrace it far more enthusiastically when its aimed at white people.. or people they label white for being insufficiently submissive to their world view.

it has nothing to do with a rejection of racism... and everything to do with spoiled brats throwing fits about white people.

Anonymous Harsh December 31, 2014 10:55 AM  

There is another subset that doesn't want it to happen and would love see it defused.. but thinks its inevitable and would rather go ahead and get it over with and rebuild. Most of the blog know its coming... but pray really hard that it doesn't.

He seems to be making the common mistake of thinking because we think conflict is inevitable we are advocating or even fomenting it.

Anonymous Harsh December 31, 2014 10:57 AM  

People like Thordaddy are going to read this and masturbate furiously over it.

Please don't say his name three times or he might actually appear.

Blogger YIH December 31, 2014 10:57 AM  

Michael:
-Not every Jew is part and parcel with the Marxist agenda.
''Not every African looted and burned Ferguson'' as well as ''not every moslim supports terrorism'' but in both cases with extremely rare exceptions they support those who do.
With jews, throughout history it's always been ''what's good for the jews'' regardless of how it affects others. In fact it usually is ''what's good for the jews'' (or even what's good for one particular jew) especially if it affects others negatively.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother December 31, 2014 10:58 AM  

Edward Isaacs,

The Catholic Church was the last denomination I had on my mind when I made that comment. I had in mind the Joel Osteens and Rick Warrens and all the other feminized, useless churches of the world.

I am honestly shocked that the Catholic Church teaches that.

Anonymous Musashi December 31, 2014 10:59 AM  

@Titus Didius Tacitus:

I think it's more likely that the only SJWs that believe the things they say are the useful-idiot rank and file among them. The leaders are power-hungry opportunists cynically using so-called "social justice" as a pretext to accomplish their goals. They care nothing for those they claim to be fighting for. In fact, I bet they despise homos, blacks, etc. Their loyal constituents will be kicked under the bus the instant the SJWs get real power....and it will be glorious.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza December 31, 2014 11:02 AM  

It is awesome for them.

Everyone stateside shredded their resumes, burned their degrees, left that scene a long ago, there was never going to be any opportunity afforded to us- none.

Blogger Josh December 31, 2014 11:03 AM  

The leaders are power-hungry opportunists cynically using so-called "social justice" as a pretext to accomplish their goals. They care nothing for those they claim to be fighting for.

Steve Sailer points out that the greatest beneficiaries of SJW like world war g and world war t are young pretty white girls and rich white guys.

OpenID simplytimothy December 31, 2014 11:04 AM  

@DrTorch and @Stg58 / Animal Mother

Despite the fact that the Bible's teaching doesn't support that approach in any way whatsoever.

Clearly the soft, timid Christianity that abounds today is heresy or idolatry. And the consequences of that are severe.


I will use two extreme examples to illustrate my point:

1. A pederast priest abuses the trust of an altar boy; The boy is confused by evil, trusting, etc.....
2. It slowly dawns on a Christian wife that her husband is cheating on her; the very process of doubt, self-recrimination, dismay and anger is painful process in its own.

The boy and the wife illustrate the process I have/am witnessing.

You either misread my argument or I was not clear. American culture used to be a good thing and for many living today, that is their frame of reference. Our institutions used to be Christian in name and character; we used to trust each other, we used to be good and are in the process of waking up to the fact that we are being buggered by evil. Evil used to be "over there" ; now it is "here".

The context switch takes time; the innocent people are waking up.






Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 31, 2014 11:07 AM  

I would like to point out that the Gospel does not override the Natural Law. The Natural Law comes from Jesus Christ just as the Gospel did. The Natural Law comes first. Christ then came and brought the Gospel to balance the Natural Law. Both work, Both have to live in harmony.

The world is evil and so one must approach reality with Wisdom--not Love. Love is towards your kinsmen. First and foremost. If you see any human in trouble, you help him per the Gospel but you don't let him invade. One has to suppress groups hostile to your own group. You can't let them control the media or the press.

The Jews instigated the Protestant Reformation in order to break up Christendom which suppressed them. The closeness between Christianity and Judaism is a threat to orthodox traditional Christianity. With the break up of Christianity, they got Protestants and then Masons, such as Napoleon to grant them emancipation. This has nothing to do with Love but with Wisdom. Wisdom teaches to suppress hostile foreign groups. Love is not Love when you emancipate your enemy. Look at where the West is--It is dead. Hegel was a kabbalist and he was about, along with Kant, to push a New Order based on Freedom. Look where that got the West. It has died. You can't allow free speech. Free speech to out corruption but not about Culture. Hitler saw this in Vienna, the Jews used the press, which they controlled to guide the political discourse and spread their Marxism. You have to suppress that. You have to suppress the Jews. If you can't do that, then you consign Europe to the grave.

The Jews love to point out that Western Culture was responsible for the Holocaust and they guilt trip us. That is all a lie. I prove that in the book. Western Culture was already dead by the time of WWI. It was Marx's call for the genocide of reactionaries that unleashed the "Kill or be Killed" law. Between traditionalists and Marxists, it is kill or be killed. We have to understand that. Marx and Engels, both Jews, started the ball rolling. Read the book, and you will understand that the whole motivation of the Jews to destroy the homogeneity of America and Europe is based on a lie. This is what it is all about.

Blogger Nate December 31, 2014 11:08 AM  

"but in both cases with extremely rare exceptions they support those who do."

not my experience at all with black folks. For the most part they are far more interested in talking about the NBA, the NFL, and the College Playoffs than they are in talking about ferguson.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 11:08 AM  

@ Harsh

He seems to be making the common mistake of thinking because we think conflict is inevitable we are advocating or even fomenting it.

Yes, and I realized my mistake as soon as Vox pointed it out. I am no longer making that mistake. I get it. Alright? We cool now?

@ Iowahine

Does The Catholic Church offer scripture that overrides Genesis 6:5?

Heh. Nope, not biting. No religious debate today.

@ Stg58

Sorry to shock you. Total depravity is not a Catholic teaching.

@ Nate

Thank you for the clear explanation. Figuring out the culture of a blog you don't frequent is always a challenge, and your comments have helped.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother December 31, 2014 11:12 AM  

Edward,

There's quite a culture here. You. Have. No. Idea.

Blogger Zaklog the Great December 31, 2014 11:14 AM  

Purely for the sake of intellectual honesty, I must point out that the case of American Indians was unusual because, in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, most of the damage was done by infectious diseases which they had no resistance to. Even if the Europeans had been nothing but friendly and peaceful, huge numbers of American Indians would have died.

Blogger Nate December 31, 2014 11:16 AM  

"Thank you for the clear explanation. Figuring out the culture of a blog you don't frequent is always a challenge, and your comments have helped."

Indeed. Particularly when you don't know the cast of characters. Like Wheeler for example. Read his comments and you'll quickly wonder what century you're in. We call him The Spartan... and generally think him insane... but from a performance art stand point we appreciate him.

Blogger Josh December 31, 2014 11:19 AM  

The Jews instigated the Protestant Reformation in order to break up Christendom which suppressed them.

Citation or retract.

Did you ever read what Luther wrote about the Jews?

Blogger Iowahine December 31, 2014 11:24 AM  

EI,
Believe me, I'm hardly scripturally literate enough - nor tall enough - for a debate of scripture or theology on this blog. I was reared Catholic, though only in a perfunctory manner. I never learned that people were basically good. Since becoming a Christian at a later age in life, I have read more scripture, but am nearly not as knowledgable as many contributors here. I just wondered what scripture or Catholic Church teaching I missed. I believe there are other well-versed Catholics here; maybe they can share. That's all. Thanks.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey December 31, 2014 11:29 AM  

Very well said, Vox.

"In 2014, more people began to wake up and choose their side. It's not too late, not at all. Demographics are destiny, but demographic trends are far from immutable and contra the doomsayers, there are more Europeans on the planet than ever before in history. War and ethnic clashes are coming, to be sure, but the situation is considerably less desperate than it was in the days of Tvrđava Klis, Salamis, Tours, and Vienna.

In 2015, choose your side and stand up for it. Because, as this writer has discovered, whether you are Christian or atheist or agnostic, whether you are white or red or brown or yellow or black, you are not going to be permitted to sit safely on the fence, pretending to be above it all, because the totalitarian Left is not going to allow it.
"

Awesome.

There are very few writers who echo my views on this subject better than does Vox.

Anonymous George Zimmerman December 31, 2014 11:33 AM  

They just embrace it far more enthusiastically when its aimed at white people.. or people they label white for being insufficiently submissive to their world view.

Preach it, brother.

OpenID cailcorishev December 31, 2014 11:40 AM  

He seems to be making the common mistake of thinking because we think conflict is inevitable we are advocating or even fomenting it.

This might be going off-topic a bit, but... why is that so common? Why do so many people read "I think X is going to happen" and see "I want X to happen"? I realize some people making that leap are dishonestly using it for the purpose of accusation, but it seems like many people confuse those two things honestly.

I really wonder why so many people struggle with that distinction.

Anonymous kfg December 31, 2014 11:40 AM  

"Prove me wrong? Please?"

When the SJW death squads kick your door in, very likely because you chose their side (it's part of their standard play book that the revolutionary of today must be condemned as a counter-revolutionary tomorrow), you will have your proof.

I hope it brings you comfort.

Anonymous John December 31, 2014 11:43 AM  

"SJWs, whatever else you want to say about them, are not likely to form death squads and come into my house and kill me."

It comes by degrees. As they come closer to gaining numerical superiority (SJWs + non-whites), they will become ever bolder. When they become bolder, they will suffer less and less resistance to their ideology. When they have sufficient numbers, they'll outlaw "hate" speech. At some point in the future, when their numbers are secure, if there are still recalcitrant whites, they will be put into re-education camps (or merely prison, for violating hate speech laws). Finally, if that doesn't quell the remaining Whites who won't accept their own genocide, they will feel like they've tried everything that a 'civilized' people can try. They will have dehumanized Whites for some 70 years of agitprop by 2030. Once that is accomplished, they will feel like they are justified in ridding the world of what they regard as the group responsible for thwarting utopia.

It's only fear of backlash (now) that prevents them from applying a harsher enforcement of their desires and ideology, but it's a numbers game. They will lose that fear as their numbers rise and ours decrease. In the meantime, they will use their Orc proxies to conduct low level war against Whites.

Anonymous Michael December 31, 2014 11:46 AM  

W.LindsayWheeler, people are well aware that much of the spiritual attack and cultural destruction being wrought upon Western civilization is spearheaded by Marxist Jews. However, one cannot fail to take equally into account the Marxist Gentiles, without which the former would have no chance to succeed. If our civilizations spiral into turmoil as a result, it will be because people allowed for conditions to devolve and escalate to that degree.

You see, nothing the Marxists do would have any effect if the will of the people were in direct opposition; a few people at the top could never force the majority to do their bidding, hence the use of threats, fines, loss of employment, etc.

Anonymous Porky December 31, 2014 11:48 AM  

I just wondered what scripture or Catholic Church teaching I missed.

It's basically the same fallacious argument made by atheists: I can sometimes freely choose to do good, therefore I must not be all bad.

Blogger JDC December 31, 2014 11:50 AM  

The Jews instigated the Protestant Reformation in order to break up Christendom which suppressed them.

Since I have done a reasonable amount of research on the topic, I will throw my 2 cents into this. Luther, in his older age was an ill, grumpy, continuously drunken guy who was pissed off at his own clergy for being clueless and caring only for themselves, pissed off at the peasants for not caring, and pissed off at the Jews for ignoring the gospel. Even his own colleagues separated themselves from him later in life, not agreeing with his anger and vitriol in regards to the Jews. At his funeral Melancthnon quoted a friend/foe of Luther's Erasmus, "I will quote the language of Erasmus,' God sent in this latter age a violent physician on account of the magnitude of the existing orders.'"

Luther closed his book, "On the Jews and their Lies," with this...

My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews' malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.

As a Lutheran, I do not hold Luther's words as gospel, and do not agree with the entirety of his conclusions, but do note this. Luther believed the Jews were misleading the Christian, and believed that history had proven that God had turned against them for ignoring their own law.

If one is going to place blame / responsibility for the reformation I believe one needs to look at the German princes. Without their support, Luther would have been hanged and burned as a heretic the moment he gave the finger to Charles V, stating, "I'm not recanting a thing I wrote." Why did they protect them? I think they agreed with this theological conclusions, but what drove them was their desire to be free from Roman taxation, which was becoming increasingly burdensome. Had Rome not been busy fighting off the Turk, I believe they would have walked into Germany, destroying everything in their path, taking out any reformers in their wake.

So, did the Jews manipulate the princes into doing their bidding? There is no evidence for that. Blame for the reformation goes in this order IMO - German Princes, the Roman Church for being idiots, Luther and the other Reformers, the Turks.

Blogger Nate December 31, 2014 11:51 AM  

"I can sometimes freely choose to do good, therefore I must not be all bad. "

Actually I would argue its more like...

"I do not hate Jesus for being Good... therefore I must not be all bad."

Blogger Iowahine December 31, 2014 11:54 AM  

cail - I really wonder why so many people struggle with that distinction.

I think some people are itching to be offended and some people fear being offensive, so they try to either find or avoid offense. In either case, it's a common human tendency to seek inclusion/acceptance versus being excluded/rejected - as has been discussed at length at VP.

I know when I first began reading VP at WND, I had positive emotional reaction because I found someone who expressed well ideas I held, i.e., I found agreement. I came to VP when I was perplexed and disagreed with what I read regarding women. Maybe I should say, I felt "rejected," uncomfortable, unaccepted, so read on to try to understand what was "really" being said. I spent a lot of energy wanting to reject ideas being expressed that - yes, made me feel bad. I stuck with it - as EI seems to be doing, making honest inquiry - and have learned a great deal. However, when challenged or "uncomfortable," our initial emotional reaction is to find that which we believe is causing us to feel "uncomfortable" wrong. Sometimes, some folks are willing to endure feeling bad to gain knowledge or at least, greater understanding of others' ideas. Some other folks just want to take their balls and go home.

Blogger JDC December 31, 2014 11:54 AM  

is SJWism the same as communism in this respect, or analogous, or otherwise comparable?

The answer is in their own documented and visible behavior. What more evidence is needed? Every time an SJW infiltrates an organization they seek to purge every vestige of mind thought that goes against their distorted view of tolerance and change. If we willingly ignore this, we deserve our fate. Lukewarm behavior isn't going to work any longer. "Give them nothing, but take from them everything," needs to be our battle cry.

Blogger Nate December 31, 2014 11:55 AM  

'Blame for the reformation goes in this order IMO - German Princes, the Roman Church for being idiots, Luther and the other Reformers, the Turks. "

I disagree. If there must be blame cast on the reformation... it goes like this...

1) Human Nature
2) The Roman Catholic Church

Fin.

Anonymous Harsh December 31, 2014 11:58 AM  

@cailcorishev

This might be going off-topic a bit, but... why is that so common? Why do so many people read "I think X is going to happen" and see "I want X to happen"?

It's a very good question and I honestly don't know if I have a good answer, however, it seems there are people who are simply afraid of ideas. I have a female acquaintance who if I say something like, "I think the US economy is going to collapse within 10 years," will respond by saying, "Why do you want the economy to collapse?" It's like the mere expression of an idea makes it happen in her mind. I don't know, it's hard for me to understand because I don't think that way at all. To me thoughts are just that, thoughts.

Anonymous Porky December 31, 2014 12:00 PM  

In the book I prove that Marxism is genocidal.

Wait.....there's a Wheeler book?

Blogger Bard December 31, 2014 12:01 PM  

"2-year-old fatally shoots mom in Idaho Wal-Mart"

Immediate #banall2yearolds campaign now. Those little characters are too dangerous and must be controlled

Anonymous Stilicho December 31, 2014 12:08 PM  

However, when challenged or "uncomfortable," our initial emotional reaction is to find that which we believe is causing us to feel "uncomfortable" wrong. Sometimes, some folks are willing to endure feeling bad to gain knowledge or at least, greater understanding of others' ideas. Some other folks just want to take their balls and go home.

Paging Anonymous Conservative...please pick up the white courtesy phone...

Blogger Iowahine December 31, 2014 12:08 PM  

Harsh, your example is a good one and another reason for confusing stating the observation of a thing with supporting the thing: fear. Because your female friend doesn't want to deal with the possible negative realities of a collapsing economy as it is scary and makes her feel bad - which you did by mentioning it - and because she cannot rebut what you've said with any knowledge (she probably trusts you) she needs to object to you, the expresser of the scary/bad idea. Maybe it's an attempt to disqualify rather than discuss the relevant issue.

Blogger Lindsay Wheeler December 31, 2014 12:14 PM  

Yes, Porky at the top of the thread, like the ninth post.

Josh, you make it too simple: Newman, Louis I. (1925) Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements, Columbia University Press, New York (It is online at Questia.com)

That is my reference. Another is the Socianist movement. The Early Church also had a problem. Many Christians became Jews and couldn't figure out what Christianity was supposed to be. That is what caused St. John Chrysostom to rail against the Jews, not because of supposed anti-Semitism, was because many Christians, because of the origin of the Scriptures, became Jews, or Judaized with taking up their festivals.

The Jews attack Christianity thru the "Unity of God" , which they use to attack the Trinity of Christianity. Atomism, from the resurrected Democritus in the Early Modern Era, supported the Jewish position. Atomism became the Natural Law and so that backed up the Jewish call that there was no such thing as a Trinity. God was strictly monotheist. Thomas Jefferson, Locke and Joseph Priestly were all Socianists because of that very reason. Jews have constantly, through their jealousy, have undermined Christianity and questioned it.

Blogger Iowahine December 31, 2014 12:16 PM  

Harsh, PS. If this had been on AG, I would have seen this immediately. She wants to bang you, therefore, she's trying to engage you personally in something that is not really personal. (Yes, totally OT. Done.)

Blogger JG December 31, 2014 12:17 PM  

Re: death squads

Look into the SJW tactics of 'doxxing' and 'SWATing' - in the case of the latter, they lie that you're committing violent acts and call a SWAT team to your house in the hope that you'll be killed. There have been at least two instances of this in #gamergate, but in general it had apparently happened enough times that law enforcement now treats it as attempted homicide, or so I've heard.

Anonymous Scintan December 31, 2014 12:21 PM  

SJWs, whatever else you want to say about them, are not likely to form death squads and come into my house and kill me.

The SJWs already openly advocate re-education "camps" in the form of counseling.

The SJWs already openly advocate the loss of a person's ability to feed themselves and their family for mere speech.

The SJWs already tell people that they have no place in society, which means that, in a society under their rule, such people would have to be removed in some fashion.

Even a blind man can see that one of the likely possible futures under the rule of a group like that is precisely what you claim is not likely.

Anonymous kfg December 31, 2014 12:24 PM  

The SJWs wish to eliminate anonymity from the Internet, so that people may "held accountable."

There is only one type of accountability for the spoken word that requires knowing who you are and where to find you.

Anonymous Harsh December 31, 2014 12:27 PM  

Because your female friend doesn't want to deal with the possible negative realities of a collapsing economy as it is scary and makes her feel bad - which you did by mentioning it - and because she cannot rebut what you've said with any knowledge

You are probably correct about that. It's an inability to separate the idea from the feeling. I hadn't thought about it in those terms before but it makes sense.

Blogger JDC December 31, 2014 12:42 PM  

I disagree. If there must be blame cast on the reformation... it goes like this...

1) Human Nature
2) The Roman Catholic Church


You cannot offer an opinion because you are a Methodist/Greek Orthodox hybrid who loves guns and liquor and political freedom. (Now that's DISQUALIFY...in the spirit of linking posts).

Blogger Danby December 31, 2014 12:46 PM  

Sorry, Edward, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that "people are basically good." She teaches that people were created good, for the purpose of doing good, and are capable of goodness, even greatness. But through their own efforts they have degraded themselves to the point that they can best be described as sinful.
IOW, Man is in rebellion against God.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown December 31, 2014 12:49 PM  

@Edward Isaacs

1.The contents of this blog are a lot to take in all at once. My (unsolicited) friendly advice to you is to take your sweet time in processing it. Think on Vox's commentary, and observe how well it holds up in the real world. Patterns will start to emerge. Don't be afraid to notice them.

2. Harsh sez "There is another subset that doesn't want it to happen and would love see it defused.. but thinks its inevitable and would rather go ahead and get it over with and rebuild. Most of the blog know its coming... but pray really hard that it doesn't."

I've seen the opinion expressed by many here that the sooner this happens, the less horrible it will be for all involved. Conversely, the longer it takes to happen, the worse it will be.

3. Edward sez "The Catholic Church tells me that human nature is basically good, and that the Fall, though it corrupted our nature, did not render it entirely evil. I know that Luther and Calvin disagreed with this, and I do not particularly want to drag a religious debate into this, but that is my point of view.

I respect your wish to avoid a religous debate, so I will merely suggest that you pray on the following:

Genesis 8:21 "The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."

Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one"

Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

Ecclesiastes 7:20 "Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins."

Anonymous Dan in Tx December 31, 2014 12:58 PM  

As to a new comer processing this blog (I'm still on the fence by the way as to whether Edward Isaacs is concern trolling or not): out of all the places I frequent on the internet, this spot has the most diverse range of commentators you will find anywhere. Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, self proclaimed leftists, and pretty much any other flavor you might imagine. For all the SJW screams to the contrary, this is what actual "tolerance" looks like. Blatant trolling and refusing to back up naked assertions when called on it are the only things I've ever seen anyone banned for.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother December 31, 2014 1:04 PM  

Dan,

Very true, and no one gets a free pass or has privilege here. My own personal privilege, as reported by www.checkyourprivilege.com, is Shit Lord.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 1:08 PM  

@ Danby

Sorry, Edward, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that "people are basically good." She teaches that people were created good, for the purpose of doing good, and are capable of goodness, even greatness. But through their own efforts they have degraded themselves to the point that they can best be described as sinful.

The point of disagreement here between Catholics and the stricter Reformation theologies, as far as I understand it, is the notion of total depravity. This doctrine holds--again, as far as I have been able to figure out--that original sin has totally corrupted man's will, so that the natural man is entirely incapable of doing the slightest good deed on his own power. The Catholic position, on the other hand, holds that while man's will is indeed afflicted with concupiscence, which is a natural inclination toward evil, that man nevertheless remains capable of doing naturally good deeds--meaning, those consonant with the natural law--with no other help from God than that which God gave man in creating him with his own human nature. (Supernaturally good deeds, on the other hand--meaning, those consonant with the law of love--do require special graces for man to perform.)

So when I say that man is "basically good" I do not mean that most everything people do is good, or that most people are good, or any of that popular feel-good trash. I mean that, ontologically speaking, everything God creates is good, and evil is always and only parasitic on some pre-existing good. So if there is evil in man, it can only exist in the form of a defect in some good which is necessarily naturally greater than that evil. Man's nature is good because it was created by God, and it continues to be good despite the Fall.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 1:08 PM  

Edward Isaacs: "SJWs, whatever else you want to say about them, are not likely to form death squads and come into my house and kill me."

They already do sent the police around to arrest you at 3am if you tweeted something they didn't like. (This happened after the murder of Lee Rigby -- someone's tweets were deemed anti-Islamic, and We Can't Have That!)

Of course that isn't a problem if you don't say the wrong things. They won't arrest you then; they'll arrest someone else, while you stay shtum.

Till it comes to race.

It has already dome to race, with whites being demonized, removed from positions of power and influence, and pushed into demographic destruction. (There's a word for that.)

Of course that isn't a problem if you are fine with a future without white children.

If you're pro-g-word (for whites) and never say the wrong thing in the opinions of social justice warriors, and never wear the wrong shirt, and never in the past supported something that later became taboo, and if you are not of the wrong race -- good for you; your ideal society is on the way in, and may you have much joy of it.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 1:17 PM  

@ Dan in Tx

I was wondering how long before the "concern troll" label popped up. There's nothing quite so irritating as being charged with something you can't possibly disprove.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 1:17 PM  

Scintan: "The SJWs already openly advocate re-education "camps" in the form of counseling."

If you are busted for being an uppity white, like Emma West, your best chance of leniency is to discredit yourself as mentally unfit (and therefore in need of "counseling") -- a refinement of the Soviet system.

Blogger IM2L844 December 31, 2014 1:26 PM  

Brutal honesty...It's one of my favorite things about this blog and its commenters. It contrasts and makes clearer SJW type's intense aversion to it.

Anonymous Dan in Tx December 31, 2014 1:27 PM  

@ Edward: Note I said I was on the fence as to whether you were or not. I still am and can you blame me? With quotes like:

"I try to be reasonable, but I will have no truck with the bloodthirsty. Someone, answer me: is it the general zeitgeist of this blog that violent war ought to be waged against the leftists in western society?" You have to admit it sounds awfully concern trollish.

However let me state again, I am not accusing you of being such, I will just roll with you being a Jew Catholic who has never heard of Ruby Ridge before today who is concerned with the general zeitgeist of this blog.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother December 31, 2014 1:30 PM  

Using the word "truck" in that context makes me feel like a "milady" is lurking around somewhere.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 1:41 PM  

Musashi: "I think it's more likely that the only SJWs that believe the things they say are the useful-idiot rank and file among them."

I think there's a lot of social justice warriors that dropped out of university, but not before they learned the simple word games that Professor Traitorstein taught them: snark and sneer, splenetic rage with politically correct verbiage, and above all DISQUALIFY!

They have mastered these word games through social modeling and much practice, and that's their only claim to elite status, above the mere manual workers they serve coffee to. So the lowly social justice warriors work those word games as hard as they can, at every opportunity.

Anonymous John December 31, 2014 1:42 PM  

"I've seen the opinion expressed by many here that the sooner this happens, the less horrible it will be for all involved. Conversely, the longer it takes to happen, the worse it will be."

As a practical matter, comparing demographics now to what they are projected to be, this seems an obviously true statement.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 1:48 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 1:53 PM  

@ Dan

Oh, well, since you're honestly undecided, let me just give you all of this evidence I have sitting here that conclusively proves that my motives in deciding to post a few comments today, and ask a few questions, didn't involve a malevolent desire to undermine the culture of the blog.

Oh wait, there's no possible evidence I can give! Shit, looks like I'm out of luck.

Do concern trolls often tell you that they're new? Shouldn't I have posed as a "longtime reader, first time poster" or something like that? Do concern trolls often change their opinions based on clarifications? Do concern trolls purposely avoid off-topic arguments as far as possible? Shouldn't I have tried to nag Vox with pestering questions and residual doubts after he had already answered me? Aren't concern trolls only really effective when they succeed in playing the long con, instead of exposing themselves early on?

Dude, fuck my life, I'm so fucking stupid I can't even troll properly. Think I'll go drink bleach now, durr hurr hurr.

(He mad? O I am mad.)

@ Stg58

Gimme a break, I've been reading John C Wright's blog for two years. I tend to pick up other people's mannerisms. (They called me a concern troll the first time I posted there, too...)

Blogger Thordaddy December 31, 2014 1:54 PM  

Anti-racism is not anti-white, it is anti-white Supremacy. Monumental difference. The anti-white Supremacists only fear, loathe and murderously hate white men who assert the existence of objective Supremacy. Those "whites" that reject such a "thing" are not a target of the "racist" charge ALTHOUGH "they" will almost certainly be the ones raped, murdered and Polar-bared naked as PROOF of liberation from "white supremacy."

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother December 31, 2014 1:55 PM  

Well, if the shoe fits, Edward. Lighten up, Francis. We give each other a hard time. Have you ever seen us mercilessly ridicule Vox for his efféte continental affectations?

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother December 31, 2014 1:56 PM  

Thordaddy,

Did you just grab my ass? I know your tricks!

Anonymous Porky December 31, 2014 2:03 PM  

I'm so fucking stupid I can't even troll properly.

Concern troll is concerned about his trolling.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 2:03 PM  

@ Stg58

*breathe in* *breathe out*

All right, I'm good now. My skin is thick in some places and thin in others. It hurts when I make an effort to be as honest and forthright as I can, and still get misunderstood. It's worse when it comes from clever rhetoricians because I always try to stick to dialectic, but you just can't fight rhetoric without rhetoric.

Have you ever seen us mercilessly ridicule Vox for his efféte continental affectations?

I've mostly stuck to reading Vox and haven't really dived into the comments. Are you talking about his wine-drinking? That's the only thing that comes to mind that might be an "efféte continental affectation".

OpenID cailcorishev December 31, 2014 2:06 PM  

The Catholic Church tells me that human nature is basically good, and that the Fall, though it corrupted our nature, did not render it entirely evil.

Fine (although that's incomplete, and Grace is all that prevents the corruption from being total), but "not entirely evil" is a pretty low bar. Especially in the context here, where you're saying that you can't imagine SJWs sending death squads, and your reasoning is that man is not "entirely evil"? Can't you imagine death squads being sent by people who are, say, only 90% evil? What about the Khmer Rouge and numerous other death squads of the past around the world? Is man less evil today than he was last century?

But mostly the point is irrelevant. Regardless of whether you think humans are 100% evil or only 1%, or where you think that evil comes from, we have plenty of evidence that humans can and will do the kinds of things predicted here.

Anonymous Musashi December 31, 2014 2:11 PM  

Once sides are chosen, hatreds are professed all around, and the fighting starts....everything will become clear.

Blogger Pseudotsuga December 31, 2014 2:11 PM  

Dan--very true. I think this actual diversity of opinion and the disinclination to merely toe the party line are some of the reasons why so many SJW types are so venomous towards VD and this blog. Heaven (used ironically in the case of many SJW types) forbid that dialectic be more important than feeling! This blog demands a lot of the reader, including a thick skin. SJW blogs demand nothing other than that you agree with their world view/ideology.

Anonymous kfg December 31, 2014 2:13 PM  

"That's the only thing that comes to mind that might be an "efféte continental affectation"."

He plays futball.

Blogger njartist December 31, 2014 2:19 PM  

The Jews instigated the Protestant Reformation in order to break up Christendom which suppressed them.

Yes, actually reading the bible, especially St. Paul and Romans 8, and believing it to be the word of God is a Jewish conspiracy. Good one.

Luther, in his older age was an ill, grumpy, continuously drunken guy who was pissed off at his own clergy for being clueless and caring only for themselves, pissed off at the peasants for not caring, and pissed off at the Jews for ignoring the gospel. Even his own colleagues separated themselves from him later in life, not agreeing with his anger and vitriol in regards to the Jews.

Slander.

Blogger Edward Isaacs December 31, 2014 2:20 PM  

@cailcorishev

I did not give that statement as a basis for an argument that SJWs are not likely to create death squads. (In fact, I'm not sure I gave any argument as a basis for that belief.) My statement concerning the Fall was only a tangential aside as a response to a remark which touched on one of my areas of particular interest.

As for the main point: why don't I think that SJWs will start forming death squads in the West? Well, at this point, I don't know that I don't think that. I am pretty much agnostic on the question. Vox's argument is that SJWism as an ideology cannot sustain itself except by force because of its contradictory, anti-reality stance. That seems to me to be a fine argument, as long as SJWism actually survives long enough to become militarized. But why shouldn't the weight of its inherent contradictions lead it to collapse some time before that point? Or, alternatively, why couldn't some other radical movement spring up in the meantime that would dwarf the influence of SJWs?

I can certainly imagine that some radicalized, indoctrinated leftists might seize the reigns of power and dispense their brand of justice against all the wrong-thinkers. But imagination is not an argument, especially when we are talking about something so notoriously difficult as predicting the future.

Anonymous Thornham December 31, 2014 2:23 PM  

Titus Didius Tacitus: "and pushed into demographic destruction. (There's a word for that.)"

And now, more than ever, we can't shy away from using that word.

Edward Isaacs' concern trolling aside, talking about this word now, in a very practical sense, is the first step to being fully prepared when the 2030s roll around.

Anonymous Giuseppe December 31, 2014 2:34 PM  

In response to this:

It's simply astonishing to me how Western civilization has allowed itself to be guilt-tripped into the displacement of its homogenous people and the destruction of their culture by a vehemently anti-Christian minority which openly despises them.

simplytimothy said:


Not astonishing at all.

We are a Christian and a patient, long suffering people. Our culture assumes goodwill, honesty, forthrightness, bravery, thrift and other virtues.

Evil confuses good people. Good people look for the good and the light in others. When confronted by evil, the good often question themselves or their frame of reference.


Indeed. And this is why as I said before, it is a theological imperative that we clear up a few points about Just War, which are currently essentially wrong, or rather, outdated, given the new formations of the enemy. I plan to do a proper blog post on this soon to give this point some space, which it deserves.

Blogger Nate December 31, 2014 2:49 PM  

"Anti-racism is not anti-white, it is anti-white Supremacy. Monumental difference. The anti-white Supremacists only fear, loathe and murderously hate white men who assert the existence of objective Supremacy."

This is objectively and observably false. That's why its so stupid of people like Scalzi to side with them. They will turn on Scalzi. It is inevitable. Because he is 1) male..ok well nominally male.. and more importantly... 2) white.

Anonymous Anubis December 31, 2014 2:50 PM  

"Wait, is Vox an "Uncle Tom-tom"?"
I believe the phrase is Uncle Tomahawk.

"never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity ""There is no qualitative difference."

If it was stupidity they would make a lot more mistakes that benefit our side, keep in mind Bath House Barry's DOJ didn't want the Ferguson liquor store robbery video leaked, then they forced sites to remove the high def version that showed the "hands up" witness wearing the gold bracelet that was on the ground next to the cop car.

physphilmusic "Chinese Christian living in the West here. Am I allowed to join the cultural war on the Right side?"

Yes east Asians have even been protesting against affirmative action in CA and NYC this summer. NYC mayor De blasé wanted to kick out poor Asians from the top public high school Stuyvesant because (black+hispanic) < 3% but >70% of possible students. In fact Asians on rooftops with rifles in the crack addict Rodney King riots show Asians are leading the fight.

"That you are willing to do to the leftists--namely, genocide--what you fear they are willing to do to conservatives?"
What is the appropriate response to someone caught trying to poison the well, or children's minds? Turd worlders who have gang raped indigenous underage white girls in once great Briton have gotten off with community service, while people who hurt home invaders get jail time.

"SJWs, whatever else you want to say about them, are not likely to form death squads and come into my house and kill me."
What the Jewish Bolsheviks did to over 60 million in western Russia/Ukraine white Christians was first take away their guns then take away all of their food even the seeds at gunpoint causing over 60 million to starve to death. Gun control leads into health care control & food control.

"Complete the thought. What would you DO about keeping Sharia out of society?"
Stop using US tax dollars to fly in "refugees" and dump them on welfare as was done with the Boston Marathon brothers and all other 3rdworld refugees like the relatives of Liberian Ebola patient that went to Dallas. Stop sending out foreign aid to the turd world that has them breeding out of control and trying to get into the 1stworld as refugees. Sending medical aid to the turd world only produces more turd worlders & more diseases that White mans medicine cant cure like AIDS

Blogger Nate December 31, 2014 2:53 PM  

"And this is why as I said before, it is a theological imperative that we clear up a few points about Just War, which are currently essentially wrong, or rather, outdated, given the new formations of the enemy. I plan to do a proper blog post on this soon to give this point some space, which it deserves."

If I may offer a phrase...

The aggressor is not always the first to resort to violence. The aggressor is the one that makes the violence necessary.

Anonymous Anubis December 31, 2014 2:54 PM  

"Anti-racism is not anti-white, it is anti-white Supremacy. Monumental difference. The anti-white Supremacists only fear, loathe and murderously hate white men who assert the existence of objective Supremacy."

Being better at work and not ascribing it to "Luck" is Asian/white supremacy in the SJW book. When you are on your last week with another job lined up is when you can make comments like "so does drinking coffee looking online count as equal work for equal pay?"

OpenID cailcorishev December 31, 2014 2:55 PM  

The Catholic position, on the other hand, holds that while man's will is indeed afflicted with concupiscence, which is a natural inclination toward evil, that man nevertheless remains capable of doing naturally good deeds--meaning, those consonant with the natural law--with no other help from God than that which God gave man in creating him with his own human nature.

I'm no theologian, but that sounds a lot like Pelagianism. From the CCC, #406: "Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life..." That was condemned by St. Augustine and multiple councils.

Trent, as usual, was much more blunt: "If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam [which the previous paragraph referred to as the "death of the soul" -- CC] is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; .... let him be anathema..."

The Church did (does) condemn the belief of some in irreversible depravity, but she offers baptism -- supernatural aid -- as a remedy for that, not our own nature.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 31, 2014 3:01 PM  

...as long as SJWism actually survives long enough to become militarized. But why shouldn't the weight of its inherent contradictions lead it to collapse some time before that point? Or, alternatively, why couldn't some other radical movement spring up in the meantime that would dwarf the influence of SJWs?

Because there are always Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in any movement, and as the weight of those inherent contradictions threaten to collapse it, the more bloodthirsty element will assert itself and take over whatever resources the movement has accumulated.

The SWJ movmenet is made up of a lot of clueless, incompetent dingbats, but not all of them are incompetent. What virtually all of them are is control freaks. They have a psychological need to tell other people how to live their lives. Most are passive-aggressive about it, but some are not at all passive. If they feel their ability to boss people around peacefully slipping, they will resort to violence if able.

For them, it's the power that matters, not the justification for it. If they need to change justifications, they gladly will.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 3:07 PM  

Thornham: "And now, more than ever, we can't shy away from using that word."

I agree; that's why I strive to be forthright about w-word g-word thing-that-shall-not-be-mentioned.

Anonymous Noah B. December 31, 2014 3:09 PM  

"and if you are not of the wrong race -- good for you; your ideal society is on the way in, and may you have much joy of it."

Doubtful. This leftist freakshow is doomed, one way or the other.

Blogger IM2L844 December 31, 2014 3:13 PM  

But imagination is not an argument, especially when we are talking about something so notoriously difficult as predicting the future.

The future is not always notoriously difficult to predict. Only certain aspects and details of it. Your very survival depends on your ability to accurately predict the future.

Anonymous Noah B. December 31, 2014 3:17 PM  

"The anti-white Supremacists only fear, loathe and murderously hate white men who assert the existence of objective Supremacy."

We agree, at least, that they want to kill people simply for expressing opinions they don't like. That's the very essence of the left.

Anonymous Anonymous December 31, 2014 3:22 PM  

Mr. cailcorishev:
Re: Pelagius

I very much enjoyed your comments. OT but>

Am I correct in thinking that Pelagius himself denied that he was a follower of Pelagianism?
Thanks

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 3:27 PM  

Giuseppe: "I plan to do a proper blog post on this soon to give this point some space, which it deserves."

Interesting. I too think "just war" is basically a reasonable idea, but the current formulas are flawed.

Which raises questions like, "flawed exactly how?" and "what would be more correct?"

To me the most obvious flaw is that for a war to be just it must promise success. That means every backs-to-the-wall fight by heavily outmatched people facing g-word is unjust. I don't think so. I think to struggle for the survival of one's race, when it is endangered, is inherently good, and the paradigmatic manifestation of the virtue of loyalty. According to just war theory that's irrelevant; if the likely outcome is the same (you lose), then all you are changing is the cost to those who are ending you, so as destruction of property and life is inherently bad, your actions must also be bad.

It sounds like you are thinking on different lines, focused on the specifics of our situation in the 21st Century.

OpenID cailcorishev December 31, 2014 3:33 PM  

I can certainly imagine that some radicalized, indoctrinated leftists might seize the reigns of power and dispense their brand of justice against all the wrong-thinkers.

No imagination necessary. Just read about the Cheka, Khmer Rouge, or any of the left-wing revolutions of the 20th century that used secret police and death squads to put down wrong-thinkers as soon as they were in power. It's kind of a theme.

OpenID cailcorishev December 31, 2014 3:42 PM  

Richard, as I understand it (again, not an expert), Pelagius did say that people exaggerated his ideas, and he may have backed off on them later in life. Whether he personally believed in what we call Pelagianism -- the belief that man can live a good moral life through human will alone, without the need for grace -- it's been condemned by the Church as a heresy. I just wanted to let my separated Protestant brethren here know that, lest they think we Catholics are even more off-base than they already thought.

Blogger MidKnight December 31, 2014 3:54 PM  

@Ed

SJW's sup from the same ideological well as the progressives of the early 1900's, the communists, and the fascists.

When they finally had power, and needed to control the narrative, they killed people in the millions.

Orwell, when he envisioned 1984, was thinking of the end of the road for socialists as he knew them.

And if you think they're not willing to kill people, keep in mind they're already proving themselves willing to deprive people of their livelihood and blacklist them for expressing a legal opinion years ago in favor of a ballot initiative - which PASSED.

As Jack pointed out

The SWJ movmenet is made up of a lot of clueless, incompetent dingbats, but not all of them are incompetent. What virtually all of them are is control freaks. They have a psychological need to tell other people how to live their lives

When we don't bow down and "obey" - they need to escalate to make us do what they want.

Barring total submission, there's only one direction that road goes, and Scintan already said it well:

The SJWs already openly advocate re-education "camps" in the form of counseling.

The SJWs already openly advocate the loss of a person's ability to feed themselves and their family for mere speech.

The SJWs already tell people that they have no place in society, which means that, in a society under their rule, such people would have to be removed in some fashion.

Even a blind man can see that one of the likely possible futures under the rule of a group like that is precisely what you claim is not likely.

OpenID thetroll December 31, 2014 4:13 PM  

>> Of course. Cultural war is not necessarily ethnic war. I expect Asians to side with the cultural Right and the ethnic White, before they attempt to carve out their own diverse enclaves.

> Not necessarily Vox. First, they already have claimed their turf and are expanding it, driving out non-Asians as they do. ''I expect Asians to side with the cultural Right'' that's a bad bet.

And said turf you link to was reliably NDP (that's an unholy mix of union thugs and SJWs, for you non-BC people) before they claimed it, and is now Liberal (that's the 'cultural Right'-best party available here) now to the degree that the SJWs are making petulantly racist noises about the last two provincial elections being "stolen", are they not? Seems to me that Vox has the right of it; SJWism is generally on the retreat (when you can't even save the national gun registry from being dismantled, you're on the retreat) in Canada the last two decades, and it's largely due to skimming off entreprenurial/educated Asians for immigrants.

Also, perhaps you've noted the growing use of "NAM" to group Asians with whites, or at least to cut them out of the spoils of multiculturalism? The SJWs are placing them on the cultural Right side by default, and as noted above we're already seeing fallout of the anti-white coalition by Asians not getting what they earn. This will continue.

> They side with themselves - to the exclusion of others. They ''love thy race-kin'' NOT ''love thy neighbor''.

The first-generation immigrants, sure. Their daughters, well you haven't looked around downtown Vancouver lately if you've failed to notice just how much the cute little Asian girls are enthusiastically miscegenating. The SJWs are starting to make whiny bitchy noises about that too, actually. The option of being cute and sweet like little Asian girls so people find them pleasant, apparently that doesn't occur to them.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 4:32 PM  

cailcorishev: "No imagination necessary. Just read about the Cheka, Khmer Rouge, or any of the left-wing revolutions of the 20th century that used secret police and death squads to put down wrong-thinkers as soon as they were in power. It's kind of a theme."

We don't have to guess either what sort of doctrines would be used to justify killing people for nothing but badthink. Sam Harris, for one, is already pushing that line.

Sam Harris: "Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense."

If you believe that continuous non-white mass immigration into Europe, combined with forced assimilation and the destruction of key items of traditional white culture such as Christianity, is bad for the whites, you believe something like what Anders Behring Breivik believes, and he committed acts of extraordinary violence, so there you go.

Anonymous kh123 December 31, 2014 4:41 PM  

"Why do so many people read "I think X is going to happen" and see "I want X to happen"?"

Would figure due to the internet having no shortage of devoted chicken littling that falls somewhere between Demosthenes and Jeremiah. Some folks get off on doom and gloom for whatever reason.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 5:03 PM  

In any case, Thornham is right.

Thornham: "Death squads are not required; mass immigration and "diversity" have the EXACT same results, and are much more efficient, as there is no meaningful opposition, and it's done with a smile."

The real issue is not that "to bring about ends that are otherwise unexceptionable the social justice warriors would resort to death squads."

The real issue is that the end -- as illustrated by that photographic celebration of the elimination of whites -- is unacceptable. All means to that end are bad.

OpenID simplytimothy December 31, 2014 5:29 PM  

The aggressor is not always the first to resort to violence. The aggressor is the one that makes the violence necessary.

Fascinating. I have never read that thought before....well, except for the "he needed killin, yer honor" version.

I will bite. My first stab at a definition of the principle is: "Pre-emptive violence is necessary when peaceful means for conflict resolution are not honored by the potential enemy."





Blogger Lindsay Wheeler December 31, 2014 5:29 PM  

Leonard Krieger, in his article "Authority", in the Modern Dictionary of Ideas, quotes Engels that Revolution is authority. All that matters for the SJW is that they are the forefront of Revolution and that gives them all the authority. They can dictate. It is a religion.

Cultural Marxism is about changing the culture in order to affect change, to socialize/Marxianize everybody. It is about doing away with all borders. In a sense, no European country is supposed be homogeneous anymore. Multiculturalism is the key.

Blogger Iowahine December 31, 2014 5:31 PM  

cail/richard - the belief that man can live a good moral life through human will alone, without the need for grace

Again, not a theologian, so I defer to those more learned of the Ilk brethren, but I knew a very ethical man who never knowingly accepted the need for grace - my father (he was humble and acknowledged God, but no earthly doctrine). Perhaps there is a subtle but profound difference between moral and ethical. I "sense" ethical as having to do with man and law/societal prescription - man's interpretation and codification of God's Laws - and moral as transcendent, so, in essence, only possible through God's intervention. Naive? No doubt.

Blogger Iowahine December 31, 2014 5:32 PM  

And, Happy New Year, y'all.

Blogger Iowahine December 31, 2014 5:34 PM  

And, Happy New Year, y'all.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 5:39 PM  

simplytimothy: "I will bite. My first stab at a definition of the principle is: "Pre-emptive violence is necessary when peaceful means for conflict resolution are not honored by the potential enemy.""

OK, I'm India, you're New Zealand. I think you should be a province of India and you should cease to exist genetically and culturally. Perhaps you think you shouldn't, but that's all right, I'm offering you a peaceful means for conflict resolution: just take a million Indian immigrants a year (with affirmative action of course, and all standard modern benefits) and we'll call it good.

What will happen in that case will be peaceful in the sense of bloodless. It will also be inevitable and utterly final.

Are you willing to honor this peaceful means of conflict resolution or not?

OpenID simplytimothy December 31, 2014 5:43 PM  

@Titus Didius Tacitus.

Ouch! Well done.

No, I would (will) not honor it as it breaks the civil compact.



Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 5:46 PM  

@ simplytimothy, good answer. I (not India) wouldn't be willing to take that "peaceful" option either.

OpenID cailcorishev December 31, 2014 5:52 PM  

Iowahine, I do think there's a difference between moral and ethical. But I'd also say that the fact that a man doesn't believe there is a need for grace doesn't mean he's not receiving any.

Anonymous Anonymous December 31, 2014 5:53 PM  

Mr. cailcorishev

Thank you for your kind reply. It clears things up more than a little.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

PS: Thank you for your follow up Mr. Iowahine and a very HAPPY NEW YEAR to you also and all here too.

OpenID simplytimothy December 31, 2014 5:54 PM  

@Titus Didius Tacitus

Have you thought through, and can you state in general terms the preconditions for acting per Nate's statement:

"The aggressor is not always the first to resort to violence. The aggressor is the one that makes the violence necessary."

I submit that it cannot be "they break the civil compact" alone, as the civil compact is broken every time a vibrant drops their empty soda bottle wherever they happen to be standing. Littering does not justify shooting them, tempting as it may be.



OpenID simplytimothy December 31, 2014 5:56 PM  

Richard W Comerford

You wrote in part: a very HAPPY NEW YEAR to you also and all here too.

Back atcha!

God bless.

Simply Timothy

(:

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 6:03 PM  

@simplytimothy, I'm sorry; I don't think there is an actually existing, good-enough-to-go-with-now account of just war, so I go with John Mearsheimer's Offensive Realism. Strategy is all there is, and a bad war is one that doesn't make sense.

I'm not rejecting the concept of "just war" as such, just saying that from my point of view we don't have that ready to go, but we do have strategic thinking ready to go.

So in terms of "aggressor" being a normative and legal term in national security policy, I don't have any current use for it.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 6:05 PM  

Tomorrow calling, saying to all, a HAPPY NEW YEAR! :)

Blogger automatthew December 31, 2014 6:11 PM  

Nate: "The aggressor is not always the first to resort to violence. The aggressor is the one that makes the violence necessary."

The Colonies, 1776
Yankees, 1860
England, 1914
England, 1939

Anonymous Noah B. December 31, 2014 6:12 PM  

Felice anno nuovo!

Anonymous Albertus Parvus December 31, 2014 6:16 PM  

SJWs have no qualms about destroying your livelihood if you don't tow the line:

racistsgettingfired.tumblr.com

I suspect the present lack of death squads is due to a lack of ability, not a lack of desire.

OpenID simplytimothy December 31, 2014 6:17 PM  

Happy New Year to all.

Blogger Thordaddy December 31, 2014 6:18 PM  

Noah B...

It's not JUST that they have a bloodlust for their "enemy," but that their "enemy" really doesn't exist so they must eat their own, call it their "enemy" and "hope" the crowd goes wild. In other words, radical liberals desire to annihilate genuine white Supremacists, but because these genuine white Supremacist rarely exist anywhere, the radical liberal must kill a lesser liberal and then rationalize and justify this "self-annihilation," i.e., annihilating one = one's self, as liberating from "white supremacy." This is the paradigm at play.

Anonymous H2 December 31, 2014 6:18 PM  

I'm not so optimistic regarding Asians and this culture war. I agree with them liking a peaceful, advanced society. However, there's a large risk that they separate themselves from troublesome NAMs and then turn to right-leaning Whites and say "See how great we work together? Now how about you let in some more of us so we can keep it up!" My personal experience is that most, and I mean 66-75%, of first generation Asians are very much into Asian Pride and think that Whites are trying to get them back onto working for railroad companies. Ultimately the issue is a monoethnic and monocultural society.

Anonymous CorkyAgain December 31, 2014 6:39 PM  

Why do so many people read "I think X is going to happen" and see "I want X to happen"?

It's an off-the-wall guess, but perhaps it's because at some level they've absorbed the New Age "Law of Attraction", which holds that you can bring about some physical result simply by thinking about it?

If we would only get rid of our badthink and be more optimistic, nothing bad will happen, ever.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 6:40 PM  

Albertus Parvus: "SJWs have no qualms about destroying your livelihood if you don't tow the line:

racistsgettingfired.tumblr.com"

Correct.

Albertus Parvus: "I suspect the present lack of death squads is due to a lack of ability, not a lack of desire."

I agree.

More importantly, they mean for us to be gone: genetically and culturally, in whole or in part as opportunity offers, and always trying for more.

"Diversity" (meaning the replacement of whites by non-whites) is good; "lack of diversity" (meaning whites) is bad, and the social justice warriors strive relentlessly to replace the bad with the good.

It's similar with religion: when a sellout Christian cleric calls for more "religious diversity" that means she wants fewer Christians in her country and more active competitors against Christians, particularly Muslims. Across the board, the attitude of the social justice warriors is eliminationist.

Anonymous WaterBoy December 31, 2014 6:45 PM  

@simplytimothy:

RE: The aggressor is not always the first to resort to violence. The aggressor is the one that makes the violence necessary.

C.f., Fort Sumter.

Blogger Nate December 31, 2014 6:46 PM  

The Colonies, 1776 - False. The King made violence necessary by excessive taxation.
Yankees, 1860 - Yup
England, 1914 - I would argue it was France.
England, 1939 - no. if anything it was France and Poland

Blogger Iowahine December 31, 2014 6:55 PM  

Cail: But I'd also say that the fact that a man doesn't believe there is a need for grace doesn't mean he's not receiving any.

Amen, Cail. It is on this that I live in joy and sleep in peace (with my ever-fallen self) and gratitude for my beloved father (RIP, Dec. 2007).

Thanks, Richard - and y'all. I am a Mrs., and humble to be. Thanks to you all of the Ilk for illuminating me.

Blogger Lovekraft December 31, 2014 7:04 PM  

Obama fails on all metrics, and Hillary couldn't be any better. Even with the control of media, education and government, progressives corrupt anything they touch, so it's only a matter of continuing to expose their 'achievements' (hat tip to Thunderf00t at youtube, and moonbattery,com) and keep focussed.

RIght now, the MGTOW camp of the MRM is undergoing some serious refinement. These lessons and those of gamergate and shirtstorm confirm that Liberals, SJWs are getting desperate, and sloppy.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper December 31, 2014 7:06 PM  

This should cheer some people

25% of all adult British people polled want ALL immigrants returned .

http://southendpatriot.blogspot.com/2014/11/25-of-britons-want-all-immigrants.html

Its probably much much higher than that given that 75% of Brits want immigration reduced.

The fun starts when the people there realize that the Government actually won't do what they want and can't by democratic means be made to do so. The UKIP might buy the system some time but the Saxon has begun to hate.

Also as a side note, if I had a NrX wish for 2015 it would be that people actually start working on what kind of state that actually want to replace the Cathedral. Reacting is fine and good heck its even fun in some ways but the real meat and drink is a replacement ideal.

Blogger Lovekraft December 31, 2014 7:17 PM  

"but the real meat and drink is a replacement ideal"

Couldn't agree more. I believe strongly in man's adaptability and ingenuity. So basically, once progressives are effectively neutralized and saner minds are allowed free reign, the solutions will become clear. Problem is, cultural marxists have worked tirelessly over forty-odd years to infiltrate so many institutions that undoing the damage will require nothing short of a complete overhaul.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 7:31 PM  

Via The Occidental Observer, a reminder of how little scope "social justice warriors" allow for the free expression of opinion, and what this means for the posterity of the white race:

...undercover reporter Jason Gwynne surreptitiously recorded conversations and speeches of BNP members and leaders. One of the recordings was a private speech by Nick Griffin in Keighley in which the BNP leader specifically discussed “grooming.” Griffin said: “This town should be on everyone’s lips as the place where those pedophile drug rapes went on, because sixty of our children, one is too many, but sixty is a massive rape wave.”

Griffin listed two causes behind the wave: “The first is our police force and our elected governors haven’t done a damn thing properly about it, and the second is that their [Muslims’] good book tells them that that’s acceptable.” …

The enterprising “reporter” Gwynne says: “I showed a senior barrister my footage. He said that Griffin’s words are ‘threatening, abusive, or insulting’ and…designed to ‘stir up racial hatred’ a crime under Section 18 of the Public Order Act…the maximum sentence is 7 years in prison.”

Griffin was prescient — not just about what Muslim immigrants were doing to English children, but how the British government would respond. He was arrested in his home at dawn just before Christmas 2004 and prosecuted for his words. (Rotherham Rape Scandal “Tip Of Iceberg”, VDare, 7th September 2014)

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 7:43 PM  

How can anyone imagine that white people can survive indefinitely with an entrenched, unquestioned over-class so hostile to our vital interests that they think that objecting to the targeted, systematic mass rape of white children -- targeted by imported non-whites as white -- is a reason to lock you up?

We cannot thrive under people who hate us so much, who are so determined to end us.

We're going to overturn the rule of the "social justice warriors" or we're going the way of Neanderthal Man, genetically and culturally.

Blogger James Dixon December 31, 2014 7:57 PM  

> ...is it the general zeitgeist of this blog that violent war ought to be waged against the leftists in western society?

Others have already answered, but no. It's that a time will come when there will be no choice in the matter.

> ...but unjust laws do not necessarily delegitimize a government...

Why not? A single unjust law which has hope of being overturned, no. But countless laws, all piled on top of each other and upheld by the highest authorities in the land? At what point do they delegitimize a government?

> And if the morally acceptable means are not enough to win the fight, then we must accept the persecution that follows as God's will.

And if the persecution is deny God or die? What then?

> That seems to me to be a fine argument, as long as SJWism actually survives long enough to become militarized. But why shouldn't the weight of its inherent contradictions lead it to collapse some time before that point?

It may. But we're still a very rich country. We can support a lot of stupidity for a fairly long time.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 31, 2014 8:32 PM  

The Colonies, 1776 - False. The King made violence necessary by excessive taxation.

And just to make damn sure, he sent his armed troops to disarm the colonists.

Yankees, 1860 - Yup

That's a war where "who's to blame" is endlessly debatable, and might just prove that in certain situations, armed conflict is close to unavoidable. The two sides spent seventy years trying to avoid it.

England, 1914 - I would argue it was France.

How does anyone get "England" as the nation that made war inevitable in 1914? There are at least five other great powers with more claim to that than England, who's only real blame in starting the war was not being clear enough who's side they would take if it happened.

England, 1939 - no. if anything it was France and Poland

Again, how does anyone get England here? Neville freaking Chamberlain was PM in 1939. Mr. Appeasement scraps of paper himself. Unless you claim they made aggression necessary by not stopping Germany's aggression. And if you want to fall back on the Treaty of Versailles, that was more France that England.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 9:02 PM  

> ...is it the general zeitgeist of this blog that violent war ought to be waged against the leftists in western society?

No.

> ...but unjust laws do not necessarily delegitimize a government...

They can.

> ...If the way of the world is that the ruthless naturally come to power, then Christians must fight against that, but only through morally acceptable means. And if the morally acceptable means are not enough to win the fight, then we must accept the persecution that follows as God's will.

How abstract. This isn't about "the ruthless," which could be anyone from Augustus Caesar to Elizabeth I to Francisco Franco; it's about "social justice warriors" with an agenda that implies the end of European Man: genes, culture and all. ("Culture" including of course religion, as the "social justice warriors" show much hatred for Christianity.)

And it isn't about "persecution"; it's about outcomes, which might even (theoretically) occur without violent persecution, provided whites don't resist being defamed, marginalized and methodically wiped from the Earth.

So do you regard these ruthless ones: anti-white, anti-Christian and heirs to Trotsyites and worse, as legitimate rulers, and do you regard their triumph and the achievement of their agenda as "God's will"?

Which other races, which other branches of mankind, do you think should be mercilessly wiped from the Earth as "God's will"? (Christian religion and all, of course.)

If this is a "whites only" thing (and in practice it definitely is), what makes us so special? We are just people; we just want to live and have an unending succession of generations, like people of every other race want. What is so special about us, that wiping us away as illustrated by the original post, is "God's will"?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 9:46 PM  

England, 1939 - no. if anything it was France and Poland

Jack Amok: "Again, how does anyone get England here? Neville freaking Chamberlain was PM in 1939. Mr. Appeasement scraps of paper himself. Unless you claim they made aggression necessary by not stopping Germany's aggression. And if you want to fall back on the Treaty of Versailles, that was more France that England."

Like Hannibal, Hitler chose his enemies. The difference is, Hannibal chose the must gullible tacticians that Rome had to offer for his battles, but Hitler chose the fiercest enemies that Europe and specifically Great Britain had to offer for his diplomacy.

Looking back, I cannot imagine having been a Nazi, but I can very easily imagine being all for Neville Chamberlain and "peace for our time" as most British people were. The logic is so obvious. After World War I, no sane man can possibly want a second dose of that. Mister Hitler, we assume, is a sane man. (At least he seems to be governing the Germans to their satisfaction.) So, we conclude, whatever he is aiming at, it can't possibly be The Great War Part Two. All right, given that the costs of war would be incomprehensibly terrible (as they actually were), the costs of any peace Mister Hitler wants should be seen as a bargain. Sign the deal, and then we all get back to work. Bliss!

If you cannot make peace with a negotiating partner like that, you don't want peace.

I can never accept the neo-Nazi types that want to blame war and what followed on Winston Churchill and those evil, belligerent English. By humiliating Neville Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler as good as put Winston Churchill in power over the English. The rest was horribly inevitable, and all the Fuhrer's fault.

If you look at what's happening now in America, the servile and worshipful attitude so many white Christians have towards Jews is amazing, but still more amazing is that it doesn't earn them any charity, not even organized Jewry calling the "social justice warrior" attack dogs off.

I suspect most of those who now look on both organized Jewry and the "social justice warrior" masses as adversaries can look back on having had completely adoring, uncritical, deferential attitudes to those we now see as harming our collective interests. There was no level of Jewish and "progressive" wealth, fame or anything else we would have regarded as excessive, just as long as we could live undisturbed in our own countries, see our grandchildren grow up as we grew old, and know that they would do the same. No sheep were more willing to be sheared, as long as they lived.

So what do we get? An unremitting social war of extermination against the white sheep.

It's the same thing again: if you can't make peace with a people like that, you don't want peace.

(Only this time the enemy is much nastier and more formidable than the dimwit of Berlin, and our nations are subverted, divided and in increasing part occupied.)

Strategists tell us what would make sense: that wars result from the inevitable clash of opposed wills. That would be logical, but it's not true. What I see happening, from Hannibal to Hitler to the 21st Century, is wars being made by the willing on the unwilling, till the unwilling stare death in the face and fight, sometimes in time, sometimes too late.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 31, 2014 11:23 PM  

I wish that those who are driving us into the ground had taken "the best of everything we have, and as much of it as you want, for as long as you like" as good enough to appease their dire hatred of us.

But since they can't be appeased, and I can't get my main wish, I wish that we survive, in as good a style as possible, and that we win, and that the whole thing be as bloodless as possible.

And I hope that we don't get fooled again. Because I don't think we can go down a road as costly as this again and continue to exist.

They have done more harm to England alone, in a short span of years, than was done in all the ages before, in revenge for nothing at all.

Anonymous Giuseppe December 31, 2014 11:58 PM  


If I may offer a phrase...

The aggressor is not always the first to resort to violence. The aggressor is the one that makes the violence necessary.


Nate, buddy, I don't even know what bourbon is, seeing that as a dago I stick to Tequila and, even worse than Vox, white whine, but I clink glasses with you over a good cognac. You sir, understand.

It's a little like a joke I read long ago:
1st man to second man: "Way I see it, it balances out. The first amendment gives you the right to say whatever you want, and the second amendment goves me the right to shoot you for it."

Anonymous Giuseppe January 01, 2015 12:19 AM  

Titus Didius Tacitus,
"It sounds like you are thinking on different lines, focused on the specifics of our situation in the 21st Century."

Your own assertion about not fighting when it's "hopeless" is first of all 100% right. Two reasons: 1) nothing is ever 100% sure and 2) given just war is supposed to be war from a Christian perspective i just don't see how one can ever assume giving up to ultimately Satan, is even a thought one should contemplate. Ever.
And the kernel of that second point forms the core of my view of Just war, but it needs more space than a comment here. I will try to post something tomorrow perhaps.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 01, 2015 12:30 AM  

Edward Isaacs: "I admit I had not considered the possibility of deliberate race-hustling as a means of exterminating whites. I do tend to follow Hanlon's Razor ("never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity") in thinking about the world, though."

When social scientists who are all for non-white mass immigration into white countries work full time at government expense to see that the imported non-whites and their descendants enjoy "upward social mobility" (as they do), who is suffering the corresponding downward social mobility?

Do you think professors of social sciences are too stupid to figure out how a see-saw works?

If one goes up while the other goes down, and you arrange to see that ever more imported non-whites go up and up, you are arranging to see that... who? goes down and down. How many guesses do you need for this puzzle?

This is not adequately explainable by stupidity. Not even close.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 01, 2015 2:10 AM  

Giuseppe: "And the kernel of that second point forms the core of my view of Just war, but it needs more space than a comment here. I will try to post something tomorrow perhaps."

OK. Take your time. I'll be interested to read what you have to say.

Meantime, I think both of your points are valid, though as a non-Christian I try not to tell Christians what they should do according to their religion.

On 100% certainty, one of the few things the English philosopher Bertrand Russell said that I really liked was his answer when he was asked, how as a philosopher he would deal with an situation where he knew that regardless of his efforts he was bound to die. (For example, an imminent air crash.) I think his questioner wanted some statement of lofty philosophical calm, but actually his answer was: "I'd keep trying. I might be wrong."

He was dead right. We know we are often wrong. If we "know" things are hopeless, we might be wrong about that too. Keep trying! :D

On "giving up to ultimately Satan" -- that makes sense. Saying, "this war is unjust and must not be fought" is one thing; handing over one's wife and children to the Mongols or to the Apaches for their bloody recreation is something else.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 01, 2015 3:28 AM  

Titius,
"Meantime, I think both of your points are valid, though as a non-Christian I try not to tell Christians what they should do according to their religion."

Why?
I'm not a Christian either, but either their religion is true/valid or it is not. No one has monopoly on the truth. The reason I would never be a Muslim is because it is a demonstrably evil religion, even if it turned out to be true, I would still reject it, and its God too. As it happens, I happen to believe in God being love and as such Islam is also a clearly false theology. This is also demonstrable by the many factual errors in the Koran, and besides all that, a child rapist cannot be in any way holy. So we can dismiss that religion quite conclusively even if we tried at first to give it the benefit of the doubt.

When we try to do the same with Christianity, we find that (as usual, because MPAI) most "Christians" are actually only brainwashed Churchians. If we then begin to examine their actual holy book (much as we could do with Islam above and find it to be a steaming pile of pig crap) we however begin to find something quite astonishing. The concepts and ideas in it seem to hold up extremely well to the reality we are faced with daily. But many of the Churchian concepts are way off from the true and usually simpler, neater and more profound Christian concepts actually found in the New Testament.

So, as before, I see nothing wrong with examining Christian thought in light of their own holy book. What we find is not that the holy book is wrong (at least to date) but rather that the Churcians are wrong. In contrast, the deranged Muslims are in actual fact being quite good followers of their "holy" book when compared to "Christians" (Churchians).

1 – 200 of 220 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts