ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, May 03, 2017

How bad must it get?

Two National Review cucks admit some sympathy for the "reactionaries":
Andrew Sullivan: And is it any wonder that reactionaries are gaining strength? Within the space of 50 years, America has gone from segregation to dizzying multiculturalism; from traditional family structures to widespread divorce, cohabitation, and sexual liberty; from a few respected sources of information to an endless stream of peer-to-peer media; from careers in one company for life to an ever-accelerating need to retrain and regroup; from a patriarchy to (incomplete) gender equality; from homosexuality as a sin to homophobia as a taboo; from Christianity being the common culture to a secularism no society has ever sustained before ours.

Rod Dreher: I give Sullivan a lot of credit here. It hardly needs to be pointed out that he, as a gay man, has been one of the great beneficiaries of these changes. Yet he recognizes the staggering revolutionary nature of these changes — and, because he doesn’t believe that his homosexuality is the only relevant part of his identity, he also feels the loss of the old world, to a certain extent. He grasps the self-serving delusion embraced by so many Westerners today: that progress is not only inevitable, but always a good thing. Indeed, that’s why they call it “progress.”

But what if the changes are not progress at all, but rather regress? To call it “progress” is to have a fixed goal in mind, and to believe that we are steadily moving in that inevitable direction. The British political philosopher John Gray has powerfully criticized the modern view of progress, calling it (rightly) a secularization of the Christian belief that history is headed toward a fixed conclusion. Marxism adopted this worldview, and reframed the End of History as the realization of Full Communism, and the withering of the State. Progressives today, both of the liberal and conservative variety, accept unthinkingly that history is moving towards a global paradise of free markets and free individuals all exercising maximal Choice. In this sense, there is less difference between Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton than between Ronald Reagan and a contemporary reactionary.

Sully is not, however, a neoreactionary:

Sullivan: This, of course, is not to defend the neo-reactionary response. Their veiled racism is disturbing, and their pessimism a solipsistic pathology. When Anton finds nothing in modernity to celebrate but, as he put it to me, “nice restaurants, good wine, a high standard of living,” it comes off as a kind of pose, deliberately blind to all the constant renewals of life and culture around us. When Houellebecq has one of his characters sigh, “For a man to bring a child into the world now is meaningless,” I chortle. When Dreher hyperventilates that today’s youngsters “could be one of the last generations of this thing called Western civilization” and that American Christians today must “live lives prepared to suffer severe hardship, even death, for our faith,” I take my dogs for a walk. When Yarvin insists that “if the 20th century does not go down in history as the golden age of awful government, it is only because the future holds some fresher hell for us,” I check my Instagram account. There is something hysterical here, too manically certain, bleaker than any human being can bear for long.

Well, to be clear, I don’t at all agree with Yarvin or Houellebecq, and I don’t think I agree with Anton either. Only a few years before I was born, in my Southern town apartheid was legal, and black citizens lived under a reign of terror. I’m serious: read this 1964 magazine article describing events in my own town.  A few years back, I met three Freedom Riders who had been part of those events. It really happened. Thank God those days are over.

Yet we cannot easily dismiss the words that a melancholy older black man, a taxi driver, said to me in 1993 as he drove me down a decimated avenue of Washington, DC, which was then at the peak of its murder epidemic. He told me about what it was like for him growing up in segregated DC. He pointed to storefronts and buildings that were now vacant and decaying. “That was a bakery, and that was a drugstore,” he said. “Black-owned. We had something back then.” On and on he went, describing the way this blasted-out part of town looked in his youth, and cursing the young black men who do nothing but sell drugs and shoot each other. I squirmed in the back seat listening to this older black man tell these stories to me, a young white man, but he didn’t hold back. I got the feeling that he wasn’t even paying attention to me, but was rather just musing aloud. He ended by telling me that he wasn’t sure at all that there had been progress. Yes, segregation was gone, but look around you, son, at what we black folks in DC have lost in the last thirty years.

That is a reactionary sentiment. And it’s important. I did not experience that old black taxi driver calling for the return of segregation, or lamenting its passing. I experienced him as a man aware of  human tragedy. The progressive narrative requires that the old man’s views be suppressed. But he knew what he saw all around him.
It's really rather remarkable what these self-styled conservatives are willing to give up so that no one will call them, or their society, racist. Is the complete economic collapse of that block in Washington DC really a price worth paying to end segregation? Is the decline of Black America into a dependent feral state really worth the superficial integration and pretend equality it now enjoys?

One has to ask the question, at what point is the price of this social progress too high? Do we really have to wait until Africans are raping infants and butchering people on the street in order to practice mutu before we decide that perhaps they should not be permitted to live amongst us? Do we really have to wait until Jews own 100 percent of all the corporations and real estate before we decide that perhaps they should not be permitted to engage in usury? Do we really have to wait before Muslims impose sharia across the entire West before we decide that Charles Martel and the Spanish reconquistadors had the right idea? Do we really need to permit the Chinese to take 100 percent of the college enrollment before we decide that submitting to the rule of a Chinese provincial elite is not in our best interests?

Obviously, all of these things cannot happen; each one tends to preclude the others. But the point remains: how far is too far? The reactionary says: things have gone too far. The cuckservative says: things haven't gone so far that it is worth risking the possibility that someone will call me racist.

Of course, the fact that Rod Dreher and Andrew Sullivan are beginning to openly admit that there is a point to "neoreaction" is an early indicator that even the cuckservatives are beginning to crack. It is already clear to everyone that the liberal democratic order has failed. Sooner, rather than later, even the cuckiest of cucks will be forced to acknowledge that what they once considered enlightened moral and social progress is, in fact, dyscivilizational regress.

Soon we will all be Alt-Right.

Labels: ,

210 Comments:

1 – 200 of 210 Newer› Newest»
Blogger SteelPalm May 03, 2017 6:10 AM  

Considering Andrew Sullivan was one of the many co-writers of that giant NY Mag hit piece on the Alt-Right, he is nothing more than a treacherous liar flirting with both sides for a paycheck.

But really, that has been true of Sullivan for his entire career. He has less morals than Bill Clinton left alone with an underling woman he finds attractive. A shameless shill that makes the worst of Fox News seem honorable by comparison.

Blogger JACIII May 03, 2017 6:12 AM  

Don't expect too much from them.

As you posted the other day - It will take time for them to process (given they are intellectually honest at all) and they must clear the biggest hurdle of all for their type - admission of guilt, or complicity, or error, in the destruction.

Anonymous TS May 03, 2017 6:15 AM  

Sympathy for the "devil"?

Anonymous Rocklea May 03, 2017 6:20 AM  

How progressively illiberal

Anonymous Simplytimothy May 03, 2017 6:27 AM  


Soon we will all be Alt-Right


OT. Socialists have their meme of a near handshake with the slogan "We are all Socialists now"


Some meme lord may enjoy forking it for the alt right and triggering some folks

Anonymous MaskettaMan May 03, 2017 6:30 AM  

To hell with 'em. Keep moving the narrative forward. We know it's inevitable that cucks will cozy up to the strong horse so they can keep their keisters close to the microphone.

I'm not heartened by any softening of cuckservatives towards the alt-right. It just means they perceive some advantage to be won. Put them out in the cold and let your guys know that anyone that offers them a meal will lose his plate in short order.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti May 03, 2017 6:31 AM  

1) I know Rod personally, and he isn't as much of a cuck as you think. Yes, he definitely has some cucky tendencies, but he understands more than he lets on in his blog. Maybe that leaves him open to the charge of caring more about his "cushy" (not actually all that cushy) lifestyle than the truth, perhaps there is something to that charge, but I would say it's more a matter of a) he reacts viscerally against anything smelling like alt-Retard and b) above everything else in the political sphere, he cares about proper order and hates the mob (and above anything in the political sphere, he cares about his Orthodox faith). I can't and won't speak for him, but based on my interactions with him I would say that he thinks, at this point, while the alt-Right is still shot through with alt-Retards, it is too dangerous to give them support, on account of their destabilizing influence on the body politic. You may see things differently, as might I, but this isn't simple cuckery.

2) Rod especially--that is, much more so than Andrew Sullivan--is an astute and honest enough person to see the big picture here. So I would urge you to follow your own advice from a few days ago, and be patient with him. He is getting there, slowly.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch May 03, 2017 6:34 AM  

We require segregation. For starters.

Anonymous Icicle May 03, 2017 6:36 AM  

Cuck-a-doodle-doo!

Blogger Lazarus May 03, 2017 6:36 AM  

MaskettaMan wrote:I'm not heartened by any softening of cuckservatives towards the alt-right. It just means they perceive some advantage to be won.

Sullivan spells out such an advantageous strategy near the end:
You will not arrest the reactionary momentum by ignoring it or dismissing it entirely as a function of bigotry or stupidity. You’ll only defuse it by appreciating its insights and co-opting its appeal.

Cultural appropriation. Fake neo-reaction.

Anonymous Looking Glass May 03, 2017 6:38 AM  

Sullivan made his career out of being able to notice things then spin them to his own ends. To actually reflect properly would require denying everything he's ever done. Since his life style has gotten him a nice case of AIDS, no power under Heaven could change him from his course.

As to the piece, the problem you have is the neither main writer in the piece really can hold a candle to the intelligence levels of the people they're trying to critique. It always comes across, even if their Wordsmithing skills are very good.

"Their veiled racism is disturbing, and their pessimism a solipsistic pathology" that's pure 2nd Law verging over to 3rd Law from Sullivan. And I'm quite sure he knows it. He knows the enemy of Good is his own Soul, but he can never accept that. It always ugly.


@7 Darth Dharmakīrti

His children aren't in danger. Or he can't comprehend it all yet. So he won't affect their good schools or his nice living. The "civilizing" effects of culture means he's trapped himself where he is for now. He'll be happy to stand back and let someone else do the heavy lifting.

We'll just make sure he can't claim credit for the positive results in the future. That's the problem with fair weather friends.

Blogger Koanic May 03, 2017 6:39 AM  

I suppose the conversation of men does eventually percolate through the knitting circle.

Blogger Koanic May 03, 2017 6:43 AM  

You’ll only defuse it by appreciating its insights and co-opting its appeal.

He's being a good sport about the stoning.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti May 03, 2017 6:44 AM  

His children aren't in danger. Or he can't comprehend it all yet. So he won't affect their good schools or his nice living. The "civilizing" effects of culture means he's trapped himself where he is for now. He'll be happy to stand back and let someone else do the heavy lifting.

His children are homeschooled, and not only did he deliberately avoid the majority-black areas of Baton Rouge when he recently moved there, he has expressed sympathy for the desire of the majority-white areas to form their own municipality. As I said, he gets the big picture here.

I don't think he cares about "credit," but I don't think it's entirely fair to say he hasn't been doing any heavy lifting. The Benedict Option is a very useful starting point for the people who aren't necessarily going to be on the front lines of Civil War 2.0, to start thinking about how they are going to survive it and its aftermath. Yes, it is a little cucky, but as I said he cares more about his faith than anything else. Shouldn't we all?

Blogger Idunna-Practicallyperfect May 03, 2017 6:47 AM  

Those of us on the Alt side of things really need to be contemplating just how we get out of this with some of us intact. Is the way forward groups like True Cascadia or League of the South? Would love to see some realistic ideas brainstormed.

Blogger Annie DiPiombo May 03, 2017 6:49 AM  

This is the same Sullivan that was fainting like a bearded old lady over the prospect of Trumpian fascism in the same e-pages a couple of months ago?

Blogger SteelPalm May 03, 2017 6:54 AM  

@16 Yep, the very same.

Sullivan is not stupid, though. This is simply part of his deceitful act.

I can't speak to Dreher, but I find Darth Dharmakīrti's defense unconvincing. If he can't even stick out his neck a little, even now that the God Emperor is in office, he is a sad, worthless coward of no use to anyone.

That he knows more than he lets on is obvious. Even hardcore leftists know enough to avoid majority-black schools and neighborhoods.

It simply makes his behavior all the more disgraceful.

Blogger Dirtnapninja May 03, 2017 6:54 AM  

Darth Dharmakīrti wrote:1) I know Rod personally, and he isn't as much of a cuck as you think. Yes, he definitely has some cucky tendencies, but he understands more than he lets on in his blog. Maybe that leaves him open to the charge of caring more about his "cushy" (not actually all that cushy) lifestyle than the truth, perhaps there is something to that charge, but I would say it's more a matter of a) he reacts viscerally against anything smelling like alt-Retard and b) above everything else in the political sphere, he cares about proper order and hates the mob (and above anything in the political sphere, he cares about his Orthodox faith). I can't and won't speak for him, but based on my interactions with him I would say that he thinks, at this point, while the alt-Right is still shot through with alt-Retards, it is too dangerous to give them support, on account of their destabilizing influence on the body politic. You may see things differently, as might I, but this isn't simple cuckery.



The obsession with order is the conservative weakness. There is no point in respecting order and authority when that order and authority is being used to destroy you. When the politics are hostile, the body politic SHOULD be destabilized.

Blogger Lazarus May 03, 2017 6:55 AM  

Darth Dharmakīrti wrote:The Benedict Option is a very useful starting point for the people who aren't necessarily going to be on the front lines of Civil War 2.0,

As history shows, civil wars involve everybody. While Dreher and his people are resisting by being resilient bystanders, they will be overrun by howling mobs of one of the many factions engaged in mortal combat. Ask non-combatents in Syria about the Benedict option.

Anonymous Looking Glass May 03, 2017 6:57 AM  

@14 Darth Dharmakīrti

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Matthew 10:34-39 ESV

I can appreciate his position. He grew up in a world in the grip of Unreality. He had to go all the way to becoming Orthodox to find stability from within his own culture. He's got a world to learn about what Faith really means.

Anonymous Man of the Atom May 03, 2017 6:57 AM  

Dreher has shown he is someone who will forever keep his powder dry and unused, unless someone steps too far to the Inappropriate Right. Let him retreat to his hidey-hole of his Benedict Option, but as others have said here, he should be quiet and follow afterwards.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti May 03, 2017 7:07 AM  

I can appreciate his position. He grew up in a world in the grip of Unreality. He had to go all the way to becoming Orthodox to find stability from within his own culture. He's got a world to learn about what Faith really means.

This is basically my conclusion about him as well. (For now). He came of intellectual age in the 1980s, when the closest thing to sanity generally available was the Reagan Revolution. To his credit, he was always skeptical of the free market macroeconomic dogma of the National Review types, and additionally way too far right on social issues to have much of a national profile until very recently. He is much smarter than Bill Kristol and much more honest than Rich Lowry. Give him time.

Anonymous Joshua_D May 03, 2017 7:11 AM  

and hates the mob

Well, Rod can hate the mob all he wants, but the mob is real, it's waking up, and it's getting pissed.

Blogger Doom May 03, 2017 7:13 AM  

One can hope. The options are pretty bloody. I am about 50/50 on which way is best. The good thing about the bloody way is, a) I think we will win, b) while it will be a bit... harsh at first, it will be definite and long lasting. Always drawbacks. Always risks. I'm not sure if the choice will be offered, so it might just have to be taken.

Anonymous Looking Glass May 03, 2017 7:14 AM  

@22 Darth Dharmakīrti

Some of us still remember Crunch Cons: https://www.amazon.com/Crunchy-Cons-Birkenstocked-evangelical-homeschooling/dp/1400050642

While I give a lot of people a pass on Free Market Economics until about 2010, after that point, you needed to realize something had gone very, very wrong.

Blogger ZhukovG May 03, 2017 7:14 AM  

There may be a place in the future for New Benedictines, but it will not be in leadership. The Church on earth is called The Church Militant for a reason, and it's not about creating 'safe spaces'.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti May 03, 2017 7:16 AM  

Dreher has shown he is someone who will forever keep his powder dry and unused, unless someone steps too far to the Inappropriate Right

This is ridiculously unfair. The man literally had to have a police protection detail outside his house 24/7 because he said that most people had never heard of the negress singer Aaliyah ("who?") and that her funeral procession didn't deserve to block traffic in midtown NYC. And he has gotten in multiple drawn out fights with CAIR, attacking them even at the height of the W. Bush-era "Religion of Peace" garbage.

Anonymous Henry Prince May 03, 2017 7:20 AM  

Speaking of Alt Retards, what does this mean??

"Do we really have to wait until Jews own 100 percent of all the corporations and real estate before we decide that perhaps they should not be permitted to engage in usury?"

If you truly want to attract conservatives then I suggest you stop this anti-Semite crap first. We conservatives stand with Israel no matter what. Anti-semitism is a deal breaker, not to mention stupid and gross.

Stop being an Alt-Retard, Vox!

Blogger Apotheosis Magazine May 03, 2017 7:20 AM  

Even John Gray, a supposed radical philosopher is a cuck. He is quick to shout out against "progress" in all forms, but is strangely silent on multicultralism. Sure, John, isn't it atleast an open question whether mass rapes, killings and incarceration in formermly fully white and peaceful countries by non-whites not a sign of linear progress?

Blogger Cecil Henry May 03, 2017 7:21 AM  

Diversity is hell. And, diversity crushes souls.

Enough of it. To be free of it is the only way we will be free.

Blogger Koanic May 03, 2017 7:22 AM  

We conservatives stand with Israel no matter what.

This is true.

Traitors.

Anonymous Looking Glass May 03, 2017 7:25 AM  

Sometimes, it's really hard to tell if it's a Concern Troll or the most pitch-perfect sarcasm.

Blogger Felix Bellator May 03, 2017 7:47 AM  

We conservatives stand with Israel no matter what.

Because Lord knows Israel has been perfect throughout history.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore May 03, 2017 7:48 AM  

And they accept the false premises of the Civil Rights Movement. Dude couldn't bring himself to be critical of its hallmark strategy, integration. One of these days, someone is going to write a harsh and vicious take down of the Civil Rights movement. Gon' be a whole lotta Black Leftists, standard Black conservatives, and white liberals pissed at whomever writes such a thing. I can envision baby boomer, fully apoplectic, sputtering "But having the best Black athletes play at predominately white colleges instead of HBCUs was for the greater good of an integrated society."

Blogger VD May 03, 2017 7:50 AM  

Rod especially--that is, much more so than Andrew Sullivan--is an astute and honest enough person to see the big picture here. So I would urge you to follow your own advice from a few days ago, and be patient with him. He is getting there, slowly.

Hey, I LIKE Rod. He was the only mainstream newspaper editor to sign my syndicated column when he was at the Dallas Morning News. I have absolutely nothing against him, and I am absolutely certain that he understands more than he can bring himself to consciously accept.

If you truly want to attract conservatives then I suggest you stop this anti-Semite crap first. We conservatives stand with Israel no matter what. Anti-semitism is a deal breaker, not to mention stupid and gross.

If you think that anything short of permitting 100 percent Jewish ownership of all property is "anti-semitism", then there is no deal. Consider it broken and consider yourself rejected by the Alt-Right.

Anonymous Walter Oleg May 03, 2017 7:58 AM  

I was watching the Canadian academic Dr. Jordan Peterson trying to have a discussion with some trans-SJW types where he warned them that waiting in the shadows are Nazis ready to bring order if things move too far leftward (In another lecture on the rise of the Nazis he explained how they came in reaction to the left and in the general disorder of post war Germany). This was totally lost on them.

Hey Dr. Peterson (if you read this blog), shhhh, don't tell them, the boys in Antarctica have been planning this for 70 years.

Operation We Told You So: Let (((YKW))) run wild for 75 years then swoop in (in Flying Saucers) to retain proper order.

Blogger Tank May 03, 2017 8:04 AM  

I did not know that we Jews were so close to 100% ownership. I'm hoping to get the deed to Alt-Retard's house myself.

Usury? LOL. Really. Why not just go back to "drinking Christian babies' blood?"

VD tries to out exaggerate Pres. T. He can't get over the Judeo part of Judeo-Christian. This drives him crazy for some reason. God forbid the Joooos should get any credit.

Anonymous MarketWarrior May 03, 2017 8:11 AM  

They hate "da jooos" because we are actually successful in using the free market. We also get all the white women while Alt-Retards whack it in mom's basement.

Protip: if you talk about the "goyim" constantly it is a sure sign you are a goy. We joooos live in your white supremacist head, rent-free.

Blogger Koanic May 03, 2017 8:14 AM  

Why not just go back to "drinking Christian babies' blood?"

Inefficient pre-industrial practice.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti May 03, 2017 8:20 AM  

@VD, thanks for that interesting tidbit.

I seriously thought Henry Prince was an alt-Retard type, engaging in clumsy satire. Apparently he's just a retard, and has attracted others of his kind to this post (don't touch the poop).

Blogger dc.sunsets May 03, 2017 8:28 AM  

The parallels between mainstream (stock) market analysis and political analysis are often astonishing.

Here we see a perfect example of the following: "(Political/Social) conditions are near an extreme, but the trend has further to go so the neo-reactionaries (the bears) are wrong to 'short' progress."

If bear markets (significant trend changes) were that predictable, they wouldn't occur. And they would never be a surprise. Foresight has NEVER been successful over long periods of time WRT markets (because if anyone could do it, using leverage, they'd own the entire world in a few months.)

This is why the (((mainstream))) commentariat will ALWAYS be wrong at the turns, the same as CNBC's analysts and guests will ALWAYS be wrong at the turns. This is straight out of Albert J. Nock's Isaiah's Job; the masses ARE the masses.

You can't move the mean. It simply doesn't work that way. Only the outliers have real agency.

Teleology saturates every iota of our "discussion environment." Humans seem to have difficulty embracing the very notion of directionlessness. The Universe is expanding. Progress is UP. The past is BAD. The future is continuous quality improvement.

This is history (past, present and future) as an ISO 9001 project.

No wonder our world spins toward the point where the force of centripetal acceleration exceeds the elastic modulus of our human social structure.

Blogger VD May 03, 2017 8:30 AM  

Usury? LOL. Really.

Yes. Instead of posturing like a teenage girl, I suggest you read both volumes of Rothbard's An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, which can be reasonably described as the very slow process of the gradual acceptance of usury across Christendom.

They hate "da jooos" because we are actually successful in using the free market.

No, you're not. You simply practice in-group nepotism more ruthlessly than anyone except the Asians, who are now in the process of kicking your asses. Jews want nothing to do with a genuinely free market. See: Israel.

Or, for that matter, US Jewish voting patterns.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora May 03, 2017 8:33 AM  

Segregation: Proving open borders and free trade can hurt.

Anonymous Joshua_D May 03, 2017 8:35 AM  

As an Alt-Righter, I certainly stand with Israel and look forward to the Jews returning to their homeland. If you love Israel, and you are a Jew, you need to go home now.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 03, 2017 8:36 AM  

I never thought of alt-right as reactionary.

Conservatism is hopeless because it is caught in the Left's OODA cycle of always debating within the ism, ist and phobia paradigm. Those two National Review hucksters could not fend off Trigglypuff.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 03, 2017 8:41 AM  

And once again we see that "the act of noticing" brings an -ism charge.

Notice that the Ashkenazim exhibit divided loyalties [same as do (fill-in-the-blank)-Americans of all kinds?]

You're LH (yes, Literally Hitler.)

How anti-semitic is it to notice that most of the anti-semitic crimes of late were committed by Jews, given endless coverage in Jewish-owned mainstream media organs, and that the identification of the (((culprits))) had ZERO effect on subsequent hyperbolic news reports.

Almost like the dissolution of one white-on-black or campus rape-hoax after another has had ZERO effect on the hyperbole attached to every subsequent claim.

The Big Wheel has a tendency to turn. I remain astonished at the number of epithet-hurling, narrative-pushing clowns who seem oblivious to this, and how it might be their head on the pavement when someone on whom they previously heaped derision happens to drive down that road.

Anonymous MaskettaMan May 03, 2017 8:45 AM  

I think the salient point is that free markets enable usury, nepotism, and other flavors of financial rape. But nobody here said they were pro-free markets.

Speaking of, y'all better check the noses in a lot of those interracial videos. You know the ones.

Blogger ZhukovG May 03, 2017 8:46 AM  

I kinda feel sorry for the average Jew. They are in for a real shock when their own elite betray and abandon them after the 'fewmets strike the windmill'. C'est la guerre.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 03, 2017 8:48 AM  

Regarding usury:

Who was it who came up with the brilliant con artistry to legalize the creation of credit from thin air, lend it, charge RENT on it (interest), take that "money" as a deposit, pay a small interest to the depositor, and walk away with the spread?

I mean, wow! Produce NOTHING, and make money on the morons who line up to play your con game? No casino in the world could come up with a better game more certain to fleece the rubes.

Was it the Ashkenazim or Highland Scots who came up with this, because those are the folks we find at the top of the con game's ruling committees.

[BTW, it is the inversion/bastardization of Say's Law that underlies every rationalization for this monetary abomination. Say noted that in order to consume (enter the market) you must first produce (something to trade in the market), but EVERY economist will tell you that demand creates supply...so the more credit that floods into the hands of demanders, the more economic activity that results. This is tantamount to saying that the more counterfeit money plowed into an economy, the more businesses will flourish.]

Blogger dc.sunsets May 03, 2017 8:52 AM  

@47, I may be missing your point, but if you think "free markets" enable fractional reserve banking, you're mistaken. That's like claiming that free markets enable Murder, Inc.

Anonymous b May 03, 2017 8:55 AM  

re:@30 Diversity is hell.

Good meme, worth propagating.

Anonymous MaskettaMan May 03, 2017 9:01 AM  

dc.sunsets wrote:@47, I may be missing your point, but if you think "free markets" enable fractional reserve banking, you're mistaken. That's like claiming that free markets enable Murder, Inc.

Fair point. When only bankers can create money, otherwise it's counterfeiting... that's not free. I was thinking specifically of the act of charging high rates of interest.

Anonymous krymneth May 03, 2017 9:02 AM  

Reactionary, like "fascist", is now just an empty word that people are trying to squeeze every last drop of innuendo out of on the left. If it actually has a definition other than "not left", what the left has reduced every other slur they can get their hands on to, nobody knows what it is anymore.

This post also touches on one of the major structural problems with leftism; it has no end goal, only directions. How many minorities should be affirmative-actioned into college? "More." How many immigrants should be taken in? "More." How much money needs to be spent on welfare? "More." How many more rights do sexual deviants need? "More."

From a strictly tactical point of view, ignoring the moral issues, it's sort of ironic that the conservatives so freely give to the left and expect to be patted on the head, because in the leftist mindset you've done nothing for them. Sexual deviants need "more" rights before you grant homosexuals the right to be "married", and sexual deviants need "more" rights afterwards. In a way, that's not progress; that's just treading water. You might as well push back hard and start taking things back, because once the initial shock of flipping the direction is over, in a lot of ways the left in its very heart won't even be that unhappy... take away homosexual marriage and they still will yell for "more". It's no actual change to them. In fact one almost wonders how much of modern leftism's insanity is because of the increasing difficulty of managing to convince oneself that they are oppressed; the right would almost be doing them a favor to claw this stuff back. They could then feel oppressed and play victim at the cost of far less mangling of their body and soul to get to that point.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 03, 2017 9:07 AM  

Rod Dreher is still writing for NR and NR is yet to do an "In Search Of Alt-Right Sympathies" exploration on Dreher.
Dreher is either being a conservative respectable or a coward.
Dreher needs to re-review NR's purges on real, intelligent, and honest writers.

Anonymous CC May 03, 2017 9:12 AM  

I used to read Andrew Sullivan every week, he had a column on US politics in the Sunday Times. I used to read him to get a different perspective because he was a gay right-wing conservative and most of what I read would have been very liberal. He was full of praise for George W Bush and quite hawkish, but then suddenly pivoted over the Iraq war and endorsed John Kerry in 2004. It shows that he is able to change his mind. It looks like he's pivoting again here.

I stopped reading him around this time though, because his writing had become a bit hysterical and unhinged. I'd never fully understood everything he wrote but at least he was reasonable and lucid. But then later just by chance, I dipped into his column again and he explained that he'd developed sleep apnea and that his inability to sleep properly had affected his thinking.

It shows me how far I've come when I can read him now: "Their veiled racism is disturbing" and just roll my eyes. He was also on the British news recently complaining about Trump and how he was the wrong figure at a time when the USA was about to become a minority white country(!)

And I see he's still as haughty as ever.

Blogger Robert Divinity May 03, 2017 9:20 AM  

The essays also read like wistful post-moratoriums. If Western civilization and decent society are dead, Dreher and Sullivan don't have to argue and fight to preserve them. Hillary Clinton's election was supposed to represent America's death rattle and her loss disappointed them. Now these two and their clones have to pretend the death remains inevitable. Otherwise they have to confront what is happening now.

I'm going with your previous advice and exercising patience. My disdain will be internalized except here and like places.

Blogger darkdoc May 03, 2017 9:24 AM  

Judeo-Christian, and anti-Semitism, implies there are religious Jews. It's been decades since I knew one, 32 years to be exact. But the cultural Jew is everywhere.

Being opposed to cultural Judaism is no more anti-semetic than being against bankers or real estae people in general.

Blogger Thomas Henderson May 03, 2017 9:31 AM  

I never thought of alt-right as reactionary.


Old school historians like Macaulay and Churchill saw history as instructional: avoid the mistakes of others and learn what works.

Today's progressives and leftists, in contrast, see history as the foil against which to measure how far they've come. They see the current crop of people as further evolved, moving towards a higher state of consciousness and being.

The parallels with New Age religion is not accidental.

Such thinking also smacks of hubris: pride to think oneself better than one's fore-bearers who, being less evolved, wallowed in ignorance and prejudice. The current year is always better than the year before. Virtue signalling is all the rave.

Pride, needless to say, has traditionally been viewed as the province of the devil.

It helped that Macaulay and Churchill were Christians. While they saw their fellow man as made in the image of God they also saw sin as an impairment to the good. They ultimately saw history as man working his way through his redemption. They never forgot the need for grace.

Insofar as the alt-right tends to react against one and be inclined to the other one can say it is, be default, reactionary.

Blogger praetorian May 03, 2017 9:36 AM  

Andrew Sullivan is the platonic form of narcissistic homosexual solipsism.

The bog just got 10 feet deeper.

Blogger Unknown May 03, 2017 9:40 AM  

Wait, they're discussing Moldbug?

This is a positive development.

Blogger tz May 03, 2017 9:45 AM  

It's great as long as someone else pays for it. SJW virtue signalling turns Detroit and Chicago into Zimbabwe bit SJWs feelz! Free trade - China lets the rich be richer, while working poor lose their jobs. Then there's the whole environmental thing. They virtue-signal from their segre-gated communities.

It isn't anti-semitism to point out 70% of Jews voted for Hillary, and where is judaeo-christian on gay marriage, divorce, and abortion? Oh, they're as secular as Sully but without regrets.

How are Jews doing in France? Maybe the final solution is to let Muslim refugees do the wetwork.

@37 at least here, the joooos get credit (isn't that usury? oh different credit), but they also get blame. They've turned hollywood and tv into a SJW porn sewer, then cry free speech. Oh and where is all that "fetal tissue" planned parenthood produces going? Drinking babies blood is so old tech. We have stem cells and a million dead babies a year to consume in some way.




Blogger dfordoom May 03, 2017 9:46 AM  

@58. Thomas Henderson

It helped that Macaulay and Churchill were Christians.

Churchill was a Christian? This is Winston Churchill you're talking about? I've read quite a bit about Churchill and I've never come across the slightest hint that he had any trace of religious faith.

Anonymous Toddy Cat May 03, 2017 9:48 AM  

And of course, the idea that all Blacks in the segregated South lived under a "Reign of Terror" is absurd. The events that occurred in Dreher's home town made the national news precisely because they were unusual (assuming that they weren't the product of some magazine editor's imagination, a possibility I would not wholly discount).

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 9:49 AM  

"Do we really have to wait until Africans are raping infants and butchering people on the street in order to practice mutu before we decide that perhaps they should not be permitted to live amongst us?"

No. We must wait until even a small percentage of blacks are doing this. We ain't close to that.

"Do we really have to wait until Jews own 100 percent of all the corporations and real estate before we decide that perhaps they should not be permitted to engage in usury?"

No. We can wait until Jews own 20% of the corporations, but that time is so far off it's nothing to worry about now.

"Do we really have to wait before Muslims impose sharia across the entire West before we decide that Charles Martel and the Spanish reconquistadors had the right idea?"

Let's at least wait until the Muslims have imposed sharia law anywhere in the U.S. It hasn't happened yet....anywhere.

"Do we really need to permit the Chinese to take 100 percent of the college enrollment before we decide that submitting to the rule of a Chinese provincial elite is not in our best interests?"

That will be a while since the current number is under 2%

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) May 03, 2017 9:50 AM  

Churchill was a Christian? This is Winston Churchill you're talking about? I've read quite a bit about Churchill and I've never come across the slightest hint that he had any trace of religious faith.

You must not read much.

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/November/Divine-Destiny-Churchills-Faith-and-the-Defeat-of-Evil

Henley tells the story of Churchill discussing world leaders through the ages with Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, a senior officer in the British army.

"'What do you think about Jesus Christ?' Montgomery asks Churchill. And Churchill said, 'Jesus Christ was unsurpassed in his capacity to save sinners.' Those were his words. We quote them in the book," Henley said.

Henley and Sandys credit Churchill's nanny with teaching him the Gospel.

"This nanny, Elizabeth Everest, pumped the word of God into him and he analyzed things from that perspective," Henley said.

Blogger Unknown May 03, 2017 9:51 AM  

In usual Dreher fashion, he admits the obvious while going to cringey pains to refute the position so as to not appear, *gasp*, racist. It's boring at first blush and exhausting when examined more closely. Imagine the constant posturing, the worry, the tiring attempts to rhetorically bend to the degenerate mean. Think of the psychological toll: Dreher, ostensibly a practicing Easter Orthodox, always having to accept positions that counter his faith, which he ironically wears on his sleeve. The dissonance must be dizzying.

Furthermore, why consider Sullivan's view at all? He's never been anything but Conservatism Inc.'s pet homo. He more often than not runs upstream of even politely cuckservative views because: homosexuality. Well, at least be fore buggery became a "core value". So what, pray tell, is so "conservative" about Sullivan? Nothing. I hardly feel that a limey fag's views of anything is pertinent to understanding anything coming from the US. Let alone the right-wing of the US.

This is all so lazy and boring, as is so much of what we see from media today - especially when the attempt to psychoanalyze the alt-right, or whatever we're calling ourselves today.

Maybe Mr. Sullivan should stop looking at Instagram and fully accept the tenets of his "Catholic" faith he professes and consider, in light of his "same-sex attraction", a life of celibacy.

Nah, that'd be asking too much, he has dogs to walk and everything.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) May 03, 2017 9:53 AM  


I don't think he cares about "credit," but I don't think it's entirely fair to say he hasn't been doing any heavy lifting. The Benedict Option is a very useful starting point for the people who aren't necessarily going to be on the front lines of Civil War 2.0, to start thinking about how they are going to survive it and its aftermath.


I would encourage everyone in the alt west to read the Benedict option. The primary focus is the need for Christians to refocus on building our own institutions. In that way it is not very different from the alt tech.

Blogger Shadiley May 03, 2017 9:53 AM  

She killed several people in her entourage along with herself because of her luggage.

Should have hired m00t.

Blogger tz May 03, 2017 9:55 AM  

Usury is slavery, but lending at interest is mentioned in the gospels.

(Zippy Catholic has a detailed examination as to what forms of debt are or are not usury, generally, if you are the collateral, it's usury. if it is your property, it isn't).

This is another split I have with libertarians - NAP or the free market, not both. Can I hire thieves, assassins, or usurers?

Note that Islam/Sharia condemns usury, but there are ways to invest. Say, isn't Aramco going public?

Christians used to avoid debt as much as possible - installment loans were a feature of the late 1920s.

Government debt and unfunded liabilities - that won't turn out well.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 03, 2017 9:55 AM  

"I experienced him as a man aware of human tragedy."

How do people who talk like this get through a day without getting punched?

I know Rod personally, and he isn't as much of a cuck as you think.

Crunchy Cons is still on my bookshelf somewhere, but he crossed a line for me when he tried to help elect Hillary. Yeah, I know (I think) he never officially endorsed her, but he approvingly quoted people who did (Douthat). When the options are A and B and you spend 90% of your time and energy bashing A while occasionally saying "But B is terrible too", you're not fooling anyone.

Blogger Thomas Henderson May 03, 2017 9:56 AM  

Churchill was a Christian? This is Winston Churchill you're talking about?

Churchill was baptized and buried in the tradition of the Church of England. Anglicans are not known for wearing the Gospel on their sleeves. However, he did believe in Christian civilization and referenced such in many of his speeches. Moreover, the Christian mindset permeates much of his writing as an historian.

Just because he is not Billy Graham doesn't make him any less of a Christian.

Blogger wreckage May 03, 2017 9:58 AM  

Financiers and the free market tend to be quite different things; financiers rely on government enforcement of asymmetrical contracts.

As for antisemitism being a deal breaker; the center are selling out to the Left, and the Left want Israel destroyed and a multi-culti paradise instituted worldwide, without borders.

The alt-right want Israel to be secure, as with all nations.

Now, I am not alt-right proper, I'm a nationalist libertarian. But I am not shooting right, because the alt-right vision of ethnic self-determination will preserve the Jews, along with everyone else, whereas the globalist vision will destroy them.... along with everyone else.

If you'd rather be killed than insulted, by all means, keep worrying about the alt-wanker brigade.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 03, 2017 9:59 AM  

@52 MaskettaMan

I think it's imperative to differentiate between interest as rent on real things vs interest as "rent" on nothing.

If I build a generator and wish to rent it, I should be able to do so for whatever the market will bear. If I sell the generator and wish to "rent out" the proceeds, the same applies.

In both cases, what is being rented is REAL PRODUCT, either in "raw" form or as it is derived in a monetary market economy.

Where this whole thing got lost was when creation of money (or credit) was offered to and then monopolized by banking.

It didn't take long for the con artists to begin "renting out" an accounting fiction. That's criminal by any logical rationale, yet it is literally the basis for our monetary system now (and at least since 1964, if not 1913.)

Blogger tz May 03, 2017 10:00 AM  

@64
1. Chicago, Detroit
2. Janet Yellen and the private bank known as the Federal reserve.
3. Minneapolis, aka Mogadishu on the Mississippi, as well as Dearborn, MI.
4. true, wait a bit

Blogger Shadiley May 03, 2017 10:00 AM  

Noticist!

Check your perceptive privilege you shitlord!

Blogger Shadiley May 03, 2017 10:02 AM  

The same people that pretend the Walmart is a boat for tax breaks.

Anonymous BBGKB May 03, 2017 10:02 AM  

And it’s important. I did not experience that old black taxi driver calling for the return of segregation, or lamenting its passing.

He didn't miss the infrastructure of society just the golden eggs

Blogger wreckage May 03, 2017 10:05 AM  

""Do we really have to wait before Muslims impose sharia across the entire West before we decide that Charles Martel and the Spanish reconquistadors had the right idea?"

Let's at least wait until the Muslims have imposed sharia law anywhere in the U.S. It hasn't happened yet....anywhere."

It has happened everywhere they have had the numbers to do so, currently and historically. If you're trying to make an ironic mockery of your own position, well done.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) May 03, 2017 10:07 AM  

Yes. Instead of posturing like a teenage girl, I suggest you read both volumes of Rothbard's An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, which can be reasonably described as the very slow process of the gradual acceptance of usury across Christendom.

How are you and/or Rothbard defining usury? Any lending of money at interest?

Blogger Shadiley May 03, 2017 10:08 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Looking Glass May 03, 2017 10:09 AM  

@45 Mr.MantraMan

The Alt-right is counter-revolutionary. In the the manner that caused the American Revolution. (People have been taught to forget that they were fighting to *keep* their Rights.) The more interesting aspect is the response has been picked up in other parts of the World. It speaks to both American cultural export and the fact it fits a certain mode of natural instinct for much of the world.

Blogger YIH May 03, 2017 10:09 AM  

For those who are trying to defend Rod, in his words:
Only a few years before I was born, in my Southern town apartheid was legal, and black citizens lived under a reign of terror. I’m serious: read this 1964 magazine article describing events in my own town. A few years back, I met three Freedom Riders who had been part of those events. It really happened. Thank God those days are over.
Note the words I italicized, ''apartheid'' (a term used to describe White South Africans and their need for preservation of themselves and their first-world culture, something) and ''under a reign of terror''. Those are very charged terms, demonizing White southerners, making them out to be monsters who kill Africans IN America for sport, when they too sought self-determination amongst clusters of imported third-worlders - often ones they had nothing to do with the importation of, did not benefit from, and understood what would happen if they did not control them.
I pointed that out to Rod once over the Ferguson riots, namely https://infogalactic.com/info/Haiti#Haitian_Revolution_.281791.E2.80.931804.29
what tender mercies he might expect from Africans.
He didn't like that.

Blogger rondolf May 03, 2017 10:09 AM  

64. So Vox should wait to remark upon a trend until it is obvious to everyone but the most stupid?

Blogger Shadiley May 03, 2017 10:10 AM  

It's worse than that. Look into setty-kay trusts. We are literally chattel to the City of London.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 03, 2017 10:11 AM  

@64 No. We must wait until even a small percentage of blacks are doing this. We ain't close to that.

Crosshairs look good on you, pal.

They don't have to be raping babies to qualify when this is becoming all too common.

Gun battles between cars driven by black teens (momma, don't you know where your 15 year olds are now?) are now quite fashionable. If you think that it's NOT time to start hosing down the participants with 5.56 then I must assume you're just another rabbit whose r-selected predilections nauseate the rest of us.

Go vie for the Ruenzel Prize. Please.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 03, 2017 10:12 AM  

@36 Walter Oleg
"I was watching the Canadian academic Dr. Jordan Peterson trying to have a discussion with some trans-SJW types where he warned them that waiting in the shadows are Nazis ready to bring order if things move too far leftward (In another lecture on the rise of the Nazis he explained how they came in reaction to the left and in the general disorder of post war Germany). This was totally lost on them"

Don't want a Hitler? Don't create a Weimar. It shouldn't be that difficult a concept.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2017 10:14 AM  

Darth Dharmakīrti wrote:I know Rod personally, and he isn't as much of a cuck as you think. Yes, he definitely has some cucky tendencies, but he understands more than he lets on in his blog.
Then he is dishonest and manipulative with his audience. Somehow that's better, right?

I would say it's more a matter of a) he reacts viscerally against anything smelling like alt-Retard and b) above everything else in the political sphere, he cares about proper order and hates the mob
in other words, CUCK

(and above anything in the political sphere, he cares about his Orthodox faith).
Jsut like he used to care about his Catholic Faith.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 10:17 AM  

"It has happened everywhere they have had the numbers to do so, currently and historically. If you're trying to make an ironic mockery of your own position, well done."

Any estimation as to how long it will be before muslims have the numbers to force a change in the U.S. constitution? Because that's what it will take.

The Sharia thing is a red herring.

Anonymous Grayman May 03, 2017 10:28 AM  

@44

As an Alt-Righter, I certainly stand with Israel and look forward to the Jews returning to their homeland. If you love Israel, and you are a Jew, you need to go home now.

This. I stand with jews and muslims. Mexicans, and Indians (dot). I support the right of each to their own nation with their own customs and culture. Just as the various white cultures have just as much right to theirs without being subjected to "diversity".

Blogger rondolf May 03, 2017 10:29 AM  

64. Also, rhetoric. Maybe you've heard of it.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 03, 2017 10:29 AM  

@88 Grave Digger

"The Sharia thing is a red herring"

Not entirely. But in the sense that, if the Somalians all converted en masse to Christianity tomorrow, they'd still have to go back? Yeah.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 03, 2017 10:41 AM  

The Sharia thing is a red herring.

Sure. A RED herring.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

There are two kinds of people. Those who are fine with Holy Diversity's inevitable hiccups, and those who see in those "hiccups'" victims the faces of their own kin.

I sincerely believe the former are alive today only because it's currently against the law to kill them.

Are you really of the former?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2017 10:45 AM  

Grave Digger wrote:Any estimation as to how long it will be before muslims have the numbers to force a change in the U.S. constitution? Because that's what it will take
How many Jews did it take to force several changes to the US constitution?
What's that you say? They didn't?
Yeah, you're too dumb to play this game. They did not add or remove one word. They introduced and popularized the idea that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, and then proceeded to change what the Supreme Court says. How do you think we arrived where we are, at a post-Constitutional republic? The "Living Document" view of the Constitution is the product of Jewish and Catholic Law professors. It has rendered the Constitution for it's fat and burnt the remainder to ash.

The Constitution will not save you.

Blogger Timmy3 May 03, 2017 10:45 AM  

Sullivan can no longer be consider a Conservative or Catholic. He is progressive liberal. Gays always think society hasn't accommodated gays enough. There will always be someone to fight the gay agenda so society must be destroyed further. Anything normal is yucky and can be debased. Any Republican is a secret homo and must be exposed. Daylight never bothered a liberal so they continue without shame. Is a shameless society the future? Alt-Right certainly learned to not be ashamed to have standards and will fight for it.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 03, 2017 10:46 AM  

@65. Josh (the gayest thing here) May 03, 2017 9:50 AM

I have read some about Churchill but a few points:

1) Non-Christians can and do defended Christian culture.

2) Non-Christians are capable of using Scriptures, even in context. It does not mean that they accept it as anything other than a good literary device. For example, Lincoln.

3) Reacting to the quote "Jesus Christ was unsurpassed in his capacity to save sinners." leaves me wondering is this the best as a defense of Churchill's Christianity? Are there others that are close enough to saving sinners?

4) There is such thing as cultural christianity, having the form but not the substance.

5) "This nanny, Elizabeth Everest, pumped the word of God into him and he analyzed things from that perspective" You can bring the horse to the river but cannot make it drink it.


I will follow the link now ...

Blogger Sheila4g May 03, 2017 10:46 AM  

@85 dc.sunsets: "They don't have to be raping babies to qualify when this is becoming all too common."

Although a six year old isn't a baby, I consider this close enough to qualify.

Blogger Robert What? May 03, 2017 10:49 AM  

It is clear in retrospect that the end of segregation was a tragedy for both Whites and Blacks but especially Blacks. They had a separate and thriving economy and largely in tact family structure. The Black middle class and lower middle class have been vaporized by the end of segregation. (Except for government jobs, which is essentially welfare for the otherwise unemployable)

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 03, 2017 10:50 AM  

@65
From the link:

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- During WWII, Prime Minister Winston Churchill urged the free world to rise up and defeat Adolph Hitler's Nazi regime. Churchill provided inspiration and resolve in the face of despair, but did he believe in God?

The new book God and Churchill, co-authored by Churchill's great grandson Jonathan Sandys and journalist Wallace Henley, says that despite his early years as an agnostic, Churchill came to believe personally in God.

"I definitely conclude that my great grandfather had a strong faith," Sandys told CBN News. "In those days you didn't talk about your faith. Churchill wasn't a religious figure. He was a prime minister."

-------------

This has a little more weight for me. First hand witness impression. Still, nothing attributable directly to Winston himself is a red flag. It is not as if Winston was a shy writer.

Blogger dfordoom May 03, 2017 10:51 AM  

@71. Thomas Henderson

However, he did believe in Christian civilization and referenced such in many of his speeches. Moreover, the Christian mindset permeates much of his writing as an historian.

That would make him a vague cultural Christian. He had a nostalgic fondness for the Victorian age in which he grew up and I'm sure he approved of the idea of the Church of England. I'd be honestly surprised to find that he was an actual believer.

Blogger Sheila4g May 03, 2017 10:56 AM  

@77 BBGKB: "And it’s important. I did not experience that old black taxi driver calling for the return of segregation, or lamenting its passing.

He didn't miss the infrastructure of society just the golden eggs."

This is the root of it all, and precisely the point that Dreher, Sullivan, and any other cuck, moderate, or coward refuses to accept. That Negro taxi driver may have lamented the crime or business lost. He may have condemned {perhaps even publicly} the dyscivilizational behavior of young Negro men. What he didn't acknowledge was that the root of it all - the crime, the destruction, the chaos - resides within their ethnic makeup and therefore cannot truly be altered, only controlled and channeled and contained.

Precisely the same problem with those present few Negroes and Jews who acknowledge some problems within their ethnic groups. I'm not merely wildly casting approbrium here - it can be extraordinarily difficult to accept within oneself, let alone publicly acknowledge, that the intrinsic, heavily DNA-influenced character of one's racial or religious group is flawed in its influence and conduct within Western civilization. However, that acknowledgement is part of the very foundation of the Alt-Right, and the precise grounds on which Dreher and others reject it as an ism, ist, and verboten.

Blogger Sheila4g May 03, 2017 11:00 AM  

@96 Sheila: Here's a better link with a photo of the perp.

Blogger VFM #7634 May 03, 2017 11:11 AM  

but I would say it's more a matter of a) he reacts viscerally against anything smelling like alt-Retard ... while the alt-Right is still shot through with alt-Retards, it is too dangerous to give them support, on account of their destabilizing influence on the body politic. You may see things differently, as might I, but this isn't simple cuckery.

@7 Darth Dharmakirti
Alt-Retards may be annoying and distasteful, but the very fact he has such a Pavlovian "visceral reaction" against alt-Retards as if they were worse than Satanists demonstrates he's still a fundamentally cucked slave of the Narrative.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) May 03, 2017 11:17 AM  

Alt-Retards may be annoying and distasteful, but the very fact he has such a Pavlovian "visceral reaction" against alt-Retards as if they were worse than Satanists demonstrates he's still a fundamentally cucked slave of the Narrative.

A great many OG dread ilk have a, similar reaction to the alt retard.

Anonymous Grayman May 03, 2017 11:32 AM  

@92 DC

Any man fit to be a father or who has a daughter would remove such filth from their society without the slightest hesitation.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 03, 2017 11:32 AM  

@Darth Dharmakirti

If I were to sit with Rod Dreher face to face in a quiet venue, I'd ask him how he knows that big glossy magazine story about his home town is true. He grew up in a time when the press was trusted. A lot of the rest of us? The press covered up Monica's blue dress. The press, including the Dallas Morning News, covered up real crimes by Feds at Waco. The press lied endlessly about Trump just last year. The press lied about Michael Brown and Travon Martin, including NBC deliberately editing the 911 recording.

With all that lying for years, and I'm sure more lying in the 80's about Reagan, and probably more lying in the 70's, why should anyone take this other story from 1964 as true on its face? What if something happened, and it was blown way up out of shape by a few journo-lists, how would anyone counter that? Who would pay attention to a bunch of racist crackers from Louisiana, when a big, important news magazine said something?

What if it was mostly a lie? What then for Rod Dreher's conscience?

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 11:38 AM  

"There are two kinds of people. Those who are fine with Holy Diversity's inevitable hiccups, and those who see in those "hiccups'" victims the faces of their own kin.

I sincerely believe the former are alive today only because it's currently against the law to kill them.

Are you really of the former?"

Hmmmm....Going back to the topic at hand...Can you show me where Sharia Law is in place in the U.S.?

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 11:42 AM  

"How many Jews did it take to force several changes to the US constitution? "

Do I need to give you a primer on how a constitutional amendment is approved? it seems likely.

"They did not add or remove one word. They introduced and popularized the idea that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is"

I never read that John Marshall was Jewish. That's news.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 03, 2017 11:45 AM  

Sheila4G

it can be extraordinarily difficult to accept within oneself, let alone publicly acknowledge, that the intrinsic, heavily DNA-influenced character of one's racial or religious group is flawed in its influence and conduct within Western civilization.

Some of my family by marriage is mostly Irish. Since I came to Notice that Ireland was never within the Hajnal line and what that implies it's been a lot easier to deal with those relations. Accepting that they are in large part genetically uncivilized Celtic barbarians makes their behavior easier to predict. When you stop expecting an Irishman or Irishwoman to act English, it's easier for everyone to get along.

However, that acknowledgement is part of the very foundation of the Alt-Right, and the precise grounds on which Dreher and others reject it as an ism, ist, and verboten.

Because the belief in tabula rasa is unverifiable, it's faith. Unthinking faith is very difficult to give up. Some people never do. What Rod and other Gen X cucks don't realize is just how blatant the lies told to Gen Y are, and how sick they are of being lied to and lied about.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 03, 2017 11:48 AM  

I would say it's more a matter of a) he reacts viscerally against anything smelling like alt-Retard

There's a difference between loathing Alt-Retard, and seeing Alt-Retard hiding behind every rock that's even slightly to your right.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 03, 2017 11:51 AM  

@107

Do I need to give you a primer on how a constitutional amendment is approved? it seems likely.

Do that very thing. Then show me the Amendment that extended the Commerce Clause to being a root password to the Constitution. Show me where the Congress gave the Executive power to regulate wheat grown on a farm for consumption by the farm itself. Wickard vs. Filburn did that, not an Amendment.

You're probably just another SJW troll arguing in bad faith, and so one of the reasons we can't have nice things here. But I'll give you a shot at demonstrating your bona fides.

Blogger wreckage May 03, 2017 11:52 AM  

@88, no, it takes a local majority that authorities don't want to mess with. You're now arguing that anything unconstitutional is somehow cosmically impossible.

Which is actually stupider than your assertion that Muslims don't prefer to implement Shariah law.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 03, 2017 11:52 AM  

@109 Cail Corishev
There's a difference between loathing Alt-Retard, and seeing Alt-Retard hiding behind every rock that's even slightly to your right.

Then shooting wildly in the general direction of rocks, because rocks! Rocks!

Blogger Joshua_D May 03, 2017 11:54 AM  

A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:@109 Cail Corishev

There's a difference between loathing Alt-Retard, and seeing Alt-Retard hiding behind every rock that's even slightly to your right.

Then shooting wildly in the general direction of rocks, because rocks! Rocks!


RACIST NAZI ROCKS!

Blogger JohnofAustria May 03, 2017 11:54 AM  

@106 I'm not sure if you're missing the point, or obfuscating. The point of predicting an extremely likely and bad future result of a current course of action is that it hasn't happened yet. You aren't making an argument with this question.

If you want to make one, find a majority of historical examples of Muslims colonizing an area, and not forcing accommodation followed by submission as they gain numerical superiority.

Blogger Joshua_D May 03, 2017 11:55 AM  

SHUT UP GRAVE DIGGER.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 11:59 AM  

"You're probably just another SJW troll arguing in bad faith, and so one of the reasons we can't have nice things here. But I'll give you a shot at demonstrating your bona fides"

The question or issue to which I was responding was the contention that Sharia Law is coming to the U.S. and we need to nip it in the bud. However, in order for this to occur you'd need absolutely fundemental changes to the Constitution that require an amendment.

Furthermore, I was simply noting that Sharia Law is no where in the U.S. instituted.

As for this: "Then show me the Amendment that extended the Commerce Clause to being a root password to the Constitution"....be more specific. The Commerce clause, among other things, is the outcome of the original reason for calling a constitutioinal convention. It gives power exclusively to the states to regulate interstate commerce, which they can cede to another body or keep for themselves.

Wickard affirmed the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause is similar to many parts of the constitution. It is vague and broad and left to Congress, the courts and the Executive to flesh out.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 12:02 PM  

"no, it takes a local majority that authorities don't want to mess with. You're now arguing that anything unconstitutional is somehow cosmically impossible."

No. I'm arguing that something as blatantly unconstitutional most elements of Sharia Law are so unlikely to withstand legal challenge that a constitutional amendment would be needed to allow then to survive.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 12:05 PM  

"If you want to make one, find a majority of historical examples of Muslims colonizing an area, and not forcing accommodation followed by submission as they gain numerical superiority."

I could grant you this point and even still we would need a majority of muslims in the majority of states to see the constitution be changed to embrace Sharia Law. What percentage of the population are muslims in the U.S.? By last count it was about 1%

So, I'll repeat: Red Herring

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 03, 2017 12:15 PM  

@116
The question or issue to which I was responding was the contention that Sharia Law is coming to the U.S. and we need to nip it in the bud. However, in order for this to occur you'd need absolutely fundemental changes to the Constitution that require an amendment.

Dude, Sharia is already in effect in parts of Dearborn, Michigan. You can test this yourself, just take a Bible and start walking the streets of the Arab section offering to preach about Jesus, see what happens. No Amendment is necessary. I'm sure that there are jurists who would apply the Tony Kennedy "meaning of life" doctrine to allow sharia in certain localities, if and when it comes to a court case.

But the reality is simple: Moslems can make an area uninhabitable by anyone not of their religion. At that point Sharia is a foregone conclusion.

Your blather about Wickard proves you are a troll, because it was a gross overreach of power by the US Supreme Court that didn't involve any Amendment. You argue in bad faith. Your purpose here is just to generate annoyance.

Anonymous Grayman May 03, 2017 12:16 PM  

Grave digger @118

You are seriously misrepresenting the matter. Sharia is applied by the muslim community. Is muslim majority regions formal sharia courts are organized, however in places like Minneapolis, Sweden, Germany, France, you have muslim communities who actively enforce sharia in their neighborhoods.
Sharia does not require a central monolithic entity such as a federal regulation of constitutional amendment to exist or be enforced. It is a bottom up system of law that is enforced from the community level up.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 03, 2017 12:17 PM  

@118
I could grant you this point and even still we would need a majority of muslims in the majority of states to see the constitution be changed to embrace Sharia Law.

Strawman. You keep insisting that Sharia would require an Amendment, but that's false. Sharia can be imposed from the bottom up on a society, starting with neighborhoods. That's been happening in Sweden for years, it's why Malmo is a no-go zone for all Swedes including the police. You are dishonest.

Blogger JohnofAustria May 03, 2017 12:24 PM  

Not to mention all of this argumentation requires a steadfast constructionalist view of the Constitution, which is long forgotten. Far too many precedents are post-modern warpings of intent, language, and context that have had the effect of destroying the document. And we'd have to assume it would not change even further, which is naïve at best.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 03, 2017 12:24 PM  

(Sigh.) There is no bridging the chasm. In fact, I'm all for such separation.

Grave Digger, indeed.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 12:24 PM  

"Your blather about Wickard proves you are a troll, because it was a gross overreach of power by the US Supreme Court that didn't involve any Amendment. You argue in bad faith. Your purpose here is just to generate annoyance."

I'm not arguing in bad faith. Tell me exactly why you believe Wickard was wrongly decided. Not just "it's over reach" but how the opinion didn't adhere to the meaning of the Commerce Clause. I understand that it has been said to be the decision that led to broad regulatory over reach. But show me how the decision was wrong.

Anonymous One Deplorable DT May 03, 2017 12:25 PM  

One has to ask the question, at what point is the price of this social progress too high? Do we really have to wait until...

No. We don't. They have to go back. I want to live in the America my forefathers built. I want nothing of this multicultural hell.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 12:27 PM  

"Sharia does not require a central monolithic entity such as a federal regulation of constitutional amendment to exist or be enforced. It is a bottom up system of law that is enforced from the community level up."

Bull shit. Across muslim countries Sharia is blantantly and specifically included in costitutional documents in one form or another.

Also, if an individual wants to adhere to a community standard or a non-sanctioned community governing body, that's there right. But the minute the Sharia is attempted to be applied to someone who does not agree with it, and they sue, the game is up.

Sharia is a red herring.

Blogger S. Misanthrope May 03, 2017 12:29 PM  

OT: for those in MN in the "react" camp, there is going to be an Antifa protest of some South African group this Saturday. https://archive.fo/368V3

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 12:29 PM  

"Strawman. You keep insisting that Sharia would require an Amendment, but that's false. Sharia can be imposed from the bottom up on a society, starting with neighborhoods. That's been happening in Sweden for years,"

Sweden is Sweden. We are talking about the U.S.

How can Sharia be legally imposed upon anyone in the U.S. who does not adhere to it or agree to it? How would the state possibly sanction this once suit is filed? It can't be. That's why a constitutional amendment would be needed.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 12:32 PM  

"No. We don't. They have to go back. I want to live in the America my forefathers built. I want nothing of this multicultural hell."

You'll be needing to move. But the even the KnowNothings and anti-catholics and anti-Semites of the 19th century who thought the same way didn't move. It's unlikely you will.

Blogger K1 May 03, 2017 12:32 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 03, 2017 12:32 PM  

I'm arguing that something as blatantly unconstitutional most elements of Sharia Law are so unlikely to withstand legal challenge

Yes, well, dig up your grandfather and ask him if a man who had his penis and testicles surgically removed, had silicone bags surgically inserted under the skin of his chest, had a cosmetic surgeon fashion a pocket between his legs into his torso to simulate a vagina, and who dresses like a woman and wears other cosmetic accouterments of femininity would be entitled to sue for discrimination if treated as a man?

I really tire of Perpetual Children who have no grasp of what came before this morning and who also have no grasp of what likely follows today.

Anonymous Grayman May 03, 2017 12:33 PM  

@126 grave digger

We clearly live in different versions of reality.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 03, 2017 12:34 PM  

GD, see you on the other side of the trend change. (+)

Blogger Chris Mallory May 03, 2017 12:37 PM  

Grave Digger wrote:Tell me exactly why you believe Wickard was wrongly decided.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Because the Clause clearly states that it allows the Feds to regulate the actions of the states in regard to commerce. It can keep New York from putting a tax upon goods coming in from Virginia. It can prohibit Illinois from blocking the transfer of goods from Indiana to Missouri.

As written it says nothing about regulation the affairs of individuals or even groups of citizens. It has been grossly misinterpreted.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 12:37 PM  

"We clearly live in different versions of reality."

Do we? Then tell me how a person can be legally forced to adhere to Sharia Law in the United States. If you can do that, then I'll convert to your position.

Blogger Quilp May 03, 2017 12:40 PM  

There never seems to be a moment of guilt, only "This is important, and I (well actually I'm writing this so YOU can recognize its importance, not having eyes and ears to see and hear yourself)" will tell you about it. Then on to the next outrage. . The policies they pushed laid waste to an entire way of life and LIVES, but Sullivan's response is to look back and remember the bad things (segregation, inequality! etc that their policies, while not eliminating..well helped fight, and are still helping to fight, damn it. "We ruined the Country, we can't outright admit that, or someone will put us together with a rope and a lamp post. So, all we can do is occasionally admit things aren't perfect, while never forgetting to double down and pound home the idea that things in the past (no matter taxi drivers recollections) were truly, truly rotten."

Anonymous Francis Shelton May 03, 2017 12:48 PM  

Sadly, as ZippyCatholic often points out on his blog, Christians have become numb to usury as well, and practice it too.

Anonymous Dedicating Ruckus May 03, 2017 12:49 PM  

"Do we? Then tell me how a person can be legally forced to adhere to Sharia Law in the United States. If you can do that, then I'll convert to your position."

Legally? Not really. But sure as certain can be practically forced, by Muslims showing up and beheading anyone who objects. Criminal enforcement against these will be lacklustre, and even after its resolution, pour encourager les autres remains in effect. "Anarcho-tyranny" is the term.

What happens "legally" is basically irrelevant. It's conditions on the ground that matter. And if you find yourself in a 90% Muslim neighborhood, you'll end up practically speaking adhering to sharia, whatever the Constitution might say.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 12:50 PM  

"Because the Clause clearly states that it allows the Feds to regulate the actions of the states in regard to commerce. It can keep New York from putting a tax upon goods coming in from Virginia. It can prohibit Illinois from blocking the transfer of goods from Indiana to Missouri.

As written it says nothing about regulation the affairs of individuals or even groups of citizens. It has been grossly misinterpreted."

This is a very good short defense of the Anti-Wickard. Thank you. You put the emphasis on "between the states" whereas the courts, as in Wickard and Lopez, put the emphasis on "regulate commerce".

I think Wickard did over reach as you say, but not in the way you suggest, but rather in the way the court in Lopez suggested.

So, given this overreach both you and the original commenter would suggest that this example of over reach is the kind of precedent that would lead the court to approve of elements of Sharia Law. Ok.

Let's take one of the primary elements of Sharia Law: "Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death"

Tell me the path by which a court would get to the point where they would find that denial of a religion's tenants may constitutionally lead to death.

Blogger Joshua_D May 03, 2017 12:51 PM  

SHUT UP GRAVE DIGGER

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 03, 2017 12:51 PM  

The NR article is a decent example of the Lib/Con fraud, Sullivan throws out some rhetoric, Dreher legitimizes it.

IMO being a reactionary is being tactically, operationally and strategically unsound. Sooner or later reactionaries always cuck, only so much rhetoric of ist, isms and phobias before the tough talking conservative goes butt up.

Anonymous patrick kelly May 03, 2017 12:52 PM  

Sharia law is "instituted" in muslim communities the same way the mobs of organized crime enforce their unconstitutional laws and rules in their areas of control.

Until someone with enough guns and money challenges them. They need to be challenged.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 12:53 PM  

""Do we? Then tell me how a person can be legally forced to adhere to Sharia Law in the United States. If you can do that, then I'll convert to your position."

Legally? Not really.

Correct.


"But sure as certain can be practically forced, by Muslims showing up and beheading anyone who objects. Criminal enforcement against these will be lacklustre, and even after its resolution, pour encourager les autres remains in effect. "Anarcho-tyranny" is the term."

Oh please. Now you are saying that we are on our way to seeing law enforcement ignore murderous beheadings? This seems as likely as the courts ruling that beheading for denying the Islamic Faith is constitutional.

Anonymous patrick kelly May 03, 2017 12:57 PM  

"Darth Dharmakīrti wrote:1) ....

2) Rod especially--that is, much more so than Andrew Sullivan--is an astute and honest enough person to see the big picture here. So I would urge you to follow your own advice from a few days ago, and be patient with him. He is getting there, slowly.


Can't say we're best buds or anything, but I have also met Rod and would concur with your observation.

Also I will readily admit being Orthodox informs my bias in his favor.

We will see.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti May 03, 2017 12:58 PM  

If I were to sit with Rod Dreher face to face in a quiet venue, I'd ask him how he knows that big glossy magazine story about his home town is true.

Next time I do that, I may try to gently broach the subject.

Anonymous Dedicating Ruckus May 03, 2017 1:01 PM  

"Oh please. Now you are saying that we are on our way to seeing law enforcement ignore murderous beheadings? This seems as likely as the courts ruling that beheading for denying the Islamic Faith is constitutional."

If the murderers disappear into a 90% Muslim neighborhood that's heavily invested in not letting law enforcement take away their own, that's as good as law enforcement intentionally ignoring it. Hybrids of the two -- for instance, a politically-motivated tendency to avoid confrontation with prominent Muslim citizens, lest police appear Islamophobic -- can be even more effective.

You've got an autistic focus on the law in the law books, while ignoring the way life works on the ground. In reality, a cohesive, highly motivated extralegal group with a local majority -- Muslims, in this example -- can exert powerful influence over their immediate surroundings, regardless of what the law says or what police want. The only way to counteract this on the part of the host society is to aggressively attack the minority group's local power and assert law enforcement's authority; however, this is precisely what governments are unwilling to do, for political reasons. You're correct that no court will ever explicitly rule that sharia is the law, or that murderers can be ignored. (Probably.) But it will happen anyway, because courts stand powerless unless people with guns actually go out and enforce their rulings.

Blogger Thomas Henderson May 03, 2017 1:04 PM  

I'd be honestly surprised to find that he was an actual believer.

Perhaps therein lies a difference in piety. For many evangelicals, salvation is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Not to express it is a defect.

Those of a more sacramental leaning probably wouldn't disagree that one needs a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Except for them the body of Christ is manifested in his church. Thus one's relationship with Christ is implicitly embedded in one's communion with the church.

I know plenty of English style Anglicans who are quite devote, but are reserved about talking about their religious beliefs. They see baptism as the entrance to a regenerative life, owned by a person with confirmation, and maintained by regular communion. If you watch them closely they exercise and express their faith in concrete ways. The Word of God for them is not a book but a man, Jesus himself. Quoting scripture is less important than following in Christ's footsteps and accepting his authority - to do one's "bounden duty and service".

As a typical Anglican of his generation, Churchill would have accepted that all authority in heaven and in earth was given to Christ. His faith would have been best seen and expressed is in his actions and his loyalty to a Christian sovereign. He spent a lifetime preparing for the task of governance (yes, partly out of ambition, but also partly out of duty) and accepted the office of Prime Minister when it was most dangerous. He then went on to inspire a nation to fight. Whether you agree with the decisions he made or ever heard him mutter the name of the Lord publicly is irrelevant. He lived in accordance with his baptism (to use the words from the English Prayer Book) to "fight manfully under Christ's banner against the world, the devil, and the flesh" and "to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant until his life's end."

There is nothing to indicate that he didn't take this seriously.

Anonymous Sam the Man May 03, 2017 1:06 PM  

Grave digger:

here are a few examples of how the US supreme court has implemented Talmudic law and folks do not even recognize it.

Abortion. Jewish folks believe the soul does not enter the body until birth is complete, that is the head is clear of the mother. At least that is Talmudic belief as taught by rabbinical tradition I know.

Christians teach that the soul enters the body at conception, again to the extent I know christen beliefs.

Which faith tradition does US law reflect, established by the US supreme court?



Anonymous Sam the Man May 03, 2017 1:09 PM  

It is hard to believe Churchill was a Christian, considering his approval of Bomber Harris fire bomb strategy on cities.

Of course I could be wrong I do not really understand all genteel ideology, but I have noted as I got to know Christian types, they really do take seriously the prohibition of killing or hurting innocents. JC said , no to that. Opened my eyes up actually.

Blogger Brian H May 03, 2017 1:14 PM  

The most aggressive, assertive group gets its way. In majority muslim neighborhoods, it's pretty obvious who that is.

European cities are already a real world case study, the laws and surrounding municipalities be damned.

Anonymous Grayman May 03, 2017 1:16 PM  

Law is not what is written on paper, but what is decreed by whoever has the local monopoly on brute force.

-In certain parts of long island NY MS-13 is the law
-In times past, the mob was the law in parts of NYC
-In certain neighborhoods in Chicago the local black gangs are the law
- in 90% of the US, the government(Fed/State) is the law

And yes murders are ignored depending on the groups involved and the location. Speak to a cop who works in the ghettos of Detroit or Memphis.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 03, 2017 1:27 PM  

"Strawman. You keep insisting that Sharia would require an Amendment, but that's false. Sharia can be imposed from the bottom up on a society, starting with neighborhoods. That's been happening in Sweden for years,"

Sweden is Sweden. We are talking about the U.S.

The same process is underway in the US right now.

How can Sharia be legally imposed upon anyone in the U.S. who does not adhere to it or agree to it?

Nice weasel wording. Sharia doesn't have to be legally imposed. It's not legally imposed in Malmo, but that city is still a no-go zone for Swedes. Sharia is not legally imposed in parts of England, but it's still a fact on the ground in London and Birmingham.

How would the state possibly sanction this once suit is filed? It can't be. That's why a constitutional amendment would be needed.

Strawman. You are not arguing in good faith.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 03, 2017 1:30 PM  

@124
I'm not arguing in bad faith. Tell me exactly why you believe Wickard was wrongly decided.

The Commerce Clause gave authority to the Congress to regulate commerce between the several states and Indian tribes. That doesn't give the Executive the right to regulate wheat grown on a farm that is consumed on the farm. Yet Wickard changed the Constitution.

Therefore the Constitution can be changed by judicial fiat and no Amendment is required. Therefore your obsession with Amendments is either very spergy or very dishonest. More likely the latter.

You are arguing in bad faith and likely just another troll.

Blogger Thomas Henderson May 03, 2017 1:48 PM  

It is hard to believe Churchill was a Christian, considering his approval of Bomber Harris fire bomb strategy on cities.

Jesus' pacifism didn't extend to not fighting evil. "I have not come to bring peace but a sword."

While the beatitudes are about bringing mercy to those who need mercy, Christ more often than not butted heads with those who were stiff-necked.

Whatever else we think of them, 1940s Germans were the very definition of stiff-necked.

The man at the center of the Christian faith inspired fishermen, tax collectors, and no-nonsense men to a cause. We're the ones who turned him into a wuss, a conscientious objector and an ancient day hippie.

Remember Jesus' own submission to the cross was in order to sacrifice so as to defeat the power of sin and death and to win the victory over Satan.

In love and war, one does what is necessary to win the battles and achieve the game.

Churchill was out to win. The stakes were too high to lose. His Christian faith would have girded him for the fight, not make him shirk it.

Blogger VD May 03, 2017 1:52 PM  

I'm not arguing in bad faith.

Yes, you most certainly are. Nor are you fooling anyone.

Blogger kh123 May 03, 2017 1:53 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Tipsy May 03, 2017 1:57 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:[Dreher] crossed a line for me when he tried to help elect Hillary.

I observed Dreher's exit from the Catholic Church during the ephebophilia crisis. He basically assented with the Church's historical claims, but, essentially, didn't want to be associated with "those" people anymore. His move was non serviam writ large.

He's gone on to build a set of theological justifications for what he did, and I hope he goes on to meet the risen Lord in his church. I just don't have nearly the respect I had for him that I used to.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2017 2:09 PM  

What amendment to the Constitution was required to support the Civil Rights Act?
What amendment to the Constitution was required for the Equal Opportunity act to federally regulate housing rentals?
What amendment to the Constitution was required to ban heroin?
What amendment to the Constitution was required to enforce the Gun Control Act of 1964?
What amendment to the constitution was required to regulate political speech?
What amendment to the Constitution was required to require every resident, under penalty of law, to purchase health insurance?
What amendment to the Constitution give the Federal Government the power to regulate marriage in the states?

You seem to think the Constitution is self-enforcing, that if it is violated, it will slip out of its case at the Library of Congress and give the people involved a good talking to, and possibly jail time.

Becaue you're a moron.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) May 03, 2017 2:15 PM  

I observed Dreher's exit from the Catholic Church during the ephebophilia crisis. He basically assented with the Church's historical claims, but, essentially, didn't want to be associated with "those" people anymore. His move was non serviam writ large.

He's gone on to build a set of theological justifications for what he did, and I hope he goes on to meet the risen Lord in his church. I just don't have nearly the respect I had for him that I used to.


Seriously? The Catholic church should have been burned to the ground and every pedophile priest burned at the stake. While you're wringing your hands and getting the vapors over someone leaving a church after a multi generational cover up...

Anonymous BbigGayKoranBurner May 03, 2017 2:17 PM  

I can tell that Andrew Sullivan watches movies that show a utopia of gays/dikes being the majority and he believes it's possible to be that way, instead of the Ricky Lake show writ large. I am fully aware of what sizable gayborhoods are like, and what social infrastructure they lack.

Only the outliers have real agency

Andrew Sullivan probably thinks an outlier is someone who came out as a liar.

gay right-wing conservative and most of what I read would have been very liberal. He was full of praise for George W Bush

Both say "onward Christian soldiers" is their favorite song

Socialists have their meme of a near handshake with the slogan "We are all Socialists now"

a firing squad and bodies in the ditch would be a better backdrop for that slogan

His children aren't in danger. Or he can't comprehend it all

Many gays are willing to ignore the security concerns of having a tranny black crack ho on their corner, to be within walking distance to a good gay club.

dismissing it entirely as a function of bigotry or stupidity. You’ll only defuse it by appreciating its insights and co-opting its appeal

Entryism, he hopes to be crowned leader of the parade and thinks it will follow him

Diversity is hell. And, diversity crushes souls.

The existence of multiculturalism means that people like different things, I was driving an older relative to a DR appointment & she said I should let someone in front of me where traffic was stopped because they would be grateful, I said "no there is a big space behind me she could have gone and only Japanese+ western European cultures are grateful, what do you think multiculturalism is tacos?"

Gon' be a whole lotta Black Leftists, standard Black conservatives, and white liberals pissed at whomever writes such a thing

If only we could trick the left into demanding the release of all the FBI recordings of MLK. They keep pushing back the declassification for a reason.

He can't get over the Judeo part of Judeo-Christian. This drives him crazy for some reason. God forbid the Joooos should get any credit

Even I know that the only time Moses+God could keep jooos in line was when there was millions of tons of Red Sea blocking every other alternative. Moses couldn't stroll up a hill without coming back to worship of gold.

"free markets" enable fractional reserve banking, you're mistaken. That's like claiming that free markets enable Murder, Inc

Did you miss the PPGate planned parenthood hidden camera video haggling over the cost of bags of baby dicks for the pretend foreskin facial company?

They hate "da jooos" because we are actually successful in using the free market. We also get all the white women

Are you a time traveler from before the Inquisition who sold white Christians as slaves to moslems? You have to go back.

No. We must wait until even a small percentage of blacks are doing this. We ain't close to that.

Everyone who rapes an 80+YO white woman is black. Lamestream news didn't cover that the 28 niglets who gang raped an 11yo white Hispanic in Houston & shot cell phone video evidence of it were black.

Anonymous RabidRatel May 03, 2017 2:18 PM  

S. Misanthrope wrote:OT: for those in MN in the "react" camp, there is going to be an Antifa protest of some South African group this Saturday. https://archive.fo/368V3
The people who wrote this don't have a clue what Suidlanders are about.

Anonymous Sam the Man May 03, 2017 2:19 PM  

# 154

You are full of sophistry if you truly believe what you wrote.

Explain exactly where Jesus says: It is better to put a millstone around your neck and throw yourself in the sea than to harm innocent children, (except if you are firebombing women and children cause you want to take a short cut).

Said another way, if it is righteous to kill women and children of your foe that you proclaim, then it was OK for the NAZIs to kill the children of their professed foe the Jews. Which, just for the record, it was not right and do not think I am in any way approving of NAZI, simply pointing out how the one is the same as the other. The US, Britain and the French were the good guys, but that does not mean every act they did was right, or that their leaders were in any way righteous men. Firebombing civilians is and was a sin, and the best possibility for Churchill was he did not know it, if he knew and did it he was evil. Hence I am being kind to him by saying he was not a Christian.

To be a righteous Torah Jew or a follower of Christ does not mean you can throw away the commandments when it becomes inconvenient.

Lest you doubt me on this, read the description of Vonnegut gives of clearing out the shelters full of dead in Dresden in late February 1945, and ask yourself how that was not a sin. It was a sin equal to what went on in the camps and my relatives were in the camps (not guards either, just in case you were wondering).

Anonymous Sam the Man May 03, 2017 2:48 PM  

# 154

It occurred to me you do not know what was done in Hamburg in July of 1943 or Dresden in February of 1945. Pardon my over the top rebuke.

here is some background:

Hamburg 1943

https://infogalactic.com/info/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II

Take note of 30,000 folks that died in shelters on the night of 27/28 1943, asphyxiated or cooked in the fire storm. Not a good way to go, not unlike the gas chambers. Most women, old men and children. Ponder that.

On Dresden

http://www.thehistoryreader.com/modern-history/kurt-vonnegut-dresden-bombings/

I could not find it but I recall reading some years ago a description of the evacuation of an Dresden air raid bunker full of dead old me, women and children. They had been cooked. The adults realizing what was happening, made a shelter of the luggage and placing their children within, then covered them up and then over top of that covered the children with their own bodies in an attempt to save them, to no avail.

The horror.

That description should give any man pause who says the men who approved such things were good. And no, the fact the NAZIs were evil does not justify it.

Anonymous BbigGayKoranBurner May 03, 2017 2:49 PM  

Let's at least wait until the Muslims have imposed sharia law anywhere in the U.S. It hasn't happened yet....anywhere...." Then tell me how a person can be legally forced to adhere to Sharia Law in the United States. If you can do that, then I'll convert to your position."

Please send a gift certificate for a toaster to me, remember my position is Thou Shalt Burn Korans!

Shitit US moslem judge rules in case where Halloween parade zombie Mohamad was attacked by moslem.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/judge-in-zombie-muhammad-case-reprimanded/

Oy yea this also http://www.inquisitr.com/3600446/kenyan-man-rapes-2-year-old-a-98-year-old-grandma-and-a-cow/

How many Jews did it take to force several changes to the US constitution? What's that you say? They didn't?

Boy Scouts won the supreme court right to self determine in 2000, but 1000+ lawfare attacks forced them to take trannies in January. Trust me there was a lot of gloating by lots who wouldn't stay out if the woods if there were not boy cots out there.

Blogger tz May 03, 2017 2:49 PM  

@97 It wasn't the end of Segregation, but the end of imposing standards of conduct via shame and criminality. They had intact families not because of segregation, though it might have added pressure. It was liberals that apologized for society pressuring them not to live as feral rutting animals. If the ostracism was kept strong, especially if they moved into white neighborhoods, things may have gotten better. But that timeline is gone.

@116 If your daughter ends up raped, stoned, or both for venturing in a no-go Sharia zone, the Constitution is irrelevant. This is the essence of a cuckservative. "But the Constitution says...", which we've had the living document - dead letter by the activist leftist supreme court, several Justices already want to incorporate foreign law like Sharia into their decisions. De jure or De facto?

@119 and @120 have concurring opinions.

The commerce clause is neither vague nor broad, and relates to something of value crossing a state border, not "The Butterfly Effect". Only because it suits your purposes do you call it "vague and broad", or as used elsewhere "eminations and penumbras" so the NSA can invade everything, as can the IRS, but the right to privacy protects Abortion and Contraception absolutely.

@126 - This assumes they would be able to sue, or do you mean the estate can sue because Sharia was imposed? Remember some of the "Draw Mohammed" gatherings that were attacked? Who did Charlie Hebdo sue after the massacre there?

@135 - "legally" i.e. cuckery? No. Let me explain how stupid you sound:

How can Ann Coulter legally be shut down from speaking?
How can people from Mexico be here legally without a visa?
How can a gay nightclub be shot up legally?
How can Hillary set up an insecure server and put top secret documents on it legally?

There is no rule of law.
Many things aren't enforced.
People do things whether they are legal or not.
Especially non-whites and non-Christians.

Blogger James Dixon May 03, 2017 2:51 PM  

> (because if anyone could do it, using leverage, they'd own the entire world in a few months.)

Well, in theory. In practice the claims wouldn't be honored. What happens in an option trade when someone either refuses to or can't honor their contracted commitment? Now multiply that effect by an order of magnitude for ever step beyond that.

> I mean, wow! Produce NOTHING, and make money on the morons who line up to play your con game?

That's not the real scam. The real scam is persuading the tax payers to bail you out when it inevitably fails due to some black swan event wiping out your borrowers (or simple greed in expanding your loan base beyond the group who can pay it back, for that matter).

> Any estimation as to how long it will be before muslims have the numbers to force a change in the U.S. constitution? Because that's what it will take.

Because no individual or group in the US ever acts contrary to the Constitution, right? Liar.

> Can you show me where Sharia Law is in place in the U.S.?

You've already been answered.

> I'm not sure if you're missing the point, or obfuscating.

Really? It was obvious from the first post.

> I'm not arguing in bad faith.

Sure you're not.

> You've got an autistic focus on the law in the law books, while ignoring the way life works on the ground.

No, it's simpler than that, he's lying.

Anonymous instasetting May 03, 2017 3:05 PM  

#160

Heh. Growing up in a Baptist church you got deeply familiar with the Jews disobeying God. What they said was that we should not be proud, because we would have done the same thing.

I don't think that's quite true. Sam the Man is hating on Dresden, which is probably part of who he is. I, OTOH, am a Jacksonian, to some degree a savage and merciless creature. Americans, unlike Israelis, belong to the cultural type that includes Romans and Genghis Khan's boys.

...The neighbourhood was quiet and peaceful after we burned their cities to ash....

Blogger Thomas Henderson May 03, 2017 3:19 PM  

The US, Britain and the French were the good guys, but that does not mean every act they did was right, or that their leaders were in any way righteous men.

To quote General Robert E. Lee, "It is good that war is so horrible, or we might grow to like it."

Or to use Churchill's own words, "There is only one thing certain about war, that it is full of disappointments and also full of mistakes."

It would be nice to live in a world that didn't need soldiers, or prime ministers, or police, or social workers, or priests, or doctors, or lawyers, but we do. Why? Because we live in a fallen world. And living in a fallen world means that it sometimes the duty of Christians to fight against evil.

When inaction leads to harm, one may be called upon to exert one's will over that of another. In the ensuing struggle, innocents may pay the price.

Christians and Christian sovereigns have fought many nasty wars over the years. Atheists and secular governments have done likewise. So, too, have Muslim, Hindu, and every other conceivable kind of overlord. Sometimes conflicts are justified; sometimes they are merely power grabs.

Regardless, I would much rather have someone in charge who knows he needs the grace of God to weather the storm than one who is indifferent to morality and the unfolding suffering. A Christian conscience is an asset.

Yet by the same token to say that Christians have to be pure as the driven snow in order to achieve salvation - or even to be described as a Christian - is to disregard a large chunk of the Gospel. In life the choice is rarely between doing the right thing and the wrong thing, but choosing between lesser goods and greater evils. I would argue it is a luxury to have the wheat and tares so evenly parceled. It is when one is in the middle of sifting both that a man's moral character is most sorely tested. It is then that he most needs God.

shelters full of dead in Dresden in late February 1945, and ask yourself how that was not a sin.

War is hell. Its root is sin.

Anonymous map May 03, 2017 3:25 PM  

Grave Digger,

Don't be stupid an pedantic. The formality of "legal and illegal" of courts and jurisprudence is irrelevant. If a court is unable to sanction against the so-called "illegal" behavior, then its decrees are irrelevant.

Sharia will exist in a neighborhood if it is imposed by the people in that neighborhood. If sanctions do not prevent that behavior, then the court's rulings are dead-letter, as far as Sharia goes.

Why is this so hard to understand? Block-busting is illegal, but it is how whites were driven out of entire neighborhoods...because the law did not have any real sanction.

But you keep believing in paperwork. Getting rid of Fake Americans with their paper citizenship will be that much easier.

Blogger tz May 03, 2017 3:27 PM  

I started to read the original Sullivan article.
The first part was totally absurd, complaining about the neo-reactionary (nationalist) European leaders and candidates.

Someone needs to tell him if the neo-reactionaries lose, and he goes there, he will be thrown off the tallest building.

I'm not sure how such a deep pretense can be maintained, i.e. that Muslims love Gays. Sully still has a pulse, unlike many nightclub attendees who were the victims of Islamic terror.

Also he misses mass immigration without even the pretense of assimilation is an invasion.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2017 3:27 PM  

"it comes off as a kind of pose"

Uh-duh. Does anyone really think Moldbug is a Jacobite or Houellebecq welcomes a Muslim utopia? They're trying to wake us from the progressive nightmare by shouting "Fire!" in our ears. If there's no fire at present, at least the thermostat is set too high.

Mainstream, respectable conservatism has its own poses. It poses to us as significantly different from the left. It poses to the left as safe and unthreatening enough to be suffered as the official opposition.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2017 3:33 PM  

@170-I am familiar with Sullivan from way back when, around 9/11, when first I became aware of blogs. He was a Mid-east interventionist and Bush cheerleader back then, so I'm guessing he's no Muslim apologist. But I haven't read him in more than decade, which is a long enough time to change. I am taken to understand Sarah Palin drove him mad.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2017 3:47 PM  

"beginning to openly admit that there is a point to 'neoreaction'"

It shouldn't take much. Paleoconservatism has been around for a long time, and it contains most of the same ideas. Look at the recommended reading lists on Unqualified Reservations, for instance, and you find many of the same names that have been recommended to me by conservatives since I first became politically aware, including ones who wrote for National Review: James Burnham, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, John T. Flynn, Murray Rothbard, etc. Also, neoreaction avoids the populist pitfalls of Trumpian "demagoguery," which offends their delicate sensibilities.

But speaking of poses, neoreaction violates the courtly rituals of Respectable Opinion (most of which are set by the left, some by Conservatism, Inc.). It's internet-y. It's always talking about the red pill and, especially hurtful to mainstream conservatism, how the right has been fake opposition for generations.

I don't want to minimize the number of stumbling blocks in the way of changing mainstream conservatism's mind. They fear for their jobs, firstly. They don't want to be Watsoned, nor do they want to be usurped by those to the their right. They don't want to admit they've been wrong about anything all along. Also, they actually are progressives and don't know it.

Blogger Thomas Henderson May 03, 2017 3:52 PM  

It occurred to me you do not know what was done in Hamburg in July of 1943 or Dresden in February of 1945. Pardon my over the top rebuke.

I have worked in the past as a military historian. I've interviewed war veterans. That's how I can say with some background that when morality goes out the door - which inevitably happens in war - the choices are not always clear cut. That goes for the grunt soldier on the ground, the commander overseeing the action, or the president/prime minister at the top.

I know I wouldn't want to have to make decisions that are matters of life and death for one, several, thousands or millions.

The military is often asked to perform jobs the rest of us prefer not to do or even know about.

I've known military chaplains as well. They will tell you that Christ is never far from the battlefield, even if he is one step away from the inhumanity of it all. And conscientious Christian men have served as officers and regular troops, as commanders and fighters.

That's why grace is so important and takes precedents over the righteous law. As Jesus said to Peter, there will come a time when "someone will tie a belt around your waist and take you to where you do not want to go."

What is true for Peter is true for the rest of us: it is precisely in those places that one is tested by fire to work through one's redemption.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2017 3:58 PM  

@168-"War is hell"

People invoke this quote to argue, essentially, any war is all war. That's it's all of a piece, and if you must fught at all you might as well poison water supplies and strangle babies, or something. But Hell itself is not all of a piece. There are different levels of punishment for different offenders, at least according to the Dante I've read.

You don't need to wage Total War just because you're in a war. (At least if you can win without it, though you should make sure winning is worth it, and so long as your opponent is behaving in a civilized manner.) Terror bombing was both inefficient and immoral. Germany certainly didn't carry out total war on us. We started conflagrations in their cities because we could.

Blogger Dirk Manly May 03, 2017 4:02 PM  

If you stand by the synogogue of Satan over Christanity, then you need to leave Christian lands.

Anonymous Sam the Man May 03, 2017 4:06 PM  

# 168 Henderson

Nice setting up of a straw man and arguing against that, while ignoring the real issue raised.

No one argued against fighting evil, which is what you made an argument for. No disagreement there. The issue was using firebombs to deliberately kill and target innocents, most particularly children. If you read the links I provided you would have also noted they had a second wave of bombers timed to coincide with the rescuers coming into to help the victims. nice touch, but deliberate evil and murder. These were not fighting men, they were old men, women and children. Innocents.

Your comments ignored that point, instead arguing a point never raised. Nice try though.

The G-D of the Gentiles, professed by their chosen messiah, clearly states it is a grave sin to kill innocents (children): Direct Quote:

“If you harm one of these little ones, better for you that a millstone be draped around your neck and you be dropped into the depths of the sea” (Luke 17:2).

I find it comical that folks such as you seem to know better than JC and the Prophets, which you wrap yourself in. JC does not give an out that I can find, that it is O.K. to engage in deliberate child killing if you label the other guy bad. I am not a expert on this, but I think you have totally missed the mark.

The alternative was to fight the war the old fashioned way. Hard, but then the leaders would have been true to their professed faith, instead of pretty much like the "whitewashed tombs" that JC railed against.

Blogger Thomas Henderson May 03, 2017 4:12 PM  

"War is hell"

People invoke this quote to argue, essentially, any war is all war.


Ideally, measure for measure, eye for an eye. Fine policy. All good and true.

Once measures go missing, however, and your men go blind it's hard to apply brakes. That was the entire legacy of the Great War.

Terror bombing was both inefficient and immoral. Germany certainly didn't carry out total war on us.

Tell any Londoner over 80 that old saw. They will give you a date: October 9th, 1940.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2017 4:15 PM  

Always love it when anti-Christians tell uswhat Christianity teaches and what Jesus would do. I also note that you cannot bring yourself to type his name or title, but you know what he meant better than we do.

tublecane wrote:Germany certainly didn't carry out total war on us. We started conflagrations in their cities because we could.
Nice try, but the Germans started bombing civilians. Ever hear of the Blitz? You know, the sustained bombing campaign that killed at least 40,000 in London alone and destroyed over 1,000,000 homes in Britain? Yeah that Blitz. The one that was only stopped when the aircraft were needed to kill Ukrainians and Russians instead.

Dresden was payback.

Honest, learn your history.

Anonymous Sam the Man May 03, 2017 4:19 PM  

# 174

agreed, morality is one of the first casualties of war, and the Germans torpedoed the Athena on Sept 3 1939, killing innocent children so the nation was not innocent. I am not defending Germany or the NAZIs, those who raised a sword in Germany rightfully died by it, they were not innocent.

But children were. I do not know very much of G-d will, but I know that. It is an abomination to G-D, my Christian friends have an bunch of elaborate reasons why it is like feeding Moloch, once so educated it should horrify anyone. Little blonde Germans should not be sacrificed to any demon of war any more than little Jews, to do it knowingly is kind of a grave sin of the highest order.

The NAZIs did Evil in the camps, in eastern Europe and in their fire raids over the UK. Evil turds and they are rightfully condemned by all for it. But that does not excuse the same behavior by others.

Their is a lesson for us and our conduct in the last 15 years of war.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2017 4:28 PM  

@178-The Battle of Britain, first of all, was started by the British. They strategically bombed Germany first. More importantly, that was not total war. It was nothing like Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the rest. Anyone who argues otherwise is a liar or doesn't know better.


Blogger JimR May 03, 2017 4:29 PM  

@179 Snidely Whiplash
"Nice try, but the Germans started bombing civilians. Ever hear of the Blitz? "
"Honest, learn your history"

Oh, the irony.

The blitz was a reaction to the English starting the bombing of cities. It was an attempt (and was successful ) in getting the Luftwaffe to stop bombing the airfields, and waste their time bombing the cities.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/about-blitz.htm has a good writeup on it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2017 4:33 PM  

Interesting that you'd bring up the Athena abd the death of (((Children))) as justification rather than the one I presented, the justification that everybody in England, including every single man ordering or performing the bombing raids would have cited. Because maybe 50 Jews are a worse death toll than 10s of thousands of Britons.

And you wonder why people get annoyed.

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2017 4:45 PM  

@179-You are mistaken. Don't tell me you believe in the Coventry myth. Britain bombed Germany first. Also, the Blitz was of a different quality compared to the terror bombing practiced by the Allies later in the war. The latter involved the deliberate killing of as many civilians as possible through firestorms.

Germany was unwilling to start strategically bombing (that is, bombing from the air as ots own objective instead of in combination with sea and land forces), if for no other reason than they hadn't built up their air force for such purposes. The British had, to their discredit.

"Bomber" Harris admitted as much. Bragged about it, even.

Blogger Thomas Henderson May 03, 2017 4:51 PM  

“If you harm one of these little ones, better for you that a millstone be draped around your neck and you be dropped into the depths of the sea” (Luke 17:2).

That entails a whole lot more than harm in a physical sense, but also applies to the spiritual and mental arena as well. One is not to lead a developing soul down the dark road to perdition. You're right, Jesus warns us that there are consequences.

I'm not quite sure what your point is with using this particular admonishment by Christ, they are so many to choose from, but I would not be inclined to see these words as a recipe for sacralized childhood. Children, after all, do hit puberty and grow into the likeness of their kinsfolk and peers.

Many non-combatants get caught in the cross hairs of war, not just children. No one is arguing that this is fair or right. It's all tragic.

And some decisions of war seem more callous than others. That, too, is tragic.

Nor am I in the business of second-guessing my Lord and Saviour. "My ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts." My soul is as much in need of salvation as yours. You may be right: these may be words Christ will say to rebuke my thoughts.

But at the same time I'm also not going to try to presume what God may have in store for Winston Churchill or Bomber Harris or anybody else. I don't have a window on their souls. Nor do I have a window on God's judgment of who gets into paradise and who is left out. I can only pray for my own soul and leave it at that.

But I return again to my original point: we cannot judge history but the evolving righteousness of today. That's the yardstick used by progressives and leftists. Instead, history as seen through the lens of a Churchill or Macaulay is to view the subject as instructional. And if one takes takes that viewpoint, one may led down to mindset of avoiding mistakes and trying out what works. It may prove to be a wiser approach when looking at world events.

Anonymous Sam the Man May 03, 2017 4:52 PM  

Snidely, you are wrong.

The first bombing of civilian targets was by UK Bomber command in the fall/winter of 1939. In the first six months of the war (September 4 to March 1940), Bomber Command made 262 night sorties over Germany, with a number of the occasion resulting in bombs being planted in towns, though most being the result of missing the shore targets. After May of 1940 the focus was shifted to towns in the Ruhr. The Germans did not respond in kind at first, from 7 September on they did target British cities, after the Brits did that sort of raid on german cities.

Go do a research project on this, you will be surprised at what you find, as I was. It is very carefully concealed, but look up the British bomber raid dates, then the Germans and then look at he directive 17 from 1 August out of the AH headquarter to the start of night terror bombing by the Germans on 7 September 1940. Cut to the chase, the English were the first to use terror bombing on the Germans, not the other way around.

Not defending NAZIs, but the truth. which is what I seek to find, subject to my very human limitations.

On you second point: You have no idea what religion I am these days. I have not said, except to say I have been told I am not Jewish my actions. Further it should not matter. If your morality is dictated by principle it does not matter if a Jew points out truth or a gentile. By saying my opinion does not matter because I might not be a Christian, you are using the classic leftist tactic of disqualification. Nice... I would expect better of you. Not a rebuke or insult intended, simply I have read your writings enough to know you know better and are smart enough to know the tactic you are using.

Lastly I do not abbreviate JC's name out of disrespect. It is my understanding the actual correct method of address would be "Jesus, the Christ" or something to that effect, not "Jesus Christ". Properly done is both a naming and a assertion as to his messiahship or something along those lines. The trinity thing also implies G-D connection, off the same stuff, etc. By using an abbreviation, the person is clear without inadvertently causing offense or using the name of G-D. I would point out JC did this also referring to G-D as "our Father in heaven". So my attempt to avoid offense is what is you have taken offense to. Oh Vey.

For the record I have the highest respect for western European Christians and the societies they have built, I view it to be the best society created by man so far. The Inspiration source for this I do not fail to note.

I will shut up now and I fear I have drawn this thread off point.

Kind regards

FRS

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2017 5:08 PM  

I never claimed the Germans started the bombing of cities. I said the context of Dresden was London.
Learn to differentiate.

And @Sam,
If you never state your religious thinking, in a religious discussion, it becomes clear you aren't a Christian. We are forbidden that particular dodge. Anyway, I never made any claim about your religion. I made a claim about your ethnicity. I suppose you're going to claim some vague exception for that too.

Anonymous Sam the Man May 03, 2017 5:21 PM  

# 185 Henderson

I am the last person who could say how anyone will be judged after death, what that entails or anything of the sort. Not my place and frankly I have no idea on any of it.

But your comment we cannot judge by todays morality is bizarre. The JC quote is from between 29 and 33 AD, it has been in the Christian worldview for almost 2000 years. Not new.

Nor have you dealt with the argument. Instead you use the typical leftist tactics to avoid facing the truth:

1) Appeal to authority: (historian) Implied that you do not have to address an argument presented

2) shifted argument (evolving morality): Has nothing to do with the issue, has to do with what should be timeless morality as laid out by the Christian savior. Typical leftist tactic of shifting away for the real point. Nice try.

3)Shift evil deliberate act to being a tragic case: Nice try but again the left does that all the time. Muslim Jihad becomes senseless violence. hah, only to those who chose not to see what is staring them in the face. Your post sounds like it was written by NPR. Fact is Dresden and Hamburg were both deliberate planned mass murder operations, carefully planned to kill as many folks as possible with the full knowledge those killed were not bearers of the sword.

You just cannot say it can you, you just cannot say the raids were evil, planned with full knowledge of the final outcome. There truly are none so blind as those who will not see. Not to worry I am sure I suffer from the same thing, but I suppose we all do. I am not condemning you, just pointing out where I see a logical error, I am sure I suffer form similar defects in other areas, folks on this board have been kind enough to point this out on numerous occasions, to my ultimate gain.


Just to be fair the Germans were also to be condemned for their bombing of London and the 5,000 plus children wantonly killed between September 1940 and the end of the blitz 6~7 months later. Bad Germans, not defending them, just trying to be fair to the extent I an perceive the truth.

I will now really shut up, feel free to have the last word.

Kind regards

Blogger tublecane May 03, 2017 7:21 PM  

@187-"I never claimed the Germans started the bombing of cities"

The bombing of cities isn't really the issue. Germany did that early in the war, for instance to Rotterdam. The issue is strategic bombing, or terror-bombing, which kills civilians. Civilians live in cities.

Here's you, @179, "Nice try, but the Germans started bombing civilians. Ever hear of the Blitz?"

The Germans didn't start the aerial terror war. British civilians had no one better to blame the Blitz upon than their own leaders.

"I said the context of Dresden was London"

Maybe for John Londoner, but not for the people in charge. They knew better. They decided before the Blitz that they wanted to terror-bomb Germany into submission. The powers that be did say silly things like Dresden was revenge, but that's like saying the Holocaust was revenge for Jews being uppity.

Anonymous Phillis May 03, 2017 7:41 PM  

American universities should only be for American students. These schools were set up to educate future generations of Americans, not everybody in the whole world. They can build their own damn schools.

Blogger dfordoom May 03, 2017 8:28 PM  

@100. Sheila4g

What he didn't acknowledge was that the root of it all - the crime, the destruction, the chaos - resides within their ethnic makeup and therefore cannot truly be altered, only controlled and channeled and contained.

That's only partially true. There are several causes of the chaos. The big ones are the drug culture, the culture of grievance and the collapse of traditional Christian morality. All of which were the work of white liberals. OK, to a fair degree they were the work of (((white))) liberals. But they weren't primarily the work of blacks.

When the blacks had a reasonably functional black society and white liberals came along and trashed it it's a bit rich to put all the blame on the blacks.

This is where HBD fails. It becomes an excuse to play a blaming game. HBD may or may not be true but it doesn't lead to actual solutions. You want actual solutions then crush the drug culture mercilessly (you might get some advice there from President Duterte) and then stop teaching atheism and degeneracy in the schools and start teaching Christianity. It would be hard work and not as much fun as blaming the blacks but it might actually work.

Blogger tz May 03, 2017 8:41 PM  

But aren't the foreigners the same and Islam nice?
A SJW with a Turkish boyfriend has no delight in what happened

Blogger Shane Sullivan May 03, 2017 8:42 PM  

We're simply becoming more like the Romans, just like the Enlightenment philosophers wanted. Loose sexuality, homosexuality, transsexualism (she-male cults), and I'm sure pederasty and pedophilia aren't too far behind: isn't progress wonderful?

Blogger dfordoom May 03, 2017 8:50 PM  

@147. Thomas Henderson

I know plenty of English style Anglicans who are quite devote, but are reserved about talking about their religious beliefs.

Look I absolutely agree that many Anglicans are like that. But that doesn't prove that Churchill was a believer.

We're talking about Winston Churchill here. People are very keen to describe political leaders they don't approve of as psychopaths but in Churchill's case it was almost certainly true. This was a man utterly without conscience. A man of monstrous ego, even by the standards of politicians. A man with no conception of loyalty. A man who took a depraved pleasure in the violence of war. A man who cheerfully embraced the use of terror as a weapon. He was not only prepared to use terror, he enjoyed doing so.

This was a man who should have been hanged as a war criminal.

Are you really sure you want to claim him as an Anglican?

Blogger tz May 03, 2017 8:54 PM  

@191 You start teaching and insisting on Christian morality including telling the bastards that mommy is a slut. Who hopefully repented. Give no quarter to bad behavior. Have he same standards you would have for Asians or whites.

The above is why I tend to go away from civic nationalism. While white nationalists will take the slings and arrows of opposition. When you read the cuckservative view, they will lament the condition but never talk tough about solving it.

Solving the problem with Detroit is either quarantine (white nationalism) or political chemotherapy - if Civic Nationalists really want to try to fix things. With Quarantine, Detroit might fix itself if it is cut off from external support. Liberals are the political co-dependent class, so always look for more addicts.

Or put more simply, will Andrew Sullivan force Hispanic immigrants to learn English? Will the NR suggest cutting off welfare after 1-2 years (they can clean up their cities if nothing else is available, or be ag workers)? Will any of the cucks demand an end to promiscuous single motherhood and enforce it with sufficient draconian measures?

The Alt-lite is uncomfortable with the answers, but that is because they are halfway between the cuckservatives and the alt-right proper. But they know a line must be drawn for Western Civilization to heal. Either a terrible tyrannical line of thought crime to civilize those in the "civitas", or a more simple racial one where each enclave can set its own rules.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 9:01 PM  

"Don't be stupid an pedantic. The formality of "legal and illegal" of courts and jurisprudence is irrelevant."

It's not irrelevant. Particularly when you are addressing this statement:

Do we really have to wait before Muslims impose sharia across the entire West.

Maybe the author doesn't include the U.S. in "the West". But I do. And the possibility that Sharia Law will be imposed across the U.S. is absurd, if only because it could only be done via constitutional amendment in order to accommodate the radically unconstitutional aspects of Sharia.

1% of the population of the United States is Muslim. The original rhetoric doesn't work in this neck of the woods.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 03, 2017 10:08 PM  

@Grave Digger
Answer my questions. Where are the constitutional amendments for all the blatant and anti-Constitutional laws that we labor under?

Anonymous Grave Digger May 03, 2017 11:26 PM  

"Answer my questions. Where are the constitutional amendments for all the blatant and anti-Constitutional laws that we labor under?"

Why are these laws unconstitutional. I don't accept the premise. But, I'm willing to be educated. Knock yourself out.

Blogger Jose May 03, 2017 11:28 PM  

VD wrote:Usury? LOL. Really.

Yes. Instead of posturing like a teenage girl, I suggest you read both volumes of Rothbard's An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, which can be reasonably described as the very slow process of the gradual acceptance of usury across Christendom.


On the very very very off-chance that anyone actually takes VD's suggestion up, the Mises Institute has both volumes in PDF for free at Mises.org

On the other hand, for anyone who wants an introduction to the history of finance, I'd recommend Niall Ferguson's The Ascent Of Money instead, as it's more up-to-date and easier to read since it was written for the educated general public rather than economists. Not free, though.

I currently self-identify as an AC-130J Ghostrider gunship; please address me as "your mighty howitzer."

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 04, 2017 12:24 AM  

Grave Digger wrote:
Why are these laws unconstitutional. I don't accept the premise. But, I'm willing to be educated. Knock yourself out.

Then you are exactly the problem with any attempt to have a constitutional republic. Any usurpation by the government is fine by you as long as it meets your preferences.
Constitution:"Shall not be infringed"

Grave Digger: what's wrong with the gun control act, the national firearms act, the assault weapons ban? That's all perfectly constitutional. The Supreme Court said so!

And that specific attitude is why your -well, I was going to say "argument" but the right word is "pose" - why your pose will lead us directly into a sharia dominated police state.

1 – 200 of 210 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