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

Friday, November 21, 2014

Isolati!

Several people asked me to address what superficially looks like yet another SJW isolation attempt, as Vunderguy asked John C. Wright for his "take" on me:
I’ll just up and say it then. He seems to me to be something of a white supremacist, even though he’s about as white as I am, or at least, draw those kinds of people towards him.

Now, I like Vox in a lot of ways. He’s even more non-PC than Matt Stone, Trey Parker’s, Larry Correra’s, and Andrew Klavan’s gay managa-whatever-the-frenchy-word-for-four-is’ love child and the ways he can get under the enemy’s skin is admirable… but he seems to have trouble separating the culture a people group has from the people group themselves and seems to equate the genetics of that people group too closely with the behaviors of that people group… even though, as an admitted minority, he’s one pretty smart cookie. I mean, you’d have to be to be able to be such an isolationist that you give up on America and move to Italy with a family to support… even though that’s even closer to where the first bangs of destruction will begin, but whatever.

To top it all off, like I said, a lot of the people that tend to comment on his site are nowhere near as awesome as the people that comment on yours, and by that I mean that a lot of the commenters on his site seem to be what Alfonzo Rachel would call, ‘Noe-Confederate Libertarians’ and/or the kind of people who believe we had no good reasons to intervene in Vietnam, Iraq, and probably WW II (I.E., the kind of absolutist pacifists that find no use for Just War Theory).

Furthermore, Vox supported Ted Cruz’s plan to get a bill passed that would enable congress to strip the citizenship of people who went to go join ISIS… even though anyone with any knowledge of history, like he’s SUPPOSED TO BE, would know that such a bill would just erode our republic faster like the laws put in place by ‘that RINO Neo-Con George W’ that every self-professed Libertarian likes to bash, and enhanced by Obama.

Furthermore, Vox supports #NotYourShield for the whole gamergate thing, and that hashtag is pretty darned racist, and I mean LEGITIMATELY racist, and not in the faux-racism that Vox’s ‘Magic Negro’ statements about Obama and Ben Carson were.

He also thinks that the west started the current crises in the Middle-East, even though he admits that it was Muslim aggression that started started the crises on a more macrocosmic scale in the middle-ages, which strikes me as double-think despite any empty rhetoric of, ‘War is Peace,’ that might be hurled at me.
First, let me point out that my opinion of Mr. Wright as a science fiction writer may be high, but it is an informed and soundly grounded one. Second, I am not a "white supremacist", I am a civilizationist. Many people seem to forget that in addition to my BS in economics I also picked up a BA in East Asian Studies, studied in Japan, and in fact still speak some Japanese. I am a fan of higher civilization in its various forms, but the fact is that European civilization was, and is, the height of Man's accomplishment. The main reason I live in Europe and not Japan is the timing of the post-Heisei boom bust.

The reason I "have trouble separating the culture a people group has from the people group themselves" is because the two cannot be separated. They are not the same, but they are intertwined. Americans often find this difficult to understand because their culture is very young and shallow, and because they ceased to be a people, to the extent they ever were, over a century ago. Genetics affects culture, which in turn affects genetics, in an ongoing process that no one is even close to being able to successfully divide and analyze. One of the benefits of being multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and familiar with multiple cultures is the ability to see what aspects are easily transmitted and which are not. There are still aspects of Japanese culture, hell, there are still aspects of Italian culture which I do not grasp despite my intimate familiarity with them.

As for anyone still trying to defend the failed military interventions in Vietnam and Iraq, well, that speaks for itself. Whether one looks at them from a moral or a military perspective, they were catastrophes.

I do support Ted Cruz's plan to strip citizenship of ISIS members, just as I will support the eventual plans to strip citizenship from those who hold other citizenships. Such acts will not "destroy the Republic", to the contrary, they will make the possibility of an undivided nation possible. The Republic was destroyed when it became an occupying Empire established by force under Lincoln; the South was, and is, a conquered nation which is no more a voluntary part of the Union than the West Bank is a voluntary part of Israel.

#NotYourShield is not the least bit "racist", but is rather the refusal of Native Americans like me or other ethnic minorities, to permit SJW white people to speak for us using our name. We will speak for ourselves, they do not speak for us. The only thing that is racist is the SJW's attempts to silence us and turn us into ventriloquist puppets. I am astonished at Vunderguy's implicit assertion that white SJWs have any right to tell Native Americans what their permitted opinions are and at what they are to take offense or not.

There is no question that Western interference in the Middle East sparked this third great wave of Islamic expansion. Vunderguy earlier tried to question my knowledge of history, and yet here shows his own. There is absolutely no double-think here, merely observable cause and effect. Just as Islamic aggression sparked the Crusades, Western interference sparked the current global jihad. The expansionary jihadist spirit was always there, but it was quiescent until it was disturbed by the West.

People are often trying to get Larry and John to disown me in much the same way they have tried to get me to disown Roosh and Roissy. One might ask oneself the important question: why? It is, I think, a testimony to our collective effectiveness and impact we have on how people are thinking that so many attempts are repeatedly made to isolate and DISQUALIFY us.

But why do I so often, as another commenter observed, "get singled out"? I suspect that is because unlike Larry and to a lesser extent John, I annoy and embarrass the conventional Right almost as much as I infuriate the Left. I simply have no loyalty to any ideology except the truth as I perceive it to be and I don't respect the Right's pieties on race and other controversies any more than I respect the Left's. But you don't have to like the truth in order to accept it is legitimate when presented with correct logic and relevant science.

Labels: ,

172 Comments:

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 November 21, 2014 4:40 AM  

The most common conception of Allah is that it is with the strong bastard. If you are a strong bastard then fatalism and theology collide, Allah has prospered your way.

It wasn,t western interference in the Middle East. Jihadi jinn/ spirits are always there to whisper in jihadist,s ears about 72 virgins ,,, the problem was weak schizophrenic duplicitous half assed interferences.

Jew have had Jerusalem for nearly 50 years and there are still mosques on the fortress of antonias. Ie. Their problem is they don,t believe their first king,s writings.

Anonymous curious zen0 November 21, 2014 5:08 AM  

absolutist pacifists that find no use for Just War Theory

Is that like the Just Win, Baby Theory Al Davis promulgated, or is this merely an American Empire phenomenon?

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 21, 2014 5:14 AM  

Isolate.

And rape.

That's what a rapist would do. THESE SJW FUCKERS ARE RAPISTS.

Anonymous Gordon November 21, 2014 5:24 AM  

It is baffling how MSM and SJWs fail to grasp what #NotYourShield represents.

#NotYourShield started when a black guy said "Hey, SJWs, I'm a black guy and I can make decisions for myself. Stop using me as a shield for criticism, i.e. 'We're doing it for the minorities!'."

#NotYourShield are just gamers. In gaming doesn't matter what your color, sex, nationality, political association, etc. is, the only thing that matters is your performance in the game. Go away with your politics. We don't want any of that in games.

But SJWs can't fathom the possibility that whites and blacks can get together and play some online multiplayer. They want a class fight. But gamers won't do it for them.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2014 5:28 AM  

#NotYourShield are just gamers.

Well, they are everyone but heterosexual white cismale gamers.

I find kind of discriminated against :¨(

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 November 21, 2014 5:38 AM  

Rewording that. Jihadi expansionism is nothing but opportunism. Every Western Multicultural expression is one way street obsequious concessionalism.

jihadists aren,t brave or clever. They are taking the space created by a million useful idiots, culturally illiterate amnesiacs.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2014 5:46 AM  

#NotYourShield is minorities being able to speak without their white liberal overlords putting words in their mouths.

Understandably, this terrifies the white liberal overlords. They don't like a runaway slave outbreak.

Anonymous gamer November 21, 2014 5:47 AM  

"People are often trying to get Larry and John to disown me in much the same way they have tried to get me to disown Roosh and Roissy."

Just the usual divide and conquer.

Blogger Dark Herald November 21, 2014 6:01 AM  

To top it all off, like I said, a lot of the people that tend to comment on his site are nowhere near as awesome as the people that comment on yours...


Me not awesome?

Me has sad now.

Poor, poor me.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 November 21, 2014 6:06 AM  

The expansionism attracts a few young Turks simply because on the face of it Islam is the only religion not now marked as dick-less.
when a marine is being taught to be "culturally sensitive" isn't that a sign?

Wouldn't Elijah have taught to put bullets in an enemy and shit buckets on their god?

Anonymous 0007 November 21, 2014 6:10 AM  

I have no desire whatsoever to be considered "awesome". Vunderguy should visit the streets of Ferguson MO. That MIGHT get his mind clear on what raaaaciiism really looks like and who the real racists in this country are, Probably not.

Anonymous Ck November 21, 2014 6:20 AM  

Check out some of these celebrities they are about as "white as you are".

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus November 21, 2014 6:32 AM  

gamer: "Just the usual divide and conquer."

Same as it ever was.

Anonymous Ck November 21, 2014 6:42 AM  

The Vunderguy committed the "No true Scotsman" fallacy and the "No true Minority" fallacy in comment. Good job.

Btw the "No true Minority" fallacy is when someone is judged to be so white looking that they couldn't possibly be "vibrant" enough
to have an opinion on issues of race.

Anonymous Ck November 21, 2014 6:46 AM  

Correction: in one comment...

Anonymous Scooter November 21, 2014 7:03 AM  

OT - Were you not talking about a Firefox/Google split a while back, Vox? Or was that someone else?

Blogger Tommy Hass November 21, 2014 7:07 AM  

"jihadists aren,t brave"

http://www.returnofkings.com/34939/how-to-harness-the-power-of-fear

"According to legend, he ordered the burning of the ships that had brought his troops from Africa. Tariq remained unmoved by the appeals of his soldiers who wondered as to how they would return.

In reply, he gave an inspirational historic speech to his soldiers to motivate them for battle, from which below is an excerpt:

“Oh my warriors, whither would you flee? Behind you is the sea, before you, the enemy. You have left now only the hope of your courage and your constancy. Remember that in this country you are more unfortunate than the orphan seated at the table of the avaricious master. Your enemy is before you, protected by an innumerable army; he has men in abundance, but you, as your only aid, have your own swords, and, as your only chance for life, such chance as you can snatch from the hands of your enemy. If the absolute want to which you are reduced is prolonged ever so little, if you delay to seize immediate success, your good fortune will vanish, and your enemies, whom your very presence has filled with fear, will take courage. Put far from you the disgrace from which you flee in dreams, and attack this monarch who has left his strongly fortified city to meet you. Here is a splendid opportunity to defeat him, if you will consent to expose yourselves freely to death. Do not believe that I desire to incite you to face dangers which I shall refuse to share with you. In the attack I myself will be in the fore, where the chance of life is always least.”

This emboldened his soldiers enough to rout a more sophisticated and bigger Visigoth force in the Battle of Guadalete, opening the way for the subsequent capture of the Visigoth capital of Toledo by Tariq’s irrepressible forces, and the rest is history."

So cowardly.

"In 334 BC, Alexander the Great flamboyantly burned his ships upon arriving in Persia. As his few thousand troops were facing a few hundred thousand of the enemy, one of his commanders asked, “How will we get home?” Alexander replied laconically, “We’ll use their ships.”

Similarly, in February 1519, Hernán Cortés, already a wealthy Conquistador, accompanied by about 11 ships, 500 men, 13 horses and a small number of cannons, landed in the Yucatan Peninsula in Mayan territory (modern-day Mexico). He wanted to accomplish something that one man could not—to conquer the vast treasures of the Aztec empire.

By landing in Veracruz (modern-day Mexico) with his men, Cortés acted in defiance to the Governor of Cuba of that time (Velazquez), and put himself under the direct command of King Charles of Castile. So single-minded and focused was he on his objective to conquer the Aztec empire, that unfazed by the scarce supplies and rampant disease his men were facing, he uttered three historic words to his men after landing on the shores of Veracruz: “Burn your boats”."

It's only courage when kuffar do it. /s.

Blogger Dark Herald November 21, 2014 7:12 AM  

But yes, this is nothing but high school isolation tactics.

John you don't want to hang out with him! It will ruin you socially. Here is all the reasons why and if you continue to do so, fine. But I can't hang out with you anymore and neither can my friends.

Unlikely to work on John C. Wright because he appears to be a man with a strong moral foundation. Plus, he is like me, an old school nerd who can remember the days when saying you liked Star Trek in public was all but a public confession of deviant sexual practices involving chickens and roofing tile. Threats of lost of social status tend to bounce off people like us.

About the only thing that I can grant is that saying genetics affects how groups of people behave as a group is still the same as being a member of the Aryan Circle so far as the mainstream American public is concerned. Even Trey Parker dances around the issue.

Nurture always trumps nature, you are forbidden on pain of lost social status to question this bedrock and foundation of all left wing thought.

Anonymous MrGreenMan November 21, 2014 7:34 AM  

Wright and his commentariat did a fine job smacking this guy around. A comment box hero who can't even summarize a position, but instead must say, "Watch this one hour YouTube," is a coward who is too stupid to know what positions he himself holds.

There's a reason Jesus charged his followers with being prepared to give an answer, and trusting the answers would be given. In a forum like that where Vunderguy can't give an answer but can only try to divert people to other people's works on YouTube, he cannot give an answer, so he is a loser. His position must therefore be a bad and weak one, in other words, like that one Jewish group said in the letter, Vox isn't a racist, or he could identify something more clearly than his emotional animus.

Anonymous HongKongCharlie November 21, 2014 7:39 AM  

Wow, just Wow! I never realized that Alexander the great and Hernan Cortes were jihadist. Quite a stretch there boy.

HKC

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) November 21, 2014 7:39 AM  

To top it all off, like I said, a lot of the people that tend to comment on his site are nowhere near as awesome as the people that comment on yours, and by that I mean that a lot of the commenters on his site seem to be what Alfonzo Rachel would call, ‘Noe-Confederate Libertarians’ and/or the kind of people who believe we had no good reasons to intervene in Vietnam, Iraq, and probably WW II (I.E., the kind of absolutist pacifists that find no use for Just War Theory).

Y'all, he don't be liking the dread ilk, oh my heavens how shall we go on?

It's instructive to remember that these Iraq and Vietnam war dead enders exist, providing an example that humanity is doomed to never learning from history.

Blogger Salt November 21, 2014 7:40 AM  

"People are often trying to get Larry and John to disown me

They can't handle the reasoned discourse backed by mountains of evidence. As always with the SJWs it's about slandering the messenger. Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify. #GamerGate is all about that to them as the message pounds them into dust.

Blogger Nate November 21, 2014 7:47 AM  

"The people who comment on his site aren't nearly as awesome as the people who comment on yours."

Translation: No really! You're one of the cool kids like us! You're way cooler than those other losers. You're supposed to be sitting at our table. Don't you see, rabbit? We rabbits like you. Come to our warren."

Anonymous Stingray November 21, 2014 7:48 AM  

Just the usual divide and conquer.

Yes, from some. But I think for most SJW's it has more to do with them being incapable of understanding that just because some people hold different opinions, it doesn't mean that the other must be shunned. This is exactly what they do and why the SJW's keep breaking themselves down into smaller and smaller factions of cis, otherkin, and whatever other nonsense they gather into today. Before long it is going to be different individuals identifying as thirty-four line descriptions of themselves and anyone who disagrees is scum of the earth, whatever -ist descriptor they come up with to describe it.

The thought of disagreements of any kind are terrifying.

Blogger Nate November 21, 2014 7:49 AM  

"The Republic was destroyed when it became an occupying Empire established by force under Lincoln; the South was, and is, a conquered nation which is no more a voluntary part of the Union than the West Bank is a voluntary part of Israel."

Testify!

Blogger Markku November 21, 2014 7:54 AM  

Hmm. How can we weaponize this "rabbit" -meme outside the Ilk? Because it's is a powerful one.

Well, an approach occurs to me. We could use Scalzi's Gamma Rabbit as a springboard, to pique the interest of the reader who doesn't know what Vox Popoli is. I mean, John Scalzi is a pretty recognizable name, right? And he actually contracts an artist to create that picture.

So, the rabbit meme is a big deal, right? Maybe the next big thing? You, dear reader, should spend some time learning what it's about...

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 November 21, 2014 7:55 AM  

Ah tommy, leaving Islam carries the perpetual death sentence does it not? The man who leaves Islam has burned his cultural ship and can wrestle with God like a real man.

So you really love Allah, and does Allah really love you - Or is it a cultural thing?

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben November 21, 2014 8:04 AM  

He tries to justify Iraq and Vietnam on Just War Theory? Last I checked neither country attacked the US.

I though guys like these faded away after Bush left office. I guess they're waiting for Jeb to win in 2016 so the war on terrer can be revived.

Blogger Desdichado November 21, 2014 8:11 AM  

The reason I "have trouble separating the culture a people group has from the people group themselves" is because the two cannot be separated. They are not the same, but they are intertwined. Americans often find this difficult to understand because their culture is very young and shallow, and because they ceased to be a people, to the extent they ever were, over a century ago. Genetics affects culture, which in turn affects genetics, in an ongoing process that no one is even close to being able to successfully divide and analyze. One of the benefits of being multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and familiar with multiple cultures is the ability to see what aspects are easily transmitted and which are not. There are still aspects of Japanese culture, hell, there are still aspects of Italian culture which I do not grasp despite my intimate familiarity with them.

Didn't you just discover that you were genetically significantly indian a few months ago? And prior to that, weren't you raised as, essentially, a cultural Anglo-Saxon American? I'm not sure why you believe that it is impossible to separate culture from genetics. Anecdotally, I know plenty of folks who were raised in a culture that is not their native one (adopted kids, truly integrated hyphenated Americans, etc.) Of course, anecdotes are not data, but in my experience, culture trumps genetics.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 November 21, 2014 8:13 AM  

The south asked for help. Mock all day - it's history.

Blogger Tommy Hass November 21, 2014 8:17 AM  

"Ah tommy, leaving Islam carries the perpetual death sentence does it not? The man who leaves Islam has burned his cultural ship and can wrestle with God like a real man.

So you really love Allah, and does Allah really love you - Or is it a cultural thing?"

That would be news to my family members who are openly atheist.

Bottomline: to say jihadi are not brave is stupid. It requires bravery to do what those men did. None of you would deny that Cortes or Alexander were courageous.

Blogger Tommy Hass November 21, 2014 8:19 AM  

OT: But I am shocked at the number of old farts who agree with the shit that the Taylor guy got because and I quote "he wasn't professional enough in his dress".

At least those fuckers have their priorities straight..../s

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2014 8:20 AM  

I suspect that is because unlike Larry and to a lesser extent John, I annoy and embarrass the conventional Right almost as much as I infuriate the Left.

Good point. SJW's really seem to despise you though. The Hugo thing was extremely, extremely telling.

Anonymous zen0 November 21, 2014 8:32 AM  

@ Nate

Testify!

Harrumph! Mere Neo-Confederate Libertarianism.

Anonymous MrGreenMan November 21, 2014 8:33 AM  

@Joshua Dyal

And, yet, why is it that you can predict with high accuracy that, when somebody of a particular minority group rises to a post in government, no matter how seemingly dipped in the wider culture, he will start advocating for more people who look like him? It's always *look like*. It doesn't have to be national government. Tenure committees; hiring committees; civic groups - how much has Charles Payne or Ben Carson or Mia Love been attacked for not being sufficiently black? Don't the Bengal Tiger economic clubs advocate that "fully assimilated" Indians in America focus on advancing other East Indians - people, who, again, look like them?

It's no different from the happy atheist who gets pregnant and suddenly gets on her knees praying to Jesus Christ whom she mocked as she slutted around - people usually return to the default setting, and that's tribalism of some sort or another. Because it's rewarded in America today, where Mr. Obama has cemented the era of elections as racial censuses, with the Gay Old Party as sadly the white party, it's just going to be more common.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 November 21, 2014 8:36 AM  

It's not brave when it's a cool teenage counter cultural adrenaline naughty boy rush. Kool chicks dig prison time head hackers - yeah right - and Alexander the Great is a Muhammaden? now I get how your schools work.

Blogger Crude November 21, 2014 8:38 AM  

I like Wright's initial response to the guy's pussyfooting around.

Anonymous Difster November 21, 2014 8:39 AM  

In case you people didn't actually read the article, VD was quoting VunderGuy, NOT John Wright.

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 21, 2014 8:40 AM  

Of course, anecdotes are not data, but in my experience, culture trumps genetics.

Culture is an emergent phenomenon, in which genetics plays a significant part. Populations with genetic predispositions for short time preferences and violence will develop a culture that values short time preferences and violence. Moving people with that set of genetic predispositions into a culture that's developed from a different set of values will cause dissonance, but adequate conditioning from infancy should overcome that in time.

Anonymous bw November 21, 2014 8:48 AM  

that tend to comment on his site are nowhere near as awesome as the people that comment on yours...

Translation:
It's not a place where my failed ego can be re-enforced enough in an echo chamber, and i feel bad about that and it frightens me and makes me incredibly angry at the same time! I feel less of a person over there. (hint hint)
I seek consolation and Identity re-enforcement in the error of my ways and my war against observable evidence, math, history, Nature, etc.

Blogger Tommy Hass November 21, 2014 8:54 AM  

"and Alexander the Great is a Muhammaden? now I get how your schools work."

He wasn't. He did something similar to Tariq. Calling what he did bravery while denying that to the moors/arabs would be hypocritical/dishonest.

Anonymous VD November 21, 2014 8:56 AM  

Didn't you just discover that you were genetically significantly indian a few months ago? And prior to that, weren't you raised as, essentially, a cultural Anglo-Saxon American?

The extent was a surprise, yes. But it was merely that the (x)-Mexican half turned out to be Native American-Mexican rather than Filippino-Mexican as the erroneous state paperwork led me to believe. But that leads to the heart of my point. I was raised in almost entirely Anglo-Saxon American culture in Minnesota, by my parents' choice. (The exception being my mother's Mexican cooking and all the Indian and Mexican art at my grandparents house. Also, that my grandmother spoke an amount of Spanish.) And yet, there remained significant and observable differences between me and my brothers and the Germans and Scandinavians among whom we grew up.

So, I would say that I know the limits of cultural conditioning because I experienced them as a half-breed and I see their results inside my family. Cultural conditioning does have an effect, but it is not as strong as many may want to believe. And there will be reversion to the mean, in both the first and subsequent generations.

Blogger Tommy Hass November 21, 2014 8:58 AM  

Btw, I've learned that "awesome" is a wonderful dogwhistle for "feeble, shitlib manchild". (and I hate the last term)

Anonymous VD November 21, 2014 9:00 AM  

Bottomline: to say jihadi are not brave is stupid. It requires bravery to do what those men did. None of you would deny that Cortes or Alexander were courageous.

I don't see how that is on topic, but yes, it would be insane to claim that most jihadi are not brave.

Anonymous VD November 21, 2014 9:06 AM  

Moving people with that set of genetic predispositions into a culture that's developed from a different set of values will cause dissonance, but adequate conditioning from infancy should overcome that in time.

No. That is the hypothesis that has completely and continually failed. There is no adequate conditioning from infancy that will reliably accomplish that. And, as I keep having to point out, the later generations tend to revert. Nor is it a strategy that can work at all when the genetic culture is reinforced by other immigrants from the same culture.

Anonymous bw November 21, 2014 9:06 AM  

pretty darned racist

Pretty racist? That bad?
No, Pretty darned racist!
Oh, well, in that case then...

LMFAO!!

Remember the fundamentals of their New Globalist Religous Fundamentalism: Race, Gender, Equality, Enviro/Earth
...and "Get the children by 8, or it might be too Late!!"

Anonymous Mortimer November 21, 2014 9:11 AM  

There is no adequate conditioning from infancy that will reliably accomplish that VD

Somebody hasn't seen Ed Murphy in Trading Places.

Anonymous Cail Corishev November 21, 2014 9:12 AM  

In case you people didn't actually read the article, VD was quoting VunderGuy, NOT John Wright.

Thanks, that wasn't clear to me at first either.

Blogger Desdichado November 21, 2014 9:16 AM  

And, yet, why is it that you can predict with high accuracy that, when somebody of a particular minority group rises to a post in government, no matter how seemingly dipped in the wider culture, he will start advocating for more people who look like him? It's always *look like*. It doesn't have to be national government. Tenure committees; hiring committees; civic groups - how much has Charles Payne or Ben Carson or Mia Love been attacked for not being sufficiently black? Don't the Bengal Tiger economic clubs advocate that "fully assimilated" Indians in America focus on advancing other East Indians - people, who, again, look like them?

Because they're not fully assimilated, and never made any attempt to become so or claim that they were. A better example would be Scots Irish, or slavic or even Italian Americans who to a great degree actually have been fully assimilated, and who are now simply "white Americans".

There are a lot of factors that fight against assimilation in America today, including, notably the fact that one of the two political parties has crafted their strategy almost wholly on exploiting the lack of assimilation and attendant supposed victimization of outsiders.

But that's not my point. I know that lack of assimilation and acculturation is significant problem. The question is whether one can be acculturated or not, or if genetics is too strong a determiner.

In this, my experience differs from our hosts' so I also disagree on that particular question. I think the evidence used to reach the conclusion that less convincing than he does, and it contradicts my own experience as well. I think the evidence is the tail wagging the dog. It's correlated, I'll certainly agree to that, but I think that it's inconclusive precisely because it's so difficult to separate cultural influences that fight against assimilation, so there's very few good modern examples to serve as a control group.

Anyway, as the commentators on Mr. Wright's post said, reasonable people can, of course, reasonably disagree on details like that. In the case of this particular example, it's kind of a moot point anyway, because cultural influences are going the other way and reinforcing subcultural differences rather than minimizing them and encouraging full assimilation or cultural syncretism.

Blogger Brad Andrews November 21, 2014 9:24 AM  

We should have let Hitler and Stalin bash each other senseless. We enabled western Europe to get very hedonistic while eastern Europe was dominated by the Soviets for years. That was a success?

Anonymous VD November 21, 2014 9:25 AM  

The question is whether one can be acculturated or not, or if genetics is too strong a determiner.

Of course an individual can be accultured to some extent. The actual assumption in practice is "genetics are irrelevant and all individuals will be perfectly accultured through the magic of geographic translocation given a few years and a welcoming environment."

That's bullshit. Complete and unadulterated bullshit. And that is the reality that most people are defending, whether they realize it or not.

Anonymous Bah November 21, 2014 9:26 AM  

Bottomline: to say jihadi are not brave is stupid. It requires bravery to do what those men did.

If you are talking about 9/11, no, you do not have to be brave to do what they did, i.e., crash an aircraft full of civilians into an undefended building full of civilians.

Not especially brave to set off an IED either.

Anonymous Steve November 21, 2014 9:27 AM  

My favourite bit was :

and that hashtag is pretty darned racist, and I mean LEGITIMATELY racist, and not in the faux-racism that Vox’s ‘Magic Negro’ statements

Oh fuck! It's LEGITIMATELY racist. Like, really REALLY.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2014 9:32 AM  

Yeah, it's racist-racist.

That's fucking legit.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2014 9:38 AM  

But in all seriousness, that comment is so odd that, even WITH the exceedingly low expectations I have for this person, I have to conclude that he has somehow understood #NotYourShield as the exact opposite of what it is.

I mean, it's an expression of opinion from a member of some minority. Yes, it does discriminate against a white heterosexual cismale, and in that sense it could be argued to be racist against whites. But I can't imagine that to warrant the racism SQUARED!!

Anonymous Tom November 21, 2014 9:38 AM  

How did you all miss this gem in the middle of the comment:

"...even though, as an admitted minority, he’s one pretty smart cookie."

Isn't that about as actually racist a comment as you could make? Can someone explain that to me?

Isn't this guy saying that even though Vox is a minority, he's pretty smart?

Blogger Desdichado November 21, 2014 9:40 AM  

That's bullshit. Complete and unadulterated bullshit. And that is the reality that most people are defending, whether they realize it or not.

Yes, that's true. Where we disagree are on points of detail that have little to no impact on bigger picture questions with regards to accultration.

I hesitate to continue the discussion at all, because it's really a moot point to a great degree anyway. My only concern is that lacking any modern control group of any quality, there's no scientific data that is convincing to me. All I've got are anecdotes--adopted children, mestizo or other multi-ethnic children, and long-time assimilated ethnic groups, like Czechs or Germans in Texas who have been here since the early 1800s, for instance. Or Scots Irish in greater Appalachia, or the ethnic mix that made up the Mormon majority in Utah and parts of Idaho, Wyoming, etc.

To be fair, these ethnic groups don't significantly look different from the old majority Ango-Saxon, which has made assimilation and acculturation much easier.

Anonymous Stephen J. November 21, 2014 9:42 AM  

"That is the hypothesis that has completely and continually failed."

Frequently, perhaps; I don't think you can say "completely and continually", or there would be no such thing as any kind of cultural assimilation, and it does happen. It may take more than one generation, and it requires more forceful intercultural aggression than modern multiculti-PC think now considers morally licit (which is part of why it has stopped happening in the West), but it can happen.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2014 9:42 AM  

Isn't that about as actually racist a comment as you could make?

Look at how it continues. It's sarcasm. Paraphrase: "Vox clearly wants to play on the hard level, if he, as a member of a minority, moves to a location that will start shooting minorites even sooner than USA."

Anonymous kfg November 21, 2014 9:42 AM  

"Not especially brave to set off an IED either."

Nor especially brave to drop a smart bomb.

And don't get me started on the cowardly old men of the French resistance "bravely" wielding wire cutters and the like.

Anonymous Stilicho November 21, 2014 9:42 AM  

And there will be reversion to the mean, in both the first and subsequent generations.

So Ender has a future as a Viking Pancho Villa? The Carabinieri may not survive.

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2014 9:44 AM  

 even though, as an admitted minority, he’s one pretty smart cookie. I mean, you’d have to be to be able to be such an isolationist that you give up on America and move to Italy with a family to support… even though that’s even closer to where the first bangs of destruction will begin, but whatever.




AND....
he came right out and called you surprisingly smart for a minority.

After saying race, genetics, culture etc have no bearing on anything. Seriously, you don't have to trap them they gladly do it themselves.

Blogger pyrrhus November 21, 2014 9:45 AM  

The SJWs must have seminars on these cutting out /disavowal techniques. They use the same sort of con game to suggest to conservatives that they should disavow real conservative political candidates because they are too "extreme".

Blogger SarahsDaughter November 21, 2014 9:47 AM  

Isn't that about as actually racist a comment as you could make? Can someone explain that to me?

If they talk long enough, they always seem to betray their own rules of badspeak.
#fruitpickers #bedmakers

Anonymous Sarcophilus November 21, 2014 9:48 AM  

Oh those poor lesser races, they need white liberals to battle for them. But #notyoursword would be more accurate.

But here you see true tolerance. First, the only criterion is seeking the truth - wherever it leads. Then the question is if any difference is legitimate - how much is genetics v.s. culture (Lind's two recent interviews on religion include "cult" is culture). I can see Vox's point and can think of no experiment to prove it or disprove it.

This would and has extended to things like homosexuality. God's opinion is a matter of controversy, Caesar should not have one beyond keeping the peace in the civil order.

I also watch the tragi-comedy of Bill Cosby. First, it seems like a reprise of Clarence Thomas' High-tech lynching. And note how bimbo eruptions didn't matter when Bill Clinton was the person of interest. The SJWs must sacrifice victims regularly.

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2014 9:48 AM  

Wow. Some random Internet guy who has a complete lack of reading comprehension and cognitive dissonance on a level I can't fathom says I am not awesome.

Why does he hate women?
Why does he hate minorities?

Blogger Tommy Hass November 21, 2014 9:51 AM  

"I mean, it's an expression of opinion from a member of some minority. Yes, it does discriminate against a white heterosexual cismale, and in that sense it could be argued to be racist against whites. But I can't imagine that to warrant the racism SQUARED!!"

he isn't saying it's racism ^ 2. He's saying it's racism * 1, as opposed to racism * 0.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2014 9:52 AM  

Well, fine. If leaving me out of a club is the essence of real racism, then I'll take that.

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 21, 2014 9:58 AM  

No. That is the hypothesis that has completely and continually failed. There is no adequate conditioning from infancy that will reliably accomplish that. And, as I keep having to point out, the later generations tend to revert. Nor is it a strategy that can work at all when the genetic culture is reinforced by other immigrants from the same culture.

That seems more like an issue with inadequate implementation of cultural reconditioning, with continuous and consistent reward/punishment. But then, that may not even be possible given history's examples, or at least not possible within a context of assuming the primacy of individual liberty. It may be that the only culture that can successfully leave people alone to responsibly live their lives as sovereign citizens is one that can rely on genetic predisposition towards long time preferences in the aggregate, history certainly offers few if any counter-examples.

But then, I guess it matters with socialistic societies as well: long time preference cultures put a value on trust and honor, where self-discipline prevents folks from abusing the system (whether it be State or non-State). Introduce short time preference people and trust is lost, and without trust, systems fail or require so much protection against abuse that they suffocate.

Short time preferences ruin everything :p

Anonymous Stephen J. November 21, 2014 10:01 AM  

"{A} lot of the people that tend to comment on {Vox's} site are nowhere near as awesome as the people that comment on {John C. Wright's}...."

I comment on both sites. Though to be fair that should probably be held more as a strike against Mr. Wright than a credit to Vox.

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2014 10:04 AM  

Of course, anecdotes are not data, but in my experience, culture trumps genetics.

Lololololololololololololo
oh....ow....

No seriously. That was a joke, right?

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2014 10:27 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Chiva November 21, 2014 10:27 AM  

The only time I have really seen culture trump genetics is when there was a lot of in-breeding.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2014 10:28 AM  

" . . .asked John C. Wright for his "take" on me:"

A little late to the post and only skimmed the comments, so my point may very well have already been made. But my first impression was why didn't Vunderguy ask Vox for Vox's take on Vox? Having served as a rabbi for over twenty years now, I have been in a position to observe this divisive tactic on more occasions than I care to remember. It is a tactic of cowards and people whose only concern is their own image. What a joke. Reminded me of Absalom. People who flatter to gain advantage.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2014 10:29 AM  

Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the nibbles of a rabbit are funny.

Anonymous DavidK November 21, 2014 10:34 AM  

He tries to justify Iraq and Vietnam on Just War Theory? Last I checked neither country attacked the US.

Exactly, its Just War theory, not Just War feeble excuses.


I though guys like these faded away after Bush left office. I guess they're waiting for Jeb to win in 2016 so the war on terrer can be revived.


They cropped up in the last month or two after the NYT report of old poison gas shells and leftover uranium in Iraq was hushed up by the Bush administration. They are stupid enough to think that actually somehow vindicated Bush. Even Bush himself wasn't that dumb, since everything found was left over stuff from the '80's the USA gave Saddam.

Anonymous VD November 21, 2014 10:36 AM  

Isn't this guy saying that even though Vox is a minority, he's pretty smart?

Good point. I completely missed that. In my own defense, I am an Indian and was literally drinking red wine at the time.

Anonymous Cail Corishev November 21, 2014 10:39 AM  

Because they're not fully assimilated, and never made any attempt to become so or claim that they were. A better example would be Scots Irish, or slavic or even Italian Americans who to a great degree actually have been fully assimilated, and who are now simply "white Americans".

And yet, if you looked closely at their political appointments and voting habits, I'll bet you'd find that the Irish tend to support other Irish, Germans other Germans, and so on, in many cases without even realizing it. That's the case in my town, which is about 95% "white." There's enough nepotism in city government to make it true, like the Irish alderman who gets his Irish nephews city jobs. People support their extended families, which tend to be ethnically similar. Only a couple generations ago, the Irish Catholics and German Catholics each went to different churches a few blocks apart. We have Germanfest and St. Patrick's Day celebrations, and while there's certainly crossover (beer drinkers), the two crowds aren't the same.

We just don't notice it because those groups weren't that different to begin with and they look a lot alike. But they're far from completely assimilated, in the way that people assume any group can be with a generation or two of public schooling and Hollywood conditioning.

Anonymous Stilicho November 21, 2014 10:39 AM  

And there's your first successful play of the "firewater card"...nicely done

Anonymous Wolves do not fear sheep November 21, 2014 10:40 AM  

This is just a variation on the SJW technique of disqualification. Since simple, one-step disqualify! doesn't work on Vox, the two-step approach of isolation followed by disqualification is rolled out. Since isolation is terrifying to rabbits, it's supposed to work every time.

Unfortunately for the SJW's there are people in the world who stand by ideas, and stand by others who stand by those ideas, warts and all. Since the rabbits are all about relationships, not ideas, they simply do not understand why isolation fails.

It's another example of the r / K thing.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2014 10:44 AM  

And then there is this:

A worthless man plots evil, and his speech is like a scorching fire. A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends. (cf. Proverbs 16).

Makes my blood boil.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2014 10:45 AM  

And I was in a good mood this morning . . .

Blogger Nate November 21, 2014 10:47 AM  

i should point out that this law on citizen and ISIS and what not is in fact redundant. Associating with ISIS is the literal definition of treason.. and thus citizenship has been rescinded already.

This is not the state removing citizenship. It is the state acknowledging that the individual has committed treason, and is therefore no longer a citizen.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2014 10:47 AM  

And I was in a good mood this morning . . .

Faithful are....

Wait, I went there already.

Iron & iron?

Anonymous Gurney Halleck November 21, 2014 10:51 AM  

And I was in a good mood this morning . . .

Mood's a thing for cattle and love play, not fighting...

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2014 10:52 AM  

nope most jihadist are not particularity brave by any stretch of the imagination. Some are hard core, the Chechen fighters are as good as it gets on the fundamentals but most don't have any heart

Blogger Markku November 21, 2014 11:00 AM  

Come oooon, ol' Rabbi.

הֶרֶף מֵאַף וַעֲזֹב חֵמָה אַל־תִּתְחַר אַךְ־לְהָרֵֽעַ׃

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2014 11:08 AM  

@Markku

No worries. I am just intimately acquainted with the insidiousness of this type of behavior. No one is fretting, I just recognize the tactic as one of six things the L-rd hates and seven which are an abomination to him. Vunderguy is just one of a series ... the tactic just turns my stomach.

Blogger Desiderius November 21, 2014 11:08 AM  

Crude,

"I like Wright's initial response to the guy's pussyfooting around."

Bingo. A lot of power and general applicability, rhetorical and dialectic, in that one.

Anonymous kfg November 21, 2014 11:22 AM  

"I'll bet you'd find that the Irish tend to support other Irish . . ."

The diaspora Irish, yes. The Scots and Scots-Irish, however, were the backbone of British colonialism by the time of the French and Indian Wars. Yes, they were clannish, on an actual clan basis, particularly in Appalachian highlands, but they considered themselves at least as British as they do today.

And the Scots-Irish of today certainly consider themselves protestant British. That's why Ireland cannot be united.

Blogger WATYF November 21, 2014 11:22 AM  

Good point. I completely missed that. In my own defense, I am an Indian and was literally drinking red wine at the time.

It's a good thing I wasn't drinking coffee when I read this.

WATYF

Anonymous Lana November 21, 2014 11:23 AM  

Just to illustrate that Polish, Czech, and Scots-Irish groups who have been in Texas since 1800's are not nearly as assimilated as some might assume, the Czech Republic Prime Minister visited West, TX two days ago to dedicate a new Czech cultural center as the last one was blown away in the fertilizer plant explosion:

"The ceremony started with the Star-Spangled Banner, followed by a national anthem we seldom hear.

Christiana Gentry, Miss Texas Czech-Slovak queen, also sang the Czech Republic national anthem, a meaningful one for the large Czech community in West.

"It is a responsibility of all Czech-Americans to come together in the tradition of the Czech people to help at a time of need,” said Fred Malek, chairman of American Friends of the Czech Republic."

This is one example, but I could give many. There are Scots-Irish games 200 miles down the road from West in Salado, TX.

Anonymous kfg November 21, 2014 11:24 AM  

"That's why Ireland cannot be united."

And for that matter, why Scotland couldn't be divided.

Blogger Desdichado November 21, 2014 11:30 AM  

Lololololololololololololo
oh....ow....

No seriously. That was a joke, right?


No, not even close. That is my experience with adopted children from other races than the parents' host culture, multi-ethnic families, and the historical perspective of what happened prior to race being a social issue that people paid attention to.

There's enough nepotism in city government to make it true, like the Irish alderman who gets his Irish nephews city jobs. People support their extended families, which tend to be ethnically similar. Only a couple generations ago, the Irish Catholics and German Catholics each went to different churches a few blocks apart. We have Germanfest and St. Patrick's Day celebrations, and while there's certainly crossover (beer drinkers), the two crowds aren't the same.

We just don't notice it because those groups weren't that different to begin with and they look a lot alike. But they're far from completely assimilated, in the way that people assume any group can be with a generation or two of public schooling and Hollywood conditioning.


Nepotism and favoritism of your family is common to all ethnic groups. But do they live in segregated neighborhoods? Do they work in segregated environments? For the most part, all of the "white" people I live and work with see each other as interchangeable culturally, and whether they have Scandinavian, German, Slavic, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, or even Iberian or Italian ancestry in their family tree is, at best, a conversation piece that has no bearing on their actual life other than as a point of interest. And most are fairly thoroughly mixed with all of those groups anyway. With some Hispanic and American indian admixture in the family tree being not uncommon as well.

In my experience, they've all been more or less thoroughly integrated to the point where their ancestry and genetics is no longer a point of distinction between them.

Anonymous bob k. mando November 21, 2014 11:41 AM  

pyrrhus November 21, 2014 9:45 AM
The SJWs must have seminars on these cutting out /disavowal techniques.



they do.

it's called 'Public School' and they go on for 13 years. longer if they go to college.

Blogger Doom November 21, 2014 11:43 AM  

"I simply have no loyalty to any ideology except the truth as I perceive it to be and I don't respect the Right's pieties on race and other controversies any more than I respect the Left's."

Which is why, no matter how deeply I disagree on a topic, you won't go under a bus. Sometimes, to my satisfaction, you have proved out. Sometimes not so much. Doesn't matter, so long as the goal isn't ideal, but real. Can't get there, perfectly, yet. But not even trying makes most people less than useless for debate, thought, even consideration. Much easier to ignore or even avoid, what is correct. It is an impossibly small target after all. But even being near people who have surrendered even trying is dangerous on every level.

When they say keep your friends close, your enemies closer, they are being quite figurative. Or the quote would never have survived muster.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 21, 2014 11:59 AM  

Because they're not fully assimilated, and never made any attempt to become so or claim that they were.

Do you suppose there might be a reason for that?

A better example would be Scots Irish, or slavic or even Italian Americans who to a great degree actually have been fully assimilated, and who are now simply "white Americans".

As Cail already replied, they're not quite free of their own "racist" tendencies. But there's another difference.

Every gene pool has long-term thinkers and short-term thinkers, just like every gene pool has smart people and dumb people, and there is always some overlap. The smartest individuals from a dumb population are as smart as the average individuals from a smarter population. Same with every genetic cultural predisposition.

I'm quite certain you can find individuals from every ethnic group on the planet who are genetically compatible with anglo-saxon culture. You're just not going to find very many in some groups. But if you allow limited immigration and demand assimilation, you'll get the compatible ones self-selecting to come to your country and leave the socity, culture and gene pool they didn't fit very well into behind.

It's easy to tell. Do they adopt the customs of their host country right away, or do they stick to their old ways as long as they can?

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2014 12:10 PM  

Anyway, I think the larger point here is that pretty much nobody agrees with other people 100% of the time, no question. I disagree with Mr. Wright on some things, and Vox on some things, and even freaking C.S. Lewis, who is my absolute favorite author, on some things.

So what? I don't agree with ANYONE 100% of the time. That doesn't mean I can't respect them and think they're intelligent and provide a valuable perspective that I often do agree with.

To Vox's credit, my experience with him is that if you're not a troll and you don't try to provoke him he's actually fairly tolerant of other points of view. But people don't get that because they decide that when he has an opinion they don't like they're going to be offended by it, and then they start things with him.

This is not wise.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 21, 2014 12:13 PM  

The diaspora Irish, yes. The Scots and Scots-Irish, however...

The difference between one people choosing to give up a limited-but-okay existence in the homeland for the chance at something better in a far away wilderness, and another people fleeing famine for an established society of riches. There was a much lower percentage of rabbits among the pre-1830 immigrants to the US than the post-1830s.

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 21, 2014 12:24 PM  

I'm quite certain you can find individuals from every ethnic group on the planet who are genetically compatible with anglo-saxon culture.

Yup, the problem is in vetting and having the will to discriminate in favor of some and against others based on demonstrated intellect and temperament, and to hold fast in the face of Gramscian assaults. The potential for reward is there, but the risk of pusillanimity of popular opinion and its lickspittle politicians may be too great.

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater November 21, 2014 12:27 PM  

So what? I don't agree with ANYONE 100% of the time. That doesn't mean I can't respect them and think they're intelligent and provide a valuable perspective that I often do agree with.

Indeed, a disagreement with an honorable and rigorous thinker can help clarify your own beliefs, even if you still end up disagreeing. That's what a discussion is actually for, not the bastardized bleatspeak gotcha game that passes for it in modern culture.

Anonymous Bah November 21, 2014 12:30 PM  

Nor especially brave to drop a smart bomb.

Nobody argues that they are -- under current circumstances of minimal air defenses, anyway.

Guys that did it over North Vietnam were certainly brave.

Anonymous kfg November 21, 2014 12:35 PM  

" . . .the bastardized bleatspeak gotcha game . . ."

Well, ya gotta admit it was an interesting follow up to Depression Quest.

http://silverstringmedia.com/label-maker

Anonymous kfg November 21, 2014 12:39 PM  

" . . . under current circumstances of minimal air defenses . . ."

There are also feet on the ground on both sides.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say the position is insane, but it's certainly rather silly.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2014 12:41 PM  

"That's what a discussion is actually for, not the bastardized bleatspeak gotcha game that passes for it in modern culture."

Agreed. A sincere commitment to the truth rather than sacrificing it on the altars of our personal agendas is what's needed.

Anonymous John Smallberries November 21, 2014 12:59 PM  

Cruz's legislation to strip American ISIS/Johnny Jihad types of citizenship is political theater and feel-goodism (ref. Flag burning amendments), given the relatively minuscule amount of people taking that course. Unless it is then coupled with an effort to strip dual citizens of their citizenship as well, but somehow I think that might offend some of the (cough, cough) power players in the political system.

As an aside, how serious do you think Cruz is going to be about rooting out the crony-capitalist rot emanating from Wall Street?

Hint: check out his domestic situation.

Anonymous bob k. mando November 21, 2014 1:45 PM  

Tommy Hass November 21, 2014 7:07 AM
It's only courage when kuffar do it. /s.



you are correct that the general theme of these statements ( which are seen periodically ever since 9-11 ) is hypocritical.

however, this is borne out of the debasement of the language and culture; specifically, the destruction of the concept of "honorable behavior".

thus, the result is a confusion of Subset for Set. ex -
all acts of Cowardice are Dishonorable
BUT
not all Dishonorable acts are Cowardly.

pirates of the Carib would be a perfect ( non-prejudicial ) example. pirates engage in all kinds of activities which require a surfeit of personal bravery ... but that bravery is used to commit theft, raping, slaving, hostage taking, etc.

therefore, pirates are either despised or whatever respect people have for them is highly conditional and context dependent.

Blogger RobertT November 21, 2014 1:54 PM  

I read Mr. Wright's opinion but I only scanned your response. On the surface it appears you suffer from the same malady I suffer from, the proclivity to defend yourself whenever you're criticised. Although you may just be looking for content to fill your blog, in my case, I'm in earnest. Even though I realize in my mind they are just expressing opinions and their opinions in many cases may not be malicious or well founded, in my heart I'm offended. But one I learned in politics, it does no good to explain things to people who think they already know everything. And I also was often disappointed by people I had formed a high opinion of.

Anonymous VD November 21, 2014 2:00 PM  

I read Mr. Wright's opinion but I only scanned your response.

Well, don't let not reading it stop you from responding.

On the surface it appears you suffer from the same malady I suffer from, the proclivity to defend yourself whenever you're criticised.

You clearly have no idea how often I am criticized. There are at least 20 tweets posted in the last 24 hours attacking me, in addition to a few comments here on this blog, to say nothing of however many people are attacking me on their own blogs or Facebook, or other forms of social media I don't follow.

The fact that I may, from time to time, respond to one of the many attacks directed at me hardly indicates that I suffer from the malady you suffer. I'm not offended in the slightest. I expect to be relentlessly attacked by the Left, and indeed, if I was not, I would assume I was either ineffective or on the wrong track.

But one I learned in politics, it does no good to explain things to people who think they already know everything.

You could have learned that even more easily by simply reading Aristotle.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2014 2:00 PM  

I read Mr. Wright's opinion but I only scanned your response.

That wasn't Wright's. It was the original commenter who laid his cards on the table, clearly frustrated by not getting what he wanted out of Wright.

Blogger Desdichado November 21, 2014 2:07 PM  

The difference between one people choosing to give up a limited-but-okay existence in the homeland for the chance at something better in a far away wilderness, and another people fleeing famine for an established society of riches. There was a much lower percentage of rabbits among the pre-1830 immigrants to the US than the post-1830s.

That's exactly the problem we've had in America in general; past immigrants came to America--regardless of where they came from--because they wanted to be Americans and had the personality and background that allowed them to become so.

Certainly in the years since the Progressive era, if not quite a bit earlier even, they've come for totally different reasons, and have had totally different personalities and motives. The prior enriched America. The latter is bureaucratic pillaging of Americans by aliens.

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2014 2:37 PM  

No, not even close. That is my experience with adopted children from other races than the parents' host culture, multi-ethnic families, and the historical perspective of what happened prior to race being a social issue that people paid attention to.


@Josh
You should read what you wrote again. Slowly. Then really think about. Then understand that you are attempting to claim that adopted children prove that genetics is overcome by being adopted into another race's family. Then you should Google that subject and realize the gigantic fool you look like because you think you knowing a couple people means proof.

As someone up close and personal with this issue, not just someone claiming to have a few token friends, you couldn't be more wrong.


Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2014 2:44 PM  

In my experience, they've all been more or less thoroughly integrated to the point where their ancestry and genetics is no longer a point of distinction between them.



Ok. So this is a parody. No keep on Josh. That is hysterical. Please keep telling us about his mystical place you live where race, genetics, culture and ethnicity have all melted away. No really. We all believe you.

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2014 2:47 PM  

That's exactly the problem we've had in America in general; past immigrants came to America--regardless of where they came from--because they wanted to be Americans and had the personality and background that allowed them to become so. 


Wow Josh. That's fascinating. So you have zero grasp on history and reality. Indentured servants and slaves would like a word with you. But they would have to get in line.

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2014 2:51 PM  

@Robert

That is awesome. Come right out of the gate admitting you have no idea what you are talking about and then do so anyway.

Go on. We would love to hear more and will really take your opinion on something you admit you know nothing about seriously.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2014 2:56 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2014 2:57 PM  

Good point. I completely missed that. In my own defense, I am an Indian and was literally drinking red wine at the time.




And so it begins........

Anonymous cheddarman November 21, 2014 2:57 PM  

"There was a much lower percentage of rabbits among the pre-1830 immigrants to the US than the post-1830s."- Jack amok

Agreed. My ancestors on one side are all german catholic conservatives who came to Ohio in the early 1800's and helped drain a massive swampland in western Ohio to make some of the best farmland in the world. Their county, Mercer, was the furthest northern county in the U.S to vote for Barry Goldwater in 1964. They were also copperheads by and large, and ran the Union recruiters out of the county wit hthe local militia at the beginning of the U.S Civil war. As a kid, I assumed all German Catholics were conservative, until i started meeting what we called "communist Germans" who generally immigrated after the 1840's, many who were from places like wisconsin and minnesota.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2014 2:58 PM  

"On the surface it appears you suffer from the same malady I suffer from, the proclivity to defend yourself whenever you're criticised."

It seems to me that this has already been effectively answered:

"I simply have no loyalty to any ideology except the truth . . ." VD

Also serves to illustrate why reading is superior to scanning.

It is inevitable that the enemy will stop at nothing in their war against the truth. And if, in their mad and misguided zeal to suppress the truth, that means (as it almost always does) vilifying and destroying the vessel who faithfully bears the truth, it matters not. Just ask the prophets. Men who are accustomed to living in the dark, not only hate the light, but also the bearers of the light, who have the courage and fortitude to expose the folly of men operating under the cover of darkness.

If they hated Him Who was the Truth, should His faithful and valiant contenders for the truth expect anything less? It's what we signed up for, and we do not count it a strange thing nor do we take it personally.

Blogger John Wright November 21, 2014 3:10 PM  

If there is a man jack of you who cannot tell the difference between my overly florid, orotund, and legalistic writing style and the semi-illiterate mouthing of a drooling goon who uses such abominations of the pen as 'and/or' should bow the knee and pray to whatever heathen gods you worship to give thanks that I do not have access to Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet, and, of course, that you live on the same planet where I keep my comic book collection.

Also, I am bad shot. Larry Correia I am not.

Nonetheless my entirely justified, proportionate and righteous anger at being mistaken for Vunderguy the Babbling Baboon would have led to several multiquintillion watt energy discharges being fired in the nearby area, striking Jupiter without doing harm, but blasting Io with a ricochet and pulverizing it. Amalthea, too.

So, on second thought, even if I did own my own DEATH STAR and lacked a comic book collection, you would have been perfectly safe. So skip the kneeling to your dark gods.

But ... really. You cannot tell the difference between my writing and the verbal spew of a gargling loon? Really?

This will cure me of any swaggering swellheadedness Vox Day's flattery might otherwise tempt me toward. So, thank you.

Blogger Desdichado November 21, 2014 3:27 PM  

You should read what you wrote again. Slowly. Then really think about. Then understand that you are attempting to claim that adopted children prove that genetics is overcome by being adopted into another race's family. Then you should Google that subject and realize the gigantic fool you look like because you think you knowing a couple people means proof.

As someone up close and personal with this issue, not just someone claiming to have a few token friends, you couldn't be more wrong.


JoshUA if you please. And you should read what I wrote a bit more slowly, since what you spit back as a paraphrase of it is not what I said. And I specifically said twice that I knew it wasn't proof too. But again, in your careful reading of my posts, no doubt you saw that already.

And don't try and trump me with your personal experience. I neither gave you mine, nor requested yours. And what a rabbity argument to make in the first place. "I FEEL it more, because it happened to me up close and personal!"

Wow Josh. That's fascinating. So you have zero grasp on history and reality. Indentured servants and slaves would like a word with you. But they would have to get in line.

You do understand that making generalizations means that I'm not claiming that every single example of an immigrant fits my generalization, don't you?

Blogger Desdichado November 21, 2014 3:42 PM  

In addition, Carlotta, are you suggesting that if I merely "Google it" I will discover that the nature vs. nurture debate has been definitely solved? I think not.

Anonymous daddynichol November 21, 2014 4:06 PM  

Anecdotally, I know plenty of folks who were raised in a culture that is not their native one (adopted kids, truly integrated hyphenated Americans, etc.) Of course, anecdotes are not data, but in my experience, culture trumps genetics.

Yet, at least in the United States, mixed race children will identify with the victim class genetics due to the preferences, benefits and advantages it offers. Famous examples include Obama and Hallie Berry. Both half white, but refer to themselves as blacks. Same goes for those applying for higher education or jobs; play genetics first and get moved to the front of the line. Are you a minority getting ready to riot? If you're black, you get the "Burn & Loot" permit and the neutered police and Nation Guard will stand by and watch. In fact, our esteemed host, Vox, has successfully eviscerated several SJW trolls by playing the feathered Indian card. Abandon culture and go for the genetics will work for the time being.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 21, 2014 4:09 PM  

Tom: "Isn't that about as actually racist a comment as you could make? Can someone explain that to me?

Isn't this guy saying that even though Vox is a minority, he's pretty smart?
"


That's not how I understood it. It appeared to me that he was attempting to point out cognitive dissonance in Vox; to wit:

"[he] seems to equate the genetics of that people group too closely with the behaviors of that people group… even though, as an admitted minority, he’s one pretty smart cookie."

Or to paraphrase:

"How can he think other ethnic groups are not as smart as whites even though he as a smart minority disproves this."

However, rather than prove any cognitive dissonance in Vox, all he has succeeded in doing is pointing out his own ignorance of math vis-avis statistical outliers.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 21, 2014 4:13 PM  

Typo: should be vis-a-vis

Anonymous daddynichol November 21, 2014 4:14 PM  

Should have written, "...will OFTEN identify...".

No citations to support. Just anecdotal observations which seems to be good enough for now.

Anonymous RedJack November 21, 2014 4:19 PM  

Cail Corishev,
I just returned from my yearly deer hunting trip in Nebraska, and the subject came up of how much we (German stock, notably Saxons) HATE the Swedes.

Hate the Swedes, because they are not "like us".

I am bit odd as having a bit of Finnish blood, and my family has been treated that way.

When two ethnic groups, separated by thousands of miles and a hundred years, still dislike each other even though no one really knows why, there is something to Vox's point.

Nurture matters, but so does Nature.

Blogger Markku November 21, 2014 4:26 PM  

Finn - The real noble savage.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 21, 2014 4:34 PM  

RedJack: "When two ethnic groups, separated by thousands of miles and a hundred years, still dislike each other even though no one really knows why, there is something to Vox's point. "

Is it possible in this case that the sentiment itself has been tacitly passed down through generations -- albeit subconciously -- even though the reason for it has been lost?

Sports rivalries are often like this on a local level:

"We hate [next town over]."
"Why?"
"Don't know, we just do."

Anonymous Stilicho November 21, 2014 4:35 PM  

Finn - The real noble savage.

Huck Finn, at least

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2014 4:55 PM  

Joshie

1.What I did was quote you. Not paraphrase. The idiot you are reading is you.

2. I suggested you Google examples of interracial adoptions. Reading.....comprehension.

3. No. I used the same tactic you used. Personal experience as evidence. See how that works?

Blogger SarahsDaughter November 21, 2014 5:00 PM  

Finn - The real noble savage.

And in our case, crazy strong genetic traits. The visible evidence of our Native American blood stopped with my father (Dark eyes, black hair, red skin) when he mated with a Finn - blond hair, blue eyes and pale skin won out.

The cultural evidence of our Native American blood stopped with the full blood Native Great Grandmother who married an Englishman. No cultural traditions were passed on.

Anonymous kh123 November 21, 2014 5:05 PM  

"Before long it is going to be different individuals identifying as thirty-four line descriptions of themselves..."

SJWs gotta to keep pace with the jihadis, after all.

Anonymous kfg November 21, 2014 5:14 PM  

The open question is whether it's going to be the people of Norwich VT or Hanover NH who end up blowing the bridge, but people on both sides seem to think it would be a good idea.

And both sides are WASPs who settled the area at about the same time. Many are related.

And it's all over shit that happened more than 200 years ago.

Anonymous kh123 November 21, 2014 5:15 PM  

From up in the waters of River Ness
Ai found mah honor true
And thus, when Taig is faced, is said
"Th' bloody fuck are yeou?"

Anonymous Difster November 21, 2014 5:27 PM  

Nonetheless my entirely justified, proportionate and righteous anger at being mistaken for Vunderguy the Babbling Baboon would have led to several multiquintillion watt energy discharges being fired in the nearby area

Thank God I didn't get on the wrong side of that one!

By the way John, I'm right in the middle of reading City Beyond Time and it is a superb piece of work.

Blogger rcocean November 21, 2014 5:45 PM  

"Fringe views? Is this a guessing game where you act like a coy schoolgirl and do not say what you mean, while I act like a man and speak in complete sentences?"

This by JW, made the whole thing worth reading. Bravo!

Anonymous kh123 November 21, 2014 5:56 PM  

rc;

Thought the same as well. Textbook in terms of calling bullshit with class.

Anonymous Mudz November 21, 2014 6:17 PM  

@VD

[Taking advantage of my wanky internet connection/speed while I can. Beware! Super-multi-post incoming! Too tired to make less effort. I take internet where I can.]

I wonder if I don't understand your sentiments better now.

Does "it's not genetics, it's culture" take on a glow of being another thoughtless modern romanticism? Like "noble savage" etc?

Ah-ha! I know your garlic, now! It's that vaguely apologetic air surrounding it that you hate, isn't it? Well trust me, I can stand forward and punch that bastard out like I was the leading marshal of a cyborg terminator army. It's a firmly conquering position with vaguely Godwinian overtones I hold.

It's not like you don't have a point about the whole thing. I agree up to about 90% of your position. I can even understand that you don't care about the distinction of race or culture if you only have super-positional examples for your theory-work.
And when you're talking about race, the only reason that we call it a race is because it's a bunch of people sticking together and inter-breeding long enough to be recognisably different from other groups. Another hundred years and 'Texans' could be one. I envy that accent (and those hats) with the ireful power of a stellar event.

Other than that, we're all the same Adamite race. (Holy shit, that's actually an awesome name. Why do we call ourselves humans when we've got that option?!! It makes us sound about 100x cooler.)

(Oh, wait. Now I remember. Dammit Hamilton, stop giving me ideas I love in books I hate. Your sins against literature are weighty enough already.)

So, again, I can see my way to clear about 90% of what you're saying (meaning I agree with 50%, allow another 40% as possible, a very useful statistical system I practice of throwing out numbers randomly), but you're attaching things to it in the name of genetics, when genetics isn't the thing that raises and teaches your kids. Nobody is born to be liberal or conservative genetically, the determination for this fundamental distinction is the amount of crap being shovelled into their heads at an early age.

Nobody is born to love or hate national values, and that's really what we're talking about isn't it? (If we're not, we should be! It's my favourite version of this dispute!)

Anonymous Mudz November 21, 2014 6:18 PM  

[Hell, we civilised Vikings, and well, okay, shit, that was over a thousand years ago, but screw you, there's a point to be made there, but since this is a back-edit, I'm going to just wave my hands around and act like I made it. It's a hell of a point too. Irrefutable!]

It's a two step inter-generational process.

1) Politics (intellectual positions) solidify out of emotional or intellectual (dis)position.
2) These intellectual positions are then created from this; which are then the reference points for next generation.

People growing up with slogans that they don't even have to understand. Internalised intellectual principles.

Which you get. You went with genetics:culture but principally the same relationship.

But the angle I'm trying to get here is that generation could be anybody. If TV, film, and media in general didn’t try to play it up, no-one would even care. When I was a kid, I grew up with ‘Bad Boys’ ‘Blue Streak’ ‘Fresh Prince’ (a lot of Martin Lawrence and Will Smith, essentially) thinking blacks were the coolest dudes ever, and basically we all wanted to be like Martin Lawrence / Will Smith wiseacre dudes (I’m half-Maori, which is not even near the same thing as black, “persons of colour” is dumb for many reasons). TV and film keep playing up the differences and giving different role models to identify with, and blacks get a lot of negative role models.

What exactly is it about black genetics that irrevocably makes them unsuited for European civilisation? I'm willing to grant that a simple genetic preponderance toward anti-group antics is a good reason to eject them from said group; but what's genetic about youth gangs, or crime, except the genes of humanity as a whole?



You would know better than I, how plastic a kid’s brain is. That's the special thing about a generational species, is that it has to relearn everything all over with every generation, and the mind, the stuff of intellectual legend that is the unique heritage of man rather than animal, is not genetic. That’s not just pure romance, that’s an actual legitimate claim we can make, and the mind is far more powerful than you give it credit for.

People talk about instincts and the heart, but they don’t realise that that ‘body-level’ instinct they have generally develops out of their mental training, very mind over matter stuff. For example, when I was a kid, I thought I was capable of anything if I just made the effort to actualise this inherent human magicalness, and it basically made itself true. Because I never entertained failing, my mind was 100% bent on winning, and so I did.

That attitude is not a genetic factor.

My dad doesn’t have it (of course he’s IT, and I’m labour, so he’s economically more valuable. Trade-offs), no-one else I know really has it. That’s just Christianity + Superman comics where I basically assumed I was a magical being capable of being #1 at anything against all odds. (Don’t let anyone tell you Christian education isn’t a blessing. It provided me the most fantastic formative child-hood where I could tank anything, mentally and emotionally as well as physically.
Anyway, I’m talking about myself. That’s bad. Let’s move on.)

And that's the essence of my position. We are children of our fathers, but none of those genes carry the instructions for things like 'love America', or 'turn the other cheek'. That's kind of the useful part about a generational species, where each generation grows up inside the existing culture telling them what's normal.

Anonymous Mudz November 21, 2014 6:19 PM  

(I apologise if I'm repeating a lot of stuff that's already said, but my brain is wonky from lack of sleep, and I skimmed a lot.)

In some ways I'm probably worse than VD's (I think?) 'let people go their own way' position, because philosophically I'm basically pro-slavery.

Not 'reduce men to the state of animals' slavery, mind you, but 'pay people to work for you on a non-voluntary basis' kind of slavery. Funny how that sounds just like 'contract work'.

I think the real problem is that we've abolished all the institutions that were made since ancient times to assimilate conquered cultures, because we're hyperactive on the whiff of the word 'freedom' or 'slavery' without actual examining what they mean.

We haven't actually abolished slavery, we just got rid of one institution, and freed those particular slaves.
Then we just changed the names, so that we 'contract people' instead of going out and finding slaves to pay.

The comparison isn't whimsical. It's exactly the same thing, only no-one makes bill-boards about it, because to us that's the natural way of things, just like the institution we abolished was just "the way of things". It's an economic necessity, con-temporally speaking.
Kind of puts it into perspective, don't it?

We even use it euphemistically e.g. "wage-slave".

The only difference is that it's capitalistic, it applies to everyone without proscription, and you don't force people into slavery (which is not the same thing as slavery itself) on completely irrelevant criteria, like their ability to blend into the night like Batman. (How can it be racist, when I want it? Damn half-caste skin, I curse your ambiguity!)

I think we (the modern romanticist 'we') get too enamoured of the thing or word itself, rather than the goal it's meant for. It's not bad to whack your kids, if it's judicious paternal discipline. It's not bad to enslave people you conquer, when the alternatives are annihilation or surrender.

You don't have to conquer them in the first place of course, but from what I gather, with my weak grasp of history and transnational politics (about 'Total War: Rome' level), that that's what we call alliances, or protectorates, or that kind of thing.

-




The third alternative that seems to be tried for is the somewhat magical Federation, which is just a mix of all the dumbest combinations; where people just come together and live peaceably differently. In which case, why did they come together in the first place? Either they share unifying principles, or they are inherently in conflict.

As the division of politics into 'Left/Right, Democrat/Republican' shows, it crops up on all levels, that's something you want to avoid not seek out. There's nothing mystically good about trying to share space with someone who wants to use it for something else. If you're an artist, you're not going to invite frat-jocks (or whatever the term is (we don't have it here)) to express themselves in your room of porcelain figurines. But you would invite other artists who can appreciate it in ways you and they can share.

That's the point of the whole thing. Science 101, reinforcement is strength, not diffraction (generally speaking. 'A little' is healthy, 'a lot' is war. (Sibling rivalry vs Islam/Christian Holy Land Hour))

If you were a country of progressives (somehow), are you going to import 25% of your numbers in conservatives, because it's just magically helpful for people to be different in any way? No, you'd very carefully select candidates you think will strengthen your nation, and that's your criteria, not just 25% of random people who happen to be travelling your way.

Anonymous Mudz November 21, 2014 6:19 PM  

There's no reason to import people into your country, who don't fit in there, just for the sake of it. It makes no sense. You want to increase your own population of people who naturally share principles, not to import someone else's.

(Or maybe that's the point. Left doesn't like the Right's principles/politics, so they're importing on a bizarre "enemy of my enemy" philosophy. I think VD did a post on a UK guy once, basically admitting to something like that.)

I think it's kind of hilarious how people behave like they honestly don't realise there's a significant difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigration. I've seen people talk about them like they're just different kinds of legal immigrants, and people just irrationally hate an arbitrary number of them for the colour of their legality.

-

I know this isn't really my deal, since I don't and never have lived in America,etc, and it's border policy isn't really any of my business, but I'm kind of fascinated by the political debates.

That's kind of my take on it. If anyone wants to educate me, I'd be more than happy to think about trying to check. :P (My internet's been flaky again lately.)

Anonymous Mudz November 21, 2014 6:19 PM  

So to sum up, I think I understand the points you make, and as you can see, I pretty much agree with what (I think) is the largest part of it, but I frankly don't know what the specificity of your case that blacks are inherently irreconcilable with European civilisation as citizens. What genes, where, and how? What exactly inherently differentiates them from white folk?

(Then again, maybe it’s because the OP wasn’t about your position and attendant points, and I’m just wafting in a generalised inference on the breeze of my creative assumptions and creating a super multi-tiered post bomb replying to nothing in particulars with more unparticular general rebuttals. It’s GENIUS!)

So far, I just don't see them as a bunch of anti-citizens, they may very well need to be better civilised people in general, but the fact is that civilisation can be provided, the problem is that it isn't, because America's in a frenzy of fear as the accusation of racism, that thinks that 'you blacks are frakking up' is the worst thing ever. They're okay with people saying 'Americans are sub-intelligent war-mongering a-holes', but not anything that could remotely be connected to be race rather than nation.

I’ve seen no evidence that demonstrates that they can’t be a more civilised part of society, any more than I believe poor people are incapable of being trained to work.

So my point here is, be racist. If 99% of all blacks you see are gangsters, then 'frakking blacks' is a reasonable sentiment, and that's okay. Generalisations are generalisations no matter what they're applied to. But be an accurate racist. Better yet, be a patriarchilist... ism... nist.

The kind of patriarchalism fearfully whispered about and tittered in corners, where the mighty American Colonial Empire ("they're just Ace!") says 'right, these bastards over here need to shape up' and actually implement ways to do it (in ways that don't violate their rights as citizens, which is just one of those necessary inhibitions). Although I guess it's a little different when it's sub-populations of your own country. Makes you think someone missed a step.

What I'm saying is that kicking out a whole 'problem population' is a completely viable solution, and I can assume it's possible it's economically the most efficient choice (I wouldn't know, just assuming); although not one I'd support to take away individual rights, but it isn't the only solution to the problem.

Look, theoretically you say that a population of savages need 1000 years of civilisation right (okay, so I'm tickled by the Revelation inference; had a Eureka! moment didja? :P). Okay, so where do they do it? Are we waiting for Jesus to lead the Africans to the holy city?

How did Rome do it?

As far as I can tell, cultures integrated because the conquerors proactively integrated them; there were rules, and the rules were enforced, and the reigning body had the strength to do so (unless inexplicably exploding). Obviously there's a problem when you’re dealing with native criminals, not an external enemy, for moral reasons, but it still demonstrates that it's -practically- perfectly resolvable.

Anonymous Mudz November 21, 2014 6:20 PM  

But if you want to segregate, why not just do it the proper way? Exile criminals. Keep the law-abiding citizens. People thus breaking the necessary laws, are then accepting the consequences, and you have a very neat line of causation that can directly work towards the rehabilitation of culture without actually going all Stalin on it (assuming the policies aren't actually arbitrarily racist like 'if your skin can't be used to offset the decor in my office'). It's kind of like a reverse immigration process.

I mean, I've said before my knowledge of this kind of thing is pretty weak, but that's kind of just my half-thought I had now. Wouldn't that be the perfect solution? Isn't that kind of the specific problem to be tackled? Crime? If black genetics make them unsuitable for European civilisation, then the case will prove itself out the door. Either way the problem's solved.

Bloody hell, what's your justice system for?

(Okay, so I'm being theoretical. Obviously I'm assuming there are no idiots in charge. And I'm also assuming there's a place to exile them to. Hey! Didn't we just land on a comet? Send the criminals there! Not because it's even physically possible, but because 'exiled to remote space' is the off-spring of every awesome cliche sci-fi thing I love. I was also a big fan of "Heart of the Comet" as a kid.)

Okay! So I'm gonna have to sign off there, and retrieve my rollicking brain stem; if I argued haphazardly or at cross-purposes (great term, thanks Wright!) just assume I'm allowing for that possibility, but it's fun to blindly fire off posts capable of reducing solar systems to rubble, and see what it hits.

Don't judge me. O.O

Blogger Salt November 21, 2014 6:52 PM  

You cannot tell the difference between my writing and the verbal spew of a gargling loon? Really?

There are times, Mr. Wright, where delineating a fart need no not be Buckley-fied. he didn't deserve you.

Anonymous kh123 November 21, 2014 6:55 PM  

Cue Rick James quote in 3, 2,...

Anonymous VD November 21, 2014 8:36 PM  

What exactly is it about black genetics that irrevocably makes them unsuited for European civilisation?

Aggression, short time preferences, and insufficient 1SD+ IQs. Everyone doesn't need to be smart. But you need a sufficient number of smart people in a society to keep it running successfully.

As Kissinger says, any society that depends upon a singular genius to keep it going is bound to fail eventually. This is true of groups that depend on a very small number of sufficiently intelligent, long-time preferenced people too.

Blogger Danby November 21, 2014 9:09 PM  

@Mudz
WTF are you talking about? 6 maximum-length posts to NOT make a point?

What is your point? 15 words, not more. If you can't you're not thinking, you're either lying or spewing emotion

Blogger John Wright November 21, 2014 9:15 PM  

@Difster

Thank you, sir. You honor me. By the way, if you do get a chance to read my full reply to the troll sniping at Vox Day, I do mention Mike Allen, without whom half of those Metachronopolis stories would not exist. If you like my work, Vox Day gets a lion's share of the credit, and Mike Allen gets a haunch also.

http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/11/gossip-of-the-day/

Blogger John Wright November 21, 2014 9:21 PM  

@ Mudz

"Other than that, we're all the same Adamite race. (Holy shit, that's actually an awesome name. Why do we call ourselves humans when we've got that option?!! It makes us sound about 100x cooler.) "

That is SO going into my next book!

We Noachians will use the word Adamite to distinguish ourselves from the Oberonids, elves who are sons of Oberon, and Saturnines, Olympians who are sons of Saturn, and it will include the children of Adam and Lilith, who shall be called Lilim, but exclude the children of Eve and Lucifer, who shall be called Nephilim.

Anonymous kfg November 21, 2014 9:28 PM  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamites

Anonymous Mudz November 21, 2014 9:30 PM  

Hahaha, Wright, you have a talent for brightening an already sunny day. Hat's off to you, sir!


@Danby

What is your point? 15 words, not more. If you can't you're not thinking, you're either lying or spewing emotion

If I can skim posts out of laziness, so can you. Don't wet your blouse about it. I already said I wasn't thinking, and am over-tired to drunkness. Owned up to it completely and never pretended otherwise, so you'll have to find a way to deal with the distress.

@VD

Aggression, short time preferences, and insufficient 100+ IQs. Everyone doesn't need to be smart. But you need a sufficient number of smart people in a society to keep it running successfully.

Yes, I agree, I know where you're coming from with it, and I understand and support the principle, but the thing is they're not an entire society, they don't have to be an entire European civilisation by themselves, just like country kids don't need to be able to run an empire.
I still think, and I mean this in the very best of ways, that you arrived at your position simply because you saw something stupid, and went straight to the first smart and 180 unpopular alternative that presented itself and assumed defensive position.

You have an army with non-intellectual positions don't you? You have labor jobs, construction, road-works.
You have work for sub-100 IQ workers?

The high-octane short time thing is theoretically valid (until such time as I can verify or deny), so I'll let that stand, and move on to my awesome omnikills.

You're a capitalist society, right? You don't have to distribute blacks around evenly just out of philosophical principle.

And the thing is, blacks are employed. Their unemployment rate is twice that of whites, but it's still only 11% which means that 89% of them have jobs and are working. The majority of blacks are valid parts of the economy, not mooches. With an 89% rate the evidence is that they're genetically predisposed toward the capacity of being able to work.

Being a less efficient demographic isn't enough to invalidate them. I don't think the points you bring up, even assuming all of them are 100% on the mark, are significant enough to warrant excision.

Whatever other economic woes there might be (I know a 5-11% difference can be a big deal in certain considerations) it still establishes their basic dominant ability to produce for society. I'm pretty sure hunter-gatherers needed to be patient and work on the long-burn, that's not actually an invention of modern civilisation.

But the connected economics may be the thrust of your point, rather than physical capacity for motion. If a worker isn't producing enough to make net, you cut him loose? Okay, that's fair enough, but here's my awesome conclusive rebuttal to that presumed argument:

Yes, given a choice, you'd rather replace a demographic with a 89% employment rate with a 94%. You'd also rather replace a 0% working dude with a 100% working dude, but why would you kick out both the unemployed and employed?

That's what I'm saying. If any of these things are a problem, then why not just solve those things?

If they want to leave as a group, then fine, but otherwise, why wouldn't you just boot out the unemployed instead? That's kind of what the logic dictates doesn't it?

Sure, maybe if you were looking to rehire 40 million people to be Americans, and you had to pick by race, you'd look for white dudes first; but if you've already got your chaff and wheat all growed up, why burn it down? Sift, man, sift!

Anonymous Mudz November 21, 2014 9:39 PM  

@ kfg

Oh, so that's why. Curse you, history!

I did think it had a vaguely mystical sound to it. Not quite as enchanting when it's just a bunch of nihilistic hedonry.

Blogger James Dixon November 21, 2014 10:05 PM  

> To top it all off, like I said, a lot of the people that tend to comment on his site are nowhere near as awesome as the people that comment on yours,

Really? Do you suppose he has any idea how much overlap there is in the readership?

> It is baffling how MSM and SJWs fail to grasp what #NotYourShield represents.

Since when has not admitting something corresponded with no grasping it?

> None of you would deny that Cortes or Alexander were courageous.

Where's the bravery in condemning your men to victory or certain death? Yourself, yes, but it takes no bravery to condemn others.

> "Don't know, we just do."

Whereas the folks here would be more than willing to give you a list a mile long. Must have something to do with their nature, I guess. :)

Anonymous bob k. mando November 21, 2014 10:11 PM  

Mudz November 21, 2014 6:17 PM
Other than that, we're all the same Adamite race. (Holy shit, that's actually an awesome name. Why do we call ourselves humans when we've got that option?!



these fucking clowns have converted the dating terminology to CE / BCE ( Before the Common Era ) just so they won't have to reference Judeo-Christian thought, and you think they're going to refer to humans as "Adamites"?

also, are Adamites related to Adamants?



Mudz November 21, 2014 6:18 PM
That attitude is not a genetic factor.



you are utterly clueless as to the science on this.

badgers have a nasty temper because they had unpleasant childhoods? otters are playful and fun because they never got spanked? swans are assholes because they're beautiful and people let them get away with it?



Mudz November 21, 2014 6:19 PM
What genes, where, and how?



you don't have to know 'which' genes and 'where' they are.

Gregor Mendel did just fine working out the genetics of inheritance and he didn't even know DNA existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
"Mendel worked with seven characteristics of pea plants: plant height, pod shape and color, seed shape and color, and flower position and color. With seed color, he showed that when a yellow pea and a green pea were bred together their offspring plant was always yellow. However, in the next generation of plants, the green peas reappeared at a ratio of 1:3. To explain this phenomenon, Mendel coined the terms “recessive” and “dominant” in reference to certain traits. (In the preceding example, green peas are recessive and yellow peas are dominant.) He published his work in 1866, demonstrating the actions of invisible “factors”—now called genes—in providing for visible traits in predictable ways."



Mudz November 21, 2014 6:20 PM
But if you want to segregate, why not just do it the proper way? Exile criminals. Keep the law-abiding citizens.


a - breeding ALL of the aggression out of society is something a lot of women get wet thinking about ... but it's bad for that society

b - the current Amnesty debate is about central and South American illegals. this little adage of yours would straightforwardly solve the problem.

you notice we're making little progress in accomplishing it though.

Blogger Danby November 21, 2014 11:50 PM  

Mudz,
You came into a blog I frequent and took a 6-page dump on the proceeds. I objected. you response was "I'm drunk".

So, please Shut The Fuck Up You Useless Tard.


No one cares about you. No one cares about your half-wit inability to express yourself with English words. I am on the far side of half-drunk myself, but I don't go onto someone else's blog and shout gibberish and crap myself for an hour hoping to impress the natives.

Anonymous Cheech And Chong Found God November 22, 2014 12:04 AM  

“People are often trying to get Larry and John to disown me in much the same way they have tried to get me to disown Roosh and Roissy. One might ask oneself the important question: why?“

It is observable true that Roosh and Roissy are opposed to Godly masculinity. Having sex with multiple partners without commitment and forgoing marriage and children is an affront to the Christian faith. Any and all “Christian” men who opine on their site are contributing to mortal sin. Read the good book regarding how to act like a man rather than taking the advice of “men” who advocate an anti-Biblical lifestyle.


“Aggression, short time preferences, and insufficient 1SD+ IQs.”



The average European, circa 1500?


“badgers have a nasty temper because they had unpleasant childhoods? otters are playful and fun because they never got spanked? swans are assholes because they're beautiful and people let them get away with it?”



So, blacks are a combination of badgers, otters, and swans?


“I am a fan of higher civilization in its various forms, but the fact is that European civilization was, and is, the height of Man's accomplishment.”

It is merely an opinion, rooted from a particular mindset, that can be supported by evidence. One could also reasonably argue that European civilization was built by greed, corruption, and arrogance that significantly curtailed the natural progress of other civilizations.

Blogger Danby November 22, 2014 12:12 AM  

“Aggression, short time preferences, and insufficient 1SD+ IQs.”


The average European, circa 1500?

And how much unnatural selection has happened int he last 600 years? That's rather Vox' point in fact.

Anonymous Mudz November 22, 2014 12:15 AM  

@Danby

You came into a blog I frequent and took a 6-page dump on the proceeds. I objected. you response was "I'm drunk".

Alright, that's a fair sentiment. I apologise.

Actually, I've been here before as the internet allows, and it's not unusual for me. You're the first person thrown into spasms of emotive rage by my predilection for typing, so I feel bad about that. I didn't anticipate anyone actually caring.

No one cares about you. No one cares about your half-wit inability to express yourself with English words. I am on the far side of half-drunk myself, but I don't go onto someone else's blog and shout gibberish and crap myself for an hour hoping to impress the natives.

It's still flattering to to know you care enough to tell me though. :) My ego swells in cosmical delight. I don't know you personally, but I feel like your opinion is very important to me.

Anonymous Mudz November 22, 2014 12:32 AM  

@ bob k. mando

these fucking clowns have converted the dating terminology to CE / BCE ( Before the Common Era ) just so they won't have to reference Judeo-Christian thought, and you think they're going to refer to humans as "Adamites"?

also, are Adamites related to Adamants?


Hah! I honestly couldn't give a fart about that. I ignored it when they declassified Pluto from planet, and I didn't even know the calendar thing was official. I see no reason to change my winning streak now!

They can happily go fuck themselves and whinge about it on a board somewhere else.

you are utterly clueless as to the science on this.

badgers have a nasty temper because they had unpleasant childhoods? otters are playful and fun because they never got spanked? swans are assholes because they're beautiful and people let them get away with it?


I was asking for the science. Don't just wave the word around, swing some evidence off that tether.

I didn't need to know if genetic inheritance existed, I need to know if it's responsible.

You can't go "humans are animals! Why? Because animals are animals! Just like humans!" I mean, c'mon dude, give me something more than just a hand-wavey "it's genes, man, they're everywhere!"

Besides, I'm completely on the other side of that argument. You're mocking the 'bad child-hood' thing because it's used to excuse people from exceeding their nature, whereas the mere fact of civilisation demonstrates our ability to transcend basic savagery.

Yes, how you raise your kids is profoundly important to their development. Otherwise, you wouldn't care about liberal universities when they have generations of conservative ideals behind them, immunising them against new social models.

a - breeding ALL of the aggression out of society is something a lot of women get wet thinking about ... but it's bad for that society

b - the current Amnesty debate is about central and South American illegals. this little adage of yours would straightforwardly solve the problem.

you notice we're making little progress in accomplishing it though.


Hell, I said criminals not aggressive people. Shit! There are civilised and non-exile-worthy ways of using aggression. We do have sports, and military.

Hah, but thanks! Good to get a little confirmation on the theory. And I'll put up headers next time I change topics in the middle of monster trucking a post.

Anonymous kh123 November 22, 2014 12:46 AM  

"...shout gibberish and crap myself for an hour hoping to impress the natives."

I rather liked Glasgow actually. Is like the intro to Kitchen Nightmares on every corner.

Blogger Danby November 22, 2014 2:26 AM  

@kh123
no THAT made me laugh

Blogger James Dixon November 22, 2014 9:41 AM  

> I was asking for the science. Don't just wave the word around, swing some evidence off that tether.

AFAIK, the science on the matter is far from settled. However, you don't need a scientific study to analyze historical data and understand the basics. While individuals can be nurtured beyond their nature, that nature is still passed along genetically. Without a culling of the negative (in terms of the culture you value) genetic traits, there will be a revision to the mean in future generations. And from what I've seen, the individuals who can be nurtured beyond their nature are a small minority of the population.

Others obviously disagree.

Anonymous Mudz November 22, 2014 12:14 PM  

AFAIK, the science on the matter is far from settled. However, you don't need a scientific study to analyze historical data and understand the basics.

That's actually fine, I'm happy to argue on any given basis if it makes the distinction irrelevant, and I understand the position, but if someone says "science!" I at least want to know what I have to research.

Not everyone necessarily shares the same philosophy, so I always try to get some insight first, so I can construct a tight argument.

In retrospect the sheer gross weightiness of my bait post was over-gorged and self-defeating, but my intentions were pure. I had been anticipating jumping onto another one of these posts for a while. Looks like I'll have to try and catch the next one, when the OP is actually addressing it.

While individuals can be nurtured beyond their nature, that nature is still passed along genetically.

I get the concept, I just don't agree with the applicability. Simply saying 'nature' is like calling someone a racist without bothering to justify the accusation. We all have nature, and no-one goes 'it's not in man's nature to be civilised, so let's skip the whole thing'.

I'm looking for the distinctions, not generalisations that apply to humanity.

And from what I've seen, the individuals who can be nurtured beyond their nature are a small minority of the population.

See, I think a 89% employment rate (while somewhat generic) is actually a significant argument against it being nature. If it was genetic, I would expect something much more collapsed and failed. It may not be sufficient, but it's still like 92% of the acceptable rate.

If I'm off-track, tell me, but it seems like a economic argument for employee efficiency is being made here, rather than an actual genetic one.

E.g.
Let me try a simple analogy of my interpretation so far, and see if that works on you.

- Boss has two employees, "Ted" and "Bill". Bill has a 98% "on time" rate. Ted has an 89% "on time" record.

- The Boss can see that Bill is more reliable than Ted. He fires Ted for sloppy work ethic.

Now all that is a perfectly sound self-contained basis on which to make an argument/complaint, and I'm happy to argue on any basis; but in my analogy, it's not attributed to a genetic cause, is it? Ted's just less reliable than Bill. There's nothing in his genes that makes this inevitable or excusable, he just didn't have/develop the self-discipline he should have. It's not a genetic disposition, it's a contingent one.

I'm not talking about anything magical like "even murderers have the potential to be redeemed" like that's a sensible wheel to turn a society on, I'm arguing the idea that civilising men is a very unmagical standard to reach. It's colonialism 101 isn't it? It's 'don't hold back the rod' stuff.

Anonymous kfg November 22, 2014 1:55 PM  

"European civilization was built by greed, corruption, and arrogance that significantly curtailed the natural progress of other civilizations."

Indeed. What have the Romans ever done for us?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus November 22, 2014 7:12 PM  

kfg: "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

The aqueduct?

Anonymous kfg November 22, 2014 7:34 PM  

Like I'd ever admit that to the likes of you.

Blogger James Dixon November 23, 2014 6:31 AM  

> See, I think a 89% employment rate (while somewhat generic) is actually a significant argument against it being nature.

What are the options most people have other than to work? Welfare only gets you so far. Most people want more than it can provide.

And it's not an 89% employment rate. The EPR current stands at just over 59%: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

> ...but in my analogy, it's not attributed to a genetic cause, is it?

No, but since it's not attributed at all, for all we know it could be.

> I'm arguing the idea that civilising men is a very unmagical standard to reach.

Again, look at history. What percentage of human history has been marked by civilization? What percentage of the people? What percentage of that has had a significant technological component? What percentage of that included a large component of slavery?

We don't have a lot of history backing the idea that an advanced technological society is even maintainable. It's always been taken as a given, but there's no real evidence that it is.

Blogger James Dixon November 23, 2014 6:39 AM  



In closing the above, allow me to simply quote Robert E. Howard: "Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph."

Anonymous Mudz November 23, 2014 8:32 AM  

And it's not an 89% employment rate. The EPR current stands at just over 59%: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Then it looks like I need to learn more about the way the stats are calculated, but :

A) That looks like the EPR for all Americans, not blacks.
B) 11% is the given "unemployment rate".

I don't fully understand why the two numbers aren't attached in the articles, but I need a white vs black EPR for it to matter.

I got some stats from this page: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

So the white EPR is 59.3, and black EPR is 53.2.

That makes black EPR about 90% of white. Which is a larger gap than I presumed, but only like 2% or so, and it's the current rate, not looking at medians over time.

The fact is, I need some kind of control to examine. If blacks were all raised by whites for example, given a consistent "white culture", how would that affect the EPR? If it's different to a non-trivial degree, then a genetic basis can be argued. Then the whole 'surmounting nature' thing, will be relevant.

Do we have any stats like that? If you have links to historical and socioeconomic analysis or anything, I'd be glad to read it. My historical knowledge is "specialised" at best.

No, but since it's not attributed at all, for all we know it could be.

Perhaps I left too much to implication, but I attributed it to a lack of personal ethic, contingent on his developed personality.

The cause might be holistic and unspecific, but it can be summed up by saying he either wasn't raised right, or he failed to apply himself, or whatever you like. But the cause would not be 'Ted couldn't be on time because he had the wrong genes'.

It's not a very specific attribution to cause I'm making, just "there's no obvious reason to blame genetic pre-determinism for a perfectly simple case of personal bad habits". It's a default assumption I would like a reason to examine.

"Again, look at history. What percentage of human history has been marked by civilization? What percentage of the people? What percentage of that has had a significant technological component? What percentage of that included a large component of slavery?

We don't have a lot of history backing the idea that an advanced technological society is even maintainable. It's always been taken as a given, but there's no real evidence that it is."


"In closing the above, allow me to simply quote Robert E. Howard: "Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph."

Well, that's my point. Why are you saying that 'humans suck at civilisation', but are also saying that this is a special thing just for blacks? Why is everyone else exempt from this philosophy?

If civilisation is inherently unnatural, then why is 'it's against their nature' an argument?

I don't mean to be a dick about it, but I feel like some assumptions have been made and followed through inconsistently.

Or maybe I'm missing the real thrust of the issue. Maybe people just don't want to carry the weight of an entire demographic until they improve, and just endure social ills for the greater good, when they feel there's simpler, cleaner solutions?

I'm not a native of America, so I'm trying my best to understand the nature of the offense, but I really am going to need it spelled out if there's an emotional component I'm missing.

But we don't have to tackle this today. I'm happy to wait for the appropriate thread.

Anonymous Anonymous November 25, 2014 2:10 AM  

The expansionary jihadist spirit was always there, but it was quiescent until it was disturbed by the West.

This is true, but was is really Western adventures in the Orient, or was it Western schooling? Specifically the infection of Islam by Marxism. The timing is better don't you think? It tracks with the people who actually do the jihad: they're the young men educated in the West, not the locals responding to the Western presence in their country. They're also responding the influx of cheap communication technology that makes unavoidable relative backwardness and poverty of Islamic nations. Also, at the same time the socialist march through the media institutions is complete and the story told in our popular media, endlessly consumed abroad in the East, is a Marxist, anti-Western one.

Blogger James Dixon November 25, 2014 9:36 PM  

> A) That looks like the EPR for all Americans, not blacks.

Yes, it is,

> Well, that's my point. Why are you saying that 'humans suck at civilisation', but are also saying that this is a special thing just for blacks?

I'm not. I'm merely saying the former. And I try not to interpret Vox's words for him, since he's here to ask.

History indicates that civilization is hard won and more easily lost than most modern folks are willing to accept.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts